Talk:Masonic Knights Templar

SMOTJ
Sorry guys, The Grand Orient of France or the Grand Lodge of France has no written record of SMOTJ or masonic brethren spiltting off to form SMOTJ. I removed the anecdote of SMOTJ having Masonic roots. (unsigned by User:209.158.240.163)

Only the facts?
Hi everyone, I am hoping to keep this page for information only. Conspiracy theorists, and "Da Vinci Coders" please consider making your own page if you must put something on Wiki about the organization.

I am replacing the Shrine, Scottish Rite, and Tall Cedar links and schedualing them as "related organizations". Appelant Organizations was probably not the best wording. Again I ask please refrain for editorial unless you have first hand knowledge of the Masonic Knights Templar Commandery (i.e. you are a Mason). Thank you. (unsigned by User:166.66.16.116)


 * They are not that, either. While I appreciate all of these groups, The Shrine & Scottish Rite just don't really belong here, in this way. If you'd like to include them, perhaps try to give background in the article. Grye 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I leave them as links to other pages because there are already pages on the Scottish Rite and Shrine. The definition for this entry is for Masonic Knights Templar. I link Scottish Rite and Shrine because like the York Rite one must already be a Master Mason in order to belong to those organizations. (That is how they are related)


 * That relation is not at all adequate. Think of the list you'd have to make to include everything in that catagory.
 * The reasons for the following edits:
 * 1) Scottish Rite:
 * 2) Placing the SR links into "Related Masonic Organizations" is redundant, as there are wikilinks in the "See Also" section of this article.
 * 3) Making them external links is again redundant, because those external links are in the abovementioned Wikipedia articles.
 * 4) Shriners Hospitals: There's a link to the Shriners Hospitals from several other articles, but especially from the above-linked Scottish Rite.
 * 5) Masonic Grand Lodges goes entirely, as it has its own page: List of Masonic Grand Lodges, hence the new link to them under "see also". Or would you prefer to replicate that entire page over here?
 * 6) Grand Priory of Scotland I'm pretty sure they are the Scottish equal to the York Rite? In which case, yes, perfect. but I don't know enough about them, so I'm not touching them.

Also note that at the bottom of the page is a list of catagories this article's in, which also brings one to a list of articles related to this one. Note that Masonic Orgs is a subcatagory of the Freemasonry Catagory, thus it wouldn't go in both...

Grye 08:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you a Mason? (Unsigned by User:166.66.16.116)

Are you ever going to sign your comments? I'm pretty much not talking to you, not explaining anything to you, at all, until you sign all your past comments on the same  page  as any of mine, and  all  your further comments. Grye

Its simple, are you or are you not a brother?

The statement in this article that the Masonic Knights Templar is the only Masonic organization that requires its members be Christians is not true. The Royal Order of Scotland also has that requirement.66.156.107.108

True, sorry about that. I forgot about R.O.O.S. Thanks for the heads up :)

Edit protection
For the record, Wikipedia articles should NOT be used to promote personal opinions or organizations that that the editor belongs to. So I've edited the article to protect it from anonymous editors with an agenda, remove POV as much as possible but also to increase its quality but providing useful internal links for example. --Loremaster 20:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that so long as all organizations are included. Wiki should not be a forum for recruitment, and based on fact even if those facts may be contrary to a persons personal prejudices or beliefs. No spin BlueTemplar13

Redundancy and adverstising
I removed the mention of the Great Priory of Scotland being masonic since it obviously has to be masonic in order to be mentioned in that section. I've also removed the link to the working tools website because Wikipedia should NOT be used to promote an organization or sell a product. --Loremaster 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And I will continue removing them in the future if they are put back by anonymous users who refuse to engage in discussion. --Loremaster 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits
I edited the time that Commanderies is the U.S. and elswhere were officaly organized. (18th centruy not the 19th) I have also edited the portion about Masonic Knight Templar being an exclusively American phenomenon. I am sure Masonic Templar Priories in Canada, France, England and most western European countries not to mention Japan would feel slighted at not being recognized :) ( Anonymous comment by User:166.66.16.116 )


 * I have also removed links to non-masonic websites this page is about Masonic Knights Templar not and advertising forum for SMOTJ or the Solar Temple. ( Anonymous comment by User:166.66.16.116 )


 * Makes sense, though we should probably figure out some other location to put a mention of those orders, to keep everyone happy. Also, in order to keep discussions on this page organized, could you please try to "sign" your comments by appending ~ to the end  of them?  That'll put a name/date stamp on them to clarify who's saying what.  Thanks!  Elonka 17:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can certainly appriciate your desire to keep the peace Elonka, but I have tried to put links about Masonic Knights Templar on the Knights Templar wikipage proper, and find its being edited out or erased altogether. I would be more than happy to leave such links of non-masonic organizations to the Masonic Templar page unmolested if I was given ample assurance that I would be afforded the same courtesy in other wiki pages. User:166.66.16.116


