Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

This is an archived talkpage. Please discuss on the active talkpage. WegianWarrior 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

We seem to be going in circles on whether to include or exclude the UGLE and GLS websites in the external links. As a compromise, I have shifted them to the Bibliography section. Blueboar 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, one of the inclusion reverts would have been by me. I was under the belief that we discussed this matter neigh on nine or more months back and it was on consensus that of the GL's we'd refrain from listing them but retain UGLE and GLS for reference purposes. If that has since been revised then it goes to show my negligence to keep up with talk pages of late. Either way, again, my apologies. Jachin 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jachin, your memory is correct. We did discuss this and agree to keep UGLE and GLS (in the context of cutting several links to other GLs). However, those who claim that linking to these sites in the external links would be redundant (since we already link to them several times in the article footnotes) do have a point. This is why I figured we should move them to the Bibliography. If people disagree, I am very flexible on the issue. Blueboar 12:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar - I think that sounds reasonable (putting them in the Bibliography), unless there's a specific citation from one of the sites. Bdevoe 17:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't look in a bib section for an external link to a governing or administrative body of an association of any form. Jachin 22:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi All; some one needs to check and review the external links, some seem to be broken such as the link to Masonic books on-line. Thanks, JDAyer

Rose Croix

Moved to Talk:Scottish_Rite#Rose_Croix

Escaper7's edits

I reverted these because they violate WP formatting policies. External links is always External links, and I don't know what that other stuff was. This is a general article on Freemasonry, and to start adding very country-specific info skews the article away from its purpose, which is a general introduction ot Freemasonry in general. MSJapan 16:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to draw attention to what you describe as horribly botched edits in the summary box, or create a sub heading on talk pages regarding one editor's contributions. See: Wikipedia:Civility. Online content is online content - not On Line. If you follow the Wiki style book to the letter, the sub-head should be On line... and perhaps someone who knows nothing about freemasonry would like to know where they can find more information on masonic charities. Escaper7 17:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Escaper, you seem very defensive about your edits. Relax a bit. Please understand that just as you are free to add material, others are free to delete it if they disagree. Many of the editors who work on the various Freemasonry pages have been doing so for quite a long time. Over the years, they have reached a certain consensus on the direction that this article is going to take, what types of material should and should not be added, and how to set things up. One of the things we have all agreed on is that, in general, changes should be discussed before editing. This does not mean you should not participate, but it does mean that when you add things without discussing them first it is more likely that someone will undo it as going against that concensus. Blueboar 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I've had articles I've started merged, deleted, edited, vandalised; like everyone else, but good faith is easily lost when edits, not intended as vandalism, are subjected to un-civil remarks in the edit summary. This is supposed to be a talk page about an article, not about one editor's contribution/s. Incidentally, one of the key sections of the discussion above, was from a reader who said they were none the wiser having read this article. Escaper7 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some people come here looking for the answer to very specific questions, which can not be answered in a general overview article. I don't think we should try to explain everything that could possibly be asked by every reader. To some extent that is what sub-articles are for. To use the current issue, the idea is that this article simply says: "Masons are charitable"... and we leave the exact nature of how we put that charity into practice (ie the individual Charities that a given GL may run) to be mentioned in other articles (say the article on the individual GL). If that is not good enough, and you think we need it, start a sub-article on "Masonic Charities". Blueboar 17:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Freemasonry Introduction

I am not happy with the introduction to this section. It is far too long and not up to Wiki standards. I have replaced it with the introduction from the Anti-Masonry page which I feel is far better, at least until something approaching readablity is achieved on these two paragraphs.Literaryagent 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Freemasonry has historically attracted criticism and suppression from the politically extreme right (i.e. Nazi Germany) and the extreme left (i.e. the former Communist states in Eastern Europe). The fraternity has encountered both applause for “founding”, and opposition for supposedly thwarting, liberal democracy (such as the United States of America). It has also attracted criticism and suppression from theocratic states and organised religions for supposed competition with religion, or heterodoxy within the Fraternity itself.

• Anti-Masonry is often related to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. Andrew Prescott writes: "Since at least the time of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anti-semitism has gone hand in hand with anti-masonry, so it is not surprising that allegations that 11 September was a Zionist plot have been accompanied by suggestions that the attacks were inspired by a masonic world order."

I can see that this might not work as an introduction to the section... but the material is notable and should be included in some form. As a first step, I have placed it back under the sub-section heading of "Political". If you have a better idea for where to place it, or can come better wording that says the same thing but in more succinct language, I am open to suggestions. Blueboar 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how does this intro tell the reader about Freemasonry, given the following items: Freemasonry is datable to at least 1717, and speculatively earlier. Where is the information on Masonry's philosophical principles? I can't believe that you honestly think that your changes create a decent introduction for anyone besides a person with a preconceived notion of a Satanist Masonic New World Order. I'm not AGF on this at all, especially since policy on this page is to discuss major edits before making them. MSJapan 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand MSJapan's reluctance to AGF, given this editor's previous two edit summaries. Calling references "biased Masonic fantasy history writing" and "biased pro-masonic works" does not engender good faith. That said, we have often said that we are not completely happy with the entire section... some work on it is indeed needed (if not for the reasons User:Literaryagent gives). I will sand box the section and see if I can work up something a bit more acceptable. Blueboar 20:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Done it for you :-) Generic Character 20:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not too shabby! Thanks. This is a good clean up of the section as it stood. I still want to see if I can come up with an acceptable version that incorporates a complete overhaul, but that is another project for another day. Blueboar 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks. I notice that both Arabic and Japanese articles are very POV critical on this subject - yet are highly regarded. Generic Character 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Literaryagent has many ideal points that this part of the article is biased as it is trying to to avoid Neutrality by being more as if it is freemason-pro. It suggest that the freemason were a subject of being victimised and making readers seem feel sorrow for their suppression which is an attribute of a non-nuetral Author and/or article. It would please me and many others if the first two paragraphs of this article would be re-written in a more appropriate form such as removing words such as "supposedly". Also it bothers me that their is no information on what is said in the agreemnt of oaths taken in this society at any "level". I am not anit-masonary but it proves there is nothing to be hidden or oppose the freemasons supposed focus on good morality. Thanks. --Gundiy3 09:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Ů

