Talk:Order of the Eastern Star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Freemasonry (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Order of the Eastern Star and Eastern Star topics should be combined.

Done. --Gary D 04:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous ranting deleted here


What about adding some history into this article.. Like when this organization developed, how, why and by who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, 74 -- I didn't realize that I had only put this info in the Morris/Macoy articles.--SarekOfVulcan 12:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is, unfortunately, not nearly enough biographical information available on Rob Morris, especially his early years. In the 1920s, there were two books published on the History of the Order. Both have the title "History of the Order of the Eastern Star". One is by Willis D. Engle and is available as a reprint. A much more extensive version was written by Jean M'kee Kenaston and this book apparently contained a biography of Morris. However, this book is long out of print and very hard to find. Little is known about Morris' college years (even where he went to school seems unknown--it is usually stated that he received a very good education) or with whom he associated and his poetic and literary influences. This might shed valuable light on his inspirations for the Order. There is a Rob Morris Memorial in Kentucky, which might have more information.

There is some debate about whether Morris borrowed some portion of the rituals and/or symbolism from the Adoptive Lodges existing in Europe. Morris apparently did give conflicting statements about this rather touchy subject. In the early years, he seemed to hint at some borrowing, but later he claimed it was entirely his invention. The web sites of Grand Chapters in the US and the General Grand Chapter support the idea of Morris being the sole creator, with later help in organizing from Macoy. However, Grand Chapter sites in jurisdictions not under the General Grand Chapter, notably Australia and Germany, support the idea of his trying to create an American version of the Adoptive Rites. Probably, this question will not be resolved. The French Adoptive Lodges were absorbed into the Grand Lodge Feminine de France and they have since stopped working the old rites, which would have been the only method of comparison.Guy of Auvergne 06:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on symbolism[edit]

A common misconception is that the star is pointed down. It isn't. The star is a horizontal figure. It denotes the layout of the Chapter Room, in which the white ray is pointed to the West. Of course, when placed on a written page, we imply a vertical orientation.

The star is also said to be representative of the movements of Venus across the sky when it changes from the evening to the morning star and back again. In fact, according to, the word "Eastern Star" is a reference to Venus in it's morning star phase. Therefore, in addition to its Christian connotations, "Eastern Star" alludes to a symbolism more recognizeable to ancient peoples.

Something in the OES Symbol that has always passed without comment by non-members is the word inscribed in the inner area. As a member, I can't divulge its meaning, which is rather trite anyway. However, among members, it is called a "cabalistic" word. Really, that just means an anagram for the trite phrase I can't repeat. However, one day, I decided to take "cabalistic" literally and wondered what would happen if I used the cabalistic system of gematria to assign a numeric value and find out which Hebrew words corresponded. Since Hebrew has no actual "F", it had a value of zero and the whole word came to a value of 41. There are about twelve words in Hebrew which have that numeric value. However, one of them is the Hebrew word for "fecundity", which is a synonym for fertility. Now Venus was the goddess of love and fertility....maybe I'm going too far with this. Interesting nonetheless. You can go to, where they have a Gematria calculator and see if you get the same result.

I only added this particular note because of the numerous sites publishing defamatory remarks about the Order being unfit for Christians. In all of OES ritual, there is very little that would support their contentions. Of course, if one is inclined toward a fundamentalist type of Christian faith, by all means, the Order is not for them. They are not going to be tolerant of anything not supporting their narrow views, including other forms of Christianity or social organizations like OES, which have a spiritual aspect, but are not specifically Christian enough for them.

So here, I have given the one part of OES symbolism which I, as a member, find even slightly deviates from it's Judeo-Christian heritage. And even I can't make it that compelling.

By the way, none of my comments here are endorsed by the Order of the Eastern Star.Guy of Auvergne 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


I would like to see specific information on the roles of the heroines (I mean the roles--not the actual biblical women). Are they there to sit there and look pretty and then show up to do the Carnation Ritual at a member's funeral, or do they serve some other purpose?

Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Each Star point has a lecture during Initiation in which they teach the lesson that can be drawn from the Biblical story. I don't know that that's terribly encyclopedic, though...--SarekOfVulcan 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Jack Chick" Alleged Controversy Section[edit]

