Originally posted by Trinityman
Actually Akilles, the real questions is why are you so interested in masonic ritual? If it bothers you that much why don't you out and buy your own copy rather than badgering the rest of us for information.

That's just what I did, I bought books and read them. Some of them were anti-Masonic but i think that i have got a fairly clear picture now. I have found that masons are only too willing to help if they can see that you are interested for the right reasons.

The thing with anti-Masonic books and articles is that the authors often say that they have found the 'real secrets' (or the correct interpretation) of freemasonry of which masons themselves are completely unaware. This sort of argument strains my credulity, especaly if it comes form somebody that isn’t even a mason it. I usually ignore much of what these people say so I tend to buy books on freemasonry written by freemasons.


A good book on the history of Freemasonry is ‘A Pocket History of Freemasonry’ by Fred L. Pick and G. Norman Knight

Another good but one that is but more general in its scope is ‘A Freemasons Guide and Compendium’ By Bernard E Jones

As both of these books are written by freemasons I assume that they contain no ‘secrets’ but they should provide anyone with a good grounding in what its freemasonry is about.



[edit on 29-4-2005 by pignut]

Yes pignut - both good books.

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]