|
Post by whistler on May 31, 2011 8:34:59 GMT
I have heard of the two St Johns are there any other and does the concepts of Patron Saints apply to all flavours of Freemasonry
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jun 1, 2011 5:49:51 GMT
THE FREEMASON’S SAINTS
ALL the old crafts and guilds, both English and Continental, had their patron saints; and for hundreds of years freemasons have been holding their festivals on saints’ days. Masonic writings make frequent mention of saints, and the Masonic Year Book shows that saints give their names to about four hundred lodges in England alone. The saints in greatest regard among masons are St John the Baptist, St John the Evangelist, St Thomas, St Barbara, St George, and the Four Crowned Martyrs, often known by the Latin form, Quatuor Coronati.
St John the Baptist June 24, the traditional birthday of St John the Baptist, was and is a great Church festival; but at one time it was the saint’s day of martyrdom, and not his birthday, that was celebrated, a pulpit being erected in the open air and decorated with boughs and green candles, fires being lit in the open-the ‘blessing fires’-and houses dressed with green boughs and flowers. The saint’s birthday was at one time a day of heathen rejoicing, and how it ever came to be associated with either operative or speculative masonry is not known, for neither of the Saints John is believed to have had any special connexion with building or masonry. It is possible, however, that both of these saints have been confused with the Byzantine St John of Jerusalem, known as St John the Almoner, there being some shadowy idea that the charitable organization of St John of Jerusalem had some influence on the building craft. But freemasons have no monopoly of St John the Baptist, for it may be noted that every Master of the Merchant Taylors Company takes his oath on the day of the Saint and invokes his assistance. Possibly going back as far as the seventeenth century, English masons have been called ‘St John’s Men’ or ‘St John’s masons.’ Even today, particularly in the North of England, the annual festival, or installation meeting, is frequently referred to as ‘St John’s.’ Why is not known, nor is the origin of the connexion of craft masonry throughout Scotland with the name of St John.
St John the Evangelist Many ancient lodges had their summer festival on St John the Baptist’s Day and their winter festival on St John the Evangelist’s Day, December 27. This second St John was traditionally regarded as the son of Zebedee and Salome (the latter supposed to have been the sister of the Virgin Mary), and is said to have died at the age of nearly a hundred after an eventful life, but with no particular connexion with masonry or architecture. There seems good ground for assuming that the two saints’ days were originally days of heathen rejoicing, being the summer and the winter solstices, cleverly appropriated by the Early Christian Fathers and by them fastened on the two Saints John. We find that the emblem of wheel is common to both of the festivals, although chiefly associated with that of winter. A wheel used to be rolled about to signify the sun, which at the June festival occupies the highest place in the Zodiac. In some festivals it was taken to the top of the hill, straw was tied around it and set on fire, and the wheel was then set rolling down to the valley, It appearing “at a distance as if the sun had fallen from the sky” The people imagine that all their ill-luck rolls away from them together with this wheel.”
Reproduced from the Freemson’s Guide and Compendium by Bernard E Jones
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jun 1, 2011 15:26:52 GMT
Well the questioner has both, I presume the form of knowledge is down to the questioner.
I am sure Bernard E Jones would be happy with that.
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Jun 15, 2011 10:28:36 GMT
At least two. Wibble wibble.
|
|
|
Post by redcoat on Jun 25, 2011 11:50:05 GMT
Not all legitimate Masonic jurisdictions include the Holy Saints John as part of their ritual. That does not make their ritual wrong. Rituals do vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and in some cases such as British Columbia & Yukon in Canada there are four "official rituals" within the same jurisdiction (Canadian, Ancient (American), Emulation and Australian) of which I believe only the Ancient refers to the Holy Saints John. Masons around the world need to recognize that the ritual practiced in their community is not the "official" standard for the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jun 26, 2011 22:39:27 GMT
i would certainly nominate Aleister Crowley as a "patron saint" of modern-day Freemasonry; the Freemasons of Detroit, Michigan ( you know: the ones with all those fancy Masonic tombs in the local graveyards?) engaged him in the task of re-writing Freemasonic ritual in America. This fact is plainly stated in his "Confessions". If Crowley had not been considered a Freemason of some repute and learning, he would not have been entrusted with such a delicate task by some of the most influential Freemasons in the country, surely?
