Talk:Larmenius Charter

NPOV

The lead appears to consider the charter a complete fabrication. The rest of the article appears to consider it completely genuine. Sourcing for either argument appears lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.183.192 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Revert warring not acceptable

There is a revert war going on with this article. IP User 166.66.16.116- you keep blanking this article, and others are reverting this. You may, for all we know, have a very good reason for this, but if you do not share it we cannot decide. Could all parties please discuss the article so that the standard of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can be achieved for its content? See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes--Steve Zissou 09:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Larmenius Charter

From Vincent G. Zubras, Jr.--Nov. 2, 2006, Dallas, Texas:

I have just clarified and updated the Larmenius Charter article with the TRUE historical facts. The previous writer made the ridiculous mistake of saying the Larmenius Charter had been written by Jacques DeMolay! Would it not have then been called the DeMolay Charter? How ridiculous! Who would that writer have thought "Larmenius" was? Obviously, this person is no legitimate historian to have made such an agregious error.

I have studued this Charter and everything available about it, even private and limited-access documents, for at least 10 years, and have compiled the resulting history. This document DOES legitimize the existence of the Templar Order through the succession of Grand Masters and various Secretariats General through four centuries until it's semi-private unveiling in 1705, and full unveiling in 1804. This document has NO bearing whatsoever on any question of who are or are not legitimate Knights Templar-- the "Chivalric" Order or the "Masonic" Order. I am a member of both and a senior Administrative International Officer of one, so I stand with one foot each firmly planted in BOTH disciplines.

The "issue" which seems to be often raised (usually by those who have no better way to spend their time) about the "historic legitimacy" of Masonic Knights Templar is ridiculous. Robinson, in his own book, clearly has no great love of Masonic traditions, or Chivalric ones either, for that matter, so Robinson is not really a good reference on which to make a definitive statement--- "it's true because this guy who wrote a book says so!" Even I, as an author, can be questioned as to my own resources on which I base statements. Can others say the same?

I challenge you to contact the (Masonic) Knight Templar Grand Encampment of the United States at their Offices in Chicago. Illinois, and ask them if they can give you incontrovertable proof that they are legitimate Knights Templar. They will be the first ones to tell you, "No, and we've never made that claim!" This is why the Masonic branch of the Templars, of which I have been a former local officer and proud member since 1975, are what is referred to as a commemorative Order... NOT historically legitimate... and the make no "bones" about that issue, anyway, so why should anyone else?

Doubt me? Whatever State you are in in the USA, find where your Masonic Grand Lodge is located, call them, and ask them the same question. Send me an e-mail and let me know what answer you get.

Too many persons with mild interests in history (most of them young and unknowing) pick up and read the first thing they can grab in print, and it becomes their "Bible" of authenticity. I challenege those persons to widen your vistas by reading a LOT more on a particular subject by a NUMBER of authors, and you will even then see some major differences and "hiccups" in their own historical statements. Go, instead, and study overseas as I and others have done, researching old Church records and the Bibliotheque Nationale (National Library) in France--- THAT is what makes a true researcher and historian. Don't show foolishness by quoting ONE American author as being the god of the subject unless you know his background!

I also highly object, and call "foul," to ridiculous persons who make such rude statements as "the OSMTH people are liars"! On what basis do you make this statement? The only OSMTH people with a real axe to grind are those legitimate Loyalists who were wronged by the "militaristic schism" of 1995-97 which split the Chivalric Order into Loyalists (the original Order) and the current "Admiral Carey" OSMTH group--- those who stole the Order in the USA, Britain, and elsewhere overseas in their concerted attacks of that time through a trumped-up Federal Trademarks court case they used as a bludgeon to get their own way. OPCCTS in the United States and North America ([www.knighttemplar.org]), together with the remaining "Loyalist" Grand Priories of the true OSMTH in Europe, are now the only remaining legitimate historical lineal descendent "Loyalist" branches of the historic Chivalric Knight Templar Order with a "family tie" to the legitimate Templar Grand Master.

I am available, on a limited basis, at preceptor@knighttemplar.org, but please do NOT write to me if all you wish to do is challenge and argue with me with limited resources. I don't have time for that, and I do NOT suffer fools lightly.

