Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 26 Nov 2005 and 3 Jan 2006.

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

Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_11. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Archived by WegianWarrior 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

"Illuminati and Jews"

Its highly offensive that Jews have to be included as a power hungry world organiation like the Illumanati. Its a religion and should not be listed as a huge conspiracy. I will take out the reference because it claims something that is not true in any way, shape, or form. Thank you.--24.3.147.203 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the point was that while there is not a vast Jew-wing conspiracy, some people think there is.--SarekOfVulcan 06:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Its still very offensive. Also, featured articles should not contain POV stuff like people's beliefs pertaining to what the Jewish people do or DO NOT. Its rather sad that, as you claim, people percieve Jews as a world dominating organization. Also, there is no ""Jew-wing"" Anti-Semitism is not appreciated. --24.3.147.203 00:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Erroneous claim, actually. By not presenting what anti-masons believe, we violate NPOV in that respect, considering that "all Freemasons are Jews" is a big thing. You're taking a small point out of context and arrguimng about it, when you clearly have no knowledge of the argument it is a part of. Furthermore, by ignoring anti-Semitism, we are pretending it does not exist, which is in and of itself revisionist and anti-Semitic. Furthermore, if you read properly, we are not stating any opinions as to whether it is true or not (that would be POV). The fact is, the belief exists, and it is up to the reader to make the judgment based on the facts that are presented here and in other articles, such as Anti-Freemasonry. I suggest you read the Wikipedia policies a little more before making a sweeping generalization as to what certain articles should and should not contain. MSJapan 00:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
MSJapan is correct. The comparison affiliation of international jewry, international freemasonry, zionists, et al, are all grouped under the one persecuted mob in the eyes of those who are convinced the illuminati controls the planet. It would be excessively POV to remove the jewish aspect only from the equation. Jachin 08:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand your point, however the way the article was written seemed accusatory and somewhat anti-semetic. Also, it doesn't seem correct to compare Freemasons to Jews. Jews are not a part of a secret organization, they are part of the Jewish religion. Placing them with alleged world-dominating secret organizations is simply innappropriate. The Jewish religion is very open, unlike the Freemasons, who are very secretive concerning their rituals and beliefs. I do not feel that it is NPOV to list a modern religion with a secret organization, especially when the tone is accusatory. --24.3.147.203 00:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I see the problem...you're trying to apply logic to an illogical situation. However, if Jews are Freemasons, as some are (three of the founders of Scottish Rite were Jewish), they technically are part of a secret organization, if that's your criteria. Furthermore, the Jews are not being compared to Freemasons, they are being put into the same group as Freemasons - Pat Robertson did it, and so did the Nazis. Those are irrefutable facts.
Secondly, I find it very interesting that you a) can't spell "anti-semitic" and b) consider Judaism a "modern religion". By that reckoning, Christianity as a whole is what, a week old? As a note, no Jew refers to Judaism as a modern religion, so I frankly think your whole argument is basically "Lightbringer with a paper yarmulke on", but assuming you aren't, I'll just go ahead and destroy the rest of your so-called complaint.
Next, you also apparently didn't bother to read the Freemasonry article, because all the "beliefs" (funny term to apply to a non-religious group, that), as you put it, are right there. As for "secret ritual", have you ever seen the Shinto rites performed inside the Great Shrine of Ise in Japan? No? That's because only the Japanese Imperial family is even allowed inside the gate, but you don't see anyone complaining about that.
Fourth, the tone is also not accusatory; it simply states what is factually known about what certain people think. To play Devil's Advocate (or, I guess, as some would have it, "Freemason") with your statement: If the Jewish religion is considered so "open" (as you state), why the hell did people believe the garbage in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion when they clearly (apparently) should have seen all around them what Judaism was all about?
In closing, therefore, would it really be such an inconvenience to ask you to consider what you are saying before you say it? MSJapan 01:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
While I agree that the reference to Jews should be left in the article, I would like to comment on one point of MSJapan's
If the Jewish religion is considered so "open" (as you state), why the hell did people believe the garbage in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion when they clearly (apparently) should have seen all around them what Judaism was all about?
Appealing to a sense of rationalism regarding Anti-Semitism, especially prior to the late twentieth century, is an excercise in futility. Blood-libels, in their direct literal, as well as figurative, form have been an unfortunate part of history for many centuries. People are willing to believe "garbage" about people they dislike or envy; that is a sorrowful point about human nature. A group or religion can be more open than most and still be subject to distortion. Avi 16:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-dogmatic and not a Religion

