Heretical Content and/or Occult Interpretations Found in Freemasonry

[Almighty's humble servant]

What is "light"? Is it wisdom? Who gave us this wisdom, of things unseen?

Were not we once placed into a paradise without want or need?

God ALmighty created us, placed us into a paradise where we had every need, want or desire, except one. That one "tree" was off limits.

That was the tree of "knowledge", wisdom, light. From the moment we fell for the serpents deception, we have followed his lead into light of the unseen. This is science as easily as one can explain.

Indeed satan wants us to believe these discoveries are for the benefit of mankind. And indeed he masks these discoveries with their benefits. Longer life, healed sicknesses, etc etc etc. In this way, man evolves into a more intelligent creation. Each day furthering himself from the dirt from which he was fashioned.
We communicate this very moment on one of these sorceries.

The point is at what end will it stop? satans goal is for all of mankind to experience the pleasures of modern technology, even at a further evolution that what we know of in the here and now. Eventually taking all reliance away from the Father, and turning out reliance toward these heresies.

Will it be today. Most certainly not. There are billions still in reliance of the Father to bring them sustenance. But each day, in the Lord's good name, we reach out to these to bring them into the technological eden which satan has produced. The 4 "superpowers", known as beasts in the Word, reach more and more each day, claiming there mission is from God, but this is simply not the case. There mission is to bring all of mankind into the global worship of technology, light, wisdom, self. You see, satan wants mankind to believe that there is nothing, no drought, no plague, no calamity, no pestilence that man cannot overcome.

And who is the bringer of these plagues. That evil YHWH. The dastardly puppeteer who placed us here with nothing, to live like monkeys in a jungle.

Well, brother, satans mission is so nearly accomplished.

Believe what you will, but I tell you this.

The time for mankind to repent is NOW. Soon this earth will be smashed, and as a saviour, satan will send his a/c to relieve the world of the destruction YHWH has wrought, and he will bring mankind into a collective consciousness throught media or otherwise, a christ consciousness, teaching, no, reminding man that we are ourselves, gods, able to overcome that evil God of Israel.

 

[Rev Wayne]

And who is the bringer of these plagues. That evil YHWH. The dastardly puppeteer who placed us here with nothing, to live like monkeys in a jungle.

I had no idea you felt this way. You sure have strange ideas about God. With views like this, I can't help but wonder where you get off criticizing anyone about anything.

 

[Almighty's humble servant]

I had no idea you felt this way. You sure have strange ideas about God. With views like this, I can't help but wonder where you get off criticizing anyone about anything.

These are lucifer's ideas, set into the heart of man. And when the Hand of God has struck the hour, it will be lucifer, again, set out to deceive man into believing this blasphemy.

The very same lucifer whom your free mason forefathers SinClaire and Pike sought for humanity to embrace.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Good pic; you've captured today's masonry perfectly. Hope they take the pic in the same manner that you've posted it. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

These are lucifer's ideas, set into the heart of man.

So THAT'S where you got them. I suspected as much, but now we have your own admission.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Naturally, as always, you ignore context when it doesn't suit your argument. ... You forget, too, that the same Digest of Masonic Law in Florida says:

You seem to have a problem with context as well. The first quote is a ruling, which has two main statements. The second is debatable as to it's meaning: is it the first, meaning the S&C are the second and third, or is the first in ranking? Given it's age, perhaps the 1st thought is the one meant. In any event, the ruling is about whether or not to adorn the Bible, not what the three great lights in Masonry are. The reference that I pointed out from the Code is specific that it is the VSL that is part of the furnishings of the Lodge, meaning it's one of the TGL. I'd say it's more germane to the issue.

As to this;

The written law of Masonry

it's not relevant at all to the TGL makeup. It's also not true in that much of the law stated in the Bible has no place in Masonry. It's quite a stretch to say that the Bible has first place in the development of Masonic law.

The idea of "Great Light" of Masonry in reference to any book other than the Holy Bible--despite the fact that even now such usages go against the far more widespread practice of the use of the term as an indication of the Holy Bible--has been a recent development,...

Here you are on solid ground, and I agree. The quote from the LSME from the 70's to the 90's where the Bible was dropped in favor of the VSL is a pretty strong indication where things were going with Masonry. If we had older training documentation, we'd probably see more of that, which is a clear indication that it really is the VSL that's important.

Then, there is also the custom of not passing between the altar, on which lies the Bible, the "Great Light," and the WM of the lodge, whose symbolic designation of "Master" is itself a veiled reference to Christ, who cannot be separated from the concept of the written Word, He being its expression in its greatest fullness.

How does that comment coincide with comments like this:

VIRGINIA – The East in a Masonic Lodge does not necessarily mean the actual point of the compass. The East in the Lodge is the station of the Worshipful Master from which he dispenses light and instruction to all the Brethren. (VA GL, Mentor’s Manual, 2002, pg. 21)

ILLINOIS – The East in a Masonic lodge is symbolic and does not necessarily mean the actual point of the compass. The East in the lodge room is the station of the Worshipful Master-from which he dispenses light and instruction to all his brethren. (IL GL, Entered Apprentice Guidebook, 2003, pg. 19)

FLORIDA - The East in the Lodge is the station of the Worshipful Master from which he dispenses light and instruction to all his brethren. The other points, West, South and North, are located in proper relation to the station of the Master. (FL GL, Mentor’s Manual, undated, pg. 9)

OREGON – Here is must be emphasized that the Masonic “East” is purely symbolic, for it represents the source of Light – hence the Worshipful Master’s station is located there. Obviously it could be located at any point of the compass and still be the source of Light, as long as the Worshipful Master is seated there. This symbolism is clearly stated in the ceremony of opening and closing a Lodge. (OR GL, Mentor’s Manual, 2010, pg. 32)

Why is it that the WM is the dispenser of light and knowledge? Not a trick question: just wanted your take on it. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

In any event, the ruling is about whether or not to adorn the Bible, not what the three great lights in Masonry are.

Thank you for pointing that out, for that makes it even MORE significant, since "First Grand Light" is stated in passing, as something that is taken for granted. There was simply no question in the minds of those making the determination, as to what they were referring to with the term "First Grand Light." ESPECIALLY since the full statement says

"The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible."

Somehow you keep thinking you can simply wiggle and dodge your way around that plain statement in Florida Law. And it IS Florida Law, because the notation on the page stated that it included updates through 2010.

it's not relevant at all to the TGL makeup. It's also not true in that much of the law stated in the Bible has no place in Masonry.

Sorry, Florida doesn't give you any wiggle room on that one. The statement I quoted is listed under "Regulations, and is under a heading numbered 1.03, "Masonic Law, Written and Unwritten." The full section reads:

1.03Masonic 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.

It won't do you any good to pretend that you are arguing a debatable point with me. All I did was post what the regulation states. FLORIDA is the one who has called it a REGULATION, and who has placed the BIBLE FIRST in its listed priorities by placing it at the head of the list in this statement, and declaring these to be the sources of Masonic Law "RESPECTIVELY." It's simply what they have stated. I see no need to engage your denials further on it, because you are trying to make this statement appear to be something which I stated personally, and I assure you it is not. It's right there in chapter one of Florida Masonic Law, as one of their stated REGULATIONS. See for yourself, readers:

http://www.clearwater127.com/downloads/digest07.pdf

Sure you don't like it. But I guess you'll just have to get used to it and deal with it. But your attempt to deflect it as something I stated personally, has just failed.

What I really fail to understand, though, is why you seem to have such trouble getting your head around this. After all, since every Grand Lodge has a requirement that it have a "Volume of Sacred Law"; and since in the U.S., every Grand Lodge makes specific declaration that their "VSL" is the Holy Bible; why should it be such a surprise to you, to find out that Florida publishes a statement which shows that they clearly understand the Holy Bible to be both sacred and law????

How does that comment coincide with comments like this:

You mean, how does that coincide with these as a veiled reference to Christ? You can't be serious.
Since what I stated has to do with the symbolism interpreted to refer to Christ, this ought to be pretty simple for you. But since you can't seem to grasp the obvious:
"The East," as shown in the previous post you cited from, is the actual meaning of "Dayspring" which interprets it to our language. So the following statement. . .

The East in the Lodge is the station of the Worshipful Master from which he dispenses light and instruction to all the Brethren.

. . . taken symbolically, says the same thing already shown in what was cited earlier: Christ in the East, who is the source of light.

The quote from the LSME from the 70's to the 90's where the Bible was dropped in favor of the VSL is a pretty strong indication where things were going with Masonry.

Not really. It's just where you want readers to THINK it's going. The symbolism is there for those who can either see it or who know how to do research and discover how these things came into Masonry and why.
But the fact remains, "Great Light" is STILL FAR AND AWAY interpreted as "Holy Bible" WAY more than as anything else. I would think by now, after having posted as much material as I have to the contrary of your claim about "older" documents, by citing also from recent documents, you would realize your claim that "Great Light can mean anything" just does not hold any sway in Masonry, even now. It is a minority opinion, and extremely so. If you don't think so, get on the horn and start posting your sources that you think back up your claim, and I can quote ten times as many that refute it--and I don't mean "old" sources either.
Just to illustrate, I Googled "Great Light of Masonry" and got the following hits, in order:

Early in his Masonic journey, the Freemason is introduced to the three Great Lights of Freemasonry, the Holy Bible, Square, and Compasses

The next section of the Introduction is entitled, "The Great Light In Masonry"; it teaches the importance of the Holy Bible to Freemasonry.

The Holy Bible is The Great Light of symbolic Masonry and we are taught never to loose sight of It's teachings.

Amazon.com: The Holy Bible: the Great Light in Masonry,

(Samuel 16:7)” The Great Light shadowed forth the truths of our symbolism and the teachings of the three degrees long before Operative Freemasonry,

Jim Shaw, a former 33rd degree Mason, says that Masonry is not based on the Bible (referred to as "The Great Light"),

The Great Lights in Masonry are the Holy Bible, Square and Compasses.

The three 'Great Lights of Masonry' are the Holy Bible the Square and Compass.

The Light of Christ or the great light of Masonry?

Those were the first ten, and the first nine of them all understood it to be the Bible. Interestingly, too, the second and seventh hits were from cuttingedge and rapidnet, respectively, so that even the critics of Masonry acknowledge that this is the understanding of the term. Moreover, the comments above were cited without clicking on a single link. The info was already out front in the page summaries. The only one that did NOT make such reference, which I did eventually click on just to see what was the context of the remark, actually makes no reference either way, not referring the term to any book at all, but incorrectly referencing "Great Light" in general terms of simply "light."
The situation is very similar to what can be found in Christianity. People like Marcus Borg and Dominic Crossan can chatter on from now till doomsday about the resurrection being a myth, and most of the sayings attributed to Jesus not actually having been spoken by Him. And there are people who will cite them authoritatively, and support for their opinions can be found among people otherwise considered "biblical scholars"; but it can't and doesn't alter the fact that they are an extreme minority, and most Christians do not agree with their opinions.
That apparently is the situation in Masonry, where "Great Light" of Masonry is still widely understood as "Holy Bible," is still widely described as such, and still widely asserted as such. Finding a stray source here and there which might say differently, hardly constitutes Masonic opinion, and is just one more example of your haphazard, slipshod methods of "research."

Why is it that the WM is the dispenser of light and knowledge?

