Wall Street Journal article

I have mixed feelings about this article in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576612841564312696.html

It seems to hit quite an important issue, and yet gets reflected off at a tangent.

The article starts of with that Masonic cliche about blood curdling oaths. Come on guys, this is the Wall Street Journal, we expect better from such a prestigious publication.

However, I do find its overtly ageist tone slightly distressing. I was 26 when I joined, my proposer was in his 70s. I discovered a fraternity where mutual respect and friendship had little to do with a generation gap that was more obvious to other people than it was to me. I would spend hours talking about Freemasonry, socializing with a group of people with a shared passion. I would hope that anyone joining Freemasonry can see past people's age, or any demographic for that matter. Likewise, I would hope that brethren who join a Lodge do not find they are patronized or treated in a condescending manner.

I applaud the move towards openness, and always have. Economists call it 'asymmetric information' and whilst it adds to the mystique candidates need to be aware of the decision they are about to take before they join. Anything else is bordering on the unethical. However, information about the ceremoney cannot be a plot spoiler either.

Information for candidates needs to use the 'Goldilocks principle', not too little, not too much, but 'just the right amount', IMHO :-).