Albert Pike: A Man Misunderstood, page 1

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]