 * Funny, we were more thinking you keep trying to put links  all over wikipedia, & otherwise edit all over town , & your edits keep getting reverted. Does that tell you anything? Grye 07:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah it does tell me something, and I was not posting all over wikipedia no more than others. Instead I was posting in Templar pages and got so tired of dealing with it I created a York rite wikipage called Masonic Knights Templar User:166.66.16.116


 * Have you read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. Also, you find very useful to create Wikipedia user account rather than remaining anonymous... --Loremaster 14:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, he did make a user acct: User:BlueTemplar13. But he found himself as thwarted by reverted edits under that acct as he did editing under User:166.66.16.116 & User:166.66.16.103, & thinks he's anon when not logged in, & thus immune, & so doesn't log in... oh, & User:166.66.16.116, no, you were actually posting a lot less' then most other editors, & yet your edits have been reverted more than any other editor (I personally anyway) have ever seen.  ;~) '' Grye 09:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Templar Connections
Just out of curiosity, how many modern (meaning since the 1700s) organizations claim Templar ancestry or traditions? Is it primarily those three, or are there more? Elonka 17:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several organizations claiming "Templar" connections or ancestry and/or using some varient of "Knights Templar." These include the Masonic Knights Templar; several different factions of the "Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem," including the group headed up by a retired U.S. Rear Admiral, another group headed up by a purported Portuguese "Count," and at least one other split-off faction using the "SMOTJ" name.  Then there is the group within Scotland that calls itself "Militi Templi Scotia," and which is nowadays allied with the Admiral SMOTJ group; and the "Black Templar" group.  The group that the spurious "Prince Michael of Albany" belongs to may constitute yet another faction of one of these, or may be independent, depending on which day it is and who you ask.


 * These groups, in common with other "self-styled" "Orders," are riven by factions, making their associations and memberships ever-changing. None of today's groups have any provable connection to the medieval Order. 66.156.107.108


 * What are your sources for this information? --Loremaster 21:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See Guy Stair Sainty's "Chivalric Orders" site on the Internet for a discussion of a number of spurious "orders," including the current "Templar" groups. His site discusses their history as well as permutations in the past few years and their continual factionalism.


 * The Admiral SMOTJ group has its own website, as does the "Count Fontes" group, the "Militi Templi Scotia" group, and the "Black Templars" group. The Masonic Templars in the U.S. also have their own site, as does "Prince Michael of Albany."  "Prince Michael" also has a Wiki article.


 * These groups own websites are often full of discussions of the various splits, which discussions of course must be ruthlessly filtered for truth.


 * Guy Stair Sainty's "Orders of St. John" book is also useful, though now somewhat dated, especially Appendix IV "Self-Styled Orders of Saint John."


 * Sainty, Guy Stair. "The Orders of St. John." New York: The American Society of the Most Venerable Order of Saint John In Jerusalem, 1991.


 * A very useful publication for the history of the Masonic Templars, as well as a reference for the Masonic origins of the groups now called SMOTJ, is:


 * Draffen, George S. "Pour la Foy: A History of the Grand Priory of Scotland." first pub. Dundee: George winter and Son: 1948; repub. by Edinburgh: The Grand Lodge of Scotland, 2000.


 * And, finally, see Partner's "The Knights Templar and Their Myth," especially Chapters 6 and 7, "The Secret Societies" and "The Romantic Dream." Partner discusses the origins of both the Masonic groups and their derivatives extensively. 66.156.107.108


 * Interesting information, thanks! It looks like we should probably make another article like, "List of Orders that claim Knight Templar connections", and then we can just put a straight text list of all of 'em, plus of course link off from there to Masonic Knights Templar and any others that are large/organized enough to deserve their own page. Would that make sense?  Or would you suggest something else?  (P.S., please remember to sign comments with ~ for a date-stamp).  Elonka 03:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Another article might be a good idea but we need a better title. In it, we should mention whether or not these "orders" are active or defunct. As for creating new articles for these groups, I think we should be very conservative. In other words, we have to confirm whether or not the group merits an article otherwise we might be simply giving an obscure gang free advertising through Wikipedia. --Loremaster 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with Loremaster that we should be careful not to give free advertising to a "gang" that's organized mainly to get people's money and/or is constituted by only a dozen or so members. Also, I would like to caution you all by explaining that I have remained anonymous here because of being threatened and stalked (yes, for real) as a result of similar commentary elsewhere.66.156.107.108 14:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

