You are up and going early... it's only 5:30 AM here and I've been up all night with a bathroom problem!
I certainly think (because I've watched in first hand) is that you get some guys getting old in thee Lodge and their doctor tells them they can't drive at night anymore.
A few years back (8 or so) a guy was put in the East because... just because! He had been a dues paying Mason (but not an attending one) since he was 21 (in Texas). One evening after Lodge I overheard a conversation in the parking lot with him telling a couple of other "mainly Shriner" Masons that he is changing the Lodge meetings from 7:30 PM to 3:00 PM... no discussion or vote. Period.
Very shortly later the great Mexican membership we had started remitting and this coupled with him and a bunch of the older members dying left our little Lodge with fewer than 20 men and an average age of 76 years!
The Mexicans (even bank managers and other professionals) have to work... they can't leave at around 2 PM to go to Lodge... so here we are.
I have done everything (including demitting myself) but the best they've done is gone to 5 PM... still no younger Mexicans and the numbers decrease. I've brought a new guy in and have attended his Degrees. He is 36 and a computer whiz and travels a lot and this will get him friends in new places but with the knowledge being imparted... a lot of Tylers are not going to admit him.
I have suggested (also years back) that if they want a daylight Lodge... move it to Saturday... one guy pshawed that saying, "He takes his wife out on Saturday night"?... He's retired and everything is going here 7 nights a week!
The new man in the East is 86 and he has got the Lodge turned around a bit and actually asked a couple of instigators to Demit... no loss... and he is trying.
As far as the merging thing here... the closest Lodge is 50+ miles away and in NW Guadalajara... AND they meet at 7:30 PM... AND they have lots of young guys in the Lodge. I have decided to go back... not to add a member but to try again to wake these guys up... I hope I am in shape for Wednesday afternoon at 5:00 PM!!!
I would suggest that you sell the nice big shiny hall you are now in and go to the other building on another night... not merge! BUT DON'T GO DAYLIGHT!
I don't know the rules down in your jurisdiction, but changing the meeting time on a whim is verboten here in washington. It is in our bylaws what our meeting times are, and meeting at any other time or place is a violation of the bylaws and can put either the lodge's charter in danger, if not bringing up charges for unmasonic conduct. If you want to change a meeting time, you have to get a 2/3rd vote after due and timely notice (30 days) for approval to change the bylaws, submit the changes to grand lodge for approval, and then you can meet at some other time. But in now way can one guy decide, meh, we'll meet when I say we meet.
Years ago, I witnessed a Worshipful Master who kept pushing to move Temple Board meetings to different locations so that he could 'forget' to tell someone who would challenge him where the meeting was going to take place. That didn't turn out well for him.
I also, as GM, encountered a WM who was canceling Stated Meetings so that the Lodge could not hold an election, as he objected to the man who would be elected to WM. That didn't work out for him (or the JW who was in on it) well either.
Once in awhile it is a real pain when we bump up against the impossibility to cancel a Stated Meeting in our Jurisdiction, such as when the Stated falls on a major holiday, but those rules exist to prevent this kind of craziness.
I hope that you were able to get the plumbing problem sorted!
>>>He is 36 and a computer whiz and travels a lot and this will get him friends in new places >>>but with the knowledge being imparted... a lot of Tylers are not going to admit him.
This is a really sad thing that I encountered once years ago. After a Lodge's Stated Meeting, a number of us were sitting around in the dining room, just B.S.ing. I don't remember why I had traveled to that Lodge, as it is an extremely long way away, or exactly what we were talking about, but at some point the Lodge Secretary, a man who has been a Mason for a lot of years, piped up and said that he had never visited a Lodge other than his own.
When I asked him why, he said that his Lodge never required him to learn anything to prove proficiency, so he was afraid that whatever questions would be asked in order to prove he was a Mason, he would be unable to answer.
He was freaked out that he would be denied, and humiliated by that denial.
A couple points, Most Worshipful. First, it may just be that that big beautiful lodge in the city is WHY you're recruiting younger men. Out of sight, out of mind.
My old stomping grounds has, I believe four lodges that share one building, the 6th and Warren temple in Bremerton. According to everything I know, it is NOT a match made in heaven. When you have multiple lodges sharing the same building, always with at least one strong personality in each lodge, there seems to be some serious problems remembering that our goal is "who can best serve and best agree."
Things said by brothers lead me to believe strongly that the contentious nature of that relationship is a serious issue at times.
Then there's the experience I have had in two different states, where even when a lodge is circling the drain, people that haven't sat in lodge in a decade will show up out of the woodwork to vote down a motion to merge.
This isn't a problem just with lodges, several NPOs that I have been involved with over the years suffer from problems of identity. Not lacking one, but a very strong affinity for one.
