Albert Pike's View on Lucifer
Craftworker
>The Apocalypse, that sublime Kabalistic and prophetic Summary of all
>the occult figures, divides its images into three Septenaries, after each
>of which there is silence in Heaven. There are Seven Seals to be
>opened, that is to say, Seven mysteries to know, and Seven difficulties
>to overcome, Seven trumpets to sound, and Seven cups to empty.
>The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the
>Apothesis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and
>despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Lightbearer!
>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 splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish
>Souls ? Doubt it not! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and
>Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato
>and Philo, also, were inspired. - Albert Pike "Morals and Dogma"
------
>The conviction of all men that God is good led to a belief in a Devil,
>the fallen Lucifer or Light-bearer, Shaitan the Adversary, Ahriman and
>Tuphon, as an attempt to explain the existence of Evil, and make it
>consistent with the Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Benevolence of God.
> - Albert Pike "Morals and Dogma"
Discussion? ;)
Cheers!
Crafty
---
Any copyrighted material in this posting shared in
accordance with Fair Use Laws. For more info, go here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
Current denizens of the ImpFilter(tm): JB, JLRuble
"Ignoring idiots for a better tomorrow."
. Midjis
> Finally got around to looking this up, here ya go, in context:
>
>>The Apocalypse, that sublime Kabalistic and prophetic Summary of all
>>the occult figures, divides its images into three Septenaries, after
>>each of which there is silence in Heaven. There are Seven Seals to be
>>opened, that is to say, Seven mysteries to know, and Seven
>>difficulties to overcome, Seven trumpets to sound, and Seven cups to
>>empty. The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree,
>>the Apothesis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and
>>despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Lightbearer!
>>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 splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or
>>selfish Souls ? Doubt it not! for traditions are full of Divine
>>Revelations and Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of
>>one Creed. Plato and Philo, also, were inspired. - Albert Pike
>>"Morals and Dogma"
>
> ------
>
>>The conviction of all men that God is good led to a belief in a Devil,
>>the fallen Lucifer or Light-bearer, Shaitan the Adversary, Ahriman and
>>Tuphon, as an attempt to explain the existence of Evil, and make it
>>consistent with the Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Benevolence of God.
>> - Albert Pike "Morals and Dogma"
>
> Discussion? ;)
One thing that immediately springs to mind is something that I confess
to getting a little repetitive about on some of the Christian groups:
'Lucifer', the light-bringer, is indeed a 'strange and mysterious name'
for the Prince of Darkness. Perhaps the main reason it seems so
incongruous is the simple fact, overlooked by just about everyone, it
seems, that 'Lucifer' is just not a scriptural name for the Devil. It
never has been. There is no reference in the Bible to this name being
applied to Satan.
This misunderstanding arises from Isaiah 14:12 - the sole reference to
the name 'Lucifer' in the Biblical text (KJV, at least): "How art thou
fallen from Heaven, oh Lucifer, son of the morning!"
This verse - due to its reference to a fall from Heaven - has been taken
to represent the supposed fall from Heaven of Satan. Yet verse 4 of the
same chapter clearly establishes the reference to the King of Babylon -
his 'fall from Heaven' is simply a metaphorical expression indicating
that his power, pride and glory have come to nothing.
Setting aside the 'Lucifer' issue, otherwise I would agree completely
with Albert Pike. The Old Testament clearly shows us Satan as a servant
of God. A servant who spends his time on Earth and who, in the Book of
Job, *serves God* by testing the faith of one of His followers. The Old
Testament allows for personality flaws on God's part. He is jealous -
as He Himself states. He is intolerant. He is easily angered, and
violent in His wrath. He is quite obviously a long way from the all-
loving and all-merciful God of the New Testament.
How to explain this change? There is no simple explanation - at least,
not one that I am aware of, not being a scholar of scripture. But
clearly the intention in the NT is to describe an entirely different
kind of God. A God who loves all of His creations, and cares for each
as a shepherd cares for his sheep. This clearly cannot be a God who
would inflict suffering on His people - yet His people suffer. So how
can that be explained? As Albert says - by the introduction of an 'evil
one'. Satan was chosen, presumably in light of his penchant for
nastiness as described in Job (and ignoring the penchant for nastiness
quite clearly shared by God and many other angelic figures - Passover,
anyone?).
By the time of the establishment of the Christian Church, Satan had
become the 'evil one' - the rebel angel cast out from Heaven with his
followers - and in one fell swoop, a large number of new inconsistencies
were introduced into scripture. We have a supposedly all-powerful God
who nevertheless is effectively resisted by one of His own creations for
several thousand years. We have a 'pit of fire' - far from the
metaphorical Gehenna of Hebrew tradition, and now a literal place of
torture and torment, created by this 'merciful' God to inflict eternal
agony on the sinful. The fact is that while Hell is conceived as such,
and while Satan is an evil monster outside the control of God, then the
premises of Christianity - God's all-loving, all-powerful status - are
in conflict.
--
Midjis
tykkea
Midjis wrote:
A whole bunch o'stuff that should be engraved on very large K-3
graphite tablets, then inlaid with precious metals and gems. Next time
i want to give such an explanation, I'm stealing from you, Midjis. :-D
That was almost too succinct.
popepomp...@yahoo.com
of many religions. He was most intersted in the dialectic of
complementary or competing opposites. In this view, "Lucifer" is
simply a symbol of the material world. It is the perceived and
ephemeral beauty of the material world that blinds the
materially-oriented person.
The 18th Degree (Knight Rose Croix) AASR/SJ has a very interesting
discussion on this topic. In that degree, Pike challenges us to think
about evil in the world. He asks us if we really believe that, if such
a demon as the "Devil" exists, the Devil would truly be able to compete
with God for rule of the world. It is clearly Pike's view that the
"Devil" could never be victorious.
This theme is very much like the "Devil" tarot card. The two lovers
are chained to the earth by their material passions. Freedom from
these passions leads to a much broader freedom. Is it any surprise
that we learn in the first degree that the EA has come to the lodge to
learn to subdue his passions?
-><-
Pope Pompous Pilot
In Consistory #33
Valley of Fnordington
Orient of Discordiaburgh
tykkea
popepomp...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > This theme is very much like the "Devil" tarot card. The two
lovers
> are chained to the earth by their material passions. Freedom from
> these passions leads to a much broader freedom. Is it any surprise
> that we learn in the first degree that the EA has come to the lodge
to
> learn to subdue his passions?
Great card for contemplation. The chains around the humans' necks are
loose, so they could be removed easily.
Craftworker
>How to explain this change? There is no simple explanation - at least,
>not one that I am aware of, not being a scholar of scripture. But
>clearly the intention in the NT is to describe an entirely different
>kind of God. A God who loves all of His creations, and cares for each
>as a shepherd cares for his sheep. This clearly cannot be a God who
>would inflict suffering on His people - yet His people suffer. So how
>can that be explained? As Albert says - by the introduction of an 'evil
>one'. Satan was chosen, presumably in light of his penchant for
>nastiness as described in Job (and ignoring the penchant for nastiness
>quite clearly shared by God and many other angelic figures - Passover,
>anyone?).
This reminds me of what I have read regarding an old sect called the
Cathars. They believe that the god of the Old Testament and the god of
the New Testament were two different beings, the former being evil,
the latter good. It's an interesting concept. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars
Jim Bennie
> I think one has to take into account that Pike was compiling a survey
> of many religions.
Which, to me, was the only explanation why he's take a purely
Christian concept as the Apocolypse and try to apply it elsewhere.
I have never thought of their being a correlation with the Kaballah,
unless perhaps he's referring to a Christian Kaballah.
Jim Bennie
PM/DC, No. 44, Vancouver
Jim Bennie
> This reminds me of what I have read regarding an old sect called the
> Cathars. They believe that the god of the Old Testament and the god of
> the New Testament were two different beings, the former being evil,
> the latter good. It's an interesting concept. ;)
CW, I noticed the reference by Uncle Al to the 19th degree. Does
ANYONE confer it any more?
J Grant
Re: Albert Pike's View on Lucifer
Group: alt.freemasonry Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2004, 5:12am (EST-3) From:
tykk...@linuxmail.org (tykkea)
Midjis does have a way with words, doesn't he?
Makes me wonder if maybe by chance Midjis is an author of some sort?
Obviously well educated and well spoken.
tykkea
J Grant wrote:
> Obviously well educated and well spoken.
Amen. It's refreshing to read and learn at the same time. Much
preferable to stumbling through odd ramblings and innately confusing
thoughts.
. Midjis
> This reminds me of what I have read regarding an old sect called the
> Cathars. They believe that the god of the Old Testament and the god of
> the New Testament were two different beings, the former being evil,
> the latter good. It's an interesting concept. ;)
The Cathars did have some interesting beliefs, from what little I know of
their philosophy. But the most telling (and often repeated) thing about
the Cathar story is the manner of their persecution, and the comment
attributed to the Papal legate assigned to oversee the 'operation'.
Tradition has it that, when asked by his soldiers how they might tell
Cathar from Catholic, the legate replied, "Kill them all. God will know
His own."
A truly depressing example of the mentality of all too many ranking Church
figures throughout history.
--
Midjis
Joe Steve Swick III
all.
JSW
"Craftworker" <thecraf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u2qhs09ikadpehk1e...@4ax.com...
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/21/04 11:29 PM:
> Finally got around to looking this up, here ya go, in context:
>
>> The Apocalypse, that sublime Kabalistic and prophetic Summary of all
>> the occult figures, divides its images into three Septenaries, after each
>> of which there is silence in Heaven. There are Seven Seals to be
>> opened, that is to say, Seven mysteries to know, and Seven difficulties
>> to overcome, Seven trumpets to sound, and Seven cups to empty.
>> The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the nineteenth Degree, the
>> Apothesis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and
Apotheosis </spelling check>
This appears here more frequently with this mis-spelling than with the
correct. Obviously the posters either don't read what they /copy/paste/post,
or they don't understand the word itself. It is sort of key to the excerpt.
Just curious- where did you copy this from?
>> despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Lightbearer!
>> 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 splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish
>> Souls ? Doubt it not! for traditions are full of Divine Revelations and
>> Inspirations: and Inspiration is not of one Age nor of one Creed. Plato
>> and Philo, also, were inspired. - Albert Pike "Morals and Dogma"
>
> ------
>
>> The conviction of all men that God is good led to a belief in a Devil,
>> the fallen Lucifer or Light-bearer, Shaitan the Adversary, Ahriman and
>> Tuphon, as an attempt to explain the existence of Evil, and make it
>> consistent with the Infinite Power, Wisdom, and Benevolence of God.
>> - Albert Pike "Morals and Dogma"
>
> Discussion? ;)
jHam Dolan PM You have the time, they might not:
White River #90 Feed the hungry with a click of your mouse:
Royalton (Bethel), Vt. http://www.thehungersite.com
Craftworker
<jsw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Back up a paragraph on the first quote, and see if it changes the meaning at
>all.
The quote you seek:
>The issues are with God: To do, Of right belongs to us.
>Therefore faint not, nor be weary in well-doing! Be not discouraged at
>men's apathy, nor disgusted with their follies, nor tired of their
>indifference! Care not for returns and results; but see only what there
>is to do, and do it, leaving the results to God! Soldier of the Cross!
>Sworn Knight of Justice, Truth, and Toleration! Good Knight and
>True!be patient and work!
Does this change his view of Lucifer?
Craftworker
>Apotheosis </spelling check>
>
>This appears here more frequently with this mis-spelling than with the
>correct. Obviously the posters either don't read what they /copy/paste/post,
>or they don't understand the word itself. It is sort of key to the excerpt.
> Just curious- where did you copy this from?
An edition of the actual book, and the spelling (as originally quoted)
is correct.
You do realize, this was written over 100 years ago, and the english
language is somewhat dynamic? Are you suggesting that the core message
is inaccurate because you want to flip a couple letters around? ;)
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/04 9:31 AM:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:52:14 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> Apotheosis </spelling check>
>>
>> This appears here more frequently with this mis-spelling than with the
>> correct. Obviously the posters either don't read what they /copy/paste/post,
>> or they don't understand the word itself. It is sort of key to the excerpt.
>> Just curious- where did you copy this from?
>
> An edition of the actual book, and the spelling (as originally quoted)
> is correct.
>
> You do realize, this was written over 100 years ago, and the english
> language is somewhat dynamic? Are you suggesting that the core message
> is inaccurate because you want to flip a couple letters around? ;)
I did just do a quick check of an online version of M&D, and you are
correct- it is spelled that way, at least in that version. I'll have to try
to find my actual book and see what that says.
I would suggest that a/the word itself does have a coloring upon the
interpretation of the excerpt. Here's a link for dictionary findings of the
word 'apothesis':
http://www.onelook.com/?w=apothesis&ls=a
I guess it could be correct if usage was to refer to a 'mending'. It is an
obscure word, and a lot of present dictionaries don't even show it at all.
