Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Freemasonry in New Zealand

[[1]]

Could the content in the above link be included in the article in some form please? Either under charity or political opposition in my mind. I will note myself that this happened seven days after the second most severe... erm, natural disaster, in New Zealand history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.46.197 (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The material would probably be better placed in a stand-alone sub-article on Freemasonry in New Zealand... something that discusses the history, impact and development of the fraternity in that country from its introduction in colonial days through to today. This article has to stay focused on the fraternity as a whole... and in that context, a change in legal status in one specific country is relatively minor (although, I am sure it is very important to Masons who are New Zealanders). Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought my contribution could be noted in the Freemasonry article or Anti-Masonry article, noting the "change in legal status", and be left at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.202.122 (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that it was directed at all entities of the same nature, and other groups also had their status revoked, I'm not it falls under the heading of "anti-Masonic". Later objective history may say otherwise, but it's certainly subjective now. MSJapan (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If a reliable source has written about masonry as a service or charitable organization then I could see add a section to the article about this. The New Zealand issue would fit in with this. At present there's no service/charitable section and so there's no convenient place to mention the NZ news. Also, it seems only the Grand Union lost its charity status. Individual lodges may still qualify as charities and a search finds that roughly 40 lodges in New Zealand qualify as charities. I did not see this as anti-Mason at all. Like most countries, New Zealand would have rules about the percentage of the money collected that's used for charitable purposes vs. internal stuff, rules on the forms you need to fill out, rules on election of officers, etc. In New Zealand these are codified as part of the Charities Act.^[2] The real surprise is that the Grand Union did not change its practices to fit within NZ's charity rules. This page has a long list of organizations that were deregistered and a few that have been reinstated. This page is the document about the Grand Lodge's filing and deregistration. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of text from the Principles and activities section

I have removed " "(in most cases requiring a belief in a supreme being)" from the preceding item of "moral uprightness" (in a list of activities, values , etc.) as this is not demonstrated as related to vaguely described & alleged "moral uprightness." The addition of something specifying that it is their interpretation of the phrase would be most factually correct. Mr.troughton (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That statement is making specific reference to the Constitutions of the Free-Masons which is linked later in the sentence. PeRshGo (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Section

The particular paragraph i moved belongs in the appropriate section, which is the symbolism section. Pass a Method talk 07:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Norway Killings

Here is some information to start this section.

Some pictures in Anders Brievik's possesion show him wearing Freemason regalia here. He states that he was a member of the Norwegian Masonic Greater Lounge here. He admitted to admiring the Knights Templar here. 92.20.160.40 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And this is relevant how? He also claims to like science-fiction, maybe that lead him to engage in the shootings! Oh, and he likes weightlifting! We better keep an eye on gyms for future terrorist activity!

I know a Freemason who's a conservative alcoholic computer technician, and one who's a liberal Buddhist soldier. About the only thing you can say about Freemasons is "they're dress up and perform little plays occasionally, maybe share meals and perform charitable acts, and if they're part of a regular lodge they believe in some sort of higher power." Also, the Freemasons came about centuries after the Templars were wiped out, and Brievik had nothing to do with the Knights Templar revival organization recognized by the U.N. for its charitable works (See their denunciation of him here), but a completely separate and different anti-Islamic terrorist group. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Liking science fiction does not count as a elected position, as he obtained in the Freemasons. Anyway a liking of science fiction may go hand in hand with wanting to be a Freemason, who's to know? If someone brings or may bring a group in disrupute, shouldn't this be told? It should be pointed out on the page he wasn't a Knights Templar on the page. 92.20.180.167 (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He had minimal contact with the Order - in three years he went to just enough meetings to progress in the Order - and had no position in lodge at all.

<personal pondering>

My best guess is that he was looking for something in Lodge and did not find it... and while he was a member of the Order, he was most assuredly not a Mason. For starters, his actions broke the oaths he took when he was initiated. In addition he broke several of the Laws of the Order... in particular the one states that a Mason should show compassion, mercy and charity to all his fellow humans.

</personal pondering>

So while the information about his membership might be tangentially relevant on his biography page, it's irrelevant in this article.WegianWarrior (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed... given that there are millions of Masons, mentioning one of them (and one who either resigned or was kicked out after only a few years of membership) is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that he was only a member for three years (which is enough time to get some detail on the subject in only case). But the fact that he still had robes in his possession would still count as 'circumstantial'. However many Freemasons there are, if someone acts murderously on a Masonic cause (and other cases could be invoked) isn't this enough to be included in this article? By the way it looks above that we taking it account facts we do not possess. 2.97.163.143 (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: circumstantial evidence: Not really... anyone can purchase Masonic regalia (you can order regalia over the internet)... you don't have to be a member to buy it. So simply owning regalia doesn't "prove" someone was a member.

Re: "if someone acts murderously on a Masonic cause isn't this enough to be included in this article?"... What makes you think his act had any connection to "a Masonic cause"? Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to my original piece which states that there is a connection. Again, I'm not trying to make up facts, merely stating what people have said about this case. Maybe it depends if you are looking at Freemasonry by Freemasons themselves, or from the layperson's point of view. 2.97.163.143 (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're making stuff up when you imply that he had anything to do with a Masonic cause. None of the sources you provide say that, and there are plenty of sources in this article that show that he pretty much represents Freemasonry about as well as Hitler represented Christianity.

I'm going to quit beating around the bush here: it is ignorant to think that the Freemasons wanted Breivik to shoot dozens of people. They hold the occasional fund raiser, make new members pretend to be an apron-wearing dead architect while they're told to be productive members of society, and they have a funny handshake. That's it. No paranoid conspiracies, no ridiculous Satanic cults or anything. That stuff was made up by paranoid liars who make a lot of other mistakes about reality. The idea that "a Masonic cause" has lead anyone to murder is as ridiculous as blaming art schools for Hitler. Breivik will not be mentioned in this article, end of story. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets look at reliable sources, and not rely on our own personal speculation and OR conclusions... According to the Norwegian Order of Freemasons, Brievik was a Freemason (I wish it were not so, but facts are facts). He has been [Breivhttp://www.frimurer.no/ordenen/15-aktuelt/1192-the-norwegian-order-of-freemasons-expressing-compassion-and-care excluded] (ie expelled). More importantly, the official statement of the Grand Master of the Order condemns his acts. In other words... what ever crazy fantasies may have been in Brievik's mind... his acts were not and are not (and never will be) condoned by the fraternity. Given this, we are back to the simple question: does mentioning the fantasies of a single nut case give those fantasies WP:UNDUE weight in the context of this article? The answer is "Yes, it does". Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That would only be the case if the whole article was written from Anders Breivik's POV. To say that he had this point of view, and indicating it was wrong, surely is more NPOV? And of course the Freemasons didn't condone it, any more than the modern Church doesn't condone the Inquistion or any Anti-Semitism. 92.20.148.50 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That comparison is ridiculous because the Church sponsored the Inquisition's actions at the time, but at no point has Freemasonry ever condoned Breivik's actions. This is not the place for paranoid conspiracy theories that blindly ignore reality. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of information

This article doesn't seem to mention Masonic regalia or rituals at all, as far as I can see. I was looking for basic information on things like masonic aprons, funeral rites, initiation rituals, etc. That there is no overall body in charge, and so things vary, is no reason not to discuss the general case and most common features, as well as perhaps a link to a fuller article discussing the various different rites. For example, a funeral rite presumably doesn't need to take place in a Masonic temple? 86.163.214.39 (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there simply isn't a "general case" to discuss. There are hundreds of Masonic Jurisdictions and each of them does things slightly differently... including what regalia they wear, and (especially) what rituals they use, etc. You can usually find overlap between the rituals and regalia of any two jurisdictions... but not when you toss in a third. There are enough variations that we really can not say "most jurisdictions do X"

The funeral ceremony is actually a good example... Each jurisdiction has its own ritual and customs for funerals. In some jurisdictions the norm is for the Masonic funeral ceremony to be held in conjunction with the deceased brother's religious funeral service - in which case it would take place in the same building that the religious funeral takes place (Church, Synagogue, Temple, Mosque, Funeral Home, etc.) In in other jurisdictions (especially in countries were the dominant religious faith does not approve of Masonry) the norm is to hold a separate Masonic memorial service in the Masonic Hall, or at the deceased brother's home. And there are jurisdictions that don't actually have a "funeral rite"... they instead have a grave side "Masonic burial service". And in at least one case, there is no "funeral rite"... however the brethren are expected to show up at the religious funeral as Masons (ie wearing white aprons and gloves.)

