Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation II: Monitorial

[Rev Wayne]

I noticed some things in your recent accusations that I didn't catch before my previous response, and felt this was worth revisiting, to show the depth of your errors in your recent accusations.

Here's what's wrong with the accusations.

What you've posted dates back 138 years ago, from 1873,

Dude, you're talking about ONE source! If your vision is that limited, you'd better see an ophthalmologist.

and NO recent than 1994 (nearly two decades ago).

Again, better call the doc on this one too. For one thing, there wasn't a single source I posted that was dated 1994. What'd you do, drop dates in a hat and just pull one out at random?

Secondly, how on earth did you miss THESE?


(Ray V. Denslow, Transactions of the Missouri Lodge of Research, Part 8, 2003, p. 56)
("Masonic Words and Phrases," website of Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington)
(NC Proceedings 2002, p. 95, at the passing of PGM Cecil Johnson Liverman)

Not only that, when I said "ample material from recent sources," I wasn't simply referring to the recent repost to Skip, but to the TOTALITY of what I have posted. That "ample" comment thus includes these also:

(John Ellis Edwards, Masonic Discourse, Lodge No. 53, Richmond, Va.)
(Freemasonry in Michigan, [Jeffery S. Conover, 2010] p. 544-45)
(Charles Scott, The Analogy of Ancient Craft Masonry to Natural and Revealed Religion, 2003, p. 357-58)
(Michael R. Poll, Masonic Words and Phrases, 2005, p. 61)
(Kenneth R.H. MacKenzie, Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia, Part 2, 2002, p. 454)
(E.R. Johnson, Masonry Defined, 2002, p. 533)
(Joseph Johnson, Freemasonry: Its Vision and Call, 2003, p. 150)
(Ralph P. Lester, Look to the East, 2007, p. 176)
(Jacob Ernst, Philosophy of Freemasonry, 2003, p. 140)
(L.S. Myler, Jewels of Masonic Oratory, 2003, p. 492)
(Jacob Ernst, Illustrations of the Symbols of Masonry and the Philosophy of Freemasonry, 2005, p. 272)
(James Hodge Codding, Jubilee Year of the Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors, 2003, p. 315)
(James E. McNabney, Born in Brotherhood, 2006, p. 535)
(Everett B. Turnbull, A History of Royal Arch Masonry, part 3, 2004, p. 1350)
("The Lion's Paw," GL of Texas, cited from Masonicworld.com)

I'd say 18 sources that are dated within the last 10 years, ESPECIALLY when you seemed to think I posted NONE, is PLENTY "ample." In fact, compared to the count of 59, which was the last figure I recall in the running tally, that's nearly one-third of the total.

Wake up and smell the coffee...er....read the posts.

can you post something currently being used; like that which has been published within the last decade?

Well, after the previous question I addressed, it pretty well answered this one as well. But I can also show you, from the sources where I had multiple examples repeating the same wording, why this is a frivolous accusation:

The first that comes to mind is Illinois. I found the exact same statement there in five separate GL sources. Three were monitors, one was the work itself, and one was a funeral service. The dates were 1906, 1916, 1931, 1962, and 1986. That spans 80 years! Yet they had not changed one single word of it.

Another was Alabama, where the manual had the statement I posted, in 1911; they had the exact same statement in their ritual, dated 1984, a span of 73 years.

Kentucky, though I actually posted only the 1987 copy of their monitor the first time around, has exactly the same thing in that later one, that they had in the monitor in 1918, a span of 79 years.

The Virginia Manual of Work, 1977, has exactly the same thing as found in the VIrginia Text-Book of 1899, a span of 78 years. Moreover, John Dove's Masonic Text-Book, the original source for Virginia's Test-Book (which I had posted a few pages earlier), dates back to 1854; which, compared with the 1977 Manual of Work, provides a span of 123 years!

Washington Monitor, funeral service, 1949, compares word for word with the Washington Monitor, 1983, a span of 34 years.

The Louisiana Monitor of 1927, which I own but did not mention prior to right now, is exactly the same as the Louisiana Monitor I did post, from 1957, a span of 30 years.

As anyone can see, when it comes to monitorial and ritual material in Masonry, 10 years is a mere breath. This covers all the ones I've posted where I had more than one copy. The shortest span represented here covers 30 years, or three times the limit you try to impose upon the discussion with your attempted limitation. And the longest difference is 123 years! It should be easy to see from these examples, that your claims about the alleged significance of the difference in dates, is not sustainable.

It should also be easy to see, since I wound up adding two MORE sources simply in the process of responding to your allegations, that I haven't even posted all the sources I DO have that refute your claims.

Not only have you proven to be an unChristian, unMasonic pastor, you've shown you are a dishonest one too!!!

Having debunked everything you just stated before making this summation, I think anyone reading this can easily see, (a) you don't read my posts before cricitizing them--how else would you miss so much of the content? (b) your hangup about dates is a serious misrepresentation of the facts--your insinuations about the 138-year difference was easily countered by showing a 123-year period in Masonry, during which there was absolutely no change at all, and illustrated and supported with the exact same citation from three sources within that span; and (c) you are much more interested in hurling insults than you are in any meaningful dialogue.

You could always simply cease trying to make this thing appear to favor your position. You've made one error after another, and one false accusation after another. Your most serious error has been, before you begin arguing, you should really make every effort to ensure that truth is on your side. That's been the biggest pitfall for you, making all these claims and then having nothing at all to sustain them.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Do you not find it, as I do, a rather significant omission on his part, if there were anything found in those sources to counter what has posted, for him not to post it here?

He did. He showed where five of your GL sources had redefined the term so that it was not limited to Jesus, and about 9 other GL's that did the same thing.

To repeat: it's all bait & switch. The phrase gets used in ritual and then redefined in training materials. One view for the candidate, another for the Master Mason. Cordially, Skip.

 

[O.F.F.]

One note I would make, though, on "proceedings." What those are, is an official record of Grand Lodge transactions that take place when a Grand Lodge holds its annual session. Nobody's gonna try to tell me THAT'S not significant. It's very similar to what happens with my denomination holding Annual Conference, and then a transcript of all the official proceedings of the session being printed up in the Conference Journal, whereby the Journal becomes the official sourcebook for any changes that have occurred, for what pastors are appointed to what charges, for the outcome of voting on various issues and policies, for what persons hold positions on what conference committees, the whole works. It's an official transcript of official business. The same is true of the Transactions/Proceedings publications of lodges. Anyone trying to dismiss Grand Lodge proceedings as something irrelevant in this discussion, is clueless about the nature of such publications.