It was, quite some time ago, suggested to me that it is a possible
mispelling/editing error. Perhaps that suggestion itself was in error. I'll
ruminate upon the excerpt, and see what it leaves me with. With the
suggested definition as meaning 'mending' (it certainly wasn't to mean a
'room off a bath'), I interpret the excerpt as not being laudable, but
rather critical, of 'Lucifer'- much the same as the conclusion derived from
my conversations of long ago, when the word 'apotheosis' was first
considered.
And yes, I do consider that the 'flip of a couple letters' can render a
core message inaccurate, especially if a new/different word is thereby
derived.
jDolan
in article ac6os0dso5rr50fh3...@4ax.com, Craftworker at
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/04 9:31 AM:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:52:14 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> Apotheosis </spelling check>
>>
>> This appears here more frequently with this mis-spelling than with the
>> correct. Obviously the posters either don't read what they /copy/paste/post,
>> or they don't understand the word itself. It is sort of key to the excerpt.
>> Just curious- where did you copy this from?
>
> An edition of the actual book, and the spelling (as originally quoted)
> is correct.
>
> You do realize, this was written over 100 years ago, and the english
> language is somewhat dynamic? Are you suggesting that the core message
> is inaccurate because you want to flip a couple letters around? ;)
I did just do a quick check of an online version of M&D, and you are
correct- it is spelled that way, at least in that version. I'll have to try
to find my actual book and see what that says.
I would suggest that a/the word itself does have a coloring upon the
interpretation of the excerpt. Here's a link for dictionary findings of the
word 'apothesis':
http://www.onelook.com/?w=apothesis&ls=a
I guess it could be correct if usage was to refer to a 'mending'. It is an
obscure word, and a lot of present dictionaries don't even show it at all.
It was, quite some time ago, suggested to me that it is a possible
mispelling/editing error. Perhaps that suggestion itself was in error. I'll
ruminate upon the excerpt, and see what it leaves me with. With the
suggested definition as meaning 'mending' (it certainly wasn't to mean a
'room off a bath'), I interpret the excerpt as not being laudable, but
rather critical, of 'Lucifer'- much the same as the conclusion derived from
my conversations of long ago, when the word 'apotheosis' was first
considered.
And yes, I do consider that the 'flip of a couple letters' can render a
core message inaccurate, especially if a new/different word is thereby
derived.
jHam Dolan PM You have the time, they might not:
Larry W. Chavis
> in article ac6os0dso5rr50fh3...@4ax.com, Craftworker at
> thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/04 9:31 AM:
>
>
>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:52:14 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Apotheosis </spelling check>
>>>
>>>This appears here more frequently with this mis-spelling than with the
>>>correct. Obviously the posters either don't read what they /copy/paste/post,
>>>or they don't understand the word itself. It is sort of key to the excerpt.
>>>Just curious- where did you copy this from?
>>
>>An edition of the actual book, and the spelling (as originally quoted)
>>is correct.
>>
>>You do realize, this was written over 100 years ago, and the english
>>language is somewhat dynamic? Are you suggesting that the core message
>>is inaccurate because you want to flip a couple letters around? ;)
>
>
> I did just do a quick check of an online version of M&D, and you are
> correct- it is spelled that way, at least in that version. I'll have to try
> to find my actual book and see what that says.
> I would suggest that a/the word itself does have a coloring upon the
> interpretation of the excerpt. Here's a link for dictionary findings of the
> word 'apothesis':
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=apothesis&ls=a
<snip>
In my printed copy, 1966 edition, printed by the Supreme Council in
Washington, D.C., purchased directly from them in 1985, this passage on
page 321 has the word spelled thusly:
"Apotheosis." That's a-p-o-t-h-e-o-s-i-s.
Hope this helps.
Larry W. Chavis, PM
New Hebron No. 508
G.L. of Mississippi
jDolan
lwch...@bellsouth.net wrote on 12/24/04 1:48 PM:
Thank you, and hello, Bro. Larry.
While my copy is in one of several boxes, my recollection suggested that it
was the same mis-spelled version.
After perusing several online versions of both the book M&D and quoted
excerpts therefrom, both versions of the questioned word can be found,
though most Masonic sites seem to have the quote correctly. It has always
caused me to wonder- what do people think/imagine when they encounter a word
that really has no contextual meaning but is used/provided definitively? It
appears that many anti-Masonic sites use the incorrect quote. Given that it
is somewhat difficult to find a definition of 'apothesis' online, do they
just imagine it to be concurrent with their viewpoint and think "aha!".
I guess I'll revert to my initial post and again submit that the original
post is not accurate, and as provided, does not coincide with the author's
concept contained within an accurately presented version of the excerpt.
CW- I don't wish to go round and round with something such as this, but I do
disagree and do suggest that your presentation is vastly different in
concept than Pike's original. I guess it has to do with semantics and also
perceptions and conceptions. We can differ and probably both be fine with
that.
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/04 9:31 AM:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:52:14 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> Apotheosis </spelling check>
>>
>> This appears here more frequently with this mis-spelling than with the
>> correct. Obviously the posters either don't read what they /copy/paste/post,
>> or they don't understand the word itself. It is sort of key to the excerpt.
>> Just curious- where did you copy this from?
>
> An edition of the actual book, and the spelling (as originally quoted)
> is correct.
If this is indeed an 'actual' book, which edition (and/or publication date)
is it?
Larry W. Chavis
Greetings to you, also, Bro. Dolan. Merry Christmas to you & yours.
Craftworker
<lwch...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
><snip>
>
>In my printed copy, 1966 edition, printed by the Supreme Council in
>Washington, D.C., purchased directly from them in 1985, this passage on
>page 321 has the word spelled thusly:
>
>"Apotheosis." That's a-p-o-t-h-e-o-s-i-s.
>
>Hope this helps.
Yeah, it helps us determine how people in 1966 spelled it. Is this
your "evidence"? ;)
Craftworker
>> An edition of the actual book, and the spelling (as originally quoted)
>> is correct.
>
>If this is indeed an 'actual' book, which edition (and/or publication date)
>is it?
The publication date is listed as 1871. Does that help?
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/04 2:52 PM:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:48:11 -0600, "Larry W. Chavis"
> <lwch...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> In my printed copy, 1966 edition, printed by the Supreme Council in
>> Washington, D.C., purchased directly from them in 1985, this passage on
>> page 321 has the word spelled thusly:
>>
>> "Apotheosis." That's a-p-o-t-h-e-o-s-i-s.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>
>
> Yeah, it helps us determine how people in 1966 spelled it. Is this
> your "evidence"? ;)
Chronology or history have nothing to do with it- they are two entirely
different words, and have always been so.
What edition did you take your quote from? Evidence, and all that sort of
thing.
Mine is but a simple request, please honor it.
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/04 2:56 PM:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:21:27 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>>> An edition of the actual book, and the spelling (as originally quoted)
>>> is correct.
>>
>> If this is indeed an 'actual' book, which edition (and/or publication date)
>> is it?
>
> The publication date is listed as 1871. Does that help?
Is it an original, first edition volume? 1871 is the date of first
publication. Perhaps yours is of a later vintage. To my knowledge, your
wording does not appear in any editions that have thus far come to my
knowledge. Please check the front pages and see if there is not further
information.
If it is indeed as you claim, it would be unique, but unfortunately, I
would have to dis-believe you until I could physically verify what you
claim. Might you scan the text you quoted and post it to the binaries group?
And does the wording that you have provided make sense to you- knowing that
we are discussing two separate words, and those being words that Pike would
have easily been able to differentiate?
Larry W. Chavis
Bro. Dolan,
It is difficult to believe the word used is really "apothesis," from the
meaning of the word itself. If I might quote from the entry found at
dictionary.com,
1 entry found for apothesis.
apothesis
\A*poth"e*sis\, n. [Gr. ? a putting back or away, fr. ?. See
Apothecary.] (Arch.) (a) A place on the south side of the chancel in the
primitive churches, furnished with shelves, for books, vestments, etc.
--Weale. (b) A dressing room connected with a public bath.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
I really don't see how that can fit into the passage under discussion.
"Apotheosis," on the other hand, is right at home there.
I notice he hasn't answered your requests for publication date, etc.
I'd be surprised if any is forthcoming. By the way, I was careless in
the use of the word "edition" in my previous post, I should have said
"publication date." It was simply a reprint of the original, original
typeface, etc. I doubt if it had been edited at all.
jDolan
lwch...@bellsouth.net wrote on 12/24/04 3:36 PM:
I'm in agreement with you. In the url I earlier provided, one could find
their way to here:
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0001310
.html
which has one of two possible definitions being the setting of a broken
bone. This could be interpreted to mean mending or healing, but again I
would suggest that even that stretch would not be in agreement with Pike.
That's why one of my posts mentioned semantics and perceptions/conceptions.
That has to do with the actual subject matter of the excerpt itself and how
one would consider that. I don't think Pike meant to write that the degree
was a mending. An elevation or apotheosis (which he took the trouble to
capitalize, BTW) I would readily agree with, but not as the presented
excerpt would have it. And apparently that provision, containing
'apothesis', is unique to one particular volume, and that within the reach
of one of our correspondents here. Surely they would readily share the
particulars of that with us?
> I really don't see how that can fit into the passage under discussion.
> "Apotheosis," on the other hand, is right at home there.
>
> I notice he hasn't answered your requests for publication date, etc.
> I'd be surprised if any is forthcoming. By the way, I was careless in
> the use of the word "edition" in my previous post, I should have said
> "publication date." It was simply a reprint of the original, original
> typeface, etc. I doubt if it had been edited at all.
To my knowledge, it has not been edited. That can probably be verified, but
lets see what information is forthcoming, as that would assist in the
verification process.
Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.
May joy and and inner peace abide with all.
Craftworker
>Is it an original, first edition volume? 1871 is the date of first
>publication. Perhaps yours is of a later vintage. To my knowledge, your
>wording does not appear in any editions that have thus far come to my
>knowledge. Please check the front pages and see if there is not further
>information.
"Prepared for the Supreme Council Of The Thirty-Third Degree, For The
Southern Jurisdiction Of The United States, And Published By It's
Authority. Charleston. First Edition. 1871"
> If it is indeed as you claim, it would be unique, but unfortunately, I
>would have to dis-believe you until I could physically verify what you
>claim. Might you scan the text you quoted and post it to the binaries group?
> And does the wording that you have provided make sense to you- knowing that
>we are discussing two separate words, and those being words that Pike would
>have easily been able to differentiate?
I do not have a scanner. Besides, this is probably some trick to get
me to post copyrighted material. LOL
As far as the word making sense, a lot of his words don't make sense,
to us today. So that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. ;)
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/04 5:23 PM:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 19:10:24 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> Is it an original, first edition volume? 1871 is the date of first
>> publication. Perhaps yours is of a later vintage. To my knowledge, your
>> wording does not appear in any editions that have thus far come to my
>> knowledge. Please check the front pages and see if there is not further
>> information.
>
> "Prepared for the Supreme Council Of The Thirty-Third Degree, For The
> Southern Jurisdiction Of The United States, And Published By It's
> Authority. Charleston. First Edition. 1871"
This I do not believe. Apologies for frankness, but I've never heard of
this/your version of this book. Wouldn't it merely be simpler/easier to just
say you cobbed it from a website that had an inaccurate version?
I'll verify, physically and via email, that the original edition did not
contain that wording.
>> If it is indeed as you claim, it would be unique, but unfortunately, I
>> would have to dis-believe you until I could physically verify what you
>> claim. Might you scan the text you quoted and post it to the binaries group?
>> And does the wording that you have provided make sense to you- knowing that
>> we are discussing two separate words, and those being words that Pike would
>> have easily been able to differentiate?
>
> I do not have a scanner. Besides, this is probably some trick to get
> me to post copyrighted material. LOL
My goodness, it appears on several websites and is not still copy protected.
I do believe it has to maintain its original content, however, and can not
be altered without clear and obvious notice.
> As far as the word making sense, a lot of his words don't make sense,
> to us today. So that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. ;)
I don't understand how your original excerpt made any sense at all to you.
Your original post also sought comment. What did it mean to you? And how do
you interpret the contested word it contained? Being that you maintain the
accuracy of your post, please help me understand what it is that you posted
and what it means.
As far as present day reading of M&D goes- it makes sense to me. It
involves a little work but I've not been stymied by it thus far. And weren't
you, just a few posts back, chiding me about the dynamics of language?
Educate me, please.
Craftworker
>This I do not believe. Apologies for frankness, but I've never heard of
>this/your version of this book. Wouldn't it merely be simpler/easier to just
>say you cobbed it from a website that had an inaccurate version?
