Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation II: Monitorial

[Skip Sampson]

Still in denial, I see.

Untrue, yet again. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Untrue, yet again.

Not really. This is where it still stands, after your most recent comment of any substance:

That the GL website refers to the MSA on the topic gives it the same GL authority carried by the ritual. That the MSA discussion expands into things not covered in the ritual means it's not a matter of supersession, but amplification.

And you just don't seem to see the ramifications of your own comments. Michigan ritual ties interpretation to the "Christian Dispensation." MSA "amplifies" the Christian interpretation by citing the source that the Christian interpretation appeals to in identifying the "Lion of the Tribe of Judah," Revelation 5:5.

Thus the "amplification" provided by the MSA definition, clarifies what Michigan had already STATED, that it relates to the Christian Dispensation. Therefore, the Christian interpretation, which Michigan had already indicated as its selected interpretive milieu, is that "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is Christ.

You with your hyper-literal attempts to reframe, do nothing to dissuade from what BOTH sources are clear in indicating. You try to accuse others of "intellectual dishonesty," and yet in this instance, you tried to claim that the MSA article, in identifying the Christian interpretation, "said nothing about Jesus"--despite the fact that in referring to the Christian interpretation, they had mentioned that it was "Christ"--and despite the fact that they had directly cited within the article, the source of the phrase in Revelation 5:5.

Your intellectual dishonesty on the matter began the minute you began denying that the reference to Christian Dispensation in Michigan ritual, was an indication that they interpret Christ as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. The further amplification of that fact in the MSA article, only serves to highlight your intellectual dishonesty on the matter even further.

By the way, if you read the passage in Revelation 5:5, you'll notice they don't use the name "Jesus" either. By your perverted logic, even Revelation 5:5 would fit your description of "not using the name of Jesus," and therefore--by your method of making "conclusions"--could not be claimed as a reference to Jesus with its statement about "Lion of the Tribe of Judah." In fact, by your logic, you could actually claim that about the entire chapter, in which the name of "Jesus"--or "Christ" either for that matter--never appears. Sure, context shows it easily: He is called Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Root of David, Lamb, and it is stated "you have redeemed us to God by Your blood"--but nowhere is He stated to be "Jesus Christ," or "Jesus," or "Christ."

You have to do with the Michigan ritual, exactly what is done with the Revelation 5 account: recognize it for what it clearly indicates by the unmistakable details. Therefore, your insistence that "Jesus" has to appear in the ritual for someone to be able to recognize that it IS Jesus, is completely bogus. "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" and "Root of David" and "Lamb" and "redeemed us to God by Your blood" are sufficient in the Revelation passage to identify this as Jesus Christ. Likewise, "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" and "reminds us of the Christian Dispensation" and "resurrection of the body" and "brought life and immortality to light" are sufficient in the Michigan ritual itself to connect the interpretation to Jesus Christ. The MSA piece further amplifying the matter, by citing Revelation 5:5 and referring Christian interpretation to Christ, was just the icing on the cake.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Therefore, the Christian interpretation, which Michigan had already indicated as its selected interpretive milieu, is that "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is Christ.

That is untrue, even on the limited basis you claim. You are forcing far too much meaning into the articles at hand. What is clear is that Michigan teaches that, while the phrase has several meanings, its primary purpose is to symbolize the messiah, by whatever name known. You keep missing that part. Jesus is not directly identified as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in either Michigan ritual or training material.

you tried to claim that the MSA article, in identifying the Christian interpretation, "said nothing about Jesus"--despite the fact that in referring to the Christian interpretation, they had mentioned that it was "Christ"

No, I read and interpreted the article as written. They noted there were four meanings of the phrase, one of which was 'the Christ.' Given Masonry's distortion of such terms, one cannot assume Jesus is being referred to.

--and despite the fact that they had directly cited within the article, the source of the phrase in Revelation 5:5.

The reference was to note where Christians find the Biblical phrase, not where Masonry finds it. The following comments from that point clearly show that Masonry does not link the phrase directly with Jesus. There is no other possible conclusion than that from reading the article.

By the way, if you read the passage in Revelation 5:5, you'll notice they don't use the name "Jesus" either. By your perverted logic, even Revelation 5:5 would fit your description of "not using the name of Jesus,"

Untrue. Revelation 5 shows clearly, in context, that Jesus is the only one that could fit the description. The GL training documentation gives four different meanings to the phrase.

You have to do with the Michigan ritual, exactly what is done with the Revelation 5 account: recognize it for what it clearly indicates by the unmistakable details.

Untrue. Once we see how Michigan interprets the phrase, we realize the GL is not referring to Jesus. Your entire argument breaks down on that fact, which is why you do not address it. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You are in serious denial, and have been from the start. You have let your obsession prejudice your judgment, and really need to get a life.

 

[Skip Sampson]

You are in serious denial, and have been from the start. You have let your obsession prejudice your judgment, and really need to get a life.

Untrue. I already have a life; an eternal one. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Me too.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Here's the beginning of an interesting piece:

​

RULE and GUIDE​

The memorial address given in honor of their deceased Brethren by Most Worshipful Brother Geoffrey M. Davies, PGM, at the 107th Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Manitoba in 1982, was based upon "The Master's Blueprint," by the late Brother and Rabbi Sheldon Gordon of Ionic Lodge No. 186, Duluth, Minnesota. It is with pleasure we share it with you as a Short Talk Bulletin.
In an ancient collection of Jewish literature appeared a statement by a teacher who lived some 2000 years ago, who was not very well known, and about whose real identity there appears to be some doubt. With reference to the parchment scrolls of the Holy Bible, he said: "Turn it and turn it again for everything is in it. And contemplate it and grow gray and old over it and stir not from it for you can have no better rule than it. " What this almost anonymous teacher said some 2000 years ago is of deep meaning in Masonry, for he described one of the Great Lights of Freemasonry-the Holy Bible which is our rule and guide of faith.
Our ritual makes great use of Holy Scripture and, of course, the Bible itself plays a vital and dynamic role in the work and thought of Masonry. If we, as Masons follow the admonition and guidance of this teacher to turn to the Bible and turn to it again, we will find many concepts which give us a deeper insight into the great teachings of Masonry and correspondingly, we will find that the wisdom of Masonry adds another dimension of meaning to many passages of the Sacred Text. A great teacher of Judaism once described the Bible as being God's blueprint in the creation of the world. Let us, then, as builders consult the Master's blueprint. ("Rule and Guide," MSA Short Talk Bulletin, webpage of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana)

This STB is not a linked article, it is incorporated as a part of the Louisiana website. Our antimason double standard guy Skip fought tooth and nail not all that long ago, in dissing MSA material. Now, in a recent argument, he has reversed himself, and has now gone the drastic route of trying to elevate MSA material to the level of ritual. It'll be interesting to see the conniptions produced by this one, when he sees that once again, materials can be found on a Grand Lodge website that dispute his own opinions.

