Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 22

This is an archive - please do not edit, but feel free to raise any questions again on Talk:Freemasonry.

Concerning Prince Hall Masonic Recognition

"It is now quite usual for both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges to have ethnically diverse membership."

I am curious how we can make an accurate assessment that it is "quite usual" for lodges to have ethnically divers membership. As a Texas Mason, I do not feel this is true and do not think this statement is accurate. I would like to change it to "There are a growing number of both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges that have ethnically diverse membership." --Eshafoshaf 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that your proposed change is more accurate. Here in Connecticut, several of our lodges are becoming more ethnically diverse. However, the majority of "mainstream" lodges are %100 comprised of European Americans and the majority of prince hall lodges are %100 African Americans. Although the numbers are growing, it is not quite usual. It's my hope that in the next few years the statement "It is now quite usual for both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges to have ethnically diverse membership." will be completely true. Chtirrell 00:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

While I think that both Eshafoshaf and Chtirrell under-estimate the diversity (especially when it comes to PH lodges), I do have to agree that the proposed change more accurately reflects the current facts. Blueboar 00:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I know there is a large number of lodges, both GL and PHGL, in the NYC area that is rapidly becoming more diverse and I think it's wonderful. However, this growth is not uniform within the US (it'd be great to have an international look at this). Even New York's neighboring states haven't seen close to the growth. For the past five years that I've attended the GL of Conn, I have only seen about a half dozen out of 400+ brothers, who are not of European descent. Also this year, I attended a Prince Hall MM Degree that was a multi-state convocation here in New Haven with 12 different PHGL's in attendance (A great event, if I might add). Of the 150+ brothers there, myself and four other brothers from the GL of Conn were the only non-African Americans there. I still wouldn't call an ethnically diverse lodge "usual" or "common." As a testament to Blueboar and the NYC Brothers, the most ethnically diverse meeting of masons I have ever attended was seeing the Garibaldi Lodge EA degree in the GL of NY Building. That was quite an experience.

On a side note, does anyone know of any verifiable data on this subject. Some good source material on this would be great, so we don't have to rely on "in my GL...." on "at this meeting...." Chtirrell 13:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We certainly can't rely on "in my GL" or "at this meeting" statements ... that would be original research. For example, I have heard that PH is quite common on military bases, and that these military lodges tend to be diverse... but I can not back this statement up with published statistics. I would also suspect that diversity is a bit more advanced in urban areas than in rural areas, but again can not back that up with a reliable source. All that said, I do agree that there is still a long way to go before US Masons can say that diversity is "usual". As for the international view... as a broad and unsubstantiated statement: Race tends to be less of an issue outside the US, so there has always been more diversity. This is not to say all lodges are diverse outside the US ... but any lack of diversity tends to be more focused on economic class than out right racism.

As an interesting aside on this issue (again, anecdotal and so not verifiable), several years ago my lodge had a visitor from the GL of Natal in South Africa. He told us that, as a legacy of Apatites, there were three GLs in the region, a "white only" GL that tended to attract the Boer population, a "black only" GL that tended to be dominated by the Zulus, and a mixed Provincial GL (opperating under UGLE) that attracts mostly British and Indian expats ... He told us that they all recognized each other and technically allowed visitation (although in practice it was discouraged in the Boer lodges). I am not sure if any of this has changed since the end of apartide. Blueboar 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder how the division works between locality. I am in Texas, and I guarantee the Grand West in Texas has very pointed views about integration. This may be very different outside the US or outside Texas, but it definitely will continue to be this way in Texas for some time. Perhaps a better statement would be simply "There are Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges that have ethnically diverse membership." Since there will be little verifiable statics on this subject I think it best to be more conservative. --Eshafoshaf 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

On this, I have to disagree... Texas is in the distinct minority as far as both PH recognition and lodge integration goes. While diversity may not be as widespread as we might like at the local lodge level, in the vast majority of American GLs the official stance is in favor of both diversity and PH recognition. Out side of the US, diversity is common. Thus the statement that it is "usual" is true if we look at this from an international stance. Blueboar 15:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure at the moment, I think internationally you're probably right, but in England and Scotland it's probably not that widespread, subject to geographics. The Lodges which I belong to have distinct characters; the research lodges tending to more diversity than the initiatory. A&AR is specifically Christian, as is Societas Rosecruciana although I know a couple of Buddhists who are members of each. I think what I'm getting at is that there is no easy way to capture it, there is probably an increasing diversity reflecting the local diversity of populations although I'm aware that when you guys are talking about the US you're probably emphasising black/ white whereas I'd tend to think about Islam/ Christian/ Hindu/ Jewish etc; different kinds of diversity.ALR 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, what's a Grand West? Is that the same as a GL?ALR 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In this context (a section referring to PH and Mainstream lodges) we are talking racial as opposed to religious or cultural diversity. Perhaps "ethnic" diversity is a better term to use when looking at things internationally. ALR raises an interesting point about locality. A town with a predominantly WASP population will have a predominantly WASP lodge. In more mixed communities, you should find a more mixed lodge. But in urban areas, where you would expect to find the greatest diversity, it is not uncommon for brothers of a given ethnic or national group to form a seperate lodge that will attract members of that group in greater proportion than will other lodges... A Frenchman living in Australia is more likely to join the "French" lodge (if there is one) than some other lodge. I know that this is true in my lodge (it was founded in 1787 by Dutch speaking Masons, living in New York City, who wanted to do the ritual in their mother toungue. While the Lodge dropped Dutch for English long ago, it still attracts those of Dutch heritage because of it's origins.) But while individual lodges may not be diverse... if you look at things at a Grand Lodge level... diversity is the norm, and probably matches society at large.

Oh... Usually the Grand West would refer to the Deputy Grand Master or Grand Senior Warden (ie whoever is the next in line to be Grand Master). The exact office differs from GL to GL... Eshafoshaf can tell us what it refers to in Texas. Blueboar 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had another look, it makes sense now. I'm feeling a bit jet lagged, I got back into London this morning after two weeks working in California, so tired. I'd caution agasint taking too international a view with the PH issue, since it is peculiarly American. Elsewhere the most you would have had would be Scots, English and Irish lodges in the same geographic area since the spread of FM was related to the various colonial enterprises, but the British Empire being the only one with 3 GLs under the crown. French Colonies would have French Lodges, Dutch and Portugese similarly. That would lead to a different type of discrimination, social stratification under the same GL which may involve a degree of racial segregation. From the Brit perspective one of Kiplings works is quite good The Mother Lodge.ALR 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Grand West in Texas Masonry is all the Past and sitting Masters of any Texas Lodge. These are the only Masons who can vote in GL and is colloquially refered to as the Grand West. I wasn't aware that that was not a more common term. :) I think my point is that since diversity is a particularly localized issue in that some lodges are doing it, others aren't and others haven't but would like to, I feel the page should reflect that Masony as a whole is not moving in a consistant direction on this issue, and that you can have a very different diversity experience depending on the specific lodge you enter.--Eshafoshaf 01:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

all the Past and sitting Masters of any Texas Lodge, :) institutionalised sucking of teeth, shaking of heads and mutters of 'we didn't do it like that in my day.....'. Does that cause disturbances in the force? It's not a term I've heard before, but the headquarters of the Ancient and Accepted Rite is the Grand East, which prompted asking for the clarification. ALR 07:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah is is both good and bad :)--Eshafoshaf 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Eshafoshaf, you state: "I feel the page should reflect that Masony as a whole is not moving in a consistant direction on this issue"... I could not disagree more. As I see it, Masonry as a whole is indeed moving in a consistant direction... but individual Lodges and a few Grand Lodges are lagging behind. I admit that the trend is fairly new, and there is still a long way to go before there is complete diversity, but it is happening. That is why I supported changing the statement to "There are a growing number of both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges that have ethnically diverse membership." It reflects this trend without saying that it is universal. Blueboar 12:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy with the "There are a growing number of both Prince Hall Lodges and non-Prince Hall Lodges that have ethnically diverse membership." change. I think it captures the truth of the situation without undue expectations. --Eshafoshaf 15:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone here a Mason? --Lord X 21:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

I think you are safe in assuming that at least some of the people here are Masons. Blueboar 21:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

cults created by masonry

someone should add sections dedicated to mormon, jehovas witness, scientology & christan science.

We would, if there was any truth behind it. Since these so called "cults" were not created by Masonry, we don't. End of discussion.Blueboar 01:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I aggree with Blueboar, the links to Anti-Masonry, which are already in the article fill the need for that sort of thing. While men of those faiths would certainly be welcome as Masons, there is no specific connection to those faiths or any "cult" that is related to them.--Eshafoshaf 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

As a Mormon and a Mason, I think I can say with some certainty that there are a lot of parallels between the two organizations, though Mormonism was certainly not created by masonry. Joseph Smith founded the church in New York and it wasn't until years later, in Illinois, that he became a mason. In a bit of Irony (or not, depending on your POV), there were supposedly a number of Masons in the mob which shot and killed him. --Cassavau 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well this ignors numerous sources and even pictures of masonic symbols carved in temples, and the skizism(sic) between the LDS and Masons until about the time Jimmy Carter gave back the corporation for admiting blacks to the "priesthood". The contention that freemasons created mormonism is couched in these facts and that Smith's earthly father was an active lodge member. I have not read if his mom was eastern star or if Joseph was a minor member of the boys group.

I don't see how this shows evidence that masonry created mormonism. There was no schism between the two groups, unless you refer to the fact that the Grand Lodge of Utah prohibited Mormons from joining the fraternity until the mid-80's. Many masonic symbols are universal. Certainly I don't suggest that our temples and our faith were not influenced by masonry, only that masonry did not 'create' mormonism. --Cassavau 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Some lodges supposedly have legend that Hiram/Hyram Abiff{sp?} had designs for soloman's temple on gold plates found under the foundation for the temple or some similar story that sure sounds like a parady of the mormon tale or versa visa. Seems to me more cautions was in order for a "angle of light" progressively leading young joe smith around. Mormon temples are supposed to follow solomon's temple template and the oaths to keep the secrets are said to be similar as far as the tounge cut out, throat slit, and disemboweled parts?