Not only does it change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction... it can change from funeral to funeral, because different brethren belong to different faiths/denominations, and every faith/denomination has its own rules as to what outside groups like the Masons can and can not do in their buildings or as part of their services... so, even in jurisdictions where "the norm" is to do the Masonic service as part of the deceased brother's religious funeral, when it comes to a specific brother's service, the lodge may have to hold it elsewhere ... or not hold it at all.

The same diversity is true for everything else in Masonry. The rules, regalia, dress and rituals are unique to each of the hundreds of jurisdictions that are out there. As soon as you see a pattern emerging, you find that there are exceptions to that pattern. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To be much more specific - aprons vary; in England and the UGLE lodges across the globe, they often have rosettes, and in US jurisdictions, they don't, because the suppliers don't make them that way. The colors are different, for the same reason. Past Masters in some jurisdictions have special collars and gloves; others don't. In some jurisdictions, tuxes are for officers; in others, for everyone; in still others, work clothes are the norm. According to one source, there are 47 rituals in use in England alone. We cannot therefore come up with any information of general use on these topics, other than that aprons and regalia are worn, and ritual is performed. To go any further requires a level of minutiae that is not of use to the general reader, and as no one has researched this, it's original research, even if it could be argued it is simply a matter of observation. MSJapan (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

While I understand what you're both saying, the article (as far as I can see) doesn't actually make it clear that aprons or regalia are worn at all, or even that rituals are carried out. No mention that there is usually a rite or ceremony for a dead mason within freemasonry, which could then justifiably link to an article which covered the most common practices in the largest rituals. We handle this for Christianity and similarly disparate groups, so I'm sure it can be done. It doesn't matter that there are exceptions to the pattern: that's human behaviour. If we can handle the article funeral, which tries to cover all such cases, surely we can at least tackle this. We had an article on Twitter before anyone had researched it, because it was mentioned in lots of places. Surely Masonic funeral/death/memorial rituals are similarly mentioned in various reliable sources? 86.163.214.39 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. That is another problem when writing articles on the topic of Freemasonry... the distinct lack of reliable sources. That the Masons have a ritual is well documented... but there are few (if any) reliable sources for the details. Masons don't like to talk (or write) about their rituals, and there is very little that is reliable from non-Masons. Blueboar (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Grand Lodge of Scotland publishes its rituals in book form, which any member of the public is at liberty to purchase. True, the ritual text is incomplete: in that specific and significant keywords - which would be known to any Mason but which, if communicated to an outsider, might impart to him a knowledge of and entry into the Craft to which he was not entitled - have been excised or disguised.

Nuttyskin (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Even in those cases where a ritual book is available it's difficult to translate them into a form that can be used on Wikipedia. 1) A particular ritual book usually only apply to a small region. 2) While ritual books are largely procedural they usually also omit a fair amount of instruction that's passed on via word of mouth. For example, earlier in this thread funerals were mentioned. If you look at a Funeral Service ritual book you'll see occasional breaks in the text. What's not explained in the book is that at some of these breaks a specific piece of music may be played, there may be some specific floor work, and/or the master may do something specific in relation to the casket or former brother's apron. Related to this is that while the language of the committal may not vary from what's stated in the ritual book there are procedural changes depending on the former brother's religion, if he being buried with military honors, if it's in a lodge room or entirely in a chapel or home, etc. 3) Rituals can revised over time. 4) Ritual books rarely disclose the "secrets."

Thus the ritual books themselves seem to be of little value as sources for Wikipedia. What we really need is that someone else has researched and documented Masonic ritual. We could use that secondary work as a source for the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Masonic rock

I found that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about this. Masonic rock, is what I believe to be bands or artists in the music industry that in their music lyrically but also musically, sing about anything to do with Freemasonry but musically, tend to have an electronic sound. Plus also visually in their music videos with Mickey Mouse and pyramids etc.. The band Radiohead is I believe a good example of this. My questions are, does anyone know of "masonic rock"? Has anyone ever read or heard about it? Could an article be typed up about this aspect of Freemasonry (as it is obviously related), if a fair amount of information was found about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.214.63 (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not likely, because as phrased, your statement directly contradicts policies. For the topic to exist as such, it has to be addressed in reliable secondary sources, not based on a subjective belief. Moreover, for it to be verifiable, the band in question would need to say unequivocally "yes, song X is about Freemasonry". Note there is also a strong element of Aleister Crowley and occult topics/references in certain types of metal (Ozzy Osbourne's 'Mr. Crowley" for example) and Ministry's Psalm 69 album (title is a Crowley reference, BTW) track "N.W.O.", which is actually a war protest song railing against President Bush, not an affirmation of the Masonic conspiracy theory of a New World Order.

You also seem to be saying you've never seen reference to it anywhere. Therefore, you're talking original research, which is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. If the relation is so obvious, why has it not been documented? Why would this topic, which you are calling "Masonic rock", have to be limited to some sort of electronica derivation (unless you're thinking of the group The Freemasons, who have an article already, and, by the way, named the group after a local gastro pub, not the Fraternity)? I know for a fact Mozart wrote music specifically for Lodge use, and there's a Masonic element in The Magic Flute.

Lyrics are always subjective without direct evidence of intent. As should be noted in the article here (I hope), Masonic symbols and ideas are sometimes taken from other sources, and sometimes later reused in derivative formats totally divorced from their initial use.

In short, the answer is very likely "no", because there does not appear, at present, to be a way to write the article such that it would comply with Wikipedia policies. If you can find secondary documentation, particularly for use of the term, then maybe we can revisit it at that time. MSJapan (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

60.234.214.63, Masonic rocks usually have a rough and smooth side. The bands you mention seem to only show one side and so likely are not related to Freemasonry. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 November 2011

"The oldest jurisdiction on the continent of Europe, the Grand Orient de France (GOdF), was founded in 1728"

It was actually founded in 1727

71.62.179.214 (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... according to our article on the Grand Orient de France, both dates are wrong... the source cited there says it was founded in 1733. (the ref is: Achille Godefroy Jouaust, Histoire du Grand Orient de France (Rennes and Paris, 1865). Available from Google Books [3]

Edit request from , 13 November 2011

Fix a simple text/grammar mistake (duplicate) by replacing the following text:

@@@@ ORIGINAL @@@@

The oldest jurisdiction on the continent of Europe, the Grand Orient de France (GOdF), was founded in founded in 1733.

