Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation II: Monitorial

[O.F.F.]

Gee, why ask me, Mike?

Because it has been your claim all along that ALL Masons in your jurisdiction were Christians before they ever entered the Lodge. And, this week you have now included ALL Masons in North Carolina too. Heck, you've implied in the past that ALL Masons in America are Christians.

If your premise is true, then they already had the 10 commandments before entering the Lodge. So there is no need for an organization that supposedly "makes them better" to have to remind them not to do what they already know they shouldn't.

If all of us are supposed to be such good Christians, then why was it one of the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament, and then repeated in several admonitions in the Christian epistles?

My point precisely; we are NOT all good Christians, hence the need for the many reminders. But YOUR pet claim is that ALL the Mason you know, or have come to know, ARE BETTER than most Christians you know. If that's so true they don't need such rules. But Grand Lodges obviously feel they do.

It's even funnier that I told you what Grand Secretary Marsh said about how ridiculous the claim was, and you still don't seem to get it

The response I received did NOT come from Marsh, it came from the Grand Master (GM) himself, who out ranks YOU and the Grand Secretary. You and Marsh's opinions are irrelevant, AND YOU KNOW IT. Since the GM has NOT repudiated his own claims, they stand as given! And as long as he is in office they remain LAW in YOUR jurisdiction! Silly pastor.

 

[Rev Wayne]

And as Mike pointed out from the 2010 Code, no such requirement exists.

And as I pointed out, we weren't discussing the Code, we were discussing points that appear in the LSME booklet. In the LSME booklet, it clearly states:

As to religion, it is required that a petitioner believe in God and in Immortality; that he recognizes the Holy Bible as the rule and guide of his faith. (p. 24)

As anyone can see, in North Carolina's LSME booklet, there certainly IS that requirement. So stop with the lies and get with the program, or start yourself a "North Carolina Masonic Code" thread, or something.

Bottom line is that you quoted from an out-of-print document from 1969 on the qualifications of a petitioner that proved to be out of date, and flat out wrong, as the Code (2010) indicates.

And while ago Mike was trying to establish a claim based on Pike's Morals and Dogma, which has been out of print for FAR longer, so what's your point?

Actually, you STILL have not shown the statement not to be current. There are COUNTLESS Masonic documents that can be said to be "out of print," that doesn't mean the material died, or whatever you're trying to claim, it just means that particular edition ceased production. It could just as easily appear exactly the same in the next edition. By way of example, SC's Ahiman Rezon has already gone through two more editions since the time I received my 2003 version (2007 and 2010). In the quotes you have posted from the 2010 version, I have yet to find even the first change. The wording has been exactly the same, and even the page numbers remain the same.

So unless you have something of substance to post from the LSME-NC booklet, 2010, that runs contrary to what has posted, you have no grounds on which to make your claim.

And you can't post from the CODE and declare thereby to have "proved" anything at ALL about what's in the LSME booklet. What you are actually claiming in doing so, is that there is a consistency between the two. Quite often there may not be. What you really need to show is that the statement of requirement, as posted, is not current, since that is the point you have challenged; and you need to show this by showing a change in the document which stated the matter as a requirement in the first place, which was the LSME. You have not done so, you have only PRETENDED to do so. The statement that was posted was from the LSME, what you posted was from the Code. If you want to solidify your point, by all means, I invite you to show the statement is no longer current in NC's LSME.

Do so, and I will gladly concede the point. But with the umpteen times you have posted here yammering about dates, only to have your claims subsequently proven false, I can only assume this is merely one more instance of the same, until you can come up with sufficient reason to show otherwise. So far you have not.


You've simply cried "wolf" one time too many, and had it shown wrong too often, to have any credibility left on your mere say-so.

You didn't bother to check more recent documentation

Nor did you, nor did Mike. You checked the 2010 Code, NOT the 2010 LSME.

I wondered why you didn't cite the direct source for your Code quote

A lie. What I quoted came direct from the Code. What I pointed out to you was the fact that number five was there, which I did. And of COURSE I expected you to check it and verify that it's there. Otherwise, I wouldn't have posted it. Thanks for verifying that what I posted was there, by your reposting of it, even though in doing so you verbally denied what you visually affirmed.

The bible is becoming the VSL, God is becoming 'god' and the Great Light as important to Masonry is becoming the VSL that's important to Masonry.

Gee, you must really be getting early onset Alzheimer's. Either that or you didn't read what has posted. The statement from the Officer's Manual is from a document dated 2006. The comment making reference to the same thing contained therein about the "open Bible" was from their official magazine reporting events that transpired in 2008--meaning that, at that time the same thing was obviously still current. And more than likely, is STILL current even now. One thing's for sure, it certainly doesn't represent any "evolution in Masonry."

The Holy Writings, that Great Light in Masonry, will guide you to all truth; it will direct your path to the temple of happiness, and point out to you the whole duty of man. However men may differ in creed, yet all men agree that within the pages of the Holy Bible are found those principles which lay the foundation upon which to build a righteous life. Freemasonry would take all men by the hand and, leading them to its altar, would point to the open Bible and urge each faithfully to direct his steps through life by the light he shall find therein. If, from our sacred altar, the atheist or irreligious man should ever wrest this book and thus remove, or even obscure, the Great Light of Freemasonry, that light which has been for centuries the rule and guide of all masons, then we could no longer claim the proud title and rank of master mason. As long as that sacred light shines upon our altar, as long as it illumines and brightens the pathway of the craftsman by the golden rays of truth; so long will Freemasonry live and shed its beneficent influence among men. Guard, then, my brother, this sacred book as you guard your life. Defend it as you would defend the flag of your country. Live according to its sublime precepts; govern yourself that you may be able to govern others; learn first that you may be able to teach; for justice, moderation, and decorum should mark the acts of an upright man. (p. 16-17)

Everyone who is sworn in as a WM in any lodge, is given this charge. What did you do, just "skip" this one in your reading?

