Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 18

Archived 1st June 2006 WegianWarrior 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm archiving what appear to be old and finished discussions. If they're not finished, please start a new topic here, not on the archive page. Ardenn 19:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Secret Society

Should links to the Secret Society page and information about Freemasonry being a secret society, history of same, be included on this page?

And if so why is it not now included, or was it removed by some editors, and for what reason?

Secret Society - Any of various oath-bound societies devoted to brotherhood (or sisterhood), moral discipline, and mutual assistance. Such societies usually conduct rituals of initiation to instruct new members in the rules of the group (see rite of passage). Greek and Roman mystery religions had their secular counterparts in clandestine social clubs, some of which served as platforms for political dissent. In West Africa secret societies such as Poro (for men) and Sande (for women) serve to translate slight advantages of wealth and prestige into political authority. In parts of New Guinea secret men's societies serve as repositories of tribal knowledge. Fraternal orders such as the Freemasons (see Freemasonry) may be considered secret societies, as may criminal groups such as the Mafia and the Chinese Triads and hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

Encyclopedia Britannica www.britannica.com .—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs)

From a layman's perspective, this is fascinating stuff. Please continue to work through your differences in good faith. I am learning a lot.

Thanks! Scott Alameda, California

Also, a minor technical suggestion concerning one sentence in the article -- To avoid a double negative and provide proper propotionality, you might replace "is not present in some, but not all" with "is present in most, but not all" in the following passage:

"It is notable that the requirement for the candidate to have a belief in a Supreme Being is not present in some, but not all, Co-Masonic bodies, leading to a significant divergence in organisational direction and philosophy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:192.116.237.69 (talk • contribs)

Suggested rewrite: "It is notable that while the requirement for the candidate to have a belief in a Supreme Being is not present in some Co-Masonic bodies, such as Grand Orient de France (GOdF), it is present in others, such as Le Droit Humain (LDH). This has led to a significant divergence in organisational direction and philosophy between such variant bodies."

Nuttyskin 00:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... any one object? Blueboar 01:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. GOdF is not a Co-Masonic body. While it allows its members to intervisit wherever they want, they do not admit women.--Vidkun 13:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought GOdF did admit women? Blueboar 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

From the GOdF webpage: "It has signed treaties or friendly agreements with many French and foreign allegiances and will welcome as visitors to its Lodges any members of other allegiances with whom contacts have been set up, including visitors from all-female or mixed allegiances. The Grand Orient de France itself at present only recruits and affiliates men."[1]. While the current wikipedia article about GOdF is kind of ambiguous (as it refers to GOdF as being the first obedience to admit women, it leaves out that they no longer admit women as members.--Vidkun 16:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see the problem. It is a misunderstanding of the word "admit"... To clarify, then: they currently do not initiate, pass or raise women, but they will allow women from bodies in which they are in amity to attend their meetings. Blueboar 17:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Visitation only. They are not members of the GOdF.--Vidkun 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note everyone the little game the masonic editors are playing in this thread. The topic of the section is SECRET SOCIETY, why there is not section or mention of Freemasonry being one on the page. But look what the Brothers do they change the subject to another entirely different topic about the requirements of a candiate of a supreme being!!! Real cute Bro's, but it shows the type of games you are playing at Wikipedia.Sandmans 04:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that Sandmans have been [comfirmed] as a sockpuppet of the banned user, and long term abuser, Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 06:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian religious opposition - the Catholic Church

We seem to be on the verge of an edit war over the wording on the two Catholic Church paragraphs. So here is a section where we can discuss things, rather than just revert over and over again. For the most part, I do not have a problem with the revisions made by user:Amherst5282... but I do have two comments. First, we must keep it short. There is an entire article on this subject that is linked at the top of the section, so in my oppinion we only need to touch on the fact that the Church has issues with Masonry, and not get into too much detail as to what those issue are. Second... I think there is a big difference between what the Church says and what the average lay Catholic believes. Thus, I changed some of the wording (as an example, I changed "Catholics view Freemasonry as a ritualized form of deism" to "The Church views Freemasonry...") Blueboar 01:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to engage in an edit war, but I objected to both IMacomp and Ardenn reverting based on the identity of the contributor rather than on the basis of the content. I'd agree that the section could benefit from slimming down, but would suggest that Amhersts contribution is a reasonable starting point to go from.ALR 14:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Although it could be read that way, I did not revert just because I did not recognise a new editor, but because that editor looked quite like "Lightbringer". Imacomp 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolute drivel. Your comment was pretty explicit, the reversion was because you didn't recognise/ trust. If you'd thought it had been LB then you'd more than likely have said so; you have done in the past.ALR 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the following section needs some citations, or else it is just a collection of personal musings -

"The Catholic Church has often been seen to be opposed to Freemasonry. Despite Masonry's own self-definition that it is not a religion, from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church it is, at least in the sense that the Church views Freemasonry as a ritualized form of deism. Catholic theologians hold that while Freemasonry is not "satanic" or evil in that sense -- and modern theologians recognize that Masons act from benevolent motives -- it represents a humanistic, secularized form of moral philosophy which is not compatible with a uniquely Catholic motivation. The form of Freemasonry expounded by the Grand Orient of France has also represented a political force in countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal, for instance, that has tended toward anticlericalism, secularism and at times even Anti-Catholicism." Imacomp 15:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Ask for some, rather than just reverting. Although on previous experience, when asked to provide citations in the one section you've done anything substantive to, you've just deleted the same.ALR 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp, I had the same initial suspicion, but on checking Amherst's contributions and edit history I do not think he is Lightbringer. Anti-Masonic and Pro-Conservative Catholic yes, but not Lightbringer.

