Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Freemasons inviting people to become Masons

We should include in the article that a person can become a Freemason by being asked by a Freemason. It is implied in the article that a person can become a Freemason only be asking, which is not true.--Panzertank (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

We should NOT include it, because it's different in every jurisdiction. The phrasing "of you own free will and accord" is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. In some, it is taken as an absolute prohibition on any solicitation or invitation, in others, it is taken to mean don't force someone to join, but you may invite. So, as it's got so many variations, few of them cite-able, it's not something that needs to be in here.--Vidkun (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the allegation that Pennsylvania is the only GL that allows invitation, try looking at this site for some refutation of that.--Vidkun (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the key to this is to remember who our audience is... most of our readers are non-Masons, who may assume that the only way to become a Mason is by invitation. It is important to counter that mistaken assuption by pointing out that, in fact, it goes the other way... the candidate can (and in some jurisdictions must) ask to join.

Also, the article is focused on Masonry as a whole... every jurisdiction allows the potential candidate to ask... some jurisdictions allow a Brother to ask, but others do not (although it is generally OK to "ask them to ask").

Finally, as a Mason, I like the idea of telling people... "hey... if you are interested in joining us, don't sit around hoping that someone will ask you to join... contact your local lodge and ask." Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also a Freemason. Until last week I thought the only way to become a Mason was to ask, as I had been taught. It needs to be mentioned in the artcile that people can be invited. Otherwise the article is incorrect.--Panzertank (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added something that I think everyone can agree one. If you take it out, please state why. Since it is a verifiable fact, please have a good reason.--Panzertank (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need to be included in the article? Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be included in the article because we mention ways to become Masons. Why not have all the info? Answer me this, how does a person join Freemasonry? Is the only way to become a Mason anywhere on the planet is by asking? YES or NO? Answer: NO. Do we state in the article the only way to become a Mason is by asking? Answer: Yes, directly and indirectly. Can a person become a Mason by being invited to join the craft? Answer: Yes. Are most Mason taught that the only way to become a Freemason is by asking? I was. Until Jan. 1, 2010 the rule was in PA that you couldn't ask someone to join. Now 120,000 more Freemason in the country (about 10% in the U.S., the number I see everywhere but this article is more like 1.5 million members in the U.S.) can now ask someone to join. Can you give me a reason that should not be incluided in an article about Freemasonry?--Panzertank (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Because for the bulk of our readers, the information is irrelevant and might be misleading. The only reason why we discuss this topic in the first place is to correct the common erronious assumption that joining is by invitation only (and to correct the associated accusation that this means Freemasonry is some sort of "Secret society"). So we tell our readers... no, in fact the opposite is true... in many (if not most) jurisdictions Masons are not even allowed to ask you to join... you have to ask them.

This article is not written to inform Masons that the rules in one particular jurisdiction have changed... it is to inform the general public about Freemasonry as a whole. Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is written for EVERYONE, MASON and NON-MASON. You need to make this article accurate. You are not being a good representative of the Craft. As a Freemason you should want this article to be accurate. There are many non-Masons who think that a Freemason can't ask someone to be a Mason because that what Masons have been telling him. This article is suppose to be informative. If I was a non-Mason and I thought someone could not invite you to join, what would I think of a person I knew to be a Freemason who asked me to join? I would think ill of that person. You can't go off the assumption that people think this or that about the Craft. This article has to be written for Mason or non-Mason, someone who knows everything about the Craft and someone who has never heard of Freemasonry. AS it stands now this article is stating that in Freemasonry a person can only become a Mason if they ask someone to join. It states nowhere that is some states a Freemason can ask you if you would like to join the Craft. Again, we need to be accurate.--Panzertank (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... in order to resolve this, I have attempted my own rewrite and restructuring of the section. Does this satisfy your concerns. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Panzertank, please calm down. At least one of your edits regarding this issue was completely false, at least in the edit summary, in which you said, and I quote: I am putting this back in. This is the only Lodge in the WORLD doing this, I think it should be noted. I don't like it either, but it is fact.. I have shown a citation that shows that GLPA is not the only GL to allow invitation. The problem we are likely to run into, is that without good citation, someone will come along and remove a reference that says "some GL's allow invitation, some do not" under a misguided attempt to avoid weasel words. Your attitude to the other editors of this article has been very confrontational, and I would ask that you tone it down.--Vidkun (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As a related aside... Christopher Hoddap has been discussing the recent changes in Pennsylvania, and some of the reaction to it on his blog. See: here... a few threads down the page and here. I have no comment... especially since Wikipedia is not the right venue to do so. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong about PA being the only Lodge, but that does not matter now. All I tried to do after that was add a statement that some states have selective invitations. I don't have the time to mess with this all day, I have been out of work with the Swine Flue so I had time to do this today. You are suppose to be part of WikiProject Freemasonry. It is a shame the Freemasons cannot to the right thing and make this article accurate. Maybe that is why most people take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. Do what you want with the article. If you want it to be inaccurate so be it. It really doesn't matter anymore.--Panzertank (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the article is still inaccurate after my change? Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good. Didn't mean to get so upset. Been running a high temp with this Flu, haven't been in my right mind past couple of days. Thanks!--Panzertank (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem... hope you feel better. In the words of Kipling... "We met upon the level and parted on the square" (although sometimes I think he probably should have added: "and as for what happend between meeting and parting... we are better off forgetting") :>) Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, such a pointless argument. Cool down, ppl! Of course invitation is OK, without being FORMAL, just a friendly talk, it happens all the time, masonry is not a dirty word or taboo. Thx, rgds, Ecce Nemo=Nobody ... Talk —Preceding undated comment added 00:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC).

I log on periodically, although not very often, to see what silliness is being discussed. This whole discussion about "invitation" has gone on for years, long before Wikipedia existed. You cannot become a Mason by being invited and then simply accepting the invitation. Whether a grand lodge prohibits solicitation or not, everyone who wishes to become a Mason must petition a lodge by submitting a formal, written and signed "Petition" form. So, an "invitation" to join is a hollow invitation, because once an "invitation" is received, it still must be acted upon by "asking," through a Petition, and that Petition may be rejected. There is no special consideration given to one petitioner over another because one petitioner was invited and the other was not. This is the practical reason that solicitation or invitation has traditionally been prohibited. If you "invite" a co-worker, neighbor or acquaintance to join your lodge, and he then petitions, only to have his petition rejected by the lodge, you then find your friend in a pretty embarrassing predicament. And YOU put him there! Our forefathers had good reasons for the practices they put in place. We should not tamper with untempered mortar.PGNormand (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

When I was Master of my Lodge in the UK, the Grand Lodge of England stated that a Mason could suggest to a potential candidate that he would be prepared to nominate him should he wish to join, and should remind him of that offer only once. The GL also provided explanatory leaflets to be given to such a potential candidate. John C Kay (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

we are getting off track... Let's focus on the article. The initial question has been asked and answered... in every jurisdiction one becomes a Mason by a) petitioning a lodge and then b) being elected. the entire "who can ask" debate is essentially moot... it does not matter whether Masons can make the initial contact, or must wait for the potential candidate to make the initial contact... because all of that is unofficial. The first official contact is the petition, and that comes from the candidate. This is what the article should say. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree with the claim that the issue is moot. There IS a common misconception that you have to be invited to become a Mason or that you in some way have to inherit membership. This also leads people to conclusions like “If they wanted me to be become a Mason they would ask.” On top of that if Masons of many jurisdictions are specifically forbidden from asking others to join then I would say that lack of contact is an official position. But in my opinion the article as written addresses the issue sufficiently, though if the concept is widespread enough a mention of 2b1ask1 might be appropriate. PeRshGo (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we are saying the same thing from different angles. What is important to mention in the article is that Freemasonry isn't "by invitation only". The fact that some jurisdictions allow for solicitation (where members "ask" or "suggest" that a potential candidate petition) and other do not is secondary to that point. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The article that won't go away

Most of you are familiar with the long and drawn out debates that took place at the old Catholicism and Freemasonry article. It was started as a POV fork of this article, and developed into an anti-Masonic diatribe filled with WP:Coatrack arguments, Original synthesis, and rampant POV. Several months ago, we finally cleaned out the problematic material, and moved the rest into either Christianity and Freemasonry or Papal ban of Freemasonry. Now an editor has created Anticlericalism and Freemasonry‎... which quite simply consists of all the problematic material that we removed for cause. This is clearly a WP:Attack page that needs to be deleted. Unfortunately, I am going to be busy off line a lot this week... so the brunt of dealing with this will fall on others. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The concepts of Freemasonry

I have noticed the phraseology "the concepts of Freemasonry" and other similar phrases in the article, without any clarification as to what those concepts are (with the exception of believing in a "Supreme Being".) I believe this is too vague. Thanks, [[user: Wolfpeaceful | Wolfpezaceful] 165.138.95.59 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In part, this is because the same vagueries exist in the available sources... ie the sources talk in the same vague terms... using terms like "concepts", "teachings", "tenents", "landmarks" etc. in discussing Freemasonry, but without giving details. Then we have the problem that Freemasons themselves often disagree over the details (something that may be considered a "landmark" in one jurisdiction may not be considered a "landmark" in another jurisdiction). Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not omly, these are not supposed to be clarified in the open, to the general public; that's the point. While NOT being secret, clandestine, disruptive or whatever horrors ppl imagine, privacy is a main principle in masonry. Since middle ages, when bread and butter depended on getting accepted and acknowledged as a master of the craft in foreign lands through some tokens etc. The first thing about a Lodge is to be "duly tiled" by a master mason without, so that no eavesdropping happens. Believe it or not, till 130 years back in the Balkans builders had even their own LANGUAGE, or at least a dialect not comprehensible to others, especially to the landlord. So, why not just go and join -if you are a man of lawful age, born free etc. and learn all about it first hand, and you will see that there is nothing sinister. Not for atheists, though (without being a specific religion, but should be MONOtheist) Thx, rgds, Ecce Nemo=Nobody ... Talk 00:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

(UK) Freemasonry and Police Officers

The main article states that: In the UK, Masons working in the justice system, such as judges and police officers, were from 1999 to 2009 required to disclose their membership. This is partly incorrect, as despite intense debate about the issue, this applied only to new applicants for such posts - existing staff never actually became subject to such a requirement for disclosure. The newspaper article shown as the authority for this (reference [87) is incorrect, and thus the last sentence of the paragraph - "The rescinding of the rule did not change the disclosure requirements for Police officers" - needs removing in its entirety. However, despite intense Home Office pressure for such a requirement - see, for example this Report from the Select committee on Home Affairs - it was reluctantly accepted that to do so would be an unacceptable breach of human rights for those concerned, and the initiative was abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GraceCourt (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously what we need is a reliable source that spells out both the past and current requirements clearly. Blueboar (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

FREEMASONRY ORIGINS

Good day - I write from Italy - I read Freemasonry article and I liked it.

