Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2003 and Feb 2004.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_2. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.

"Freemasonry has been said to be an institutional outgrowth of the medieval guilds of stonemason?s, a direct descendant of the "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon" (the Knights Templar), an offshoot of the ancient [Mystery schools]?, an administrative arm of the [Priory of Zion]?, the Roman Collegia?, the [Comacine masters]?, intellectual descendants of Noah, and to have many other various origins."

Can someone please elaborate on exactly who has said these things? Freemasons themselves? It's really important to know who is making the statement to give context to it. --Dmerrill

Done. --Alex Kennedy

I'm personally curious as to the claim the LDS Church members feel that the Craft Degrees are "corruptions" of ceremonies given (to whom?) during the building of King Solomon's Temple. I've never heard this before. Also, in what sense are the Degrees believed to be "corruptions?" The word certainly has a connotation of, at very least, inappropriate behaviour. Would "misunderstanding" be better? -- Alex Kennedy


 * First, I don't know whether the church itself has ever made that statement, but if you do a quick Google you'll find a large selection of member's pages in which the subject is discussed, and most of them say something along these lines.


 * The church has not made such a statement and wouldn't comment on such matters. However, that is a belief widely held by church members.


 * As for "given (to whom?)": I don't know. :-) Presumably Solomon?


 * By "corruptions" I mean that the original ceremony was altered, parts forgotten, parts added, and so on, so that is no longer the "pure" ritual as given by God. I realize the word has some negative connotations, but I believe that is intended.


 * lol. No, no...  If anything, the Mormon rituals are a perversion of the Masonic ones.  Joseph Smith was a Freemason till his death--never excommunicated from the Order, and the rituals performed by the Mormons are therefore most likely just a rip-off of the older Masonic ones.

a good link to check out is http://www.masonicmoroni.com Justin  08:02, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For the sake of NPOV the first paragraph should probably end with a 'Freemasonry claims to be' or 'Freemasonry represents itself as' compatible with Christian religion, since large percentages of Christian believers are officially enjoined that it is not so. Someone ought to look up the Eastern Orthodox, by the way. They are pretty explicitly anti-Masonic. What about different varieties of practitioners of Judaism? What about Islam? Do they accept the assertion of compatibility? --MichaelTinkler

That's an interesting question. What I meant by that is that Freemasonry itself will accept people from any of these religions, but I can see where you are coming from. Perhaps I should try to express this clearly. And Done.

What I'm trying to get across, and what might not be appropriate in an NPOV article, is that it is my opinion that nothing I've ever encountered in my particular brand of Freemasonry appears to contradict any Christian teaching I've ever heard of, except perhaps the teaching that only people of one particular faith can get into Heaven (which is, I guess, a fairly important phiolosophical point).

I guess, really, that the compatibility statement, as you (and I imagine most intelligent people) are reading it, is not meaningful. I'm certain that if you looked hard enough, you could find important members of almost every major religious faith who claimed, for whatever reason, that it is improper for people of that faith to be Freemasons; that doesn't mean, though, that the "standard" interpretation of that faith includes such a belief. The Catholic Church is, of course, a different case, since (as far as I understand) people of that faith are required to believe whatever the top people in the hierarchy and the Pope say is true. --Alex Kennedy


 * I ran and checked on the Code of Canon Law (1983) and had to check for interpretation, since Freemasonry is no longer explicitly named {Canon 1374: Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty- one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.}  Official communications to the US Bishops (and other national episcopal bodies who had asked) makes it pretty clear that Freemasonry is not approved.  See: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/5229/religion/masonry.htm  And: http://showcase.netins.net/web/clearlight/mason.html  --MichaelTinkler


 * Clarification of Canon 1374 as well as the application of it to American Masons can be found at http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/RomanCatholics.html#1374, next to the heading "2000." It's quite lengthy, but the crux:  "The reason, then, I answer 'probably yes' [that Catholics may become Masons] is because I am unaware of any ideology or practice by the local lodges that challenges or subverts the doctrine and interests of the Catholic Church. . .The history of the development of the Church's current law suggests that this case-by-case approach is what canon 1374 on forbidden associations intends." Charles Kincy, 24 Nov 2003