@@@@ END ORIGINAL @@@@

With the following text (the duplicate text "founded in" has been removed):

@@@@ REPLACEMENT @@@@

The oldest jurisdiction on the continent of Europe, the Grand Orient de France (GOdF), was founded in 1733. @@@@ END REPLACEMENT @@@@

Jonathan Caldwell, Columbus, OH 06:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a lot for pointing that out. Yours, SK (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. and thanks to SK for correcting it. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 January 2012

Rotary doesn't belong to Freemason, Rotary is a public NGO and anyone can attend Rotary meetings. Rotary is promoting peace, tolerance and world understanding. For more information about Rotary => www.rotary.org Kindly, remove "Rotary" from the Freemason article

Ahmed Salah RIFKY 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The only mention I can find of Rotary in the article is as follows; "In article 28 of its Covenant, Hamas states that Freemasonry, Rotary, and other similar groups "work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions ..."" - as such it's saying a lot more about Hamas and their (possible faulty, I'm not too familiar with Rotary) grouping of Freemasonry and Rotary as similar groups.

I feel it ought to stay to be true to the cited source, and removing it will not improve the article in any way. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wegian is correct; "right" or "wrong" aside, the quote is direct, and cannot be altered in the middle "just because." I do know about Rotary, and it really does have nothing to do with Freemasonry other than the occasional overlap in members. MSJapan (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction to origins

The Masonic/Freemason order started out as a society for Knights of the 1st Crusade after the war ended; essentially what would now be called a veteran's organization. Ironically, it was created by the Vatican. The 16th/17th Century "origins" in the Article reflect not when the brotherhood was founded, but when its relationship with the Roman Catholic Church began to sour. This issue should be corrected. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Source? And a reliable one, please. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's one. [4] According to this document, it all started with the construction of a Roman Catholic Church building in Scotland in the early-to-mid-1100s. The founder was evidently also a cofounder of the Knights Templar, and in fact a veteran of the 1st Crusade. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

While Robert Lomas' theories can be interesting to ponder over a drink or two, he can not be considered a particularly reliable source on the history of masonry. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree... there are so many flaws in Lomas's speculation that it is laughable. Definitely not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert L D Cooper, Cracking the Freemasons Code. Rider 2006 is a good source on this. Cooper is the curator of Grand Lodge Scotland's Museum & Library. He manages to show where this stuff came from and how it got into Masonic belief. For the record, Bob Lomas no longer believes in any link with either the Templars OR the Sinclairs. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth... has Lomas published something saying this? If so, there are several articles that will need updating (such as the one on Roslyn Chapel). Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think, in his new book on "The Templar Key" his re-think will possibly be made plain. I haven't read it, but there are clues on his site. BTW, the ref from 2000 in the 2nd post up there seems to be unlinked from the main page. My source is from a couple of lectures he gave about 5 yrs ago, in which he poo-poohed the DIRECT Templar link, and attributed the Americana in Rosslyn to Sinclair piracy on good honest Vikings. HTH Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Other Grand Lodges in England

Having dealt with the split between Antients and Moderns, the article omits "The Grand Lodge of All England meeting since time immemorial in the City of York". It's important due to at least an opaque relationship with the York Rite. It was formed in 1725 and sort of fizzled out 1792ish. It also spawned The Grand Lodge of All England South of the River Trent in 1778. The York Rite section in web of Hiram is a good starting point. I'm happy to do research and refs, but I don't want to mess with someone else's (well written) text. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure that this is the right article to go into all that... We can not cover every splinter Grand Lodge that has popped up and then died out (and there have been many over the years). Yes, the GLAE (and similar small splinter groups) existed, and in a more detailed article they would be mentioned... but this is a broad overview article. We have avoid getting into details detract from the broad sweep story we are telling.

It's really a matter of determining how much weight to give things in the context of the specific article. The split between Moderns and Antients had a major impact on the overall development of Freemasonry as a whole (especially the development of Freemasonry in the US). Thus it is important to mention... It is also important to mention because the resolution of the split is what the "United" part of the name "United Grand Lodge of England" (always an elephant in the room when talking about Freemasorny) is referring to. I don't think the creation of GLAE had the same level of impact. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. I just think it's more important than you give it credit for. Its own "creation myth" dates from the previous "Time Immoral" lodges, and was used in Anderson's Constitutions. Then there's the whole "York Rite" thing, York GL being the Go-To boys when the south of Trent lot fell out, and a feeling that at the time, the "great schism" was only really important if you lived in London. Before this, the two existing English GLs seem to have co-existed with a parish boundary at the Trent. I would have thought the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland were more important to US masonry than the Antients. (ps Craft lodges claiming descent from the York rite also call themselves Ancient Free etc) Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's too loaded with minutiae to be of use to the casual reader. York Rite in the US really isn't framed as coming from a rival GL, even in accepted histories, but rather having grown out of military field lodges' degrees that were sort of piled together and codified by Thomas Smith Webb. As far as the schism goes, though, the exact opposite seems to be true, in that it was a big deal at the time. So, if we're going to seek to overturn accepted theory, we need a lot of reliable info, and I think it just becomes too involved for the generic article here. We do, however, have subsidiary articles on both GLs that could probably benefit from that information. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Echoing MSJapan - the York Rite in the USA derives from the various add-ons which are not all lumped together under UGLE, and never were part of a contiguous whole ... in the US, it derives from the Holy Royal Arch as we got it in MA through various Chapters, and all the Cryptic Rite and Templar aligned orders, none of which have been shown to derive exclusively or predominantly from the York GLAE. As for the "schism" there are numerous researchers who have countered the claim that the Ancients were schismatic - if they never were part of GLE formed in 1717, how could they have split from it? (If I was never married to Joan Smith, how can I divorce from her?) See Sadler's Masoni Facts and Fictions; for more on this - many of the Lodges which formed the Ancients were Irish Freemasons who did not affiliate with the upper crust Moderns. (also see the Masonic Light yahoogroup around this time last year under the thread "The Antients Grand Lodge was Regular"). I would have thought the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland were more important to US masonry than the Antients. Ah, but they were! In Massachusetts, at least, the differences between the two organizations (not necessarily their ritual style, as noted by masonic historian Benjamin Hoff (don't currently have the citation) were enough that the military Lodges under the Ancients GL did not wish to be part of the Moderns Provincial GL, and found greater connection with the Scottish and Irish GLs: On October 1st, 1766, the 14th, 29th and part of the 69th Regiments arrived at Boston, Mass., and a little later the 64th and 65th Foot direct from Ireland and the three Military Lodges in the above all worked under the "Ancient system"--No. 58 in the 14th Foot, No. 322 in the 29th Foot and No. 106 in the 64th Foot--holding under the Grand Lodges of England ("Ancients"), Ireland and Scotland respectively. The members of St. Andrews, a Scottish lodge at Boston, fraternized with these visiting Military brethren and endeavored through this means to form a Grand Lodge under the Grand Lodge of Scotland. It is interesting to note that none of these Army lodges were represented at the installation of the Provincial Grand Master under England ("Moderns") in November, 1768, but all joined in a petition to the Grand Lodge of Scotland requesting the appointment of a "Grand Master of 'Ancient' Masons in America." from The Builder October 1918 [5] I'm also curious as to where there are Lodges claiming descent from the York Rite ... as I have often heard uninformed brethren asking whether my Craft Lodge was York Rite or Scottish Rite (and these were "mainstream" masons in New Jersey), when, in fact, only a few Lodges in the United States have any derivation from either Rite, and those being the small number of Lodges in New Orleans which have been using a French-derived AASR EA/FC/MM ritual format, and may or may not (I'm not sure on their origins) have derived from the old Consistory in Louisiana.--Vidkun (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your probably right on the minutiae front, MSJapan. Vidkun - Lodges claiming descent from the Old York Constitution, with their own flavour of ritual, exist in Yorkshire. (Where else?) Apart from a recent, and much vilified attempt to resurrect the old grand lodge,there are more than a few with UGLE warrants, a whole family in Leeds and the Lodge of Hope in Bradford. They have the Hope Manuscript [6] circa 1680, which mentions Master, Fellowe, and Apprentice 50 years before the degree of Master Mason officially existed. I have to agree on the so-called schism, GLE didn't react until 1777. But it's still the usual term. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lodges claiming descent from the Old York Constitution, with their own flavour of ritual, exist in Yorkshire. This still is not the "York Rite" unless, and this is a big if, we are talking about what both Mackey and Oliver claim Dunckerly changed by removing the "True Word" from the third degree; specifically, a trigradal system which included what is now the HRA in the MM; Mackey: The York Rite was that Rite which was most probably organized or modified at the Revival in 1717, and practised for fifty years by the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England. It consisted of only the three Symbolic Degrees, the last one, or the Master’s, containing within itself the secrets now transferred to the Royal Arch. And yet there are numerous historians who claim that the rituals worked at the 1717 revival were a digradal system which became trigradal sometime around 1725, though Pete Normand disagrees with these hypotheses, and claims those who were later termed the Ancients had all of the elements of today's Master Mason degree, though he has never answered as to whether he believes that to have been di- or tri gradal.--Vidkun (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What this seems to be coming down to is this... there is certainly a place for at least mentioning GLAE in Wikipedia, but this article isn't that place. So... any ideas on where it should be discussed? Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest History of Freemasonry??? I'm off to track the heirs of Rev Woodford, just to eliminate 19th century wishful thinking. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Blazing star

