Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 2

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Aug 2004 and Sep 2005.

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

Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_3. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

Change

No this isn't biased 'Lodges Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons meet as a Lodge and not in a lodge. (This is similar to the distinction made by Christians who meet as a church, with the actual building officially considered no more than a meeting place.)' According to who? If its to Catholics.. Not all Christians are Catholics... Clarify or remove, I think this is useless. --Milan20 15:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it is a useless idea. The idea that the Freemasons themselves make a Lodge and not the building in which they meet is worth mentioning. I understand that this idea is reinforced by Military Lodges who moved about and their warrant (their authorization to meet issued by the governing body under which the Lodge was formed) meant that they could convene the Lodge regardless of where they were as long as it was a secure enough place to protect any "secrets".

A Master Mason

Blacklisted external links on Freemasonry

• Freemasonry
• Freemasonry Revival
• Freemasonry and the Occult

Here are some links that have been blacklisted from the Freemasonry page. I wonder why that is? These links may have different views from the Pro-Freemasonry page, but there are a lot of pages that give both pro and con links. Why should this one be different? My grandfather was a mason, what are you people affraid of? Pitchka 17:46, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

They are afriad of people viewing the entry for freemasonry and either fidning out secrets they dont want public, or finding a viewpoint that does nto put them ina always possitive light. Hence why so many 'masons' hang around and do there best to censore the entry and claim that people trying to help make it better and more accurate are 'vandalizing' it if they find soemthing they don't agree with. At least that is what I am seeing. Belgarath TS 23:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The Complete Story behind the Anti-Masonic Movement

Before the year 1826, nothing slowed the progress of Freemasonry to occupy every seat of political and religious importance in America. By 1826, so confident had the Fraternity become that it began to congratulate itself in broad speeches at their public festivals. That year a Mr. Bainaird (no first name available) announced, “Masonry is exercising its influence in the sacred desk, in the legislative hall, and on the bench of justice.”

Captain William Morgan, who had been practicing the craft of Free-masonry for many years, heard Bainaird’s speech. Morgan, under the command of Freemason Andrew Jackson, had fought the British in the War of 1812. As was the custom of military men in those days, Morgan had joined Freemasonry for protection, and worked his way up the degrees to become a Royal Arch Mason. When he accepted Christ as Savior and Lord of his life, he renounced Freemasonry and demitted from the Lodge. When he heard Mr. Bainaird’s speech, Capt. Morgan was disturbed. Charles Finney writes of Morgan’s opinion of Freemasonry: “He regarded it as highly injurious to the cause of Christ, and as eminently dangerous to the government of our country.”

As was John Adams aware that the Illuminati had infiltrated American Freemasonry, and was planning to take over our government, Morgan was likewise aware. Captain Morgan could not let Mr. Bainaird’s speech stand without revealing these facts. The captain began to voice his intent to publish a book exposing the Illuminati, as well as revealing the Masonic rituals and vile oaths of the first three degrees.

Morgan contracted with a local printer, David C. Miller, who had likewise renounced Freemasonry after salvation. No sooner had the ink dried on the contract than trouble began. Morgan disappeared. His badly decomposed body was found a year later in Oak Orchard Harbor and identified by his wife and dentist. Miller was abducted, but escaped to print the book.

Masonic Oaths and Masonic Partiality were behind the Murder of William Morgan and the subsequent cover-up

On June 13, 1861, the Committee of Correspondence, Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, wrote:

Masonry is as old as government. It constitutes a government in itself. Its origin, principles, organization and administration are to be found in loyalty, obedience, hope charity, love. It is operative everywhere, because its foundation can be laid among mankind wherever mankind exist. Resistance to, or disobedience of any of these principles is not permitted in Masonic sovereignty. Masonry could not exist a moment, it would not have lived longer than languages, races, and empires, if it had tolerated insubordination or rebellion against its authority.

A heavy burden is placed on the shoulders of a Mason when he joins the lodge. He is no longer his own man. He must obey unseen powers set above him, whether he agrees with them or not, or else he pays the penalty with his life. Yet, there is a reward for those who obey – Masonic partiality.

As documented earlier, Masonic partiality means success in this present world. To a soldier it means protection during war. To an applicant it means work. To an employee it means a promotion. To a businessman it means customers and/or a loan. To a politician it means a vote. To a civil servant it means an appointment. To a criminal it means protection from the law.

Simply put, Masonic partiality can get a Mason where he wants to go in life, whether he is honorable or dishonorable. If he fails to obey the rules in this game of partiality, he is not successful. If he blatantly breaks his oath, or disobeys Masonic authority, he meets the most gruesome death — so say the words he pronounces against himself when taking the oaths.

Oaths of the Blue Degrees

(1st three degrees)

Removed as they have got nothing to do with non masons

These oaths are crucial to the success of Freemasonry’s conspiracy for world dominion over governments and its planned annihilation of the Church. The Fraternity’s ability to maintain secrecy among its membership has determined its success in the past. Now, to guarantee its success in the future, William Morgan’s blatant disobedience to his Masonic obligation to “ever conceal and never reveal any of the secret arts, parts or points of the hidden mysteries of Ancient Freemasonry” demanded his immediate death. (Very Funny you fucking arsehole)

Morgan’s 9/11 Capture and Subsequent Murder

Sept. 11, 1826, Morgan was abducted. Within 48 hours three Masons murdered him. Twenty-two years later one of the three made a deathbed confession, the details of which can be read in Finney’s book on pages 6-10.

In 1826 and the year following there was a general consensus among Masons that Morgan was indeed killed as penalty for his crimes against the Brotherhood. How or when Morgan was killed, and what Mason or Masons were “honored” with the task, was not known by the majority of lodge brothers. But, like the Niagara River in which he was drowned, rumors flowed endlessly among them. Following are four.

Elias Wilder of Elba, New York, himself not a Mason, said that “two or three weeks before William Morgan was carried from Batavia, I had a conversation with Freemason Cyrus Grout on the subject of Morgan’s attempt to publish the secrets of Masonry. Mr. Grout told me that the Masons had sent to the Grand Lodge of New York for instructions, and when they got word from them there would be something done.” After the abduction of Morgan, Mr. Wilder had another conversation with Cyrus Grout on the subject of what had become of Morgan, and Grout said to him, “Morgan was gone a fishing on the Niagara River of Lake Ontario.”

A Mason by the name of William Terry of Niagara County was told by a fraternity brother that Morgan was “taken and carried away, had been killed, and sunk in Lake Ontario.” Mr. Terry also stated that word came from the New York Grand Lodge that those engaged in the murder of Morgan, if indicted, were “to be kept harmless, and that all expense requisites to pay any fines that might be imposed was to be defrayed by the Grand Lodge; and that the actors in the affair of the abduction of Morgan so acted in obedience to orders coming from Grand Lodge.”

Mason Sylvester R. Hathaway of Niagara County was told by another Mason that “two ruffians had taken him [Morgan] out and cut his throat and tied his body to a rope and stone and threw it into the lake.”

Dr. Samuel Taggart, a Freemason from Byron, New York, told two other Masons, John Southworth and Luther Wilder of the same city, that he would “not be afraid to bet a thousand dollars that Morgan was not in the land of the living; that he had taken a voyage to Lake Ontario without float or boat and would never be seen again by any human being.”

Many decent men of the order of Masons justified the murder of Morgan by saying, “that efforts to learn the fate of Morgan would be useless – that if they had done anything with him, it was no one’s business but their own.”

These quotes are taken from depositions made March 9, 1827 by Justice of the Peace Andrew Dibble of Genesse County, NY. Mr. Dibble was one of several J.P.’s to whom 38 law-abiding citizens took witnesses after forming committees to conduct an independent investigation into the abduction and murder of Morgan.

Citizens of “the land of the free and the home of the brave” were forced to take action, because proper authorities delayed, botched, or hid evidence. To the man, these “proper authorities” were Masons, obeying orders from the Grand Lodge of New York, while disobeying the laws of the land.

Seven citizen committees in as many counties were established to investigate these crimes. For nearly a year they took leave of their jobs and paid their own expenses to return justice to our land. In contrast, Freemasonry used civil servants and public funds to obstruct justice. Upon completion of their investigations, the citizens presented evidence and demanded action.

Masons directly involved in the abduction, murder, and cover-up of these crimes numbered at least 136. They were not all from the same locality, but scattered along 100 miles of countryside. They worked in perfect concert a daring and criminal scheme without incurring the risk of full conviction or punishment. Many were of respectable character, yet their reputation came second to their primary obligation of obeying their diabolical oaths.

All that was necessary to conceal Morgan’s kidnapping and murder was Masonic partiality found in oaths taken in the first three degrees of Freemasonry, as well as oaths taken in Royal Arch and Knights Templar degrees. Oaths in the first three degrees forbid Blue Lodge Masons from divulging criminal acts of brother Masons, with the exception of murder and treason. Royal Arch and Knights Templar oaths forbid Masons from divulging all criminal acts of brother Masons, including murder and treason. Of the Masons involved in the crime, 136 were of the latter degrees.

Evidence against Freemasonry was so compelling that it precipitated a mass exodus from the Lodge. Of 50,000 Masons in America at that time, 45,000 withdrew their membership and renounced their oaths, forcing the closure of 2,000 lodges.

The Crime in more Detail

When William Morgan contracted with printer David C. Miller of Batavia to publish Illustrations of Masonry, the Masonic fraternity went into action to form a conspiracy to stop them. One group of sixty-nine Masons moved against Morgan, while another group of sixty-seven Masons moved against Miller. Their intrigues were carried out in six stages from Aug. 9 through Sept. 20, 1826. Stages 3-6 began Sept. 10 and ended Sept. 20.

1. In New York newspapers published at Canandaigua, Batavia and Black Rock, an anonymous Mason denounced Morgan as an imposter. Although these places were far apart from each other, all were within the limits of the region in which subsequent acts of violence were committed.

2. Masons employed a spy to infiltrate the meeting between Morgan and Miller for the purpose of betraying the manuscripts of the proposed work to the Masonic Lodges in an attempt to frustrate the printing of the book.

3. Masons employed an agent to secretly prepare materials for torching the printing office.

4. Several masons from various locales rendezvoused at the home of a high-degree Mason to plan the forcible seizure of the manuscripts and the destruction of the printing press.

5. Masons abused laws by hunting up small debts or civil offenses with which to carry out harassment suits against Morgan and Miller. Once arrested, these men were in the hands of Masons for easy abduction.

6. By abusing the due processes of the law, the Masonic hierarchy planned the capture and murder both Morgan and Miller. Officers of justice who themselves were Masons, were involved in the conspiracy. Their efforts failed in the case of Miller, but succeeded against Morgan.

The Plot Thickens

On Aug. 9, 1826, a newspaper article was published in Canandaigua, NY exactly as you see copied below. The print was immediately picked up by other newspapers throughout the state, including Spirit of the Times and the People’s Press in Batavia, Morgan’s hometown.

The article denouncing Captain William Morgan is actually a coded Masonic call-to-arms. And Masons are obligated to obey this notice, because of the following oath: “I promise and swear that I will obey all regular signs, summonses, or tokens given.”

The article is a two-part coded command (one written, one visual). These commands are calling to arms Master Masons and Royal Arch Masons.

Written message: “Brethren and Companions are particularly requested to observe, mark and govern themselves accordingly.

Visual Message: two right hands with index fingers pointing to both the coded problem and the coded command.

Message decoded: Master Masons are called “Brothers.” Royal Arch Masons are known as “Companions.” We shall once again quote the obligations of these two degrees before we decipher the coded message.

During the initiation of the Master Mason, he is told, “You must conceal all the crimes of your brother Masons, except murder and treason, and these only at your own option….”

The Royal Arch Mason swears, “A companion Royal Arch Mason’s secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing him to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable, in my breast as in his own, murder and treason not excepted.”

The first portion of the written code identifies which degree of Mason is to respond to the call-to-arms. The second portion informs Brothers and Companions “to observe, mark and govern themselves accordingly.”

Observe in context means to “vigilantly observe Morgan’s movements.”

Mark, in Masonic parlance, refers to a “token,” “debt,” or “favor” that must be returned when asked. A favor is returned when a command is obeyed.

Govern means, “to organize a strategy for the capture of William Morgan.”

The command handed down is found in the visual coded message of the “pointing right hands.” A right hand is one of the most important symbols in Freemasonry. It both identifies and commands. It identifies with a particular and peculiar “grip” of a “brother” or “companion,” even in the dark. We read how it commands in Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. “The right hand has in all ages been deemed an important symbol to represent the virtue of fidelity…to an obligation.” In another place we read, “The right hand was naturally used instead of the left, because it was…the instrument by which superiors give commands to those below them.”

The two pointing right hands give a reason and a command: (1) “Morgan is considered a swindler and dangerous man,” meaning “he has broken his oath of silence by exposing Masonic secrets”; and (2) “There are people in this village who would be happy to see this Capt. Morgan,” meaning “Morgan is to be captured and brought before the lodge tribunal.”

Simply stated, Master Masons and Royal Arch Masons were ordered to observe and report the movements of Morgan, plan a strategy for his capture, and when commanded, meet out just punishment to this traitor.

The Plot to Kidnap and Murder William Morgan (following pages are actual depositions taken from court records)

On Sunday, Sept. 10, 1826, the Ontario county coroner, Nicholas G. Chesebro, himself the Master of the Lodge at Canandaigua, applied for and obtained from Jeffrey Chipman, justice of the peace, a warrant to arrest Morgan, who lived fifty miles away at Batavia. Morgan’s alleged offense was larceny for neglecting to return a shirt and tie that had been borrowed the previous May. Armed with the warrant, the coroner hired a carriage at the public’s expense to pick up ten Royal Arch Masons along the fifty-mile route. Their names and occupations were: Holloway Hayward – constable; Henry Howard – merchant; Asa Nowlen and James Ganson – innkeepers; John Butterfield – storekeeper; Samuel S. Butler – physician; and finally, Ella G. Smith, Harris Seymour, Moses Roberts, and Joseph Scofield – occupations unknown. All ten men were anxious and willing to share in avenging the insulted majesty of their Masonic law.

On the evening of 9/10, the party stopped at the tavern of James Ganson. They were six miles from Batavia. Before daybreak Monday morning on 9/11, five of the Masons were led by the constable to rent another coach at public expense. They proceeded from Ganson’s Tavern to Batavia. At daybreak they seized Morgan.

Near sunset on 9/11, the Masons arrived back in Canandaigua. The prisoner was immediately taken before the justice of the peace who had issued the warrant. The futility of the complaint was established and Morgan was set free, since the person from whom he had borrowed the shirt and tie had not shown up in court. In fact, this person was unaware of the actions against Morgan and had not sought a prosecution for the so-called offense. The idea originated in the mind of the coroner, who executed the plan by using the law to serve the vindictive purpose of Freemasonry.

Morgan’s release posed a problem for the conspirators. They needed him jailed to give ample time to complete their schemes against him. Out of jail, Morgan could elude them. So, no sooner had the hapless prisoner been released that he found the same coroner tapping him on the shoulder; this time armed with a bogus writ for a debt of two dollars to a tavern keeper of Canandaigua. Without the ability to pay, Morgan was returned to jail.

With Morgan secure, the Masons could concentrate on making arrangements to complete the remainder of their plot. On Tuesday evening of the next day (Sept. 12), the same coroner made his appearance at the jail. After some negotiation, Morgan was once more released. No sooner was he on the street dreaming of escape from these annoyances, when upon a given signal a yellow carriage and gray horses were seen by three witnesses rolling toward the jail in the bright moonlight with extraordinary speed. A few minutes passed. Morgan was seized, gagged, and bound, then thrown into the carriage, which was filled with Masons. Without turning, the carriage sped away. Morgan was now completely in the power of his enemies. With the veil of law removed, the arm of the flesh would now be employed.

Drawing of Morgan’s kidnapping

Life Magazine, Oct. 8, 1956, p. 122.

The carriage moved along night and day, over a hundred miles of well-settled country. Fresh horses and carriage drivers were supplied at six different places, with corresponding changes of men guarding Morgan to carry on the conspiracy. With one exception, every individual involved was a Mason bound by secret oaths “to conceal and never reveal the crime of a brother Mason.” The inadvertent exception was Corydon Fox, a last minute carriage driver on one of the routes to Lewiston. Fox was later initiated by unanimous vote of the Masons in Lewiston. Officiating in the ceremony to initiate Fox was a reverend clergyman from Rochester. This clergyman was the only Mason in the carriage with Morgan on the leg from Rochester to Lewiston. The driver of the carriage on that leg was Freemason Jeremiah Brown, a member of the New York state legislature.

It afterward appeared in evidence gathered by citizen investigators that the Buffalo lodge was also involved in the plot, as were the lodges at LeRoy, Bethany, Covington, Lockport, and Rochester. Each lodge contributed manpower, horses, or other preparation made along the route traveled by the party. Nowhere was there delay, hesitation, explanation, or discussion. Everything was carried out in silence, right up to the hour of the evening of Sept. 14, when the prisoner was taken from the carriage at Fort Niagara and lodged in the place originally designed for a powder magazine.

Fort Niagara was an unoccupied military post near the mouth of the Niagara River. During the War of 1812, jurisdiction of the fort had been turned over by the State to the Federal Government. At the end of the war the Federal Government had entrusted the Fort to a Mason. This Mason opened the gates to the conspirators.

On the evening the carriage arrived at Fort Niagara, there was an installation ceremony at the Masonic Lodge “Benevolent” in the neighboring town of Lewiston, at which the arch conspirator, Nicholas G. Chesebro (the coroner), was to be made Grand High Priest. The ceremony was actually a cover for planning the next move against Morgan. An invitation was given to Masons from distant points to come together at the ceremony and consult upon what to do next with this Masonic traitor.

At the “ceremony” several Masons hesitated at the idea of murder. Messengers were dispatched to Rochester for advice. At Rochester they did not proceed hastily, nor adopt their ultimate decision without long and painful reluctance. They earnestly deliberated upon their Masonic obligation. Their final conclusion was that Masonic oaths were binding. Morgan had certainly and essentially violated them. The Masons at Rochester made a unanimous decision that Morgan must die.

In understanding Masonic thought, as well as Masonic common sense — if their obligations are binding, Masons are righteous in their decision to execute Morgan. Hence, it was not a sin, but rather an honor for the eight Masons who volunteered to draw lots to carry out the penalty. Three of the lots were marked. The executioners were not to look at their lots until they arrived home. Those three with marked lots were to rendezvous at a predetermined location and carry out their Masonic duty.

The same clergyman who had accompanied Morgan from Rochester to Lewiston adjourned the meeting in prayer. He blasphemously invoked God’s blessing upon the premeditated violation of His most solemn law – “Thou shalt not kill.”

