|No discussion about Masons would be complete without exploring the name Albert Pike.In 1871, Albert Pike (1809-1891) published a book titled Morals and Dogma. This is the book conspiracists use to make unfounded (and uneducated) anti-Mason claims.Anti-Mason antagonists and conspiracists claim Morals and Dogma represents some kind of primary doctrine, or manifesto of Freemasonry. This couldn’t be further from the truth. “Morals and Dogma is literally a textbook in comparative studies. It explains what ancient and foreign cultures have believed and how it affected their religions.”|
Morals and Dogma is a massive book that is very concerned with tracing where cultural and religious ideas came from. Pike was trying to tell a rough, and not especially well-educated, population to search for the origins of customs and rituals, because he truly felt that a deeper understanding of what came before made a man more religious and contemplative. Morals and Dogma is simply a philosophical work.
For about 60 years after the book was published, Morals and Dogma was given as a gift to all who joined the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite in America. The Southern Jurisdiction of Scottish Rite in America covers thirty-five southern and western states.
It’s very important to understand the Scottish Rite is a subsidiary body (a subset) of Freemasonry – the Scottish Rite is NOT Freemasonry itself. In other words, all Scottish Rite members are Masons but not all Masons are Scottish Rite members. In fact, only about 20% of American Masons have ever been Scottish Rite members. This means about 80% of American Masons have little or no knowledge of General Albert Pike’s work and 100% of Masons outside America have little or no knowledge of General Albert Pike’s work. This is hardly evidence of Morals and Dogma as some kind of Mason Manual.
Sadly for the conspiracists of the world, Albert Pike never exercised any authority or influence over anything other than what was at the time a very small subset of North American Freemasonry, the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction.
“LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!“
(Cue the scary music) There it is! Hiding in plain sight, right? Quick! Bless yourself and drink some holy water to cleanse your soul! I mean, we all know Lucifer is Satan! Right? Not so quick. There is a problem and it all got . . .
Question: How could a Hebrew manuscript, written hundreds of years before there was a Roman language (Latin), contain a word from the Roman language?
Answer: It can’t, and, it shouldn’t today.
The poetic version of the King James Version was translated into English and published in 1611. It was translated into English NOT from the original Hebrew texts, but from the Catholic Vulgate Latin texts that had been authorized by St. Jerome (who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I) in the fourth century. Unfortunately, starting with the Latin text instead of the original Hebrew texts created a few translation problems.
According to biblical scholars, the original text of the 14th chapter of Isaiah is NOT about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king who had persecuted the Israelites. Satan is never mentioned in the chapter, by name or by inference, you’ll see Isaiah clearly refers to the subject of his writing as an evil king, and most definitely a man. The Hebrew texts referred to the king by his ceremonial title, Helal, son of Shahar, which is translated to mean “Day Star, son of the Dawn.” The name Lucifer does not (and cannot) appear anywhere within the Hebrew text.
In Latin, Lucifer is the name given by Roman astronomers to the Morning Star, the bright planet seen in the dawn sky. We know it by another Roman name – Venus. Lucifer actually comes from the Latin term lucem ferre, meaning “the bearer of light,” and (the star) Venus was called this because it appeared in the sky just before the sun. The symbolism was that Venus (the star called Lucifer) was the herald that announced the arrival of the sun in morning.
Unfortunately, while authoring the King James Version by translating the Latin text (instead of the original Hebrew texts), St. Jerome mistranslated the king’s flowery title “Day Star, son of the Dawn,” into the Roman word Lucifer.
St. Jerome used the word lucifer in several places in his Latin translation:
But notice in Job and Peter the Latin word “lucifer” was replaced with an interpretation consistent with the original Hebrew text – “morning” and “day star,” respectively. Yet in Isaiah the Latin word “lucifer” survived the translation to English and was not replaced with an interpretation of the original Hebrew text.