> I'll verify, physically and via email, that the original edition did not
>contain that wording.
Oh...so this is the "your book doesn't exist" argument? Gee, I haven't
heard that one before. And all the copies all over the internet are
wrong, too? So, let me understand this correctly, there is a special
edition that only "real masons" have, or something along those lines?
Pathetic. But nice try anyway.
bryan
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 23:23:01 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>>This I do not believe. Apologies for frankness, but I've never heard of
>>this/your version of this book. Wouldn't it merely be simpler/easier to
>>just say you cobbed it from a website that had an inaccurate version?
>> I'll verify, physically and via email, that the original edition did not
>>contain that wording.
>
> Oh...so this is the "your book doesn't exist" argument? Gee, I haven't
> heard that one before. And all the copies all over the internet are wrong,
> too? So, let me understand this correctly, there is a special edition that
> only "real masons" have, or something along those lines?
>
> Pathetic. But nice try anyway.
i apologise for contradicting you but how does this differ from peter
asking people to give verifiable sources? i don't see you criticising him...
you say you don't have a scanner but how does that stop you? i have two
scanners and if someone asked me if i could scan something for them, i'd
say yes. have you asked your lodge members if they have a scanner? your
neighbours? your work colleagues?
c'mon, crafty... it's your chance to put the "hate masons" in their place.
get a scan of your original copy of morals and dogma and shut them up!
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/24/04 8:50 PM:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 23:23:01 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> This I do not believe. Apologies for frankness, but I've never heard of
>> this/your version of this book. Wouldn't it merely be simpler/easier to just
>> say you cobbed it from a website that had an inaccurate version?
>> I'll verify, physically and via email, that the original edition did not
>> contain that wording.
>
> Oh...so this is the "your book doesn't exist" argument? Gee, I haven't
> heard that one before. And all the copies all over the internet are
> wrong, too?
There are many incorrect versions out there, as I said before. But you claim
to have an actual, physically tangible book with that misquote. There are
correct online versions out there, but you have a real, 'first edition'
book, so why would you need one of them, anyway? If you need help
recognizing the real thing, just ask. ;)
> So, let me understand this correctly, there is a special
> edition that only "real masons" have, or something along those lines?
Well, if it is a 'real' book, it would not have the incorrectness that you
claim your book has. SO, actually, the answer to your question might very
well be 'yes' in this particular instance.
> Pathetic. But nice try anyway.
I'll maintain my position for about ever. Nice to meet you. :)
So anyway, what's your interpretation of what you quoted? You must have had
a reason for doing so and asking for discussion. How do you work in or
justify the usage of the word apothesis?
Gene Goldman
> have you asked your lodge members if they have a scanner?
Brother Bryan,
I think you are making an assumption that has no evidence to support it.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart. - Goldman 3:16
Brother Gene .*.
past Master of two (2) Black Lodges
Blackmer #442 and Black Mountain #845
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
Regular 1,765 degree Mason
Chief Intellectually Lazy, Cynical, Sarcastic, Smarmy, Defensive,
Ignorant-Heckling and Bad-Attituded Nitwit
Named member of the Bennie-Goldman Jive-Talk Team
First Official Recipient of the Order of the Fish Taco
Most Wonderful Grand High Exalted Imperial Omnipotent Mystic Regal
Stomper, and Wearer of the Official Purple Underwear
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
Hyram Award 2004
http://www.freemason.org
http://mastermason.com/BrotherGene
http://www.mastermason.com/BrotherGene/frequently_asked_questions.htm
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
************************************
"Are you guys ready? Let's Roll!!"
Todd Beamer, Flight 93
************************************
"In theory, Communism works! - Russian saying.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E! W++ N+++ o-- K-
w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP-- t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e*
h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: Your Masonry may be different from someone else's.
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2004. All rights reserved.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission
may be granted to others upon request.
Objects in this post are funnier than they appear
Be seeing you
And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
Craftworker
>There are many incorrect versions out there, as I said before. But you claim
>to have an actual, physically tangible book with that misquote. There are
>correct online versions out there, but you have a real, 'first edition'
>book, so why would you need one of them, anyway? If you need help
>recognizing the real thing, just ask. ;)
How do you know it is a misquote? Are you Albert Pike? From where I am
sitting, unless you are him, or are holding his original manuscript in
your hands, it's a moot point, right? How can you claim with any
authority which spelling he intended?
Funny how none of this has anything to do with the Lucifer reference,
though. A little smoke and mirrors for the home audience? ;)
Cheers!
Craftworker
wrote:
>i apologise for contradicting you but how does this differ from peter
>asking people to give verifiable sources? i don't see you criticising him...
>
>you say you don't have a scanner but how does that stop you? i have two
>scanners and if someone asked me if i could scan something for them, i'd
>say yes. have you asked your lodge members if they have a scanner? your
>neighbours? your work colleagues?
>
>c'mon, crafty... it's your chance to put the "hate masons" in their place.
>get a scan of your original copy of morals and dogma and shut them up!
Oh....so I am the owner of the only copy in existance with that
spelling? And all the translations are wrong? Of a book of a few
million printings?
And let's be honest, even if I did post a scan, you'll just say I
photoshopped it, right? This is the game we're playing? ;)
I learn more about my "fraternity" every day.
Cheers!
Joe Steve Swick III
An edition of the actual book, and the spelling (as originally quoted) is
correct.
It is INcorrect. The correct word is APOTHEOSIS, and so it reads in my
various hard copies of Pike's work.
___KraftWerker___
You do realize, this was written over 100 years ago, and the english
language is somewhat dynamic?
----
LOL! Bzzt! But thanks for playing.
JSW
Joe Steve Swick III
Oh....so I am the owner of the only copy in existance with that spelling?
And all the translations are wrong? Of a book of a few
million printings?
No, what folks are telling you, is that in the hardcover copies they own,
the spelling is APOTHEOSIS, and that the assumption has been that the online
versions are erroneous transcriptions.
If you have a first edition of Morals and Dogma and it reads the way you
state, then it should be easily demonstrated, and will be quite educational.
BTW, first edition copies of M&D are not cheap. I'm curious where you found
yours?
___KraftWerker___
And let's be honest, even if I did post a scan, you'll just say I
photoshopped it, right? This is the game we're playing? ;)
----
That evidence may be misused is not an argument against providing any.
JSW
Joe Steve Swick III
Funny how none of this has anything to do with the Lucifer reference,
though. A little smoke and mirrors for the home audience? ;)
Perhaps that is because: 1) the context ("the Apocalypse is .... the
Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises
all the pomps and works of Lucifer...") disproves your argument; and, 2)
this has been discussed endlessly in this forum. I myself have answered this
a few times (e.g.,
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.freemasonry/msg/f7c13f3a16909e9f?dmode=source).
"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 it's splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish
Souls? Doubt it not! [Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma 321] <snip>
[This is] a paraphrase from the writings of the Apostle Paul:
"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: IN WHOM THE GOD
OF THIS WORLD HATH BLINDED THE MINDS OF THEM WHICH BELIEVE NOT, lest the
light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should
shine unto them" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).
So, "LUCIFER" whom Paul calls "THE GOD OF THIS WORLD," blinds the minds of
the "feeble, sensual, or selfish souls" -- i.e., those "which believe not."
Forgive me, but I fail to see how Pike's paraphrase of the Apostle Paul
makes him a Satanist.
Cheers,
Joe Swick
Heretic
Craftworker
<jsw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: IN WHOM THE GOD
>OF THIS WORLD HATH BLINDED THE MINDS OF THEM WHICH BELIEVE NOT, lest the
>light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should
>shine unto them" (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).
>
>So, "LUCIFER" whom Paul calls "THE GOD OF THIS WORLD," blinds the minds of
>the "feeble, sensual, or selfish souls" -- i.e., those "which believe not."
>Forgive me, but I fail to see how Pike's paraphrase of the Apostle Paul
>makes him a Satanist.
Actually, idiot, he is cut and pasting Eliphas Levi. "Doubt it not!"
tykkea
Joe Steve Swick III wrote:
> BTW, first edition copies of M&D are not cheap. I'm curious where you
found
> yours?
I have a copy of the first edition that i bought from david
copperfield's soul while in the astral plane; it sits on a hovering
shelf in my underground satanic castle where big foot, nessy and my
friends in the Trilateral Commission come over to play gin rummy with
me and jesus. :-)
First edition. <snickers>
Craftworker
wrote:
Dear dumbasses:
There are three 1st editions for sale on eBay as we speak. Are you
under the impression these are rare or something? LOL
Too funny
Craftworker
<thecraf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>There are three 1st editions for sale on eBay as we speak. Are you
>under the impression these are rare or something? LOL
And for those too lazy to look for themselves:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=518&item=3948368751&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
It even has the same inscription mine does. Any more questions? ;)
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/04 5:11 AM:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 02:03:04 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> There are many incorrect versions out there, as I said before. But you claim
>> to have an actual, physically tangible book with that misquote. There are
>> correct online versions out there, but you have a real, 'first edition'
>> book, so why would you need one of them, anyway? If you need help
>> recognizing the real thing, just ask. ;)
>
> How do you know it is a misquote? Are you Albert Pike? From where I am
> sitting, unless you are him, or are holding his original manuscript in
> your hands, it's a moot point, right? How can you claim with any
> authority which spelling he intended?
Contextually, the word you would have there just doesn't work, and I can't
find any other example of a similarly worded book. I'll look into it, as I
just can't believe it would have been originally presented that way.
Probably will take a day or two, but we'll get to the bottom of it.
> Funny how none of this has anything to do with the Lucifer reference,
> though. A little smoke and mirrors for the home audience? ;)
Actually it has all to do with your provided excerpt. Before I would begin
to comment upon something, I would certainly like to asscertain the accuracy
of just what it is that is to be commented on. A good, standard practice.
There's no smoke and mirrors- just a little establishing of what exactly
we're talking about. What you provided is different than any published
version that has come to my knowledge thus far. And apparently that
conclusion is found by other commentors here as well. What you have posted
appears to be something filtched from a website, and I think you originally
read it and assumed that the incorrect word ('apothesis') caused the passage
to present a detrimental view of Masonry. I won't go so far as to say that I
believe it to have all been intentional, but will suggest that, possibly,
you just didn't know what you were reading. Admission of that would be the
easy way out, and I offered it to you early on, but that was, and is,
declined. So-
Let's get on with the commenting aspect of this thread. Though we seem to
be working with two different versions, how do you interpret your excerpt?
You originally requested 'discussion', and have now again commented upon the
lack hereof, so go ahead- what is it about this that interests you? If you
lack a starting point, perhaps you could address the very word 'apothesis'
as it is used definitively within the considered text.
Craftworker
> What you have posted
>appears to be something filtched from a website, and I think you originally
>read it and assumed that the incorrect word ('apothesis') caused the passage
>to present a detrimental view of Masonry.
Ok, let's stop the train in it's tracks right there. ;)
We are talking about Pike, not Freemasonry. While I have a detrimental
view of some "masons" (and you know who you are), my view of the
fraternity is not affected by Pike in the slightest. Let's be clear on
that.
This all started when I said roughly the following: it is possible
that the Taxil "confession" was the actual Taxil "hoax". Albert Pike
had made references to Lucifer in earlier writings, and painted the
Lucifer character in a rather positive light. So what Taxil attributed
to Pike was not very far off from what Pike said himself in other
places. Pike, in my opinion, was not the nicest person running around
during that time period, and I certainly would not have approved of
him dating my sister.
So, to add to further discussion, I posted the Morals and Dogma
quotes. I did so without commentary on my interpretation of same,
beyond saying it cast "Lucifer" in a positive light. (no pun
intended). ;)
>I won't go so far as to say that I
>believe it to have all been intentional, but will suggest that, possibly,
>you just didn't know what you were reading. Admission of that would be the
>easy way out, and I offered it to you early on, but that was, and is,
>declined. So-
It's in front of me, black and white. Could it be Pike's intention to
spell it that way? Sure. Could I have an edition with a misprint?
Possible. All I can tell you is I copied the data verbatim. Since you
say other people have the same error in other places, my edition is
obviously not unique. But for the puposes of our discussion, choose
any spelling you like, as either option does not conflict with my
original statement.
Cheers!
Craftworker
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/04 2:39 PM:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:09:22 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> What you have posted
>> appears to be something filtched from a website, and I think you originally
>> read it and assumed that the incorrect word ('apothesis') caused the passage
>> to present a detrimental view of Masonry.
>
> Ok, let's stop the train in it's tracks right there. ;)
>
> We are talking about Pike, not Freemasonry. While I have a detrimental
> view of some "masons" (and you know who you are), my view of the
> fraternity is not affected by Pike in the slightest. Let's be clear on
> that.