Maybe if you would actually read the posts you criticize, you wouln't have to ask already-answered questions like this one. I clearly pointed out that the symbolism of the WM in the east was also symbolic of Christ as the source of light, and pointed out the added symbolic significance entailed for the custom of not coming between the WM and the Bible.

The answer to your question is therefore simple: if the WM is a figurative or symbolic representation of Christ, why do you even have to ASK why he would be the source of light?

 

[Skip Sampson]

Wayne:
Two issues are involved here, the makeup of the three Great Lights and the role of the Bible in Masonic Law. I will try to summarize our positions on these two; please advise if you feel I have mischaracterized your views. BTW, I'm using the 2010 update to the 2004 Code instead of your link to the 2004 Code itself.​

As to the first, you are hanging your view that the Bible is the first Great Light on this from this section of the FL Code:

38.27 Use of Bible containing extraneous matter is not proper. The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible. (1941 Proc. 82)

This particular statement comes from Ch. 38, which deals with the ritual and ceremonies, and the quote itself is a ruling made in 1941 concerning adornments to the Bible. It's a pretty clear statement that the Bible is a Great Light; however, its placement in the chapter and time of decision are significant.​

In preceeding section 38.25, which specifically deals with the Furniture of the Lodge, this is found:

(C) 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)

This is not the only place in which such a statement is made, as these quotes indicate:

(3) The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every Lodge while at Labor, (Resolution on Freemasonry, pg. 3)

The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida hereby recognizes, as being Landmarks of Freemasonry the Following: ... (c) 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)

Section 2. The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida hereby recognizes, as being Landmarks of Freemasonry, the following: ... (c) The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every regular Lodge while at labor. (Art. XIII, pg. 70)

Unless you are prepared to claim that the Great Lights and the Furnishings of the Lodge are not the same things, it is clear that the Code itself states that it is the VSL which is the Great Light, not the Bible. This is elsewhere supported by FL GL sources:

The Great Light of Freemasonry is the Volume of the Sacred Law and it is an indispensable part of the furniture of a Lodge. (Mentor's Manual, pg. 9)

One may ask: why the minor inconsistency? The answer is found in the development of the FL GL LSME, which shows this progression on the topic (emphasis added):

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; the Square is the physical life of man under its human conditions; the Compasses signify the moral and spiritual life. If a man acts in obedience to the will of God, according to the dictates of his conscience, he will be living in the illumination of the Great Lights and cannot go astray. (p. 20, Book 2, Florida LSME, 1976)

“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; the Square is the physical life of man under its human conditions; the Compasses signify the moral and spiritual life. If a man acts in obedience to the will of God, according to the dictates of his conscience, he will be living in the illumination of the Great Lights and cannot go astray.” (FL GL LSME, Booklet 2, 1994, pg. 7)

It is clear that the conscious decision was made to shift to the VSL as the Great Light by 1994, and your quote, dating as it is from 1941, is shown now to be non-applicable. As a decision, is was superceded during the following years. And since the Code is the most authoritative of Masonic documents, it's view of what the Great Light is pertains.

Of interest to you, however, is the statement in the Module II Study Guide, 2002 and in the EA ritual, which does state that the Bible is the Great Light and part of the furnishings of the Lodge. That makes them inconsistent with both the Code and MM and therefore incorrect. The ritual proclaims it because it always has, and I would not care at this time to speculate why the Study Guide has disconnected itself from the MM and Code. Of interest, in several jurisdictions (CA, WA, NH, IL, OR and NJ) their EA rituals identify the Bible as the Great Light, but in the EA Charge this statement is made:

As a Mason, you are to regard the volume of the Sacred Law as the Great Light in your profession; to consider it as the unerring standard of truth and justice; to regulate your actions by the divine precepts it contains. In it you will learn the important duties which you owe to God, your neighbor and yourself:

I see no contradiction here, but more proof showing that it is really the VSL, in all its parts, that actually is the Great Light. This is also completely consistent with Preston, who had this in his Charge:

As a Mason, you are to study the moral law, as it is contained in the sacred code; (fn) to consider it as the unerring standard of truth and justice and to regulate your life and actions by its divine precepts. (the footnote reads): (fn) The Bible; and in countries where the book is not known, whatever is understood to contain the will or law of God. (Illustrations of Masonry, 1804, pg. 51)

The VSL has always been the Great Light, and Masonic jurisdictions are starting to reflect that, with the purpose being a movement away from Christian influence in the craft.

As to the role of the Bible in Masonic law, I think you've vastly overstated the case. The sections of the Code that apply are as follows:

1.02 Masonic Law is a rule of fraternal conduct, and applies only to the moral and fraternal rectitude of its members. It is based upon the law of Divine Revelation, therefore, any covenant, affirmation, declaration, assumption, prescription, or requirement derogatory thereto, or in conflict therewith, is void. Hence the precept, "a Mason is bound by his tenure to obey the moral law." It embodies an innate principle of right, whose footprints distinctly mark the path of virtue in all authentic antecedents history, and whose plumb line of moral rectitude will guide its consistent votaries of all successive future generations through the vista of coming time to the verge of human demolition.

1.03 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 timeimmemorial, 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.

The points I would make are as follows: 1) Masonic law address only the moral code of its members, not the spiritual; the Bible addresses both. 2) Notice the first section notes that the law is 'based upon the law of Divine Revelation,' and not pinned directly to it. Moreover, it is only the moral aspects of that revelation, which fits perfectly into Masonry's salvation-by-works philosophy. 3) Since you like precedence so much, note that the unwritten law is placed before the written; thus those 'mystic covenants and ceremonies' take precedence over the the Bible, using your own standards. 4) Since the Golden Rule sums up the moral principles of the OT law, why do Masons promise to devote preference to their Masonic brothers over anyone else? Why isn't that a violation of the bible's moral law? Why is it therefore demanded, instead of downplayed? 5) Refer to the SC AR, Sec. 248 (pg. 421) and note the description of Masonic offenses. There is no mention of the Bible therein, but plenty of mention of Masonry's unique requirements. 6) I do not agree with your interpretation of the meaning and use of the word 'respectively' in the quote.

BTW, I wondered why the FL Code suddenly became so important to you, so I checked the SC AR. No surprise, it does not include the Bible as a source of the laws (written or unwritten) of Freemasonry (pg. 343), meaning your own jurisdiction does not agree with your statement.

why should it be such a surprise to you, to find out that Florida publishes a statement which shows that they clearly understand the Holy Bible to be both sacred and law????

Because they do not do so in their actions.

But the fact remains, "Great Light" is STILL FAR AND AWAY interpreted as "Holy Bible" WAY more than as anything else.

That is certainly true in ritual; however, in Codes and training documentation, I think that is less and less true, and eventually it'll be the VSL that is used "WAY more than anything else."

If you don't think so, get on the horn and start posting your sources that you think back up your claim, and I can quote ten times as many that refute it--and I don't mean "old" sources either.

I almost always cite my sources, and my above comments have shown what the truth really is. I do find it interesting that while you demand cites from me, the very references you've posted are uncited (there's that point 4 again!). I think I'll stick with a GL's Code first, then their training documentation. You can use whatever proves your case, which seems to be your basis of selection (tactic 2).

That apparently is the situation in Masonry, where "Great Light" of Masonry is still widely understood as "Holy Bible," is still widely described as such, and still widely asserted as such.

The opinions of Masons do not hold sway against GL authoritative documentation. The rituals, in the main, support your view, but we are seeing clear evidence that they are shifting and certainly in FL, the most authoritative documents show that you are wrong. The references I cite above are hardly "stray sources."

The answer to your question is therefore simple: if the WM is a figurative or symbolic representation of Christ, why do you even have to ASK why he would be the source of light?

You may believe that, but Freemasonry does not. Show me where your GL states such a view. In FL, here are a few specifications of his role from the Code:

20.01 The Master is supreme in the Lodge, from whose decision an appeal cannot be taken to the Lodge.

20.02The Worshipful Master must be held to worship by the Brethren and be implicitly obeyed in every legitimate official order.

20.03 The Worshipful Master is limited in his official authority only by his installation vows and Charges, the Constitution, Resolutions and Edicts of the Grand Lodge, the Rules and Regulations of his Lodge, and the ancient established usages and customs of the Fraternity.

You will note that he is not called to be a symbol of Christ, nor is his authority drawn from the Bible. The SC AR likewise does not support your view. Of note, the FL GL rejects it:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida, in Annual Grand Communication assembled, this 26th day of April, A.D. 1972, A.L. 5972, for itself, and all the Particular, individual and subordinate Lodges Masonically chartered by it, does hereby pro­claim and publish that Freemasonry is a non-sectarian religious organization, an educational organization and a charitable organization founded upon, possessed of and adhering to all those principles, precepts, tenets and beliefs that characterize and distinguish such organizations. (1972 Proc. 284) (Resolution on Freemasonry)

Since it's non-sectarian, your view is an impossible one according to the FL Code.

As to the East, I find it interesting that, while Masons love to point to the Bible as the 'rule and guide', Masonry often notes that it is the WM who dispenses the light and instruction. It's a total contradiction, and a very interesting one. I'll have to look into it a bit deeper. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

BTW, I'm using the 2010 update to the 2004 Code instead of your link to the 2004 Code itself.

A point without a point, since (1) as I indicated, what I have in my possession is the same as you just described, from 2010; and (2) nothing that you just cited here, nor anything I have already cited, differs one whit from the 2004 version. I can't exactly link to what isn't online, now can I? I provided the only link I found available whereby readers may check out the information.
I can only figure that your comment is designed to try to present a convincing--though untrue--facade for the readers here, as has been typical of you, that I am using "old" material while you are using "updated" material. Don't know why you continue to persist in it, since that whole house of cards has been sent tumbling more than once already.

Unless you are prepared to claim that the Great Lights and the Furnishings of the Lodge are not the same things, it is clear that the Code itself states that it is the VSL which is the Great Light, not the Bible.

Really? I see three citations in a row here, none of which even MENTIONS "Great Light." Perhaps you might care to enlighten the readers how you came to a conclusion about the "Great Light" from materials which never mention it?
You might ask yourself, too, that if "the Great Lights and the Furnishings of the Lodge are the same things," then why does every mention of FURNITURE involve the term "Voume of Sacred Law," and why does every mention of "Great Light" of Masonry, involve the term "Holy Bible?" (I know you try to insist differently in regard to your sliced-out one-line statement you draw from the Mentor's Manual, but I'm speaking specifically of the Digest of Masonic Law in Florida, where the pattern is consistent with what I just stated, furniture-VSL, Great Light-Holy Bible.)

One may ask: why the minor inconsistency? The answer is found in the development of the FL GL LSME, which shows this progression on the topic (emphasis added):

No "inconsistency," except in your overactive imagination. You quoted from the Mentor Manual, you just forgot to quote from it FULLY:

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. In other countries the candidate who is not a Christian or a Jew is entitled to have his own sacred book substituted for the Bible. In some Lodges in other countries the altars of Masonry have more than one Volume of the Sacred Law on them and the candidate may choose the one on which he is obligated.

No Lodge may stand open unless the Holy Bible is opened upon its altar with the Square and Compasses displayed thereon indicating the Degree in which the Lodge is working. The open Bible signifies that by the light of its teachings we must regulate our conduct, for it is the rule and guide of our faith.

