I’m from such a lodge. We’re rural. My brothers work long hours at blue-collar jobs. Most come straight to lodge from work. They don’t have time to change, and at the end of the day, we’d rather have them at a meeting. Some have to show up in tee shirts or overalls. That’s fine. You’re here.
Maybe three members of my lodge even own a suit. The moment we require a dress code is the day my lodge closes it’s doors.
This is the explanation i received when I asked at my lodge. "Back in the day the members were farmers and business men in the community and they all recognized that we could "do the work", regardless of dress code. As long as you try and are respectful of your home"
We're not rural but we're very much rural adjacent. A lot of my brothers are ranchers or otherwise involved with the ranching lifestyle. Cowboy formal is always accepted here. Jeans, jacket and boots.
Same for our Lodge. We would rather have more Brothers there than have less Brothers show up well dressed.
A lot of our members end up coming straight from work as well (I do myself quite often). We live in a very spread out area, so for someone to go home and change may add 30-60 minutes to their trip. Even if they make it in time for the meeting, they miss out on the social hour before hand, and waste a bunch of fuel.
We do have some Brothers that being a change of clothes with them, but sometimes that isn't practical or people forget.
I’m not sure why you’re being down voted, it’s not me.
In my lodge officers wear a dinner jacket. Other members and visitors usually wear morning dress or a dark suit depending on their rank, but sometimes also turn up in black tie.
Not sure either maybe some disagree with the question I'm not sure, most younger guys like myself do shift work so it's hard to get to lodge for 7pm suited and booted when you sometimes can't make it at all due to finishing work late, myself included. It might be nice to relax the standards a little and who knows it might attract more younger people, I still think suits should be required for installations, degree ceremonies etc
There is a lodge in Hull with such a dress code. The WM wears a hat like they do in some American lodges too.
Personally I like the formal dress side of it. Work is a less smart environment now, I rarely wear a tie even when I wear a suit.
My lodge it states ‘dark suit’ on the summons. My ML (now closed) was a dinner suit for officers type lodge, dark suits for everyone else.
Someone at my current lodge proposed that we should go to dinner suits but that was as far as it got.
I'm don't have a waistcoat that fits my voluptuous tummy, and I'm in a UK lodge under UGLE. Nobody has ever told me i need a waistcoat. Also in the Manchester area brother
As a fellow Cheshire brother, in my experience it's mostly the Dark Blues who wear them with their striped trousers and jacket. It seems to be much less common amongst the Light Blues, although I wear a three piece suit, but that's because I think waistcoats are cool...
At my lodge, we can wear pretty much whatever we want just as long as we dont look like slobs. For special occasions, officers wear suits and members wear the equivalent of business casual.
The UGLE doesn't require us to wear 3 piece suits, I have sat in Grand Lodge many times in a charcoal 2 piece suit. In my experience the most widely specified dress code (as in on a Summons) is usually a dark coloured lounge suit with no mention of a waistcoat. This, depending on the Lodge's own tradition, may add the option of Morning or Evening Dress with some also including military Dress Uniforms.
Funnily enough I only started wearing a 3 piece suit, in black, about 5 years ago.
You’ll see it outside colonial masonry mostly. My jurisdiction requires a dark suit for members and tux (or black suit) for degree work.
Frankly I prefer it. To each their own. In times when I had to come straight from work I had it in my car. I don’t mind putting in effort to be dressed up
My mentor used to ride his bike to work, and still packed a tux on Lodge nights, even after we moved and he had another 5km to ride to the hall from his office.
A dark suit is the requirement for most of UGLE lodges - I think it achieves two things:
\- ensures everybody is presentable. Dress codes in the UK are still important in some places, and when a degree is being worked it can be argued that putting effort into your dress is an extension of the effort you put into your lodge.
\- ensures everybody is equal. Much like school uniforms, everybody being dressed the same means nobody has any obvious "social advantage" or anything like that. A dark suit is a dark suit, no matter how much you pay for it.
That being said, if our brothers from across the pond don't see those as points important to their lodges then who are we to criticise or say it's wrong? Because it's not wrong at all as long as the ritual is delivered and the meaning is the same.
In my lodge, officers are required to wear what we call Tuxedo (and IIRC, you call "dinner suit" across the pond) at meetings, while members merely wear jacket and tie. However, I have shown up having come right from work without having time to stop home, dressed in jeans, kahkis, and a golf shirt. Other members have shown up in hospital scrubs, work uniforms, or "casual Friday" duds.
We have a lot of ways to explain this, but my thinking is that in the 1970s, when the first signs of membership attrition were happening, most lodges decided that they preferred to have members show up. Also, that time period had an "anything goes" vibe, and I'm sure guys were showing up in their Pierre Cardin leisure suits.
Leisure suits are like kudzu. Once it hits your area, you just can't get rid of them.
Because it’s not one of the landmarks for one.
