Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation II: Monitorial

[Rev Wayne]

Petty, Wayne, very petty. Is that all you have left?

Heh, heh. Well, that's pretty good, convincing yourself it's about how much "I" have left, when it's YOU that keeps coming up with Jacob's staircases, rectangular cubes, imaginary phone calls, pictures with authority that somehow supersedes direct Masonic statements, and a host of similar insistent but empty claims.

Keep 'em coming, you really are a riot, you know.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The gesture goes by a number of names in heavy metal!

You mean the ACCUSATION does.

 

[Rev Wayne]

But the point remains: you are unable to show a GL source that equates the phrase directly and solely to Jesus Christ. You've found a PH GL that does so,

Make up your mind. First you say I haven't found a GL source that equates it directly, then you turn right around and point out where I cited one that does. And since you acknowledge that, then you have no point remaining, by your own observation.

But you also seem to forget about Michigan ritual:

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 Dispensation. 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 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 work, 1996, revised 2000, p. 110-111)

Before you go the hyper-literalist, intellectual dishonesty route and start spouting some nonsense about how "the name Jesus Christ does not appear there," be reminded that this points DIRECTLY to "the Christian dispensation" which, it says, (1) brought life and immortality to light, a direct quote from 2 Timothy 1:10; and (2) 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.

(1) 2 Timothy 1:10, in full, says "but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." So yes, it's a reference to Jesus Christ.

(2) Yes, the Christian Dispensation teaches of a "Lion of the Tribe of Judah," which is Jesus Christ. And yes, it teaches a bodily resurrection, and it's the only religion which does so.

The references are unmistakable, since we know as adherents to the belief system referred to as "the Christian Dispensation," that "Lion of the Tribe of Judah," when spoken of in connection to "the Christian dispensation," is indisputably Jesus Christ. Nor can the preposterously false presumption be made, as you guys wishfully suggest, that the committee in Michigan who developed this statement, were somehow totally ignorant of what they were saying.

 

[Skip Sampson]

First you say I haven't found a GL source that equates it directly, then you turn right around and point out where I cited one that does.

Untrue; I am using your logic, which is why you are confused. Refer to my post #391.

But you also seem to forget about Michigan ritual:

As you point out, the phrase is not defined at all. As we have seen in other GL's, when it is defined, they do not do so exclusively as Jesus Christ. Thus, you can assume what you wish about what the ritual states, but you cannot demand that it only means Jesus.

It is interesting to see that you are not above quoting ritual. So, what does SC ritual say about the phrase?

be reminded that this points DIRECTLY to "the Christian dispensation" which, it says, (1) brought life and immortality to light, a direct quote from 2 Timothy 1:10; and (2) 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.

But doesn't define it specifically, which is consistent with other GL's. If the other GL's we noted hadn't mentioned very similar things in ritual, then totally redefined the phrase in training documentation, you'd have a point. But since the GL's have done exactly that, your leap to that conclusion cannot be justified. My suggestion: write to the GL and ask them the specific question and let's see what they say. While you are doing that, ask them how a Muslim lives in the 'Christian Dispensation.'

Nor can the preposterously false presumption be made, as you guys wishfully suggest, that the committee in Michigan who developed this statement, were somehow totally ignorant of what they were saying.

Oh, I'm sure they knew exactly what they were doing. Ask yourself this: if they really meant Jesus, why didn't they say so in the ritual? I think the answer is obvious: they couldn't without risking complaint from other GL's. BTW, such duplicity is not unheard of. A good example of the ritual saying one thing and other GL documents saying another is found in your own jurisdiction:

Our ancient brethren met on the highest hills and in the lowest valleys, the better to observe the approach of cowans and eavesdroppers, and to guard against surprise. The reason assigned in the lecture for this assembling on high places is the modern, but not the true one. (AR, pg. 89)

Perhaps you can confirm this yourself.

Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As you point out, the phrase is not defined at all.

I "pointed out" no such thing. I "pointed out" the easily recognizable Christian content that show EXACTLY who the Lion of the Tribe of Judah HAS to be, based on the information given. As more than one Mason has stated, there are many statements in Masonry which, though not overtly Christian, "admit of no other interpretation." This is exceptionally true of the passage cited, for the reasons stated. All you are doing is making weak, unfounded denials.

