Talk:Jahbulon/Archive 2

Draft for Discussion

/Jahbulon Draft article

For the purposes of an attempt at civilised and informed discussion of the topic the current draft is copied to the sub-page, this should avoid unseemly arguments and edit warring on the main page.ALR 17:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the draft article:

• Removed the wiktionary material of supporting 'literature'.
• reworded the opening paragraph to attempt to make clear the limited scope and the 'debate' around the word.
• reworded the religious section to make clear what Seraphim believes the article actually should be about.
• attempted to make clear the difference between SGC and UGLE.

ALR 14:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets see. First off it's not "alleged" the word was used untill atleast '85. The line "A number of explanations of Jahbulon exist." is unnecessary, since the user will see that in the article. Also since the book was written in 1877, and he's discussion English Royal Arch masonry he is obviously talking about the Supreme Grand Chapter, which is also backed up by the fact that Tydeman says that "we" don't have to apologize anymore when speaking to the SGC. Also I don't understand your changed wording in the first paragraph "One source contains the word explicitly,Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor, [1], and a second alludes to it, Address from Rev Canon Richard Tydeman to Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter[2]." there are more then just 2 sources to the word. Also Tydeman doesn't allude to the word, he openly discusses it. As far as the exposure section goes, I haven't touched the article, however we should update it to show that he is talking about the SGC, since at the time he published they were in charge of all royal arch masonry in england. Candidate Etymologies isn't necessary since the religion and tydeman sections will explain them, however you feel it should be kept in the article, it should atleast be moved to the end since your presenting the information before it's explained. In the religion section you say "Since the word Jahbulon was revealed, many Christian ministries object to Freemasonry based on to the explanation the word is a Masonic god. This is an example of the flawed conflation of Craft Freemasonry and the Royal Arch appendant body." that makes it seem that all of the groups objections are tied to "jahbulon" that is completly false. The changes to the UGLE responce section are good. I also still believe that the literature section should be included in the article, so the reader is not given the false impression that the word only appears twice throughout history. If the list is innapropriate, I can problary change it into a paragraph form. However nothing on WP:NOT says that that material is innapropriate to wikipedia, and I strongly object to it's removal. Seraphim 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong about what jurisdiction duncan was talking about. On page 229 "I furthermore promise and swear, that I will support the Constitution of the General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America; together with that of the Grand Chapter of this State, under which this Chapter is holden; that I will stand to and abide by all the by-laws, rules, and regulations of this Chapter, or of any other Chapter of which I may hereafter become a member." so obviously it is ritual of a chapter that falls under the General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of the United States of America. Combining this with the fact that Tydeman talks about it in reference to the Supreme Grand Royal Arch in England shows that the word was in widespread use in both the North american Royal Arch chapters and the English ones. 23:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what is being referred to by "General Grand RAC" is this, I think, but other than that, you're conflating again, because you want to combine things that can't be combined. First of all, you're saying 1866 Duncan = 1985 Tydeman, which simply doesn't work, and on top of that, you're making a huge assumption about ritual. In order for you to be correct, you assume that the word Jahbulon is governed through a standard ritual that is overseen by the General Grand RAC. It is not, it is just as variable as Craft ritual is, and ritual is overseen by each Grand Chapter in a jurisdiction. TBH, I hadn't even heard of this body until I looked it up, and this group has absolutely nothing to do with RAC in England - you can tell by the deputies' jurisdictions. Furthermore, it plainly states "Founded in 1789, in Boston, Massachusetts, as a national organization, the General Grand Chapter, Royal Arch Masons, International now has jurisdiction over half the 7000 Chapters in the world, including several provinces in Canada, the Grand Chapters of USA, Philippines, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and many chapters in Central and South America. Upon your exaltation as a Royal Arch Mason you will become a member of the oldest and largest rite of Royal Arch Masonry." MSJapan 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You're missing my point. There is indisputable proof that the word was in lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand General Royal Arch Chapter of the United States, which oversaw the Grand Chapters of Each state (It was founded as an umbrella organization to standardize and oversee the royal arch degrees in america). The three times three portion of Duncan's appears in a few books from the early 1800's, for example in Hiram hopkins' "Renunciation of Free Masonry" he describes his Royal Arch initiation where he says that he "learned to raise the living arch by 3 times 3", and that he learned that the word that was lost when Hiram Abiff was murdered was not only a way of idenfifing other craftsmen but it was also the "secret name of God". Hiriam became a royal arch mason in 1826 in New York (which had 127 royal arch chapters at the time). 40 years later the word appears in Duncan's description of the the 3 times 3 part of the ritual (where the three words used are Jahbulon, Jehovah and God, Hopkin's claim that he was taught it was the "secret name of God" makes perfect sence in this ritual, since the is about threes, it doesn't make sence to say only 2 names of god). Both of which are indisputably american ritual. The word then later appears in Tydeman's speech, in a completly unrelated jurisdiction where he makes it very clear that the SGC of england was using the word in 1985. This shows that both the American version of the Royal Arch, and the English version of the Royal Arch that both evolved seperatly both used the word, which means that the word was in use before the split occoured. I underestimated how integral to the Royal Arch this word actually was. The largest bodies of Royal Arch masons in the world, the international General Royal Arch Chapter, and the Supreme Grand Chapter use the word as part of their opening ceremonies, and believe that the word is the word that Abiff refused to divulge which caused him to be murdered. That should be added to the article. Also the Idea that the word is "it is just as variable as Craft ritual is" is rediculious, since the word is taught as the word that Hiram Abiff was murdered for keeping secret. Something like that simply isn't changed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Abiff's murder is a core part of the Master Mason ceremony (it's where "Giving someone the third degree" comes from) it's not simply a side story to masons, and remember to become a Royal Arch mason you must have already obtained Master Mason status, which means they already have been taught how important Abiff's word was. Seraphim 02:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the Idea that the word is "it is just as variable as Craft ritual is" is rediculious, since the word is taught as the word that Hiram Abiff was murdered for keeping secret. Something like that simply isn't changed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Actually, yes it is. If you were to look up the exposures Jachin and Boaz, Three Distinct Knocks, Le Secret des Francs-Maçons etc, you would see, in fact, that the whole situation in which is found the item you are discussing (the murder of Hiram) is not standard between jurisdictions. In fact, in some jurisdictions, it is assumed that the murderers LEARNED the word, and so it was changed. In others, Hiram doesn't even take a part. Therefore, your suggestion that variation in the word is ridiculous, is, itself, ridiculous. In fact, one of the arguments between the Antients and the Moderns (the precursors of UGLE) was the changing of passwords often, by the Moderns, and, as well, the lack of the Royal Arch as a completion of the Third Degree. Oh, by the way, seeing as how you are now turning into quite the Masonic scholar, how about this: there was no third degree when the Premier Grand Lodge was formed, and, therefore, what happens to your argument about the Hiram legend?--Vidkun 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The story of Abiff is a part of the branches of masonry that i've been discussing. Both the General Grand Royal Arch Chapter of America and the Supreme Grand Chapter of england were created to govern the royal arch that was seen as a continuation of the craft. Also (according to the SGC's website) the first Grand Chapter was formed in 1766, George Washington was made a master mason in august of 1753, how could he have been given a rank that didn't even exist? Obviously since freemasonry is so varied the ritual changes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, however if within a jurisdiction (in this case, the jurisdiction of the General Grand RAC and the jurisdiction of the SGC) it is taught that Abiff was murdered for not divulging the secret word, and the secret word is X, that X is not going to be a variable thing that changes over time. "In fact, one of the arguments between the Antients and the Moderns (the precursors of UGLE) was the changing of passwords often, by the Moderns, and, as well, the lack of the Royal Arch as a completion of the Third Degree." first off we aren't talking about a password so I don't see how that is relevant at all, and secondly the argument over if the Royal Arch should be seen as part of the 3rd degree has no bearing on the actual content of the Royal Arch itself, merely how it is represented within freemasonry. Oh, and you might want to go edit the Hiram Abiff page, since there it states "According to the Freemasons' legend, Abif was murdered by one of three workers who assaulted him in their attempt to discover a secret that Abif held. Whatever the secret was, it was not divulged." which apparently you are claiming isn't correct, since some freemasonic groups don't even talk about him, and in other cases he divulges the word. Seraphim 04:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A few minor quibbles with this last posting by Seraphim...

1) "Also (according to the SGC's website) the first Grand Chapter was formed in 1766, George Washington was made a master mason in august of 1753, how could he have been given a rank that didn't even exist?"

• I am confused by your logic here... What do the dates of Washington being given the third degree and the date of the first Grand Chapter being founded have to do with each other? The degree of Master Mason is not part of Royal Arch and would not fall under SGC (or any other Grand Chapter).

2) "first off we aren't talking about a password"

• um... yes we are talking about a password. If you look at the exposés, that was the context of how the word was used (forming the three-by-three Arch thing is a fancy form of recognition grip, and Jahbulon is a password).

3)"since there it states "According to the Freemasons' legend, Abif was murdered by one of three workers who assaulted him in their attempt to discover a secret that Abif held. Whatever the secret was, it was not divulged." which apparently you are claiming isn't correct, since some freemasonic groups don't even talk about him, and in other cases he divulges the word."

• Good point... the legend that is discussed in that Article is used by many Jurisdictions, but it is not universal... the article will be amended. Blueboar 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

With number 1 I was responding to Vidkun's claim that there was no 3rd degree when the premier grand lodge was formed, which is completly false. That's all that was. With Number 2, I have atleast 4 sources that show that the word is not a simple password. Take for example duncan's, duncan makes it clear that the password is given before they do three times three. (Which duncan claims is Rabboni) Then in the three times three part of the ritual (where jahbulon is used) the word is referred to as "the sacred word" and the "Grand Omnific Royal Arch Word", duncan actually explains how the initiates learn the word (page 249-250). If you want other sources, I have 2 items published before duncan's was released, by Webb and Hopkins from the 1820-1830 period. Seraphim 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... as to #1... no, vidkun is correct. The Grand Lodge of England was founded in 1717... the Third Degree was not included until later. I think you have the first Grand Chapter and the first Grand Lodge mixed up. As to #2, I see your confusion. In Freemasonry there are usually TWO sets of grips and words exchanged to prove all present are legitimate... the first is usually referred to as the "Password" (and "Passgrip"). The second set is usually called the simply the "Word" of that degree (and "Grip") (or sometimes the Real Word, and Real Grip of the degree). However, as used both sets are essentially passwords and pass grips... ie things you need to give to prove your bona fides and gain entry into the lodge. Read Duncan again... this is clear. In the case of the Royal Arch, the three times three stuff is the form that the "Word" is given in that degree. You are talking literal wording of the ritual from reading a book... I am talking use as done in an acutal lodge of chapter. Blueboar 18:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I misread what Vidkun said, I assumed that he typoed and ment premier chapter instead of lodge since we are talking about royal arch masonry here. As far as number 2 goes, this is true for the first three degrees the word for those degrees is presented as a password, however that is not the case for this word. It is taught in the american chapters atleast, as the word that Abiff refused to divulge. It is also taught as either the true name of god, or as tydeman suggests, it's an honorific. It is also put on equal footing with the words Jehovah and God in the 3 times 3. It is not a password. Also if you want a further argument that it isn't a password, here's a simple one. Passwords are apparently changed sometimes, and are used mainly to prevent outsiders from gaining entry. If Jahbulon was a password, why would they not have changed the word in the 100+ years between duncan's expose and tydeman's. Not only that, the word is the same in 2 completly seperate Jurisdictions that have been on their own seperate paths for over 150 years. What is happening here is that you guys are attempting to present the word as something much less important to Royal Arch masonry then it is. There is no "alleged" usage of the word, and it's not a small word that can just be thrown out or changed. Seraphim 18:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No... Look at Duncan again... Jahbulon does indeed get used in the exact same context as the "real words" in other degrees. Yes, it is EXPLAINED as being the word that Hiram Abiff refused to divulge, but even there it is a password in context (which, going back to the third degree rituals is why the ruffians wanted him to give it... so they could obtain the "privileges" of being Master Masons.) As for passwords being changed... No one has said that Passwords have to change, only that some of them have and that different Jurisdictions have different Passwords. It is entirely possible that some Royal Arch Jurisdictions still use Jahbulon the way Duncan outlines. Others might very well have discarded it, or might have chosen a completely different word (I am not saying any have, or have not... mearly that it would be up to the each Grand Chapter to determine what is in their ritual). Finally even in Duncan it is not "put on equal footing with the words Jehovah and God in the 3 times 3". In Duncan, Jehovah forms the Ja part of the word Jahbulon... there is a slight difference. The way you say it, Jahbulon sounds like a god on an equal footing with Jehovah... but Duncan makes it clear that Jahbulon (or more correctly the Jah part of Jahbulon) IS Jehovah. Blueboar 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the GGC's website [1]. Scroll down to the part about the Royal Arch, "It is during this rebuilding that they make a discovery that brings to light the greatest treasure of a Mason --the long lost Master's Word.". "The greatest treasure of a Mason --the long lost Master's Word." that is NOT a simple password. Seraphim 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. Why do they need the long lost Master's Word? Why did someone try to extort it from Hiram? That they might travel in foreign countries, work, and receive Master's Wages. It never meant anything great or glorious, in the allegories.--Vidkun 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"The greatest treasure of a Mason" it is NOT a word that would be changed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as you have attempted to present. You attempted to present an argument that shows that the word could be changed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction since it was a simple password. That is invalid, since it is NOT a simple password. It's a word that has a history behind it, if it was a simple password, it would have been changed after duncan leaked it. Seraphim 20:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"The greatest treasure of a Mason" it is NOT a word that would be changed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as you have attempted to present. Let me just ask you: how the HELL would you know? Just what is YOUR source for that concept? As for it being changed when Duncan leaked it, can you prove it wasn't? Can you prove any of your claims about what this word is and isn't, and whether it is or isn't in use today? No. I used to assume good faith with you, but you are choosing to act like you know more than anyone else here, like you are now an expert, when you have not ONE CLUE as to how any of the words, passwords, real words, or anything is used in a Lodge or Chapter, yet you claim you know it must be the same in all jurisdictions. How about this: the Royal Arch itself doesn't exist in all Masonic jurisdictions. Are you going to now attempt to say they do not have the true master's word? Have you any clue how ridiculous your arguments sound? Oh, by the way: Hiram Abiff was never murdered, it is only part of Masonic allegory. It is shown in the Bible that he lived to see the completeion of the temple. How's that fit in your craw?--Vidkun 21:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

