A Brother Asks: What's your "Take" on Our Obligations

 

A Brother Asks: Coach!  I'd like to hear your take on the MM obligation, perhaps our obligations in general, and whether they mean as much as I think that it should to obligate myself to my brethren, or if it is simply antiquated ritual.

Coach: This is an outstanding request and kudos to you for wanting it responded to.  

My "Take", and some quick supporting thoughts: 

1) Freemasonry is a full-immersion role-playing theatrical-society with a moral purpose. 

a) It is an introduction to Masonry only 

b) It offers to its members a path to follow that will lead them to Masonry and its practices

c) It offers obligations that assist in committing to a Masonic way of being 

d) It is not in any way itself Masonry

2) Freemasonry offers morality plays for its initiates and members. 

3) The morality plays Freemasonic organizations offer are scripted allegories put forth that convey principles, ethics, concepts, and ideals relevant, significant, and pertinent to those experiencing them with the sole purpose of having that experience leverage moral change with them and for the better. They have within them a call to action to obligate oneself to improve and, as most all morality plays do directly or indirectly, often have this call put forth as obligations. 

4) In Freemasonic morality plays, these"Obligations" are burdens that members take on to: 

a) Improve themselves morally 

b) Support others as they themselves would expect to be supported 

c) Assure that do not ruin the experience for others by conveying information that has not yet been earned - usually in the form of confidentiality ("secrets" to be honored) 

5) Those experiencing these morality plays can use these experiences to: 

a) Claim that they have "been there and did that" to fit in 

b) Use them to claim "rights, lights, and benefits-privileges" barred from others who have not earned them 

c) Use them as a springboard-roadmap to improve-better themselves in ways that would otherwise be unattainable to them if no similar improving-bettering actions are not taken. 

d) Use them as a guide-roadmap to that improvement-betterment 

e) Disregard their significance as just scripts that are required to be experienced to become a member. 

f) Apply them figuratively and/or literally and in the spirit in which they were conveyed and to do so rigorously within the limits therein established by the length of your cable-tow and without fail.

The option(s) that each member exercise(s) can be seen overtly in his behavior, heard in his words, and felt through the impact of his choices and decisions. Literally, his very looks betray him, continuously. 

And those surrounding him should treat him accordingly.

Why do you ask?

Brother: I asked you this because the WM who brought me into the fraternity, downplayed these obligations as "just rituals" and seemed to not think much of them beyond this. He is also a brother that has proven to be one I feel that I cannot trust. 

Coach: He is dismissive, doesn't want to be responsible, and doesn't want to be held to account for his given words.  You see him for who and what he is. Treat him accordingly. But do not let on that you know who and what he is. He will resent you for what you reflect back to him and for being seen by you for what he is and chooses to be and he will treat you as a target thereafter. No one of his caliber needs to know that you see him for what he is.  These people cannot be trusted.

I hope this response provides to you my "take" on these obligations worthy of your consideration.

 (Hat tip to my Bro. for the inspiration for this post.)

 

A Brother Asks: Why only Murder & Treason?

“Treason and murder ever kept together,
As two yoke-devils sworn to either’s purpose”
(King Henry V, act 2, sc. 2)

A Brother Asks: Why are murder and treason exceptions to keeping our Brother’s secrets?

Coach: Because they clearly put forth the standard one should measure one’s liabilities in keeping one’s word to another.

Brother: But why just murder and treason?

Coach: As opposed to what?

Brother: What if it involves other illegal, immoral or unethical activities?

Coach: What about these?

Brother: Shouldn’t we not keep such activities to ourselves.

Coach: We shouldn’t.

Brother: But they’re not murder and treason!

Coach: Aren’t they?

Brother: Wait? Are you saying they are one in the same?

Coach: I’m saying you might want to look up the words before you come to erroneous conclusions.

Brother: But I have.

Coach: And what did you find?

Brother: Murder is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”.

Coach: And treason?

Brother: It is “the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government”.

Coach: Thanks.  Do you want to delve into these?

Brother: You’re welcome and yes!

Coach: Good! Let’s start on the first one.

Brother: Okay.

Murder

Coach: The first one speaks to premeditation.

Brother: That’s where it is not a spontaneous act. It’s actually planned.

Coach: Are you seeing the connection to the ruffians?

Brother: Yes!  I am indeed. They plotted to extract the master’s word and were willing to do so even if it meant death to their victim.

Coach: Good!  Murder is a premeditated act where harm is involved.

Brother: Why do you say it that way?