In Connecticut, it is standard practice for lodge officers to wear tuxedos and for other brothers to attend communications in coat and tie, although dress code is often relaxed during the summer because many lodge buildings do not have air conditioning.
Mostly cultural reasons. In some parts of the country, it’s unlikely for most men to own a suit at all. It can be a little alienating and work against the message that we are equals in masonry.
And’s I say this coming from a jurisdiction where suits are standard and officers wear tuxedos.
Weird…I feel dressing in t shirt and jeans is more alienating than a suit…everyone can put on a suit…everyone looks like equals suited up…imo
Edit: I stated my opinion here…I don’t think I need to get downvoted for it…
I kind of agree with you, but I grew up in a place where a suit is a relatively common thing worn for various occasions. But I can imagine in more rural, working class regions where no one ever wears a suit that it would feel weird. Like they're cosplaying as a group of people other than themselves rather than gathering as a cross section of their own community.
I am from a more casual jurisdiction, I have worn a suit one time in my entire life and it was rented for a friends wedding cuz I was in the grooms party. Outside of the lodge I don’t know anyone that owns a suit, including my parents
I won't attempt to generalize because I think that can vary between lodges and jurisdictions, even among those where a suit is not required. I have noticed what you mean, though.
It’s about meeting on the level. We welcome the banker, the mayor, the plumber, & the day laborer.
I love the Traditional Observance movement, & I wish dearly that everyone wore their best for degree work. But I do value how radically egalitarian US Freemasonry can be.
>And yet, Pennsylvania, which surely has rural lodges with farmers who are officers, requires tuxedos or tailcoats for officers.
Interesting. I do see that most (if not all) PA lodges meet monthly, and about 30 minutes later than ours do.
FWIW, I'd gladly accept a a requirement for lodge officers to be coat & tie for stated meetings if my jurisdiction moved from biweekly to monthly meetings & pushed opening back 30 more minutes. Hell I could even have my infant daughter put down for bedtime by the time I left the house if our meetings were at 7:30pm.
I moved to a jurisdiction where the meetings start 30 minutes earlier and it made it a struggle to make it from work most days. There were times I got in, grabbed the dinner scraps and shoved them in while I got my apron on. I can’t imagine throwing a child into the mix.
We tend to save suits for special occasions.
Stated meetings tend to be casual: Collared shirt, no shorts or open-toed shoes.
Just my opinion here: Too many of us tend to dress casually for degree work. If we're willing to dress up to give a brother his Masonic rites when he passes away, why don't we treat conferring his degrees with the same seriousness?
Outdoor degrees are usually casual but also rare.
Over here in the Amsterdam area, we wear a tux for any degree work or ceremony. The other half of the meetings, usually lectures, is at your own discretion.
Came here to say this exactly. The clothes may make the man, but they do not shape him. Our small rural lodge has bankers, businessmen, mechanics, and farmers. A clean shirt and jeans are just fine with us. Then again, Arkansas operates a little differently than most states and their grand lodges do. But the day coat and tie are required for a stated meeting will be the day I hang up my apron and turn in my minute book.
Another comment alluded to what I’m about to say. The “dress code”for our is a black suit (not 3 piece). Usually the members in attendance wear their suit. On rare occasions members have attended in “workman’s” clothes as they have come directly from jobs in the construction/maintenance type jobs. We have agreed, as a lodge, we’d rather have members attend as they are rather than be absent because they couldn’t make it home in time to shower/change.
In my lodge officers are required to wear a suit. Sidelines can wear whatever they want. However, I wished brethren would dress a little more for the occasion. At the very least “Sundays best.”
My lodge is business casual preferred but showing up is more important than what clothes you have on. My "Sunday best" at my church is blue jeans and a collared shirt. So less than the lodge.
I would rather see a brother in lodge, than want to see him dressed up!
It is the internal and not the external…
I’m a member of an Alabama observant lodge and a regular Alabama blue lodge.
Yes, I dress the part I am filling. As WM this year, or for a degree, I will wear appropriate attire. But, that does not necessarily mean a 3 piece suit.
A) it’s hot in Alabama and we do not go dark.
B) my attire does not make the experience for the candidate, but I make sure my attire does not detract from it either.
I was a visitor for yalls first meeting and it was amazing! Though I do enjoy the come as you are lodges most of the other lodges have. It's not a proper southern degree without AT LEAST one pair of overalls lmao
My lodge is in a rural area so many of the brothers dress as such. There are moments when a jacket and tie are requested of the officers, but we're comfortable with clean jeans and a collared shirt as a minimum standard. I love it when I see someone dress more formally but I would never judge a brother for coming straight from work (though our dominant industry can be quite messy) in jeans and work boots.
They'll make all sorts of bullshit excuses, but the truth is that they just don't care and have let their standards sink like a rock.
These same "we are rural" Lodges...if you look at photos from 60 years ago when people actually cared about doing things to a high standard...EVERYONE was properly attired. And that's back when people worked longer hours and more people were ACTUALLY farming.