The blazing star

I'd like to suggest adding an image of the blazing star somewhere. It's one of the most common masonic symbols and arguably as important as the square and compass, especially outside the Anglosaxon world. A sentence or two about this symbol might also be interesting. Rinke 80 (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This would need support on several levels:

• Its importance - you are claiming a level of importance for the blazing star on par with the Square and Compasses, which is on the inside and outside of buildings, depicted on jewelry, and obviously, thousands upon thousands of websites at least. Where's the Blazing Star represented?
• Its rendition here - the Square and Compasses always looks the same. As far as I know, however, the blazing star is open to interpretation so long as it looks like something that someone would look at and think "yes, that is a blazing star." So we need to figure out how and why this is even accurate. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick web search gives some information, although not as much as you might like. I can give you one source to start with [7]. I don't have the time for an exhaustive search however. Sorry. There's a lot of literature on the blazing star. Please use my suggestion as you see fit. I'm confident it would be a good addition, but it's really up to the people who moderate this article. In any case, it's reassuring to see you're being thourough. Rinke 80 (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW: the blazing star is basically a five-pointed star (i.e. a pentagram with inscribed pentagon left out) pointing upward and adorned with a glory. There's an optional letter G in the centre of the star. The glory can be depicted in many ways, but this is artistic interpretation. The claim that the square-and-compass always looks the same is not true. The arms of the square are not always of equal length for example, the letter G is optional and the compass is also depicted in many varieties. Rinke 80 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually... no... the Blazing Star is not "basically a five-pointed star". Any "star" shape will do. Indeed, it is often depicted as being more "sun-shaped" (think of the Kellog's rasin bran logo... but without the smiley face) than "star-shaped". Also, it is actually fairly rare to see the Blazing Star with a G in the center. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I was initially thinking on a different line when I first read your request (for some reason I thought you wanted this in the lead area as a symbol visible to the public), but I do have an idea, and that is to expand the symbol section with pictures. The only thing is that that source you give indicates what I expected, which is that it is confined to the First Degree in Lodge. We don't really address any appendant body degrees here, and I don't want this article to become a degree analysis piece, either, because that's not useful general information. Let's see what others think. MSJapan (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the matter is in capable hands. I hope you don't mind if I leave it with you. @MSJapan: I totally agree that replacing the square and compass in the lead area with the blazing star would be questionable. As far as I know the blazing star is a generic symbol in freemasonry, but I'm not solid on this. Your idea about placing the image somewhere under symbol section is more or less what I had in mind as well. Thanks guys. Rinke 80 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it'll be possible to get consensus among masons as to the imagery of the blazing star. I've been in lodges all over the world and it is never depicted as a primary symbol of masonry. When it is depicted, I've always seen it as part of a grouping of other symbols. Additionally, an associated body also has a blazing star, often mis-represented as a star on a field of fire or a star with a glory when in actual fact the original of that symbols was not a star with a glory, a star in front of a field of fire, or, of all things, even a star on fire. But instead a star OF fire. You will see sometimes see the correct symbol represented by a star with wavy arms, indicating that the star is made of fire. It will take old-fashioned, in-depth research in actual books to find it; I doubt very much anything will be found on this blazing star on the interweb. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 20:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good thing I like books. What we also need is free graphics for various symbols (such as representative officer position emblems for the Officers article). If somebody can hunt those up, that would help, and I'll see what I can dig out from where. MSJapan (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Before we rush off and spend time searching for images... an image should illustrate something that is stated in the article. So what fact or concept would we be illustrating if we added an image of a blazing star? Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the blazing star is much more important outside of Anglo-Sakson freemasonry than it is in it. It's indeed one of the central symbols in continental traditions. In some degrees it's in a prominent place in the temple (in the east above the throne) and it can be seen on many masonic buildings. Contrary to what has been claimed by another discussant, I'm pretty sure the blazing star is five-pointed. No doubt six- or even seven-pointed stars (with and without glory) can be found in freemasonry, but the blazing star is the five-pointed one. The claim about the blazing star being a star of fire instead of a star with glory, is very interesting. This may be true from a purist point of view (I don't know), but that's an academic debate. In any case it's clear that in practice the five-pointed star with glory is by far the most common depiction of the blazing star. I'd like to point out that this discussion (as the article itself) seems to be slightly biased towards Anglo-Saxon tradition. This is understandable, since we're on the English Wikipedia here, but I think it's good to be aware of this. 129.125.156.1 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, we need to remember why we include images in the first place. Images are supposed to illustrate the text. The text discusses the fact that Freemasons (of whatever tradition) use symbolism - especially the tools of the operative Mason's art - to teach allegorical lessons. We mention the Square and Compasses as an example of this. The S&C are (in my opinion) the best examples... they are common to all traditions of Freemasonry, and are probably the single most recognizable emblems of Freemasonry world wide. And because we do mention them specifically, I think it is appropriate to include an image of the S&C to illustrate what we talk about.

Now, I suppose we could expand the section and discuss other emblems and symbols (and if we did so it might be appropriate to include images to illustrate what we discuss)... but why? The point we are trying to make is fairly simple ... and it has been clearly made, using emblems that the average reader (Mason and non-Mason alike) will probably recognize as being "Masonic". I question whether it would be helpful to discuss any other emblems and symbols. Indeed, we run the risk of confusing the reader if we give too many examples.

So... whether the Blazing Star typically has five points or not is actually irrelevant... the question is whether we want to mention the Blazing Star at all... and if we don't mention it, then there is no point in including an image of it. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. Bear in mind that freemasonry has two clear symbolic themes: symbolism around the operative masons art and light symbolism. I think the blazing star is a good example of the latter and worth mentioning. 129.125.156.104 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Light symbolism? Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, symbolism with light as theme. "The journey from darkness into light." It's one of the two main themes in freemasonry. This is all pretty basic masonic theory. 129.125.156.104 (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.63.189 (talk)

Hmmm... I suspect that we are dealing with another case different jurisdictions using the same emblem in different ways. Where I come from the Blazing Star isn't symbolic of "the journey from darkness into light"... it is emblematic of "the superintending care of Divine Providence". Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"The blazing star, or glory...refers us to the sun", says my anglo-saxon ritual book. This is from the explanation of the first degree tracing board, which has a VERY spiky star propping up the top of the ladder, with a perfectly good sun above it. This in itself causes debate, but the rest of the explanation tends towards the divine providence role. If the star ought to be on the page, why not the whole tracing board? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, we are definitely dealing with jurisdictional differences (and perhaps even a lodge by lodge differences). Why not discuss the whole tracing board? - because not all tracing boards are the same. Different tracing boards show different symbols (ie a given symbol may be depicted on one tracing board and not depicted on another), and different tracing boards will use very different depictions of the symbols they do show. Then there is the fact that some jurisdictions don't use tracing boards at all.

