Jump to content

Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Lodges

I am not sure about the accuracy of the following line (added in one of the more recent revisions): Originally Lodges were local, consisting of Masons regularly meeting at a fixed place, and so living within the town or area. From what I understand, many of the very early Lodges were somewhat ad-hoc affairs, with no fixed meeting place or regular schedule of meetings (except, perhaps an annual meeting on one of the two St. John's days). Fixed meeting places (ie always meeting at a particular tavern, or in a particular member's private home) developed a bit later (say around 1700). Certainly, in conjunction with the rest of the paragraph the statement seems misleading. It seems to say that "location based" lodges (ie lodges that pull members based on their residence in a given location) pre-date "situational based" lodges (lodges that pull membership based on a common connection of some sort, one not based on location). I would disagree with this. While some early Lodges pulled membership from a given local area, others were formed by men who knew each other from a particular social or business circle. These men often traveled great distance to attend meetings. Perhaps I am being confused by the verb tense... the first sentence is in the past tense, while the rest of the paragraph is in the present tense. Perhaps a better way to say this is to drop the word "Originally" and instead say: "Many Lodges are local...." Thoughts? Blueboar 15:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In the context I would agree that 'Originally' is inappropriate, since the preceding paragraph implies 'Original Speculative' Lodges. If we mean Original, and support the argument of Operative origins for the craft, itself open to debate, then yes the Original Lodges were local, developed around a particular location of work. On balance I would say that the word is misleading.ALR 15:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have changed the language to present tense. This seems to flow well, and makes it an accurate statement. Blueboar 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I had to rv some nonsense, and your edit may have been lost (I saw this after the rv). Please re-edit if it is indeed missing. MSJapan 07:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem MSJ. My edits were not lost ... but, as long as I was checking, I took the oportunity to work on the section a bit more. Thanks for the heads-up. Blueboar 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comacine Masters?

Please take a look at the article on Comacine masters and my comments in the related talk page. I am thinking that it should be deleted as unverifiable, but I thought I should ask here before starting the process. Further comments can be made there. Blueboar 15:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mother Kilwinning No0 GLoS

I have amended detail with respect to Mother Kilwinning in the History section. Note that the situation with Kilwinning at the formation of GLoS led to a schism where Kilwinning continued Warranting Lodges in competition with GLoS. I will detail the schism in more depth in due course. Note that I am a member of MK0 so once drafted will request a confirmation with resepct to POV.ALR 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Sciots

The page will be gone due to copyvio, as all it is is a c/p of the second paragraph of history from the official Sciots website. Furthermore, I still think the Masonic affiliation is questionable, as it is a social club that only exists in a few states. I really think we're going to need to break out a few new categories and remake the list somewhere else other than in this article. I think we need a new List of, with Masonry, Appendant Bodies, Youth Groups, Masonic Research, Social Clubs, and Other, and maybe the list won't be so contestable. Questions, comments, and flames welcome to varying degrees (was that a pun?) MSJapan 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

System of Morality

Noting the reversion of Dazzlas' edit.

In Emulation ritual FM is referred to as 'a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol', note the similarity.

Given the comment made by Stannard on 7th Jan, and only one citation as a 'Beautiful' system I'd support changing the wording, however I wouldn't support the assertion of it as POV.

Appreciate that it's picking at a point of detail but as an emulation PM it jars with me when I read it. ALR 20:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The way that originally read was indeed "peculiar", but when I went looking for a cite, I found "beautiful", and decided to go with well-known cite rather than my preferences.--SarekOfVulcan 20:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I suppose we get diwn to the issue of precedence of Citations. Should a commentary on the ritual have precedence over the ritual itself? I don't have historical versions of Emulation available at the moment, just my working version, so I can't trace whether there has been a change in that word over time.ALR 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
WHY- don't you seek the freemasons out and "join" I think you well change your mind. " Look in first and second Kings " for the answer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.122.142.193 (talk • contribs) .--Vidkun 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We will not seek you out. You must come to me on your on free will and ? (unsigned comment, noted by MSJapan)