It is interesting to see that you are not above quoting ritual.

Sure, in cases where it admits of no content that might be considered material designated for non-disclosure. Besides, the Michigan ritual says in the prefatory material:

At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Michigan on May 28, 1998, the members of Grand Lodge assembled, adopted Resolution No. 3 which authorized "the Most Worshipful Grand Master, Right Worshipful Grand Lecturer and the Ritual Committee to prepare and print the now authorized Michigan Masonic Ritual out in its entirety, Except the Signs, Tokens, Grips, Words and Passes" and "that each Lodge be issued and be responsible for one (1) of these Rituals." This publication is that authorized ritual along with the Masonic Dictionary and Masonic Glossary taken from the, now out of print, Officers Handbook.

I couldn't believe my eyes: ritual printed out? Sure, sometimes rituals have sections which are printed, but in every case I had seen, those had always been the parts which were already monitorial anyway. I saw somewhere (in their transactions publication, I think), a rationale that had been presented at that 1998 meeting, that "the ritual itself was never intended to be part of the esoteric work anyway." I found that very interesting, since I had already noticed a trend in ritual books, moving first from straight cipher, to first-letter ciphers, to partial-word ciphers, in a gradual easing of the restrictions upon it. Can't help but wonder if this is a reflection of a trend that will eventuate in all of them coming to this point.

But did you notice, too, "Masonic Dictionary?" By all means, let's have a look at it and see what we find:

Lion of the Tribe of Judah: Symbol of strength and sovereignty: the Messiah.

So go ahead with your endless string of denials, They KNEW what they were saying about the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the connection with Christianity, and the dictionary confirms it, with the designation of Messiah.

If the other GL's we noted hadn't mentioned very similar things in ritual, then totally redefined the phrase in training documentation, you'd have a point.

If the phrase "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" were not so consensually taken to be Christ, perhaps YOU might have a point. As it is, you do not. If the LSME booklets truly WERE a "redefinition" of the phrase, superseding the rituals and monitors, perhaps you might have a point as well. As it stands, all you have are weak denials, and reversals of positions previously taken on this very thread. Besides, the statements in the LSME's, contrary to your CLAIMS about them, do not constitute a "redefinition" anyway, since they offer NO specific definition anyway. The wording of them makes it clear, they are simply declaring the interpretation to be open, NOT asserting some "redefinition" for it. But that attempt, as you have already been shown, involves the assertion of false and unsupported claims about the phrase in relation to the lion standard of the OT tribe of Judah.

Typical, though, for you to go for the unsupportable, fits the pattern you've continually established on this forum.

My suggestion: write to the GL and ask them the specific question and let's see what they say.

No need to do that, they already stated, this is in regard to the Christian Dispensation, the LOTTOJ is the one who "brought life and immortality to light," which is a direct quote from 2 Tim. 1:10, it affirms a resurrection of the body, a distinctively Christian doctrine, and to cap it off, their Dictionary included in the same publication, says this is "Messiah," or meshiach, a Hebrew word for which "Christ" is the Greek translation.

While you are doing that, ask them how a Muslim lives in the 'Christian Dispensation.'

That's a problem for the Muslim to figure out. Most Muslims, by the way, are staunchly anti-Freemasonry. In fact, it is outlawed in Muslim countries. They criticize Masonry severely, primarily on the basis of its being "Zionist." Passages like this one in Michigan are no doubt the reason for that assessment.

You guys, I realize, are pretty fond of trying to make suggestive comments about "Muslim Masons," and generally Masons will pay little attention to your comments, knowing the unlikeliness of the suggestion. Muslim Masons are actually about as rare as chicken teeth.

Ask yourself this: if they really meant Jesus, why didn't they say so in the ritual? I think the answer is obvious:

So do I: You in your hyper-literal preferences would have it make dogmatic pronouncements before you will be happy. But as already noted plenty of times previously, Masonry alludes and symbolizes. It's similar to what I often do with my kids, rather than do their thinking for them when they ask for help with homework or with questions they have, to give them just enough information that they can figure out the answer for themselves. Likewise, if they ask what a word means, I send them to the dictionary. The reason for it is, realizations that we come to on our own, tend to stay with us longer than information that is spoon-fed.

