# Did the oaths once specify the duty of "preferment"?



## flameburns623 (Jan 25, 2018)

I am almost certain that once upon a not so distant time, there was something in the obligation about giving "preferment" to a Brother Mason when obliged to decide between two or more otherwise equally qualified persons.  

Not even Duncan's Masonic Ritual suggests such a thing at this time. I admit, I may have gotten the idea from John J. Robinson's *Born In Blood*, rather than from my own experience.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jan 25, 2018)

flameburns623 said:


> I am almost certain that once upon a not so distant time, there was something in the obligation about giving "preferment" to a Brother Mason when obliged to decide between two or more otherwise equally qualified persons.


Don't know if this was ever in the obligation but I would abide by it anyway.


----------



## chrmc (Jan 25, 2018)

flameburns623 said:


> I am almost certain that once upon a not so distant time, there was something in the obligation about giving "preferment" to a Brother Mason when obliged to decide between two or more otherwise equally qualified persons.
> 
> Not even Duncan's Masonic Ritual suggests such a thing at this time. I admit, I may have gotten the idea from John J. Robinson's *Born In Blood*, rather than from my own experience.



I don't think the obligations in the ritual have changed very much over the last hundred years. I know in the UK they removed the penalties some years ago, but if we look at the majority of US and other European work I'm not aware that anything has changed. Also don't think you'll find much supporting this in the exposures from the 1700s. 

Likely it's mainly from conspiracy book, and fictions such as the one you mention. They do a good job in spinning a compelling tale, but have absolutely no sources to back it up with.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Jan 25, 2018)

It may have in the Old Charges as regards masonry specifically as that was an operative profession.

You could theoretically have two people of equal skill while one was not initiated into the craft.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 25, 2018)

I only know the word to appear in one of the charges and then not in that context.

As to employment I was told to help out a Brother in need.  Not sure if that applies to a Brother already employed but it sure would to a Brother unemployed.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jan 25, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> As to employment I was told to help out a Brother in need. Not sure if that applies to a Brother always employed but it sure would to a Brother unemployed.


Agreed!


----------



## coachn (Jan 25, 2018)

*From Mackey's Encyclopedia:*

*PROMOTION*

Promotion in Freemasonry should not be governed, as in other societies, by succession of office. The fact that one has filled a longer office gives him no claim to a higher, unless he is fitted, by skill and capacity, to discharge its duties faithfully. This alone should be the true basis of promotion (see *Preferment*).

*PREFERMENT*

In all the Old Constitutions we find a reference made to ability and skill as the only claims for *preferment* or promotion. Thus in one of them, the Lansdourne Manuscript, whose date is about 1560, it is said that Nimrod gave a charge to the Freemasons that "they should ordaine the most wise and cunning man to be Master of the King or Lord's worke that was amongst them, and neither for love, riches, nor favour, to sett another that had little cunninge to be Master of that worke, whereby the Lord should bee ill served, and the science ill defamed.

"And again, in another part of the same manuscript, it is ordered, "that noe Mason take on him noe Lord's worke nor other man's but if he know himselfe well able to performe the worke, so that the Craft have noe slander." Charges to the same effect, almost, indeed, in the same words, are to l)e found in all the Old Constitutions. So Anderson, when he compiled the Charyes of a Freemason, which he says were "extracted from the ancient records," and which he published in 1723, in the first edition of the Book of Constitutions, lavs down the rule of preferment in the same spirit, and in these words: "All preferment among Masons is grounded upon real worth and personal merit only; that so the Lords may be well served, the Brethren not put to shame, nor the royal Craft despised; therefore no Master or Warden is chosen by seniority, but for his merit."


Then he goes on to show hovs the skilful and qualified Apprentice may in due time become a Fellow Craft, and, "when otherwise qualified, arrive to the Honour of being the Warden, and then the Master of the Lodge, the Grand Warden, and at length the Grand Master of all the Lodges, according to his merit" (Constitutions, 1723, page 51). This ought to be now, as it has always been, the true law of tree masonry; and when ambitious men are seen grasping for offices, and seeking for positions whose duties they are not qualified to discharge, one is inclined to regret that the Old Charges are not more strictly obeyed


*PERSONAL MERIT*

In the Charges, 1723, we find "All *preferment* among Masons is grounded upon real worth and personal merit only, that so the Lords may be well served, the Brethren not put to shame nor the Royal Craft despised. Therefore no Master or Warden is chosen by seniority, but for his merit" (Constitutions, 1723, page 51).