The citation comes from Mackey as noted, and my opinion is that while ritual can differ, it is also undeniably not available to the general public unless it has been published. However, Mackey's books and other commentaries and expansions on ritual are public domain, and while one could argue ritual semantics all day, a publically available book is more easily citable as an unchanging source. Furthermore, as the purpose of the article is to give information to those who do not have it (while the verficiation of said information is left up to those who already have it), it is easier for those who are interested in delving further if they are given a citation for a book they can obtain readily, and it avoids the issue of precedence of ritual entirely. For example, IIRC there are 40+ different variations on ritual in UGLE alone, and I don't think that practically speaking, there is a universally agreeable precedent, because all the derivations are equally valid in their own right. MSJapan 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I considered that attributing it to ritual was more accurate than the woolly phrase that I replaced. A simple google will confirm the accuracy of my edit, but the phrase 'often referred to' could give the impression that one reads articles daily attesting to its beauty and peculiarity (and yes, I am aware of the special, arcane semantics governing Craft ritual definition of the word 'peculiar').--Dazzla 22:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
ISBN 0 85318 187 X Ninth Ed 1991 publication of Revised Edition Emulation Ritual by Lewis Masonic at Runneymede. Page 107/ 108. The revision was an adjustment of the obligation with respect to the physical penalties, 1986. From the history at the beginning of the volume the Emulation ritual was written for the Union of the Antients and Moderns by the Lodge of Reconciliation and approved in 1816. Given the archaic nature of 'peculiar' then I would suggest that it is unlikely to have been altered from the initial drafting.ALR 22:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Brethren, may I first state that I can only write from the position as a UGLE Freemason. When dealing with issues of ritual, we are in a state of dynamic tension. If we quote ritual (and this is no place to quote ritual) strictly, then the latest version is the definitive article, not the earliest – since it is not “Holy Scripture”, and the craft is not a religion, (nor are any regular dependent “orders” or bodies churches). However “private” Lodges may work any ritual variations, or indeed mixtures, while staying within the generous latitude afforded by the guidelines known only-to-well by the Lodge Director of Ceremonies. This is why so-called “exposures” by the uninitiated are ultimately pointless. If “they” point to such-and-such in “Jabulhut’s Monitor of Stoneestuff” 666 CE – it may be out of date, never worked in that way or a speculative load of horse dung – printed to titillate the gullible for hard cash. It also may be true and accurate in one jurisdiction, but not in another, since – as we know – there is not one voice that speaks for all of regular Freemasonry, let alone irregular and spurious imitators. I think that the main article has probably reached, or is very close to, the saturation point of information legitimately available to the general reader. The problem of POV is especially acute here, and I think it is dealt with very well. I do not think it is the job of this article to give oxygen to any-and-all loony inividuals or “societies” that misappropriate the term Masonic, however – either historically or modern. Skull 'n' Femurs 23:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The facts are:
  • The phrase 'beautiful system of morality...' first occurred in ritual;
  • We are able to cite that written ritual to support that;
  • So far, we have one journalistic source, presumably yet to be derpived of his hoodwink, who has referred to it as such.
Therefore the amendment '...is described in ritual as...' is precise and accurate and the phrase 'often referred to' seems rather POV in comparison. In any case, I don't believe that it's Wikipedia policy to go reverting edits that are not backed by citation .Isn't that what the citation tag is for? Oh, and please try to refrain from insinuated ad-hominem smears. It doesn't help.
I'm not sure why you're so against this edit - if your motivation is top preserve craft 'secrets', you must surely know that anyone can go and pick up a copy of ritual or, indeed, Walton Hannah, and your acting in this manner is not improving the quality or factual accuracy of Wikipedia.
--Dazzla 03:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, eleven days and no activity on this. If there's no response within 48 hours, I'm going to edit the article, replacing "often referred to as... with "referred to in ritual as..." and cite Hannah and ritual as sources, as I don't see any reason to keep existing wording. It is citable to the first degree lecture. --Dazzla 06:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I thought you gave up. Welcome back. Secondly, we've had a lot of other things going on. There's more than this article to watch. As for your edit, Hannah wasn't a Mason, and the point of his book was to show Masonry as incompatible with Christianity (I googled it). Who knows what he was using for source? As with the "other debate" (used here in much the same vein as "the Scottish play"), just because someone says something doesn't mean it is right. I don't believe I have that wording either, BTW, so you're making an edit that you're hoping no one will complain about. As I said before (and this is why we need to keep the wording we have now), Mackey is generally available, and WP policy dictates that we use readily available and reputable sources before going anywhere else. You can buy Mackey's books at any bookstore to check; you can't get ritual quite as easily, and a hundred-year old online copy is not what I would call reputable - words have changed over time, and unless you know it already, you can't check modern ritual. So what use is it to a reader who is casually curious? I think you are misinterpreting the intended audience of this article; people who know do the editing, but the article isn't for our benefit. MSJapan 06:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Referenced in: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0853182094/qid=1138349182/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_0_2/026-4576943-4294066 ALR 08:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to echo MSJapan here. Citing ritual is NOT (no MATTER what you can buy at amazon.co.uk) something that the general public can do. Mackey can be found in libraries, Emulation Ritual books aren't, at least not in the US. However, often referred to should possibly be changed to has been referred to as that no longer makes a claim for frequency of the claim, which seems to be what you're on about calling the phrase POV.--Vidkun 15:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The quotation is in a published book, complete with enough information to be cited in an academic text, that makes it valid. Claiming that ritual is somehow 'special' and exempt is a bit odd, IMO. My own copy of that book has the wording in full, so a member of the public could quite easily get hold of it and quote it as such. Indeed when you go into any of the shops on Qreat Queen Street and buy it nobody will ask for ones credentials. What we now have is two distinct sources which are at variance with one another. My point was that this is not 'hundred year old online copy' but a recent publicaiton of the current ritual used in many, although not all, lodges. Given the demonstrable issue with such a definite statement 'is often' is clearly inaccurate. Accordingly I'll make an amendment to 'is referred to in some sources'
Why not just be specific and say: "In his 'Masonic Manual' Robert Macoy referred to it as..." Blueboar 16:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of P2 Masonic Lodge Scandal in 'See Also' Category