The really hilarious part about it, too, is his attempt to make the article on the Michigan website out to be "Masonic Education" material, despite its lack of connection on the site to any Masonic Education link. Even more hilarious will be his obvious back-tracking, self-contradictions, and invalid disputations upon the matter of the Louisiana GL link, because guess where the STB's are incorporated there? You guessed it: under a link with the heading "Masonic Education." That same Masonic Education link has an article on John the Baptist, and one on John the Evangelist. The one on John the Baptist concludes:

Finally, in summing up the place of John the Baptist as a patron saint of Masonry, may we ask the question: "If John the Baptist spent his entire life seeking, finding and following the Lamb of the tribe of Judah, can we as Master Masons do any less.

In the article on John the Evangelist we find:

In his writings, and epistles, we find that John deals with the central theme of the Christian faith; that is, the eternal and steadfast love of God the Creator to his creation. This love is not conditional, nor is it terminal. Time and space does not permit us to properly describe this St. John as he relates to Masonry. However, to me, any description would not be complete without a short look at one of the most important aspects of his apostleship. That is, the Revelation of Jesus Christ, as revealed to John while in exile on the island of Patmos. As we are taught, God created order in six days and consecrated the seventh as a day of rest and worship. We find that John is given the revelation as he was "in the spirit on the Lord's day" (Rev. 1:10), meaning that he was in close communion with God on the Sabbath day. What was revealed to John? A brief summary would be to say that God allowed him a sneak peek at "the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." This allowed John to tell his readers some of the joys awaiting us at the end of our journey.

It also allowed him to tell his readers about the Lion of the Tribe of Judah in 5:5, who is Jesus Christ.

All of which, in Louisiana, is incorporated into the Masonic Education section of their website.​

 

[Skip Sampson]

This STB is not a linked article, it is incorporated as a part of the Louisiana website.

Indeed it is, and like the definitions of symbols on the MI GL website, is indeed part of training documentation for LA.

Our antimason double standard guy

Your charge therein is false. MSA, by itself, falls under pri 3 of my priority list. But when a GL incorporates its data as its own, as both MI and LA do, it becomes pri 1, and nearly co-equal to ritual. I've been consistent on that, so your charge is just so much hot air.

Beyond that, MSA articles are an important part of Masonry, as all but one GL support the MSA; therefore, they are supportive of its statements and can be held responsible for what it proclaims and teaches.

But in focusing on me, and not on the subject at hand, you've managed to shoot yourself in the foot again with your post (yes, another SIW). Did you really research the MSA Rule and Guide article? It certainly doesn't look like it. Check this:

What this almost anonymous teacher said some 2000 years ago is of deep meaning in Masonry, for he described one of the Great Lights of Freemasonry-the Holy Bible which is our rule and guide of faith.

The quote comes from the Pirkei Avot, which is part of the Mishnah, dates from the timeframe of Jesus' birth, and consists of ethical principals, not case law.

Mainly on point is this fact: The quote is referring to the Torah, not the Holy Bible. The latter did not exist when the quote was made; thus, the article itself is fatally flawed, factually (pardon the alliteration), but is yet another great example that the phrase 'Masonic scholarship' is an oxymoron.

As to your discussion of John the Baptist, where did he ever say he was following the "Lamb of the Tribe of Judah?" And who might that be? The website is silent on that question. As to John, he was far more specific, in that he pointed directly to Jesus as the Lamb of God. But he never referred to 'Tribe of Judah' in that context. Yet another error in the article.

I also find it interesting that the article on John the Baptist manages to have Zacharias offering the EA prayer and John later receiving instructions similar to the new EA in the north-east corner. I mean, how ridiculous can it become? In discussing John the Baptist, the LA GL cannot resist claiming linkage to the story.

As to the article on John the Evangelist, it's just more chaff. For example:

Time and space does not permit us to properly describe this St. John as he relates to Masonry.

Actually both time and space do permit: he doesn't relate to Masonry at all. Masonry tries to use him as cover for its nonChristian doctrines.

Next the article contains this:

However, to me, any description would not be complete without a short look at one of the most important aspects of his apostleship. That is, the Revelation of Jesus Christ,

Did you catch the fact that nothing more is said of that? So, the article correctly notes an important aspect, but says nothing more. What it does go on to say:

This allowed John to tell his readers some of the joys awaiting us at the end of our journey.

Gee, I wonder who the "us" might be? And why does he assume Masons can only look forward to the "joys" of eternal life? In that he covers yet another mistaken Masonic view, to wit: all masons get into heaven by their participation in the Lodge.

Finally, we should keep in mind that patron saints are regarded as heavenly intercessors for a group. Masonry chose them as such; neither had any connection with Masonry whatsoever, and both would be appalled to have their persons associated with such a goofy organization.

More Mirth in Masonry, as brought to you by Wayne, poster boy of Masonic scholarship, the Jerry Lewis of Freemasonry. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

MSA, by itself, falls under pri 3 of my priority list. But when a GL incorporates its data as its own, as both MI and LA do, it becomes pri 1, and nearly co-equal to ritual. I've been consistent on that, so your charge is just so much hot air.

You've been consistent, all right, consistently refusing to be forthcoming on the one point that undoes your assertions in this discussion.

By now, with your repetition of that significant point ("nearly" coequal), you make it abundantly clear that you place it below the ritual itself, and are merely refusing/declining to come right out and say it, because you know it refutes your claims.

So before I go any further in discussion with you, you're going to address this matter, so you can clarify your stance once and for all, as being what you stated in the pecking order, or a deliberate reversal of it:

Do you , or do you not, consider something "nearly coequal with ritual" to be a cut below the ritual itself?

As soon as you answer this question, we can move on to further discussion. Until you do, I take it for exactly what it says, that the MSA piece you keep trying to impose upon the discussion, even to the point you try to elevate it above the ritual, is subordinate in the pecking order to the ritual itself.

 

[Skip Sampson]

By now, with your repetition of that significant point ("nearly" coequal), you make it abundantly clear that you place it below the ritual itself, and are merely refusing/declining to come right out and say it, because you know it refutes your claims.

If the view is abundantly clear to you, why would it be necessary for me to restate it? And how could it be abundantly clear if I have not already stated it? Hoo, boy....

But, since you are having trouble with plain English, I'll expand upon it for you. Pay attention, now; take some notes and try to focus.

'Coequal' means: equal with another or with each other. 'Nearly" means: all but; almost. Thus the phrase 'nearly coequal' means they are not equal in rank or authority, but very close to that. To expand, the phrase 'nearly co-equal with the ritual itself' means that the training documentation is of slightly less authority than the ritual. All that was either abundantly clear to you from my post #108 or not, depending on what point you were trying to make.

