My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Albert Pike

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
First off, I do not believe in division so anything that I feel to be continuing to keeping our order divided I will speak against.

How is Pike keeping our order divided? It seems possible that he even changed his stance on certain issues especially Prince Hall matters if what deHoyos wrote is true. Exactly what do you hope to accomplish by bringing this up?
 

Dontrell Stroman

Premium Member
I didn't know a person had to accomplish something just for writing a thread. I simply quoted what the man said and asked a question and made a statement.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I am able to have generosity towards Pike by teasing out the parts of his work that still apply from the parts that would now be cursed. Pick a character of history and you'll be able to do this, without exception. That includes the greatest prophets humanity has ever produced. Pike was no prophet so he was more flawed, but when seen in his total contribution he wasn't a devil either. Treat historical characters like threshing grain - Blow away the chaff and keep the seed.

Had I been born to his era I would not have been able to notice his racism yet it stands out starkly to me in this era. This makes me aware that a century or two from now people will look back to this era and see the same sort of social injustices. I pray they have generosity and they blow away my chaff. Chaff that I live daily but am not even aware of.

If you insist on judging him by this era, remember the lesson about judgment - You have volunteered to be judged by an era a century and a half out. I have read enough history that I pray to only be judged by the criteria of my own era.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
Okay, let's try this a different way. While I don't like doing this (because I don't like it when it's done to me), I'm going to paraphrase your original post to get at the heart of the matter.

I've often wonder why so many freemasons praise Albert Pike...how could a man who writes (terrible things) be praised as a righteous man
He isn't. He is praised as a well informed man on the topics of symbolism within Freemasonry.

...why would a man that makes a statement off the Level be glorified.
If he's being glorified (and I think that's an awfully generous term) it is because of his insight on the symbolism of Masonry, not on his character. You can't lump the two together.

Nobody is perfect, we all have flaws. Refusing to take advantage of the positives because of unrelated negatives would be doing a disservice to ourselves.
 
R

Ressam

Guest
Gentlemen,
in Washington D.C., there is a statue of Albert Pike, located.
Who knows -- who ordered to make it(Governor, President, etc.)?
Just interesting.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
If you insist on judging him by this era, remember the lesson about judgment - You have volunteered to be judged by an era a century and a half out. I have read enough history that I pray to only be judged by the criteria of my own era.
My feeling is the same....It's not fair to judge someone in the past by the morals of today.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Putting aside the above and looking at the OP, few here in Australia would have read Pike. I read the chapters on the degrees I've done and was not that impressed. The standard response by many is I don't understand it, with an English Major and a reasonable level of formal and informal education, I would say I have some comprehension of it. For me, Masonic ritual (and writings) are something to be reflected on and considered as an individual, sometimes using any prism and multiple approaches you have to look through and examine the ideas and words . Time and place aside, the ritual can stand in its own right.... what some guy in the 1800s has to say about it in an American Context (and I am thinking socially, but more particularly about Preston/Webb ritual as opposed to what were use here which is a derivative of the Emulation) was not that relevant to me. I'm not that enamored with Pike and groan when anti-masons quote him as some sort of universal and revered font of knowledge. I've never and would not recommend him to newer Freemasons to study, the only reason I read him was because others talk about him and to understand why he is quoted...

(I must also acknowledge I am not a member of Scottish Rite, but if his comments on the Craft is an indication, he would only be read by my as a historic curio )
 
Last edited:

Bloke

Premium Member
Morals and Dogma is on Guttenberg. Always worth looking for old books there. Also found pdf versions of Esoterika via google....
 

