Obligation, Obligation and more Obligations

There was some discussion recently as to the merits of changing the ritual in to a manner in which would suit the present day way of thinking, so in the spirit of adding to the debate we would like to put our tuppence worth in for consideration.

There are a number of factors that are common to all degrees in Freemasonry. 

A VSL is always present, modes of recognition are given, obligations to keep the modes are necessary and so on, however, it is this last point we would like to look at. Are they really all that necessary?

The history of the obligations in lodges was to ensure that apprentices were not told the modes of recognition for a master unless entitled to them and therefore, did not get paid masters’ wages.  Fine – it is important that wages are done properly and fairly. 

Why do we continue with them today?  To ensure an apprentice does not give away the mode to the uninitiated or a MM does not tell a FC or EA the secrets. They are also obligated to help other brethren and maintain the landmarks of the order (whatever they are). 

Are our secrets as important as the operative days when money was involved? 

Probably not, now that they are available in full on the internet or in most main libraries. 

The obligations must be necessary since they are part of the ritual and you cannot deviate from that – or can you? 

The obligation is a part of a ceremony that few brethren enjoy – either they have to stand up too long or it is boring. 

Some EA obligations state that a candidate must not engrave or enamel the secrets – how many today ever would?

Why have we not included typing and saving the secrets on a PC, mobile phone or any other current method of communication? 

The obligation is failing if it is to ensure that the modes are not communicated unlawfully (Masonically).  If it is failing, it needs amended or taken out. 

Most UK lodges use only one VSL, but there are many masons who are deist. We use this term rather crudely meaning that they do not go to church or do not believe in the Christian philosophy (or know nothing about it), but do believe in a supreme being.  If that is the case, an obligation on a St. James Bible cannot and is not binding.  However, this is another issue for another day and not the focus of our point.

Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath which has had many revisions over the years (as has the Masonic obligations such as the removal of penalties under many Grand Lodges) however, they do not take another obligation if they become a consultant specialising in some field of medicine.  Why – because the first oath is deemed sufficient. 

Now to the main question – why can Freemasonry not give the candidate on initiation one obligation binding him not to reveal any of the secrets revealed in any degree communicated to him at any time?

Some lodges mention this already, but candidates still have to take an obligation in every degree in every order.  We do not need obligations in every order; one is enough. It would make ceremonies shorter and ensure the emphasis is on the message contained in the degree.

One succinct obligation for the whole Craft is adequate and could be made available to the public if necessary.  We are not suggesting something short^[1] and meaningless – the size is irrelevant; content is all important. It could also be kept general (as the Craft ritual is) stating loyalty to the laws of the land and so on. 

We are well aware there will be some masons out there who will want to ostracize us, but we do believe that the whole issue of obligations should be discussed.

As a compromise, and this is to avoid us being sent to Coventry, how about one obligation for every order.  For example, one in the Excellent Master which covers the Royal Arch Degree, Cryptic and Ark Mariners (all under the Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter of Scotland). 

One obligation in the 18^th to cover the degrees up to the 32^nd as part of Supreme Council – perhaps a separate one for the 33^rd is essential.

One in the KT to both KT and Knight of Malta and so on.

Ideally, only one obligation in total would suffice, but that is a personal point of view. 

While mentioning other orders, how many Brethren have broken their obligations to their mother lodge?  There are many Brethren not in good standing, but remain active in other orders.  Again, a topic for a future date.

For the improvement of the Craft, discussion is essential.  Unfortunately, Grand Lodge in Edinburgh is not too interesting in the nitty gritty of the ritual – it doesn’t make money.

Perhaps, they would allow local lodges to remove obligations in the FC and MM if they so preferred.  Or can we at the moment?  It would be more than interesting going to a lodge with no obligation in the MM degree.