As a note, OES was founded in 1850, and Smith's mother Lucy Mack Smith was born in 1775 and died in 1856, so it is very unlikely she joined, especially since the list of officers of the OES Grand Chapter of Illinois never started until 1875 [1]. There is a requirement that participants in OES are alive. On the same note, DeMolay was founded in 1919, and Joseph Smith Jr. had been dead for 65 years at that point, so he wasn't part of that, either. So, in short, whatever the original poster read was total fabrication with no basis in fact. MSJapan 14:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Many churches do have corner stones laid with masonic symbols and supposed "sacred Geomentry" designs to allow the building to be more spiritual alledgely. But how any bible reading and beliving man can bow down at a masonic alter and sware oaths even in contradiction to any other oath of office seems to be setting oneself up in a " you cannot serve two masters" situation. Let alone any idolotry or decipleship to such "worshipful masters" such as Albert Pike

My masonic initiation required me to make certain promises. It it no way required me to serve any master. The Worshipful Master is an officer of the lodge. Idolatry and discipleship do not enter into the question. --Cassavau 04:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the oath thing didnt get an answer did it?

One of the simplest tests in red letters editions of the KJV; sware not at all ... simply let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything more than this comes of evil... bowing down in front of all these esoteric symbols should make any serious christian (or old testament hebrew) think twice or 33times.

Actually, it got an answer; your claim was that you thought the oaths require Masons to "serve more than one master". The response was that it does not. It can't be more clear than that, really. It also might behoove you to realize that not everyone swears on or by the KJV, and I would be very careful in making Scriptural comparisons between the KJV and the Tanakh. Finally, where exactly was the claim made anywhere that Masons bow before esoteric symbols? If you want to argue, argue, but don't randomly make up new arguments when your old ones don't work. MSJapan 04:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cryptohistory

Someone added this article to the Cryptohistory category... which as near as I can figure out is either another name for Pseudo-history or another name for revisionist history. In either case, this article does not belong. The history section here (especially after we moved the bulk of the section to History of Freemasonry) is all well documented fact and contains nothing that is either psuedo or revisionist. For the moment, I have left the similar link that was put on the History article, since we do discuss some of the "alternative" theories in that article. Blueboar 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) ***Cryptography deals with encoded messages and symbiotics is the study of symbols and their use in intellegent systems of communications. Since freemasons deal in secrets and symbols that can have sublime intrepretations cryptohistory seems to fit obviously. Me thinks ye doth protest to much? In a secret society with multilayers of initiation there is no real ways for any member to be sure they have been passed through the "veil"s to the next degree or the double super secret sublime degree now is there? Dont think toooo hard now?

Masonry: Visible and Invisble

If anyone has heard - the masons are visible and invisble in their organization. the visible part is that everyone sees - EVERYONE wants to join, because of this or that Christian ideal spread by the Masons. In fact, due to my personal research, the masons are also invisble in nature. Deep down, within, and above the 3rd degree of Master Mason, there is another 30 degrees of masonry - therefore, in reality, there is 33 degrees of initiation in Freemasonry. This may be hard to believe, but it is true. Alright, tell me what y'all think. Thanks. --Lord X 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

The Masons are invisible due to your personal research? Wow?!!!! You must be a very powerful magician.

Seriously, what do I think?... I think that you don't know what you are talking about. There is nothing "invisible" about any of this... Try reading this article, and then go on and read Scottish Rite and York Rite. Then do more research and stop relying on conspiricy web sites for your information. Thanks for playing. Blueboar 22:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if you want to really lather it on, there are at least 66 additional degrees of maasonry, as one could attain the 33º in either Scottish or York rite (I think). Not to mention Sword of Bunker Hill and other groups which have initiations. I personally am a 3º mason and since being raised in 1999, I have had no desire to enter Scottish or York Rites nor any other appendant body. --Cassavau 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite correct... Scottish Rite has 33, York Rite has a total of 10 (they do not number their degrees), ending in Knight Templar. The other groups, such as the Shrine, Tall Cedars, Grotto (I have never heard of the Sword of Bunker Hill... must be something unique to Mass?) are not considered to be part of Masonry (ie not "appendant"), but "allied" to it (ie one must be a Mason to join, and Masonry has no objections to brothers joining, but there is no official recognition of the supervising body). But the idea is correct... there are literally hundreds of degrees one could take if one joined every body that claimed a Masonic tie. Blueboar 12:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the closest "subordinate order" to MA is in RI, and it's got nothing to do with MA at all, if you look at the page here. MSJapan 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not say this is a fact beyond any doubt, but I have seen it claimed that the York rite has a total of 13 degrees, of which the last three are more or less unknown to the lower degree masons. Along with this claim I saw a masonic drawing portraying the degrees, which included these extra York rite degrees (it was an artistic drawing not a chart-like description, and I did not see any names of these degrees in it). Δǂ A-ixemy 04:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Δǂ

Bear in mind that the York Rite as such only exists in the USA, it's a conglomeration of orders which elsewhere operate independently. I'm not clear on what three you think are 'more or less unknown' to Craft Masons? In the US it's quite simple, and there are few who are unaware of the existence of Scottish Rite and York Rite, and elsewhere the individual orders are well known to many. Still, many people don't let hard facts get in the way of a good story.... ALR 19:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I do not know what those (supposed) three degrees are named, so it's hard for me to tell you "what three you think are 'more or less unknown' to Craft Masons" as you asked. But, I'll have to point out, that this claim came from a presentation made by an ex-mason, who showed off masonic art/drawings/paintings to substantiate his claims. This drawing/painting he used to verify the 13 York rite degrees, had persons standing on two staircases - one case represented the Scottish rite, the other the York rite. Each person representeted a degree. The stairs were joined at the top, and below the two stairs was an arch, under which three persons were standing. The presentator claimed that these three persons represented the three "unknown" or "unofficial" degrees of the York rite. Look, I'm not saying this is absolutely sure, as you must have noticed. It's just something I found interesting to mention. -- A-ixemy 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I know the graphic you mention, it's quite common in the US, and very US specific because the York Rite doesnt exist as such elsewhere in the world. It also includes all the family orders such as Jobs daughters and the like as well. It's a comparison of the various regular additional orders. Other than that it's difficult to say without a copy of the graphic, it would probably be something like Royal Order of Scotland, Red Cross of Constantine, that kind of thing. Again outside the US these are independent.ALR 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it may include some "optional" degrees such as "Super Excellent Master" that are sometimes counted in the list of York Rite degrees, and sometimes are not (depending on who you talk to.) - (on an unrelated note... I have often wanted to come up with a degree to top them all... and call it the "Super Excellent Ultra Bodatious Gnarly Dude High Grand Master of the Knights of the Mysterious Valley of East !!!" degree or something like that. But then I thought that surely this is already the name of a degree from one of the French Rites).

I know that chart, and I'm pretty sure the three under the arch are supposed to be representative of the first three degrees, because IIRC, the two staircases are Rite-specific, and there's a few extraneous things floating about elsewhere on said chart, which I don't recall specifics of. Also, it is very important to note that just because someone was a Mason, it doesn't mean they took the time to understand what was going on; even people claimed to be "Masonic scholars" (like Waite and Hall and Pike, for that matter) are wrong in some of their conclusions because their basic assumptions weren't grounded in reality.MSJapan 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What do Freemasons actually do?

OK, I'm confused. I came to this article out of idle curiosity, wondering (a) Why would somebody want to become a Freemason and (b) What do they actually do? But the article doesn't say! There's lots of stuff about how difficult it is to become a Mason, what you have to believe in, etc, all the rituals you have to go through. But what happens when you become one? There's a brief mention of charitable stuff that they do on the side, fine, and it says that freemasonry can be a 'social outlet'. OK. So is that it? You turn up to your lodge and socialize? But you could do that in a pub. Surely there is more to it?! I don't understand! What do Freemasons actually do?? The Singing Badger 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to tell you, but its a secret!!! OK, seriously... One problem is that this is a very difficult question to answer... Freemasonry is many things to different people... It is a social club (gathering with your lodge brothers for dinner or drinks etc, dances with the ladies, outings to someplace interesting... this will change depending on the interests of the lodge brothers and how creative they get), it a dramatic society (the ritual is like puting on a favorite play), it is a philosophical self improvement society (first you go through the degrees and absorb the lessons presented in the ritual, then at each subsequent meeting you listen to the ritual again, and think further about what it means and how it impacts you personally), it a charitable/community support organization (you plan the charity drives and come up with ways to help your community), it is an historical debating society (to break the monotony of doing the same ritual over and over, brothers may give a talk on some topic relating to Masonry and the brothers discuss it), it a lot of things depending on the make up of the lodge ... The lodge is what you make of it. And each lodge is a little different. Can you get everything that you get at the lodge somwhere else? yes... but not all in one place at the same time. Does this answer your question? Or did you want something like ... "first you put on your apron in the outer hall, then you go into the lodge room and sit down. The following people sit in the following seats.... etc."? Blueboar 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! And no I didn't want any detailed stuff about aprons, I was just genuinely wondering what the point was. It sounds very congenial! Seriously, if you could put a version of the above into the article the whole thing would make a lot more sense for benighted outsiders. :) The Singing Badger 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking much the same when reading, I think a paragraph or so about the many things freemasonry is to different people at the begining of the article would be an excellent idea, before the article starts getting into stuff about symbology. I think a simplified summary (written by someone knowledgeable, ie, not me!) would be helpful for new readers to frame the following sections. --Impulse 04:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I had exactly the same question, so clearly the article is missing something. You might also put this in a historical context, if the current activities are different than the past. Given that Freemasons have had some strong enemies in the past (Hitler and other political extremists), I can't help but wonder if the role of the organization is drastically different than it once was. But, I'm not very familiar with the topic, so perhaps I'm just missing something. Warthog32 21:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at History of Freemasonry... it is a work in progress, but it does discuss some of your concerns. You can also see some of the other Freemasonry related articles linked to this page. Blueboar 21:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah haaa! Just wanted to add my $0.02 that the above is exactly what I was wondering as well (and why I wandered on to the Talk page in the first place). The article is extremely detailed about the rituals and beliefs and such, but didn't answer my basic question of "what's this all about?". Definitely an update encompassing the above would be great. Noahlh 18:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all the points above are quie valid, and may reflect an issue with the structure, rather than the content, of the article. It may be that launching straight into structure and organisation isn't the best way to draw a reader in to the rest of the detail.ALR 13:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry has secrets, yes. But its not the secrets themsleves, its the idea of keeping them secret. If I can keep your secret then you know that I am to be relied upon when you really need my help. The secrets themsleves are merely allegorical. Chris66 14:28 August 21 2006