Freemasonry is "non-dogmatic". It is not a religion, or a substitute for religion. The cannon of Mackey's work - is just that - Mackey's work. No person, or even Grand Lodge, speaks for the whole of Freemasonry. The "rule" that says a Freemason must believe in God is a constitutional matter, not a matter of dogma. Atheistic Grand Lodge constitutions are not recognised by Grand Lodges holding fast to the "Ancient Charges", and visa versa. The "Ancient Charges", are constitutional documents not "holy writ". Magna Charta in England or the written US American Constitution are not, as far as I know, regarded as "holy books" - but are the basis of law in their jurisdictions.Talk Image: Masonic_Skull_n_Femurs_little.PNG Skull 'n' Femurs
But it's not an "abstract GAoTU" -- it's God. We refer to Him by that term to avoid denominational quarrels, and to remind us that He created the heavens and the earth.--SarekOfVulcan
True - for "our" Grand Lodges. However those "we" would term "irregular" are "Freemasons" of other constitutions who, may well, regard "GAoTU" as offensively abstract to our ears or eyes. I would regard "GAOTU" as a constitutional position, when writing about Freemasonry in general - for a religiously pluralistic readership. Regular and iregular, I would define from UGLE's POV - as the first Grand Lodge. I agree with UGLE's constitutional stand, regarding Co-Masonry. However in the article "Freemasonry" they may well have a place - explicitly defined as iregular from UGLE's POV. Each Grand Lodge's article should cover their own stand-points in more detail. UGLE's stated position, as yours, does not make English - or your - Freemasonry a Religion or religion of itself. GAoTU is a description of God, not a "name" of the god (note the little "g") of Freemasonry - to be interpreted as you think fit, within "the" (or your) Grand Lodge's Constitution. Talk Image:Masonic_Skull_n_Femurs_little.PNG (Re-edit) Skull 'n' Femurs 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem here is conflation of the name with what it is naming, but we are generally limiting the article to "regular" Freemasonry, as there is no way to categorize irregular Freemasonry in one or two distinct categories (because it depends on violating only one Landmark of many). I do think, however, that we must make some sort of basic reference to irregular Freemasonry strictly from a sense of context - "irregular" and "regular" cannot be defined without one another. MSJapan 02:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
MSJapan, the above points you make are fine and valid ones. Talk Image:Masonic_Skull_n_Femurs_little.PNG Skull 'n' Femurs 01:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Spurious Words ‘n’ Such

The systematized York Rite is not found as a complete system in the UGLE jurisdiction. Each sovereign and distinct rite or “Order” in England - otherwise known outside of England as the York Rite – has significant differences (in the details of any English ritual used) when compared to the York Rite system. Members of each distinct Order have recognised fraternal inter-relations with their respective Rite within the York system, provided that UGLE regards the parent “Craft” jurisdiction as regular. Talk Image: Masonic_Skull_n_Femurs_little.PNG Skull 'n' Femurs 03:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a perfectly good explanation of a certain compound word, using only the Hebrew language. Reference, The Rev’d Canon Richard Tydeman, An Address to Grand Chapter, (of England) – as reported in the public domain. The first syllable indicates eternal existence, the continuing and never-ending I AM. The second syllable really does mean in Hebrew, "in heaven" or "on high". The third syllable is a Hebrew word for Strength or Power. Thus we do not need to go into apologies for faulty scholarship in the past, and we can leave Syria and Egypt and Chaldaea out of it altogether; for what is pronounced are not three names of God (or worse still the names of three gods, as some would suggest) but three aspects or qualities of the God that are well known and well used, in Christianity and in other religions, namely His Eternal Existence, His Transcendence, and His Omnipotence. Unfortunately there are many printed rituals which still refer to a name and not a compound word. Now, nothing that is done in another Lodge or Chapter can be described as "wrong", it can only be described as "different". It is for this reason an Alternative View of an entirely Hebrew interpretation emphasises reverence for God and proclaims Him in no uncertain terms as "The True and Living God — The Most High — The Almighty". This is the explanation, which is now encouraged. Millennium Sentinel 14:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
In English the adjective cannot designate case, number or gender. That means we are limited in how we can use this device. We always designate case in English by position in the sentence. But we have no way of designating the number or the gender of an adjective, except by the noun it agrees with. Therefore, a substantive adjective all by itself in English can only have the number and gender that convention assigns to it, and that usually is the plural of the non-specific gender, or "people." This word is a ritual compound, is a Hebrew substantive adjective - and convention assigns to it the singular masculine gender. Skull 'n' Femurs 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If I retain any of that, SnF, I will have learned more about the English Language than during any 1 year of US H.S...;~D Grye 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

