Albert Pike: A Man Misunderstood

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Almost universally on this forum, the Mason-bashers are Christians, or, at least, they think they are. Interestingly enough, none of them seem too worried about breaking the Commandment concerning bearing false witness against their neighbors. To make matters even worse, Pike was, in actuality, a Christian, meaning they're bearing false witness against one of their own faith. Sort of ironic.

Even more ironic, many of the freemasons posting here are Christian too. I say 'Christian', but I'm not sure that middle-of-the-road non-extreme tolerant Christianity counts for much in some quarters.

Originally posted by consprtrkr
Axeman: 1. Do you actually support Pike's contention that support of Napoleon could be justified? Does any dissertation on motives wipe away the fact that Napoleon intiated the slaughter of millions? 2. Pike claims that masonry "disappeared with the Girondists".. Pike is cleary indicating a rivalry between mainstream Masonry, which supported moderate republicanism, and a lodge, who's origins lie in the Templar movement, which supported the Jacobins, and the policy of revenge and bloodshed. Irregardless,the point remains the same: If Pike wants to brag about the role of the Masonic order in history, the order must also accept some of the blame when things turn out badly.

I can't say for sure because I don't have a copy of M&D in front of me at the moment, but if memory serves, you're speaking of what is written in Chapter 30, concerning the 30°, or Knight Kadosh.

If this is correct, I believe that you're referring not to what Pike himself actually believed, but in the part of the chapter where he is quoting "an enemy of the Templars", i.e., Barruel.

M.L: The chapter in question does contain extensive quotes, probably from the man you indicated, but the qoutation marks end well before the passage I cite, and there are none surronding the passage itself, so I can only assume that it is Pike's opinion.

Originally posted by wiggy
Well, it is expressed, that he belives everyone is worshiping the same god. Muslims belive in Abraham, and Moses.

I don't think this is really that surprising, wiggy. From my perspective I believe there is only one God. Ipso Facto anyone else worshipping God, or claiming to do so (by whatever name) is either worshipping my God or praying to thin air. From my perspective Muslims and Jews are praying to the the Triune Lord, the Three-in-One, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They've just got some of the detail wrong. Or in some cases, quite a lot of detail actually.

Now whether the Big Guy is going to pay any attention to anyone who sidesteps Jesus Christ is another matter

Originally posted by Trinityman

Originally posted by wiggy
Well, it is expressed, that he belives everyone is worshiping the same god. Muslims belive in Abraham, and Moses.

I don't think this is really that surprising, wiggy. From my perspective I believe there is only one God. Ipso Facto anyone else worshipping God, or claiming to do so (by whatever name) is either worshipping my God or praying to thin air. From my perspective Muslims and Jews are praying to the the Triune Lord, the Three-in-One, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They've just got some of the detail wrong. Or in some cases, quite a lot of detail actually.

Now whether the Big Guy is going to pay any attention to anyone who sidesteps Jesus Christ is another matter

I take your point, and I pretty much agree; that doesn't mean that they don't have a right to believe as they will, though.

The point I'm trying to make, and the way I understand it, the point Pike was trying to make here, is that the Muslims, Jews, etc probably have the same view as you have expressed here. They believe that they are right, and we (Christians) have the details wrong.

So long as they have morals and live an upright life, what does it matter what name they use when they pray?

As I've said before, I think when He said, "There is no way to My Father but through Me," it isn't so literal; i.e., Jesus taught His teachings and principles, laid it out for us, right? So what about those who might have never been exposed to Christianity, or who were born into another religion, but still follow the principles of Christ? Are those people damned out of ignorance, or "luck of the draw" so to speak? I don't think so, I believe that in the end, it will be our actions and the way we lived our lives that determines if we are allowed to sit beside the Father, and His Son will be the one who decides who goes and who stays.

I just can't believe that Jesus would condemn those who may not have had a choice in the matter, but who still lived righteously.

consprtrkr:

I haven't forgotten about you; I'm looking into it, I'll get back at you this evening. Thanks for contributing!

[edit on 8/9/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by The Axeman
I take your point, and I pretty much agree; that doesn't mean that they don't have a right to believe as they will, though.

Absolutely right. Everyone has the right to believe anything they want to (as long as it doesn't harm others, of course). Actually, there are some real wackos about (ring any bells, anyone?) but I would defend their right to be as off-centre as they like.