This discussion highlights why it is so difficult to discuss Masonic ritual and symbolism in Wikipedia - what is done, said and depicted will be different from lodge to lodge and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Nothing any of us have said about the Blazing Star is "wrong"... It's just that nothing we have said is necessarily "correct" either... because it depends on jurisdiction. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "the journey from darkness into light" wasn't meant as explanation of the blazing star, but as an example of 'light symbolism' in general. 87.208.63.189 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point... I am not arguing that the Blazing Star can't be seen as a symbol of Masonic "light" (I don't personally know of any jurisdiction where it is, but I can certainly accept that there is a jurisdiction somewhere that uses it that way) . What I am noting that there are a lot of jurisdictions where it isn't a symbol of Masonic light - where it is, instead, given a very different meaning.

Compare this to an emblem/symbol like the Square and Compasses... that is an emblem/symbol with a very consistent meaning and usage throughout Masonry, no matter what the jurisdiction. In choosing examples of Masonic symbols/emblems to discuss in this article, we should focus on those few emblems/symbols that have consistent usages and meanings... and, more importantly, we should avoid confusing the reader by discussing emblems/symbols with inconsistent usages and meanings (as they would require all sorts of caveats and explanations about how "in New York, Emblem ABC is used as a symbol of XXX, while in Florida it is given a meaning of YYY, and in France it is explained as ZZZ"... etc.). Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I got your point, I just think you're missing mine. I never said the blazing star is a symbol of masonic light. I'm saying it's a very important (if not the most important) symbol in one of the two main themes in masonic symbolism: light. (The other theme is the operative masons craft and has the S&C as probably the most important symbol(s).) I doubt if the meanings given to the blazing star differ as much as you suggest. At the same time I think great care should be taken in writing down an explanation, since there's a reason symbols are used in freemasonry and not explanations. But it's ok. It's just a minor topic. Somehow I feel I shouldn't put my energy in this article, so I wish you wisdom and good luck while working on it. 87.208.63.189 (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK... the same to you in your endeavors. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mention the Grand Orient of France and Belgium in intro

While I have no doubt that the so-called Grand Lodge "of Ireland" is involved in some nefarious activities, it seems undue to single it out in the introduction when there are far more notable organisations. The Grand Orient of France and the Grand Orient of Belgium should be mentioned in the intro because of the amazing power they have over those societies and indeed have much influence over the European Union in general. Influence, not size, should be the most important aspect for the intro IMO. Rí Lughaid (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The bit about membership numbers in the intro is included simply to establish that Freemasonry is notable as a topic according to WP:ORG (the notability guideline that the topic falls under). Membership is a handy statistic to use for this, because it is easily sourced (at least in the US, UK and Ireland). I would love to include membership numbers for a few European jurisdictions (to make the article less "Anglo/US" in tone)... if you could point us to sources that would be helpful.

As for using "influence" as a way to establish notability... "influence" is much harder to substantiate (ie to find sources for). There is huge disagreement in sources over how influential Freemasonry really is. Conspiracy theorists (not the most reliable of sources) certainly say it is very influential... more reliable scholarly sources discount its influence as negligible. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

/edit conflict/ According to WP:Lead - the guideline that governs how leads are written on Wikipedia - it's recommended that the lead summarizes the article and not introduce anything that isn't covered in detail later. Since the article says nothing of "the amazing power" the Grand Orients of France and Belgium holds over those societies, nor the "influence over the European Union in general" they have, introducing anything of the sort in the lead would be against wikipedia guidelines.

That said, I would love to see reliable sources backing up your rather extraordinary claims. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012

Spelling error.

Although members of various faiths cite objections, certain Christian denominations have had high profile negative attitudes to Masonry, banning or <<<<<<discourafging>>>>> their members from being Freemasons.

Change to...

Although members of various faiths cite objections, certain Christian denominations have had high profile negative attitudes to Masonry, banning or discouraging their members from being Freemasons.

93.107.80.87 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 April 2012

Please insert Masonic Research under Principles and Activities.

Doyleclark (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That article is wholly unencyclopedic, does not meet guidelines, and states much opinion as fact. I have redirected it, and if you really thinks it merits inclusion, work on it in your sandbox first. MSJapan (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of readers don't know that much about Masonry and Freemasonry. I think that improving the Masonic Research article (and leaving it as a separate article, for emphasis) would be best. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

Be bold and go ahead then =) Just keep in mind Wikipedias core guidelines and policies - I would suggest working in your own sandbox until you got something that is significantly better than the Masonic Research article was before MSJapan turned it into a redirect. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am one of the lesser-informed; I will, however, be 'watching' and helping with 'editing'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "Masonic research" is too nebulous to build an article on. There is no clear definition of the term. Saying that Freemasonry promotes "Masonic research" is like saying that academic institutions promote "academic research". Exactly what is researched, and how it is researched depends greatly on one's specialty and interest. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Charles Edwin Shipp has commented on the wrong article as well, I think. I redirected Masonic Research to Research Lodge. The redir'd article was opinion stated as fact, and talking about Masonic Research, especially in a "how-to" manner, says nothing about Freemasonry which is useful to the general reader. All that being said, let's deal with this over at the Research Lodge article. MSJapan (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

' Mason at Sight '- Should it be included ?

I understand this is a fairly American thing to do.. but one often reads "was made a mason at sight" and I wonder if it is worth mentioning in the article ?
It could go as a single sentence under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Degrees or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Membership_requirements

The term is used in the List of Famous Freemasons without explaination...

Perhaps

In some jurisdictions, Grand Masters are able to “make a mason at sight” meaning a man is declared a member by a Grand Master in a special purpose ("Occasional") lodge rather than passing through the usual process of becoming a freemason.

Sources would be

Probably not a good souce but "Texaz Masons Object" in Toledo Blade - Feb 4, 1909 here still supports it happened. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19090204&id=a-oTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ov8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3202,260122

"At sight" conferrals are extremely rare... even in America. I would suggest that we not mention them... it gets us into a level of technical detail that is essentially trivial ... this is supposed to be an overview after all. We can not discuss everything. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's rare, yes, but it's high-profile, as a couple of well-known celebrities have been made Masons at sight (Richard Dreyfus and Dr. Shaquille O'Neal). A brief explanation of the practice as in the above might be a good idea. Goltz20707 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think all we're dealing with is a technical method question, and I think it's outside the scope of the article. All we should really be concerned about here is a simple yes-or-no question. A Mason-at-sight is still a Mason. MSJapan (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think, if the term is used in the encyclopaedia, it needs to be defined somewhere. It is in the list of freemasons, and a couple of other articles, with no explanation at all. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should discuss the term in this article... and I question whether we should use the term in other articles (and if we do use the term in other articles, it is easy enough to explain it by adding a foot note at those articles.) Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Nomination

As we seem to have come to a point where the article's not moving much, I am nominating it for GA status to either ascertain that it is indeed good, or get some feedback on what it is that needs to be worked on. MSJapan (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Freemasonry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 23:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Quick fail due to referencing issues (numerous unreferenced paragraphs and old citation needed tags). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

External Links

All of the links appear to be to Pro-Masonic articles and websites. Surely there must have been some links posted to articles and website that criticize Freemasonry history and practices. Why were they all deleted? Albertpirck (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The "anti" masonic sites that a number of editors and sockpuppets have tried to insert so far has all failed WP:EXT for various reasons. See in particular WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:ELPOV. That said, the majority of the external links as of five minutes ago can't be said to be neither pro nor anti. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