 * I looked at the second link you gave, Dr. Tinkler, and I'm sorry to say that it contains a number of falsehoods. For example, I quote from a subpage "Simply stated, the predominant Blue lodges refuse to initiate anyone known to be black. There is a single exception: Alpha Lodge No. 116 of Newark, N.J ..."  This is entirely untrue.  Although I am obviously not at liberty to give you any names, I know personally of at least one black member of Commercial Lodge no. 81 in Edmonton, AB, Canada, Grand Lodge of Alberta, and several Asian, East Indian and Arabic members (Admittedly, this is in Canada, but I've never heard of the American situation being any different).  Certainly, there is a predominance of "white Europeans" in the Lodges, but I assure you that this is something that is almost universially viewed by my bretheren as a sad thing to be remedied as soon as possible within the confines required by our traditions, i.e. that we never solicit anyone whatsoever to become a Mason.  The view, on this page, of why many Prince Hall Lodges are not accepted as regular is grossly oversimplified and in many cases plainly wrong.  There are white members in Prince Hall Lodges, just as there are Black members in Regular lodges; the issue of integration is a political and traditional one, and in fact I personally see a lot of movement toward full integration of Prince Hall Masons into the "main" body of the Craft.  One problem with this, just so that you know the facts, is that there are certain differences of ritual between the Prince Hall Lodges and Regular Masonry, which is why Prince Hall Masonry is deemed "irregular."  But, this is just my unofficial view.


 * As well, Cardinal Law appears grievously mistaken about the acceptance of French Masonry. As far as I understand, no Grand Lodge in the world (outside of France, of course) recognises French Masons, since French Masonry admits atheists.  This issue is plain and simple, as far as I understand.  Anyway, I don't mean this as a criticism of you, at all, since I don't know what your beliefs and feelings are on this matter, but I do think that the link is not acceptable as a source of information on Masonry.

The statement about no grand lodge outside of France recognizing French Masons simply isnt true. There is one regular jurisdiction there, the Grande Loge Nationale Francaise. Also, there are other clandestine jurisdictions that also recognize the other various French jurisdictions, such as the Grand Orient, Grande Loge de France, etc. Justin 08:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Something about this article grates. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but somehow in my mind I cannot combine the lofty ideals spoken of in the first paragraphs with a bunch of religious males plotting together in secrecy. Also, these first paragraphs read a bit as an advertisment, strange as it may sound.


 * Does the fact that they are MALES and RELIGIOUS have ANYTHING to do with their characters and intentions? what is so suspiscious about a group of men    getting together for good fellowship, at the same time invoking the  blessings of Deity?  Justin  08:48, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I know hardly anything about Freemasonry, and after reading the article I have learned nothing new. I understand that part of the organization's mores are secret, but perhaps a little bit more 'we know this, because' and 'we don't know this, because' would be warranted. And also, if any secrets are revealed here, a spoilers warning is in order.

I am sorry if I am being vague, I know too little about the subject to rewrite (part of) this entry.--User:Branko -

Something balanced must be addad about conspiracy theories most of of them are stupid but the P2 lodge in Italy is not pure invention Ericd 22:30 Sep 13, 2002 (UTC)

I don't believe the following statement from the article is true:
 * Freemasonry will thus accept members from all denominations of Christianity

I believe the Masons refuse to accept Roman Catholics on the grounds that the confessional conflicts with the secrecy of the order. This is what I was told many years ago when I nominated a Catholic for membership in DeMolay (my only association with the order. what neat capes we wore!)

I believe also that this article is pretty much pro-mason. Ortolan88

No. Masons do accept catholics. Irish nationalist leader and prominent catholic Daniel O'Connell was one. It has been claimed (but I personally doubt it) that Pope John XXIII joined the masons as an archbishop (see claims of Antipope Pius XIII (ie, a dodgy Montana 90 year old priest who likes dressing up in white)). I'm almost sure the Grand Lodge of Ireland in a bit of PR some years ago stressed that catholics were welcome And of course the head of the masons in the UK, the Duke of Kent, is married to a catholic, or rather catholic convert (though their marriage these days is meant to be rockier than Mount Rushmore). JTD 05:47 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

It may have been different policies with different lodges. I'd been told some British lodges barred Catholics, while I know there were 19th century Catholic Masons in New Orleans. -- Infrogmation

Like many similar organizations Freemasonry is suffering from a serious decline in membership. They cannot afford to, and do not, exclude men on the basis of their religion. Whatever may have happened in the past that is the situation today. The reported cases of religious discrimination are always seconhand hearsay. I have never read of someone coming forward and saying "I was turned down solely because I am Catholic/Muslim/Hindu/anything else."

