Biblical Content and/or Christian Interpretation of Masonry

[Rev Wayne]

In reality, you have no clue how many Masons are aware of it.

In reality, you are in even less position to have a clue how many are aware of it either--or for that matter, about anything in Masonry at all.

But your comments do highlight the facts that many SC Masons are unfamiliar with GL literature and how poorly the GL gets its message out.

No, it just highlights how little added benefit they perceive it as having. I'd have to say people have their hands full enough already when putting on degree work, and with officers meeting for practice, coaches meeting with candidates to go over the work, and the time spent by all involved making sure they've got the lectures down pat, they're plenty enough involved already. They're pretty ready to take them up on the instruction that it's optional, especially when it says:

The plan is optional with the lodges, but if adopted, should be used in its entirety.

When you consider the "entirety" of the plan calls for four meetings, one before, and one after each degree, and the fact that it doesn't really cover anything any different than is already covered in the ritual and lectures, it's probably deemed an unnecessary addition to a process that already gives them plenty to do.

Fits into my view that most Masons are content with anecdotal evidence heard in the lodge as opposed to what the GL actually teaches.

You always seem to think everything fits into your view, probably because you have a lot more confidence in your skewed views than is actually merited.

"What the lodge actually teaches" is already there, in the ritual and the lectures. Not surprising though, given your past flip-flops, that you'd do your best to try to assert this as primary while calling the real work "anecdotal."

Or maybe they are just embarrassed by what the GL teaches.

Or maybe they just take it for what it says, "optional."

Either way, thanks for the insight.

Well, so far you haven't shown any, but you're welcome either way.

 

[Skip Sampson]

In reality, you are in even less position to have a clue how many are aware of it either

Oh, I doubt that. Here is a list of SC Masons who I am sure are aware of it: William B Rogers, Jay Adam Pearson, David J. DeChant, William R (Bill) Logan, Noel P Rogers Jr, Walter C Disher II, C Todd Schofield, James R Parks Jr, Robert W Kendrick, Johnny D Smith, J Eddy Mitchell, Billy M Williams Sr, J. Wayne Mears Sr, A Glenn Greene III.

Incidentally, here are some comments by a SC mason on the topic, in his advice to new WM's:

Always try to have Masonic education at your regular communications. This will help inspire and keep the brethren informed and interested. Always use the "Lodge System of Masonic Education." (William B. Rogers, Masonic Light, Dec 2011 issue)

So, all Masons who bothered to read that GL column are also aware of the LSME. Also note that while the author recommends the WM 'try' to have such education, he's real clear on what should be relied upon when doing so: the LSME.

It's interesting: once again I have been shown to know more about SC Masonry than you do. You rely on the anecdotal evidence of what one Mason recalls, while I do the research. Pretty ironic.

and the fact that it doesn't really cover anything any different than is already covered in the ritual and lectures,

So there are no differences between the LSME on one hand and the degree rituals on the other?

Most LSME programs are to train the newly made Mason, and to explain what he had gone through. Masonic education has long been decried as lacking, which is why most of these programs were developed. Not having the SC LSME, yet, I would still assume that it goes into more of an explanation of the degrees than the rituals do themselves. Should be interesting to see if I'm right about that.

Moreover, memorizing ritual is all very fine, if you don't have much of a life, but training Masons would seem to be similarly important, as he above-cited article indicates.

"What the lodge actually teaches" is already there, in the ritual and the lectures.

Were that so, the LSME would be unnecessary, not just optional. But someone in authority thought there was a need for it, hence it's writing and promulgation. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

So, all Masons who bothered to read that GL column are also aware of the LSME.

And how many was that, Skip?

It's interesting: once again I have been shown to know more about SC Masonry than you do.

Not really, that's just your usual self-aggrandizement, telling you that you know more than you actually do.

You rely on the anecdotal evidence of what one Mason recalls, while I do the research. Pretty ironic.

"Research?" Talk about irony, now there's a good one. You show the ability to go to the SC Grand Lodge website, gather a few names, and cite an article you see there, and call that "research."

