
#: 26905 S1/Collation & Chats
    30-Nov-93  16:48:16
Sb: #26720-#UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Bro. Michael --
I think the confusion here arises over whether the word "New" in "New
Testament" is taken to mean adding to and extending or, instead, supplanting
and replacing. I have heard it argued both ways and both side are, at best,
ambiguous.

Those who feel the NT is _not_ an affront to believers in the OT point out that
the main Commandmensts are the same, etc. and so it adds to the OT the story of
Christ but does not detract from the OT.

On the other side there are quotes within the NT that seem to stipulate that
the NT is a new _replacement_ for the OT. And, in fact, it is for this reason
that Christians do not keep kosher in that the NT _replaced_ rather then added
to those areas of the Bible.

A case can be made on either side.

But, to me, I feel that until Masonry in this country proudly displays in every
Lodge the VSL of each of the Brothers present that we are not fulfilling what
Masonry should be. And, when it comes to -- as happened to me -- presenting a
Jew with a King James Bible as a gift upon Raising there are problems.

The symbolisms of Masonry are beautiful. When they are understood as Masonic
symbols. But too many of our Brethren were taught symbols that LOOK THE SAME
but have different meanings in our Philosophy. This, it is my opinion, leads to
confusion in the Craft.
-- Neil



There are 2 Replies.

#: 27149 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  11:53:51
Sb: #26905-#UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401 (X)

Brother Neil,

I quite agree with your message about the OT and NT. Although we only do it for
Obligations, I would certainly not mind the presence of other VSL-s in addition
to the Bible, as long as no one brings his copy of Das Kapital <G> or
assimilated.

But as a member of the AASR, I consider it important that the Bible not be
REPLACED or COVERED by anything else, as it contains nearly all our Words and
Legends.

Fraternally, Mike

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27558 S1/Collation & Chats
    05-Dec-93  16:39:58
Sb: #27149-UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm: Bill Paine 76327,3321
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Dear Michael,

Athough I understand what you say about the bible containing most of our words
and legends, there was an interesting series of post on Masonry in India that
showed how many of our symbols and so forth fit very handily into Hindu
traditions and mythology as well, right down to the symbols of the three
principal officers of the Lodge equating to the symbols of the three principal
deities in the Hindu pantheon.

Interesting stuff.

Bill

#: 27160 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  13:29:00
Sb: #26905-#UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm: Kevin P. Menard  72242,520
To: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401 (X)

Bro. Neil,

Two sets of comments here as I'm in the middle of hardware problems and can't
access easily.

1) On masonry and the Christian response:  Hate mail may not be the right word
and I would never disturp a brother's search.  We alas see a lot of stuff very
similar to the article in Texas that is driven by hate, and I tend to bristle
at twisting of truths.  I could perhaps claim it is a genetic residue of
"frenchness" like Bro. Segall, but to be honest, I tend to believe if you
support something you should fight for it.  Anyway, I just had to sever
relations with a dear family member over masonry, the Filoque, and the
treatment of guests, so I may be hyper-sensitive (SSS).  The problem I see in
the afore mentioned article is two-fold, one quoting specific masons and not
the teachings of the Craft as a whole, and secondly, arguing from a
non-liturgurical, low church version of Christianity ( to borrow a term from my
Esp. brethern).  The arguements about faith and works is a dangerous one in
Christianity.  The trend in the Protestant west seems to be to emphasis faith
(Pauline) over works.  Yet, even Calvin and Luther kept the Epistle of James,
which points out the differnce of "talking the talk and walking the walk".  The
only description Jesus gives of judgement is terrifingly Jamesian.  Even those
who claim not to have know him are accepted because they cared for the
unforunate.  This survives in the East as a tendency not to call non-believers
and heretics damned.  It also lead one of our greatest writers to say that the
road to Hell is lined with the bones of theologians.

