It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof Blavatsky was a Freemason

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The most famous (and best-documented) of women Masons was Mrs. Aldworth, made a Mason in the 1700s. Here is a brief account of her Masonic career, as written in 1920.

WOMEN FREEMASONS
BY BRO. DUDLEY WRIGHT, ENGLAND
THE BUILDER, August 1920

Although the Antient Charges forbid the admission or initiation of women into the Order of Free and Accepted Masons, there are known instances where as the result of accident or sometimes design the rule has been broken and women have been duly initiated. The most prominent instance is that of the Hon. Elizabeth St. Leger, or, as she afterwards became, on marriage, the Hon. Mrs. Aldworth, who is referred to sometimes, though erroneously, as the "only woman who over obtained the honour of initiation into the sublime mysteries of Freemasonry."

The Hon. Elizabeth St. Leger was a daughter of the first Viscount Doneraile, a resident of Cork. Her father was a very zealous Freemason and, as was the custom in his time -- the early part of the eighteenth century - held an occasional lodge in his own house, when he was assisted by members of his own family and any brethren in the immediate neighbourhood and visitors to Doneraile House. This lodge was duly warranted and held the number 150 on the Register of the Grand Lodge of Ireland.

The story runs that one evening previous to the initiation of a gentleman named Coppinger, Miss St. Leger hid herself in the room adjoining the one used as a lodgeroom. This room was at that time undergoing some alterations and Miss St. Leger is said to have removed a brick from the partition with her scissors and through the aperture thus created witnessed the ceremony of initiation. What she saw appears to have disturbed her so thoroughly that she at once determined upon making her escape, but failed to elude the vigilance of the tyler, who, armed with a sword stood barring her exit. Her shrieks alarmed the members of the lodge, who came rushing to the spot, when they learned that she had witnessed the whole of the ceremony which had just been enacted. After a considerable discussion and yielding to the entreaties of her brother it was decided to admit her into the Order and she was duly initiated, and, in course of time, became the Master of the lodge.

According to Milliken, the Irish Masonic historian, she was initiated in Lodge No. 95, which still meets at Cork, but there is no record extant of her reception into the Order. It is, however, on record that she was a subscriber to the Irish Book of Constitutions, which appeared in 1744 and that she frequently attended, wearing her Masonic regalia, entertainments that were given under Masonic auspices for the benefit of the poor and distressed. She afterwards married Mr. Richard Aldworth of Newmarket and when she died she was accorded the honour of a Masonic burial. She was cousin to General Antony St. Leger, of Park Hill, near Doncaster, who, in 1776, instituted the celebrated Doncaster St. Leger races and stakes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This picture of Elizabeth Aldworth dressed in her Masonic regalia was published in Robert Freke Gould's "Concise History of Freemasonry." The original from which the engraving was made is said to be a portrait painting in the possession of her descendents.

In his talk to the chapter of the Philalethes Society, cited above, Neville B. Cryer described the well-known particulars of the initiation of Elizabeth St. Ledger (later Elizabeth Aldworth) as a Speculative Mason -- and he noted that this occurred in 1712, before the Grand Lodge of England was formed -- and thus before it was declared that the exclusion of women was an "ancient landmark," and a stop was put to female participation in the Craft.

The "co-masonic lodge" Le Droit humane is created...

In 1879 several Chapters owning allegiance to the Supreme Council of France of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, at the instigation of the Grand Orient, seceded from that allegience and reconstituted themselves as La Grande Loge Symbolique de France. One of these Chapters, bearing the name of Les Libres Penseurs, meeting at Pecq, a village of Seine et Oise, in November 1881, proposed to initiate into Freemasonry, Mlle. Maria Desraimes, a well-known writer on Humanitarian and women suffrage questions, which they did on 14th January, 1882, for which act the Lodge or Chapter was suspended. Mlle. Desraimes was instrumental in bringing into the ranks of Freemasonry several other well-known women in France, with the result that an Androgynous Masonic body, known as La Grande Loge Symbolique Ecossaise was formed on 4th April, 1893 although its jurisdiction at that time extended over only one lodge, that known as Le Droit Humain, which came into being on the same day, and which, in 1900, adopted the thirty degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.




posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I've heard of this story before. Unfortunately, the only documentary evidence comes from a narrative published by her family in 1811. Also, stories of how she became a Freemason do vary.
That's not to say that the story isn't true and Irish Freemasons do proclaim it to be fact.

