Talk:History of Freemasonry

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Initial Statements

There are interesting tidbits, but this article could really use some work. In particular there are more than a few statements like "the evidence supports such-and-such conclusion". We would have a much, much stronger article if we could present summaries of whatever "evidence" is being referred to and allow the readers to reach their own conclusions. Unfortunately, I don't know where to get the evidence since it isn't discussed or cited. Are there interested parties out there who can help?

Also, Freemasonry is international, but this article seems focused on the U.K.?

The sorts of things we might want to include:

  • Origins (known/documented, "mythological" as presented in Masonic lore, "prehistoric" indications of the sort in the existing article, occultish, controversies thereabout)
  • Early organization in the U.K.
  • Initial spread and growth elsewhere in the world (e.g., via British colonization)
  • Development and evolution of rituals
  • Schisms and reconciliations
  • Involvement (alleged?) of Masons and Masonic Lodges in political and revolutionary movements (French and American Revolutions, civil rights movement in the U.S.)
  • I think Prince Hall Masonry and segregation in the U.S. deserves its own section or perhaps a reference to its own article
  • Anti-Masonry (worldwide and in the U.S., conspiracy theories, occult accusations, friction with Roman Catholic and Mormon churches and various Protestant theologies)
  • Government suppression of Masonry (Nazi claims/controversy, Soviet Union, China? others?)
  • Recent (severe) decline of Masonry in the U.S. (and other Western countries?)
  • Recent growth of Masonry in Central and South America

I'm also hoping categorizing this article under Freemasonry might get it some more attention.

I'll do what I can when I can, and see about recruiting some authors. Anyone else have suggestions or want to dig in? —Bsktcase 05:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Bsktcase. It is well past time that someone took an interest in this article. I wrote it when I was very new to Wikipedia and apart from minor tidying up it has remained substantially unchanged ever since. I wrote it in this form largely because I wanted to avoid controversy but I felt that the paragraph on "History of Freemasonry" in the main article on Freemasonry was woefully inadequate.
Much of what I wrote might be considered original research but it has been published in a reputable journal (Transactions of the United Masters Lodge, Auckland, NZ. Sept 1992) and as such is, hopefully, acceptable to Wikipedia.
The difficulty is that prior to 1717 almost nothing is known about Freemasonry but an awful lot of rubbish is written based mainly on wishful thinking. The original paper and this article present the only concrete facts I could find. Beyond suggesting that FM was around in England and Scotland from about AD1400 they don't support any other conclusions.
Post 1717 it is a very different story and there is material for a whole series of articles. For instance in Mexico in the 1820 various masonic Lodges actually went to war with each other to decide who would run the country.
But I was leaving all that for someone else to tackle, my area of interest was pre-1717.
I hope this background helps you
ping 07:42, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ping, thanks for your comments! Totally appropriate on wikipedia to give an article a good start and let others build upon it, and I'm very glad you did so. I think we agree on things. As you can see, I think there's a massive volume of material to be discussed here, more than deserving of its own page. The summary on Freemasonry is fine but that's all it is, a summary. Agree with you that there's a clear 1717 split: plenty of documentary evidence after, not much before. If we recruit a broader base of contributors, hopefully we can get coverage of both sides.

Agree with you about the "wishful thinking" versions of history. However, the point here shouldn't be to pick one "best" version of history and only present that one; what wikipedia is about is summarizing all the versions, with the strengths and weaknesses of each. Even though I think most Masons today agree that Freemasonry did not literally originate with the builders of Solomon's temple, we can't very well have a complete history if we don't discuss the legend... especially because the legend has been used by anti-Masons to condemn Freemasonry as arrogant and sacreligious, and those arguments don't make sense if we don't know what they're condemning. Likewise the Knights Templar theories which are used by pro-Masons to paint a romantic, chivalrous picture, but also by anti-Masons to support wild occultish conspiracy theories. And so on. We'll never be able to establish any one version of Masonic prehistory as "definitive", but we can definitely describe all the different versions and present evidence for or against, which would be a cool article all by itself.