At midnight Sept. 19, the three executioners took their victim from the fort, rowed him by boat to the middle of the Niagara, fastened weights around his body and pushed him overboard. Twenty-two years later (1848), one of the three confessed on his deathbed the evil deed he had done. That deathbed confession is printed in detail in Finney’s book, pages 6-10.

That such a tragedy could be executed in a land that guarantees freedom of speech, security of life and liberty; that it could enlist citizens of good reputation from so many quarters; that it could secure the cooperation of legislators, judges, sheriffs, constables, coroners, clergymen, generals, physicians, and lawyers; that with impunity it could involve all these possibilities and more, turned the current of popular indignation from the guilty individuals toward the Masonic institution itself. Thus, the Anti-Masonic Movement turned into a political movement, which opposed all secret societies at the polls.

Freemasonry, instead of repenting of its diabolical murder of William Morgan, has since reinforced its devilish obligations by reminding Masons of what happened to Morgan when he broke his Masonic oath. From the Masonic Hand Book we read:

When a brother reveals any of our great secrets; whenever, for instance, he tells anything about Boaz, or Tubalcain, or Jachin, or that awful Mah-hah-bone [a blasphemous name representing Jesus Christ (you sure about that?)], or even whenever a minister prays in the name of Christ in any of our assemblies, you must always hold yourself in readiness, if called upon, to cut his throat from ear to ear, pull out his tongue by the roots, and bury his body at the bottom of some lake or pond.

Of course, all this must be done in secret, as it was in the case of that man Morgan, for both law and civilization are opposed to such barbarous crimes, but then, you know you must live up to your obligation, and so long as you have sworn to do it, by being very strict and obedient in the matter, you’ll be free from sin.

The Plot to Kidnap and murder David C. Miller

While coroner Nicholas Chesebro led one group of sixty-nine Masons in deliberating the fate of Morgan, constable Jesse French led another group of sixty-seven Masons in an attempted destruction of Miller’s print shop, as well as the kidnapping and planned murder of Miller. Like Morgan, Miller was a Mason, albeit only an Entered Apprentice (1st degree). Yet, the attitude of Masons toward Miller was the same as that toward the high-degree Morgan. Miller must also be killed. Following are some quotes of Masons concerning the fate of Miller:

In Buffalo a politician said he was astonished Miller had been permitted to go so far in printing the book; that if he should come to Buffalo, there were twenty Masons willing to take his life in less than half an hour.

In Leroy a physician and former sheriff of the county declared at a public table, “The book should be suppressed, if it cost everyone of us our lives.”

In Batavia a Mason holding a respectable office declared, “Miller’s office will not stand there long.” Two Batavia justices of the peace (both Masons), left town on the day Miller’s print shop was to be leveled. As they boarded the stage, one justice turned to a citizen and said in the presence of the other justice, “I should not be surprised if when I return to Batavia I find Miller’s office leveled with the ground.” The citizen asked, “Do you two think such proceedings against Miller right?” The second justice answered with a smirk, “If you found a man abusing your marriage bed, would you have recourse to the law, or take a club and beat his brains out?”

The conspiracy against Miller actually began before the conspiracy against Morgan. In the early summer of 1826, rumors began to spread in the town of Batavia that Miller, a newspaper publisher in town, was planning to print Morgan’s book. The rumor excited no one but Masons, who avowed that the suppression of the work was determined at all costs.

Their first attack was an attempt to bankrupt Miller. A large number of subscribers to his paper suddenly withdrew their subscriptions, followed by numerous lawsuits against Miller to enforce the payment of small debts. The collection of these debts was done in a manner so as to embarrass Miller.

This failing, Freemasonry’s second attempt was to infiltrate his business and steal the manuscript to Morgan’s book. The Mason selected for the task was well known for his skill in deception. His name was Daniel Johns, a Knights Templar who lived about fifty miles from Batavia.

About the middle of August, Mr. Johns appeared in Batavia and lodged at one of the public houses. The next morning he presented himself before Miller, proposing that he assist the printer in the publication of the book, offering to advance any sum of money that might be needed in the venture. Johns was accepted and received into Miller’s confidence. Within days Johns absconded with the manuscript.

Miller, a shrewd man himself, had prepared for such an occasion. When contracting with Capt. Morgan, he had the captain write four copies of the manuscript. Two were to remain at the captain’s home – one visible and one hidden in a straw mattress. Two were to be held at Miller’s office, one visible and the other likewise hidden. Johns absconded only with the visible copy.

When Miller proceeded to print Morgan’s book, only then did the Masons learn that there was another manuscript. They supposed it to be hidden either at Morgan’s house, or at the printing office, and made plans to get it.

One Saturday evening in August, when Captain Morgan was away, three Masons (Johnson Goodwill, Daniel H. Dana, and Thomas McCully) were sent to the Captain’s home to find the manuscript. As Mrs. Morgan opened the door, Goodwill and Dana, without permission or ceremony, brushed her aside and proceeded upstairs to rummage among the trunks, boxes, drawers and every other place where it was probable the manuscript might be found. McCully remained downstairs to keep Mrs. Morgan from sounding an alarm. They left without the papers, unaware they were hidden in the straw mattress.

Upon hearing of the unwelcome intrusion on Mrs. Morgan, Miller anticipated the Masons might attack his office, so he set up a fortification. When the Masons learned of the printer’s defense, they planned to burn the building to the ground, capture Miller and kill him along with Morgan.

Miller’s office was in a wooden building. Occupying the ground floor was a family of ten. Upstairs was the print shop, with sleeping quarters for six employees. The reckless determination of the Lodge to burn out Miller gave no concern for these sixteen souls, nor for the villagers, for had the fire made much headway, a considerable portion of the town would have been consumed.

The arsonist was Freemason Richard Howard of Buffalo, a bookbinder by trade. Howard’s plan was to implicate John Mann, a blacksmith from Buffalo, by having him purchase the ingredients to torch Miller’s office. The blacksmith declined, so Howard purchased a keg of turpentine himself, which purchase later tied him to the crime.

Howard took a late stage to Batavia and arrived in the city on Sunday night, 9/10, the evening before Morgan’s 9/11 capture. Howard immediately went to Miller’s office, splashed turpentine on the siding directly under the stairs leading to the printing apartment above, then soaked cotton balls and straw with turpentine and scattered them around the foundation.

Anticipating trouble, Miller had earlier set a watch on the print shop. Almost immediately after the flame was lit it was discovered and quickly extinguished. Howard was chased by one of the lookouts and barely escaped. When he was later implicated in the crime, he never stood trial, for he mysteriously disappeared. It was believed he had been spirited out of the country by Freemasons and lived the rest of his life in a foreign land, leaving behind his wife and children.

Failing in their attempt to burn out Miller, the Masons planned to take the print shop by force, level the building, destroy the printing press, capture Miller and kill him. The Lodge at Batavia informed the Lodge at Buffalo that Tuesday, Sept. 12 would be the perfect day, since the two local justices of the peace were scheduled to stand as witnesses before a justice of the peace in a neighboring town. The only official left in Batavia was the sheriff, and he was one of them.

Meanwhile, on September 9/11 Captain William Morgan failed to return home to his 23-year-old wife and two small children. Early Tuesday morning, September 12, Mrs. Morgan sent for Sheriff William R. Thompson to inquire of her husband’s whereabouts. The sheriff informed her that Morgan had been arrested for stealing a shirt and tie, that he believed it was a pretense to spirit him out of town and kill him. Mrs. Morgan, knowledgeable of the manuscript hidden in the straw mattress, offered to give it up in return for the release of her husband. The sheriff accepted and took the manuscript to a Mason named George Ketchum, who in turn took the papers to the Masons in Rochester. Morgan, however, was not released.

At about high noon that same day, while the sheriff was visiting with Mrs. Morgan over her husband’s fate, and while the two justices of the peace were officiating in a neighboring village, a crowd of sixty-seven men suddenly appeared from all directions in the little town of Batavia. Nearly all were carrying clubs or sticks newly cut. So as not to be recognized, each dressed alike. Leading them was constable Jesse French.

French selected six of the ruffians and together went to Miller’s office, and in a rude and violent manner arrested him under the pretense of having a warrant. They carried Miller to a neighboring village where he was illegally confined in a Masonic Lodge room, assaulted and threatened with the fate of Morgan. By the assistance of friends and his own intrepidity, Miller escaped. Meanwhile, the citizens at Batavia, hearing of Miller’s capture, surrounded his office with weapons in hand. Gradually, the crowd of Masons disbursed.

Citizen Investigators

These outrages extended over six counties. In this alarming emergency, the agents of government were paralyzed. The public institutions and provisions for the preservation of tranquility and the repression of crime seemed worthless. Therefore, in a move unprecedented in our nation’s history, and in defiance of the most malignant, persevering, and ingenious counteraction by Freemasons, the citizens of New York took the matter into their own hands. At great expense of their own time and money, they suspended their private concerns and gave themselves up to all the labors of a complicated investigation. At every turn they met obstruction to justice. They could obtain no involuntary testimony; they received no assistance from public office; and in their travels their lives were endangered. Still they went on fearlessly and successfully – inquiring cautiously but persistently into all the circumstances of these most revolting crimes. Their sole purpose was to obtain enough evidence to be effective for the judicial exposure and punishment of the offenders. Yet, all the while their motives were venomously slandered and their conduct belied in the Masonic-controlled press. Such tenacity on the part of these citizens is indicative of the safety, and prophetic of the perpetuity of our free institutions.

In the end the citizen investigators uncovered enough evidence to bring charges against individual Masons and the Masonic Institution as a whole. However, the sheriffs in all the counties in which these deeds of violence against Morgan had been committed, whose duty it was under the laws of New York to select and summon the grand juries, were all Freemasons. Several had themselves been party to the crime. Hence, they did not hesitate to make use of their power as officers of justice to screen the criminals from conviction. The jurors were most of them Masons, with some of them participants in the crimes into which it became their civil duty to inquire.

Five years were consumed in attempting to obtain a legal conviction of the various offenders, but to no avail. Some of the suspected persons indeed stood trial. But it was a mockery of justice, for the secret obligation prevailed in the jury box. Consequently, they were one and all rescued in the moment of their utmost need. Others vanished from the scene and eluded pursuit even to the farthest limits of the United States. The Masonic coroner, the one most guilty of perpetuating these offenses, was tracked to a Lodge in New York City. From there the citizen investigators discovered that Masons in that city secreted him aboard a vessel below the harbor and sent him to a foreign land, leaving his wife and children behind.

Important witnesses were carried off at the moment their evidence was indispensable, and placed beyond the jurisdiction of the State. Those who were called to testify, and actually sat on the stand, stood doggedly mute. Others placed themselves entirely under the guidance of legal advisers employed to protect them from incriminating themselves. All the while, distant Lodges responded favorably to the call for aid in the defense of their accused brethren by forwarding sums of money for their legal liabilities.

The sixty-nine Masons who actually participated in the abduction and murder of Captain William Morgan gradually dropped out of sight. So well hidden were they that it was the belief of all who were knowledgeable of these events that they lived and died outside of the United States, secure from every danger of legal punishment. Twenty-two years after the fact, one of the three who actually murdered Morgan made a deathbed confession, which is printed in detail in Finney’s book on pp. 6-10.

Persons engaged in these outrages were either Royal Arch Masons at the time of their crimes, or made so shortly after. As such, they were obligated by oath to conceal and never reveal the crimes of brother Masons, treason and murder not excepted. Should they disobey, they knew the consequences. Hence, Masons called as witnesses perjured themselves. Others were excused from testifying by alleging they would incriminate themselves. And yet, all those who were guilty of participating in the offenses were praised by the Fraternity as heroes of fidelity to their duty, and victims to the prejudices of their fellow citizens. To their dying day, they were still retained as worthy and cherished members of their beloved Fraternity.

One faithful and able state officer, whose lawful duty was to investigate these offences, officially reported on the proceedings in which he had been in charge:

Difficulties that never occurred in any other prosecution have been met at every step. Witnesses have been secreted: they have been sent off into Canada, and into different states of the Union. They have been apprised of process being issued to compel their attendance, and have been thereby enabled to evade its service. In one instance, after a party implicated had been arrested and brought into this state, he was decoyed from the custody of the individual having him in charge, and finally escaped. These occurrences have been so numerous and various as to forbid the belief that they are the result of individual effort alone; and they have evinced the concert of so many agents as to indicate an extensive combination to screen from punishment those charged with a participation in the offences upon William Morgan.

The irony of all ironies is that shortly following the ransacking of Mrs. Morgan’s house by three Masons, and the murder of her husband by three other Masons, benevolent Freemasonry came to her financial aid. James Ganson, who was directly involved with the abduction of her husband, visited Mrs. Morgan, assuring her that the Lodge was making arrangements for her support, that she would be well-provided for, that her children would be sent to school as soon as they were old enough.

After Freemasonry determined how Mrs. Morgan and her children were to be cared for, they appointed Thomas McCully to deliver the message. McCully, you recall, was one of the three Masons who had earlier bullied their way into her house, ransacking it in their attempt to find the manuscript to her husband’s book. Now benevolent McCully informs Mrs. Morgan, “Freemasonry has raised support for your family, and has provided board for you and your children at a public tavern in the village.” The tavern was the same where her husband had been detained after his arrest.

Six months after the murder of her husband, Henry Brown of Batavia, who was Grand Commander of the Knights Templar at LeRoy, New York, called on Mrs. Morgan and handed her a bag containing silver dollars that had been collected from the various Lodges throughout the state.

Her distress of mind and unprotected situation did not sway her to bow to their hypocritical benevolence. Without hesitation she said, “I shall accept no assistance from the Masons.” Several years later Mrs. Morgan was provided for when she became the first wife of former Freemason Joseph Smith — founder of Mormonism.

During “The Morgan Affair,” the ends of justice were defeated by the oath of Freemasonry, which came in conflict with the duty to society and to God, and succeeded in setting it aside. Gradually, the opposition to Masonry became more and more political and the Anti-Masonic Party was formed.

http://groups.msn.com/psycologicalwarfare

http://www.lufa.ca/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=999

http://www.scarletandthebeast.com/william%20morgan.htm

Pitchka, see NPOV to get a general idea. -- SarekOfVulcan 04:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that NPOV carries over into the external links. Adding a couple of links related to Freemasonry that may or may not be in favor of Freemasonry does not go against the NPOV policy from what I can make out. The article has not been changed. Take a look at the Michael Moore article there are many links that would seem to break the same NPOV policy if so. Pitchka 20:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

If there is a problem w external links, sort them into "pro" and "con" catagories. Try to keep things balanced, giving favor to well respected sources. Sam [Spade] 01:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with anti-Masonic links that are founded in fact. On the other hand, links that are built around innuendo, hearsay, and frauds for which the author actually took responsibility have no place in an encyclopedia. -- SarekOfVulcan 21:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As Sam said, we need to keep things balanced. While I don't think that means we need to have tons of articles against Freemasonry, having one article against freemasonry versus thirteen articles biased toward it seems far out of balance. DDerby 09:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, a few of the articles should be responses other than Christian critiques of Free-masonry. There are economic/political criticisms of Free-masonry as well. DDerby 19:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Anti-Masonry article is a perfect place for these links. I'm putting them there. Let that page collect all the Masons-are-cryptofascits-that-bow-before-before-lucifer links we Wikipedians can find. — Clarknova 15:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a note that Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Spinboy 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't the perfect place, Clarknova; it's being merged with this article. DDerby 19:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the "Morgan & Millar Affairs" are very American centric does not significantly account for Anti-Masonic sentiment. The heading "The Complete Story behind the Anti-Masonic Movement" with so much text below on Morgan might be misleading !

I would totally agree with . DDerby "There are economic/political criticisms of Free-masonry as well". Perhaps the focus on Morgan should be reduced in this discussion page and comment made on economic/political factors. For example, Masons like doing business and working with Masons. No doubt this created some hostility from those who perceived to be excluded from a group based on the fact they are not a Freemason.

I would suggest that the "Secret Society of Freemasons", which is not secret, is perceived by many with suspicion simply due to the fact unless you are a member, you are no privy to all activities and ritual of Freemasonry. Many Freemasons totally become silent when questioned on Freemasonry. Even the most open of Masons will (should) not break their oath to preserve the secrets of the Order and will refuse to answer certain questions on issues, particularly the ritual of Freemasonry. This would be more widely result in "Anti-Masonry" than Morgan's possible demise. While the "Morgan Affair" may be significant in certain geographical areas, I cant see that in the 19th Century world of slow communication that this would have had much effect in distance places. I think that readers saying to themselves "this Morgan Affair explains why Freemasonry should be held in suspicion" should be cautious indeed.

As an aside - certainly when I joined I promised to obey the Laws of the Land. If Morgan was done away with by Masons, they were criminals and hence unfit for membership.

Entry level mason

Sorry if I am wasting your time with this question, but I am a little confused. The other day I was walking along and seen one of my brothers, I introduced myself and told him I was new to the brotherhood and town. I asked him where I could find a home and he asked me, if I was international or prince hall. I told him prince hall and he sort of made a face. My question is what is the difference between prince hall and international?

No honest question is a waste of time, Brother. Prince Hall and 'International' (or 'Blue Lodge') Masonry is a reflection of a sad schism in American (only) Masonry.

Very simply in the Bad Old Days, Blue Lodges would not (generally) admit Black men as Brothers. As a result, Blacks formed 'Prince Hall' Lodges. (All this is outlined in the article.) There is a Prince Hall Grand Lodge in each American state, and a (formerly) White-only Blue Lodge. The two groups did not recognize each other, and the Brothers could not visit the other Lodges.

Only now are we getting our stuff together. Many states are recognizing each other. This means there is only traditional differences between a PH or BL Mason in many states. We are all Brothers.

So the difference is going away, but the two groups will almost certainly never merge. We are all proud of our Masonic heritage and darn few Masters want to combine Lodges and loose their gavels.

I hope this helps.

[[PaulinSaudi 14:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)]]

Paul that is not exactly correct Prince hall Freemasonry was formed in the very early days. As far as the Americas are concerned. It is true that segregation as with the rest of society kept going and in recent years there has be far more recognition and co - operation between the grand lodges.

Prince Hall is recognized as the Father of Black Masonry in the United States. He made it possible for us to also be recognized and enjoy all priviliges of Free and Accepted Masonry.

