Reply-To: camm@gov.nb.ca
To: dryfoo@MIT.EDU (dr foo)
From: camm@gov.nb.ca (Cam Moffatt)
Subject: Re: Origins of Freemasonry
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 08:25:31
Cc: camm@gov.nb.ca


In article <31rj3u$rf6@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> dryfoo@athena.mit.edu (dr foo) writes:
>Path:
>nbt.nbnet.nb.ca!news.unb.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!ne
>wsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!athena
>.mit.edu!dryfoo
>From: dryfoo@athena.mit.edu (dr foo)
>Newsgroups: alt.freemasonry
>Subject: Re: Origins of Freemasonry
>Date: 4 Aug 1994 20:29:50 GMT
>Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>Lines: 45
>Sender: dryfoo@athena.mit.edu (Gary L. Dryfoos)
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <31rj3u$rf6@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
>References: <1994Jul30.165606.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
><31ehbk$f54@search01.news.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: thelonious.mit.edu


>I think Catherine has partly the right idea about what is causing a falling-
>off of Masonic membership (prejudice on the part of the older members
>during the "generation gap" days, and since.)

>At one time, I thought that was the entire explanation.  Then, I added
>"television" -- meaning all of the "home-entertainment" culture that
>makes it easier for a man to stay home every night of the week without
>feeling itchy to get out and about.

>But over the last few years, as I have spent more time talking to officers
>and would-be officers in the lodges I'm associated with, I've come to a new
>conclusion: the Rat-Race-ification of American culture.  Time and time
>again, a man who's joined a lodge will ask about becoming an officer in it.
>But when he realizes that it would require him to start attending every
>meeting, (even if it's only once/month) and every rehearsal (same), he
>often concludes that his life circumstances won't allow it.  Many of the
>young people that Masonry wants to attract don't have the leisure that
>their fathers did.  He works two jobs.  Or his wife works, also possibly
>two jobs, perhaps on a different shift/schedule, and *Tuesdays* (pick a
>night) are the only chance they have to see each other during the week.
>Or both of those.  Or his company is now requiring longer hours, or more
>travelling, so that he can never be sure of, and can never schedule, to keep
>his *Wednesday* (pick one) nights free.

>And I know men who can't even join at all, though they'd like to, for those
>same reasons.

>Without speculating on the politics and such accompanying or encouraging
>these changes, it seems that while those without jobs are having a hard
>time finding one; those who have good jobs are being squeezed to become
>more and more "productive" in order to keep them at all, even at the
>expense of the rest of their lives.

>[In re-reading this, I'm sure someone will be able to read into this,
>somehow, that I'm blaming the problem on women who have the temerity
>to get jobs outside the home.  Of course I'm not.  Rather, given the
>number of unemployed in this country, there ought to be a lot more
>_good_ 35-40 hour/week jobs, instead of the 70-90 hour/week monsters that
>so many people are bending under, just to stay safely in the professional
>middle-class.  If He worked 35-40 hours/week, and She did likewise,
>they'd both have plenty of time to spend with each other, with their
>kids, and with the variety of social organizations, like the Masons,
>that previous generations enjoyed.  Just wanted to be clear on that.]

>-- dr foo


A lot of what you say is true about the time requirements of Lodge,
especially if you start going through the chairs of Blue Lodge, Order of
The Eastern Star, Scottish Rite of Perfection, and Sovereign Consistory
even without entering the Shrine.  New members seek admission and when
interviewed, questions are asked at that time about their interest in
seeking the Light of Freemasonry.  Potential officers and degree team
members usually must make a long term committment to the Lodge if they
and the Lodge are to support each other.