# Traditional Observance



## dlee12882 (Mar 4, 2015)

Good day Brothers,

My apologies, I was writing this from my computer and lost internet (at work) and apparently it submitted a partial post.
 I was wondering about visiting a local T.O. lodge in my area (Kansas City). From what I have been told the dress is usually a Tux. Do these lodges require that visitors be dressed as such as well or is this left up to the discretion of each Lodge. I am thinking about contacting the secretary just to be safe but I wanted to hear input from you all before hand. Thanks for reading and I apologize for the blank forum


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 4, 2015)

Merry to meet, sad to part, merry to meet again.  Merry to meet again, again, Merry to meet again.

Singing, just another feature of TO lodges.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Mar 4, 2015)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess, since you are in KC, you are talking visiting about Inner quest Lodge #456. I pulled the following off their web site:

*"Inner Quest Lodge Stated Communications are open to all men able to prove themselves a Mason. Visitors are welcome and encouraged. We place great emphasis on the quality of the Lodge experience itself and request that all visitors provide the following courtesies:


 Contact the   Worshipful Master or a  member of the Lodge prior to your visit and express your desires. He will provide any necessary details on when and where future Communications will be conducted, as well as answer any questions you may have. We participate in an informal dinner gathering afterwards, which you are earnestly invited to attend. Certain arrangements must be made in advance to accommodate visitors properly.


 A dark suit and tie are a minimum dress requirement.


One of the tenets of Inner Quest Lodge is that all Brothers are esteemed with equal respect and standing — from the newest Entered Apprentice in the Northeast corner of the Lodge to the Worshipful Master who presides in the East.  As such, each Brother wears a simple and unadorned white apron in the Lodge." *


----------



## Bob Reed (May 26, 2015)

I just joined this forum and can answer any questions on the TO style lodge as I was Initiated, Passed and Raised in one. Yes, it is a more formal dress environment. A dark suit is fine for visitors. Members wear white tie and tails with a plain apron and white gloves. Unfortunately I have to had the opportinity to travel to other lodges just yet, so for me this is the norm although I am aware most do not operate this way. It works for me but I know many will be put off by the formal dress. There is a lot more to a TO lodge like higher dues and more focus on degree work. I attended my first Agape in July 2011 and was just raised last month.


----------



## Companion Joe (May 26, 2015)

I am going to my first TO meeting tomorrow night and am looking forward to it.


----------



## Bob Reed (May 27, 2015)

I am interested in hearing your perspective on the experience. I hope it is enjoyable.


----------



## KSigMason (May 27, 2015)

While I was in DC I stayed with an officer for Nine Muses Lodge which is a TO Lodge. I enjoyed visiting their Lodge.


----------



## Companion Joe (May 27, 2015)

I don't know if attending the TO meeting was the best Masonic experience I've ever had, but it certainly belongs in the conversation. I wasn't going in blind; I know all about how things were going to take place, but once I got to see it and take part, I was blown away. I love the pomp and ceremony. To me, the formality is what makes Masonry stand out.


----------



## Glen Cook (May 31, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> I just joined this forum and can answer any questions on the TO style lodge as I was Initiated, Passed and Raised in one. Yes, it is a more formal dress environment. A dark suit is fine for visitors. Members wear white tie and tails with a plain apron and white gloves. Unfortunately I have to had the opportinity to travel to other lodges just yet, so for me this is the norm although I am aware most do not operate this way. It works for me but I know many will be put off by the formal dress. There is a lot more to a TO lodge like higher dues and more focus on degree work. I attended my first Agape in July 2011 and was just raised last month.


That is my problem with the TO designation: the implication that there is a lot more to them. My mother lodge does degree work in white tie.  We have Agape.  We call it dinner.  My English lodge wears is either dark suit or stripy trousers. We have Agape.  We call it a meal.  I have yet to see what makes a TO lodge a TO Lodge, other than calling dinner by a pretentious name.


----------



## Companion Joe (May 31, 2015)

The difference between the TO lodge meeting I visited the other night and a standard lodge meeting around here is night and day. The dress, members and officers entering in procession, the music, you could never pull that off at a regular lodge. If you mentioned it, some of the members would be all for it; others would look at you like you are from another planet.


----------



## Glen Cook (May 31, 2015)

Companion Joe said:


> The difference between the TO lodge meeting I visited the other night and a standard lodge meeting around here is night and day. The dress, members and officers entering in procession, the music, you could never pull that off at a regular lodge. If you mentioned it, some of the members would be all for it; others would look at you like you are from another planet.


I know any number of UGLE lodges which have music and the officers process. 

I'm used to people looking at me like I'm from another planet.


