Tell you what, socially, I sure do agree.

For example, the last time I was stuck in a one horse town in the middle of
no-where I found something really fun to do, namely, I spent my time teaching a
mason mathematics, math and astro, really, all kinds of research that I do.  It
was fun and I think for him, he was so happy to see something new at his age, it
was like a breath of fresh air all around.

He was a Master Mason, a retired surgeon, an art collector with a particular
interest in the field of symbolism which was something we quite had in common;
man, we had such fun discussing.  He'd always say that I had taught him
mathematics and that I was his 2nd great teacher which was quite a compliment
(especially so considering who his first teacher was) and still is.

Ultimately, we wrote a little novel of sorts the year I spent there a/b sensibly
I squashed it because I don't prefer it and in greater parts it was/is my
decision and property.  It was just something he wanted me/us to do (like an
exercise, perhaps) and I agreed; besides it was a fun way to spend the time
while I was in town and it did in fact help sharpen my/his skills (in part his
intent I'd guess) even though, ultimately, I still don't/won't have an
appreciation or interest in publishing fiction.

I found out recently that he passed away; probably why this comes up a/o is on
my mind of late, I would've liked to have visited a bit more; I was really fond
of him.

Terrie


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Jim osburn <garamanus48@...> wrote:
>
> I agree with you Terrie on these points,
>  
> It is a social organization and sort of fills that role for me. In this neck
of the woods most social and religious groups are male dominate.
>  
> I all so don't like how the male part of the order try to run the subordinate
orders, because my personal view is that at best men are equal to women, perhaps
even not that, does any one hear "Goddess worship" :) I lean that way a lot.
>  
> I do not consider masonry as a religion, certainly not mine, and I don't think
most masons do either.
>  
> Please understand I am not trying to defend masonry, just making personal
observations with my experiences, also as I mentioned I am only 3rd degree so
there is much in the higher degrees I know nothing about. I have read a lot
about the history or mythology of masonry's origins and am very interested in
the esoteric side. As is well known the "public image" is really down played or
white washed and I suspect there is a lot more to it, I just haven't decided yet
to invest  the time and money to pursue the higher degrees.
>  
> Jim
>

Speaking of traveling, thinking about my fried Rex - I have been trying to find
out what happened, how his cancer research went, how his last days were, whether
he was happy, at peace, whether his last requests were honored in full, if the
Masons held a ceremony for him, so on, but thus far the gal/guy who was looking
after him is still (as she says) too busy traveling.

Terrie

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, william unowho <jake0840@...> wrote:
>
> actually Terrie
> Im being clandestine in my comments. Ive been known to travel in the past.
didnt go as far though in my travels. Also as I grow in gnosis I do see a lot of
allusions to masonic values..from the vantage point where I could see in my
limitied view.
>
> William
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "esapress@..." <esapress@...>
> To: gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 11:44:38 AM
> Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: New to the group
>
>  
> I think that's very good suggestion PMCV and William, thanks. As you can tell,
this whole issue surprised me, it's very curious.
>
> Terrie
>
> --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, william unowho <jake0840@ .> wrote:
> >
> > Terrie
> >
> > I would agree with an earlier commenter. while many in this group have some
knowledge of gnosis , not many are masons..that may limit thier input. Why dont
you do a comparison of where they seem to intersect in your opinion and then
allow us to add value.
> > I think tht as per my research gnostics did indeed believe in a higher being
and they should have no issue with masonry based on that metric. but again I
think you can add better food to this discussion if you  point out some like or
seemingly unlike issues
> >
> > William
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: pmcvflag <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
> > To: gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 10:05:14 PM
> > Subject: [Gnosticism2] Re: New to the group
> >
> >  
> > Hey Terrie
> >
> > My thought is that we should talk about and compare these issues before we
really say whether there is a contrast or friction between Freemasons and
Gnosticism, or some connection. I should say at the start that depending on what
comes up I reserve the right to argue both sides.
> >
> > --- In gnosticism2@ yahoogroups. com, "esapress@ ." <esapress@ .> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Greg, PMCV,
> > >
> > > I come from a long line of Masons, and was, myself, a Job's Daughter when
I was a child. I've known several 33rd degree Masons in my lifetime and what a
pleasure it always is to chat with such folk; truly some of my favorite
conversations (even if, dang, they're always men.)
> > >
> > > I am/was unaware of any sort of essential friction between Gnosticism and
Masonry, so, I am certainly finding this conversation interesting.
> > >
> > > Greg, you seem to be indicating that these differences aren't personal a/o
drama rather that they are basic differences abiding between principal and
concept. Am I reading you correctly?
> > >
> > > At any rate, please do go on, I'm finding this conversation quite
interesting. Also, I too am having a look at some of Pike's writings because,
actually, as fate would have it his name's been coming up a lot of late, so,
there's good timing there I think.
> > >
> > > Terrie
> > >
> >
>

First of all I guess I'd say that after Job's Daughters, honestly, I really
didn't want to join the Eastern Star.  From what I could see, and as you can
imagine, we hung out with ES quite a lot; certainly, it didn't look to me like
the ES Lodge drew the same scholarly sort of individuals (or scholarly
schedules) that the men's Lodges did/do, nor did it look to me like the ES were
involved with activities and tasks (in regards to women/men chores a/o services)
that differed much from Job's Daughters, closed doors and basic 'autonomy'
aside.

Perhaps, things are different now/elsewhere, but as we both know, these while
independent facets are in essence organized traditional family Lodges;
men/husbands (Masons,) woman/wives (Eastern Star,) children (Job's
Daughters/DeMolay) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry

I've never understood the confusion about Masonry, perhaps it is because it
really doesn't look that complicated a/o mysterious from the inside; it's very
much a social setting.

Regarding perspectives/beliefs, differences/sames between Gnosticism and
Masonry; if you want my personal perspective I'm alright with that and will give
it some thought.

Terrie

Just a brief note to add: now that I think about it; all the Masons I know/have
known and meet, none of them have ever suggested that I should join the ES
rather typically what they want/suggest is that I should hang out and chat with
them - kind of fascinating actually.