When examining Freemasonry, the rituals are the main source of teachings, and I always examine them first. But much of Masonry's teachings are not in the ritual, but rather are in the training documentation. Too, the training documentation expands upon the ritual in many ways, not the least of which is explaining things that the ritual does not. Finally, the training documentation is specifically written to teach a Mason about the Lodge and its lessons; thus, it simply cannot be ignored.

I've stated earlier that deltas between the ritual and training documents are easily understandable: the former cannot be lightly altered while the latter can be. The training documents contain what the individual GL wants the Mason to learn, while the ritual conveys the mental and spiritual transformation so desired by Freemasonry.

I've also stated that I'm close to removing the 'nearly' from the explanations of ritual and training pubs; however, I'm not there yet. But I don't think one can truly understand what any GL is teaching unless both ritual and training materials are viewed in tandem. In a very real sense, they are complementary, and fit together as a whole.

But I would not follow the ritual in lockstep where the preponderance of evidence contradicts it. The deltas between ritual and training pubs need to be carefully examined to determine which applies. When the ritual states one thing, but the training documents contradict what is said, the latter must be looked at carefully to decide which captures the GL teaching. For example, rituals uniformly proclaim the Bible as one of the three great lights; however, training documentation often states that the VSL is instead. When the contradiction is examined, it is found that Masonry as a whole holds the VSL as such, but specifies the Bible as serving that function within the individual jurisdiction. This establishes consistency, as the Bible is a part of the VSL.

Undefined phrases are another example of training documentation being used to explain ritual. The use of the phrase Lion of the Tribe of Judah in ritual brings to mind the Christian reference, but when the GL training materials actually define it in other ways, the reader finally understands the ritualistic usage in full. It's a perfect example of ritual and training material being used together to specify the actual GL teaching on the matter.

So before I go any further in discussion with you,

Periodically you inform us of your intent to stop further discussion with us. Now you are attempting to do the same, but want to blame me for it. Personally, I think the folks that would most applaud your silence on this forum are other Masons, who are most likely appalled by your commentary, to say nothing of your behavior.

For me, I am happy to have you here. Responding to your junk mail gives me a great opportunity to research Freemasonry, and leads me into areas I had not yet considered. So, please do remain; though I would suggest that you work to improve your truthfulness and intellectual honesty, and try to limit your penchant for personal attacks on those who disagree with you. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

If the view is abundantly clear to you, why would it be necessary for me to restate it?

Just trying to get you to put it in plain English, whether you are going to stand behind your pecking order, rather than trying to hide behind it by reinventing it. Looks like you chose the latter once again, since you refuse to answer a simple question with a simple answer. Now to show the readers where your prevarications on this matter fall completely apart.

But much of Masonry's teachings are not in the ritual, but rather are in the training documentation.

All well and good, as long as you don't use it to violate the terms of the pecking order as you yourself established them. The very first line out of your mouth (actually, off your fingers) when you posted it, is one that readily comes to mind:

This list is intended to be hierarchical, in that a secondary source may highlight and expand upon a primary source, but it cannot overrule it.

That one would be significant enough in itself. But what becomes even more significant, in the light of the current discussion, is the statement with which you followed that one up:

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Material in this list should also be seen in light of the hierarchy itself; that is, material further down the list is authoritative only to the degree that it agrees with primary sources. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

Since the "training material" (a misnomer) you have foolishly asserted in the current discussion is further down the list, its authority is limited by the degree to which it agrees with what I presented from the ritual. You yourself have already acknowledged that it is not ABOVE the ritual, nor is it EQUAL with the ritual, for it is only "nearly" coequal, therefore the only place left for it is, BELOW the level of ritual. And since you have CLEARLY pointed out its contradiction of the ritual, you yourself, by your own declaration in your pecking order claims, have limited its authority, since it is "authoritative only to the degree that it agrees with primary sources."

You simply can't assert training material (especially when you don't have any) over ritual.

But I would not follow the ritual in lockstep where the preponderance of evidence contradicts it.

Of course not, you just redefine the word "preponderance." In Skip's wonderful personal-dictionary-that-contravenes-everyone-else's, or at least does so in your imaginary world, "preponderance" means, "all the evidence that's left after Skip ignores all the evidence anyone else presented." Not much of a workable definition, of course, but it doesn't keep you from trying to assert it.

I think you're just whining about it because the preponderance of the evidence does not support you.

When the ritual states one thing, but the training documents contradict what is said, the latter must be looked at carefully to decide which captures the GL teaching.

No, the pecking order must be consulted, to see which one occupies a level above the other. You asserted as much yourself in earlier discussions of NC when a conflict came up between NC Code and NC training materials.

That, of course, raises the interesting point, that your practices do not coincide with what you state in the pecking order either. Since you clearly made the code primary over LSME, that means there are more documents than just the ritual to which the LSME documents must take a back seat when there are conflicting points. In the current discussion, you seem to be unaware of the points you have established in asserting this order in other discussions on the forum. All of them apply, and if you contradict a practice already established earlier, you will be called on it--which you ARE, in regard to one type of document superseding another that is lower on the order. I'm not the one that put training material below ritual, you are. I'm just holding you accountable to your own claims.

Then there's the matter, too, that you have consistently stated about the training materials, that they "expand upon the ritual." What you just claimed, that between training material and ritual, it must be decided "which captures the GL teaching," totally contradicts the idea of "expanding upon." And the reason for the contradiction is clear, you are simply trying to rescue the current vain argument by trying to make elbow room for it within your pecking order claims.

You're the one that established the pecking order, it's about time for you to man up and take the hit when that pecking order undoes one of your own arguments, instead of choosing the cowardly way out, and reinventing it.

I've stated earlier that deltas between the ritual and training documents are easily understandable: the former cannot be lightly altered while the latter can be. The training documents contain what the individual GL wants the Mason to learn, while the ritual conveys the mental and spiritual transformation so desired by Freemasonry.

But the purpose of the training materials is to "expand upon the ritual." When it ceases doing that, and contradicts it, the pecking order kicks in, and ritual supersedes it. You yourself admitted, you aren't "there yet" in asserting training materials over ritual. Given your precedent, in which the pecking order was not merely upheld, but vehemently asserted in no uncertain terms, that one supersedes the other, your current wimpish waffling is nothing short of deplorable. If you can't abide by your own rules, why make them?

I've also stated that I'm close to removing the 'nearly' from the explanations of ritual and training pubs; however, I'm not there yet.

Easy to see why, too. Just in case the readers lose anything in translation on this one, allow me to explain Skip's predicament:

The waffling evident in the above statement is understandable, with Skip having first established this pecking order when it was convenient to do so in establishing one argument; but now that it has come around behind him and bit him on the butt, he is trying to dismantle it in an attempt to try to rescue the current argument--a losing cause if there ever was one. And his real dilemma, and the reason for his hesitation in going ahead and letting the axe fall by manning up and actually STATING that which he keeps trying to hint at without actually having to commit himself to it, is: what if he goes ahead and bites the bullet and mans up and declares training materials over ritual, only to have it sneak up behind him later and bite him again, only harder next time?