----------



## Brandon Smith (May 31, 2015)

I am a member of a non-T.O. Lodge, but have visited a local T.O. lodge several times. Here in Louisiana, the T.O. lodge is completely night & day from the typical lodge experience. Everything about attending lodge, in my travels, has been overly casual from the attire, meal, meeting, and fellowship. Any deep or real conversations about Freemasonry are non-existent. Attempts at bringing education and conversation about the craft have been all but completely shunned. However, when I visit the T.O. lodge the brothers are truly excited about everything Freemasonry has to offer. The meeting is a celebration of the craft if you will.

Now, with that said, is the need for a term such as T.O. necessary? Or does it drive brothers further apart? Thats not a question I will attempt to answer. I can say, however, that when I leave a T.O. lodge meeting I feel amazing. I leave feeling that I want to continue to make progress in bettering myself and those around me. When I leave my lodge meetings I often feel disappointed, let down, and unsure as to why I wasted my evening hearing minutes and bickering. 

It sounds like the lodge experience for you, Bro. Cook, is much better than mine and those I know personally, and thus, makes the idea of T.O. unnecessary. I can respect that opinion. I visited a lodge in Colorado that was non-T.O., but had everything I sought in attending a masonic lodge meeting. I felt uplifted and if it were my home lodge I would feel no need to seek out another "style" of masonry. 

Just my opinion...


----------



## Companion Joe (May 31, 2015)

Brother Brandon,
You pretty much detailed it right there.


----------



## Glen Cook (May 31, 2015)

I can work with that.


----------



## Bob Reed (May 31, 2015)

I've heard of a number of lodges using some "TO concepts" but not others. I like Brandon Smith's explanation very much. The problem with TO is the reputation or label  Traditional Observance. Some take it to mean something arrogant or "elite." It's just another form of masonry. Any brother is welcome to visit or affiliate.


----------



## Glen Cook (May 31, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> I've heard of a number of lodges using some "TO concepts" but not others. I like Brandon Smith's explanation very much. The problem with TO is the reputation or label  Traditional Observance. Some take it to mean something arrogant or "elite." It's just another form of masonry. Any brother is welcome to visit or affiliate.


My view is a bit different: I object to the perception put forth by some that only a TO lodge takes ritual seriously or wears evening dress.  Additionally there is a sense that some are dismissive of the bonds of fraternity found in a lodge in which clean jeans are the appropriate dress.  It does, indeed, come across as elitism.


----------



## dfreybur (May 31, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> I have yet to see what makes a TO lodge a TO Lodge, other than calling dinner by a pretentious name.



I'll offer two viewpoints.

1) TO lodges have more requirements because those requirements were traditional so they keep the ones that work towards keeping Masonry what it should be.

2) Non-TO lodges broke off the superfluous traditions so they only keep the ones that work towards keeping Masonry what it should be.

The difference is up to the brother in the mirror.


----------



## Bob Reed (Jun 1, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> My view is a bit different: I object to the perception put forth by some that only a TO lodge takes ritual seriously or wears evening dress.  Additionally there is a sense that some are dismissive of the bonds of fraternity found in a lodge in which clean jeans are the appropriate dress.  It does, indeed, come across as elitism.



Who puts that perception forth? I think that perception has to come from brothers outside of those in TO lodges. With the exception of brothers like myself who where raised in a TO lodge (7-8 brothers in Enlightenment 198) every other brother is active in more than 1 lodge and most would (and do) say that their mother lodges do excellent ritual work. We don't put down other lodges because most of us are active in those lodges as well.

I am always surprised at how emotional brothers get about dressing up. We have a lodge uniform, that's it. In our case we decided on white tie and tails. Whether you are a lawyer or roofer you are dressed exactly alike. What can be more conducive to the bonds of fraternity than that?

The other point I would make is that the one universal complaint I always hear from masons is the disappointment with boring meetings. In the case of TO lodges the brothers took it upon themselves to try and fix it by making lodge an event, not just some meeting. They did this by dressing up, adding music, processing in, masonic education, chain of union etc. Then afterward an Agape, not just a dinner, complete with various toasts and open discussion on the educational topic presented in lodge. Now instead of complaining about boring meetings those brothers can complain out something else....you just can't win.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 1, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> ....you just can't win.


I find it humorous and ironic that some of the ones calling out "elitism" in T.O. Lodges are also posting their disdain for the way Widow's Sons look in another thread.

Personally, I'm on Chapter 13 of Cliff Porter's book and so far everything I've read sounds very impressive and along the lines of what I thought Freemasonry would be.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 1, 2015)

At risk of going off on a tangent...