One reason why "anti" websites under-represented in the External Links section is that a lot of them have ended up being used as citations in the actual text of the article. According to WP:External links, websites that are used as citations should not be listed again in the "External Links" section. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar above statement is a lie, given his personal habit of deleting any and all 'anti' external links across wikipedia pages. The poor/non-existant morality of masonry is on display. A proven deceptive cult.Albertpirck (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have warned User:Albertpirck for not assuming good faith. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 05:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Added external link to known 'anti' site, removed disruptive masonic personal attack from talk pagesAlbertpirck (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Restored AFG warning (a friendly reminder is not a personal attack). Also; Freemasonerywatch is a known attack site that fails WP:EL as well as WP:RS. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WegianWarrior's assessment of the external link additon (Freemasonerywatch). User:Albertpirck please do not add the links without a consensus being established here - which at the moment is against adding Freemasonerywatch. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonrywatch has been metablacklisted and cannot (or should not be able to be) added. MSJapan (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was delisted back in 2011. That's fixable, and I have no idea how Albertpirck knows Blueboar's edit pattern if he is a new account. I think we'll fix that as well. MSJapan (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012

Federacion de Masones Cubanos Exiliados Cuba Primero 98.211.163.53 (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You do not make it clear what edit you are asking us to make. If you are asking us to simply mention this group, I would say no... the article is about Freemasonry in broad scope, and we don't mention Masonic organizations simply because they exist. A more appropriate place to mention it might be List of Masonic Grand Lodges (not sure if it qualifies as a Grand Lodge, however.) Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Add Great Enlightened Society of Oculists?

• They Cracked This 250-Year-Old Code, and Found a Secret Society Inside on Wired.com 11.16.2012 99.181.159.214 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No... the best guess of Masonic scholars is that the "Oculists" was probably a spoof of the Freemasons. Not necessarily created as a hoax, but with the intent to poke fun at the Masons. Blueboar (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. It's fascinating, but the connection is wholly based on opinion, and we couldn't really do anything with it aside from link to that article, as we have nowhere else from which to draw content. MSJapan (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What I got from it (though it is past my bedtime and I only skimmed it) is that the Ocultists were started independently of the Masons (though later), claimed to have started the Masons as a joke, and then infiltrated and dissolved into the local Masonic population. Doesn't quite merit inclusion. If we had an article about the Ocultists, it would obviously link to this article, but I don't know about the other way around (except maybe in the "see also" section, but we don't have a GESO article). Ian.thomson (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Chick citation

I see the objection there, sort of, and it doesn't quite verify the statement presented. We are assuming (meaning as the article is written, not anybody's personal belief) that Chick is representative of all Protestants, and I'm not so sure that is the case. I would suggest that we add a citation from Chick's bio to that sentence to illustrate his POV (anti-Catholic Protestant evangelical, which he is pretty clear about, as are third parties), and add a qualifier to the statement (Protestants such as Jack Chick) etc., but I am a bit concerned at a blanket statement hinging on one biased source. I think we need to support that paragraph a bit better to get a wider view. MSJapan (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I think the citation to chick was put there purely to support the word "satanism"... not to support the blanket statement. (at least that is why I reverted to return it). However, Chick is a primary source for that accusation, and it would be better to use a secondary source.

Actually, I think the entire anti-masonry section needs some revision. Since there is a separate article on Anti-masonry (which is linked to) we can summarize a lot more than we currently do. We don't need to break down each denomination's specific objections in this article. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the criticism tends to drift between denominations anyway. Jack Chick got his lies from Leo Taxil, after all. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yahweh

Changed "Trinity" to "Yahweh" to be more in line with the rest of the sentence which uses proper names like Allah and Brahma. In addition a Christian is not a person who believes in the Trinity, but rather a person who follows Christ. You do not need to believe in the Trinity in order to follow Christ. Many Christian churches do not believe in the Trinity.Wjhonson (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nestorians aside, most non-trinitarians are forbidden to become masons. Trinity is still the wrong word, but linking to an article on Judaism is simply perverse. The whole sentence needs reworded. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither "Yahweh" nor "Allah" are "names" of God, but merely euphemisms. God's actual name (assuming He has one) is unknown to humans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Nestorians are Trinitarians, they just have different views on the connection between Jesus and the Son). Still, the majority of Christians throughout the world believe in the Trinity, or at least belong to a denomination that teaches it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"[M]ost non-trinitarians are forbidden to become masons." What? Forbidden by whom? If you mean by "mainstream" masonic grand lodges then at least as the U.K. and the U.S. you might wish to study up. Mainstream Masonry has no religious test beyond affirming a belief in God.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the Jehovah's Witness do not allow their adherents to take the sort of vows/pledges/whatnot that are required to become a Mason (or pledge allegiance to the US flag), if they don't have an outright restriction against it. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I may have missed a stop here, but I suspect it is not productive to count the number of angel.... I mean to specify what divisions of various faiths or religions might have this or that restriction on masonic membership, at least not in the general way presented, as if being trinitarian or a non-trinitarian was a deciding factor.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the trinitarian/non-trinitarian division is basically not productive or useful. Also agree that the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East (the "Nestorians") are trinitarian. William Whalen wrote a book about the relationship between Freemasonry and Christianity, which is I think still available in one of the libraries here. In it, so far as I can recall, he indicates he had written to a number of denominations/faith traditions/groups and asked them what they thought of membership in the Freemasons. As I recall, they were virtually universal in saying that their ministers were at least strongly encouraged not to become Freemasons, and in at least some cases forbidden to do so. At least some of them discouraged lay members from becoming Freemasons as well, based on the vows Freemasons are required to take, including those regarding death if they reveal the secrets, even if they are not taken literarlly, as being some form of violation of the commandment regarding making false vows, lying, or whatever you want to call it. Unless of course they actually mean that they would agree to being killed if they gave up secrets, and most Christian groups probably would consider doing that problematic in some way as well. John Carter (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ironic considering those fatal promises are carry overs from medieval Christian vows. That said, back to the original topic, "Christian Trinity" is a more accurate reflection of the majority of Christian beliefs than "Christian Yahweh" (what about Jewish Yahweh? Is that a different figure?). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To the Christian Freemason, the term "Supreme Being" (or the term "Great Architect of the Universe") includes Father, Son and Holy Spirit... the Trinity. This is an important point, because Freemasons are often accused of being Deists when they are not. "Yahweh" does not convey that important point... "Trinity" does. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To the Christian Freemason, the term "Supreme Being" (or the term "Great Architect of the Universe") includes Father, Son and Holy Spirit... the Trinity. I have to disagree, because there ARE non-trinitarian Christians who are Masons, so to state categorically that ALL Christian Masons consider the Supreme Being to include all three is something we have not, nor has anyone else, proven. In effect, by using Trinity, we would be engaging in OR.--Vidkun (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article does not state categorically that ALL Christian Masons consider the Supreme Being to include all three... it says the term "can mean the Trinity to a Christian Mason (which is accurate). As for Original research... I am sure we can find a source for that statement. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, and edited the article to reflect this, it is more neutral to link to the article "God in Christianity", like we do in order to pipe Allah to the "God in Islam" article. While "can" is accurate, I think, given these concerns, the best way forward to remain neutral as well as not introducing potentially original research, is just like we do with Islam/Allah.--Vidkun (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested wording? I would like to convey the idea that for (most) Christian's who are Masons, the term is not incompatible with standard Christian dogma. That "Supreme being" can mean the Trinity. Blueboar (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the key here is to be clearer about which type of Christian we are talking about... certainly for a Trinitarian Christian: Supreme Being = God = the Trinity... while for an Arian Christian: Supreme Being = God = sometimes just God the Father... while for a Muslim: Supreme Being = God = Allah... while for a Jew: Supreme Being = God = YHWH (Hebrew: יהוה)... while for a Deist: Supreme Being = God = Deity... etc. but for an Atheist: Supreme Being = complex philosophical concept ≠ God. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

All of this is why I decided to be bold and change it from Trinity to the article God in Christianity.--Vidkun (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The link is good... I suppose we could say "Supreme Being can mean Christ to a Christian Mason" (note the link) ... that would convey the idea that Christian Masons are not deists.