Freemasonry requires only that a Candidate professes a belief in a Supreme Being without any definition; he is never asked what he means by a Supreme Being. In a tolerant society this opens the way to a very wide range of meanings. I have heard a professed athiest say that since he didn't believe in God he has to accept that he is, himself, the supreme being in his own particular universe. Similarly a Satanist definitely recognizes a supreme being and could be acceptable if he was also a man of good character. For that is the other requirement and far more rigorous. A potential freemason must be a man of good character. It seems likely these days that even an animist would not be excluded because of his beliefs. In other words, religion in freemasonry is not, now, an issue.203.96.111.237

Within the inner circle of the stones of freedom one must reveal that supreme being to be none other that ZARKAK OF YORGI and those who fail this crucial test will be cast out! Susan Mason

Am I supposed to take this as a serious comment?Ping

Could somebody explain the relationship between Freemasonry, Ulster Protestants and Unionists and the British Crown? I heard that Phillip of Edinburgh is a Masonic official. -- Error

There is no formal relationship. Some protestants and some catholics in Northern Ireland are masons. It was claimed without hard evidence that there was a masonic ring in the Royal Ulster Constabulary but as far as I know, masonic membership is illegal for members of the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. (Masons like the catholic Knights of Columbanus and Opus Dei are banned from membership of the Irish government.)


 * Wow. That's interesting. If you were more certain, you should state it in Anti-Masonry -- Error

As for Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh I never heard any credible claim that he was a mason. The most senior member of the current Royal Family to be a mason is the Duke of Kent. King Edward VII was a mason, though. The Duke's involvement is all above board; he announced it and has never hidden the fact. He is, I think, currently the head of the Grand Lodge of the UK. Ironically he is married to a catholic! STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:15 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, probably I mistook the royals. Thank you for your answer. Is their some relationship (inspiration, rituals) between Masons and Orangist orders, then? -- Error

There may well be some links between the Orange Order and the Freemasons, though I can't remember ever hearing of one. I know David Trimble, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party wants to break the link between his party and the OO so if there is a masonic link through it to the UUP that will be broken when the link between the UUP and the OO is broken. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:49 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ever play the card game "Illuminati" from Steve Jackson Games? It's the one where you get cards representing various secret and non-secret organizations, like the Trilateral Commission, Boy Scouts, and the Gnomes of Zurich, and link them together into power structures of who controls whom while attacking other player's power structures. I had no idea it was so well grounded in reality. :) Bryan

I have been told that there are many similarities between the Freemasons and the Order of Buffaloes, the Manchester Unity and the Order of Druids. Of course a similarity does not mean there is a connection. It does howevcer suggest that, to some extent, the Freemasons may have been used as a role model when these bodies were established. I have also picked up hints of similarities between the Freemasonry and the Orange Lodge and the Ku Klux Klan; both bodies whose raison d'etre seems to be the antithesis of Freemasonry as I understand it.

Can anybody comment on this? Ping 09:06 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

On Prince Philip and freemasonry.
I won't claim that the sources were credible or otherwise, but I have both read and heard (on the telly), that Philip was a mason (with a long line of masons in his own family backround). To be more specific, the claim was that a source of friction between him and his son, was that Charles refused point blank to join a lodge. Again, I certainly cannot speak authoritatively about this, but the claim certainly is out there. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 10:37, Aug 23, 2003 (UTC)

It is probably true, I have heard the same story. I do know that the Supreme Grand Msster of the Grand Lodge of England is usually if not always a member of the nobility, a duke or somesuch person. Since one of the basic tenets of freemasonry is the supposed equality of all men I have sometimes wondered how the practice can be reconciled with their beliefs. Ping 08:01, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This historical speculation has me wondering: should we try to make a List of Freemasons, definite or alleged? I can't think of any off the top of my head other than a handful of U.S. presidents and Mozart. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:13, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

There are very few historical characters who are famous for being Fremasons and a list probably would not add much. Many well known historical characters are known to have been Freemason but usually their belonging to the Craft is completely irrelevant to their historical significance, eg Hogarth or Neil Armstrong.

What might be more interesting would be a list of historical situations where Freemansonry has had some significant role. For instance the Boston Tea Party; the conspirators gathered together in the Masonic Lodge before going off to make their protest. Similarly much of the early planning of the French Revolution took place in Masonic Lodge Rooms of Paris. ping 07:18, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why the removal of the description of the masonic grip? Is it inaccurate? Bryan (comment edited Bryan 06:37, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC))

I thought if it was supposedly secret it would be unverifiable as to whether it was true or not. No source was quoted when it was added by an anon IP. Angela 23:59, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ah. I'm told by a masonic friend that there have been books written by lapsed masons that openly described the lower-level stuff, so it should be possible to verify some of the secrets from these sources. I've never delved into any of it myself, though, so I can't suggest any offhand. If anyone knows of some, perhaps a separate Masonic secrets article would be warranted in the future to make this article spoiler-safe? Bryan

That sounds a good idea, but I think some source needs to be quoted if such things are added. Angela

