Let’s say that your Jurisdiction is fairly loaded up with appendant and concordant bodies. You’ve got the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, the Shrine, the Grotto, and SRICF. You’ve also got OES, Amaranth, White Shrine, and the Daughters of the Nile. Youth groups too, all three of them.
But, it seems that in Masonry, there’s always another group.
So, let’s continue our hypothetical, and say that there is another concordant body, for Master Masons only, that is national in its scope, but doesn’t have a presence in your Jurisdiction.
But they want to. They want to establish themselves in your Jurisdiction.
To avoid creating any hurt feelings, or making waves, before they begin pushing for that, they ask if it is OK. If your Jurisdiction will welcome their organization.
If you were the one making the decisions for your Jurisdiction, what would you say? Yes or No?
Masonic membership in the United States has been in free fall for decades now. Despite a rapidly growing population.
Do we have enough Masons to keep all of our Lodges and our existing appendant and concordant bodies going now? Will the addition of one more just increase the pressure?
Or would there be some benefit to introducing a new body? Excitement about it perhaps, reinvigorating a Jurisdiction’s Masons?
I think there might already be too many concordant bodies. And I do belong to Scottish Rite and an Advisory Board for Rainbow.
You hear and see of Brothers from the Symbolic Lodges doing great things with a concordant body, but you hardly ever see them in Lodge. Almost seems like the best way to get everyone to a meeting is to propose a By-Laws change to raise dues or meeting date. Brothers that you haven't seen in years will show up for those.
About a year ago, I wrote a short article for our Rite Bulliten. The topic was about how the Blue Lodges are the foundation of Masonry and that we need to help strengthen that foundation. Without that foundation, there would be no concordant bodies.
In my twenty-seven years, I have held memberships in many of the groups available in the legitimate American Masonic sphere, and can attest to the irrelevance of most of them. I gained much familiarity with other groups I never joined, and can say they also serve no necessary purpose.
What I’ve seen is the same corps of Masons in each group. Adding a new body to the scene in Washington, be it Knight Masons or whatever, will not invigorate anything, but will be just another venue for the usual suspects to accumulate more titles, aprons, degrees, etc., while gaining another night to avoid their families.
We are past the time to prune the Masonic family tree, to reduce the number of these groups, and restore focus to the lodge.
Shortly after being raised to a MM, I joined the Shrine. To my amazement, there were several men that I had known and worked for many years that were members. There was always a conversation about the shrinking numbers of membership and a push for members to go back to their Blue Lodges and recruit new MMs to join. The thing is, I rarely if ever saw these Nobles sit in Lodge yet if they had, they would have been great recruiters themselves. I also joined SR, being sold on it being the University of Masonry. What would happen if the teachings of SR were taught in Blue Lodge. There would be years and years of educational material. I’m sure I’m no different than most of the other Brothers when I say I have a limited income, paying multiple membership dues therefore limits the amount I’m able to give. How many groups is enough? The reason we have so many churches of different denominations and sub-groups within denominations is because somebody didn’t like how things were going and felt it would be easier to start a new group rather than to work on effectively changing the existing group. Perhaps GL should consider imposing a minimum number of Blue Lodge meetings a MM must attend in order to maintain their memberships in concordant groups, similar to the dues system where you have to be current in all your memberships. The thing we have to remember is we are them and they are us.
My first thought is, why not? But when I reflect on the subject more I'm not so sure. Maybe a path forward would be to explore the Affinity Lodge concept. Concordant bodies explore alternative expressions of Masonry, and maybe we could do that creatively thru the Affinity Lodge concept. I know I don't need any more lapel pins, nor do I need any more dues. Maybe I would be interested in a new concordant body, but honestly it would have to be pretty special.
As a life member of SR and Shrine I have opinions .... What I know is that these appendant and concordant bodies sap the time and energy from brothers where blue lodges suffer. I know we all have had degrees scheduled or special events that groups of brothers can't attend these lodge functions because they are obligated at another event. This choice to be first at a side organization over lodge events is a huge issue. I never choose an event instead of attending my lodge event.
So in short.. do I believe bringing in a new side organization is healthy for a jurisdiction. Nope.
This is something I have become quite frustrated with lately in Washington Masonry. All of these various appendant bodies with more ritual and another excuse for the same men to meet again in the same room with a different book none of us have the time to memorize or properly respect the ritual.