Your problem is, you still have not managed to get your head around the differences between general and specific references. Notice in the first paragraph from the Mentor's Manual, there are third person references: "the candidate," "his," "he"; while in the second paragraph, the prounouns change to "we" and "our." The reason for that is extremely clear (except to you, apparently): the first paragraph speaks of Masonry in general, and even comments about "other countries" and "the candidate who is not a Christian or a Jew"--and accordingly, that paragraph's references are to "Volume of Sacred Law," and its pronoun referents are third person. The second paragraph has to do specifically with matters as they apply to FLORIDA--and accordingly, the references are to the "Holy Bible" and the prounoun referents are changed to first person.

Granted, you might not pick up on such things, but English was my undergrad field, I've been trained to catch those. And a key point of that training was, that the reason to pick up on those things is, they are SIGNIFICANT. (A side note, that illustrates the significance: In the book of Acts in the NT, scholars have been able to determine exactly at what points in Paul's missionary journeys he had Luke, his narrator, along with him, and what points he did not, by comparing various passages in which the narration shifts from "we" comments, where Luke was along, and third-person narrative portions where he had apparently been filled in later.) Determining what applies here to Masonry in general, and what applies specifically to Masonry in Florida jurisdiction, is NOT a matter of guesswork, the indications are definitely there.

You also ignore the fact that in the references you cite, the remarks are about things considered "landmarks" of Freemasonry. That, again, is a GENERAL reference. In this document, if you were to take due notice of what it says and how it says it, you would notice that the references to "furniture" are all made in a context of Masonry in general, and the inclusion of the term "landmark" solidifies that fact. In fact, if you want to find a generalized statement for sure, just check out Florida's comments about "landmarks":

"The recognition of the above as Landmarks shall not be construed to mean or imply that this Grand Lodge is in any wise prohibited from recognizing, from time to time, hereafter, by appropriate amendment hereto, other principles, precepts, practices or tenets of Freemasonry as being Landmarks, nor is this Grand Lodge prohibited from reconsidering and, if deemed proper, withdrawing, this recognition of any of the above."

As anyone can see, they are just asserting their individual right, as a separate Grand Lodge under autonomous authority, to decide which of these they will accept, or not. In other words, declaring that of these GENERAL landmarks, they will decide what is specific for THEM. In the case of the GREAT LIGHT, they have done so. You do not find a context of "Grand Light" or "Great Light" in either the Digest of Masonic Law or the Mentor's Manual from which you also cited, which does not SPECIFICALLY INDICATE that the Great/Grand Light in Florida is the HOLY BIBLE. Sure, you can CLAIM to have done so in the one reference you found in the Mentor's Manual, but as I pointed out, the only way you can claim it makes your case, is to ignore the clear indications of the context, by (1) totally ignoring anything beyond the first sentence; and (2) by ignoring the easily discernible shifts in the context that signal the difference between comments about Masonry in general, and specific references to Florida Masonry.
But there is another simpler explanation for the "Volume of Sacred Law" to be found in the more common usages of that term in this document. Check out the "Resolution" that appears in the front material, with all its "whereas's," many of which have to do with the VSL, and then look at its "therefore be it resolved":

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida, in Annual Grand Communication assembled, this 26th day of April, A.D. 1972, A.L. 5972, for itself, and all the Particular, individual and subordinate Lodges Masonically chartered by it, does hereby proclaim and publish that Freemasonry is a non-sectarian religious organization, an educational organization and a charitable organization founded upon, possessed of and adhering to all those principles, precepts, tenets and beliefs that characterize and distinguish such organizations. (1972 Proc. 284)

Change all those "Volume of Sacred Law" references over to a reference to the Volume of Sacred Law pertaining to one religion, that is, to "Holy Bible" the sacred book of the Christian faith, and then try to maintain the "be it resolved" portion of this resolution, and tell me you wouldn't be running a risk concerning legal issues in regard to the status and nature of Freemasonry. That easily explains why, in all the places where you run across declarations of requirement, it remains "Volume of Sacred Law," while in all the places which, though non-declarative in their wording, make it absolutely clear EXACTLY which "VSL" happens to APPLY TO FLORIDA SPECIFICALLY, it is always "Holy Bible."
All you are doing with your continuous attempts to make this into something generalized, is playing semantics. Yet still, even after all that, you have not managed to efface, counter, or dispute what it clearly states in this stated regulation:

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.

Maybe you also need to look at section 13.19 and the Masonic Education stipulations, where a part of what shall be taught is listed as:

Masonic Etiquette in respect to but not limited to behavior in and outside the Lodge, funerals, reception and introduction of visitors, and Grand Lodge Officers and other Masonic dignitaries, the Masonic Altar, apron, the Bible, Flag, and other and similar subjects.

Strange, they don't seem to be teaching their lodge officers about "the VSL," but instead about the BIBLE. Probably because in Florida, that's what the VSL IS.
Notice this one too:

It is contrary to Masonic Law and practice for a member to attempt to sell Masonic Bibles or solicit business at any Lodge meeting or on any Masonic occasion. (1954 Proc. 62)

Strange, they don't seem to be prohibited from selling "Masonic VSL's," do they?
Or this ruling:

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

The First Grand Light in Masonry is NOT the "unadorned VSL," now is it?

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)

Again, they're displaying the "Bible" not the VSL. Why is it that ALL of these RULINGS and REGULATIONS, which have to do with SPECIFICS of Florida Masonic Law, WITHOUT EXCEPTION refer to "Holy Bible" and not "VSL?"
Again I submit, that you ignore the obvious: VSL in general reference to all of Masonry, BIBLE in regard to Florida specifically.

I almost always cite my sources, and my above comments have shown what the truth really is. I do find it interesting that while you demand cites from me, the very references you've posted are uncited

"Almost?" *heh*
And I can't believe you'd make this bizarre claim. I've cited from the Digest of Masonic Law in Florida, I have made that clear. In the post to which you are responding, there is first, this one:

"The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible."

Since I was referring to YOUR comment, and since it was pretty safe to presume that YOU know where you cite your materials from, there was no need to provide the obvious--except, of course, for those who can't grasp the obvious. In that case, you have my apology, for I should have taken into consideration that I was speaking to such a person.
The next citation was prefaced by "1.03," which identifies EXACTLY where in the Digest it occurs. (Not only that, I also posted a link.)
The next one:

The East in the Lodge is the station of the Worshipful Master from which he dispenses light and instruction to all the Brethren.

Was cited from YOUR POST, as was the one cited along with it concerning the LSME. No need to do other than cite it from your post and address what it says, in this case. Do you not do as much yourself?
The next citations, I clearly prefaced with " I Googled 'Great Light of Masonry,'" and it was primarily to illustrate the ease with which your argument of "Great Light is no longer the Bible" could be refuted with CURRENT materials.
And I fail to see anything else in the entire post, which could have prompted such a response to it, as your claim I haven't identified the source.
Likewise, with this current post, having already posted a link to the Digest, and identified it as the document being addressed, I have identified the source very clearly.
If you really want to knock it down to section headings or numbers, be my guest, click away on the link and use the "whole reader search" provided as part of the document's Adobe format. It's pretty thorough. After all, that feature is what made it so simple to refute your claim, and to find the pattern I presented, of "furniture" as part of generalized "VSL" references, and "Great/Grand Light" as a reference consistently identified as the Holy Bible.

As to the East, I find it interesting that, while Masons love to point to the Bible as the 'rule and guide', Masonry often notes that it is the WM who dispenses the light and instruction. It's a total contradiction, and a very interesting one. I'll have to look into it a bit deeper.

I already have. That's what symbolism is about. You look in the wrong place for the idea of the WM as symbolic of Christ, when you seek to find it in direct statement.

 

[Skip Sampson]

A point without a point

Point being that I was being careful in citing my sources. As usual. One wonders why you are so sensitive in this matter.

I see three citations in a row here, none of which even MENTIONS "Great Light."

In FL it is clear from the EA degree that the Great Lights and furniture are the same:

THE FURNITURE OF A LODGE - Every well regulated and governed Lodge is furnished with the Holy Bible, Square and Compasses, together with a Charter or Dispensation.

The three Great Lights in Masonry are the Holy Bible, Square and Compasses.

I know of no jurisdiction where the great lights and furniture of the lodge are different.

then why does every mention of FURNITURE involve the term "Voume of Sacred Law," and why does every mention of "Great Light" of Masonry, involve the term "Holy Bible?"

It's mathematical: the transitive property states that if a = b and b = c, then a = c. Thus, since VSL = furniture and furniture = Great Light, then VSL = Great Light.

Your problem is, you still have not managed to get your head around the differences between general and specific references.

Untrue. The MM is real clear in stating that it is the VSL which is the Great Light in Masonry, which is consistent with the Code. Period. Then it states that the part of the VSL it chooses to use in FL is the Bible. Key conclusion remains: the VSL is the Great Light in Masonry.

As anyone can see, they are just asserting their individual right, as a separate Grand Lodge under autonomous authority, to decide which of these they will accept, or not.

Again untrue. Each of the my quotes is an accepted landmark of the FL GL, as they state clearly. They have left wiggle room to alter them if need be, but they are accepted as binding and are in force.

Sure, you can CLAIM to have done so in the one reference you found in the Mentor's Manual,

No claim, just a blunt statement by the FL GL that the VSL is the Great Light.

But there is another simpler explanation for the "Volume of Sacred Law" to be found in the more common usages of that term in this document.

I think that's exactly why the VSL has replaced the Bible in FL. They really want to be "a non-sectarian religious organization" and must remove Christian references where they can. The trend is clear, and I showed it earlier in the alterations found in the LSME.

Again, they're displaying the "Bible" not the VSL.

Why would that be so surprising to you? I addressed the relationship above. Why would they not phrase decisions and regulations on what is clearly on the altar? But again, it is the VSL which is the Great Light in Masonry. This can be proven the moment someone chooses the Koran to obligate himself on and the ritual is altered accordingly.

I Googled 'Great Light of Masonry,'"

That's right, and you didn't cite the sources for those quotes. That it occurred directly after complaining about citing shows just how disconnected you are from your own arguments.

You look in the wrong place for the idea of the WM as symbolic of Christ, when you seek to find it in direct statement.

Which is what I said: no Masonic authority agrees with your interpretation.

But you miss the point. Note these two quotes:

The Holy Bible is properly called a greater Light in Masonry, for from the center of the Lodge it pours forth upon the East, the West and the South its refulgent rays of Divine Truth. The Bible is used among Masons as the symbol of the will of God, however it may be expressed. (FL EA ritual)

The East in the Lodge is the station of the Worshipful Master from which he dispenses light and instruction to all his brethren. The other points, West, South and North, are located in proper relation to the station of the Master. (FL GL, Mentor’s Manual, undated, pg. 9)

Is it that the Bible pours forth Divine Truth and is the rule and guide, but the WM dispenses light and instruction only? Or is it a contradiction? Since the Bible is only a symbol in Masonry (see above) it's really the WM who dispenses the light of Masonry. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

One wonders why you are so sensitive in this matter.

I'm not. One wonders why you are so intent on characterizing it as such. But one doesn't have to wonder that for very long after reading your responses. Defamation is your usual resort when you have nothing to say, but choose to say it anyway.

In FL it is clear from the EA degree that the Great Lights and furniture are the same

But the symbolic significance is not, which was my point. Not only that, you totally ignore the differences that accompany their use. "Furniture" is definitely paired with "Volume of Sacred Law," while "Great Light" is paired with "Holy Bible." You can keep your furniture and sacred law, I'll take the Great Light of the Holy Bible any time.

