No discussion of anti-Masonry would be complete without an extensive mention of Albert Pike. Let’s clarify right at the outset: the vast majority of those who become Masons have no idea whatsoever who Pike was. Morals and Dogma is a philosophical work, created by an individual who was an extraordinarily prolific writer even for an age when prolific writing was the norm. It was also fashioned in the style of Pike’s time when public speaking was a high art form and Pike was known far and wide for his skills in this area. Morals and Dogma is not a manifesto for Masonry or even for the Scottish Rite’s Southern Jurisdiction. It is, rather, an attempt by Pike to provide a framework for understanding religions and philosophies of the past.
Ignoring the most important part
Starting with the first edition of Morals and Dogma in 1871, every edition is prefaced with these words:
Code:
"Everyone is free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it a fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment."
I am amazed how many anti masons know so little of the sources they quote.Yet Pike remains the poster child for the anti masons,in-spite of this fact, He was just an author expressing his personal opinions.
The fact overlooked as **ALWAYS **is Freemasonry is a wide and diverse organization throughout the world. It’s growth and development in each location has been responsive to the nation in which it exists as well as the makeup of its membership. In addition, there have been many organizations which have appeared over the years ‘imitating’ Masonry and calling themselves ‘Masons’. Among the great majority of Masonic entities which recognize each other (using “Ancient Landmarks” and other commonalties derived from the beginning of the organization 300 years ago), however, there is no one leader. Each Grand Lodge (the highest governing body for each particular group of Masons) is independent and decides matters as it feels is appropriate.
A Grand Master speaks for his Grand Jurisdiction but ONLY when he is serving as Grand Master and ONLY for his specific Jurisdiction.
Thus the statements of the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Masons in California is no more binding upon or reflective of the positions of the United Grand Lodge of Germany than are the rules of the Japanese-American Friendship Association upon the City Council of Kilmarnock, Scotland!
In addition, writings or statements by the head of an “appendant” or “related” or “corollary” body (Scottish Rite, York Rite, Shrine etc…) are no more binding on Freemasonry than in the examples cited above.