2) On the VSL: in Texas we are told Masonry would not interfer with your
religion.  To me this implies that your "Book" would be used ,as I am forbidden
to pray to other gods, so are different faiths.  Logically, IMHO, it would tie
to the exclusion of Atheists as the oath must be valid.  Would a Jew or
Christian consider the oath valid on the Bhargavad Gita?  Would they even take
it?  I don't think this came out as well as it could have, but...

Frat.
Kevin

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27325 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  17:06:05
Sb: #27160-#UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm:  Erin Bottrell 71075,3101
To: Kevin P. Menard 72242,520 (X)

Brother Kevin:  PMFJIH, but on your second point about different VSL's, I would
be perfectly willing to swear on any of them.  I guess I agree with Joseph Fort
Newton, who viewed them all as chapters in the larger book of human wisdom.

Erin Bottrell

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27559 S1/Collation & Chats
    05-Dec-93  16:40:02
Sb: #27325-#UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm: Bill Paine 76327,3321
To:  Erin Bottrell 71075,3101 (X)

Erin,

I think it depends on your own personal beliefs as to whether taking the
obligations on holy books of "other" faiths would be binding to you or not. One
of the PM's of my Lodge calls himself a Jeffersonian Deist for whom no holy
book is by itself a testement of his faith.  Nevertheless he finds Light in all
holy books and considers obligations taken on any of them to be binding in the
extreme.

Bill

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27576 S1/Collation & Chats
    05-Dec-93  19:46:44
Sb: #27559-UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm: John R. Ray 72773,1435
To: Bill Paine 76327,3321

Bill (etal) - Educate me please.  In Deism, the system of belief has it that
God's contact with the world ceases with his having made it.  This is a direct
contrast to Theism which holds that God is continuously involved in the world.
As such, Deism teaches that after having built the system, He has drawn back to
watch it run by itself until it runs out.  Further, a Deist would not be able
to accept either revelation or intercession from God.  How could a Deist, with
an inability to accept revelation or a belief in the "superiority of natural
religion" (which makes the use of ANY VSL contradictory to his values, consider
himself a member of the Craft.  Even the idea of prayer would be considered by
him as "pointless intercession" thus objectable.  While recongnizing that a
person could praise God for what he has built, he could not ask Him in
intercede further (the creation must "run its course" so to speak).

Am I missing something?  Or is the Brother declaring himself to be what he
really isn't?

(Quotes taken from Workman Unashamed, Christopher Haffner)

Teach me ...

JR

#: 26886 S1/Collation & Chats
    30-Nov-93  10:44:31
Sb: #26734-UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm: Mark R. Sandstrom/DL 72406,303
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Bro. Michael,

I agree with you that the content is more important than the packaging. A
battle I have been fighting since entering the ministry. I will forever
remember an elder in a little country church that said to me in all
seriousness, "Mark, you need to be reading from the King James. If it is good
enough for the Apostle Paul, it should be good enough for you!" Would be funny,
if he wasn't serious!

>>Why bother? I prefer to believe in God, study the Holy Writ and not bother
about name-calling. Let's leave that to the guys obsessed by Political
Correctness (what a horrible name for an empty shell) <G><<

Well, I guess I'll continue to be concerned with what some people call "PC". I
do not always consider those labels to be empty shells. For those in the
majority, it may seem to be banal. But for those who have been in the minority
and exploited, language is a place to begin raising the consciousness of
equality. To be sure some carry it to extreems.

Frat.,
Bro. Mark R. Sandstrom

#: 27119 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  05:26:06
Sb: #26765-UnMsnc Stuff in Lodge
Fm: John Day 100236,2364
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014 (X)

Bro. Scott,

Yes, cultural influences do a lot to determine how we think! I will read the
other replies and see what I need to know!

Regards, John


#: 26989 S1/Collation & Chats
    01-Dec-93  12:39:07
Sb: #26957-#What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Ed Greenberg 76703,1070 (X)

Ed,

We bend the knee and prostrate ourselves, but I'm not so sure we ever kneel.

