Good Morning MW. This is one of the reasons I am a Life Member of 10 Lodges. I can attend more Stated Meetings each month. As an EA i realized to reach my goal of being a Master Teacher one meeting/month wasn't going to do it very quickly. Many have told me I was trying too hard or a glutton for punishment and I didn't know the Masonic word, "NO" but I persisted and knew the word, "KNOW". I soon was known as a "Traveling Man" which lead to my getting "the chicken" at my first Grand Lodge to take with me on my travels and get a picture of the Bothers holding the chicken. I soon found out who had a sense of humor and who did not.
While I would not personally adopt your approach to this, I do think that many Brothers are looking for more Masonry. I think that our refusal to actually provide Masonry in many of our Lodges contributes to poor retention, and poor attendance. So I understand your approach.
I think it was wise to make clear that meeting more often is ONLY successful as part of a larger model. If there are few programs or just fellowship they can get elsewhere (if they even are looking for that), more meetings just means less attendance as people instinctively realize they're wasting their time attending every single one.
On the other hand, fewer meetings can mean BETTER attendance as a general rule if the Lodge is neither exceptional nor dysfunctional. This seems to be true in England and in newer Lodges in New York, where we find smaller Lodges (under 50 members) that make fewer meetings more special with events and means. They can afford to meet more often, but it's harder to sustain high quality communications if there are too many of them.
In modern America and in many other places, church attendance is almost nonexistent. Belonging to weekly clubs or bowling teams is almost nonexistent across the board. If we want to meet weekly for a Lodge, there must be something REALLY, REALLY special about it -- and it's a LOT more work to do so.
If there is a team with enough commitment and energy, go for it. If there isn't, maybe they are meeting too often. It's all relative in the end.
Oh yes, adding meetings will only work if those meetings give men a compelling reason to attend. Otherwise it will just be more of the same, and if the current standard in a Lodge is bad, more bad helps nothing.
I also do not disagree that fewer meetings can also work. There are two exceptional Lodges in my Jurisdiction that meet quarterly. Both special interest Lodges.
But it seems to me that the default, at least in my Jurisdiction is less. Elect a lazy assed Master? Move from two to one meetings a month. Attendance falling? Move from two to one meeting a month. Some holiday or another falls near a Lodge meeting so some guys can't attend? Change the bylaws to go dark that month.
Less might actually be better given our Lodge's unique circumstances. But we can only know that if we experiment. Just defaulting to less is not good.
We should experiment with more. If more isn't well liked, experiment with less. Experiment until we figure out what it optimal for our Lodge.
I also think that if a Lodge does experiment with more, it has to put a very strict fence around those new meetings, through the adoption of standing rules. The WM 'really needs' to read that letter from Grand Lodge at our educational meeting? Too bad, doing so is prevented by our standing rules. The Secretary 'really needs' us to just spend five minutes taking care of this bit of emergent business? Too bad. Our Standing rules prevent us from doing any business at an educational meeting. If the tiniest crack is allowed to form in these new meetings to allow business in, eventually it will become a flood and we will be faced with weekly business meetings.
I have always advocated three meetings a month. WM opens one meeting for business ,
S.W.. opens a meeting for education, and J.W. opens a meeting for compassion and welfare.
When W.M. opens meeting, he summarizes what happened in the two other meetings. All officers in district attend appropriate meeting, ie, S.W.., meet together, J.W., meet together.. I do think we presently have too many operative lodes, fewer foster district communications. Every one wants to be known as q member of an active lodge, not one which is failing
I agree with you that in a lot of areas, we have too many Lodges for the number of our Masons. When membership very steeply declined after the massive growth following the World Wars, the number of our Lodges didn't decline at the same rate. We therefore have more Lodges than Masons to support them. In my Jurisdiction anyway, and in my view.
Eventually however we will reach equilibrium.
But, I also think that we can, and should, look at creating new Lodges.
I know that these two things seem contrary to each other, but I'll try to explain what I mean.
