Talk:Freemasonry

Fringe???

The notion that Jacobs is a "fringe" scholar is pretty far-fetched and not based on any RS. She is a senior professor of history at UCLA, with a PhD from Cornell. In 2002 she was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Utrecht and made a member of the prestigious American Philosophical Society and the Hollandse Maatschappij der Wetenschappen. She has been visiting professor at l'Ecole des hautes etudes and the University of Ulster. Her books on Freemasonry have been published by University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005, Oxford University Press 1991--top of the line in scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not when she posits a unified origin of Freemasonry based on widely-differing materials from multiple countries (as she did in her Origins of Freemasonry, where she uses personal materials such as diaries from multiple European countries as source materials, without consulting official and fundamental source documents from Grand Lodges and other governing bodies of Freemasonry). She may be qualified in history in general, but that does not necessarily make her research on Masonic history accurate or accepted. As a matter of fact, her claim (which you state in your edit) that Freemasonry in France was never political is directly contradicted by most other general and Masonic historians. Therefore, her opinions are by no means in the majority (thus FRINGE), and she most definitely should not be given multiple paragraphs in a general history article which focus solely on her views, especially when they are placed into a section to which her research has no relevance (Prince Hall Masonry). MSJapan (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki rules say that ony RS can be used, and in this case that means reviews of her books by experts, not the personal opinions of one anonymous editor who admits to being a Mason and thus having a personal conflct of interest. The reference to "Masonic historians" is unclear--better cite some that have tried to refute her. --The section was never part of the Prince Hall section. Rjensen (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

the reason Jacob wins all the international honors is that the leading scholars admire her work. Here's proof: The Journal of Social History (v 28 p 211) says of Jacob (1991): "This encompassing and solid study, despite some weaknesses, is a valuable contribution to the scholarship about the Enlightenment and Freemasonry. The book is based on extensive research in Dutch and French Masonic collections, is well documented, but contains no bibliography or appendices. This lucidly written and fairly well organized work illustrates intimate ties between Freemasonry and the Enlightenment in major urban environments." The American Historical Review says (v. 98 p 858) "Margaret C. Jacob offers a very informative, innovative, useful, ambitious study, a general survey of freemasonry." And let's consider the Journal of Modern History which says (v 66 p 351) "It is no small part of Jacob's achievement that she has done justice to both the international and the national dimensions of her subject". That is solid evidence that Jacob is not "fringe" -- these are among the leading history journals in the world and her ideas represent the consensus of scholarship therefore need to be presented in Wikipedia. Perhaps the English Historical Review has identified the problem with this very old-fashioned article that reflects official Freemason self iamges rather than independent scholarship. It says (vol 110 p 487): "In the last twenty years, scholarship has broken free of the antiquarianism which was the inadequate but best side of traditional writing about masonry, and there has been a true advance in the positive history of the craft, notably in France and the Netherlands. Margaret C. Jacob has now carried forward the frontiers again." Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rjensen that Jacob is not "Fringe" and that she counts as a reliable source under Wikipeida's rules. Do I have a good opinion of her work... no... she gets a lot of her basic facts about Freemasonry wrong. Unfortunately, "getting it wrong" is not a criteria for judging reliability.

That said... I am against adding this material to this article. The reason for my opposition is that the material that Rjensen wants to add goes into way to much detail for this specific article... this article is supposed to be is a broad overview of the fraternity... and a large paragraph like this is over-detail... and it is somewhat irrelevant in the context of this aritcle's topic. You can not simply cut and paste large blocks of text that were written for one article (in this case, Age of Enlightenment) into other articles and expect them to work.

Actually, I don't think this material belongs in Age of Enlightenment either... that article is also an overview article and, again, the material is way too detailed. Perhaps a sub-article on Freemasonry in the age of Enlightenment (or some other, appropriate title) would be the best route to take. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Grand Orient de France acronym

Official acronym for Grand Orient de France is GODF with a capital D (see websiste of the Obedience >> http://www.godf.org/). It is used internaly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dledu (talk • contribs) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Also "the Grand Orient of France places the Constitution of France on its altar" >> this is absolutely false, I never visited any lodge with the constitution on the "altar", all lodges feel free to place whatever "sacre volume" they wish (they mainly place a blank book), as far as I'm concerned, we place one of the book of our patron (who is a French writer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dledu (talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. On the acronym... Just so you know... Wikipedia does not always follow the "official" version when it comes to names... Wikipeida follows the sources, and thus uses the name, spelling etc that is most commonly used by English language sources. That said, I have seen the acronym appear both ways... with a capital D (GODF) and with a small d (GOdF)... we should determine which is more common.