What would be a proper interpretation of the original Hebrew text at Isaiah 14:12? Below is an exact scan from an original 1611 King James Version of the Bible. In the margin of Isaiah 14:12 we find the KJV translators themselves gave us an alternate rendering of the “lucifer” reference, namely “O day-starre” (“O Day Star”).
This mistranslation has even been recognized and corrected in more recent versions of the Bible. As an example, the New English Bible now correctly translates Isaiah 14:12 as “How you have fallen from heaven, bright morning star …”
Even Bibles in other languages don’t have the word Lucifer. In Spanish Bibles, for example, Isaiah 14:12 reads: “¡Cómo has caído del cielo, lucero de la mañana!” where “Lucero de la mañana”[link] translates to “Morning star” – consistent with the original Hebrew text.
So the Hebrew text Helal, son of Shahar (“Day Star, son of the Dawn”) is translated into the Latin word “Lucifer” but the English translation is not of the original Hebrew text, instead the Latin word “Lucifer” is simply carried over to the King James Version of the Bible.
Then, beginning with John Milton’s 1667 book Paradise Lost, a metamorphosis took place. Milton’s book branded Lucifer in the Western mind as a proper name for Satan.
Lucifer (the morning star) was transformed into a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell.
Theologians, writers, poets, and the occasional mystic compounded the error far beyond anything in the single reference in Isaiah by interweaving the myth with the doctrine of the Fall (Genesis chapter 3). Today in Christian tradition, Lucifer is synonymous with Satan, the Devil, and – ironically – the Prince of Darkness. This irony wasn’t lost on Albert Pike – remember, he wrote, “LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness!” [emphasis mine] The General certainly seemed to recognize this paradox. He didn’t know what you now know.
The word lucifer never came to be seen as a proper name of Satan in Latin as it did in English. This explains why the Latin word “Lucifer” is still used to this day as a title of Christ in the Exsultet hymn sung during the Easter Vigil in the Roman Rite:
“Lucifer” is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light, day star, and the like.
This truth can be very confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons and in Revelation 22:16 itself, where Christ refers to himself as morning star: “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”
The Latin Church understands the Lucifer mistranslation, hence the Exsultet hymn (above) with the word lucifer in full display and without contradiction. Predictably, every time the Vatican has the Easter Vigil and the word lucifer is spoken or sung, conspiracists around the world soil their diapers claiming the Pope is invoking Satan.
No matter what your Sunday-school teacher told you, no matter what they told you at vacation Bible school, no matter what Milton wrote in Paradise Lost, the Lucifer referred to in Isaiah 14 – the ONLY reference to Lucifer in the King James Version – is NOT Satan.
For the record, the terms Lucifer and Luciferian do not appear in any recognized ritual or lecture of Freemasonry, including the Scottish Rite rituals written by Albert Pike himself.
The above quote is most often cited by conspiracists as proof Freemasonry is a religion.
First i’d like to point out the word “religion” appears more than 260 times in General Pike’s book, Morals and Dogma. Unlike many (if not all) conspiracists, I took the time and made the effort to track down and download a bonafide, scanned copy of “Morals and Dogma” by Albert Pike (PDF) (42 MEG) dated 1871 and I began reading. Well, dear conspiracists, it’s time for another diaper change.
As an example, do conspiracists ever tell you of these quotes by Albert Pike from the same book, Morals and Dogma?
In your personal life, do you have a personal creed – a set of convictions – to which you religiously adhere? Me? Personally? I work out 3 times a week – religiously. I have other personal rules which i follow religiously. I follow my own code of conduct – religiously. I was once a Cub Scout (It’s sort of like a junior Boy Scout) and they had an oath they expected each Cub Scout to follow religiously:
- To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
- To help other people at all times;
- To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.
- Thou shalt adore, revere, and love Him (the God of your choosing).
- Thy religion shall be, to do good because it is a pleasure to thee, and not merely because it is a duty.