The Society for Creative Anachronism for example, the local kingdom to you, AnTir, has finally birthed some principalities, but they need to break about four ways more, honestly. At it's biggest, it covered Washington, most of Idaho, Oregon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It still holds those lands, some under principalities that are about to break off as new kingdoms. The core kingdom will stay as Wa, Or, and ID. Even that is too big. Imagine you won crown tournament, and are now King. You are expected to visit all of your realm. That means driving or flying to something like 60 different Baronies in the six months of your rein for events.
There's a filk song that addresses this, to the tune of "Downtown" You can triple your phone bill, and cripple your car when you WIN CROWN, things will be great when you WIN CROWN, everyone's waiting on you.
BUT here's the rub. Everyone knows that even the main part that is left, is still too big, but each area wants to be the one to keep the name and the history. The I 5 corridor and west, could easily be it's own kingdom, and would be happy to do so, if they could stay AnTir and let the rest of the kingdom break off. Oregon says pretty much the same thing, though finally most of OR is breaking off I think, to become Summits. Eastern WA and ID could break off, but would only do so if they kept the name...
Lodges suffer from the same maladies. Especially if they're lodges of long standing, with a proud tradition and history.
>>>it may just be that that big beautiful lodge in the city is WHY you're recruiting younger >>>men. Out of sight, out of mind.
I do think that is the case with some of the men we attract. But with others I think it is simply a matter of being closest to their home. Undoubtedly though, you're right, we would lose a mighty big 'billboard' if we were to sell the building.
>>>it is NOT a match made in heaven. When you have multiple lodges sharing the same >>>building, always with at least one strong personality in each lodge, there seems to be >>>some serious problems remembering that our goal is "who can best serve and best >>>agree."
I'm sure that this is true as well. While we are the only Lodge meeting in our building we have our share of appendant and concordant bodies.
Through the many years I've served on the Temple Board (I'm one of those weird guys who enjoys Temple Boards, so have spent a lot of time on it) our largest issue has been the maintenance of the building, as it has to be kept nice for our professional tenants. But a very close second has been trying to get these various organizations getting along and not trying (knowingly or unknowingly) to harm each other or gain some sort of advantage.
Saving Masonry I hope, is at the heart of all considerations when we consider our lodges. Unfortunately, that is not always the case with some lodges.
I am a plural member in three blue lodges at the moment. One lodge holds a festive board and meets 6 times a year in a building that we don't own. As a matter of fact, we don't even pay rent. The cost of the meal, paid for by the brethren each meeting, covers the rental cost of the hall.
In another lodge, we are financially solvent with good investments but we pay a big rent each month. Our returns on the investments cover that rent, and then some extra, but it's a big monthly expense.
Another lodge that I just joined, rents the Seattle Valley Scottish rite building, which is a relatively small rent.
Of the three, the lodge that rents in the Scottish Rite in the most vibrant. The significant others are at every meeting night. They entertain themselves in the dining hall with games, dancing, and a dinner. It has the largest attendance of any lodge I have ever visited and the brethren are all very engaged and excited to be part of the Masonic family.
The lodge with the high rental expense, used to own a building. They sold it a number of years back due to the age and condition of the building, as they couldn't afford the upkeep. The current place we rent is ok, not perfect, but it is a nice facility.
A number of months ago, one brother introduced the idea of buying a piece of land, or an existing property, and becoming an owner and landlord for renters, where we could have more control over our building but also bring in revenue. Our current lease is up in 2026 and as we don't have a building yet, we started to explore the options of a meeting space to hold us over while we seek the right place for us.
We have approached a few lodges in the area about renting from them. One of which was initially interested at first, but then change their mind. The reason? Some members go scared. They have a small number of Masons who attend regularly. We have a decent amount who attend our meetings. They were worried that our lodge was "stronger" than theirs and thought we might end up attracting more members than they would, in that same area, and as a result, "take over" their lodge and building. (They own their building).
That sentiment brings to light a concern and consideration for mergers. This of course was your original subject on merging lodges.
In my experience, although we are all Masons, each lodge has its own distinct characteristics and the members are attracted to, and stay, for that special bond they feel. Mergers can mess with that identity of a lodge and as a result, can create potential problems.
Here is what I suggest. If the distance and the dues do not place undue stress or load on a Mason, why not become a plural member? Your financial and masonic contributions help to strengthen the lodge while allowing it to keep its identity.
At some point lodges will continue to decline and society today does not produce the kind of adults that will support our lodges. We will all face mergers or closures altogether.
>>>Of the three, the lodge that rents in the Scottish Rite in the most vibrant. The significant >>>others are at every meeting night. They entertain themselves in the dining hall with >>>games, dancing, and a dinner. It has the largest attendance of any lodge I have ever >>>visited and the brethren are all very engaged and excited to be part of the Masonic >>>family.
In my experience, this is one of the real keys to making a truly successful and vibrant Lodge. Those Lodges that don't really include wives and families don't seem to be nearly as successful as those that do.
And honestly, that makes sense to me. Why wouldn't a man be more excited about attending Lodge if he knew that his wife and kids would have fun going with him?
