Over the weekend a well known Past Grand Master from the east coast was talking about the perils of plural memberships, and his view that our Grand Lodges made an error in allowing Masons to hold membership in more than one Lodge.1
He talked about the fact (and I’m sure that many if not most of us have seen this) that sometimes a man will rise through the ranks in his Lodge, then do a poor job leading it, causing disharmony. Then escaping the problems he helped create by becoming active and starting to move up through the ranks in a different, neighboring Lodge.
By doing so, the Mason in question leaves the environment that would have caused him to confront his mistakes, and possibly learn from them. That ensures those mistakes will likely be repeated in his new Lodge.
It also spreads a problem Mason that would have otherwise been contained in a single Lodge into surrounding Lodges.
Emeth is made possible only through the financial support of those holding a paid subscription. If you have been enjoying Emeth for some time, and finding value in it, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
Of course there are a lot of good reasons Masons take plural memberships as well.
But that particular Past Grand Master was arguing that the negatives outweigh the positives.
What say you?
Do the negatives of allowing plural memberships outweigh the positives?
Was it a mistake for those Grand Lodges that allow them to do so?
If you were King of the Masons for a day, would you change your Grand Lodge’s policy on them, or not?
That's a really interesting point of view, and I must say one that I've not heard before. I can't say I agree with the dear brother - his example of "letting the man off the hook" sounds very specific and must be a fairly rare occurrence, as I'm sure you'll agree that the good men in masonry outnumber the few bad eggs.
I am only a member in one lodge myself, but we have regular visitors and one of my close friends who is a regular visitor to our lodge has several memberships, in both his native Derby and my home of Nottingham; I think we under UGLE view it as a way to "spread the love" rather than "dilute the evil".
Sometimes as a gentleman gets older he may find himself with more alone time than is comfortable, and if he can join another lodge in his spare time to fill up the days I would say that is a benefit that far outweighs the negatives of a chap absconding to avoid any consequences of mismanagement.
On a side note, if a WM is doing such an appalling job of running the lodge, I would be keen to know what the IPM and wardens and secretary have been doing - the WM is not operating in a vacuum
Your point is well taken, if a Lodge is saddled with a poor WM, his Wardens and the Past Masters should be able to work to moderate that. At least to an extent.
The problem as I see it is not that a bad mason may be repeating mistakes but rather good masons are propping up dead lodges by filling chairs when charters should have been revoked years before and instead of investing efforts in increasing activities available in their home lodge, are spread to thin thus weakening their home lodge in an effort to prop up the dead lodges.
I do agree with this, and am planning a future post about it. Sometimes Lodges just need to be allowed to die. By expending energy, effort, and dollars on a Lodge that can't survive, we are depriving another Lodge of those things.
I think that ultimately we need to take a critical eye to the Lodges in our area, and determine which are worth defending.
A thought I've been having lately, not only about plural memberships, but also about membership and activity in the concordant and appendant bodies as well, is that most Masons of working age (those who still have full time jobs, or are raising a family) likely can't do more than one extracurricular with any real depth of commitment.
Often, being a member of multiple lodges bodies results in the Brother being an officer or committeeman in multiple organizations, and that leads to either burn-out or to his doing a poor job in delivering the best he can for every one of those organizations.
As I have progressed through the line in my Lodge and gotten closer to the East I have continuously found that I must shorten my cable-tow to keep up with the demands of the current office I hold. At this time I'm Senior Warden, and I'm not doing anything other than working with the Grand Lodge Education committee and being as good a Senior Warden as I can be.
In this I have no time to devote to the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, or to the Shriners.
For this year, Senior Warden is the most important thing I can do and be in Masonry.
Humans love to think they are great multi-taskers. We aren't. We are also not great at delivering on the responsibilities of multiple concomitant commitments.
I'm Senior Deacon at present, and I'm studiously avoiding everything except my Light Blues club which has an occasional barbecue or other informal meetup; I'm not great at learning ritual so I really have to spend time doing it, I'd not be able to learn ritual for two separate bodies at the same time
Your experience mirrors my own. My responsibilities in Craft Masonry are such that I have virtually no time available for the Scottish Rite, and absolutely no time available for the York Rite and Shrine.
Forcing myself to make time for those appendant bodies would mean that I wasn't properly meeting my responsibilities to Craft Masonry.
I do imagine that will someday change, but that day isn't today.
I am a member of 3 lodges at the moment. I joined my 1st lodges in WA due to its location. I became secretary within 2 months of joining. I was convinced to join a 2nd lodge that needed members. I'm now the Worshipful Master. I joined a 3rd lodge, for personal reasons, and immediately became the secretary.
All 3 lodges are within 15 minutes of each other, 2 of them are 1 mile apart. Brothers join lodges to prop them up, so we don't see them fail. This has the compound effect of spreading ourselves to thin and thinking we have a healthy lodge.
In fact, 1 lodge in my district in comprised of 50% plural and another 40%. How can we give each lodge our best if we split ourselves so thin?
A side note, we pay a Per Capita Assessment to our Grand Lodge of $28 per member, per lodge. This means I'm paying grand lodge $84 a year.
I'd love to see a resolution, only allowing to plural if you moved away from your home lodge.
That raises the question: if the lodges are so close one from each other, why not merge?
Same situation is happening in a jurisdiction (I won't mention out of respect, because I no longer am at that jurisdiction), there are 3 lodges renting space in the same building. Why not merge?
I've run into this situation in my own lodge. There are three lodges within 5 minutes of each other, two in the same building. You would think that logically all three would merge into one lodge, but old grudges and personalities makes it too difficult.
Having gone through a lodge merger, I can tell you that opposition usually comes from the old guard, most of whom never even bother to show up to lodge anymore, but as soon as they get that letter of notification on a vote, they come out of the woodwork to oppose it. They fail to see the obvious if they were actually active in their lodge, they wouldn't be having that vote to begin with.
As we lost total membership over the course of decades, we didn't lose Lodges at the same rate. That results in the situation faced in my Jurisdiction today, where we have more Lodges than we have Masons to support them. Ultimately more Lodges will have to merge or close.
And someday, when membership rebounds, we can create new Lodges as we need them. Fluctuations in membership is inevitable over long periods of time.
Individual members pay the assessment ? In our state the Lodges pay the per capita. Some Lodges ask their life members to help out and donate the $ 11.50. Some Lodges who have a lot of members who should have went NPD a long time ago still continue to pay the per capita on those past due members.