Symbolism

May I ask this - you - and indeed the article - says that Hitler and Naziism was a notable enemy of masonry. According to the article, even to the point of persecuting and killing a lot of them. How come a lot of the nazi symbols had a more or less masonry-connected nature? Such as the skull and crossbones, the suncross (cross with circle), indeed the SS symbol (stylized lightning bolt) and even the reversed swastika (though an ancient symbol, it symbolizes the sun/or black sun), and probably more? And considering that Hitler and other nazis were involved in the secret society Thule society - the plot thickens even more as I see it. I'll be blunt - I see nazism as going to the very heart of.... Firstly, the occult (dark side you may say), and thereby (by association), secondly, masonry (dark side you may say, again) or at the very least, related secret societies which ultimately all relates to the same sources as masonry. Therefore I do not see why Hitler should persecute masons - but I guess it is due to the anti-semitism (and seeing masonry somehow connected to this), as well as the more 'liberal' views of a large segment of masons in many ways, while Hitler was far more stern and fascist? Thus, it could be said that in some ways they were still almost diametrically opposed to eachother. This could explain a lot, but I still don't see the symbols-connection explained anywhere. I'm not about to do anything about this (on wikipedia), but I can't help but suspect the whole nazi and WW2 mess to be somehow linked to elite (top heads of) masonry. I know this will be probably controversial, but..... Had to express my view. A-ixemy 04:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

None of those things you mention (suncross, lightning bolt, swastika) are closely connected with Freemasonry, if at all.--SarekOfVulcan 04:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We're getting into semantics here but, first of all I did not use the words "closely connected" and secondly, I couldn't help but notice that you did not include skull and crossbones in the list of symbols you say are not connected with masonry. This indicates to me that you are answering from a POV opposed to the points I tried to get across. I could also mention more "oddities" of the same kind as described above, but left them out to not be offensive. So just to make it clear - the above comment of mine is what I consider a 'kind' version of what I could've written if I chose to go "all out" so to say. A-ixemy 06:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The Skull and Crossbones are not Masonic emblems either. Sorry, I didn't know I had to rebut every single point you made.--SarekOfVulcan 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but they are. You're wrong about that. Well, I'll withdraw from further debate about this subject for now, so let it rest anyways. But that doesn't change the fact that you're not correct about that. --A-ixemy 13:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, let's clarify matters while they're to hand: the Skull and Crossbones are a symbol of death and mortality, and are thus a memento mori of very ancient provenance. They are associated with the sober lessons of the Third Degree; hence, a Skull and Crossbones represents a Master Mason. Doubtless the American university fraternity called Skull and Bones derives from this association with the solemnity of initiation ceremonies.

Nuttyskin 03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A number of the symbols of Masonry are common with other organisations and scoieties, in the period when FM was becoming more organised (the 18th Century) many other organisations were in the same situation and symbolism was drawn from an existing pool. Nazi-ism also drew from an existing coprus of material, some of which was already in use within the German socio-political system. The first three symbols you mention do not appear in Freemasonry, although the quartered circle as you describe it appears in the Rosecrucian tradition which was one of the influences on transitional Freemasonry, the Swastika is itself a very old symbol, prevalent in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Since adherents of both those traditions are free to become Masons it's not out of the question that the symbol, in it's appropriate orientation, could be present in a meeting. That doesn't make it a Masonic symbol. The skull is also a very old symbol, sometimes of mortality, sometimes the muse, sometimes intellectual effort. It does appear on some Masonic ephemera however I wouldn't consider it as an emblem of Freemasonry.

Notwithstanding all of that I would caution against using common symbology to derive an association. There are many organisations which share symbols in common but apply differing meanings, and there is a limited set to select from. Before seeking to indicate an association one must first examine the context of use, the respective explicit and implicit meaning of the symbols and their use.

One must also be cognisant that this type of accusation is a frequent precursor to a descent into the realm of black helicopters et al.ALR 14:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will only briefly comment on your remarks - I do not wish to start a huge "fierce" debate of any kind here. In fact, in many ways my first comment was merely a query (as well as an interest as to what form any response might take). Again I must point to some details in your comment - you say that (quote) "The first three symbols you mention do not appear in Freemasonry" even if the very first symbol I mention is the skull and crossbones. Later you go on to refute your own statement by saying (quote) "The skull [...] does appear on some Masonic ephemera however I wouldn't consider it as an emblem of Freemasonry." It's hard for me not to wonder a bit how both of you (SarekOfVulcan, ALR), who have more or less opposed my statements, can't make your case in a straightforward way, looking at the details of your comments I find your answers to be unsatisfying - and as they say - "the devil is in the details" you know (he-he).

I'll be out of this debate now, for sure, unless something really interesting comes up, which I doubt. I might add that I could be considered well-versed now in a lot of knowledge about the occult-symbolic as well as masonry and quite a few related subjects, even though you might not think it appears that way. So you're not answering one without any knowing of these subjects.--A-ixemy 15:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to draw attention to the fact that I mangled the order of symbols when you mentioned them, however it's clear that you appreciate the point that I was making. Of the four symbols you mention only one has any Masonic applicability. I don't see any fierce debate going on, although I do enjoy fierce debate, I don't particularly enjoy unpleasantness, which may be what you're alluding to. Notwithstanding that, and appreciating that English is not your first language, your initial post reads more like a series of statement than a question. I'm surprised that you choose to characterise our responses as 'opposition' to your statements. SoV highlighted factual inaccuracies and I've pointed out the difficulties with associating organisations through their symbolism.

In any case, you are right, the 'devil is in the detail', and there appear to be a few points you haven't identified, either from the article or from both responses above. With respect to the Skull and Bones motif, it is entirely possible that both SoV and I are corrent, we are in different constitutions and whilst the Skull and Bones appears on some ephemeral material in my constitution, it may not have applicability in his.ALR 19:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Swastika is a symbol used by Budhists, also used by the nazi's. Nazi's are therefore asian. Logical fallacies FTW. 211.30.80.121 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but the Swastika was used by the Aryans or Indo-Europeans, whom the Nazis believed were the source of ethnic German civilisation. The word Swastika is Sanskrit svas tik, "It is well" - svas having cognates in is, was. It seems that Wagner also considered the Aryans to be white and blond, and was planning an opera called The Master of the World, about the Buddha, whom he imagined as a German.

The funny thing is, if you look at, say, philology from their point of view, the fact that the Germanic language-group can be traced to the same origin as Hindi and Sanskrit, seemed compelling proof that the Germans were "in with the (mud) bricks" of civilisation. So, these aren't logical fallacies, they're just logical arguments lacking in certain basic facts - like, that the Indo-Europeans were probably dark-skinned like modern Indians, for example.

Nuttyskin 03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about Women?

• Thank you to Blueboar and Nuttyskin for your honesty and stating it the way it really is. It's sexist indeed. If I had a penis I'd be OK to join. It's really that simple. Taking this one step further, what about Transgendered folk? A female to male? Would you let him in or would you question their 'female mind'? And if you question the female mind, then you're saying that female minds are also not worthy to be a part of your organization and again, why? I hope someday that we don't have to have these conversations and people are simply human beings but it's these kinds of groups that seem to hold on to some tradition that I think hurt us all in the long run. OneWomanArmy923--I was born in the Summer of Love when we took a trip and stepped on the moon 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to state the way it really is? You're obvious at this with an ax to grind. You're obviously not at this pursuit with any real need to reach a balanced perception of truth, you're simply trying to find enough people to agree with you here (men in particular) so that you can throw some opinion up on the page and claim you had consensus for it.

I don't suppose you have any real first-hand experience with Freemasonry, OES, or any other masonic appended body? I noticed the "Women in Freemasonry" page has some significant errors that perhaps betray your limited understanding of this topic. I don't blame you for carrying the debate of why women are not allowed into every single thing everywhere for all time that has been restricted to men, into Freemasonry in general ... I'm just curious why you don't start elsewhere with it. Freemasonry gets a bad enough name by ignorant detractors all the time, without needing to be falsely accused of being "sexist." For all the good Masons do, they're constantly having all this overshadowed by asinine things such as this.

I don't suppose you were in a sorority in college huh? My Grandmother for nearly all of her life was a member of a women's only invitation only (which is more exclusionary than masonry) organization called P.E.O. It is dedicated to (and I quote from their homepage http://www.peointernational.org/) "Women helping women reach for the stars". So here we have a group open only to women (like masonry is open only to men) but it is dedicated only to the service of other women (whereas masonry is dedicated to the service of humanity in general.)

I can't join this P.E.O. organization, and had I complained to my Grandmother that it was sexist, she would've slapped me silly. And rightfully so, because that would've been a pretty STUPID PLACE TO START COMBATING "SEXISM".

TheGunslinger 19:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just remember women, it's not the individual white males in power in public office or the individual white males at the top of the corporate world who are your enemy, just remember, it's your local hometown Freemasons Hall. :-\

• I wasn't the one who used the term sexist. It was two of your brothers in this talk page that used the word.

