Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 17

Previous discussions Archived
Just so no one panics... User:Ardenn has archived the previous discussions. We had hit a lull in the discussion anyway. Blueboar 21:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I should have posted a note. Thanks for doing so, Blueboar. Ardenn 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hint: When archiving, leave the last few relevant and still active discussions on the talk page. Jachin 05:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You meanlike this?Harrypotter 09:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding back some text, taking account of Verifiaphobia
Blueboar reverted some of my text, which is OK as he explained why. While I disagree with the verifiaphobia, I've not inserted the quotes in to the text, but simply changing the claims so that they no longer say things such as "in fact".

The quotes that have been taken out are emboldened:



and


 * .

JASpencer 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not have "verifiphobia" (if that is a word)... I support verification strongly. Any statement that is at all controvercial should be cited, and a link provided if possible. What I object to is HOW JASpencer is insiting that things be verified.  I see no reason to clutter up the citation footnotes with unneeded quotations, especially when all it would take to verify the statement is a quick click on the link provided in the citation.  In this case, The UGLE website pages that are linked have very little text on them (each of the two statements quoted by JASpencer above, which he wanted to add as a footnote in the citation, amount to about a fifth of the text on each page).  Anyone wishing to verify that UGLE actually says what we claim it says will find the relevant statements easily.
 * This is an argument that is being carried over from some of the other Freemasonry related articles. On those pages, JAS insists that every citation foot note include a snippet of quoted text to back up the statement being made in the main article... reguarless of whether it makes any sense to do so or not. A prime example of this can be found in the "Allegation that Freemasonry is a new religion" section of the Catholicism and Freemasonry article.  Someone included the statement that "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion."  This is a direct quote from the UGLE website: Here  Anyone going to that page should find those 10 simple words within the first 10 seconds of reading.  However, JAS insisted that these words not only be linked to, but quoted again in a foot note next to the link.  It was over-redundant and just plain SILLY.  Now he wants to impose the same standard here.
 * Please understand that I am not saying we should never quote our sources... sometimes doing so is helpfull in making a point, or clarifying a statement so its meaning is crystal clear. In which case, I tend to feel that such a quotation should be placed directly in the main text of the article, and not "hidden" away in a footnote.
 * Finally, no matter what is done on other pages, it is clear that on this article we have not been adding quotes to our citations. I am not about to change that. (JASpencer probably feels we should go back and find quotes for each and every citation we have listed, and include these quotes in our citation footnotes.  I am taking a stand to say, "No.  There is no need to do so.") Blueboar 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting "US Catholic View"
I know we talked about this above... but I want to revisit it. This section needs some work... It really does not belong where it is. However, I do think it is important, and don't think we should cut it (It should probably lead off the "Criticisms" section). Given that Cardinal Razinger is now Pope Benedict, his past statements about Freemasonry potentially take on new significance. I also think we need to provide some background... we should mention the fact that traditionally the Church has not approved of Freemasonry, and banned Catholics from joining; then we can (briefly) talk about the recent changes in Cannon Law that led many to think that the Church had relaxed its stance; which would give some context as to why Law and Ratzinger made the statements that are currently in the article. Blueboar 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would take it to the Talk Page and then rework it. It was a mischevious addition and is not in place in the article.  No matter what balance has been added it does not fit in at the moment - although it doubtless could.
 * On the Canon Law change has been fairly comprehensively shown to have been a red herring not just by Ratzinger's opinion, but by the German Bishop's conference, the American Bishop's conference and the very recent brouhaha over the Los Angeles Archdiocese's withdrawal of it's earlier permission, etc.
 * JASpencer 07:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that it's needed in this article, its place is in the 'RC position on FM' article. I'd agree with JAS that it was a spurious addition.ALR 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. So do we just cut it, or do we rewrite it and stick it in the "criticisms" section? Blueboar 12:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've cut it down to a "see also" link, to shorten article. This retains NPOV, as all stuff should be better served at length at RC and FM article. Imacomp 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Masonic history, the illuminati and the Roman Catholic Church are connected. Please see the history section here and age of enlightenment.
 * The need for this section in that article is absolutely apparent because of the sheer volume of Freemasons proclaiming that they can enrol in Masonic associations and still be practicing Catholics. That is a misassumption corrected by the RCC. You can not be a practicing Catholic if you enrol in Masonic associations. Simonapro 09:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]


