Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 4 Nov 2005 and 9 Nov 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_9. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan 23:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Two types of Masonry, ETC

First and foremost, my POV is that of someone in "mainstream" Masonry, in the US. That is to say, a NON-PH Grand Lodge, nor one of the GLs involved in various disputes with PH over their authority to conduct Masonic business as representatives of African-American Freemasons.

There is much talk back and forth on whether this article should include reference to women as Freemasons, with a number of points being that "that isn't regular Blue Lodge Masonry, and thus shouldn't be discussed here . . ." That's POV, in my opinion.

Regularity is determined by each GL. Each GL maintains its own standards of recognition, which may or may not correspond with their views of regularity, or their Landmarks.

Fact is, there are women who are Freemasons of a sort. No, they are not accepted as such by the majority of GLs in amity with UGLE. However, the arguments for allowing women are disputed, and many base themselves from the Regius Manuscript. Stating there are no women Freemasons is akin to (not not exactly the same as) saying there are no Catholics who are pro-choice, simply because the doctrine says they shouldn't be.

Regarding the Anglo-Continental disparity: The issue originally derived from the various disputes in France, and then in England, over Landmarks. The "regular GL of France (GLNF)" is derived from English Charter. To state that there should only be discussion of Freemasonry that deals with Anglo (or in amity with UGLE) Masonry solely, is inherently POV in favour of the idea that only Anglo Masonry is right.

Also, and I haven't recently read the article itself, (I just spent two hours reading the archived talk pages), the references to AASR, Grotto, York Rite, OES etc are too USA specific. Those are not part of Blue Lodge either. the commonest degrees to Masonry (with the exception of the Swedish Rite, I believe) are the three degrees of Craft Freemasonry, however and wherever practiced. They may be Webb Ritual (the primary ritual format in the USA, given minor regional variations) derived from the old Prestonian Lecture series, or Emulation Ritual, or Bristol Working, or Canadian Rite(which I believe may be an amalgamation of UGLE Emulation of American Webb/Preston), or French Rite, or Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (which is still performed in the French format, not the Pike derived format, for the three degrees, in some Lodges in New Orleans LA) or a multitude of other Rites, Workings, or Rituals.

My point is this: to say that the article on Freemasonry should only deal with Blue Lodges that accept theistic/deistic men, and aren't PH derived, is a very narrow POV that excludes a number of other jurisdictions and bodies all of which have some Masonic derivation, whether or not MY GL or YOURS sees it as regular. If it is about Craft Freemasonry, it should be about Craft Freemasonry, not about the argument over who is right or wrong in calling themselves Freemasons. How to do this? I honestly don't have much of a clue. I do believe that there should be a sub article or section saying: hey, there is debate over women in Freemasonry, here are the sides and jurisdictions espousing various POV's. Hey, there is debate regarding requrement for belief in a Supreme Being vs strict interpretation of Andersen's Constitutions in order to allow atheists or agnostics to join, here are the sides and jurisdictions espousing various POV's. Hey, there is a historical period of African-American only Lodges in the USA, both by way of being actively excluded by some "mainstream"/white GLs, and by way of wishing to stick together and avoid the dangers of that, and here are the facts as known . . . This has GOT to be a hard article to write, and be complete, yet NPOV. It's as if all the various "sides" need their own subarticles or seperate pages. Kudos to everyone doing their part to further this project, and kudos for those who are anti-Masonic, yet do good editing and research, and don't dimply restate hoaxes and unverifiable conspiracies.