And again, you are using the same ole tactic of saying 'Well, there's female -only orgs so this is why I won't deign to take this question of yours seriously.' This is the slippery slope at its finest. If I can't come up with a good reason for why there's women-only groups, which, within the structure of patriarchy are NECESSARY to combat the the historical fact of women's suffrage, women as lesser beings, violence against women, women being excluded STILL to this very day and STILL not earning the same wage as a man for the same position, then you dismiss me. You dismiss reality when you do that too. And asking me personal questions to try and go 'SEE!!! She's a sexist %&*(@ TOO! She was a member of a women's only group!!!' That's just another indication that you are the one looking to grind an axe, when I'm bringing up very valid questions about 1)a patriarchal society and 2)how Freemasonry continues to fit within that patriarchal framework when it could maybe question it and realize that its now time to consider changing it and clear their somewhat tarnished image.OneWomanArmy--I was born in the Summer of Love when we took a trip and stepped on the moon 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Explain this to me, OneWomanArmy: it's a private organisation. Why does it have to do whatever you want? Why does it have to change fit what society suggests it must do, to be either politically correct, or take up the women's rights cause? Do you claim that organization that require one to be a veteran of military service are helping to disenfranchise non-veterans?--Vidkun 12:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking this one step further, what about Transgendered folk? A female to male? Would you let him in or would you question their 'female mind'?

That's a good question. I have a friend who is a FTM or Transman. I would have no qualms about Proposing him as a Candidate for Regular Freemasonry, since legally speaking he is a man, and you can't argue with the law. Whether my Lodge would feel the same way about it is another matter. I'm only Senior Deacon: if I were in the Chair, I could force it through; but I'm also sensitive to the prejudices of my Lodge Brethren. Yes, it's an irrational prejudice, but it is what Grand Lodge have been telling them for as long as they have been Masons, so even with Grand Lodge backing, they still might resist the change, feeling it to be "unMasonic". In the final analysis, it's their Lodge, too - and they can vote in, or blackball, who they like.

Anyway, though he's been aware of my Masonic membership for a long while, my friend has never expressed more than polite interest in the subject. So in that case it's a bit academic.

Nuttyskin 01:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I also felt it was missing the above elements as well. However, my concern is with the question as to why women cannot join. There doesn't seem to be any real 'reason' why and seeing as this should be comprehensive and have the ability to be used for research, then there should be more detail as to why the Freemasons disallow the other 52% of the planet from joining. OneWomanArmy923

See Regular Masonic jurisdictions for comments about the Masonic orders that women can join. ALR 17:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

While it does imply that women are members, somewhere, they are not recognized by the Grand Lodge. Plus, I think my question was WHY women cannot join according to the recognized tenets. Not that they don't, or haven't, albeit I'm sure in very low numbers. OneWomanArmy923

It should be clear that the view of United Grand Lodge of england (my own GL) is to recognise womens Freemasonry as such except inasmuch as the admission of women is permitted. The practical implication is that the two co-exist quite happily, there are also GLs for those who prefer mixed lodges. My response should have indicated that your question is flawed, women can join either wholly feminine orders or mixed sex orders.

As to the reasoning, well it depends on ones view of Masonic history. The emergence of the GL system in the early 18th Century would have led the rules to reflect the society within which it emerged, that creates an environment of its kind. There is also the view that Freemasonry is derived from the operative guilds, again the rules would reflect the time; men worked in these trades. However the origins of Freemasonry are unclear, see History of Freemasonry for some background, so the reasoning for the rules as they stand is unknown. Anderson didn't write a commentary on his constitutions, so we have no idea of his justification for what he wrote.ALR 20:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the ratio decedendi of the matter is, a brotherhood is a brotherhood, a sisterhood is a sisterhood. It's a traditional gender based segregatory network of social interaction. I have no interest in why I cannot be a nun, that I do not elaborate on the obiter of the matter. But fundamentally, the reason women cannot join Freemasonry is because it is a brotherhood. 211.30.80.121 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you say I should just accept it is not very Wiki of you and since we are on Wiki, your point is moot. This is a knowledge centre is it not? I have the right to expect that knowledge on this site. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can be a nun. Just because you don't ask doesn't mean I won't. And I have a right on this site for a comprehensive answer. Doesn't mean I'll get one, especially on this topic. *sigh*

Thank you ALR. I think that your contribution needs to be on the page and I would also think a list of places or resources for women who would like to join should be included on the page as well. OneWomanArmy923

Women and Freemasonry is a very complex subject without a simple answer or explaination. Here are a couple of links that cover the subject [[2]], [[3]] and [[4]]. I also believe that the subject should be expanded on this page and should have an article on its own, although some information is on Co-Freemasonry. Chtirrell 05:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look on my user page you'll note I have a placeholder to start an article on the topic, its been there a while as I keep ending up with other things to work on. In any case, the links are available on the page I referred you to above, the summary on this page could do with improvement, but the material is available. My commentary above has no place on the page because at present it's my assessment and would constitute OR. ALR 07:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OneWomanArmy923, perhaps you could humour me and provide me a syntax by which you want your query addressed by giving me an example illustration as to why I cannot become a nun or join a sisterhood? 211.30.80.121 10:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Women and Freemasonry is a simple subject with a very simple answer: sexism. that's all. There's no other reason why women can't join. The Landmarks are quoted as the reason, but everyone knows that while the Landmarks cannot be changed, they can be politely ignored, and have been for centuries. If enough agree on a particular course of action, there is always a way it can be done, Masonically. Always.

Nuttyskin 03:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have started the article Women_and_Freemasonry. Most of the article is taken directly from this page, but the article is in desperate need of expansion. However, since we now have an entire seperate article, I believe the section in this article can be trimed down some and have a main link attached to it. Any suggestions? Chtirrell 23:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Chitrrell. I am ignoring 211.30.80.121 for my question stands and I won't answer an unrelated question in order to simply get an answer to mine.User: OneWomanArmy923

OneWomanArmy923, while I do understand that 211.20.80.121 was being a bit snide... he does make a point if you look behind his remarks. Freemasorny is a fraternity (at least in regular jurisdictions it is). By definition this means it is only open to men. Just as Sororities (and Nunneries) are open only to women. It may be sexist, it may be chauvanistic, it may even be wrong... but that's the way it is. Blueboar 01:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I question the neccessity to add 'at least in regular jurisdictions'. Is not 'regular' used in the catechism to remind us what validates our initiation into the lodge? Wouldn't it be one of the primary cultural tenets of being initiated as a Freemason? Thus, irregular jurisdictions may be Freemasonic in origin, but are not Freemasonry.

Well, the Royal Arch is Masonic in origin, and is not Freemasonry, but enough of us are Companions without ever being disciplined. Be consistent, not convenient.

Nuttyskin 03:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

However, I agree entirely. Women are not initiated into a brotherhood because they are not a brother, just as I am not a sister. As Blueboar said, it may be wrong, but that being said, I've never even pondered why I wasn't allowed to become a nun. I could do with another habit. Jachin 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's put it this way: while "regular" applies to us, it doesn't apply to everyone who may consider themselves Freemasons (although I've personally never met anyone who was an irregular Mason, nor do I know anyone who has). Also, as the topic has received coverage in at least two mass market books about Freemasonry in the US (one by Hodapp and one by Morris), I think we would be remiss in not addressing it. MSJapan 12:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD at Masonic Landmarks

An AFD has been started at Masonic Landmarks please read the article, review the talk page and give your oppinion at the AFD page. Blueboar 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI - The result of the AFD was "No Concensus". Blueboar 17:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Since the talkpage was once again getting unwieldly, I've taken the liberty to archive inactive threads older than two weaks in Archive 21. WegianWarrior 06:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gold Pen of "Polish Freemason"

See: Gold Pen of "Polish Freemason"

Gave that article a quick polish over (no pun intended) to bring it up to speed. I can see it eventually being listed for deletion as it lacks context, perhaps someone could rectify this situation with more detail? Jachin 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki links don't display - is that supposed to happen?

I notice that the interwiki links don't display, which means they don't really work (you can't see them unless you're editing, in which case the links don't work). Is that supposed to happen, or have we got a problem somewhere? MSJapan 15:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Something for everybody to keep in mind...

WP 3RR policy regarding reversion of banned editors.

Christian Anti-Masonry Section Content Problem

The Christian Anti-Masonry Section contains a contribution that is not about Christian Anti-Masonry. Regular Freemasonry welcomes Roman Catholics as members.[58] The negative reaction of "Grand Orient" Continental European Freemasonry—to what was perceived as Catholicism's theocratic and authoritarian political influence—has in countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal historically tended towards anticlericalism, secularism and at times even total Anti-Catholicism. Interestingly, in 2005 the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy (RGLI), in amity with UGLE[59] announced that it had installed a Roman Catholic Priest as its Chaplain. (This office requires that the holder is a Freemason, but not necessarily be in Holy Orders).[60] - (comment by user:Simonapro 11:54, 20 August 2006)

In what way is it not?ALR 12:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all establish that it is. What part is about Christian Anti-Masonry? (Simonapro 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC))

You're making the claim. Therefore, you need to supply the proof, not anyone else. MSJapan 21:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made the claim that the above content I put in italics is not about Christian Anti-Masonry. It is clearly not about Christian Anit-Masonry. It is about some sort of criteria for Freemasonry application, followed by a Anti-Christian statement that doesn't WP:CITE, The negative reaction of "Grand Orient" Continental European Freemasonry—to what was perceived as Catholicism's theocratic and authoritarian political influence—has in countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal historically tended towards anticlericalism, secularism and at times even total Anti-Catholicism. The whole section ends finally by saying that an unknown member of the clergy is now a RGLI Chaplain. These things are not about Christian Anti-Masonry. (Simonapro 07:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

Simonapro, I see your point... but the sentences to which you refer do relate to Christian Anti-Masonry - in that they discuss Masonic reactions to that Anti-Masonry. However, I would agree that they are very confusing. One problem is that this entire section is a hodge-podge of bits and pieces that were cut and pasted from Catholicism and Freemasonry, Christianity and Freemasonry and Anti-Masonry. It really does not hang together as a mini-essay on its own (which, I feel, each section of an article should) nor does it really do justice to a complex topic. We have talked about completely rewriting this section... perahps it is time to actually do so. Blueboar 12:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is a Masonic reaction to Anti-Masonry then it should be dealt with in another section. I think the current Christian Anti-Masonry section is fine without that Masonic reaction to Anti-Masonry material. I suggest moving the Masonic reaction to Anti-Masonry elsewhere and also providing citation for the stuff that appears to violate WP:NOR. Then we can propose rewrites after that if it is needed. (Simonapro 16:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I suppose I better propose this revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freemasonry&oldid=72465200 since some users feel the need to debate it (even though the debate is right here above). Since I have given reasons (including the fact that some content violates WP:NOR) for this change, it is now up to those who reject this change, namely MSJapan and ALR to state why. Please note that they did not debate this request above. Also note that agreement has nothing to do with making a needed change. One could just not debate the above and sit around complaining that a change has not been agreed to keep pushing a WP:NOR. (Simonapro 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

For the record... unless we completely rewrite this section, I feel that things should stay as they are. I do think the section needs rewriting... but not because of the sentences that Simonapro wants cut.