You also seem to have ignored the many other things which have posted here which also are of recent publication, and which ALSO do not show that "evolution." SC Ahiman Rezon in its 2010 version still calls the Bible the "Great Light of Masonry." The Masonic Service Association is still printing Short Talk Bulletins and distributing them, including one declaring the Bible to be the "Great Light of Masonry." I think your imaginary evolution is making a monkey out of you.

 

[Rev Wayne]

And, this week you have now included ALL Masons in North Carolina too.

Where did I do that? I simply posted what is contained in the NC LSME booklet. The only comments I made were as follows, as anyone can see from my post #60:

Now, I've seen the "inestimable gift of God to man" quote before, as well as the "rule and guide for his faith and practice," but I think this is a first for the combination of the two.


This is a new wrinkle for me, too. Apparently this states that in NC, it is a requirement that a petitioner recognize the Holy BIble as the rule and guide of his faith. In other words, before taking a single degree, he has to profess the Holy Bible to be the rule and guide of his faith.

I said nothing at all about ANYBODY being a Christian. I simply noted what the statement said, which it PLAINLY DOES say, and left it at that, for anyone who wished to do so, to draw whatever conclusions they may.

Once again, I refer you to the original thread from which this was broken off, and to the statement in the OP of the intent and nature of that thread, and this thread as well, as a derivative of that one. There were no claims about any of the content made there, other than the material is Masonic, and reflects either biblical or Christian content, or a Christian interpretation or understanding of Masonry.

That is why, when I posted that material, I made no assertions about it, nor did I suggest any ramifications. All I did was point out what it directly states, as a way of inviting discussion upon it--which is perfectly in line with what I stated at the outset of the original thread.

The rest, ever since that point, has been fending off accusations against me for things I never stated about it when I posted it, nor stated about it since. My responses have NOT been in regard to any assumptions that may be made, but simply to the fact that it appears there. You and Skip have gone round in circles ever since, trying to introduce straw man quotes into it, first from Pike, then from NC Code, since you CLEARLY cannot criticize it on its own content.

i don't have to contend for what the statements say, they speak for themselves. The fact that they do was made most eminently clear by the level of attack and vitriol that followed from the antimason contingent on this forum.

Like I just invited Skippy to do, I invite you to find and post the only thing that will effectively refute the fact that this appears in NC's LSME booklet: a later edition which does NOT contain those same comments. It's as simple as that. Until you do, you can spit and sputter till your entire head turns blue, and it won't make a ripple in the pond.

Heck, you've implied in the past that ALL Masons in America are Christians.

No, I've only stated that the Holy Bible is the VSL in every lodge in the U.S. And I have certainly stated my agreement with Mackey and Wilmshurst, that Masonry in its origins and design is specifically and undeniably Christian. But I have made none of the usual contentions on this thread, nor have I had any intent to do so. I'm simply posting materials that fit the decription as laid out in the OP. As for what you just accused me of, YOU did that with your "Christian country" comment.

My point precisely; we are NOT all good Christians, hence the need for the many reminders.

Correct, all except for the claim it was YOUR point. I believe I was the one who posted the comment about Christians, while YOU were going off the deep end about Masons. I pointed it out to show you that there's simply no difference, there's something about all of us as humans that we need the reminders.

But YOUR pet claim is that ALL the Mason you know, or have come to know, ARE BETTER than most Christians you know.

Can you cite thread and page and post number where I've EVER said any such thing? No, and you KNOW it. The only ones I made any statement anywhere close to that, was to point out that ALL the Christian men who were an influence on me for Christ during my childhood and youth, were Masons. That's quite a different prospect than what you just said.

The response I received did NOT come from Marsh, it came from the Grand Master (GM) himself, who out ranks YOU and the Grand Secretary.

And as I pointed out and Jim confirmed, it's equally likely your response came from the Grand Secretary, since it's general knowledge that that's what secretaries do, they handle the menial work, like responding to petulance from antimasons refusing to simply respond when they ask the simple question, who are you? When I pointed out to Secretary Marsh what the REAL issue was, that you were spinning it seven ways from sundown until you got them to word it in such a way that it would work for cannon fodder, his response was quick and to the point. I told him you were trying to make it falsely appear that Masonry accepts the religion and not the man, in conglomeration fashion, he said "Of course not. Masonry's not a religion." Meaning, since it is not a religion and its purposes are not the purposes of a religion, of course they don't "accept religions."

You should know better than such foolishness anyway. After all, it's evident in the very name they have adopted, which is "Free and Accepted Masons," not "Free and Accepted Religions." How utterly absurd your whole contact with them was.

Do be my guest if you wish to contact other GL's with the same "question." But you might consider a couple of things first: (1) identify yourself if they ask; (2) this time around, don't give them a story line about wanting to join their lodge, under the pretense of being a member of some other religion. That really doesn't seem to have worked out very well for you; and (3) when you come back and tell us about it, try to get your story straight this time, and if you post the story more than once?--try to make sure the emails actually match.

Since the GM has NOT repudiated his own claims, they stand as given

!

Yes they do. But "as given" also means, with the same intent. And the GM's intent in the statement he sent you, was CLEARLY not the same as the hatchet job you did with it.

 

[O.F.F.]

That is why, when I posted that material, I made no assertions about it, nor did I suggest any ramifications.

