Universe

Here's a new question to chew on...

With more Grand Lodges lowering the minimum age to join the Lodge to 18 years old, should DeMolay lower its majority age to 18 as well? Why or why not?

(Incidentally, don't use State Offices as a reason....there are ways around that sort of thing. Focus on Chapter impact.)

I don't believe the majority age should be lowered. Not all Grand Lodges will ever lower their entrance age. I also know that we get several candidates every year that come to us because they are too young for Masonary. I am not against changes for the best for the Order. I however think that lowering the majority age will stop sooo many good men from becoming tomorrows leaders.

Why not "split" DeMolay?

It seems to work for other youth groups (e.g. the Boy Scouts).

We already have Squires for the 10-12, why not something for the 17-21?

Before anyone screams it, I know we have "Knighthood", but, that, although a great appendant body with fantastic ritual, is not the answer.

Knighthood requires seperate paraphernalia, additional (extensive) ritual, and, technically, an additional Advisory Council.

We need a "DeMolay" for the older, more active youth. Today's Chapter "loses" it's older DeMolays at approximately age 16. Why? Basically, girls, cars, girls, jobs, sports, girls.

What if we offered an "extension" of DeMolay for older DeMolays totally geared at keeping them active in their Chapters, but, still designed for their busier lifestyle.

Before you ask, I have no idea what that "extension" should be, but, as an adult that has worked with Term Planning in several different Chapters, I can assure you that it is almost virtually impossible to create a rewarding term plan that interests the 12 year old and the 19 year old.

Structure and tiers need to be investigated.

I don't think that DeMolay should lower the majority age. Personally, I'd have loved to have been considered an active DeMolay longer than 8 years. Australia's majority age is higher than here in the U.S. So you have 24 year old DeMolay who are also Master Masons. I think what should be done with the older DeMolays is show them how to be mentors to the younger, newer members. Not just say they are to mentor someone, or that they are mentoring. There is definitely a difference in mentoring and just giving training or support. And if we were to develop mentoring skills in the older guys, it might make things easier for everyone young and old.

I don't think it should be lowered. If anything I think it should be higher.

I only will regret from the age 21 ruling that I'll only get 5 years of DeMolay under my belt. But admittedly we need something for the older guys.

And I just completely lost my train of thought... if I find it again I'll get back on here and put it up

I'm not in favor of lowering our Majority age. In fact I am for raising it further. We are supposed to be an organization of the youth and accordingly the United Nations had categorized the Youth as those whose age fall within the bracket of 13-35. Active membership should not be limited to a younger age. In the case of the Philippines, members who are College students outnumber those coming from High School. It is during the period of ages between 17 to late 20's that more DeMolays in the Philippines are very much active.

quote:

Originally posted by Jacobus Burgundus Molensis:
....and accordingly the United Nations had categorized the Youth as those whose age fall within the bracket of 13-35....

WOW!! Just imagine trying to plan an effective Term for a 13 year old that would interest a 35 year old and vice versa!!

The majority age in my chapter, currently is anywhere from 13-15.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty Pratt:
WOW!! Just imagine trying to plan an effective Term for a 13 year old that would interest a 35 year old and vice versa!!

Yes it works with us. I was 15 when I became Master Councilor in our Chapter where most members were all in their mid to late 20's. We treat each other all as Brothers regardless of age. Even the most senior among our brethren plays an active role in the Chapter.

Sometimes age doesn't really matter much when it comes to effeciency. There are a lot of stupid brethrens in the older age bracket than you can think of as their are brothers to babysit in the younger generation too. Teamwork is what matters. Although respect for the wisdom of ages is observed by the younger generation to Senior members, but this doesn't gives license to older brethren to grandstand, dominate and perpetuate Veteran mentality in running the Chapter. Everyone gives their share for the greater good of the Order and the Chapter, and not for self-aggrandizement based on Seniority.

