Jump to content

Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Freemasonry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Secrets and organizational purpose

I'm not sure why this is rated a good article. There are two main flaws in the article I have identified that I think we should address

i) There is no discussion of the purpose or drive of the organization. It is described as fraternal and its structure is detailed without detailing what it is. This is confusing to the layman and does not provide a clear definition. When looking for a definition, one would not approach the subject hoping for the general paragraph to explain the details of lodges and ranks.

ii) Secrets. There are multiple references to 'secrets' that the members keep throughout the article without any attempt to describe what these relate to or how they benefit the members. Secrets regarding ways of living? Social secrets about other members of the organization? Secrets relating to hidden wealth? The possible interpretations of this are too broad and the time should be taken to better explain this to newcomers to the topic. I have added a GAR request because the page is maintained and monopolised by a freemason (see User:Fiddlersmouth) who will of course be invested in censorship foremost and unbiased definition second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.33.129.135 (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC).

The opening sentence is both a description and a statement of purpose... Freemasonry is a fraternal order. In other words, fraternity is the purpose of Freemasonry. The organization exists to promote a feeling of fraternal harmony among its members. That may sound trite, but it is actually quite profound... in a world where people are divided by so many things (nationality, race, religion, economic or social class, etc), Freemasonry successfully brings people of all backgrounds together in a spirit of brotherhood.
I Agree. I have attempted to introduce below proposals of improvement for the lead section, but this has been categorically refused by a couple of users bordering WP:OWN. These are the ideas of added improvements, including the first paragraph, to make the lead section more transparent in its summary for a typical reader: Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
"Movement" is, I think, the wrong word. is there a reliable source that calls it such? Blueboar (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Right. How about simply "are fraternities which..."? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Better... except Freemasonry as a word takes the singular case (even if it isn't one single organization)... so it is linguistically inaccurate to phrase it as "Freemasonry are". It has to be "Freemasonry is..." or "Freemasonry refers to..." (or something like that). Perhaps "Freemasonry refers a group of fraternal organisations that..." Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

:::* Some Masonic bodies in turn traditionally claim their origins to fraternities of qualified stonemasons of the Middle Ages, which regulated relations with authorities and clients. By consequence, "craft" or "blue lodge Freemasonry" offer three grades of medieval craft guilds: Apprentice, Journeyman (or fellow, now called Fellowcraft), and Master Mason. Other systems vary with local jurisdictions, or Masonic bodies.

Actually, very few "Masonic bodies" claim a medieval origin... that claim is made by academic historians. Blueboar (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
What about "whose origins have been traced by some to..."? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It is far more than "some"... The Freemasons themselves have an allegorical "origin" (that the fraternity was started by King Solomon as a way to organize the stone masons who built King Solomon's Temple), but that "origin" is understood to be allegory (and not historical fact)... the overwhelming consensus among academic historian is that the Freemasons did indeed grow out of the lodges of medieval stone masons in the British Isles. Yes, there are other theories, mostly pushed by pop historians and conspiracy theorists... but these are not very accepted. These fringe views can be mentioned, but don't belong in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I know some think this, but it is not accurate. At a minimum it would need attribution and citation to a very reliable source. Probably too controversial and not something to put in the lead. Blueboar (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Why a controversial summary? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggest you start by reading "Freemasonry for Dummies" and "The Idiot's Guide to Freemasons"... and then move on to Jasper Ridley's "The Freemasons"... you will gain some insight into why using such terms would be considered controversial. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as "Secrets" go... these are the "secret" grips (handshakes) and passwords of the various degrees. They are probably the worst kept secret in the entire history of secrecy (having been exposed numerous times), but Masons still consider them "secret" any way... if for no other reason than "because it's tradition" (and Masons do love traditions). Knowing these secrets does not benefit the members in any way... except perhaps that it is fun to be an insider who knows a secret. They benefit the fraternity as a whole because simply having something that is secret makes people curious, and thus brings in new members who want to find out what the "secrets" are. Blueboar (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

At least some of this explanation might improve the main article. None of this information is apparent if it is your first time reading about the topic. A little more transparency would be helpful.

Furthermore, would it not benefit from at least some mention of the mutual advancement membership provides? I.e Many masons have been involved in the political establishment or judiciary in the UK and the USA. These have been known to show preference towards other masons when choosing ministers or hiring staff (due to the oaths around brotherhood). The phrase "Old Boys Club" comes to mind. 171.33.129.135 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually... there have been numerous investigations on that claim (in both the US and UK)... and every time the claim has been investigated, it turns out to be bullshit... the Freemasons actually go out of their way to avoid giving their lodge brothers preferential treatment. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference UGLEFAQ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Hodapp, Christopher. Freemasons for Dummies. Indianapolis: Wiley, 2005. p. 52.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2017

"change antient to ancient" 96.60.230.86 (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC) "change antient to ancient"

Not done: That spelling is a proper name. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2017

If you could please edit the line and to support a fellow Mason in distress (as far as practicality and the law permit).[11] to

  • and to support a fellow Mason and his family in distress no matter the circumstance or personal belief, right or wrong (as far as a wink permits).

I'd also like to request it be changed in the book as well due to personal reasons. thank you. Victoriaagx (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The change you ask us to make is not supported by reliable sources (and would be factually inaccurate). Wikipedia does not base its information on "personal reasons". Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018

change "denomination" to "institution" in regards to the Catholic Church to reflect that it is not a protestant denomination, bur rather a separate entity. Jacobseanparker (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Catholicism and the different Protestant groups are denominations within Christianity. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Correct- While Catholicism is not a “Protestant” denomination it is a Christian denomination. Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Police

I have heard on the news that there has been concern about whether Freemasons are discriminated against in joining the police. Could anybody who knows more about this issue than me put anything pertinent to it in the article?Vorbee (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting twist, given that the usual claim made by conspiracy theorists is the opposite... that Freemasons on the police force give each other preferential treatment. I suppose there could be an over reaction to that accusation... ie to prevent the accusations of favoritism, the police are actually going to the other extreme and avoiding hiring Freemasons. But my guess is that it’s all made up nonsense... in both directions. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Freemasonry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Freemasons and the American Revolution

