Freemasonry was in part a way for Protestants to have access to the ritual and mystery of Catholicism.

As one who was raised Catholic and has taken the first three degrees of Freemasonry, I don't agree. I see very little similarity between these two traditions except the typical similarities between any two systems of western philosophy. You're right that Freemasonry is an ubiquitous influence on western esoteric philosophy from the 1800's on, though. OTO, notably, was actually a rite of Freemasonry to begin with.

The two examples you mention which seem "not like the others" are Mormonism and Thelema, which seem to claim to fulfill the prophecies of Christianity, while the other examples either claim to be entirely separated from, or developing in parallel with, Christianity; or they claim to be revivals of pre-Christian traditions.

The question I often wonder about, to determine how relatively advanced a philosophy is, is whether they transcend and include Christianity, (the way that Christianity does with Judaism), or whether they regress to pre-Christian ideas, or whether they are simply Christianity dressed in some exotic flavor.

(Reply) (Thread)

"As one who was raised Catholic and has taken the first three degrees of Freemasonry, I don't agree. I see very little similarity between these two traditions except the typical similarities between any two systems of western philosophy. "

Can you elaborate on what you meant here, give us some detail?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I can't go into detail about the ritual of Freemasonry, if that's what you mean. There are ample sources for your own research available in bookstores.

Otherwise I'm not sure what kinds of detail you are looking for - perhaps you could be more specific?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I wasn't asking about details of Masonic ritual, no.

I'm having trouble wording this, as I'm describing a negative and it's very late for me. Bear with me. :)

I was curious as to the specifics of your criteria and thinking for coming to the conclusion that the two traditions are dissimilar. How are they not alike?

I don't agree or disagree, for the record. I may eventually, given new data. The topic just stood out in my mind so I thought I'd ask for more.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

How are they not alike?

Well, for example, as far as I know there is no "Freemasonic Eucharist" which would be the primary ritual of the Roman Catholic Church.

Nor is there any initiatory mystery - the primary ritual of Freemasonry - within Catholicism.

While the symbolism of Freemasonry is in some ways compatible with that of Catholicism, the same could be said for Islam, Judaism, Mithraism, etc.

Freemasonry certainly seems to have a richer variety of symbol than does Protestant Christianity, but that isn't saying much and it doesn't mean that it's simply an attempt for the Protestants to experience the symbols and ritual of Catholicism.

It's kind of hard to talk about without getting into ritual specifics.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I understand, and thank you for what you did say.

There are initiations in Catholic ritual, though. Would you say that's true? I'm not currently operating with full recollection of all the different stages of Catholic...stuff (technical term, definition on request). I don't know exactly what the difference between initiations and an "intiatory mystery" might be, if any, or if I'm just being thick.

The Eucharist ritual is what, underneath? Communion? Symbolic sharing of food and drink, physical representation of suckling at some shared teat of illumination/salvation/etc? The underlying meta-system is probably a pretty common one. Not to sell any ritual short, but under the hood of any car are components familiar to any mechanic. So while there may be no "This is my body, this is my blood." in Freemasonry, it is...not likely (I have no basis for an assumption like that), but...not unlikely.

I'm not really going anywhere with this, for the record. Just following the thread that jumped out at me, again.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

There are initiations in Catholic ritual, though. Would you say that's true?

Not per se. There are the sacraments, which are akin to initiations in some ways, in that they often serve as rites of passage.

I'm not currently operating with full recollection of all the different stages of Catholic...stuff (technical term, definition on request). I don't know exactly what the difference between initiations and an "intiatory mystery" might be, if any, or if I'm just being thick.

Specifically, I'm referring to the idea of revealed wisdom through symbolism given in a graduated series of secret mystery plays centering on a candidate. Freemasonry is in a long line of this kind of tradition which goes back to Eleusis, but Catholicism soundly rejects such methodology as being inherently anti-Catholic, by definition.

The Eucharist ritual is what, underneath? Communion? Symbolic sharing of food and drink, physical representation of suckling at some shared teat of illumination/salvation/etc?

