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.

 

Albert Pike: A Man Misunderstood

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Huabamambo
Morals and Dogma

How many of you masons have actually read his book?


I have read it, and more than once. Have you?



Usually but not always this book is given to those who are promoted to the 32nd or 33rd degrees. I suppose it depends on the lodge and whether or not the Mason is ready for such knowledge of the Occult.


The book "Morals and Dogma" was given to all new members of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction USA, until the late 1960's. At that time, it was replaced by "Clausen's Commentaries On Morals and Dogma" by Henry Clausen. Clausen's book was then itself replaced in the mid-1980's by Dr. Rex Hutchens' "A Bridge To Light". Today, Hutchens' book is the one still given to new members of the Rite in the Jurisdiction.

"Morals and Dogma" is no longer in print by the Supreme Council, but they sell used copies when available. The entire book can also be read online here


It's hard but not impossible to find one. If you are a true advocate for truth this quest will definately seperate the men from the boys.


Although "Morals and Dogma" is no longer printed by the Supreme Council, softcover reprints can be ordered from Barnes and Noble here. This "quest" took me 20 seconds to complete.


* * * Letter written from Pike to fellow 33rd Mason Grand Master Guiseppie Mazzini. 15 August 1871

The original letter can be found in the Archives in London England. You can contact the British Museum Archives and request for a copy of the original.


Yes, you certainly can. The British Museum continues to deny the existence of such a letter. Most of the websites who continue to promote this forgery have removed the reference to the British Museum because of it.


My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator by Leon Trotsky


Mr. Trotsky's book, which I read in college, is actually very interesting. Trotsky was not a Mason, although he mentions Masonry once in it, by saying he became interested in it while studying the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, Trotsky's political organization, the Communist Party, overthrew the democracy in Russia established by a gentleman who was a Mason (Kerensky). Also unfortunately, Trotsky's government soon outlawed Freemasonry.


Manly P. Hall - 33rd


Mr. Hall was not a Mason when he wrote his books on Freemasonry. Nevertheless, although not always complete accurate, many of his insights are interesting. Hall's book "The Lost Keys of Freemasonry" can be read in its entirety here.




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by piboy


If it is falsifiable but yet you fail to falsify it, then you have to accept the claim as being true.



Claim: The universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be Her Holy Hooves!).

According to you, if this claim cannot be falsified (which it can't be), then we must accept it as being true.

Obviously, this is sophistry, not logic.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Ngydan. I've actually travelled to London a year ago and went to the archives myself. I talked with the workers there and that letter is a factual real historical document. They said it was an authentic document and not fake in anyway. Otherwise it wouldn't be there. And there are plenty more where that came from. Letters from and to other people in London High Society throughout the years that indicate these things are real.

Hey Masons. we see what your trying to do here Ok. Even Masons I've talked in person have admitted that the Masonic Organizations are doing damage control and active disinformation campaigns. The Illuminists at the top are deeply scared that they can no longer control the flow of information and they are even more scared that they know their day is coming to an end.

All the masons here are lying. They know that Albert Pike was an Occultist and Illuminist. Yet they deny the existence of both. These masons on this forum are small fish though. They have been misled. Or maybe they just don't know the truth at all. Masonry is quite the brainwashing cult. I hope you masons show up one sunday wearing nike running shoes and punch is being served.

The Occult world is real. Black Magic is nothing to take for granted. It's real and it's dangerous.

Secret Societies are a pandora's box and Masonry is just the little fish. Masons think they know whats going on when they don't. You don't find out until you become an Illuminist. If you are chosen to be one that is.

Deny deny deny. Thats the level these people have to resort to to keep the truth hidden. But now the Truth is out in the open so now they have to throw up smoke screens for confusion.

We see through you people. Don't think for a second that you can continue to fool the masses forever. You know just as much as I do that the richest people in North America and the World are going to fall.

They have lifted their empire so high that the only place for it to fall is in a bottomless pit.



[edit on 22-12-2005 by Huabamambo]

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Huabamambo]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Huabamambo
All the masons here are lying.


Nice. Really adult of you.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Huabamambo
Ngydan. I've actually travelled to London a year ago and went to the archives myself. I talked with the workers there and that letter is a factual real historical document. They said it was an authentic document and not fake in anyway. Otherwise it wouldn't be there. And there are plenty more where that came from. Letters from and to other people in London High Society throughout the years that indicate these things are real.


Sorry, chief, no dice. The British Museum has confirmed the documents in question do not exist, and are a hoax. Your story of seeing them in person is not true.


I hope you masons show up one sunday wearing nike running shoes and punch is being served.


And Merry Christmas to you too, my good man.



All the masons here are lying.


I think you're just upset that I mastered your "quest that separates the men from the boys" in less time than it takes for most folks to sneeze.







