# Freemasonry isn't dying



## JJones (Jun 11, 2016)

I'm sure many of you have seen this already but, to my knowledge, it hasn't been shared on these forums so here it is for discussion:

http://www.midnightfreemasons.org/2016/06/freemasonry-isnt-dying-its-refining.html

I look forward to seeing what everyone's thoughts are on the matter, especially after our recent discussion on Millenials.  I'm personally not a fan of the "national Grand Lodge" concept myself but I feel much of what is said needs consideration.


----------



## Ressam (Jun 11, 2016)

1. Nuclear Weapons.
2. Artifical Satellites&Internet.

These 2 things've changed everything!
Freemasonry needs big-big
Reformation/Transformation!
IMHO.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 11, 2016)

Ressam said:


> 1. Nuclear Weapons.
> 2. Artifical Satellites&Internet.
> 
> These 2 things've changed everything!
> ...


Please go away!  Your comments are ridiculous.  How can u have an opinion on something that needs reforming when u have never experienced it?  Just stop

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jun 11, 2016)

I read this article earlier. Makes sense.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jun 11, 2016)

Ressam said:


> 1. Nuclear Weapons.
> 2. Artifical Satellites&Internet.
> 
> These 2 things've changed everything!
> ...


Not meaning to be rude but.....do you have any idea what you are talking about.


----------



## MRichard (Jun 11, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Please go away!  Your comments are ridiculous.  How can u have an opinion on something that needs reforming when u have never experienced it?  Just stop
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Did I miss something? Is he not a freemason? Or a regular or recognized one?


----------



## Bloke (Jun 11, 2016)

I agree with him we are changing to readjust after a membership, organizational and pyscological model developed during a boom period (has anyone compared post Civil War GLs to post ww2) but its moot. GLs will never "save" Freemasonry - that's always going to be done at a lodge level, all GLs can do us foster that, which sadly often  means keeping the hell out of the way and not putting road blocks up to making lodges places men want to be and bring their friends, like having to leave to enjoy a beer together.

What problem does forming a national lodge solve ? It can only be financial, concentrating funding but that also creates systemic risk. Me, i'm a big fan of lodges ( and GLs ) being self determining to meet their members needs. The critical thing is am intelligent, informed approach.

One critical thing to organisations and individuals is morale. The expansion then contraction of the craft post ww2 mainly creates a problem of unadaptability which in turn affects morale. Morale and cohesion, which we call "harmony" is perhaps the single most importsnt thing and within that a willingness to adapt and not hold to old financial and organisational models built on bloated membership.


----------



## Bloke (Jun 11, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Did I miss something? Is he not a freemason? Or a regular or recognized one?


 Uninitiated


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 11, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Did I miss something? Is he not a freemason? Or a regular or recognized one?


This is what he posted in the "Various Questions" thread: "But it's true! I'd like to join Freemasonry only for -- "Financial Benefits"! 
That's why, I think that -- I'm not suitable for it, now! And that's why I'm still researching & workin' on myself."


----------



## lilhut3579 (Jun 12, 2016)

I've always wondered why we don't have a national GLs?


----------



## Ressam (Jun 12, 2016)

JamestheJust said:


> Given the not very exciting state of Freemasonry, I am not so inclined to the insider/outsider approach.  (I still preserve the secrecy of the recognition signs that are all over the internet.)
> 
> Are there true and faithful brethren not formally initiated?   Would that be why GM have a tradition of making a Mason on sight?
> 
> On the other hand I am not sure that all regularly initiated brethren are indeed true and faithful brethren.   A browse through most Masonic forums will show brethren that disregard the brotherhood aspects of the 3rd degree obligation.



Freemasonry is -- Great Friendship!!!
Good Hobby!
Very Nice Gentlemen's Club!
But, I just doubt about: seeking The Truth, searching for The Light, Makin' Good Men Better.


----------



## king82 (Jun 12, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Uninitiated





Ressam said:


> Freemasonry is -- Great Friendship!!!
> Good Hobby!
> Very Nice Gentlemen's Club!
> But, I just doubt about: seeking The Truth, searching for The Light, Makin' Good Men Better.