Of course you made no assertions when you posted it; at that point no one had challenged YOU on it until it was read. When I did, YOU MADE THE FOLLOWING ASSERTIONS/RAMIFICATIONS:

Apparently there either aren't any non-Christians in their lodges, or everyone has that requirement regardless of his faith

As ridiculously absurd as they BOTH are, these were the ASSERTIONS YOU MADE! So stop lying about it with such comments as, "I said nothing at all about ANYBODY being a Christian." Or, "the rest, ever since that point, has been fending off accusations against me for things I never stated about it when I posted it, nor stated about it since," when the fact is YOU MADE ASSERTIONS after you posted it!

"After" as in "ever since that point" or vice versa.​

It amazes me how you ALWAYS let yourself get caught in your habitual lying.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I had a feeling when I posted the previous post, that you'd take the bait and try to create one. Thanks for not disappointing me, I was counting on this, which is easy to refute, having made no such claims.

When I did, YOU MADE THE FOLLOWING ASSERTIONS/RAMIFICATIONS:

Assertions? ramifications? How so? I was only exploring options, as is easily discernible right there in the sentence you inexplicably chose to try to spin:

Apparently there EITHER aren't any non-Christians in their lodges, OR everyone has that requirement regardless of his faith.

That's called exploring possibilities, Mike. It's an "either/or" statement, which should have been obvious to anyone, since the "either" and the "or" are right there for the reader to see.

And that's not all. Did you not catch that the statement was introduced with "apparently?" That's about as non-dogmatic as it gets. Some synonyms given for it are " it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly." it's the language of suggestion, Mike, not assertion. Especially when it's either/or.

As ridiculously absurd as they BOTH are, these were the ASSERTIONS YOU MADE! So stop lying about it

Really, Mike, you'd do well to learn this thing of exploring options. It sure beats dogmatic pomposities, especially when, like your current post, they are mostly ad hominem by nature.

But, for the record, and for all the readers to see how incorrigible you truly are, I will proceed to show you why this was exactly what I just stated, an exploration of logical possibilities based on the information as stated, and why the LYING is to be attributed only to YOU.

First, to put it in brief perspective:

ME: These represent two logical possibilities, in an exploring of options.
YOU: These represent two assertions.

Okay, for what I just said to be true, these would have to be in an "either/or" relationship; that is, one can be true, or the other can be true.

BUT: for what YOU said to be true, these statements have to BOTH be able to be true at the same time.

The easiest way to find out if YOU are correct, would be to take one of these and presume it to be true, and then see what the result is when we try to assert the other to be true as well.

Apparently there EITHER aren't any non-Christians in their lodges, OR everyone has that requirement regardless of his faith.

So let's presume the first side to be true: there are NOT any non-Christians in NC lodges.

Now, can the second statement be true, given that the first is true? "Everyone has that requirement regardless of his faith."

Not only would it not be true, it simply doesn't make any sense to take it that way. How can "everyone have that requirement regardless of his faith" if they are all Christians?

Or take it the other way around: in NC lodges, everyone has the requirement to hold the Bible to be the rule and guide of his faith, regardless of his faith.

Leaving aside for the moment the strange notion that someone of another faith could be an adherent to the Bible: Look what happens to "there aren't any non-Christians in their lodges." The phrase in the given side, "regardless of his faith," has already implied many faiths. Therefore, the claim of "no non-Christians" could NOT be true, given the truth of the other half of the equation.

Since neither side can stand as true when placed alongside the other, it is an undeniable fact that BOTH simply CANNOT be true; therefore, what I stated as an "either/or" proposition, truly was such a proposition.

So once again, you have been nailed at this habitual thing you do.

 

[Skip Sampson]

And as I pointed out, we weren't discussing the Code, we were discussing points that appear in the LSME booklet.

No, we were discussing the qualifications of a petitioner, which the Code clearly shows do not include a belief in the Bible. You might have figured out that since the LSME was from 1969 and, as the website notes, out of print, there might have been some change from that time.

BTW, here's a link to see a NC petition. You will note that the requirement you were discussing is not mentioned there, either.
http://www.creasyproctor679.com/files/CP__679_Petition_1_.pdf

What I quoted came direct from the Code.

Which you did not cite as to where in the Code it was. You also referred to the second point, but did not actually include it. Both actions were intentional. Cordially, Skip.

 

[O.F.F.]

Both actions were intentional.

Yes, intentionally deceptive, because Wayne always has something to hide.

 

[ChristianMasonJim]

No, we were discussing the qualifications of a petitioner, which the Code clearly shows do not include a belief in the Bible. You might have figured out that since the LSME was from 1969 and, as the website notes, out of print, there might have been some change from that time.

BTW, here's a link to see a NC petition. You will note that the requirement you were discussing is not mentioned there, either.
http://www.creasyproctor679.com/files/CP__679_Petition_1_.pdf

Which you did not cite as to where in the Code it was. You also referred to the second point, but did not actually include it. Both actions were intentional. Cordially, Skip.

So you are basically saying that because a specific phrase is not mentioned in the petition, that it does not apply. Ok, cool. So by that logic, you cannot use the explanation of the Apron in the Second Section of the "Ahimen Rezon" to "prove" that Freemasonry is not compatible with Christianity because that section, which anti-Masons so depend on, is never communicated to any newly made Entered Apprentice (at least in South Carolina), Fellowcraft, Master Mason, or any other degree. It only exists in a section of the "Ahimen Rezon" that is never referenced in any Masonic work. All the candidate receives is the short or long form of the Apron Lecture which are both completely compatible with Christian teaching. And I'd be making a very safe be that if you ask just about any mason in South Carolina if the apron is intended to confer any kind of salvation that they would give you a very bewildered look, because it just ain't so.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Yes, intentionally deceptive, because Wayne always has something to hide.

Brilliant commentary there, Mr. Gentry. You should move to the mountains, there should be wonderful job opportunities there for echoes.

