Talk:Co-Freemasonry

Quote by Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Found this quite interesting:

Our chief object in visiting England at this time was to attend the World's Anti-slavery Convention, to meet June 12, 1840, in Freemasons' Hall, London. Delegates from all the anti-slavery societies of civilized nations were invited, yet, when they arrived, those representing associations of women were rejected. Though women were members of the National Anti-slavery Society, accustomed to speak and vote in all its conventions, and to take an equally active part with men in the whole anti-slavery struggle, and were there as delegates from associations of men and women, as well as those distinctively of their own sex, yet all alike were rejected because they were women. Women, according to English prejudices at that time, were excluded by Scriptural texts from sharing equal dignity and authority with men in all reform associations; hence it was to English minds pre-eminently unfitting that women should be admitted as equal members to a World's Convention. The question was hotly debated through an entire day. My husband made a very eloquent speech in favor of admitting the women delegates.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton Source webmaster@sgovd.org - 84.61.2.230 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

York Manuscript

“the elders taking the Booke, he or shee (sic!) that is to be made Mason shall lay their hands thereon, and the charge shall be given.” (York Manuscript No. 4 from 1693)

So this is older than the Old Charges by Anderson. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.5.97 19:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This, according to Mackey, is a likely mistranslation from the latin in York Manuscript No. 1, in which the phrase is ille vel illi (he or they). It was read and approved by the Grand Lodge, so you'd think they would have discovered the mistake, but maybe not... Fuzzypeg 08:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Being

It's missing that there's no dogmatic need to believe in a Supreme Being in Co-Freemasonry and there's no need to believe in a Supreme Being by the Old Charges of Anderson, since this is just an "invention" by the UGLoE. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.5.97 19:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Depends which bit of Co-Masonry you're on about. LDH British Federation do require it.ALR 20:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern International Order of Co-Freemasonry also require belief in a Supreme Being. This issue is touched on in Co-Freemasonry#The English Federation, but perhaps it could be given more prominence in the article. I might get around to doing this if no-one else does... Fuzzypeg 13:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My Grand Lodge SGOvD got it's light by the Grand Orient de France, Grand Orient de Belgique, Grand Lodge of Belgique, Grand Orient of Switzerland and the Grand Orient of Austria. We have no such rule. In general, we replaced the bible by the book of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but lodges are free to choose the Bible instead, purely male lodges are possible, too - but these lodges have to allow external female Masons during their rituals.

Perhaps you know that the GLoE recognized the Grand Orient de France before 1877: In 1875 bishop Dupanloup wanted to become a freemason and a member of the Grand Orient de France. He was 74 years old. During his initiation he was asked, if he beliefs in a supreme being and he answered:

“A wise man of acient times, who was asked the same question by a king, thought about an answer for days, but was never able to answer. I please you not to request an answer from me. No science denies a "first cause", because it finds neither another warrant nor proof. All knowledge is relative and we always meet unknown phenomena and laws we don't know its cause. The one who proclaims with determination to neither believe nor disbelieve in a God proofs not to understand the problem of what makes things exist and disappear.”

Two years later, during the convention of 1877, the Grand Orient de France removed the Great Architect of the Universe because the protestant clergyman Desmons appealed such a motion, to express the principle of freedom of conscience as clearly as possible. So this was realized by the new clause Freemasonry is based on unrestricted freedom of conscience and of human solidarity. It does not exclude anybody due to its belief.

But this had concequences: The GLoE and most Anglo-Saxon Grand Lodges canceled all relationship to the Grand Orient de France with the argument, that this was a removal of the first Landmark of Freemasonry.

But is that true?

“[If] A Mason [...] rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine.”
Anderson's Constitutions (1723)

If you ask me, this means nothing else than: A Mason will never proclaim with determination that there's no God nor be so unmorally to be anti-religious. - Exactly what bishop Dupanloup said. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. Most of this is well worth including in Grand Orient de France and some of it should be included in this article. I'll have a play and see what I can do. As for the value of requiring belief in a Supreme Being, I have always considered that this belief is the foundation of the entire ritual, and so wondered what atheists expected to gain from Freemasonry; however your comments cast a quite different light on the issue, and are causing me to reconsider this more carefully. Again, thank-you. Fuzzypeg 04:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am an atheist and a Freemason. Just my personal thoughts about this "requirement": If you ask me, it's just a problem of definition.