How would I know? It's called reading comprehension and common sence. History doesn't change. They can't and wouldn't present as a word that Hiram died to protect, and then just all of asudden go "That's not the word that he died to protect, it's this one now". Also I can't believe you are asking for proof that the word wasn't changed after the duncan's exposal. Tydeman confirms the word's usage over 120 years after the duncan exposal. The fact that the word was not changed after it was exposed shows that it is not simply a password. Also where have I said that royal arch exists in all jurisdictions? I haven't. This article is about the word Jahbulon. I can prove that the word was in use in all the Chapters under the GGC and SGC, and that it was taught in some ritual to be the true name of god, and in the GGC it is presented as the word that Hiram died to protect. Also you seem to be misunderstanding how masonic teaching works, the actual Hiram's life doesn't really matter, it's the way his legend is presented that is relevant. That's like saying that any discussion about the catholic church is is rediculious, since it's based on jesus coming back from the dead which is impossible.

The facts are simple, the word is not presented or treated as a common password. It is given a special position in each chapter, it's considered as a historical word, and it's called "The greatest treasure of a Mason". Also it was not changed even after being exposed which shows that it is not a password. I can prove all of this easially. Seraphim 21:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also it was not changed even after being exposed which shows that it is not a password This is flat out BS. Part of why the Baltimore Convention of 1843 changed a number of things around was because of exposures. I do know that steps were taken to prevent people from gaining admission based on book answers. Not all of those changes related to passwords. Some never changed. But, hey, you are the expert who now knows how Masonic teachings work, when a few weeks ago you suggested that in MA, no one has to go through the ritual and allegorical teachings anymore. Face it: you are trying to argue about something you don't have five cents' worth of common sense about. Frankly, I'm sick of you coming in here and suggesting you know more about this stuff than do those of us who have studied it and lived it for years. Stick to your video game specialty.--Vidkun 21:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, the Baltimore Convention was about standardizing Normal Freemasonry, there were no Royal Arch chapters there, it was between Grand Lodges. Secondly, the word was not changed, since we can prove that it was still in use up to 1986. Seraphim 22:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective I think there are some big leaps of faith here. Your explanation appears to infer that because authority is recognised upwards, that implies uniformity is mandated downwards. I also actually don't see how what you're suggesting impacts on the article. You have previously said that the point of the article is the discussion over the meaning and the claims of the various anti-masonic groups over it's meaning based on the footnote in Duncans book.

Agree that the article on the Hiramic legend needs work and you'll note that it's on my 'to-do' list on my user page, and has been for a few days. I've just finished developing another article and have others to work on at the moment, its time will come. I have just been reading through an interesting, if somewhat theological, discussion of the development of the Hiramic legend, it's inclusion into the craft and the extension of the 2 degree system of operative masonry to the three degree system of speculative (symbolic) masonry. Whilst discussion of the legend is interesting, and enlightening, this is not really the place for it as it is inappropriate to the subject of the article.

ne point of detail I thik you should be aware of is that Royal Arch is communicated in Chapters, not Lodges. A seemingly small point, but an important one.ALR 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to royal arch masonry, the entire point of the Grand Chapters being formed were to attempt to standardize the many different chapters that were popping up everywhere. Uniformity is mandated downwards in this instance, for example unlike standard freemasonry at the time when this was all happening and the grand chapters were forming there were a lot of extra "degrees" that people were trying to introduce into royal arch masonry, the entire point of the grand chapter meetings was to standardize what degrees are actually part of royal arch masonry. Also for further proof that it is mandated downwards if you don't want to research the history of the Royal Arch, all you have to do is look at tydeman's adress. He is addressing all of the royal arch chapters under the SGC's jurisdiction discussing the word jahbulon which is "the composite word or words on the triangle in the very centre of every Chapter". He also makes it clear that some ritual does infact say the word is the name of god "Unfortunately there are many printed rituals which still refer to the letters on the triangle as a name and not as a word." which backs up the webb/hopkins claims that they were taught that the word is the secret name of god. And I never said the point of the article is the discussion over the meaning, I said it was about the contravercy surrounding the word. Duncan's book is the first book that actually published what the word itself is, however plenty of other sources refer to the word. Seraphim 17:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the formation of Grand Chapters, you've kind of got it the wrong way round, take a look at Masonic Appendant Bodies, for some of the history, although it needs some more work.

Where you say controversy surrounding I say 'discussion over the meaning, I think we're getting at the same thing since the controversy is related to explanation as provided in the notes to Duncans; unless of course you're now drifting towards a subtitle of ooooohhhhh lloooook.... Masonic Secrets, which is wholly unencyclopedic. Webb and Hopkins don't provide an explanation, and mention in Tydemans makes no allusion to whether the faulty explanation is referred to in the ritual or in commentary on the ritual, as in Duncans. Tydeman also says later that some rituals describe the word on the triangle as descriptive, so you demonstrate nothing conclusive.ALR 18:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your 100% incorrect. Read up on the history of the SGC and the American Equivilant, SGC was created to "being the regulatory body for the Royal Arch, as practised by members under the premier Grand Lodge" and the GGC was created because there were so many Royal Arch Chapters popping up that were "obedient to no superior authority". The GGC and the SGC both regulate their jurisdictions (SGC directly, GGC has deputy grand chapters in each state that it oversees, that oversee the chapters in the state) Seraphim 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to go with Seraphim on this one. At least in the US. during the second half of the 1700s, there was a lot of chaos here in America with all sorts of imported or created "extra" degrees being given. Some were approved by charter from a Grand Lodge (for example, my lodge was chartered in 1787 by the newly formed Grand Lodge of NY to do the basic 3 degrees as well as the Mark Master degree), others were not approved by anyone and simply put on because no one was saying they couldn't. The Grand Chapters, Grand Counsels, and Grand Commandries of the York Rite were formed to regulate what was going on, and to say what was approved and not approved in each body. (Our lodge broke off it's Mark Degree and formed a seperate Mark Lodge under warrent from the Grand Chapter of NY). Blueboar 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I take it your Lodge is derived from one of the Scottish or Irish Military Lodges then? I made my mark in a craft lodge in Scotland, quite enjoyed the degree but it's not something I'm pursuing office in at the moment. What is the heritage of GLoNY? Was it warranted from Edinburgh, London or Dublin?ALR 21:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statement about the reason for the formation of SGC is incorrect, and whilst I recognise that Blueboar has clarified from the US perspective the formation of SGC was not to regulate what was carried on in Chapters. At the unification of the moderns and the antients it was noted that the antients conducted a number of degrees, beyond the three symbolic, under their existing warrant. Each of these further degrees, including the Royal Arch, was barred from working under a craft warrant and was required to come up with its own structure, hence the formation of a range of different appendant bodies. The creation of SGC as a regulatory body prevented these appendant bodies from being practiced under the warrants issued by SGC however a number of different rituals were worked within those chapters leading to the degree of the Royal Arch. There still exist a number of those, complete, domatic and aldersgate being the ones worked in enough chapters to justify a printed ritual book. My own chapter uses its own, we have our own privately printed version for the members and there are many other chapters who are similar. So clearly regulation does not mean standardisation of ritual. Another point of detail which you appear to have missed. SGC directs private chapters via a series of Provincial and District Grand Chapters; Provinces in the England and Districts being overseas.ALR 21:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Recognise your concerns and hopefully we can find some way to address them. I'll try to break them down as I read them in your text:

• Usage of the word is alleged based on the two sources, happy for you to have a go at generating a more appropriate articulation.
• The statement a number of..... needs strengthened, it's a placeholder as is. The article is about the debate regarding the different interpretations so it needs to be made clear.
• Not sure what you mean by your third sentence. Duncans does not apply to SGC, rituals used under SGC are Aldersgate, Domatic and Complete. It is not clear which Jurisdiction Duncans applied to and ISTR that it was published in the US. What that means is independent corroboration, however you might wish to exploit that. Duncans was an exposure, Tydeman was speaking in a private context and the text of that address was published by the Church of England as part of a study into the relationship between Christianity and the Craft. I don't see that as an exposure.
• Sourcing - There are only two confirmed sources for Jahbulon that you have yet provided. The use in pseudoscience and fiction does not corroborate and it's not clear from any other use where that is derived from, I'd suggest that unless explicit it can be assumed that any popular usage is derived from Duncans.
• Candidate etymology is important because the discussion is about the different interpretations. By having the section up front it makess clear where the debate originates. Moving it further down the article potentially creates confusion in the mind of the reader and I would object to any change in emphasis. you may wish to suggest a different title for the section.
• I acknowledge that my wording might tend to demonstrate that these interpretations are false and would welcome any suggestion of an alternate wording. Notwithstanding that I would insist that the conflation point is drawn out since it is a significant issue.
• If you believe that the section on literature references is useful then I would challenge you to find corroboration, rather than just use of the word. Some form of contemporaneous citation would be useful as I would suggest anything more than a few years after Duncans can reasonably be assumed as being derived from that. Current pseudoscience and fiction doesn't have sufficient authority to provide corroboration unless they can demonstrate a causal link to something othtr than Duncans.ALR 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before... I don't think this "word" is encyclopedic. I would prefer that there was no article about it. But... having said that, if there must be an article then this draft version is much better than what is in the article now. It is NPOV, and properly backed with citations that actually support what is discussed. Blueboar 20:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would tend to agree that it is unecyclopedic, hence the relevant tag remains in place, however given that the article is here I would prefer that it is as useful as possible rather than effectively having a sub-title of ooooohhhhhhhh loooooook Masonic Secrets ;) ALR 21:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No complaints here either save minor corrections for formatting and spelling, though I think far too much emphasis is given to Tydeman without explaining why that is. Also, as far as Duncan's goes, the footnotes are definitely his explanatory additions, and have nothing to do with the presentation of the main text. MSJapan 20:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Grateful for a review of speeling, not a strong point this station as I'm a bit blind to that kind of thing. I tried to trim Tydeman down a bit as it was quite verbose, but it'd be useful to have a view on how it can be played. And as to Duncans as a footnote, I think it's as positive in terms of the statement as it can be without a citation to back up that it is a footnote and not actually the policy of whichever GC it purported to come from.ALR 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had another go at it, I've changed a little bit of wording in the Religion section. I noticed that it had been described as a 'conflict', it's not and it presents an inaccurate perspective to describe it as such. I've trimmed down some of the repetition in the discussion of Tydeman and hopefully it's now just down to the salient facts. One thing I did notice is that an extract from the address makes clear that there are other rituals with different explanations from that in Duncans, which casts doubt on the veracity of that source. The two main tags, unencyclopaedic and inaccurate have to stay up I'm afraid. In the absence of any other contributions in the last couple of days can I suggest that this is pretty much mature.ALR 08:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Almost. I did another rewrite, too. I notice we talk a lot about Duncan, but we don't say what he says, which we should, as it's a central part of the article. Also, there's a few things in there I fact tagged because they have references that need to be added. MSJapan 15:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I posted 2 RFC's and it seems that nobody is paying attention to them since it's a freemasonry related article. I've spoken to people in the irc room about it and they have told me the best thing to do would be to ask for a mediator. Since I strongly feel the article should exist, while MSJapan and ALR are dead set on seeing it deleted, and none of us are willing to change our stance on the issue, i'm going to post a request for a mediator. Part of requesting the mediator is that all parties must be willing to participate in the mediation. I am posting this here now, and will be formally requesting a mediator tomorrow, if you are going to refuse to participate please explain your reasoning here. I strongly feel that the only way to progress on this article is a 3rd party coming in and since 2RFC's have failed to do that the next step is mediation. Seraphim 05:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I was contemplating this myself but took the view that your intransigence thus far wasn't a good indicator about your willingness to participate. Happy to participate. ALR 08:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty interested in seeing it go too, I'm just tired of writing article talk pages instead of articles... Or anything else for that matter. Oops, gotta go do imaginary stuff w/ imaginary words... ;~D Grye 06:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Have fun Grye ... give Fraternal Greetings from NY to your imaginary companions. Blueboar 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I've withdrawn agreement for mediation on this article as I am no longer satisfied of Seraphims good faith with respect to editing articles on Freemasonry or which may have an association with Masonry. With that in mind and in an effort to proceed with attempts to improve the quality of the article, given the previous consensus not to remove it despite expert opinion that it was valueless, I would suggest that current discussion be archived and we start again from the current version. No meaningful discussion has taken place for some time and I would suggest that returning to previous discussions would be counterproductive and only engender bad feeling given the confrontational nature of some participants in this edit dialogue.ALR 17:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