As to the NOR issue... This is definitely not original research, as every statement is backed with citations. None of it is original to the editors here. Blueboar 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not in the content, but the format. MSJapan 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit clearly established sections for arguments and counterarguments. This is the style used by nearly all well presented wikipedia articles that contain such points. The current article mashes arguments and counterarguments together. The counterarguments are under headings that have nothing to do with the couteragument content.

as every statement is backed with citations. - Blueboar. I can not see any WP:CITE for...

• As for Pike, his opinions are his own personal (and now somewhat outdated) interpretations. Most tellingly, Pike himself admits that his book is more culled from other sources than his original work. Most importantly, Pike is but one commentator amongst many, and no one voice has ever spoken for the whole of Freemasonry.
• The negative reaction of "Grand Orient" Continental European Freemasonry—to what was perceived as Catholicism's theocratic and authoritarian political influence—has in countries such as Italy, Spain and Portugal historically tended towards anticlericalism, secularism and at times even total Anti-Catholicism. (Simonapro 07:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

I've lost the plot with regard to nesting so I'm not going to attempt to repair it and am just posting this here.

I see the issue as presentational, rather than content. This latest attempt to pin the issue on citations does appear to be a diversion. Personally I'm not a big fan of distinct sections of argument and counter-argument. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to create a discursive section of prose dealing with the various points related to the topic. My personal view is that the tit-for-tat style is reminscent of a teenagers school project.

Notwithstanding that there is no convincing argument for the proposed change, as actioned last night. The section does need work, but as a summary of ongoing work elsewhere that work probably needs to wait until other articles have reached a stable state. In part that is a resource issue, there are a limited number of informed editors dealing with the issue, and there seems little value in the nugatory effort of many incremental changes in response to other development.

ALR 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions but the facts are that...

• you have not given WP:CITE for both citations. I maintain they violate WP:NOR and should be removed. I removed them, you reverted back to them without citations.
• the disputed content does not fall under the section heading.

I also want to finally point out that your style of presentation allows for criticisms of the counterarguments that are there. (Simonapro 10:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Let me first address Simonapro's specific concerns... 1) The sentence about Pike is actually somewhat of an orphan ... at one point the section went on and on about Pike and how his words proved Masonry was Anti-Christian (and even Satanic). This material was subsequently moved into the Christianity and Freemasonry and Anti-Masonry articles and replaced with a brief summary here. However, the disclaimer that Pike's opinion was his own etc. was not moved with it. The statement was cited at one point (to the preface of Morals and Dogma), but the citation seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the line. As the section reads now, the line is somewhat out of place, and does tilt the section towards a pro-masonic POV. However, to simply cut it shifts the section in the other direction - towards the anti-masonic POV.

2) the bit about Continental Freemasonry... this is also out of place where it is, and certainly needs rewriting. It is a valid comment (many of the Church's issues with Freemasonry are really issues with the atheistic "Grand Orient" style Freemasonry, which has always been significantly more political and anti-clerical than Anglo/American style Freemasonry which bans discussions of religion and politics), but it is so poorly written and argumentative that it really should be reworked. And Simonapro is correct to ask for citation... it is not original research (S. Brent Morris discusses the concept in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry" and it shows up in some other books)... but without citation it does come off that way.

So how do we address Simonapro's concerns without tilting the section to an Anti-masonic POV? To me there is only one solution... the entire section needs to be completely trashed and rewritten. Since drafting this is sure to be contentious, I would suggest that proposed wording be posted here on the talk page first so we can argue about it without getting into revert wars. I am sure that we can work together to achieve a ballanced approach to this section. Blueboar 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Put bluntly, I don't really think we need to at this time. It's more productive to stabilise the supporting articles, then re-wrtie the summary to reflect their stable versions.

It might be sensible in the short term to delete the content in its entirety and leave the links to the corresponding main articles, then come back to it later.

I'm wary of another situation where we end up going round in circles again.ALR 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no mandate to delete content that uses WP:CITE.

• If you make a claim for a WP:NOR violation, show where it is. You have not done this.
• The excuse that the Pike citation got lost means that if this is true we actually have a record of it getting lost somewhere, since wikipedia keeps historical logs to begin with. The bottom line is that there is no rules for lost citations in WP:CITE. As it stands it is in violation of WP:NOR.
• As for the second citation in question. Wheither it is poorly written or not is not the issue. It doesn't have a cite. I deleted them, but two other users put them back in without giving a cite. That is just violating WP:NOR.
• The title is of the section is Christian Anti-Mason content not Masonic reactions to Anti-Masonry.
• ALR's suggestion to remove the whole lot is questionable because we have had Masons in here who where teaching contrary to the positions cited in the Christian Anti-Mason article. (Simonapro 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Repeatedly mentioning WP:CITE and WP:NOR don't appear to be leading to a particularly productive interchange here. Indeed I'm not getting much of a warm feeling that any effort at collaboration is being responded to in a meaningful manner. I'm also conscious of the last time you raised an issue with content here, as you mention in your last line, and the profoundly difficult discussion that was.

I'm uncomfortable with your choice to misrepresent my suggestion to delete the material and come back to it when the supporting material is stable. It seems like a sensible appraoch to work on contentious material in one place only, a simple Configuration control policy in any creative process, such as the development of authoritative material.

My own perception is that the misrepresentation is both intentional and has the potential to inflame the situation. However in reviewing your recent contribution history I note that it is demonstrably your stylistic manner, a choice, and as such I merely observe the possible impact.

The point remains. Given that you dispute items of content, and that at least three of the informed and knowledgable editors are currently unsatisfied with presentational aspects, it would seem prudent to remove the content, provide links to the main articles, and return to it when the main articles are stable.

ALR 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, kindly refrain from spamming my talk page with duplicates of the discussion here. I refer you to my previous point on Configuration Control and the benefit of maintaining a single instance of the discussion.ALR 14:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, here's the Pike citation (I never seem to format refs properly, so someone else will need to add these), and I've added a little extra context as well in case it's useful:

• "In preparing this work [Pike] has been about equally Author and Compiler." (p. iii.) "The teachings of thesze Readings are not sacramental, so far as they go beyond the realm of Morality into those of other domains of Thought and Truth. The Ancient and Aceepted Scottish Rite uses the word "Dogma" in its true sense ofdoctrine, or teaching; and is not dogmatic in the odious sense of that term. Everyone is entirely free to to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound." (p. iv) Pike, Albert. Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Aceepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Washington, DC : Southern Jurisdiction, 1958. 1950 revision. MSJapan 14:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is simple. Just follow the style used in the edit this page section and make the ramfications needed to use the WP:CITE style. (Simonapro 14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Citation added. Blueboar 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well there is a problem with that citation. The disputed passage is an interpretation of what the cite says. You have given the cite, but not used the content of the cite. Either use the content in the cite, or give cite for the content that is used. Otherwise we are still dealing with a WP:NOR violation. The cite itself even looks out of place. (Simonapro 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

It's called paraphrasing, which is absolutely allowed (wikipedia is not a collection of quotes). But If you feel this is not enough, I can definitely find more cites if you require them. Blueboar 15:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They are simply not the same.

• As for Pike, his opinions are his own personal (and now somewhat outdated) interpretations. Most tellingly, Pike himself admits that his book is more culled from other sources than his original work. Most importantly, Pike is but one commentator amongst many, and no one voice has ever spoken for the whole of Freemasonry.

has very little, if nothing, to do with...

• "In preparing this work [Pike] has been about equally Author and Compiler." (p. iii.) "The teachings of thesze Readings are not sacramental, so far as they go beyond the realm of Morality into those of other domains of Thought and Truth. The Ancient and Aceepted Scottish Rite uses the word "Dogma" in its true sense ofdoctrine, or teaching; and is not dogmatic in the odious sense of that term. Everyone is entirely free to to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound." (p. iv) Pike, Albert. Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Aceepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Washington, DC : Southern Jurisdiction, 1958. 1950 revision.

Plus the other citation has not been given.

The section still contains a Masonic reaction to Anti-Masonry that has nothing to do with the section topic Christian Anti-Masonry. (Simonapro 16:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

I am not at home right now... may I ask that you give me a little time to locate the citations and add them?