Regarding recognition of GLdF (Grand Loge du France), I highly recommend finding Paul Bessel's page about US GL's recognitions of the various French Grand Bodies in the 1900's: http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm Vidkun 20:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well said, brother. Do you feel that the article as it stands is too heavily slanted toward the "mainstream USA" POV, or is it a reasonable compromise?--SarekOfVulcan 21:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would also point out that Bessel refers only to GLF and GOF, and not GLdF, which is not regular, AFAIK. However, I will ask him to clarify. Furthermore, some limitations need to be made here and there, or we'd have to talk about every single Masonically derived organization in the world. The reason PH is not discussed here is because it's got a separate article, and the same goes for all the other appedant bodies. Most countries have AASR in some form, so I fail to see how that is too US-centric. Also, the sub-articles you are asking for would not show up on this page either; they would be linked, as is the case with many other items. Lastly, discussion does not necessarily mirror content. No offense, but you could have been more convincing in your argument if you spent 30 minutes reading the article instead of basing your comments on discussion, because I thikn a lot of what you are asking about has been addressed in one way ro another to the best of our current abilities; I would love to have sub-articles, but you need people to write them who are knowledgeable about the subject. MSJapan 04:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think non-masons, who must be said will be the vast majority to read these entries, may become a bit overwhelmed by the finer points of Masonic internal politics, recognitions, regular/irregular etc.. However it is still relevent and interesting, and certainly worth including. Perhaps a brief summary on the 'main' Freemasonry page and a more elaborate explanation on a new seperate page on these matters would be the wisest direction to go. As the subject matter for Freemasonry is so large and as the page is already pushing the length guidelines: ("Important: This article is becoming very long. Please consider transferring content to subtopic articles where appropriate.") I invite your comments.Call of Duty 07:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The finer points probably aren't of interest to most reading the article, but they need to be touched on to some degree, and explained in enough detail so that the casual reader will understand why there's a distinction between, say, the Grand Orient of France and the UGLE. Trying to trace, on the other hand, why some U.S. Lodges are F&AM and others are AF&AM, is not terribly useful, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan 08:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"I would also point out that Bessel refers only to GLF and GOF, and not GLdF, which is not regular, AFAIK. However, I will ask him to clarify." I cannot speak directly for Paul Bessel on this one, but in having been involved in a number of conversations with him both online and in person, I believe that when he puts "GLF" for Grand Lodge of France, he means GLdF as that is the translation of Grand Lodge of France. Paul is very aware of the following jurisdictions, and differences: GOdF (Grand Orient of France), GLdF (Grand Lodge of France), GLNF (French National Grand Lodge, which is derived from UGLE, and is currently the only jurisdiction recognised by UGLE). That being said, GLdF does require a belief in God, as well as the presence of a Volume of Sacred Law. I have looked at the rest of the article, and concur in your points to me. Vidkun 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Further info, taken from [1] Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry?, and I thought they might help to clarify a few things about the scope of the article here.

"If a grand lodge strays too far from accepted Masonic norms, other grand lodges will withdraw recognition and will even help organize a new grand lodge in the jurisdiction. The most famous example occurred in 1877 when the "Grand Orient of France" (which functioned as a grand lodge) dropped the requirements that its members believe in God and that its lodges display an open Volume of Sacred Law. This action caused the withdrawal of recognition by virtually every other regular grand lodge and the creation of the "Grand Lodge of France." Later concerns that the Grand Lodge of France was not truly independent of the Scottish Rite Supreme Council of France led to the establishment of the "National Grand Lodge of France," which today is recognized by American, British, and other grand lodges as the regular Masonic authority in France.

Just as there is nothing to prevent a group of worshipers from calling itself "Baptist" or "Presbyterian" or "Jewish," there is nothing to prevent a group of men (or women) from calling itself "Masonic." It is hardly fair to judge the world of regular Masonry by the statements of irregular groups that have appropriated the name "Mason."

[...]The ultimate tests of regularity (greatly simplified) are 1) does a grand lodge directly trace its origins through legitimate authority to one of the British grand lodges, and 2) does it maintain the recognition of most of the community of regular grand lodges, including the British grand lodges? If an organization doesn't pass these tests, then it's not Masonic, despite what it may call itself. " MSJapan 05:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the ultimate tests of regularity . . . This is a point about which Art DeHoyos and I have gone 'round and 'round at a dinner we both attended. In the US, Regularity and Recognition are seen as synonymous, when they are not necessarily so. "What is meant by regular? Every Grand Lodge considers itself to be Regular. This is a self-justified precondition for existence. However, this belief in itself which every Grand Body possesses does not necessarily extend to others. Each Grand Lodge has a set of written criteria or principles upon which it will entertain recognition." Masonic World Guide Kent Henderson, 1984, Lewis Publications, Shepperton UK.