I've never understood the aversion of some to dressing nicely to go to Lodge.  As if putting on a coat and tie is such and inconvenience and dressing a little nicer than one would to do yard work is 'elitist'.  Nobody calls the guy in a suit at a wedding or a funeral elitist. 
Now, if a man has a problem with purchasing a white tie suit that he is unlikely to ever wear anywhere else, I can understand his feelings from an economical point of view, but watching brothers from my own lodge get upset about wearing a suit confuses me.


----------



## Bob Reed (Jun 1, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> I find it humorous and ironic that some of the ones calling out "elitism" in T.O. Lodges are also posting their disdain for the way Widow's Sons look in another thread.
> 
> Personally, I'm on Chapter 13 of Cliff Porter's book and so far everything I've read sounds very impressive and along the lines of what I thought Freemasonry would be.



Cliff is one of the biggest proponents of the TO style lodge and one of the founders of E198. One of the problems, and I am guilty of this too, is that some TO Masons have a tendency of being very vocal and enthusiastic about the things going on in lodge and the craft in general. I think this enthusiasm can be viewed as arrogance or elitism and we've got to guard against that. This is just such exciting stuff!!!


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 1, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> Cliff is one of the biggest proponents of the TO style lodge and one of the founders of E198. One of the problems, and I am guilty of this too, is that some TO Masons have a tendency of being very vocal and enthusiastic about the things going on in lodge and the craft in general. I think this enthusiasm can be viewed as arrogance or elitism and we've got to guard against that. This is just such exciting stuff!!!


I would imagine so, especially to those who haven't read the book where he expounds and validates his points. I'm paraphrasing here of course, but one section in particular really resonated with me...the section on dues:

Freemasonry is supposed to be elite. There's supposed to be pomp and circumstance and a feeling of being part of something special. Over the years as membership dwindled, there was a movement to "dumb down" Freemasonry by lowering dues and lowering standards. This had the adverse effect of driving more people away from the Craft than drawing new members to it. 

Dues at my lodge is way too low. We're in "maintain" mode instead of "improving" mode, and in my opinion, that's a mistake. We have outdated...everything...and as much as I love the experience, it could still be made a whole lot better. A T.O. lodge aspires to do better. To provide a quality experience for its members so that they can't wait to come back versus just going through the motions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## Bob Reed (Jun 1, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> I would imagine so, especially to those who haven't read the book where he expounds and validates his points. I'm paraphrasing here of course, but one section in particular really resonated with me...the section on dues:
> 
> Freemasonry is supposed to be elite. There's supposed to be pomp and circumstance and a feeling of being part of something special. Over the years as membership dwindled, there was a movement to "dumb down" Freemasonry by lowering dues and lowering standards. This had the adverse effect of driving more people away from the Craft than drawing new members to it.
> 
> Dues at my lodge is way too low. We're in "maintain" mode instead of "improving" mode, and in my opinion, that's a mistake. We have outdated...everything...and as much as I love the experience, it could still be made a whole lot better. A T.O. lodge aspires to do better. To provide a quality experience for its members so that they can't wait to come back versus just going through the motions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.



I guess the proof is in the pudding. If the whole TO thing fails to meet the needs of the members then it will die. Fortunately, the opposite is proving true: Instead of dumbing down let's up the requirements. Make a prospective brother earn the right to petition by showing up for the Agape and getting to know the brothers, then if elected to join our ranks make them work for their degrees. Then charge dues that will do more than keep the lights on, but provide a meaningful experience they will want again and again.

It should be an honor to be a Mason.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 1, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> Over the years as membership dwindled, there was a movement to "dumb down" Freemasonry by lowering dues and lowering standards. *This had the adverse effect of driving more people away from the Craft than drawing new members to it*.



Without dispute membership has declined each year since 1959, after the post WW2 membership boom, but based on my personal experience and research the decline is a result of major societal, cultural, and demographic shifts.  What evidence do you have to support your statement?

In my opinion TO and EC Lodges appeal to a very small segment of men, that is not to say there is anything wrong with them, but I can tell you that if all Lodges adopted their requirements Masonic membership in Louisiana would plummet.

Do you have any data on the number of members that currently belong to these types of Lodges and the number of members they have initiated, passed, and raised over the last 5 years.


----------



## Bob Reed (Jun 1, 2015)

I don't think anyone is saying that these requirements should be universal. Masonry has room for everyone and there are lodges to fit those needs. I also don't think that data on numbers would be an apples to apples comparison since brothers can have a year or more between degrees so we move slower. The biggest plus here is that so far in my lodge anyway, we do not have anyone come for the degrees and are never seen again.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 1, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Without dispute membership has declined each year since 1959, after the post WW2 membership boom, but based on my personal experience and research the decline is a result of major societal, cultural, and demographic shifts.  What evidence do you have to support your statement?
> 
> In my opinion TO and EC Lodges appeal to a very small segment of men, that is not to say there is anything wrong with them, but I can tell you that if all Lodges adopted their requirements Masonic membership in Louisiana would plummet.
> 
> Do you have any data on the number of members that currently belong to these types of Lodges and the number of members they have initiated, passed, and raised over the last 5 years.