Thus those that seek to repudiate A.C. as a Freemason are in grave error, though those that excoriate his personal methods are not. Though, like the remains of the grave, they reveal much about the methods of the modern-day adept of Western esotericism, from the point of view of an overprivileged, over-monied and not-overly-burdened-with-scruples-morals- restraint -or-ethics son of a leader in a fundamentalist Christian sect..
One might almost describe him as the legendary "son of a preacher-man", since he was also well-trained in some of the "Left-hand" Tantric sexual practices of the East, including the much-vaunted 'secret of the Golden Flower". (This may well have been why his wife [and others] ended up in insane asylums, by the way...)
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jun 28, 2011 17:12:16 GMT
i would certainly nominate Aleister Crowley as a "patron saint" of modern-day Freemasonry; the Freemasons of Detroit, Michigan ( you know: the ones with all those fancy Masonic tombs in the local graveyards?) engaged him in the task of re-writing Freemasonic ritual in America. This fact is plainly stated in his "Confessions". If Crowley had not been considered a Freemason of some repute and learning, he would not have been entrusted with such a delicate task by some of the most influential Freemasons in the country, surely? Thus those that seek to repudiate A.C. as a Freemason are in grave error, though those that excoriate his personal methods are not. Though, like the remains of the grave, they reveal much about the methods of the modern-day adept of Western esotericism, from the point of view of an overprivileged, over-monied and not-overly-burdened-with-scruples-morals- restraint -or-ethics son of a leader in a fundamentalist Christian sect.. One might almost describe him as the legendary "son of a preacher-man", since he was also well-trained in some of the "Left-hand" Tantric sexual practices of the East, including the much-vaunted 'secret of the Golden Flower". (This may well have been why his wife [and others] ended up in insane asylums, by the way...) The statement regarding Crowley is rather extraordinary; is there any other source that can confirm this? Freemasons barely want to admit that Crowley was a Freemason at all; now you want "outside" confirmation that he was actually authorized by high-level American Freemasons to tinker their rites? Riiight.
I will say that it was made fairly clear in the "Confessions" that the whole arrangement ended badly; Crowley had nothing good to say about the lot of them (the Detroit Freemasons) , and , undoubtedly, THEY ended up having nothing good to say about HIM, so I expect nothing much ever came of the whole arrangement. I recommend reading Chapter 72 of the Confessions ...that's where he talks about Freemasonry at length.Since there are various rituals used n the US by various bodies and obediences, Freemasonic ritual in America is rather non-specific and as far as it goes, doesn't really say much. Crowley, while interesting for his development of Thelema, is regarded differently by different groups (and individuals). His influence upon 20th C masonry in my jurisdiction is non-existent, although a few of us in my lodge are aware of his work and some of us have even read his work. There are very few adepts of the calibre of Crowley; despite his numerous personal failings, he broke a LOT of ground in Western esotericism, and his occult insights are of great value, but, really, for the most part, ONLY to those who are versed in Hermetic Qabalah! Otherwise, a good bit of what he says is largely incomprehensible and oblique, just as medical jargon is outside the scope of the average patient. Crowley was a HUGE JERK, it is true, but he has occult information and insights that are, quite simply, available nowhere else, because nobody else ever took it to the nth degree the way Crowley did! Those birds ended up in insane asylums b/c they were using the angelic alphabet to summon elementals. Not recommended. Oh? On the contrary, Crowley's wife was in fact completely ignorant of any magick..it was Crowley using her (and others) as "occult channels" that destroyed their psyches. In fact he summoned Beelzebub and his 49 servitors to attack Mcgregor Mathers during their "magickal war"; he at one point spoke of how Rose gave descriptions of some of these demons...it's no wonder she turned to drink to escape these demonic images he forced her to witness!
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jun 29, 2011 2:22:27 GMT
Well there you go; you wanted to know "which Freemasons deny that Crowley was a Freemason? "
It is pretty much a sure thing that it was Crowley having been Crowley that gets him "denied" to this day, after all, nobody makes such a fuss over Manly P.Hall's Masonic credentials!!
But one has only, as I said, to read Chapter 72 of the Confessions to see that he was very much a Brother; he speaks at length of the Holy Royal Arch and its Word, and says "By the end of 1910, thanks to my relations with the Grand Hierophant 97o of the Rite of Memphis...I was now a sort of inspector-general of the various rites, charged with the secret mission of reporting on the possibility of reconstructing the entire edifice..." then he goes on to describe in some detail about the problems and how to deal with them. Would someone who was not held in some sort of "respect' have been charged with such a task? Of course not.