Then why would you post an 'excerpt', purportedly authored by Pike, accurate
or not, for consideration, if he is not to be considered in the slightest?
> This all started when I said roughly the following: it is possible
> that the Taxil "confession" was the actual Taxil "hoax". Albert Pike
> had made references to Lucifer in earlier writings, and painted the
> Lucifer character in a rather positive light.
I'm sorry, but I missed that post where you made that statement. Was that in
this thread? It does not appear to be so.
Regardless, I'll work with what you write now.
What or which earlier writings of Pike painted Lucifer in a positive light?
Please don't make references based upon assumptions. If you are going to use
something in a supportive manner, please properly cite it, and also give
your reasons for doing so. I don't agree with your assumption here, as I
don't have the slightest idea what an agreement on my part would give
consent to.
> So what Taxil attributed
> to Pike was not very far off from what Pike said himself in other
> places. Pike, in my opinion, was not the nicest person running around
> during that time period, and I certainly would not have approved of
> him dating my sister.
Taxil forged a letter, he didn't attribute anything to anybody. He plain and
simple wrote something and presented it as the work of another, who at the
time was deceased.
However, you are digressing. Hopefully you will at some point bring this to
focus specifically upon your initial quote.
>
> So, to add to further discussion, I posted the Morals and Dogma
> quotes. I did so without commentary on my interpretation of same,
> beyond saying it cast "Lucifer" in a positive light. (no pun
> intended). ;)
I read it as being directly opposite that opinion, and that even when using
a strained definition of the word 'apothesis' as you provided. Were one to
use the correct word 'apotheosis', I fail to see how they could be in
agreement with your conslusion. Your elaboration of your reasoning for your
conslusion would be appreciated.
>
>> I won't go so far as to say that I
>> believe it to have all been intentional, but will suggest that, possibly,
>> you just didn't know what you were reading. Admission of that would be the
>> easy way out, and I offered it to you early on, but that was, and is,
>> declined. So-
>
> It's in front of me, black and white. Could it be Pike's intention to
> spell it that way? Sure. Could I have an edition with a misprint?
> Possible. All I can tell you is I copied the data verbatim. Since you
> say other people have the same error in other places, my edition is
> obviously not unique.
I have stated that there are abundant examples of the incorrect text that
are to be found on the internet. I have not as yet found an example, as you
claim does exist, in the form of a printed book.
WHy do you say it would be acceptable to Pike to define something as a
small room off a chancel or the relocation of a dislocated bone in such a
context? And how would doing so have "painted the Lucifer character in a
rather positive light"?
Just providing quoted text, accurate or not, is not sufficient. Your
reasoning should accompany it, so that we may better understand your
position.
> But for the puposes of our discussion, choose
> any spelling you like, as either option does not conflict with my
> original statement.
For the time being, we can stick with your 'aopthesis'. I do wish you would
explain to me how that word in your excerpt makes any sense and how its
placement supports your view.
And why did your intial post have quote characters next to the text, if you
just typed it in? It seems odd, as there appears to be nothing, in that
thread or otherwise, that preceeds it and would therefore be quoted. Did I
miss something?
(I would infer that we have only been discussing but one of the flaws of
your initial post, but that will be tabled for the time being.)
jDolan
that sort of stuff...
in article 4nbrs05o2a626e65o...@4ax.com, Craftworker at
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/04 2:39 PM:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:09:22 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> What you have posted
>> appears to be something filtched from a website, and I think you originally
>> read it and assumed that the incorrect word ('apothesis') caused the passage
>> to present a detrimental view of Masonry.
>
> Ok, let's stop the train in it's tracks right there. ;)
>
> We are talking about Pike, not Freemasonry. While I have a detrimental
> view of some "masons" (and you know who you are), my view of the
> fraternity is not affected by Pike in the slightest. Let's be clear on
> that.
Then why would you post an 'excerpt', purportedly authored by Pike, accurate
or not, for consideration, if he is not to be considered in the slightest?
> This all started when I said roughly the following: it is possible
> that the Taxil "confession" was the actual Taxil "hoax". Albert Pike
> had made references to Lucifer in earlier writings, and painted the
> Lucifer character in a rather positive light.
I'm sorry, but I missed that post where you made that statement. Was that in
this thread? It does not appear to be so.
Regardless, I'll work with what you write now.
What or which earlier writings of Pike painted Lucifer in a positive light?
Please don't make references based upon assumptions. If you are going to use
something in a supportive manner, please properly cite it, and also give
your reasons for doing so. I don't agree with your assumption here, as I
don't have the slightest idea what an agreement on my part would give
consent to.
> So what Taxil attributed
> to Pike was not very far off from what Pike said himself in other
> places. Pike, in my opinion, was not the nicest person running around
> during that time period, and I certainly would not have approved of
> him dating my sister.
Taxil forged a letter, he didn't attribute anything to anybody. He plain and
simple wrote something and presented it as the work of another, who at the
time was deceased.
However, you are digressing. Hopefully you will at some point bring this to
focus specifically upon your initial quote.
>
> So, to add to further discussion, I posted the Morals and Dogma
> quotes. I did so without commentary on my interpretation of same,
> beyond saying it cast "Lucifer" in a positive light. (no pun
> intended). ;)
I read it as being directly opposite that opinion, and that even when using
a strained definition of the word 'apothesis' as you provided. Were one to
use the correct word 'apotheosis', I fail to see how they could be in
agreement with your conslusion. Your elaboration of your reasoning for your
conslusion would be appreciated.
>
>> I won't go so far as to say that I
>> believe it to have all been intentional, but will suggest that, possibly,
>> you just didn't know what you were reading. Admission of that would be the
>> easy way out, and I offered it to you early on, but that was, and is,
>> declined. So-
>
> It's in front of me, black and white. Could it be Pike's intention to
> spell it that way? Sure. Could I have an edition with a misprint?
> Possible. All I can tell you is I copied the data verbatim. Since you
> say other people have the same error in other places, my edition is
> obviously not unique.
I have stated that there are abundant examples of the incorrect text that
are to be found on the internet. I have not as yet found an example, as you
claim does exist, in the form of a printed book.
WHy do you say it would be acceptable to Pike to define something as a
small room off a chancel or the relocation of a dislocated bone in such a
context? And how would doing so have "painted the Lucifer character in a
rather positive light"?
Just providing quoted text, accurate or not, is not sufficient. Your
reasoning should accompany it, so that we may better understand your
position.
> But for the puposes of our discussion, choose
> any spelling you like, as either option does not conflict with my
> original statement.
For the time being, we can stick with your 'aopthesis'. I do wish you would
explain to me how that word in your excerpt makes any sense and how its
placement supports your view.
And why did your intial post have quote characters next to the text, if you
just typed it in? It seems odd, as there appears to be nothing, in that
thread or otherwise, that preceeds it and would therefore be quoted. Did I
miss something?
(I would infer that we have only been discussing but one of the flaws of
your initial post, but that will be tabled for the time being.)
jHam Dolan PM You have the time, they might not:
Jim Bennie
> This all started when I said roughly the following: it is possible
> that the Taxil "confession" was the actual Taxil "hoax".
And it's possible you could be Ed King, but I doubt it. (Hmm. Just
heard some choking sounds coming from the direction of Maine ;)
CW, have you read a translation of Taxil's confession? There was a
paper in AQC about it and I highly doubt the confession was the hoax.
However, that's a bit off the main thrust of what you were writing
in the first place.
I didn't see that Pike was being positive; it seems to me he's treating
Lucy as the opposite of the GAOTU.
Jim Bennie
PM/DC, No. 44, Vancouver
PS.. I tried sending you an Xmas greeting (plain text) but it bounced.
I don't know how others are able to get ahold of you.
Russ
this Pike discussion coming up before. Those who single out that phrase,
sentence, or partial paragraph would go away thinking he stated what
Craftworker is presenting. However, when you read the paragraph before
and after, and the complete paragraph in question, a totally different
meaning is evolves. From what I remember, I believe Pike was critical of
Lucifer.
I bought a copy of the M&D from Ebay, in the late 90's (or so). I tried
to read it. The book was so ponderous, I could not get past the first 10
pages.
Now, Craftworker, remember, as we have learned, not one Mason speaks for
all. No book, paper, video, or website is the voice of Freemasonry. I do
not know if a true "voice" exists.
I know you state that you are a Freemason (and to this point I am
willing to believe you), you know nothing happens in the lodge or ritual
that is subversive, anti-religion, or bad. One has to remember that
Freemasonry welcomes all who believe in their G-d. That is the way it
should be. If Freemasons, Jewish, Christian, and Muslims, can sit in
lodge together in peace and harmony, may be the world should use
Freemasonry as an example.
--
X-No-archive: yes
Craftworker
>> We are talking about Pike, not Freemasonry. While I have a detrimental
>> view of some "masons" (and you know who you are), my view of the
>> fraternity is not affected by Pike in the slightest. Let's be clear on
>> that.
>
>Then why would you post an 'excerpt', purportedly authored by Pike, accurate
>or not, for consideration, if he is not to be considered in the slightest?
Your circular logic is making me dizzy; you are talking about two
different things. You said I was attacking Freemasonry, and I
corrected you. We are discussing Pike, that's it. I have no problem
with Freemasonry *itself*.
>> This all started when I said roughly the following: it is possible
>> that the Taxil "confession" was the actual Taxil "hoax". Albert Pike
>> had made references to Lucifer in earlier writings, and painted the
>> Lucifer character in a rather positive light.
>
>I'm sorry, but I missed that post where you made that statement. Was that in
>this thread? It does not appear to be so.
It was a different thread. Google it if you would like to backtrack,
all my posts archive for all eternity. ;)
> Regardless, I'll work with what you write now.
>What or which earlier writings of Pike painted Lucifer in a positive light?
>Please don't make references based upon assumptions. If you are going to use
>something in a supportive manner, please properly cite it, and also give
>your reasons for doing so. I don't agree with your assumption here, as I
>don't have the slightest idea what an agreement on my part would give
>consent to.
Was the quote not cited? You say you have a copy of M&D, look it up
for yourself. If you are unclear on Pike's meaning, I would refer you
to *his* source material, Eliphas Levi's book "The History of Magic".
You will find the passage where Levi discusses Lucifer almost a phrase
for phrase match of Pike's. The Levi version spells it out quite
plainly. Seek this passage, that is your homework assignment for this
weekend. Should you not be able to find it, I'll transcribe a copy up
in a few days, if you promise not to quibble about perceived spelling
problems. :)
Cheers, and a Merry X-Mas!
Crafty
---
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/04 10:58 PM:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:11:02 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> We are talking about Pike, not Freemasonry. While I have a detrimental
>>> view of some "masons" (and you know who you are), my view of the
>>> fraternity is not affected by Pike in the slightest. Let's be clear on
>>> that.
>>
>> Then why would you post an 'excerpt', purportedly authored by Pike, accurate
>> or not, for consideration, if he is not to be considered in the slightest?
>
> Your circular logic is making me dizzy; you are talking about two
> different things. You said I was attacking Freemasonry, and I
> corrected you. We are discussing Pike, that's it. I have no problem
> with Freemasonry *itself*.
I'm writing about a singular thing, and that is your originally provided
quote. In that I found it to differ from any printed, or book contained
version, I have sought clarification of the wording of that quote and also
asked how you derived your opinion from the quote that you provided. You
have not complied.
>
>>> This all started when I said roughly the following: it is possible
>>> that the Taxil "confession" was the actual Taxil "hoax". Albert Pike
>>> had made references to Lucifer in earlier writings, and painted the
>>> Lucifer character in a rather positive light.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I missed that post where you made that statement. Was that in
>> this thread? It does not appear to be so.
>
> It was a different thread. Google it if you would like to backtrack,
> all my posts archive for all eternity. ;)
Your reiteration of that at this time is sufficient. I am in disagreement
with your conclusion, and again ask how you arrived at your position. Others
have commented that they also do agree with your opinion.
>> Regardless, I'll work with what you write now.
>> What or which earlier writings of Pike painted Lucifer in a positive light?
>> Please don't make references based upon assumptions. If you are going to use
>> something in a supportive manner, please properly cite it, and also give
>> your reasons for doing so. I don't agree with your assumption here, as I
>> don't have the slightest idea what an agreement on my part would give
>> consent to.
>
> Was the quote not cited? You say you have a copy of M&D, look it up
> for yourself.
Currently my copy of that book is boxed and stored, with the majority of my
library, as a consequence of a problem with a 200+ year old foundation. My
recollection suggested, and it was further confirmed by others here, that
the wording I suggested is correct.
I have merely sought clarification of your conclusion, given the wording
you have provided. You have not provided any thus far.
> If you are unclear on Pike's meaning, I would refer you
> to *his* source material, Eliphas Levi's book "The History of Magic".
That's in a box, too.