The "Supreme Being" of freemasonry results in Deism, so it is defined as a Demiurge, meaning you have universal rules for everyboby but no "being" that permanently changes those rules. So cause and result follows rules and is not purely chaotic. I don't need a personification for that and don't like the imagination of a "being" that is "living" which would indicate that it could die and is depending of time. "Being" includes "is" - what includes something temporal. There are people who would say that this applies to God too. That's their way of defining God, but there are others who define God as a "being" that actively talks to people concerning their personal problems and actively gives orders to them. There are people who believe to know what "God" wishes - and this is why I don't like the word "God" nor "Supreme Being".

By the way - a buddhist following dharma - would have to reject the imagination of a "Supreme Being.

During the French Revolution there was the idea to replace God by Reason. Perhaps there is some strange parallism with Freemasonry, too: Cult of Reason - quite interesting if you ask me.

Just another point: You surely know the Genesis and perhaps the word "Logos" from the bible? This means nothing else than "principle of reason" and it says that this was God. Now most people translate this "logos" with "word", but this is "wrong". (Although "God" is just a "word", though... ;-) )

Now this "logos" or principle of reason is undoubtable. If there were no principles that would cause chaos being sometimes "creative", "constructive" or even being an "architect", everything would stay chaotic. Everything that is "bad" causes "chaos" since it destroys, but finally only the "good" things survive since everything else disappears in "chaos" and reappears again because of those rules of chaos.

So I don't need a "God" or "Supreme Being", but we talk about the same thing. It doesn't make sense to discuss if there is a God, or if you believe in a God, since there's just the problem how you define "God". Furthermore you cannot decline those creative physical laws, you could even define those as "God", as an "architect" but - not as a man with a beard. - Or some theists may say that they believe in a higher "living" entity and they call this "God". This is the reason why I don't like the word "God" or Supreme "Being" and call myself an "atheist". IMHO this is less problematic than being a creationist who cannot answer the cause of this "God" and why this "God" "lets" all those bad things "happen". But these are just my personal thoughts. (So I love this Flying Spaghetti Monster.) --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think there is any "esoteric" element to atheist Freemasonry? Or implied by atheist Freemasonry? Examples might be clairvoyance, reincarnation, spiritualism or magic. I ask this because as I understand it, Freemasonry teaches morality and proper action partly for its own sake and to align us with order, rather than "chaos" as you put it, but also partly as a means to develop more subtle awareness of spiritual things, and so to give us the senses to conduct ourselves in the spiritual world. I realise that a concept of God is not strictly necessary for this, but is this concept to be found in atheist Freemasonry? I also realise that in my branch of Co-Freemasonry (Eastern International Order) there is a stronger emphasis on the esoteric than in many other branches, but even amongst the male Craft I know a lot of occultist Freemasons.

By the way, what you've described regarding order and chaos is very similar to thoughts I had that accompanied my religious awakening eleven years ago. I however had three concepts in my scheme: order, chaos and complexity/structure. If thought of in terms of information, complete order is sterile and basically devoid of information (e.g. a sine-wave); complete chaos is also devoid of information (e.g. white noise); somewhere in the interplay between these two forms is the complex structure that is formed by processes of life, geology, weather (e.g. J.S. Bach's Musical Offering). The balance between these forms is particularly apparent in evolution, where a degree of variation is required for adaption and natural selection, but too wild a divergence results in a mutation that will not survive. And it seems to me that evolution tends towards the greatest degree of structural complexity (i.e. greatest containment of information) that is achievable, given the environment. Look at the diversity of plumage and complexity of mating rituals amongst rainforest birds, where there there is an abundant food-supply and relatively safe roosting. The term I tended to use for this complexity of structure was beauty. This was well before my Masonic career began...