As for citations... Most of the statements he adds are fully cited at the Catholicism and Freemasonry article... so I raise the question of how much we need duplicative citations here (Note: if citations are not needed here, it could change how much we cite in other sections that are expanded upon in sub-articles ... such as the History Section). Any thoughts on this? Blueboar 15:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, following the same route as you, I do not think he is Lightbringer either. I raise the question of how much we need duplicate full sections here, if fully cited at the Catholicism and Freemasonry article, as you say? I think that if sub-article matter is repeated, then so should the citation{s}, but why repeat anyway? If a sub-article is in place then only a short summary is needed. Perhaps a note can be added, to state that full citations and refs are found in the sub-article? Anyway I think much of the History section should be in the History sub-article, (without loss of anything), to greatly shorten the main article. NOTE that "Holocaust" still has its natural home here, and in full. (This should come as no surprise, not because "this is wot I wrote" but because of the reasons fully thrashed out at length in the past) :) Imacomp 21:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm..I'm not "Lightbringer" -- whoever or whatever that is. I'm not "conservative" in any sense of that word nor am I "anti-Masonic." Yes, I was raised in a Catholic background, but that's not relevant in this case. I currently hold advanced degrees in history, including religious history. Whatever edits I've made to religious articles tend to be technicalities about institutional histories or details. I do not carry water for anybody. I am simply insisting on accuracy. If one wants to omit the section on Christian objections to Freemasonry, that's fine. If one includes it, it should be accurate as to the whys and wherefors. Some Fundamentalists look on Masonry as the conspiracy of the Illuminati and the anti-Christ-- that's clearly bullshit. Catholics object to its deist/rationalist tendencies on philosophical grounds and to the troubled political involvements of Freemasonry which often made it a rather vehement opponent of Catholics in the practical order. That's not being "anti-Masonic," any more than it would by "anti-Catholic" to point out the enmeshment of the Catholic hierarchy in supporting some of the royal regimes that Freemasons were trying to undo in the 18th Century. To reduce Catholic objections to narrow-minded pique over anticlericalism is erroneous, and the Catholicism and Freemasonry article is merely a list of canonical citations with no underlying rationale as to why those laws were decreed. I don't think a paragraph is a burdensome length to include, if one includes such a section, nor would any reasoanble person object to no section at all but a mere link to an article that is adequate and not merely a list of canonical precedents. And this hunt for an anti-Masonic conspiracy among editors is as silly as the hunts for alleged Masonic conspiracies signalled by the reverse of the one dollar bill. Simply be fair, complete and accurate, that's all.Amherst5282 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do not know who Lightbringer is, then you have not read much of this talk page... Imacomp 22:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Amherst, I hope you will understand that I did not mean my comments as a slur or anything... based upon your edits, you came across as being conservative and Anti-Masonic. If this is not the case, please forgive. You should know that this article has frequently come under attack by religious POV agenda bashers who do think freemasons are some sort of evil devil worshipers (the banned User:Lightbringer is chief among them, repeatedly re-appearing under various sock puppet names). Thus, the regular editors get a bit defensive over the entire "religious criticisms" issue. We do understand that the Catholic Church has issues about Freemasonry, and sees deistic/rationalistic tendencies in its rituals (I disagree with that view, but that is my personal POV). What is important is that this is a very long article that we are trying to shorten by splitting off sub-articles. The Catholicism and Freemasonry article goes into great depths on the Church's views, so whatever is put here on the topic should be very brief and point the reader to that sub-article. I am sure that we can work out an acceptable compromise. Blueboar 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

About the 'RCC does not see Masonary as "Satanic"' Statement.

The section containing the POV of the synopsis of why the RCC forbids RCs to join Masonic groups must be sourced with the official document on the matter which can be found at the following wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_April_19%2C_1985_to_U.S._Bishops_Concerning_Masonry which clearly calls some aspects of Freemasonary, blasphemies. I think the POV synopsis does not offer anything to substantiate the facts found in the wiki document and are pure conjecture. Please correct me with reference to the Letter above if I am wrong. If not, that addition should be removed and replaced with a link to the above instead. (Simonapro 00:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

First, the document cited is a letter from one bishop on behalf of a committee of bishops to other bishops. While I agree it is a rather forceful and detail presentation of the Church's traditional position, and should be included as a link in any article on Catholicism and Freemasnry, it is NOT an "official teaching" of the Church as is the cited document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Second, the word "blasphemy" is used only once in the document, in quoted text, referring to Masons who do not fulfill their oaths. The document states that Masonry is, in the definitions used in catholic ethology for Catholics, a religion -- one based in deism and rationalism which is therefore incompatible with Christianity as understood by the Catholic Church. The "pure conjecture" statement is horse manure, and I do not see anything in the summary I added to this article that is at odds with the Cardinal Law letter -- which therefore reinforces the point. The bishops and the Church hold in it, and have always held, that -- historical practices (like discrimination) and political involvements aside, the core of Freemasonry is incompatible with Catholic understanding of Christianity. Again, that's not anti-Masonic anymore than it was anti-Jewish or anti-Christian (in the heated sense of these terms) for early Christians and first century Jews to come to the conclusion that following Jesus as Messiah was incompatible with Judaism as then understood. I haven't judged one side or the other, simply presented positions as they state them, so I don't know what Simonapro's problem is. I think the summary is good as it stands. I would point out a reasonable point though: the section on Christian opposition to masonry (which, as I've said, might reasonably be a separate article) is pretty much Catholic-centered. As Cardinal Law's letter points out (in detail), a lot of other Christians -- including the Lutheran and Orthodox churches, the Quakers, etc. also oppose membership in the masons (while the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptists, at least in America, do not as a general rule). If there is to be a section, or an article, on opposition to Masonry, it should perhaps have an extensive Catholic section (having the longest history and the largest number of denitive statements for its members on the subject), but also substantial sections on these other denominations, while noting the exceptions too.Amherst5282 00:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"If there is to be a section, or an article, on opposition to Masonry, it should perhaps have an extensive Catholic section (having the longest history and the largest number of denitive statements for its members on the subject), but also substantial sections on these other denominations, while noting the exceptions too.".... and indeed there is... see: Catholicism and Freemasonry, an entire (and long) article entirely devoted to the subject. Also see: Christianity and Freemasonry and Anti-masonry. If this article seems to give the religious objections only a brief nod, it is because these other articles go into the topic in great detail, and we have chosen to link them prominently at the head of the section instead of repeating their arguments here. Blueboar 00:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Amherst has a point about the RCC specificity, but would suggest that is because the principal author of the relevant section and articles is predominantly a contributor to RCC related articles and much of the work is dependent on the Catholic Encyclopedia, which would inevitably take an RCC centred view. Having been observed that there is no analysis in that I would agree that some interpretation of the environment, within which the criticisms have appeared, would be a useful addition to the portfolio of articles. Notwithstanding that, I'd agree that this needs to be a summary, and not rehearse the same things. We need to be moving more towards a summary style on this article, with a number of sub-articles appendant to it.ALR 09:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Amherst, your reply is a POV. Please see WP:CITE WP:NOR. If there are no source materials for the POV conjecture starement without any citation, then it needs to be removed.

And in case I am not clear I will ask again.

• What is the citation(s) for -> The Catholic Church has often been seen to be opposed to Freemasonry. Despite Masonry's own self-definition that it is not a religion, from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church it is, at least in the sense that the Church views Freemasonry as a ritualized form of deism. Catholic theologians hold that while Freemasonry is not "satanic" or evil in that sense -- and modern theologians recognize that Masons act from benevolent motives -- it represents a humanistic, secularized form of moral philosophy which is not compatible with a uniquely Catholic motivation. The form of Freemasonry expounded by the Grand Orient of France has also represented a political force in countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal, for instance, that has tended toward anticlericalism, secularism and at times even Anti-Catholicism.

(Simonapro 00:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

What is wrong with you? The article itself lists two papal documents and one CDF document which clearly layout the trhe argument made above. This obsession with "conjecture" and shrieking "POV" is crazy...a conjecture is a guess. Tere is no guess here. The "POV" is the Church's POV, which is the point of the section, to explain the Church's POV. Will you please cite something which you find factually incorrect? Blueboar has been reasonable about this...what's the problem???Amherst5282 01:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This can be resolved by citing sources, right here, for that statement I have questioned. I don't see any. (Simonapro 08:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

WP:CITE WP:NOR Since the source documents have not been cited right here then that section in question which is currently without citation needs to be removed.