In Washington it is up to the Lodge. Some pay the Grand Lodge Assessment, others require their members to do so. I believe that the vast majority do require the Mason to pay it.
One problem that some Lodges here encounter, if they pay the Grand Lodge Assessment for their Life Members is not remembering to remove those members from the active rolls when they pass away. That sometimes results in Lodges paying that Assessment needlessly for years.
My home Lodge of course, but when I first became a Mason, I was unable to ever serve as an Officer of that Lodge, because for a few months each year work required that I live elsewhere. So I joined a second Lodge that didn't meet very often, and in that way I was able to serve as a Lodge Officer.
Then I moved across the State, so that resulted in Lodge number three. Where I was, and remain active for many years.
But, when leaving the Grand East, I surveyed my future, and realized that I've probably got 30 or 35 years as a PGM, in a way with nothing else to accomplish. So, I decided that I wanted to spend those remaining decades in a Lodge that I really, really enjoy. So that resulted in my fourth Lodge. I figure it the perfect place to enjoy my Masonic golden years. Even if it is a three hour round trip!
I think I'd keep it. One could have numerous reasons for wanting to belong to a specific Lodge, other than to actively participate. For some reason I thought of Tranquility Lodge No. 2000 in the GL of Texas. While I've no expectation to attend any of their meetings, I would get some enjoyment out of simply being a member. Now, should a Lodge expect plural-membership Brothers to participate, they should take that into consideration when balloting on their petition, no?
There's a particular Landmark (from Mackey's list) that's always intrigued me. "No Lodge can interfere in the business of another Lodge." If a man wants to be a member of another Lodge, whose business is it other than the man and the Lodge? Or rather, with all due respect, why does the Grand Lodge assume the authority to make this decision?
You are the "Grand Lodge". If it is in the WMC and needs to be removed, or not in the WMC and needs to be added, that is up to the Brethren of the Jurisdiction. I presume "Grand Lodge" as you put it is intended to imply Grand Master. The Grand Master does not presume to make this decision, the Grand Master is charged with enforcing the code as presented by the Jurisdiction.
My comment was meant to challenge (as a thought exercise) the premise that whether or not a Lodge admits or allows plural membership was something the Grand Lodge/Jurisdiction/members of other Lodges could dictate. Do Lodge's hold any inalienable rights?
By referencing the Landmark, it was an attempt to bolster the challenge by introducing something of such universality and antiquity as to have acquired the force and effect of law. Or perhaps more broadly, that is subversive of the principles and groundwork of Masonry.
[I say this with a light heart. Posts may come off more forceful in written form. Assume I'm writing this on a Friday afternoon in an attempt to keep my mind stimulated before I get to leave work.]
If a given jurisdictions code says you can not be a plural member, and you allow him to be in your jurisdiction, are you not interfering with the business of another lodge? For the record, I don't think Plural membership is either good or bad. I do not think it is helpful when a lodge is 90% plural members and only 10% home lodge members. I am a plural member and joined the second lodge to help it rebuild, right or wrong? The jury is still out.
My original point was just that the "Grand Lodge can't make us do things" is not accurate. That implies that the Executive Committee has the power to do what they choose, and that is incorrect. The executive committee can only enforce the rules as written in the Code.
I think that I'm with you. I've got my plural memberships, but I don't know if it is a good thing or not. Hopefully I've been a force for good in my various Lodges, but I am also aware of a couple Brothers who have done harm through their plural memberships.
Tranquility Lodge does seem like it would be a fun one. Plus Lodge of the Holy Land, Internet Lodge, and a few other specialty Lodges with a worldwide scope.
I have enjoyed reading through the comments. I'd like to add my 2 cents worth.
Plural memberships are still needed. People move, life changes etc. so the need shall always be there. with that being said, I'd like to caution those who try to spread themselves way too thin!
If a plural member is a officer at one lodge, I firmly believe, if he is fulfilling his duties correctly, he will not have enough time in the day to correctly fulfill duties in another lodge. I can say that with full confidence because I attempted to be the secretary in 2 lodges at the same time. I know I did BOTH lodges a disservice through my attempts at doing both. I know in most jurisdictions you can not be a principle officer in more than one lodge, but if it was possible, it shouldn't be!!!
So for me personally, my home Lodge is Little Falls Lodge, which recently merged with Tenino Lodge. I am also a plural member of Pasque Lodge in Bison, South Dakota & Bright Hope in Knoxville, Tennessee. I physically can not be a principle officer in but just one of these lodges due to distance. Each membership means quite a lot to me personally. Home lodge.....we know what that means to each of us. Pasque Lodge was my Grandfather's lodge and Bright Hope is the lodge i belong to now because it is close to my new home.
I don't think my current situation is what anyone is speaking about in the negative, if so, they are misguided, IMHO.
in closing, a brother who plurals with more than 2 local lodges should never take on offices he can not possibly perform. Like some dolt like me trying to be a secretary at 2 lodges at the same time!! Again just MHO
You are exactly correct I think when you say that one can't serve properly as a primary officer in more than one Lodge at a time. Doing so will surely spread one too thin. That's been my experience anyway.
If we were to make a change in my Jurisdiction's Masonic Code, I think it would be to prohibit one from serving as WM, SW, JW, Secretary, or Treasurer in more than one Lodge at a time. Currently the restriction only covers WM, SW, and JW.
Well this is another question that will be debated forever. Even if a Grand Lodge adopted a policy that outlawed plural membership it would like trying to herd cats getting other jurisdictions to follow suit.
For me I think this has become a problem over the last 15 years or so because we don’t want to see lodges die. If we really practice what we preach the verse that’s open in a MM degree lays out our duty’s.
I like most here belong to more than two lodges and joined each for different reasons. I didn’t join another lodge until I went through the chairs to WM. I became DDGM and three days after received a call from Grand Secretary telling me a lodge wanted to turn in it’s charter. Look ing back I believe I made a mistake getting Brother’s to affiliate because that lodge still hasn’t recovered to be a strong lodge.
I used to believe that Lodges could be saved by plural members, but more recently I've come to doubt that. I thought that they could, because I was very familiar with a Lodge in my Jurisdiction that had well over 90% plural members, and it was thriving.
But, it isn't thriving now. As near as I can tell, it started to die again when the Mason whose home Lodge it was, and who had encouraged all those plural memberships passed away. They were there for a beloved Brother, not for the Lodge with which they had no real connection.
