Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Goals and objectives of freemasonry?

correct me if i am wrong, but where is the section that mentions such [very] basic & primary details in this "good" article? thanks Grandia01 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There is very little consistency in Freemasonry, since each Masonic jurisdiction is independent. Several of them don't even agree on what freemasonry is, and it is therefore not possible to state what the goals and objectives of Freemasonry as a whole might be in a general article such as this - if such things as organisational goals and objectives can even be said to exist in a masonic context.

If asked some jurisdictions may point to a variation of "make good men better", others may state something along the line of "a system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols", while quite a few probably won't outright state what Freemasonry and it's goals might be.

Individual Freemasons might have goals and objectives with their masonic work, but those are just that - individual.

WegianWarrior (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for the late reply. ok, that may be true; nonetheless, SOME mention has to be included in this article of what you told me. that is the most basic and important piece of information on freemasonry (or on any other order). it is inexcusable that no mention of it whatsoever exists here. I would appreciate other editors' opinion on this too. thanks again Grandia01 (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Much more complacted matters are presented in much simplier ways on Wikipedia. Also this one can be wrapped up. We don't have to overcomplicate things in the lead section. If we need to keep a lead section vague, even more important so to keep the language clear. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with WegianWarrior. Basically, masonic lodges are social clubs with a charitable element and a core ritual, varied but mutually recognisable. Goals and objectives vary from mason to mason, and world Freemasonry is so fragmented that any such statement is impossible. Freemasonry as a whole sort of exists to promote itself, and the masonic ritual that a few diligently study, while others find it a slightly embarrassing start to a boozy night with friends. Freemasonry, nonetheless, exists to pass on the lodge ritual to the next generation, and that's all we've got in common. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the "purpose" of Freemasonry is to practice Fraternity... a word that literally means "brotherhood". One of the key symbols of Freemasonry is the Mason's trowel, which Masons are taught to use (in the language of my jurisdiction).. "for that noble and glorious purpose of spreading the cement of brotherly love and affection; that cement which binds us into one single band of brothers, among whom no contention should ever arise - save that noble contention (or rather emulation) of who best can work, and who best can agree". Everything else Masons do stems from this basic concept. Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

well, should not that be mentioned in the article (at the very least)? Grandia01 (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that is Blueboar's opinion, and he's not a reliable source... At best it can be used for his jurisdiction, but with the fragmentary nature of Masonery it is not possible to state what the goals and objectives of Freemasonry as a whole might be in a general article such as this. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

We're trying to provide a descent encyclopedical first sentence and leading section. Again, more complicated and diverse matters have been presented on Wikipedia than freemasonry. We should be able to provide a simple comprehensive statement also of what freemasonry is about. If anyone has proposal of a more comprehensive definition than that of a fraternity or a fraternal organisation/network/movement, you're more than welcome. But further or later we'll have to settle the issue. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A major part of the problem is that Freemasons themselves can't agree on what Freemasonry is "about". WegianWarrior (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

user Chicbyaccident has a point: for a decent encyclopedic article, "We should be able to provide a simple comprehension also of what freemasonry is about" as a most basic requirement. even a basic summary (provided with sufficient reliable references and citations of course) of each of freemasonry's "different" primary/major factions or movements should be mentioned in this article. but to mention NOTHING at all of such a topic for an organization this powerful in the world is beyond absurd and unfair here Grandia01 (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is now getting tedious. Freemasonry is NOT an organisation. It is a very diverse collection of different organisations whose only common characteristic is a ritual which is usually mutually recognisable. They have different aims and goals and occasionally accuse each other of not being "proper" Freemasons because they don't ban women/politics/religion and whatever you're having yourself. The only possible definition of Freemasonry is the functional/historical one which we have attempted here. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not only do the various Masonic organisations not agree on what Freemasonry's goals and objectives are ... individual Freemasons do not agree. Choose five Freemasons at random... ask them, "What is Freemasonry all about?", and you will get seven different answers.

More importantly, this confusion carries through to the sources that write about Freemasonry - they don't agree either. And since Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable sources, it is impossible answer the question here in this article... there is to much disagreement among sources to do so. There are simply too many different opinions. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

this is getting tedious because we are not getting ANY fulfilling answers to this important question. it is not logical at all to just completely omit mentioning this most-important piece of information just like that! I truly hope this is not a deliberate attempt to avoid mentioning such details. it is a joke that no mention whatsoever of the goals of some of the world's most powerful [diverse] organizations exists in the word's biggest and most-read encyclopedia! at the very least write in the article that such information is not possible to come up with because of the aforementioned inconsistencies! Grandia01 (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you are assuming that there actually is some sort of "fulfilling answer" to the question. Perhaps one reason we are having such a problem answering the question is that Freemasonry does not actually have any definable "goal" or "objective"... To make an analogy... what would you say is the "goal" or "objective" of the United Kingdom?. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added a clarifying paragraph in the end of the lead section, in an attempt for the leading section to present an overview with neutral information on the subject rather than indulging in the subject's own self-acclaimed non-verbally describable or categorisable wisdom, occultism and/or historical background. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And I reverted it because most of it is wrong, especially the false assumptions about Continental Freemasonry. Please read the article. And please discuss any further "improvements" you would like to make here. We HAVE asked before. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

and I reverted back to Chicbyaccident's version back again. until you be honest with us and stop playing games, we cannot omit this most important information about freemasonry Grandia01 (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede Section (discussion resumed)

I don't think Chicbyaccident's latest addition is horrible ... however, I do think it is perhaps overly detailed for the lede section (which should be a very brief overview of the article). What I do object to is chic's BOLD editing to include it... several editors have already asked that changes to the lede be discussed before they are made. That is a very simple request... don't make BOLD edits. Discuss... reach a rough consensus... then edit. That said... to avoid edit warring, I will not re-re-revert it ... instead I will post the lede section (including Chic's new paragraph) below... so we can actually discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

lede section language as of January 26

Freemasonry consists of fraternal organisations that trace their origins to the local fraternities of stonemasons, which from the end of the fourteenth century regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients. The degrees of freemasonry retain the three grades of medieval craft guilds, those of Apprentice, Journeyman or fellow (now called Fellowcraft), and Master Mason. These are the degrees offered by Craft (or Blue Lodge) Freemasonry. Members of these organisations are known as Freemasons or Masons. There are additional degrees, which vary with locality and jurisdiction, and are usually administered by different bodies than the craft degrees.

The basic, local organisational unit of Freemasonry is the Lodge. The Lodges are usually supervised and governed at the regional level (usually coterminous with either a state, province, or national border) by a Grand Lodge or Grand Orient. There is no international, world-wide Grand Lodge that supervises all of Freemasonry; each Grand Lodge is independent, and they do not necessarily recognise each other as being legitimate.

Internationally, freemasonry is primarly organised in two main networks of respectively internal mutual recognition: the Anglo-American Freemasonry and the Continental Freemasonry. In general, Anglo-American freemasonry, self-described as "regular Freemasonry", tend to be non-political and admitting only male members who express faith in a deity. Continental freemasonry, on the other hand, tend to be either religiously neutral or explicitely atheist while admitting both male and female members, and frequently does make political statements, traditionally often liberal or radical.

As of 19 December 2015

Reverted revision:

Freemasonry are fraternities and fraternal orders organised in lodges originally established in the United Kingdom in the 17th century, and subsquently internationally spread. Purposes typically include social activities and personal development of its members, Masons, maintained by elaborate systems of ethics, expressed through rituals and symbolism.

Some Masonic bodies in turn traditionally claim their origins to fraternities of qualified stonemasons of the Middle Ages, which regulated relations with authorities and clients. By consequence, "craft" or "blue lodge Freemasonry" offer three grades of medieval craft guilds: Apprentice, Journeyman (or fellow, now called Fellowcraft), and Master Mason. Other systems vary with local jurisdictions, or Masonic bodies.

