Albert Pike: A Man Misunderstood

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
OK people. I've had it. I can't take it.

I constantly come across websites and people on this board claiming that Albert Pike was some sort of evil man, a Satanist, a Luciferian, that he believed the devil was the true god, etc etc ad nauseam.

I ask myself why. I says to myself, "Self, why do those folks say such horrible things about ol' Albert?"

And then it hits me. Parrots. Parakeets, freakin' cockatiels, I mean they are everywhere. You only have to spend a short amount of time on this board to end up with parrot poo all over you. It's ridiculous. I had the idea about a week ago to start a thread here, showcasing some of my favorite quotes I've come across thus far in my reading of Morals and Dogma. Now, let me tell you: There are people who would try to say that Morals and Dogma contains heretical passages; that within its pages, Pike admits to all kinds of heinous stuff on the behalf of Freemasonry. Well, I have read a healthy portion of it so far, and I can say not only that the aforementioned assertion is complete and total poppycock (I love that word
), but in truth, it's quite the opposite.

I have learned, well, let me rephrase, I have been reminded of and had so many incontravertible Truths brought to my attention from what I have read so far, that not only would I reccomend that all Masons avail themselves of the knowledge and insight contained therein, but I would reccomend it to EVERYONE. I don't think there is a person on this planet with any kind of moral compass that would not reap great benefit on a personal level from reading and digesting this book. It has been incredible so far. A bit wordy at times, and some would call it dry, but honestly after the first couple of chapters it isn't so bad; it's easy to follow, not alot of archaic language, and the message... The message is TIMELESS. I intend to follow up on this thread with some other quotes, but for now i just wanted to address something I came across while reading an ignorant post this morning:


from: www.holygrail-church.fsnet.co.uk...

Soon after the infiltration of Illuminism into Freemasonry at the end of the 18th century, another extraordinary figure emerged. His name was Albert Pike (1809-1891) and his impact was akin to that of Weishaupt’s. Pike became a Mason in 1850 and then, in a meteoric rise to power, was elected Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States in 1859. He essentially made Scottish Rite Masonry the institution it is today, and expressed contempt for Christianity at every opportunity. One of his Masonic titles was “Sovereign Pontiff of Lucifer.” Pike regarded Lucifer as the true god...


Hardy har har... That's all I can really say. Now you tell me, are these words that you expect would come from someone who is supposedly a Satanist?!


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Seven

A moral offence is sickness, pain, loss, dishonour, in the immortal part of man. It is guilt, and misery added to guilt. It is itself calamity; and brings upon itself, in addition, the calamity of God's disapproval, the abhorrence of virtuous men, and the soul's own abhorrence. Deal faithfully, but patiently and tenderly, with this evil! It is no matter for petty provocation, nor for personal strife, nor for selfish irritation.

Speak kindly to your erring brother! God pities him: Heaven's mercy yearns toward him; and Heaven's spirits are ready to welcome him back with joy. Let your voice be in unison with all those powers that God is using for his recovery!


www.freemasons-freemasonry.com...

I think not.

I eagerly await your comments, and as I said, I have more to add later.


[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Great post, Axe. I've often considered the same thing myself; all these Mason-bashers who "quote" Morals and Dogma have never actually read it. If they did, they would certainly have a different view of its author, as well as that Fraternity that he loved and served so well.

Almost universally on this forum, the Mason-bashers are Christians, or, at least, they think they are. Interestingly enough, none of them seem too worried about breaking the Commandment concerning bearing false witness against their neighbors. To make matters even worse, Pike was, in actuality, a Christian, meaning they're bearing false witness against one of their own faith. Sort of ironic.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Great post, Axe. I've often considered the same thing myself; all these Mason-bashers who "quote" Morals and Dogma have never actually read it. If they did, they would certainly have a different view of its author, as well as that Fraternity that he loved and served so well.