And where did you get the idea that since I mentioned one Mason in particular, mainly because of his long years of involvement in the craft, and a good deal of that beyond the local lodge level, that what I stated was what "one" Mason recalls? Actually, I haven't met any Mason who was aware these existed, other than our DDGM who was the one behind the desk who sold it to me at the meeting. You need to turn your binoculars around once in awhile, or do away with them entirely, your focus is always one of maximizing your comments and belittling anything said to you.

Incidentally, here are some comments by a SC mason on the topic, in his advice to new WM's:

At least you got a little closer on this one. The Masonic Light is at least distributed at the local level. But I've never had anyone come to me and say, "Hey, did you see what was in the Masonic Education section of the Masonic Light this month?" They have, however, come and mentioned things found in other sections of the publication, like death announcements, special communications, awards to someone they know, or degree work coming up in lodges around our area. But then, you wouldn't find that in the only two sections that they post on the website, which are basically, the GM's message and the Education piece.

So there are no differences between the LSME on one hand and the degree rituals on the other?

I don't see anything that is out of step from one to the other. I cited it, in part, to illustrate for you the difference between our jurisdiction, and others where you have tried to drive a wedge between "Volume of Sacred Law" from their booklets and the statements in monitor and ritual avowing the Holy Bible as their "Great Light." In SC, you would not be able to do that.

Another thing I've noticed you trying to do is assert booklets over ritual, which you can't do:

CODE, SEC 246. Work in South Carolina.—The Ritual as revised and adopted by the Grand Lodge in 1894 is a system derived indirectly from Webb, and differing in no essential part from the Webb work, it is, therefore, recognized in this Jurisdiction as the correct work, and must be adopted by the Subordinate Lodges.

Compare that statement with the booklet:

The plan is optional with the lodges

There's the key, ritual "MUST" be adopted, LSME booklets are entirely optional.

Were that so, the LSME would be unnecessary, not just optional. But someone in authority thought there was a need for it, hence it's writing and promulgation.

But those who make the decisions in the local lodge have apparently taken "optional" as "unnecessary," hence its nonuse and non-promulgation.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Research?

Yes, exactly. Not particularly indepth, but sufficient to the issue.

Another thing I've noticed you trying to do is assert booklets over ritual,

Untrue. GL training documentation attempts to explain the ritual. I do believe that the ritual cannot be easily altered by a GL, but the training usually can, which is why there are disconnects between the two. Examining the deltas is a fascinating view into Masonic thinking at the GL level.

LSME booklets are entirely optional.

Not quite true, as the Chairman of the SC GL Masonic Education Committee has noted. His view, as expressed earlier, was that the LSME should "always" be used in Masonic education during regular communications. You can argue the apparent contradiction with him at some future date. I'm sure he'd love hearing from you on the topic, especially on how poorly the GL, and his committee, have done in getting the word out. Let us know how it goes. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Not particularly indepth

A noticeable feature of ALL of your "research."

Untrue. GL training documentation attempts to explain the ritual.

Guess you forgot conversations on this very thread, and probably others, where you most certainly were trying to assert the primacy of LSME over ritual. Guess you're trying to reverse yourself after the fact? Maybe Masonry could help you with some of that memory problem.

Not quite true, as the Chairman of the SC GL Masonic Education Committee has noted.

A reversal, if course, of yet another position formerly taken on CF threads, regarding MSA material vs statements from its chairman. Good thinking though, you'll be needing flip-flops this summer.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Guess you forgot conversations on this very thread, and probably others, where you most certainly were trying to assert the primacy of LSME over ritual.

Example of that, if you please. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Example of that, if you please. Cordially, Skip.

I don't please.

 

[Skip Sampson]

I don't please.

What a surprise: you can't back up a claim. Nothing new, of course, as standard Masonic practice on this forum is to make unsupported charges, then refuse to document. Masonic scholarship in action, for all to see. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

What a surprise, being your usual cordial self, you can't pass up a single post without trying to turn it into another accusation. No need for me to "document" what is right there for anyone to see. Don't know how you figure it wasn't "documenting" to tell you it happened on this thread and elsewhere on Masonic threads here. You yourself already know exactly which ones those were. You were there, remember? You were called on it at the time, too, remember?

You might try p. 10 & 11 on this thread, you were as full of yourself as ever. I think perhaps the most classic example of your incredible ineptitude at "research," was the one where you tried to insist that Jesus and Christ were two different persons.

Antimasonic sholastic bumbling, for all to see.