Coach: Because this is a symbolic lodge.

Brother: And rather than take what was communicated literally, you’re trying to pull out the symbolic information to see how it applies to our lives?

Coach: Yes.  That’s how this Works. You take the general communications, boil down its essence and distill the lesson.

Brother: So the lesson here is to keep his secret unless it involves doing harm.

Coach: Yes. And if it does involve doing harm, then you are no longer obligated to keep his secret.

Brother: Wow!  I would have never gathered that by taking it literally.

Coach: Most Brothers don’t.  But does it have to be premeditated harm?

Brother: No. I see now that it doesn't.

Coach: How so?

Brother: Harm is harm whether it is planned for or after the fact.

Coach: Agreed!

Treason

Brother: What about Treason?

Coach: What about it?

Brother: Can you boil it down for me?

Coach: Yes, I could, but I think I’d rather walk you through it and let you do the Work.

Brother: Awesome! What’s first?

Coach: Look up the other definitions.

Brother: Okay. I get the following information. “the action of betraying someone or something”

Coach: What do you gather from that?

Brother: Well, it differs from the first definition in that the betrayal is now generalized to just betrayal…

Coach: As opposed to?

Brother: …one’s country.

Coach: Break it down.

Brother: It’s pretty straightforward.

Coach: How so?

Brother: It’s telling me that I’m not obligated to keep any secrets that betray anyone or anything.

One More Level

Coach: I get the same thing. Do you have any other definitions?

Brother: Yes… treason is “the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband”

Coach: Wow!  Back to murder?

Brother: Yes. It appears that treason is linked to murder.

Coach: And in this instance you gather what?

Brother: Symbolically?

Coach: But of course!

Brother: Okay… symbolically treason is not just betrayal, which it is, but in this instance it is also harmful betrayal.

Coach: Does that sound familiar?

Brother: It sure does!

Coach: Of what does it remind you?

Brother: The ruffians once again!

Coach: It reminds me of them as well. Why?

Brother: Because they betrayed the Grand Master to whom they owed allegiance.

Coach: Exactly.  Do the definitions drive home some points as to what you need to be aware of when deciding whether or not you should keep another’s secrets?

Brother: They sure do.

Takeaways

Coach: On what points are you now clearer when it comes to the exception for murder or treason?

Brother: If there is any harm planned for or committed, I have an obligation to assure I inform the proper persons to guarantee that this harm will not occur, prevent it myself if within my power or assure that amends are made for harm that is done.

Coach: So, murder is symbolic for any harm planned or after the fact?

Brother: Yes! 

Coach: And you are obligated to prevent it if you can or assure proper amends?

Brother: Yes.

Coach: And what about treason?

Brother: Betrayal in any form, but more especially, betrayals that do harm.

Coach: And you’re equally obligated to prevent it if you can?

Brother: Yes.

One Step Further

Coach: What about how all this applies to one’s morals?

Brother: Interesting. Please continue.

Coach: Can you murder your own morals?

Brother: You mean, plot to cause them harm?

Coach: Yes.

Brother: I imagine trying to figure a way around something that is clearly illegal, unethical or immoral would be undermining one’s morals, thus causing them harm.

Coach: How about betrayal of your morals?

Brother: Yes. I can see where this could occur when one’s standards get biased toward anything or anyone that would require those standards to be “relaxed”.

Coach: I agree. What is worse, murder of one’s morals or betrayal of them?

Brother: I’d have to say that the Murder of one's Morals is only overshadowed by one's Betrayal of Them.

Coach: Why?

Brother: Because, in the extreme, murder kills them dead while the betrayal leaves them as festering reminders of the harm one consciously undertakes or undertook in the face of dishonor.

Coach: So, if you take Exception to Murder and Treason literally when keeping within your chest the unworthy Secrets of others, you have yet to practice Masonry.

Brother: Yes!  That brings it back to the Craft.

Coach: Thank you. I agree.

Brother: Would you consider the Work that it takes to come to these interpretations to be the practice of Masonry?

Coach: As in?

Brother:  If one takes a literal view of that issue, he has yet to practice Masonry.

Coach: Agreed!

Brother: Wouldn't the process of getting from taking things literally to figuratively be considered the practice of Masonry?

Coach: Yes! Absolutely! Masonry is a process for sure, and moving from the literal to the figurative is part of that.

Brother: Are you saying that one is not working masonically when one does keeps secrets for secrets' sake?