- Thou shalt unceasingly war against vice!
- Thou shalt honor thy parents!
- Thou shalt instruct the young!
- Thou shalt protect and defend infancy and innocence!
- Thou shalt cherish thy wife and thy children!
- Thou shalt love thy country, and obey its laws!
- Thou shalt avoid and flee from insincere friendships!
- Thou shalt in everything refrain from excess.
- Thou shalt fear to be the cause of a stain on thy memory!
- Thou shalt allow no passions to become thy master!
- Thou shalt study to know men; that thereby thou mayest learn to know thyself!
- Thou shalt ever seek after virtue!
- Thou shalt be just!
- Thou shalt avoid idleness!
- But the great commandment of Masonry is this: “A new commandment give I unto you: that ye love one another! He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, remaineth still in the darkness.”
But once you see the word “religion” as an oath of commitment, a promise of adherence to a set of ethics, you begin to see the true meaning in Albert Pike’s use of the word(s) “religion” and “religion of Masonry.”
You see? This is religion, but not a religion. It is faith – but not worship attached to any one altar. It is the ground which underlies all religions, all churches, all creeds, all sects.
Now let’s go back to the original quote used by conspiracists to assert Freemasonry is a religion. This time, i’ll show you something the conspiracists will never show you. The words highlighted in yellow are the words conspiracists want you to see. The words highlighted in the greenish highlight is the remainder of Albert Pike’s words the conspiracists don’t want you to see. His quote should now make perfect sense to you.
Diaper change complete.
In my research of conspiratorial websites i actually found a few with copies of Morals and Dogma, but none of the conspiratorial websites i researched had a copy of Morals and Dogma with the preface intact. Here is why …
The preface of Morals and Dogma was not written by Pike himself. The preface was, and is, the official statement of The Supreme Council, the governing body of Scottish Rite Masonry that published his work. It has been ratified by every succeeding Supreme Council, up to this very day. Here is part of the preface conspiracists have conspired to keep secret.
In the first paragraph, “He” is Albert Pike.
The first paragraph asserts Morals and Dogma as a compilation of many other writers and Albert Pike as the compiler, taking “little of the merit of authorship.”
The second paragraph contains these golden nuggets: “The teachings of these Readings are not sacramental,” “Every one is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound,” and “Of course, the ancient theosophic and philosophic speculations are not embodied as part of the doctrines of the Rite.”
It is the second paragraph that really deals the final body blows to any conspiracy theory arising from Morals and Dogma:
- The book is not sacramental (little or no importance or significance),
- Everyone is free to dissent from any of its contents (Adherence or belief is optional), and
- None of the ancient theosophic and philosophic speculations are embodied in any doctrines of the Rite.
Primary Sources, Research and Reading:
- masonicinfo.com; Albert Pike
- A Pilgrim’s Path, John J. Robinson
- Christopher Hodapp 32°, Past Master, Knight Templar
- Morals and Dogma, Albert Pike: Varying Formats or PDF (42 MEG)
- Including: New International Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New American Bible Revised Edition, New Jerusalem Bible, English Standard Version
- The word “Lucifer” is Latin. The version of Latin used by St. Jerome (Roman Classical Latin) didn’t exist until roughly the 1st century BC – approximately 600 years after Isaiah was written in Hebrew (Sometime between 740 and 687 BC). Using a Latin word in an English translation of the original Hebrew text was a prima facie mistake.