The only data I can point to are the author's own words: Their dues are much higher and requirements are tougher, yet they maintain near 100% attendance, have to kick members out the door @ 2:00am, and have a waiting list of interested candidates. From just about everything I hear in person and read online, just the opposite is true of other lodges. Members are demitting or not attending, meetings are boring, meals consist of bologna sandwiches (if anything), and there is a serious recruitment problem. And there are official numbers to support those statements.

Personally, I don't know how anyone would *not* be interested in the T.O. experience. It's the same Freemasonry, only with quality, style and substance.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 1, 2015)

I was not suggesting,


Bob Reed said:


> anyone is saying that these requirements should be universal.



I was just pointing out that while TO and EC Lodges are appealing to some, that appeal is limited to a relatively small number of men, and if one of the goals is to stem the tide of declining Masonic membership (which I do not believe to be the case), in my opinion it will not meet that goal.

I was addressing the cause and effect fallacies  “as membership dwindled” that created “a movement to "dumb down" Freemasonry by lowering dues and lowering standards” (in and of itself debatable) which in turn resulted in “the adverse effect of driving more people away from the Craft than drawing new members to it”. 

I would like to see the evidence to support that assertion.



Browncoat said:


> The only data I can point to are the author's own words


That is an anecdotal account about one Lodge.

I am not saying that the following information is representative of all TO and EC Lodges:
In Louisiana there are two TO Lodges

  The Lodge of Nine Muses No. 9 in Baton Rouge, LA
 Dispensation granted in 2004, 19 members 12-31-2004
  24 members 12-31-2012

O. K. Allen Lodge No. 33 Winnfield, LA
  Dispensation granted in 2010, 25 members 12-31-2010
  22 members 12-31-2012


Also, I find it interesting that of the 23 Charter Members of Lodge Virtruvian No. 767 in Indianapolis, Indiana 19 have demitted.  http://vitruvian.org/?page_id=10

Again, I am not saying there is anything wrong with TO and EC Lodges.  To each his own.



Browncoat said:


> Personally, I don't know how anyone would *not* be interested in the T.O. experience. It's the same Freemasonry, only with quality, style and substance.


Now that sounds elitist.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 1, 2015)

Personally, I am partial to the fried catfish, french fries, coleslaw, hush puppies, and iced tea we have at our "Table Lodges".


----------



## Bob Reed (Jun 1, 2015)

A simple google search into Masonic membership (http://www.msana.com/msastats.asp) shows an obvious decline in membership in our fraternity year by year. I think it is also obvious that our current "solutions" are not working. I believe it is correct that TO or any new fangled style isn't going to put those numbers back to 1960s level, but I will say that in all likelyhood TO masons stay involved. I am a member of the lodge Cliff Porter references in his book. Our dues are high ($365/yr) and it took me 10 months to get a petition, but the energy and brotherhood was unlike anything I have ever seen. This year, we will raise 2 brothers, including me in April, and we have lost 2 to death, so our number will not swell overnight, but that is by design. Give me 30 dedicated brothers and you can keep the 100 no-shows. Quality over quantity. Check out www.enlightenment198.com if you'd like.
Thanks to everyone on this forum. I am enjoying the civil debate and new opinions.
Bob


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 1, 2015)

I have Porter's book and have it set aside to read while on vacation in a couple of weeks.

I have always said give me 20 _Masons_ over 200 _members_ any day.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 1, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> Who puts that perception forth? I think that perception has to come from brothers outside of those in TO lodges. With the exception of brothers like myself who where raised in a TO lodge (7-8 brothers in Enlightenment 198) every other brother is active in more than 1 lodge and most would (and do) say that their mother lodges do excellent ritual work. We don't put down other lodges because most of us are active in those lodges as well.
> 
> I am always surprised at how emotional brothers get about dressing up. We have a lodge uniform, that's it. In our case we decided on white tie and tails. Whether you are a lawyer or roofer you are dressed exactly alike. What can be more conducive to the bonds of fraternity than that?
> 
> The other point I would make is that the one universal complaint I always hear from masons is the disappointment with boring meetings. In the case of TO lodges the brothers took it upon themselves to try and fix it by making lodge an event, not just some meeting. They did this by dressing up, adding music, processing in, masonic education, chain of union etc. Then afterward an Agape, not just a dinner, complete with various toasts and open discussion on the educational topic presented in lodge. Now instead of complaining about boring meetings those brothers can complain out something else....you just can't win.


