# Do lodges REALLY need to have their own building?



## bupton52 (Jun 2, 2014)

"So, as wonderful as some of the Masonic Lodges of the 19th and early 20th Century were and are, the days when they represented realistic options is over. Freemasonry, even if it is able to stem the tide of a receding membership, must come to grips with a new condition. Freemasonry must, at least in this regard, prepare to return to an older practice, one of lodges without real estate. Lodges can rent space in buildings, and smaller ones may meet in homes. This is not simply a matter of losing real estate. It also means that in the future, lodges will need more portable and lighter weight furniture and props. Such a lodge cannot deal with pillars and altars that require several people and hand trucks to move."

Your thoughts?


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 2, 2014)

Meeting in taverns the traditional way has the advantage that we can be more dispersed.  We can cover more territory that way.  Now there's pressure to move into the remaining large structures.

I've seen lodges lose their ability to recruit because of the need to move into the remaining large structure.  My mother lodge has absorbed a lot of smaller lodges over the years.  In Illinois my lodge was the one being absorbed when we could no longer afford a building.

Meeting in tavern also puts to bed the mistake of a century ago to move against drinking.  In the process we lost the festival board and the Shrine came into existence in response.  As much as I like being a Shriner I know the history so I am not surprised by the unending friction on that topic.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Jun 2, 2014)

Check your local zoning laws.

Where it may be convenient to meet in ones home, it may be against local zoning regulations regarding residential areas. I know that is an issue in my state as I work in the real estate area as a land surveyor.

Also, Dispensation is needed from Grand Lodge if you move from one location to another. That gets to be a pain if you're asking for a new place every two weeks.

Lastly, thoughts like this are 'last resort' and we don't know where the bottom of the curve is as far as members go. My last issue of NJ Freemason showed more members this year than last so we had a slight increase.


----------



## Willys (Jun 2, 2014)

To my knowledge, no - Lodges don't _need_ their own building.  I've been aware of Lodges that meet/have met in a shared facility such as grocery downstairs, Lodge upstairs.  If your question was more rhetorical - no Lodges don't need their own building as '*A* Lodge' is quite portable.  To wit: 'The furniture of a Lodge', which fits quite nicely in an open air ceremony.


----------



## Brother JC (Jun 2, 2014)

Indeed, if sized appropriately the "furniture" could be carried in a jacket pocket.


----------



## Morris (Jun 2, 2014)

I have a hard time seeing how it works in a tavern or really anywhere outside of our typical layout. Only because I haven't seen it before. 

I think if you really want to try then call the weeks between business to meet at X location instead. See how it works. Especially if you're a lodge that's getting moved. 


Jeff


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 2, 2014)

Brother_Steve said:


> Lastly, thoughts like this are 'last resort' and we don't know where the bottom of the curve is as far as members go. My last issue of NJ Freemason showed more members this year than last so we had a slight increase.



Why would adhering to our founding practices be considered a last resort?  Grand lodge Masonry was founde din taverns.

As to the membership curve, try looking at the trend across multiple centuries.  There's nothing new under the Sun - We have seen multiple generation long resurgences of the sort we are seeing now.


----------



## JJones (Jun 2, 2014)

Last resort?

Less bills and less need to hold fundraisers hardly seem last resort to me.  Maybe we could start focusing back on meeting to make men better again.


----------



## Willys (Jun 2, 2014)

trysquare said:


> Indeed, if sized appropriately the "furniture" could be carried in a jacket pocket.


Or in the saddle bags of _'Old Paint'_, see _Texas Independence, Masonic Oak_

_



			On March 10, 1835, John A. Wharton, Asa Brigham, James A. E. Phelps, Alexander Russell, Anson Jones and J. P. Caldwell met in a secluded grove near Brazoria and petitioned the Grand Lodge of Louisiana for a dispensation to form a new Lodge to be called Holland Lodge.  The dispensation was granted and the first meeting of Holland Lodge No. 36 was conducted on December 27, 1835.  T*he charter for this new lodge was eventually delivered to Anson Jones just before the battle at San Jacinto, and the charter remained in his saddlebags through the battle*.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## MRichard (Jun 2, 2014)

Will probably see more lodges using the same building either by sharing or landlord/tenant.


