Freemasonry: a mason's perspective.

LoL when did I say everyone attacking masonry was a christian? When did I say YOU were a christian?

I said some of those christian//catholic anti-masonry sites are retarded, and one of their most retarded claims, is the "Phallus" worship.

Oh my god, we built a skyscraper, we must woship the penis?

Oh my god, we have fence posts....WE MUST WORSHIP THE PENIS?

God, give everyone a break, you can name off all the sources you want, it won't prove a damn thing about phallus worship nor satanism. The only thing out there written by any masons is only their opinions on what it means (since there is a great deal of self-interpretation) and if permitted to, they are allowed to publish about the rituals and such.

I'll look into your sources and see what they have to offer...but back to the subject that sort of started this part of this thread, Phallus worship claim is the most ignorant of all the anti-mason ones, there is absolutely no basis for it.

At least the satanist claimers can simply be idiots who don't know how to read a sentence after the next (Reffering to Albert Pike)

Sincerely,
no signature

Not often I pop into the FreeMasonry Forum nowadays, but if there is anyone left except freemason redaing this, the Morgan case is a jolly good read, fellow-posters.
176 years ago and nothing clear -regardless of what's been said here - but interesting to reflect that a year or so later the first Third-Party in US politics was founded and it was the Anti-masonic Party! They actually won Vermont!
American anti-masonism up to Jackson's election is a fascinating topic.

And as for Albert Pike -mentioned earlier! Another fascinating man and worth reading about: conspiracies, Civil war, Ku Klux Klan... -don't read him: Morals and Dogma is the size of a wardrobe! Half-charlatan half-larger than life sage.
He "created" nothing: he revised and standardised the much older rituals of the Scottish Rite -adding nothing but subtracting a fair amount.
That our poster associates him with the York Rite - a bit like making Sherman a prominent Confederate General suggests that we have at least two hoaxers here.

If you read closely, you will see that I said that I have the IMPRESSION that you claim I'm biased due to Christian belief. It can even be interpretted as you being biased against any and all research done by Christians on Freemasonry (including Baigent and Leigh, I might add). As far as Phallic worship, well, do the research. Look at the symbols used in Freemasonry and the symbols used in Phallic worship, or the worship of the Sun and generative powers of other religions. You have to be a complete ignoramus not to see the obvious connection, especially when it is spelled out for you by Masonic authors, WRITING SPECIFICALLY FOR MASONIC ARCHIVES! Your analogy of fence posts, laughable. A fence post is hardly considered a purely ornamental structure, its purpose is clear, it has no esoteric meaning. I find it interesting that you can dismiss hundreds of years of factful research, done by members of your own secret playhouse club, who, I will add, ironically shared the same 'opinions' though separated by decades and centuries, as well as advancements in archaeology, anthropology and philology, with a simple 'That's B.S. put out there by whacko's.' Once again. Excellent scholarly work! You really are worthy! You should be proud of yourself!
P.S. Show me your resources, otherwise, you run the risk of discrediting the standards of 'the He-man Woman Haters Club' ok there Alf Alfa?

That our poster associates him with the York Rite - a bit like making Sherman a prominent Confederate General suggests that we have at least two hoaxers here.

I can't tell, are you implying I said that Albert Pike is in the York Rite????

Anyways...not worth worrying about, where'd you get your information on albert pike? And have you even bother to read Morals and Dogma?

As for your post Ma-ha-Bone...my claim about fence posts being phallus worship is a valid claim in the eyes of some anti-masons. Whom claim that the use of lighthouses is phallus worship.

Your problem, is you read what someone else interpreted. You don't sit down and think for yourself what it could mean. No one I know thinks of any of the symbology in masonry as Phallus worship, there fore it is NOT phallus worship.

That is the same thing as claiming Christians to be pagan because they incorporated pagan rituals into their beliefs...they may have kept the rituals, but they changed the meaning THATS WHAT COUNTS.

Now I know I saw a site somewhere that critiqued masonic writers, I wish I could find it and give it to you. A lot of Masonic writers have been either misinturpreted (which is the only reason I brought up Albert Pike, I said nothing of his contributions) or had purposes or interpretations of their own they chose to write about.

And Ma-ha-Bone why is it you insist that because the books written by masons are in masonic libraries, that they surely must be the "truth" of what the symbologies and meanings of masonry is?

Remember, No One speaks for masonry, just because an author decided to write something, does not mean his interpretations or understandings, represents the actual meanings.