Brothers from such lodges.  FYI, I know members of Enlightenment and Cliff Porter has stayed in my home.  

. Let me note again, dressing up, as you put it, is not the issue. Rather, it is the implication that only TO lodges do so.  I do not consider $365 particularly high. I've paid £200 for four meetings a year, plus dining. I'm a member of a side order which has various fees commensurate with that. This makes my point: TO lodges don't have a monopoly on dressing up or any other factor, other than calling a meal by a different name


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 1, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> Quality over quantity.


This sums it up nicely.

Nearly everyone who has read the book comments that there was a lot of head-nodding in agreement while reading it. The concepts outlined within its pages speak to a lot of Masons, and if you listen to those who are not yet initiated, it addresses many of their concerns as well. Never once did I get the impression that the author was saying other lodges are "doing it wrong" or that T.O. is "better".

Is T.O. the answer? Who knows? We'd have to wait several years to find out if retention and attendance is better in the long run. But in my opinion, the answer is already available. I have yet to see any member of a T.O. lodge complain about their lodge experience.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 1, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> The only data I can point to are the author's own words: Their dues are much higher and requirements are tougher, yet they maintain near 100% attendance, have to kick members out the door @ 2:00am, and have a waiting list of interested candidates. From just about everything I hear in person and read online, just the opposite is true of other lodges. Members are demitting or not attending, meetings are boring, meals consist of bologna sandwiches (if anything), and there is a serious recruitment problem. And there are official numbers to support those statements.
> 
> Personally, I don't know how anyone would *not* be interested in the T.O. experience. It's the same Freemasonry, only with quality, style and substance.


Most of us don't have a problem with the TO experience. It is the implication they have a monopoly in the experience.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 1, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Most of us don't have a problem with the TO experience. It is the implication they have a monopoly in the experience.


Sure that implication isn't self-inflicted?


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jun 1, 2015)

It is too bad that someone can't create a podcast that explains the problems facing Freemasonry.  Oh, wait, http://xoriente.com/?p=212


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 2, 2015)

I totally agree that TO lodges aren't the only bodies who try to make things a little more formal. I was asked by a  brother if I thought there was a need for a TO lodge in our area. As much as I enjoyed it, I told him probably not. I would most be the same people in our general area who are most active in other things, and we don't need another meeting. Our various invitational York Rite bodies are almost hand-in-hand with the TO setting.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 2, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> Nearly everyone who has read the book comments that there was a lot of head-nodding in agreement while reading it.



I am thinking that may be a "hasty generalization fallacy" Can you quantify that?  (i.e. how many people have read the book and how many have made the comment?)



Browncoat said:


> From just about everything I hear in person and read online



So, are your comments based solely on second hand information or are you commenting based on your personal experience?

Out of curiosity how long have you been a Mason and do you belong to or have you ever attended a TO Lodge.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 2, 2015)

You are basing your comments in this thread solely on perceived logical fallacies.



LAMason said:


> So, are your comments based solely on second hand information or are you commenting based on your personal experience?
> 
> Out of curiosity how long have you been a Mason and do you belong to or have you ever attended a TO Lodge.



Here, you are attempting to discredit my opinion by attacking my level of experience. Do you have an opinion of your own on this topic, or are you just trolling with logic fallacies open in another tab?

How about that? I have access to the internet too.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 2, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> Here, you are attempting to discredit my opinion by attacking my level of experience



Quite the opposite, I do not know nor have I attacked your "level of experience".  I am just asking what it is to have a better idea of your point of reference.

I will gladly provide my point of reference:  I have been a Master Mason since 1973, served as WM in 1976 and as Secretary for many years starting in 1977.  I served as DDGM in 1985.  I was a member of all of the York Rite Bodies (I am demitted from them now), I served as HP and IM and DDGHP.  All of my Masonic experience was in rural northwest Louisiana.  My experiences have shaped and define my point of reference.



Browncoat said:


> Do you have an opinion of your own on this topic



I have expressed my opinion on this topic in my prior posts in this thread.



Browncoat said:


> are you just trolling with logic fallacies



Rhetoric and Logic are two of the "Seven Liberal Arts and Sciences".  Does that ring a bell?


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 2, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> I believe it is correct that TO or any new fangled style isn't going to put those numbers back to 1960s level



The question that seems unexamined is why the 1960s level should be viewed as desirable.  It is a historical anomaly that does not correlate with the "quality versus quantity" question.  It was a market bubble rather like tulips or houses and the bubble burst.  Why isn't the bubble level of our membership in the 1960s seen as a problem not as a goal?  Like all bubbles it was followed by a crash.  We missed an entire generation in that crash.  To the extent that a bubble triggered a crash why do people appear to target having another bubble?