• Freemasonry as a ritualized form of deism.
• Catholic theologians hold that while Freemasonry is not "satanic" or evil.
• t represents a humanistic, secularized form of moral philosophy which is not compatible with a uniquely Catholic motivation.

All these statements in that body of text have no sources. If you can source them here then do so, if not then that statement should be removed from that section of the article. (Simonapro 11:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Ok... I have added the reference (which Simonapro will be pleased to discover is the letter from Cardinal Law that he is so adament about including). Given that the same material is covered in the Catholicism and Freemasonry article, it is all a bit redundant... but so be it. Blueboar 12:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Someone has taken very great liberty with the Cardinal Law letter then. It absolutely does not say any of the following:

• Freemasonry as a ritualized form of deism.
• Catholic theologians hold that while Freemasonry is not "satanic" or evil...
• It represents a humanistic, secularized form of moral philosophy which is not compatible with a uniquely Catholic motivation.

The closest word I found used in the whole document is "compatible", when it says that "Masonry is incompatible with Christian faith and practice." WP:CITE WP:NOR. Somebody needs to remove that work and prepare a body of text that conforms to wiki policy. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 19:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)]

Please note that the passage is not a direct quote from Cardinal Law's letter... Thus, the exact phrases used do not have to match exactly what Cardinal Law says. That said, Cardinal Law certainly describes Masonry as Deistic, humanistic, and not compatible with Catholicism. His wording may be different than that used here, but the thrust of what he is saying is not. I will have to agree that he does not discuss Catholic theologians not holding Freemasonry to be "satanic"... I suppose we will have to find another source for that. Blueboar 23:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How can one source a non-statement???? "The Catholic Church does not hold that the Masons are aliens from outerspace." Oh well, that's not a valid statement because I can't find a document that states that???? No...the point is that some Christians (as mentioned in the previous paragarphs of that section) DO hold Masonry to be occult satan worship. The Church has never said that it is, though it has characterized it in other ways -- ergo, the Church does not hold that Masonry is satanic (in contract to the position held by some others). No???? Geez...Simonapro should stick to the Cannabis articles.Amherst5282 00:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Amherst please see WP:CITE WP:NOR and in relation to your comments about me see WP:GF.

Blueboar the statement is still in the article and violates WP:CITE. At this point it should already have been taken here for another try to meet Wiki policy WP:CITE WP:NOR. Direct quotes are a method of easing factual verification. Without direct quotes that statement in the article has already been found to have POV content violating the policy above.

One more point. Trying to find sources to fit a POV is not only violating WP:NOR but is unethical. We are supposed to be creating articles without bias. (Simonapro 10:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Simonapro, are you saying that the Catholic Church does hold Freemasonry to be "Satanic"? Or do you just object to the article saying that they don't hold it to be such? Blueboar 19:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

To say that because the RCC does not call Freemasonry "satanic" means that the RCC does not believe it is "satanic" is WP:NOR. A motion to find a source to support the POV is unethical. I still see the article is there. The same goes for the other two statements in that section. How long will a violation of WP:CITE and WP:NOR remain on this page before someone does something about it? (Simonapro 20:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

Given that the Roman Catholic Church usualy says exactly what it means, without any quibbles... yes, I think that if it believed Freemasonry was satanic it would indeed say so. thus... the absence of the statement does indeed imply a lack of belief. It would be nice to find a direct quotation to back this up, but I am perfectly happy to leave it as is. Can you find a citation to back your view? Blueboar 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturalism means the same as Satanism. Naturalism is the banner under which Satan is marching, Supernaturalism the banner under which Lord Jesus Christ is marching.Newmason 04:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CITE WP:NOR That statement is still in violation of two wiki policies. It is new original research. It does not have any primary or secondary sources to support the claims it makes. Any claim that the RCC implies that masonry is not satanic because it does not say it is “not satanic” is a POV and violates WP:NOR unless it can WP:CITE. It is a Neologism and more importantly, HEARSAY. WP:8W The law letter even describes burlesque blasphemies. The statement is clearly deceiving the reader pretending to be compatible with WP:CITE when it is HEARSAY. (Simonapro 08:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

If you think that the Roman Catholic Church means that Freemasonry is satanic, then you're free to provide a reference / citation which clearly states that as a fact... and as long as you don't / can't, it's hearsay... Personly, I'll have to agree with Blueboar; the RCC has always been quite good at stating what it means, usually rather loudly. WegianWarrior 10:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:CITE. Read WP:NOR. Read WP:8W. If you say the RCC claims that Freemasonry is not "satanic" then you need to comply with WP:CITE and WP:NOR as per WP:8W. The statement in the article includes HEARSAY, violating two wikipedia polices. That whole statement in question, not just the quoted "satanic" (which does not have a quote!), should be removed. It is an absolute travesty that people who claim to understand wiki policy would allow this charade to go on. (Simonapro 13:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

OK, well, Leo XIII was pretty unequivocal in saying Freemasonry was Satanic in Humanum Genusin 1884. Cardinal Law's letter almost a hundred years later, however, is nowhere near that vehement, nor is Ratzinger's. Law's letter in particular says "The congregation presents as the reason for its judgment the fact that the principles of Masonry are "irreconcilable" with those of the church", and says nothing about Masonry being Satanic. So it's pretty clear from primary sources that the Church's position has become more moderate towards Freemasonry. There are WP articles with links to all these letters and laws, so take a look for yourself. MSJapan 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan, before we can even deal with other sources, in the article, as it stands, we are seeing the absence of a statement to mean it's a possitive (or a negative). That is totally forbiden on wikipedia. It is a policy arguement before we go anywhere else with it.(Simonapro 14:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

What are you talking about? You were complaining about violations of policies, namely CITE and NOR, which is what I answered above. Now you want a qualitative statement in the article about "good" or "bad" with respect to a Church ruling so we violate NPOV? You have to remember, not everybody is a Catholic, and therefore not everybody agrees with what the RCC says, which is why we can't make a value judgment like that on WP. Now, if you mean something else, you're really going to have to explain more clearly. MSJapan 14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think reading and understanding WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:8W should be mandatory before anyone submits/edits wikipedia content. I don’t want any qualitative statement about “good” or “bad”. I don’t care about POV either, or who agrees/disagrees with the RCC. The absence of a statement to mean it's a positive answer (or a negative answer), in this case because the RCC did not say “satanic” means that something isn’t “satanic”, is hearsay and to include hearsay is totally forbiden on wikipedia. WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:8W say it all. Now about your POV.

