Masonic Membership Stats for 2010 Released by MSA

Discussion in 'General Freemasonry Discussion' started by Blake Bowden, Aug 15, 2011.

  1. Blake Bowden

    Blake Bowden Administrator Staff Member

    5,683
    997
    113
  2. Ashlar

    Ashlar Registered User

    148
    9
    0
    Numbers are incorrect for Kentucky . At our annual Grand Lodge communication in October of last year it was reported that we had over 54,000 members from Oct 2009 to Oct of 2010 . I have no idea where MSANA gets their numbers from , according to them from the Grand Lodge's themselves , but their numbers have been off for a while as far as KY is concerned . It seems they are using or getting older data from proceeding years .
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2011
  3. Robert G

    Robert G Premium Member

    47
    1
    28
    Sorry, It looks like I just posted the same thing as a new thread. One should read first; post second!
     
  4. cemab4y

    cemab4y Premium Member

    1,137
    255
    103
    I am delighted to see this thread. The membership numbers posted by the MSANA, are based on the data provided by the Grand Lodges. If there are any discrepancies, I cannot understand why. Grand Lodges have no reason to under-report their memberships. And the MSANA has no reason to over-report the membership numbers, reported to them.

    Bottom Line: Most Grand Lodges are experiencing a decline in membership. Regardless, if the numbers are off by a percent or two, the membership base in the USA is declining.

    Now that the loss in membership is understood, we need to see about reversing the trend.
     
  5. Ashlar

    Ashlar Registered User

    148
    9
    0
    And they have no reason to pad their numbers either . So which is it ? Are you saying the GL of KY is lying to us at our annual communication and on the Grand lodge web site ? Or , is MSANA getting outdated data from overworked secretaries at the Grand Lodge ? I know what I know because I actually live here , and the numbers posted on the MSANA web site are wrong .
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2011
  6. Preston DuBose

    Preston DuBose Registered User

    90
    2
    6
    Another possibility is that the MSA uses a different reporting period or methodology than what was reported by your GL. There's more than one way to count heads. You could take an average number of members over the course of a year, or you could report the number of members on a given day.
     
  7. cemab4y

    cemab4y Premium Member

    1,137
    255
    103
    I am not accusing anyone of deliberately mis-reporting anything. (BTW- I used to work for the US Department of Commerce, bureau of the Census. So I have a background in statistical analysis and reporting. I am also a Kentucky Mason).

    Somehow, there is a "glitch" between the numbers published on the MSANA website, and the numbers reported by the Grand Lodge of KY. (There may be other statistical discrepancies, as well). There are several ways to report membership data, and the collection techniques are most likely, not standardized by all the USA Grand Lodges.

    This being said, there is no doubt in anyone's mind, that the total number of Masons in the USA is declining. There are some Grand Lodges, which are experiencing some growth. There are many grand Lodges, which are experiencing a decline.

    What needs to be done, is for Grand Lodges (and their subordinate lodges), to examine what is causing their lodges to shrink, and to examine what the Grand Lodges which are experiencing growth are doing, and make the necessary policy adjustments.
     
  8. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Hi Charles.

    Well, probably. BUT the experience of some of the GLs over here in Europe (not mine, I hasten to add!) is a warning: some of them went all-out to boost numbers, and now they've suddenly got a lot of problems and a lot of accusations of declining standards. Of course you need to look into the causes of your falling numbers, but I hope you won't let concern over the numbers panic you into lowering the standards for petitioners, as seems to have happened elsewhere. Better one Lodge of fine Masons than two Lodges full of crooks!

    T & F,

    Huw
     
  9. Brent Heilman

    Brent Heilman Premium Member

    1,215
    45
    68
    Very wise words Brother! I couldn't agree more.
     
  10. Ashlar

    Ashlar Registered User

    148
    9
    0
    It is not rocket science , The cause of declining numbers (with a few exceptions) is very easy to figure out . All those WWII vets who flooded into our lodges in the 50's and 60's are now dying off . It is as simple as that . All the local lodges in my area average 4 or 5 suspensions for non-payment of dues a year , most all are EAs' who are to lazy to put in the work as to put their catechism to memory and they are usually replaced with new petitions rather quickly . Most of the loss comes from all these older gentlemen passing on .
     
  11. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Are you sure it's that simple, Ashlar?

    Here in England, the bulk of our WWII vet generation died off a few years ago, and of course that did cause a significant loss of membership at that time. Here, however, there aren't many of them left now, so their passing isn't now causing so much of a decline. Even the youngest WWII vets would be well into their 80s by now, and the bulk of vets surely ought to be about 90 by now. Most of our vets didn't make it to 90, so most of them died a few years back (although of course we still have a few old heroes soldiering on). Is life expectancy over there that much longer than over here?

    T & F,

    Huw
     
  12. WarriorProphet

    WarriorProphet Registered User

    18
    0
    0
    Some of the "loss" is actually one of two things, improved reporting and endowed members, both for the same reason. Thse reports are pulled in the simplest manor, number of per capita dues collected. In this manor people who pay per capitas at multiple lodges within or across grand lodges could be counted multiple times in the past, but many grand lodges, once digitized have eliminated that issue atleast among their own jurisdiction. Also, in many jurisdictions endowed members, 50 year masons, and the like do not pay per capita dues.

    This has been acused o asmuch as doubling Texas' reporting in the past, and the difference between per capita dues paid and active mason could even cause as big a difference as Kentucky would seem to show.
     

Share My Freemasonry