Historically, vowed secrecy paired with elements of occultism as well as alleged revolutionary and/or anti-clerical tendencies among some early Freemasons during the 18th and 19th centuries, initially rendered significant opposition and even provoked widespread conspiracy theories. Today, official positions of neutrality or affiliations vary between monotheism, deism, Christianity or atheism, with equivalent variations in terms of present or absent political stances.

Grand Lodges and Grand Orients and their Grand Masters are usually governed coterminous with states, nations or provinces. Despite administrative independence, some bodies maintain mutual recognition of legitimacy. Total membership internationally is estimated to several millions around the world.

Comments on sections

OK... what do we like and dislike about the current lede? Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

dear blueboar, thank you for your input. I do not dislike it, but do you think that specifically mentioning that freemasonry is fragmented into different goal-oriented factions/groups/organizations as some mentioned here would be necessary or recommended by you? Grandia01 (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Above, I said that I think the new paragraph (focused on the split between Anglo and Continental style Freemasonry) is overly detailed... let me explain why (it will take a while, so bare with me)

Last week, I had the opportunity to discuss Freemasonry with some brothers from a Prince Hall lodge... and I realized something that is relevant to this discussion. From their perspective the Masonic world isn't divided into "Anglo/regular" vs. "Continetnal/irregular"... from their perspective the Masonic world is divided into "Legitimate decent" vs. "Bogus/self-created". You see, Freemasonry in the African American community is plagued with schisms. There are literally hundreds of schismatic lodges and Grand Lodges (look at our List of Masonic Grand Lodges article and you will see what I mean). Discounting the outright scams (lodges and Grand Lodges which do not actually exist except on the internet, and were created purely to charge admission fees from uninformed)... many of these schismatic lodges and Grand Lodges were formed due to internal disagreements in an existing Grand Lodge - the losers in the disagreement would simply hive off and form a rival Grand Lodge. Most at least attempt to have rituals that mirror the work done in the larger "mainstream" (at one time, white) lodges... but in a few cases, they changed the rituals to conform to a more "afro-centric" viewpoint (for example, shifting the focus away from the Biblical setting of King Solomon's Temple, and replacing that with rituals focused on the building of the pyramids of Egypt). Yet... all of them claim to be legitimate forms of Freemasonry (and all are accused of being illegitimate forms by their rivals).

Now, this is something that we don't cover at all in the article ... and we should ... However, I would definitely not suggest that it be discussed in the lede. It's something that should be covered in the section on Prince Hall Freemasonry.

Prince Hall is not alone in this... even "mainstream" Freemaasonry has been subject to myriad schisms... for example, my own Grand Lodge (New York) had a schism in the 1850s over the issue of whether Past Masters should vote in Grand Lodge or not (a petty issue, perhaps, but one that was of vital importance at the time). It was eventually healed, but for a period of about ten years, there were two groups calling themselves the "Grand Lodge of New York". This schism split the rest of the Masonic world as the other Grand Lodges had to decide which "Grand Lodge of New York" to support. Because it was healed, I don't think this article should mention it (it would be appropriate to include in the article on the Grand Lodge of New York).

Then we have the schismatic groups that are sometimes known as "Fringe Freemasonry" or "pseudo-Freemasonry"... groups like the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and Ordo Templi Orientis. These groups claim to be a form of Freemasonry (even though no one else accepts them as such). They were all formed by Freemasons who were interested in the occult (and usually involved in the Theosophical movement of the late 1800s)... they were dissatisfied with what Freemasonry actually was... and wanted Freemasonry to be something very different. So, they formed their own organisations... and called them "Freemasonry". Now, these are so fringey that we probably should not mention them in the article... but I mention them here because I wanted people to realize that Freemasonry is far more schismatic than they think.

To get back to the point... all this relates to how we present the Anglo/Continental schism. Like the schims in Prince Hall Freemasonry, this is something that should be covered in the article - at some point... but I think the proper place to cover it is in it's own section, not in the lede. yes, it is the largest schism... but it isn't the only schism. Presenting it in the lede gives it UNDUE weight.

The lede section should be an overview... I think it should acknowledge that Freemasonry is not unified, and it can even acknowledge that Freemasonry is prone to, and plagued by schism and disagreement. But the details of those schisms should be discussed later in the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

thanks much for your clarification. I needed that. I personally am ok with 1) simplifying the lede section and 2) briefly mentioning the -realistically- fragmented nature of freemasonry; along with 3) discussing those points in a separate section in the article, as you suggested. to your credit, instead of just -bigotedly- refusing to mention anything at all as some did here, I must say that you and Chicbyaccident did contribute positively to this discussion. much highly appreciated. Grandia01 (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The way I follow your arguing, the information you present simply validate that such detailed information, including groups of freemasonry not widely recognised by the more originally recognised networks, are not subject to the lead section but perhaps (at most) in sub sections. So far so good. That said, again, the lead section is not supposed to overcomplicate things and never aims to present a detailed presention of a subject, but to offer a simple overview. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point... the uncomplicated broad overview statement is simply that Freemasonry "is" a hodgepodge of fraternal groups that all style themselves as "Freemasonry" (but which have very differing concepts as to what "Freemasonry" actually is). If one group's concept is similar enough to another's, the two will (usually) officially recognize each other... if they differ too greatly, they will not.

Isn't that enough? Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. That's what the above proposals are about. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Chic, I don't think you do understand... both the current lede (which I present in green at the start of the thread) and your latest (re)proposed change (which you posted right below the current lede) go WAY beyond the simple statement I envision... (as for your (re)proposal - it includes some very erroneous additions, so there is no way that will be accepted). I am talking about simplifying the lede... You keep trying to expand it. We obviously are not communicating. Blueboar (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you make your own whole (or partly modified) proposal, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is entirely appropriate to describe the factions in Freemasonry in the lead section, but the paragraph I just reverted (again) is almost slanderously wrong about Continental Freemasonry. It is described in the article (again, please read it). For instance, there are absolutely NO atheist lodges or Grand Lodges in Continental Freemasonry. Liberal Freemasonry has a mystical edge that makes it inherently unattractive to atheists. The inserted paragraph views Freemasonry through the distorted lens of "Regular" Freemasons and the myths that they maintain to excuse their prejudices. Can we think again? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

oh, it is you again who is ruining this whole discussion. anyway, I re-reverted your edit and I want to let you know that if you don't like it then feel free to edit it rather than rudely to delete it altogether. by the way, it is very obvious that you are doing this because you are following an agenda, so be fair and stop thinking that we are stupid, and contribute positively to this discussion now, and follow Blueboar's fair suit because he worked really hard and spent much time on this to fix this upGrandia01 (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusations don't make errors right. Interesting to see a self-proclaimed conspiracy theorist accusing somebody else of having an agenda. You are now edit-warring, by the way. Again, read the article, it's in Freemasonry#Schism. On one side of the gulf are the "Regular" lodges - those that take their vows on scripture, don't admit women, and don't discuss religion or politics in lodge. On the other side are the "Liberal" lodges, those that don't require an open volume of scripture in lodge, admit women, etc. Ironically, many of these were forced to engage in politics and religion to avoid being persecuted out of existence by the Catholic Church. Joining them are any other masonic jurisdictions, no matter how regular in practice, who have had the audacity to maintain masonic contact with the Liberal outcasts. So we have an exclusive, insular, "Regular" club, and everybody else, who find les Regulars somewhat ridiculous. That's the information that needs to be in the lead section, not unreferenced exaggerations and outright untruths. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have inserted a short paragraph stating the bare facts of the schism within Freemasonry that exists today. This information is expanded on and referenced in the main article. When we got this article upgraded to GA, I deliberately left this stuff out of the lead, because it's quite complicated, and definitions of Continental Freemasonry vary. I see that some nod to the schism is probably necessary. If we need to discuss this, can we stick to verifiable, referenced facts please? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, well that is certainly the story from the viewpoint of the "continental" side... It isn't the story from the "regular" side. Both views need to be presented. However, the LEAD is not the place to do so. All the LEAD needs to say is that there are different views. Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