Might not have been on your focus, but why not adding something else at the first part - History - ? Likewise another reference to David Stevenson’s the origins of freemasonry’’. (pg 49) It was William Schaw that deliberately introduced Reinassence influences (Art of memory ) into the craft through the second Schaw Statutes (it is not known if he continued an existing practice or not).. (pg 82) Two specific aspects of Neoplatonic occultism - Hermeticism and Art of memory – most influenced the mason craft in Scotland, and through it freemasonry in general. I think it is very important (and of help in understanding Freemasonry) to refer to the origins of this very interesting movement.

Also, i d like to deepen the part about italian P2. Actually i am not very into this specific topic...so it would take me time...(i m not even a professor at all..) What do you think? NGC-79 (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson's book is indeed excellent (it was one of the first attemtps to study the history of Freemasonry from the basis of actual documents) ... but it is outdated. More recent scholarship essentially debunks the importance of the Schaw Statutes. Suggest you read Robert L. D. Cooper's "The Rosslyn Hoax?" (Lewis Masonic. 2006) Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I see, I ll look for that book, it is of my interest, thank you. Apart from Shaw s statutes, I believe Freemasonry gets many of its aspects from those renaissence tendencies I mentioned above, don t you? Won t you add a short reference at them in the History paragraph? NGC-79 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't think Freemasonry gets many of its aspects from those renaissance tendencies. Yes, some of the early Freemasons were interested in that stuff, and some even tried to tie it in... but the tie did not really stick. It certainly has no connection to modern Freemasonry. That idea is sort of like saying that the entire physics dept. at MIT must be into the occult because Issac Newton was interested in alchemy. Blueboar (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

They aren't? I thought that was why they were balancing the VW Bugs on the spires and stuff. :) MSJapan (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they are doing that to let the space aliens know how advanced our civilization has become... nothing to do with the occult. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don t agree, it is not stuff: the words philosophia occulta in reinassence did not simply refer to what is evil or to black magic, on the contrary, these aspects were only the obscure side of the philosophia occulta. In fact, ‘’magia naturalis’’ was widely dedicated to understand and use occult forces (occult to mean hidden not specifically evil) belived to be naturally present in nature. And this then become modern science. MIT scientists could diminish (correct?) Isaac Newton because he was an alchemist and this could sound insane, but never forget what he was during his age, without his steps scientists today wouldn t research what they are reasearching right now. He was a great man of his ages (could never be a great man of other times).

I don t question the fact modern speculative masonry IS different from what was at the beginning. ...But why not mention WHAT it was at the beginning? I only wish to mention Renaissence Hermeticism, because Freemasonry was steepened in it when it came up in history - it was a product of its age (and to me it is NOT a bad feature at all). Correct me if i m wrong, not some of the early Freemasons were deeply interested in these themes, i want to risk and say it was all of them, because they were sons of their times, and Hermeticism was widely spread all over Europe. --NGC-79 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. ok i cannot say it is a product of its age, because the origins are lost, but anyway it evolved together with renaissence development --NGC-79 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that modern scholarship indicates Hermeticism did not really influence early Freemasonry nearly as much as you seem to think. Blueboar (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be a case of putting the cart before the horse, too - if Freemasonry attracted the free thinkers of the day, there's nothing that indicates that one area of interest necessarily overlapped with anothjer, and morw importantly, "Hermeticisam all over Europe" is still only referring to those people who had enough money to live in leisure and pursue these things - the average serf or tenant farmer had no contact with that. Therefore, it may have been prevalent in a particular class of person, but it was hardly all over Europe everywhere. MSJapan (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course Hermeticism (maybe better to speak about Neoplatonism: Hermeticism is one of its aspects) spread among intellectuals only: in Britain they began to gather in clubs in taverns and discuss about everything and that become a custom, also, this use allowed trends to spread. Freemasonry came up in an intellectual setting, mixing up with operative stonemasons.

I don t have the skills to debate the degree of influence of Neoplatonism into newborn Freemasonry at all. I only say I saw with my eyes there are german masonic publications depicting rosicrucian diagrams (late 18th); I saw the rosecross symbol on the top of a french masonic certificate – many times I saw images of classical god Hermes (or his caduceus only) in masonic jewels, aprons. There is a painting depicting a ceremony of initiation in Vienna (1780s), on the right wall stands a sculpture of Hermes; an irish advertisement for masonic supplies dated 1802 shows 2 Hermes with their caduceus.

These are only few of countless images and symbols - I consider they show a clear reference to Hermeticism and other Reinassence themes (cabala, etc.) Same period, same trend, in different parts of Europe. Why 18th degree of scottish rite is named ‘knight of the rose croix’? Even if in modern Freemasonry this degree is emptied of esoteric meanings, anyway somekind of connection should have lived in the past. I would not call:-Robert!- believing that Jack will turn back.

Robert Moray and Elias Ashmole where interested in alchemy, and they were important representetives for Freemasonry. Even if I mention only 2 freemasons I think they are WORTHY of mention.

Historian Frances Yates noticed Freemasonry had similarity with Neoplatonism (the latter had a new boost in Reinassence) and its features are then found in Freemasonry : tolerance, egyptian symbolism, filantropy... Antoine Faivre on his side connects Freemasonry to esoterism. And even if you will refer to modern scholarship and will demonstrate the opposite AT LEAST I think they could be mentioned for completeness of the topic discussed.

We should not fear that referring to Reinassence trends we might put Freemasonry under a bad point of view. If you ask to people of common average culture ‘what is Freemasonry?’ They generally reply it is an esoteric secret society. Why? What is the reason? People’s answer is derogatory and restrictive, and we should explain why it is not right, and if you write about it at the top of the article this will be strong hooking for the most of the readers. One should not disclaim this side of the matter as it was a menace, it should be developed as a point of strenght, so that the commonly suspicious reader might dispel his prejudice. --NGC-79 (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You ask, "Why is the 18th degree of scottish rite named ‘knight of the rose croix’?"... because in the mid to late 1700s Masonry became all the rage in France... and the French were of the opinion that if two (later three) degrees were good, more degrees would be better.... lots more degrees... there was something of a mania for inventing all sorts of Masonic degrees (literally thousands of them), freely incorporating symbolism and ideas from all sorts of other traditions that had no real connection to Freemasonry until they were grafted into it with the invention of yet another degree. Those who were interested in Neoplatonism invented degrees that incorporated Neoplatonic concepts; those who were interested in Rosecrucian philosphy invented degrees that incorproated Rosecrucian philosophy; Those who were not keen on joining a body decended from grubby stone masons invented a degree that said the fraternity was actually decended from the Knights Templar (far more socially acceptable!), etc. Over time, these were filtered and grouped into various Rites. The entire Scottish Rite is part of that trend (as is the York Rite). In other words... while one can find a connection to Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Rosecrucianism, etc. in the various Rites, that connection was fabricated after the fact. Rather than being part of the origins of Freemasonry the connection was a later development, one in which philosophical ideas and symbolism were grafted onto a pre-existing Freemasonry.

And most importantly, all of this developement took place in the context of "higher degrees"... none of it had any significant influence on the original basic craft degrees, which are the focus of this article. Blueboar (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You explained to me a development of Freemasonry. Not modern Freemasonry, not early Freemasonry (beacause origins are lost) and probably I was not careful/accurate enough in the great deal of words I wrote. The connection was fabricated after the fact? I don t have anything to question against what you wrote. So you agree a connection existed, it is interesting, why don t you write about that on the article, not only to me. What does ‘all of this development took place in the context of higher degrees’? - Blueboar, should I open a new wikipedia page to write about neoplatonic influence in higher degrees? I believed THIS IS the page. Wikipedia is an Enciclopedia on progress.--NGC-79 (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar wrote "higher degrees" in quotations because these "higher" degrees have no bearing on Freemasonry in general. To a Mason there is no higher degree than the third, but in many appendant bodies like the Scottish Rite there are degrees numbered in the dozens. But these don’t reflect on the original three. So even if you were to write a blurb about the “higher” degrees it would have to be specifically in reference to that body. That being said one must also realize that all Masonic degrees are written in the style of a medieval allegory. Which if you know anything about that particular style you would know that even distinctly Christian works would incorporate popular pagan imagery in order to serve the writer’s solely Christian message. The Divine Comedy is a prime of example of that. So you can’t really say that Freemasonry was influenced by Hermeticism in terms of its belief system as much some Masonic organizations may have seen fit to use Hermetic symbols to make an allegorical point. PeRshGo (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ok, it is a very interesting point. I do believe in what you are stating, you made me see another point of view. Surely all of you can forgive me if I got to easy conclusions eagerly even though I read historian’s books - this is a very tough topic (can you imagine conclusions of majority of people ???). People’s ideas is my concern too, it is very important that an Enciclopedia releases very accurate articles. I hope I will be of help in improving that.

I understood you focus on higher degrees, anyhow it is Freemasonry too, isn t it? We are talking about Freemasonry isn t it? It doesn t matter if on this page or ‘appendant bodies’ page (BUT the main page is better because it s the first that a reader comes up against when HE looks for ‘Freemasonry’ information). For the clearness of this knotty topic, I am firmly convinced it is not a bad idea to mention on the article your last 2 comments Blueboar and Pershgo.

At the end of the day, if Freeemasonry used Neoplatonic, Hermetic, Esoteric symbolism in higher degrees - because of help to make allegorical points - I think it is of big help to let it know to people to make clear why Freemasonry developed prejudice (and which is not the only spiny point that led to prejudices. --NGC-79 (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to assume that your word choice is due to your being a non-english speaker... but you should be aware that the word "prejudice" has a very negative meaning in English... it is a serious accusation. I hope this was not what you intended.

You asked whether the higher degrees are Freemasonry too?... That is actually a very complicated question, and needs an equally complex answer.