So, just a few of my own thoughts to meet some of yours. Cheers, Fuzzypeg 13:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My GL dissotiates itelf from all occultism or spiritualism or any religious esoteric elements. We use modified old rituals of the old Grand Lodge Zur Sonne which was a very rational. "Chaos" was not ment in mythological way, but in the Chaos theory or Quantum chaos-way. Everybody is on its own way to "enlightment", but we prefer the more scientific way. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As an occultist I find Freemasonry remarkably rich in occult wisdom. It seems to have been expertly assembled (or more likely perhaps, to have evolved through a series of experts) to transmit these teachings in a very efficient manner. Of course, being an occultist, I would be looking for that. Seek and you shall find, eh? But it really doesn't seem accidental to me. Now under the assumption that there is a strong occult or spiritual (not "spiritualist" this time) element to Freemasonry (and I believe this isn't your position), the concept of a Supreme being is not strictly necessary for the first gleanings of occult knowledge; truth and ethical behaviour will do the trick fine on their own (and will continue to be among the most important tools for learning). However it seems that at a certain stage a belief in a Supreme Being is necessary to progress any further. Without it you hit a dead end. So I think a Supreme Being, at least by a broad definition, is a valuable key concept of Freemasonry.

This is just me giving my view as a priest and mystic; I don't intend it as a criticism, and I'm not trying to convert anyone or denegrate what they do. I guess I feel that we are all good people with good intentions, and I would like there to be more communication and understanding. Perhaps through understanding our differences we will begin to recognise our similarities too.

I didn't mean chaos in a mythological way. Something vaguely related to what you find in thermodynamics, perhaps. Chaos might be related to entropy, both the force and the resulting state (however adding heat to a system can also be disordering, increasing its chaoticness whilst not necessarily increasing its entropy). Order is perhaps less of a thermodynamic concept, since many things don't tend towards highly ordered states either with cooling or with heating. Crystalline formations are one exception. However when you introduce energy to a system from outside, under certain conditions it results in an increase of structure, an example being the Earth. Everything from weather to poetry is driven by external (solar) energy introduced to a system that otherwise would just cool. There are no mystical ideas here, just simple observation.

It's relatively common for discussions of ethics to fall back to stating the inevitability of entropy and thus the pointlesness of trying to do anything constructive - you can't personally add heat back into the system. However if you instead think about structure, this is something that can be created, destroyed and created again; this is something we can personally be involved in. We can actually increase the amount of information, structure or beauty in our world. Or we can destroy.

I'm afraid I'm tired and probably not explaining myself well, but that'll have to do. I've got to sleep. :) 60.234.102.241 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (this is actually Fuzzypeg)

BTW: I have the impression, that the article spiritualism explains spiritism!? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Spiritualism is a correct and common term for this usage. Think seances, glass tapping, clairvoyance and ectoplasm! ;-) 60.234.102.241 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (This is actually User:Fuzzypeg)

Contradicting the Bill of Human Rights: Freedom of assembly

I don't see how restricting "Masonic contact" contradicts the Bill of Human Rights. This is not just talking about assembly (which is not forbidden; the UGLE have meetings with women's orders, as the article states); "Masonic contact" means meeting in Masonic ritual, or sharing of secrets, or other activities that require recognition of each other as Freemasons. This also seems rather inflammatory to our masculine Craft brothers. May I then remove the reference to the Bill of Human Rights? Fuzzypeg 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why remove? "self-styled Masonic bodies" and "forbidden" contact - is a strange interpretation of fraternalism and liberty. Why remove - what happens if if a UGLoE brother takes part of a meeting in a Masonic ritual of one of our "self-styled Masonic bodies" Court of honour! This is what happened to some of my brother I know. Does this look like freedom or suppression? It's not inflammatory by us - they are always welcome. SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be able to find some wording for "strange interpretation of fraternalism and liberty" that doesn't contravene Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (good luck), but you can't say that the UGLE is contradicting the Bill of Human Rights. That's just not true. It's like accusing someone of defamation for poking out their tongue at you. It may be insulting but it's not defamation!

