Talk:Freemasonry

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14
Archive 15	Archive 16

Previous discussions Archived

Just so no one panics... User:Ardenn has archived the previous discussions. We had hit a lull in the discussion anyway. Blueboar 21:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I should have posted a note. Thanks for doing so, Blueboar. Ardenn 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hint: When archiving, leave the last few relevant and still active discussions on the talk page. Jachin 05:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You meanlike this?Harrypotter 09:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding back some text, taking account of Verifiaphobia

Blueboar reverted some of my text, which is OK as he explained why. While I disagree with the verifiaphobia, I've not inserted the quotes in to the text, but simply changing the claims so that they no longer say things such as "in fact".

The quotes that have been taken out are emboldened:

<ref>"The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with its traditional modes of recognition. It is not a secret society, since all members are free to acknowledge their membership and will do so in response to enquiries for respectable reasons. Its constitutions and rules are available to the public. There is no secret about any of its aims and principles. Like many other societies, it regards some of its internal affairs as private matters for its members." [http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/what-is-freemasonry.htm What is Freemasonry]</ref><ref>http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/YQA-secret-society.htm</ref>

and

.<ref name="secrets">"The rituals and ceremonies used by Freemasons to pass on the principles of Freemasonry to new members were first revealed publicly in 1723. They include the traditional forms of recognition used by Freemasons essentially to prove their identity and qualifications when entering a Masonic meeting. These include handshakes which have been much written about and can scarcely be regarded as truly secret today; for medieval Freemasons, they were the equivalent of a 'pin number' restricting access only to qualified members." [http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/A2L-secret-society.htm website of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE)]</ref>

JASpencer 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have "verifiphobia" (if that is a word)... I support verification strongly. Any statement that is at all controvercial should be cited, and a link provided if possible. What I object to is HOW JASpencer is insiting that things be verified. I see no reason to clutter up the citation footnotes with unneeded quotations, especially when all it would take to verify the statement is a quick click on the link provided in the citation. In this case, The UGLE website pages that are linked have very little text on them (each of the two statements quoted by JASpencer above, which he wanted to add as a footnote in the citation, amount to about a fifth of the text on each page). Anyone wishing to verify that UGLE actually says what we claim it says will find the relevant statements easily.

This is an argument that is being carried over from some of the other Freemasonry related articles. On those pages, JAS insists that every citation foot note include a snippet of quoted text to back up the statement being made in the main article... reguarless of whether it makes any sense to do so or not. A prime example of this can be found in the "Allegation that Freemasonry is a new religion" section of the Catholicism and Freemasonry article. Someone included the statement that "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion." This is a direct quote from the UGLE website: Here Anyone going to that page should find those 10 simple words within the first 10 seconds of reading. However, JAS insisted that these words not only be linked to, but quoted again in a foot note next to the link. It was over-redundant and just plain SILLY. Now he wants to impose the same standard here.

Please understand that I am not saying we should never quote our sources... sometimes doing so is helpfull in making a point, or clarifying a statement so its meaning is crystal clear. In which case, I tend to feel that such a quotation should be placed directly in the main text of the article, and not "hidden" away in a footnote.

Finally, no matter what is done on other pages, it is clear that on this article we have not been adding quotes to our citations. I am not about to change that. (JASpencer probably feels we should go back and find quotes for each and every citation we have listed, and include these quotes in our citation footnotes. I am taking a stand to say, "No. There is no need to do so.") Blueboar 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting "US Catholic View"

I know we talked about this above... but I want to revisit it. This section needs some work... It really does not belong where it is. However, I do think it is important, and don't think we should cut it (It should probably lead off the "Criticisms" section). Given that Cardinal Razinger is now Pope Benedict, his past statements about Freemasonry potentially take on new significance. I also think we need to provide some background... we should mention the fact that traditionally the Church has not approved of Freemasonry, and banned Catholics from joining; then we can (briefly) talk about the recent changes in Cannon Law that led many to think that the Church had relaxed its stance; which would give some context as to why Law and Ratzinger made the statements that are currently in the article. Blueboar 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would take it to the Talk Page and then rework it. It was a mischevious addition and is not in place in the article. No matter what balance has been added it does not fit in at the moment - although it doubtless could.

On the Canon Law change has been fairly comprehensively shown to have been a red herring not just by Ratzinger's opinion, but by the German Bishop's conference, the American Bishop's conference and the very recent brouhaha over the Los Angeles Archdiocese's withdrawal of it's earlier permission, etc.

JASpencer 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's needed in this article, its place is in the 'RC position on FM' article. I'd agree with JAS that it was a spurious addition.ALR 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. So do we just cut it, or do we rewrite it and stick it in the "criticisms" section? Blueboar 12:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've cut it down to a "see also" link, to shorten article. This retains NPOV, as all stuff should be better served at length at RC and FM article. Imacomp 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

I have deleted the following line from the "Christian religious opposition" section: "Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical." I know what this line is trying to say... but it has problems. Being Christianized is not an opposite of being anti-clerical. One can be Christian and anti-clerical, Christian and pro-clerical (if that is a word), Non-Christian and pro-clerical, Non-Christian and anti-clerical. In regards to Masonry (especially if you include irregular Masonry) both halves of the statement are historically true... but they made no sense linked together the way they were. Blueboar 13:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Mason

I am a Mason who has converted to the Roman Catholic faith. I made disclosure to my priest during my schooling for conversion and he said there was no problem. I also know many fellow Catholics who are Freemasons and no one from the church hassles them.

