Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Changed "traces its origins to" to "ostensibly has its origins in"

The origins of Freemasonry are unclear. There has never been any credible scholarship linking Freemasonry to historical stonemason guilds. The cited reference cannot be used as a source to show that it actually "traces its origins to" medieval stonemason guilds since the very first page of Chapter 1 of the work makes it clear that "The narratives bring the history of masonry down to the reign of Athelstan (925-40) and must, we believe, be regarded as myths." Dlw20070716 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Athelstan narrative is a myth... but Athelstan is not really "medieval". Nor does one part of the legend being a myth mean that that Freemasonry can not trace its origin to late medieval stone masonry. It most definitely can. There are lodge records that show the transition. Please read our article on History of Freemasonry... it goes into the transition (as modern historians understand it) in more detail. Blueboar (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The historical connection between operative and speculative masonry is clear in Scotland, from where masons get a surprising amount of their vocabulary. In York, the families of the last minuted guild lodge were present in the speculative lodge of the 1700s. The link is only tenuous in London, where Desaguliers, Payne, and others recreated masonry on a model that was scrapped in 1812. The clearest link to the middle ages is in York, based on the continuous records of the Minster. Where some of the ritual came from is anybody's guess, but the societal links to an early form of trade unionism are obvious, and supported by modern "creditable" scholarship. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I read the History of Freemasonry cited above and did not find it very compelling. The sources cited were practically all written by masons (and therefore not necessarily impartial sources). Wikipedia gives precedence to third party sources, which are sadly lacking. There was very little history even alleged by the article to historically link operative and speculative freemasons. I don't see anything in the Schaw statutes, for example, that relate to speculative masonry at all.

The strongest fact alleged is that "The first recorded admission of non-masons was on the 3rd of July, 1634, in the persons of Sir Anthony Alexander, his elder brother, Lord Alexander, and Sir Alexander Strachan of Thornton. Sir Anthony was the King's Principal Master of Work, and the man who had effectively blocked the second St. Clair charter, the lodges of Scotland being his own responsibility. The reasons that his brother and their friend were also admitted are unclear." That the King's Principal Master of Work should be a member in good standing of the organization he is supposed to supervise cannot be used to imply that men unrelated to the operative craft would be welcome to an operative lodge. That he might want two auxiliaries of his own choosing is not unreasonable, but again, does not give precedence for admitting men unrelated to the operative craft in general.

My judgement is that the connections between speculative masonry and operative masonry are more illusory and assumed than proven. Even so fine a masonic scholar as Robert L.D. Cooper admits that it is mostly historical projection, conjecture and guessing. However, I do not want to be party to an edit war, so I will not change my edit back, but I urge you to do so in the interests of accuracy. Dlw20070716 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in your assertion that there is no firm evidence of speculative masons being direct descendants from operatives. However, “tracing one’s origin” does not imply firm evidence, just a “trace” of origin, if you may. “I trace my origin to King Arthur” is way different from ”King Arthur was my great-great-grandfather.” In my view, “ostensibly” implies any lack of evidence, which I would disagree with, even if the only evidence is highly biased masonic sources.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I would accept trace if you could provide a source for your contention. In fact, you have not. Dlw20070716 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's the definition of trace: To have origins; be traceable. The reason I'm calling into question the alleged connection between operative and speculative masonry is that I have looked for reliable scholarship showing a well-documented progression from operative to speculative masonry and not found any. In other words, it's not traceable. Dlw20070716 (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, one should not use the word in its definition, especially if one is making things up to suit one's own purpose. Dictionary.com provides several very different definitions of "trace", and perhaps the most useful is the very first: "a surviving mark, sign, or evidence of the former existence, influence, or action of some agent or event; vestige: traces of an advanced civilization among the ruins." That's obvious on even a cursory reading, and thus should take care of this discussion. MSJapan (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make that definition up. I got it from an online dictionary [1] just like you got yours. However, if we use yours we still get an equivalent definition. The evidence in the form of surviving marks, signs, vestiges, etc. are missing for the origins of freemasonry and therefore it cannot, in fact, trace its origins to medieval stonemasons guilds.

Just for clarification, though it is not very germane to the discussion, but the reign of Athelstan (925-40) does, in fact, fall squarely in the middle of the medieval period, according to [2]. Dlw20070716 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You still cherry-picked a definition - what's wrong with "1b. Evidence or an indication of the former presence or existence of something; a vestige" not fitting the usage, or perhaps "To ascertain the successive stages in the development or progress of"? Instead, you picked the definition from the intransitive verb three-quarters of the way through. Factually, however, your assertion that signs do not remain is incorrect - the fact that there is a clear connection in Scotland was already pointed out earlier. Therefore, your conclusion and subsequent change is incorrect. There are literally hundreds of sources that say almost exactly what we have in this article. It is not our job to do the original research to support the claim (and that is in fact not allowed) - this is an encyclopedia that relies on third-party sources. MSJapan (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Continue to beat a dead horse; I don't care. I didn't cherry pick the definition, as you keep insisting. I should have picked a definition that did not include another form of the word in question. I did in fact pick the definition I did because it was the first one under the appropriate part of speech being used that seemed to fit. In case it has somehow escaped your notice, please allow me to point out that your definitions are also perfectly acceptable and would not change the meaning I intended. Does that finally satisfy you? The argument, IMHO, centers around the lack of "evidence", "vestige", "successive stages in the development or progress" between guild masonry and speculative freemasonry. Dlw20070716 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The York sources are not conclusive, but after the fabric rolls of the Minster ended, there is a half-century gap until the first speculative lodge minutes, when the same families crop up. Yes, the Scottish sources are all masonic, this is because they are the Minute Books of the lodges undergoing the transition. There are a few non-masons writing about the formation of the organisation, and none of the creditable contemporary ones throw doubt on operative origins - it is only the process of transition that is disputed. This argument is probably necessary, as it crops up every 20-30 years in the 20th century, mainly started by historians that concentrated on the well-minuted and high-profile London lodges. Even their official history thanked the Scots for keeping masonry and handing it back to them. The connection needs a very strong contrary citation to be removed, not just one editor's POV. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To the contrary, establishing a fact is entirely the burden of those who assert it. I am pointing out that there is a lack of such evidence, in particular, the reference cited in the article (Douglas Knoop, G.P. Jones, The Genesis of Freemasonry: An Account of the Rise and Development of Freemasonry in its Operative, Accepted, and Early Speculative Phases. Manchester. Manchester University Press. 1947.) does not support the contention made, that there is a traceable link between guild masonry and speculative freemasonry. If there is such a link, kindly point to a valid source for your contention. Don't just wave your hands in generalization as you have done above. Until you come up with a valid source, it's all just myth as asserted by Knoop in chapter one. Dlw20070716 (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I would suggest that you look at a few more modern sources, Dlw. It's been over 60 years since Knoop and Jones wrote their book, and a lot of masonic research into the history and origins of Freemasonry has taken place since they wrote.

Second ... I think you misunderstand what Knoop and Jones are saying. Knoop and Jones are correct in noting that the story of Athelstan bringing stone-masonry (and thus Freemasonry) to England in the ninth century is a myth. Almost every modern Masonic historian would agree with that. However... the Athelstan story is not what is being referred to when we say that Freemasonry "traces its origins" to medieval stone-masons. What is being referred to is what took place at a much later point in time... at the very end of the medieval period. Almost every Masonic historian (including Knoop and Jones) agrees that Freemasonry evolved out of Stonemasons lodges in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. That is what is being referred to when we say Freemasonry "traces its origins" to the medieval stonemasons. And that is not a myth... it's historical fact accepted by the vast majority Masonic historians, and supported by masonic lodge records. Granted, back in 1947, many of those records had yet to be uncovered... but even then, historians (like Knoop and Jones) agreed that Freemasonry grew out of the operative stone masons lodges.

