Specifics behind a lack of amity.

[chodapp]

Memberships in multiple jurisdictions open a massive can of jurisprudencial worms when rules and edicts come into conflict with each other. Interestingly, the GL of West Virginia is one of few mainstream North American GLs that prohibit multiple memberships of any kind, either in their state, or outside of it. If you are a WV snowbird who has a vacation home in Florida, for example, you can visit Florida lodges all you like, but the GL of WV won't allow you to be a dual member. Demitting from WV is your only choice.

They go further and still have a rule that says in WV if you want to become a Mason, you are required to join the lodge that is geographically closest to your home. Never mind if your friends, co-workers or dad belong to a farther lodge. This was common a century ago in many GLs across the US, but was almost universally dropped with the advent of greater, faster and more convenient mobility, when we all stopped walking to the neighborhood lodge.

Many PHA GLs also enforce the "no dual memberships" rule, and the motto I have heard repeatedly is, "No man can serve more than one Master."

It's bad for the man who wants to keep membership in his original Mother lodge, but wants to support his favorite one in a different city or state. But it does eliminate the sticky situation of conflicting GL rules and edicts running up against a dual member's conscience.

 

[Winter]

My home Lodge was located just north of the city I lived in. There was a Lodge in the city but most of the younger Masons in the city joined the Lodge outside the city. And when they brought their friends in of course they joined the Lodge that they were in since the Lodge in the city had a much older average age.

This got to be somewhat of a point of contention and the Master of the Lodge in the city made comments that they should reinstate the fee that used to be paid to a Lodge if a person living in their jurisdiction joined a lodge outside of it.

Especially in this day of rapid transit it is going to be common for members to join the Lodge where they have something in common with. The WV rule is interesting and I can deff see the point. I wouldn't like it myself, since I want to continue my membership in my WI Lodges after I move to Florida.

 

[Casey]

My home Lodge was located just north of the city I lived in. There was a Lodge in the city but most of the younger Masons in the city joined the Lodge outside the city. And when they brought their friends in of course they joined the Lodge that they were in since the Lodge in the city had a much older average age.

This got to be somewhat of a point of contention and the Master of the Lodge in the city made comments that they should reinstate the fee that used to be paid to a Lodge if a person living in their jurisdiction joined a lodge outside of it.

Especially in this day of rapid transit it is going to be common for members to join the Lodge where they have something in common with. The WV rule is interesting and I can deff see the point. I wouldn't like it myself, since I want to continue my membership in my WI Lodges after I move to Florida.

Instituting such a fee would be, in my opinion, a mistake. I joined my Lodge since my father was raised there and is active there. Living across town, I pass by several others on my way, but there isn't that connection. I would be highly displeased if the rule was made such that I had to pay a penalty to continue the family tradition.

I'm thinking much the same as Bro. Winter with respects to dual membership. When Match Day comes around next March and I find out where my residency is, the odds of it being the one Toledo residency in my field aren't very high. I'm also targeting Michigan and Florida, and would prefer to keep the tie to the old mother Lodge when doing so.

 

[mdonahue66]

My home Lodge was located just north of the city I lived in. There was a Lodge in the city but most of the younger Masons in the city joined the Lodge outside the city. And when they brought their friends in of course they joined the Lodge that they were in since the Lodge in the city had a much older average age.

This got to be somewhat of a point of contention and the Master of the Lodge in the city made comments that they should reinstate the fee that used to be paid to a Lodge if a person living in their jurisdiction joined a lodge outside of it.

Especially in this day of rapid transit it is going to be common for members to join the Lodge where they have something in common with. The WV rule is interesting and I can deff see the point. I wouldn't like it myself, since I want to continue my membership in my WI Lodges after I move to Florida.

The master of the lodge in the city needs to find a way to make his lodge more attractive to the younger crowd, it that's what they want. I know in MN, no lodge has any "jurisdiction". Only the GL. Masons are free to choose their lodge for a reason. If we bind Masons to a specific lodge based on locality, we risk losing good Masons.