After all, DeMolay is not about age. Age is only a matter of requirement and limitations in ones status in the Order. But DeMolay is more than that, it is a lifetime experience of comradeship. So even if my hair turns grey or lost most of it, I would still be a DeMolay.

While there is a saying that goes "Once a DeMolay, always a DeMolay," I don't think it applies to the age bracket. The line refers to the fact that regardless of whether a DeMolay is 13 or 90, he should still abide by the vows he has taken when he joined the Order.

Can we raise the age? I don't think so. The age is set in the Sacred Landmarks of the Order. True, DI has, through a committee, ruled that the Sacred Landmarks as not having the same statutory effects or powers as the Statutes, we must still kep in mind that the "rule" that any member reaching the age of 21 should retire from the group was one of the first actions taken by the original group. Jacobus, please refer to the Statutes of SCODRP. The Sacred Landmarks are found on the first page.

Also, the setting the majority at 21 is psychologically sound. Each age group has its own challenges and tasks (psychological lingo, forgive me). The tasks for adolescents differ greatly from the tasks of a young adult. By 21, a man's principles have already been set in stone. We can get older, lose our hair, get thicker around the middle, earn more money than we can spend, but we never change much in our attitudes past 21.

If you're talking about the younger members committing mistakes, let them. The Chapter is where they can make mistakes without fear of embarrassment. DeMolay is their laboratory for learning skills that will be useful in their adult life.

I thought it was that the brain didn't fully mature 'til the age of 25. Anyway, if the age were to be raised to, say 25, then in order to keep the wide age range active and working "together" could be something like this: Keep 20 as the maximum age to petition. Make the lowest age to hold an elected state position 17. Have an assistant Chapter Dad type position for a 21+ year old who has held the position of MC (he could be a bridge between young guys and a significantly older Chapter Dad). And as still an Active DeMolay, with increased authority and responsibility, he may not suffer that very painful limbo that a lot of us experience where we are too new a Senior DeMolay to be an effective authority figure to both the Active guys, and the advisory council. Some state jobs such as Ritual Advisor could be done by these 21+ Active DeMolays. Or maybe the creation of a position almost like a State Master Councilor's Representative, but geared towards mentorship of an area's/zone's/etc. Master Councilors or Councilors specifically, allowing them to participate in the state line, both appointed and elected.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Shawn Lopez,

Brethren,

I sincerely hope that it ISN'T true that it is impossible for a man, or woman, to change after they pass 21, or 25, or any other magic number.

First, we all accuulate experience with time, and sometimes experience proves to us that our previous beliefs, or attitudes, were wrong, and we change them.

Granted, change comes slower with the passage of years, and that a person changes more between birth and age 5 than they do the entire rest of their lives, but change IS always possible. It just becomes less common with age, I believe.

But if we made good choices in our youth, and if we adopted sound values, morals, and ethics as young men, then it is also true that we should find no NEED to change these core elements of our persons, no matter how old we live to be.

This also ties in with a topic on another part of the BBS; there IS evidence that practicing and learning our Ritual, like other large scale learning, continues to make scientifically detectable changes in our brain's wiring at any age. SO whether you joined DeMolay at 12 or Freemasonry at 50, you can have your brain retooled if you actively get involved in our Ritual work. It just gets harder as you get older, to learn that much material.

Fraternaly,

D.

quote:

Originally posted by nirdla:
but we never change much in our attitudes past 21.

I can personally testify as to the total bogosity of that statement.

Moving west... to a real City... from the small florida towns in which I spent middle school, high school, and college; has changed me so significantly and profoundly... in my attitudes, my interests, my world-view, my opinions, my outlook on life in general, in the company I keep, even the grosser examples such as my politics and what I do just for fun... that I sometimes have a hard time believing that I'm even the same person as when I was 21.

Though I've never really been a hard-core diarist, I'm something of an electronic pac-rat. And when I read things that I wrote back then, it's bewildering and even frightening that those words/ideas came from me.

