Whose Volume of Sacred Law "counts"?

[dfreybur]

Re: Whose Volume of Sacred Law "counts"?

... I do find it disconcerting that many Masons appear to assume that the KSV Bible is everyone's VSL and sometimes judge them accordingly. One of the great landmarks of our fraternity is that of religious tolerance. Bringing men of most religions together is one of the things that I love about Masonry. We have a lot to learn from each other.

Right. There's a very important reason we call it the VSL. No matter what the physical book happens to be we are very explicit that it represents the book of the candidate's faith whatever faith that might be. As a result it can and does happen that non-Christians obligate on a KJV in their first degree. Consider that in our investigations we ask a candidate if he believes in a supreme being and when he answers yes we're done. We at most check his references to confirm he has a reputation for honesty. A candidate who decides that he wants to go through his degrees cold for mystical reasons, as I did, won't even know there's a bible there until he places his hands on it, as I did. I was fine with making my obligations on a KJV in all three degrees but going into my first I didn't know it was going to be there.

To me an oath is an oath and it is binding independent of whether it's made on a book. The fact that it is on a book that symbolically represents the book of my faith whatever it might be helps reenforce the serious nature of that oath but it is not to me a break or break issue.

I am disappointed that brothers do hold that the book is intended to represent the words printed in it and only those words. That's not why we use the term Volume of the Sacred Law. On the other hand I understand why the book that is there is the book of the local majority. But for brothers to fail to understand that everything in Masonry is symbolic including the book on the altar, it's disappointing.

The KSJ stands in for the VSL. Not the VSL standing in for the KJV. If any one brother chooses that his VSL is the KJV that is fine and the match is there because of the expected local majority. But the mathc is there because of the expected local majority not because that on book is intended to be the VSL of every brother.

When I step in lodge I see arrays of symbols. So should you. Each of us should decide on our own meanings for each of these symbols. On the altar is a symbolic VSL that happens to be supplied by the local majority. Does it represent your own VSL to you? Do you think that is supposed to extend to others even though you don't know or care what religion they are and thus what book they see it representing?

 

[BryanMaloney]

Symbolism is something all people do so often without need for thought that it is very difficult to do in a thoughtful manner. In "thoughtless" symbolism, the symbol is the object, and the mind does not distinguish between the two. Thus, we have people who believe that burning a US flag is identical to bombing a US city. It's not, of course. I don't know of any time when millions of dollars of damage were done and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost entirely from the burning of a single flag. Likewise, there are those who treat whatever version of the Bible they happen to prefer as if it were God. Some have even told me, directly, that as far as they are concerned the Bible *is* God. Sorry, but none of mine, KJV or otherwise, do anything more than just sit, inert, like any other book. They're not "alive" nor "divine" except in a metaphorical sense (ie "not really, but it makes for nice poetry"). Why is this? It's because of thoughtless symbolism. In thoughtless symbolism, the symbol does not stand in for or point to the thing symbolized, it is treated as if it is the thing symbolized. Pieces of paper become wealth rather than symbolizing wealth. A jumble of words become loyalty instead of symbolizing loyalty. Public piety becomes morality instead of symbolizing morality. Appearance becomes reality.

Why? It's easy. We can just accept the symbol as the reality and move on to daily life. Thoughtful symbolism requires work. It's more difficult. Thus, we have to learn how to do it and end up doing it in fits and starts.

Thus, the KJV becomes the sole VSL, because it's the most common symbol of the VSL, and it would be work to remember that the VSL is not any single, specific book but a symbol of a standard to which all men can refer and by which are all are judged evenly rather than the way of the profane world, which is to have different standards for different status and never actually explicitly lay out that standard, since that might let the lowly know when the high and mighty aren't even living up to their own standard.

 

[widows son]

Whose Volume of Sacred Law "counts"?

"Symbolism is something all people do so often without need for thought that it is very difficult to do in a thoughtful manner. In "thoughtless" symbolism, the symbol is the object, and the mind does not distinguish between the two. Thus, we have people who believe that burning a US flag is identical to bombing a US city. It's not, of course. I don't know of any time when millions of dollars of damage were done and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost entirely from the burning of a single flag. Likewise, there are those who treat whatever version of the Bible they happen to prefer as if it were God. Some have even told me, directly, that as far as they are concerned the Bible *is* God. Sorry, but none of mine, KJV or otherwise, do anything more than just sit, inert, like any other book. They're not "alive" nor "divine" except in a metaphorical sense (ie "not really, but it makes for nice poetry"). Why is this? It's because of thoughtless symbolism. In thoughtless symbolism, the symbol does not stand in for or point to the thing symbolized, it is treated as if it is the thing symbolized. Pieces of paper become wealth rather than symbolizing wealth. A jumble of words become loyalty instead of symbolizing loyalty. Public piety becomes morality instead of symbolizing morality. Appearance becomes reality.

Why? It's easy. We can just accept the symbol as the reality and move on to daily life. Thoughtful symbolism requires work. It's more difficult. Thus, we have to learn how to do it and end up doing it in fits and starts.

Thus, the KJV becomes the sole VSL, because it's the most common symbol of the VSL, and it would be work to remember that the VSL is not any single, specific book but a symbol of a standard to which all men can refer and by which are all are judged evenly rather than the way of the profane world, which is to have different standards for different status and never actually explicitly lay out that standard, since that might let the lowly know when the high and mighty aren't even living up to their own standard."

• I agree brother. Good points.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

Thus, the KJV becomes the sole VSL, because it's the most common symbol of the VSL, and it would be work to remember that the VSL is not any single, specific book but a symbol of a standard to which all men can refer and by which are all are judged evenly rather than the way of the profane world, which is to have different standards for different status and never actually explicitly lay out that standard, since that might let the lowly know when the high and mighty aren't even living up to their own standard.

Well put, Brother, but Masonry is all about such work. As I've already pointed out, the widespread misunderstanding about this clear evidence that quality and quantity of that work is lacking. One recent response in this thread, citing Landmark 21, is plain evidence of this. That landmark reads, in part, "...a book of the law of God must constitute an indispensable part of the furniture of every lodge." Not "the book". "A" book. I am quite certain that many Masons would be shocked to learn that many regular and recognized lodges open with something other than the KJV Bible on the altar. Still more would likely assert something akin to, "Yeah, but in my lodge, it's the Bible", plainly believing that "that's the one that counts here".

The Brethren that believe this are still in darkness, and it pains me to know that there is little than can be done, on an institutional basis, to change this. Change of any kind in Freemasonry is slow, and with good reason. It is simply not realistic to consider that there might be a change to ritual or instruction to drive home the symbolic nature of the VSL. Perhaps that's for the best. Maybe the growth it takes to grasp that is not the kind that can be learned by rote. Maybe it is enough that at least some have come to understand that symbol and to apply it appropriately. IMHO, that is no small thing and it is deeply gratifying to see it in my Brothers who have found that bit of light.

Thoughts?

 

[widows son]

Whose Volume of Sacred Law "counts"?

I think you and brother Maloney said it best. "A" book is not "the" book.

It's tough though at the same time. How does one become open with all faiths in the lodge, when in their faith are thought that their teaching is the only truth over all others? A conundrum indeed.

IMO in order to be civil, we must be tolerant. We are complex beings with different tastes and views and we tend defend them, even to death. But the end result of one-upmanship is only disharmony which leads to problems our world is facing. The lodge is supposed to be a place where the shrieking of society can be quieted, and men can work on making themselves better, so they can go out in the world and help the world silence that shrieking.