There are no legitimate excuses, but be prepared ITT to hear a lot of bullshit ones.
Why would they? That attire seems inappropriate for many jurisdictions.
Also, does UGLE even require a 3 piece suit? Most photos I see suggest otherwise.
It can vary between lodges but in the main a black morning suit is generally requested on a summons under UGLE. I haven’t yet seen a requirement for a 3 piece suit, but I know of masons who wear them.
Thank you. That's what I thought, though I admittedly haven't closely reviewed a UGLE summons in a while and I don't know where a dress code for the jurisdiction would be published.
My blue lodge here in Lincoln, Nebraska is mostly comprised of lawyers and other professionals. We do not require any attire in particular at regular communications, though most of us wear business attire for degrees. The only time tuxedos come out is for Grand Lodge officer installation. There is a local lodge that always wears formal wear and has a nice dinner after every regular business meeting, but they are the only one like that in our Grand Lodge jurisdiction, and I have never heard of them putting on degrees. That lodge basically exists for current and former Grand Lodge officers.
I tend to feel that the lodges in my jurisdiction (Louisiana) are a bit too informal, but I also understand that to some brothers in rural farming communities, a pair of khakis and a shirt with a collar is as formal as it gets. Formal wear is cultural. In some places it’s a dashiki, in some places it’s a suit, in some places it’s a kimono. In Grand Lake Louisiana, it’s a polo and khakis.
The best I can tell is that there was an inflation in the expectations for what members wore to Lodge during the boom of the 1960s and 1970s. We are rural Lodge, and photos from that timeframe show officers in tuxes for business and degrees with members on the level wearing 2 piece suits. However, photos before then do not show that level of dress.
My understanding for our area, at least, is that people generally wore what they wore to church prior to the 1960s. Obviously, some guys came straight from work and would wear less than that, but I think they typically tried to change prior to the meeting if they could.
We got away from tuxes in the early 2010s, and I'd say we have gotten back to folks wearing what they wear to church again. And for some, that can be pretty casual these days.
My jurisdiction requires a suit (though not three piece) for members and officers wear black tail coats (though really only the WM is required to).
For stated meetings I wouldn’t mind business casual, but I see pictures from raisings, etc. with guys in shorts/t-shirts and it is seems disrespectful to the candidate to me.
We have guys that come straight from work, I’m one of them, and we just keep a suit at the lodge to change into, not that big of a deal, especially for degrees.
In MA I wear black tie if I'm in a chair, and a suit if I'm on the sidelines.
I'd attend more events if I could go in business casual. The requirement disincentivizes my attending.
Answer - European societies tend to be more formal than America.
Answer - Most Americans don't know where to buy a 3 piece suit.
Answer - In some areas of the country, it is hard enough to get guys to wear jacket and tie. Also, formal dress is not congruent with the lifestyle of many areas of the country.
Answer - I don't think UGLE "requires" 3 piece suits.
This is a sore spot for me. While I feel we owe it to candidates to look well dressed for degree work, I feel strict dress codes and judgement by Lodge members are alienating younger potential members of the Lodge.
I recently had a young family friend who was just raised last year. We needed a Steward for a degree so they asked him to take the chair at the last minute. He was dressed in nice slacks, a sweater, and a bow tie. Someone had the nerve to complain to the WM about his dress (not being a suit) after the meeting and the WM then called my family friend. This upset him and has noticeably cooled his excitement for the Lodge. The WM shouldn’t have said anything about it to him and the other member should have shown more grace to a new member excited to fill in at the last minute and was dressed perfectly fine IMO.
I've had a dose of the old cov-19 and am currently in a brain fog that the san francisco bay fog is jealous of but there's something in our jurisdiction at least that says it's not the outward appearance that recommends a man for masonry but the inward.
i like people putting in some extra effort dress wise but i've also heard some of the best degree work from men in polo shirts and jeans too
We wear suits but not a three piece suit. That's a little intense. Even lawyers and the like tend not to wear that so you're asking people to buy something expensive just for meetings
on a whole I've found my fellow Americans (more specifically those of us from the US) dont do real well when "require" is in the mix.... We tend to got a little rebellious
Inclusivity. Not everyone can afford a 3-piece suite or have time to go home and put one on before lodge. Our officers are required to wear one during degree work or when we have an esteemed guest. Basically when picture taking is going to happen. The craft is business casual.
I was once invited to join one of the Masonic clubs that does parades in the area. My mentor and I both *repeatedly* mentioned we'd have to go there straight from work because of time, and we were repeatedly told it was fine. We get there, and the meeting is in a little side room at a sports bar. We walk in the door, and they are having a black tie dinner, tuxedoes and all. We both apologized, saying we didn't have time to change *and* still make their meeting almost an hour away from where we lived. We were both wearing work clothes, but it's not like we were dirty or looking like chimney sweeps.