One thing you have to give him, he's certainly a man of few convictions.

But I don't think one can truly understand what any GL is teaching unless both ritual and training materials are viewed in tandem. In a very real sense, they are complementary, and fit together as a whole.

More waffling. First you declare that the training materials are only "nearly" coequal. But with the above statement, you are clearly trying to equate them. Maybe you should transfer this discussion over to the perfect ashlar thread. Your whole waffling argument is built on sand, and you could use a couple of stones right about now.

For example, rituals uniformly proclaim the Bible as one of the three great lights; however, training documentation often states that the VSL is instead. When the contradiction is examined, it is found that Masonry as a whole holds the VSL as such, but specifies the Bible as serving that function within the individual jurisdiction. This establishes consistency, as the Bible is a part of the VSL.

No such thing as "part of the VSL." You could make a case for it if you wanted to refer to one section of it; for instance, the gospel of John would be a "part of the VSL" used in U.S. lodges. But the consistent Masonic usage, which you discard in favor of unsupportable Sampson-isms, is to refer to the book on the altar as "the VSL." Statements on the matter, such as those issued by the MSA, do not say "In U.S. lodges, the part of the VSL they use is the Holy Bible." They do say, "In the U.S., the VSL used in all jurisdictions is the Holy Bible."

Not surprised you'd go back there. And thanks for the reminder, that's one of those idiotsyncrasies on your growing list that I have been omitting of late.

Too, you ignore the simple fact that "VSL" is the generic, of which "Holy Bible" is the more specific term. And you came so close, too, what with "specifies the Bible as serving that function within the individual jurisdiction." Now, if we can just get you across the hump to see that the statement you just made about it, is a statement that the Bible IS the VSL in that specific jurisdiction, and not merely "part of it." VSL in the collective manner in which you try to apply it, only leads you down the alley of misappropriated nonsensical Sampson-isms.

Undefined phrases are another example of training documentation being used to explain ritual. The use of the phrase Lion of the Tribe of Judah in ritual brings to mind the Christian reference,

No, it reminds of the Christian DISPENSATION. Try to keep up. When the statement about Christian Dispensation is added with it, though--especially when that term is directly connected to the phrase "which brought life and immortality to light"--that makes it completely clear what they're talking about.

You're just trying to create a loophole where none exists, in order to falsely declare the ritual as "undefined," so you can try to assert the primacy of training material--oops, make that MATERIAL FALSELY DESIGNATED AS TRAINING MATERIAL--over ritual, in violation of the expectation of your own pecking order, that materials considered "nearly coequal" are superseded by that which they "nearly" co-equate.

The use of the phrase Lion of the Tribe of Judah in ritual brings to mind the Christian reference, but when the GL training materials actually define it in other ways, the reader finally understands the ritualistic usage in full. It's a perfect example of ritual and training material being used together to specify the actual GL teaching on the matter.

"GL training materials?" Gee, Skip, did you ever find that support for that claim, so that you can make the claim in reality? Or are you still just trying to ramrod it over anything else, just because Skip Sampson says he can?

Sorry, the MSA piece does not qualify as "training material" until you actually show it to be such. To this point, you really have not even made a sincere effort to do so.

Periodically you inform us of your intent to stop further discussion with us. Now you are attempting to do the same, but want to blame me for it.

Nope, just holding your feet to the fire and TRYING to get you, for just once in this discussion, to state in black and white that ritual supersedes training material. It's eminently clear from your stated pecking order, but has been consistently waffled upon by you every time it comes up in discussion.

But I still take it as I did before, and in doing so, hold you accountable for both your own words and your own actions. In doing so, some of your words, even in this current "response," if you can call it that, must be discarded, because they go against things you have done and said during the course of establishing your pecking order.

You stated once more, that you are "not there yet" in declaring training materials over ritual. Well and good. Now man up and do it, and quitcher whining about losing your false claims about Michigan ritual.

Personally, I think the folks that would most applaud your silence on this forum are other Masons, who are most likely appalled by your commentary, to say nothing of your behavior.

That's really funny, because the only applauding I've seen here is when one of you starts losing an argument, and y'all's solution to it is for the other to come here and falsely assert victory for the other one, with vociferous applause, complete with (and fittingly so, from the two of you) loony toons and caricatures, as if you thought that would fool the readers into thinking things went your way.

Responding to your junk mail gives me a great opportunity to research Freemasonry, and leads me into areas I had not yet considered.

Amen to that one, you go into areas NO ONE ever considered:

Jacob's staircase
rectangular cubes
God's okay with marrying prostitutes
Jesus and Christ are two different people

And oh yeah, "part of the VSL."

I would suggest that you work to improve your truthfulness and intellectual honesty

Can't believe you'd even TRY to make that comment about someone else, given the above.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Just trying to get you to put it in plain English

Not sure that will do any good, as you've shown great difficulty in understanding it when you do see it, for example:

Since the "training material" (a misnomer) you have foolishly asserted in the current discussion is further down the list, its authority is limited by the degree to which it agrees with what I presented from the ritual.

Untrue. Here's the quote from my post #108:

This list is intended to be hierarchical, in that a secondary source may highlight and expand upon a primary source, but it cannot overrule it. Material in this list should also be seen in light of the hierarchy itself; that is, material further down the list is authoritative only to the degree that it agrees with primary sources.

1. Primary Sources: Since the Grand Lodge is the recognized authority in Freemasonry, its material must constitute the primary sources of what Masonry is and what it teaches. The primary GL sources, therefore, are:
- The ritual itself, which conveys Masonic lessons. They are intended to change men and therefore are the most reliable sources of Masonic doctrine and beliefs.
- Lodge training material which expands upon and explains the ritual. As this material is directly connected to the ritual and is intended to expand the Mason’s understanding of it, it becomes nearly co-equal with the ritual itself. The most common forms of this material are The Mentor’s Manual, the Lodge System of Masonic Education and those pamphlets provided by the GL explaining the degrees to candidates and Masons alike.

You will note that both ritual and GL training documents are primary, not secondary, sources. My discussion in post #450 fully clarifies the relationship between the two.

I would also point out here that training documentation is not "limited by the degree to which it agrees with what I presented from the ritual." Much in the training material expands upon ritual and explains it more fully. Training documents do not have to agree with ritual, as I noted earlier, and quite often don't. Such contradictions are handled on a case by case basis, with the ritual being overruled only when the preponderance of evidence is against the ritual.

Of course not, you just redefine the word "preponderance."