But now you digress widely. I don't really have any inclination to discuss
Levi here, as he was a Mason for but 7 months, and left the fraternity in
disagreement. What you suggest has nothing at all to do with Masonry and ws
authored previous to his brief membershiip. He's far more difficult to read
than Pike, and additionally one must realize that he originally wrote in
French, so translations are involved. Levi sought to impose his opinions and
philosophies as being definitive, and when he was questioned, left.
Stick with Pike and clarify that. Think of it- your posts are in the
"archive for all eternity". I wish you would take this oppurtunity to
support your opinion of the quote you provided, erroneous as it is. So many
people reference that, and it doesn't even make any sense.
> You will find the passage where Levi discusses Lucifer almost a phrase
> for phrase match of Pike's. The Levi version spells it out quite
> plainly. Seek this passage, that is your homework assignment for this
> weekend. Should you not be able to find it, I'll transcribe a copy up
> in a few days, if you promise not to quibble about perceived spelling
> problems. :)
I'll pass on that digression. If you wish to focus on your original quote, I
have an interest, otherwise I see no need to proceed further.
jDolan
wrote on 12/26/04 10:21 AM:
snip
> Your reiteration of that at this time is sufficient. I am in disagreement
> with your conclusion, and again ask how you arrived at your position. Others
> have commented that they also do agree with your opinion.
That should read disagree- others have expressed disagreement with your
conclusion.
Craftworker
>> If you are unclear on Pike's meaning, I would refer you
>> to *his* source material, Eliphas Levi's book "The History of Magic".
>
>That's in a box, too.
> But now you digress widely. I don't really have any inclination to discuss
>Levi here, as he was a Mason for but 7 months, and left the fraternity in
>disagreement. What you suggest has nothing at all to do with Masonry and ws
>authored previous to his brief membershiip. He's far more difficult to read
>than Pike, and additionally one must realize that he originally wrote in
>French, so translations are involved. Levi sought to impose his opinions and
>philosophies as being definitive, and when he was questioned, left.
> Stick with Pike and clarify that. Think of it- your posts are in the
>"archive for all eternity". I wish you would take this oppurtunity to
>support your opinion of the quote you provided, erroneous as it is. So many
>people reference that, and it doesn't even make any sense.
It makes perfect sense, if you refer to the original Levi, which he is
paraphrasing.
But I find it facinating, you do not want to discuss Levi because he
was only a mason for 7 months? Is there a time limit on intelligence?
He was raised to the sublime degree of master mason, and Pike thought
very highly of him, enough so to cobble his work in large portions.
How is he not relevant?
It seems you do not want to debate this in good faith; dictating terms
regarding the scope of the material that can be presented, or trying
to tie this in some obscure way to masonry isn't quite cricket, is it?
Or do you simply not want to hop down this bunny trail in an un-tyled
forum?
Cheers!
Craftworker
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/04 12:21 PM:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:18:50 -0500, Craftworker
> <thecraf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> There are three 1st editions for sale on eBay as we speak. Are you
>> under the impression these are rare or something? LOL
>
> And for those too lazy to look for themselves:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=518&item=3948368751&rd=
> 1&ssPageName=WDVW
>
> It even has the same inscription mine does. Any more questions? ;)
Is this an accurate statement that you have made above? Does your book have
the 'same inscription'? When can I tell you are telling the truth?
You will notice that the auction is cancelled, by the seller, as their
book, inscription and all, is _not_ a first edition.
Play fair, please.
Straighten this out, and maybe we can go on. Otherwise you're just running
out an agenda.
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/26/04 2:34 PM:
No, I don't really want to 'debate' about Levy without first clarifying what
you have attributed to Pike. To my satisfaction, you have not justified that
Pike was favorable to Lucifer in your provided passage. Now you want to
contribute the writings of another, made prior to their very brief Masonic
membersip in support of your original statement. I'm sorry, but you'll have
to work me through acceptance of your first supposition for me to proceed to
a second. My goodness, you could just refer me to 'watchy's' site for the
quality of exposition that is going on here. And there doesn't seem to be a
'debate' anyway. You have not justified your original, foundational to your
claim, post. Now you want to build upon that. Not acceptable to me.
I just don't have a peaceful feeling that you are being straightforward
with me about this. In another response I just made, within this thread,
I've asked clarification of a previous claim of yours. Depending on how you
respongd to that, I might wish to ask another question pertaining to your
book. Otherwise, I'm out of this. I'm not allowed to play with people who
are not forthcoming.
And there is nothing relative to a tyled Lodge going on with this. I've
never heard of Pike being mentioned within a Lodge, and I don't know why he
would be, especially hereabouts. And I do get around a bit.
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/25/04 12:21 PM:
> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 09:18:50 -0500, Craftworker
> <thecraf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> There are three 1st editions for sale on eBay as we speak. Are you
>> under the impression these are rare or something? LOL
>
> And for those too lazy to look for themselves:
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=518&item=3948368751&rd=
> 1&ssPageName=WDVW
>
> It even has the same inscription mine does. Any more questions? ;)
Yes, but one more question-
On the title page the book you claim to have is a four(4) digit number. What
is that number, please?
Gene Goldman
>
> And it's possible you could be Ed King, but I doubt it. (Hmm. Just
> heard some choking sounds coming from the direction of Maine ;)
No, Mike Restovo is Ed, remember?
Craftworker
>I've asked clarification of a previous claim of yours. Depending on how you
>respongd to that, I might wish to ask another question pertaining to your
>book. Otherwise, I'm out of this. I'm not allowed to play with people who
>are not forthcoming.
All I have seen from you is word games based on alleged spelling and
smoke and mirrors about my copy of M&D being somehow unique in the
entire world. No answer I give will satisfy you, since you have no
desire to address the issues at hand, but rather run off on some
tangent and divert the discourse in true Edwardian form.
Nice try, though.
Crafty
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/26/04 9:24 PM:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:58:48 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> I've asked clarification of a previous claim of yours. Depending on how you
>> respongd to that, I might wish to ask another question pertaining to your
>> book. Otherwise, I'm out of this. I'm not allowed to play with people who
>> are not forthcoming.
>
> All I have seen from you is word games based on alleged spelling and
> smoke and mirrors about my copy of M&D being somehow unique in the
> entire world. No answer I give will satisfy you, since you have no
> desire to address the issues at hand, but rather run off on some
> tangent and divert the discourse in true Edwardian form.
>
> Nice try, though.
It is an excellent response on my part. I am affording you the opportunity
to accomplish validation of your quote. As I said, we can get to the bottom
of this, as I believe we will, and soon.
Now don't fall off to name calling, as I won't respond in kind. Continue
with your presentation, but please begin correctly by supporting your
sources of reference.
I, very plainly and simply stated, don't believe the accuracy of your
original quote. It was your provision of verification, via a link to a
purported first edition of M&D that fell through. If as you wrote "It even
has the same inscription mine does", then it would not have been a first
edition. Thus far you have done nothing to substantiate the veracity of your
original quote. I have now merely asked you to provide to myself, and the
readership, a simple four(4) digit number that is to be found on the title
page of the volume from which you claim to have derived your quote, thus
enabling you to add credence to the quote itself. Once we have that number,
we can then determine the uniqueness of the(your) volume itself. To my
present knowldege, no first edition of M&D contains the language you have
presented. Your providing the requested number would be of great assisitance
in my understanding just what we are being asked to consider here.
I am not trying to divert the conversation, but merely attempting to verify
the veracity of your quote itself. If you can adequately promote its
correctness, then I by all means would pursue a dialogue concerning it. I
believe there are many others that would share that interest as well, though
perhaps only through readership.
Craftworker
>I, very plainly and simply stated, don't believe the accuracy of your
>original quote. It was your provision of verification, via a link to a
>purported first edition of M&D that fell through. If as you wrote "It even
>has the same inscription mine does", then it would not have been a first
>edition. Thus far you have done nothing to substantiate the veracity of your
>original quote. I have now merely asked you to provide to myself, and the
>readership, a simple four(4) digit number that is to be found on the title
>page of the volume from which you claim to have derived your quote, thus
>enabling you to add credence to the quote itself. Once we have that number,
>we can then determine the uniqueness of the(your) volume itself. To my
>present knowldege, no first edition of M&D contains the language you have
>presented. Your providing the requested number would be of great assisitance
>in my understanding just what we are being asked to consider here.
Actually, rather than addressing the issue at hand, you want to turn
this thread into a snipe hunt. Any answer I give you, you will claim
it is not correct "as proof", and I'm not going to play that game with
you. Just like your claim Bro. Levi was not a "real" mason, you're
just bending facts to suit your puposes. Do you claim the same for
Hall, Waite, and Crowley as well? ;)
You want to make the allegation I am not being truthful? Well, that's
a fine position to take with a brother mason, but no problem. I can
allege you lack the scholarship credentials to differentiate between a
real copy of M&D and a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's
Stone". Let's call it even.
Tell you what: you post the quote as you believe it should be, and
we'll take the discussion from there, 'kay? ;)
Cheers!
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/26/04 11:10 PM:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:43:28 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> I, very plainly and simply stated, don't believe the accuracy of your
>> original quote. It was your provision of verification, via a link to a
>> purported first edition of M&D that fell through. If as you wrote "It even
>> has the same inscription mine does", then it would not have been a first
>> edition. Thus far you have done nothing to substantiate the veracity of your
>> original quote. I have now merely asked you to provide to myself, and the
>> readership, a simple four(4) digit number that is to be found on the title
>> page of the volume from which you claim to have derived your quote, thus
>> enabling you to add credence to the quote itself. Once we have that number,
>> we can then determine the uniqueness of the(your) volume itself. To my
>> present knowldege, no first edition of M&D contains the language you have
>> presented. Your providing the requested number would be of great assisitance
>> in my understanding just what we are being asked to consider here.
>
> Actually, rather than addressing the issue at hand, you want to turn
> this thread into a snipe hunt. Any answer I give you, you will claim
> it is not correct "as proof", and I'm not going to play that game with
> you.
Quick- while you're online- just provide the four digit number from the
title page. Be credible.
> Just like your claim Bro. Levi was not a "real" mason, you're
> just bending facts to suit your puposes. Do you claim the same for
> Hall, Waite, and Crowley as well? ;)
Those are digressive red herrings you throw in our path, and over which I
shall step.
> You want to make the allegation I am not being truthful? Well, that's
> a fine position to take with a brother mason, but no problem. I can
> allege you lack the scholarship credentials to differentiate between a
> real copy of M&D and a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's
> Stone". Let's call it even.
No, it is not even, by any means. My credentials, Masonic or otherwise are
not for consideration in this. I have not asked you for yours. I have asked
you to legitimize your quote. You have the means, and yet will not. My
request for assistance from you has been met with resistance bordering on
rudeness. I am asking for your help in verifying the accuracy of what you
presented. I will accomplish that task singularly if needs must be, but your
aid would be of benefit.
> Tell you what: you post the quote as you believe it should be, and
> we'll take the discussion from there, 'kay? ;)
No, not "'kay'". Substantiate what you began with. Be a man and, more so, a
Mason, if that indeed be the case- make your word good and true.
jDolan
in article i9uus0dk4rao8evq4...@4ax.com, Craftworker at
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/26/04 11:10 PM:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:43:28 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>> I, very plainly and simply stated, don't believe the accuracy of your
>> original quote. It was your provision of verification, via a link to a
>> purported first edition of M&D that fell through. If as you wrote "It even
>> has the same inscription mine does", then it would not have been a first
>> edition. Thus far you have done nothing to substantiate the veracity of your
>> original quote. I have now merely asked you to provide to myself, and the
>> readership, a simple four(4) digit number that is to be found on the title
>> page of the volume from which you claim to have derived your quote, thus
>> enabling you to add credence to the quote itself. Once we have that number,
>> we can then determine the uniqueness of the(your) volume itself. To my
>> present knowldege, no first edition of M&D contains the language you have
>> presented. Your providing the requested number would be of great assisitance
>> in my understanding just what we are being asked to consider here.
>
> Actually, rather than addressing the issue at hand, you want to turn
> this thread into a snipe hunt. Any answer I give you, you will claim
> it is not correct "as proof", and I'm not going to play that game with
> you.
Quick- while you're online- just provide the four digit number from the
title page. Be credible.
> Just like your claim Bro. Levi was not a "real" mason, you're
> just bending facts to suit your puposes. Do you claim the same for
> Hall, Waite, and Crowley as well? ;)
Those are digressive red herrings you throw in our path, and over which I
shall step.
> You want to make the allegation I am not being truthful? Well, that's
> a fine position to take with a brother mason, but no problem. I can
> allege you lack the scholarship credentials to differentiate between a
> real copy of M&D and a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's
> Stone". Let's call it even.
