Having now been a Freemason for just over 12 Months I have just seen my first initiation ceremony. As I watched the initiate being led into the Lodge I remeber just how I felt when it was my initiation. We have all been through the same ceremony, but I wonder just how many of us can actually remember all that happened during it?

A good question but I suppose the answer depends on how long ago it happened. Mine was 27 years ago and I can still remember parts of it but it is really difficult to separate what happened to me and what I have witnessed and participated in since then.
I think the main thing I remember was the feeling of apprehension when being prepared and the stunned shock when I was at last able to see. I think of the three degrees it has the most emotional content. It really is a beautiful degree, the beginnings of the making of a Mason.


_________________
VW Bro Kevin Mulcahy
Webmaster
http://monaro-masons.org.au

I remember mine very well, because during the 'preliminaries' in the outer room, I was asked three questions instead of just one; and I was completely unprepared for the two extras. "Do you believe that God will reward good and punish evil?" "Do you believe that God has revealed His will to Mankind?". Well, what I believe is, that by answering affirmatively those two extra questions, I violated my personal integrity. Among other considerations I have always been led to believe that assigning attributes to a person's concept of GOD, was Masonically inappropriate. Perhaps some of you, out there in etherland, will comment. As an addendum, I have remained active, have gone through the offices up to Junior Warden, and have been District Education Officer. Help me out here.

My initiation was Magickal. The energy or the ritual forced by third eye open and I saw amazing detail of the Lodge room. The interplay of the energies of the ritual and how each Past Master dealt with them, quite unconsciously in some cases.

It was only when I was led to the Junior Warden that I found someone who was looking back. None of the others in Lodge seemed to be aware of this level of the beauty of the ritual.

"Do you believe that God will reward good and punish evil?" "Do you believe that God has revealed His will to Mankind?"

Quote:

I must admit to being astonished by these questions
I have to assume a very strong xian influence here
As to the first question enough books have been written; acceptance/ belief in a one God is prime but if God is also responsible for evil [prophets] then the answer can only be ambivalent
As to the second question I consider it anti masonic in todays context UNLESS the reference/ intention is to The 10 Commandments & the Noahide Laws

I submit that the second question is anti-masonic even IF connected to the 10 Commandments and/or the Noahide laws. Let me reason briefly upon this. Freemasonry touts itself as being Universal in its scope; ergo, the admittance to membership of anyone who can profess a belief in a Supreme Being (Higher Power). I submit that a majority of brothers around the world would agree that, as seems to be tacitly, and IS often overtly, expressed in many articles and on many Grand Lodge websites, the principle of universality necessarily excludes assigning definitive attributes to any man's concept of G_d. Universality, by its very definition, must encompass only those principles or ideas that can be used for all G_d concepts. We (Freemasons) are, in fact, stretching the concept of Universality by demanding a belief in a Supreme Being. I can live with that, but I absolutely draw the line at attributes. I submit that those Grand Lodges which demand, or even simply allow, questions on attributes, should be requested to withdraw such concepts at peril of losing fraternal recognition. There MUST be only ONE question for all, because we desire a universal brotherhood, and not all can recognize the attributes given to the Judeo/Christian G_d concepts.

In essence I agree with you and further clarification should be requested - Grand Lodge?
However there is a chink in the armour.
If its universal brotherhood based on humanitarianism then we should become Bahai; however we do use the principles given us in the OT [a landmark] , having a phrase from one of the psalms as a motto so as to speak and all goodly morals certainly emanate from the Judeo ethic reinforced by the subsequent paulistic ethic.
Islamic ethic presents a problem because it suffers from schizophrenia, as we are experiencing today, but they do align themselves essentially with one God & thus a Supreme being.
But same questions for all apprentices- 100% in agreement.
1] Do you believe........
2] What can you offer.........

Why should we be "become" anything other than Freemasons? Do not the seeds of Freemasonry contain humanitarianism in its most noble sense? I believe so....just as I believe that we (Freemasons) have neglected to properly follow or properly teach that principle. We have become bogged down in business meetings and perfection of ritual and are drawing away from any aspects of true spiritual education. I am exceedingly concerned about drawing attention to any one particular 'holy' book as a guide for all. However, I must use from history the words of 'St.' Paul, who wrote to the Romans (ch.2) that the people of the nations (gentiles) demonstrated by their actions that, although not having a written guide, they had [have] the Law written on their hearts. He then goes on to warn of a coming judgement of 'the secret things'. Most who use the OT/NT as their guide do so without having read any more of it than they are given to read in their religious worship, so never get beyond the Ten. I believe that the Law of G_d IS written in the hearts of man and that there are many righteous men in the world today who are just waiting to find such a brotherhood as Freemasonry purports itself to be. Most, however, (more especially in this troublesome period of waning interest in 'religion') don't want to be part of any organization that in outward appearance, appears to follow a certain written set of religious principles. The OT/NT is assuredly a book of wisdom and its most important principle is 'love G_d with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, AND your neighbor as yourself." In that one sentence lies the whole key to a perfect brotherhood. Nothing else matters. The only guide a Freemason needs is a righteous heart
By the way: where did YOUR second question come from?

