Talk:Christianity and Freemasonry/Archive 1

Beginning

A good beginning to a worthwhile article... and this from a proud Freemason. I do have a request: The second line states: Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical. Examples of each should be given. I would also appreciate a citation for the claim that Freemasonry advocates civil marriage. That one is new to me.Blueboar 23:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations provided for civil marriage and the anti-clerical stuff.JASpencer 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... but I have a problem with the one on civil marriage. The citation is an article on the history of Freemasonry in Mexico. I have read it carefully. The only place where it even mentions civil marriage is in the following lines: "Meanwhile the two major political parties, Liberal and Conservative had developed. There were Masons in both, but predominantly among the Liberals. The great Mexican leader of the Nineteenth Century was, of course, Benito Juárez. When a new constitution was approved in 1857 that curtailed the power of the Roman Catholic Church, a Conservative rebellion started yet another civil war, known as the Reform War. When it ended with a Liberal victory in 1861, the Reform Laws were implemented, which included separation of Church and State, freedom of worship, civil marriage, and secularization of Church properties." This does not say that Freemasonry implimented or supported civil marriage (even in Mexico), it says that the Liberal Party did. True, it says that many Freemasons were members of the Liberal Party, but it also makes it clear that there were Freemasons in the opposing Conservative Party as well. To say that this means that Freemasons support civil marriage would be like saying that all Catholics support abortion because some Catholics voted for the Democrats in the last US election. It would simply be incorrect. Blueboar 00:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Take that up with the Pope. The civil marriage thing is a part of a list which starts with the line The church also saw this separation of the state from the church as manifesting a "Religious Indifferentism" which did not accept any religion as true or revealed. Some specific areas which freemasons were accused of aiming for a separation of church and state were:. Re-edit this first. This is a list of allegations by Christian critics of the Freemasonic lodges' political agendas. JASpencer 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mockery of Christian Ceremonial

I hear lots of stuff about Freemasonry mocking Christian rituals. I don't know much about this area, but I saw this deleted entry in the anti-Freemasonry page. Can someone expand on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Freemasonry&diff=38614512&oldid=38595128

I don't see anything to expand on. This is the first time in 10 years of being associated with Masonry that I've seen this particular set of arguments, and I don't give any weight to them. Are there particular questions you have? --SarekOfVulcan 17:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not this particular set of arguments (or more precisely examples), but the mockery of Christian ceremonial is a theme in anti-Masonic arguments. masonicinfo has a piece on this for example. (Please do not cut and paste from this rather poor source). JASpencer 17:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you put Freemasonry mocks Christianity into Google you get 141,000 hits. Not all of them make that allegation, but it's still a common argument. Compare it to 19,000 hits with Freemasons practice Satanism or 45,200 hits with Freemasons worship Satan, many of these duplicate. JASpencer 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking through that first Google search, I don't think many of them actually make that argument at all. Only a few of the hits show all three terms on the display sample -- one of the later hits is an obit page where the lady's name is "Mock". On the first page, we see the quote "he mocks any non-Christian religion". --SarekOfVulcan 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The first link gets into the Second Exodus site on the very page (indeed the very section of the page) which Blueboar cited to say that the S**nism argument was common among Catholic critics of Freemasonry. The second link is to a piece which masonicinfo felt compelled to write that there is no mockery and the third comment comes from ephesians5-11 claiming that the Hiram myth is a mockery of the resurrection. I know that many of the links on both searches will not be relevant, but a Googlefight is a quick and dirty reckoning of popular usage. JASpencer 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note, also, that this set of examples bounces all over the first three degrees and the whole Bible trying to find items it can tie together. The "apron/fig leaf" example could be construed as a condemnation of Julia Child, if you wanted to draw it that way. I don't think this line of thought is widespread enough to be encyclopedic. --SarekOfVulcan 18:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do the free masons believe that Jesus was not son of God but a mighty Prophet and believe in One Almighty God? If this is true any Muslim saying they are bigger sinner than Christians is wrong. I would like some one comment on this specially a free mason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baabi 99 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Baabi, your question has a fundamental flaw... it is like asking if New Yorkers believe that Jesus was not the son of God etc. Some do, some don't... it depends on each individual Freemason's own religious beliefs. Freemasonry it isn't a religion, it is a fraternal organization... it does not tell people what to believe. Christian Freemasons believe that Jesus is the Son of God. A Muslim Freemason will believe that he was a Prophet. Jewish Freemasons will say he was a wise rabbi. Each will respect the right of the others to have their belief. Blueboar (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know about what you say I saw a movie "Da Vinci Code" in this movie it has been very delibratery proved that free masons don't believe that Jesus was not son of God but a mighty massenger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baabi 99 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... no... that is not in the movie (I saw it too... very entertaining)... and even if it were, "The Da Vinci Code" is a movie... work of fiction. In the real world things are as I said above. If you are going to get your information from the movies, I don't see any further point in discussing things. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I have seen many other movies on second world war and yet I believe that Nazis were not that easy to defeat as couple of Holly wood actors show it in movies, England and the US had to drain all their resources to defeat the Germans, besides the facts given in this movie are so convincing that it drove me into believing it and more interesting is that even the famous History Channel had two hours time to address the issue, merely a movie, desperately trying to prove it wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baabi 99 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code is quite historically inaccurate; at best, its claims are highly speculative. I would never cite it nor the movie as even a semi-credible source. The only reason places like the History Channel devote so much time to pointing out its mistakes is because the book was so popular. Lord Seth (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mackey quote

The citation for this quote points to James Holly's opinion on the Mackey piece not a quote from the article. [SEE MY COMMENT!John 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)] claims this as a quote, but nowhere else on the web claims this - apart from us. Google shows only 14 pages.

The whole quote should be deleted in my opinion. JASpencer 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've got a bit of a dilemma, I think. Definitely not a lot of hits, but the FMW arguments are clearly recycled in many places, so I think they are relevant, although if there's a misattribution, it should be fixed. The other problem is that if only some of the arguments are refuted, the rest are true to the reader by default. MSJapan 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's only quoted in one place (and here), and in the original Holly letter it doesn't purport to be a quote at all but an opinion of the author. Even in Freemasonry watch it's not entirely clear whether the quote purports to be from Mackey.

On the idea of putting in loads of quotes and refuting them, surely the best place for that would be to get some wiki site over which you had more control and were not constrained by NPOV. The sheer amount of quotations that you would like to refute would unbalance any article to which these quotations would be attached.

I'll have a think for suggestions. JASpencer 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is, the only other option is to take the claims based on quotes as fact, which is encyclopedically irresponsible and extremely POV. The quote-refutation setup presents both sides, which is exactly what NPOV aims for. It's not the fault of NPOV that said quotes are fabricated even on superficial terms.MSJapan 18:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the citation is wrong. Holly does not claim this as a quote from Mackey. This is an opinion of Holly's. Secondly the only two places that come up on Google as claiming it for Mackey are freemasonrywatch and Wikipedia. This gives credence to a claim that is very rarely made. Thirdly, if you want a refutation service for freemasonrywatch perhaps Wikinfo is a more suitable place. JASpencer 19:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the Mackey quote as it is not made anywhere outside Freemasonrywatch. In my oinion this is not a quote worth covering. JASpencer 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference problem....

I see 46 notes and only seven sources, which means I don't know what note goes to what source. Can this be fixed somehow? MSJapan 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

DoneJASpencer 22:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Jahbulon

That article is nothing more than an etymology on steroids. I'm not convinced it should be an encyclopaedic article at all but it does feature in some of the fundy Christian criticism of the craft so should be in here rather than a standalone article without association or context.ALR 08:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is trivial to find non Christian groups that mention Jahbulon, infact tydeman's address he clearly mentions the Methodist Church "The Methodist committee evidently have such a copy, for their report says: "It has been suggested to us that this word is a description of God, but the ritual refers to the word as the name of God".". This merge has no basis at all. Seraphim 10:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still an etymology dispute. And given that the criticism is from a Christian congregation then it should appropriately be discussed in the context of Christian criticisms of Freemasonry. If, as you have asserted, the notability is based on the etymology dispute then it should be placed in context.ALR 10:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not an etymology dispute, I cannot understand why you insist on continuing to toss around that word. What is notable about the word is not it's etymology, it's that the word being revealed resulted in many religious groups (not only christianity) believing that freemasonry is a religion, and therefore incompatable with their religions. Seraphim 11:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As it's worded at the moment the article is nothing more than tymology on steroids. The padding only serves to obfuscate the lack of substance. The only religios groups which have been cited as arguing that perspective are Christian. Therefore as it stands the article really shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all, IMO.ALR 11:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I just added an islamic source [allaahuakbar.net/free-masons/dajjal.htm]. Time to take the tags off? Seraphim 12:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone still think even with the Islamic links that this merger is still appropriate?

Please post your reasoning here, no use leaving up lame duck tags. Seraphim 01:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we AfD Jahbulon and not even worry about it. However, it's not terribly pertinent here, as this is "Christianity and Freemasonry", not "Christianity and Royal Arch". The incompatibility issue is not going to be benefitted at all through inclusion of a tangential, not very well supported argument re: Jahbulon. MSJapan 04:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been two days and the only reply was against the merger, i'm removing the tags. Seraphim 07:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I do disagree, so am re-adding the tags. I don't see the two websites as representative of Islam. If you can find something from a recognised authority on Islam then fair enough but neither of those sites is in a position to speak for Islam.ALR 14:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I've kept out of this debate, however I'm a bit worried that the Jahbulon article is very long (22 citations) and will seriously unbalance the article. We are unbalanced enough with the last "S**an" section any way.JASpencer 16:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it's only long because of a refusal to remove elements that are blatant obfuscation of its weakness. As it is at the moment it doesn't stand on its own and the majority of the padding is contested.ALR 16:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can't sort this out on that page, do you think that you'll be able to get it into here? I'd want to see more concensus on that page before I'd think of supporting a move here. JASpencer 20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think ALR that you are violating WP:POINT here. I can't understand how you can even imagine that this will take place. Seraphim 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, in fact I would suggest that before you start hrowing that statement about you review your own behaviour and substantive contributions. The point is that Jahbulon is not a valid article, there are a limited number of ways to deal with that but your refusal to defer from your own POV and wilful lack of understanding of the issue are creating obstacles to progress. You are neither allowing improvement to the article, or dealing with it's inherent weaknesses using accepted Wikipedia methods. ALR 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects I'm going to take the merge tag off the article on the weekend.JASpencer 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to you waiting until this weekend. :) MSJapan 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Content to do so, hopefully the mediatioin will turn the article into something vaguely more encyclopaedic than it is now, that will allow a more informed direction for its' future than is achievable atm. Note though that the Jahbulon page is locked at the moment so reciprocity can't be achieved.ALR 00:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

the Christ concept

Certain elements within Freemasonry, especially in parts of Europe, are said to be connected to Esoteric Christianity, which holds that orthodox Christian doctrine is for the duller masses and that "real" Christianity holds to a secret denial of Christ as the Son of God.

If you study ancient or earlier esoteric sources ^[1] (not what 'third parties' interpret latter, neither current-day modern conspiracy blogs and books) - and yes: they are available at some extent, and much is currently already published without the publicity of best-seller empty novels - you will find that none of them denies Christ's divinity. The explanation above, as it is stated in the article, is misleading and someone wrote it, through his own ignorance, in order to comply its fringe (should I say sick or lunatic) conspiracy theories. It is a fact that esotericism states that Christ is a different entity from the conception of God (as it is cited in Masonry (Freemasonry), from the Catholic Encyclopedia); however, its teachings are able to fully explain the real Divinity of the Christ and His union ("the Son") with God. These are concepts that our mind is able to understand, but it seems to be something our mind does not desire to really know, as it is knowledge that can show - individualy to each one of us - the fallacy that we have created by our own mind's immersion into the full materiality of our daily lives. So, I'm reverting your edition and please donnot change it without good sources on Christian concepts (pls. donnot add conspiracy freaking sites). --GalaazV 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ The Christ concept in Esoteric Christianity

Can you please put your main objection to the intepretation above in one or two sentences? It may help both brevity and credibility if you don't use terms such as "conspiracy blogs", "freaking", "sick", "lunatic". Oh and don't put references into headings. JASpencer 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Please let's talk here before this becomes a revert war. You've removed a citation and made a confusing alteration. Let's work it out here first and then we can come to some sort of understanding. JASpencer 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I have to say is that those terms that I used and that you pointed above - although I don't like to use them either - are my POV in this subject. This is an article of a very sensitive issue and, instead of trying to clarify the facts, all it seems to state and support are points of view from a fringe of conspiracy sites and gives no value or depth study to the conceptions found in both, the Catholicism and the Freemasonry, related to the Christian religion. On the other hand, this specific comment on Esoteric Christianity is not supported by its citation and is nonesense when compared to the known 'doctrinal' aspects of this form of Christianity. It is not my intention an edit war and I am already upset with myself for even having done those very small editions into this article. So, do as it most pleases you: it is not my illusion. Thanks and Regards, --GalaazV 23:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not entering into and edit war. I know this is a sensitive area. The stuff abo S**an worship there is a lot of stuff that comes from other sites. However, this is an area which many Freemasons are very sensitive and they feel a need to rebut the allegations. I’m not entirely happy with this, but if you want to try to have a go, be my guest.

On the esoteric side of things, I think a citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia is perfectly adequate to say what orthodox Christianity thinks about esoteric Christianity. JASpencer 14:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's make myself clearer (sorry about that). Can I summarise your objections.

• That the Allegations that Freemasons worship Satan are quoting from some pretty odd sites.
• The definition of esoteric Christianity is an unfair charecterisation of esoteric Christianity.

Would I be right? JASpencer 09:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi dear JASpencer! I am leaving Wikipedia editions now (was going to do it already a long time ago). It is me who have to apologize for my less cordial words, at the beginning of this conversation, toward perspectives presented in the article and I truly appreciate your concern. However, I cannot be at this moment of any more assistance in this issue. I sincerely wish editors here may be able to find valuable sources to support reasonable or logic comments made in the article. On the other hand, due to the subjectivity and importance of the theme, I also hope that a constructive article, representative of the reality, can be achieved. From my perspective, if we do our best efforts, in a constructive and creative way, there will always be an enlightning outcame to everyone of us at the end (creating a new higher beginning ;). Thank you, best Regards. --GalaazV 20:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing Citation Requests

As there are a large number of these I thought rather than removing them all right away, I'd list the ones that I would remove, and delete all that had no objections after 24 hours.

Section: Introduction Quote: Christianity and Freemasonry have had a mixed relationship, Reason: This is what the rest of the article is about

Section: Allegations of Deism Quote: One of the persistent Christian criticisms of Freemasonry is that it advocates a deist Reason: This is what the rest of the section is about

Section: Allegations of Deism Quote: or naturalist (view of creation) Reason: This is what the rest of the section is about - as above

Section: Allegations of Deism Quote: its references to the "Supreme Architect of the Universe" are seen by some Christians Reason: Another citation is asked for at the end of the sentence for the same claim

Section: Clash with the Catholic Church Quote: theological criticism of Freemasonry used by other Christian denominations Reason: This is what the next section is about, so this citation is unnecesary

Section: Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry Quote: A number of Protestant (denominations) Reason: This is what the rest of the section lays out

Section: Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry Quote: and Eastern Orthodox denominations Reason: This is what the rest of the section lays out - as above

Section: Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry Quote: their congregants from joining Masonic lodges Reason: This is what the rest of the section lays out - as above

Section: Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry Quote: although this differs in intensity according to the denomination. Reason: The citations supplied in the list below should be enough

Section: Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry Quote: although this differs in intensity according to the denomination. Reason: The citations supplied in the list below should be enough

Section: Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry Quote: The Church of Scotland does not ban congregants from becoming Freemasons Reason: The citations supplied at the end of the sentence addresses this

Section: Separation of Church and State Quote: Freemasons were seen by the church Reason: Another citation is asked for at the end of the sentence for the same claim

Section: Separation of Church and State Quote: as prominent advocates of a radical separation of church and state Reason: Another citation is asked for at the end of the sentence for the same claim - as above

Section: Separation of Church and State Quote: The church Reason: Another citation is asked for at the end of the sentence for the same claim - different case from above

Section: Separation of Church and State Quote: also saw this separation of the state from the church as manifesting a "Religious Indifferentism" Reason: Another citation is asked for at the end of the sentence for the same claim - as above

Section: Separation of Church and State Quote: The place where they meet is sometimes called a temple, Reason: Citation would be more relevant at an earlier point in the paragraph (citation already asked for there)

Section: Separation of Church and State Quote: It has its own name Reason: Another citation is asked for at the end of the sentence for the same claim

Section: Separation of Church and State Quote: It has its own way of saying "amen" Reason: Another citation is asked for at the end of the sentence for the same claim

Section: Religious indifferentism Quote: The Constitution of the Grand Lodge of England says Reason: Citation already provided at the end of this sentence

Section: Use of Biblical Imagery Quote: The use of Biblical imagery is seen by some Reason: Citation already provided at the end of this sentence

Section: Use of Biblical Imagery Quote: In the early years of speculative Masonry Reason: Citation already provided at the end of this sentence

It is alleged that Freemasonry treats the cross

Section: The Crucifiction Quote: It is alleged that Freemasonry treats the cross Reason: This is further laid out, and cited in the rest of this section

Section: The Crucifiction Quote: as a symbol of nature and eternal life, Reason: This is further laid out, and cited in the rest of this section - as above

Section: The Crucifiction Quote: rather than solely of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ Reason: This is further laid out, and cited in the rest of this section - as above

Section: The Crucifiction Quote: The invocation "INRI" is said Reason: This is further laid out, and cited in the rest of this section - as above

Section: Links to Esotericism Quote: Certain elements (within Freemasonry) Reason: Citation provided later in the same sentence

Section: Claims that Freemasonry worships S**an Quote: Many Christian critics of Freemasonry, especially some evangelical Christians Reason: This is the claim laid out in the rest of the article

Section: Claims that Freemasonry worships S**an Quote: that Freemasonry is a religion whose purpose is the worship of Satan Reason: This is the claim laid out in the rest of the article - as above

Section: Claims that Freemasonry worships S**an Quote: Quotes used to claim conscious Satan worship are often alleged to be either taken out of context, absent in the original book or article or from authors with a weak or non-existent connecttion to freemasonry Reason: This is the claim laid out in the rest of the article

Any objections to this, please shout (under the proposal, to help identify).

