A famous modern Masonic author has suggested that we remove the penalties from our obligations. That if those words are kept within the ritual, they be placed somewhere other than within the obligations and explained as a historical artifact, existing because our Fraternity is ancient.
Some Grand Lodges have removed these penalties. Some have removed them entirely, others explain them as a symbolic artifact.
In Washington’s 1997 Annual Communication a resolution was presented which would have changed the penalties in our obligations to ‘reprimand, suspension, and expulsion.’ and then explained the ancient text as symbolic. That resolution failed.
The author’s stated reason for his suggestion, and the stated reason for the resolution here in Washington was public relations.
I’ve got fairly strong opinions about the penalties, and I imagine others do as well, so let’s chat about it. Should we consider changing our rituals in this way?
As with all of the ritual, there are multiple layers of symbolism and allegory. The ancient craftsmen chose their words carefully. Doing away with those words cheapens the craft. However, and I have said this before here on Emeth, we need to teach the symbolism and allegory in educational lodge activities so the meanings are remembered. Otherwise, people will only think literally which is why we still have flat and young earth believers running around. Masonic scholarship, like biblical scholarship needs to explain that the stories are truth. Not fact.
We should be extremely reluctant to change anything centuries old. Changing for fickle PR reasons - well, that just shows we’ve swapped wisdom for hubris.
But give a fellow a bit of a heads up. I was taken aback when I came to the EA obligation and penalties, and that was with some forewarning.
We want the man to enjoy the experience, as I did, not take things literally and walk out.
I always try and explain to the newly obligated candidate that it is nothing more than "cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye" promise, but that it's deeper meaning is that if you can't keep your word for something as trivial as a password or a handshake, how can we trust you to keep your word for something truly important?
And I agree, changing ancient works for society's optics is wrong. I enjoy reciting words that probably were repeated by such men as G Washington.
The penalties of our obligations are as important today as they were 300 years ago. Although they may not be literal any longer, they still remind a brother that there are consequences to violating ones obligation. A lot of research has been done on trying to learn the origins of Freemasonry, when was the Third Degree introduced. I imagine we would not find any information about a Brother suffering through one of the penalties. I believe, to even discuss changing the ritual or removing the penalties because someone might get their feelings ruffled or not return is ridiculous. In a lot of ways it circles around to guarding the West Gate. The obligations and the penalties within, lay out the Fraternity’s expectations of behavior for a new Brother. If we continue to water down our rituals and experiences, then we will soon become just another service organization rather than the grand Fraternity we are.
I think I could take either side on this issue. The comments thus far in this thread have been enthusiastically in favor of keeping the penalties, and the justifications seem reasonable to me. On the other hand my lodge lost an EA a few years ago, in part due to the EA penalty.
A few days after his initiation I met with him to begin work on his proficiency and he was very nervous ... literally sweating and tripping over his words. I asked him what was wrong and he very timidly asked if the penalties were real. I assured him that they weren't and provided reasoning very similar to that described in the earlier comments. He showed up a few more times and then ghosted us.
He was a very good man with an interesting background, and opera singer, who would have added a fresh perspective to many of our Lodge discussions. I've never been able to find out why he disappeared but I have to wonder if his EA experience caused him to doubt the value of our Fraternity.
When one considers all of the promises and covenants contained in the obligations I think there's an argument that the penalties are almost out of place. I'm curious to know more about why other jurisdictions have done away with or modified the penalties, and what happened as a result. Ideally there's a more substantive justification than tradition (aka we've always done it that way) for keeping the penalties.
Last and not least we must be always mindful: we only get one chance to make a first impression.
Just my thoughts: It is my opinion that our Noble Craft evolved from the remnants of the Knights Templar. On Friday, October 13th, 1307, King Phillip of France sent his minions to round up and imprison as many Knights Templar as possible. Phillip's tame pope in Avignon, Clement V sanctioned this action and outlawed the Knights. As a result, the Templars were tortured, forced to confess to heinous crimes, and killed by the hundreds. Those who managed to escape imprisonment, torture, and death fled to Scotland, England, and other countries. Like escaping slaves in the Underground Railway or Christians in ancient Rome, they needed modes and methods of recognition to assure themselves that the person they were talking to had their best interests at heart, because betrayal would mean a long, horrible death. The penalties for betrayal, therefore were dire and horrific. We have kept these penalties to remind us of that absolute necessity of keeping secrets. A "Masonic Communication" is deemed a secret, not be discussed with others outside the circle of Brethren. I am for keeping the penalties as they are, with explanation to the Initiate as to the *possible* reason for them.