I have added back in the link to the Wiki page on P2, I see someone has removed it. I feel the link is merited because the page is specifically about Freemasonry, and in fact the P2 scandal is probably the most significant thing to happen in Freemasonry in the World since the Morgan Mystery of 1820 America that still reverberates today. I note that some of the other 'see also' links are less germain to freemasonry, the link to Gnosticism for instance which I don't think even has the word freemasonry in that article. Please post your comments on this matter, thank-you.Basil Rathbone 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call the P2 scandal "the most significant thing to happen to Freemasonry in the World since the Morgan Mystery" Most Freemasons do not even know what P2 was, nor how it relates to the fraternity. It has, in fact had very little impact on the fraternity at large, save for the
fact that it adds one more piece of ammunition to Anti-masonic propiganda.  While I do not object to linking to the P2 page here, I think it really belongs as a link on the Anti-masonry page (which is linked here). Blueboar 16:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Adding the link to the P2 page caused me to go and check out the article. I found it well written and fairly NPOV. However, when I surfed the web to find out more information, I discovered that whole chunks of it are identical to a similar article at Reference.com (another on-line encyclopedia - see: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Propaganda_Due). It looks like whoever wrote the P2 article did a cut and paste job. That would be OK (after all we are not all great writers) except for the fact that the material at reference.com is Copywrited. I am not sure it this rises to the level of a violation or not, so I have not put a violation warning on the page (and if it does, I do not quite know how to do so) ... I have placed a comment on Talk:Propaganda Due stating my concerns and hopefully the P2 article will be re-written. I will leave that to those who are involved in that article. For us the question becomes... should we remove the link here until this copywrite question is resolved? Blueboar 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Update: I went ahead and removed it, just in case. Blueboar 23:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I just put the link back, Blueboar -- you missed the message at the end. Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors (Disclaimer) This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Oh, so reference.com plagiarized from Wikipedia and not the other way around. Good catch, and I appologize for any confusion. Just trying to keep the wiki project protected. I will make note of this on the P2 page as well. Thanks. Blueboar 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it didn't plagiarize us -- we licensed the content under the GNU Free Documentation License when we made our edits.--SarekOfVulcan 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Yeah.... rub it in by getting all technical on me! Sheesh! OK... I SCREWED UP! I ADMIT IT! There, happy now? ;>) Blueboar 00:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with vandals and experimenters

Just as a quick note, if someone vandalizes or spuriously edits the page, whoever does the rv needs to post the qappropriate warning to the user's talk page. Otherwise, they get a freebie. There is a list of warning templates on WP:Vandalism, IIRC. MSJapan 19:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This probably relates to me... since I just edited out someone's single line vandalism. Please be patient... I am trying to learn as I go, and have not yet figured out the templates thing (nor a host of other wiki protocals). Feel free to cover for me until I am up to speed. :>) Blueboar 19:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Giving up on this topic

I'm sorry, but I'm giving up on editing this topic. As someone who knows as much about the laws, customs and rituals of craft and arch freemasonry as many freemasons (and indeed more than some), I thought I could make a valuable and valid contribution from a more neutral point of view than same, but it appears that you guys are still excercising your caution, diverting the discourse and making wikipedia's noble and honourable aim of presenting clear, neutral information to the general reader as difficult as possible. I hope your lives bring you the rewards you seek.

Best of luck to those who stay with it.

--Dazzla 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because you've done SO much . . .--Vidkun 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
And what I have done has been removed with scant justification. Good job I checked before any major work, isn't it? I don't suppose you want to keep your brittle wit and inept attempts at sarcasm to alt.kiddies.flamewar? --Dazzla 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You made one edit, it was reverted on the grounds of citations, and you decided that it wasn't worth doing anything else, promptly violating WP:NPA in the process? Remind me again why we want you to stay around. --SarekOfVulcan 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Aw, has he taken his bat ‘n’ ball ‘ome den? Who was dat man o’ mystery? I for one quite like "brittle wit and inept attempts at sarcasm", but not sad anti-craft style “exposures”. Skull 'n' Femurs 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What 'sad anti-craft style exposure'? Sorry, dudes, but I think I'm the one being attacked here. I'm going to refer it if it continues. --Dazzla 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do. If I'm wrong, I want to fix it. If you're wrong, on the other hand, I want you to quit the attacks, settle down, and become a valued contributor.--SarekOfVulcan 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
So its back to the World Domination 'n' Conspiracy stuff, Brethren. I'm going to organise the labour, and agitate for tea breaks, come the revolution. My nice gold covered regalia is already on order. ;) Skull 'n' Femurs 00:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
May I ask what you think this reactionary and presumptuous garbage is adding to the debate?--Dazzla 11:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a little something called humour. I suggest reading up on it, it's an interesting concept. WegianWarrior 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I heard about that. Humour's distinguishing feature, however, is usually that it's in some way amusing. --Dazzla 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
ps: if you ever decide to judge people on more than just the revert of a single edit (which went against the citation supporting the statement btw), I for one will wish you welcome back.
pps: allthought... I'm not sure what the point of stating here that you wasn't going to edit the article; at least to me it makes for less work and effort just not to edit an article and be done with it...
What, you mean you guys are still excercising your caution, diverting the discourse and making wikipedia's noble and honourable aim of presenting clear, neutral information to the general reader as difficult as possible wasn't intended as a jab or attack? That comes off pretty much as suggesting those who are doing most of the editing here are attempting to obfuscate the information. That's insulting. And then, I looked at your contributions, noted how minor it was, and saw you insinuating you have done more than you have . . .--Vidkun 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it was meant as a straight an honest descriptiion of the very process which now occupies our increasingly devlaued time. Anyway, see section above for continuation of this debate. --Dazzla 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Re - Dazzla, 11:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC), in this section. Does he anwser his own question, if he is refering to himself? I think he does. I await some possitive input with interest. Skull 'n' Femurs 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Atheism and France