All wows are taken before God, even simple promises, because He is everywhere.
I spoke about wows taken in His name, which are a strict no-no because of "Thou
shalt not take the name... etc".

One of the things I have learned is that there are many kinds of Jews. This is
a GOOD THING because one would be hard put to hate us all at the same time <G>.

Contact between religions in a neutral environment are extremely enriching. I
have talked for years with top Catholic and Moslem clergy about our attitudes
towards each other and Masonry. These contacts have taught me a lot, more than
any university courses on compared religion could.

Regards, Mike


There is 1 Reply.

#: 27005 S1/Collation & Chats
    01-Dec-93  16:16:35
Sb: #26989-#What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

"Thou shalt not take the name ..."  What is the name?  Is it G-d? Or is that
just a descriptive?

Vain: adj. -er, -est.  1. Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: "a vain
attempt"  2. Lacking substance or worth: "vain talk"  3. Excessively proud of
one's appearance or accomplishments; conceited.  4. (Archaic) Foolish. <ie in
vain: 1: To no avail, without success: "Our labor was in vain." 2: In an
irreverant or disrespectful manner: "took the name of the Lord in vain">  [ME <
OFr. < Lat. "Vanus"]

BTW, Thank you American Heritage Dictonary.

Now then, my question: How does obligating oneself to a solomn covenant, such
as a Masonic obligation, involve taking the name ... in vain?  How is this
irreverant or disrespectful? (serious question I have ask many and never gotten
a better answer than "It just is.")

Doug



There is 1 Reply.

#: 27146 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  11:53:23
Sb: #27005-#What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537 (X)

Doug, the Lord is purported to have said "Thou shalt not take the name" etc.
etc.

This is interpreted by orthodox Jews (Neil would call them Hassidic, but in
Jerusalem they look and think the same) as meaning  that oaths and obligations
are an absolute and definitive no-no, because everything earthly is vain
(fruitless, lacking substance, foolish) and God is everywhere.

Even more so when a Book is present, containing the Name (even in a translated
and thus distorted form) and the obligation is taken on this Book.

Does this explanation sound more reasonable than "it just is"?

Fraternally, Mike

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27169 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  15:12:11
Sb: #27146-#What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike:

Slightly more so.  At least it explains the thought process used.

I guess it leaves me wondering how the following would be interpreted:  If
everything earthly is vain and God is everywhere/God made everything, is it
true that God made something vain?  Does God live amongst the vain?  If God is
everywhere, whereever God is, it cannot be lacking substance since God is in
it.  Thought provoking... I need to ponder this one a bit more.

>>even in a translated and thus distorted form

Is "God" a name or a title?  I guess that is what caused me to stop and ponder.

Doug



There is 1 Reply.

#: 27267 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  07:52:45
Sb: #27169-#What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537 (X)

Doug,

We might be getting into a talmudic discussion here. Let me look at it briefly.

Did God make something vain? God created the world. He is Himself of a
spiritual and infinite nature. In the world God created, man built and invented
according to his limited ability and understanding. To a profoundly religious
man, any human action other than directed towards God is vain, especially when
compared to something spiritual and infinite.

God is present everywhere, but not IN everything. He is not present IN his
creation. Otherwise you and I would be God. There is what theologians call
Immanence and Jews call Shekhinah, the immediate closeness of God. That does
not make a stone or my siamese cat, Jojo, part of God.

Hmmm... Does that seem clear <G>?

Regards, Mike

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27316 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  15:54:14
Sb: #27267-#What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike:

>>To a profoundly religious man, any human action other than directed towards
God is vain

So, I can assume, a Masonic obligation, which involves worldly actions (vain
actions), is not entirely directed towards God, hence vain.  I can understand
that better than "it just is."

I understand Shekhinah.  I even understand not taking the NAME of the Lord in
vain.  Help me out with the last part.  I was taught that the Lord has a name
(......) and several titles (God, Lord, ...).  Does the commandment extend to
the Lord's titles also?  If so, it would make my life very difficult.  Praising
<gulp> is hard on the brain.