dear blueboar, and in where exactly do you suggest we put that section into? Grandia01 (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

ok, I just put it in the "Other degrees, orders and bodies" section now. I hope that is acceptable to you all Grandia01 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Except if anything but these two main networks would be offering very vague bits of information. Therefore, I insist the information does qualify in the lead section. Again, at this point, the lead section is made up statements on grades in a few of the branches, while also stating that freemasonry traces its roots to stone masons - while not informing that this is self-claimed. I really don't see why the current points of information should be prioritised, for other reasons than to deliberately keep the lead section non-informative and vague in this oh-so-complicated, mystical subject. And I have a hard time seeing that's how we go about on Wikipedia. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: "...while also stating that freemasonry traces its roots to stone masons - while not informing that this is self-claimed." The idea that origins of Freemasonry in the stonemasons is not just a self-claim... it is is the majority view held by actual historians (including historians that are not themselves Masons). The reason why it is the majority view is that, within in the last fifty years, new documentation (such as early lodge records dating from the 16th and 17th centuries) have come to light... and they show the transition in progress. Yes, there are lots of other claims and theories that have been made through the years... and they do have their fans... but most of these alternative theories of the origins of Freemasonry are (at worst) dismissed by actual historians as ridiculous fabrications, or (at best) are discounted as being based on outdated information (having been written before the documents I mention above were discovered). Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Two points. This isn't the "Continental" viewpoint, these are the verifiable facts referenced in the history section by papers from Regular Freemasons who have actually studied the schism. The Regular viewpoint is a mixture of exaggeration and myth passed by word of mouth at lodge level for so long that we all believed it to be true. Bernheim appears to be the only solid source on the details. Secondly, this probably belongs in the lead, and I am entirely at a loss as to how to cut it down. To mention two blocs in modern masonry is insufficient, we need to explain what they are. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh ... I can point to numerous sources that would say otherwise. But the issue of whether the Regular viewpoint is (or is not) "exaggeration and myth" is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is that the regular grand lodges do hold a given viewpoint ... that the viewpoint exists, whether it is right or not. What is relevant is that this viewpoint (accurate or not) has resulted in the Regulars withdrawing recognition from the Continentals. It does not actually matter whether who's viewpoint is accurate ... what matters is that the viewpoints are thought to be accurate by the grand lodges/orients that hold them... and that belief has influenced determinations over recognition and "legitimacy". The same is true where it comes to the disagreements in Prince Hall Freemasonry... To those not involved with Prince Hall Masons, it can seem that they spend an inordinate amount of time and effort debating whether X is legitimate or bogus (all will say "my grand lodge is legitimate... that grand lodge over there is not"). As Wikipedians, however, we are required to be neutral... we don't care who is right and who is wrong... all we can do is simply note that they disagree, and state what the various sides say. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the viewpoint on the why of the schism. The fact remains that the divide is between an exclusive group of Regulars, and the liberals together with those who have been flung into the outer darkness for associating with them. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Fiddler, there are a thousand and one reasons why one GL might withhold recognition from another. It's just that not requiring a belief in deity (and thus admitting atheists) is simply the most common reason why one GL might withhold recognition from another (so it makes for a good example of the phenomenon). Associating with an unrecognized GL is another reason why one GL might withhold recognition (however, it is a murkier issue than the "atheist" issue... so it does not make for a very good example of the phenomenon).

Here is my point... examples do not belong in the lead. The lead needs to be broad and generalized. It is an introduction to what is said in the rest of the article. It should focus on broad concepts. As far as the issue of recognition goes, the broad concept that the lead should focus on is this:

• Freemasonry isn't unified. Each GL is independent of the others. This means they can disagree with each other... And if GL "X" disagrees strongly with GL "Y", "X" may withhold (or withdraw) recognition from "Y".

That's all that the lead needs to say on the subject of recognition. Save the details for the main body of the article. Blueboar (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for my late reply. ok, lest I seem forceful or even nosy, can anyone else suggest a suitable introduction that illustrates Blueboar's points? Grandia01 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We have to go forward. The lead section isn't good at this point. Feel free to propose your improvements. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

here is my proposed intro in bold (with merely minor changes/additions): "The basic, local organisational unit of Freemasonry is the Lodge. The Lodges are usually supervised and governed at the regional level (usually coterminous with either a state, province, or national border) by a Grand Lodge or Grand Orient. Freemasonry is not unified and so are its goals: there is no international, world-wide Grand Lodge that supervises all of Freemasonry; each Grand Lodge is independent, and they do not necessarily recognise each other as being legitimate." is that ok with everyone? Grandia01 (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are simply restating the material already present. Blueboar - the paragraph you reverted didn't mention religion or specify any reasons. It remains that there is a Great Schism in Freemasonry, and two main camps internationally. Is mentioning the elephant in the room too specific for the lead? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

dear blueboar, can you give us your opinion on this please? thank you Grandia01 (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure... I feel that Fiddler has misidentified what the "elephant in the room" actually is. To belabor the analogy, the disagreement between Continental and Regular Grand Lodges is only part of the elephant. It may be a big part... the part that is most noticeable (say the head of the elephant, with big flapping ears, a long trunk and tusks)... but the Continental/Regular split isn't the entire elephant. The entire elephant is a broader phenomenon. It is the fact that Freemasonry isn't unified. The elephant is the fact that Freemasonry is filled with splits, schisms and factions (small and large).

Now, the article should discuss the more noticeable parts of the elephant ... those are important... but the lead should focus on the entire elephant.

Another way to think of it (again to belabor the analogy) is that when it comes to splits/schisms/disagreements etc. there isn't just one single elephant in the room... there is a whole herd of elephants. Some may be little baby elephants, others are great big bulls ... but the lead should focus on the entire herd, and not get distracted by one single elephant. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

thank you Blueboar. can you do the edits that you suggested please? hopefully by then we can conclude this discussion satisfyingly Grandia01 (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Will do... But I may not get to it for a day or two (real life impinges) Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can't come up with better ideas than the present ones on the lead section, please at least don't obstruct the work until you are able to come up with possible improvements. And again, we're trying to keep this lead section simple and comprehensible. More complicated subjects have been presented in more comprehensive ways on Wikipedia. We can manage with this subject too. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

"Don't obstruct the work" displays an appalling arrogance from an editor who, thus far, has shown little but ignorance of the subject. First, unreferenced statements in the lead section MUST be supported by referenced text in the body of the article. Please, read the article. This will place you in a better position to help.

On the other matter - there is one large global schism in Freemasonry. Many other schisms certainly exists, but even the Prince Hall/Prince Hall Compact ruction is only local to the United States, and while it is a fascinating subject, few people outside PH masonry care about the issue. "Regular" Freemasonry, by its very nature, regularly throws up local schisms that nobody else gives a rat's arse about. There are few schisms in Continental Freemasonry because of the inclusive nature of their outlook. All masonic organisations are recognised, even the Regulars (criminal and scam organisations obviously excluded). Don't fudge the issue with a herd of tiny elephants. They are mice with prosthetic trunks, and they look ridiculous. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Blueboar, I hope your proposed edits are available soon/now. Thank you Grandia01 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Blueboar's Proposal

Sorry it took so long for me to respond (real life ended up being more time consuming than I thought it would)... anyway... here is an initial stab at new language for the lead: (Changes from the current text are in purple)

Freemasonry is a term that refers to multiple fraternal organisations that trace their origins to the guilds of stonemasons, which from the end of the fourteenth century regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients. Members of these organisations are known as Freemasons or Masons. The degrees of freemasonry retain the three grades of medieval craft guilds, those of Apprentice, Journeyman or fellow (now called Fellowcraft), and Master Mason. These are the degrees offered by Craft (or Blue Lodge) Freemasonry. There are additional degrees, which vary with locality and jurisdiction, and are usually administered by different bodies than the craft degrees.