On the book... this is my understanding as well. Nice to have confirmation. I think this gives us enough to challenge the statement (and remove it). Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious opposition

It is an important and necessary section... but... the section is starting to creep up in length again, as editors add more details as to why a particular denomination objects to or opposes Freemasonry. This article should summarize the general situation... The details should be put in Christianity and freemasonry and similar sub-articles. I think it is time we went through the section and did some tightening up. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol

Dan Brown's book "The Lost Symbol" quotes purportedly from this article. I wonder why the article does not have a Freemasonry in popular culture section. AshLin (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of that particular item. The reason we don't have such a section is because a lot of it is a judgment call rather than a straight objective choice. Freemasonry is mentioned both positively and negatively in a lot of works (War and Peace and "The Cask of Amontillado" for two, where the first is positive and very obvious, and the other is negative and is just about a throwaway unless one knew what it was). I'm actually pretty sure there's a substantial plot parallel in one of the Horus Heresy novels by Dan Abnett, but just because something looks like that doesn't mean it is; Abnett could have been drawing on an organized crime parallel for all we know, and he's never been asked about it to say for sure. There are mentions in cartoons (The Stonecutters in The Simpsons, the Water Buffalo in The Flintstones, and an episode of Sealab 2021), but is it really Freemasonry, or the penchant for fraternal organizations to do things that may seem peculiar? For example, I believe all those cartoon refs had "weird hats", which would be closer to a Shrine fez than anything Freemasonry proper has. As I recall, though, Ralph Kramden from The Honeymooners was in some sort of fictional fraternal group as well, so are these newer shows drawing from reality, or from earlier depictions like that? We don't really know, so we would be guessing. There are certainly throwaway references in a few Rumpole of the Bailey stories, but they are there to be indicative of something cultural, not for purposes of plot.

Going away from TV and books, there's pubs and even a dance-pop group that uses the name "Freemasons" - does it really have any connection or relevance? Maybe, maybe not. What about in song lyrics? Same thing, and only in a few cases is there even a statement made by the author of the work about those references.

So, between the sheer number of possible references and the difficulty of objectively deciding whether what it appears to be is what was intended, we have decided not to do a pop culture section. Even in your own example, it's "purported"; that doesn't mean it's true. Having read the book, I doubt it, actually, because Brown did real-world research, and could get the information from much more stable sources than here. MSJapan (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It really comes down to avoiding WP:TRIVIA. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry and police officers

This article continues to perpetuate the myth that police officers were "required" to disclose Masonic memberships between 1999 and 2009: they were not. This might well have applied to judges, and perhaps to new entrants to the Police Service, but not to serving officers. There were at least two attempts to set up a voluntary register, but very few police Freemasons co-operated: the remainder largely cited the argument that this was a disproportionate intrusion into their private lives and an infringement of their rights to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) and to freedom of association (Article 14 ECHR). That latter right was affirmed in the decision by the European Court in 2009 in the case of Grande Oriente D'Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v ltaly (No. 2).

The affirmation of that right was what led to the scrapping of the few remaining requirements by Freemasons to disclose membership for public offices. The wording of this article requires amendment to make it accurate.217.169.14.81 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is: The story of police registration can be cited to a reliable source... If you want to debunk it, you will need to also cite a reliable source. Can this be done? Blueboar (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the disclose clause was in place due to conflict of interest for prosecution.75.120.185.48 (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to only be a problem in the UK at the moment, Masonic Police, Judges, and Lawyers can be very matter of fact about their affiliation in the U.S. and usualy do recuse themselves if it does propose a conflict of interest on the off chance a mason would find himself embroiled in a criminal legal matter. Most U.S. Grand Lodges even in the past will summarily expel a member for a violation of the law, epecially if the accused has already gone to trial and was found guilty. What people don't seem to understand is that masonic membership requirements prohibit lawlessness and bad behavior and it does not excuse any member simply based on thier membership. Simply said people are made masons because they already are good people, it never gives one an excuse to behave otherwise.