IOW, don't write off someone's future once they're 21. They can still change for the better.


cya,
john

When I joined in the late 1990s the membership requirement was 12 with completion of the seventh grade. I completed seventh grade and filled out my petition and turned 13 before joining. There have been instances where chapters have allowed 11 year old 5th graders join and then "forgot" to file form 10 until later. WI also allows state officers to be as old as 22. Given the difference of life experience of a 22 year old college grad and a 5th grader, the 7th grade completion clause (which may have been removed) needs to be enforced now more than ever. 8th graders are yound men and have the right to be in DeMolay. Children do not.
I was selected at age 17 by my advisors to become a chev and was invested at age 18. WI has an active chev court that for older members and young advisors is a way to stay active without interfering with the young leaders. I'm not suggesting decreasing the chev requirements, but rather give them a chance to be that older group because we chevs tend to set a good example.

Have to disagree with you here, Chevalier Courts are definately not the answer because they are not the older members that we have trouble keeping, or at least they shouldn't be. If you receive your chevalier before you reach majority then you should certainly be very active before and after you received your chevalier or perhaps you didn't fully appreciate the obligation you took when you received it. Perhaps the problem is that our members are peaking in their DeMolay career too early. Members that are MC's at the age of 13 have a long time left in the order where there may not be as much for them to do. Master Councillors should be at least 16 when they go in. In my chapter the average age of our MC's is closer to 18. I realize that in desperate circumstances where chapters only have 10 members sometime a younger MC happens but a habit has been made of 14 year old MC's and in most cases they are not ready to run a chapter. I'm sure no one here would disagree that another year of maturity and DeMolay experience would help any MC.

I would raise the minimum age back to 14 well before I would lower the majority age.

Bro. Trev,

I agree that the age range is "out of hand" and that 14 was probably a good place to stop lowering it.

But I doubt DI will ever "back off" and revert to a smaller age bracket. That would indicate that they had previously made a mistake! Individual chapters can, of course, control their own situation with the age of the members they are willing to recruit and admit.

I don't believe that lowering the Majority age will do anything but deprive us of the older members who manage our Order at the State and International levels.

Just as no 13 year old is really ready to be an MC, no 17 or 18 year old is ready to be an SMC or an IMC. And there is where we would be headed with a lowered Majority Age.

Dale

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dale Dietzman,

I completely agree with you and I don't think DI will ever raise the minimum age back, I fear that it may go even lower just as Job's has recently lowered there minimum age to 10, I wouldn't be surprised if lowering it to 11 for us is brought up sometime in the future.

Bro. Trev,

I don't know, they SEEM to have finally bought into the Boy Scout model, like Frank Land started for back in the 1920's. You know the deal, separate organizations for separate (and smaller) age groups.

Back then he started The Order of Chivalry for boys too young for the (then) 16-21 year DeMolay age group. Too bad the Depression killed the OofC off pre-maturily. It wasn't well enough established in 1929 to survive.

Now DI has approved, and some Jurisdictions are operating ,"The Squires of the Roundtable" which is basically a pledge group for pre-DeMolays.

Since this is available for those who think recruiting younger is the answer, they now have an alternative to asking for yet another minimum age drop.

Hopefully this will stem any "itch" on the part of some of our leaders to lower the minimum age yet again, when the range is already too wide.

Fraternally,

Dale

I don't think I'd call Squires a pledge group of pre-demolays........I'd call it an organization for young men ages 10-12 who are exposed to the teachings and ideals of DeMolay, who can become a DeMolay and join just like any other person. Pledge group makes it sound very "unofficial".

Secondly, I think as a matter of risk management, which some states have had issues with, is a reason to lower the majority age to 18. This way - we don't encounter problems rooming 19 year old DeMolays with 12 year olds.

As far as not having state officers - I don't know if that's the case.....there are plenty of talented state officers at a young age. I know of a current state corps of officers where the ages are 19, 18, 16, 16, 16, and 15.

Well thye may be some members talented enough to run a state at the ages of 15,16,17, would they not run it better if they were more experienced and older having had another year or two of DeMolay as well as life experience under their belts.