Blah, blah, blah... No one said "proceedings" aren't significant, they just are NOT significant to this discussion, because they ARE NOT MONITORIAL, no matter how much you try to mislead readers into thinking that they are.

By the way, there you go again comparing Freemasonry to religious denominations. If it is not a religion, you shouldn't be going around comparing it to religions with comments like these. Or these:

You see, Masonry was at one time very catechistic, just as churches once were

Nor should you post titles that give the same impression that it is a religion. So make up your mind, pastor, either it's a religion or it's not! If it is not, then compare it to other fraternities and stop comparing it religions.

(John Ellis Edwards, Masonic Discourse, Lodge No. 53, Richmond, Va.)
(Freemasonry in Michigan, [Jeffery S. Conover, 2010] p. 544-45)
(Charles Scott, The Analogy of Ancient Craft Masonry to Natural and Revealed Religion, 2003, p. 357-58)
(Michael R. Poll, Masonic Words and Phrases, 2005, p. 61)
(Kenneth R.H. MacKenzie, Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia, Part 2, 2002, p. 454)
(E.R. Johnson, Masonry Defined, 2002, p. 533)
(Joseph Johnson, Freemasonry: Its Vision and Call, 2003, p. 150)
(Ralph P. Lester, Look to the East, 2007, p. 176)
(Jacob Ernst, Philosophy of Freemasonry, 2003, p. 140)
(L.S. Myler, Jewels of Masonic Oratory, 2003, p. 492)
(Jacob Ernst, Illustrations of the Symbols of Masonry and the Philosophy of Freemasonry, 2005, p. 272)
(James Hodge Codding, Jubilee Year of the Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors, 2003, p. 315)
(James E. McNabney, Born in Brotherhood, 2006, p. 535)
(Everett B. Turnbull, A History of Royal Arch Masonry, part 3, 2004, p. 1350)
("The Lion's Paw," GL of Texas, cited from Masonicworld.com)

I'd say 18 sources that are dated within the last 10 years, ESPECIALLY when you seemed to think I posted NONE, is PLENTY "ample." In fact, compared to the count of 59, which was the last figure I recall in the running tally, that's nearly one-third of the total.

Sorry, you know darn well NONE of these are monitorial sources! Therefore, they represent one-whole of NOTHING but a bunch of different Mason's opinions; NOT Masonic opinion. But keep trying, pastor.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Blah, blah, blah... No one said "proceedings" aren't significant, they just are NOT significant to this discussion, because they ARE NOT MONITORIAL, no matter how much you try to mislead readers into thinking that they are.

"Blah, blah, blah?" My, how the intelligence goes up with each post.

Then you obviously agree with me that Skip's comments, being based on LSME and similar-type materials, are also to be discounted, since they are not "monitorial," either, no matter how much he tries to mislead readers into thinking they are?

Or did you even think about that particular ramification before you decided to go that route?

To tell you the truth, in case you hadn't noticed, as this thread began to draw all the attention while the original thread it sprang from fell into disuse, I've pulled more and more non-GL materials into consideration. And in fact, it began after an exchange with YOU, in which you were declaring you'd start bringing in quotes from spurious Masonry. The minute you followed up on the threat, all bets were o.f.f., and every material has been considered.

But you forget, there still exists the pecking order, which both sides have tried to hammer out, and which has garnered a little extra attention lately when Skip tried to try to orphan his own child by abandonment. What had been generally agreed upon, was that all Masonic materials carry their own weight, but that some carry more than others. At the top of the list, of course, are monitors and rituals. Skip insisted on that one long ago, despite attempts to make exclusions in the current discussion. Following that, Skip places constitution and code, followed by educational materials like LSME. Beyond that, it's been anybody's guess, and even he doesn't really have it in any consistent order--not that he has practiced any of the rest of it in any consistent manner either.

So I'm sorry, but your boo-hoo session is only going to get you more boo-hooing, because I won't entertain your effort to limit this, and I don't really think Skip's position agrees with what you're trying to do either. And then there's the matter of what parameters we've been operating under for quite some time now:

I haven't contended for every single thing on this thread as "monitorial." If you recall, this began on the original thread of the same title (sans "monitorial"), and this thread was created only because of specious objections based on double standards never observed with any consistency by antimasons themselves.

I also noted, when materials of this sort were first posted to this thread, that though [not] monitorial, they carry the seal of Grand Lodge and thus are official GL materials--which is all that is intended by posting them. If it were possible to go back and note the change by including a notation in the title, I would have done so. And in fact, the attempt WAS made, by going to the OP, to the advanced setting, and changing the title line. But apparently there is no way to change the title after first setting it in the OP, hence it remains, and the materials which are GL-approved but not monitorial, I still post, under the same auspices already stated within the notation, from the time they first posted. With that notation now reiterated, I do still intend to post them as materials that are GL-approved by GL seal, though not technically monitorial, just as I stated from the first.

And as I also pointed out during the posts where all this was being hammered out:

Antimasons clearly don't consult dates when they start shuffling around looking for something to turn into an accusation.

So, since your attempt to limit the discussion by limiting what dates can be considered, was shown for the hogwash it truly is, you figure on going back to the old standby, and try once again to limit what sorts of GL materials may be considered? Sorry, but the statement I just reposted, where the matter was discussed, was accorded general acknowledgment, and we've gone on from that point, basically without any such objections being raised. In other words, all sides in here, whether fully agreed upon all points or not, have operated in the general understanding expressed at that time, and all GL materials have been considered germane to the discussion ever since. That was on page 3, so as anyone can see, we have had quite a bit of material pass through these pages since, without that objection being raised.

You gain nothing for yoursself but a simple notation from me here, that your objections are disallowed, and I will continue to post any and all Grand Lodge materials, including Proceedings, articles on GL websites, and the like.

By the way, there you go again comparing Freemasonry to religious denominations. If it is not a religion, you shouldn't be going around comparing it to religions with comments like these.

Objection denied. I've done that from day one, this is the first time I've ever seen you say this. You're really dredging bottom, aren't you?

Sorry, you know darn well NONE of these are monitorial sources!