72.48.120.65 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. I would hope no one would give you any trouble. Freemasonry is more elastic than most, and I see no problem with you converting whatsoever. I mean, what is there to be maad about, really? The possibility of any of the allegations against freemasonry being truthful are so slim that to bring them up is laughably silly, we would not have survived this long as a society if there was anything inherently evil occuring within the order, we would have been found out centuries ago and destroyed. Only the ignorant seem ot find cause to loathe us. But that too, is falling by the wayside as awareness replaces palpal bulls and ecclesiastical decrees of heresies. Best of luck to you brother.

NOTE: above was by 65.148.152.134. Imacomp 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"The possibility of any of the allegations against freemasonry being truthful are so slim that to bring them up is laughably silly" seems to indicate that any criticism of freemasonry is already discounted, even before it has been enunciated. Also, as the range of criticism encompasses such a broad range of people, to close our minds to even the possibility seems to be wilfully blind.Harrypotter 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary Freemasonry

I know this is going to be a somewhat controversial topic, so I thought it might be useful to discuss the title of the page, before even starting. I had thought that Anarchism and Freemasonry might be a useful topic, but it is apparent that it would be better if this was just one section of a more expansive article which took full account of Philippe Buonarroti's activities as well as the story of 1848. I have added a bit to the Adolphe Thiers page, about his encounter with the masonic delegation. What do people think? Harrypotter 10:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

First, is there any verification that Buonarroti was indeed a Freemason? Second, even if he was a Freemason what evidence is there that his political leanings were caused, or influenced by Freemasonry? In the lodge, Freemasons do not discuss politics. Out side of the Lodge, a Freemason's politics is his own affair. You will usually find Freemasons on both sides of any political conflict. Thus, there is no such thing as "Revolutionary Freemasonry"

That said... if you do feel that the political activities of prominent Italian and French revolutionaries who happened to be Freemasons needs to be discussed, probably the best place to do it would be History of Freemasonry. Blueboar 13:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Boris Nicolaevsky uses the term in his text Secret Societies in the First International and I have always found ghis work inpressive in comparison with some of the more sensationalist writers. His article is well documented including items like Professor Jean Bossu's "Une loge de proscrits à Londres sous le Second Empire et apres la Commune" originally published in 'L'idée libre', a now defunct monthly magazine dsitributed only to French masonic lodges. If you check the recent insertion I have made as regards Adolphe Thiers, you will see that he precisely rejects the overtures made by the procession of fellow freemasons to him during the Paris Commune. I think its is clear that the somewhat sanguine explanation you offer may hold true for much of what UGLE regards as regular freemasonry but hardly offers an adequate account of actual experiences in all lodges, and that particularly during the nineteenth century something recognisable as a distinctive modus operandi called Revolutionary Freemasonry is a useful conception. I shall look at the History of Freemasonry however to see how fruitful that might be, but I think it may be too tangential for that page.Harrypotter 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking to non-articles called Anarchism and Freemasonry and Revolutionary Freemasonry? Why not post your conspiracy theories to those articles, or try anti-Masonry? Imacomp 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"and Grand Orients"!

I notice that someone has taken the trouble to delete this link, without even the courtesy of a comment on the talk page. Rather than letting people imagine why this action was taken, perhaps a word of explnation here would be of use?Harrypotter 12:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point about linking some place that discusses what a Grand Orient is ... However, the way you set it up, it was linked to a page about one particular Grand Orient (in this case the GOdF). The Grand Lodge article discusses both Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in an over-arching way (ie not tied to any particular body). I have, therefor, left your wording ... but have combined both types of Grand Body into one link. Blueboar 13:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a page on Grand Orient as the Grand Lodge page is scarcely adequate. No doubt much more work on it is required to get it up to scratch.Harrypotter 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Grand Orient page you added is nothing but a list of various Grand Orients ... How is that better than the Grand Lodge page, which at least discusses what a Grand Lodge/Grand Orient IS? What is inadequate about the Grand Lodge page? Blueboar 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Egypt

I read that the Freemasons have an intrinsic relationship with ancient Egypt. Is that true, and if so, how? Nicholasink 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To put it bluntly... No, it isn't true. Freemasonry developed in the late 1600s and early 1700s, in Europe. The problem is that the founders of Freemasonry wanted to claim that the fraternity was far older than it was... I suppose the idea was that more people would join if they could say they had "secrets" that go back hundreds of years, instead of "secrets" that had been made up a few decades ago. When James Anderson wrote the Contitutions of the first Grand Lodge of England, he included a "history" for the Craft that went back to Anglo-Saxon England... and even further... all the way to the Garden of Eden. This "history" was quickly criticized for its obvious errors. But, while the critics had disproved the individual claims that Anderson made, they bought into the idea that Freemasonry had to date back into antiquity. This left people asking the question: If Anderson is wrong... where DID Freemasonry come from? Unfortunately, there were no real records to rely on. And so people speculated... they started looking for any tie between Freemasonry and antiquity. Over the years, Amature "Historians" found ties to the ancient Druids (did the Freemasons erect Stonehenge?), to ancient the ancient Greeks or Romans, (is the Pantheon a Masonic Temple?), the medieval Knights Templar (much more "snob appeal" than the idea that it comes from a buch of grubby lower class stone masons!), etc. The most recent version of this was put out by Robert Lomas, a popular author and pseudohistorian, in his book The Hiram Key... where he says Masonry started in Ancient Egypt under the Pharoes. This is no better than all the other speculations. The "evidence" does not really support the theory.

Sad to say, the truth is that we don't know where Freemasonry originated... but the few historical records we do have hint that it probably was made up out of whole cloth some time in the early 1600s. Not nearly as exciting or mysterious as the pop authors would like. Sorry to disappoint you. Blueboar 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust again

Note that crap will not stick there very long. Imacomp 18:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)