 * There is clearly evidence on both sides of the debate. The RCC has rules which are widely ignored.  There are practicing RC who are members of the craft with tacit or explicit recognition by their own representatives of the RCC.  You can point to the rules as much as you like, but it doesn't actually contribute much to the debate.ALR 09:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can not be a practicing RC AND a member of the masons. The current Pope made that clear in Quaesitum est Simonapro 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]
 * The point is, a great many ARE, indeed at least two regular editors in ths portfolio of articles are practicing RC and members of the craft. Cardinal R cleared the letter with JPII but clearly there is an issue with people ignoring it.  This article is not really the place for a detailed analysis of that situation, but user:JASpencer created so many individual articles on RCC documentation the only place it could reasonably be done is in the 'clarification concerning...' or potentially the Catholicism and Freemasonry article article and drawing in the corpus of material being ignored.ALR 11:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If they ARE then they are not practicing RC. That is clear in Quaesitum est. Simonapro 11:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]
 * OK, how do you define 'not practicing'? It appears to me that you are suggesting that it means someone who conducts themselves in exactly the same manner as any other member of the RCC but who also chooses to join the craft.  Given that there is no practical sanction by the RCC against a great many of these people (men and women as it happens) and they are premitted to undergo the ritual of communion then in what way are they not practicing?ALR 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all the questions you are asking are a good example of why this article needs to retain some clarification concerning the status of Catholics becoming Freemasons. I do not define not practicing. The RCC defines it. Being a practicing Catholic means being in harmony with the Bishops as per Catechism 84. This means an RC should also be receiving Holy Communion. If you can't receive Holy Communion because of your own actions in joining a Masonic Association, then as made clear in Quaesitum est, you need to stop, confess the sin, as also made clear in Quaesitum est, and then you are a practising Catholic who can receive Holy Communion again. Someone who remains in a state of sin is not a practising Catholic. Simonapro 11:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]
 * Thankyou for clarifying your thinking, as I'm not RC I'm not familiar with the intricacies and hierarchical nature of the dogma. However wat you've just articulated isn't actually clear from the contributions that you have made.  I would suggest that the appropriate place to discuss the detail is actually the Freemasonry and Catholicism article rather than the Freemasonry article and look forward to your clarifications of the issue in that article.  As it stands the section in this article does need work to summarise the sub-article in a concise and meaningful manner, I'm not convinced that discussion of the subtleties is appropriate or useful to this article.ALR 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My contribution was Quaesitum est to the article, not the section. I do not see what is not made clear to a Catholic by Quaesitum est. You can discuss Quaesitum est on Quaesitum est. Simonapro 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]
 * I would point out that the article is not aimed specifically at RC readers. Whilst the meaning of 'being in a state of sin' may clearly mean to you that someone is not a practicing RC, it may not be to others and clarly requires some amplifications.  Given that the contribution was bolted on to the section on the RCC I've tried to integrate it, I've removed the naming of Cardinal R since the declaration was from his office and signed by him as prefect.  The fact he is now the Pope is not really important here, as I read it that's grandstanding to try to lend weight to the signature.  I would like to see a citation about the excommunication point and I'd also like to include somehting about the prohibition being widely ignored, but I'm not sure that there has been any study of the demographics in that way.  In fact I can't see how the question could be asked from within the craft since the faith of an individual is his own, he can choose to be open about it and many are, but we don't ask the question.ALR 12:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Quaesitum est should answer any questions that you have. See Quaesitum est discussion for questions relating to it. Simonapro 12:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]

Criticisms
I have deleted the following line from the "Christian religious opposition" section: "Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical." I know what this line is trying to say... but it has problems. Being Christianized is not an opposite of being anti-clerical. One can be Christian and anti-clerical, Christian and pro-clerical (if that is a word), Non-Christian and pro-clerical, Non-Christian and anti-clerical. In regards to Masonry (especially if you include irregular Masonry) both halves of the statement are historically true... but they made no sense linked together the way they were. Blueboar 13:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd separate it and expand it, actually. There's no way to deny that Rose Croix and KT, while not Blue Lodge, are Christianized, but the anti-clerical statement still gets us into the political realm, I think. MSJapan 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Mason
I am a Mason who has converted to the Roman Catholic faith. I made disclosure to my priest during my schooling for conversion and he said there was no problem. I also know many fellow Catholics who are Freemasons and no one from the church hassles them.

72.48.120.65 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's nice. I would hope no one would give you any trouble. Freemasonry is more elastic than most, and I see no problem with you converting whatsoever. I mean, what is there to be maad about, really? The possibility of any of the allegations against freemasonry being truthful are so slim that to bring them up is laughably silly, we would not have survived this long as a society if there was anything inherently evil occuring within the order, we would have been found out centuries ago and destroyed. Only the ignorant seem ot find cause to loathe us. But that too, is falling by the wayside as awareness replaces palpal bulls and ecclesiastical decrees of heresies. Best of luck to you brother.

