Talk:Great Architect of the Universe

Errors

Ok, there are a couple of weird errors on this page. First of all, there is no evidence that Francis Bacon was ever a Freemason. And second of all, it was Roger Bacon who was the early developer of the [scientific method], not Francis. There's a 300 year difference there. Pymander Jones 19:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the term

It may be interesting to look for the meaning of "Grand,or Great,or Supreme Architect"in older sources.It occurs in the famous text of Pico della Mirandola: Oratio de dignitate hominis.It may be that the concept of a Creation 'ex nihilo' required a Creator -Initiator, who could be referred to as 'Architect' -Unsigned

Redirect

As I write this, 'Supreme Being' redirects here. I'm changing it to redirect to God. --Andymussell 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted, and altered back. Supreme Being need not imply G*d and it may be felt offensive to some to assert that they are one and the same.ALR 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Supreme Being now has its own article, since it neither refers specifically to a god, nor specifically to the Great Architect of this article, it explains the relations well I think. Tyciol (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Speculative commentary

I do not really think it is appropriate to have Speculative Commentary in an encyclopedia... At least not in the way done here. It is fine to report on the speculations of Masonic Scholars and "experts" in the field of Masonry (provided we can properly cite the material), but what is written here is the speculation of an editor, and not that of a recognized Masonic scholar. The section either needs to be majorly re-written or deleted. If the statements can be backed by a noted scholar, then much more needs to be cited. I will add citation requests for now, but if nothing is changed or added after about a week, I will delete. Blueboar 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I divided it up and headed it as such, since nobody else was paying much attention here at the time I was wary of deleting it without notice and never got back to it. I'd be comfortable with getting rid.ALR 02:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I will delete now and not wait longer. If someone objects they can revert. Blueboar 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Prod

No objections... Just a comment. About the only other information I could see adding might be that the term first appeared in Anderson's Constitutions ... and that Brent Morris says that Anderson seems to have taken it from the writings of John Calvin (who refers to either the "Great Architect" or "Architect of the Universe" several times.) I don't think my info will add enough to change the prod nom. However if you think it will help I can provide refs. Blueboar 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well it's gone. tbh I'd support getting rid of it, snag is we'll probably get the ohhhhhh masonic seeeeecrets crowd along to prevent that.ALR 06:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK... since the article is going to stay (or perhaps go through a formal AfD nom), does anyone think Morris's info about the term being derived from Calvin's writings is worth adding? Or is it just extraneous back ground info? Blueboar 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm AfDing it, as it's really not going to go anywhere. An NT quote reference to "architect" doesn't count as etymology, and there's simply nowhere to go with this that doesn't fit in better somewhere else. Apart from needing a published source on Morris' statement for WP purposes, it would be more appropriate to say "GAOTU as used in Freemasonry is a term that may have derived from Calvin's writings" in the Calvin article. Still, derivation is a tricky thing to figure out, especially since there's at least a 200 year gap between Calvin and published usages of the term. Too thin ATM to worry about, I think. MSJapan 16:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Given that there has been a lot of additional material added, and that it looks like the consensus at the AdF is now to keep... I have added it. Morris's statement is from the Idiot's Guide, and I know there is a web site that hosts Calvin's works if someone fact tags that part. Blueboar 14:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • If someone tags that paragraph, refer them to the two — now three — separate sources already cited in the article and explicitly referenced by that paragraph, all of which say the same thing about Calvin. Uncle G 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed text

According to Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary, in several of their books, the Great Architect may also be a metaphor alluding to the godhead potentiality of every individual. According to Aleister Crowley, in the Hermetic Tradition each and every person has the potential to become God (every man and woman is a star), this idea or concept of God is perceived as internal rather than external. Both Wilson and Leary, interpreting Crowley, claim the Great Architect is also an allusion to the observer created universe. We create our own reality; hence we are the architect. Another way would to be to say that the mind is the builder. Freemasonry often includes concepts of God as an external entity, however, esoteric masonic teachings clearly identify God as the individual himself, the perceiver. We are all God and as such we create our own reality.

I have now had to remove this text several times... While the statments have now been attributed (an improvement) they needs to be sourced (ie cited to a particular book or scientific journal, etc.) In addition to that problem is the one of the reliability of sources. Wilson, Leary and Crowley are not reliable sources on Freemasonry, or Freemasonry's use of the term Great Architect of the Universe.. They may be reliable on how some other group of people (perhaps essoteric groups such as OTO, Thelema, etc.) use the term, but not Freemasonry.