 

[Rev Wayne]

So you are basically saying that because a specific phrase is not mentioned in the petition, that it does not apply. Ok, cool. So by that logic, you cannot use the explanation of the Apron in the Second Section of the "Ahimen Rezon" to "prove" that Freemasonry is not compatible with Christianity because that section, which anti-Masons so depend on, is never communicated to any newly made Entered Apprentice (at least in South Carolina), Fellowcraft, Master Mason, or any other degree. It only exists in a section of the "Ahimen Rezon" that is never referenced in any Masonic work. All the candidate receives is the short or long form of the Apron Lecture which are both completely compatible with Christian teaching. And I'd be making a very safe be that if you ask just about any mason in South Carolina if the apron is intended to confer any kind of salvation that they would give you a very bewildered look, because it just ain't so.

Spot-on, Jim, nice observation.

 

[Rev Wayne]

No, we were discussing the qualifications of a petitioner, which the Code clearly shows do not include a belief in the Bible.

And which the LSME booklet clearly shows DO include it, and not only that, REQUIRE it. And to this point, you have not shown it to be any different in any subsequent LSME booklet. Or a possible alternate, though not totally conclusive, would be to produce an older version of the Code which DOES have the same requirement, which would indicate it had been removed, and thus would suggest the same thing about the LSME.

But until you do, you're spinning your wheels to keep yammering about things that do not relieve that difficulty for you. When you DO manage to find an LSME booklet for NC, of later date than the one posted, you will have established the point, but not before.

You might have figured out that since the LSME was from 1969 and, as the website notes, out of print, there might have been some change from that time.

Just as I figured, you didn't read my previous post, which is probably why you're still making this non-point instead of out hunting down that booklet. A "change" in booklet/edition does NOT mean, "everything within its pages is totally discontinued from this point." And what should have been ample illustration of it for you, was the word-for-word exact same Ahiman Rezon you have for 2010, two editions later than my 2003 version.

Which you did not cite as to where in the Code it was.

Just because you didn't see it, does not mean it was not there. I clearly pointed out:

Maybe somebody ought to point out to Skip, one of the Masonic offenses in their list:

Now, with an index right there handy on the same site where you found this, listing the section "Masonic Offenses," and with the clear comment that this appears in a LIST: do you really think you can play that dumb, that you can convince anyone you don't know how to use an index? Especially after you come here giving every indication, by the very fact that you found it, that you DO know how? And if I were trying to conceal the point, would I have stated it was on a list of Masonic Ofrenses, and then included the number along with the quote, so you could readily see that it was #5 on the list?

Your comments get farther from reality the more you pursue this non-point. That being the case, by all means, be my guest and continue.

You also referred to the second point, but did not actually include it.

Yes, I referred to the other point, because YOU HAVE BEEN STRUTTING IT AROUND LIKE A PEACOCK AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY for more threads than anyone can recall. Things tend to be pretty fresh in the memory when antimason accusers have a one-note mantra and won't get off of it, for as long as you've paraded that one out. There's an easy solution for you if you don't like it being brought up: quit bringing it up.

Both actions were intentional.

A statement which proves one thing, that you are definitely not a mind reader; because if you WERE, you would also be a deliberate LIAR. As it stands, you are not deliberately lying, you are just a misguided ill-wisher making some pretty bonehead assumptions.

They're at it again, folks.

 

[O.F.F.]

I was only exploring options, as is easily discernible right there in the sentence you inexplicably chose to try to spin:

"Apparently there EITHER aren't any non-Christians in their lodges, OR everyone has that requirement regardless of his faith."

UNH - UNH- UNH Wayne, don't even try; that may have been how you started this charade of merely proposing "options," but YOUR ASSERTION was actually made, with emphasis, when you posted it:

Apparently this states that in NC, it is a requirement that a petitioner recognize the Holy Bible as the rule and guide of his faith. In other words, before taking a single degree, he has to profess the Holy Bible to be the rule and guide of his faith. (post #60)

No room for options there, pastor "lyin' king," (and I don't mean Lebron James). When YOU posted it, you unequivocally declared then, and ever since, that this is a mandate in North Carolina Masonry; despite the fact that their 2010 Code states NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. Yet after learning this fact you continue post-after-post insisting that YOUR ASSERTION is true, even though it violates the very purpose of Freemasonry, which is unity among men of ALL religions (natural religion in which all men agree).

North Carolina's LSME booklet CLEARLY states this to be a REQUIREMENT. . . (post #66)

Nice try, Sherlock, but you seem to forget that with a statement in their teaching manual which says a belief in the Bible as the rule and guide of faith and practice, is REQUIRED. . . (post #72)

And which the LSME booklet clearly shows DO include it, and not only that, REQUIRE it. . . (post #91)

UnbelievaBULL!!!

 

[Rev Wayne]

No room for options there, pastor.

I already pointed out to you once:

Did you not catch that the statement was introduced with "apparently?" That's about as non-dogmatic as it gets. Some synonyms given for it are " it appears that; as far as one knows; seemingly." it's the language of suggestion, Mike, not assertion.

The situation appears to be exactly the same again:

Apparently this states that in NC, it is a requirement that a petitioner recognize the Holy Bible as the rule and guide of his faith. In other words, before taking a single degree, he has to profess the Holy Bible to be the rule and guide of his faith. (post #60)

There it is again: "apparently." This is not dogmatic assertion, it's saying, "this is what this appears to me to be saying," and quite naturally, if you have a challenge to what I feel the statement is saying, your response is invited. This is a way of fomenting discussion as a preferable substitute to ranting. I can only surmise from your response, that you prefer the latter course instead, and would rather rant than debate?