While I recognize that the GOdF is considered to be an atheist Grand Lodge, the edits, and commentary regarding them, have suggested that all French Masonry is like that, and that that is the reason for the suspension of recognition for any other body but that of the GLNF. I will point out, again, and maybe it should go to a seperate page about the GOdF, that the initial derecognition of that body, in the US, was based on GOdF's recognition of a Supreme Council (within the jurisdiction of the GL of Lousiana) that specifically did not allow color-based discrimination to occur. At some point, maybe there can be a page that looks at the recognition issues of French bodies, or, simply directs to an external link to http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm Afterall, wikipedia sure AIN'T the be all and end all of information, nor is any encyclopedia. They should give overviews, and direct a reader towards better sources. Just my opinion, that the atheism thing is way too simplisticly dealt with, both here, and in general, which leads to Mason in the US (I have heard this first hand) saying they thought ALL French Masons were atheists . . .--Vidkun 18:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that we need to work on our wording to make it clear that not ALL French Masons are Athiests. However, I do not think that this is the place for an in-depth discussion on why and when different Grand Lodges and Orients withdrew recognition from each other. To do that we would have to go into the minutia of the difference between GOdF, GLNF, and GLdF, which would tripple the length of an already long article (in my oppinion too long). The key here is to inform people that there are basicly two branches of Masonry, The UGLE/US or "Anglo" branch that still insists on a belief in Deity, and the "Continental" Branch that admits Atheists. While that may not have been the stated cause of the split, it is one of the leading causes of it's continuation (the admission of women is another).
If it eases your concern, I am in the process of working up a revision to the History of Freemasonry article (I will probably upload a first draft for people's comments in a few weeks). Part of my revision is to include the History of Freemasonry beyond England and after 1717, which would include the schism between GLdF and "Anglo" Grand Lodges. I would have no problems discussing the developement and history of all three French Grand Lodges in the process. Blueboar 19:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, see, there is an incorrect dichotomy there - Continental Freemasonry is not about admitting atheism, and that is the big issue I am trying to get corrected. There are SOME GL's that work in the "Continental" fashion (longer time between degrees, research papers required, chamber of reflection before first degree) that do not admit atheists. GLdF is one of them. I think the recognitions of GOdF issues should go in the Grand Orient de France article, and some of the issues about GLdF that Bessel brings up should go in a new article about the GLdF. By the way, if you would pop over to my talk page, I am working on a history of the GL of MA article . . . --Vidkun 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we have a misunderstanding of the term "Continental". As I read the article, "Continental" means "those lodges that followed the lead of GOdF in admiting athiests and/or women." What you are talking about is whether GLdF is "Continental" or not, which is a different issue. We may need make it clearer that France (and several other Nations) have more than one Grand Jurisdiction... some of which follow the "Continental Tradition", some of which adhear to a more "British Tradition", and yet others that span the gap in different ways.
I want to repeat my strong urging that we keep this article to basic facts common to all Masonry (to the extent that is possible), and expand upon the minutia in seperate articles, otherwise this one is going to get even longer .... perhaps what we really need is an article on "Freemasonry in France" or something like that? Blueboar 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

