MSA Membership Statistics

[Cory Sigler]

Note: * Indicates lowest point ** Indicates highest point

U.S. Grand Lodges
State Membership
2003
Membership
2002
Gain/Loss

ALABAMA 34,900 36,436 (1,536)
ALASKA * 2,050 1,924 126
ARIZONA 10,734 11,130 (396)
ARKANSAS 19,278 20,791 (1,513)
CALIFORNIA 78,108 82,318 (4,210)
COLORADO 15,677 15,737 (60)
CONNECTICUT 16,492 17.018 (521)
DELAWARE + 5,688 5,503 185
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 4,897 4,986 (89)
FLORIDA 55,306 57,124 (1,818)
GEORGIA 52,703 55,681 (2,978)
HAWAII 1,751 1,906 (155)
IDAHO 5,186 5,463 (277)
ILLINOIS 75,526 77,072 (1,546)
INDIANA 78,397 80,047 (1,650)
IOWA 27,367 28,109 (742)
KANSAS 31,507 33,027 (1,520)
KENTUCKY 54,585 56,537 (1,952)
LOUISIANA * 24,812 24,792 20
MAINE 24,021 24,595 (574)
MARYLAND 20,263 21,124 (861)
MASSACHUSETTS 41,356 41,972 (616)
MICHIGAN 49,701 51,468 (1,767)
MINNESOTA 18,860 19,474 (614)
MISSISSIPPI 24,008 24,758 (760)
MISSOURI 52,061 53,129 (1,078)
MONTANA 7,880 8,113 (233)
NEBRASKA 15,656 16,180 (524)
NEVADA * 5,051 5,046 5
NEW HAMPSHIRE 8,064 8,318 (254)
NEW JERSEY 31,420 32,619 (1,197)
NEW MEXICO 6,715 6,812 (97)
NEW YORK 60,889 62,368 (1,479)
NORTH CAROLINA 50,647 52,585 (1,928)
NORTH DAKOTA 3,803 4,004 (201)
OHIO 129,628 131,557 (1,929)
OKLAHOMA * 33,744 33,220 524
OREGON 12,492 13,237 (745)
PENNSYLVANIA 129,916 133,676 (3,760)
RHODE ISLAND 5,172 5,371 (199)
SOUTH CAROLINA 46,7140 47,913 (1,173)
SOUTH DAKOTA 6,978 7,133 (155)
TENNESSEE 57,437 59,394 (1,957)
TEXAS + 112,977 123,588 (10,611)
UTAH 2,180 2,183 (3)
VERMONT + 7,631 7,631 0
VIRGINIA 42,853 43,840 (987)
WASHINGTON 20,356 21,108 (752)
WEST VIRGINIA 25,383 26,182 (745)
WISCONSIN 17,024 17,752 (728)
WYOMING 5,380 5,590 (210)
TOTAL 1,671,255 1,727,505 (56,250)

+ Reflects adjustment
* Increase in members

Canadian Grand Lodges
Membership
2003
Membership
2002
Gain/Loss
ALBERTA 8,043 8,129 (86)
BRITISH COLUMBIA 12,038 12,379 (341)
MANITOBA 3,662 3,954 (292)
NEW BRUNSWICK 4,407 4,507 (100)
NEWFOUNDLAND/LABRADOR * 2,261 2,259 2
NOVA SCOTIA 6,045 6,195 (150)
ONTARIO 57,861 59,819 (1,958)
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 921 948 (27)
QUEBEC 4,899 5,021 (122)
SASKATCHEWAN 4,245 4,418 (173)
TOTAL 104,382 107,629 (3,247)
* Increase in members


Notice that Texas has the largest decrease in membership of any state in the union, three times the decrease of any other state of comparable Masonic size. There are good reasons for this.

[ashlarno15]

Cory,

Thanks for the information.

It certainly confirms that which we knew, or at least suspected: a continuing negative membership trend.

I believe the "problem" has been painfully apparent to us or, at least, the effects of the "problem" for quite some time. In my opinion, it's alway's been about "why" this is and "how" to reverse the trend. As you know, many approaches have been proposed. Which road do we take?

This board is an excellent place to consider and discuss these questions - and so has the Yahoo board.

Unfortunately, some "hype" or "spinning" has seemed to have occurred on both sites, as well. I hope that our exchange of ideas, whether written or spoken, avoids "debating" tactics. I, for one, am not interested in "debating" but in "exchanging" ideas, concepts and approaches with the reciprocal requirement that we, each and all, dispassionately consider, evaluate and analyze that which is proposed and politely respond.