I will try to explain by running through a quick history lesson.... Freemasonry was started in England, and originally consisted of only two degrees. This lasted until the 1730s when the Third degree was added. These three degrees are know today as "Craft" (or, in the U.S., "Blue Lodge") degrees. That is what this article is about.

So what about the "higher" degrees or "appendant bodies"? To understand them and their connection to Freemasonry, we need to know something about the history of what happened to Freemasonry when it started to move beyond England... and especially what happened when it was exported to France in the mid-1700s. As I said before, the French intelectual elete fell in love with Freemasonry. But they quickly found that having just three degrees was unsatisfying... so they invented all sorts of additional degrees. By the 1770s there were literally a thousand different degrees that were being offered. Some were written as stand alone things... most were grouped into various systems known as "Rites". When these Rites were first concieved, their authors did not intend for them to be seperate from the Craft Degrees. They would offer the three basic degrees and then go beyond them. Several of these degrees continue to this day. Those that survived were consolidated further, and placed under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient. It is common for French Freemasons today to ask "what Rite are you". This indicates not only what degrees were taken, but what ritual was used.

Now let us return to England. The English saw the developements in France and were not at all happy. At this time their were actually two rival Grand Lodges in England (a situation that arose in part over a disagreement in what constituted the Third Degree). Neither Grand Lodge was about to accept anything coming out of France, and so they did not consider the various Rites as being legitimate. The English Grand Lodges stayed firm... Freemasonry consists of only three degrees (even if they degreed on what the third one should be.) This stance was continued after these Grand Lodges merged to form the current United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). Today, UGLE still insists that Freemasonry consists of only three degrees.

At this point, we need to look over at what happened in the young United States. The US essentially got its Masonry from England (from a mix of both of the two English Grand Lodges), and with independence the thirteen State based Grand Lodges followed the English tradition... only three degrees. However, in the early 1800s, two of the Rites that had been created in France begain to gain some degree of popularity with American Freemasons (after some tinkering and re-writing)... these became what American's call the Scottish Rite and the York Rite ... However, The official stance of the Grand Lodges remained the same: Freemasonry should only confer three degrees. The problem was that Americans liked these new Rites. So a compromise was worked out. The new Rites would be considered completely seperate entities... they would require members to be Freemasons in order to join, but would be completely seperate from Freemasonry. They would not confer the three Craft degrees, nor claim higher status... they would be off to the side of Freemasonry... appended to it.

I give this history lesson to explain why it is so difficult to answer whether these degrees are part of Freemasonry. You see, the answer really depends on where you ask it. In England the answer is an unqualified "No". In France the answer is essentially "Yes". In the US, the answer is "Technically No... the appendant boides are considered "Masonic", but they are not officially part of Freemasonry". Blueboar (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Blueboar, great to see you diving into history again. Is it not a bit thick though to call David Stevensons "The Origins of Freemasonry" (Cambridge University Press 1988) outdated ? You propose "The Rosslyn Hoax ?" to supersede, but the subject matter appears to be rather different. Is your horror of masonic symbolism related topics not playing up (again) ? My own copy (10th printing, 2005) of "The Origins..." ISBN 0521396549 is the one that has the picture of a tracing board on its cover and a backcover that states that the illustration copyright and reproduction is by permission of UGLE and the Lodge of Honour and Generosity NO 168. I remember your early intervention over the Wiki on Tracing Board (-not notable-), and your opinion elsewhere on masonic symbolism in the archived pages of the present discussion.

I think it is fair to interject here my own opinion again.

I offer a related view from a different angle to our Italian friend and yourself about the "new method" in science in vogue at the Royal Society of which both Ashmole and Moray (ref Stevenson 1988) were founding members( see: Frances Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment). The source is Pamela H. Smith "The Bussiness of Alchemy" Princeton University Press 1994 - ISBN 0691015996

quote- "This new method had its origins in the importance placed on the things of nature and on knowledge of God's creation by authors influenced by Hermetic philosophy such as Paracelsus and Jacob Boehme: note pg 40 no 69- Historians regarded this world view as antithetical to the new methods of natural philosphy until the scholarship of Eugenio Garin, Walter Pagel, Frances Yates and Paolo Rossi, as well as the generation of scholars whom they influenced made clear that renaissance alchemy, and the hermetic philosophy that informed it, shaped the habits of mind and praxis that formed early natural philosphy. Also on pg 40 : (Paracelsus and Boehme) elevated the work of the hands and the manual worker (handwercker) above the learning of books because the artisan worked with the objects and materials of nature. " Pamela Smith in op.cit.

In Stevenson (outdated by your expertise) we read about the advanced (scientific) knowledge in the crafting of sundials by scottish masons, a topic related to the work of the Royal Society.

Well, enough said for the moment.

Good luck to all Wikimasons !

Lunarian (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comment about Stevenson being somewhat outdated. His work is more than 30 years old, and newer scholarship has emerged on the formation and influences that went into early Freemasonry. Scholars like Andrew Prescott, and Robert Cooper have taken a fresh look at the sources and have uncovered new sources... and have reached very different conclusions than Stevenson did. Note... "outdated" does not mean the same thing as "wrong"... it simply means that you have to take more recent scholarship into account. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you did.

Let us remember though that David Stevenson is Emeritus Professor of Scottish History at the University of St Andrews.

Presumeably he has the skill to make his contributions last for longer than 30 years.

I am sure Andrew Prescott and Robert Cooper would agree.

Sources...yes,not something to swipe under the carpet.

Lunarian (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Prescott is the Director of the Centre for Research into Freemasonry at the University of Sheffield, while Cooper is the Curator of the Grand Lodge of Scotland Museum and Library. Presumably they have the skill to examine the latest evidence and judge whether the conclusions made by scholars 30 years ago are still valid.

Playing the "my source is better than your source" game is pointless. All I am saying is that the most recent Masonic scholarship indicates no strong connections between the origins of Freemasonry and neoplatonic occultism, hermeticism, rosecrucian philosopy, etc. And recent scholarship especially disputes claims that William Schaw introduced much of anything into Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar you fight against someone that is not against you. I have had a faultless behaviour during the debate and what you wrote upset me: I ll ‘fly’ beyond the words you used against me. The word ‘prejudice’ is extremely correct and, as I said before, if you ask people in general what Freemasonry is, they TRULY reply it is an esoteric secret societ – also, you maybe missed my point of view: I think people’s reply is derogatory. Moreover, you probably don t even imagine what italian people say when Freemasonry topic comes up: it is TIGHTLY related to a very NASTY piece of italian history -P2-(so please consider I am one of the great minority that approached the matter from the far past - with NO PREJUDICES), I hope this let you understand I like impartiality. It looks instead you stay around the central point, I made a specific request. It is of help for anyone to read about the scholarship debate of Neoplatonic relations to Freemasonry. It is a piece of history, and I ll carry on saying it is of help to understand why during 800, 900 ‘till today people have believed it is an esoteric secret society.

I really appreciated Lunarian quotations, and references to Royal Society, I am about to read Paolo Rossi’s book : History of modern science, I think it is such a deeply interesting matter. I also think I should go back to archives and have a look to some other discussions you already had...

In the end, I have been extremely reasonable – actually to me doesn t really matter ‘if’ Stevenson or Prescott (respectable researchers) I only STRONGLY wish to see a mention showed in the article. --NGC-79 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

While I still do not understand your use of the word "predjudice", I am pleased to hear that you did not mean anything negative by it.

I do have a problem with saying that Freemasonry is an "esoteric secret socity"... both of the terms in that phrase ("esoteric" and "secret society") once meant something very different than they do today. If you use the terms with their archaic meanings then the phrase does apply. "Esoteric" (with it's noun form of Esoterica) used to mean nothing but "hidden from view", and Freemasonry is esoteric in that it does hide certain aspects from non-menmbers (the meanings of some of its symbols, its passwords and grips, etc.). "Secret society" used to mean a group that met "in secret" ie behind closed doors... its meetings were not open to the public. There was no negative connotation to the term.

However, today the meanings of these words has changed. Today, both terms have distinctly negative connotations. Esoteric now equates to "occult" (another word that has shifted meaning), and implies things like satan worship and the practice of ritual magic. Secret socity is a term that is used purley in conspiracy theory. Using these terms with their modern meaning and connotations, they do not apply to Freemasonry. So... while discribing Freemasonry as an "esoteric secret society" may have once been correct... it is not correct in a modern context.

It takes a specialist to understand what these terms used to mean, and how they might be applied to Freemasony correctly. The article, however, is not written for specialists. It is written for the average person. Start tossing in terms like "esoteric", "hermetic", "occult" etc. and most of our readers are immediately going to get the wrong idea about what Freemasonry is. They are going to use their modern common person's meaning of these terms, not the archaic meanings used by the specialists. Thus, I would strongly oppose mention of this. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not a contest about whose sources are best.

It's about the History of Ideas.

Or are you going to argue that Freemasonry is not apt to influence ideas.

You do not have to take my word for it.

I was offered the intelectual assitance of the Journal of the History of Ideas once. I had to make an effort to access properly, somewhat like a mason might make an effort to "attack" the rough stone.

Humanities have never been served graciously by the sellective blind eye.

Lunarian (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course Freemasonry is influenced by ideas... but we need to ask whether Freemasonry was influenced by these ideas? We also need to ask: if it was, how much was it influenced by them, and when it was influenced by them. Finally we need to ask: how does discussing all of this benefit this article?

My answers to these questions are... Freemasonry actually was influenced by these ideas, but the influence was relatively minor, and restricted to the "higher" degrees (explicitly rejected in terms of the core Craft Degrees); it occured well after the origins of the fraternity; and what influence there was has deminished over time (remember that this article is about Freemsonry as it is today, not Freemasonry in mid-eighteenth century France). Thus, I don't see any benefit to discussing these influences in this article. Finally, discussing this subject, in a way that would not confuse or misinform our readers, would require far more space than we can or should give it in an article that is designed to be an introductary overview of the topic. Doing so in the context of this article would give the subject undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you perhaps give a hint as to from what moment in time Freemasonry started to be exactly as it is today ?

Hiram ? Vitruvius ? Wren ?

Also we need not confuse abracadabra with "secret philosophy".

I believe Jean Seznec in his "The Survival of the Pagan Gods" equated secret philosophy with " a system of ideas in disguise". I find this very well put and admirably descriptive of Freemasonry for example.