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Jun 2, 2014)

If operative masons meet in an operative building...

... then speculative masons meet in a... <wait for it>... speculative building?

Waka waka waka


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 2, 2014)

To be blunt, the economic model we have operated under for the past hundred or so years no longer works for many, if not most, of our Lodges. The continually rising costs of insurance and utilities,  along with declining membership, have made it so. If Lodges are to continue to own buildings, those buildings will have to pay for themselves by allowing the Lodges to rent them out, either to other Lodges or to outside groups. My parent Lodge, for four years, was allowed to use the "private party" facility of a local restaurant. We had our regalia and other necessities in a large wheeled toolbox, which our Treasurer kept at his house & brought to the facility for our meetings. It worked out well until a Grand Master decided he didn't like our operation and ordered us to either buy a building of our own or move into another Lodge's building.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 2, 2014)

I've attended the Eltham Palace Lodge which meets in the Eltham Palace Hotel.  My. Cheshire Lodge and Chapter do not own their building.  Two of my Utah Lodges do not own buildings. One of them meets in a schoolhouse.


----------



## Mike Martin (Jun 3, 2014)

As Glen mentions here in England it is incredibly rare for one Lodge to own their own building. It is more common for a group or groups of Lodges to have bought and now jointly own a building which they then often rent out to other users (including non/Masonic ones) in order to pay the bills.

When in larger town or cities the Masonic Hall will usually be owned by the Masonic Province


----------



## chrmc (Jun 3, 2014)

What Mike said. Think the economy if nothing else will drive us this way too in the US. 
And to be honest I'd rather be in one great building than see five poorly maintained and crappy ones.


----------



## JJones (Jun 3, 2014)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> It worked out well until a Grand Master decided he didn't like our operation and ordered us to either buy a building of our own or move into another Lodge's building.



Wow...I'm pretty dumbfounded by this.  Please tell me this occurred outside of Texas somehow or that it was many, many years ago.


----------



## RyanC (Jun 3, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Why would adhering to our founding practices be considered a last resort?  Grand lodge Masonry was founde din taverns.


If you look at 1717 as the founding of Freemasonry you would be right, but as we all know it was going long before that and meeting in taverns was not their practice.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Jun 3, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Why would adhering to our founding practices be considered a last resort?  Grand lodge Masonry was founde din taverns.
> 
> As to the membership curve, try looking at the trend across multiple centuries.  There's nothing new under the Sun - We have seen multiple generation long resurgences of the sort we are seeing now.


I was merely commenting on the quotations in the original post concerning, 





> "...the days when they represented realistic options is over. Freemasonry, even if it is able to stem the tide of a receding membership, must come to grips with a new condition...."


Reading the paragraph of which this is a part comes off as seeing our numbers drop to a point to where a defined meeting place is not practical. My reply was playing along with the "what if" and my "last resort" was what I personally inferred from the referenced quote by bupton52


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 3, 2014)

My mother lodge rents space from the Scottish Rite temple

Jonathan Madsen, SD, Crater lake 211 A.F&A.M


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 3, 2014)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> To be blunt, the economic model we have operated under for the past hundred or so years no longer works for many, if not most, of our Lodges. The continually rising costs of insurance and utilities,  along with declining membership, have made it so. If Lodges are to continue to own buildings, those buildings will have to pay for themselves by allowing the Lodges to rent them out, either to other Lodges or to outside groups.



Doing it the right way can be a VERY tough sell.  A building that becomes a source of stability int he district costs ten times as much as a building that eventually becomes an albatross for its lodge.  But that's a huge difference in funds and very many brothers want a building, any building, once they can afford one.



> My parent Lodge, for four years, was allowed to use the "private party" facility of a local restaurant. We had our regalia and other necessities in a large wheeled toolbox, which our Treasurer kept at his house & brought to the facility for our meetings.