MODERATORS: This article doesn't address the Freemasons significant involvement in the American Revolution. Nine signers of the Declaration of Independence were Masons and they were led by Benjamin Franklin GMM of PA, George Washington GMM of VA and the Continental Army, and John Hancock GMM of MA. 13 out the 39 signers (33%) of The Constitution were Masons. 2601:589:4800:9090:653B:EC70:5899:F2D2 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This article covers freemasonry world wide. Any description of "Freemasons significant[citation needed] involvement[citation needed] in the "American Revolution" belongs somewhere in Category:Freemasonry in the United States, if anywhere - provided that reliable non-fringe sources could be found (good luck with that).
One thing to keep in mind is that in the late 1700's it was the hot thing to be a mason, and there quite likely was as many non-revolutionary masons as there were revolutionary ones. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Freemasonry’s role in the American Revolution is overstated. There were Masons on both sides. The reality is that the majority of the Provincial Grand Masters at the outbreak of the Revolution were Loyalists, and fled to Canada. Also, it should be noted ALL of the generals on the British side (with the exception of John Burgoyne, the looser at Saratoga) were Freemasons.
oh... and to correct the record... neither Hancock nor Washington served as Grand Masters. They served as Masters of their respective local level Lodges. (And in Washington’s case, for most of his term in that office he was out of town, and a “Deputy Master” did the actual work of running the Lodge). Blueboar (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... Most of the masonic literature I've looked at doesn't even try to persuade the reader to be a good citizen and maintain social order, it just takes for granted that the reader is totally down for not participating in revolutions. Pike (who is kinda fringe) is the biggest exception I can think of, and even then it's just waffling between "Ok, the Revolution happened" and "do as I say and not as I do." I wouldn't even include Weishaupt as the mainstream masonic reaction to him was "aw hell naw."
I have to wonder how easy it would be to make a similar case of supposed "Presbyterian involvement" in the American Revolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Free?

Can you please explain how a freemason can really be a freemason if he is incapable to be free if a police officer is capable of killing is freedom in something that you are charge of something you haven't done. Are you in free or not. Clooter 1212 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The "free" in the name "Freemason" does not mean what you imply. The modern fraternity calls itself "Freemasonry" (and its members "Freemasons") because the stone masons of the late middle ages (from which the modern fraternity evolved) called themselves "Freemasons".
There is some debate among scholars as to why the medieval stone masons used the term "Freemason" to refer to themselves (ie the derivation of the term)... but there are three possibilities commonly presented:
1) the least accepted derivation is that it is an english language corruption of the french phrase "frère maçon" (brother mason).
2) somewhat more accepted (but still a minority view) is that it was adopted because medieval stonemasons were considered "freemen of the city" in which they worked.
3) the most accepted derivation is that it referred to a specific type of stone mason - those who built buildings using "freestone" (a kind of limestone that was particularly easy to carve... thus good for building the walls of castles, cathedrals, and other large stone buildings). This derivation is supported by medieval documents which refer to "Freestone Masons" and the shorter form "freemasons" interchangeably.
In other words... the term has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

This introduction

"Freemasonry or Masonry consists of fraternal organisations that trace their origins to the local fraternities of stonemasons, which from the end of the fourteenth century regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients. The degrees of freemasonry retain the three grades of medieval craft guilds, those of Apprentice, Journeyman or fellow (now called Fellowcraft), and Master Mason. These are the degrees offered by Craft (or Blue Lodge) Freemasonry. Members of these organisations are known as Freemasons or Masons. There are additional degrees, which vary with locality and jurisdiction, and are usually administered by different bodies than the craft degrees."

There are no further degrees. A-n-y organizations outside of "Blue Lodges" are ancillary in nature and have no direct connection, no administration and absolutely no authority over regular freemasonry as a governing body any more than the "yearbook club, chess-club and glee club do at your high-school. This goes for Scottish and York rite bodies, as well as Bahia Shriners. Absolutely no governing connection nor any authority what-so-ever. A "32nd degree Scottish Rite Freemason" has absolutely no authority over any other Freemason on earth. of this I can assure you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.16.5 (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

does not explain anything relevant to an ignorant reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.0.19 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure it does... it explains a bunch of things:
a) Freemasonry consists of fraternal organizations
b) It grew out of stone masonry
c) it has three ceremonies (degrees) derived from the ceremonies conducted by the stone masons as they advanced in their profession.
That is a good start in my eyes. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and downright untruths.

This will take some time and I know people are always going to believe whatever they choose particularly if the get it a long time ago "from a reliable source" or if they have read it a hundred times. It just becomes truth" to "them.

So, first of all, I started on this journey over 46+ years ago as a 21 or so year old kid with my first curious question about a man's ring. I am 25+ years a Freemason. A perpetual Member of Landmark Lodge #383, past Steward, Certified as lodge "Masonic Historian" for several years. I would say my in-depth study of the history of Free Masonry spans better than 30 years. I have visited Lodges across the united states, been to open book Lodge. I would say without feeling boastful that I have a firm grasp on what is true, what is not true and what really is not known.

The first misconception is that Freemasonry is somehow connected to the "Illuminate" which I am convinced exists.

Freemasonry is not in any way connected to the "Illuminate" as we perceive it to be (evil)

According to historic records although he petitioned for the three degrees, Adam Weishaupt n-e-v-e-r made it though to be raised as a Master Mason. It was revealed that he intended on using his Masonic Membership to recruit for his "illuminate" efforts. That would never be permitted then or now, I can assure you without doubt.

If memory serves, Amschel Mayer Rothschild and Nathan Rothschild also (separately) petitioned, intended on joining Masonic Lodges in order to gain the benefits of a perceived power from membership, and were both rejected as was Aliester Crowley who never really got over the rejection, held quite a grudge and even started his own type of "Masonic body" or "Lodge" (orientis) Obviously this is something Freemasonry would look down on, but usually there isn't much anyone would care to do about it.

Another perception that is completely untrue is that Freemasonry in the continental United States denied membership to African American Black men because of racism. While I am sure just as today, racism exists among men, and that it is hard to know truly what is in the hearts of men, racism is much less prevalent among Masons OF ALL KINDS then and now.

THE MAIN REASON for the denial of membership is because one of the very strict requirements that stands as a landmark among membership is that a man be "Freeborn, of mature or legal age, un-mutilated and of good repute. These are unshakable requirements, because of the nature of the FREELY TAKEN OBLIGATION. Here is an excerpt: "Freemasonry first asks questions of the candidate for initiation, then questions about him.

A lodge must be satisfied as to five important matters; a petitioner’s motive for applying for the degrees; his physical being; his mental equipment; his moral character and his political status, using the word in its non-partisan sense.

It is highly important that Freemasons understand that a man’s motives for petitioning a lodge are proper, otherwise we cannot guard our West Gate from invasion by those who will not, because they cannot, become good Master Masons.

A man must ask for “Light, of his own free will and accord.” Not only must he so declare in his petition, but nine times during his initiation he must repeat the statement. Here grow the roots of that unwritten but universally understood prohibition - no Mason must ask his friend to join the Order."

Any man who further desires light and seeks it, will find how important these requirements are as they become even more important later.

