Talk:Co-Freemasonry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits

To many, this page is controversial in & of the subject matter. Of course, addition & expansion is highly encouraged. With that said, may I suggest very carefully considering those additions, especial civility in edits & conflicts, & consideration of the possiblility of validity in other's edits. But hey, that's just a thought... Grye 02:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I restored an image that was removed without comment, and marked as a minor edit. I can't remember who removed it (was it you?) but I left a note on their discussion page politely requesting that they comment their edits and don't mark major edits as minor. No offence was intended. Fuzzypeg 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Note, I wasn't (didn't mean to be) critical of you, I added that comment for the betterment of the article. It has more history than is obvious. I created this article, actually, to keep the bicker down about women & the Freemasonry articles... But note: Co-Masonry (or Co-Freemasonry, whatever) is a very important distinction, & the use of the S&C here will be controversial. & No, it was removed by User:Bluebot. But like I said, I do agree with the removal, but I think there should be discussion & consensus, fairly weighed by all ;~D Grye 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

the Square and Compasses

These have been removed once before from this page. I was tempted to remove them again, but I'd imagine that Co-Masons do use them. Any discussion? Grye 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove as the image's description supports: "The Square & Compasses, one of the most prominent symbols of Freemasonry" Grye 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite usage & Importance, & history of, in Co-Freemasonry Grye 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove. The square and compasses are Freemasonic, yes. And Co-Freemasons consider themselves Freemasons, and use the square and compasses as their most common symbol, just as other branches of Freemasonry do. I understand that certain members of the male Craft consider us to be clandestine, and I think the article fairly indicates this controversy. I also understand how much importance is invested in this symbol, and realise that some masons will consider it degrading of the symbol for it to appear in this article. However some anti-masonic people will consider it degrading of their spirituality to have any mention in Wikipedia of Freemasonry as a spiritual organisation. My point here is that Wikipedia's role is not to adopt some group's supposed moral high-ground. Wikipedia should not represent only the interests and beliefs of masculine craft. If a Co-Freemason (myself) puts the most prominent symbol of Co-Freemasonry on the Co-Freemasonry article, that seems reasonable to me.

And I reiterate: in future please comment a removal like this, so we can at least start discussing this issue, rather than just leave us to guess what your motives are. Fuzzypeg 11:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg, it'd help your cause to give some cites of the importance & use of the S&C in Co-Freemasonry. That way, when the issue comes up again (& again, & again), it'll be doc'd here. Grye 11:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It has the same usage within the ritual as in other branches of the Craft. It appears in many books relating to co-freemasonry, often on the title page. It appears on the title page of the printed ritual. It appears on all diplomas (although the double-headed eagle is often more prominent here). It appears on all summonses and agendas (in my lodge at least). It appears in many other communications. In short, it is the image of identification par excellence used by Co-Freemasons, just as it is also by other Freemasons. Fuzzypeg 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

P.s. I didn't originally remove them, & I am discussing here instead of removing, as is my inclination... & citation is physilcal, visual proof. I heard you, & I bleieve you, & thanks for answering the question: I (many people) know nothing about Co-, so it does help. Any scans possible, w/o violations of copywrite? Grye 07:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Co-Freemasonry vs. Co-Masonry, Masonic vs. Co-Masonic

There have been several edits at pains to ensure that the terms Freemasonry and Masonic are not used in reference to Co-Freemasonry. I point out that Co-Freemasons consider themselves to be regular Freemasons, and they use all of the terms Co-Freemasonry, Co-Masonry, Masonic and Co-Masonic. However the terms Freemasonry and Masonic are used prominently by Co-Freemasons, and to exclude all uses of these terms is to misrepresent the beliefs of Co-Freemasons. I was aware of the controversy that flared up over Freemasonry#Women and Freemasonry, so I was very careful in choosing my words when I wrote the sections on history. I'm rather put out to see exactly the same problems arising here that I thought had already been resolved in the other article.