We two definitely can't do it all by ourselves. Hoping Brethren and other interested parties will show up to bail us out! —Bsktcase 17:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not up to the task of attempting a rewrite, but I added an External Link which may be of some use:

  • Craft, Trade or Mystery by Dr Bob James (Revised 2002). Provides extensive discussion on the Operative and Speculative origins of Freemasonry, including extensive citations.

Particularly of note is Chapter 2: Fraternalism before 1717: Or When is Freemasonry NOT Speculative?. Useful for its extensive sources and citations alone. --Takver 14:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An excellent Article. You do well at conveying the fact that there is little documented history prior to the formation of the Grand Lodge of England, and that much of the History of Freemasonry before then has to be speculation. However, given the current interest in the Craft and its beginnings (as evidenced by such books as "Born In Blood", "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and even "The DaVinci Code") I think we need to at least mention the idea that the Masons are descended from the Templars (and other such theories.) As long as these are presented AS unproven theories they should be included.
I would also agree that the Article needs to discuss the growth and exportation of the Craft after the formation of that first Grand Lodge. Also, Beefing up this article would help cut the length of the main Freemasonry Article. Blueboar 20:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi, I'm new to the Wiki postings, but as a early modern European history student at the University of Chicago, I thought that I could post some thoughts that might help you in the attempt to revise the Freemasonry page, specifically the "History of" section. If you all know about the works that I mention below, my apologies for being redundant. :) Margaret C. Jacob (UCLA) has published a significant body of work about the history of freemasonry: "Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Europe.' Oxford University Press, 1991. "The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons and Republicans." London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981. "The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts and Fictions." Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. (This last one is a more popular work.) I would also recommend David Stevenson's "The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590-1710." Cambridge University Press, 1988. I hope this helps. Calliopelives 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Frere Masoun

Could the above French phrase (meaning brother or fellow mason) be the origin of the term Freemason? Thoughts? Fergananim 24.8.05.

Interesting point that I had never considered. Any idea when Frere Masoun was first used? I have never been entirely happy with the 'Freestone Mason' explanation but have never seen a better one.ping 09:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Proposal

This article is puny. There are better structured history sections in Anti-Freemasonry and Freemasonry. Can discussion of the whole merger be conducted here? JASpencer 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been planning a complete rewrite for a while now... But I keep getting sidetracked to other articles dealing with Freemasonry. I hope to upload a draft in a month or so (still doing research and finding proper citations). Topics I plan to expand: Origins: to include brief discussion of other origin possibilities. Sections to be added: Post 1717 England, America, France, and many other nations and parts of the world... IE most of the history of Freemasonry. If you merge this back to Freemasonry, I will simply have to recreate it when I have finished my draft. Blueboar 00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the history section from Anti-Freemasonry and Freemasonry should be mered into this article. Ardenn 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with merging a lot of the historical material from the Anti-masonry page here. I do agree that you can not discuss the history of Freemasonry properly without mentioning the negative side of things (for example, you can not discuss Freemasonry in 1700s France or 1800s Italy without mentioning anti-clericism), and some of the historical material at the Anti-Masonry page could be incorporated here. However, I would not support simply deleting the historical material from Anti-Masonry. That material is a large part of what makes Anti-Masonry a distict phenominon, a "movement" if you will. It is vital to that article and seperates it from the various "(Name of Group) and Freemasonry" sub-articles that various people have been starting recently. It is part of what links them all together and makes the Anti-Masonry Article interesting. In many ways the Anti-Masonry article should really be called "History of Anti-Masonry"Blueboar 02:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring this article