You can read more of this here:

http://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/artnov01/The%20Candidate.htm

I will return to expand on these points at some future time, or I can be reached to answer questions at (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.16.5 (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. Hopefully you can make some valuable contributions. But first you need to be aware of a few things. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, used and edited by people in almost all countries in the world. It also depends on reliable sources. Secondary sources are preferred to Primary or Tertiary sources. Your own knowledge, while no doubt excellent, counts for little on its own. It can help you to know what kind of sources to look for to back up that knowledge. That link you provided has some detailed information, but appears to be purely American (a guess based on spelling and non-metric units), and a primary source. More global, secondary sources would be good. Have a read of the pages I have linked to. See if you can find some more appropriate sources. Once you do, feel free to edit the article yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The word "liberal" near the end of the lead....

...is used very much with the sense it has in the USA. The major conservative political party in Australia (plenty of Masons here) is the Liberal Party. Someone might want to find a better, more globally accurate word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Or Australians could find a better, more globally accurate word for their conservative party... I would have thought that most Australians would understand the difference between the usages - certainly those I have met do. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
This particular Australian thinks the name of that party is somewhat misleading, but that's not really the point. The word "liberal" seems to a me an ill-fitting one in this article. We all know that it's used often enough as a pejorative in the the USA. That's presumably not what's meant here. It's a somewhat loaded word. I would just like to see a more neutral word used here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the scare quotes, which looked frankly sarcastic to me. I don't see liberal as a loaded word in the context (with the scare quotes was another matter). Can you suggest a better one? DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, those weren’t supposed to be scare quotes... the quotation marks were used to indicate Masonic jargon: the Continental style jurisdictions often refer to themselves as “Liberal Freemasonry” and refer to the Anglo-American style as “Dogmatic Freemasonry” (note: the Anglo style jurisdictions use “Regular” vs “Irregular” to describe the same split).
That said, I agree that the word “liberal” can be confusing as it has multiple political meanings. I think the word can be eliminated from the sentence without any loss of understanding. If there are no objections, I will remove it. Blueboar (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hermetic-Gnostic???

Freemasonry as nothing to do with Hermeticism and Gnosticism. It is not a religious organization. I think the words should be removed from the lead. Pepe Oats (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Those terms don't apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"Freemasonry...is not a religious organization." From the article... "Regular Freemasonry insists that a volume of scripture is open in a working lodge, that every member profess belief in a Supreme Being". Hmmmm. I think I see a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Freemasonry requires that you bring your own religion to Lodge with you - it doesn't attempt to tell you what that should be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't fit my definition of "non-religious". In fact it seems to say that (a) religion is compulsory, and atheists are not welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
First, it is possible for someone to believe in a supreme being without having a religion. Second you could require members to have religion without the institution itself being concerned with religion. Freemasonry in the United Kingdom for example is frequently described as "UK's largest secular, fraternal, and charitable organisation." PeRshGo (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Despite that obfuscation, I'm still guessing atheists aren't welcome? HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Obfuscation indeed. Atheists are NOT welcome. And when a legitimate rite recognized by the Grand Lodge of England (Grand Orient and Grande Oriente) decided to allow atheists, they were summarily declared "irregular" - meaning that over night they were now fake masonry and not to be associated with. That was over a hundred years ago.XDev (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
So, allegedly not religious, but no atheists allowed. Maybe we need a new adjective..... HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, atheists are allowed in some branches of Freemasonry and not allowed in other branches of the craft. The admission of atheists is something Freemasons disagree about. What people have to understand is this: Freemasonry is not a monolithic entity... it is a very loose collection of multiple entities. And all these entities often disagree with each other. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh this is fun. We have:

1. A guy who seems to just have an ax to grind against theists and

2. A guy who thinks English Freemasonry is the only Freemasonry that matters

God bless you Wikipedia, you never change. Jersey John (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust

I'm somewhat confused about the fact that this article states "historians estimate that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were killed under the Nazi regime." I can't seem to find any source stating this, and I'm wondering whether the cited source (Freemasons for Dummies) is more reliable than the United States Holocaust Museum, which states on its encyclopaedia "Because many of the Freemasons who were arrested were also Jews and/or members of the political opposition, it is not known how many individuals were placed in Nazi concentration camps and/or were targeted only because they were Freemasons. Some former lodge members, as individuals, participated in or were associated with German resistance circles. Some were arrested and murdered during World War II." (See here: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/freemasonry-under-the-nazi-regime) I feel that if there was evidence that tens of thousands of Masons had been specifically targeted this would have been explicitly stated by the Holocaust Museum. Thoughts on this statement being removed?? Nt1192 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I might also argue that this page is in general showing some bias in casting criticism of Freemasonry in a negative/unreasonable light. A lot of statements like this also use Freemasons for Dummies as a citation; the author of this book, Christopher Hoddap, has written several books financed by Masonic Lodges and runs a Freemason news blog. I would propose this book be considered subjective at the very least and references based on it altered to be more neutral? Thoughts? Nt1192 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Look back through the archives... this has been discussed before.
As for Hoddap ... the “For Dummies” series is published by Whiley - a reputable and independent publisher, with no connection to the Masons. They were the ones who considered Hoddap an expert and approached him to write thier book on the Freemasons... not the other way around. The fact that Hodapp has ALSO written books financed/published by non-independent Masonic publishers is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. My question about the Holocaust figures and the contrasting sources still stands? Nt1192 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is a good recent summary: Elaine Paulionis Phelen, "Persecuted Masons: The Holocaust and Hitler’s Attack on Freemasonry" The Masonic Philosophical Society Oct. 26, 2016
That is just some random blogger, not a reliable source of information. Libby Kane (talk)

Jasper Ridley's opinion

@Rjensen: Why should Jasper Ridley's opinion be in the opening paragraph? Libby Kane (talk)

The book description says: "Skyhorse Publishing, as well as our Arcade imprint, are proud to publish a broad range of books for readers interested in history--books about World War II, the Third Reich, Hitler and his henchmen, the JFK assassination, conspiracies"... so its probably not a reliable source for information about anything other than perhaps the personal opinion of the writer. Libby Kane (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