I do think that part of this is societal change. 75 years ago, divorce wasn't a super common thing. A husband and wife might have not liked each other, but stayed together due to societal pressure. That husband might have wanted to spend time at the Lodge without his wife, and she might have been really glad to be rid of him for awhile.
But, today, marriages like that tend to end in divorce.
That's a pretty big change, and I wonder if Lodges that don't make an effort to include the family haven't recognized it.
I see a valuable idea here. Worth exploring but I see too many personality conflicts for it to happen. Robert Morris will become weak through old age attrition. I believe I am their youngest member and I haven't attended lodge in years.
Agreed, unless something changes, Robert Morris will weaken due to aging membership.
Likewise, unless something changes, Centralia will weaken due to real estate expenses growing faster than real estate income.
Those things could change, or maybe not. Seeing those storm clouds on the horizon though, now is the time to address them, not after the Lodges become weak.
I agree. I just predict that robert Morris will fail first. just like chehalis 28 did, at which time they will beg centralia to take them in. By that time hopefully centralia will have solved their inflation issues without merging with Robert morris. Perhaps by renovation of the commercial spaces to something more revenue worthy than a couple professional offices.
Centralia is working on increasing building revenue. The first floor is pretty much set, as it is a really nice space, and governed by a long term lease. But, on the third floor we have a lot of wasted space, and are moving forward on a project to turn that wasted space into a co-working office facility.
The second floor offices are in rough shape, and not governed by a long term lease. We've been discussing making improvements to those spaces so that we can increase rents in turn.
Lastly, we are pursuing event rentals of the Lodge spaces, contracting that work out as it is clear that we'll never manage it as a Lodge or Temple Board.
That said, the actual inflation of costs we are seeing is truly scary. Insurance, taxes, utilities, all the rest.
Believe it or not, Jack, there are actually 5 members younger than you, although like you, none of them are active. Two of them are two of four Brothers who joined Morton Lodge in a one-day conferral back in 1999, another one works an odd shift and can’t attend. Yet another’s out of state.
The one member who is between us in age is currently the Lodge’s Junior Warden (Abe Meyer.) He’s a good man and a great asset to the Lodge, but between him and the other two Principal officers, it’s not enough to sustain a Lodge in the long-term. There are only 14 members below 60, and 88 above 70. Of the 14, only Abe is an officer, and I show up as a sideliner but I’m too busy to be active.
It's really sad, as it’s an excellent Lodge that runs efficiently and properly. Attendance is among the highest in Southwest Washington.
There are 5 Lodge owned Masonic buildings within the Seattle City limits housing 12 Lodges and Seattle Valley Scottish Rite, 6 blocks North of Seattle in Shoreline, housing 3 additional Lodges. There is one tenant Lodge in the process of entering into a long term lease for space they’ll use exclusively.
I’m a member of two Seattle building owning Lodges, Seattle Valley, one tenant Lodge, and three York Rite bodies that are also tenants. I’m also member and Past Master of a rural building owning Lodge.
In my experience, building ownership is a burden that is disproportionately shouldered by a few brothers and often diverts energy from our most important purpose, making and mentoring new Masons and Masonic leaders. Our biggest obstacles, in my view, is our fear of loss of control to multi-Lodge or Grand Lodge entities.
I fear we’re not doing right by our predecessors or our successors because we’re afraid to change.
>>>In my experience, building ownership is a burden that is disproportionately shouldered by >>>a few brothers and often diverts energy from our most important purpose, making and >>>mentoring new Masons and Masonic leaders.
I truly love our significant buildings. Sultan-Monroe, Centralia, Doric, 5th and Warren, Kelso to name a few. I wish that we could keep them all forever.
But, I recognize that you are right. In most cases they divert far too much energy that could be better utilized on our Masonic endeavors instead of our Real Estate endeavors.
>>>I fear we’re not doing right by our predecessors or our successors because we’re afraid >>>to change.
Undoubtedly we tend to ignore problems until they are far too large to solve. We need to stop that trend so that we can address future problems from a position of strength.
“Building ownership is a burden that is disproportionately shouldered by a few brothers and often diverts energy from our most important purpose, making and mentoring new Masons and Masonic leaders.” You’re not wrong, VWB Dean, but at the same time, I’ve seen Lodges who rent from the general public have problems crop up when rents increase or building ownership changes and the new owners have different plans for the building that doesn’t include your Lodge as a renter. I’ve seen that happen with a local Lodge, and in the end, it killed that Lodge when they had to move, then moved into a Lodge they hated (yes, I know, real Brotherhood there) then moved into a divided work room in a church which essentially was akin to holding Lodge in a broom closet. They didn’t care, as long as they were out of the hated Lodge, and it spiraled down to where they consolidated with another Lodge. It was frustrating to see a Lodge crumble that way. While that isn’t common, it does happen, and it’s something that every Lodge who rents should pay attention to as they work with their landlords.
“Our biggest obstacles, in my view, is our fear of loss of control to multi-Lodge or Grand Lodge entities.” Just like I mentioned above, two Lodges meeting in a common building can present a slew of challenges.