[edit on 22-12-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Huabamambo
All the masons here are lying. They know that Albert Pike was an Occultist and Illuminist. Yet they deny the existence of both. These masons on this forum are small fish though. They have been misled. Or maybe they just don't know the truth at all..


Well, that's a big contradiction. Anyways, refrain from calling members liars. I won't repeat this verbal warning.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
From the "Three World Wars" website, who themselves perpetuate the Pike/Lucifer hoax:


It is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. The British Library has confirmed in writing to me that such a document has never been in their possession. Furthermore, in Carr's book, Satan, Prince of this World, Carr includes the following footnote:

"The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez's knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925".

It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled.

To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written.


www.threeworldwars.com...

Hubbabubba claims to have seen this in the british Museum with his own eyes. So I ask: who is the one not telling the truth around here?





[edit on 22-12-2005 by Masonic Light]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by piboy


If it is falsifiable but yet you fail to falsify it, then you have to accept the claim as being true.



Claim: The universe was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn (blessed be Her Holy Hooves!).

According to you, if this claim cannot be falsified (which it can't be), then we must accept it as being true.

Obviously, this is sophistry, not logic.


This is NOT falsifiable! There is no way to get evidence for this one way or the other! Hello!?

But let's pretend:
Attempt at falsification: There is no record of an Invisible Pink Unicorn. There is no account of the Unicorn. There is no physical evidence of the Unicorn. The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist.

Ok. So now I've issued the claim that the Unicorn does not exist. If you cannot falsify it, you must accept it as true, which would then falsify your original claim.

This is not that hard.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by piboy]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by piboy

Attempt at falsification: There is no record of an Invisible Pink Unicorn. There is no account of the Unicorn. There is no physical evidence of the Unicorn. The Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist.

Ok. So now I've issued the claim that the Unicorn does not exist. If you cannot falsify it, you must accept it as true, which would then falsify your original claim.

This is not that hard.



Of course I can falsify your claim. You say:

1. "There is no record of an Invisible Pink Unicorn. "

I say look here

2. "There is no account of the Unicorn."

See above.

3. "There is no physical evidence of the Unicorn."

There is no physical evidence because She wants us to believe solely on faith. (This is a counter-claim, of which you must falsify in order to be shown incorrect).

Now, all fun and joking around aside, your logic is fallacious. Just because something cannot be falsified does not mean that it is true. This claim is sophistrical.

To demonstrate your logic:

Claim: My great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather (500 times removed) was from another planet.

I cannot falsify the claim.

Therefore, it must be true.

This simply does not stand up to syllogistic logic.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Now, all fun and joking around aside, your logic is fallacious. Just because something cannot be falsified does not mean that it is true. This claim is sophistrical.

To demonstrate your logic:

Claim: My great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather (500 times removed) was from another planet.

I cannot falsify the claim.

Therefore, it must be true.

This simply does not stand up to syllogistic logic.



No no no.

If something is NOT falsifiable, there is NO discussion! You cannot PROVE things for which it is impossible to get evidence for!!

You keep on saying "just because something cannot be falsified does not mean that it is true." WRONG! I keep on saying that IF something is FALSIFIABLE

ABLE

ABLE


NOT FALSIFIED! I said FALSIFIABLE

... AND... you fail to falsify, you must accept it as true.

All your example have NOT been falsifiable, so no one can prove it true or false. NO DISCUSSION.

Do you get it?



[edit on 22-12-2005 by piboy]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
read this:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Great thread.
Just interested to know what book the masons here would suggest i read first, being a non mason but very interested in the subject.
Would i be best with Pikes m+d or Dr. Rex Hutchens' "A Bridge To Light".
Please help.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by holedigger0812
Great thread.
Just interested to know what book the masons here would suggest i read first, being a non mason but very interested in the subject.
Would i be best with Pikes m+d or Dr. Rex Hutchens' "A Bridge To Light".
Please help.


I would suggest starting out with Henry Coil's "A Comprehensive View of Freemasonry" and Joseph Fort Newton's "The Builders" and "The Men's House". These cover the basics of history, philosophy, and symbolism.

Hutchens' book is a great introduction to both the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, and Pike's "Morals and Dogma". Those two books concentrate specifically on the Scottish Rite, SJ, USA, although the Pike book sort of jumps around all over the place, covering everything from comparative religion and political science to the proper method of cleaning a corncob pipe.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by piboy


No no no.

If something is NOT falsifiable, there is NO discussion! You cannot PROVE things for which it is impossible to get evidence for!!

You keep on saying "just because something cannot be falsified does not mean that it is true." WRONG! I keep on saying that IF something is FALSIFIABLE

ABLE

ABLE


NOT FALSIFIED!


Calm down, dude, you're gonna have a stroke.