As to your comment that the section contains the Masonic reaction and rebuttal of the claims made by Christian anti-masons... of course it does. I think you misunderstand the point of the section. The title of this article is, after all, "Freemasonry"... that means the entire article discusses Freemasonry and things that touch upon it. One of the things that touches upon Freemasonry is the fact that some people are opposed to it. It is an important enough topic that it deserves a section of its own and not just a brief mention. But that does not mean that we drop the entire focus of the article for that section... It is highly appropriate to discuss Masonic reactions to and rebuttal of that opposition in an article entitled "Freemasonry". In fact, to not include both the opposition and the rebuttal would be a serious violation of the NPOV rule. Blueboar 16:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

These policies - WP:NOR WP:NOT and WP:CITE should not really be that hard for Freemasons to read and understand and use. Likewise if a Freemason has serious problems dealing with the concept of how to use a relevant article section or how to create a relevant article for the relevant material we can easily have someone come in to specially help Freemasons with this concept and how it works. (Simonapro 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Simonapro... I am very familiar with NOR, NOT and CITE, as well as all the other guidelines and rules. I am attempting to work with you to eliminate your concerns (I'm not sure how WP:NOT gets in here... please explain further on that one). Neither of the statements you object to are Original Research... but I can agree that the citations need improvement. Please give us time to get them right. A little patience will go a long way. Finally, your comments are becoming increasingly confrontational and seem to hint at a lack of good faith on your part, based on the fact that some of the editors here are Freemasons. Please be careful, some may take your comments as a personal attack. This is not the way to convince people that you have a valid point to make. Please be patient, try to work with the other editors and not against them. That is how concensus is built. Blueboar 18:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. After the whole problem was pointed out, no one acted on this problem but me. The problem would have remained (and still remains right now) until someone here was pushed on it. Now after there has been a revert of my proposed change I am pushing for answers as to why? I have not received any answers why, only that some people have an opinion that they do not like it. There is plenty of stuff I don't like too, but facts are facts. You then proposed that there was no WP:NOT violation. When I showed you the violations you then proposed that the citations had been lost. ALR then said we should remove the whole section, even though ALR had serious problems in the past coming to terms with that content because he believed in something the opposite. When ALR was asked to provide a quote on his user page discussion he deleted the request and called it spam. Now you deem the new citation a paraphrase. Looking at the two I can see absolutely no way in which the paraphase resembles the disputed content. The actual cite you used even has bad spelling. Yet I am to presume in all of this that care has been taken. I don't even know if the current cite is the lost material or brand new stuff to work as a quick fix? Finally in all of this I have now been told by Blueboar that as long as it related to Freemasonry then it can appear anywhere on the page. Well let me ask you this then. Can I please have the Anti-Masonry stuff headline the whole article? I am thinking very much that a big push to a RfC just to get some help in here to monitor this is not such a bad idea in the end. To be honest the fact that the first warrented change I made (after discussions going on for months) was met with such blantant violations of wikipedia policy tells me that some people here have no idea, absolute none, of what wikipolicy means and how to use it establish facts. Wikipedia and not for plopping in our own opinions and steadfastly defending them without citations. See WP:NOT.(Simonapro 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

Kindly cease the personal attacks and wiful misrepresentation.ALR 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi lock?

Can anyone tell me how new user User:Argusol was able to edit after the page was supposedly semi-protected? Perhaps we need to have an admin check on the semi-lock? Blueboar 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A semilock means the article can't be edited from IP-adresses (non logged in editors) or editors who created their account less than 4 days ago. The user Argusol was created on the 4th of August, and is therefore able to edit the article. This is slightly worrysome - our old 'friend' might have gotten a number of 'sleeping socks' to use on sprotected articles. At least it keeps the open proxies out of the way ;) WegianWarrior 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Recognition in Early Masonry

There is a quick change I would like to make. I figured I'd post about it because so much is hotly disputed on this page. It says in the article that tokens, passwords, grips and the like were not used, more or less, during the days of operative masonry. I believe this is not the case. You will not find a masonic source for this, because freemasonry are very reluctant to discuss anything having to do with modes of recognition. However, there is much to be inferred that the origin of the cryptic methods of identification were rooted in the idea that during operative masonry, so few people could read, that "guild cards" or anything of the like were useless. It was then necessary, in order to insure that the person from whom you were contracting mason's work was a Master Mason, other modes of recognition were necessary that did not involve documents. I'm hoping this addition can be made, as it is plausible enough, I believe, to make as a sort of "it has been suggested" or something of the sort, because it was, I did not make this stuff of. I'm sure I could find a source for it given due time, however I very much doubt it would be a masonic one.

TheGunslinger 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I have moved your comment to the bottom of this page... Please note that accepted practice at Wikipedia is to put the most recent comments at the bottom of the page. Now to discuss your comment...

What you say is not at all new... in fact, the idea is as old as Masonry. Masons have made this argument for years, to back claims that Masonry developed out of the opperative guilds. The problem is that there is no evidence (Masoonic or non-Masonic) to back the idea that the operative guilds used signs grips and words. And there is some recent scholarship that states that, even if they did, they did not use the same signs grips and words as are used by Freemasons today (we can trace the oldest of these to a clear creation in the mid 1700s). Blueboar 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is even noticable differences between for example, Duncan's ritual expose, that is the primary fuel of anti-masons about ZOMG MASONIK SEKRETZ and the like and present day signs. Signs more specifically alone, vary between countries in many instances. I blinked twice the first time I saw the how-big-is-your-dog from a Scotsman. 211.30.80.121 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You want to try being a member of two different constitutions, Scottish and English, and having to remember two different sets of signs. I was raised in the Irish as well (demonstration), and the passwords differ significantly there too.ALR 21:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How can it be logically true that there is no evidence to suggest that operative masons used signs, grips, and tokens ... whilst there is "recent scholarship" that suggests that even if they did they are not the same? Whether or not they are the same or not is not really that important (as it was previously said that they may not be the same as they were 50 or 100 years ago ...) , what is important is whether they were used at all. You also said that masons have been making this argument for years to back claims that masonry developed out of operative guilds. Even the most black helicopter of critics are forced to admit in the face of fact that masonry developed out of operative guilds. There is little doubt about this. It is not the claims of signs grips and tokens predating 1700 that backs up the claims that Freemasonry was originally operative, this is backed up by many other things. If anything, it is the other way around. I do not think it is judicial to write off what masons say about their modes of recognition in terms of their date of origin. Additionally, I don't think the "exposes" of religious fundamentalists is necessarily a reputable source. It is not a balanced approach to omit the masons' claim that signs grips and tokens were established for the reason I noted above (while noted as the stance of Freemasonry of course) when it is equally important educate readers on what masonry considers it's own history to be (especially since it is an esoteric society), instead of just what outsiders, defectors, and fundamentalists have to say on the topic TheGunslinger 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me rephrase then... There is no evidence that the operative stonemasons used signs grip and words. There is also no evidence to say they didn't. We don't know. Despite that lack of evidence, however, there is a LOT of speculation that they did. Recent scholarship, however, has demonstrated that even IF the speculation is correct, these signs grips and words would not be the same ones used today. That's all I meant. If I sounded hostile to your comments it was your use of the bold key for "You will not find a masonic source for this"... that is simply not the case... there is a LOT of Masonic speculation behind this. Masons love to talk about their recognition signs grips and words ... what they don't discuss is what the recognition signs, grips and words are.

As for your other comments... You'll get no argument from me... I agree. The theory that the Masons derive from operative stone masonry (while not as completely iron clad as you imply) is by far the most solid of the various origin theories. May I suggest that you read "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry" written by S. Brent Morris. Dispite the insulting title, it is a very good explanation of the Craft, and has a lot of good information on all of this. I am not sure if you had some other point that you were trying to make in your comments. If so, please explain again. Blueboar 00:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No real additional point. Thank you for, in your response, affording dignity and respect even though I'm a total n00b and posted this originally at the top of the ladder. What I meant by "you will not find a masonic source for this" was sort've tied to the nature of the tokens, grips, passwords, and such. While I greatly hesitate to go into too much detail, I will say that the nature of some of these may be considered, or could be recognized, as not particularly effective in modern times. Of course, there are many explanations for this, as masonry would not be wise to adopt so-called "obvious" methods of identification amongst themselves, so it is possible that these methods are purposefully archaic. When considered, however, a look at these methods of identification in the context of operative stonemasonry shows that they are much more suitable for that time period. I can source this outside of official masonic releases.

The only other thing I was trying to get at is that it is just as important to present what Freemasonry considers itself, as what others consider it. With a topic like this, it gets harder and harder to present "facts" the deeper one goes into it's traditions (due to one side increasingly becoming, in this instance, Freemasons; and the other side increasingly becoming, in this instance, Anti-Masonic sources with an axe to grind). I think the best we can do when it comes to things of this sort are to objectively present what is claimed by the critics, what is claimed by the Freemasons, and allow the reader to decide. TheGunslinger 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign

The article includes in its first section this: "Grand Lodges and Grand Orients are independent and sovereign bodies that rule over the fraternity in a given country, state, or geographical area." What means "sovereign" here? What's the difference between "sovereign" and "independent" in this context? Could the word "sovereign" be removed without lost of meaning? "Sovereing" is linked to "Sovereignity" but that doesn't seem to help much. The entry Sovereignity refers to the sovereignity of countries so, the only deduction that seems logical if you want to extract some meaning is that Lodges try to be State-like, something that looks to me quite nonsensical. MJGR 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sovereign and independent are not synonyms. What is meant is that each Grand Lodge and Grand Orient is governed by themself and are not dependant on any other GL or GO. In short, both adjectives are needed to fully explain the state of affairs. WegianWarrior 12:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In this context sovereign means that each Grand Lodge or Grand Orient claims the right to make its own rules and govern itself without some other GL or GO telling it what to do. In Masonic terms, it is JUST like the Sovereignity that countries have. Each GL or GO is "state-like" in that they have the right to change their rules and regulations, determine what the ritual should be, recognize other masonic bodies, etc without reguard to other GLs or GOs ... The US and the UK are Sovereign in world affairs... The Grand Lodge of New York and the United Grand Lodge of England are Sovereign in Masonic affairs. Blueboar 13:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dating on removal of penalties in England

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

"In June 1986, the United Grand Lodge of England removed the traditional penalties from the obligations in the Blue Lodges." (p. 52)