• "The RCC position has become more moderate towards Freemasonry." - MSJapan. The RCC position has not changed. Questions put to the RCC asking about any type of change (because of changes to Canon Law) got back a firm answer that nothing has changed. See Quaesitum est "...the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden." (Simonapro 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm sorry...so you're saying RCC is clear when they support your claim and unclear when they don't? The RCC is free to disagree with Freemasonry, but there is a difference between explicitly forbidding Masonry because it is Satanic and explicitly forbidding it because of "irreconcilable principles". I don't argue the prohibition at all, but what I am saying is that the reasoning for the prohibition has changed. A statement to that effect appears in the WP article on this, and it was written by a Catholic in the first place. So it's not my POV, it's what the sources say. I also don't see how quoting directly from RCC sources is hearsay, so I'd like you to explain that to me as well. MSJapan 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What someone here has implied is that the RCC has made the statement that masonry is not satanic. It turned out that they have absolutely no source to varify this hearsay and so the statement violates what wikipedia stands for. The source, which has been given, has been found to not contain any such claims. Dancing elsewhere for something to support the claim that never had a citation in the first is unethical WP:NOR. (Simonapro 23:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

The words "nothing has changed" (which is what I think this misunderstanding hinges on) refers to the prohibition still being in force from Leo XIII's time, not the reasoning behind the prohibition being the same as Leo's time. This is evidenced by the research cited in Cardinal Law's letter, which indicates that Freemasonry is "naturalistic" and incompatible, not "Satanic" and incompatible. If the intent had been simply to reaffirm Leo XIII's statements 100 years later ands say Masonry was Satanic, why go to the trouble to call Masonry "naturalistic"?

Critical reading does not violate NOR, nor is it hearsay, because the statement in the article is supported by the statements made by authorities of the Church in the various letters. Nowhere in any of the various 1970s or 1980s statements does it say Masonry is Satanic, and to claim the Church maintains it is by picking and choosing which parts of Canon Law apply and which don't is even worse, because you don't have any more proof of your statement than you claim the article has.

Lastly, if it's simply a question of changing a source for a particular statement, that's no big deal - the sources are still valid. Debating the statement as wrong when it's the citation that's incorrect is not the way to solve the issue. MSJapan 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What confuses me is that Simonapro first complains that something is not backed with a citation ... but then goes on to say that if we find a citation it would be unethical to use it. You can't have it both ways. Blueboar 00:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

MPJapan - Citing sources for the statement is a big deal. It is called Wiki policy. The sources that where eventually claimed to be cited turned out not to have been cited from at all. We have words in the article statement in quotes like "satanic" that where never even mentioned in the article at all. The statement doesn't even cover NATURALISTIC RELIGION which is in the Law Letter. Blueboar - Yes you can have it both way. The statement made violated wiki policy and since it doesn't have a source, trying to find a source is unethical. However I never said that finding a source would violate wikipolicy, just an unethical way of supporting a POV and violates WP:NOR. What I am showing you is that the game on this one was up long ago. The insert was unsubstantiated and never should have have been made in the first place. Reading and understanding WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:8W should be mandatory before anyone submits/edits wikipedia content. (Simonapro 05:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

WTF? Are you even aware of what you're saying? Because what I read is that you mean it's "unethical" to provide sources for articles. In other words, despite you pointing to WP:8W, you suggest doing away with verifiability. I guess I should pop over to all and any articles on the RCC and remove any statements that isn't cited and claim it would be unethical to provide sources to back up uncited statements (I'm being sarcastic, in cause you didn't get it). Providing sources is NOT in violation with WP:NOR - if it was we couldn't write ANY articles at all, since all articles should (must) be sourced. I qoute from WP:NOR, which you love pointing to; "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources".

In short: you're not making a lot of sence Simonapro. To me it sounds like you're trying to wikilawyer to push a POV. WegianWarrior 06:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What has happened is that someone here wants to say that the RCC does not believe that masonry is satanic because they have not recently said that it was. This is called HEARSAY. It violated two wiki policies - WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Hearsay is forbidden on Wikipedia. (Simonapro 07:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I am beginning to think that in your (incorrect) over-use of the word "hearsay", you really mean to use the word "heresy". Any way... While I did not have a problem with the "satanic" sentence as it stood, in the interest of moving on and focusing on more important matters, I have removed it. We can always add it back when and if we find a source. I have left the other parts of the paragraph, since those are definitely supported by Cardinal Law's letter. Blueboar 12:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, what has happened here Simonapro is that, when not obsessed with the Cannabis and science fiction TV artciles, you are in a shrieking fit that the world is coming to an end thanks to some bizarre conspiracy theories you hold. You run around on wiki sites giving your personal advic3e in articles about how people should label and organize their DVD collections (no I'm not making this up), but freaked out screaming and quoting wiki policy pieces like some fundamentalist on a mission, the POV and the mission here is yours, Simonapro, nobody else's. And you're being dishonest by calling citations "NOR" violations -- clearly you don't know what "original research" means. BTW, before you shriek on the Didache article again, you might want to actually learn Greek -- I've got a degree in it, and you are clearly howling about translation issues from the point of view of somebody who doesn't.Amherst5282 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this? Below is the text of a letter from the Office of the Archdiocesan Tribunal, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, dated September 15, 2000, to the Masonic Service Bureau of North America:

Thank you for your inquiry of September 11, 2000 directed to Cardinal Mahoney, on whose behalf I am replying. The question is "whether a practicing Catholic may join a Masonic Lodge." Unfortunately, the matter is too complex for a straightforward "yes" or "no" answer. But at least for Catholics in the United States, I believe the answer is probably yes. Permit me to explain this qualified response. Your letter states that a member's "allegiance to one God is all we require." To the extent that this is an accurate statement of the organization's beliefs and teachings, and that its activities are humanitarian and charitable in nature, there is no reason to prevent a practicing Catholic from joining. Past history, of course, has muddied the waters because earlier church law (prior to November 27, 1983) specifically named Masonic groups as a forbidden society (canon 2335, 1917 Code). The dialogues between Catholic and Masonic representatives in the years since the Second Vatican Council were generally very positive and yet did not resolve questions or concerns raised in certain parts of the world. As a result, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome issued a statement one day before the new Code of Canon Law took effect (November 26, 1983), in which it held that since Masonic principles were still contrary to the teachings of the Church, Catholics would commit a grave sin in belonging to Masonic associations and so could not receive Holy Communion. Because this declaration has not been superseded by any further official statements, the question keeps recurring about its interpretation and application. There is no agreement among the experts in church law who have considered the matter. Consequently one can only judge the individual circumstances in light of the principles that clearly do apply. These principles are set forth in canons 1374 and 1364 of the 1983 Code, which forbid a Catholic from joining "an association which plots against the Church" and impose penalties for heresy under certain conditions. If "a particular Masonic lodge truly promoted heretical teaching or conspired against the interests of the Church" (Ronny E. Jenkins, "The Evolution of the Church's Prohibition Against Catholic Membership in Freemasonry," The Jurist, 56 (1996), pg 735,) then a Catholic would be bound to avoid membership. The reason, then, I answer 'probably yes' is because I am unaware of any ideology or practice by the local lodges that challenges or subverts the doctrine and interests of the Catholic Church. In the previous paragraph, I have cited the article which best presents the current state of the question. The 1974 newspaper clipping that you enclosed with your letter probably refers to a letter written by Cardinal Seper, then in charge of the same doctrinal congregation mentioned above, which was addressed to certain bishops. In this letter one can see the movement at that time from a blanket prohibition to the application of a case-by-case judgment whether a group did in fact conspire against the Church. The history of the development of the Church's current law suggests that this case-by-case approach is what canon 1374 on forbidden associations intends. Please forgive this lengthy reply, but a shorter one would not do justice to those inquirers who are aware that the matter is still controversial. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn more about it myself, and I close by asking God's blessing on your well-known endeavors to relieve human suffering and assist the needy. Rev. Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J.C.L. Judicial Vicar Amherst5282 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, one of the most conservative bishops in America, maybe the catholic Church: "Bruskewitz said, "I'm not saying they (the Masonic