An AFD should be filed

I believe the page should exist, both ALR and MSJapan have publically stated they disagree with this. I suggest you 2 file an AFD on the page now (it's been over a month). Editing an article that you feel should be deleted by removing information that you feel to be "irrelevant" and only put in the article so that it seems encyclopedic is inappropriate behavior. If you feel the article should be deleted file an AFD. Seraphim 18:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again a demonstration of your bad faith and misrepresentation of the messages which are being communicated by other editors. There is no suggestion that the article be sliced away until it can be deleted. There is a lack of agreement to delete it, a useful demonstration of the weakness of universal sufferage, so we have to make an effort to improve its utility. To be honest once it stops misrepresenting a number of issues then I'm happy to walk away and leave it, but at the moment it is inaccurate and misrepresents a number of things. I would seek to improve it by improving its accuracy and ensuring that its content is appropriate and meaningful. What happens to it after that, assuming that the misrepresentations aren't put straight back in, is of little interest to me.ALR 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

" My opinion is that the article shouldn't be here, you cannot tell me what opinions I may or may not have! Those that contributed to the debate couldn't reach a consensus, but that doesn't invalidate the opinions of anyone as to its' value as an encyclopaedic article. Given that the article has to remain then it has to be as realistic as possible, and that means highlighting the weakness of some of the sources." You said that on Feb 21st. Your not attempting to improve the utility of the article, your attempting to remove any information othat makes the article more then a dictionary defination, as is very evident by you claiming that UGLE's statement that Freemasonry is Not a religion is irrelevant. The claim is made in the article that freemasons worship a masonic god, therefore there is no valid train of thought that can lead to the removal of one of the most prominant masonic groups publically stating that freemasonry is not a religion. Your goal is to leave the article in the state it was before Grye changed it to {{wi}}. That is not going to happen. Seraphim 18:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I choose not to participate in a descent into this again. For the purposes of editing the article we can deal with the various points individually. in a reasonable manner. I have already suggested that the legacy discussion be archived and leaft alone, you seem to wish to rake it up again. Personally I'm going to leave what's in the archive where it is now and try to progress.ALR 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving content doesn't make it go away. You have made it publically known that you want the article deleted, and that you are finding it difficult to make any positive contributions to the article since it should be deleted. You have made it very clear that you disagree with my "pov" on this issue which you claim is the pov that "the article should exist", which means that you believe the article should be deleted. When you want an article to be deleted what you do is file an AFD, you do NOT continue to remove content from the article untill it's un-encyclopedic and then file an AFD. Seraphim 18:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sadddened that you appear so unwilling to try to move forward in a collaborative manner.85.189.24.56 19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Me, sorry ALR 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"You" is pretty much everyone except yourself, SeraphimXI. & "You" have made it obvious that you do not want it deleted. & that you do not want to actually create positive & factual encyclopedic content here, in the article you so cherish. Grye 20:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wha? You contradict yourself. I don't want the article deleted, and have changed it from a dic def, and added to it so it's no longer a stub. How do you get that I don't want to create encyclopedic content here? That's what i've been doing since i changed it back from an interwiki. (By the way what do you mean by "positive" content? Both sides must be presented) Seraphim 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the Royal Arch

In an effort to illuminate and inform the discussion, a few words on the history of the Royal Arch.

Following the formation of Grand Lodge of England an alternative Grand Lodge emerged in York which claimed that GLE was acting contrary to the principles of FM. This cased a schism in Masonry with the two known respectivly as the Moderns and the Antients, major differences being related to ritual innovations from London under the influence of the speculative membership heavily influenced by enlightenment thought. The two Grand Lodges acted and operated in parallel for some time, before coming together in a union facilitated by the Lodge of Reconciliation which created a common ritual agreed by both Grand Lodges. This led to a structure whereby the United Grand Lodge governed the three degrees of Craft Masonry; Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason. An unrelated, more mystical, ritual was split off under its own governance and created the Royal Arch.

Whilst the RA was a seperate order it did, and continues to, require candidates to be Master Masons.

The position of the RA in the US is somewhat different and someone more informed than I should articulate that.ALR 18:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Positionally speaking, RAC in the US is the first step in the York Rite, which is considered to be an appendant body to regular Craft Masonry. There is no overlap whatsoever between Craft Masonry and York or Scottish rites apart from the membership involved (because you still need to be a Master Mason to join). No ranks, titles, honors or awards have any relevance outside of the group they are conferred in (this also includes those items not being relevant in other bodies in the same rite), and while the bodies may or may not have offices in the same location as the state GL, there is a completely separate administrative structure. MSJapan 21:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Regularity in Masonry

Grand Lodges in Freemasonry recognise one another on the basis of regularity. Regularity os based on a small number of basic principles as articulated at [UGLE] Aims and relationships of the Craft and principles for Grand Lodge recognition. Currently recognised GLs are listed at [UGLE] and can be searched for. Should an organisaiton not be listed then it is not in amity with UGLE. Notwithstanding that UGLE recognises that a number of organisations exist which are considered Freemasonry however fail to meet the criteria for regularity and to all intents and purposes are Masonry but intervisitation may not take place. Orgaisations which do not fall into either of these two groups are not considered to be Freemasonry.ALR 19:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

From the Craft rules as issued by UGLE No brother chall be admitted into any meeting of Grand Lodge, or any subordinate lodge, without the clothing appropriate to his rank under the Grand Lodge, clearly that indicates that regardless of any other appendant bodies a Mason may belong to he may not attend except as a Craft Mason. Clearly it can be inferred that the content of any appendant body has no influence on the Craft.ALR 18:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

UGLE rules and recognitions only apply to UGLE related lodges. Seraphim 19:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done, you're learning :) Now what does that mean in practice?ALR 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It means that all this stuff you just added to this talk page is junk. Now to call you on your WP:POINT violation your doing here. Just because their rules for regularity are irrelevant does not mean that their proclamation that freemasonry is not a religion is not. The links claim that all' of freemasonry is a religion, therefore showing that even 1 freemasonic group is not a religion is a sufficent counter-point to that(since if one group states they are not a religion it contradicts the use of the word "all" which according to the defination of Contradiction means one of the statements must be false, all of freemasonry can't be a religion if UGLE freemasonry isn't a religion, and if All of freemasonry is a religion, then UGLE freemasonry must be a religion, you can't have "all of freemasonry is a religion, however UGLE freemasonry isn't"). If you don't like me linking to the UGLE statement for some reason, find any other masonic lodge and put their statement in there. The article just needs 1. Seraphim 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely outlining some background information which I believe has some relevance to the debate, given that I have a much more developed understanding of the structure of Freemasonry and it's associated organisations following an extended study and participation in the field. I haven't yet presented any argument whatsoever. It might be considered somewhat confrontational to start accusing another editor of an underlying motive before engaging in discussion. It would be unfair of me to suggest that you appear to be attacking me rather than engaging in a collaborative approach to developing the article, so I won't do that. Indeed since I haven't finished presenting some pertinent background I won't angage in any discussion of article contant at this time. I am trying to move forward from what had turned into an unpleasant situation, I'm somewhat disappointed that you cannot see fit to do the same, you persist in raking up the past which does little to cultivate a productive atmosphere.ALR 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Imacomps position

In a nutshell. If from my edits on WP, you get the impression I'm a Freemason - as a given - then read on. I vow, as a UGLE Freemason and a Companion in the English HRA, that I do not now, nor ever have I called God by the name "Jahbulon" or anything like it. There is no such thing as a Masonic God. Ok? Imacomp 22:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, it's indisputable that the word was in use by the Royal Arch group tied to UGLE. I don't think there is a masonic god, i've been fighting to keep in the ugle stance that freemasonry is not a religion. The fact is that religious groups do claim that it is the name of a masonic god, that's what the article is about. Seraphim 00:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We just got done telling you again how Royal Arch works again, and you go and make the same erroneous statement again. Royal Arch is not tied to UGLE, as per UGLE's own constitution. Furthermore, if you don't believe that there is a masonic god by the name of Jahbulon, why are you pushing so hard to give weight to a disreputably sourced claim in the face of the reputable contrary evidence? If you were only interested in the claim, you wouldn't be trying so hard to prove it. I see no reason to continue to assume good faith in this matter. MSJapan 01:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The supreme grand chapter of royal arch masons in england is not independent of UGLE, It's on their website. It's a relationship kinda like hong kong and china, one is allowed to freely govern itself but it's not independent. Also I don't believe in it, however some people do. This is an encyclopedia article, all points of view must be presented, it doesn't matter if we believe them or not. Seraphim 02:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also "If you were only interested in the claim, you wouldn't be trying so hard to prove it." I've been fighting ALR to put text into the article that he calls "Irrelevant" that contradicts the claim. I'm not trying to prove anything. If you think I'm trying to push an anti-masonic agenda, or acting in bad faith file an RFC against me. You simply are not able to recognize your own bias. Seraphim 02:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What's on the UGLE website? The link? Big deal. There is nowhere that states that there is a "Hong Kong and China" relationship; as a matter of fact, both sites are pretty clear about what they do and do not cover. As a note, I checked, and GLMA does the same thing. Does that mean that the appendant bodies in MA are somehow beholden to the Grand Lodge? I'm also well aware of my bias; I'm also well aware that I am immensely more informed than you are about the subject.

There is such a thing as "relative weight" that needs to be considered, which you don't. A claim made by the same type of partisan group needs to be illustrated as such. There is WP:RS to consider, which you don't, or you would a lot more critical about the sources from which you present your "claims" as if they were fact. Just because a claim is made doesn't mean it is valid, and it should not be presented as valid if it is not. There are basic factual statements to consider, which you don't, because you keep coming out with the same erroneous statements over and over again, no matter how many times you are corrected with facts, and you refuse to admit you are wrong.

The other editors and I have been more than patient with you, but it has apparently not helped. I have yet to see you actually contribute anything to this article save reversions, and I would guess that this is because you simply do not understand things, and furthermore do not wish to understand things in any other way save that way in which you perceive them to be. I will also note that you still have yet to reply to any direct question put to you with anything other than semantics, rhetoric, or mistakes, and as such, you have shown yourself incapable of articulating an argument that does not have a misinterpretation (or more properly, a factual inaccuracy) at its core.

So, as the past discussion has shown, we have one editor who refuses to be corrected when wrong, has made no real contribution to the article because of this, and can't answer a simple question without evasion. I will posit that there is no real reason you should have as vested an interest in this as you do. I would furthermore state that the inaccuracy on your part has gotten to the point where it simply cannot be accidental. Therefore it must be wilful, and done with the sole purpose of causing disruption, as I notice that when you are here, there are no Lightbringer socks, but when you go away, he appears, which means that unintentionally or not, you are serving his purposes.

Mediation is not going to be forthcoming anytime soon, and it may not be forthcoming at all, since ALR retracted his support for it. As I see it, you therefore have a number of options. The easiest option is for you to go edit somewhere else that is more suited to your knowledge and abilities. The other option is for you to decide to listen to what people who are more knowledgeable than you about the subject have to say, and make sure the statements you make are in accordance with, instead of diametrically opposed to, established and/or supportable facts. Until such time, I see no reason for WP:AGF to apply, and I no longer wish to engage in these pointless and meaningless back-and-forth discussions, because they resolve nothing. I'm also in possession of plenty of material to file a complaint, but I'm willing to give you one last reasonable doubt.

