# What are you willing to discuss outside of a tyled enviornment?



## hanzosbm (Jun 3, 2015)

On a recent topic of discussion, we asked the question 'Why the secrets' ( http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/why-the-secrets.25373/ )

We had a wide variety of responses, but most people agreed that it was important to keep the secrets (besides the obvious fact that we took an oath to do so).  So, going a step further, how much are you willing to discuss outside of a tyled environment?
To give some context and with full disclosure, I have been visiting a lodge that has discussions after the stated meeting on Masonic topics.  These discussions happen outside of a tyled environment and with non Masons at the table.  I am unsure how I feel about this.  Even without any of *the* secrets being given, the Light that we seek is found in our lessons.  How can those lessons be openly discussed if we are supposed to keep the secrets?  Even here, there is a great deal of discussion on these topics.  Granted, we all keep things pretty well veiled, but how far is too far?


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 3, 2015)

The wording varies by jurisdiction, but the only secrets we bind ourselves to keep are those that would allow a non-Mason to gain entry to a tyled lodge. Words, signs, steps, and grips. All of the above, including verbatim ritual text have been published for over 200 years. There isn't a single one of us who are keeping any real secrets. But just because they've been previously published, doesn't mean we should be loose-lipped. We are still bound to conceal and never reveal.

I think a lot of Masons carry the secrecy bit too far.


----------



## MarkR (Jun 4, 2015)

It certainly varies by jurisdiction, but this is from the Minnesota Masonic Manual:

THE SECRETS OF MASONRY
Every Entered Apprentice should be informed of the following basic principles and information. 

What You Can Discuss With a Non-Mason
Masonry is not a secret society. Members of our lodges are not in anyway forbidden from telling others that they are Masons. While every Mason should remember his obligations to secrecy, yet we want to inform non-masons about who we are, what we are, and what we do. Therefore it is important that every Mason understand clearly which things he can talk about and which things he cannot.

What is a Masonic Secret
What are the things we call the secrets of Masonry? The first secret is the ballot of a Mason. No one can know how a Mason votes, unless that Mason tells him, and that is considered unmasonic conduct. The right and privilege of casting a secret ballot is universally respected in this country by Masons and non-masons alike. 

Other secrets are:
• the modes of recognition (signs and words);
• the obligations or vows of each degree;
• the manner of conferring the degrees, and;
• the legend of the third degree.
These four items are usually considered to be the "real" Masonic secrets. But we should all realize that any interested party can go to the public library or bookstore and obtain books which reveal all these things. Clearly we cannot consider these to be secrets in the true sense of the word. There is no way we can keep these books from the public. What then is the meaning of our obligation to secrecy?

Our Obligation to Secrecy
The obligations of Masonry, as well as all other teachings and laws of our Craft, are not things that Masons impose upon other people. These obligations, teachings, and laws are things that each Mason agrees to accept for himself and to apply to himself. Thus when we agree to
keep a Masonic secret we only agree that we will not discuss that matter with a non-mason. This agreement is then binding upon the Mason, but it is not and cannot be binding upon a non-mason.

Masons should not be disturbed by this. If a nonmason learns what he considers to be our secrets, we are under no obligation to take action of any kind. But if the same person comes to us and asks us to affirm or deny that certain things are our secrets, then we must neither confirm
nor deny what they have learned. We are best advised to simply change the subject. If that fails, then let the person read this page.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 4, 2015)

Brother Mark, thank you so much for that.  Unfortunately, in the GLKY is there nothing like that which clearly spells it out but I wish they did.  You are very fortunate to have such clarification.

I have heard a lot of things repeated such as 'it's just the modes of recognition that are secret' but if that is the case, why are degrees held in private?  This is something I have been struggling with as of late.  If someone asks what happens during the EA degree, the line of what is acceptable is somewhere between 'we walk around a room and are taught some things' and explaining the 3 great lights.  The former is fine, the latter...well, there's a reason these lessons are given AFTER the oath and obligation, and that is because they are not for outsiders.  The tyler is there to ward off cowans and eavesdroppers, to me, that says that anything that takes place in a tyled environment is not to be shared with those who I am not satisfied are Masons.