If a Lodge can not meet the needs of its members, and can not be changed for whatever reason, and is unable to retain the new Masons it Makes, well then that Lodge needs to go away. It is harming the Craft and should not remain. But that doesn't mean that the good guys in that Lodge, the guys who want to provide Masonry, and who can retain Masons shouldn't create a new Lodge in its stead, putting their vision into practice. Perhaps a smaller, more focused Lodge.
I am sure most of my colleagues are fed up reading and listening to my comments and thinking "Oh no, not another Scottish story", and that it is irrelevant to masonry in the USA, but I feel it is useful to know what happens in other countries and enjoy sharing my knowledge from my Scottish connection and visits.
First lets dispel one often argument I often get. There is just as much "alternative" activity opportunities in Scotland as there is here, so I believe it is reasonable for comparison. One point of difference to note is that people in Scotland love to "safely" go out (walking and busing) at night and it does not have the terrible traffic that we have in most of the USA and certainly large cities.
Most Scottish lodges meet twice a month. I addition some meet either every week or once a month for education, ritual and other masonic practice. Many have a fully functioning bar and it is open every day to members and family. Family activities are also regular and they have a number of special get togethers throughout the year. The stated meetings are typically shorter leaving more time for their meal after the meeting (HARMONY), which is still masonic oriented.
Another practice that is encouraged and followed is visiting other lodges, which adds to the number of masonic meetings that they regularly attend.
This seems to be a successful practice as it appears to provide for all their needs and interest as the percentage of eligible men that are Freemasons in Scotland is over 2% whereas in the USA it is less than 0.7%.
The proof is I think in the numbers. The fact that Scotland has well over double the per capita population within Masonry is something that we should pay attention to here, and should lead us to try and emulate their practices.
It is the same with the example set by the Mexican State Grand Lodges. Average attendance in those Lodges (which generally meet weekly) 50-60% of members. Average attendance in our Lodges 10-15%.
Good evening we meet 7 times a year and 2 times a month for Lodge of instruction its hard enough to get guys to turn up for LOI and a Lodge night also the cost of the temple use which is about £45 a evening and the price of a meal on Lodge night plus drinks and the raffle.
I think it would be very hard to get people to turn up.
I've learned from much of the feedback I've received that this idea likely would not work in England for various reasons including those you mention. Most of our Lodges operate quite a lot differently here in the US.
Fraternal greetings, MW Sir. I like this idea, and I’m proud to say that Silverdale Lodge No. 311 meets every Monday unless it’s a holiday. We use this time to practice for degrees, fellowship and enjoy a meal together. I’m not sure if this is what you had in mind; however, for Silverdale Lodge meeting weekly works well for us, and it strengthens our relationships among friends and Brothers.
That is what I have in mind! And while reading your comment, I can't help but also remember that Silverdale Lodge is the only Lodge I've ever been in with a Lodge room filled to absolute capacity for a Stated Meeting. Success doesn't lie!
As the current WM of Bremerton Lodge No. 117, I am going to bring up the idea of meeting weekly with my Brothers. Currently 117 meets twice a Month, once for our Stated on the 2nd Thursday of the Month and the week prior to our Stated on a Friday for a planning meeting. As long as the Temple is available, I would like to meet more often.
But some guys like the summer off. Last year I did try to get the lodge to run extra LOI during the summer with everyone welcome I was told we would need a change of byelaws which I thought was wrong. We had to call it a practice night in some ones garage only 4 turned up
Many of our Lodges go dark in the summer here as well, which I've always found to be problematic. It breaks Masons out of the habit of attending Lodge, and then it takes a while to get them back into that habit. Unfortunately, I'm now seeing more and more Lodges in my area deciding to go dark around Christmas as well.
Good evening I have just listened to your podcast about Good men. I once thought about black balling a new guy because of the brother who put his name forward. I talked to a senior brother about my thoughts about putting in a black ball in the ballot he said that you should never judge someone by the brother who has put his name forward. But I also think it can work both way
The Lodge in my hometown has taken to holding a Christmas dinner for Masons and their families, and that has proven to be quite popular. I believe that they had over eighty attend this year. It's a good idea I think.