  • I do not know if the term "Anglo" is in general use outside of the Wikies, or who first used it – but I am finding it increasingly (racially?) offensive and irritating. It certainly has no official place, as a term, and so I would urge contributors to find an alternative. Skull 'n' Femurs 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
If you look *way* back, I commented about this and said it should be changed a long time ago, but we couldn't really come up with a better word, and then we got a case of the vandals. Frankly, even if one discounts any derogatory usage, it doesn't make sense: as was noted, "Anglo" is a prefix, not a standalone word. If it stands by itself, the proper word is "English", or in this case maybe even "British Isles". Furthermore, if we use "Anglo" to refer to every UK-based GL, I think the Scots and Irish might get a bit perturbed, to say the least. In short, we really do need to change this. MSJapan 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, then I would suggest British Isles Derived as the term. It anbswers the mail as to the current notable division, between those who are derived from GLE (M) GLE (A), UGLE, GLoI and GLoS, and those who are derived from Freemasonry which sprang up in Continental Europe.--Vidkun 02:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Re - directly above. Racially offensive to UK, if not other, Freemasons of none white ethnicity and none western culture. Not all UGLE members, let alone all concordant juristictions, are "WASPS" - although I am. Skull 'n' Femurs 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not going to buy that one. Anglo does not mean "WASP", but merely "of or derived from, England". See for, example, the Anglo-Irish War. In this situation, it is referring to those GL's who derive from one of the three GL's in the British Isles - UGLE, GLoI, and GLoS.--Vidkun 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to point out, in good hunour, that my being increasingly offended by the term is not dependent on your “buying” into the point. It has been pointed out to me, by several - ethnically diverse - Brethren. Skull 'n' Femurs 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I instead refer you right back to Anglo. Also, I didn't know it was a wiki policy to not offend anyone.--Vidkun 01:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well – as a messanger of “Wikiness” – I think it is written down, in some form, someware, as I seem to remember... Skull 'n' Femurs 01:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That's a hard one for me to explain. I know what they mean by Anglo - the Grand Lodges who, in general, are in amity with UGLE or another GL that is in amity with UGLE. And Continental, seems to be used here, as synonymous with Grand Orient de France and similar groups, specifically focusing on the atheism issue. Which is not the actual main difference between the two styles. From what I have seen (and therefore, not well verifiable) the "Anglo" style is focused more on the Lodge as a social order and body, with charitable aspects, where the "Continental" focuses on the Lodge more as an initiatic order along the lines of the "western mystery tradition". Why is Anglo racially offensive, if it points to those GL's who follow a course similar to the United Grand Lodge of England (which is where the term anglo is derived from, England)?
There are some GL's that work in the so-called "Continental" fashion (longer time between degrees, research papers required, chamber of reflection before first degree) that do not admit atheists. The problem I see, recognition-wise, and general understanding -wise is that there are Masons out there who believe the style of (longer time between degrees, research papers required, chamber of reflection before first degree) automatically mean it's an atheist GL, because that's not how UGLE does it . . . again, it would seem to me the the "English lead" is POV.--Vidkun 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The point is that in isolation, “Continental”, is geographically ambiguous. “Which continent do you mean? “ may be the question on an Asian reader’s mind? Wiki quite likes to pin geography down in the – “ My garden, My Town, My Region, My Country” – way, at least when the term is first used in an article, as far as I can tell. On all the French et al material - bow to you as being more expert than I, since my knowlege of the subject is only via Wiki/Web. Skull 'n' Femurs 00:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, and I agree with it in regards to Continental European. But, then again, I'm not the one who put the two divisions into the article.--Vidkun 01:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see that we might want to re-think "Anglo" (in the US this does have racial and ethnic conotations that do not fit what we are trying to say). I am less convinced that we need to change "Continental". "Continental" is in common usage as refering to things related to the continent of Europe - "continental cuisine" for example. The word also fits in a Masonic context... the "Continental" form of Freemasonry we are talking about started in Europe (and the bulk of the "Continental" jurisdictions are in Europe). What about using: "British Tradition" and "Continental Tradition"? Blueboar 13:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • One bit I would like to add regarding the term Anglo, or, more properly, Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry is that this is the term used by the Pro Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England (the second in command in UGLE), as shown in his speech here: "Whither Directing our Course". I believe, upon my fifth read of that speech over two months, is that the Pro GM is talking about the social club style of Masonry (most prevalent in what was recently referred to as British Tradition), as opposed to the Initiatic Focus (or, now known in the US as Traditional Observance Lodges), above named Continental Tradition, which is more than simply the atheist vs deist POV. Yes, his speech is his own POV. However, his use of the term Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry indicates at least a comfort with that term, one that, if it were considered a racist term would not be used by such a distinguished leader of the Craft.--Vidkun 16:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Given Vidkun's comments it seems that we definitely need to change our terminology here. We have been using the terms "Anglo" and "Continental" to discribe the difference between Jurisdictions that adhere to the Ancient Charges (ie: Require belief in Deity, do not admit women, etc.) and Jurisdictions that do not. It seems now that these terms have been used in other contexts to discribe something completely different... Social Club Masonry vs. Traditional Observance Masonry. One thing that I can definitively say, there are Traditional Observance Lodges here in the US that most definitely adhear to the Old Charges. Are these Anglo or Continental? It depends on which definition of those terms you use... they would be Anglo under the definition we have been using for this article, but they would be Continental under the definition the Pro Grand Master and Vidkun have been using. Blueboar 21:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've re-read his speech, Blueboar, and I am prepared to admit, he basically said that speeding men through freemasonry is the problem. He did not suggest a return to what is now being called (in the US) Traditional Observance Lodges, however, given what he DID say about being to fast, and letting anyone in who asks, and given what the Cornerstone Society has said about this topic, I would suggest a look at a few concepts. This doesn't have to be part of the article, and, in fact, probably shouldn't.
But these concepts should be looked at:
  • Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry (as the Pro Grand Master referred to it)
  • European Concept Lodges (like Epicurean in Australia)
  • Traditional Observance Lodges
  • Social Club Masonry
  • Anglo vs Continental (and how that terminology isn't useful as it is pejorative)
  • the Continental European style of doing things (which I interpret to mean mainly the same as Traditional Observance Lodges, although it seems that the Continental European style may have a higher tendency towards GL's/GO's which do not require a dogmatic belief in God).
It's a can of worms, the article won't address it for a while, but we can hammer out some ideas here in harmony, yes?--Vidkun 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll also suggest, if we want to branch out this discussion, we can do so (in terms of definitions/discussions under each bulletted item up there.--Vidkun 22:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism and Hinduism

In regular Freemasonry, not all Buddhists and Hindus are allowed to join because some of the members of these religions are not monothesistic. Many Grand Lodges (including the GL of Connecticut, of which I am a member) have lists of which sects of Buddhism and Hindusim are allowed membership. This division occurs because several sects of Hinduism believe that there are many gods, but they are all aspects of Shiva or Vishnu, depending on the sect. These sects are considered ok for masonic membership because they believe in one God. However, in other Hindu sects the various gods are seperate from their respective creator god and this is not monotheistic. For Buddhism, some buddhist sects believe that Buddha is divine and seperate from all other people who have attained enlightenment and therefore constitutes one God. However, some sects of Buddhism either do not believe that Buddha is divine or that all who attain enlightenment are divine. These sects are not considered monotheistic and can not join regular Freemasonry. Both Buddhism and Hinduism have a diverse faith which allows for many different beliefs, which is opposed to many western religions who for the most part are theologically homogenenous.