The basic, local organisational unit of Freemasonry is the Lodge. Lodges are usually supervised and governed at the regional level (usually coterminous with either a state, province, or national border) by a Grand Lodge or Grand Orient. There is no international, world-wide Grand Lodge that supervises all of Freemasonry; each Grand Lodge is an independent entity.

Freemasonry is not unified. Each Grand Lodge adopts its own practices, rituals, rules and regulations. Each Grand Lodge also examines the practices, rituals, rules and regulations of the others, and will base recognition on how closely the two agree. There have been significant disagreements through the years (even extending to disagreement over what the basic goals and purposes of the fraternity are), and such disagreements have resulted in the formation of numerous factions and sub-factions within the broader fraternity.

Remember that this is a draft, and not a final proposal... I am flexible, and willing to discuss alternative language... but this will give you an idea of how I think the issue of "non-unity" should be presented. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are ignoring a global split between the inclusive (Continental) lodges and the exclusive regulars. Maybe a sentence on the charlatans and idiotically small GLs that are only kidding themselves. Possibly with less judgmental phrasing. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is... by highlighting the Continental vs Regular split in the lead, I think we give that specific disagreement UNDUE weight. Highlighting it in the lede reflects a very Euro-centric view of which splits and schisms are important to modern Freemasons.

I do realize that from a European perspective, the Continental/Regular split is far more important than the splits and schisms among Prince Hall Freemasonry. However, from a US perspective, it's the other way around... the splits and schisms among the various Prince Hall derived bodies are of vital interest (affecting current discussions about which PH derived GLs to recognize and which to ostracize)... and because Continental Freemasonry has such a tiny (almost fringe) presence in North America, the Continental/Regular split is not considered all that important... it is relegated to the background.

Now... I am not saying that the article should take a US Perspective. It would be just as wrong for the article to take a US Perspective as it is for it to take a Euro Perspective... my point is that neither perspective should be highlighted by being explicitly mentioned in the lead. Both examples of split and schism should be mentioned... just not in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a thing, it's not "important" in the UK either. However, the rest of the world - Central and South America, Africa, Continental Europe, and especially the new masonic jurisdictions of the former Soviet Bloc illustrate my point too well. You are telling the story from the point of view of our own mother lodges in the English speaking, "regular" world. That isn't undue weight, it's systemic bias.

Secondly, the irregulars don't have recognition issues, they all recognise the regular lodges. Most GLs are out there because they recognise the Liberals as well as the self-proclaimed great and good of Freemasonry. Membership numbers probably favour the Liberals, but most GLs are regular in practise, and a plethora of tiny Grand Lodges exist outside of our enclosed world, and we cannot ignore it. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is determining which facts are important enough to mention in the lead, and which are not. What I am arguing is this: the basic fact that Freemasonry (when taken as a whole) is not unified... that it's filled with factions, splinter groups and schisms... is a phenomenon that is important enough to mention in the lead. The disagreements between Continental/Regular and the schisms withing Prince Hall are both great examples of that phenomenon, but its the phenomenon of disunity that is important enough for the lead, not the examples. Examples don't belong in the lead... they belong in the body of the text, where they can be explained and expanded upon. I am not saying that the article should ignore the continental/regular split (far from it)... I am simply saying that it does not merit being mentioned in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Addendum - Fiddler, the two of us seem to be going in circles here, with both of us simply repeating what we have already said before. I suspect that neither of us will convince the other... so... let's both step back and let others give their opinions. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Mine is that your suggested edit is that all governing bodies have recognition issues with others. This is patently not the case. There must be a way of dealing with Liberal/mixed Freemasonry without becoming mired in the parochial problems of the US lodges. US problems are mainly jurisdictional. However, within world Freemasonry there is now a philosophical dichotomy which the lead does not address. RFC? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

While I hate to draw comparisons perhaps we need to look at how religious articles have handled similar issues. If one were to write an article about a particular Christian denomination for example I doubt they would feel the need to include break away or fringe groups in the lead. PeRshGo (talk)

I'm quite unsure what is meant by "break away or fringe". If the Grand Orient de France is intended, this indicates a serious misunderstanding of the history and reality of the situation, and underlines my point about Wikipedia:Systemic bias. This cannot be about just the "Regulars". Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not making the argument that it be just about the Regulars but understanding the history and reality of the situation the irregulars should be given the same weight Anglican churches outside of the communion have. It is probably true that churches outside of the communion outnumber those within but the focus is still on the communion. PeRshGo (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

A better analogy would be the protestants of the 16th century. Seeing Freemasonry through the prism of English speaking, male lodges is not necessarily what an Encyclopaedia needs, and does not chime with general editorial guidelines. Let's be clear, nobody "broke away". The self-appointed great and good of Freemasonry decided that some other lodges were bad children, and none of their friends were allowed to play with them. This started with a major national Grand Lodge, and the events of the 1870s are still misrepresented, and are murkier than the UGLE care to admit. It's called the "Great schism" for a reason. It might be important. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I like your proposed wording, Blueboar - I agree that not too much detail should be given in the lead about the differences between the various groups. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

lede

a volume of scripture is open in a working lodge=??213.49.94.244 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Depends entirely on what jurisdiction the lodge belongs to. At any rate such details are more fully described further down in the article. WegianWarrior (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Exclusive Jurisdiction"

This particular subsection needs some clarity, I think. It's being put forth as a general concept, but the Bessel source claims it's essentially American, because it has mainly impacted multiple GLs in the United States. I think we need to talk a bit about what that means for the GLs of England, Ireland, and Scotland, because it's going to be difficult to reconcile the section as written with the actual situation either presently (or historically) in places like South Africa, Japan, India, etc. where Lodges under all three bodies either did or do co-exist. MSJapan (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't these covered by the second part of the explanation (where the various GLs in the same area are in amity, and agree to share. Since none of them are claiming exclusive jurisdiction, then exclusive jurisdiction is waved, and is no longer an issue for other GLs) ? Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

These overseas jurisdictions are a colonial hangover. All three British GLs set up lodges in the "colonies" to cater for their members abroad and introduce Freemasonry to the natives. UGLE actually tried to elbow out the other two in the 1870s, and failed. How much explanation does this require in the article? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Out of curiosity... what is the history for Japan? (I am asking... not trying to make a point) Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Irish lodge was military. Other groups (of traders) would have taken their own brand of Freemasonry with them. Nobody "claimed" Japan for the same reason Buzz Aldrin didn't claim the moon for the Grand Lodge of New Jersey. The basics are here, from the Grand Lodge of Japan's website. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Short history is: UGLE, GL Scotland, and GL Ireland until the Pacific War when everyone pretty much went dark, GL Phillipines 1945-57, GL Japan 1957-present, plus a former DGL China under GLMA lodge and Prince Hall from at least one jurisdiction on the military bases. Neat stuff is that Tolkien's WWI regiment was there, and apparently Perry held a meeting in Tokyo Bay. Also, GL of NJ didn't claim the Moon - GL of Texas did. :) MSJapan (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line, claiming exclusive jurisdiction in a country far from your Grand Lodge is fraught with difficulties, and as such is rarely attempted, save for the attempted stitch-up by UGLE in the 1870s that completely backfired. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it does work occasionally... For example, there was the kerfluffle a few years ago over Lebanon. GLoNY claims a half-exclusive Jurisdiction (shared with Scotland by treaty)... And NY got bent out of shape when GLoDC tried to charter a lodge there... NY pulled its recognition of DC and DC backed down. (Of course, this only works if the "invading" GL cares about being in amity with the GL who claims jurisdiction. Grand Orient de France has happily ignored NY's claim over Lebanon... Chartering several lodged there. GOdeF does not care what NY claims... And NY has no leverage to stop them, since it had already de-recognized GOdeF years before) Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We are talking chalk and cheese, as GOdF now has mixed lodges. Lebanon also has Bet-El (CLIPSAS). It's interesting, but how much can we put into a general article? In France, there are so many Masonic Bodies that only GLNF pretends that exclusive jurisdiction is possible (and it's them, hooray). Droit Humain can't afford to worry about Jurisdiction - it's an affectation of the "Regulars" club. It works in countries where the majority of masons are in this club. Where there is no national tradition of masonry, and where Freemasonry has only recently returned, it's clearly not possible as different traditions try to establish themselves, often alongside competing factions claiming to represent the old masonry of the country. The problem for us is summarising all of this conversation in a pithy phrase or two. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

link updates needed, content unchanged but moved to new location. original URL 301 redirected to new location. This is just for this article at the moment.