But the bottom line here is that you’re right, a Lodge’s most important purpose is indeed making and mentoring new Masons and Masonic leaders. But you have to do it SOMEWHERE. And that somewhere is a building of some sort. Is it yours, or is it someone else’s? You can’t get past that.
Brother, you always bring thoughtful points to the table, and I appreciate that.
The way I see it, one of the toughest parts of merging Lodges is figuring out the officer line. When two strong Lodges come together—each with dedicated officers who’ve put in years of work—it can create a difficult squeeze. A Senior Deacon who thought he was four years from the East may suddenly be looking at a much longer path. A motivated Steward might feel that the wait just grew twice as long.
Even with the best intentions, good men can end up feeling set back or overlooked, and that can be hard. If a merger truly strengthens Masonry and benefits the Brothers, then it may still be worth the effort. But we should be honest that it can stir up emotions and that some feelings will need gentle handling along the way.
One Lodge that I'm extremely familiar with has had a lot of Lodges merge into it over the years, like five or six Lodges have merged into it. And those mergers have seemed to be successful.
In contrast, lots of mergers elsewhere in the Jurisdiction seem to fail.
The one thing I've noticed that this Lodge does is 'braid' the officer line when it merges. The WM will be from one Lodge, the SW from the other, and so on, all the way down. That ensures that both Lodges are fully represented and encourages the new Brothers to buy in.
WB Brunk did nail it, though, when he said, "The way I see it, one of the toughest parts of merging Lodges is figuring out the officer line. When two strong Lodges come together—each with dedicated officers who’ve put in years of work—it can create a difficult squeeze." But in the Lodge you're thinking of, that squeeze (or as you say, Braid) worked well. That's a key reason why those consolidations were successful.
The difference between the Braid you speak of and the Squeeze Joel speaks of would be the Masonic age and status of the officers/brethren of the two Lodges. In the Braid case, most of those Brothers were Past Masters of their original Lodges, so the harmony works better, as they've "been there, done that." But for the Squeeze case, those Brothers might be new Masons who are going through the chairs for the first time. This would, as he says, kick out the time it takes to get into the East, hence the "Squeeze."
I think this Braid/Squeeze is a big factor in a consolidation of two strong Lodges, especially since the strong Lodges will more likely create a squeeze than a Braid of Past Masters.
The issue that may come up would be lodge culture. Two different but strong lodges probably indicates two strong cultural ties to the men within the lodge. There might be some clashes that could occur if the two cultures don't really mix well.
MWB Bailey, your point is one I have heard discussed at fairly great length by a number of Brothers, in Seattle and around the districts. I think it is an excellent idea, if we could only find common ground. It is something I hope we might consider out of Brotherly Love and Relief rather than necessity and urgency.
We each are obligated to put the needs of the Craft and our Brethren above our own egos and feelings to achieve what will promote the greatest success and prosperity for all involved. It is addressed often in our standard work and is explicitly outlined in our obligations and the tools we are given.
I think if we are able to come to that discussion on the Level, discussing ways for it to benefit all involved it could be a great way to preserve and grow each of our Lodges. If we were to bolster each others efforts and events how much more could we achieve? Maybe we would be adding Lodges to the roster rather than relegating them to the archives.
One of the fastest ways to run a prospect or a Brother off is to promote disharmony rather than Brotherly Love and Affection, yet it seems fairly common to be competing with rather than supporting each other in our endeavors. I hope we can get to the point where our Lodges can promote "the best the Craft has to offer" without detracting from other Lodges who also feel similarly. I don't think I have seen anything take the light out of a Prospects eyes faster than hearing the "them vs us" approach to the Craft immediately after hearing about our core tenets of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth at great length.
Why should we struggle to find support, host, and sponsor events or degrees on our own, when we might instead find ways of helping each other grow and build. Perhaps we might improve the quality of experience, education, and degrees that our future candidates and Brethren receive, reducing the human and financial capital required by all involved in the process?
Excellent post Brother! I'd love to see this discussed in an upcoming R&G forum if you're open to it. Perhaps we might find ways where each Lodge could feel seen, heard, and represented in a scenario like the one you describe here.
Yes, two weak Lodges end up as a slightly larger weak Lodge, doubling their problems. There are usually reasons they are weak, and numbers are rarely the issue.
An alternative in the space you posited would be for the rural Lodge to become a tenant of the one with the better-situated building.
IMO, we need more, smaller Lodges. Apart from covering geographic conveniences, there needs to be a variety of Lodge cultures to attract and retain people of different personalities and interests -- and even meeting time availability. And everyone can be assured a leadership role if they desire, without waiting in line for a decade, as was once the case.
In other words, I'd rather see several healthy Lodges sharing spaces and working together, maintaining their own identities and roles within the larger Masonic community.
You are up and going early... it's only 5:30 AM here and I've been up all night with a bathroom problem!