- Paradise Lost (1667) (wikisource), John Milton
- Theosophy refers to systems of speculative philosophy concerning, or investigation seeking direct knowledge of, presumed mysteries of being and nature, particularly concerning the nature of divinity. [source]
- masonicinfo.com; Lucifer
- Anti-masonic Claims Refuted
- The lie of luciferianism
- Albert Pike misquoted
Latin-English Study Bible | LUCIFER: SATAN OR GODDESS? | II Peter 1:19 | revelation 22:16 | Isaiah 14:12 | Ezekiel 28:1–19 | Roman Missal | GLOBAL CHANT DATABASE | Liber Usualis | Exsultet | Lucifer | The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments (bartleby.com) | Easter Vigil | Latin Church | Roman Rite | Lucifer: The Origin of the Word | Paradise Lost (1667) (wikisource) | Paradise Lost (wikipedia) | Vetus Latina | Vulgate | Bible translations into Latin | Notes on “Lucifer” (Isaiah 14:12, KJV) | LUCIFER: A PROBLEM FOR CHRISTIANITY | Sacrament
See more: WATCH: “ANGELS DEMONS + FREEMASONS”, BOOK: “THE BROTHERHOOD” S. KNIGHT, FILM “The Lightbringers The Emissaries of Jahbulon , Jim Shaw: “An Initiation into the 33rd Degree”
see the full article with much more info: http://ecbiz126.inmotionhosting.com/~intmen5/masonicpolice.htm
Freemasons in the policePublished January 1997 No comments... »
At the time that the picture was taken, these 60 men were members of Masonic Lodge number 9179, known as the Manor of St James, which was founded eleven years ago, on January 27 1986, for the exclusive use of Scotland Yard officers who had worked in the West End of London. The picture, which has been leaked to the Guardian by non-Masonic Metropolitan police officers, appears to have been taken at one of their inaugural meetings and includes men who then occupied some of the most powerful jobs in the force.
Since April 1985, when Sir Kenneth Newman was Commissioner, Scotland Yard have been advising their officers to stay away from the lodges. According to The Principles of Policing, which was produced under Sir Kenneth: “The discerning officer will probably consider it wise to forgo the prospect of pleasure and social advantage in freemasonry so as to enjoy the unreserved regard of all those around him. It follows from this that one who is already a freemason would also be wise to ponder from time to time whether he should continue as a freemason.”
And yet the Manor of St James is still active. On Monday of this week, a Guardian photographer caught dozens of former and serving police officers as they made their way through the crowded pavements of St James’s Street, off Picadilly. Wearing dinner jackets and carrying their Masonic regalia in flat black brief cases, they converged on number 86, an imposing sandstone building which looks like any of the gentleman’s clubs around the corner, in Pall Mall, but which is in fact the site of a Masonic temple.
Inside, they gathered to hold their annual ritual to install a London policeman as the new master of the lodge, to elect other police officers as their stewards, tylers and almoners, and to consider the names of prospective new members, all of them drawn from the past and present ranks of the Metropolitan Police, all of them willing to be blindfolded with a noose around their neck and a dagger to their heart while they are warned that if they break their vows of secrecy and loyalty, they will have their throats cut and their tongues torn out by the root. And then, until late into the night, they dined together.
The leaking of the photograph co-incides with new efforts by politicians and senior police officers to meet public concern about the role of freemasons in law-enforcement. Masons insist that they are misunderstood and that their organisation stands for service to “our God, our country and our laws”. Critics fear that the secrecy of the organisation and its stern oaths of “mutual defence and support” conflict with a police officer’s need to be seen to apply the law impartially.
The Police Complaints Authority, which says its own ranks are free of masons, is pressing for a new law to compel police masons to declare their membership on a register of interests. Last October, the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO, supported the move. And today (Jan 29), the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs continues its own inquiry into the issue, taking evidence from ACPO as well as from the Police Federation, which represents lower ranks and which is fighting for the status quo. Until now, the issue has been as secretive as it has been controversial.
The evidence of the membership of the Manor of St James is that freemasonry reaches high into the command structure of the Metropolitan Police. Among the founder members of the lodge was Gilbert Kelland, who was in charge of all of London’s three thousand detectives when he was the Assistant Commissioner for Crime from 1977 to 1984. He is pictured here in his regalia, in the third row back, three from the right.