Its no wonder why a lot of these groups have a ritual book released in plan english.
I think we need to start looking at our Cable tow and realize that the core of masonry is suffering by our involvement elsewhere. When appendant bodies are begging for membership to survive and blue lodges are begging for membership to survive where do we draw the line?
Look at the difference between York and Scottish Rite. Scottish has huge numbers, but I never hear anything about them except the scholarship our predecessors have spent decades funding. Then there are several dinners throughout the year. I can honestly say in Washington I see nothing that is truly added to the experience except Brothers more focused on that aspect than on the foundation of masonry.
York Rite on the other hand does have a bit more of ritualistic side from what I have experienced, however there are so many appendant bodies that I have asked the Companions why are we trying to create this new organization that's existed since 2006 in England here? The people signing this are the same ones in every other body existing beyond the basic York Rite degrees. Why don't we focus back on actually memorizing our degree work and not have books on the floor before we consider another dinner meeting that's twice a year and paying more dues to support nothing.
In conclusion, its as some brothers have said about allowing Plural Memberships with lodges causing failed lodges to last way longer than they had any right to do so. We need to start focusing on where we came from and forget about adding another organization just because we can. Do we really need more honors heaped upon us? Do we really need another pompous sounding title just because of this organization?
Frankly the only title I have ever wanted or care about is "Brother". Beyond that its a distraction from what Masonry is and should be.
I've been a Mason now for 10 years. I have joined no organization since, not for lack of pressure from those in them!
The work in my Lodges (yes 3 of them) keeps me plenty busy. There is much work to do there.
I see plenty of Brothers on the rolls unable to do the real work. New Masons don't understand why and are left to explore and navigate this incredible depth on their own and get lost, give up and leave.
I am one of the "five, or seven" who commits to a lot of the work. Memorization, conferrals, education, Saturday mornings and fraternal nights in an effort to get our Blue Lodge members both new and old engaged and committed because there's value, fun and education. One Brother cannot a Mason make. It takes a Lodge.
Our resources are not what they were. We do not attract, as often as we did in the past, those men in our communities of upper business, local government nor large societal influence. I don't say that this is wrong but the resources that funded the construction of our temples, willed endowments, the strong hands that physically built our Masonic homes are for the most part no more. In large scale, we can't keep our buildings in good repair. Our lodge furniture is old and worn out, carpet tattered and torn, stairs crumbling, all because we don't have the resources.
Our Brethren have retreated to another building, to other meetings with a different focus, noble as they may be. Can we not do this work within Blue Lodges?
I can appriciate and respect their motivations and the Brothers that join these concordant bodies. I do think they silently and slowly suffocate our Blue Lodges under the current model.
The benefit of jumping on a thread after several Brothers have weighed in is that I can keep my remarks brief. Much of what I would have is already here.
I've demitted from Council and I've been to one Royal Arch meeting in the last five years. I'm close to demitting from that too.
In my Blue Lodge we often wonder if we should expand to two meetings per month instead our current one. I'd prefer that over Royal Arch. meetings. But our members are busy and getting a critical mass together is unlikely. I wonder if our Lodge, or others, could increase their meeting frequency if the members weren't spread too thin with concordant bodies.
My own personal opinion is that brothers join these other bodies because they aren’t finding what they need from their craft lodge. Fix that and maybe there would be revitalization of membership.
I think you can go and look at the reason many of these bodies exist in the USA to begin with. In the 1930s you will find they were asking the same question due to the decline in membership following the great depression. Yet out of the trials of the Great depression emerged many of these orders.
To dismiss the appendant bodies without understanding their appeal and origins, or recognizing their introduction into the USA from various grand jurisdictions, reflects a lack of comprehension about their significance. Shute and his colleagues, largely inactive in craft lodges, sought to explore ancient orders in Europe and embarked on global travels to discover them.
In my experience, engaging with these degrees reveals that the legend of Hiram Abiff was simply the narrative in practice during the establishment of the craft lodges that later became known as the Blue Lodge. There are numerous reasons why certain orders fall out of active practice, with declining popularity during their speculative formation being a primary factor.
Furthermore, it is often the same individuals who passionately participate in these practices across various orders, advocating for greater inclusion regardless of a Grand Jurisdiction's endorsement. Many of these individuals find the routine activities of the craft lodge monotonous, as they seek new challenges and opportunities for engagement within the Blue Lodge. This has consistently been my observation. Now that said I can not answer as to the quasi esoteric and religious orders, nor the modern inventions from England. They are popular, perhaps due to they filling a void long left abandoned by our craft lodges in favor of the "Club civic" organizational format.