There is a very prominent mention at the head of the article (written by myself) of the controversy surrounding Co-Freemasonry's regularity or otherwise. I hoped this would be an ample qualification for how the terms Freemasonry, Masonic and Co-Freemasonry are used. If the details of the controversy need to be clarified then please help by clarifying them; but just changing all the terms throughout the article seems like an attempt to put Co-Freemasonry in the pillory. I feel like edits I've made in very good faith have been ripped to shreds simply to teach Co-Freemasons a lesson. I know I shouldn't put a personal judgement on it, but that's how it comes across to me... Any comments? (I'd really like to go back and restore the wording of the sections I wrote). Fuzzypeg 12:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The terms Masonic, Freemason, & Freemasonry applied to a Co-[Free]Mason &/or Co-[Free]masonry is not going to work. The historical instances of this in other places can be seen in various archives, especially at Talk:Freemasonry. Consensus is that Freemasonry refers to Regular Freemasonry, as defined by the article Freemasonry, & all else is "other". You've done a great job with this article, & I think I made some of those edits you speak of. They really should stay as-is. As I've said elsewhere, a person can refer to themself as a skydiver, but that does not mean they know when to pull the ripcord... Not as an insult, but to show that saying something does not make it so. A Co-Freemasson is not a Regular Freemason, they would be a Co-Freemason. "Freemasons", esp here on wiki, are as defined in Freemasonry. Co-Freemasons are as are defined here. So, the hope is that this article be & remain positive in the definition of Co-Freemasonry. Perhaps a mention that Co-Freemasons sometimes/usually/always consider themselves Freemasons w/ no Co- distinction would be apt? Grye 12:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. good edit on the Freemasonry article. & case-in-point... Grye 13:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there isn't consensus. Now whether that's because the term Freemasonry might be applied to irregular jurisdictions or because Co-Freemasonry might be considered regular are really two separate issues.

Regarding the first issue, I would say that the term Freemasonry, when combined with certain qualifiers, can validly be used to describe irregular forms. There are many examples of masonic bodies being considered irregular to some degree or other by other jurisdictions, however to simply say that they're non-masonic over-simplifies the issue and makes it very difficult to discuss the differences. If any irregular freemasonic group cannot be considered a form of freemasonry, then the concepts of regular or irregular are meaningless. There is only Freemasonry or not-Freemasonry. A debate about heresy within the Catholic church is more informative if you say "The Catholic so-and-so differed in his belief from the church in such-and such a respect and so was considered a heretic" rather than saying "So-and-so was not Catholic and so was considered a heretic". I'm having difficulty wording my point clearly, but basically if you refuse to even mention the point of contention, it's very hard to describe the argument that surrounds it.

Regarding the second issue, it is a matter of debate whether Co-Freemasonry is regular or not. Co-Freemasons obviously consider themselves to be regular. I believe this is abundantly clear from the article. I would like to add a bit more to the article explaining the reasoning behind this, but I want to get it right, and you'll have to wait for my research. Of course I'm not attempting to convince everyone of our regularity, just trying to document what Co-Freemasonry's about. Clearly there is controversy surrounding Co-Freemasonry, and I'm trying to present the various opinions, not just what Co-Freemasons believe. On the other hand, Co-Freemasonry should not be represented purely from a male Craft perspective just because it's a relative minority on the scene.

Oh, and I've looked through Talk:Freemasonry including trawling through much of the archives (and there's a lot in there). It would help me if you could pinpoint these discussions you're mentioning a bit more specifically. Fuzzypeg 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've found some interesting pages on the web regarding recognition of irregular bodies:

• The Regularity Problem in Mexican Freemasonry: Discusses the issues surrounding irregular bodies, and highlights the fact that recognition is highly variable: "No grand lodge recognizes as regular the same list that another grand lodge does.".
• A discussion of recognition of Women's Freemasonry - Mentions the stance of the United Grand Lodge of England: "Brethren are therefore free to explain to non-Masons, if asked, that Freemasonry is not confined to men (even though this Grand Lodge does not itself admit women). Further information about these bodies may be obtained by writing to the Grand Secretary."
• United Grand Lodge of England: advertising women's Masonic orders (this is an old page now moved - I haven't tracked down the new location).