I understand that everything has been published in some form or another, but what others have done has no effect on the oath and obligation that I took.


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 4, 2015)

In California I was taught that I could quote the words in the Monitor, which contains almost all of the words of all of the lectures, that I could paraphrase the parts of the ritual that are in the cipher and not reveal the few words that are underscores in the cipher.  I was also taught that the tradition extends to all of the events at the altar.

But that's just the ritual and the rules on that vary widely by state.  The more important secrets are the type that can be shouted from the rooftop and still remain a secret - we treat each other as kin.  Others are of the type we don't discuss in lodge - religious diversity is wider than most brothers expect.  Others still are of the type we don't articulate - spending time with good and successful men of all trades and ages gives us a breadth of perspective rarely available elsewhere.  Hidden in the open, hidden in our hearts, hidden in our mutual experiences.  All tied together by the ritual we share like the tessellated edges are attached to and project from the checkered floor.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 4, 2015)

I agree that as far as the genuine secrets go, you could shout them from the rooftops and they would go unheard.  They are truly secrets hidden in plain sight.  That being said, I still get uneasy sharing any part of the ritual.  I don't know, maybe I'm off base here, but I feel like if there is a restriction against who can be made a Mason, and the making of a Mason has to do with the teachings learned in the degree, wouldn't telling them what happens in the ritual be basically the same?
Hypothetically, if 3 MM were to meet in a buddy's living room and put an atheist woman through the whole degree simply omitting the grips and words, would that be acceptable?  I think you see what I'm getting at.  Divulging what happens during the ritual or our teachings just feels...wrong *to me.*


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 4, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> That being said, I still get uneasy sharing any part of the ritual.



Being a member of more than one jurisdiction I need to go with the most restrictive version of the set of rules that apply to me.  Being a member of this forum comes with the most restrictive version the moderation team is aware of.  Still we do fine discussing by reference.



> Hypothetically, if 3 MM were to meet in a buddy's living room and put an atheist woman through the whole degree simply omitting the grips and words, would that be acceptable?  I think you see what I'm getting at.  Divulging what happens during the ritual or our teachings just feels...wrong *to me.*



That's what expose' books purport to do.  All of us have promised to not help anyone search for such books unless we have been to a tiled lodge with him.  What happens in a degree is far more than the ritual to many of us but witness what happens when someone phrases that poetically.  It can seem that some think the script plus stage directions are the play.


----------



## Mike Martin (Jun 9, 2015)

Here in England we are obligated to keep secret the signs, tokens and words that prove us to be Free and Accepted Masons.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Jun 9, 2015)

People ask me what we talk about and why we can't talk about what goes on above paying the bills.

I try to draw parallels to topics they understand or can relate to.

I simply say that those topics are between us and no one else just as the discussions that happen behind closed doors at (insert company name here) is none of our business either.

My thoughts are that I if do not attempt to decide what is and is not ok to talk about then I won't say something I'm not supposed to say.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 9, 2015)

Brother_Steve said:


> My thoughts are that I if do not attempt to decide what is and is not ok to talk about then I won't say something I'm not supposed to say.


You (or anyone else) don't have to decide what is and is not okay to talk about. It was clearly stated and repeated back when you took the obligation.

The first rule of Freemasonry is that you don't talk about Freemasonry.
The second rule of Freemasonry is that you *don't talk about Freemasonry*.








Remember, kids: we are a society with secrets...not a secret society. It's okay to talk about Fight Club, err Freemasonry.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 9, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> You (or anyone else) don't have to decide what is and is not okay to talk about. It was clearly stated and repeated back when you took the obligation.