Objection ignored. If Skip can websurf and quote Mackey from secondary sources and consider it somehow authoritative, with no objection from you, you can sputter and spew till you're blue in the face and I will see you turn blue and make a jocular reference to you as Papa Smurf, but that's about all the reaction you will see from me. Your double standards never worked before, and you will get nowhere trying to vomit something up to use as a wedge here.

Interesting post, though, you must really be bottoming out in your effort to find something to support your untenable position. Maybe you ought to consider letting Skip carry the ball from this point. I don't think he's gonna take too kindly to your stated position of "strictly monitorial," which will eliminate even the handful of materials he's managed to dig up for a . . . . for lack of a better thing to call it. . . . a "defense."

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
Your posts continue to reveal more about you than they do Freemasonry.

Then you obviously agree with me that Skip's comments, being based on LSME and similar-type materials, are also to be discounted, since they are not "monitorial," either, no matter how much he tries to mislead readers into thinking they are?

I've noticed that you tend to mistate views when losing arguments. Kinda like a rat looking for a way out, any way out, of a sinking ship. At any rate, there is no misleading on my part. I've pointed out the 'pecking order' of masonic documentation and have consistently stuck with it. What you remain oblivious to in this thread is that the monitors and rituals do not define the phrase "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" while the training material does. There is no conflict between them as they address different aspects. The ritualistic statements are explained in the training documentation; it is not a matter of priority of source. Your view that any use of the phrase must imply the Christian meaning is simply blown away by GL training documentation which gives whole new meanings for it. Since the training materials are from the GL, they carry the authoritative GL view. No Christian would ever accept such a teaching in a Bible-based church and one wonders how self-proclaimed Christians would accept that view in Masonry. Oh, that's right, it's not Bible-based. And we know that one is required to leave his religious views outside the lodge to remain a good Mason.

BTW, have you contacted any of the GL's we provided to inquire as to where they get their teachings from? I guess not, as they'd either ignore you, for good reason, or slap you down pretty hard. You might instead ask your own GL for an unambiguous statement that the phrase used in SC ritual does in fact refer to Jesus and only Him. I'm sure they'd be happy to comply, so give it a shot.

You gain nothing for yoursself but a simple notation from me here, that your objections are disallowed, and I will continue to post any and all Grand Lodge materials, including Proceedings, articles on GL websites, and the like.

Another interesting aspect is your self-perception as judge and jury in these threads. It is not up to you to 'disallow' or 'deny' objections, or to imperiously reject arguments. You may opine at leisure and defend what's left of you viewpoints, but you would be better served to come down from the pastorial ivory tower and recognize yoursef as fallible. Very fallible. I mean really, really, really fallible. (You may ape that term, btw.)

As to a GL's Proceedings, these are the least usable of GL references, in that they are generally minutes of their annual meetings. Any speech therein is not authoritative unless grounded in code, ritual, monitor, or training materials, and are mainly irrelevant. To quote from an obituary in such a document is laughable, and the truth of the matter is that the quotes you've provided from such publications are merely personal opinions, and the documents themselves really carry little weight. Moreover, as was pointed out to you in my post #23 and others, many simply do not reflect today's Masonry. To quote them as you have done is to try to find a Masonry that does not exist and probably never did. Only a desperate man would try to justify his view of Freemasonry from a Proceedings. The only useful thing I'd look for from them are membership statistics and upcoming changes.

If Skip can websurf and quote Mackey from secondary sources and consider it somehow authoritative,

Yet another charming habit you are in is in accusing people of your own crimes, and in just plain forgetting what has occurred prevously in the thread. It was you who misquoted Mackey and didn't catch it. I'm the one who pointed in out in my post #300. It is clear you simply cannot keep up with the complexities of the thread, or the contents of your own posts. Or, more likely, you don't care to do so (the 'any way out' syndrome). Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

It was you who misquoted Mackey and didn't catch it.

Given the ubiquitous nature of your phony criticisms, I don't always try to respond to every single one of them, so the more ridiculous ones I generally pass by. Such was the case with this one the first time you tried it, but since you were foolish enough to repeat it, let's show the readers just how unobservant you really are.

Here was what you stated on the matter in post #300:

A second, smaller, problem you get into is relying too much on sources without actually looking into them. For example, you quoted both the Phoenix website and Mackey, apparently without realized the former apparently got the quote from the latter (E.R. Johnson may have done the same). As well, the Phoenix quote misrepresented Mackey in that they compressed Mackey’s article without indicating something had been left out.

Here is a summation of the numerous errors you made in making that statement:

You never really pointed out specifically what you felt was "left out." The problem with your accusation is, an author of a "glossary" is not under any such restrictions as you falsely try to suggest. You failed to take into account what a glossary is:

Glossary: Alphabetically arranged reference work that gives brief definitions of words related to a specific topic. Also called controlled vocabulary.

By way of contrast, consider what an encyclopedia is:

Encyclopedia: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

Apparently you don't know the difference between an encyclopedia and a glossary, or the difference between "brief" and "comprehensive." An encyclopedia naturally is expected to take a more comprehensive approach. A glossary, by definition, and by intention, is brief.

Apparently you don't know much, either, about the process of putting together a glossary. A glossary author acts as compiler, editor, and redactor all at the same time. No one who understands the term, as well as the process of putting one together, would be so foolish as to accuse someone of improper handling of materials just because they engage in the type of redaction that is common to the very process itself.

As well, the Phoenix quote misrepresented Mackey in that they compressed Mackey’s article. . .

"They?" Where did you get a "they?" The index page of the glossary clearly indicates the author of the glossary as David Lettelier--much in the same manner as they identify ALL the authors of ALL the materials they publish to their webpage. You seem to think Phonixmasonry is in the editing business. They are not. What they have on their webpage is a collection of materials by various Masons from various Masonic sources. Accusing them of something improper in regard to the glossary found there, shows your lack of understanding of the very nature of their site. Sure, you'll probably TRY to come back with some lame excuse trying to point it at me for not identifying it any farther than "Phoenixmasonry webpage." Which would be a futile defense, since you CLEARLY tried to suggest you had "looked into it" when your very accusation itself shows you did NOT.
So no, the Phoenixmasonry site did not "misrepresent Mackey" by posting that glossary, because they never claimed in any way that the material belonged to Mackey, derived from Mackey, or otherwise even had anything to do with Mackey. Their attribution clearly is to David Lettelier--but as already shown you, the accusation does not hold water anyway, when you consider the natural process of redaction that takes place with any such work.

You made the same mistake when you claimed:

(E.R. Johnson may have done the same).