Well, first of all, the word "supposedly" doesn't appear in the first two paragraphs, and I have no idea, therefore, as to what it is in those paragraphs you object to. The word "supposedly" does appear in the political opposition section, but it is perfectly legitimate there, as it is a factual statement - it is a fact that the statement is made, and it is also a fact that there is no actual proof of Masonic suppression of liberal democracy whatsoever. As for your other question, not only are the obligations one of the private aspects of Freemasonry, a lack of standardization within Freemasonry makes it impossible to come up with something that everyone everywhere will find to be accurate. MSJapan 10:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cultural References - Marilyn Manson

Towards the end of the cultural references list it is mentioned that the album Holy Wood by Marilyn Manson alludes to Freemasonry in song titles, lyrics, and sounds. The only reference I see is the title of the song King Kill 33, which is named after the essay King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in the Assassination of John F.Kennedy. The rest of the lyrics and song titles don't seem to make any references to Freemasonry at all. As for making references using sounds, what could that possibly be? Any thoughts?

No idea. Perhaps it should be cut until we know more info? Blueboar 12:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't cut it but just modify it. I'll revise the wording until someone explains otherwise. --Nsbendel 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go. From MetroActive Music:

Continuing in the Kennedy vein, the militant Ministry-styled "King Kill 33°" is titled after an in-depth analysis by James Shelby Downard and Michael A. Hoffman II that speculates on the Masonic symbolism of the Kennedy assasination. The rare tract (which can be purchased online at www.hoffman-info.com) seems to be the work of conspiracy analysts with vast references to sorcery, mysticism, rituals and the science of names.

The work says that the 33rd degree is the highest in Freemasonry and that Kennedy was killed only 10 miles from the 33rd degree of latitude. It also states that "it is a prime tenet of Masonry that its assassins come in threes," disputing the lone gunman theory. It goes on to say "Something died in the American people on November 22, 1963--call it idealism, innocence or the quest for moral excellence." This statement proposes that in only one day, American society took a dramatic turn for the worse, a concept that likely struck Manson's fancy.

"King Kill 33°" suggests that in alchemy--a subject that Manson has been studying--the "Killing of the King" was symbolized by a crucified snake on a tau cross, a T-shaped cross like the one on which Jesus was crucified. The inside of Holy Wood's cover is lined with tarot cards, and the Magician card reveals Manson holding a variation of that very image with a snake wrapped around an image of Christ on a crucifix.

Therefore, it's really quite questionable as to the accuracy of the statement - Manson was talking about alchemy and ideals, and the cross is not a Masonic symbol. Even the reviewer isn't making a judgment on it either way. I'd remove the statement. MSJapan 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good research. I'll remove it until it can be proven otherwise. --Nsbendel 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ye Antient Order of Noble Corks

Dear Brethren... In response to a request at the Freemasonry Project, I started the (Sub?) article Ye Antient Order of Noble Corks. This has attracted a Wiki-lawter from the off - so if you want to save it from deletion, why not have a go at supporting it, and if possible provide third party references, etc. (Gives 3º distress sign) :-( Generic Character 14:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how much I can help, the only information I have is the ritual itself and the amplifying notes on my Cork Lodge calling notice, in fact here we require candidates to be HRA and at least a Warden in the craft. I'll have a look though and see what I can add.ALR 14:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ALR, that's great anyway. (Wow, they have a printed ritual - "I'd like one o' dose!" Any ISBN number to quote, or is it privately published?). Let's keep the flag flying! :-) Generic Character 14:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is join, you get one as part of the ritual.ALR 15:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll look into that, but I've joined two other orders this season, already - I'm running out of evenings in the week - and I'm off to a Mark visit now! :-) Generic Character 15:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a ref for the Corks being part of the AMD in the US. Hope this helps. Blueboar 17:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks to those who have improved Ye Antient Order of Noble Corks thus far. :-) Generic Character 12:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has done his bit promoting the Cork Degree on Masonic webforums, I can only give this entry my own resounding approval, and urge all eligible Masons to join in.

Nuttyskin 21:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs from Oppostion Section needing rewording

I find the following two paragraphs needlessly prejudicial to the critics of Freemasonry. It paints all criticism of Freemasonry in the light of these two fringe groupings. The second paragraph is quoting a Masonic Researcher whose intent seems to be to cast the critics of Masonry in as poor as light as possible. The first paragraph is really a bit silly. Mainstream critiques of Freemasonry today come from Civil and Religious concerns, not this sort of thing.Literaryagent 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry has long been a target associated with the New World Order and other "agents", such as the Illuminati - seen by conspiracy theorists, as either bent on world domination, or already secretly in control of world politics. Historically it has attracted criticism - and suppression - from both the politically extreme right (i.e. Nazi Germany) and the extreme left (i.e. the former Communist states in Eastern Europe). The Fraternity has encountered both applause for “founding”, and opposition for supposedly thwarting, liberal democracy (such as the United States of America).

In some countries anti-Masonry is often related to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism. Andrew Prescott, of the University of Sheffield, writes: "Since at least the time of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anti-semitism has gone hand in hand with anti-masonry, so it is not surprising that allegations that 11 September was a Zionist plot have been accompanied by suggestions that the attacks were inspired by a masonic world order."