Almost universally on this forum, the Mason-bashers are Christians, or, at least, they think they are. Interestingly enough, none of them seem too worried about breaking the Commandment concerning bearing false witness against their neighbors. To make matters even worse, Pike was, in actuality, a Christian, meaning they're bearing false witness against one of their own faith. Sort of ironic.


Thank you ML. A compliment from you ranks very high on my list of "things that are really cool."


Another excerpt I find quite relevant these days:


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Three

States are chiefly avaricious of commerce and of territory. The latter leads to the violation of treaties, encroachments upon feeble neighbors, and rapacity toward their wards whose lands are coveted. Republics are, in this, as rapacious and unprincipled as Despots, never learning from history that inordinate expansion by rapine and fraud has its inevitable consequences in dismemberment or subjugation. When a republic begins to plunder its neighbors, the words of doom are already written on its walls. There is a judgment already pronounced of God upon whatever is unrighteous in the conduct of national affairs. When civil war tears the vitals of a Republic, let it look back and see if it has not been guilty of injustices; and if it has, let it humble itself in the dust!

When a nation becomes possessed with a spirit of commercial greed, beyond those just and fair limits set by a due regard to a moderate and reasonable degree of general and individual prosperity, it is a nation possessed by the devil of commercial avarice, a passion as ignoble and demoralizing as avarice in the individual; and as this sordid passion is baser and more unscrupulous than ambition, so is it more hateful, and at last makes the infected nation to be regarded as the enemy of the human race. To grasp at a lion’s share of the commerce, has always at last proven to be the ruin of States, because it invariably leads to injustices that make a State detestable; to a selfishness and crooked policy that forbid other nations to be the friends of a State that cares only for itself.

{...}

A war for a great principle ennobles a nation. A war for commercial supremacy, upon some shallow pretext, is despicable, and more than aught else demonstrates to what immeasurable depths of baseness men and nations can descend. Commercial greed values the lives of men no more than it values the lives of ants...



[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Man this just keeps getting worse and worse.



Albert Pike – Morals and Dogma, Chapter Seven

Masonry, by its teachings, endeavors to restrain men from the commission of injustice and acts of wrong and outrage. Though it does not endeavor to usurp the place of religion, still its code of morals proceeds upon other principles than the municipal law; and it condemns and punishes offences which neither that law punishes nor public opinion condemns. In the Masonic law, to cheat and overreach in trade, at the bar, in politics, are deemed no more venial than theft; nor a deliberate lie than perjury; nor slander than robbery; nor seduction than murder.

Especially it condemns those wrongs of which the doer induces another to partake. He may repent; he may, after agonizing struggles, regain the path of virtue; his spirit may reachieve its purity through much anguish, after many strifes; but the weaker fellow-creature whom he led astray, whom he made a sharer in his guilt, but whom he cannot make a sharer in his repentance and amendment, whose downward course (the first step of which he taught) he cannot check, but is compelled to witness,--what forgiveness of sins can avail him there? There is his perpetual, his inevitable punishment, which no repentance can alleviate, and no mercy can remit.





I find it interesting that none of the "usual suspects" as of yet have reared their ugly little heads...

What's the matter guys, can't find anything negative to say when the quotes are full and in context?


Here's a version you can copy and paste from... www.sacred-texts.com...

I'd like to see what you can come up with, and remember, full quotes, in context. For all you that think there is something nefarious in M&D, or that Pike was an evill man, or whatever, here's your chance to make your case in open forum.

Methinks this thread will be a quiet one, though...


[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman
I find it interesting that none of the "usual suspects" as of yet have reared their ugly little heads...

What's the matter guys, can't find anything negative to say when the quotes are full and in context?


[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



Wow.

All I hear are crickets.

Oh wait... I think I heard the Sprint pin drop just now...




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stegosaur

Wow.

All I hear are crickets.

Oh wait... I think I heard the Sprint pin drop just now...





That's hilarious. This happened to me before, actually, here. It's funny, so long as there is ignorance to play off of, these people will just squawk and squawk, but when someone comes along with solid information and an opinion they didn't rip off of someone else, well, you see what happens.