If it's patently false (which it is), and claims male Craft Freemasons are in breach of basic human rights, then it's bound to be inflammatory. That kind of statement is not going to achieve anything useful, but only provoke edit wars. Trust me, neither you nor I have the time for that kind of dispute. Have you seen the carnage over at the Freemasonry article? Therefore I'm going to remove the last section about UGLE and Bill of Human Rights. I think UGLE's position regarding women is already sufficiently explained without this. Fuzzypeg 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to be NPOV in a discussion. You claim that forbidding meetings and sacking members if they meet each other is not agains the Human Right of freedom of assembly. With what reason? And what's the reason why "Le Droit Humain" has its name - and where's the difference according to other Grand Lodges? --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to restrict discussion here. I was talking about potential wordings for the article. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Fuzzypeg 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that's a reasonable comparison, we have someone (probably an alt.freemasonry veteran) attemtping to turn the article into something similar to the various diatribes out there in the wild, unfortunately it's really getting in the way of any kind of sensible progress towards a balanced and comprehensive article. I think we could reach a compromise statement on how UGLEs position on regularity is viewed from the atheist perspective, although I do know that UGLE and the various irregular GLs have business level interactions. You could probably reach a reasonable statement on that although I would agree that the statement as contributed wasn't axactly amenable to maintaining a cordial level of discussion. I see no reason not to elaborate on the point in a reasonable manner. Part of the issue may be the redirect of Supreme Being to God, which I'm not comfortable with. My own interpretation of SB isn't usefully captured by the God article, it's much more sophisticated than that, one way to address this might be approaching the SB article and developing that rather than leaving a simple redirect.ALR 21:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right since this would have to be proven in that form. Quite interesting with these business level interactions in the UK. Its more problematic in Germany... Germans are sometimes... even more pope than the pope itself. (German idiom: "päpstlicher als der Papst"). There are not many irregular Lodges here and they have frequently problems to rent rooms of regular Lodges esp. since 1999 - in contract to other more "different" organizations.

There is even a diatribe against my GL on the website of AFAM in their FAQ. What puzzles me is that although we are a really new and small GL, we are mentioned two times:

• Was soll man von einem so genannten 'Souveräner Gross-Orient von Deutschland' halten?

• Jedem das Seine.
• Niemand kann und will einen Alleinvertretungsanspruch pflegen, somit steht die Gründung von :*freimaurerähnlichen und damit irregulären Vereinen jedem frei.

• What should be one's opinion about the SGOvD?

• To each his own
• Nobody wants to claim all, so everybody is allowed to establish something similar to freemasonry and therewith irregular associations.

• Das Auftreten der neuen Großloge SGVD (sic!) hat mich verwirrt. Können Sie mir mehr sagen?
• The occurrence of the new Grand Lodge SGVD (sic!) has puzzled me. Can you say more?

Now this text is quite long, but there are quite unfriendly words like Paradiesvögel (birds of paradise) and the hint only two of the five foundation Lodges would exist etc. So we were imposed to write a counterstatement on our website. All requests to correct at least the facts were rejected. My hint to them that using Jedem das Seine was quite unfriendly esp. in combination with freimaurerähnlich (masonic-like) which sounds like "human-like" was confirmed and expressly not meant in that way, but it's still there unchanged.

Not really a friendly climate.

You are correct, Supreme Being should not be a redirect to God, but to Demiurge. (See also Cult of the Supreme Being.) Nevertheless I don't like the word "Supreme Being" since I see no improvement to "God". And I see no "Supreme Being" for Buddhists. In my opinion, this should be replace by something like "Initial cause". Please read my answer under the section #Supreme Being to that point. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never checked Supreme Being before. It could really do with something better than just a redirect to God. I don't think Demiurge really does the trick either. I would imagine an article called Supreme Being or even Supreme Being (Freemasonry) that treats it as a technical term and explains it in the context of Freemasonry. I'm a fan of giving relevant, specific information, even if it makes for a brief article initially. I'm not volunteering to write it right now, though... Fuzzypeg 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just reading a bit further: I'm surprised that this restriction has only applied since 1999. Surely the UGLE have held this position for a long time? Presumably since their inception or shortly after?!! Fuzzypeg 14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1999 was when UGLE actually came out and said that feminine/ androgynous and atheistic FM could be considered as FM but that intervisitation could not take place. The principle has stood since the schism.ALR 14:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems like the date could be added back in, but I don't see the need for the lengthy quote regarding who is and isn't off-limits for masonic interactions. It doesn't seem to add any information to the article. ?? Fuzzypeg 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Difference from Freemasonry: no belief required in Supreme Being - I disagree!