Doug



There is 1 Reply.

#: 27610 S1/Collation & Chats
    06-Dec-93  04:35:12
Sb: #27316-#What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537 (X)

Doug,

God, in Jewish tradition, has many names. The number is usually set at 72, but
Kabalists think there are in the tens of thousands. Some even think that the
whole text of the Pentateuch (Tanach) is one, long, name of God. This is
another reason, by the way, for not taking oaths on the Bible.

Many of these names can be considered titles, especially those that are related
to His different functions and actions in the process of creation, but all are
actually treated as names of God. By far the most important one is the name God
gave when he introduced himself to Moses, the Tetragrammaton, the ineffable
(unpronounceable) four letters. Next is the one used in Genesis, Elohim, in its
bizarre plural form (plural of Eloah, meaning generic "god"),  Adonai, meaning
"My Lords", and Shaddai. I quote them here because explaining them is not
taking them in vain.

The commandment extends to all names of God that one knows as such. No one can
reproach anyone using a name of God, when he doesn't know it is a name of God,
so feel relatively safe <G>.

Regards, Mike

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27636 S1/Collation & Chats
    06-Dec-93  12:28:32
Sb: #27610-What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Michael:

Thank you very much.  You have answered an age old question of mine.

Doug




#: 26897 S1/Collation & Chats
    30-Nov-93  13:13:25
Sb: #What VSL Do You Use?
Fm: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234
To: Mark R. Sandstrom/DL 72406,303 (X)

Dear Mark,

This is my contribution :

Chevalier Ramsay Lodge #4, Brussels, Grande Loge Reguliere de Belgique:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Torah, The Bible and the Coran - all the three Volumes are displayed on the
Altar, itself at the Centre of the Mosaic Pavement, when the Lodge is at work.


The Torah is removed from its protective cloth and the two rolls slightly moved
apart as to show some text. The Bible is opened EA:133 Psalm, FC:Amos 7,
MM:Ecclesiastes XII. The Coran is displayed on Sur.XXIII, sect.5.

These correspond to the three faiths of our current Brethren.  No one would
mind to have an additional VSL is we were to initiate or affiliate a Buddhist
for example.

Prior to ceremonies the Marshall will discreetly inquire from candidates or
Brethren on which VSL they wish to take their Obligations.


Lodges in India
---------------

The Grand Lodge of India "Special Notes" 1968, p. XIII specify :

Lodges shall arrange to keep all the five Vs. of S.L. namely

The Bible               Christians
The Gita (1)            Hindus
The Koran               Muslisms
The Granth              Sikhs
The Zend Avesta         Parsis

The "Special Notes" add : "It is important that each VSL should be placed
separately and they should nt be piled iup upon the other. The S. and C. will
ordinarily be placed in position on that Book to which the W.M. owes his
allegiance, except on Installation Nights when they will be placed on that Book
on which the Master Elect will take his Ob. The candidates for Initiation,
Passing and raising will take their Ob. on the Book of their faith. The Altar
shall be placed immediately in front of the WM's pedestal so that no one can
pass between the Altar and the Pedestal.


Lodges in Sri Lanka (Ceylon)
----------------------------

Sri Lanka is a mainly Buddhist country (85%). Buddha, literally "the
enlightened" is regarded as a person, Prince Siddharta Gautama, who lived in
the 5th century BC, but is not considered to be a God, nor to have been a
Prophet. There is no VSL as such for Buddhists. Actually being a Buddhist does
not implicate a belief in God, this particular point not being relevant to
Buddhism and left to individual and private opinions.

This is why Buddhists candidates in Sri Lanka, are asked whether they believe
in the existence of a supreme being.

Buddhists Masons will usually take their Ob. on the Bible.

