::@Ian WP:Bite and Brad, let's keep this discussion civil please.  
 ::@Brad, the use of bolding and/or capitals in talk pages is seen as shouting, so please don't. Also, user talk pages are meant to leave personal messages but are under editorial control of the use. So as Ian mentions above, evertyone is allowed to leave personal messages on another users talkpage, and every user is allowed to edit his/her own talk and user page including removal of content. Final remark to Brian, in this post I have wikilinked (bluelinks) to relevant Wikipedia policies (as did Ian above), please read, accept and internalise those rules. While you may not agree, these are rules of Wikipedia, and editors who are not willing to live by the spirit of these rules tend to end up in a lot of nasty conflicts, and usually end up being blocked from editing; which is a waste of time and energy for a lot of people (including the editors that end up being blocked). So either accept the rules, or consider that Wikipedia may not be something for you after all.    
 ::With regard to the content, in my view there seem to be 3 issues here where we need to achieve consensus on each of them before agreeing to add text of this kind.  
 ::1) Are Freemasonry Encyclopedias reliable sources for the etymology of the word God? 
 ::2) Does the quote from that freemasonry encyclopedia indeed claim anything of relevance to the etymology of the word God? 
 ::3) Is the acceptance of the freemasonric etymology of God relevant for this (specific) top level article, or does it give undue weight to a minority idea?  
 ::My position towards these is: Re 1) No, these sources maybe reliable for freemasonry topics (albeit possibly biased because of self publication). Re 2) I do not really know, but Ian.Thompson makes a case against Re 3). I would say it is not sufficiently relevant, as Wikipedia should give a readable overview of a topic to the reader and not overload articles with indiscriminate amounts of information, in this case I think this would give undue weight to this explanation for this top level article. That does not say that this information cannot be relevant for  other, more detailed articles (e.g. God (word)), only not here (note that for other articles, you also have to address points 1&2). So in summary - no it should not here as far as I can see right now.