organizations) are bad, or that they don't sometimes do good things. There are many good people in them. What I'm simply saying is that there is an incompatibility between being a Catholic and being a member of those organizations."Lincoln Journal Star Note, he saying exactly the same thing as was said by Bishop Patrick Ahern in NY.Amherst5282 20:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, as said again and again and again, Catholic theologians (and thats what I said, I didn't say the Church by some papal pronouncement) hold that Masons --particularly American ones -- are not satanic co-conspirators with the unseen forces of the dark demonic wizards, but are well-meaning, charitable men who belong to what Catholicism would see as a religion (a deist religion, which, pal, is what naturalistic religion is).Amherst5282 20:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Amherst, thank you for so eloquently laying out the dilemma that so many Church leaders have faced in dealing with modern Freemasonry. Unfortunately, all that you have said will not answer the legalistic approach that Simonapro has taken... none of your sources (and, I suspect, no source) unequivocally states that Freemasonry is not "satanic"... yes, they imply it, but I suspect that Simonapro will settle for nothing less than an exact quote, using the word "satanic" and stating that Freemasonry isn't. Blueboar 01:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Amherst5282 - watch out for WP:GF when addressing contributors on this board. Stating so much as their history elsewhere on another topic is condemned by Wikipedia and is forbidden. The rules are here for a reason. Again WP:CITE is another one of those rules.

It doesn't matter if the members of the local clergy say that Freemasonry is not a bad thing. What matters is the official position that overrides that POV. As soon as that clergy member is shown Quaesitum est, which is based on Canon Law, he MUST agree with that position or else is a schismatic.

Blueboar – There are 2 questions to be answered. The removal of the quoted “satanic” is a start because it violated WP:CITE. There are also the other two points to address which do not appear in the Law Letter.

• Freemasonry as a ritualized form of deism. ß The Law Letter doesn’t say that. So question (1)Which part of the Law Letter is that from?
• It represents a humanistic, secularized form of moral philosophy which is not compatible with a uniquely Catholic motivation. <- The Law Letter does not use any of those 3 words - “humanistic”, “secularized” “moral philosophy”. Question (2)Which parts of the Law Letter is that from? (Simonapro 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Simonapro, as I clearly quoted the above, please [provide a cite for yopur contenbtion that Roger Cardinal mahoney is an excommunicated schismatic. AND YOU BETTER NOT DO IT WITH ORIGINAL RESEARCH OR ELSE!!!!! btw, Better go learn something about Canon law before you start screaming who is excommunicated, as that is a penalty, and the law in question requires strict construction (which is a technical term, and no, you don't know what it means), and you cannot cite a ferendae sentetntiae declaration of such excommunication or a notation of schism. Further, the statement was about Catholic theologians. "Schematics are self-inflicted excommunications," there is not such animal as a "self-inflicted excommunication," since that is a self-contradictory statement (clearly, you know NOTHING about cxanon law), and I'm not sure what a "schematic" is. The more you talk, the clearer it becomes YOU are the guy with the POV ax to grind, and one from a (sedevacantist?) extremist idiosyncratic interpretation of Catholicisim.Amherst5282 20:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger Cardinal Mahoney is no longer a schismatic because he retracted his statement (the one you printed here without the retraction) because it was faulty, engaging in schism. You can read his retraction here -> http://www.freemason.org/cfo/may_june_2002/retracted.htm He was fronting a schismatic position that he has since retracted because it was schism. (Simonapro 21:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Law's conclusion states in part (note my bold):"The false ecumenism which seeks to ignore basic differences between Masonic naturalism and Christianity, and the desire of a few Catholic men to find in the lodge a fellowship, a better chance for promotion or a wider base of customers than they can find through other organizations are no reasons to ignore the serious objections to Freemasonry raised by the church."

So, that statement is legitimate. However, we do not have the correct source for the other statement regarding moral philosophy, because it's not in Law's letter, and it's not in Quaesitum est per se, although the "irreconcilable" portion would work, as it says the same thing without bveing quite so specific. See here. MSJapan 21:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• It represents a humanistic, secularized form of moral philosophy which is not compatible with a uniquely Catholic motivation. <- Since we have now established that the Law Letter does not use any of those 3 words - “humanistic”, “secularized” “moral philosophy” that statement should be removed from the article. The law letter contains no such cite WP:CITE. (Simonapro 09:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

WP:NOR Discussion

Simonapro, you yourself have extensivly referred to the guidance for the creation of Wikipedia. It should be clear from a critical reading of those items that WP is not just a regurgitation, but involves summarising, categorisation and extraction of the salient points from a variety of sources. Clearly that means that items can be inferred from the consolidation of various documents, particularly over time. I would tend to disagree with Blueboars actions in accomodating your arguments with reference to FM being Satanic, the church's position has clearly changed over time. In a subject as complex as RCC theology I would suggest that such absolute statements cannot be made; a recent example is the comments with respect to the use of contraception by a senior Bishop. Whilst he caveated his statements around the circumstances where barrier methods may be used he is at variance with the church's stated position. I would caution against attempting to reflect what is a complex topic with a long, long, history in overly simplistic terms. It also does not reflet well that you make no effort to actually edit the article, merely criticise and toss 'rule quotes' around. I would also be grateful if you and Amherst can keep your personal differences away from what is already a contentious topic.ALR 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ALR - WP:CITE has directions on how to go about writing a wikipedia article with citation. Now to address your points.

• "The church's position has clearly changed over time." This is a POV and would violate WP:NOR unless you cite sources that make that claim. If you read up we already have the church position on the question of if their stance on freemasonry has changed. They say it has not.
• If you want to debate RCC position, clergy statements and freemasonry then this is not the place for that. That article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_Freemasonry
• You can't edit the article because it is locked.
• I have not violated WP:GF but Amherst has done it twice.

I look forward to getting answers on my two questions above (Simonapro 10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Simonapro, I note that as the second time that you have evaded any form of discussion with me, referring instead to other articles. I don't know your background, but mine is pretty explicit on my user page; I am very familiar with the preparation of papers and submissons for a range of applications; academic and professional. I would disagree with your assertion that the statement 'The Churchs' position with respect to FM has changed', that is in it's own right no POV. I make no comment on the specifics of the migration since you appear to be more focussed on process rather than content: Two sources have been demonstrated to you which demonstrate documentary audit of a change in position.