What we should be asking is whether that view is representative of the overall historiography. El_C 06:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
If it is possible to find a reliable source that agrees with Jasper (or not) then we can perhaps add information from that reliable source. But Jasper Ridley's book is not a reliable source and therefore we shouldn't use it. Note that historian is not a protected title; anyone can claim to be one. Libby Kane (talk)
Usually, you need a university degree in history to be taken seriously in the field. El_C 06:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The field of History is one where the “armature” scholar can still gain a good reputation and be respected. In Ridley’s case, he came to historical scholarship as a second carrier, having first been a barrister. Law and History require very similar research skills (indeed one could call legal research a specialized sub-branch of Historical research). Since leaving Law and turning to Historical writing, Ridley has written multiple historical works (biographies as well as histories), and all have been well received in reviews by “academic” historians. His degree may have been in law, but his reputation among those with degrees in history is strong. I think he qualifies as a reliable scholar with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. In other words - a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Blueboar. Ridley is a top-tier British historian--for example he won their biggest history prize: James Tait Black Memorial Prize Historians of freemasonry cite his work-- indeed many hundreds of different scholarly books and articles cite his work on Freemasonry, according to this list at Google Scholar. Here's a review: "Ridley traces the growth of this society from the Middle Ages to the present and interweaves history, politics, and religion in his survey. Especially fascinating are discussions on the role of Freemasons in the American and French Revolutions, their lingering influence in European politics in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the condition of the organization after World War II. In the final chapter, "Are the Freemasons a Menace?," Ridley deftly assesses the body of recent literature that is highly critical of the Masons. This book is a useful companion to the many scholarly and specialized works on the subject, such as Lynn Dumenil's Freemasonry and American Culture, 1880-1930. Recommended for most public and academic libraries" [ Library Journal Dec 2001,]
As a Freemason I object to any "opinion" being added as reliable information without stating precisely what facts and research that opinion is based upon. I see no such information in the proposed edit.SeanNovack (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Beliefs

I find it puzzling that an article about the masons doesn't have even one word about their beliefs.

This is because Freemasonry does not have “beliefs”. Each Mason joins the fraternity with his beliefs already in place (taught to him by his religious denomination, and informed by his own conscience and experience). Freemasonry is a fraternity, not a religion. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
To put this another way... Freemasonry isn’t about belief. It is about bringing men together in friendship, harmony and mutual respect - despite the fact that they may hold different beliefs. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019

{{subst:trim|1=


The Freemasonry ', also called' Royal Art , understands itself as a ethical union of free people with the conviction that the permanent work in itself itself which leads to a more human behavior. The five basic ideals of Freemasonry are [liberty]], equality, brotherhood, tolerance, and humanity. They should be lived through the practical practice in everyday life. The Freemasons organize themselves in so-called Lodges.

The number of Masons worldwide, so far published, diverges strongly depending on the source. For 2012, SWR names about five million members of Freemasonry in all its forms worldwide, including three million in the United States. For Germany, the figures are between 14,000 (2012) Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). denotes a set of selective sociability spaces, whose recruitment of members is done by cooptation and initiatory rites referring to a Masonic secret [1] and the art of building. Made up of very diverse historical and social phenomena, it seems to appear in 1598 in Scotland [2] (Schaw Statutes [3]), then in England in the 17th century. It describes, according to the times, countries and forms, as an "essentially philosophical and philanthropic association", as a "system of morality illustrated by symbols" or as an "initiatory order". Organized into obediences since 1717 in London [4], so-called "speculative" - ​​that is to say, philosophical - Freemasonry[5] refers to the former duties of the "masonry" called "operative" English formed by the corporations of builders. It draws its sources from a set of founding texts written between the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries. It provides a progressive esoteric teaching using symbols and rituals. It encourages its members to work for the progress of humanity, let each one of them interpret these words. Its vocation is universal, although its practices and its modes of organization are extremely variable according to the countries and the periods. It has been structured over the centuries around a large number of rites and traditions. which led to the creation of a multitude of obediences, which do not all recognize each other. It has always been the subject of many criticisms and denunciations, with very different motives depending on the time and the country. A discipline of study and reflection deals with Freemasonry: Masonology[6]. Tmm88 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia/wiki/masonic_secret
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia/wiki/scotland
  3. ^ http://en.wikipedia/wiki/shaw_statutes
  4. ^ http://en.wikipedia/wiki/london
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia/wiki/freemasonry
  6. ^ http://en.wikipedia/wiki/masonology
translated from the english article - to be added to the head of the article
  • Confused ... the proposal says this was “translated from the English article?” ... but this IS the English article. No translation is necessary. Please clarify?
 Not done for now: per above. Please clarify. Gangster8192 01:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nicolae Balcescu and Barbu Balcescu

Please let me know when Ncolae Balcescu , my great geat great great uncle and my ggggfather his brother ,Barbu Balcescu are on the list and if not , please let me know why,are they not of interest anymore?or sommethng? Thank you , 87.188.189.142 (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Razu,

p.s. I have no knowledge that Aristide Razu my ggfather was one , was he? just trying to be of help, Nice article indeed. Cheers!

See our List of Freemasons series of articles. Apparently, Nicolae was a Freemason. Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Bold for Master Mason

The bulk of Masonic ritual consists of degree ceremonies. Candidates for Freemasonry are progressively initiated into Freemasonry, first in the degree of Entered Apprentice. Some time later, in a separate ceremony, they will be passed to the degree of Fellowcraft, and finally they will be raised to the degree of Master Mason.

Is there a particular reason why Master Mason is bold here and Entered Apprentice and Fellowcraft are not? --2001:4898:E008:1:D98B:6DB:8C3A:4291 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Nope... thank you for pointing it out. fixed. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Secret Society?

This question was provoked while I was having a conversation with an actual Mason. He said "Just because a society has secrets (like handshakes, and what-not), does not mean that the society is "secret". Many, if not most of the Masons I see have their badges displayed prominently on the backs of their cars, which seems pretty "open" to me. So I scan the article looking for some connection between Masons and "secret society" and while there are 3 external links, and an implied allegation by some vague statements by the Catholic Church, there is no direct statement in the Article that the Masons are a secret society. The Wikipedia Article on "Secret Societies" does not even mention the word "Mason" in the Article, only links outside the Article. So, it seems to me that the Article should address this ambiguity directly. Are the Masons a "secret society", and if so, who says so, and by what definition? Are there reliable sources for this, one way or the other? Many organizations restrict and regulate information, your credit card and bank account information, for example. Just because an organization has information that is for "Internal Use Only", does not mean that the whole organization is "secret".Tym Whittier (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Historian Jasper Ridley argues that it is, "the World's Most Powerful Secret Society."Jasper Ridley (2011). The Freemasons: A History of the World's Most Powerful Secret Society. Arcade. ISBN 978-1-61145-010-1. see also Jeffers, H. Paul. Freemasons: A History and Exploration of the World's Oldest Secret Society. (Citadel Press, 2005). On the French version see: Olivier Tosseri, "La franc-maçonnerie est une société secrète" ['Free-Masonry is a Secret Society' the article is in French. Historia 2010, Issue 765, p94+. Abstract: The article discusses the history of Freemasonry in France, 1650 to 2000, focusing on the rites and rituals that characterize the organization as a secret society. It describes the philosophic and philanthropic purposes of the society in England and Scotland during the 17th century, its emphasis on esoteric mysteries to advance human civilization, and the society's association with the temple of Israel king Solomon, the Egyptian pyramids, and European cathedrals. Other subjects under discussion include the Grand Lodge in France, the relationship between the Free Masons and French philosopher Voltaire, and the Catholic church's condemnation of Freemasonry in the 18th century. Rjensen (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
See below. Libby Kane (talk)
Actually, while the sub-title of Ridley’s book may include the words “secret society”, this isn’t what the book is about. I suspect that the subtitle was added by the publishers as a way to sell more books. If you actually read the book, Ridley barely discusses the issue of “secrecy” at all. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Freemasonry is a 'secret society' in so much that it is a 'society that keeps secrets'. 2601:580:C:3AA8:39E0:D622:D60A:B25B (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Freemasonry began in Scotland by absorbing the Knights Templar

