CONSPIRACY CLAIM #04

Where did this come from?

The claim seems to have grown out of hard-line Christian rhetoric — in particular the Star of Remphan story we’ve already unpicked in claim #2 — plus a handful of other claims about Freemasons that rest on fiction and superstition.

You’ll hear versions of it from commentators such as Alex Jones, Greg Reese, William (Bill) Cooper and Jordan Maxwell, among plenty of others. Some of it comes from superstition, mistaken beliefs and misreading the sources; some of it is spread deliberately.

Take the claim that Bohemian Grove is part of Freemasonry. It isn’t. Yet that claim gets stirred together with the Star of Remphan story from claim #2 (also debunked), and the mixture is then offered as “proof” of a Masonic link — on the grounds that Bohemian Grove is supposedly a ‘secret society’ meeting place of the ‘Illuminati’ (which, for the record, is not part of Freemasonry either). With so many twists and turns, explaining every strand takes real effort, and most people simply give up. That’s rather the point: the more tightly the claims are knotted together, the harder they are to untie.

So, plainly: Freemasonry involves no sacrifices of any kind, and there is no link between Bohemian Grove and Freemasonry. None. Neither Bohemian Grove nor the Illuminati has anything to do with Freemasonry. Full stop.

Want the full story? Each of these has its own page in our Non-Masonic Orders section: Bavarian Illuminati, English Illuminati and Bohemian Grove.

A friendly heads-up: from here on, we dig into the original Hebrew of the Bible, and some of what it shows may surprise you. If that isn’t a conversation you’re up for today, no hard feelings — this is a good place to stop.

A note on square brackets: whenever you see “[ __ ]” on this page, it gives the English meaning of a word from an Ancient Hebrew text. It’s only a generic stand-in, because the original Ancient Hebrew word has no exact English equivalent. As this is a sensitive subject, we’ve also included links so you can read every Bible passage in its full context for yourself.

A few terms are worth memorising before we go on, because they unlock what the Bible actually says. None of them has an exact English translation, so we’ll leave them in the original Hebrew. Here they are:

Translations used in the Bible:

Whenever one of the English words below comes up, we’ll use the original Hebrew word instead (shown after the ‘=’ sign), out of full respect for the original authors of these Ancient Hebrew texts.
• God = Elohim
• The Most High = Elyon
• Lord = Yahweh
• Eternal = Yahweh
• Spirit = Ruach
• Glory = Kavod (or vocally as KVD)

Note: Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels. Readers supplied them from memory; the vowel marks you see in printed Bibles were added centuries later, by the Masoretes (roughly the 7th to 10th centuries AD).
Note: EL is the singular form of Elohim. Elohim is plural.
Note: nothing on this page, above or below, denies the existence of God. That isn’t in question, and the author of this page has never suggested that God does not exist or that the Bible is wrong — quite the opposite. But if you want a solid grasp of these texts, the original Ancient Hebrew words are the best foundation, because no translation captures them exactly. So we leave the original Ancient Hebrew words exactly as they are, in full respect of the original authors.

Who was Moloch (or Molech)?

Left: a photo secretly taken by Alex Jones (a conspiracy theorist) after he slipped into a Bohemian Grove ‘ritual’ in which, it is claimed, a child is burned as a sacrifice. What actually goes up in flames is an effigy called “Dull Care”, in a piece of club theatre known as the Cremation of Care.

Supposedly, this statue represents Moloch/Molech. Other versions of the story say it’s the Owl of Minerva (the emblem of the Illuminati) — but that doesn’t fit the burning-pit narrative, because the Owl of Minerva has nothing to do with burning or sacrifice. (The owl is, in fact, the Bohemian Club’s own mascot, a symbol of wisdom.) A third, equally mistaken identification is “Lilith”, which the story claims is an owl (in reality, it is not) and says is referenced in Isaiah 34 and Isaiah 34:14. More on that shortly.

An ancient front-on depiction of Moloch/Molech —>
The ‘furnace’ at its base is where, according to the accounts, a living child was sacrificed to the Canaanite deity.