Finally... the phrase "traces its origins to" does not necessarily rule out myth. Modern Masonic ritual trace the origins of the fraternity to the building of King Solomon's Temple. That story is repeated over and over again in every Masonic lodge. OK... everyone understands that this is myth. It is intended as allegory and not intended as accurate history... yet it would still be accurate to say that "Freemasonry traces its origins to the building of King Solomon's Temple". Where does it trace its origins to that event? In the ritual. It doesn't matter whether the tracing is accurate... simply that the tracing takes place. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the Knoop reference to point to the relevant pages. It never pointed to chapter 1. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your tweak edit apparently didn't take. I'm still seeing the Knoop reference without any page or chapter number.Dlw20070716 (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That helps... although my first comment to Dlw applies here as well. Why are we using a 60 year old source for this? I would suggest that we replace it with a more modern source... one that incorporates more recent research. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Good if we can find one. There is a problem with modern sources taking operative origins as a given. It's over a century since Cantor proved 1+1=2, why do it again? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth? That's a very unusual scholarly approach to take, and I for one don't find it satisfactory. The rules of wikipedia are quite clear: unsourced material can be challenged (which I have) and removed (which I will do eventually if a better source is not forthcoming). This is not, as you say, a 1+1=2 problem. It's a problem of assuming myth to be based in fact just because it's been repeated so often.

I do acknowledge the problem of finding third-party sources as wikipedia prefers (non-masons are unlikely to be motivated to write about the history of masonry), and I am willing to allow a masonic author if he does more than just assume the myth is based in fact. He must present compelling evidence of a link, though, between speculative freemasonry and guild masonry. I do not accept Blueboar's contention that "traces its origins" can include claims made in the ritual which are not otherwise provable. That's clearly not adequate evidence, since it merely repeats the lie without any valid basis. You gentlemen seem to be assuming that I am uninformed about the origins of masonry, but this is not the case. I have seen modern scholarship (Born in Blood, by Robinson) which traces the ritual back to the Knights Templar. Another modern contention I found in a video was that Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians were responsible for speculative freemasonry. The point I'm trying to make is not that these contentions are necessarily true, but that modern scholarship has sifted the evidence and come up with alternatives to the ancient mythology. Meanwhile the ancient mythology stands upon the shifting sands of assumption. Dlw20070716 (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. If your statement is generally accurate, you read flawed material, watch YouTube, call it "scholarship", and really don't know what you're talking about at all. Here's why: the direct Templar connection has been entirely debunked over time, because no one has found anything substantial enough to definitively say "yes, Freemasonry = Templars." People have claimed connections, but there's nothing there except strength of rhetoric, really. As for Bacon, there's a lot of scholarship on him, and again, there is no substantive evidence that Bacon ever did anything with either organization. I would note that these are areas that there is much legitimate scholarship on, as well as a lot of speculative garbage, and the key is knowing the difference. The real problem seems to be twofold: one, that you are equating "modern" with "more correct because it's newer" without really getting that not everything in print is worth the paper it is printed on (sort of like any Knight and Lomas book). Secondly, I think that you have a preconceived notion of what the origin of Freemasonry is, and because that doesn't fit with what we have here, you are simply trying to get us to change what does not fit your notions. Therefore, I would highly recommend reading some more rigorously tested material. Robert L.D. Cooper is a good start, and I will see what else I can find to recommend- I haven't focused on general Masonic history lately, so I'm not aware of what's out. MSJapan (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I consider John Robinson to be a much more reliable scholar than anyone else I have read on the subject. As I said, I'm not putting forth his position as "the truth" here. I'm merely pointing out that "modern scholarship" cannot be used in a hand-waving sort of way to assert that Masonic history has been assuredly "traced" to medieval stonemason guilds for any reasonable definition of "traced". There are modern scholars with decidedly different viewpoints, and John Robinson, for one, is a very serious scholar that I am not willing to see discarded out-of-hand simply because you disagree with him. I cannot claim to have read everything ever written on the subject (that's quite a bit of material to slog through.) However, I was curious enough to read several authoritative and scholarly sources until I came to the conclusion that the the more scholarly the source, the less likely they that they assert any connection to guild masonry that is actually backed up by suitable evidence. If Robert L.D. Cooper has published compelling evidence of the fact in contention, please provide a proper citation. Mr. Cooper has written several books, and I don't want to miss any evidence that you may think relevant. That is, after all, the wikipedia way. I will say, just from looking at the book titles, that Mr. Cooper is likely to make a case for the contention that one of the William Sinclairs were the originators of freemasonry. Dlw20070716 (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I respect Robinson as well... why?... Because he freely admitted when he was presenting fact and when he was presenting speculation. Throughout Born in Blood, he cautioned the reader that what he was presenting was merely speculation and not fact. He was a good writer and wove a convincing tale out of his speculation... but it was speculation and he did not have any documentation to support what he wrote.

Other historians, however, do present documentation... documentation that Robinson either ignored or did not know about. Robinson says that he could find no evidence of organized stonemason guilds in England... and thus dismisses the traditional account of the Craft's origin. Unfortunately he limited his search to England, and neglected to look in Scotland. If he had, he would have found quite a lot of documentation.

In addition to Robert Cooper, I would recommend reading some of Andrew Prescott's work (for example: A History of British Freemasonry 1425-2000 - pay attention to his section for 1583-1717). For a non-masonic source... read The Freemasons by Jasper Ridley. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the Andrew Prescott reference. If in fact Mr. Prescott is correct, the wikipedia article should start with the sentence "Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation that originated in the religious fraternities which flourished particularly after the Black Death of 1349." On reading the 1425-1583 section, I find that, according to him, guild masonry was already at an early date stratified along class lines and therefore the myth of an egalitarian society of masters, fellowcraft, and apprentices never really existed, the legends of the Regius and Cooke documents being just that, legends. Dlw20070716 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the reviews on Amazon.com I would not expect to find much besides regurgitation and anti-conspiratorial refutation in the Jasper Ridley book. The more knowledgeable reviewers rated his history skills noticeably poorly. Spare my eyes, please, and quote any original material of his that you think is relevant to the current discussion. He may not be a mason, but he sure writes like a dyed-in-the-wool masonic apologist. He obviously is a hack writer who wrote the book for his publisher merely because the publisher thought there would be a market for such a work. Dlw20070716 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong again on both counts. Prescott's statement is one of several views, not the only view. Secondly, Jasper Ridley had about a 60-year career as a writer, so he was no hack, and wrote quite a few history books. As I said before, you have a preconceived notion of what the article should say, and you discount whatever doesn't fit your view. This thread has gone on for a month, and I am getting rather tired of going around in circles with you, so let's leave it at this: per the consensus, whatever it is that you want changed is not going to be changed. If you continue to change it unilaterally, you will likely be blocked for editing against consensus. MSJapan (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to come up with a valid source in order to keep the page the way it is. I don't see that you've done that. Wikipedia has a few rules for resolving such cases, that's just the way it works. I've read every source put forward so far except the vague and unpromising Ridley book. I'm not going to read an entire book when it is you that needs to provide the valid citation. And unless the Amazon reviewers are way off (and I don't think they are) I don't think a hack writer who regurgitates rather than researches is well qualified as a source in the first place. Since a hack writer is one who writes low quality material prolifically for hire, the number of books he's written does not negate the contention that he is a hack. On the contrary, it proves it. If you are tired of continuing to debate, you're free to stop at any time. Either concede the point, or provide a proper citation. Dlw20070716 (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Amazon reviewers are just ordinary people writing reviews of books. The only reviewers that matter on critiquing a source are professionals and peers to the author. If you can provide a source from a professional in his field calling him a hack that's notable but common people on Amazon is not part of the discussion. Alatari (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said, if you want to use him as a source, kindly quote the passages that you think are relevant to the discussion. If, as I suspect, he merely regurgitates the "medieval stonemason's guild" origin without further proof of his contention then I stand justified in calling him a hack. And yes, that is my word for him based upon the impression I received of his work by those who wrote the most extensive and helpful reviews. You're always free to disagree and value Mr. Ridley as a historian of the highest order, but if he cannot come up with evidence to support his thesis, then he has no place in this discussion, regardless of what you and I might personally think of his writing skills. Dlw20070716 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on him as a source. I was concerned you were not familiar with Wikipedia policy on what is a reliable source found here: WP:RS and how to disqualify a source. Review that page and the sub pages and maybe you will find the method to disqualify this source you find so unappealing. No where in the policies is a reference made to online consumer reviewers of unknown quality such as single purchasers and readers at Amazon, unpaid 'top reviewers' at Rotten Tomatoes, top commentators at HuffPo, etc. They are akin to bloggers which are specifically forbidden as self-published, unverified, non-peer reviewed sources. Alatari (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

First, apologies. I attached page numbers to the wrong Knoop. Now fixed. This should really be further down the page, eliminating unnecessary refs from the lead as per MOS. This aside, I used Knoop, in spite of the age of the work, because of Knoop's academic credentials as a historian of mediaeval stonemasons. The primary sources haven't expanded much in the interim, and his laborious analysis of the available texts has yet to be repeated.

