Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation II: Monitorial

[spiritman1]

yada yada. There is no Illuminati. You watch too much youtube. Get a real pastime, for goodness' sake.

And the "G" is derived from the Hebrew Yod, signifying the four-letter Hebrew tetragrammaton, or ineffable name of God.

Yeah I'm sure thats what they tell you! no illuminati huh!.....they got a good one when they found you!

 

[Rev Wayne]

they got a good one when they found you!

Yeah, I'm sure that's what "they" tell you too.

 

[Skip Sampson]

And the "G" is derived from the Hebrew Yod, signifying the four-letter Hebrew tetragrammaton, or ineffable name of God.

Do you have a GL source that states that fact? Your own GL has this to say:

It is hardly necessary to say that the letter G, wherever spoken of in Masonry as a symbol, is merely a modern substitution of the Hebrew letter yod, which was the initial of Jehovah, the tetragammaton, and, therefore, constantly used as the symbol of Deity. (SC GL, AR, 2010, pg. 151)

So I'm curious: how did the English letter G get derived from the Hebrew Yod? Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

You keep mentioning "calling" them. Where did you get such a ridiculous notion? I stated all along that I had attempted to order the manual from a subordinate lodge who had the publication for sale on their website. The contacts were made by email.

​

I got the notion from you, and the above claim is simply untrue. Your statements, "all along," did not indicate that you were working with a subordinate lodge; rather, they pointed to the GL itself. The first post of yours on this thread that contains that nugget of information is this one you directed to Mike:

Post 228: Because the contact was direct with the Florida lodge that offered the manual for sale, and because the reply indicated their rejection was rendered after consulting the Florida Grand Secretary, I take it as their official policy, without question.

But here's what you had to say to me from the start:

Post 181: You claim to have simply "called up" the Grand Lodge of Florida and requested these booklets. You and I both know you just can't simply do that. Even if one IS a Mason, there are STILL all the hoops to jump through as regards protocol, identification, etc. I know, because I've been through the process. ... Over the years, I have had a number of contacts with Grand Lodge, and never once has the WM been the one to reply, it's always the Grand Secretary. I've had some contacts with other GL's too, and it's standard with them as well.

Ok, we're talking about calling the GL and you said you've "been through the process" and that you've "had a number of contacts with the GL." Related, I never said I had called them asking for the booklets, only that I had called and inquired about their status. I sent a letter asking for them, which resulted in them sending them to me. BTW, your reference to "WM" was in error as well, as I earlier pointed out.

Post 208: Me: I have ordered copies of training documentation from the GL, but have not yet received them.
You: Nor will you be receiving them either. I was denied even after my payment was accepted, and even after submitting the requested verification that I am a Mason, which consisted of a scanned copy of my current dues card. My request was rejected simply because I am not a Mason in Florida.

Ok, we're talking about ordering things from the GL and you imply to have done so as well. One assumes 'they' returned your payment.

Post 220: Me: the FL GL training manuals which I had ordered by mail finally arrived today. They include the Mentor's Manual and the 8 Masonic Education booklets. As I noted, all one has to do is send in an order form with payment and the books show up. This tactic has worked in several jurisdictions.
You: As I already told you, they would not even sell them to me even though I provided Masonic identification as requested, because I do not reside in Florida. Naturally, since you live there, the residency issue would not come up.

Ok, I'm talking about ordering from the GL and you claim 'they' (meaning the GL) wouldn't sell you the same books.​

Post 222: In my case, I placed an order for the Florida Monitor specifically, and not the other materials.

Ok, based on all that preceded, you are referring to the GL.

Post 224: You: But since Florida Grand Lodge made it clear to me they would not permit the sale of Masonic materials to anyone other than Florida Masons, I find your story extremely doubtful.

Me: Some GL folks are pretty perceptive, ya know.​

You: Apparently not. They have me photocopy my credentials and still don't send me the material; while they send you (or so you claim) anything you ask for, no questions asked. Some of us non-GL folks are pretty perceptive too, but it doesn't take that much perception to see the holes in your story, given the response I as a Mason received when I tried to do the same.

Ok, you bluntly claim that the FL GL told you something, and that 'they' did not send you the material.

