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

new introduction?

Freemasonry is a fraternal organization, founded in the 1700's. It uses an initiatory ritual to teach symbolism and morality, and that ritual is based on the concept of medieval stonemasons, their tools, as well as King Solomon's Temple.

I'm going to just start with one stubline, let's work from there, shall we?--Vidkun 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I'm glad I was able to help; although as I said, I don't know much about the topic. Steve Dufour 17:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve, where you can help is by NOT knowing anything about the subject... you can tell us when we are not explaining something properly. if you are confused, so will be other readers.

Vidkun, A very good beginning. To slightly expand on the stub:

Freemasonry is a world wide fraternal organization, of uncertain origin but officially founded in the 1700's. It uses an initiatory ritual (essentially a series of allegorical tales set during the Building of King Solomon's Temple) to present non-religious moral and ethical lessons which members can interpret and apply to their daily lives as they see fit. These lessons are conveyed through symbolism, with the tools and implements of a medieval stonemason being given symbolic meanings.

From here, I would include a second, very brief paragraph about Organizational Structure, - explaining the words "Lodge", "Grand Lodge", and "Jurisdiction" (leaving "regularity" to be discussed in the actual article). Then in a third paragraph introduce (again briefly) the fact that there is criticism and opposition. Blueboar 17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

'Officially founded in the 1700's doesn't take into account the potential that there were other pre-documented cases of lodges or what not. We need to leave that statement more open ended, as to it's age, because we can't be certain. 211.30.71.59 04:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Rarelibra 05:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My take (we can cite as needed where necessary): Freemasonry is a world-wide fraternal organization, popularly claimed to have been formally organized in England in the 18th century. It uses an initiatory system of a series of allegorical tales set during the building of King Solomon's Temple to present universal and non-denominational moral and ethical lessons, which members may interpret and apply to their daily lives as they see fit. These lessons are conveyed through the symbols of the tools and implements of medieval stonemasons. MSJapan 05:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it... as a writer freind of mine likes to say: it "sings".

Here is a starting draft for the rest of the new intro:

A meeting of Freemasons is called a "Lodge" (a name which is sometimes used to discribe their meeting places as well). Each Lodge is chartered and supervised by a "Grand Lodge" (in some Masonic jurisdictions called a "Grand Orient"). There are hundreds of Grand Lodges throughout the world, with their jurisdiction usually corresponding with national or state boundries. Each Grand Lodge is independant of the others, and there is no over-arching body that rules these independant Grand Lodges.

Slight rewrite to cut out a few "too much info" things: A meeting of Freemasons is called a "Lodge" (a term which is also used to describe the building in which a Lodge meets). Every regular Lodge is chartered and supervised by a "Grand Lodge" or "Grand Orient". There are hundreds of Grand Lodges throughout the world, with their jurisdictions usually corresponding with national, state, or provincial boundaries.

Freemasonry has often been called a "Secret Society", due to the fact that Masons promise to not to reveal certain aspects of its rituals (essentially "secret" handshakes, passwords and recognition sighs) to non-Masons, and are generally reluctant to discuss what occurs in their meetings. Recently, however, Freemasons have objected to this appelation, pointing out that their membership rolls, meeting places and meeting times are all matters of public record; and that there have been numerous exposés written through the years that have revealed all if their "secrets". Today Freemasons prefer to say that they are a "Society with secrets" rather than a true "Secret Society".

Freemasonry has often been called a "secret society", since members promise to not to reveal certain aspects of Masonic rituals (so-called "secret" handshakes, passwords and recognition signs) to non-Masons. Recently, however, Freemasons in many areas of the world have objected to this appellation, pointing out that Masonic meeting places and meeting times are not only matters of public record but are also clearly marked, and also and that there have been numerous exposés written through the years that have revealed all of the so-called "secrets". Today, Freemasons prefer to say that they are a "society with secrets" rather than a true "secret society".

While Masons may object to the appelation, others feel it is apt. Freemasonry's traditional secrecy has bred distrust. The fraternity does have it's detractors, some of whom actively oppose it (such opponents are often dubbed "Anti-Masons"). Freemasonry is frequently mentioned in various conspiracy theories.

Blueboar 14:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

However, some feel that calling Freemasonry a secret society is apt. There are other individuals and groups that oppose Freemasonry on various grounds. Due to perceptions of secrecy, Freemasonry is also frequently mentioned in various conspiracy theories.