NOTE: above was by 65.148.152.134. Imacomp 16:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"The possibility of any of the allegations against freemasonry being truthful are so slim that to bring them up is laughably silly" seems to indicate that any criticism of freemasonry is already discounted, even before it has been enunciated. Also, as the range of criticism encompasses such a broad range of people, to close our minds to even the possibility seems to be wilfully blind.Harrypotter 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Salutations Brother and fellow RC. :)  There are many, many, many thousands of RC's who're FM's.  Most of us don't mention it as we tend to attract a ribbing from our heathen brethren who's priests have this weird urge to not wear dresses and sleep with women .. uh, ok, wait, maybe I can see why we're ribbed.  :P  Jachin 15:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I too am going to have to disagree with Imacomp when he/she said "the possibility of any of the allegations against freemasonry being truthful are so slim that to bring them up is laughably silly." Probably the best elucidation of the R.C. Church's issue with Freemasonry is made in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical "Humanum Genus," issued 20 April 1884. In that encyclical, the Pope enumerated Freemasonry's sins, to wit: 1) That Freemasonry admits "persons of every creed," thereby promoting "the great modern error of religious indifference and of the parity of all worships, 2) that Freemasonry "leaves to the members full liberty of thinking about God whatever they like," 3) that Freemasons "trust the education of their children to laymen and allow them to select their own religions when they grow up,"  4) that Freemasons believe that "the people are sovereign," and that "those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people," thereby denying the divine right of Princes, 5) that Freemasonry teaches that "the origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or in the state." Pope Leo went on to state that it is "a capital error to grant to the people full power of shaking off at their own will the yoke of obedience." Now, I would submit that these charges, historically levelled by the Roman Church agains the Masonic fraternity are NOT false charges, but quite the contrary. I believe, and I think most Freemasons would have to admit, that Freemasonry and its members are entirely guilty of these charges. PGNormand 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "Humanum Genus," [...]In that encyclical, the Pope enumerated Freemasonry's sins, to wit: 1) That Freemasonry admits "persons of every creed," thereby promoting "the great modern error of religious indifference and of the parity of all worships, [etc., including all five points] Now, I would submit that these charges, [...] are NOT false charges, but quite the contrary. I believe, and I think most Freemasons would have to admit, that Freemasonry and its members are entirely guilty of these charges.


 * Entirely and absolutely; but history has moved on, and what struck Leo XIII as politically dangerous will probably seem to most individuals nothing more than the freedoms and responsibilities of ordinary life in the modern world.
 * Nuttyskin 22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many priests who are not in touch with all of the teachings of the RCC. When corrected by a Bishop they will usually stand by that correction. To be corrected by a Cardinal is another matter... especially when that Cardinal turns into the current Pope who is prefect of the "Declaration on Masonic Associations ( Quaesitum est )", which is very clear... "The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." It is the duty of every Catholic to inform a misinformed clery member about Quaesitum Est. Simonapro 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)]