The MM is real clear in stating that it is the VSL which is the Great Light in Masonry

We weren't discussing the MM. I was clearly discussing the Florida Digest of Masonic Law. the Mentor's Manual is NOT Florida Masonic LAW.

Why would that be so surprising to you?

It wasn't.

I addressed the relationship above.

And you addressed it incorrectly, which was why I posted the correction.

But again, it is the VSL which is the Great Light in Masonry.

Nope, 1.03 of the Florida Digest of Masonic Law clearly declares differently:

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible.

This can be proven the moment someone chooses the Koran to obligate himself on and the ritual is altered accordingly.

Standard antimasonic fare, as already pointed out umpteen times in the past, in places like the Antimasonic Propaganda Machine, of taking the exception and trying to portray it as the norm.

In this case, in speaking of a jurisdiction where the Bible is the book on the altar, you point to the exceptional case of someone of some other religion specifically requesting another book, you ignore the overwhelming majority represented by the REST OF FLORIDA MASONS OBLIGATED ON THE BIBLE, and try to offer as a substitute motion the VSL.

Not only that, you also cite from the Florida Mentor Manual, which, not being a part of the Florida Digest of Masonic Law, was not even under discussion, and try to substitute a generalized statement from it in regard to ALL of Masonry, for the CLEAR DECLARARTION OF FLORIDA MASONIC LAW:

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible.

Sorry, but Masonic Law supersedes any "mentor manual." Anybody can see that from the opening proclamation:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida, I do hereby declare and promulgate the within Digest of the Masonic Law of Florida as the official Masonic Law of this Grand Jurisdiction.

By way of contrast, the Mentor's Manual is pretty benign when it comes to assertions:

It is not the objective of the Mentor Plan to teach the ritual nor is it generally recommended that the Mentor instruct the new Mason in the catechisms which he is required to learn. In some Lodges it will be necessary that the same brother perform both functions because of the shortage of instructors. However, when this is the case care should be taken to avoid confusing the two subjects. The Mentor Plan will endeavor to acquaint the new brother with some of the history of Freemasonry, its philosophies and objectives. . . .
We would urge the use of this Manual with painstaking care. It is not perfect nor is the system which it represents a perfect one[FONT='Times-Roman','serif'].[/FONT]

But hey, thanks for playing, it's been a real hoot watching you with your waffling once again, this time going from assertions in another discussion, that North Carolina code and constitution "superseded" other Grand Lodge manuals; only to flip-flop once again on this issue, and start trying to assert the Mentor Manual over the Digest of Masonic Law!! I would have thought, with the stuff YOU keep shoveling out, that you'd want to wear something more substantial than flip-flops.

That's right, and you didn't cite the sources for those quotes.

They weren't "quotes." As I indicated at the time they posted, they were lifted from the summary lines that Google pulls up with its hits. My point was, you don't even have to go into the pages to see your claim refuted. And the source was Google search, DUH. If you need to verify what I presented from the summary lines , go Google it yourself and see if you don't come up with the same things.

no Masonic authority agrees with your interpretation.

That never seems to have mattered to you with YOUR arguments, Mr. Picures-Are-My-Authority-N
o-Matter-How-Ridiculous-I-Sound, so why should it be an issue with someone else's?

Since the Bible is only a symbol in Masonry (see above)

There's part of your problem illustrated for us once again, as you have done so many times already, taking one comment, excluding all else, and making false presumptions based on the direction you wish to force it to go. You can't simply ignore the statement found in 1.03 of the Digest of Masonic Law:

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.

Your claim that it is "ONLY" a symbol misses the mark. Florida has it listed as the first repository of Masonry's written law.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with the Bible being a symbol anyway. In Christianity it's often defined as such, just as in Masonry. And just as in Masonry, it is not referred to in Christianity as "ONLY" a symbol either.

 

[Skip Sampson]

But the symbolic significance is not, which was my point.

This is not a matter of symbolism; it's what is directly written. The Code states that the VSL is the GL and furniture in FL, and FL has chosen a part of the VSL, the Bible, to use in its lodges. Were they ever to change their minds and use a different part, the main statements as I quoted them would not change at all.

We weren't discussing the MM. I was clearly discussing the Florida Digest of Masonic Law.

Doesn't matter; you seemed to like using the MM earlier, so we can continue. It is what is used to train Masons; therefore, it applies to the discussion. While certainly not approaching the Code in terms of authority, it is entirely consistent with the Code in proclaiming the VSL as the GL.

As to the MM, it has long been clear about my views on the pecking order of Masonic documentation; they need not be repeated here. But you cannot blithely throw it out just because it proves you wrong. As a training manual, the MM reflects GL position; thus, the quote I noted is just as authoritative as those with which it agrees in the Code itself. In your quotes, BTW, you managed to miss this one:

This Manual is, therefore, intended as an additional medium to supplement our Lodge System of Masonic Education and one from which the Mentor may be able to find answers to some questions he will be asked during the course of his work with the candidate. (pg. 3)

So, when the Mentor is asked: what are the three great lights?, he can turn to page 9 and answer correctly that one of them is the VSL.

Nope, 1.03 of the Florida Digest of Masonic Law clearly declares differently:

And you are again in error. Section 1.03 deals with Masonic Law, not the lights of Masonry. You really ought to start writing as though you were capable of mistake; when so, you probably won't make nearly as many errors as you currently do. The quote you incorrectly cite actually falls under 'Rulings and Decisions' after to section 38:27, and the specific quote is merely added to explain a decision. It hardly can be seen as over-ruling four separate descriptions of what the VSL is.

Standard antimasonic fare, as already pointed out umpteen times in the past, in places like the Antimasonic Propaganda Machine, of taking the exception and trying to portray it as the norm.

It's not an exception. It clearly shows that the VSL's purpose, in all its forms, is merely to solemnify the obligation. It also shows that the 'rule and guide' is not the bible, but whatever a man chooses to obligate himself on. That is the real norm.

you ignore the overwhelming majority represented by the REST OF FLORIDA MASONS OBLIGATED ON THE BIBLE, and try to offer as a substitute motion the VSL.

Again, every man gets to obligated himself on whatever part of the VSL he believes in. As well, all parts are still just symbols of the will of God.

They weren't "quotes."

Sure they were. If you bother to review your post, you will find they are in quotations. And they were uncited as to source. Google, by the way is not a source.

so why should it be an issue with someone else's?

Oh, I just take a certain amount of enjoyment in showing where you have things wrong.

You can't simply ignore the statement found in 1.03 of the Digest of Masonic Law:

Second times' a charm; you got the cite right, finally. And I didn't ignore it, I just showed where your mis-interpreted it.

Florida has it listed as the first repository of Masonry's written law. \

No it hasn't. It says the law is embraced in many documents, but a) doesn't say which law was drawn from where, and b) your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'respectively' is incorrect. You assume too much from the quote, as you do from other quotes you've found in the Digest. BTW, what does the SC GL say about the place of the Bible in Masonic Law?

Besides, there's nothing wrong with the Bible being a symbol anyway.

They why does the note have you in such a lather? Personally, I don't see it as a symbol, but rather a record of God's dealing with mankind over a certain number of years and the repository of who God is and what he wants stated clearly and unambiguously. It can in no way be compared with other man-made 'holy' books as Masonry does, and Masons supinely support.

I hope you start taking more care in writing your posts. Though pointing out your mistakes is mildly pleasing, I have a full plate already. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

The Code states that the VSL is the GL and furniture in FL, and FL has chosen a part of the VSL, the Bible, to use in its lodges.

And the key point invalidating what you just said, of course: there's no such thing as "part of the VSL."

That, along with Jacob's Staircase and rectangular cubes, is a Skip Sampson invention.

Doesn't matter; you seemed to like using the MM earlier, so we can continue

Likewise, we talked about the NC statements earlier, and after much hemming and hawing and dodging by you, it was eventually shown (though not by you), that matters of stated Masonic law supersede other materials. Since the subject matter is practically a direct correlation to that discussion, that is still the operative statement here. Therefore the MM is out, in regard to what shall stand, because stated Florida Masonic Law supersedes it.

As a training manual, the MM reflects GL position; thus, the quote I noted is just as authoritative as those with which it agrees in the Code itself.

That's NOT what you said earlier in the NC case. When that discussion came up, Mike pointed out:

EVERYBODY who understands the governance of Freemasonry knows that it is done by the Code (constitution and by-laws) of a Grand Lodge; NOT its "System of Masonic Education." In fact, that very same publication states that "the lodge is governed by the Grand Lodge Book of Constitutions, called THE CODE."

And YOU quickly chimed in:

Since the Code supercedes the LSME, as Mike pointed out,

It's exactly the same in this situation with one difference: in this case, you are totally reversing yourself.

BTW, you managed to miss this one:

This Manual is, therefore, intended as an additional medium to supplement our Lodge System of Masonic Education and one from which the Mentor may be able to find answers to some questions he will be asked during the course of his work with the candidate. (pg. 3)

Are you sure you even read this? If you did, then you mean you REALLY wanted to post it ANYWAY? All this says is that the Mentor Manual is intended to SUPPLEMENT their Lodge System of Masonic Education! How the deuce did you figure that's going to overcome my challenge to you, that Masonic Law SUPERSEDES it--when all you have done is show that something that is NOT Masonic Law is designed to SUPPLEMENT that which is ALSO NOT MASONIC LAW? All you prove by citing this one is, that the Mentor's Manual is actually in a position even further down the rung from Masonic Law, than is the LSME.

You really outdid yerself on that one, Ace.

Section 1.03 deals with Masonic Law, not the lights of Masonry.

Wow, and I thought you went off the deep end on the PREVIOUS point!

Thank you for that admission, that this deals with MASONIC LAW.

Since it IS a DECISION of Masonic Law, what it STATES is Masonic Law. And there's NO DENYING what it says:

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible.

Since you've just added your own admission that this is dealing with MASONIC LAW, and not merely Masonic Education, there we have it.

And the glaring fact you can't get around, no matter how many times you can twirl on your thumb, is that NO OTHER BOOK is referenced at ALL. There's a reason for that: no other book fits the description of "Bible." Therefore the Grand Light in Florida Masonry, as anyone can see, is the Bible. Not only that, it has to be an UNADORNED Bible. It DOESN'T say an "unadorned VSL," it says "HOLY BIBLE." And as you've so capably pointed out for us, this matter is thus declared to be so, by MASONIC LAW.

It hardly can be seen as over-ruling four separate descriptions of what the VSL is.

Sure it can. In fact, YOU were the one who said so, in the situation involving conflicting statements in the North Carolina LSME booklet, as compared to the North Carolina Code. Your verdict in THAT case was, the Constitution and Code SUPERSEDE training manuals.

Again, every man gets to obligated himself on whatever part of the VSL he believes in

Again, you sit with your narcissistic take on your own invention, the "partial vsl," which really adds nothing to this discussion, and shows how truly out of touch you are with what you are addressing.

It also shows that the 'rule and guide' is not the bible, but whatever a man chooses to obligate himself on.

Not sure what you're referring to with your "it" here. But if by "it" you mean the Florida Mentor Manual you keep trying to interject into the discussion, perhaps you forgot, but "it" s where we found stated:

The open Bible signifies that by the light of its teachings we must regulate our conduct, for it is the rule and guide of our faith.