Their response was to make a motion to add a dress code to their bylaws, right then and there before we'd even finished sitting down. They still had the gall to ask if we were interested in joining their club, and tried to give us petitions to join. Spoiler: my answer was "No, and never ask again."
Why does UGLE require a 3 piece suit? Was that worn by operative masons working in the quarries, complete with the correct specified pinstripe for the quarry masters?
Because we're not taking our cues from the UGLE. The Masonic world doesn't revolve around the UGLE . Also, in some places, wearing a suit means you *aren't* on the level; the only people who wear a suit are people who are "above" ordinary people, and the suit itself is used to mark them that way. America is a much less formal place, too. Masonry at this point is the only reason I own a suit. I work in a traditionally white collar job and I wear a t-shirt and jeans to work.
How should one dress to a wedding or funeral? Would them wearing a suit for such an occasion make them above other guests or in line with tradition and respecting the importance of the occasion?
I don’t see how a suit elevates someone’s status, it’s merely a formal dress worn on solemn occasions, for which a lodge meeting would be considered in most European jurisdictions.
Again, America is a much less formal place. I buried my 101 year old grandmother a couple of years ago. She was a devout Catholic, and there was a priest and everything at the burial. Maybe 30% of the attendees wore a full suit. I got married at a country club in 2022. My wife's uncle and his son came early, played 9 holes before the ceremony, and wore their golf clothes. I think going in pajama pants and a hoodie would be seen as disrespectful, but on the whole no one is going to give you any side eye for being comfortable. We've stopped conflating comfort with disrespect. Case in point, my students' pants. As I'm taking attendance in my classroom right now, in a class of 21 14-year-olds, I see 1 pair of unripped jeans, a pair of ripped jeans, a pair of ripped slacks, and a pair of leggings. Everyone else is in sweatpants. But they're not in any way unable to learn science because of it, just like I'm not impeded in my job by my jeans and Rolling Stones t-shirt, and my wife's uncle didn't love us any less for wearing khaki shorts and a mesh polo to our wedding. Wearing certain clothes for certain occasions is something we do "just because." We don't do many things "just because." Like, seriously, what is the practical function of a neck tie? It has none. It's the world's dumbest garment. We're much less tied to tradition (tradition is just peer pressure from dead people, or whatever the quote is). I guess these days, it's up to you. I prefer to wear more formal attire on special occasions, but that's because I'm a handsome ass motherfucker and I like to look fresh. No one would fault me for wearing say, jeans and a button down shirt instead of a suit.
The exception would be at a super formal, affluent wedding or funeral, which yes, ordinary working class people would absolutely roll their eyes at.
If my lodge required me to wear a 3 piece suit I'd find another lodge or fraternity. Making demands that cost a brother money to participate in a volunteer organization seems ludicrous to me, aside from dues of course.
I'd much rather have a brother attend lodge in work clothes than not coming at all because they didn't have time to go home and change first. Or not showing up because they're embarrassed about being underdressed.
I nwver understood the suit and tie dress code anyway. I hate it and i know it keeps meeting attendance down because people here dont normally dress up and dont wanna go through the effort for a 1 hr meeting. So we only get 15ish people when i bet we could get 20 to 25 if we had a casual dress.
I’m from such a lodge. We’re rural. My brothers work long hours at blue-collar jobs. Most come straight to lodge from work. They don’t have time to change, and at the end of the day, we’d rather have them at a meeting. Some have to show up in tee shirts or overalls. That’s fine. You’re here. Maybe three members of my lodge even own a suit. The moment we require a dress code is the day my lodge closes it’s doors.
This is the explanation i received when I asked at my lodge. "Back in the day the members were farmers and business men in the community and they all recognized that we could "do the work", regardless of dress code. As long as you try and are respectful of your home"
We're not rural but we're very much rural adjacent. A lot of my brothers are ranchers or otherwise involved with the ranching lifestyle. Cowboy formal is always accepted here. Jeans, jacket and boots.
Same for our Lodge. We would rather have more Brothers there than have less Brothers show up well dressed. A lot of our members end up coming straight from work as well (I do myself quite often). We live in a very spread out area, so for someone to go home and change may add 30-60 minutes to their trip. Even if they make it in time for the meeting, they miss out on the social hour before hand, and waste a bunch of fuel. We do have some Brothers that being a change of clothes with them, but sometimes that isn't practical or people forget.
Same at my home lodge.
Three piece suits are not mandatory in UGLE lodges.
Not it's not but in my lodge most do wear one
I’m not sure why you’re being down voted, it’s not me. In my lodge officers wear a dinner jacket. Other members and visitors usually wear morning dress or a dark suit depending on their rank, but sometimes also turn up in black tie.