Didn't check out the E.R. Johnston work either, eh? Had you done so, you would have found sufficient information to show your errors here as well. Here's the full Johnston citation on "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" (and by the way, it's Johnston, not Johnson):

961 - What is the symbolism of the Lion of Judah?

Tribe of Judah, Lion of the. The connection of Solomon, as the chief of the tribe of Judah, with the lion, which was the achievement of the tribe, has caused this expression to be referred, in the third degree, to him who brought light and immortality to light. The old Christian interpretation of the Masonic symbols here prevails; and in Ancient Craft Masonry all allusions to the lion, as the lion's paw, the lion's grip, etc., refer to the doctrine of the resurrection taught by him who is known as "the lion of the tribe of Judah." The expression is borrowed from the Apocalypse, "Behold, the lion which is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof." The lion was also a mediaeval symbol of the resurrection, the idea being founded on a legend. The poets of that age were fond of referring to this legendary symbol in connection with scriptural idea of the "tribe of Judah." Thus Adam de St. Victor says: Thus the strong lion of Judah, The gates of cruel death being broken, Arose on the third day At the loud‑sounding voice of the Father.

The lion was the symbol of strength and sovereignty, in the human‑headed figures of the Nimrod gateway, and in other Babylonish remains. In Egypt, it was worshiped at the city of Leontoplis as typical of Dom, the Egyptian Hercules. Plutarch says that the Egyptians ornamented their temples with gaping lions' mouths, because the Nile began to rise when the sun was in the constellation Leo. Among the Talmudists there was a tradition of the lion, which has been introduced into the higher degrees of Masonry.

But in the symbolism of Ancient Craft Masonry, where the lion is introduced, as in the third degree, in connection with the "lion of the tribe of Judah," he becomes simply a symbol of the resurrection; thus restoring the symbology of the mediaeval ages, which was founded on a legend that the lion's whelp was born dead, and only brought to life by the roaring of its sire. Philip de Thaun, in his Bestiary, written in the twelfth century, gives the legend, which has thus been translated by Mr. Wright from the original old Norman French: "Know that the lioness, if she bring forth a dead cub, she holds her cub and the lion arrives; he goes about and cries, till it revives on the third day. . . . Know that the lioness signifies St. Mary, and the lion Christ, who gave himself to death for the people; three days he lay in the earth to gain our souls. . . . By the cry of the lion they understand the power of God, by which Christ was restored to life and robbed helL" The phrase, "Lion of the tribe of Judah," therefore, when used in the Masonic ritual, referred in its original interpretation to Christ, him who "brought life and immortality to light."

Other than the obvious fact that Johnston introduces this as a question, there is only one change from what Mackey has in his encyclopedia: at the end of the first paragraph, the citation of Adam de St. Victor that appears after the colon, is a poem, and it is set off in Mackey, by spacing, as a separate part of the paragraph (setting off is common with multi-line quotes). The beginning of each of the four lines as it appears in Johnston's quote, is easily observable by noting the caps where lower-case would ordinarily appear.

The difference in Mackey is, he included the original Latin version:

Sic de Juda Leo fortis,
Fractis portis dirae mortis
Die surgit tertia,
Rugiente voce Patris.

So all that was "left out" as you put it, of the material as it originally appeared in Mackey, is a Latin original that most people probably couldn't read anyway. Not only that, it's very common even in Christian commentaries, to omit foreign language portions of citations, sans any notation that anything is "omitted." Someone publishing a commentary for general readership will not be so foolish, e.g., as to go over the readers' heads by including the Greek and Hebrew originals of biblical words to a less technical audience than one might find, say, for a critical textual commentary. In fact, I often have done the same here on these forums, when citing from just such a commentary, without indicating anything "left out." It's simply not considered a "misquote" for someone to omit such techical notations when reproducing that same material for a less-technical audience. (But usually on-forum here, it's more a matter of, the fonts don't always reproduce correctly either, if at all.)

But there is a much more obvious reason for rejecting your ill-considered attempt to include Johnston in this bit of sophistry. Did you even bother to check out any of the introductory material at ALL???? If you had done so, it's readily apparent just what Masonry Defined truly represented: It seems to have been either an uncompleted work by Albert Mackey, which Johnston continued and published after Mackey's death, or a work undertaken by Johnston at his own initiative. In my browser window identification of the page, it says "Masonry Defined by Albert G. Mackey 33rd Degree - Revised by E.R. Johnston." The introductory page material has these headings:

Compiled from the Writings of
DR. ALBERT G. MACKEY 33°
And Many Other Eminent Authorities
REVISED AND ENLARGED
BY
E. R. JOHNSTON 32°
Originator of the Questionnaire System
of Masonic Education

The key points to note here, of course, are the fact that it was "revised," and that it was also "enlarged." Any work which is defined from the outset, and properly so noted in its introductory material, as a "revision," is a work in which, quite naturally, one would expect to find revisions. DUH-UH.

Once again, you simply try to impress readers here by pretending to have investigated these sources and found something blameworthy, when in fact, at every turn you actually give more evidence to the contrary, indicating that you haven't even considered any of the introductory materials which ought to be some of the first materials one would consider, whether one is reading for information, or simply quote-mining for antimason cannon fodder. As always, your criticisms boomerang and come back upon your own head.

One further note upon this: anyone can see where you are TRYING to go with this. It's a pretense that you can take three sources and by reduction make it out to be only one. Nothing could be further from the truth. All you have really managed to show with this exercise in futility, is to further establish the reliability of the information provided in Mackey's Encyclopedia. The fact that it often gets cited in other places where people compile glossaries of Masonry, shows that other Masons consider the information to be reliable, dependable, and true. Trying to criticize someone for essentially quoting the same material, while condensing or editing it to make it more concise, especially in a glossary which is brief by its very definition, is pure chicanery on your part.

It is clear you simply cannot keep up with the complexities of the thread, or the contents of your own posts.

Well, it's pretty obvious I've got a better handle on it than you do. Since you can't even comprehend the simple difference between the nature of a glossary as compared with an encyclopedia, perhaps you'd be wiser not to even attempt any "complexities." Lord knows, if you can't handle the simple, we're not gonna give you anything complicated.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Since the training materials are from the GL, they carry the authoritative GL view.

Wow, STILL don't have anything to go on but training manuals. No rituals or monitors yet?