So, you have a choice to make, Seraphim. You can either shape up or ship out. Which will it be? MSJapan 04:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what the page looked like before I started editing it. I've actually been accused of "The user is trying to Change this interwiki redirect into the article it never was". The fact that you have never seen me add any information to the article other then reverts means you haven't been looking hard enough. I'm not leaving this article so you can remove all the information and turn it back into a link to the wikitionary page. File the RFC against me. I've filed 2 rfc's asking for a 3rd opinion on this page and nobody came. Mabey a User RFC will get some attention brought to this page, since nothing else is working. You continue to show that you do not understand the difference between presenting information as claims, and as facts. The fact is, nobody knows what the word means, so groups go around claiming what they think it means, and it sometimes leads to contravercy. Your paticular bias leads you to attempt to present the official masonic stand point as fact that proves the claims wrong. However since the original meaning of the word is unknown any claim as to what it means is just that, a claim. File the RFC because i'm not leaving these pages, untill they are up to the standards of wikipedia. Seraphim 05:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, we've been looking. You haven't done anything, significant, outside of the nofriendo world. You haven't been looking hard enough. Oh, you had a party & no-one came? pity... The word is not a word. Go make up a different word. Your own. & don't call it Masonic. Grye 10:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Treasure?

Things are getting very confusing up above (new comments being inserted in the middle of things does make it a bit disjointed)... so I am going to follow one thread down here...

Seraphim uses the phrase: "The greatest treasure of a Mason --the long lost Master's Word" and expresses scepticism that this would change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. My reply is, why not? Considering that the word Jahbulon itself was completely made up in the mid-1700s, it's not like it is the be-all-and-end-all highpoint of Freemasonry. We would have no problem saying "In my Jurisdiction we say that the lost word was "Jahbulon", but in Tahiti they say the word was "Mumbojumbopolywannacracker". What is important (the "treasure") is the CONCEPT of finding that which was lost... not what the word actually is. It's not like we actually believe that this "discovery" actually occured, and that King Solomon, and Hyram Abiff actually founded Freemasonry and used Jahbulon as the Royal Arch Word. It is all allegorical. So, yes... the word could easily be different from one jurisdiction to another without a problem. Blueboar 21:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm only talking about the 2 jurisdictions where I can prove that the word was in use, and was jahbulon. Those 2 are the GGC and the SGC. Outside of those jurisdictions it might be different, however inside those 2 jurisdictions it obviously does not change. Also I don't use that phrase, it came off of the SGC's website. If you notice the argument with Vidkun about the passwords changing was not about the word changing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it was about the word changing within a jurisdiction. Seraphim 22:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

BS here's what you said: Also the Idea that the word is "it is just as variable as Craft ritual is" is rediculious, since the word is taught as the word that Hiram Abiff was murdered for keeping secret. Something like that simply isn't changed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. You can't even keep you own arguments straight in your head.--Vidkun 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Your right I was unclear, sorry about that. The GGC is set up as an umbrella jurisdiction that oversees all of the grand chapters of each state that then have their own jurisdictions. That is why in duncan's the oaths are to both the GGC and the grand chapter of the state. I was thinking about that when writing that stuff, at no point was I trying to say that all royal arch masons accross the world teach the same thing, I was trying to say that within the GGC and the SGC that it's standardized and doesn't change, as my other comments made clear. The GGC is made up of many sub jurisdictions, that's what I was referencing, sorry I wasn't clear enough. Seraphim 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have the relationship between the GGC and the State GCs a bit wrong. As with each Grand Lodge, each Grand Chapter is independant and sovereign. GGC was set up (after the GCs had been in existance for a while) to coordinate efforts and solve disputes between them. It is not quite the overarching command structure you imply. My guess is that Duncan chose to use GGC for his exposé as a bit of fluffery to make it seem more impressive.

That said, I honestly suspect that you are correct in thinking that any word or password used within one Jurisdiction under GGC will be the same in the others. In fact, you may well correct in your assertation that the word used is Jahbulon. Things do not change that quickly in Freemasonry (at least not without a reason) and if Duncan is correct that NY used that word in the 1860s, they probably do so today. To me that does not matter. To me, two things matter 1)is the fact that any word, be it Jahbulon or Mumbojumbopolywannacracker, is unencyclopedic. It is something that was completely made up by a small sub-group of Masons in the 1750s or there abouts. If they changed it tomorrow, no Mason would care (well there would be grumbling because masons don't like change in general... we tend to be traditionalists. But once we got over the fact that something changed, we would not care too much about what had changed) the word itself is not really important. The real "treasure" is the lesson the allegorical tale of the "discovery" of the word teaches. 2) is the misrepresentation or misunderstanding of how Masons use such words, and the accusation that this means we have some sort of Masonic God.

oh... and 3) it is fun to watch you get you all tangled up trying to defend erronious positions about things that you obviously don't know enough about to speak authoritively on. (; Blueboar 00:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

All this......

......is very entertaining, but it doesn't actually change the substance of the draft article, which has been agreed as an aimprovement to the present article. I'm hesitant to just swing it across without notification. 24 hours then? Anyone with anything has to make the edits themselves.ALR 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, where exactly did I say it was an improvement? Or agree that the article should be replaced by that? I haven't edited the draft article because that's simply not how edits to a page happen. You make small changes with descriptive edit summaries, that are all discussed individually, not write up your own version of the entire article, have people edit it on a seperate page and then post it up claiming that everyone approved it. Seraphim 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you didn't object to the process when I first suggested it, and you took the time to comment on the draft, so you appear to be content with it, right up until it comes time to actually go ahead with it. I responded to your points and took them into account with a couple of changes afterwards, you haven't subsequently commented on the changes made. Surely if you had an issue with the process it would have been more reasonable to say so at the time?ALR 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't comment on it??? What do you call that huge discussion we had yesterday? I'm not editing the "draft" because it's simply not how changes are made to articles like this. You didn't make changes to take into account my comments, the incorrect word "alleged" is still in the draft version, the literature section is still removed, and the etymology section is still in there. What you did is dismiss all of my comments. Seraphim 20:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your discussion of yesterday doesn't pertain to what you yourself have said the article should be about. I answered each of your points above, indeed I invited you to deal with a couple of them yourself. Namely:

• Usage of the word is alleged based on the two sources, happy for you to have a go at generating a more appropriate articulation.
• If you believe that the section on literature references is useful then I would challenge you to find corroboration, rather than just use of the word. Some form of contemporaneous citation would be useful as I would suggest anything more than a few years after Duncans can reasonably be assumed as being derived from that. Current pseudoscience and fiction doesn't have sufficient authority to provide corroboration unless they can demonstrate a causal link to something othtr than Duncans.
• Candidate etymology is important because the discussion is about the different interpretations. By having the section up front it makess clear where the debate originates. Moving it further down the article potentially creates confusion in the mind of the reader and I would object to any change in emphasis. you may wish to suggest a different title for the section.

Nothing that in the 4 days since those were posted you haven't actually done anything with them, indeed haven't even acknowledged that I answered your points, then I thought it was reasonable to ask for explicit consent to transfer. Now editing can be done in any one of a number of ways, indeed this is the same approach which Hipocrite suggested to deal with Lightbringers contested contributions in the Freemasonry article, and you appeared quite content with the approach then. I stated above that the reason for handling a wholesale edit was to avoid an unseemly edit war on the article page, you did not object at the time. Wikis can be used in any number of ways, and given how contentious this topic has been then this seemed a sensible way to go about finding a compromise.ALR 20:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing to object to since your flat out wrong. Your trying to put incorrect information and junk into the article. Usage of the word is not alleged based on 2 sources, plenty of sources talk about the grand omnific word, duncan's is the first to say what the word actually is, and then tydeman confirms what duncan was saying. Alleged means that it is a claim, if it was simply duncan's then it would be alleged, however tydeman confirmed what the word is. It is NOT alleged the reason there is no need to generate a more appropriate articulation is that the existing text is correct, it's a word historically used by royal arch masons. Secondly the section on literature references is usefull, it shows that the word is notable. Your claims that they are all redundant references since they all are based on duncan's leak is junk, that's like saying any historian who writes about the declaration of independence is a redundant resource if the actual declaration is included as a source. I have already gone through and made sure all of the references are using the word jahbulon in relation to freemasonry. I did this weeks ago, check in the talk page history and the article history, feel free to go get the books and check for yourself. And third a section on Etymology does not belong in an encyclopedia. You were attacking this article a few weeks ago as simply being an etymology, and therefore unencyclopedic, and now your trying to insert it. Also, a "draft article" is not used for getting past disagreements. That is done through discussion. You simply don't create a seperate copy of the main article, edit it up to your liking and then replace the existing article with it. That's simply not how this is done. Seraphim 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your process objections look like WP:WL Wikilawyering to me, you've had 15 days to express your issues with the suggested process. You've also made no effort to actually contribute to the development, you are free to do so. Given that you have no substantive contribution to make I shall transfer the content across. I would anticipate a demonstration of bad faith from you but in response to that transfer however at present would observe that the draft removes objection tags from the article so can be considered to be an improvement. You are free to contribute to improvements to the article once it is in the mainspace.ALR 07:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

unencyclopedic?

ALR keeps re-inserting the "unencyclopedic" tag even though this discussion page clearly shows consensus is against him. Also, I have not seen a cogent explanation of why he think this subject is unencyclopedic. Crabapplecove 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think if you review the entire discussion history you'll find that the majority of editors on this article do not believe it to be encyclopedic. It's a synthetic word that has minimal notability and barely qualifies for a wiktionary entry. The article is about as meaningful as it can be given the contraints of being synthesised. The majority would quite happily have it deleted.ALR 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course the TRUTH is - "they" do not want this word being used in public. the very fact that so many people have found this article to be such a big deal needing to be discredited when so many dodgy articles on wikipedia go almost unnoticed shows that there must be something to it. No smoke withou fire eh hehehe

I, for one, do not consider it encyclopedic (for exactly the reasons that ALR states), and fully support ALR in tagging it as unencyclopedic. Blueboar 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already been up for an AfD and didn't get deleted, so what's your beef? Do you plan to just keep marring this article with the tag, just as some sort of protest that the AfD didn't go your way? I just did a Google search for it, and there certainly seems to be plenty of sources of people talking about it, like this and this and this and this, etc. And being a "synthetic" word has nothing to do with notability, just look at articles like Badonkadonk and D'oh! and Republicrat. Crabapplecove 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There is one distincitve appearance of the word, everything else is derived from it, hence the word itself is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. There is no independent corroboration in contemporary or current documentation. The failure to reach a consensus on deletion just highlights one of the weaknesses in WP, anyone can vote regardless of their competence in a subject. The article is unencyclopedic regardless of the failure of the AfD, so identifying it as such is the next best thing.ALR 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, you can hardly say that the word has entered the mainstream the way "D'oh" or "Republicrat" has. What little web space it recieves comes from extreamist Anti-masonry pages (almost all of which fail WP:RS). The article relys heavily on hearsay and conjecture and has severe problems with WP:V. Do I really need to go on? Blueboar 18:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What you're describing is a problem with the way the article is written, not with its right to exist. If what you say is true, it ought to be simple enough to find some sources to allow you to insert text into the article that states your position. (I assume your position is that the term has been invented by overzealous anti-Mason conspiracy theorists?) Piltdown Man was a hoax also, but has an article which explains that it is largely believed to be a hoax. If you wanted to expand the Jahbulon article to include a prominent section devoted to the idea that it's rubbish, I would support it, provided it was properly sourced. Crabapplecove 02:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not my position at all... I am not saying it is a hoax. I am saying that the word is not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. As near as I can tell, this "word" was indeed invented by the Royal Arch Masons as some sort of password (although there is no verification for this). That in itself does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. We are talking about a very tiny group of people, inventing a very obscure password from a bunch of non-sense sylables, and pretending that it "comes down to us from antiquity". It then was mentioned in an exposé of the Royal Arch rituals witten in the early 1800s. This also is not really notable... and the exposé is easily shown to be both unreliable and inaccurate - and at best can only be said to reflect how things were done in one particular Masonic Jurisdiction, at one point in time.) It is this one unreliable source that is repeated by the "overzealous anti-Masons conspiracy theorists" (to use your terminology). The ONLY thing that even remotely makes it of interest to anyone is that these Anti-masons have invented their own highly POV interpretation of how Masons use the "word"... one that is not even supported by the original unreliable source. In short, this entire article is about a non-notable word and a string of conjectures, unsupported by any reliable sources. It is seriously lacking verification. It is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Blueboar 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Well, aren't there plenty of verifiable sources out there who say the same thing that you just said? Why don't you go drag them over here and make the article reflect that? The article might pass a second AfD if the article itself proves, with sources, its own non-notability. Just a thought. Crabapplecove 00:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem with this so called word... You can not cite to something that isn't there... there are vertually no verifiable and reliable sources about this word AT ALL. Nothing reliable supports either side in this "debate". It's ALL conjecture and hearsay based on unreliable guess work a made up word. The only reliable statement in the entire article is that Rev. Tydeman invented an alternative interpretation for this word to counter the one put forward by the overzealous Anti-Masons. And that is not notable. In fact, the lack of reliable sources is one of the things that makes this article non-notable. Blueboar 02:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for a start, none of the "True Light Educational Ministry" reference links work anymore, so why don't you remove those, and then remove the statements that were supposed to be backed up by those references? Start chipping away at the article if it's improperly sourced. Crabapplecove 02:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. MSJapan 12:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK... we can do this the hard way if you insist... According to WP:RS (Self-published sources) the cites that are used to back the statement "The interpretation of the word given in Duncan's has led to some controversy: a number of religious groups assert that Duncan's interpretation demonstrates that Freemasonry is incompatible with their religious philosophies" (Saints Alive Ministry, Healinghouse.org, Kings Ministries, and [2]) are all unreliable... they are all personal ministry websites (and thus Self-published sources as secondary sources). They also fail the Partisan Websites caution of WP:RS. So these can be removed... and with them the statement that they supposedly supported. Blueboar 13:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The same objection is be made for the next couple of sentences: "The most visible complaint about Freemasonry by a religion is that from Christianity; certain Christian ministries object to Freemasonry based on their belief that Jahbulon is a Masonic god. This unsupported explanation of Jahbulon is also used on the Internet sites of two minor Islamic groups to support a claim that 'Freemasons secretly worship a Devil-God, known as JAHBULON'."... All citations fail WP:RS, so these are out too.Blueboar 13:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