There are Southern Baptists Masons who believe that Hiram Abiff denies them the ability to heaven because they are not following Jesus, and so they have left. But that's not to say that THEIR way of interpreting Hiram Abiff is the ACTUAL meaning of Hiram Abiff.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 24-11-2002 by FreeMason]

Oh and I'm not biased against all Christians who critique Freemasonry, such as Baigent and Leigh.

I'm assuming you mean Michael and Richard. I quite enjoyed their well done book "The Temple and the Lodge". And I would look forward to read their other books.

I actually think they've done an EXCELLENT job with their Temple and Lodge book, have you ever read it?

Well anyways back to the point, I've never thought of "all" christians as being nuts when it comes to masonry, it's just there are a lot of nutty christian anti-masons.

Sincerely,
no signature

I am merely pointing out that another poster cast aspersions on your integrity and then posted a clear "red herring" about York, as opposed to Scottish, rite and you did not pounce upon this.

.... although it seems inappropriate, F-M to burden one as healthily opposed to facts, dates, evidence, references or logical coherence, as you appear to be, with any call for explanation, where are we now on �Hiram Abiff�, exactly?
If we avoid the nonsense on Planet Loony about this notable fellow being a �lost� (i.e. to all historical records) Pharaoh: one would see the connection with the O.T. � there is a Hiram, king of Tyre, friend of David and Solomon, who supplies the materials for the Temple and another Hiram �a master-brass-worker �and a Jew not a Phoenician.
Easily confused, I suppose, for the easily confused among us.

All there in 1 Kings 7-9

�And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre He [was] a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father [was] a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece: and a line of twelve cubits did compass either of them about.�

Apparently transformed in Masonic ritual and pseudo-history from metal-worker to Grand Architect.

The �Third Degree� (while not as severe as its namesake in detective stories) enacts some sort of �allegorisation� of a rather ham-fisted travesty of the Resurrection of dear Hiram as the aspirant is blindfolded and generally manhandled before being �allegorically� raised again - JB�s advice about trousers is certainly apposite.

So: is this ritual "allegorical" -if so, what is being "allegorised" or symbolised?
Is it "literal" -if so, what is "literally" taking place?

Is there something between "literal" and "symbolic", unknown to the the rest of us, that will explain the ritual?

You first claim a feeling of pride in being included within the ranks of such an old club, then deny the traditional meanings of the symbols of the club. Odd. I would think that the continuity of meaning, with regards to ritual and semiology are the means through which any organization maintains its integral fortitude. Well, I guess I'm wrong. Freemasonry is just a bunch of guys who get together, make up the rituals as they feel like, ascribe their own meanings to them, call a circle a square, a pentagram a star, a dress a robe, get drunk, occasionally decide to re-decorate the lodge, depending on the democratic vote as to which colour to paint it, which tile pattern, grout colour, curtains or blinds, what have you, shift ranks whenever one feels like it, I feel like being Knight Kadosch tonight, you can be Fellowcraft, OK?
PLEASE!!! Get real. There is definite structure, order, ritual, decoration, decorum, allegory and symbols. There is definite meanings to all of them. It IS NOT a conglomeration of opinions. If you think that it is you're only kidding yourself and ignoring the obvious. You claim to have read Pike. Well, read it again.

No if you knew anything you'd know there are three meanings of the symbols, the ones that are written about are the INDIVIDUAL'S feelings about those symbols.

And I deny that these symbols have ANYTHING to do with Phallus worship, and yet in every one of your posts you persist in perpetuating that ignorant myth. What are you, from alt.freemasonry?

Since when have I been changing degrees also? HUH? I also would like to see ALL your quotes from albert pike? Ok? Or can you not do that?

As for hiram abiff, yes byrd's evidence is convincing

Back to you Ma-ha-bone you did not explain how come you feel that tubalcain is phallus worship...that is what you feel isn't it?

Do you know what tubalcain is in freemasonry?

I guess you are malicious intent because you obviously didn't point out my important keys to "different interpretations" a couple posts back.

Also you sit there, with a bunch of books, and tell me what the symbols mean. Or perhaps you are a Freemason? It's alright, if you are you can prove it to me and you know it, but if you aren't, neither of us can prove it to eachother, because of course we are online. However, your claims of my NOT being a freemason are totally unfounded. You try to seek an "inconsistancy" in my thought, but I've been restrictive in what I've said, and I already feel the reason why we aren't supposed to debate this with "ignorant cowans". You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about.

It is as if you picked up a science book, you know what you have read but not what you learn from the experiments.

I demand you to present Albert Pike's "quotes" of phallus worship or luciferianism or whatever. Or can you not present any? Do you even understand the meaning of your name? Do you think I don't know you are someone else in this forum, Ma-ha-bone is not your normal screename? Now is it?