Since the status of this discussion is what it is, that I have provided a VARIETY of Masonic sources which all concur that "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is a Messianic reference to Jesus Christ; and since all you have been able to produce, by contrast, is a paltry collection, ALL of which hail from "training materials":

What exactly are we to surmise, given the evidence and what it says? Since all the other sources I've posted quite OBVIOUSLY do not agree with you, and thus do not agree with the training materials, then exactly WHERE do they get this notion, consistently expressed everywhere ELSE we look, that it refers to Jesus Christ?

The answer is obvious, and is one I've already provided you, but which you keep ignoring and trying to diss: (1) the phrase itself, as it appears in the rituals and monitors, has only one referent, being as it is, a biblical phrase that comes straight from its one usage in Revelation 5:5 of Jesus Christ; and (2) all these Masons that you keep trying to label as "ignorant" Christians, appear to be overwhelmingly aware of who "Lion of the Tribe of Judah is," and overwhelmingly agree that it refers to Jesus Christ. And they do thereby put to shame the ignorance of well-meaning antimasons, whose knowledge of Christian terminology falls short even of those they choose to criticize as "ignorant."

 

[Rev Wayne]

Sorry, you know darn well NONE of these are monitorial sources! Therefore, they represent one-whole of NOTHING but a bunch of different Mason's opinions; NOT Masonic opinion. But keep trying, pastor.

Oh, you KNOW I'll do that.

Thought you might be interested in this one, it's a pretty good one. Comes awful close to your irrelevant ten-year insistence, too:

I shall now proceed to note the several grips by which you were raised to this sublime degree: they being the same that were used at the raising of the body of our Grand Master Hiram Abif and serve to remind us and are said to allude to the three principal dispensations or conditions under which mankind has existed since the creation of the world, namely: mankind by nature, the Jewish Hierarchy and the Christian Dispenation. The Entered Apprentice grip which could not prevail to raise the body owing to the high state of putrefaction, reminds us of mankind in a state of nature, since by the efforts of his own reason, unaided by revelations, he has never been able to prove the immortality of the soul. The Fellowcraft grip which could not prevail to raise the body for similar reasons, reminds us of the Jewish Hierarchy, since after searching the book of the law and the prophets, but few passages are to be found which prove in a clear and undoubted manner the resurrection of the body from the grave. But the strong grip of a Master Mason or Lion's Paw, which did prevail to raise the body, reminds us of the Christian Dispensation which has brought life and immortality to light, and teaches mankind that through the merits of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, their bodies shall at last be raised and become as incorruptible as their souls. (Michigan, 1996, revised 2000, p. 110-111)

 

[O.F.F.]

(Michigan, 1996, revised 2000, p. 110-111)

"Michigan" what? Care to be more specific? Is it their ritual, monitor, Masonic education material, or what? My quote came from a 2010 update to their website under the Master Mason Degree of their "Basic Masonic Education Course." Therefore, it appears the following quote supersedes yours by a decade.

THE LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH

The lion has always been the symbol of might and royalty. It was the sign of the Tribe of Judah, because this was the royal tribe of the Hebrew Nation. All Kings of Judah were, therefore, called the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah.” This was also one of the titles of King Solomon. This was the literal meaning.

In the Middle Ages, the lion was a symbol of resurrection. There were common tales that the lion cub when born lay dead for three days until breathed upon by its father. This breath brought the cub back to life. Representations of roaring lions symbolized the resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. The lion, being such a majestic animal, has long been considered the “king” of beasts; associated with the sun because of its mane. Its likeness is commonly found on the thrones and palaces of rulers. The Mithraic god Aion had a human body with a lion’s head.

Because of its association with the sun and its correspondence to the zodiacal sign of Leo, the Lion is also considered a symbol of alchemical Fire.

Grand Lodge of Michigan, Master Mason Degree, Basic Masonic Education Course

 

[Rev Wayne]

"Michigan" what? Care to be more specific? Is it their ritual, monitor, Masonic education material, or what? My quote came from a 2010 update to their website under the Master Mason Degree of their "Basic Masonic Education Course." Therefore, it appears the following quote supersedes yours by a decade.

Unless you can show that it has changed since the date I posted, I'd have to say, after having shown ritual and monitor sources that maintain the exact same wording they contained for incredibly long periods--one of them even for a span of 123 years--that Michigan ritual trumps the educational materials.

There was a time when Skip would have been saying exactly the same thing, but since in this particular instance all he--OR YOU--has been able to find are "educational" materials.

By the way, if you have a direct link to that Michigan page, it would be helpful. There have been things claimed here in the past by both of you which, upon going to the generally designated "______ GL website," that I have not been able to locate even after visiting every link on the site.

Not disputing, just following the sage advice once given to me, to "Trust---but verify." Past experience has been a pretty consistent teacher on the matter, especially when you start with the bold highlights, that you simply cannot be trusted to present the whole truth. That's why I will have to see context before commenting on your own Michigan post.

Interesting thing, too, the Michigan statement: it appears to be monitorial, since like other monitorial material located there, it was not ciphered. And it's in a section which has another part of it designated as "not public information," so it appears this may also be in their Monitor, though I'll have to check and see what other resources I have from there. I seem to recall having a Monitor that was fairly recent, like '08 or '09. I'll give a holler back if I get further info.

My own take on the educational material thing you guys keep finding, is that the lodge is no different than the church in that regard. As the dynamics of the nation have changed, there are people attempting to make accommodations in the way they do things. For instance, in some cases, we get some pretty far-out things being attempted in the church, like "non-gender-specific-references-to-God." Last time I checked, though, the old standby forms and usages of the church are still the determining ones when it comes to deciding what is in and what is out. So on Sundays, after the pastoral prayer, we still begin the congregational response with "Our FATHER, who art in heaven. . ."

I find a rough corollary in Masonry, that though you may find a spot here or there where someone is trying to do something differently, the "old standby" of monitors and rituals" will still always be the standard. And especially the ritual, because it is a matter of policy in every jurisdiction with whose bylaws I have researched, that they simply do not change what has been handed down in the ritual. For the material I posted to be found in that particular venue, then, I find to be highly significant.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Funny thing, Mike. I went to the Michigan GL website and you can't find one single document on the site related to "Masonic education." So, since I was unable to locate your material by the direct route, I simply pasted your quote into the browser, and the very first hit was the website of Golden Ark Lodge #595 in Taylor Michigan.