Terrie

Typically, I think it's safe to say that I tend to keep my faith/beliefs
pertaining to is/is not a supreme being/creator/god, so on, to myself.  Feels
private, is private I think.  Though, honestly, I think a rush to judgement
(jumping to, inserting a/o arguing sums before finishing the equation that's
being done) in many ways is more complicated (+short-circuits/by-passes,
potentially misleads/polarizes) than it appears.

For example; as matters to be put upon others, sat versus or as cement around
our footings or exploration itself; nor do I think one person should demand of
another to be obligated to accept such profound proclamations such as
his/her/our way of life and all grand design if/when without the good fortune
and form of concrete knowledge, direct experience/proof a/o physical-evidence
knowledge and understanding (of the basics themselves) is still developing.  So,
solid provides patience to the open-minded, perhaps.

Other than that, and really, even if one did know with any certainty one way or
another divulging that data really moreorless equals stripping a person of their
own path of question and discovery, which is much akin to being in a theater and
blabbing a movie's ending just when the show's getting really interesting a/o
isn't nearly halfway reeled.  Everyone knows that people want to read/know that
last chapter/page, but in truth maybe it is only by reading a book through and
through that we really walk away with the personal experience a/o education of a
work.  Sounds right to me.

So, concerning Gnosticism and Masonry, a religion, and a fraternity,
categorically different operations however, in this/these respect/s
(fore-mentioned, thus far) I think that this/that attitude is very much
essential to, in, of both; the well-rounded experience a/o expression, study,
reflection, and personal development and advancement of knowledge/understanding
and apt/skill, individually and socially, it's a spiritual impulse a/o
cornerstone (learning, "to know," firsthand/direct experience a/o insight)
shared to various degrees (not to be confused with degrees :) by both the
Gnostic and Masonry communities, imo - and I enjoy that.

Terrie

Just a note to add, Greg.

You alluded to 'friction' as say between Atheists and Masons as an example no
doubt (so on and on,) perhaps, because of each' ideological intentions/efforts,
or differences in these matters and perspectives.

For me, I don't see those inherent differences as a means of conflict (whenso
it's often destructive;) generally, I think that it's good to have the diversity
- basically, it's simply many different people/stances (including oppositions)
working on many (and diverse) avenues, focuses, and that's (in the long run) I'd
suspect (self check and accumulative) a good thing.

Ultimately, I think that knowing, for real, our story, the story of man,
including who we are, where we've been or will be/be going, so on, are serious
matters wherein nothing less than the whole story itself will ever make such
issues perfectly clear.  Lottery numbers aside; where I'd guess mankind really
doesn't want to gamble nor risk his actual future (so on) on such earnings.

And, as far as whole stories go, typically, those tend to be rather inclusive of
most everything; so, maybe, moreso this/that is an indication of mankind's
actual mileage - or perspectual troubles with oppositional subsets a/o
sub-categorizations

Terrie

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "esapress@..." <esapress@...> wrote:
>
> Typically, I think it's safe to say that I tend to keep my faith/beliefs
pertaining to is/is not a supreme being/creator/god, so on, to myself.  Feels
private, is private I think.


Terrie, that is fine, of course.

I've been reading everyone's contributions, and I'd be interested to know if
anyone has read Pike's take on this "Supreme Being" that has been mentioned, and
how it might compare to the Gnostic concept of ultimate reality.

For those of you not familiar with ancient Gnostic writings, below is a link to
an example of one scripture, The Secret Book of John, that tries to explain the
unexplainable.  Perhaps you have other examples, too, you'd like to use for
comparison:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html

Thanks,
Cari

Terrie,

      I am sure, from the brief communications we have had, that I can understand
why they would want you to take part in the conversation and discussion of these
areas of interest.  You are obviously well schooled and very smart, and able to
have meaningful insight on various topics of interest.  I am sure many Masons,
myself included, enjoy stimulating, thought provoking conversation with anyone,
regardless of who or what they are.

      The only reason I mentioned the "atheist" issue is because the basic tenet
of becoming a Mason is belief in a supreme being.  This is a basic rule that can
not be waived.  We love diversity (some more than others, of course)but without
that basic belief, what do you have to build on?  The concept of belief in a
supreme being has been a basic rule of Masonry for thousands of years.  I find
it to be very open minded.

Greg


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "esapress@..." <esapress@...> wrote:
>
> Just a brief note to add: now that I think about it; all the Masons I
know/have known and meet, none of them have ever suggested that I should join
the ES rather typically what they want/suggest is that I should hang out and
chat with them - kind of fascinating actually.
>
> Terrie
>

Greg,

I'm really enjoying this conversation; and while I've never really thought about
why a/o how it was that we (Masons and myself, for example) could have so many
level headed conversations, the Masons I have met besides being honorable (and
honor-bound) men, always have had great (and surprising) interests and apt
(breath and scope) in many scholarly subjects.

I think I, yes, do understand what you're saying, in essence about interior
views of the Masons; quite note worthy and interesting.

Terrie

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Hammer" <greghemmings@...> wrote:
>
> Terrie,
>
>      I am sure, from the brief communications we have had, that I can
understand why they would want you to take part in the conversation and
discussion of these areas of interest.  You are obviously well schooled and very
smart, and able to have meaningful insight on various topics of interest.  I am
sure many Masons, myself included, enjoy stimulating, thought provoking
conversation with anyone, regardless of who or what they are.
>
>      The only reason I mentioned the "atheist" issue is because the basic
tenet of becoming a Mason is belief in a supreme being.  This is a basic rule
that can not be waived.  We love diversity (some more than others, of course)but
without that basic belief, what do you have to build on?  The concept of belief
in a supreme being has been a basic rule of Masonry for thousands of years.  I
find it to be very open minded.
>
> Greg

Cari,

I was curious to see what Pike wrote related to this forum, and found the
following:

"To Philo the Jew, as to the Gnostics, the Supreme Being was the Primitive
Light, or Archetype of Light, --Source whence the rays emanate that illuminate
souls.  He is the Soul of the World, and as such acts everywhere. He himself
fills and bounds his whole existence, and his forces fill and penetrate
everything."  Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite of Freemasonry, p. 249

Latter he speaks of " the Genius of Evil, The Satan of Gnosticism, brute matter,
deemed to be always at feud with the spirit that flowed from the Deity."  Ibid,
p. 250

And then here is a long discussion, which certainly indicates some knowledge on
his part with Gnosticism (NB: the Greek did not come through).