The Bible               Christians
The Coran               Muslims
The Vedas (1)           Hindus



(1) Although the Grand Lodge of India requires the Gita, in the Lodges what I
have seen are the Vedas - as in Sri Lanka.


As a matter of curiosity, it might be interesting to mention and to think upon
the fact that in Ancient Egypt, oaths and solemn obligations were taken on what
was regarded by the Ancient Egyptians as the most sacred volume of all :... THE
CALENDAR ...




Fraternally
Jacques



#: 28631 S4/York Rite
    18-Dec-93  05:35:41
Sb: #28492-Change York Rite?
Fm: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234
To: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401 (X)

Dear Neil,

Your two fundamental objections about the York Rite are important questions
which concern all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike.

In the first place, I consider that this  requirement is simply insulting to
all Masons who are not Christians.

Like you, I personnally ressent this condition as being un-Masonic, because we
are taught the opposite at our initiation : "to regard the whole human species
as one family, - the high and the low, the rich and the poor ..." and also that
" Masonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion ... "

I also strongly feel that any form of discrimination, whether in public or in
private, directly interferes with the duties we owe as Masons to God, our
country, our neighbour and ourselves.

Therefore, personnally, I would have none of it in the U.S.

Still, whenever possible I prefer favour fraternal dialogue rather than clash.

Now some background and information.


INTRODUCTION
-------------

A preliminary remark from me, which is my personal view, but which is and has
been shared by a large number of Masons, in many countries, and over a long
span of history :

AS (ANCIENT) FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS, WE ARE "SPECULATIVES"

One should not misunderstand this basic statement about our Order.

That means, as English, Scottish and Irish, but not American, craft rituals
state litterally in the 1st degree, that "Masonry is a beautiful system of
morals veiled in allegories and illustrated by symbols".

And, as American rituals add, in the 2nd degree lecture, that "Tools and
implements of architecture, most expressive, are  selected by the Fraternity to
impress upon the memory wise and serious truths; and thus, through the
succession of ages are transmitted unimpired the most excellent tenets of our
Institution."

A closer look at the nature of our ritual and symbols in the Craft degrees will
reveal that the source of these is to be found not only in "operative" masonry,
but also in astronomy, geometry, arithmetic and in the V.S.L., the Holy Bible,
especially in the part relative to King Solomon and the construction of the
Temple in Jerusalem.

The symbols and Masonic legends developed around the Biblical theme, are not
conflicting with Jewish, Christian or Muslim religions, although for the three
faiths King Solomon and the Temple at Jerusalemn are considered to be part of
their Sacred History.

Neither do the events described in Masonic ritual about King Solomon and the
Temple at Jerusalemn imply that these are to be seen as historically accurate
facts. It must be stressed therefore, that whenever our ritual states that
"Masonic Tradition reports ..." such statement is not meant to signify to us
that the events, portrayed or referred to in the ceremonies which they allude
to, are historically true.

This is not the main point.

What really matters to us, as FreeMasons, is of a different nature.

As a subject of comparison, we should remember that the truly religious man
will not be worried to enquire whether the Bible, the Coran or the Vedas, etc.
have a historical value or fully match the findings of scientific research.

Nor will he waste his time trying to discover documents and other evidence
concerning the birth, life and death of Moses, Christ or Muhammed.

The true believer will instead base his religious conduct on faith.  He will
concentrate his reflections on the spiritual and moral teachings of his
religion, and make use of them as the guide and rule in his life.

Similarly, in Craft Masonry, any wise Brother will know that he should not look
upon the story of the building of King Solomon's Temple nor upon the Masonic
ritual, as a true account of historically established facts, nor will he start
digging as a stupid archeologist on and about Mount Moriah in order to try
recovering the lost Master's word.

Using a distinctive method of teaching, which it has in common with the
Mysteries of Ancient Egypt and Greece, Freemasonry conveys a spiritual message,
through its solemn ceremonies, veiled in allegories and illustrated by symbols,
meant to address the heart rather than the intellect, and which in order to be
transmitted properly require from its recipients personal  participation,
patience and perseverance.