In the Michigan case, the details given can only lead to one conclusion, once one recognizes the details for what they truly are. The ritual is designed to lead the Mason to that conclusion, rather than declare it outright, that the lesson may be more lasting; or, as has been a commonly-used term for it, so that they can "own it."

 

[Rev Wayne]

A good example of the ritual saying one thing and other GL documents saying another is found in your own jurisdiction:

Perhaps you can confirm this yourself.

Sorry.....confirm what, exactly? What you were trying to say isn't exactly clear.

If you're asking me to confirm that the AR says the ancient interpretation is the true one, why can't you just read it yourself? Seems to me it says what it says.

And its' not a matter of "duplicity," usually it's the result of the different persons who have been charged with the job of editor. Masonry is symbolic, as you are well aware, and occasionally a secondary meaning might be found. But its being different need not automatically signal that it is in direct conflict, as you seem to suggest. Sometimes it's simply another person's opinion that finds its way into a system where something else was already in place; other times, as stated, it is a secondary, non-conflicting, and equally valid interpretation.

In the specific case mentioned, gee, Skip, why would anyone recall such a minor detail? That's hardly describable as one of Masonry's moral principles, either, so exactly how would it wind up characterized as "duplicity" to suggest one historical notion of why Masons met in a particular place, as opposed to another? You're so far out on a limb trying to find something to accuse, I think you wound up checking common sense at the door with this one.

 

[Skip Sampson]

I "pointed out" no such thing.

Actually, you did. By noting your disapproval of the argument, you pointed out that it existed. It's another intellectually dishonest technique: trying to undercut the expected response.

I "pointed out" the easily recognizable Christian content that show EXACTLY who the Lion of the Tribe of Judah HAS to be, based on the information given.

One makes conclusions based upon the information at hand. When more information becomes available, often the conclusion has to be reexamined. With respect to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, you've based your conclusion on your interpretation of Masonic rituals and monitors; I've shown you where the same GL's redefine the phrase to give it a far different meaning. You cannot accept that because it interferes with your view of Masonry as a Christian organization, which you actually got from Oliver, Hutchinson and a few others. They, and you, do not reflect mainstream Freemasonry, which does all it can to keep a Christian veneer while teaching a non-Christian theology.

All you are doing is making weak, unfounded denials.

Quoting GL documentation does not fall under that category. I'm showing where GL's consistently reject your interpretation. You really ought to climb down from your pulpit of infallibility and realize how wrong you are in making such statements, and how silly they make you look to the average reader.

Sure, in cases where it admits of no content that might be considered material designated for non-disclosure.

Great. Looking forward to see you post what SC ritual has to say about the phrase.

This publication is that authorized ritual along with the Masonic Dictionary and Masonic Glossary taken from the, now out of print, Officers Handbook.

Do you have a copy of that handbook? If online, I'd like a link.

I couldn't believe my eyes: ritual printed out?

Michigan is not the only GL to do so; I think there are one or two others that do plain text rituals. The reason for this is probably that the cipher rituals are too easy to read and that other copies of the ritual are already out there, making the ciphers irrelevant. Probably be seeing more plain text rituals over time. Might even merge the ritual and the monitor at some point.

But did you notice, too, "Masonic Dictionary?" By all means, let's have a look at it and see what we find:

"We?" Interesting construction to use, considering your earlier complaint. In this case, it's 'you' that found, then shared with 'us.'

So go ahead with your endless string of denials, They KNEW what they were saying about the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and the connection with Christianity, and the dictionary confirms it, with the designation of Messiah.