Good Morning MW. This is one of the reasons I am a Life Member of 10 Lodges. I can attend more Stated Meetings each month. As an EA i realized to reach my goal of being a Master Teacher one meeting/month wasn't going to do it very quickly. Many have told me I was trying too hard or a glutton for punishment and I didn't know the Masonic word, "NO" but I persisted and knew the word, "KNOW". I soon was known as a "Traveling Man" which lead to my getting "the chicken" at my first Grand Lodge to take with me on my travels and get a picture of the Bothers holding the chicken. I soon found out who had a sense of humor and who did not.
While I would not personally adopt your approach to this, I do think that many Brothers are looking for more Masonry. I think that our refusal to actually provide Masonry in many of our Lodges contributes to poor retention, and poor attendance. So I understand your approach.
I think it was wise to make clear that meeting more often is ONLY successful as part of a larger model. If there are few programs or just fellowship they can get elsewhere (if they even are looking for that), more meetings just means less attendance as people instinctively realize they're wasting their time attending every single one.
On the other hand, fewer meetings can mean BETTER attendance as a general rule if the Lodge is neither exceptional nor dysfunctional. This seems to be true in England and in newer Lodges in New York, where we find smaller Lodges (under 50 members) that make fewer meetings more special with events and means. They can afford to meet more often, but it's harder to sustain high quality communications if there are too many of them.
In modern America and in many other places, church attendance is almost nonexistent. Belonging to weekly clubs or bowling teams is almost nonexistent across the board. If we want to meet weekly for a Lodge, there must be something REALLY, REALLY special about it -- and it's a LOT more work to do so.
If there is a team with enough commitment and energy, go for it. If there isn't, maybe they are meeting too often. It's all relative in the end.
Oh yes, adding meetings will only work if those meetings give men a compelling reason to attend. Otherwise it will just be more of the same, and if the current standard in a Lodge is bad, more bad helps nothing.
I also do not disagree that fewer meetings can also work. There are two exceptional Lodges in my Jurisdiction that meet quarterly. Both special interest Lodges.
But it seems to me that the default, at least in my Jurisdiction is less. Elect a lazy assed Master? Move from two to one meetings a month. Attendance falling? Move from two to one meeting a month. Some holiday or another falls near a Lodge meeting so some guys can't attend? Change the bylaws to go dark that month.
Less might actually be better given our Lodge's unique circumstances. But we can only know that if we experiment. Just defaulting to less is not good.
We should experiment with more. If more isn't well liked, experiment with less. Experiment until we figure out what it optimal for our Lodge.
I also think that if a Lodge does experiment with more, it has to put a very strict fence around those new meetings, through the adoption of standing rules. The WM 'really needs' to read that letter from Grand Lodge at our educational meeting? Too bad, doing so is prevented by our standing rules. The Secretary 'really needs' us to just spend five minutes taking care of this bit of emergent business? Too bad. Our Standing rules prevent us from doing any business at an educational meeting. If the tiniest crack is allowed to form in these new meetings to allow business in, eventually it will become a flood and we will be faced with weekly business meetings.
I have always advocated three meetings a month. WM opens one meeting for business ,
S.W.. opens a meeting for education, and J.W. opens a meeting for compassion and welfare.
When W.M. opens meeting, he summarizes what happened in the two other meetings. All officers in district attend appropriate meeting, ie, S.W.., meet together, J.W., meet together.. I do think we presently have too many operative lodes, fewer foster district communications. Every one wants to be known as q member of an active lodge, not one which is failing
Bob Decker
s.
w.
I agree with you that in a lot of areas, we have too many Lodges for the number of our Masons. When membership very steeply declined after the massive growth following the World Wars, the number of our Lodges didn't decline at the same rate. We therefore have more Lodges than Masons to support them. In my Jurisdiction anyway, and in my view.
Eventually however we will reach equilibrium.
But, I also think that we can, and should, look at creating new Lodges.
I know that these two things seem contrary to each other, but I'll try to explain what I mean.
If a Lodge can not meet the needs of its members, and can not be changed for whatever reason, and is unable to retain the new Masons it Makes, well then that Lodge needs to go away. It is harming the Craft and should not remain. But that doesn't mean that the good guys in that Lodge, the guys who want to provide Masonry, and who can retain Masons shouldn't create a new Lodge in its stead, putting their vision into practice. Perhaps a smaller, more focused Lodge.