FreeMasonry  has to do neither with religion, nor with history or science.

All the existing confusion stems from there.

Now to the recise points you've raised :



1. Christian affiliation requirement
------------------------------------

In the U.S., in England, in Scotland, in Ireland and in some countries in the
sphere of Anglo-Saxon influence, membership to some of the higher degrees
so-called "Christian" degrees is indeed restricted to Masons profesing a
Christian faith.

One should be aware, however that this "Christian" requirement does not apply
in Continental Europe, Scandinavian countries excepted, nor in Latin America,
Africa and the Middle-East. Nor does this requirement apply to the Scottish
Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A.  In the higher degrees as practised in  all
those countries all Masons are eligible for membership regardless of religious
affiliations.

Although the ritual content is basically the same worldwide, in the 2nd group
of countries, it is considered that these degrees  "Christian" inspired in the
same way that craft rituals could be labelled to be "Jewish" inspired.

Historically, it seems established that the Masonic commandery degrees were
exported from Continental Europe to  England,  Scotland, Ireland, the United
States,where those who introduced it added a Christian but new affiliation
requirement.

This is therefore  an innovation in Masonry, and should be treated as such.

I believe personnally that the problem might stem from a confusion between the
original Chivalric Orders and the Masonic Commandery degrees.

If we were to insist on the admission conditions as they were written for these
Chivalric degrees, then admission should be restricted to Roman Catholics only
!

Since the Order of Knight Templars was suppressed and prohibited by the Roman
Catholic Church itself more than half a millenium ago, the whole business is
utter nonsense !

Besides, it should strongly be emphasised that insufficient evidence or proof
is yet available in order to establish the possibility of a direct link between
the old Chivalric Orders and the Masonic Higher Degrees.

As in the Craft degrees, in the Commandery Degrees, the ritual is built upon
legendary and poetic epics, the moral and spiritual content of which, is much
more important for Masons than any presumed facts, upon which the ceremonies
may have been based.

The Higher Degrees and the Commandery Degrees rituals span a long period of
Human history, covering episodes some of which are supposed to have taken place
thousands of years ago, others which occurred during the Crusades, and still
other which provide the legendary link between Knights Templar and Speculative
Masonry.

The Masonic ritual in the Higher Degrees and the Commandery Degrees, is
intended to create that favourable emotional climate whereby the initiate is
most likely to best feel and understand the secret message which each degree is
meant to convey.

>> word called "Jabelon"<<

Neil, it should be "Jahbulon"

2.  JAHBULON
------------


This word has been the subject of a very long thread that was started by
Bro.Glenn A. Emerson, 71754,2311 on 19th August 1993.

These were my answers to him :

---

"Some Royal Arch Terms examined" by Roy A. Wells, A. Lewis Masonic Publishers
Ltd., Ian Allan Group,  1978, London, p.42-45

short excerpt :

JAH BUL ON

These three syllables are thus described ( c.1796)

" ... what is used for the sacred word itself ...,
containing the essence of all language and
probably neither to be fully comprehended by
human wisdom nor clearly pronounced by the voice
and tongue of man."

Roy A. Wells goes on saying that " the word might have been an attempt to lay
stress on the status of the Ineffable Name and the fact of its lost
pronunciation"

The remaining of the article deals with the etymological meanings and  biblical
references concerning Jah, Bul and On.

 ---

One of the fundamental differences between symbols and words is that whereas
words can be chained into a precise meaning, symbols are open to interpretation
by every individual.

Symbols are like diamonds, you can see their beauty from all sides and under
different lights.  All this aspects are not contradicting,  They are all like
the facets of a single diamond that scintillate many reflections, but all refer
to the same precious stone.

Symbols teach us that we always should look at things from various points of
view, by looking at it from various angles, taking into account all sincere
opinions - however strange they may seem at first.

JAH BUL ON is a typical example of a Masonic symbol.