It took me quite a few years to come to that conclusion.
My first reaction to the PGMs opinion is he is a man of limited experiences.
Ok I belong to 6 and used to be 7 lodges spread out over various jurisdictions. The reason being I was in the US military for 30 years. I belong to 4 in Washington. I love them all. I am disabled to the point that getting to all but one of them is nearly impossible. But I would if I could. I had highly successful and good times with the brothers in all of them. Some of lodges need the money I can provide and some are rich as Midas. I was master of four of them and in some of them twice. I can think of two lodges here in Washington that are historical and highly popular lodges that would not exist except for dual membership.
The MWB sounds like he has known at least one if not more than one Brother who caused mayhem withersoever he found a lodge to prey upon. Is the MWB's jurisdiction rife with such persons? There are mechanisms to remedy that, such as a properly conducted investigation. I could write at length on this subject and this tool being sorely neglected for such purposes as finding stinkers whom informed brothers may not want to have in their lodge.
Dark Triade personality types can demit and join another lodge. I have seen this in real time. One man was/is essentially a con artist who having taken advantage of his brothers in one lodge jumped ship to another lodge where he was not known very well. No real investigation was conducted. He was later caught stealing from another affiliated organization and suspended.
A Mason can certainly spread himself thin with too many obligations but sometimes one makes a stretch so as to win through to another and better day.
So much to think about here. How about all the money Grand Lodge makes by assessing fees on every membership a brother has in this jurisdiction. Imagine if a brother only belong to one lodge.
Your point is very well taken. Proper investigations would very likely solve the problems the PGM is concerned about.
Your point is also well taken that a bad man, recognized as such by his Lodge, can demit and join another. Proper investigations would protect against that as well.
But how often do we do proper investigations on Masons seeking plural membership, or who are looking for a new primary Lodge? Ultimately that's the problem.
I know that I was properly investigated by my home Lodge prior to becoming a Mason. Not so with the three Lodges I've joined since. In all three cases those investigations were basically non-existent. Only in the case of my fourth Lodge was a perfunctory investigation justified.
We always do well when we properly Guard the West Gate!
I belong to 4 Lodges. My home Lodge and 3 others in the area I now live in. I am also currently the District Deputy for the 3 Lodges. I felt it important to be a part of and voting member of my Lodges so I had ownership in the groups.
There are several other members also that have the same memberships, and it has contributed greatly to helping all three Lodges function better. We are in a rural area of Central Oregon, where it is 30 miles to everything.
All of us are dedicated to the Craft and only want well functioning harmonious Lodge and we have that. With the constantly declining membership, plural memberships will be essential to Lodge survival.
I've got quite a lot of experience now with both rural and urban Masonry. I'm currently Master of a Lodge located just outside of downtown Seattle, and was Deputy for one of the most rural parts of our State.
From that, I fear that rural Masonry is in a tough spot right now. Young people have been moving away from rural communities in search of better employment for a long time now, impacting our Lodge's ability to attract new Masons. In my extremely rural county we used to have 8 Lodges I believe. We now have 2. Largely because all employment left the tiny towns those Lodges called home.
But, the good news is that travel is so much easier today than it was when all those Lodges were founded. We can travel 30 miles to Lodge if we have to, and those 2 remaining Lodges are thriving.
Plural membership is a double edge knife. May or may not work depending the circumtances. In my personal opinion I do not see the advantage of it. If you want to visit, go visit. If you want to help go, but do it in a 100% capacity not half here and half there. And on top of it it takes time away from other responsibilities like family.
I think that you are correct, half here/half there, doesn't work at all. If we commit to a Lodge then we all need to, as our Grand Master of Washington says, Be All In. If we can give our all to a Lodge, then we can have a lasting positive impact, if not, then most likely not.
I am the new guy. I tend to be over analytical so this is something I have thought about since day 1.
Here in my district most lodges are suffering from lack of
membership let alone active members. Several times in just the last month I have attended meetings where there are more visitors than actual members.
Many of these lodges support each other with members and visitors sitting in the chairs.
Two lodges in my area won’t merge due to personal biases and grudges that are older than I am (37). I suppose that is preserving time honored traditions. haha. There are other issues such as being accessible to disabled members.
Certain egos on both sides are instigating more grudges where I have advised my friends, one of which is a candidate to wait. As they are taking others along with them.
I am going to be direct. This is straight bs.
It has already made me question ‘what am I doing here’,
let alone why would I would support my friends jumping into the fire.
At this rate these lodges will die with the old timers gate keeping, and all the passive narcissism of slightly younger members pouring gasoline on the fire.
I have made every attempt to be as active as I could even before I was initiated. Operating at a capacity above my limits pushing through my postical periods to be there.
I’ll keep going until I cannot regardless, but I have to ask if I should move up the road to a place where these persons are not involved.
It is my strong view that if your Lodge is not offering the experience you seek, and if you can't change it to offer that experience, then the best thing to do is to find a different Lodge that does provide a quality Masonic experience.
Sometimes that requires some travel, but it is worth it.
When I had to make an Interstate move in 2016, and plurally joined an AF&AM Lodge, and maintained my Washington State dues at my home F&AM Lodge, it kept me active in Freemasonry, to a level that just being a chronic visitor to my Idaho lodge from my Home Lodge in Washington would have ever afforded me. When COVID Struck, and literally KILLED my Idaho Lodge, I had no where else to go. Maintaining a Plural membership back home with my home Lodge in Washington allowed me to stay and remain active as a Freemason. Where not having access to a Plural Membership I would have not been able to be as active through those dark times, away from my Home Lodges. I would have been forced to demit without the Plural Membership, and then when my Lodge in Idaho died, where would I be? While I have returned to Washington State in the time since then, I am still a Plural member for the Lodge I currently regularly attend now due to distance from my home Lodge still. Though I am happily back within the same jurisdiction. Plural memberships are needed, and the investigative process does need to be more Masonically focused, rather than individually focused on JUST the man, as it is with new initiates. A plural member should be investigated for his cause and effect and good rapport at his previous Lodge, and not on speculative inquiry as with a New Mason. A letter of Good Standing, Current Dues Card, and some BASIC interview should be had, but not to perhaps the extent or strict adherence to guidelines as with newly initiated Masons. Perhaps have an entirely separate standardized discourse of process with different requirements for being made found favorable to the investigative committees for already made Masons coming through each Lodge's Western Gates. I know SOME Masons feel there should be NO investigative committee as the previous Lodge having made that man a Mason already is by proxy vouching for that man in the simple fact that he is a Mason already! I tend to lean in this direction, but also know there are a few bad apples out there. But those guys usually are known about, and dealt with already within their respective communities.
respectfully disagree, there should always be a vigorous investigation, guarding the gates is a most important job. If it is done right it can save a lodge and Freemasonry a world of hurt .