Among his worshipful brothers who joined the lodge, in spite of Sir Kenneth’s request, are two Deputy Assistant Commissioners, Peter Nievens and Edgar Maybanks; twelve commanders, including George Churchill-Coleman and Jim Neville, both of whom headed the Anti Terrorist Squad, and Malcolm Campbell, who was the head of Scotland Yard’s intelligence branch; John Cass, who was a Scotland Yard commander before becoming co-ordinator for the nation’s regional crime squads; at least two dozen chief superintendents; a dozen superintendents; and more than a score from the lower ranks.
One of the few officers in the lodge who did take Sir Kenneth’s advice is Tony Speed, who is now the Assistant Commissioner for Central London. He said last week that he had followed his father and grandfather into the Craft, joining his first lodge when he was 21. “There was no furore about it in those days and I have to say that in something like 20 years as a mason I never came across anything that made me feel ashamed or that I felt was wrong. But then about ten years ago, the public perception began to change and we were advised that we should reconsider our position and so, simply because of this problem of perception, I resigned.”
Most of his colleagues in the lodge did not see it that way. Malcolm Campbell is still serving as a commander and has not resigned from the lodge but says that he no longer attends its functions. Many of the others in the picture are now retired although sources who know the Manor of St James say they have been joined by a steady stream of serving officers.
Martin Short, author of the most detailed account of modern British freemasonry, Inside The Brotherhood, estimates that 20% of London officers belong to Masonic lodges. He says there is cause for concern about this and in December, he gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry of a case he had researched recently in Lancashire which, he told them, “demonstrates just how badly the administration of justice can go wrong when police, Crown Prosecution solicitors and private citizens are all in the same Masonic lodge.”
This story began one night in 1988 when two Leicester businessmen were taking a late-night drink in a hotel in Blackburn. A group of burly strangers in dinner jackets ordered them out of the bar. The Leicester men declined to go. The strangers then announced that they were policemen and proceeded to beat them up. They then called other police who arrested the two Leicester men and charged them with assaulting police officers. When the Leicester men were released on bail the next morning, they found that the hotel manager had seized their belongings until they agreed to pay for damage caused by the fight and that someone had let all the air out of their car tyres and removed their hub caps.
The Blackburn police and Crown prosecutors pursued the case to court, where the two Leicester men faced substantial jail sentences for allegedly assaulting policemen. But the case fell apart. The jury rejected all of the police evidence and found that the Leicester businessmen were not guilty of any offence at all. The judge signalled his own view by taking the unusual step of ordering that the defendants’ costs should be paid out of the public purse. The two men then sued for assault, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, conspiracy to injure and libel. In an out-of-court settlement, they were awarded £170,000, most of which was paid on behalf of the policemen by the Lancashire force.
Martin Short told the Select Committee that freemasonry was at the heart of this case. The two Leicester men had stumbled into the tail-end of a Masonic event, a dinner organised by the Victory lodge of Blackburn. This lodge, said Short, is dominated by police officers: the policemen who were involved in the original fight, the officer who subsequently investigated the incident, a senior official in the Crown Prosecution office which handled the case, and the manager of the hotel where the dinner took place were all members of the Victory lodge.
No-one is suggesting that all Masonic officers are corrupt or even liable to become corrupt. However, in the past, there have been occasions when Masonic lodges have acted as nests of corruption, where detectives have rubbed shoulders with professional criminals in an atmosphere of friendship and loyalty with disastrous results. When Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad was destroyed by scandal in the late 1960s, twelve officers were jailed for taking bribes from pornographers. All of them were masons, including the head of the squad, Detective Chief Superintendent Bill Moody, who had even helped one of the pornographers he was supposed to be arresting to become a member of his own lodge.