I do not agree. There is no need for those to be posted in order for someone to understand Freemasonry. I highly object to such a page being created. Justin 00:36, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It's very bad form to alter another user's comments on article talk: pages. It's common practice to move copies of controversial deleted material from an article into a comment on a talk: page like this, so that it can be discussed without leaving it visible to the casual reader; that's why I copied the line verbatim. I've restored my comment above. Bryan 06:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I can't really comment on how important or useful such details are since I don't have an in-depth interest in Freemasonry. But plenty of other articles on Wikipedia contain detailed descriptions of stuff that isn't directly relevant to "understanding" the subject of the article, and there are other articles on Wikipedia that contain "secret" stuff (with appropriate spoiler warnings). See Xenu, for example (note: I'm not saying that Scientology and Freemasonry are in any way similar other than having secrets. The Church of Latter-Day Saints may be a better example, I just didn't know of any Mormon secrets in Wikipedia offhand). Bryan 06:04, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I ask that you please remove that part off of here. You could simply mention the grip. Justin 06:16, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Done. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I just get rather reflexive when I see information being deleted. It's still in the page's revision history if it's needed later, though. Bryan

There's probably not a lot point arguing about this until someone comes along and decides they do want to write such an article, but I certainly think it would lead to less aggravation were it in a separate article rather than part of this one. The discussion currently at Talk:Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over whether to include temple secrets should be taken into account when making any decisions about similar issues here.

In response to Bryan's point, I don't see anything wrong with removing text from other people's comments on talk pages; though it might be best to substitute it with [...] to make it clear you've done this. If someone finds something offensive, inappropriate or whatever, then I can't see harm in this sort of refactoring (see Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks for related discussions about refactoring - not that I'm saying personal attacks were made - just that the refactoring arguments may be relevant). Angela 19:47, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't object in principle to deleting old discussion that's no longer relevant. But in this case I pasted the line verbatim in here because it had been deleted from the article without explanation, and I wanted to know if it was useful information or not without it vanishing into the lower strata of edit history in the meantime. Deleting it from the talk page defeated the whole point of bringing it up here at all, and the way it was done made it look like the line had never been pasted here in the first place. Hence my strong reaction. Bryan 07:55, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have come back to this article after considerable time, and am very pleased to see the work that has been done on it. Looking over recent changes, I see that the Grotto (or MOVPER) and Tall Cedars have been added to the appendant bodies section. While I have only the greatest respect for the organisations to which you belong, Bro. Justin, I originally added the York and Scottish rites and the Shrine because they are major appendant bodies in their own right. If we include the Grotto and the Tall Cedars (and I should not that belonging to the Tall Cedars is a great honour), I feel we will be required to add the SRIA, or the Martinists, or the AMD, or other countless organisations. Surely we'd be better to either state that they are "other appendant bodies," or start another article.

In any event, I will leave it for now and remove it if I don't hear any objections.

-Alex Kennedy (4 Dec. 2003)

An explanation of some change reversions I made:

It is incorrect to state or imply that many Latin countries accept atheists or agnostics as Freemasons. The practice is almost unknown outside of those Lodges derived from the GOdF.

The terms "Masculine Jurisdiction" and "Feminine Jurisdiction" are neologisms and thus in a sense meaningless, so I replaced them. Additionally, the question of gender is not necessarily one of "jurisdiction." In those area's with women's Lodges, the Lodges may belong to a parallel, but recognised structure, and so the concept of jurisdiction is meaningless (i.e., the women's Lodges may not be under the local "regular" Grand Lodge. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say "except in the relitavely rare Lodges which admit women," because those Lodges are relitavely rare compared to those which do not admit women.

Likewise, the term "adogmatic" jurisdiction is meaningless, and the question of whether the requirement of belief in a Supreme Being is a dogma or not should not be assumed in this way. (Side note - I'm not pleased with the use of the word "jurisdiction" here, either, but I cannot think of a better one at the moment.

I have not changed the erasure of "Regular Masonic Jurisdictions," but I think that the article would be of some use in explaining the common use of that term for readers not familliar with the issue.

The use of the term "Masons like to say that..." is _NOT_ NPOV. I have changed it to "Many Masons say that..."

The Holy Bible is properly known as such, just as the Holy Qu'ran is properly known as such, but to me this is not worth changing and starting an argument about.

Calling the Holy Bible a Logos symbol not only assumes a non-existant doctrine and dogma, but it is also abosolutely incorrect in regard to the feeling of the WIDE majority of Christians who embrace the Logos doctrine. Most Christians who embrace this doctrine feel that Christ is the Logos, not the Holy Bible itself. You are confusing the Christian Logos doctrine with the Qabbalist doctrine which holds the Torah as the pattern or creator of existance. Similarly, the role of the Holy Bible as a symbol of written inspiration from the Deity is EXPLICITLY stated in the ritual, or rather in all versions of the ritual I have seen so far, so I am changing it back.

