Is Freemasonry Doomed To Fail?

Discussion in 'Masonic Blogs' started by JJones, Dec 4, 2018.

  1. JJones

    JJones Moderator Staff Member

    1,136
    598
    113
    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?
     
    Chaz likes this.
  2. David612

    David612 Registered User

    571
    432
    63
    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.
     
    Glen Cook likes this.
  3. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,559
    460
    83
    It may be worth distinguishing the essence of Freemasonry from its outer forms. The outer forms are mostly dying but Masonic Science exists quite independently of Grand Lodges.

    Indeed like any spiritual science, Freemasonry may rediscovered in every age by those that are worthy.
     
  4. CLewey44

    CLewey44 Registered User

    1,347
    1,237
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2018
  5. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    1,899
    1,846
    133
    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?
     
    dfreybur, CLewey44 and Winter like this.
  6. CLewey44

    CLewey44 Registered User

    1,347
    1,237
    113
    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.
     
    Bill Lins and coachn like this.
  7. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    1,899
    1,846
    133
    Reread starting at "unless..." ;)
     
    CLewey44 likes this.
  8. CLewey44

    CLewey44 Registered User

    1,347
    1,237
    113
    Ah yes I see what you mean there.
     
    coachn likes this.
  9. coachn

    coachn Coach John S. Nagy Premium Member

    1,899
    1,846
    133
    Spot on Bro.!
     
  10. hanzosbm

    hanzosbm Premium Member

    759
    614
    113
    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.
     
    Bill Lins, David612 and CLewey44 like this.

Share My Freemasonry