# Whose Volume of Sacred Law "counts"?



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jul 14, 2013)

Yes. It's a rhetorical question, but one that (it seems to me) clearly needs to be asked.

Recent discussions in another thread have made it clear to me (yet again) that a good many of our Brethren labor under the mistaken notion that the VSL (specifically, the KJV Bible) upon which they took their Obligation is to be used as _the _authority when judging the thoughts, words and deeds of a Brother Mason. I'd like to offer them the benefit of the doubt and simply attribute this to habit; "cultural inertia" if you will. After all, even today, for men brought up in certain communities that book's divine authority is simply "a given". But we are Masons, and as such we are taught to recognize that "divine authority" is not universal in it's form. 

Or rather, we are _supposed_ to be taught as much. The alarming frequency with which I hear Masons insist that their VSL is _the _moral authority for all Masons, however, makes it clear that we are doing a poor job of teaching on the matter or (and rather more chilling) that we are teaching a lie, actually advancing the notion that the KJV Bible legitimately _is _that authority. This saddens me, deeply. 

A man's choice to recognize a spiritual authority by which he should govern his life is fundamental requirement to even be considered for Freemasonry. The importance of that recognition can not be overstated. It is repeated often in our lessons and ritual. That any thinking person, much less a Freemason, could then trivialize this relationship with the GAOTU by assuming that it's "one size fits all" is, frankly, astonishing in it's arrogance. I need scarcely add that such arrogance is at the heart of much of our world's troubles today, but the irony that, even in the face of almost daily examples of fear and intolerance, any Freemason could exhibit the same bias, is profound.

So, what do we do about this. What _can_ we do about this?


----------



## Michael Hatley (Jul 14, 2013)

For me, it doesn't matter.  I actually almost asked to receive my obligations upon the Gitas, and only did not do so because they didn't have a copy and I didn't care enough about it to put them to the trouble.  Plus I know the Bible, grew up studying and reading it, so it was just fine.

I consider them all equal and I wouldn't have been uncomfortable taking my obligations on any of them.  But I'm a Unitarian Universalist, so not just Masonry, but my religion itself teaches equality and value for all of them.  I consider them all "divine" in their own ways and yet don't figure any of them are to be taken literally line by line.


----------



## chrmc (Jul 14, 2013)

JohnnyFlotsam said:


> ... is to be used as _the _authority when judging the thoughts, words and deeds of a Brother Mason...



I think the above part of your post is the problem and where most masons fail. See we are in fact NOT supposed to judge the thoughts, words or deeds of a brother mason. We are in fact supposed to do the complete opposite. 
The VSL and the rest of the working tool are things that we should measure OURSELVES against, and use to make ourselves better. As you state we are all responsible for our own actions towards the GAOTU and he is the only one that should judge.


----------



## widows son (Jul 14, 2013)

*Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*

I happened to take my OB on the KJV, but like brother Hatley said I would of taken it on any spiritual authority.


----------



## Mason653 (Jul 14, 2013)

I use bible verses to show others or brothers who use it as their personal beliefs that something's they say or do is contrary to the bible. There are a lot of those who say they understand it but don't live by it even when they believe it to be more than a book. 

I would have love taking my OB on Crowley's book 4. ;-) lol or any other spiritual book myself.  


/G\
FHC
357
FLT


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## widows son (Jul 14, 2013)

*Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*

Would Crowley's book be allowed to OB a candidate? I only say because its not his will that has been revealed to man.


----------



## Mason653 (Jul 14, 2013)

Idk but I would like it to be. 


/G\
FHC
357
FLT


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 15, 2013)

*Re: Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*



widows son said:


> Would Crowley's book be allowed to OB a candidate? I only say because its not his will that has been revealed to man.



Crowley's Thelema, as far as I know, does not admit to a Supreme Architect of the Universe as Freemasonry accepts such an Entity. The closest that Crowley has is the "Will", which is a separate thing for each person, none of them are Supreme in a universal sense.


----------



## widows son (Jul 15, 2013)

*Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*

"Crowley's Thelema, as far as I know, does not admit to a Supreme Architect of the Universe as Freemasonry accepts such an Entity. The closest that Crowley has is the "Will", which is a separate thing for each person, none of them are Supreme in a universal sense."

• Yeah, I knew it was something down those lines. I'm not a huge Crowley fan. I enjoy reading some of his philosophies, but he was
Something else. He owned a house in Italy where the most disgusting animalistic rituals were performed.


----------



## David Hill (Jul 15, 2013)

*Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*

Widow's Son, I took my obligations on Crowley's Book of the Law. I often see many misconceptions about Thelemic doctrine, and I certainly admit that it can be confusing without in depth study. It most certainly is possible for a Thelemite to believe in one expression of deity. I'll be happy to provide examples of this via private message if you're interested. 

Related, as someone who has studied Crowley, I find the assertion of animalistic rituals conducted at the Abby of Thelema to be offensive. Crowley received a great deal of negative press due to the yellow journalism of the time. These papers were more akin to the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer than reputable news organizations so he was greatly sensationalized. Crowley would be considered quite tame by today's standards, but late Victorian England was a very different and very uptight place. 

As someone who is not Christian, 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.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jul 15, 2013)

*Re: Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*



David Hill said:


> As someone who is not Christian, I do find it disconcerting that many Masons appear to assume that the KSV Bible is everyone's VSL and sometimes judge them accordingly.



Exactly my point in starting this thread. But my questions remain (as yet) unanswered - Why is this happening? How is it that so many Masons could come to such a misunderstanding about something so fundamentally important to The Craft? What are we to do about this?


----------



## perryel (Jul 15, 2013)

...Interested to learn what "standards" are operating in Lodges where the majority of our Brothers are not Christian.  Does the cultural ethos of the nation influence practice and/or assumptions in any way?


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## LittleHunter (Jul 15, 2013)

I was encouraged to choose my own VSL to take my obligations on. I almost chose the Tao Te Ching as it best illustrates my morals and values. However, being a Christian mystic i was satisfied to take them upon the same book The rest Of My Lodge Brothers took theirs upon. I hear that Rudyard Kipling took his obligations on a Stack Of 5 different scriptures


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## widows son (Jul 15, 2013)

*Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*

"Widow's Son, I took my obligations on Crowley's Book of the Law. I often see many misconceptions about Thelemic doctrine, and I certainly admit that it can be confusing without in depth study. It most certainly is possible for a Thelemite to believe in one expression of deity. I'll be happy to provide examples of this via private message if you're interested. "

• I had no idea that it was possible. And the only info that I have seen on Crowley is bits on Wikipedia, the documentary "Crowley" and the book "The Golden Dawn" by Israel Regardie. And I will PM you for more info. Thank you. 

"Related, as someone who has studied Crowley, I find the assertion of animalistic rituals conducted at the Abby of Thelema to be offensive. Crowley received a great deal of negative press due to the yellow journalism of the time. These papers were more akin to the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer than reputable news organizations so he was greatly sensationalized. Crowley would be considered quite tame by today's standards, but late Victorian England was a very different and very uptight place. "

• I apologize if offense was taken brother. My source of info for that was the documentary "Crowley."  

"As someone who is not Christian, 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."

• believe me brother I have no disdain for anyone's beliefs. I am familiar with some of the
Teachings of the Golden Dawn, but I also know that Crowley broke away from it. Although I took my OB on the KJV, it is not my book of Law, but as I stated before any spiritual text would have been just fine. I'm not exactly where I fall in when it comes to a specific faith. I definitely believe in a Supreme Deity, but I read all teachings.


----------



## Mason653 (Jul 15, 2013)

*Re: Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*



widows son said:


> "Crowley's Thelema, as far as I know, does not admit to a Supreme Architect of the Universe as Freemasonry accepts such an Entity. The closest that Crowley has is the "Will", which is a separate thing for each person, none of them are Supreme in a universal sense."
> 
> â€¢ Yeah, I knew it was something down those lines. I'm not a huge Crowley fan. I enjoy reading some of his philosophies, but he was
> Something else. He owned a house in Italy where the most disgusting animalistic rituals were performed.



yeah him and Obama used to worship satan and the illuminati in that same house. How? They have a weaponized time machine ready for deployment! Lol don't believe everything you read, or hear. 

Not trying to be an ass. I'm just saying. 


/G\
FHC
357
FLT


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## David Hill (Jul 16, 2013)

I suspect in Texas that most of the Brethren follow some form of Protestant Christianity. They likely grew up with the KJV Bible and most of the people they know are likely Christians. It probably does not even cross most folks minds that anyone would use anything other than the KSV Bible as their VSL. However, living in Texas as someone who is not Christian, it constantly amazes me how Christianity pervades almost every part of our society. It's taken as the measure of normal behavior and worship. I see other religions as being tolerated and often considered "odd" or "other." Masonry in particular bases its teachings around those found in the Bible, as well it should when you put Masonry in historical context. That leaves Masonry with a distinctly Christian flavor. Once again, I suspect that it probably just doesn't cross people's minds that any other VSL would be used except on the rarest of occasions. To be clear, I don't see that as being done out of malice; rather, it is likely due to inattention.


----------



## crono782 (Jul 16, 2013)

Personally I am Christian and grew up w/ the ol KJV, however I would like to see more of an, I dunno, I guess "discussion" or "option" for new brothers. Maybe I just haven't seen it in my lodge due to lack of necessity, but I've never even seen the topic of which VSL a new initiate prefers even brought up. 


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 16, 2013)

*Re: Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*



David Hill said:


> Widow's Son, I took my obligations on Crowley's Book of the Law. I often see many misconceptions about Thelemic doctrine, and I certainly admit that it can be confusing without in depth study. It most certainly is possible for a Thelemite to believe in one expression of deity.


 
So, like Unitarian Universalism, it admits to Deism or Theism, just does not require it. My direct experience with Thelema has been with people who were either outright atheist (mechanistic/materialistic, "Will" is just a shorthand for an entirely materialistic process) or autolatory ("my will" = "Will" for the entire Universe) practitioners. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Jul 16, 2013)

David Hill said:


> I suspect in Texas that most of the Brethren follow some form of Protestant Christianity. They likely grew up with the KJV Bible and most of the people they know are likely Christians.


 
For my own Church, the KJV is "acceptable". We don't have any specific "official" English version, although, there are several "acceptable" versions. As for Masonry being "left with" a distinctly Christian flavor, I'd respond that Freemasonry, as codified between the Moderns and the Antients, began with a distinctly Christian flavor and since matured into a far more eclectic outlook. This is not to say that "true Masonry" must be Christian, only that, like many sciences, the earlier models began with what was known and then admitted new things as more became learned. 



It probably does not even cross most folks minds that anyone would use anything other than the KSV Bible as their VSL. However, living in Texas as someone who is not Christian, it constantly amazes me how Christianity pervades almost every part of our society. It's taken as the measure of normal behavior and worship. I see other religions as being tolerated and often considered "odd" or "other." Masonry in particular bases its teachings around those found in the Bible, as well it should when you put Masonry in historical context. That leaves Masonry with a distinctly Christian flavor. Once again, I suspect that it probably just doesn't cross people's minds that any other VSL would be used except on the rarest of occasions. To be clear, I don't see that as being done out of malice; rather, it is likely due to inattention.[/QUOTE]


----------



## OKGRSEC (Jul 16, 2013)

*Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*

It might help to read the ancient charges & Landmark 21st to better understand the "lean" toward Christianity.  Granted, some GLs have different landmarks, but most adhere to these.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 16, 2013)

*Re: Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*



David Hill said:


> ... 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 (Jul 17, 2013)

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 (Jul 17, 2013)

*Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*

"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 (Jul 18, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> 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 (Jul 18, 2013)

*Whose Volume of Sacred Law &quot;counts&quot;?*

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.


----------