Cooper (respected above) traces masonic ritual to the Edinburgh Registry House MS, which definitely came from an operative lodge. The same respected author has written one good book and many articles debunking the Templar myth, which as an archivist, he regards as the bane of his life. Even at his most pro-Templar, Lomas used operative masonry as the vector of the "hidden teachings". The dissenting voices are the volumes of twaddle starting from Ramsay in 1737, and the original intent was to persuade French gentlemen that masonry didn't come from oiks with mallets. The connection between Templars and masons (and other free trades) was demonstrable in 18th century Paris. The dislocation between the guilds that flourished in the Templar (later Hospitaller) quarter of Paris and the very English form of freemasonry later adopted is also obvious. The place for this material is in other articles, and certainly not in the lead paragraph of the main article. Speculative masons claim descent from operative lodges, and mis-quoting Bob Cooper won't change that. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it fairly clear that there is a consensus here. Do we really need to continue the discussion? Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth, where are you putting your "fixes" to the Knoop references? Citation 1 of the article still look the same to me, no page or chapter numbers, even after refreshing the web page. Blueboar, there has always been a consensus, but that's irrelevant when the cited reference does not support the statement. The statement has been challenged on the basis of lack of support in the referenced document. Therefore in order to stay in the article the reference must be, at the very least, amended to point to a specific statement in the document that supports it, when a blanket statement in the introductory chapter indicates to the contrary. No amount of consensus can fix this defect. Dlw20070716 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reference 1 clearly states pp42-44 (I've added the chapter). You will also note that the title of the work contains "An Account of the Rise and Development of Freemasonry in its Operative, Accepted, and Early Speculative Phases", indicating Knoop's presentation of a continuum. Chapter VII deals with the mechanism of the transition from operative to speculative lodges. Which is still too much detail for a lead paragraph. This needs restated in the body of the article, and the reference moved there. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I finally see the update on this refresh. Dlw20070716 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've now had a chance to review the citations you specified in Knoop: pages 42-44 and Chapter VII. Pages 42-44 do not support the contention that speculative freemasonry is traceable to "the loose organisation of late medieval Stonemasonry." It gives only questionable support to the contention that there was even a "loose" organisation of late medieval stonemasons from which freemasonry might be derived. It assumes such a beast, and then inadvertently gives evidence against the assumption.

Early on (page 40), he makes a distinction between "craft gilds", concerned with the (self)-regulation of a trade or craft in a locality by the masters of the craft and holding a charter giving them the right to so associate, and "trade companies or fellowships" forced upon the various trades from above to facilitate municipal government. Of the latter he says on page 40 "these sixteenth and seventeenth century trade companies in England appear to have little or no interest for students of Masonic history." However, in discussing mason's craft gilds in London it is evident that he sometimes does conflate the two.

Page 42 starts with a denial that whatever masons' organization existed was a craft gild (sic), "whereas the wallers, bricklayers, and daubers claimed a charter granted in the reign of Henry VI, and the slaters an 'ordinary' dating from 1451."

He mentions some evidence of masons' craft ordinances (not gilds) at London, Edinburgh, and Norwich and mentions participation by masons in a couple of early miracle plays and pagents, but again he insists that "We cannot see any reason why masons' ordinances should have been lost, whilst others have been preserved, and we feel compelled to conclude that local gilds of masons were not strongly developed in medieval boroughs, a conclusion which an examination of the conditions prevailing in the stone building industry would lead one to expect. Masons were doubtless organised, but on a looser and less localised basis than most contemporary trades. Before discussing this looser type of organisation, however, this section on craft gilds may best be concluded by a brief review of the masons' regulations drawn up in London, the one municipality in England where a masons' craft gild is definitely known to have existed." I'll come back to that "doubtless" statement later.

On page 43 he then goes on to talk about ordinances (not a gild organisation) in London until 1481. "Ordinances made in 1481 both imply that the Gild or Fellowship had been badly administered, and provide remedies." This statement more implies lack of a functioning "gild or fellowship" that an existing functional one. I note that 1481 is perilously close to the sixteenth century, when on page 40 he says the trades and crafts in England came to be regulated by "trade companies and fellowships" which he went on to say have "little or no interest for students of Masonic history".

After discussing expenses required of the gild members, he goes on to say "we may suppose that the Fellowship was tending to become too expensive for the journeyman mason to join. The 1521 ordinances show a marked tendency towards the establishment of a local monopoly." Once again, showing that the egalitarianism of speculative freemasonry is not to be found in the craft gild or fellowship organisation. It is evident that the "craft gild" of London, was in fact one of the "trade companies and fellowships" imposed from above and of "little or no interest for students of Masonic history".

He ends page 44 with the subject of masons' marks. No masons' gild records of these survive, though "The helmet makers, blacksmiths, bladesmiths and braziers of London and the cutlers of Hallamshire may be cited as instances of crafts for which regulations concerning marks existed. In London, no provision regulating the use of marks has been traced in the Masons' Ordinances, nor has any book survived in the archives of the Company recording the marks assigned to members, such as the Masons' Mark Book at Aberdeen which dates from 1670. The only London evidence which has survived is quite unhelpful, viz., a score of marks, either in lieu of, or appended to, signatures in the seventeenth century books of the Company, more particularly in the Accounts."

I note that contrary to his stated assumption quoted above that "masons were doubtless organised, but on a looser and less localised basis than most contemporary trades" to account for the similarities of customs and practices over broad regions, he specifically notes on page 50 that "the vast gathering of masons at Windsor in 1360-3 must have marked an epoch in Masonic history and probably contributed more than any other single event to the unification and consolidation of the masons' customs, and very possibly led to their first being set down in writing." In other words, his own evidence contradicts his stated assumption. If large numbers of masons (characterized at the time by "almost all the masons and carpenters in England") are gathered for large crown building projects periodically, what need would the masons have for a redundant organization for a craft regulated largely by custom?

On page 45 he goes on to talk about assemblies or congregations. He first of all admits that "The nature of this organisation is somewhat a matter for conjecture" which ought to be construed by wikipedians as a negation of the idea that Freemasonry is, indeed, "traceable" to such an organisation.

He goes on to "rule out the congregations and confederacies of masons declared illegal by Statutes of 1360 and 1425, on the ground that they, like the similar associations of carpenters and cordwainers, were associations which aimed solely at securing higher wages, in violation of the Statutes of Labourers. These were clearly associations of wage earners. In such official or semi-official organisations of masons as existed, we should expect masters to predominate."

He goes on to speculate further, but with no proof of masonic involvement, except for the admittedly spurious Regius and Cooke manuscripts. Leaning on such broken reeds is definitely not good for the stability of one's argument. They may have been written to justify the customs of the times in which they were written (as he assumes), or they may have been written to claim as rights practices which were never customary, though the authors wished otherwise.

Clearly, pages 42-44 paint a picture, at best, of a devastatingly confusing lack of organization within operative stonemasonry in England and Scotland until at least the sixteenth and seventeeth centuries, the very same centuries that speculative freemasonry is likely to have had its true origins. There may have been some tradition of trade secrets surviving from Roman times among operative masons, but any organizational traces are surprisingly fleeting and inaccessible to modern scholars.

In Chapter VII we read on page 131 "In England, non-operatives, who can first be definitely traced in the seventeenth century, do not appear to have belonged to lodges of operative masons as was the case in Scotland; on the contrary, they appear to have been made masons either at occasional, or at semi-permanent, lodges consisting mainly, or exclusively, of non-operatives or of `gentleman masons' (as defined by Prichard). An instance of the former kind is the lodge held at Warrington on 16 October 1646 to admit Elias Ashmole, the antiquary; instances of the latter kind are the London `Acception' (connected with the London Masons' Company), and the lodge at Chester (to which Randle Holme III, the Chester genealogist and antiquary, belonged). The freemasons made in these English lodges, which are discussed more fully below, were described by seventeenth-century writers, such as Dr. Robert Plot and John Aubrey, as `adopted' or `accepted' masons. They were largely, if not entirely, independent of operative control, and were consequently in a far better position than the non-operatives in Scotland to modify, amend, or elaborate Masonic ceremonies."

He then goes on to call this early form of pre-Grand Lodge masonry 'accepted masonry' and further opines that it "formed the link connecting operative and speculative masonry." But the quote just given shows that there never was such a connection because even these earliest English lodges were already non-operative!