MODERATOR: I recommend the following tweak to the opening paragraph... "Freemasonry or Masonry consists of fraternal organizations that trace their origins to the local fraternities of stonemasons that from the end of the 14th century regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients. There is evidence that Freemasonry began in Scotland by absorbing the Knights Templar<ref]citation needed</]." 73.85.201.81 (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

While there is a lot of speculation about Freemasonry being in some way connected to the Knights Templar, there is no actual evidence to support the idea. It is a romantic notion, but academic historians dismiss it. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin became Grand Master of the PA Grand Lodge in 1734

MODERATOR: "Benjamin Franklin became Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania in 1734" should be added to this article<ref]https://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/artoct02/benjamin_franklin.htm </ref]. 2601:580:9:DDFD:69A3:10FB:D138:BC3C (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019

unreliable sources used for the Islam and freemasonary section. Blog posts are not a legitimate source. Sjjamal95 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Sjjamal95 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Under the Religious Opposition, I would like to request a new section that is "Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and Freemasonry." It could either pull the information directly from or link to here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Freemasonry — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiphiFibo (talk • contribs) 09:01, February 21, 2020 (UTC)

There are many ties between the 2 groups, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism was a confirmed Freemason and the Endowment Ceremony (temple ritual) that he created is very similar to Masonic ritual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiphiFibo (talk • contribs) 09:03, February 21, 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asking for one article to be merged into another is a different process from edit requests and not, I suspect, what you are asking for. You need to specify what you think is relevant in that other article that could improve this one. Otherwise, we can only guess at what you mean. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Could we add more details?

According to the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry[1], Mackey notes the remarkable similarities between Jewish temple and Masonic temple practices:

Great care was taken of the personal condition of every Israelite who entered the Temple for Divine worship. The Talmudic treatise entitled Baracoth, which contains instructions as to the ritual worship among the Jews, lays down the following rules for the preparation of all who visit the Temple: "No man shall go into the Temple with his staff, nor with shoes on his feet, nor with his outer garment, nor with money tied up in his purse." There are certain ceremonial usages in Freemasonry which furnish what may be called at least very remarkable coincidences with this old Jewish custom.

Masonic author Haywood of the National Masonic Research Society wrote in "Mithraism: Freemasonry and the ancient mysteries,"

"THE THEORY that modern Freemasonry is in some sense a direct descendant from the ancient Mysteries has held a peculiar attraction for Masonic writers this long time, and the end is not yet, for the world is rife with men who argue about the matter up and down endless pages of print. It is a most difficult subject to write about, so that the more one learns about it the less he is inclined to ventilate any opinions of his own. "

He proceeds to make comparisons between the two including:

When Sir Samuel Dill described Mithraism as "a sacred Freemasonry" he used that name in a very loose sense. Nevertheless, the resemblances are often startling. Men only were admitted to membership in the cult. "Among the hundreds of inscriptions that have come down to us, not one mentions either a priestess, a woman initiate, or even a donatress." In this the mithrea differed from the collegia, which latter, though they almost never admitted women as members, never hesitated to accept help or money from them. Membership in Mithraism was as democratic as it is with us, perhaps more so; slaves were freely admitted and often held positions of trust, as also did the freedmen of whom there were such multitudes in the latter centuries of the empire.

Membership was usually divided into seven grades, each of which had its own appropriate symbolical ceremonies. Initiation was the crowning experience of every worshipper. He was attired symbolically, took vows, passed through many baptisms, and in the higher grades ate sacred meals with his fellows. The great event of the initiate’s experiences was the taurobolium [baptism in the blood of a bull], already described. It was deemed very efficious, and was supposed to unite the worshipper with Mithra himself. A dramatic representation of a dying and a rising again was at the head of all these ceremonies. A tablet showing in bas relief Mithra’s killing of the bull stood at the end of every mithreum. This, mithreum, as the meeting place, or lodge, was called, was usually cavern shaped, to represent the cave in which the god had his struggle. There were benches or shelves along the side, and on these side lines the members sat. Each mithreum had its own officers, its president, trustees, standing committees, treasurer, and so forth, and there were higher degrees granting special privileges to the few. Charity and Relief were universally practised and one Mithraist hailed another as "brother." The Mithraic "lodge" was kept small, and new lodges were developed as a result of "swarming off" when membership grew too large.

[2]

"If a man wishes to do so, he may say that what Freemasonry is among us, the Ancient Mysteries were to the people of the Roman world, but it would be a difficult thing for any man to establish the fact that Freemasonry has directly descended from those great cults." - Bro. H. L. Haywood, editor, The Builder [3]

Additionally, he proposes that Mithraism in turn descended from Zoroastrainism.

According to the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, "As a contributor to the literature and science of Freemasonry, Doctor Mackey's labors have been more extensive than those of any other in America or in Europe." Mackey writes in "The Symbolism of Freemasonry"

"The nineteen propositions here announced contain a brief but succinct view of the progress of Freemasonry from its origin in the early ages of the world, simply as a system of religious philosophy, through all the modifications to which it was submitted in the Jewish and Gentile races, until at length it was developed in its present perfected form."

He also correlates the overarching message of Freemasonry with various pagan and Christian teachings.

He summarizes: 1. “ in the very earliest ages of the world there were existent certain truths of vast importance to the welfare and happiness of humanity, which had been communicated,—no matter how, but,—most probably, by direct inspiration from God to man.” 2. These truths principally consisted in the abstract propositions of the unity of God and the immortality of the soul. 3. These truths were passed down through patriarchs, such as Noah. 4. “In consequence of this communication, the true worship of God continued, for some time after the subsidence of the deluge, to be cultivated by the Noachidae, the Noachites, or the descendants of Noah.” 5. “At a subsequent period (no matter when, but the biblical record places it at the attempted building of the tower of Babel), there was a secession of a large number of the human race from the Noachites.” 6. As a result, truth was lost, resulting in theological errors. 7. The truths were preserved by a few, and dispersed across many nations. 8. These passed through such places as Egypt and Greece. 9. 10. They occurred in various levels of corruption/pureness among Jewish and Gentiles. 11. They evolved and changed names in various cultures. E.g. Greek gods were deviations from original truths. 12. Only some receive initiations and truths from the Ancient Mysteries 13. “These Mysteries existed in every country of heathendom, in each under a different name, and to some extent under a different form, but always and everywhere with the same design of inculcating, by allegorical and symbolic teachings, the great Masonic doctrines of the unity of God and the immortality of the soul.” 14. The pure version of Freemasonry flowed through Jewish lines (Noachites), and the corrupted versions through pagans. 15. The two forms collide at the temple of Solomon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 23:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://archive.org/stream/An_Encyclopedia_Of_Freemasonry_1919_Vol_2_-_A_G_Mackey/An_Encyclopedia_Of_Freemasonry_1919_Vol_2_-_A_G_Mackey_djvu.txt
  2. ^ https://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/mithraism.html
  3. ^ http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11937/11937-h/11937-h.htm#ch05

