Talk:Freemasonry

The word "liberal" near the end of the lead....

...is used very much with the sense it has in the USA. The major conservative political party in Australia (plenty of Masons here) is the Liberal Party. Someone might want to find a better, more globally accurate word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Or Australians could find a better, more globally accurate word for their conservative party... I would have thought that most Australians would understand the difference between the usages - certainly those I have met do. DuncanHill (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This particular Australian thinks the name of that party is somewhat misleading, but that's not really the point. The word "liberal" seems to a me an ill-fitting one in this article. We all know that it's used often enough as a pejorative in the the USA. That's presumably not what's meant here. It's a somewhat loaded word. I would just like to see a more neutral word used here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the scare quotes, which looked frankly sarcastic to me. I don't see liberal as a loaded word in the context (with the scare quotes was another matter). Can you suggest a better one? DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, those weren’t supposed to be scare quotes... the quotation marks were used to indicate Masonic jargon: the Continental style jurisdictions often refer to themselves as “Liberal Freemasonry” and refer to the Anglo-American style as “Dogmatic Freemasonry” (note: the Anglo style jurisdictions use “Regular” vs “Irregular” to describe the same split).

That said, I agree that the word “liberal” can be confusing as it has multiple political meanings. I think the word can be eliminated from the sentence without any loss of understanding. If there are no objections, I will remove it. Blueboar (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hermetic-Gnostic???

Freemasonry as nothing to do with Hermeticism and Gnosticism. It is not a religious organization. I think the words should be removed from the lead. Pepe Oats (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Those terms don't apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"Freemasonry...is not a religious organization." From the article... "Regular Freemasonry insists that a volume of scripture is open in a working lodge, that every member profess belief in a Supreme Being". Hmmmm. I think I see a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Freemasonry requires that you bring your own religion to Lodge with you - it doesn't attempt to tell you what that should be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't fit my definition of "non-religious". In fact it seems to say that (a) religion is compulsory, and atheists are not welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

First, it is possible for someone to believe in a supreme being without having a religion. Second you could require members to have religion without the institution itself being concerned with religion. Freemasonry in the United Kingdom for example is frequently described as "UK's largest secular, fraternal, and charitable organisation." PeRshGo (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Despite that obfuscation, I'm still guessing atheists aren't welcome? HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Obfuscation indeed. Atheists are NOT welcome. And when a legitimate rite recognized by the Grand Lodge of England (Grand Orient and Grande Oriente) decided to allow atheists, they were summarily declared "irregular" - meaning that over night they were now fake masonry and not to be associated with. That was over a hundred years ago.XDev (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

So, allegedly not religious, but no atheists allowed. Maybe we need a new adjective..... HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, atheists are allowed in some branches of Freemasonry and not allowed in other branches of the craft. The admission of atheists is something Freemasons disagree about. What people have to understand is this: Freemasonry is not a monolithic entity... it is a very loose collection of multiple entities. And all these entities often disagree with each other. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh this is fun. We have:

1. A guy who seems to just have an ax to grind against theists and

2. A guy who thinks English Freemasonry is the only Freemasonry that matters

God bless you Wikipedia, you never change. Jersey John (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust

I'm somewhat confused about the fact that this article states "historians estimate that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were killed under the Nazi regime." I can't seem to find any source stating this, and I'm wondering whether the cited source (Freemasons for Dummies) is more reliable than the United States Holocaust Museum, which states on its encyclopaedia "Because many of the Freemasons who were arrested were also Jews and/or members of the political opposition, it is not known how many individuals were placed in Nazi concentration camps and/or were targeted only because they were Freemasons. Some former lodge members, as individuals, participated in or were associated with German resistance circles. Some were arrested and murdered during World War II." (See here: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/freemasonry-under-the-nazi-regime) I feel that if there was evidence that tens of thousands of Masons had been specifically targeted this would have been explicitly stated by the Holocaust Museum. Thoughts on this statement being removed?? Nt1192 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I might also argue that this page is in general showing some bias in casting criticism of Freemasonry in a negative/unreasonable light. A lot of statements like this also use Freemasons for Dummies as a citation; the author of this book, Christopher Hoddap, has written several books financed by Masonic Lodges and runs a Freemason news blog. I would propose this book be considered subjective at the very least and references based on it altered to be more neutral? Thoughts? Nt1192 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Look back through the archives... this has been discussed before.

As for Hoddap ... the “For Dummies” series is published by Whiley - a reputable and independent publisher, with no connection to the Masons. They were the ones who considered Hoddap an expert and approached him to write thier book on the Freemasons... not the other way around. The fact that Hodapp has ALSO written books financed/published by non-independent Masonic publishers is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. My question about the Holocaust figures and the contrasting sources still stands? Nt1192 (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a good recent summary: Elaine Paulionis Phelen, "Persecuted Masons: The Holocaust and Hitler’s Attack on Freemasonry" The Masonic Philosophical Society Oct. 26, 2016

That is just some random blogger, not a reliable source of information. Libby Kane (talk)

Secret Society?