Post 226: But since you wish to make such an issue of such a non-issue, maybe it's worth looking into. I'll contact them and ask why antimason Skip Sampson can purchase things from them and I as a Mason cannot. It still might not get me any materials, but at least they'd have a name to watch for, and they can plug the leak next time around.

Ok, you know how to get in touch with them.

Post 228: All I know is, the official policy of the Florida Grand Lodge, as they initially defined it to me, is, they distribute such materials only to Masons. And upon supplying Masonic identification per their request (photocopied dues card attached to an email), they then rejected the request, and informed me that the Florida Monitor was for sale only to Florida Masons.

Ok, you now claim to know the official policy of the GL, which "they initially defined to me," meaning direct contact with them. You also say 'they' rejected your request and 'informed' you of that decision.

Post 228 (continued): Because the contact was direct with the Florida lodge that offered the manual for sale, and because the reply indicated their rejection was rendered after consulting the Florida Grand Secretary, I take it as their official policy, without question.

Ok, now you let Mike know that you've dealt with a subordinate lodge, and not the GL itself, but do not indicate that you've never contacted the GL over the matter. The truth, kinda, finally comes out.

To sum up: 1) Your communications up to post 228 indicate direct contact with the FL GL, which, apparently was untrue. If you've never contacted them about this matter, that contradicts claims you have made in this thread. 2) In post 228, you first indicated, to Mike, direct contact with the GL, then contradicted yourself by stating it was through a subordinate lodge. 3) You relied on the subordinate lodge for GL policy without confirming it with the GL; thus, your reliance on secondary sources, aka hearsay, "without question," led you into error, yet again. 4) Therefore, it wasn’t a “ridiculous notion;” rather, a logical conclusion based on your comments. 5) This entire issue is so typical of you it bears little further comment, beyond the obvious: you got caught and are doing all kinds of gymnastics to avoid admitting the mistake and hollowness of your accusations with respect to the documents sitting on my desk. Cordially, Skip.​

 

[Skip Sampson]

Yeah I'm sure thats what they tell you! no illuminati huh!.....they got a good one when they found you!

Wayne is right: he's not a member. If they existed, they wouldn't be that desperate for members. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

how did the English letter G get derived from the Hebrew Yod?

Pretty simple stuff, actually. The yod is the first letter of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, just as "G" is the first letter of the word "God." The Hebrews quite often signified the tetragrammaton, which they were almost as reluctant to write as they were to speak, by the single letter yod. Thus the use of the "G" is the English equivalent practice of signifying God by first letter only.[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]

 

[Rev Wayne]

Wow, Skip, did you check yer brains at the forum door before you entered? Or maybe you should have checked to see if you remembered to bring it.

Your statements, "all along," did not indicate that you were working with a subordinate lodge; rather, they pointed to the GL itself.

Wrong. There are three key points that refute your nonsense:

#1

Post 228: Because the contact was direct with the Florida lodge that offered the manual for sale, and because the reply indicated their rejection was rendered after consulting the Florida Grand Secretary, I take it as their official policy, without question.

That's Florida Lodge, not Florida Grand Lodge. If I had intended "Grand Lodge," I would have SAID "Grand Lodge."


#2

From post 228 again:

Skip seems to be saying that he ordered these materials from the Florida GL. Because of the experience I had, even when it was dealing only with an individual lodge offering it on their website, I remain highly skeptical of Skip's claim. If a subordinate lodge is that careful, it stands to reason the Grand Lodge would be even MORE careful, not less. For that reason, I simply do not believe his story.

Again, just as I did in the piece you cited from that post, I indicated DIRECTLY that I had dealt with a SUBORDINATE lodge.

#3

From what you also cited, from post #181:

Over the years, I have had a number of contacts with Grand Lodge, and never once has the WM been the one to reply, it's always the Grand Secretary. I've had some contacts with other GL's too, and it's standard with them as well.

That being the case, and considering once again the statement you cited from post #228:

their rejection was rendered after consulting the Florida Grand Secretary. . .

The boondoggle you have NOW created is, a scenario in which I "call" the Grand Lodge, and get the usual response FROM THE GRAND SECRETARY, and the action that is taken with my request is, that the Grand Secretary must first consult with the Grand Secretary!