In many ways, Freemasonry would have been something of a 'comedown" for Crowley, because he was already well acquainted with the edifice of hidden knowledge that Freemasonry is (or WAS), the 'ground floor' to!
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jun 29, 2011 3:47:52 GMT
Well there you go; you wanted to know "which Freemasons deny that Crowley was a Freemason? " Recognition and "denying" that Crowley was a mason, are two entirely different things. The issue of regularity and recognition have been beaten to death time and again on this and other forums...no need to regurgitate it again. Ahhh, I get you. so the point of contention is a quibble (QBL?) over Masonic semantics. So there is no question of his credentials, it is a matter of whether or not you approve of those credentials. It is most interesting (and amusing) on several levels, to read what Crowley has to say about the business of 'recognition between Lodges', (he even throws in a brief transcript of what the good Brother also had to say about the Brethren of the Lodge in question, once his affiliation was made manifest ) right there in the first few paragraphs of chapter 72. Our lodge by-laws has a clause that acknowledges the "ancient landmarks" that are part of the "rules" governing freemasonry in our jurisdiciton, one of which prohibits the type of "innovations" that you're insisting upon. Since Crowley would be considered a "clandestine" mason (not at all the same as denying that he is a mason), the rules would further prohibit masonic contact with him. Most other US GL jurisdictions have similar guidelines. The type of revision you're describing by Crowley violates masonic jurisprudence observed by "mainstream" Grand Lodges, and should they go as far as to do something like this, recognition would likely be withdrawn by other jurisdictions. Ahhh, yes. Of course they would. Thank you for that. It would be interesting to have read the e-mail correspondence that the suggestion would have generated! That's not to say that another group was contacted over in Detroit; however, either you don't know which group was involved, or don't wish to clarify further...which is fine. I don't know. Crowley mentioned no names,. But, if there is an archive of the Freemasonic meeting minutes from before WW1 anywhere around in Detroit, I don't doubt a good deal of hitherto unknown Crowley minutiae and the regard or disdain in which he was held would come to light![sic]
Oh, I should have said: We have no names to go on, but he did mention identifying characteristics, predilections and traits, enough that the group, if not actual individuals, might be identified, (things such as "wealthy" "prominent society figure" "involved in Spiritualism", "deceased wife", etc. It would be just like him to have slid the knife in and twisted it in such a fashion!
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jun 29, 2011 4:17:27 GMT
THE FREEMASON’S SAINTS ALL the old crafts and guilds, both English and Continental, had their patron saints; and for hundreds of years freemasons have been holding their festivals on saints’ days. Masonic writings make frequent mention of saints, and the Masonic Year Book shows that saints give their names to about four hundred lodges in England alone. The saints in greatest regard among masons are St John the Baptist, St John the Evangelist, St Thomas, St Barbara, St George, and the Four Crowned Martyrs, often known by the Latin form, Quatuor Coronati. St John the Baptist June 24, the traditional birthday of St John the Baptist, was and is a great Church festival; but at one time it was the saint’s day of martyrdom, and not his birthday, that was celebrated, a pulpit being erected in the open air and decorated with boughs and green candles, fires being lit in the open-the ‘blessing fires’-and houses dressed with green boughs and flowers. The saint’s birthday was at one time a day of heathen rejoicing, and how it ever came to be associated with either operative or speculative masonry is not known, for neither of the Saints John is believed to have had any special connexion with building or masonry. It is possible, however, that both of these saints have been confused with the Byzantine St John of Jerusalem, known as St John the Almoner, there being some shadowy idea that the charitable organization of St John of Jerusalem had some influence on the building craft. But freemasons have no monopoly of St John the Baptist, for it may be noted that every Master of the Merchant Taylors Company takes his oath on the day of the Saint and invokes his assistance. Possibly going back as far as the seventeenth century, English masons have been called ‘St John’s Men’ or ‘St John’s masons.’ Even today, particularly in the North of England, the annual festival, or installation meeting, is frequently referred to as ‘St John’s.’ Why is not known, nor is the origin of the connexion of craft masonry throughout Scotland with the name of St John. St John the Evangelist Many ancient lodges had their summer festival on St John the Baptist’s Day and their winter festival on St John the Evangelist’s Day, December 27. This second St John was traditionally regarded as the son of Zebedee and Salome (the latter supposed to have been the sister of the Virgin Mary), and is said to have died at the age of nearly a hundred after an eventful life, but with no particular connexion with masonry or architecture. There seems good ground for assuming that the two saints’ days were originally days of heathen rejoicing, being the summer and the winter solstices, cleverly appropriated by the Early Christian Fathers and by them fastened on the two Saints John. We find that the emblem of wheel is common to both of the festivals, although chiefly associated with that of winter. A wheel used to be rolled about to signify the sun, which at the June festival occupies the highest place in the Zodiac. In some festivals it was taken to the top of the hill, straw was tied around it and set on fire, and the wheel was then set rolling down to the valley, It appearing “at a distance as if the sun had fallen from the sky” The people imagine that all their ill-luck rolls away from them together with this wheel.” Reproduced from the Freemson’s Guide and Compendium by Bernard E Jones I hope everybody is noticing that the two "John" festivals come at the solstices, the summer festival being the climax of the solar journey (the longest day) and the winter being the extreme end of the solar declination (that commenced at the summer festival) and known as the Festival of the Wheel, or , even to this day, as "Yule". This wheel reference is the same "wheel" as the Buddhists talk about: the wheel of the Zodiac. (the world "zodiac' itself translates as 'life-circle') And you are right; it is (and was) very much the custom of Christianity to pre-empt the festivals of ancient origin and weave them into one'e own mythology, afterwards imposing them on the populace via the wealthy and influential..this was how the Sun became "the Son..." Your description of the flaming wheels rolled down hills...that would have been the very first version of "catherine wheels"!
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jun 29, 2011 11:31:09 GMT
Crowley is , it seems a Priest of freemasonry for some. lets just check what the non Masonic world thought of Crowley.
from Wiki;- he was born into a wealthy family, which gave him the means and the tools to play at many things. here is one misadventure.
In 1934, Crowley was declared bankrupt after losing a court case in which he sued the artist Nina Hamnett for calling him a black magician in her 1932 book, Laughing Torso. In addressing the jury, Mr. Justice Swift said: I have been over forty years engaged in the administration of the law in one capacity or another. I thought that I knew of every conceivable form of wickedness. I thought that everything which was vicious and bad had been produced at one time or another before me. I have learnt in this case that we can always learn something more if we live long enough. I have never heard such dreadful, horrible, blasphemous and abominable stuff as that which has been produced by the man (Crowley) who describes himself to you as the greatest living poet. —Mr. Justice Swif
On 21 March 1944, Crowley undertook what he considered his crowning achievement, the publication of The Book of Thoth, "strictly limited to 200 numbered and signed copies bound in Morocco leather and printed on pre-wartime paper". Crowley sold ₤1,500 worth of the edition in less than three months. The story states that the book was originally hidden at the bottom of the Nile near Coptos, where it was locked inside a series of boxes guarded by serpents. The Egyptian prince Neferkaptah fought the serpents and retrieved the book, but in punishment for his theft from Thoth, the gods killed his wife and son. Neferkaptah committed suicide and was entombed along with the book. Generations later, the story's protagonist, Setne Khamwas, steals the book from Neferkaptah's tomb despite opposition from Neferkaptah's ghost. Setne then meets a beautiful woman who seduces him into killing his children and humiliating himself in front of the pharaoh. He discovers that this episode was an illusion created by Neferkaptah, and in fear of further retribution, Setne returns the book to Neferkaptah's tomb
Crowley, and also known as both Frater Perdurabo and The Great Beast, was an influential English occultist, astrologer, mystic and ceremonial magician, responsible for founding the religious philosophy of Thelema.
Crowley and Freemasonry: BCandY In 1900, while in Mexico, Crowley became involved with a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted (Scottish) Rite. This period of Central American Craft Freemasonry has been described as a chaotic mess; masonic bodies springing up and dissolving within a matter of days. Crowley was supposedly initiated into the 33° of the Ancient and Accepted Rite, thus obtaining the title of Grand Inspector General. This title is actually one of administrative rank, and not of ritual degree. The 33° is styled Sovereign Grand Inspector-General and is sparingly conferred by the Supreme Councils of the recognised jurisdictions. There does not appear to be any record of this conferment other than his claim made in The Confessions of Aleister Crowley. In about 1904 Crowley was initiated into Craft Freemasonry in Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343, recognized, as of 1964, under the jurisdiction of the Grande Loge Nationale Française in Paris as No. 103. At the time it was under the jurisdiction of the Grande Loge de France, and so was not recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England as a regular masonic body. He was initiated, passed and raised over a period of several months in 1904. It is suggested but unconfirmed that he was proposed by a country parson from Oxfordshire.
