Talk:Worshipful Master

Is it really necessary for half the article to be devoted to explaining that "worship" in this context doesn't really mean "worship"?69.63.63.177 03:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is of particular note that the previous post was from an unidentified writer. And, of course, he/she is quite wrong. Of course, the word "worship" DOES mean "worship," and in THIS context it carries the original British meaning of the word which is "a title of honor used in addressing magistrates, mayors, etc." How could anyone have missed that, unless they were being purposely obtuse? PGNormand 16:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem is beneath contempt. To clarify the original comment (I'm the same anon as 69.63.63.177): the article (both now and a year ago) reads as primarily an attempt at reassuring the reader that Masonry isn't an idolatrous religion that worships individual members. Making such a claim so stridently is asking for trouble - if Masons don't worship their Worshipful Masters, then why are they spending so many words trying to convince us of it? The organization would come off looking a lot better, and (more importantly) the article would be more encyclopedic, if the point about the word "worship" being used here in an archaic sense occupied a much smaller percentage of the article. That could be accomplished by cutting out most of the verbiage on that point, or (better) by adding more content on the other interesting things that no doubt could be said about Worshipful Masters. 67.158.70.221 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)