I think we overly complicated matters. Why are we enumerating at all instead of just going back to the supportable statement that anyone of a monotheistic religion can be a Mason, because Masonry only require a belief in a generic Supreme Being and leave it at that? I think we're trying to explain too much, and that's where the trouble is. Let's keep it generic. MSJapan (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This section isn't about "requirements" ... its about the use of terms, and the interpretation of those terms. The idea that we are attempting to convey is that while Freemasonry uses the term "Supreme Being", it does not have its own "Masonic" interpretation (or definition) of that term... instead each brother interprets that term for himself, in accordance with the dogma of his own religious denomination. The examples make that clearer. A Christian Mason will interpret the term "Supreme Being" in a Christian context, while a Muslim Mason will interpret it in a Muslim context, and a Hindu Mason will interpret it in a Hindu context (etc.) Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A Christian Mason will interpret the term "Supreme Being" in a Christian context, while a Muslim Mason will interpret it in a Muslim context, and a Hindu Mason will interpret it in a Hindu context (etc.) Why not say just that?--Vidkun (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK... change made. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still a bit "listy" to me; I really don't like the specific examples (mainly because there's too much room to say "what about X religion?"). Given that the intent is define the term (whereas I perceived it as delineating a membership requirement), can we get more generic, like "each Mason interprets the term Supreme Being in his own religious context"? MSJapan (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, thats why I put an "etc.". it's a bit more than his own religious context... for a Masons who adheres to a specific religion or denomination, they will interpret the term in his own religion's context.... ie in accordance with his specific denomination's dogma (this goes to the "compatibility" question... the reason why Freemasonry is compatible with all faiths is that it leaves interpretation to religious authority, and does not try to give its own interpretation). Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about Freemasonry. Why not focus on Freemasonry's requirements for membership rather than other organizations' prohibitions. For purposes of this article, I don't care what their rules are. I care what Freemasonry's rules are.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

But when it comes to interpreting terms like "Supreme Being", Freemasonry's "rule" is: Freemasonry does not interpret the term. Each brother is free to interpret the term in accordance with the dogmas, tenets and beliefs of his own religion. Unfortunately, this is something that many non-masons don't understand... and so we need to give examples to help them understand it. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why. Your statement seems clear enough.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I do think that a statement to the effect that "Freemasons are required to believe in a Supreme Being, although, given the varieties of religious faiths out there, any believer in a religious tradition which includes a Supreme Being is eligible" might be less "listy" than some of the proposals objected to above. It does leave open matters regarding whether some Buddhists or Jains would be eligible, because those are, so far as I can tell, religiouns which do not recognize a Supreme Being of any sort. I do note that some of the articles considered most important to an "encyclopedic" coverage of religion of all sorts, like some of the articles which are included in the Eliade/Jones "Encyclopedia of Religion", aren't yet included here. Honestly, it was because of matters like this, and the fact that there does exist in that source a good independent article on the subject, that I first proposed this article for being tagged with the WikiProject Religion banner, because it is, apparently, an article of some significance to "religion" in an academic sense. I think that still would be a good idea, but let me check the EoR and see if one of the currently missing articles, or one of the other articles it contains which might not be well developed here, might be a better one to link to, with more development. I expect that might take at least a few days, though. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I believe in a supreme being without being a believer in any religious tradition?
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 01:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That is actually a good philosophical/theological question... It could be argued that your belief constitutes your own religious tradition (kcylsnavSism?). In which case, the answer would be... no, you can not. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. You might describe such a person as a Unitarian, a Unitarian-Universalist, a Universalist, a Deist, or something else, and be in large part objectively correct, while I might not want to adopt any of those labels. I believe in god. The discussion ends there.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 15:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of terms is Jurisdictional

Do we give the term "Supreme Being" too much weight? ... the use of terms is somewhat jurisdictional after all. In NY, for example, we don't use the term "Supreme Being" at all (the petition asks: "Do you believe in the existence of one ever living and true God?"... and in ritual we either use "God" or "Great Architect of the Universe"). This may be true for other US jurisdictions (all?). The term "Supreme Being" is (I believe) more of a Continental usage. I am not sure if we want to go into such detail in the article (all of these subtle distinctions may be too complicated) but we should at least think about it. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "Supreme Being" comes from anyone's ritual. It's just a convenient term for the supreme creative intelligence, when some concepts (such as Paramatma) fit the masonic requirement but don't quite equate with "God". It's also easier to type than "The single intelligence behind all creation".

The implicit point is that when masons pray together in lodge, and at the festive board, they tacitly acknowledge that whatever terminology they use, they are addressing the same entity. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We cover this well at Great Architect of the Universe#Freemasonry, by quoting Christopher Haffner. Perhaps that should be repeated here? Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's also in Anderson that a mason will never be a "stupid atheist". He expands in 1738 "In antient times Christian Masons were charged to comply with the Christian usages of each country where they travelled or worked: but masonry being found in all nations, even of divers religions, they are now only charged to adhere to that religion to which all men agree (leaving each Brother to his own particular opinions).."

UGLE now has "Let a man's religion or mode of worship be what it may, he is not excluded from the order, provided he believe in the glorious architect of heaven and earth, and practise the sacred duties of morality". I think that speaks for itself. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fiddler, You keep relating this back to "membership requirements"... but we have a separate section for that later in the article... The section we are discussing is headed "Principles and activities" (sub-head "The Supreme Being and the Volume of Sacred Law") ... so the discussion should be focused on explaining the the supreme being in terms of principles and activities. For example, one of our activities is to invoke the aid of deity... this is often misunderstood by non-masons as calling upon some sort of "Masonic God", so it helps to explain (with examples) what is really going on when we do invoke deity.

Now, perhaps there is a better way to discuss all this... but, at this point in the article, we are not talking about membership requirements. Blueboar (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Just passing on references. The ONLY place in the English constitutions of any period where the non-specific nature of the Great Architect is outlined is in that part of the charges where each mason is required to believe in that principle. Yours may be different? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is the constitutions that outline the requirement for belief in deity... but we can look to other sources to tell us what that requirement means. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Importance levels

Don't respond here but please see the new talk page at Category talk:Unknown-importance Freemasonry-related articles.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 15:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Resigning from Freemasonry

I'm new to the editing side of Wikipedia, so my apologies if this comment is misplaced. I'm a member of a lodge in California, and I was reading this article and saw the phrase, under "General Requirements" "Having been elected and initiated, a member may subsequently resign from membership if he so desires." This troubled me, because under the California Masonic Code, this is specifically prohibited. A member may demit from one or all of his lodges, but not from Masonry in general. In fact, attempted resignation from Masonry is specifically listed as a Masonic offense, subject to Masonic charges, up to, and including, expulsion. To me, this is rather absurd, akin to setting the death penalty for suicide, but the CMC says what it says. Specifcally, CMC Section 804.125 says " A member may not resign from membership."

