Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 34

Edit request from 69.138.38.35, 15 June 2010
At several points during this page the word "antient" is stated when the word should read "ancient" as in the ancient free and accepted mason. Thank you.

69.138.38.35 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see it, give a specific example. Spigot Map  15:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a typo -- some Masonic groups do use the "antient" spelling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers for England, Scotland and Ireland
User:Triton Rocker has expressed the desire to change the wording of first paragraph from "...and around 480,000 in England, Scotland and Ireland" to "...and around 480,000 in the British Isles." His stated reasoning is to include Whales and the Ilse of Man. The problem with his edit is that it requires us to infer that Whales and the Ilse of Man are included in the number. However, we don't know if this is in fact the case. If I remember correctly The 480,000 number came from the old version of the UGLE webpage (note the new version does not give that specific number)... and that page explicitly said "England, Scotland and Ireland". It may be logical for us to assume they meant that there are 480,000 masons in the areas under the Jurisdiction of the United Grand Lodge of England (which includes England, Whales, Man, and Northern Ireland), Grand Lodge of Scotland, and Grand Lodge of Ireland... but we don't know that for a fact. They could be referring explicitly to just those sub-regions. For us to say "British Isles" would mean that we would have to engage in Original Research... which is not allowed.

That said, we should probably change language anyway... UGLE no longer gives us a total of 480,000. The new wording at their updated website reads: ''Under the United Grand Lodge of England, there are over a quarter of a million Freemasons. There are Grand Lodges in Ireland, which covers both Northern Ireland and Eire, and Scotland which have a combined total of approximately 150,000 members. Worldwide, there are approximately six million Freemasons.'' We should revise our language to reflect that new wording. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, and avoids the problem to boot. MSJapan (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK... have re-written a bit. Hopefully it resolves the issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request re Volume of Sacred Law from Worshipful Brother in Connecticut, 17 July 2010
RE: "a candidate is given his choice of religious text for his Obligation, according to his beliefs" In discussion about The Sacred Law on the altar, the article should note that in most U.S. Lodges, the text that sits upon the alter is often the choice of the Lodge, in Connecticut, it was a choice of the Lodge and the Grand Lodge of Connecticut. (For example, I did my MM degree this past year and, although not Christian, it was the Lodge's Book of Sacred Law -- a Christian bible, King James Version I believe -- which sat upon the altar upon which I took my degree. I was not given my choice of religious text, but my Obligation was sincere and binding all the same as I take my own personal faith very seriously, the more so after my initiation and oaths.)

I fear that non-Christian applicants to the fraternity may be discouraged, or simply confused (as I was) if the non-Christian candidate should read on Wikipedia that their Sacred text can be on the altar. A would-be-brother should know ahead of time that the Lodge has the authority to choose what Sacred Text is upon the altar. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Fraternally, Wor. Bro. K.T.B.


 * Question... did you even ask the Master whether you could use your own VSL? I suspect you would have been accommodated.
 * In any case, I don't think you should take your experience as being the norm. What books are routinely placed on the altar does depend on both the jurisdiction and the lodge, and most jurisdictions in the US do require that lodges place a Christian bible (some even specify the King James) on the altar... but as far as I know, all US Jurisdiction allow for other VSLs to be used in addition to the bible, as the lodge deems appropriate.  (I know that CT does this... I have visited CT lodges that had multiple books on their altar.)  This is especially true when it comes to obligations... each candidate should have the VSL of his choice on the altar for him to place his hands upon.  Perhaps CT is different from the norm, but I suspect that your situation was not due to any Grand Lodge policy... but instead due to a simple lack of thinking by the brothers of your lodge.  I suspect that your local lodge was on "auto-pilot" and did not even think about whether there might be a more appropriate book to use at your initiation, passing and raising.
 * On another subject... I note you sign yourself "Wor. Bro." and yet you say you were raised just this past year... How in the world did you get to be a Worshipful Bro. so soon after you were raised?  (not saying you didn't... just surprised).  Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Going backwards, gues I don't know how to sign off. Is it just "Bro."? I thought all MMs were W.B.'s. Thank you and I'll ask a fellow brother about this. As far the the rest I'm thinkin' "WHA??!?!?" because I had two lengthy discussions with the lodge (one before the Grand Lodge Master and his entourage with purple). It became apparent that I was not permitted to use a different "V.S.L." (also a new acronym for me.) I not only asked the Master of the Lodge, but also past masters who questioned me quite thoroughly on my faith, and the Grand Lodge and the Grand Master. I hate the feeling that my experience is not the "norm." I still feel anxiety around some of the brethren and hope fraternal feelings grow.

If you can edit the Wikipedia page, I think it is necessary to avoid non-Christians from being surprised when they cannot choose their own volume of sacred law. Thanks again.

Sincerely, Br. KTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the article does state this in "membership and religion". It's an easy tweak if not.  While I will verify the edit, I'm withholding any opinion on the claims made, because this isn't the venue for it. MSJapan (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: forms of address... Yeah... it should be just "Brother". No problem ... you wouldn't know unless someone told you (and one of the common flaws in many lodges is that Masonic instruction tends to end once a brother is raised... so new brothers have to find things like this out the hard way... by making an error and having some crusty Past Master, like me, correct them... please, never take it personally.  Remember that you didn't make the error alone... your lodge brothers contributed to the error by not giving you proper instruction).  In any case, I am always willing to give Masonic instruction to a new brother:  So, for your future understanding... Most Masons are "Brother"... "Worshipful Brother" is used for those who hold or have held the office of Worshipful Master, "Right Worshipful Brother" is used for past and present Grand Lodge officers, and "Most Worshipful Brother" is used for past and present Grand Masters". (Some jurisdictions have other titles and forms of address, like "Very Worshipful" ... but these are rare and so I will not go into them.)
 * As for your other comments... I will echo your "WHA???"... What you say happened to you surprises the hell out of me. I find it completely un-Masonic.  I do not doubt that it occurred... but it certainly does not match my (limited) observation of CT practice. More to the point, I can absolutely guarantee that it does not match the practice in NY, or in most other jurisdictions.  It is not the norm.
 * And because it is not the norm... I don't think we should change the article. Despite your experience ... what we say in the article is what happens in most jurisdictions and in most lodges around the world.  On behalf of the brethren of these other lodges and other jurisdictions... please accept our sincere apologies for the shoddy treatment you were given at your initiation.  It should not have happened. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Masonic Graffiti
Where I live (Southern Illinois) there are a number of petroglyph sites dating back thousands of years... in studying these... I've come across Masonic compasses carved right over the obvious paintings/carvings. Lovely, just lovely. They're done with precision, not just an amateur at work. Probably 50-100 years old. Just putting this into the discussion. 173.23.250.185 (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes... Sadly, individual Freemasons can commit vandalism... just like members of any other group. All I can say is that if I knew a member of my lodge who did something like this, I would have him up on Masonic charges.  Not worth adding to the article, however. Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Jurisdiction stuff...
Persh didn't like my edit, reverted some of it, and requested discussion, so I'll explain my rationale. I saw the following issues:


 * The terms "regular" and "irregular" aren't objective - UGLE is irregular to GOdF, and vice-versa. So the terms are subjective and unclear.  If we call UGLE "regular" we automatically give a conclusion to the reader, which we shouldn't be doing per policy.
 * As a corollary, recognition is another beast entirely, and is mutable for spurious reasons.
 * UGLE lodges aren't confined to England and America ("Anglo-American"), nor are GOdF Lodges only in Western Europe ("Continental"). The geographic terms, therefore, add no clarity.
 * The connotation of terms like "liberal", "dogmatic", "adogmatic", and so on is subjective, and therefore implies a conclusion to the reader, which we should be avoiding as in on the first point.

Therefore, I wanted to use a descriptor that was accurate, simple, and NPOV, based on the following items:


 * UGLE and GOdF are mutually exclusive traditions or branches of Freemasonry.
 * UGLE and GOdF are considered the primary examples of their respective traditions.
 * UGLE and GOdF traditions have specific differences which we can enumerate objectively.
 * UGLE and GOdF are regular unto themselves, and how others view them is not pertinent to their own policies and requirements.
 * The explanation and usage of "regularity" and "recognition" have been a huge problem in all the articles - they are really quite complicated issues, and seem to only obfuscate the agreed-upon "general overview" nature of this article.