He contends that "The first definite evidence that a non-operative was a member of an operative lodge occurs in the year 1600, when the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh for 8 June 1600 show that John Boswell, laird of Auchinlech, attended as a member of the lodge." However, the wikipedia page for John Boswell_(freemason) has this to say "There are others, however, who disagree. It is not clear in what capacity Boswell was in attendance at this meeting. It was not an ordinary masonic meeting of the lodge, but a trial of its Warden 'Jhone Broune'. While it is possible that he was there as a member (or an honorary member) of the lodge, it is also possible that he was there only as counsel for prosecution or defence (or for some other reason), and was not a member of the lodge at all. There is no evidence of his initiation in the lodge on that occasion or any other occasion, and the meeting of June 8, 1600 was the only occasion to which Boswell’s connection with the masonic Craft can be traced."

Neither pages 42-44, nor Chapter VII then, justify the contention that "Freemasonry traces its origins in the loose organisation of late medieval Stonemasonry." Firstly, the existence of even a loose organisation of stonemasons is surprisingly problematic and if it did exist, probably would not have been an egalitarian one suitable as a precursor of freemasonry. Secondly, the connection between operatives and speculatives is specifically disclaimed for England, and the evidence given for Scotland is disputed elsewhere on wikipedia. Dlw20070716 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are now interpreting a reference in a way that the author manifestly never intended. The thrust of Knoop's argument is discuss a mechanism by which operative evolved into speculative masonry. Perhaps you would be happier with a bald statement from some coffee-table book by a masonic historian, I prefer a bit of background. The mechanism of such evolution will probably always be debated, but any claims that it did not occur will be embarrassed by the continuity of ritual, and the use of the same passwords. In addition, we have the minutes of the Lodge of Edinburgh No 1, which start in 1598 with an operative lodge copying the Schaw Statutes, continue to 1712, when Lyon estimates the lodge to be 80% operative (and one of her daughters mainly speculative), then to the present day, where the membership is 100% speculative. I have a good theory as to what happened and why, but that's OR, and won't be appearing here. The short thesis you have just written also looks remarkably like original research, as it re-interprets a chapter of a reference to show the opposite of what the author was trying to demonstrate. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to the above, and on reflection, this definitely needs fixed. The UK section in history needs at least written a partial re-write, anything not mentioned there removed from lead, and ALL references removed to the body of the article from the lead as per MOS. "Loose organisation" is far too vague, and wrong. Give me a few days. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to address any inaccuracies you choose. My whole point in all this is to get you to see that making statements that can be construed as supporting the old mythology are inaccurate and unscholarly and not worthy of wikipedia. In your first comment above, you talk about evidence related to the Lodge of Edinburgh that is not in the citation. That evidence clearly needs to be brought to the forefront in any citations you choose. Dlw20070716 (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

lack of reasons given

genereally it seems to me that the article fails to explain the motivation of freemasons for what they do. should the article not give some reasons as to why freemasons do the following things:

- trying to educate their members through rituals and symbols (why not just reasoning?);

- trying to establish an organization above established religions by demanding a belief in a rather vague "supreme being" while recognizing the various religions (especially when asking a commitment to a selected religious ethos [Volume of Sacred Law]);

- maintaining a veil of secrecy while the goal of the education of members is the betterment of humanity? (why should then not every human have free access to everything?);

- excluding women to a large degree ?

may be the writer(s) of the article want to keep freemasonry mysterious? which would run counter to enlightenment (of which freemasons often claim to be a part)... or could one add the missing reasons? for which I for one would be very thankful (my father, who died when I was an all too young man, having been a freemason)! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think expecting an explanation for what simply is and then claiming a lack of explanation as being "on purpose" is rather disingenuous. Why rituals and symbols? Why not? That's how people learn everything, even language. "A" is "A" because it is, and has the meaning we ascribe to it. The ability to reason requires understanding of the subject, and without that, one is rather lost. Example: one cannot learn math if one has no idea what 1 and 2 are, what they symbolize, and how they relate to one another. However, you would rather ask "Why do 1 and 2 mean 1 and 2?" I don't know why, but one needs to simply accept what they represent or one cannot do anything with them other than question endlessly to the point of doubting reason and meaning entirely. Perhaps most importantly for purposes of this article, those fundamental items make Freemasonry what it is, and therefore there are no third-party sources documenting why those choices were made, or when.

I also have no desire to enter into a purely subjective discussion of what the answers to your questions might be, but the nature of your questions leads me to believe that you are likely transposing a modern viewpoint onto older times and are thereby misleading yourself. MSJapan (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Expanding MSJapan's last paragraph, the many editors of this article have all tried to answer as many relevant questions as possible. There is a fuller explanation of the exclusion of women in Freemasonry and women. Rituals are secret because they are supposed to be a surprise to the candidate - everything else is in the open. However, the object of Freemasonry is the betterment of humanity through self improvement. Masonic ritual has many layers, and has many mystical, moral, and practical interpretations. At the most basic level, performing ritual in the temple boosts self-confidence, memory, and public speaking, enabling a mason to be a better servant of his/her fellow beings. The question of motivation is unanswerable here, because the real answers are personal, and different for every mason. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The questions also have factual flaws... HilmarHansWerner asks why Freemasons "educate their members through rituals and symbols (why not just reasoning?)"... its a factually flawed question because a) the rituals don't attempt to "educate" ... it's purpose is to encourage self-contemplation on fairly universal concepts like being charity, honesty, temperance , brotherly love, and being a good man in society.

He asks why Freemasons "establish an organization above established religions by demanding a belief in a rather vague "supreme being" while recognizing the various religions (especially when asking a commitment to a selected religious ethos [Volume of Sacred Law])"... this is a flawed question because a) Freemasonry doesn't establish an organisation "above established religions" (Freemasons would say they work hand in hand with established religions)... b) it doesn't demand a belief in a vague "supreme being" (it explicitly says that belief is up to the individual... as long as there is belief. So, if one Mason has a vague belief, OK, that is his choice, but if another Mason has a more specific Belief (say in Jesus Christ) that's fine too... c) Freemasonry does not ask a commitment to a selected religious ethos (the Volume of Sacred Law isn't a specific book... it is whatever book is appropriate for the individual Mason, given that Masons beliefs).

He asks why Freemasons "maintain a veil of secrecy"... What secrecy? Freemasons meet in large buildings with "Masonic Hall" (or similar) in big letters over the door. Sure Masons pretend that there is a secret... because its fun to pretend... and because if you say have a secret it piques other's curiosity and makes them want to join, just so they can find out the secret. Great recruiting tool. What you may be mistaking for secrecy is actually "privacy". Masons meet behind closed doors because their meetings are private... "for members only" affairs. But what they are are actually doing in there is not a secret. The rituals have been exposed repeatedly (just look on the internet).

He complains about excluding women to a large degree... ok... that one isn't exactly flawed. But it isn't exactly accurate either... Yes, the majority branch of Freemasonry excludes women... but not all branches do. As for why the majority branch does so... essentially the answer is: "it's tradition". No more, no less. Sometimes men just like to get together and do something that is "just the guys"... without the women around to laugh at them while they do it. Blueboar (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is important to recognize that we are not researchers, but merely editors. If the OP feels that these are important questions to be addressed in the article, all they need to do is to find reliable sources and properly quote them the article. I am sure the rest of the editors will be more than happy to ensure the proper fit of that information here. Our purpose is not "veil" or "unveil" any secrets, but rather encyclopedically summarize available information --Truther2012 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Major overhaul - request for comment

I've just excavated the last GA review, which came to a quick fail due to referencing issues. The idea of asking for review was to identify the article's shortcomings, which the quick fail obviously didn't achieve. It would be useful, as I'm picking through the rubble, if interested editors could identify what, in their opinion, are the main obstacles to GA status. My own bugbear is the rambling structure. Blueboar's take on what we should aim for is in the preceding section, and is a pretty good start. Any other insights would be most welcome. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I can stand silence. I've started chipping away at individual sections, and got stuck at the Grand Orient de France. There should be a more comprehensive coverage of continental freemasonry here, but this would spill into one or two other sections. I believe the solution is to scrap the history section, putting the early stuff in an origins section at the beginning of the article. Later history would be incorporated into individual sections under Types of Freemasonry. I'm proposing the following structure -

* Origins

* Modern Freemasons (lodges, GLs, ritual, membership, charity)

* Types of Freemasonry (last section on recognition)

* Freemasonry and Women

* Anti-masonry.