 

[Skip Sampson]

you can't pass up a single post without trying to turn it into another accusation.

No accusations, just stating a fact.

No need for me to "document" what is right there for anyone to see.

Sure, just make claims that you cannot back up and call it justified. No problem; we're used to it by now. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Sure, just make claims that you cannot back up and call it justified. No problem; we're used to it by now.

Sure, ignore what you don't wish to see. We're used to it by now.

Page 10 and 11 this thread, as stated.

 

[Simpleman25]

Sure, ignore what you don't wish to see. We're used to it by now.

Page 10 and 11 this thread, as stated.

Kind of makes you wonder about their ability to read and comprehend.

Either that or they wear special glasses that makes the nonsense they write make sense.

 

[timewerx]

Hey guys

Don't waste your time in very long debates like these.

Neither sides will win - discussions-wise I guarantee that.

Put yourself in the sandals of Jesus - what would Jesus do?

Obviously, he'll hop into His boat or walk in the water to the next town. Jesus is incredibly good when it comes to efficiency and minimizing waste

 

[Rev Wayne]

Hey guys

Don't waste your time in very long debates like these.

Neither sides will win - discussions-wise I guarantee that.

My experiences on a number of forums, but especially this one, tell me different. The real winner is the one you never hear from on forum. Occasionally one of them will PM me and tell me, "You know, I always figured there was another side to this, but all you ever see and hear are the conspiratorial rants."
On this particular issue, for a number of years, in online contexts, it was all one-sided due to a declared and unified position and pattern of non-response. That has changed, and for the good I think, in at least having the effect of leveling the playing field a bit.

 

[Simpleman25]

My experiences on a number of forums, but especially this one, tell me different. The real winner is the one you never hear from on forum. Occasionally one of them will PM me and tell me, "You know, I always figured there was another side to this, but all you ever see and hear are the conspiratorial rants."
On this particular issue, for a number of years, in online contexts, it was all one-sided due to a declared and unified position and pattern of non-response. That has changed, and for the good I think, in at least having the effect of leveling the playing field a bit.

I agree. At least on this site you don't have guys that will cut your posting or not even post it to begin with.

 

[Skip Sampson]

As you can see, there is none of what you found elsewhere, the Holy Bible is the Great Light upon the altar, not VSL.

Here's what your LSME, which your treat as authoritative, also states while discussing the letter G:

...first, as being the first letter of our name for that Deity in whose existence all Masons have professed belief, the continued expression of which is symbolized by the presence of the Volume of the Sacred Law upon our altar; ... (pg. 40)

It claims that the VSL is what is upon the altar, which makes it one of the Great Lights. The quote also explains this one from your earlier post (emphasis added):

The Great Lights in Masonry are the Holy Bible, Square and Compass. As a Great Light, the Holy Bible represents the Sacred Book of the Law and is a symbol of man's acknowledgment of and his relation to Deity. (SC LSME, 2006 revised, p. 30)

In the above the Bible is not only just a symbol, but it is also a representation of another book, "the Sacred Book of the Law" which is just another name for the VSL.

Incidentally, did you catch the implications of this part of my quote from the LSME?

as being the first letter of our name for that Deity in whose existence all Masons have professed belief,

Quite simply, it states that God is just "our name" for another god in whom all Masons believe. In SC Lodges, the use of "God" is just one name for an entity that goes under other names, such as, one assumed, Allah, Vishnu, Molech, etc.

Thanks for bringing the LSME to my attention. It is very interesting. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

In the above the Bible is not only just a symbol, but it is also a representation of another book, "the Sacred Book of the Law" which is just another name for the VSL.

Wow, what a spin. You totally blow by the fact that the Bible IS the Great Light, as it says. But you miss the boat with calling "the Sacred Book of the Law" a literal book. And you miss the boat even worse when you try to say the term is merely "another name for the VSL." The term is figurative, and is used in reference to the declared will of God as made known to man. Look to Mackey's Encyclopedia for the further explication of it:

BOOK OF THE LAW. The Holy Bible, which is always open in a Lodge as a symbol that its light should be diffused among the brethren. The passages at which it is opened differ in the various Degrees (See Scriptures, Reading of the).
Masonically, the Book of the Law is that sacred book which is believed by the Freemason of any particular religion to contain the revealed will of God.