Masonic emblems are ideas in disguise. Once the disguise is perced the idea may well be seen as perennial. The purpose of art of memory combined with architecture, for example in cathedral building, is to convey the ideas through history by creating memory spaces helpfull to initiation.

In its ideal form initiation is about extended humanity, humanism, interchange of ideas, progess beyond the confines of creed.

One would almost say Wikipedia for short were it not that the police of that system is among the most redoudtable, for they are ...ourselves.

Lunarian (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say Freemasonry became "as it is today" no earlier than the 1980s... probably more recently than that. There is more to the fraternity than symbolism. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Two talking points: 1. words meaning + 2. neoplatonic debate

I know very well about the 2 different meanings of ‘esoteric’ and ‘secret’ society. As u said, people are NOT aware and I would add ‘people already commonly use modern negative meanings of old neutral words’. The average person starts tossing because is IGNORANT (just to mean ignore) of this important shift of meaning. People s sospicious idea is due to the fact those 2 words have changed meaning from the past BUT are still used unchanged.

I am not sure to make myself understood:

Have you ever tried asking people that question? I tried, I became aware that people connect Freemasonry to the same meaning of alister crowley’ occultism. And I used to do the same... And believe me, the enormous amount of junk books in bookshops REALLY DON T HELP!!!

Why you do NOT adopt a definite position in the article...it is an article that MUST explain people what Freemasonry IS / IS NOT... If u believe modern Freemasonry is completely different from 1700 1800 Neoplatonic influences (..i m not sure but this is my own problem...) and most of all it does not t have occult aspects (word occult with negative meaning) - then u should consider an explanation like an ASSET not a menace.

A short paragraph simple (I like simplicity) clear and complete is possible - it won t take an undue weight (Neoplatonism debate is useful to explain what these words’ meaning was at the beginning). --NGC-79 (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can explain it in one short simple paragraph... and so I feel it is better to not discuss it at all. Blueboar (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I try at least? (on talk page)...then you will judge my trial......... --NGC-79 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course... that is the nature of Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Still here. wait sometime more please.. have to dedicate time to it.. --NGC-79 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Article does not explain what Freemasonry is

All it says is that it's a fraternity; it doesn't mention any purpose, nor what the society stands for/does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.88.153 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because Masonry don't have an overarching purpose as such, nor have it (or indeed can have, as it's not a single organisation) any one thing it stands for or does.

Masonry is a system of teaching morailty, as used by a multitude of induvidual, independent Grand Lodges and Grand Orients. While some of these may have a stated purpose, that would hold true only for the Grand Lodge / Orient that stated it. If you're curious as to what the masonic organisations in yoru area stands for or does, why not contact the nearest lodge and ask? Most masons are more than happy to discuss such things. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it tells a lot of what the fraternity does, you just have to read the whole thing. PeRshGo (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The assumption behind this question is that there must be some purpose to Freemasonry beyond being a fraternity. However, the purpose of Freemasonry really is "fraternity" (brotherliness). In the course of achieving that purpose, it happens to encourage a lot of other things (brotherly love, charity, personal improvement, rectitued of conduct, etc.) Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Article mentions buddism, but Buddhism has a problem with faith in a supreme being

Was going to add the below link from Templum Fidelis Lodge No. 746 but couldn't edit it. [1] [2]

Good article. As a Mason, I think we need to open the doors a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drobinsoncomau (talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but the article is semi-protected due to never ending vandalism. If you edit other articles for a while, the system will soon grant you the ability to edit here. Just one bit of brotherly advice... mouth to ear... although many of us who edit this article are Masons, others are not. And those of us who are don't edit as Masons. We edit as Wikipedians and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (you might want to familiarize yourself with these while you wait for the system to grant you access). We welcome new editors (Masons or not) and look forward to your contributions. Fraternally, Blueboar (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As to your concerns on Buddhists ... This seems to be somewhat jurisdictional... from your link, it seems that Ontario may ask a few more questions than we do in the US... all we ask is "Do you believe in Deity?" Beyond that we don't enquire. Some Buddhists will be able to say yes, others will not. If they say yes, they can join as far as we are concerned. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just checkin' out the discussion of fellow brothers. Before receiving my MM degree this year I was examined twice on my own personal beliefs as a Wiccan, whether Wicca believes in a Supreme Diety, and whether I consider my personal faith as a belief in Supreme Diety. I would expect that a Buddhist may be subject to the same questioning with can be quite emotional to say the least. I agree with Blueboar that an individual applicant need to personally answer the question, whether they as an individual Buddhist/Druid/Discordain, whatever, believe in Supreme Diety. If the brothers want to ask more, I would recommend being ready to answer proudly any questions asked (but I would recommend inviting the Brothers over to your own house, or at least the neutral comfy environs of a coffee shop or billiard-hall.

Three dots

I read about Freemasonry in the last few days and i noticed that many masonic websites and documents have abbreviations with three dots, such as .'. with an apostrophe or .·. with an interpunct (i saw it on the website of the Catalan "Minerva-Lleialtat" lodge; the interpunct is frequently used in the Catalan language and is available on keyboards for it).

Is there some meaning behind it?

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't tell you... it's the most secret of the "Secrets of Freemasonry"... only the 99th degree Masons are told what the three dots mean, as this knowledge allows them to contact our space-alien overlords.

Ok, sorry... seriously... we don't actually know where the convention of using these dots originated, but they are used simply as an abbreviation symbol. W.·. stands for for "Worshipful", R.·.W.·. stands for "Right Worshipful", etc. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Do you happen to know whether this three-dot combination has a name?

If you would be able to find out anything about it, i, a typography geek, will be very thankful. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably does have a typographical name... but it does not seem to have any special name in Masonry (distinct from typography). Masons simply use it... out of convention... they don't give it a name. If they had to refer to it most Masons would probably just call it the "three dot symbol" or something like that.

As an aside... The symbol .·. is also often used in map making to indicate an old ruin. There is no connection between that usage and the usage in Masonry (so no snide remarks as to the mental and physical condition of the typical Right Worshipful from the younger brethren, please). Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

∴ it exists ∵ of --Marc Kupper|talk 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Marc, your last image looks like a UFO with one of the alien overlords standing on top. Are you 99th degree, or just guessing? Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dangit Blueboar now we're going to have the conspiracy nuts thinking we have a 99th degree. They already think we recruited Lady Gaga. That's bad enough. PeRshGo (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No, an Ellipsis is not the same symbol as what we were discussing in this thread. To see the symbol that was under discussion (but in a different context) see the article: "Therefore sign". Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you've all been on pins and needles for this information, the # is called an oglethorpe. It has nothing to do with this Freemasonry, but the article at this web page doesn't seem to know that Mr. Oglethorpe was big on laying out his land surveys in rectangles. I do wish there was a cool name for the "tri-dot" though. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 22:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you mean octothorp. Ogie Ogilthorp don't know nothin' about land surveys. Time to put the tin foil on, coach!-Vidkun (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Old time hockey! Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Aprons

I tried searching Wikipedia for detailed information about masonic aprons and couldn't find anything significant. This article doesn't even mention the apron. Either i am missing something or this well-known and distinguishable sign of masons is really not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. It would be great if knowledgeable people would write something about it. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... good point... aprons probably are the most recognized bit of Masonic regalia. We probably should mention them. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, an article about this and the other masonic regalia would be appropriate.

One thing about which i am particularly curious as a vegetarian is the "lambskin". I heard somewhere that they aren't actually made of lambskin today, but were they made of lambskin in the past? What is the importance of it? Etc. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It comes from Christian (who took it from pre-Christian) symbology. The lamb has long been an emblem of innocence and purity. So lambskin or white leather aprons are used to indicate that your conduct as a Mason should be as "pure and spotless" as your apron. You can still get real lambskin aprons today... and some lodges continue to use them. However, they are becoming very expensive, so many lodges save money by using starched white cloth ones instead. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know all Michigan lodges are still giving all Master Masons a lambskin or leather apron, but it isn't intended for day to day use. It is meant to be buried with them upon their death. Though it is also common for officer, or past master aprons to be made of lambskin or other leather though the average master mason will often just wear one of the cloth ones available at any lodge. As far as I know there is no separate option for vegetarians or vegans. The only vegetarian Mason I know wears a leather Senior Warden’s apron every time he is lodge. But I certainly agree that there should be an apron section though a world wide view, and one that respects privacy may be somewhat difficult. PeRshGo (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing to add is that I don't actually know if today's aprons are actually made out of true lambskin (vs some other leather)... they are routinely referred to as being "lambskin", but they might be made out of some other soft leather. As for having an option for vegans and others who object to using animal skins as clothing... It isn't something that would cross the minds of most lodges... they simply would not think to ask. Yet, I have a feeling that if a Candidate or Brother were to to proactively mention a personal objection (especially if for religious/ethical reasons), most lodges would respect his feelings, and do their best to comply with his wishes. I can't think of any lodge that would force someone to use leather/lambskin if they stated an objection... its the symbolism that really matters after all, not the substance. Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you that the newly manufactured aprons I and my brother masons use these days in the US (NY State) are not Lambskin but some other thicker leather with a white finish- the NY apron presentation lecture begins "I now present you with a lambskin or white leather apron". I think the change of material is because lambskin is not an easy leather to work with being a weak hide that can stretch out of shape and delaminate- with age the surface flakes and peels away. The higher grades of apron worn by Grand Lodge officers may have real lambskin in them.Saxophobia (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbolism matters ?

Blueboar,

Some time ago you led an argument to the closure (and redirect to an incomplete subsection of the main article Freemasonry) of " Masonic ritual and symbolism " as a separate page a.o. on the strenght of your opinion that " Masons do not use symbols."

Now we have two instances -dots and aprons- of which you seem to agree they are symbols that could do with some elaboration of detail.

There are many more to follow.

We are now confronted with an inconsistancy in your reasoning that needs clarification.

Do Masons use symbols after all ?

Since you probably count on making your expertise in pimping up the present article a laudable (if not immortal) enlightenment - at least have it count for the basis of some notable (?) criticism - could you perhaps explain this "tournure d'esprit".

Maybe we could do with Masonic ritual and symbolism as a separate article after all.