You ignore the key indicators in the context, delineating between "VSL" in general, and the "Great Light" which in Florida is specifically declared to be the Holy Bible. And you do so to your own detriment, as it keeps you harping on about things in which even the sources you cite do not back you up.

they were uncited as to source.

Source was not the issue in what I stated. I was illustrating the ease with which your claim about "Great Light" having "changed," can be refuted. I could have taken it further, but chose not to do so. The fact still remains, 9 out of the first ten hits all referred to the "Great Light" as the Holy Bible, and even the 10th one did not state anything to the contrary, being a different context completely.

If you wish, you can always google the term as I suggested, and see what the sources were. But keep in mind, search parameters change from time to time, you're liable to come up with 10 hits on Holy Bible this time, instead of only 9 out of 10. I'm sure you wish to make some kind of snide reference to the nature of the sources, which would really add to the farce you're creating here, since your Mentor Manual has already been trumped by Masonic Law.

But maybe I'm a bit off the mark in assuming you would have no trouble with finding these. After all, you can't tell a ladder from a staircase, can't tell a cube from a rectangular solid, can't tell Masonic Law from Mentor's Manuals, and can't seem to get your head around the fact that there's no such thing as "part of" a VSL, so I suppose it IS just a bit much to make assumptions you would know how to Google.

your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'respectively' is incorrect.

Sorry, dude, that one is just plain English language at work. Things in a list, enumerated one after the other and including the term "respectively," is a very specific usage. Granted, there are situations where perhaps the word is overused, or where some other construction would be preferable, but the intent of its usage is very clear. Things in a list, followed by "respectively," intend the the items in some type of order, with the first listed being first. The most "correct" usage of it involves two lists, and item 1 corresponding with item 1 in both, item 2 with item 2, etc.

But in a list such as this one, it's clear from the context that the use of "respectively" was intended to show that this was considered to be the "pecking order" of importance, that is, their "written law" is "based on these in the following order of importance." It's quite easy to see that they consider the Law of God to be the most important Law, ahead of even Masonic Constitution--which is as it should be. That is followed by GL legislation, and after that, the decisions and statements of the individual lodges themselves.

And really, if that is not the interpretation of it, then what, pray tell, WOULD it be? The ONLY possible alternative I can discern from the way the statement is worded, would be if the "respectively" were in reference, not to the entire list, but simply to the part which appears closest to it. Adverbs DO, after all, tend to appear in close proximity to the words they modify. But let's examine that, and I can show you the problem with that one also:

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.

In some instances of English usage, that would certainly be in order, to consider that this might be in reference to the last phrase, and be referring to "the particular lodges, respectively." But if you take it that way, then the concluding remark becomes one which tells us thast "every Mason in his proper sphere of fraternal jurisdiction should yield dutiful conformity only to the laws of the local lodges, which is hardly the intent of the sentence as a whole. No, the sentence is detailing ALL the sources of the written law in Florida Masonry, showing them respectively, and urging "dutiful conformity" to them, in that order of importance as it states it.

Someone might actually think you had a point to make somewhere in this, were it not for the fact that the rest of the things in the list are ordered exactly as one would expect in regard to constitution, legislation, and individual lodges. I think it amounts to sour grapes more than anything else, and is only one more example of your intense dislike of being wrong. I got news for you though: with Jacob's Staircase, rectangular cubes, "part of a VSL," and continual flip-flopping positions as part of your record, it'd be advisable to get some sugar for those sour grapes, or aspartame or something if you happen to be diabetic, because you appear to be destined for a lifetime of it.

Though pointing out your mistakes is mildly pleasing, I have a full plate already.

One would think that with a full plate of mistakes of your own to deal with, you'd be less inclined to try to remove the speck out of someone else's eye first. But hey, I guess you never read that part of the Bible where Jesus established that for you, eh? You know, that you should remove the plank and the speck, from your eye and mine, respectively?

 

[Skip Sampson]

And the key point invalidating what you just said, of course: there's no such thing as "part of the VSL."

Don't you wish. The Code is very clear about what constitutes the GL in FL Masonry.

it was eventually shown (though not by you), that matters of stated Masonic law supersede other materials.

Untrue. I've held that postion a long time, and if you'll wander through the old LRUS threads, you'll probably find it mentioned.

Therefore the MM is out, in regard to what shall stand, because stated Florida Masonic Law supersedes it.

So the MM is in when you want it to be and out when you don't. Ya know, we couldn't make up the mental gymnastics you try to use. The MM is always "in," especially when it agrees fully with the Code, which in the case of the GL's, it clearly does. Moreover, it contains information the Code does not, as well as information the LSME Study Guide does not, as you yourself pointed out.

It's interesting: earlier you accused me of insisting that the MM supercedes the Code, now you claim I said it doesn't. Wish you'd be more consistent, or at least not consistently wrong.

All this says is that the Mentor Manual is intended to SUPPLEMENT their Lodge System of Masonic Education!

That's not all it says:

and one from which the Mentor may be able to find answers to some questions he will be asked during the course of his work with the candidate. (pg. 3/emphasis added)

You yourself referred to the MM in answering a question from the Lodge Officers Training Manual, and demanded that it be accorded authority. More of that mental inconsistency with which you are afflicted. Even more to the point, the GL points the seeker to the MM, giving it its authority.

Wow, and I thought you went off the deep end on the PREVIOUS point!

Too bad you didn't bother to read what I said. Or maybe you did, and the admission was just too painful for you. Either way, here are the relevant quotes:

Nope, 1.03 of the Florida Digest of Masonic Law clearly declares differently: The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible.

1.03 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 timeimmemorial, 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.

Upon careful examination, you will find section 1.03 says nothing about an unadorned Bible. As noted earlier, you really should proof your posts. We'd all welcome it.

Moreover, you are incorrect in your assessment of your favorite section:

38.27 It is recommended that each Particular Lodge provide itself with a Masonic banner of blue, having on it the name and number of the Lodge, and the place of its location, together with the words "F. & A. M. of Florida."
Rulings and Decisions

The United States Flag shall be displayed at every Lodge Communication but without ceremony. (1942 Proc. 51)
Use of Bible containing extraneous matter is not proper. The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible. (1941 Proc. 82)
It is proper to incorporate the lights behind the Master's and Warden's stations by appropriate symbols for those stations, if the symbols can be easily removed when other organizations are using the same hall. (1962 Proc. 81, 296)
It is improper to provide a room in the East enclosed with glass in which the Secretary could and would sit during the Lodge Communications. (1962 Proc. 81, 296)

Of the part you are interested it, the statement:

Use of Bible containing extraneous matter is not proper.

is the actual decision/ruling. What follows

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible.

is merely an added statement that, in 1941, was probably true. As it stands now, the Code in four places states otherwise, pretty much blowing your cite out of the water.

the "partial vsl,"

A logical conclusion based upon the facts. If several books can be the VSL while still being just a symbol of the Will of God, then each is a part of the Will. I reject the view, but it's the only thing that makes sense Masonically given their stated views. Masonry itself, sees no difference among them or it would not permit them on its altars at all.

Not sure what you're referring to with your "it" here.

The practice of letting the candidate choose his own 'holy' book.

Source was not the issue in what I stated.

So sensitive.

I was illustrating the ease with which your claim about "Great Light" having "changed," can be refuted.

I guess you missed the fact that we were talking about the FL GL.

Things in a list, enumerated one after the other and including the term "respectively," is a very specific usage.

Depends on the order. Note:

1.03 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 timeimmemorial, 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.

As I noted before, using your logic, the unwritten law supercedes in precedence the written law. But notice the second sentance has two elements: those of the GL and those of the Lodge. To me, that is what the 'respectively' addresses, to ensure everyone knows the GL stuff is more important. Your view is incorrect, and reflects wishful thinking on your part. BTW, what did the SC AR have to say on the topic? Surely you've found it by now. Maybe the MSA guy can help.

I guess you never read that part of the Bible where Jesus established that for you, eh?

Given your record, that's a pretty hypocritical statement. Takes real brass to apply it to others, when Jesus said to apply it to oneself. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Untrue. I've held that postion a long time, and if you'll wander through the old LRUS threads, you'll probably find it mentioned.

But since I was only speaking of the threads here, and since all I said was, that it was shown HERE by Mike, and not you, then what I said was true. Mike stated it here, you chimed in to echo it.

So the MM is in when you want it to be and out when you don't. Ya know, we couldn't make up the mental gymnastics you try to use. The MM is always "in," especially when it agrees fully with the Code

Well, this is pure-T bullpuppies on your part. You and Mike go to all the trouble explaining to me the pecking order in official Grand Lodge documents--a point to which, if you will recall, I eventually conceded when Mike was forthcoming with something substantial enough to actually make the case. So I take the lesson for all it's worth, then come back here in a subsequent discussion, and begin applying what the two of you taught me: and what do you do? Mysteriously, you turn around 180 degrees to the rear, and start trying to assert the points you went to all that trouble correcting? How confusing is that????

Moreover, it contains information the Code does not

Sure--"information" of a lesser authority, as you and Mike already established in the earlier discussion, a point to which I conceded. This is debate, Skip, you make points and establish them, and both sides agree, you can't just come back in a subsequent argument and toss it out the window at will. Masonic Law takes precedence over Masonic Education training materials. You yourself supported Mike's position when the point was established.

You yourself referred to the MM in answering a question from the Lodge Officers Training Manual, and demanded that it be accorded authority.

Different discussion, different context. Get real.

is merely an added statement that, in 1941, was probably true.

Apparently you haven't bothered to check this out. I did, I searched high and low to find if there had been any decision anywhre declaring in Masonic Law that Florida's "Grand Light of Masonry" is anything other than the Bible, and there is no such statement to be found. It's still THERE.

And it is NOT "stated otherwise," as you claim. Just like you tried to claim it was not "the rule and guide of faith," when the very document you were citing to make that claim, CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS. All you are doing is trying to take a statement made about Masonry in general, and substitute it for the one made specifically about Florida.

the "partial vsl,"
A logical conclusion based upon the facts.

A "logical conclusion" based on the Skip Sampson wish list. And one that so far has been shown to be a conclusion reached by only ONE person, and by NO ONE in Masonry. And the one person who reached that conclusion has quite a track record: rectangular cubes, Jacob's staircase, authoritative pictures--if there's anything that can be claimed and sound ridiculous, let's face it, you'll sure find it and post it.

Too bad you didn't bother to read what I said. Or maybe you did, and the admission was just too painful for you

I made an inadvertent incorrect attribution, you provided a correction. Duly noted. Wasn't really that big a deal.

As noted earlier, you really should proof your posts.

Interesting, coming from someone who doesn't even proof his arguments. No source material has ever posted here showing (1) any use of a term like "Jacob's Staircase"; (2) authoritative pictures; or now, (3) "partial VSL."

Use of Bible containing extraneous matter is not proper.
is the actual decision/ruling. What follows

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible.
is merely an added statement

Sorry, wrong again. "Merely" an added statement? If you REALLY thought that was the case, then the next question to ask yourself should have been, "if it's 'merely' an added statement, then what was it added FOR?"

The answer to that question, had you bothered to consider it with any intellectual honesty, would have shown you the statement's significance. The second statement is an explanation of why the decision was made necessary in the first place.