In one respect all the Gnostics agreed: they all held, that there was a world
purely emanating out of the vital development of God, a creation evolved
directly out of the Divine Essence, far exalted above any outward creation
produced by God's plastic power, and conditioned by a pre-existing matter. They
agreed in holding that the Cramer of this lower world was not the Father of that
higher world of emanation; but the Demiurge [/JfjuzoupyoS], a being of a kindred
nature with the universe framed and governed by him, and far inferior to that
higher system and the Father of it.

But some, setting out from ideas which had long prevailed among certain Jews of
Alexandria, supposed that the Supreme God created and governed the world by His
ministering spirits, by the angels. At the head of these angels stood one who
had the direction and control of all; therefore called the Artificer and
Governor of the World. This Demiurge they compared with the plastic, animating,
mundane spirit of Plato and the Platonists [the devrepoS Seof.. Deuteros Theos;
the J&fo? ysvrjroS.... Th;c5 Genetos], who, moreover, according to the Timaeus
of Plato, strives to represent the IDEA of the Divine Reason, in that which is
becoming (as contradistinguished from that which is) and temporal. This angel is
a representative of the Supreme God, on the lower stage of existence: he does
not act independently, but merely according to the ideas inspired in him by the
Supreme God; just as the plastic, mundane soul of the Platonists creates all
things after the pattern of the ideas communicated by the Supreme Reason
[NovS... .Nous—the o sffn S,<aov ho esti zoon—the a. .paradeigma, of the Divine
Reason hypoatatized].

But these ideas transcend his limited essence; ho cannot under stand them; he is
merely their unconscious organ; and therefore is unable himself to comprehend
the whole scope and meaning of the work which he performs. As an organ under the
guidance of a higher inspiration, he reveals higher truths than he himself can
comprehend. The mass of the Jews, they held, recognized not the angel, by whom,
in all the Theophanies of the Old Testament, God revealed himself; they knew not
the Demiurge in his truo relation to the hidden Supreme God, who never reveals
himself in the sensible world. They confounded the type and the archetype, the
symbol and the idea. They rose no higher than the Demiurge ; they took him to be
the Supreme God himself. But the spiritual men among them, on the contrary,
clearly perceived, or at least divined, the ideas veiled under Judaism; they
rose beyond the Demiurge, to a knowledge of the Supreme God; and are therefore
properly his worshippers [SepaTcevrai. .Therapeutai].

Other Gnostics, who had not been followers of the Mosaic religion, but who had,
at an earlier period, framed to themselves an oriental Gnosis, regarded the
Demiurge as a being absolutely hostile to the Supreme God. He and his angels,
notwithstanding their finite nature, wish to establish their independence: they
will tolerate no foreign rule within their realm. Whatever of a higher nature
descends into their kingdom, they seek to hold imprisoned there, lest it should
raise itself above their narrow precincts. Probably, in this system, the kingdom
of the Demiurgic Angels corresponded, for the most part, with that of the
deceitful Star-Spirits, who seek to rob man of his freedom, to beguile him by
various arts of deception, and who exercise a tyrannical sway over the things of
this world. Accordingly, in the system of these Sabseans, the seven
Planet-Spirits, and the twelve Star-Spirits of the zodiac, who sprang from an
irregular connection between the cheated Fetahil and the Spirit of Darkness,
play an important part in everything that is bad. The Demiurge is a limited and
limiting being, proud, jealous, and revengeful; and this his character betrays
itself in the Old Testament, which, the Gnostics held, came from him. They
transferred to the Demiurge himself, whatever in the idea of God, as presented
by the Old Testament, appeared to them defective. Against his will and rule the
V\T) was continually rebelling, revolting without control againsl the dominion
which he, the fashioner, would exercise over it.

Casting off the yoke imposed on it, and destroying the work he had begun. The
same jealous being, limited in his power, ruling with despotic sway, they
imagined they saw in nature. He strives to check the germination of the divine
seeds of life which the Supreme God of Holiness and Love, who has no connection
whatever with the sensible world, has scattered among men. That perfect God was
at most known and worshipped in mysteries by a few spiritual men.  Ibid. p.
557-559

I hope this might help the discussion,
Mark

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "esapress@" <esapress@> wrote:
> >
> > Typically, I think it's safe to say that I tend to keep my faith/beliefs
pertaining to is/is not a supreme being/creator/god, so on, to myself.  Feels
private, is private I think.
>
>
> Terrie, that is fine, of course.
>
> I've been reading everyone's contributions, and I'd be interested to know if
anyone has read Pike's take on this "Supreme Being" that has been mentioned, and
how it might compare to the Gnostic concept of ultimate reality.
>
> For those of you not familiar with ancient Gnostic writings, below is a link
to an example of one scripture, The Secret Book of John, that tries to explain
the unexplainable.  Perhaps you have other examples, too, you'd like to use for
comparison:
>
> http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html
>
> Thanks,
> Cari
>

Mark, thank you very much for the references.  Yes, it does appear that even
without the benefit of the later Nag Hammadi findings, Albert Pike did have some
knowledge of Gnosticism.

Morals and Dogma can be found online, and I'd like to gradually peruse it, too.

In your reading, Mark, or if anyone else would like to gladly chime in, does
Pike give us a clear perception of his view of "Supreme Being" or "Supreme God"?
Does he consider ultimate reality to be an existent "being"?