JASpencer 21:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Are these all ones put in by Imacomp? If so then happy. ALR 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that almost all of them will be. I'm not against every citation request that has been put in - even if I do doubt his motives. JASpencer 22:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's probably worth taking them all away, the regular editors with an interest will be able to reinsert any that they feel are required. At the moment it's too cluttered to see what's a useful request and what's not. ALR 22:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Kill all of the cites, and then figure out what's really needed and put it back in. There is no need to cite an introduction at all if the proof is then introduced as the content of the piece.

However, I would like to see "non_Catholci discouragement" redone; it's very close to being nothing but a links list, and I think there's a better way to get that across without enumerating a list. MSJapan 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a regular editor to similar Articles... we have developed an accepted way to handle citation requests: Go on the talk page, and ask for both comments and a citation about a specific statement. This allows us to fully discuss both the original statement and any citation prior to its inclusion in the article. I would like to continue this way of doing things. We all agree that this is a sensitive issue for many of the contibuters. We should discuss things rationally before vandalizing the article with "fact" tags. Most of these requests seem to me to be POV overzealousness (which I am ashamed to say, may come from someone with my personal POV). Go ahead and delete them all, and we can address each individually if they merit discussion. Blueboar 02:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I want to keep the citations unless we agree to take them out. To take all of them out is wrong. Many of Imacomp's citations requests are valid (whether this is through luck or judgement is a different issue). I also think that introductions can ask for citations - an example being the Anti-Masonry definition. Also sections that link to a main article should have citations where they are bringing in a fact that either is not mentioned in the main article or a contentious fact that links up with the main article, for example "many Christian reservations about Freemasonry can be traced to Catholic misgivings" (words to that effect) within the Catholicism section of Christianity and Freemasonry.

By the way, if Imacomp is there and has any objections to the removals could he please put them in under the various entries with some reasoning. Otherwise they will be deleted. JASpencer 09:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Now Done. JASpencer 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Rosicrucians

I've put a main section link to the Rosicrucian article and propose to take out all the citation requests. They should be in the main article.

Any complaints? JASpencer 21:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. MSJapan 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. JASpencer 13:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation Requests

What do people want to do about the remaining citation requests? We have three choices as far as I see. (1) Provide the citation, (2) remove the contentious text or (3) remove the citation text. If it's (2) or (3) we should put the proposal on the talk page first.

The Rosicrucian stuff will be dealt with seperately (see above).

JASpencer 20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Try actually citing for a change. Imacomp 00:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(Ignoring Imacomp), here are uncited questions. I say that the text should be removed, although I'm prepared to wait around 3 days before doing this:

I did not wikify these, because I don't know how to do ref tags. MSJapan 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• professed atheists were banned from many Lodges - this is part of the Charges, and can be cited from anywhere MSJapan 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite it please. JASpencer 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/textfiles/religion.html, however, you may want to clarify "regular Masonic lodges". MSJapan 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Added. Changed text to match citation. JASpencer 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• a Lodge is a group of Freemasons operating under a charter or dispensation - that's how it works. MSJapan 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC) -

Cite it please. JASpencer 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/dumfrieskilwinning53/charter.htm MSJapan 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The place where they meet is sometimes called a temple, but usually, several lodges use the same temple - easily provable. Why did this even need to be cited?

Ask Imacomp. I believe it was him. I'm not against deleting the fact tag as long as we leave it open for debate in the same way as above. I won't delete this at the same time as the rest if there's a debate. JASpencer 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

http://detroitmta.lodges.gl-mi.org/ but Google will do it too. MSJapan 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• often used as an allegation that Freemasons use this as a recruiting tool in order to "convert" or proselytize - not that i know of. Deletable. MSJapan 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Will delete it at the same time as everything else. JASpencer 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• This allegation is well represented on Anti-Masonic websites. (refers to Devil worship) - Google FreemasonryWatch et al.

Cite and reference it. JASpencer 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=satan+worship+masons&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official MSJapan 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Quotes used to claim conscious Satan worship are often alleged to be either taken out of context, absent in the original book or article or from authors with a weak or non-existent connecttion to freemasonry.

I note no comment here. JASpencer 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's true. :) It's all going to come up in Art DeHoyos anyway, so it can be done all at once if you want. MSJapan 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Masons first face to face encounter with the god of the lodge, with Lucifer, with En Soph, will take place in the thirtieth degree (I will remove the whole section marked "Mackey" in this case) Actually, those were all cited from Art dehoyos, and shouldn't have removed them. MSJapan 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is the original quote is nowhere but here, so the following stuff is irrelevant. If you want to reopen the debate above. JASpencer 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Try here, as well - [SEE MY COMMENT!John 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)]

This is not a rebuttal article to go to one website. There are plenty of those on the web.JASpencer 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Art DeHoyos - http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm MSJapan 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think that any of the citation requests should be removed then please point them out and we can discuss this here. I won't delete until any text where there's an ongoing debate on whether a citation request is valid. JASpencer 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added Template:Disputed-section tags to the various areas. I will be deleting the text in two days. JASpencer 18:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Now done. JASpencer 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rolled back as per request on my talk page. Please add citations (I think most of them were from Imacomp) or say what fact tags should be deleted. Comments have been added above. I will delete again on the weekend. JASpencer 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Added one citation, wife rather keen that I stop looking at Wikipedia, can you do the others.

Hiram

Changed the section on Hiram Abif legend... In the Masonic legend, Hiram is slain and hastily buried by his assassins. Later, when his body is found, it is dug up and returned to Jerusalem for proper internment. Nowhere does it say his body was reserected. Blueboar 23:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the ref is Ephesians, whose stated goal is to convert Masons out of the Fraternity and into the Church. You think they might have something to gain from propaganda? Also, Seraphim, if you concede "that might be so, but" then it is the reference that has to go, not the addded information, as per WP:V, in that Ephesians has been shown to be wrong. To leave it in and state it as fact is simply not good methodology. MSJapan 23:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The reference provided supports the wording ressurection. If you want to change it to reburial find a reference that supports the wording you are changing it to. The source is being presented as opinion "is seen as being" therefore the obvious bias of the source doesn't matter since all opinion is inherently biased. Changing the wording to reburial is not accuratly representing the source material. Seraphim 23:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a citation for using the word 're-internment'. Blueboar 23:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

To be totally honest, it's Ephesians that's doing the misrepresenting. :) What you're saying (and not noticing) is that it's the source that's the problem - it's unreliable because it's POV. Furthermore, they're mor than happy to sell the stuff to you on CD-ROM at the same time they're trying to "lead Masons away from lodge". Don't you think that's a bit hypocritical for our purposes?

How do they reconcile, BTW, "in the name of G-d and the holy Saints John, I declare ____ Lodge open (etc)" with Masonry being anti-Christian? The Johns certainly aren't Jewish or Muslim saints. Also, page 18, right hand bottom corner clearly states what is to be done with the body, and it is repeated again on 22. "raise" here means what it is supposed to, which is "lift up". The ritual clearly states that the grave is uncovered, but the body is not taken out, thus, it has to be raised out of the hole so it can be taken back to Jerusalem. So we have the following conclusion: if the ritual is legit, the claim is false; if the ritual is false, the claim is based on manufactured information and is not a reliable source. MSJapan 00:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the ephesian site uses the term raising to discribe this part of the ritual... please leave it. I left the second use of reserrection as that is indeed their claim (that the raising ceremony is a mockery of the Resurrection). Blueboar 01:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The site makes it very clear they believe it to be ressurection. They discuss the masonic counter-claims as that it's a raising. The conclusion they make is "There is another, more significant reason why many Masons deny that the resurrection of Hiram is the only valid interpretation of Masonic ritual. For those Masons who want to believe that they are Christians, the difficulty is obvious. If they admit that they have been meeting in secret to reenact the death, burial and resurrection of Hiram Abiff, it will be unlikely that other Christians will accept them as a brother in Christ." changing the text in the article to make it seem like they feel that the "reburial" is offencive does not accurately represent the source material. Seraphim 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the ephesians site claims that the raising ceremony commemorates a resurrection .... that is why I leave the second reference. But that part of the ceremony is called "raising". Masons are "Raised" to the degree of Master Mason. I can find a lot more citations on this if you need me to.

The Ephebians site simply gets it wrong... for example: they quote the following from the Grand Lodge of Navada's ritual: "They carried the body to the Temple and buried it in due form, and Masonic tradition informs us that a monument was erected to his memory, on which was delineated a beautiful Virgin weeping over a broken column; before her lay a book, open; in her right hand a sprig of acacia; in her left, an urn; and behind her stood Time with his fingers unfolding and counting the ringlets of her hair. The broken column denotes the untimely death of our Grand Master Hiram Abif; the beautiful Virgin; weeping, denotes the Temple, unfinished; the book open before her, that his virtues there lie on perpetual record; the sprig of acacia in her right hand, the timely discovery of his body; the urn in her left, that his ashes were there safely deposited to perpetuate the remembrance of so distinguished a character; . . ." Note that this takes place AFTER the raising of the body. Why would someone erect a monument for someone who had been reserrected?... the person would still be alive! No, monuments get built to commemorate dead people. Here is the sequence (as is discribed in Robinson's A Pilgirm's Path... so no quibbles about it being an uncitable Masonic ritual source.): 1) Hiram is killed and buried (hidden actually) in the rubble around the temple. 2) He is then buried on a hill west of Jerusalem. 3) His body is discovered, raised out of the grave (note, he does not raise out of the grave... his IS raised... by King Solomon using a grip to lift him out) 4) He is taken back to Jerusalem and re-buried (re-interred) near (NOT IN) the Temple ("as near to the Sanctum Sanctorum as Jewish Law would allow"). It is your source material that has the story wrong... to fit a very POV agenda and sell lots of video and audio tapes (such as one discribing the Navada degree.)

But back to the point... the legend is that Hiram was "raised"... not "resurrected". It is accurate to say that some Christian's beleive that this raising ceremony commemorates a resurrection. It is very inaccurate (and POV) to open the first discussion on this subject in the article with the statement that it is a resurrection. No matter what one web site may say, it is more commonly called a "raising". Leave it as I have it. Blueboar 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually if christians do believe that the raising ceremony commerorates a resurrection it is POV to not include that. The statement did not say that it is a resurrection, it said that it is an opinion a group has. According to WP:NPOV minority views do not have to be gone into in any depth, but they still need to be mentioned. The great example they give is the article on the Earth mentions Flat Earth theory even though it's obviously untrue. Also on another note does the Robinson book present the christian claims that the third degree is a recreation of the ressurection? Seraphim 02:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a very bad habit of allowing opinion and claims into articles as "keeping with NPOV" and then disallowing the contrary (and often factually accurate) POV on the grounds of it violating NPOV somehow. There needs to be a balance between POV and fact - don't you think that there's a problem with giving more space for the claim of what the 3rd is rather than to the discussion of what the ritual really says? In short, you are allowing the claim without reliable evidence (mainly because "there's another reason that nobody knows about except us" is a little too hard to believe), but not allowing reliable evidence that contradicts the claim. So explain to me how that is NPOV again? MSJapan 02:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean the discussion of the claim of what the ritual really says "the private aspects of modern Freemasonry deal with elements of ritual and the modes of recognition amongst members within the ritual" If you recall alot of the masonic ritual is kept secret so masons don't get "spoilers" that might ruin the impact of the ritual. Also I have never not allowed a POV to be represented, in Jahbulon i'm fighting for both to be represented. You seem to be confusing my insistance that the contents of the article to be referenced, and the article to represent the contents of the reference truthfully (claims as claims, fact as fact) to be me dismissing other view points, that is not the case at all, look at the section now did I remove the stuff that Blueboar added? No because it's perfectly valid, what i'm asking is if the reference he has listed is making the same claim that the christian groups do since he decided that reference is appropriate for the entire section. Seraphim 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My citation does repeat the claim, discusses it and refutes it. It is a very interesting book. You should get a copy from the library and read it. Blueboar 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with both the statement "Grand Lodges have taught that Hiram Abiff was the direct Masonic equivalent of Jesus Christ" and it's citation. The link is to a PDF document being hosted by at a church web page. That is not to a page related to any Grand Lodge. There is no way to verify that this PDF document is indeed part of Kentucky's ritual, or something that an anit-mason may have created. Yes, it does verify that someone says this, but not a Grand Lodge. Thus, the statement must be removed. Blueboar 13:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the author of my citation (John Robinson) was not a mason and thus can not be called a Masonic authority ... he was a respected historian who wrote several books that touched on Masonry and the Knights Templar. (OK... in the interest of full disclosure... he did eventually become a Mason on his deathbed several years after writing his books. However... the fact is that at the time he was writing, he had an independant view of things) Blueboar 13:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to move it around. In my opinion the Kentucky document if true (and it is certainly quoted a lot on the internet) is important and should not simply be excised. I've inserted some cautionary text into both the main text and into the citation. I hope that this is better. JASpencer 17:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, better. It IS factual to say that at least one Christian group says that the Grand Lodge of Kentucky equates Hiram with Christ. To say that this proves that they do is another matter. Without more research into the Kentucky document, it is impossible to verify that it actually came from something that GL Kentucky authorized, or that it was not amended or changed by someone else. Your cautionary statement correctly changes who is making the claim (from Kentucky to the religious group). I am satified... pass on. Blueboar 21:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The legend is discussed at MQ Magazine, http://www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-16/p-54.php?PHPSESSID=6af472b406ac8c59fde737581d7e2ac7 and it makes clear what the interpretation is.ALR 15:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I may be missing something here - and I'm sure I'll be told what it is - but the intepretation is less than clear to a non-Mason like me. "The second step is to recognise that the Third Degree has many meanings" seems to say that there is no single interpretation and "Any interpretation in this article must necessarily be a hint only" would say that even if there were an interpretation it would be veiled I presume because it is in such a public forum.

I don't mean to say that this proves that there is something sinister, just that freemasonry is acknowledged as a society of secrets and would rather keep its secrets. So I really do not find the article clear at all, if anything it muddies the official masonic explanation further - no mean feat. Perhaps this is a problem for masonry in that the evangelical critique is in fact far simpler than the Masonic explanations, but that is for another forum. JASpencer 18:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read both pages of the article? It should be pretty clear that we're not talking about resurrection, man withers away to crumble and decay, in the allegory of the third degree. And I would agree about the explanation, ones relationship with the SB does not simplify easily to a neat message which is qhy it takes a lifetimes work to approach and grow in that relationship.ALR 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read both pages of the article? - Err, no. (In my defence, m'lud, it wasn't obvious that there was a second page. JASpencer 20:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

INRI

I've got some new stuff on the INRI so that it quotes Pike rather than Fr. Saunders.