1) "Exclusive Jurisdiction", Paul M. Bessel, 1998, retrieved 25 November 2013 http://www.bessel.org/exclartl.htm has been permanently moved to http://www.masonical.com/the-doctrine-of-exclusive-territorial-jurisdiction/

2) "Masonic U.S. Recognition of French Grand Lodges in the 20th century", Paul M. Bessel. retrieved 8 November 2013 http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm has been permanently moved to http://www.masonical.com/u-s-recognition-french-grand-lodges-1900s/

2) Bessel, Paul M. "Prince Hall Masonry Recognition details: Historical Maps". Retrieved 2005-11-14.http://bessel.org/masrec/phamapshistorical.htm has been permanently moved to http://www.masonical.com/prince-hall-masonry-recognition-details-historical-maps/

WSJGC (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done I'm going to leave it as-is for the moment for technical reasons: The site has some SSL configuration issues, and that is a problem. Moreover, if I use the Bessel link, it redirects to a nicely-formatted page on Masonical. If I use the Masonical link, the page is kind of a mess. So as it stands, it still works for now, and I think the new target isn't quite working as well as it should at the moment. MSJapan (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look and pointing that out. SSL is fixed now. WSJGC (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Masonic moral teachings

I am editing the Papal ban of Freemasonry and searching for reliable sources describing Masonic moral teachings.

I found a "Statement on Freemasonry and Religion" on msana.com, which, in part, states that: "Its moral teachings are acceptable to all religions."

This confuses me. For example, the morality of swearing an oath to "not have illicit carnal intercourse with a Master Mason's wife" is not acceptable for Catholics. In contrast to that Masonic moral teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry"(n. 2380). "He who commits adultery [...] does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, [...] and undermines the institution of marriage [...]" (n. 2381).

In other words, the distinction is explicitly and absolutely all wives in Catholicism but seems to be only some wives in Masonry. This categorization implies that adultery with a wife who is not "a Master Mason's wife" is acceptable – it is less than the sixth commandment which is the moral standard for Catholics, Christians in general, and Jews. It seems to create diminished responsibility through an implied moral licence if the oath is meaningful. "The obligations taken by Freemasons are sworn on the" VSL of their choice, so according to Catholic doctrine regarding the Ten Commandments, if the oath is not meaningful, then it is an act against the second commandment – which forbids false oaths (n. 2150), i.e. an act "in opposition to God who is Truth itself" (n. 2151).

References

Is the literal content of Masonic oaths part of literal Masonic moral teachings? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

First, let's get the language right... In most English speaking jurisdictions, this particular clause in the obligation is usually phrased: "Furthermore, I do promise ans swear that I will not violate the chastity of a Master Mason's wife, widow, sister, daughter or mother". A few things to highlight here: Note the word "chastity". A violation of chastity goes beyond just engaging in sexual intercourse. Yes, adultery would be a "violation of chastity" ... but a violation of chastity is more extensive than that. The second thing to note is that the clause includes all the women in a fellow Mason's life, not just his wife. So... this is not really about sex, but about respecting the ladies of a brother, and all women, in a broader sense.

Second, this particular clause of the obligation has to be understood in the context of what surrounds it. It is part of a larger group of promises, all focused on a Mason's behavior towards other Masons. Other clauses in this section include promising to help a fellow mason (and his family) who is in distress, and promising not to "wrong, cheat or defraud" a fellow mason. In this context ... what is being highlighted by the "chastity" clause is that a wrong committed against one of the women in a master mason's life is also a wrong against that brother. In other words... the clause isn't really about "Thou shalt not commit adultery"... the clause is about "Don't harm a fellow Mason... especially in this way".

Finally... All this does not mean that Masons think it is OK to violate the chastity of other women... it isn't. What the clause is saying is that it is especially bad to violate our brothers' ladies. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: thank you for the clarification. I agree, using the term chastity changes the meaning. I agree with you that it needs to be understood in context. I agree that the text and context is "a Mason's behavior towards other Masons". Rhetorically, why would that statement substitute the term illicit carnal intercourse for chastity?

Nevertheless, that distinction is still all in Catholicism but some in Masonry. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, offenses against chastity – being offenses against the sixth commandment – include fornication (n. 2353), pornography (n. 2354) which harms the dignity of each person who "becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others", prostitution (n. 2355) which harms the dignity of each person who becomes "an instrument of sexual pleasure", rape (n. 2356) which is "always an intrinsically evil act." Chastity, for a Catholic, "presupposes respect for the rights of the person" (n. 2344) – each person and not a subset. So, the categorization is unacceptable since every person is "created in the image of God" (nn. 355, 362, etc.) and "everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as 'another self,' above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity" (n. 1931). Moreover, a Catholic could not oath to "not violate the chastity" of only some women since chastity is also "a cultural effort" in which the "improvement of society" is mutually dependent on "personal betterment" (n. 2344). Chastity is a kind of temperance, so it "seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason" (n. 2341). It would be inconsistent to intentionally exclude reason, from the indulgence of some passions and appetites, while habituating moderation to master self (see nn. 377, 1809).

Again, thank you Blueboar. Can you cite a reliable online source describing Masonic moral teachings? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest you both stop interpreting the respective texts and trying to draw a conclusion from it as "fact", as you're both walking right into WP:OR; I can already see you're both trying to spin the material a certain way in both cases to support your respective positions, and it's not going to end well. First of all, the obligations are not equal to the moral teachings; as was mentioned, it is concerned with conduct towards members, not the moral teachings that address larger matters. Second of all, with regard to these "Catholic" clarifications about "all or some", I'm going to bet the Knights of Columbus version isn't much different in speaking about conduct towards other members. So, no, you're not going to draw parallels that aren't there and aren't supported in order to make a point. Catholicism doesn't like Freemasonry, fine, but WP is not your platform to make that case. There are plenty of unsavory things that Catholicism "doesn't permit" which still happen, but don't happen in Masonic lodges. Is it pertinent? No. So there's no point to be made in following this line of inquiry that isn't spurious. MSJapan (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: "stop interpreting the respective texts and trying to draw a conclusion from it as "fact'"? The reason for these discussions is to help write a better article – to help identify what are facts. Sharing opinions is part of that process.

MSJapan thank you for clarifying that "the obligations are not equal to the moral teachings" but are they part of the moral teachings?

Yes, it pertinent. This is not a spurious inquiry but directly related to Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry § German Bishops Conference discussion and Papal ban of Freemasonry § Uncertainty following the Second Vatican Council section and subsections.

The literal distinction between the chastity of all women vs some women seems important.

I do not know what the Knights of Columbus do. Google searches show they are not oath bound[1][2] and they"accept[] the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals"[3] and include the Cathechism on their website.

Can you cite a reliable source describing the Masonic "moral teachings that address larger matters"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are looking for an explanation with a Roman Catholic analog take Latae sententiae for example. There are sins in Catholicism that if committed warrant immediate excommunication. Freemasonry also has certain rules that if broken warrant immediate removal from the organization. That does not mean everything that falls outside of that list is acceptable or encouraged, just that certain things simply wont be tolerated under any circumstance. PeRshGo (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@PeRshGo: no, I am not looking for sanctions but the literal Masonic moral teachings. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu:, it is worth mentioning that Freemasonry isn't governed by one organization, and members are expected to come with their own particular religious faith, so you're not going to find a hard and fast set of rules covering all subjects, but what it does have is a set of virtues described here[4] PeRshGo (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@PeRshGo: yes, I have read about its cellular organization into independent hierarchical groups, about the independence of individual beliefs, and about cardinal virtues.

