Talk:Freemasonry

Correction to origins

The Masonic/Freemason order started out as a society for Knights of the 1st Crusade after the war ended; essentially what would now be called a veteran's organization. Ironically, it was created by the Vatican. The 16th/17th Century "origins" in the Article reflect not when the brotherhood was founded, but when its relationship with the Roman Catholic Church began to sour. This issue should be corrected. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Source? And a reliable one, please. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's one. [1] According to this document, it all started with the construction of a Roman Catholic Church building in Scotland in the early-to-mid-1100s. The founder was evidently also a cofounder of the Knights Templar, and in fact a veteran of the 1st Crusade. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

While Robert Lomas' theories can be interesting to ponder over a drink or two, he can not be considered a particularly reliable source on the history of masonry. WegianWarrior (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree... there are so many flaws in Lomas's speculation that it is laughable. Definitely not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert L D Cooper, Cracking the Freemasons Code. Rider 2006 is a good source on this. Cooper is the curator of Grand Lodge Scotland's Museum & Library. He manages to show where this stuff came from and how it got into Masonic belief. For the record, Bob Lomas no longer believes in any link with either the Templars OR the Sinclairs. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fiddlersmouth... has Lomas published something saying this? If so, there are several articles that will need updating (such as the one on Roslyn Chapel). Blueboar (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think, in his new book on "The Templar Key" his re-think will possibly be made plain. I haven't read it, but there are clues on his site. BTW, the ref from 2000 in the 2nd post up there seems to be unlinked from the main page. My source is from a couple of lectures he gave about 5 yrs ago, in which he poo-poohed the DIRECT Templar link, and attributed the Americana in Rosslyn to Sinclair piracy on good honest Vikings. HTH Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 November 2011

Fix a simple text/grammar mistake (duplicate) by replacing the following text:

@@@@ ORIGINAL @@@@

The oldest jurisdiction on the continent of Europe, the Grand Orient de France (GOdF), was founded in founded in 1733.

@@@@ END ORIGINAL @@@@

With the following text (the duplicate text "founded in" has been removed):

@@@@ REPLACEMENT @@@@

The oldest jurisdiction on the continent of Europe, the Grand Orient de France (GOdF), was founded in 1733. @@@@ END REPLACEMENT @@@@

Jonathan Caldwell, Columbus, OH 06:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a lot for pointing that out. Yours, SK (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. and thanks to SK for correcting it. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 January 2012

Rotary doesn't belong to Freemason, Rotary is a public NGO and anyone can attend Rotary meetings. Rotary is promoting peace, tolerance and world understanding. For more information about Rotary => www.rotary.org Kindly, remove "Rotary" from the Freemason article

Ahmed Salah RIFKY 16:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The only mention I can find of Rotary in the article is as follows; "In article 28 of its Covenant, Hamas states that Freemasonry, Rotary, and other similar groups "work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions ..."" - as such it's saying a lot more about Hamas and their (possible faulty, I'm not too familiar with Rotary) grouping of Freemasonry and Rotary as similar groups.

I feel it ought to stay to be true to the cited source, and removing it will not improve the article in any way. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Wegian is correct; "right" or "wrong" aside, the quote is direct, and cannot be altered in the middle "just because." I do know about Rotary, and it really does have nothing to do with Freemasonry other than the occasional overlap in members. MSJapan (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Other Grand Lodges in England

Having dealt with the split between Antients and Moderns, the article omits "The Grand Lodge of All England meeting since time immemorial in the City of York". It's important due to at least an opaque relationship with the York Rite. It was formed in 1725 and sort of fizzled out 1792ish. It also spawned The Grand Lodge of All England South of the River Trent in 1778. The York Rite section in web of Hiram is a good starting point. I'm happy to do research and refs, but I don't want to mess with someone else's (well written) text. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... not sure that this is the right article to go into all that... We can not cover every splinter Grand Lodge that has popped up and then died out (and there have been many over the years). Yes, the GLAE (and similar small splinter groups) existed, and in a more detailed article they would be mentioned... but this is a broad overview article. We have avoid getting into details detract from the broad sweep story we are telling.