In response to User:Alexmb who added:

It [Co-Freemasonry] is also different to Freemasonary in that belief in a Supreme Being is not required by all bodies.

I still disagree with adding this statement to the introduction, and I particularly disagree with the comment you gave in the edit summary (This is THE major difference in philosophy and should be emphasised). I see you have amended your last attempt at this edit, to recognise that some Grand Lodges do require belief in a Supreme Being. How then can the fact that a subset of Co-Freemasonry differs in this respect lead to the conclusion that Co-Freemasonry in general is different to Freemasonry? That's like saying "US senators are immigrants to the US since Arnie Schwarzie was born in Austria (or wherever it was)". My second disagreement is with your claim that Co-Freemasons are not Freemasons. We are Freemasons, as far as I and many other Co-Freemasons are concerned. What you've written would be highly contentious if we left it in the article. Furthermore, considering that many Grand Lodges do require a belief in a Supreme Being, the major difference in philosophy seems clearly to be that Co-Freemasons allow women, while most other Freemasons do not. I'm therefore reverting your change. Fuzzypeg 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The requirement (or not) to believe in a Supreme Being is one of the basic division points between the so-called "regular" or "Anglo-Saxon" Freemasonry (United Grand Lodge of England etc.) and the so-called "liberal", "non-dogmatic" or "Latin" Freemasonry (Belgian and French Grand Orients, Le Droit Humain, etc.). Most "Latin" Freemasonic Powers leave the choice to believe in a Supreme Being (and which one) to each Freemason's opinion, the choice to invoke or not the Grand Architect of the Universe in Lodge rituals to the decision of each Lodge. In particular, one of the articles of the "Appel de Strasbourg" (the founding document of CLIPSAS) explicitly specified that neither the belief in a Supreme Being, the invocation of the GAOTU nor their opposites were to be used as criteria to admit or reject a particular Lodge or Obedience. Similarly, the current International Constitution of Le Droit Humain specifies that Lodge meetings shall be opened "to the Glory of the GAOTU or to the Progress of Humanity" and since the French version is the normative one the conjunction "or" in that phrase must be understood in the inclusive meaning of French "ou", usually expressed in English as "and/or". Le Droit Humain, just like the other "non-dogmatic" Masonic Powers, has AFAIK no official prescriptive doctrine about what the phrase GAOTU is supposed to cover when it is used. Of course this philosophical "open-mindedness" makes Latin Freemasons, Lodges and Obediences ipso facto "irregular" in the eyes of the Grand Lodge of England and of its followers. (And I'm trying to keep within NPOV bounds but on this kind of subject it isn't always easy.) — Tonymec (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Comason

There have been a swathe of edits recently by User:Comason that have removed rather a lot of material and got the article into a bit of a shambles. My problems with these edits are:

• most of the information regarding the British Federation has been removed, and replaced material relating to Le Droit Humain in general, which read like advertising rather than a balanced article. This is not going to impress readers, nor inform them. I suspect this has something to do with the fact that many of the lodges that once formed the British Federation have since broken from Le Droit Humain, which now presumably would prefer to draw attention from these lodges and their philosophy. Our lodge split to form the Eastern International Order after pressure was brought to bear from France to allow the admission of atheists and make various other important changes. I suspect the British Federation is by now atheist and has been brought back in line with the French working, however since we are no longer in communication it's hard to tell. If this is the case, then it's worth mentioning in the article by all means, however the historical details of the Annie Besant concord should not be removed!
• some points distinguishing Le Droit Humain from Male Craft Freemasonry have been reworded to be less informative, and to make Co-Freemasonry sound more like the status-quo. This is misleading, because in fact most Freemasons do not officially recognise Co-Freemasonry as legitimate: we have to convey this if we are to present a neutral point of view!

