posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 07:18 AM
Originally posted by akilles
You know what I like.... I like the fact that Masons pretend their rituals were God-given.
Umm, I guess the question is, why were those OATHS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. And by who.
Actually 'akilles' they are [I]obligations not [I] oaths there is a semantic and a legal difference. It seems difference between them, in
the present context, is one of degree of binding the individual to the organisation. The individual is bound to follow his conscious alone and not to
support other members at the expense of it. An ‘oath’ would carry a more binding significance upon members. Although they are worded in a
similar way the two terms are different concepts.
I can not speak for other constitutions but in the UK the Oaths were recast as obligations about 1833 when the 'The Tolpuddle Martyrs' were
tranported for forming the 'Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers'. Although there was nothing illegal in creating or joining Friendly Society
but the oath contained a stipulation of alegense to the society.
As the local landowners found the Tolpudle Friendly Society troublesome the arraigned for the members to be arrested under the Unlawful Oaths Act of
1797. Although was originally intended to prevent naval mutinies it was reinteperated to include Friendly Societies.
The Oddfellows and othe Friendly Societys in the UK altered there rituals to avoid the same sort of prejudice, the Freemasons followed the same
practce. I would be interested in knowing if there are any historical referense to 'Obligatins' in fremasonry before 1833. If there are none there
would then my theory is true. So far my reasurches hav drawn a blank.
[edit on 29-4-2005 by pignut]