Therefore, it is not correct to say that Reuglar Freemasonry accepts all Buddhists and Hindus because Freemasonry will only accept members from the sects who are monotheist. This exception should be noted in the Membership Requirements section. Furthermore, Freemasonry does not "accepts members from almost any monotheistic religion." Freemasonry accepts members from any and all monotheistic religions. No "almost." If the petitioner believes in a singular God, which all monotheistic religions do, they can be accepted. Hope this helps and we can change the statement back. Chtirrell 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the reason we don't use a blanket statement there is to avoid things like Flying Spaghetti Monster; in short, the idea is to try not to have to qualify every statement from a jurisdictional standpoint. I believe you may have a fair point re: Buddhism and Hinduism, but it would be useful to see if there is a precedent from one GL (maybe UGLE?) that has become the universal jurisdictional barometer, once again to try and avoid the "that's not how it works here" problem. I am also aware that that may not be possible, and we might need to add a sort of a disclaimer that there are some minor differences here and there. MSJapan 02:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem with Chtirrell's reasoning is that not all jurisdictions specify monotheism. Mackey's Landmarks do not say monotheism. The issue with getting into which sect of Buddhism or Hinduism is or isn't monotheistic is that, for quite a number of non-Christian religions, Trinitarianism is seen as polytheistic. GL's don't like to get into these issues (which Buddhist sect is mono, which isn't) because then, internally, they get questions from Muslims and Jews as to why Catholicism (with a strict Trinitarianism and huge list of Saints as intercessors) isn't considered polytheistic. The UGLE went through this, and, from what I understand (and will look for cites soon) decided that if Buddhists and Hindus say they believe in a Supreme Being, the questions end there, full stop. I'm not even going to touch the flying spaghetti monster issue, not from an objective POV about all belief in divine forces . . .--Vidkun 17:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Vidkun brings up alot of good points and some good insight into this question. I did not know the UGLE's standpoint on this issue, only that of my own GL. I would also like to add that I was mistaken in my interpretation of my GL's rules and regs. It does not state the sects that are and are not allowed to become freemasons in Connecticut. It states which VSLs are allowed to be displayed from which sects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Because these faiths do not have one traditional cannon, members can choose which is the most important to them. However, the GL of Conn limits which can and cannot be displayed in open lodge. The GL of Conn prohibits that displaying of VSL of these religions that do not have a concept of a supreme being or that is strongly polytheistic. I apoligize for my confusion.
However, I believe in this section an addition should be added that freemasonry accepts men of all religions as long as individually, they profess a belief in a Supreme Being. This would include Buddhists that offically belong to sects that do not hold a belief in divinity. This would also cover Trinitarianism issues of Christianity and the potential problems with the preception of polytheism with Hinduism. I still believe that the line "Freemasonry accepts members from almost any monotheistic religion - as well as, for example, Buddhists and Hindus." is not correct and should be changed for a couple of reasons. In this dialogue, we have shown that Freemasonry is not exclusively monotheistic. Furthermore, both sects of Buddhism and Hinduism can be shown to be monotheistic and this statement alludes to the contrary. I believe a statement such as "Freemasonry accepts members of all religions as long as individually, they profess a belief in a Supreme Being. This includes, but is not limited to, members of the following faiths; Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc." This covers all the bases, because the majority of Freemasonry does not look at your religion, but your own personal beliefs. How does this sound to everyone? Chtirrell 20:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest, instead: In general, Freemasonry accepts members of all religions as long as individually, they profess a belief in a Supreme Being. I wouldn't go into a list of religions at all. I will, however, point out, there are certain jurisdictions, recognized by the GLCT, GLMA, GLDC, GLVT and UGLE which require a member be a Christian. This is not common, but it is considered perfectly fine, with regards to recognition between Grand Lodges, and quite possibly deserves an entry in this article somewhere. I am specifically think about Freemasonry in northern Europe, Denmark and Sweden for example. I do not remember exactly which GL's require Christianity, however, they are out there.--Vidkun 20:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Swedish Rite is the form which requires one to be a Christian, Swedish Rite is present in Scandanavia and Denmark. Other than that I'm keeping out of this. As a Buddhist Freemason I'm not entirely able to be wholly objective.ALR 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Vidkun, I think you've got the right idea with keeping the list off. I completely support that change being made. We should also include a short exception for any GLs that require specific religions, such as the Swedish Rite. Does any one know of any additional GLs that have a membership limitation due to religion? The only other exception I can think of is the Commandary of the York Rite, but this is outside the realm of this article. Chtirrell 22:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. Unfortunitly, I also do not know the standpoint of the UGLE or many other grand lodges. A wording that would encompass MSJapan's last statement would be a great addition.
I would like to thank Chtirrell, for understanding our wish to discuss changes before they are made. I hope you will stick around, and help us as we try to perfect this article. Blueboar 15:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
To answer the question regarding UGLE, let me quote: "Who can join? Membership is open to men of all faiths who are law-abiding, of good character and who acknowledge a belief in God. Freemasonry is a multi-racial and multi-cultural organisation. It has attracted men of goodwill from all sectors of the community into membership. There are similar Masonic organisations for women." (from UGLE article on "Who Can Join?--Vidkun 17:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Writing Perspective

This article may be featured, however, it seems to me the writing style presents itself as being written by a member of the Masons, not an unbiased wiki user. For example, when discussing hermenistic members says "They have the right as invididual members to act on their own, but that is not the pervailing view of Freemasonry(paraphrased)". Such writing is obviously written defensively and by a Mason. Wikipedia should note the difference between individuals and groups in other ways that are legally unslanderous and objective and accurate. The entire article needs serious rewriting.

