Another Throw Away Accusation denied...

The following accusation has been made a few times, by a number of folks, and rather than pick on ONE person for it, I have chosen a representative sample, and am using it for the basis upon which to make my rebuttal.

Let us, my friends, brothers, and earstwhile opponents, focus on the issue, and NOT the source if you chose to reply or post on this thread.

Thank you.

originally posted by >

Back to the ��secrets��-

I don't expect any ��secrets�� to be divulged but I would like some clarification and and a little expounding. (note to new people- I have been branded 'anti-mason')

On the oaths- the ones involving keeping the secrets of fellow masons.

I understand the historical validity of such oaths what with the rumored tie to the Templars and all, what I don't understand is why such oaths are still given.

Isn't this a weak point?

It seems to me that any organization that requires protecting their own wrong-doers from the laws of society is akin to the corporate wrong-doers that lie and protect their compatriots from prosecution. In a free society, isn't a pledge to ��lie�� contrary to society? How can a ��good man�� become better when he is REQUIRED to lie for others?

And so here in what was posed as a question, we have the old "Do you still beat your wife?" question, which is really an attack. This one is particularly clever because it is an attack on three levels at once.

1. Questions rational for masonic ritual.
2. Asserts that masons will lie/are required to lie for brother masons
3. Asserts slyly that masons would NEED someone to lie for them.

This was posted as a throw away comment on another thread, and when the poster was asked to provide any factual basis for these assertions, none were forthcoming. Why was there no proof forthcoming? Because there is none.

Another poster went on to suggest that a brother would give the grand hailing sign of distress in a courtroom, as a means of calling on a purported brother to aid them by lying.

So lets deal with the issues one at a time, and see where that takes us.

1. Criticisizing the historical necessity for the masonic obligations and thence for the penalities, though the latter was not mentioned directly. I always find it amusing when a non masons takes the time to criticize the way masons operate, seeing as they have SO MUCH personal experience from which to draw and form an opinion. The ritual is what it is because it teaches great moral lessons. Tradition is important to masons, and while some in society today are intent on tossing away what was ok yesterday in favor of some unknown tomorrow, masons tend to stick with what WORKS.

Historical facts show that masonry has produced some of the best and brightest... the list of famous masons reads like a who's who of the Military, Political, Financial, scientific, entertainment and literary communities, which begs the question: Were all those men good before they joined the fraternity, or were they better because they joined the fraternity?

Masons point to the great ones among us for a reason, not to say WE are those luminaries, but because our detractors claim that masonry is somehow less than what we claim... and by pointing to the great masons in history, we absolutely and unequivocably show them to be wrong. Evil cannot produce good, and masonry has contributed much good to society.

So, we maintain the obligations and traditions because they work. It is irrelevant to masonry that some nattering naybobs of negativitiy criticize the obligations, how we may administer them, what they contain, and so forth.

So now lets deal with the second issue. NOTHING in my obligation requires or asks me to lie for a brother. In fact, the very concept of a) being asked to lie or b) lying is antithetical to everything masonry teaches and holds out as right, fit, mete and proper. Oh, I have an obligation to aid and assist and distressed brother, but not to the extent of besmirching my own honor or integrity.

I have an obligation to keep the secrets of a brother as my own, murder, treason and felony excluded. This again, does not refer to lying. Not in word, deed, or spirit. This is a prohibition against carrying tales, and is a matter of trust and integrity and honor. Now, I know those words are out of fashion these days, and may be strange concepts for some, but to masons, honor, integrity, truth, faith, hope, charity, prudence, temperance, fortitude, justice are more than just words, they are the living, breathing lifeblood of the fraternity.

If a brother comes to me with a problem or in need of help, my obligation means that I will NOT share what he tells me with anyone, without his direct permission, which I am honor bound NOT to ask for... it means that I can trust a brother. It does not mean that I will lie for him.

Now, to the third layer of this accusation. That a brother mason would even ask a brother to lie for him. Since we are honor bound to the fraternity and to each other, the very idea of asking someone to lie is anathema to the teachings of the fraternity. I will not cheat, wrong or defraud is a significant portion of the teachings of the fraternity, and a part of the obligation itself. And the concept that a brother would "signal" another brother in court implies that a mason would be in a position that would require a lie to save him.

Since masons strive to act and live in an honorable, upright manner before god and man, the idea that a) a brother would be in court; b) that a brother would ask another brother to lie, and; c) that a brother would NEED a brother to lie is so ridiculous as to be on a par with someone asking what yellow smells like...