This question was provoked while I was having a conversation with an actual Mason. He said "Just because a society has secrets (like handshakes, and what-not), does not mean that the society is "secret". Many, if not most of the Masons I see have their badges displayed prominently on the backs of their cars, which seems pretty "open" to me. So I scan the article looking for some connection between Masons and "secret society" and while there are 3 external links, and an implied allegation by some vague statements by the Catholic Church, there is no direct statement in the Article that the Masons are a secret society. The Wikipedia Article on "Secret Societies" does not even mention the word "Mason" in the Article, only links outside the Article. So, it seems to me that the Article should address this ambiguity directly. Are the Masons a "secret society", and if so, who says so, and by what definition? Are there reliable sources for this, one way or the other? Many organizations restrict and regulate information, your credit card and bank account information, for example. Just because an organization has information that is for "Internal Use Only", does not mean that the whole organization is "secret".Tym Whittier (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Historian Jasper Ridley argues that it is, "the World's Most Powerful Secret Society."Jasper Ridley (2011). The Freemasons: A History of the World's Most Powerful Secret Society. Arcade. ISBN 978-1-61145-010-1. see also Jeffers, H. Paul. Freemasons: A History and Exploration of the World's Oldest Secret Society. (Citadel Press, 2005). On the French version see: Olivier Tosseri, "La franc-maçonnerie est une société secrète" ['Free-Masonry is a Secret Society' the article is in French. Historia 2010, Issue 765, p94+. Abstract: The article discusses the history of Freemasonry in France, 1650 to 2000, focusing on the rites and rituals that characterize the organization as a secret society. It describes the philosophic and philanthropic purposes of the society in England and Scotland during the 17th century, its emphasis on esoteric mysteries to advance human civilization, and the society's association with the temple of Israel king Solomon, the Egyptian pyramids, and European cathedrals. Other subjects under discussion include the Grand Lodge in France, the relationship between the Free Masons and French philosopher Voltaire, and the Catholic church's condemnation of Freemasonry in the 18th century. Rjensen (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

See below. Libby Kane (talk)

Jasper Ridley's opinion

@Rjensen: Why should Jasper Ridley's opinion be in the opening paragraph? Libby Kane (talk)

The book description says: "Skyhorse Publishing, as well as our Arcade imprint, are proud to publish a broad range of books for readers interested in history--books about World War II, the Third Reich, Hitler and his henchmen, the JFK assassination, conspiracies"... so its probably not a reliable source for information about anything other than perhaps the personal opinion of the writer. Libby Kane (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

What we should be asking is whether that view is representative of the overall historiography. El_C 06:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If it is possible to find a reliable source that agrees with Jasper (or not) then we can perhaps add information from that reliable source. But Jasper Ridley's book is not a reliable source and therefore we shouldn't use it. Note that historian is not a protected title; anyone can claim to be one. Libby Kane (talk)

Usually, you need a university degree in history to be taken seriously in the field. El_C 06:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The field of History is one where the “armature” scholar can still gain a good reputation and be respected. In Ridley’s case, he came to historical scholarship as a second carrier, having first been a barrister. Law and History require very similar research skills (indeed one could call legal research a specialized sub-branch of Historical research). Since leaving Law and turning to Historical writing, Ridley has written multiple historical works (biographies as well as histories), and all have been well received in reviews by “academic” historians. His degree may have been in law, but his reputation among those with degrees in history is strong. I think he qualifies as a reliable scholar with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. In other words - a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. Ridley is a top-tier British historian--for example he won their biggest history prize: James Tait Black Memorial Prize Historians of freemasonry cite his work-- indeed many hundreds of different scholarly books and articles cite his work on Freemasonry, according to this list at Google Scholar. Here's a review: "Ridley traces the growth of this society from the Middle Ages to the present and interweaves history, politics, and religion in his survey. Especially fascinating are discussions on the role of Freemasons in the American and French Revolutions, their lingering influence in European politics in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the condition of the organization after World War II. In the final chapter, "Are the Freemasons a Menace?," Ridley deftly assesses the body of recent literature that is highly critical of the Masons. This book is a useful companion to the many scholarly and specialized works on the subject, such as Lynn Dumenil's Freemasonry and American Culture, 1880-1930. Recommended for most public and academic libraries" [ Library Journal Dec 2001,]

As a Freemason I object to any "opinion" being added as reliable information without stating precisely what facts and research that opinion is based upon. I see no such information in the proposed edit.SeanNovack (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)