Cari


--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@...> wrote:
>
> Cari,
>
> I was curious to see what Pike wrote related to this forum, and found the
following:
>
> "To Philo the Jew, as to the Gnostics, the Supreme Being was the Primitive
Light, or Archetype of Light, --Source whence the rays emanate that illuminate
souls.  He is the Soul of the World, and as such acts everywhere. He himself
fills and bounds his whole existence, and his forces fill and penetrate
everything."  Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite of Freemasonry, p. 249
>
> Latter he speaks of " the Genius of Evil, The Satan of Gnosticism, brute
matter, deemed to be always at feud with the spirit that flowed from the Deity."
Ibid, p. 250
>
> And then here is a long discussion, which certainly indicates some knowledge
on his part with Gnosticism (NB: the Greek did not come through).
>
> In one respect all the Gnostics agreed: they all held, that there was a world
purely emanating out of the vital development of God, a creation evolved
directly out of the Divine Essence, far exalted above any outward creation
produced by God's plastic power, and conditioned by a pre-existing matter. They
agreed in holding that the Cramer of this lower world was not the Father of that
higher world of emanation; but the Demiurge [/JfjuzoupyoS], a being of a kindred
nature with the universe framed and governed by him, and far inferior to that
higher system and the Father of it.
>
> But some, setting out from ideas which had long prevailed among certain Jews
of Alexandria, supposed that the Supreme God created and governed the world by
His ministering spirits, by the angels. At the head of these angels stood one
who had the direction and control of all; therefore called the Artificer and
Governor of the World. This Demiurge they compared with the plastic, animating,
mundane spirit of Plato and the Platonists [the devrepoS Seof.. Deuteros Theos;
the J&fo? ysvrjroS.... Th;c5 Genetos], who, moreover, according to the Timaeus
of Plato, strives to represent the IDEA of the Divine Reason, in that which is
becoming (as contradistinguished from that which is) and temporal. This angel is
a representative of the Supreme God, on the lower stage of existence: he does
not act independently, but merely according to the ideas inspired in him by the
Supreme God; just as the plastic, mundane soul of the Platonists creates all
things after the pattern of the ideas communicated by the Supreme Reason
[NovS... .Nous—the o sffn S,<aov ho esti zoon—the a. .paradeigma, of the Divine
Reason hypoatatized].
>
> But these ideas transcend his limited essence; ho cannot under stand them; he
is merely their unconscious organ; and therefore is unable himself to comprehend
the whole scope and meaning of the work which he performs. As an organ under the
guidance of a higher inspiration, he reveals higher truths than he himself can
comprehend. The mass of the Jews, they held, recognized not the angel, by whom,
in all the Theophanies of the Old Testament, God revealed himself; they knew not
the Demiurge in his truo relation to the hidden Supreme God, who never reveals
himself in the sensible world. They confounded the type and the archetype, the
symbol and the idea. They rose no higher than the Demiurge ; they took him to be
the Supreme God himself. But the spiritual men among them, on the contrary,
clearly perceived, or at least divined, the ideas veiled under Judaism; they
rose beyond the Demiurge, to a knowledge of the Supreme God; and are therefore
properly his worshippers [SepaTcevrai. .Therapeutai].
>
> Other Gnostics, who had not been followers of the Mosaic religion, but who
had, at an earlier period, framed to themselves an oriental Gnosis, regarded the
Demiurge as a being absolutely hostile to the Supreme God. He and his angels,
notwithstanding their finite nature, wish to establish their independence: they
will tolerate no foreign rule within their realm. Whatever of a higher nature
descends into their kingdom, they seek to hold imprisoned there, lest it should
raise itself above their narrow precincts. Probably, in this system, the kingdom
of the Demiurgic Angels corresponded, for the most part, with that of the
deceitful Star-Spirits, who seek to rob man of his freedom, to beguile him by
various arts of deception, and who exercise a tyrannical sway over the things of
this world. Accordingly, in the system of these Sabseans, the seven
Planet-Spirits, and the twelve Star-Spirits of the zodiac, who sprang from an
irregular connection between the cheated Fetahil and the Spirit of Darkness,
play an important part in everything that is bad. The Demiurge is a limited and
limiting being, proud, jealous, and revengeful; and this his character betrays
itself in the Old Testament, which, the Gnostics held, came from him. They
transferred to the Demiurge himself, whatever in the idea of God, as presented
by the Old Testament, appeared to them defective. Against his will and rule the
V\T) was continually rebelling, revolting without control againsl the dominion
which he, the fashioner, would exercise over it.
>
> Casting off the yoke imposed on it, and destroying the work he had begun. The
same jealous being, limited in his power, ruling with despotic sway, they
imagined they saw in nature. He strives to check the germination of the divine
seeds of life which the Supreme God of Holiness and Love, who has no connection
whatever with the sensible world, has scattered among men. That perfect God was
at most known and worshipped in mysteries by a few spiritual men.  Ibid. p.
557-559
>
> I hope this might help the discussion,
> Mark
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "esapress@" <esapress@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Typically, I think it's safe to say that I tend to keep my faith/beliefs
pertaining to is/is not a supreme being/creator/god, so on, to myself.  Feels
private, is private I think.
> >
> >
> > Terrie, that is fine, of course.
> >
> > I've been reading everyone's contributions, and I'd be interested to know if
anyone has read Pike's take on this "Supreme Being" that has been mentioned, and
how it might compare to the Gnostic concept of ultimate reality.
> >
> > For those of you not familiar with ancient Gnostic writings, below is a link
to an example of one scripture, The Secret Book of John, that tries to explain
the unexplainable.  Perhaps you have other examples, too, you'd like to use for
comparison:
> >
> > http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Cari
> >
>

Cari,

I wish I had something more to add to this conversation.  There was something
about the rhetoric in this thread that seemed to "dangle." Kind of like "a pie
in the sky" approach. I hoped that by adding something more concrete to the
discussion, it would provide something that would actually feed us.  Assertions
alone barely whet the appetite.

Masonry is gnosis--but that is a long, long, long way from Masonry is
Gnosticism.

I tried.