Many rumors of the birth of Prince Hall have arisen. Few records and papers have been found of him either in Barbados where it was rumored that he was born, but no record of birth, by church or state, has been found there, and none in Boston. All 11 countries of the day were searched and churches with baptismal records were examined without a find of the name of Prince Hall. 1

Black Freemasonry began when Prince Hall and fourteen other free black men were initiated into Lodge No. 441, Irish Constitution, attached to the 38th Regiment of Foot, British Army Garrisoned at Castle William (now Fort Independence) Boston Harbor on March 6, 1775. The Master of the Lodge was Sergeant John Batt. Along with Prince Hall, the other newly made masons were Cyrus Johnson, Bueston Slinger, Prince Rees, John Canton, Peter Freeman, Benjamin Tiler, Duff Ruform, Thomas Santerson, Prince Rayden, Cato Speain, Boston Smith, Peter Best, Forten Howard and Richard Titley. http://users.aol.com/jabron/history.htm [Billmcelligott]

As an Australian Freemason, I was surprised to visit Atlantic City, New Jersey in the mid-1990s and find a distinctly puzzled reaction when I tried to make inquiries at a lodge in town. I was directed by the very nice Negro man who managed the building to a 'white' lodge in town. Later, in San Francisco, I met another Negro gentleman who welcomed me warmly when I commented on his obviously Masonic belt buckle, and we had a marvelous conversation. It was only after I returned from the holiday that I found out about Prince Hall lodges, and was frankly amazed at the antipathy I thought would not be part of Freemasonry. Peter Ellis 17:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, very un-Masonic. A sad chapter in our (American) history. Still, it is wrong to characterize our relationship as one of antipathy. Certainly that was true at one point, but mostly it was amtter of each ignoring the other. [[PaulinSaudi 02:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)]]

Brethren, here in the U.S. the primary forms of Masonry are Prince Hall and what is rather awkwardly called "mainstream" today (because in the old days, Prince Hall Masonry was so thoroughly ignored by other U.S. Lodges that they didn't see any need to differentiate themselves, they were just "Masons"). I am not as well-versed in the craft as many of you undoubtedly are, but as far as I am aware, we do not use the term "International" to identify "mainstream" Lodges.

In some parts of North America, yet another separate branch of Freemasonry has been established under variations of the name "International F&AM, Inc.". These Grand Lodges happen to be primarily African-American in membership as well, but while Prince Hall Masonry has a long, well-documented and regular history, the "Internationals" are new and do not have any claims to regularity, as far as I know. (See [1] for information on how Prince Hall Masonic scholars are documenting irregular practices which target African Americans.) If our original poster here is African-American, and perhaps lives in an area where "Internationals" are active, it would not surprise me if he were being asked about Prince Hall vs. that organization rather than Prince Hall vs. "mainstream". It seems to me anyone in the U.S. who might be inclined to "make a face" at Prince Hall Masonry wouldn't need to ask a brother which one he belongs to if they are meeting in person! (None of this discounts in any way the excellent points about allowing the shame of segregation and bigotry to creep into the body of Freemasonry in this country; things are improving, but we have a long way to go.) —Bsktcase 03:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removed from the "Ritual and Symbols" section

Richard M. Stallman is also a well known Freemason, whose dogma of Free Software comes from principles put forth in the 16th century Free Press movement in France.

I don't know if this should be included at all, and if it should, it certainly shouldn't be in the Ritual and Symbols section. Should there be a list of notable freemasons this information should go in? Angela. 06:32, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

He isn't a Mason. He's an avowed atheist [2]. He can't be a Mason in any of the US juristictions. See Anti-Masonry#Many_Freemasons_Discriminate_Against_Atheists. 24.5.54.209

Who says he can not claim something publicly to hide his true affiliations? Why not just check? Belgarath TS 10:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

After some exhaustive work I have gone through and got Freemasonry as well as the related Masonry Organizations categorized to make them flow much better and show relation to one another. Hope all enjoy the work -- I think it was all spurred when I saw Freemasonry on the same list as the Ku Klux Klan, that did it for me.

Wgfinley 06:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Senior DeMolay)

Simpsons

Who thinks the Simpsons reference devalues this article? --Auximines 23:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not I. It's relevant to the subject, presented factually and fairly, and it's tucked safely away in the "cultural references" section where it won't contaminate the rest of the article with its pop culturalness. Perhaps it will look less out-of-place if people added more references, I'm sure there must be plenty out there. Bryan 00:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neither do I. Too bad the Stonecutter's Song isn't public domain yet... -- SarekOfVulcan 03:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Swedish Rite

This is a very interesting page, allthought sadly lackin on the branch of freemasonery I'm a part of... the Swedish Rite. I will (probaly) see if I can't get time to get the article on it started during this week, but it would be nice if someone could do something about it on this page as well... WegianWarrior 10:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've started the page on Swedish Rite... any help on that will be, uhm, helpfull ;-) WegianWarrior 07:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reorg

I moved "Landmarks" to this page from Grand Lodge where its inclusion just didn't make much sense; it seems like an obvious section to have here. There is overlapping content under Ritual and Symbols and in other sections that might work well to remove from those locations and consolidate into the new section.

I also rearranged the sections into (what seems to me to be) a more logical order. I reworked sentences that obviously needed to be adjusted to address the new order, but I'm sure I have missed many.

Although I'm not crazy about having Org Structure be the first major heading, the thing is, the description of Grand Lodges and jurisdictions is necessary to understand most of the rest of the article, particularly Membership and Landmarks, as well as understanding the recognition issues surrounding atheists and agnostics. Things make a lot more sense if it comes first. (History could go first, followed by Criticism, followed by Org Structure etc., but I thought it'd be nice to focus on what Masonry is rather than what it was.) If we wanted to condense the Org Structure section further and merge its content into Grand Lodge, that'd be fine too; that article needs a bit of work. The main facts this article needs are that Grand Lodges mutually decide issues of recognition and that no supreme entity exists to regularize all practice or resolve disagreements.

I made the Women and Prince Hall sections into sub-sections under Membership, which seemed like a reasonable place for them.

I see we're getting length warnings on this article, so if we are looking to condense more, we could move the bulk of the History section over to History of Freemasonry, an article in need of help one way or another (the "summary" here is currently much better than the "main article" over there).

Hope these changes meet with approval. —Bsktcase 03:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lack of references

Wikipedia articles should have references and cite them properly. This article has only external links, and none being listed as being used as references. If they were used as references, they should be cited properly. Print references would be ideal, as long as they are used to contribute something to the article. While all articles should have references, that is now one of the required criteria for featured articles. Please do what you can to get a hold of some print references and cite this article properly. - Taxman 23:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Coment made by a Freemason - I agree, but how do you site comprehensive references for an organization which has a strong oral tradition and swears on initiation to protect that oral & associated tradition?

Charitable Activities?

I've never been involved with Freemasonry myself, but I thought it involved elements of public service, charitable donations, and other good works. Yet there's no mention of anything like that in this article (in constrast to, say the entries for the Shriners and the Order of the Eastern Star). This page makes it seem you guys have no goals beyond obscurantism and infighting ,which I'm almost sure would be a very unfair conclusion.

And, while I'm complaining, can someone please define 'degree', and add a link on Degree_(disambiguation)?

84.9.16.158 01:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Freemasons are enjoined to be charitable, but the organisation itself is absolutely not a service club. The Shriners have an element of donating money, but the charity which a Freemason is meant to exhibit is far more wide-reaching and broad in meaning than simply giving money, or even service (for example, see I Corinthians 13 in the Christian Bible (not meant as an advertisement for Christianity, but I feel this passage speaks well to the comment)).

Freemasonry has no "goals" beyond the improvement of its members and the world. Period.

Alex Kennedy

Dear Alex Kennedy, Your retoric has greatly inspired me, and you seem to be a very wise individual, but you lack a talk page, and sadly this is the only way i could think of of contacting you personaly. I would greatly like to engage in intelligent conversation with you, please dont take this as anything sinister. I find your way with words moving, and with a lack of well....intresting characters around me, i often run into people online that i wish to extend the hand of friendship, such is the case in this matter.Iorek 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Secrets

So I suppose that the secrets of the Freemasons aren't going to be published here. Shame. I wanna know what these secrets are without having to waste time "enrolling" in all the ritual stuff. I don't imagine the secrets are that exciting though--Wonderfool 11:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

        "The secret is that there is no secret."

If you are interested and actually willing to put forth your own effort, the secret signs and passwords are available for checkout at most libraries. No, they're not very exciting. (However, if you think the ritualistic work is a waste of time, then it's already impossible for you ever to learn the one and only true secret of Masonry: how good it feels to participate with others in such a worthwhile community activity.)

Masons are oath-bound not to reveal the secret work, but I don't see any reason why wikipedia, having taken no such oath, should be prevented from publishing information that's already widely available to the public. I realize this makes some Masons on wikipedia uncomfortable, but non-Masons simply do not have any moral obligation to keep secret the stuff they've read in library books. The real problem is, nothing presented as supposedly being "secret work" can ever be substantiated. Any random vandal can write up a paragraph about anything from handshakes to bestiality to human sacrifices, claim it's a "Masonic secret", even claim it's been "published" somewhere (e.g., Chick tracts), and then claim "Masonic secrecy/cover-up" when Masons say they don't do that. That seems like a losing deal for wikipedia... better fought out on the partisan websites where it belongs. —Bsktcase 22:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking as a norwegian mason myself, I would say that the original poster is driven be a "childlike curiosity" (nothing wrong with that as such). However... I have pawed thru a lot of the avilable littereature on masonic secrets, and my guestimate is that 75% or more of them are, simply speaking, wrong. Sorting whoever gotten it right from whoever gotten it wrong has got to be hard for a non-mason, and made worse by the simple fact that no mason will ever tell him what the real secrets are.

There are however good reasons why the secret rituals are secret - and thats tied into the biggest non-secret about the masons that most non-masons are not aware of: what the purpose of masonry is: Masons are trying to educate themself into becoming better humans by learning about themself and others. If someone told an aspiring masons about the "secret ritual" beforehand, the experience will diminish or disapper alltogether. And that is why the secrets are secrets, and why I will edit out any secrets I see in this article (as I'm sure any other mason will).

We do slaughter and eat animals though... allthought not as part of the ritual, but because (at least in my lodge) we have dinner afterwards ;-)

WegianWarrior 04:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind that no matter how laudible your goals, deliberately removing information that you know to be both valid and relevent to an article is a violation of Wikipedia's purpose and the guidelines its contributors are supposed to operate under. If verifiable Masonic secrets wind up being added I think you'd have a hard time supporting their outright removal solely on the basis of Freemasonry's own guidelines. Perhaps spoiler warnings and a separate "Masonic beliefs and practices" article might be in order (akin to how the Scientology stuff is handled, for example)? Quite a while back someone added a description of a Masonic handshake to the article and I made this suggestion back then, but the handshake info got removed for Wikipedia-based reasons so at the time it turned out to be moot at the time. Bryan 08:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Off course, since no mason will verify that something that comes here is a "genuine secret", we can always claim to to be false... That, and I don't know how relevant "genuine sectrets" are in this article - it is an article about freemasonery, but not necesarely about masonic secrets and rituals in detail.

Your idea of a seperate article is a sound one however, and one I support. At least that gives people an option NOT to read about stuff they ought to know thay shouldn't know - as knowledge will dimish the experience.

WegianWarrior 13:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, verifiability of stuff like this is always a problem. What I imagine would likely happen is that we'd get a whole bunch of "Author A says X in book N, and Author B says Y in book M. Both of them say P, but they differ on Q." Non-Masons may have no way to verify whether any of that is "really" true without becoming Masons ourselves (which kind of defeats the concept of independant verification :), but we can at least verify that certain statements are made in certain books and try to determine the credibility of the sources. If nothing else, articles might get written someday about the books themselves that summarize some of the stuff within.

Not that I've read any or am volunteering to do any of this myself, of course. It sounds like it'd take a lot of work and I'm way too lazy. :) You're also quite right about "genuine secrets" not being relevant to this particular article, I recall the handshake one was put in as something along the lines of "Masons have many secrets, such as this one: [handshake description]." Not only was there no cite of any sort, but it didn't fit into the narrative flow anywhere. Bryan 00:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trying to remove Masonic "Secrets" from the internet is in general a losing battle anyway. Normally decent people who would never presume to ask you about your sex life or gossip about your family are nonetheless quite willing to demand that we reveal what we do in the privacy of Lodge. Such is the way of things -- for some odd reason, the fact that we're an "organisation" (possibly the least organised one in the world, mind you, since each Lodge is, to some degree, an independant entity) suddenly means that we no longer have the right to privacy and free assembly. Not that I'm bitter -- well, I am, but I shouldn't be.

Here's the problem: there are many, many non-Masons out there who have no idea what we're doing in Lodge. They think we're up to something sinister. We know we're not, but no matter how many times we tell them that, there will be some who don't believe us. We have an obligation to be charitable and not allow hatred or distaste for these people into our hearts (and it's no easier for me than for anyone else), just because they are suspicious of us or want to profane our rituals by treating them like Bazooka Joe comics, freely consumable provided you buy the bubble-gum (as you can tell, I am insufficiently charitable). They have no similar obligation, nor any way to know how much it hurts us that they wish to diminish what we do, or strip Freemasonry of her mystery so that she may stand naked for their idle curiosity and amusement.

No amount of explanation or even rhetoric will change this. I was speaking yesterday to one of my most intelligent and best friends, who is no doubt a genius (despite being an atheist, ha ha). I told him that no amount of knowing our rituals would reveal our "secrets" to him, because the secrets themselves are ineffable, and can only be experienced, never simply read. Of course, he could not believe this. If even this basic understanding is impossible, how can we convince non-Masons that it is foolishness to pursue our "secrets" in the ways mentioned above. It cannot be done. Sigh, shed a tear if it helps, and accept that attacks on our privacy will never cease, and have faith in the fact that the true secrets can never be penetrated by the merely curious. -Alex Kennedy

The bottom line is, I think, that the attempts to conceal information once it has reached the public domain, that is going to be taken as a bit sinister. Partially because, in a way, it is. I'm mainly talking to WegianWarrior at this point; sorry, but as soon as you even say that you're going to delete valid information (though I suppose you haven't, you've nonetheless directly said that you, and masons thinking likewise, would do so), there are going to be many people taking issue with you. In future, if you do see anything you feel obligated to delete, I would request, as someone who believes purely in whatever the truth may be, to use that as a lazy way to start that Secrets page; move it instead of deleting it.

As a sidenote, if the rituals are mundane, and yet diminished into complete uselessness if people know of them beforehand . . . I really don't see that. Go ahead and claim that it's the experience that matters, not the dry facts; I don't believe that, but I can see where you're coming from (I suppose at this point I'm addressing WikiMasons in general here), however, if the experience matters so much that a genius wouldn't be able to gleam it from knowing the rituals, if they are that powerful (which is the claim being made here) . . . then, by the Supreme Being, simply knowing the hollow shell of them beforehand shouldn't be such a horrible sticking point!

Alright, that's enough for me, I can't argue here any longer; in a fit of irony, the Bad Religion song "The Answer" just came up on shuffle, and I truly can't take anything here seriously when that's the music setting my mood :) - Phil Urich

The Masons that I know are to a (no pun intended) degree secretive. I am in Possession of a number of papers and ritual jewels along with a copy of 1 of there cipher booklets for the changing of the WM of a lodge it is in code but from what I have been told and what I have read myself these people believe themselves to be “working” on a inner temple. They seem to want to keep others “in the dark” for just that reason to be able to share the so called secrets between themselves. I ,in my gut, believe them to be of a less than honest nature from my dealings with them in the outside world their odd loyalties between themselves strikes me as a bit racist for lack of a better word – why should I not get the same treatment from a mason if I was not a mason just because I haven’t be hoodwinked is no reason to treat me as less of a person. If you choose to be a good person is your choice and if you happen to be a mason you may have a tendency to think you can hide behind the already secretive ways of the brotherhood … I think in the end it is up to the person in general to decide if the teachings of masons are in tune with their beliefs,not the other way around 68.44.153.204 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

While I have no idea - nor interest in knowing - how you came into possesion of the papers and 'jewels', you are mistaken if you think these items alone represent the secrets that masons keep among themself. Yes, in some rites masons do talk about working on an 'inner temple'. This is hardly any secret at all, nor is it secret (at least in the swedish rite) what it's meant by this - we simply strive to become better people, both towards our brethren and towards people outside of our fraternity. It does saddens me considerably that the masons you have been in touch with seems to misunderstand this simple (but hard to attain) goal - but we are just human and as such is prone to failures. However, it could it be that your feelings towards masons (and to be honest, it seems to me that you don't like us *smiles*) shone thru, and they treated you with the same, uhm, how to put it in english, respect that you showed them? I'm agreeing with your last point thought... a man chooses of his own free will if he agrees with the masonic ideals or not. And if he don't, well, he probaly shoudn't join a lodge.

On a parting note, you might want to sign your comments on the Wikipedia; simply put ~~~~ at the end of your comment. WegianWarrior 20:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well Sir , Just how is a man to know if he agrees with the masonic ideals if the whole thing is coverved in a veil of seceracy , could it be in some cases that the ideals you profess indeed hide ... something other than what you tell "The Outsiders" untill you get them fully into the lodge and show them the benifits of have a "Us Only Club"? 68.44.153.204 14:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

Because, at least to my experience, things like the ideals and goals of freemasonery isn't covered in - to use your word - a veil of secrecy. What is secret howeever is the rituals used to convey the teachings. Compare it, if you like, to go to watch a movie. Would it not ruin the experience if someone, before the movie started, told you not just the general outline of the plot, but also all the details and dialoge? Some things are secret because otherwise the experience of going thru the degrees are lost. WegianWarrior 03:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If your movie had unnecessary violence ,sex ,abuse ,foul words or unmoral themes my "brother" would let me know that theses things would be present in this movie I was going to see to prep me for what I would encounter ( see the difference between a R movie and a NC-17 movie ) If each degree is so special in its own uniqueness why do masons have 1 day classes where you can go from EA to FC to MM in a 8 hour period since , in your statement, the experience is the thing that counts not the teachings? Furthermore, the experience of having a hood over my head, a noose around my neck and knife at my chest are things I can do without along with swearing to cut out my tongue for betraying your “secrets” http://www.ephesians5-11.org/masonicritual/ 68.44.153.204 15:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) The Web.

AS for the 1 day classes... Personaly, and I know I got a lot of fellow masons with me on this, I don't think they are a good idea at all. One simply don't have the time to absorb and reflect upon things if they are rushed thru in one day. Please do not assume that because some lodges do such a thing it is common or seen as a wise move among masons in general - as mentioned in the article [3]: <qoute>Many Grand Lodges in the U.S. have tried a variety of often-controversial measures to address declining membership, including "one-day" ceremonies of the three degrees for large groups of candidates</qoute>. On a personal note, I feel the whole thing with one day classes and the like will backfire, as it means they try to attract people who probaly will see the masons as something other than what it is meant to be.

Diversity

Are U.S. Freemasons typically tolerant of homosexuality?