(Removed old "so-called" Masonic, and inflammatory, matter from here). Skull 'n' Femurs 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

S&F I'm uncomfortable about one individual removing anothers comments on talk pages. The points were legitimate although I would agree they were somewhat overstated and clearly intended to be confrontational but that can easily be managed with reasoned discussion, a reader may take their own conclusions from what is essentially censorship, and I would suggest that the impressions given by censorship are not what those of us in the craft would wish to give. The other point is that my own response to Rathbone is now orphaned without context.ALR 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The penalty fits the crime. Anyway the "greys" made me do it, with a thought beam, so its Jabulabadingdong's fault. ;) Skull 'n' Femurs 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Locking the wiktionary page Jahbulon Jahbulon as “A Masonic name for the deity” is an abuse of power by a small cabal of POV admins and editors. I call all brethren to agitate for a vote for deletion, since the truth has been rejected. Darth Dalek 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I'd agree that the word should remain in Wikipedia/ Wiktionary, as a RA Mason I can confirm that the word above does not appear in the ritual under Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter.ALR 13:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Darth Dalek, I concur with you, and I have left a post at the "discussion" page. Imacomp 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hereyago, kittens...

Maybe we need to make a case for it being the name of a Jamaican deity? "'Jah' is a reference to the deity of that name, beloved of Rastafarians and stoners everywhere. 'Bulon', following from Jamaican dialect, is a contraction of 'blond/e', and therefore it means 'to have blond dreadlocks and be smoking a joint'." In any case, next time I and I see Jahbulon, I'm going to tell him (or his, if he turns out to be an adjective) he doesn't exist and he needs to go away. Problem is, that makes me sort of a libertine atheist. MSJapan 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, it is my contention that this word is a misspelled combination of "Ja" - the german for Yes, and "Bullon" - a type of west indian fish (scarus croiensis). I think that this word is used by German tourists around the world to indicate what they want for dinner. Usage: Waiter: "And your order, sir?" German: "Ja, Bullon ... er... I mean... Yes, I will have the fish, please" Blueboar 13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
אלך 'own (Pronunciation Guide {one} ) Strong's Number 0202 , as strength 7 times in the Authorized Version, (King James Version of Scripture). I. m. (from the root, faculty, ability, hence – (1) strength, power, Job 18:7,12;40:16; Hos. 12:9; specially of virile and genital power, “first fruits of strength,” first-born, Gen. 49:3; Deu. 21:17; Psa. 105:36; as pl. Isa. 40:26,29; Ps. 78:51. (2) substance, wealth, Hos 12:9; Job 20:10. Citation: Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for “strength* 'own (Strong's Number 0202)”. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002. [1] Ta-da! Skull 'n' Femurs 15:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comet link