Mark

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Mark, thank you very much for the references.  Yes, it does appear that even
without the benefit of the later Nag Hammadi findings, Albert Pike did have some
knowledge of Gnosticism.
>
> Morals and Dogma can be found online, and I'd like to gradually peruse it,
too.
>
> In your reading, Mark, or if anyone else would like to gladly chime in, does
Pike give us a clear perception of his view of "Supreme Being" or "Supreme God"?
Does he consider ultimate reality to be an existent "being"?
>
> Cari
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@> wrote:
> >
> > Cari,
> >
> > I was curious to see what Pike wrote related to this forum, and found the
following:
> >
> > "To Philo the Jew, as to the Gnostics, the Supreme Being was the Primitive
Light, or Archetype of Light, --Source whence the rays emanate that illuminate
souls.  He is the Soul of the World, and as such acts everywhere. He himself
fills and bounds his whole existence, and his forces fill and penetrate
everything."  Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish
Rite of Freemasonry, p. 249
> >
> > Latter he speaks of " the Genius of Evil, The Satan of Gnosticism, brute
matter, deemed to be always at feud with the spirit that flowed from the Deity."
Ibid, p. 250
> >
> > And then here is a long discussion, which certainly indicates some knowledge
on his part with Gnosticism (NB: the Greek did not come through).
> >
> > In one respect all the Gnostics agreed: they all held, that there was a
world purely emanating out of the vital development of God, a creation evolved
directly out of the Divine Essence, far exalted above any outward creation
produced by God's plastic power, and conditioned by a pre-existing matter. They
agreed in holding that the Cramer of this lower world was not the Father of that
higher world of emanation; but the Demiurge [/JfjuzoupyoS], a being of a kindred
nature with the universe framed and governed by him, and far inferior to that
higher system and the Father of it.
> >
> > But some, setting out from ideas which had long prevailed among certain Jews
of Alexandria, supposed that the Supreme God created and governed the world by
His ministering spirits, by the angels. At the head of these angels stood one
who had the direction and control of all; therefore called the Artificer and
Governor of the World. This Demiurge they compared with the plastic, animating,
mundane spirit of Plato and the Platonists [the devrepoS Seof.. Deuteros Theos;
the J&fo? ysvrjroS.... Th;c5 Genetos], who, moreover, according to the Timaeus
of Plato, strives to represent the IDEA of the Divine Reason, in that which is
becoming (as contradistinguished from that which is) and temporal. This angel is
a representative of the Supreme God, on the lower stage of existence: he does
not act independently, but merely according to the ideas inspired in him by the
Supreme God; just as the plastic, mundane soul of the Platonists creates all
things after the pattern of the ideas communicated by the Supreme Reason
[NovS... .Nous—the o sffn S,<aov ho esti zoon—the a. .paradeigma, of the Divine
Reason hypoatatized].
> >
> > But these ideas transcend his limited essence; ho cannot under stand them;
he is merely their unconscious organ; and therefore is unable himself to
comprehend the whole scope and meaning of the work which he performs. As an
organ under the guidance of a higher inspiration, he reveals higher truths than
he himself can comprehend. The mass of the Jews, they held, recognized not the
angel, by whom, in all the Theophanies of the Old Testament, God revealed
himself; they knew not the Demiurge in his truo relation to the hidden Supreme
God, who never reveals himself in the sensible world. They confounded the type
and the archetype, the symbol and the idea. They rose no higher than the
Demiurge ; they took him to be the Supreme God himself. But the spiritual men
among them, on the contrary, clearly perceived, or at least divined, the ideas
veiled under Judaism; they rose beyond the Demiurge, to a knowledge of the
Supreme God; and are therefore properly his worshippers [SepaTcevrai.
.Therapeutai].
> >
> > Other Gnostics, who had not been followers of the Mosaic religion, but who
had, at an earlier period, framed to themselves an oriental Gnosis, regarded the
Demiurge as a being absolutely hostile to the Supreme God. He and his angels,
notwithstanding their finite nature, wish to establish their independence: they
will tolerate no foreign rule within their realm. Whatever of a higher nature
descends into their kingdom, they seek to hold imprisoned there, lest it should
raise itself above their narrow precincts. Probably, in this system, the kingdom
of the Demiurgic Angels corresponded, for the most part, with that of the
deceitful Star-Spirits, who seek to rob man of his freedom, to beguile him by
various arts of deception, and who exercise a tyrannical sway over the things of
this world. Accordingly, in the system of these Sabseans, the seven
Planet-Spirits, and the twelve Star-Spirits of the zodiac, who sprang from an
irregular connection between the cheated Fetahil and the Spirit of Darkness,
play an important part in everything that is bad. The Demiurge is a limited and
limiting being, proud, jealous, and revengeful; and this his character betrays
itself in the Old Testament, which, the Gnostics held, came from him. They
transferred to the Demiurge himself, whatever in the idea of God, as presented
by the Old Testament, appeared to them defective. Against his will and rule the
V\T) was continually rebelling, revolting without control againsl the dominion
which he, the fashioner, would exercise over it.
> >
> > Casting off the yoke imposed on it, and destroying the work he had begun.
The same jealous being, limited in his power, ruling with despotic sway, they
imagined they saw in nature. He strives to check the germination of the divine
seeds of life which the Supreme God of Holiness and Love, who has no connection
whatever with the sensible world, has scattered among men. That perfect God was
at most known and worshipped in mysteries by a few spiritual men.  Ibid. p.
557-559
> >
> > I hope this might help the discussion,
> > Mark
> >
> > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "esapress@" <esapress@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Typically, I think it's safe to say that I tend to keep my faith/beliefs
pertaining to is/is not a supreme being/creator/god, so on, to myself.  Feels
private, is private I think.
> > >
> > >
> > > Terrie, that is fine, of course.
> > >
> > > I've been reading everyone's contributions, and I'd be interested to know
if anyone has read Pike's take on this "Supreme Being" that has been mentioned,
and how it might compare to the Gnostic concept of ultimate reality.
> > >
> > > For those of you not familiar with ancient Gnostic writings, below is a
link to an example of one scripture, The Secret Book of John, that tries to
explain the unexplainable.  Perhaps you have other examples, too, you'd like to
use for comparison:
> > >
> > > http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Cari
> > >
> >
>

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@...> wrote:
>
> Cari,
>
> I wish I had something more to add to this conversation.  There was something
about the rhetoric in this thread that seemed to "dangle." Kind of like "a pie
in the sky" approach. I hoped that by adding something more concrete to the
discussion, it would provide something that would actually feed us.  Assertions
alone barely whet the appetite.
>
> Masonry is gnosis--but that is a long, long, long way from Masonry is
Gnosticism.
>
> I tried.
>
> Mark
>


Mark, your contributions are always welcome.  Thank you for your effort.  I'll
have to do a bit more reading in this area myself.