There's no one answer to that question. It's always going to depend on the Lodge and its members. Perhaps region and demographic would serve as a useful guide, but since ballots for membership must be unanimous and are always secret, there's no way to know which Lodges would admit openly gay petitioners and which wouldn't; and of those Lodges that might reject such a candidate, there's no way to know why or even by what margin. That also doesn't say anything about whether an openly gay member would, in turn, be treated respectfully by members of his own or other Lodges. (Exactly the same can be said for ethnic and religious minorities, except that global Freemasonry has a history and tradition of acceptance which is lacking for homosexuality; there would, at least, be a Masonic foundation to condemn systematic rejection of candidates based on ethnicity or religion, which isn't nearly as clear for sexual orientation.) I don't know that there's anything intelligent we could add to this article on this subject, though. —Bsktcase 01:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Women and non-theists in US Freemasonry

I have a female friend who is very, very interested in Freemasonry. She fulfills every qualification, including belief in a Supreme Being, except for the fact that she's female. I, on the other hand, am quite the solid agnostic - I don't believe it's possible to know the nature of the divine, supernatural, etc., given the limited nature of our perception. But again, the ideas of freemasonry appeal to me greatly. I've read that the Supreme Being clause can be widely interpreted; I could be said to believe in a sort of Supreme Being, just not a conscious entity (more like Supreme Being = Natural Law).

What my question comes down to is this: Is there a place for my friend and I in American freemasonry, or will we have to learn French and head to the Continent? Are there any English-speaking descendants of the Grand Orient de France in the US? Are we just plain out of luck and doomed to being marginalized?

--ToddLo114 23:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your friend can join American co-Masonry. The web page with the information about joining is here. I have little doubt that she will find the Order worthwhile. I'm very pleased to see that there are women who want to join Masonry not simply because they don't like the idea of a "men-only" order, but also because they actually have a calling.

American co-Masonry is not considered "regular," but it is very closely related to "regular" Masonry.

On the other hand, if an individual does not believe in a Supreme being, then not only will they be unable to join "regular" Masonry, but I'm not sure that they should. There's little point in joining the order if you do not believe, in some sense, in a Supreme Being. Wanting to join Freemasonry without believing in a Supreme Being is like wanting to join a creative writing class when you hate writing -- you may learn a few things, but what's the point? You're not going to get much that's personally useful to you, and the deeper meaning of the rituals will just be gibberish or nonsense to you.

I have nothing against atheists or agnostics. Many of them are very nice people, with a profound sense of "ethics." Many, if not most, of them have tremendous integrity and honour. But why join an organisation which rests its foundation on the Parenthood of God and the Brotherhood of Humanity? -Alex Kennedy

Thanks much for your reply. My friend is going to find that incredibly helpful! As for me - well, the thing is that Masonry is the closest organization of sorts which matches the majority of my beliefs about the world, while remaining non-dogmatic and non-religious. I try to focus on self-improvement and understanding of my place in the universe, try to always keep everything in perspective, practice a great deal of toleration and value human life, rights, and general dignity. I suppose I feel that it doesn't necessarily have to be founded on the belief in a Supreme Being, since I find myself seeing things in a very similar way. And I'll admit that regular Masonry may not be for me - I've been reading more about it and particularly the California branch seems to put far too much emphasis on the Holy Bible for my comfort. But again, the basic tenets of Masonry (aside from the Supreme Being bit) strongly appeal to me, as well as the fact that it is so decentralized worldwide. I'm much more curious about the Grand Orient de France and Le Droit Humain because of the fact they apparently admit atheists and agnostics. Le Droit Humain's websites that I've found thus far are lacking in revealing whether or not they have locations where I live and plan to live (San Diego and Washington, DC, respectively). So that's somewhat discouraging. So I suppose you could say I'm not interested in regular Masonry so much as I am in the GOdF/LDH version? --ToddLo114 05:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. And I wish more power to you -- but it's important to understand that the requirement for belief in Supreme Being is not something that's just "tacked on" to Freemasonry... it is the root and the marrow of Freemasonry. If you take out the belief in the Supreme Being, then Freemasonry collapses. That's why I'm not sure that the GOdF should call itself "Freemasonry." It's certainly an initiatic and esoteric fraternity, but its connection to Freemasonry is only superficial. This is not to denigrate the organisation -- it's simply not traditional Freemasonry.

Additionally, I should mention that I believe that the DH has publicly repudiated the idea that they allow atheists to join -- I may be incorrect about this, but I'm fairly sure that I saw it somewhere (not very good evidence, I admit). -Alex Kennedy

Cult of the Supreme Being

An anon with no other edits has just added information to the article on Cult of the Supreme Being drawing a direct line between that religion and Freemasonry. I'm wary of the information for a number of reasons but cannot say personally whether it is true or false or some mixture.

I removed the offending material. It read like a conspiracy theory. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 02:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be mentioned that some theories exist as to a connection between these two groups, without including any potentially misleading specifications? (another anonymous)

"Cult" nor "Religion" is not what I think of as Freemasonry as a member. Indeed Freemasons in Australia are told that "Freemasonry is not a Religion". Perhaps this is necessary as some regard it to be a Religion. While it is common knowledge that "A Belief in a Supreme Being" is a prerequisite for membership, but you certainly do not have to worship a supreme being to be a Mason AND you certainly do not worship a supreme being in Lodge. Hence a belief in any monotheistic religion would see you qualify for membership and that is why one meets Jewish, Christian, Muslin etc. Freemasons

Contemporary Challenges

I have edited the following paragraph on the presumption that what remains is fact. Is it? I have no idea. Also, I do not understand the last sentence of the paragraph. Does it mean anything? Are young men less likely to get advancement in the movement because older men are blocking the way? Or are few professions offering preferential job opportunities to Freemasons so that it is not so worth while becoming a member? I am also not clear why any lack of opportunity allows "more focus". Is the statement about Freenmasonry in South America and (continrental) Europe factually correct?Thincat 14:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The great irony about modern Freemasonry as it is in the United States, the UK and other Anglo jurisdictions is that despite the protests of conspiracy theorists who make the accusation that it is an occult society which rules the world, it is losing members faster than it can get new petitioners. In the United States, the average age of members is around 45. This is probably due to the lack of opportunities within the order which would attract more young men, allowing for more focus on the philosophical and esoteric side of Freemasonry as is available in jurisdictions in South America and Europe, where the number of masons is generally on the rise.

It's important material, but my goodness, this section was extremely speculative and POV. I have rewritten much of it. The question of why U.S./U.K. membership might be declining is vast and there aren't any answers that aren't wild guesses or just personal opinions/likes/dislikes. (Some Brethren particularly enjoy the philosophy and esoterica; others prefer the philanthropic work; others just want fellowship and fun. There's never been agreement on which one[s] of those are the "right" way to be a Mason.) The issue of one-day conferrals just struck me as a personal screed. I don't like them either, but I don't think that discussion belongs on wikipedia, particularly not all the high-minded statements about how this is the worst break from tradition in Masonic history, etc. Likewise, the issues of advertising and recruitment were presented POV. I have whittled this down to what I think is a reasonable summary of the changes, the fact that they are breaks from tradition, and the basic arguments for and against. The intro paragraph indicts U.K. as well, but the follow-on paragraphs focus solely on the U.S., which is all I know. If similar debates are occurring in the U.K. then perhaps clarification would help; if not, then U.K. should be left out of the opening paragraph rather than lumped in. —Bsktcase 20:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can I just suggest that the decline in Membership is due not to fewer initiations than previously, but that the period shortly after WW2 saw greater initiations than normal. There are many accounts of Masons in POW camps helping eachother and others, and in general, the military is a giant fraternity, and after the war more than likely many ex-soldiers found themselves following comrades into the Fraternity.

This makes sense, the membership has been declining only in the last decade or two, and many WW2 veterans are dying now. Freemasonry became over-extended by a surge of membership, and is now finding itself unable to upkeep all its lodges simply because that boost of membership is over, and Masonry must return to a more natural level of membership. -- Brandon Jacobs, 12:15am, 9th Mar 2005

The mere fact that anyone serving in any Goverment Post,Armed Srevice, would violate one oath (country) to act on another oath (mason) to help "A Brother" makes me wary of that person in general. 68.44.153.204 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

I'd say that's a very circumstantial gripe, 68.44.153.204. All Freemasons swear to obey the laws of the country they are in. Allegations of cronyism are loose at best, considering betterment as a person is the aim, betterment of career or income is definately frowned upon and something I have never seen occur. Jachin 03:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As you will read they ,Armned Services, take a oath to uphold, protect, ect. If a brother asks them to break one oath to fulfill a masnoic oath - the real test occurs - what oath will they uphold ? ... and i have seen it occur from traffic stops to prison camps The brothers ALWAYS stick together no matter what. 68.44.153.204 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

Scottish Rite and York Rite

As a non-mason, I've often wondered what the differences were between the Scottish and York rites. I think this article could be further improved by a discussion of this. dinopup

There are actually quite extensive articles on the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite and the concordant bodies which are often (inaccurately) referred to as the York Rite. I will check the article and add links to these if necessary. --Alex Kennedy

Readers like me would appreciate it if you would explain what the differences are between the rites. The article on Scottish rite gives the history of the order and lists the names of the degrees, but it doesn't explain what the Scottish Rite has to does that the York Rite lacks.

I can comprehend your desire for further information, but doing justice to the differences between the Scottish Rite and the "York Rite" (meaning the Royal Arch, Cryptic Rite, and Preceptory) would require delving very very deeply into esoteric material.

I will state my completely subjective opinion that the "York Rite" bodies are more specifically related to spiritual, sacerdotal, and prophetic matters, while the Scottish Rite concerns itself to a greater degree with philosophical and moral issues. I am qualified so to say in that I am both a Royal Arch Mason and a Master of the Royal Secret. --Alex Kennedy

The simplest explanation IMO is that the Scottish Rite typically meets in a large group 2 or 3 times a year, in a large body, while the York Rite groups typically meet monthly in small local bodies. I also agree with brother Kennedy that there is some difference in the emphasis of the rituals.--Pmeisel 17:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem in trying to describe all larger permutations of Freemasonry, as Freemasonry is complex and consists of many appendant organizations (no, not secret clubs, appendent organizations), such as Memphis-Mizraim (a united rite, once two seperate mystical versions of Freemasonry). Notably, many of these organizations are vanishing due to lack of members, so one must not assume that information is being surpressed, although this might be a swift cognitive association for some. The article appears to me unbiased and regular to the norm of Wikipedia articles. A fine, square job, lads! --again, an anonymous

Freemasonry & World Conspiracy

Being an "outsider" to freemasonry, I am curious to know how, when and why freemasonry has become associated with world conspiracies. Can anyone provide insight into this subject?

This concept would probably take as much time to outline as the history of exoteric Freemasonry itself. The works of people like Abbe Barruel and Nesta Webster obviously have had some influence, but at a recent Masonic Spring Workshop I was shown a poster from before the public emergence of the "Moderns" (I believe it was 16th-century) which implied that "Freed-Masons" were up to something sinister. I don't know of any work offhand that traces the origins of anti-Masonic hate, maybe some of my brethren here do? I suspect, however, that you'd find the origins of this kind of thinking as difficult to trace as those of anti-Semitism. Alex Kennedy

Freemasonry is, in general, a family of charitable organizations that not only require dues but also regularly petition members for donations to their chosen causes. The dues and initiation fees are prohibitive to those with an income below that of the lower middle class and the donations and activites require what some would consider serious financial commitment. Therefore Masons tend to be persons (and often community leaders) of means. The disproportionate number of Masons in high social positions can give the impression that Masons are actually in charge of the organs of government and commerce. One has but to look at the roster of U.S. presidents who have been Masons to have their suspicions circumstantially confirmed.

Comraderie between Masons often leads to favorable buisness associations as well. This can only deepen extant class issues. — Clarknova 01:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the dues and initiation fees vary wildly between jurisdictions. While I've often had income that dipped below lower-middle, I haven't felt in ME, RI, or WA that the fees were "prohibitive". --SarekOfVulcan 20:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought Class had nothing to do with masons who "Meet on the level" free of class ideas. “The dues and initiation fees are prohibitive to those with an income below that of the lower middle class and the donations and activate require what some would consider serious financial commitment.” Kind of makes me wonder if the house of cards is starting to fall apart hummm? 68.44.153.204 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

Etymology

What about the origins of the term 'freemasonry'? This name or term is found as directly translated in all other languages I know of, but what's the original word? What does it mean? I would guess it has to do with 'building freely', as in: building yourself while not constrained to a church or religion. Can someone elaborate? -- fbjon 130.232.92.20

It is something akin to 'journeyman,' a mason who if free to work without a boss. A worker who can travel and work where he likes, no a slave. [[Paul, in Saudi 16:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

The terminology derives from the guilds and livery companies of England, see the article Livery company.

Questions

A long time ago, I read an old encyclopaedia which said that the initiation ceremony of exposing the knee, breast, blindfolding and noosing were in memory of a member of the fraternity who was tried as a heretic and went to his death without revealing the secrets of freemasonry. I cannot access that encyclopaedia now, and I wonder if anyone here knows what this man'd name was and when he died?81.129.79.68 00:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologise it has been three months or so since you posted this and no one has addressed the issue you raised. I too recall reading such, whilst there are alternate meanings given to each of the things you raised, many places will also cite it as reference to being tried as a heretic, or in some instances mentioned as reference to the treatment of Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar. Which of these is true, I personally could not say, it's open to too much grounds for speculation; very much a chicken or the egg scenario. If any more educated brethren can address this issue, please speak up. Jachin 12:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmmmmmm

I just read the article ,then the discussion page.

The article is a gross whitewash of Freemasonry, and its cleear from the discussion page that theres a cliche of writerse here intent on supressing ANY negative reference to Freemasonry.

For example, I see no refernce to the 33rd degree, the inner circle, of whom ALL the US presidents were members.

I think NPOV went out the window on this article and someone is keeping it shut.

Lincolnshire Poacher 21:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a link to Anti-Masonry on the top of the page, and there is no 33rd degree. (BTW, I'm not a Mason.) --Spinboy 21:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is: it's an honor given to a very limited number of Masons. Expressing an interest in receiving it is said to disqualify you. I think it's a Scottish Rite thing, but I'm not sure. --SarekOfVulcan 21:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then that'd be to do with Scottish Rite, and not Freemasonry directly, and thus, not this article. --Spinboy 21:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have that ALL the US presidents were Masons? Or, for that matter, what parts do you think are a whitewash, and how do you know that your understanding of what the Masons are is accurate? It sounds to me like you have taken a side and thus aren't really talking NPOV at all but wanting your side to be the main side being discussed. DreamGuy 23:07, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, a guy called Stephen Knight wrote two very interesting books , one of which was called 'The Brotherhood', exposing the 33rd Degree (which DOES exist). He died very mysteriously of a 'heart attack' before he could write his third book, which was odd as he was only in his 40's and there was no history of heart disease in any of his ancestors.

But I know better than to argue the point, If I posted anything anti masonic here I've no doubt it would get removed very quickly, just from reading the talk page and seeing whats already been removed.

Lincolnshire Poacher 18:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lincolnshire Poacher has been reading too many conspiracy books. Stephen Knight was a whack. He also thought Jack the Ripper was a Freemason and loosely tied them into it by the method of murder -slightly- representing masonic oaths and the 'juwes' claimed to be a reference to Jubela, et al. All very poor links, yet his work is taken as gospel by many anti-masons / whack job conspiracy theorists. Jachin 05:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That's just one guy, you need more than one source for something like that, otherwise it may not be factual. Anyone can write a book. Self publishing exists. --Spinboy 19:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You also have to back up your claim that every US President is a mason with credible sources. --Spinboy 19:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Knight is also well known to be a highly unreliable author, not just what he says about the Masons but also his claims about Jack the Ripper. The guy invented things up out of thin air. DreamGuy 19:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

File:MoralsAndDogma 33rdDeg.jpg

Morals and Dogma's title page

There certainly is a 33rd° of the Scottish Rite, and it's hardly any secret. Simply read the Scottish Rite article, follow its link to the Rite's page on the 33rd°, or for further proof, look at this title page of Morals and Dogma.

Only the particulars of the initiation ritual itself are kept secret from members of the lower degrees. It's existence isn't hidden, or even in dispute.

That said, I think behind any strong declaration that Masons are involved in a sinister conspiracy you'll find someone that's read only one publication, or a clique of publications that all quote each other. Source materials reveal a far less exciting picture. — Clarknova 22:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is its extremely to prove with hard evidence anything about Freemasonry, thats what its managed to protect its secrets for so long. TYou know that and so do I. If your saying that you cant put anything in the article that cant be proved without hard evidence, then this smacks of hipocrasy, or cover up, because elsewhere in wikipedia there are plenty of articles based on speculation and guesswork, eg, the origin of the universe and the existence of god. yet you are happy to allow these articles unapposed. You just make me even more suspicious about the motives of the people that wont allow this article to express anti views.

Lincolnshire Poacher 19:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So.. basicly you say that since 'we' (ie, people who have edited this article for various reasons) are taking part in a huge cover-up / worldwide conspirace because most of us think that a proper encyclopedic article should be backed up by reputable references? If you're able to find good sources for your claims, I suggest you are bold and add them in the appriate places in the article. Be sure to cite your sources thought.

As to compare freemasonery with, and I qoute, "origin of the universe and the existence of god"... well, I wont even bother to point out anything else than how different they are - on one hand we have a collection of organisations, on the other hand we have a physical phenonomen from a few milliard years ago (20, I seem to recall) and a question of faith...

You're off course free to believe that we're all part of a world wide conspiracy to rule the world.

WegianWarrior 04:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So it appears you would rather let people make wild, unsubstantiated claims and include them as fact. Sorry, but thats not the way this project does or should work. If various claims are true they can generally be substantiated, if not they either should not be included or if they are a widely held belief, they should be attributed to those that hold the belief. Check the NPOV policy again. Facts and evidence rule the day here, not speculation. It would work the same way if a mason wanted to claim the Freemasonry actually was responsible for winning World War II and curing AIDS. They would need solid proof to back that up, not just speculation. By the way, I have no connection to and actually little interest in the topic at hand. I have this page watchlisted for other reasons. - Taxman 14:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Now going back and reading the article, there is a distinct lack of coverage of the controversy and just how common the criticisms and conspiracy theories are. The section that is there is very short and fails to cover the books and press and web time that discuss the controversy or believe the criticisms. So back up the sources that make those claims and describe them in an NPOV way and don't put inordinate focus on it in the article and NPOV would be well served. The top of this talk page with some links negative re Freemasonry, should probably not be excluded just because they are negative either. The lead should probably also mention the controversy, depending on how widespread it really is. - Taxman 14:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Beyond conspiracy theories, there should be some mention of authentic Masonic controversies in Mexico and Italy particularly.--Samuel J. Howard 23:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

'Check the NPOV policy again. Facts and evidence rule the day here, not speculation.' So wheres the factual evidence to prove beyond doubt the exsitence of God? I await with bated breath to see it!! or are we allowing unsubstantiated opinion to support it, in which case the same rules allow us to print the unsubstantiated opinions of the anti freemason view? Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You cannot apply a different standard from one to the other!!!