What that boils down to is that Recognition is the determinable issue. Every GL sees itself as regular. I see the point regarding something calling itself Masonry being an appropriation, but the tricky thing is this: before the GL of Connecticut Recognized the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of CT (fir.0 2o do so in the US) were the PH CT Masons merely appropriating the term Mason? Were they Irregular? What changed in PH CT to make them Regular when CT Recognized them? Nothing changed in PH CT. They were the same the day AFTER Recognition as as they were BEFORE.

Point 2 in your quote is often seen as ceding Grand Lodge sovereignty to the majority rule of what other GL's do, and, inevitably, to following the "English Rule".

To say that "when the 'Grand Orient of France' (which functioned as a grand lodge) dropped the requirements that its members believe in God and that its lodges display an open Volume of Sacred Law [. . .] (it) caused the withdrawal of recognition . . ." is misleading, as the recognition was withdrawn by Louisiana in 1868, for reasons that could quite easily be construed as racism.

I get your point on scope of the article, and, no, I am not sure how to rectify the various issues with regularity, recognition, and Anglo vs Continental Masonry in a concise encyclopedic format. But I do appreciate the education I am receiving from reading the POV discussions. Vidkun 18:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Braveheart Reference

On Nov. 4 Nadim made the following addition to Cultural References:

-* In the movie Braveheart, William Wallace refers to Freemasonry
as the "secret society" bent on restoring Scottland to its
independance. Robert the Bruce, and his father, were Freemasons.

On Nov. 5 Dreamguy deleted this addition. I would like the group to discuss the merits for deleting this paragraph as it appears relevent and factual. No explanation was given by the Editor who deleted it, so I am interested in his thinking on this.Call of Duty 07:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that it's because the history of Freemasonry can only be reliably traced back to the founding of the UGLE (or the lodges that joined to create it.) William Wallace and Robert the Bruce significantly predate this. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if this report is accurate as far at that goes.--SarekOfVulcan 08:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I also thought the Robert the Bruce as a Freemason was a bit curious, however with all the Rosslyn Castle/Knights Templar books out there at the moment, some apparently written by Masons, admittedly unorthodox Masons, it is easy to see how this idea could be included in a movie about Scotland. I think the Holy Blood, Holy Grail series of books written by Michael Baigent also put forth these sorts of theories regarding Freemasonry's Scottish/Templar origins. I see that Mr. Baigent is currently the editor of Freemasonry Today and even involved in a lawsuit with Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown over these sorts of theories. I realize that all of these writers do not speak for Freemasonry, but only for themselves. I also did not see the movie Braveheart so can't help much on whether Freemasonry/Robert the Bruce was mentioned in it, perhaps someone else can help us out here. If the reference was in fact made in the movie the paragraph should probably be included, although it could be reworded to reflect that it is only a cultural reference of Freemasonry, and not an actual accepted fact. Thank-you for your comments. Call of Duty 08:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The RTB/WW reference is to KT's, not to Freemasonry. Jachin 05:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Point of View Query

I would be interested to know which current editors of this page are members of the Masonic Fraternity. Comments made by Vidkun, SarekOfVulcan, and MSJapan in Talk:Freemasonry#Two_types_of_Masonry.2C_ETC, and Jachin, GRYE in other paragraphs appear to imply that they are themselves current members. Thank-you.Call of Duty 07:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a "mainstream" Mason.--SarekOfVulcan 08:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ehyeh asher ehyeh.Jachin 12:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, I would be interested in knowing you POV considering you appear to have exclusively registered this account with Wikipedia to edit the Freemasonry and Anti-Masonry articles. Is there a specific reason for this? Jachin 13:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:bite, WP:AGF--SarekOfVulcan 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh I'm not biting by any means. I just have this strange feeling that it may be Lightbringer under a new account?  :) Jachin 21:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Gee... Hmm... Is Jachin...;-) Nah, just one of two nicely sculpted piles of stone on the doorstep... & that'll answer the question... & good call on the puppetmaster [sic].Grye 09:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Please note, User:Call of Duty has been suspended indefinately as being a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer. SarekOfVulcan, you owe me a beer. Jachin 18:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing. But, hey, any excuse for a beer... planning on coming to Seattle soon? Lots of good brewpubs.--SarekOfVulcan 18:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I should do a bit of travel whilst on hiatus from my studies, it's been ages since I've seen the world. Seven world tours under my belt, very few countries of good culture and history left to be seen, I guess it's about time I check out America. :P Then again, the US has about as much cultural and historic value as Australia, damn newborn countries, so boring.  :)Jachin 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Anti-clericalism