In 1913, Crowley apparently wrote to the United Grand Lodge of England claiming his right to attend lodge meetings, and affiliate as a joining member. If any, the response would have been a rebuttal, due to the irregularity of his mother lodge. This correspondence is not extant; all that survives is Crowley’s draft, transcribed from shorthand and dated 1913.
The United Grand Lodge of England does not recognize Crowley as a member of the Craft. All his affiliations were with irregular bodies, and so they deny him recognition.
[now this does not mean he was not involved in Freemasonry, just that the Freemasonry he was involved in was not mainstream]
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jun 30, 2011 2:31:10 GMT
No, you don't. >shrug< Whatever.The point of contention is your lack of specificity: you've made some statements describing a scenario that is highly unlikely without further clarification. Because mis/disinformation about Crowley abounds, precision is required to help dull minds like mine to cleave more sharply with the sword. Could you be more specific about that?So there is no question of his credentials, it is a matter of whether or not you approve of those credentials. Don't wiggle away trying to make this about me; it's not. That is correct. I was using the 'rhetorical "you". I didn't make this stuff up. You're the one who is looking down your nose at masonic semantics/branding by making light of it. I am doing nothing of the sort; that's just YOUR interpretation. But, think what you want; you will anyway! You can be amused all you want, no matter, but those distinctions provide a logical basis for determining the accuracy behind those claims that Crowley made that you're advancing here. I now understand those distinctions in a way I did not do so previously and upon which you base your original assertion that Crowley is some sort of patron saint of Freemasonry. Although he has influenced masons and many others, he hasn't influenced masonry (though as always, if anyone has any proof, they can pipe in). It is a fact that neither the Grand Lodges or the GLoF recognized Crowley's masonic credentials, leaving aside the separate issue of the Rite of M&M and other workings with which he apparently briefly dabbled. Crowley never 'dabbled' in anything; it was his tremendous drive to understand and apply scientific methodology to what was an extremely inexact science that made him the tremendously accomplished magickian that he was. Did you know that he could play 3 games of chess at once? Blindfolded? Did you know he was also an accomplished mountaineer who climbed two of the highest mountains in the Himalayas? (and this was before oxygen tanks and all that paraphernalia) Whatever might be said about him, he was a tremendously accomplished man, outside of his unparallelled occult pursuits. That puts him in the territory of "independent lodges", which would affect his sphere of influence accordingly. That's not to say that there was an independent lodge of masons in Detroit with whom Crowley interacted, but without more specific information, it's a fairly large leap to make the assertion that he was charged with rewriting Freemasonic ritual for the entire US. If he did, maybe he would be a patron saint of modern Freemasonry. But the fact is: he didn't. "I" didn't make the assertion; HE DID. Maybe you ought to read the Confessions before shooting your mouth off about what C. did or didn't do...Further, other than his own personal claims, there's the issue of no proof. People make stuff up all the time and try to claim it's true. Well, Crowley's sojourn in the ranks of the various esoteric Orders of europe is extant; I see no reason why he should have to fabricate anything about what went on in America. Plus, it's kinda late to look for "hard proof" NOW...this was all back previous to WW1. Anyway, the only "proof' extant would be tucked away in Lodge archives...something I would have NO ACCESS to, in any case! (But I bet it would be an interesting read, if some were to turn up!) Finally, Crowley's system, although quite interesting, is not the same as "freemasonry". Though similarly influenced by Qabalah, alchemy, and astrology, it is quite different in many respects. No, really?
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jun 30, 2011 4:06:43 GMT
Actually I take it back: now that I think further on the subject, it must be said that A. Crowley is a patron "saint" (I use the term loosely; the term "daemon" would probably be much more accurate) of Western Esotericism, which can be loosely lumped together under the heading of "Rosicrucianism", the Western version of "Sufi" which was brought to the West via the Templars. After all, he had to have carried some weight on some level: he was handed the M-M 95o on a silver platter, and was made the "Outer head of an esoteric Masonic Order, apparently on the strength of a verse (numbered "69" on his "Book of Lies") he scribbled down by a farthing dip, (in a brothel)
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jun 30, 2011 13:58:20 GMT
I guess it could be said that Albert Pike is a "saint' of Freemasonry..I was quite stunned when I read "Morals and Dogma" to see how well A. Pike grasped the fundamentals of Eastern thought; not something I expected to see in something that was written in the 1800s.