The point in all this is your question of falsifying the claim "Albert Pike was not a Luciferian". I don't know exactly what you want. Pike's been dead a long time, and cannot defend himself here. All we have left of him are his writings, and the written testimonies of his friends and family. So...what more do you want?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by piboy
If it is falsifiable but yet you fail to falsify it, then you have to accept the claim as being true.

There is a problem here though. This way there is no way to deal with counter claims.


Claim: you are not Polish.

Attempt to falsify: I can't find any evidence that says you are Polish, therefore I accept the claim that you are not Polish.

Counter-Claim: You are polish.
I can't find any evidence that falsifies that statement, therefore, I must accept that you are polish.


Would you say that because I cannot give evidence that the defendant DID know the murder victim that we should still go ahead and believe that he DID know the victim?

Rather than phrase it in a convoluted way, simply look at the evidence and see if the defendant did or did not know the victim. There's no reason why priority should be given to the cliam 'did not know' over 'did know'. We need to look at the evidence, then make a statement based on it, and then we can discuss that statement.

In this case, we want to see if Pike is luciferian. So what evidence shows that he is? Looking at the evidence without having a claim before hand, I'd speculate that Pike is some sort of christian. I recently obtained a copy of Morals and Dogma, and I must say, from what I've read so far (beyond the discussions on the internet about the text and quotes from it), this guy is anything but a luciferian, and he is anything but a hedonistic sort of fellow. Reading the book, I'd say that he's a pious christer who maintains respect for some of the fundamental aspects of "God's Creation".




ML
an Invisible Pink Unicorn

All Hail her irridescent yet invisible magesty, and resound at the joyous claping of her hooves!


Although, to clear up some things, the IPU (pbuh) is un-falsifiable, like any other deity. It can't be falsified, not because it hasn't been, but because the nature is of the claim is such that its not subject to evidence. Pike's religion is a little more tricky. None of us can know what his religion actually was, religion is a private matter, and a person can claim to be anything and its really meaningless to the rest of us.
However, on the other hand, we should be able to say, at least, if his writtings were luciferian or not. We don't need to worry about whether this is formed in some negative and falsifiable way.


Huabamambo
I talked with the workers there and that letter is a factual real historical document. They said it was an authentic document and not fake in anyway. Otherwise it wouldn't be there.

Thats not true. The archive certainly contains things that are not true. The archive having something is not an atestment to its veracity or authenticity.
And, again, its immpossible for pike to have written to manzini about nazis when nazis didn't exist until nearly a hundred years after pike was born and long long after they both had rotted in their graves.

All the masons here are lying.

Its a rather poor showing to make a claim that is clearly incorrect (ie, pike wrote to manzini about conquering the world), and then, when challenged, degenerate into ad hominin insults and allege a paranoid conspiracy against you. Why not, rather, actually address the claims?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
hi holedigger0812

How about Freemasonry for Dummies? I haven't read it but it looks good.

Your avatar suggests that you might be British. If that is the case you might be also be interested in The Freemason at Work

Also, if you can find a copy of Introducing Freemasonry by M. De Pace it gives an excellent grounding.

And then theres the comprehensive Freemason's Guide and Compendium by Bernard E. Jones.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
If you're British and want to research the Scottish Rite (or "Ancient and Accepted Rite", as they call it over there across the pond), I would suggest "Rose Croix" by Bro. A.C.F. Jackson, rather than the books by Pike and Hutchens, to begin with, as Jackson's book concerns the Rite in the UK, while Pike and Hutchens concern the Southern Jurisdiction, USA.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
The Scottish Rite itself is largely universal - has been since 1786.
There are minor differences between workings but they all come from the same origin.
Anyway - have a quick look at it's history here:
www.freemasonry101.org.uk...

I'd actually recommend Charles T McClenechan's "Book" to accompany "Morals and Dogma" - they both correlate.

[Date Correction]

[edit on 23-12-2005 by MrNECROS]
[edited to remove irrelevant snipe -nygdan]

[edit on 23-12-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNECROS
The Scottish Rite itself is largely universal - has been since 1786.


Necros, who is not a Mason, has been making bizarre claims about the Scottish Rite here for a long time. For example, even the above the brief statement is out of order. The Scottish Rite did not even exist in 1786.


There are minor differences between workings but they all come from the same origin.


There are in reality major differences in working. For example, you could peruse the book by McLenachan recommended by Necros, and compare it to Hutchens' "A Bridge To Light". While there are some similarities, the differences are overwhelming, and show how the degrees of the Rite have evolved separately in different locations.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I don't know exactly what you want. Pike's been dead a long time, and cannot defend himself here. All we have left of him are his writings, and the written testimonies of his friends and family. So...what more do you want?


I am calmer today.

What I wanted is to figure out, in theory, what would prove false the claim that Pike was not a Luciferian.

Once we could agree on that, then we could set out to try to falsify it. And if we failed to falsify, it reasonable people like us would have to accept that he was not a Luciferian.




top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join