The Eucharist is the Christian method of communion. It is the Christian answer to previous practices which included animal sacrifice as a method of attaining oneness with the divine.

The underlying meta-system is probably a pretty common one. Not to sell any ritual short, but under the hood of any car are components familiar to any mechanic. So while there may be no "This is my body, this is my blood." in Freemasonry, it is...not likely (I have no basis for an assumption like that), but...not unlikely.

As far as I am aware, Freemasonry does not have any ritual which serves the same function, i.e., eating God to become one with God. Instead it invokes the divine within the candidate (as opposed to invoking it into the sacrificial animal or host & wine).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The underlying meta-system

Yes, there are similarities, which I do not deny. However, these similarities are no more prevalent between Catholicism and Freemasonry than they are between Islam and Freemasonry. There are far more similarities between Freemasonry and the Rites of Eleusis (of which we have precious little data) or, say, Mithraism and other Gnostic traditions long dead (though some are revived today).

Western esoteric philosophy is arguably a third stream which lies somewhere between science and religion. It seems more appropriate to me to compare Freemasonry to other systems of WEP than to western religions or sciences, though certainly those comparisons can be profitably made.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, there are similarities, which I do not deny. However, these similarities are no more prevalent between Catholicism and Freemasonry than they are between Islam and Freemasonry.

Given that Freemasonry evolved in a purely Christian setting and borrowed forms from Christianity, I definitely disagree.

Western esoteric philosophy is arguably a third stream which lies somewhere between science and religion.

In my experience as both a scientist and as a magician, I see far more similarities between WEP and religion than I do with modern science. What similarities do you see between science and the various branches of WEP?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Given that Freemasonry evolved in a purely Christian setting and borrowed forms from Christianity, I definitely disagree.

It is anyone's guess how and when Freemasonry evolved, but the history they tell about themselves is significantly different from what you suggest here.

What forms specifically did Freemasonry borrow from Catholicism?

What similarities do you see between science and the various branches of WEP?

WEP is the parent of western science, historically of course. But my point was to say that WEP is actually different from both science and religion and can be considered as neither. The similarities are superficial, whether we are talking about religion or science.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

But my point was to say that WEP is actually different from both science and religion and can be considered as neither.

The only way that this statement makes sense to me is if one is using what is to me an overly narrow definition of religion and an overly broad definition of science. For example, while alchemy is clearly the ancestor of modern chemistry, this in no way alters the fact that Western Alchemy was a spiritual tradition with an explicitly religious goal: union with the divine.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Nor is there any initiatory mystery - the primary ritual of Freemasonry - within Catholicism.

I would consider both baptism and confirmation to be initiatory... perhaps you're using it in a different context than I am.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sorry heron61, I hope I'm not wearing my welcome too thin by posting so many messages in your LJ.

I would consider both baptism and confirmation to be initiatory... perhaps you're using it in a different context than I am.

See my note above regarding the sacraments.

If you consider all rites of passage to be initiation, then I can see why you would equate the two. However, it seems clear to me that those of Catholicism and those of Freemasonry utilize inherently different metaphysics. I'll try to elaborate the difference, but it's very squishy and hard to talk about. Forgive me if this sounds like so much mumbo-jumbo.

The sacraments of Catholicism are performed by a Priest. The Priest is an intercessory agent - he acts as a vessel through which God-Christ-HolyGhost acts. The Priest does not baptise, confirm, marry, etc. He is an intermediary through which G-C-HG does the baptising, confirmation, marriage, etc. It is an inherently mystical act. The technique of the ceremony is a secondary consideration to "the Power in me vested," and vested by G-C-HG through the Church. The rituals do not initiate (i.e., begin) a phase of spiritual growth but rather commemorate the work that G-C-HG is doing unseen. Anyone may be baptised, and this is a defining characteristic of Catholicism (the word "catholic" means universal or all-encompassing).

The first thing that's different about Freemasonry is that I cannot tell you the titles of the initiator or the divine agent. This is a significant difference from the start, because immediately a Freemason will have priviledged information, ostensibly about spiritual matters -- the RCC is, at least in theory, fundamentally opposed to this kind of priviledge.