I certainly think (because I've watched in first hand) is that you get some guys getting old in thee Lodge and their doctor tells them they can't drive at night anymore.
A few years back (8 or so) a guy was put in the East because... just because! He had been a dues paying Mason (but not an attending one) since he was 21 (in Texas). One evening after Lodge I overheard a conversation in the parking lot with him telling a couple of other "mainly Shriner" Masons that he is changing the Lodge meetings from 7:30 PM to 3:00 PM... no discussion or vote. Period.
Very shortly later the great Mexican membership we had started remitting and this coupled with him and a bunch of the older members dying left our little Lodge with fewer than 20 men and an average age of 76 years!
The Mexicans (even bank managers and other professionals) have to work... they can't leave at around 2 PM to go to Lodge... so here we are.
I have done everything (including demitting myself) but the best they've done is gone to 5 PM... still no younger Mexicans and the numbers decrease. I've brought a new guy in and have attended his Degrees. He is 36 and a computer whiz and travels a lot and this will get him friends in new places but with the knowledge being imparted... a lot of Tylers are not going to admit him.
I have suggested (also years back) that if they want a daylight Lodge... move it to Saturday... one guy pshawed that saying, "He takes his wife out on Saturday night"?... He's retired and everything is going here 7 nights a week!
The new man in the East is 86 and he has got the Lodge turned around a bit and actually asked a couple of instigators to Demit... no loss... and he is trying.
As far as the merging thing here... the closest Lodge is 50+ miles away and in NW Guadalajara... AND they meet at 7:30 PM... AND they have lots of young guys in the Lodge. I have decided to go back... not to add a member but to try again to wake these guys up... I hope I am in shape for Wednesday afternoon at 5:00 PM!!!
I would suggest that you sell the nice big shiny hall you are now in and go to the other building on another night... not merge! BUT DON'T GO DAYLIGHT!
I don't know the rules down in your jurisdiction, but changing the meeting time on a whim is verboten here in washington. It is in our bylaws what our meeting times are, and meeting at any other time or place is a violation of the bylaws and can put either the lodge's charter in danger, if not bringing up charges for unmasonic conduct. If you want to change a meeting time, you have to get a 2/3rd vote after due and timely notice (30 days) for approval to change the bylaws, submit the changes to grand lodge for approval, and then you can meet at some other time. But in now way can one guy decide, meh, we'll meet when I say we meet.
Years ago, I witnessed a Worshipful Master who kept pushing to move Temple Board meetings to different locations so that he could 'forget' to tell someone who would challenge him where the meeting was going to take place. That didn't turn out well for him.
I also, as GM, encountered a WM who was canceling Stated Meetings so that the Lodge could not hold an election, as he objected to the man who would be elected to WM. That didn't work out for him (or the JW who was in on it) well either.
Once in awhile it is a real pain when we bump up against the impossibility to cancel a Stated Meeting in our Jurisdiction, such as when the Stated falls on a major holiday, but those rules exist to prevent this kind of craziness.
I hope that you were able to get the plumbing problem sorted!
>>>He is 36 and a computer whiz and travels a lot and this will get him friends in new places >>>but with the knowledge being imparted... a lot of Tylers are not going to admit him.
This is a really sad thing that I encountered once years ago. After a Lodge's Stated Meeting, a number of us were sitting around in the dining room, just B.S.ing. I don't remember why I had traveled to that Lodge, as it is an extremely long way away, or exactly what we were talking about, but at some point the Lodge Secretary, a man who has been a Mason for a lot of years, piped up and said that he had never visited a Lodge other than his own.
When I asked him why, he said that his Lodge never required him to learn anything to prove proficiency, so he was afraid that whatever questions would be asked in order to prove he was a Mason, he would be unable to answer.
He was freaked out that he would be denied, and humiliated by that denial.
A couple points, Most Worshipful. First, it may just be that that big beautiful lodge in the city is WHY you're recruiting younger men. Out of sight, out of mind.
My old stomping grounds has, I believe four lodges that share one building, the 6th and Warren temple in Bremerton. According to everything I know, it is NOT a match made in heaven. When you have multiple lodges sharing the same building, always with at least one strong personality in each lodge, there seems to be some serious problems remembering that our goal is "who can best serve and best agree."
Things said by brothers lead me to believe strongly that the contentious nature of that relationship is a serious issue at times.
Then there's the experience I have had in two different states, where even when a lodge is circling the drain, people that haven't sat in lodge in a decade will show up out of the woodwork to vote down a motion to merge.
This isn't a problem just with lodges, several NPOs that I have been involved with over the years suffer from problems of identity. Not lacking one, but a very strong affinity for one.
The Society for Creative Anachronism for example, the local kingdom to you, AnTir, has finally birthed some principalities, but they need to break about four ways more, honestly. At it's biggest, it covered Washington, most of Idaho, Oregon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It still holds those lands, some under principalities that are about to break off as new kingdoms. The core kingdom will stay as Wa, Or, and ID. Even that is too big. Imagine you won crown tournament, and are now King. You are expected to visit all of your realm. That means driving or flying to something like 60 different Baronies in the six months of your rein for events.