Please, in future, don't make such big changes without being sure that you're following Wikipedia policy. This is a contentious topic, and it's taken a lot of work to get the text to a stable point. Also, I point editors to the Wikipedia policy "Neutral point of view": this is not a leaflet for attracting members, nor for promoting one form of Freemasonry over another. This article should be truthful, informative, balanced and historically accurate. If it is still attractive after that, then that's just a bonus. Fuzzypeg☻ 10:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Having exchanged some messages with User:Comason I'm less convinced they were trying to promote Le Droit Humain. I'm leaving my comments above, though, since they mention details that may be of interest for the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Recogniton?

Since when does the GLdF recognize LDH? Such is purported in the section:

The International Order of Co-Freemasonry Le Droit Humain is in fraternal relations with the following Orders (meaning recognition is reciprocal and members can intervisit):

• Grand Loge de France
• Grand Loge Féminine de France
• Grand Orient de France

I'm just not buying that. No citation?--Vidkun 23:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Additionally, all members of Grand Orients and Lodges of other countries that are recognized by the GOdF can be intervisited, too, of course. (E.g. Lodges of the SGOvD ;)) Nonetheless, the GLdF seems not to be recognized by the UGLoE? [1] --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

IIUC, the Grand Lodge of France has a sort of "tradition" of keeping aloof from big Masonic organizations such as CLIPSAS, of which the Grand Orients and Feminine Grand Lodges of France and Belgium, the "Grande Loge Traditionnelle et Symbolique Opéra", the Grand Lodge of Belgium, as well as the Belgian and French Federations of Le Droit Humain, and many other "Obediences" (Grand Orients, Grand Lodges, etc.) across the world, have been members. IIUC the Grand Lodge of France prefers bilateral agreements, and it keeps friendly bilateral relations with many members or former members of CLIPSAS. Being Belgian, I don't know the details of the relations between the Grand Lodge of France and the French Federation of Le Droit Humain. AFAIK, when there is no written decision from the respective Grand Orient or Grand Lodge allowing or prohibiting reciprocal visits, the decision belongs in each particular case to the Worshipful Master (the president) of the lodge to which a Brother or Sister requests admittance, under guidance of what is usually done in the Masonic Power (Grand Orient, Grand Lodge, etc.) to which his Lodge is affiliated. — Tonymec (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, controversy of recognition

Recent changes to the article assert that Co-Freemasonry is nor recognised by any regular Lodges, that it is not "true or real" but is clandestine and that it doesn't follow the established Landmarks of regular Freemasonry.

I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Take a look at the articles Regular Masonic jurisdictions and Masonic Landmarks. They explain that exactly what the landmarks are and how they are interpreted, and what constitutes "regular", are things that vary significantly from Grand Lodge to Grand Lodge. There is no single authoritative version. Le Droit Humain considers itself to be regular and to be following the traditional landmarks, even though they do indeed initiate both women and atheists, and are indeed considered irregular by many Freemasons.

The thing is, this is a controversial point, and instead of the article passing judgement one way or the other it should take a neutral point of view, and simply present the terms of the controversy. A reader can make up their own mind; our job is to provide sufficient information for them to do so. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regularity