Tenant lodges are a fine old tradition dating from the transition from operative to speculative.  In fact operative Masonry worked that way as the lodges were temporary structures that only lasted while the main building project was in operation.



> It worked out well until a Grand Master decided he didn't like our operation and ordered us to either buy a building of our own or move into another Lodge's building.



Just what we don't need.  Some GM with zero idea of Masonic history and tradition messing with what works.  (Sound track here has a raspberry sound).


----------



## vangoedenaam (Jun 3, 2014)

My lodge doesnt own a building. We rent a small local churchbuilding where we setup our stuff to turn it into a lodge and clean up when were done. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## admarcus1 (Jun 3, 2014)

When Lodges met in taverns, it wasn't like taverns or bars of today.  Taverns would have meeting rooms that could be rented out for various purposes, much as hotels do today.  This does not mean that I am suggesting that you have to have your meetings at a Four Seasons.  A Holiday Inn Express or Hampton Inn may be more affordable for the average lodge.  As a bonus, you wouldn't have to worry about clean-up, beyond taking the Lodge furniture and regalia with you when you leave.


----------



## Brother JC (Jun 3, 2014)

admarcus1 said:


> When Lodges met in taverns, it wasn't like taverns or bars of today.  Taverns would have meeting rooms that could be rented out for various purposes, much as hotels do today.


And restaurants, as well. How many of us have bemoaned the fare at a stated communication? It makes sense to me to have lodge in a private room, followed by an excellent meal. No dishes, no clean- up. Just an evening of Fellowship and Brotherhood.


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 3, 2014)

trysquare said:


> And restaurants, as well. How many of us have bemoaned the fare at a stated communication? It makes sense to me to have lodge in a private room, followed by an excellent meal. No dishes, no clean- up. Just an evening of Fellowship and Brotherhood.



This is the way our York Rite Association does it. We meet in the back room of a restaurant, and they even set up a special menu for us (one price, choose one meat, 2 veg, drink, bread). We eat, they take away the dishes, we meet.

As for the Lodge, our building has been long since paid for, so we aren't going anywhere.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 3, 2014)

JJones said:


> Wow...I'm pretty dumbfounded by this.  Please tell me this occurred outside of Texas somehow or that it was many, many years ago.


Sorry- in Texas 3 years ago.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 3, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Why would adhering to our founding practices be considered a last resort?  Grand lodge Masonry was founde din taverns.


Gee- and we were accused of "innovating"! The then GM stated that Texas had no tradition of "trunk" Lodges- a statement easily disproved by a quick reading of early Texas Masonic history.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 3, 2014)

trysquare said:


> And restaurants, as well. How many of us have bemoaned the fare at a stated communication? It makes sense to me to have lodge in a private room, followed by an excellent meal. No dishes, no clean- up. Just an evening of Fellowship and Brotherhood.


It worked out very well for us.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 3, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Just what we don't need.  Some GM with zero idea of Masonic history and tradition messing with what works.  (Sound track here has a raspberry sound).


Yup- he superseded one past GM's Decision and another's dispensation. If you have access to the book of GM's Decisions & Annotations, check out 2011-#11.


----------



## cacarter (Jun 15, 2014)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> To be blunt, the economic model we have operated under for the past hundred or so years no longer works for many, if not most, of our Lodges. The continually rising costs of insurance and utilities,  along with declining membership, have made it so. If Lodges are to continue to own buildings, those buildings will have to pay for themselves by allowing the Lodges to rent them out, either to other Lodges or to outside groups. My parent Lodge, for four years, was allowed to use the "private party" facility of a local restaurant. We had our regalia and other necessities in a large wheeled toolbox, which our Treasurer kept at his house & brought to the facility for our meetings. It worked out well until a Grand Master decided he didn't like our operation and ordered us to either buy a building of our own or move into another Lodge's building.



Someone needs to remind that Grand Master of the 3rd section of the EA degree.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Tony Uzzell (Jun 17, 2014)

Gurley Lodge in Waco hasn't owned its own building in decades. When I joined in 2004, we met in the Waco Scottish Rite Building. We moved a few years back into the Eastern Star's building close to downtown.

