Albert Pike

[Dontrell Stroman]

I've often wonder why so many freemasons praise Albert Pike. I understand he is responsible for a lot of the education on the Scottish Rite, but how could a man who writes a book Morals and Dogma and I quote from his book " I took my obligations from white men, not from negroes. When I have to accept negroes as brothers or leave masonry, I shall leave it" be praised as a righteous man. I also wonder if that's why there is so much confusion within our craft. Are freemasons today still only taking their obligation to a certain race. I took my obligation to all worthy master mason. If Freemasonry teaches that all masons meet on the "Level" then why would a man that makes a statement off the Level be glorified.

 

[NY.Light.II]

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.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

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.

Thank you for your comment as I like to see different point of views. First let me start by saying, I never stated that Pike was Dogma, but for him to only be just a just a "Mason and philosopher" As you quoted, many masons that I have encountered have held him to high reguard. I will say, I am very weary of casting judgment especially on brothers that can no longer defend themselves, but I was always taught (if it walks like a duck and quack like a duck then...... It's not a goose lol) Pike made that statement very clear in his book so I'm only going off of what he has said. So I will raise the question; if a Black Pince Hall Affiliated mason wrote a book and stated "I only took my obligation to Black Prince Hall Affiliated masons, and the day I have to accept white brethren I will leave masonry. How would you feel/view it ? I don't see how one could try and defend something that was said so clear and direct. Also there is so much speculation that Pike was also a member of the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) which that is only speculation, I don't know. And yes it is okay to admire someone, but let's say a person states "I admire Hitler" yes it is okay to say that because that is your right, (with all that Hitler had done) what does that say about a man's character. Even if he didn't agree with Hitler, just admired him; it would make a man wonder.

 

[NY.Light.II]

Thank you for your comment as I like to see different point of views. First let me start by saying, I never stated that Pike was Dogma, but for him to only be just a just a "Mason and philosopher" As you quoted, many masons that I have encountered have held him to high reguard. I will say, I am very weary of casting judgment especially on brothers that can no longer defend themselves, but I was always taught (if it walks like a duck and quack like a duck then...... It's not a goose lol) Pike made that statement very clear in his book so I'm only going off of what he has said. So I will raise the question; if a Black Pince Hall Affiliated mason wrote a book and stated "I only took my obligation to Black Prince Hall Affiliated masons, and the day I have to accept white brethren I will leave masonry. How would you feel/view it ? I don't see how one could try and defend something that was said so clear and direct. Also there is so much speculation that Pike was also a member of the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) which that is only speculation, I don't know. And yes it is okay to admire someone, but let's say a person states "I admire Hitler" yes it is okay to say that because that is your right, (with all that Hitler had done) what does that say about a man's character. Even if he didn't agree with Hitler, just admired him; it would make a man wonder.

And George Washington owned slaves. I can play the game of pick out bad traits from past figures too. As I said early, making absolute value judgements is difficult, even if one accepts a person can do that (and that's a big if). I'm content to take the good of these men, and leave the bad.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

Yes I gave an example, and I could go on as well there are many, which is why I chose one (Hitler) Is a man not judged by the fruit he bears? Yes Pike may have done some good and wrote some inspirational writings, but I'm speaking on a particular quote he wrote; Not taking his obligation to "Negros". No matter how you try and rationalize it, the man said it and meant it.

 

[NY.Light.II]

I'm not rationalizing it. I'm saying that because a white man in the mid-19th century made a racist remark (and probably many more) does not mean that whatever remains of his legacy, philosophically or otherwise, should be immediately deemed unworthy of study or reflection. Yes you choose Hitler as an extreme, illustrative example of bad. I agree, but can also supply a list of "good" people who did terrible things. MLK was a womanizer. Mother Teresa took money from dictators. The list goes on. Individuals are, to varying degrees, composites of both good and bad, rational and irrational. Learn the good from them. Don't forget the bad, but don't let it blind your image of a person.