I would suggest that the penalties were not symbolic in our Ancient Craft. Indeed, if a man did violate his obligations it could in fact lead to the death of every Brother in the Lodge. In some countries that is still the case. If an EA balks at the penalty in the First Degree it seems he is saying he PLANS to violate his obligation even while his hands are on the Holy Bible.
If he balks at the First Degree Penalty how can we expect him to take the next two Obligations seriously>
I think the explanation of "Fortitude" in the First Degree Lecture explains the penalties in actual usage in our Jurisdiction more clearly.
As my last day as a EA lol I have some thoughts on this... Mainly being that I love it... Because it shows the seriousness of the words you are speaking... That simple also I hate the idea of changing anything that's been around for 100s of years...I mean who are we to change it?
Several Grand Lodges in the US have removed the penalties from the obligation. The United Grand Lodge of England has submerged the penalties as artifacts of past times. The Grand Lodge of Michigan and, I believe, Pennsylvania have removed the penalties from the obligation and now refer to them as ancient penalties.
We have a ritual of allegories but the penalties are allegorical to what?
Sure, we can learn some interesting historical facts from them such as the jurisdiction of "low water mark" was the end of the jurisdiction of laws of England and anybody buried beyond was considered buried at sea and could not be memorialized as a citizen. There are some other interesting historical notions contained in the penalties but they do not teach moral, ethical or philosophical lessons. That's what we are all about.
I tend to agree with removing the penalties from the obligation and placing them in a place reflecting on the era where Masonry was formed that suppressed strength, wisdom and beauty, recognizing that they emerged in an era that demanded conformity to the church and monarchy.
We4 need to explain Masonry with the historical environment in which it evolved.
The 16th and 17th century war a time of political, religious and cultural upheaval.
The Enlightenment changed everything. Masonry was an important factor in that change.
That said, Masonry was a child of the "Enlightenment" or, perhaps,the cause of it. Anyone who has the slightest notion of understanding the origination of Masonry needs to have a firm grasp on the "Enlightenment".
Weather we evolved out of the political/religious movements of the times is still under debate but it is sure that Masonry reflected the spirit of the Enlightenment and, perhaps, the radical wing of the Enlightenment.
I appologise for going far afield but I feel strongly the the body of Masonry does not appreciate it origin nor purpose..
As with all of the ritual, there are multiple layers of symbolism and allegory. The ancient craftsmen chose their words carefully. Doing away with those words cheapens the craft. However, and I have said this before here on Emeth, we need to teach the symbolism and allegory in educational lodge activities so the meanings are remembered. Otherwise, people will only think literally which is why we still have flat and young earth believers running around. Masonic scholarship, like biblical scholarship needs to explain that the stories are truth. Not fact.
We should be extremely reluctant to change anything centuries old. Changing for fickle PR reasons - well, that just shows we’ve swapped wisdom for hubris.
But give a fellow a bit of a heads up. I was taken aback when I came to the EA obligation and penalties, and that was with some forewarning.
We want the man to enjoy the experience, as I did, not take things literally and walk out.
I always try and explain to the newly obligated candidate that it is nothing more than "cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye" promise, but that it's deeper meaning is that if you can't keep your word for something as trivial as a password or a handshake, how can we trust you to keep your word for something truly important?
And I agree, changing ancient works for society's optics is wrong. I enjoy reciting words that probably were repeated by such men as G Washington.
The penalties of our obligations are as important today as they were 300 years ago. Although they may not be literal any longer, they still remind a brother that there are consequences to violating ones obligation. A lot of research has been done on trying to learn the origins of Freemasonry, when was the Third Degree introduced. I imagine we would not find any information about a Brother suffering through one of the penalties. I believe, to even discuss changing the ritual or removing the penalties because someone might get their feelings ruffled or not return is ridiculous. In a lot of ways it circles around to guarding the West Gate. The obligations and the penalties within, lay out the Fraternity’s expectations of behavior for a new Brother. If we continue to water down our rituals and experiences, then we will soon become just another service organization rather than the grand Fraternity we are.