I'm going to try my hand at restructuring this article to be more cronological in nature and comprehensive, this way people can add more to each section and really expand on this poorly structured article. Chtirrell 20:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Chtirrell, well done. Much of what you added was similar to edits I was planning to make but have not gotten around to doing. I would add few other sections... something like: Freemasonry in the former British Empire (covering the exportation of the craft to India, Africa and Australia) and Freemasonry in the Near East (covering Turkey, Israel, and the Arab World). Also, in discussing the spread of Freemasonry through Europe in the 1700s and 1800s, we need to discuss the fact that many of the Grand Orients (in France and Italy especially) became very political in nature (this is important as it lies at the roots of some of the Anti-Masonic claims... which will have to be addressed to keep the article NPOV). Blueboar 13:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, thanks for the kind words. I was going to add the extended (i.e. outside UK, Europe and US) sections today, just wanted to get the main parts down. It's good to see we're on the same page :) As for the political sections, I was going to add a section on Freemasonry and the French Revolution, a short summary of P2 and a link redirect. I also want to integrate some of the sections of the Anti-masonry article to flesh out the history of anti-masonry on Freemasonry. I just hope that in the end this article doesn't get too long. We may have to summerize somethings here and talk about curtain subjects more thoroughly in specific articles. Chtirrell 16:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that volume is a big risk, since the topic is huge. I created a placeholder for Schisms on my user page so that I could work on that, for just that reason. as with the main FM page others can cascade out from this. But it is useful to have the framework to deal with.ALR 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
In the origins section, we should probably have a bit more discussion about the theory that we derived directly from the knights templar. I know that this claim is currently the province of crackpot pseudo-historians and best selling fiction authors, and we do want to be careful not to endorse their nutty ideas... but the concept does date back all the way to the 1750s and Chevalier Ramsey. It does deserve a bit more discussion. Blueboar
I would like to participate in the restructing as well, especially since I've got some experience in separating fact from legend by editing the articles on the Knights Templar. For example, I would suggest making a clear separation in the article between facts about Freemasonry, and "Freemasonry legends". Under the "Knights Templar" section, instead of, "It has been theorized", I would move that to the "Legends" section, and change the wording to something like, "Some have suggested, without proof, that..." Also, did anyone catch the recent History Channel documentary on the Freemasons? There's a lot of good info there. I have it recorded and can provide some factoids from it if anyone is interested. --Elonka 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged Material from the main Freemasonry Article

I have merged the material from the main Freemasonry Article in an attempt to more fully develop the History of Freemasonry article and to allow the Freemasonry editors to shorten the history section on the main page. Because of this, I believe the merge tag can be removed and will do this. If there are any problems bring them up and we can readd the merge tag. Chtirrell 04:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have continued to add and merge here. Imacomp 12:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have continued to add and merge here. Imacomp 21:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Commune section

I have no real problem with this new section, but it does need citations. Blueboar 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it also lacks relivence for the general history of Freemasonry. Prehaps shortening it and adding a wikilink to a larger article about it. Chtirrell 18:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It was suggested that rather start a fresh page on Revolutionary Freemasonry it would be better to mention these interesting topics on this very History of Freemasonry page. If you regard this as long, what is going to happen when he touch on other such topics as the role of freemasonrys in the 1848, revolution in France, the Battle of Antrim, etc etc. etc. perhaps we should discuss the way forward on this.Harrypotter 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As the one who suggested that you post this material here... that was suggested as an alternative to posting it on the Freemasonry Article, where it really didn't fit. I actually think that it would work best as its own article, linked to in this one.

[edit] Better in Anti-Masonry?

Is this not better in Anti-Masonry? Imacomp 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Foundation of Freemasonry on the European Continent

Original bans

The first official action against Freemasonry was in 1735 in Holland.

In 1736, the Roman Catholic Church began to investigate a Masonic Lodge in Florence, Italy which had been founded for (Protestant) English residents but had been admitting Italian members. The Lodge in question was condemned by the Chief Inquisitor in Rome on 25 June 1737, and on 9 May 1739, Tommaso Crudeli, a free-thinker and physician in Florence, was questioned under torture about his beliefs and Masonic affiliation. He was released in April 1741 and died in January 1745[1]

In 1738, partly due to the Florentine case, the Catholic church first denounced Freemasonry in the Papal Constitution In Eminenti. The Protestant states of Sweden and Geneva banned Freemasonry in 1738, followed by Zurich in 1740 and Berne in 1745.