If we don't want a third party source, this should be reflected in the UGLE Transactions/Proceedings for the year. MSJapan 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a bit of a mixed bag ... WP:RS prefers Secondary Sources over Primary Sources, so we should cite McLeod. However, the statement is in a review of another book, and not in a book itself... which lessens it's reliability slightly. The best soulution would be to cite both. Blueboar 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

what would we be looking to demonstrate from it? Just the fact then it could be demonstrated from the book and corroborated from the transactions, it would be useful if the book mentioned why they were removed from the obligation. The penal signs still apply though. It is potentially of interest, if we can establish the reasoning, I can't remember clearly myself, but that was about the time that several of the church reports were being completed.ALR 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I can tell you is that McLeod says what he says to give the reader some hisorical context; the revised book was due to ritual and other changes in Masonry since the original publication of the book. As a note McLeod, also says that the Irish Presbyterian and Scottish Baptist reports were somewhat favorable -- that means there's another report we need to find, and that perhaps the Scottish report we have is not accurate, or there was a newer one. MSJapan 19:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

my recent reversion

I reverted here, because of the following items:

• The commentary on the Papal ban, added to the section relating to Freemasonry accepting Roman Catholics, is out of place given the reference. That reference does not comment on the ban at all.
• In Mexico the 1920s government, mainly formed from those adhering to irregular Freemasonry, outrightly persecuted the Roman Catholic Church and all Catholic faithful openly defending the Church. this section had no citation for any of its claims.
• The section beginning "However these numbers are said to be speculative and irreliable." is redundant, based on the statement "While the number is not accurately known", and come across as protesting too much.
• The Winterhilfswerk commentary is cited in the provided references.

--Vidkun 15:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...

This article was mentioned briefly in the latest issue of Northern Light, the magazine for AASR NMJ. MSJapan 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Who will help the widow's son?

I just saw a History Channel special about freemasonry, and they mentioned someone (I didn't catch his name) who was killed because he refused to give up the secrets of freemasonry. As he died, apparently he said 'Who will help the widow's son?', which the History channel says is the universal call of a freemason in need of the help of another brother. Is this true, and could this be used to identify one as a fellow mason to another brother? --Rmeskill 03:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is really a two part question... 1) did this killing actually take place? and 2) are these words a universal call of a freemason in need of help? Here are the answers:

1) Not having seen the History channel show, I am not sure who they are talking about ... they may have been talking about the story of Hiram Abiff, who Masonic legend says was one of the Grand Masters in charge of building King Solomon's Temple, and was killed by three ruffians for not revealing the secret word of Master Mason. However, it should be noted that this is an alegorical story created in the 1730s ... it is a lesson in integrety and fidelity. There is no evidence (either historical or biblical) that these events actually happened.

Beyond the Hiram legend, I have never heard of someone actually being killed because they did not give away Masonic secrets... First, they are not all that secret, and while Masons are proud of their tradtion of not discussing certain parts of their ritual, I can not think that any Mason would risk his life to protect something that has been exposed many times through the years.

2)As to the words... Are they some sort of distress call? Perhaps... perhaps not.

I am not actually trying to be sly or secretive here. You see, it depends on what jurisdiction you are from. Some jurisdiction use a reference to "The Widow's Son" to identify each other, especially those in need of aid. (A good example of this can be seen in the movie "The Man Who Would Be King", staring Sean Connery and Michael Cain - it's based upon a short story by Rudyard Kipling). Other jurisdictions, however, do not use such a phrase.

Hope this answers your questions. Blueboar 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Links vs. link spam

An editor recently added a link to a lodge in Manatoba, Canada, and to the Grand Lodge of Manatoba, these were then removed with the comment that they were link spam... While I don't mind the deletion, I'm not sure the comment is completely accurate. I would agree that we don't want links to local lodges, (I might make an exception for a VERY notable lodge (ie a lodge that played a key role in the grand sweep history of the craft at large... something along the lines of Kilwinning #0 and such) but I would certainly set the bar extremely high for inclusion on that score. As for Grand Lodges... we already have UGLE, GL Scotland, Ireland and NSW... is Manatoba all that bad? Blueboar 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, where does it stop? I think we need to decide which ones are key to the article, and which are not, considering we have a GL list elsewhere on WP, and act accordingly. MSJapan 19:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for trimming the external links down to things that key as well. The "Home" Grand Lodges at most, in terms of links to outside orgs, and articles ABOUT freemasonry, not about specific GL's. But I agree, maybe my tagging it as link SPAM was a little harsher than it needed to be.--Vidkun 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yah... What got to me was the edit summary calling them "link spam"... it did seem a little harsh. That said, MSJ makes a good point... Where do we draw the line? I would agree that UGLE, Scotland and Ireland should be linked (as they are the "founding" GLs)... and I suppose we could add any GL site that had a particularly good format or info (especially if they say something important that is not found on other GL sites)... but beyond that, I agree that we should discourage such links. With that in mind, is there a reason to keep NSW as an external link? Blueboar 20:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean my Scottish Lodge ;) It needs a lot of work, I started it and haven't been able to find my copies of Lee Kerr or Ness to do some more work on it, plus the fact both of them leave something to be desired in terms of their reliability. Ness more with repect to recent history whilst Lee Kerr is typical of the 1890s. FWIW I'm a joining member there, it's not my mother lodge, but I did make my mark there.ALR 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So your the one who put all that graphiti all over the lodge room walls! You should be getting the bill for that little bit of vandalism soon, ALR ;>) Blueboar 21:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

TO/European Concept Lodges

I removed the following addition to contemporary challenges, as I find it very interesting that all of the internal links in the paragraph point to articles created by the same author, who added this text in the first place:

"Many Grand Lodges in the U.S. have tried a variety of, often-controversial, measures to address declining membership. These have included "one-day ceremonies" of all the three degrees for large groups of candidates, (as opposed to individual degree conferrals taking months or years to complete); advertising on billboards, and even active recruitment of new candidates by members, (as opposed to the tradition of considering only those who actively seek membership for themselves). Some Masons object to the traditions and principles of Freemasonry being diluted by these changes, feeling that the Fraternity has survived centuries of social change without changing itself; others cite a need for Freemasonry to modernize and make itself relevant to new generations. Fairly recently, several organizations such as the Masonic Restoration Foundation and the Knights of the North have advocated Traditional Observance (TO) lodges or European Concept lodges, seeking to strengthen Freemasonry from within by returning to traditional practices."

Do we feel that this text is useful or necessary? There's a lot of weasel words, no citation, and frankly, I think that the premise that Freemasonry has never changed is fallacious in the extreme. Therefore, I'm not sure that this paragraph adds any value to the article. It works like cheap publicity, and will confuse the casual reader with irrelevant Masonic minutiae. MSJapan 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for this. There have been lots of different ideas presented as to how to address the challenges the Craft faces in the present, and the direction that Freemasonry should go in the future... and there is no concensus on any of them (indeed, there isn't even concensus as to what the challenges are, much less how to fix them). To get into these issue in a broad focus, "this is Freemasonry" article is a side track that will simply confuse most readers. Perhaps these issues might make the start of a "Freemasonry in the future" sub-article or something along those lines... but they don't fit into this article. Blueboar 12:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Link suggestion

Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner):

Philosophy and fraternities (contains section of freemasonry): http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 08:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting page, but unfortunately it can not be linked. Not just in this article, but on any article in Wikipedia. It is a personal webpage, and thus should not be linked under the guideline: WP:RS (Self-published sources). Sorry. Blueboar 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Heraldic research page about freemasonic origin
• A page that does connect the above with other historic events

None of the heraldic motifs on these sites are Masonic. The chevron is a very common heraldic divice and not at all Masonic. While some may LOOK masonic on a very superficial level (in that they have interlocking chevrons or a chevron interlocked with some other devise), to be Masonic they would have to specifically include the square and compasses. You will note that the chevron does not even form a right angle (key to Masonic motifs.) Sorry. Blueboar 13:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, but no one know's the exact year when the square and compasses arrived and these pages tries to map that, as I see it. To bad the complex one only is in Swedish - impressive research.

Opposition section

I find it difficult to see any article with such a section as being a good article as it has the following problems:

1. It causes a bad structure - so a person reading about women in the freemasons would have to look in 2 places to find out about the info about it and then what opposition there is to the freemason policy - rather than having it one spot.
2. Sections such as this lead to major vandalism and NPOV problems as they are troll magnets.
3. It causes the problem of POV forking. So we end up with an entire article which is just negative information about a subject.

So, I propose that the section is reworked into the rest of the article, placing each complaint in with the relevant section.-Localzuk ^(talk) 22:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't do that, simply because the article is too long as is. I'm honestly not even sure what your first statement is saying, and the spinning off of articles is because the topics are far too long for proper inclusion here. It also happens that a lot of the information is negative, and objectively so - there is no way that you can put a positive spin on "Catholics are prohibited from joining Freemasonry" or "Women aren't allowed to join regular Freemasonry" - those are facts, not POV statements. Moreover, much of the opposition is hard to classify into its own section. MSJapan 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Think of it this way. A person reads about 'Freemasonry membership' or something similar. Such a section, using the current structure, would contain all the stuff about how the organisations membership practices. Then in order to find out that catholics and women aren't normally allowed to join is in a completely different section. I propose that they be in the same section so the entire issue is discussed in one spot.

Regarding POV forking and POV sections, we have policies against this as it is a very bad practice. Jimbo has also stated that we shouldn't have sections dedicated to criticism but should have it weaved into the sections that it is relevant to.

LOCALZUK talk

17:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also a policy about obscenely long signature code! ALR 18:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm wary of any Jimbo says arguments, at some stage wikipedia has to go beyond the individual. Editorially diufferent subjects need different approaches and a blanket direction such as that isn't entirely useful. The point remains that Freemasonry as a topic is too big to adequately cover in a single article. The areas with issues are substantial enough to have their own articles, indeed there is a proliferation of article son subjects inimical to Freemasonry, some of them better written than others. I would agree that they tend towards the reader inferring a POV issue in a couple of cases, but that is an editorical decision by those involved in the articles in question.