As to the point about the article being locked, perhaps you'd like to take a look at the flag at the top of the article. UNfortunately your clearly flawed understanding of what that means does not fill me with confidence that your interpretation of the various items of WP guidance you have such a fondness for throwing around is robust, defensible or reliable.ALR 10:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh right I see yeah I could edit it. I thought it was locked completely there at one stage but glad to see it can be edited. I am quite within my right to ask for changes here before editing thank you very much. As for you statement.

• Your POV is just a POV and would violate WP:NOR until you cite sources that make the claim you are trying to substantiate. You must actually find a source which states that the RCC had changed its position and documents that change. You can't just compare sources and be your own new source, that is called Original Research and violates. WP:NOR. Can you cite your sources? I suggest you take it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism_and_Freemasonry
• I look forward to getting answers on my two questions above (Simonapro 11:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

I commend your determination to stick so rigidly to your point, I happen to disagree with the point but I am impressed by the doggedness.

So what is it that makes my position POV and yours any les so? One can reasonably, and in an academic manner, take two sources, demonstrate a difference between them and draw attention to the fact that there is a change in the position taken by the organisaiton which originated the documents. There is nothing POV about that whatsoever.

As a point of interest, could you articulate your background. Amherst has already identified that he has some dredible pedigree in the topic of theology, JASpencer (the originator of much of the material in question) clearly had some expertise in the topic and other contributors have some demonstrable history in contributing across a range of topics without significant friction.ALR 11:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer not to mention my background, but I have worked in publishing. Yes it is academic to take two sources or more and demonstrate variations. Wikipolicy however is clear that you must follow WP:CITE and this means citing another source which has done that demonstration otherwise it is original research WP:NOR, which is a POV. Note that I have not said that a POV is true or false. Contributors are not sources. (Simonapro 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

It appears that your use of POV differs from everyone elses. POV in WP terms leads to an unbalanced articulation of the subject, therefore a statement in its own right is not of neccesity POV. I have the feeling that your conflation of various policies in your arguments are leading to a degree of confusion about what your argument actually is. I would agree that WP is not a literature review however would suggest that this level of argument over a single statement which is not in its own right contentious is, as highlighted previously, a prime example of wikilawyering. There is a reasonable level at which the collation and articulation of the evidence leads one to demonstrate points such as this. To suggest otherwise would indicate a low level of understanding of the editing process, in general, or a desire to exploit lack of clarity over the guidance in order to inject ones own POV in the article.ALR 12:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Two points in WP:NOR contradict what you propose.

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

This really is just a matter of reading the policies. (Simonapro 13:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Allow me to demonstrate that this appears to be an over-literal interpretation of the guidelines applied at a lower level of granularity than they are intended for:

• Source A, which is x years old, says B.
• Source C, which is <x years old, reiterates some of the arguments in Source A, altering the position taken in a number of cases and not mentioning others at all. Source C leads to conclusion D which whilst not explicitly superceding conclusion B is a more current discussion of the issues.
• Conclusion D differs from conclusion B in some areas, does not articulate all the points covered in B but demonstrates a generally more liberal position of the originator.

Whilst the information could be presented to the reader in such a way, it is an extemely clumsy method of of communication and could easily be considered as being POV in its' own right because it introduces a historical position (B) and highlights that the originator takes no extant position on the issue. If that were presented as evidence to me, for example in a Due diligence situation I would probably describe it as fraudulent data preparation with the intention of intentionally undermining the acquisition value on behalf of my client.

I would contend that your adherence to the application of the guidance at this level of granularity is inappropriate and merely a method of inserting your own POV into the article.ALR 13:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue about what WP:NOR means. I suggest you take your POV about what WP:NOR means to the discussion on WP:NOR. You can even reference this discussion. Now about your POV.

• With regards to the statement in question. I didn't inserting anything into it.

I am not going to debate wiki policy here. I am going cite that policy however, as I have done. If you want to debate the policy msg me on my talk page and link to the discussion on the wiki policy discussion page. (Simonapro 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

I find it somewhat disingenuous to attempt to turn this into a dispute with WP:NOR rather than a disagreement over your interpretation of it. I am not seeking to debate WP guidelines but to continue the development of this article, and its' related portfolio of articles. It strikes me as an effort to avoid the debate since I note you have presented little of substantive value to the debate, seeking only to degrade the contributions previously made by JASpencer. It is entirely reasonable to debate interpretation and were I to disagree with WP:NOR then I would happily discuss it over there, however that is not what you appear to wish to do, leading me to some discomfort about your motivation for involving yourself in this particular dialogue.ALR 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well ALR, If you think that your method of sourcing information, demonstrated above, does not conflict with WP:NOR then it can't hurt to ask them. I think your model is a method forbidden by WP:NOR. Let me cite WP:CITE WP:NOR again.

• It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; (Simonapro 15:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Since you haven't actually said anything substantive to improve the section in the article that you're banging on about, and choose to persist in wikilawyering then I don't see that this discussion is having any value. You choose not to contribute. You have yet to say anything sensible about the various proposals that I've made with respect to inclusion, or non-inclusion, of the point under debate, you just persist in saying that it doesn't meet the requirements, despite the above articluation being no more than a sequenced statement of fact. It may be that we're suffering a language barrier here, given the point highlighted by Blueboar above I'm tending to see that as likely, so I don't see any value in continuing this theme of discussion. If you feel you can make the point accurately and succintly then feel free to do so, if not then kindly find something else to pick fault with.ALR 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Improvement means making sure that the article conforms to wiki policy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_a_good_article (Simonapro 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Requirements Section

I have removed the line 'creative principle' numerous times over the past few years specifically because it stipulates: -

Generally to be a regular Freemason, one must

It does not stipulate 'Generally to be a regular or any other flavour of Freemason'. Furthermore, the citation given was [18], which has no listing of the words 'creative principle' in any way shape or form (my eyes are bleeding from reading that volumnous document), so I put it to you, my fine fellow editors, that we leave the fluff out and stick with Freemasonry and not it's gazillion flavours, derivatives and latter inventions or schizmatic organisations, be they appendant, concordant, or any other *dant body. Jachin 12:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if we are going to limit the section to regular Freemasonry (ie UGLE and those jurisdictions in amity with UGLE) then the parenthetical remark about "Creative Principle" should go. Otherwise, the intro to the section should be broadened to include all forms of Freemasonry (regular and irregular). As wikipedia editors, it is not our job to define what is and is not regular. While I might not think the members of the various "Continental style" lodges are regular Masons, they certainly would disagree with me. Since there are a lot of men (and women) who belong to these lodges (GOdF is, after all, the largest Masonic body in that nation, far larger than the regular GLNdF), we can not simply ignore them. Thus, I would say we should change the intro and broaden our scope. Blueboar 12:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend towards this being an overview of FM, although explicitly focussed on 'regular' FM as recognised in popular culture (ie UGLE and GLs in amity with UGLE); other traditions can be, and are, dealt with in sub-articles. Notwithstanding that the parent article needs to reflect, briefly, that there are other traditions of FM which are covered elsewhere.ALR 19:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as the listed requirements, the term regular should be removed as those listed requirements are the basic ones for all masons... (I should know...being one and all) Once one is a mason, then there are different requirements for the associated groups which are seperate in nature, however are not included as requirements to become a FM, as you first need to become a FM before entering one of the other groups. The very nature of the FMs makes everyone be together as equals, as such there is not a difference in the requiremnts of becomeing a mason as everyone enters at the same level as a mason. Granted, in some cases, the "freeborn" designation has been dropped as outdated, however other lodges have kept it simply for traditions sake.