So I decided to use "(UGLE or GOdF) tradition", keying off the body that is considered the main proponent or originator of said tradition. I think we need to also consider our audience and avoid the discussion of regularity and recognition aside from acknowledgment of the existence of the system. Since I had to change one section anyhow, I figured I'd testbed the change and see how it went (which it didn't). However, I think the terminology item is a watershed issue, because if we can simplify terms, it will improve the articles in WP:FM overall. MSJapan (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We have been through this before. There is a fairly solid consensus on Wikipedia that article terminology should follow that used in reliable secondary sources... with a preference for English Language sources... and, by far, the majority of English Language secondary sources use the terms "Mainstream" and "Continental" to describe the two branches.  Yes, this will seem "biased" and "non-neutral" to some editors and some Masons.  But, because the seemingly non-neutral language comes from the sources and is not our doing, Wikipedia precedent is against such complaints.  In fact, there is a good argument that, in attempting to be Politically-correct here, we are actually being non-neutral (setting our wishes against the sources).  We also run the risk of setting up a WP:NOR situation... by inventing terms that are not supported by the sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The policies deal with presentation of facts and sources, not terminology, and when applied to the latter, actually conflict. The sources are biased because of who's writing them, and who they're writing for, but we're writing an article for the uninformed.  I think simplifying things will make for a better article.  I don't see any OR, as it's merely a different descriptor for the same thing. MSJapan (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in a way that's what I was trying to get at as well. I think using Mainstream and Continental do simplify matters. There is no way we can cover this without some background explanations... but by using "mainstream vs continental" instead of "regular vs. irregular" or "UGLE vs GOdF" we can do so in the simplest way... and avoid the confusion of who considers who legitimate, without giving the false impression that UGLE or GOdF are in some way "in charge" of their respective branches. Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MSJapan that the different ”labels” are problematic. But the problem is not only what we would call the groups but that the different ”labels” encompass slightly different juisdictions and are not interchangeable. The divisions into different Masonic traditions are usually done according to whether there is a requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being and/or according to gender. I believe one unually divide them as this: But And
 * ”regular”: only male members, no women as visitors, and require a belief in a Supreme Being,
 * ”irregular”: all jurisdictions that not conform to all three requirements above.
 * ”UGLE-tradition”: as ”regular” above
 * ”GodF-tradition”: they do admit women visitors and do not require a belief in a Supreme Being, but as GodF admits only men (a few lodges initiated women a few years, but I think that the matter is not finally resolved, correct me if I am wrong) this group would not be the same as the group ”irregular” (and should the matter be finaly settled and the GodF now generally admits women it would be strange to call it a GodF-tradition if it is only a few years old).
 * ”mainstream”: as ”regular” above
 * ”Continental”: as ”irregular” above, but it is somewhat imprecise; do we mean that women are allowed only as visitors (as in the largest jurisdiction – GodF - in this group), or both as visitors and members?

I think that the "mainstream"/"Continental" labels are the least bad one should any "labels" be used. The use of ”labels” seemingly simplify the presentation but in fact might confuse things instead (e.g. think of the Order of Women Freemasons that are "regular" in that they require a belief in a Supreme Being, but "irregular" in that they admit women. I guess that they would be put in the groups "irregular" or "Continental" as they admit women but does it simplify for the reader to group them with jurisdictions that do not require a belief in a Supreme Being? And they could neither be put in the "UGLE-tradition" nor the "GOdF-tradition" as they admits women). I think that the best thing is to try to avoid using "labels" and instead spell out what issues are being considered. E.g. write ”... in Masonic jurisdiction requiring a belief in a Supreme Being ...” instead of ”.. in regular Freemasonry ...” etc depending on what issues the text at hand deals with. Ergo-Nord (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So, to which tradition/label does the Grand Lodge de France belong? How about the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy or the Grand Orient of Italy?  What about the various GO's in South America, which are recognized by most US GL's but not by UGLE?--Vidkun (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The major issue I think still remains that the labeling is coming from "belief in Deity" GLs.  It is true that that is where the majority of English-language research comes from, but it's inherently POV, because the lodges in each tradition are "regular" unto themselves, whether the other tradition agrees or not.  To a point, we're espousing a position, and I don't know that that's strictly in keeping with policy.  I think I'm going to poke around and see if any actual researcher has addressed this issue, and maybe I'll formulate something for the policy boards here. It may not be a resolvable issue, but it's worth a shot.MSJapan (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I prefer "Mainstream" and "Continental" instead of "regular" and "irregular". While they are not completely neutral, they are more neutral. I understand the desire to avoid any and all labels... but I am not sure that it is possible to explain the different "brands" of Freemasonry without them? Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I did a pretty good job of it, all things considered, but there is an OR issue, so I've raised the question on the NPOV board to see which policy "wins". MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ritual
'.... I suggested the following as an expansion of the above: "Members are taught its precepts (moral lessons and self-knowledge) by a series of two-part dramas which are learnt by heart and performed within each Lodge. This progression of plays follow ancient forms, and uses operative stonemasons' cutoms, tools and implements as metaphorical props, set against the allegorical backdrop of the building of King Solomon's Temple." Md84419 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) '

My thanks to all for this talk page! As a non-Mason looking to find what is going on in my wife's family of Masons and OES and my late uncle-in-law who was "traveling" I find that I gained much more from the talk than from the article! But the above gave me the best understanding of what "ritual" means in terms that I understand which I find makes masonry likely good and acceptable! So in light of that I recommend inclusion of the "Explanation" above as it clarifies much. Also the shortened 2b1ask1 also clarifies much. I never did ask perhaps because the term "rituals" sounded "SPOOKY" and perhaps a little likelihood of being quite dangerous Like hazing. What I found on the web did little to disabuse this likely because I did not know where to gain real info! I would like to see a wikihow or some other less restrictive venue explain more! 74.215.61.17 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Glenn
 * Wikipedia articles in general have a lot of good resources that we use to write the articles in the first place. Freemasonry for Dummies is a actually a good introductory book, as is The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry.  Despite the derogatory titles, they are good at simplifying concepts and relaying information for a general audience. MSJapan (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

04:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)04:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC) "I gained much more from the talk than from the article! "

Ha ! Must say I am a MM who often checks in just to read the discussion section - it astounds and amuses !