Does a member swear an oath to cardinal virtues? From what I have read so far, the obligations are the universal requirements – in effect the Masonic do-and-do-not requirements. From my perspective, they are part of the literal Masonic moral teachings. This is why I would like to find a reliable source describing the Masonic moral teachings.

Specific to this item about the sexual ethics of the 3° oath, there is explicit in-group favoritism toward some women in the obligation, which implicitly defines other women as an out‐group. The dichotomy is clear to me and at least one author on the subject:

Presumably all others are fair game and such seductions and rapes in no way violate his obligation. We need not speculate on the public reaction to such a moral code if publicly advanced by a Christian denomination.
— William J. Whalen, in Christianity and American Freemasonry (1958)

But I want to read additional reliable sources that discuss this particular obligation. I think including reliable information about a Masonic contra-argument would be great. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine you'll find a source that addresses one particular author's perverse suggestion. Considering the cardinal virtues, which are equally as universal, inculcated prior, and thus by extension included in the obligation, I imagine no one gets gets the idea that unchastity is promoted. Just as Black Lives Matter doesn't mean other lives don't, not having sex outside of marriage with a member's close relatives is not a license for all manners of sexual immorality with others. It is the sort of thing that is so obvious, no one would feel the need to explain it. PeRshGo (talk)

Perhaps an analogy would help... at his inauguration, every President of the United States swears to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"... his oath does not mention other laws. Does this omission mean that the President is in some way exempt from other laws? No... of course not. It simply means that, as President, he has an extra duty towards the Constitution... above and beyond the duties every citizen of the US has towards other laws. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@PeRshGo: it is not one author but an objection going back in English language works to the early 1800s, e.g. Christian apologetics from after the William Morgan trials: Masonic oaths neither morally nor legally binding (1830), which described it as "licentiousness".

Cardinal virtues may be "equally as universal" but that does not make them oath bound obligations. Only the literal particular acts sworn in an oath are part of that oath – there is no implied extensions to oaths. Does a member swear an oath to cardinal virtues? From what I read, no he do not.

Your examples are not examples of sexual ethics based on in-group preferences – this Masonic oath is about the boundaries of sexual behavior.

Imagine the ridicule a 21st-century man living in a western culture would receive if he publicly swore an oath to behave, in a chaste and virtuous manner, only toward some women but not all women – in effect saying: "Hey buddy, I'm only obliged not to grope your wife, widow, sister, daughter or mother. But I never promised God not grope your granddaughter."

As I wrote before, "I would like to find a reliable source describing the Masonic moral teachings" to read and not speculate about this.

@Blueboar: the President example is not valid. Masonry rejects everything sectarian and treats profane people different. Sectarian morality, e.g. found in the ten commandments or Catholic catechisms, is a matter of individual preference. The obligations are not an individual preference – they are the sworn commandments. A reliable source describing the Masonic moral teachings would be very helpful. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Um... no... the obligations are not some sort of commandments... they are a set of personal promises (made to both the lodge and to God) to do X and not to do Y. They are not phrased as "Thou shalt do X" or "Thou shalt not do Y"... but as "I promise and swear to do X" and "I promise and swear not to do Y".

I drew the comparison to the Presidential Oath for a reason... because there is a direct parallel contained withing the obligations of Freemasonry... one of the things a Mason swears to do in his Obligations is to support the Constitutions of his Grand Lodge and abide by the bi-laws of his lodge (not sure what the "moral lesson" of that would be)... exactly as the President swears to to support the Constitution of his country. The point is... Yes, Masons take their obligations seriously... but they are not some sort of commandments. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I had to sign off on a sexual harassment policy at work. It said I couldn't sexually harass my fellow employees. Looks like people who work elsewhere are fair game! PeRshGo (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure that a workplace sexual harassment policy counts as a "commandment" either... so perhaps an analogy of something that clearly is considered an actual religious commandment would help... the Ten Commandments given to Moses tell us to "Honor thy Father and thy Mother"... Does this mean we don't have to honor anyone else's Father and Mother? What about Grandparents?... I guess we don't have to honor them either (since they are not your parents)? Somehow I don't think that is the intent. Blueboar (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@PeRshGo: that policy, as you wrote, defines responsible behavior toward all other employees, etc. It is among policies required by governments and particular to that employment. It most likely never mentions an employer's wife, widow, sister, daughter or mother. The policy did not involve God and you did not swear an oath to something universal, i.e. "that religion to which all men agree" sense as opposed to a sectarian sense. So, yes, that policy particular to that employment implicitly excludes other people. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: thank you again, for explaining your comparison and clarifying that obligations are not commandments.

From what I have read, the ten commandments are sectarian for Masons and not part of the "peculiar system of morality" and by being sectarian are not required for "purity of life and conduct". A personal VSL can be a book with empty pages. But, I have no doubt that many, if not most, Masons include at least some of the the ten commandments as personal standards of morality.

Yes, swearing an oath and promising are similar types of acts – a Mason does both concurrently.

Are the obligations part of the moral teachings of "that religion to which all men agree"? What is a reliable source describing the Masonic moral teachings? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

We have a problem. BoBoMisiu cannot seem to understand that the "moral teachings" of Freemasonry vary between jurisdictions, of which there are hundreds. It's all pretty vague, too. The Anglos need you to obey the law, believe in God, and generally be a "decent sort". The Continentals are more prosaic. You don't have to believe in God, but the inherent mysticism of their ritual makes it unattractive to atheists. You need to be a decent person who obeys the law. You are also expected to do everything in your power to prevent the interference of ANY religious denomination in any form of civic or national government. Given that the larger of these obediences have been fighting the Catholic Church tooth and nail since 1736 for the very right to exist, they may have a point.

That religion to which all men agree is from the Rev James Anderson. He was proposing Noahidism, but nobody knows what he exactly meant, and I doubt if he did. New research indicates he lied about the 1716 meeting that predated the first Grand Lodge (the Apple Tree tavern didn't exist in 1716), and nobody really takes him seriously any more. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: thank you for your explanation, especially that the term that religion to which all men agree is now used in a historical context. Please read my original post. "Its moral teachings are acceptable to all religions," according to several sources; but the 3° oath about boundaries of sexual behavior is not acceptable to all religions. Is this obligation a part of Masonic moral teachings, or not? As I wrote before, "I would like to find a reliable source describing the Masonic moral teachings" to read and not speculate about this. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify - which 3° oath is that? I actually know a mason who was expelled from the craft (UGLE) for screwing the Worshipful Master's wife. Not all obediences have the same sense of humour failure when confronted by human weakness. In England masons pledge not to seduce the relatives of their brethren in the first degree. Their mothers are omitted, which at my age is a blessing. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Bobo, you keep asking us to provide a source "describing the moral teachings" of Freemasonry... I am not sure we can do so. For one thing, it is not clear what you expect us to provide. Are you looking for some sort of official source that says: "These are the moral teachings of the fraternity, and here is how they should be interpreted"? (if so, I can tell you that no such source exists). Are you looking for sources where someone has shared their interpretations, insights and reflections on masonic rituals and symbolism? (if so, there are many... but before I point you to them, I must include the caveat that any interpretations, insights and reflections are those of the individual author, and are in no way "official"... other Masons are free to disagree with any author's interpretations, insights and reflections.) What exactly are you hoping to find? Blueboar (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: no, not so much official statements from individual grand lodges, but a relatively recent Masonic encyclopedia (like Coil, etc.) article or something by a research lodge that describes the sexual ethics of 3° obligation from a late 20th– or 21st–century perspective. I imagine that the sexual revolution of the 1960s led to questions about the 3° sexual boundaries obligation and Masonic sexual ethics. I have searched online and do not find that kind of information mentioned by Masons. Maybe a better way to word it is "describing the ethical teachings" instead of "describing the moral teachings". From my non-Masonic perspective, this obligation is repulsive because it seems to separate behavior toward women based on those women's relationship to Masons. Nothing is written about it and it seems to contradict that the "moral teachings are acceptable to all religions". This on the surface seems to be an example of what Ravasi described (see this diff) as one of "the theoretical and practical reasons for the irreconcilability of masonry and Catholicism as concepts of truth, [...], ethics, [...]". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu:This seems to be more about a POV editor using backwoods references to start another time-wasting, specious discussion about the relative merits of Freemasonry and Roman Catholicism. For the LAST time, there is no universal code of masonic morals. This is not a forum. Please continue when you can find anything relevant to this article. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: I posted in this discussion because I cannot find a reliable Masonic source on this subject – this is not a "specious discussion about the relative merits". I want to make Papal ban of Freemasonry an informative article that includes contra arguments. I think the obligations are universal. As I wrote before, "I would like to find a reliable source describing the Masonic moral ethical teachings" to read and not speculate about this. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu:You have been told several times that there is no universally accepted code of Masonic ethics/morality. This is NOT the discussion page of Papal ban of Freemasonry. Please read WP:Not a forum. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: you misunderstand. I am not discussing Papal ban of Freemasonry here, I am asking about a modern (post sexual revolution) reliable source which describes the sexual ethics of the 3° obligation in context. Part of what I asked was "Is the literal content of Masonic oaths part of literal Masonic moral teachings" but I am not asking about "accepted code" – I know that the fragmented structure of Masonry precludes such a code. I have read your replies and understand what you wrote, eventually some other editor may have the title of such a work. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that any "reliable source which describes the sexual ethics of the 3° obligation in context" exists.... because the obligation isn't trying to teach "sexual ethics". The purpose of the obligation is to outline and highlight specific duties that a Freemason owes to his Lodge, to his fellow Freemasons and (in a few provisions, such as the one you are focused on) to the families of fellow Freemasons.

