Talk:Freemasonry

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6	Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15	Archive 16
Archive 17	Archive 18	Archive 19	Archive 20
Archive 21	Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27	Archive 28
Archive 29	Archive 30	Archive 31	Archive 32
Archive 33

Masonic Graffiti

Where I live (Southern Illinois) there are a number of petroglyph sites dating back thousands of years... in studying these... I've come across Masonic compasses carved right over the obvious paintings/carvings. Lovely, just lovely. They're done with precision, not just an amateur at work. Probably 50-100 years old. Just putting this into the discussion. 173.23.250.185 (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes a building "Masonic"?

I have been involved in a protracted battle at List of Masonic buildings to get some sort of clarity as to the criteria for inclusion. The key question is... what makes a building "Masonic"? (A secondary issue is that the list is highly duplicative of Category:Masonic buildings and various dab pages such as Masonic temple (disambiguation), but one thing at a time). Please share your thoughts on the talk page of that article. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think i resent that characterization. If the above notice is meant as an objective pointer to a topic under discussion, it doesn't come across to me as objective. My take is that Blueboar has been trying to provoke discussion towards creating some objective criteria for membership of items on that list-article (which is fine). He has obtained input from me and one or two others that has not been entirely satisfying for Blueboar, but I was not aware that there is a "protracted battle" and was not aware that Blueboar may be viewing this article as a battleground. This seems not helpful. I have mostly expressed my view that development of some/many of the candidate articles is needed, and that arguing now about final criteria, in the absence of good information, seems premature. Comments of others are welcomed, i guess. --doncram (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK... the problematic List of Masonic buildings has been merged into Masonic Temple... which simply shifts the issue to a new article instead of resolving them. Your comments are still appreciated... now at Talk:Masonic Temple. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i have come across a bunch of very BOLD moves/mergers of the articles and Talk pages under discussion and have Reverted them. Specifically i cancelled what Blueboar refers to here. Masonic Temple was before, and is now again after my reversion, a redirect, which is the proposed target of a move of the disambiguation page now at Masonic temple (disambiguation). The major discussion of structure of related articles is at Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 where the editor community has been invited to comment. You are invited too. --doncram (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous... We are now in the situation where we have the same god damned list at:

• Masonic Temple
• Masonic Temple (disambiguation)
• List of Masonic buildings

And essentially the same list (without the red links) at

• Category:Masonic buildings

Everyone seems more interested in protecting a particular version of the list (ie the version that they created or spent time working on) than in resolving the underlying issues of over-duplication and criteria. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have settled on a centralized discussion at Talk:Masonic temple (disambiguation)#Requested move 2... for now. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just so people know... I have decided to take the bull by the horns and nominate List of Masonic buildings for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

AARRRG - the problem keeps getting worse... now we have List of Masonic Temples.... Please, STOP. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not any more, we don't. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is such a list notable/desirable? I'm OK either way but I'd rather see time spent on research that results in articles of more depth. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 19:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That is the key question (and lies the heart of the AfD). Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought I had fixed the issue aside from the remaining List of Masonic buildings page but it appear the edit war rages on with a extra speedy, speedy deletion of a page. PeRshGo (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.138.38.35, 15 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} At several points during this page the word "antient" is stated when the word should read "ancient" as in the ancient free and accepted mason. Thank you.

69.138.38.35 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see it, give a specific example. SpigotMap 15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a typo -- some Masonic groups do use the "antient" spelling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers for England, Scotland and Ireland

User:Triton Rocker has expressed the desire to change the wording of first paragraph from "...and around 480,000 in England, Scotland and Ireland" to "...and around 480,000 in the British Isles." His stated reasoning is to include Whales and the Ilse of Man. The problem with his edit is that it requires us to infer that Whales and the Ilse of Man are included in the number. However, we don't know if this is in fact the case. If I remember correctly The 480,000 number came from the old version of the UGLE webpage (note the new version does not give that specific number)... and that page explicitly said "England, Scotland and Ireland". It may be logical for us to assume they meant that there are 480,000 masons in the areas under the Jurisdiction of the United Grand Lodge of England (which includes England, Whales, Man, and Northern Ireland), Grand Lodge of Scotland, and Grand Lodge of Ireland... but we don't know that for a fact. They could be referring explicitly to just those sub-regions. For us to say "British Isles" would mean that we would have to engage in Original Research... which is not allowed.