Moloch, also spelled Molech, is a Canaanite deity associated in biblical sources with the practice of child sacrifice. The name derives from combining the consonants of the Hebrew Melech (“king”) with the vowels of boshet (“shame”), the latter often being used in the Old Testament as a variant name for the popular god Baal (“Lord”). Remember, vowels were not written down in Ancient Hebrew when the original Hebrew texts were composed. There’s a further wrinkle: the English word ‘Lord’ is also used to translate the name ‘Yahweh’. To keep things clear, we stick with the original Hebrew words rather than translations that invite confusion.

Likewise, in the Hebrew Pentateuch / Old Testament of the Christian Bible, Moloch — another Elohim [god] — is presented as a separate deity from Yahweh [LORD] the [God] Elohim. Moloch is also identified with the Elohim whom the original Hebrew Bible names ‘Milcom’, the Elohim [God] of the Ammonites.

A quick sidenote: the ‘original’ Ancient Hebrew texts mention several Elohim:
• Elohim of the Israelites was a Male Elohim named Yahweh
• Elohim of the Moabites was a Male Elohim named Kamosh
• Elohim of the Ammonites was a Male Elohim named Milkom
• Elohim of the Sidonians was a Female Elohim named Astarte
What’s more, the Ancient Hebrew texts of the Torah, and the Christian Bible too, seem to suggest that ‘EL’ is ‘Yahweh’s’ father.
Citation: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 “When the Most High [EL] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the people according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his alllotted heritage.”

Another Elohim, ‘Asherah’, from the land of Canaan (the Canaanites), is considered Yahweh’s (LORD) wife or companion. At Tel Arad, archaeologists excavated a temple whose inner shrine holds two standing stones side by side; a number of scholars read them as Yahweh the Elohim and Asherah the (female) Elohim, revered together. For more, see the Jewish Women’s Archive: https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/asherahasherim-bible

Some notes by: Isidore Singer, George A. Barton

Biblical Data:
In the Masoretic text, the name is “Molech”; in the Septuagint “Moloch.” The earliest mention of Molech is in Leviticus. xviii. 21, where the Israelite is forbidden to sacrifice any of his children to Molech. Similarly, in Leviticus. xx. 2-5, it is enacted that a man who sacrifices his seed to Molech shall surely be put to death. Then, curiously, it is provided that he shall be cut off from the congregation. In I Kings xi. 7 it is said that Solomon built a high place for Molech in the mountain “that is before Jerusalem.” The same passage calls Molech an Ammonite deity. The Septuagint as quoted in the New Testament (Acts vii. 43) finds a reference to Moloch in Amos v. 26; but this is a doubtful passage. In II Kings xxiii. 10 it is stated that one of the practices to which Josiah put a stop by his reform was that of sacrificing children to Molech and that the place where this form of worship had been practiced was at Topheth, “in the valley of the children of Hinnom.” This statement is confirmed by Jer. xxxii. 35. From II Kings xxi. 6 it may be inferred that this worship was introduced during the reign of Manasseh. The impression left by an uncritical reading of these passages is that Molech worship, with its rite of child sacrifice, was introduced from Ammon during the seventh century B.C.

Nature of Worship – A Critical View:
The name “Molech,” later corrupted into “Moloch,” is an intentional mispointing of “Melek,” after the analogy of “bosheth” (comp. Hoffmann in Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” iii. 124). As to the rites which the worshipers of Molech performed, it has sometimes been inferred, from the phrase “pass through the fire to Molech,” that children were made to pass between two lines of fire as a kind of consecration or februation; but it is clear from Isa. lvii. 5 and Jer. xix. 5 that the children were killed and burned. The whole point of the offering consisted, therefore, in the fact that it was a human sacrifice. From Jer. vii. 31 and Ezekiel. xx. 25, 26, it is evident that both prophets regarded these human sacrifices as extraordinary offerings to Yahweh. Jeremiah declares that Yahweh had not commanded them, while Ezekiel says Yahweh polluted the Israelites in their offerings by permitting them to sacrifice their firstborn so that through chastisement they might know that Yahweh was Yahweh. The fact, therefore, now generally accepted by critical scholars, is that in the last days of the kingdom, human sacrifices were offered to Yahweh as King or Counselor of the nation and that the Prophets disapproved of it and denounced it because it was introduced from outside as an imitation of a heathen cult and because of its barbarity. In course of time the pointing of “Melek” was changed to “Molech” to still further stigmatize the rites.