Degrees

Utterly incomprehensible to someone not already familiar with the subject matter. What are they and why do they matter? How do you get them? Do you study for them? Are there tests? Age or time requirements? Nominations? What does having one mean to an individual? Is it like a rank in boy scouts? What's the big deal about there only being three of them? What's with all the ancillary things that aren't additional degrees? Can you be demoted? Someone please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.35.19 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound roundabout, but many of your questions aren't answered because they cannot be answered. I think you may be having an issue because there's a lot of context involved, and there also seems to be some serious overthinking going on, too. Masonic degrees are Masonic degrees, there's nothing else like them, and they cannot be explained without a) ruining the initiatory process for a candidate, and b) being mercilessly edited by anyone who has seen conferrals done differently from however we say it is done.

Most of the other questions as to how, when, tests, studying, etc. also differ on a jurisdictional (state or country) basis (and sometimes even at the discretion of an individual Lodge's Master), so again, there's no way to satisfactorily and encyclopedically answer the question without throwing in so many caveats that the answer is no more clear than when we started. Freemasonry may be worldwide, but it isn't universal.

Some of your questions also indicate overthinking - there are three degrees because there are, there's no particular big deal involved, other than at one point there were only two; asking why that is like asking why a maple leaf has five points. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a maple leaf, would it? Moreover, there are more than three degrees when one moves outside of the Lodge structure (which is stated as outside the scope of this article). What being a Mason means to an individual is also not within our scope, simply because it is up to the individual, and one cannot generalize what is an individual process. There are no ranks associated with the degrees (that it outside of degrees), nor is there any demotion associated with them. For instance, LBJ never finished his degrees; he was just never considered a Master Mason (although he may have been dropped from the rolls after not moving forward after X number of years). So there's really not a lot of what you are asking that is pertinent to the section about which you are asking, and for the questions you have, you should be moving to other sources, like local jurisdictions and so forth - an encyclopedia is a starting point, not an end.. MSJapan (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Essentially... the degrees are a series of ritualistic ceremonies. That's it. What those ceremonies consist of varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar: thanks for an actual answer. Can it go into the article?

MSJapan: Blueboar demonstrated that one of the primary questions in fact has a completely basic and easily stateable answer. Ruining the initiatory process sounds like you don't want spoilers; wikipedia does not shy from spoilers. I'm reasonably sure that if all masons were polled, questions like "how long" and "what does this mean to you" would have quite definitive distribution patterns and could be generalized the same way that you can ask rice growers around the world how they feel about harvest time and come up with a pretty solid statistical grouping of answers that in fact conveys cultural contexts. -- 74.104.208.235 (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not sure that my statement can be added to the article. I certainly could not supply a reliable source for it. I know my statement is accurate, because I have been active in Masonry for over 25 years... but the definition is mine, based on my personal experience. Personal experience is not a reliable source under Wikipedia's rules. Nor could we poll a group of masons and ask them questions like "how long" or "what does this mean to you"... that would constitute Original research (which Wikipedia also bans). We need someone external to Wikipedia to create the definitions and conduct such surveys... then we can report what they say. If no sources do so, we can't include it. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A Traveling Man: the degrees are as follows.. the first degree is a call EA entered apprent. at this level you are just in the door of freemasonry and you have limited action inside the lodge. next is fellowcraftthis means you have past your first degree and you can be around and hear a little more inside the lodge. last is the third degree master mason, and at this point you feel very acomplished and you are a full blown mason.