The only real problem I see with meeting in a building the Lodge doesn't own is that, when a Lodge decides to sponsor a DeMolay Chapter or Rainbow Assembly (or Job's Daughters Bethel), it must come to terms with a way of providing that group a place to meet. That can become expensive in itself if the organization is not self-sufficient, as many of the youth groups are, particularly during their formative periods.

Again, Gurley Lodge sponsors Waco DeMolay Chapter and we pay rent on their behalf as they are fairly newly-reestablished.

TU


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 17, 2014)

A couple of things ....
We have in writing that any Masonic body can use our building any time it needs, free of charge, as long as it doesn't fall on a night the Blue Lodge needs the building.  Blue Lodge gets first dibs. Our building is used 2-3 nights a week. The way "payment" is covered is by helping with expenses. For example, we recently voted to install new lighting. We need 10 fixtures. The Blue Lodge bought 5. Each of the other bodies that meets there monthly bought one each. 

We do not allow, for insurance purposes, any non-Masonic events in the building. So, for instance, a member could not rent the building for a family gathering. 

Here is a question regarding multiple Lodges meeting in one building (not multiple bodies, but multiple Blue Lodges) ... why not just have one Lodge?


----------



## Brother JC (Jun 17, 2014)

Companion Joe said:


> Here is a question regarding multiple Lodges meeting in one building (not multiple bodies, but multiple Blue Lodges) ... why not just have one Lodge?


I am a member of two lodges that meet in the same building. One has several hundred members, the other had less than fifty. They both have very different personalities and very different histories, neither of which should be lost. Talk of merging results in attitudes similar to the Lincoln County War...


----------



## Willys (Jun 17, 2014)

Companion Joe said:


> A couple of things ....
> We have in writing that any Masonic body can use our building any time it needs, free of charge, as long as it doesn't fall on a night the Blue Lodge needs the building.  Blue Lodge gets first dibs. Our building is used 2-3 nights a week. The way "payment" is covered is by helping with expenses. For example, we recently voted to install new lighting. We need 10 fixtures. The Blue Lodge bought 5. Each of the other bodies that meets there monthly bought one each.
> 
> We do not allow, for insurance purposes, any non-Masonic events in the building. So, for instance, a member could not rent the building for a family gathering.
> ...


In the case I have referenced, my Lodge was about 75 years old and had occupied its building for about half that time.  The other Lodge meeting in the building was a new Lodge.  Its general territory to be about ten or so miles to the north, near a rapidly developing area of the county.  They needed time to raise funds for a building and completed that effort within about five years.  Then moved.

A benefit - until lost - was that it increased the number of Brethren at hand for degree practice or conferral.


----------



## cemab4y (Jun 21, 2014)

Here in WashDC metro area, you see 5-6 lodges occupying the same building. I visited Phoenix Lodge #17, in Moscow, Russia. They are just getting underway, so they meet in a conference room in a hotel. It will be some years, before they can afford a building of their own.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 19, 2014)

From what I understand here in Kentucky there are buildings where two or more different lodges meet.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 1, 2017)

cemab4y said:


> Here in WashDC metro area, you see 5-6 lodges occupying the same building.


That works well in metropolitan areas. Out here in the sticks, Lodges are 15-30 miles apart, if not more. Coupled with the fact that many of our older Brethren are not able or willing to drive long distances at night, sharing buildings just isn't feasible in most cases.


----------



## Brother JC (Sep 1, 2017)

That's a good point, Bill, but a single lodge still doesn't need to own a building. There's got to be somewhere, even in the sticks, that a lodge can use the one or two nights a month it needs it.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 2, 2017)

Brother JC said:


> That's a good point, Bill, but a single lodge still doesn't need to own a building. There's got to be somewhere, even in the sticks, that a lodge can use the one or two nights a month it needs it.


I agree. The point I was making was that, out here, it is not feasible for *multiple Lodges* to share a building. 