Comet's Virtual Lodge of Freemasonry

Interesting site. Can't agree with it, but might it be worth leaving?--SarekOfVulcan 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello SarekOfVulcan. “Interesting”, as amusingly naïve and ill informed – to the initiated fraternal eye. The un-initiated general reader will get lots of the usual “Masonry as occult conspiracy” and things that go BOO in the dark “Exposé” rubbish shovelled about here – without being able to separate fact from fiction. Skull 'n' Femurs 02:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with it is that it is only half true, and nothing it says in a negative light is true - e.g., the parts about OES and DeMolay being "inferior", and that the path of the Mason leads to hell. I have therefore removed it. MSJapan 03:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I support your action MSJapan, and that the link remains on the discussion page, as a curiosity. Skull 'n' Femurs 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

rv Links

I've rv'd a link. See History of Main Page. EA Tyler over-n-out. Skull 'n' Femurs 22:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Decline of Freemasonry

SnF, why did you remove this link? Not encyclopedic enough? It was certainly an interesting read, even if I couldn't quite figure out what organization it came from.

Oops: just spotted the above comment. Question still applies, if phrased differently now...--SarekOfVulcan 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan I bow to you, for actually reading through it. (skulks in the cold dark place in the West. I wants my pressus! I doz, yes.) (lol) ;) (thought I saw a sock-like IP address, but it was not, sorry)Skull 'n' Femurs 23:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a PDF, which would need to be noted as such (it's not a link so much as a document you need to download, which will wreak havoc on dialup), and it also requires some foreknowledge about the state of the Fraternity (which is also somewhat disputable, IMHO, because the membership issues are predicated on a whole host of things, many of which cannot be controlled by simply projecting a better image) which might make it not quite appropriate for what we're aiming for, which is information for the non-Mason (the useful bit for that is 8 or so pages in, and the same info, better researched, is available in American Freemasons by Mark Tabbert. I think that that document, as structured, is not going to fulfill intent in the way it seems to. MSJapan 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

For future reference, if needed - "De Homunculo Epistolo"

I looked up "De Homunculo Epistola" - it was a tenth degree of the Ordo Templis Orientalis, and it was written by Aleister Crowley. In short, nothing to do with Masonry, other than superficially. Does anyone get the feeling a lot of this is coming about due to misinformation due to amalgamated e-books that put anything and everything that has symbolism and was written before 1973 under an "occult masonic rosicrucian" heading? MSJapan 07:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Being/Deity/God

I think we want to be very careful about this change. "Supreme Being" currently redirects to "God", while "Deity" treats the subject from a non-monotheistic POV.

However, the whole point of referring to the GAotU is to avoid religious differences, so I'm not sure that pointing the link directly to God would be a good thing. Maybe we can just leave the redir for now?--SarekOfVulcan 17:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

GAOTU is always monotheistic, (including orthodox three-in-one Trinitarian Christianity), in regular Freemasonry. Deity carries occult, Aleister Crowley style, overtones that must be explicitly denied by an article giving a true picture. Masons are not united in belief (because their is no "Masonic God"), but they do follow an inclusive constitution and declare their private belief as monotheistic. Millennium Sentinel 13:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely true. Most are monotheistic, but there are more that are considered to be monotheistic when they aren't strictly so. Trinitarian Christianity is debatable as to its monotheism (mainly semantics), as are Buddhism and other pantheon-type religions, yet we do not exclude members of those faiths. It is up to each Mason to choose how he worships. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to claim monotheism or nothing. MSJapan 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Adherents of, for example Buddhism, can claim precedent for inclusion – mainly a Historical president deriving from Britain’s imperial past. English, Irish, and Scottish jurisdictions spread in the, (now former), imperial territories. Perhaps anachronistic and inconsistent decisions were later being ratified, broadening “case law” within the various constitutions and jurisdictions. Millennium Sentinel 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Monotheism: isn't it more like a [one] creator of the universe [everything], whome we call [pick-yer-deity], which we agree to call GAOTU when assembled [conversing ;-] hence Buddhists Hindus etc? Which is not one god, it is one creator. A Grand Architect Of The Universe, beliefe in which would not nullify, say, Loki... Deity: almost anything can have an implied meaning. Deity definitely has none negative unless placed upon it by someone's mal-informed mind. If Deity is poor, GAOTU would seem to be impossibly bad. Grye 09:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Grye makes a very good point. Freemasonry does not require monotheism, but simply a belief in a single Creator. As long as a religion includes this concept, Masonry will accept those that follow that religion - Even if that religion is pantheistic in all other respects (such as Hinduism). The religion does not even need to be "mainstream" (ie: Christianity, Judeism, Islam, Bhudism, Hinduism, etc).
I think the word "Deity" is a good one... but perhaps the Article needs to include a better definition (as it is understood and used by Masons)? Blueboar 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Terms and Words

