Talk:Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry

According to Pike

Why no mention of the line about the god of freemasony being lucifer according to pike? If it is a fabricaton it still should be addressed because of all the claims to have copies, even scanned in pages??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.19 (talk)

It's covered in Anti-Masonry, because there's more to criticisms of Pike than just that line and just this book. Not only that, there is a link to an online copy provided here. You can therefore read it for yourself and see what it really says without the need for this article to draw the conclusion for you. MSJapan 13:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You say "really" as if to belittle the claim without denial, as slick tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk)

Is there any merit to the respected grand pooo bah's praise be to lucifer "poetry" in the work. He seems to have channeled some spirit as some point to his predictions of world wars and the use of judahs to clash with the muslims and christians to establish the envisioned world order. Fantasy or a multigenerational plan for civilizations "think they know best" crowd. ( "the wisdom of men is foolishness...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk)

wtf? - ∅ (∅), 16:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a citation on the page, other than the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.106.31 (talk) 06:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth a mention that; although many conspiracy theorists claim this is the "Bible" of Freemasonry many masons (probably the majority) have never read it and are not likely to. Saxophobia (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Degrees

Currently the article contains the statement:

• The book is composed of Pike's ruminations and essays on each of the Degrees of the Scottish Rite, from the 1st to the 32nd.

I have a problem with the wording "each of the Degrees of the Scottish Rite, from the 1st to the 32"... since the first three Degrees are not part of the Scottish Rite (they are the Craft, or Blue Lodge Degrees). Suggested change would be:

• "The book is composed of Pike's ruminations and essays on the three Craft Degrees (1st, 2nd and 3rd degrees) and each the Degrees of the Scottish Rite, from the 4th to the 32nd."

Any objection to the change? Blueboar 12:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. MSJapan 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Change made. Question... I know M&D was never used by Northern Jurisdiction... am I correct in assuming that the other books are not used either? In which case, should the last sentence in the article be expanded to something like: "Neither Morals and Dogma, nor any of these subsequent books, have ever been used by the Northern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite" ?

Blueboar 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Had i been looking closer at this article, I would have objected to it, because M&D DOES specifically deal with the first three degrees as used in the Scottish Rite. There are notable differences between AASR 1-3 and the "York" (really, Preston/Webb) form of the first three, especially in the third degree. AASR has places where the Craft degrees are performed. There was a time, as well, when, before a GL was created in a state, the AASR claimed jurisdiction over all the degrees, not just 4-33.--Vidkun (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

External links addition

The proposed addition to the External links section might not be a bad idea. However, as I'm sure the author knows, there are a rather huge number of such "editions" of any book. Can any specific indication that this particular edition is more notable than any other edition be given? If not, can any clear and explicit indication that this new edition receives some sort of recognition by one or more large Masonic bodies be given? If the answers to both questions are "No", then I rather doubt that there would be any particular purpose served by adding the link, particularly if the new text is not specifically recognized by any major Masonic bodies. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From a quick glance at the marketing website this looks to be a private rehash of M&D, there is no claim that it was authorised by Southern Jurisdiction, which is the only one that would matter anyway.

It does look like marketing to me and without explicit SJ endorsement then I'd question the validity.

It's probably worth tempering the claims on their web-page as well, they're a bit overblown.

ALR (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. It's a really good book. Jjmiller768 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case, but unless your rework is endorsed by SJ in DC it's really not notable enough for inclusion. Personally I find M&D to be completely off the wall, but I recognise that even the majority of A&AR doesn't use those rituals.

ALR (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a very, very strange thing to say. Are you a member of the Southern Jurisdiction? You know my name, please identify yourself.Jjmiller768 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In what way is it strange?

Largely it's up to you to demonstrate that this book has any significance or notability. You have so far failed to do that, even within the limitations of your own Jurisdiction, never mind anywhere else.