Rosslyn Templars

The Rosslyn Chapel is suppose to be the accepted link between the Templar founding of Freemasonry. I suppose this is due to William Sinclair.75.120.185.48 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Accepted by who? While it remains a popular theory among romantics, the connection between the Templars, the Chapel and Freemasonry has been debunked by multiple historians. Suggest you read our article on Rosslyn Chapel. Blueboar (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I happened to see just about the same level of material on a History Channel documentary on KT the other day (they have seriously gone downhill into some of the worst material out there). 43 minutes and nothing but a whole bunch of fringe theory and no mention of Freemasonry at all. It also put forth a Scottish "Templar" group that accepts men and women as the "spiritual heir" to the "real" KT, and made no real delving into Rosslyn or Sinclairs, either. In any event, Robert L.D. Cooper is sufficient to debunk the whole deal. MSJapan (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What gets me is how persistent the theory is. Despite being debunked multiple times, people want it to be true and so keep repeating it. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The modern Templars admit they are in Freemasonry. [1] And Freemasonry claims a link. They publish books on the Templar history [2], and their Demolay youth group is named after the former Grand Master of the Templars. Not only is their a degree named KT and KoM in the York Rite of Freemasonry but many of the degrees in the Scottish Rite have Templar rituals [3]. (We can note the highest level members function in the same capacity as the former Templars, in banking and world government.) We know the Templars survived with a name change in Spain as the Order of Christ and in the German kingdom as the Teutonic Knights. The Order of the Garter was founded in Britain soon after the Templars were suppressed. Then Rosslyn was built by a Templar, whose immediate relatives (and heirs) would become the first Grand Masters of Freemasonry.[4] This is correctly pointed out by numerous authors.

Rulers of Evil by Tupper Saussy In 1139 Pope Innocent issued a bull placing the Templars under an exclusive vow of papal obedience - a measure by which Aimeric effectively put all Templar resources at the disposal of the papacy. As their list of properties lengthened with donations from Italy, Austria, Germany, Hungary and the Holy Land, the Templars built hundreds of stone castles. Convinced they were building a new world, the Templars called each other frère maçon (brother mason). Later this was anglicized into Freemason.

Finally, on Friday, October 13, 1307, King Philip of France arrested all but thirteen of the Templars in France, tried them and, upon evidence of their practice of the cabalah, found them guilty of blasphemy and magic. At least fifty knights were burned at the stake.

A subtle provision in the Vox clamantis transferred most of the Templar estates to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, who took possesion after King Philip's death. In Germany and Austria, the Templars became "Rosicrucians" and "Teutonic Knights." The Teutonic Knights grew strong in Mainz, birthplace of Guetenberg's press. Six centuries later, as the "Teutonic Order," the Knights would provide the nucleus of Adolf Hitler's political support in Munich and Vienna.

The Edinburgh lodge would become the headquarters of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, which Masonic historians call "American Freemasonry" because all but five of the signers of the Declaration of Independence are said to have practiced its craft. In Spain and Portugal the Templars became the "Illuminati", and the "Knights of Christ." It was under the red pattée cross of the Knights of Christ that Columbus had taken possession of what he called "las Indias" for King Ferdinand V of Spain, the Holy Roman Emperor. (Rulers of Evil, p.39-40, Tupper Saussy)

See also the Muslim Harun Yahya's book on The Knights Templars and Freemasons, also on film [1], and others, too[2][3] and this video servies [4].

Still others find the Jesuits were founded by similar Military orders who served with the Templars during the Crusades thus helped in the formation of Freemasonry. One of their own admits as much.

It is curious to note too that most of the bodies which work these, such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, the Rite of Avignon, the Order of the Temple, Fessler's Rite, the "Grand Council of the Emperors of the East and West -- Sovereign Prince Masons," etc., etc., are nearly all the offspring of the sons of Ignatius Loyola. The Baron Hundt, Chevalier Ramsay, Tschoudy, Zinnendorf, and numerous others who founded the grades in these rites, worked under instructions from the General of the Jesuits. The nest where these high degrees were hatched, and no Masonic rite is free from their baalful influence more or less, was the Jesuit College of Clermont at Paris. (Isis Unveiled, H. P. Blavatsky, p.390)