What should be noted though, is that her initiation would have taken place somewhere between 1710 and 1718 - at least twelve or thirteen years before the formation of The Grand Lodge of Ireland and therefore before Freemasonry as we generally discuss it was created.

You can find an interesting paper on the subject, written by a Freemason here:

freemasonry.bcy.ca...


He certainly is in favour of the story being a factual account.


dh

posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Low level masons may be just sad individuals looking out for each other in the kind of communities within which they exist
Not bad guys, just grace and favour kind of guys
Its at 33 degrees and above the nasty stuff begins to be revealed
The secrets, both to male and female, are revealed
Blavatsky forges a long line taken up most obviously by the male lineage
Until the corrent exteriorisation where the female also plays in the manipulation



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I've also heard the Aldsworth story before. It's now impossible to either prove or disprove, but each version of the legend has several inconsistencies.

If anything similar to the legendary account actually occured, it would seem likely that what actually happened was that after she was caught eavesdropping on them, the Lodge required her to take an oath of secrecy concerning what she'd seen and heard, which would of course have been different than actually making her a member. Thus, the legend of the "Lady Freemason" was born.

As for Blavatsky, she was never a member of any Masonic organization, not even Co-Masonry, and admitted such in her book "Isis Unveiled".

freemasonry.bcy.ca...



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I'm satisfied that the irregularities concerning "Lodge 150" are adequately explained by the sketchyness of the records of the preexisting lodges before the UGLE and UGLI. For mine their is a prima facea case to be disproven in regards to the good Mrs Aldworth...

and more historical anomalies...

WOMEN AND FREEMASONRY
BY V:. W.: and Rev. NEVILLE B. CRYER
MASONIC TIMES, May, 1995, Rochester, New York

In 1693 we have the York Manuscript No. 4, belonging to the Grand Lodge of York, which relates how when an Apprentice is admitted the 'elders taking the Booke, he or _shee_ [sic] that is to be made Mason shall lay their hands thereon, and the charge shall be given.' Now I have to tell you, that my predecessors in Masonic Research in England from Hughen and Vibert and from all the rest onward, have all tried to pretend that the 'shee' is merely a misprint for 'they.' I now am the Chairman of the Heritage Committee of York. I know these documents; I've examined them, and I'm telling you, they say 'she,' without any question.

Of course, we have a problem, haven't we; to try to explain that. My predecessors would not try to explain this; they were too male oriented. The fact remains that, there it is, in an ancient document of a 17th century date. That this could have been the case seems all the more likely as that in 1696 two widows are named as members in the Operative masons Court. Away in the South of England, we read in 1714 -- that's before the Grand Lodge of England -- of Mary Bannister, the daughter of a barber in the town of Barking, being apprenticed as a Mason for 7 years with a fee of 5/- which she paid to the Company....

But I agree about Helena Blavatsky, she herself said she was not a mason...



[edit on 13-1-2005 by Flange Gasket]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
www.luckymojo.com...


Cite Your sources if you are going to copy verbatim.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
The quote itself is bibliographed and I already have cited that reference earlier in this thread...

Maybe if you had read from the start you would have noticed....



[edit on 13-1-2005 by Flange Gasket]



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
It would be proper to cite it after you posted the quote, as you have cited multiple sources, on another page.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flange Gasket


Of course, we have a problem, haven't we; to try to explain that. My predecessors would not try to explain this; they were too male oriented. The fact remains that, there it is, in an ancient document of a 17th century date. That this could have been the case seems all the more likely as that in 1696 two widows are named as members in the Operative masons Court. Away in the South of England, we read in 1714 -- that's before the Grand Lodge of England -- of Mary Bannister, the daughter of a barber in the town of Barking, being apprenticed as a Mason for 7 years with a fee of 5/- which she paid to the Company....




The above are woman entering operative stonemasonry. Not Freemasonry.


two widows are named as members in the Operative masons Court.


This refers to the actual career of building from stone. Freemasonry is "speculative" masonry. Not "operative".



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I think he is referring to The Eastern Star..



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


She was a Freemason raised in a clandestine Order, I have seen photos of her patent. Masonic Light is correct that she said was never a regular Mason because she was irregular.

H P Blavatsky Freemasonic Patent
edit on 30-6-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by no1smootha
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


She was a Freemason raised in a clandestine Order, I have seen photos of her patent. Masonic Light is correct that she said was never a regular Mason because she was irregular.