Zaden

Registered User
It is also worth noting in this context, as is pointed out in the Annotated Edition of Morals and Dogma and was admitted by Pike himself, that your could argue that the vast majority of it is just him quoting other sources of wisdom (huge chunks of the first few degree lectures, for example, are quotes from Les Mis, later, huge chunks are quotes from Eliphas Levi). So, the validity or lack thereof, when it comes to philosophy in Morals and Dogma is unaffected by Pike's racism (even if the quote is legitimate: http://masonicinfo.com/pikesracism.htm). The human race has an unfortunately long history of "wisdom" coming from those who held opinions of other races/cultures that would later become offensive, simply due to the way our species divided itself into "us vs. them" throughout history.
In the end, everything in M&D is left for the reader to ponder and accept or reject on its own, not based on whether the "compiler" of the text was a good man in every way or not.
 

Joseph Thornton

Registered User
A few things. Pike, from my understanding, is not dogma. That is to say, he didn't speak or write with a special authority for the whole of masonry (if I recall correctly, there is a form of disclaimer at the beginning of M&D, where it essentially says the same thing). He was a Mason and a philosopher, whom many find to be helpful and instructive. Additionally, when discussing past figures, to what standards are you holding their actions? Contemporary for them or for us? To put it another way, a person can admire a figure in part or in whole. I am unfamiliar with the specific quote, so others more knowledgable on the subject than I may address it, but be wary of casting absolute value judgements on those in the past. To my limited and uninitiated knowledge, there is no racial aspect to a regular Mason's oath.

This is an excellent point for modern American society. If you claim you like a certain writer, actor, musician; it becomes generally accepted that you have to agree with everything that person says and does as a whole to be a part of yourself and your own views. If this has to be true, then I don't like anyone. Ever. Because everyone has something they've said or done that I don't agree with as part of myself.

Personally I am a little puzzled about this quote on Pike. Given the time he was alive, Confederate, Union or anywhere around the world, I don't think it would have been common for anyone to swear an oath of any kind to "negroes". For that reason the whole quote seems a little puzzling to me. 1) Why would anyone think Pike swore his oath to blacks? Or that anyone was swearing to blacks? And 2) how would his NOT having sworn to blacks make him different form someone that did?

(Disclaimer: don't read anything racist in what I said. I love all people)
 

Dontrell Stroman

Premium Member
This is an excellent point for modern American society. If you claim you like a certain writer, actor, musician; it becomes generally accepted that you have to agree with everything that person says and does as a whole to be a part of yourself and your own views. If this has to be true, then I don't like anyone. Ever. Because everyone has something they've said or done that I don't agree with as part of myself.

Personally I am a little puzzled about this quote on Pike. Given the time he was alive, Confederate, Union or anywhere around the world, I don't think it would have been common for anyone to swear an oath of any kind to "negroes". For that reason the whole quote seems a little puzzling to me. 1) Why would anyone think Pike swore his oath to blacks? Or that anyone was swearing to blacks? And 2) how would his NOT having sworn to blacks make him different form someone that did?

(Disclaimer: don't read anything racist in what I said. I love all people)
If you are a MM which I don't know if you are or not. Did you take your obligation to your own race or to any worthy regular brother ? Okay with that being said, what do you mean why would he have swore an oath to a black. What does skin color have to do with freemasory please explain. If a man of color was made a mason in a regular lodge why wouldn't he have took his obligation to them ? So it's okay to say "The white freemasons have their own and the Blacks do too." How belittling and primitive does that sound ?
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
If you are a MM which I don't know if you are or not. Did you take your obligation to your own race or to any worthy regular brother ? Okay with that being said, what do you mean why would he have swore an oath to a black. What does skin color have to do with freemasory please explain. If a man of color was made a mason in a regular lodge why wouldn't he have took his obligation to them ? So it's okay to say "The white freemasons have their own and the Blacks do too." How belittling and primitive does that sound ?
The oath isn't taken to anyone, black, white, or purple. It's taken to God. Pike is talking about who he received his oath FROM. Big difference.
I read Pike's quote as saying he didn't want to seek admission or appear subservient to a black man. Obviously a racist opinion in modern times, but almost universally accepted in those times.
 
Top