Your claim was ridiculous enough already, but that one is an absolute hoot! But hey, it gets even better (as I figured it would, with your track record):

But here's what you had to say to me from the start:

Post 181: You claim to have simply "called up" the Grand Lodge of Florida and requested these booklets. You and I both know you just can't simply do that. Even if one IS a Mason, there are STILL all the hoops to jump through as regards protocol, identification, etc. I know, because I've been through the process. ... Over the years, I have had a number of contacts with Grand Lodge, and never once has the WM been the one to reply, it's always the Grand Secretary. I've had some contacts with other GL's too, and it's standard with them as well.

What does post #181 have to do with any of this???? From my paypal reply after placing the order:

Feb 1, 2011 17:04:43 PST
Transaction ID: 3JD870169F870810S

Hello Wayne,

You authorized a payment of XXXXX USD to Jackson Lodge No. 1, F.&A.M.

As you can see from that reply, payment was not even sent at the time of the comments in post #181, which is dated January 14. Therefore, post #181 has absolutely nothing to do with what I said either way, because by your comment about "what I had to say from the start," you are trying to have me addressing in that post, an action of mine which was not even taken until over two weeks later. You just get better and better with your facility for creating nonsense.

This is so ridiculous. I can't believe how deep you go to try to prevent admitting your error. But it's nothing new. First it was Jacob's Staircase; then it was rectangular cubes and imaginarily "authoritative" pictures; now you have the Florida Grand Secretary having to contact the Florida Grand Secretary to consult himself for a decision; and you have me addressing comments to you about an action which I had not even taken until over two weeks later!!

You really are a riot. Be sure and keep posting, I haven't enjoyed this much belly laughter since--well, since your last fiasco.

 

[Skip Sampson]

There are three key points that refute your nonsense:

Actually, they do nothing of the sort. The facts show you to be in error, and clearly show you were claiming things that simply did not happen.

Reminds me of a line from an old song: I've come to expect it from you... Cordially, Skip.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Pretty simple stuff, actually.

Indeed. The AR captures it far better than you did. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

A poor retort is better than none in your book, eh? Kinda reminds me of a little kid-like denial, "Did not!"

Strange to consider that a "reply" though.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Indeed. The AR captures it far better than you did.

Don't have a clue what you are aimlessly tossing out on that one. I've cited the same AR passage myself many times, I fail to see any point or any relevance to your reply.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Don't have a clue what you are aimlessly tossing out on that one. I've cited the same AR passage myself many times, I fail to see any point or any relevance to your reply.

No surprise there. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You got that right, your lack of relevance is legendary.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
Here are the training booklets currently issued by the FL GL and their current dates (The LSME and MM are in my possession, courtesy of the GL; the SG's are available online.):

LSME: For training new Masons.

Booklet No. 1 – 2009
Booklet No. 2 – 2009
Booklet No. 3 – 2010
Booklet No. 4 – 1994 (reprinted 2004)​

Masonic Etiquette - 2010
The EA Degree – 2010
The FC Degree – 1994 (reprinted 2004)
The MM Degree – 1994 (reprinted 2011)

Lodge Training Course Study Guide (available online): For further training of new Master Masons.
Mod I – 2002
Mod II – 1994

Mod III – 1994​

The Mentor’s Manual (2008) (available online): For use by Mentors as a reference aid in their function as trainers of new Masons.

As you can see, they are all in force, and all used as part of the training process in FL. You might refer to your post #164 about the issue dates of some of these and which are more current.

I also thought you'd be interested in this comparison (bolding added):

Digest: Masonic Law is of two kinds, viz: The unwritten and written. The unwritten law of Masonry comprises its mystic covenants and ceremonies which have been handed down by tradition from time immemorial, and which no Mason, or set of Masons, is at liberty to violate or unlawfully reveal. The written law of Masonry is embraced in the Holy Bible, the Constitution and legislation of Grand Lodge, and the Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Particular Lodges, respectively, to which every Mason in his proper sphere of fraternal jurisdiction should yield dutiful conformity

