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.)