The initiations of Freemasonry are performed by an initiator. The initiator is a gnostic agent and magician - he acts directly using ceremonial technique to inspire knowledge of the divine within the candidate. It is an inherently magickal act. The technique of the ceremony is given top priority as the primary method of invoking power -- this power is vested by the initiator through his own Genius and the temporal authority of the Lodge Charter. These rituals initiate, or begin, a phase of spiritual growth marked by ordeals as the candidate struggles to apply their oath. Candidates for initiation must go through an elaborate acceptance process.

They are both rites of passage. One is mystical and the other magickal. The Catholic rites are called Sacraments and the Freemasonic are Initiations.

Hopefully that clarifies how I use the term.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sorry heron61, I hope I'm not wearing my welcome too thin by posting so many messages in your LJ.

Not at all, I would have been woefully disappointed if this post hadn't received a large number of responses.

The first thing that's different about Freemasonry is that I cannot tell you the titles of the initiator or the divine agent. This is a significant difference from the start, because immediately a Freemason will have priviledged information, ostensibly about spiritual matters -- the RCC is, at least in theory, fundamentally opposed to this kind of priviledge.

Except that until quite recently, Catholic services were held in Latin, which served a very similar function for the majority of worshipers who did not know Latin. Certainly way information was privileged was different, but both had it. Catholicism has obviously changed, but there was also privileged information at the time when Freemasonry developed.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Actually, the Latin of Catholic services acts in a manner that is radically different than the secrecy of the rights of the Freemasons (or the Mormons). For a Catholic participating in communion in Latin, knowledge of the meaning of the words being spoken was considered irrelevant. Anyone can receive the sacraments without any knowledge of the meaning of the actual words being spoken. Presumably, the reason that the Masonic rights are kept secret is because the knowledge imparted is secret. Anyone who learns the words to the Masonic initiation has gained access to part of what is transmitted during the initiation in a way that is completely different than the much more limited knowledge that is gained by learning the words spoken during a Catholic communion.

The Catholic right that might be expected to be more equivalent to Masonic initiation would be the investiture of a priest, since this is a point at which a person is transformed into being someone capable of serving as a vessel for GCHG. Perhaps this involves secret knowledge? However, I know absolutely nothing about the rituals of investiture, so I am incapable of commenting on whether they do bear any resemblance to the masonic rights (about which I know nearly nothing).

Charles

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That is an excellent point. I've read a bit about Catholic investiture and it struck me as having some elements in common with initiatory paths like Freemasonry or Wicca. In most neo-pagan traditions everyone is (or at least is supposed to eventually become) a priest, which changes the dynamic by largely removing the laity.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

In a sense, it is very much like that, yes. It is a rite of passage. However, again, the words are irrelevant and no secrets are conveyed. Like communion, it is simply by the grace of GCHG that the Priest is "made."

Initiatory traditions, on the other hand, tend to use rituals as technique or technology whereby one can attain gnosis, communion, union, etc. In this worldview, the tech is only useful if it is secreted, that is, reserved for special use by initiating officers for the benefit of prepared candidates.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I completely agree. The prevalence of Wiccanings (effectively a Wiccan version of Baptism) further illustrates the similarities I'm talking about.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

As one who was raised Catholic and has taken the first three degrees of Freemasonry, I don't agree. I see very little similarity between these two traditions except the typical similarities between any two systems of western philosophy. You're right that Freemasonry is an ubiquitous influence on western esoteric philosophy from the 1800's on, though. OTO, notably, was actually a rite of Freemasonry to begin with.

Both Catholicism and Freemasonry are initiatory traditions with complex mysteries and a great deal of ritual. In addition to the obvious social benefits of this group to its members, the fact that freemasonry emerged and grew primarily in Protestant nations in the midst of the Reformation is highly suggestive.

The two examples you mention which seem "not like the others" are Mormonism and Thelema, which seem to claim to fulfill the prophecies of Christianity, while the other examples either claim to be entirely separated from, or developing in parallel with, Christianity; or they claim to be revivals of pre-Christian traditions.