If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread, you'll find my post about how my Lodge did exactly what you're proposing. It worked very well until a certain Grand Master decided he didn't like it & forced us to purchase a building of our own.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 2, 2017)

Here in Louisville the Louisville-DeMolay Commandery owns its own building. It rents space to lodges for $80.00 a meeting. Four different lodges meet there including my mother lodge.


----------



## Brother JC (Sep 2, 2017)

Whoops, yeah, I didn't backcheck first.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Sep 3, 2017)

Let's see.  Someone once told me that a Lodge was a specific number of Masons gathered together............................

This topic reminds me a lot of Global Warming.  Geologists tell us that the Earth has been getting warmer for at least 10,000 years.  And now suddenly people feel the need to panic because this truth contradicts their preconceived notion that nothing will, does, or ever should change.  Which do you think is wrong: the truth or the preconceived notion?


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Sep 3, 2017)

bupton52 said:


> "So, as wonderful as some of the Masonic Lodges of the 19th and early 20th Century were and are, the days when they represented realistic options is over. Freemasonry, even if it is able to stem the tide of a receding membership, must come to grips with a new condition. Freemasonry must, at least in this regard, prepare to return to an older practice, one of lodges without real estate. Lodges can rent space in buildings, and smaller ones may meet in homes. This is not simply a matter of losing real estate. It also means that in the future, lodges will need more portable and lighter weight furniture and props. Such a lodge cannot deal with pillars and altars that require several people and hand trucks to move."
> 
> Your thoughts?


Appears you've quoted from somewhere. Might i ask the source?

I ask because there's mention of a return to an older Masonic practice of lodges meeting in facilities not under ownership. 

Certainly it's said to convey a meaning that this was a prevalent Masonic practice. I'd be interested to know where this data is to be found and explored?


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Sep 3, 2017)

Brother_Steve said:


> Check your local zoning laws.
> 
> Where it may be convenient to meet in ones home, it may be against local zoning regulations regarding residential areas. I know that is an issue in my state as I work in the real estate area as a land surveyor.
> 
> ...


I'm curious about why it would be a pain to seek a Dispensation from the GL if the location of lodge meetings were to change often?


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 3, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> Here in Louisville the Louisville-DeMolay Commandery owns its own building. It rents space to lodges for $80.00 a meeting.


Wow! That's a screaming deal! Does that amount even cover the utilities?


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 3, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> Appears you've quoted from somewhere. Might i ask the source?
> 
> I ask because there's mention of a return to an older Masonic practice of lodges meeting in facilities not under ownership.
> 
> Certainly it's said to convey a meaning that this was a prevalent Masonic practice. I'd be interested to know where this data is to be found and explored?


Look @ UGLE Lodges in England- many of them meet above pubs.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 3, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> I'm curious about why it would be a pain to seek a Dispensation from the GL if the location of lodge meetings were to change often?


The GL regards it as a pain & visiting Brethren often would not get the latest memo as to where to find that Lodge on a particular meeting night. Back when we were meeting @ the restaurant's private facility, we held MM degrees @ a ranch outside of town. The GM who forced us out of there also issued an unwritten policy that he would only allow Lodges to have 1 outdoor degree per year.


----------



## JJones (Sep 4, 2017)

So I replied to this thread about three years ago and I think I can give a more insightful reply now in regards to multiple lodges sharing the same building.

My current lodge owns a building in a rural community (about 2k population) that's also in a rural county. Several years ago, some brethren pushed to revive a long demised lodge which would then share a building with my current lodge. This was ten, maybe fifteen years ago.

Fast forward to present day and most brethren that are members of the revived lodge are dual members with other lodges in the district and the most active members are dual members with the original lodge here. It is spreading the brothers thin, both financially, emotionally, and time-wise, to keep both lodges healthy. It could be argued that keeping both lodges alive in such a small community is actually unhealthy for the original lodge and there are many which are beginning to question if keeping both is a wise idea.

In more metropolitan areas having multiple lodges in one building is probably feasible as there is a much larger pool of members to pull from. It's probably not the best idea for more rural lodges, however.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 4, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> Wow! That's a screaming deal! Does that amount even cover the utilities?


