Heretical Content and/or Occult Interpretations Found in Freemasonry

[Rev Wayne]

I'll tell you what you GOTTA like: your presentation of what the EA degree says about "furniture" and "Great Lights," with your attempt to try to make it "VSL." You stated this while ago, post #150:

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

And immediately cited this from the EA:

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.

And then you added, as if thinking your case "proven":

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

Now that's pretty good stuff: you offer one citation showing the Holy Bible is part of the furniture, which includes:

Holy Bible
Square
Compasses
Charter or Dispensation

Then you offer a citation showing the Bible is one of the three Great Lights, which include:

Holy Bible
Square
Compasses

And you make a claim of "they're the SAME?????"

It's bad enough you don't even understand Masonry well enough to enter even the most elementary discussion about it, and thus certainly are ill-prepared for this discussion; now it comes to our attention that you don't even seem to be able to do simple math, and somehow come up with 3 = 4! (four items of furniture, only three Great Lights)

And right after having provided the citations that PROVE they are different, you come right back with a blind comment claiming you don't know of one jurisdiction where they are different, even after you just presented one such jurisdiction!

Not only that, somehow, after just posting two citations that BOTH have furniture and Great Lights as "Holy Bible," you STILL insist on VSL!!

Since you have already ESTABLISHED for us what these items are, one can only wonder why you are going about trying to deny what you have already proved for us.

 

[Skip Sampson]

And you make a claim of "they're the SAME?????"

Yep. In FL, the ritual includes a charter or dispensation 'together' with the furniture. Module II Study Guide notes:

FURNITURE: Refers to the necessary equipment of the Lodge such as the Holy Bible, Square and Compasses.

A little independent research would have clarified this for you.

Of note, I only know of three jurisdictions who add a statement about a warrant or charter with the furniture (FL, NV, NJ). Not sure as to its genesis.

It's bad enough you don't even understand Masonry well enough to enter even the most elementary discussion about it, and thus certainly are ill-prepared for this discussion;

Silly comments like these are why you cannot be taken seriously. It's simply an untrue statement as any observer can see for himself. Another product of Wayne's world.

Not only that, somehow, after just posting two citations that BOTH have furniture and Great Lights as "Holy Bible," you STILL insist on VSL!!

You wanted to use the digest, remember? The digest is clear that the furniture is the VSL, meaning it is also one of the three great lights.

already proved for us

Us? Are you speaking for your multiple personalities, your self-perceived majesty, all CF readers, or just for all masons? I'm having to prove this only to you, as any person possessing only average intellectual capabilities would understand the proof by now. You have a particular set of axes to grind and positions to protect, hence the iterative nature of my posts. You is what you is, unfortunately. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

In FL, the ritual includes a charter or dispensation 'together' with the furniture.

Your spins get more and more deviated from the truth. This is NOT what you quoted earlier. The heading says

THE FURNITURE OF A LODGE

What comes after the heading is:

Every well regulated and governed Lodge is furnished with the Holy Bible, Square and Compasses, together with a Charter or Dispensation.

There's a very simple reason it would be worded as it is, and actually you'd already supplied that earlier as well. The grouping of Holy Bible, Square and Compasses have a separate designation in Masonry, as the Great Lights. These three, "together with a Charter or Dispensation," constitute the Furniture of the Lodge. This is made abundantly clear by the inclusion of all four under the same heading.

A little intellectual honesty would have clarified this for you.

I only know of three jurisdictions who add a statement about a warrant or charter with the furniture (FL, NV, NJ).

And how exactly do you come by such a determination, with all your manuals in storage?

You wanted to use the digest, remember?

A mischaracterization. It's not a matter of "I wanted to use the Digest," the reality of it was, the Digest was what the discussion was all about. I should know, I initiated the discussion, in case you forgot. When dealing with declarations of the Digest, yes, of course one would use the Digest. How else do you go about determining what a source says, if not by consulting the source itself?

But the Digest does not clarify the differences between furniture and Great Lights. Therefore we turn to other Grand Lodge materials already supplied by you so we can show they are not identical designations. There is no source that shows the differences more clearly than what you posted from the EA degree.

