Talk:Freemasonry

Mixed gender Masonry in North America
There are mix-gendered lodges spawned by the International Order of the Human Right (French "Droit Humain" mostly French speaking ones) in North America, as well as the genuine American Co-Masonry (English speaking). One can also find French speaking mix-gendered lodges in Canada, especially the under the custody of the Supreme Council of Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Québec. This canadian obedience has some links with the Grand Orient de France, but still uses the compulsory invocation to the Great Architect of the Universe and opens rituals with St-John's Gospel or the book of Kings from the Bible depending on the degrees. Women can freely be accepted into these Lodges in North America, as well as men and people of all races and colors. Hpm29 (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe these are mentioned in the Droit Humain article, and might be included in the List of Masonic Grand Lodges. I don’t think this article should mention them. This article is designed to be a “broad brush” overview - a beginners guide, if you will… it’s a starting point for those searching for more info. It’s not really the right place to mention every small faction of the fraternity that exists in every country.  We have other articles and sub-articles for that. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no. There is no such thing as "mixed gendered lodges." There are all kinds of groups who practice Masonic rituals, but have zero provenance, association and amity with United Grand Lodge of England, which is the root of the tree, so to speak. All legitamate bodies of Freemasonry have amity (friendship and recognition) with the United Grand Lodge of England. This includes all jurisditions in the USA, Canada, Australia, western Europe, and others. Pedigee matters. There are a lot of so-called "masonic" organizations that have no pedigree from the real and original Masonic pedigree. Kornbelt888 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Masonic Degrees
There really isn't an article that I can find where Masonic degrees as rituals are discussed. This is definitely a significant oversight in the encyclopedia nature of our coverage on this topic.

It seems there used to be an article but it got merged in here. Jjazz76 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of Masonic ritual and symbolism? There are two major problems with crafting an article about the rituals … the first is finding reliable academic type sources to support it. The second is that there isn’t any standardization in Masonry - the rituals performed in one lodge or jurisdiction are often radically different from the rituals performed in another. This means that anything we can reliably verify has to be hedged as being specific to a particular lodge or Jurisdiction. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It would seem to me the York Rite Craft Degrees, which are very common in the US, basically appear nowhere in any of the articles. There are plenty of sources about them. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what “York Rite Craft Degrees” are. In the US, the York Rite degrees are considered supplemental to the Craft Degrees. They are separate things. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Please change letter G redirect
the current link does not describe anything to do with Freemasonry. Please change the link from G to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Masonic_abbreviations#:~:text=with%20a%20G.-,G.,Grand%20Architect%20of%20the%20Universe. I would do so myself but my wiki-fu is admittedly not strong enough. 2603:800C:3D00:1ED2:F81D:98FA:D56:FB1A (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. Will do that for you:)) Michaelangelos (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Article Unclear
The article is not very helpful in helping the readers understand what Freemasonry actually is. The three introductory paragraphs only focus on organizational structure and differences within Freemasonry, but leave aside the primary question of what the modern freemasonry is all about. There should at least be an attempt to answer this fundamental question in the introduction. ---bssasidhar- >Talk Page 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The fundamental question is answered in the very first sentence… Freemasonry is a fraternal organization. It is about fraternity (ie friendship and brotherhood). Everything else stems from (and reinforces) that basic concept. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Freemasonry or Masonry refers to fraternal organisations and guilds of stonemasons that, from the end of the 14th century, regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients."
 * This sentence, being in past tense makes it confusing. -bssasidhar- >Talk Page 12:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sentence has been changed… hopefully it is clearer now. Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you. -bssasidhar- >Talk Page 08:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Are all stonemasons a part of freemasonry?
It is clear to me that freemasonry, a kind of fraternal organization with some secret rituals, code of conducts, and belief system; originated historically from stonemasonry. However, what is not clear to me that whether these 2 group of peoples are overlapping (as in venn diagram) or mutually exclusive. I know there are freemasons who are not stonemassons. But are there any stonemasons who are NOT associated with freemasonry by any means? or all stonemasons are mandated to go through freemasonry??

Please make this clear in the article.