 * No, it is the duty of the Vatican (through its Bishops) to inform the clergy, so the clergy may inform the laity. That is how the Catholic Church works.  Now, what happens next will be an interesting thing to watch.  I suspect that the majority of Catholic Priests in the US, Canada and probably England as well, will totally ignore this statement and continue to give communion to Catholics who are Masons... as they will know that  Catholic Masons are not really guilty of any true sin.  Either that or the Catholic Church will continue to lose membership for being "out of touch" with reality. Blueboar 01:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary Freemasonry
I know this is going to be a somewhat controversial topic, so I thought it might be useful to discuss the title of the page, before even starting. I had thought that Anarchism and Freemasonry might be a useful topic, but it is apparent that it would be better if this was just one section of a more expansive article which took full account of Philippe Buonarroti's activities as well as the story of 1848. I have added a bit to the Adolphe Thiers page, about his encounter with the masonic delegation. What do people think? Harrypotter 10:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * First, is there any verification that Buonarroti was indeed a Freemason? Second, even if he was a Freemason what evidence is there that his political leanings were caused, or influenced by Freemasonry?  In the lodge, Freemasons do not discuss politics.  Out side of the Lodge, a Freemason's politics is his own affair.  You will usually find Freemasons on both sides of any political conflict.  Thus, there is no such thing as "Revolutionary Freemasonry"
 * That said... if you do feel that the political activities of prominent Italian and French revolutionaries who happened to be Freemasons needs to be discussed, probably the best place to do it would be History of Freemasonry. Blueboar 13:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Boris Nicolaevsky uses the term in his text Secret Societies in the First International and I have always found ghis work inpressive in comparison with some of the more sensationalist writers. His article is well documented including items like Professor Jean Bossu's "Une loge de proscrits à Londres sous le Second Empire et apres la Commune" originally published in 'L'idée libre', a now defunct monthly magazine  dsitributed only to French masonic lodges. If you check the recent insertion I have made as regards Adolphe Thiers, you will see that he precisely rejects the overtures made by the procession of fellow freemasons to him during the Paris Commune. I think its is clear that the somewhat sanguine explanation you offer may hold true for much of what UGLE regards as regular freemasonry but hardly offers an adequate account of actual experiences in all lodges, and that particularly during the nineteenth century something recognisable as a distinctive modus operandi called Revolutionary Freemasonry is a useful conception. I shall look at the History of Freemasonry however to see how fruitful that might be, but I think it may be too tangential for that page.Harrypotter 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking to non-articles called Anarchism and Freemasonry and Revolutionary Freemasonry? Why not post your conspiracy theories to those articles, or try anti-Masonry? Imacomp 19:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"and Grand Orients"!
I notice that someone has taken the trouble to delete this link, without even the courtesy of a comment on the talk page. Rather than letting people imagine why this action was taken, perhaps a word of explnation here would be of use?Harrypotter 12:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You do have a point about linking some place that discusses what a Grand Orient is ... However, the way you set it up, it was linked to a page about one particular Grand Orient (in this case the GOdF). The Grand Lodge article discusses both Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in an over-arching way (ie not tied to any particular body). I have, therefor, left your wording ... but have combined both types of Grand Body into one link. Blueboar 13:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a page on Grand Orient as the Grand Lodge page is scarcely adequate. No doubt much more work on it is required to get it up to scratch.Harrypot ter 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Grand Orient page you added is nothing but a list of various Grand Orients ... How is that better than the Grand Lodge page, which at least discusses what a Grand Lodge/Grand Orient IS? What is inadequate about the Grand Lodge page? Blueboar 12:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I threw the quote from Henderson on the talk page. I'll spend a little time today seeing if I find another definition of Grand Orient online (in between going the gym and studying for the LSAT.--Vidkun 13:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh NO... Vidkun... how could you... a LAWYER?! There goes any respect i had for you.  Oh by the way... I work in a law firm as a Paralegal (Legal assistant) ... which means, I have the right to make fun of lawyers!  :>)  (seriously, good luck with the LSATs). Blueboar 14:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What appears to me is that Grand Orients tend to adhere around GOdF, and Grand Lodges around UGLE, but I hesitate to say so on the page because there are no sources I can quote. But I am sure I am not the first, nor yet the last to wonder if this is the case. I was hoping that others with more extensive access to sources might be able to sketch in the detail.Harrypotter 17:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As a broad statement, what you say is true. Most Grand Orients were founded on the GOdF model, while most Grand Lodges were founded on the UGLE model.  And most GOs and GLs adhear to similar rules and standards as their "parent". However, it should be noted that there are exceptions to this broad statement (for example, Grand Orient of Brazil follows UGLE's standards.)
 * You still have not answered my question on how linking to a list of GOs is better than linking to the more explanitory article for GLs, or what you feel is inadequate about the GL page. Blueboar 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Relation to Egypt
I read that the Freemasons have an intrinsic relationship with ancient Egypt. Is that true, and if so, how? Nicholasink 23:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To put it bluntly... No, it isn't true. Freemasonry developed in the late 1600s and early 1700s, in Europe.  The problem is that the founders of Freemasonry wanted to claim that the fraternity was far older than it was... I suppose the idea was that more people would join if they could say they had "secrets" that go back hundreds of years, instead of "secrets" that had been made up a few decades ago.  When James Anderson wrote the Contitutions of the first Grand Lodge of England, he included a "history" for the Craft that went back to Anglo-Saxon England... and even further... all the way to the Garden of Eden. This "history" was quickly criticized for its obvious errors.  But, while the critics had disproved the individual claims that Anderson made, they bought into the idea that Freemasonry had to date back into antiquity.  This left people asking the question:  If Anderson is wrong... where DID Freemasonry come from? Unfortunately, there were no real records to rely on. And so people speculated... they started looking for any tie between Freemasonry and antiquity. Over the years, Amature "Historians" found ties to the ancient Druids (did the Freemasons erect Stonehenge?), to ancient the ancient Greeks or Romans, (is the Pantheon a Masonic Temple?), the medieval Knights Templar (much more "snob appeal" than the idea that it comes from a buch of grubby lower class stone masons!), etc.  The most recent version of this was put out by Robert Lomas, a popular author and pseudohistorian, in his book The Hiram Key... where he says Masonry started in Ancient Egypt under the Pharoes.  This is no better than all the other speculations.  The "evidence" does not really support the theory.