Can I write to ask why you're such a douche? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.116 (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fake document

If you can read French, may I suggest a good starting point would be the 'Cahier d'etude' on the subject of the 'Transmission of Larmenius' published two years ago [1997] by the 'Centre des Etudes et des Recherches Templieres' in Campagne-sur-Aude.This lists a good cross section of scholarly comment on this dubious document.

Among serious authors who have commented in recent years, may I list Peter Partner, (The Knights Templar and their Myth - Oxford University Press 1981) who claims the document was forged by Dr. Ladru in the late seventeenth, early eighteenth century. John Robinson (The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry - Born in Blood - Century 1990) who states that it is now proven to be a blatent forgery. Baigent and Leigh (The Temple and the Lodge - Jonathan Cape 1989) who are non-committal. Lastly, Knight and Lomas on the one hand and Picknet on Prince on the other, who both simply assume its veracity asit is used to support the central themes of their works, namely The Second Messiah (K & L) and The Templar Revelation ( P & P).

Thus scholarly authorswith good reputations either condemn it, or at best equivocate, while other, more speculative authors pushing highly arguable themes, sometimes endorse it.

What does the document itself tell us? Rather a lot. The original can be inspected in Mark Masons Hall in London. It is in cipher, which upon translation reveals not the clumsy, ecclesiastical Latin of the medieval era to be found on so many charters, documents and deeds from that time, but a far more polished and scholarly form of the language used in universities and medical schools in eighteenth century Europe. According to most scholars who have commented on the prose style used, it is quite obviously the product of a seventeenth or eighteenth century mind, well steeped in the masonic lore of that time and bears no relationship whatsoever to the phraseology current in the early years of the fourteenth century.

The alleged list of Grandmasters includes among their number, several Princes of the Royal House of Bourbon. Some absolute howlers are made in their alleged titles which quite obviously indicate that no-one from that social class had anything to do with the document whatsoever much less became a Grandmaster repsonsible for it..

According to the consensus among the scholars who have studied this document, the most favoured candidate for the position of forger, is not Dr Bernard Fabre-Palaprat who did most to promote it, but a certain colleague of his a Dr Ladru.

Source
--Aliabastre, 195.132.66.248 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Check

I have put a POV check on the article since it's presented from the mythological and not critical point of view and resembles watching a Spiderman filmWfgh66 (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What Have I Missed?

I noticed a notation that this article was nominated for deletion, then voted to retain, It was somewhat mystifying to find no discussion of the article here in Talk for some four years, then a sudden urge to remove the article entirely. After reviewing the vote discussion I concur with those who suggested that the points raised during the vote should be posted HERE in the Talk section, as well, since they shed considerable light on the current state of the controversy.

There are two aspects of the Larmenius Charter that seem obvious to me: (1) if it is legitimate it is of extreme historical importance and accurate information about it belongs in Wikipedia, while if it is a forgery then it should be plainly documented as such on Wikipedia since that itself would be an historical act of some significance; and (2) since the document still exists it should not be "rocket surgery" to determine its authenticity -- ink and paper tests, linguistic comparisons, etc., which can be carried out "blindly" (without the testing personnel knowing specifically what they are testing so the results would be unbiased). Until such time as that is done, it seems only appropriate that all references to the document should be framed in terms that disclose its controversial nature (i.e., allegedly, purportedly, etc.) and that the article(s) regarding the Charter should focus primarily on the facts of how it has been used and the controversies that have surrounded it, rather than trying to publicly argue points in the controversy itself. Sensei2001 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Text and translation

I have the Charter's original Latin text with a translation that I personally edited and corrected a few errors. Should this link be added to the article?

Larmenius Charter. Latin text with translation

Deses (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because it violates WP:OR. MSJapan (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify, please? Deses (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you feel is unclear after having read the policy? MSJapan (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel it is unclear how a policy regarding article content pertains to an external link that contains the only relevant primary source in question. There are some very minor "original research" elements on the page with the primary source, but I am not proposing that they be included in the body of the article. Deses (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, though I think that linking to original research is also a problem. A more relevant policy would be WP:EL, then, which I think this link also fails. MSJapan (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)