I removed Anti-clericalism from the bunch of anti-masonic links added by User:Call of Duty as allegations do not make for encyclopedic entry worthy instances, furthermore anti-clericalism does not have any citation of Freemasonry apart from a linkback in the 'see also' section.

Generally a see-also to a page that only incorporates that article in a see-also modus is considered moot. Jachin 12:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for support of evidence, I noted the same lack of any sort of relation between anti-clericalism and Freemasonry here, because the same section appears in full in Anti-Freemasonry, and makes little to no sense in context there, either. I think the assumption by critics is that "anti-clericalism means against Christianity, and Freemasonry is against Christianity, so Fremasonry has a lot to do with anti-clericalism", but it's just speculation on my part, in the same vein as that section of the article. MSJapan 17:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Clericalism is one of the principal criticisms, if not the principal criticism, of Freemasonry by the Roman Catholic Church. There is a section on it in the Anti-Freemasonry page, a summary of which I placed into the criticisms section on this page. The link at the bottom of this page to the Catholic Encyclopedia will provide readers with additional information if they are interested.Call of Duty 23:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There may be a criticism, but it appears not to have any basis in fact as part of the movement; no other source besides the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to lend any credence to the association of Freemasons with anti-clericalism, so it would seem to me that it would be better served as a subsection of "Criticisms of Freemasonry by the Roman Catholic Church". I guess what really concerns me most is that a generalization is being made based on an unsourced opinion, regardless of the fact that the supporting quote only seems to apply to one country (France) for a limited amount of time (Third Republic), and furthermore that the generalization is being made based on a position that was purported to have been taken almost two centuries ago. What was liberal then would be considered conservative now. Therefore, I think more work is necessary on this section in both articles to put everything into its proper perspective. MSJapan 23:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The section is entitled criticism of Freemasonry. Anti-clericalism is a central criticism of Freemasonry. The Catholic Encyclopedia is an official and approved document of the Roman Catholic Church, and is certainly not a "generalization" or an "unsourced opinion". Your descriptions of what anti-clericalism is or what the Roman Catholic Church's criticism is in regard to anti-clericalism is unsourced, in fact I have never seen it so described before. Please provide a citation for your description, I would very much like to read it. Thank-you.Call of Duty 00:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything new; it's in the articles themselves (anti-clericalism and the sections on the Freemasonry and Anti- pages). On the two Masonry articles, it states that "Freemasonry was associated with 19th century bourgeois liberalism", but never connects it to the anti-clericalism as such in a factual manner (As a note, that section has never been edited, and is in its original form as posted, AFAIK). The only conclusion that can be drawn from those sections is that Freemasonry may or may not have been involved in anticlericalism in France during the time of the Third Republic. That is far too specific a time and place to support the association with either bourgeois liberalism or anti-clericalism in any general sense (which seems to be the intent), nor do I think it was Freemasonry alone that was associated with it (I don't think the current Pope would feel he had to rechristianize Europe if there wasn't already some opposition to it historically). Also, given the various reports as links, it might be better to rewrite the Masonry article anticlericalism sections such that they pertain to more wide-ranging criticisms, rather than just a single time and place. Basically, without passing judgment on the argument at all, the sources do not support the statement that is intended, and the section needs to be rewritten to make a statement that *is* supported by the sources. MSJapan 01:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well we, or someone, could go through the Catholic material pertaining to their position on Freemasonry and Anti-Clericalism. The Catholic Enycyclopedia is a good place to start, but there are others. From what I know about the subject I think the description contained on the anti-freemasonry page is a reasonable one. Maybe it could be better, maybe the reference to bourgoise liberalism is a little quirky, not so sure exactly what bourgoise liberalism is in any event. The basics of anti-clericalism are laws restricting Church property, public displays or processions of religious, nationalization of church schools, monastaries, murdering of priests and nuns, etc.. Mexico, France, and Russia did a pretty thorough job there. Portugal and Spain under the Republicans tried it but only managed to murder 9,000 priests before Franco and Salazar defeated them. However I think we only need a three or four sentences in a summary. The Kulturkampf in Bismarkian Prussia and Germany could also be mentioned. Masonic politicians from the Grand Orient were all involved in these events. The Grand Orients in Europe issued documents on what they intended to do to the Church, so it is no conspiracy theory, just basic european history.Call of Duty 02:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, if the documentation is there, but that points out a major flaw in the paragraph, and that being that while the charge doesn't appear to apply to countries outside Europe, it is not clarified as such (this is actually the reverse of a point made earlier about the Freemasonry article being too US-centric). The other need for documentation is because a single member does not speak for the organization as a whole, and thus there is a big difference between a personal position taken by a man who is a Mason, and a position taken by a Masonic jurisdiction, neither of which points to legitimate criticism of Masonry worldwide as a general statement. MSJapan 04:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism by various church's of syncretism in Freemasonry