That said, we should probably change language anyway... UGLE no longer gives us a total of 480,000. The new wording at their updated website reads: Under the United Grand Lodge of England, there are over a quarter of a million Freemasons. There are Grand Lodges in Ireland, which covers both Northern Ireland and Eire, and Scotland which have a combined total of approximately 150,000 members. Worldwide, there are approximately six million Freemasons. We should revise our language to reflect that new wording. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and avoids the problem to boot. MSJapan (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK... have re-written a bit. Hopefully it resolves the issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request re Volume of Sacred Law from Worshipful Brother in Connecticut, 17 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} RE: "a candidate is given his choice of religious text for his Obligation, according to his beliefs" In discussion about The Sacred Law on the altar, the article should note that in most U.S. Lodges, the text that sits upon the alter is often the choice of the Lodge, in Connecticut, it was a choice of the Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Connecticut. (For example, I did my MM degree this past year and, although not Christian, it was the Lodge's Book of Sacred Law -- a Christian bible, King James Version I believe -- which sat upon the altar upon which I took my degree. I was not given my choice of religious text, but my Obligation was sincere and binding all the same as I take my own personal faith very seriously, the more so after my initiation and oaths.)

I fear that non-Christian applicants to the fraternity may be discouraged, or simply confused (as I was) if the non-Christian candidate should read on Wikipedia that their Sacred text can be on the altar. A would-be-brother should know ahead of time that the Lodge has the authority to choose what Sacred Text is upon the altar. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Fraternally, Wor. Bro. K.T.B.

Question... did you even ask the Master whether you could use your own VSL? I suspect you would have been accommodated.

In any case, I don't think you should take your experience as being the norm. What books are routinely placed on the altar does depend on both the jurisdiction and the lodge, and most jurisdictions in the US do require that lodges place a Christian bible (some even specify the King James) on the altar... but as far as I know, all US Jurisdiction allow for other VSLs to be used in addition to the bible, as the lodge deems appropriate. (I know that CT does this... I have visited CT lodges that had multiple books on their altar.) This is especially true when it comes to obligations... each candidate should have the VSL of his choice on the altar for him to place his hands upon. Perhaps CT is different from the norm, but I suspect that your situation was not due to any Grand Lodge policy... but instead due to a simple lack of thinking by the brothers of your lodge. I suspect that your local lodge was on "auto-pilot" and did not even think about whether there might be a more appropriate book to use at your initiation, passing and raising.

On another subject... I note you sign yourself "Wor. Bro." and yet you say you were raised just this past year... How in the world did you get to be a Worshipful Bro. so soon after you were raised? (not saying you didn't... just surprised). Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Going backwards, gues I don't know how to sign off. Is it just "Bro."? I thought all MMs were W.B.'s. Thank you and I'll ask a fellow brother about this. As far the the rest I'm thinkin' "WHA??!?!?" because I had two lengthy discussions with the lodge (one before the Grand Lodge Master and his entourage with purple). It became apparent that I was not permitted to use a different "V.S.L." (also a new acronym for me.) I not only asked the Master of the Lodge, but also past masters who questioned me quite thoroughly on my faith, and the Grand Lodge and the Grand Master. I hate the feeling that my experience is not the "norm." I still feel anxiety around some of the brethren and hope fraternal feelings grow.

If you can edit the Wikipedia page, I think it is necessary to avoid non-Christians from being surprised when they cannot choose their own volume of sacred law. Thanks again.

Sincerely, Br. KTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article does state this in "membership and religion". It's an easy tweak if not. While I will verify the edit, I'm withholding any opinion on the claims made, because this isn't the venue for it. MSJapan (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: forms of address... Yeah... it should be just "Brother". No problem ... you wouldn't know unless someone told you (and one of the common flaws in many lodges is that Masonic instruction tends to end once a brother is raised... so new brothers have to find things like this out the hard way... by making an error and having some crusty Past Master, like me, correct them... please, never take it personally. Remember that you didn't make the error alone... your lodge brothers contributed to the error by not giving you proper instruction). In any case, I am always willing to give Masonic instruction to a new brother: So, for your future understanding... Most Masons are "Brother"... "Worshipful Brother" is used for those who hold or have held the office of Worshipful Master, "Right Worshipful Brother" is used for past and present Grand Lodge officers, and "Most Worshipful Brother" is used for past and present Grand Masters". (Some jurisdictions have other titles and forms of address, like "Very Worshipful" ... but these are rare and so I will not go into them.)