It's interesting that you mention that aspect of it.  While I supposed that the obligation might vary by jurisdiction, I'd be willing to assume that it is similar enough to speak about.  The obligation goes into a bit of depth about the degree to which the secrets must be kept, but in regards to what is considered secret, it says only 'the secret arts, parts, or points as to the hidden mysteries'.  To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in any of the rituals is it explicitly stated what is considered a secret or a mystery and what is not. 
Furthermore, at least in my jurisdiction, upon expounding the interrogatories, the candidate is asked to declare that he will keep secret its 'esoteric signs, words, and ceremonies'.  Now, signs and words, based on the answers in the proficiency, could be argued are the secrets that the Grand Lodges refer to, but what about ceremonies?  And what parts of the ceremonies?  They symbols that are taught during the ceremony, as I have stated before, are taught AFTER the obligation, behind closed doors, in a tyled lodge.  If they were meant to be shared openly, why are they only communicated after so many precautions are taken?
In summary, I agree that the obligation tells us what must be kept secret, but the problem is, the obligation is open to interpretation.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 9, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> To the best of my knowledge, nowhere in any of the rituals is it explicitly stated what is considered a secret or a mystery and what is not.


As you mentioned, wording the varies by jurisdiction. If you ask 100 Masons in the same jurisdiction (or even in the same lodge) you'll probably get 100 different answers as to what should be kept under wraps. Most of the language (at least in my area) of the ritual is old world and parts of it sound like gobblygook...which is probably why it's difficult to interpret. It would be much easier if during the lecture, someone brought out a chalkboard and listed items 1-10 that we are specifically forbidden to discuss outside of a tyled lodge. 

Personally, I think we're asking the wrong question anyway. This topic pops up often, and the discussion is always the same. Maybe we should be asking what we should be saying about Freemasonry instead of what we shouldn't.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 9, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> As you mentioned, wording the varies by jurisdiction. If you ask 100 Masons in the same jurisdiction (or even in the same lodge) you'll probably get 100 different answers as to what should be kept under wraps. Most of the language (at least in my area) of the ritual is old world and parts of it sound like gobblygook...which is probably why it's difficult to interpret. It would be much easier if during the lecture, someone brought out a chalkboard and listed items 1-10 that we are specifically forbidden to discuss outside of a tyled lodge.
> 
> Personally, I think we're asking the wrong question anyway. This topic pops up often, and the discussion is always the same. Maybe we should be asking what we should be saying about Freemasonry instead of what we shouldn't.



Regarding the chalkboard, in a way, that is what I'm referring to.  It used to be that the symbols that we speak about so openly here were communicated by drawing them in chalk and carefully washed clean before departing.  At least at that time, it could easily be argued that EVERYTHING was a secret.  Later, these symbols were put down permanently, though movably, on tracing boards.  Later still, they were made permanent fixtures of lodges, and now, discussed with non Masons openly. 
The way I see it, we have been letting "the secrets" out and rationalizing it for hundreds of years.  I'd be willing to bet that the first Mason who painted the symbols on a piece of cloth and made a tracing board rationalized it with "yeah, I painted the symbol, which technically my obligation forbids, but it's under my control, so nobody will ever see it unless I let them, so it's safe".  Then, as another Mason was painting it on the wall he said "yeah, I painted the symbol for the public to see, which is technically my obligation forbids, but I'm not telling anyone its meaning, so the secret of what it means is still safe".  Till finally we get to "Well, no, our ceremonies aren't open to outsiders, and we must be very very careful that only Masons ever get to see what happens here, but it's not secret and we can tell people about it."

Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that the information is out there for anyone to see, and I understand that the Grand Lodges say it's okay, so I'm not condemning anyone (because obviously I take part in these discussions also) but I think that we owe it to ourselves and each other to reflect on what was really meant by our obligation and to honestly ask ourselves if we are keeping that obligation.

Regarding what we should be saying about Freemasonry, my view is; very little. 
1) You wanna join?  You've gotta ask.
2) We make good men better.
3) We require a belief in a Supreme Being.

After that, everything else is private.  If non Masons don't like our privacy, too bad.