Citation as requested, you may go through the various church's.

All of the Church's mentioned in the para rewrite have issued formal pastoral letters on Freemasonry. [2] 00:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. The sources may have been misguided, but the charge was leveled as you said.--SarekOfVulcan 00:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Presbyterian report

I love the way that they quote current Masons and then claim that what they say supports their position, when it actually goes against the case they're making. Quoting Ankenberg as an authority is another strike against them, as is quoting James Shaw as a 32-degree mason. I think this article would be much better placed in the Anti-Masonry article.--SarekOfVulcan 01:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If you print it out it is a 20 page report. You should do that, it makes it easier to read, I recommend that as a Mason you should read it. It is one of the most detailed reports by a Church I have ever read. It is the official document on the Presbyterian Church's position on Freemasonry, they didn't cut any corners. It was submitted at the 15th General Assembly and approved, and it was resubmitted and reapproved at the 16th General Assembly. It contains many references and primary sources. I don't understand your distinction between criticsm of freemasonry and anti-masonry. Is there a distinction? I don't think the term anti-masonry is a precise one, but a general one, applied to critics or criticism of freemasonry. This is a mainstream Protestant Church which spent three years researching the matter before issuing and passing the report. As a Mason you may disagree with the Presbyterian Church's official approved teaching regarding Freemasonry, as explained in this report, that of course is your free right, however it certainly carries the same weight as the Catholic Encylopedia entry on Freemasonry, which details the Roman Catholic position on Freemasonry, and therefore should be included as a reference for this topic.Call of Duty 02:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I did read (or at least skim) the whole thing, but the first page is instructive:

Whereas, these denominations have noted that Freemasonry denies many historic Christian doctrines such as the inerrancy and sole sufficiency of the Bible, the Biblical view of God's attributes, the existence of the Christian Trinity, salvation by grace through Jesus Christ, the deity of Jesus Christ, the Biblical teaching of a man's sinful nature, the personal existence of Satan, and

Whereas, Masonry teaches the universal brotherhood of Man and that all mankind will be saved eventually, that a man is saved by his own works, and that it (Masonry) also is the one immutable religion upon which all of mankind's religions are built, including Christianity