​

LSME Vol 3 – 2010: Masonic Law exists in two main branches, Unwritten Law and "Written Law. By Unwritten Law is not meant that it is never written down, but rather that its authority does not lie in the form in which it may be written-if written at all. Under this head fall the Ancient Landmarks, Old Charges, Ancient Constitutions, traditions, customs, and usages. By the Written Law are meant the Volume of Sacred Law, Grand Lodge Constitutions, Codes, Statutes, Rules, Definitions, Regulations, adopted Edicts, and Lodge By-Laws. (pg. 13)

Refer back to your post #185 for context. Slowly but surely, the Bible is giving way to the Volume of Sacred Law in Florida, and probably elsewhere as well. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Refer back to your post #185 for context. Slowly but surely, the Bible is giving way to the Volume of Sacred Law in Florida, and probably elsewhere as well.

I don't see how you expect to substantiate this from what you just posted, since we already showed earlier that the 2010 version of the Digest still says Holy Bible, just as it shows in what you just cited from the Digest, WHEREVER it came from (the date was omitted in your post). That wording has not changed from the 1994 version.

So, how do you propose to support a claim of "the Bible giving way to the Volume of Sacred Law in Florida," when you cite from two documents that both reflect the reading as it appears in 2010, and one says Holy Bible while the other says "Volume of Sacred Law?" And while I don't really consider any of this to be "new," and have no need to hunt it down and do your legwork for you, I'm fairly certain you had already stated that this same wording was found in the 1994 LSME #3--which would mean that IT has not changed since then either.

Which is not a surprise, since what you posted clearly states that the "new" booklet you received is a "reprint," and not a new edition.

So since it has not changed since 1994, all you've managed to show, really, is that the Digest and the LSME were different in 1994, and they are still different now.

Amazing. You don't really seem to know where you were going with this, which probably explains why you wound up somewhere else.

 

[Skip Sampson]

I don't see how you expect to substantiate this from what you just posted,

The proof is in the recorded changes, as this set exemplifies (emphasis added):

LSME Vol 2 - 1976: The Three Great Lights are the Holy Bible, the Square and the Compasses. As a Great Light the Bible represents the will of God as a man understands it; (p. 20, cited by Wayne Majors)

LSME Vol 2 – 1994 & 2009: The Three Great Lights are the Volume of Sacred Law, the Square and the Compasses. As a Great Light the Volume of Sacred Law represents the will of God as a man understands it; (pgs. 7 & 6, respectively)

When a is altered in subsequent editions, it is clear that it was by design, and meaning can be derived from the change. Mine is as stated: the Bible will get replaced more and more with the VSL, not only in Florida, but within Masonry in general.
This change can also be seen in this comparison (emphasis added):

The written law of Masonry is embraced in the Holy Bible, the Constitution and legislation of Grand Lodge, and the Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Particular Lodges, respectively, to which every Mason in his proper sphere of fraternal jurisdiction should yield dutiful conformity. (Digest, 2005, Art. 1.03, pg. 79)

By the Written Law are meant the Volume of Sacred Law, Grand Lodge Constitutions, Codes, Statutes, Rules, Definitions, Regulations, adopted Edicts, and Lodge By-Laws. (LSME Vol 3, 2010, pg. 13)

Though two different references, the fact that LSME does not follow the Digest is pretty significant, especially given the date of the LSME reference. Even more so is why a training document would take a position opposed to the Digest. BTW, the Digest is unavailable on the GL website; it is apparently under construction, whatever that might mean. Should be interesting to see what, if anything, has changed when it comes back up.

I don’t consider the movement towards the VSL to be recent, as the record shows that within the FL GL, the VSL is already preeminent. One proof of this: Vols 1 - 4 of the LSME, which are specifically designed to teach new Masons, do not mention the Bible at all, though they do refer to the VSL on several occasions, as typified by this:

The Volume of Sacred Law is the Great Light in Masonry, and the Rule and Guide for faith and practice. (LSME Vol 3, 2010, pg. 11)

All that makes the LSME consistent with both the Mentor’s Manual:

The Great Light of Freemasonry is the Volume of the Sacred Law and it is an indispensable part of the furniture of a Lodge. (2008, pg. 10)

And the preponderance of evidence in the Digest:

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible. (1941 Proc. 82) (38.27) (Note: the Digest does not define the Three Great Lights.)