Canam
We actually have 4 questions!

I do not think it will be out of order to mention them here

1] The name you give to the Being that created man?
2] Your views on human destiny?
3] Your expectations from the Order > mind;heart; temporal well being
4] What may the Order expext from you?

As you can see these all relate specifically to belonging to the Craft
Comments?

You wrote as your four questions:1] The name you give to the Being that created man? 2] Your views on human destiny?
3] Your expectations from the Order > mind;heart; temporal well being 4] What may the Order expext from you?
These are, of course, surprising to me.. One would have to know if there is a "right" and "wrong" way to answer these; if the answers could bar a person from being accepted. If there is a bar, then I have to believe that the questions would have to be classed as un-masonic. One question only is needed. I perceive your questions (3) and (4) as being "healthy" if used in the sense of giving the lodge a clear idea of the candidate's moral/spiritual standing and expectations, and of what the candidate himself perceives as his character strengths, which he wishes to use to advance the interests of Freemasonry. From this base the lodge education officer could then include pertinent items in his presentations, and the candidate eventually could be placed where his strengths could be used by the lodge. In my view questions (1) and (2) are entirely irrelevant, unless I am missing something. Whatever could be the reason for asking them in the first place, especially if they would bar entry? The lodge does not need to know what attributes a man places on his personal G_d concept, including the name, nor on his 'future life' concept. A name often indicates attributes of the person named, as in the case, for instance, of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, as I presently understand it. The only other "issue" I would suggest for consideration is this: Are the questions asked as part of the Initiation Ritual or are they asked as part of the investigation process? If in the investigation process then I could accept all four IF they are used to "get to know" the candidate and form a clearly-defined and respectful relationship with him/her, without any misgivings because of the inevitable differences in belief. If this is the case then I accept your questions as being a wise tactic; again - if they are not used to bar. Knowing our brothers' beliefs intimately is always conducive to lessening unfortunate slip-ups.

Quote:

Are the questions asked as part of the Initiation Ritual or are they asked as part of the investigation process?

Asked as part of the Initiation Ritual prior to initial entry to lodge

An atheist or agnostic cannot join

Over the last 19 years I have been part of the Craft the answer has been God /Creator/Supreme Being

************************************************************************************
Of course the candidate has been interviewed so we know his answer ; however it has happened that a candidate has not told the his inner truth and he refused further progress by subsequently admitting that he does not believe.

The second question is I believe designed to see if the answer will be of the nature 'towards improving oneself'

I do not know which ritual you work or whether you have enquired into other rituals and their origins
I think you will find that thesse questions are well established outside York rite.
*********************************************************************************

In relation to the problem you originally posed I think you will be pleased to read the following

In the summer number of Masonic Light [1951] you touch upon an interesting Masonic practice concerning certain questions put to the candidate before initiation.

In the fore part of the article, however, you assume that in all Masonic Lodges a number of questions relating to a belief in a Supreme Being and the survival of the soul after death are put to the person about to be initiated before admission to the Lodge room. This may be so in Lodges following what is known as the Canadian work, a form of the Emulation ritual. But in Lodges practicing the York or Scotch rites only one question is asked, and that is concerning his beleif in a Deity. That question is asked after the reception of the Candidate into the Lodge proper, and not in the anteroom.

Curiously enough, the problem presented in Masonic Light came before the Grand Lodge of British Columbia in 1911. I quote from the Grand Lodge proceedings in the matter:
"Elk River Lodge, before admitting candidates for initiation, has been in the habit of asking the following questions:
"Do you believe in the existence of a Supreme Being?
"Do you believe that the Supreme Being will punish vice and reward sin? [
"Do you believe that that Supreme Being has revealed His will to man?
" Until the last regular meeting these questions have always been answered in the affirmative. At last meeting a candidate for initiation answered the first question in the affirmative, but refused to answer the second any further than saying "I do not know." As he would not answer the second question, the third was not put to him. His initiation was deferred until your ruling could be procured. Are we correct in asking these questions? If so, is it imperative that they be answered in the affirmative?