H P Blavatsky Freemasonic Patent
edit on 30-6-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)


As the link shows, in her own words, HPB was never a Mason: regular or irregular. She was honored by Yarker with the diploma and that was it. She never took part in ritual in any order, nor claimed to. A print of her certificate comes with the book HPB Speaks by C. Jinarājadāsa (as reproduced in the above link) which among its contents include letters she wrote to others and newspapers addressing this issue. Many of the prominent members of the Theosophical Society were 'regular' and the society itself was started by many Freemasons. There is no doubt she would not be some member amongst so many who were and considering her extensive writings, she didn't need to be.

Co-Masonry and any involvement with the Theosophical Society came after HPB's death under the ill direction of Annie Bessant.

Hope this clears up any confusion!



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LookingIntoIt
 


I read this as her making a distinction that she isn't claiming to be a "regular" Mason, being a women and having degrees from a spurious rite certainly isn't "regular. She does seem to claim Masonic honors from the A&APRM&M in this quote from the same link. FYI this rite is out of use in Continental Lodges as well except in a few craft Lodges. I agree it sounds like she was honored by having the degrees conferred upon her.

"That an American Rite, thus spuriously organized, declines to acknowledge the Patent of an English Sovereign Sanctuary, duly recognized by the Grand Orient of France, does not at all invalidate my claim to Masonic honours. As well might Protestants refuse to call the Dominicans Christians, because they—the Protestants—broke away from the Catholic Church and set up for themselves, as for A. and A. Masons of America to deny the validity of a Patent from an English A. and P. Rite body. Though I have nothing to do with American modern Masonry, and do not expect to have, yet, feeling highly honoured by the distinction conferred upon me by Brother Yarker, I mean to stand for my chartered rights, and to recognize no other authority than that of the high Masons of England, who have been pleased to send me this unsolicited and unexpected testimonial of their approval of my humble labours."

ETA that her claim that the English Sovreign Sanctuary was recognized by the Grand Orient of France but only the first three Symbolic degrees Of AAPRMM were recognized by the GOdF.
edit on 2-7-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Travelling Gentleman
 


I seriously doubt Blavatsky was a Freemason, my main reason is that if you read her books she is highly critical of Freemasons…in basic terms she presents them as clueless individuals who like to play dress up…she asserts that they are totally devoid of occult/esoteric knowledge….I tend to agree btw


Clueless in terms of knowledge of the occult/esoteric teachings I mean, not devoid of general knowledge!
edit on 3-7-2012 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The quotes below made by Madam blavaksy should confirm for anyone interested her real thoughts on freemasonry.

Modern Masonry is undeniably the dim and hazy reflection of primeval Occult Masonry of the teaching of those Divine Masons who established the Mysteries of prehistoric and prediluvian Temples of Initiation, raised by truly superhuman Builders.


Who was, in fact, the first operative Mason of any consequence? Elias Ashmole, the last of the Rosicrucians and alchemists. Admitted to the freedom of the Operative Masons’ company in London, in 1646, he died in 1692. At that time Masonry was not what it became later; it was neither a political nor a Christian institution, but a true secret organization


There are no longer any secrets left unpublished; the Order is degenerating into a convenience for selfish men to use, and bad men to debase.


It may thus be shown that both modern Freemasonry and Church ritualism descended in direct line from initiated Gnostics, Neo-Platonists and renegade Hierophants of the Pagan Mysteries, the secrets of which they have lost


As the Masonic fraternity is now governed, the Craft is fast becoming the paradise of the bon vivant . . . the manufacturer of paltry masonic tinsel . . . and the masonic ‘Emperor’ and other charlatans who make power or money out of the aristocratic pretensions which they have tacked on to our institutions – ad captandum vulgus


But now that so many of the most important secrets of Masonry have been divulged by friend and foe, may we not say, without suspicion of malice or ill-feeling, that since the sad catastrophe of the Templars, no “Lodge” in Europe, still less in America, has ever known anything worth concealing. Reluctant to be misunderstood, we say no Lodge, leaving a few chosen brethren entirely out of question.


But, if there are a few Masons who, from study of kabalistic and other rare works, and coming in personal communication with “Brothers from the far-away East, have learned something of esoteric Masonry, it is not the case with the hundreds of American Lodges.