Another nice little tidbit (I find one every time I start reading, or so it seems):


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Ten

No true Mason scoffs at honest convictions and an ardent zeal in the cause of what one believes to be truth and justice. But he does absolutely deny the right of any man to assume the prerogative of Deity, and condemn another's faith and opinions as deserving to be punished because heretical. Nor does he approve the course of those who endanger the peace and quiet of great nations, and the best interest of their own race by indulging in a chimerical and visionary philanthropy--a luxury which chiefly consists in drawing their robes around them to avoid contact with their fellows, and proclaiming themselves holier than they.

For he knows that such follies are often more calamitous than the ambition of kings; and that intolerance and bigotry have been infinitely greater curses to mankind than ignorance and error. Better any error than persecution! Better any opinion than the thumb-screw, the rack, and the stake! And he knows also how unspeakably absurd it is, for a creature to whom himself and everything around him are mysteries, to torture and slay others, because they cannot think as he does in regard to the profoundest of those mysteries, to understand which is utterly beyond the comprehension of either the persecutor or the persecuted.


(emphasis mine)

Sounds like some people I know...


[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Great thread.

I am not surprised that the anti-Masons have failed to jump into this thread... M&D is a very tough book to read, and I doubt that most of the hardcore conspiracy nuts really have it in them to read more than a few (mis)quotes from websites.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JustMe74
Great thread.

I am not surprised that the anti-Masons have failed to jump into this thread... M&D is a very tough book to read, and I doubt that most of the hardcore conspiracy nuts really have it in them to read more than a few (mis)quotes from websites.


Thanks man, I appreciate it.

Yeah, I think you're right. No one interested in detracting from Masonry would bother to read it, because, of course, it would completely turn their idea of Masonry around if they paid any attention.

Some people come along and ask "What is a Mason?"

Here ya go:


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Ten

Mankind outgrows the sacrifices and the mythologies of the childhood of the world. Yet it is easy for human indolence to linger near these helps, and refuse to pass further on. So the unadventurous Nomad in the Tartarian wild keeps his flock in the same close-cropped circle where they first learned to browse, while the progressive man roves ever forth "to fresh fields and pastures new."

The latter is the true Mason; and the best and indeed the only good Mason is he who with the power of business does the work of life; the upright mechanic, merchant, or farmer, the man with the power of thought, of justice, or of love, he whose whole life is one great act of performance of Masonic duty. The natural use of the strength of a strong man or the wisdom of a wise one, is to do the work of a strong man or a wise one. The natural work of Masonry is practical life; the use of all the faculties in their proper spheres, and for their natural function. Love of Truth, justice, and generosity as attributes of God, must appear in a life marked by these qualities; that is the only effectual ordinance of Masonry. A profession of one's convictions, joining the Order, assuming the obligations, assisting at the ceremonies, are of the same value in science as in Masonry; the natural form of Masonry is goodness, morality, living a true, just, affectionate, self-faithful life, from the motive of a good man. It is loyal obedience to God's law.

The good Mason does the good thing which comes in his way, and because it comes in his way; from a love of duty, and not merely because a law, enacted by man or God, commands his will to do it. He is true to his mind, his conscience, heart, and soul, and feels small temptation to do to others what he would not wish to receive from them. He will deny himself for the sake of his brother near at hand. His desire attracts in the line of his duty, both being in conjunction. Not in vain does the poor or the op-pressed look up to him. You find such men in all Christian sects, Protestant and Catholic, in all the great religious parties of the civilized world, among Buddhists, Mahometans, and Jews. They are kind fathers, generous citizens, unimpeachable in their business, beautiful in their daily lives. You see their Masonry in their work and in their play. It appears in all the forms of their activity, individual, domestic, social, ecclesiastical, or political. True Masonry within must be morality without. It must become eminent morality, which is philanthropy. The true Mason loves not only his kindred and his country, but all mankind; not only the good, but also the evil, among his brethren. He has more goodness than the channels of his daily life will hold. It runs over the banks, to water and to feed a thousand thirsty plants. Not content with the duty that lies along his track, he goes out to seek it; not only willing, he has a salient longing to do good, to spread his truth, his justice, his generosity, his Masonry over all the world. His daily life is a profession of his Masonry, published in perpetual good-will to men. He can not be a persecutor.