Your definition, of course, tells us more about you than me. Bear in mind, I've established my order of sources that I follow in my analysis. 'Preponderance' is, of course, in my judgment, in my analysis, as it would be in anyone elses'. When posting the results of my analysis, I back it up with the appropriate references upon which it is based, and a reader can decide for himself whether or not he agrees.

Since you clearly made the code primary over LSME, that means there are more documents than just the ritual to which the LSME documents must take a back seat when there are conflicting points.

Untrue. Your memory has yet again failed you, or maybe you just don't care enough to check our your facts (more likely the case). The NC issue was a matter of qualifications, and both Mike and I noted that the Code would be the most important source for that information. Should you ever read my discussion on sources for content, and not for points of criticism, you will find that the Code is consulted for legal views in Freemasonry. LSME is a training document, not one concerning Masonic jurisprudence.

I'm just holding you accountable to your own claims.

Looking forward to you doing so honestly.

Then there's the matter, too, that you have consistently stated about the training materials, that they "expand upon the ritual."

That would be a sematic argument, not a factual one. I'll stand by my comments in that area.

My view is that the ritual is almost bullet-proof WRT change due to its history and its perceived 'sacredness.' Training documents do not carry that perception, and they, quite often, more reflect GL lessons than do ritual. Just a fact of life in analyzing Freemasonry.

You're the one that established the pecking order, it's about time for you to man up and take the hit when that pecking order undoes one of your own arguments, instead of choosing the cowardly way out, and reinventing it.

I'll certainly do so, should that ever happen.

Sorry, the MSA piece does not qualify as "training material" until you actually show it to be such.

I don't have to. The MI GL has shown that to be the case by incorporating it on its website. In fact, you used a similar justification on material on the LA GL website, as silly as the material was.

Nope, just holding your feet to the fire and TRYING to get you, for just once in this discussion, to state in black and white that ritual supersedes training material.

Were it a black and white issue, that could be said. But there are many grey areas involved between what the ritual says and what the GL teaches. I think my discussion in both relevant posts are clear enough, and I have followed those views in my analysis.

But I still take it as I did before, and in doing so, hold you accountable for both your own words and your own actions.

Feel free to do so, but see if you can inject some personal integrity and honesty into your remarks.

That's really funny,

Thank you.

BTW, reread your post #451. Do you notice all the FONT occurances? And did you catch the fact that you did not attribute one of my comments as a direct quote? All these errors occur because you either did not review the post before you sent it or you just didn't care whether errors were therein contained or not. But, since you don't give much thought in your responses, it comes as no surprise that you don't bother reviewing the posts for errors before sending them along. Now, everyone of us makes errors in our posts, but I think most try to limit them. You should make that effort as well. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You will note that both ritual and GL training documents are primary, not secondary, sources.

Well, THAT was predictable. But in PRACTICE you have ALREADY established that even within the documents that would be classified as "primary," you still have a pecking order even among those.

Such contradictions are handled on a case by case basis, with the ritual being overruled only when the preponderance of evidence is against the ritual.

Which in the case of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, you have not shown. The preponderance of Masonic opinion is against YOUR claims. You claim the phrase is undefined in ritual; I beg to differ, but even if it were, we have a preponderance of evidence of other materials--some of them Grand Lodge materials--that state the Lion of the Tribe of Judah refers to Jesus Christ. Rather than following your own guidelines on the matter of "preponderance of the evidence," you have gone against the preponderance of the evidence at every opportunity. You give lip service to that which you do not perpetuate in practice.

Bear in mind, I've established my order of sources that I follow in my analysis.

I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that you have violated the claims of your order of sources every time you have considered it convenient to your arguments.

When posting the results of my analysis, I back it up with the appropriate references upon which it is based, and a reader can decide for himself whether or not he agrees.

I disagree, of course, because your "analysis" IGNORES the evidence.

RW: I'm just holding you accountable to your own claims.
SS: Looking forward to you doing so honestly.

Good. That's what I've been doing, and that's what I do once again with the following:

The NC issue was a matter of qualifications, and both Mike and I noted that the Code would be the most important source for that information. Should you ever read my discussion on sources for content, and not for points of criticism, you will find that the Code is consulted for legal views in Freemasonry. LSME is a training document, not one concerning Masonic jurisprudence.

And yet your pecking order says the Code is SECONDARY, and LSME materials are PRIMARY. And the thing you told me at the time was, that the Code "superseded" the LSME. That is a CLEAR violation of your own stated terms, for your rules state:

"a secondary source may highlight and expand upon a primary source, but it cannot overrule it."

When it comes to your pecking order, code is lower on the list than training materials, yet when it comes to practice, you have Code overruling LSME, which your pecking order says can't happen.

Your claims are contradicted by your practices. Which leads to the obvious conclusion, your claims in your pecking order are made null and void by your practices, for the two contradict each other. From this point forward, you may state your opinions about your "pecking order" to your mirror, for he is the only one who will be listening, and he is the only one I see who is benefited by it in the first place.

But there are many grey areas involved between what the ritual says and what the GL teaches.

Then it's a pretty useless enterprise to be putting down a pecking order and trying to put it into black and white in the first place, don't you think?

And the fact still remains, that when it comes to APPLICATION of your pecking order, it's whatever Skip wants it to be, and in BLACK AND WHITE, when applied to YOUR assertions in argument, and become all gray and fuzzy when you apply it to anyone else's. That's about the only thing you make abundantly clear.

Now, everyone of us makes errors in our posts, but I think most try to limit them. You should make that effort as well.

I'll certainly do that. The difference is, though, that what you pointed out are not substantive errors. The "Font" thing you mention is not even an "error," it's simply a feature of the forum. Not everyone chooses the same default font, and if you quote someone by copying a line, sometimes it comes up with that even if you take the steps to put it into your own default font.

And you can be sure, you will not find me making any SUBSTANTIVE errors like:

Staircase for ladder
"rectangular solid" for cube
God's okay with marrying prostitutes
Jesus and Christ are two different people
"part of" a VSL

Those are just so out of touch with reality, they're far beyond mere "error." I find them to be the creations of irrationality.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Well, THAT was predictable.

And true. Both are Pri 1.

But in PRACTICE you have ALREADY established that even within the documents that would be classified as "primary," you still have a pecking order even among those.

As already noted in pretty good detail.

Which in the case of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, you have not shown.

Untrue.

The preponderance of Masonic opinion is against YOUR claims.

Be careful. You've already been called on the numerous references in your dumpex that you claimed equated the Lion of the Tribe of Judah with Jesus, but said nothing of the sort. Learn from your mistakes for a change. Lord knows you've had ample opportunity.

You claim the phrase is undefined in ritual;

It is undefined, at least in the MI GL, though probably everywhere in Masonic ritual.