 

[Companion Joe]

I will also agree that you can't judge historical figures withe modern eyes. You have to judge them in the context of the time in which they lived.
The Hitler argument works here. If someone said today that they admire Hitler, we would know that person has issues. When Time Magazine named Hitler its Man of the Year in 1938, that would have been a reasonable statement. Josef Stalin was named Man of the Year twice (39 and 42). Both were later discovered to be responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

The narrative isn't always as clearly divided as one wants.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

I'm not rationalizing it. I'm saying that because a white man in the mid-19th century made a racist remark (and probably many more) does not mean that whatever remains of his legacy, philosophically or otherwise, should be immediately deemed unworthy of study or reflection. Yes you choose Hitler as an extreme, illustrative example of bad. I agree, but can also supply a list of "good" people who did terrible things. MLK was a womanizer. Mother Teresa took money from dictators. The list goes on. Individuals are, to varying degrees, composites of both good and bad, rational and irrational. Learn the good from them. Don't forget the bad, but don't let it blind your image of a person.

That is where we will have to agree to disagree. I do believe you could compare, right has always been right and wrong has always been wrong. So what do you say about a white an that wasn't racist in that time that stood against such culture ?

 

[chrmc]

I've often wonder why so many freemasons praise Albert Pike. I understand he is responsible for a lot of the education on the Scottish Rite, but how could a man who writes a book Morals and Dogma and I quote from his book " I took my obligations from white men, not from negroes. When I have to accept negroes as brothers or leave masonry, I shall leave it" be praised as a righteous man. I also wonder if that's why there is so much confusion within our craft. Are freemasons today still only taking their obligation to a certain race. I took my obligation to all worthy master mason. If Freemasonry teaches that all masons meet on the "Level" then why would a man that makes a statement off the Level be glorified.

From your other comments, I don't actually think you're looking for an answer to your question, but instead for some agreement that Pike was a bad man. But I'll answer you instead.

The reason why Pike is praised because he is one of the people who did an incredible job for Masonry. He more or less created the Scottish Rite as we know now, and he wrote many wonderful books that teach us more about masonry, how to work with the Craft what it means and where it comes from. You can find few masons throughout history who has added as much to it's body of knowledge as he has.

Did he have bad traits and wrote things we find unreasonable today? Sure he did - as may happen to many of us in 100 years. And we should distance ourselves from those parts of his writings. But that doesn't mean you can discredit everything he did. Especially not when viewing him in the historical context of this time.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

From your other comments, I don't actually think you're looking for an answer to your question, but instead for some agreement that Pike was a bad man. I'm not looking for agreement, nor approval. I simply asked a question as to why a man that wrote such a disturbing comment would be praised. I never said that he was a bad man or that he didn't do any good, but what I am saying is that masonry teaches against certain attributes so why should a man that makes such statements be held to high reguard ?

 

[hanzosbm]

...right has always been right and wrong has always been wrong...

BS. Plain and simple. Thoughts and values change. Read just about any holy book, at least from the Abrahamic traditions that I'm familiar with, and you'll see judgments and instructions for punishments for things that we see today as being absurd. Right and wrong do change.

That being said, I'm not a fan of Pike's opinions on race. Then again, I don't read his writings to get insights on race relations, just as I wouldn't read a Stephen Hawking book for recipe ideas. Was Pike a racist? Probably. If you want to spend your time being angry at a dead man, have at it. I'd rather make lemonade from the lemons by picking out the good things. Pike had some great insight into Masonic subjects. I don't agree with all of them and in fact I've yet to find a Masonic author that I agree with 100%, but I find that there is wisdom in most texts. I, for one, refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water and I'll continue to read his books for the positive aspects while ignoring the negative. Going back to the example given earlier for Hitler, he was a designer (I hesitate to say architect since his plans were full of structural problems) who came up with some brilliant plans. His social services have been the blueprint for many used across the developed world to this day, and he brought Germany from starvation and the brink of collapse to one of the most prosperous in the world in the matter of a few years. But good attributes do not make him a good man. He was sick and evil, no question, but purposely forgetting the insight he brought forward, just as with Albert Pike, would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I will agree that many Masons look up to Pike as some sort of Masonic fatherly figure, and in my opinion, that is a mistake. He was a writer with some great insights, he ought to be celebrated for that. He was also (at least in our eyes of today) a racist, and he ought to be denounced for that. But no one is saying that you can't do both.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

BS. Plain and simple. Thoughts and values change. Read just about any holy book, at least from the Abrahamic traditions that I'm familiar with, and you'll see judgments and instructions for punishments for things that we see today as being absurd. Right and wrong do change.