PS You may find it interesting to read the "Discussion" page of the "Order of Saint Lazarus" Wikipedia article. The discussion page there includes recent comments written by Guy Stair Sainty himself, and many of the issues surrounding the lazarus groups are also true of the "Templar" groups.66.156.107.108 19:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

New category?
I'm seeing a few politicians around Wikipedia (Bob Dole, Strom Thurmond) that are being placed into Category:Knights Templar when I think that what is meant is that they were members of the Masonic Knights Templar. It might be worth making a subcategory of Category:Knights Templar, such as Category:Masonic Knights Templar to help clarify the difference. Opinions? Is there a master list of Masonic Knight Templar members, that could be used to verify membership? Elonka 04:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the Masonic Membership in certain bodies is available and usually found in the Grand Commanderies. Bob Dole, and Strom Thurmond were also Scottish Rite Masons and their portraits are available on the Scottish Rite Southern Juristiction website.


 * A webpage called Famous Masons also gives a general Masonic History of the famous members of the fraternity and mentions what other organizations they may have been involved in Shrine, Tall Cedars, Templars etc. It also goes into other members like Marquis de Lafayette, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, Churchill, Robert Burns etc. BlueTemplar13


 * Thanks, can you supply links? Format here is to put it in brackets, like  .  Elonka 05:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a wikipage called List of Freemasons, The according page for citing them being Talk:List of Freemasons/citation, & there's also the catagories "Freemasons" & "Shriners". It is encouraged (& somewhat enforced, when possible) that those on the list are cited. My idea was that for those people on wikipedia that have these catagories whould need to be cited on Talk:List of Freemasons/citation. I've mentioned that the same should hold true for the inclusion of the Cat:Shriners. So for what it's worth, I 1) agree, for this article's sake, that there is & should be noted a difference between a Knight Templar & the Freemason, & that that would be helped by the corresponding Cat:... & 2) That there needs to be a listing with their cited affiliation [of Masonic Templars] on Talk:List of Freemasons/citation...Grye


 * I agree with Grye. --Loremaster 09:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much agree that a distinction should be made about which "Templar" group someone belongs to. The Masonic Templars do some very distinguished charity work; the SMOTJ variety, not presently connected to Masonry at all, also does good works, though they are not entirely honest about their origins in some cases; others of these groups are complete frauds.  66.156.107.108 14:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, here are some links Elonka Famous Freemasons and here is the Scottish Rite Page Scottish Rite Freemasonry S.J. Washington D.C.


 * User:166.66.16.116 signing as alias BlueTemplar13 04:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC) (dispite apparant 1-week block enacted on the 7th/Feb)


 * Hey I am still able to edit, it must mean I am o.k. or the owners wouldn't have lifted the edit block. BlueTemplar13 (Posted by User:166.66.16.116)

Thanks BlueTemplar13. Although, one of the links just goes to "List of famous Freemasons", and the other is about the Scottish Rite, but without providing a list of actual recipients of the Degree. Let me try asking another way: If someone's biography on this Wikipedia (say Strom Thurmond) claims that they were Freemasons who had received the Templar degree, is there any way that that can be proven, that they did receive it? I think I'm also seeing a lot of places where there's confusion between the terms mason and Templar recipients. In other words, if someone is a Mason, people automatically assume that they must also be a Templar. But that's not true, correct? All modern Templars are Masons, but not all modern Masons are Templars? Elonka 18:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to answer for BlueTemplar13, but there is definitely a lot of confusion out there over these terms. Every Freemason is not a Templar. Every Templar is not a Freemason. There are several organizations using the terms "Templar," "Templars," "Knights Templar," and related terms; some are connected to the Freemasons and some are not.

Some of the anti-Masons out there deliberately mix the terms up. Their rhetoric goes something like this: the Templars were Satan worshipers; they founded the Masons; therefore Masons are Satan worshipers.

There is actually no provable connection between the Freemasons and the original Order of the Poor Knights of Christ. The supposed connection between the two isn't mentioned at all before the Ramsay Oration of ca. 1740. Repeating myself here, but it's important to remember: None of the organizations alive today have any provable connection to the original Medieval Order.

To add to all the confusion, many members of the current organizations fervently believe in the "Templar origins" theory, and add to the confusion by creating an ever growing literature that tries to "prove" a connection.66.156.107.108 18:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Templar disambiguation (major page renaming proposal)
In order to try and untangle the differences between the Medieval association and the Masonic degree, I propose that we rename both pages, and set up a central disambiguation page. Anyone with an opinion on the matter is invited to comment at Talk:Knights Templar. Thanks. Elonka 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)