But you also mischaracterize matters when you try to treat these as though EA materials have nothing to do with the Digest. The Digest, as already pointed out, shows what materials constitute Masonic Law in Florida, and the Constitution is listed among them. Check the Executive Order in the front of the Florida Monitor, and you will find that it references both the Regulations found in the Digest, AND the Constitution:

I, D. Hayward Stuckey, Grand Master of Free and Accepted Masons of Florida, do hereby issue the following Executive Order:

1. That the Committee on Work, under the direction of R.W. James W. Creacy, Chairman, immediately review the current editions of the Official Blue and Brown Florida Monitors and make corrections of any misspelled, incorrect, omitted, or unnecessary words therein, being cautious and careful not to change in any manner the properly adopted words, phrases, procedures or ceremonies according to the requirements of Regulations 38.02, 38.03, 38.04, and Article XV, Section 5 of the Constitution.

2. When said Monitors have been corrected, they are to be submitted to me for my review before being turned over to the Corporate Board for approval and printing.

Wanna take a wild guess what those sections of the Regulations have to say? Here is the one which most closely appertains to the current discussion:

38.04(a) All ritualistic ceremonies, forms, services, and esoteric work of the Grand Lodge and all Subordinate, Particular or Individual Lodges, hereinafter referred to as "Forms and Ceremonies" as transcribed and written and adopted in Annual Grand Communication, April 26, A.L. 5967, A.D. 1967, and on file in the office of the Grand Secretary, together with such changes, amendments and deletions as from time to time may be duly authorized and made, is declared to be the true, authentic and genuine Forms and Ceremonies of the Grand Jurisdiction of Florida, and are the only Forms and Ceremonies authorized for use in such Grand Jurisdiction, and no other Forms or Ceremonies shall be used by the Grand Lodge or any of the Subordinate, Particular or Individual Lodges of said Grand Jurisdiction.

The material you cited from the Masonic Monitor is declared to be the "true, authentic, and genuine Forms and Ceremonies of the Grand Jurisdiction of Florida" and "NO OTHER" forms may be used in their work. The statements you keep myopically trying to limit this to, that say "VSL," is just you grinding your ax. And it doesn't mention "Great Lights" in association with those at all. NOW we find that the statements you cited earlier from the EA, are by direction of the Grand Master, in accord with these provisions of the Regulations and Constitution, and thus have been produced by executive order of the Grand Master, and are the ONLY forms to be used in Florida. Sorry, but the rather general references to which you have been referring, neither affirm nor deny the Holy Bible as the "Great Light." They are thus not definitive on the matter. But it is equally clear, they are not the only matters that pertain, since the ceremonies contained in the Monitor are produced by direction of the GM, and in accord with the Regulations of the same Masonic Digest we have been discussing.

The digest is clear that the furniture is the VSL, meaning it is also one of the three great lights.

But no matter how many times you claim that, you still have not shown any STATEMENT to that effect. However, since the EA degree work further identifies the Bible as the furniture, and since the three Great Lights are there identified as Holy Bible, Square, and Compasses, we have the FULL picture: the Bible is both furniture and Great Light in Florida Masonry. Since the Bible is the book of reference in both cases, it makes little difference whether we choose to equate or differentiate, for the Bible is still the point of reference in both cases.

Us? Are you speaking for your multiple personalities, your self-perceived majesty, all CF readers, or just for all masons?

Maybe in this case, all you really have to do is ask yourself, who were YOU talking to earlier when you said:

That is certainly something all of us should appreciate.

 

[Rev Wayne]

Just a question, concerning one detail I've noticed in your citations. You've cited from the LSME several times, and each time without dates. Exactly what is the date of the booklets you have been citing here from?

Just curious.

 

[Skip Sampson]

Nor can one substitute them for that which the Digest declares to be primary on the matter: the Monitor and the Cipher--which of course also RULES OUT the DIGEST itself, which is NOT Masonic ritual material.

Interesting logic: the Digest gives the Monitor and ritual its authority, but the Digest has no authority of its own. Just amazing.

"Endorsement" falls far below the declaration making Monitor and Cipher

No, it doesn't. The source of authority is the same.

Not really.

Yes, really. What they learn outside the ritual is not what they heard during it.

Besides, there is another set of documents you seem to have completely ignored:

Untrue. My quotes from FL ritual are from those books, which the GL kindly sold me a couple of years ago.

It's just the the TOP TWO--by Digest proclamation

And I reject your characterization as unsound and unsupported. It's also pretty silly as well.

I said nothing about a "ritual" quote, what I cited was from the Monitor, and specifically referenced as such.

You might recall that in FL, the monitor contains the 'unsecret' parts of the ritual; thus, to quote one is to quote the other.