You may claim "Grand Lodge website" all you wish, but since this site DOES have the direct quote, and the Grand Lodge site does NOT, your claims in your post are worth diddly-squat. For one thing, claiming it was "the Grand Lodge of Michigan website" was bogus, because it does not appear there. For another, you really ought to have been able to tell it wasn't Grand Lodge when you saw the beginning words of the URL string were "golden ark." Here it is, by the way, so readers can see your attempted deception as well:

Master Mason Degree

"Grand Lodge" does not appear in the URL string, nor does any abbreviation of it--which, if you check GL sites in general, I think you will find a consistent pattern of the Grand Lodge and/or its area of jurisdiction being a prominent part of the URL string for their site.

So no, a subordinate lodge webpage commentary does not "supersede" what is found in their GL ritual.

 

[O.F.F.]

So no, a subordinate lodge webpage commentary does not "supersede" what is found in their GL ritual.

Sorry Wayne, but it's NOT a subordinate lodge webpage commentary; it's MASONIC EDUCATION material issued by their Grand Lodge to TEACH the members of its entire jurisdiction about the true meaning of Freemasonry; including those who attend Golden Ark Lodge #595.

Golden Ark Lodge #595 in Wayne/Taylor Michigan is under the auspices of the Grand Lodge of Michigan. And like any other subordinate lodge, under any Grand Lodge jurisdiction, they are NOT free to teach whatever they want to the members of its lodge. They TEACH what the Grand Lodge tells them to TEACH, and YOU know it!

The fact of the matter is, it boils down to the Masonic deception Skip mentioned earlier; which you are ultimately perpetrating:

To repeat: it's all bait & switch. The phrase gets used in ritual and then redefined in training materials. One view for the candidate, another for the Master Mason.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Sorry Wayne, but it's NOT a subordinate lodge webpage commentary; it's MASONIC EDUCATION material issued by their Grand Lodge to TEACH the members of its entire jurisdiction about the true meaning of Freemasonry; including those who attend Golden Ark Lodge #595.

"Issued by their Grand Lodge?" Where on earth did you get THAT bizarre notion? There is NOTHING on the site to support this. (And as a matter of fact, there's NOTHING on the site that states that the material was "updated in 2010" per your claim on that one either.)

Besides, you're reversing yourself quite a bit, aren't you, Michael? HERE'S what you claimed at the time you posted it:

"Michigan" what? Care to be more specific? Is it their ritual, monitor, Masonic education material, or what? My quote came from a 2010 update to their website under the Master Mason Degree of their "Basic Masonic Education Course."

You clearly stated that you got the material from "THEIR" website. The only possible referent you have for "THEIR" in what you stated, is Michigan. You were clearly claiming that this material comes from their website. Not only that, you were claiming it was an update to "THEIR" (GL OF MICHIGAN) website.

Golden Ark Lodge #595 in Wayne/Taylor Michigan is under the auspices of the Grand Lodge of Michigan. And like any other subordinate lodge, under any Grand Lodge jurisdiction, they are NOT free to teach whatever they want to the members of its lodge.

Apparently they ARE free to post what they wish on their webpage. The information they posted does NOT come from MICHIGAN'S Masonic Education materials, it is quoted STRAIGHT from a source which, though it may be considered "Masonic" in that it has various Masonic materials, is NOT CONNECTED TO ANY GRAND LODGE. If you're interested in seeing the real source, go to whatsamason.org and see it for yourself. It's a personal Masonic webpage run by a Past Master from California. On the introductory page, he states:

The books used in this course are a composite of several “Candidate’s Books” used in California over the past 60 plus years. Many knowledgeable Masons in California and other jurisdictions have contributed to the text and questions in these books. We give them our heartfelt thanks. Some of the material may not be appropriate in your jurisdiction, never the less it is all valuable information for the education of every Mason.

It's eminently clear, since the Michigan ritual teaches differently, that the material is "not appropriate for their jurisdiction." Apparently they have no problem posting material on their site that is in disagreement with what their Grand Lodge teaches. It happens. Heck, even certain Grand Lodge materials--as Skip has so amply demonstrated for us--are not in agreement with what the Grand Lodge ACTUALLY teaches in its monitor and ritual. Besides, since this material CLEARLY matches the material posted on this individual's website, it appears you think the readers are just stupid enough to believe that when Michigan GL decided to put together their educational materials, they decided to get it from a source that is totally non-GL. I can't believe you'd actually make a mistake like that, that's a whopper even for YOUR low standards.

And if you really believe Skip's earlier claims, then what he claims actually would disprove your claim as well. The subordinate lodge from which I tried to purchase a monitor in Florida told me only Master Masons in Florida may do so; while Skip says the Grand Lodge freely sent him all sorts of materials. Clearly that would indicate differences on the matter, if the GL dispenses freely while not permitting individual lodges to do so.

Besides, where did you get the idea that the GL controls everything that goes on a subordinate lodge webpage in Michigan? You certainly didn't get it from the GL page, any more than you got what you already claimed came from there, because there's NOTHING about internet protocol on that page.

Internet and Masonry is a hodgepodge, too, as can be easily illustrated from my own jurisdiction. Our GL page used to have internet protocols outlined on the GL page; but since a change of Grand Masters, the GL site has been revamped, and that page has disappeared completely. The link to it, which used to be on the main page, no longer exists.

So I would question your dogmatic proclamations about what a subordinate lodge can do in Michigan, since you seem to be winging it on this one anyway, first claiming it comes from the GL page, and then trying to make dogmatic proclamations about subordinate lodge webpages which you didn't even admit getting your information from to begin with--and then adding to your error by claiming they were posting materials from their own GL, which they obviously were not.

Come to think of it, why did you take the approach you did, Michael? Couldn't you simply acknowledge the source when you first posted it, rather than try to aggrandize your claim by lying about it and claiming it was from the GL page? I mean, getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar and then trying to make excuses, doesn't make your story any more believable.

The fact of the matter is, it boils down to the Masonic deception Skip mentioned earlier; which you are ultimately perpetrating:

To repeat: it's all bait & switch. The phrase gets used in ritual and then redefined in training materials. One view for the candidate, another for the Master Mason.

WOW! You claim "2010 update to a Michigan GL webpage" Masonic Education Course, get CAUGHT right smack-dab in the middle of making that FALSE CLAIM:

and then you turn around and try to accuse ME of "bait-and-switch?????"

I've seen some delusional stuff from you before, but that one beats all I've ever seen.