Perhaps you should do the experiments, before shouting out formulas from the science book....

Oh and...estragon, as much as I don't like to admitt it which is why I just ignored it in the end, is Byrd is correct. But hey, we really don't know what happend way back then

Hmm and as for the ressurection, I've never interpreted it that way either. I guess some do, like those Born Again Christians did, but taken more literally, they simply reburied Hiram Abiff in a more dignified location.

Originally posted by Ma-Ha-Bone
As far as Pike goes. I can give you all of the quotes from him and his successor Gallatin Mackey that simply state that it is Luciferian RELIGION.

God the more times I read your posts, the more cluless you seem to be. But it's not you, it's your ability to understand what you are reading.

Again I say...PROVE IT! Give the WHOLE WORLD THE QUOTE In Morals and Dogma, by Albert Pike, where he states that Freemasonry is "luciferian" in the sense of Satanism. But then, I guess you can't, or I bet you'll just have to go off what someone else has written, because of course, you've never read Morals and Dogma. Telling me to read it again, pah!

Sincerely,
no signature

Pg 321 Morals and Dogma "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...? Doubt it not!"
In the first three degrees of Freemasonry, the subject is asked 'What do you most desire?' The answers to which are 1) Light 2) More Light in Masonry, or More Light 3) Further Light in Masonry, or More Light. Previousely, on pg. 287, Pike establishes, conjoined with statements on pg 660, "You see, my brother, what is the meaning of Masonic Light. You see why the East of the Lodge is the place of Light. Light, as contradistinguished from darkness, is Good, as contradistinguished from Evil: and it is that Light, the true knowledge of Deity, the Eternal Good, for which Masons in all ages have sought. Still Masonry marches steadily onward toward that light that shines in the great distance, the Light of that day when Evil, overcome and vanquished, shall fade away and disappear forever, and the life and Light be the one law of the Universe, and its eternal harmony." pg660 "...thus the words 'Light' and 'Good' became synonymous..." Way back on pg 32 he states "Masonry is a march and a struggle toward the Light." Cripes, I could go on, but, its getting late. Unless he was referring to a different Lucifer than the one he says he was referring to, I think we get the picture. As far as my name goes, yes, I know what it means, and yes, it is great. As far as me being a member that simply added this personage to challenge you. Nope, I used to post awhile back, before you came on the board. I got too busy with writing and research, looking for a better publishing deal...blah...blah...blah...yawn.

You fell into my trap Ma-Ha-Bone, my good man I knew EXACTLY what quote you were going to use. And I know EXACTLY what your error is.

Now keep an open mind, I'll refer it based on your statement towards the end of your post, (paraphrased)"Unless he meant some other lucifer?"

Oh he did my good man, OH HE DID!

He was refering to Lucifer, the morning star aka Light Barer or bringer aka VENUS!!!!! Hmm you did read the rest of that quote right?

If you had you'd have seen its context is plainly explainational of WHAT Lucifer really means.

Lucifer is not Satan but rather Venus, it ended up in the bibe by King James I do believe, as a way of ridding paganism.

The reason why Lucifer "venus" is so important is it does draw out a hexagonal patern in its dance with the pre-dawn sun.

This is where the hexagram became such an important symbol.

So, to your "first" quote on Luciferianism *Satanism* (I do assume you have other quotes?) I say it is completely invalid, though the connection of Light in Masonry to Good is a good connection to make. But to state that the given quote in Morals and Dogma is a sign of Luciferianism is not valid because he is making reference to Lucifer of both types, in an analysis of "WHY IS A LATIN WORD MEANING VENUS IN A BIBLE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE HEBREW?"

Which is a good question to ask

The Lucifer of which he speaks IS Venus, he says "Strange and mysterious name to give to the spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning" BECAUSE He is pointing out the curious FACT that Lucifer is not a proper name for the "Prince of Darkness" aka Satan.

Oh and here's an interesting quote I found, I don't know the page number because I got it off "Morals and Dogma" the online version, lucky us it is the second to last paragraph.