They also come from these sorts of things as well. Are you seriously trying to say that Pat Robertson's book, in which he made the NWO claim in 1991, and moreover that Pat Robertson himself, who hosts a nationally syndicated program and even ran for President, wasn't mainstream enough? Moreover, the other statements made are historically accurate. Also note that this section is really supposed to be a summary of the material in the main article (thus the link). MSJapan 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To begin with the title of the section sets the content and the tone of the material that should appear beneath it. If it doesn't then set up an additional section so the material appearing beneath it will be described appropriately. In this case the section is described as Opposition to Freemasonry. In these two paragraphs we find that the content is clearly not 'Opposition to Freemasonry' but instead 'The Opinions of some Freemasons to Opposition of Freemasonry'. Furthermore the paragraphs are placed first, and are from the extreme end of the spectrum, in that they take speculative or exceptional objections and attempt to extrapolate them as an example of the main critique. Pat Robertson the last time I heard was not a critic of Freemasonry, you will find no such information on his website, nor in his television program, nor am I aware of any current critics of Masonry using or displaying anything he may have written. In fact I am not sure what he has written on Masonry, if anything. The term Illuminati is very pejoritive to the critrics of Masonry, it is akin to the term Conspiracy Theorist. In regard to Mr. Prescott, I believe he is a Freemason and not an academic. His comments are again quite pejoritive to the critics of Masonry focusing on completely unreferenced accusations that really border on slander. I think it is a bit of a case of 'gaming' by Freemason to throw out the line of Nazi any time a criticism of themselves is brought forth. It seems the only purpose to have that information there is to paint the critics in as poor as light as possible. Let the voice of those who are opposed speak and if you wish to attack them, then do it in a seperate section, but clearly labled as such. In any event the accusations regarding the Nazi's are quite flimsy as well as the figure of 200,000 Masons perishing in the Holocaust given in that section. I think that figure comes straight out of thin air. I've never seen it anywhere. Masonry in Europe is not a Mass movement, the Grand Orient of France has only 25,000 members for example, and the numbers is most other European states, with Britian being the exception, are equally small. I understand that you don't like the critics of Masonry and don't accept those criticisms but there is a better way of handling it than putting silly speculative things into this article.Literaryagent 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In reguards to Andrew Prescott... As far as I know he is not a Mason (although I do not know for sure) ... but he is certainly an accademic. He is a History Proffessor at the University of Sheffield, who's specialty is Masonic history.

This is the University's webpage about him, where they say:

• Andrew is Director of the Centre for Research into Freemasonry, the first such centre to be established in a British university. Andrew studied history at the University of London. He was a curator in the Department of Manuscripts in the British Library from 1979-2000. Among the many jobs he undertook in the British Library was the planning and supervision of the move of the Manuscript Collections from the British Museum building to the Librarys new premises at St Pancras. He was the principal library contact for the British Library's Electronic Beowulf project.

As to your other issues, I disagree with your contention that nothing positive about Freemasonry (or negative about the critics of Freemasonry) should go into a section entitled "Opposition"... the point of such a section is to talk about such opposition. It is not simply a place to list criticisms. The section does indeed need work, but the information presented is completely valid and well referenced, and this information should be included in any re-write. Blueboar 14:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the paragraphs quoted are under the heading "Political Opposition" not the general topic "Opposition to Masonry". As such the introduction does summarize most of the political opposition to Masonry except perhaps nineteenth century concerns, such as the Morgan affair and the association of leaders like Bolivar and Garibaldi with Masonry. I can't say that I like the last sentence in the first paragraph much myself: it doesn't include much information and no references. I would like LiteraryAgent to identify the "mainstream" political opposition he refers to, along with the rationale supporting it, with references, so we know what we're supposed to be considering. --Bolognaking 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of the two paragraphs is to poison the readers mind to the criticism of Freemasonry that follows in the remainder of the section. That is the reason they were put there. In fact the two paragraphs were previously the old introduction to the section that were removed and replaced by the introduction taken from the Freemasonry opposing views page. The material is poorly referenced from non-existant or biased unscholarly sources. Prescott is a Mason funded by a Masonic bursery. Hoddapp doesn't provide a single reference in his book. These are purely poison pen paragraphs, and have no place in this section - if anywhere on Wikipedia.Literaryagent 12:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the purpose of criticism of Freemasonry is to poison the readers mind to Freemasonry. The material here is exceptionally well referenced, in the forefront of Wiki standards. Criticism of Freemasonry is included and referenced as fairly as is practicable. I do not find any religious, political, or service organisation in the Wiki project that gives voice or space to its opponents to the degree that Freemasonry does here. Poison pen paragraphs are entirely on the opposition side; usually by uniformed minds that are underemployed in holding on to reality. In my humble opinion, nothing in Freemasonry conflicts with either members' religious or political duties in free liberal democracies. Those who would want either a religious or political dictatorship are the enemies of all free humanity, Freemason or not. I am a practicing (Reformed) Christian, to my own conscience, and do not need to conform to any religious or political dictator of a regime that I do not subscribe to - since I am lucky to live in a (relatively) liberal democracy. The Christian God, I worship, is the Sovereign God of compassion, and freely gives Humanity the gift of free will. To opponents of Freemasonry, I say,” Do not comment on the splinter in my eye, whilst ignoring the beam in your own". Generic Character 17:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC) May I add that reality may be relatively mundane, but is it not fortuitous that we do live here; and not live in the poisoned dystopian worlds of the conspiracy theorists? Thanks be to God!Generic Character 17:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The two paragraphs are hyperbolic unencyclopedic nonsense. They are simply the hate filled ravings of some Masons against their critics. They are completely unreferenced. Masons love to quote each other, that is how their histories became chock-a-block with such gems as Atlantis, Egyptian Pyramids, Grand Lodge of Sirius, Jesus the Grand Master of Freemasonry, and Andersons Constitutions. Masons love to denegrate their critics by throwing out the canard of conspiracy theorists and Illuminati. The Nazi Holocaust confounding with Freemasonry is but another example of Masonic Fantasty-History. A non-academic writes a book, that contains not a single reference or bibliography, and then gets quoted by other masons here at Wikipedia. Ditto for Prescott, not an academic, but a partisan propagandist on the payroll of the Grand Lodge England. These paragraphs are completely ridiculous and must be removed. They were the old introduction and were removed because they were biased and poorly written. They certainly do not belong in the body of the section.Literaryagent 12:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Literaryagent... how can you continue to claim that Prescott is not an academic... He is a history professor at the University of Sheffield in England. I have pointed you to the page at the university's websight. I have even quoted his credentials (see above). The Centre for Research into Freemasonry is a University project... not a Masonic one. The Grand Lodge of England does not fund it.

You claim Prescott is a Mason... do you have any proof of that, or is this simply your own conclusion because he says positive things about Freemasonry? But even if he is, what has that to do with anything? Would you discount a statement by a Catholic in an article about Catholicism? Would you bar a statement by a member of the Knights of Columbus in an article about the KCs?

You object to Hoddapp's statement about the Nazi's killing Masons for similar reasons, and because he does not provide referenced in his "For Dummies" book... but the folks who publish the "For Dummies" series would not let him include such statements if they though he was making it up. They provide the editorial oversight, which is what is required under WP:RS. By their asking him to write the book they designated him as an expert.

