|
Post by thedixiemason on Aug 30, 2007 20:13:01 GMT
Also, Num. 24:17 talks about the Star out of Jacob, and Mt.2:2 talks about the Star in the East at Jesus' birth.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 30, 2007 20:23:33 GMT
Well said Leo. I was not very happy either with the remark about the "Further Degrees" either. True there are but Three Degrees in Craft (Blue) Masonry, but there is Freemasonry beyond the Craft and it adds to the experience and lessons thereof.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 30, 2007 20:35:33 GMT
The OT reference to Morning Star, is Isa. 14:12...the KJV says "Lucifer" the NIV says "Morning Star" Yeah, well, it's really the King of Babylon ;D Truly, it is. Y'see, Isaiah is taking dictation from God so he'll know what to say and to whom to say it. On this occasion, in 14:4, Isaiah is told: And it continues like this (saying all kinds of awful stuff, including stuff about maggots for a carpet and worms for a covering) all the way down to - and well past - 14:12, the entire time talking to the King of Babylon. True, in 14:12, we get: full text hereSo, what to make of it? K, I'm in serious danger of over simplifying this but . . . The Hebrew phrase in question is הילל בן שחר (helel ben-shachar). Helel is "bright one". The ben part of "son of" (y'know, like Ben Hur. His daddy was "Hur") Shachar is Dawn. And, since the gender of this noun isn't terribly clear, Dawn could be his Daddy or his Ma'ma. Anyway, Helel also is the name of a Babylonian/Canaanite god who was the son of another Babylonian/Canaanite whose name was . . . you guessed it: Shachar, god of the dawn. So, in context, it looks like Isaiah i making reference to the Babylonian King's gods and, given what else he has to say, it makes sense. I've heard a number of theories about how this all gets tied up with Lucifer (latin for "light bearer". The OT isn't written in Latin and, so, there is no Lucifer in the Hebrew OT) but I tend to prefer context and text to theological glosses.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Aug 30, 2007 20:52:04 GMT
Well said Leo. I was not very happy either with the remark about the "Further Degrees" either. True there are but Three Degrees in Craft (Blue) Masonry, but there is Freemasonry beyond the Craft and it adds to the experience and lessons thereof. That's right, the side degrees offer experiences and insights beyond and in addition to the Three Degrees normally associated with Freemasonry, they are taken very seriously by those involved. As far as I'm aware these Degrees are not unique to Malecraft Masonry and also exist in, for example, LDH.
|
|
|
Post by thedixiemason on Aug 30, 2007 21:11:07 GMT
Karen, you are correct...
At any rate, Lucifer is not Satan, and Masons do not worship Lucifer or Satan....(maybe some do) But it is not supported by any Masonic ritual of which I am aware.
So, the claim that Masonry promotes the worship of Lucifer is bogus.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Aug 31, 2007 3:23:31 GMT
I suppose some do, and some worhip a head of lettuce named Ralph, or L. Ron Hubbard. FYI: There are only 3 degrees in Masonry, the rest is just add on hooo haaa. Blue Lodge consists of 3 degrees. It's ignorant to act like the Scottish Rite and York Rite bodies are not "Masonry." My point was that I have not seen the mention of Lucifer in ANY "Masonic" ritual. It's hardly ignorant, in fact it is educated. Once you really dive into both what is called the AASR and the YR in the USA you will find where those degrees come from is a variety of sources, many of those having zero to do with Freemasonry. In the late 1700's and 1800's joining "fraternal" organisations was entertainment and hobby for bored aristocrats. The original three degree's did not hold the interest of the dillitant for long and Freemasonry was losing ground to other groups like the R.A.O.B. and Oddfellows to name a few. In order to be competative it gave rise to the AASR, Rite Of Memphis, Memphis-Mizrahim, Reformed SR, Rite of Strict Observance and so forth. Interesting? Yes. Pretty cool? Yes. Traditional Freemasonry? No. Not meaning to offend. Sorry if anyone took my original post that way. I am a little tired of the inferance that is made that there is a higher degree than that of Master Mason when in reality, it takes a lifetime of dedication to begin to master all that lies within the three degrees.