I have noticed that some of the articles linked to Freemasonry as a category are really stubs that give nothing more than a definition of various masonic terms, concepts and/or Words (see "Tyler" or "Jahbulon" for examples). Would it not make sense to move all of these to Wiktionary? (I would do so, but I do not yet know how that is done.)Blueboar 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's one possibility: Tyler, though, I think could possibly be expanded out to a longer article, if you want to mention there about meetings formerly being held in private homes or pubs.--SarekOfVulcan 22:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I vote 1000% to get them over to wiktionary. I'm...uh... proven not good at it tho. Grye 09:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Regular Masonic jurisdictions

I am not happy with the sub-article on "Regular Masonic jurisdictions", and have posted some comments on the talk page for it. I would like your comments and thoughts before I do a rewrite (put the comments on that page, not this one). Blueboar 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stub's getting stubbier...Grye

70.132.63.27

That last revert of vandalism was to Millennium Sentinel's, at 15:21, 15 December 2005.

It was for the edits of 70.132.63.27 which mostly changed external links to altreligion.about.com pages

I didn't really see that as vandalism: after all, the text was pretty much the same, the presentation was just different.--SarekOfVulcan 08:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
no, the links went to entirely different sites. http://internetloge.de/masmanu/masmanu.htm was sent to http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/macoy/bl_masonicmanual.htm & *http://www.internetloge.de/kunst/kunstabe.htm was sent to http://altreligion.about.com/library/graphics/masonic/bl_masonicart.htm, both under the gyuise of their old titles. Grye
Right, but I didn't see much difference between the text at masmanu.htm and bl_masonicmanual.htm.--SarekOfVulcan 08:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, OK, not much on the Manual, except 1st page has no adverts, the 2nd has gobs. on the art, the art is entirely different. The new images are actually interesting, but on examination of the [homepage], "dispersion of ignorance" in the first paragraph didn't look like a NPOV link change from a pretty NPOV link. If anything, add the link to this page, but why change it? Look at all the images? read all the txt? Or, if it does get neg-POV, fine, put it under anti-... if it gets evangelical Pro-POV, put it somewhere else. If it's just more art, why delete the old one? Why not add this one?
So, changed first link back because older site had 1) lacked adverts entirely 2) nicer version of txt anyway; changed 2nd link because 1) lacked adverts entirely, 2) shouldn't lack old sites content, & 3) with the abovementioned nature of the 2 changes, suspected site integrity; didn't simply delete B), revert A) & add C) because I don't want to be responsible for C)'s existance. Grye 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The links appeared again, then the one link to the art appeared. I looked through it, that page seems pretty good, good art. I returned the old clip, & left the new clip. Grye 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

capitalization issue

This is the capitalization discourse, consolidated, in order, from the several pages it spanned: Freemasonry's history page, user talk:Grye & User talk:DreamGuy

DreamGuy, I didn't do any of this thread's moving out of malice, wanted it in one place for all of our consideration. Did the same on ourtalk pages.

[from summary] (cleanup... who keeps going through here and making things capital letters for no reason? remove duplicate wikilinks, etc.) DreamGuy 08:05, 16 December 2005

*[from summary] (Reverted DreamGuy's well-meant but erroneous de-capitalizations) Grye 08:12, 16 December 2005 *there's a bunch which are capitalized, like "Lodge". & Supreme Being. Etc. Grye 08:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

They aren't supposed to be... that's in error. DreamGuy 08:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, but the fact that people in a group commonly capitalize things incorrectly does not mean that an encyclopedia meant for all people should as well. "Lodge" by itself as a generic word separate for Masonic Lodge or some other phrase very clearly should be lowercase. It's descriptive of all lodges, not a specific lodge. DreamGuy 08:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