Apparently you don't know what "apparently" means. In fact, I generally employ those terms when engaging in open debate, as a standard practice, ever since reading the sage advice of Benjamin Franklin some years ago, as recounted in his autobiography. He advised using terms like "it would seem," or "i would think," and similar non-offensive terms, in order to promote debate rather than unprofitable argument.

The fact is, I still consider it debate, and I still consider the points which I brought up to be open. What I'm having a hard time figuring out, is how a diatribe on your part about whether or not I stated something with any degree of certainty, helps to solidify any of your points about this at all.

When YOU posted it, you unequivocally declared then, and ever since, that this is a mandate in North Carolina Masonry

Unequivocally? When I prefaced it with "apparently?" It seems to me you just wish to paint someone into a corner; my suggestion would be that you find another victim, I only paint in round rooms.

Certainly, there is an increase in the certainty with which I state it--but no matter how you spin it, I am STILL only saying, whether with certainty or not--"this is what the statement appears to be saying." When I presented that the first time, it was for debate and input. But nobody denied that was what it was saying; instead, the attempt was made to make a substitute, a straw man, by addressing the Code rather than the LSME. So with no challenge to what the statement was saying, and with attempts to remove it from consideration by other means than direct refutation by some counter that would prove, "no, that's not what it says,": naturally from that point, as the debate continues, the position can be stated more firmly from that point. And as a matter of fact, no one YET has shown anything that would effectively counter with "no, it doesn't say that." All they've offered is, "no, it doesn't say that elsewhere"--which is really no counter at all--and "no, it doesn't say that now"--which they have yet to prove.

despite the fact that their 2010 Code states NO SUCH REQUIREMENT.

For the umpteenth time, we weren't discussing the Code, we were discussing the LSME booklet. Like I said, the discussion is open, it's just that the statement in the LSME booklet, being a statement of "requirement," leaves little room for interpretive liberty on your part OR mine. I have presented the statement as it appears, and have delineated what I see as the only options it leaves us for interpretation of what it SAYS, which, numbering only two, was pretty scant. Rather than engaging in the sophistry of trying to substitute Code for LSME, and rather than using the same failed tactic Skip has employed for some time now in appealing to dates (which in the current discussion is misapplied, since you and he both refer to a completely different document), I would suggest you use your wiles with NC as you did with SC, and find a way to wangle a current LSME booklet from them for comparison, to see whether your accusation is correct, rather than attempting to make that accusation without information, and thus, without merit.

But of course, even your actions are open to interpretation. It doesn't escape me as a very real possibility, that all this bluster is really an indication that you have ALREADY obtained said booklet, and it did NOT confirm your claim, and the result is, you feel you must put up as much smokescreen as you can before anyone else finds out.

No doubt, you will try to take even THAT benign comment and try to make of it a full-blown declaration, and then take that straw man to the bank hoping to find someone to cash it. But I'm afraid when you get there, they will say, "ID, please," and given your reticence in identifying yourself, you will find yourself in yet another predicament.

You and Skip really do make a good team, though. With all the hype about "Jacob's 'Staircase,'" non-existent rectangular perfect ashlars, substitutions of Code for LSME, and now a never-ending witch hunt trying to turn the declarative statement of the LSME into some kind of dogmatic pronouncement on my part, you two are the perfect illustration of the current state of bankruptcy of the antimasons' religion of Mason-bashing.

North Carolina's LSME booklet CLEARLY states this to be a REQUIREMENT. . . (post #66)

Nice try, Sherlock, but you seem to forget that with a statement in their teaching manual which says a belief in the Bible as the rule and guide of faith and practice, is REQUIRED. . . (post #72)

And which the LSME booklet clearly shows DO include it, and not only that, REQUIRE it. . . (post #91)

ALL of which are in response to assertions by you and Skip, and all of which are tangential on this thread. All of which, and this ought to be plain to anyone, are not assertive of any position, or any interpretation of MINE, but are stated in debate over WHAT THE STATEMENT ITSELF SAYS--NOT over some opinion on the matter. Now, if it doesn't SAY that, please share with us your own opinion on the matter, since up to this point, as far as determining what the statement truly declares, you have been totally silent.

If you wish to point out that the statement is assertive and declarative, be my guest, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. But NOT as an "assertion" of opinion, but as the declarative statement which it is.

And so far, I do take it as incontrovertible fact, that this statement, as worded, as found in the LSME booklet, is DECLARATIVELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stating, that this is a REQUIREMENT. But that declarative and unequivocal position is THEIRS, NOT MINE.

The sooner you get that, the sooner you'll drop this ill-considered attempt to magically create accusations where there are none to be found.

The funny thing is, I find your tirade to be the surest tacit confirmation that the booklet DOES say what it says with that statement. Otherwise, you and Skip would not be devoting the time and attention you have given toward trying to discredit both the statement and me, in lieu of actually presenting anything by way of a legitimate counter.

Sorry, but "Code" is not "LSME." I thought you guys were smart enough to know the difference between the two.

Sorry, but transforming the declarative form of the statement into some kind of dogmatic opinion, and trying to attribute it to me, is illegitimate and ad hominem.

Sorry, but taking a tangent and trying to make it the main motion of the thread is not only a poor move, it's against forum rules, especially when it's deliberate.

Sorry, but "this is what the booklet says" is NOT the equivalent of "this is my dogmatic opinion/assertion." I'm not the one who said this is required, I merely pointed out that the BOOKLET says it. So far, you have presented no counter that says it does not.

Sorry, but "out of print" is not the equivalent of "none of this material is in current use in any subsequent edition."