But the obvious point you are missing, is why a decision had to be made on this matter in the first place. Obviously someone was trying to assert that it was okay to use a Bible with extraneous material in it (or they had simply used such a Bible and were challenged on it), and the first statement of the decision makes it clear that it's NOT okay; the second statement of the decision makes it clear WHY it's not: because the Grand Light of Masonry in Florida is not just ANY Bible, it is the UNADORNED Bible. The fact is, THERE NEVER WAS ANY QUESTION THAT IN FLORIDA THE BIBLE IS THE GREAT LIGHT IN MASONRY, AND IS THE BOOK ON THE ALTAR.

Both statements are a part of the decision. Therefore they are both in force in Florida Masonic Law until a decision is rendered that changes it. To date, there has been no such decision noted in the Digest.

As it stands now, the Code in four places states otherwise

Let's show the readers the inherent problems with your claim:

(1) In NONE of the four instances you cite of "VSL" in the Digest, is a specific book referenced.
(2) Yet, the phrase itself implies ONE book, "Volume" being singular, and "The" being a DEFINITE article.
(3) "VSL" is not referred to in the Digest as "Great Light."
(4) But in references to the Bible in the Digest, we find that it clearly IS identified as the "GRAND/GREAT LIGHT" in at least two instances.
(5) The Digest also says the Bible, not "the VSL," is part of Florida's written Masonic Law. Therefore,
(6) If you take them to be the same, as you clearly did earlier, you can come to NO OTHER CONCLUSION (if you're honest about it, of course) than, the Holy Bible IS both the "Great Light" AND the "VSL" in Florida Masonry.

Not only that, it's part of Florida's written Masonic Law.

As I noted before, using your logic, the unwritten law supercedes in precedence the written law.

Then you "noted" wrong. This is unbelievable, and just shows the lengths you'll go to to mischaracterize the whole matter entirely.

What I cited has nothing to do with the statement about the unwritten law, because it wasn't even part of the same sentence. Here's the context, readers, to show you how convoluted this man's thinking is:

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.

The paragraph consists of three sentences:

(1) It states that Masonic law is of two kinds, unwritten and written;
(2) It details in the second sentence what constitutes the unwritten law;
(3) It details in the third sentence what constitutes the written law.

As anyone can see, the enumerated items as I cited them appear in the THIRD sentence, not the second. The word "respectively" as used in the third sentence, has absolutely no connection with what was written in the second sentence. I don't know whether you got your eyes crossed, or your bifocals fell off, but you are so far out in left field with this one.


What I posted, and what I stated about it, were about the third sentence, the things constituting the written law. The second sentence was separate in its thought, being an explanation of what constitutes UNwritten law in Florida GL.

You really thought to fool the readers by trying to convince them that I was using a word in the third sentence as a modifier for a word in the second--a completely separate sentence????? Or are you just trying to falsely apply it in that way yourself?

But notice the second sentance has two elements: those of the GL and those of the Lodge.

There's your problem right there, Ace, we're not ON the "second sentence." The one I cited was the THIRD. You really need to get those glasses adjusted. My guess is, it's probably the culprit behind your continued string of imaginary Masonic positions.

To me, that is what the 'respectively' addresses, to ensure everyone knows the GL stuff is more important.

Exactly--and you made this statement based on the fact that the subordinate lodges came after the GL stuff, making the "respectively" an indication that the GL being placed in the sentence before subordinate lodges, it was "more important." But your real problem is, your statement is false anyway, as there are THREE elements, not two. FIRST, there's the Holy Bible, THEN there's Grand Lodge, then there's subordinate lodges. So by your own estimation on the matter, "that's what the 'respectively' addresses, to ensure everyone knows the Holy Bible is more important." And this, too, is based on the "respectively," placing the greater importance on that which came first in the order. Which, of course, is exactly what I pointed out to begin with.

I'm not a bit surprised, though, to see that you would leave the Holy Bible out of your calculations. Somehow it never seems to figure very strongly into anything you do here anyway.

BTW, what did the SC AR have to say on the topic?

I guess you missed the fact that we were talking about the FL GL--and more specifically, its Digest of Masonic Law.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Well, another opportunity to visit Wayne's World, where nothing is except what Wayne wants it to be.

How confusing is that????

Apparently not to anyone but you. I've never held that the MM supercedes the Code. Feel free to show me where I have.

You yourself supported Mike's position when the point was established.

As I've always supported that position. I'm sure we were both gratified that you acknowledged your error, at least in that instance.

Different discussion, different context.

But same ol' Wayne.

I did, I searched high and low to find if there had been any decision anywhre declaring in Masonic Law that Florida's "Grand Light of Masonry" is anything other than the Bible, and there is no such statement to be found. It's still THERE. And it is NOT "stated otherwise," as you claim.

Hate to keep pointing this out, but you are again mistaken. The Code clearly states that the VSL is the furniture of the Lodge which makes it one of the Great Lights as well. The two are one in the same in all the Masonic rituals and training manuals I have. The Code also mandates that the VSL be on the altar for the lodge to be opened, something it does not say about the Bible specifically. Florida has chosen among the various parts of the VSL to use the Bible. But to continue to run from the importance of the VSL, in all its parts, in Masonry is just intellectual cowardice.

BTW, in your high and low searching, did you stumble across any mention of a 'grand light' in FL GL documentation except for the one we've been discussing?

And one that so far has been shown to be a conclusion reached by only ONE person, and by NO ONE in Masonry.

The fact that Masonry doesn't admit to being a religion doesn't mean it isn't one. I've presented my view and and its veracity doesn't stand or fall on your acceptance of it. Look at it this way: they are all symbols of the Will of God, which pretty much makes them all the same in Masonic eyes. Since it is the Will of God that matters, the different books all contain part of that Will, Masonically speaking, thus making them parts of the overall Will. Probably a better way to explain it, but I still maintain that in Masonry, the various VSL'S are just part of one great document. Otherwise, they could not be equated given their significant differences.

As an aside, it's interesting to see that you have decided to be the arbiter of all topics of contention on Freemasonry. Probably all those years you've spent in Masonry and all that time working through the chairs of the Lodge; it's given you a very over-rated opinion of your own Masonic understanding.

And the one person who reached that conclusion has quite a track record: rectangular cubes, Jacob's staircase, authoritative pictures--if there's anything that can be claimed and sound ridiculous, let's face it, you'll sure find it and post it.

Perfect case in point. You like hitting those nails, but your disapproval does not make my view of them incorrect, or even correct for that matter. They stand and fall on their logic and the conclusions which lead from that.

BTW, for those that don't understand Wayne's comments, he is addressing issues found in two threads on this forum. They can be found here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7506908/ and http://www.christianforums.com/t7469035/

I made an inadvertent incorrect attribution, you provided a correction. Duly noted. Wasn't really that big a deal.

Well, it's not a big deal that you made a mistake, but it certainly is a big deal that you got around to admitting it, MOL.

Interesting, coming from someone who doesn't even proof his arguments. No source material has ever posted here showing (1) any use of a term like "Jacob's Staircase"; (2) authoritative pictures; or now, (3) "partial VSL."

Now, that's a laugh.

But the obvious point you are missing, is why a decision had to be made on this matter in the first place.

Exactly. And the decision was to not adorn the Bible. But according to the Code, in four places it is clear that it is the VSL that is the great light, as noted above.

BTW, speaking of decisions, note this one in the Code following section 38.45:

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)

So it's ok for them to display the Bible, but not the Three Great Lights. Speaking technically, that must mean the Bible is not one of the Great Lights. Maybe that's why they used 'grand' in the other decision, and why the VSL is mandated as the furniture of the lodge and something that must always be on the altar when the lodge is opened. In actuality, we know what is meant because of the overall context of the Code in such matters. Same reason we know, or should have realized by now, that the VSL, in all its forms, is really the Great Light both in FL masonry and masonry at large. Florida, of course, has selected the Bible from the list of available books.​

The fact is, THERE NEVER WAS ANY QUESTION THAT IN FLORIDA THE BIBLE IS THE GREAT LIGHT IN MASONRY, AND IS THE BOOK ON THE ALTAR.

Sure there is. Aside from the above decision, the Code, and the MM, both note that the VSL is the great light, and Code even more adamant that the VSL is what must be on the altar. The Bible is used only because of the acceptance of the Masonic VSL view, and that usage is only a matter of choice among the parts of the VSL. One need only to consider the implications of a Koran being on the altar for an initiation; would they really be referring him to the Bible as the great light? Of course not. For the candidate, the Koran would be the great light, regardless how the ritual was modified to support his decision.

Let's show the readers the inherent problems with your claim:

Ok, go ahead and try.

(1) In NONE of the four instances you cite of "VSL" in the Digest, is a specific book referenced.

Correct. But the VSL is as much a concept as it is anything else. Let's consider your point in line with how FL has defined it:

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. (Lodge Training Course Study Guide, Module II, pg. 83)

So when the "VSL" is used, it is referring to any book thought holy. From a legal standoint, the use of the VSL in the Code makes perfect sense, in that it allows any of such books to be on the altar, either solely or in company with another book due to the request of a candidate. It provides the legal basis for all of them to be used. I think there's quite a bit more to the overall view of what the VSL is, but the FL view is sufficient here.

(2) Yet, the phrase itself implies ONE book, "Volume" being singular, and "The" being a DEFINITE article.

I think it more refers to 'the' holy book the GL has chosen to present on its altars. The Koran is one book, the Book of Mormon another, and so forth. So, if you mean to imply that the VSL automatically equates to the Bible, you are clearly wrong. We also know that more than one holy book can be on a Masonic altar.

(3) "VSL" is not referred to in the Digest as "Great Light."

Not directly as such, to be sure, but it is very clear in four places that it actually is. Of more interest is that the Bible isn't referred to as the "Great Light" at all in the Code. In fact, I could make the case that, since the Bible is NEVER referred to in Code as either the GL or the furniture of the lodge, it is clearly neither. Incidentally, none of the FL Training documentation mention a 'grand light.'

(4) But in references to the Bible in the Digest, we find that it clearly IS identified as the "GRAND/GREAT LIGHT" in at least two instances.

I only have one quote that calls it the 'grand light' and none that call it the 'great light.' Please cite the second one to which you refer.

(5) The Digest also says the Bible, not "the VSL," is part of Florida's written Masonic Law.

No, it says that the Masonic written law 'embraces' the Bible, among other things. I think the point is not pertinent to what constitutes the great light in Masonry, Florida or otherwise.

Therefore, (6) If you take them to be the same, as you clearly did earlier, you can come to NO OTHER CONCLUSION (if you're honest about it, of course) than, the Holy Bible IS both the "Great Light" AND the "VSL" in Florida Masonry.

I don't take them as the same. I take the Bible as the part of the VSL that FL uses. Your conclusion is also untrue, if for no other reason that it is contradicted by the FL GL definition of the VSL as stated above. Moreover, the GL could at any time shift to a different holy book, meaning the VSL is not just the Bible. It is just one of the many books that constitute the VSL. Also, nowhere does the Code state that the Bible must be open upon the altar for the Lodge to be open, but it clearly mandates that the VSL must be. Further, nowhere does the Code state the Bible as the 'Great' Light. No surprise, but your conclusion is not supported by the facts. And I don't think you've succeeded in your objective in stating these points.

Then you "noted" wrong.

Allow me to clarify the issue for you. Here is the operative sentence:

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.