Respectfully yours,

Lunarian (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to having my words incorrectly quoted at me out of context. You misstate my previous arguments and the reasons for redirecting and merging. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that the dots are an abbreviation and the aprons are regalia. Could we do with a regalia section? Probably. Are Masonic abbreviations notable enough to warrant a section? Probably not. PeRshGo (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as regalia goes... beyond a brief statement that Masons wear aprons... there isn't much more to be said that does not get into jurisdictional quibbling. As far as I know, every Mason in every jurisdiction is presented with a plain white apron at his initiation... but after that practices are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There are differences in how one is supposed to wear them, how they are decorated and trimmed, and even the color of the trim. Some lodges give you a different apron for each degree... others don't. Some lodges have fancy collars and chains for their officers, others don't. Some Jurisdictions specify that officers should carry staffs, batons or swords... others don't. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way... it was this issue (lack of uniformity among jurisdictions) that formed my arguments (and that of others) against having a separate "Masonic ritual and symbolism" article. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The question, Blueboar, was: do you think masons use symbols ?

Lunarian (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I did indeed misquote you. It should be "Freemasons have no symbols..."

Ref: vs. Emblems

Lunarian (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again with the misquoting and taking things out of context. I will let my words regarding symbols vs. emblems and my reasoning for the redirect (two different issues) speak for themselves. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What is your point Lunarian? If you think there should be a seperate page for Masonic Symbols then make a case for it. Otherwise this seems nothing more than dragging up an old argument for no other reason than to WP:WIN PeRshGo (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

My point ?

If Blueboar could agree that Freemasonry has a specific use for symbols -for instance in the course of progressive initiation- the case for the reopening of " Masonic ritual and symbols " as a separate page would have the support of one more decent editor.

There is a matter of "undue weight" hanging over the present article if Masonic symbolism were to be treated in full in the section presently alloted.

A discussion with Blueboar on symbolism can be read from the links inserted above.

I would add [3] to give a sample of the treatement of symbols in Freemasonry.

Should Masonic symbolism -symbology- get the attention it deserves some points on the nature of its development in history might be touched on in a manner deservant of the scholarly efforts of so many academics in the last three decades of the twentieth century.

A contribution suitable to an encyclopedia.

At present the stage of the argument is still a matter of discussion.

Respectfully yours

Lunarian (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Lunarian, the reasons for not having this as a separate article have nothing to do with my quibble over the word symbols vs the word emblems. Please read the AfD that resulted in that article being merged back into this one. The reasons stated there are still valid. There is simply too much variation in masonic ritual and symbolism between masonic jurisdictions to make a viable article beyond the short overview already included here in the main article. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy the "too much variation" argument. If something is notable per WP:N it can go in Wikipedia. It does not matter if that thing is used in a single lodge or planet wide. The only criteria is notability. There are dozens of Masonic symbols and emblems that have been well documented by reliable secondary sources, and thus notable. For example:

• The Symbolism of Freemasonry by Albert Gallatin Mackey.
• Symbolism of Freemasonry or Mystic Masonry and the Greater Mysteries of Antiquity by J. D. Buck.
• The Arcana of Freemasonry: A History of Masonic Symbolism by Albert Churchward.
• Mackey's Symbolism of Freemasonry by Robert Ingram.
• Symbolism In Craft Freemasonry by Colin Dyer.
• Freemasonry and Hindoo Symbolism by Rai Bahadur, Lala Bhawani, and Das Batra
• The Kessinger publications (Symbolism of Freemasonry, An Introduction to the Symbolism of Freemasonry, Why Freemasonry Employs Ritual and Symbolism, and separate pampletes for the symbolism behind the the All Seeing Eye, Deluge, Gods of the Egyptians and The Light They Throw on Freemasonry, Serpent, Cherubim, Masonic Apron, Masonic Ladder (aka. Jacob's Ladder), Mysterious Darkness of the Third Degree, Point Within the Circle, Three Pillars: Wisdom, Strength, and Beauty, and Wind.)

That list was constructed by looking at the first five pages of hits for Symbolism Freemasonry on AbeBooks. There may be over 50 books devoted to Masonic symbols and emblems plus there are sections about Masonic symbols and emblems in works such as Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia by Henry Wilson Coil, Chapter 7 of Freemasons for Dummies by Christpher Hodapp, etc. The web pages on emblems, Masonic symbols, and Freemason symbols seem to do a decent job of separating and explaining emblems vs. symbols. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Domo arigato, Marc

I participated in the AFD discussion on "Masonic ritual and symbolism".

An interesting development also I found to be the AFD discussion on Tracing board(notable vs non notable) and the fine Wiki that resulted from the keep.

I remain convinced that a perception of meaning ( symbolism ) can contribute more to the distinction between Freemasonry and abracadabra than any quibble over words.

Lunarian (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is we have is one that few on the planet realize. There is no universal governing philosophy on Masonic symbols. I could see a justification for a list of commonly used Masonic symbols but any attempt at interpretation will invariably be debated into the dust. I know a Brahmin who has written extensively on the Royal & Select Master symbols’ relation to Hinduism. It’s a very good read and the thought put into it can most certainly be appreciated. But outside of India I don’t think you’re going to find many Masons who agree with it. Most of the western literature is very similar. They take one possible interpretation, present it as the only possible way for it to be interpreted and as such draw conclusions based on that interpretation. They’re always going to be wrong because the most basic assertion they make when writing the book is wrong. There isn’t necessarily a RIGHT way to interpret Masonic symbols. Just because the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, or Rastafarians saw a symbol a certain way doesn’t mean any, more less every Mason sees them that way. There are too many different governing bodies, too many different lodges, and frankly too much variation even within the realm of regular freemasonry to draw conclusions on what these symbols “really mean.” This is Wikipedia. You can make any article you like but consensus on the issue will be impossible. PeRshGo (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Marc, there are a lot more than 50 books devoted to Masonic symbols and emblems... there are hundreds, if not thousands. And that's the problem. No two completely agree with each other. Read the sources you point us to... Coil does not agree with Dyer, who does not agree with Hodapp, who does not agree with Mackey... etc. Each source merely represents one individual's personal take on Masonic emblems and their symbolism, or at best one jurisdiction's interpretation of it.

If the two of you want to try to write a "Ritual and symbolism" article again... you are free to create a draft article in user space... and if you do a good job you might even convince the rest of us to change our opinion and thus overturn the previous consensus against having a separate article (consensus can change after all). But at the moment the consensus is as reflected at the AfD. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus in the AFD. I know it's not a "vote" but the numbers were Delete: 1 (by the nominator), keep: 3, strong keep: 1, merge: 2, and redirect: 5, nor was consensus reached the talk page.

One strategy I've tried when sources seem to conflict is to just document what the sources say and to not attempt to "interpret" or "explain" them. Wikipedia supports this with "show, don't tell" such as on WP:APT. It would be better if there's a reliable source that says "there is disagreement among experts on ..." as then we can source that there is disagreement and then document the disagreement rather than ORing that there is disagreement while we document the disagreeing sources.

I'm fine with userspacing a prototype page but have some questions:

1. The earlier attempt at the article was Masonic ritual and symbolism. Is is practical to focus this on "Masonic emblems and symbols" or are the symbols and ritual so intertwined that they need to be in the same article? Likewise, the old article has a section on "Controversy." Is this needed? I could see including it if there was sourced-explanation that one source of controversy is that some of the symbols used by Freemasons are also used by other practices.
2. Should the symbols of, or interpretation by, appendant bodies be included? For example, a ladder that goes beyond Master Mason?

Lunarian, the tracing board AFD was a bit strange as the nominator did not give a reason for deletion other than citations needed, possible copyvio, etc. Off hand, the subject of tracing boards does not seem notable. Unfortunately, there's a lot of noise from Masonic writers meaning it's hard to find those reliable independent sources. It'll be easier to show that the symbols are notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Does an encyclopedia work off hand ?

What is wrong with a sense of detail.

This [4] is the tracing board that figures on the cover of the edition (10th printing, 2005 ISBN 0521396549) of Stevenson's Origins of Freemasonry I have at home.

Not notable ?

Or not known ?

If not known encyclopedic detail might help.

84.198.243.120 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in Lunarian (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point in that last post was. Are you asking whether the specific tracing board that appears on that edition of Stevenson's book is notable? (If so, I would say no, it isn't). Are you saying that you think the emblems shown on that tracing board are notable because the tracing board appears on the cover of Stevenson's book? (I would disagree). Or are you saying something else entirely? Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lunarian, I mean notable as defined on WP:N to see if we should even have an article about a subject such as tracing boards or Masonic symbols. The sticky one is "Independent of the subject". Masons are not independent of the subject of masonry and so their writing would not qualify an aspect of masonry as notable. I'm doing WP:FIRST step 4 with regard to symbols but as I run across other elements that seem notable I'm make note of them.

It appears that The Origins of Freemasonry by David Stevenson likely qualifies as a reliable source independent of Freemasonry.

A thought I had is if a particular work about a subject is being regularly cited by other works that it stands a good chance as being a defensible foundation for an item being notable even if it's by a Freemason. I would prefer that these works also cite other works (or at least have a bibliography) as then it makes then secondary sources per WP:N.

Thus for WP:FIRST step 4 I I'm first looking at the bibliography and footnote/citation sections of the works I run across to make a list of sources that would serve as the notability foundation.

Something I need to look into is some works intend to be comprehensive about a field and so does mention of an item in that work make the thing notable? For example, there is a 3/4th page section on tracing boards in Freemasons for Dummies meaning author chose to devote 0.2% of his book to this subject. I suspect most people would accept that 3/4ths of a page as part of the evidence of notability but want to check to see if this has been addressed. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Marc, I would suggest stepping back and thinking about some structural issues, so that we can frame what the section or article could look like so that we can then establish whether the topic is actually notable.

As I see it there are two main aspects to this:

• Freemasonry uses ritual and symbolism. That's a fairly straightforward point, the answer is yes and the sourcing is quite clear, both primary and secondary. But that's at best a single paragraph.
• Specific discussion of some of the ritual or symbols, which is really what Lunerian is trying to force through.

So what we're talking about is whether we can pad out a section on ritual and symbolism until it's big enough to justify spinning off as a discrete article.

I would say that it's probably not justifiable, to do so we would need to demonstrate notability for both the symbol and the interpretation, and demonstrate that the interpretation is significantly different from the use of the same symbol in other contexts.

To address the specific point about disagreement, which I think is slightly misrepresented above. I would draw a distinction between disagree and lack of agreement, which is probably a more appropriate description. I can't think of any situations where one bloc within the craft disagrees with another over interpretation, more a question of saying fair enough, but we use that differently. Capturing that starts to lead towards one of these interminable, clumsy lists of insignificant detail.