Hardly something to fear or slander.



[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Ten

(snip)

... the natural form of Masonry is goodness, morality, living a true, just, affectionate, self-faithful life, from the motive of a good man. It is loyal obedience to God's law.

The good Mason does the good thing which comes in his way, and because it comes in his way; from a love of duty, and not merely because a law, enacted by man or God, commands his will to do it. He is true to his mind, his conscience, heart, and soul, and feels small temptation to do to others what he would not wish to receive from them.

(snip)

True Masonry within must be morality without.

(snip)

Not content with the duty that lies along his track, he goes out to seek it; not only willing, he has a salient longing to do good...





Begin extreme sarcasm here:

OMG that sounds so Satanic; I just can't stand to hear it anymore! How can you post such blasphemy and filth on a public website???!!

*covers the kiddies' eyes and ears in a dramatic gesture*

Shame on you! And the fact that you actually had the audacity to print such vile musings in order to legitimately back up what you have been saying all along, using a credible source straight from the horse's mouth in a scholarly fashion, and THEN to add insult to injury, you openly offer to debate the text itself while it is presented in its proper context....

*shakes head*

Tsk tsk tsk...simply disgraceful. We'll have none of that "real research"-type stuff here at ATS. I expected more out of a young man like yourself, Axeman. So start slacking! You're making the Anti's look bad!





posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Thanks, Steg.


So while we're joking, I'm still waiting for one of our resident naysayers to chime in...

I have this strange feeling I will be waiting a while, so I'm not going to hold my breath.


As an aside, as I learned with my last in-depth Pike post, some would say, grumbling, that "Pike is not the horse's mouth." And they'd be right.

I don't think that detracts from what I'm trying to get across here, however.

[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Wow, Chapter Ten is goooood...


To all you "Well, The Great Architect of the Universe is heresy; you can't group some heathen god in with my beloved Jesus" people...


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Ten

No man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own private property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical; and assert the right to persecute, if we would; and claim our toleration of it as a merit. The Mason's creed goes further than that. No man, it holds, has any right in any way to interfere with the religious belief of another. It holds that each man is absolutely sovereign as to his own belief, and that belief is a matter absolutely foreign to all who do not entertain the same belief; and that, if there were any right of persecution at all, it would in all cases be a mutual right; because one party has the same right as the other to sit as judge in his own case; and God is she only magistrate that can rightfully decide between them. To that great Judge, Masonry refers the matter; and opening wide its portals, it invites to enter there and live in peace and harmony, the Protestant, the Catholic, the Jew. the Moslem; every man who will lead a truly virtuous and moral life, love his brethren, minister to the sick and distressed, and believe in the ONE, All-Powerful, All-Wise, everywhere-Present GOD, Architect, Creator, and Preserver of all things, by whose universal law of Harmony ever rolls on this universe, the great, vast, infinite circle of successive Death and Life:--to whose INEFFABLE NAME let all true Masons pay profoundest homage! For whose thousand blessings poured upon us, let us feel the sincerest gratitude, now, henceforth, and forever!


Put that on your stake and burn it.


[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Axeman
As an aside, as I learned with my last in-depth Pike post, some would say, grumbling, that "Pike is not the horse's mouth." And they'd be right.

I don't think that detracts from what I'm trying to get across here, however.


I only meant quoting what the man actually said, rather than nonsensical ranting and misconceived generalizations about what Pike did or didn't say regarding Freemasonry. Not that he spoke for any other Mason (and certainly not the entire organization). No, simply that it is pleasant to see that what he actually wrote is here in black and white, so that there is no dispute.