I just can't believe that Jesus would condemn those who may not have had a choice in the matter, but who still lived righteously.

No talk of condemnation from me, Axeman, that's for sure. Fundies may object to Freemasonry as they believe I (as a Christian) should be ramming my beliefs down non-believers throats at every opportunity - particularly at lodge.

OH how they soooo miss the point

Originally posted by The Axeman
I just can't believe that Jesus would condemn those who may not have had a choice in the matter, but who still lived righteously.

I once brought this very point up to a pastor in a Bible study class I once attended for a short time, and these were his exact words:

"It's a tragic thing."

:bnghd:

Originally posted by Trinityman
Absolutely right. Everyone has the right to believe anything they want to (as long as it doesn't harm others, of course). Actually, there are some real wackos about (ring any bells, anyone?) but I would defend their right to be as off-centre as they like.

Exactly. We find ourselves in agreement (big surprise ). And yeah, I think I hear those bells a-ringing too...

I just can't believe that Jesus would condemn those who may not have had a choice in the matter, but who still lived righteously.

No talk of condemnation from me, Axeman, that's for sure. Fundies may object to Freemasonry as they believe I (as a Christian) should be ramming my beliefs down non-believers throats at every opportunity - particularly at lodge.

OH how they soooo miss the point

I think that is the main problem Fundies have with it; that Christian Masons aren't proselytizing at lodge, trying to convert everyone. I mean I understand that in some faiths, it is required to witness in order to be a "good Christian," but what I say to these people is, "Don't become a Freemason." If you don't like it, don't do it; those who have the nerve to try to tell me what I should or should not do for myself based on their idea of Faith or right and wrong really irritate me.

Like posters who come along these boards and post stuff like "Please! Masons repent! Don't join! Why? Because it goes against my flavor of religion, and you have no right to have your own beliefs, and you're wrooooooong. Mmmmmkay?"



Yeah Seb, I had the same trouble in Bible class.

Just wanted to bump this thread, and also let consprtrkr know that I haven't forgotten or ignored him/her/it, I just haven't had time as of yet to research and author a fitting response.

I should have some time over the weekend though. I do look forward to the discussion, your form is quite refreshing.

Sorry to be just getting to this; better late than never I suppose.

Originally posted by consprtrkr
Axeman: 1. Do you actually support Pike's contention that support of Napoleon could be justified? Does any dissertation on motives wipe away the fact that Napoleon intiated the slaughter of millions?

In a word... Yes. Regardless of how many lives were lost in the Napoleonic wars, the big picture remains that all in all, Napoleon did a lot for France. Though he himself was emperor, he did a lot to promote the ideas of liberty and equality among men; principles which are near and dear to the hearts of all Masons.

from: encarta.msn.com...

In all the new kingdoms created by the emperor, the Code Napoléon was established as law. Feudalism and serfdom were abolished, and freedom of religion established (except in Spain). Each state was granted a constitution, providing for universal male suffrage and a parliament and containing a bill of rights. French-style administrative and judicial systems were required. Schools were put under centralized administration, and free public schools were envisioned. Higher education was opened to all who qualified, regardless of class or religion. Every state had an academy or institute for the promotion of the arts and sciences. Incomes were provided for eminent scholars, especially scientists. Constitutional government remained only a promise, but progress and increased efficiency were widely realized. Not until after Napoleon’s fall did the common people of Europe, alienated from his governments by war taxes and military conscription, fully appreciate the benefits he had given them.

So, while the French Revolution and the ensuing wars fought by Napoleon were bloody, I think the end result speaks for itself. The American Revolution was no picnic either, but would you rather it not have happened? Freemasons played no small role in that conflict either; while there was some division within the fraternity over it, this country was founded on the principles that Masons hold dear, and France, under Napoleon, followed suit.

2. Pike claims that masonry "disappeared with the Girondists" maybe you don't know enough about the period in question to put the passages on pages 24, and 823 together. The girondists were the moderate republican faction, and were swept away by their rivals, the radical Jacobins. It was under the Jacobins that most of the bloodshed of the revolution ensued. Pike is cleary indicating a rivalry between mainstream Masonry, which supported moderate republicanism, and a lodge, who's origins lie in the Templar movement, which supported the Jacobins, and the policy of revenge and bloodshed.

OK so I learned something, thanks.

from: www.grandlodgescotland.com...