 * Sad to say, the truth is that we don't know where Freemasonry originated... but the few historical records we do have hint that it probably was made up out of whole cloth some time in the early 1600s. Not nearly as exciting or mysterious as the pop authors would like. Sorry to disappoint you. Blueboar 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * However also check Rites of Memphis and Mizraim. In Egypt, this Rite developed quickly under the direction of Brother Solutore Avventure Zola, Grand Hierophant from 1873 until the reign of King Farouk.Harrypotter 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Harry, I would hardly call 1873 "Ancient" Egypt. My statements above stand. (and please... check to see if an article actually exists before trying to link to it). Blueboar 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, see Rite of Memphis-Misraïm. I think you'll find Mizraim touches on Ancient Egypt!Harrypotter 23:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said... not Ancient Egypt. In this case, an irregular form of Freemasonry completely made up out of whole cloth - with an invented pseudo-Egyptian motif grafted onto Freemasonry in 1801 (which was at the hight of Napolianic "Egyptomania", when everything even remotely Egyptian sounding was in vogue).  It's another attempt to make Freemasonry seem older than it actually is, in this case pretending that the Craft dates to Ancient Egypt instead of Dark Age England, or Biblical Israel.  So... going back to the original question... no, there is no "intrinsic relationship with ancient Egypt." Blueboar 00:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Blueboar was right. During the 1700's there were any number of charlatans who wanted to use Freemasonry for their own personal profit. Among these were the "creators" of the Rite of Memphis-Mizraim. Certainly, that irregular system "touced on" Ancient Egypt, but it had no legitimate basis for doing so, and was never really taken seriously by the foremost Grand Lodges of the world. Today, Memphis-Mizraim is an extinct irregular body (except in places where it has been "resurrected" by illegitimate and irregular grand lodges). PGNormand 23:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The original question asked if Freemasonry had "an intrinsic relationship with Ancient Egypt." The simple answer to that is "No. Freemasonry has no intrinsic relationship with Ancient Egypt." The modern fraternity of Freemasonry transitioned or evolved during the 17th century out of the medieval craft of freemasonry, so-called because the early freemasons were 1) free from taxation when building churches, monasteries, etc., 2) free men, and not serfs or indentured servants, and 3) they worked in "freestone" a type of quarry stone, thereby becoming "freestone masons" as opposed to "rough masons" or "row masons" who only worked in clay brick. During the 18th century any number of degree peddlers, and later, during the 19th century, some historians claimed that Freemasonry could trace its roots from Ancient Egypt. However, the authentic school of historians, which arose in the late 19th century, proved these speculations to be false. PGNormand 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure to what extent bro PGNormand has grasped the facts, or merely wishes to let them lie fallow. Anyone who has even a scant grasp of the evolution of European philosophy and freemasonry will recognise some interesting lacunae in this contibution to the discussion. Clearly Hermetic philosophy is related to Khem, Mizraim or ancient Egypt. The distinction between row masons and freestone masons is disengenuous, particularly when we consider St Matthias church Poplar, respelendent with its masonic windows. Clearly there was an aspect of hermetic philosophy which found its home in Freemasonry. Also we should note however that Isaac Casaubon showed through philological analysis, taht much of the texts attribvuted to ancient Egypt was written in more recent times. All this talk about so-called "authentic" historians is surely a piece of misplaced frivolity.Harrypotter 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hermetic philosophy may have tenuous ties to Ancient Egypt... but Freemasonry is not really a hermetic philosphy. At least no more so than the Enlightenment or even Christianity (both of which play a far greater role in the developement of Freemasonry than Egypt did.)... so... Still no real tie to Ancient Egypt.  Sorry. Blueboar 01:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust again
Note that crap will not stick there very long. Imacomp 18:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Similarly, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in Washington, DC, recognises that Freemasons were persecuted by the Nazi state, and its archive has amassed a large collection of archival materials from throughout Europe that documents Freemasonry's persecution. Descriptions of these materials may be found by searching the online catalogue of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives. Further, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's online Holocaust Encyclopedia also has two articles about Freemasonry and its fate during the Third Reich." This needs cited references before inserting it into the article. Note reworking stuff already there is inadvisable, since every word has been heavily discussed before. Thanks. Imacomp 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Which part of "Holocaust stays" do other editors not understand? this is a very inportant contribution to the balance of the main Freemasonry article - and is a much overlooked part of our cultural history. Imacomp 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No it is not an important part. It is a minor area which is currently given a disproportionate coverage just to keep you from having yet another hissy fit.  It should be removed, if we can't agree on that then it should be slimmed down to little more than a line in the history section.  You may belong to a lodge where the forget-me-not is in the name or something like that, but that doesn't make it an important subject!ALR 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To continue in your tone. IT STAYS (STOP) Brother. It is important because so many people want to see it gone. It shows that far from being the New World Order, or a Satanic cult, we are an organisation that was, is, and will be, supressed by dictatorships of the left, right, etc. Imacomp 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd logged out of here, but on return - 20:52, 30 April 2006 Blueboar edit is OK :) Imacomp 20:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of puppetry
FYI - User:VQHernandez has been confirmed as another Lightbringer puppet. We can feel free to revert anything he added. Blueboar 14:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Lightbringer and his eternal crusade to .. uhm, annoy the crap out of Wikipedian editors with his insane drivel, rants and POV pushing. Jachin 15:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of the Grand Lodge of the 3 Globes at Berlin
Can anyone else find a source for this? All the sources I find online are derived from either wikipedia, or Rui Gabirro.--Vidkun 01:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC

Criticism, Persecution, and Prosecution
Reformatted and shortened section using the summary style used elsewhere on page.Jake the wiki 12:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In otherwords, he took out all discussion, and simply pasted the opening definitions from the linked article. Not a summary of the arguments presented.  This actually removes a lot of the negative (Anti-Masonic) material from this article ... material  which has been carefully work on over a long period of time, and is needed to balance the article and keep it NOPV.  I have repeatedly requested that Jake discuss things (section by section or line by line) prior to making changes... but that just results in a revert war back by misleading statements that his changes are a "very necessary restructure".  I have yet to see any argument as to why he feels this restructure is necessary.
 * Then again, considering that I strongly suspect that he is another Lightbringer sock, I won't hold my breath waiting for rational discussion. Blueboar 18:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Changes. Since you have not explained why you think this section of the article should not contain the same editorial page style as the remainder of the page(except to perpetuate your pro-masonic pov bias and your preference for poorly written and amateurish masonic in-group prose) I shall make the changes on the page.

Yes, of course the brief subpage descriptions are taken from the subpages themselves introduction. That is the entire point!Jake the wiki 13:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Edits by banned users are not accetped. That is the only reason we need. Blueboar 14:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry
Anti-Masonry (alternatively called Anti-Freemasonry) is defined as "Avowed opposition to Freemasonry". However, there is no homogeneous anti-Masonic movement. Anti-Masonry consists of radically differing criticisms from sometimes incompatible groups who are hostile to Freemasonry in some form.


 * OK... I will play along until you are banned again... All you have done is open the door for accusations that this article does not maintain NPOV. Discussion of Anti-masonry is needed.  Perhaps this section can be summarized better than it is in the article, but your proposed "summary" is FAR too short for such a complex topic. Blueboar 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Freemasonry
Christianity and Freemasonry have had a mixed relationship, with various Christian denominations banning or discouraging members from being Freemasons. Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical.


 * Again... far to short. Also, the second sentence does not make sense (as I discussed in a previous talk page segment)... one can be Christianity and anti-clericalism are not opposites.  The third sentence would need to make it clear WHAT Church you are referring to... there are others besides RC that have no problem with Masonry.  Also, it only discusses a part of Freemasonry and not the Craft as a whole ... you would need to discuss the reaction of mainstream Masonry to the Vatican's opposition. Blueboar 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Again... who cares what your opinion on what should or should not be on this page is, especially given the appalling behaviour you and your secret handshake 'brothers' have exhibited here over the last while. The purpose of these changes is to 1. follow the current page style used elsewhere on this article. 2. to shorten the article. 3. to use summaries used on the subpages that have been formed over time rather than used the highly biased and poorly written attempts at propaganda, that you and other club members continue to prefer, which is ruining this page.Jake the wiki 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And, how, Jake, would you know this, having ostensibly only been here a week? MSJapan 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would be very interested to know why Jake assumes I am a Mason. Nothing I have said to him would indicate this.  The only reason I can think of is that he has posted here before...  more evidence of puppetry. Blueboar 12:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in this instance it would be a good place to start addressing the issue of born-again Christian cultists and their anti-Freemasonry angle; further the copious amounts of libel and even hate crimes that are committed by them against Freemasons? Perhaps Lightbringer / Jake the Wiki can assist us with our argument on this topic, I would like to see what he can contribute to the issue of persecution of Freemasons by distributed-denominational pentacostal/evangelically oriented born again cults. Jachin 06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry
The Catholic Church has often been seen to be in conflict with Freemasonry, a fraternity it sees as tending to anticlericalism. The Church forbids Catholics from becoming Freemasons while Freemasonry allows Catholics to become members.


