# Is Freemasonry Doomed To Fail?



## JJones (Dec 4, 2018)

Hey brothers!

I haven't shared any of my ramblings here in quite some time. My apologies, or your welcome, depending on your perspective.

My latest: Is Freemasonry Doomed To Fail?


----------



## David612 (Dec 4, 2018)

I was going to say that this idea  seems to be the flavour of the month recently but honestly there’s always someone spreading the doom n gloom.


----------



## CLewey44 (Dec 5, 2018)

Lets just all be honest, the form of Masonry we have for the most part nowadays is not going to work. The idea of 'the more the merrier' is failing. When we get down to about 100K to maaaaybe 400K members we'll actually be at a sustainable level. It'll mean higher dues but better quality to put it simply. Get rid of these small lodges that are hanging by a thread that can barely get enough people showing up to open on all three degrees much less perform a degree for a new member.  They are mostly hopeless. Every metro area should only have 2 or 3 lodges at most, big towns maybe 1 or 2 and areas that fall into that less than 100K people should at best have one lodge in the entire area, not 9 lodges.

Example, Rochester NY area has had upwards of ten lodges in the metro area and only one or two are really thriving where at least 20 or so members show up regularly. Since I've lived here the last two years at least three maybe even four lodges have closed and several others barely hanging by a thread. The formula that is being used right now is not working. It's time to condense and concentrate efforts into fewer lodges. This will decrease burn out, increase camaraderie and make for a more enjoyable experience. This includes PHA in my opinion.

Is Masonry a form of labor? Sure, but it should be a labor of love not something you dread. If it's a hassle then why bother? When four or five members are carrying the weight of a lodge, that's a problem. Lets be honest here, a lodge may have 150 'members' but only about eight to fifteen, maybe twenty, show up regularly and rarely overlapping which leaves you with about eight to twelve consistently at meetings. Of those only about three to five are pulling most of the weight with ritual, trustees issues, and admin issues. That's a recipe for disaster. We have to make it more enjoyable, whatever that entails, or people won't even bother. It doesn't sell itself like it used to.

EDIT: Let me be so bold as to say 50K to 150K would actually be the sweet spot perhaps based on a much lower amount of lodges.


----------



## coachn (Dec 5, 2018)

Price's Law ~ Half the Work is done by the square root of the total number involved. 

Unless you're a Lodge, then all the work is done by the square root of all the members.

 1 : 1
4 : 2
9 : 3
16 : 4
25 : 5
36 : 6
49 : 7
64 : 8
81 : 9
100 : 10
121 : 11
144 : 12
169 : 13
196 : 14
225 : 15
256 : 16

Does your membership participation defy this Law?


----------



## CLewey44 (Dec 5, 2018)

coachn said:


> Price's Law ~ Half the Work is done by the square root of the total number involved.
> 
> Unless you're a Lodge, then all the work is done by the square root of all the members.
> 
> ...



Lol, not at all. However, I'd venture to say that about 100% of the work is done by the square root of all the members.


----------



## coachn (Dec 5, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> Lol, not at all. However, I'd venture to say that about 100% of the work is done by the square root of all the members.


Reread starting at "unless..."


----------



## CLewey44 (Dec 5, 2018)

coachn said:


> Reread starting at "unless..."


Ah yes I see what you mean there.


----------



## coachn (Dec 5, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> Ah yes I see what you mean there.


Spot on Bro.!


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 5, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> Lets just all be honest, the form of Masonry we have for the most part nowadays is not going to work. The idea of 'the more the merrier' is failing. When we get down to about 100K to maaaaybe 400K members we'll actually be at a sustainable level. It'll mean higher dues but better quality to put it simply. Get rid of these small lodges that are hanging by a thread that can barely get enough people showing up to open on all three degrees much less perform a degree for a new member.  They are mostly hopeless. Every metro area should only have 2 or 3 lodges at most, big towns maybe 1 or 2 and areas that fall into that less than 100K people should at best have one lodge in the entire area, not 9 lodges.
> 
> Example, Rochester NY area has had upwards of ten lodges in the metro area and only one or two are really thriving where at least 20 or so members show up regularly. Since I've lived here the last two years at least three maybe even four lodges have closed and several others barely hanging by a thread. The formula that is being used right now is not working. It's time to condense and concentrate efforts into fewer lodges. This will decrease burn out, increase camaraderie and make for a more enjoyable experience. This includes PHA in my opinion.
> 
> ...



I agree, with one exception.  I am not opposed to small lodges assuming that there are enough people to spread the work across.  My lodge has around 7 active brothers who carry the weight.  We have simplified things to the point of not needing committees (with the exception of investigation and a few ad hoc ones for charity, etc).  This is difficult on those 7 of us.  That being said, if we had 15 solid guys who were there for every meeting, all knew all of the ritual, and were all willing to help out, we would be very happy.  To my mind, the ideal would be around 40-50 of these types of men.  Small enough to know everyone well, but big enough to spread the work out. 
Then again, I'm fairly introverted, so for others, a large lodge with 200 active guys might be ideal.  I just personally see a place for both.


----------



## Bloke (Dec 14, 2018)

coachn said:


> Price's Law ~ Half the Work is done by the square root of the total number involved.
> 
> Unless you're a Lodge, then all the work is done by the square root of all the members.
> 
> ...


I would say the real workers in the lodge is generally a smaller group that the square root of the total membership.


----------