Sounds like where ever ur at isnting doing it right. And light doesn't just flow to u. U individually have to seek it. And it has made me alot better. U get out of it what u put into it. It might take someone years to find it.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 12, 2016)

lilhut3579 said:


> I've always wondered why we don't have a national GLs?



Some countries do.

George Washington is rumored to have said "He who governs least governs best".  A single national GL would get to impose its mistakes on all Brothers in the county, no thanks.


----------



## Bloke (Jun 12, 2016)

lilhut3579 said:


> I've always wondered why we don't have a national GLs?


Same reason you dont work under Scotland, Ireland or England's GL anymore - local determination


----------



## drw72 (Jun 12, 2016)

I agree with the streamlining the Grand lodge / home lodge idea.

I left the KofC to become a Mason for several reasons but one of them was the constant push for recruiting and money. Many councils have their own building which are basically just money pits. We were trying to recruit more than the military does, having fund raisers all the time and bingo twice a week just to keep our hall. There were two factions in my former council, one wanted to sell the hall and meet in the church hall and the other wanted to keep it.

Some other councils had already sold their buildings and met in their church facilities which, in my opinion, made them more effective. They worked more closely with their church (KofC is Catholic based after all) and the money they raised went to charity instead of building upkeep, taxes, etc.

I had the opportunity to visit Colchester England last year and see an example of the way Freemasons meet over there. Not every lodge has it’s own building, in fact it seems very few do. The one I visited, St. Giles Masonic Centre, is host to almost 30 Craft Lodges and appendent groups (Royal Arch, KT, etc).   http://www.stgilescentre.org.uk/masonic

It seems over here that we tend to be more possessive and territorial, everyone want their own building (FM & KofC). Like they think you can't have a Lodge without a building.


----------



## JJones (Jun 12, 2016)

Technically, each GL could have almost been considered a national GL before the Civil War, but that's a whole other topic.

A Grand body needs to accessible and approachable. We have this now with state Grand Lodges as they tend to be within reasonable commuting distance and it's not unfeasible to be involved in GL activities. A national Grand Lodge would be prohibitive because brethren would be less likely to have the time and resources for involvement.

There are probably other reasons as well. For one, I certainly wouldn't see all the US Grand Lodge abdicating their authority in favor of a National Grand Lodge.


----------



## drw72 (Jun 12, 2016)

JJones said:


> A Grand body needs to accessible and approachable. We have this now with state Grand Lodges as they tend to be within reasonable commuting distance and it's not unfeasible to be involved in GL activities. A national Grand Lodge would be prohibitive because brethren would be less likely to have the time and resources for involvement.
> 
> There are probably other reasons as well. For one, I certainly wouldn't see all the US Grand Lodge abdicating their authority in favor of a National Grand Lodge.



Would it be feasible to use a system like in England, one Grand Lodge and each State have a Provincial Grand Lodge?


----------



## JJones (Jun 12, 2016)

drw72 said:


> Would it be feasible to use a system like in England, one Grand Lodge and each State have a Provincial Grand Lodge?



I'm not sure what the benefit is in that? Somebody from England could probably shed more light on that system.

I believe we have a similar system in the Knights Templar, where there are both national and state Grand bodies however I'm not an active enough member to have much experience there.


----------



## MRichard (Jun 12, 2016)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> This is what he posted in the "Various Questions" thread: "But it's true! I'd like to join Freemasonry only for -- "Financial Benefits"!
> That's why, I think that -- I'm not suitable for it, now! And that's why I'm still researching & workin' on myself."



I wonder if this is someone I already blocked. Is it Ressam? I already knew about him.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 12, 2016)

MRichard said:


> I wonder if this is someone I already blocked. Is it Ressam? I already knew about him.


Yes its ressam.  He pisses me off more and more with every post.  Ive blocked him but i still see his comments cause hes retared and quotes something and then posts inthe quote

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MRichard (Jun 12, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Yes its ressam.  He pisses me off more and more with every post.  Ive blocked him but i still see his comments cause hes retared and quotes something and then posts inthe quote
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



Lol. I am on my tablet now and nothing showed up but it's different when I am on my laptop. I don't usually support banning people but there are always the exceptions.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jun 12, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Some countries do.
> 
> George Washington is rumored to have said "He who governs least governs best".  A single national GL would get to impose its mistakes on all Brothers in the county, no thanks.