There's a filk song that addresses this, to the tune of "Downtown" You can triple your phone bill, and cripple your car when you WIN CROWN, things will be great when you WIN CROWN, everyone's waiting on you.
BUT here's the rub. Everyone knows that even the main part that is left, is still too big, but each area wants to be the one to keep the name and the history. The I 5 corridor and west, could easily be it's own kingdom, and would be happy to do so, if they could stay AnTir and let the rest of the kingdom break off. Oregon says pretty much the same thing, though finally most of OR is breaking off I think, to become Summits. Eastern WA and ID could break off, but would only do so if they kept the name...
Lodges suffer from the same maladies. Especially if they're lodges of long standing, with a proud tradition and history.
5th and warren in bremerton has two lodges (117 and 206), plus the prince hall lodge #35 has moved here after the fire they had at their temple.
>>>it may just be that that big beautiful lodge in the city is WHY you're recruiting younger >>>men. Out of sight, out of mind.
I do think that is the case with some of the men we attract. But with others I think it is simply a matter of being closest to their home. Undoubtedly though, you're right, we would lose a mighty big 'billboard' if we were to sell the building.
>>>it is NOT a match made in heaven. When you have multiple lodges sharing the same >>>building, always with at least one strong personality in each lodge, there seems to be >>>some serious problems remembering that our goal is "who can best serve and best >>>agree."
I'm sure that this is true as well. While we are the only Lodge meeting in our building we have our share of appendant and concordant bodies.
Through the many years I've served on the Temple Board (I'm one of those weird guys who enjoys Temple Boards, so have spent a lot of time on it) our largest issue has been the maintenance of the building, as it has to be kept nice for our professional tenants. But a very close second has been trying to get these various organizations getting along and not trying (knowingly or unknowingly) to harm each other or gain some sort of advantage.
Saving Masonry I hope, is at the heart of all considerations when we consider our lodges. Unfortunately, that is not always the case with some lodges.
I am a plural member in three blue lodges at the moment. One lodge holds a festive board and meets 6 times a year in a building that we don't own. As a matter of fact, we don't even pay rent. The cost of the meal, paid for by the brethren each meeting, covers the rental cost of the hall.
In another lodge, we are financially solvent with good investments but we pay a big rent each month. Our returns on the investments cover that rent, and then some extra, but it's a big monthly expense.
Another lodge that I just joined, rents the Seattle Valley Scottish rite building, which is a relatively small rent.
Of the three, the lodge that rents in the Scottish Rite in the most vibrant. The significant others are at every meeting night. They entertain themselves in the dining hall with games, dancing, and a dinner. It has the largest attendance of any lodge I have ever visited and the brethren are all very engaged and excited to be part of the Masonic family.
The lodge with the high rental expense, used to own a building. They sold it a number of years back due to the age and condition of the building, as they couldn't afford the upkeep. The current place we rent is ok, not perfect, but it is a nice facility.
A number of months ago, one brother introduced the idea of buying a piece of land, or an existing property, and becoming an owner and landlord for renters, where we could have more control over our building but also bring in revenue. Our current lease is up in 2026 and as we don't have a building yet, we started to explore the options of a meeting space to hold us over while we seek the right place for us.
We have approached a few lodges in the area about renting from them. One of which was initially interested at first, but then change their mind. The reason? Some members go scared. They have a small number of Masons who attend regularly. We have a decent amount who attend our meetings. They were worried that our lodge was "stronger" than theirs and thought we might end up attracting more members than they would, in that same area, and as a result, "take over" their lodge and building. (They own their building).
That sentiment brings to light a concern and consideration for mergers. This of course was your original subject on merging lodges.
In my experience, although we are all Masons, each lodge has its own distinct characteristics and the members are attracted to, and stay, for that special bond they feel. Mergers can mess with that identity of a lodge and as a result, can create potential problems.
Here is what I suggest. If the distance and the dues do not place undue stress or load on a Mason, why not become a plural member? Your financial and masonic contributions help to strengthen the lodge while allowing it to keep its identity.
At some point lodges will continue to decline and society today does not produce the kind of adults that will support our lodges. We will all face mergers or closures altogether.
>>>Of the three, the lodge that rents in the Scottish Rite in the most vibrant. The significant >>>others are at every meeting night. They entertain themselves in the dining hall with >>>games, dancing, and a dinner. It has the largest attendance of any lodge I have ever >>>visited and the brethren are all very engaged and excited to be part of the Masonic >>>family.
In my experience, this is one of the real keys to making a truly successful and vibrant Lodge. Those Lodges that don't really include wives and families don't seem to be nearly as successful as those that do.
And honestly, that makes sense to me. Why wouldn't a man be more excited about attending Lodge if he knew that his wife and kids would have fun going with him?