I am sure most of my colleagues are fed up reading and listening to my comments and thinking "Oh no, not another Scottish story", and that it is irrelevant to masonry in the USA, but I feel it is useful to know what happens in other countries and enjoy sharing my knowledge from my Scottish connection and visits.
First lets dispel one often argument I often get. There is just as much "alternative" activity opportunities in Scotland as there is here, so I believe it is reasonable for comparison. One point of difference to note is that people in Scotland love to "safely" go out (walking and busing) at night and it does not have the terrible traffic that we have in most of the USA and certainly large cities.
Most Scottish lodges meet twice a month. I addition some meet either every week or once a month for education, ritual and other masonic practice. Many have a fully functioning bar and it is open every day to members and family. Family activities are also regular and they have a number of special get togethers throughout the year. The stated meetings are typically shorter leaving more time for their meal after the meeting (HARMONY), which is still masonic oriented.
Another practice that is encouraged and followed is visiting other lodges, which adds to the number of masonic meetings that they regularly attend.
This seems to be a successful practice as it appears to provide for all their needs and interest as the percentage of eligible men that are Freemasons in Scotland is over 2% whereas in the USA it is less than 0.7%.
The proof is I think in the numbers. The fact that Scotland has well over double the per capita population within Masonry is something that we should pay attention to here, and should lead us to try and emulate their practices.
It is the same with the example set by the Mexican State Grand Lodges. Average attendance in those Lodges (which generally meet weekly) 50-60% of members. Average attendance in our Lodges 10-15%.
Numbers tell a story.
Good evening we meet 7 times a year and 2 times a month for Lodge of instruction its hard enough to get guys to turn up for LOI and a Lodge night also the cost of the temple use which is about £45 a evening and the price of a meal on Lodge night plus drinks and the raffle.
I think it would be very hard to get people to turn up.
I've learned from much of the feedback I've received that this idea likely would not work in England for various reasons including those you mention. Most of our Lodges operate quite a lot differently here in the US.
Fraternal greetings, MW Sir. I like this idea, and I’m proud to say that Silverdale Lodge No. 311 meets every Monday unless it’s a holiday. We use this time to practice for degrees, fellowship and enjoy a meal together. I’m not sure if this is what you had in mind; however, for Silverdale Lodge meeting weekly works well for us, and it strengthens our relationships among friends and Brothers.
Have a blessed President’s Day🤝🏼
Fraternally and V/r,
Todd
That is what I have in mind! And while reading your comment, I can't help but also remember that Silverdale Lodge is the only Lodge I've ever been in with a Lodge room filled to absolute capacity for a Stated Meeting. Success doesn't lie!
As the current WM of Bremerton Lodge No. 117, I am going to bring up the idea of meeting weekly with my Brothers. Currently 117 meets twice a Month, once for our Stated on the 2nd Thursday of the Month and the week prior to our Stated on a Friday for a planning meeting. As long as the Temple is available, I would like to meet more often.
Awesome!
My self I would like to meet all year round
But some guys like the summer off. Last year I did try to get the lodge to run extra LOI during the summer with everyone welcome I was told we would need a change of byelaws which I thought was wrong. We had to call it a practice night in some ones garage only 4 turned up
Many of our Lodges go dark in the summer here as well, which I've always found to be problematic. It breaks Masons out of the habit of attending Lodge, and then it takes a while to get them back into that habit. Unfortunately, I'm now seeing more and more Lodges in my area deciding to go dark around Christmas as well.
Good evening I have just listened to your podcast about Good men. I once thought about black balling a new guy because of the brother who put his name forward. I talked to a senior brother about my thoughts about putting in a black ball in the ballot he said that you should never judge someone by the brother who has put his name forward. But I also think it can work both way
We tend to have what we call an open and close dine with our wife's and friends at a white table when it's Christmas . It helps to keep people coming
The Lodge in my hometown has taken to holding a Christmas dinner for Masons and their families, and that has proven to be quite popular. I believe that they had over eighty attend this year. It's a good idea I think.