I have had this circumvented several times, each time was a disaster. I am certain one WM withheld information concerning a Brother who was later suspended. Often people would turn up at other lodges and one would scratch one's head and wonder. I could fill a volume with this kind of shenanigan's.
Not of a plural member, but a regular petitioner....
Many years ago, as a newer Mason, I was put on an investigation committee. The Chairman cut corners, and I went along with it. The fellow we were to be investigating became a Mason, and was later shown to be an unsuitable Mason. Had we done our job properly, we would have known, and he wouldn't have become a Mason.
I don't see the overall benefit of plural memberships in areas where there are a concentrated amount of Lodges. In my area I can visit a number of Lodges, share in the fellowship and have no responsibility to that Lodge. I particularly like that. It allows me to focus on my Lodge while still scratching that Masonic 'itch.' To me allowing Masons to have multiple memberships not only strains their cable tow, but also inflates the numbers of Lodges superficially. Not all of these Brothers will be as active as they probably could be if they were members of only one Lodge. If a Brother desires to be a member of another Lodge they should have to show cause as to how they will improve that Lodge, and how holding another dues card will improve them as well. Another thing I will add, as a member of a Lodge our obligations call us to be present. We pick our Lodges because they tend to work with our other factors that make up our 24 inch guage, if the Cable Tow is pulled too tightly then a Brother becomes spurious, and can't rightfully fulfill his obligations. The Lodges he is a member of are harmed, and as a whole, Masonry is harmed.
>>>We pick our Lodges because they tend to work with our other factors that make up our 24 >>>inch guage
I think this points to an important distinction between Lodges in more urban, vs rural areas. In rural areas that probably isn't possible, as there is likely only one Lodge.
But in urban areas choices abound. There are actually two Lodges that I absolutely love in Seattle, about three miles apart from each other. But alas, I could only join one.
Hello, Brethren! My personal experience taught me the pursuit of dual membership isn't a better way to better myself. Either I serve less my Mother Lodge or the lodge I intend to join. Most of it because of schedule conflicts given my circumstance; I work swing shift and doing OT's on weekends. I was so ashamed I withdrew my application.
>>>Either I serve less my Mother Lodge or the lodge I intend to join.
I think that this would be my exact situation as well. If I were to be a member of two Lodges in close proximity to each other I would not be able to give either of them my all, and would therefore not be a positive influence on either of them.
Specifically the commenter claimed to be a member of a Lodge(s) when in fact he is currently suspended from the Craft. This was brought to my attention by his Grand Lodge.
Great question - and it’s not a one size fits all answer.
First off, lodges may practice from the same standard work within a jurisdiction, but that doesn’t mean they are all the same. It’s time to acknowledge lodge culture will vary. Yes, some lodge mergers may not ever happen because of grudges. But lodge culture should really be considered before two lodges merge.
There are lots of reasons plural members join.
Our lodge emphasizes Masonic education and philosophical discussion. So we have a few plural members that don’t get that from their mother lodge. All good.
But we charge a plural member fee to join our lodge. It’s not free. So a brother has to be serious about it before moving forward.
As always, it comes down to intent. If a bunch of plural members are keeping a week lodge afloat, it should also come along with a commitment to train new masons so they can step away.
A man has one belly button, he should have one membership.
As a Master Mason he can participate in ALL of the labors and many of the privileges of any Lodge that will accept him, including filling a vacant role in almost all situations, for as long as the Lodge needs.
If he chooses to be an officer of a new Lodge, he should transfer his membership, indicating his commitment to THAT Lodge.
Also, if a Master Mason wants to support a Lodge (or many) financially, he can ALWAYS deposit monies into its treasury, I'm certain the Secretary and Treasurer would not refuse the funds.
I do believe we've made Freemasonry too free, as Zane mentioned, some Lodges have a focus on certain things. If a Lodge is having a special event, it's often not free. If the Lodge values attendance, then the Lodge should budget to allow open participation.
Yet, why should a Lodge pay for the education of its membership? University does not pay for it's student's education. If the value of the event (including quality education) has a price, then the member or visitors should pay for it. Maybe a cover charge of some kind is appropriate.
My comment may be a few days late, but I feel it is important to note. The ability to have a plural membership is most absolutely necessary. I submit very few of us started in the lodge we really wanted or envisioned we would be in - because we simply didn’t know what we didn’t know. Most of us come into Freemasonry at the lodge of opportunity because it is logistically easy or we have some sort of legacy. The lodge accepts us and we go through the degrees eventually being raised to MM. It may be a great lodge, but it may not be the ultimate lodge or the only lodge in which we want to observe the craft. Different lodges offer different aspects of brotherly love and observe at different levels the mysteries of Freemasonry. It is not until we are MM’s and can travel that we are able to see and understand the nuances of different lodges, and thus, have the opportunity to find that lodge we always wanted to be a part of that may meet our personal endeavors within Masonry. It is an individual and personal journey through Masonry, not the lodges or anyone else’s. A lodge or individual brother should never take issue with a brother Mason for wanting different experiences through plural memberships. IMO Grand Lodges that do not allow this are not observing the craft in the best interest of its Masons.
First off, I admit that I have not yet read all 56 comments.
I would in spite of that offer a situation in which few, if any of you, would object to plural membership. it happens to be my own. I was made a Mason almost 50 years ago by my home Lodge in Utah. Shortly after which I ended up joining the Navy and went on to the Submarine Service - not a lot of subs in Ut. I visited my home lodge when ever possible, but in practice terms that was about once a year. For a great many reasons, including friends and my Masonic mentor who was SW when I was raised and went to be GM and then settled into being Grand Lecturer, I am still not of a mind to demit. I am now retired in West Seattle and, without the demands of a career, would like to be more active in Masonry again. So for me, becoming a plural member of a WA lodge effectively means I am a member of one lodge that I actually serve, and the other I maintain for sentimental reasons. Maybe some of you would council me to demit, but that is not an acceptable option to me.
Hi all!