Freemasonry and the Inquisition

Another early case involved John Coustos, a Swiss native living in England. Coustos travelled to Portugal on business where he founded a lodge. He was arrested by the Inquisition and was tortured and questioned before being sentenced to the galleys. Three of the members of his lodge were executed. He was released in 1744 as a result of the intercession of George II of England. After his release and return to England, John Coustos wrote a book detailing his experiences in the hands of the Inquisition[1].

In 1815, Francisco J. Mier y Campillo, one of the Inquisitors-General of Spain, launched a new purge on Freemasonry and denounced the lodges as "societies which lead to sedition, to independence, and to all errors and crimes." The subsequent purge involved many Spaniards being imprisoned on the charge of being "suspected of Freemasonry".

See also Catholicism and Freemasonry

I think this article should contain some mention of Anti-Masonry through history... for example, you can not really talk about the developement of Masonry in the US without mentioning the Morgan Affair and the Anti-Masonic backlash that followed it. But, to my way of thinking, the focus should be on how any particular Anti-Masonic movement or attack affected the fraternity. Thus, the question of whether to mention the Catholic bans, or Coustos's arrest, depends on how much they affected Freemasonry. Given that criteria, I would say they can go... neither really had an impact on the fraternity in the long run. Blueboar 02:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The 20th century masonic history is woefully incomplete - the 1980's saw the Masons rocked by the publication of Stephen Knight's expose, The Brotherhood, which gave away many secrets of the society and exposed many leading masons, especially in the police force and the government in the UK. Many people were forced to resign, and masons started to open up and allow lodge tours - I arranged a meeting between Humanists (who are forbidden from being Masons for not being willing to swear an oath on a creator) and a leadiing Manchester Freemason - I even spoke with him on the radio and got a tour of his lodge HQ - such a meeting would not have been possible before the Knight book came out. It changed everything for the masons. Surely its impact needs to be covered here. (User:arthurchappell

Again, the problem is one stated much earlier, and that is that Masonry is international. I would have to look into it, but I'm not so sure knight's book had a huge impact in the US, and I do know that osme of his speculation was flat-out wrong. Also, please sign posts with four tildes as opposed to a userpage link. MSJapan 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unity of Freemasonry?

As I did in the main Freemasonry article, I have deleted statements about the Unity of Freemasonry (in relation to the GOdF / UGLE schism) and citations to the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia used to back these statements. I have discussed these in more depth at the main article (see that talk page), but as far as this article goes: not only were the statements wrong, the citations didn't back them. First, one of the references was used to show how there was supposedly a unity in Masonry during World War One... The CE cited to an article in an American Masonic journal dated 1906... well before the war. The Schism was in full swing at the time, and thus the referenced journal could not be said to reflect the state of relations at the time. The other simply did not support the statement. Yes, there was a relaxation in the Schism during the war... but this was a unique situation. Prior to it, and again after it, the schism was in full force. Blueboar 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading title

If this is a history of Freemasonry, it should include only verifiable facts, not possiblities, vague theories and speculation. Otherwise perhaps Origins of Freemasonry would be a better title for a separate page on Freemasonry pre-1717. Either way, there is an awful lot of unsourced stuff and historically dodgy stuff here. For example, the formation Of the Masons' Livery Company in London in 1356 is mentioned. But there is no evidence given for any link between it and Freemasonry. So why is it here? There are many other examples...--Stonemad GB 23:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The title is not misleading, the article is just incomplete. Several editors have expressed the desire to expand this beyond 1717 (tracing the developement of Freemasonry to other parts of the world for example)... but all of them are bogged down in other articles at the moment. You are correct in saying that there is a lot unsourced things... I can assure you that finding reliable sources is on the to do list. Feel free to help out. Blueboar 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the Masons' Livery Company and the link with freemasonry the Livery company accounts of the 1600s record that the sum of £1 was paid by a member of the Company for coming on acception. It seems that there was a masonic lodge that met separately from the Livery company itself. This may be a POV but if it is recorded in the accounts then it must mean something. I will see what I can find out about it. Any views? Aquizard 20:40, 21 Janaury 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of other Grand Lodges