We are not in a debate trying to "win" or framing our presentation to "entrap" or make the other Brother "lose". This is much more important than a "debate" - this is about the future of a venerable Institution which, despite everything, "...has still survived." It is, or should be, a cooperative effort -a Masonic "think-tank, if you will. It is up to us to not only seek survival, but also, and more importantly, to seek to thrive once more.

But let's not focus on numbers. There are so many uncontrolable variables, paradigm shifts and cultural changes that have happened in the past 50 years that we could never address "what happened"
.
The basic, fundemental and serious question before us, as I see it, is what do we change and how so - if we do change. Perhaps that change is to better enforce practices or requirements which are not being enforced today or returning to practices which have been discarded. Perhaps it entails our Fraternity adopting practices of other institutions, like service organizations, or those found in the "corporate world."

We shall see. Eventually.

During this endeavor, if I have failed to approach these issues in a respectful or intelligent manner or if I have offended any of my Brethren, I humbly and sincerely apologize.
I do love this Fraternity and each and every one of my Brethren. I know that those of us who take the time to write to these boards care deeply about the Institution of Freemasonry and each other. We hold in veneration, the past and look to a bright future.

So, as the Holiday Season approaches - a season whose message is peace, goodwill and reflection - I trust that we will renew our commitment to our Fraternity, to each other and to the betterment of our Fraternity, our community, our world by building well our own "...House not made with Hands..." and strive for peace and harmony.

Andthat we forget not to thank Him who has allowed us to live in a country where such free exchange of ideas can occur and our Fraternity exist. And thank those who have, through their efforts, their concern for and devotion to our great Fraternity and their creativity, permitted us the opportunities and benefits of these fine forums.

To every Freemason, wheresoever dispersed... may your Holiday Season be bright, beautiful and meaningful and your Lodge Installation be successful, enjoyable and memorable!

As to Texas...OK, I'll bite. Why is that?

[Cory Sigler]

Brother Ron,

Once again I am impressed with your post. You are indeed a valuable member of this board and to the Craft. You are always welcomed to express your views and I have never found them to be in a non harmonious way.

Those numbers were from 2002 I bet you will start seeing a upward climb in membership starting in 2004 and continuing in the future. The present and future are bright.

Cory

[defender]

I would rather see a small increase in membership numbers than a large one.
I would rather have lodges accept only worthy men, rather than accepting any petition that comes along.

If masters are scared into accepting all petitioners to keep the DDGM from taking their charter away, then it is time to admit that we don't really follow the lessons we teach.

[ashlarno15]

Brother Cory,

Thank you. I was not seeking " a pat on the back" but it is nonetheless sincerely and deeply appreciated.

I believe you may be right about increases. Our Lodge Raise 4 new men this year (in addition to the 5 from the One Day Class - 2 of whom have not completed their post-Raising requirements.) All 4 are taking chairs in the line and are "excellent" men and Masons exhibiting great enthusiasm and desire. (There is one who had to stop after his FC but intends to complete the process in Spring '06 and will be another great Mason.)

We have voted to accept 3 more men for our January '06 Class and are processing 2 additional Petitions for that Class. I recommended 2 and am chairing the Investigation Committee on one of the 2 in process - and, trust me, he will be thoroughly scrutinized and prepared/informed.

For us, so far, it has not been "numbers" but "quality". We believe that if we don't set the bar high, it's our fault and find that we will spend more time and effort in trying to "reclaim" the Brother than if we invest time, scrutiny and effort at the beginning.

Moving on: Let me pose a question to everyone in light of Defender's comments, to which I agree.

What "message", if any, do you get from Grand Lodge baed on:

1. One Day Class (How were these Petitioners "screened"? Who were their Recommenders - you may be surprised!)

2. Recommenders do NOT need to be members of the petitioned Lodge.

(Item #1. Who's guarding the gate? Item #2. Why the change? Doesn't this remove one more contact source if the new Brother does not come to Lodge after being Raised?)

When a Brother becomes "inactive" we turn to the Recommenders for an explanation. I don't think that we will have as much leverage when the Recommenders are not members of the Lodge. (We also get input from the Chair of the Inv. Com. but he is not connected as directly with the Brother in question as the Recommenders, eh?)

This is one of the things to which I alluded in my former post - not enforcing/changing requirements.

Again , thank you and a wonderful Thanksgiving and a joyous Holiday Season to all!

[defender]

What "message", if any, do you get from Grand Lodge based on:

1. One Day Class; [glow=red,2,300]Quantity over quality. We are focused on "Bigness."[/glow]

2. Recommenders do NOT need to be members of the petitioned Lodge; [glow=red,2,300]Quantity over quality. We are focused on "Bigness."[/glow]


(Item #1. Who's guarding the gate?
No one.
Item #2. Why the change?
[glow=red,2,300]Quantity over quality. We are focused on "Bigness."[/glow]