I'll be waiting, should you ever come up with any actual material to substantiate your claims, like a subsequent edition of the LSME. Like I've said, I haven't closed off anything, nor attempted to, this is an open debate. If you wish to show that the statement does not declaratively say "this is required," by all means, let's get YOUR read on what the statement itself declares. But pointing out that it is declarative and then trying to make that declaration mine, if attempted again, will be summarily rejected, so try to at least come up with something sustainable.

 

[O.F.F.]

And so far, I do take it as incontrovertible fact, that this statement, as worded, as found in the LSME booklet, is DECLARATIVELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stating, that this is a REQUIREMENT. But that declarative and unequivocal position is THEIRS, NOT MINE.

No one is denying what the LSME STATEMENT SAID in 1969. My contention is YOUR DENIAL of what the Grand Lodge of NC SAYS in 2010 about the qualifications for every petitioner who wishes to join a lodge in this state TODAY!

You can continue to pretend that, since there "apparently" has not been a later edition of their LSME printed, it means THAT THIS MUST STILL BE THEIR REQUIREMENT, and look like a Masonic FOOL, or you can simply be a reasonable Mason and agree that their current CODE is a more reliable source for determining what the qualifications of membership actually are NOW.

Either way, the choice is yours. And, if you don't concede we know what you are.

 

[Rev Wayne]

My contention is YOUR DENIAL of what the Grand Lodge of NC SAYS in 2010 about the qualifications for every petitioner who wishes to join a lodge in this state TODAY!

I haven't denied one single time that the GL CODE (not the LSME) says exactly what you stated it does, so I'll kindly thank you to keep that lie to yourself.

My contention is, the Code in 1969 could very likely have said exactly the same thing, as far as you know; or on the other hand, the LSME could as easily say exactly the same thing now that it said in 1969. The only real fact here is, you have no way of knowing, because you do not have in your possession the one Masonic document that can decide the answer: an LSME booklet dated subsequent to 1969, but without the material quoted.

And since you were appealing to Pike IN THIS SAME ARGUMENT, your objection about the date is totally inconsistent when you come right down to it. And Skip's continued failure to make the date accusation stick in every recent attempt to apply it at every opportunity on this thread, only serves to make your claim even more tenuous than it already is.

But the topper in all this is, the whole issue of date is completely irrelevant, because regardless of whether or not the statement posted has changed since then, the dating of any of this is totally irrelevant to the scope of the thread as outlined at the beginning. The only "claim" (if you can even call it that), was that the material posted was (1) Masonic and (2) biblical/Christian in content/interpretation. No qualifications about dates of publication in that at all.

You can continue to pretend that, since there "apparently" has not been a later edition of their LSME printed,

Where did you get that idea? I never said there HAD NOT, or that there APPARENTLY had not, been a later edition of the LSME printed. Are you blind? How many times do I have to SAY it--"show me the proof by citing this from a later edition, because that is what it will require for your proof"--before you get the idea that I am presuming that there IS a later edition, and challenging you to PRODUCE it????

or you can simply be a reasonable Mason and agree that their current CODE is a more reliable source for determining what the qualifications of membership actually are NOW

.
[/QUOTE]
I can do the even more reasonable thing and wait until you post something from a North Carolina LODGE SYSTEM OF MASONIC EDUCATION booklet, which is where the quote came from in the first place, and ignore your substitute straw man arguments. I'll leave the looking like a fool to you, you do such a thorough job of it.

 

[Skip Sampson]

And which the LSME booklet clearly shows DO include it, and not only that, REQUIRE it. And to this point, you have not shown it to be any different in any subsequent LSME booklet.

You continue to miss the obvious. Any authoritative Masonic book can be seen as current as long as it hasn't been updated or the data therein altered by another authoritative source, usually one higher in the pecking order. The NC LSME, though long out of print, remains in force as long as its contents have not been superceded.

An example would be the SC AR, which in a mid-60's version still noted that one had to be white to be accepted as a candidate. My 2010 version no longer has that requirement; thus, we can conclude that Masonry clearly had a racist past, but has removed some of the formal obstacles to black men to join if they so desire. The requirement is still in the early AR, but clearly no longer in force.

In your case, the 1969 NC LSME clearly states the qualifications of a candidate as you have noted; however, the 2010 GL Code, in stating the same qualifications, show something quite different. Since the Code supercedes the LSME, as Mike pointed out, the LSME is no longer in force with respect to those qualifications. That is not only common sense, but a clear and easily understood fact about dueling references.

Had you limited yourself to noting that NC once had such a requirement, you'd have been on solid ground. But you stated that it was 'apparently' still a requirement for the petitioner, which is, as we've seen, simply not the case.

Your problem is that you didn't bother to check against the Code as Mike and I did and you got burned. Your thrashing around now is the type of behavior we've all seen before when you make an error and are not capable of manning up and admitting it. For people who don't know you, it is, I'm sure, surprising; for Mike and I, it's old hat. Lord knows, we've seen enough of it. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The NC LSME, though long out of print, remains in force as long as its contents have not been superceded.

Since that's what I've been saying all along, I fail to see how I've "missed the obvious." So far it has not been shown to have been superseded by any subsequent version of the LSME, because nobody has posted any such thing.

Since the Code supercedes the LSME, as Mike pointed out

He hasn't shown that. I do not agree that what he posted makes any declaration that "this supersedes the LSME booklet."

And there's where y'all go off the grid and start ruminating about a lot of irrelevant nonsense that is superficial to the thread. What supersedes what is not germane to the thread or to its purpose as stated in the OP when the first thread began. You guys can keep discussing this among yourselves all you wish, you are arguing points that do not go counter anything presented by the thread, and therefore do not solve anything one way or the other.

