Re: Obligations and the taping question

In article <cxnwe.3133$t07.2425@xxxxxxxx> newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
> Deliberately revealing the secrets is not really enough. Carelessly
> risking their exposure shows that one was unworthy to be so entrusted.

Hardly. Accidents happen to everyone. That's life.

Our Grand Secretary just got into a car accident. Does that mean he
was "careless" isn't worthy of a driver's license?

> One additional note:
> Anything in a ritual book that is said in the presence of candidate(s)
> prior to each/any obligation must be considered NOT part of the secrets
> to which the thread is referring.

As my lodge's ritual clearly defines what the secrets consist of, we don't
have to engage in inventing our own definitions. American jurisdictions
don't seem so fortunate.

Jim Bennie
Nos. 44 & 100, Vancouver

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obligations and the taping question
    ... The point is, of course, if you are careless with the 'secrets', then you are unworthy - which is the implied overriding theme for all of the obligations (hence the need for due trial, &etc., as noted in all ... If he were careless and at fault, then his worthiness to retain his license might be questioned. ... If a Mason divulges the secrets through carelessness, then his worthiness to receive the secrets might be questioned. ...
    (soc.org.freemasonry)
  • Re: Obligations and the taping question
    ... If he were careless and at fault, then his worthiness to retain his license might be questioned. ... If a Mason divulges the secrets through carelessness, then his worthiness to receive the secrets might be questioned. ... Rainbow Dad ...
    (soc.org.freemasonry)