Bluntly, I don't think there is enough meat for a sensible article, but lack of substance hasn't stopped the creation, and retention, of a number of articles. ALR (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you ALR. I have been thinking about that specific symbols and interpretations would each need to be notable and thought I brought that up in my first post of this thread. I agree that trying to capture multiple interpretations can cause a muddle.

I don't have a problem with someone trying to force through a specific agenda as long as they can show that material added is notable and reliably sourced.

I've already been mulling over the wording of a lead paragraph that captures much of what you wrote in that there is "lack of agreement" but not "disagreement". It's a matter of finding a reliable sources for this. FWIW, I tend to not be in a hurry on developing articles. I have a few that have been in the stew pot for years. As I run across relevant information I add them to my notes.

Lunarian, while a picture is said to be worth a thousand words I don't think pictures by themselves would qualify a particular tracing board as notable. The odds are that attempts to state that a tracing board is notable because it appears on the cover of a book are likely to be challenged as the detailed coverage metrics mentioned on WP:N are sentences and pages. If the tracing board appears on a cover or center-fold of a national publication such as Playboy then that may be enough. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 11:36, 7 April 2010

(UTC)

Funny indeed ;)

Or would an article in National Geographic on Masonic Symbolism make the subject notable enough.

The particular cover of Stevenson had also this that the illustration was copyrighted and reproduced by permission of United Grand Lodge of England and the Lodge of Honour and Generosity No.165 ( the book published by Cambridge University Press )

This made me think that both the subject ( masonic symbology ) and the format ( tracing board ) were deemed notable by both primary ( UGLE ) and secondary ( Cambridge University Press ) sources.

I am certainly not pushing for the reproduction of any image in particular.

There are many tracing boards (format) serving as repositories for masonic symbology - and a variety of symbols (subject).

Since both format and subject are notable we can concentrate on detail.

The same goes for masonic ritual (format) and masonic symbolism (subject)

Lunarian (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think the argument even really comes down to notability. It is well known, and well accepted that various symbols or emblems are used in Masonic allegory. The issue is when we talk about Freemasonry on Wikipedia we are speaking of it as a whole, and as a whole there is no universally correct way to interpret those symbols. There are already enough jurisdictions bashing heads over small issues like Masons being allowed to ask others to join or not. Writing an article that details the “right” way to interpret Masonic symbols will ultimately fail for the simple fat that no such thing exists. PeRshGo (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

symbolism - break

Nobody has ever said a Wikipedia article would detail the "right" way to do something. If a particular item is notable then it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. If it's not notable then you won't see it here. That's exactly what WP:N is about. It does not matter if Masons or others agree, or chose to not agree, with what happens to be notable or not.

Lunarian, notability for Wikipedia is defined at WP:N. You had written "deemed notable by both primary ( UGLE )" but as UGLE is not independent of the subject that would not qulafy the subject as notable. While Cambridge University Press presumably is independent we have to look at the authors of the works. Finally, notability is not an automatic thing though detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject likely would qualify something as material that can be added to Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

To me it is more a matter of practicality than of notability. Because there is so much variation when it comes to Masonic symbols (both in determining what is and is not considered a "Masonic symbol", and how such "symbols" are interpreted) an article on this topic is simply not practical. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancients vs. Moderns