Well, if you insist... It's not a matter of denials, but showing that GL documentation contradicts your interpretation. While you've apparently quoted from an out of print source, here's what the Michigan GL website currently has to say about the Lion of the Tribe of Judah:

Symbol of the Messiah, which can have different names for brethren of different religions. Judah was symbolized as a lion in his father's deathbed blessing. The lion was upon the standard of the large and powerful tribe of Judah. "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" was one of Solomon's titles. Christian interpretation of the phrase springs from Revelation (V: 5), "Behold the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof." The idea of a resurrection is curiously interwoven with the lion in all ages and was connected with resurrection long before the Man of Galilee walked upon the earth. In ancient Egypt, a lion raised Osiris from a dead level to a living perpendicular by a grip of his paw; Egyptian carvings show a figure standing behind the Altar, observing the raising of the dead, with its left arm raised, forming the angle of a square. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, considered as signifying a coming redeemer who would spring from the tribe, or meaning the King of Israel who built the Temple, or symbolizing the Christ, must not be confused with a mode of recognition. (On website, 2011; derived from MSA Pocket Encyclopedia of Masonic Symbols)

While the source is the MSA, the fact that the MI GL links to it makes it authoritative within its jurisdiction. You now have yet another GL that has proven your conclusions wrong by redefining the term from its Christian sense to include any 'messiah' a man could proclaim. The next time you ask them a question on illustrations in their monitor, ask them how they could post such a thing, being a Christian organization and all. I'm sure their answer will be interesting. While you're at it, you should ask your own GL if it supports the MSA and, if so, how it could possibly do so given the above quote. Have fun.

If the phrase "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" were not so consensually taken to be Christ, perhaps YOU might have a point.

As the GL you used for your example has now been shown to reject your interpretation, thanks for the admission that I do have a point. As noted before, and as amply illustrated here and elsewhere, I know more about Freemasonry than you do. The reason for this is an easy one: I let the craft talk about itself, while you attempt to force your own views upon it. It's the root of most of your problems on these threads.

As it is, you do not. If the LSME booklets truly WERE a "redefinition" of the phrase, superseding the rituals and monitors, perhaps you might have a point as well.

And since the training documentation do not supercede the rituals, but expand upon them, thanks for the further admission.

As it stands, all you have are weak denials, and reversals of positions previously taken on this very thread.

No, I have GL's that point out how silly your arguments are.

Besides, the statements in the LSME's, contrary to your CLAIMS about them, do not constitute a "redefinition" anyway, since they offer NO specific definition anyway.

Intellectual blindness is a terrible thing. From statements such as those, you've been afflicted with it since birth. But, as hard as it must be on you, it's worse on those of us who have to read its fruits.

Typical, though, for you to go for the unsupportable, fits the pattern you've continually established on this forum.

Untrue; just noting GL views that directly contradict your own.

their Dictionary included in the same publication, says this is "Messiah," or meshiach, a Hebrew word for which "Christ" is the Greek translation.

And their website expands the definition of the term beyond Jesus. That the MSA does so kills your argument for all GL's except WV, as they all support the MSA. I'll have to update my earlier post to reflect that fact.

That's a problem for the Muslim to figure out.

More a problem for the MI GL to handle, assuming they want Muslims to join. Be interesting to know if any actually are MI Masons. But, the 'Christian Dispensation' comment is just eyewash.

Muslim Masons are actually about as rare as chicken teeth.

As are Christian Masons.

In the Michigan case, the details given can only lead to one conclusion, once one recognizes the details for what they truly are.

And now that you've been given the details, you should also understand the conclusion, as the MSA so succintly puts it:

Symbol of the Messiah, which can have different names for brethren of different religions.

Masonry is such a corrupt organization, and you are deaf, dumb and blind to the obvious facts about its unChristian nature. Cordially, Skip.

 

[O.F.F.]

Actually, you did. By noting your disapproval of the argument, you pointed out that it existed. It's another intellectually dishonest technique: trying to undercut the expected response.

One makes conclusions based upon the information at hand. When more information becomes available, often the conclusion has to be reexamined. With respect to the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, you've based your conclusion on your interpretation of Masonic rituals and monitors; I've shown you where the same GL's redefine the phrase to give it a far different meaning. You cannot accept that because it interferes with your view of Masonry as a Christian organization, which you actually got from Oliver, Hutchinson and a few others. They, and you, do not reflect mainstream Freemasonry, which does all it can to keep a Christian veneer while teaching a non-Christian theology.

Quoting GL documentation does not fall under that category. I'm showing where GL's consistently reject your interpretation. You really ought to climb down from your pulpit of infallibility and realize how wrong you are in making such statements, and how silly they make you look to the average reader.