We really need some citation for the Scottish Rite stuff. As this is fairly new I'll delete it if it is without a citation by tomorrow. 17:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Careful with citing Pike... if you are pulling it off of a website, there is a good chance that the quote has been taken out of context or changed. One common error is to atribute things to Pike that are acutally statements made by others that Pike is quoting. If you really want to properly quote Pike, you need an actual copy of Morals and Dogma. Blueboar 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that Pike is a bit hard to pin down, but I used this site which has not seen to be a problem before. http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/ . A ten minute google search showed no complaints about the site's agenda or that of the compiler, John B Hare. JASpencer 18:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Further. I'd defend citing a (reliable) internet source over a book as verification is far easier. JASpencer 18:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen sacred-texts before... and by and large I do not have a problem with them. I just wanted give the warning that many Pike quotations are either incomplete or taken out of context (and, on one or two of the more agregious sites, out-right changed). I would have to see the quote you are talking about, and then find it in context in Morals and Dogma (or where ever the quote comes from) before I could say more. Also, remember that Pike does not speak officially for anyone but himself. Even if the quote is accurate, it may be repudiated or rejected by every one else. Blueboar 02:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Points all well made, however this is a reasonably big issue in some Christian circles – for which Pike seems at least partly responsible. JASpencer 09:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Pike is responsible for many of the misconceptions Christian critics have about Freemasonry. If I could go back in time, I would galdly stop Pike from writing Morals & Dogma. He has caused all too much trouble. Blueboar 17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Methinks Blueboar nails it on the head: most anti-masonry can be traced to either Pike's M&D or Leo Taxil, IMHO. Soon-to-be-Mason 71.139.30.9 01:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Crucifiction

I don't know whether that's an intentional pun or an accidental misspelling, but it's very good as a title. MSJapan 02:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling. Changed. Thanks. JASpencer 18:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mackey Quote. Time to go

Once again, this time I will get rid of the Mackey quote. Honest. It is only claimed as Mackey on one site and this seems to be a misattribution rather than deliberate dishonesty (I know fmw is not the, ahem, most popular site).

And as far as using wikipedia as a rebuttal service against freemasonrywatch, is anyone seriously suggesting that wikipedia should be used in this way?

Any objections? As this has been going on for some time I'll wait until midweek.

JASpencer 18:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the Crips article, it presents different POV, refutes where possible, and nobody seems to be going too crazy about it. So, I would correct it rather than remove it. FMW is obviously inordinately popular for anti-Masonic rhetoric (and copyvio), and it would be a bit hypocritical to remove it, because that means one is picking and choosing which claims are valid to accept as claims and which are not. For example, I know we've discussed at Catholicism that the Church made claims based on faulty information, but the response was that that was still what the Church claimed, and I see the same thing here - a claim is erroneously made, and NPOV would demand that the refutation solve the issue, as that is actual independent fact. MSJapan 07:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll put an RFC in motion on this.JASpencer 14:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If Mackey stays in then the "more common" phrase from "Below are the some of some of the more common quotes used on the internet" needs to go. JASpencer 09:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by yours truely

Before people jump all over me for doing a lot of edits without consultation... let me explain. In many cases, the Catholic Encyclopedia was used as the citation for statements. I do not have a problem with that, but in several cases, I ammended either the statement or the citation to make it a bit clearer who was making the claim (ie the Roman Catholic Church). I do not think I greatly changed the import of the statements, just the sourse. The greatest change was in the list of denominations that have issues with Freemasonry... many of them were cited through a link to an article on Paul Bessel's page, but Bessel simply re-printed what was on another site (which he noted), so I changed the link to that original site as being the primary sourse. If anyone has a problem with the edits go ahead and revert, and we can discuss them individually. Blueboar 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bravo :) Imacomp 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• How is this page more of a primary source than Bessel? JASpencer 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the site that Bessel cut and pasted his material from (as it clearly states on Bessel's page)

I've had a look through these undiscussed edits and as expected the quotes are seemingly designed to put valid information in doubt:

• As above no explanation is made as to why [2] is more of a primary source than quoting site New Catholic Encyclopedia article . The only explanation that makes sense is that the replacesource is a bit of a nutty site, while Bessel could not be removed.
• The Baptist Union of Great Britain. Well the author is unknown, fair enough. But it is also "Published by the Baptist Union of Scotland and endorsed by the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland". To put in one without than the other smacks of trying to make the source less reliable. As above.

Changed to put in both

• "Freemasons were seen by the Roman Catholic Church as prominent advocates". Fine. Not the whole story, but fine.

Added citation for Masonic advocacy. Was this seriously disputed?

• "The Catholic Church also saw this separation of the state from the Church as manifesting". As above, but more likely to be selective editing.
• "the Roman Catholic Church feels that it shows". Only the Catholic church? That's certainly an edit aimed at hiding rather than illuminating the state of affairs.

Changed to "especially".

• The cited source says "I submit, however, that there is a strong possibility even a probability that the abbreviation 'A.L.' originally stood for a Latin phrase (more than one seems likely) signifying 'in the Year of Masonry'." Although this is probably unintentional, the edit takes further from the cited source.

Added the quote to the citation.

• "The Roman Catholic Church says that Freemasonry's refusal to see one faith as being superior to any others, while at the same time insisting on religious-type rituals inculcates an indifference to religion." While this takes one further from Christian criticisms, it goes with the citation, so fine.

Protestant citation added.

• "The use of Biblical imagery is seen by the Roman Catholic Church as being done in such a way as to deny the revalation of Christianity". Not the whole story, but needs a Protestant citation as well I'd agree.

Added a Protestant citation.

• "This appears on an esoteric Christian website claiming to quote the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, so it may not be an original source". Fine.
• Taking out overtly heretic from Rosicrucian?!? So would a Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Greek Orthodox or Anglican not find them heretic? Ask for a citation by all means, but claiming that the Rosicrucians were in some sense orthodox Trinitarian Christians - it's bizarre.

Still bizarre, but added citation request.

• This is seen by The Roman Catholic Chursh as also being linked to the Templar origins. Petty but fine.
• These claims should not be confused with denunciations by Roman Catholic Church that Freemasons replacing This has been confused with denunciations from mainstream Christian denominations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church - It has been confused, why not just ask for a cite?

Asked for citation

• The Catholic Church believes that Masonic ceremonies are consciously Satanic replacing This does not imply that the Catholic Church believes that Masonic ceremonies are consciously Satanic. This changes the meaning 180 degrees. It certainly is not my understanding. This should not be put in without either discussion or citation or both.
• Below are the some of some of the more common quotes used on the internet to substantiate the claim that Masons worship Satan, and some notes about them: An actual improvement.

Added in.

Although one or two of these are improvements and many of the rest are innocuous there are some that are big changes that are unsourced and undiscussed. Hence the revert. Let's discuss big changes first.JASpencer 21:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Added the less controversial quotes. JASpencer 22:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK... I guess that was more than people could take in one bite... lets go a few at a time:

• The change from Bessel to trosch was due to the fact that the troch site is where Bessel copied the article from (as he states on his page, giving the link). Going on the theory that one should always trace quotations back as far as you can, the trosch site is the primary source while the Bessel site is secondary. ACTUALLY we should be linking the exact quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia, but that does not seem to be on line. Blueboar 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of replacing the citations with more up to date quotes (and hopefully more specific ones at that). There are two reasons I object. Firstly it's moving to a nutty (well, nuttier) site. Secondly you took out the New Catholic Encyclopedia article and instead put the link in . JASpencer 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Cherry picking the reliability of websites isn't exactly intellectually legitimate is it? Particularly when the one you say is a less unreliable site explicitly references the other. ALR 10:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Cherry picking" for reliability is perfectly legitimate if Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources. If Bessel thought the article was falsethen he'd certainly have said so - after all that's his job. On the other hand if someone goes to the trosch site then they'll believe it's a less relaiable site than it (in this particular link) is. However if the Wikipedia policy is to go closer to the source, then so be it. I was also annoyed that the explanatory text "New Catholic Encyclopedia" was taken out and only the link given. JASpencer 17:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Anno Lucis - It is a shame that Latin is no longer a required subject in school. Lucis translates as "Light" (its the genative of lux)... a fact which is clearly stated in the article you cite. In fact the article acknowleges that an early Masonic document uses the term "Year of Light" in a draft and then shifts to A.L.. Yes, the author likes "Year of Masonry"... but that is his opinion, not the accepted usage. The Masonic year is taken from a (admitedly poor) medieval calculation of the creation of the world (similar to Bishop Usher's 4004 BC calcualtion) and is termed Anno Lucis because it dates from when God said "Let there be LIGHT". In short, Masonry does not use Anno Lucis to mean "year of Masonry" but "year of Light".

I will hold off on discussing my other edits until we have discussed these. Blueboar 01:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, cite it. We should also take the year of Masonry stuff as well even if qualified. JASpencer 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do as for the citation... as to the Year of Light... If someone does indeed criticize Masonry for the way they keep their calendar, then I don't think it needs to be removed, just corrected. OK.Blueboar

I broke up this text but attributed both sections. On reading the AQC article then clearly there is validity in the statement, Mendoza is a Past Master of QC so speaks with some authority. Got to say it's the first time I've seen the suggestion though, any contemporary material is explicit about being Anno Lucius, including my certificates.ALR 10:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

..On to the next set of issues:

• Multiple Footnotes (they used to be: 22, 40, 47, and 51, but this was before your latest citations)... these cite primarily Catholic documents or web pages. Thus, the claims (as currently written) are only valid for the Catholic Church. My changes were to reflect that. If you can find citations for non-Catholic agreement with the statements then I will have no problems leaving the text as it is.Blueboar

Could you please give the more up to date foot notes or their text? We should discuss these individually. JASpencer 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• The statement: "Freemasonic behaviour is seen as a denial of the truth of Christian revelation" footnote 44 (as it is now)... St. John may be a source for Christian revelation, but not for Freemasonic behavior being seen as a denial of it. You need a sourse for who is seeing that (and, possibly even a citation for what behavior they are talking about)

More to come later.Blueboar

By all means replace the reference with a citation request. If you could copy the text of the citation to the talk page we could then kick it around a bit here. JASpencer 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes

I'm reverting a number of undiscussed changes. Please can we discuss big changes first, especially when deleting information. Please show good faith. JASpencer 13:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Im reverting the above. "Changes" only explicitly show cited refs, that have been placed there before by others. My edits do not imply that I agree we the subject matter, as posted and agreed before by others. Please show good faith. Imacomp 13:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's assume good faith. Your record shows no good faith.JASpencer 13:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's assume good faith. Your record shows no good faith. Imacomp 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to show good faith then discuss your proposed changes. You are doing more damage to Freemasonry's image than Basil Rathbone ever could. JASpencer 14:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to show good faith then discuss your proposed changes. However you are doing more good for Freemasonry's image than I ever could. Imacomp 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, please discuss big changes, especially when deleting. I also don't think that goading editors is helping your cause.JASpencer 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC) (Sig added}

Who are you, and how is repeating posts back goading?? Imacomp 21:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

Several citations supposedly quote Masonic documents or authors. This is fine when the quote is linked directly to an official Masonic site or a reliable repository of such documents, but it is NOT fine when linked to an anti-masonic site. Many anti-masonic sites misquote the original, or take things out of context. There is no way for a reader to check that this is indeed what the original document or author said. As a case in point: one of the citations discusses a statement supposedly made by the Grand Lodge of Kentucky, and it links to the Ephesians web page. We can not be sure that this web page quoted the document correctly, nor can we put the statment (if it is quoted correctly) in any kind of context since they only quote a small portion of the text. Please note that this is but one example. My concern is not limited to that foot note. Of equal concern are the numerous times that a statement is made about what a Masonic document says, and linked to a site such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, which simply gives its own footnote to the original document. Again, there is no way to check that the quotation is correct. Given that this is a controvercial subject, it is important that original documents back up our statements. We also must keep in mind WP:RS... Anti-masonic sources can certainly be used, but they should be used only to support the fact that a particular group of anti-masons say what the article says they say. They should not be used to support statements about what they say. The wording of the text should also make it clear exactly who is making the statement. Blueboar 14:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

List the examples by all means. However the Grand Lodge of Kentucky is not quoted just by Ephesians - it is quoted by others. Ephesians have, I understand, a number of ex-Masons on board so I would assume have some nose for the dross, not in necesarily in the interests of fairness but in the interests of not being shown to quote fraudulent documents. They do not seem to follow the mud-on-the-blanket approach of freemasonrywatch or masonicinfo. JASpencer 14:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Catholic Encyclopedia it should be made clear that this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia either in the citation or main text (although more elegant than an Imacomp style disclaimer that takes three times as much text as the allegation). It should also say if the quote is not found anywhere else - although I could see a couple of the less POV Masonic editors trying to say "therefore it can't be true". However with a society of secrets like the Freemasons a large amount of external documentation is required. As you said somewhere else, Blueboar, the Catholic Church has studied Freemasonry more closely than any non-Masonic organisation. It therefore probably knows quite a lot (whether it reveals or understands all it knows is entirely different). JASpencer 14:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the Ephesians site would be a secondary source as it is currently used. If you want to say that "Epesians claim that the GL Kentucky says..." that is OK, but otherwise it would be against WP:RS. As for the Ex-Masons on their board... I don't follow your logic at all. In fact, I could see them being quite fraudulent if they left Masonry with a grudge or a particular religious fanaticism. I don't know this to be true, but it is possible. The point is that we DON'T know. If you can find a copy of the original document, fine... cite it. Otherwise, modify the statement.

The point is really that they may not have an interest in being fair to Freemasonry but they do have an interest in being taken seriously by current Freemasons. Putting rubbish up on their site would not cut it. JASpencer 15:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the vitrol of some religious anti-masons... I do not have faith (if you will pardon the pun) in that. And it is still a secondary and biased source. Again, you can say "Ephesians claims..." you can not say "GL Kentucky says..." Blueboar 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well firstly Ephesians is serious about getting Freemasons away from the Lodge, rather than lambasting Freemasons. However the Kentucky document is a source, even if it has to be caveated. I'd also not be that surprised if some well intentioned Mason had put in the nonsense about redemption through Hiram. After all this is one document in forty nine. And I don't think you would be that surprised either. JASpencer 15:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is caveated (in the text and not hidden in the citation) I have no problems. Blueboar 16:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't disagree with citing the Catholic Encyclopedia... just with using it as a primary source for anything but what Catholics say. Of all your citations, I tend to believe that the CE will indeed quote things accuratly. I am less confident that they quote things in context. Blueboar 15:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fair comment. JASpencer 15:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (Refering to Blueboar, not anyone else).