Congrats to all who work on this section of wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.214.45 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Volume of Sacred Law
Suggested merge into this article. Almost a cut and paste of what this article already says. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fringe???
The notion that Jacobs is a "fringe" scholar is pretty far-fetched and not based on any RS. She is a senior professor of history at UCLA, with a PhD from Cornell. In 2002 she was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Utrecht and made a member of the prestigious American Philosophical Society and the Hollandse Maatschappij der Wetenschappen. She has been visiting professor at l'Ecole des hautes etudes and the University of Ulster. Her books on Freemasonry have been published by University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005, Oxford University Press 1991--top of the line in scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not when she posits a unified origin of Freemasonry based on widely-differing materials from multiple countries (as she did in her Origins of Freemasonry, where she uses personal materials such as diaries from multiple European countries as source materials, without consulting official and fundamental source documents from Grand Lodges and other governing bodies of Freemasonry). She may be qualified in history in general, but that does not necessarily make her research on Masonic history accurate or accepted.  As a matter of fact, her claim (which you state in your edit) that Freemasonry in France was never political is directly contradicted by most other general and Masonic historians.  Therefore, her opinions are by no means in the majority (thus FRINGE), and she most definitely should not be given multiple paragraphs in a general history article which focus solely on her views, especially when they are placed into a section to which her research has no relevance (Prince Hall Masonry). MSJapan (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki rules say that ony RS can be used, and in this case that means reviews of her books by experts, not the personal opinions of one anonymous editor who admits to being a Mason and thus having a personal conflct of interest. The reference to "Masonic historians" is unclear--better cite some that have tried to refute her. --The section was never part of the Prince Hall section. Rjensen (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * the reason Jacob wins all the international honors is that the leading scholars admire her work. Here's proof: The Journal of Social History (v 28 p 211) says of Jacob (1991): "This encompassing and solid study, despite some weaknesses, is a valuable contribution to the scholarship about the Enlightenment and Freemasonry. The book is based on extensive research in Dutch and French Masonic collections, is well documented, but contains no bibliography or appendices. This lucidly written and fairly well organized work illustrates intimate ties between Freemasonry and the Enlightenment in major urban environments." The American Historical Review says (v. 98 p 858) "Margaret C. Jacob offers a very informative, innovative, useful, ambitious study, a general survey of freemasonry."  And let's consider the Journal of Modern History which says (v 66 p 351) "It is no small part of Jacob's achievement that she has done justice to both the international and the national dimensions of her subject". That is solid evidence that Jacob is not "fringe" -- these are among the leading history journals in the world and her ideas represent the consensus of scholarship therefore need to be presented in Wikipedia.  Perhaps the English Historical Review has identified the problem with this very old-fashioned article that reflects official Freemason self iamges rather than independent scholarship. It says (vol 110 p 487): "In the last twenty years, scholarship has broken free of the antiquarianism which was the inadequate but best side of traditional writing about masonry, and there has been a true advance in the positive history of the craft, notably in France and the Netherlands. Margaret C. Jacob has now carried forward the frontiers again."  Rjensen (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Rjensen that Jacob is not "Fringe" and that she counts as a reliable source under Wikipeida's rules. Do I have a good opinion of her work... no... she gets a lot of her basic facts about Freemasonry wrong.  Unfortunately, "getting it wrong" is not a criteria for judging reliability.
 * That said... I am against adding this material to this article. The reason for my opposition is that the material that Rjensen wants to add goes into way to much detail for this specific article... this article is supposed to be is a broad overview of the fraternity... and a large paragraph like this is over-detail... and it is somewhat irrelevant in the context of this aritcle's topic.  You can not simply cut and paste large blocks of text that were written for one article (in this case, Age of Enlightenment) into other articles and expect them to work.
 * Actually, I don't think this material belongs in Age of Enlightenment either... that article is also an overview article and, again, the material is way too detailed. Perhaps a sub-article on Freemasonry in the age of Enlightenment  (or some other, appropriate title) would be the best route to take. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Grand Orient de France acronym
Official acronym for Grand Orient de France is GODF with a capital D (see websiste of the Obedience >> http://www.godf.org/). It is used internaly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dledu (talk • contribs) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Also "the Grand Orient of France places the Constitution of France on its altar" >> this is absolutely false, I never visited any lodge with the constitution on the "altar", all lodges feel free to place whatever "sacre volume" they wish (they mainly place a blank book), as far as I'm concerned, we place one of the book of our patron (who is a French writer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dledu (talk • contribs) 08:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. On the acronym... Just so you know... Wikipedia does not always follow the "official" version when it comes to names... Wikipeida follows the sources, and thus uses the name, spelling etc that is most commonly used by English language sources.  That said, I have seen the acronym appear both ways...  with a capital D (GODF) and with a small d (GOdF)... we should determine which is more common.
 * On the book... this is my understanding as well. Nice to have confirmation.  I think this gives us enough to challenge the statement (and remove it). Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious opposition
It is an important and necessary section... but... the section is starting to creep up in length again, as editors add more details as to why a particular denomination objects to or opposes Freemasonry. This article should summarize the general situation... The details should be put in Christianity and freemasonry and similar sub-articles. I think it is time we went through the section and did some tightening up. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Lost Symbol
Dan Brown's book "The Lost Symbol" quotes purportedly from this article. I wonder why the article does not have a Freemasonry in popular culture section. AshLin (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the first I've heard of that particular item. The reason we don't have such a section is because a lot of it is a judgment call rather than a straight objective choice.  Freemasonry is mentioned both positively and negatively in a lot of works (War and Peace and "The Cask of Amontillado" for two, where the first is positive and very obvious, and the other is negative and is just about a throwaway unless one knew what it was).  I'm actually pretty sure there's a substantial plot parallel in one of the Horus Heresy novels by Dan Abnett, but just because something looks like that doesn't mean it is; Abnett could have been drawing on an organized crime parallel for all we know, and he's never been asked about it to say for sure.  There are mentions in cartoons (The Stonecutters in The Simpsons, the Water Buffalo in The Flintstones, and an episode of Sealab 2021), but is it really Freemasonry, or the penchant for fraternal organizations to do things that may seem peculiar?  For example, I believe all those cartoon refs had "weird hats", which would be closer to a Shrine fez than anything Freemasonry proper has.  As I recall, though, Ralph Kramden from The Honeymooners was in some sort of fictional fraternal group as well, so are these newer shows drawing from reality, or from earlier depictions like that?  We don't really know, so we would be guessing.  There are certainly throwaway references in a few Rumpole of the Bailey stories, but they are there to be indicative of something cultural, not for purposes of plot.
 * Going away from TV and books, there's pubs and even a dance-pop group that uses the name "Freemasons" - does it really have any connection or relevance? Maybe, maybe not.  What about in song lyrics?  Same thing, and only in a few cases is there even a statement made by the author of the work about those references.
 * So, between the sheer number of possible references and the difficulty of objectively deciding whether what it appears to be is what was intended, we have decided not to do a pop culture section. Even in your own example, it's "purported"; that doesn't mean it's true.  Having read the book, I doubt it, actually, because Brown did real-world research, and could get the information from much more stable sources than here. MSJapan (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It really comes down to avoiding WP:TRIVIA. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Freemasonry and police officers
This article continues to perpetuate the myth that police officers were "required" to disclose Masonic memberships between 1999 and 2009: they were not. This might well have applied to judges, and perhaps to new entrants to the Police Service, but not to serving officers. There were at least two attempts to set up a voluntary register, but very few police Freemasons co-operated: the remainder largely cited the argument that this was a disproportionate intrusion into their private lives and an infringement of their rights to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) and to freedom of association (Article 14 ECHR). That latter right was affirmed in the decision by the European Court in 2009 in the case of Grande Oriente D'Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v ltaly (No. 2).

The affirmation of that right was what led to the scrapping of the few remaining requirements by Freemasons to disclose membership for public offices. The wording of this article requires amendment to make it accurate.217.169.14.81 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is: The story of police registration can be cited to a reliable source... If you want to debunk it, you will need to also cite a reliable source. Can this be done? Blueboar (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe the disclose clause was in place due to conflict of interest for prosecution.75.120.185.48 (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to only be a problem in the UK at the moment, Masonic Police, Judges, and Lawyers can be very matter of fact about their affiliation in the U.S. and usualy do recuse themselves if it does propose a conflict of interest on the off chance a mason would find himself embroiled in a criminal legal matter. Most U.S. Grand Lodges even in the past will summarily expel a member for a violation of the law, epecially if the accused has already gone to trial and was found guilty. What people don't seem to understand is that masonic membership requirements prohibit lawlessness and bad behavior and it does not excuse any member simply based on thier membership. Simply said people are made masons because they already are good people, it never gives one an excuse to behave otherwise.

Degrees
Utterly incomprehensible to someone not already familiar with the subject matter. What are they and why do they matter? How do you get them? Do you study for them? Are there tests? Age or time requirements? Nominations? What does having one mean to an individual? Is it like a rank in boy scouts? What's the big deal about there only being three of them? What's with all the ancillary things that aren't additional degrees? Can you be demoted? Someone please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.35.19 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound roundabout, but many of your questions aren't answered because they cannot be answered. I think you may be having an issue because there's a lot of context involved, and there also seems to be some serious overthinking going on, too. Masonic degrees are Masonic degrees, there's nothing else like them, and they cannot be explained without a) ruining the initiatory process for a candidate, and b) being mercilessly edited by anyone who has seen conferrals done differently from however we say it is done.


 * Most of the other questions as to how, when, tests, studying, etc. also differ on a jurisdictional (state or country) basis (and sometimes even at the discretion of an individual Lodge's Master), so again, there's no way to satisfactorily and encyclopedically answer the question without throwing in so many caveats that the answer is no more clear than when we started. Freemasonry may be worldwide, but it isn't universal.