The New York times titles: A Ritual Gone Fatally Wrong Puts Light on Masonic Secrecy

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10/nyregion/a-ritual-gone-fatally-wrong-puts-light-on-masonic-secrecy.html --Le Roi s'amuse (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup... this happened. But it is important to note that this “ceremony” was a unique tradition, only done by the lodge where the tragedy occurred. It was NOT something approved by the Grand Lodge of New York (the Masonic jurisdiction that chartered the lodge), nor by any OTHER Grand Lodge. In other words, it was NOT a Masonic ceremony (even though it happened under the auspices of a very misguided lodge).
Also note that all involved were subsequently expelled from Freemasonry, and the lodge had its charter withdrawn.
Masons are human and sometimes make really dumb decisions, and do really stupid things... just like everyone else. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I have to inform myself on this topic more, but I have heard from a variety of reliable sources that the order of "Skull & Bones" does similarly odd rituals and as we all know several US-Presidents are part of that "society" so what do you think about this?--109.75.93.242 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that you should inform yourself even more. The idea that there are similarities between S&B and Freemasonry does not surprise me... MOST collegiate fraternities in the US took Freemasonry’s rituals as a template when writing their own (so did the Elks, Knights of Columbus, Odd Fellows, and half a dozen other “adult” fraternal groups). However, having borrowed from Masonic rituals, they then made changes... and there is no connection between these groups Beyond that initial borrowing.
As a start to informing yourself more, may I suggest you read “Freemasons for Dummies” - don’t let the name put you off... it is well written, and goes into a lot of this stuff. It also has a good “further reading” section. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I have done some research on this topic and my intuition often brings me to quite usable information. You say they borrowed principles from the masonic rituals. If things like this then eventually come out, this is indeed kind of creepy. I also think there is not the one freemasonry. Today I read an article that as always in life and on every place, the good and the bad are fighting to gain the upper hand. Or would you say that every freemason is good only because he is a free mason?

ABC News: Skull & Bones Ritual Caught on Tape!

Journalist Ron Rosenbaum and a few Yale students manage to film a pagan death ritual being conducted on school grounds. This is the same secret society that Presidents Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. attended. Senator John Kerry (2004 democratic presidential nominee) is also a member. ABC News does a full report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExmO8UgQL4E

In my neighborhood, on the Scheidterberg, there is a building with no name or address, it is the only building I know that has pyramids as lightning bulbs on every piece of the stone fence (don't know the exact term in English). What is strangest, beside they have a tower about 10 lights and cameras on it, in the town, there is a school of the "Rosenkreuzer" and when you go up the hill there is a really strange steel-construction - it is not big in enough so that you could stand in it, about 1 meter high and 3 meter diameter. It reminds one of movies like Blair Witch Project. There is a giant blanket of plastic outside and you really are scared when you near that construction. It looks to me like some sort of place of sacrifice and what is most strangest, I have that feeling that together with the house on the hill, the school of the Rosenkreuzer and this strange tent of sacrfice, probably, this may build a triangle together. I must check this on a map, but this is really the strangest I have encountered, in real life. Isn't there an obligation to have a name on your house? On the bell, there only is written "bell", no info, only an emblem that probably shall make it look like it is in possession of the municipal. I could name you the address, if you are informed about freemasons you could check whether this belongs to your society, but I am pretty sure this is a building of a secret society. Must be. The address is "Zum Grumbach" in Saarbrücken, Germany. --109.75.93.203 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

They may have been expelled after doing this dumb thing, which of course is a good thing, but they did it in the name of freemasonry, and believed at the time they were doing something valid. Had they not been part of freemasonry, it's reasonable to assume it wouldn't have happened. We need to be a little careful whitewashing incidents like this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I have not dared to read the freemason article, but the one about Skull&Bones manages 2 things in one sentence. Propagating it as a "cultural institution (known for its powerful alumni)" certainly and whipping off any critical stance by using the CT-word which knowadays (new word) is more present than the F-Word. "Skull and Bones has become a cultural institution known for its powerful alumni and various conspiracy theories." I reckon inserting the joke that with their "powerful alumni" they mean the kerosin and its additives that are burnt on our skies, now with the "corona" "crisis" positively not so frequent endangers this comment of being deleted. ;-)--109.75.93.203 (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It was not whitewashed. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
You said: "Yup... this happened. But it is important to note that this “ceremony” was a unique tradition, only done by the lodge where the tragedy occurred." Yet a brief search for terms like "free mason ritual demonic" in google quickly brings us to numerous other lodges performing really strange rituals!?
Rare Masonic Satanic Illuminati Ritual https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dcOoBOHPjo
Hidden Camera Masonic Ritual Satan Worship Exposed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbRmRkZxYk0
Besides you speak of "Grand Lodges" not approving these things, but who knows what goes on behind closed doors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.75.93.34 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
In addition, the brothers in this video swear on the "scientific truth" in the inauguration, but as we all know most studies are buried in systems like JSTOR, where one must pay enormous amounts of money to get access. This also cost the life of a real brother - not a freemason but a brother in terms of how his fate touches the hearts of people and how he invested his life to help other people- called Aaron Swartz. If freemasonry is so interested in the scientific truth, what does it do to help bring down systems like JSTOR intended to hide most of the studies from not only the scientists but the overall population and the generic citizen? Who can afford to pay 400 dollar for access to a study and this is only for a year or two?

I removed two spam links from here. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, left off edit summary. Fixing. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Could you please change the chosen picture of the forget-me-not for one which has a petal orientated toward the top to show the auspicious pentagram of the forget-me-not symbol not the inverted one? Pdeloche (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Feel free to suggest an alternate picture, but there's no indication why having it turned would matter. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree with DV... Freemasonry does not care which way the petals point. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Free?