Our numbers have swung up and down across the centuries.  Numbers of degrees lead total membership because our average membership is decades and our median membership is several decades.  The number of degree conferrals has been at the pre-Civil-War level for years now.

If TO lodges are perceived as having a monopoly of high attendance, what's the data?  Data talks, hand waving walks.  TO lodges are not the only ones that have high attendance.  It's active lodges of any ilk that have high attendance.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 2, 2015)

I view TO lodges less as THE solution and more as A solution.

I have visited a EC lodge here locally and may decide to affiliate with them if they'll have me.  Why?  Because it is the type of Freemasonry I was originally looking for.  Let me repeat that, it is the type of Freemasonry *I*  was looking for.  The idea of a TO lodge is the answer for *me*.  That being said, it's not what everyone is looking for, and, just because a lodge calls itself TO or EC doesn't mean it fully practices what preaches. 
I understand the feeling of some brothers who call the TO and EC lodges elitist.  Not that I think they are, but they have purposely gone out of their way to do things differently than most mainstream lodges here in the US.  That will naturally lead to a feeling of 'are-we-not-good-enough-for-you'.  And while I would never dream of trying to speak for someone else, for me personally, it's not that other lodges aren't good enough, it's just that the TO and EC lodges are more what I was originally looking for.  To each their own.


----------



## Bob Reed (Jun 2, 2015)

I guess someone somewhere took a set of general requirements and standards and put a label on it: Traditional Observance. They (and I don't know who coined the phrase) wanted to address what they saw as lacking in their own personal experience with masonry and fix it to meet their needs. As a whole I think it has been successful and those of us who have been a part of it want to share the love. After all, isn't one of the biggest complaints masons have is that they get little satisfaction out of their lodge experience? No one ever said you have to take it or leave it as a whole. In fact, many lodges do some of these things and have for years and don't call themselves TO. 

If you are finding your own masonic experience lacking then take a look at the TO model. Incorporate what you like and leave the rest. If your experience improves as a result then I think the goal of what these brothers have been trying to do was accomplished.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 2, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> You are basing your comments in this thread solely on perceived logical fallacies.



When someone makes a statement that includes the generalization "Nearly everyone" they should be able to provide data (quantify) to support the generalization.



Browncoat said:


> How about that? I have access to the internet too.



The internet can be useful, but much of my education/knowledge and experience predates the World Wide Web and the internet.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 2, 2015)

LAMason said:


> When someone makes a statement that includes the generalization "Nearly everyone" they should be able to provide data (quantify) to support the generalization.


I'm going to need to see an accredited source and/or scholarly study to support this claim.




LAMason said:


> The internet can be useful, but much of my education/knowledge and experience predates the World Wide Web and the internet.


Do you have documentation to prove this? Witnessed by Notary of the Public, of course.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 2, 2015)

LAMason said:


> The internet can be useful, but much of my education/knowledge and experience predates the World Wide Web and the internet.



When the web came out I was like "gopher with pictures. I don't get the point".  It's not that long ago.  1993 I think.  The year I was Initiated.

The internet seems longer ago to me.  I was in 6th grade in 1969.  Plenty of brothers have been Masons longer than that, though.


----------



## Bob Reed (Jun 2, 2015)

LAMason said:


> When someone makes a statement that includes the generalization "Nearly everyone" they should be able to provide data (quantify) to support the generalization.
> 
> 
> 
> The internet can be useful, but much of my education/knowledge and experience predates the World Wide Web and the internet.



I don't think you are adding much value to this thread if every opinion or generalization someone makes is going to be challenged to cite sources like it's a doctoral thesis. Even moreso it's pretty obnoxious. Most of what we have in regard to this subject is anecdotal at best anyway...


----------



## LAMason (Jun 3, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> I'm going to need to see an accredited source and/or scholarly study to support this claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have documentation to prove this? Witnessed by Notary of the Public, of course.



Appeal to ridicule.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 3, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> it's pretty obnoxious



Ad Hominem.



Bob Reed said:


> Most of what we have in regard to this subject is anecdotal at best anyway



I did not say there is anything wrong with anecdotal accounts, but anecdotes should not be used as evidence to support a generalization, doing so can lead to biased and hasty generalizatons.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 3, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> I don't get the point



I was addressing his sarcastic comment and making the point was that I am not limited to nor do I have to rely solely on the WWW (internet) for information.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 3, 2015)

LAMason said:


> I was addressing his sarcastic comment and making the point was that I am not limited to nor do I have to rely solely on the WWW (internet) for information.