Sure I did, you just didn't like the answer, so in typical fashion you try to reject it, and pretend that your rejection of the answer justifies a retort that it wasn't answered.

Where?

Exactly what is the date of the booklets you have been citing here from?

1994. Where the LSME quotes were included in the Study Guide, I referenced them instead. Cordially, Skip.

 

[Rev Wayne]

[Delete]

 

[Rev Wayne]

Interesting logic: the Digest gives the Monitor and ritual its authority, but the Digest has no authority of its own.

I never said "the Digest has no authority of its own." That's just one more example of your overactive imagination working overtime. I made it clear with my comment, that the Digest declares the Florida Monitor and the Acipher the official sources for MASONIC WORK in Florida, and that there is no input into the work that derives from the Digest itself.

No, it doesn't. The source of authority is the same

That's not what you've been saying, ever since your arrival on these thread. Your insistences have the tone of mantra. Your own words:

All monitorial and ritualistic discussions of the ashlars, which would be authoritative. . .

I guess you found nothing in the GL monitors or rituals to back up your assertions.

Rather than trying to justify your view with long-dead authors, find a monitorial or ritual reference. . .

I just note that they are not monitorial and do not carry the impact of the GL monitors and rituals I've quoted.

But are neither ritual nor monitorial.

does not make it monitorial. Again, it does not carry GL authority with it.

It's also not monitorial as I have earlier described. . .

"Monitors and rituals," "rituals and monitors," not surprising that your own mantra comes back to make manifest your current departure from your own principles. You have over and over insisted upon only monitors and rituals--and even in cases where other GL materials were involved, have asserted the primacy of rituals and monitors, even over other GL sources.[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]

I reject your characterization as unsound and unsupported.

It is your rejection that is unsound and unsupported. I clearly supported what I stated, from the statements found in the Digest:

38.01The latest approved "Florida Monitor" and ACipher@, together with the approved excerpts therefrom are the official Monitors and Cipher for use of the Lodges in this Grand Jurisdiction.

38.04(a) All ritualistic ceremonies, forms, services, and esoteric work of the Grand Lodge and all Subordinate, Particular or Individual Lodges, hereinafter referred to as "Forms and Ceremonies" as transcribed and written and adopted in Annual Grand Communication, April 26, A.L. 5967, A.D. 1967, and on file in the office of the Grand Secretary, together with such changes, amendments and deletions as from time to time may be duly authorized and made, is declared to be the true authentic and genuine Forms and Ceremonies of the Grand Jurisdiction of Florida, and are the only Forms and Ceremonies authorized for use in such Grand Jurisdiction, and no other Forms or Ceremonies shall be used by the Grand Lodge or any of the Subordinate, Particular or Individual Lodges of said Grand Jurisdiction.

Regulation 38.01 declares the Florida Monitor and Acipher to be the official monitors and cipher of the GL of Florida, just as I stated. Regulation 38.04 further declares that "no other" shall be used than those it has declared official. That's not "my characterization," it's what the Digest declares. That's the problem you seem to have had all along, trying to mischaracterize what I present as somehow being "my characterization," when actually I've cited the positions straight from the Digest.

I'm sure it presents quite a dilemma for you when the Digest has clearly stated that these are the official monitor and acipher for Florida--since that encompasses what has been your mantra for so long now: "monitors and rituals." I'm sure it presents even more of a dilemma for you when you get REMINDED of your own words, declaring "monitors and rituals" to be the "authoritative" sources in Masonry. And an even greater dilemma it presents for sure, when the monitor affirms the very thing you keep trying to deny: the Holy Bible is one of the Great Lights in Masonry. It simply doesn't say "VSL" or "Volume of Sacred Law." In fact, can you show where "Volume of Sacred Law" even appears in the Florida Monitor? I think that's part of the reason you declined citing from the monitor in your earlier collection of snippets.[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]

You might recall that in FL, the monitor contains the 'unsecret' parts of the ritual; thus, to quote one is to quote the other.

Of course I "recall" that. What YOU don't seem to "recall" is that what you quoted does not reflect exactly what is stated in the Florida Monitor, and therefore is neither "secret" nor "unsecret." More like "contrived."
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]

Where?

In the same place you asked it.
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] [/FONT]

1994.