Hebert, Andre Chenier, Camille Desmoulins and many other "Girondins" of the French Revolution were Freemasons. The Masonic ideal of freedom was strong in the heart of a Frenchman who became a Mason while in the youthful United States of America -- the Marquis de Lafayette. He remained an enthusiastic Mason all his life, and was until his death in 1829 Grand Master of the Grand Orient de France.

OK so help me out here. If the French Freemasons were supportive of the Girondists, indeed many of the Girondists were in fact Freemasons, and the Jacobins were supported by a society said to have its roots in Templarism, it seems to me that it had less to do with rivalry of secret societies than the political differences of the members, as the ideals of both groups are parallel in many ways. The same thing happened in the American Revolution, but I digress. I have been looking into this and from what I can tell both sides of this particular fight were populated by members of the Masonic fraternity.

from: www.historyguide.org...

Up to June 1793, moderate reformers had dominated the National Convention. These were the Girondins, men who favored a decentralized government in which the various provinces or departments would determine their own affairs. The Girondins also opposed government interference in the economy.

In June 1793, factional disputes with the Convention resulted in the replacement of the Girondins with the Jacobins, a far more radical group. The Jacobins and Girondins were both liberal and bourgeois, but the Jacobins desired a centralized government (in which they would hold key positions), Paris as the national capital, and temporary government control of the economy. The Jacobin platform managed to win the support of the sans-culottes. The Jacobins were tightly organized, well-disciplined and convinced that they alone were responsible for saving and "managing" the Revolution from this point forward. On June 22, 1793, 80,000 armed sans-culottes surrounded the meeting halls of the National Convention and demanded the immediate arrest of the Girondin faction. The Convention yielded to the mob and 29 Girondin members of the Convention were arrested.

[...]

In Robespierre's utopian vision, the individual has the duty "to detest bad faith and despotism, to punish tyrants and traitors, to assist the unfortunate and respect the weak, to defend the oppressed, to do all the good one can to one's neighbor, and to behave with justice towards all men." Robespierre was a disciple of Rousseau--both considered the general will an absolute necessity. For Robespierre, the realization of the general will would make the Republic of Virtue a reality. Its denial would mean a return to despotism. Robespierre knew that a REPUBLIC OF VIRTUE could not become a reality unless the threats of foreign and civil war were removed. To preserve the Republic, Robespierre and the CPS instituted the Reign of Terror. Counter-revolutionaries, the Girondins, priests, nobles, and aristocrats immediately fell under suspicion. Danton (1759-1794), a revolutionary who sought peace with Europe, was executed.

So the ideas espoused by the Jacobins seem in line with what the Girondists believed also; it seems as though it was merely difference in their ideas about the role of government that caused the rivalry.

Irregardless,the point remains the same: If Pike wants to brag about the role of the Masonic order in history, the order must also accept some of the blame when things turn out badly.

At any rate, I agree that if The Masonic influence in history is to be “bragged” about, then both the good and the bad must be considered. And, regardless of what Pike says in M&D, as of right now, I see no reason to attribute the rivalry of the Girondists and the Jacobins to any secret society affiliation or support.

*wipes brow* Thanks, you made me work for that one.

[edit on 8/17/05 by The Axeman]

Why do some of the people who have read his works here think that he never made very much of an impact on theological studies and philsophical studies of his time? I'm not too familiar with him, but it seems like he's considered one of the big philosophes in masonry; how come he's not talked about much in philosophical studies??

Originally posted by consprtrkr
Axeman: 1. Do you actually support Pike's contention that support of Napoleon could be justified? Does any dissertation on motives wipe away the fact that Napoleon intiated the slaughter of millions?

What? Napoleon brought stability to France, spread the liberal revolution to the rest of europe, welded germany together, and did lots of great things. If masonry supported the French Revolution and then later napoleon, well good for freemasonry.

But, realistically, how much support can an english social club really give to either event? I doubt it'd be anything critical.

Pike is cleary indicating a rivalry between mainstream Masonry, which supported moderate republicanism, and a lodge, who's origins lie in the Templar movement, which supported the Jacobins, and the policy of revenge and bloodshed.

I think by saying it disappeared with the Girondists is Pikes way of sayingf that the influences of masonry (which is only allied lightly with english masonry no?) ended when the moderates ended, and that had the masonic influence remained, that there might not've ever been the horrible excesses of the Directorate.
But thats silly, because a heck of a lot more was going on that what some social club wanted.