Great. Looking forward to see you post what SC ritual has to say about the phrase.

Do you have a copy of that handbook? If online, I'd like a link.

Michigan is not the only GL to do so; I think there are one or two others that do plain text rituals. The reason for this is probably that the cipher rituals are too easy to read and that other copies of the ritual are already out there, making the ciphers irrelevant. Probably be seeing more plain text rituals over time. Might even merge the ritual and the monitor at some point.

"We?" Interesting construction to use, considering your earlier complaint. In this case, it's 'you' that found, then shared with 'us.'

Well, if you insist... It's not a matter of denials, but showing that GL documentation contradicts your interpretation. While you've apparently quoted from an out of print source, here's what the Michigan GL website currently has to say about the Lion of the Tribe of Judah:While the source is the MSA, the fact that the MI GL links to it makes it authoritative within its jurisdiction. You now have yet another GL that has proven your conclusions wrong by redefining the term from its Christian sense to include any 'messiah' a man could proclaim. The next time you ask them a question on illustrations in their monitor, ask them how they could post such a thing, being a Christian organization and all. I'm sure their answer will be interesting. While you're at it, you should ask your own GL if it supports the MSA and, if so, how it could possibly do so given the above quote. Have fun.
As the GL you used for your example has now been shown to reject your interpretation, thanks for the admission that I do have a point. As noted before, and as amply illustrated here and elsewhere, I know more about Freemasonry than you do. The reason for this is an easy one: I let the craft talk about itself, while you attempt to force your own views upon it. It's the root of most of your problems on these threads.

And since the training documentation do not supercede the rituals, but expand upon them, thanks for the further admission.

No, I have GL's that point out how silly your arguments are.

Intellectual blindness is a terrible thing. From statements such as those, you've been afflicted with it since birth. But, as hard as it must be on you, it's worse on those of us who have to read its fruits.

Untrue; just noting GL views that directly contradict your own.

And their website expands the definition of the term beyond Jesus. That the MSA does so kills your argument for all GL's except WV, as they all support the MSA. I'll have to update my earlier post to reflect that fact.

More a problem for the MI GL to handle, assuming they want Muslims to join. Be interesting to know if any actually are MI Masons. But, the 'Christian Dispensation' comment is just eyewash.

As are Christian Masons.

And now that you've been given the details, you should also understand the conclusion, as the MSA so succintly puts it:Masonry is such a corrupt organization, and you are deaf, dumb and blind to the obvious facts about its unChristian nature. Cordially, Skip.

Wayne confuses his denial with refutation. He denies all the evidence that contradict his Masonic views, and calls it refuting such arguments. In other words, he denies everything and refutes nothing!

 

[Rev Wayne]

here's what the Michigan GL website currently has to say about the Lion of the Tribe of Judah:

No it doesn't. You need to provide (1) PROOF that this is part of the GL website--so far, you've posted it at least twice, and neither time provided a link--an egregious omission, given your penchant for demanding links from others; and (2) you need to show WHY or HOW this can be taken to supersede MICHIGAN RITUAL--because BY YOUR OWN DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY ON THE FORUM, the ritual would NATURALLY SUPERSEDE anything from MSA.

Sorry, but your own earlier insistences keep coming back to bite you on your gluteus maximus.

While you've apparently quoted from an out of print source,

The ritual posted is from a revision published in 2000. Given the rarity with which changes occur to rituals in ALL jurisdictions, it is SERIOUSLY doubtful that it has changed substantially since that point, and quite likely represents the latest revision. Mike tried to make a similar claim earlier, and I posted a date comparison and content comparison of monitors and rituals for which I had such documents with differing dates, and they ALL exhibited intervals of DECADES without changing in content one whit. That makes the one I have for Michigan, by comparison, a relatively recent document. (I find this same date in citations on a current website article about the Michigan Masonic Home on the bonisteel Masonic website--apparently it reflects the latest revision done to the work.)

You really ARE grabbing for straws, now that your pet whine "but it doesn't say it directly" has been taken away by the dictionary definition found in the same Michigan Ritual Handbook.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wayne confuses his denial with refutation. He denies all the evidence that contradict his Masonic views, and calls it refuting such arguments. In other words, he denies everything and refutes nothing!