Certainly Wicca and most other neo-pagan faiths are distinct from Christianity. However, they also use most of the forms of Freemasonry and in both structure and in ethics and morals, they are surprisingly close to Christianity. The resemblance between Catholic ritual and Gardnerian ritual is not accidental. The Rede is essentially a restatement of the Golden Rule. Also, in its oldest (Gardnerian) form I think you could accurately describe Wicca as a duo-theistic faith, with a universal Lady and Lord, which frankly looks a whole lot like a fairly radical Christian variant. I would definitely say Wicca is further from Christianity than LDS or the OTO, in fact I would say that the degree of divergence from Christianity correlates quite well with when the faith was founded. However, I also maintain that in many important ways all of these faiths derive from Christianity, both through the intermediary of Freemasonry and (to a lesser degree) directly.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Both Catholicism and Freemasonry are initiatory traditions with complex mysteries and a great deal of ritual.

I think perhaps I misunderstood your original point. Certainly, one could make the argument that Protestants were turning to Freemasonry to get rich symbolism and ritual that they were being denied in their faith. My rebuttal was to say that the symbolism of Freemasonry is not Catholic, or even Christian, in nature.

Catholicism is definitely not an initiatory tradition. (Nuh uh! Yah huh!) The mysteries of Catholicism are open to any one who allows Jesus into their hearts. The ritual of Catholicism is mystical, not magickal, by nature.

In addition to the obvious social benefits of this group to its members, the fact that freemasonry emerged and grew primarily in Protestant nations in the midst of the Reformation is highly suggestive.

Suggestive or not, Roman Catholic symbolism and ritual does not exist within the rituals of Freemasonry.

I would definitely say Wicca is further from Christianity than LDS or the OTO, in fact I would say that the degree of divergence from Christianity correlates quite well with when the faith was founded.

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean about the divergence correlating to when the faith was founded?

However, I also maintain that in many important ways all of these faiths derive from Christianity, both through the intermediary of Freemasonry and (to a lesser degree) directly.

Freemasonry is not a Christian tradition, but a Hermetic one. OTO was a Freemasonic rite which eventually embraced Thelema. Thelema is post-Christian in the same way that Christianity is post-Judaic, to the extent that many consider Thelema to be anti-Christian. Gardnerian Wicca... was Thelema when it started. Roughtly 85% of the initiation rituals of Gardner were taken (word for word) from Crowley's Gnostic Mass and other rituals and the principal holy book of Thelema, The Book of the Law. Various Wiccan leaders have rewritten much of this material to the extent that it is now highly compatible with Christian values and beliefs.

Hmm ok, I guess we have both made our assertions. I suppose to go much further we'll both have to start citing sources eh? :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Wiccan leaders have rewritten

The most prevalent such rewrite (which I think was actually done by Gardner) was the Rede itself, which essentially removes all the revolutionary aspects from Thelemic Law and makes it, as you said, practically identical with the Golden Rule.

It's not the first time that Thelema has been rewritten to conform with Christian values. Theodor Reuss, the founder of the OTO, was prone to it himself, but thankfully for me those revisions did not become prevalent.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Freemasonry is not a Christian tradition, but a Hermetic one.

Certainly it is Hermetic, but Hermeticism became an explicitly Christian tradition. In addition to originally being one of the more syncretic and unusual Gnostic variants when it was developed back in 100-300 CE, it was explicitly interpreted as a Christian tradition by Ficino and the other early Renaissance Hermeticists. They saw it as the ancestor of Christianity and the Hermeticism that evolved in the late Renaissance was very much a Christian mystical tradition.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

True facts! One mitigating factor to your point is that Renaissance Christians had a tendency to see just about everything as a precursor, prophecy, or some other form of validation of Christianity. Not that they were wrong, mind you, so much as it's an oversimplification. Another way of looking at it is to see Christian syncretism -- to the extent that I think it would be more accurate to say that early Christianity was Hermetic, and there was a revival of Hermeticism within Christianity during the Renaissance.