If Pike wants to brag about the role of the Masonic order in history, the order must also accept some of the blame when things turn out badly.

But what hand did the group have in any of it?? And, also, I think that its important to keep in mind that the Masonry of France, and Italy, is different from that of England, no? And that, indeed, the mason's of either country can be at odds with one another.

The Chevalier Ramsey, a scotsman, was a mason, who invented, according to some, the series of Scottish Rite degrees. This was done in France, while he was the tutor of the exiled British monarch. This makes him, to many, a Jacobite, a supporter of the Throne. Coincidentally, the French Jacobins, much later, were staunch republicans and anti-monarchial.
So the fraternity seems to have practically nothing to do with politics, despite many important political and historical figures being masons.

Garibaldi was a Freemason. But that doesn't mean that the Freemason's established the united Kingdom of Italy. Hell, I doubt that the papacy would've existed if it was under the rule of some conspiratorial Masonic Dictatorship!

Ok, i was googling arond for garibaldi after that post. Found a couple of pics of publications from the time that showed an allegory of the italian revolution. It was the goddess Roma (wolf at side) ringing a giant liberty bell, much to the frustration of the Pope and the Duke of Savoy (father of VE II). The bell is shapped like a phyrgian cap, and apparently was a common symbol for liberty itself, a Liberty Cap.

here is is


Cool, never heard that before. So's I google Liberty Cap, tons of mushrooms come up, apparently its a name for a mushroom. I think its the magical kind. The kind that smurfs don't live in, but if you eat them then you might see smurfs. Anyway. I get this page.

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

It starts off well enough, infact the opening tone seemed so approving that I was confused, a site called 'bible beleivers' that is pro-masonic? Then there's this laughable bit, which is similar to the opening stuff Axe found about Pike.

The Liberty Cap is a shallow, limp cap, somewhat resembling a woolen ski cap. Its origin is in ancient times, when freed slaves would be given this sort of cap to wear as a sign of their freedom. Hence the symbolism is that the wearer is freed from some sort of slavery.
In the eighteenth century the cap was worn by radicals who were bent upon the destruction of the monarchies in favor of republican or democratic regimes, in accordance with the dictates of free-thinking and atheistic "philosophers" of the same century. It was a symbol of revolt against the existing order, and a call for a new, radical order in which power was perceived to come from the people, and not from God. A modern equivalent would be the hammer and sickle or the peace symbol of the 1960's.[...]and on the Mercury dime of the same period. [Mercury, by the way, is a favorite god in the masonic menagerie of deities].[...]The Liberty Cap was confirmed as the symbol of radicalism in the French Revolution, when it became the fashionable attire of anyone who was in favor of the Revolution, and finally of the bloodthirsty and cruel Jacobins, the leaders of the Reign of Terror.[..]In 1884, the government in France, loaded with Freemasons, had busts made of the devilish female unabashedly wearing a masonic sash over her shoulders,

LOk, its not a freedmans cap, its a phrygian cap, as far as I know. And if the masons overthrew the monarchs and despots of europe, thanks. Of course, they didn't, and its silly to suggest that they were powerful enough to do so. And the Masons were, if anything, allied with most of the Girondists, not the Jacobins.

And mercury is their favourite god? I mean, i can understand that esoteric hermetic groups this could be said of, but, really, the institution of masonry has a 'favourite' old roman god? They're not even saying that they worhsip the god strictly, just that he's their favourite. Like, one of my favourite Viking Gods is Balder, but so what?
And then WTF does it matter anyway, unless they are suggesting that the designers of the mercury dime were masons, and apparently all the other coins mentioned.


I think that that page is a good example of what was talked about wrt Pike. It's also a bizzarely, and somewhat disturbing, look into what might've been. These 'bible beleivers' are actually complaining about democracy, saying that it takes governance away from the will of god as expressed via divine-right absolutist kings! Yikes! I mean, look at how they disdainfully describe democracy; civil government that is "merely a functionary of the people's will". Jesus!

Thank god for guys like garibaldi! And then, ironically enough, I had found this other page that equally idiotically talks about how the Catholic Church is the anti-christ, and that Garibaldi is the saviour of the world for having fought against it (and yet these reactionaries seem to leave out that he was a mason, guess that would besmirch his rep for them). Here's some of the flat out insane stuff they say:

This "little horn" was the Papal States or Papal Dynasty,the Man of Sin of St. Paul's Epistles and the Antichrist of the Apostle John He would have eyes like the eyes of a man and a look more stout than his fellows. That is why the Vatican is called the See of Rome.