193.131.115.253 14:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mexico and Italy controversies

Which controversies are these, and can you back them up? Keep in mind, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball or origional work. --Spinboy 00:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Italy is an easy one - Propaganda Due. I'm not sure what happened in Mexico however.

On the other hand, to point to P2 and use that as an argument that all masons are involed in various conspiracies simply don't work... we might as well point to the (relativly) few chatolic priests that has been molesting kids and claim that the catholic church is a cover up for a gigantic pedhophile netwok worldwide.

Some mention should be in the article - with links to the relevant article(s). Perhaps something like: "In a few cases, various crimes have been traced to masonic organisations. Some of the better known cases include Propaganda Due in Italy and..."

Masons are just people... sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes they act less than perfect. It reflects badly on masonery when they do, but thats life I guess.

WegianWarrior 04:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that takes us back to the top of the page, explain why those links at the top are blacklisted and why they cant be in the main body, if, as various people have just said, anti views need to be included to maintain an NPOV?

193.131.115.253 14:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to write something balanced about anti-clericalism and Masonry in Mexico. It needs work obviously. Check out http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/arnaldoGeng.html for more on Portugal and Italy and Masonry. Note that this is a Masonic website, not one written by conspiracy theorists or Catholic sectarians. Really, the article needs to talk about Garibaldi, etc. and the important historical role of freemasory. I think in a way the article is very Anglo-American centric in it's treatment of freemasonry. The article is written from a partisan pro-freemasonry viewpoint. For instance, the mention of the Catholic Church prohibiting its members to be freemasons is in a section on totalitarian repression, effectively conjoining Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church rather than two voluntary organizations which have at times mutually prohibited membership in the other.--Samuel J. Howard 07:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Merging with Anti-Masonry

The merge notice has been up for a long time, without me spottting much in the way of merging going on... so I decided to be bold and do it myself. Could need a second pair of eyes to look it over and make sure it 'flows' well... english isn't my native tounge =) WegianWarrior 06:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? There are many good reasons not to do the merger, and no good one:

• The Anti-Masonry article is almost as big as this article. If you were to merge them in any way that does Anti-Masonry justice the resulting article could be easily exceed the size limit.
• The merger was only passed by four votes, and no one who voted to merge actually wanted to do the work.
• The quality of the Anti-Masonry article is considerably lower than the Masonry article. In fact it was so low that the vote was originally for deletion. It would be a shame to sully the one with lousy material from the other.

If these things don't daunt you then go ahead. I've often considered just removing the Merge tag for these reasons. If you do it I'll help you, but please be certain you really want to. It's going to be no small task to bring the prose of Anti-Masonry up to the standard of Freemasonry; a complete re-write may be in order. (Disclaimer: I am not a Mason and have no particular reason to protect Freemasonry. I have added material to both articles.) — Clarknova 03:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are the secrets of a secret society?

I have seen some here using the arguement that, because masons aren't allowed to reveal what goes on in a lodge, that books "exposing" freemasonry can't have their information substantiated. My question is, how can we have a wikipedia article with so much information about a secret society who's members aren't allowed to reveal their secrets? That is, what information is and isn't a secret in freemasonry?

While YMMV in various lodges, at least in Norway the only thing that is really secret is the actual rituals (including the infamous words and handshakes) themself, while everthing else (who are members, the 'laws', the budget and so on) is not secret. WegianWarrior 22:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, we can quite verifiably state what the various books have said. We'd want to limit ourselves only to the most notable, and hopefully also ones that are generally accepted as credible, but we could then say things like "In book X author Y explains secret practice Z as follows..." and leave it up to the reader to decide what they believe about Freemasonry themselves. These books can have entries of their own for details about why people belive they're credible or why they believe they're full of hooey. Bryan 23:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I asked because I was having a discussion with my parents about freemasonry, and they were saying how dangerous it was, and I was saying how what they've read is either hooey or unsubstantiated since Freemasonry is a secret society and no mason or ex-mason would reveal the rituals. My dad replied that I couldn't be sure whether or not anything I or he read then, because it is all information about a secret society which no mason would reveal information about. So you see, I was wondering just what parts I can be sure are substantiated and true, whilst also weeding out the unsubstantiated information.

There are many books by Masons that were intended for members, but have come into general circulation. Some go as far as to reveal the secret passwords, and discuss aspects of closed rituals, but not perhaps the precise formula for thier execution. One author might conceal a specific detail, while another might reveal it. There's almost nothing of significance about Masonic rituals that can't be discovered by reading around and filling in the gaps.

One book you could pick up is The Meaning Of Masonry by W.L. Wilmshurst. He takes a liberal view of what is permissable to publish. It's very cheap on Amazon.

Masons also print small handbooks to help members study the rituals beforehand, so they can perform them correctly in lodge. If you search enough library catalogs you may be able to find one in a reference section. — Clarknova 00:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Query to Masons here on Wiki?

I am extremely interested in the Freemasons, and this article has only irked my curiosity. So interested in fact I am on the verge of deciding to attempting to join. A few things are bothering me though, has there ever been cases of Members wishing to leave the brotherhood. It seems like the kind of thing that one is in for life, but with its relatively secretive nature one cannot properly gauge if one wish's to agree with the standing of the organization. Although it seems to me that the Masons are very open and would not present such a situation it still sits at the back of mind...what exactly happens to someone who no longer wishes to be a mason?

Are they ousted? Are they permitted to leave quietly under the provision they keep the secrets? Or is there some sort of Trial period, where no real important secrets are revealed but enough so that one can decide if they wish to continue participation?

Iorek 17:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Men who fall away from the Craft stop paying their annual dues. Not much to say about it, it is unfortunate, but is fairly common. People move, they drift away, they get busy, have children. New men come in, some old one leave. [[Paul, in Saudi 02:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)]]

Not at all what i expected, thank you very much. Iorek 17:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

To some degree what you said about 'no real important secrets' being revealed is also true. Depending on what country you are in of course. In America one can partake one degree per lunar month. In other countries it is one degree per year, which is much more logical as the experience should be enjoyed and not taken lightly. 211.31.9.5 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes people move and don't want to rejoin a lodge where they're going and 'demit', there's a form for it. Most often they don't pay their dues for 2 years or more and are stricken from the rolls. (which really is a pain, because they plan their buget on incomming dues, so a demit is preferred). There seems to be no special agreement on secrets when leaving. The secrets are something that bind us together, not something that we get angered at if people publish in a webpage or a book, which does happen all the time.

Request for references

Please add references to this article, see also Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Otherwise this article will likely be de-featured pending a FARC nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Women in Freemasonry

I have seen a few books on the topic, most are circa 1920's - 1930's yet are very vague. My question is to international Freemasons, in which countries are women accepted into the AAR of Freemasonry? I am located in Australia and this does not go on here. The ambiguity of all references to sex having a female alternative in this article, for a fraternal organisation, vexes me greatly.

I have reason to believe that perhaps this is an Americanism that has been plastered on an article as a universality, yet I would also accept that various countries of libertine holdings would have, over time, gone against the doctrine of the Craft and allowed women. The article doesn't really touch on this aspect, yet across the board the article addresses Masonry as though women are accepted, when in fact, they are not anywhere that I know of.

If any international Freemasons could clarify this for me, it would be greatly appreciated.

Jachin 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to disambiguate my request, what I am asking for is a list of countries that FREEMASONRY (as in blue lodge and it's further persuable degrees, which is what this article is about) allows females. Not derivatives of Freemasonry, but the Ancient and Accepted Rites of Freemasonry proper.

Jachin 17:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of them, or other lodges wouldn't recognize them. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is what I thought, why then is the Freemasonry article written in a 'politically correct' manner of 'he/she' and 'any man (or woman)'? It is a fraternal organisation, just as there are numerous groups out there organised for women only, I'm sure they don't still add in the PC 'he' when defining their organisation.

Jachin 22:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I seem to remember there being Dames in the Templars - its a side degree of the full shebang - that is the Ancient and Accepted Rites of Freemasonry proper.

Guest

---

I don't think there should be any "he/she's" in this article or anywhere Freemasonry is written about in even a remotely offical capacity. After visiting with my grandfather today (Freemason of over 70 years) he contends. *shrug* Nahallac Silverwinds

---

Someone appears to have reverted my prior changes back to: -

Generally, to be a Freemason, one must:

be a man who comes of his own free will (or a woman, in the case of a feminine jurisdiction, or either a man or a woman if joining a co-Masonic jurisdiction),

As this article is about Freemasonry and not any derivative, I am going to revert that back to what it previously was (ie: the true requirements of being a Freemason) and whoever wants to play the rv game can throw their feminine jurisdiction stuff in the co-freemasonry subheading.

Jachin 12:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

User:AllanR has again reverted the changes without so much as reading the discussion on the topic from the looks. I'll rv back and leave him a note on his talk page.

Clarification (wording?)

Under the section The two great schisms of Freemasonry (1753 and 1877) we have the text

Most Lodges conduct their Work in accordance with .. the York Rite (which is popular in the United States; not to be confused with York Rite),

I'm guessing this must be a error. Can someone clarify?

• York Rite, and Scottish Rite, are appendant bodies to Freemasonry. They grant "higher" degrees than the 3 degrees of Blue Lodge. York Rite includes a subdivision called the Knights Templar. Being a full York Rite or Scottish Rite member used to be a requirement to join the Shriners. --SarekOfVulcan 22:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clarification (intent?)

After reading the article, I am still at a loss to understand why people join the Masons.

If I have an interest in stamp collecting I join a stamp club. Then I can trade stamps and share knowledge with other collectors. If I like to play basketball, I will form a basketball club, because it's boring to play by myself. In contrast, it is hard to identify what draws Masons together. The article does mention very vague shared religious beliefs, but the need for association based on beliefs would seem to be served by the established religions, which benefit from greater focus and have their own aura of social prestige.

In short, while I grasp the role of an organised social outlet, wouldn't it be more logical for people to seek contact within a group sharing a common interest or affiliation?

I get the picture of a group of older men with nothing much in common (except perhaps the wish to avoid the Mrs?) getting together one evening a week for the fun of practicing their secret handshakes.

Can anyone clarify?

http://www.seanscreenplays.com/BeteNoireCD/Articles1/HIDDEN% 20POWER.htm

--Philopedia 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's not so much shared religious beliefs, as the shared belief that men can meet together as brothers regardless of religion, color, etc. This, sadly, is not a belief always reinforced by our churches... --SarekOfVulcan 22:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just moral men, with a belief in a supreme being and a desire to do good for the community - Charities and orphanages supported ect.

If i may clarify, the steretype of older men wanting to avoid the Mrs has really died out - but since you often need to attend THE SAME LODGE for about 3 years it does mena that you have to be settled in that area - hence the misconception

Guest

If I may state the obvious; it is difficult for an article of an encyclopedic nature to extrapolate reasons for joining any organization or group; at least, one’s with objectives greater than mere admiration of shared objects (i.e. stamps). This is because an individual’s reasons for joining would be different from another individual’s, perhaps subtly, perhaps severely. Considering the infinite possibilities for human character (with some people, I know, this is a questionable philosophy to employ, however, we will remain optimistic), this means there could be infinite answers to your question, why people join. Perhaps, however, if a considerate sample of Freemasons could be interviewed, themes would surface within subject’s response as to why they joined, and your question would be easier to answer. But, considering this is a ‘secret’ society (so was the tree-house club I joined when I was twelve; we too attracted several conspirator theorists, such as my neighbor, who thought we killed her cat), how many members do you think will agree to an interview? (I at least will talk about why I joined friends at the tree house: sounded like fun) - another guest

Well, I was never a Mason, but I was a member of an affiliated "junior" Mason group (DeMolay) and knew a number of Masons. The Masonic organization MAY have had more complicated beginnings "back in the day" - the "day" being hundreds of years ago....but today, it is just a social club, ie Moose or Elks. The "secret" rituals, to my knowledge, are hardly Satanic and exist just to drive the points home - e.g., be a good Christian, don't screw your neighbor's wife, don't kill anyone, don't be a selfish pig, etc. The guys that join - IN MY OPINION, not hard fact but what I have experienced - are white, Christian, and Republican to a T. They are usually non-smoker, non-drinker types that would not likely be found at the local Regal Beagle Lounge. They do get very involved in charity work, and they supported the youth groups like ours - partly out of wanting to be charitable and partly to groom their new members. None of it is my cup of tea now, but there are worse things one can do in the suburbs with one's time.

Oh, and it's not quite leaving the Mrs. at home - she's normally, in about half the cases, in the Masonic-affiliated woman's group Eastern Star. The young girls have two groups to choose from - Rainbow Girls (open to all girls) and Job's Daughters (only open to daughters of a Mason).

I would add this to the article, since the writer says they don't have a sense of why people join, but it's largely an observation, not a "fact". NickBurns 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone stated "Recently the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest association" two things Recently (Give a date?) and highlight Southern Baptist as one because they are different from Baptist. Tassidar 8:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Russia? Estonia?

Today, user 82.131.22.158 has been addind a fair bit of content on masonic history in Russia and Estonia... would this perhaps be better suited as seperate articles? I know I could be bold, but since I'm at work right now.. ;) WegianWarrior 12:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The consecration of the Grand Lodges of Estonia (a daughter of Finland) and Russia (of France) are both wonderful stories that would do well as a separate articles, methinks. Paul, in Saudi 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Merged Anti-Masonry with Freemasonry

Just so you know.

Some edits made, and some feedback requested

I've made some changes to the Freemasonry page, and I wanted to explain them, because they might be seen as bad edits otherwise. All my edits come from my own personal experience as a member of the Craft in the US.

1. Scottish Rite is not a complete system, except unto itself. You need to be a Master Mason before you can do AASR, so the numbering goes from 4 to 32. Same with York Rite, which interestingly enough, the author did not state was a complete system.

2. In North america, a Blue Lodge is considered to be the first lodge you joined (the one where you became a Master Mason). If you join another lodge, that one is not your Blue Lodge. Thus the term does not apply to all Craft Lodges in general.

3. Templars is not open to Royal Arch members. KT is in sequence after Cryptic, so you need to do that first; you can't jump directly to that point from Royal Arch.

There were also a few things I wanted to change, but I wanted feedback on first, mainly due to the article coming from a UGLE perspective.

1. What I've read as far as AASR goes says that it was originally designed entirely in France, and only changed later by Pike and others. Therefore, to say "it was designed predominantly in France" seems not entirely wrong, but not entirely right, either.

2. Grand Lodges vs. Grand Orients -- AFAIK, the latter term also applies only to France, and there, only to the irregular lodges that no other bodes recognize. Thewrefore, to define them both as equal is incorrect, I think. Does anyone have any insight on this?

3. Masonic buildings are called "Masonic Temples", rather than just "Temples". Is this too nitpicky?

4. In my experience, we use "Lodge" to refer to the building, and we do indeed meet in a Lodge, not "as a Lodge". Has anyone heard it used otherwise?

5. "Lodges of Research and Instruction" are two separate types of specialty lodges, not a combined title, at least in the US. Once again, does it differ under UGLE or some other jurisdiction?MSJapan

First off Welcome to the Wiki, be careful! Some find it addictive. Second, you can sign your comments by adding three tildies after your comments. This way we know who we are talking to.

The first Landmark of Masonry cites the necessity of Masons meeting in Lodges. Therefore you may call the building as you like, but the men inside are a Lodge when tiled. Paul, in Saudi 03:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Observations

A note to those who have worked on this article or who are interested in Freemasonry/Masons:

I think this is an example of an excellent, well-written, fair and comprehensive article on a difficult subject. I am not a Mason or member of any organization related to Freemasonry. But I am interested in history, religion, philosphy, and I've been reading quite a few articles on Wikipedia about these subjects.

I've also read one or two extremely difficult-to-comprehend books involving conspiracy theories, Freemasonry, the existence of a descendant of Christ, the Priory of Sion (sp?), and all those related, tangled, quasi-historical symbols and stories that attempt to prove some great hidden truth about God, man, and the world, by an author who has "discovered" said truth by decoding documents related to Freemasonry, obscure paintings, and Latin inscriptions over church doorways in France. If you know what I mean.

This article gives some of the most concrete information about the actual Masonic organizations in existence in the world. I think it is admirably open to describing criticism and complaints leveled at Freemasony/Masonic organizations. Of course, some folks will never be happy unless an article about a religion/organization they don't belong to says "it's all a satanic, evil, blasphemous lie, because it's not____" -- (fill in the blank with Roman Catholicism, Islam, Zen, Vegetarianism, Republican, Humanitarian, whatever).

Heck, the members of any organization, much less a worldwide organization, rarely agree completely on the purpose, beliefs, and value of the organization. That's why in the U.S. we have "conservative democrats" and "liberal Republicans" (to use a political example) and "hard-partying fraternities" and "scholarly fraternities" that are all part of the overall fraternity system in universities, and so on. I imagine this article makes some Freemasons mad, some pleased, some disappointed. If it doesn't please everybody, it's probably fair and balanced.

One personal note: As a reporter for a local newspaper in the late 1980s, I was invited to attend an initiation ceremony (I forget what they actually called it) at a local Masonic lodge (I believe Scottish Rite). I took photos, I interviewed the man who was being initiated (or promoted in rank, whatever it was) and the elders who were performing the ceremony. There was very little secrecy, it was an open attempt to publicize and promote their organization -- I understood they were having a hard time attracting new members. Being a group in the U.S. in a community with a lot of retirees, they may have been more of a social club (like Elks or Moose) than others elsewhere. I can't believe this group had any sinister rules or rituals or motivations. They certainly aren't taking over local government, much less the world.

Again, thanks to all for an interesting and informative article. DavidH 18:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

In the 1996 election Dole a 33 degree SR Mason lost to Clinton a non Mason.

explain that conspiracy theorists.

Ummm ... Clinton was a member of DeMolay,(Masonic) I think the higher ups knew Clinton would be better "received" by the sheep of the Nation and if we look back he was indeed,even through many shall I say missteps. 68.44.153.204 14:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

References that Clinton was a member of a masonic order please?

From pages 44 and 45 of Bill Clinton's best-selling autobiography, My Life, published by Alfred A. Knopf publishers, New York, in 2004, President Clinton speaks about his involvement with, and attitude towards, Freemasonry and DeMolay, a masonic youth group 68.44.153.204 15:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

The DeMolay are not Masons they are a youth group run by Masons.