The motive for Sacrifices:
To understand the motives for these sacrifices, one does not have to seek far. It is given in Micah vi. 7: “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” In the midst of the disasters which were befalling the nation men felt that if the favor of Yahweh could be regained it was worth any price, they could pay. Their Semitic kindred worshiped their gods with offerings of their children, and in their desperation, the Israelites did the same. For some reason, perhaps because not all the priestly and prophetic circles approved of the movement, they made the offerings, not in the Temple, but at an altar or pyre called “Tapheth” (LXX.), erected in the valley of Hinnom (comp. W. R. Smith, “Rel. of Sem.” 2d ed., p. 372). “Tapheth,” also, was later pointed to “Topheth,” after the analogy of “bosheth.” In connection with these extraordinary offerings, the worshipers continued the regular Temple sacrifices to Yahweh (Ezekiel. xxiii. 39).

Babylonian Cylinder Representing Sacrifice of a Child.
(From Menant, “Glyptique Orientale.”) —>

From the fact that I Kings xi. 7 calls Molech the “abomination of the children of Ammon” it was formerly assumed that this worship was an imitation of an Ammonite cult. But so little is known of the Ammonite religion that more recent scholarship has looked elsewhere for the source.

Because of the mention in II Kings xvii. 31 of Adrammelech (= Adar-malik) and Anammelech (=Anu-malik) as gods of Sepharvaim transplanted to Samaria, it has been inferred that this form of worship was borrowed from Babylonia (comp. Bäthgen, “Beiträge zur Semitischen Religionsgesch.” pp, 238 et seq.). This view rests on the supposition that “Sepharvaim” is equal to “Sippar,” which probably is not the case. Even if it were, Anu and Adar were not gods of Sippar; Shamash was the god of that city. From this verse, therefore, a Babylonian or Assyrian origin can not be demonstrated.

Support for this view has been sought also in Amos v. 26. If, as is probable, Siccuth and Chiun in that passage are names or epithets of Babylonian deities (comp. Chiun), the use of “Melek” in connection with these affords no sound basis for argument. The whole passage may be, as Wellhausen and Nowack believe, a late gloss introduced on account of II Kings xvii. 31, and is in any case too obscure to build upon. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the sacrifice of the firstborn was a feature of the worship of Babylonian deities. Because child sacrifice was a prominent feature of the worship of the Phenician Malik-Baal-Kronos, Moore (in Cheyne and Black, “Encyc. Bibl.”) seeks to prove that the worship of Moloch was introduced from Phenicia. The evidence of its existence in Phenicia and her colonies is especially strong. Diodorus Siculus (xx. 14) tells how the Carthaginians in a siege sacrificed two hundred boys to Kronos. Burning was an important feature of the rite.

---

Moloch (another Elohim) was at times given an illegitimate place in Israel’s worship, thanks to the syncretistic policies of certain apostate kings. But from the point of view of ‘Yahweh’ the Elohim [God] — who spoke with Moses and gave him the laws — this was expressly forbidden: the Jews were not to do what was done in Egypt or in Canaan with other Elohim. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God” (Leviticus 18:21). Even so, kings such as Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6), influenced by the Assyrians, are reported to have worshipped Moloch at the hilled site of Topheth, outside the walls of Jerusalem. The site flourished under Manasseh’s son, King Amon, but was destroyed during the reign of Josiah the reformer: “And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Moloch” (2 Kings 23:10).

So yes: child sacrifice to Moloch is a real subject — of ancient history, condemned by the Bible itself well over two and a half thousand years ago. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Freemasonry, then or now.