The general point, as highlighted below, is that the Catholic Encyclopedia conflates Scottish Rite with Freemasonry. Whilst the organisations are related, inasmuch as one must be a Mason to join the Scottish Rite, the CE rather pointedly avoids discussing the distinction.ALR 21:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to believe that the CE will not quote things accuratly. I am even less confident that they quote things in context. Imacomp 21:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the issues about ex-masons is why they left, and how much of the symbolism did they really understand beforehand. I'd support any assertion that Freemasonry, as sith any initiatory tradition aimed at enhancing ones relationship with ones Supreme Being, contains many layers of meaning and significance. Some of that meaning takes a lot of effort and wide ranging reading to really appreciate. Unless someone is willing to read across a range of texts (several different translations of the bible, Q'uran, Fama Fraternis etc) then they may not fully appreciate the significance of the ritual that they have participated in. In that context whilst many ex-masons may act in good faith, their views and discussion of the ritual may be pretty flawed. One makes an advancement in Masonic knowledge every day, to some that means just learning their ritual, to many it means actually following the moral and ethical principles inclucated in the three degrees of Masonry. In addition, I'm not sure that stats exist, but there is a level of disquiet about the approach prevalent in the US of processing candidates through the degrees in groups, as an audience rather than participants in the initiatory tradition. From my own experience, having been both the subject of initiation and the individual responsible for initiating others, unless one participates then it is much more difficult to really appreciate what was communicated. I would suggest that these points need to be applied when considering the position of some of the sources being used.ALR 17:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

US Freemasons are consistent advocates of the US Constitution. Is that bad? Imacomp 21:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

21st Degree

The discussion of the Noah legend needs to either discuss the relationship between Freemasonry and the Scottish Rite, or link to the SR article. SR is a separate organisation which requires one to be a Mason before joining. Whilst SR may describe itself as Freemasonry it is not recognised as such by UGLE although there is no prohibition against joining. The claims in SR are internal and not recognised by UGLE or the other two home grand lodges. Conflating Anderson and SR is pretty unreliable. Much of Anderson has been generally discredited by serious Masonic historians, but it's not out of the question that Ramsay derived some of his legends from it. Note that I'm not a member of the Antient and Accepted Rite (as SR is known in England) so don't have a detailed knowledge of the ritual. It's probably easiest to link it since it rather undermines a number of the arguments of the aricle, and the RC reference, to point out that SR isn't actually Masonry.ALR 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow I actually agree with you ALR, as another UGLE Freemason. Imacomp 21:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough ALR. Sorry to delete your Scottish Rite link, that wasn't intended. JASpencer 21:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As a further complicating issue, there is an order in England known as the Royal Ark Mariners which I understand, from 'Beyond the Craft' by Keith Jackson, uses the Noah legend. Again I don't know any detail, RAM assemblies are associated with Mark Lodges and whilst I did the Mark in Scotland I don't belong to a Mark Lodge in England. Given that the CE doesn't mention any of this it rather undermines the reliability of the CE in it's analysis.ALR 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

To ALR. Noah in RAM is used like Z etc in Chapter, and KS in Craft - the guy in the chair, Not G-d. Imacomp 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification but it does rather illuminate that th CE oversimplifies the situation to lend weight to its arguments.ALR 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rosicrucian Influences section. Lets see some facts? Also do not cite opposite information as the same in support. Imacomp 22:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the section requires some citations I think it's also rather foolish to imagine that FM is not imbued with Rosecrucuan thought. Read the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkrautz or the Fama Fraternis for some illumination of that.ALR 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This all brings up a very important point. Many of the acusations made against Freemasonry in general are really accusations against the (percieved) practices of Scottish Rite. While I understand that many critics of Freemasonry do not understand that there is a difference, our duty as editors is to inform people of this. This Article needs note the distiction between Craft/Blue Lodges and the Appendant Bodies. Thinking purely as an editor, and not as a Mason (which I try to do whenever I am working on all the various anti-masonic articles), perhaps we need to restructure the article into sections that deal with the critisims that relate to Craft/Blue Lodge Masonry, and those that relate only to the Appendant bodies such as AASR. Blueboar 22:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought Chymical Wedding was a hoax, like the Elders of Zion stuff. But anywat I agree with Blueboar "to restructure the article". Imacomp 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The civil marriage thing. In the UK, Roman Catholic marriages have a Civil Registrar there as well as a Priest, when the Licence is signed, since the Priest cannot register a Marriage alone. This goes for other non-Christian Ministers also.(Only CofE Vicars are also Registrars). So one could argue that UK Roman Catholics have Civil Marriages as well, and the Clergy are complient in this.Imacomp 23:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do "Freemasons" have 33°, etc, after the name in citations on this page? It adds nothing to the authority of the citation, and is factually incorrect when discussing Craft/Blue Freemasonry. Anyway is it °C or °F, and should we be told if they are hot or cold? Imacomp 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it gives uninformed readers the idea that these people have more authority and speak as "experts", of course. It is an old Anti-masonic trick. Blueboar 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that why the Builder magazine put them in? Anti-masons under every bed. JASpencer 22:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Who puts out the Builder magazine? (this is an honest question... I have never heard of it). Blueboar 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a magazine that was put out by the National Masonic Research Society between 1915 and 1930. See here. JASpencer 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at copies of the phoenixmasonry page, It looks like the Builder was a compendium of interesting articles, essays and poems written for and by Freemasons. As a compendium, most of these articles and poems were probably re-prints from other Masonic magazines. If that is the case, then one explanation may be that the Articles you refer to originally were printed in a Scottish Rite magazine (where puting the degree would be appropriate). Another would be that they simply wanted to better identify the author and so gave as much info on him as possible. The least appitizing would be that they succumed to the same mistake that many anti-masons do... they put the degree on to puff up the "importance" of their authors. Granted, I don't know any of this for a fact (I was not on the editorial board of a magazine that was published almost 100 years ago, and so can not say for sure why they listed things the way they did). In any case, I would say that they were wrong. Freemasons should not use ranks, titles and degree designations from appendant bodies except in the context of those appendant bodies. If The Builder was put out for a general Masonic readership, they should not have put 33rd degree, or any other appendant body tag. Blueboar 19:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, 33rd degree means that this is/was a member of the supreme council. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to vary - there are some who are "honorary" and some who are actually on the Council. In short, it means that there are more 33rds than on the Supreme Councils. I'll ask. MSJapan 05:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion

Put on a disputed section tag for seven citation requests. JASpencer 22:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer. May I point out how we define DICK in WP:DICK? Imacomp 19:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC) & Imacomp 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Now taken off, no more citation requests left there. JASpencer 15:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Albert Pike

If I were to read this article I would think that Albert Pike was regarded as a mad old uncle of Freemasonry, while if I read the Albert Pike article I would see him as some revered figure in Freemasonry. Which is right? I'm genuinely confused by the off and on view of Pike. JASpencer 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Both are right. Pike in essence created the Scottish Rite, US Southern Jurisdiction ... the largest, and one of the oldest of the Scottish Rite jurisdictions. He rewrote their ritual and did a lot to promote the Rite in the early years. He is somewhat revered by many for that. Unfortunately, he also was a bit of a nut case when it came to comparative mythology. He knew a LOT about the subject, indeed perhaps too much. Morals and Dogma was the result. Much of what he writes there is completely off the wall in my opinion (and I am not alone in that assessment). What you have to realize is that most Freemasons have never even tried to read Morals and Dogma (I have tried ... if only to be able to answer Anti-Masonic claims ... It's very very dense and boring reading). So they do not know what a looney he was. All they know is that he was a big deal in Scottish Rite.

Actually, I have to amend that... MOST Freemasons have never heard of Albert Pike at all. You either have to have been accosted by an anti-mason, or belong to the Southern Jurisdiction to have had much contact with Pike. Now, looking at the statistics, only about 20 percent of Freemasons in America belong to Scottish Rite bodies that fall under the Southern Jurisdiction ... That means that 80 percent have had little or any contact with Pike. And that's just America. In the rest of the world he is even less well known.

Why are the views of Pike different between this Article and the Pike Article? Probably because of who is contributing. I would be willing to bet that the Pike Article was written by members of the AASR Southern Jurisdiction, who didn't want to speak ill of their "Great Man"... That is the nature of Wikipedia. Articles are written by those who care about the subject. It probably is a bit POV in favor of Pike. Here, on the other hand, we are dealing with what he wrote (and, more importantly, with how many anti-masons have misused what he wrote to fit their own agenda.) We are much more willing to look at Pike's defects. We also have very few (if any) members of AASR - much less members of the Southern Jurisdiction (I don't belong to Scottish Rite myself but, since I live in NY State, if I were to join it would be in the Northern Jurisdiction... which never used Pike's ritual or cared much about him one way or the other.) Hope that answers your question. Blueboar 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to BBs comments. Pike writes on the Scottish Rite, it should be noted that Scottish Rite is not the same as Freemasonry. It is an organisation which requires one to be a Mason to enter it and it uses ritual allegory to communicate a number of messages. As a reasonably experienced Mason the words in M&D have nothing to do with the craft. Notwithstanding that the hierarchical nature of SR, and Pikes' words, are frequently used as a justification for the criticisms of Freemasonry. It doesn't matter which SR degree someone might have, in a craft lodge s/he is a Master Mason. Note that in the UK female freemasons also have the opportunities to join a similar portfolio of appendant orders. Consider the history of SR, which emerged from the exiled court of James in France and is widely thought to have been an invention of Chevalier Ramsay. Craft Masonry was already established in Scotland, England and Ireland, and was being 'exported' globally, predominantly into the American colonies but Eastwards as well. As to the content of Pike, I've never had much success reading it, despite my own interest in Gnosticism and Rosecrucianism, and as I understand it the Southern US Jurisdiction of the SR is different from Northern, and very different from that in Scotland and England. As to the statistics, the most popular appendant order in England is the Mark (similar in its' ritual content to craft) followed by Royal Arch. The vast majority of Masons don't join any other appendant orders, but perhaps join a number of Craft lodges (I'm in 4, three English and one Scottish). My Province has about 400 or so Craft Lodges, and 8 Antient and Accepted Rite (SR) Chapters. They don't use Pike as an influence. These are some of the objections to Pike. Incidentally I've read a number of the reports you are citing and none of them make clear the distinction, it's not difficult to appreciate so it does lead me to wonder why they don't.ALR 18:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If Pike is always presenting such a problem for you, why don't you edit the page? JASpencer 18:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Because there are other things to be getting on with. All the editing here gets bogged down in discussion and I can contribute to that more usefully than tear into the article as it stands. The nature of almost all the FM pages at the moment mean that the discussion is becoming interminable.ALR 18:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As a note, AASR SMJ published a pamphlet of Humanum Genus in English and Latin, alog with Pike's response, which I have just seen. In English, the papal text is 16 (small) pages; Pike's response to it is 50 pages long (which tells one something). The response might be useful, but I haven't got a copy of it yet. MSJapan 03:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Mackey - common?

Since the Mackey quote only comes from one source, it has been proposed that the term "more common" quotations be removed from the introduction of the Satanism section. I would prefer to cut Mackey and leave the discription as "more common". Your thoughts? Blueboar 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. JASpencer 12:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we'd be better off just renaming the section to "Holly" and noting the misattribution as we do now. It is pretty prevalent in its proper form in many places. MSJapan 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As a comment, I think we need to bring in MSJapan on this before deleting. JASpencer 18:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with that. Consensus is good... and it wouldn't be consensus without the input of most of our contributers. Blueboar 18:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan... you say it is common when properly attributed to Holly... Correctly attributed, does it still fit in this section (ie common quotations used by Christian Groups to "prove" masonic satan worship.)?

By Google, not really, actually. Two of the six hits on the full quote as written, are the 2 relevant WP articles, and Holly himself has less than 30 in connection with Masonry, so maybe we just need to remove it from both places as nn. We've seen it a lot here because of agenda-based editing, but it doesn't seem to be as widespread as it seemed. MSJapan 14:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In which case, I will cut it as being "not common". thanks for the input. Blueboar 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Requesting quotes

Given that the UGLE page linked by Blueboar is both short and easy to read it does strike me as somewhat disingenuous to attempt to diminish the citation by requesting a quote from the linked page. But, just for the record and to continue playing this little game, the UGLE page quote is Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It demands of its members a belief in a Supreme Being but provides no system of faith of its own. I'll concede that it's worth asking for them from the MQ articles because they are pretty comprehensive and require some effort to read.ALR 22:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On the MQ articles... unlike the UGLE page... the citation is not to a direct quote. However each article in it entirety does support the statements made. That said, I am sure that we can find better citations and will search for them. Blueboar 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote Requests

JASpencer has put a quote request on what are now citations 40 and 41... (from the UGLE web site) here is the text:

"Freemasonry and Religion - Introduction

The following information is intended to deal with a topic mentioned in the leaflet 'What is Freemasonry'. It explains the United Grand Lodge of England's view of the relationship between Freemasonry and religion.

Basic Statement

Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It demands of its members a belief in a Supreme Being but provides no system of faith of its own. Freemasonry is open to men of all religious faiths. The discussion of religion at its meetings is forbidden.

The Supreme Being

The names used for the Supreme Being enable men of different faiths to join in prayer (to God as each sees Him) without the terms of the prayer causing dissention among them. There is no separate Masonic God; a Freemason's God remains the God of the religion he professes. Freemasons meet in common respect for the Supreme Being, but He remains Supreme in their individual religions, and it is no part of Freemasonry to attempt to join religions together. There is therefore no composite Masonic God."

Any questions? Blueboar 23:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Then put them in where the citation requests were. I'm not quite sure why you didn't simply insert them in where the quotation requests were, it's hardly a massive change in structure or the meaning of the article. JASpencer 23:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should he use your plodding technique? There is a citation link, so live with it. Imacomp 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The instructions on how to respond to citation request tags say to put it on the talk page for discussion... I did so. That is what citation requests are FOR. It even says to go to the talk page as part of the tag: "Quote requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source". As to why I did not add the quotation to the citatation as a footnote... since it is already directly quoted in the text, I did not think that a footnote was needed. It would have been repititious. The citation is linked to the UGLE page, if someone wants to verify the statement, they can click on the link and read it there. Blueboar 00:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should he use your plodding technique? Err, because it means that people think things through. Your dislike of a "plodding technique" speaks volumes. JASpencer 22:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Pike and the Cross

This once, I am willing to let a Pike quote stand... however, I have put in the ENTIRE quotation and not just a snippet. Reading the entire quotation, it becomes obvious 1) that Pike says the cross was used in many different cultures through history, and that he had borrowed the TAU cross or ankh from Ancient Egyption mythology for use in this degree, and not the Christian symbol we use today. Christians should not be offended by this. 2) The inscription INRI was (according to Pike) used in several cultures. 3) He does NOT say that Freemasons use any other interpretation but the Christian one (he assumes that the Christian one is the interpretation his initiates will give the letters, and so says "How we read it, I need not repeat to you.") At least that is how I read the quote. Blueboar 03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As a note, in the introduction to the second edition of Sepher Hadebarim: The Book of the Words (I think I got the spelling right; Pike used a very "I don't know Hebrew, but I know some basic Hebrew grammar and looked up some words" style of romanizing; I think it should really be Sefer (or Sepher) Ha-d'varim), Art deHoyos has a note saying that Pike backed off one of his etymologies in particular (Jah, would you believe, for those who are following that discussion) as it was too fanciful in hindsight. I'll get a copy of the page next time I'm in the library, but I think it really illustrates that we need to be careful with Pike. furthermore, I think that anything in quotations in M&D is lifted from another source, but you need to carefully peruse a paper copy to tell. In short, we need to rewrite Pike and the M&D articles at some point as well, even if only as "modern criticism". MSJapan 04:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been re-reading the section here, and the quotation in M&D. I am beginning to change my mind as to leaving this citation. As so often happens, you almost need to have a doctorate in both comparative theology and comparative mythology to understand exactly what Pike is trying to say. The one thing that is clear to me is that Pike is not saying what our Article implies. For example the article states that "Freemasonry treats the cross as a symbol of nature and eternal life, rather than solely of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ"... but that is not what Pike says... he says "ancient Sages" did so. I don't know who these "ancient Sages" are, but they were not Freemasons. In short, the article is taking Pike out of context (even with my adding the entire quote and not just a snippet) and deliberately misinterpreting what he says.

Also, I am going to repeat what I have said on the talk pages for other articles... Pike does not speak for anyone but himself. He did not and does not speak for Freemasonry. OK, One can make the argument that he spoke for the AASR, US Southern Jurisdiction in the mid-1800s, but that is not the same as Freemasonry. EVEN if members of the Scottish Rite (in the Southern and Western US only) did take Pike's writings as gospel truth (which they never have), that is only about 20% of US Freemasons, and less than 3% of Freemasons world wide. In short, Pike's ideas do not affect 97% of Freemasonry. To say that anything he wrote contains "what Freemasons believe" would be like saying the entire Catholic Church believes what the Sedevacants say.

I want to have more discussion on this, but I am now leaning towards deleting the quote, and thus the entire section. Blueboar 14:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Crucifiction, Part Deus

Now, before anybody flips out, that's an intentional pun; I do know a modicum of Latin (this pun, however, was not intended - or was it?). Anyroad (to quote John Lennon, who imagined there was neither Heaven nor Hell [I'd better stop the quasi-theological wordplay before I get completely off the Path [no really, that's the Last one, at least before Supper]]) -- *beep* (We now return you to your regularly scheduled message)

What all the above was getting at is this: as the opening paragraph of the Crucifixion section is a critique of alleged misuse and/or parody (an inaccurate term, may I add, as the nature of parody requires all involved to be aware of what's being parodied, and non-Christian Masons wouldn't have a clue) of the Crucifixion in Masonic ritual, I can't help but think that in hindsight, "Crucifiction" was a very nice portmanteau, and I think I'd like to put it back in as the title, because it really does sum up the contents very nicely. It also grabs one's attention, and isn't too spurious, IMHO, unlike my opening statement. MSJapan 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Applicability of Pike

OK, given that it has already been demonstrated that Pike had no authority over regular craft Masonry I have managed to dig up a reference which indicates the Antient and Accepted Rite ritual (Scottish Rite to the colonials ;) ) as used in Northern Jurisdiction and England and Wales wasn't written by him.

The A&AR ritual was originally documented by Etienne Morin and Henry Andrew Franken in 1771. The manuscript is held by Supreme Council for England & Wales. Franken then added to that in 1783, the manuscript being held by SC US Northern Jurisdiction, Lexington MA.

I'm not sure when NJ split from SJ, but SC of England&Wales was formed in 1845 under the authority of US NJ. Pike didn't assume the office of Sov Gd Commander SJ until 1859, and as Supreme Councils are Sovreign clearly Pike would have had no authority over either NJ or any SC derived from NJ. Indeed following the issuing of the patent NJ wouldn't have any authority over its daughter SCs. Morals and Dogma wasn't published until 1872.