Fuzzypeg 02:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Libre Penseurs closing because of opposition

A statement was removed regarding the Lodge Libre Penseurs having closed because of opposition. The comment on the edit (by User:Grye) said that this statement was "Totally unsubstiated statement, & POV (there's a reason)". Perhaps you could tell me the reason? I can put in links to the various web-pages that give the same info; I can also look for the printed historical works that support this statement, but I'd prefer not to spend the time, and I don't really want to weigh the article down with excessive references for easily verifiable information. I'll try to put some time in to look the info up and make sure I'm correct, but if you (or anyone else) could tell me what I've got wrong, it might save me some time and trouble. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 12:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning for that was the statement was POV, w/o any explanation: "but this Lodge had been forced to close because of opposition" - What opposition? It implies that it was because of some Landmark violation, in which case it is not opposition but simply "forced to close", Or else that the opposition was to every iota of the Lodge by pretty much everyone not involved with it, again for a Landmark reason? See, saying "I had my bank acct closed because of opposition" is POV esp if that opposition was the Bank's, for the author not paying their bills... Perhaps a clarity of the reasoning, with a link or so in such section in re it's history? Grye 13:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the reason for the opposition was that their parent Constitution didn't want to allow them to initiate women. I thought that was clear enough from the article. Your point is that they were legally required to close because they were in breach of the landmarks? Perhaps you could try to word that, rather than just removing the statement. If you don't, I'll try my hand at it. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 13:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I should try harder, esp considering how much time I (we) spend here talking...;~) But I know a lot less about this than you (apparently) do... Yes you are pretty much right, except that "legally required to close" would have to be put into layman's terms, as the legality wasn't in reference to any state (etc) law, but Lodge law. Grye 07:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Le Droit Humain Merger

Le Droit Humain is a cut and paste from this article I believe. I think it should be merged in and set up as re-direct. Ardenn 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's a cut and paste, considering this article was only a few sentences a couple of days ago. :) But yes, I agree entirely, they should be merged. At the moment I'm involved in intense debate over the subject matter that's already here, and I'd prefer to wait until that's settled a bit before I spend my time on other edits (such as doing a merge). But anyone else feel free. Fuzzypeg 02:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

um...

• Co-Freemasonry is not officially recognized by any Masonic Lodges & Grand Lodges
• the 'irregular', 'pseudo-masonic', & 'Occult' references seem a little negative for your cause as-is. The statements are needed, but could use some elaboration, which I'n not the one to do...
• I removed the stub, I think it's a bit beyond that, but re-add it if you want.
• Actually, the Cat:Freemasonry may or may not stand, but I'm not going to push it...

Grye 10:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It may not be recognized, but I think it should remain in the category since the article is related to Freemasonry. Ardenn 18:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also fail to see what you're trying to argue here, Gyre. Ardenn 18:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out that the article states "it is not officially recognised officially by other regular lodges, or grand lodges", but acyually, Co-Freemasonry is not officially recognized by any Masonic Lodges & Grand Lodges, & someone that has a better interest in this article's positive content might want to rewrite it before I do, with less care. Like this.... Besides that, write better or others will tear it up for you, because they don't like the subject matter. I agree with a good few of the historic points against Co-Fremasonry, but I still want it to have a positive article... & maybe it'll inform me about Co- eventually... & keep editwars down... Grye 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You say "Co-Freemasonry is not officially recognized by any Masonic Lodges & Grand Lodges" - this is only true if Co-Masonic Grand Lodges are not included. You should find quite a few Co-Masonic or women's Grand Lodges listed here. Furthermore, I think the Grand Orient of France recognises Le Droit Humain, but I haven't checked this to make sure (And I realise that they themselves are not widely recognised by other Grand Lodges). Fuzzypeg 02:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And regarding "... references seem a little negative for your cause": As I've previously mentioned, I'm trying not to take any POV (or promote a "cause"). I'm just trying to present the best information I can. If some of that reflects poorly on my Masonic order, so be it. Fuzzypeg 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean Grye, and I see what you mean Fuzzypeg. For the purposes of the main Freemasonry article, it needs to first be treated as if we are talking about the predominately blue, regular lodges. This doesn't include any of the appendages attached to the organization. This article could be approached from the perspective that women wish to join freemasonry. Wikipedia isn't a recruting tool, but, we can use it as a sort-of counter blanace, while still trying to maintain neutrality, same with Anti-Freemasonry. Just the title of Co-Freemasonry is NPOV. Example from the WP:NPOV page:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Ardenn 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for wikifying. I was just about to do that, but you beat me to it. I still don't think "blue, regular" is a useful way of distinguishing, since a) Co-Freemasonry has blue lodges working the three Craft degrees, just as other branches of Freemasonry do, and b) "blue" is a technical term that won't be understood by many readers of the article, and would need to either be wikified or have lengthy explanation (either way confusing the reader).