The two statements you object to are indeed referenced. The fact that you do not like the references because they are pro-masonic is not an acceptable reason to delete them. Given your comments, I can no longer assume good faith... I have reached the conclusion that it is not the sources that are biased and POV, but you. Blueboar 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As a further note on the subject of good faith ... editors might want to check out the comments by a proven Lightbringer puppet (an anon with a typical Lightbringer ISP) in the discussion: Holocaust and Freemasonry for Dummies in Archive 22 .... sound like someone we know? Say good-bye Lightbringer! Blueboar 13:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: Literaryagent has been confirmed as a sock of the banned Lightbringer. Not really shocking news... WegianWarrior 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One down... many more to go. Until next time then... thanks to all who worked on spoting him (and proving it) this time around. Blueboar 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Bob R. Riley

I'm not particularly interested in this subject, but someone may want to enter something about a recent mini-scandal in the Alabama gubernatorial election and Bob R. Riley which may have some bearing on the question of Freemasonry and segregation:

In August 2006, a [[Birmingham, Alabama]] radio talk show publicized the Governor, [[Bob R. Riley|Riley's]] membership in the all-white [[Grand Lodge of Alabama]]. The issue was explored in a widely-published [[Associated Press]] article where Riley and other Grand Lodge members denied that the group discriminates. The Grand Lodge Master, Frank Little said that he knew of no blacks among its 32,000+ members statewide, he vowed in the article to dissolve any lodge that barred their admission.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-24/1159551248101570.xml&storylist=alabamanews | title = Ala. governor defends membership in white Masonic lodge | accessdate = 2006-10-08 | date = [[2006-09-29]] | work = | publisher = NewFlash, AP }}</ref>

I've read about this; it's really an issue of a Southern state with desegregation issues, and it's more applicable to Prince Hall in the "separate but equal" section. This is by no means systematic, either - I know quite a few non-white Brethren in my GL, some of whom even hold GL positions. Freemasonry has never claimed to be an all-white organization, and this is the exception rather then the norm these days. MSJapan 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just to provide the links: Prince Hall and Prince Hall Freemasonry --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that the man, Prince Hall, was raised as a Mason in a Lodge in the United States that was recognized by the Grand Lodge of England. Prince Hall wanted to raise other, less affluent, African Americans and the lodge where he was raised rejected the idea. Masonry is primarily a service and charity oriented organization and probably not a good choice for people who are having difficulty just surviving for whatever reason. Prince Hall petitioned the Grand Lodge of England for permission to start a Lodge that would allow less affluent members to join and permission was granted, provided they remained economically viable. After a few years however the Lodge Prince Hall started was unable to meet its financial obligations to the parent organization and was declared Profane by the GLE. The Prince Hall Lodge continued and eventually flourished. Because GLE has the right to waive lodge fees and did not in the case of the Prince Hall lodge the split has been described as racist. While race probably had something to do with the split the underlying issues were more the economics of a charitable organization maintaining many charitable operations such as the more modern Shrine Hospitals. The section on Prince Hall really needs to be updated to reflect the real history of that organization. Prince Hall has become a very strong Masonic organization with strict membership requirements. Thanks JDAyer

Rudyard Kipling

I did a fair bit of research on Kipling two years ago for a University course, a good portion of my research specifically on The Man Who Would Be King, which is referenced in this article. The Kipling section of this article notes that Kipling was a freemason.

Though it seems that considering the nature of the masons we might not be able to know for sure, all sources that I have read (these being books on Kipling from the university library; not much is available online) indicate that Kipling was in fact not a mason. He was apparently fascinated with freemasonry, hence its inclusion in many of his works, but was denied entry (possibly more than once) when he applied to join the local lodge while working at the Civil and Military Gazette newspaper in what was then Lahore, India. His time there and his work at the newspaper inspired The Man Who Would Be King, and thus it follows that things that interested him while he was there (e.g. freemasonry) would make it into the story.

I won't edit the article because I don't have the sources handy, but maybe it should be changed anyway (perhaps by simply removing the sentence, though this may leave the question of Kipling being a mason too ambiguous) since whoever wrote that Kipling was a mason didn't leave a source either.

Kipling was indeed a Freemason... see this page for the details. Blueboar 01:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I came, I saw, I referenced. :-) Generic Character 09:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The [link Blueboar provided to BC Canada's GL] provides the following info:

Rudyard Kipling

Hope and Perseverance Lodge No. 782. E.C. Lahore, India

Initiated: April 5, 1886 (by dispensation)

Passed: May 3, 1886

Raised: December 6, 1886

Demitted: March 4, 1889

Sociata Rosicruciana in Anglia

Joined: July 8, 1909

Honorary Member:

Author's Lodge No. 3456, E.C.

Motherland Lodge No. 3861, E.C.

Founding Member (January, 1922):

The Builders of the Silent Cities Lodge No. 12, St. Omer, France, F.R.

Also, he was added to Talk:List of Freemasons/citation#k Grye 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Liberté chérie (Freemasonry) In English

I came, I saw, I translated (well, kind of...) ;-) Generic Character 00:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Female Masonnry?

Hello, I'm just wondering, as i herd it off a person somewhere, that there are some form of female lodges and female freemasonry, allthough its not fully acepted by the grand lodges, and i was wondering if there was any substance to this (Sorry about mistakes if any, as i don't know how free masonry works)

Oz

Greetings, Oz,

Well, there's the Order of the Eastern Star, which is an auxilliary organization to mainstream Freemasonry. There's Co-Freemasonry, with recognizes both male and female members, but is not accepted by the mainstream Masonic lodges. Either one of those what you're looking for? Justin Eiler 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

/editconflict with the above:

You might want to have a look at Women and Freemasonry and Co-Freemasonry (linked from this article). Some information can also be found at Masonic Landmarks and Regular Masonic jurisdictions. WegianWarrior 19:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks For clearing that up, wasnt too sure myself Oz

Hi All. This article is pretty weak on describing the various "Masonic" organizations of which there are many and it seems to focus on a couple such as GLE. Some "Masonic" organizations recognize each other and some do not, which the article does point out, although it gives the idea that there are just a couple. Some "Masonic" organizations have strict and specific membership rules and some do not. The "Masonic" organizations which derive their beginnings from the Grand Lodge of England are probably what most people think of as "Masonic", however, there are hundreds of groups which call themselves "Masons" which have no relationship to nor derive their beginnings from the GLE. In fact I have read anti-Masonic articles which reference by-laws from non-GLE organizations and relate them to GLE organizations. If that does not confuse things enough there are so many stories about “drinking blood out of a skull” around (which I hear rumored is actually part of a ritual in a “lodge” not associated with the GLE) that it becomes near impossible for a non-Mason to understand or define what a "Masonic" organization is. For example, a GLE lodge recognizes itself and other recognized lodges as "Masonic" and anyone else calling themselves "Masonic" is really a "Profane", but, to another "Masonic" organization with different rules and rituals the exact opposite is true. Thanks JDA.