I do think that part of this is societal change. 75 years ago, divorce wasn't a super common thing. A husband and wife might have not liked each other, but stayed together due to societal pressure. That husband might have wanted to spend time at the Lodge without his wife, and she might have been really glad to be rid of him for awhile.
But, today, marriages like that tend to end in divorce.
That's a pretty big change, and I wonder if Lodges that don't make an effort to include the family haven't recognized it.
I see a valuable idea here. Worth exploring but I see too many personality conflicts for it to happen. Robert Morris will become weak through old age attrition. I believe I am their youngest member and I haven't attended lodge in years.
Agreed, unless something changes, Robert Morris will weaken due to aging membership.
Likewise, unless something changes, Centralia will weaken due to real estate expenses growing faster than real estate income.
Those things could change, or maybe not. Seeing those storm clouds on the horizon though, now is the time to address them, not after the Lodges become weak.
I agree. I just predict that robert Morris will fail first. just like chehalis 28 did, at which time they will beg centralia to take them in. By that time hopefully centralia will have solved their inflation issues without merging with Robert morris. Perhaps by renovation of the commercial spaces to something more revenue worthy than a couple professional offices.
Centralia is working on increasing building revenue. The first floor is pretty much set, as it is a really nice space, and governed by a long term lease. But, on the third floor we have a lot of wasted space, and are moving forward on a project to turn that wasted space into a co-working office facility.
The second floor offices are in rough shape, and not governed by a long term lease. We've been discussing making improvements to those spaces so that we can increase rents in turn.
Lastly, we are pursuing event rentals of the Lodge spaces, contracting that work out as it is clear that we'll never manage it as a Lodge or Temple Board.
That said, the actual inflation of costs we are seeing is truly scary. Insurance, taxes, utilities, all the rest.
Believe it or not, Jack, there are actually 5 members younger than you, although like you, none of them are active. Two of them are two of four Brothers who joined Morton Lodge in a one-day conferral back in 1999, another one works an odd shift and can’t attend. Yet another’s out of state.
The one member who is between us in age is currently the Lodge’s Junior Warden (Abe Meyer.) He’s a good man and a great asset to the Lodge, but between him and the other two Principal officers, it’s not enough to sustain a Lodge in the long-term. There are only 14 members below 60, and 88 above 70. Of the 14, only Abe is an officer, and I show up as a sideliner but I’m too busy to be active.
It's really sad, as it’s an excellent Lodge that runs efficiently and properly. Attendance is among the highest in Southwest Washington.
There are 5 Lodge owned Masonic buildings within the Seattle City limits housing 12 Lodges and Seattle Valley Scottish Rite, 6 blocks North of Seattle in Shoreline, housing 3 additional Lodges. There is one tenant Lodge in the process of entering into a long term lease for space they’ll use exclusively.
I’m a member of two Seattle building owning Lodges, Seattle Valley, one tenant Lodge, and three York Rite bodies that are also tenants. I’m also member and Past Master of a rural building owning Lodge.
In my experience, building ownership is a burden that is disproportionately shouldered by a few brothers and often diverts energy from our most important purpose, making and mentoring new Masons and Masonic leaders. Our biggest obstacles, in my view, is our fear of loss of control to multi-Lodge or Grand Lodge entities.
I fear we’re not doing right by our predecessors or our successors because we’re afraid to change.
>>>In my experience, building ownership is a burden that is disproportionately shouldered by >>>a few brothers and often diverts energy from our most important purpose, making and >>>mentoring new Masons and Masonic leaders.
I truly love our significant buildings. Sultan-Monroe, Centralia, Doric, 5th and Warren, Kelso to name a few. I wish that we could keep them all forever.
But, I recognize that you are right. In most cases they divert far too much energy that could be better utilized on our Masonic endeavors instead of our Real Estate endeavors.
>>>I fear we’re not doing right by our predecessors or our successors because we’re afraid >>>to change.
Undoubtedly we tend to ignore problems until they are far too large to solve. We need to stop that trend so that we can address future problems from a position of strength.
“Building ownership is a burden that is disproportionately shouldered by a few brothers and often diverts energy from our most important purpose, making and mentoring new Masons and Masonic leaders.” You’re not wrong, VWB Dean, but at the same time, I’ve seen Lodges who rent from the general public have problems crop up when rents increase or building ownership changes and the new owners have different plans for the building that doesn’t include your Lodge as a renter. I’ve seen that happen with a local Lodge, and in the end, it killed that Lodge when they had to move, then moved into a Lodge they hated (yes, I know, real Brotherhood there) then moved into a divided work room in a church which essentially was akin to holding Lodge in a broom closet. They didn’t care, as long as they were out of the hated Lodge, and it spiraled down to where they consolidated with another Lodge. It was frustrating to see a Lodge crumble that way. While that isn’t common, it does happen, and it’s something that every Lodge who rents should pay attention to as they work with their landlords.
“Our biggest obstacles, in my view, is our fear of loss of control to multi-Lodge or Grand Lodge entities.” Just like I mentioned above, two Lodges meeting in a common building can present a slew of challenges.