|
|
|
Post by thedixiemason on Aug 31, 2007 5:40:49 GMT
I am a little tired of the inferance that is made that there is a higher degree than that of Master Mason when in reality, it takes a lifetime of dedication to begin to master all that lies within the three degrees. We know that... But the initiator of this subject is not a Mason, and has questions. My reason for bring up the fact that I am privy to over 170 degrees, was not to belittle the MM degree. Nor was it to brag... It was this... We are told that there is no higher degree than a 3rd degree MM. However, the Scottish Rite asigns numbersas high as 33rd degree... So isn't it reasonable that someone who is not initiated would simply look t the number, and determine in his mind that 33 was "higher" than 3? Not just that, but people like John Anchorberg, and other anti-masons use Albert Pikes quotes that talk about Lucifer, and another that talks about the blue lodge being deceived, or ignorant. So, my reason for mentioning those degrees is to put away all doubt that the worship of Lucifer was practiced in the "higher degrees.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Aug 31, 2007 18:44:08 GMT
So isn't it reasonable that someone who is not initiated would simply look t the number, and determine in his mind that 33 was "higher" than 3? Yes, such an assumption is often made by those not familiar Freemasonry. For them it's a case of, the higher the number, the higher to rank. And this is yet another example of why more should be done to educate those outside the Craft. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 2, 2007 13:23:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 2, 2007 13:35:30 GMT
I don't wish to ever be dismissive of anyone views but what we have here is simply, deliberately or other wise, either a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of what Freemasonry is all about.
|
|
|
Post by antoninus9 on Sept 2, 2007 15:04:42 GMT
I believe I could make a convincing argument that would demonstrate that the side degrees are not Masonic in the strictest sense of the term. This is not to say that they are without merit, but that they may cloud one's understanding of the original symbolic system as opposed to furthering one's understanding of it.
Perhaps this would be a good topic for another thread?
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 2, 2007 15:13:01 GMT
Few quotes in the history of mankind have attracted the attention of so many as the quote from Pike's Morals & Dogma which reads: "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!" Let's clarify right at the outset: the vast majority of those who become Masons have no idea whatsoever who Pike was. In fact, most Masons throughout the world become members and will eventually die without ever encountering either him or any of his works. In fact, of all the Masons world-wide, it's likely that fewer than 2% will have ever even SEEN (much less read) a copy of ANY of his hundreds of writings. "Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah, at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"" "Why Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King")." "So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "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."" "And so there are those who do not read beyond the King James version of the Bible, who say "Lucifer is Satan: so says the Word of God," while others with knowledge of the Latin and Hebrew texts say, "No, Lucifer is the classical Roman name for the morning star, and now Jesus is the morning star." This discussion can only anger certain fundamentalists. (I have at hand an evangelical tract from a Baptist church that says, "I believe in the Infallibility and Preservation of God's Word, of which the King James 1611 authorized version is the God-guided faithful translation.")" Pike was wrong to have used Lucifer / Satan in his examples on scholarly learning and was further taken to task with the Taxil Hoax. This hoax supposedly 'revealed' a highly secret Masonic order called the Palladium - which existed in Taxil's imagination only. Taxil claimed that the Palladium practiced murder, devil worship, and more. In his book, Taxil utilized Levi's "Baphomet" and to this day, anti-Masons often make the charge that Masons "worship" a God called "Baphomet" - or Satan. Snips taken fron : www.masonicinfo.com/
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Sept 2, 2007 15:40:02 GMT
I believe I could make a convincing argument that would demonstrate that the side degrees are not Masonic in the strictest sense of the term. This is not to say that they are without merit, but that they may cloud one's understanding of the original symbolic system as opposed to furthering one's understanding of it. Perhaps this would be a good topic for another thread? Jeff Jeff it is possible yes, but it is also possible to make a really convincing argument that The original Story was all about Noah and his two sons, Japheth and Shem (Ham was never mentioned) which would mean that Freemasonry is purer in Royal Ark Mariners than anywhere else! It is also very easy to make a convincing argument that Freemasonry was and always was intended to be Christian, therefore the truest form of masonry would be found in the Rectified Rite! My simple point is this; Freemasonry is many things to many people and each of us should and do take what we want from it. If someone (like a brother I know) only wants to attend Knigfhts Templar meetings because he doesnt get along with any of the other Degrees he can easily and does easily do this. As long as he isnt dogmatic in his attitude what does it matter? It certainly doesnt effect me and my enjoyment of Freemasonry.