My goal was to really present only bare-bones info, and keep detail to a minimum (detail is what the article is for). Anyhow, that's my version of BB's version. I am assuming we will wikilink where appropriate, though I'd like to keep citations out of the intro if possible, and leave them only in the main body of the article. I think the intro might need to get shorter, but it's a matter of layout once it's on the page. MSJapan 18:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, an excellent condencing ... well done MSJ. I totally agree that the intro should be just "bare-bones" info ... but since an intro is supposed to mention all of the major themes contained in the main text... and since about half of the article is devoted to discussing either organizational structure or opposition to Freemasonry, I felt that we needed to at least mention these aspects in the new intro. If we can summarize even further (ie make it more "Bare-bones"), I think we should.

As for wikilinks and citations... I agree... wikilink in the intro and save the citations for the main text unless absolutely needed.

Here is a draft of the entire thing (I have made a few more tweeks) so we can see what it might look like: Blueboar 18:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete Intro - Draft

Freemasonry is a world-wide fraternal organization, popularly claimed to have been formally organized in England in the 18th century. It uses an initiatory system of a series of allegorical tales set during the building of King Solomon's Temple to present universal and non-denominational moral and ethical lessons, which members may interpret and apply to their daily lives as they see fit. These lessons are conveyed through the symbols of the tools and implements of medieval stonemasons. Organized at the local level into "Lodges" and at a regional level into "Grand Lodges", the fraternity has served as the model for many service societies and fraternal orders.

Freemasonry has often been called a "secret society", since members promise to not to reveal certain aspects of Masonic rituals (so-called "secret" handshakes, passwords and recognition signs) to non-Masons. Recently, however, Freemasons in many areas of the world have objected to this appellation, pointing out that Masonic meeting places and meeting times are not only matters of public record but are also clearly marked, and that there have been numerous exposés written through the years that have revealed all of the so-called "secrets". Today, Freemasons prefer to say that they are a "society with secrets" rather than a true "secret society". However, some feel that calling Freemasonry a secret society is apt. Due to perceptions of secrecy, Freemasonry is frequently mentioned in various conspiracy theories. In addition, there are individuals and groups that oppose Freemasonry on various other grounds.

Freemasonry is a world-wide fraternal organization, popularly claimed to have been formally organized in England in the 18th century. It uses an initiatory system of a series of allegorical tales set during the building of King Solomon's Temple to present universal and non-denominational moral and ethical lessons, which members may interpret and apply to their daily lives as they see fit. These lessons are conveyed through the symbols of the tools and implements of medieval stonemasons. Organized at the local level into "Lodges" and at a regional level into "Grand Lodges", the fraternity has served as the model for many service societies and fraternal orders.

Landmark #23 of Freemasonry states that Secrecy is an essential part of Freemasonry. In addition to a requirement of keeping secret all of the ritual and recognition aspects, Freemasons are required to keep secret all confidences of a Brother Mason, including identifying him as a Freemason to Non-Freemasons. Thus Freemasonry is considered to be a Secret Society.Lcg.wda 10:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting this "Landmark #23" from... since No two Masonic jurisdictions agree on what the landmarks are ... and some don't even have a formal list of landmarks (New York, for instance, does not enumerate any)... this can definitely not be included in the article.

Yes, there are things that Masons consider "secret" but, as my version clearly states, these are only the passwords, the "secret handshakes" ("tokens" or "grips" in Masonic language), recognition signs and the like. Blueboar 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the intoduction

Once the new intro has been finalized and uploaded, I think we will need to re-order and rework the main article a bit. I would first discuss what freemasonry is... its ritual, symbolism, and purpose (this section may need to be drafted afresh rather than just reordering existing sections). I would then discuss the organizational structure and issues such as regularity, recognition, and appendant bodies (I think the current sections are good, but some of them can be combined or reordered). Following that we can go into the history (can we summarize even more and bief up the "history of" article?) and end as we do with the oppositions section (this is a good excuse to re-draft this ...I have never been happy with the accusatory and defensive language and tone contained in this section, I would welcome a truly NPOV, factual version). Any other thoughts as to order and structure?

As for new material... We can certainly expand upon the charitable side of Freemasonry... and I would love to see a brief section on how certain Masonic usages have entered the English language (things like saying someone is "on the level" or that something is a "square deal". This can be included in a section on ritual and symbolism. We could even mention how the vary word "Freemasonry" has become discriptive noun meaning a closely knit group). Anything else we should talk about but currently do not? Blueboar 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the 25 Landmarks of Freemasonry should be included in the article. Let people read them for themselves, as they describe what Freemasonry is, was, and must remain to be.Lcg.wda 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue with that is comprehensive coverage, there is no one authoritative set of landmarks, so any usage is inherently flawed. There is an article on them, somewhere, but it's pretty half baked at the moment.