From that timeline it can be demonstrated that regardless of the influence of Pike within Southern Jurisdiction he had no authority over other Supreme Councils.

The source is a privately printed document by SC England & Wales, published in 1960, reprinted 1990. A&AR The intermediate degrees.

Now I appreciate that the impact of this will probably be played down because it is a privately printed source and so not easily available to the public, however it does exist. I also appreciate that it could be suggested that the conclusions I'm approaching may constitute orginal research, but I'm sure the material could be included to inform the reader.

I'm copying this across to the Catholicism article as well.ALR 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ALR... good to have some facts to counter the fiction with. Blueboar 00:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

given that it has already been demonstrated that Pike had no authority over regular craft Masonry - assertion ain't demonstration. But that's not the issue.

All very nice, but the point is was Pike influential and important (or all time Goliath) in Freemasonry particularly in the late Nineteenth Century - as masonic websites assert?

The mystery is why don't you shut me up by providing a masonic counter citation to show that Pike was irrelevant - especially as regards religion, at least now. If I've missed it then please do show. JASpencer 22:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's too easy to be uncritical of him. However, I believe I can find such a source - but it will take a little while. There's a lot of Pike criticism that hasn't gotten on the Web. MSJapan 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much what I expected in terms of a response. It's a bit like 'so when did you stop beating your wife?'ALR 00:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have given you the statistics on this... less than 5% of all Masons are members of AASR Southern Jurisdiction. That means that Pike's influence (if any) is restricted to less than 5% of all Masons (today it is actually less because the Southern Jurisdiction no longer uses Pike's ritual.) The stats are in John Robinsons "A Pilgrim's Path"... not a Masonic source as Robinson was not a Mason at the time he wrote the book. Robinson has a whole chapter about how Pike is not really relevant to Masonry, and how Anti-Masons misquote or misinterpret what he says. (I just returned the book to the library ... looks like I will have to borrow it again).

Which leads me to my real point... misquoting or mis-stating what Pike is saying (such as was done here before I put the entire quote in). EVEN IF Pike had a large influence on Masonry (which he didn't), it would not be the influence you indicate. Blueboar 00:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

From JAS link to masonicinfo

• Most who join Masonry have no idea who Pike was. In fact, of those who join Freemasonry, few will own a copy of any of Pike's works. And of the few who do, it will likely be Morals and Dogma - a book most admit to never having read! For about 60 years it was given to all who joined the Southern United States jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, an appendant body of Freemasonry. Of the few who actually begin reading this ponderous 850+ page tome, few finish it and of those who do, the great majority admit that they could barely understand it. Yet despite this, anti-Masons assert that Pike and his works exert significant influence over Freemasonry today.
• Morals and Dogma is not a manifesto (i.e. public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions) for Masonry or even for the Scottish Rite's Southern Masonic Jurisdiction. It is, rather, an attempt by Pike to provide a framework for understanding religions and philosophies of the past.

ALR 08:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally I have already provided links to the UGLE statement on Grand Lodge recognition which states that UGLE does not recognise as regular any GL which accepts subordination to a Supreme Council. That is quoted on the page on regular jurisdictions which I've linked to several times in this debate. There is a corresponding line in the rules for Supreme Council England and Wales which states that it claims no authority over the craft. Hardly a mere assertion. Now I'll accept that this does rather undermine the arguments of the Catholic Encyclopedia which puts a very different slant on the article.ALR 08:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, and I am not trying to say that Pike isn't an embarrasment or that he shapes Freemasonry. The point is (a) was he influential (not did he shape Freemasonry) in Masonic circles in the Nineteenth Century (not now). Is Mackey to be regarded as not being influential because he was in a near-identical position to Pike.

I also think that we should be careful with Albert Pike in separating the (at least) three strands of his “work”. Firstly the Taxil hoax material (not permissible except to show the beliefs of those who quote it), Morals and Dogma (genuine but batty and hard to fathom) and the contemporary letters that were (genuinely) written by Pike (far clearer, and arguably written on behalf of some section of Freemasonry). I think that we are perhaps butting our heads unnecessarily by looking at Pike as one source rather than nuancing what the sources were about. JASpencer 09:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can see a way out of this. You appear to want some form of contemporaneous statement of non-applicability whereas I would prefer to highlight the lack of discrimination in the references about that lack of applicability. I'm pretty sure there will be something in AQC (108 volumes) but I don't have access to any more than a couple of volumes at the moment, but any of those wil be retrospective. As far as I'm concerned unless he was talking about Craft Masonry (the three speculative degrees of EA, FC and MM) then it doesn't matter what he wrote.

As to Craft FM not being explicitly Christian, I have no problem with that, it's not. I was sitting in lodge last night with a couple of Buddhists, a Taoist, RC and Anglican Christians.ALR 12:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The non-Christian is important, not being yoked with unbelievers (in a religious setting that is), but it's not the point. The point is that Pike seems to many outside Freemasonry to be somehow representative of Freemasonry in America in the late Nineteenth Century. What we have to ask in relation to the non Morals and Dogma stuff - official letters, etc - is (1) was Pike widely quoted by critics of Freemasonry, (2) did they get it right and in context, (3) did it matter then and (4) does it matter now? (1) Is self evident, as this argument shows, (2) may be debatable (Taxil hoax more than muddies the waters), (3) should be decided primarily by Masonic sources and (4) is not seriously put forward by anyone here apart from Lightbringer except in explaining the historical discord. Would that be a reasonable summary on the state of affairs?

On Morals and Dogma this gnostic text is important in other ways, but it should be seperated from Pike's more current letters. We can argue about the place of this in other ways but I don't want to see any more arguments that a certain letter from Pike is (in)valid because everybody\nobody uses Morals and Dogma any more. The applicability of Morals and Dogma brings up a totally different range of issues. JASpencer 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree (1), have some doubt about (2) because the anti-masonic usage conflates Craft and SR, Pike wrote as head of the SR. I see context as a different issue and can reasonably be debated in a discussion about it's applicability to SJ SR, since it should already be clear that when he wrote the SJ SR rituals other Jurisdictions existed and were already using their own rituals. (3) is what I've been trying to demonstrate, the applicability was limited to SJ SR, and I would agree with your assessment of (4). I picked up a current edition of 'Beyond the Craft' yesterday when I was in London so should be able to discuss some of the history of the order after I've been through that.ALR 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with one comment JAS makes: "The point is that Pike seems to many outside Freemasonry to be somehow representative of Freemasonry in America in the late Nineteenth Century" Exactly.... he seems to be representative... not is representative. Ever since the Taxil Hoax, many non-Masons (and especially Anti-masons) have assumed that Pike was as a source for "what Masons believe". It is this (inaccurate) perception that has caused all the problems with quoting Pike. While Pike is not and never was "influential" in Freemasonry, he was VERY influential in Anti-Masonry. Anti-Masons have poored through his writings looking for "gotcha" statements (mostly in M&D, but also in his other letters) to prove their view of Freemasonry. They have taken things out of context, mis-quoted him, and they twisted his writings to fit their own views. Given this, I am being very strict about how Pike is being used. Two things I will insist on is that you actually quote PIKE and not a second hand source (It is important that we be able to verify the citation), and that it be clear that Pike speaks only for himself and not Freemasonry as a whole. If these conditions are met, and Pike actually says something that supports a claim you are making, I will let the quote stand. Blueboar 14:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly it is by no means clear that Pike speaks only for himself in relation to 19th Century American Freemasonry, especially outside M&D. I accept that you don't accept him as someone who's influential, but Pike is seen as influential by at least two contemporary masonic sources - indeed one of them a masonic apologetics site. On deleting information from encyclopedic sources, you should first attempt to qualify it or contradict before taking it out. After all the Knights of Columbus oath was defended by you even though it's a proven forgery. JASpencer 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

ermm, not me. I have no view on the KofStC.ALR 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You've clearly made your mind up, however I'll point out that one of the two sources is from an area which is covered by the Southern Jurisdiction. I make no comment on the other source beyond agreeing that it's apologist.ALR 18:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That was SarekOfVulcan. MSJapan 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting it all gets deleted, it is part of the situation the article is describing, but it needs a health warning on it. The assertions made by various bodies are communicating an inaccurate picture to the reader.ALR 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK... You want to make the argument that Pike was important or influential to Masonry during the Nineteenth Century... to do that you would need Nineteenth Century citations saying he is influential or important at the time. Do you have anything like that? In particular, do you have anything that was written PRIOR to the Taxil Hoax (ie during Pike's lifetime), and that comes from a source not connected to the Southern Jurisdiction? Blueboar 19:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

California Freemason on-line is published by the Grand Lodge of California. Are they going to be friendly to Pike because of the membership crossover? JASpencer 21:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, at least not on a personal level. The opinions of the writers are their own opinions, and some may like Pike, and others may not. However, I'm not even sure if California Freemason would have anything relevant to Pike, as it's not a Scottish Rite publication, but a Grand Lodge publication. I suppose you would siply have to look. MSJapan 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Art deHoyos has some info that you might find useful, if you look at the bottom of Chapter 1 of Is It True What They Say..., because he contends that Pike's book was never intended to be anything but personal opinion, and it is misinterpretation that has caused it to be viewed as something else. MSJapan 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite it then. 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Crucifixion/Crucifiction

It has been a day and a half since I posted my reservations on this section. So far, the only comments about this section have been negative. I am going to give it to the end of the day, and if there are no comments to say why it should be kept, I will delete it. Blueboar 14:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please leave it for another couple of days. I've only just got back to editing after quite a lot of time in the office. JASpencer 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

OK... a few more days it is. Blueboar 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

On the crucifixion we should ask (1) is it a common claim, (2) where did it originate, (3) is it in context and (4) is it relevant? My feeling is (1) it is common - especially among Catholics, (2) Pike - M&D, (3) is Pike ever in context? and (4) I would feel that this is legitimately an area where we can say this is Scottish Rite and that Pike is mad. It would be interesting to know if M&D was withdrawen as a book from the Southern Jurisdiction because of Christian distaste for its contents. JASpencer 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we may disagree on what "common" means... I suspect that most Catholics have never heard of Pike either, nor the Church's claim about the crucifixion. (In all likelihood, most Catholics know nothing more than the fact that the Church disaproves of Freemasonry, and have never bothered to ask why or look deeper into the issue). However, I will grant that the claim may be common among Catholic scholars of the Church's Anti-masonic stance, since I don't have any evidence to say otherwise. Anyway... given what you say about Pike being a mad old coot and that "this is Scottish Rite" and not all of Freemasonry... do you object to removing the section? If you do, then you need to majorly reword it to overcome my objections. Blueboar 18:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, common among Catholic critics of Freemasonry (and evangelical critics). JASpencer 20:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation request on Constitution

I have reinserted this as I was looking for a citation on Imacomp's assertion that "Freemasons were consistent advocates of the separation of church and state, as is found in the First Amendmenat of the US Constitution." I'm not sure what he's getting at but the sentence reads as if the First Amendment is Masonically inspired. That needs to be cited. (It would be interesting).

If he's trying to say something different then this needs to be reworded. It should also say something like "current interpretations". JASpencer 16:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think his contribution in that sense is both barking and most likely defensive, but the more useful point is your inference. It is known that a number of those (significant minority) who participated in the drafting of the constitution were Masons, and there may have been an influence from the type of material discussed amongst masons at the time. ISTR it's discussed in 'The Temple and the Lodge', Baigent and Leigh.ALR 16:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a different look at what Imacomp is trying to say... I think he is using the US Constitution as an example of the separation of church and state... trying to point out that the non-dogmatic nature of Freemasonry is similar in nature to the Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment. Cirtainly US Freemasons have long been active supporters of this concept, whether in Freemasonry or in the US Government. I do not think he is trying to say that the Freemasons wrote the Constitution (if I am wrong, I am sure he will speak up for himself.) Blueboar 17:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lots of the founding fathers were Freemasons. I recently added the Freemasons category to those founding fathers according to what I've found in Harry S. Truman's 10,000 famous freemasons. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.7.55 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar has said it all for me. However it is not my "take", as I am just trying to balance the POV non-POVly. Historically, the problem the Roman Catholic Church has had and has, is one with democracy, not Freemasonry - and this is more acute in Latin and other Catholic countries.Imacomp 10:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer, I think, kindly provided the cited ref at the start of the section. Anyway, although the citation was provided for the oposite point, it covers the whole of the point that US Freemasons defend their Constitution as patriots _ so no further citation is needed. Hence fact tag is redundant. Imacomp 10:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's worse than I feared. The "seperation of Church and State as in the First Amendment of the US Constitution" is a whole article in itself. It radically changed from the seperation that said simply that the United States was to have no established church (although, say Conneticut did) to the present O'Hair status of school prayer not being allowed at Football games. If the O'Hair radical seperation of religion from the social sphere is indeed a Masonic agenda then it should be cited (I don't believe that it is, however as long as it's properly cited it should go in, it would have the side effect of making the Catholic case against Freemasonry unanswerable to all but the non-believer). If it is a general illustration, well it's far too loose. The very boundary of church and state is the crux of the issue here, and putting in vague and meaningless feel good pap about how all Masonry does is defend the unintepreted constitution just doesn't cut it. I would say that this should go unless any Masonic link (preferably with a Catholic dimension) can be found. JASpencer 15:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer wrote above, "...putting in vague and meaningless feel good pap about how all Masonry does is defend the unintepreted constitution just doesn't cut it." Is that the official view of anyone apart from yourself? Imacomp 15:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wondering about "new religion" section...

I notice it's tagged, and needs work to show both sides of the argument, so here's comments (in parentheses) and rewrites (in italics):

Although Freemasonry is seen by some Christians as encouraging of religious indifferentism[46], most Masons would consider Freemasonry to be fostering religious tolerance. According to the critics, Freemasonry is said to show many characteristics of a separate religion:

(BTW, is this critique particularly Catholic? At least in the US, one is required to swear allegiance to Christianity to join Knights Templar, and most of the invitational bodies require an applicant to be a (usually Trinitarian) Christian. So, obviously certain types of Christianity don't object to Freemasonry. Therefore, is there a fundamental issue with what the definition of Christianity is in this article? Like most other religions, Christianity is not homogeneous, and I'm sure certain sects have a greater objection to Masonry than others.)

(I'm going to add comments to present the other side of the coin on these allegations)

Freemasonry has an altar[47] and a sacred book (The Volume of the Sacred Law, in most cases the Bible, but it could be any sacred book )[48] (Most religions have this, true, but so do courts, if you think about it) There are regular ritualistic meetings (not entirely true; there are also plain old business meetings, and that form is consistent with any meeting that has an organized agenda - in short, the critique is a lot more specific than it appears to be.)

The York Rite, an appendant body of Freemasonry, calls its presiding Officer "High Priest"[49] and some Scottish Rite jurisdictions have buildings they call Cathedrals[50] (You've cited three out of probably 200 jurisdictions just in the US)

It has a large amount of iconography and symbolism (so does Dante's Inferno - in short, this is not a pointer to a "new religion" per se)

Some groups of Masons (especially the Scottish Rite) call their meeting places "temples",[51] (a Lodge is a group of Freemasons operating under a charter or dispensation.[52] The place where they meet is sometimes called a temple, but usually, several lodges use the same temple)[53] (This should be combined above, especially since the Scottish Rite claim here contradicts the earlier statement. Also, most Masons still call the building the Lodge, as in "I'm going to Lodge" not "I'm going to the Masonic Temple for a Lodge meeting")

Dates are sometimes reckoned in Anno Lucis, "Year of Light" in preference to Anno Domini" or "Year of Our Lord"[54] (if you calculate it, BTW, it's pretty close to the Jewish reckoning of the year of Creation, and this is only done on the Lodge notice as pertaining to the founding date of the Lodge, which is also given in standard form. A secondary dating system is not an indicator of a new religion - there were two calendars in effect in Europe for a while.)

It has its own name for the Creator - the Great Architect of the Universe[55] (but what Deity that pertains to is entirely up to the individual Mason)

It has its own way of saying "amen" ("So mote it be" or "So let it be", which is claimed to be a literal translation of "Amen")[56] (This is true, but it's pretty weak - there have also been statements to the effect that "Amen" is "Amon" (an Egyptian god), used at the end of prayers so the Egyptians wouldn't realize would think the Jewish slaves were praying to Egyptian gods instead.)

