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.
I agree that our Lodges need to provide the education you discuss. I also think however that our efforts to guard the West gate neet to come into play as well. Understanding our symbolism and allegories requires individual thought and introspection that some may be unwilling to undergo.
I agree. My point is mostly about our modern education system doesn't teach people how to think. So a little primer on how ancient allegorical stories are constructed to serve multiple functions in an easily remembered format. Moral, astronomical, historical, cultural, mathematical, and scientific knowledge can all be contained in what other wise may seem just a fantastical tale. We read the odyssey in high school but they never explained that it is one of those kinds of allegorical stories and it never occurred to me. I just figured the ancient Greeks were just a bunch of superstitious people with vivid imaginations. Not having ever been taught how to extrapolate the allegory in those stories, how can we expect a new initiate to know how to extrapolate ours?
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 was not forewarned and was not expecting the penalties, but on hearing them I didn't get nervous, nor take them literally. Prior to my EA Degree, I had no idea what to expect, but I didn't really worry about it much. I knew that G. Washington had gone through the same thing, and I knew that he was famous for his personal dignity, so I knew that there was nothing that would be beyond due bounds. That gave me confidence that all would be well.
Yes, that was an important for me, too. I’d been going to Lodge breakfasts for some time and was confident these brothers wouldn’t put me through a hazing. And there was George Washington on the wall.
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.
I agree, and I'm glad that the vote back in 1997 went the way it did. Freemasons alone should decide the form and content of our rituals, not the critics of Freemasonry.
I personally appreciate the penalties as they are, and I could never see myself supporting an effort to water them down, nor explain them away.
By explain them away, I mean by adding an explanation to the ritual. I see nothing wrong with a mentor or coach explaining them to any new Brother who might have questions or be concerned.
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.
It is unfortunate, but I think that a significant number of Masons in prior decades did work to change Freemasonry into a service club, something like Rotary With Ritual. While inroads along those lines were made, the change sought didn't fully come about, and I think that the men who are joining now, who have been joining for a while now, are much more interested in the traditional forms of our Fraternity. I think that we will see these men return Freemasonry to what it was before, and that it will thrive under the leadership of today's new Masons.
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.
I don't know what the reasons given were for those Jurisdictions that did change the penalties within the Obligations. I presume that the information would be in their Proceedings, and those can be found online for most Grand Lodges through the George Washington Masonic Memorial, but other than the attempt in Washington, I don't know the dates for resolutions in other Jurisdictions, so I can't look them up without digging through a lot of volumes. I imagine however that the reasoning would be similar to that given here.
I am sorry to read about your EA. Through the years I've served as Mentor for quite a few new Masons and haven't encountered a reaction like that, but I do see how it could happen.
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 agree with your view that the penalties truly were needed long ago. I think an argument can be made that they are needed still today, depending on where one might be in the world. Iran for example. Surely not all Iranian Freemasons were able to escape and join those who set up the Grand Lodge of Iran in Exile.
They serve as an important reminder of the dangers of unchecked power in the hands of State and Church. They also, again, in places such as Iran, likely serve an important practical purpose.
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.
I think that in the United States we have such a long tradition of personal liberty that we forget that things have been quite different in other parts of the world and at other times.
We know for a fact that Lodge Liberte Cherie Initiated, Passed, and Raised men within a Nazi Concentration Camp. You are undoubtedly correct that had a single Brother let that fact be known, all of the Brothers of Liberte Cherie would have been murdered by the State. Liberte Cherie is an example of the penalties being of practical importance, within living memory.
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.
I agree that our Lodges need to provide the education you discuss. I also think however that our efforts to guard the West gate neet to come into play as well. Understanding our symbolism and allegories requires individual thought and introspection that some may be unwilling to undergo.
True. But a little primer would help kick-start that introspection.
those unwilling to undergo individual thought and introspection on our symbolism are quite unlikely to benefit much from it though, wouldn't you say?
I agree. My point is mostly about our modern education system doesn't teach people how to think. So a little primer on how ancient allegorical stories are constructed to serve multiple functions in an easily remembered format. Moral, astronomical, historical, cultural, mathematical, and scientific knowledge can all be contained in what other wise may seem just a fantastical tale. We read the odyssey in high school but they never explained that it is one of those kinds of allegorical stories and it never occurred to me. I just figured the ancient Greeks were just a bunch of superstitious people with vivid imaginations. Not having ever been taught how to extrapolate the allegory in those stories, how can we expect a new initiate to know how to extrapolate ours?
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 was not forewarned and was not expecting the penalties, but on hearing them I didn't get nervous, nor take them literally. Prior to my EA Degree, I had no idea what to expect, but I didn't really worry about it much. I knew that G. Washington had gone through the same thing, and I knew that he was famous for his personal dignity, so I knew that there was nothing that would be beyond due bounds. That gave me confidence that all would be well.
Yes, that was an important for me, too. I’d been going to Lodge breakfasts for some time and was confident these brothers wouldn’t put me through a hazing. And there was George Washington on the wall.
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.
I agree, and I'm glad that the vote back in 1997 went the way it did. Freemasons alone should decide the form and content of our rituals, not the critics of Freemasonry.
I personally appreciate the penalties as they are, and I could never see myself supporting an effort to water them down, nor explain them away.
By explain them away, I mean by adding an explanation to the ritual. I see nothing wrong with a mentor or coach explaining them to any new Brother who might have questions or be concerned.
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.
It is unfortunate, but I think that a significant number of Masons in prior decades did work to change Freemasonry into a service club, something like Rotary With Ritual. While inroads along those lines were made, the change sought didn't fully come about, and I think that the men who are joining now, who have been joining for a while now, are much more interested in the traditional forms of our Fraternity. I think that we will see these men return Freemasonry to what it was before, and that it will thrive under the leadership of today's new Masons.
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.
I don't know what the reasons given were for those Jurisdictions that did change the penalties within the Obligations. I presume that the information would be in their Proceedings, and those can be found online for most Grand Lodges through the George Washington Masonic Memorial, but other than the attempt in Washington, I don't know the dates for resolutions in other Jurisdictions, so I can't look them up without digging through a lot of volumes. I imagine however that the reasoning would be similar to that given here.
I am sorry to read about your EA. Through the years I've served as Mentor for quite a few new Masons and haven't encountered a reaction like that, but I do see how it could happen.
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 agree with your view that the penalties truly were needed long ago. I think an argument can be made that they are needed still today, depending on where one might be in the world. Iran for example. Surely not all Iranian Freemasons were able to escape and join those who set up the Grand Lodge of Iran in Exile.
They serve as an important reminder of the dangers of unchecked power in the hands of State and Church. They also, again, in places such as Iran, likely serve an important practical purpose.
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.
I think that in the United States we have such a long tradition of personal liberty that we forget that things have been quite different in other parts of the world and at other times.
We know for a fact that Lodge Liberte Cherie Initiated, Passed, and Raised men within a Nazi Concentration Camp. You are undoubtedly correct that had a single Brother let that fact be known, all of the Brothers of Liberte Cherie would have been murdered by the State. Liberte Cherie is an example of the penalties being of practical importance, within living memory.
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?
Good luck tomorrow!
Thank you brother !! Give me a call when you can !
I hope that you have a most wonderful experience being passed to the Fellowcraft Degree!
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..