We Masons are not Illuminati!!!

reply to post by Masonic Light

---

Also, if Pike wasn't a fully fledged member of the KKK and all those who name him as such are telling lies, then it is clear from what he wrote in an editorial on April 16, 1868 that he was sympathetic for their cause.: "With negroes for witnesses and jurors, the administration of justice becomes a blasphemous mockery. A Loyal League of negroes can cause any white man to be arrested, and can prove any charges it chooses to have made against him. ...The disenfranchised people of the South ... can find no protection for property, liberty or life, except in secret association.... We would unite every white man in the South, who is opposed to negro suffrage, into one great Order of Southern Brotherhood, with an organization complete, active, vigorous, in which a few should execute the concentrated will of all, and whose very existence should be concealed from all but its members."

Pike sounds a hoot doesn't he?

reply to post by Mintwithahole.

---

not to send this into another direction, but back in the late 1800's how many white men in the south do you think were what we in the year 2009 would call racist? I am not saying anything he wrote about black people is correct or that I agree, but you have to look at when and where this context comes from. I don't have the links (but Masonic Light does and will show you I am quite sure) that show that General Pike had softened his views on race as he got older (and wiser). Once you write it, you own it. So I am sure you could dig up some more dirt like you found on Pike about most any prominent writer of that era. hell, it's 2009 and we still have to listen to racist rants by Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton to this very day. I keep hoping one day people will re-visit Dr. Kings dream where people will be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Ahh, Utopia.

Apology accepted. I am the youngest member of my lodge.

reply to post by network dude

---

I agree with you but that doesn't make his views acceptable does it? This is why I asked my original question as to why masons appear to support and protect this man even though he causes the brotherhood so much harm. I was expecting the masons on here to say something like I said, that just because one mason is rascist doesn't make all masons rascist. Instead I found masons trying to protect his memory! Some things are not worth protecting.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.

---

Pike did a lot for Masonry, compiling the Scottish Rite, and he himself was, as you've noted, a intelligent guy. He wrote several books and had a remarkable history previous to his entering Masonry.

Was he a racist, well, yeah. Most folks were at that point. He also assisted the Prince Hall lodges, giving them a copy of the Rituals of the Scottish Rite.
He fought for the rights of Native Americans, one of the reasons he retired from the Confederates was do to them renegading on the treaties he proposed to them.

He was not, however, a satanist, or nearly as evil as many people would portray him as.

I guess it just comes down to semantics, i feel that lucifer is indeed satan and some of you others don't, that's why i brought it up in the first place.

Mintwithahole:

Mate, your standards are kinda inappropriate. Judging Pike for being "racist" is like judging a medieval Mongol for being "violent", or an ancient Bedouin for being "sexist".

While mason conspiracy theories are fun to entertain now and again, the truth is they really are baseless. People use the founding father's as a basis for the conspiracy however, if the masons really were an "evil" organization why would they have drafted the constitution, etc in the manner they did? Seriously that would be the time to lay the groundwork for eventual world domination, but they didn't did they? They held the future of the colonies in the palm of their hands, the perfect scenario for power hungry types, but did they do anything of that nature, no. They set about forming a more perfect union. If that is anyone's idea of evil plot, then you've certainly found the masterminds.

So unless you find the ideal of a government for, of, and by the people devious then back off. Secret society does not necessarily mean "evil" society. For example, just because I don't want to share what I had for breakfast doesn't mean I ate deep fried monkey testicles. It could just mean I had a poptart and some milk, and just find that what I had for breakfast isn't anyone's damn business.

I have close relatives in the masons, they dont seem all that 'illuminati'-ish, to me.

According to Zeph Daniel he said in Albret Pikes book morals and dogma that masons worship Lucifer "Doubt it not", listen to his latest podcast for the proof.

Those who don't know who Zeph Daniel is he's a god fearing man who preaches the word of god, he dosen't beleave in religion but beleaves in Jesus and the King James bible, he's kind of like the Howard Stern of ministers but he knows his stuff.

Have a listen............

zephreport.podomatic.com...

[edit on 2-7-2009 by King Seesar]

That's a verys suspect phrase.



So If I put out a podcast that says Hillary Clinton has secretly been appoined Queen of England (apologies to my British Brethren) that constitutes "proof"?

How about some proof with documentation? Look here:

www.masonicinfo.com... (interesting quote at the top,huh?)

For Lucifer and Pike, (including your "doubt it not" quote) here:

www.masonicinfo.com...

For Taxil the admitted liar who started his mess, here:

www.masonicinfo.com...

For a VERY good (but long read), De Hoyos' and Morris' book "Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry can be read in its entirety here:


www.srmason-sj.org...

This includes very well documented debunking of the nonsense and lies constantly spread about Freemasonry, including the ridiculous claim that Pike said we worship Satan.

If those interested would actually read this e-book (did I mention it's WELL-DOCUMENTED sources?) they would come away with a different feeling.

But I doubt many will read it. I find that most people who take the stand that Freemasonry is evil, believe so because some fundamentalist preacher told 'em so and they don't want their minds clouded by factual information. Too bad for them.

I hate to use only web references, but I doubt anyone here would take the trouble to go and get actual books on the subject. People seem to have come to the belief that the internet is the only way to {ahem} research.

I was only saying listen to Zeph because he is very wise.


Now my own take, wow rather tricky but here it gos, some masons on here beleave that Jesus and Lucifer are one and the same and that satan is a different entity and while i disagree with that, the masons saying that in some way beleave in Jesus we just have different takes on the mater.