In that regard, I'm certainly glad to see that it's the Holy Bible that represents the will of God made known to man, and not some other book. For our jurisdiction, that is clearly the Holy Bible, as declared. Mackey continues:

The Book of the Law is the will of God, which, lost to us in our darkness, must be recovered as precedent to our learning what is Truth.

Now, since in SC, that Book of the Law is the Holy Bible, then when the Holy Bible as a Great Light is said to represent the "Book of the Law," it is simply saying, that in our jurisdiction, the Holy Bible is the book that represents to us the revealed will of God.

You really need to see your tailor, I'm sure he can help you with knicker twists.

Quite simply, it states that God is just "our name" for another god in whom all Masons believe.

Guess you missed the part about it being "THE FIRST LETTER of the name of Deity." For the fuller details of what is encompassed by that statement, you can't simply turn to the LSME, because it is insufficient. The detailed explanation for it is found in our Monitor:

It Is hardly necessary to say that the letter G, wherever spoken of in Masonry as a symbol, Is merely a modern substitution for the Hebrew letter yod, ~, which was the initial of Jehovah, the tetragammaton, and, therefore, constantly used as a symbol of Deity. (SC Ahiman Rezon, 2012, p. 151)

The yod is the FIRST LETTER in the four-letter unpronounceable name of God, which is generally rendered as Yahweh.

So your nonsense about "another god in whom all Masons believe" is duly noted, but totally irrelevant, since it comes from your own imagination.

Thanks for bringing the LSME to my attention. It is very interesting.

Yes, especially once I've helped you get through the parts you don't understand.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
I'll stand by my commentary as written, but would include two comments.

the Bible IS the Great Light

At issue is what is on the altar, for whatever book is there is the Great Light. Note what your GL says:

It is religious in that it teaches monotheism, the Volume of Sacred Law is open upon its altars whenever a Lodge is in session, …

That is from the Declaration of Masonic Principles, adopted in 1939 by the SC GL and quoted in your AR, pg. 486.

What you have is the GL trying to have it both ways. It wants to call the Bible a Great Light, while similarly stating that it's the VSL that's really on the altar. Unless you have two volumes there, I am justified in noting that it is really the VSL that is the Great Light. Should your GL ever decide to use the Koran in place of the Bible it could do so. This would be consistent with Mackey's 21st landmark, which states:

The Book of the Law shall constitute an indispensable part of the Furniture of the Lodge.

You've already provided Mackey's definition of the phrase, so it's clear that the Bible is merely one of many volumes that may be used, permanently or temporarily, on the altar of Freemasonry.

Guess you missed the part about it being "THE FIRST LETTER of the name of Deity."

Nope. As I pointed out, the LSME is very clear in stating that the first letter, whether G or yod, is

our name for that Deity in whose existence all Masons have professed belief,

Thus, the conclusion is inescapable, that it is the name used in SC Masonry to identify a deity that goes by other names. More importantly, it is the one god that all Masons believe in. Unless you think all Masons believe in the God of the Bible, there is no other way to interpret the LSME comment.

Masonry does indeed teach that there is a god, let's call him GAOTU, which is the actual god of the universe, and that he is called by many names by many people. The LSME fully supports that idea, which any Christian would fully reject. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

That is from the Declaration of Masonic Principles, adopted in 1939 by the SC GL and quoted in your AR, pg. 486.

No, what you found there (which is an appendix from a historical section of AR, truth to be told), is a statement of principles that apply to Freemasonry in general. It in no way supersedes the SPECIFIC DECLARATIONS of Ahiman Rezon itself, in the monitorial, constitution, and code sections. Can't believe you'd try something so patently ridiculous--but then, your past blunders actually illustrate the same and worse when it comes to your endless attempts to create something to throw rocks at.

Here again is the GENERAL principle you quoted:

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

That is simply a general statement of something that is REQUIRED before a lodge may be considered "legally constituted."