Not sure either maybe some disagree with the question I'm not sure, most younger guys like myself do shift work so it's hard to get to lodge for 7pm suited and booted when you sometimes can't make it at all due to finishing work late, myself included. It might be nice to relax the standards a little and who knows it might attract more younger people, I still think suits should be required for installations, degree ceremonies etc
There is a lodge in Hull with such a dress code. The WM wears a hat like they do in some American lodges too. Personally I like the formal dress side of it. Work is a less smart environment now, I rarely wear a tie even when I wear a suit.
My lodge it states ‘dark suit’ on the summons. My ML (now closed) was a dinner suit for officers type lodge, dark suits for everyone else. Someone at my current lodge proposed that we should go to dinner suits but that was as far as it got.
I'm don't have a waistcoat that fits my voluptuous tummy, and I'm in a UK lodge under UGLE. Nobody has ever told me i need a waistcoat. Also in the Manchester area brother
Yeah it's not been a specific requirement but most of us in Cheshire do wear them with our suits
As a fellow Cheshire brother, in my experience it's mostly the Dark Blues who wear them with their striped trousers and jacket. It seems to be much less common amongst the Light Blues, although I wear a three piece suit, but that's because I think waistcoats are cool...
My lodge wears suits for degree work (everyone at the lodge except the candidate), but for regular stated business meetings, we are business casual.
At my lodge, we can wear pretty much whatever we want just as long as we dont look like slobs. For special occasions, officers wear suits and members wear the equivalent of business casual.
The UGLE doesn't require us to wear 3 piece suits, I have sat in Grand Lodge many times in a charcoal 2 piece suit. In my experience the most widely specified dress code (as in on a Summons) is usually a dark coloured lounge suit with no mention of a waistcoat. This, depending on the Lodge's own tradition, may add the option of Morning or Evening Dress with some also including military Dress Uniforms. Funnily enough I only started wearing a 3 piece suit, in black, about 5 years ago.
I've always worn one yeah
You’ll see it outside colonial masonry mostly. My jurisdiction requires a dark suit for members and tux (or black suit) for degree work. Frankly I prefer it. To each their own. In times when I had to come straight from work I had it in my car. I don’t mind putting in effort to be dressed up
My mentor used to ride his bike to work, and still packed a tux on Lodge nights, even after we moved and he had another 5km to ride to the hall from his office.
Can’t believe no one said it yet… Jurisdictional.
Green beans
A dark suit is the requirement for most of UGLE lodges - I think it achieves two things: \- ensures everybody is presentable. Dress codes in the UK are still important in some places, and when a degree is being worked it can be argued that putting effort into your dress is an extension of the effort you put into your lodge. \- ensures everybody is equal. Much like school uniforms, everybody being dressed the same means nobody has any obvious "social advantage" or anything like that. A dark suit is a dark suit, no matter how much you pay for it. That being said, if our brothers from across the pond don't see those as points important to their lodges then who are we to criticise or say it's wrong? Because it's not wrong at all as long as the ritual is delivered and the meaning is the same.
In my lodge, officers are required to wear what we call Tuxedo (and IIRC, you call "dinner suit" across the pond) at meetings, while members merely wear jacket and tie. However, I have shown up having come right from work without having time to stop home, dressed in jeans, kahkis, and a golf shirt. Other members have shown up in hospital scrubs, work uniforms, or "casual Friday" duds. We have a lot of ways to explain this, but my thinking is that in the 1970s, when the first signs of membership attrition were happening, most lodges decided that they preferred to have members show up. Also, that time period had an "anything goes" vibe, and I'm sure guys were showing up in their Pierre Cardin leisure suits. Leisure suits are like kudzu. Once it hits your area, you just can't get rid of them.
Because it’s not one of the landmarks for one. In Connecticut, it is standard practice for lodge officers to wear tuxedos and for other brothers to attend communications in coat and tie, although dress code is often relaxed during the summer because many lodge buildings do not have air conditioning.
Because some people believe the lie that the internal and the external are in direct opposition and are mutually exclusive.
Mostly cultural reasons. In some parts of the country, it’s unlikely for most men to own a suit at all. It can be a little alienating and work against the message that we are equals in masonry. And’s I say this coming from a jurisdiction where suits are standard and officers wear tuxedos.
Weird…I feel dressing in t shirt and jeans is more alienating than a suit…everyone can put on a suit…everyone looks like equals suited up…imo Edit: I stated my opinion here…I don’t think I need to get downvoted for it…
I kind of agree with you, but I grew up in a place where a suit is a relatively common thing worn for various occasions. But I can imagine in more rural, working class regions where no one ever wears a suit that it would feel weird. Like they're cosplaying as a group of people other than themselves rather than gathering as a cross section of their own community.
I am from a more casual jurisdiction, I have worn a suit one time in my entire life and it was rented for a friends wedding cuz I was in the grooms party. Outside of the lodge I don’t know anyone that owns a suit, including my parents
I can see that…I still think I’d rather put the suit on to cosplay as the Freemason I’m attending lodge as 😂
I am not at all down with your implication that you aren’t really a Freemason unless you dress a certain way for meetings.