I don't consider Pike "the horse's mouth" about Freemasonry, only about his own opinions which are a reflection of his own experiences with the group... Nothing more.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stegosaur
I don't consider Pike "the horse's mouth" about Freemasonry, only about his own opinions which are a reflection of his own experiences with the group... Nothing more.


Truly indicative of a wise individual.


Cug

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
WOW no wackos!

OK I'll play devil's advocate here for discussions sake. Let me put on my Fundamentalist Christian hat on.

OMG IT BURNS!!!!!! IT BURNS!!!!!!!



Originally posted by The Axeman

To all you "Well, The Great Architect of the Universe is heresy; you can't group some heathen god in with my beloved Jesus" people...



No man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own private property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical; and assert the right to persecute, if we would; and claim our toleration of it as a merit.


I believe that is exactly what the Christians don't like. If Masons just tolerated other beliefs I don't think they would mind that much, but the rest of this quote seems to say that the Masons "accept" the beliefs of the others and that's where the heresy comes in.

For the record my info comes from memory of an article from the Southern Baptist's convention where they recommend it's members not join Masonry.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cug
WOW no wackos!


I know, right?



OK I'll play devil's advocate here for discussions sake. Let me put on my Fundamentalist Christian hat on.

OMG IT BURNS!!!!!! IT BURNS!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHA... That reminds me so much of a friend of mine back home. Funny stuff. He once told our 9th grade teacher that he couldn't go to our classmate's going away party because it was at a church, and walking into a church burned his feet. OMG you should've seen the teacher's face. Priceless.



I believe that is exactly what the Christians don't like. If Masons just tolerated other beliefs I don't think they would mind that much, but the rest of this quote seems to say that the Masons "accept" the beliefs of the others and that's where the heresy comes in.

For the record my info comes from memory of an article from the Southern Baptist's convention where they recommend it's members not join Masonry.


Well, see that's just it; the way I understand it, they don't "accept" it, insamuch as they believe it is true themselves, they simply recognize and respect every man's right to make up his own mind, and not be persecuted or told, "You're wrong and you religion is bad, mmmmmmmmmkay?"

Like the man says: "...No man, it holds, has any right in any way to interfere with the religious belief of another... God is she only magistrate that can rightfully decide between them. To that great Judge, Masonry refers the matter..."

So while you might not believe the same thing I do, does that make what you believe any less valid? Does it make what I believe any less valid? What you believe is your Truth and vice-versa. That in and of itself makes either valid. Who are you or I or anyone else to say that it's not? It might not be to them but that doesn't change the fact that it is to you. I think this is where Christians, and indeed Muslims and Jews as well, go wrong. There is no mutual respect; everyone wants to be "King of the Hill," and for what? To say "Nyah nyah, you're wrooong!" Rubbish.

Another quote:


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Ten

Man never had the right to usurp the unexercised prerogative of God, and condemn and punish another for his belief. Born in a Protestant land, we are of that faith. If we had opened our eyes to the light under the shadows of St. Peter's at Rome, we should have been devout Catholics; born in the Jewish quarter of Aleppo, we should have contemned Christ as an imposter; in Constantinople, we should have cried "Allah il Allah, God is great and Mahomet is his prophet!" Birth, place, and education give us our faith. Few believe in any religion because they have examined the evidences of its authenticity, and made up a formal judgment, upon weighing the testimony. Not one man in ten thousand knows anything about the proofs of his faith. We believe what we are taught; and those are most fanatical who know least of the evidences on which their creed is based. Facts and testimony are not, except in very rare instances, the ground-work of faith. It is an imperative law of God's Economy, unyielding and inflexible as Himself, that man shall accept without question the belief of those among whom he is born and reared; the faith so made a part of his nature resists all evidence to the contrary; and he will disbelieve even the evidence of his own senses, rather than yield up the religious belief which has grown up in him, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.