Have you even read the book: _A Traditional Observance Lodge: One Mason's Journey to Fulfillment_ by Cliff Porter?


----------



## JJones (Jun 3, 2015)

I see yet another interesting and productive thread beginning to degenerate.  It's a sign of an intelligent mind that can entertain another idea without feeling the need to accept it or prove it wrong.

Debate is good and healthy.  If you begin feeling heated, however, then it's not the time to type a reply.

Please keep things civil.


----------



## Illuminatio (Jun 3, 2015)

So I've heard/ready bits and pieces about these T.O. lodges and now after reading this thread, my interest is piqued. How would I go about finding where the closest one to me is (southwestern IL)? I've done a general Google search and found nothing definitive and our Grand Lodge's Lodge Locator is good, but there's nothing to designate whether a lodge is T.O. (as I guessed there wouldn't be). Should I just email the Grand Lodge to find out or would they not necessarily know that an individual lodge considers itself T.O.?


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 3, 2015)

I would imagine that the GL's knowledge of whether or not a Lodge operated as a TO would depend on what that Lodge's practices actually are and whether those practices require any kind of dispensation of the GL. 

A Lodge that simply dresses nicer, is very serious about it's ritual, and has higher than average dues might not think of itself as TO so there'd be no reason for the GL to recognize them as such.  On the other extreme, if their ritual departed from the usual enough that the GL took notice and they needed some kind of dispensation, that would probably be something they would keep record of.  My guess is that most Lodges that consider themselves TO fall somewhere in the middle. 
My recommendation would be to look up all the Lodges within an acceptable travel distance from yourself and start looking at websites.  My guess is that they'll either state that they are TO or EC or give clues as to such in a mission statement or something to the effect.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jun 3, 2015)

One place to start looking would be the web site of the Masonic Restoration Foundation.  http://www.masonicrestorationfoundation.org/lodges.html


----------



## Bob Reed (Jun 3, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> I would imagine that the GL's knowledge of whether or not a Lodge operated as a TO would depend on what that Lodge's practices actually are and whether those practices require any kind of dispensation of the GL.
> 
> A Lodge that simply dresses nicer, is very serious about it's ritual, and has higher than average dues might not think of itself as TO so there'd be no reason for the GL to recognize them as such.  On the other extreme, if their ritual departed from the usual enough that the GL took notice and they needed some kind of dispensation, that would probably be something they would keep record of.  My guess is that most Lodges that consider themselves TO fall somewhere in the middle.
> My recommendation would be to look up all the Lodges within an acceptable travel distance from yourself and start looking at websites.  My guess is that they'll either state that they are TO or EC or give clues as to such in a mission statement or something to the effect.



That is a good question! I'll ask around too and get back if I find something. At what point does a lodge that goes from simply doing good work to one that calls themselves TO? Is it because we allow alcohol and use the Chamber of Reflection in initiations? I have no idea if any dispensation was needed for that. I've recently heard that some are starting to shy away from the label due to misconceptions and overly excited brothers like me who may have inadvertently turned others off to the idea because they wont shut up about it!! .


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 3, 2015)

Bob Reed said:


> At what point does a lodge that goes from simply doing good work to one that calls themselves TO?.......... I've recently heard that some are starting to shy away from the label due to misconceptions and overly excited brothers like me who may have inadvertently turned others off to the idea because they wont shut up about it!! .



Hey, nothing wrong with getting excited about something.  That being said, I think all of this goes back to what some of the other brothers have said in this discussion.  There are plenty of lodges out there doing excellent work.  There are plenty that are more formal, and plenty that have higher dues.  That doesn't make them better or worse, and I think there is a wide spectrum out there.  The label of TO, to my knowledge, doesn't have any strict definition and is somewhat subjective.  However, I still think it is useful to help Masons who are seeking that side of things to find a lodge that might be a better fit for them.  We have discussed that there are Masons who leave because they aren't finding what they're looking for.  Maybe making it easier for them to find a better fit is a good first step.


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 3, 2015)

Most true TO lodges (and just because a lodge dresses nice as a rule doesn't make it TO) will have a higher number or even be UD in your state because they are some of the newest lodges to be chartered. Most TO lodges will be designated as such. They will have Latin sounding names such as Colegium Lux or Veritas or something similar.  It would be near impossible for a long standing long to simply overnight say, "We are now TO." There probably has to be a concerted effort from the very start to do things a certain way.