It seems numerous researchers and authors find that until a better theory on the founding of Freemasonry is put forward this information stands uncontested. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Blavatshky? really? Sorry but Isis Unveiled is definitely not considered a reliable source. At best this is a Fringe theory proposed and supported purely by Fringe Masonry. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, just because a group says they're templars does not mean they're connected to the group. Catholic sources on Freemasonry are not good sources on Freemasonry, for the same reasons Jack Chick is not a good source on Catholicism. Some Freemasons and people claiming to be Freemasons mistakenly repeat the claims that they are connected to the templars, despite not actual evidence, just people claiming a connection for about 150 years (with Freemasonry in its modern form only having solid evidence for being about twice that old). For a better theory: Freemasonry grew out of symbolism from medieval stonemason's guilds, which by the 1700s became more of a social club than a corporation. During the 1800s, clubs liked to claim that their organizations were old and had ancient knowlege, some folks that didn't like the Catholic church attempted to turn Freemasonry into a surrogate protestant church, and those two things lead to claims of being descended from the Templars. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Templar origin has its start in France... with an essay written in the early 1700s by the Chevalier Ramsay, a Scottish Jacobite who was at one point tutor to Bonnie Prince Charley. The French aristos he associated with loved the idea of Freemasonry, but disliked the the traditional origin story (that it developed out of the guilds of stone masons working in England and Scotland.) Of course the French disliked idea that anything good could come out of England (and especially grubby working class England)... so Ramsay invented a "better" origin story for them... that Freemasonry really descended from Crusading Knights and the whole "stone mason" thing was purely symbolic. The funny thing is, Ramsay's essay did not specify the Knights Templars... that was added later, by those who wanted to make Freemasonry even more romantic and exciting than Ramsay made it.

However, there was never any proof behind any of it. The idea that the Masons were descended from the Templars bubbled around, and lots of people liked it. In fact, they realized that you could make some very good allegorical dramas from it... You could use the Templar story to encourage your brethren to emulate the Knightly virtues of loyalty and faith (You too are a Knight... behave as such) ... or for those who lived in a Republic (or wanted to) you could use the Templar's demise to teach lessons warning of the abuse of power by Kings and Potentates (and if you were Protestant, why not toss in a jab at the Pope here). The point is... the stories are allegory... they are made up stories designed to teach lessons.

Unfortunately, some people (even many Masons) did not understand that these stories and dramas were designed to be allegorical... they thought they were some sort of oral history. This error continues to this day (in fact, thanks to writers like Dan Brown, a lot more people believe it that did twenty years ago). However, actual documented history shows that it is allegory, and not actual history. The actual history (history that is supported by actual documents) is the fraternity slowly developing out of the Stonemasons' guilds in England and Scotland in the 1600s. The Templar stuff is a lovely story... it's even a useful story... but that is all it is... a story. Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blueboar on a few of his points, mostly having to do with the fact that Rosslyn is not typically unique for an unfinished cathedral. Stones with masters marks, and celtic carvings are not something that is exclusive ONLY to Rosslyn Chapel, especially in Scotland or even France for that matter where the cathedral of Notre Dame has thousands of masons marks and symbols.

However people seem to be harping over this 1600-1700 era in which the fraternity was public and attempting to provide substance that Freemasonry simply did not exist before then, when the honest scholar must agree that lodges have existed and have been proven to exist at least to the time of the Haliwell Manuscript. Also that it was early history the old guilds were lead by hereditary bloodlines that abicated there right in favor of popular elections.

Does this prove any link to Freemasonry and the Templars? NO! But it does give a much older origin to the fraternity that modern scholars seem to be unwilling to accept, and quite frankly unless you are a member speculating upon the rituals for an outsider is an exercise in futility. When the terminology in even todays degrees harkens to esoteric allegory that would baffle the modern scholar who today has little to no classical education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The question is... is it really accurate to use the term "Freemasonry" to describe the stone masons lodges that existed prior to 1600? We do have to admit that "Freemasonry" in 1700 was very different from what it was a century before... and there is a good argument that it was different enough to be something new. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

True a differentiation should be made between the beginning, the watershed, and the end product. Freemasonry at the 1600's is the end product of a watershed. One which did stem from the stonemasons guild prior to its offical recognition in 1717 as several pre existing lodges codified to form the Grand Lodge of England. The question has always been though, why the change? When and why did the stonemasons lodges become schools and think tanks? Its been the time old question about the fraternity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Life as a modern Mason