Perhaps someone will pick up this thread later or start a new subject.

Cari

Cari, Mark,

I've also been enjoying this discussion, and I'm very much looking forward to
reading Pike more thoroughly; at the moment though I'm in the process of moving
and so I can't really comment as yet.

I think in due course there will be a lot to talk about - really fascinating.

Terrie

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <larockpitts@> wrote:
> >
> > Cari,
> >
> > I wish I had something more to add to this conversation.  There was
something about the rhetoric in this thread that seemed to "dangle." Kind of
like "a pie in the sky" approach. I hoped that by adding something more concrete
to the discussion, it would provide something that would actually feed us. 
Assertions alone barely whet the appetite.
> >
> > Masonry is gnosis--but that is a long, long, long way from Masonry is
Gnosticism.
> >
> > I tried.
> >
> > Mark
> >
>
>
> Mark, your contributions are always welcome.  Thank you for your effort.  I'll
have to do a bit more reading in this area myself.
>
> Perhaps someone will pick up this thread later or start a new subject.
>
> Cari
>

For the first time in history a comprehensive lexicon on Gnostic terminology has
been published.  More than a dictionary, it is perennial almanac and exhaustive
mini-encyclopedia of Gnosticism, The Gnostic & Gnosis, from Simon Magus to the
Matrix, from the Ophites to the Mandeans, from the Naasene Sermons to the Gospel
of Judas.  It also reveals the influences and influenced of the Gnostic
movements such as Mystery Religions, world Mythologies, alternative
Christianities, Church Fathers, and Occult movements across history, just to
name a few.  We also explore the contents of the new release of the
highly-acclaimed 'The Gnostic' magazine.
Astral Guest-- Andrew Phillip Smith, author of 'A Dictionary of Gnosticism',
'The Gnostics', 'Gnostic Writings on the Soul' and editor of 'The Gnostic'.

--The criteria and painstaking effort Andrew committed in gathering 1700 hundred
definitions throughout many years and many trips to the bookstore.
--The possible meaning to `barbarous' names like Abraxas, Barbelo and Akamoth.
--Why the modern Gnostic revival truly began in the 19th Century with the rise
of the Theosophical Society, the Neo-Templar Movement, Gurdieff and other
forerunners.
--A cultural history of Gnosticism including the latest scholarly findings.
--How the ruling of the body by Archons, beyond medical magic, might have been a
Gnostic ancient practice of Reike with Archons being actually chakra centers. 
Today it's known as the Kimetikos.
--A sneak preview of the `The Gnostic' magazine that is heavily ladled with
Philip K. Dick.  It includes interviews with Colin Wilson, Tessa Dick and April
De Conick, as well as articles on Eternal Return, the sexual habits of the
Gnostics, a finally easy to understand overview of the Pistis Sophia and much
more.  And it has the usual poetry, fiction and art that should be included in
any Gnostic publication.
--The various definitions and interpretations of that elusive concept known as
Gnosis.
--More evidence Gnosticism predates Christianity, from the mouth of Orthodoxy
itself.

And much more!!!

Just go to http://www.thegodabovegod.com/.  The program is broadcast all weekend
long.  Listen to it at your convenience.

I am also including `Aeon Byte #131—`The Gnostic' magazine, where Andrew
discusses his firstborn child.  It includes his interview and experience with
Alan Moore, the gnosis of William Burroughs & Mark Twain, new revelations on the
Gospel of Thomas and the Bible itself, the many faces of Judas throughout
history and a whole galaxy of other goodies.  It also has plenty of Philip K.
Dick.  We just can never get enough Dick!

I will leave Aeon Byte #131 all week long for your sinful pleasure.

Next week we discuss the Myth of Lilith in all her heretical aspects.  Our guest
is Kelley Hunter, author of `Living Lilith:  Four Dimensions of the Cosmic
Feinine'.

All past shows of Aeon Byte are available at
http://www.thegodabovegod.com/shop/.  Each program has a preview you can listen
to it before jumping into the abyss of heresy.  CD copies can be purchased
through our homepage.  Bulk digital audio at your greasy fingertips can also be
purchased at http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1906876.  I've already
raised prices, but buying CD's or downloading in bulk digital format is a
fraction of the price.  Selling your soul to the Devil has never been so cheap!

Donations always welcome in our borderland-of-the-religions venture.  Yes, Mama,
I should have been a televangelists. Put a Gospel in his head…pulled the trigger
now I'm rich…Mama…life had just begun…

Please sign up for our Mailing List at our homepage so I can eventually take
over the worl…bring you enlightenment.

And check out my new articles for The Examiner at
http://www.examiner.com/x-28537-Chicago-Gnosticism--Heretical-Spirituality-Exami\
ner.  Please subscribe and leave little love or hate notes.  I put up two or
three articles, commentaries, reviews and sermonettes a week.  Check in often. 
And check out my new article on the Fort Hood Massacre:
http://www.examiner.com/x-28537-Chicago-Gnosticism--Heretical-Spirituality-Exami\
ner~y2009m11d13-Fort-Hood-massacre-tells-us-that-God-is-still-in-business

Abraxas

Hi Cari; could you, or any of the other denizens of this group, provide me a
'where did this come from' answer.