"A new era in Masonry will begin with 1931. " This was the prophetic slogan occurring repeatedly in the Orphan's Friend and Masonic Journal of North Carolina at the beginning of that year, a forecast which came to reality when the North Carolina Lodge of Research, the very first such body in the United States, was chartered at Monroe on January 24, 1931. This was quickly followed by the chartering of the American Lodge of Research in New York on May 31st and an Oregon research lodge in September.
This event occurred less than a year after the founding, also at Monroe, of the York Cross of Honor. The founder, in each case, was J. Ray Shute, Jr., an energetic, enthusiastic extrovert York Rite Mason in his late twenties.
In rapid succession, during the next few years, Brother Shute was instrumental in or involved in the creation of the Allied Masonic Degrees, the Thrice Illustrious Masters, the Grand College of Rites, the Society of Blue Friars (all in 1932), the Holy Royal Arch Knight Templar Priests in 1933 and other groups and orders including the rebirth of the Rosicrucian’s, now known as the Society of the Rosicrucian’s in the United States, also in 1932.
Ray Shute had the help of others, to be sure. Initially, he enlisted and utilized the assistance of local and area York Riters. Later he had the enthusiastic and talented support of his ever-widening circle of Masonic acquaintances. However, by and large, he was the moving force, the creative talent in most of this activity.
At another time, Tatsch cautioned Ray Shute: "Don't tart too many new societies. You will keep us broke paying dues." Still another friend commented in a letter in 1934: "The time is not now propitious for the organization of any other dues paying organizations." Miscellanea Volume XII Part 10 1991 Pages 24-28 .
I'd like to thank everyone for commenting here. What's been said has truly refined my own thinking about this.
I guess to my mind, if I was dictator of our Jurisdiction when this question came up, I would be opposed to the encouragement of the establishment of another appendant/concordant body here.
Simply because we don't have the manpower to pull it off at this time.
If another appendant/concordant body is formed, I don't believe it would thrive, because I don't think that there are enough surplus resources, human and otherwise, available to properly move another body forward.
I am also concerned that such a body would put further strain on already struggling Lodges. We know that some percentage of Masons, when they find an appendant/concordant body that they really enjoy, never again step foot in their Craft Lodge. Another body would pull some men out of Craft Masonry.
I do understand the argument that if all our Lodges were providing whatever it is that is drawing men away that wouldn't be the case. And I agree with that argument. I think we need to continually improve the Lodge experience for our Masons. But I don't think it wise to encourage a drawing away from Craft Masonry.
I think there might already be too many concordant bodies. And I do belong to Scottish Rite and an Advisory Board for Rainbow.
You hear and see of Brothers from the Symbolic Lodges doing great things with a concordant body, but you hardly ever see them in Lodge. Almost seems like the best way to get everyone to a meeting is to propose a By-Laws change to raise dues or meeting date. Brothers that you haven't seen in years will show up for those.
About a year ago, I wrote a short article for our Rite Bulliten. The topic was about how the Blue Lodges are the foundation of Masonry and that we need to help strengthen that foundation. Without that foundation, there would be no concordant bodies.
Getting off my soap box............
In my twenty-seven years, I have held memberships in many of the groups available in the legitimate American Masonic sphere, and can attest to the irrelevance of most of them. I gained much familiarity with other groups I never joined, and can say they also serve no necessary purpose.
What I’ve seen is the same corps of Masons in each group. Adding a new body to the scene in Washington, be it Knight Masons or whatever, will not invigorate anything, but will be just another venue for the usual suspects to accumulate more titles, aprons, degrees, etc., while gaining another night to avoid their families.
We are past the time to prune the Masonic family tree, to reduce the number of these groups, and restore focus to the lodge.