This is an edit with relevance to this page, including a link to it. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 06:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, but I'm not going to do anything about it, I'm sorry. Someone else may want to fight to get the Co-Freemasonry link restored, and it may indeed be a bit petty, removing useful info from an article just to make a point, but I don't personally have time for an edit war. At least there is still a link to Co-Freemasonry in the Freemasonry navigation box on that page. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know. I don't want a war, I do want to make some edits that contradict the POV of a special interest group. I recommend that you do nothing. Some of them can be very unpleasant. I did want to indicate to editors here that it was not an isolated incident, rather a pattern. Good article, btw. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 23:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Yeah, I don't have any point to prove on the general Freemasonry front. Just trying to keep this article in good shape. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a good point made here, though; why duplicate the link in See also when it's already in the navbox? Second, it was the only link in the "See also" - so what was so particularly relevant about that article as opposed to any other Masonic article, including the main Freemasonry article? So, who exactly is trying to make a point, especially by dragging the discussion over here where it doesn't belong? MSJapan 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Le Droit Humain has recently (2012 IIUC) modified its official English-language title, replacing "Co-Masonry" or "Co-Freemasonry" by "Freemasonry for Men and Women". The French title remains "Ordre international maçonnique mixte «Le Droit humain»". — Tonymec (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Structure

Correct me if I'm wrong, but sections 1-3 of the article entirely dedicated to DH followed by only two non-DH sections, does it make sense? Further, the main Freemasonry article refers to women in lodges way before formation of DH, does it mean that the opener is incorrect? I propose to reduce some of the DH bias and re-group the sections, if no objections. Truther2012 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You're not wrong, bits of this read like a DH recruitment poster. Anything to do with co-masonry is subject to helpful additions from anonymous editors who all seem to be DH members. It all needs rewritten, and any sort of start would be welcome.

Don't confuse adoption with Freemasonry. The women's rituals were kept separate, and only Cagliostro's rite told women that they were masons. The standard 3 ceremonies are not used, and the replacements are even more theatrical. Womens' Freemasonry starts with DH. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a very valuable explanation: what is the difference between adoption, mixed, co-, women's, etc. Can you suggest a good source explaining the difference? -Truther2012 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Finding a single source is problematic. Sources tend to fixate on their own particular brand of masonry, and sources outside of Freemasonry are rarely reliable. My best English language source on adoption is Mackey. There are French books with a whole system of adoption rituals from their time out on the internet, but analysing the text would be OR. This isn't a bad starting point if you're trying to read round the subject. Kidd's book is worth reading, but written from the perspective of an American female co-mason, so it doesn't contain the synthesis we require. I'd recommend using bullet points or a table to define the major slants on masonry individually, and individually referenced. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

After careful re-reading of and reflecting on the article I think that a huge chunk of this belongs in the Le Droit Humain article, which is surprisingly small. Here we should only keep the opener, mention of the three Organisations and the part on Recognition, everything else belongs in LDH. Objections? --Truther2012 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

None whatsoever. Co-Freemasonry is becoming an obsolete term. "Ordre Maconnique Mixte", mixed masonry, should have been favoured. Co-Freemasonry is Annie Besant's personal take, which is now going out of fashion. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

LE DROIT HUMAIN

Is there a reason why DH name is capitalized throughout the article? If not, I will proceed to change it to normal capitalization according to WP:Capitalization. Truther2012 (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

DONE --Truther2012 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Title

Co-Freemasonry as term was, I believe, coined by Annie Besant as an analogy with co-education. The problem now is that it is fast disappearing. The DH use Freemasonry for man and women, as do the Eastern Order. Should the article title be changed to reflect this (Mixed masonry perhaps)? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Co-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/20060824074319/http://sophie.byu.edu/sophiejournal/New/Huffmire-format.pdf to http://sophie.byu.edu/sophiejournal/New/Huffmire-format.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.standrew518.co.uk/ENCYC/MacEncA1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819052056/http://users.1st.net/fischer/MacEncE1.HTM to http://users.1st.net/fischer/MacEncE1.HTM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefreemason.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=3471
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517203710/http://www.godf.org/foreign/uk/histoire_uk_03.html to http://www.godf.org/foreign/uk/histoire_uk_03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619072344/http://www.australianco-masonry.netfirms.com/ to http://www.australianco-masonry.netfirms.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205054508/http://comasonic.net/ to http://comasonic.net/

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) 22:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Co-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/20060410075233/http://www.grandlodge.org.uk/press%20release1.htm to http://www.grandlodge.org.uk/press%20release1.htm

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) 08:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Regular Masonic jurisdiction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)