Thanks,
willy

<< One of the Nag Hammadi Codices refers to this as being "in the middle"--which
is considered to be hell and death. It is a very difficult place to be in; and
there is a way of extricating oneself from this which is understood only after
it has been accomplished; ...>>

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "will brown" <wilbro99@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Cari; could you, or any of the other denizens of this group, provide me a
'where did this come from' answer.
>
> Thanks,
> willy
>
> << One of the Nag Hammadi Codices refers to this as being "in the
middle"--which is considered to be hell and death. It is a very difficult place
to be in; and there is a way of extricating oneself from this which is
understood only after it has been accomplished; ...>>
>


Hello, Willy.  Are you asking where your quote came from or rather what ancient
writing it is referring to?  In any case, it would be helpful to have a bit of
context for your quote.

As far as "the middle", I'm reminded of a passage in The Gospel of Philip ~

"And that person will exist either in the present world or in resurrection or in
the place in between -- god forbid I should be found there!  Within the present
world, (reputedly) there is good and there is evil, (but) the world's goods are
not (really) good, and its evils not (really) evil.  But after this world, there
are evils that are truly evil -- the thing called "midpoint."  It is death. 
While we exist in this world we must acquire resurrection, so that when we put
off the flesh we might be found in repose and not walk in the midpoint:  for
many get lost along the way."
(Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 340)

Hope this helps.

Cari

Thanks, Cari, that is surely close enough. I shall peruse the G of P to get a
taste of the context...

willy

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "will brown" <wilbro99@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Cari; could you, or any of the other denizens of this group, provide me a
'where did this come from' answer.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > willy
> >
> > << One of the Nag Hammadi Codices refers to this as being "in the
middle"--which is considered to be hell and death. It is a very difficult place
to be in; and there is a way of extricating oneself from this which is
understood only after it has been accomplished; ...>>
> >
>
>
> Hello, Willy.  Are you asking where your quote came from or rather what
ancient writing it is referring to?  In any case, it would be helpful to have a
bit of context for your quote.
>
> As far as "the middle", I'm reminded of a passage in The Gospel of Philip ~
>
> "And that person will exist either in the present world or in resurrection or
in the place in between -- god forbid I should be found there!  Within the
present world, (reputedly) there is good and there is evil, (but) the world's
goods are not (really) good, and its evils not (really) evil.  But after this
world, there are evils that are truly evil -- the thing called "midpoint."  It
is death.  While we exist in this world we must acquire resurrection, so that
when we put off the flesh we might be found in repose and not walk in the
midpoint:  for many get lost along the way."
> (Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, p. 340)
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cari
>

Two shows for four days on two Gnostic Saints and Orthodox Decepticons:
The Gnostic Paul: Although considered by many as the father of Christianity, the
reality is that Paul of Tarsus was co-opted and modified to suit Orthodoxy. His
original message was one of the earliest forms of Gnosticism, Christian
Mysticism and Jewish Mystery School Doctrine. Underneath his corrupted words we
find a message of liberation from the world of the Demiurge and the discovery of
our Christ consciousness. Paul also might be just a code word for the most
reviled Gnostic in all of history.  And that is:

Simon Magus: He was a divine man who shook the status quo with an innovative
message.  He was betrayed and crucified. He was worshiped from Palestine to
Rome. He caused great miracles and was part of a divine trinity. He was the
consort of an ex-prostitute.  This is Simon The Magician, The Father of all
Heresies and  Father of Gnosticism.

Astral Guest-- Robert Price, author of 'Interpreting The Gospel of Thomas', 'The
Incredible Shrinking Son of Man' & 'Deconstructing Jesus'.

Topics Discussed:

On Paul of Tarsus (or Simon Magus)
--How the Pauline Epistles might have been written by actually two of the
greatest heretics in history.
--Why did the Catholic Church decide to adopt Paul when they had hated him for
generations?
--The obvious Gnostic themes in his letters once the proper syntax and context
are understood.
--How reading Paul through Gnostic eyes is a wondrous tool for spiritual
liberation.
--Evidence showing his letters corrupted beyond the false epistles added later
on.
--Acts of the Apostles:  One of the greatest propaganda works in the history of
Christianity.

On Simon Magus (or Paul of Tarsus)
--Everything you ever wanted to know about this prominent but marginalized
Messiah.
--Categorical evidence that points to Simon Magus and Saint Paul being one and
the same, beyond the writings of the Jewish Christians who despised him.
--How the handpicked successor of John The Baptist was passed over by a certain
Jesus of Nazareth.
--The legendary magical battles, arguments and polemics of the symbolical war
between Simon Peter (Orthodoxy) and Simon Magus (Gnosticism).
--How the Bible itself and much of the Apocrypha hints to the importance of The
Father of Gnosticism and the archetype of the Magician.
--The eternal and mysterious love affair between Simon Magus and Helen of Troy.
--The theology and philosophy of Simon Magus and his school, including the first
suggestions of a mature Gnostic ideology, proto-Kabalistic views, and
Pythagorean/Philo of Alexandria influences.
--Evidence that Simon of Magus/Saint Paul was the originator of the concept of
The Trinity.
--Price gives us a glimpse of the first time ever, reconstructed `Great
Revelation'.

And much more!!!

Just go to http://www.thegodabovegod.com/.  The program is broadcast all holiday
week long.  Listen to it at your convenience and peril.

Next week we talk about the caustic marriage of Occult and Politics that is
actually more of a norm than an exception.  Modern history has been heavily
shaped by secret brotherhoods and power-mad mystics more than you could have
ever imagined, including these days.  Our guest is Gary Lachman, author of
`Politics & and the Occult: the Left, the Right, and the Radically Unseen', as
well a founding member of the rock group Blondie (too cool!)!

All past shows of Aeon Byte are available at
http://www.thegodabovegod.com/shop/.  Each program has a preview you can listen
to it before jumping into the abyss of heresy.  CD copies can be purchased
through our homepage.  Bulk digital audio at your greasy fingertips can also be
purchased at http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1906876.  I've already
raised prices, but buying CD's or downloading in bulk digital format is a
fraction of the price.  Selling your soul to Lucifer has never been so cheap!

Donations are always welcome and needed in our hobbit venture overshadowed by
wealthy churches and social institutions that need an injection of heresy to
rejuvenate them.