I think this organisation would cut the possibilities of duplication. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest a slightly different organizational pattern...

• Intro/Lede
• Modern Freemasons
  • Structure (lodges, GLs, other bodies)
  • Interaction
    • explain the concept of Amity and Recognition
    • explain the concept of Regularity (not the same as recognition, but a factor in it)
  • What Freemasons do (ritual, fellowship, charity/community work)
• History
  • Origins
  • Growth (explain how new lodges and GLs are formed)
  • Splits and schisms and offshoots
    • Ancients vs. Moderns
    • Prince Hall vs. "Mainstream"
    • Anglo/US vs Continental
    • Male vs. Female vs. Coed
• Anti-Masonry

I suggest this after asking: what does the average non-Mason reader want to know? We should put that first. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we're on the same hymn sheet. Your History is pretty much my Types of Masonry, with origins moved in. The only thing I'd alter is to put What Freemason's Do first after the intro, as this is what people want to know, and enables the construction of a coherent narrative starting with the private lodge and working outwards. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps... My ordering was based on trying to answer the following basic questions that an uninformed reader would ask...

• What is Freemasonry?
• What does it do?
• Where did it come from, and has it changed over time?
• Who opposes it and why?

My ordering of sections and sub-sections was my attempt to organize information according to these questions. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a good blueprint. For me, the answers to your first and second questions lie in the lodge. Starting there and working outwards gives a narrative structure to reinforce the logical structure of the ground plan. The important thing is not to have the same stories repeated all over the article, and an idea of what we're trying to say. I think we've now got that. Thank you for filling out so much detail. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Both proposed structures are very well align. One comment: it appears to be pretty much a wiki-standard to have History as the first section of the body of the article.

Fiddler, to your comment on GOdF: Current structure does skip a bit there. It goes UK, US, ... GOdF (geo-geo-org). It should really be France, with multiple GLs and current issues. No other GLs has a section all to itself in the article (as it shouldn't). Continentality (along with GOdF) belong somewhere in the Types-like section. --Truther2012 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The GOdF segment is symptomatic of the piecemeal construction of the article. I got bogged down trying to expand this, because tracing what came from where was starting to look like OR. Types/History gives us a chance to trace important trends without getting bogged down in Byzantine complexity. If anyone feels the need to add (say) the weirder 18th century German lodges later, we have somewhere to put them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

in polish wiki

Freemasonry in polish wiki is not a featured article in Polish wiki. Leonsio 193.203.56.99 (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: That sounds like something to take up on the Polish wiki. Is there anything you want to change on this article in the English wiki? Celestra (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

More sources for Prince Hall section?

I would like to improve the Prince Hall section (and the PH article)... but I need sources to tell the entire story properly. Here is a quick outline of what I would like to say...

• Origin of PH Masonry (a short paragraph pointing to the main PH article)
• Growth of PH Masonry in parallel with "Mainstream"... PH Masonry becomes a vibrant part of the African American community and culture.
• With the end of Segregation (and a lessening of prejudice) in the 1960s, some "Mainstream" GLs desire to end the split... but there are two problems: a) the Mainstream GLs want to subsuming PH under Mainstream authority (which PH GLs do not want... they are proud of their own tradition and want to keep it going) and b) due to the doctrine of "Exclusive Jurisdiction", Mainstream feel that they can not recognize two Grand Lodges in the same State.
• Finally, in 1980s, Grand Lodge Conn. abandons "Exclusive Jurisdiction" (at least in the case of PH), and recognizes Conn. PH.
• Other Mainstream GLs quickly follow.
• Not complete... in some cases because of lingering prejudice... but in others due to the fact that there is more than one PH jurisdiction in the state (which don't recognize each other) and the Mainstream can not decide which to recognize.

Of course, without sources, we can't actually say any of this. I have found a lot of sources that discuss the origins and early years of PH... and a few on PH's contribution and importance to the African-American community... but very few sources that discuss the modern era and the process of recognition. Any suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul Bessel's site has a reasonably up to date resource on the subject. At least it's a starting point. For the record, I'm having the same problem trying to reference the strands of masonry in Continental Europe. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My only comment here would be about "lingering prejudice". I dont think we'd be able to find any NPOV sources supporting that. From what I can tell, most recognitions that have not taken place are either due to "jurisdictional exclusivity" or simple lack of mutual interest. If I'm not mistaken all 50(?) PH GLs are recognized within mainstream masonry, just not necessarily with their in-state counterpart. --Truther2012 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: If I'm not mistaken all 50(?) PH GLs are recognized within mainstream masonry, just not necessarily with their in-state counterpart. Nope... you are mistaken. For one thing, there are far more than just 50 PH GLs in the US. Most States have multiple PH Jurisdictions (take a look at the North America section of our List of Masonic Grand Lodges and you will see what I mean).

Now, some of these are considered "Bogus" (meaning they can't claim a direct descent from the original Africa Lodge)... but even then there is a lot of argument and debate. In some States there are multiple PH Grand Lodges that do claim direct descent.

This causes problems for the "Mainstream" GLs... before they can recognize a PH jurisdiction within their own State, they have to decide which PH Jurisdiction in their State to recognize.

As for recognizing PH Jurisdictions outside of their home State, most of the Mainstream GLs base recognition on what the corresponding Mainstream GL has done. So...

• if (Mainstream) GL-Foo has recognized a particular PHGL-Foo, the other Mainstream GLs will follow suit and also recognize PHGL-Foo as well.
• However, if (Mainstream) GL-Foo has not decided on which PHGL-Foo to recognize, then the other (Mainstream) GLs will hold back and not recognize a PHGL in Foo. Even if their own PHGL has recognized one of the contenders.

So there are still a few States where no PHGL is commonly recognized by any of the (Mainstream) GLs.

(and actually that is a simplification... it can get even more complicated when "our" PHGL objects to "their" PHGL.) Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, that is all far to complex to put into this (broad sweep, overview) article... the details belong in a spin-off. For this article we need to simplify it. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to get the discussion off-track, but according to Bessel, there are only 42 PHA GLs in the United States, of which only 10 are not recognised by their immediate counterpart. Further, I'm sure that most (if not all) of the 42 PHA GLs, which are now considered mainstream, do recognise most (if not all) of the remaining 10, despite them not being recognised by their in-state counterparts. So please, tell me again where I'm mistaken?

But, most importantly, my comment was about the POV, which I think this section suffers enormously from. The whole "lingering prejudice" and the very first sentence ("Prince Hall Freemasonry exists because of the refusal of early American lodges to admit African-Americans") have got to go, IMO. --Truther2012 (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is demonstrably correct. Denying the racism that kept blacks out of mainstream US masonry for two centuries is simply revisionism, ignoring it is not an option. Perhaps there is another motive for Grand Master after Grand Master to lie about the validity of the 1784 warrant, but I can't think of one. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Truther... I see the confusion now. Yes, there are only 42 "Prince Hall Affiliation" (PHA) grand lodges... However, PHA is only one branch of Prince Hall Freemasonry... It has its rivals... the main one is "Prince Hall Origin" Grand Lodges (PHO) (also known as National Compact). And there are all sorts of smaller, split-off Grand Lodges that fall within the broader term "Prince Hall Freemasonry". Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Racism is very well addressed throughout the section, particularly in the second paragraph. My argument is that the branch exist not only because of racism, but rather (and most importantly) of the desire of the African-American men to join the craft, but being unable to join. Further Prince Hall himself was a member of an American lodge, though chartered by an English GL. Second sentence is a historic fact, first - just an opinion.

I dont fully understand your comment about "lies and 1784 warrant," but it sounds like it could be highly useful to highlight the kind of racist tensions that exist in this space

Blueboar, personally, I think we should stick to "mainstream" PHA organisation, all these other groups could be a subject of your "Fringe" project. --Truther2012 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Truther... you say that African Americans desired to be Freemasons but were unable to join "mainstream" freemasonry ... why do you think that was? I think the answer is simple: racism. It is ridiculous to talk about Prince Hall Freemasonry and not discuss racism. The problem is that racism does not account for the continuation of Prince Hall Freemasonry, now that racism no longer is a bar to African American men who wish to join a "mainstream" lodge. While racial discrimination by the white community accounted for the birth and rise of Prince Hall Freemasonry... what accounts for its continuation of Prince Hall Freemasonry is a sense of racial pride (or celebration of heritage) on the part the African American community. Prince Hall Masons understand the important role that "their" branch of the craft played in their communities, and they want to celebrate that by keeping the tradition going. That's why they rejected the offers to "merge" into mainstream and insisted that they be recognized as being equals.

