Can we get Masonry growing again?
- Thread starter cemab4y
- Start date
Duncan1574
Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
Stirring the anthill (a little): so what is a Shiner in Michigan to do? Demit to bring himself back in line with his obligations? Rules, edicts, & laws after all. OR
Do the Shriners remove the requirement to be a MM from their RELs and take people (you know non-masons, women, young men, a fool or two?) in off the street and become truly clandestine?
This is often a topic among several Brothers at our Lodge during our little meetings. It is interesting to see how some Brothers feel what it is evolving into.
And what might that be?
Depends on how you feel. Sort of like Firemans post on different types. The most interesting one I heard though, was someone felt it should be split. One goes underground that are more interesting in the deeper meaning of things, the other being more of the social lodge that is often said we have turned into.And what might that be?
Can I vote for a social underground? In effect, that's what the underground crowd seems to be forced into anyways. The fraternity seems to want to squelch them for the most part. I guess they interfere too much with the social aspect.:ballchain:
Erm.... Instead of debating your point, you change the subject?
BukeyeJackson
ViMH Advisory Board
Was I called???
The GM's (of Michigan) edict states the Shrine is clandestine, if that's the case then even if they did move to allow non-Masons any Michigan Mason who joined would be clandestine.
Could they still require men to be Mason with no affiliation? Think along the lines of a degree is required but not from a specific school or some cases subject.
My comment was more on the Saving/Growing/Whatever (Free)Masonry, not on the Shrine/Michigan deal.
BukeyeJackson
ViMH Advisory Board
Understood I was just saying for example how it could be bad if GL's starting outing appendants to save the BL.
Sorry, I may have mistaken your comment. Been an interesting day.
Bob Franks
Past District Deputy Grand Lecturer
[sorry, but I can't remember who said this (paraphrased)]
"I care less for the amount of men in Masonry, than for the amount of Masonry in men!"
S&F
"I care less for the amount of men in Masonry, than for the amount of Masonry in men!"
S&F
Duncan1574
Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
Bluetemplar
New Member
The decline?
I don't believe that a decline is a bad thing. The Lodge in my view has not been a country club or a strictly charitable society like some similar service organizations (Lions Kiwanis etc)
We used to meet in public taverns and before that in churches before our numbers became so vast we had to build our own lodge halls (a fairly recent innovation in terms).
So is decilne a bad thing no, I think it will set us up to establish a foundation of strong membership for the future. Like pruning a tree, I think we should make membership more exclusive to men of good character who are actively seeking membership and willing to put forth the ample time needed for proper masonic education between the degrees, instead of doing these new members.... sorry, BROTHERS a disservice with a rather tawdry one day class system of confirral.
We also have to remember yes times have changed, but should we change as a result? Yes, but we should venerate our traditions and be innovative as well. The creation of many masonic related organizations were created in the mid to late 19th to early 20th century. As membership was enjoying a boom in the local level, organizations such as the Shrine, Tall Cedars, etc were being created as a social outlet for a growing membership.
Where before Freemasonry prior to the Civil War consisted of the basic blue lodge, the York and Scottish Rites and a few honorary organizations which boasted a stable membership even only forty years after the Morgan Affair.
Membership was stressed more at the local level, with Grand Lodges facilitating the needs of its subordinate lodges with ritualistic instruction, and the standarization of work. A prime example was PA's creation of its District Deputy Grand Master system. After a long debate about the Grand Lodge of Pa being out of touch with its subordinate lodges, certain Past Masters were appointed to act in the Grand Masters stead. This redressed alot of greivances the local lodges had with its Grand Lodge, and has been a mimiked by most of PA's sister grand lodges in turn.
This is an example of how an innovation promoted harmony within a growing membership. Also why the blue lodge should be by law and by fact the paramount concern of every mason. The fun organizations should be a way of socialization with brothers of different lodges and similar backgrounds but it should not be taking the place of traditional Freemasonry, and should not be replacing the landmark membership requirements agreed upon by members of both organizations. (But thats another forum thread)
If lodges continue to decline in membership we should be looking at consolidating membership in the form of lodge mergers and closings.
Trimming up expenditures even at the Grand Lodge level which in spite
of outrageous costs to its membership continues to add whole buildings
on to masonic homes, temples, and heathcare centers. Promote the "liberal arts" and the exclamations of self improvement as a viable option on attracting (not recruiting) potential membership and by promoting the selfless acts of some its most humble yet stalwart members.
Personally, I didn't join a bank balance, how grand a lodges annual banquet never ment much to me in terms or by how many members it had. A lodge can meet in a barn for time in memorial or have the largets building in the middle of town. Rather, I sought in both my recreation and profession to ally myself with people of my community, and that should be a prime factor in attracting quality,active, and lifelong members.
I think the more quality men we have promoting Freemasonry by there own personal deportment, and exemplifying the qualities of a brother while outside the lodge as well as within it (as it has in my case with several of my younger family members) men will want to associate with such persons and to quote brother Washington believe its "better to be alone than in bad company".
Hear, See, Be Silent
I don't believe that a decline is a bad thing. The Lodge in my view has not been a country club or a strictly charitable society like some similar service organizations (Lions Kiwanis etc)
We used to meet in public taverns and before that in churches before our numbers became so vast we had to build our own lodge halls (a fairly recent innovation in terms).