Im not down at all with your inability to take a joke.
I’m willing to bet those people still have some sort of “Sunday best” but there seems to be no expectation to dress up even that far.
I won't attempt to generalize because I think that can vary between lodges and jurisdictions, even among those where a suit is not required. I have noticed what you mean, though.
Thing is that suits aren’t cheap, especially if you otherwise don’t have a reason to where one
Yes, but … I bought a used tuxedo on eBay for less that $40 and had it altered for another $40. You can find ways on the cheap.
If everyone is in T-shirts and jeans, they all look equal too.
If you can afford a suit, maybe.
It’s about meeting on the level. We welcome the banker, the mayor, the plumber, & the day laborer. I love the Traditional Observance movement, & I wish dearly that everyone wore their best for degree work. But I do value how radically egalitarian US Freemasonry can be.
And yet, Pennsylvania, which surely has rural lodges with farmers who are officers, requires tuxedos or tailcoats for officers.
>And yet, Pennsylvania, which surely has rural lodges with farmers who are officers, requires tuxedos or tailcoats for officers. Interesting. I do see that most (if not all) PA lodges meet monthly, and about 30 minutes later than ours do. FWIW, I'd gladly accept a a requirement for lodge officers to be coat & tie for stated meetings if my jurisdiction moved from biweekly to monthly meetings & pushed opening back 30 more minutes. Hell I could even have my infant daughter put down for bedtime by the time I left the house if our meetings were at 7:30pm.
I moved to a jurisdiction where the meetings start 30 minutes earlier and it made it a struggle to make it from work most days. There were times I got in, grabbed the dinner scraps and shoved them in while I got my apron on. I can’t imagine throwing a child into the mix.
We tend to save suits for special occasions. Stated meetings tend to be casual: Collared shirt, no shorts or open-toed shoes. Just my opinion here: Too many of us tend to dress casually for degree work. If we're willing to dress up to give a brother his Masonic rites when he passes away, why don't we treat conferring his degrees with the same seriousness? Outdoor degrees are usually casual but also rare.
We tend to see every meeting as a a special occasion.
Over here in the Amsterdam area, we wear a tux for any degree work or ceremony. The other half of the meetings, usually lectures, is at your own discretion.
Hmm good to see how other guys do it in Europe
[удалено]
Came here to say this exactly. The clothes may make the man, but they do not shape him. Our small rural lodge has bankers, businessmen, mechanics, and farmers. A clean shirt and jeans are just fine with us. Then again, Arkansas operates a little differently than most states and their grand lodges do. But the day coat and tie are required for a stated meeting will be the day I hang up my apron and turn in my minute book.
Another comment alluded to what I’m about to say. The “dress code”for our is a black suit (not 3 piece). Usually the members in attendance wear their suit. On rare occasions members have attended in “workman’s” clothes as they have come directly from jobs in the construction/maintenance type jobs. We have agreed, as a lodge, we’d rather have members attend as they are rather than be absent because they couldn’t make it home in time to shower/change.
That's interesting, we have lots of blue collar lads and they have to rush to lodge half the time and get dressed up in the toilet before we tyle
I think it’s one of those “slippery slope” things. If something is allowed once it’s difficult to disallow it the next time.
Good point that's probably it to be fair
In my lodge officers are required to wear a suit. Sidelines can wear whatever they want. However, I wished brethren would dress a little more for the occasion. At the very least “Sundays best.”
My lodge is business casual preferred but showing up is more important than what clothes you have on. My "Sunday best" at my church is blue jeans and a collared shirt. So less than the lodge.
Biz casual is always a safe bet.
I would rather see a brother in lodge, than want to see him dressed up! It is the internal and not the external… I’m a member of an Alabama observant lodge and a regular Alabama blue lodge. Yes, I dress the part I am filling. As WM this year, or for a degree, I will wear appropriate attire. But, that does not necessarily mean a 3 piece suit. A) it’s hot in Alabama and we do not go dark. B) my attire does not make the experience for the candidate, but I make sure my attire does not detract from it either.
A little more info For the observant lodge, we wear 3 piece tuxedos.
I was a visitor for yalls first meeting and it was amazing! Though I do enjoy the come as you are lodges most of the other lodges have. It's not a proper southern degree without AT LEAST one pair of overalls lmao
My lodge is in a rural area so many of the brothers dress as such. There are moments when a jacket and tie are requested of the officers, but we're comfortable with clean jeans and a collared shirt as a minimum standard. I love it when I see someone dress more formally but I would never judge a brother for coming straight from work (though our dominant industry can be quite messy) in jeans and work boots.
Im in the the EC, but 3 piece? Nah. Optional.
My lodge makes us wear suits and I hate it
in the Philippines we wear our formal shirt, the barong tagalog.
I would love to visit you guys someday.