With those gone... the rest of the "Jahbalon and Religion" section becomes an orphan... It talks about the response (or lack their of) that Freemasonry makes to "these allegetions"... but since we have cut the allegetions, there is no need for such a response... Out it goes.Blueboar 13:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Now let's look at the information cited to Duncan... First, Duncan wrote his exposé in 1866... as is clearly stated in the article, "the text does not identify which Royal Arch jurisdiction it applies to, so the prevalence of both the word and the associated explanation in Royal Arch Masonry in general is unclear, for the reasons stated in the previous section. The explanation of the word which led to the debates over its meaning and significance is in a footnote to the ritual, and it is most likely Duncan's interpretation rather than how the word was communicated in a ritual context." At best, you can state that Duncan is exposing ritual as it was in New York, in 1866... it can not be said to reflect current ritual. So Duncan himself is a somewhat unreliable source in the context of this article.

More to the point, I would also say that the citation link itself is unreliable... it links to the web site "Sacred-texts.com". This site is a personal project of one individual (see: FAQ). We have no way of knowing if that individual transcribed Duncan correctly or made changes for some unknown POV reason. I am not saying he did or didn't... only that we can not know without comparing what is on the Sacred Text site with an actual copy of Duncan. In addition, the Sacred-text.com site can clearly be considered a personal webpage. So that link is unreliable under WP:RS... If someone wants to cite Duncan directly, I have no problems with doing so. My issue here is with the link to Sacred-text.com. For the moment I will change the link to a tag, but leave the ref. to Duncan. Blueboar 14:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So... if you look at the article without the unsubstantiated accusations and unreliable sources... it basically says... 1) "Jahbulon" was a word alleged to be used by Royal Arch Mason in 1866. 2) According to Duncan (perhaps), this word can be interpreted one way. 3) According to Rev. Tydeman, the word can be interpreted a different way. I see nothing notable about this. Blueboar 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If there's no immediately obvious citation for the Duncan's statement available, then remove it too. Then I think it'll be ready for a second AfD. Crabapplecove 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.. that leaves Rev. Tydeman. Not notable. An AfD should indeed be filed. Blueboar 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD filed Blueboar 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Masonic ritual"

There's no such thing, as this would assume Anti-Masons are a secret society with initiation rites and so forth, which would make them total hypocrites (but for a different reason). I think what was meant here was "ritual exposes written by Anti-Masons", but the fact remains that it's simply not verifiable - to my knowledge, the only place the word appears is in Duncan, and we have no information on where or when or if Duncan was ever used. MSJapan 10:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sources

A number of sources are being deleted rather hastily at the moment.

• Is biblebelievers.org.au really a personal website? It's a church website for Bible Believers' Church, Currabubula NSW 2342 Australia (see here) a "Seventh Age" pentescostalist church (in the tradition of William Branham).
• Even if it were, the Scottish Baptist's report is not written by them. Given it's wide spread around the internet (here, here and here, that it's hard to believe that it's a forgery. So do the rules for personal websites apply to a convenience link for a report?
• If there is a second unchallenged website listed alongside the challenged website then the challenged website should be replaced rather than the reference deleted. I hasten to say that I believe that a mistake was made here, but just a word to the wise - a reference may be constructed with more than one source.
• Surely if deleting references when an AfD consultation is on the reasons should be given in the Talk Page - preferably before the deletion. I'm not worried that anything underhand has gone on (the comments accompanying the deletion were easy to follow) it's just that if a mistake has been made on the application of a particular policy - which I believe has been - then it should be hammered out. It would also help editors to know the current state of activity on the article.

JASpencer 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules for reliablility in convinence links most definitely apply here. None of your sites contain an attribution of who actually runs the site or what kind of independant fact checking they do. Thus, they have to be considered personal web-sites... and personal websites can only be used as primary sources for what the person running the site says, not as a secondary source where they repeat something someone else says. The fact that the same document shows up on multiple sites does not make it any more reliable... It is very easy to cut and paste something on the internet and post it. Repitition does not magically make something reliable. The key is to find a repitition that is hosted on a reliable site. You say that the "Scottish Baptist's report is not written by them" (ie biblebleavers.org) ... so who is it written by? Perhaps they have a website that you can cite directly (this would be citing to the primary source, which I believe would be acceptable under WP:RS). Blueboar 14:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we can avoid an RFC on this so please could you reproduce the text of the policy you are relying on and why you think that they would not count as convenience sites. Do you seriously think that this report is out of whole cloth? JASpencer 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the report is out of whole cloth (I would have deleted the statements instead of requesting a better citation if I thought that). I have no problem with the statement, only with the sources being used to support it. They violate multiple sections of WP:RS (italics mine) -

Self-published sources as secondary sources

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.

That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

Combine that with:

Partisan, religious and extremist websites

The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.

And with:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
• Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
• Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

And then look at:

Issues to look out for

Have the secondary sources used multiple independent primary sources?

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org, Al-Qaeda, or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities or viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.

Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable.

Find out what other people say about your sources.

Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.

Are they available to other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle. If not, inclusion is probably not appropriate. Note, however, that they need not be online; availability through a library is sufficient.

I am sure some of the other provisions of WP:RS apply, but these should be enough. Blueboar 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Biblebelievers does say who they are here "Bible Believers' Church, Currabubula NSW 2342 Australia", here's the Amazon listing of the site so is it a personal page. JASpencer 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All that tells us is that they have a CD to sell... For all we know, this "church" may consist of two people and their dog. Blueboar 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, and conceding it's a while since I read Knight, does Knight cite his own source for the assertions? If so, what is it? The same applies for the Church reports, where do they derive their etymology from?

Given that they're likely from the same source that they're supposed to be corroborating doesn't that mean that they don't actually constitute independent evidence? I'm pretty sure that a citation which is just a rehash of an existing one doesn't actually qualify as reliable.

So in effect the whole issue has just one unique sourcve, and that itself is of questionable authority. Not notable to my perception.ALR 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Knight's citations are shockingly bad - this is not a scholarly book. (The lack of a Pike citation is very frustrating.) There seems to be a lot of research that he conducted but he doesn't make it easy to trace the source down.

To me the notability is that it is a fairly widespread allegation among Christian circles, and probably the most substantive of those that say that Freemasons worship an alternate god (which is not the same as saying all out S---nism). It may be interesting if the source is originally Hannah (as I suspect) but I don't think that this makes it not notable. It is an idea that has currency in the outside world. I don't think Maria Monk is particularly true or sane, but I do think it is notable.

JASpencer 19:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Pike point is also interesting, I'm unclear as to why it's relevant, as the Royal Arch is not a Scottish Rite degree. The Royal Arch of Enoch, 13th in the SR, is different from the Royal Arch. Mind you I read Knight about 15 or so years ago, when I was a teenager, I don't tend to keep fiction once I've read it.ALR 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

On Pike Jim Tresner in the Scottish Rite journal says In the Scottish Rite, there is at least one Albert Pike Chapter of Rose Croix and at least one Albert Pike Council of the Knights Kadosh. Pike was very active in the York Rite as well, and there is the Albert Pike Commandery No. 4 and the Albert Pike Chapter of Royal Arch Masonry.

There is also an Albert Pike craft lodge that meets in Washington. Then again there are also Lodges and other Masonic bodies named after Robert Fludd and similar historic figures. Also I wouldn't consider Knight to be remotely reliable, it's far too full of conspiracy theory to be acceptable. ALR 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that the only thing that makes this topic at all notable to the average reader is the supposed "controversy"... the claim that "Masons worship a god named Jahbulon". But no one seems to be able back this claim up with a reliable source. Thus, the controvercial part of this article keeps getting deleted. We keep returning to: Royal Arch Masons have a password called "Jahbulon" but no one can agree on what it means (or even if it has a meaning). That is not notable or encyclopedic by itself (which is why I have nominated it for a 2nd AFD.)

As for knight, I would not assume that "there was a lot of research that he conducted". In fact, I think you would be saffer to assume that he conducted very little research. (thats just my oppinion, but given how many errors he makes in talking about Freemasonry, I would say it is an informed oppinion). I would equate it to trying to use Dan Brown as an expert on Opus Dei.Blueboar 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What you're looking for is may have a password. Although, fwiw, that's not the password. I've been an RA Mason for 10 years and I've never heard it used in Chapter.ALR 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a difference in what the threshold of notability should be. Your contention (and correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that it is not notable because no one can show it as plausible. My contention is that even if it weren't plausible it is notable because many people claim it to be the case - and these people are influential anti-Masonic authors such as Hannah and Knight.

I used the case of Maria Monk earlier to illustrate this. Her case is believed to be implausible by (I believe) most serious scholars. However there is a great notability about her case. A convent was burned down and many Protestant booksellers have made a good living off the reprints.

Maria Monk had an effect. Jabhulon has an effect. Therefore the concept should be included in Wikipedia.

JASpencer 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not my contention. Let me spell it out again... what makes this topic notable and worthy of an encyclopedia entry is that there is supposedly a controversy surounding what the word Jahbulon means and how it is alleged to be used by Royal Arch Masons. I agree that the truth behind the allegations has nothing to do with whether the topic is notable. The problem is that (so far) every source used to back statements about this supposed controversy has been unreliable. Without reliable sources, these statements will be deleted. Without the statements, we do not have an article about a controversy... we have a word, a possible etimolgy, and some broad unsupported speculation about it's use. That in itself is not notable or encyclopedic.

Now, if you can find reliable sources to back your statements, then we might have an encyclopedic article. Blueboar 00:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I also just want to point something else out... I deleted the unreliable material almost a month ago (see above discussion). At the time there was one other editor who commented on my changes. It was his suggestion that this article was ready for a new AFD. However, I wanted to give others a chance to comment. No one did. But as soon as I posted the AFD... suddenly there is activity here. I find that strange. Blueboar 00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point that should be answered - and one squarely addressed at me. I did not edit the article at all before the deletion (and I kept it off my watchlist). To be honest I was (and am) rather embarrassed with these types of concepts - and highly sceptical. To me Freemasonry is dangerous enough to a Christian's belief without contending that there are alternate gods or worse.

The reason why I became involved was simply the AfD. Whether we like it or not this is a concept that is notable and so it deserves encyclopedic treatment. My interest (in this case) is purely in keeping an encyclopedic topic in Wikipedia. My motivation would be to let it die (although it probably would have failed the AfD any way looking at the remarks subsequent to my changes).

JASpencer 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about notability....

This article is entirely non-notable, in that the allegations aren't "official" in any way, shape or form. Knight's claim is his opinion - I doubt he was trained in the languages he cites. Tydeman's speech only illustrates, at best, the opinion of SGC in England at the time (only one jurisdiction of many), but it was still most likely his own opinion. So, we basically have two sets of opinions, neither of which are objective. We also have a "controversy" which seems to be Internet-fueled more than anything else (the average man on the street has never heard the word Jahbulon, and never will, and I will bet that every anti-Masonic site that mentions Jahbulon is drawing from the same source).

I also get the impression from JAS's latest comment that even he doesn't really believe it. So I'm finding it harder and harder to figure out why this is encyclopedic material, given the total lack of objective information. It really comes down to "Anti-Masonic writers who were never Masons and have engaged in "research" in areas they are not qualified in and do not understand say Masons use this word, and Masons who have gone through the degrees say they don't." I would further contend that the controversy is only notable within a particular group of people who are Anti-Masonic in the first place. Moreover, since Wikipedia articles get farmed out to Answers.com and other places, we are perpetrating the problem and making it bigger than it really is. MSJapan 08:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So that we can correctly define the terms of the argument, do you disagree with Blueboar's statement in the AfD when he says "That said, I agree that with the accusation material included the topic is notable... if only for the existance of the controversy surrounding it."?

Blueboar, I hope that this is not quoting you out of context, please say if it is.

