EA's and the Book

[MGM357]

Last night at Lodge before our C&C stated meeting, I was helping an EA with his work. I noticed he kept stumbling on a couple of words he was leaving out, he said that's not how it is in the book. I couldn't believe what I heard. I told him it would not be wise to continue using the book or to tell people that you have been using it. My biggest concern is how much has he read (beyond the EA degree).

What are the rules from the GLoT about the book? Especially when it comes to EA's and FC's.

 

[jonesvilletexas]

When the Past Masters of the state of Texas (witch pass the laws at Grand Lodge each year) felt that we needed a code book, WHAT DID THEY THANK WOULD HAPPEN????

Title V – Chapter 2​

20. Possess, or use a cipher/code book anywhere on a Lodge
premises, and to use a cipher/code book in the presence
of a candidate when instructing the candidate in the esoteric
work of a Masonic Degree.​

​

​

​

(Revised 2007)​

 

[MGM357]

When the Past Masters of the state of Texas (witch pass the laws at Grand Lodge each year) felt that we needed a code book, WHAT DID THEY THANK WOULD HAPPEN????

Title V – Chapter 2​

20. Possess, or use a cipher/code book anywhere on a Lodge
premises, and to use a cipher/code book in the presence
of a candidate when instructing the candidate in the esoteric
work of a Masonic Degree.​

​

​

​

(Revised 2007)​

I thought the book wasn't allowed on Lodge property, to prevent using the books during stated or called meetings. What about the canidate using the book with out the instructor present, is it wrong or highly frowned upon?

 

[Bill Lins]

Yes. Candidates should not even know such books exist- they are "untempered mortar".

 

[Huw]

Obviously the idea behind your rule must be that an EA or FC shouldn't see the book at all, regardless of whether he's alone.

But one thing the PMs probably did think would happen when they passed the law allowing limited use of a code book is that the book would be correct, and not leave people stumbling over "that's not how it is in the book" (I mean regardless of the fact that this particular case was an EA who shouldn't have had it in the first place). From my own experience as an editor of the main UGLE ritual book, I can testify that keeping out typographical errors and ending up with a printed version which actually says exactly what it's meant to say is astonishingly difficult, you really wouldn't believe how difficult it is unless you've actually edited a ritual yourself. After the first few thousand words of proof-reading, your brain starts to go numb, and your eyes slip past an error because you see what you expect instead of what it actually (wrongly) says ... it takes ages to get right. And even then, the printers always find some way to muck up a few details after you've sent them the "final" approved draft. We've never yet managed to publish an edition which was totally free of typos!

On one point, however, I'll offer some reassurance: Bro. Johnnie's worry about an EA reading ahead to things he shouldn't know yet. Our experience over here, having had printed books for many years now, is that when Candidates are allowed to see a book which contains all the work and are asked not to peek ahead beyond what they should know, most don't do it. Most of them are honourable men, after all, and also they do realise that they'd spoil the experience for themselves if they cheated. But yes, occasionally I've come across cases where it looked as if a Candidate had been unable to resist temptation and seemed to know too much ... but only once or twice.

I have a suggestion for you, which might be useful to GLoTX in future, now that you're going down the road of allowing book-learning. Over here, in addition to the normal books which contain all three Degrees, we also publish a couple of special cut-down editions which contain only the First plus the Q&A for the Second, and only the Second plus the Q&A for the Third, so we can give those to Candidates between Degrees without worrying about them seeing anything they shouldn't yet know.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Ashton Lawson]

I am completely opposed to any Mason possessing a Code Book until after they have completed their MM Proficiency. Frankly, I'd prefer they didn't exist at all.

In my honest and blunt opinion, a Mason using a Code Book any sooner is cheating, and it speaks directly to their integrity, to me.

I am sure my opinion is unpopular, but our own ritual states that our work is passed down from the instructive mouth to the attentive ear. We all know what our obligations state, and I don't see any exceptions whatsoever in there that make it acceptable if translated into a Codebook.

It's lazy Masonry at best...and a dishonor to our predecessors.

-Ashton

 

[Huw]

Hi Ashton.

I am completely opposed to any Mason possessing a Code Book until after they have completed their MM Proficiency. Frankly, I'd prefer they didn't exist at all.

I've mentioned above the existence of EA-only and FC-only partial rituals here, but they're not very widely used. My own experience wasn't so far from what you recommend: I never had a book until I was Raised, and that remains the usual position here even though we've had books for a long time.

I am sure my opinion is unpopular, but our own ritual states that our work is passed down from the instructive mouth to the attentive ear. We all know what our obligations state, and I don't see any exceptions whatsoever in there that make it acceptable if translated into a Codebook.

I'm not so sure your opinion is unpopular, I think many will agree.

Coming from a different jurisdiction, I don't know precisely what GLoTX obligations say. Of course they'll be essentially similar to my own obligations, but no doubt there are differences in detail. In UGLE, our rituals and obligations only require that the actual degree secrets are mouth-to-ear, not all the rest of the work, so we're free to put everything else in a book if we so decide. Obviously if GLoTX rituals and obligations are more restrictive, then you're in a different position. Can you clarify how tightly-restrictive you're obliged to be?

It's lazy Masonry at best

Yes, that's definitely a problem. Over here, of course officers are supposed to learn all their work by heart, same as for you, and most do try. However, not all of them try very thoroughly, and we don't have an actual ban on bringing the book into Lodge, so some of our officers cheat and use the book as to prompt or even read some parts. Reading is certainly discouraged, of course, and it's regarded as a poor show, but sometimes it is done, and to be honest this happens more often than we'd like. But since our Lodges are traditionally quite small, we sometimes have a problem if someone is unexpectedly absent, that there aren't enough members present who know the work, and then we have to put in an unprepared last-minute substitute and let him read ... since your Lodges are usually much bigger than ours, I guess you're not so likely to suffer this latter problem.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Bill Lins]

Obviously if GLoTX rituals and obligations are more restrictive, then you're in a different position. Can you clarify how tightly-restrictive you're obliged to be?