|
|
|
Post by antoninus9 on Sept 2, 2007 18:01:58 GMT
Bro. Middlepaillar,
I don't disagree with you at all. I'm saying there are some who believe there are only three degrees and they have a very convincing argument that is worth considering.
I have belonged to just about every side order at one point in time or another, and have nothing against them.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 2, 2007 18:22:50 GMT
We seem to have gone a bit off track, but in Le Driot Humain we consider there to be an Initiatic Continuity from 1st to 33rd Degrees of the A&ASR , although of course in Craft we too have the Three Degrees of EA, FC and MM.
As one has to be at the very least a Master Mason to become a member of the other Degrees and Orders then these are to my mind and that of many others Masonic. So as well as Craft I am a member of A&ASR (18th Degree) and also of the York Rite Degrees of Mark, RAM, Royal Arch, Knights Templar and Royal Order of Scotland. When in UGLE I was also a member of several other Orders not worked by Le Droit Humain, for example St Thomas of Acon, Royal and Select Masters, OSM, AMD, RCC etc. To me ALL of these were per se, Masonic.
Oh, and to keep on topic in none of these did I Worship Lucifer.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Sept 2, 2007 20:42:03 GMT
I certainly don't "Worship" Can't imagine a deity so arrogant that it would require worship from it's followers. Lucifer -well who or what is Lucifer - another creation of man I guess
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 2, 2007 23:21:00 GMT
Whistler
I expect that worship and workshop are closely related. For example:
"Alan Richardson writes in A Theological Word Book of the Bible (edited by Alan Richardson, New York: Macmillan, 1950, pages 287-289):
WORSHIP
Etymology
OT: The general word is 'abodah, from 'abad, to labour, to serve, and usually tranlsated 'the service of God'. To describe the specific act of worship, the word commonly used is hishtahawah, from shaha, to bow, to prostrate oneself. "
I suggest that in times long gone the servants of the (house of the) god laboured to produce food and drink (many references in the OT) and thus work for the (house of) god was worship
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Sept 3, 2007 4:06:37 GMT
Hi Russell, Thanks
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Sept 4, 2007 15:14:07 GMT
It does seem to depend on which dictionary or concordance one uses, the etymological root word is shown by non-biblical reference works as follows: WORSHIP (n) O.E. worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (W.Saxon) "condition of being worthy, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see WORTH) + -scipe (see -SHIP). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful (c.1300). The verb is recorded from c.1200.
The suggested root mentioned by Russell only appears on sites that have a Christian/biblical bias, from what I have found in brief research
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Sept 4, 2007 19:50:34 GMT
Putting it in a simple way - When I hear the word worship - I think of the "How Great Thou Art' Brigade. I don't rush to a dictionary to see what "Worship means" So to my Simple Mind the question "Do Freemasons worship Lucifer?" Means somebody Worshiping in the "How Great Thou Art" Sense So My reply to the question I certainly don't "Worship" Can't imagine a deity so arrogant that it would require worship from it's followers. Lucifer -well who or what is Lucifer - another creation of man I guess
|
|