If i may ... The Hitler Youth were not part of the German Army they were just run by it 68.44.153.204 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

Actually, it would be more correct to say that the HJ was not the NSDAP, but the NSDAP ran the HJ and the German Army at that point. I'm not sure what this has to do with freemasons thought - one of the first things Hitler did was to outlaw freemasonery (I think the Nazis refered to it as a 'jewish organisation'...). WegianWarrior 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they considered Freemasons to be one of many organizations that were against the party. On the very first page of Simon Weisenthal's biography Nazi Hunter, freemasons are categorized as separate from Jewish groups, and from some other research (from Henderson, Kent, and Tony Pope. Freemasonry Universal: the new guide to the Masonic world; vol. 2 Africa, Europe, and Oceania. Williamstown: Global Masonic Publications, 200. pp.199-214, Bernbeim, Alain. “German Freemasonry and Its Attitudes Toward The Nazi Regime”. The Philalethes, February 1997, found at [4] and some other places, I found that the Nazis outlawed even the completely Christian Lodges (called "Old Prussian")MSJapan

I think he just wanted to make a hyperbolic comparison.

Should we list countries have made laws about Masonry?

Should we list countries have made laws about Masonry including the dates what the laws were and for what reasons?

For example Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, and Russia have all had strict rules about or outlawed Freemasonry.

And at the 1922(?) international (world?) Communist (socialist?) congress they banned members from being Masons.

In a historical context, maybe, but Freemasonry has been in Japan since 1857, and they've got their own GL. I have no idea when it was ever outlawed. Germany only outlawed Masonry during WWII (which is what caused all those other countries to ban it as well, save Russia and Japan), and their Masonic history goes back to the 1700s (and earlier, according to some folks).

It probably deserves a paragraph, but it would end up being a largely historically isolated item, that would take up more space explaining historical circumstances than a=nything else. Furthermore, I think a delineated list gives it more importance than it really deserves - None of those laws existed for any lengthy amount of time.MSJapan

Not a Satanic Cult?

"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!" [Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, p. 321, 19th Degree of Grand Pontiff; Red Emphasis added]

Emphasis 'not' added, actually. :-) And quoting out of context is really easy. :-) Let me try quoting in context, from that same book.

"Everyone is free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it a fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment."

--SarekOfVulcan 23:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

So if I "weigh what is taught, and give it a fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment" and deem it not to be in conjunction with my thoughts - do I still get to be a mason even thought I don't believe the full teaching of the lodge? ... Sounds like the stone is not set on a firm foundation 68.44.153.204 15:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

An important thing to note is the book in question (Morals and Dogma) relates (at least in this passage) to Scottish Rite Masonry, not Blue Lodge Masonry (though there are chapters on the first three degrees), and to be fair, a lot of what is in it is not Pike's own thoughts, but rather philosophical cullings from other sources. It's a much more "useful" book if you are aware of the content of the degrees before reading it. Of course, if you don't agree with the principles that are taught in Freemasonry, why would you join? It's entirely of one's own free will whether one joins or not. By joining, you willingly agree to certain principles, so it is a very firm foundation indeed.--MSJapan 04:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Those principles are ? 68.44.153.204 16:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth of course. Paul, in Saudi 18:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Truth ... to quote a wise old man "what i said was true from a certain point of view" in the end your POV from the inside of the Us Only Club would be favorable where my view might not. I just fell it is wrong to think that all people are not equal,GOD made us all the same NOONE is higher than anyone else we are all EQUAL / Esotericism refers to knowledge suitable only for the advanced, privileged, or initiated. 68.44.153.204 The Web

I am told you are not devil worshipers but some quotes i found differ from your statements - here is one - is this book wrong or what ? "When a Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of LUCIFER are in his hands and before he may step onward or upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply (this) energy." (Lost keys of Freemasonry, Manly P. Hall Page 48)

Ritual Sacrifices

I accidently came across a lodge one time, and i was stopped by some initiates who were willing to talk to to me about masonry. they didnt say much, just it was a spiritual organization and "not a cult". But they said the masons would ritually sacrifice animals, but never said to what or whom. I even saw what supposedly was used for this. Is this is the truth and if so, what exactly do you sacrifice it to?

It is an old joke. Why people think we sacrifice animals is a mystery to me, but from time to time (like at initiations, I have made reference to it. I ought not to, I suppose. (You can sign your name to your comments by adding three tildes.) Paul, in Saudi 18:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

that sounds nice but... this kids werent laughing. They seemed pretty keen on wanting me to join them. Why would you joke if you wanted people to take you seriously?

They were taking the piss my friend, in Australia the usual joke isn't about sacrifice, usually it's about goats though, be it riding or copulating with one, just random fun poking really. I have no idea where the tradition of larrikinistic behaviour when it comes to the Craft began, undoubtably in England (Australian humour is very English in origin, we take very little seriously and have light hearts.)

So, I'm sorry to dissapoint you, Freemasonry won't even let you poke the goat with a stick as such, we're animal lovers not slayers. [cough] Jachin 12:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Animal Sacrifices

that sounds nice but... this kids werent laughing. They seemed pretty keen on wanting me to join them. Why would you joke if you wanted people to take you seriously? So if anyone can tell me if they're heard actual accounts or further rumors, that would be interesting. <== this was posted by 68.234.213.64, by the way.

Well I am a Master Mason, have been for twenty years. I have served as Lodge secretary and have sat in Lodges in three continents. No animal sacrifices. No human sacrifices. Sorry. Zero, none, zilch, nada. It is just an old joke and you were having your leg pulled.

I would further point out that we do not recruit. If someone asks about the Craft, we can talk about it, but we are not supposed to encourage people to join. At least not in the US, UK and other places I have been. Drop me an e-mail if you have questions. Paul, in Saudi 09:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

We do not ostensibly recruit, no. However, because all the US GLs are independent, you can't generalize too much. Because Masonry has, in recent years, lost its community visibility, many jurisdictions will allow you to ask someone if they're interested in joining, answer [i]some[/i] questions, and whether anything happens is up to the individual. All they have to do is ask.

Re: Animal sacrifice, I seem to recall something about some Masonic Lodges back in the 1920s or earlier making candidates ride mechanical animals. That's not quite the same thing, but it is a reference. I'll get the page, but it's from [i]American Freemasons[/i] by Mark Tabbert.

A lot of it, though, comes from what people think goes on, so of course, a lot of people joke around to put people at ease.MSJapan

Paul I am a Ex-Mason lets be honest...We do recruit, we drop hints to see who will bite, we wear our t-shirts,rings,plates on our cars ,emblems on our I.D.,give large amounts of money to "Good" causes. It is the most insidious thing i have ever seen,to show off who we are, to get people to ask about the brotherhood. You may be that one odd mason who doesn’t show off ... but I doubt it 68.44.153.204 14:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

Gee, 68 (may I call you 68?) I would not know. I am in Saudi Arabia, where Masonry is illegal. As a result, and out of respect of local customs, I do not wear my ring, I do not have a shirt and I do not recruit. If you are a Mason, you realize we do not do animal sacrifices. Why then did you bring the subject up?

Further in previous posts you asked about the principles of the Craft. If you are a Brother, why bother? You also asked questions about how to join a Lodge. Which is it, are you or are you not a Mason. Not that it overly matters. I would just like to know if you were fibbing then or now. Paul, in Saudi 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Paul I see the truth is hard to bring to you - you must know that to understand your opponent you need to know how they think and what they think. I needed to see what sarekofvulcan meant when he quoted pike's book and since he never replied to me I take it he found TRUE enlightenment - the person that did reply opened up another set of questions,the ones you replied to,so you must be wary when you jump into the middle of a conversation so you don't make a mis-step - Lastly I did not open the subject of sacrifice, as I have never witnessed it, I was pointing out that, at least in the US, covert recruitment is practiced Thank You - please note my full number sequence 68.44.153.204 and I always sign my statements - The Web 68.44.153.204 18:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

This discussion seems to be headed somewhat off the rails. Remember that although we call these "discussion" or "talk" pages, they are for discussing things about the article, not the topic. If you are debating whether to include mention of animal sacrifice in the article or not, then it would be better to turn the discussion toward that aim. If, on the other hand, the discussion is about something that is not going to go in the article but is nevertheless of interest to the two of you, it would better to either a) Take it to an online forum that talks about these things or b)quietly let the discussion drop if it is causing temperatures to rise. To the original anonymous poster, we have the Wikipedia:Reference desk which is generally a better place for asking questions (since talk pages are for article discussions), although it is unlikely that anyone there will comment on speculation. The Reference Desk is intended for a quick answer to a specific question really. -Splash 22:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Splash. I shall ignore him. Paul, in Saudi 03:27, 6 August 2005 (

Ignorance is bliss 68.44.153.204 14:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

This is not the place to air whatever gripes or problems you have against Masonry. Furthermore, you will not educate anyone in your supposed "truth" by using empty rhetoric and sniping at other users. The choice is simple, and you should be old enough to make a mature decision, if anything you have said previously is true. So, act appropriately to the page and participate, or act inappropriately and be ignored, and probably banned. The third option is for you to leave peacably.MSJapan

This is my final post to this section as I can see the brothers are once more protecting each other. I did not start the "sniping" as you put it. Brother Paul did with his opening reply when the discussion began to go "off the rails". I will however thank Splash as that post was dead on right I will only post things related to the article not the topic - thank you splash for some good guidance. 68.44.153.204 14:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

Is this too well-written?

This may sound kind of silly, but I'm having the same problem reading this entry as I have when trying to read articles about freemasonry. I don't understand a THING. The article is extremely well-organized and written fluidly but it seems to be written for an audience of people who already know everything. I find very little definition of terms, a lot of elaboration on topics using terms and ideas not covered until later in the article, very little attempt made to "dumb it down" for someone who doesn't know the first thing about the group. I remember when I read a pamphlet called "an introduction to Freemasonry" and barely being able to read past the first page, because of this same problem.

I'd say quite the contrary. Prior to my initiation, I read over this page with frustration that it told me absolutely nothing I hadn't already picked up from other sources. Whilst there are some things best left unsaid, there is still plenty more to say. 211.31.9.5 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry and Christianity

Whilst I've heard various stories as to whether the canonical law pertaining to Roman Catholics being excommunicated for being Freemasons (which in 1983 was revamped and didn't feature the word Freemasonry at all), recently, in Sydney Australia, the Anglican Synod was held and apparently to be Anglican and persuing Freemasonry is a big no-no amongst the Anglican church now.

Any Anglican's in Australia who can verify this or clarify what exactly went down?

211.31.9.5 02:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The Rev Bill Winthrop being a lifelong anti mason has managed to get the Synod to issue a statement saying it considers Freemasonry to be incompatable with Christianity. That it teaches a false religion. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/20/1066631355799.html?from=storyrhs Historicaly the Church of England has been quite close to Freemasonry. Indeed up until the 1960's the Grand Chaplain was eitherther the Arch Bishop or a high ranking Bishop. There have been always a segment of the Church that view Freemasonry with suspicion. The current Arch Bishops Father was a Freemason.

Maybe you would care to read the exchange of letters between the Head of the Anglican Church and the Grand Secretary. http://www.cesnur.org/2003/coe.htm you will please take note of his reply which is at the bottom of the page. .....Billmcelligott

can someone explian this to me - if freemason are not a religion why dose it seem to inclue so many religious practices for instance COIL’S MASONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA "Freemasonry has a religious service to commit the body of a deceased brother to the dust from whence it came, and to speed the liberated spirit back to the Great Source of Light. Many Freemasons make this flight with no other guarantee of a safe landing than their belief in the religion of Freemasonry.""(page 512).

Certainly Coil says that, and certainly it is true some Brothers think Masonry is a religion, but you get a few million guys over a couple of centuries and some of them are going to think, say and do some silly things. Funerals? Yeah, we do those. Does that make us a religion? I don't know, the US Army has funerals, is the Army a religion? (I know some senior NCOs who seem to think so.) I have even been to a Boy Scouts (of America) funeral. Damn bad day that was.

There are no Masonic weddings, baptisms, or catechism for youth. No Communion, no Confession (oops, Reconciliation, now), We do show up at our Brother's funerals if the family asks. Why not? We miss the guy too.

Masonry makes no promises about an afterlife, redemption, reconciliation. I would say it is no more a religion than the Boy Scouts. But of course you can make up your own mind. Paul, in Saudi 14:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't really pertinent to the topic question raised. I'm sure I can find well sourced books out there that claim all sorts of things, one reference does not a fact make.

"some Brothers think Masonry is a religion ... But of course you can make up your own mind." Time for Truth. Is it a religion or not,and if it is not why dosn't the brotherhood tell the misinformed masons who "think Masonry is a religion" the fact that it is not ? 68.44.153.204 15:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

My POV BS detector is in alarm. Surely there is some other friendly group of people you can choose to bash?  :)

We do, certainly you have come across our many protestations that Masonry is not a religion. What else would you have us do? Heck, I have had people petition Lodges thinking we provided low-cost life insurance! (I am still puzzled by that one.) Some people think silly things. (Oh, please excuse me, Web, we agreed to ignore each other. In light of our recent tiff, perhaps that would be best.) Paul, in Saudi 15:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No No Paul i do ENJOY debating you !!! Your POV from the mideast on the subject opens me up to many new ideas and i should like to countinue our debates in the future / back to the point at hand If you tell them it is not WHY do they continue to think otherwise ?68.44.153.204 15:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

Sorry, no I am ignoring you (Covers ears and chants yah-da-yah-da) Simply the Wiki is not the place for this. Perhaps you could come over to the Straight Dope Message Board? Lovely crowd of people there, my second-favorite place after the Wiki. Come on over! I use the same name there too. Paul, in Saudi 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone possibly address the initial question raised?

Freemasonry and Buddhism

Buddhists have no belief in a supreme being as such, yet you often see them in (especially American) blue lodges. Could a more enlightened brother clarify this one for me? I've been asked it twice in the last week and I really don't quite know how to approach it.

I am certainly no expert, but I understand that during the Raj the British Lodges in India ruled that Hindus Buddhists in fact simply used different names for the differing manifestations of The One God. I am not sure that I agree, but what is done is done. Paul, in Saudi 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know tghe historical context, but I can comment on the religious. As the Masonic requirement is historically stated as "one must believe in a Supreme Being" (it was vague on purpose), it was merely a matter of clarifying that how that being manifested itself wasn't important. Buddhists do have a single Supreme Being -- the Buddha -- who manifests in various forms and incarnations.MSJapan

Buddha never claimed to be a supreme being or even a sub-diety as such. I know over the centuries a lot of ambiguity and 'loopholes' have been arranged as such in the doctrines, but this one is quite blatent. It's up there with the work-around for libertines. :P Jachin 17:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The Bible in Freemasonery

I have been told by many in the craft the bible is a important LIGHT in the brotherhood - however i have run across many texts that flatly say the bible is only a sign of a "Holy Book" and carrys no real value in the teachings of the masons

"No lodge with us should be opened without its (the Bible) presence. Still, it is but a symbol; it represents divine truth in every form…But the shadow must not be mistaken for the substance. There is nothing sacred or holy in the mere book. It is ordinary paper…it is what it typifies that renders it sacred to us. Any other book having the same signification would do just as well…In fact, that book should be used which to the individual in question most fully represents divine truth…We dare assert that neither the Constitution, Regulations, no Ritual of any Grand lodge in the world required a belief in the teachings of the Bible…(we must) frankly acknowledge the Bible to be symbol only. Those Christian Masons who would enforce belief in the teachings of the Bible have simply mistaken the symbol for the thing itself." ("Symbolism of the Three Degrees"); Masonic Service Association, Washington, DC, 1924, pp 44-47)

"Masonry has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, that it is not founded upon the Bible, for if it were it would not be Masonry, it would be something else". (Digest of Masonic Law", p. 207-209)

I don't know who is telling me the truth and other posts in this page tell me that the truth is 1 of the main goals of freemasons - can anyone help me understand ?

In Masonry, the Bible is called the Volume of Sacred Law (VSL). I have sat in Lodges that used the Bible, the Pentearch (I spelled that wrong, didn't I?) and the Koran as VsSL. In Singapore I understand they have five books on the altar, all providing equal light. So the Bible is used in mostly-Christian countries, but not in Hindu, Jewish or other communities. So it certainly looks like Masonry is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, whatever, but that is not in fact the case. Paul, in Saudi 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Politics

So your point would be that older people are racists? Could be, I suppose. I have sat in Lodges that were mostly Jewish (and mostly Christian), I have sat in Loges that were mostly Black (however you determine that).

Masonry believes in the Brotherhood of all men, under the Fatherhood of God. Sounds pretty old-fashioned now, doesn't it? Yet a couple of centuries ago, this was cutting-edge stuff. The American (and for that matter the Filipino) revolutions were led by Masons. They stood (and do stand) for everybody being equal before God. If these ideas do not sound too strange to you, perhaps it is because of the influence we have had on history.

The Prince Hall thing is as embarrassing as all get out to American Masonry. Still, that problem is being addressed and no Lodge in America has a racial qualification.

Masonry and what it stands for have been suppressed by by dictators of the left and the right. Doesn't sound too fuddy-duddy to me. Finally, as an ancient and transnational movement, Masonry cannot (by definition) be chauvinistic. Paul, in Saudi 12:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, FDR, having checked your history I now realize that discussion with you about people who died in the 1880s would be non-productive. Paul, in Saudi 14:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

---

User User:FDR:FDR deleted random parts of this discussion making the above illogical to read, I restored the deleted segments from the article history. Jachin 17:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason I had decided to delete them was because User:PaulinSaudi made a derogatory comment about my past contributions implying that my contributions to this article were not reliable and because I changed my mind and decided that I did not have enough proof to support what I was saying. User:FDR:FDR | Talk 1:55 PM August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Given that I already have asked you not to restore my comments on this article and they are my own to delete your restoring them without my permission a second time strikes me as unacceptable. Please don't do this again. I already explained why I deleted my comments. User:FDR:FDR | Talk 9:53 PM August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Famous non PH Black Masons (are there any?)

Are there any famous Black Freemasons who weren't (or aren't) part of a Prince Hall Lodge? --21:58, 27 August 2005 132.241.245.49 (*)

I don't know of any famous one's off hand. Then again, I'm in Australia and .. well, there aren't any famous black people in general as there are probably less than ten thousand of them in existance here, in the nomenclature you Americans would apply the term black as such (being of African decent, I'd assume).

There are black Freemasons who aren't Prince Hall Lodge, that I can promise you, because there are currently 242 countries in the world that aren't America. And I guarantee you there'd be (African) blacks living amongst them also. :P -- Jachin 19:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can name one. The most famous black non ph mason is Rev. Jesse Jackson. 05:57, 31 --August 2005 24.223.230.105 (*)

Nope this is Jesse Lodge

http://www.geocities.com/HARMONYLODGE88/

thanks though.

Vandalism?!

I want a clear answer why my additions - based on actual mason texts and information garnered from authentic sources - where deleted and my entries hailed as vandalism. I move that the person who did so is seeking to hide the truth and is biased against it, and I want the truth put back on the wikipedia entry. Belgarath TS 10:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Not being the person reverting you, I got curious and dod have a look at your edits to the article. Now, I'm not going to adress each and every one of them, but...