I don't edit anymore. It was a bad habit I gave up long, long ago. So this is an issue that someone else will have to deal with, if anyone chooses to. And you may not. It wouldn't be the first time that inaccuracies and downright falsehoods were allowed to stand here. But here it is anyway. The second paragraph of the section titled "History" includes the following sentence: "However, a few lodges resented some of the modernisations that GLE endorsed, such as the creation of the Third Degree, and formed a rival Grand Lodge on 17 July 1751, which they called the 'Antient Grand Lodge of England'." From my perspective, there are at least four things wrong with this sentence. First, it makes it sound as if there was a schism in the grand lodge and several dissenting lodges broke away and formed a rival grand lodge. Of course, this is not what happened. I don't believe that the innovations of the Moderns was the impetus for the Ancients lodges to form a rival grand lodge. The myth of a schism in London Masonry was discarded over a century ago. Second, I am surprised to discover that anyone believes that the "the creation of the Third Degree" was one of the innovations or "modernisations" that the Ancient lodges resented. (Quite the contrary. It is my belief that it is the Ancient lodges that were in possession of the Third Degree going back to their Scottish roots and long before the new Moderns lodges that formed the London grand lodge of 1717. I'm not suggesting that my assertion needs to be included in the text. Far from it.) However, if you are going to list one of the innovations that the Moderns introduced, at least choose one that the Ancients did complain about. Third, I take issue with the use of the term "Grand Lodge of England," or "GLE," for the first few decades in referring to the London grand lodge of 1717. I'd call it the Moderns grand lodge, or the Premier grand lodge, if you must. Actually, there is no need to refer to a grand lodge at all. Just simply reference "the innovations or "modernisations" introduced by the Moderns." That Moderns grand lodge did not call itself "The Grand Lodge of England" for many years after its formation, and there is no evidence that it considered itself to be a geographic grand lodge at its formation or for many years thereafter, other than to serve its own lodges in London and Westminster. Fourth, the sentence in question states that the dissenting lodges formed a rival grand lodge, which they did, however, they did not call it "The Antient (sic) Grand Lodge of England." The predominant evidence shows that they called it "The Ancient Grand Lodge of England." It was the Moderns grand lodge that used that peculiar spelling to refer to the Ancients grand lodge, choosing to spell it "Antients." I understand that the majority of "editors" on Wikipedia prefer to use that peculiar spelling indiscriminately, and that's fine, as it seems that majority trumps fact here, but if you are going to spell it "Antient" with a "t", then at least don't lay the blame for the spelling variant on the poor Ancients. They got it right. You could actually use this opportunity to explain why Wikipedia "editors" choose to use the incorrect spelling introduced by the Moderns, even though that is not the spelling used by the grand lodge of the Ancients.PGNormand (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you see something that seems wrong just fix it. There's no need to make a criminal case of it. PeRshGo (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand your response. In my experience, if you just "fix it," it gets "fixed" back by someone else. I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. I have more important things to do. However, I do check in every couple of months for one reason or another. I saw inaccuracies (four to be exact) with the sentence I quoted above. Rather than just say that its wrong, I was fairly succinct in providing information as to why I thought it was wrong. Now, if the local denizens of Wikipedia agree that this needs changing, then they'll change it. If they don't, then they won't. I don't live here. You do.PGNormand (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of this has been discussed before... see the archives. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I don't keep up with what's been discussed before. Can you direct me to that part of the archives where there has been a discussion about some of the lodges resenting the creation of the Third Degree? I'd like to see what the reference on that "fact" is.PGNormand (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is my belief that it is the Ancient lodges that were in possession of the Third Degree going back to their Scottish roots and long before the new Moderns lodges that formed the London grand lodge of 1717. I'd like to see what the reference on that "belief" is.--Vidkun (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. It is my belief that it is the Ancient lodges that were in possession of the Third Degree going back to their Scottish roots and long before the new Moderns lodges that formed the London grand lodge of 1717. I brought this up on the masoniclight yahoo group, which includes a number of Masonic researchers, including some members of the top research Lodges in the world. Their response to the suggestion that there was a third degree prior to 1717 is, essentially, "poppycock", and that lumping the Ancients of Dermott with the Scottish Lodges is fraught with trouble. Additionally, they point out that the first time we see the seating of a Master on KS's chair, we are told that an FC is taken by the hand and placed in the seat. So, please, provide us some corroboration that a third degree, by that name, or as a sequel to two other degrees, existed prior to the 1600's ... not simply the ideas of a resurrection play etc or the Hiramic Legend and FPOF, but an actual third degree. Isay this not to be confrontational, but because, seriously, this is a matter of great contention regarding historical accuracy, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.--Vidkun (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Vidkun: Sorry I didn't respond immediately. Wikipedia discussions are not something that I do on a regular basis. I probably shouldn't involve myself in these discussions, as they take up a lot of valuable time, and I forget to get back to them. I just came across this by accident. But I don't want to leave you hanging. In my original posting, I challenged the notion that the Ancients considered the MM Degree to be an innovation of the Moderns. Blueboar responded on 7 April by saying that "... this has been discussed before," referring me to the archives. It may have been discussed before, but I didn't remember having participated in that discussion. Your latest posting here on 23 April includes a quote by me stating that "It is my belief that it is the Ancient lodges that were in possession of the Third Degree going back to their Scottish roots and long before the new Moderns lodges that formed the London grand lodge of 1717." Okay, that sounds like something I would have written. But that doesn't refute my original posting. Rather, it only serves to show that I have been consistent. I believe that if anyone had the MM Degree first, it was the Ancients and not the Moderns. The Ancients were always the ones who had a richer, more complex ritual, compared to the Moderns who had a fairly streamlined and stripped down version. It was the Ancients grand lodge that was ready to add a Degree or a ritual practice that they considered to be "Old School," or "Ancient." The best example of that is their acceptance of the Royal Arch Degree. But what I said was "it is my belief...." I didn't say that I could prove it. I'd like to, but unfortunately I'm not hiding any old Scottish rituals of the MM Degree going back to 1650. LOL. I wish I was. We do know that several early catechisms from the pre-grand lodge era, before 1717, included bits and pieces of the 3rd Degree. You already mentioned the FPOF, and that's just one of them. I've spoken several times about this with Dr. Lisa Kahler who earned her Ph.D. in Scotland, studying under David Stevenson for seven years, and reading old Scottish minute books. (She recently collaborated with Robert L.D. Cooper, Grand Librarian of the G.L. of Scotland, on a paper about the recently discovered Airlie Ms. of 1705, the third of the Scottish catechisms to pre-date 1717. This paper was published in A.Q.C. Vol. 117 in 2004.) The Airlie Ms. also includes the F.P.O.F. I've also spoken with Robert Cooper about the elements of the MM Degree prior to 1717. Now, to be fair, I think they'd both be very cautious about jumping to any conclusions simply because the FPOF are present, and so would I. But, I think we all find the notion to be interesting, and full of possibilities. Why else would you need the FPOF if there were no body to be raised? Sorry that your group of Yahoos didn't cotton to my thoughts about the MM Degree, although I don't know why they didn't like the association of the lodges of the Ancients with the lodges of Scotland. The Ancients in the late 1700s always had better relations with the grand lodges in Edinburgh and Dublin. Witness the Grand Mastership of the Dukes of Atholl in both the Ancients Grand Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Scotland. To my knowledge, the Ancients lodges in the American colonies always considered the Scottish lodges to be "Ancient," unlike the way they regarded the Moderns' lodges. As for "historical accuracy," you Wikipedia editors have your work cut out for you if that is your goal. See my new comments on the Scottish Rite discussion page. PGNormand (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that your group of Yahoos didn't cotton to my thoughts about the MM Degree Seriously? you had to put it that way? You should see what was said when I asked them about your opinions - it all boiled down to "Anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet, so why trust any other wikipedia editor, no matter who he says he is". *SIGH* It's to the point where I have decided there is ZERO point in trying to improve any article out there, because I'm not one of the high mighties with access to foreign libraries - I'm just another craftsman in the quarries trying to improve things, and being given tons of snubbing when I try. I give up - I have better things to do, and I no longer care about improving these articles - they can get ruined for all I care, and say that David Icke is right. In essence, dealing with these issues have given me the sourest taste for Masonic research.--Vidkun (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vidkun: I'm sorry you took that the wrong way. In fairness, you may be at the end of a stressful day. When I used to spend a lot of time on a Yahoo group, we always referred to ourselves as a "Bunch of Yahoos." No one ever got upset about it. We all had a pretty good sense of humor. Anyhow, sorry your bummed out. Hope you don't give up on Masonic research. You seem to be one of the more open minded. PGNormand (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have given up - you know why? Because of high handed attitudes that basically say that because I don't have access to Dublin etc, I'm never going to know the truth. So, I ask people I know, including members of Quatuor Coronati, and the SCLR, and the ALR etc, and people who have, in fact, pointed me to the Sadler research regarding the lack of a schism, and their response has been what I have posted -that there is no reason to believe the Ancients had a third degree, or that one existed prior to 1717. I give up - I'm employed in a job teaching practical matters, not one in which I can afford to waste my time any more doing pointless bloody stupid research and get caught between two differing camps. I frakking hate it.--Vidkun (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, The problem you are having is that you are both knowledgeable and opinionated (meaning you have formed strong opinions and are not shy about sharing them). Unfortunately, that is not a good mix for editing Wikipedia. It leads to your forming well reasoned Original research, which is great when you are writing a paper for ACQ or one of the other Masonic journals, but not acceptable when writing for Wikipedia. At Wikipedia we are not supposed to look at facts and draw our own conclusions, no matter how well reasoned. We are limited to summarizing what reliable sources have said... essentially what we do is regurgitation of what has been accepted by the mainstream, with nods to minority views. The mainstream thinking is that the third degree was invented by the Moderns, sometime between 1717 and 1730. We can cite lots of well respected sources that state this. Now, if there is a reliable source that says otherwise, we can (and should) note this as a minority view... however, "PGNormand disagrees and thinks it originated with the Ancients" simply isn't a reliable source (unless you have published a paper on the topic ... that published paper would be a reliable source). Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar: I'm not having a problem. I used to have a problem when I used to edit Masonic articles here. But, I gave up that practice long ago (with the possible exception of correcting an occasionally misspelled word - other than the word "Antients". LOL) It looks like Vidkun is reaching the point that I reached a long time ago. He'll be happier in the long run. At any rate, you have completely misunderstood my comments, both here and on the Scottish Rite Discussion Page. I have never advocated adopting the position in Wikipedia articles that the MM Degree "originated with" the Ancients. Please go back and read what I have written. If I have advocated that, I was wrong and will retract it right now in advance. What I have advocated is that it cannot be proven that the MM Degree was invented by the Moderns. There is a difference - a big difference. We can discuss, here on the Discussion Page, all day long. But what I'm willing to discuss about my "beliefs" or my "suspicions" are completely different from what I advocate ought to be written in the articles. We know that the first recorded appearance of the MM Degree was in the 1720s in London. And we know that there are recorded instances of it being worked in some Moderns lodges prior to its official acceptance by the Grand Lodge of 1717 in their revised Constitutions of 1738. But none of that proves that the Moderns invented it. In fact, it may have just as easily been worked in the Ancients lodges across town during the 1720s. Just because they didn't form a grand lodge until 1751 doesn't mean that they didn't exist. We know that they did exist. (See Coil's Encyclopedia, "St. John Lodges and Masons.") Now, have some Masonic scholars advocated that the Moderns invented the MM Degree? Yes! But, does that make it true? No! Some of those Masonic scholars were members of Q.C. and were advocating FOR the notion that speculative Freemasonry began in London. That is what the U.G.L.E. and the old guard members of Q.C. have always done. Those same Masonic scholars have a track record of ignoring the minute books of the Scottish lodges prior to 1717. As technical editor for "A Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry," I went 'round and 'round with the author about this very thing. As a full member of Q.C., he was advocating the old London line that speculative Freemasonry started right there in London. I would ask, "But what about the early minutes of the Scottish lodges?" And he'd squirm and say, "Wellllll, but that's in Scotland." I'd respond by saying, "Yes. That's right. Its in Scotland. Scotland has minute books from the 1600s! And they show that the transition took place, right there in Scotland. England doesn't have any minute books from before 1717. I'm sorry. I wish they did. But they don't, and you can't ignore the development of speculative Freemasonry as its recorded in the lodges in Scotland during the 1600s." Poor guy, as a member of Q.C. he may have felt pressured by the London Masonic establishment to toe the party line. You say that Wikipedia editors "are limited to summarizing what reliable sources have said...." If that is true, then why would you approve the use of a sentence (or sentences) in Wikipedia articles that say that the members of the Ancients grand lodge "called themselves the Antients" spelling it with a "t", when in fact the most reliable sources on that, including two Grand Librarians of the U.G.L.E., the most current Masonic encylopedia (Coil's), and even Laurence Dermott himself, writing in the minutes of his own grand lodge in his own handwriting, all spelled it with a "c". But actually, I would like to see a reliable source that says that the MM Degree was invented or created by the Moderns lodges or grand lodge. Since there are lots of sources, as you say, lets see which ones you choose to cite. In the future, please READ what I have written, and don't read INTO what I've said. Look, I started this discussion because there was one sentence in the article on Freemasonry that had four problems with it. It could be easily edited by an editor. That ain't me. I enumerated what those four problems were, but for some reason no one wants to respond to what I wrote. As a recap, I'll enumerate them here: 1.) There was no Masonic "schism" in the 1700s; 2.) The Ancients did not consider the MM Degree to be an innovation of the Moderns; 3.) During the period of the early 1700s, the Moderns grand lodge, or "Premier grand lodge," is not properly called "the Grand Lodge of England." It did not call itself that, and no one else at the time did either. Published Masonic scholars refer to it as simply "Grand Lodge," or "the Premier grand lodge," or the "Moderns grand lodge," or "the grand lodge of 1717." That is the established convention. Wikipedia should adopt that practice. And 4.) the members and officers of the rival Ancients grand lodge did not call themselves the "Antients" with a "t". Now wait a minute. I'm not saying that Wikipedia editors can't adopt that spelling. All I'm saying is that it is incorrect and inaccurate to say that the Ancients "called themselves" the "Antients" with a "t". They didn't. And there are plenty of reliable, published, sources that you can use as references. The good Lord knows that I've provided these sources enough times. Now, since I wrote that original posting at the top of this discussion, I've found a few more errors of fact that need correcting. They are enumerated on the Scottish Rite discussion page. Again, all I have ever advocated is that you publish facts that substantiated by reliable sources. I have never advocated that you adopt speculations, for which I'd one day like to find the evidence. PGNormand (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not expecting anything but why not?

I will ask this, politely, once, what does the G stand for? also, why even try to deny the use of symbolism do you think us stupid? question is relevant to the subject article and is not answered therein. if you want people to trust you give us something to work with... 90.216.167.142 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The G is essentially an abbreviation... In many Masonic jurisdictions it sands for God, while in others it stands for Geometry (or both God and Geometry). Except, of course, for those jurisdictions that don't use the letter G at all (mostly non-english speaking jurisdictions... as an example: GLNF does not use the letter G). Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The funny part to me is that information is available on Wikipedia. PeRshGo (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the second part of the IP's comment... I don't think anyone is trying to "deny the use of symbolism" in Freemasonry (they may deny that a particular bit of symbolism is Masonic... but that is a different issue). The idea that anyone is denying the use of symbolism is due to Lunarian taking a comment I made as an aside (noting the technical distinction between "symbols" and "emblems") out of context. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there is the Grand Lodge of Western India who uses this[5] as their Square and Compass. I think it it might be an emblem of the Gateway of India. What is that supposed to mean? I guess you would have to ask them. PeRshGo (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Now allow me to give you 3 different interpretations on why they would put the Gateway of India in their Square and Compass.

A. The Gateway of India is a combination of both Hindu and Muslim design representing how masons should come together regardless of religious differences.

B. The Gateway of India represents the British occupation of India which among other things did bring Freemasonry to India allowing the lodge to exist.

C. The Gateway of India is a large landmark in Western India and was built by operative masons using the skills of geometry and architecture.

All of these sound pretty good to me. All of them could be right. All of them could be wrong. Some Indian Masons may take issue with the idea that Freemasonry should be a place where Muslims and Hindus come together. Some Indian Masons may take SERIOUS issue about my interpretation about it in someway promoting the British occupation. And some Indian Masons may take issue with the concept of putting a mere building in a place that usually is reserved for a symbol of God. The fact is it means different things to different masons and without Freemasonry taking an official stance on what these symbols mean there is no way to ever be truly correct. PeRshGo (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Along with interpretations already given the "G" is "Grand architect of the Universe" for some lodges and/or Masons and presumably some still say it's "God of All Things" or GOAT. In my mind, there's is no need for a symbol to be "right" or "wrong" and thus no need for an "official stance."