More to the point, this paragraph smacks of Original Research without clear sourcing to indicate who says what.Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the masons leave it up to individual interpretation for the most part (since according to what it says, personal religion is not discussed) then is there anything about their policies which excludes someone using Crowley's interpretation? It does say only 'Supreme Being' not an external supreme being. 'Being' may not even refer to an individual either, but maybe a state of being? It doesn't seem as discrete a word as others. Er, so anyway while I would also like to see the quote properly sourced, even though this is not an authority on masonic teaching, if it is a correct application of something that be included within it, it could have value, since it approaches a confusing issue. I've heard quoted "no atheist ever became a mason" yet if atheism only refers to the disbelief in a god and not of one's (or other people's) ability to become supreme (singularity maybe?) then an atheist could honestly affirm a belief in one so I'm confused as to why they would not be admitted. Tyciol (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the quote "no atheist ever became a Mason" is somewhat inaccurate... Freemasonry is divided into two incompatable branches ... one branch follows the Anglo-American tradition and the other follows the Continental tradition. The Anglo-American tradition holds that a Mason must outwardly affirm a belief in Deity (and specifically excludes Atheists), while the Continental tradition does not (and allows Atheists). But this is besides the point and is not why I have objected to the addition of the text.

My objection to the text is that it centered the phrase: "esoteric masonic teachings clearly identify God as the individual himself, the perceiver. We are all God and as such we create our own reality. There is no such Masonic teaching. Masonic teaching does not define or identify God in any way shape or form. In the Anglo-American tradition, Masonic teaching is simply that a Mason must have a belief in God, and that God should remain central to a Mason's life and actions. Masons pray for his blessings at the start and end of their meetings, believing that one should always "invoke the aid of Deity entering upon any great or important undertakings". That is it... That's is the entirety of "Masonic teaching" on God. Everything else is beyond the scope of Freemasonry, and is left to the individual's religious faith.

Thus, while an individual Mason may agree with Wilson's, Leary's or Crowley's interpretation of God, it is incorrect to say that Wilson's, Leary's or Crowley's interpretations are "Masonic teaching". Just as it would be incorrect to say that Christian, Jewish or Muslim interpretations of God are "masonic teachings". The Freemasons don't have an interpretation of God or any "teaching" reguarding religious issues... with the sole exception of requirement of the belief in Deity.

I have no problem with this article discussing various interpretations of God (or more specifically, the "Great Architect of the Universe")... my objection is to saying that such interpretations are "Masonic teaching". Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Esoteric Masonic teachings do teach that god is the individual. However, This is not something that is outwardly taught. One must either join the order or read the works of those who study these types of orders. Either way, one will always come to the conclusion that Esoteric Masonry inevitably teaches that God is a concept and that God is the individual, even if this true meaning is shrouded in metaphor and veiled language.THC Loadee (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee

I am not at all sure where you are getting your information on Freemasonry, but you are absolutely 100% wrong on this. As an active Freemason (Past Master of my local lodge and involved in several other Masonic bodies) I can assure you that there is absolutely nothing in Freemasonry that in any way teaches that God is the individual. Again, Freemasonry carefully avoids discussion of religious matters. The Fraternity has no objection if an individual thinks that God is the individual, but that is an interpretation of the individual... not something taught by Freemasonry. Freemasonry does not teach any interpretation. See: this statement from the United Grand Lodge of England... I can find similar statements from most other Grand Lodges if you need them. Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I too am a speculative mason of many years. It now occurs to me that you are either unaware of such teachings about the order or you are purposefully attempting to hide certain truths from public discussion. Either way I will not relent. Secrecy is no longer viable. All must know and learn. Ask a Christian or Buddhist about he teachings of their philosophy and they will quote Jesus or Siddhartha even though these "enlightened" beings would not recognize the religions named after them. Mass religion is a tool used by those in power to control those who have no power. THC Loadee (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee

If you are indeed a Mason, tell me, what jurisdiction do you hail from? I ask because no jurisdiction I know (even those of the continental European model) contains such teachings. Blueboar (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(#49) Watertown, NY. Have you ever heard of the term allegory? This is what I refer to when I say Masonic teachings. You are totally correct; no discussion of deity is allowed in the temple. In the literal sense that is true, however, the ideas and stories told in masonic initiation and ascension through the degrees have allegorical/metaphorical meanings as well. Whether your interpretation includes such acumen is completely and totally up to you. A strict literal interpretation is your choice. THC Loadee (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee

I also hail from GLoNY (#8 in Manhattan), and I know for damn sure that GLoNY does not teach any intepretation on the Great Architect of the Universe... you pegged it correctly when you state that interpetation "is completely and totally up to you". The craft does not teach any intepretation... it explicitly leaves this up to the individual. If you are a Christian, you will give the term Great Architect a Christian interpretation... if a Muslim, you will give it an Islamic interpretation... if a Jew, a Jewish interpretation... and yes, if you into the Hermetic traditions, you will give the term a Hermetic interpretation. The Craft leaves such things up to each individual brother to interpret for himself... Freemasonry does not "teach" any interpetation. Blueboar (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, it seems as though we are making progress here. Can you discern between the outward masonic teachings and the inward or esoteric teachings? Once again I use the term allegory. Do you think masonic ideas are expressed in allegory or is it all straightforward literal interpretation? 67.113.192.50 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee

I understand the difference... and agree that many, if not most of the lessons Freemasonry has to teach are presented in allegorical rather than literal form (the entire Hyramic Legend, for example, is nothing but allegory)... but I very much disagree with the idea that "esoteric masonic teachings clearly identify God as the individual himself, the perceiver". Or that "We are all God and as such we create our own reality. In almost 25 years of listening to and presenting Masonic ritual (and thinking deeply about what it is saying and means to me) I have not once reached the conclusion that "God is the individual" or that "We are all God". You may have reached that conclusion, based upon your own religious and spiritual background, but I (and I would venture to say most other Freemasons) reach different conclusions. One of the beauties of the Freemasonry is that it presents the allegory, but does not explain or interpret it. Instead it lets each brother find and apply their own explanation and interpetation. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with you for the most part. Thanks for taking the time to hash this out.THC Loadee (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)THC Loadee

Another problem with the text

As much as I am enjoying our exploration into the teachings of Freemasonry... they really are besides the point. I have another issue with the two sentences under dispute, an issue that is more directly relevant to whether it can be included in the article or not... As written the material fails Wikipedia's WP:Verification policy. Unless you can provide a reliable source that says: "Freemasonry often includes concepts of God as an external entity, however, esoteric masonic teachings clearly identify God as the individual himself, the perceiver. We are all God and as such we create our own reality." you can not say it in the article. In fact, without a source, it also violates our WP:No original research policy. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I agree with your placement into the HERMETICISM section and will leave it as is, however I do not agree with your final conclusion concerning what is and isn't taught or learned at a masonic temple and what the teachings mean. I will thank you for not attempting to block my ID and for arguing with me in a calm and rational manner.THC Loadee (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)THC LOADEE

No problem. We part upon the square. As some "mouth to ear" advice, for the future, if someone objects something you add to an article, just discuss the issue on the talk page... don't keep trying to reinsert your material. Doing so is very much frowned on at Wikipedia, and some people will not be as patient about it as I was. Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh... one last thing... I note that you do provide a cite for other parts of your addition (the citation to Mary Slipper)... I will convert it to the standard format for you (by adding <ref>....</ref> around the citation), but to make it a better citation (one that will withstand challenges from others) and conform it to standard Wikipedia guidelines, it could use the full publishing info... Just add the publisher, and date of publication at the end). Blueboar (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring by adding the removed material

It is still under discussion. Have some patience please. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jahbulon

I think the article should explicitly mention Jahbulon as one of the possible interpretations of GATU. I know some Masons may not agree with this, but I think it would be NPOV for all the non-Mason critics of the Lodge, especially on the part of British author Stephen Knight, who was one of the more scholarly and intellectual writers to openly discuss this view or hypothesis. ADM (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not per WP:FRINGE. end of discussion. Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Trinity

It appears that one of the most common criticisms of GATU is its purported incompatibility with the belief in the Holy Trinity, something which was noticeable in some 18th century religious tests. The Holy Trinity is one of the principle dogmas of Nicene Christianity, and it is rejected by all other religions, including Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Animism, Arianism and Mystery religions. It was also on this basis that the Church Inquisition denounced 18th century deists for their purported anti-trinitarianism, given that Masons have always excluded the possibility of Trinitarian belief. ADM (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... no. Masons have not "always excluded the possibility of Trinitarian belief". While Masons who are Jewish, Muslim, Budhist, will not have Trinitarian beliefs, Masons who are Christian (the majority of Masons world wide), definitely will.

I am constantly amused by the Anti-masonic claims that the use of this term somehow "proves" that Masons are Deists and that Masonry is incompatable with Christianity... when the term itself orignated in a distinctly Christian context... it was used by Thomas Aquinus and John Calvin long before Rev. James Anderson first used in in conjunction with Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Cult of the Supreme Being

The editors of the article should consider asking whether the cult of the Supreme Being has something to do with the cult of the Great Architect of the Universe found in Freemasonry. The cult of the Supreme Being intervened during the most difficult and anti-Christian moments of the French Revolution and some anti-Masonic writers such as abbé Augustin Barruel have taken it as evidence that Freemasonry is radically incompatible with Christianity. ADM (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK... let's consider it... One is a term invented by a Catholic theologian (Aquinus), expanded upon by a Protestant theologian (Calvin) which which was first used in a Masonic context by a Protestant Minister (Anderson) in a fraternity that at the time was distinctly Christian... and which has subsequently been expanded (as Freemasonry expanded to allow non-Christians to join) to so that it is now a non-denominational term explicitly supporting all religious faiths. The other was invented by atheists (or at best deists) and used in a distinctly anti-religious framework. Hmmmm.... nope, no connection. Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Great Architect of the Universe = Satan?

Böri (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what your question is here? If your question is: "Does the term Great Architect of the Universe refer to Satan?" then the answer is... No. As the article notes, the term was coined by Calvin (who took it from Aquinas) in a a distinctly Christian context referring to God; and as far as I know, Satanists do not use the term.) If the question is: "Do a few people on the fringes think the term Great Architect of the Universe refers to Satan?" then the answer is... Yes. A few Anti-Masonic Evangelicals (who apparently don't know the history of their own denominations) make this claim... they are wrong. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Böri (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write "does" so I deleted it. Böri (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Architect of the Universe. 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/20120317185243/http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/summa/FP/FP027.html to http://www.josephkenny.joyeurs.com/CDtexts/summa/FP/FP027.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) 21:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)