• You claim that "different jurisdictions of governance of Freemasonry, all bound to a central office with each each sovereign and independent of the others in public out of the need for secrecy, and usually defined according to a geographic territory. There is thus no central Masonic authority as far as the public is concerned, and to keep to this falsehood each jurisdiction maintains a list of other jurisdictions that it formally recognizes as a way to keep this fiction alive." I don't believe that your statement to this effect is true, but I do however challenge you to provide a reputable source backing up this claim.
• You claim that there exist "a official handbook that has no ISBN." While lack of ISBN don't mean nothing (it just means it has no ISBN), I again challenge you to provide a reputable source backing up this claim. Note that while each Grand Lodge has one or more book of rituals, these often differ significantly from each other - thus there can be argued that there are eitehr many or none "official" handbooks - not one.
• Furthermore, you claim that "There are 33 different degrees in all, with the 33rd degree position being held by only one man at a time." Not all the masonic systems has 33 degrees, and more than one person is holding the 33rd degree at any given time. If you disagree, I again challenge you to provide a reputable source backing up this claim.

So, basicly, unless you source your claims I don't think you'll get far. Also, I don't think there is any basis for the NPOV and Disputed tags you slapped on the article. I won't remove them until you had a change to reply thought.

WegianWarrior 11:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I have the book in front of me, but it would be impossible to prove that given that this is the internet and I understand that. What I am against is the fact that I am not the only person who has been censored on this entry and this talk page shows that in abundance. If anybody takes the dispute tags off before *everybody* who was censored/silences has the chance to say there thing for or against my data, I will simply put them back up as my duty as a wikipedian. A reading od this talk page itself shows that there has been data censored and that masons are activly patroling this entry to fight off data being posted in it they do not like, and that goes against the wikipedia stance on NPOV among others. I want the truth to be shown, even if it pisses off a few masons who want to play 'lets hide the secret' and that is what I firmly belive wikipedia to be about, information to the masses. Belgarath TS 11:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not a mason, so I can comfortably say that you have to provide source material that can be verified. Wikipedia isn't original research. If someone cannot find the book at the local library for example, only you have a copy, then it doesn't do anyone much good. No Academic person would take you seriously. If you can provide credible sources, then knock yourself out. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 11:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand that. What I have a problem with is that the publicly available information that is available is being censored from this entry by people who seem content to treat my desire to help add information as vandalism as that is the fastest way for them to make me look like I am doing soemthing in the wrong when they are in fact the ones carefully editing the information avalable. I made several points that have not been brought up that where in fact deleted, and even if I was wrong on one thing that does not prove that i was wrong on soemthing else. Belgarath TS 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If you have the book in front of you, it should be easy for you to provide the name of the book, the autor, the publisher, the date of publication, any ISBN it may have and other relevant data. Or is the book so inreputable that you know it will be "shoot down in flames" if you state your source?

The book is titled "Morals and Dogma" Belgarath TS

If by "Morals and Dogma," you mean "Morals And Dogma: Of The Ancient And Accepted Scottish Rite Of Freemasonry" by Albert Pike, it does in fact have an ISBN. Check out 159547997X, 0766126153 or 141791100X as ISBN numbers on Amazon.com. These are all ISBN numbers for "Morals and Dogma." This text is also freely available over the internet. Chtirrell 23:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The book in front of me has *NO* ISBN printed on the inside cover, and says that it was printed Copyright 1950 by the Supreme Council (Mother Council of The World) of the Inspectors general Knights Commanders of the home of the Temple of solomon of the Thirty-third Degree. That alone should prove that there in fact 33 different degrees, even if you had not already admited as much after your attempt to hide the fact by reverting my addition of that data and claiming its addition was vandalism. Belgarath TS 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Having followed this page for a long time, and sometimes contributed to it, I must say I don't agree with your claim that masons "are activly patroling this entry to fight off data being posted in it they do not like" - rather, both masons and non-masons are keeping an eye on this page to make sure that the information provided reflects the truth and is well sourced. There is a lot of unreliable information about masonery out there. WegianWarrior 11:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

All the more information to make sure the truth is out there, even if Masons do not like the idea of there 'secrets' being public. Belgarath TS 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I *am* a freemason, in the UK, and so I feel qualified to say the following. It is entirely wrong to say that there is only one holder of the 33rd Degree at any one time: I know several, and I have a book of the complete list in front of me.

There are indeed many official books without ISBNs. This is because they are privately printed. The Rules of the Oxford Union Society have no ISBN either - I don't quite see the point.

As far as your point about a secretive international government of Masonry, I could quote chapter and verse from official publications about it not being true, but I doubt that you would believe me. You yourself say above, I want a clear answer why my additions - based on actual mason texts and information garnered from authentic sources - where deleted and my entries hailed as vandalism. Could I ask for your sources for this claim? Hackloon 13:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The book being spoken of was written by a mason, correct? Thus it is technicaly a mason text. Belgarath TS 10:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Belgarath TS, I still think that my deletion of your odd contributions was appropriate. I would point out the Ernest Borgnine holds the 33rd degree. If you are proposing that he is the very nexus of Masonic power, I would really like to see your sources. I say we drop the tags in a couple of days. Paul, in Saudi 14:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting the tags back as this has not been resolved, and I personaly feel that your just trying to sweep my objectios under the rug. Belgarath TS 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

---

It wasn't your deletions of his posts in this instance Paul, I reverted his vandalism thinking that no one of sane mind who having read the Wikipedia rules could seriously have intended what was written as an ammendment of contribution and thought he was just taking the piss as the ammendments were vilifying, ill founded and purely opinion based.

Thus I figured I should warn him that constant vandalism (As I had found throughout his contributions list) is really not acceptable, in a polite note left on his user talk page. He responded to this insisting I committed a 'personal attack' on him and alleged I was conspiring to censor his truths from the Wikipedia community and claimed I defaced his userpage (He doesn't seem to know the difference between user and talk pages) on my talk page.

I replied explaining where I was coming from verbosely so there could be no misunderstanding and his reaction was to go off on my talk page insisting he hadn't done anything wrong and asking for proof (Which you find gentlemen have already provided.) then come here to immediately throw up a few boilerplates and complain in the talk page.

I consider this matter resolved and am taking down the boilerplates, if this behaviour continues I recommend we inform an admin and get them to sort this matter out. This is someone's personal problem with users enforcing the Wikipedian code, not something related to this article in my opinion.

Jachin 19:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I NEVER vandalized anything. I added data I knew to be true, just as millions of other peopel on wikipedia do all the time. The fact of the matter is that you disagree with me and you have a bias you want to project, while I simple want the truth good or bad or secret or public to be placed here for all to see. I can understand that as a mason many of you would rather not have your secrets told so publicly, but that matters not to me as this is a place for information not personal bias or agenda. Belgarath TS 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Actually, Jachin, according to his userpage, it seems BelgerathTS has a problem with anything that doesn't conform to what he sees as truth. However, I also know that it is very easy to find negative (and public) evidence to disprove his claims, and I think it would be useful to bring said evidence right out in the open to close the book on the issue. If anyone feels this is not constructive, feel free to delete it. I'm not going to get offended. I'm going to limit my scope here to the three points that were listed earlier.

That is not true. I have a problem wiht people covering up the truth, and the fact of the matter is that the artical states there are only a few degrees when you yourself have just stated that there are 33. The fact remains that you are by deleteing my additions covering up the truth and I am against that. I will continue to dispute NPOV on this artical as a result. Belgarath TS 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well, you obviously a) don't know what you're talking about, or b) you are picking at straws to cause arguments. Blue Lodge Masonry and AASR are two different things. All public information given both by the bodies themselves and outside sources states this clearly, as does the article. There are only three degrees in Blue Lodge Masonry, and the rest are AASR -- this is not a secret. They don't confer any status upon you at all. I've read Morals and Dogma, and it is not the absolute truth; it is a work of (largely borrowed) philosophy. However the fact remains that you clearly did not read the article, or you read it and did not understand it. A lack of understanding is not an excuse to claim violations of policy. As a note, there's an article on the US News website about Freemasonry that may be easier for you to accept as truth. For all others, I will add it as an external link when I get a chance.MSJapan

No matter what, you must at least conceed that I did not vandalize anything or attempt to do so. Your own ignorance shows, and unlike you I am not looking to gain status and thus that makes me the one in the right. Belgarath TS 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As regards the 33rd degree, a look at the Supreme Council NMJ Officers' Page shows that there are currently 35 33rd degree Masons serving as officers in that jurisdiction. I would assume that they are all alive, though some might disagree. Additionally, the Supremem Council NMJ FAQ has this to say on the subject: What is the 33rd degree? -- This degree is conferred only on a limited number of 32nd degree Scottish Rite Masons who have performed outstanding service within Scottish Rite or the Masonic fraternity or those who have given exceptional service in some other field of endeavor.

The ISBN point has been made, but I'll coment briefly on it so I am not accused of being unable to disprove all points. There are many Grand Lodge documents that are publically available (such as the Constitutions or the Proceedings) that do not have ISBNs because they are private publications only available directly from their source and not at a bookstore. In smaller scale, Lodge histories, AQC, and other resource materials also have no ISBNs, and I have quite a few (non-Masonic) dissertations from Digital Dissertations that don't have ISBNs.

I also took the liberty of getting some material out of the Constitutions and Regulations of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts AF&AM. I think it is fairly representative of GL Constitutions, and is a product of the oldest GL in the New World (I won't go into the contention about that here; it suffices for my purposes). I quote from the 2004 edition.

Sec. 200: The Grand Lodge, when congregated, is a representation of every individual Brother of its jurisdiction. It is the supreme Masonic authority...and is subject only to the Ancient Landmarks and to such limitations as it may impose upon itself or are imposed by the law of the land. (p.5)

Clearly, a GL is subject only to itself and no other GL. Neither is it above the law of the land in which it presides. Also note this is the first thing stated in the entire Constitution after the Preamble, a definition of Masonic Common Law, and a statement of the Landmarks. I also will avoid quoting the section of the preamble that states Masonry takes no political action whatsoever, as I feel the point is more than made.MSJapan

---

MSJapan, They don't seem to be interested in parlay, I think that's the end of that chapter. Although I'd love to get my hands on his first edition one of one original book that outlines the 'truths of the masonites'. Hrm, you know, it really bugs me when people call Freemasons masonites, masonite is a kind of drywalling over here in Australia. Always makes me think they're calling us gyprock.  :( Jachin 14:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Just becuase somebody is not from AU -I will not say 'is not Aussie' becouse thats close to french for 'too' or 'as well' last I checked - does not mean the person means offence, or is trying to insult you. If anything be mad at the company and not the people trying to define a set of people using the words available. If thats why you went off on me, I would love for you to tell me your sorry. Belgarath TS 23:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

@ Belgarath TS:I'm putting my reply down here, instead of splitting up the discussion above, hopefully this will make it wasier to follow. You do, at long last, give a name of the book you claim to have used for a source. You failed, however, to provide any of the other information I required; autor, date published, publisher and any ISBN it might have. You don't believe in making it easy for others to check the verifiability of your source, do you? Joking aside, it has been suggested that the book you been using as a source is, in fact, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry by Albert Pike, published for the first time in 1872. I also do hope you realise that if so, that book was written for the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite in the USA - and that what held true in 1872 for one juristiction in one nation under one appendant body does not hold true in 2005 across the globe and across several appendant bodies? Anyhow, could you please verify that we are at least talking about the same book, and if not, I again ask you to provide autor, date published, publisher and any ISBN the book might have so the other editors can verify it? After all, we are all interested in a factual, verified article.

The truth is out there, but the lies are inside ones head. WegianWarrior 04:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

as I said above, the book contains no ISBN number and if it did, I would gladly give it here. It is a very old book and from the look of itwas printed in 1950 as per above. Belgarath TS 07:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No worry, if it's printed in 1950, it's printed before publishers started using ISBN. However, you still have not - as far as I can see - verified that we are indeed talking about the same book. If it is (which I would like you to state openly - even more so if it's not the same book), I'm sure it would also be usefull if you could state what parts of the book you're taking the information from - while I've never read it, I'm given to understand it's a pretty hefty tome. Expecting someone to read thru several hundred pages to verify your claims is kinda rude IMHO.

No one has tried to deny that the Scottish Rite has 33 degrees. However, what people have tried to point out is that not all freemasons follow the scottish rite, so it is wrong to say that freemasonery in general has 33 degrees. Also, the misinformation you added to the article, which was subsecently removed, was that there was just _one_ person holding the 33rd degree at any given time, not that it was 33 degrees. Note that some people argue that only the Blue Lodge are truely universal freemasonery, and as such argue that there is only three degrees. However, I disagree with them on that.

WegianWarrior 09:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It may very well be the same book, but my copy is very old and not in the best of shape. As I said the work 'pike' is identifiable but its hard to tell. Its a very large book, bound in red and gold. As far as 33 degres goes, even the possability that 33 degreess existed was edited out and the least somebody could have done is changed my changes to reflect that, instead they where deleted and I was told I was a vandal when I was not and all I was trying to do was help. That is rude, imho.

Belgarath TS 22:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that you havn't provided any indication where in said book - if it's the same - you claim to have found the information, lets take the degrees. Freemasonery is, in some respect, a catch all phrase covering several apperant bodies (as it spesificly says in the article, if you have read it). The basis for all of them is the Blue Lodge, which has three degrees (as said in the article). Let me qoute from the article on the Scottish Rite:

Difficult for non-Masons to comprehend, completion of the first three Masonic degrees represents the attainment of the highest rank in all of Masonry. Any third degree Master Mason stands as an equal before every other Master Mason, regardless of position, class, or degree. For this reason, the higher degrees are sometimes referred to as appendent degrees. Appendent degrees represent a lateral movement in Masonic Education rather than an upward movement.

Now, as for the Scottish Rite, it has a total of 33 degrees, the 33rd being a honourary degree. The Swedish Rite (which I'm most familiar with), has a total of 11 degrees, the 11th being a honourary degree and until recently also 'secret' (not more secret than being refered to as "upper ten" thought). The article on the York Rite is a bit unclear, and I'm not too familiar with the rite myself, but the number of degrees are between the Swedish and the Scottish rites. To top it off, the Ancient and Primitive Rite has 95 degrees, which definitly is a wee bit more than 33.

Now, as you can see, there is no point in claiming (falsely, as it turns out), that there is 33 degrees in freemasonery. There is 33 degrees in the Scottish rite (as rightly pointed out in that article), but there is more to the masonery than one apperant body. By analogy, it would be like looking at New York, and then claim that all buildings in the US are skyscrapers. If I went to the article on the US and made that claim, I would rigtfully be reverted.

And I still have to see you provide a reputable source to your claim that "different jurisdictions of governance of Freemasonry, all bound to a central office with each each sovereign and independent of the others in public out of the need for secrecy, and usually defined according to a geographic territory. There is thus no central Masonic authority as far as the public is concerned, and to keep to this falsehood each jurisdiction maintains a list of other jurisdictions that it formally recognizes as a way to keep this fiction alive." I seriously don't think Pike - if it is his book you have in front of you - would make such a claim, because he ought to know better.

You have also failed to provide a reputable source for your claim that there exists one (my emphasis) official handbook for freemasonsery, and your claim that only one (my emphasis again) person at any given time holds the 33rd degree (which isn't, as I proven, universal for freemasonery even).

WegianWarrior 04:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The information about the 'central office was from a private interview of a very old gentalman I did in an attempt to get a better understanding of the issues and information involved, and if you ckeck other entries I have added to you will find that I enjoy doing interviews to collect data. Being ignorant of much, I am simply going on the information I was given from what I belive to be reputable sources. If they are wrong I or my intentions can hardly be found at fault, and I find your judgmental verbal abuse of my attempts to be helpfull to the rest of humanity very 'un brotherly'. I admonish you for it. Belgarath TS 10:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if my comments come across as 'verbal abuse', i can assure you that it is not my intention. However, being a norwegian with English as my second languae, leads to a rather, how to put it, clipped style in my written comments that I do realise can come across as rather harsh at times.

As far as you adding information to the article based on personal interviews - that comes across as original research, something which is in general frowned upon in the Wikipedia. You may or may not agree with this policy, but it's there (Lord knows I want to add heaps of more information to the articles I've written about Norwegian rifles, but since I can't find reputable sources, I'll have to controll the urge). Your initiative is laudable, but sadly not appliable here.

Now that we have found the source for one of your claims, I am still interested in hearing where in Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry (if indeed that is the book you used as a source) you found references to a 'official handbook' and 'only one person holding the 33rd degree at any given time', seeing as I found an only copy of the book here and a analisis of it here. The number of the chapter should be sufficient.

WegianWarrior 10:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This book might be what you are talking about, if you lean in real close, you can see it refers to the supreme council of the 33rd degree. Also, if only one man holds the 33rd degree, then how did two 33rders publish a book together? Your allegations are merely conspiratorial nonsense based on really old urban legends all of us have heard time and time again. Jachin 03:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That actualy looks familure, considering some of the information I tried to helpfully add. Belgarath TS 10:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Wait, just a moment, I'm wrong. The book was written by Arturo de Hoyos, 33°, Grand Archivist and Grand Historian, and Dr. S. Brent Morris, 33°, G.C., editor of Heredom, with a Foreword and Appendix by Dr. James T. Tresner, 33°, G.C. That plus Ernest Borgnine makes four confirmed. I'm sure you could dig up a few hundred if, prior to making allegations of conspiracy to silence you, you had of verified your 'facts' by using even a basic search engine check. Jachin 03:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Belgarath claims, "The book in front of me has *NO* ISBN printed on the inside cover, and says that it was printed Copyright 1950 by the Supreme Council (Mother Council of The World) of the Inspectors general Knights Commanders of the home of the Temple of solomon of the Thirty-third Degree. That alone should prove that there in fact 33 different degrees, even if you had not already admited as much after your attempt to hide the fact by reverting my addition of that data and claiming its addition was vandalism.

It's a common misconception that there is a secret / hidden 33rd degree. I think we have proven beyond reasonable doubt that there is such a thing. The reversion of your update was because it was not factually based, was based on personal research and opinion, had no citable references and you were the only source. The update also made out as though there was an evil plot against humanity brought about by Freemasons, which is equal to vandalism on Jewish pages alleging there is a secretive plot from international Jewry to run the world.