How common is it to put something inside the square and compass? I see that the Grand Lodge of India uses this, and a scan finds a G plus handshake. Presumably the skull and crossbones is for the pirate lodge. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Grand Lodge of India image was bugging me - I think it's a poorly rendered "G" as they use "G" in other material. coloradofreemasons.org replaces the "G" with what looks like a Volume of the Sacred Law. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem - multiple versions of the emblem, multiple interpretations of the meaning. If one jurisdiction only uses a particular version, is it notable, or is it fringe? Is undue weight applicable if the jurisdiction is under a certain size? These are the sort of things to consider encyclopedically when we are not dealing with absolutes. MSJapan (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Then there is the issue of what constitutes a "Masonic" emblem or symbol. The "G" (where used) does seem to be unique to the Freemasons ... but what about something like the beehive? This emblem is discussed in some rituals as 'an emblem of industry'... but that use and interpretation is hardly unique to the Masons. Bees and beehives have been symbolic of industriousness for thousands of years. So is it really accurate to describe it as a "Masonic" emblem?

This is illustrative of the core problem with discussing Masonic emblems and symbolism as a topic... determining a workable criteria for inclusion. At one extreme we have emblems and symbolism that are unique to only one jurisdiction (or at best used by a few jurisdictions)... at the other extreme we have emblems and symbolism that are commonly used beyond Freemasonry (and thus not really "Masonic"). In fact, with the notable exception of the Square and Compasses (and perhaps the Apron), I can not think of an emblem (or symbol) that is common to all (or even most) Jurisdictions and that is uniquely "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MSJapan asks about "is it notable, or is it fringe?" I see that as being answered on WP:N. There's nothing about the size of the group, etc. there. That said, Wikipedia's system seems to tilt things in in favor of controversial concepts. We'll deal with that bridge, "G", beehive, ladder, etc. when we get to it.

Blueboar asks about "but what about something like the beehive?" If a symbol is being used by Freemasons then the symbol itself and its Masonic interpretation(s) and/or use would be documented.

Blueboar asks "determining a workable criteria for inclusion." If something passes WP:N it may merit inclusion on Wikipedia. If it does not pass WP:N it likely does not merit inclusion. Earlier I proposed that symbols being documented by non-Masons (independent of the subject) stand a stronger chance of being accepted as "notable." I've been thinking about that and believe works by Masons will be fine as long as they are not covering their own symbols or interpretations. In other words, if a Mason does a survey on the letter "G" then the odds are we (Wikipedia editors and thus consensus) would accept that as part of the evidence that "G" is notable.

My focus is documenting the notable (per WP:N) symbols and notable (per WP:N) Masonic interpretations of those symbols. I believe using that as a foundation has the greatest odds of achieving consensus. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, have in mind Wikipedia:NNC. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe a case can be made for excluding non-notable data by structuring it as a list of masonic symbols. An option is an article titled "Notable Masonic Symbols" If it turns into a battle of people trying to inject fringe symbols then it seems easier to have one article per symbol. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I agree with your approach.

Lunarian (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah... an article about a specific (and notable) symbol (such as the Beehive) that notes the various usages and interpretations people have given it through the ages (including but not limited to Masonic use) is a different issue entirely. I could support that. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Could (or should) not the section then, in extenso the article masonic ritual and symbolism , be something of a bluelink portal to this broader extent of wikipedia ? Take Ashlar a.o. where Masonic symbolism is touched upon. Mason level could be another one, etc;

Lunarian (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should. Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

In a word, no. MSJapan (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is sticky - I believe there's great interest in Masonic symbolism and so envisioned an article with a lead about symbolism in general and then having a paragraph or two on each symbol. Ideally, each symbol gets its own article as Blueboar suggests but that's not an overnight project. To get a sense of what this would look like I added User:Marc Kupper/Masonic Symbolism though at present only the letter G has content. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a few comments to your draft. One thing you need to work on is devising a clear criteria for inclusion. Many of the symbols and emblems you list are fairly common to heraldry and iconography in general... I would not define them as being "Masonic". I will also note that your choice of what to include seems very U.S. centric. Several of the symbols you list are not used in other countries... And the rituals of other countries include symbols that are not used in the US. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I've responded to the similar you questions asked at User talk:Marc Kupper/Masonic Symbolism. Ideally, talk threads on this page would be about the main Freemasonry article. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem... will respond there. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I was taught (as an EA) that Freemasonry uses various artifacts (models of masons' tools, emblems, symbols etc.) as aides memoire when working the rituals and that it was their only function. As I progressed through the craft I learned that there were many other such and that many of them had other meanings outside the craft. Over time I found that some had meanings and significance that varied as between different lodges within a jurisdiction as well as outside of it and outside the craft itself. I once had a book (now lost) that listed several thousand symbols and emblems with their uses, many of were attributed to masonry and very few exclusively so. I don't feel competent to make edits here (I defer to Blueboar) but offer my view in case it proves helpful. John C Kay (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Work on the Article

As a non-Mason I was expecting to see a lot of conspiracy and anti-Mason contributors. I'm pleased to see the issue of the so-called "secrets" of Masonry are not flouted or mocked. In a world where religious dignity is too frequently sacrificed in the name of 'truth' (read curiosity) I hope this article can hold its dignity for a little longer. Canadiandy1 (talk)

Thank you for the kind words. Nice to know our efforts are appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

French VSL

This sentence in the article is incorrect: "In many French Lodges, the Masonic Constitutions are used instead." The rules of the GLNF require that the Holy Bible be used in all rituals. If a brother of another faith is taking an obligation, then the holy book that he ascribes to will be placed with the Bible, but the Bible is never absent. In the irregular lodges such as the GO, the Constitution of France is used, not the "Masonic Constitutions" (whatever that means). However, the article should not cite the GO as an example of freemasonry in France unless continental freemasonry is what is meant. Mentioning an irregular lodges practices alongside American practice implies that the article is describing regular masonry in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.58.121 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

When we say "In many French Lodges" we are referring to Continental Freemasonry, and specifically the Grand Orient (which is largest jurisdiction in that country). Thank you for the correction re which constitution is used.

As for mentioning regular and irregular practices in the same article... Wikipeida has to be neutral as to that issue... so we are required to mention both side by side. Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What is Freemasonry?

Reread the article; it has no information of what Freemasonry is. Their beliefs are very unclear, and the only detail they give you is "the belief in a supreme being". Anyone understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.86.152 (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it says right up front what Freemasonry is, maybe you just need to look closer: Freemasonry is a fraternal organisation.--Vidkun (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the explanation of what Freemasonry is? A fraternal organization? Those usually have a goal/purpose, and I'm wondering what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.86.152 (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope... its goal really is simply to be a fraternity and its purpose really is simply to build the bonds of brotherly love and affection that exist between its members. Freemasonry is "fraternalism" in its purest and simplest form. In order to achieve this goal, it encourages its members to be the best men that they can be... to live honestly... to be charitable to those in need... to be upright men in their communities... etc etc and all the rest. But the core of it really is just pure fraternity. That is probably why it has lasted for all these years. Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To make good men better, through a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols. Anything more and you are in the realm of individual opinion and/or conspiracy theory. HTH, HAND.--Vidkun (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes... but that is a bit of a cliche. (and not really helpful to a non-mason who will wonder what that all means). Blueboar (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The primary purpose of Freemasonry is to "make good men better, through a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols". Doesn't that exactly sum up Freemasonry? It is "a bit of a cliche" because everyone uses the phrase because so far it is the best anyone has managed to come up with.

I suggested the following as an expansion of the above: "Members are taught its precepts (moral lessons and self-knowledge) by a series of two-part dramas which are learnt by heart and performed within each Lodge. This progression of plays follow ancient forms, and uses operative stonemasons' cutoms, tools and implements as metaphorical props, set against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple."

Md84419 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that doesn't really explain much to an uninformed reader. We're going to have to look at that again, I think, because as I was clarifying the intent of that intro, I came to suspect that whatever source we are using for that statement is misusing key terms like "metaphor" and "allegory", and I think there's probably some unnecessary detail. MSJapan (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should think about rewording the entire lede. I certainly don't mind using the "make good men better" or the "Peculiar system" qoutes (this is the first time I have seen them put together like this, however)... but I think we can do so in a better way. Md84419 also cut some important material when he made is edit, which was one reason I reverted him. Let's work out the language here, and make sure we all more or less agree before we edit the actual article. Blueboar (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What makes a building "Masonic"?

I have been involved in a protracted battle at List of Masonic buildings to get some sort of clarity as to the criteria for inclusion. The key question is... what makes a building "Masonic"? (A secondary issue is that the list is highly duplicative of Category:Masonic buildings and various dab pages such as Masonic temple (disambiguation), but one thing at a time). Please share your thoughts on the talk page of that article. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think i resent that characterization. If the above notice is meant as an objective pointer to a topic under discussion, it doesn't come across to me as objective. My take is that Blueboar has been trying to provoke discussion towards creating some objective criteria for membership of items on that list-article (which is fine). He has obtained input from me and one or two others that has not been entirely satisfying for Blueboar, but I was not aware that there is a "protracted battle" and was not aware that Blueboar may be viewing this article as a battleground. This seems not helpful. I have mostly expressed my view that development of some/many of the candidate articles is needed, and that arguing now about final criteria, in the absence of good information, seems premature. Comments of others are welcomed, i guess. --doncram (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK... the problematic List of Masonic buildings has been merged into Masonic Temple... which simply shifts the issue to a new article instead of resolving them. Your comments are still appreciated... now at Talk:Masonic Temple. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i have come across a bunch of very BOLD moves/mergers of the articles and Talk pages under discussion and have Reverted them. Specifically i cancelled what Blueboar refers to here. Masonic Temple was before, and is now again after my reversion, a redirect, which is the proposed target of a move of the disambiguation page now at Masonic temple (disambiguation). The major discussion of structure of related articles is at Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 where the editor community has been invited to comment. You are invited too. --doncram (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous... We are now in the situation where we have the same god damned list at:

• Masonic Temple
• Masonic Temple (disambiguation)
• List of Masonic buildings

And essentially the same list (without the red links) at

• Category:Masonic buildings

Everyone seems more interested in protecting a particular version of the list (ie the version that they created or spent time working on) than in resolving the underlying issues of over-duplication and criteria. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have settled on a centralized discussion at Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2... for now. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so people know... I have decided to take the bull by the horns and nominate List of Masonic buildings for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

AARRRG - the problem keeps getting worse... now we have List of Masonic Temples.... Please, STOP. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not any more, we don't. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is such a list notable/desirable? I'm OK either way but I'd rather see time spent on research that results in articles of more depth. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 19:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the key question (and lies the heart of the AfD). Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought I had fixed the issue aside from the remaining List of Masonic buildings page but it appear the edit war rages on with a extra speedy, speedy deletion of a page. PeRshGo (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)