JASpencer 09:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That as well, yes, because the research is suspect. These are not noted scholars digging through informational sources to come up with a conclusion; these are clearly biased individuals making linguistic claims about languages they don't know. This whole article violates RS, and I am skeptical of the size of the "controversy" surrounding it. Like the statements made, it all emanates from a single source.MSJapan 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but its not clear whether or not you agree with Blueboar's comments? Do you agree with Blueboar that the controversy is notable? JASpencer 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's notable. MSJapan 14:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not sufficiently notable in its own right to justify an article. There is enough meat for a paragraph in the Anti-Masonry article, that's about it. Given that there is only one unique statement of opinion related to the two potential etymoplogies then there isn't any corroboration for more than that.ALR 09:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. There is the report from the Scottish Baptists (which I don't think that anyone seriously doubts, the only question is whether WP:RS issues on the hosting websites would stop us quoting from) and William Hannah is quoted as saying this (probably in Darkness Visible.

That aside, are you saying that there is no or very little controversy on this? JASpencer 09:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't sufficient corroboration to generate a meaningful article. I've read a number of the church reports and most of them rehash the same things and don't cite their sources, in fact most of them read like copies of the others. So the report might state the churches position on something, but the report itself could reasonably be challenged. All you've actually got to work with is 'a number of churches base an objection on a single, unreliable, source'. My point is that there isn't enough substance there to stand on its own.

And given the other church objections, which are articulated elsewhere, I'd say it's a relatively minor issue.ALR 09:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that more an argument for a merger rather than a deletion? I would probably still oppose a merger (there's quite a lot of information in here), but I doubt I'd spend much time doing so.

JASpencer 10:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

etimologys

Given that all of the various etimologies are speculation... I have included attributions for who came up with them. In the process, I have cut the last one that was added:

• Inhabitants of Gebal in ancient Phoenecia, craftsmen in Solomon's Temple <ref>"The Hebrew word giblim (1 Kings 5:18) is translated "stonesquarers" in the Authorized Version, but refers to the inhabitants of Gebal, a city in Phoenicia. They were expert craftsmen used in building Solomon's temple." [http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/deHoyos-chapter3.htm#i4 Chapter Three: John Ankerberg and John Weldon, authors of The Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge] From [http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? The Methods of Anti-Masons] by Arturo de Hoyos and S. Brent Morris, hosted by The Supreme Council, Southern Jurisdiction, Scottish Rite</ref>

This "etimology" does not refer to Jahbulon at all (unless someone can tell me how the Hebrew word "giblim" equals "Jahbulon".) Blueboar 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that bothered, but this was footnote 57 to this paragraph from deHoyos:

In making their claim it is evident that Rev. Ankerberg and Dr. Weldon know little or nothing about the historical development of Masonic rituals. Early French versions of the Royal Arch degree relate a Masonic legend, or allegory, in which Jabulon was the name of an explorer, living in the time of Solomon, who discovered the ruins of an ancient temple.(56) Within the ruins he found a gold plate upon which the name of God (Jehovah) was engraved. The context of these rituals makes it quite clear that the two names are never equated, and the name of God is always spoken in reverence, just as it is in the fictional works Ben Hur and The Robe. As there are variants of this ritual different forms of the explorer's name are also found (Jabulum, Guibulum, etc.). The earliest sources seem to suggest, however, that it likely derived from Giblim,(57) or a misunderstanding of Hebrew letters on a Trinitarian devise.(58)

So what deHoyos is saying (I believe) that Jabulon could be a bastardisation of Giblim. It doesn't seem to be his preferred theory. JASpencer 14:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Knight

I have had a chance to look at a copy of "The Brotherhood"... and I think I need to challenge the citation under both WP:RS and WP:V. Knight does not give any sources for his theory of what Jahbulon means. The key parts of WP:RS are -

Issues to look out for

Have the secondary sources used multiple independent primary sources? - in this case apparently not... Knight does say he talked to 57 Royal Arch Masons... some of whom had never heard of the word, and others replied with dismissive comments like "Oh, That old Chessnut!" (see p.237 in the Brotherhood)

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? - Knight definitely has an agenda

Find out what other people say about your sources. - Most scholars think Knight is a raving looney and that The Brotherhood has huge logic gaps.

Have the sources reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know. - Definitely not... his claims that the Masons were behind the Jack the Ripper murders have been proven wrong by several scholars, His claims that the Masons are corrupting the British Police and Courts were dismissed after Parliamentary investigation, His claim that the Masons were in bed with the KGB have been proven incorrect... etc.

He also fails with:

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain red flags should prompt editors to closely and skeptically examine the sources for a given claim.

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known. - outside of a very small group of Anti-Masonic religious nuts his claims are definitely not known.

Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. - The academimic community here is small (essentially Masonic Scholars like Art DeHoyos), but they definitey contradict what Knight has to say. And knight did feel that Masonry was a conspiracy out to silence him.

The key part of WP:V is -

Sources

Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources. - Knight certainly does not have a reputation for fact-checking.

One thing is definitely out... Knight does not give any clue as to where his Pike quotation comes from... For all we know he made it up. EVEN if you want to say that you can keep Knight in as long as you give an attribution (which I do not say)... I definitely do not think he is reliable in quoting a third person (ie Pike).

In the interests of fairness, I'll give people time to comment before I cut the citations. Blueboar 15:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, even if he was accurate with Pike, that's not reliable because Pike himself is unreliable outside of the context of any statement he makes. In short, you need pages worth of quotation to understand any one of Pike's statements. Moreover, as Knight clearly fails on the other points (and fails in objective ways that cannot be explained away as "Masonic conspiracy"), I'd toss the whole thing. MSJapan 15:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that this is a widely believed theory, witness the Baptist Union of Scotland which comes out with something almost exactly the same text. Are you saying that its not widely believed? JASpencer 17:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Further - by all means show Knight's logic gaps, but the idea that he has not been influential is batty. JASpencer 17:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that this is a widely believed theory. The average person has never even heard of this, much less believes it. I think it is a relatively unknown accusation that has been repeated and passed around by a VERY small group of religious fanatics. The very fact that basically the same text shows up on all these web sites etc. tells me that none of them has really done any research on the topic... they have all copied the same accusation from one original source. That is why the rules for WP:RS are so strict on web sites... a cut and paste is VERY easy to do.

As for Knight, most people totally dismiss Knight as a nut. Yes, he caused a brief stir in England in the 1980s... until Parliament looked into the matter and they dismissed every one of his accusations. You can call me batty if you want to, but he has not had much influence in the long run.

You keep harping on the contention that the accusation exists. That has nothing to do with the reliablility of sources... You can put anything on an internet page, and someone will believe it. Make it an accusation against Freemasonry, and all sorts of Anti-Masonic religious sites will repeat it. But an encyclopedia has higher standards than rumors, accusations, and hearsay... it requires facts backed up with RELIABLE sources... "I saw it on the internet" or "I read it in some guy's book" won't cut it. Blueboar 19:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Removed Sources

I'm not trying to create problems here, but I'm trying to make a list of removed sources from this article over its short but vivid history. Other editors may wish to see if any of them can be used in the current article. No comment is made on their reliability:

I'll comment on reliability, then. As a note, you had osme duplicate sources, so I removed the dupes. MSJapan 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1875: Charles William Heckethorn, Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries, — To this name, as the Royal Arch Masons to that of Jabulon, they attributed the most wonderful powers; and it could only be the subject of silent but pleasing contemplation, for its pronunciation was said to make earth and heaven tremble, and even the angels of heaven to quake with fear. [3]

The statement actually isn't about Jahbulon, it's about some other term used by some other group: "To this name, as the Royal Arch Masons to that of Jabulon", and it says nothing about what Jabulon means.

• 1987: For the Masons, as for the Hermeticists, the name of the Hidden God was too sacred or magically powerful to be revealed even to the lower grades, the craft. This name was Jahbulon, and—not surprisingly—it is a triple name, its first two syllables being Ja for Yahwe, the God of Israel, and Bul for the Canaanite Ba'al. Martin Bernal, Black Athena (ISBN 081351584X)

He missed On, and the book has been discredited as garbage, even on WP.

• 2004 Ralph Ellis, Eden in Egypt, — Thus, the final translation of the masonic god-name Jahbulon or Yahbulon could well be ‘Thoth, Lord of Heliopolis’, or perhaps even the ‘Thoth Pyramid of Heliopolis’.

Ellis is claiming that the Bible originated in Egypt, and has a translation as such. This is one sentence out of a 3 volume work, and we don't know where it comes from.

• Malcom C. Duncan, Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor, p.226

Dates from 1826 from an unknown jurisdiction in the US, and therefore has no bearing on any possible modern usage in any other jurisdiction, or even its own.

• True Light Educational Ministry

Biased source from a group designed to turn Masons away from the Lodge and to their Church. Their mission: "We are Christian non- professionals who have responded to the call of God to carry the Gospel to people held in spiritual bondage. To do this, we train Christians to be able to properly give witness to their faith. TLEM is a non- profit organization. We are seeking people to join with us in this missionary outreach and welcome those who accept the calling. Grace Lutheran Church of Mastic Beach commissioned the director of TLEM to establish a non-denominational ministry to evangelize the cults." "Cults" also being Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

• Mission Islam Free Mason Invasion

Same ideas as before, but from the Islamic side. Here's a claim they make: "Every single position in the United Nations, the EEC and every position in the British parliament is held by people who are freemasons." It also says nothing about Jabulon.

• Allaahuakbar.net Dajjal-the anti christ

And from here: "The entire secular world (Jews/Freemasons, Atheist, Christians, Hindus Etc.) shall unite under the banner of the Anti-Christ against Islam." Nothing about Jabulon here either, really. They also misread Novus Ordo Seclorum.

• Saints Alive Ministry January-Febuary 2003 newsletter

Ed Decker simply doesn't know what he is talking about, and he's taking his info from Knight. He was never a Mason, only an ex-Mormon, and he doesn't like anyone or anything that doesn't agree with him, as can be seen from his books.

• [4] Healing House Ministries Prayer for the release of masons and their descendants(google link to html version of a .doc file)

Funny, but I was under the impression one was not accountable for the sins of one's fathers. Furthermore, whoever wrote this "prayer" was cribbing off of something else, and doesn't know what Jabulon is, other than "a secret word". Why renounce a group like the Shriners, who, in all honesty, would be "doing Christ's work" by helping children in need?

• Kings Ministries Freemasonry and secret societies

Religious elitist BS. It's not only anti-Masonic, it's anti-anyone who doesn't believe in Christ. Everything says: "The Bible teaches that only in Jesus Christ...etc." Not all of us use the New Testament, folks. Moerover, all the claims they make are taken from other critics - it says "Freemasons believe or do X", but there is no direct reference as to where they found these things out.

• http://www.grandchapter.org.uk/sgc/gcr-history.htm

Not useful. No mention of Jabulon, save a bit of reading between the lines regarding lecture revision, but there's no way to say for sure. Rituals are always being revised and all sorts of words get changed.

• Page 5, Complete Workings of the Royal Arch Degree, ISBN 0853182116, Addlestone, 1992

It is likely not printed in here, and is probably not explained, but as I haven't seen it, I don't know. However, it's probably not useful for our purposes.

Well of course it's not, given that it doesn't feature in RA ritual! This is my ritual actually. The reason for the citation was because on page 5, the introduction page it refers to the three Hebrew Characters.ALR 20:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Moreover, the name of the Great Architect is revealed in the rite of the Holy Arch as JAHBULON. This is a composite name comprising the Hebrew God JAH (Yahweh), the Canaanite fertility deity, BUL (Baal, who had licentious rites of imitative magic), and ON (Osiris, the ancient Egyptian god of the underworld). This syncretistic view of God is quite incompatible with the God who has been revealed supremely and uniquely in Jesus Christ. Baptists and Freemasonry, Published by the Baptist Union of Scotland and endorsed by the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Hosted on biblebelievers.org.au.

I think we know where this comes from. What would you say if I said there was no such thing as the "Hebrew G-d JAH" except to 19th century Christian people with no grasp of Jewish anything save what they fancied was true?

• In 1873, the renowned masonic author and scholar General Albert Pike, later to become Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Supreme Council (of the 33rd Degree) at Charleston, USA, wote of his reaction on learning of Jah-Bul-On. He was disquieted and disgusted by the name, and went on: 'No man or body of men can make me accept as a sacred word, as a symbol of the infinite and eternal Godhead , a mongrel word, in part composed of the name of an accursed and beastly heathen god, whose name has been for more than two thousand years and appellation of the Devil.' pps. 236-237, The Brotherhood, Stephen Knight, Harper Collins, 1994, ISBN 0 586 05983 0

See Albert Pike. He was SGC as of 1859, not after 1873. Knight's information is made-up garbage.

• believersweb.org Moreover, the name of the Great Architect is revealed in the rite of the Holy Arch as JAHBULON. This is a composite name comprising the Hebrew God JAH (Yahweh), the Canaanite fertility deity, BUL (Baal, who had licentious rites of imitative magic), and ON (Osiris, the ancient Egyptian god of the underworld). This syncretistic view of God is quite incompatible with the God who has been revealed supremely and uniquely in Jesus Christ.