It's a GREAT deal when you consider having your own building and having upkeep, utilities, insurance, etc. Plus the four lodges sold their buildings and property and therefore are in pretty good shape financially.


JJones said:


> In more metropolitan areas having multiple lodges in one building is probably feasible as there is a much larger pool of members to pull from. It's probably not the best idea for more rural lodges, however.


I would have to say that I agree with this. There are four lodges that meet in our Commandery building but we live in a city of over 750,000.


----------



## acjohnson53 (Sep 4, 2017)

This a good topic, as I drive around Sacramento I found several Masonic Temple that were well kept. Of course  it would be nice to have your building, something to call your own. I say to myself when I hit the lottery that's the first  thing I would do is build another King Solomon Temple. In homage to our fallen Grand Master.....Y'all know the rest of the story.....


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 4, 2017)

JJones said:


> So I replied to this thread about three years ago and I think I can give a more insightful reply now in regards to multiple lodges sharing the same building.
> 
> My current lodge owns a building in a rural community (about 2k population) that's also in a rural county. Several years ago, some brethren pushed to revive a long demised lodge which would then share a building with my current lodge. This was ten, maybe fifteen years ago.
> 
> ...


I see the point you are trying to make, but.....  You speak of starting a new lodge in a rural area where i think the essence of the post is speaking on where there are already more then one lodge and they all move in to one building.  In my mother lodge we are a tennant of the AASR building and there is another lodge a couple blocks away but now all 3 are struggling.  My lodge in NM is a tennant of another lodges building that shares a parking lot with the AASR "castle"  here in IA all 3 lodges, OES and until a few months ago a local PHA lodge are under 1 roof.  If u are in a rual area dont start an new lodge, but if it already exists then it only makes sense to colocate.

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 4, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> In my mother lodge we are a tennant of the AASR building and there is another lodge a couple blocks away but now all 3 are struggling.


Our AASR Temple houses lodges also.


----------



## JJones (Sep 4, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> I see the point you are trying to make, but.....  You speak of starting a new lodge in a rural area where i think the essence of the post is speaking on where there are already more then one lodge and they all move in to one building.  In my mother lodge we are a tennant of the AASR building and there is another lodge a couple blocks away but now all 3 are struggling.  My lodge in NM is a tennant of another lodges building that shares a parking lot with the AASR "castle"  here in IA all 3 lodges, OES and until a few months ago a local PHA lodge are under 1 roof.  If u are in a rual area dont start an new lodge, but if it already exists then it only makes sense to colocate.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app



I agree, the situation I described is different than an existing lodge moving in but I feel the end result would be the same, which is a handful of brothers supporting two lodges instead of just one.

Granted, each lodge and district are unique. I'm just sharing my observations.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 5, 2017)

JJones said:


> I agree, the situation I described is different than an existing lodge moving in but I feel the end result would be the same, which is a handful of brothers supporting two lodges instead of just one.
> 
> Granted, each lodge and district are unique. I'm just sharing my observations.


The lodges in NM i spoke of may share a building but only a handful of brothers are plural members....and by handful i mean 5 @ the most.  The culture of the 2 is just so differentnnn1 is a TO the other is as bro JC put it a Cowboy lodge.  There is a bit of visitation but not alot.  

I even suggested that both lodges vacate the building and move in to the AASR Castle...boy did that get tue "old guard" riled up

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 5, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> boy did that get tue "old guard" riled up


Some of the guys that have been around forever get upset whenever you talk about changing ANYTHING! Next year, if all goes well, I'll be sitting in the east and am planning on making a few minor changes. I'm sure that there will be some ruffled feathers.


----------



## JJones (Sep 5, 2017)

Yep, anytime someone tries anything different at my lodge we get to hear about "how we've always done it" and "that's not how we do it at my lodge."

Sad thing is, change has to happen. The old guard wants to run things the way they always have even though it's just not working anymore. I'm taking somewhat of a hiatus now because of all of it.

Anyhow, I digress.