That's a really interesting point of view, and I must say one that I've not heard before. I can't say I agree with the dear brother - his example of "letting the man off the hook" sounds very specific and must be a fairly rare occurrence, as I'm sure you'll agree that the good men in masonry outnumber the few bad eggs.
I am only a member in one lodge myself, but we have regular visitors and one of my close friends who is a regular visitor to our lodge has several memberships, in both his native Derby and my home of Nottingham; I think we under UGLE view it as a way to "spread the love" rather than "dilute the evil".
Sometimes as a gentleman gets older he may find himself with more alone time than is comfortable, and if he can join another lodge in his spare time to fill up the days I would say that is a benefit that far outweighs the negatives of a chap absconding to avoid any consequences of mismanagement.
On a side note, if a WM is doing such an appalling job of running the lodge, I would be keen to know what the IPM and wardens and secretary have been doing - the WM is not operating in a vacuum
Your point is well taken, if a Lodge is saddled with a poor WM, his Wardens and the Past Masters should be able to work to moderate that. At least to an extent.
The problem as I see it is not that a bad mason may be repeating mistakes but rather good masons are propping up dead lodges by filling chairs when charters should have been revoked years before and instead of investing efforts in increasing activities available in their home lodge, are spread to thin thus weakening their home lodge in an effort to prop up the dead lodges.
I do agree with this, and am planning a future post about it. Sometimes Lodges just need to be allowed to die. By expending energy, effort, and dollars on a Lodge that can't survive, we are depriving another Lodge of those things.
I think that ultimately we need to take a critical eye to the Lodges in our area, and determine which are worth defending.
The circle of life.
Indeed!
A thought I've been having lately, not only about plural memberships, but also about membership and activity in the concordant and appendant bodies as well, is that most Masons of working age (those who still have full time jobs, or are raising a family) likely can't do more than one extracurricular with any real depth of commitment.
Often, being a member of multiple lodges bodies results in the Brother being an officer or committeeman in multiple organizations, and that leads to either burn-out or to his doing a poor job in delivering the best he can for every one of those organizations.
As I have progressed through the line in my Lodge and gotten closer to the East I have continuously found that I must shorten my cable-tow to keep up with the demands of the current office I hold. At this time I'm Senior Warden, and I'm not doing anything other than working with the Grand Lodge Education committee and being as good a Senior Warden as I can be.
In this I have no time to devote to the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, or to the Shriners.
For this year, Senior Warden is the most important thing I can do and be in Masonry.
Humans love to think they are great multi-taskers. We aren't. We are also not great at delivering on the responsibilities of multiple concomitant commitments.
I'm Senior Deacon at present, and I'm studiously avoiding everything except my Light Blues club which has an occasional barbecue or other informal meetup; I'm not great at learning ritual so I really have to spend time doing it, I'd not be able to learn ritual for two separate bodies at the same time
Your experience mirrors my own. My responsibilities in Craft Masonry are such that I have virtually no time available for the Scottish Rite, and absolutely no time available for the York Rite and Shrine.
Forcing myself to make time for those appendant bodies would mean that I wasn't properly meeting my responsibilities to Craft Masonry.
I do imagine that will someday change, but that day isn't today.
I am a member of 3 lodges at the moment. I joined my 1st lodges in WA due to its location. I became secretary within 2 months of joining. I was convinced to join a 2nd lodge that needed members. I'm now the Worshipful Master. I joined a 3rd lodge, for personal reasons, and immediately became the secretary.
All 3 lodges are within 15 minutes of each other, 2 of them are 1 mile apart. Brothers join lodges to prop them up, so we don't see them fail. This has the compound effect of spreading ourselves to thin and thinking we have a healthy lodge.
In fact, 1 lodge in my district in comprised of 50% plural and another 40%. How can we give each lodge our best if we split ourselves so thin?
A side note, we pay a Per Capita Assessment to our Grand Lodge of $28 per member, per lodge. This means I'm paying grand lodge $84 a year.
I'd love to see a resolution, only allowing to plural if you moved away from your home lodge.
I believe it was a resolution recently, but was voted down.
That raises the question: if the lodges are so close one from each other, why not merge?
Same situation is happening in a jurisdiction (I won't mention out of respect, because I no longer am at that jurisdiction), there are 3 lodges renting space in the same building. Why not merge?
I've run into this situation in my own lodge. There are three lodges within 5 minutes of each other, two in the same building. You would think that logically all three would merge into one lodge, but old grudges and personalities makes it too difficult.
Having gone through a lodge merger, I can tell you that opposition usually comes from the old guard, most of whom never even bother to show up to lodge anymore, but as soon as they get that letter of notification on a vote, they come out of the woodwork to oppose it. They fail to see the obvious if they were actually active in their lodge, they wouldn't be having that vote to begin with.
Battle of egos. Unfortunately those never learned the correct way to use the tools.
As we lost total membership over the course of decades, we didn't lose Lodges at the same rate. That results in the situation faced in my Jurisdiction today, where we have more Lodges than we have Masons to support them. Ultimately more Lodges will have to merge or close.
And someday, when membership rebounds, we can create new Lodges as we need them. Fluctuations in membership is inevitable over long periods of time.
It's a mystery that is beyond our craft! A merge was presented, but as said below, battle of egos and the old guard coming to "save" the lodge.
Individual members pay the assessment ? In our state the Lodges pay the per capita. Some Lodges ask their life members to help out and donate the $ 11.50. Some Lodges who have a lot of members who should have went NPD a long time ago still continue to pay the per capita on those past due members.
In Washington it is up to the Lodge. Some pay the Grand Lodge Assessment, others require their members to do so. I believe that the vast majority do require the Mason to pay it.
One problem that some Lodges here encounter, if they pay the Grand Lodge Assessment for their Life Members is not remembering to remove those members from the active rolls when they pass away. That sometimes results in Lodges paying that Assessment needlessly for years.
So, I'm a member of four.
My home Lodge of course, but when I first became a Mason, I was unable to ever serve as an Officer of that Lodge, because for a few months each year work required that I live elsewhere. So I joined a second Lodge that didn't meet very often, and in that way I was able to serve as a Lodge Officer.
Then I moved across the State, so that resulted in Lodge number three. Where I was, and remain active for many years.
But, when leaving the Grand East, I surveyed my future, and realized that I've probably got 30 or 35 years as a PGM, in a way with nothing else to accomplish. So, I decided that I wanted to spend those remaining decades in a Lodge that I really, really enjoy. So that resulted in my fourth Lodge. I figure it the perfect place to enjoy my Masonic golden years. Even if it is a three hour round trip!