This is the Scottish Baptist document, which actually has some nnice things to say regarding Freemasonry. They just don't like that Christ isn't given a unique place, and they've got no better basis for their claim than anyone else. MSJapan 19:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup... all this stuff has been removed. And all of it was removed legitimately (read the edit summaries and discussions above). Personal webpages, Partisan webpages, Books that say things without ANY indication of where the author got his or her information. NONE of this is reliable under wikipedia guidelines. This is an encyclopedia, not a post-it board for every loony conspiracy theorist or religious bigot with an accusation to repeat. Wikipedia has firm rules about the need for RELIABLE Sources. Find some and they will not be deleted. Blueboar 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Status of biblebelievers.com

It has been said that biblebelievers.com is a personal ministry site. Well it's actually a church site as it says here, for Bible Believers' Church, Currabubula NSW 2342 Australia. JASpencer 19:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is very easy to form a "Church"... some "Churches" consist only of a Minister and a small group of followers... If it is a very small group, it can still be considered a "personal" website under WP:RS standards (the entity or "person" in this case being the Church itself). I had a debate with another editor on a different article about the definition of "personal website"... I wanted to add a statement from UGLE and he claimed that the UGLE site was disqualified as being a "personal website" (UGLE being the entitity or "person" in question). We took it to an arbitrator who ruled that use of this clause of WP:RS has to depend on the size of the organization owning the cite. If we are only talking about a small group of people, then it should be considered "personal", but if we are talking about hundreds of people then it should not be considered "personal" (in UGLE's case, being the official site of a very LARGE organization, its website was ruled to not be a "personal" page). In our case, we could be talking about two or three guys with a website, or we could be talking about hundreds of people devided into several congregations. So... do we have any information of how large Bible Believers's Church actually is? Blueboar 18:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a single congregation, but as to its size I'm not sure. I'll dig up a bit more. Have you got a link to the ruling? JASpencer 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is a single congregation, I doubt it is all that big. As for the ruling, I think it was at Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis. We can bounce this off of some of the regulars at WP:RS if you can't find it. I am sure they would agree. Blueboar :34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I must have been reading the wrong discussion here as I've only seen you and ALR saying that the UGLE are an organisation and so do not come under personal websites. Then Zos drops the subject and talks about self publishing. JASpencer 17:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I may have to back off on my claim that this was an admin ruling... I thought that was where the discussion took place... but reading it again, I am not as sure. I know I had a conversation about it somewhere (a user talk page perhaps?), and it was over that issue... but am no longer sure who made the comment or if they were an Admin. I honestly don't remember anymore.

In the interest of Assuming Good Faith on both our parts... let's say I did talk to someone about it, but that it was not with an admin and thus not an official ruling. So where do you want to go from here? I can post something about it at the WP:RS talk page if you would like. Or we can put it up for a formal RFC if you want a larger sample of oppinions. Blueboar 17:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I recall it was User:jpgordon who is an admin, however I can't remember where the discussion took place. Zos asked him to take a view, It may have been on his talk page ratehr than under the article. Notwithstanding that I'm not convinced that it's relevant that he is an admin, since these kind of judgements dont fall within an admin remit. The discussion all got very messy at one stage, given the other participant and the propensity of the thelemite editors to want to vote on everything.

As to the biblebelievers site, I'm wary of it until such time as we can establish its credibility. What is the size, what approach have they taken to establishing their position? Do they have any 'academic tradition' etc. If they're just rehashing what someone read on a website/ in a book/ in another churches report etc then it lacks credibility. IF they've actually researched the issue and come to an independent conclusion, then it could be valid.

ALR 19:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the argument is whether the Scottish Baptist report is genuine, not whether Bible Believers views on Freemasonry are themselves citable so I'm not sure why we need to worry about the theological background (they're "seventh age" pentecolists, followers of William Branham if that matters). JASpencer 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, I had no question but that you were showing good faith. I thought that I was reading the wrong page. JASpencer 19:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

tbh I think its' academic credibility is an issue in trusting material on the site. Given the uncritical aggregation of material on there thatn I'd mistrust anything there.ALR 19:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And just to restate... I don't have a problem with the Scotish Baptist report (at least I don't think I do, I'll have to read it again to be sure)... that comes from a fairly large donomination. My problem is with the convenience link. Given the track record of many evangelical websites when talking about Masonic subjects, I don't trust them to put the entire report on their site or quote it accurately without additions or subtractions. Blueboar 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I found another link here: [5], but as it seems that the report is the same version as on FMW and a lot of evangelical sites, I cannot attest to its accuracy. The best option would be to contact the group and get a copy of the report itself, and ask them if it would be OK to Wikisource it. It dates from 1965, BTW, so it may not be current. MSJapan 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Still not reliable...

Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.

I would take this to be a bulletin board post. Blueboar 22:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a file uploading site - I'd say that the reliability issue isn't the site, but the fact that it's not clearly taken from the original source, and therefore may not be accurate. MSJapan 13:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

DeHoyos and Morris

I've found something interesting re: Jahbulon in either Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry or The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry (I forget which, but I'll look it up when I've got the books in front of me): Apparently the existence of Jahbulon as a word for a Masonic deity originates in Darkness Visible in 1952. It's also such a big deal that there about two sentences devoted to it. I think that even to Masonic researchers this is non-notable.

As a note, Idiot's Guide and Is It True? are very useful; between them there's a lot to be said about the research methodology of Pike and others of his era, which also explains where all the trouble comes from. I also do not think that it was a specifically Masonic problem; IIRC, there was a lot of "research" done in many fields that simply does not hold up given the introduction of new methods since that time. MSJapan 13:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's "Is it true" that claims that. It's not true. It's in Duncan's Mason Ritual and Monitor which was 1866 - almost a century before Hannah. JASpencer 13:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the notability is based not on the concept's antiquity but the fact that a large amount of people believe it. JASpencer 13:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's "Is it true" that claims that. No, "Is it True" claims that Darkness Visible was the first to propound the idea of Jahbulon as a word for a Masonic deity, not that DV was the first to USE the word.--Vidkun 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's outline the history here... According to DeHoyos, Jahbulon was used by French Royal Arch Masons as early as the 1700s... but as a name for a person, not in connection to a name of, or for God. About a hundred years later, according to Duncan, things have changed and Royal Arch Masons are using Jahbulon as a password of sorts. Duncan says (in a foot note) that the word derives from the name of God in different languages (bad scholarship, but clearly he is referring to the Jeudeo/Christian God). A hundred years after that Hannah comes along and says Masons worship their own unique "Masonic Deity" named Jahbulon ... and it all goes down hill from there. Knight repeats this allegation, and others copy Knight. None of them have actually been through the degrees, and all accept Hannah/Knight without question, because it fits their preconceved notions that Masons worship Satan.

Have I got the sequence correct?Blueboar 16:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And on an unrelated issue... I disagree with JAS on the number of people who believe this stuff... I would agrue that we are talking about a very small (but quite vocal) number of fundamentalist crackpots.Blueboar 16:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, that is de Hoyos' history roughly (although he concedes that Hannah may have got the idea from Hubert Box). However de Hoyos doesn't say that Hannah was the first to make the accusation but the first to "profit from" it - a potentially misleading turn of phrase. The allegation was covered by the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa in 1942 although they used the term Joabulon. The Duncan version is not clearly refering to the Judeo-Christian version of God - as it refers to Baal as well as Jehovah. De Hoyos also says that this concept was in use with Nineteenth Century exposes. JASpencer 17:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Duncan most certainly IS reffering to the Judeo/Christian God, (well... specifically, he is reffering to the Hebrew God, Jahovah or Yaweh - but that, by extension, is the Judeo/Christian God). Go read Duncan again... He attributes the sylables of the word Jah-bul-on to the name of God in three languages, the Hebrew, the Phonecian, and the Egyptian. According to Duncan's etymology, he believed that Jahovah, Baal, and On each stand for the name of God (singular) in three different languages.... ie the same God. As I said, his scholarship may be incorrect - we know that Baal and Yahweh were not names for the same deity ... but it is obvious that he thought they were, in the same way that Allah is the arabic name for God.Blueboar 19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying Baal is merely a name for God, that Elijah was mistaken? In Victorian times very, very few people would see Baal as anything other than the lord of the flies. JASpencer 20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are probably confusing it with beelzebub, which is the name of a demon of some sort. Baal is an ancient sumerian name of the supreme God, and simply means "Lord": thunderstorms were the 'sign' of his wrath.

Mahabone! 19:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am saying that Duncan says this... And you are wrong in claiming that Victorians would equate Baal with Beelzebub... they knew their Bible and, according to the Bible, Baal is NOT another name for the devil. It was the name of a pagan Phonecian deity. Elijah was upset because people were turning away to another god, and fosaking Yahweh. Educated people in the Victorian era fully understood the difference between the devil and a pagan god. They had risen above medieval superstition.

What I think Duncan was trying to do was to put Freemasonic ideas into allegorical Biblical contexts... In Duncan's day (as well as in our own) Freemasony understood that different religious faiths worship God in different ways and by different names. A Muslem Mason calls Him Allah, a (english speaking) Christian calls Him God, etc. Freemasons agree that we are all talking about the same Deity, by whatever name. Now, according to the Masonic allegory, Freemasonry is supposed to have started at the Building of King Solomon's Temple. If so, then (according to my interpretation of Duncan) this concept of religious understanding must also have started at that time. We know that King Hyram of Tyre (being Phonecian and all) would have been a Baal worshiper, as would have been most of the workmen he supposedly sent to help build Solomon's Temple - including Hyram Abiff. So... in Duncan's allegory, Solomon and the two Hyram's would have agreed that they were refering to the same God by different names. That is why Duncan tosses in a third version (in the bizzar On=Osirus bit)... to say in essence, look, just like today, they agreed that they all worshiped the same God by different names.

OK... the previous IS my take on things... not being Duncan, I really don't know what he was trying to do by equating the three names... but it is clear that that he was equating them. Duncan is clearly implying that Jahovah, Baal and Osirus are different names for the same concept... and that concept is God.

What Duncan never says is that Jahbulon is God, or another name for God... it is a symbolic word in his ritual. The bit about Jahbulon being a seperate Masonic god is an invention (or misunderstanding) made by Anti-masons. Blueboar 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly orthodox Christian theology to treat pagan gods as demons - that's what St Paul did. If anything it's the more orthodox treatment than either treating pagan gods as non-existent (which would make Duncan's explanation a nonsense) or another "aspect" of God - which is precisely the synchretism that Freemasonry is accused of by many of the more moderate Christian critics. Victorians were not sending out missionaries and having religious revivals because they believed that pagans worshipped the same gods.

Besides it's not really the issue. If the idea had been thought up last year it would still be an issue considering the effect it's having on Christian attitudes towards freemasonry (however much you may deride the individual Christians) JASpencer 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we are looking at this from different angles... compartmentalizing as it were. I am not talking about Christian attitudes or about orthodox belief... I'm talking about what Duncan says and how I interpret that. The first is relevant to this article, the second is my attempt to explain why. It does not matter what anyone else may or may not have thought. What does matter what DUNCAN says... and DUNCAN equated the three sylables as being the name of God in three languages. He says so in his exposé Blueboar 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Some good information

From a book review by Wallace McLeod, published in The Royal Arch Mason Vol 24 no. 2 (Summer 2006) on Haffner, Christopher. Workman Unashamed: The Testimony of a Christian Freemason, Hinckley, Leicester: Lewis Masonic, 2005. Revised ed.

"And in February 1989, the Supreme Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of England removed from its ritual the three-part word on the triangle." (p. 52) MSJapan 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, that's why ALR had never heard it. Does he say why it was dropped? I take it that it's probably lingering in America. JASpencer 18:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd refer you to my quotation from the ritual book above. The three hebrew characters were removed not the word.ALR 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Zabulon

Any chance it might have a link to Zabulon? It looks quite close, plus it's biblic, Hebrew and all... A coincidence? unlikely.....--SidiLemine 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying "Al Smith" and "Hal Smith" are related because they live in the same town and are in the phone book. It looks close in English, but it's totally different letters in Hebrew. Think "mouse" and "house" in English -- not really all that close at all when you know the language. On that note, Hebrew doesn't have vowels when it's written, so people tend to make mistakes if they don't know the language, and I'm going to guess whoever came up with "Zabulon" (which is really Zebulun (one of the sons of Jacob and thus the name of one of the twelve tribes) and was redirected months ago) was one of those people who didn't know the language (which, if you want a coincidence, seems to be precisely what happened with whoever decided to make up the etymology for Jabulon). MSJapan 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... If they live in an average town, not too big, and share a family name, plus have a tendency to use diminutives for their first names.... Hal and Al might very well be relatd, say, around 5 or 6 generations ago.... And most houses do have at least one mouse. It's just too bad the plural of house isn't "hice", that would have made me look pretty brilliant. And about translations and co, I just learned today that St Josaphat was in fact Gautama Buddha, from Bodhisattva (sanskrit)- Bodasi (Middle Persan)-Budasaf (also Yudasaf) Arabic-Iodasaph (Georgia)-Iosapha (Greek). So yes, Zabulon might be overstretched, but hey, you never know what these mason guys are up to! By the way, I absolutely don't know about the subject, I just thought it was a bit tense around, and a lot of very precise knowledge was flinged around in all directions, so I thought I'd bring a bit of (undemended) ignorant freshness and comic relief to the conversation. Cheers, and please remember guys, it's just a word. Not even an idea, or a philosophy - a word.--SidiLemine 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way people- Stephen Knights book is not "anti-Masonic" it simply investigates Masonry- that the writer should call it anti masonic disturbs me and makes their motives seem questionable.