The Church of England has strongly reacted against this symbol and English
Royal Arch Masons have dropped this word to avoid further problems.

In most other Constitutions however including, if I'm not mistaken, Royal Arch
Masonry in Scotland, Ireland and the United States of America, nothing has been
changed and JAH BUL ON is still being used.

The interpretation which you will find in books, written by Masons and
non-Masons, are necessarily personal interpretations of what these persons
believe to be the sense of this word.

Jewish faith teaches us that the Name of God should not ne spoken and is
unpronouncable, Masonic ritual is written along the same theme.

Both point out the limitation of man, as opposed to the Divine, and the
inherent impossibility for us, mortals, to comprehend what was not given to us.
The Bible tells us no different story, therefore Christians have no real
reasons to be offended.

Neither is this word offending for Jews, in my opinion.

Giving a deeper explanation would not be permitted on the Forum but feel free
to ask by E-Mail.


Fraternally yours
Jacques


#: 28660 S4/York Rite
    18-Dec-93  14:21:33
Sb: #28632-Change York Rite?
Fm: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401
To: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234 (X)

Bro. Jacques --
Thank you very much! I will print out the first part and perhaps excerpt some
quotes from it (with attribution) in a letter I am writing which may turn into
a paper.

On symbols: I agree with you that a Masonic symbol can mean many things just as
is the case with any true symbol. But I feel that there are some symbols which
cannot be redefined so as to lose all pollution from previous useages. The Nazi
swastika, for example, might once more be a benign symbol representing the
Indian faiths in some centuries. But, until then, it should not be adopted by
any organization no matter what interpretation they give to it. Thus, my
feeling on the second syllable -- a polluted symbol that is definitely not used
in Masonry for poor intent but was chosen very badly and should be dropped. Not
because of what WE mean by it but because solely of its non-Masonic
affiliations.
-- Neil


#: 28726 S4/York Rite
    19-Dec-93  14:54:36
Sb: #28492-Change York Rite?
Fm: Lowell R. Morrison 72370,2243
To: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401

Hi Neil, I agree with you a lot, some things need to be changed, and it is
perhaps most obvious that the Camanderie is one of them.  The "dedication to
the Christ" is rather onerous to those of us not Christian, or not stongly
Christian,   Our Jeswish, Moslem and Pagan brethern are slighted by this,
elevation of one brother over another.  (I know of several Asatru, Wiccan and
Buddist brothers who do not follow the Jeudao-Christian 'Mythology').

However, there is one point upon which I disagree.  Your derevation of Jubalon
may be fairly incorrect.  Ba'al is hebrew for "the lord", and today is being
used in Isreal as "my lord husband" or "my lord shop owner".  The use of Ba'al
for the cannanite god is a title, not a name, that was used for the
Jewish/Christian God as well (changed by the translators to "the Lord" where
the context indicated it was the God of Isreal, and left as Ba'al where the
context indicated it was some one else, by the way 'Moloch' means 'the king') .
A good case could be made for none of the recorded names used for God being
anything other than titles, not names.

Depending on the other derivations of the other parts, Jubalon could mean (word
games are often quite suspect) "the Lord of the Judeas (jews)" or perhaps "The
Lord of the Lion of Judea".  Mistranslations, drift in the usage of words and
slang over 2000 or more years often makes a lot of conclusions rather suspect.
 Jonah was not really swalled by a whale or a big fish, but in todays slang
would have been on the "horns of a delema"....

--Uncle Wolf
--Highland 748 and West Valley 611
--Grand Lodge of California.