----------



## MarkR (Sep 6, 2017)

JJones said:


> Yep, anytime someone tries anything different at my lodge we get to hear about "how we've always done it" and "that's not how we do it at my lodge."
> 
> Sad thing is, change has to happen. The old guard wants to run things the way they always have even though it's just not working anymore. I'm taking somewhat of a hiatus now because of all of it.
> 
> Anyhow, I digress.


I was always so proud of our two oldest regular attendees, both of whom laid down their working tools within two weeks of each other this summer.  They both repeatedly said "we had our time.  This is your lodge now, do it the way you think it needs to be done.  If we can help, we will. If you have questions about why we did it the way we did, just ask."  Even when things didn't work, they just quietly helped make it right.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 6, 2017)

.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			








MWGM of Oregons monthly message

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Sep 6, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting words from the Grand Master. It's kind of sad when he has to speak on something like this subject.


----------



## acjohnson53 (Sep 7, 2017)

I meant what I said, here in Sacramento there are three Prince Hall Lodges, we are the 3rd oldest in the state. we are the 1 of the three that constituted the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of California, est 1853,  so why not open your own Lodge. we share a building with the Shriners, Scottish Rite, Royal Arch, Knights Templar, and two other Blue House Lodges, oh and Eastern Stars and their Aux.... Very busy place...


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 7, 2017)

OES Aux?

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## acjohnson53 (Sep 7, 2017)

the other charters that are affiliated with the OES....You know you quick to judge what goes on in Prince Hall Masonry, I think you wanna join the ranks and be one, I'm pretty sure that there is a Prince Hall Lodge in New Mexico, I know there are a lot in Texas especially near Fort Bliss, I know they do healings....come on with it Brother I got you.../G\SMIB


----------



## Brother JC (Sep 7, 2017)

I don't feel he was judging, Brother, just curious. He'd never heard of an OES auxiliary and was asking about it.
"Pretty quick to judge" goes both ways...


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 7, 2017)

acjohnson53 said:


> the other charters that are affiliated with the OES....You know you quick to judge what goes on in Prince Hall Masonry, I think you wanna join the ranks and be one, I'm pretty sure that there is a Prince Hall Lodge in New Mexico, I know there are a lot in Texas especially near Fort Bliss, I know they do healings....come on with it Brother I got you.../G\SMIB


Was def not judging.  Ive been to the Oldest PHA lodge in NM.  Sat next to their GM @ my lodges Officer Installation.  Broke bread with PHA AZ brothers...def not judging.  
Ive never heard of OES AUX.  Still not sure what you mean.....Golden Circle maybe?

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bloke (Sep 11, 2017)

Companion Joe said:


> ....Here is a question regarding multiple Lodges meeting in one building (not multiple bodies, but multiple Blue Lodges) ... why not just have one Lodge?



For so many reasons.... different character of the lodges and interests of its members, a preference for small lodges (that's my preference, once a lodge is over 50 it looses its cohesion, and I think of Lodge Vitruvian which limits is membership to 36 http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/lodge-vitruvian-at-age-15.html ), different traditions for example a Theatre or School Lodge versus a Military Lodge... different focuses, such as lodges that focus on com unity service (charity) versus esoterica.



bupton52 said:


> "So, as wonderful as some of the Masonic Lodges of the 19th and early 20th Century were and are, the days when they represented realistic options is over. Freemasonry, even if it is able to stem the tide of a receding membership, must come to grips with a new condition. Freemasonry must, at least in this regard, prepare to return to an older practice, one of lodges without real estate. Lodges can rent space in buildings, and smaller ones may meet in homes. This is not simply a matter of losing real estate. It also means that in the future, lodges will need more portable and lighter weight furniture and props. Such a lodge cannot deal with pillars and altars that require several people and hand trucks to move."
> 
> Your thoughts?



I actually manage two buildings and have a lot of experience in making them financially viable and carrying out improvement works.

One lesson I have learned is the challenges, models, solutions and financials vary between location -especially in the city and country lodges. For instance cities often have a hire market you can identify, whereas country lodges often don't - and when they do, often older country towns have an over supply of facilities - especially in places where populations have shrunk post WW2.