I beg to differ,

You call that begging? Surely you can do better....

some of them Grand Lodge materials

You punked out before on that claim, and here you are again. Ok, show us the GL sources:

that state the Lion of the Tribe of Judah refers to Jesus Christ.

Looking forward to your 'excuse de jour' for failing to back up, again, that claim.

That's what I've been doing, and that's what I do once again with the following:

Untrue, again. Man, you'll just never learn...

WRT to the NC code, you say:

And yet your pecking order says the Code is SECONDARY, and LSME materials are PRIMARY. ... When it comes to your pecking order, code is lower on the list than training materials, yet when it comes to practice, you have Code overruling LSME, which your pecking order says can't happen.

You either didn't bother to read my dissertation on sources for content, or your English comprehension is worse than I thought. Or both. It's a real problem for you that you don't digest material before you shoot your mouth off on a topic. Note this from my post #108:

2. Secondary sources: Documentation which forms the legal basis for Freemasonry.

Since the subject was addressing the qualifications, which which is a legal matter, the Code then is the place that governs. To put it simply, for your sake, the LSME does not address the legal matters of Freemasonry while the Code does. Just another one of your self-inflicted wounds.

Wayne, you are making my source listing the point of your discussions because you've been hammered on all the other subjects. To peck on something as minor as this shows the level of your intellect. As is said: great minds focus on ideas; average minds on events; simple minds on people. And here you are focussing on me, which truly proves the validity of that statement.

that what you pointed out are not substantive errors.

Oh, I'd say failure to attribute quotes is a substantive error. Bottom line, though remains: you clearly did not bother to review your post for errors before you inflicted it upon us. Like your content, you just don't care. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Both are Pri 1.

And one is only "nearly" coequal with the other, which still places it below ritual in the pecking order.

Untrue.

Sorry, but what I stated was true. You are in denial.

The preponderance of Masonic opinion is against YOUR claims.
Be careful.

I was. The statement is true. You made the challenge after the larger list (Michael's count was 78), and I posted the shorter list of those which DO state it directly. But you have shown by the conniptions you've gone into over the Michigan ritual, that you can invent all sorts of things to try to deny the plain truth. All of the inventions you've come up with have been false, of course, but you still invent them anyway.

It is undefined, at least in the MI GL, though probably everywhere in Masonic ritual.

Untrue.

You call that begging?

No, I call it differing.

Ok, show us the GL sources:

Already did. Just because you make the request twice does not mean I will revisit the same arguments over and over and over. You really need to start paying attention the first time around, it'll save you from making repeat demands, and then save me from having to tell you it's already been posted, and then save you from making false accusations that I'm "refusing" to post that which I've already posted and you ignored.

Looking forward to your 'excuse de jour' for failing to back up, again, that claim.

Looking forward to you dropping lame accusations over materials LONG AGO posted. If you can't keep up, at least man up and admit you can't keep up, instead of trying to lay your shortcomings on everyone else.

Since the subject was addressing the qualifications, which which is a legal matter, the Code then is the place that governs. To put it simply, for your sake, the LSME does not address the legal matters of Freemasonry while the Code does.

And to remind you, there were prefatory remarks made before the enumeration began in your pecking order, that applied to the whole. In those remarks, you clearly stated:

"a secondary source may highlight and expand upon a primary source, but it cannot overrule it."

Your words, not mine. But as usual, no one's words matter to Skip Sampson except what he wishes the reader to see right now.

To peck on something as minor as this shows the level of your intellect.

YOU'RE the one with the "PECKING" order. Obviously it's not "minor," or you wouldn't be bending over backwards to bend your comments out of shape to accommodate your current argument.

It's easy for anyone to see, the Michigan ritual flat out shoots down your arguments about Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and presents the most strenuous challenge to your attempts to substitute a redefinition for it, and your attempts to pretend that the majority of Masonic sources define it some other way, or do not define it at all.

If it truly didn't, you wouldn't be exerting the effort you are, or making the ridiculous claims you are, like:

"Christian Dispensation is undefined"--a real hoot, since in every Masonic source that mentions the context makes it clear what is meant.

"when the MSA article says Christ, it doesn't mean Jesus"--so bizarre it needs no comment.

With those two alone, you make it clear you have no basis upon which to claim anyone else engages in "intellectual dishonesty," for you show the clearest examples of engaging in it yourself.

Since the subject was addressing the qualifications, which which is a legal matter, the Code then is the place that governs. To put it simply, for your sake, the LSME does not address the legal matters of Freemasonry while the Code does.

"Which which is a legal matter?" Exactly which which are you talking about? Don't you take the time to edit your posts before you inflict them upon us?

To put it simply, for your sake, your "pecking order" stipulates no such thing, it simply puts it in black and white terms of "this is primary, this is secondary," while in practice the secondary got elevated over the primary for one simple reason: you found it convenient to do so only because it became advantageous in declaring victory in an argument.

Oh, I'd say failure to attribute quotes is a substantive error.

I'd agree, I just don't agree that it happened. I attributed my quotes very well--the FIRST time around. The failure to READ them is a MENTAL error. And you're pretty good at those:

Staircase for ladder
"rectangular solid" for cube
God's okay with marrying prostitutes
Jesus and Christ are two different people
"part of" a VSL

Whining about minor posting errors, while making substantive errors like these, is the equivalent of straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

 

[Skip Sampson]

the Michigan ritual flat out shoots down your arguments about Lion of the Tribe of Judah, and presents the most strenuous challenge to your attempts to substitute a redefinition for it, and your attempts to pretend that the majority of Masonic sources define it some other way, or do not define it at all.

Untrue. The MI GL ritual simply does not define the phrase. You may assume all you wish, but that fact doesn't change. The fact that the GL website goes on to define it in clearly nonChristian terms further shows your excursion into wishful thinking.

"Christian Dispensation is undefined"--a real hoot, since in every Masonic source that mentions the context makes it clear what is meant.

Not really, because it doesn't make clear who either Christ is or whether or not that actually refers to Jesus.

when the MSA article says Christ, it doesn't mean Jesus"--so bizarre it needs no comment.

Then let me comment: there's that intellectual dishonesty on your part again. I didn't make that claim; rather, I point out that the GL MI document does not define the term, but does stress several possible meanings for the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, only one of which might be 'the Christ,' whoever they may assign that title to.

Which which is a legal matter?

The note was pretty clear that qualifications were the matter under discussion in the topic you cited.

I'd agree, I just don't agree that it happened.

Well, let's see:

Responding to your junk mail gives me a great opportunity to research Freemasonry, and leads me into areas I had not yet considered.

Responding to your junk mail gives me a great opportunity to research Freemasonry, and leads me into areas I had not yet considered.