So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters astray. There is no sight under the sun more pitiful and ludicrous at once, than the spectacle of the Prestons and the Webbs, not to mention the later incarnations of Dullness and Commonplace, undertaking to "explain" the old symbols of Masonry, and adding to and "improving" them, or inventing new ones.

www.nazorean.com...&%20Dogma/PIKE3.htm

Sincerely,
no signature

with Lucifer being symbolized by Venus. That, however does not exclude it from being 'Satan'. I quote Morals and Dogma again with regards to the Mysteries, Sun worship (ie Phallic worship) etc.
pg 366 "Our lodges are said to be due East and West, because the Master represents the rising Sun..." back to pg 12 "The three lesser, of the Sublime, Lights...are the Sun, the Moon, and the Master of the Lodge. But the Sun and Moon do in no sense light the Lodge, unless it be symbolically, and then the lights are not they, but those things of which they are symbols." pg 13 " The Sun (capitalized) is the ancient symbol of the life-giving and GENERATIVE POWER of the Deity." pg 15 "...Osiris, himself symbolized by the Sun..." pg 697 "Long known as...Adonai; ...the Rival of Bal and Osiris..." (here he denotes Adonai, the God of the bible as being rival of Osiris, represented by the Sun, a symbol of the Master of the Lodge) and more significantly pg 776 " The Sun is the hieroglyphical sign of Truth, because it is the source of Light;" back to pg 77 "...thousands of years ago, men worshipped the Sun...Originally they looked beyond the orb to the invisible God." and forward to pg 593 " The worship of the Sun became the basis for all of the religions of antiquity." pg 477 "The Sun...his is the All-Seeing Eye in our Lodges." forward to pg 506 "...the Blazing Star has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All-Seeing Eye, which, to the ancients was the Sun." To bring the subject into the realm of religion itself; pg 213 "Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion; and its teachings are instructions in religion." furthermore pg 7 "Every Lodge is a Temple..." pg 352 "Among most of the Ancient Nations, there was, in addition to their public worship, a private one styled the Mysteries; to which those only were admitted who had been prepared by certain ceremonies called initiations." forward to pg 483 "...and our lodges (which as shown are temples) are full of ancient symbols." and forward to pg 624 "...Masonry is identical with the Ancient Mysteries..." compare the above with pg 205 "The ancient symbols and allegories always had more than one interpretation. They always had more than one interpretation."
To take us out of Morals and Dogma and quote some of his other works and that of Manley P. Hall I will lead with a last quote from Morals and Dogma pg 330 (Masonry)"...hatches no PREMATURE revolutions." Manley P. Hall writes on pg 451 of Lectures on Ancient Philosophy in regards to Masonry (It is)"...the most powerful organization in the land." In another of his works (The Lost Keys of Freemasonry) pg 100 "Masonry is an ordainer of Kings. Its hand has shaped the destinies of worlds." In yet another of Halls works (What the Ancient Wisdom Expects of its Disciples) pg 58. "We (the Masons) are the invisible powers behind the thrones of earth, and men are but marionettes, dancing while the invisible ones pull the strings. We see the dancer, but the master mind that does the work remains concealed by the cloak of silence." Back to Morals and Dogma pg 817 "The world will soon come to us for its Sovereigns and Pontiffs. We shall constitute the equilibrium of the Universe, and be rulers over Masters of the World." Last but not least Pike identifies the difference between Lucifer and Satan, and as I have suggested, which Freemason picked up on, the aspect of Gnosticism...pg 102 "...Satan...this is not a Person, but a force, created for good (remember good = Light), but which may serve as evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or Free Will." In other words Satan is the voice of reason, which Pike alludes to being the true freedom for man, which is, The Light, thusly the Light of Reason. GNOSTICISM.
I would prefer not to use the Bible as the sole determiner of what is good and what is evil. That in itself is a completely different issue. Suffice it to say, it seems as though Pike and like authors did, which is unfortunate, as it contains many of the difficulties and fallacies of which you spoke of in your previous post. Lucifer is Latin for Light bringer. In the Aramaic Hebrew, the word used was 'Ahtar' which is Chaldean Ishtar, or Astarte, once more represented by the personification of Venus, Semiramis, the morning star. It is also translated from the Greek words 'fenex', which, in newer transliterations became 'venus', meaning 'shining one' and 'Xiuv' meaning 'force of light' or 'wisdom of light', which, translated into the Latin Vulgate by Jerome, was standardized to 'Lucifer' the Light-Bringer or Bearer. Further more 'fenex' was also the ancient Greek spelling for Phoenix, which was worshipped as the bright and morning star. The morning star was, to the Egyptians, the nocturnal representation of the hidden Sun-God, Osiris, who as we see from Pike, represents the All-Seeing Eye of the Lodges, the Master, the Light. I would like to wrap up by mentioning an excerpt from the end of the 'physical Lecture' for the 28th Degree Knights Adept of the Eagle, or the Sun. "Q: What represents the Sun? A: It is an emblem of Divinity, which we ought to regard as the image of God. This immense body represents the infinity of God's wonderful will, as the only source of Light and good. The heat of the Sun produces the rule of the seasons, recruits nature, takes darkness from the winter, in order that the deliciousness of spring might occur." To continue the General Lecture, 7th question "Q: And do you desire to rise from this darkness? A: My desire is to come to the celestial truth, and to travel by the Light of the Sun." next "Q: What represents that body? A: It is the figure of the only God to whom we ought to pay our adoration. The Sun being the emblem of God, we ought to regard it as the image of the Divinity." next "Q: What does the triangle, with the Sun in the centre represent? A: It represents the immensity of the Supreme." and the Gnostic question, "Q: What signifies the three S.S.S.? A: Sanctitas, Scientia, and Syrentia, which signify the science accompanied with wisdom, and make men holy." more, "Q: What signifies the three candlesticks? A: ---------. Q: Has it any other meaning? A: Yes, the Triple Light that shines among us in order to take men out of darkness and ignorance into which they are plunged, and to bring them to virtue, truth and happiness, a symbol of OUR PERFECTION." further on, "Q: What signifies Lux ex tenebris? A: A man made clear by the Light of reason."
Those were taken from the documents that Albert Pike used to re-configure the rituals of the degrees, so, admittedly, they may have changed, but not to a very great degree (pun intended).
Who fell into who's trap?
[Edited on 24-11-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