No, it is not even, by any means. My credentials, Masonic or otherwise are
not for consideration in this. I have not asked you for yours. I have asked
you to legitimize your quote. You have the means, and yet will not. My
request for assistance from you has been met with resistance bordering on
rudeness. I am asking for your help in verifying the accuracy of what you
presented. I will accomplish that task singularly if needs must be, but your
aid would be of benefit.
> Tell you what: you post the quote as you believe it should be, and
> we'll take the discussion from there, 'kay? ;)
No, not "'kay'". Substantiate what you began with. Be a man and, more so, a
Mason, if that indeed be the case- make your word good and true.
jHam Dolan PM You have the time, they might not:
Gene Goldman
>
> No, it is not even, by any means. My credentials, Masonic or otherwise are
> not for consideration in this. I have not asked you for yours. I have asked
> you to legitimize your quote. You have the means, and yet will not.
Brother Jim,
Does this surprise you, given your correspondent's posting history?
> My
> request for assistance from you has been met with resistance bordering on
> rudeness.
At least your correspondent has been remarkably consistent.
> No, not "'kay'". Substantiate what you began with. Be a man and, more so, a
> Mason, if that indeed be the case- make your word good and true.
Once again, my Brother, I think you have made some assumptions that you
might want to reconsider...
In any event, I think you have set an unrealistic expectation.
jDolan
br_...@pacbell.dot.net wrote on 12/27/04 1:39 AM:
> jDolan wrote:
>>
>> No, it is not even, by any means. My credentials, Masonic or otherwise are
>> not for consideration in this. I have not asked you for yours. I have asked
>> you to legitimize your quote. You have the means, and yet will not.
>
> Brother Jim,
> Does this surprise you, given your correspondent's posting history?
>
>> My
>> request for assistance from you has been met with resistance bordering on
>> rudeness.
>
> At least your correspondent has been remarkably consistent.
>
>> No, not "'kay'". Substantiate what you began with. Be a man and, more so, a
>> Mason, if that indeed be the case- make your word good and true.
>
> Once again, my Brother, I think you have made some assumptions that you
> might want to reconsider...
>
> In any event, I think you have set an unrealistic expectation.
Well, 'shoot for the stars' or something like that.
Thanks for replying to this, Bro. Gene- my post hasn't appeared here at all
(either of two), so at least now I know it was available to be read.
I'm giving them every opportunity to be forthcoming, and yet I also think
they are currently scurrying about, trying to find a bookseller or such to
provide them with the number from the book they claim to have. I don't
believe an edition, worded such as was suggested, does exist, but maybe we
have stumbled upon something truly unique here. It could explain a lot, and
would be a most interesting development. And that could be a topic of
another thread maybe. Always try to keep an open mind, I do. ;)
I'll continue to ask for their assistance in this problem with the quote.
And they should be more than willing to help, one would think. That would be
the right thing to do, correct? Four(4) numbers, given in a timely fashion,
would be so much simpler (and a whole lot less typing).
jHam Dolan PM You have the time, they might not:
White River #90 Feed the hungry with a click of your mouse:
Royalton (Bethel), Vt. http://www.thehungersite.com
"Make sure you're right, then go ahead" Davy Crockett, Freemason
Craftworker
>> Just like your claim Bro. Levi was not a "real" mason, you're
>> just bending facts to suit your puposes. Do you claim the same for
>> Hall, Waite, and Crowley as well? ;)
>
>Those are digressive red herrings you throw in our path, and over which I
>shall step.
Funny, that's exactly what I said about your book "challenge".
So you're not going to post your quote? So this was all just a big
bluster to avoid discussion? Cool! I guess this is the part where you
"declare victory" and slink back into the shadows? No wonder you guys
refuse to debate the anti's, they would eat you alive. ;)
David Simpson
<thecraf...@yahoo.com> typed furiously:
>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:41:51 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>>> Just like your claim Bro. Levi was not a "real" mason, you're
>>> just bending facts to suit your puposes. Do you claim the same for
>>> Hall, Waite, and Crowley as well? ;)
>>
>>Those are digressive red herrings you throw in our path, and over which I
>>shall step.
>
>Funny, that's exactly what I said about your book "challenge".
>
>So you're not going to post your quote? So this was all just a big
>bluster to avoid discussion? Cool! I guess this is the part where you
>"declare victory" and slink back into the shadows? No wonder you guys
>refuse to debate the anti's, they would eat you alive. ;)
>
>Cheers!
>
>Crafty
>
Just like you. You are the only one refusing to answer direct
questions as far as I can see although it is exactly what I would
expect you to do. You are afraid of facts. You have misquoted a word
and you are little-boy scared of having to admit that you mistyped it
just because that word makes you out to be wrong in your basic
assumption. How typical of anti-Masons!
--
Regards
David Simpson (Remove "farook" to reply)
(Unattached MM)
Bad manners should not be a capital crime ...
for a first offence.
Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein,
Craftworker
<faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>Just like you. You are the only one refusing to answer direct
>questions as far as I can see although it is exactly what I would
>expect you to do. You are afraid of facts. You have misquoted a word
>and you are little-boy scared of having to admit that you mistyped it
>just because that word makes you out to be wrong in your basic
>assumption. How typical of anti-Masons!
LOL here we go, now the little-toe EdSocks chime in.
How am I wrong in my basic assumption, Davie? Where is the grey area
here? Please regale us all on how your think, exactly, that Pike is
saying anything other than Lucifer is a misunderstood bearer of
"light"?
This ought to be good.
JB
Hash: SHA1
"David Simpson" <faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in message
news:ijf0t056ds37pi39l...@4ax.com...
>>
> Just like you. You are the only one refusing to answer direct
> questions as far as I can see although it is exactly what I would
> expect you to do. You are afraid of facts. You have misquoted a
> word and you are little-boy scared of having to admit that you
> mistyped it just because that word makes you out to be wrong in
> your basic
> assumption. How typical of anti-Masons!
Let's not forget this is the annonymous poster who thinks the Grand
Lodges are out to get him! Facts have nothing to do with it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
iQA/AwUBQdBSW/pxh1uHmCDzEQJ0MgCfbBTceeXIQsZyV0nDynR1VYR/V3cAoMZK
2lgfEmf/pcOP0oLngkevTB/d
=wF5p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/27/04 8:18 AM:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 03:41:51 GMT, jDolan <jhd...@sover.net> wrote:
>
>>> Just like your claim Bro. Levi was not a "real" mason, you're
>>> just bending facts to suit your puposes. Do you claim the same for
>>> Hall, Waite, and Crowley as well? ;)
>>
>> Those are digressive red herrings you throw in our path, and over which I
>> shall step.
>
> Funny, that's exactly what I said about your book "challenge".
Your did say that. You also said you had the book opened before you. I,
questioning said book, asked you to substantiate the quote you 'typed in'
and the book you copied it from. You have done nothing successful to
validate your quote, nor have you provided adequate proof that you have a
first edition copy in your possession, let alone that it might contain the
wording you have claimed. You did provide a link to a book listed on eBay,
complete with photos of its front page, and stated, regarding your volume:
"It even has the same inscription mine does". That book was not a first
edition and the sale was cancelled by the seller. Clarify that please, for
it befuddles me.
SO, where does that have us, presently?
You have posted a quote that is inaccurate, and cannot support its accuracy.
Anything you have done, which is minimal in the least, to support your
assertion has not stood up to scrutiny, even at a most cursory level.
And you claim that I'm employing 'smoke and mirrors'. How ludicrous. You
post anonomously, make inaccurate quotes, and won't stand behind your word,
either that of your own device or quoted from others. Admirable.
> So you're not going to post your quote? So this was all just a big
> bluster to avoid discussion? Cool! I guess this is the part where you
> "declare victory" and slink back into the shadows? No wonder you guys
> refuse to debate the anti's, they would eat you alive. ;)
I don't have 'a quote' to post, actually. My participation in this has
pertained directly to 'your' quote, and has been in response to your
solicitation for discussion of your quote. I have suggested a corrected
version of your original quote, and have rather actively sought discussion
with you pertaining to your quote and its wording. Begin the discussion by
validating your quote- its accuracy has been questioned.
I have no need to "declare victory", nor do I see our conversation as
needing to end. I again offer you the opportunity to straighten out the
mounting discrepencies of your participation in this thread. The readership
can determine what they choose to accept.
I'll not be 'slinking off into the shadows'. I've been here for near unto
10 years. I like the place, and I enjoy sorting things out with folks such
as yourself. It is educational to my finding.
And as far as debating 'anti's- we can discuss this as our next topic, but
for now we appear to be occupied with the subject at hand.
Gene Goldman
>>In any event, I think you have set an unrealistic expectation.
>
>
> Well, 'shoot for the stars' or something like that.
>
> Thanks for replying to this, Bro. Gene- my post hasn't appeared here at all
> (either of two), so at least now I know it was available to be read.
Yep, I saw it.
> I'm giving them every opportunity to be forthcoming, and yet I also think
> they are currently scurrying about, trying to find a bookseller or such to
> provide them with the number from the book they claim to have. I don't
> believe an edition, worded such as was suggested, does exist, but maybe we
> have stumbled upon something truly unique here. It could explain a lot, and
> would be a most interesting development. And that could be a topic of
> another thread maybe. Always try to keep an open mind, I do. ;)
> I'll continue to ask for their assistance in this problem with the quote.
> And they should be more than willing to help, one would think. That would be
> the right thing to do, correct? Four(4) numbers, given in a timely fashion,
> would be so much simpler (and a whole lot less typing).
My Brother, I am certain that you have been provided all the information
there is.
bryan
> jDolan wrote:
>> No, not "'kay'". Substantiate what you began with. Be a man and, more
>> so, a Mason, if that indeed be the case- make your word good and true.
>
> Once again, my Brother, I think you have made some assumptions that you
> might want to reconsider...
brother gene... a lot of us are giving him the benefit of the doubt.
after this current episode, i shan't make that mistake again.
--
bryan stevens f.c.
old olavians' 5758
Craftworker
wrote:
>> Once again, my Brother, I think you have made some assumptions that you
>> might want to reconsider...
>
>brother gene... a lot of us are giving him the benefit of the doubt.
>
>after this current episode, i shan't make that mistake again.
Glad I could help! Seeing what you hatemasons constitute as "proof"
has been educational as well. Your lord and master has taught you
well! All hail King Ed!!
Craftworker
>> Funny, that's exactly what I said about your book "challenge".
>
>Your did say that. You also said you had the book opened before you. I,
>questioning said book, asked you to substantiate the quote you 'typed in'
>and the book you copied it from. You have done nothing successful to
>validate your quote, etc etc etc etc etc
(wake me up when this is over)
>I don't have 'a quote' to post, actually. My participation in this has
>pertained directly to 'your' quote, and has been in response to your
>solicitation for discussion of your quote.
Oh. So your entire argument rests on validating my single copy of M&D,
which is one of several million copies both paper and electronic, and
if you determine with your imaginary cryptic criteria that my book is
in some way "invalid", then my entire observation regarding Pike
disappears into the ether? And this is all based on the spelling of a
single word? And when asked, you refuse to post the quote that YOU
believe is the correct one, saying, basically, that that is not your
job?
Wow. This is the sort of tomfoolery I would expect from Ed Hominem!
Funny, I say Pikes name and now I have three hatemasons all humping my
leg at the same time. I must be on the right track! LOL
Craftworker
<br_...@pacbell.dot.net> wrote:
>My Brother, I am certain that you have been provided all the information
>there is.
You have got to be the most boring of all the hatemasons. Can't you at
least write something clever or funny? Other than fantasizing about me
as a female, you have nothing original to add.
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/27/04 11:08 PM:
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:00:10 GMT, jDolan, Junior Spinmaster wrote:
>
>
>>> Funny, that's exactly what I said about your book "challenge".
>>
>> Your did say that. You also said you had the book opened before you. I,
>> questioning said book, asked you to substantiate the quote you 'typed in'
>> and the book you copied it from. You have done nothing successful to
>> validate your quote, etc etc etc etc etc
>
> (wake me up when this is over)
>
>> I don't have 'a quote' to post, actually. My participation in this has
>> pertained directly to 'your' quote, and has been in response to your
>> solicitation for discussion of your quote.
>
> Oh. So your entire argument rests on validating my single copy of M&D,
> which is one of several million copies both paper and electronic, and
> if you determine with your imaginary cryptic criteria that my book is
> in some way "invalid", then my entire observation regarding Pike
> disappears into the ether?
No, my argument hasn't even begun, actually. We are merely at the stage of
qualifying your original quote. Why there is such difficulty, I do not
understand. I have questioned the accuracy of the quote itself, and you have
not supported your position. You have provided that you copied it from a
first edition of M&D, which you also claim to be in ownership of. I do not
believe such wording is contained within such a book, and would like you to
simply provide me the four(4) digit number contained on the title page of
your (alledged) book. With but this trivial bit of information, I may then
further verify the accuracy of your quote. Your first attempt at validating
the edition of your claimed book was not successful, and here is a second
opportunity. Maybe you would also like to tell me about the colors of ink
used on that page? That could help us as well.