 * Some of your questions also indicate overthinking - there are three degrees because there are, there's no particular big deal involved, other than at one point there were only two; asking why that is like asking why a maple leaf has five points. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a maple leaf, would it?  Moreover, there are more than three degrees when one moves outside of the Lodge structure (which is stated as outside the scope of this article). What being a Mason means to an individual is also not within our scope, simply because it is up to the individual, and one cannot generalize what is an individual process.  There are no ranks associated with the degrees (that it outside of degrees), nor is there any demotion associated with them.  For instance, LBJ never finished his degrees; he was just never considered a Master Mason (although he may have been dropped from the rolls after not moving forward after X number of years).  So there's really not a lot of what you are asking that is pertinent to the section about which you are asking, and for the questions you have, you should be moving to other sources, like local jurisdictions and so forth - an encyclopedia is a starting point, not an end.. MSJapan (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially... the degrees are a series of ritualistic ceremonies. That's it. What those ceremonies consist of varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: thanks for an actual answer. Can it go into the article?
 * MSJapan: Blueboar demonstrated that one of the primary questions in fact has a completely basic and easily stateable answer. Ruining the initiatory process sounds like you don't want spoilers; wikipedia does not shy from spoilers. I'm reasonably sure that if all masons were polled, questions like "how long" and "what does this mean to you" would have quite definitive distribution patterns and could be generalized the same way that you can ask rice growers around the world how they feel about harvest time and come up with a pretty solid statistical grouping of answers that in fact conveys cultural contexts. -- 74.104.208.235 (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am not sure that my statement can be added to the article. I certainly could not supply a reliable source for it. I know my statement is accurate, because I have been active in Masonry for over 25 years... but the definition is mine, based on my personal experience.  Personal experience is not a reliable source under Wikipedia's rules.  Nor could we poll a group of masons and ask them questions like "how long" or "what does this mean to you"... that would constitute Original research (which Wikipedia also bans).  We need someone external to Wikipedia to create the definitions and conduct such surveys... then we can report what they say.  If no sources do so, we can't include it. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A Traveling Man: the degrees are as follows.. the first degree is a call EA entered apprent. at this level you are just in the door of freemasonry and you have limited action inside the lodge. next is fellowcraftthis means you have past your first degree and you can be around and hear a little more inside the lodge. last is the third degree master mason, and at this point you feel very acomplished and you are a full blown mason.

Rosslyn Templars
The Rosslyn Chapel is suppose to be the accepted link between the Templar founding of Freemasonry. I suppose this is due to William Sinclair.75.120.185.48 (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Accepted by who? While it remains a popular theory among romantics, the connection between the Templars, the Chapel and Freemasonry has been debunked by multiple historians.  Suggest you read our article on Rosslyn Chapel. Blueboar (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I happened to see just about the same level of material on a History Channel documentary on KT the other day (they have seriously gone downhill into some of the worst material out there). 43 minutes and nothing but a whole bunch of fringe theory and no mention of Freemasonry at all.  It also put forth a Scottish "Templar" group that accepts men and women as the "spiritual heir" to the "real" KT, and made no real delving into Rosslyn or Sinclairs, either.  In any event, Robert L.D. Cooper is sufficient to debunk the whole deal. MSJapan (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What gets me is how persistent the theory is. Despite being debunked multiple times, people want it to be true and so keep repeating it. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The modern Templars admit they are in Freemasonry. [1] And Freemasonry claims a link. They publish books on the Templar history [2], and their Demolay youth group is named after the former Grand Master of the Templars. Not only is their a degree named KT and KoM in the York Rite of Freemasonry but many of the degrees in the Scottish Rite have Templar rituals [3]. (We can note the highest level members function in the same capacity as the former Templars, in banking and world government.) We know the Templars survived with a name change in Spain as the Order of Christ and in the German kingdom as the Teutonic Knights. The Order of the Garter was founded in Britain soon after the Templars were suppressed. Then Rosslyn was built by a Templar, whose immediate relatives (and heirs) would become the first Grand Masters of Freemasonry.[4] This is correctly pointed out by numerous authors.

See also the Muslim Harun Yahya's book on The Knights Templars and Freemasons, also on film [1], and others, too[2][3] and this video servies [4].

Still others find the Jesuits were founded by similar Military orders who served with the Templars during the Crusades thus helped in the formation of Freemasonry. One of their own admits as much. It seems numerous researchers and authors find that until a better theory on the founding of Freemasonry is put forward this information stands uncontested. 72.161.229.229 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Quoting Blavatshky? really?  Sorry but Isis Unveiled is definitely not considered a reliable source.  At best this is a Fringe theory proposed and supported purely by Fringe Masonry. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, just because a group says they're templars does not mean they're connected to the group. Catholic sources on Freemasonry are not good sources on Freemasonry, for the same reasons Jack Chick is not a good source on Catholicism.  Some Freemasons and people claiming to be Freemasons mistakenly repeat the claims that they are connected to the templars, despite not actual evidence, just people claiming a connection for about 150 years (with Freemasonry in its modern form only having solid evidence for being about twice that old).  For a better theory: Freemasonry grew out of symbolism from medieval stonemason's guilds, which by the 1700s became more of a social club than a corporation.  During the 1800s, clubs liked to claim that their organizations were old and had ancient knowlege, some folks that didn't like the Catholic church attempted to turn Freemasonry into a surrogate protestant church, and those two things lead to claims of being descended from the Templars.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Templar origin has its start in France... with an essay written in the early 1700s by the Chevalier Ramsay, a Scottish Jacobite who was at one point tutor to Bonnie Prince Charley. The French aristos he associated with loved the idea of Freemasonry, but disliked the the traditional origin story (that it developed out of the guilds of stone masons working in England and Scotland.)  Of course the French disliked idea that anything good could come out of England (and especially grubby working class England)... so Ramsay invented a "better" origin story for them... that Freemasonry really descended from Crusading Knights and the whole "stone mason" thing was purely symbolic.  The funny thing is, Ramsay's essay did not specify the Knights Templars... that was added later, by those who wanted to make Freemasonry even more romantic and exciting than Ramsay made it.
 * However, there was never any proof behind any of it. The idea that the Masons were descended from the Templars bubbled around, and lots of people liked it.  In fact, they realized that you could make some very good allegorical dramas from it... You could use the Templar story to encourage your brethren to emulate the Knightly virtues of loyalty and faith (You too are a Knight... behave as such) ... or for those who lived in a Republic (or wanted to) you could use the Templar's demise to teach lessons warning of the abuse of power by Kings and Potentates (and if you were Protestant, why not toss in a jab at the Pope here).  The point is... the stories are allegory... they are made up stories designed to teach lessons.
 * Unfortunately, some people (even many Masons) did not understand that these stories and dramas were designed to be allegorical... they thought they were some sort of oral history. This error continues to this day (in fact, thanks to writers like Dan Brown, a lot more people believe it that did twenty years ago).  However, actual documented history shows that it is allegory, and not actual history.  The actual history (history that is supported by actual documents) is the fraternity slowly developing out of the Stonemasons' guilds in England and Scotland in the 1600s. The Templar stuff is a lovely story... it's even a useful story... but that is all it is... a story.  Blueboar (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blueboar on a few of his points, mostly having to do with the fact that Rosslyn is not typically unique for an unfinished cathedral. Stones with masters marks, and celtic carvings are not something that is exclusive ONLY to Rosslyn Chapel, especially in Scotland or even France for that matter where the cathedral of Notre Dame has thousands of masons marks and symbols.

However people seem to be harping over this 1600-1700 era in which the fraternity was public and attempting to provide substance that Freemasonry simply did not exist before then, when the honest scholar must agree that lodges have existed and have been proven to exist at least to the time of the Haliwell Manuscript. Also that it was early history the old guilds were lead by hereditary bloodlines that abicated there right in favor of popular elections.