Better getcher bifocals checked. Skip's the one doing all the denying, the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts him, and he just tries to assert the minority report over it "at the will and pleasure of the antimason master."

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne confuses his denial with refutation. He denies all the evidence that contradict his Masonic views, and calls it refuting such arguments. In other words, he denies everything and refutes nothing!

Exactly. Pretty pathetic, isn't it? Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
Man, it must be embarrassing to be you.

No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

You need to provide (1) PROOF that this is part of the GL website-

No, I don't. But since you are incapable of such research, let me help you:
1) Should you ever visit the MI GL website, you'll find a SEARCH block in the upper right corner.
2) Type in 'lion' and follow the links.
3) Or just continue in ignorance.

(2) you need to show WHY or HOW this can be taken to supersede MICHIGAN RITUAL

No, I don't. It doesn't supercede the ritual; rather, it expands upon it and defines the phrase which the ritual does not.

-because BY YOUR OWN DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY ON THE FORUM, the ritual would NATURALLY SUPERSEDE anything from MSA.

No, it doesn't. 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.

But you already know that, and your comments are just more of your intellectually dishonest practices. But, it's all you have left and we all understand that.

Of note, previously you've had a high regard for the MSA, as these comments from the Perfect Ashlar thread show:

Nor is Richard Fletcher "my man at the MSA," he's the executive director, and the organization he heads is represented by, and representative of, Masons all over Canada and the U.S.(post #282)

I will gladly take the word of the Executive Secretary of the MSA over the "interpretation" of someone who has never even taken a single degree of Masonry, when it comes to points of information on Masonic matters. So far, that's exactly where your position stands, you have only the word of a non-Mason as the sole resource declaring authority for pictures in a monitor, as opposed to the MSA position that pictures in a monitor are never considered authoritative. (post #305)

We already got that information from the MSA. (post #312)

Ridiculous, since "my source" WAS the MSA. (post #319)

That means you were also completely off the map in dissing the MSA, who said exactly the same thing, they have no authority. (Post #341)

What becomes clear is that you only consider the MSA authoritative when you like what it says. I think it's authoritative because all GL's except WV have made it so.

That makes the one I have for Michigan, by comparison, a relatively recent document.

Indeed. Did you notice that the MI ritual Dictionary did not define the term 'Messiah?' Now you know why.

You really ARE grabbing for straws, now that your pet whine "but it doesn't say it directly" has been taken away by the dictionary definition found in the same Michigan Ritual Handbook.

So you claim. But we all know now that the MI GL itself identifies the Lion of the Tribe of Judah thusly:

Symbol of the Messiah, which can have different names for brethren of different religions.

Now you find yourself stuck, and your response shows your desperation. Face it Wayne: you blew it. Again.

BTW, since you consider the MI GL Dictionary authoritative, here's an entry you'll find interesting:

Great Lights. Volume of Sacred Law, square and compasses.

What's comical is that the Dictionary directly conflicts with the ritual:

The three Great Lights in Masonry are the Holy Bible, Square and Compasses. (MI GL ritual, pg. 13)

What you were trying to say isn't exactly clear.

Should be. The AR notes that what was said in ritual is not the true meaning, then proceeds to provide it. It's called 'bait & switch,' and is more clear proof that GL's, such as MI and SC, are not above saying one thing in ritual, then redefining it elsewhere. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I think it's authoritative because all GL's except WV have made it so.

Well, that's not exactly what you've said in the past:

As noted earlier, the MSA is authoritative but it derives such authority from the GL (12/29/10)

If its authority is "derived from the GL," then the MSA statement would be lower in the pecking order than Michigan ritual, being a "derived" rather than an "inherent" authority. And the MSA statement makes no assertions at all, it only declares it to be open. But where this ceases to be an "open" interpretation, is when Michigan affirms the connection of the term to the "Christian Dispensation," and when the MSA statement further elaborates upon that by showing that the "Christian interpretation" necessarily means that it refers to Jesus Christ, and references Revelation 5:5 in doing so. Which puts the matter squarely back where it has been all along: Michigan affirms that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is Jesus Christ.