I'd also say you're conflating a number of issues in the first statement. Criticisms of Freemasonry and criticisms of the membership policies are two different things.ALR 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also the problem that you can not just say "the following people can not become Freemasons:" and list them... you raise the issue of women and Catholics. They are very different issues... Women can not become Masons in regular jurisdictions because of a bar placed there by the fraternity itself. The fact that women CAN become Masons in other jurisdictions (Grand Orient, Co-Masonry, etc) confuses the issue enough that it deserves its own section to fully explain. On the other hand, the Catholics issue is very different... as far as the fraternity is concerned, Catholics CAN become Masons. Any bar is from the Church's side, because the Chruch has objections to Freemasonry - and this fits better in a "criticisms" section. Perhaps we can re-word these different sections to make the information clearer, but the basic structure of the article is a good one; and is needed. Blueboar 18:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are all missing my point. As the article stands we have a section titled 'Opposition to Freemasonry' which is the only spot where anything critical to the article is dumped. I am saying that instead of doing this, we need to put these criticisms into the rest of the articles. This means that as the article grows, and is split into sub articles, all criticisms are split out into their respective articles rather than all in one spot. (and I was just checking out a new sig, have changed it now)-Localzuk^(talk) 18:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to be careful of to and of. Items critical to the article change it's meaning, I think you're getting at criticism of Freemasonry. I'm also conscious that this might turn into a circular argument. We've already been through a process of identifying criticisms of Freemasonry and have spun them off into their own articles. Given that the process has already happened I don't see where there is anything more. Indeed given the summary style recommendations then that section is already too big, it is disproportionate given the reality of criticism anyway.

There is a related note of readability, weaving the issues into the content rather than exlicite identification both breaches summary style and could easily lead to an overly complex linguistic challenge for many. We have to be cogniscant of the wide readership and whilst not catering for the lowest common denominator have to find an appropriate level. Many readers don't have a particularly high reading age, something that I've fallen foul of in other articles I contribute to, and we, as editors, should probably avoid needlessly elevating the content beyond mauch of the readership.ALR 19:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... let's follow your concept a bit and see where it leads us. Where would you put the information that is contained in the "oppositions" section? Blueboar 19:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Publications

There isn't any information about the books published by the Masons and their strange form of shorthand Is this in another article? I couldn't find anything. I have a copy I could scan to add some pictures to the article--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, you lost me. What strange form of shorthand? I assume you mean the cipher used by some US Grand Lodges (Texas and Alabama I think) to challenge the retention skills of the candidate in learning the ritual, but I don't know of anything else which might be described that way.ALR 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Could the original poster be meaning the Pigpen cipher? I guess that could be seen as a form of shorthand... WegianWarrior 17:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's what I think we would call an "old school" cipher. I've got one that I believe comes from NY (don't remember offhand), but I know not all the US states used them. Entire words weren't in what we would call shorthand, but rather were illustrated by symbols. I don't really know what useful info would be gained by analyzing cipher, though, because there's again no standard system. Frankly, I think we've said all there is to be said, although we could point out that we are not the only group to have ritual books, cipher or otherwise. MSJapan 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. You wouldn't happen to know of any online description? Codes and ciphers is another of my interests, in part due to my work. WegianWarrior 05:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is both a kind of short hand (skipped vowels) and also has symbols (looks like Wingdings) mixed together. I just did some searching online and there is a copy on eBay with picture [5] That is the same book, although there is a large variety symbols not just the one on that page. I thought it was something common in masonry, but I guess it is something more localized from what you are saying above. I don't really know anything about Freemasonry, so sorry for the confusion.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's an obligation. Doesn't look like shorthand per se to me, and I'm not convinced that it justifies an entire article. It's just a method of obfuscating the content, and it makes it tougher to learn it properly.ALR 21:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually on further investigation it's not a Masonic ritual. It looks like a quasi masonic body, The Essenes. If you dig through the images there is a title plate.ALR 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's not a quasi-masonic ritual book... It's legit. It's what we in NY call a "Masonic Monitor"... Created by the Grand Lodge of New York to aid in memorizing the ritual (Essenes being outdateed code for Masons). I can not tell from the sample how out of date it is. Various editions were printed from the 1880s up to the 1970s, as GLoNY made changes to the ritual. They now use a different format. For the most part the "code" is skipped vowels, with symbols for a few things (a rectangle to represent the word "Lodge" for example. The truely "secret" stuff (the signs, words, etc.) are either left blank or represented by a bunch of asterisks, while the "Public" stuff (such as the explanations of the working tools) are written out in full english. The rest (ie the stuff in code) is usually considered as "guarded"... not part of the secrets, but to be discussed with caution. Blueboar 12:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

An addendum... Having taken a second look, I have to change my comment to say that it MAY be a legit GLoNY cipher book... there are definitely a few things which are different from modern ritual. I note that the title page indicates that it dates from the 1870s... the differences could be due to changes in the ritual between then and now, or it could be that this is from an irregular offshoot (ie a pseudo-masonic organization). In either case, one should not rely on it to understand current practices or rituals. Blueboar 15:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is cipher or short hand depends on the purposive nature of it. Cipher is a means by which one cannot discern the meaning unless they are the intended recipient or understood the cipher. Short hand is an abbreviation of sorts. If one didn't know the meaning of half of the words shown, they wouldn't read it as fluently as we do, thus I'd be inclined to say that it is a simple contractive cipher. Just like 12 year olds t3lk n w4yz d4t d3r m0mz n d4dz m173 n07 g37? Sometimes a simple solution is the best solution. Who'd have thunk we were talking l33tsp33k centuries before the aol kiddies? Jachin 06:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A note about spelling....

I believe that the WP policy regarding British (or Commonwealth, even) vs. American English says the following: one, that whatever the article is written in, it should be consistent, and two, that unless an article is specifically about a Commonwealth-related topic, Commonwealth English is not to be taken as the only correct form of English used. Every once in a while we seem to get into these little spelling tiffs. I personally don't care which we use, as I can write either way, but can we settle on one style or the other and then leave it alone? MSJapan 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, it looks like we got some new wiki buttons to edit with which might make some tasks easier. MSJapan 03:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In my defence I changed the spelling whilst doing another edit, because I noticed it wasn't right. Just because you colonials insist on using spelling that's visually jarring.....ALR 07:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No problems either way for me either. I can misspell words in both forms of English. :>) I guess it comes down to which is more common for this article (ie do we have more American or British editors)? Blueboar 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Queen's English here. Can't do the colonial jibe even if I tried.  :( Jachin 06:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust and Freemasonry for Dummies

User 24.68.248.210 deleted the following citation:

• </ref> While the number is not accurately known, it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were exterminated under the Nazi regime.<ref name="Dummies">''Freemasons for Dummies'', [http://members.aol.com/brlodge/whymasons.html Christopher Hodapp], ISBN 0-7645-9796-5, Hungry Minds Inc,U.S., 2005.</ref>

This anonimous user states that "Freemasons for Dummies is not an acceptable source for this claim. The claim appears nowhere else, there are no primary sources listed and Freemasons for Dummies contains no notes." in his edit summary. I disagree. FM for Dummies is a reliable published source under WP:RS, written by a known masonic scholar. There is no doubt that many Freemasons were killed in the Holocaust... the only question is the numbers. The statement makes it clear that this is an Hoddapp's estimation and not claimed as an accurate number. Add in the fact that this comment is contained in a foot note and not a statement made in the main body of the text, and I see no reason to delete it. Blueboar 13:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

PS.... given the nature of the edit (denial of Holocaust claims) and the IP address (see: User:Lightbringer) I do have to question the good faith of the edit. Note that the page was recently unprotected. Blueboar 13:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Masonic Scholarship is an oxymoron. Masonic Scholars, like Hoddapp, claim Freemason built the pyramids and originate in the Sirius Star system, that Jesus was a Freemason, and the King Tutankamen was Moses, who is actually Hiram Abiff. Hoddapp, as well as other Masonic "scholars" provide no, zero, nadda references or notes for their bizarre claims. Where did these 200,000 Freemasons come from, Mars? The German Grand Lodges only had 60,000 members and not a single one of them was arrested, because they were all good little loyal nazi supporters of Hitler. The section goes.24.68.248.210 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes... Lightbringer shows his stripes. Blueboar 13:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that if Lightbringer was to have read the book that he claims is unreliable, he would find that not one claim he believes to be so-called "Masonic history" above was in said book, nor was any of it in Morris' book. Do you see what happens when you believe everything you read, and you don't read the right things? Heck, I'm surprised Lightbringer's not claiming the world is flat and everything revolves around the Earth; I mean, those things were said before someone else said Earth was round and everything revolved around the Sun, so clearly they must be correct, because they said it first. By the same token, mercury is the cure for what ails you, and cocaine is good for you. MSJapan 16:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it would be a hoot if one of those NASA space probes that is just moving on past Pluto suddenly bounced off of a crystal sphere (TINK!) and proved that Aristotle was right all along? Or is it just my own weird sense of humor. :>) Blueboar 18:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, everyone knows King Tut wasn't Moses. Akhenaten, on the other hand... --SarekOfVulcan 18:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether I'm asleep at the wheel or not, but a reasonably decent edit[6] was recently removed, attributed to our old mate Lightbringer. It's in the wee hours of the morning, sleep deprived, the night after my birthday (thus lethal blood alcohol level) but .. to me that appears fine? What am I missing?

As an aside, we come from Sirius? W00t! Jachin 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, from what you gave as the diff, the current revision seems to have what was taken out in the prior, and I don't see any other edits at all that would pertain to your comment. Are you sure you tagged the right diffs? MSJapan 16:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how the post-birthday bash brain mistakes a + for a -.  :( Thanks brother, I .. am begining to wonder what other comments / edits I've made in the past 24 hours. Keyboards should have breathalysers attached. :P Jachin 06:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)