As for "Fringe" PH groups... of course there are fringe PH groups. I would absolutely agree that many of the smaller Prince Hall derivation GLs qualify as being called "fringe" ... but not all. Certainly that term would not apply to either PHA or PHO... They are both sizable organizations, with the exact same rituals, membership requirements and history (both groups can trace themselves directly back to Africa Lodge). In fact, the only reason why PHA and PHO are two separate organizations was that there was a squabble over petty internal politics at one point.

The split between PHA and PHO is a good example of how recognition and regularity are two distinct concepts. Continental Freemasonry is unrecognized by Anglo/American Freemasonry because Continental Freemasonry is considered irregular by Anglo/American Freemasonry. However, the split between PHA and PHO didn't occur over a question of regularity. PHO Freemasonry is unrecognized by PHA Freemasonry (and vise versa) even though PHO is completely regular. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I recognize and acknowledge that racism is the factor. My issue is with statements like "lingering prejudice", which is at best a POV and the very first sentence "Prince Hall Freemasonry exists because of the refusal of early American lodges to admit African-Americans" (yes, in present tense). At least we should place a ref in there...

My comment on Fringe has less to do with PH, but more with your earlier stated intent on building a "Fringe" section --Truther2012 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Masonic Lodge

I intend this to be at the pointy end of the restructured article (see above). The original section was unreferenced, so the rewrite has none (yet). I may have to adapt wording to what I can find to reference it. Meanwhile, please regard the section as a discussion document. What should be in/out? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I find it weird that we talk about ritual and rooms and charitable activities (as part of the Lodge section) before we cover History. I would rather see those two sections switch places. --Truther2012 (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My purpose in raising this earlier was to point out that several structural problems could be solved by integrating the history with a fuller description of the different strands of Freemasonry that exist today. The editor who made the initial switch made the point that an explanation of the organisation(s) and its terms needs to precede the history for it to make sense to the casual reader. At the moment, I'm not disposed to alter the ground plan discussed above until the re-organisation is something like finished. Bear with me, once the unreferenced waffle and the duplication is gone, a simpler structure will be easier to reshuffle, and we can have this discussion again. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Perhaps, there is an opportunity to condense the "Structure" section. Otherwise, it pushes the History way down the list, IMO --Truther2012 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The aim is to pare it to the bone, then discuss how it got that way later. Essentially, most of this stuff is hard to understand outside of a historical context, so the first section describes, the second analyses. Blueboar says history, I came up with types of freemasonry, but I'm moving towards evolution. Any suggestions welcome. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

General Membership Requirements

The entire Membership section is biased towards UGLE. The actual list is straight from UGLE's website. While at the same time, many items have stated exemptions. If I am not mistaken, each GL determines its own requirements, which may or may not be recognized by other GLs as regular. I think this section should state just that, with some of the peculiarities mentioned. What do you think? Truther2012 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues here... VERIFIABILITY and DUE WEIGHT.

First verifiability... a lot of GLs don't actually publish their membership requirements... UGLE does (on its website). So it can be cited while those who don't publish can't.

Second is the issue of DUE WEIGHT... UGLE's requirements are the same as the US Grand Lodges (both "traditional" and Prince Hall)... and American Freemasonry is the elephant in the Masonic room. American Freemasonry alone forms the overwhelming majority of Freemasons world wide. Add to this all the GLs from former British Empire nations like India, and Australia and that overwhelming Majority grows even larger. Yes there are GLs and GOs that disagree (fundamentally) with UGLE's requirements. And while some are the majority form of Freemasonry in their particular country (like GOdF) most are minority forms... and world wide they form a distinct minority. Furthermore, those that disagree with UGLE tend to be fragmented... they don't agree among themselves over which requirements they disagree with... some oppose the requirement for a belief in Deity... others do require belief in Deity but disagree over the ban on women... etc. This fragmentation means that we have to give less weight to each individual variation.

I don't mean to say we should completely ignore the minority view... but it is appropriate to give it less weight. A reasonable bias towards the "UGLE" view is appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur, that UGLE's requirements are both VERIFIABILITY and have DUE WEIGHT. However, they are specific to just one GL. American masonry, consisting of more than 50 GLs would have very high variability, albeit in a minor way. I'm not even going to mention Continentals. In its current form the section does require a number of exceptions, but I am not sure if we even cover most of the necessary ones. I propose to either come up with a very high-level "universal" list of requirements (for which we'll probably have very little references) or describe the current ones as the requirments of UGLE with the note that "most Anglo-Am GLs follow similar." I prefer the second, and if we can get consensus I'll do the edit.Truther2012 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no... the membership requirements for the US GLs (51 "mainstream" + "Prince Hall") are actually fairly uniform... and all are in agreement with those of UGLE. The only requirement that seems to have significant variation is minimum age (some set it at 18, others at 21). Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If we want to add a non-AngloAmerican GL, the Norwegian Order of Freemasons lists their requirements here - be at least 24, consider oneself to be Christian, be a man of good repute, having an orderly economy, and be recommended by at least two masons. The Swedish Grand Loge list teirs here, which are much the same (apart from a lower minimum age) but less orderly laid out on the webpage. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's my point, ALL GLs requirements will be similar, but not identical. We also cannot claim that all American GLs have the same rules without actually providing 51+ references.Truther2012 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OK... lets get down to specifics... the membership requirements we currently list are:

1. Be a man who comes of his own free will.
2. Believe in a Supreme Being (the form of which is left to open interpretation by the candidate).
3. Be at least the minimum age (from 18–25 years old depending on the jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the son of a Mason, known as a "Lewis," may join at an earlier age than others).
4. Be of good morals, and of good reputation.
5. Be of sound mind and body (lodges had in the past denied membership to a man because of a physical disability; however, now, if a potential candidate says a disability will not cause problems, it will not be held against him).
6. Be free-born (or "born free", i.e., not born a slave or bondsman). As with the previous, this is entirely an historical holdover, and can be interpreted in the same manner as it is in the context of being entitled to write a will. Some jurisdictions have removed this requirement.
7. Be capable of furnishing character references, as well as one or two references from current Masons, depending on jurisdiction.

Which of these do you think is not universal to a significant majority of Freemasonry? which do you think requires further caveats? Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not we can provide reliable references that this is correct for all lodges other than UGLE (i.e. 51+ US GLs). Further, the article does state that this list is only applicable to one branch (Regular) without any mention of the other branch. It will be easier to specify that this is UGLE's list, and other jurisdictions follow similar lists with minor variations. In this case we can aleviate any exceptions that the list current have (but does not reference) as in #3 and 7. Truther2012 (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I am having very hard time identifying the source of the above mentioned requirements. The current source that is provided (UGLE Constitution) only mentions #1 on page x. Can anyone clarify and/or provide better source? Further, where does all the additional narrative come from as in #2,3,5 and 6? - Truther2012 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The current book of Constitutions is downloadable here. Page numbers vary between editions, so it is easier and more consistent to give bye-law numbers, which are less likely to vary. Grand Lodge sites usually have a section on how to join, and membership requirements. The GOdF site reveals continental requirements to be similar, less belief in a supreme being, plus commitment to the liberal ideals of the order. Plus ça change.... Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Here is my revised proposal:

• A sentence on non-invitation (current)
• A sentence or two on "members of good character and in good standing in their community"
• Specific example of UGLE requirements
• Something along the lines of "Other lodges use similar requirements with minor variations"
• Some notable exeptions:
  • Co-freemasonry on men and women
  • Liberal on Supreme being
  • GOdF on liberal ideas
  • Swedish rite on Christianity
  • Examples of age variance, residences, etc.

