Bet you thought there'd be a simple answer to your question, huh? :lol:
I would think the really high number for large cities probably IS to discourage spawning lodges so easily. Imagine if SA had 50+ lodges, add to that houston, fort worth, dallas, el paso. I could see how it might turn into an administrative nightmare if the overall amount of lodges in TX were to increase by, say, 30%. I don't think it should be such a barrier, but I can see the logic, if that is indeed the reason.
Got me on that one. I can't see a reason beyond the current "that's the way it's been". Maybe at a time when masonry was in a boom during the "GAoF", it made sense to accommodate the influx. Now though?...The question is why large lodges should be encouraged in the first place?
I can't see how sticking with the larger lodges who are only getting 15-25% attendance is helping anybody. I'd prefer smaller lodges w/ higher attendance and have lodges share a building to accommodate the bills/dues shift. This similarly reflects my preference for changing the membership dynamic to less members, but the ones that are there quite a bit less aloof.Do we want to retain the large lodge system or do we want to return to the small lodge system? Brothers who are not aware there ever was a small lodge system might never think of the question.
Smaller is of course better. Large lodges take up to 4 years to scree. CAndidates, and it takes people 20 years to become wm in smaller lodges the times are much shorter allowing you to progress to different orders quicker before your too old to