Coach: If I understand your question correctly, let me respond as follows: When you keep secrets that should not be kept, because you think it is more moral to keep them, even when what is shared should not be kept a secret especially because of the immorality that would unfold because of keeping it a secret, you are not practicing Masonry.

Brother:  This makes good sense.

Coach:  Thanks!

General Guideline

Brother: Do you have a general guideline on all this?

Coach: I do.

Brother: Would you share it with me… …I promise to keep it secret.

Coach: LOL!  Thanks!  No need to. Share it to your heart’s content.

Brother: And it is?

Coach: I keep confidential information sequestered that would harm if shared. Should that information cause harm if kept sequestered, then I have a moral obligation to share it.

Brother: Is it that cut and dried?

Coach: No. It takes a lot of soul searching and prayer at times so I make sure anyone who wishes to share secrets knows that I do not want anything shared with me that would cause me or others a moral bind.

Brother: What’s a moral bind?

Coach: Anything shared that creates a moral dilemma where conflicting standards exist to choose between and someone or something suffers no matter what.

Brother: Such as?

Coach: You’re enjoying this too much.

Brother: Yes… and?

Coach: Let’s make it personal.

Brother: Okay.

Coach: Situations where I’m told something that will cause harm if I share it, but will equally cause harm if I don’t. 

Brother: What do you do in such situations?

Coach: When it’s after the fact, and I am now holding on to the secret, I pray for the right insights into the situations, while I act in love, hope for the best and have faith in all involved.

Brother: I guess that’s all one can do in these situations.

Coach: I agree.

Brother: Wait a minute!

Coach: Ah!  An insight to share?

Brother: Yes! Is this why the twelve fellow craft recanted, albeit a bit too late?

Coach: What do you think?

------------------

For Further Light:

 

A Brother Asks: Oaths, Vows & Promises

 
 
A Brother Asks: Coach, I've had a few members of my congregation claim Freemasons take oaths and therefore are in violation of what is written within holy scripture.  Are they right? 

Coach: To what exactly are they referring?
 
Brother: To Matthew 5:34.
 
Coach: What does it say?
 
Brother: The exact scripture is, “But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:”.
 
Coach: Ah!  Okay... I’ve heard that one before.
 
Brother: Good.  I’m told this says what Freemasons do is against scripture.
 
Coach: Does it?
 
Brother: It’s pretty straightforward Coach.
 
Coach: Is it?
 
Brother: Okay, you’re hinting at something and I’m not getting it.
 
Coach: I’m glad you are catching on.
 
Brother: It took me a moment.  What am I not seeing?
 
Coach: What is being quoted to you is out of context and it is done so purposefully to deceive you.
 
Brother: How so?
 
Coach: The clause, “But I say to you…”, is a direct indication that what is to follow is making comment on what was preceding it.
 
Brother: The previous statement?
 
Coach: Yes.  Look it up please.
 
Brother: Okay.  The previous statement is, “Again, you have heard that it has been said by them of old time, You shall not perjure yourself, but shall perform unto the Lord your oaths:[1]”?
 
Coach: Exactly!  What you just quoted refers to not giving false witness, as in, not lying under oath.  It also refers to being true to your word.
 
Brother: So, the proscription against swearing oaths is trying to emphasize that it is enough to give your word and simply live up to it.
 
Coach: Yes. It was to convey that there should be no double standard between giving your word with or without an oath, which was a big issue back then, as it is in some circles to this day.  But there's a lot more to it. 
 
Brother: How’s that?
 
Coach: If you look at what follows that proscription, you come to understand that the context is important to understanding what is actually being proscribed. 
 
Brother: The scripture says, “But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shall you swear by your head, because you can not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these comes from evil.[2]”
 
Coach: Yes.  Now look at the context to which you should not swear.
 
Brother: hmmm... context... let me review it... okay, got it!  It says to not swear neither by heaven, by earth, by your nation, nor by your head.
 
Coach: Exactly!
 
Brother: Wait.  Everything mentioned therein is something other than God!
 
Coach: Good catch Bro.!
 
Brother: Wow!
 
Coach: Why “Wow!”?
 
Brother: None of those things has any power over you other than what you give it.
 
Coach: Indeed.  And the proscription is not about not swearing.  It’s about not swearing by anything other than God.
 
Brother: I can see where this scripture can be used out of context to manipulate people who don’t know how to understand it within context.
 
Coach: Yes!  There’s more to it than meets the eye.
 
Brother: I’ll say.
 
Coach: Yes, and there’s more to it than many usually understand.
 
Brother: Okay, you’re baiting me.
 
Coach: Yes.  I am.
 