Now do i think every mason is a satanist no but i would beleave that more if they didn't hold Pike in such a high regard, i mean we already proved he was a racist, it's Pike that has such high regard for Lucifer the light bearer and that's a turn off for me and it's also why you all get deemed satanists, the masons that don't beleave in Pike are the ones who don't fall for the trap.

Pike says "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!", that looks bad anyway you wanna break it down, that's all i'm saying, and thats because of the splendor comment and that he's the one who bares the light and not Jesus.


[edit on 2-7-2009 by King Seesar]

reply to post by King Seesar

---

I've read the book, it doesn't.

Take a look at it yourself, it's available online here:
Morals and Dogma
Morals and Dogma (Sacred Texts)
Morals and Dogma PDF download
Morals and Dogma, free to read online, or download

Don't know if it counts as spam or not, and if it does, I apologize.
However, it's ridiculously easy to double check this stuff.

Seesar, as for Lucifer being Satan, well, there's a snag there.

Christianity, most prominently the Catholic Church, has had a long history of taking other religions and demonizing them.
It's where we get one of the more common pictures of Satan actually, it's a direct demonizing of the Greek God Pan.
As for the name Lucifer itself, it was not originally a name of Satan, neither was Beelzebub, for that matter, or several others.
However, mostly through the Church's defamation of these beliefs, as well as people bringing in their own faiths, with their own devils and demons, the names have been added in and on.

There are a few different reasons for Lucifer to have been used as a name for the devil.
One reason that I've heard, though i've not seen much on, was to demonize this fellow, St. Lucifer.
Milton's epic and the King James Version of the Bible have settled the idea of Lucifer as a name of Satan in Christians heads now for a while.

As such, maybe it is.
However, a person who studies the history behind the names and people associated with the Church would probably contest you.

I'll take your word for it.




I've not heard one Mason say that.




So I take it by this last paragraph that you're not even going to read the factual information surrounding the Taxil Hoax and Pike's quote, but are rather going to say "he said it and it sounds bad?" Doesn't leave much room for intelligent discussion of the matter, does it? It would appear that you're determined not to let the facts get in your way.

I assure you if you'll read those pages you'll glean some pretty interesting insight into the facts surrounding the matter. If you were to take the time to read the e-book posted, you might decide to petition the Lodge for membership. OOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

[edit on 2-7-2009 by senrak]

Some Masons were saying that both Lucifer and Jesus were the morning star and i took that to mean that they worshiped that Jesus, but it's a different Jesus then i worship.


I'll read the links you posted, but i still think you should listen to Zeph other then the Mason stuff you may disagree with he brings up really good points on other topics.

Woops, took longer preparing that post thna I intended.



I have never heard a Mason say that.
I have, however, heard, and read myself, how the same phrase was translated to Lucifer in the King James Version, but left untranslated when it was referred to Christ.

The phrase in the Old Testament refers to the King of Tyre, a holly mortal person, and his fall from grace.
Jesus referred to himself as the Morning Star, a phrase that is left untranslated in other versions of the Bible.
Bible Gateway is a good source for comparing different parts of the Bible in it's various translations.


God's truth, unless they are active in conspiracy forums, most Masons know little about Pike.
His racism is a issue that cannot be fully placed to rest. While he was most definitely racist by our standard, at the time, he'd have been regarded as open minded in his approach. He personally presented the Prince Hall Lodge with a copy of the Rituals he compiled for the Scottish Rite.
Pike had no regard for Lucifer as a light bearer, rather, he questioned the use of the name for a being of darkness.
There's a marked difference.
However, he did not doubt that Lucifer or Satan, whichever you would call it, is the light which enfeebles, and not the light which strengthens.
Remember, Lucifer (who you equate to Satan) translates to shining, some would say it means light bearer.
Jesus is the Light of the world, the light that strengthen, heals, and overcomes.


Well, until you can come up with Chapter, page, and dissemble the full paragraph, your opinion is pretty worthless, eh?

King James


New International Version


New International Version

Seriously, go here: Isiah 14:12 and look at the different translations.

The indicated verse does not refer to Satan as Lucifer, it references Nebuchadnezzar.



[edit on 2-7-2009 by RuneSpider]

reply to post by RuneSpider

---

Here's the quote from Albert Pike that i mentioned......

www.masonicinfo.com...

I read Isiah 14:12 but the one thing your forgetting is that Satan has more then one name just like God does Yeshua Yahweh Jesus ect ect ect.....



[edit on 2-7-2009 by King Seesar]

Yes, that's exactly the same link I provided earlier. Did you read the actual context of the quote, i.e., the WHOLE page, or just the quote?



No, I'm not forgetting anything at all. I just happen to understand what Pike was saying and why. Mainly because I've read the entire book (Morals & Dogma) a few times. Additionally I've read everything I can get my hands on pertaining to the Scottish Rite, so again, I understand what was being said and that the "Lucifer" reference has nothing whatsoever to do with Satan. If you'd do some in-depth research into the term, you'd see that. As it is, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I would point out, too (and this has been said over and over in this forum) Albert Pike was NOT a "Masonic Authority" as he's so often made out to be by those who are not members. Pike was the presiding officer of the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A. He had no authority in the Northern Jurisdiction, U.S.A., nor elsewhere in the world. Morals and Dogma was compiled for the members of the Southern Jurisdiction, which is a very small number when compared to the number of Masons in the world. The vast majority of Masons are unaware the book even exists, except for when they're told by some anti-Mason that the book is proof that they worship Satan.

As far as both Lucifer and Jesus being referred to as the Morning Star, my opinion leads me to beleave that there were two different Morning Stars.