----------



## Zaden (Jun 9, 2015)

It seems that anything that is not Monitorial should be left unsaid outside of Lodge or private discussion (with a brother you know for certain to be one). If your jurisdiction has printed something, it seems your Grand Lodge doesn't consider it a secret.

For Scottish Rite masons (SJ) there is actually an obligation _to_ teach the lessons and philosophy even outside of masonry in one of the philosophical degrees.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 9, 2015)

Zaden said:


> It seems that anything that is not Monitorial should be left unsaid outside of Lodge or private discussion (with a brother you know for certain to be one). If your jurisdiction has printed something, it seems your Grand Lodge doesn't consider it a secret.
> 
> For Scottish Rite masons (SJ) there is actually an obligation _to_ teach the lessons and philosophy even outside of masonry in one of the philosophical degrees.


That is an interesting note on the SR.  Not being a member, this is obviously new information to me.
In regards to what the Grand Lodges consider secret, that may well be true, but personally, I don't always agree with what Grand Lodge says.  If they give me instruction to do something, I will cheerfully conform.  But the obligation that I took cannot be repudiated or laid aside, even by the Grand Lodge.  Again, I'm not saying that this is right and that is wrong, I'm just saying that I think it needs to be considered.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I find it interesting that the discussion is always about *what* we keep secret and not *why* we keep it secret.  I believe that holding onto a truth without speaking about it has interesting psychological ramifications.  One of the greatest figures in history talked repeatedly about "storing up treasures in one's heart".  Perhaps the admonition about not saying certain things is not because the things are so private but because of the effect that holding them sacred has on the individual.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Jun 10, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> You (or anyone else) don't have to decide what is and is not okay to talk about. It was clearly stated and repeated back when you took the obligation.
> 
> The first rule of Freemasonry is that you don't talk about Freemasonry.
> The second rule of Freemasonry is that you *don't talk about Freemasonry*.
> ...


It has many many case by case situations. I will talk about what goes on in a lodge so long as it does not have to do with another Brother or his family.

I won't even talk about it by omitting names. You never know who you are talking with that may know a set of circumstances that can narrow down the field. Especially in smaller communities.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 15, 2015)

I know this topic has more or less died, but I came across something recently that really got me thinking about this.  In some ways, it bothered me because it makes me feel that in the past I've gone WAY over the line and has even made me contemplate whether or not to take part in any future discussions.  I haven't really decided on that yet, but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

We previously spoke on this subject in regards to what is said in our obligation.  While I know that all jurisdictions have slightly different wording, I will share this one part of my MM obligation in order to fuel the discussion.

"...I will not visit a lodge of clandestine masons, *nor converse masonically* with a clandestine-made mason, nor a regular made mason who has been suspended or expelled..."

Duncan's ritual takes it even further.

"I will not sit in a Lodge of clandestine-made Masons, *nor converse on the subject of Masonry* with a clandestine-made Mason, nor one who has been expelled or suspended"

So, if our obligation goes so far as to say that we cannot speak about any Masonic subject, even with a brother who is behind on his dues, how do we then rationalize putting these discussions out there for the public or purposely having them with non-Masons?

I'm not telling anyone what to do, that is not my place.  However, I would caution all who read this against defensiveness and suggest that we all do a little soul searching on this one.


----------



## bezobrazan (Jun 15, 2015)

I'm pretty much quiet about everything Masonic.


----------



## MarkR (Jun 16, 2015)

The wording in Duncan's Ritual is not binding on anybody whose Grand Lodge doesn't use Duncan's Ritual.  The idea that we cannot discuss anything about Masonry with a non-Mason is a suicide pact for the craft.  If a non-Mason asks me questions, I'll discuss anything that does not reveal the secrets of Masonry.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 16, 2015)

MarkR said:


> The wording in Duncan's Ritual is not binding on anybody whose Grand Lodge doesn't use Duncan's Ritual.  The idea that we cannot discuss anything about Masonry with a non-Mason is a suicide pact for the craft.  If a non-Mason asks me questions, I'll discuss anything that does not reveal the secrets of Masonry.