There's more wrong with it, too, than just the fact that you claimed a GL source when it wasn't:

For one thing, Skip was talking about LSME documents and the difference between what they say and what monitors and/or rituals say from the same GL jurisdiction. What you did was totally o.f.f. the wall, completely different, and you have not in the least shown it to be comparable to Skip's comments. After all, the material, as I have shown, did NOT come from Michigan LSME sources. Certainly, you are free to try to locate some ACTUAL LSME booklets and prove your case. But the Golden Ark site does not designate the material on their page as Grand Lodge of Michigan educational materials. As a matter of fact, they entitle it the EXACT SAME WAY as the site from which it derives, "A Basic Masonic Education Course." And as shown, the material and the site derive from an individual from California, not Michigan.

Another reason to reject this is, the little changes that are common when someone chooses to deviate from their Grand Lodge and put their own opinions into what they post. This one is no different. I happen to have the California educational booklets, including the Master Mason. Here are the subtle differences between the California material and the material as gleaned by the golden ark lodge and reposted:

CALIFORNIA:


The lion is an ancient symbol of royalty. Due to its majesty and power it has long been
considered the “king” of beasts. Its likeness is commonly found on the thrones and palaces of rulers. It was also associated with the sun because of its mane.

The lion was the sign of the Tribe of Judah, because this was the royal tribe of the Hebrew
nation. All kings of Judah were called the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah” and this was, therefore, one of the titles of King Solomon.

The Mithraic god Aion had a human body with a lion’s head. Because of its association with the sun and its correspondence to the zodiacal sign of Leo, the lion is also considered a symbol of alchemical fire.

In the Middle Ages, the lion was also understood as a symbol of resurrection. There were
common tales that the lion cub when born lay dead for three days until breathed upon by its
father and restored to life. Representations of roaring lions symbolized the resurrection of the dead on the Last Day.

GOLDEN ARK:

The lion has always been the symbol of might and royalty. It was the sign of the Tribe of Judah, because this was the royal tribe of the Hebrew Nation. All Kings of Judah were, therefore, called the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah.” This was also one of the titles of King Solomon. This was the literal meaning.


In the Middle Ages, the lion was a symbol of resurrection. There were common tales that the lion cub when born lay dead for three days until breathed upon by its father. This breath brought the cub back to life. Representations of roaring lions symbolized the resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. The lion, being such a majestic animal, has long been considered the “king” of beasts; associated with the sun because of its mane. Its likeness is commonly found on the thrones and palaces of rulers. The Mithraic god Aion had a human body with a lion’s head.


Because of its association with the sun and its correspondence to the zodiacal sign of Leo, the Lion is also considered a symbol of alchemical Fire.

It is essentially the same material, with some minor rewording and regrouping. But the grouping of the material associates Golden Ark with this individual Mason's site, along with one GLARING ADDITION:

After the FALSE statement about "all kings of Judah were called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah," he tacks onto the end of it a statement that I've not seen ANYWHERE else, even in the materials Skip has been fond of posting:

This was the literal meaning.

It's bad enough to have misinformation as one's guide, but to take that misinformation and try to fortify it with the FURTHER FALSE CLAIM that "this was the literal meaning," is unconscionable. And it's even more unconscionable for a Christian who ought to know better, to post this tripe in support of FALSE INFORMATION, in an effort to circumvent the truth, as you have done.

Masonry's position has always been, and from monitors and rituals can be found no disagreement, that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is Messianic and represents Jesus Christ. It has also been the position of Masonry, that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah found in Masonry is a direct reference to the statement in Revelation 5:5, referring to Christ; and it has also been the considered Masonic opinion for quite some time, and continuing to the present in their most authoritative GL materials (monitors and rituals) that the reference is to Jesus Christ. This has also been, and continues to be, the consensus Masonic opinion as found in Masonic glossaries, dictionaries, and encyclopedias that define the term. Certainly there are those in our time who wish to change that status quo; and I have no reason to doubt, that the effort is not engaged in with any anti-Christian intent, but in an effort to establish neutrality for a term which is DECIDEDLY Christian; but to this point they have not succeeded, though they have made some minor inroads into a handful of lodges' educational committees.

The problem is, those who have attempted to make such changes, have done so on the basis of one major flawed premise: that the phrase itself, "Lion of the Tribe of Judah," has any other referent than the one in Revelation 5:5. It does not, and there is NO ACCOUNTING for the false claim that the same designation used to refer to kings of Judah; that claim, as already noted, is completely UNSUSUPPORTABLE. As well as I've been able to trace the false claim and its origin, the earliest I have found it so far is in the writings of J.S.M. Ward. Whether he originated the claim or derived it from elsewhere, I am not sure at this point.

The fact that you guys continue to support a claim which goes against even Christian statements on the matter, and against what is a BIBLICAL phrase with only ONE specific designee, just shows what lengths antimasons will go to in their efforts to try to find something worthy of accusation in Masonry. Your response to this whole discussion has been one of bull-headed denial of the true meaning of what is easily recognizable (even by Masons) as a Messianic and Christological phrase referring to Jesus Christ. As a result, I've come to the very logical and reasonable conclusion, that the two of you apparently hail from the tribe of Issachar. (But don't take my word for it, check out their banner and see for yourself why.)

I'm sure you're not in any mood to be taking advice, but a good growing edge for you at the moment might be to try to steer yourself back toward a path aimed at something resembling truth. In this current exchange, you first tried to claim what you posted came from a Grand Lodge site, when it clearly did not; and you followed up by trying to claim "Grand Lodge Masonic Education Material" for the information you quoted from the Golden Ark Lodge--and it was ALSO shown not to be true. Credibility just went down a couple of notches as a result.


Skip was right, it pays to check out your sources, both before you post, and, as he found out, before you accuse others of not checking out sources before posting.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I did the usual double-check and discovered something significant, that alters what I presented on the matter, but does not alter the state of things. So by way of correction I offer the following.

When I double-checked, I noticed the section headings from the Golden Ark page did not match the site which I had stated they got it from. Fact is, a lot of the material is similar, and the "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is the same. So on further investigation to run this down, I still found a subordinate lodge involved, this time from California. The webpage is here:

Candidate Education - Master Mason 1

But that means, simply, that instead of getting their info from an individual, they got it from yet another subordinate lodge--which is hardly a "step up" either.

But this is mainly offered simply for correction, to maintain factual information.