*Yes, they are. It is not in error. The article is specifically speaking about Masonic Lodges, for the entire article. We are not talking about some fishing lodges in the Catskills when we don't specify Masonic Lodge in an article of Freemasonry. I'm not trying to be, whatever, argumentative. I'm not going to re-revert the page. But you'll see. Grye 08:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[from summary] m (and revedrting User:Grye's totally erroneous restoration of improper capitilization and lots of other clean up -- blind reverting a who series of fixes because of misinformed ideas isn't good) DreamGuy 08:32, 16 December 2005

I'm sorry, gut you are just plain wrong, and you reverted all sorts of other fixes to the article when you did that. That was poor form. DreamGuy 08:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

*what other fixes? *You're flat-out wrong. Period. for Supreme Being, Masonry talks about a (mostly) Monotheistic Deity/God, whoever it be, as opposed to polytheistic deities/gods. *& this citation for Supreme Being is your official citation supporting Supreme Being's capitalization. Grye 11:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking, "Supreme Being" should be capped, as it is a proper title. "Lodge", however, should only be capped in certain places via context (it is clearly correct is some instances, and clearly wrong in others. The subheadings are questionable; either capped like a title or uncapped like a phrase is fine, as long as it is consistent. Can we pick one, stick to it, and put this very minor issue to rest? MSJapan 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Basil Rathbone

My post removed from here, by myself, ok? Millennium Sentinel 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm... how did he get 4 warnings when his contribution list shows he's edited twice?--SarekOfVulcan 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I pondered the same, espesially seeing as how both the users edits was before even the first warning. A cause of mistaken identity perhaps? Not that I'm defening vandals, but still... WegianWarrior 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I just backed out the second two warnings.--SarekOfVulcan 17:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Links to solve disputes

Before stating what Regular Freemasons say, do or think (especially regarding UGLE) - read through the info at these several handy links:

  • The United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). [2]
    • Constitutions of the Antient Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons under the United Grand Lodge of England [3]
    • General Regulations Established by the Supreme Grand Chapter of the Order of Royal Arch Masons of England [4]
    • Freemasonry and Society [5]
    • Freemasonry and Religion[6]
    • Freemasonry's External Relations[7]

Note these links were removed from the Main Page several times, and so I've put them here in order to defuse a potential Rv. war, ok? Millennium Sentinel 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It still shows too much reliance on one site. Is there a page where all those docs are linked? If so, a ink there should be sufficient, and just add some explanatory text. MSJapan 04:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
These are handy links, that wold not show up easily if only the main page of the site was shown. Since this is the prime site it needs to be cited in detail - here, if not on the main article page. I would say that the information is the "last word" on regular craft Freemasonry.
A few words about ritual and regulations. When Masonic rituals, or supporting regulations, are updated - only the last update is the authoritative document - in the same way that only the latest amendment of a Country's Constitution is used, (within allowed parameters of variation). Since Freemasonry is not a religion, or a substitute for religion, it can vary the ritual as it sees fit, (although in practice UGLE, etc., currently tie themselves to keeping to the "Old Charges"). Now a religion that changes any of the basic dogmas becomes, in effect, a new religion. Regularity of a freemasonic grouping is a constitutional, not a dogmatic, matter. Millennium Sentinel 10:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

WP is not a list of links

On the other hand, Del.icio.us is a list of links. And there's a nice Mozilla plugin to make it easier to work with...--SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more links

The number of links is getting out of hand. I removed Freemasonry Collection as a commercial link (they're a shop that sells reproductions), and I also removed freemasonry.fm, as it is a site (more a links repository) sponsored by the aforementioned shop, and is clearly a) too POV, and b) more commercial advertising. Anyhow, I reqally thin we don't need any more links unless it's something truly amazing. I'm tempted to remove the "Laudable Pursuit" link as well, since it is of no use to the general public, but no one commented on it. MSJapan 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on LP: it's useful for us, but not terribly encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 22:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda Due