As for your other comments... I will echo your "WHA???"... What you say happened to you surprises the hell out of me. I find it completely un-Masonic. I do not doubt that it occurred... but it certainly does not match my (limited) observation of CT practice. More to the point, I can absolutely guarantee that it does not match the practice in NY, or in most other jurisdictions. It is not the norm.

And because it is not the norm... I don't think we should change the article. Despite your experience ... what we say in the article is what happens in most jurisdictions and in most lodges around the world. On behalf of the brethren of these other lodges and other jurisdictions... please accept our sincere apologies for the shoddy treatment you were given at your initiation. It should not have happened. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jurisdiction stuff...

Persh didn't like my edit, reverted some of it, and requested discussion, so I'll explain my rationale. I saw the following issues:

• The terms "regular" and "irregular" aren't objective - UGLE is irregular to GOdF, and vice-versa. So the terms are subjective and unclear. If we call UGLE "regular" we automatically give a conclusion to the reader, which we shouldn't be doing per policy.
• As a corollary, recognition is another beast entirely, and is mutable for spurious reasons.
• UGLE lodges aren't confined to England and America ("Anglo-American"), nor are GOdF Lodges only in Western Europe ("Continental"). The geographic terms, therefore, add no clarity.
• The connotation of terms like "liberal", "dogmatic", "adogmatic", and so on is subjective, and therefore implies a conclusion to the reader, which we should be avoiding as in on the first point.

Therefore, I wanted to use a descriptor that was accurate, simple, and NPOV, based on the following items:

• UGLE and GOdF are mutually exclusive traditions or branches of Freemasonry.
• UGLE and GOdF are considered the primary examples of their respective traditions.
• UGLE and GOdF traditions have specific differences which we can enumerate objectively.
• UGLE and GOdF are regular unto themselves, and how others view them is not pertinent to their own policies and requirements.
• The explanation and usage of "regularity" and "recognition" have been a huge problem in all the articles - they are really quite complicated issues, and seem to only obfuscate the agreed-upon "general overview" nature of this article.

So I decided to use "(UGLE or GOdF) tradition", keying off the body that is considered the main proponent or originator of said tradition. I think we need to also consider our audience and avoid the discussion of regularity and recognition aside from acknowledgment of the existence of the system. Since I had to change one section anyhow, I figured I'd testbed the change and see how it went (which it didn't). However, I think the terminology item is a watershed issue, because if we can simplify terms, it will improve the articles in WP:FM overall. MSJapan (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

We have been through this before. There is a fairly solid consensus on Wikipedia that article terminology should follow that used in reliable secondary sources... with a preference for English Language sources... and, by far, the majority of English Language secondary sources use the terms "Mainstream" and "Continental" to describe the two branches. Yes, this will seem "biased" and "non-neutral" to some editors and some Masons. But, because the seemingly non-neutral language comes from the sources and is not our doing, Wikipedia precedent is against such complaints. In fact, there is a good argument that, in attempting to be Politically-correct here, we are actually being non-neutral (setting our wishes against the sources). We also run the risk of setting up a WP:NOR situation... by inventing terms that are not supported by the sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The policies deal with presentation of facts and sources, not terminology, and when applied to the latter, actually conflict. The sources are biased because of who's writing them, and who they're writing for, but we're writing an article for the uninformed. I think simplifying things will make for a better article. I don't see any OR, as it's merely a different descriptor for the same thing. MSJapan (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in a way that's what I was trying to get at as well. I think using Mainstream and Continental do simplify matters. There is no way we can cover this without some background explanations... but by using "mainstream vs continental" instead of "regular vs. irregular" or "UGLE vs GOdF" we can do so in the simplest way... and avoid the confusion of who considers who legitimate, without giving the false impression that UGLE or GOdF are in some way "in charge" of their respective branches. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MSJapan that the different ”labels” are problematic. But the problem is not only what we would call the groups but that the different ”labels” encompass slightly different juisdictions and are not interchangeable. The divisions into different Masonic traditions are usually done according to whether there is a requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being and/or according to gender. I believe one unually divide them as this:

• ”regular”: only male members, no women as visitors, and require a belief in a Supreme Being,
• ”irregular”: all jurisdictions that not conform to all three requirements above.