It's really a matter of determining how much weight to give things in the context of the specific article. The split between Moderns and Antients had a major impact on the overall development of Freemasonry as a whole (especially the development of Freemasonry in the US). Thus it is important to mention... It is also important to mention because the resolution of the split is what the "United" part of the name "United Grand Lodge of England" (always an elephant in the room when talking about Freemasorny) is referring to. I don't think the creation of GLAE had the same level of impact. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. I just think it's more important than you give it credit for. Its own "creation myth" dates from the previous "Time Immoral" lodges, and was used in Anderson's Constitutions. Then there's the whole "York Rite" thing, York GL being the Go-To boys when the south of Trent lot fell out, and a feeling that at the time, the "great schism" was only really important if you lived in London. Before this, the two existing English GLs seem to have co-existed with a parish boundary at the Trent. I would have thought the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland were more important to US masonry than the Antients. (ps Craft lodges claiming descent from the York rite also call themselves Ancient Free etc) Fiddlersmouth (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's too loaded with minutiae to be of use to the casual reader. York Rite in the US really isn't framed as coming from a rival GL, even in accepted histories, but rather having grown out of military field lodges' degrees that were sort of piled together and codified by Thomas Smith Webb. As far as the schism goes, though, the exact opposite seems to be true, in that it was a big deal at the time. So, if we're going to seek to overturn accepted theory, we need a lot of reliable info, and I think it just becomes too involved for the generic article here. We do, however, have subsidiary articles on both GLs that could probably benefit from that information. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Echoing MSJapan - the York Rite in the USA derives from the various add-ons which are not all lumped together under UGLE, and never were part of a contiguous whole ... in the US, it derives from the Holy Royal Arch as we got it in MA through various Chapters, and all the Cryptic Rite and Templar aligned orders, none of which have been shown to derive exclusively or predominantly from the York GLAE. As for the "schism" there are numerous researchers who have countered the claim that the Ancients were schismatic - if they never were part of GLE formed in 1717, how could they have split from it? (If I was never married to Joan Smith, how can I divorce from her?) See Sadler's Masoni Facts and Fictions; for more on this - many of the Lodges which formed the Ancients were Irish Freemasons who did not affiliate with the upper crust Moderns. (also see the Masonic Light yahoogroup around this time last year under the thread "The Antients Grand Lodge was Regular"). I would have thought the Grand Lodges of Scotland and Ireland were more important to US masonry than the Antients. Ah, but they were! In Massachusetts, at least, the differences between the two organizations (not necessarily their ritual style, as noted by masonic historian Benjamin Hoff (don't currently have the citation) were enough that the military Lodges under the Ancients GL did not wish to be part of the Moderns Provincial GL, and found greater connection with the Scottish and Irish GLs: On October 1st, 1766, the 14th, 29th and part of the 69th Regiments arrived at Boston, Mass., and a little later the 64th and 65th Foot direct from Ireland and the three Military Lodges in the above all worked under the "Ancient system"--No. 58 in the 14th Foot, No. 322 in the 29th Foot and No. 106 in the 64th Foot--holding under the Grand Lodges of England ("Ancients"), Ireland and Scotland respectively. The members of St. Andrews, a Scottish lodge at Boston, fraternized with these visiting Military brethren and endeavored through this means to form a Grand Lodge under the Grand Lodge of Scotland. It is interesting to note that none of these Army lodges were represented at the installation of the Provincial Grand Master under England ("Moderns") in November, 1768, but all joined in a petition to the Grand Lodge of Scotland requesting the appointment of a "Grand Master of 'Ancient' Masons in America." from The Builder October 1918 [2] I'm also curious as to where there are Lodges claiming descent from the York Rite ... as I have often heard uninformed brethren asking whether my Craft Lodge was York Rite or Scottish Rite (and these were "mainstream" masons in New Jersey), when, in fact, only a few Lodges in the United States have any derivation from either Rite, and those being the small number of Lodges in New Orleans which have been using a French-derived AASR EA/FC/MM ritual format, and may or may not (I'm not sure on their origins) have derived from the old Consistory in Louisiana.--Vidkun (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your probably right on the minutiae front, MSJapan. Vidkun - Lodges claiming descent from the Old York Constitution, with their own flavour of ritual, exist in Yorkshire. (Where else?) Apart from a recent, and much vilified attempt to resurrect the old grand lodge,there are more than a few with UGLE warrants, a whole family in Leeds and the Lodge of Hope in Bradford. They have the Hope Manuscript [3] circa 1680, which mentions Master, Fellowe, and Apprentice 50 years before the degree of Master Mason officially existed. I have to agree on the so-called schism, GLE didn't react until 1777. But it's still the usual term. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lodges claiming descent from the Old York Constitution, with their own flavour of ritual, exist in Yorkshire. This still is not the "York Rite" unless, and this is a big if, we are talking about what both Mackey and Oliver claim Dunckerly changed by removing the "True Word" from the third degree; specifically, a trigradal system which included what is now the HRA in the MM; Mackey: The York Rite was that Rite which was most probably organized or modified at the Revival in 1717, and practised for fifty years by the Constitutional Grand Lodge of England. It consisted of only the three Symbolic Degrees, the last one, or the Master’s, containing within itself the secrets now transferred to the Royal Arch. And yet there are numerous historians who claim that the rituals worked at the 1717 revival were a digradal system which became trigradal sometime around 1725, though Pete Normand disagrees with these hypotheses, and claims those who were later termed the Ancients had all of the elements of today's Master Mason degree, though he has never answered as to whether he believes that to have been di- or tri gradal.--Vidkun (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