To render this Brotherhood a mere harmless negation, the Jesuits sent some of their most able emissaries into the Order, who first made the simple brethren believe that the true secret was lost with Hiram Abiff; and then induced them to put this belief into their formularies. They then invented specious but spurious higher degrees, pretending to give further light upon this lost secret, to lead the candidate on and amuse him with forms borrowed from the real thing, but containing no substance, and all artfully contrived to lead the aspiring Neophyte to nowhere. And yet men of good sense and abilities, in other respects, will meet at intervals, and with solemn face, zeal and earnestness, go through the mockery of revealing “substituted secrets” instead of the real things.


As far as we are concerned, disciples of the Masters of the Orient as we are, we have nothing to do with modern Masonry. The real secrets of symbolic Masonry are lost, as Ragon, by the way, proves very well. The keystone, the central stone of the arch built by the first royal dynasties of Initiates – ten times prehistoric – has been shaken loose since the closing of the latest mysteries. The task of destruction, or rather of strangulation and suffocation begun by the Caesars, has finally been completed, in Europe, by the Fathers of the Church. Imported again, since those days, from the sanctuaries of the Far East, the sacred stone was cracked and finally broken into a thousand pieces.


Of what use the millions of men that make up this great fraternity, the world over, if they cannot be so cemented together as to bid defiance to all adversaries? Can it be that the “mystic tie” is but a rope of sand, and Masonry but a toy to feed the vanity of a few leaders who rejoice in ribbons and regalia? Is its authority as false as its antiquity? It seems so, indeed; and yet, as “even the fleas have smaller fleas to bite ‘em,” there are Catholic alarmists, even here, who pretend to fear Masonry!


As far as we are concerned, disciples of the Masters of the Orient as we are, we have nothing to do with modern Masonry”. And again, “As for ourselves – faithful disciples of the Orient – we prefer instead of all the stories, one that has nothing to do with any of the other mummeries of masonic degrees


So to sum it up Blavatsky thought modern speculative masonry was a load of crap and its members had zero knowledge of the occult/esoteric teachings

edit on 3-7-2012 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LUXUS
 


Luxus, thank you for the informative and jaw dropping collection of Blavatzky passages. I noticed that you did not cite the source, and I have confirmed the above quotes to belong to her first work "The Secret Doctrine".

Boy, did she ever have a callous and cold attitude towards masonry. Do you not suspect, perhaps, that she could have joined an irregular masonic lodge rather easily? Clearly she feels that there are no mysteries kept from her regarding the craft. We will probably never know for sure unless we somehow join one of her initiatic orders.

As with everything, I'm sure that the most likely answer is that she found herself amongst brothers and sisters of an order which also contained high level masons and through this secrecy and security she could have been filled in on masonic details at the time.

One of the most interesting aspects of her writings to me was how they influenced the nazi's and their opinions on freemasonry.
edit on 3-7-2012 by Hardwired because: sp



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Hardwired
 


There were several members of Blavatskys school who were also masons so she had frequent contact with freemasonry. Blavatsky was a real initiate and adept, she studied in Tibet under masters and was initiated into the higher occult teachings. Freemasons of her time would have known this and may have conferred honorary degrees to her in hope that she may in return throw them a few crumbs of the esoteric teachings.

Blavatsky also states that all the teachings of modern freemasonry including the higher degrees are known to the neophyte (novice) of eastern occult schools.

According to blavatsky freemasonry was destroyed by Jesuit factions who infiltrated its ranks around the time speculative freemasonry appeared and operative freemasonry disappeared. At that time an effort was made to remove any of the esoteric teachings from freemasonry and replace it with what blavatsky would term “ribbons and regalia”!




The first Jesuits were crypto‑Jews. Ignatius Loyola himself was a crypto‑Jew of the Occult Cabala. A crypto‑Jew is a Jew who converts to another religion and outwardly embraces the new religion, while secretly maintaining Jewish practices.


www.israelect.com...
edit on 4-7-2012 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   


her first work "The Secret Doctrine".


Wasn't her first work.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Madam Blavatsky was a con artist, a dilettante with oriental and exotic religions, she absorbed a great deal from a variety of books, rehashed it and mixed it around, and then sold it as Theosophy. She managed, this way, to worm herself into a number of cults or to pretend to have some sort of inside knowledge of them.

She also attracted, rather naturally, people who had already been bouncing around strange religions and cults, and undoubtedly got a lot of information from them about their inner workings.

She probably had such sources for information about the masonic lodges, but I don't think she herself was ever a member.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join