But

• ”UGLE-tradition”: as ”regular” above
• ”GodF-tradition”: they do admit women visitors and do not require a belief in a Supreme Being, but as GodF admits only men (a few lodges initiated women a few years, but I think that the matter is not finally resolved, correct me if I am wrong) this group would not be the same as the group ”irregular” (and should the matter be finaly settled and the GodF now generally admits women it would be strange to call it a GodF-tradition if it is only a few years old).

And

• ”mainstream”: as ”regular” above
• ”Continental”: as ”irregular” above, but it is somewhat imprecise; do we mean that women are allowed only as visitors (as in the largest jurisdiction – GodF - in this group), or both as visitors and members?

I think that the "mainstream"/"Continental" labels are the least bad one should any "labels" be used. The use of ”labels” seemingly simplify the presentation but in fact might confuse things instead (e.g. think of the Order of Women Freemasons that are "regular" in that they require a belief in a Supreme Being, but "irregular" in that they admit women. I guess that they would be put in the groups "irregular" or "Continental" as they admit women but does it simplify for the reader to group them with jurisdictions that do not require a belief in a Supreme Being? And they could neither be put in the "UGLE-tradition" nor the "GOdF-tradition" as they admits women). I think that the best thing is to try to avoid using "labels" and instead spell out what issues are being considered. E.g. write ”... in Masonic jurisdiction requiring a belief in a Supreme Being ...” instead of ”.. in regular Freemasonry ...” etc depending on what issues the text at hand deals with. Ergo-Nord (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So, to which tradition/label does the Grand Lodge de France belong? How about the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy or the Grand Orient of Italy? What about the various GO's in South America, which are recognized by most US GL's but not by UGLE?--Vidkun (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The major issue I think still remains that the labeling is coming from "belief in Deity" GLs. It is true that that is where the majority of English-language research comes from, but it's inherently POV, because the lodges in each tradition are "regular" unto themselves, whether the other tradition agrees or not. To a point, we're espousing a position, and I don't know that that's strictly in keeping with policy. I think I'm going to poke around and see if any actual researcher has addressed this issue, and maybe I'll formulate something for the policy boards here. It may not be a resolvable issue, but it's worth a shot.MSJapan (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why I prefer "Mainstream" and "Continental" instead of "regular" and "irregular". While they are not completely neutral, they are more neutral. I understand the desire to avoid any and all labels... but I am not sure that it is possible to explain the different "brands" of Freemasonry without them? Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I did a pretty good job of it, all things considered, but there is an OR issue, so I've raised the question on the NPOV board to see which policy "wins". MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ritual

'.... I suggested the following as an expansion of the above: "Members are taught its precepts (moral lessons and self-knowledge) by a series of two-part dramas which are learnt by heart and performed within each Lodge. This progression of plays follow ancient forms, and uses operative stonemasons' cutoms, tools and implements as metaphorical props, set against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple." Md84419 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) '

My thanks to all for this talk page! As a non-Mason looking to find what is going on in my wife's family of Masons and OES and my late uncle-in-law who was "traveling" I find that I gained much more from the talk than from the article! But the above gave me the best understanding of what "ritual" means in terms that I understand which I find makes masonry likely good and acceptable! So in light of that I recommend inclusion of the "Explanation" above as it clarifies much. Also the shortened 2b1ask1 also clarifies much. I never did ask perhaps because the term "rituals" sounded "SPOOKY" and perhaps a little likelihood of being quite dangerous Like hazing. What I found on the web did little to disabuse this likely because I did not know where to gain real info! I would like to see a wikihow or some other less restrictive venue explain more! 74.215.61.17 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Glenn

Wikipedia articles in general have a lot of good resources that we use to write the articles in the first place. Freemasonry for Dummies is a actually a good introductory book, as is The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry. Despite the derogatory titles, they are good at simplifying concepts and relaying information for a general audience. MSJapan (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)