What is truth to me is not truth to another. The same arguments and evidences that convince one mind make no impression on another. This difference is in men at their birth. No man is entitled positively to assert that he is right, where other men, equally intelligent and equally well-informed, hold directly the opposite opinion. Each thinks it impossible for the other to be sincere, and each, as to that, is equally in error. "What is truth?" was a profound question, the most suggestive one ever put to man. Many beliefs of former and present times seem incomprehensible. They startle us with a new glimpse into the human soul, that mysterious thing, more mysterious the more we note its workings. Here is a man superior to myself in intellect and learning; and yet he sincerely believes what seems to me too absurd to merit confutation; and I cannot conceive, and sincerely do not believe, that he is both sane and honest. And yet he is both. His reason is as perfect as mine, and he is as honest as I.


I mean, I could go on and on. While I can see how a fundamentalist could condemn such ideas, what gives them the right? This is what urks me about organized religion. Most sects are guilty of this kind of behavior in some degree, and it's just not right.

Can't we all just get along?


[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Heresy is an evolving term. Originally it meant simply to think for ones self. What makes Pike hertical to most Christians is that he promotes the doctrine that all religions have some truth at their foundations. On page 22 he calls masonry " successor to the Mysteries", and it is clear from this early chapter that he believes that truth is to be gained by the step by step intiatory process. This is at odds with both pre reformation christianity, which held that the church was the arbiter of truth, and post reformation christianity, which holds that gods word can read and understood by all. If you reject these beliefs that is fine, but it is folly to think that you can square these philosophies. From a political standpoint, Pike says a lot of nice things about freedom throughout his book, but there also some disturbing passages. Pike claims masonic credit, to some extnet for the French Revolution. On page 24 he writes that masonry "aided in bringing about the French Revolution", and that it "disappeared with the Girondists". He then says that the order, "sustained Napoleon" On page 823 the narritive gets more complex. Pike has just gone through a dissertation about the Templars, and then claims that a lodge, descended from the knights, and including men such as Rousseau,and Duc d' Orleans, was responsible for the excesses of the Revolution. If Pike is simply lying then that is not certainly not to his credit; if there is any truth to his claim then the history, and destiny of millions were decided based upon the rivalries of secret societies. This would be more than enough to label the masons as being a suspect group.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   


The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired.

The Apocalypse, indeed, is a book as obscure as the Sohar.

It is written hieroglyphically with numbers and images; and the Apostle often appeals to the intelligence of the Initiated. "Let him who hath knowledge, understand! let him who understands, calculate!" he often says, after an allegory or the mention of a number. Saint John, the favorite Apostle, and the Depositary of all the Secrets of the Saviour, therefore did not write to be understood by the multitude.

The Sephar Yezirah, the Sohar, and the Apocalypse are the completest embodiments of Occultism. They contain more meanings than words; their expressions are figurative as poetry and exact as numbers. The Apocalypse sums up, completes, and surpasses all the Science of Abraham and of Solomon. The visions of Ezekiel, by the river Chebar, and of the new Symbolic Temple, are equally mysterious expressions, veiled by figures of the enigmatic dogmas of the Kabalah, and their symbols are as little understood by the Commentators, as those of Free Masonry.



I disagree with his assertions that chrisitianity and the prophets were anothe r form of gnosis or occult or mystic science or whatever. I also disagree that revelations (to reveal) was meant to be misunderstood. but the main reason i feel that masonry and xtainity are non compatible are the first reason. I must agree that the context of page 321 did get twisted by conspiracy theorists. i also have no problems tolerating other relgions, but I wouldnt hold their teachings equal to mine.

isiah 44:8 ...... Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Well, it is expressed, that he belives everyone is worshiping the same god. Muslims belive in Abraham, and Moses.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by consprtrkr
Heresy is an evolving term. Originally it meant simply to think for ones self. What makes Pike hertical to most Christians is that he promotes the doctrine that all religions have some truth at their foundations. On page 22 he calls masonry " successor to the Mysteries", and it is clear from this early chapter that he believes that truth is to be gained by the step by step intiatory process.