I accept your view in this case, because there are indeed three separate sections to the sentence. The use of the word 'respectively,' then, does place the Bible in first order of precedence.

Now, how does that carry through in implementation? If the Bible is part of Masonic law, are the Ten Commandments enforceable under Masonic Law? Or the statements against homosexuality? In short, how does the statement manifest itself, or is it just eyewash?

I'm not a bit surprised, though, to see that you would leave the Holy Bible out of your calculations. Somehow it never seems to figure very strongly into anything you do here anyway.

I wonder just what kind of person could write such a thing.

I guess you missed the fact that we were talking about the FL GL--and more specifically, its Digest of Masonic Law.

Nope, just thought you would naturally want to use your own jurisdiction's views to support your arguments. It doesn't, of course, support the Florida view, which is interesting. Food for a future thought. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I've never held that the MM supercedes the Code.

Never said you did. But you're sure trying to assert things from it as if it DID.

I'm sure we were both gratified that you acknowledged your error

That's not what I did. I had challenged a claim that was unproven, requested something more substantial than merely your or Mike's word on the matter, and conceded the point upon receipt of the requested proof. You've done the same thing in many arguments yourself (by that I refer to the requesting, not to the conceding). The rest is pure window dressing on your part to try to make it look like what you wish it to be.

But same ol' Wayne.

Thank you. Too bad with your inconsistencies and flip-flops I can't say the same for you.

The Code clearly states that the VSL is the furniture of the Lodge which makes it one of the Great Lights as well.

There's the difference right there, Ace, it only states the VSL is the furniture, while the statement I cited clearly has the "First Grand Light" as the Holy Bible.

Florida has chosen among the various parts of the VSL

Imagination kicking in again. There's no such thing, and if you think there is, I challenge you to produce ONE INSTANCE where ANY Masonic source makes any specific reference using the term "part of the VSL." You won't find it. GL's have VSL's, not "parts" of them.

But to continue to run from the importance of the VSL, in all its parts, in Masonry is just intellectual cowardice.

The intellectual cowardice is particularly problematic for critics of Masonry who can't accept Masonry's comments about VSL for what they say, and keep having to invent their own terminology like "part of the VSL," which is found nowhere in Masonry.

Come to think of it, perhaps that's your problem. Given Mike's insistence on continuing to bring in spurious Masonry, perhaps you've simply chosen to follow his lead. You certainly didn't get that term from any lodges of UGLE descent, that's for sure.

BTW, in your high and low searching, did you stumble across any mention of a 'grand light' in FL GL documentation except for the one we've been discussing?

What's your point? How many are necessary? And while you're on that point, did you find any DIRECT statement declaring the VSL to "be" the Grand/Great Light in Florida Masonry? Or are you still trying that osmosis thing? Me, I prefer the practicality of the bird in the hand when it comes to backing things up on these issues, and I'll take one "Grand Light" reference that DECLARES it to be the Holy Bible, over ANY NUMBER of VSL references that DO NOT declare it to be the "Great Light," ANY DAY.

That's your failing point, your willingness to stick your neck out for things that have no reference to back them up at all: Jacob's staircase, rectangular cubes, authoritative pictures, and now assertions about the Florida Digest of Masonic Law that do not exist in reality either. But at least it's preferable for you to grasp at another straw and try to go that direction, futile though it is, than to continue to try to assert the statement you tried to introduce from the MM over the one in the Digest. That was doomed from the start, and by your own words.

The fact that Masonry doesn't admit to being a religion doesn't mean it isn't one.

Nor does your denial mean that it is.

I've presented my view and and its veracity doesn't stand or fall on your acceptance of it.

WHAT "veracity?" It never had any. Nowhere does the Digest declare "The VSL is the Great Light of Masonry." By contrast, I've staked my position based on the statements of Florida Masonic Law, which DOES declare that the Bible is the "First Grand Light" of Masonry.

I still maintain that in Masonry, the various VSL'S are just part of one great document.

"Maintain" it all you wish. You have a LONNNNG way to go to document it as a position of Masonry. Nobody I've read in Masonry comes anywhere close to defining "VSL" in the manner you do, with only a possible exception, Joseph Fort Newton, who made a METAPHORICAL reference to the will of God in terms similar to being a book or document.

I'm pretty certain you know that already, and don't really care. I think you've really just made up your mind to be the fly in whatever ointment comes up on any Freemasonry threads here, and take the positions you do out of pure spite. It's the new Skip Sampson, the same ole snidery with a new twist.

That makes your presence here more of a time-waster than anything--yours and everybody else's.

your disapproval does not make my view of them incorrect, or even correct for that matter. They stand and fall on their logic and the conclusions which lead from that.

Actually, that would be "fall," rather than "stand and fall." Even at this stage of things, you still somehow are blinded to the fact that those things all fell, by the very "logic"--more correctly, illogic--on which they were founded. The problem was, they all began with false premises, and were doomed to the false conclusions they led to.

Exactly. And the decision was to not adorn the Bible.

Exactly. And the reason for it was, the Grand Light of Masonry is the UNadorned Holy Bible.

So it's ok for them to display the Bible, but not the Three Great Lights. Speaking technically, that must mean the Bible is not one of the Great Lights.

Strange how you still didn't notice, it references Bible and not VSL.

All it means is, if you read the decision for what it truly says, is that they can't display all three of the Great Lights, even though they are permitted to display the FIRST one.

The reason for it is very clear, too. The Low Twelve Club, though it has a requirement to be a Mason for membership, is not itself affiliated with the Grand Lodge of Florida. Florida Grand Lodge has jurisdiction over Freemasonry in all of Florida. Since the square and compasses are the emblems of Freemasonry, the display of them implies a connection which in this case does not exist in the same manner, apparently, that it does with appendant organizations like Scottish or York Rites. Therefore, the decision is consistent with the existing conditions that are pertinent to the case: not being a "Masonic" organization per se, the square and compasses are out; the Bible, however, is not a purely Masonic emblem, despite the fact that it is the Grand Light of Florida Masonry; and thus the display of it by any similar organization cannot be legislated by Florida or any other Grand Lodge. The main thrust of the decision was, of course, that by this action, official Masonic sanction of the Low Twelve Club was, in a word, denied.

Florida, of course, has selected the Bible from the list of available books.

Not really. Florida has ALWAYS had the Bible as its VSL. And at the time that decision was made, it was not "selected from a list." And the statements found in the Digest show that it still holds the same position as before. It's first on the list of what constitutes the written law in Florida Masonry: and it's the First Grand Light in Florida Masonry.

the VSL, in all its forms, is really the Great Light both in FL masonry and masonry at large.

Well, now you've gone from empty pontifications, to outright denials of what Florida Digest of Masonic Law clearly states.

The First Grand Light in Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible.

It doesn't say "the VSL in all its forms," it specifies ONE form. You can jack yer jaws from now till the cows come home, and it won't counter that statement in the least. That's one direct statement in Florida Masonic Law DECLARING the Great/Grand Light of Masonry to be the Bible, to ZERO direct statements declaring anything otherwise.

I can recommend a good cheese to go with your whine, but at this point, there's little else to say on the matter, than that which Florida Digest of Masonic Law already declares on the matter of its Great Light.

I take the Bible as the part of the VSL that FL uses.

You can take that or anything else for whatever you wish it to be--and on the threads here, you certainly have, to the Nth degree and then some. But what "you" take it to be is not what Florida takes it to be. And Florida takes it as their Great Light.

In short, how does the statement manifest itself, or is it just eyewash?

Content and context. Both of which the Bible has in Florida Masonic ritual, and no other "sacred book" does. The Bible is the foundation and basis of all its moral teachings, as any Mason knows. They still teach the same basic Masonic lessons at which the Bible is turned to in each of the three degrees, they still include the reading of the beginning of Genesis, and they still teach lessons from 2 Chronicles 2:16, 2 Kings 6:7, Ruth 4:7, and Matthew 7:7 in the EA degree, as well as many others in all three degrees.

Somebody get this man some oxygen.

I wonder just what kind of person could write such a thing.

Primarily, an observant one. And not necessarily a highly observant one, since it stands out. But do keep in mind, I referred to your actions and not your words--"anthing you DO here" was the specific comment to that effect.

Nope, just thought you would naturally want to use your own jurisdiction's views to support your arguments.

Well, that's certainly a twist. Since my discussion on this issue has been directed ONLY toward what is stated in Florida's Digest of Masonic Law, and since your arguments have been basically an attempt to deny what that Digest clearly states, my point to you was: anything that South Carolina jurisdiction has to say on any subject, does not have anything to do with determining what Florida's Digest of Masonic Law states.

Not surprised you'd try it, though: first, try to deflect discussion to the Mentor Manual; then, failing, that, try to divert it even farther away, all the way up the coast to South Carolina.

Sorry, I'm sticking with the discussion of Florida's declaration that "The Grand Light of Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible"--not "VSL," not "part" of the VSL, not "furniture," but the Holy Bible.

For some reason, you can't seem to deal with what it SAYS, and keep trying to substitute things it does NOT say, even to the point of offering things of your own invention which it would NEVER say.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Back to Wayne's world:

Never said you did. But you're sure trying to assert things from it as if it DID.

Only you could deny something and then in the next sentence reassert that which you just denied and not see the inconsistency in it. Just wonderful.

That's not what I did.

Must be a mistake on my part, as I took you at your word:

I eventually conceded

I should know better by now.

There's the difference right there, Ace, it only states the VSL is the furniture, while the statement I cited clearly has the "First Grand Light" as the Holy Bible.

Since the furniture and the great lights are the same, the VSL is clearly one of the great lights. And the 'First Grand Light' is not a Great Light, unless you can come up with a connection in FL documentation between them. Whatever the 'grand light' is, it is, in the Code, not the great light. Your use of that ruling does not hold up under inspection. You might also recall that the code also implies that the Bible is not one of the Three Great Lights, were one to choose to take it literally.

I challenge you to produce ONE INSTANCE where ANY Masonic source makes any specific reference using the term "part of the VSL."

I'll consider it, though it is irrelevant. What Masonry claims often differs from what is actually true. I'm content with my view of the VSL as has been stated. Others may differ should they so desire.

How many are necessary?

More than one would be nice. We've been discussing the great lights, not the grand light. Whatever the 'grand light' is, no connection is stated between it and Masonry's three great lights. Continue to bear in mind that the Code nowhere demands the bible be open for a lodge to be in labor, but it does say that specifically about the VSL, for which we have the FL definition. Thus, it is the VSL that the Code most clearly indicates is one of the Great lights, and, of course, the MM bluntly states that fact.

That's your failing point, your willingness to stick your neck out for things that have no reference to back them up at all:

Again untrue. My evidence is there for all to see.

than to continue to try to assert the statement you tried to introduce from the MM over the one in the Digest.

I thought you said you never said such a thing? As noted many times before, you really ought to proof your posts, and not just make them an extended stream of consciousness.

Nowhere does the Digest declare "The VSL is the Great Light of Masonry."

It doesn't declare the Bible to be that either; thus, by your own logic, you are wrong.

By contrast, I've staked my position based on the statements of Florida Masonic Law, which DOES declare that the Bible is the "First Grand Light" of Masonry.

Yes, you've indeed found a patch of sand upon which to base your house. And, of course, the 'first grand light' is not the three great lights, so your assertion is unsound.

"Maintain" it all you wish.

Thank you; I shall.

That makes your presence here more of a time-waster than anything--yours and everybody else's.