It has rituals which are far more developed than those of many organized religions[57] (weaselly, and not really substantiated - I'd say any regular religious observance is pretty well-developed)

Any person from any religious background can be a member of the Freemasons as long as they accept the belief in some form of a Creator[58] (there are civil laws against religious discrimination in most countries; to do otherwise would therefore be illegal, and is not really an indicator) MSJapan 16:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

For starters - NO ALTAR in UGLE FM. If you can cite a ref - then its news to me. Imacomp 16:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In UGLE the VSL is the "Authorised Version" (King James is not an English expression) of the Bible. Other sacred book(s) may also be open in the Lodge. So prove me wrong. Imacomp 16:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If it aint Craft/Blue Lodge then it do'nt belong here and should be pushed off to the correct "degree" page. Same goes for the anti side. So no need to defend or argue your other degree suff here at all. Just give a link. OK? Imacomp 16:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Dates. Wiki likes to use BCE and CE, not BC and AD. Cite me a direct ref. were Christ tells His Church to use "Christian" dates. Its a man made custom, so get over it. (So says a Reformed Christian) Imacomp 16:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry (ie the article's subject, so do not argue other degrees here) has no name ie NO NAME of its own for any God or god. It describes the atributes, and each Freemason is free to interpret as per his own faith.Imacomp 16:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It does, the criticisms of FM, from a theological perspective, are predominantly predicated around a lack of understanding, or intentional misrepresentation of the relationships between Craft Masonry and the apendant bodies. In that sense the article is about the relationship between Christianity and Freemasonry so it needs to include the criticisms, however it is reasonable to balance that with clarity around the relationships.ALR 16:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Catholic prohibitions....

This section is little more than a list. Can we perhaps generalize a little bit about particular movements and sects, while retaining the footnotes, and turn this into a paragraph instead? MSJapan 21:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of Catholic Encyclopedia - in light of JeffTs removal

Wikipedia:Using Catholic Encyclopedia material highlights that the {{catholic}} tag should be added to make clear that the article contains elements form the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. The inclusion is to suport the structure of wikipedia and identifies that the excerpts used are not subject to copyright. I'm confused as to how the inlcusion of the tag as identified is in any way POV, it would only be so were the article single sourced and clearly partisan, which it isn't. With that in mind I'll include it again.ALR 10:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On further investigation, JeffT (talk · contribs) appears to have reverted a number of edits without notifying or providing any explanation. The edits had been in place 8 days which would imply tacit agreement by the vairous active editors in this space, with that in mind I'll rollback to my own edit of last night which was merely inserting the Catholic Encyclopedia tag.ALR 10:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Beaten to it by Imacomp :) ALR 10:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup it is I! Concur with ALR. Article Rv. 07:40, 3 April 2006 ALR, by me. Imacomp 10:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-clerical/ Anti-Christian

Monitoring todays Lightbringer incident I noticed this statement:

• Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical

which I have some difficulty with. I don't see anti-clericalism as being anti-Christian, except from the context of the various church hierarchies. Whilst I appreciate what's being said I'm not convinced it's in context; given the ongoing discussion it is more reminiscent of the RCC objection to FM. I would suggest that this conflates the moral/ philosophical aspect of FM and the explicit political activities of French and Italian FM at certain periods in history. I haven't got an alternative wording at the moment but would suggest that this sentence be replaced with something more appropriate and the sentiment moved into the RCC section where it is more appropriate.ALR 12:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree... I suspect that the "Christianised" half of the statement is a good faith (but flawed) attempt to make the "anti-clerical" half of the statement ballanced and NPOV. However, the two haves are not contrasting points of view - since one can be Christian and still anti-clerical, as well as pro-clerical without being Christian. This statement has been here since the article was first drafted (by JASpencer?)... perhaps he might comment on what he was trying to say when he wrote it? Blueboar 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

ABrowne? Lightbringer!

ABrowne. Now you are making it too easy! You are Lightbringer! Spotted in three edits! Imacomp 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations and footnotes

An issue has come up on a related page (talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry) regarding the need to add quotations to all the footnotes and citations. I want to take this to a different level, divorced from any specific citation or footnote or even any specific page. We need to create a consensus policy for the various Freemasonry related articles regarding citations and footnotes. JASpencer seems to feel that every citation and footnote should contain a quotation. I disagree. I feel it is enough to cite a link to where the statement that we make in this article can be found (or where clear support for the statement can be found if we are not actually quoting something). I find all the quotations in the footnotes to be clunky, overly burdensome, and potentially misleading (the potential is there for someone to take a snippet from what is said in a source, quote the snippet here (out of context) to support a statement, when in fact the original in the source does not support what is being said here at all). So, I want to toss this debate out to all the editors. Do you think we need all these quotations in the citations?... please explain your view so we can come to some consensus. Please respond on at talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry so we can consolidate our replies in one location. Blueboar 15:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No. A footnote is to direct a reader to a source, not to give them the source text. I don't think that any citation needs a quotation. If it needs to be said, then say it in the main part. Imacomp 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please respond on this issue at talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry so we can keep all of the discussion in one place.

Masonic and Mormon Ritual

I have no clue if this will make a difference but, here's some thoughts.

I'm both a practicing Latter-day Saint and a Mason. Having been through both rituals, I see how both are based on the ritual of "cutting a covenant" described in Genesis 15. http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0115.htm has a fair description.

In short: - three animals were sacrificed by dividing them in two parts. - the two parts were arranged in a "corridor" - the two parties take position at the ends of the corridor - walking to the center, each takes the other by the hand, repeats the terms of the covenant and ends with a ritual phrase -- [I, party of the first part will do A if you will do B... and if I do not fulfill the covenant, let God do unto me as we did unto these animals.] -- [I, party of the second part will do B if you will do A... and if I do not fulfill the covenant, let God do unto me as we did unto these animals.] -- no one ever promises to execute the other because, calling God to witness--one would usurp God's perogative to do so ["vengance is mine, thus saith the Lord"]

In the LDS Temple, the Abrahamic covenant is represented. -- [I, God (represented by a person) will grant you Eternal Life if you will follow my commandments....] -- [I, Nazgul9 will follow your commandments if you will grant me Eternal Life...]

In the Lodge, another covenant is represented, using the same boilerplate. -- [I, the Master of the Lodge (representing all masons) will be your brother if you will be a good man and a brother to us...] -- [I, Nazgul9 will be a good man and your brother if you will be a brother to me...]

Same form, but with the blanks filled in differently.

I believe those who established the Mormon and Masonic rituals knew their old testament. I believe both more likely sprang from the same source rather than one being necessarly copied from the other.

Does this justify changing the article? I don't know. I just wanted my thoughts documented somewhere.

Thanks for the forum.

I don't know what Masonic ritual you are quoting... but it isn't anything that goes on in my lodge. That said, even if this paraphrase of the Abrahamic covenant it IS part of a Masonic ritual in some jurisdiction, it should not surprise us. Similar words are used in most initiatory contexts. In the middle ages a Christian Knight and his overlord would exchange similar vows when swearing fealty. It is an exchange that goes WAY back in history. Blueboar 22:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

POV?

Okay... could someone please tell me why this entire article just seems to be apologetic towards Freemasonry? I'm not asking that the entire article consist of "MASON = SATAN!!1ONE", but this is more than a little bit POV and seems like it's nullifying every reasonable criticism.

Oh, and just to let you all know, I'm not a fundamentalist. Hope that helps.

Mister Mister 23:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is because it started off as being overly POV in the other direction... An anti-Masonic rant about how Masonry did = Satan worship. This caused a reaction... People like facts, and not unsubstantiated accuations. Since many of the claims that were made were easy to disprove, people threw in the factual nullifications to balance the POV. It happens there are very few criticisms that can not be nullified. Sorry if you find the POV skewed, but facts are facts. Blueboar 16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said Blueboar. My reply would have been more along the lines of, "Unfortunately due to the fact that most anti-masonic agendas are pushed based purely on speculation, conspiracy theory and mental deficiency of comprehension of evidence or facts and as almost the majority of all such afforementioned drivel has no citations other than likewise nutjob origin sites, the article will appear POV not by intent, but by substantiating facts overwhelming the pro-AMPOV." .. Jachin 10:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Born-Again Hate

Just a note worthy of raising, I've noticed that most people are focusing on anachronistic anti-masonry from the Roman Catholic church, but no one is really touching on the only religious group / cults that are overtly hostile towards Freemasons in my experience, both in real life and on Wikipedia. Born again christian groups, whilst no specific church stands out as it seems every church is registered by a completely different name and aren't particularly always friendly with one another. But, fact of the matter is, the only evident 'hatred' I've witnessed in my time is by these flavour of Christianity. If anyone would care to address this issue, it would be appreciated as I fear I lack the means by which to do so. Jachin 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of this stems from the fact that the major contributor to this article on the "Anti" side is an ardent Roman Catholic (I refer, of course, to JASpencer). As such he tends to focus on the Roman Catholic criticisms of Freemasonry (and he would probably disagree with you about these being anachronistic). This is understandable... the RC criticisms are what he is familiar with and knowledgible about. Feel free to "balance" the article by discussing the "Born Again" Anti-masorny that comes from the Extreme Religious Right. Just be sure to keep it NPOV. Blueboar 12:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting considering I'm RC and the vast majority of brethren in my Lodge are also RC. But meh, different countries and different cultures I suppose. I might attempt to touch on it, but I really don't think I can remain NPOV about it. Being outright vilified by sporadic segregated religious cults that sprang out of middle-american popular culture in the last twenty years and therefore having no credence with which to vilify in my opinion would lead to nothing but a spur of vitriolic acidity. Anyone here willing to assist, perhaps if we work together we can tone it down? :P Jachin 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

S-protect

With the latest outbreak of Lightbringer activity, using an IP-adress instead of a username, I've requested semiprotection for this page and the others I can see he has been hitting. WegianWarrior 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, it makes all too much sense to do this. Thanks WW Blueboar 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when have Mason editors shown any sense? Come to think of it since when has Freemasonry shown any?

Christianized vs. Anti-clerical?

I am going to remove the second sentence. As it currently stands... "Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical." ... the wording simply does not make sense. It posits an either/or... saying that one can be either Christian OR Anti-clerical... but this is incorrect. Someone can be Christian AND Anti-clerical at the same time. For example, many of the Christian demominations founded during the Protestant Reformation were (and are still) clearly Anti-clerical. Blueboar 12:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Field PDF

I had deleted an unreliable convinience link to the Eddy Field document that lists various Christian denominations that do not approve of Freemasonry. The document has been added back in (by JASpencer) as a PDF. This is fine if it comes from a reliable source. JAS - could you include where you downloaded PDF from? Blueboar 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The PDF is from the webpage of The Master's Seminary Journal, and I'd included a link to the the Journal's web page (for volume 5) in the footnote. It's here: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj94.asp JASpencer 18:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

Non-Catholic Denominations

I have noticed something that disturbs me about the list of denominations that disaprove of Freemasonry ... many of them are sourced by sites that are not related to the denomination in question. I have no problem with a long list of denominations that disaprove of Masonry, but I do think we should cite sources directly from the denomination in question. Given that some of the people cited are ardently Anti-Masonin, and thus quite biased, I do not think we can rely on second or third hand evidence here... the authors may not have the correct facts, or may be taking statements out of context. For example, The Church of England is on the list... based on a fragmentary quotation, possibly taken out of context, and hosted on an Australian evangelical church's web site. For a statement of fact about a particular denomination, we should have direct evidence from that denomination. Either that or we need to attribute the allegation to who is making the claim about them. I will let people search for acceptable sources, but if none are forthcoming after a week or so, I will delete the denomination from the list. Blueboar 17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. You have to show that each source is unreliable. Neither the New Catholic Encyclopedia (written by William Whalen - author of "Separated brethren; a survey of non-Catholic Christian denominations in the United States", an expert on comparitive religion) and the rest appear in the Master's Seminary Journal. Sourced and credible information should be removed without an RFC. JASpencer 18:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you strongly disagree, I think we will have to go to an RFC on this... It is fine if you want to say "according to Author X, Church Y says Z" but to jump directly to "Church Y says Z" and cite to Author X is not proper verification. To me you would need a direct statement from Church Y. Blueboar 18:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC Lodged. JASpencer 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI I have lodged a slightly different question under yours. Blueboar 19:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Per the RFC I've removed the denominations listed by Field but not the NCE . JASpencer 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Can articles from outside a denomination be used to verify the denomination's position on Freemasonry? 18:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC) - Rephrasing the question: Can articles from one denomination (one with a definite bias against Freemasonry) be used to verify another denomination's position on Freemasonry? 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Can the following two sources be used to verify the positions of other denominations on Freemasonry:

• (1) Freemasonry – article from New Catholic Encyclopedia, by William J Whalen © 1967, Volume 6, pages 132 through 139 inclusive

Quote: "Many Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations have similar prohibitions for their communicants. In the U.S. the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, which have a combined membership of 3 million, and all other major Lutheran denominations warn against lodge affiliation, but not all enforce the ban. Among the other antilodge churches are the Christian Reformed Church, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, Society of Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, Church of the Nazarene, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), United Brethren, Wesleyan and Free Methodist churches, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. General Booth condemned it for the Salvation Army. The National Christian Association was formed in 1874 to coordinate Protestant opposition to secret societies. On a worldwide basis the majority of Christians belong to denominations that absolutely forbid membership in a Masonic lodge or similar secret society. It must be admitted, however, that many of these Protestant condemnations have never been enforced and are dead letters today."

• (2) http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj5g.pdf Freemasonry and the Christian (PDF), Eddy D. Field II and Eddy D. Field III, From "The Master's Seminary Journal", Fall 1994, p. 143

Quote: "An overwhelming number of Christian denominations have condemned Freemasonry, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church of England, the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Synod Anglican Church of England, the Assemblies of God, the Church of the Nazarene, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Christian Reformed Church in America, the Evangelical Mennonite Church, the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Grace Brethren, Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America, The Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Baptist Union of Scotland, The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Presbyterian Church in America."

JASpencer 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• This goes to more than just these two sources.... can a statement from an author who is tied to one church be used to verify what another church has to say. My feeling is that you should EITHER find a source from the church in question, OR attribute the statement to the author. For everyone's benefit... This relates to WP:RS - especially the part about Biased Sources. Blueboar 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I do not see any problem in citing (1), of course if properly attributed to the Catholic Encyclopedia. As for (2), I would cite that only if Eddy D. Field II and Eddy D. Field III are respected authorities on the subject, or alternatively, that it is verifiable that indeed all these denominations have condemned Fremansory. Another caveat is the use of the word "condemned", are all these denominations used that specific term? In which context? to which degree? Are the denominations referred to, notable w/ significat number of adherents? etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• If it's considered a reliable source, then it just needs to be cited, that's all. It's just like any secondary source. If there's specific reliability concerns regarding that particular source, that's one thing, but otherwise, the denomination the author specifically represents is irrelevant. Sxeptomaniac 19:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you both of you for taking the time n the RFC. I've taken out Field's references and we can thrash out on the Talk page whether the article meets WP:RS. It's fairly clear that the New Catholic Encyclopedia meets WP:RS. JASpencer 19:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Short form - evaluate the source, not the denominational affiliation. At Wikipedia we care primarily about reliable sources - if the source is reliable, it doesn't matter what denomination it is from. If it isn't reliable, it doesn't matter what denomination it is from. (We do, however, distinguish a set of sources that are deemed reliable for material solely about themselves - most forms of self-publishing.) The Catholic Encyclopedia is a reliable source, so it can be used, but should be cited as all sources should be. I didn't already know "The Master's Seminary Journal", and can't tell from the title. If it is an academic journal, articles in it are reliable. If it is a polemic house organ, articles in it count as self-published, and reliable only for the publishers thereof. Doing some research, TMSJ is an academic house journal of a seminary accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and I see no reason not to treat it as an academic journal, and thus reliable. GRBerry 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• My thought would be that there is a POV issue involved, in that an avowed anti-Masonic denomination is claiming facts about another denomination that clearly serves the first group's purposes. Therefore, there could be a reliability issue as per things like wording (as was already mentioned). I would think that there should be a way to verify claims made by a third party by finding material put out by the denomination being mentioned. I can't imagine any religious group not having a statement someplace about their views of Masonry. MSJapan 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have two issues.

I'm not so much concerned about the sources themselves, as to what they're being used for. All we have at the moment is a list, with no supplementary information regarding reasons for the various objections to FM, or of course the importance of that church within the overall Christian fraternity. The list as it stands is likely to cause the reader to infer an equivalence to all the objections where none exists, there is also no indication of how that objection was arrived at. As an example the CofS report on the craft is straight out of Knight, therefore lacks credibility, I'm sure others are similar. My issue is similar to the recent point about 'does the same argument which appears on lots of websites have validity'.

My second issue is the lineage of the assertions in the reference, if there are indications of the authors source then they should be investigated, if not then the blanket description as 'condemnation' should be considered as suspect. That's certainly too strong a word for the CofE and the methodists.