Well, yes, he did say that Masonry is the succesor of the Mysteries; that is to say that the teachings of Freemnasonry are conveyed in the same way. See, this is where you go wrong. You say, "Oh he said such-and-such," but then don't post what he said to back up the point you make. I even posted a link so you could do just that. I hope that for once, the participants in this thread will make an attempt to back up what they say. In other words, his words are right there for you to quote from, don't put words into his mouth.


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Two

...the popular religion could not satisfy the deeper longings and thoughts, the loftier aspirations of the Spirit, or the logic of reason. The first, therefore, was taught to the initiated in the Mysteries. There, also, it was taught by symbols. The vagueness of symbolism, capable of many interpretations, reached what the palpable and conventional creed could not. Its indefiniteness acknowledged the abstruseness of the subject: it treated that mysterious subject mystically: it endeavored to illustrate what it could not explain; to excite an appropriate feeling, if it could not develop an adequate idea; and to make the image a mere subordinate conveyance for the conception, which itself never became obvious or familiar.
Thus the knowledge now imparted by books and letters, was of old conveyed by symbols; and the priests invented or perpetuated a display of rites and exhibitions, which were not only more attractive to the eye than words, but often more suggestive and more pregnant with meaning to the mind.
Masonry, successor of the Mysteries, still follows the ancient manner of teaching. Her ceremonies are like the ancient mystic shows,--not the reading of an essay, but the opening of a problem, requiring research, and constituting philosophy the arch-expounder. Her symbols are the instruction she gives. The lectures are endeavors, often partial and one-sided, to interpret these symbols. He who would become an accomplished Mason must not be content merely to hear, or even to understand, the lectures; he must, aided by them, and they having, as it were, marked out the way for him, study, interpret, and develop these symbols for himself.

* * * * * *

Though Masonry is identical with the ancient Mysteries, it is so only in this qualified sense: that it presents but an imperfect image of their brilliancy, the ruins only of their grandeur, and a system that has experienced progressive alterations, the fruits of social events, political circumstances, and the ambitious imbecility of its improvers. After leaving Egypt, the Mysteries were modified by the habits of the different nations among whom they were introduced, and especially by the religious systems of the countries into which they were transplanted. To maintain the established government, laws, and religion, was the obligation of the Initiate everywhere; and everywhere they were the heritage of the priests, who were nowhere willing to make the common people co-proprietors with themselves of philosophical truth.


So you see, when you look at it in the light in which it was intended to be seen, you can plainly see that he is saying that Freemasonry is "successor of the Mysteries" in that the manner of teaching is the same. Symbols, which can have more than one (or more than a few) meanings, can be interpreted differently, by different people who know different Truths.



This is at odds with both pre reformation christianity, which held that the church was the arbiter of truth, and post reformation christianity, which holds that gods word can read and understood by all. If you reject these beliefs that is fine, but it is folly to think that you can square these philosophies.


No, I don't necessarily disagree with the belief that the Bible can be read and understood by all, but if everyone did, preachers would be out of a job. That's what they do; they take the Bible, and interpret it and then relay their interpretation on to the masses. The only difference is, that the Mysteries, and now Freemasonry, teaches its lessons by symbols and allegories.

BTW, didn't Jesus Himself teach in parables? "Don't cast your pearls before swine?"


From a political standpoint, Pike says a lot of nice things about freedom throughout his book, but there also some disturbing passages. Pike claims masonic credit, to some extnet for the French Revolution. On page 24 he writes that masonry "aided in bringing about the French Revolution", and that it "disappeared with the Girondists". He then says that the order, "sustained Napoleon"


This is exactly what I'm talking about. Deliberate omission to try to justify your point. You are saying that Masonry's support of Napoleon is cause for concern, but what if we read the rest of that very sentance?