Something that's missing from the article is what Freemasons do. Initiation, studying lectures, the degrees, helping others learn their rituals, installation to lodge offices, service events, etc. Unfortunately, I have no idea if reliable sources exist. It might be tricky in that there are some very active Masons, that seem to participate in every event in a wide region on to fellows spotted a couple of times per year. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they really don't exist, but to be fair, we do talk about what Masons do in general, which I think is much more germane to the article. Initiation is covered in the degrees section, and studying runs the gamut from a formalized program with a "gold card" given by Grand Lodge to an entirely voluntary system at the whim of the individual Lodge. Officers we talk about as well insofar as we have info about what they are. Anything more than that leads right to the issue of

how much detail can we really go into without a source, and what level of detail can we get to before we start running into editors changing it because "that's not how we do it here"? If you can think of a way around it that would add some substance to the article without also adding subjectivity, that would be good. MSJapan (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree... I would love to be able to add more to the article but a) we need sources, and b) we need to keep it relevant to all jurisdictions. That is hard. Blueboar (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both MSJapan and Blueboar. I later realized my question is very similar to the "Degrees" question/thread above. In my case it was triggered when thinking about a lecture and recalling that the Wikipedia article does not address the process someone goes through.

I'm not too worried about "relevant to all jurisdictions" as we can say "within the UGLE/North America ..." While it's not likely there's a WP:ABOUTSELF source that would apply to that large a demographic it should be safe enough to cite a source where someone's done the legwork. I agree fully with "That is hard." As it is, the word "always" is used eight times in this article where it seems none of the resulting sweeping pronouncements backed up by sources. The fun never ends on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we often can't even say "within UGLE/North America"... When you get into details of what Masons "do", what Massachusetts Freemasons "do" is quite different from what New York Freemasons "do", and both are very different from how things are done in Ohio, etc. No two jurisdictions use the same rituals and lectures, no two organize themselves with exactly the same structure, govern themselves by the same bilaws, etc. etc. etc. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes they are significant... but differences there are. Yes, there are great similarities as well... which allows us to make a few broad generalities... but the similarities are less and the differences are greater than even most masons think. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy trinity error

I noticed in the part involving religion, it is said that when discussing the supreme being its actual meaning is inherent in the individuals views, whether it be the holy trinity, allah, etc. However, would it be more correct to say "a catholic shriner" as christians differ in their views on this. Not really into article editing, just throwing out critiques on articles, so if someone deems to correct it, its there to be corrected : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.174.226 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Catholics aren't the only ones that believe in the Trinity... The Eastern Orthodox Churches do as well, as do most Protestant groups. Also, a Shriner is a specific group that allows Masons to join, but being a Mason does not make a person a Shriner. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any non-Trinitarian Christian group. I have always understood that being Trinitarian was as much as part of the definition of being Christian as, well, belief in Christ. Since the Council of Nicea anyway. I am willing to stand corrected, though, by someone knowledgeable. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are groups like Jehovah's Witness and the Latter Day Saints that call themselves Christian and are derived from Christianity, and so would be considered Christian from a more academic perspective (what we're supposed to use), but not necessarily a theological one. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also Unitarians, Universalists, and variations thereof. Another good point to make is that certain groups require members to be Trinitarian Christians, which pretty much shows that other types exist. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand Universalists to be Christians, and perhaps not Unitarians either. A belief in Christ as God-on-Earth (or however one may with to term it) would seem to be an indispensable requirement to be "Christian." kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We're veering afield a bit, and I'm not up on the topic, but the article on Unitarianism states it is "nontrinitarian Christian", and I know that a few Masonic invitational bodies specifically require "Trinitarian Christian" beliefs (because it says so on the application), so I would imagine that there must be nontrinitarian systems that are still considered Christian. I would think that anything else is a matter for theological debate and outside the scope of this article. MSJapan (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To put us back on track... the only question is, do we need to edit the sentence: "Thus, reference to the Supreme Being will mean the Christian Trinity to a Christian Mason, Allah to a Muslim Mason, Para Brahman to a Hindu Mason, etc" IMO we do not. We are not trying to outline the dogmas of different Christian denominations, we are trying to explain how Masons of different religious beliefs will interpret the term "Supreme Being". We are not trying to be all inclusive, these are examples. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact is every single one of those statements is wrong by some definition. Though it is the most likely to be accurate. So do we favor commonality or obliterate the whole thing? PeRshGo (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with striking that sentence from the article for a couple of reasons. 1) There are no reliable sources that would define "Supreme Being" for all or much of Masonry. We should not attempt to define it here. 2) "Supreme Being" could be interpreted as excluding those practicing Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. but at least the California Grand Lodge allows them by implication in that works for those practices are included in the list of alternate Holy Writings.^[1] Grand Lodge's for other regions likely have similar wording. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that the definition of Supreme Being is very much up to the individual, we only ask if the individual has a belief in a Supreme Being, and we don't inquire any further as to what that SB might look like. Equally the candidate can (should) be asked what VSL they wish to take the obligations on.