That makes it interesting to review your claim about the use of "VSL" as having "gradually replaced" the use of "Holy Bible." Florida Monitors beyond that date still use "Holy Bible," and not "VSL" in all references to the book on the altar. What you claim as a pattern of change, simply has not been reflected at all in the rituals and monitors. And since you have in the past consistently claimed the real sources of authority in Masonry were "rituals and monitors," that really does wonders for your attempted assertions of "VSL" over "Holy Bible" as the official statement on the matter in Florida GL jurisdiction, since we are faced with the following:

(1) The Digest is Law in Florida:

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. (GM's opening proclamation in the front of the Digest)

(2) The Digest declares Florida Monitor and Acipher as official monitor and ritual cipher (Regulations 38.01 and 38.04).

(3) Both of these sources, by your own acknowledgment, state that the Bible, and not the VSL, is among the necessary furniture of the lodge, and included in the Three Great Lights.

(4) You yourself have insisted that "monitors and rituals" are the true authoritative documents in Masonry (your own words, cited at the beginning of this post).

THEIR statements alone would be enough to suffice to show that in Masonic work in Florida, the official descriptions of both Furniture and Great Lights, designate the Bible in each case, and not the "VSL."

The cold hard facts are, these official documents of Florida Masonry have thoroughly and totally invalidated two claims you have tried hardest to assert during the course of this discussion:

(1) That Florida declares the VSL as the Great Light (not true--Florida Monitor and Acipher, officially declared the only sources to be considered official for Florida work, both declare it to be the Bible); and
(2) that a pattern of "VSL" gradually supplanting "Holy Bible" as "Great Light" can be found (not true either, since ritual and monitor--the sources deemed official, in your own words--both affirm the Great Lights to be Holy Bible, Square and Compasses).

The rest is pure antimasonic whine from a complainer who can't even keep his own opinions straightened out, much less (re)define those of Masonry.

 

[Rev Wayne]

I took the time to call the FL GL and the gentleman I talked to said the booklets were all rolled up into the overall Masonic Education program, part of which is on the website. I'm ordering a copy to see what it all entails. I'll let you know what I find.

Good luck with that one, that's for sure. Unless you have some means of obtaining these by falsely presenting yourself to be a Master Mason, you know as well as I do you can't just call up a Grand Lodge and request booklets and expect to get a response. Heck, you can't even do that with a subordinate lodge either. I have certain materials from Florida on order as well, through a subordinate lodge contact, and when I placed an order, I received the following reply:

These books, as communicated to me by our lodge secretary, can only be sold to Master Masons. Please email me an image/copy of your current dues card for shipment. If you are not a Master Mason we will need to return your payment.

So now it's my turn: " I reject your characterization as unsound and unsupported."

You are either making this up, or you are borrowing a page out of your erstwhile companion's book, and posing as a Mason with "borrowed" credentials. (I notice, too, that's been nearly a month now. Maybe it got lost in the mail?)

 

[Rev Wayne]

(4) It's not a "substitute" (as Mike incorrectly added to the statement when he partially cited it), for the Bible remains on the altar.

Do you really expect readers to believe that there is a fundamental difference between the terms “alternate,” which is very term the Grand Lodge used, and “substitute,” which is what I used? After all Wayne, you know perfectly well, as an English major, they are both synonyms. Whether used as an adjective or a noun, the definition is still the same for both:

Oh, I was an English major, that's for sure, and I certainly recognize synonyms. But "synonym" does not mean "words of identical meaning." With synonyms there are always nuances in the connotations of one word that you will not find with the other. That is definitely true of "substitute" as opposed to "alternate." My point was, the general denotation of "substitute" is "replacement." "Alternate," while it can in some contexts carry that meaning, generally does not have that same thrust. But "replacement" is not what happens in U.S. Lodges, where the Bible is never "replaced" and maintains its place on the altar.

But before this gets caught up in needless semantic wrangling, I think you already understand my intent anyway. In the instances where jurisdictions have anything on the books at all (not all do) detailing the manner in which a candidate may be allowed to take his obligation on some other book, one detail that I find significant, and which seems to always be in place, is a stated requirement that the Holy Bible remain in its place on the altar; that the "other VSL," if it be placed on the altar at all, be placed in such a manner that it does not in any way remove the Bible from its position on the altar; and that the "other VSL," if placed on the altar at all, be removed at the conclusion of the degree in which that obligation was taken. The lodge, of course, would then afterward be closed in due form, with the Bible on the altar.