Did you notice that the MI ritual Dictionary did not define the term 'Messiah?' Now you know why.

Did you notice that the Michigan ritual did not just refer the interpretation to the "Christian Dispensation," nor did it just define the term as "the Messiah," but went even further, by connecting to the MSA website's piece on "Lion of the Tribe of Judah?" Now you know why. Their fleshing out of what would be the understanding of the "Christian Dispensation" was the final piece that really nails this down. With that link to the MSA description, everything was in place that any Mason would need, in order to FULLY understand who "Lion of the Tribe of Judah" is declared to be in Michigan ritual. Not that they wouldn't have already gotten that from the ritual itself.

What's comical is that the Dictionary directly conflicts with the ritual:

No it doesn't. The ritual is clear, and predominates on the matter. The dictionary piece you cited is only the generic of which the ritual states the specific. Neither "conflicts" with the other. My mother, if she says "my son," speaks indefinitely, for she has FOUR sons. But if she says "my son Wayne," then she speaks definitely. But the former statement does not conflict with the latter; the reality is, the latter merely fleshes out what is meant by the former. "My son" is still just as true, and just as valid, in reference to me, and does not "conflict" with "my son Wayne"; it's just that "my son Wayne" is more specific, and thus makes it clear which son she means. Same with the dictionary compared with the ritual: the dictionary states the matter of VSL generically; the ritual declares which VSL applies to Michigan.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Well, that's not exactly what you've said in the past:

Untrue. It's exactly what I've maintained all along. The authority of the MSA derives from the GL's which support it and recognize it and refer to it. Do you consider the MSA to speak with authority, and, if so, how?

If its authority is "derived from the GL," then the MSA statement would be lower in the pecking order than Michigan ritual, being a "derived" rather than an "inherent" authority.

Indeed. But the MSA statement expands upon the ritual. There is no conflict as they complement each other.

Michigan affirms that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is Jesus Christ.

Untrue, as has been amply demonstrated.

Neither "conflicts" with the other.

Untrue. Same book two differing statements. That's called a conflict, and a perfect example of Masonic bait & switch, just like the Masonic treatment of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

BTW, I should have mentioned earlier that when you look up things using the MI GL Search function, such as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, when you get back an MSA article, you have not left the MI GL website, as the title on that page indicates here:Symbols Used in Freemasonry
As the information is directly on the MI GL website, it's no longer a matter of the MSA deriving GL authority, but a direct statement by the GL itself. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Untrue. It's exactly what I've maintained all along. The authority of the MSA derives from the GL's which support it and recognize it and refer to it. Do you consider the MSA to speak with authority, and, if so, how?

That's exactly right, DERIVES FROM the GL, not the other way around, which is what you would have to assert and prove, in order to assert MSA materials on the Michigan webpage, over the content of their ritual. Not to mention, you would also have to violate your own established parameters, since you pretty much indicated anything that was not monitor, ritual, or a lodge's own educational/training materials, was to be taken as "commentary."

Or at least, that's the only other category you seemed to describe in your statement on the matter. And you gave no indication there of MSA having any greater status than that, despite what you feel you may have said differently elsewhere. And you have dissed every citation I have posted from MSA, too, so you really aren't all that constistent with your proclamations anyway, now are you?

Indeed. But the MSA statement expands upon the ritual. There is no conflict as they complement each other.

Absolutely! I couldn't agree more, especially after the way the MSA piece on Lion of the Tribe of Judah complemented Michigan's ritual by expanding upon exactly what Michigan meant by "Christian Dispensation."

Michigan affirms that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is Jesus Christ.
Untrue, as has been amply demonstrated.

The only thing you've "demonstrated" is that the MSA piece on the Michigan site expands upon and complements their already sufficiently clear understanding indicating that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is Christ.