Once we get past this usually and normally trivial part of "getting on the
same page", we can then explore the text itself- something I do look forward
to.
> And this is all based on the spelling of a
> single word? And when asked, you refuse to post the quote that YOU
> believe is the correct one, saying, basically, that that is not your
> job?
No, at this point, it might be beyond considering the spelling of a singular
word. Your handling of the validation of your material's source is not
forthcoming and also obvious to not only myself. I am being patient, and
affording you every opportunity to prove the accuracy of the quote itself.
Furthermore, you resist explaining your deriviation of meaning from the
quote itself, and totally fail to provide how the word 'apothesis' has any
contextual meaning at all. While we wait for you to clarify what happened
with your comparing your book to one listed on eBay (which was not a first
edition, and also did not contain your proposed wording), perhaps you could
begin by explaining how, using the very text of your quote itself, the word
apothesis has any relevant meaning at all. For this, I will again provide a
url that perhaps might assist:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=apothesis&ls=a
> Wow. This is the sort of tomfoolery I would expect from Ed Hominem!
> Funny, I say Pikes name and now I have three hatemasons all humping my
> leg at the same time. I must be on the right track! LOL
Why would you label me as such? I have tried to be kind and considerate to
you in our discussion here. Perhaps if you try to view this as an
opportunity for each of us to help the other, we might begin to gain some
ground.
Craftworker
>No, my argument hasn't even begun, actually. We are merely at the stage of
>qualifying your original quote. Why there is such difficulty, I do not
>understand. I have questioned the accuracy of the quote itself, and you have
>not supported your position.
And my response is, for the tenth time, if you do not like the verbage
of my quote, I stipulate that we can use one of your choosing. All the
gentle readers here can thumb through their own versions to their
heart's content. The spelling of the word in question has no bearing
on the point I will be making shortly when I post the Levi material
for a little "compare and contrast". ;)
Stay tuned!
David Simpson
<thecraf...@yahoo.com> typed furiously:
>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:30:41 +1030, David Simpson
><faro...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Just like you. You are the only one refusing to answer direct
>>questions as far as I can see although it is exactly what I would
>>expect you to do. You are afraid of facts. You have misquoted a word
>>and you are little-boy scared of having to admit that you mistyped it
>>just because that word makes you out to be wrong in your basic
>>assumption. How typical of anti-Masons!
>
>LOL here we go, now the little-toe EdSocks chime in.
>
>How am I wrong in my basic assumption, Davie? Where is the grey area
>here? Please regale us all on how your think, exactly, that Pike is
>saying anything other than Lucifer is a misunderstood bearer of
>"light"?
>
>This ought to be good.
>
>Crafty
>
The word "lucifer" is Latin for "light bearer". It was/is used by the
Catholic Church to give a title to those who had a job going round
lighting candles. It was also used as the title of those who were
gainfully employed when gas was used for street lighting. A Lucifer
was the man who lit the lamps each night. It has also been used as the
brand name for matches.
The word "Lucifer" first appeared in the Vulgate translation of the
book of Isaiah and it is attributed to St. Jerome, the translator,
having an argument with a certain Bishop Lucifer in the early church.
After Bishop Lucifer died, apparently Jerome inserted the name in an
attempt to insult the memory of the departed Bishop. Since the King
James Version of the Bible was translated directly from the Latin
Vulgate, and not from the original Aramaic, use of the name was
continued and came to be misconstrued as a name of the devil in the
Christian mythos. The original character who came to be called this
unfortunate name was a popinjay (A fastidious dandy for you, Crafty, I
know you have trouble understanding correct English.) who was likened
to the manner in which the planet Venus, the morning star, preceded
the glory of the sun as he preceded. I believe, Cyrus the Great of
Persia.
How it came to be a name for the Devil from this reference I am rather
at a loss to understand but perhaps I should never underestimate the
power of human stupidity. To put it in a nutshell for the terminally
impaired "Lucifer" is not a reference to a devil. Pike knew this and
attempted to explain, in the florid and convoluted prose that was
common among the pretenders to intelligentsia at the time, mid
nineteenth century, that a mistake had been made by those of even less
intelligence of which the less scholarly inclined had grabbed with
their excuses for minds and now a mistake is taken as the gospel
truth.
Good Lord! That last sentence is as bad as most of Pike's.
popepomp...@yahoo.com
"I have questioned the accuracy of the quote itself"
This is from an online version of the text:
"The Apocalypse, that sublime Kabalistic and prophetic Summary of all
the occult figures, divides its images into three Sep-
tenaries, after each of which there is silence in Heaven. There are
Seven Seals to be opened, that is to say, Seven mysteries to
know, and Seven difficulties to overcome, Seven trumpets to sound, and
Seven cups to empty. The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the
nineteenth Degree, the Apothesis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to
God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer."
Perhaps I could look up this same quote in the four different versions
I have of this at home. But so, what? This quote is clear to all
those who don't get the heebie-jeebies everytime they see the word
"Lucifer".
Here is the key:
"that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the
pomps and works of Lucifer."
The passage continues, of couse and includes that infamous reference to
Lucifer as the "Light bearer". It is an overindulgence of "pomps and
works" that are the material "spleandors" that blind the "feeble".
If anyone needs to have proof as to whether Masons are capable of
taking over the world, they need look no further than two Masons who
can't even agree on the spelling of a single word.
First the weenie roast, then the world!!!
It appears that there is more blindness than Sight in most cases. If
either of you have a point to make, this might be a good time to do it.
-><-
Pope Pompous Pilot
Hodge Podge Lodge #23
Craftworker
So, in a nutshell, you agree with me? Does this not fall into the
"Lucifer got a bad rap" line of thinking?
Following this logic, for Pike to have a "Luciferian agenda", would
actually be a noble pursuit, in your opinion? As opposed to the way
the anti's try to spin it, i.e. devil worship?
Intersting post, by the way.
Cheers!
Craftworker
>If anyone needs to have proof as to whether Masons are capable of
>taking over the world, they need look no further than two Masons who
>can't even agree on the spelling of a single word.
>
>First the weenie roast, then the world!!!
LOL Truer words were never spoken, Pope! ;)
popepomp...@yahoo.com
"You have misquoted a word and you are little-boy scared of having to
admit that you mistyped it just because that word makes you out to be
wrong in your basic assumption."
The Pietre-Stones site has M&D online. Its version has the "Apothesis"
spelling. Pietre-Stones is hardly an anti-Masonic site. Because of
how they have it coded and since they have shut off any right click
capability, I can only point you to the site.
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/apikefr.html
Then, go to the 19th degree (XIX), the Grand Pontiff. You have to
scroll down about 15% of the page to a couplet that reads
"The issues are with God: To do,
Of right belongs to us"
The quote in question is a paragraph below that couplet.
-><-
Pope Pompous Pilot
etc...
popepomp...@yahoo.com
"Let's not forget this is the annonymous poster"
I think you meant "anonymous".
Could you please provide which edition of Morals and Dogma your usage
of "annonymous" came from? Please remember to include the book number
so that I can verify it.
All other fnords were removed because some people follow the Dr. Fnord
Atkins diet or the South Fnord Diet.
-><-
Pope Pompous Pilot
The Pope of Freemasonry
Craftworker
>JB wrote:
>
>"Let's not forget this is the annonymous poster"
>
>I think you meant "anonymous".
>
>Could you please provide which edition of Morals and Dogma your usage
>of "annonymous" came from? Please remember to include the book number
>so that I can verify it.
>
>All other fnords were removed because some people follow the Dr. Fnord
>Atkins diet or the South Fnord Diet.
LOL that was great. ;)
JB
Hash: SHA1
<popepomp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104248363.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> JB wrote:
>
> "Let's not forget this is the annonymous poster"
>
> I think you meant "anonymous".
>
Any deficiencies in my posts are to be blamed solely on MS Outlook
Express and it's spell checker. I take no responsibility for my
mistakes! (I should run for parliament).
> Could you please provide which edition of Morals and Dogma your
> usage of "annonymous" came from? Please remember to include the
> book number so that I can verify it.
>
LOL. I'm sorry but I never provide evidence of things I say. If I
showed people the truth nobody would ever believe me again!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
iQA/AwUBQdGhZfpxh1uHmCDzEQKmlwCfRdzaXa0oOhfEGxgKKlXka10puLAAn3RO
iQKWvQfQxSokv7qEMCHVsRzx
=RU9J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
popepomp...@yahoo.com
"LOL. I'm sorry but I never provide evidence of things I say. If I
showed people the truth nobody would ever believe me again!"
Best not to provide evidence. It will only be used against you in a
court of law at a later date. Los bastardos!!!
Better to seem all coniving and unseemly. And when challenged to
become indignant and crotchety. <grin>
If Greyface can't take a joke, then fuggetem!
-><-
Pope Pompous Pilot
etc.
Larry
popepomp...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The Pietre-Stones site has M&D online. Its version has the
"Apothesis"
> spelling. Pietre-Stones is hardly an anti-Masonic site.
Unfortunately, it wasn't proofread before it was posted. I found
numerous spelling errors such as:
and the mystical theory of spiritual, ccntemplative commullion. "Listen
to me," says GALEN, "as to
in chapter 2. It is entirely possible that the word is misspelled
online and Pietre-Stones isn't aware.
> Because of
> how they have it coded and since they have shut off any right click
> capability, I can only point you to the site.
Seems an IE-specific limitation. Firefox is not so hindered.
popepomp...@yahoo.com
"in chapter 2. It is entirely possible that the word is misspelled
online and Pietre-Stones isn't aware"
Well, of course it is possible. It was asked to provide a reference.
I did so. If one were to find one misspelling in the text it is quite
likely that there are others. Of course, the converse is possible.
One could read a couple of pages, finding no misspellings and conclude
that none exist. Each inference is flawed.
I think I have four or five different versions of this text at home.
And although this is not my discussion, I so bloody sick and tired of
the yes-it-does/no-it-doesn't that I'm going to pull them all and look
to see what the freakin' thing says for myself.
And then what? Jdolan seems to think that the missing "o" causes a
calamitous error to occur in an argument he hasn't even heard yet,
while Craftworker is caught up in this circular schmengy such that he
can't proceed. I am interested inasmuch as it was arguments over this
very passage that got me to pick up M&D and caused me to petition AASR
in the first place.
Kallixti!!!
-><-
Pope Pompous Pilot
Founder of the Texas Hold 'em Yahtzee World Series.
Jim Bennie
> popepomp...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> The Pietre-Stones site has M&D online. Its version has the
> "Apothesis"
>> spelling. Pietre-Stones is hardly an anti-Masonic site.
> Unfortunately, it wasn't proofread before it was posted. I found
> numerous spelling errors such as:
Larry, that doesn't seem a surprise. Even the Baseball Research
Journal I get has scanning errors that aren't caught before
publication.
One of the more bizarre mis-scans is in a copy of my lodge's ritual
sent to me from Australia. I, naturally, didn't proof-read it and
gave it to one of our candidates to learn from. He seemed very
perplexed at our rehearsal because he couldn't understand how one
position was possible. Instead of "the `arms' of Moses", it used
another four-lettered body-part that begins in 'a' and ends in 's'
but isn't anywhere near the arms.
Jim Bennie
PM/DC, Lodge Southern Cross No. 44, Vancouver
Jim Bennie
> I am interested inasmuch as it was arguments over this
> very passage that got me to pick up M&D and caused me to petition AASR
> in the first place.
Wow! Pope, you *joined* because of Masons arguing? I thought that's
why people quit! ;)
Jim Bennie
PM/DC, No. 44, Vancouver
popepomp...@yahoo.com
I didn't join Masonry because of that. I was a Mason for nearly 10
years before I joined the Scottish Rite. It was the discussion (in
various venues) about the "Lucifer issue" that got me to crack open
M&D. From there, I was hooked.
-><-
Dah Pope
popepomp...@yahoo.com
I have two printed copies of M&D (1918 - without the index- and 1928).
Both of them say "Apotheosis" (page 321 in each).
Suffice it to say that I don't quite give a flying fart about the
mysteriously disappearing "o". If you ignore the criticism and make
your point, those of us with still existing, yet waning, interest may
be illuminated. If the word being "apotheosis" changes your ideas,
then re-evaluate and get a move on.