That being said, I'm not a fan of Pike's opinions on race. Then again, I don't read his writings to get insights on race relations, just as I wouldn't read a Stephen Hawking book for recipe ideas. Was Pike a racist? Probably. If you want to spend your time being angry at a dead man, have at it. I'd rather make lemonade from the lemons by picking out the good things. Pike had some great insight into Masonic subjects. I don't agree with all of them and in fact I've yet to find a Masonic author that I agree with 100%, but I find that there is wisdom in most texts. I, for one, refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water and I'll continue to read his books for the positive aspects while ignoring the negative. Going back to the example given earlier for Hitler, he was a designer (I hesitate to say architect since his plans were full of structural problems) who came up with some brilliant plans. His social services have been the blueprint for many used across the developed world to this day, and he brought Germany from starvation and the brink of collapse to one of the most prosperous in the world in the matter of a few years. But good attributes do not make him a good man. He was sick and evil, no question, but purposely forgetting the insight he brought forward, just as with Albert Pike, would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I will agree that many Masons look up to Pike as some sort of Masonic fatherly figure, and in my opinion, that is a mistake. He was a writer with some great insights, he ought to be celebrated for that. He was also (at least in our eyes of today) a racist, and he ought to be denounced for that. But no one is saying that you can't do both.

Thank you for your insight. Let me start off by saying calling what I wrote BS was inappropriate and uncalled for. First, I will not get into a religious debate over the subject, but I will state my belief/opinion. I believe hatred has always been wrong no matter the time period. If you look through history, there has always been people/persons that did agree with nor go along with social norm, any were killed for trying to change the system, so with that being said I think it's safe to safe that people did know right from wrong. Example : During slavery to might that have been normal, but what do you call white abolitionists did not agree with slavery. Again, there have always been people that knew what was going on was wrong in that time. Secondly, I am not angry with a dead man. I can give credit where credit is due, I simply made a statement about how one could hold a man to such high reguard and write such a thing. You even admitted that Pike was most likely a racist, so again I ask why would a "racist" in your own terms, be looked upon as fatherly to freemasonry. Lastly, I think Pike was a smart man, but do I believe that quotes such as he made in his book are the reasons why Freemasonry is so divided, of course I do.

I can disagree without being rude. That's one reason I love being a freemason. Embracing others ideas with out being shunned and outcasted.

 

[MRichard]

Pike also probably shared his rituals with some of his PHA counterparts and was friends with some of them especially late in his career. http://srjarchives.tripod.com/1998-10/DEHOYOS.HTM

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

I read that but did not know if there was any truth to it.

 

[chrmc]

You even admitted that Pike was most likely a racist, so again I ask why would a "racist" in your own terms, be looked upon as fatherly to freemasonry.

I just don't think any of us can give you an answer you are happy with. You've asked why Pike is so revered and several of us have tried to give you a reason. However these reasons doesn't seem to be acceptable or good enough to you. And that's ok to. No one has asked you to like him or his writing.

But don't keep dismissing the answers people are giving you to your original question.

 

[MRichard]

http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/cowans-eavesdroppers.26264/page-2#post-153570

Now you didn't want that to turn into something racial but yet here we are again.

 

[MRichard]

I read that but did not know if there was any truth to it.

From what I understand Art deHoyos is considered to be reputable especially on the Scottish Rite.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/cowans-eavesdroppers.26264/page-2#post-153570

Now you didn't want that to turn into something racial but yet here we are again.

Yes I did. I clearly state "This thread". If your trying to catch me in some type of contradiction I'm sorry sir, but you cannot.

 

[MRichard]

Yes I did. I clearly state "This thread". If your trying to catch me in some type of contradiction I'm sorry sir, but you cannot.

Really. Basically you want to bring up race when it is convenient for you. This is not the first thread along these lines.

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

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.