Do masons build?

[Skip Sampson]

Surely that isn't the case. Maybe it is saying that the fraternity will be disappointed but forgiving.

Here are the penalties, which nearly all U.S. GL's require:

EA: All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution to keep and perform the same, without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self evasion whatsoever; binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I, in the least, knowingly or wittingly violate or transgress this my Entered Apprentice’s obligation. So help me, God, and keep me steadfast.

FC: All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution to keep and perform the same, without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self evasion whatsoever; binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my left breast torn open, my heart plucked thence, and given to the beasts of the fields and the birds of the air as a present, should I, in the least, knowingly or wittingly, violate or transgress this my Fellow-Craft's obligation. So help me, God and keep me steadfast.

MM: All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a firm a steadfast resolution to keep and perform the same, without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self evasion whatsoever; binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in twain, my bowels taken thence, and burned to ashes, and these scattered by the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had among men or Masons of so vile a wretch as I should be, should I, in the least, knowingly or wittingly, violate or transgress this my Master Mason's obligation. So help me, God, and keep me steadfast.

Most GL's note that these are symbolic, but the fact they are there is telling, if for no other reason that the candidate isn't warned about them and the lodge is making him swear to something that isn't true. The United Grand Lodge of England, the 'mother' GL if you will, removed the penalties, as have some U.S. GL's. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

Untrue. The verses simply state that a Christian's oaths should be of the 'yes or no' variety, and not adding other qualifiers, such as 'So help me God and keep me steadfast.' Since Masonry adds so much more to the oath to make it more binding, it violates the both letter and spirit of the verses cited, at least if a Christian is taking or giving them.

When I said that this doesn't have anything to do with Masonry, what I meant was that it is a problem for the tiny minority of Christians like pyramid33, not with Masonry.

It's their own beliefs--uncommon among Christians and Christian churches--that would keep them from membership in a Masonic lodge, but it doesn't affect most Christians or Christian churches. It certainly doesn't keep Catholics from doing the exact same thing that Masons are criticized for--in their own version of Masonry, the Knights of Columbus.

Just like the Amish who, as a matter of conscience, avoid modern equipment, or Quakers who don't serve in the military, it's THEIR problem and it's THEIR interpretation of scripture. We all respect their right to their own unusual interpretations, but it's quite obviously NOT a Masonic problem or a problem for Christians or Bible-believers generally.

The vast majority of Christians do not consider it a violation of any Bible admonition when they promise to do something or raise their hands in court, when joining the military, or when becoming a naturalized citizen. And, by the way, there are a tiny number of Christians who consider it to be against the Bible to even recite the Lord's Prayer in the company of OTHER CHRISTIANS of another denomination. In that case, they find a pastime other than Masonry. But it's hardly because of a defect in Masonry.

 

[smaneck]

Ecclesiastes 5:4

When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.

Proverbs 22:7

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.

The assumption there is obviously that the 'vow' is to repay a loan.

In any case, the Bible is harder on predatory lenders than it is on borrowers.

 

[smaneck]

So swearing to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God" like we do in our courts is unchristian?

Skip, I don't think you address this question.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Skip, I don't think you address this question.

I will do so now: when a witness is sworn in court, he merely says 'yes;' thus, he has not contradicted the verses in question.

A more difficult case would be the oath of office of the U.S. military. A person taking that oath repeats the entire oath, and it ends with 'So help me God.' The oath requires that he swear to defend the Constitution, and that he will do so within the constraints of military law and in the sight of God, which is somewhat unique among military oaths. I see no problem here, because there are no penalties attached such as with Masonic oaths. Were such a member to request that he not repeat it, but merely assent to it, the presiding officer would probably go along with it, though I've never seen it done that way, and I doubt that any Christian would find so objectionable that he'd ask to alter the process.

As a general view, the taking of oaths is a Biblical practice in my view. Jesus' view was that adding superlatives to such an oath should be unnecessary to a Christian, in that his word should be in bond, not his fear of who he swears to and what punishments he takes upon himself. Hope this clarifies things. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

But it's hardly because of a defect in Masonry.