I wish to state here that I think that it is correct to remove many of the references to the GOdF's "irregularity," as that is a discussion for another article.

The conflict between the Antients and the moderns had nothing to do with the religious requirements for being a Freemason - they had to do with differences in ritual, and with the Moderns' infringement on certain existing Lodge structures (e.g. the Irish Lodges). I say this without rancour, since my rite is the Canadian rite and thus a descendant of the Modern Branch. The Antients were not so known "colloquially" -- that was the name they chose for themselves.

I have no idea where the writer is getting this information saying that the Antients believed in a Christianised rite while the Moderns did not. I am removing it for the time being, but I am willing to be convinced. The Philalethes article referred to stated the Christian / de-Christianised idea as a theory, not a fact.

-Alex Kennedy

One more note - the final sentence of this article implies that the profusion of Rites in North America is due to Grand Lodges allowing a "menu of choices." This is misleading. There are solid historical reasons for the large number of rites, sometimes going back to the split between Antients and Moderns. I'm sure most Grand Lodges would prefer a single rite in thier jurisdiction, if only to make the Deputy Grand Master's life easier.

-Alex Kennedy

On a personal note I would just like to point out that the Bible clearly says people who do evil so good can come of it are justly condemed. Is this why the Roman Catholic Church states in its catechism that to become a Freemason is a 'VERY GRAVE SIN '?

--

what is an "forget-me-not"? (from Germany, I should know that?)


 * It's a type of flower. Bryan 17:48, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Deleted this from the Repression section for NPOV, I leave it her in case anyone wished to dicuss it:

The above statement is at best misleading. In Nazi Germany only "International" or Jewish Lodges were closed because they were "...overun with Jewry...", all of the regular "Old Prussian" lodges signed writs of loyalty to Hitler and continued to operate, (later explicitly exempted from the 1942 Secret Societies Act) renaming the organisation to "The Fredrick The Great Society" in honor of the founder of German Freemasonry who was also a personal hero of Hitler. Adolf Hitler may or may not have been a member of one of the regular "Old Prussian" lodges but both he and Rudolf Hess were memebers of "The Thule Society", a Masonic offshoot started by a noted Grand Master Freemason Baron Rudolf von Sebottendorf. The number of links between the Nazis and the many different Masonic fraternities even including the Scotish Rite are so numerous that it would be impossible to list them here, Freemasonry by definition is a place where anyone who wishes to pursue irregular behaviour can find sanctuary in exchange for their total obedience to the craft. To say that Nazi Germany persecuted Freemasonary is only true if you are referring to "International" or Jewish Freemasonry.

Paul, in Saudi


 * If the information above, or parts of it, are true then it is important that the article reflects this. The part in the article (shown below) is indeed very convenient for freemasonry. Here it should be the truth that matters, thus someone should do a research on the credibility of the claims above and change the article accordingly. I will see what I can do, but in the meantime I will add a some NPOV to the claim in the article. Finlander 23:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * "Freemasonry is almost universally banned in totalitarian states. In Nazi Germany, Freemasons were sent to concentration camps and all Masonic Lodges were ordered shut down. German Masons used the blue Forget-Me-Not as a secret means of recognition and as a substitute for the traditional (and too-easily-recognized) square and compasses."

--

I'm not an expert in freemasonry, but to be honest with you I have never heard of a "Canadian Rite". I've heard plenty of times about a Scottish Rite, is it the way it is called in the US or something? Ruiz 09:51, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a 'Canadian Rite' (or at least as far as I know). Perhaps you are thinking of the Scottish and York Rites.

Although the origins of Masonry is long and partially lost in the mists of time, the Scottish and York Rites are comparatively recent inventions.

Very simply, men who join the Masons like to join organizations. The SR and YR give them another Masonic 'Club' to join. All members of the SR & YR are Master Masons. Those who hold other degrees (I have the 32d of the Scottish Rite) are not more of a Mason than a Master raised in the local lodge hall.

Both 'Rites' are largely North American in origin and extent. It is a matter of constant confusion that the Scottish Rite has nothing to do with Scotland.

I hope that answers your question.

Paul, in Saudi


 * Well, I asked because a Canadian Rite appears in the third paragraph of The Two Great Schisms of Freemasonry (1753 and 1877) section of the article. I never heard of it, that's why I was trying to get more info. Maybe they just made a mistake. Ruiz 08:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)