#: 28602 S4/York Rite
    17-Dec-93  18:39:21
Sb: York Rite
Fm: Allen E. Roberts (VA) 71154,1022
To: Neil Shapiro 76703,401 (X)

Neil: Let me hasten to say I fully empathize with your dilemna about the
Commandery. For more years than I care to mention I have raised (the roof)
about this outfit - not because it's Christian - there's nothing wrong with
that - but because it's considered a part of "Ancient Craft Masonry." This
became so be a couple of fellows in SC (in 1932, I think - can check it), who
were establishing "Masonic honors" for themselves and others who thought as
they thought. So, to receive what they created - Knight of the York Cross of
Honor - one must preside over all *four* York Rite Bodies -- Lodge, Chapter,
Council, Commandery. Ridiculous!! BUT, egos being what they are, this will
never be changed (and I'm fully aware of the claim that we should never say
"never." In this case it's safe!!) No sectarian organization should ever have
been - or be - considered a part of Ancient Craft Masonry. I've gone into this
argument at length on several occasions. Actually - there should be no
Council!!! The Council degrees are actually part of the Royal Arch!! Now I'll
sit back and await my **punishment** from the KYCH and other egotists. Best,
Allen  

#: 28804 S4/York Rite
    20-Dec-93  21:51:30
Sb: #Not for nonChristians?
Fm: Marty Morse 70303,313
To: Neil Shapiro 76703,401

I am relatively new to Masonry, and as such am not as familiar with the York
Rite as I might be. I have heard various rumblings that the York Rite is for
"Christians only" or "not compatible with non-Christian teachings". What is the
truth of the matter? What is it about the York Rite that makes it a
fundamentally Christian institution as opposed to the Scottish Rite if this is
indeed true? Any information or references you could give me on this matter
would be appreciated.
Marty 

There is 1 Reply.

#: 28806 S4/York Rite
    20-Dec-93  22:13:34
Sb: #28804-Not for nonChristians?
Fm: John R. Ray 72773,1435
To: Marty Morse 70303,313

Marty - If my information is correct, sometime during this century (1930's?)
the Order of Temple was "added" to the York Rite as an advancement order within
the Rite.  The timing of this, I am not sure.  I am an officer in both the
Chapter (Royal Arch Masons) and the Commandery (Order of the Knights Templar).
The Chapter and Council are not Christian specific and work essentially in the
times of the building second and third Temple (Old Testament).  In my chapter
we have three Jewish Past High Priests.  It is in the Commandery that a person
must profess a belief in what would be purely Christian beliefs and values.
Basically, it is no more "Masonic" than is the Shrine, other than it requires a
member to be a Master Mason (and a Royal Arch Mason as well).  Its teachings
and lessons come primarily from the New Testament, consistant with its
Christian basis.  Originally, much of the work in the Order was more along the
Catholic line of thought.  This is evident in the work, prayers, ceremonies and
such from the early 1800's.  This evolved to its more Protestant type approach.
There are those that believe that the Order of the Temple should have remained
a separate order/body, such as the Shrine, while still others see nothing wrong
with it as it is.  I, for one, am a member of both the Knights Templar and the
Scottish Rite and am satisfied with how it is ... others will disagree.
Personally, I believe that there isn't a need for the Council (of Royal and
Select Masters).  Most of the work in those degrees was originally part of the
RAM.  Then again, most of the RAM was originally part of the Fellow Craft and
Masters Degree.  Obviously, time and things change.  Who knows what the 'morrow
will bring.

S&F, JR 

#: 29038 S4/York Rite
    23-Dec-93  05:44:20
Sb: Templars and obligations
Fm: John Day 100236,2364
To: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401 (X)

Neil,

I have changed the thread name so this doesn't blend into the thread relating
to your concerns about YR.

The Templars must have taken Christian oaths, they were, after all, a religious
order. The order was established as a monastic order, with a rule based
directly on the monastic rule of the Benedictines and the Cistercians. To
become a Knight of the Order a man needed to be of free and noble birth, to
become a Sergeant he must be of the free bourgeousie, the third groups of
Templars were the clerics or priests who were al so the only literate group in
the order. The Rule of the Templars, we are told, required that he be Catholic,
obedient and celibate.

How could the original Knights have been Catholic, Noble moks if their
obligations were not Christian?

..John