W: (7) The practice is paralleled in U.S. courts, where any person being sworn in for testimony may do so on the book of his/her own faith.
M: As usual, Skip nailed you on this one:

S: In short, Masonry is not at all secular, and to compare it with the US court system is simply an inept comparison and flat-out wrong in that it ignores the facts. It's a part of Masonic PR that only works on those who know little about Freemasonry.

M: I would add to his last point, or they know little about our U.S. court system. When was the last time you were in a courtroom, Wayne?

All I can say is, when was the last time YOU were in a courtroom, Michael? Better yet, when was the last time you were in a courtroom in your own home state of North Carolina? Seems to me you would have been at least marginally aware of the drama being played out in the courts, calling to question the practices that North Carolina has observed for decades, of swearing jurors and witnesses in on the Holy Bible. This has been challenged of late by those of Muslim faith who would have an objection to such an action. Here is a report from the Feb. 10 2011 issue of BlackPressUSA.com:

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU-NC) filed a lawsuit against the state of North Carolina “…challenging North Carolina state courts’ practice of refusing to allow people of non-Christian faiths to take religious oaths using any text other than the Christian Bible,” according to the organization’s press release.

The lawsuit arose from an incident in Greensboro, N.C. when a Muslim woman set to testify in Guilford County court, requested to be sworn-in on the Holy Qu’ran instead of the Bible.
She was refused.

The local Muslim community Al Ummil Ummat Islamic Center even offered to donate several copies of the Holy Qu’ran to the Guilford Courts, but they too were rebuffed.

Guilford County Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright and Guilford Chief District Court Judge Joseph E. Turner determined that only the Holy Bible could be used in their courtrooms.
To use anything else, they added, would be “unlawful.”

But the state Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) disagreed, noting that NC General Statute 11-2 does not specifically say the Christian Bible should be used to swear-in witnesses.
It uses the term “Holy Scriptures.”

Judges and other persons who may be empowered to administer oaths, shall (except in the cases in this Chapter excepted) require the party to be sworn to lay his hand upon the Holy Scriptures, in token of his engagement to speak the truth and in further token that, if he should swerve from the truth, he may be justly deprived of all blessings of the holy book and made liable to that vengeance which he has imprecated on his own head.

According to Judge Albright, however, “Holy Scriptures” means only one thing. “Everybody understands what the Holy Scriptures are,” he told the Greensboro News & Record. “If they don’t, we’re in a mess.”
That’s when the AOC backed off, deciding instead that either the courts or the General Assembly were better suited politically to make the final call.

On the ACLU website is another article from 2007 when the litigation was apparently first initiated.

No one is required by law to swear in for testimony on a Bible or any ‘holy’ text. All a person is required to do is to publicly affirm his or her solemn commitment to tell the truth, and the whole truth, or be at risk of perjury in a court of law.

On that point you are correct, NC General Statute 11-3 affirms that right. And NC General Statute 11-4 replaces "swear" in that affirmation alternative with "affirm," and deletes "so help me God." However, that doesn't change the fact that the standard practice is still swearing in on the Bible, and opting out is the exception to that norm. The way you presented that point, along with charges that by suggesting it, I was preying on the ignorance or gullibility of the readers, suggests to me an attempt to marginalize my comments by falsely implying that this option is some kind of norm in U.S. courts, which at present it is not. I would think the fact that courts are dealing with this issue is the surest indication of what the current standards are. And they are dealing, not with the question of whether to swear on a book or not, but rather, with which books are to be allowed. In addition, if you will look at the statement I made, and to which you offered such strenuous (though ill-founded) objection, what I stated was:

The practice is paralleled in U.S. courts, where any person being sworn in for testimony may do so on the book of his/her own faith.

That's "may." Check the English on it and you will find it means permissible, not "required" or whatever it was you were trying to characterize me as saying.

 

[Rev Wayne]

It has been my observation for quite some time now, that in English-speaking lodges, where the Holy Bible is almost exclusively the Book which resides upon the altar to open the lodge, the term "VSL" is quite commonly used in direct reference to the Holy Bible, so that the term itself, "Volume of Sacred Law," cannot automatically be taken as a generic reference in such contexts. Naturally, I stand quite ready to produce NUMEROUS examples where this takes place, in practically every Freemasonic venue you care to name in English Masonry.

One of the most prominent I have seen, comes from a website familiar to many a Mason, as well as many a critic, Bessel.org. On his index page, we find a couple of pages concerning the "Volume of Sacred Law," and on visiting one of them, we find the title: "Where VSL is Opened To."