 

[O.F.F.]

In this current exchange, you first tried to claim what you posted came from a Grand Lodge site, when it clearly did not

Not true, I claimed that it came from a website UNDER THE AUSPICES of THIER Grand Lodge:

Of course you really mean "Wayne's Masonic understanding." You've been shown in the past evidence by more than one Grand Lodge that the non-Christian Mason is free to view this phrase as symbolizing his own "savior" motif. Moreover, here are several interpretations presented under the auspices of several Grand Lodges from current 21st century websites (mostly from MM Masonic Education material) that refute your claim:

My judgment being, if MASONIC EDUCATION MATERIAL comes from a subordinate lodge within their jurisdiction -- even if adopted from another Grand Lodge that they RECOGNIZE as a fellow "regular" Grand Lodge -- then it effectively comes from THEIR Grand Lodge, since they protect, support, and patronage ALL OF THIER subordinate lodges; which is the definition of AUSPICES in the first place.

You can pretend that subordinate lodges operate INDEPENDENTLY of their Grand Lodges until you are blue in the face; but it will NOT change the fact that they DO NOT!

 

[Rev Wayne]

Not true, I claimed that it came from a website UNDER THE AUSPICES of THIER Grand Lodge:

Of course you really mean "Wayne's Masonic understanding." You've been shown in the past evidence by more than one Grand Lodge that the non-Christian Mason is free to view this phrase as symbolizing his own "savior" motif. Moreover, here are several interpretations presented under the auspices of several Grand Lodges from current 21st century websites (mostly from MM Masonic Education material) that refute your claim:

I was talking about your comment in post #349, where ALL you said was:

"Michigan" what? Care to be more specific? Is it their ritual, monitor, Masonic education material, or what? My quote came from a 2010 update to their website under the Master Mason Degree of their "Basic Masonic Education Course." Therefore, it appears the following quote supersedes yours by a decade.

Where you got what you're currently trying to substitute this straw man response, I have no idea, nor does it matter. It's pretty clear at this point, you're just trying to cover the slip-up.

It's eminently clear that you referred to my Michigan quote. Then you followed up with a DIRECT indication that you got your info from "THEIR" website; and added to that the BIZARRE claim, that it was under the Master Mason degree of THEIR Basic Masonic Education Course," when in reality they HAVE no such section on their GL page.

What you wound up with was completely different, was not even GL material any way you look at it, and came from a subordinate lodge website which--get this--BORROWED the material from ANOTHER subordinate lodge, which in turn--this gets even more disconnected with every turn--BORROWED the material from the website of an individual Mason from their jurisdiction, who apparently had issues with certain Grand Lodge statements in their LSME booklets and wrote his own, borrowing and adapting THEIR material.

You can try to defend this all you wish, but the facts are right here before us.

My judgment being, if MASONIC EDUCATION MATERIAL comes from a subordinate lodge within their jurisdiction -- even if adopted from another Grand Lodge that they RECOGNIZE as a fellow "regular" Grand Lodge -- then it effectively comes from THEIR Grand Lodge, since they protect, support, and patronage ALL OF THIER subordinate lodges; which is the definition of AUSPICES in the first place.

But that doesn't work either, because you ALREADY made the reply:

Sorry Wayne, but it's NOT a subordinate lodge webpage commentary; it's MASONIC EDUCATION material issued by their Grand Lodge to TEACH the members of its entire jurisdiction about the true meaning of Freemasonry; including those who attend Golden Ark Lodge #595.

So FIRST you come back INSISTING this was "MASONIC EDUCATION material issued by their Grand Lodge."

But NOW that you find out it wasn't, you try to reshuffle the deck, and come out with a claim it was material "adopted from another Grand Lodge that they RECOGNIZE as a fellow 'regular' Grand Lodge!"

You've gone from:

(1) it came from their GL page, to
(2) it came from their GL, even it wasn't on the GL page, to
(3) it still came from their GL, even if it DIDN'T!!!

Your current response, which is basically number (3), I don't even have to counter, it's patently obvious if material on a subordinate lodge's webpage did not come from their Grand Lodge, it is not "Grand Lodge" material.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You can pretend that subordinate lodges operate INDEPENDENTLY of their Grand Lodges until you are blue in the face; but it will NOT change the fact that they DO NOT!

Sorry, but I have to disagree--mainly because I can PROVE that they do exactly that. Here is the hosting page on which the subordinate California Lodge appears, that apparently is the source for the information on the Golden Ark webpage:

Welcome to calodges.org!

The purpose of this domain is to provide free web hosting to every constituent Masonic Lodge in the State of California. All Lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge, Free & Accepted Masons of California, are entitled to space on this server, provided they are willing to adhere to our simple policies and procedures.
We will make every effort to ensure that your online Masonic experience with us is an enjoyable one. It is our hope that by providing this free service, Lodges will be inspired to create and maintain an Internet presence.
We support standard ftp accounts in which you can use most any editor of your choice. We also provide a Guest book on request which you are free to use on your website. To request web space, please see our Policies link.

The link is here:

Masons of California

When you click the Policies link, you find:

These policies are in place to make everyone's online experience an enjoyable one. We have no intention of dictating to Lodges what to say or how to express themselves online. But we have found it useful to have such policies in place to avoid any misunderstandings. Within the parameters of these guidelines, we will do everything we can to accommodate your needs. If you have any questions, ask!

You see the highlighted line, of course? And the GL of California obviously means it, because if you compare the statement in the Master Mason booklet on the California GL site, with the one found at the site where the info was posted by a subordinate lodge, you will find that the two are distinctly different.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Masonry's position has always been, and from monitors and rituals can be found no disagreement, that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is Messianic and represents Jesus Christ.

And you have been shown that such a statement to untrue and totally ignores the facts. Neither ritual nor monitor defines the term, just uses it. The training documentation shows where the redefinition occurs.

No GL dares tinker too much with ritual; however, they are more than happy to change its content with their training material.

You are really a strange person. Cordially, Skip.

 

[ALX25]

And you have been shown that such a statement to untrue and totally ignores the facts. Neither ritual nor monitor defines the term, just uses it. The training documentation shows where the redefinition occurs.

No GL dares tinker too much with ritual; however, they are more than happy to change its content with their training material.

You are really a strange person. Cordially, Skip.

Key term: "just Use's it" ....

 

[Rev Wayne]

You are really a strange person.

And you are a stranger. What does this have to do with the topic?