Edit and Revert question

Balongnaking recently made this edit. As it involves a cited line, I have reverted on the general principle that such edits should be discussed first. It actually looks like a good edit to me (the line is a bit out of place in the paragraph), but I wanted to make sure people saw it and had a chance to comment. Does anyone object, or can Bk go ahead and re-cut the line? Blueboar 02:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It belongs there, as it addresses cronyism in that rather than being asked by someone else, you have to request membership yourself. It's just not quite right. I'll fix it. MSJapan 02:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. An accusation of cronyism is not answered by saying that one must request membership. The response to that will be "So what? If you're not a crony, you'll get blackballed anyway." The objection is not that people are forced or requested to join, but that some people may be prevented from joining. It is assumed by some non-Masons that the black ball is used to keep membership within a close group. (Check out Monty Python's Architect's Sketch for an example of this perception) In addition, the suspicion is that Masons show favouritism to other Masons in business or similar circumstances by an "old boys' network". This is the more damaging allegation, and it is quite irrelevant that the Masons in question asked to join the Lodge rather than being asked by someone else to join it. --Bolognaking 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Networking is not the same as cronyism; you're mixing arguments. WP defines ctronyism as "partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to public office without regard for their qualifications." Thus it implies a hierarchical relationship between members which doesn't exist in Masonry. Now, whether a Mason chooses to go to another Mason for business dealings is his own personal decision, and has nothing to do with cronyism or the Lodge at all. MSJapan 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

MSJ, for my own understanding... how does saying that a Mason must ask to join (as opposed to being asked) address the charges of "being a network, where individuals become Freemasons through patrimony, and engage in 'cronyism' – where political influence and illegal business dealings take place." ? How does the line... "In order to start the process of becoming a Freemason, an individual must ask to join the Fraternity freely and without persuasion." address this? Are we perhaps only addressing part of the accusation? Blueboar 19:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem might be that the agument itself is split. Cronyism as I see it (per the earlier definition), has to do with Person A appointing Person B to something that will benefit A, whether or not B can do the job or not. Similarly, we would have to consider cronyism in a Lodge the act of Brother A getting Candidate B into the Lodge because it would benefit A, not because B was at all suitable. Now, what happens inside the Lodge business-wise or otherwise has nothing to do with cronyism; the members of the Lodge are already members, and thus it is networking, which is up to the individual member - there is no guarantee, for example, that one will get a lot of business from one's Lodge, whereas cronyism presupposes the benefit. So it's the problem that two arguments are being conflated into a tautology of sorts. MSJapan 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right; there are two arguments here. The allegation of cronyism really does not have to do with the internal workings of the lodge; it's more of a complaint of non-Masons that "so-and-so got the job/promotion/contract because he's a Mason and so is the guy in charge of awarding the job/promotion/contract". It's implied that the successful Mason lacked the qualifications that the complainer claims to posess. There is a seperate argument which goes that the members of the Lodge will use the black ball to ensure that only their friends get into the Lodge. Implicit in this argument is that membership in the Lodge confers valuable political or business influence which is denied non-members. The response to both is simply that such things do not happen and are explicitly denounced by Grand Lodges. But saying that candidates come of their own free will and accord does not answer either.--Bolognaking 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

MSJ, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of cronyism. To me, the allegation of cronyism is that Brother A "arranges" for his long time freind, Candidate B, to be elected to the lodge - to the benefit of friend B (ie B gets to share in the "privileges of membership", which a critic of Masonry would probably define as ranging from job preferment and insider networking to a chance to rule the World and be part of the Great Masonic Conspiracy, depending on how nutso the critic is.) Remember, much of such criticism assumes that there is something shady going on in the lodge. Membership would give a candidate a chance to benefit from those shady doings. Naturally, say the critics, Masons would only let their freinds in on the deal. Bk is correct in saying that the line at issue does not answer these critics, who say that you can not join unless you "know the right people". I would leave the line (as it does address what you have been talking about) but I think we need more. We need to find another reference to refute what the critics say. Blueboar 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we clarify what these objections are? I really don't think the sentence from the article BB quoted above is very clear and this discussion bears that out. I understand the complaint BB describes but I'm still not sure what MSJ is talking about. I think getting rid of the word "patrimony" might be a start; I followed that link and it was absolutely unhelpful. --Bolognaking 22:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As for Patrimony... I think it are refering to charges of nepotism... fathers "reserving" spots in the lodge for their sons. But I agree that the entire paragraph needs some work... here is is in full so we can disect it and re-work it properly:

• Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is still sometimes accused of being a network, where individuals become Freemasons through patrimony, and engage in 'cronyism' – where political influence and illegal business dealings take place. This is officially and explicitly deplored in Freemasonry. In order to start the process of becoming a Freemason, an individual must ask to join the Fraternity "freely and without persuasion." <ref name="UGLE home"/>

Blueboar 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like "nepotism". How about:

• Even in modern democracies, Freemasonry is still sometimes accused of being a network where individuals engage in 'cronyism', using their Masonic connections for political influence and shady business dealings. This is officially and explicitly deplored in Freemasonry. <ref name="UGLE home"/> It is also charged that men become Freemasons through nepotism or that they are offered incentives to join. This is not the case; no lodge member may control membership in the lodge and in order to start the process of becoming a Freemason, an individual must ask to join the Fraternity "freely and without persuasion." <ref name="UGLE home"/>