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Two

It {Masonry} aided in bringing about the French Revolution, disappeared with the Girondists, was born again with the restoration of order, and sustained Napoleon, because, though Emperor, he acknowledged the right of the people to select its rulers, and was at the head of a nation refusing to receive back its old kings. He pleaded, with sabre, musket, and cannon, the great cause of the People against Royalty, the right of the French people even to make a Corsican General their Emperor, if it pleased them.


(brackets and emphasis mine)

Ohhh, how convinient for you to omit the remainder of that sentance.
What, did you just stop reading at the word "Napoleon"? He deliberately goes on to explain himself, I didn't even have to dig for it, it's right there in black and white.

You're making this too easy.



On page 823 the narritive gets more complex. Pike has just gone through a dissertation about the Templars, and then claims that a lodge, descended from the knights, and including men such as Rousseau,and Duc d' Orleans, was responsible for the excesses of the Revolution. If Pike is simply lying then that is not certainly not to his credit; if there is any truth to his claim then the history, and destiny of millions were decided based upon the rivalries of secret societies. This would be more than enough to label the masons as being a suspect group.


Rivalries of secret societies? Well, I don't know how you got that from what I read, perhaps you can help me out...


Albert Pike - Morals and Dogma, Chapter Thirty

Cagliostro was the Agent of the Templars, and therefore wrote to the Free-Masons of London that the time had come to begin the work of re-building the Temple of the Eternal. He had introduced into Masonry a new Rite called the Egyptian, and endeavored to resuscitate the mysterious worship of Isis. The three letters L.'. P.'. D.'. on his seal, were the initials of the words "Lilia pedibus destrue;" tread under foot the Lilies [of France], and a Masonic medal of the sixteenth or seventeenth century has upon it a sword cutting off the stalk of a lily, and the words "talem dabit ultio messem," such harvest revenge will give.
A Lodge inaugurated under the auspices of Rousseau, the fanatic of Geneva, became the centre of the revolutionary movement in France, and a Prince of the blood-royal went thither to swear the destruction of the successors of Philippe le Bel on the tomb of Jacques de Molai. The registers of the Order of Templars attest that the Regent, the Duc d’Orleans, was Grand Master of that formidable Secret Society, and that his successors were the Duc de Maine, the Prince of Bourbon-Condé, and the Duc de Cossé-Brissac.
The Templars compromitted the King; they saved him from the rage of the People, to exasperate that rage and bring on the catastrophe prepared for centuries; it was a scaffold that the vengeance of the Templars demanded. The secret movers of the French Revolution had sworn to overturn the Throne and the Altar upon the Tomb of Jacques de Molai. When Louis XVI. was executed, half the work was done; and thenceforward the Army of the Temple was to direct all its efforts against the Pope.
Jacques de Molai and his companions were perhaps martyrs, but their avengers dishonored their memory. Royalty was regenerated on the scaffold of Louis XVI., the Church triumphed in the captivity of Pius VI., carried a prisoner to Valence, and dying of fatigue and sorrow, but the successors of the Ancient Knights of the Temple perished, overwhelmed in their fatal victory.


Now, there it is, in plain English. Care to expand on your point? Looks to me like they were working together, if anything.

Ultimately, I don't think they got the result they were looking for, but hey, vengeance often begets misery and turmoil.

[edit on 8/8/05 by The Axeman]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Axeman: 1. Do you actually support Pike's contention that support of Napoleon could be justified? Does any dissertation on motives wipe away the fact that Napoleon intiated the slaughter of millions? 2. Pike claims that masonry "disappeared with the Girondists" maybe you don't know enough about the period in question to put the passages on pages 24, and 823 together. The girondists were the moderate republican faction, and were swept away by their rivals, the radical Jacobins. It was under the Jacobins that most of the bloodshed of the revolution ensued. Pike is cleary indicating a rivalry between mainstream Masonry, which supported moderate republicanism, and a lodge, who's origins lie in the Templar movement, which supported the Jacobins, and the policy of revenge and bloodshed. Irregardless,the point remains the same: If Pike wants to brag about the role of the Masonic order in history, the order must also accept some of the blame when things turn out badly.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join