Jay
Shortly after being raised to a MM, I joined the Shrine. To my amazement, there were several men that I had known and worked for many years that were members. There was always a conversation about the shrinking numbers of membership and a push for members to go back to their Blue Lodges and recruit new MMs to join. The thing is, I rarely if ever saw these Nobles sit in Lodge yet if they had, they would have been great recruiters themselves. I also joined SR, being sold on it being the University of Masonry. What would happen if the teachings of SR were taught in Blue Lodge. There would be years and years of educational material. I’m sure I’m no different than most of the other Brothers when I say I have a limited income, paying multiple membership dues therefore limits the amount I’m able to give. How many groups is enough? The reason we have so many churches of different denominations and sub-groups within denominations is because somebody didn’t like how things were going and felt it would be easier to start a new group rather than to work on effectively changing the existing group. Perhaps GL should consider imposing a minimum number of Blue Lodge meetings a MM must attend in order to maintain their memberships in concordant groups, similar to the dues system where you have to be current in all your memberships. The thing we have to remember is we are them and they are us.
My first thought is, why not? But when I reflect on the subject more I'm not so sure. Maybe a path forward would be to explore the Affinity Lodge concept. Concordant bodies explore alternative expressions of Masonry, and maybe we could do that creatively thru the Affinity Lodge concept. I know I don't need any more lapel pins, nor do I need any more dues. Maybe I would be interested in a new concordant body, but honestly it would have to be pretty special.
As a life member of SR and Shrine I have opinions .... What I know is that these appendant and concordant bodies sap the time and energy from brothers where blue lodges suffer. I know we all have had degrees scheduled or special events that groups of brothers can't attend these lodge functions because they are obligated at another event. This choice to be first at a side organization over lodge events is a huge issue. I never choose an event instead of attending my lodge event.
So in short.. do I believe bringing in a new side organization is healthy for a jurisdiction. Nope.
My 2c
This is something I have become quite frustrated with lately in Washington Masonry. All of these various appendant bodies with more ritual and another excuse for the same men to meet again in the same room with a different book none of us have the time to memorize or properly respect the ritual.
Its no wonder why a lot of these groups have a ritual book released in plan english.
I think we need to start looking at our Cable tow and realize that the core of masonry is suffering by our involvement elsewhere. When appendant bodies are begging for membership to survive and blue lodges are begging for membership to survive where do we draw the line?
Look at the difference between York and Scottish Rite. Scottish has huge numbers, but I never hear anything about them except the scholarship our predecessors have spent decades funding. Then there are several dinners throughout the year. I can honestly say in Washington I see nothing that is truly added to the experience except Brothers more focused on that aspect than on the foundation of masonry.
York Rite on the other hand does have a bit more of ritualistic side from what I have experienced, however there are so many appendant bodies that I have asked the Companions why are we trying to create this new organization that's existed since 2006 in England here? The people signing this are the same ones in every other body existing beyond the basic York Rite degrees. Why don't we focus back on actually memorizing our degree work and not have books on the floor before we consider another dinner meeting that's twice a year and paying more dues to support nothing.
In conclusion, its as some brothers have said about allowing Plural Memberships with lodges causing failed lodges to last way longer than they had any right to do so. We need to start focusing on where we came from and forget about adding another organization just because we can. Do we really need more honors heaped upon us? Do we really need another pompous sounding title just because of this organization?
Frankly the only title I have ever wanted or care about is "Brother". Beyond that its a distraction from what Masonry is and should be.
I've been a Mason now for 10 years. I have joined no organization since, not for lack of pressure from those in them!
The work in my Lodges (yes 3 of them) keeps me plenty busy. There is much work to do there.
I see plenty of Brothers on the rolls unable to do the real work. New Masons don't understand why and are left to explore and navigate this incredible depth on their own and get lost, give up and leave.
I am one of the "five, or seven" who commits to a lot of the work. Memorization, conferrals, education, Saturday mornings and fraternal nights in an effort to get our Blue Lodge members both new and old engaged and committed because there's value, fun and education. One Brother cannot a Mason make. It takes a Lodge.
Our resources are not what they were. We do not attract, as often as we did in the past, those men in our communities of upper business, local government nor large societal influence. I don't say that this is wrong but the resources that funded the construction of our temples, willed endowments, the strong hands that physically built our Masonic homes are for the most part no more. In large scale, we can't keep our buildings in good repair. Our lodge furniture is old and worn out, carpet tattered and torn, stairs crumbling, all because we don't have the resources.
Our Brethren have retreated to another building, to other meetings with a different focus, noble as they may be. Can we not do this work within Blue Lodges?
I can appriciate and respect their motivations and the Brothers that join these concordant bodies. I do think they silently and slowly suffocate our Blue Lodges under the current model.
The benefit of jumping on a thread after several Brothers have weighed in is that I can keep my remarks brief. Much of what I would have is already here.