Does this prove any link to Freemasonry and the Templars? NO! But it does give a much older origin to the fraternity that modern scholars seem to be unwilling to accept, and quite frankly unless you are a member speculating upon the rituals for an outsider is an exercise in futility. When the terminology in even todays degrees harkens to esoteric allegory that would baffle the modern scholar who today has little to no classical education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is... is it really accurate to use the term "Freemasonry" to describe the stone masons lodges that existed prior to 1600? We do have to admit that "Freemasonry" in 1700 was very different from what it was a century before... and there is a good argument that it was different enough to be something new. Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

True a differentiation should be made between the beginning, the watershed, and the end product. Freemasonry at the 1600's is the end product of a watershed. One which did stem from the stonemasons guild prior to its offical recognition in 1717 as several pre existing lodges codified to form the Grand Lodge of England. The question has always been though, why the change? When and why did the stonemasons lodges become schools and think tanks? Its been the time old question about the fraternity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.166.126 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Life as a modern Mason
Something that's missing from the article is what Freemasons do. Initiation, studying lectures, the degrees, helping others learn their rituals, installation to lodge offices, service events, etc. Unfortunately, I have no idea if reliable sources exist. It might be tricky in that there are some very active Masons, that seem to participate in every event in a wide region on to fellows spotted a couple of times per year. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they really don't exist, but to be fair, we do talk about what Masons do in general, which I think is much more germane to the article. Initiation is covered in the degrees section, and studying runs the gamut from a formalized program with a "gold card" given by Grand Lodge to an entirely voluntary system at the whim of the individual Lodge.  Officers we talk about as well insofar as we have info about what they are.  Anything more than that leads right to the issue of

how much detail can we really go into without a source, and what level of detail can we get to before we start running into editors changing it because "that's not how we do it here"? If you can think of a way around it that would add some substance to the article without also adding subjectivity, that would be good. MSJapan (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree... I would love to be able to add more to the article but a) we need sources, and b) we need to keep it relevant to all jurisdictions. That is hard. Blueboar (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both MSJapan and Blueboar. I later realized my question is very similar to the "Degrees" question/thread above. In my case it was triggered when thinking about a lecture and recalling that the Wikipedia article does not address the process someone goes through.


 * I'm not too worried about "relevant to all jurisdictions" as we can say "within the UGLE/North America ..." While it's not likely there's a WP:ABOUTSELF source that would apply to that large a demographic it should be safe enough to cite a source where someone's done the legwork. I agree fully with "That is hard." As it is, the word "always" is used eight times in this article where it seems none of the resulting sweeping pronouncements backed up by sources. The fun never ends on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, we often can't even say "within UGLE/North America"... When you get into details of what Masons "do", what Massachusetts Freemasons "do" is quite different from what New York Freemasons "do", and both are very different from how things are done in Ohio, etc. No two jurisdictions use the same rituals and lectures, no two organize themselves with exactly the same structure, govern themselves by the same bilaws, etc. etc. etc. Sometimes the differences are small, sometimes they are significant... but differences there are.  Yes, there are great similarities as well...  which allows us to make a few broad generalities... but the similarities are less and the differences are greater than even most masons think. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy trinity error
I noticed in the part involving religion, it is said that when discussing the supreme being its actual meaning is inherent in the individuals views, whether it be the holy trinity, allah, etc. However, would it be more correct to say "a catholic shriner" as christians differ in their views on this. Not really into article editing, just throwing out critiques on articles, so if someone deems to correct it, its there to be corrected : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.174.226 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Catholics aren't the only ones that believe in the Trinity... The Eastern Orthodox Churches do as well, as do most Protestant groups. Also, a Shriner is a specific group that allows Masons to join, but being a Mason does not make a person a Shriner. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any non-Trinitarian Christian group. I have always understood that being Trinitarian was as much as part of the definition of being Christian as, well, belief in Christ. Since the Council of Nicea anyway. I am willing to stand corrected, though, by someone knowledgeable. kcylsnavS 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are groups like Jehovah's Witness and the Latter Day Saints that call themselves Christian and are derived from Christianity, and so would be considered Christian from a more academic perspective (what we're supposed to use), but not necessarily a theological one. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are also Unitarians, Universalists, and variations thereof. Another good point to make is that certain groups require members to be Trinitarian Christians, which pretty much shows that other types exist. MSJapan (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not understand Universalists to be Christians, and perhaps not Unitarians either. A belief in Christ as God-on-Earth (or however one may with to term it) would seem to be an indispensable requirement to be "Christian." kcylsnavS 23:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We're veering afield a bit, and I'm not up on the topic, but the article on Unitarianism states it is "nontrinitarian Christian", and I know that a few Masonic invitational bodies specifically require "Trinitarian Christian" beliefs (because it says so on the application), so I would imagine that there must be nontrinitarian systems that are still considered Christian. I would think that anything else is a matter for theological debate and outside the scope of this article. MSJapan (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To put us back on track... the only question is, do we need to edit the sentence: "Thus, reference to the Supreme Being will mean the Christian Trinity to a Christian Mason, Allah to a Muslim Mason, Para Brahman to a Hindu Mason, etc" IMO we do not.  We are not trying to outline the dogmas of different Christian denominations, we are trying to explain how Masons of different religious beliefs will interpret the term "Supreme Being".  We are not trying to be all inclusive, these are examples. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact is every single one of those statements is wrong by some definition. Though it is the most likely to be accurate. So do we favor commonality or obliterate the whole thing? PeRshGo (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with striking that sentence from the article for a couple of reasons. 1) There are no reliable sources that would define "Supreme Being" for all or much of Masonry. We should not attempt to define it here. 2) "Supreme Being" could be interpreted as excluding those practicing Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. but at least the California Grand Lodge allows them by implication in that works for those practices are included in the list of alternate Holy Writings. Grand Lodge's for other regions likely have similar wording. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clear that the definition of Supreme Being is very much up to the individual, we only ask if the individual has a belief in a Supreme Being, and we don't inquire any further as to what that SB might look like. Equally the candidate can (should) be asked what VSL they wish to take the obligations on.
 * We're not making a definitive statement of acceptable beliefs, but illustrating how that categoric and referenced position might end up looking like for a small selection of individuals.
 * I don't see an issue with using illustrative text to help clarify what is a reasonably abstract issue.
 * As a matter of interest does GLoCal have a recommendation for a Satanist to take his obligation on?
 * ALR (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that illustrative text is that it's specific WP:POVish examples, such as Christian Trinity, that are not supported by WP:RS. It's also using language such as "will mean" that's also not supported by WP:RS. That's why I'm challenging it. Using GLoCal as an example, all they ask is "belief in a Supreme Being" and is deliberately silent on what that means. Someone could say to themselves "I believe there is something but I'm not sure what it is. I'm not a member of any organized religion." Can that person be a Freemason per the "Supreme Being" test? Of course. The sentence that follows the one under discussion ("While most Freemasons would take the view...") illustrates the "Supreme Being" issue without needing to detail examples. As that sentence is not supported by reliable sources I'd want to change "most" to "some" to make a bit more neutral. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 01:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a balance to be sought between slavish adherence to badly written rules and informing the reader. Illustration is a useful way to achieve that.
 * ALR (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with ALR here. The point of the sentence is to make it clear to the reader that there is no Masonic conception of God... there is no Masonic definition of the term Supreme Being (or Great Architect of the Universe)... each individual Mason interprets the term according to his (or her, in the case of co-Masonry) own religious beliefs.  For a Mason who believes in the Christian Trinity, then the term Supreme Being will mean the Trinity... for him and him alone.  But, for a Mason who believes in Allah, then the term Supreme Being means Allah... for him and him alone.  By giving examples from a few of the major religious faiths, we make that clear. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think PeRshGo has settled it nicely by changing "will" to "could", and I'm surprised it took 7 days of discussion for someone to come up with that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I slightly disagree... For a Mason that believes in X, the term does mean X. I am Episcopalian, and the term "Supreme Being" does mean the Trinity to me.  There is no "if" or "could" or "might" about it in my mind.  However, I realize and accept that the term will and does mean something different to my Brothers who are of a different faith.  I don't agree with their interpretation, I think their belief is in error, but I do agree that they have the right to believe what they want (people have the right to be in error).  As a Freemason, I agree to tolerate the differing religious beliefs of others, and in the interest of harmony I agree not to discuss the topic of who is "right" and who is in "error" (especially in the lodge).   Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You assume that everyone in your religion/denomination believes the same things you do. Ever heard of "Cafeteria Catholics"? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there are certain basic beliefs that all members of a given religion/denomination are required to have in order be a member of that religion/denomination. For Episcopalians (and Catholics), one of these is a belief in the Trinity.  Now, many members have their own personal conceptions as to the exact nature of the Trinity ... but we all believe in the Trinity in some form (we say so every time we go to Church and recite the Nicene Creed). For Muslims, it is the belief that "There is no God but Allah, and Mohamed is his Prophet."  My point is that we can make a few broad statements about what all members of a particular faith or denomination believe.  And that translates over to what Masons of that particular faith will believe.  Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I'm sure you don't realize this, but you're telling me what I should believe, and I take a certain amount of offense at that. That's why I attempted to collapse the discussion before. There's a reason we're supposed to stay away from these topics... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My intent is definitely NOT to tell you (or anyone else) what to believe (and if it comes across that way, I do apologize)... my goal was to tell you what I think the vast majority of Episcopalian (and indeed the vast majority of Christians) believe... using my own belief as an example. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting back to the article... what about "can mean" as opposed to "could mean"? Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Add new website at external links
The website is: iscariots.com Description: Articles about the World's Largest Secret Society - Freemasonry History and Freemason Secrets --Luci pal (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reason why we should add that? Per the external links guidelines, personal websites without much useful information generally are not accepted. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understood, the site was born only about a week ago. You are right there is not much info yet, the small team that researches the subject is slowly sending content. The site will have more articles soon. It's ok to ask you nicely to review it at a later date? Also I can gather some achievements and try to convince you then.--Luci pal (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Gather some achievements"? This is an encyclopedia, not an XBox360 game... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Achievements can be a lot more than XBox360. I see an achievement a debate on site with an authority in freemasonry. Giving more value to the website.. etc.--Luci pal (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that site has no idea what it's attempting to do (other than reinvent the wheel and misspell things), I see no reason to even consider this seriously at all. MSJapan (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The ideas will solidify, misspellings will be fixed! I will try to be at the level of demands.--Luci pal (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your feedback.--Luci pal (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing the website would need to do is identify who runs it and who it's contributors are. In other words, we need some indication that it is more than just someone's personal website. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Origins of Freemasonry
Leaving aside claims of great antiquity for the movement, I feel that the link with medieval stonemasons' lodges has not been stated. I believe there is a consensus that after the great age of cathedral-building was over, the network of lodges was found suitable for the conduct of a nationwide club of professional men. 86.145.156.23 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We do go into this in more detail at History of Freemasonry. The goal here is to summarize.  Does this ease your concerns, or do you still think we need to expand? Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well even as consensuses go it's one with a large number of dissenting opinions. PeRshGo (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust - number of victims
80.000 - 200.000 killed masons is still unproved. Sorry for writing here on the discussion-Site. My English is too bad and I am not familiar with Wiki-Editing. The citation "Hodapp - Freemasons for Dummies" may be wrong. In its german translation it gives no number of victims. There is a recent german Quartuor Coronati work about it, which figures about 100-300 (in words: onehundred to three hundred) masons being killed because of being a mason (about 600 being killed if you add those who were "jew" and masons). (as far as I do remember, it was released about 2005 - 2010, but I cannot look it up at the moment) "Lennhoff - Posner - Binder 'Internationales Freimaurerlexikon' Herbig-Verlag 2002" seems to have the right numbers for Germany (keyword "Nationalsozialisten"): - before 1933 there were about 80.000 Masons (as far as I know this was in 1927, in the years 1928 - 1932, those who were masons for their carrer left the lodges, when the NSDAP-fraction in the Parliament increased) However: Following Lennhoff-Posner-Binder, from this huge amount of 80.000 german Masons - 62 Masons were killed by Nazis and/or authorities e.g. Trade-Union-Leader Wilhelm Leuschner (or peace-activist and "irregular" mason Carl von Ossietzky) - 238 Masons expelled out of Germany (and survived ?) - 53 Masons arrested in concentration camps (I understand: But survived) - 377 Masons being dismissed from their job / professional carrer I think the relation of members / victims should be the same in the occopied contires. 80.000 - 200.000 seems to be completely wrong, but nevertheless is cited again and again in anglo-saxon medias. The question seems to be: What was the main reason for persecution / prosecution: Political persecution or membership in a masonic lodge, racistic persecution oder membership in a masonic lodge, persecution of partisans oder being a member of a masonic lodge. And at least a lot of masons lost their life because of war (soldier and civilians). So: How tight-knotted was the victim's masonic mind-set and his other occupations/engagements (politics, resistance...)