--Bolognaking 05:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Blueboar 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it, except you can wikilink cronyism (which might be useful) and I don't like the nepotism bit; not only is it too narrow (I think we really want 'patronization' here), how else do you explain a Lewis save a favorable impression of the Fraternity gained through one's father? MSJapan 18:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll use "patronage" which we can also wikilink. I'm making the change.--Bolognaking 19:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Forgive me and please let me know if this is not an appropriate use, but I wondered if anyone can make heads or tails of this page. Features a masonic emblem and meaningless text in low contrast, but nothing else I can find. http://www.alltheconspiracies.com/

Not really an approprite usse, no, but easy enough to sort out. It's not a low contrast page, it's just a picture, and it looks to be a contest of some sort. MSJapan 05:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's something like a riddle. http://www.alltheconspiracies.org/[youranswerhere].html

Begin with: http://www.alltheconspiracies.org/whatdoestheeyewant.html

If no question appears, remove the cookies of your browser for that page. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, don't even bother. Not really worth it. Blueboar 13:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

True. It's just a game with a nice design, but the questions and answers have not much in common with Freemasonry. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fun, even though I can't get past 'whatdoestheeyewant.html' because I suck.  :( Jachin 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed guideline that would relate to Freemasonry

Just came across the proposed guideline: Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises and thought "hey, this relates to the various Freemasonry articles". It is an off shoot of the WP:BLP guideline that treats active organizations in a similar way to living persons. While not yet an official guideline, it is a step in the right direction. I thought I should share it with everyone. Blueboar 14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Morgan issue

I note that User:Mamalujo has returned and is seeking to insert a slight modification to the form of words related to the Morgan affair that we agreed was inappropriate in the article. Example from 14th July with associated discussion here.

ISTR that consensus was that it could reasonably go into the Morgan article but was probably too much detail in this article.ALR 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that looked familiar. Reverted (while keeping Bks new stuff.) Blueboar 20:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I wasn't a part of the discussion in July (although I read it), but it seems to me that the statement "no one was brought to trial for the murder or kidnapping" is both misleading and disingenuous. It suggests that nobody faced any legal consequences as a result of the incident which is simply untrue. The chief objection to the earlier edits as I read it was that they were verbose. If it's too verbose to say that some people were convicted for false imprisonment then it's too verbose to say that no-one was convicted for murder. I don't find this version to be too bulky and I'd be inclined to restore it. --Bolognaking 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is one paragraph that I would pair down even more. I don't think we need to go into any detail about what the Morgan Affair was on this page (if people want more info, we prominently link to a much more complete article on the subject). The only reason to include it in this section is that it is another example of historical political anti-masonry. In other words, the affair itself is not important to this section... what is important is the reaction to it - the forming of the Anti-Masonic Party. I would suggest we cut the reference to the trial entirely and go with:

• Freemasonry in America faced political pressure following the disappearance of anti-Masonic agitator William Morgan in 1826. Reportage of the "Morgan Affair" helped fuel an Anti-Masonic movement, culminating in the formation of a short lived “Anti-Masonic Party” which fielded candidates for the Presidential elections of 1828 and 1832.

Blueboar 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Bolognaking 02:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And now done. --Bolognaking 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi All: Morgan was actually a Mason, although I am not sure he was a Mason of the Third Degree or Master Mason. My understanding is that Morgan was not so much anti-Masonic as greedy. My understanding is that Morgan submitted a "Masonic Manual" for printing and the outrage among Masons was more regarding the inaccuracies than the publication of "Masonic Secrets". The manual was so inaccurate that it has not survived the years when others have. In fact, the inaccuracies in Morgan’s manual led to the publication of several other manuals by Masons which were and are accurate enough to have survived. Duncan’s is probably the most respected and reprinted.

It should be also noted that in an age where methods of communication were very limited "secret" passwords and signs enabled people who did not know each other to "know" that they had each been chosen by unanimous decision of a group as being "on the square". Publication of the "secrets" of Masonry, which had happened before Morgan and did happen again after Morgan, destroyed the ability of Masons to instantly trust each other on contact. This kind of lost "instant trust" would upset people who depended on that trust. It does not take much common sense to understand that the people who would lose the most from this "lost trust" would be non-Masons who represented themselves as Masons after learning the secrets and then used that trust to engage in criminal activities such as confidence games. It would not surprise me if it was discovered that those who attacked Morgan and represented themselves as Masons were just con-men upset at losing their "game". Real Masons generally have friends and acquaintances in common and have no trouble establishing themselves without secrets, so the secrets are of value only to the “boy” in the man and certainly not worth killing over.

I suppose though that propaganda and conspiracy theories being as popular today as they were in Morgan’s day the idea that there are fraternal secrets worth killing over will always appeal to the kind of people who enjoy soap operas. There will always be those who take advantage of that love of soap operas for their own reasons and to achieve their own goals in spite of reality. Thanks JDAyer

Inquisition

I am missing some words about the Inquisition that murdered loads of Freemasons.

Catholicism and Freemasonry#Freemasonry and The Inquisiton - But this is also very short and is more apologetic. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I misunderstand what you are asking for... Are you saying that we should mention the Crudeli and Coustos matters? If so, I disagree. While historically there has been Anti-masonic actions taken by the Church (and by the inquisition), these two are extreme cases that do not reflect the norm. To put it another way... The Inqusition never "murdered loads of Freemasons". It was involved in assisting the supression of Freemasonry in Catholic states such as Austria, Spain, and Portugal during the 1800s... but not to the point of murder.

Besides, these two cases really did not play a much of roll in the developement of Freemasonry. Discussing them would be an un-needed side track in an already overly long article. This article should concentrate on telling the reader what Freemasonry is (and to a lesser extent what it is not)... the Crudeli and Coustos matters do not have any relevance to that topic. Blueboar 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The case of Crudeli and Coustos is just one example in Portugal. Additionally to this "event", two more autodafés followed the same year. Persecution continued by Josef I. Maria I cooperated with the inquisitor Alvara José Radelhan and the Freemasons were committed the inquisition. Even before, the Grand Inquisitor Orbe y Larreategui put through an edict against Freemasonry and Philip V of Spain banned all Freemasons from Spain. After the second papal bull Ferdinand VII of Spain was accused by José Torrubi, censor and revisor of the highest authority in the Curia, so the King stated that he will "wipe out this order with all its reputation". Luckily he didn't follow Torrubi's demand to burn the Freemasons "for the greater glorification of the faith and to strengthen the faith in an autodafé".