But the bottom line here is that you’re right, a Lodge’s most important purpose is indeed making and mentoring new Masons and Masonic leaders. But you have to do it SOMEWHERE. And that somewhere is a building of some sort. Is it yours, or is it someone else’s? You can’t get past that.
Brother, you always bring thoughtful points to the table, and I appreciate that.
The way I see it, one of the toughest parts of merging Lodges is figuring out the officer line. When two strong Lodges come together—each with dedicated officers who’ve put in years of work—it can create a difficult squeeze. A Senior Deacon who thought he was four years from the East may suddenly be looking at a much longer path. A motivated Steward might feel that the wait just grew twice as long.
Even with the best intentions, good men can end up feeling set back or overlooked, and that can be hard. If a merger truly strengthens Masonry and benefits the Brothers, then it may still be worth the effort. But we should be honest that it can stir up emotions and that some feelings will need gentle handling along the way.
Thank you for your kind words, Brother.
One Lodge that I'm extremely familiar with has had a lot of Lodges merge into it over the years, like five or six Lodges have merged into it. And those mergers have seemed to be successful.
In contrast, lots of mergers elsewhere in the Jurisdiction seem to fail.
The one thing I've noticed that this Lodge does is 'braid' the officer line when it merges. The WM will be from one Lodge, the SW from the other, and so on, all the way down. That ensures that both Lodges are fully represented and encourages the new Brothers to buy in.
WB Brunk did nail it, though, when he said, "The way I see it, one of the toughest parts of merging Lodges is figuring out the officer line. When two strong Lodges come together—each with dedicated officers who’ve put in years of work—it can create a difficult squeeze." But in the Lodge you're thinking of, that squeeze (or as you say, Braid) worked well. That's a key reason why those consolidations were successful.
The difference between the Braid you speak of and the Squeeze Joel speaks of would be the Masonic age and status of the officers/brethren of the two Lodges. In the Braid case, most of those Brothers were Past Masters of their original Lodges, so the harmony works better, as they've "been there, done that." But for the Squeeze case, those Brothers might be new Masons who are going through the chairs for the first time. This would, as he says, kick out the time it takes to get into the East, hence the "Squeeze."
I think this Braid/Squeeze is a big factor in a consolidation of two strong Lodges, especially since the strong Lodges will more likely create a squeeze than a Braid of Past Masters.
The issue that may come up would be lodge culture. Two different but strong lodges probably indicates two strong cultural ties to the men within the lodge. There might be some clashes that could occur if the two cultures don't really mix well.
I think you're right, cultural differences could sink such a project. That would have to be very carefully considered beforehand.
MWB Bailey, your point is one I have heard discussed at fairly great length by a number of Brothers, in Seattle and around the districts. I think it is an excellent idea, if we could only find common ground. It is something I hope we might consider out of Brotherly Love and Relief rather than necessity and urgency.
We each are obligated to put the needs of the Craft and our Brethren above our own egos and feelings to achieve what will promote the greatest success and prosperity for all involved. It is addressed often in our standard work and is explicitly outlined in our obligations and the tools we are given.
I think if we are able to come to that discussion on the Level, discussing ways for it to benefit all involved it could be a great way to preserve and grow each of our Lodges. If we were to bolster each others efforts and events how much more could we achieve? Maybe we would be adding Lodges to the roster rather than relegating them to the archives.
One of the fastest ways to run a prospect or a Brother off is to promote disharmony rather than Brotherly Love and Affection, yet it seems fairly common to be competing with rather than supporting each other in our endeavors. I hope we can get to the point where our Lodges can promote "the best the Craft has to offer" without detracting from other Lodges who also feel similarly. I don't think I have seen anything take the light out of a Prospects eyes faster than hearing the "them vs us" approach to the Craft immediately after hearing about our core tenets of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth at great length.
Why should we struggle to find support, host, and sponsor events or degrees on our own, when we might instead find ways of helping each other grow and build. Perhaps we might improve the quality of experience, education, and degrees that our future candidates and Brethren receive, reducing the human and financial capital required by all involved in the process?
Excellent post Brother! I'd love to see this discussed in an upcoming R&G forum if you're open to it. Perhaps we might find ways where each Lodge could feel seen, heard, and represented in a scenario like the one you describe here.
Yes, two weak Lodges end up as a slightly larger weak Lodge, doubling their problems. There are usually reasons they are weak, and numbers are rarely the issue.
An alternative in the space you posited would be for the rural Lodge to become a tenant of the one with the better-situated building.
IMO, we need more, smaller Lodges. Apart from covering geographic conveniences, there needs to be a variety of Lodge cultures to attract and retain people of different personalities and interests -- and even meeting time availability. And everyone can be assured a leadership role if they desire, without waiting in line for a decade, as was once the case.
In other words, I'd rather see several healthy Lodges sharing spaces and working together, maintaining their own identities and roles within the larger Masonic community.