Given that, in "The Brotherhood", Knight accuses Freemasonry of everything from encouraging police and judicial corruption, covering up treason and spying against the govenment of England, to being behind the Jack the Ripper Murders... I would say calling him Anti-Masonic is fairly accurate. He certainly isn't PRO-Masonic. Blueboar 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic"

I came to this article via the remote article function. I saw the banner and read the article. What is unencyclopedic about it? Knowing nothing (and, frankly, caring less) about the subject I was impressed by the vigour and breadth of the text - and even more so when I read the discussion page. Folks, this is a good article; it neither supports nor opposes the supposition, merely notes it and the arguments for and against. The discussion page is much more the battleground as two diverse opinions seek to have the article reflect their viewpoint - which is of course the unencyclopedic position. Whether the term Jahbulon exists within Freemasonary is irrelevant - the controversy itself suffices as a valid reason for the article.

Oh, and "The failure to reach a consensus on deletion just highlights one of the weaknesses in WP, anyone can vote regardless of their competence in a subject...ALR 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)" I would suggest that most of those who argue and vote on AfD noms do so on the basis of notability and relevance etc, and not on the merits of what is contained within the article - it is not within the remit of the AfD discussion. (nb. I was not party to any such AfD discussion, and have not looked up the discussion regarding the noms for this article either.)

I would reiterate that it seems that there are two opposing viewpoints seeking to address the validity of this article - that of itself is unencyclopedic but it does provide a reasonable diversity within the piece as it now stands. As long as both are maintained within the text then it passes the test for inclusion - and removal of the article would be wrong. Unless I receive a specific response addressing my points in a few days I shall remove the tag from the article.LessHeard vanU 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well... I do have issues with this article under WP:NOT... specifically:

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary

and

• Wikipedia is not a soap box.

The first is due to the fact that over half of this article is dedicated giving competing etymologies. That is clearly the province of a dictionary. The second takes a bit more explaining as to why I am sure this is a soap box article. You say that the controversy about this word is what makes it notable... OK, let me first ask this: if there was not a "controvrsy", would you consider a little known password, used by a small sub-group of Masons worthy of an article? I would be willing to bet not.

So lets look at the controversy. Royal Arch Freemasonry is very small sub-group of Masons. Of that sub-group, a sizable portion of them use rituals that do not even include this word. However, a few religious anti-Masons wish to make the claim that all Freemasons worship the Devil, and use the fact that one sylable in this obscure ritual sounds like "Baal" as evidence.... ignoring the simple fact that the vast majority of Freemasons have never even heard the word Jahbulon, and those who have know it as a simple non-sense sylables used as a password with no religious significance. This accusation is what lies behind the "controversy" that you think is noteworthy. The only reason that this article was written in the first place, was to POV push this accusation. In other words, the Anti-Masons are trying to "soap box" for their particular religious view point.

Imagine what would have happened if someone had written an article on "Transubstantiation" and used it to push an Anti-Catholic POV claim that Catholics practiced canibalism (You mean they actually are taught to EAT human flesh during their rituals! HORRORS!). No amount of pleading that "the controversy makes it notable" would save it. First, there would be an outcry by Catholics. Second, once a few informed Catholics pointed out that the claim was a total misinterpretation of what transubstatiation means and how it is used in Catholic theology, the vast majority of editors would happily accept their word and would vote to delete such an article. The problem with this article is that (because people are titilated by stories of "sectets of Freemasonry") no matter how many times Masons point out the total misinterpretation that is going on, no one is willing to accept their word. Because Masonry is somewhat secretive, people see something written about (Gasp) Masonic Secrets (OOOOOH), and they want to read more... even if what they are reading is completely based on lies and misinterpretations. They say... "but it is the controversy that is notable" without understanding what the underlying controversy is even about. Blueboar 04:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

But the Cannibalism article does cover this point. There doesn't seem to be any controversy over the point so I don't know whether or not it would survive, but I think that it would if controversy could be proven. I've certainly come across this point in conversation on both sides of the Atlantic. JASpencer 09:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I picked a poor example ... but my point (that this article is soap boxing) remains. I note that the discussion of accusations of cannibalism in the early Catholic Church only rates a three line passing mention (unreferenced by the way) in a much broader article. I seriously doubt that an entire article devoted to that accusation would last very long. Let me try another example... would an article ascerting that Catholics worship a dog (because the sylable "dog" appears in the word "dogma") be allowed to stand because "the controversy makes it notable"? I really doubt it.

Something else that needs to be mentioned is that there is not really any "controversy" over this. There is no coverage of any "controversy" in the media... there are no books discussing such a "controversy". At best, what we have is rival speculation. Yes, there are a few books and websites that mention the word Jahbulon. But they do not do so in the context of any "controversy"... When they discuss the word, they do so in the context of speculation as to what it might mean. Look at the article again... it is little more than a list of specualtive etymology of a word (or rather one sylable of that word) that may or may not be used in a little known Masonic ritual. Where is the "controversy" in that? If it were not for the fact that people find anything to do with so called "Masonic Secrets" titilating (thank you Dan Brown), no one would ever care about this. True, this article is generating a lot of discussion on its talk page (which makes it look more controvercial than it actually is)... but this is due to the fact that there are a few editors who are Masons and who are committed to making sure that things written about their organization are accurate. Any "controversy" about this word exists simply on this page, and not out there in the real world.

The only thing that even remotely relates this word to a "controversy" is the accusation that the use of Jahbulon is yet more "proof" of Satan worship among Masons that is made by a few fringe Anti-Masonic Christian fundamentalists. I suppose a brief mention of this accusation could be included in the Christianity and Freemasonry article. But I don't think it rates its own article. It is a piece (an not the central piece) of a much larger controversy. Blueboar 15:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There are 14,000 google hits for Jahbulon and 12,500 hits for Jabulon, so it's not exactly just a couple of sites. It's also mentioned in a number of books, church reports, etc, etc.

At the moment Wikipedia is the top of the search for Jahbulon, underneath there's freemasonrywatch. It's nice that the Masonic editors want to give those hard working types at Freemasonrywatch a chance at being top of any Google search for this word. Personally I wouldn't want that in their position, but I suppose that's fair play for you.

JASpencer 16:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OOOOOH, google hits! Be real. Take a look at those supposed hits and you will see that there is a HUGE amount of repitition going on... This Wikipedia article is hit number 1 and 2, and then also 9 (through answers dot com). Then we have a hit on this talk page at 17, and the AfD page at 18. It goes on. A large number of these sites either host the same article announcing the release of "The Lightbringers - The Emissaries of Jahbulon" (apparently a DVD put out by a Christian Anti-masonry group), or are You Tube postings about it. Then there are chat room postings by Christian Anti-masons on My Space and various chat rooms. Yes, there are a number of Christian Anti-Masonry hate sites that give us hits, but many of them are exact copies of each other (I guess anti-Masonry does not worry about copywrite or originality). Then we have sites that are nothing more than links to other sites. If you filter out the repetitions, links, chat rooms, etc, and go with pages that actually have discussion about the word, it IS a relatively small number of pages.

But you miss my main point... there simply isn't much "Controversy" about this... all there is is speculation tied into the whole "Masons worship Satan" accusation. None of these sites discuss any "controversy" over the word. I repeat, I suppose a brief mention of how Christian Anti-masons interpret this word could be included in the Christianity and Freemasonry article. But I don't think it rates its own article. It is a piece (and not the central piece) of a much larger controversy. Blueboar 17:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, WP:CIVIL. They're there for a reason. JASpencer 17:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did not mean to be uncivil... just sarchastic. Sorry if I offended. Blueboar 17:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar if your reason for feeling this article is un-encyclopedic due to the fact that half of the article is simply a defination, i'd be glad to re-add all of the other stuff to the article that has been systematically removed since my last edit, and then all of the subsequent reverts to my version by numerous outside users. this version. Seraphim 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Saraphim... long time no see! While re-adding all that stuff might solve the issue of the article being little more than a definition, doing so would exacerbate my other objection ... That of soap boxing. Also it would reinforce the idea that there is some sort of controversy about this word, when there really isn't any controversy.

In addition, as one of the people who conducted that "systematic" removal you mention, I can assure you that the material was removed for very solid reasons (such as basing statements on unreliable sources it were simply added back, I am sure that it would promplty be deleted again. Blueboar 19:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So would your idea of soap boxing be say, using wording in an article to push a point of view? Hmm.. that's silly, since in Tydeman's address he clearly stated that the word "Jahbulon" was in use at the time of his address by the Supreme Grand Chapter of England. Yet somehow, magically, even though you use tydeman's address as a reference, the word "alleged" always pops up in the article. That always confused me. And oh yeah, don't forget how you guys removed all of the non christian groups that I found on a simple google search that also believed in the contravercy, they were enough to keep the merge of this article into the catholisism and masonry article, but then just magically dissapeared. Or all of the books that the word is found in which were properly sourced. And you guys even gutted the tydeman section, you just post the defination that he came up with, while completly ignoring the key point of the entire address, which was that the word is an honorific, not a name. But yeah it was all removed for very solid reasons. Infact, I think i'm gonna make a section addressing some of these questions, i've been gone long enough, lets start up this rat race again. Seraphim 08:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re The only thing that even remotely relates this word to a "controversy" is the accusation that the use of Jahbulon is yet more "proof" of Satan worship among Masons that is made by a few fringe Anti-Masonic Christian fundamentalists. I suppose a brief mention of this accusation could be included in the Christianity and Freemasonry article. But I don't think it rates its own article. It is a piece (an not the central piece) of a much larger controversy. Blueboar 15:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC). Yes, that is the controversy - the argument that the (supposed) use of an obscure word by some/few Masonic groups as evidence of an anti-Christian ethos by parties who may have their own agenda. As a statement it is unencyclopedic, certainly. As a statement with cited "examples", including etymology, and counter "evidence" then it becomes a valid piece.

Many articles are started for less than honourable reasons, for good or bad. If there is a counterpoint view, then it is likely to be expressed at some time. Providing that everything is imparted in a neutral tone then it becomes a valid entry. Let me make my position quite clear, I am not pro either side of the debate - indeed I am not pro either Masonry or Christianity (nor any organised system of belief) in general, but not stridently so. I would compare this controversy to that of Holocaust denial, unworthy of an encyclopedic reference except for the controversy it has created. As with that case, it is the motives of the proponents and opponents that creates at least part of the interest. As long as all aspects of this (Jahbulon) article are represented equally, in a neutral tone, then it becomes a good reference - the essence of an encyclopedic article. I can only suggest that is that potential that allowed the article to survive more than one AfD nomination. However I can see that removal of the "Unencyclopedic" tag may engender more rather than less antagonism, so I will not remove same.LessHeard vanU 21:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

However, what is being noted by others is that this "controversy" is anytyhing but. At best, it is a case of undue weight being given to something because of the accessibility of the Internet, and the supposed proliferation of this issue thereon. Let's put this into some perspective: in regular Masonry there are three degrees; there are four in the Arch, 3 in Council, and 4 in KT, as well as 29 in the Scottish Rite (all of this from the perspective of my jurisdiction - it is different in different places). That's 44 possible degrees, and please note I am also only talking about mainstream Freemasonry - Memphis-Mizraim has somewhere in the region of 90-something. And yet this word that makes up less than 1/10000 of the material contained in all of the degrees (and only in those places that use it, of which I am aware of none), is supposed to be a controversy. This article is merely the triumph of the irrational and unsupportable over the rational and clear, because the rational and clear is somewhat less exciting. Thereby, we are contributing to the problem, because the article engenders justification - "WP's got an article on it; it's got to be important!" MSJapan 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Does this article even meet the criteria for WP:FRINGE? This question is especially relevant to the claim that it is "the controvresy that makes this notable". Has this so called controversy been covered in the mainstream media? Blueboar 02:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Any MSM discussion of Knight, or the various church investigations, concentrated on the allegations of corruption etc, which were then investigated by a Parliamentary committee which found no evidence to support the assertions.

Just look at the references used, none of them are independent so bear a low level of reliability with regard to the relative importance of the topic.ALR 10:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)