Brother: I’ll bite.  What are you hinting at?
 
Coach: It’s clear that this scripture is not a proscription against any swearing or oath taking.
 
Brother: Okay.  Let me have it Coach.
 
Coach: Refer to this scripture, “And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. [3]”
 
Brother: Okay.  Would you say this in modern English?
 
Coach: Let me use a different translation, “So the high priest stood up and asked Him, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” But Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to Him, “I charge You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God.”  “You have said it yourself,” Jesus answered. “But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.[3]”…
 
Brother: Wait?!  Does that mean the question was answered under oath?
 
Coach: Yes.  And that also means by default that under specific circumstances oaths are acceptable and answering under them is equally acceptable.
 
Brother: Then why are some people saying oaths and swearing is not okay under any circumstance?
 
Coach: It's all a red herring argument.  It is a logical fallacy.
 
Brother: Red herring?
 
Coach:  Yes. It is intended to mislead you from the truth by throwing you off its trail.
 
Brother: What’s the truth?
 
Coach: They use the words "swear" and “oath” out of context to leverage an argument that has no basis. 
 
Brother: What’s their end-in-mind?
 
Coach: They are trying to persuade you not to be okay with taking upon yourself a legitimate obligation and they are using a logical fallacy to do so.
 
Brother: How deceitful!
 
Coach: Agreed!
 
Brother: What more can you tell me about this?

Coach: Think about it.  Although the words "swear" and "promise" are used within the Freemasonic obligations in many of their rituals and is often times referred to as an "oath", the irony to all this is when you dissect the entire obligatory passage from one end to the other, you'll not get one word of swearing to anyone or anything at all.
 
Brother: WOW!  You’re right!  The obligation is not to anyone or anything, other than one's self! 
 
Coach: Indeed!  And all that it says is that the person promising and swearing recognizes he is doing so in the presence of his Brothers and God.
 
Brother: Okay.  I can see it.  I reviewed the obligation in its entirety and see that anyone who takes it is merely making a long interlaced promise to one's self with witnesses, expressing what he is willing to have occur (by his own hand) if he fails and capping it off with a request for God to assist him in assuring his promise is upheld.
 
Coach: Yes.  That "so help me God" tag line on the end means just that!  “God help me in what I have promised to undertake".
 
Brother:  It is quite masterful in its rendering.
 
Coach: Yes. The way it is constructed avoids the very things that those who are making effort to persuade you otherwise are putting forth as leverage.
 
Brother: How’s that?
 
Coach: The obligation is to one’s self.  The promises are witnessed. The penalties are to one’s self and self- inflicted.  It is asking for God’s help in keeping one’s promises.
 
Brother: Pretty straightforward.
 
Coach: Yes. 
 
Brother: But what's this about asking God for help?
 
Coach: That's the "...so help me God..." clause.
 
Brother: Doesn't that mean "I really mean what I say"?
 
Coach: Sure.  But it's also an imprecation.
 
Brother: Hey!  That's a word used in Ritual.
 
Coach: It sure is in a lot of jurisdictions.
 
Brother: But isn't an imprecation a curse?

Coach: It is.
 
Brother: But that's not a good thing.
 
Coach: Only sometimes.
 
Brother: Sometimes?
 
Coach: Yes.  A curse in its neutral form literally means "to be bound by words". Of course, you're going to have to go down the rabbit hole quite a way to get to know this.
 
Brother: Wow!  Okay... this is making more sense.
 
Coach: How so?
 
Brother: By saying, "so help me God", your binding yourself to your words and you're asking God to help you in making sure that you are bound.
 
Coach: Yes.  It's an abbreviated form of saying, "So may God help me at the judgment day if I speak true, but if I speak false, then may He withdraw His help from me.[4]"
 
Brother: This is getting deep.  But that's good.  I'm enjoying all this.
 
Coach: Yes, it can be fun and the discoveries are eye opening.

Brother: Indeed. So, is there actually a proscription against taking any oath?
 
Coach: Not really. If there were a proscription against such things, the One proscribing such things would not have answered under oath[5].
 
Brother: That makes sense. 
 
Coach: And having God as a witness is totally permissible in communicating your being truthful in what you say.
 
Brother: Okay, you're throwing another one at me.  Please share the evidence?
 
Coach: The apostles Paul is reported to have written the following… “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.[6]" and "Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.[7]"  This is a pretty straightforward calling God as his witness.
 
Brother: WOW!  Another example of how Freemasonic Obligation toes the line scripturally, neat!
 
Coach: I thought you’d like that.

