My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A Brother Asks... How are the Penalties Administered "Symbolically"?

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
A Brother Asks: How does a Brother say, "yes" to the Penalties of his Obligation?

My Response: A Brother says, "yes to the Penalties", whenever... Referee.jpg
  1. His Words prove to have no Value thus Rendering his Tongue useless, (EA WORK!)
  2. His Heart is shown not to be in what he is doing thus Rendering his Heart useless, (FC WORK!) and
  3. His Head and his Heart are shown to be torn in two different direction, thus Rendering him useless, (MM WORK!).
Although presented as only symbolic, the penalties are allegorical for the reality that is self-inflicted by the person violating his Obligations upon himself.

Let's make this personal. They were revealed to you so that you would...

(Continue reading here: https://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-brother-asks-how-are-penalties.html)
 

Bloke

Premium Member
"A Brother Asks... How are the Penalties Administered "Symbolically"?"

It's a stupid question, but I like the spin you put on it Coach. (mind you, our exact wording of ritual might be different making his question less stupid).
 

Bloke

Premium Member
What makes the question stupid for you?
They're never suggested in our ritual as being administered to Speculative Freemasons, symbolically or otherwise. Its a "historical" re-enactment. That's pretty much as far as I go on this one here Coach.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
They're never suggested in our ritual as being administered to Speculative Freemasons, symbolically or otherwise. Its a "historical" re-enactment. That's pretty much as far as I go on this one here Coach.
Ah! In this case, the Brother was taking it one step further and asked the obvious, if they are only symbolic, and in your case merely a reference to "a historic reenactment", then why have them as part of the OB at all? Why not simply have some lecture explain that OBs in the past required such things?

He truly wanted to know how they manifested in a member's life, even "symbolically". Hence the question. I got the gist of his interest and ran with it.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
JustJames said:
>Its a "historical" re-enactment.

In the case of the 3rd penalty it is a re-enactment of an ancient event.

No. It is an allusion, not "a re-enactment of an ancient event". #getyourfactsstraight&studythetriviumforgod'ssake
 

Scoops

Registered User
Ah! In this case, the Brother was taking it one step further and asked the obvious, if they are only symbolic, and in your case merely a reference to "a historic reenactment", then why have them as part of the OB at all? Why not simply have some lecture explain that OBs in the past required such things?

He truly wanted to know how they manifested in a member's life, even "symbolically". Hence the question. I got the gist of his interest and ran with it.
Whilst I usually fear to tread in these discussions between you and Bro. Bloke for fear of getting out of my depth, I'll wade in here. UGLE removed the symbolic penalties from our Obs. back in the eighties and refer to them further on in the degree as being "at one time included". Whether this is an innovation and whether it was for the right reasons or not I shall steer way clear from as I'm not experienced enough to have any well founded opinion...

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Whilst I usually fear to tread in these discussions between you and Bro. Bloke for fear of getting out of my depth, I'll wade in here. UGLE removed the symbolic penalties from our Obs. back in the eighties and refer to them further on in the degree as being "at one time included". Whether this is an innovation and whether it was for the right reasons or not I shall steer way clear from as I'm not experienced enough to have any well founded opinion...

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Yours is not the only jurisdiction that has changed their ritual over the issues raised by this part of ritual. Thanks for wading in and contributing.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Ah! In this case, the Brother was taking it one step further and asked the obvious, if they are only symbolic, and in your case merely a reference to "a historic reenactment", then why have them as part of the OB at all? Why not simply have some lecture explain that OBs in the past required such things?

He truly wanted to know how they manifested in a member's life, even "symbolically". Hence the question. I got the gist of his interest and ran with it.
Hi Coach

I'm with Bro Stewart on this one, I want to be cautious, and to have a meaning conversation sees me beyond what I'm comfortable with unless with Brothers alone. However, before those misled fantasy conspiracy theory obsessives get excited by my likely withdrawal, I will also echo Bro Scoops, the "penalties" are also not in our UGLV Obligations, they stand outside as a historical re-enactment and even then "formally associated with the violation of an obligation" - it' should be very clear what they are to our candidates. Your spin still works nicely, but sits even more symbolically within our ritual than yours.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Hi Coach

I'm with Bro Stewart on this one, I want to be cautious, and to have a meaning conversation sees me beyond what I'm comfortable with unless with Brothers alone.
Well understood.
However, before those misled fantasy conspiracy theory obsessives get excited by my likely withdrawal, I will also echo Bro Scoops, the "penalties" are also not in our UGLV Obligations, they stand outside as a historical re-enactment and even then "formally associated with the violation of an obligation" - it' should be very clear what they are to our candidates. Your spin still works nicely, but sits even more symbolically within our ritual than yours.
It seems to fit quite nicely everywhere it has been discussed so far. Most of the time I have Brothers saying it makes perfect sense to them and they wish it had been explained to them this way from the very beginning.
 

otherstar

Registered User
Please explain how they are casual references and point to profound consequences. I think you are equivocating here.

No, you need to take a logic course. You are using words as you see fit, not as they actually are defined. You've violated the first rule of logic: the principle of non-contradiction. A thing cannot be a casual reference and profound at the same time. It's either one or the other, not both simultaneously.

I have a graduate degree in philosophy, and I have teaching experience at both the graduate and undergraduate level. I'm not easily duped. I'd give the initial article from this thread a B if it were submitted in my class because you do not use terms consistently, and frankly, your writing lacks a degree of focus and cohesion. You jump from point to point without fully establishing the connections between points, then you pronounce what you've written to be true and correct without fully demonstrating that it is so. You make inferences, not syllogisms (you do know what a syllogism is, right?). Bro....
 
Top