Please sign up for our Mailing List at our homepage.  Maybe we can start an
Indulgences Coupon Train and save ourselves from Eternal Damnation!

And check out my new articles for The Examiner at
http://www.examiner.com/x-28537-Chicago-Gnosticism--Heretical-Spirituality-Exami\
ner.  Please subscribe and leave little love or hate notes.  I put up two or
three articles, commentaries, reviews or sermonettes a week.  Check in often. 
There is right now a heated debate between Gnostics and Fundies in my `Shroud of
Turin' article that you don't want to miss.  I read published `Is Oprah's
Crucifixion Humanity's Salvation?'.


Abraxas

I have been a life time gnostic. I have moderated other groups and have
moved on. I hope to sit back and learn. I label myself an ancient Chrisitan in
the order of the ancient traditions. Peace to all!

Best wishes for a happy holiday to everyone!

Warmest regards,
Cari

Please check `The Top 10 Gnostic Stories of 2009' at
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-28537-Chicago-Gnosticism--Heretical-Spiritual\
ity-Examiner~y2009m12d22-The-top-10-Gnostic-stories-of-2009

As for this weekend:

Perhaps the original Gnostics, the Mandaeans are the only remaining Gnostic sect
of antiquity.  Who are these mysterious Semites that break so many Gnostic molds
including making Jesus and Sophia the villains in the cosmic play?  Are they the
surviving followers of John the Baptist, which Occult Johannine Tradition claims
as the true Messiah?  And despite surviving for over 2000 years, the reality is
that the Iraq Conflict has brought them to the brink of extinction.  We study
their theology and history, as well a present information on how we, as members
of the Esoterica, can help their grim plight in the Middle East.  An important
message for the Holiday Season to our brethren who are suffering immensely.

Astral Guest-- Nathaniel Deutsch, author of 'The Gnostic Imagination:
Gnosticism, Mandaeism & Merkabah Mysticism' and Professor of Religion at
Swarthmore College.

Topics Discussed:

--The various possibilities of the origins of the Mandaeans.  Breakaway Mystic
Jews?  Proto-Kabbalists? John the Baptist Followers?  Pre-Manichaean Zealots?
--The mysterious rituals and culture of these Semite Gnostics that go back
perhaps over two thousand years.
--How their views actually might mirror the Classic Gnostics more than the
Radical Dualistic Gnostics.
--What are the reasons the Mandaeans believe Jesus and Moses are pawns of the
evil Creator God of our universe.
--How these `People of the Book' have been able to survive Pagan, Christian and
Muslim empires without ever resorting to violence.
--Why the fall of Sadaam was the reason that the Last Gnostics are on the brink
of annihilation, with little help from any government these days.
--What we, as private citizens, can do to help them before their wonders are
erased from history by another blow of the Demiurge.

And much more!  A sober show about a tragedy that perhaps might be avoided.

Just go to http://www.thegodabovegod.com/.  The program is broadcast all weekend
long.  Listen to it at your convenience and peril.

Our rebroadcast, available this and all next week, is `Aeon Byte #41—Apocalypse
Nowhere'.  Our astral guest was Gary Hudson, author of 'Revelation: Awakening
the Christ Within' and 'The Secret Things: The Hidden Wisdom of The Gospel of
Thomas'. Not only do we discuss the endtime scenario according to Gnosticism, we
talk about The Book of Revelation (or the Apocalypse of John).  Never has a book
in the Canonical Bible stirred so much controversy and made so many people rich.
Is it just a coded message against the Roman persecution or perhaps a blueprint
for the carnage at the end of time? But perhaps there is a third
alternative--John actually encoded an esoteric tool for spiritual death and
rebirth that echoes the Gnostic keynote.

Next week we discuss the Gnostic Knights Templar with Mark Pinkham, author of
`Guardians of the Holy Grail' ,'The Truth Behind the Christ Myth' & 'The Return
of the Serpents of Wisdom'.  There is strong evidence suggesting that the
Knights Templar weren't in the Holy Land just for holy battle but actually to
collect ancient esoteric information….

Excerpts can now be downloaded through Itunes at
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=347832278. 
I'll be updating frequently.

There are over 145 past shows of Aeon Byte are available at
http://www.thegodabovegod.com/shop/.  Each program has a preview you can listen
to it before jumping into the abyss of heresy.  CD, DVD or USB Port copies in
bulk, at less than half the price, can be purchased through our homepage.  Bulk
digital audio at your greasy fingertips can also be purchased at
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1906876.  Downloading in bulk digital
format is a fraction of the price.  A great holiday gift!  Just think of the
look on the faces of your orthodox family members when they unwrap an Aeon Byte
CD!!!

Donations are always a blessing.  Aeon Byte is completely non-profit.  All money
is invested back in the program.  Please help out anyway you can.  And as
always, if you have holes in your pocket, let me know and I'll send you a show
for not cost.

Please sign up for our Mailing List at our homepage.  Or subscribe to my blog at
http://aeonbyte.blogspot.com/

And check out my new articles for The Examiner at
http://www.examiner.com/x-28537-Chicago-Gnosticism--Heretical-Spirituality-Exami\
ner.  Please subscribe and leave little love or hate notes.  I put up two or
three articles, commentaries, reviews or sermonettes a week.  Check in often. 
My newest article is `Top 10 Gnostic Stories of 2009'.

Merry Matrix!

Abraxas

--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "D. Tackett" <nazgno@...> wrote:
>
>      The troubles facing the Mandeans have been  horrible. The Mandeans have established a church here in the Detroit area that is as strong as the Mandean nation itself. Never count them out. They have survived more than most would ever imagine. They are actually a sect of the ancient Nazareans.
>

Hello, D.  I haven't had a chance yet to listen to Miguel's interview with Nathaniel Deutsch, but I did find an interesting article from this past summer, "Ancient Iraqi Mandaean sect struggles to keep culture in Michigan," by The Associated Press:

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/07/ancient_iraqi_mandaean_sect_st.html

Cari