*From: http://vialucislodge8228.org/what_is_freemasonry.html:*

*Membership*

 Freemasonry is open to men of all walks of life, of any race or religion, who believe in a Supreme Being. It has always actively encouraged its members to be active in their own religion.

Men wishing to become Freemasons must, with few exceptions, be at least 21 years of age. They will need a proposer and seconder before an application may be submitted to a Lodge.

The proposal form requires a candidate for Freemasonry not to expect, anticipate or seek any preferment or financial benefit as a consequence of becoming a member. There should be no conflict between a candidate's family, business or professional interests and membership. A candidate must not have a criminal record and there is a process for expulsion for members who commit a criminal act.

Every member has the opportunity to take office in his Lodge and eventually to become its Master for a period of one year.

There are about 330,000 Freemasons in England who belong to one or more of 8000 Lodges. Freemasonry is open to men of all walks of life, of any race or religion, who believe in a Supreme Being. It has always actively encouraged its members to be active in their own religion.

Men wishing to become Freemasons must, with few exceptions, be at least 21 years of age. They will need a proposer and seconder before an application may be submitted to a Lodge.

The proposal form requires a candidate for Freemasonry not to expect, anticipate or seek any *preferment* or financial benefit as a consequence of becoming a member. There should be no conflict between a candidate's family, business or professional interests and membership. A candidate must not have a criminal record nd there is a process for expulsion for members who commit a criminal act.

Every member has the opportunity to take office in his Lodge and eventually to become ts Master for a period of one year.

There are about 330,000 Freemasons in England who belong to one r more of 8000 Lodges.


----------



## CLewey44 (Jan 25, 2018)

I'm sure one of those 'furthermore promise and swears' would mention something you could twist around or interpret to indicate preferment.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jan 25, 2018)

The oaths?  Not that I know.  But the first degree proficiency/catechism does, at least in terms of charity.


----------



## Bloke (Jan 25, 2018)

It's an interesting question. We do not have anything specific on it in our obligation, indeed have doing things "without detriment to ourselves and our connections" which I mean help a Brother on that basis.

Coach looks like he's claiming (with cited sources) that we should be a meritocracy and that should be the basis of any preferment.


----------



## Bloke (Jan 26, 2018)

Bloke said:


> I...Coach looks like he's claiming (with cited sources) that we should be a meritocracy and that should be the basis of any preferment.



Further, in our final charge in the third degree "By this exemplary conduct you will convince the world that merit has been your title to our privileges..."


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 26, 2018)

In the rituals with which I am familiar, I can think of nothing which supports the proposition. 
In the Address to the Brethren given at installation in many jurisdictions, we are encouraged not to envy the preferment of the new officers. 

In the closing charge that is common we are enjoined to do good unto all, more especially the household of the faithful. 

I can think of nothing that would indicate preferment. Br Nagy gives a persuasive aregiment with which I agree.


----------



## flameburns623 (Jan 27, 2018)

As I understood it, preferment was to be extended to a brother Mason only in such situations where two candidates  (to an elected office, to a position of employment, etcetera) were otherwise EQUALLY QUALIFIED,  where neither candidate's merits or demerits distinguished them from the other.

Such situations, speaking practically, must normally be exceeding rare. In many years as a supervisor or manager, I can think of few such situations.

Actually,  I may have been party to the only one which comes to mind: another candidate and I for a site supervisory position were deemed by a deciding board as, essentially equally qualified. 

Even then, when the deciding vote was cast by the head of the board,  that person explained that my previous experience as a field supervisor (working with numerous clients and accounts) seemed to him slightly less relevant than the other candidate's prior experience as a site supervisor,  managing a site similar in size and operations to the opening available. 

So: if such a clause were ever part of a Masonic oath or obligation,  it's practical application would be seemingly rare.

Ammended to add: Freemasonry played no role in the situation which I described. I was not yet a Lodge member, nor to my knowledge was the other candidate nor any of the members of the hiring committee.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 27, 2018)

flameburns623 said:


> As I understood it, preferment was to be extended to.....


I think some of us are grappling with where you obtained this understanding. It appears to be without a basis.


----------



## flameburns623 (Jan 27, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> I think some of us are grappling with where you obtained this understanding. It appears to be without a basis.


 
I'm going to check to see if I got it from John J. Robinson. I THOUGHT it was part of the obligations I assumed either as an EA in 1994 or as a MM. 

I don't still have the little paper catechism booklets given me to study way back then. 

And I see nothing in the Duncan's Masonic Ritual which might show it. I expected it might have been removed  from the Illinois blue book. 