2409:40E1:100D:518E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. Historically, all stonemasons were Freemasons and all Freemasons were stonemasons (the two terms meant the same thing).  However, beginning in the late 1500s and early 1600s they slowly drifted apart. Today they are separate.  So… today, while there are some stonemasons who are Freemasons, it isn’t automatic… and most stonemasons likely are not Freemasons. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph removal
In contrast to Catholic allegations of rationalism and naturalism, Protestant objections are more likely to be based on allegations of mysticism, occultism, and even Satanism. Masonic scholar Albert Pike is often quoted (in some cases misquoted) by Protestant anti-Masons as an authority for the position of Masonry on these issues. However, Pike, although undoubtedly learned, was not a spokesman for Freemasonry and was also controversial among Freemasons in general. His writings represented his personal opinion only, and furthermore, an opinion grounded in the attitudes and understandings of late 19th century Southern Freemasonry of the US. Notably, his book carries in the preface a form of disclaimer from his own Grand Lodge. No one voice has ever spoken for the whole of Freemasonry.

I believe that the above paragraph should be deleted due to poor sourcing and WP:OR issues. The deletion was contested by User:Blueboar, so I would like to elaborate more on the issues that I have with this paragraph.

The first sentence makes a general statement about what Protestant objections are more likely to be based on using one source alone: an anti-Freemasonry tract by Christian fundamentalist Jack Chick. Since this is a WP:PRIMARY work presenting the viewpoint of an individual Protestant Christian, we can only use it as a source for straightforward statements of fact that directly come from the source (e.g. what Jack Chick personally thinks about Freemasonry). We cannot engage in WP:OR and apply extrapolation and analysis to this source to say what Protestant objections are more likely to be based on overall.

The second sentence is published by the Masonic Information Center, meaning that it is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Freemasonry. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, it cannot be used to make claims about third parties, such as what Protestant anti-Masons have said or any misrepresentations they may have made.

The end of the passage is cited to Albert Pike's own Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a WP:PRIMARY work. It cannot be used to establish whether Pike was learned, whether he was a spokesman for Freemasonry, whether it is [notable] that his book carries a disclaimer from his Grand Lodge, or whether his writings were controversial among Freemasons in general, all of which are not direct statements of fact about Pike's work but rather analytical statements contextualizing his work requiring a secondary source. As the paragraph states, His writings represented his personal opinion only, so they cannot be used as a source for describing the role of Pike in Freemasonry in WP:Wikivoice. Zylostr (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An initial comment (I will respond in more detail later) - first, the source for the second sentence (De Hoyas and Morris) was originally published by M. Evans & Company, which is INDEPENDENT of Freemasonry. The online version that is linked to (Masonic Service Center) is merely a “courtesy link”… a re-publication by permission of the authors. Second - It is a secondary source, not a primary one. And… even if it were, the authors are two of the most notable scholars on Freemasonry, writing about a subject within their expertise, so it would pass the EXPERT exemption. Blueboar (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It still seems to me that the source may be WP:COISOURCE. The publisher being independent doesn't make the authorship independent—for instance, a public figure's autobiography might be published through a major mainstream publishing house, but it would still be a non-independent source. The De Hoyas and Morris source appears to carry the copyright of the Masonic Information Center, making it the work of a Masonic organization. Additionally, the genre of the work appears to be a polemical work in defense of Freemasonry, and De Hoyas and Morris are Freemasons who have held leadership roles in Freemasonic organizations, so this is not a work by outsider academics.
 * To be charitable, I believe it might make sense to limit the extent to which COISOURCE applies to work written by members of very large organizations or movements, as well as work belonging to organizations that fall under the umbrella of a broader movement but are not necessarily formally connected to the movement as a whole. For instance, it seems to me that works written by scholars who happen to be religious are not categorically COISOURCE on religious matters. I can see an argument that De Hoyas and Morris's work is on par with the work of legitimately credentialed religious apologists, which could make it usable but not in WP:Wikivoice. Zylostr (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about this further, and while I still disagree with your objections to Morris and De Hoyas, I do think these paragraphs are too long. In fact, I think the entire “religious objections” section (not just the paragraphs in question) could benefit from better summarization. The opinions that various religious sects and denominations have about Freemasonry (and Freemasonry’s response to those opinions) are covered in detail in linked articles. We don’t need to repeat it all here. This article is supposed to be an overview. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I would also agree with summarization in accordance with due weight. Perhaps the whole section could be replaced with a brief paragraph cited to academic sources about religious history, with secondary sources guiding due weight considerations. This would potentially obviate concerns over De Hoyas and Morris by replacing the source with very similar information from an academic source.Zylostr (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One problem is that there are no completely independent academic sources that cover the sub-topic. The closest we have are either Religious scholars or Masonic scholars like Morris and De Hoyas.  Still, I will give it a shot.  Be patient please… this will take time. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)