What do you think? --Truther2012 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a good sketch. There will be further examples of Liberal and Trinitarian Lodges and orders, but there is no harm in adding them piecemeal as they crop up. The framework is sound. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I restored and referenced the Membership section since there was no consensus to completely remove it. I used the online Masonic Dictionary, some public bylaws for the secretaries and Masonic Lodge of Education websites. Clarified that some jurisdictions allow invitation. The two troublesome spots I see are:

• 'Sound mind and body.' - this is an older requirement and found in the 6 local chapters site on line I visited but not in the Masonic Lodge of Education and I'm guessing there have been law suits over this.
• 'Demitted Masons obligations' - some sites say the ex-Mason has no privileges and announces no obligations but Mackey and other sites say they are still obligated to remain moral and follow code. Alatari (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as "sound mind and body" goes, it's very jurisdictional: some are very strict (meaning even a small item that interferes with nothing prohibits membership), and some don't really look at it at all as long as the person is capable of understanding the degrees. I believe the same goes for demitted members' obligations - those who have demitted certainly have no privileges unless they join another lodge, but whether the obligations hold is entirely personal, as there's no way to suspend, expel or otherwise punish a (now) non-member, other than to inform the other GLS of the effective recission of the demit. Mackey is troublesome because he wrote good stuff as well as fanciful stuff. MSJapan (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Membership section revisited

I integrated and condensed the old membership section into the sub article Masonic Lodge with this edit. Now is there a one or two sentence summary that can be included in this article? Alatari (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC

Perfect, now a shorter summary can be linked to Masonic Lodge#Membership. As I said above, perhaps we could combine the obligations and membership requirements into a subsection called "Joining a Lodge" or "Becoming a Freemason?" Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Obligations section

There was no consensus to completely remove the Obligations, which is a crucial part of being a Freemason, and some other sections (like the Supremem Being concept) that are currently being deleted. User:Fiddlersmouth, please discuss some of these things before just whacking it from the article. Alatari (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If the plan is to move the material to a sub article then move first then delete from the main article. Also add material with sources in one edit. Thanks. Alatari (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

What I would suggest is that we create a drafting page (perhaps at Freemasonry/2013 rewrite) and work on the re-write there... this would allow us to play with wording and structure changes without disrupting the actual article. Once we have reached consensus on changes, and are happy with the rewrite, we can cut and paste the reavised text into actual space. Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a perfectly good discussion under Major Overhaul above, to which most editors chose not to contribute.

Let's review - There has been a general consensus that this article needs a major overhaul for something like seven years. To date, all that has happened is more patching and piecemeal improvements, which frequently duplicate material already in another section of the article. The article needs simplified, and verbose and vague sections like Obligations need excised or rewritten. Only the Bessel reference bears close examination, the others are lodge ritual books and self-published sources. Do we need a whole screed on membership requirements? No, there is no general consensus apart from Good Report, or good character. It can be summed up in a sentence without boring the reader's backside off. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia, not an advert for regular masonry, so compare and contrast or excise.

My own view is that creating a separate space merely prolongs the prevarication that has obtained since about 2006. Anything that does not meet GA criteria needs removed or rewritten. Four weeks ago, to the day, I asked for ideas/help and two editors responded. Two very similar drafts went almost unchallenged, and I think I have addressed user:Truther2012's concerns. Whining and reverting now is not helpful. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Four weeks ago, to the day, I asked for ideas/help and two editors responded. Two very similar drafts went almost unchallenged, ... Whining and reverting now is not helpful."

This is because most of us have other lives and are not here daily or even weekly. Wikipedia is a hobby and not a paid job. Any edits, even those of 5 years ago that were supported, and remain supported by reliable sources can be brought up. The encyclopedia is never finished.

The point is you have removed these two sections completely without reworking. Editors will work for a while and then something in their real life may call them away from Wikipedia for days, weeks or months and in that meanwhile the useful, yet unwieldy, sections on membership and obligations are completely missing for reading to review. The new section that are added but were sourced may stay in the encyclopedia when an editor is away from Wikipedia while the rest of us without access to their intended sources are scrambling to find them and include.

Rework the section in a sandbox and present it here for consensus. I will not see the obligations or membership sections completely removed. The consensus for these actions do not exist. How a Freemason can join, how they leave the temple and what they are obligated with are some critical points. I came to this article with the sole purpose to see who can and cannot join because what you hear about is 'once a Mason you are a Mason for life'. I'm not a Mason and like a lot of people ending up on this page, I had misconceptions and an overview of how you joined and how you leave was insightful. Alatari (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alatari here. I think we did have consensus to re-write the article ... but I envisioned that this would be a matter shifting paragraphs around into a new order (with some judicious rewording to make it all hang together better)... I was not expecting that entire sections would be removed completely. Fiddler... please go a bit slower and discuss your ideas before you enact them.

Be bold it says here, somewhere. I think we've all noticed that the article needed more than shuffling the bits round. The bits that got axed were either badly referenced or written from the POV of regular masonry. Rewriting and re-inserting are still in the script, meanwhile, we finally have a discussion going. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Obligations

So why remove the entire section instead of a rewrite? The wording of the last editor is verbose but these key points seem notable:

• Obligations are those elements of ritual in which a candidate swears to abide by the rules of the fraternity, to keep the "secrets of Freemasonry", to act towards others in accordance with Masonic tradition and law.
• Sworn on a Volume of the Sacred Law and in the witness of the Supreme Being and with assurance that it is of the candidate's own free will.
• obligations vary; some versions are published while others are privately printed in books of coded text. Still other jurisdictions rely on oral transmission of ritual, and thus have no ritual books at all
• Common themes 1)be civilised 2)obey laws of his Supreme Being 3)obey the law of his sovereign state 4)attendance 5)don't cheat the brethen 6) aid or charity other humans, the brethren and their families
• "One is made to swear secrecy to the point that bloody penalties of death are involved."
• Violating obligations can lead to suspension, expulsion or reprimand.
• George Washington's picture is a nice touch.Alatari (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the bloody penalties... I think it is important to explain these in some detail, because they so often factor into objections made by Anti-Masons. Like a lot of Freemasonry, the bloody penalties are understood to be internal in nature, not external. They are an archaic version of "Cross my heart and hope to die" or "may God strike me dead". They are symbolic of the agonies that a Mason would undergo if they violate their obligations... and they are not a "sentence" that is ever carried out if/when they violate one. It is important that the reader understand that the only "sentences" that can be imposed by the Lodge or Grand Lodge if a Mason violates his obligations are a) reprimand, b) suspension, or c) expulsion. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I repeat, I removed the obligations section because, apart from Bessel, the references were worthless. So the good reference was to who writes down their ritual, and the rest was unreferenced and accordingly removed. Obligations and membership would look good together under Becoming a Freemason, but I'm not sure that the bloody penalties don't belong under History. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I realize that the penalties have been removed from UK ritual (and thus, from a UK perspective, they are historical)... but they are still part of the obligations in most (if not all) US jurisdictions. They definitely don't belong under "history" from a US perspective. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thinking on this further... the fact that obligations form part of the ritual is best presented in the ritual section. However... discussion of the penalties is probably best presented in the the "Opposition and criticism" section. Since it is the misunderstanding of (and subsequent opposition to) the penalties by certain religious groups that make the penalties noteworthy. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Inclusions?

I think the last edit brings the article close to GA status. Everything looks referenced, I hope I've filed off the Anglo/American POV, and the repetition is gone. My to do -

• Tidy up Regularity and Amity (A bit one-sided just now)
• Re-introduce membership and obligations, possibly in a single section.
• Re-introduce a better description of Liberal/Progressive Freemasonry.
• Ensure the article has all necessary links to relevant pages for a fuller description of particular topics.

Anything else? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think your work is a good start... but there are definitely some things we need to continue to work on. We need to remember that this is a general overview article. I think you went into too much detail on some subjects (for example, there was no need to go into the different places that the Wardens sit in Continental vs Anglo lodge - its enough to simply say that the number of officers and where they sit vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). On the other hand, I think you didn't go into enough detail on other subjects (for example, I think we a fuller description about what a Grand Lodge is, and what it does). Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I would love to keep a piece of art representing the ceremony section. If not the Washington piece then something else. It had (what I assume) various symbols of the Lodge and the kind of dress they wore. My FB friend posted his initiation picture and he was still wearing the front apron and a staff and his chosen Holy Book was represented plus various other interesting things. A picture is worth a lot to someone trying to get an idea of what their ceremony could be like. Ceremonies around the lodges must differ greatly so maybe a representation of the universal symbols spread on a table?

You know my feelings about an obligations section. What is universal seems to be shrunk down to a few ideas. Alatari (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Imagery: Which is truth, which is movie fantasy and which is anti-Masonic? Is anything universal (like the blindfold)? I'm curious and so are many readers coming to the article.Alatari (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be extremely productive to kick this one around. Blueboar took out my mallet and chisel (not in his ritual) and put in the trowel, which is not in the ritual of my own family of lodges. However, there is an article on Masonic ritual and symbolism, maybe we could have that discussion there. Anything we can reference and bring to the table there could go in that article, and a summary appear here.