But I THINK I remember it .  . . which may just be a case of false memory. Since no one is ponying up and saying,  "Oh we edited that out years ago", it PROBABLY  is a false memory.  

But: I asked,  anyhow.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 27, 2018)

No problems in asking. I would suggest that relying upon brother Robinson is not well taken. He makes for entertaining reading. But it is not an historical analysis or, particularly, an analysis of ritual.

At my age, it is not so much false memories, as no memories: “Did we really have that conversation?”


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jan 27, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> I would suggest that relying upon brother Robinson is not well taken. He makes for entertaining reading. But it is not an historical analysis or, particularly, an analysis of ritual.


Agreed. Born in Blood was a very entertaining read.


Glen Cook said:


> At my age, it is not so much false memories, as no memories: “Did we really have that conversation?”


Lol! I there with you on this Brother.


----------



## Zack (Jan 27, 2018)

All things being equal...the benefit goes to the Brother.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jan 28, 2018)

Zack said:


> All things being equal...the benefit goes to the Brother.


Agreed!


----------



## Mike Martin (Jan 31, 2018)

flameburns623 said:


> I'm going to check to see if I got it from John J. Robinson. I THOUGHT it was part of the obligations I assumed either as an EA in 1994 or as a MM.
> 
> I don't still have the little paper catechism booklets given me to study way back then.
> 
> ...


I think the real question here is was it in the Obligation that YOU took? If it wasn't it is irrelevant to you.

PS it wasn't in mine.

PPS Robinson had faulty sources for his Ritual as he claims that in one phase we are made to be a "Brother to a Pirate"! A phrase that I have yet to uncover anywhere other than in "BiB".


----------



## coachn (Jan 31, 2018)

Mike Martin said:


> I think the real question here is was it in the Obligation that YOU took? If it wasn't it is irrelevant to you.
> 
> PS it wasn't in mine.
> 
> PPS Robinson had faulty sources for his Ritual as he claims that in one phase we are made to be a "Brother to a Pirate"! A phrase that I have yet to uncover anywhere other than in "BiB".


YAAARRRRR!!!!!!!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jan 31, 2018)

coachn said:


> YAAARRRRR!!!!!!!


Gee....what a scary looking dude!!!!!!!


----------



## MarkR (Feb 1, 2018)

Mike Martin said:


> PPS Robinson had faulty sources for his Ritual as he claims that in one phase we are made to be a "Brother to a Pirate"! A phrase that I have yet to uncover anywhere other than in "BiB".


"Brother to pirates and corsairs" is what I remember him saying.  I wondered where he found that, because it's certainly nowhere in Minnesota ritual.


----------



## Glen Cook (Feb 1, 2018)

Per Jason Mitchell in 2015
For good measure, I just went back through the kindle edition of Born in Blood (ease of search). Robinson provides no source for the statement other than it's in the MM ritual. It is also worth noting he has no references for those keywords in the index at the end of the book either. And in my collection of ritual regular and otherwise I can find no such reference amongst the Craft or Hauts Grads. Back in 2013 I was unable to find the source, and took to the old Masonic Light Yahoo Group. The archives and answers there (largely from brother Clay Anderson) essentially come down to this: there is no ritual source available, and Robinson when pressed couldn't remember where it got it.

Long story short, as Brother Dafoe once said "the simple fact remains that there is not sufficient evidence to support the idea that the Templars became Freemasons and plenty of evidence to show that they did not" .

I highly recommend Dafoe's The Compasses and the Cross to dispel the Masonic-KT mythology.
Last edited: Nov 5, 2015


----------



## Warrior1256 (Feb 1, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> For good measure, I just went back through the kindle edition of Born in Blood (ease of search). Robinson provides no source for the statement other than it's in the MM ritual. It is also worth noting he has no references for those keywords in the index at the end of the book either. And in my collection of ritual regular and otherwise I can find no such reference amongst the Craft or Hauts Grads. Back in 2013 I was unable to find the source, and took to the old Masonic Light Yahoo Group. The archives and answers there (largely from brother Clay Anderson) essentially come down to this: there is no ritual source available, and Robinson when pressed couldn't remember where it got it.


I, too, have wondered about this ever since I read Born In Blood. Thank you for the info Brother Glen.


----------



## David612 (Feb 2, 2018)

Brothers to pirates! 
Perhaps an issue for Somalian lodges..


----------



## Warrior1256 (Feb 2, 2018)

David612 said:


> Perhaps an issue for Somalian lodges..


LOL!!!


----------