Masonry does not deny the existence of the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, or claim that it is an "immutable religion". In fact, most of those claims don't hold true. If the first page isn't accurate, how can the rest be? They came at it assuming that it was a religion, and as such, was incompatible with their teachings. I could go through and Fisk the whole thing, but as you said, it's 20 pages.--SarekOfVulcan 07:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the most damning quote in the report, though, is the following. "It is unthinkable in the light of Scripture, that a man of another religious faith is a spiritual brother with a Christian..." I rejected that line of thinking long before I knew what the Masons were.--SarekOfVulcan 08:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot fo that has to do with the tolerance issue; for example, having another religious book besides the New Testament implies that the Bible is not enough. The attributes don't even come up, for the same reason (there's no one "right" way), but there are plenty of Masonic groups that require the member to be a Christian (KT, for example) or focus on Jesus (AASR Rose Croix). However, if the Presbyterians sasy Masons deny Satan, that pretty much punches a hole in the Satan Worship thing. The second paragraph really is 100% wrong, though, and the last thing you quote may in fact be the crux of the matter. MSJapan 15:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that this report is based on the writings of people who are members of the brotherhood instantly tweaked my mental moot buzzer (see: hearsay). Every person has a different take on life, everyone has a different view in their chosen religion, likewise everyone has a different vantage point of Freemasonry.

To speak authoratively on an organisation not one person whom partook of the publication of this 'report' was an active member, or had any insight thereof, would be to equal academic calibre as I writing a retort based on random scrawlings of Presbyterians I know, which are very few, as I assume was in their instance, and would thus urge me to seek out presbyters who are willing to expouse information I want to hear. Therefore, if they were under a SO, they would be quite lowly to pass on information and therefore immediately useless as a source.

Read that article cover to cover. The concept of visualising the sterness and seriousness of the authors writing on a topic they couldn't fathom without being a part of was enough reason for me to write it off as a rather useless scrip.  :/

At least the fringe cult new-age Christian groups admit their hatred and ostracisation towards Freemasons is based on blind faith in what their community elders say and don't try to weave a web of words of allusion around the subject to make it appear semi-legitimate. I expected much more than what that report delivered. Jachin 04:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion that may assist with size issues

Don't stab me with blunt objects, but would perhaps branching out all these unlinked and scattered FM related articles into a Freemasonry category be of benefit to delivery of content, not to mention ease of editorial work / quality control? Jachin 02:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I always find stabbing more effective with pointy objects, but I also think your suggestion has merit. Off course, agreeing on what to branch out as seperate articles may cause discussion...

I suggest that the following (and perhaps more) is branced out from the current article:

• Lodges (A brief explonation left in article, the current text branced out and expanded)
• Concordant and Appendant Bodies (ditto, making sure to mention the Swedish Rite)
• Women in Freemasonry (ditto - mention must be made in main article on the controversy thought)
• Prince Hall (ditto)
• History (ditto - could include parts of the historic setion from Anti-Freemasonry and be merged into the existing article History of Freemasonry
• The two great schisms of Freemasonry (ditto)
• the section on Criticism, persecution, and prosecution is allready branced out, material might be moved to improve Anti-Freemasonry and shorten this article.

Anyway, your opinions may differ on what to branch out - so I won't be bold and do it until we have concencious on what to do. It is clear thought that brancing out can be a successfull way to deal with an overly long article as long as an overview is kept in the main article.

There allready is a [[Category:Freemasonry]] that can be used a lot more. WegianWarrior 07:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like to see what the article looked like when it was voted "Featured". Any idea of an easy way to tell this, short of looking through the complete edit history to see when the template was added?--SarekOfVulcan 07:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking throught the history didnt take that long ;) The template for Featured was added on March 15th 2004, but it replaced the text This is a featured article., which in turn was added by User:Lord Emsworth on February 15th 2004. The closest edit of the article I've found to that point in time is this from January 18th 2004. When compared to the present one, it's hard to even recogise the article as the same. WegianWarrior 08:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the abovementioned edits, branching out to cover such a diverese and expansive topic as Freemasonry does seem neccesary, in the immediate future also. To tie all of these articles in together, I put it to you all that we do launch a Freemasonry category.

If anyone can find an apt category listing for Freemasonry to go under, or whether it shall be a root-category in it's own sense, please go ahead and suggest it. I do not recommend we put the word Freemasonry anywhere near religion as Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for one. Jachin 04:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There allready exists Category:Freemasonry. WegianWarrior 05:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)