What this seems to be coming down to is this... there is certainly a place for at least mentioning GLAE in Wikipedia, but this article isn't that place. So... any ideas on where it should be discussed? Blueboar (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest History of Freemasonry??? I'm off to track the heirs of Rev Woodford, just to eliminate 19th century wishful thinking. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Blazing star

The blazing star

I'd like to suggest adding an image of the blazing star somewhere. It's one of the most common masonic symbols and arguably as important as the square and compass, especially outside the Anglosaxon world. A sentence or two about this symbol might also be interesting. Rinke 80 (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This would need support on several levels:

• Its importance - you are claiming a level of importance for the blazing star on par with the Square and Compasses, which is on the inside and outside of buildings, depicted on jewelry, and obviously, thousands upon thousands of websites at least. Where's the Blazing Star represented?
• Its rendition here - the Square and Compasses always looks the same. As far as I know, however, the blazing star is open to interpretation so long as it looks like something that someone would look at and think "yes, that is a blazing star." So we need to figure out how and why this is even accurate. MSJapan (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick web search gives some information, although not as much as you might like. I can give you one source to start with [4]. I don't have the time for an exhaustive search however. Sorry. There's a lot of literature on the blazing star. Please use my suggestion as you see fit. I'm confident it would be a good addition, but it's really up to the people who moderate this article. In any case, it's reassuring to see you're being thourough. Rinke 80 (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW: the blazing star is basically a five-pointed star (i.e. a pentagram with inscribed pentagon left out) pointing upward and adorned with a glory. There's an optional letter G in the centre of the star. The glory can be depicted in many ways, but this is artistic interpretation. The claim that the square-and-compass always looks the same is not true. The arms of the square are not always of equal length for example, the letter G is optional and the compass is also depicted in many varieties. Rinke 80 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually... no... the Blazing Star is not "basically a five-pointed star". Any "star" shape will do. Indeed, it is often depicted as being more "sun-shaped" (think of the Kellog's rasin bran logo... but without the smiley face) than "star-shaped". Also, it is actually fairly rare to see the Blazing Star with a G in the center. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I was initially thinking on a different line when I first read your request (for some reason I thought you wanted this in the lead area as a symbol visible to the public), but I do have an idea, and that is to expand the symbol section with pictures. The only thing is that that source you give indicates what I expected, which is that it is confined to the First Degree in Lodge. We don't really address any appendant body degrees here, and I don't want this article to become a degree analysis piece, either, because that's not useful general information. Let's see what others think. MSJapan (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the matter is in capable hands. I hope you don't mind if I leave it with you. @MSJapan: I totally agree that replacing the square and compass in the lead area with the blazing star would be questionable. As far as I know the blazing star is a generic symbol in freemasonry, but I'm not solid on this. Your idea about placing the image somewhere under symbol section is more or less what I had in mind as well. Thanks guys. Rinke 80 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't think it'll be possible to get consensus among masons as to the imagery of the blazing star. I've been in lodges all over the world and it is never depicted as a primary symbol of masonry. When it is depicted, I've always seen it as part of a grouping of other symbols. Additionally, an associated body also has a blazing star, often mis-represented as a star on a field of fire or a star with a glory when in actual fact the original of that symbols was not a star with a glory, a star in front of a field of fire, or, of all things, even a star on fire. But instead a star OF fire. You will see sometimes see the correct symbol represented by a star with wavy arms, indicating that the star is made of fire. It will take old-fashioned, in-depth research in actual books to find it; I doubt very much anything will be found on this blazing star on the interweb. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 20:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good thing I like books. What we also need is free graphics for various symbols (such as representative officer position emblems for the Officers article). If somebody can hunt those up, that would help, and I'll see what I can dig out from where. MSJapan (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Before we rush off and spend time searching for images... an image should illustrate something that is stated in the article. So what fact or concept would we be illustrating if we added an image of a blazing star? Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the blazing star is much more important outside of Anglo-Sakson freemasonry than it is in it. It's indeed one of the central symbols in continental traditions. In some degrees it's in a prominent place in the temple (in the east above the throne) and it can be seen on many masonic buildings. Contrary to what has been claimed by another discussant, I'm pretty sure the blazing star is five-pointed. No doubt six- or even seven-pointed stars (with and without glory) can be found in freemasonry, but the blazing star is the five-pointed one. The claim about the blazing star being a star of fire instead of a star with glory, is very interesting. This may be true from a purist point of view (I don't know), but that's an academic debate. In any case it's clear that in practice the five-pointed star with glory is by far the most common depiction of the blazing star. I'd like to point out that this discussion (as the article itself) seems to be slightly biased towards Anglo-Saxon tradition. This is understandable, since we're on the English Wikipedia here, but I think it's good to be aware of this. 129.125.156.1 (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, we need to remember why we include images in the first place. Images are supposed to illustrate the text. The text discusses the fact that Freemasons (of whatever tradition) use symbolism - especially the tools of the operative Mason's art - to teach allegorical lessons. We mention the Square and Compasses as an example of this. The S&C are (in my opinion) the best examples... they are common to all traditions of Freemasonry, and are probably the single most recognizable emblems of Freemasonry world wide. And because we do mention them specifically, I think it is appropriate to include an image of the S&C to illustrate what we talk about.