Brother: I do.  But what are the essential differences between vows, oaths and promises?

Coach: Great question!  What do you know?
 
Brother: Are you putting it back on me?

Coach: Yes.  I am!

Brother: An oath is a solemn promise. 

Coach: Anything to add to this?

Brother: Yes. It is often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.

Coach: And?

Brother: It is a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.

Coach: Can it also be, "a profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions"?
 
Brother: Yes.  It can.  But that does not apply to what we are doing as Freemasons.
 
Coach: Agreed.  What about a vow?
 
Brother: It's also a solemn promise.  Although it could be a set of solemn promises committing or dedicating one to a prescribed role, calling, or course of action, typically to marriage or a monastic career.
 
Coach: Yes.  Does this sound familiar?
 
Brother: Yes.  It sounds like what we do by taking our obligations.
 
Coach: I agree.  So are we taking an oath or are we taking a vow?
 
Brother: It sounds like both.
 
Coach: It does.  Is it within the constraints of Scripture?
 
Brother: It certainly is.
 
Coach: What is their common basis?
 
Brother: They both involve solemn promises.

Coach: And?

Brother: You're going to expect me to go there as well, aren't you?

Coach: But of course!
 
Brother: Okay, a promise is a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that a particular thing will happen.
 
Coach: Does this sound like a guarantee?
 
Brother: It sure does.
 
Coach: What makes it solemn?
 
Brother: It's solemn when it is formal, serious, dignified and that it is characterized by deep sincerity.
 
Coach: You mean it comes from the heart?
 
Brother: Yes.  That too!
 
Coach: How does the word "covenant" play into this?
 
Brother: Covenant?

Coach: Yes, covenant!
 
Brother: Isn't that an agreement?
 
Coach: Yes.  But it is not just an agreement when God is involved.
 
Brother: Yes.  I'd have to agree.  When God is involved, it's an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and God's people.
 
Coach: And in this case, the person calling God in as a witness?
 
Brother: It's more than that Coach.
 
Coach: Okay.  Tell me, please.
 
Brother: This entire obligation is ended with asking for God's help.
 
Coach: Does that plea then include an agreement?
 
Brother: Yes! 

Coach: What is this agreement?
 
Brother: From what I can ascertain, the person making all these promises is doing so as an agreement with God expecting God will help the person making these promises in carrying them out.
 
Coach: So, can we include in the long list that this obligation is also a covenant with God?
 
Brother: Wow!  Yes.  It is a solemn promise, witnessed by God and in exchange for making that promise, God's assistance to carry it out.
 
Coach: Are you enjoying this exchange?
 
Brother: Indeed I am.
 
Coach: What have you learned?
 
Brother: That anyone claiming the Freemasonic obligations violate what is proscribed by Matthew 5:34 is either ignorant of their scripture or is a sophist trying to mislead you.
 
Coach: That's my assessment as well.  Anything else?

Brother: I know a bit more about the differences between vows, oaths and covenants.

Coach: Awesome!  Anything more?

Brother: I can quickly identify this proscription as a red herring argument when used out of context and can effectively deal with it back up by scripture.

Coach: But only when the other side is rational, open and available to examining their preconceived notions, premises and conclusions.
 
Brother: But of course!  Otherwise I'd be better off just ignoring them. 

Coach: Indeed.  You'd be throwing pearls to swine.

Brother: Yes.  Thanks Coach!
 
Coach: You're most welcome.  Thank you!
 
Brother: You're thanking me?
 
Coach: Of course I am.
 
Brother: But why?
 
Coach: Had you not asked the question, others might not have benefited from the work you and I did here today.
 
Brother: I had not thought of this beyond my own situation.
 
Coach: Now that you are?
 
Brother: I see such conversations can benefit others who are faced with the same situations.
 
Coach: Yes.  And it will be of benefit to many.

Brother: Then you are most welcome, Coach!

Coach: Would you like to read more on this?

Brother: Sure!

Coach: You can find more Light here.

Brother: Thanks again Coach!

Coach: You're most welcome!  You didn't asking me about bloody oaths though? 

Brother: That was next on the list.

Coach: Good!  Read this article first and get back with me if anything is not clear. 

Brother: Will do and thanks again!
 
 ------------
 
[1] Matthew 5:33
[2] Matthew 5:34-37
[3] Matthew 26:62-64
[4] http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/02/so-help-me-god-what-does-it-mean.html
[5] Matthew 26:62-64
[6] Galatians 1:20
[7] 2 Corinthians 1:23