The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every Lodge while at Labor, …” (pg. 3)
The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every regular Lodge while at labor. (Ch. 1, pg. 77)
The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the Altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every regular Lodge while at labor. (Excerpt; Art. XIII, Sec. 2) (pg. 291, Art. 38.25)​

The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every regular Lodge while at labor. (FL Digest, Art. XIII, pg. 70)

FL GL documentation does contain inconsistencies. Specifically, the Monitor, ritual and Study Guide Mod II all point to the Bible as one of the Great Lights, one way or another, as does the EA Degree Booklet. The Masonic Etiquette booklet refers indirectly to the Bible as a Great Light. I put those views down as another facet of ‘Masonic scholarship.’ Either that or those references haven’t yet caught up in the New Thinking. My guess is that the ritual and Monitor will not be changed, as these have pedigrees that go far beyond the FL GL. I think the SG, which is dated 1994, will eventually get updated, as will the EA Degree and Masonic Etiquette booklets, even though those are dated from 2010. I suspect no one really read through it for consistency before uploading it. Analysis continues.

The Mentor’s Manual explains the apparent disconnect:

The Great Light of Freemasonry is the Volume of the Sacred Law and it is an indispensable part of the furniture of a Lodge. The Grand Lodges of the United States use the Holy Bible as the V.S.L. on their altars. (pg. 10)

This is the only reference that I’ve found in FL GL training documentation that shows the relationship of the VSL and the Bible. It’s location is significant, as the MM is designed to assist the mentor in the training of new Masons; thus, it would be expected to discuss just such a matter.​

I interpret that in this manner: The VSL really is part of the Great Lights, but the GL has chosen the Bible from among that volume to use in its jurisdiction. This also fits well with the definition of the VSL:

VOLUME OF SACRED LAW: The Holy Book placed upon the Altar in a Masonic Lodge, the correct term to be used Masonically for all holy books. (SG MOD II, pg. 83)

Notice that the (singular) VSL is the term used for the (plural) holy books. Thus, the Bible cannot be 'the' VSL, and they are not really interchangeable as the latter appellation clearly applies to many books. Notice too that the definition equates the Bible to any other book a man might decide is ‘holy.’ As a pastor, I’m sure you find nothing offensive in that definition.
So here’s how it works in Florida:
1) The candidate learns that the Bible is the Great Light in Masonry and the rule and guide to his faith and practice in the EA ritual, a view which is backed up by the Monitor. 2) When he shifts to the LSME to learn more, he finds that it’s really the VSL that is the Great Light and that the Bible is not mentioned at all. 3) When he asks his mentor, the latter explains the relationship from the MM. 4) Later on, he visits the Study Guides and finds that they support the ritual in terms of what constitutes the Great Lights, but he refers back to what his mentor told him and sees the proper context. 5) If he’s really energetic, he looks to the Digest and finds that it really is the VSL. He is most likely confused by these statements, but I’m sure he’ll get over them:

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible. (1941 Proc. 82) (ruling under Art. 38.27)

It is proper for Low Twelve Club to display open Bible on Altar but not proper to display Three Great Lights. (1967 Proc. 57, 211) (ruling under Art. 38.45)

6) He rests secure in the Masonic view that the Bible is only one of many volumes classified as ‘holy books’ but is important within FL GL because it was decided to make it so. And someday they may decide to use a different VSL.
Hope this helps. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

LSME Vol 2 - 1976: The Three Great Lights are the Holy Bible, the Square and the Compasses. As a Great Light the Bible represents the will of God as a man understands it; (p. 20, cited by Wayne Majors)

LSME Vol 2 – 1994 & 2009: The Three Great Lights are the Volume of Sacred Law, the Square and the Compasses. As a Great Light the Volume of Sacred Law represents the will of God as a man understands it; (pgs. 7 & 6, respectively)

Don't know why you reposted this information, we already covered this. And this simply reflects information we already knew, that the 1994 version of it has not changed--which we already knew anyway, from the information you posted about your new set being "reprints" and not new editions.