This is a very good site full of interesting information, well done to all of those that has contributed and are continuing the effort. In my copy of Lanes Masonic Records 1717- 1894 (the 2000 reprint) I note that there is reference made to The Grand Lodge of All England at York and The Grand Lodge of England South of the River Trent. There is also a list of all the lodges and dates of their consecrations. From a historical point of view I am of the view that there should be mention of these Grand Lodges as they are part of masonic history that we are trying to document. Any views? Aquizard 20:50, 21 Janaury 2007 (UTC)

This may not be the place to do that yet . check Category:WikiProject Freemasonry for possibly more apt & needy article, which we can tie into this one? Or not...21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right, but I think it'll become an absolute nightmare of RV's & non-cited edits etc. If we keep references to every single Regular Masonic, "other" Masonic, straight up non-Masonic, etc spur to a minimum, w/ links & "See main Article" headers, I think yeah. Grye 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In consideration of what I had commented in this section I have also located another historic Grand Lodge, the Grand Lodge of Wigan, that should be mentioned. Now I suggest that articles on these start off as stubs and can be referenced into the main article at a suitable point. Aquizard 10:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of the tiny Grand Lodges that you talk about did not long survive or were eventually merged into either the Ancient or Modern Grand Lodges. I don't think we need to mention every tiny Grand Lodge that was ever formed. It is important to discuss the Ancients/Moderns split because it had an impact on Freemasonry in general... affecting the growth of Freemasonry in America, and eventually resulting in the formation of UGLE. Blueboar 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Manuscripts and (stone)masons

Regarding the date of the Regius manuscript Andrew Prescott of Sheffield University Masonic research Centre dates it to the early to middle 15th century (roughly 40-50 years after 1390), see the Transactions of the Canonbury conference 3. Also the word 'freemason' was used to refer to the trade of an individual for many years after the formation of the grand lodge in 1717, try the national Archives website and you will soon find references to people who were quite clearly stonemasons not speculative craft freemasons from as late as the 1750s - the operative side of freemasonry tends to be utilised to provide foundation myths for freemasonry and the so-called 'old charges' are scoured for evidence of ritual and esoteric content, however what they really represent is evidence in the history of labour relations and it is perhaps time for the reappearance of the 18th century stonemason within the pages of wiki. There does appear to be a gradual movement towards a new wave of transition theories regarding freemasonry, see Mathew Scanlan's article in Freemasonry Today on 'fatal flaws' in scholarship over the Christopher Wren/masonic connections, and the writings of Andy Durr, Andrew Prescott and Bob James all of whom have, in different ways, placed stonemasonry firmly back into the story of Freemasonry bamboodragon 01:12 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Again here, what are you getting at? 40-50 years off on something that's over 600 years old isn't that bad, and I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your quoting of sources. I'm sure there's a Stonemasonry article, and if there isn't, go ahead and make one, I guess. MSJapan 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of mentioning stonemasons is that in histories of freemasonry they are the elephants in the room, in the article you created on masonic manuscripts you utilise these sources as part of the general narrative of speculative craft freemasonry when they are quite clearly of equal if not greater relevance to the history of stonemasonry, how about a link to that article on stonemasonry (or don't you think that the old charges of stonemasons are in any way relevant to err.. stonemasonry) ? And as for the assertition that inaccuracy regarding dates doesn't matter.... well what do you want me to say, no it doesn't matter that the dating of this manuscript is probably wrong, I was trying to contribute useful information via the talk pages so that it could be discussed rather than ruthlessly editing what appears to be slightly inaccurate information. Bamboodragon 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 2:35 19/3/2007