ALR (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All external links should meet the criteria of Wikipedia:External links. Right now, I have at best very serious reservations whether that one does. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no external links anymore. I have not resubmitted any external links. Jjmiller768 (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

True. Regular content has to meet even stricter criteria, like reliable, independent sources indicating the book meets WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. As of yet, none had been supplied to indicate that the version meets notability standards. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Brother Miller, I would like to emphasize that we're not trying to be obnoxious here. There are certain policies that all editors here have to follow, and we've all wound up on the wrong side of them at one time or another -- or wound up on the right side, but lost anyway. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is the need to WP:Assume good faith, which I hope we're all doing. Your book may indeed be all that you say it is, and if I had more disposable income, I'd buy a copy and find out. But even if I did, I couldn't say "yeah, he's right" -- I have to be able to verify the statement with external sources. And, even if you can find reliable sources to back up your assertions, it's still very important to be able to demonstrate notability. While the original book is notable, you haven't shown any evidence that your edition of it is equally -- or at all -- notable. If you have sources that cover your book that aren't under your direct control, as is http://www.morals-and-dogma.com/, please post them so we can add them to the article. If not, it may very well be that you'll have to give up trying to talk about it here, and just move on to other areas of interest. Either way, I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedia editor as much as we do. S&F--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Should you be able to produce independent review of the volume from reliable sources, then there would be no question that reference to the book could be added at least as a section of this article. Unfortunately, there are a lot of books out there of all kinds. I actually work primarily with Christianity, and know from experience that there are a number of translations of the Bible which probably don't qualify for mention in wikipedia, on the basis of non-notability per the guidelines above. That doesn't mean that I haven't bought editions of translations I've never even heard of, because I have bought such volumes.

I've had more than a few whole articles I've written deleted, so I know how it feels to lose in these discussions; it sucks. Also, I tend to have a rather belligerent style at times, which I kind of indicate by my name, and apologize if I've been less than civil. On a comparatively unrelated point, I wonder if there is a Freemasonry wiki out there yet. If there isn't maybe there could or should be. If there is, content regarding this edition could probably be added there.

In any event, I thank you for your efforts in finding the volume in question, and offer my support as an outsider to Freemasonry if you think I could ever be of any help to do in preparing new content or whole separate articles on this or any other subject. We still have a lot of material to be added, and just because reference to this edition doesn't qualify yet as notable doesn't mean that you might not have a lot of other material you could add we wouldn't all welcome. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Motto in picture caption

I note that an editor requested a translation of the motto Deus MeUmque Jus... a direct translation would be "God and my Right", but this really does not tell us anything. Do we really need to provide a translation?

I think that it would be better to just cut mention of the motto all together... or, at least, cut it from the picture caption. If the motto is important (which I am not at all sure about), we should discuss it in the main text. A picture caption should simply tell the reader what they are looking at... in this case, the cover art from an old edition of M&D. What the motto says or means is essentially irrelevant to explaining the picture. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First Three Degrees

I think we need to take a very close look at how we deal with this book's treatment and understanding of the first three degrees, and we need to not apply only our own interpretation of what the current organisational structure of the AASR in the USA is, but also how the system was seen by Pike (as witness his book Esoterika about the first three degrees in the Scottish Rite Ritual), and how it is practiced in places other than the US. From the University of Bradford's page about the Scottish Rite: While the degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish rite commence with the Entered Apprentice, FellowCraft or Companion, and Master Mason, all authority over these degrees by the Supreme Councils is waived, and they are exclusively administered by the Blue or Symbolic Lodges, working under the jurisdiction of Grand Lodges and the representative system. In some countries, the first three degrees are given in Lodges of Perfection.[1] Pike himself says in the preface to the book "THE following work has been prepared by authority of the Supreme Council of the Thirty-third Degree, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, by the Grand Commander, and is now published by its direction. It contains the Lectures of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in that jurisdiction, and is specially intended to be read and studied by the Brethren of that obedience, in connection with the Rituals of the Degrees." The lectures contained in that book include the lectures of the first three degrees, which are part of the Scottish Rite; in fact, he comments on the differences between the Scottish Rite First Degree and the York Rite first degree here. Jorge Soto points out that the Scottish Rite's first three degrees are currently the only or most extensively used system in more than 25 countries and by at least 75 Grand Lodges. ("The Forgotten Three," Haboneh Hahofshi, Vol. LIX, No. 2, 1994, pp. 18-21)[2]. Pike knew there were 33 degrees in the Scottish Rite, and wrote about those first 32 (M&D does not deal with the 33rd). To keep the wording The book is composed of Pike's ruminations and essays on the three Craft Degrees of Freemasonry (1st, 2nd and 3rd degrees) and each the Degrees of the Scottish Rite, from the 4th to the 32nd implies, from that specific wording, that the first three degrees are not part of the Scottish Rite (with which a number of reliable sources disagree), and and could be interpreted to imply that the Scottish Rite doesn't include the 33rd.--Vidkun (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can fairly distinguish between what Pike envisioned for his system of degrees (as explained in M&D), and what ended up occurring in the US. As for what occurs in other countries... we have to be careful, because not all "Scottish Rites" are the same... some followed Pike's vision... others ignored it. The topic is tricky. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Obscure abbreviation