-><-
Pope Pompous Pilot
In Consistory #33
jDolan
popepomp...@yahoo.com at popepomp...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/28/04
10:43 AM:
> jdolan wrote:
>
> "I have questioned the accuracy of the quote itself"
>
> This is from an online version of the text:
>
> "The Apocalypse, that sublime Kabalistic and prophetic Summary of all
> the occult figures, divides its images into three Sep-
> tenaries, after each of which there is silence in Heaven. There are
> Seven Seals to be opened, that is to say, Seven mysteries to
> know, and Seven difficulties to overcome, Seven trumpets to sound, and
> Seven cups to empty. The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the
> nineteenth Degree, the Apothesis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to
> God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer."
That quote is incorrect as it appears, both in your message, and at the site
you mentioned. It is that simple.
>
> Perhaps I could look up this same quote in the four different versions
> I have of this at home.
That might be a good idea. They could very well all be the same
version/edition but with differing publication dates.
> But so, what? This quote is clear to all
> those who don't get the heebie-jeebies everytime they see the word
> "Lucifer".
With the proposed wording, it isn't clear to me. And, if perchance there
indeed might exist a first edition with that wording, it would not have been
clear to Pike himself, as he oversaw the publishing of the second edition in
1878 and therein contains 'apotheosis,' as do all subsequent
editions/publishings. If such a 'rogue' copy does exist, I would have a
certain interest in it. Believing such does not exist, I presently have an
interest in why someone would actively promote that they are in present
possession of a such a thing, and also refuse to substantiate that claim.
> Here is the key:
>
> "that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the
> pomps and works of Lucifer."
>
> The passage continues, of couse and includes that infamous reference to
> Lucifer as the "Light bearer". It is an overindulgence of "pomps and
> works" that are the material "spleandors" that blind the "feeble".
>
> If anyone needs to have proof as to whether Masons are capable of
> taking over the world, they need look no further than two Masons who
> can't even agree on the spelling of a single word.
I can agree with the spelling of a singular word. Perhaps you are not able
to see beyond that, but if you look a little deeper perchance you might see
a bit more of what is going on. They maintain that they have correctly
presented something as existing in a book in their possession. If you are
willing to accept that, even to the extent that I have questioned it, then I
doubt you will care about what I have suggested.
> First the weenie roast, then the world!!!
>
> It appears that there is more blindness than Sight in most cases. If
> either of you have a point to make, this might be a good time to do it.
I've explained myself a little above. I don't like deception.
If this is bothersome, perhaps you should filter me out.
Craftworker
>And then what? Jdolan seems to think that the missing "o" causes a
>calamitous error to occur in an argument he hasn't even heard yet,
>while Craftworker is caught up in this circular schmengy such that he
>can't proceed. I am interested inasmuch as it was arguments over this
>very passage that got me to pick up M&D and caused me to petition AASR
>in the first place.
That is interesting that you mention that, as M&D was one of the
"litmus tests" that I felt required investigation prior to joining the
fraternity. I had kinda taken all the major arguments the anti's had,
and then started reading and researching back to see who was being
truthful. In the final analysis, I concluded the masonry was "evil
free", and joined.
Of course, then I wandered in here, and found Ed and his goons; I have
since revised the "evil free" endorsement to *mostly* evil free. ;)
Cheers!
Crafty
Craftworker
>Crafty,
>
>I have two printed copies of M&D (1918 - without the index- and 1928).
>Both of them say "Apotheosis" (page 321 in each).
The spelling of the word matters not for the purposes of what I was
trying to say. I do find it interesting that there is two different
versions, and would like to see if both words appear in dictionaries
from that time period. Trying to look it up with contemporary sources
may be missing the intended point. This is appealing to my inner geek,
but as you say, it is an irrelevant side-issue, even though some
individuals want to make it a show-stopper. ;)
>Suffice it to say that I don't quite give a flying fart about the
>mysteriously disappearing "o". If you ignore the criticism and make
>your point, those of us with still existing, yet waning, interest may
>be illuminated. If the word being "apotheosis" changes your ideas,
>then re-evaluate and get a move on.
Will do! I will have access to the Levi material tomorrow, and will
get the quote I am looking for up for review, then we can move on.
Since this is spanning a few threads I'll post a small summary along
with the quotes so we can start fresh.
Cheers!
Crafty
jDolan
thecraf...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/28/04 8:58 PM:
> On 28 Dec 2004 15:32:01 -0800, popepomp...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Crafty,
>>
>> I have two printed copies of M&D (1918 - without the index- and 1928).
>> Both of them say "Apotheosis" (page 321 in each).
>
> The spelling of the word matters not for the purposes of what I was
> trying to say. I do find it interesting that there is two different
> versions, and would like to see if both words appear in dictionaries
> from that time period. Trying to look it up with contemporary sources
> may be missing the intended point. This is appealing to my inner geek,
> but as you say, it is an irrelevant side-issue, even though some
> individuals want to make it a show-stopper. ;)
It hasn't been a show stopper for me, certainly.
I previously gave a link for definitions of 'apothesis'. Here it is again,
as it can be a labor saver (they reference a 1828 and a 1913 dictionary):
http://www.onelook.com/?w=apothesis&ls=a
I am in agreement with your interest concerning two different versions. And
therein is my major involvement in this. I simply do not believe such a
'second' version, in the form of a 'first edition' as you repeatedly claim
to possess, even exists. I've learned a whole bunch about that book and its
various editions, and I continue believe that such as you claim to have does
not exist.
I haven't stopped the progression of your thread, only asked for
clarification and verification of your claim. Your unwillingness to help me
in establishing that you did indeed actually type what you claimed to have
found within your book has not been helpful. However, I continue to explore
your claim independently and will soon learn if another such copy is known
to exist. Presently I can find no one who says that such does.
My concern centers upon your claim to have typed that word, as you found
it, within your first edition of M&D. I have suggested that the word you
proposed appears commonly on the web but that it is in error, and perhaps
that is where it was found. You have replied that it is indeed found within
your book and you typed it, then re-checked its occurrance when I initially
questioned you about it. Therein is my contention. It has not to do with the
actual word, but with what you have provided in its presentation and
substantiation.
>> Suffice it to say that I don't quite give a flying fart about the
>> mysteriously disappearing "o". If you ignore the criticism and make
>> your point, those of us with still existing, yet waning, interest may
>> be illuminated. If the word being "apotheosis" changes your ideas,
>> then re-evaluate and get a move on.
>
> Will do! I will have access to the Levi material tomorrow, and will
> get the quote I am looking for up for review, then we can move on.
> Since this is spanning a few threads I'll post a small summary along
> with the quotes so we can start fresh.
Well, I'll dig out my copy of the same book. Actually I might have a first
of that one. It has been quite a while since I've read it. However, I don't
know how much I will participate in a discussion of that, as I don't have
all that much interest in what you suggest, but more so in what I have
discussed above.
My interest does continue in learning more of your claim about your book,
and I again ask you to assist in verifying your claims.
bryan
> Subject: Re: Albert Pike's View on Lucifer
> From: popepomp...@yahoo.com
> Newsgroups: alt.freemasonry
> Date: 28 Dec 2004 15:32:01 -0800
>
> Crafty,
>
> I have two printed copies of M&D (1918 - without the index- and 1928).
> Both of them say "Apotheosis" (page 321 in each).
>
> Suffice it to say that I don't quite give a flying fart about the
> mysteriously disappearing "o".
your missing the point, popie.
crafty claims to have a first edition of m & d which contains the word
"apothesis". brother dolan reckons that such a beast does not exist.
if it _does_ exist, it would be a curiosity if not a rarity.
i don't want to put words in brother dolan's mouth but i think he is
trying to ascertain whether or not crafty does possess this book (m &
d, first edition with "apothesis" on page 321) and a scan of said page or
a cite of the four numbers would put the issue to rest.
why aren't either of these items of proof forthcoming? let's put the issue
to rest and get on with the discussion!
David Simpson
furiously:
Having looked at my copy, which I downloaded from somewhere, I find
that it uses the word "apothesis". My English (Australian) dictionary,
however, does not contain this word, neither does my Roget's Thesaurus
or my Australian Personal Dictionary.
I am inclined to say that this a case of American spelling versus the
rest of the English-speaking world. If this is the case then it is a
definite misprint since Pike, as a scholar jealous of his repute as an
intelligent person, would have used the correct English version of
"apotheosis".
The one online reference I could find to the word "apothesis" at
dictionary.com gives a meaning that does not fit the scenario at all.
vis:
\A*poth"e*sis\, n. [Gr. ? a putting back or away, fr. ?. See
Apothecary.] (Arch.) (a) A place on the south side of the chancel in
the primitive churches, furnished with shelves, for books, vestments,
etc. --Weale. (b) A dressing room connected with a public bath.
whereas "apotheosis" does fit correctly.
vis:
a·poth·e·o·sis Audio pronunciation of "apotheosis" ( P )
Pronunciation Key (-pth-ss, p-th-ss)
n. pl. a·poth·e·o·ses (-sz)
1. Exaltation to divine rank or stature; deification.
2. Elevation to a preeminent or transcendent position;
glorification: “Many observers have tried to attribute Warhol's
current apotheosis to the subversive power of artistic vision”
(Michiko Kakutani).
3. An exalted or glorified example: Their leader was the apotheosis
of courage.
[Late Latin apothesis, from Greek, from apotheoun, to deify : apo-,
change; see apo- + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European Roots.]
The other alternative is that Pike was using the Latin version of the
word, see above sentence, which could fit as he was talking about the
Latin version of "light bearer" or "lucifer".
Joe Steve Swick III
This all started when I said roughly the following: it is possible that the
Taxil "confession" was the actual Taxil "hoax".
----
Let us be clear what you are suggesting. If the confession itself was the
hoax, then you are suggesting that, for instance, there really was a Diana
Vaughn, and that Mormon Prophet John Taylor really was a closet Satanist.
You are specifically arguing that Pike really WAS the "Supreme Pontiff of
Universal Freemasonry" (whatever that is) and that he really did make a
speech which makes no sense, and fundamentally contradicts Pike's expressed
religious views, both in M&D and in his personal correspondence.
I find it ironic that you would calll *me* an "idiot" and then turn around
and yourself make what has to be one of the most idiotic arguments possible.
___KraftWerker___
Albert Pike had made references to Lucifer in earlier writings, and painted
the Lucifer character in a rather positive light.
----
Cite your source. Pike mentions Lucifer 4 times in M&D. I don't find any of
these to be particularly "positive." Pike merely argues that the common
Christian conception of Lucifer is based upon a superstitious image which
finds no basis in scripture, but rather is borrowed from Paganism. That is
certainly true.
___KraftWerker___
So what Taxil attributed to Pike was not very far off from what Pike said
himself in other places.
----
What other places?
___KraftWerker___
Pike, in my opinion, was not the nicest person running around during that
time period, and I certainly would not have approved of him dating my
sister.
----
Frankly, YOU are not the nicest person running around, and I'd not approve
of YOU dating my sister. My point is that whether Pike was "nice" or not has
nothing to do with whether or not he was a Satanist.
___KraftWerker___
So, to add to further discussion, I posted the Morals and Dogma quotes. I
did so without commentary on my interpretation of same,
beyond saying it cast "Lucifer" in a positive light. (no pun intended). ;)
-----
I don't think that this is at all correct. To suggest that the passages in
M&D cast Lucifer "in a positive light" is to read selectively.
JSW
Joe Steve Swick III
Here is the key:
"that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps
and works of Lucifer."
The passage continues, of couse and includes that infamous reference to
Lucifer as the "Light bearer". It is an overindulgence of "pomps and
works" that are the material "spleandors" that blind the "feeble".
----
Absolutely right. The idea that this speaks approvingly of Lucifer is the
teensiest bit disingenuous.
Kindest,
JSW
Joe Steve Swick III
if you look a little deeper perchance you might see a bit more of what is
going on. They maintain that they have correctly presented something as
existing in a book in their possession. If you are willing to accept that,
even to the extent that I have questioned it, then I doubt you will care
about what I have suggested.
I agree with you. I do not believe that there is a single hardcover copy of
Morals and Dogma of any edition which uses the word "apothesis" in place of
"apotheosis." I believe that electronic scans are the origin of this textual
error.
This would suggest that KraftWerker's claim to possession of a first edition
copy of M&D is about as reliable as his claim to be a Freemason: i.e., not
at all.
Of course, this is all just window-dressing. the REAL issue is what the
passage says about Lucifer -- whether what it says is in fact sympathetic or
approving. It clearly is NOT. As da Pope points out, the key is in the
words, "pomps and works of Lucifer," which we are enjoined to avoid. This is
negative, as is the blindness which flows from partaking of the pomps and
works of lucifer. As I have pointed out repeatedly, these words are in fact
drawn from the Apostle Paul. To state that they are sympathetic to the devil
would make the Apostle a sympathizer.
I don't suppose there is any way to honestly construe this passage the way
our critics would like.
JSW
Don få Rune Våge Jokkmokker
Dec. 29, 2004.
In this episode Joe tells us where the space people come from: