How does JAHBULON even make sense?

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
reply to post by Trinityman

 

God knows, I'll probably have some more annoying questions for you in the future.

I'm sure you will.
Mind you, it'd be nice if those slanging at Masonry in the Masonic Obelisk thread could be so kind as to refer to this thread (especially [EDIT] the last page) to see how reasoned discussion is supposed to happen. T'would be more useful to all involved.

As for variations in ritual, you must bear in mind that Masonic ritual for the longest time was memorised only, no written reference copies. The memory is a fickle thing so variations cropping up shouldn't be surprising. In fact, part of the obligation in the Entered Apprentice Degree specifically enjoins the new candidate from in any way transcribing the ritual onto anything. Certainly in my reading about Masonry in Upper Canada and later Ontario, much was made of the range of the quality of the work done in the Lodges circa early-to-mid 19th Century. While I can't speak for the States, OTTOMH, I think the then-radical decision to have a printed version for the Lodge Secretary (and prompter) only to have was taken around the 1850's or '60's as a way for the Lodges to be on a level as far as the ritual was concerned. I wonder what brethren of that time would think of the practice of every Master Mason having a Book of the Work?

Ironically, in my travels, I find there's still quite some variation in the quality of work done but now nobody can really blame not having their own copy of the rituals.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Fitzgibbon]

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Hi Fitzgibbon,

Thanks for that post. I assume you are someone who has probably made the rounds of quite a few different Lodges in your travels with the military.
With the ritual once being an oral tradition. Are there any aspects of Masonic Ritual that have maintained this custom?

When you say "quality of the work done" do you refer to diversions from what is to you acceptable forms of ritual or just minor differences that are really of no consequence?

(Oops, there I go with those questions again)

I see you have been reading through the "obelisk" thread. I made a statement in there about members of the military and there being many who are into esoterica. This of course includes Freemasonry. Would you say that is a fair statement?

Beelzebubba,

I found a few things in Masonic writings that may be of interest to you (and perhaps others) in this thread. There are a couple of images that I found of the triangular plate (one is in a Monitor so it's certainly considered to be exoteric) but I'm not sure I can post them. I took digital images of them (my scanner is at my office) but I may need some guidance as to how to place an image that I took on the site. Don't think I've ever done that.

Text from the books to follow as I get time to type it out.

From a lecture by Richard J. Spiers, Prov. Grand Master of Oxfordshire:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jah is a Hebrew word, signifying I AM. When the Almighty commanded Moses to go into Egypt to deliver his brethren, Moses said, “Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you, and they shall say unto me, What is His name? What shall I say unto them?” And God said unto Moses, “I AM that I AM;” that is, I am from eternity to eternity, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, the First and the Last.

Bul (or Bel) is an Assyrian word, signifying Powerful Lord, or Lord of Power. The Hebrews read it, Lord in Heaven or on High.

On is the Egyptian word that signifies Father of All and expresses the Omnipotence of the Almighty. Joseph in Egypt married the daughter of Potiphera, Priest of On.

Taking then these interpretations, the words signify: I AM, Lord in Heaven, Father of all.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking this at face value (and I'm not certain about parts of it to be honest) it would appear that Jah Bul On is not a "word" but a SENTENCE.

But it's still from three different languages, which doesn't make much sense.


[edit on 26-1-2008 by senrak]

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
The only reason I was maintaining a degree of skepticism with what you had written was purely because the Synod had taken a particular interest in the Aldersgate Ritual. Were you also a member of the Aldersgate Chapter of Improvement?

No, I wasn't. Just a grunt, I'm afraid

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Probably not. As to the actual definition given in the ritual, it depends upon which version is being used and in which jurisdiction. Some may say that it is Hebrew, Syriac, and Egyptian, while others may say they are from "Semitic languages", while others may just chalk it up to a mystery and say nobody knows.

I'm curious as to the British take on this.

Hmm. I guess there isn't a British take on this as the 'word' is no longer in the ritual. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

Hi Fitzgibbon,

Thanks for that post. I assume you are someone who has probably made the rounds of quite a few different Lodges in your travels with the military.
With the ritual once being an oral tradition. Are there any aspects of Masonic Ritual that have maintained this custom?

The avatar's something I picked up in my travels as a television editor and most assuredly isn't a self-portrait. It's as close to the military as I come and even if I were in the military, it would be the Canadian Forces as opposed to the U.S. military. So clearly I can't speak to their experience. I also can't speak for either York or Scottish Rite but I think I'm safe in saying that their ritual is as oral (memorised) as in Craft Lodge. The expectation is that those doing the work will have committed their work to memory either entirely or as much as possible with the Secretary having an open copy of the Book of the Work following along to prompt if circumstance requires. But in Ontario, the Grand Lodge has made it quite clear that the Secretaries (or designated prompter) are the only brethren who are to have a Book of the Work open in open Lodge. This allows for consistency of work among Lodges. So the ritual is still oral.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
When you say "quality of the work done" do you refer to diversions from what is to you acceptable forms of ritual or just minor differences that are really of no consequence?

(Oops, there I go with those questions again)

By quality of work done, I'm referring to the closeness of adherence to the ritual by word and by action as laid out in the Book of the Work. If the execution of the work was straying so far from the Book as to be unacceptable, any Mason here would tell you that there's always plenty of unofficial 'prompters' who'll (usually) politely point out the variation and how to correct it. As far as consequence goes, well......nobody ever died from a Steward holding his wand in the wrong hand. Left unchecked and uncorrected over time, then you get into the sort of Lodge-to-Lodge variation situation that the Grand Lodge of Upper Canada was facing back in the day.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
I see you have been reading through the "obelisk" thread. I made a statement in there about members of the military and there being many who are into esoterica. This of course includes Freemasonry. Would you say that is a fair statement?

As I said earlier, I'm not CF but I'd venture that esoterica is as common among the grunts as it is among John Q in the rest of the world. It wouldn't surprise me if it became less uncommon further up the chain of command but then again, I would expect the same in the general population the better-off the demographic of person you're investigating is. Just my 25¢ Canuck FWIW

reply to post by Fitzgibbon



Hi Fitzgibbon,

Sorry, I really thought that was you! Does this mean that Intrepid's avatar is not actually him!

Thanks for your reply. I still find it amazing there is so much variation, especially in the US. It would seem that The UK and Canada are a bit stricter in enforcing an adherance to a particular ritual. I wonder if that is a Commonwealth thing?
Makes me wonder about the cohesion of ritual down here in the Antipodes.

Originally posted by Beelzebubba
It would seem that The UK and Canada are a bit stricter in enforcing an adherance to a particular ritual. I wonder if that is a Commonwealth thing?
Makes me wonder about the cohesion of ritual down here in the Antipodes.

Its actually quite the reverse. In the US although there is much more emphasis on learning by rote, ritual matters are directed and dictated by Grand Lodge, and generally speaking there is one standard ritual in use across the State. Woe betide anyone who varies!

In England I have identified up to 50 different rituals in use. Many of the older lodges (such as mine) actually have their own unique ritual. Grand Lodge does not get involved in (the detail of) ritual matters, we have Ritual Associations who are guardians of the content and delivery of each of the different rituals - there are probably half a dozen major Ritual Associations still going.

Rituals began to be printed around the back end of the 19th century - you can read all about the development of the Ritual in England and the 'Lodges of Instruction' here.