You are absolutely right about the timing of the emergence of Freemasonry. However, Freemasonry is only Christian by population, and by the fact that their Hermetic syncretism (such that survives in their publications c. 1910) includes Christian philosophy. The rituals and the symbolism of Freemasonry are Western, and are compatible to Christian, Moslem, and Jew alike, and for that matter any other with a belief in a supreme being of any kind, or a supreme egregore of beings, or suchlike. My candidacy was accepted because I believed in "the Universe" as the supreme being (this was over a decade ago mind you - I'm less cheeky these days).

I may be somewhat conflating Hermeticism with WEP, but to clarify, I see WEP as separate from (though interdependent with) both science and religion, originating with Pythagoras, and I see Hermeticism as a later part of that stream, interacting with Christianity but not identical with it. Since clearly, Hermeticism transcends and includes Christianity by virtue of the former's syncretic and gnostic focus -- attributes which Christianity once shared, but not so much today.

Thanks for the sources! I will check them out. I have only read Yates' The Art of Memory. I'll have some references for you tomorrow I think... gotta run right now.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I may be somewhat conflating Hermeticism with WEP,

Given that it is the origin of all of the modern Western esoteric mystical traditions, this conflation seems exceedingly fair.

but to clarify, I see WEP as separate from (though interdependent with) both science and religion, originating with Pythagoras, and I see Hermeticism as a later part of that stream, interacting with Christianity but not identical with it. Since clearly, Hermeticism transcends and includes Christianity by virtue of the former's syncretic and gnostic focus -- attributes which Christianity once shared, but not so much today.

I'd definitely call them religious, but my definition of religion is far more that of an anthropologist (unsurprisingly) than of a student of religious studies.

Thanks for the sources! I will check them out. I have only read Yates' The Art of Memory. I'll have some references for you tomorrow I think... gotta run right now.

I have that book, but haven't yet had time to read it. Her classic work is Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, which is truly excellent, and her Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age is equally good. I had not idea that John Dee and his ideas were so influential of Shakespeare. Hutton's book is the only worthwhile history of Wicca and it's development that I've seen. While he discusses some earlier events, Hutton mostly starts his discussion around 1800 with the early Romantic movement. It's a gem, and the info he managed to dig up about Gardner is truly impressive.

A good companion volume is Peter Washington's Madame Blavatsky's Baboon, which is about the origins of Theosophy and that whole thread of popular spirituality that eventually becomes the New Age movement. What's fascinating is how completely separate that whole movement was from the WEP traditions until quite recently.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sorry I'm late with the sources! Clearly I'm primarily going off of my own experience in the degrees of Freemasonry and those of other Freemasonic traditions ;) ... I've gone back and looked at the actual text in Duncan's Ritual, as well as looking through many of the points of doctrine in Pike's Morals and Dogma. Looking at the rituals, and the official dogma of Freemasonry, they seem to include pretty much anything Western in a syncretic/ecclectic mix. As for the way I am dividing WEP from both science and religion, this comes primarily from my recent readings of Faivre's Access to Western Esotericism and Heidegger's essay called The Question Concerning Technology. These latter sources clearly indicate the source of our disagreement, which you seem to have intuited: you're looking at things from an antro POV, and I'm looking from a philosophical or religious studies view.

I'm curious if, despite our different points of view, you are able to grok the difference I am describing between mystical and magickal metaphysics. Because if you understand that difference, and you agree that it applies to comparisons between Catholic sacraments and Freemasonic initiations, then, well I don't think we have a logical disagreement, but rather a disagreement of terms.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

As for the way I am dividing WEP from both science and religion, this comes primarily from my recent readings of Faivre's Access to Western Esotericism and Heidegger's essay called The Question Concerning Technology.

I'll definitely look for these. Thanks.

I'm curious if, despite our different points of view, you are able to grok the difference I am describing between mystical and magickal metaphysics. Because if you understand that difference, and you agree that it applies to comparisons between Catholic sacraments and Freemasonic initiations, then, well I don't think we have a logical disagreement, but rather a disagreement of terms.