----------



## MarkR (Jun 4, 2015)

Companion Joe said:


> Most true TO lodges (and just because a lodge dresses nice as a rule doesn't make it TO) will have a higher number or even be UD in your state because they are some of the newest lodges to be chartered. Most TO lodges will be designated as such. They will have Latin sounding names such as Colegium Lux or Veritas or something similar.  It would be near impossible for a long standing long to simply overnight say, "We are now TO." There probably has to be a concerted effort from the very start to do things a certain way.


Tell that to St. Paul Lodge #3, chartered in 1849.  They're doing just fine!


----------



## Companion Joe (Jun 4, 2015)

I didn't say all. I was just pointing out that those would be tell-tale signs if someone was searching.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 4, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> Have you even read the book: _A Traditional Observance Lodge: One Mason's Journey to Fulfillment_ by Cliff Porter?



Although your question is irrelevant since I did not comment on the content of the book or the merits of TO Lodges, I will pay you the courtesy of giving you a direct answer, which is something you have not returned.  No, I have not read the book.


----------



## RyanC (Jun 4, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Without dispute membership has declined each year since 1959, after the post WW2 membership boom, but based on my personal experience and research the decline is a result of major societal, cultural, and demographic shifts.  What evidence do you have to support your statement?
> 
> In my opinion TO and EC Lodges appeal to a very small segment of men, that is not to say there is anything wrong with them, but I can tell you that if all Lodges adopted their requirements Masonic membership in Louisiana would plummet.
> 
> Do you have any data on the number of members that currently belong to these types of Lodges and the number of members they have initiated, passed, and raised over the last 5 years.




Please tell me why most TO have a 100% attends rate, please tell me why TO lodges in Colorado have not failed but broken off into new lodges and that they them selfs have also succeeded in a 100% attends rate. TO lodges focus on education, if your lodge is not doing (as most don't) you might be doing it wrong. And the small % who want to join this lodges because of what they give is what people joining Masonry today are looking for. Because t you are right TO lodges are not for everyone that is why people who want or like TO are not trying to change every lodge, but again I find it funny that those who do not like TO lodges are trying to change them. Reminds me of the those old PM that are against any kind of change.


----------



## RyanC (Jun 4, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Although your question is irrelevant since I did not comment on the content of the book or the merits of TO Lodges, I will pay you the courtesy of giving you a direct answer, which is something you have not returned.  No, I have not read the book.




Maybe it is relevant from the point of how much research into TO lodges did you do, I get it TO lodge don't seem to be for you. But for other it is what them where looking for.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 4, 2015)

RyanC said:


> Please tell me why most TO have a 100% attends rate, please tell me why TO lodges in Colorado have not failed but broken off into new lodges and that they them selfs have also succeeded in a 100% attends rate.



I guess because they appeal to men who are passionate about Freemasonry and enjoy more formal meetings with pomp and circumstance, but I don't see how that has anything to do with my comment about what is responsible for the decline in membership or that it will not appeal to a large segment of Masons.  That is not a value judgment.  Just as it is a value judgment to say that Freemasonry does not appeal to a large segment of men in the US, because in 2013 the U S male population was about 156 million and masonic membership (not including Prince Hall and groups not considered regular, because I do not have data on those numbers) was about 1.25 million, .8% of the population.

I am not criticizing TO Lodges or their members, I have never said they do not fill a void and appeal to a niche within Freemasonry, much the same as the Appendant/Concordant/Affilliate organizations do.


----------



## RyanC (Jun 4, 2015)

LAMason said:


> I was not suggesting,
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out that while TO and EC Lodges are appealing to some, that appeal is limited to a relatively small number of men, and if one of the goals is to stem the tide of declining Masonic membership (which I do not believe to be the case), in my opinion it will not meet that goal.
> ...




Why did this members demitt do you know only other that they did. I live here in NY when I retire I plan on moving south, so if I'm a member a several different lodges here should I stay a member of the all?


----------



## RyanC (Jun 4, 2015)

LAMason said:


> I guess because they appeal to men who are passionate about Freemasonry and enjoy more formal meetings with pomp and circumstance, but I don't see how that has anything to do with my comment about what is responsible for the decline in membership or that it will not appeal to a large segment of Masons.  That is not a value judgment.  Just as it is a value judgment to say that Freemasonry does not appeal to a large segment of men in the US, because in 2013 the U S male population was about 156 million and masonic membership (not including Prince Hall and groups not considered regular, because I do not have data on those numbers) was about 1.25 million, .8% of the population.
> 
> I am not criticizing TO Lodges or their members, I have never said they do not fill a void and appeal to a niche within Freemasonry, much the same as the Appendant/Concordant/Affilliate organizations do.




TO lodges will not change how many join Freemasonry, and a lot of people think that is the problem, how many are joining. The real problem is retention and we need to fix that.


----------