Then why are you wasting your time?

And the reason for it was, the Grand Light of Masonry is the UNadorned Holy Bible.

Hate to keep correcting you, but we're talking about the three great lights, not the 'grand light.' Masonic documentation in FL addresses the great lights in several places, but only the Code mentions a grand light. And one section of the Code indicates that the Bible is not one of the great lights.

Strange how you still didn't notice, it references Bible and not VSL.

Why wouldn't it? It noted that the Bible could be displayed, but the three great lights could not. Easy to read that as meaning that the Bible isn't part of the great lights.

Not really. Florida has ALWAYS had the Bible as its VSL. And at the time that decision was made, it was not "selected from a list."

Sure it was. The concept of the VSL goes back to Preston. Fl selected the part of the VSL it wished to use.

That's one direct statement in Florida Masonic Law DECLARING the Great/Grand Light of Masonry to be the Bible, to ZERO direct statements declaring anything otherwise.

I thought you said there were two of them. Oh, well. At any rate, the Code does not state anything about a 'Great/Grand Light;' only you've come to that conclusion. A double error.

there's little else to say on the matter, than that which Florida Digest of Masonic Law already declares on the matter of its Great Light.

I agree; it's clear that the Code refers to the VSL as one of the Great Lights.

Content and context. Both of which the Bible has in Florida Masonic ritual, and no other "sacred book" does. The Bible is the foundation and basis of all its moral teachings, as any Mason knows.

But how is that part of a written law? How are those moral teachings existent in the Code, for example?

And not necessarily a highly observant one,

We already knew that.

Sorry, I'm sticking with the discussion of Florida's declaration that "The Grand Light of Masonry is the unadorned Holy Bible"--not "VSL," not "part" of the VSL, not "furniture," but the Holy Bible.

Ok. Let me know when you are ready to return to the great lights discussion. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I should know better by now.

Yes, you should know better than to think you can go back and snip little short comments and piece together and create your own little imaginary conversation, a la John Ankerberg style. In that regard, you model a proven liar, which speaks for itself.

Since the furniture and the great lights are the same, the VSL is clearly one of the great lights.

You almost got it, Ace. But instead of going backwards and trying to claim "the furniture and the great lights are the same, so the VSL is one of the great lights"; you should be taking it the other way around: "since the furniture and the great lights are the same, and since the Bible is clearly identified as one of the great lights, the Bible is also included in the furniture of the lodge in Florida." In essence, you have turned your telescope around and thus present a myopic view of the matter.

I'll consider it, though it is irrelevant.

Boy, and I thought the height of arrogance had been reached ALREADY, when you asserted your own definition, which appears nowhere in Masonry, in place of Masonry's own concepts; but now you go way beyond that, and not only assert your invention, you declare the Masonic definition "irrelevant!"

I'm content with my view of the VSL

And that's definitely what it is, "your own," because nobody else in the world ever heard of it before.

More than one would be nice.

It still beats zero, which is how many times you can cite anything declaring VSL as "great light."

We've been discussing the great lights, not the grand light.

No, we've been discussing the Digest of Masonic Law in Florida. Great Lights is referenced once with any specific reference, and Bible is the indication there. Grand Light is referenced once, and even there, it is "FIRST" Grand Light,and "Grand" is simply used interchangeably in place of "Great," just as is often done with the term Great/Grand Architect.

Whatever the 'grand light' is, no connection is stated between it and Masonry's three great lights.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Of course it's not "stated," the decision when it was rendered was not rendered before a panel of antimasonic idiots who would not know what a Bible was used for in Masonry, its use was perfectly understood--and still is--just like it was understood exactly what they were saying when they spoke of it as the "Grand Light." The book that rests on the altar in Florida Masonry is the Bible, and when the Lodge is open, is always accompanied by the other two Great Lights, the square and compasses.

and, of course, the MM bluntly states that fact.

And "of course," as already pointed out, the MM is not declarative for Florida Masonic Law, nor is it what this discussion has been about. By contrast, the Digest IS declarative for Florida Masonic Law:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida, I do hereby declare and promulgate the within Digest of the Masonic Law of Florida as the official Masonic Law of this Grand Jurisdiction. (Opening "Proclamation" of the Digest, a statement from the Grand Master)

Then why are you wasting your time?

I'm not, you are, since what I have presented is clearly defined in Masonic Law, while you have no statement from the Digest designating VSL as "Great Light," no statement from ANYWHERE in Masonry designating anything by the phrase "part of the VSL," and no statement in the Digest declaring furniture and Great Lights to be "the same," per your claim. Therefore, you are wasting your time asserting opinions and positions that do not exist except in your spins and imaginations, while I am presenting what the Digest clearly and specifically states.

Hate to keep correcting you

Great, then don't start, would be my advice, since to "keep" correcting me, you would first have to begin.

Fl selected the part of the VSL

They couldn't have, since there's no such thing.

(W) That's one direct statement in Florida Masonic Law DECLARING the Great/Grand Light of Masonry to be the Bible, to ZERO direct statements declaring anything otherwise.
(S) I thought you said there were two of them.

In that case, you need a minor corrective to help you see what was said.

The first statement to which you refer:

(4) But in references to the Bible in the Digest, we find that it clearly IS identified as the "GRAND/GREAT LIGHT" in at least two instances.

And the second:
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]

That's one direct statement in Florida Masonic Law DECLARING the Great/Grand Light of Masonry to be the Bible

The first statement merely says there are two instances in which the Bible is IDENTIFIED as the Grand/Great Light; the second says there is only one instance in which it is directly DECLARED to BE the Great/Grand Light. And actually, I made the first statement the way I did intentionally, to prevent over-statement of the case, in recognition of the fact that though both of them IDENTIFY the Bible with the Grand/Great Lights, only one of them specifically DECLARES it to be.

I agree; it's clear that the Code refers to the VSL as one of the Great Lights

Gee, that's strange, I've looked all through this Digest several times, and I don't see that even once. Could you point that out in the Digest of Masonic Law for us where you find such a Code, by either its section identification number, or page number, or chapter, or SOMETHING???? After all, I thought you claimed a bit earlier to "always" identify your material. Here you don't even cite it, much less provide specific location. Are you sure you aren't going off the map again, to pull in things that are NOT part of the document we've been discussing?

But how is that part of a written law? How are those moral teachings existent in the Code, for example?

Again, you have not identified what "code" you are referring to. If you refer to something somewhere else, which you appear to be doing, since I see no indication of what you have claimed to find there, then that's not the scope of the discussion of the Digest of Masonic Law. But if you refer to one of the 124 times that "Code" IS referenced in this document, it would be helpful if you would narrow it down a bit.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Back to Wayne's world!

you should be taking it the other way around: "since the furniture and the great lights are the same, and since the Bible is clearly identified as one of the great lights,

That is untrue. The bible is not identified as a great light in the digest, as you already know.

Great Lights is referenced once with any specific reference, and Bible is the indication there.

Untrue. The statement, unless you've found a different one, says that a Bible can be used by a Low Twelve club but that the 3 great lights cannot. there is no indication therein that the Bible is one of the great lights; indeed, the statement easily precludes the Bible being a great light. Either that or masonic law likes to contradict itself in the same sentences.

Grand Light is referenced once, and even there, it is "FIRST" Grand Light,and "Grand" is simply used interchangeably in place of "Great," just as is often done with the term Great/Grand Architect.

Debatable. But since it also points to the VSL, which FL defines as any holy book, the entire thrust of the digest mitigates against your view.

Have you found any other place in FL Masonry that refers to a 'grand' light? Maybe the MSA can help you out in that search.

Of course it's not "stated,"

Thanks for admitting that.

The book that rests on the altar in Florida Masonry is the Bible, and when the Lodge is open, is always accompanied by the other two Great Lights, the square and compasses.

Where does the digest state that?

And "of course," as already pointed out, the MM is not declarative for Florida Masonic Law, nor is it what this discussion has been about.

Not sure that's true. Here is a helpful explanation of the FL training plans:

The Grand Lodge of Florida has a comprehensive set of booklets to disseminate the “Light” that each one of us sought when we began our journey to the East. One of these is the “Mentor’s Manual”, a 36 page guide covering the basic tenants of Freemasonry and the symbolism of the three degrees. This is followed by four booklets entitled “The Lodge System of Masonic Education”; one given to the Candidate prior to the first degree, and one after each degree. Three additional booklets are given, one after the completion of each degree explaining the ritual he just went through. The use of these booklets can help to establish the “BOND” that is required between the new Brother and the Fraternity, not just the Lodge he joined, but the Universal Lodge composed of all the recognized Grand Lodges throughout the world. The EDUCATION process needs to be continued after the completion of the Master Mason degree. Again, the Grand Lodge of Florida has additional training material for this purpose; the Lodge Training Course, Modules I, II, and III and the Master Mason Exam. And then, when the new Brother steps into the line of Officers, there is an Officers Training Course. (FL GL, The Florida Mason, Spring 2008 Issue, pg. 2)

Of interest to our discussion is section 13.19 of the digest which directs the development and maintenance of a training program, and mentions the LSME by name. I'd say that the section makes the entire training program above part of Masonic Law, including the MM.

I'm not, you are, since what I have presented is clearly defined in Masonic Law, while you have no statement from the Digest designating VSL as "Great Light," no statement from ANYWHERE in Masonry designating anything by the phrase "part of the VSL," and no statement in the Digest declaring furniture and Great Lights to be "the same," per your claim. Therefore, you are wasting your time asserting opinions and positions that do not exist except in your spins and imaginations, while I am presenting what the Digest clearly and specifically states.

Except for the "wasting your time" phrase, that paragraph is entirely untrue. You are very selective in your 'facts' and fanciful in your interpretations.

Great, then don't start, would be my advice, since to "keep" correcting me, you would first have to begin.

I began that about six years ago, more or less. Do you think no one remembers what you wrote? Well, that might be true....

The first statement merely says there are two instances in which the Bible is IDENTIFIED as the Grand/Great Light; the second says there is only one instance in which it is directly DECLARED to BE the Great/Grand Light. And actually, I made the first statement the way I did intentionally, to prevent over-statement of the case, in recognition of the fact that though both of them IDENTIFY the Bible with the Grand/Great Lights, only one of them specifically DECLARES it to be.

An interesting explanation. Let's try it this way: 1) there aren't 'at least' two such instances in the Digest as you claimed. 2) there is not even one instance where the Bible is identified as the 'Grand/Great Light' in the Digest. 3) You've just admitted to an intentional falsehood. 4) Your entire response is bizarre. It's clear you made a mistake and don't want to admit it. With your long practice in such things, I'd have expected a more sophisticated rationale.

I've looked all through this Digest several times, and I don't see that even once.

Here they be:

C) 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)

(3) The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every Lodge while at Labor, (Resolution on Freemasonry, pg. 3)

The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida hereby recognizes, as being Landmarks of Freemasonry the Following: ... (c) 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)

Section 2. The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida hereby recognizes, as being Landmarks of Freemasonry, the following: ... (c) The Volume of the Sacred Law, open upon the altar, is an indispensable furnishing of every regular Lodge while at labor. (Art. XIII, pg. 70)

Note that furnishings = great lights and the VSL must be opened. Closed case.

Incidentally, you seem confused by my use of the word 'Code' to refer to the masonic law in FL. I've adopted the use of Digest to help you out. Cordially, Skip.