This change can also be seen in this comparison (emphasis added):

Though two different references, the fact that LSME does not follow the Digest is pretty significant, especially given the date of the LSME reference. Even more so is why a training document would take a position opposed to the Digest. BTW, the Digest is unavailable on the GL website; it is apparently under construction, whatever that might mean. Should be interesting to see what, if anything, has changed when it comes back up.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. We already know that the Digest dated 2010 still has "Holy Bible," because it was cited from during the course of the discussion. Why you didn't post that one, I'm not sure, unless you're just trying to be deceptive with it, like you thought I wouldn't remember.

And you miss the mark when you try to put a divide between the terms by calling one of them "opposed" to the other. "VSL" and "Holy Bible" are not conflicting or opposing terms. VSL is a generic term, Holy Bible is a specific term.

And when you mentioned the Digest is "unavailable on the GL website," I went straight to the site and immediately pulled it up, and there it is, just as it was during the time we were involved in that discussion, 2004 version with 2010 updates. Still says Holy Bible, too, just like it did then. I guess you never heard of site maintenance, which apparently was underway at the time you tried. But why you would expect "changes" to the Digest, when the site version was already updated through 2010, is unclear. Why you posted from the 2005 Digest when you could have found it just as easily as you did what I posted about the 1976 booklet, is also unclear. Seems you're trying to make your case with a list of suggestions and implications, all of which are created by your selective citation.

Really, nothing has changed that I can see. We already knew what the 1976 booklet said, as well as the 1994 and 2009 booklets that you placed alongside it. You added nothing new to what we've already covered. I also posted these earlier:

GREAT LIGHTS: The furniture of the Lodge; the Holy Bible, Square and Compasses. (Florida, "Dictionary of Masonic Terms," Module 2 Study Guide, 2002, p. 71)

THREE GREAT LIGHTS: The Holy Bible, Square & Compasses. (Florida, "Dictionary of Masonic Terms," Module 2 Study Guide, 2002, p. 82)

Yet, while I see you must have gotten the "VOLUME OF SACRED LAW" quote from the study guide, you apparently neglected to post the definition it contains for "Great Lights" or for "Three Great Lights." Is there some reason for that? Did you forget?

And how did you consider this to be "evidence":

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible. (1941 Proc. 82) (38.27) (Note: the Digest does not define the Three Great Lights.)

Since the Digest clearly defines what the FIRST one is, your note is irrelevant. Since you obviously don't wish to admit that the SG still has Holy Bible as one of the three great lights, thus showing it does not corroborate your theory, I submit that apparently your acquisition was not a bit helpful to you, as the status of the discussion has not changed one whit from where we had already taken it. What a waste of your money. Makes me glad now my order got rejected. I doubt anything was changed there either. Not that it matters, I do have the current Florida ritual, and I know it still has Holy Bible. Interesting, too, your comment:

My guess is that the ritual and Monitor will not be changed, as these have pedigrees that go far beyond the FL GL.

And since the ritual and the monitor are the real authority when it comes to Grand Lodge publications, as you've always insisted (but now go to great conniptions to dodge), the rest of your "guesses" are just more Skip Sampson smoke and mirrors.

So here’s how it works in Florida:
1) The candidate learns that the Bible is the Great Light in Masonry and the rule and guide to his faith and practice in the EA ritual, a view which is backed up by the Monitor. 2) When he shifts to the LSME to learn more, he finds that it’s really the VSL that is the Great Light and that the Bible is not mentioned at all. 3) When he asks his mentor, the latter explains the relationship from the MM. 4) Later on, he visits the Study Guides and finds that they support the ritual in terms of what constitutes the Great Lights, but he refers back to what his mentor told him and sees the proper context. 5) If he’s really energetic, he looks to the Digest and finds that it really is the VSL. He is most likely confused by these statements, but I’m sure he’ll get over them:

Gee, what a convoluted picture you invented. What will be the most likely thing that takes place is, he will look at the altar when he attends lodge, where he will see for himself it's the Bible.

I interpret that in this manner: The VSL really is part of the Great Lights, but the GL has chosen the Bible from among that volume to use in its jurisdiction

Just more Skip Sampson smokework. The Bible has ALWAYS been the Bible on the altar, it was not "chosen from among" any "volume." That should be clear from the fact that "volume of Sacred Law" was not even a term in vogue at the time Florida GL was formed.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Don't know why you reposted this

You asked for supporting documentation for my view that the Bible is being replaced by the VSL in FL documentation. Ya got it and I think it's pretty convincing. It's pretty clear that this happened in the LSME as noted, and is probably happening elsewhere, as also noted.