The section "Joining a lodge" says "The absolute minimum requirement of any body of Freemasons is that the candidate must be free". Free in what sense? Not a slave, not in prison, not married? A [clarification needed] is needed there, but I can't add it myself. 2A02:2149:A000:8200:FD54:61BD:C8BC:96FD (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 13:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

In the first para of Freemasonry#Ritual and symbolism pls wl "ashlars", thus -> ashlars Thx 121.44.38.245 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! 121.44.38.245 (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Cathedrals

Could we add the fact of them being connected to cathedral builders (stonemasons), who were a sort of closed society due to their knowledge, skills, which were secret and limited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.162.6 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

We need concrete connections and references. Neville Barker Cryer thought he detected family relations between the operative lodge at York Minster and the old lodge that persisted to the 1790s as the Grand Lodge of All England. That's a single example in a vast subject. We can't connect to Cathedral builders in general, and the lodges that can show continuity from operative to speculative are mainly civic and Scottish. Suggestions welcome. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition

Is it just me or does the lead (just like the article) offer no definition of what Freemasonry is? What is the reader supposed to take away from the article? That it's a secular discussion club? A hybrid of religious and progressive attitudes? Something else entirely? One would expect a little more from a GA. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The definition is in the first sentence... Freemasonry is a group of fraternal organizations. Blueboar (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I humbly submit that's insufficient. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Given that Freemasonry varies significantly across space and time, and what it means can vary from one Freemason to the next, I humbly submit that an overarching, simple definition is the best. For a fuller definition of what masonry is and isn't, the rest of the article do a decent job of explaining it. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
On that basis, the lead of our Scouting article should merely say "Scouting is a group of youth organisations". It says a lot more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The one thing (indeed the only thing) that all branches and forms of Freemasonry have in common is this: the Fraternity attempts to bring men together in harmony so they can form bonds of “brotherly love and affection” (ie friendship). THAT, I would submit, is it’s primary purpose and goal. All the rest (from the philosophical discussion to the festive dinners) is HOW it attempts to achieve that purpose and goal. Blueboar (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Britannica opens its article with "...the teachings and practices of the secret fraternal (men-only) order of Free and Accepted Masons, the largest worldwide secret society." Would paraphrasing that be appropriate? HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Freemasonry isn't (broadly speaking) a secret society, it is a society with secrets. WegianWarrior (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
So how about we say THAT in the lead? HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe we already do address the part of being a society with secrets; "The candidate of these three degrees is progressively taught the meanings of the symbols of Freemasonry, and entrusted with grips, signs and words to signify to other members that he has been so initiated.". As for not being a secret society, I see no reason to state a negative. WegianWarrior (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The secrecy isn't mentioned in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

A dead discussion, but for the future: Things that all of Freemasonry does NOT have in common: 1. The Hiramic Legend (while it appears in the most used rituals, it does not appear in the Swedish Rite and those related rites from Continental Europe. 2. Masculinity (While most Freemasons are men, who belong to male-only fraternities, a very large number are not) I’ve seen these included in various definitions elsewhere, but the scope of the article is broader than that used by the people who usually use those definitions (regular Masons, for instance, such as Mackey) Couldn’t log in, so forgive me.174.253.65.13 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Implied Politics

In the sections "Islam and Freemasonry" and "Political Oppositon", antisemitism and Anti-Zionism are talked about very similarly. They're not necessarily talked about interchangeably, but they are intertwined close enough to lead a reader to think of Anti-Zionism as antisemitic, and antisemitism as Anti-Zionist. I understand that the concepts are related, however I feel like the way they're written about is not as apolitical as you'd expect from a Wikipedia article. I could also be overthinking, but it never hurts to point things out. DillowDrowned (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure that we tie the two concepts together… however, our source material often does tie them together, and that does influence what we can write. As editors, we are charged with representing what the source material says accurately, (without inserting our own opinions). Thus, if the source material ties two things together, we would do so as well. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent source addition

User:ValentinBura has added the following source several times:

  • Rumsfeldt, Ross G. [1] The Regular Masonic Ceremony of Initiation (publisher=Rumsfeldt and Sons Pty. Ltd., 2019)

I have reverted this addition, and thought I should explain why. There are multiple reasons. First, let me describe the source - it purports to be a PDF scan of the ritual of the Entered Apprentice Degree, authored by Ross G. Rumsfeldt, who is apparently a PhD connected to the University of New England. It is located on a website: kosher4passover.online.

Here are my concerns -

  1. The website - kosher4passover.online appears to be a personal web page and thus is not a reliable source per WP:RS. We do not even know if this page belongs to Rumsfeldt, or is a page owned by some random joe, where he has uploaded Rumsfeldt's document.
  2. The Author - Who is Ross G. Rumsfeldt? The document claims that he has a connection to the University of New England, in Maine... but I can not find him listed among their faculty. (Not saying he isn't... just that I can not find him listed). If he is, what department is he in?
  3. The document itself - the scanned document purports to be the ritual for the Entered Apprentice Degree... To assume good faith, I will assume that Rumsfeldt believes this to be the case. However, it certainly isn't the ritual they use in Maine - the inclusion of lines for an officer called the "Inner Guard" proves that (Maine, and most of the US Lodges, does not have an officer called the Inner Guard). I am not saying that it isn't the ritual in some other masonic jurisdiction (such as the United Grand Lodge of England, where they do have an "Inner Gard")... but there is no indication as to where it might be from or how Rumsfeldt obtained it. (Note: This is a problem with all ritual exposés... there are hundreds of Grand Lodges, and each has its own official ritual. And they can differ wildly... so any document purporting to be a "Masonic ritual" needs to be clear on which jurisdiction it supposedly is from). I would also want to know how Rumsfeldt obtained his text. Is he a Mason? Did he get it from a Mason? Did he find it in a trunk in his grandmother's attic? Did he invent his own version based on stuff he found on line? We don't know. I suppose what I am asking is: what is the provenance of the text?
  4. What is this source trying to verify? - A citation is supposed to verify text in our article. I have a question as to what this citation is attempting to verify. User:ValentinBura has twice placed it after the word "initiation"... so I assume that he is trying to verify the fact that Masons call their first degree an "Initiation". However, given the questionable nature of this source, I think there are far better sources that can be cited to do this (indeed, several of the other sources already cited support this concept).

So... to summarize... there are just too many problems with this source for me to accept it. There are questions about the website, about the Author, and about the document itself. Please discuss if you can answer any of these questions. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar These seem to be sound reasons for this action. Thank you for explaining this. FULBERT (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


Stonemasonry?

Dumb question. 😀 The opening paragraph explains where the name comes from, but I wonder if any members are actual stonemasons or bricklayers or some other construction or art profession? Or is all that gone now? Was there a requirement long ago to be a stonemason? A quick sentence would be good. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello freemason I want to join us

Hi 👋 196.107.179.35 (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Most Grand Lodges (and many local lodges) have a website with a section on how to join. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What consensus says that this page should be in UK English?