That is called anti-semitism. Just because there's no buzz-phrase for being anti-Freemason that you've heard of in the past doesn't make your allegations any less offensive to Freemasons either. Jachin 03:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not being anti semetic, and I could never be considering my own heritage. You have no idea what you are talking about and your just grasping at straws in an attempt to make me look like the bad guy so I will either go away or be forced to, because you know some of my alligations have been correct, even if some of my data has been flawed. You are a discrdit to the brotherhood based on what littel I know of it, at least the others have been kinder and benevolant in there attempts to help resolve this, yet you seem to enjoy giving into your agnger and attacking me. Belgarath TS 10:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Belgarath TS

Lots of talk on the 33rd Degree!!! I am sorry that someone has put "vandalism" and your name together.

The Structure of Freemasonry can be confusing. Yes, I am a Freemason. In my opinion I can understandy why you might say that there are 33 degrees in Freemasonry, but you would be more accurate in saying there are only three.

You can view a pictorial representation of the Degree Structure at http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/degrees/life.html which was published in Life- but I have not checked this( "The Structure of Freemasonry." Life. vol. 41, no. 15. 8 October 1956. Time Inc., Chicago. [from a painting by Everett Henry] printed size: 21" x 14".) .

Alternative graphic representations can be found at http://masonicworld.com/education/files/STRUCTURE%20OF%20FREEMASONRY.htm. There is another version at http://www.mastermason.com/daylight760/structure.htm

They are all lacking in some respects, but I understand them being a Freemason.

I will try and explain them. When I first joined Freemasonry, just like all other men, I joined a "Blue Lodge". You can find the three degrees at http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/degrees/structure.html at the bottom under the heading "Blue Lodge". At the top of this lower section is something called a "Master Mason" - the third degree and "the highest level". BUT, a Master Mason is then entitled to join other Masonic Organizations, there are lots of them ! For instance "Knights Templar", "Scottish Rite" and "Royal Arch".

I don't like these picture as they suggest you move "up" when you complete other degrees - in fact your really move in other organizations which have being a member of a "Blue Lodge" as a prerequisite. I would hope that the pictures are formed by showing upward movement purely to make them fit on a page, don't let that create the impression they are like Officers in the Military who command those below. A Mason who hold the 33 Degree is only a "Master Mason" and has not sway over a Blue Lodge. The only thing which does is "Grand Lodge" which it the governing body of all "Blue Lodges" in a jurisdiction and often has mundane tasks like fundraising and administration....

I don't think those changing your edits were suppressing any "secrets" - just trying to make the article as accurate as possible given their personal experience of Freemasonry.

Thanks to all those who add/edit the pages on wikipedia - its a great source of information on many things!

Belgarath, if you want to check this out further, mention this at dinner parties and work. I would be surprised if you don't already know a Mason or two who might explain it better.

Editing Quibble

I notice that throughout the article, the word "Anglo" is used ("The Anglo and Continental traditions", "Most Anglo jurisdictions"), and although I am not aware of "Angloo" being a derogatory term, upon reading it, it certainly seems diminished, and therefore inapropriate to an encyclopedia article.

Also, it seems to get tossed about willy-nilly, which obfuscates the meaning. Is it replacable with a single term such as "English-speaking", or "British", or would it be better to re-evaluate every instance in favor of getting an accurate sense as opposed to a standardized one?MSJapan

English-speaking isn't really accurate enough as there are hundreds of countries that speak English. For example, "In Arabic traditions.." "In Middle Eastern traditions.." those two have totally different meanings as the middle east is a place, but Arabs are a general stereotype of genetic, historic and cultural people who have spread over various parts of the earth further than the bounderies of the middle east, similar to the Anglo-Saxon culture.

One thing that has a habit of vexing me, not just when dealing with this Wikipedia article, but most online resources about Freemasonry is, it all seems to have a heavy American focus. So I'm guessing that's where the Anglo and not British comes from. When I write on a topic I generally try and make my writing style global and not regional, but this isn't the case for all writers unfortunately. Jachin 14:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I can see the bias. Freemasonry started in England, but I'm not even sure the Anglo is itself correct. Clearly, a standardized replacement isn't possible, but I also think that it generalizes a bit much in certain ways. I'll think about it a bit, and see if I can't edit one section and see what happens. Worse comes to worse, somebody can revert the thing.MSJapan

NPOV and Factual Accuracy Debate

This article has been nominated for not following the NPOV and Factual Accuracy Standards set by Wikipedia. I believe that the best way to handle this is to open the topic up for disscussion, have people speak their minds and then place a vote if it adheres or breaks the a) NPOV standard and the b) Factual Accuracy Standard. I hope that this helps to work things out. Chtirrell 02:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this article adheres to the NPOV Standard. I believe that this article adheres to the Factual Accuracy Standard.Chtirrell 02:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced we really need a vote, but here goes: All the information that I can find various (reputable) masonic and non-masonic sources for check out - so I believe the article adheres to the Factual Accuracy Standard. I also believes the article adheres to the NPOV standard, better so than many other articles on Wikipedia. WegianWarrior 03:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I find this article to adhere to the NPOV Standard. I find this article to adhere to the Factual Accuracy Standard also. Jachin 03:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I find this article to adhere to the NPOV Standard. I find this article to adhere to the Factual Accuracy Standard also. Paul, in Saudi 04:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, every source I have found affirms what is said the article, or the article clarifies the limits of the accuracy of the information. Therefore,I find this article to adhere to the NPOV Standard. I also find this article to adhere to the Factual Accuracy Standard.MSJapan

I find this article to adhere to the NPOV Standard. I find this article to adhere to the Factual Accuracy Standard also. --SarekOfVulcan 06:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I find that this artical does not follow the NPOV standard as it only contains data that gives a overall positive outlook on freemasonry. I find that this artical - due to the bias displayed - does not follow the FAS. It is wikipedias job to show both sides, and the negitive keeps being edited out by masons looking to protect there self image. Belgarath TS at 07:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC).

I find this article to adhere to the NPOV Standard. I find this article to adhere to the Factual Accuracy Standard also. Hackloon 19:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The votes as they stand are 1 for and 7 against this article not meeting NPOV/FAS standards. I am satisfied that this matter has been settled. If we do not have any protests within 24 hours I will remove the boiler-plates. Jachin 23:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The boiler plates have been removed as per my above comment. Jachin 16:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Article Structure Revisions

Hey all, I just wanted to put forward a suggestion, something that has been irking me about the continuity and readability of this article. At present it reads too much like the article title should be American Freemasonry. With a bit of a shuffle, this could be fixed and we could universalise the article and not localise it as much.

The way I propose we do this is, remove any US-only references to locations unless they're mentionable, or provide international equivilents (such as the location of the southern jurisdiction of the 33rd degree being mentioned uneccesarily) and by swapping some chapter titles around.

Prince Hall masonry is in one of 243 countries in the world. I don't believe it should be the second sub-heading in. Nor should Women in Freemasonry be sharing the same position as it screws the continuity. Principals and Activities and Ritual and Symbols and other information pertinant to UNIVERSAL Freemasonry should totally be above all that locationalised jazz.

With the addition of Estonia and Russia sub-headings in the article, I feel it'd be fruitful to make a heading of International Freemasonry and have Estonia, Russia, Women and Prince Hall all tucked neatly into it. That way the primary guts of the article will be on the topic of Freemasonry, not the flavours thereof.

If there's no protests with this, I'll swap the article around and we'll see how it looks for a day or two and if there's no major qualms after a few more tweaks or what not, we might just have improved the articles readability to a drastic degree. So, opinions, suggestions, criticism, anyone? Jachin 04:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I felt it had a distinctly English bias to it in parts, especially with things like "Masonic Centre" as they are still more or less called "Temples" (or Buildings, even) in the US, and spelled "Center". I have to nail you on PH, because it does have a foothold in other countries, especially with a US military presence. as a matter of fact, I think there are more PH Lodges in Japan than there are regular Lodges.

The problem is that any jurisdiction can do what it wants to a certain extent, and unless we write an article on all 50 jurisdictionas in the US and the other 242 countries, not to mention countries like Germany with multiple GLs, we're going to have a bias no matter what we do. I don't think that restructuring is the answer, so much as adding new sections into the existing ones, and clarifying the limits of the information we have.MSJapan

MSJapan, I respect your opinion on the matter and wish to discuss this further. What other country apart from America and Japan has Prince Hall Masonry then? I am guessing that due to the fact the article doesn't mention it being anywhere but the US, yet also the fact it mentions that many UGL's still don't recognise it it may be a sore point or have some emotional attachment to it's members, but from my point of view, I've never heard of it and it doesn't sound like anything that should be placed above Principals & Activities and Rituals & Symbols, which are what Freemasonry is about.

The other problems lie in the fact that every flavour of Freemasonry can argue that because PH is up above the actual -meat- of the article, therefore their flavour should be also. It just leaves things open to too much interpretation and looks unprofessional from a Wikipedian entry point of view.

Actually, if PH is in Japan as well as the US, perhaps it's worthy of it's own article? I would still like to go ahead with the article chapter correcting if you don't mind, perhaps if you humour me a while and see how things look when completed? I'd much prefer the article to be: introduction, meat of Freemasonry details, various other kinds of flavours, et cetera, footer, and not introduction, one flavour, bit of meat, two more flavours, more meat, footer. It just doesn't look right to me. Jachin 23:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The roots of PH Masonry are clearly in America (in Dorchster, Massachusetts, to be exact), but it has spread to other countries mostly through the military. So, generally, wherever there is a US kilitary presence, there is probably a PH Lodge of some type. There are also PHGLs in many US states as well. However, I think that it started as a "separate but equal" idea, and I'm not sure if otherwise there is enough material available to ctreate a whole article on it. Then again, some good books have been written on the subject.

So that being said, honestly, from one Wikipedian to another, do you think it's right for us to have it as a primary sub-heading before the actual DETAILS of what this entire article is about? From what I've read about PH and American generic FM's there seems to be some contraversial aspects (still) which is odd yet the nature of the beast per se, so realistically if we got some old bloke who had his nose out of joint about PHFM they could slap a NPOV on us for having it as a chapter in it's own right above all other FM related text.

That's why I wanted to shufle things around to see to it that all seperate types of FM are catagorised in their own section and not scattered through the article. It'd be like the Christian article, or better example, Roman Catholic article. There are different chapters within it, but the article itself is primarily about roman catholicism with the various chapters giving a mention in their own sub-section, not scattered through the page.

Anyways, get back to me on this one so I can rearrange the article so it reads more linier, but as I said, if it will offend you or anyone I won't go ahead with it, but from my perspective the article is scattered and doesn't read as well as it should at the moment, especially since the addition of Romanian and Estonian stuff. Jachin 12:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a good idea. I'm looking forward to see how it pans out. WegianWarrior 08:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of erroneous and misleading information on both the front page (which is American biased) and the discussion page. I am a great suppoerter of Paul McCartney (Maca as he is known) and am an 18th degree mason, as well as being a devoted follower of Jesus. i have followed the fama fraternatitis to its logical conclusion, and may consider my self erudite. I suggest we ditch all the content of world domination, and conspiracy theory as these are probably only self fulfilling prophesies. Yanto888

The global domination / conspiracy stuff might be crap, but certain people out there legitimately believe that Freemasonry is a conspiracy, so removing it wouldn't be presenting both sides of the story accurately. Although there is a vocal minority who hold this belief, their opinions should be respected if put forward accurately. Jachin 18:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

True but of those that who,legitimately believe freemasonry to be a conspiracy, have actually undergone any freemasonry ritual? How many have been involved in the craft, which they point their fingers at. How many have left the mason's and hold a grudge, because they just didn't get it?

Yanto888 perfected and still a big supporter of Jesus

Even if the conspiracy theorist don't know sh** of what they are talking about, their view should still be reported in the article. Preferable with an explonation why they are wrong, but that might conflict with NPOV. WegianWarrior 09:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The other fact which might be commented on is the 30% decline in numbers of freemasons, esp in the UK. As many of the older masons cannot be actively involved and fewer and fewer candidates are coming forward, perhaps we are seeing the demise of Freemasonry. Masons now actively seek new members whereas in "olden" times one had to be invited. Just look at the fortunes of the other so called conspiracists over the last few years i.e. the Bilterburg group. look up the fortunes of Mandelson, ABB and Kenneth clarke and it will be soon apparent that rather than a elite click, bent on ruling the world, they are merely a think tank. Would an organistion that planned to rule the world lose members so fast?

Yanto888

Indeed, the conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry are generally based on zealous thoughts and lack of hard evidence, yet that's what makes conspiracy theories so amusing. As for the decline of Masonic numbers, in Australia at the moment we are experiencing a massive boom in it. One of the possible reasons for the decline was the priod after WWII where most men were involved or knew someone involved, the baby boomer generation saw their parents activities as something to rebel against, ergo there is a huge generation gap. I'm in my twenties, many other freemasons I know are either in their 60's or 20's also. So that's my thoughts on the matter at least. :P Jachin 23:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Would very much agree with that. as a tail end of the baby boomer myself, i would have been horrified to see that the free thinking , free loving Hippie of 1968 had gone totally "Square", excuse the pun. Nothing would hve persuaded me just after we had successfully made the American government climb down over Vietnam (we thought) to be a goddam freemason, they just weren't hip. perhaps it is a case of becoming what we hate the most. My roots are deeply Socialist, but joined our right wing conservatives recently. 30% decline is the figure I was given by a very venerable and rspected freemason recently.

Yanto888

Take into account the recent 'hip to be square' attitude of the latest generation and I can see some growth occuring provided things are handled correctly and modern Freemasonry makes it's prescence known and felt in modern society I guess. But thanks for verifying my theory, a tail end baby boomer confirming it really helps it have some credence in my mind. The massive age gap had been bugging me for ages actually.

I must admit though, I love the fact that half my brothers are in their 50's - 60's and the other half are in their 20's. You can learn from one half and party with the other.  :) Jachin 12:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"Hip to be square," I've never heard that expression in the Masonic context. I like it :) I think I might use that in my lodge's up-coming "Rusty Trowel Night." Chtirrell 14:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh definately, please do! I kicked it off amongst my friends and it became quite a growing in-joke over the past few years, it'd be great to see it become common taxonomy.  ;) Now if we were allowed to recruit, imagine the marketting campaign one could achieve. Heck, I'm sure someone could win a presidency with such an awe inspiring slogan. Ok, maybe I just need more sleep, or coffee. :P Jachin 16:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, btw, are you guys in agreeance with my idea of changing the structure of the chapters so this article reads more fluently? I've just realised we're all going so terribly off topic, but beh, a good conversation never hurts.  ;) Jachin 16:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

the other thing that should have stopped me joining the masons was having spent five years in the Army, being constantly told to "Stay off the Square" by a Regimental sergeant Major

yanto888

Article Revision Redux

In an effort to get back on track, I've started a new topic. I like the new format to a point, but it still needs a little work, because I don't believe that Estonia and Russia merit their own top level section any more than any other country.

So, maybe there needs to be another slight rework. We know that there are things common to all Masonry worldwide (as long as it's regular). Per haps that should be the beginning of the article, then followed by breakdowns of Masonry in as many countries as information can be found.MSJapan

Agreed. As I suggested above, to assist with the linier read of the article the core of the article should be about Freemasonry, superfluous subjects such as flavours and rites can be put under a general top level heading and sub headings rather than them being scattered around.

Women in Freemasonry is apparently a touchy subject, so far everyone I have spoken to agree's that it should be merely a portal chapter through to co-freemasonry. But that being said, I don't see it causing any harm under the International Freemasonry heading perhaps. As an aside, I'd love to see more articles on co-freemasonry starting up, they don't really exist in Australia as largely as they do abroad, so I'd love to see some international opinions on them.

MSJapan, you're the only person who voiced a concern about this reworking of the TOC and headings, so please, if you wouldn't mind, can I grab your official aye or nay on the matter? I'll make the changes as soon as it's unanimously agreed upon, or if you have any concerns and we can't address them we can leave it as is if need be.  :) Jachin 01:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I would by no means call myself official, but this is how I would like to see the article reworked, with numbering scheme discretionary:

1. What is Freemasonry

1.1 Introduction (the current Membership, Principles, and Landmarks sections should go here)

1.2 Symbols and Ritual (incl. Degrees section, remove Freemasonry in Arts + Sciences section)

1.3 General Organizational Structure

1.4 Appendant and Related Bodies

1.4.1 AASR

1.4.2 York

1.4.3 Shrine

1.4.4 Grotto

1.4.5 Demolay

1.4.6 IORG

1.4.7 OES

(and so forth and so on, covering Job's Daughters, Daughters of the Nile, and whatever else pops up)

1.5 Prince Hall (I would say it's big enough to get its own heading, especially since it works independently of the GL or GLs already in a given state or country)

1.6 Honorary Bodies like York Rite College, each of which should have a subheading)

1.7 Masonically Influenced Groups (maybe needs to go under US, as all I can think of are BPOE, Kiwanis, Rotary and so forth, which are all fraternal orgs started by Freemasons in the late 19th - early 20th centuries)

1.8 Co-Masonry

2. History of Freemasonry (by country)

2.1 England

2.2 US

2.3 etc.

3. Modern Freemasonry (by country)

3.1 England

3.2 US

3.3 etc.

4. Criticisms and Responses (current Section 11 + Anticlericalism section should be included)

4.1 Historical Crit and Responses (I read the Illuminati transcript and found it laughable, but historical context is relevant to the modern. Also the Morgan Affair.)

4.2 Modern Crit and Responses (P2 should go here IMHO)

5. Masonry in Everyday Contexts (or whatever you want to call it; should include the Cultural References section, plus things like "square deal", etc.)

External Links is good as is, though I'm going to take out "International" at some point because it's redundant.

I think this should get all the necessary info, cover as many countries as is necessary, fulfill NPOV, and make the article read more logically.MSJapan

I went ahead and reordered the external lodge links.MSJapan

Kilwinning Lodge

Why no mention of the world's oldest lodge? Am I missing something?

We are avoiding country-specific items wherever possible. Secondly, the standard history of Freemasonry via verifiable information starts with UGLE. Having read the book by Bro. J.A. Ness about Lodge Mother Kilwinning 0, his medieval material is not verifiable for the purposes of this article. By Ness' own information, the documents pointing to Kilwinning's origin (1200s, IIRC) date to over 200 years after the origin date (sometime in the 1400s). Furthermore, we would have to go even farther back and consider the German stonemasons who built Strasbourg Cathedral and Kilwinning Chapel to truly consider old lodges, and at that point, it's really an unwinnable contest. Gould has an entire chapter on German Operative Masonry, actually.

Therefore, in order to stick to fact alone as regards the main article, some omissions have had to be made. However, as we do not yet have a section on Scotland, Kilwinning would be a good starting point for that.MSJapan

Grand Lodge Wikipedia article

I only just discovered this, but the Grand Lodge article listed as a main article right at the top of Freemasonry has been removed due to copyright violation (it contains material apparently taken from the RGLE site). This happened last week, so it will be deleted tomorrow. I think it would be a good idea to rewrite that article as a new section and stick it in here someplace if no one is rewriting the GL article already.MSJapan