It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"The Southern Jurisdiction of Scottish Rite in America covers thirty-five southern and western states. It has about half a million members, or about 20 percent of the total Masonic membership in the United States.
The teachings of these readings are not sacramental, so far as they go beyond the realm of Morality into those other domains of Thought and Truth. The ancient and accepted Scottish Rite uses the word "Dogma" in its true sense, of doctrine, or teaching; and is not dogmatic in the odious sense of that term.
Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound.
"Nothing thrills the anti-Mason as much as Pike's references to Lucifer. Most Christians reading this will immediately recognize Lucifer as the fallen angel, as Satan, the ruler of hell. Why then, does Pike express his surprise in the words "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 intolerable light blinds feeble, sensual or selfish souls?" He is upset, referring at one point to "the false Lucifer of the legend." What false legend?"
"Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "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 first problem is that Lucifer is a Latin name. So how did it find its way into a Hebrew manuscript, written before there was a Roman language? To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell? The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer.""
"Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King")."
"The scholars authorized by the militantly Catholic King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated from the Catholic Vulgate Bible produced largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and - ironically- the Prince of Darkness."
"So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.""
"And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say "Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God," while others with knowledge of the Latin and Hebrew texts say, "No, Lucifer is the classical Roman name for the morning star, and now Jesus is the morning star." This discussion can only anger certain fundamentalists. (I have at hand an evangelical tract from a Baptist church that says, "I believe in the Infallibility and Preservation of God's Word, of which the King James 1611 authorized version is the God-guided faithful translation.")"
"The emphasis here should be on intent. When Albert Pike and other Masonic scholars spoke over a century ago about the "Luciferian path," or the "energies of Lucifer," they were referring to the morning star, the light bearer, the search for light; the very antithesis of dark, satanic evil."
"Still, I believe that Pike was wrong to use Lucifer in the scholarly sense. I remember an old man saying to me years ago, on a different subject, "It may be correct, but it just ain't right!" He had an excellent point. To be "correct" may be good for scholars writing for the enlightenment of other scholars: but for those with a real desire to communicate, recognition must be given to the common usage of words and terms. To this day some learned writers, as did Pike, have difficulty concentrating on communication, which may require explaining their terms of reference and curbing their vocabularial excess. To engage in the arrant pedantry of egregious sesquipedalianism (as in this sentence) is not communication. It's showing off. Pike must have known that virtually every Christian of this time firmly believed that Lucifer was Satan. He should have explained his use of the name, or he should have avoided it. And he should have held his scholarly vocabulary in check. However impressive the command of a language a writer may possess, if it cannot be understood as intended and baffles the reader, it is failing in its primary purpose, which should be clear, understandable communication."
"Unfortunately, even if Albert Pike had refined his cumbersome style, or reduced the overwhelming variety of information he offered in his works, he would still be the target of vitriolic abuse. The reason is a proved and blatant forgery that is brandished to the great joy and delight of almost every anti-Masonic writer and speaker."
"It all began in the late nineteenth century with a man who would do anything, say anything, or write anything to further his own career, untroubled by conscience or morality. His pen name was Leo Taxil. To fully understand the source of much of today's most bitter anti-Masonry, it is necessary to drop back about a hundred years and examine the career of this strange man who, to serve his own ends, maliciously draped the mantle of Lucifer as Satan on the memory of Albert Pike."
Originally posted by Truth1000
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
"Masons" only have the three degrees in the Blue Lodge. The further degrees are in other "situations."
The mere lack of information, however, should not pose any threat to your opinions.
Originally posted by Truth1000
You are correct, AM.
I apologize, as I obviously misinterpreted the direction of your post.
Originally posted by savvys84
A commendable pot OP. i have nothing against any shape or form of various rites or free masonry.
Regardless of the fundamentalist tract that you refer to, are you suggesting that the angel of darkness does not exist?
Originally posted by Truth1000
My father-in-law has been trying to talk me into the Scottish Rite for years, but I did specify that I wouldn't ride around in one of the little cars!
Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
I must say: Excellent post!
Not being in the Scottish Rite I find it funny how much importance is put on that body. I have my bias of course, being in the York Rite.
Originally posted by bushidomason
I wish i would have gone down the York Rite path before I went Scottish Rite. To me it seems like it was a smooth transition after the 3rd degree right into the York Rite degrees.
I have come to the conclusion that the York Rite bodies and Scottish Rite depend on which coast you are on in relation to their "popularity". I have noticed that York Rite is not so popular here on the West Coast, and rather that Scottish Rite is the most common. This is vice-versa when i travel to New York and the East Coast every other month. I wonder if there is an explanation about this?
Is it really that odd though? I mean, light-bringer sounds like a pretty apt description of what a telescope does...
Originally posted by oxford
Someone round here also said the Vatican has a telescope called Lucifer, which is a really odd choice of names.