Now, I suppose we could expand the section and discuss other emblems and symbols (and if we did so it might be appropriate to include images to illustrate what we discuss)... but why? The point we are trying to make is fairly simple ... and it has been clearly made, using emblems that the average reader (Mason and non-Mason alike) will probably recognize as being "Masonic". I question whether it would be helpful to discuss any other emblems and symbols. Indeed, we run the risk of confusing the reader if we give too many examples.

So... whether the Blazing Star typically has five points or not is actually irrelevant... the question is whether we want to mention the Blazing Star at all... and if we don't mention it, then there is no point in including an image of it. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. Bear in mind that freemasonry has two clear symbolic themes: symbolism around the operative masons art and light symbolism. I think the blazing star is a good example of the latter and worth mentioning. 129.125.156.104 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Light symbolism? Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, symbolism with light as theme. "The journey from darkness into light." It's one of the two main themes in freemasonry. This is all pretty basic masonic theory. 129.125.156.104 (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.208.63.189 (talk)

Hmmm... I suspect that we are dealing with another case different jurisdictions using the same emblem in different ways. Where I come from the Blazing Star isn't symbolic of "the journey from darkness into light"... it is emblematic of "the superintending care of Divine Providence". Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"The blazing star, or glory...refers us to the sun", says my anglo-saxon ritual book. This is from the explanation of the first degree tracing board, which has a VERY spiky star propping up the top of the ladder, with a perfectly good sun above it. This in itself causes debate, but the rest of the explanation tends towards the divine providence role. If the star ought to be on the page, why not the whole tracing board? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, we are definitely dealing with jurisdictional differences (and perhaps even a lodge by lodge differences). Why not discuss the whole tracing board? - because not all tracing boards are the same. Different tracing boards show different symbols (ie a given symbol may be depicted on one tracing board and not depicted on another), and different tracing boards will use very different depictions of the symbols they do show. Then there is the fact that some jurisdictions don't use tracing boards at all.

This discussion highlights why it is so difficult to discuss Masonic ritual and symbolism in Wikipedia - what is done, said and depicted will be different from lodge to lodge and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Nothing any of us have said about the Blazing Star is "wrong"... It's just that nothing we have said is necessarily "correct" either... because it depends on jurisdiction. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "the journey from darkness into light" wasn't meant as explanation of the blazing star, but as an example of 'light symbolism' in general. 87.208.63.189 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point... I am not arguing that the Blazing Star can't be seen as a symbol of Masonic "light" (I don't personally know of any jurisdiction where it is, but I can certainly accept that there is a jurisdiction somewhere that uses it that way) . What I am noting that there are a lot of jurisdictions where it isn't a symbol of Masonic light - where it is, instead, given a very different meaning.

Compare this to an emblem/symbol like the Square and Compasses... that is an emblem/symbol with a very consistent meaning and usage throughout Masonry, no matter what the jurisdiction. In choosing examples of Masonic symbols/emblems to discuss in this article, we should focus on those few emblems/symbols that have consistent usages and meanings... and, more importantly, we should avoid confusing the reader by discussing emblems/symbols with inconsistent usages and meanings (as they would require all sorts of caveats and explanations about how "in New York, Emblem ABC is used as a symbol of XXX, while in Florida it is given a meaning of YYY, and in France it is explained as ZZZ"... etc.). Blueboar (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I got your point, I just think you're missing mine. I never said the blazing star is a symbol of masonic light. I'm saying it's a very important (if not the most important) symbol in one of the two main themes in masonic symbolism: light. (The other theme is the operative masons craft and has the S&C as probably the most important symbol(s).) I doubt if the meanings given to the blazing star differ as much as you suggest. At the same time I think great care should be taken in writing down an explanation, since there's a reason symbols are used in freemasonry and not explanations. But it's ok. It's just a minor topic. Somehow I feel I shouldn't put my energy in this article, so I wish you wisdom and good luck while working on it. 87.208.63.189 (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK... the same to you in your endeavors. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)