You failed to put the sentence from your #451 into quotes, and the fact that you responded:

Amen to that one,

indicates you were using it as a direct quote from me. Now we know that you like to ape your betters, but I think in this case it was another failure to read your post for content. I fully understand why you would find that distasteful. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I attributed my quotes very well--the FIRST time around. The failure to READ them is a MENTAL error. And you're pretty good at those:

Staircase for ladder
"rectangular solid" for cube
God's okay with marrying prostitutes
Jesus and Christ are two different people
"part of" a VSL

 

[Rev Wayne]

More material for this one still comes in:

"A mountain is an emblem, a symbol in this degree, and to a Christian it conveys thoughts redounding with beauty and grandeur. Mountains consecrated to masonry claim position upon the Christian as well as the masonic tracing board. The summits of mountains have been selected by the Almighty for the grandest and awfulest exhibitions of his divine majesty. Men look up for the deity, and ascend to the highest points of earth, under the involuntary idea of being nearer the object of their prayers and aspirations. Christ himself exhibited his humanity in doing this, for he invariably secluded himself on a mountain to pray. He was tempted on a mountain. Upon a mountain was he transfigured, and his divinity testified to his chosen disciples. It was on the brow of a hill he wept when he failed to convince the stiff-necked people he sought to win from the error of their ways; and on a mountain he delivered his memorable sermon, which shall live until the hills themselves are consumed. The greatest events of his ministry, its beginning and its consummation, took place upon the mountains in and around Judea. Who can look upon a mountain pictured in a masonic lodge, without thinking of these things, or of believing that as he suffered his greatest agony upon a mountain, in mind, and was crucified upon a mountain, in body, so he will appear upon a mountain at the last day, and then gather together his scattered flock, and welcome them with him in glory?
"The three pillars, typifying wisdom, strength, and beauty, are among the emblems of the first degree, and that this is equally true of the Christian brotherhood no one will attempt to deny; for what undertaking is greater than that of inducing a man to lose sight of the things of time in those of eternity — of looking from nature to the Creator of nature, and relying at all times upon the justice and providence of his ways. A church on earth, and a church in heaven, are both supported by such pillars, and they may be regarded as the divine attributes of the Godhead. Passages abundant in the Scriptures of the Word can be quoted to support this assertion. Wisdom is the first and greatest object to be desired by man. Get wisdom, get understanding, says Solomon. He that getteth wisdom loveth his own soul. The Evangelist heard the angels about the throne saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the lamb that was slain, to receive power and riches, wisdom and strength, honor and glory. And Adam Clark explains this by saying, 'Wisdom is ascribed to the lamb of God, because of his omniscience, and strength because of his omnipotence.' Wisdom from above is that knowledge of our free agency and redemption, which was purchased by the precious blood of Jesus. But also is Jesus strength. He is the fountain of all power. Commentators inform us that the Hebrew words translated everlasting strength, mean, in the original, the 'rock of ages,' which was Christ. In the third degree, this attribute is more fully exemplified. Finally, the Lord Jesus is Beauty. He is the fairest among ten thousand, and altogether lovely. The rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valley were the most beautiful and chaste productions of the land of Judah, and by these titles is it attempted to express his loveliness. He sitteth on the south, which is at the right hand of the throne. And thus it will be seen, is the Savior clearly typified by the three supports of a mason lodge. He is wise, strong, and beautiful.
"Our ancient brethren, by whom the Christianity of masonry was at all times clearly recognized, illustrated the supports of the lodge in the following manner: 'The mighty pillars on which masonry is founded, are those whose base is wisdom, whose shaft is strength, and whose chapiter is beauty. The wisdom is thnt which descends from above; and is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated; full of mercy and good fruits; without partiality and without hypocrisy. The strength is that which depends on the living God, who resisteth the mighty and scattereth the proud in the imagination of their hearts; who giveth us power to resist and to escape all temptations, and to subdue all evil appetites. A strength which is a refuge to the distressed; a bond of unity and love among brethren, and of peace and quiet in our own hearts. Our beauty is such as adorns all our actions with holiness; is hewn out of the rock which is Christ, and raised upright by the plumb of the Gospel; squared and leveled to the horizontal of God's will in the lodge of St. John; and such as become the temple whose maker and builder is God.'
(American Freemason, Vol. 7, p. 149)