  • This section was started by Thechosenone021, an "experienced" user who has made exactly four, that is 4, contributions - since 19 June, 2005 in any way. To answer the point, "They have the right as individual members to act on their own, but that is not the prevailing view of Freemasonry(paraphrased)". This is factually true, and is reported in a NPOV way. The article is written in a factual way, which may disappoint scandalmongers - or those who come to it with fixed impressions based on other sources. As to being largely written by POV Masons - well you would not expect schoolchildren to write a cogent article on international politics would you? It takes NPOV experts in a subject to write an apparently simple and succinct article on a complex subject. This is what happens here. Skull 'n' Femurs 15:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
All of those four edits save one have been reverted, too. MSJapan 03:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that several non-Masons (and indeed some that can only be considered as Anti-Masons) have contributed to this article. A quick read through of the archived talk pages will demonstrate this. Those editors who are Masons have happily worked with those who are not - as long as the contributers have been willing to present their concerns in an equally NPOV manner. Some of the language that Thechosenone021 objects to is the direct result of compromise between editors who wish to present factual information in a NPOV way. Blueboar 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The statements make no sense, the paraphrase is wrong, I have no clue exactly what the problem is supposed to be, and I don't believe we discuss "hermenistic members" at any point. This is simply an attempt to make something out of nothing because someone's factually inaccurate POV is unsupported. MSJapan 16:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the paragraph being referred to is this one:
While regular Masonry has always tended as much to rationalism as it does to mysticism, there are some groups, such as Rosicrucians, who may interpret Masonic ritual magically (or "hermetically"). This is their right as private Masons, given the fraternity's non-dogmatic stance, but is by no means indicative of the fraternity as a whole. However, the very existence of the possibility of hermetic interpretations within Masonry has led some Christians to label Freemasonry as Satanic.
The paragraph is an accurate statement of fact. However, if Thechosenone021 can explain to us in more detail what he/she finds objectionable, I am sure we can work with him/her to rewrite it... Assuming, of course, that these objections are not simply a POV belief that the statement isn't true. Blueboar 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

P2 and critics

The present revision says that "In Italy, the illicit and irregular P2 lodge has been investigated." This is at least imprecise or vague, at worst wrong. The P2 lodge was simply a covered lodge (not 'illicit') of GOI (Grande Oriente d'Italia), probably the greatest regular masonic organisation in Italy. This is what can be read in an historical page of the GOI site. The GOI itself expelled Licio Gelli ("Grand Master" of P2 lodge) only at the end 1981, after some months from the discovering of the famous '1000 members list' in his villa. The P2 lodge is considered 'illicit' only by the subsequent italian law made by governament. --Marcok 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"The P2 lodge is considered 'illicit' only by the subsequent Italian law made by government". So P2 is illicit then, and reported NPOV as such. P2 is also (now) irregular to the (Grande Oriente d'Italia) GOI. The name "Grand Oriente" may indicate (unproven either way at this point) an alliance to the European Continental grouping, regarded in turn as irregular within the definition given in the article - since the UGLE, and concordant jurisdictions, is regarded as regular here - as a reference point. If the (Grande Oriente d'Italia) GOI, is indeed regular with regards to the UGLE grouping, then please provide a cited reference and change the information given. Note both the information in this article section, and the linked main article on the subject needs to give the same information. Skull 'n' Femurs 15:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick search of links on the UGLE site gives the only link for Italy as: "Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, www.grandlodge-italy.org". This would seem to indicate that this is the only regular Grand Lodge in Italy. So "Grande Oriente d'Italia, GOI" seems to be regarded as irregular with reference to UGLE and when referenced in the Wiki Freemasonry articles. I am open to other proven evidence, but calling P2 illicit and irregular seems to stand up. Skull 'n' Femurs 15:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For a short period of time, Grand Orient of Italy was considered the regular GL by UGLE, but that changed 17 April 1993, I believe. I will check Henderson, because I believe he lists it as recognised by UGLE, and I also believe there is some historical info on the de-recognition online, as I have seen it. Ed King's webpage: http://www.masonicinfo.com/p2_lodge.htm refers to GOI as recognised by UGLE, however, I believe Ed should reword that to say at the time recognised by UGLE. I will email him and say so. I will continue to research this.--Vidkun 18:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Prince Hall moved (and back)

Prince Hall Masonry moved sections. However it is a Grand Lodge group, not another degree. Hence put back in the Grand Lodge section. Skull 'n' Femurs 17:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

US, including Prince Hall, lodges were stricken from the UGLE rolls – due largely to the British-American War, 1812-1815 – not due to Ancients and Moderns being united under the then New UGLE. A pedantic point of history. Did you know about the "Grand Lodge of Wigan", 1823-1913? This was due to Ancients and Moderns being united under the then New UGLE. A pedantic point of history too small for this General article. Skull 'n' Femurs 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Prince Hall Freemasonry

is this bad? can we do this on the main article when there's another "main article", i.e. Main articles: Prince Hall Freemasonry? Even leaving in the wikilink & text for Main articles: Prince Hall Freemasonry right underneath, for clarity? It think it might really help with the diligant attention spent on those other articles. Grye 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Notes Section on Main Page

Fixed order and Links codes in the Notes section. Skull 'n' Femurs 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed an external link going to the above mentioned place, because I think that a website that describe itself as a conspiracy discussion board, with the stated goal to engage in collaborative discussion and debate on a broad range of conspiracy, extraterrestrial, secret project, government agency, and other alternative topics, can hardly be considered a verifiable source for an encyclopedia. WegianWarrior 04:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

WegianWarrior, I'll second that Skull 'n' Femurs 08:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede then. There was good information in that thread and an informative discussion, and I don't see how the harun yahya is verified, no non-biased for that matter.Seemed to set a precedent for having discussions about the topic in the external links. Nygdan 1-23-06

The discussion on HY has attributable references. One may not think much of a number of the references, but they are there and recognised. The thread in ATS was conjecture and opinion with no attribution and nothing to indicate verifiability, it also lacked any appreciation of the complexity of the international situation. A fragment of alleged ritual and ill informed hypothesis without adequate foundation does not add to the debate here.ALR 15:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
http://economist.com/diversions/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1489200ALR 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


In reference to other degrees, borders...