I'd say it is exactly that. The penalties make it offensive. Which of the other groups you mentioned have such things in their oaths? Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

I'd say it is exactly that. The penalties make it offensive. .

Considering that there are no penalties, I'd say your case is pretty weak.

 

[Simpleman25]

Considering that there are no penalties, I'd say your case is pretty weak.

All he has to do is ask his buddy dw. He disgraced himself and his family when he left freemasonry. Yet he suffered not one penalty mentioned in his oaths.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Considering that there are no penalties, I'd say your case is pretty weak.

Untrue. There are penalties in most U.S. GL's; that they are unenforced, and unenforceable thanks to U.S. law, is immaterial to the discussion. The candidate certainly doesn't know they are symbolic in nature when they are forced upon him. Since he is told there is nothing offensive in the obligations just before he receives them, I'd say a large amount of deceit on the part of the lodge during the EA degree is in display. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

Untrue. There are penalties in most U.S. GL's; that they are unenforced, and unenforceable thanks to U.S. law, is immaterial to the discussion.

That is incorrect.

The candidate certainly doesn't know they are symbolic in nature when they are forced upon him.

That is incorrect.

I'll give you this much, Skip, you fooled me for awhile into thinking that you had real knowledge of Masonry but just disagreed with the meaning of some things. Now I know that you're just repeating old myths popularized by the conspiracy nuts.

 

[Simpleman25]

That is incorrect.


That is incorrect.

I'll give you this much, Skip, you fooled me for awhile into thinking that you had real knowledge of Masonry but just disagreed with the meaning of some things. Now I know that you're just repeating old myths popularized by the conspiracy nuts.

Well said brother. It proves my stance once again that it's impossible to learn about freemasonry until you become one.

Antis can read all they want, they will still be lacking knowledge.

 

[americanvet]

I was never lied to by anyone in my lodge about any degree.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Now I know that you're just repeating old myths popularized by the conspiracy nuts.

Easy to check: what GL jurisdiction are you in? We can examine a common source. Cordially, Skip.

 

[smaneck]

Since he is told there is nothing offensive in the obligations just before he receives them, I'd say a large amount of deceit on the part of the lodge during the EA degree is in display. Cordially, Skip.

You are telling us that a candidate is not told what oath he will make before he makes it?

 

[Simpleman25]

You are telling us that a candidate is not told what oath he will make before he makes it?

Don't give his lunacy much thought. Poor guy suffers from delusions of grandeur.

His whole premise is that since he has read about freemasonry, that makes his some sort of expert. Problem is freemasonry is one of those things you have to experience. One can't learn everything by what's in print.

Then when any of us speak the truth, he just denies it.

Pitiful, just pitiful.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Don't give his lunacy much thought. Poor guy suffers from delusions of grandeur.

His whole premise is that since he has read about freemasonry, that makes his some sort of expert. Problem is freemasonry is one of those things you have to experience. One can't learn everything by what's in print.

Then when any of us speak the truth, he just denies it.

Pitiful, just pitiful.

So why engage him? I left the discussion long ago but still get notifications.

Show him the love and compassion christ would. But move away from the conversation. He has an opinion that will not falter hidden behind the guise of being inquisitive when in reality he knows everything he cares to know. And you know what? Good for him. We should all be so convicted in the things we believe (provided were open to the spirits work on us). But there no need to belabor the point or engage him further. You'll not change his mind nor he yours.

 

[Skip Sampson]

You are telling us that a candidate is not told what oath he will make before he makes it?

The lodge does not let him see the obligations and oath before he is required to make them. If he so desires, the EA candidate can research the degrees ahead of time, but many choose not to do so. FC and MM candidates, of course, know what lies in wait for them.

Here is what the GL of KY tells the candidate in the EA degree about the coming obligation. It is consistent with most, if not all, GL's in the U.S. BTW, the ritual quoted was purchased from the KY GL last year.