Ok, I'll bite -- why revert this repeatedly?--SarekOfVulcan 03:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean of the Main article? For starters, If we're going to start adding the links to the Freemasonry#See also section which are in the Category:Freemasonry, why not just add them all? And I do mean all the links on these pages...: [[Category:Freemasonry_related_magazines|magazines]], [[Category:Freemasons|Freemasons]], especially links to other [[Category:Masonic_organizations|Masonic Orgs]]? Isn't that what the catagories are for? I dunno... I'm but an egg... But wait, wasn't that you above? "I don't think we need any more links"..;~D Grye 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Those are links to articles: anything I said above applied to external links.--SarekOfVulcan 07:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, cool-I/O but also, see the point? I don't want to exclude a critical page, but I don't want to list a bunch of pages where other [more relevant] pages exist from the same list... Grye 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

P2 does have its own page, good edits MSJ, think it could be pared down further actually... Grye 07:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really, because we need to give some basic info for those not interested in reading the P2 articles, but it was a good third of that whole section. MSJapan 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous categories at bottom of talk page

For some reason, Freemasonry related magazines is at the bottom of this page. Does anyone know how to edit it out? MSJapan 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Never seen that. Can't edit it from here, sectionally; from the main page; an old archived page. Only thing I can think of is that the Archived pages have something to do with it, or listing as a featured article, but no, because main page OK to remove section. Must be attribute of being Archived. Grye 06:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Fixed it - apperantly if you try to wikilink to categories, the mediawiki software believes you want to place the article (or talk page) to the categories in question. WegianWarrior 11:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That was my bad. Sorry, & thanks for fixing it. Grye 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

merge: List of Masonic organizations

  • Merge here. if at all: All of these that should be on the page at all, are in catagory:Masonic organizations
There is no content on the page besides links to orgs
There's not that many of them, now or possibly
A Bibliography would make an article 2+ times the size of the List of Masonic organizations article, as-is, right from the Freemasonry article.

Grye 19:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Moved contents under "See Also", to Masonic organizations & Organizations with Masonic affiliations. I moved it below "see also" because that's what they are. Please, check it for location, format, content, etc.

NOTE the donor article ( List of Masonic organizations ) has had the redirect tag removed, then the speedy delete tag removed, & currently has the AfD tag. If you have a thought or consern of the welfare of either page, please consider going to the article's AfD page & commenting. Grye 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
We can have it here, but we need some basic guidelines. Notability is a good one - there's less than 10 Sciots Pyramids, and they're only in 3 states or so, whereas S&C Clubs are more well-known, so I would remove one in favor of the other. Furthermore, "Masonic affiliation" needs to be clarified, because as it stands, we could include the Elks, Kiwanis, BSA, Rotary, and a whole host of other groups, mainly because Masons started them or were notably involved in them, which is not what I think the intent of the category is. There's also a lot of invitational bodies with limited presences. Do they go in or not? Most people won't ever have heard of them, Masons included. MSJapan 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
All good points, & i agree: some go, some go elsewhere, & where? These are all things that aren't watched when it's a page "over there". I don't really care, I'll support the catagories as they evolve, & watch & edit them, but all that is not happening as a seperate article, which allows for increadibly unrelated and inapropriate listings to appear unchecked. Grye 07:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Philo

I don't know anything about the Masons, but I noticed this paragraph in this article:

Alternatively, the argument is made that because Pike claims the works of Plato and Philo were as divinely inspired as The Apocalypse of Saint John, and because Plato and Philo were pre-Christian pagans, and that all pagan beliefs are Satanic, therefore that Pike and other Freemasons are Satan worshippers.

Wasn't Philo actually Jewish?

Mwalcoff 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Read up on Philo, but I think some of it might come from Philo being B.C. Also basically probably a lot of "infidel" name-calling... Grye 04:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

History

I have undertaken a revision of the history section to tighten up some of the language and give it a bit more structure (I would like to do a similar revision and extend the History of Masonry page as well, but that is another project). Unfortunately, in the process, I lost the various links to other articles that were included in the previous version. Perhaps someone could edit them back in? Blueboar 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)