ALR 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: Perhaps a solution to this is to rework this section as something other than a bullet point list. We can then give proper attribution as to the source, and discribe exactly what the stance of each denomination is in regards to Freemasonry. Blueboar 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was planning on leaving a discussion on the solution as a distinct header, to avoid conflating the issues. But I think a useful approach would be something along the lines of 'these denominations object to x', 'these object to y' etc. It would make clear that some take different approachs, and indeed some just have a blanket objection to anything that's not them. At least the RCC and Anglican communion are more subtle about that aspect ;). ALR 13:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not hoping to add to the work involved, but I remember there is a book published by a William J. Whelan (I regret that I don't have it right now) which deals with the various statements of the various churches regarding this matter. It might be useful. Also, in some cases, if documentation can be provided, it might be that one church simply followed another church in issuing the condemnation. If that is true, then a statement "Church foo condemned Freemasonry in Year X for reason Y, and Church foo2 followed with a similar condemnation." Badbilltucker 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote Request

A quote request was posted for the following statement and citation:

• It has its own name for the Creator - the Great Architect of the Universe, probably derived from John Calvin's referrence to God as "the Architect of the Universe" in his Institutes of Christian Religion.

The quote is as follows:

"This phrase was introduced in Reverend James Anderson's 1723 Constitutions of the Free-Masons, and he no doubt picked ut up from John Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. God is referred to as The Architect of the Universe and His creation as Architecture of the Universe no less than ten times. In Calvin's commentary on Psalm 19, God is called the Great Architect or Architect of the Universe."

Given that Dr. Anderson was an ordained minister in the Kirk of Scotland, which is basicly a Calvinist off-shoot, Dr. Morris's conclusion seems extremely likely. Anderson would have been very familiar with Calvin's works. Blueboar 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related issue: I dont think we can say "It has its own name for the Creator" any more... since it is clear that Calvin used the same terms. So, I have changed the text to read "It uses an obscure name for the Creator". That done... I am not sure if this is really correct either. For one thing, the objection is that "G.A.O.T.U." is unique to Masonry, even though the term is not actually unique. If someone can come up with a better wording on this please amend. Blueboar 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine about taking "It has its own name". However (you knew there would be a but) this is a common allegation. I'll find a citation and come back with a rewording. The other thing is I don't like the word probably. It is contended, it is possible but "probably" would need a better citation than a Masonic apologetic. For example was this the most common use of the term in Calvin's institutes? Was it really a translated term that Anderson would have been familiar with? Was it in common use at the time? We are putting our own judgements in when we say it is probable on a matter of conjecture. That's why I'm going to put a citation request here. JASpencer 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not puting MY judgement in... I am puting in the judgement of a noted Masonic Scholar (they don't ask just anyone to write "Idiot's Guide" books)... "Great Architect" may not have been Calvin's most common usage (a quick look in Calvin's Institutes seems to indicate that "God", and "the Lord" wins out on that score) but the term shows up 10 times, that is not an off the cuff chance reference. Anderson was a Calvinist minister and would have been VERY familiar with Calvin's writing (in that day and age, it would be likely that he would have been required to be able to quote whole passages from memory in order to be ordained). That he picked up on the term to use in Freemasonry is more than just likely; it is indeeed probable. However, if you really do doubt this, I can reword and attribute the statement to Dr. Morris. Blueboar 15:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Probable is a judgement whether it's by you, me or an Idiot Guide and one that would be better cited by someone who isn't a Masonic author. It's a nice theory but I'd be glad to see where this originated. I suspect that it's a theory in a paper to a research lodge rather than Anderson's papers. I'm not against including the Calvin theory in WP but I don't want to impute more authority than it actually has. When I was talking about a translated term by the way I meant was "Grand Architect" in early eighteeenth century English translations of Calvin's works? (Are we really arguing over one word?) JASpencer 21:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that S. Brent Morris's judgement is published in a reliable source, while your judgement or my judgement is not. Morris is a very highly respected historian. I have to somewhat object to your saying that he is not qualified to speak on a Masonic subject just because he is a Mason. I could just as easily say that the NCE article on Freemasonry should not be quoted because Dr. Whalen is an Anti-Masonic Author (and from my insiders view, Dr. Morris is much more accurate than Dr. Whalen when it comes to Freemasonry).

As for where the theory originated... for all I know, it did originate with S. Brent Morris. That does not really matter. What matters is that it is a highly probable and valid theory published in a reliable source. I have attibuted the oppinion to Dr. Morris, so that should be enough.

I am not sure what you mean by your last sentence... Are you saying that Calvin should be translated as "Grand Architect" and not "Great Architect"? If so, I don't really see how this could be an issue. Looking at an on line version of Calvin's Institutes, most of the time Calvin just calls God: "Architect of the Universe." If I read Morris correctly, the word "Great" only comes up in the commentary on Psalm 19... and that without the "of the Universe" addition... even if this should be translated as Grand, it is not really important. Morris's point is that Anderson picked up the term "Architect of the Universe" from Calvin. Adding on the word "Great" is a very minor thing (after all, lots of prayers start with "Almighty Lord, Great God in Heavan" and stuff like that). Blueboar 22:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not the point. S Brent Morris is biased about what Calvin is going to say. Thus although the theory is possible it cannot be said to be probable. S Brent Morris may be an expert on Freemasonry but is he an expert on Calvin? Or Eighteenth Century clerical culture? Or utterly unbiassed about Freemasonry? Let's look at another example. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Freemasonry is deist. CE meets WP:RS, but does this mean that this is an allegation or a fact?

The word I was talking about was possibly / probably not great / grand. JASpencer 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Dr. Morris is probably not an expert on Calvin (I really don't know) ... but he IS an expert on James Anderson... and that is what is important. Dr. Morris does not come to a biased conclusion about Calvin, he simply states the number of times Calvin uses a particular term. That is hardly bias. The only issue is whether Anderson was conciously using Calvin's wording when he decided to use the same term in Masonry. Dr. Morris, being an expert on Anderson, says there is "no doubt" on this. If anything, my use of "probably" is down-playing his expert oppinion.

Now, if you can come up with a source that disagrees with Dr. Morris, you are free to add it.Blueboar 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This would be a licence to add in any expert opinion (for example the Catholic Encyclopedia) as accepted fact. Morris's view is biased and not seriously repeated (as far as I've seen) outside of Masonic circles and should be treated as such. Yes, it's an interesting and plausible theory, but there is a more predominant one out there that the Great Architect is a lowest common denominator deity (the UGLE for example says something like this and does not mention Calvin) or the CE view that GAOTU is an acknowledgement of Deist views of a watchmaker God. JASpencer 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

First, you keep saying Dr. Morris is biased... what exactly are your grounds for doing so? That he is a Mason?

Second, let me spell out the logic here once again... FACT: Calvin refers to God as "Great Architect" ten times in one of his most influential books. FACT: Anderson was a Calvinist minister at a time when one would need to study Calvin's writings in detail in order to be ordained. FACT: Anderson uses the phrase "Great Architect of the Universe" to refer to God in his Masonic Constitutions (this is the first known use of the phrase in Masonry). OPINION: Morris makes the logical conclusion that Anderson took the phrase from Calvin. This is his expert oppinion, and it is stated to be such in the article.

Finally, I see no problem with adding other expert opinions. Like I said, if you can find an expert that disagrees with Dr. Morris as to the derrivation of the phrase, feel free to add it. If the CE has another view on where the phrase came from, you are welcome to add that ... not as fact, but as an expert oppinion (I would agree that the CE reflects the oppinion of experts on Catholic oppinion of Freemasonry ... I am less sanguine about using it as an expert on Masonry in general.) Blueboar 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is that he is biased, and his bias should be mentioned if it is material - which it clearly is. The licence I'm worried about is accepting all expert opinion uncritically. Your quite clear that the following sentences should be written:

A specific charge made in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia[4] against Freemasonry is that the introduction of speculative Masonry in the early eighteenth century specifically aimed at dechristianising the old operative masonry lodges. However, this charge was dropped from subsequent editions.

..rather than:

The introduction of speculative Masonry in the early eighteenth century specifically aimed at dechristianising the old operative masonry lodges.

After all they are expert sources, why mention their biases?

It's also a minority view unmentioned (as far as I know) outside Masonic circles, although I grant that it is both interesting and plausible. To say that it's probable gives it more credence than a minority view deserves.

JASpencer 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You still have not explained WHY you think he is biased (I have to assume that it is just because he is a Mason - but is this correct?)... I really don't understand where you are coming from in this. I see nothing biased in his opinion. His opinion may be right, or it may be wrong... but I don't see a bias opperating in a statement that the term "Great Architect of the Universe" is derived from Calvin's use of the term "Great Architect". How is that biased?

As for your example with the "dechristianizing" bit... yes, I did (and do) feel that is how that bit should be written. It is a fact that the 1913 CE made that charge... But since this is the CE's OPINION, you can not phrase what the CE says as if it were FACT (which is what the second version does). Attribution is needed so the reader can judge the source and whether the source is credible or not. It is important that controvercial OPINIONS be stated as such. This is EXACTLY what I have done in attributing Dr. Morris's opinion on where the phrase "Great Architect of the Universe" came from. I make it clear that this is his opinion. If you really have a problem with my use of the word "probably"... I will change it to a more exact quotation and say "no doubt". Blueboar 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The present wording about him being a Masonic historian is fine. JASpencer 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

sigh... JAS, I made that change on August 22nd... over a week ago. Now it is suddenly fine? What changed your mind? (not that I am complaining... just curious) Blueboar 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was replying to your post on the talk page. Never mind. JASpencer 19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Anno Lucis

Regarding

• Dates are sometimes reckoned in Anno Lucis, "Year of Light" in preference to Anno Domini" or "Year of Our Lord" (To figure the date Anno Lucis, Masons simply add 4,000 years to the Anno Domini year)

The statement about adding 4,000 years is a simple statement of obvious fact, (the current Masonic year is 6,006 A.L. I was raised in 1984 and my arpon is embroidered with "Raised: 5984 A.L." etc.) does this really need a citation to "prove" it? Does anyone think you don't add 4,000 years? Blueboar 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the readers will not be freemasons - as I am not. Just as what I think are obvious points about Catholic theology should be sourced and explained for the non-Catholic reader, so should Masonic points. JASpencer 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK... although I am not sure if there is anywhere that specificly outlines how Masonic dating is done, or why it is done that way... it seems to be one of those things that is handed down by word of mouth and is so obvious that everyone takes for granted (once you figure out that the AL date is AD plus 4000, you tend not to think about it further)... at least most Masons take it for granted. Given how some Masons can go on and on about their history and traditions, I suppose it is possible that someone wrote a paper on this. I'll do some digging and see if there is anything I can find that discusses it.

Question... are you looking for a citation to back the fact that you add 4000 to the AD year, or are you looking more for something that explains why this is the way it is done? Blueboar 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing what people has written of articles on Wikipedia: Anno Lucis. And it links to what appears to be a decent reference at [3]. More can be found at [4]. WegianWarrior 20:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, didn't think of looking on WP. Added citation. JASpencer 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Claims and WP:NOT

Now that the long dormant area of Satanic claims is coming back, I have long been unhappy about having these claims in wikipedia. We do not need rebuttals, just as we never needed the original claims. Under WP:NOT it lists Critical Reviews, which is where these belong.

This sort of thing that should be in Wikinfo. It should not be in Wikipedia.

JASpencer 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that these claims are repeated ad nausium on so many Anti-masonic Christian websites. People will come to Wikipedia to find out more about them... and it is important that we give them the facts. Blueboar 19:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not put something on Wikinfo and put a link to that article? JASpencer 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not a POV issue or a request for sympathy, but rather a logical extension of the argument. One side of the argument from evangelical Christian websites is that Masonry is Satanic. The Masonic side is that that set of statements is misleading in the extreme. Now, if you want to call evangelicals "not Christian" we can certainly leave them out of this article. Otherwise, they still form a part of the Christian objection to Masonry. Just because they don't research anything and are just a vocal minority shouldn't make a difference because the claims are so easy to find, right?

My point is that it looks like you are only trying to address well-researched and logically supportable claims by various Christian denominations against Masonry, when in fact the majority of what people will find without digging a bit are the evangelical claims, which aren't supportable and put an entirely different face on the "Christianity vs. Masonry" issue than the mainstream denominations do. It is also notalbe that a lot of evangelicals are not looked upon favorably (such as that group that protests at soldiers' funerals). Therefore, while I think the section formatting needs work, I think it is important to show that the Christian argument isn't necessarily right, logical, well thought out or what-have-you, as seems to be the wont of the article.

As food for thought, the really funny thing about the Christian objection to Masonry is that no one has yet pointed out that you need to be Christian to join KT (or it at least helps), as well as many other Masonic invitational bodies (which IMHO only shows how many Christians are actually involved in Masonry). I think then that a problem arises which does not reconcile with the evangelical arguments, namely because logically speaking, that many Christians can't possibly all be wrong. I mean, you might be able to get away superficially with Rose Croix = Rosicrucian (albeit an undeniably Christian form when you look at it in any deph whatsoever), but you can't really avoid "you must be a Trinitarian Christian to join this group." MSJapan 11:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Knights Templar and the York/American Rite in general are an area that can be expounded upon in this article.

On the claims of s**ansim I don't mind mentioning it but this claim-counterclaim format can't do anything but violate NPOV. JASpencer 12:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am confused by that last statement. How does listing a claim, and then listing a counter claim violate NPOV? I would think NOT listing them would be POV. Blueboar 01:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim-counterclaim format is very hard to square with NPOV as it depends on who has the last word. JASpencer 07:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Far better than my vagueness above, from WP:NPOV:

refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

Although that's not my preference for the section - I'd like to see it shortened dramatically with reference to the fact the claims are made and that they are refuted - it is a clear suggestion in which to structure the article. It also suggests that this method of claim-counterclaim is a problem with other immature articles.

JASpencer 07:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If we take what you are saying to its logical conclusion, the entire article can be shortened to: "Various Christian Demominations say that Freemasonry is incompatable with Christianity. The Freemasons disagree." That way we don't list any claims (which would be POV) or any counter claims (which would be POV in the other direction). In reality, the ONLY way to keep this article NPOV is to have some form of claim/counter-claim format. It is a black and white issue.

As to the Satanism claims... MSJ makes a very good point above. If you do a google search on the word "Freemasonry", you will get hundreds of hits that repeat these claims and mis-quotes. We have to address this in the article, if only because of that very repetition. The Satanism claims may not be a big issue to you (as they do not play a role in the objections of the Catholic Church), but they definitely are a huge issue for Evangelicals and are key to their attitude towards Freemasonry. Because of this they are an equally important issue for Freemasons. To not include the claims and the facts about those claims is a NOPV violation of serious proporions. I would be like not including discussion about the war in Iraq in the article on President Bush. Blueboar 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are attacking a straw man here. I'm not saying that the section should be ignored but "shortened dramatically with reference to the fact the claims are made and that they are refuted". The claim - counterclaim format seriously unbalances the whole article. I was hoping to see some sort of concensus emerging, but we seem to have reached an irreconcilable difficulty very early on and it's probably time for an RFC. Am I wrong? JASpencer 13:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I will agree that there is a formatting issue. However, these specific claims made by evangelicals are pervasive and ubiquitous enough (because of the Internet) that they have been specifically addressed and refuted by Masonic researchers, using objective evidence. I think that makes the claims important enough to be specifically addressed in this article, in the same way that we have addressed claims by other denominations.If it's an importance issue, we need an RFC, but if it's simply formatting, I think we can just scratchpad some different ideas. MSJapan 13:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off awaiting scratchpad ideas. JASpencer 13:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got an idea, pending consensus: First of all, spin off the claim/rebuttal section into its own small article. I think it's visible enough online to be article-worthy, and there's enough available web and published information to outline and explain all of it, but it seems that the issue here is that it takes up too mucvch space and looks bad. Spinoff allows us to then simply chop the section here entirely, and just summarize the situation in a paragraph or two without doing claim/counterclaim type stuff. MSJapan 17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

To me, that's fine. I think we still need a section here with a main article link to the spin off article. I still think that the claim-counter claim format is problematic. But it could probably be worked on there.