I'm not certain. The obvious difference between mstical and magickal metaphysics involves praxis - magick is used to transform both oneself and the external world, while metaphysics focuses only on a mixture of understanding and self-transformation. And yet, Catholic Mass is in many ways a fundamentally magickal act. By my definition, Catholic priests are magicians. Given the need for numerous prohibitions against non-sanctioned magick in pre-modern times, and the fact that these prohibitions were often broken, clearly many Catholic Priests also used to see themselves as magicians. I have no idea how common this is now.

In any case, how exactly would you distinguish between WEP magick and Catholic rites like exorcism, various types of blessings, and transubstantiation? At most, I would consider these to be different traditions of magickal practice. One obvious and important different (other than differences in methodology) is the absence of a laity in WEP magickal practice, but the difference between Catholic Priests and various WEP magicians seems fairly slim from my PoV. What are your thoughts on this?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hmm ok, I guess we have both made our assertions. I suppose to go much further we'll both have to start citing sources eh? :)

Most definitely. My primary sources here are Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon and several of Frances Yates excellent books on Renaissance Hermeticism.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

> Certainly Wicca and most other neo-pagan faiths are distinct from Christianity. However, they also use most of the forms of Freemasonry and in both structure and in ethics and morals, they are surprisingly close to Christianity. ... The Rede is essentially a restatement of the Golden Rule.

I don't have the knowledge to argue with your history, but I can't agree with your ethical-structural parallel. Yes, the Rede and Rule are basically equivalent, but that's hardly surprising, as the Golden Rule is fairly universal and self-contained enough that it doesn't have to be embedded in a faith to be "borrowed" out of context and remain useful as a moral axiom.

And if you look at the rest of the ethical tree, I think the similarities break more often than they hold. For example, one of the fundamental Christian principles is of inherent sin and separation from God; unless I misunderstand Wicca entirely, this doesn't hold, and that's a tremendous leap to make and still call it an offshoot.

That having been said, I don't think a conscious exclusion of Christianity by pagans is healthy, but I think it might be defensible given most American pagans' circumstance; we're bombarded by it so thoroughly in day-to-day life that merely by going to work in the morning and watching the news at night we're giving more mindspace to The Christian God than most of the rest of them put together.

It's unhealthy to reject that tradition, but saying "Okay, you've had me all week, time for me to ignore you and connect with the other guys" is not, I think, an inherent dishonor.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

For example, one of the fundamental Christian principles is of inherent sin and separation from God; unless I misunderstand Wicca entirely, this doesn't hold, and that's a tremendous leap to make and still call it an offshoot.

Except that there are faiths that are considered Christian that don't particularly deal with "original sin". IIRC, Christian Science is one, and I've heard of others, but I'm not remembering them now.

That having been said, I don't think a conscious exclusion of Christianity by pagans is healthy, but I think it might be defensible given most American pagans' circumstance; we're bombarded by it so thoroughly in day-to-day life that merely by going to work in the morning and watching the news at night we're giving more mindspace to The Christian God than most of the rest of them put together.

Do you really find that to be true? I know this is certainly true in the Bible Belt, but in most large non-bible-belt cities, reference to Christianity are fairly sparse unless you look for them (at least as long as you turn of the TV when Shrub speaks :) Also, it seems to me that the best way to deal with being bombarded with a lot of Christianity is to learn to look at it in a different fashion (ie memetic judo as someone like queenofstripes might say) rather than meeting it head-on with a either hostility or totaly denial. OTOH, YMMV.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You know, I think I stated my case poorly and perhaps wrongly. Please revise accordingly:

It's not necessarily so much a personal sense of overwhelm as it is a cultural one. This is true even in liberal cities. The motto's still on the dollar bill, the Pledge is still said in the classroom, Gideon Bibles are still in hotel rooms, and churches are still on street corners anywhere you go.

God gets plenty of attention. Specifically honoring Him is like setting aside a portion of your canvas to stay white just 'cause you feel you should respect the color.

You use Christianity when appropriate, certainly, and I will reiterate that a conscious exclusion is unhealthy; but deciding that there's no need to honor God more than basic respect is, IMHO, another thing entirely.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You use Christianity when appropriate, certainly, and I will reiterate that a conscious exclusion is unhealthy; but deciding that there's no need to honor God more than basic respect is, IMHO, another thing entirely.