ANSWER - "The first of the Ancient Charges clearly defines the latitude in opinion permitted to Brethren of the Craft, and the 19th and 20th Landmarks, given in our Book of Ceremonies, (1st and 2nd Landmark, Quebec) contain all that may be considered common matter of belief by Freemasons. Beyond these tenets Brethren have the utmost liberty of thougth. I am, therefore of opinion that although some may think that question 2 and 3 are natural corollaries of question 1, the propounding of such questions is not only unnecessary but contrary to the usages of the Craft. The initiation of the candidate in question, therefore, should no longer be deferred for the sole reason that he would not give an affirmative answer to question 2"

The Committee on the Grand Master's Address reported as follows: "Your Committee agree with the Grand Master that the Old Charges allow a Masons the utmost latitude in the expression of his religious beliefs. With the strict interpretation of the law it is, perhaps, not absolutely necessary that these questions (2 and 3) be asked; but, nevertheless, we recommend that Lodges which have been following the practice be permitted to continue it."

"The report of the Committee was adopted. Proceedings, 1911."

db

Thanks for this. I must admit that I was quite aware of this proceeding. I also have read as a 'preamble' to the Antient (American) work that the two "extra" questions are permitted with the proviso that the candidate be permitted to continue regardless of his answer to those. In the Book of Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of your example the three questions are permitted with no written confirmation that the candidate be allowed to continue upon a negative response. It may be that the clarification attendant to that 1911 proceeding was never forwarded to other lodges. (The questions are asked in the ante-room) I have been told by good authority that a negative or neutral reply to the two questions results in a discontuance of the proceedings in a particular lodge in that jurisdiction. Now, I can understand this in the light of the ritual (Canadian) itself as, I contend, there are actually doctrinal concepts contained in it. Any person who might be in a position to be a part of the ritual 'team' would have to be a firm believer in the doctrines in order to be able, with sincerity, to speak the ritual. As I sit thinking about, and enjoying, your replies, for their mental stimulation, I become more aware of the many small things that are keeping Freemasonry from becoming the universal brotherhood it should be. I have a number of topics to research and have been slowly gathering data for each in order that I might write with referrenced authority. I think the major topic has to be the early history of Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry as it was begun in the late 17th-early 18th C. Part of this will have to be to research the many "landmarks" to see why landmark lists are different for different jurisdictions. Meanwhile, I'd still prefer one question.

Food for thought
I suspect that the prime masonic language , as a basis of rituals worked today,was originally French .
The Rites Francaise is certainly responsible as a source to my Nederlandic working /Shroeder
Think of your Ambassador Royal - Benjamin Franklin- travelling to France & England and his masonic involvement
French was the then language of the intellectuals.
Your thoughts

Let me preface this by saying, I am not a book seller!!! However, in light of your reply re the basis if ritual I must refer you to a book by Paul Naudon entitled "The Secret History of Freemasonry - Its Origins and Connection to the Knights Templar." Originally in FRENCH (1991) translated (2005) published by Inner Traditions, Rochester Vermont. They have a website you can access. I went through this book very carefully and will go through it again for reference notes. It is NOT a book about speculative Freemasonry but is a history of operative masonry, and it covers a lot of territory in its 292 pages of information. I believe that here Freemasons can easily see their origins, although Naudon makes no overt claims. This is a book of history. However, that having been said, it is very well referenced and a speculative Freemason may be able to trace sources from it. The back cover says this about the author: "Paul Naudon is a law scholar specializing in the history of civil law and institutions. He is also a Freemason who has held many high-ranking posts in France, including that of Grand Prios of the Gauls (Rectified Scottish Rite) and State Minister for the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. He lives in France." I paid $11US for the book in December. Unfortunately there are some techinical errors in the translated article, not referring to errors in translation, but in certain small-case or Capitalized versions of Freemason or freemason. One must be clear which is being discussed as one reads. I believe that this book will help validate your conclusion that the prime masonic ritual language may have been French, although Naudon does not start his history with French masonry. Incidentally, I was browsing a book shop yesterday and picked up a Dover copy of Franklins' autobiography. It's not long, but I'm anxious to get it started, about three books down the road. I also browsed an American History book with a section on anti-masonry in the USA. I'll pick it up when I have the cash, as it has some pertinent things to say about the subject as it occurred early in the history of American Freemasonry. I also include for your consideration the book by Dr. Margaret C. Jacob entitled "Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons, and Republicans" (1981) which should be a must-read for initiates.

Thank you for your input; first I shall check with our masonic libraries!

Quote:

I also browsed an American History book with a section on anti-masonry in the USA. I'll pick it up when I have the cash, as it has some pertinent things to say about the subject as it occurred early in the history of American Freemasonry.

If you are referring to the Morgan Affair ask away .
One of my pet subjects and I have a nice lecture on it which I am quite prepared to post.