And then it goes on to say that the Vatican allied with the Kaiser (even tho italy wasn't) in WWI to get the Papal States back, and then with Hitler in WWII, to betray mussolini and get the states back also. More blather. More disturbingly, its the first result of a google for garibaldi.

So here's Garibaldi in what I think is his masonic garb (in south america)


And for more reference, here is a liberty cap on a liberty pole, I guess this is where the idea of liberty poles starts. Maybe its not actually a phyrgian cap, since its not slouched.



[edit on 17-8-2005 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by Nygdan
The bell is shapped like a phyrgian cap, and apparently was a common symbol for liberty itself, a Liberty Cap.
...
Cool, never heard that before. So's I google Liberty Cap, tons of mushrooms come up, apparently its a name for a mushroom. I think its the magical kind. The kind that smurfs don't live in, but if you eat them then you might see smurfs. Anyway. I get this page.
...
And for more reference, here is a liberty cap on a liberty pole, I guess this is where the idea of liberty poles starts. Maybe its not actually a phyrgian cap, since its not slouched.

The liberty cap on a pole is used by an organization very near and dear to my heart: the Republic of Argentina's national crest, which is where my parents are from. Let it be known that the Republic of Argentina was, much like our forefathers in America, liberated from the Spanish by a Masonic general and other revolutionaries (San Martin):



I always thought the cap was a little silly, but now I understand. Thanks Nygdan!

[edit on 18-8-2005 by sebatwerk]

The silence is certainly deafening when Pike's words are presented in context. I just can't imagine his critics reading the 900+ pages of M&D. It would take them a very long time since they move their lips when they read.
.

Great thread. The only question I have, is way did we stop giving copies of M&D to the new Scottish Rite canidates?


lost in the midwest (KCCH)

Originally posted by lost in the midwest
Great thread. The only question I have, is way did we stop giving copies of M&D to the new Scottish Rite canidates?

Morals and Dogma was traditionally given to the candidate upon his receipt of the 14th degree of the Scottish Rite. This practice was stopped in 1974. Morals and Dogma has not been given to candidates since 1974. A Bridge to Light, by Rex R. Hutchens, is provided to candidates today. Hutchens laments that Morals and Dogma is read by so few Masons. A Bridge to Light was written to be "a bridge between the ceremonies of the degrees and their lectures in Morals and Dogma." While recommended to Masons, we cannot conclude that Masons are expected to accept every thought in A Bridge to Light.
Link

Originally posted by lost in the midwest
Great thread. The only question I have, is way did we stop giving copies of M&D to the new Scottish Rite canidates?

Under the administration of Sovereign Grand Commander, Brother Henry C. Clausen, 33°, it was determined that Pike's great work was too advanced to be helpful to the new Scottish Rite member. The Grand Commander then substituted it with his own book "Clausen's Commentaries On Morals and Dogma".

Theoretically, it was supposed to serve as an introduction to Pike's book. Realistically, it does nothing of the sort, and is in my opinion a poor substitute, and a poor introduction to the Rite.

When Clausen was replaced as Grand Commander by Bro. C. Fred Kleinknecht, 33°, "Clausen's Commentaries" was withdrawn, and replaced by "A Bridge To Light" by Dr. Rex Hutchens, 33°, G.'.C.'.

Bro. Hutchens' book is, in my opinion, far superior to Clausen's, and is an excellent introduction to the Ritual, the Rite's philosophy, and Pike's book.

Sad, The M&D is a great read(took me a year and half). I try to give a copy to any of the brothers who would like one. Glad it is on the net. Anyone could gain a lot from reading it. I hope we didn't sell our new brothers sort.

lost in the midwest

Originally posted by Nygdan
Napoleon brought stability to France, spread the liberal revolution to the rest of europe, welded germany together, and did lots of great things. If masonry supported the French Revolution and then later napoleon, well good for freemasonry.

Moreover, he is attributed with being a significant factor in causing continental Europe, the United States and most of the rest of the world to be driving on the wrong side of the road!

users.pandora.be...

He got around, did old Boney. In fact he was massively influential right up to the point when he got his arse kicked by Wellington and spent the rest of his days on a small island in the Med.

Hmm. Could be worse I guess