I think I could take either side on this issue. The comments thus far in this thread have been enthusiastically in favor of keeping the penalties, and the justifications seem reasonable to me. On the other hand my lodge lost an EA a few years ago, in part due to the EA penalty.
A few days after his initiation I met with him to begin work on his proficiency and he was very nervous ... literally sweating and tripping over his words. I asked him what was wrong and he very timidly asked if the penalties were real. I assured him that they weren't and provided reasoning very similar to that described in the earlier comments. He showed up a few more times and then ghosted us.
He was a very good man with an interesting background, and opera singer, who would have added a fresh perspective to many of our Lodge discussions. I've never been able to find out why he disappeared but I have to wonder if his EA experience caused him to doubt the value of our Fraternity.
When one considers all of the promises and covenants contained in the obligations I think there's an argument that the penalties are almost out of place. I'm curious to know more about why other jurisdictions have done away with or modified the penalties, and what happened as a result. Ideally there's a more substantive justification than tradition (aka we've always done it that way) for keeping the penalties.
Last and not least we must be always mindful: we only get one chance to make a first impression.
Just my thoughts: It is my opinion that our Noble Craft evolved from the remnants of the Knights Templar. On Friday, October 13th, 1307, King Phillip of France sent his minions to round up and imprison as many Knights Templar as possible. Phillip's tame pope in Avignon, Clement V sanctioned this action and outlawed the Knights. As a result, the Templars were tortured, forced to confess to heinous crimes, and killed by the hundreds. Those who managed to escape imprisonment, torture, and death fled to Scotland, England, and other countries. Like escaping slaves in the Underground Railway or Christians in ancient Rome, they needed modes and methods of recognition to assure themselves that the person they were talking to had their best interests at heart, because betrayal would mean a long, horrible death. The penalties for betrayal, therefore were dire and horrific. We have kept these penalties to remind us of that absolute necessity of keeping secrets. A "Masonic Communication" is deemed a secret, not be discussed with others outside the circle of Brethren. I am for keeping the penalties as they are, with explanation to the Initiate as to the *possible* reason for them.
I would suggest that the penalties were not symbolic in our Ancient Craft. Indeed, if a man did violate his obligations it could in fact lead to the death of every Brother in the Lodge. In some countries that is still the case. If an EA balks at the penalty in the First Degree it seems he is saying he PLANS to violate his obligation even while his hands are on the Holy Bible.
If he balks at the First Degree Penalty how can we expect him to take the next two Obligations seriously>
I think the explanation of "Fortitude" in the First Degree Lecture explains the penalties in actual usage in our Jurisdiction more clearly.
As my last day as a EA lol I have some thoughts on this... Mainly being that I love it... Because it shows the seriousness of the words you are speaking... That simple also I hate the idea of changing anything that's been around for 100s of years...I mean who are we to change it?
Several Grand Lodges in the US have removed the penalties from the obligation. The United Grand Lodge of England has submerged the penalties as artifacts of past times. The Grand Lodge of Michigan and, I believe, Pennsylvania have removed the penalties from the obligation and now refer to them as ancient penalties.
We have a ritual of allegories but the penalties are allegorical to what?
Sure, we can learn some interesting historical facts from them such as the jurisdiction of "low water mark" was the end of the jurisdiction of laws of England and anybody buried beyond was considered buried at sea and could not be memorialized as a citizen. There are some other interesting historical notions contained in the penalties but they do not teach moral, ethical or philosophical lessons. That's what we are all about.
I tend to agree with removing the penalties from the obligation and placing them in a place reflecting on the era where Masonry was formed that suppressed strength, wisdom and beauty, recognizing that they emerged in an era that demanded conformity to the church and monarchy.
We4 need to explain Masonry with the historical environment in which it evolved.
The 16th and 17th century war a time of political, religious and cultural upheaval.
The Enlightenment changed everything. Masonry was an important factor in that change.
That said, Masonry was a child of the "Enlightenment" or, perhaps,the cause of it. Anyone who has the slightest notion of understanding the origination of Masonry needs to have a firm grasp on the "Enlightenment".
Weather we evolved out of the political/religious movements of the times is still under debate but it is sure that Masonry reflected the spirit of the Enlightenment and, perhaps, the radical wing of the Enlightenment.
I appologise for going far afield but I feel strongly the the body of Masonry does not appreciate it origin nor purpose..