That makes perfect sense to me, well said.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Umm mormons have always claimed to be Christian. That is part of why they stuck the Jesus in the real name. The official name of that church is - The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.
Why? What did it used to be considered?

(Reply) (Thread)

It's always been considered to be Christian. However, even the little I've read about it indicates that it has a cosmology and a theology that is radically different from any of the more mainstream Christian faiths.

I'm fairly certain that Mormonism could have been promoted as being far less Christian and that Gardnerian Wicca could have been promoted as being far more Christian without any differences in actual practice for either one, merely in how they were each described.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If you ever wanna know the mythology they teach the 5 year olds born in, not converted in, lemme know. Not that its secret or anything, it is just not anything I ever saw on the missionary flip-charts.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'd love to know this. My first-hand info on Mormonism is actually fairly spotty.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

By the way, did you know that Joseph Smith was a Freemason? It's fascinating to see some of the things he imported to LDS from his experience as a Mason. This must be why the Mormons forbid their membership from becoming Freemasons!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes, that's specifically why I mentioned Mormonism along with the other Freemasonry derived traditions. I've definitely heard that the reason Mormons can't become Freemasons is that they might notice the rather impressive degree of borrowing.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Cool -- I thought you probably knew, but figured if you didn't that you would want to ;-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

. I was amused at a comment years ago on alt.pagan about how the Wiccan declaration of honoring all gods in practice means honoring all gods except the Christian Trinity.

now that, is funny. I'm sure if they grew up in India, they'd want to exclude all Hindu gods too, right? Gotta love teenage angst :-)

However, none of this means that I find the Religious Right any less vile and horrific or that I think that biblical literalists are any less foolish.

What's even more sad is the fact that many Christians find the Religious Right vile and horrific ;-)

Around a year ago, I was pleased to read that members of the Anglican Church and British Wiccans occasionally held services together, which seems to be just the sort of bridges that need building.

Well, Anglicans believe in a catholic (of, relating to, or forming the church universal) and apostolic church, so it makes sense.

So here's a question for you, do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God? I'm not going to ask a broad statement such as "Do pagans believe that Jesus was the Son of God?", I just wanted to know your opinion on that relationship.

(Reply) (Thread)

Now I'm going to spend the afternoon pondering the difference between Jesus being the son of God and Hercules being the son of a god, and the different implications. =P

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

well, its more a question about the physical being and the implications of being the incarnate of God...there's historical evidence pointing out that Jesus actually existed...unfortunately, I don't think there's much historical evidence that Hercules existed other than in myth. I could be wrong though :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I leave questions of whether there was a living human being named Jesus who was a important historical and religious figure to historians of the era. The historical accuracy of any religious mythology is largely irrelevant to me (which doesn't mean it isn't true, merely that I don't care if it is the true or not). That said, on a purely spiritual level, the deity Jesus is definitely the son of God, just as Zeus is the son of Cronos.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

cool, thanks :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I was raised protestant. (church of Christ) went to high school and collage in Mormon country, Briefly studied to become catholic, and finally have been a wiccan for 12 years now.

Let me answer the specific question that was asked, even though it was directed for some one else.

At age 7 when I was deeply spiritual and was first baptized into the protestant church, I fully believed in Christ as the true son of god.

Along the way since then I have followed many paths, and in addition to the above, called myself agnostic for 6 months, Atheist for a few weeks and studied books of ceremonial magic, Eckenkar and a few other really far out paths.

I still cannot deny that a "Man" named Christ walked the earth. I can not tell you at this time if he was a prophet, the son of the God as the Christians know him, a teacher, or just a VERY wise man.

Now, I have come to Wicca, as I believe god in the literal sense is much larger than the Christian God. I have accepted the belief that the physical and meta-physical IS god, and gods as we call them are simply small facets of that whole.

This means that if I claim somehow that the christen God and hierarchy do not exist, or are some how less that those that I follow, I am making a mockery of my whole belief system. By the same token, to claim some sort of superiority, or greater enlightenment is a sick joke.