[Edited on 24-11-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

[Edited on 25-11-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

[Edited on 26-11-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

Can you show me where in Morals and Dogma Pike states that Lucifer is Venus? If you are going to use, Son of the Morning as his reference to Venus, then you are staying within the guidelines of the Biblical interpretation. Such said, if Lucifer equals Venus, and Venus is the Son of the Morning, or the Morning Star and the Bible equates the Morning Star with being Lucifer, and thusly Lucifer with Satan, and try to support it with the hexagonal reference associated with the Goat of Mendes, which was a form of worship of the generative powers, or phallic worship, what exactly was your point?

No Ma-Ha-Bone you make too much of it. The LATIN translation of Lucifer IS Morning Star, that is that. No bible interpretations nothing. One of the Bishops of the old Church in like 500 or something AD had a last name of Luciferian or something like that. It had nothing to do with "satan" until King James PUT it there, that is what you are trying to reference it to.

Just reread the quote and understand what it is pointing out. It clearly is referring to lucifer "the morning star" then says, ODD name to give to the prince of darkness. He isn't stating that it IS the prince of Darkness, that whole section is just enlightening the reader about what Lucifer really is. And how it ended up in the bible in the first place.

Sincerely,
no signature

Well, ummmmm, good response....and to re-iterate, it was Jerome who translated it to Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate. That should be easy enough for you to look up. It pre-dates the whole Protestant movement by a few centuries.
With regards to the inferrence that I misread the quote and implied that 'odd name...' was the action of naming as opposed to 'odd name...' being an observation. Nope, I read it as an observation.

[Edited on 26-11-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

Odd, well I've only read the part about King James throwing it into his version of the bible, but I can't tell if you are sarcastic or what

I wouldn't have thought you to have given up on that quote so easily but I guess that goes to show you're a thinking man about this and not a "believing" man...it's so much harder to let go of beliefs?

Anyways I'll search out this "Jerome?" because I've not heard of his contributions to getting Lucifer into the bible...

Sincerely,
no signature

Isaiah 14:12
"quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes." 'Latin Vulgate
Translated in the King James:
"How art thou fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
The only difference really is the capitalization of Lucifer in the KJV, but, as you also notice, no capitals at all were used in the Latin Vulgate. The University of Chicago has an online Vulgate with a word sensitive search as well as translation formatted programs that cover three different versions if you wish to verify.
Ps: Yes, I was being sarcastic. That whole trap thing kind of blew up in your face didn't it?

[Edited on 26-11-2002 by Ma-Ha-Bone]

No actually Ma-Ha-Bone it didn't Because now it raises the issue of the whole "Interpretation thing". No one with common sense would interpret those passages as relating Lucifer TO Satan, but only as to the relation of Lucifer the word being tied to Satan. Now, if you want to continue to interpret it your way, be my guest but I don't see how you CAN interpret it that way...

Sincerely,
no signature

answer my question. Where in Morals and Dogma does Pike state that Venus is Lucifer?
If you cannot, then it is clear that the weight of evidence is in favour of my interpretation. If you can, then it is clear that the weight of evidence is in favour of my interpretation. If you did research into my interpretation, you would see that it isn't entirely my interpretation, but a culmination of interpretations that point out the same thing. So, you are fully welcome to your interpretation despite the lack of evidence to support it.