Talk:Great Architect of the Universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality.

This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 26, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Ok, there are a couple of weird errors on this page. First of all, there is no evidence that Francis Bacon was ever a Freemason. And second of all, it was Roger Bacon who was the early developer of the [scientific method], not Francis. There's a 300 year difference there. Pymander Jones 19:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Great Archiect,history.

[edit] History of the term

It may be interesting to look for the meaning of "Grand,or Great,or Supreme Architect"in older sources.It occurs in the famous text of Pico della Mirandola: Oratio de dignitate hominis.It may be that the concept of a Creation 'ex nihilo' required a Creator -Initiator, who could be referred to as 'Architect'

[edit] redirect

As I write this, 'Supreme Being' redirects here. I'm changing it to redirect to God. --Andymussell 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Noted, and altered back. Supreme Being need not imply G*d and it may be felt offensive to some to assert that they are one and the same.ALR 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative Commentary

I do not really think it is appropriate to have Speculative Commentary in an encyclopedia... At least not in the way done here. It is fine to report on the speculations of Masonic Scholars and "experts" in the field of Masonry (provided we can properly cite the material), but what is written here is the speculation of an editor, and not that of a recognized Masonic scholar. The section either needs to be majorly re-written or deleted. If the statements can be backed by a noted scholar, then much more needs to be cited. I will add citation requests for now, but if nothing is changed or added after about a week, I will delete. Blueboar 18:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I divided it up and headed it as such, since nobody else was paying much attention here at the time I was wary of deleting it without notice and never got back to it. I'd be comfortable with getting rid.ALR 02:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I will delete now and not wait longer. If someone objects they can revert. Blueboar 21:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

No objections... Just a comment. About the only other information I could see adding might be that the term first appeared in Anderson's Constitutions ... and that Brent Morris says that Anderson seems to have taken it from the writings of John Calvin (who refers to either the "Great Architect" or "Architect of the Universe" several times.) I don't think my info will add enough to change the prod nom. However if you think it will help I can provide refs. Blueboar 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well it's gone. tbh I'd support getting rid of it, snag is we'll probably get the ohhhhhh masonic seeeeecrets crowd along to prevent that.ALR 06:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • OK... since the article is going to stay (or perhaps go through a formal AfD nom), does anyone think Morris's info about the term being derived from Calvin's writings is worth adding? Or is it just extraneous back ground info? Blueboar 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm AfDing it, as it's really not going to go anywhere. An NT quote reference to "architect" doesn't count as etymology, and there's simply nowhere to go with this that doesn't fit in better somewhere else. Apart from needing a published source on Morris' statement for WP purposes, it would be more appropriate to say "GAOTU as used in Freemasonry is a term that may have derived from Calvin's writings" in the Calvin article. Still, derivation is a tricky thing to figure out, especially since there's at least a 200 year gap between Calvin and published usages of the term. Too thin ATM to worry about, I think. MSJapan 16:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Given that there has been a lot of additional material added, and that it looks like the consensus at the AdF is now to keep... I have added it. Morris's statement is from the Idiot's Guide, and I know there is a web site that hosts Calvin's works if someone fact tags that part. Blueboar 14:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • If someone tags that paragraph, refer them to the two — now three — separate sources already cited in the article and explicitly referenced by that paragraph, all of which say the same thing about Calvin. Uncle G 17:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)