[edit] Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!) --VS talk 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should cut something just because it was not discussed first. If you have a problem with an external link you should explain what that problem is. The link you cut was:
  • Craft, Trade or Mystery by Dr Bob James (Revised 2002). Provides extensive discussion on the operative and speculative origins of Freemasonry, including extensive citations.
This hardly counts as a spam link... it seems to be directly tied to the topic of where Freemasonry developed. If you disagree with this assessment or have some other reason to delete it, please let us know. Blueboar 15:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your views Blueboar however if your follow the link of my first message above you will see why the link was cut. Because the link is owned by an editor (ie: he runs the website and controls the content of the link) the link requires discussion under the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. By placing the discussion point here you and other editors can make the comments regarding the quality of the link. If you think the link is fine then it is in fact up to you to indicate why that is so (which you appear to be doing above) but not up to me as I carry out wiki function tasks to check upon. Cheers--VS talk 09:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can see why you cut it.... however, I have no conflict of interest, so I have returned it... The COI issue should not be a problem any longer... It's no different than if I had found it by surfing. The article being linked to is directly relevant to the article (it discusses the connection between operative guilds and early Freemasonry). I think it is a good link for this article. Blueboar 14:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair call Blueboar - and with you as a third party considering it a worthwhile link I have no problem at all. Cheers!--VS talk 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Franklin

The reference to Benjamin Franklin has been removed because he was de-recognised in France andrefused his honours because his Lodge in Philadelphia was, in fact, an unwarranted Lodge. The reference to it being a Moderns/Antients matter is untrue.

Well, that's news to me. Do you have a source for this? MSJapan 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient vs. Antient... again

My Brothers, rather than get into an edit war... can we discuss the pros and cons of both spelling varients, determine what the current consensus is, and agree to go with that consensus? Blueboar 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be having a project wide revert war over whether to use "Ancient" (with a "c") or "Antient" (with a "t"). We need to hammer this out and reach a consensus, and we should do so in one central location. Since this impacts several articles, I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Ancients vs. Antients... consensus? to be that central location. Please discuss at that thread.

Thank you, Blueboar 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of the Third Degree

Great section, although it obviously could use some work in beefing it up, but there sees to be one glaring omission: discussion of the Two Degree system, and how/why those Degrees morphed into the Three Degree system. I believe Andersen in 1723 is the first mention of the third degree, but I'm not sure.--Vidkun 16:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional information on the origin of our ritual, and with a look at the Ancients/Moderns issues: Our Ritual: A Study In Its Development by Brother J. Mason Allan, I.S.O. Past Grand Bard, Extracted from The Year Book, Grand Lodge of Scotland 1960. --Vidkun 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving this article forward

The time has come for us to focus on this article again. As I see it, there are several areas that could use work:

  1. Expand and improve on the Origins section - this is a "hot" topic in popular culture, and I think it needs more discussion. I would suggest splitting it off into it's own "Origins of Freemasonry" article, where we can more fully discuss the various origin theories and properly evaluate them.
  2. Improve the discription of the growning differences between "Anglo" style and "Continental" style Freemasonry during the 1800 (prior to the Schism) - Continental Freemasonry was much more involved in European politics and Anti-clericism than Anglo Freemasonry. While the split did not officially occur until the 1870s, the two were growing in very different directions. It explains (for example) quite a lot about the historical antagonism between the Catholic Church and the fraternity.
  3. Start adding material about the growth of the fraternity outside England, the US and France. - in the Intro we mention that Freemasonry is world wide, but we don't mention anything beyond these three countries. What about Freemasonry in the British Empire or South America, etc.?

I could probably go on, but I think these three items will be enough for now (each is quite a task). Any thoughts before we begin? Blueboar 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)