Manley P. Hall might also 'fill the bill', no one who read his expositions on Freemasonry would ever guess he did not actually become a Freemason until relatively late in life.
I have heard it remarked from someone in a position to know, that St. Joseph (Jesus' father) is associated with Freemasonry; the Greek word used to describe his occupation was mistakenly translated as 'carpenter" but more accurately translates as 'architect". Of course the Church would wish it translated as 'carpenter'; how would it look on them if the scriptures revealed Jesus had a close connection to Freemasonry, eh?
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jul 1, 2011 1:30:50 GMT
FYI, I got the info about St. Joseph directly from someone who actually worked on the Dead Sea scrolls: a Gnostic Catholic Bishop with a PhD in theology, and who was also a FREEMASON, and who also knew very well what the RCC was all about, and what they 'intended", no "leaps in logic necessary". The fact of the INQUISITION alone (maybe you've heard of it?) should speak for ITSELF as to what the Church intended (and what it STILL intends!)
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jul 1, 2011 3:58:47 GMT
I guess it could be said that Albert Pike is a "saint' of Freemasonry..I was quite stunned when I read "Morals and Dogma" to see how well A. Pike grasped the fundamentals of Eastern thought; not something I expected to see in something that was written in the 1800s. But of course; how could I forget: the Bhagavad-Gita was the first Hindu scripture translated from the Sanskrit into another language, and this took place in the middle to late 1700s; Pike was wealthy and influential, and could afford books from Europe. He surely would have had both time and opportunity to have studied it. Manley P. Hall might also 'fill the bill', no one who read his expositions on Freemasonry would ever guess he did not actually become a Freemason until relatively late in life. I have heard it remarked from someone in a position to know, that St. Joseph (Jesus' father) is associated with Freemasonry; the Greek word used to describe his occupation was mistakenly translated as 'carpenter" but more accurately translates as 'architect". Of course the Church would wish it translated as 'carpenter'; how would it look on them if the scriptures revealed Jesus had a close connection to Freemasonry, eh? I enjoy Pike, but he made some huge blunders, such as his misinterpretation of Islam. Can you supply titles and page numbers? or better yet, transcripts? Where in Pike's writings would I find this misinterpretation?- I should like to study it.
I will remark that if he was being taught by Sufis instead of by orthodox Muslims, I would certainly expect him to present a different picture of what "Islam" means. For my part , I have been told it means "submission"; as in "submission to God's Will.". But I will have to read for myself what he says about it before I can make up my mind on this point.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Jul 2, 2011 0:28:04 GMT
Thank you; I shall look this over and tell you what I think.
Are you saying that your only quibble is with the name by which Bro. Pike referred to Islam?
I shall read his "Sephir ha-Devarim" with great interest, I assure you.
|
|
|
Post by beersheva on Dec 6, 2011 23:19:50 GMT
"i would certainly nominate Aleister Crowley as a "patron saint" of modern-day Freemasonry; the Freemasons of Detroit, Michigan ( you know: the ones with all those fancy Masonic tombs in the local graveyards?) engaged him in the task of re-writing Freemasonic ritual in America. This fact is plainly stated in his "Confessions". If Crowley had not been considered a Freemason of some repute and learning, he would not have been entrusted with such a delicate task by some of the most influential Freemasons in the country, surely?"
Ummm, the PROPHET of the AEON stooping to rewrite the rituals of FREEMASONRY? The "ground-floor" of the WESTERN ESOTERIC TRADITION, you say? G-d forbid that BAHHHHFOMET should stoop so low, that would really burst my bubble about the GREAT MASTER THERION. That's why he became head of the OTO and the A.A., which, according to CROWLEY, supercedes all MASONIC KNOWLEDGE (as directed by the SECRET CHIEFS). Now that makes complete esoteric and rational sense. Righhhhhhhhhhht.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Dec 31, 2011 4:08:03 GMT
I would say you have a FEW "bubbles" that need a good bursting, myself!
|
|
|
Post by boreades on Jan 16, 2012 22:05:30 GMT
|
|