Furthermore, CMC Section 1401.010 "Unmasonic Conduct", G, 3, B, which lists "The following constitute unmasonic conduct sufficient to support the filing of a charge against a Mason:

b. Attempted resignation from or renunciation of Masonry,

In light of these concerns, I think that the Wikipedia article's assertion that a Mason may resign at any time deserves another look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsp91470 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I've made a small amendment, and will try to find a couple of references. Just a thought, if the renouncer has already resigned from his lodge, won't they have to make him an honorary member to file charges and exclude him? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't work that way, at least not in grand lodges with which I am familiar. In fact, for any organization I would think one would have to be a member in order to have the obligations (or rights) of membership. For example, W. Churchill was made an honorary citizen of the United States but that didn't impose upon him the obligations (or, for that matter, the rights) of citizenship. Same with any club, Masonry included. You can throw out a member, but you can't throw out a non-member. The most you could do with an honorary member would be to cancel his honorary membership. Keep in mind also that once one renounces membership the only way to get back in to a meeting would be to re-join. So there's no reason to exclude the guy once he's resigned - he cannot attend. And of course resigning with disciplinary charges pending may carry its own consequences. Citations for all of this may require references to the Bissell site or to the various grand lodges' regulations. RiverStyx23{_submarine^target} 15:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Remember that this article is an overview for the general public... the subtle difference between "demitting" and "resigning" from Freemasonry is not something that the average (non-Mason) reader is likely to understand without a lot of explanation. Do we really need to spend the article space explaining it? Yes, the word "resign" is not technically accurate... but it is the word that most of our readers will understand. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest we adjust the wording and use "quit" instead. I don't really want to get bogged down in a multijurisdictional legal debate on here, but the CMC is confusing - one can resign from a Research Lodge (specifically permitted), and one can resign or be removed from the jurisdiction in reference to one's office, so I have no idea what's allowed and what's not. I think we need to fiddle with wording, because CMC doesn't make sense, and it not making sense doesn't make sense either. MSJapan (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

UGLE uses "resign". Bottom line is, whatever the jurisdiction, you can leave when you like. Our constitutions insist you are still bound by the obligations of a mason "but not the duties". Rather that get bogged down in terminology, it just needs to be plain that you're still regarded as a mason until you do something to annoy your Grand Lodge. This may include telling the world you are NOT a mason, when the obligation of an EA is binding for life - but I think that's too technical for the article. The big problem may be finding a reference that doesn't obfuscate the matter further. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Facts

Additional facts and resources which may be useful to add in extra sections and new articles about their whole freemasonry rituals.--GoShow (............................) 15:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

An important Caution... The Sacred Texts website is a useful resource... but not all of the texts hosted at www.sacred-texts.com are considered reliable sources. The website's only criteria is that the text be in the public domain, and the website itself includes a disclaimer acknowledging that it has not vetted the texts for accuracy. (For example, Duncan's monitor was an attempt to create a universal American ritual... an attempt which failed. Duncan took bits and pieces from several common rituals and merged them into something he liked. What this means is that while each separate bit of his ritual was "officially approved" somewhere... taken as a whole, Duncan's ritual never became approve as "official ritual", anywhere.)

Some of the texts are outdated (example: William Morgan's expose might have accurately presented New York's ritual as it was back in the 1820s, when it was written... but it does not account for changes that took place to that ritual since then... indeed publication of Morgan's expose caused changes to be made.)

Others (such as Pike's Morals and Dogma) are scholarly treatises on the subject of Freemasonry... and as such can be used for statements about the opinion of their authors, but should not be used for unattributed statements of fact about the fraternity. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, although, some are state as old facts and rituals, I have not yet stated new facts and rituals, just stated out of date rituals and their documents, but thank you.--GoShow (............................) 17:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

GoShow... I am puzzled by your recent additions of citations to various sources at the Sacred Text website (seen here)... most of them had nothing to do with the information in the paragraphs or sections you added them to. I have removed them for now... but if I am missing something let me know and we can discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I said these were old rituals, I was in the middle of adding old text rituals and new texts, but since you deleted them there 's nothing further to discuss.--GoShow (............................) 18:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you were citing old rituals... What don't understand is why you cited them where you did? It almost looks like you selected random places in the article in which to cite them. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It was to include in the ritual sections, I was about to add the sources and more sentences about their performances, in which some parts of those documents such as the illustration does give an example of how they used hand jesture, the word of BOAZ, and other information, and hopefully new sources, but since you interfered I might as well not explain further information and must go on to a different wikisource, but I do appreciate the time and effort in helping out in suggestions, farewell.--GoShow (............................) 19:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK... some advice for the future... if you want to add a source that demonstrates "X" (whatever that may be), the appropriate place to add it would be to a sentence or paragraph that directly discusses "X"... and not to some random paragraph that has nothing to do with "X". Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it, although, some of the other sites I did see while reading on the article, are not in beloning sections A to Z, although they do give some correct advise into those sources, as most book sources cites may show a list amount of ways, but bunching together the ways they use it, however thanks for the info I'll seek what else in other booklists to checkout, thank you. Good luck.--GoShow (............................) 19:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Descriptive images

Considering the square and compass as a lead image is already shown and described in the article section on "symbolism," maybe a print recently uploaded showing a descriptive piece of artwork might be better for a lead image. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't. Apart from being self-serving because you uploaded the image in the first place, you can't source an image off EBay, because it is a commercial reproduction of an image, not the original. MSJapan (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify a bit. Do you mean that if the same image was available free, such as from the LOC, it would be fine? That the mere selling of any PD image makes it no longer PD? If so, on what basis does it lose its PD status? Since everything on eBay is sold, are you stating that nothing from eBay can ever be PD? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the artwork has been recolored, and in some cases restored, cropped, or in other words, altered. Therefore, they are no longer the original documents, they look different from the LOC ones, and are thereby modern derivatives. MSJapan (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this copy, only the white margin with some handwritten notes were trimmed. Trimming the border of a piece of art would not create a new copyrighted derivative. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I just uploaded the LOC copy in place of the eBay reproduction. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely NO idea if this artwork passes muster in the United States, but I can assure you it is incomprehensible to other English speaking Freemasons. Which is probably why it isn't used in this article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

All three images have been recolored, actually, and Fiddler makes a good point as well. MSJapan (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Simply link to the source with the correct colors, then it can be uploaded. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth's comment that the symbolism found in this image would be unrecognizable Masons outside of the US is an important one. In fact, a lot of it would be unrecognizable to a modern day US Mason as well. This is a very archaic image, one that contains archaic symbolism (ie no longer used). Given this, I would object to using it as the lede image... the lede image should be something that is instantly associated with modern Freemasonry, and common to all Masonic jurisdictions around the world ... something like the Square and Compasses. It should not be archaic symbolism that only relates to a few US jurisdictions way back in the 1840s. We can discuss whether it should go somewhere else in the article, but not in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Square and Compasses

The main symbol of masonry is Square and Compasses, not Square and Compasses and "G". Can the image be replaced to "no G"? Furthermore "G" has no meaning in languages other than English, and is not part of any logo outside of US.Truther2012 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Scots use it, and the French are quite happy that it stands for Geometrie, or God, accepting their lineal descent from the original Grand Lodge in London. The show-offs in Le Droit Humain use a G inside a blazing star. In terms of head-counting, its probably an even break, with slightly more with the G if anything. I happen to agree with you about the symbolism, but as an article header I think it's OK. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont know if the "headcount" is the proper gauge of accuracy. For every GL of Scotland there is UGLE. Also, shouldn't we strive to reflect global meaning?

Well, the point behind raising the fact that the Scots use it was to show that the S&C with the G is global. It is also common in India, South America and Africa. While there are GLs that don't include the G (for example Australia)... there are more GLs (world wide) that that do. I think the S&C with the G will be recognizable in more parts of the world than the S&C without it.... its even recognizable in those jurisdictions that don't use it. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)