Certainly it is an argument for some othe place and some other thread, and you did manage (for a brief spell anyway), to distract from the thread's stated purpose, and discuss the pro's and con's of this particular point. If you wish to discuss it any further with ME, however, break out a separate thread and we'll continue, but I won't do it any further here, which is a distraction and a deterrent to the stated purpose of the thread. But my position remains the same, despite your insistences, because you have presented nothing but your own opinions.

For now, though, I will leave you with a couple of thoughts as I leave off further comment and return to the original design of the thread. For one, I don't see any idea of "superseding" being at play here at all. It's a simple thing to find certain things said in one context in GL materials, and something else which, on the surface at least, might appear to be quite different, and yet both be addressing the same subject or issue.

Since you like appealing to SC, allow me to illustrate from a past incident on this forum. You claimed some time ago (or Mike did, or both of you did, mostly I can't tell you apart anymore) that on the SC Grand Lodge website, it has a statement about the "Volume of Sacred Law." Yet in Ahiman Rezon, we find that it everywhere references "Holy Bible," not "VSL." It also states there that the Holy Bible is the "Great Light of Masonry." So yes, you can find differences even from the same GL source.
Secondly, this was recently posted by Mike:

"the lodge is governed by the Grand Lodge Book of Constitutions, called THE CODE."

Since you so quickly chimed in with your agreement, I suppose it should be pointed out to both of you that you have once again given us another illustration of your many instances of self-contradiction. In the discussion about "VSL" versus Holy Bible, as regards Ahiman Rezon, I had pointed out that AR says the Holy Bible is the Great Light in Masonry, and you had countered by declaring the MSA to be authoritative, and slid their statement in the door, claiming it to be the definitive one in that matter. Yet THIS TIME around, y'all suddenly reverse polarity, and start yelling "BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS!" Well, the statement in AR about the Bible being the Great Light in Masonry, appears on p. 165 in the section called "Ahiman Rezon, or Book of Constitutions." So, since the "Grand Lodge Book of Constitutions," by your own declaration, is the governing document, even if I were to say you were right, you would still be in direct contradiction to what you were claiming about SC not that long ago.
So maybe you just need a little time to decide, since you can't serve two masters, which one you're going to apply CONSISTENTLY, instead of darting all over the map every time it becomes convenient for you.

Your problem is that you didn't bother to check against the Code as Mike and I did and you got burned.

The problem, if there is one, is YOURS, and MIKE'S.

On a thread that specifically declares that its only purpose is to present content found in Masonry, which is unrestricted by specific date or any specific source, the sole intended parameter being defined as "Masonic"; and to show elements within it whose derivation is either biblical or Christian; for anyone to try to take any post on such a thread, and attribute to it the nature of some sort of personal assertion or opinion on the part of the one who posted it: is not only unsustainable, it's totally absurd.

That's where this thread was at its inception, and that's the same position to which I am returning in posting materials here. If I respond at all to anything else concerning content here, I will not do so unless the comments are confined to that which is within the parameters as originally defined (that is, unless there is a question as to whether (1) the material is "Masonic"; (2) the material is "biblical"--by that intending that its source is the Bible, not a determination of whether it fits an accuser's idea of "correct"; or (3) the material is Christian in interpretation). Otherwise, posting the material here as requested, will only get bogged down even further. You guys have managed to totally waste 5 or 6 pages on matters not even remotely connected to the thread's stated purpose.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Since that's what I've been saying all along, I fail to see how I've "missed the obvious." So far it has not been shown to have been superseded by any subsequent version of the LSME, because nobody has posted any such thing.

In any GL, there can be only one set of qualifications for a petitioner, and those are set by the GL itself, not by the subordinate lodges. Since the 2010 Code indicates those in the 1969 LSME are incorrect, you were wrong to jump to the conclusion as you did. And you have such a fragile image of your intellectual capabilities that you just cannot acknowledge an error. But don't worry: Mike and I will continue to point them out to you, just in case you ever want to change for the better.

What supersedes what is not germane to the thread or to its purpose as stated in the OP when the first thread began.

But correcting errors of fact is germane to the thread, your protestations not withstanding.

If you wish to discuss it any further with ME, however, break out a separate thread and we'll continue, but I won't do it any further here,

Of course, your standard response to error: declare innocence and move on. Must be embarrassing to have nothing other than such a tactic. By the way, I don't think we can take your advice. Starting a thread entitled The Errors of Rev. Wayne would probably violate forum policies, and probably get too long to be manageable.

For now, though, I will leave you with a couple of thoughts as I leave off further comment and return to the original design of the thread.

So you will not comment further, but before you move on, you have one more comment to make. That's an interesting intellectual exercise for you to display. Not surprising, just interesting.

For one, I don't see any idea of "superseding" being at play here at all.

Of course you don't. That would require you to admit to being in error. I'd bet most others understand it completely.

Since you like appealing to SC,

Well, it is your jurisdiction.

You claimed some time ago (or Mike did, or both of you did, mostly I can't tell you apart anymore)

Yet another interesting admission: you are going to make a charge that you cannot factually back up. Well, I'll let you plow on, but it was indeed me.

Yet in Ahiman Rezon, we find that it everywhere references "Holy Bible," not "VSL." It also states there that the Holy Bible is the "Great Light of Masonry."