.....and charge extra fees.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 12, 2016)

lilhut3579 said:


> I've always wondered why we don't have a national GLs?


Here's what the Law of The Grand Lodge of Texas has to say about that subject:

*Art. 17. General Grand Lodge.* 
_The Grand Lodge is opposed to the formation or establishment of a General or Supreme Grand Lodge for the United States of America, and forbids its officers and Grand Representatives to participate in any meeting where any such movement shall be ever considered._


----------



## Bloke (Jun 12, 2016)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Here's what the Law of The Grand Lodge of Texas has to say about that subject:
> 
> *Art. 17. General Grand Lodge.*
> _The Grand Lodge is opposed to the formation or establishment of a General or Supreme Grand Lodge for the United States of America, and forbids its officers and Grand Representatives to participate in any meeting where any such movement shall be ever considered._



Well there you go. There is on GL who would need to change its rules and the first question would be why they created that rule in the first place.



drw72 said:


> Would it be feasible to use a system like in England, one Grand Lodge and each State have a Provincial Grand Lodge?



By why ? What is the *actual problem* you are tying to address in forming a National GL ?


----------



## cemab4y (Jun 13, 2016)

The membership statistics for 2014, have been published by the MSANA. Please see:

http://msana.com/msastats.asp

As in previous years, the fraternity is hemorrhaging members (with a few exceptions) nationally. The total USA loss was 46,065 members.

As usual, most Freemasons in the USA are convinced that there is no problem, and everything is just fine, and nothing needs to be done, to stanch the loss. Most Freemasons take the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", or "We never did it that way before", or "There is no problem with membership numbers, after all my lodge had three new EA's initiated last year".

I personally, do not believe that we need a national GL. That would just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. A national GL could not "f**k it up" any worse than 51 individual Grand lodges.


----------



## acjohnson53 (Jun 13, 2016)

What "financial benefits" he trying to get. I got wages for him, much better than money/G\


----------



## JJones (Jun 13, 2016)

I do absolutely believe their is a problem, a few in fact, and it isn't necessarily membership numbers.

There are many lodges, and possibly some Grand Lodges, that are still reaping the benefits of what our brethren built before the post WWII membership boom. Now that everything is no longer rosy, many of us are trying to use the same paradigms and mentalities that caused our problems in order to find solutions.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 13, 2016)

cemab4y said:


> A national GL could not "f**k it up" any worse than 51 individual Grand lodges.


You sure about that?


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 13, 2016)

Bloke said:


> the first question would be why they created that rule in the first place.


Good question. Judging by the Article #, I doubt that our fathers were yet born when that one was enacted.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 14, 2016)

JJones said:


> There are many lodges, and possibly some Grand Lodges, that are still reaping the benefits of what our brethren built before the post WWII membership boom. Now that everything is no longer rosy, many of us are trying to use the same paradigms and mentalities that caused our problems in order to find solutions.



No problem can be solved using the thinking that created that problem in the first place - Einstein

Pay attention to the long term trend before the WWI-WWII-Korea boom and the return to original size no longer seems all that bad - me.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jun 14, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Pay attention to the long term trend before the WWI-WWII-Korea boom and the return to original size no longer seems all that bad - me.


Sounds good to me!


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jun 14, 2016)

Glancing back into history, it's been documented that the idea of a National Grand Lodge was entertained by the GLs of State in the early 19th Century.
Refer to the writings of RW Bro. Charles Moore's magazine, the Freemasons Magazine available on GoogleBooks at no cost.
The idea flopped.

Prince Hall GLs did form a National Grand Lodge during the same period. It got off on a good start but soon enough fell apart from the inside out.
It was too bulky and hard to manage. Plus there was a constant power struggle to control the beast. 
The subordinate lodges could not concede fully to operate as just provincial lodges when as before the Compact, they made their own laws,rules,etc.

The biggest problems that will arise from a National Grand Lodge system is authority, control and supremacy.
Who will be agreed upon by all Regular U.S. Freemasons to head this system? 
Who will be trusted with so much powers?



Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Bill Lins (Jun 14, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Pay attention to the long term trend before the WWI-WWII-Korea boom and the return to original size no longer seems all that bad


I've often heard the "boom" years referred to as "the Golden Age of Freemasonry". Methinks it was the worst thing ever to befall U.S. Masonry- the Brethren thought that the growth would continue, so they overbuilt & overspent. Now that the bubble has burst, we have to pick up the pieces & contract to a sustainable state.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jun 18, 2016)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> The biggest problems that will arise from a National Grand Lodge system is authority, control and supremacy.
> Who will be agreed upon by all Regular U.S. Freemasons to head this system?
> Who will be trusted with so much powers?


Very good questions!


----------



## Bloke (Jun 18, 2016)

The first question remains, what problem are you trying to address in examining the idea of a regular  national grand lodge for the USA ?

They _how _and _what _is secondary - *WHY *is the first question.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jun 19, 2016)

The problem i see is that while we are A country but we are also many states.
  I feel a little embarrassed admitting this but i didnt know that Canada or Austraila had "states".  I always heard it refered to as Alberta Canada or Quebec Canada.  It wasnt till i was older that i heard it refered to Alberta, Quebec Canada.  Likewise for Australia..it was always Perth or Sydney Australia. You never hear it called Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.  My point is that i think the States in the U.S. mean more then in other countries that have states.  Afterall the states rights was a major talking point after the revolution.

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jun 19, 2016)

Bloke said:


> The first question remains, what problem are you trying to address in examining the idea of a regular  national grand lodge for the USA ?
> 
> They _how _and _what _is secondary - *WHY *is the first question.


Exactly! 
There are no reasons that a majority of State GLs could provide and explain to all that would make the idea agreeable. It's not necessary at this point.
The conditions for a National Grand Lodge doesn't exist in 2016 anymore today than they did in 1843,1847 etc.
The main reason that it existed as a proposed idea in 1843 was because of a lack in uniformity of Rituals, Ceremonies and some small Customs& Usages.
Those issues have been corrected.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Brother JC (Jun 22, 2016)

The thought of trying to incorporate the 50 "state-based" GLs gives me nightmares; some of them don't even know the others exist! (Yes, that's from experience.)


----------



## Bloke (Jun 22, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> ....My point is that i think the States in the U.S. mean more then in other countries that have states.  Afterall the states rights was a major talking point after the revolution.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



It is a little off topic but this made me think when I first read it. Australian States do mean a lot and their character is defined and different, be have a tension here over states rights vrs Federalism, but it is now spoken generally in terms of funding and money. With our smaller population (circa 23 Mil) it also seems whacky to have two levels of laws (State and Federal) in several areas like consumer law, where both federal and state laws catch situations, and we have an argument over a Federal School Curriculum (currently state) and Hospitals (mixed funding and rules), but compared to the American Situation where back in the day the state militia were really important, and indeed acted as armies, Australia does not have that sense of state identify founded in such things... I think you are right, States mean more in USA than in Australia, but they are still important here. We also only have six states and two territories - with only 6 Grand Lodges, but they are all so distinct no one in my circles ever talks about a National GL - it certainly would be unlikely to achieve a uniform working - we are pretty similar in outlook, but basically we're split between Emulation and Scottish based workings...


----------



## Manderthal (Jun 22, 2016)

The millenials are going to fix the damage done by the war babies.
One day classes and permissive acceptance standards will become a thing of the past.
Each blue lodge meeting will contain a reading of a research article or some other presentation to keep it interesting. Members will linger and enjoy fellowship after the final gavel drops.
Wait and see. It's coming.


----------



## cemab4y (Jun 23, 2016)

Manderthal said:


> The millenials are going to fix the damage done by the war babies.
> One day classes and permissive acceptance standards will become a thing of the past.
> Each blue lodge meeting will contain a reading of a research article or some other presentation to keep it interesting. Members will linger and enjoy fellowship after the final gavel drops.
> Wait and see. It's coming.



What leads you to make this conclusion? Why do you think that ODCs will disappear? Why do you think that stated meetings will become interesting?

Please explain why you believe such things will happen? I am interested


----------