While I agree that the wording is not the same as Duncan's in all Grand Lodges, I would imagine it would be similar.  As for not discussing Masonry with non Masons being a suicide pact for the Craft, the first Masonic exposure text was published in 1730.  Freemasonry didn't even expose that it existed until 1717.  There had been hundreds of years of Freemasonry before that, so your argument that it would suddenly die doesn't really hold a lot of water.
As for you discussing anything that does not reveal the "secrets" of Freemasonry, I have two questions:
1)  From this discussion, we have seen that there is  no definitive guideline as to exactly what the secrets are.  Where would your propose drawing the line?
2)  Does your oath not include the portions I mentioned above?  If it does, how do you rationalize your decision?


----------



## dfreybur (Jun 16, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> 1)  From this discussion, we have seen that there is  no definitive guideline as to exactly what the secrets are.  Where would your propose drawing the line?



The boundary is different jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even within jurisdictions few are aware of what the actual rulings are, if that jurisdiction even has rulings on the details.



> 2)  Does your oath not include the portions I mentioned above?  If it does, how do you rationalize your decision?



The version in my mother jurisdiction has yet another Masonic technical term in the part about clandestine Masons.  The wording in the California version is a technical term for passing the tiler to attend one of their tiled meetings or allowing our tiler to pass a clandestine Mason to attend one of our meetings.  Since recognition is more strict than regularity of origin the ruling is more strict than the oath.  I have now learned two more ritual versions and they use technical terms that teaching how to pass a tiler.

When I read your quote from Duncan I didn't know if it was an error that had crept into the ritual sourced by Duncan or if it was an error when Duncan was written.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Jun 16, 2015)

New Jersey has a "social media" directive by the GM about how one should act while participating in on line forums.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jun 16, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> From this discussion, we have seen that there is  no definitive guideline as to exactly what the secrets are.  Where would your propose drawing the line?


If you are only referring to secrets that can be communicated in words then you are not referring to the secrets with which I am familiar.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 16, 2015)

The following are various terms that are used relative to prohibition of discussion with clandestine Masons and those who are suspended or expelled.  There may be other variations that I am not aware of.  While, they all may be open to interpretation, the first two certainly seem to be more restrictive in terms of prohibited subject matter than the last two, with the quote from Duncan’s “converse on the subject of Masonry” appearing  to connote a very restrictive meaning.  I can only add that in my opinion we are only obligated to comply with the language in the Obligation we each took.

·  “converse masonically”

·  “converse on the subject of Masonry”

·  “hold Masonic communication”

·  “hold Masonic intercourse”

I personally think that “The obligation of an Entered Apprentice – as is used in most Grand Jurisdictions – does, however, address the issue and as long as Masons abide by such there should be no real problems.”

*Masonic Communication or Conversation*

Interesting discussions and debates are often generated when attempts are made to define exactly to what “Masonic communication” refers beyond – of course – the use of the term to indicate a formal meeting of a Masonic lodge or Grand Lodge.http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3950472455434369744#_edn1_ To avoid confusion, “conversation” should probably replace “communication” when dealing with the subject of individuals talking or corresponding about Masonic subjects.

Just as it regards non-Masons, it is generally well accepted that regular and recognized Freemasons “are forbidden to associate or converse on Masonic subjects” with clandestine Masons.[ii] What exactly does “associate or converse” mean? No reasonable person should think that the prohibition on association and conversation should include social, vocational, or religious contact with those that do not belong to regular and recognized Freemasonry – as long as such contact is not for the purpose of discussing Masonic subjects. But herein may be the root cause of debates concerning this subject. What exactly are Masonic subjects and what is considered Masonic conversation?