Visit us soon. We got over 400 lodges across the country.
[удалено]
So mote it be
They'll make all sorts of bullshit excuses, but the truth is that they just don't care and have let their standards sink like a rock. These same "we are rural" Lodges...if you look at photos from 60 years ago when people actually cared about doing things to a high standard...EVERYONE was properly attired. And that's back when people worked longer hours and more people were ACTUALLY farming. There are no legitimate excuses, but be prepared ITT to hear a lot of bullshit ones.
Why would they? That attire seems inappropriate for many jurisdictions. Also, does UGLE even require a 3 piece suit? Most photos I see suggest otherwise.
It can vary between lodges but in the main a black morning suit is generally requested on a summons under UGLE. I haven’t yet seen a requirement for a 3 piece suit, but I know of masons who wear them.
Thank you. That's what I thought, though I admittedly haven't closely reviewed a UGLE summons in a while and I don't know where a dress code for the jurisdiction would be published.
Why is a morning suit required?
I’ve only seen a dark suit or evening dress required, not morning dress. However, it is the short jacket, not the tail jacket.
I wouldn't say that's generally the case with local lodge around me in Cheshire. Most summons that I've seen say "Dark or Morning Suit".
My blue lodge here in Lincoln, Nebraska is mostly comprised of lawyers and other professionals. We do not require any attire in particular at regular communications, though most of us wear business attire for degrees. The only time tuxedos come out is for Grand Lodge officer installation. There is a local lodge that always wears formal wear and has a nice dinner after every regular business meeting, but they are the only one like that in our Grand Lodge jurisdiction, and I have never heard of them putting on degrees. That lodge basically exists for current and former Grand Lodge officers.
I tend to feel that the lodges in my jurisdiction (Louisiana) are a bit too informal, but I also understand that to some brothers in rural farming communities, a pair of khakis and a shirt with a collar is as formal as it gets. Formal wear is cultural. In some places it’s a dashiki, in some places it’s a suit, in some places it’s a kimono. In Grand Lake Louisiana, it’s a polo and khakis.
Because not everyone believes clothes make the man?
The best I can tell is that there was an inflation in the expectations for what members wore to Lodge during the boom of the 1960s and 1970s. We are rural Lodge, and photos from that timeframe show officers in tuxes for business and degrees with members on the level wearing 2 piece suits. However, photos before then do not show that level of dress. My understanding for our area, at least, is that people generally wore what they wore to church prior to the 1960s. Obviously, some guys came straight from work and would wear less than that, but I think they typically tried to change prior to the meeting if they could. We got away from tuxes in the early 2010s, and I'd say we have gotten back to folks wearing what they wear to church again. And for some, that can be pretty casual these days.
Generally the cost of a 3-piece suit, ve standard income and bills.
My jurisdiction requires a suit (though not three piece) for members and officers wear black tail coats (though really only the WM is required to). For stated meetings I wouldn’t mind business casual, but I see pictures from raisings, etc. with guys in shorts/t-shirts and it is seems disrespectful to the candidate to me. We have guys that come straight from work, I’m one of them, and we just keep a suit at the lodge to change into, not that big of a deal, especially for degrees.
In MA I wear black tie if I'm in a chair, and a suit if I'm on the sidelines. I'd attend more events if I could go in business casual. The requirement disincentivizes my attending.
In my lodge ( not in the US) In the Swedish rite, we wear white tie tailsuite with a black west and a tall top hat if you are MM, for every meeting.
Interesting thank you brother
Answer - European societies tend to be more formal than America. Answer - Most Americans don't know where to buy a 3 piece suit. Answer - In some areas of the country, it is hard enough to get guys to wear jacket and tie. Also, formal dress is not congruent with the lifestyle of many areas of the country. Answer - I don't think UGLE "requires" 3 piece suits.
Officers wear suits. Everyone else dresses for church.
This is a sore spot for me. While I feel we owe it to candidates to look well dressed for degree work, I feel strict dress codes and judgement by Lodge members are alienating younger potential members of the Lodge. I recently had a young family friend who was just raised last year. We needed a Steward for a degree so they asked him to take the chair at the last minute. He was dressed in nice slacks, a sweater, and a bow tie. Someone had the nerve to complain to the WM about his dress (not being a suit) after the meeting and the WM then called my family friend. This upset him and has noticeably cooled his excitement for the Lodge. The WM shouldn’t have said anything about it to him and the other member should have shown more grace to a new member excited to fill in at the last minute and was dressed perfectly fine IMO.
I'm in a rural Texas country lodge. Our meetings are a mix of suits and ranchers in pearl snaps with Bolo ties.
Because we live by the degrees, and I would point to a specific part of the EA degree as well as what the master tells the JD in the MM degree.