In 1775, the inquisitor P. Mabile attacked the Mother Lodge in Avignon. In 1785, several Freemasons were burned in Venice and the state inquisitor Girolamo Diedo ordered to search for Freemasons in Verona. The French Worshipful Master of a Lodge was imprisoned. In Rome and Padua, there were other attacks. There was also a public Book burning of Cagliostro's book about Egyptian Freemasonry. On September 25, 1814, 25 Freemasons were incarcerated of the prison of the inquision for six years in Madrid. In 1815, five Freemasons were hanged, in 1819 two Freemasons died under torture in Madrid. In 1825, seven Freemasons were executed, the following February, Antonio Caro died with the shout "Long life Freemasonry" and after his execution they cut off his right hand.

Just to list a few examples of my masonic encyclopedia.

"Not the norm" and the inquision was just "involved in assisting the supression", they did not murder lots of Freemasons and this "did not play a much of roll in the developement of Freemasonry"? --Liberal Freemason (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the inquisition did not play much of a roll in the developement of Freemasonry. None of these events had a lasting impact on the fraternity as a whole. I suppose you could say that these events encouraged Continental (Grand Orient) style Freemasonry to become even more anti-clerical and politically active during the early 1800s. But as there were plenty of other reasons why this branch of the Craft became so active politically, to make a big deal of the inquisition skews the historical record. At best, it would rate a few sentences in the opposition section as yet another example of opposition, and I think it would end up being an un-needed side track (we already over-discuss the fact that the Catholic Church opposes the fraternity). Instead, I would suggest beafing up the section at Catholicism and Freemasonry, as that article relates more directly to the issue. Blueboar 13:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The idea that any article on a subject should ignore the bigotry and opposition against the subject is in direct opposition to objectivity.

Freemasonry and the Catholic Church have been at odds for hundreds of years and this has undoubtedly resulted in the inquisition, torture and murder of Freemasons. Freemasons believe strongly in Freedom of Religion and Non-Denominational Public Education. Any review of the ritual of the Order of Demolay, a Masonic youth organization, gives the reader a good understanding of the historical position of Freemasonry on Public Education. The Freedom to worship “the One true God” as one pleases is evident in any common Masonic ritual, such as Duncan's. Since religious organizations derive their power and authority by controlling how "God" (or "Gods" if you prefer) must be worshipped the idea that you can worship as you choose will always be attacked by those to whom control of religion is a goal. For reference I suggest that you review the Catholic Church's political position concerning the United States during the time period from the mid 1770's to the early 1800's. Not commonly understood nor cited and well worth the research, although you will have to go a little deeper than common propaganda to gain an understanding of the politics and reality and that is difficult when working with an organization whose damage control operation has people referring to the “Spanish Inquisition”. I appreciate the fact that this section refers to the Inquisition as a whole.

That said, an overview should touch on and not detail any specific issue. I am of the opinion that a well written paragraph on the objection to the Freedom of Religion espoused by Freemasonry by a variety of strict religious organizations which commonly attack Freemasonry would suffice. Thanks JDAyer

Such information is best presented in the article Catholicism and Freemasonry. This article, while mentioning those who oppose the Craft, should keep its focus on the fraternity and not its foes. Blueboar 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Angelo Soliman

• Just a small note: Angelo Soliman. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio, which I found by the last paragraph (that someone fact tagged). That particular author is involved with the Moorish Orthodox Church somehow, as every article he has submitted has been related to it or lifted from it. MSJapan 18:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. I tagged that paragraph because it was... strange. When I have some time, I'll start a translation from the German article. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

Hey all. I'm just wondering if we have a list of things to resolve before we can resubmit this for featured article status. I'm willing to put in some time to make this page just sparkle and hope that one of the frequent contributors may be able to show me the task list. :) Thanks all! Bdevoe 18:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute. I don't think we have a to do list, but there are many areas that need work. The first of them being the "opposition" section (it needs to be tightened up and made more succinct.) I was going to work on this myself, but have not had time to do so. Please feel free to attend to it.

As for resubmitting for featured article status... while I would love for the article to reach a level of information and writing that would qualify it for that status, I strongly suggest that we NEVER submit it no matter how good it gets. At least, not without having a permanent block placed on it first. Given the amount of anti-masonic vandalism that has occured while this article has been a work in progress, featuring it would simply draw even more vandals to it.

Good luck Blueboar 20:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, TBH, the vandals can go fly a kite (or substitute your own similar yet more pejorative statement). I thought the version of this article that was FA was terrible. We've done a lot to this article, it's gotten better, and we might as well put it up for review. I'm pretty sure it meets the criteria set forth in WP:FA, and some feedback from other relatively non-biased people on what to do with this article might be useful. FA articles are protected when they are main page as a matter of course, and our level of vandalism is not really much worse than Arsenal F.C. for example, so I think it's an unwarranted fear. We can discuss it more, but I really do think we should move ahead in the FA process. As usual, all major changes should be discussed prior to incorporation. MSJapan 18:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

While I would love to see this as a feartured article again, might I suggest we run it past peer review first - seems like a lot of people will object to a FAC if no recent PR has taken place. WegianWarrior 18:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea to get the peer review. In the "drivel" comments below, I think it's validly stated (and generally accepted) that there's some redundancy that needs to be addressed. I will take some time over the rest of this week to do some serious review. My history's not so clear, but we have a 33rd in our lodge - I'll hit him up for some review as well. :) Bdevoe 18:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Drivel

I've been away for some time tending to my studies, only to return to find the opening few paragraphs of the FM article filled with drivel and uneccesary quadruple citations and other odd behaviour. Can someone fill me in as to why we're lowering article quality in essence whilst being overly-citatious?