Here is the SPECIFIC application of that GENERAL principle, as applies to South Carolina Freemasonry:

A Lodge is an assemblage of Masons duly congregated, having the Holy Bible, Square and Compasses, and a Charter or Warrant of Constitution authorizing them to work. (p. 87)

If even one of these is not present, the lodge cannot legally open. So you can piddle-paddle back and forth all day about "VSL," that's just the general term. In each Grand Lodge, there is a SPECIFIC declaration that defines what book goes on the altar in their jurisdiction. In all U.S. lodges, that IS the Holy Bible. As declared in statements in BOTH the LSME and Ahiman Rezon (although the LSME, being optional, has no real declarative status at all), the Holy Bible is the sacred book on our altars, and is the Great Light of SC Masonry.

Ahiman Rezon is FULL of declarative statements to that effect:

The Holy Bible is given to us as the rule and guide of our faith (p. 73)

the Bible is the light which enlightens the path of our duty to God (p. 73)

The furniture of a Lodge consists of a Holy Bible, Square, and Compasses. The Holy Bible is dedicated to God; the Square, to the Master, and the Compasses, to the craft.
The Bible is dedicated to God, because it is the inestimable gift of God to man; (p. 94)

As the Bible is the first Great Light presented to a candidate, the following quotatIons from that Inspired book are recommended to his previous perusal:
“Lord, who shall ahide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell Inthy holy hill? “He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.
“He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil tohis neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against hisneighbor.
“In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoreth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
“He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent.”—Psakn XV.
“Who shall ascend into the hills of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.”—Psalm XXl V, 3, 4.
“What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good?
“Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speak- Ing guile.
“Depart from evil and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.”—Psalsn XXXIV, 12-14.
Then let the candidate prepare himself to say:
“I will take heed to my ways, that I sin not with my tongue: I will keep my mouth with a bridle, while the wicked is before me.”—Pralm XXXIX, 1.
“I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, 0Lord.”—Psalm XXVI, 6.

The Holy Bible, the Great Light of Masonry, we entrust to your care. (Installation of Chaplain, p. 235)

What you have is the GL trying to have it both ways. It wants to call the Bible a Great Light, while similarly stating that it's the VSL that's really on the altar.

No, what you have here is Skip Sampson double-speak. The section you quoted from was a statement of general principles

The Holy Bible, the great light of Masonry, we intrust to your care. (Installation of Grand Chaplain, p. 244)

As I pointed out, the LSME is very clear in stating that the first letter, whether G or yod, is
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']our name for that Deity in whose existence all Masons have professed belief,[/FONT]

Yes, and since we have the Ahiman Rezon clarification on who that is, we now know that the yod is for Yahweh, a.k.a. Jehovah.

Thus, the conclusion is inescapable, that it is the name used in SC Masonry to identify a deity that goes by other names.

Time for your wake-up call, Skip. Nobody said anything about a deity "that goes by other names" but YOU. The LSME says our "NAME," not "names." And since they SPECIFICALLY state this is the FIRST LETTER of a NAME, then it's easy to see from what is DECLARED in Ahiman Rezon, p. 151, that the NAME referred to is Yahweh.

You've already provided Mackey's definition of the phrase, so it's clear that the Bible is merely one of many volumes that may be used, permanently or temporarily, on the altar of Freemasonry.

How is it you keep forgetting you're talking SPECIFICALLY about SOUTH CAROLINA?? In South Carolina, the declaration is CLEAR, and it comes from the specifically DECLARATIVE statements found in Ahiman Rezon--several of which I just posted above.

Masonry does indeed teach that there is a god, let's call him GAOTU, which is the actual god of the universe, and that he is called by many names by many people. The LSME fully supports that idea

Nope, Skip Sampson is the only one who has suggested that the SC LSME "supports" any such thing. But since you wish to play, cite for us the exact page reference in the SC LSME where you find any mention of "he is called many names by many people."

Fact is, you can't, because it's not there. The LSME simply says "that Deity in whom all Masons have expressed belief," and further indicates that the letter G represents the first letter of His name. Following all that SC Masonry ACTUALLY SAYS on that point (which means of course, that we must consult their AUTHORITATIVE manual rather than the OPTIONAL LSME), we find the specific reference to which they refer, on p. 151, and recognize the reference is to Yahweh, God of the Bible.

 

[Simpleman25]

Very good points made there brother. I am impressed with what you have found.

Problem is the anti's will twist anything to fit into their mold of what Masonry is. They spend so long forcing squares into round holes it must really frustrate them.