Are we supposed to know what 'G∴C∴' stands for? (Last line of the first paragraph). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA48:6D16:A4F0:6129:8109:C86B:397B (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That abbreviation is used in several places, and at other places (including in the indented quote shortly after the instance you mention) the phrase Grand Commander is written out in full. After reading the text, it seems to me that the one is short for the other. My native language is French, and the head of a French-speaking Supreme Council is called le Très Puissant Souverain Grand Commandeur, usually shown in writing as « le T∴P∴S∴G∴C∴ »; AFAICT this French expression is just a verbose variant of the one used in this English-language article. — Tonymec (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Selected excerpts section?

I am always concerned when I see a "selected excepts" section in an article about a scholarly book... I immediately wonder why a particular excerpt was selected. This is especially the case with a very convoluted work like Morals and Dogma... where it is very easy to take things Pike says out of context (the Anti-masons do it all the time). I am not trying to accuse any editor of any bad intent ... I just think we need further discussion.

Let's start with the broad questions... what is the purpose of presenting these excerpts... and why have we selected these specific excepts to present? Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that.. but I'll go one further. Since the excerpts were copied from wiki-quotes - which is linked to in the article - there is no need to keep the excerpts. Even less when the full text is available from Project Gutenberg, also reachable from a link in the article. I've therefore been bold and removed the excerpts, so we can instead discuss and reach agreement on what (if any) excepts should be added back in.

I lean to no excerpts - as Blueboar points out it is way to easy to mine for quotes and misrepresent what Pike intended to say. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Direct quote from Heimbichner & Parfrey (2012, page 72):

"Pike's soaring mind embraced large and spacious regions. It seemed untroubled by the need to properly attribute text that he borrowed or lifted. This tendency to absorb the writings of others and reproduce them as his own found a peak point in his magnum opus, Morals and Dogma (1871), a 900-plus-page behemoth that became a cornerstone of the Scottish Rite. In it, Pike plagiarized from the French occultist Eliphas Lévi (Alphonse Louis Constant, 1810–1875), including infamous passages about Lucifer."

I do not see a NPOV problem adding this to the article. Virtuus (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• This strikes me as something that needs attribution. It is fact that Heimbichner and Parfrey say this... but is what THEY say fact or opinion. Surely if Pike had directly plagiarized from Levi, someone else would have noticed and commented on it prior to 2012. Makes me dubious. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The plagiarism was noticed in the 1920s. René Guénon wrote in Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion (page 20): "Since we have the opportunity to do so, let us add that Albert Pike’s reputation as a Masonic writer was quite overrated: a considerable part of his major work Morals and Dogma of Freemasonry is clearly plagiarized from Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie by the French occultist Eliphas Levi." Link to text --Virtuus (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hodapp writes in Freemasons for Dummies: "Whole passages of Levi's book made into Pike's". The article currently cites this as a source for the statement "Pike frequently quotes passages of Lévi's work". What do we make of "made into"? Legitimate quoting or plagiarism? --Virtuus (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A concern I have is that putting accusations of plagiarism in the lead of article (supported by citations or not) may promote a particular POV that is not neutral. Pepe Oats (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)