Here, the situation varies a lot and lodges meeting in buildings they own, occupied by either a single or multiple masonic organization, Grand Lodge owns some buildings, generally when owners consolidate and/or pass on ownership and associated problems to GL, lodges rent spaces, generally in community facilities or use spaces on an ad hoc basis (the last Installation I went to on Saturday was held in one of the city's premier private clubs.  There is a growing trend here to meet in non-masonic private and premium social clubs - the next warrant to be issued will do that very thing.... This reflects a cash rich but time poor membership looking for a quality experience - which they are willing to pay for. Last Saturday's installation was $140 a plate and had over 100 people (including ladies) at dinner.. That cash rich time poor member does not want to be moving furniture around as you suggest, its often sighted in lodge histories as being of great annoyance and a reason lodges strove to own their own premise.

Some lodges, vary how they meet, using a masonic centre for their meeting, but dining on and off site where a higher quality meal can be served using venue staff to prepare, serve and clear - and wash up. Being able to provide a decent meal is really important to the prosperity of the lodge, regardless of the budget of its members.

I don't think a lodge needs to own the building they meet in. That said, I got involved in Masonic Buildings to preserve the building my mother lodge is part owner of - its a historic building and one of a shrinking number...  In my experience, many Brothers join because of affinity with the past (esp deceased family members who were brothers) and meeting in a sterile office building or temporary lodge room does not have that same historic feel or direct link to the past - its leverage which is seeing our lodges grow. This is counter to what our GL is providing, premium and modern space, but a lot of my members of my two craft lodges prefer to be in a historic setting with continuity linked to strong history.

Whenever I conduct a tour of one of our buildings, and I have shown over a  thousand through them, I always end up in the lodge room saying " this room is the reason the building exists" and that in some ways it can be considered a set of a play, where all the props and such needed are in place for the monthly meeting. That certainly makes things easier when setting up the lodge, but creates a cost centre and worry some often not see as worth it, the trick is changing the building from a liability to an asset and almost always that starts with changing a financial loss to a financial surplus. Chasing that aim, I've brought in over $400K over external rent to help support our buildings.

Folding light masonic furniture is still used. The best example in our state is at Walhalla where all the pedestals, originally used by miners, folds, but it is now located in a permanent lodge building. You can see the lodge room here http://www.lodgedevotion.net/devoti...walhalla-lodge-no-69-and-its-building-2012-05
Another thing I know - once a building is sold, the current membership base cannot create the wealth to build anew - we don't need to do that, all we need to do to preserve the inheritance they created is finding the maintenance cost, and even if that averages $15K per year, its only $300 a week - surely we can generate that - the trick is management and realising these buildings were often built to be supported by lodge rents along, and if that can longer be achieved, you need to diversify your income, particularly by engaging with external hires with some creativity and intelligence.


----------



## Rinesh Hegde (Sep 14, 2017)

I am a Master Mason from Bangalore, India, and we normally meet at a Freemasons' Hall that is being used by nearly all Craft Lodges in our city. It also includes Chapter lodges, Mark and R.A.M. lodges and all the other superior degrees. I think that's the same way in England too. 

Instead of having buildings for each lodges, all the lodges - at least in bigger cities, should meet at one place. Thus allowing brethren to manage one property where all the lodge furniture can be shared by all. It also provides brethren the option to manage their travel from their place during their usual regular meetings.

We also have lodges that meet at local clubs (gentlemen clubs) for brethren who live far away from the city centre where the Freemasons' Hall is but I have realised that involves a lot of them spending time in coming early and setting up the place and then staying back to wrap up the lodge furniture and obviously taking care of it by keeping it at their house. 

Maybe in future, due to the real estate issue, we will not have a building of our own. But till the time we do - let's enjoy the history and significance of that place.


----------



## CLewey44 (Sep 14, 2017)

No


----------



## grayflannelsuit (Sep 24, 2017)

No, a lodge does not need to have its own building to thrive. But for those who can make it work financially, it can offer a stability and a sense of permanence that can be very powerful. I have also seen cases where a lodge building becomes an albatross around the neck of the brethren.


----------