Standards are great, there are so many to choose from ;)

ALR 10:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not convinced (so to speak) about the motivations for this statement so ignore my previous.ALR 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wei...? It's not important but you probably want to do some research about the Grand Orient before making corrective revisions, especially if your going to write to me about them. I know the problems with some crazies that go on about wildly unfounded allegations of anti-Christian or anti-religious practices in Masonry. Having said that, most Grand Orient Lodges do not require the use of religious texts or belief in a Supreme Being. (They don't forbid it either.) If you disagree with the practice, and many Grand Lodges do, (including my own) it is still not reason to change something (or to bother telling me about it). I gave a citation, and I know it is the case in practice. The GL of NY (my GL) happens to, by historic chance, to govern a Lodge system in Syria and Lebanon and I shared the citation. If Arabs or Arab countries with Masonry doesn't seem proper to you I suggest you take your bias elsewhere rather than connect it to Masonry. The other thing you removed was a cited reference to the use of the red patch in Nazi Germany for political prisoners including some Masons. (Nazis flipped flopped their attitude towards the Craft, but there was persecution.) Can't imagine your motivation to remove that... Fraternally, J.

I explained this already, partially, and I asked that the edits be discussed before being made. As you didn't, I reverted them. Secondly, you added no references to the article whatsoever that support your claims except for maybe the Muslim statement, so don't say that things were cited when they clearly were not. Thirdly, an Orient isn't always what you think it is - it's also a term for AASR bodies in some US states, and if Orients don't use a VSL all the time, they would not be recognized by UGLE, and some are, so that assertion of yours as to VSL not beeing required in general is incorrect. I'll also point out that your statement here about Orients is not what you introduced into the article, either. I would like to see separate bulleted statements, individually cited here on the talk page. If not, those edits will more than likely not remain in the article. I mentioned it to you to give you the opportunity to fix said statements and make a positive contribution. MSJapan 04:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't most/all of the AASR SJ use "Orient"? & if so, isn't that "most", not "some US states" ?~D Grye 07:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I see why it's contentious. Someone made the decision in an (psuedo)encyclopedic context to call a major branch of FM "irregular" and thus not worthy of including or acknowledging. I won't pursue this here, but gawd! this is just unbelievable. This is why I would immediately flunk a college student that even thought about citing the stuff on Wp. And yes, I'll happily and openly continue to visit lodges in a system representing millions of my Brethren. In general I think they are much more relevant and true to the spirit of intellectual inquiry (and maybe brotherhood) in the way they conduct their system as a whole. Rather than actively terming others "irregular" we should take a look at the abysmal state of some things closer to home. In fairness though I entirely appreciate your respect for FM manifested in you bothering with this article. Always Fraternally, Me

This is what various regulations and constitutions state, and therefore this is what a member will find. Would you rather someone got expelled or denied entry into a Lodge because regularity or the lack thereof didn't matter to someone?

WP is not the place to debate issues of regularity, nor to try to prove one side wrong on these issues. This is also not the place to bring up European vs. American Masonry, for the same reasons that this is not something to debate here. WP deals in facts, not opinions, and that's the way it will remain. MSJapan 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The real issue is that there is nobody would consider themselves to be an irregular mason. Regularity is a relative thing, your lodge isn't on it's own regular, it's adknowledged by another GL as a regular lodge. From what I can tell, the article is based around the major, most common, form of masonry, and talks in generic terms. And from all that I have read/researched requiring belief in a superior being is exceedingly common in lodges. The article uses a weasle word when discussing the requirements since obviously, it's impossible to list requirements that hold true accross all of masonry, however it's then followed by a statement "A candidate is asked 'Do you believe in a Supreme Being?' Since an initiate is obligated on the sacred volume which is applicable to his faith, a sponsor will enquire as to an appropriate volume once a decision has been made on the applicant's suitability for initiation.". I sugggest that we remove that line, and just leave the part that states "Generally to be a regular Freemason, a man must: [...] Believe in a Supreme Being.". Seraphim 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So... Great, we can make this edit(s) & be done with it? The next issue, & I give it about 10 hours max, is going to be the line, "to be a regular Freemason, a man must...", becaus the next bone of contention is going to be "what about all the regular women Freemasons?!?"... whatever, it all harks back to the question define Freemasonry.... so... howaboutthat? Grye 04:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that the article considers the craft from the perspective of Anglo-saxon GL Masonry, since that is where all FM is derived from anyway and the majority of the published work is written from this perspective.