You ask: "Is the literal content of Masonic oaths part of literal Masonic moral teachings?" ... My answer would be "no", because the purpose of the obligation is not to teach a moral/ethical lesson... but to promise specific moral/ethical behavior in a specific context. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It may help to look at the masonic obligations in the context in which they were written, that of a 16/17th century trade incorporation, where all members were expected to look out for each others' welfare. The term "brother" is a legal term from the period indicating somebody to whom one is bound by such an oath (in Britain, even women Freemasons are brothers). The terms are unremarkable in this context, and would not be updated in a ritually conservative society like the masons. Reading more than this into them is problematic and unhelpful. HTH Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blueboar: I read this discussion again after a few days away from it. While "the obligation isn't trying to teach 'sexual ethics'", the obligation is the minimum required standard for behavior of a master mason. The 3° sexual ethics obligation is restricted to one degree of consanguinity from a master mason. Its form is a negative oath. Its effect is dividing women into two classes.

An extreme recent example is that, in my opinion, participating in the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany would not violate that 3° point of Masonic obligation, yet, it would violate the sectarian Christian morality which is neither part of the Masonic obligation nor part of "that religion to which all men agree." Each perpetrator would remain a Mason in good standing, and, as far as I have read about Masonic jurisprudence over the weekend, he could not be excluded from the lodge for his assaults unless he had prior knowledge that specific women he assaulted were related to master masons. Moreover, as far as I read, if he knew that a specific woman was the granddaughter of a master mason and assaulted her, he would remain a Mason in good standing.

Others have commented on this sexual ethic. A 1893 e.g.: "The morality enjoined and taught is of a partial kind, and is about equivalent to a license to immorality. [...] so far as his oath or the teachings of the lodge are concerned, he is left at liberty to be as dishonest and licentious as he may choose in his relations with the rest of mankind." Further, a Mason "living in strict obedience to the obligations and precepts of the fraternity, is free from sin."[5] (regardless of what the term sin means in a unsectarian Masonic context)

More recently, a 1965 South African report by its Commission of Enquiry into Secret Organisations stated that "in the evidence against freemasonry, it was asserted that, [...] it subverts the morals, customs and way of life of the people of South Africa on the grounds — [...] that it maintains a dual morality because [... of the] oath [...] not to violate the chastity of the wife, [etc.]" "128. No evidence was submitted to the Commission to the effect — nor was it alleged — that a freemason maintains a dual morality in regard to the violation of the chastity of the wife, daughter or sister of a brother-freemason and that of another woman. Even if the taking of the oath could therefore be conducive to the maintenance of a dual morality — and this is not conceded — no proof exists that such a double standard is actually maintained or that a freemason practises it. Anything like that" (p. 18). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC); modified 19:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: yes, your comment does help some. I agree that the common English forms – chastity vs illicit sexual intercourse – are centuries old. I agree that the term brother is "unremarkable" but the sexual ethic is remarkable in excluding even granddaughters of master masons. While the ceremonies do vary and the extrinsic ceremonies are not the intrinsic substance, I agree with you that it would not be developed to reflect modern ethics since a Masonic premise is that Masonry is a pure morality untainted by sectarian, e.g. Christian or Jewish, corruptions or innovations. I am reading the dichotomy between some women and other women literally. The 1965 South African report called it "a dual morality."

I think combining Whalen as the citation with short footnote to see the South African report will be an adequate source. The South African report might support a contra argument. I do not think references to Masonic jurisprudence is needed. It is unfortunate that I cannot find a Masonic contra source, commenting about the sexual ethic, to include. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC); modified 19:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@BoBoMisiu:Anglo-American masonry insists that masons conform to the law of their country of residence, so any form of sexual assault is out, on any other person. Any such assault would result in exclusion. We're wandering back into WP:Not a forum, erring towards WP:Complete bollocks, and we're getting very BORED. This is a discussion of masonic sexual ethics based on pointed questions from a POV editor. It has less and less to do with the article as the discussion progresses. Those of us who have lives would rather spend our limited WP time improving articles, and not being drawn into bullshit arguments. Please stop. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fiddlersmouth: I appreciate your answers. I know this is WP:Not a forum. Yes, I want to answer the "pointed questions" about sexual ethics to elaborate these aspects. Whalen (1958, p. 78) wrote that "Masonic morality is selective. In regulating his sex life he may remember his Masonic oath." Both you and Blueboar describe the virtue of temperance to regulate such behavior. Temperance (e.g. chastity) is a virtue and not an obligation. These are questions that I am curious about. Readers might be interested too. If this facet doesn't coalesce now, then it doesn't. Eventually some future contributor might read this discussion and develop this facet for inclusion in an article.

Anglo-American masonry is only one form of masonry. Can you provide a reliable source that "sexual assault [...] would result in exclusion" from their lodge? It seems not to be universal moral law (a natural law theory of morality in the masonic sense[6]) but dependent on cultural consensus, i.e. dominant sectarian ethics of the place in which the grand lodge is located. Is exclusion the same as expulsion by a grand lodge?[7] –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I find myself reminded of this bit of satire. Jesus Never Said ANYTHING About Felony Home Invasion. PeRshGo (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I think it best to invoke Wikipedia:Don't feed the troll... and end the conversation. Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree about ending the conversation here. The PeRshGo (talk · contribs) link is a good comparison: doctrines develop over time and may not be apparent to some people who may not even know where to find what the doctrines are. I will just WP:BOLDly add in Papal ban of Freemasonry and WP:BRD there. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Founding of Grand Lodge of England

Looking back through some past posts at Chris Hodapp's Freemasons for Dummies blog... I just saw this... apparently Andrew Prescott has challenged the traditional founding date for the Grand Lodge of England... saying that it was NOT founded in 1717, but in 1721. We should look into this further.