Freemasonry is Freemasonry. Freemasonry by common nomenclature pertains to generic blue lodge. If the article title were 'Freemasonry and derivitive systems thereof' I could understand. No shot at the frogs here, I'm in a relatively neutral political stance in all things yet I truly believe that the tennets of Freemasonry should be addresses solely when it comes to intrinsic parts such as initiation. If it's good enough for every accordant, concordant, appendant body and every random religion or cult that has based it's workings off it; it's good enough to be left intact in situ and in it's entirety. Jachin 09:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Evidence of pro-Freemasonry bias

In Origin Theory Section:

"Freemasonry is a system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol and in the ritual context employs an allegorical foundation myth of foundation of the fraternity by the builders of King Solomon’s Temple."

This is the belief that initiated freemasons teach to one another, based on faith and subjective interperatation, not a scholarly or objective viewpoint. To make an analogy, this would be as if the article concerning Jesus Christ simply stated matter-of-factly that "Jesus Christ was the son of God begotten by the Father through the Virgin Mary, he was crucified and died for the sins of all of humanity".

"Blithely disregarding the evidence currently available that attests to the origins of Freemasonry as a fraternity that simply transitioned out of the operative lodges of the middle ages, hundreds of authors have written books of a highly speculative nature proposing any number of origin theories that are not supported by the hard evidence."

Blithely disregarding the evidence?! what evidence? This is obviously pure naked opinion. this section does not cite a single source for this wildly one-sided and factually unsupported statement. on a simple note of contention, a simple google search will reveal that Many prominent Freemasons believe that the organization was literally (not allegorically) founded by King Solomon of Jerusalem himself.

Such subjective opinions are generally regarded as propoganda and are not considered appropriate in the neutral and factually based scholarly context of Wikipedia. For more information, please see the policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

WaynaQhapaq 19:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any "pro-freemasonry bias" here, but I agree that this section is terribly POV. It should be something like:

"Freemasonry, in its ritual context, employs an allegorical foundation myth concerning the builders of King Solomon’s Temple."

Actually, I'm not sure this is true; I thought the myths only said that Solomon and company were Masons, not that they founded the fraternity.

"While the theory most accepted by modern scholars states that Freemasonry originated as a fraternity that simply transitioned out of the operative lodges of the middle ages, hundreds of authors have written books proposing any number of alternative origin theories."

Also, the paragraph beginning "Early operative Freemasons, unlike virtually all Europeans except the clergy, were not bound to the land on which they were born, and were, thus, "free"..." should go since it mostly duplicates the next section, and is uncited. Ben Standeven 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all sure I see the Bias in the first paragraph that WaynaQhapaq cites. The article clearly says that the King Solomon's Temple foundation story is an alligorical MYTH, and that it us used in a ritual context. In other words: according to Masonic ritual, the Craft was founded by the workmen building King Solomon's Temple, but this is considered an alegorical MYTH. Thus, it is not belief or dogma. The article also goes on to state that there are hundreds of books giving other theories, and then lists the most prominent.

As for the second paragraph... that is a bit POV (especially the "Blithely disregarding..." opening words) However, I would not say it rises to Bias... (It talks about the Craft arrising from operative stone masons in the middle ages, and not about King Solomon's Temple.) I have re-written it to tone down the POV. Hopefully this will improve things. Blueboar 23:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note my comments in the Secret Society para on this page, how the "Brothers" are behaving here, the type of manipulative tactics they are using. Freemasonry is a secret society and there should be SOME mention of this on the Freemasonry page and a link to the section. Why not a brief description and a Wiki link? Why not some mention of this in the introduction paragraphs of this page. It is a very important point, why is it not included??? Sandmans 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that Sandmans have been [comfirmed] as a sockpuppet of the banned user, and long term abuser, Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should have a little read of the user page of the Admin you Klowns are working with now. You know the one who declares he is a "militant queer" and spends a fair bit of his time trying to vandalize Wikipedia pages on the Catholic Church. Speaks volumes of the kind of men who are attracted to Freemasonry. The apple never falls very far from the tree does it Brethren?Naturalism IS satanism 06:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

P2

Sorry about deleting the P2 material; I misunderstood the citation tag, and assumed it applied to the "suspicion of murders" part as well. I do wonder whether the lodge was "illicit and irregular" before they were uncovered though; if not I don't see that their status is relevant Ben Standeven 20:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In Freemasons for Dummies, p. 303–304, author C. Hodapp reports that the lodge had its charter rescinded in 1976 by the Grand Orient of Italy. The charter for the regular lodge "Propaganda Due" was 1895–1976, and the follow-on unchartered "P2" group were exposed in the press in 1981. It seems to me that the point of the "P2" group being irregular was that they had been repudiated by Italy's official Masonic body; that is, that the Masons officially thought that they were bad guys, and had gone on record to that effect. Tom Lougheed 01:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what the heck this hack masonic propagandist claims in his loopy book. P2 was a hundred year old important Masonic Lodge and it was NOT irregular. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy personally approved what Gelli was doing, recognition was NEVER withdrawnk, it's membership list was 'restricted', that is to say not distributed.

"Grand Master Salvini resigned in 1978, but his successor, General Ennio Gattelli, continued to accept all Gelli's recruits as legitimate Freemasons. In 1980 the Grand Orient was still accepting lump sum payments from Licio Gelli as P2 members' dues. Battelli also supplied Gelli with blank Grand Orient membershiip cards. In autumn 1981, when P2 had at last been officially dissolved and Gelli suspended, the Grand Orient transferred P2's members to other lodges: an act which proved the P2 shut-down was a cosmetic device. In reality the lodges reactionary ethos was now spread like a virus throughout the Grand Orient."