The issue about SB and appropriate VSLs is significant, some Mulsim initiates are happy with a bible, others aren't, so the discussion needs to be there. It's also worth highlighting that the majority of feminine and androgynous freemasonry take a similar position with respect to the ethical framework within which the individual operates.

ALR 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Early Lodge

The lore that freemasons began only in the 1600s or 1700s is bull. Earlier lodges back to Egypt (and across Mid East and ancient Greece and Rome & earlier, etc) are spelled out in detail in 33rd degree mason Ledbetter's book-about masonic rites down thru 1000s of years; esp as today's masons no longer remember at all what masonic rites are or DO.

(one easy example is what the "G" is in the middle of compas and rule-where is it? what does it mean?-answer-adanced step in the many steps to deification.)

/s/willy-34th degree mason-.i.e.the Kang

One dollar bill

Hi. I heard that the seal of the Freemasons is on a USA one dollar bill. Can this be on the article? --Steinninn 14:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. The seal on the US one dollar bill is not the seal of the freemasons, but the Great_Seal_of_the_United_States. Hope that helps. Justin Eiler 15:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See Masonic conspiracy theories for this and other claims. As far as the one doller bill goes, the word 'mason' is one of 120 different possible ways to read it... neither of which is correct (as JE points out, it's the seal of the US) WegianWarrior 15:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To explain further, this is all hooey... the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States, which is what is depicted on the dollar bill, was not designed by Freemasons (there were three committees who were asked by Congress to propose designs. The only Mason on any of these committees was Ben Franklin, who served on the first of the three. His design proposals were rejected. The final design was that of the third, which had no Masons on it.) While you can use a six sided star to point to letters that form an anagram of the word Mason... the star must be noticably irregular for it to actually work. Blueboar 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with mentioning that Freemasons F.D.R. and Wallace, his V.P. had the seal placed on the one dollar bill in 1935. Freemasons also took part in the design of the seal, Benjamin Franklin for example. The all seeing eye, is one of the most recognizable symbols of Freemasonry, and the truncated pyramid symbol comes from the kabbalah of the scottish rite.Lcg.wda 10:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the real world. Blueboar has just explained what really happened, so how would you justify including conspiracy theory material in the article?ALR 10:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lcg.wda... please READ what is written before you respond to it. I just explained how the Masons (and specificly Franklin) did NOT take part in the design of the seal.

As for the rest... The all seeing eye (of God) is a recognizable symbol, often assumed to be Masonic because the Masons use it. However, it did not originate with the Masons. It can be found in Medieval Christian iconography; it was used by the ancient Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. In other words, the symbolism is not unique to Masonry. It is an easily recognizable reference to the idea that God is watching over us. That is why the men who designed the seal chose it... to indicate that God is watching over our republic (symbolized by the pyramid... note the 13 steps that stand for the 13 original States).

The truncated pyramid is not masonic in origin either. An unfinished temple/castle/building is also common in medieval iconography. I assume you are simply misusing the word "kabbalah" to mean "iconography" or "symbolism", but in any case your assertion that the symbol comes from the Scottish Rite is wrong. If anything it is the other way around... since the Scottish Rite as we know it today, did not really exist at the time that the Great Seal was being designed (while there were a group of degrees that were called "scottish rite" <they were actually French> at the time <to distinguish them from the more common "English" degrees> , these were significantly different than they are today... the modern Scottish Rite, and it's associated symbolism, dates from the 1850s.)

Sorry to disappoint you, but if you read history books instead of popular pseudo-historical thrillers and conspiracy websites, you will find that the seal (nor the dollar bill) is not Masonic. Blueboar 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that this statement is coming from a person who thinks "carrying an airgun for self-defense is not very intelligent" is an appropriate addition to a Wikipedia article, hasn't cited a single other trivial edit he's made, and then takes citation issue with a supposed lack of notes in Hodapp? Pot, kettle, black, and let's move on. MSJapan 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

long talk page

Talk page is getting long again. Would someone archive... (I forget how). Blueboar 14:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done - basicly, it's a cut 'n paste job =) WegianWarrior 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... It's setting up the archive page in the first place that I need to refresh my memory on. Just too lazy to do it today. :>) Blueboar 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

GA possibility

With just a quick glance over the article, I believe it could be a GA. Consider looking over the GA criteria, and make any appropriate changes before nominating. Good luck and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 01:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a size issue; the GA guidelines suggest for articles longer than 25 KB, to use the FAC guidelines instead. Maybe we should submit this to peer review for FAC purposes. MSJapan 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)