On the other side of the argument, there have been high-profile examples of Masonic officers fighting corruption. During the Operation Countryman inquiry in the 1980s, it was a Masonic detective chief superintendent, John Simmons, who secretly tape-recorded his brother mason, Detective Chief Inspector Phil Cuthbert, boasting of his villainy and of the involvement of other senior officers in taking bribes and setting up armed robberies. However, Simmons was later ostracised by his lodge, while Cuthbert continued to be welcomed, even after he had been convicted and jailed for three years.
Some of the most angry critics of freemasonry are police officers who do not belong to the lodges. They fear that masons may promote brother officers and conceal each other’s wrong doing and that, on occasion, they might abuse their internal powers to discipline troublesome non-masonic officers. One serving Metropolitan Police detective said: “This is a secret society at the heart of Scotland Yard. I have no doubt that some masons use the lodges to get their way and this is not acceptable for the public or for the police service as a whole.” The Police Complaints Authority says that some officers have approached them privately to voice their concerns about some masonic colleagues.
One non-masonic officer says he reported to his commander that colleagues had invented a fictitious informer so that they could claim reward money for crimes which they solved and then share it among themselves. He claims that he was moved sideways while his colleagues were allowed to carry on and that he subsequently discovered that the corrupt officers and the commander were all “on the square”. Another claims to have heard a superintendent boasting that he was recruiting a new officer to his squad and that he was shortlisting only masons.
The Police Complaints Authority has run into problems with masonic officers. On one occasion a man complained that he had been charged as the result of a masonic conspiracy. He then discovered that the superintendent who was investigating his complaint was himself a mason. The superintendent resigned and was replaced by a second officer who also turned out to be a mason. On another occasion, a provincial Chief Constable simply refused to ask whether one of his officers, who was looking into allegations about masons, was himself a member of a lodge.
Masons played a prominent part in the demise of John Stalker, the former Deputy Chief Constable of Manchester who tried to unravel a cover-up of political shootings in Northern Ireland and in the case of the Scotland Yard Chief Inspector Brian Woolard, who found evidence that his career had been blighted by senior masons after he attempted to uncover the role of civilian masons in a fraud. Masonic officers argue that policemen who want to be corrupt can make bad friendships through golf clubs or Round Table dinners, and that the lodges have no special influence.
When Sir Kenneth Newman produced his advice in 1985, his office considered all of the available evidence. The booklet which he produced acknowledged that the lodges offered friendship, a chance to mix with “some of the most distinguished people in the land” and an invitation to self-improvement. It noted that many of the allegations that were made against them were unsupported or plain wrong. Yet it concluded that some of the allegations were reliable and that the exclusivity of the lodges, the oddness of their rituals and their collection of coded signals amounted to a significant problem. “They militate against the acceptance, by colleagues and citizens alike, of an officer who is a freemason as a man on whose fairness it is possibly to rely always and unquestionably… A freemason’s oath holds inevitably the implication that loyalty to fellow freemasons may supersede any other loyalty.” The worshipful brothers of the Manor of St James disagree.
The two sides of the story came face to face late last year when the current Metropolitan Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, appeared in front of the Select Committee which is investigating freemasonry in law enforcement. The Commissioner had reassured the committee that all was well but, as he prepared to leave, he was confronted by Chris Mullin, the ebullient Labour MP for Sunderland South, who had acquired his own copy of our photograph. Mullin pulled out the picture and told the Commissioner: “I thought you might like to have a look at your alternative command structure.”
orig. posted here 15/01/2013
A HISTORY OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR in a nutshell
“Freemasons and Satan””FREEMASONS IN THE POLICE”, 1997, “ANGELS DEMONS + FREEMASONS”, BOOK: “THE BROTHERHOOD” S. KNIGHT, FILM “The Lightbringers The Emissaries of Jahbulon , Jim Shaw: “An Initiation into the 33rd Degree”
"FREEMASONS AND SATAN" + "FREEMASONS IN THE POLICE"  + more
LIBRARY OF FREEMASONRY FILES https://butlincat.com/2015/04/19/library-of-freemasonry-files/