I've demitted from Council and I've been to one Royal Arch meeting in the last five years. I'm close to demitting from that too.
In my Blue Lodge we often wonder if we should expand to two meetings per month instead our current one. I'd prefer that over Royal Arch. meetings. But our members are busy and getting a critical mass together is unlikely. I wonder if our Lodge, or others, could increase their meeting frequency if the members weren't spread too thin with concordant bodies.
My own personal opinion is that brothers join these other bodies because they aren’t finding what they need from their craft lodge. Fix that and maybe there would be revitalization of membership.
I think you can go and look at the reason many of these bodies exist in the USA to begin with. In the 1930s you will find they were asking the same question due to the decline in membership following the great depression. Yet out of the trials of the Great depression emerged many of these orders.
https://grandcollegeofrites.org/innovators/
To dismiss the appendant bodies without understanding their appeal and origins, or recognizing their introduction into the USA from various grand jurisdictions, reflects a lack of comprehension about their significance. Shute and his colleagues, largely inactive in craft lodges, sought to explore ancient orders in Europe and embarked on global travels to discover them.
In my experience, engaging with these degrees reveals that the legend of Hiram Abiff was simply the narrative in practice during the establishment of the craft lodges that later became known as the Blue Lodge. There are numerous reasons why certain orders fall out of active practice, with declining popularity during their speculative formation being a primary factor.
Furthermore, it is often the same individuals who passionately participate in these practices across various orders, advocating for greater inclusion regardless of a Grand Jurisdiction's endorsement. Many of these individuals find the routine activities of the craft lodge monotonous, as they seek new challenges and opportunities for engagement within the Blue Lodge. This has consistently been my observation. Now that said I can not answer as to the quasi esoteric and religious orders, nor the modern inventions from England. They are popular, perhaps due to they filling a void long left abandoned by our craft lodges in favor of the "Club civic" organizational format.
"A new era in Masonry will begin with 1931. " This was the prophetic slogan occurring repeatedly in the Orphan's Friend and Masonic Journal of North Carolina at the beginning of that year, a forecast which came to reality when the North Carolina Lodge of Research, the very first such body in the United States, was chartered at Monroe on January 24, 1931. This was quickly followed by the chartering of the American Lodge of Research in New York on May 31st and an Oregon research lodge in September.
This event occurred less than a year after the founding, also at Monroe, of the York Cross of Honor. The founder, in each case, was J. Ray Shute, Jr., an energetic, enthusiastic extrovert York Rite Mason in his late twenties.
In rapid succession, during the next few years, Brother Shute was instrumental in or involved in the creation of the Allied Masonic Degrees, the Thrice Illustrious Masters, the Grand College of Rites, the Society of Blue Friars (all in 1932), the Holy Royal Arch Knight Templar Priests in 1933 and other groups and orders including the rebirth of the Rosicrucian’s, now known as the Society of the Rosicrucian’s in the United States, also in 1932.
Ray Shute had the help of others, to be sure. Initially, he enlisted and utilized the assistance of local and area York Riters. Later he had the enthusiastic and talented support of his ever-widening circle of Masonic acquaintances. However, by and large, he was the moving force, the creative talent in most of this activity.
At another time, Tatsch cautioned Ray Shute: "Don't tart too many new societies. You will keep us broke paying dues." Still another friend commented in a letter in 1934: "The time is not now propitious for the organization of any other dues paying organizations." Miscellanea Volume XII Part 10 1991 Pages 24-28 .
I'd like to thank everyone for commenting here. What's been said has truly refined my own thinking about this.
I guess to my mind, if I was dictator of our Jurisdiction when this question came up, I would be opposed to the encouragement of the establishment of another appendant/concordant body here.
Simply because we don't have the manpower to pull it off at this time.
If another appendant/concordant body is formed, I don't believe it would thrive, because I don't think that there are enough surplus resources, human and otherwise, available to properly move another body forward.
I am also concerned that such a body would put further strain on already struggling Lodges. We know that some percentage of Masons, when they find an appendant/concordant body that they really enjoy, never again step foot in their Craft Lodge. Another body would pull some men out of Craft Masonry.
I do understand the argument that if all our Lodges were providing whatever it is that is drawing men away that wouldn't be the case. And I agree with that argument. I think we need to continually improve the Lodge experience for our Masons. But I don't think it wise to encourage a drawing away from Craft Masonry.