Freemasonry Watch P2Sandmans 04:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that Sandmans have been [comfirmed] as a sockpuppet of the banned user, and long term abuser, Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 06:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to post that. Ardenn 07:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We should also note, for the benefit of other users, that Freemasonrywatch.org (the cite that this banned user keeps pushing) is well known for getting their facts wrong. Blueboar 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example?Newmason 04:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The entire fabricated page on Satanism comes to mind. Anyhow, at this point, Lightbringer (funny you chose the name of the Devil, what with your beliefs and all...), you really need to find something else to do. Maybe you could just go to church and leave the people who don't share your beliefs alone? MSJapan 05:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is only two possibilities; Supernaturalism and Naturalism. Naturalism is the banner under which Satan marchs, Supernaturalism the banner under which Lord Jesus Christ reigns. That's the thing about Masons, they just don't have any theological foundation, not to mention an adequate Christian formation. So when the Catholic Church accuses Freemasonry of Natualism they are accusing it of Satanism. There is only one source for all occult teachings - the demons.Naturalism IS satanism 06:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Section

As per Blueboar's Idea, posted at my talk, I've reduced the section to a summary. The details, in chronological order, are now at the "Totalitarian Regimes" sub-article. As for me, I think the same should be done with the History stuff? Imacomp 19:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We can definitely summarize the history and put in a link to the "history of" article. Blueboar 19:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

When are you seekers of truth going to restore the links and summary of the article by Brother Berheim, who mentions the little tid bit of light that all of the regular Grand Lodges of Germany sent congratulations to Hitler on his election in 1933, or that the Blue Forget Me Not Flower legend is a complete fabrication by the post world war II ex-nazi Grand Master of German Freemasonry? Oh and you claim for 200,000 Freemasons killed is a hoot. The Old Prussian Grand Lodge of Germanry only had 80,000 members and none of them were arrested, not a single one. You're like children, your little Masonic fairy tales.Naturalism IS satanism 06:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Never, because the summary makes no sense in context. Why to you, does what happened in 1933 directly relate to collusion in what took place years later? How hard is it for you to understand that in 1933, no one knew what was going to happen? I'm sure a lot of other people sent Hitler congratulatory letters too, maybe even other world leaders. Germany was a mess after WWI, and he said he was going to fix it. Does sending a letter make them Nazi conspirators, or does it make the Lodges patriotic to their country? You're claiming the former, apparently, because you're applying what you know in 2006 to wehat you think the Germans knew in 1933, which is simply wrong. Furthermore, if a letter makes one a collaborator, you've uncovered a worldwide Nazi sympathizer network in every leadership position in every country in the world (and they're probably all Masons, too, right?), because most leaders send other leaders congratulatory messages for elections. However, you didn't look into that because context means nothing to you. You'd find "Mason" and "bad" separated by 600 pages in an encyclopedia and decide that they were related.

Maybe if anything you claimed made any bit of sense to anyone when they read the articles in their entirety, we'd put them in. However, what you think the authors say is not what they are saying, because you pick the one statement that suits your purposes and ignore any sort of explanation or exposition on it, and you also don't read the rest of the articles you pick and choose statements from. Your claims about Vogel and the Forget-me-not also have no reliable proof, because you're taking things out of context there as well. You take a possibility as fact because it suits your purposes.

Frankly, you need to read and understand your sources completely before you make your claims, and not expect everyone to be so blind so as to take what you say at face value. That might work for your belief system, but "because I repeat it loudly to everyone in sight it must be true" does not work for research. MSJapan 15:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Earth to Freemason, what year did Hitler write Mein Kampf? 1922. Are you suggesting the Grand Lodges of Germany were unaware of the Nazi's anti-semitic program? Are you suggesting they were unaware of Hitlers anti-semite tirades, his threats against the Jewish people? God you are thick. The regular Grand Lodges of Germany were anti-semitic themselves that is why they endorsed and supported the nazi's. Get it? You have got to be one of the stupidist Mason's I have ever come across, and THAT is saying something!24.64.223.203 11:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello and goodbye Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 11:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't lie your way out of the corner Masonry finds itself in. Freemasonry: The idiots and fools paradise.24.64.223.203 12:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the United Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Lodges of the United States, Canada, Australia etc, the only Freemasons in Germany were the 'Old Prussian Grand Lodges' - the Lodges which forbid Jews membership. The Grand Lodges which permitted Jews membership were known collectively as 'Humanitarian' Lodges and were considered 'clandestine' and not Freemasons by the arbitors of 'Regular' Masonry. It was these 'Humanitarian' Grand Lodges which Hitler outlawed in 1933. The 'Regular' Grand Lodge Grand Master's all sent letters of congratulations and loyalty to Hitler and were allowed to continue operating under the cover name of 'The Frederick the Great Christian Association'. Frederick the Great was of course the founder of 'regular' Freemasonry in Germany and was Hitlers personal hero. You won't find these facts on any Masonic website however, as Freemasonry's current gambit is to continue to propagate the 'official' lie of the Blue Forget Me Not Pin in an effort or conceal 'Regular' Freemasonry's involvement and support of Hitler and National Socialism. These little known facts give further weight to those historians and writers who believe Deputy Furher Rudolf Hess met the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England, the Duke of Kent, following Hess's strange solo flight.

Actually, Bernheim's articles (like the one you pasted below) say otherwise. The Old Prussian Lodges became Frederick the Great Associations and thereby ceased to be Masonic, because Hitler had outlawed all the Lodges. Also, your statements regarding regularity are erroneous; the only non-regular Lodges were the Humanitarian ones, if that. Bernheim doesn't address the issue of regularity in the paper, so that's your assumption, which is not only wrong but violates WP:NOR. Also, Frederick the Great wasn't the founder of Freemasonry in Germany. Germany didn't exist at the time, and Frederick was the king of Prussia, which was not the same as Germany. Furthermore, he became a Mason in 1738 (but not in Prussia - there were no Lodges in Prussia until 1744), and didn't become king until 1740. Germany became Germany in 1871. See Bernheim's other article (which I notice you didn't paste), as well as the relevant Wiki articles on Frederick the Great and Wilhelm I. MSJapan 14:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Section subjects - not title subjects - in bold?

I'm noticing as I scroll down that sections drawn from other main articles (e.g. "Women and Freemasonry," etc.) have the first reference to the subject topic (instead of the article topic, Freemasonry) in bold... this isn't proper, is it? `T. S. Rice 23:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. MSJapan 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Masonic Edelweiss Fantasy

"THE BLUE FORGET-ME-NOT" ANOTHER SIDE OF THE STORY by W.Bro. ALAIN BERNHEIM 33°

NOTE A "sock puppet" of the blocked User "Lightbringer" quoted a paper in full. This is a copyright violation, if correct, and so I removed it. Imacomp 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE that some Authors persist in breaking Masonic good manners, by using membership titles when writing in the public domain. Not only is this a way to get under the skin of other brethren, it adds nothing to the weight of their authority on any particular subject. Imacomp 17:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that nowhere in this paper does it say a) Vogel was a Nazi; b) that the Christian Orders were still Masonic Lodges (nowhere are they referred to as such); or c) that the story of the Forget-me-not was totally fabricated by Vogel, and it is not claimed in our article that no Masons supported Hitler. As a matter of fact, Bernheim isn't clear on some things and says as much.

You can't extrapolate information where it suits you, and ignore it when it does not. You think Vogel is a Nazi because his daughter married a party member, I guess (as there's no other mention of him as such), but you're apparently unaware that everyone had to be a party member. Bernheim says nothing about Vogel's politics. The Christian Orders tried to survive and failed, and when they became the Frederick the Great Orders, they ceased to be Masonic for all verifiable intents and purposes. What Bernheim is really doing is dealing with the German revisionism surrounding WWII, the Nazis, and the Holocaust. There is a difference between not totally true and completely false.

Furthermore, you obviously still need to read these documents, LB, because you simply don't understand them. Then again, don't your religious convictions prohibit you from doing so? Funny how one can justify reading "Satanic" texts if one really needs to. MSJapan 14:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)