I've decided to remove the section because quite frankly I think that there is a difference between noting a genuine controversy surrounding a subject in an article and adding information to an article simply because someone somewhere happens to believe that it's true. My understanding of Wikipedia policy, is that the encyclopedia is not intended to represent each and every possible perspective or opinion on any given subject, no matter how outlandish or unsupported it may be, but rather should consist of information that is drawn from recognised and accepted secondary sources of mainstream information. It is my opinion that citing Jack Chick publications does not represent such a source. Jack Chick also espouses the belief that the United Nations and the Roman Catholic Church are also both "satanic" organizations, however I have a difficult time believing that editors of the Wikipedia article pertaining to either one of those subjects, would willingly accept as valid a section pointing out that fact backed up by a quote from one of Mr. Chick's publications. Deconstructhis 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not nessecarily endorsing his viewpoint, just not censoring it either. Jack Chick is by no means alone in his belief, and there is no good reason why this shouldn't be noted. --RucasHost 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The good reason this shouldn't be noted/included is the that the so-called controversy content is based on unauthoritative, non-credible, and "extremist" sources (see WP:RS#Extremist sources). Therefore, removing it has nothing to do with censoring.BC 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello Rucashost, my problem here is the appropriateness of the inclusion of this alleged controversy in this particular article. As I mentioned above, as I understand Wikipedia policy, it's not the intention of the encyclopedia to include *all* possible positions on a given subject, no matter how marginalized those ideas are in literally every article related to a subject, in fact my reading of policy indicates the opposite:


"Articles should be sourced to works written by reliable third parties, or found in reliable publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them."


"Publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the authors or publishers themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the author or publisher has made about third parties, unless those claims are also made in reliable sources."WP:RS

In my opinion, your material, if it's supported by a reliable source, belongs in an article specifically dealing with either the relationship between Freemasonry and Christianity in general, or perhaps in an article dealing with masonic conspiracy theories; not in a general article concerning what's basically a service organization for middle-aged folks. If I'm understanding your position correctly, by extension, what you're saying is that if even a small number of conspiracy theorists put forward a notion that George W. Bush is actually an entity from another planet disguising himself as a human being, that somehow there is an onus on Wikipedia to include a mention of that "position" in the primary biographical article for the current U.S. president. That information may be appropriate, if properly sourced, in an article dealing with conspiracy theories surrounding Bush, but I reject the idea that it's appropriate in his primary biographical entry, as I think most responsible editors would.Deconstructhis 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Rucashost, it might be appropriate for you to review the "Five Pillars" of what Wikipedia is, in particular #1,[1] as well as what Wikipedia is not [2]Deconstructhis 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that this organization may have satanic ties because of the symbol that they use to represent their organization. Any slight research into this would show that this is the satanic star that is used by satanists the world over. I am not saying that this is enough proof alone just that it may be out there to find.-- (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Ongoing Dispute Regarding Satanic Conspiracy Theory[edit]

After quickly reviewing Rucashost's past editing practices, I'm of the opinion that in all probability s/he holds a sincere personal belief in what they're posting, however they seem unwilling or unable to justify why they believe that the material is relevent in this particular article. I can see how the information is appropriate content (if properly sourced) in the context of several different conspiracy theory articles and perhaps even in articles pertaining directly to the sources they're citing, Jack Chick or Ed Decker, but I'm against having it this article for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Personally, I have no intention of reverting this article any more, for the time being at least, I've stated my case as clearly as I can.Deconstructhis 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what this page is all about: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  • BZZZZZT! But thank you for playing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire notion of the "Inverted" star representing "Evil" is a piece of 19th C. revisionism- another thing that Levi has to answer for....Saxophobia (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rosa Parks[edit]

I just called Mizpah Grand Chapter of Alabama, and the lady who answered the phone didn't have the records available to determine whether Parks was a member of Alonzo Mitchell Chapter 636. So, this is still up in the air: I haven't yet seen a source that didn't link back to the Meridian Chapter claim. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The role of the Sentinel in succession, and more info about the Associate Patron[edit]

In some chapters, the Sentinel is an elected position always held by a man, and he advances to the position of Associate Patron the following term. This is also true of the Right Worthy Grand Sentinel in General Grand Chapter, as well as the Grand Sentinel in most Grand Chapters. This is a minor detail, but I thought it might be worth adding. However, I can't figure out how to add it without being totally disruptive.

Also, it might be worth mentioning that the Associate Patron didn't exist as an office until 1932 (or thereabouts). Therefore, the Associate Patrons participation in the various rituals is optional in most jurisdictions. But that is extremely minor and might not be worth mentioning.

Cpk1971 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first addition, we'd need a reliable source citing it: there's already enough uncited material in that section. :-( For the second, I definitely want to see cites -- that's a lot more encyclopedic than the first one, imho.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Different jurisdictions[edit]

The article, as written, mostly focuses around GGC OES. PHA and NY would presumably object to that, so anybody have any suggestions on how to make it more-inclusive?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi and the Little Red School House[edit]

Why is there no mention of the Eureka Masonic College in Mississippi? Bravo601 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No particular reason, as far as I know. It's treated in more detail at the Rob Morris article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be unacceptable for me to add this info at a later date? When I actually have time. Bravo601 (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem, generally speaking. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Order of the Eastern Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)