 * Yet again, this is far to short a summary for such a complex topic. To maintain NPOV you would have to include at least some discussion of WHY the Church opposes Freemasonry.
 * And now we come to the heart of the matter... I notice you did not submit a summary for the Holocaust section. Here you show your true intention.  Under multiple socks you have tried to delete or majorly ammend this section to discredit it.  I can tell you that it will remain ... at least as long as you keep trying to change it.
 * OK... enough coddling the Socks... The basic reason why your changes are not going to be accepted is that you are a banned user... arbcom has decreed that you are not to edit ANY page relating to Freemasonry. Thus, even if your ideas had some merit, we would revert them for this reason alone. Blueboar 14:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Thus, even if your ideas had some merit, we would revert them for this reason alone."
 * Reductio ad Hitlerum
 * Nuttyskin 23:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No... Reductio ad Administratum... the person in question has been banned by Wikipedia Administration from editing ANY article relating to Freemasonry... after a lengthy arbitration. Thus, reverting his edits is Democracy in action, carrying out a verdict made by a proper jury.  Blueboar 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
Shortened introduction removing info that is too detailed for an introductory. Info already contained elsewhere in article in any case. Jake the wiki 12:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for discussing... could you point out where this information is other than in the introduction?
 * Also, you have removed a lot of material from the criticisms section ... information that is needed to balance the POV of this article. This article has been very controversial and contentious ... Much of the material you cut was the result of months of careful compromise between editors with various POVs. Thus, a great deal of discussion will be needed before we can accept changes. (Please note the tags on the article that instruct editors to discuss things BEFORE making changes). I have re-reverted because of this.
 * I am not saying your changes can never be made ... just that they will need section by section (if not line by line) discussion before they can be made. Please be patient. Blueboar 12:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, given your IP address, I will change my last statement... It is likely that your changes will NOT be accepted because I strongly suspect you are yet another Lightbringer sock. A check is in the works.  Blueboar 13:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're just a bunch of bullies who are incapable of intellectually defending your positions without playing wiki lawyering games and swamping the pages with your many members. You can deny and twist the truth but in the end you know what the outcome will be. Masonry was defeated at Calvary.Jake the wiki 13:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Say good bye Lightbringer. Blueboar 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I would like to comment on what Jake has been saying in his edit summaries. He seems to think simply stating that his changes are "very necessary" amounts to discussion.  Please note that the only REAL discussion he has attempted so far has been to attack on Freemasonry and the editors of this page.
 * If I am incorrect in my suspicions that he is nothing more than yet another Lightbringer puppet (and given his last comment, I think that it is unlikely that I am wrong) then, as the one who feels the need to make changes to the article, it is up to HIM to defend his changes, and not us to defend keeping things the way they are. Blueboar 15:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you seemed to have taken my proposed shortening of the intro to heart and implemented it yourself speaks to the vacuousness of the original witch hunt. The big bad anti. Oooogah Boooogah.Jake the wiki 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The intro has been discussed before ... you simply gave me a good excuse to do what several people have suggested. The rest of your changes are not accepted, especially since you have repeatedly been banned from editing pages relating to this topic. Blueboar 14:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh Huh. Whooo cares if you or any other of your resident fratnernity brothers "accepts" ANYTHING? Oh and by the way I am not your Lightbringer pal. How the heck you clowns manage to get anyone to join your ridiculous club is beyond me.Jake the wiki 01:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been off-line for a few days, and seems that I missed some Lightbringer fun :) Imacomp 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jake the wiki
I've put him on WP:CHECK. Ardenn 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He'll be back under another guise in a day or two tops. His motivation, if he is our mate Lightbringer, is delusional zeal by which he thinks he is doing right by Christianity in persecuting and spreading hatred about fellow man.  Go figure, you can't beat already flawed logic. Jachin 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity/ Catholicism sections
Why are there two sections here? RC was Christian the last time I looked, although I appreciate some of the evangelical churches don't tend to agree. Would it not be more reasonable to group the two sections and lose the Catholicism header?ALR 12:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing about the history of why it is the way it is but it does make sense to keep them apart as doctrinal matters are handled differently between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants use Sola Fide for doctrinal matters while Catholics use the teachings of the magisterium of the RCC for doctrinal matters. Hence some Protestants would have no problem with Masonic association if they feel the ‘Holy Spirit’ as per Sola Fide has not revealed anything negative about this to them. Simonapro 21:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]


 * The split occured during the last round of Lightbringer sock puppet editing here, and no one noticed until recently ... I will see if I can clean up the mess, while incorporating the newest edits (so that if anyone has issues with them, they can be properly discussed). Blueboar 23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject
Have y'all thought about starting a Freemasonry Wikiproject? Ardenn 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Forbid vs. Discourages in Christian religious opposition
With regards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Christian_religious_opposition

Quaesitum est says it is forbidden, not discouraged. I quote "Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden." If you have a problem with this please discuss here. Thank you. Simonapro 00:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)]


 * I suggest you take your own advice.  Ardenn  00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that you have provided a quote, I no longer have a problem. The only statement that I saw prior to this was the one about being "in grave sin", which (as I said in an earlier edit) is not the same as an outright ban. This clarifies the statement,  Thanks.  (by the way... if Quasitum est is on line some where, I suggest that it should be cited and linked.)  Blueboar 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, a relevant criticism has been offered by myself on the subjective or objective analysis of the Canon Law in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quaesitum_est#Subjective_or_Objective_Interpretation

It may be of use when establishing whether or not the Catholic church still holds it's old views on the subject matter. Jachin 08:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If we do not understand the canon law the church has formally issued Quasitum est to clarify what that law means. Simonapro 10:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)]