Same book two differing statements. That's called a conflict, and a perfect example of Masonic bait & switch, just like the Masonic treatment of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

False. "Differing" is not automatically "conflicting." Mama says "my son" in one instance, she says "my son Wayne" in the other. They are "differing," because one is indefinite, while the other involves a specific proper name identifying WHICH son. But they are not "conflicting," because in either case the statement is true of her statement about me. Same with the two statements at hand, one is not specific, the other is, and they BOTH are in Michigan ritual and therefore refer to Michigan; one is specific, the other not, but not "conflicting," as they both are "Great Lights" statements referring to MICHIGAN'S VSL, which is stated SPECIFICALLY in the RITUAL to be the Holy Bible. You forget that the Michigan Manual of Ritual is composed of SEVERAL parts, which are dlineated in the front material. The glossary is not ritual, it is additional material. It has its own inherent authority, yes, by occupying a position within the book. But it is not "ritual," and it is ritual that carries the higher authority in this instance. If it weren't for the fact that you'd have to lose the argument, or if the situation were reversed, and you would stand to win the argument, I'm sure you'd agree, based on positions you have taken in the past.

I should have mentioned earlier that when you look up things using the MI GL Search function, such as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, when you get back an MSA article, you have not left the MI GL website, as the title on that page indicates

Nor did I deny it after going there. You really need to get over the compulsion you have that makes you want to accuse, accuse, accuse, for at least long enough to realize it when there's nothing there to accuse any more. As stated to you before, until I actually see for myself the material to which you link and make claims, so I can be assured of the context as it resides in the original material at the original source, my approach will always be as it has in the past: "trust..........but verify." I went there, and for whatever reason, at that first visit there, and having clicked on the links, did not get to the place you described. When I got back from church last night and visited the site again and clicked the same links, I got there with no problem.

Seems to me you experienced the same thing recently, while I experienced quite the opposite. Touche, my good man, I'm sure you're just returning tit for tat, perhaps we can both take it under consideration, and avoid over-complication of issues with unnecessary burdening of one another with such repartee when websites do not function as designed.

Seems to me you went through that same attempt to keep pressing accusations, in the incident involving the NC materials, even after I had acknowledged and conceded the point. Why you continue pressing about things which are no longer issues, is uncertain, but it sure illustrates the obsession you obviously have over these things.

As the information is directly on the MI GL website, it's no longer a matter of the MSA deriving GL authority, but a direct statement by the GL itself.

And even so, that would be information which would be lower on the pecking order than the ritual itself, your own statement on the matter confirms it. And in this case, it was very helpful complementary material which fleshed out in the MSA piece, the specifics of what Michigan had already declared about "Christian Dispensation" in the ritual.

 

[Skip Sampson]

That's exactly right, DERIVES FROM the GL

As I, myself, have pointed out.

not the other way around, which is what you would have to assert and prove, in order to assert MSA materials on the Michigan webpage, over the content of their ritual.

Which is not my assertion.

The only thing you've "demonstrated" is that the MSA piece on the Michigan site expands upon and complements their already sufficiently clear understanding indicating that the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is Christ.

Untrue. It does nothing of the sort.

"Differing" is not automatically "conflicting."

I'm happy with 'conflict.' You may interpret all you wish, but it says just what it says, which is why I characterize it as a 'bait & switch.'

You forget that the Michigan Manual of Ritual is composed of SEVERAL parts,

Untrue. I'm familiar with the ritual and its parts.

The glossary is not ritual,

True, it just notes the bait & switch that generally accompanies Masonic training materials. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

As I, myself, have pointed out.

Absolutely. A comment by you, incidentally which you said some months ago, and which I first introduced into this conversation with a repost to REMIND you of it.

Which is not my assertion.

Then you have no assertion.

It does nothing of the sort.

Unless you have new information, it still does, because nothing you've presented has refuted it.

I'm happy with 'conflict.'

You're happy with marrying prostitutes, too. Doesn't mean anyone has to accept it as normal, or that God is okay with it.

it says just what it says

Which is, it's connected to the Christian dispensation; which, as you've capably pointed out for us by bringing in the MSA material, we now know is interpreted to be Christ.

I'm familiar with the ritual and its parts.

Not what I stated. My point was, there are parts included in the ritual manual which are not themselves "ritual."

 

[Rev Wayne]

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, as are your claims therein. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Still in denial, I see. At least with your shorter posts, you seem to have discovered you don't have to go to such great lengths to get it wrong. Could have saved yourself bundles of time had you realized that sooner.