We're not making a definitive statement of acceptable beliefs, but illustrating how that categoric and referenced position might end up looking like for a small selection of individuals.

I don't see an issue with using illustrative text to help clarify what is a reasonably abstract issue.

As a matter of interest does GLoCal have a recommendation for a Satanist to take his obligation on?

ALR (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that illustrative text is that it's specific WP:POVish examples, such as Christian Trinity, that are not supported by WP:RS. It's also using language such as "will mean" that's also not supported by WP:RS. That's why I'm challenging it. Using GLoCal as an example, all they ask is "belief in a Supreme Being" and is deliberately silent on what that means. Someone could say to themselves "I believe there is something but I'm not sure what it is. I'm not a member of any organized religion." Can that person be a Freemason per the "Supreme Being" test? Of course. The sentence that follows the one under discussion ("While most Freemasons would take the view...") illustrates the "Supreme Being" issue without needing to detail examples. As that sentence is not supported by reliable sources I'd want to change "most" to "some" to make a bit more neutral. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a balance to be sought between slavish adherence to badly written rules and informing the reader. Illustration is a useful way to achieve that.

ALR (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ALR here. The point of the sentence is to make it clear to the reader that there is no Masonic conception of God... there is no Masonic definition of the term Supreme Being (or Great Architect of the Universe)... each individual Mason interprets the term according to his (or her, in the case of co-Masonry) own religious beliefs. For a Mason who believes in the Christian Trinity, then the term Supreme Being will mean the Trinity... for him and him alone. But, for a Mason who believes in Allah, then the term Supreme Being means Allah... for him and him alone. By giving examples from a few of the major religious faiths, we make that clear. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think PeRshGo has settled it nicely by changing "will" to "could", and I'm surprised it took 7 days of discussion for someone to come up with that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I slightly disagree... For a Mason that believes in X, the term does mean X. I am Episcopalian, and the term "Supreme Being" does mean the Trinity to me. There is no "if" or "could" or "might" about it in my mind. However, I realize and accept that the term will and does mean something different to my Brothers who are of a different faith. I don't agree with their interpretation, I think their belief is in error, but I do agree that they have the right to believe what they want (people have the right to be in error). As a Freemason, I agree to tolerate the differing religious beliefs of others, and in the interest of harmony I agree not to discuss the topic of who is "right" and who is in "error" (especially in the lodge). Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You assume that everyone in your religion/denomination believes the same things you do. Ever heard of "Cafeteria Catholics"? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are certain basic beliefs that all members of a given religion/denomination are required to have in order be a member of that religion/denomination. For Episcopalians (and Catholics), one of these is a belief in the Trinity. Now, many members have their own personal conceptions as to the exact nature of the Trinity ... but we all believe in the Trinity in some form (we say so every time we go to Church and recite the Nicene Creed). For Muslims, it is the belief that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohamed is his Prophet." My point is that we can make a few broad statements about what all members of a particular faith or denomination believe. And that translates over to what Masons of that particular faith will believe. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'm sure you don't realize this, but you're telling me what I should believe, and I take a certain amount of offense at that. That's why I attempted to collapse the discussion before. There's a reason we're supposed to stay away from these topics... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My intent is definitely NOT to tell you (or anyone else) what to believe (and if it comes across that way, I do apologize)... my goal was to tell you what I think the vast majority of Episcopalian (and indeed the vast majority of Christians) believe... using my own belief as an example. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the article... what about "can mean" as opposed to "could mean"? Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lucifer and Freemasonry

In this time and age, Freemasons openly admit that their "Grand Creator of the Universe" is indeed Lucifer. It's all over some Internet Forums. But, of course, they don't say Lucifer is the devil, but Christ. They say that Lucifer is Jesus Christ. It is absolutely disgusting. Freemasons are also deep into Kabbalah, saying that a "Luciferian Messiah" will bring Olam HaBah (the "world to come"). Freemasons also say, that Mary Magdalene's real name was Mary Lucifera. And yes, I can prove all this with many links. Anon February 3, 2011 05:49 (UTC +1)