I think I'd keep it. One could have numerous reasons for wanting to belong to a specific Lodge, other than to actively participate. For some reason I thought of Tranquility Lodge No. 2000 in the GL of Texas. While I've no expectation to attend any of their meetings, I would get some enjoyment out of simply being a member. Now, should a Lodge expect plural-membership Brothers to participate, they should take that into consideration when balloting on their petition, no?
There's a particular Landmark (from Mackey's list) that's always intrigued me. "No Lodge can interfere in the business of another Lodge." If a man wants to be a member of another Lodge, whose business is it other than the man and the Lodge? Or rather, with all due respect, why does the Grand Lodge assume the authority to make this decision?
You are the "Grand Lodge". If it is in the WMC and needs to be removed, or not in the WMC and needs to be added, that is up to the Brethren of the Jurisdiction. I presume "Grand Lodge" as you put it is intended to imply Grand Master. The Grand Master does not presume to make this decision, the Grand Master is charged with enforcing the code as presented by the Jurisdiction.
My comment was meant to challenge (as a thought exercise) the premise that whether or not a Lodge admits or allows plural membership was something the Grand Lodge/Jurisdiction/members of other Lodges could dictate. Do Lodge's hold any inalienable rights?
By referencing the Landmark, it was an attempt to bolster the challenge by introducing something of such universality and antiquity as to have acquired the force and effect of law. Or perhaps more broadly, that is subversive of the principles and groundwork of Masonry.
[I say this with a light heart. Posts may come off more forceful in written form. Assume I'm writing this on a Friday afternoon in an attempt to keep my mind stimulated before I get to leave work.]
If a given jurisdictions code says you can not be a plural member, and you allow him to be in your jurisdiction, are you not interfering with the business of another lodge? For the record, I don't think Plural membership is either good or bad. I do not think it is helpful when a lodge is 90% plural members and only 10% home lodge members. I am a plural member and joined the second lodge to help it rebuild, right or wrong? The jury is still out.
My original point was just that the "Grand Lodge can't make us do things" is not accurate. That implies that the Executive Committee has the power to do what they choose, and that is incorrect. The executive committee can only enforce the rules as written in the Code.
I think that I'm with you. I've got my plural memberships, but I don't know if it is a good thing or not. Hopefully I've been a force for good in my various Lodges, but I am also aware of a couple Brothers who have done harm through their plural memberships.
In my mind, I've yet to decide.
Tranquility Lodge does seem like it would be a fun one. Plus Lodge of the Holy Land, Internet Lodge, and a few other specialty Lodges with a worldwide scope.
Good day Brothers!
I have enjoyed reading through the comments. I'd like to add my 2 cents worth.
Plural memberships are still needed. People move, life changes etc. so the need shall always be there. with that being said, I'd like to caution those who try to spread themselves way too thin!
If a plural member is a officer at one lodge, I firmly believe, if he is fulfilling his duties correctly, he will not have enough time in the day to correctly fulfill duties in another lodge. I can say that with full confidence because I attempted to be the secretary in 2 lodges at the same time. I know I did BOTH lodges a disservice through my attempts at doing both. I know in most jurisdictions you can not be a principle officer in more than one lodge, but if it was possible, it shouldn't be!!!
So for me personally, my home Lodge is Little Falls Lodge, which recently merged with Tenino Lodge. I am also a plural member of Pasque Lodge in Bison, South Dakota & Bright Hope in Knoxville, Tennessee. I physically can not be a principle officer in but just one of these lodges due to distance. Each membership means quite a lot to me personally. Home lodge.....we know what that means to each of us. Pasque Lodge was my Grandfather's lodge and Bright Hope is the lodge i belong to now because it is close to my new home.
I don't think my current situation is what anyone is speaking about in the negative, if so, they are misguided, IMHO.
in closing, a brother who plurals with more than 2 local lodges should never take on offices he can not possibly perform. Like some dolt like me trying to be a secretary at 2 lodges at the same time!! Again just MHO
You are exactly correct I think when you say that one can't serve properly as a primary officer in more than one Lodge at a time. Doing so will surely spread one too thin. That's been my experience anyway.
If we were to make a change in my Jurisdiction's Masonic Code, I think it would be to prohibit one from serving as WM, SW, JW, Secretary, or Treasurer in more than one Lodge at a time. Currently the restriction only covers WM, SW, and JW.
Well this is another question that will be debated forever. Even if a Grand Lodge adopted a policy that outlawed plural membership it would like trying to herd cats getting other jurisdictions to follow suit.
For me I think this has become a problem over the last 15 years or so because we don’t want to see lodges die. If we really practice what we preach the verse that’s open in a MM degree lays out our duty’s.
I like most here belong to more than two lodges and joined each for different reasons. I didn’t join another lodge until I went through the chairs to WM. I became DDGM and three days after received a call from Grand Secretary telling me a lodge wanted to turn in it’s charter. Look ing back I believe I made a mistake getting Brother’s to affiliate because that lodge still hasn’t recovered to be a strong lodge.
If this will ever be resolved is anybody guess.
I used to believe that Lodges could be saved by plural members, but more recently I've come to doubt that. I thought that they could, because I was very familiar with a Lodge in my Jurisdiction that had well over 90% plural members, and it was thriving.
But, it isn't thriving now. As near as I can tell, it started to die again when the Mason whose home Lodge it was, and who had encouraged all those plural memberships passed away. They were there for a beloved Brother, not for the Lodge with which they had no real connection.
It took me quite a few years to come to that conclusion.
My first reaction to the PGMs opinion is he is a man of limited experiences.
Ok I belong to 6 and used to be 7 lodges spread out over various jurisdictions. The reason being I was in the US military for 30 years. I belong to 4 in Washington. I love them all. I am disabled to the point that getting to all but one of them is nearly impossible. But I would if I could. I had highly successful and good times with the brothers in all of them. Some of lodges need the money I can provide and some are rich as Midas. I was master of four of them and in some of them twice. I can think of two lodges here in Washington that are historical and highly popular lodges that would not exist except for dual membership.
The MWB sounds like he has known at least one if not more than one Brother who caused mayhem withersoever he found a lodge to prey upon. Is the MWB's jurisdiction rife with such persons? There are mechanisms to remedy that, such as a properly conducted investigation. I could write at length on this subject and this tool being sorely neglected for such purposes as finding stinkers whom informed brothers may not want to have in their lodge.
