Talk:Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry

Propose renaming of article and possible creation of related article on Christianity and secret societies

First, I find in an old copy of the Handbook of Denominations in the United States that there actually are two American churches, the Church of the Living God and the House of God, Which Is the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, Inc., which seem to have some explicitly pro-Masonic beliefs. Both are mentioned in the article on the first named group in the edition I have been going over. I haven't yet finished the book, so there may be more. There are also a fair number of groups in the part of the book I have so far gone through which are apparently opposed to secret societies and their oaths in general, not necessarily limited to Freemasons and masonic organizations. I haven't finished the book yet, or looked in more recent editions, so there may be others as well. But I think there are reasonable grounds for a title change. John Carter (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• We still have a problem with WP:AND... The article isn’t really about a “relationship” BETWEEN two things (Freemasonry and Christianity) but about the differing “Attitudes” of several things (the various Christian denominations) TOWARDS one thing (Freemasonry). The title should reflect that any discussion or debate is within various Christian denominations. Freemasonry remains silent on the issue.

Perhaps: Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry would be a clearer title? Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• I would fully support moving this article to "Christian attitudes toward(s) Freemasonry." The current title strikes me as slightly worse than its predecessor. Bnng (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion on Merging Christian Attitudes .... with Papal Ban

It has been suggested since March 2020 that the wiki-page Christian Attitudes towards Freemasonry be merged with the wiki-page Papal Ban on Freemasonry. I disagree with there being any necessity to merge the two pages. This page seems to be presenting an effort towards a cursory survey of various group's attitudes towards Freemasonry, while the Papal Ban page seems to wants to present a more detailed treatment of the micro topic. If anything should happen, we should just throw away the current section on the Catholic Church in Christian Attitudes and just bring over the first summary paragraph from Papal Ban. Not only would that serve the narrow purpose of this page and make it more consistent, but the first paragraph on the topic here is just trash - it's horrendously worded, structured, and loosely correct. Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that the articles are tagged, but no follow up. Is there a merger discussion other than this one? (Please provide a link to the discussion if so).

Going on the assumption that no discussion was started before this one - I too would oppose a merger. Certainly the attitude of the Papacy falls under the definition of “Christian”, and so it definitely should be mentioned prominently here... however, it is only one of many Christian views. We do have to ensure that the view of one denomination is not given UNDUE weight in relation to that of other denominations. That said, the Papal attitude is a complicated topic. There is a LOT of history and subtle shift in language to unpack. It is worth expanding upon in its own article, where we can go into such detail. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Closing, given the clear opposition and no support. Klbrain (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Cited link and text don't match

Please note that overall I fid this article to be very unbiased and neutral, offering equitable viewpoints for many of the statements, where applicable.

Looking at the "New religion" section there is a statement "It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward or punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiation and burial rites". This statement has a citation "Freemasonry article from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1964, Volume 6, pages 132 through 139 inclusive" with a link to the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" entry of Wikipedia. My concern is that this page has no reference to any of the items mentioned, I guess that the references are supposed to be in the encyclopedias themselves but there is no evidence of that, however if we reasonably assume that there *is* a reference for this statement then there is the question of whether the information in the encyclopedia is also accurate. I would suggest that the source of information is itself biased given the well-known and well-documented dislike that the Catholic church has towards Freemasonry and would ask the question of how an organisation that has banned its members from joining has been able to gather such detailed information of the practices of Freemasonry.

I offer this alteration as an attempt to make this article more un-biased: The sentence could be made more accurate either by removing it entirely (even though parts of it are accurate), or adjusting the wording to indicate that this is an opinion, "It is believed that it includes". This would be the more-accurate and most neutral thing to do because, at least as far as I know, there is no documented evidence of the existence of any of these items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardmw (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• As for how the Church has gathered information on Freemasonry... Freemasonry’s rituals and customs are hardly secret (while most Masons are reluctant to discuss what goes on in the lodge, there have been plenty of exposés over the years that spell it all out).

That said, the Church does interpret those customs and rituals differently than Masons do. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"William A Whalen" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect William A Whalen and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 18 § William A Whalen until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)