So is decilne a bad thing no, I think it will set us up to establish a foundation of strong membership for the future. Like pruning a tree, I think we should make membership more exclusive to men of good character who are actively seeking membership and willing to put forth the ample time needed for proper masonic education between the degrees, instead of doing these new members.... sorry, BROTHERS a disservice with a rather tawdry one day class system of confirral.
We also have to remember yes times have changed, but should we change as a result? Yes, but we should venerate our traditions and be innovative as well. The creation of many masonic related organizations were created in the mid to late 19th to early 20th century. As membership was enjoying a boom in the local level, organizations such as the Shrine, Tall Cedars, etc were being created as a social outlet for a growing membership.
Where before Freemasonry prior to the Civil War consisted of the basic blue lodge, the York and Scottish Rites and a few honorary organizations which boasted a stable membership even only forty years after the Morgan Affair.
Membership was stressed more at the local level, with Grand Lodges facilitating the needs of its subordinate lodges with ritualistic instruction, and the standarization of work. A prime example was PA's creation of its District Deputy Grand Master system. After a long debate about the Grand Lodge of Pa being out of touch with its subordinate lodges, certain Past Masters were appointed to act in the Grand Masters stead. This redressed alot of greivances the local lodges had with its Grand Lodge, and has been a mimiked by most of PA's sister grand lodges in turn.
This is an example of how an innovation promoted harmony within a growing membership. Also why the blue lodge should be by law and by fact the paramount concern of every mason. The fun organizations should be a way of socialization with brothers of different lodges and similar backgrounds but it should not be taking the place of traditional Freemasonry, and should not be replacing the landmark membership requirements agreed upon by members of both organizations. (But thats another forum thread)
If lodges continue to decline in membership we should be looking at consolidating membership in the form of lodge mergers and closings.
Trimming up expenditures even at the Grand Lodge level which in spite
of outrageous costs to its membership continues to add whole buildings
on to masonic homes, temples, and heathcare centers. Promote the "liberal arts" and the exclamations of self improvement as a viable option on attracting (not recruiting) potential membership and by promoting the selfless acts of some its most humble yet stalwart members.
Personally, I didn't join a bank balance, how grand a lodges annual banquet never ment much to me in terms or by how many members it had. A lodge can meet in a barn for time in memorial or have the largets building in the middle of town. Rather, I sought in both my recreation and profession to ally myself with people of my community, and that should be a prime factor in attracting quality,active, and lifelong members.
I think the more quality men we have promoting Freemasonry by there own personal deportment, and exemplifying the qualities of a brother while outside the lodge as well as within it (as it has in my case with several of my younger family members) men will want to associate with such persons and to quote brother Washington believe its "better to be alone than in bad company".
Hear, See, Be Silent
Couple things....
1. No response to my contribution to getting more members in the Fraternity?
2. There is alot of chat about retaining membership thru attendance, this doesn't answer the OP
3. If the Shriners were seperated from Masons completely, couldn't it be run as a non-masonic body? That way it is not a clandestine organization?
4. as mentioned in other threads, what are members looking for that we are not providing?
1. No response to my contribution to getting more members in the Fraternity?
2. There is alot of chat about retaining membership thru attendance, this doesn't answer the OP
3. If the Shriners were seperated from Masons completely, couldn't it be run as a non-masonic body? That way it is not a clandestine organization?
4. as mentioned in other threads, what are members looking for that we are not providing?
1. The reality is that we don't need more members. What we need is quality in the membership we have. Your idea is a good one, if we need to canvass for numbers though. 2b1 ask one, not the other way around. we need to guard the West gate to prevent a fly by night membership problem that we are currently experiencing. The quality, not size of the Fraternity is what is important here. Increase the quality, and membership will stabilize.
2. I believe I answered that in summary from question 1.
3. The Shrine is a totally different topic, but if it were to separate there is nothing that would prevent jurisdictions from deeming it a clandestine organization and forbidding it's members from participating. Politics can be ugly.
If the Shriners became completely segregated from Masonry, how can it be clandestine? Just from a vote of the GL? Can they make volunteer Fire Departments a clandestine organization? Thats a brotherhood so to say.
By my suggestion of inviting friends(I know we are not suppose to) know these people could help in better membership, quality and quantity. Not EMRs from unknowns. Anyone can play off their intentions to being a member and then never show up.
The independent GL's can deem any organization clandestine or taboo from my understanding.
You are right. we are not supposed to solicit membership (although some jurisdictions have made exceptions to this). My point being is that by regrouping and improving the quality of membership we have, we will lead by example and potential candidates will see this and join for the right reasons. No amount of marketing will compensate for this measure.
As far as joining and never showing up, that's why we discussed attendance requirements. Like in any battle, Freemasonry will have to fall back, regroup, and get it's priorities straight. It's not the numbers we have, charities we publicly give to, or the size of our buildings that really matter in the grand scheme of things.
The fact remains that we have sold out our core principle for an attempt of acceptance among a society that does not understand who we are and what we are about. That's what got us in this situation in the first place.
Right. Attraction rather than promotion.