We already know that the Digest dated 2010 still has "Holy Bible," because it was cited from during the course of the discussion. Why you didn't post that one, I'm not sure

Which quote are you referring to?

And you miss the mark when you try to put a divide between the terms by calling one of them "opposed" to the other.

Oh, I think not. The Digest contains Masonic law; the LSME is a training document. That the latter bluntly contradicts the former is significant and fits well with my theory.

And when you mentioned the Digest is "unavailable on the GL website," I went straight to the site and immediately pulled it up, and there it is, just as it was during the time we were involved in that discussion, 2004 version with 2010 updates.

Here is the link I used, and it's still down:
Grand Lodge of Florida
Send along your link and we'll see.

Yet, while I see you must have gotten the "VOLUME OF SACRED LAW" quote from the study guide, you apparently neglected to post the definition it contains for "Great Lights" or for "Three Great Lights." Is there some reason for that?

I guess you didn't read my post as closely as you demand that others read yours (emphasis added):

Specifically, the Monitor, ritual and Study Guide Mod II all point to the Bible as one of the Great Lights, one way or another, as does the EA Degree Booklet.

It was unnecessary to quote the SG, or the Monitor and Ritual for that matter.

And how did you consider this to be "evidence": ... Since the Digest clearly defines what the FIRST one is, your note is irrelevant.

Because it did not refer to it as a 'Great' light. One can argue that something else was meant, especially since the Digest goes to great lengths to proclaim the VSL as the furniture of the lodge which, of course, includes the Great Lights.

Since you obviously don't wish to admit that the SG still has Holy Bible as one of the three great lights,

Guess you are wrong about that, as the earlier quote of mine noted.

I do have the current Florida ritual, and I know it still has Holy Bible.

As do I. And, as I also noted, that's not likely to change. One has to wonder why, if the ritual and monitor are such authorities, the LSME would directly contradict both. My reasons for that are as stated, and fit the facts nicely.

Gee, what a convoluted picture you invented. What will be the most likely thing that takes place is, he will look at the altar when he attends lodge, where he will see for himself it's the Bible.

Unless he sees another VSL there as well, then he'll remember what the LSME and MM have taught.

The Bible has ALWAYS been the Bible on the altar, it was not "chosen from among" any "volume." That should be clear from the fact that "volume of Sacred Law" was not even a term in vogue at the time Florida GL was formed.

Interesting verbiage: "the bible has ALWAYS been the Bible on the altar..." Maybe you agree with this statement:

... in that teaching it is as true and as profound as the utterances of the seers in the Bibles of the world; (FL GL MM Degree, 1994, pg. 2)

I think it's an interesting statement, and highlights the view that all the books of the VSL are equal to each other.
As well, the Bible was chosen, and any GL can change that to another VSL without violating Masonic law, or practices. As to being in vogue, I think the concept of the VSL goes back much farther than does the FL GL. More to follow. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

You asked for supporting documentation for my view that the Bible is being replaced by the VSL in FL documentation.

Wow, what a vivid imagination you have. I asked for a comparison of what you found in the booklets you allegedly received, in comparison with what I had posted from the earlier (2002, if I recall) booklets. And so far, even with your current reply, you seem to be studiously avoiding the specific passages to which I was referring. Sure, you made a SLIGHT passing reference to it, that it refers to Great Lights "one way or another." But instead of simply responding to that question with a simple post of the entry, as requested, you dip, dodge, run, and eventually make only a sideways comment that barely even fits the description of an acknowledgment. Why is that, Skip? Do you really think obfuscation and obtusion are preferable to simple replies?

Which quote are you referring to?

The Digest entry you quoted from 2005, which still had "Holy Bible." As I pointed out, we already knew the 2010 updates showed it had not changed, yet you were trying to imply that when the Digest came back up on the webpage, we could expect a "change." My point was, why would we expect any such thing, when we already knew what was there, in the version that already had the 2010 updates? And why, since you were able to go back to that discussion, did you choose to get the 2005 and not the 2010 quotes that were brought out in that discussion. Doesn't sound like your revisiting of the discussion was very thorough, despite your apparent attempts to present a facade showing it was.