By the way: It should be considered, that before 1933 a lot of german masons were part of middle-class and upper-class establishment (army-officiers, higher administration, industry). From the today point of view, these men were often strictly nationalists, not seldom racistic and anti-Semitic. If they left their lodges and could show credibly that they changed the sides, they were part of the State / Nazi-Administration - and changed from victims to. As for exampel Hjalmar Schacht, the President of German Reichsbank. Could anybody bring this theme in a acceptable form? CHF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.51.120 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. "Holocaust" is anyway wrong. Holocaust is defined as a genocide = killing a people /. Masons are a lot - but not a people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.51.120 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Holocaust section of the article that mentions "between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were killed" appears to use The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and not Hodapp as a source for that figure. I agree, 80.000 - 200.000, is quite different than the figures you found. One thing I see in your comment is "the right numbers for Germany." It's possible the source you cite is accurate for within Germany itself and the remaining 80.000 - 200.000 was in countries outside Germany. The article itself says "it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were killed under the Nazi regime" but does not say where these occurred.
 * As the Holocaust is controversial it's been difficult to include material in a WP:NPOV form about it on Wikipedia. One thought is if Lennhoff - Posner - Binder are regarded in the Holocaust as reliable sources that we could add something like, "Some researchers dispute the 80,000 to 200,000 killed claim and instead report the number as closer to 100 to 300 Freemasons killed." --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 18:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marc because the difference between 62 and 200.000 victims is 322 580% :-), and in care for a standard, which ist appropiate for wikipedia I'd like to propose:

- proper citation of a proper source + footnote (proper title, author, where and when published, + page/keyword, where number can be looked up - per google i did find several similar titles, some with a very bad amazon-rating)

- what is the source of the source? Is it shure, that ist no circular reasoning. Is it shure, that "The Holocoaust Enzyclopedia" didn't copy just unreflected masonic legends...

- inproper and suggestive combination should be avoided. Under "Masonic victims of Nazi persecution" (holocaust is "definitely" the wrong term) should be expected that only victims of persecution are counted - not the huge number of masons, who died as regular soldiers or because a allied bomb was dropped on a german mason's house. Otherwise there should be also a wiki-article about Nazi-victims of the local soccer- or chess-club....

- It seems also to be inproper too subtract the number of lodge-members before 1933 and after 1945 in Germany.(i.e. Germany 1927 =80.000 - 15.000 = 65.000 "victims". This would be a naive fallacy. It would mix up withdrawel/leaving the lodge because of career, persecution, war-victims and natural death).

I think, that on long term, proper information is better than impressive figures. Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.51.120 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

On scanning some of the sourcing, it's clear that the Nazis did go after the Freemasons in a systematic way, but it's not clear that men were killed only for being Freemasons. Is it possible that the higher number includes Masons who were killed for being Jewish?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiesenthal's bio Nazi Hunter lists Masons as a separate group from Jews, but they are both considered to be in the "top four" persecuted groups. However, he gives no numbers there.  I don't personally see where the issue is; if Hodapp says X, then we are stating that "Hodapp said X" - there's always going to be numbers disagreement, but we're using a sourced statement. MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit-conflict meaning I'm repeating a bit of what MSJapan just posted. I agree, 62 to 200.000 (or 200,000 we'd normally do it) is a huge change. We can't resolve the discrepancy ourselves but need to see what the reliable sources say. I don't want to go down the path, on this talk page, of ways to do the math.


 * The article says the source for "between 80,000 and 200,000" is Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. That work appears to be a reliable source and so it's a matter of verifying what it says. I live across the street from a public library that has four copies but don't have time today to take a look at both the number and to see what sources they cite. Maybe it is "unreflected masonic legends" but somehow I doubt that.