What about the Blue lodge? it is my understanding that Masonry is divided into the Scottish Rite and The Blue Lodge, or is it that the York Rite is a synonym for The Blue Lodge?

f1r3r41n 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not so much a question of 'Divided' but there are a number of organisations which are Masonic in character and their ritual is related to that of the Blue or Craft ritual. Scottish Rite and York rite are both examples of this. As organisations they are distinct from, and carry no authority over, the Craft structure. Notwithstanding that the York Rite sees the three degrees of Craft Masonry as equivalent to their first three degrees.ALR 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Blue Lodge" and "Craft" are the same, and cover the three degrees of Freemasonry. "York" and "Scottish" Rites are two different systems covering different so-called "higher" degrees. Skull 'n' Femurs 17:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There might be an argument there for having an article on Freemasonry and a separate article for the additional degrees. That would make clear the distinction, as a PM in the craft I'm not too bothered what degree someone has in SR because it's a different organisation
(Inserted - This has already been done see York Rite and Scottish Rite. This article is about Freemasonry in general, which includes "side degrees" under that umbrella. I suppose we could add another sub-article on Craft/Blue Lodge, but I do not see that as being needed. Blueboar 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC))

And yet, when I visited in New Jersey, I was asked if my Lodge (meaning Blue Lodge) was a Scottish Rite or a York Rite Lodge. To give a quick overview, what we have for our ritual format, in the Craft Lodges in the US, is referred to (in Henderson's work) as York Ritual. Also sometimes referred to as Webb Ritual, after Thomas Smith Webb, and I believe it is derived from the old Prestonian Lectures, which were dropped (I believe) when UGLE adopted Emulation as its predominant ritual format. There is no one format for the ritual that is uniform across the US, variations being based on "creep" and also the differences between Ancients and Moderns. For the most part, however, they are similar enough to be seen as slight variations on one format (Webb/York ritual). All of that being said, there are Lodges in New Orleans who use a Scottish Rite ritual of the first three degrees, and I believe they are all pre-Pike versions, yet, from what I have seen on the GLoLA wbepages, they are not uniform across the board in the Scottish Rite Lodges.--Vidkun 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Vidkun, my friend, you are far too knowledgable for your own good! Show off!. (Ask the guy what time it is, and he tells you how to make a watch! Sheesh!) Blueboar 19:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ritual and Symbolism

the square and compass have much symbolism and the meaning is general and there is a degree of masonry which teaches this meaning to those who are intiated into the order, this should be revised.

f1r3r41n 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ritual disscussion is minimised here, if done at all. This is an open article for the general reader, about Craft Freemasonry. Hence details should not be revised to expand on the degree you alude to. I'm all for cutting what is already there... but will not do that without further chat on the subject. Skull 'n' Femurs 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

comment placed in wrong topic area, ignoreALR 18:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Since these tools are by far the most recognized symbols of Freemasonry, I do think they need to be discussed. However, I do agree that we should do so in a generic - non-ritual manner. I would use them as an example of how the tools of an operative Masons art are used by Freemasons to teach moral lessons. For example, we could state that the Square is an emblem symbolizing rectitude of conduct ... which is not secret. (oops, forgot to sign my comments, sorry, Blueboar 17:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC))
well said boar

f1r3r41n 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

revert war at Wiktionary

You know where to go. A little help please. Blueboar 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Did what could be done. MSJapan 18:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems to have helped... for now. Thanks. Blueboar 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
And now I notice that our favorite non-word has been restored as a Wikipedia Article! Blueboar 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
what non-word are you talking about? im curious to know, and ill help where i can

f1r3r41n 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify Brethren, I really want the non-word to go, and we must still try to remove it entirely. But, while it is on Wiki it may as well be our platform, and do service for us to defuse the anti-Masonics’ weapons of mass disinformation. Consign it explicitly to an obscure little corner of history – that has no relevance in today’s Masonic world. Skull 'n' Femurs 14:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Re-Edit

Have you seen a sock? Woops, too late!

Freemasonry page is a complete mess due to extreme POV edits by a group of Pro-Masonic editors who seem inable to distinguish between Masonic fallacies and Non-Masonic Scholarship. Will rewrite page to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.Jimmy James 12:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved this comment by Jimmy Jamesto the bottom of the list where it belongs (in addition to his POV edits, he did not follow the rule about puting new topics at the bottom of the talk page). Blueboar 14:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Tut, tut. Past the wine to left Brother... Skull 'n' Femurs 14:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought that rule was only for port? Blueboar 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ant port in a storm! I say.. golly good edits Brethren, what what... Top hole! Skull 'n' Femurs 14:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(that ANY not ant.. sore fingers!)Skull 'n' Femurs 14:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Up against 3rr - (and I have to run errands - life beyond Wiki, you know) I pass it to skilled hands. Be back later.Blueboar 14:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_11&oldid=789378614"