Prescott is certainly a respected historian when it comes to the history of Freemasonry, and he presented his theory at a joint Conference held by Quatuor Coronati and Queens’ College, Cambridge (the Conference was dedicated especially to the 300th anniversary of the founding of the first Grand Lodge of England). However, his claim is a somewhat radical and new challenge to the traditionally accepted date... and so mentioning it may be UNDUE (at least until other masonic historians react to it). What do you all think? should we mention this challenge or not? Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we should suspend judgement until we see the paper. I suspect we're looking at an evolution from an association of lodges to something that called itself a Grand Lodge. Dermott didn't feel empowered to publish the Ancient's constitutions until they had shanghaied Blessington as a noble Grand Master. An association existed before 1721, and their high esteem of Sayer suggests a leading role in its inception. When do you call it a Grand Lodge?

Prescott's work is always well researched and well reasoned, and will need mentioning, but we can't throw in something this radical from a thumbnail sketch in a blog. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

yeah... that was my reaction as well. Interesting enough to follow up on, but not (yet) worth adding to the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freemasonry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080314135120/http://www.pilarlodge3freemasonry.freeservers.com:80/about_1.html to http://www.pilarlodge3freemasonry.freeservers.com/about_1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.clipsas.com/en/members_f.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010314042333/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Les Enfants de Cambacérès

I have just reverted an insertion about this group. They almost certainly deserve a paragraph to themselves as a worldwide first, an exclusively gay masonic group. However, a dead website is a bad sign, and I think we need to read more before we print a birth or an obituary. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Capitalisation of deity/supreme being

My edit to the article is continually reverted, as there apears to be disagreement regarding the capitalisation of these expressions. Neither of these expressions (or others, such as 'god') should be capitalised, unless they refer to a specific deity. And it makes no difference whether or not they are pluralised.

See here; Capitalization #Nouns "Names by which gods are known are capitalized, including God, Athena, and Vishnu. The word god is generally not capitalized if it is used to refer to the generic idea of a deity, nor is it capitalized when it refers to multiple gods, e.g. Roman gods. There may be some confusion because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam rarely refer to deity by a specific name, but simply as God (see Writing divine names). Other names for the God of these three Abrahamic faiths, such as Elohim, Yahweh, and Lord, are also capitalized."

Please could we establish consensus on this before I edit it again. Obscurasky (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I happen to agree. On the other matter you have been reverted once, and your immediate response was to edit war, rather than using the talk page. I believe that lower case supreme being is an optimal solution. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. My concern in the previous section was not really about the capitalization. It was with the potential for confusion caused by the use of "a" deity... that concern is somewhat resolved by using "supreme being". As for the capitalization... I don't really care enough to argue.

I do note that Masonic sources routinely capitalize this term (probably out of respect for the religious sensibilities of the fraternities members). However, I also understand that our MOS says not to do so. That disconnect between what sources do and what our MOS guidance says to do is an ongoing problem in Wikipedia (one that crops up in multiple topic areas) ... but it is not one that will (or should) be settled here. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I did, as an attempt to compromise, come up with a wording that recognised the acceptance of polytheistic beliefs. Feel free to suggest any other form of wording that you feel would adequately explain this. Obscurasky (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Masons everywhere are still asked if they believe in a supreme being. Hinduism, while recognising many gods, usually recognises a supreme being from which all other beings emanate (see chapter 1 of Bhagavad Gita). Christians Jews and Muslims have angels and saints, prayed to by many sects. It's the same thing, and the same recognition. Supreme being fits all of these beliefs, a sort of Grand Architect. If you can't cope with that, you wouldn't be comfortable in "regular" Freemasonry. HTH. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering, does the requirement to believe in a supreme being preclude Buddhists from being Regular Freemasons? Obscurasky (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The indwelling Buddha is a supreme being. Whether you believe Buddha exists outside of the human mind is not a question asked by Masonry, or to be frank, Buddhism. Freemasons never judged. The answer to that question is down to the candidate. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2017

in

Islam and Freemasonry : 

They consider lebanon a muslim country that have masonic lodges . Lebanon is not a muslim country our president is purely christian . Conversionpoint (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

We are simply reporting what the source says... not passing any judgement on the country ourselves. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The article does not state that Lebanon is a Muslim country, it simply states that it has a Muslim majority. Constitutionally, the President has to be a Maronite Christian, fair enough, but they are only 22% of the population. In a general article, it is not appropriate to go into the miniscule details of one state. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Seperate Section For Theorized Rosicrucian Origin

The theory had been discussed multiple times in multiple instances and i was quite amazed it is rarely mentioned here in this article. In my opinion, which is in accordance with 1.WP:DUE, 2.WP:NPOV, The first, 1; As per WP:DUE, This imperative information is of due weight and as so; should be included in the article.

The second, 2; As per WP:NPOV, If there are two records about a particular subject/object, which vary, to be neutral, we are to include the both of them and add references/citations. So i propose a seperate section for it.Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a general article, and a separate section on a minority opinion sounds like undue weight. Le Forestier's history of the Illuminati makes it clear that the two organisations had separate origins, and hated each other's guts during the second half of the 18th century. I believe that elements of Rosicrucianism became part of mainstream Freemasonry during the same period, but I can't reference or prove it. If you can bring references, the proper place for this material is in History of Freemasonry, where origin mythology is more fully discussed. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fiddler. The idea that freemasonry originated with the Rosicrucians is definitely a minority view, and giving it a separate section would give it WP:Undue weight. It's not quite considered "fringe", and so should be mentioned briefly... but it is not supported enough to be given more space than that.

Also, I would be more comfortable talking about the connection in terms of influence ... I think that is more supported than origin. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Last paragraph in lead

Brief edit war... so let's discuss: does Regular Freemasony require belief in "Deity" or "a deity"? I think it should be "Deity". For one thing, "a deity" could imply that Regular Freemasonry has a specific "Masonic God" (which it does not). Second, some Hindu Freemasons believe in more than "a" (i.e. one) deity. Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Most Christians believe in three, but claim monotheism. Advaitva and most branches of Bhakti Hinduism (that's the lot, apart from a minor cult of Atheists) believe that all their deities are subsumed into a single supreme being, and that's sort of stated up front in Bhagavad Gita. I can't think of a single regular GL that admits anyone that doesn't claim to believe in a singular, universal intelligence. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

OK... so Hindu Freemasons may believe in many deities, but one Supreme Being... let's use that term instead (which is actually more consistent with the terminology used in the rest of the article). Blueboar (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I point out that this was the term I originally used in the lead back in October 2013, as I worked this article back up to GA? Who didn't like it? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

It is based on god. The god you choose isnt wrong but a higher power to believe in is required. Lostiniraq1976 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Many Islamic...

I added a {{who}} tag to the Islam and Freemasonry paragraph which states: Many countries with a significant Muslim population do not allow Masonic establishments within their jurisdictions. Many is a container word and too vague in my opinion. My edit got reverted User:Fiddlersmouth(notified) that it's stated in the reference. I read the sources but they didn't get into specifics either. In my opinion we should keep the tag there until we have specific countries or regions. Any thoughts? ~ Zirguezi 19:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference clearly states that "Freemasonry is prohibited in all Arab countries except Lebanon and Morocco". Is there a referenced counter argument? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The term Arab countries is not the same as "Many countries with a significant Muslim population". One might confuse them for countries like India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan etc. which aren't Arabic but have a significant Muslim population. Also what is meant by Arab countries? Are we talking about Gulf Arab Countries or all countries with an Arab population and how much is significant? More than a million? Over half the population? There is too many ambiguity in the source which is made even worse by confusing religion(Muslims) with ethnicity(Arabs). I think we should change the article to "Some countries {{who}} with a signicant Arab population, with the exception of Lebanon and Morocco, do not allow Masonic establishments within their jurisdictions. Countries such as Turkey and Morocco have established Grand Lodges." Let me know what you think. ~ Zirguezi 17:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement is perfectly true, but it needs a better reference, and a bit of re-phrasing. Freemasonry is illegal in Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia, and difficult in Malaysia. Changing "significant" to "majority" is a start, but a colossal understatement. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What about "Most countries where Islam is the official religion..." Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see last revision. Better reference would be good. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hy I want to join your society Noor Baba (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Find a lodge near you and ask. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)