 * Regarding "it's clear that the Nazis did go after the Freemasons in a systematic way." One of the article sources is this web page. When I was looking over that page I was thinking "this is not direct evidence of persecution of the Freemasons but rather it's evidence that the Freemasons existed." I'm sure there are reams of very similar documents within U.S. government archives, mainly in the Census department. It would be telling if there is a Nazi document that requires that Freemasons wear a specific badge when in a public area and/or a document that spells out that they be arrested and/or executed because they were freemasons. The Wikipedia article currently says "inmates were graded as political prisoners and wore an inverted red triangle" but unfortunately the source cited fails to directly back this. It's been a while since I read Freemasons for Dummies but I recall something about the inverted red triangles in there. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you Google "Eichmann Freemasonry" you find a fair number of hits about the Nazis considering Masons as enemies -- this, for example. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. However, that book only mentions masonry once, in a semi neutral context in that it says "Kops was a former anti-mason expert and Abwehr captain." The author assumes the reader would know what a former anti-mason expert is. I found this where on page 160 is "On August 8, 1935 the Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter announced the final dissolution of all Masonic lodges in Germany." It goes on from that with Masons being sent to concentration camps in 1937. Unfortunately, this book was published in 2005 by an author that does not seem to have academic research credentials. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 04:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the Freemasonry article in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. It's mostly about the anti-Mason sentiment that developed in mid 1800s and how it continued into WW II. It does not support 80,000 to 200,000 Masons killed at all. The data provides seems to show the number would be much lower. For example, during the Weimar period Jews constituted only 4 percent of the eighty thousand Masons registered in Germany. I've updated the article to tag with "citation-needed" the statement about 80,000 to 200,000 Masons killed. I need to reread the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust article a few times to see what can be added to this Wikipedia article. The article has one item in its biography, "Katz, J. Jews and Freemasons in Europe. Cambridge, Mass., 1970." See Google Books. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 05:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No question, that freemasonry was strictly and systematically persecuted by the Nazis. All lodges were closed by the nazis, all properties, belongings etc were confiscated. Even lodges which tried to change from a "freemason lodge" to a kind of "arian order" - they were at least eleminated on Aug. 8th 1935. See German Wikipedia "Geschichte der Freimaurerei" there are a lot of documents about it.

The Source "Lennhoff-Posner-Binder - Internationales Freimaurerlexikon, 2002" is in most cases reliable ("99%"). The number of 62 killed german Freemasons seems to be profed. Most of them were killed for there political activities and anti-nazi-resistance.

Holocaust is by definition the wrong term. There is no masonic people/nation. It is not a ethnic / racist theme. The right term would be "persection".

Proposal (but still unproved and still in bad english) "In Nazi-Germany and the occupied contries (sphere of influence)freemasonry was systematically persecuted and 80'000 - 200'000 members of freemanson-lodges had to leave their lodges. The Lodges were closed. Some hundred of them - espacially long term Nazi/Fascist-opponents and civil right activists, were arrested, tortured, deported to concentrationcamps, battered and killed."

Christian

Proposal in the s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faxefm (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust article provides two definitions. The first focuses on the genocide of European Jews and the second includes other political and religious opponents. Freemasons are included in the second definition. It appears the most detailed treatment of this on Wikipedia is at Suppression of Freemasonry. That section credits Hodapp's Freemasons for Dummies for the 80,000 and 200,000 figure. I don't have a copy but it'll be easy to track down and verify.


 * What you wrote sounds reasonable but without reliable sources it's not something we can use on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Lennhoff - Posner - Binder 'Internationales Freimaurerlexikon' Herbig-Verlag 2002" is a reliable source - but written in german and no digital version available. I am still looking for english Internet-sources. As i mentioned abouve, following Lennhoff-Posner-Binder there were: 62 killed, 238 expelled out of Germany, 53 in KZs, 377 Masons being dismissed from their job / professional carrer

Here are Internet-KLinks about 19thirties/19fourties: http://www.freemasonry.bcy.ca/aqc/german_freemasonry.html http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/bernheim12.html NEUBERGER, Helmut: Freimaurerei und Nationalsozialismus. Die Verfolgung...1918-1945. 2 Bde. Hamburg: Bauhütten-Verlag 1980/81, 337, 349 S.

Holocaust: I see, that the linguistic usage is different. On the german Wiki-Holocaust-Site it is mentioned, that "holocaust" in most cases means only ethnical persecution. Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faxefm (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral ?
This article looks unilateral and lacking neutrality. All criticisms of freemasonry are not what is suggested here. Like liberalism, freemasonry has never been homogeneous. The main lodges of western countries have supported colonialism whereas freemasons from South-America, for instance, were fighting it. Benito Juarez and Cecil Rhodes did not represent the same interests.

BrCarpenter (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It goes further than that... One has to separate Freemasonry (as an institution) from the actions of individual Freemasons. Not all "western" Freemasons were supportive of colonialism, and not all "latin" Freemasons opposed it.  That said, it is true that generally, Masons have historically reflected the cultural and political biases of their time and place.  The typical English Mason living in India at the time of the Raj probably was imperialist in his outlook... not because he was a Mason, but because he was an Englishman.  Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Series of edits today
Just a couple of comments on a series of cleanup edits made by AltheaJ today. First, kudos for [this diff].

For some reason I see an increasing trend toward knee-jerk capitalization of every possible noun in masonic writing by those who do not write or copyedit for a living. Apart from being the mark of an unsophisticated editor, unnecessary capitalization adds a tone of self-importance, makes for difficult reading and lowers the overall quality of the encyclopedia. AQC's editors have had a long-standing rule of discouraging the capitalization of any word which doesn't fully demand it. (Even the word "masonic," with an excellent rationale which I cannot at the moment locate.)

My point for en.wiki is that we should be watchful to never capitalize the word "lodge" unless it used as the name of a specific lodge, is the first word of a sentence, or is being used in the special and limited sense of the concept of "Lodge" as a living thing in its own right, and the last must be done with great care. And in the last case, of course, is found the only justification for capitalizing this word in plural form. By the same token the term "grand lodges" should never be capitalized, nor "brothers," i.e., "brethren," neether of which should be used as a synonym for "members." You get the idea.

For my second comment, I disagree with [this diff]. I think "hostile" was an accurate description, as these persons and groups are not simply "opposed" to Freemasonry but are in actual fact hostile, often irrationally so. Let's talk about this, because I am inclined to change it back. kcylsnavS 13:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with returning "hostile". It is a more accurate description. Blueboar (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

History
The origins of Freemasonry can be traced back to Nimrod and the Biblical tower of Babel and the builders that scattered over the known world after the confounding of the language, and not with the building of Solomon's Temple as the article alleges. Masons/masonry also built the pyramids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.9.111.53 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about bringing in reliable sources instead of repeating early modern legends. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we settle this confusion once and for all?
 * Masons (also called stonemasons) are people who build and chisel things out of stone. Freemasons (also, confusingly, called masons - or rather, Masons) are members of a fraternal society which uses the forms and implements of stonemasonry in a symbolic context.
 * So, yes, the pyramids were built by masons. But not by Freemasons. OK? Nuttyskin (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we understand that, but this category is not about stone masonry and the reference to masons "also" building the pyramids is reasonably understood to mean the Freemasons which was the topic of the poster's comment. kcylsnavS 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Spike in vandalism targeting lodges
In the early 21st century, a spike in vandalism of lodges was occurring. (see:, "Masonic lodge graffiti treated as hate crime", "Three teens accused of painting graffiti on Masonic temple", and "Parma-Sandstone police investigating vandalism in Parma") Notable incidents in 2010 included the torching of a lodge in Dunkirk, New York, which consumed part of the business district,"100+ firefighters battle Dunkirk blaze",  and the location of a former B'nai B'rith lodge in Cleveland."Masonic Temple fire on East 55th Street in Cleveland ruled arson".