I know MANY pagans that in a heart beat will mock Christians and their beliefs, but If I truly believe that all Gods are a part of GOD, then Christians belong there as much as anybody else.

Specifically where I break with the Christians is the belief that seems to be a part of ALL Christian faiths, that we need someone to intercede with God for us. Whether it is the local pastor, or the priests and Bishops, and the Pope, or the Saints, or whoever.

All Christian faiths also seem to believe that we are “bad” by nature and must be Saved through the intervention of Christ.

I AM ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL MORAL DECISIONS THAT I MAKE. Good, bad or indifferent, I certainly seek my faith and my Gods for guidance, but they do not act for my, or through me. I am here to make these choices and face the consequences. That seems to squarely contradict the Christian faith.

Am I right and they are wrong? I don’t know, but I can face my life believing this, and was always fearful of breaking some rule and destroying my spirit as a Christian.

Just the thought of a fellow traveler.

Mr Tek

MrTeK@comcast.net

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Specifically where I break with the Christians is the belief that seems to be a part of ALL Christian faiths, that we need someone to intercede with God for us. Whether it is the local pastor, or the priests and Bishops, and the Pope, or the Saints, or whoever.

I disagree. I'm Episcopalian...and from what I understand, there's no real need for asking someone to intercede with God for me. I talk to The Man all the time :-) On the other hand, yes, there are many groups within the Christian community that require intercession, and that's just the way they go about things.

There are many rituals that are gone through all the time at every church that I don't agree with, such as the sacrement of the body and blood of Christ, but I put up with it because it is nice to have someone else prepare my ritual for me :-)

All Christian faiths also seem to believe that we are “bad” by nature and must be Saved through the intervention of Christ.

Well, I don't seem to be the standard. I feel that no, we're not bad by nature, its just that we do bad things. A holy God cannot touch things that have been tarnished by "bad." Jesus was the dude that eliminated the tarnish of "bad" from humanity and gave us the catalyst to be able to be near God once again.

Now, I have come to Wicca, as I believe god in the literal sense is much larger than the Christian God. I have accepted the belief that the physical and meta-physical IS god, and gods as we call them are simply small facets of that whole.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my personal belief is that God is the physical, meta-physical and universal workings around and in me; from the molecular to the all-encompasing. Like He said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega."

This means that if I claim somehow that the christen God and hierarchy do not exist, or are some how less that those that I follow, I am making a mockery of my whole belief system. By the same token, to claim some sort of superiority, or greater enlightenment is a sick joke.

I know MANY pagans that in a heart beat will mock Christians and their beliefs, but If I truly believe that all Gods are a part of GOD, then Christians belong there as much as anybody else.

Amen. :-) Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Where do Unitarians fit into all this?

I'm a bit unclear as to the relationship of Unitarianism to Christianity, but most Unitarians I know are very Wicca-friendly.

(Reply) (Thread)

Unitarianism is something of an offshoot of Christianity itself. At its core, it is a rejection of the concept of the Holy Trinity, asserting that Jesus is a different person than God and that the Holy Spirit is not in union with either or both of them. This was originally dubbed the Arian Heresy. There are both theist (belief in a personal god) and humanist (human values being paramount instead of deity) Unitarians. The merging of Universalism (in sum, all will be or have the chance to be saved by grace at the establishment of the New Kingdom on Earth, as the torment of Hell is not permanent) with Unitarianism is an American twist on the situation.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Do you know how the fairly close bonds between UU and Wicca came about? The one Unitarian minister I've known believed that it was in large part a reaction to the increasing dominance of humanist Unitarians in the US, but I don't know the degree of bias or accuracy in her views.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't know exactly when it split off, but Unitarian Universalism is IIRC another of the many 19th century Christian variants. In the past few decades it has been increasingly a faith practiced by people who are moved more by social than spiritual motives. I'm not at all certain how the links between pagans and Unitarians evolved, but I think that paganism (and IME, Wicca especially) is beginning to fill a spiritual vacuum felt by a number of Unitarians. Not knowing particularly much abut Unitarianism except what various Unitarians have told me, all of the above could easily be heavily biased and inaccurate, I definitely need to check my facts here.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)