Some Masons take the position that Masonic subjects are limited to those involving certain esoteric teachings and rituals of the Fraternity or – more specifically – the modes of recognition and that the discussion of such with another is the only thing that amounts to Masonic conversation. Some will take it a step further and include in the definition of a Masonic subject the tiled proceedings of a lodge or Grand Lodge that take place behind closed doors. Others are broader when defining Masonic conversation and feel that acknowledging another – without concrete evidence – as a Freemason amounts to Masonic conversation. Then there are those that go to the extreme of not discussing any aspect of Freemasonry or disclosing that that they are a Freemason except with and to those that they have indisputable knowledge that confirms the other man’s status as a regular and recognized member of the Fraternity.

This subject has become very pertinent in the last few years as more and more Masons are using the Internet to correspond and discuss the Fraternity. Grand Lodges and individual Masons are wrestling with how to use the Internet for the good of Freemasonry and their own Masonic self-development while – at the same time – ensuring that inappropriate Masonic communication or conversation does not occur. Without a doubt, the Internet is a medium that the Freemasons of old did not anticipate or plan for and many of the constitutions of Grand Lodges do not adequately address the issue of online sites and forums. The obligation of an Entered Apprentice – as is used in most Grand Jurisdictions – does, however, address the issue and as long as Masons abide by such there should be no real problems.

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3950472455434369744#_ednref1 Mackey, Albert G. as revised by Hawkins, Edward L., An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences, Volume I, New York and London: The Masonic History Company, 1914, p. 170.
[ii] Ibid, p. 154.

http://palmettomason.blogspot.com/2009/05/masonic-communication-or-conversation.html_


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 17, 2015)

"So, if our obligation goes so far as to say that we cannot speak about any Masonic subject, even with a brother who is behind on his dues, how do we then rationalize putting these discussions out there for the public or purposely having them with non-Masons?"

But neither of the examples you provide have that broad language. "Converse masonically" and "any Masonic subject" are different words. Additionally, Duncan's is not Masonic law in any jurisdiction  of which I'm aware. 

In any case, GLs differ in the interpretation of this obligation. You should seek guidance from a senior member if your GL.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 17, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> If you are only referring to secrets that can be communicated in words then you are not referring to the secrets with which I am familiar.


Umm. The PWs?


----------



## Brother_Steve (Jun 17, 2015)

Caution is a great word. However that leaves room for interpretation when guidelines do not exist on how to act when it comes to electronic communication.

We're not supposed to make contact with a Lodge until we are in the jurisdiction of that Lodge unless it is done via your secretary. At what point does making arrangements via social media/message forums cross that line?


----------



## Roy Vance (Jun 21, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> ....Regarding what we should be saying about Freemasonry, my view is; very little.
> 1) You wanna join?  You've gotta ask.
> 2) We make good men better.
> 3) We require a belief in a Supreme Being.
> ...


 
I would like to modify what you have said (typed) here. "We make good men better", to me, is pretty lame. I think it should be said that we take a good man and give him ways to make *HIMSELF* a better man, because not a single member of my Lodge(s) has made me a better man, that has been done by *ME*, if I have indeed become a better man since my initiation. 

EDIT: Now, I have had the inspiration of the other, some of them, members to help me make the appropriate changes.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 18, 2015)

Being a relatively new MM my standard is this: I will speak of thing that I am SURE are O.K. to discuss. If I know something is not to be spoke of outside of lodge, or I am not sure, I don't discuss it.


----------



## wwinger (Nov 2, 2015)

MarkR said:


> It certainly varies by jurisdiction, but this is from the Minnesota Masonic Manual:
> 
> THE SECRETS OF MASONRY
> Every Entered Apprentice should be informed of the following basic principles and information.
> ...


Perhaps the best answer I have seen for this most important of questions.


----------



## GKA (Nov 4, 2015)

There are different opinions within my lodge as to what can and cannot be discussed, however, it is widely agreed that the modes of recognition are never shared with a non Mason nor anything about lodge business, recently there has been some concern as to the brothers privacy so now we screen all publicized info and publish in our news letter only that which each brother has authorized such as phone numbers etc.
Duncan's is a sore topic for most of us even though it is not 100% accurate


----------