 * First, I have reformatted the comment... we don't usually do reference lists on the talk page.
 * Second, I am not sure if this is really worth mentioning. My first reaction is that it would be better located in our article on Anti-masonry... However, I don't really see a direct tie to Anti-masonry.  Yes, a bunch of lodges have been vandalized, but is that vandalism the result of growing anti-masonic feeling, or simply a reflection of a spike in vandalism against prominent buildings in general?  Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have contributed to other talk pages with references in the previous format. If you feel obliged, could be a primary task.


 * Petey Parrot (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (See: "Vandals cause £100k of damage to Masonic temple for £50 worth of tiles")


 * Petey Parrot (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Death Penalty
Re [this diff,] I had thought it would have been relatively easy to bring the link over, only to find that the link links to an offline source. I wasn't inclined to hike over to the lieberry but if the original editor should like to do so then I would additionally suggest locating and uploading an allowable image to wikisource.com.
 * Having read the section of the main article the diff linked to, the only reference I see to a death penalty was under the Hussein regime in Irak (which ended, rather abruptly, in 2003) and aimed at those who "promote or acclaim Zionist principles, including freemasonry, or who associate [themselves] with Zionist organisations." Ignoring for a second the fact that Freemasonry is not a Zionist organisation, since when is Irak under Saddam Hussein the same as Islam?
 * Irakies under the Hussein regime could be sentenced to death for being masons (and many, many other things). This is not he same as saying that Muslims may be subject to the capital punishment for being masons (I'm sure the Hussein regime would hand such a verdict down to anyone, Muslim or not).
 * A more correct summary would be "Irakies under the Hussein regime (1979 - 2003) risked the death penalty if accused of belonging to a masonic lodge." Off course, while correct, it don't sound nearly as sensational...
 * This one is going to require a really good citation, from a reputable source. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree... there are several countries in the Muslim world where Masonry is banned and belonging to a lodge is illegal... and I supposed it could be possible that it carries the death penalty in one or two of the more repressive regimes ... but we would need a very solid source before we can say it in an article.  Also, we should be specific, because there are other Muslim world nations that have no real problem with Masonry.  Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is available on line here. Page two has "... prescribed the death penalty for those who betray the ruling Ba’ath Party or who “promote or acclaim Zionist principles, including freemasonry, or who associate [themselves] with Zionist organizations."


 * Thus it appears you could have been executed for freemasonry in Iraq from 1980 to 2004. It's not quite as sweeping as the comment "Although Freemasonry may be accepting of various religious faiths, Muslims may be subject to the death penalty for associating with Freemasonry." someone tried to insert into the article. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you could have been executed for just about anything. The citation works, but I've got some issues with the section in general now.  The "Islam and Freemasonry" title is too sweeping, and the info also makes clear that not all countries that have Muslims are opposed to Freemasonry, so it being under an "opposition" heading is not entirely correct.


 * Clearly, different countries had and have different levels of prohibition whether they are Muslim countries or not, and it seems to be down more to the country rather than the religion, at least as presented here. For example, Turkey is majority Muslim, but according to its WP article has a secular government, and Malaysia and Lebanon are similarly majority Muslim, but there are a lot of Lebanese Christians, too.  I think we may be misidentifying countries based on claims in sources and simply bringing forward inaccurate biases.


 * For that reason, I think we have to revisit the organizational structure of the religion section. Sources indicate clearly that there are supporters and detractors of Freemasonry in every faith, and perhaps we need to rearrange things in that context.  Otherwise we are wandering into a gray area where we cannot differentiate between a country and its majority religion, and I don't think that is a good idea.  For example, people might claim the US is majority Christian, but most people would not say that that makes it a "Christian country", since other faiths are not excluded.  Similarly, there are Christians and Muslims in Israel, Jews and Muslims in China, etc., and I think we need to be careful with the line between "church and state", as it were.


 * I've got a rough idea already of how to do it, so if people agree with it, I'll do it. MSJapan (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to say that it has more to do with politics than religion, yes.. go ahead and be bold! If concensus is against the result we can always revert to how it looks today :) WegianWarrior (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason that I made the edit is that the article states two opposing ideas: (1) that Freemasonry is open to Muslims, and then several sections later, that some Muslims may be subject to the death penalty for associating with Freemasonry.  The article simply looks clueless for having such a clumsy inconsistency.  Of course, there should be cites.  But lacking relevant cites is not reason for maintaining such a glaring discontinuity of content.  How can you have a a Freemasonry welcoming Muslims, and on the other hand executing Muslims for the same thing further down the page?  When I linked the two sections, i.e. pointing this out, User:MSJapan deleted the link. I made the link so that readers would explicitly see the inconsistency. Is anybody reading this article, or are we just mindlessly deleting anything that doesn't fit with our delicate sensibilities? If the article is to be mindless rubbish, then it should be nominated for deletion. If not, then the problems need to be addressed and fixed. Santamoly (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the real world. Things don’t always make sense. Does Freemasonry welcome Muslims? Yes. Do certain Islamic nations ban Muslims from being members of the fraternity with a penalty up to and including death? Yes. There’s no inconsistency, it’s just the facts of the case. PeRshGo (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue needs to be resolved. Everyone is making good points, all of which can be resolved. Let's just stop confusing what followers of Islam may do and what citizens of this or that country may do. For example, I would not be at all surprised to learn that although I am not of the Islamic faith, I could nevertheless be put to death for being a Freemason in this or that country which has adopted (for want of a better phrase) Islaminc Law. We would all be better off to stop arguing, find good, reliable references, watch our wording carefully, and update the article. kcylsnavS 12:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is, individual religious leaders and individual nations have different interpretations of Islamic Law. One Muslim cleric may say Freemasons should be put to death, another will disagree.  Islam is no more united on the issue than Christianity is.  If we are to mention it at all, we need to be specific as to exactly who is saying what.  We can not make blanket statements about "Isalm" or "The Muslim World". Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. But we could start by referring to the law of whatever state we happen to be talking about, whether it be Ohio or Germany or Pakistan or whatever. While a cleric can certainly cause someone to be murdered, that doesn't mean his statements or his views are the law of the country in which he is standing. We should focus on what the adopted law of the country in question is. Our statements have to be on a nation-by-nation basis or they are meaningless. What a particular preacher thinks is not relevant unless it is the topic of the article. kcylsnavS 13:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't Sharia, as Iraq at the time was a secular government, but that Freemasonry was conflated with a number of other activities that could lead to execution.
 * IMO we rather overplay a very incidental point that's not representative of either Sharia or secular but majority Muslim countries.
 * ALR (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even in so called secular countries with no official mention of Sharia there are laws that apply to Muslims, and Muslims alone. Apostasy for example can earn a Muslim the death penalty in several secular but predominantly Islamic nations. And while I would never be able to find a source for this I can tell you as a certainty that US soldiers are told to hide Masonic affiliation in Muslim nations and that US soldiers with Masonic tattoos are told to expect that they will be given no quarter if captured and be put to death. PeRshGo (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the topic is "Freemasonry" rather than Sharia we should probably try to stick with that for the discussion. We have one instance where Freemasonry is included in a list of activities which could result in execution.  It's clear from the wording of the citation that the rationale isn't specifically related to Freemasonry, it's wrapped up with other things.
 * And to be perfectly honest, the PERSEC threat to captured service personnel in both Afghanistan and Iraq is such that masonic tatoos aren't going to make a significant difference to whether one is executed or not. Given the views of the indigenous population just being American is enough...  It's not something I've heard mention of any time I've been to either of those countries, although I didn't manage to make it to meetings in either.
 * ALR (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, it doesn't seem stop anyone either. Including the CO giving the advice. ;) PeRshGo (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominate Article for Deletion
Tim Callow says Freemasonry isn't relevant. Could we please defer to his judgement and nominate this article for deletion?--99.162.49.216 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, any article can be nominated for deletion by any editor (so you are free to do so if you wish)... but I think you will find the nomination will result in a very speedy "keep" decision. Wikipedia includes articles based on the topic's notability, not its relevance.  Freemasonry is most definitely notable, so we should have an article on it.  As to relevance... while Mr. Callow may be of the opinion that Freemasonry isn't relevant, others would (and do) disagree and say it quite relevant. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, this was instigated by a blocked user. MSJapan (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)