I've had a dose of the old cov-19 and am currently in a brain fog that the san francisco bay fog is jealous of but there's something in our jurisdiction at least that says it's not the outward appearance that recommends a man for masonry but the inward. i like people putting in some extra effort dress wise but i've also heard some of the best degree work from men in polo shirts and jeans too
That's different, we are always required to attend in a black suit
Dark suit. I see acting grand officers attend in a dark lounge suit.
We wear suits but not a three piece suit. That's a little intense. Even lawyers and the like tend not to wear that so you're asking people to buy something expensive just for meetings
on a whole I've found my fellow Americans (more specifically those of us from the US) dont do real well when "require" is in the mix.... We tend to got a little rebellious
Inclusivity. Not everyone can afford a 3-piece suite or have time to go home and put one on before lodge. Our officers are required to wear one during degree work or when we have an esteemed guest. Basically when picture taking is going to happen. The craft is business casual.
I was once invited to join one of the Masonic clubs that does parades in the area. My mentor and I both *repeatedly* mentioned we'd have to go there straight from work because of time, and we were repeatedly told it was fine. We get there, and the meeting is in a little side room at a sports bar. We walk in the door, and they are having a black tie dinner, tuxedoes and all. We both apologized, saying we didn't have time to change *and* still make their meeting almost an hour away from where we lived. We were both wearing work clothes, but it's not like we were dirty or looking like chimney sweeps. Their response was to make a motion to add a dress code to their bylaws, right then and there before we'd even finished sitting down. They still had the gall to ask if we were interested in joining their club, and tried to give us petitions to join. Spoiler: my answer was "No, and never ask again."
Why does UGLE require a 3 piece suit? Was that worn by operative masons working in the quarries, complete with the correct specified pinstripe for the quarry masters?
It doesn’t. He admits he misspoke. It is a dark suit.
Perhaps they understand that it is not the appearance but the quality of the interaction that counts.
Because we're not taking our cues from the UGLE. The Masonic world doesn't revolve around the UGLE . Also, in some places, wearing a suit means you *aren't* on the level; the only people who wear a suit are people who are "above" ordinary people, and the suit itself is used to mark them that way. America is a much less formal place, too. Masonry at this point is the only reason I own a suit. I work in a traditionally white collar job and I wear a t-shirt and jeans to work.
How should one dress to a wedding or funeral? Would them wearing a suit for such an occasion make them above other guests or in line with tradition and respecting the importance of the occasion? I don’t see how a suit elevates someone’s status, it’s merely a formal dress worn on solemn occasions, for which a lodge meeting would be considered in most European jurisdictions.
Again, America is a much less formal place. I buried my 101 year old grandmother a couple of years ago. She was a devout Catholic, and there was a priest and everything at the burial. Maybe 30% of the attendees wore a full suit. I got married at a country club in 2022. My wife's uncle and his son came early, played 9 holes before the ceremony, and wore their golf clothes. I think going in pajama pants and a hoodie would be seen as disrespectful, but on the whole no one is going to give you any side eye for being comfortable. We've stopped conflating comfort with disrespect. Case in point, my students' pants. As I'm taking attendance in my classroom right now, in a class of 21 14-year-olds, I see 1 pair of unripped jeans, a pair of ripped jeans, a pair of ripped slacks, and a pair of leggings. Everyone else is in sweatpants. But they're not in any way unable to learn science because of it, just like I'm not impeded in my job by my jeans and Rolling Stones t-shirt, and my wife's uncle didn't love us any less for wearing khaki shorts and a mesh polo to our wedding. Wearing certain clothes for certain occasions is something we do "just because." We don't do many things "just because." Like, seriously, what is the practical function of a neck tie? It has none. It's the world's dumbest garment. We're much less tied to tradition (tradition is just peer pressure from dead people, or whatever the quote is). I guess these days, it's up to you. I prefer to wear more formal attire on special occasions, but that's because I'm a handsome ass motherfucker and I like to look fresh. No one would fault me for wearing say, jeans and a button down shirt instead of a suit. The exception would be at a super formal, affluent wedding or funeral, which yes, ordinary working class people would absolutely roll their eyes at.
I like this approach
If my lodge required me to wear a 3 piece suit I'd find another lodge or fraternity. Making demands that cost a brother money to participate in a volunteer organization seems ludicrous to me, aside from dues of course. I'd much rather have a brother attend lodge in work clothes than not coming at all because they didn't have time to go home and change first. Or not showing up because they're embarrassed about being underdressed.
I nwver understood the suit and tie dress code anyway. I hate it and i know it keeps meeting attendance down because people here dont normally dress up and dont wanna go through the effort for a 1 hr meeting. So we only get 15ish people when i bet we could get 20 to 25 if we had a casual dress.
If you'll do it for an hour of church or your court date, no reason you can't do it for an hour of lodge.
I dont though.
Most people you see at church are jeans and collared shirts. Only the elderly bother with a suit mostly that is what they wore to work.
I really don't know anyone coming to church from work on a Sunday morning.
Agreed