Dark Triade personality types can demit and join another lodge. I have seen this in real time. One man was/is essentially a con artist who having taken advantage of his brothers in one lodge jumped ship to another lodge where he was not known very well. No real investigation was conducted. He was later caught stealing from another affiliated organization and suspended.
A Mason can certainly spread himself thin with too many obligations but sometimes one makes a stretch so as to win through to another and better day.
So much to think about here. How about all the money Grand Lodge makes by assessing fees on every membership a brother has in this jurisdiction. Imagine if a brother only belong to one lodge.
I think it would put a hole or two in the budget.
Your point is very well taken. Proper investigations would very likely solve the problems the PGM is concerned about.
Your point is also well taken that a bad man, recognized as such by his Lodge, can demit and join another. Proper investigations would protect against that as well.
But how often do we do proper investigations on Masons seeking plural membership, or who are looking for a new primary Lodge? Ultimately that's the problem.
I know that I was properly investigated by my home Lodge prior to becoming a Mason. Not so with the three Lodges I've joined since. In all three cases those investigations were basically non-existent. Only in the case of my fourth Lodge was a perfunctory investigation justified.
We always do well when we properly Guard the West Gate!
I belong to 4 Lodges. My home Lodge and 3 others in the area I now live in. I am also currently the District Deputy for the 3 Lodges. I felt it important to be a part of and voting member of my Lodges so I had ownership in the groups.
There are several other members also that have the same memberships, and it has contributed greatly to helping all three Lodges function better. We are in a rural area of Central Oregon, where it is 30 miles to everything.
All of us are dedicated to the Craft and only want well functioning harmonious Lodge and we have that. With the constantly declining membership, plural memberships will be essential to Lodge survival.
I've got quite a lot of experience now with both rural and urban Masonry. I'm currently Master of a Lodge located just outside of downtown Seattle, and was Deputy for one of the most rural parts of our State.
From that, I fear that rural Masonry is in a tough spot right now. Young people have been moving away from rural communities in search of better employment for a long time now, impacting our Lodge's ability to attract new Masons. In my extremely rural county we used to have 8 Lodges I believe. We now have 2. Largely because all employment left the tiny towns those Lodges called home.
But, the good news is that travel is so much easier today than it was when all those Lodges were founded. We can travel 30 miles to Lodge if we have to, and those 2 remaining Lodges are thriving.
Plural membership is a double edge knife. May or may not work depending the circumtances. In my personal opinion I do not see the advantage of it. If you want to visit, go visit. If you want to help go, but do it in a 100% capacity not half here and half there. And on top of it it takes time away from other responsibilities like family.
We have to use the ruler wisely.
I think that you are correct, half here/half there, doesn't work at all. If we commit to a Lodge then we all need to, as our Grand Master of Washington says, Be All In. If we can give our all to a Lodge, then we can have a lasting positive impact, if not, then most likely not.
Good day brothers,
I am the new guy. I tend to be over analytical so this is something I have thought about since day 1.
Here in my district most lodges are suffering from lack of
membership let alone active members. Several times in just the last month I have attended meetings where there are more visitors than actual members.
Many of these lodges support each other with members and visitors sitting in the chairs.
Two lodges in my area won’t merge due to personal biases and grudges that are older than I am (37). I suppose that is preserving time honored traditions. haha. There are other issues such as being accessible to disabled members.
Certain egos on both sides are instigating more grudges where I have advised my friends, one of which is a candidate to wait. As they are taking others along with them.
I am going to be direct. This is straight bs.
It has already made me question ‘what am I doing here’,
let alone why would I would support my friends jumping into the fire.
At this rate these lodges will die with the old timers gate keeping, and all the passive narcissism of slightly younger members pouring gasoline on the fire.
I have made every attempt to be as active as I could even before I was initiated. Operating at a capacity above my limits pushing through my postical periods to be there.
I’ll keep going until I cannot regardless, but I have to ask if I should move up the road to a place where these persons are not involved.
Go to one that really care about its Brothers.
I agree. There is no use hanging out in a Lodge one can't enjoy.
It is my strong view that if your Lodge is not offering the experience you seek, and if you can't change it to offer that experience, then the best thing to do is to find a different Lodge that does provide a quality Masonic experience.
Sometimes that requires some travel, but it is worth it.
When I had to make an Interstate move in 2016, and plurally joined an AF&AM Lodge, and maintained my Washington State dues at my home F&AM Lodge, it kept me active in Freemasonry, to a level that just being a chronic visitor to my Idaho lodge from my Home Lodge in Washington would have ever afforded me. When COVID Struck, and literally KILLED my Idaho Lodge, I had no where else to go. Maintaining a Plural membership back home with my home Lodge in Washington allowed me to stay and remain active as a Freemason. Where not having access to a Plural Membership I would have not been able to be as active through those dark times, away from my Home Lodges. I would have been forced to demit without the Plural Membership, and then when my Lodge in Idaho died, where would I be? While I have returned to Washington State in the time since then, I am still a Plural member for the Lodge I currently regularly attend now due to distance from my home Lodge still. Though I am happily back within the same jurisdiction. Plural memberships are needed, and the investigative process does need to be more Masonically focused, rather than individually focused on JUST the man, as it is with new initiates. A plural member should be investigated for his cause and effect and good rapport at his previous Lodge, and not on speculative inquiry as with a New Mason. A letter of Good Standing, Current Dues Card, and some BASIC interview should be had, but not to perhaps the extent or strict adherence to guidelines as with newly initiated Masons. Perhaps have an entirely separate standardized discourse of process with different requirements for being made found favorable to the investigative committees for already made Masons coming through each Lodge's Western Gates. I know SOME Masons feel there should be NO investigative committee as the previous Lodge having made that man a Mason already is by proxy vouching for that man in the simple fact that he is a Mason already! I tend to lean in this direction, but also know there are a few bad apples out there. But those guys usually are known about, and dealt with already within their respective communities.
respectfully disagree, there should always be a vigorous investigation, guarding the gates is a most important job. If it is done right it can save a lodge and Freemasonry a world of hurt .
I agree, candidates for plural membership should not be able to forgo the investigative process.
>>>A plural member should be investigated for his cause and effect and good rapport at his >>>previous Lodge
This is I think a solid idea. A Lodge should look into how the Mason was viewed in his previous Lodge before making him a member.
I don't think that we have a lot of bad apples in our Craft, but we do have a few, and this would help to weed those out.