Origin Theories
The section on Origin Theories has gotten a bit bizarre. There is an entire paragraph beginning with the unverifiable (and unsubstantiated) premise "it is thought by many..." (big yawn). It continues by challenging the "transition" of Freemasonry from the medieval stonemasons guilds. The paragraph gives two reasons for challenging the transition: 1) that stonemasons lived near their building sites and did not need "secret signs", and 2) that the rules provided in the Ancient Charges are "nonsensical" as rules for operative lodges. I've got questions for the author of this paragraph: 1) "who" are these "many" that think this? 2) I"ve never read that anyone has ever stated that the operative freemasons had "secret signs", or grips or passwords. I believe those are the inventions of the early speculatives. And 3) the Ancient Charges are entirely appropriate rules of behavior for operative masons. Where they become "quaint" and archaic is when they are applied to later speculative Freemasons. Unless someone can give me good reason to keep the above paragraph, I'm going to flush it. PGNormand 08:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to delete or alter the confusing paragraph referenced above, and replace it with a couple of paragraphs on 1) modes of recognition, and 2) Ancient Charges. PGNormand 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Lightbringer Puppet
It should be noted that the current User:24.64.223.203 is strongly suspected of being yet another User:Lightbringer puppet. I say "current", because it seems that this IP address is registered to px1cv.gv.shawcable.net and is shared by multiple users. It should be noted, however, that this is the same ISP which all the other Lightbringer puppets have used. I have reported this at check user... and the IP was blocked for a time. However, because it is used by multiple users it is difficult for admins to keep it blocked. It has previously been determined that the 3RR rule does not apply to reverting Lightbringer Sock edits (they count as vandalism). Thus, we should feel free to revert his edits without explanation or fear. However, I did want to leave a record of this that we can point to in case one of us is blocked by an admin who is unfamiliar with the situation. Blueboar 13:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work Blueboar. I appreciate your diligence. PGNormand 17:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PGNormand is a major editor at Grand Lodge of Texas :) Imacomp 18:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't be a big surprise, given who he is.ALR 19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly suspected by WHOM, and FOR WHAT REASON? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs)
 * Seems clear enough to me. HTH, HAND and all thatALR 13:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly suspected by multiple editors including me ... Similar edits, similar editing style, same ISP. 'nuff said. Blueboar 18:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the appalling record you and the other Mason Editors have on these pages your credibility is quite a bit less than zero. It would seem Freemasonry's membership is down to the hard core delusional nuts. Involuntary committment time, Dan Brown needs some company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs)
 * And you off course know all about this, seeing as you have been trolling / vandalising since, hmm, last september I think it was. You really think we're to dumb to recognise the style and MO? WegianWarrior 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your "cleverness" relates only to the volume of deception you and your "brothers" employ to stop any editorial input that portrays Freemasonry in a critical light. Of course judging the intelligence of anyone who remains in Freemasonry after learning of the ludicrous teachings and preposterous and embarrassing rituals is another matter entirely - it is uncontestable and obvious.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs)

We have no problem with with editorial input that portrays Freemasonry in a critical light... if made by OTHER users. YOUR input, on the other hand, we do have a problem with... since you have been banned from editing these pages. Thus, even if you added something that portraid the Craft in a positive light, your input would be struck on principle. 'Nuff said... now go away. Blueboar 14:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hands
Anybody have detailled information about this picture? Should it be moved into the article? Scriberius 06:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never seen anything like it in my life... but I can tell you that it is not a Masonic Emblem. So, no, it should not be moved into the article. Blueboar 11:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise it's not something i've seen in either craft or appendant bodies. So no, it has no place in the article from my perspective.ALR 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen this sort of thing, but I cannot remember where. Let me try and recall . . .Harrypotter 19:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a masonic or appendant thing, but it's bloody interesting. Does anyone have any information pertaining to these things?  It's very reminiscent of the hand of destiny, an occultist symbolism.  Jachin 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A quick google seems to indicate that the picture is from a book called "Montfaucon’s Antiquities" published in Nürnberg in 1757. Not sure if that helped, or even told you something you didn't allready know =). I'm not familiar with the book in question, and havn't been able to find much online either (granted, I searched for a whole five minutes...) WegianWarrior 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

S-protect
With the latest outbreak of Lightbringer activity, using an IP-adress instead of a username, I've requested semiprotection for this page and the others I can see he has been hitting. WegianWarrior 21:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't proved anything, other than the length and lies you will go to, to turn this page into a shallow propaganda/recruitment website. Your lies about the true history of German Freemasonry is but one pathetic example.


 * Above commentary attributed to Lightbringer under his IP alias. Jachin 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone say nutjob? Sheesh. Look, I hate to be the one to voice this opinion, but we're all thinking it; would excluding everyone from his ISP be such a horrible thing from this article? The chances of someone else from his ISP accessing let alone editing this article are slim to one. We can't assume he is using a static IP either, thus a subnet or host ban is in order. Jachin 10:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

moved comment by 206.159.133.201
I believe this page has been protected from editing due to the background knowledge some people may have of the Freemasons and as such, it has been protected so noone will ever be able to know the true secrets of the freemasons. 206.159.133.201 13:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to shot down your little conspiracy theory, but it's been semiprotected because of recurring vandalism; most likely caused by a single, disgruntled induvidual. WegianWarrior 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear god. [sigh]  Can anyone clarify whether suggesting that someone illustrating obvious psychological conditions seeks help is a personal attack or not? Jachin 00:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think there is something that should be included, present it here with reliable sources and you may get it included. If you can't do that, then it doesn't need to be in there. Wikipedia isn't a message board. Ardenn  00:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)