Worshipful Master: At your entrance into the lodge, you professed faith in God, that God whom we, as Masons, reverence and serve. The solemn engagements which you will be required to make before you can participate in our liberties and privileges are made in the name of God, and, when once taken, they can never be repudiated or laid aside. Yet, I am free to inform you that our obligations contain nothing, which can conflict with you duties to God, your country, your neighbor, or yourself. With this pledge on my part, as the Master of the lodge, I ask you, are you willing to take such an obligation, as all Masons have done before you?
Candidate: I am.
Worshipful Master: Brother Senior Deacon, place the candidate in due form to be made a Mason.
Senior Deacon: Advance. Kneel on your naked left knee; place your right knee so as to form a square, your body erect; your naked left hand supporting the Holy Bible, square, and compass; your naked right hand resting thereupon. (KY GL, EA ritual, undated, pg. 24)

Then he takes the following obligation and oath:

I, _______, of my own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God and this worshipful lodge, erected to Him, and dedicated to the Holy Saints John, do hereby and hereon most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear that I will always hele, forever conceal, and never reveal any of the secret arts, parts or portions of the hidden mysteries of Masonry which may have been heretofore, or shall be at this time, or at any future period, communicated to me as such, to any person or persons whomsoever, except it be to a true and lawful brother Mason, or in the body of a just and lawfully constituted lodge of Masons; nor unto him or them until by strict trial, due examination, or lawful information, I shall have found him or them as lawfully entitled to the same as I am myself. I furthermore promise and swear that I will not write, print, paint, stamp, stain, cut, carve, hew, mark or engrave them on anything movable or immovable capable of receiving the least impression of a single, word, syllable, letter or character, whereby they might become legible or intelligible to any person under the canopy of heaven, and the secrets of Masonry be thereby unlawfully obtained through my unworthiness. All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution to keep and perform the same, without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self evasion whatsoever; binding myself under no less penalty than that of having my throat cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by its roots, and buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours, should I, in the least, knowingly or wittingly violate or transgress this my Entered Apprentice’s obligation. So help me, God, and keep me steadfast.(KY GL, EA ritual, undated, pg. 25)

You can make up your own mind about what I've said. To me, it's clear that the candidate is falsely promised that the obligation will contain nothing to which he can object, then he is made to promise to have his throat cut if he transgresses the obligation. Sorry, I'm not sure how much more objectionable it can become.

One may wonder why the EA actually continues. One reason is that he's blindfolded, semi-naked, tied with a rope on his body, kneeling before an altar and with a VSL, Square and Compasses in his hands. Just how free is he to object? Many EA's never come back to the lodge, and I'd bet that the obligation is one of the main reasons.

Lastly, did you catch the implication of the phrase the WM used? He said: "you professed faith in God, that God whom we, as Masons, reverence and serve." He states as a fact that all Masons reverence the same deity. Does that mean that all Masons in Kentucky all are of the same religion? I think it just highlights the view that the 'god' of Masonry is that deity that goes by many names (Allah, Jesus, God, Vishnu, etc), with all men worshipping that one god with various degrees of ignorance about him. And, of course, all KY Masons involved in the EA ceremony who claim to be Christians are, in fact, participating in a lie.

To summarize for others: 1) the Masonic obligations do include harsh penalties; 2) they are not enforced; 3) a very few GL's in the U.S. have removed them because they are objectionable; 4) the EA candidate is never told he'll be acquiescing to harsh mutilation as part of the obligation; 5) the WM is lying when he says the candidate will find nothing objectionable in the obligation; 6) many Masons will not reveal their jurisdictions when asked because they don't want to have to defend and/or justify direct quotes from their own GL materials. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Albion]

So why engage him? I left the discussion long ago but still get notifications.

Show him the love and compassion christ would. But move away from the conversation. He has an opinion that will not falter hidden behind the guise of being inquisitive when in reality he knows everything he cares to know.

This seems like good advice. He will simply quote from some GL's documents and attach his own interpretations and speculation to that. Nothing is accomplished.

 

[Simpleman25]

My issue is that I don't want someone reading what he wrote and blindly take his word for it.

 

[smaneck]

4) the EA candidate is never told he'll be acquiescing to harsh mutilation as part of the obligation; 5) the WM is lying when he says the candidate will find nothing objectionable in the obligation; .

You've asserted this to be the case, but so far I've not seen the evidence that this is true. All you've done is tell me the contents of the oath itself, not that the candidates have never seen it before.