Furthermore, all I have to say is wtf: --

Dr. Dieter Anton Binder,[8] a historian (and not a Freemason) who is a professor at the University of Graz (Austria) describes Freemasonry as a "confidential" society in contrast to a secret society in his book Die diskrete Gesellschaft.[9]

Who? Why? What? We care because? This applies to the article how? Too much discussion about 'secret society' 'society with secrets' for an opening paragraph, needs some hefty trimming. I'm guessing this has come about by visiting editors wanting to contribute things that -they- personally see as cornerstones and something that needs to be waved. Furthermore I am sure we have opposing POV anti-mason agenda pushers who're also adding to the disunity, confusion and mess of the article.  :/

I'll go through and nerf out some (obvious) crap over the next few days and reduce citations to a single (the better of the options) citation. There is no need to list more than one reference for any statement that may be brought into question, if there are multiple, choose the higher quality of the lot and use it. Jachin 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The citation to Dr. Binder was added to demonstrate that the opinion that Freemasonry is "private" as opposed to "secret" is held by more than just the Masons themselves. That was an issue at one point if you go back through the archives. As for the quadrupal citations... that is due to several anti-masonic editors attacking every sentence and citation by saying things like... "well that's just UGLE... but in other jurisdictions they <insert accusation here>" We can probably trim it down. Blueboar 23:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, trimming is essential. There is no point in sacrificing style to appease POV pushing morons. Let them attack each sentence as much as they like, it's our (the editors, masons or otherwise) reaction to it which has led to this article degrading from an A grade. Furthermore, Dr Binder, whom ever the good fellow is, is irrelivant to the Craft and thus should be omitted from the opening paragraph which usually outlines the principle of the rest of the article. Again, sacrificing style to silence the weenies.  :( Jachin 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Schiller, Ode of Joy

I removed[1] the category "German Freemason" from Friedrich Schiller since there is no proof that he was a Freemason, although was in contact with Freemasons. The Freemason Christian Gottfried Körner asked his friend Schiller to write a poem for the Masonic table dinner of the Lodge „Zu den drei Schwertern“ in Dresden. This was the Ode to Joy.

There's still no proof that Ludwig van Beethoven was a Freemason, but there are rumors that he was a member until he was deaf. In 1955, the Freemason (Humanitas Lodge, Vienna) Richard Nikolaus Graf Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed Beethoven's Ode to Joy as the new European Anthem. --Liberal Freemason (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! The same IP added those context-less race mixing cites, to that article of Graf von Coudenhove-Kalergi, too. :-( --Liberal Freemason (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

CNN proves Freemasonry is not a secret society, by virtue of Opus Dei

If you look at the discussion here (as well as the discussion below it), the exact same policies that Opus Dei follows are precisely what Freemasonry follows, thus, Freemasonry is by evidence not a secret society. That should put that to rest. MSJapan 15:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it should... but I doubt it will.  :>) Blueboar 18:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So is Opus Dei identical in organisation to the Freemasons? So no it doesn't prove anything. JASpencer 18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there were various researched (for once) qualifications given for Opus Dei not being a secret society, and that Freemasonry follows those exact same conventions. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. MSJapan 19:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But unless you can find a source that says Freemasonry = Opus Dei then this is original research. And if the source does not have some Catholic standing then you should only say that this is a criticism of the church's position, not proof of the lack of secrecy.

Besides a major church objection to secret societies is that they could bind a member to hold back in the confessional, which Opus Dei or any other church organisation (such as KoC or the NeoCats) cannot do. JASpencer 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting thought: the sourced condemnation of oaths is based on the Knights of Pythias (which, as an aside, had a lot of Jewish members at one time). Now, I have heard that there are similarities between the oaths in FM and KoP, but they are not the same. That's a key issue that is explained here on MasonicInfo that might be of use here, especially since it has the relevant text. In short, if the obligation does not affect one's duties to G-d, one's neighbor, family or self, how is the obligatee in a position to be made to lie in the Confessional, especially when that very situation seems to be prohibited directly in the obligation itself? And, how could Masonry figure into the Confessional situation in the first place? MSJapan 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen the confessional argument in a legitimate Catholic anti-Masonic presentation simply because it does not make any sense. A person is supposed to confess his or her sins to the priest not disclose confidential information. If the Church considers belonging to a Lodge a sin, there is nothing whatsoever in any Masonic obligation which would prevent a Catholic from confessing that he is a Mason. But nobody has to reveal Masonic passwords, the identity of the people who attended the Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, the recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken or any other confidential matter to a priest and the priest probably doesn't want to hear it. As for "secret society" it's one of those loaded words like "cult" or "terrorist" that people apply to organizations they don't like but not to those they do. The premise which underlies this discussion that the term has an objective meaning and list of verifiable characteristics is, as JASpencer points out, false. Therefore the attempt to argue that Opus Dei is not a "secret society" must also fail. --Bolognaking 16:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is something missing in the above discussion... I would agree that John Allen Jr.'s (CNNs Vatican corrispondent) statement about Opus Dei can not be used as a citation source to say Freemasonry isn't a secret society. Allen does not mention Freemasonry in his statement. If someone were to try to apply his statement to Freemasonry in an article, it could indeed be deleted as being original research. But no one is attempting to use his statement in an article. What is happening is that someone is applying his reasoning and logic to make an argument on a talk page. There is no bar to expounding original research on a talk page.

Here's the thing... the definition of what constitutes a secret society often depends on who is doing the defining. Freemasons have one definition. The Church may have a different one. John Allen, Jr. may have yet a third. The key to this discussion is how the editor's at Secret societies define it. It is certainly fair to ask that, if they accept Allen's reasoning about Opus Dei, (and thus remove Opus Dei from their list), they should apply the same reasoning to Freemasonry (and thus remove Freemasonry from the list as well). Blueboar 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lodge 2

I came across this article today: Lodge 2... I am not sure about the validity of some of the statements made (it needs citations), but I think it is someone's attempt to write a legit article. In any case it needs a lot of work. Blueboar 14:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

For a laugh, see:

Just saw the article on Freemasons at uncyclopedia... who told them the truth?... come on, fess up. Blueboar 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps David Icke or Léo Taxil Bill Schnoebelen?

There are similar Projects in German:

• http://www.stupidedia.org/stupi/Freimaurer
• http://kamelopedia.mormo.org/index.php/Freimaurer

--Liberal Freemason (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is my favourite:

The Freemasons work today in the underground and finance themselves by selling certain authors explosive information, which are mostly absolute nonsense, nevertheless it can be used wonderful in a novel.

--Liberal Freemason (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I work in the underground all right. Somewhere on the Bakerloo line . . .--Bolognaking 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)