And, just for clarity, if a brother were to give the grand hailing sign in a court, it would be pretty clear to EVERYONE what was going on. It is not exactly... subtle, that sign, for obvious reasons.

So, am I trying to imply that all masons upright, honorable men, without blemish and perfect? NO. We are human men, striving to be better men, living in a society that prizes the grey areas and obfuscation. We FIGHT each day to reach the lofty goals we set for ourselves, and for some its harder than for others, but we ARE trying to reach the goals and to be the men that masonry teaches us to be...

Are Masons a cut above the average in society? ABSOLUTELY!

I would trust a man on sight, simply because he is a brother. Not because I am foolish, but because I know that good men apply, good men stay, and masonry makes good men better.

So one more lie about masonry bites the dust.

Thank you, theron dunn, that was a very nice explanation of Masonic "secrecy." I sometimes like to substitute the word "privacy."

its kind of like the common situation where we know someone is innocent but due to the situation the only way to save them is too lie for them. that does not seem wrong to me, the wrong part would be accusing the innocent man and being forced to lie to let justice prevail. also if one of my brothers faced penalties worse than his crime i might be compelled to lie for him or even if knew he wasnt capable of the alleged crime i would fight to protect him from undeserved penalties.but are masons really bound by oath to protect someone they have never even met? were all brothers anyway but one must judge the situation before he makes up his mind.

Are Masons a cut above the average in society? ABSOLUTELY!

.

My Dad was a Mason, and he always put a Masonic decal in the back window of my car--from the day I started driving. He said if I ever had car trouble, some one would see that decal and stop to help. He obviously felt that it would bring the good guys...

That it would...

A good Mason will go out of his way to help a brother master mason... and will do the same for most other people too.

In my view, Freemasonry is just another organization obviously designed by "lumious," individuals throughout its history, but does not necessarily produce luminaries by itself. Anyone who studies into Freemasonry, as well as the symbol system encrypted into its tradition and institution, is eventually struck by the fact that Masons themselves seemingly don't have any deep insight into the meaning of much of the potentially illuminating symbolism which architecturally saturates their culture. In fact, a certain percentage of Masons will hint of their true knowledge by using the symbolism the same way it is used in movies, etc..., but at face value it seems Masons pretty much know what they have been initiated to understand. My opinion is that most of the truly luminous personages civilization has produced were initiated on a more astral-centered level, where the powerful alchemy is communicated openly and directly in conjunction with any symbolic ritual engaged in. One is then allowed to "receive the light" truly because one is freed from the covertly maintained astral ritual process which keeps most "in the dark," and is then allowed to participate in this ritual activity in order to acquire an intensified illumination. If many of these people are Masons, then it would seem that there might be value in the cover Freemasonry provides as a face-value center of development, and of course the symbol system upon which Freemasonry was built is true, with meaning fully in harmony with the symbolism nature presents us. I just think Freemasonry was born out of a larger and more secret organization which also created The Church and most Western civilized culture of any real power.

Originally posted by Scorpio Shaping Flow
In my view, Freemasonry is just another organization obviously designed by "lumious," individuals throughout its history, but does not necessarily produce luminaries by itself.

If many of these people are Masons, then it would seem that there might be value in the cover Freemasonry provides as a face-value center of development, and of course the symbol system upon which Freemasonry was built is true, with meaning fully in harmony with the symbolism nature presents us. I just think Freemasonry was born out of a larger and more secret organization which also created The Church and most Western civilized culture of any real power.

In any organization, you have a bell curve of folks, from the least interested in the teachings, to the greatest interest in the teachings. Most, as is typical in a bell curve, fall into the middle. Masons, starting OFF as good men, start off in masonry with a better than average understanding, either working or intellectually, of morality and its place in society.

And, while I find this extremely interesting (perahps you can start another thread on esoterica and such), but I would like to keep the focus in THIS thread on the issue at hand, typically false accusations by masonic critics, in an attempt to fulfill the purpose of this forum, of course, denying ignorance.

Thanks

In any organization, you have a bell curve of folks, from the least interested in the teachings, to the greatest interest in the teachings. Most, as is typical in a bell curve, fall into the middle. Masons, starting OFF as good men, start off in masonry with a better than average understanding, either working or intellectually, of morality and its place in society.

And, while I find this extremely interesting (perahps you can start another thread on esoterica and such), but I would like to keep the focus in THIS thread on the issue at hand, typically false accusations by masonic critics, in an attempt to fulfill the purpose of this forum, of course, denying ignorance.

Thanks

Agreed, you get ot of Masonry what you put into it.