Our problem is to differentiate Co-Freemasonry from other forms of Freemasonry in a way that best indicates its lack of general acceptance. We can say it is not accepted by "many" or "most" or "the major" grand lodges, etc..., but using the word "any" requires great care. "... any regular Grand Lodges" doesn't work, because Co-Masonic Grand Lodges consider themselves to be regular, and you then have to explain the difference between their "regular" and your "regular". The same problem occurs if you say "any blue lodge", "any Grand Lodge", or any of the other variations that have so far been tried. You could say "any masculine Grand Lodge", but as I've noted, I think the Grand Orient of France recognises Le Droit Humain. So what can we find to differentiate Co-Freemasonry from the rest?

When it comes down to it, Co-Freemasonry is very similar to more common forms of Freemasonry. We have the same kind of organisational structures, with Grand Lodges etc. We have the same basic ritual, with minor differences (but then there are several different rituals in masculine craft). There are even lodges we don't talk to because we consider them to be irregular. We use the same signs and tokens. We work the Scottish Rite just as many other constitutions do. In short, there is very little difference in most areas. The key difference is that we don't hold exclusion of women as a landmark (and in the case of Le Droit Humain, they are also an atheist order).

As a result of this key difference, Co-Freemasonry's regularity is contested. This means it may or may not be regular. Evidence of its regularity or otherwise may be given on Wikipedia, but for Wikipedia to decide one way or another would entail the adoption of the dreaded POV. Another closely related area that is contested is the legality of the constitution of Le Droit Humain (and later, the constitution of other Grand Lodges that broke away from Le Droit Humain due to its insistence on an atheist ritual), since this formation was not authorised by the parent body. Again, however, the legality of this is contested.

The fact that Co-Freemasonry is a relative minority within Freemasonry does not warrant the adopting of a POV. Very few Wikipedia articles about groups fail to at least pay lip-service to the groups' own opinions (exceptions being suicide cults, criminal organisations etc), and I fail to see what can be gained by these strange rewordings, because what I originally wrote already paints a pretty strong picture: if you join Co-Freemasonry you'll be shunned by other masons.

So what is there to gain from these broad judgemental statements, other than to rub our faces in it? Fuzzypeg 06:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK have fun with this. I'm out.

Co-Freemasonry is irregular. You might not consider it so, but it is. Co-Freemasonry did not come first, or even for hundreds of years. Hundreds. & it has not been around for hundreds of years. So, no. If Freemasonry, & every regular lodge )& GL) on the planet, says that, for one reason or another, these lodges are irregular, then they are. All I'm trying to do is give you a little heads-up, & for what it's worth guidance, to keeping this article afloat, despite my own personal feelings, & inevitably that of others. So, take it or not. I'm not here to be convinced of anything you say, or your POV. Again, I'm out. Good luck with that. I'll edit at will, & leave a message why in the summary, but otherwise, I'm not commenting or enriching this article. Grye 08:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

An analogy (note: not necessarily my opinions): If all of science and the entirety of the reputable scientific establishment say that Intelligent Design is a fallacy, then it is. It's very clear. It may be debated by some fundamentalist weirdos, but they're obviously wrong. So why does the article not begin "Intelligent Design is the fallacious concept..."? The views of both parties are expressed, but the article itself does not pass judgement. Why? Because the fallacy of the theory is contested. In the same manner an article on Co-Freemasonry should not be written purely from the point of view that Co-Masons are not Freemasons, or that they are not regular, because these positions are contested. I don't mean to drive you away with my lengthy posts (I'm sure it takes you less time to read them than it takes me to write them). I'm just failing to understand your reasoning for going to such lengths to exclude the beliefs of Co-Freemasons in the wording of this article. I feel that I have answered every point you've raised, and you have yet to answer some of mine... But thank-you for holding the discussion as far as you have. No hard feelings, please... Fuzzypeg 01:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No further comments received in response to my arguments (after a long period), so I've changed Ardenn's last edit from "any regular blue" back to "most". Reasoning as above – Co-Freemasons consider their Lodges and Grand Lodges to be "regular blue". Fuzzypeg 02:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I added a cleanup tag because it seems like we need an "Early years", a "English creation" , an "American creation, a "Schism"... or something in that order to fix the chronology properly so it flows better. Thanks Wjhonson 03:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I left a message for the person who submitted the American Co-Masonry material, requesting them to clean it up. That was just after they submitted it; not hearing anything back from them I've just cleaned it up myself. Removing the cleanup tag. Fuzzypeg 00:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)