The "questions & answers" of the 3 Degrees, the conferral of the Degrees themselves (including the Lectures), and the opening & closing rituals of all the Lodges are all considered to be esoteric here.

 

[MGM357]

Can someone quote the law(s) from GLoT about the book and who, where anh it should be used.

 

[Bill Lins]

From Art. 505a (Masonic disciplinary violations): "20. Possess, or use a cipher/code book anywhere on a Lodge
premises, and to use a cipher/code book in the presence
of a candidate when instructing the candidate in the esoteric
work of a Masonic Degree. (Revised 2007)"

Remember, any Mason who has not passed his Master's proficiency is considered a "candidate". What is considered "esoteric" is listed above.

 

[MGM357]

From Art. 505a (Masonic disciplinary violations): "20. Possess, or use a cipher/code book anywhere on a Lodge
premises, and to use a cipher/code book in the presence
of a candidate when instructing the candidate in the esoteric
work of a Masonic Degree. (Revised 2007)"

Remember, any Mason who has not passed his Master's proficiency is considered a "candidate". What is considered "esoteric" is listed above.

Thanks, but I'm still confused. It doesn't say can or cannot.

 

[owls84]

Brother Johnnie, Article 505 is listing items that are considered a Masonic Offense and are there subject to Masonic Charges. Therefore, item 20 which is is listed should never be allowed. That is where the "cannot" comes from. You need to read the whole law as it is stated in the book to see that.

****Keep in mind MoTx is not a governing body of Masonry. Any the Law discussion is mearly for your information only and subject to any other interpretation or ruling. To get the correct ruling on the law you need to ask your Local DDGM or call GL for the "official" interpretation.****

 

[Huw]

Thanks, Bill.

The "questions & answers" of the 3 Degrees, the conferral of the Degrees themselves (including the Lectures), and the opening & closing rituals of all the Lodges are all considered to be esoteric here.

That's definitely much more restrictive than our rule. We expect members to treat the ritual as a private matter to be discussed with some caution and discretion, but only the traditional modes of recognition are actually secret. Naturally we don't want the details of our rituals blazed across the pages of public newspapers, but on the other hand we can quote anything (except the recognition secrets) in circumstances where it seems appropriate.

In theory, I could write out for you any part of our rituals (except the recognition secrets) in full in plain text, and I wouldn't have broken my obligation (although I'd be expected to have some reason for doing it).

Interestingly, one part of our ritual has even been read into the public record. A few years ago, one of our legislators, who was an anti-masonic conspiracy-nut, succeeded to the chairmanship of a parliamentary select committee (that's like one of your congressional committees), and launched a hostile enquiry into various conspiracy-nut allegations against us. Of course it all came to nothing much in the end because we'd done nothing wrong, but in the course of the enquiry some of the allegations were about what we did or didn't require of members in their personal and social behaviour. To counter the allegations and prove the high standard of conduct which we actually require of Brethren, our Grand Secretary testified before the committee and read into the record our entire Charge After Initiation (which is the Lecture at the end of our EA ceremony). Some of us were a little surprised that he did this, but we could all see that there was a reason for it, and that Lecture doesn't contain the specific secrets of the degree, so he wasn't breaking his obligations. I guess that under your rules, that would have been much more of a problem!

T & F,

Huw

 

[Bill Lins]

Huw, we have a separate Charge (which is NOT esoteric) following the Lecture (which IS) in each of our Degrees.

 

[Huw]

Hi Bill.

Huw, we have a separate Charge (which is NOT esoteric) following the Lecture (which IS) in each of our Degrees.

Ah, I see. Evidently we have the material arranged rather differently. We have just one long speech at the end of each Degree ceremony. In the First it's a moral Charge which doesn't refer to the secrets of the Degree. In the Second and Third it's mostly masonic legend about the Temple and Hiram, and as well as moral allegory it also includes explanation of the Degree secrets and therefore couldn't be published in full.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Ashton Lawson]

Interesting how there are such differing views on what is and isn't esoteric in our lodges.

 

[Bill Lins]

Interesting how there are such differing views on what is and isn't esoteric in our lodges.

The authority on such matters is the Committee on Work- feel free to contact any one of the Committee members with any questions you may have regarding the work.

 

[Ashton Lawson]

By "our lodges" I meant Masonry as a whole in general, not Texas specifically. I am fortunate in that I have direct regular access to RW Sam Holden, District Instructor At Large, Past Committee on Work Member.

I haven't had cause to pick his brain much, but when I do, he always has a good answer.

 

[Huw]

Hi Bill and Ashton.

By "our lodges" I meant Masonry as a whole in general, not Texas specifically.

Yes, I thought that was what you meant, although I can see the ambiguity upon which Bill picked up. And I agree, I'm fascinated by the differences in how we do things between GLs.

The authority on such matters is the Committee on Work- feel free to contact any one of the Committee members with any questions you may have regarding the work.

I reckon it'd be very interesting to have a discussion with your CoW, since I occupy a partially-equivalent position in UGLE (we organise things differently over here), but I can't contact them directly or officially because that'd come under the "communication via the Grand Secretaries" rule which is too slow to conduct a discussion. It'd be handy if someone from your CoW was here on MoT, but I guess that's not very likely.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Nate Riley]

The big question to me is how did he get it. If it was given to him by a Brother, this needs to be addressed with that Brother.

When I was learning my work, my teacher would sometimes take bathroom breaks and come back with new perspective. But I had no clue the book existed until I had been raised and maybe after I turned in my Masters work.