You made the same claim earlier:

Since Ahiman Rezon states very specifically, not once, not twice, but three times, that the Great Light is the Bible, I don't think anyone here will take your speculations over the AR's indisputably specific declaration of what is the Great Light of Masonry. (Post 4, Perfect Ashlar thread)

And it blew up in your face as I noted at the time by these quotes from the AR (2010 edition) indicate:

Let us be true to the solemn ties of our fraternity, and loyal to the teachings of the Holy Scripture, the Great Light of Masonry. (pg. 280)

XXI. That a book of the law of God must constitute an indispensable part of the furniture of every Lodge. (pg. 457)

It is religious in that it teaches monotheism, the Volume of Sacred Law is open upon its altars whenever a Lodge is in session...(pg. 486)

And, of course, the SC GL website carried the same view:

... there is always an altar or table with the Volume of Sacred Law open if a lodge is meeting... (SC GL Website)

Sometimes it's hard to believe how easily you manage to shoot yourself in the foot, then how hard you deny the blood flowing from the wound. You really need to learn some analytical and research skills, unless you really don't care about being taken seriously, which I'm starting to believe is the case. You are so invested in Freemasonry, you merely look for supporting material and ignore that which doesn't meet your filter. That's how circular arguments work, and seems to be an exclusive technique of yours.

In the discussion about "VSL" versus Holy Bible, as regards Ahiman Rezon, I had pointed out that AR says the Holy Bible is the Great Light in Masonry, and you had countered by declaring the MSA to be authoritative, and slid their statement in the door, claiming it to be the definitive one in that matter.

We've already seen your error in the first part, and the MSA point is also wrong. The MSA is authoritative in that it's supported by all the GL's, or at least I'm not aware of a GL that does not support it. That makes its pronounciations authoritative; however, a specific GL can overrule it on matters under it's own authority. My points that the SC GL considered the Great Light to be the VSL was supported by MSA publications which claimed the same thing (my post 33, Biblical content thread). No authority supercedes the GL in its own jurisdiction, though other GL's have some influence in that they can withhold recognition if one GL doesn't like what another is doing, as witnessed by WV and Ohio.

Yet THIS TIME around, y'all suddenly reverse polarity, and start yelling "BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS!"

Nope, we're pointing to the Code that notes where you are wrong on the qualifications of petitioners in NC. You really need to try and keep these things straight.

On a thread that specifically declares that its only purpose is to present content found in Masonry, which is unrestricted by specific date or any specific source, the sole intended parameter being defined as "Masonic"; and to show elements within it whose derivation is either biblical or Christian; for anyone to try to take any post on such a thread, and attribute to it the nature of some sort of personal assertion or opinion on the part of the one who posted it: is not only unsustainable, it's totally absurd.

You really don't like being corrected, do you? It has led you to the conclusion that errors of yours should not be highlighted on threads, which is an interesting position to take. I never thought infallibility applied itself to pastors, and you should consider that as well.

If I respond at all to anything else concerning content here, I will not do so unless the comments are confined to that which is within the parameters as originally defined

Yeah, yeah, yeah; we got it. You simply won't deign to admit to error. That will certainly save a lot of work on your part, but we'll continue to keep you honest. Yes, it's a sacrifice on our parts due to the workload, but we'll do it anyway in the interest of analytical integrity.

You guys have managed to totally waste 5 or 6 pages on matters not even remotely connected to the thread's stated purpose.

Not really; but compare it to the amount of frantic posturing you've posted trying to hide from the obvious fact that you screwed up.

I think I've mentioned this before, but you've been unable to keep up with your own comments, have not bothered to research your charges against us and have simply lost track of the contents of the threads. Stop the cut & paste effort long enough to gather your thoughts and enforce a little more discipline on your analysis before you post. We'd all welcome such a change. Cordially, Skip.

P.S. - You don't post under the screen name Kamatu, do you? Just wondering.

 

[O.F.F.]

But correcting errors of fact is germane to the thread, your protestations not withstanding.

Of course, your standard response to error: declare innocence and move on. Must be embarrassing to have nothing other than such a tactic. By the way, I don't think we can take your advice. Starting a thread entitled The Errors of Rev. Wayne would probably violate forum policies, and probably get too long to be manageable.

So you will not comment further, but before you move on, you have one more comment to make. That's an interesting intellectual exercise for you to display. Not surprising, just interesting.

Of course you don't. That would require you to admit to being in error. I'd bet most others understand it completely.

Yet another interesting admission: you are going to make a charge that you cannot factually back up.

You made the same claim earlier: And it blew up in your face as I noted at the time by these quotes from the AR (2010 edition) indicate:

And, of course, the SC GL website carried the same view:

Sometimes it's hard to believe how easily you manage to shoot yourself in the foot, then how hard you deny the blood flowing from the wound. You really need to learn some analytical and research skills, unless you really don't care about being taken seriously, which I'm starting to believe is the case. You are so invested in Freemasonry (Mike adds: with time and in defense of it, but NOT FINANCIALLY, since Masonic "pastors" pay no dues), you merely look for supporting material and ignore that which doesn't meet your filter. That's how circular arguments work, and seems to be an exclusive technique of yours.

Nope, we're pointing to the Code that notes where you are wrong on the qualifications of petitioners in NC. You really need to try and keep these things straight.

You really don't like being corrected, do you? It has led you to the conclusion that errors of yours should not be highlighted on threads, which is an interesting position to take. I never thought infallibility applied itself to pastors, and you should consider that as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah; we got it. You simply won't deign to admit to error. That will certainly save a lot of work on your part, but we'll continue to keep you honest. Yes, it's a sacrifice on our parts due to the workload, but we'll do it anyway in the interest of analytical integrity.

Not really; but compare it to the amount of frantic posturing you've posted trying to hide from the obvious fact that you screwed up.

I think I've mentioned this before, but you've been unable to keep up with your own comments, have not bothered to research your charges against us and have simply lost track of the contents of the threads. Stop the cut & paste effort long enough to gather your thoughts and enforce a little more discipline on your analysis before you post. We'd all welcome such a change.

Cordially, Skip. (emphasis from Mike)

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wow, Mike, that's pretty good, one antimason goes off the deep end, not to mention off the topic, and the other one cheers him on as he does so. Which pretty well illustrates the vacuity of the current antimason presence here.