This is not a British organization therefore either formatting can be used as per Wikipedia's manual of style: The official policy is to use British spelling when writing about British topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for a more detailed explanation. Therefore it's organization not organization and any other changes of z to s can be changed as long as all of them are, correct? JustCopewithit (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please have a look at the Edit note right at the start of the article that says "use British English". It has been there since at least 2016. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The consensus goes back even further than that. As I remember, the two deciding factors were a) the fact that the fraternity had its origins in the UK, and b) the majority of the editors working on the article at the time we’re based there. Per WP:ENGVAR, once a style is chosen, we are supposed to stick with it… unless there is a substantive reason to switch. Blueboar (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Lede and other

GA deserves lede cleared of references, which should be moved in appropriate sections. This also means that lede, in case it contains info not explained in section, should be cleared and those info together with refs moved elsewhere. "Mafia of the mediocre" should be explained. ౪ Santa ౪99° 07:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Meh… I might care about this more if we were trying to get the article to GA status for the first time… however the article already has GA status (and thus underwent an extensive GA review to earn that status)… I think the lead is essentially the same as when reviewed and, if so, presumably the reviewers agreed that a few citations in the lead were not a big problem. Have you checked the talk page archives to see if it was discussed during that review? Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand WTH freemasonry is??? This is confusing.

WHAT IS IT? I ReAD the introduction and it does not explain what Freemasonry is. It basically just says it's an organisation from this kind of origin. But WHATIS IT? There can be so many from a particular orgin. WHAT ARE THEy ABOUT? Hallelujahknowledge (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It says it in the first sentence… Freemasonry is a fraternity. That is what they are “about” - fraternity -ie fostering bonds friendship and brotherhood. All the rest (it’s rituals and symbolism, it’s history, it’s charity, etc) flows from that. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

misconception

User:Matt Deres User:Rasnaboy "misconception" has to go from the lead, totally irrelevant and leading in some ways, BEING secret is what leads to suspicion of involvements, not misconceptions.121.98.30.202 (talk) 121.98.30.202 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed that word. It's the secrecy that leads to the suspicions. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Some factual issues in the article!

The author says twice in the article that women are not admitted - the first time he/she cites a source written in 1734 (!) and the second, a source from 1930. I would suggest the research was not complete: I was personally a member as a young girl. The girls' division of Masons is "Rainbow". The boys are "DeMolay". The women are "Eastern Star". Nearly all of my family were members. So yes, there ARE women involved, as well as children, in 2023. 98.127.202.130 (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are all appendant orders, though, not Freemasonry proper. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I wonder too if those orders were perhaps unique to just the USA? (That's where the OP appears to be from.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
No, they all have international reach, although they did start here, yes. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Cheers!

Cheers for deleting a whole hours work dude 👍 sound. Robert444444 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

If you think that "Masons caused Vatican II" is a good use of an hour's work, there are probably better places to put in your time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Pope reconfirm ban on Freemasonry

Someone please incorporate this: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/vatican-confirms-ban-catholics-becoming-freemasons-2023-11-15/ 99.113.161.247 (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Masonic Degrees

There really isn't an article that I can find where Masonic degrees as rituals are discussed. This is definitely a significant oversight in the encyclopedia nature of our coverage on this topic.

It seems there used to be an article but it got merged in here. Jjazz76 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Masonic ritual and symbolism? There are two major problems with crafting an article about the rituals … the first is finding reliable academic type sources to support it. The second is that there isn’t any standardization in Masonry - the rituals performed in one lodge or jurisdiction are often radically different from the rituals performed in another. This means that anything we can reliably verify has to be hedged as being specific to a particular lodge or Jurisdiction. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
It would seem to me the York Rite Craft Degrees, which are very common in the US, basically appear nowhere in any of the articles. There are plenty of sources about them. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure what “York Rite Craft Degrees” are. In the US, the York Rite degrees are considered supplemental to the Craft Degrees. They are separate things. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Mixed gender Masonry in North America

There are mix-gendered lodges spawned by the International Order of the Human Right (French "Droit Humain" mostly French speaking ones) in North America, as well as the genuine American Co-Masonry (English speaking). One can also find French speaking mix-gendered lodges in Canada, especially the under the custody of the Supreme Council of Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Québec. This canadian obedience has some links with the Grand Orient de France, but still uses the compulsory invocation to the Great Architect of the Universe and opens rituals with St-John's Gospel or the book of Kings from the Bible depending on the degrees. Women can freely be accepted into these Lodges in North America, as well as men and people of all races and colors. Hpm29 (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe these are mentioned in the Droit Humain article, and might be included in the List of Masonic Grand Lodges. I don’t think this article should mention them. This article is designed to be a “broad brush” overview - a beginners guide, if you will… it’s a starting point for those searching for more info. It’s not really the right place to mention every small faction of the fraternity that exists in every country. We have other articles and sub-articles for that. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, no. There is no such thing as "mixed gendered lodges." There are all kinds of groups who practice Masonic rituals, but have zero provenance, association and amity with United Grand Lodge of England, which is the root of the tree, so to speak. All legitamate bodies of Freemasonry have amity (friendship and recognition) with the United Grand Lodge of England. This includes all jurisditions in the USA, Canada, Australia, western Europe, and others. Pedigee matters. There are a lot of so-called "masonic" organizations that have no pedigree from the real and original Masonic pedigree. Kornbelt888 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Article Unclear

The article is not very helpful in helping the readers understand what Freemasonry actually is. The three introductory paragraphs only focus on organizational structure and differences within Freemasonry, but leave aside the primary question of what the modern freemasonry is all about. There should at least be an attempt to answer this fundamental question in the introduction. ---bssasidhar- >Talk Page 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Are all stonemasons a part of freemasonry?

It is clear to me that freemasonry, a kind of fraternal organization with some secret rituals, code of conducts, and belief system; originated historically from stonemasonry. However, what is not clear to me that whether these 2 group of peoples are overlapping (as in venn diagram) or mutually exclusive. I know there are freemasons who are not stonemassons. But are there any stonemasons who are NOT associated with freemasonry by any means? or all stonemasons are mandated to go through freemasonry??

Please make this clear in the article.

2409:40E1:100D:518E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Historically, all stonemasons were Freemasons and all Freemasons were stonemasons (the two terms meant the same thing). However, beginning in the late 1500s and early 1600s they slowly drifted apart. Today they are separate. So… today, while there are some stonemasons who are Freemasons, it isn’t automatic… and most stonemasons likely are not Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Please change letter G redirect

the current link does not describe anything to do with Freemasonry. Please change the link from G to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Masonic_abbreviations#:~:text=with%20a%20G.-,G.,Grand%20Architect%20of%20the%20Universe. I would do so myself but my wiki-fu is admittedly not strong enough. 2603:800C:3D00:1ED2:F81D:98FA:D56:FB1A (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Will do that for you:)) Michaelangelos (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_40&oldid=1251672860"