Blueboar may object that this is a POV Fork (he did this last time). JASpencer 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am not as against the idea of spliting off the various claims and counter-claims as you think. Obviously I would object if I felt that either article were overly POV after the split. However, I look at this as an opportunity to re-create this article and make it something that is not only both factual and fair in its treatment of the issue but also well written and informative. so... The next question would be: what remains or gets put into this article? Blueboar 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And yes, this is a bit of a change from my previous stance... the difference being that earlier we were talking about cuting the claims/counter claims stuff, not spliting them off and including a link. Blueboar 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this a bit more... and have come to the conclusion that it is not really as crucial to have the quotes as I have previously stated. I do think it is important to discuss the concept in general (ie to mention that many evangelical anti-masonic websites contain quotes from various Masoninc and non-Masonic authors which perport to "prove" that masons worship satan... but that in each case they are either repeating statements that are part of the Taxil hoax, mis-quoting the original or taking a legitimate quote out of context) ... However, I no longer think it is crucial to provide the examples. Blueboar 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought something was weird....(Membership Prohibitions section)

The prohibition on Lutherans is linked to a DeMolay site, which I thought was weird, so I hunted through the document in question, and the paragraph the quote comes from says (I've bolded the last part, which was left out in the citation):

"Thirdly, you will find that opposition to Freemasonry also comes from certain Lutheran Church denominations. This opposition appears to have its roots in the Roman Catholic Church from which the Lutheran Church developed. Most Lutheran denominations have official anti-Masonic positions of one kind or another. For example, the constitution of the Lutheran Church in America (the LCA) says that "no person, who belongs to any organization which claims to possess in its teachings and ceremonies that which the Lord has given solely to his church, shall be ordained or otherwise received into the ministry. This deliberately vague and arrogant regulation is designed to deny lodge membership of any kind (including Masonic) to LCA clergy, but it does not apply to LCA lay members."

IMHO, that's not quite the same prohibition as the article claims (especially if there is a distinction between lay members and clergy), so I think it needs to be clarified. There's a few other interesting things in the document as well that might be usable, though they are a little biased. I especially like the usage of Scripture to illustrate that maybe Masonic ritual is only allegory, and how, being based on the OT, Jesus simply doesn't figure into prayers (nor does he appear in the Lord's Prayer, which was very interesting).

As a final note, that list of groups looks terrible - it takes up too much space. Can someone format it into a table or something so it's smaller? We can at least put two or three things on a line that way. MSJapan 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it could easily be transformed into a simple narrative list in one paragraph (denomination A, denomination B, denomination C, denomination D, etc) instead of a line of bullet points. However, I would like to hold off on that for a little while. I have been checking sources against WP:RS, and do find it easier to keep track of things when it is in bullet point format. Blueboar 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

now de-bullet pointed. Blueboar 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Definiton of religion

I have to question the inclusion of the following:

In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy by William P. Alston, he lists nine characteristics that make up a religion.

Belief in supernatural beings (gods).

A distinction between sacred and profane objects.

Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.

A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.

Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.

Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.

A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or’ point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.

A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the worldview.

A social group bound together by the above.

First, under this definition, one could define US Marine Corp as a religion. But to look at this as it relates directly to Freemasonry:

• Belief in God - Yes, Freemasons have a belief in God... for the Christian Mason this God is Jesus Christ. For a Jewish Mason this God would be the God of Abraham. For a Muslem Mason this is Allah... as there is no unique "Masonic" God, Freemasonry is not a seperate religion under this part of the definition.
• A disticntion between sacred and profane objects - What does this mean? A Cross is recognized as being a sacred object, even by those who are not Christian. I, a Christian, understand that the Koran is a sacred object for Muslems. So how can making a distinction between sacred and profane define a religion? If it means that specific objects are considered sacred and others profane - there is nothing in Freemasonry that is considered a sacred object except for the Bible. So, while Freemasonry does make a distinction, it is the same distinction made by every Christian. Thus, Freemasonry is not a seperate religion by this part of the definition.
• A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. - You mean the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule? Again, Freemasonry is not a seperate religion under this part of the definition.
• Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods - see my comments above as it relates to sacred objects. I hardly think feeling reverent when the Bible is opened, or when praying to God makes Freemasonry a seperate religion. Thus, the definition fails here too.
• Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. - See above about belief in God. How does this define a religion unless you have a defined "unique" God or set of gods that you pray to? since a Christian Mason is praying to Jesus, Freemasonry can not be called a seperate religion under this definition.
• A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or’ point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. - Actually, Freemasonry does not define a world view, mearly encourages its members to live by the world view of their individual religious faiths - so it totally fails under this part of the definition.
• A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the worldview. - NOPE
• A social group bound together by the above. OK... I suppose you could say you got us on this one... Freemasons are a social group bound together by our rituals and commonalities ... so are the Boy Scouts, the Knights of Columbus, the Elks, the United Auto Workers, The Mayflower Society, The US Congress, etc, etc, etc... and no one accuses them of being a seperate religion.

For the above reasons, I am going to delete this as non-sensical and irrelivant to the issue. Blueboar 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, it's POV like nobody's business - "critically acclaimed work", "superb argument", and so on, but the above dissection is accurate, and refutations can be sourced. Just because I'm reading a bit about this for research purposes, the difference between "sacred and profane" sounds a lot like Mircea Eliade (for anyone who wants to read up), but it is standard wording in religious studies - there is something that differentiates a sacred (i.e., religious) space or object from a profane (vulgar or commonplace or everyday) space or object, like the torii of a Shinto shrine or the doors of a church or synagogue, and the symbols thereon. That being said, the S&C is not a religious emblem, so the argument still fails. MSJapan 04:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Rosicrucian Influences section

This has a LOT of unreferenced material and citation requests. Could someone please either add citations or re-write? Otherwise I will start deleting bits that are not backed by citations. Blueboar 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

PROBLEM!

I tried adding a comment here however spam filtering stopped me, it says I was trying to add a link to the Freemasonrywatch.com website, which, I was most certainly NOT trying to do! Seems odd. Could someone invesitage this? Seems like a party from that very biased website has fooled around with this talk page... You will note I deleted any link i could find to the site, as aparently, until something is resolved here, it is the only way ANYONE can add a new post. I hope someone much more qualified than I can rectify this... John 05:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FMV is listed on the spamfilter (as it ought to, consider how many times and pages a certain banned editor added it). My guess is that the occurances on this page of FMV that you blanked out were from before FMV was added to the spamlist, and that the filter didn't catch them until you tried to edit this page. Not much to do about it other than to edit out the hyperlinks as you did I guess. WegianWarrior 06:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well just as long as I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. And having FMV blocked is a good idea as I said in my first commentJohn 01:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Lacking citations

I've taken the liberty of commenting out (<!-- -->) everything that were still lacking a citation. The information is still there, for easy reinsertion when and if citations become avilable. The dated tags has been up since February, and in most cases the request for citations goes back beyond that.WegianWarrior 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

British Methodist report

That reference I reverted out was a footnote to the report, so I'm not convinced it belongs here, unlike the original report.--SarekOfVulcan 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Blue Lodge vs. Other Bodies

Does anyone else think that a distinction should be made between the three degrees of the Blue Lodge and the degrees of other bodies such as the York and Scottish rites? Many criticisms of Freemasonry stem from elements specific to these other degrees, and do not necessarily speak for the Blue Lodge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.133.249 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Enthüllungen des Systems der Weltbürger-Politik

In one sentence the article states that this was an annomymous book... and in the next it says who it's author was... so which is it? Also, while I can certainly see mentioning this book as being the first of many religious oriented conspiracy theories involving the Freemasony (and thus setting a pattern), do we need to get into as many minute details about it as we do? From the language, I am going to guess that this was added by someone who did not speak English as a first language... it comes across as a bit clunky. Perhaps we can reword and summarize the key points a bit. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question, but....

Why is this whole article critical of Freemasonry when the majority of its members are Christians of some sort? There's got to be something addressing Christian support for Freemasonry. Another possibility is undue weight being assigned to these criticisms. For example, I would consider the Scottish Rite criticism to be only applicable to Scottish Rite, not Freemasonry as a whole.

Also, the "Christian belief" requirement for HRAKTP, etc. needs to be addressed. If Hodapp claims that non-Christians can and have joined the Knights Templar, they're eligible for all of those other groups that require Templar membership. They are still excluded (as are some Christians) from the Royal Order of Scotland, which requires a profession of particularly Trinitarian belief. I think the Rosicrucian groups do as well.

In any event, this article needs to be balanced. MSJapan (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not ballanced... the problem is that while many Christian denominations either support Freemasonry or take no stance at all, few of these denominations have bothered to publish anything stating such. Religious statements tend to discuss the few things followers are not allowed to do, rather than discussing the multitude of things followers are allowed to do. That leaves Wikipedia in the position of reporting on a one sided debate.

Unfortunately, I don't see a solution to this. Perhaps we need to get broader community imput on the issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Deism - a question

This section begins by saying "One of the persistent Christian criticisms of Freemasonry is that it advocates a deist or naturalist view of creation"... I know this is a Catholic criticism... but is it a criticism made by other Christian denominations? If so, we need citations to show this. If not, we should shift this down to the sub section on the Catholic Church as it is a denomination specific criticism. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to the Noahida stuff (and perhaps other stuff as well)... if it is not a specifically Catholic complaint we need to demonstrate this, otherwise we need to move it to the Catholic specific section. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Deism has been quite common among denominations for some time. The Noah stuff, I'm not sure, probably Catholic. JASpencer (talk)

Then we need to substantiate the Deism claim with more than just a Catholic source. If it is common, I don't think we need one for every denomination that makes the claim... perhaps you could pick two or three representative ones. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

OK... this seems to be a problem throughout the article... several sections discuss specific criticisms as if they are common to Christianity in general, but they are sourced entirely to Catholic sources. If we are to say that they are common to Christianity as a whole, we need non-Catholic sources. I have moved these parts into the section on Catholic criticisms pending such sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Edward Waite

The bit on Arthur Edward Waite in the section on "Claims of Satan Worship" brings up a quote cited an anti-masonic site. The quote relates to the claim of satan worship by implying that Waite was a Mason and a diabolist. It is relevent that Waite was not a Mason at the time of writing the book, wouldn't it also be relevent that Waite was not a diabolist either? How is it not relevent that Waite was quoting another document for scholarly purposes and that the anti-masonic site misquotes him? I mean, if someone was trying to claim that Jews are always Republicans by claiming Michael Moore is a Jew by citing select portions from his books, wouldn't be important to point out that Michael Moore is not a Jew AND that he is not a Republican? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not really... Without the claim that Waite was a "high level Mason", it does not matter what Waite believed or did not believe (he becomes just another author writing about the occult). The reason he is quoted by Anti-masons is the mistaken idea that what he wrote was in some way "authoritive" in Masonry. Blueboar (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Look before leaping

This has a serious problem, Blueboar. I moved the non Catholic Encyclopedia reference up. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes are linked via MoS. Now, you can revert them back, or I could put a notice that you are tendentiously editing this page without looking at the content. The second sentence was referenced, in my edition, properly to the Catholic Encyclopedia link at the bottom. You improperly changed this. Now, if you are going to edit this article, please stop the fighting and actually look at edits instead of templating and reverting without looking. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please look at my edit more closely. The statement in the article reads: "The Catholic Encyclopedia writes that in the early years of speculative Masonry the central legendary figure of many lodges was Noah." To support this statement, we need a citation to where the Catholic Encyclopedia actually says this. There are two problems... first, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Freemsonry does not actually say this... second citation that was being used to support this statement (which I removed) was not the Catholic Encyclopedia. It was an article from the Scottish Rite Journal.

As to your moving the ref to the Scottish Rite Journal up... no good. That sentence talks about the Church's view... and the Scottish Rite Journal does not discuss the Church's view. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, it is MoS standards to allow a citation to be placed at the end of a paragraph and cover multiple lines. Thus, you cannot put a "citation needed" template. If you think that this is not referring to the source properly, then fix it. Your template was inappropriate. Please separate content from action.

Then, after you do that, why not try to craft something that is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia? We have many fine quotes:

1. "Masonry is credited with the building of Noah's Ark,"

2. "A Mason is obliged by his Tenure to observe the moral law as true Noahida (sons of Noah, the first name of Freemasons)"

3. "by whatever names, religions or persuasions they may be distinguished; for they all agree in the three great articles of Noah, enough to preserve the cement of the lodge. "

4. In Continental Masonry the same notions are expressed by the words "neutrality", "laïcité", "Confessionslosigkeit", etc. In the text of 1738 particular stress is laid on "freedom of conscience" and the universal, non-Christian character of Masonry is emphasized. The Mason is called a "true Noahida", i.e. an adherent of the pre-Christian and pre-Mosaic system of undivided mankind. The "3 articles of Noah" are most probably "the duties towards God, the neighbour and himself" inculcated from older times in the "Charge to a newly made Brother".

And these do not include the non-Noah based claims by the Catholic Church, which are 100% appropriate to discuss in that section. So please stop blindly edit warring, templating, and instead just fix the article to state the idea which the sources are clearly backing, but may have been poorly put. As to my moving of a reference about the Scottish rite to the line about the Scottish rite? I don't really know how that can be considered "no good". If you have a better reference, then put it back in instead of reverting so it is back down in the wrong area. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Catholic section

If the Catholic section is really connected to a "main article" then this whole area should be reduced to one section without subsections and summarize the other page. I do not see the "Noah" information on the other page, so this should either be moved down to another area and expanded, or this should be added to the main "Catholicism and Freemasonry" before given prominence here. This is per summary style guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

NOR and the Sons of Noah section

With JASpencer's re-working of the Sons of Noah section, we now have an even worse case of Original Research. It is simply a string of non-sequetors that have no relationship with each other except the mention of the name Noah.

We start with the statement:

• The church also objects to the reference to Noah in the Twenty-first Degree - Noachite, or Prussian Knight from the Scottish Rite, an appendant body which requires candidates to be Master Masons.

Right off the bat we have a problem... we need a source to show that the Church actually objects to this reference (the CE doesn't work, because it does not mention the 21st degree... also the CE is almost 100 years old. In order to use the present tense and say that the Church currently objects to this degree, we need a more modern source).

We then have:

• This is seen as placing all Freemasonry in a pre-Christian ethic, or Noahida.

This statement states a conclusion that is not backed by the source. It is cited to an article in the Scotish Rite journal, not a Catholic document. The citation doesn not discuss how the 21st degree places Freemasonry in a pre-Christian ethic. The article is a study of how Masonic ritual has changed since the late 1600s and early 1700. It does say that there were some very early Masonic rituals that focused on the Noah story as opposed to the modern Hiram Abiff allegory, but it does not discuss how this might lead to Catholic objections to Freemasonry at all.

And finally:

• Albert G Mackey, the author of the Masonic Encyclopedia, wrote that "Noah was the father and founder of the masonic system of theology".

This is a Complete non-sequetor... it also does not discuss the Church's view of the 21st degree (it can't, because the 21st degree had not been written when Mackey wrote his Encyclopedia), it does not discuss the Catholic Church's veiws of Freemasonry... it takes a quote from a Masonic author (writing some 200 years ago) out of context. In the context of this paragraph, what a long dead Masonic author says about Noah and Freemasonry is irrelevant... what matters is what modern Catholic scholarship says about Noah and Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, instead of focusing on what is wrong, please try to keep your comments to one section and try putting up a better version. Anyone can attack and criticize, but a true editor is supposed to be putting together appropriate content. Please, instead of constantly attacking, please produce something that we can all discuss and agree upon. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sons of Noah

Weasel section. "It is suggested" opens the section, followed by a ref to a discussion on a Scottish Rite site. So who suggests the pre-Christian stuff? The Roman Catholic Church, or the Scottish Rite? The article cannot use a source from one to support the other. Furthermore, it's nitpicky and undue weight; here there is a specific criticism of one degree out of 32 that gets its own section, and the basis of the criticism went out of style 200 years ago. MSJapan (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not just Weasel, now that I look at it again, what we are dealing with is Original Research... specifically an improper sythesis. The section combines a critique made in a 90 year old Catholic source (the CE) which quotes a statement in a 200 year old masonic document, and a modern Scotish Rite source that is discussing something completely different (that the focus of masonic rituals 200 years ago was Noah and not hiram)... all to make the uncited conclusion that the Church objects to a general Masonic focus on Noah today. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and while I'm 18th at the moment, the summary I've seen of the higher degrees of A&AR doesn't resemble what's being discussed. It looks as if the RCC have yet more issues with Pikes ramblings and extrapolate that to the whole of Freemasonry.

What I also realised was that from what I remember of the CofS report, when it talks about the 33 degrees of the AASR it uses the Pike terminology. AASR in Scotland don't use that.

ALR (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing before WWII (except the Constitutions) will address Freemasons' identity as Noachidae because the Graham Ms. 1726 was unknown to Masonic scholars until WWII when it surfaced. http://www.iowamasoniclibrary.org/webforms/Downloads/Graham%20MS.pdf That the Constitutions, whose audience was intended to be all Masonry, identified Masons as Noachidae, and that there was no evidence of any reaction seems to say it was evident to all. Kk306 (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)