We definitely need images. Non-copyright images of working lodges seem to be old and French, with the 1745 Paris set and their re-tinted London re-issue being the go-to for just about everybody. This article's lodge interior is an obsolete set-up for the English Royal Arch. (I put in the English/French warden's diagram to partially paper the gap. Alright, it wasn't ideal.) Any ideas? Photos? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In writing previous iterations of this article, we ran into similar problems with discussing ritual and symbolism ... namely that there are so many variations on ritual and symbolism that it is all but impossible to explain them. As soon as you start to try to describe ritual and symbolism, someone is bound to come forward and say: "Hold on, that's not what we do in my jurisdiction". We could not resolve this problem, and so decided that we should not even try to do so. We can say that Masons use tools of architecture to present moral/philosophical lessons, because that is common to all jurisdictions... but which tools of architecture are used, and what lessons they teach is not common from one jurisdiction to another.

Images have the same problem. For example, while it would be nice to have an image showing what a "typical" lodge room looks like... the reality is that there isn't a "typical" lodge room. The way the room is set up changes from one jurisdiction to another. A picture of a lodge room that is "typical" in the US will not accurately illustrate a "typical" lodge room in England (and a "typical" room in England will not be "typical" in France... etc.) The same thing happens when we try to provide an image of regalia. Typical regalia in England is not typical regalia in the US. ... Etc. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Joining a lodge

I put the last edit in as a discussion piece. Please don't complain it's unreferenced, there were next to no sources in the material it replaced. I may yet have to bend this to what I can find in the way of references, but this is the skeleton of what I think the section ought to convey. Since jurisdictions vary (a lot), any additions, subtractions, mistakes? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not bad. I like the fact that you break it into three parts... essentially a) What happens before a man joins, b) what happens while he is joining (while he goes through the degrees) and c) what happens after he has joined. I could see expanding this. As for sources, John Robinson's A Pilgrim's Path has some good stuff on this. I would also recommend... once you get past the unfortunate names... both Freemasons for Dummies and The Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry. They actually are written by experts on the subject. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Regularity and Amity section

I see that Fiddler has got around to working on the Regularity and Amity section... I have a suggestion:
While the issue of Regularity is important, it is not the sole determiner of Recognition and Amity. There are other issues that can cause a lack of recognition and amity. Therefore, I think we need to slightly expand the section, and rename it "Recognition, Amity and Regularity" (or something similar). The section should start off explaining what Recognition and Amity are... and (briefly) list some of the issues that can cause a lack of recognition and amity. This would, I think, establish some context for the subsequent discussion on Regularity. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm still trying to get a handle onto it. It's a badly documented area, probably because it's nothing to be proud of, with prejudice and politics behind a lot of bad decisions. The Ancients and Moderns, for all the name-calling, had no problems with the many masons who had dual membership. Likewise, Washington was initiated in an irregular lodge, still no problems. I think the "You're not real masons" thing may have started with attitudes to Prince Hall, but cannot find mention. Open to ideas. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the correct term for the Lodge in Fredricksburg, Virginia that Washington joined is "Clandestine", not "irregular". A clandestine lodge is one that meets without a warrant or dispensation from a (recognized) Grand Lodge. Being "clandestine" does not necessarily mean that the lodge (or individual) is considered irregular.

Clandestine lodges were not uncommon in Colonial America. Since communication was so slow, it could take years for a new Lodge to receive a warrant from the Grand Lodge (back in London). So new lodges would often form and work "clandestinely". Once they were sure that they were a going concern, they would seek a warrant to legitimize themselves after the fact.

I do understand the difficulty in finding sourcing for all of this. I too have found that few (if any) sources clearly spell out the distinctions between these terms ("warranted", "recognized", "regular" on the positive side... and "clandestine", "unrecognized", "irregular" on the negative side). I think part of the problem is that these terms can and do overlap. And this overlap causes a certain amount of conflation of terms (even among Masonic scholars).

That said, I think the distinctions between concepts of recognition and regularity are important enough that we should attempt to explain them... even if we can't find the level of sourcing that we might like. If necessary, we can invoke WP:Ignore all rules to allow it. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK... I have been bold and made some changes along the lines I think the section should take. Please DO amend and change it as necessary. I consider what I wrote to be a starting point and not a finished product. It obviously still needs work.

One thing you will note is that the section no longer goes into the details of the rift between Continental and Anglo Freemasonry... I think that should come later in the article (in the History section). The section, as I have rewritten it, is designed to explain how Grand Lodges interact with eachother... and to introduce the basic concepts that the reader needs to know before they are presented with the history of the splits and schisms that have occurred through the years... concepts and terms that are vital to understanding why that history unfolded the way it did. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I like it so far, but I think Continental Freemasonry still needs to be mentioned, if only to explain how it is that Continental GLs that are perfectly regular in all respects have been struck off the Christmas card list for associating with the Grand Orient de France. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Um... could you give me an example of a group that associates with GOdF that would be considered "perfectly regular" by the Anglo-American bloc? All the ones I know of are considered Irregular in their own right.

That said, wouldn't this be covered under "there are many reasons why recognition might be withheld or withdrawn". Sure, one those many reasons is "you guys recognize a third group that we don't like" ("A" withholds recognition from "B" because "B" has chosen to recognize group "C"). But is it that common? Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire, the vast majority of French GLs conform to UGLE's definition of regularity, only GOdF and the mixed and women's lodges technically fall foul. The shining example is the Grande Loge de France, which is specifically mentioned in the Basel declaration, the signatories offering help to absorb the disaffected of the Grande Loge Nationale Française if GLF will stop playing with the naughty masons in GOdF. So the majority of French obediences are "irregular" solely due to their recognition of GOdF, Droit Humain, and whatever you're having yourself, which deserves a better explanation than "other reasons". Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are still conflating Recognition with Regularity. GLF is certainly unrecognized by UGLE and the rest of the Anglo-American tradition... but is it considered "Irregular"?

Point taken. Probably "irregular by association", which is how they are actually seen. My point is that the majority of French GLs are regular, even if the majority of French masons belong to the liberal Grand Orient. They are, in fact, a good example of that distinction, being regular but unrecognised because of association with the Grand Orient. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

One problem that GLF has (beyond its feud with UGLE) is that it has repeatedly pissed off the US Grand Lodges by making bungled attempts to get them to break with UGLE and recognize GLF. Recognition of GLF ain't going to happen any time soon.

As for the "irregular by association" issue... a lot depends on what the specific nature of the "association" is. Some forms of association are worse than others. Blueboar (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That's half the problem. Recognition is largely a factor of who pissed off whom, and regularity often defined to justify it. The other problem is the complexity of French Freemasonry, which is ill served by giving the impression that they are all like GOdF. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps... but I don't think we should say this in the article. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, references. Few works or papers cross the great divide, the few that do have unpleasant things to say about the recognition issue. I concede that "pissed off" is unencyclopedic, and it needs boiled down to a bare minimum. It's probably Continental Freemasonry that needs the work, and possibly another look at what exactly we mean by "Continental", which seems to vary with context. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the place to go into it is probably the Freemasonry in France article. The Continental Freemasonry article is really more narrowly focused... its about GOF and the bodies that are in direct Amity with it... not bodies like GLF. GLF, while not recognized, does not normally fall under the "Continental" banner. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Freemason Motion Picture starring Sean Astin

The upcoming motion picture "The Freemason" starring Sean Astin from Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Goonies, Rudy. The film was directed by Sohrab Mirmont, nephew of internationally acclaimed Iranian-director Abbas Kiarostami. "The Freemason" will have its world premiere in Salt Lake City, UT, where the movie was filmed, on December 7th, 2013. The film explores the secret-society of Freemasonry.

References:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2841424/ http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsmoviecricket/56148136-66/astin-utah-film-freemason.html.csp http://www.thefreemasonmovie.com Mirmont (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Thank you for your time and trouble, but we don't have a Freemasonry in the media section, and I suspect few editors would relish opening that particular can of worms. When the subject is actually tackled, it will probably be in a separate article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I won't completely rule out mentioning it... but we should definitely wait until a) it is actually released, and b) we have Reliable sources (such as reviews) that discuss it. Only then will we see if there is any relevance beyond the title. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)