Ya got it and I think it's pretty convincing. It's pretty clear that this happened in the LSME as noted, and is probably happening elsewhere, as also noted.

And "ya got it" from me that this apparently is NOT "happening elsewhere," because I had already posted earlier, a whole SLEW of references from all over, showing a different story. Besides, too, you're still trying to spin an issue that was already debunked earlier anyway, when you go to the Digest comments. You were already shown that the Digest, in referring to Freemasonry in general, speaks of "VSL," while using "Holy Bible" in specific reference to the VSL in Florida.

Oh, I think not. The Digest contains Masonic law; the LSME is a training document. That the latter bluntly contradicts the former is significant and fits well with my theory.

Again, "bluntly contradicts" is nothing but SkipSpeak language. The use of VSL is not a "contradiction" of terms, as shown in the earlier discussion of the Digest usage. The Digest speaks in general terms when speaking of all Masonry, and thus uses the generic "VSL," and uses the more specific "Holy Bible" when speaking of Florida's VSL.

Here is the link I used, and it's still down:

I followed your link, made one click, and it's still NOT down. I was right back to the Digest page, just as before. The problem is obviously some glitch in either your computer or your server, because I've had no problem going right back there each time.

Here's the link to the page I arrived at, after following your link and making one click:

http://www.glflamason.org/documents/Digest 2010.pdf

One can't help but wonder whether you went to that page, saw the single underlined word "Digest" at the top of the page, and instead of clicking on it, automatically said "Hmmmm......I guess it's not available."

Because it did not refer to it as a 'Great' light. One can argue that something else was meant, especially since the Digest goes to great lengths to proclaim the VSL as the furniture of the lodge which, of course, includes the Great Lights.

Again, you are trying to assert things which were already covered and debunked. Examples were cited showing that "Great" and "Grand" are very often used in Masonry interchangeably. And since that ruling in the Digest ALSO specifically references the "Grand Light" as the BIBLE, you have no argument.

One has to wonder why, if the ritual and monitor are such authorities, the LSME would directly contradict both.

It's not a contradiction, Masonry employs both terms, one is general, the other specific. The ritual and monitor necessarily pertain more to Florida Masonry, and quite naturally would retain the specifics.

It's kinda like nouns and proper nouns, they are not contradictory in nature, just differentiated by general or specific reference. Mike Gentry is a man; he is also Mike Gentry. But his being Mike Gentry does not "contradict" his being a man, as if he ceased being a man simply because he has a specific name.

Likewise, Florida, like all Grand Lodges, has a VSL that opens the lodge. Florida's VSL is the Holy Bible. The terms are not contradictory.

Unless he sees another VSL there as well, then he'll remember what the LSME and MM have taught.

Sure: IF he ever sees one there, he'll remember that individual candidates have the right, if they choose, to use a VSL that is the book of their own faith. It'll probably clue him in that a person is about to join Florida lodge who hails from some other faith. What it WON'T tell him, is that "Florida's VSL has changed," or whatever else you're trying to sell. The fact that one candidate chooses another book on which to take his obligation, does not change the fact that the book which is REQUIRED to be on the altar for Florida lodges to be considered "legally constituted," is the Holy Bible--which is what makes it Florida's VSL.

As to being in vogue, I think the concept of the VSL goes back much farther than does the FL GL.

Well, as always, Skip Sampson will "think" all sorts of things--and as has been shown, he will MANY times adopt some rather absurd notions in the process.

Interesting verbiage: "the bible has ALWAYS been the Bible on the altar..."

Interesting spin. The reference was inadvertent, of course, as you are probably already aware. "Book on the altar" was the intent. Not surprising that you would try to use it as cannon fodder though.

 

[Rev Wayne]

W: I do have the current Florida ritual, and I know it still has Holy Bible.
S: As do I.

Great! Perhaps you can help me with something. How do you interpret the lines spoken by the W.M., p. 21, 10th line down from the top, through the thirteenth?