I have had this circumvented several times, each time was a disaster. I am certain one WM withheld information concerning a Brother who was later suspended. Often people would turn up at other lodges and one would scratch one's head and wonder. I could fill a volume with this kind of shenanigan's.
Not of a plural member, but a regular petitioner....
Many years ago, as a newer Mason, I was put on an investigation committee. The Chairman cut corners, and I went along with it. The fellow we were to be investigating became a Mason, and was later shown to be an unsuitable Mason. Had we done our job properly, we would have known, and he wouldn't have become a Mason.
I certainly learned my lesson from that.
I don't see the overall benefit of plural memberships in areas where there are a concentrated amount of Lodges. In my area I can visit a number of Lodges, share in the fellowship and have no responsibility to that Lodge. I particularly like that. It allows me to focus on my Lodge while still scratching that Masonic 'itch.' To me allowing Masons to have multiple memberships not only strains their cable tow, but also inflates the numbers of Lodges superficially. Not all of these Brothers will be as active as they probably could be if they were members of only one Lodge. If a Brother desires to be a member of another Lodge they should have to show cause as to how they will improve that Lodge, and how holding another dues card will improve them as well. Another thing I will add, as a member of a Lodge our obligations call us to be present. We pick our Lodges because they tend to work with our other factors that make up our 24 inch guage, if the Cable Tow is pulled too tightly then a Brother becomes spurious, and can't rightfully fulfill his obligations. The Lodges he is a member of are harmed, and as a whole, Masonry is harmed.
>>>We pick our Lodges because they tend to work with our other factors that make up our 24 >>>inch guage
I think this points to an important distinction between Lodges in more urban, vs rural areas. In rural areas that probably isn't possible, as there is likely only one Lodge.
But in urban areas choices abound. There are actually two Lodges that I absolutely love in Seattle, about three miles apart from each other. But alas, I could only join one.
Hello, Brethren! My personal experience taught me the pursuit of dual membership isn't a better way to better myself. Either I serve less my Mother Lodge or the lodge I intend to join. Most of it because of schedule conflicts given my circumstance; I work swing shift and doing OT's on weekends. I was so ashamed I withdrew my application.
>>>Either I serve less my Mother Lodge or the lodge I intend to join.
I think that this would be my exact situation as well. If I were to be a member of two Lodges in close proximity to each other I would not be able to give either of them my all, and would therefore not be a positive influence on either of them.
You said it very clearly, MWB Cameron! Thank you!
You may have noticed that a detailed comment has been removed today.
This was done because it violated the content guidelines posted here:
https://emeth.substack.com/p/emeth-content-moderation-policy
Specifically the commenter claimed to be a member of a Lodge(s) when in fact he is currently suspended from the Craft. This was brought to my attention by his Grand Lodge.
The ones that wreak havoc tend to demit and THEN go to another Lodge ...
I didn't think about that while listening to the PGM, but no doubt that must be the case as well.
Great question - and it’s not a one size fits all answer.
First off, lodges may practice from the same standard work within a jurisdiction, but that doesn’t mean they are all the same. It’s time to acknowledge lodge culture will vary. Yes, some lodge mergers may not ever happen because of grudges. But lodge culture should really be considered before two lodges merge.
There are lots of reasons plural members join.
Our lodge emphasizes Masonic education and philosophical discussion. So we have a few plural members that don’t get that from their mother lodge. All good.
But we charge a plural member fee to join our lodge. It’s not free. So a brother has to be serious about it before moving forward.
As always, it comes down to intent. If a bunch of plural members are keeping a week lodge afloat, it should also come along with a commitment to train new masons so they can step away.
A man has one belly button, he should have one membership.
As a Master Mason he can participate in ALL of the labors and many of the privileges of any Lodge that will accept him, including filling a vacant role in almost all situations, for as long as the Lodge needs.
If he chooses to be an officer of a new Lodge, he should transfer his membership, indicating his commitment to THAT Lodge.
Also, if a Master Mason wants to support a Lodge (or many) financially, he can ALWAYS deposit monies into its treasury, I'm certain the Secretary and Treasurer would not refuse the funds.
I do believe we've made Freemasonry too free, as Zane mentioned, some Lodges have a focus on certain things. If a Lodge is having a special event, it's often not free. If the Lodge values attendance, then the Lodge should budget to allow open participation.
Yet, why should a Lodge pay for the education of its membership? University does not pay for it's student's education. If the value of the event (including quality education) has a price, then the member or visitors should pay for it. Maybe a cover charge of some kind is appropriate.
My comment may be a few days late, but I feel it is important to note. The ability to have a plural membership is most absolutely necessary. I submit very few of us started in the lodge we really wanted or envisioned we would be in - because we simply didn’t know what we didn’t know. Most of us come into Freemasonry at the lodge of opportunity because it is logistically easy or we have some sort of legacy. The lodge accepts us and we go through the degrees eventually being raised to MM. It may be a great lodge, but it may not be the ultimate lodge or the only lodge in which we want to observe the craft. Different lodges offer different aspects of brotherly love and observe at different levels the mysteries of Freemasonry. It is not until we are MM’s and can travel that we are able to see and understand the nuances of different lodges, and thus, have the opportunity to find that lodge we always wanted to be a part of that may meet our personal endeavors within Masonry. It is an individual and personal journey through Masonry, not the lodges or anyone else’s. A lodge or individual brother should never take issue with a brother Mason for wanting different experiences through plural memberships. IMO Grand Lodges that do not allow this are not observing the craft in the best interest of its Masons.
First off, I admit that I have not yet read all 56 comments.
I would in spite of that offer a situation in which few, if any of you, would object to plural membership. it happens to be my own. I was made a Mason almost 50 years ago by my home Lodge in Utah. Shortly after which I ended up joining the Navy and went on to the Submarine Service - not a lot of subs in Ut. I visited my home lodge when ever possible, but in practice terms that was about once a year. For a great many reasons, including friends and my Masonic mentor who was SW when I was raised and went to be GM and then settled into being Grand Lecturer, I am still not of a mind to demit. I am now retired in West Seattle and, without the demands of a career, would like to be more active in Masonry again. So for me, becoming a plural member of a WA lodge effectively means I am a member of one lodge that I actually serve, and the other I maintain for sentimental reasons. Maybe some of you would council me to demit, but that is not an acceptable option to me.
BTW - Greetings MW Brother Cameron ;-)