On scrolling down the page to peruse the entries included in his chart, we find that without exception, in the cases where listings were provided, they are all chapter and verse notations from the Holy Bible.

What higher authority do we have on the Temple of King Solomon than the Volume of the Sacred Law? In 1 Kings 7:21 it says "He set up the pillars at the vestibule of the temple; he set up the pillar on the south and called it Jachin; and he set up the pillar on the north and called it Boaz." ("A Tale of Two Pillars," Masonic Education Newsletter, GL of Ontario, Vol. 16 No. 3)

Called "Volume of Sacred Law, and then cited from 1 Kings 7:21--making it clear that "Volume of Sacred Law" was a reference to the Bible in this context.

Upon the Altar of every Masonic Lodge, supporting the Square and Compasses, lies the Holy Bible. The old, familiar Book, so beloved by so many generations, is our Volume of Sacred Law and a Great Light in Masonry. the Bible opens when the Lodge opens; it closes when the Lodge closes. No Lodge can transact its own business, much less initiate candidates into its mysteries, unless the Book of Holy Law lies open upon its Altar. Thus the Book of the Will of God rules the Lodge in its labors, as the Sun rules the day, making its work a worship. [Lake Harriet Lodge, Minnesota, "The Holy Bible or Volume of Sacred Law (V.S.L.)"]

FIRST called the Holy Bible, THEN Volume of Sacred Law, and before the first paragraph of the article has finished, the Bible has also been referred to as "Great Light," "Book of Holy Law," and "Book of the Will of God."

Paragraph four of "Aims and Relationships of the Craft" issued by the three British Grand Lodges states:
"The Bible, referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law, is always open in the lodge." (From the GL of Iowa--they apparently intended to include more, since a second sentence of the material was begun--however, before the next sentence concluded, it went to the next page of the document, but was nowhere to be found.)

This matter-of-factly states that the Bible is "referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law." How can they do so? Because it occurs in a specific context, the UGLE, where the Bible IS the "Volume of Sacred Law."

The Temple of Solomon in the Volume of Sacred Law and Craft Ritual, by W. Bro. Stephen Michalak, Assistant Grand Lecturer, Grand Lodge of South Australia and the Northern Territory (Book, Pietre-Stone's Review of Freemasonry website)

There's only one "Volume of Sacred Law" to which this can refer, since the very title says it is in both the Volume of Sacred Law AND in craft ritual. Since Masonry's accounts are derived from the Bible, that would mean "VSL" in this case can be no other book than the Holy Bible.

In Royal Arch, Netherlands, as the degree opens there is this notation:

Bible opened at Isaiah, chap. XII.

But later the candidate is told:

Place your right hand on the Volume of the Sacred Law. . .

Still later the candidate reads from it:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3)

The candidate is then told:

Such, newly-exalted Companion, are the first words of the Sacred Volume, which contains the treasures of God’s revealed Will. Let us praise and magnify His Holy Name, for that knowledge of Himself which He has vouchsafed to us, and let us walk worthily in that light which has shone around us.

Not the full "Volume of Sacred Law" phrase, of course, but "Sacred Volume" carries the same concept, and is basically identical in expression.

Believe me, I could produce an abundance of these. The common denominator, of course, is the fact that in each instance, whether it be during the course of discussions, or the conducting of ritual, "Holy Bible" and "Volume of Sacred Law" are used interchangeably, with "VSL" in each case being a reference made specifically to the Holy Bible, and not merely as a general reference.

I submit that the reason this is practiced is, that in each of these instances, the Volume of Sacred Law within the GL jurisdiction where it takes place, IS the Holy Bible, and the references are thus an employment of a general term, but clearly it is done with a specific reference. I also submit, that in documents from the Grand Lodge of Florida, it is equally likely, since Florida clearly has the Bible as its designated book that opens the lodge, that references to "Volume of Sacred Law" as employed within those documents, is done so with specific reference to the Holy Bible as well.

It has already been established that the ritual and monitor do not have the general references, but specifically state "Holy Bible," as both furniture and Great Light. These being the documents of primary authority in Florida, it would make much more sense that other documents would be interpreted and understood in the light of these two primary sources, rather than vice versa.

While it may not be insisted upon that this is the case, nevertheless one thing is for sure: with so many instances that can be pointed to as examples of just how commonly this is practiced in lodges other than Florida, it most definitely cannot be discounted.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Closing the thread for review​