And let us remember, that nowhere does true Godliness shine out so conspicuously, as in the person of Christ. He is the express image of the Father's person. "Why as Masons may we not receive this light from God, through Christ, into our hearts?
Nowhere is brotherly conduct so exemplified so perfectly as in the self-sacrificing life of Christ. He came not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many. Why as Masons may we not copy his example?
Nowhere is immortality or a future life brought out so fully as in the teaching of Christ. He brought life and immortality to light in the Gospel. Why as Masons may we not sit at his feet?
These then are the qualities of Masonic manliness. It begins in faith in God. It lives in the warmth of brotherly love. It shines in the light of immortality.
What was the mission of John the Baptist, of which Masons should take special notice? His special mission was to prepare men for receiving the Messiah. He was to bring the Jewish people into a right form of mind for receiving the Deliverer, which he did by preaching repentance. He was to plow the soil of Judaism, so that it would be prepared for the seed which Jesus would sow, which he did by declaring the coming of the kingdom of God. He was to receive and introduce Christ to the world, which he did by baptizing him at Jordan, and pointing him out as the promised Messiah. He was to prepare the candlestick of Judaism for having the lamp of Christianity placed upon it. He attacked the narrow views of the Jews in order that he might bring- in the broad claims of humanity. He tried to break down the exclusiveness of the Jewish race, in order to re-organize the unity of the human family. He struck heavy blows at intolerance of religion, in order that he might establish the brotherhood of man. He scourged out all unrighteousness that he might bring in true brotherlincss. He pulled out the weeds of sectarian feeling in order that he might sow the seed of brotherly love. He thrust out Annas the Priest to bring in Chirst our brother. He was the voice of one crying in the wilderness; 'Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." His whole energies were to be absorbed in removing the obstacles that stood in the way of the reception of Christ. He was to be a voice, rather than a person in declaring his message. He was to be heard rather than seen in doing his work. The messenger was to be almost forgotten, in view of the importance of the message which he delivered. He was to be absorbed in Christ, as the light of the morning star is absorbed in the light of the glorious sun. He was to give place to Christ, as the apple blossom gives place to the fruit. His great object was not to call attention to himself, but to the Saviour. If he was seen it was only to bo reflecting the light of Christ. If he was heard it was only to be as speaking about Christ. If he was to be honored, it was only to be as the forerunner of Christ. Just as we are to see the moon shining in the light of the sun, so are we to see John the Baptist shining in the light of Christ the Saviour. His great business was to show men the way to the Christ, not bring them to himself. He did not turn men away from Christ, he brought them to hiin. He did not substitute his own teaching, and virtue, and work, for the teaching, and virtue, and work of Christ. Just so masonary should not turn men away from Christ, but bring them to Him. It should not make their own work all the religion they want, but use it to recommend the teaching, and life and work of Christ. Before John is Christ, before Masonry is Christianity.
When we are voyagers on the ocean, it may not matter to us who keeps the lighthouse that stands upon the rocky shore, but it is of essential importance, that we see the radiance of the lamp he has lighted, and that we steer by its guidance. John set the lamp upon the lighthouse that showed the way to Christ, and the harbour of true safety.
Here is a lesson for us. It matters not whether we are seen or not seen, whether we are known or unknown, whether we are remembered or forgotten, but it is of infinite importance that we keep the lamp of truth so set on the lighthouse of our institutions that its clear radiance shall warn men from the rocks of ruin and guide them into the harbour of safety.
When we are receiving our messages across the electric wires, it may not matter much who the telegraph operator is, but it is of supreme importance what the telegram says, from whom it comes, of whom it speaks, what directions it gives. John was simply the telegraph operator, who delivers God's message about Christ and the way we are to receive him.
Here is the lesson for us. When the revelation of God's truth thrills our souls, it matters not whether men recognize who or what we are, but we will so arrange that the testimony we bear shall be a Divine message about God's truth and man's duty.
When we are travelling on the railroad, it may not matter much who the overseer is who keeps the track clear from all the hindrances and obstructions which might stop or derail the train. The essential matter is that the road is kept clear. John was simply the overseer, who tried to remove the obstructions,— the unbelief—the prejudice—the vice—the sin—that stood in the way of men coming to Christ. He tried to make a clean straight pathway between the soul and the Saviour.
The lesson for us is, that whether men recognize it or not, whether we are praised or blamed, whether we succeed or fail, we are to labour that all unbelief, and prejudice, and vice, and love of sin shall be removed from our own hearts and lives, and the hearts and lives of our fellow men, that we shall have unobstructed access to Christ, and He shall have free entrance into our souls. Masonry that recognizes the mission of John the Baptist, must honestly accept the work of Christ.
If we are like John the Baptist, we will be burning lights that show the way to Christ.
Solomon may introduce to the temple, John the Baptist brings us into direct contact with the Saviour.
What was the teaching of John to which Masons especially should pay heed? He taught the whole truth as it was revealed to him. He placed the light of Christian truth on the candlestick of Jewish traditions. He made the ritual of the temple reflect the doctrine of the Church. He made the symbolism of Judaism the foundation of Christianity.
His teaching was all summed up in the words which he uttered when pointing to Jesus. "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world." It is as if he said, think of Christ as God's solution of the great problem of sin. See in Christ the sacrifice presented for the sinner. Meditate upon His pure unblemished character, as the Lamb of God. Behold in Him the conqueror of all evil. Perceive in Him the revelation of Divine sonship. Recognize in Him the perfection of all manliness. Find in Him the best exemplification of all true brotherliness. Look at Him as the perfect manifestation of true Godliness. Accept Him as the proof and pledge of God's infinite ,love to you. Trust Him as the propitiation for past sin, and the ground on which you can hope for future blessedness. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.
The man that receives John for his teacher, should receive Christ for his Saviour. The Masonry that accepts John is opening the door for Christ. Masonry in its foundation is manhood, in its walls and arches is brotherhood, in its altars and shrines it is Christianity.

 

[Rev Wayne]

(Continued)

All the symbolism of masonry finds its fullest explanation in the truths of Christianity. The temple itself was a type of the incarnation of Christ. The traditions connected with the erection of the building- have their most significant meaning in the Christian work, by which .the temple of Christ is now being built up. The sacrifices all prefigured the crucifixion, all the ritual of the temple service gets full interpretation in the truths and experiences of redemption. The whole mysteries of Masonic rites as founded on that service, find a key for their solution in the work and life of Christ. Masonry becomes a completed structure in Christianity.
John represents the lighthouse, Christ is the harbour. John was the blossom, Christ is the matured fruit.
The foundation may be strong 'and broad, but it can never be substituted for the house. The lighthouse through stable and bright, is not to be used for the harbour. The blossoms though very beautiful flowers, can never be used as ripe fruit. Let us not take up our abode in the walls of the foundation. Let us not cast anchor beside the lighthouse. Let us not be satisfied with the mere blossoms of experience.
The beautiful blossoms of Masonry become ripened fruits in Christianity. The lighthouse of Masonry leads to the safe harbor of Christianity. And every Christian may work cheerfully with Masons, because John, their patron saint, leads to Christ, the Christian's Saviour.
Thus, then, we see that Masonic virtues may naturally become Christian character, Masonic brotherliness may naturally become Christian philanthropy, Masonic teaching may naturally become Christian doctrine. Oh, if we were only true in working out our principles to their true Christian development what a benediction we might be to each other and to the world!
(C.B. Pitblado, Sermon Preached in Westminster Church, Winnipeg, and printed by direction of the Board of General Purposes of the Grand Lodge, Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Manitoba, 10th Annual Communication, p. 479-81)

GOSPEL. The Royal Order of Masonry, however secret from its most early foundation to the present moment, has nothing belonging to it, but what is so far from giving birth or growth to the commission of any thing inconsistent with the strictest parts of our holy religion, whether it respects our duty to God or man, that every part of it, if duly followed, has a direct tendency to enforce and to encourage the performance of every one of its most holy precepts; and, "the precepts of the Gospel are universally the principles of Masonry."—Inwood. (Dermott, Ahiman Rezon, p. 93)

CHRISTIANITY. Masonry is the excellency of Christianity, and every Mason is, if he is in reality a Mason, a true Christian; or at least he is in reality truly religious according to his profession, whether he be Jew or Christian.—Inwood. (Dermott, Ahiman Rezon, p. 47)

Come, thou Fount of every blessing,
tune my heart to sing thy grace;
streams of mercy, never ceasing,
call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I'm fixed upon it,
mount of thy redeeming love.

Here I raise mine Ebenezer;
hither by thy help I'm come;
and I hope, by thy good pleasure,
safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger,
wandering from the fold of God;
he, to rescue me from danger,
interposed his precious blood.

O to grace how great a debtor
daily I'm constrained to be!
Let thy goodness, like a fetter,
bind my wandering heart to thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
prone to leave the God I love;
here's my heart, O take and seal it,
seal it for thy courts above.

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said,
You, who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?

In every condition, in sickness, in health;
In poverty’s vale, or abounding in wealth;
At home and abroad, on the land, on the sea,
As thy days may demand, shall thy strength ever be.

Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen and help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand.

When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of woe shall not thee overflow;
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.

When through fiery trials thy pathways shall lie,
My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine.


Even down to old age all My people shall prove
My sovereign, eternal, unchangeable love;
And when hoary hairs shall their temples adorn,
Like lambs they shall still in My bosom be borne.

The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.
(Georgia Masonic Manual, "Lodge Hymns," p. 181-83)