Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 10

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 26 Nov 2005 and 3 Jan 2006.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_11. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Archived by WegianWarrior 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

message: :Freemasonry is "non-dogmatic". It is not a religion, or a substitute for religion. The cannon of Mackey's work - is just that - Mackey's work. No person, or even Grand Lodge, speaks for the whole of Freemasonry. The "rule" that says a Freemason must believe in God is a constitutional matter, not a matter of dogma. Atheistic Grand Lodge constitutions are not recognised by Grand Lodges holding fast to the "Ancient Charges", and visa versa. The "Ancient Charges", are constitutional documents not "holy writ". Magna Charta in England or the written US American Constitution are not, as far as I know, regarded as "holy books" - but are the basis of law in their jurisdictions.Talk Image: Masonic_Skull_n_Femurs_little.PNG  Skull 'n' Femurs
::But it's not an "abstract GAoTU" -- it's God. We refer to Him by that term to avoid denominational quarrels, and to remind us that He created the heavens and the earth.--SarekOfVulcan
:::True - for "our" Grand Lodges. However those "we" would term "irregular" are "Freemasons" of other constitutions who, may well, regard "GAoTU" as offensively abstract to our ears or eyes. I would regard "GAOTU" as a constitutional position, when writing about Freemasonry in general - for a religiously pluralistic readership. Regular and iregular, I would define from UGLE's POV - as the first Grand Lodge. I agree with UGLE's constitutional stand, regarding Co-Masonry. However in the article "Freemasonry" they may well have a place - explicitly defined as iregular from UGLE's POV. Each Grand Lodge's article should cover their own stand-points in more detail. UGLE's stated position, as yours, does not make English - or your - Freemasonry a Religion or religion of itself. GAoTU is a description of God, not a "name" of the god (note the little "g") of Freemasonry - to be interpreted as you think fit, within "the" (or your) Grand Lodge's Constitution. Talk Image:Masonic_Skull_n_Femurs_little.PNG (Re-edit) Skull 'n' Femurs 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem here is conflation of the name with what it is naming, but we are generally limiting the article to "regular" Freemasonry, as there is no way to categorize irregular Freemasonry in one or two distinct categories (because it depends on violating only one Landmark of many).  I do think, however, that we must make some sort of basic reference to irregular Freemasonry strictly from  a sense of context - "irregular" and "regular" cannot be defined without one another. MSJapan 02:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  MSJapan, the above points you make are fine and valid ones. Talk Image:Masonic_Skull_n_Femurs_little.PNG Skull 'n' Femurs 01:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-dogmatic and not a Religion

message: The systematized York Rite is not found as a complete system in the UGLE jurisdiction. Each sovereign and distinct rite or  “Order” in England - otherwise known outside of England as the York Rite – has significant differences (in the details of any English ritual used) when compared to the York Rite system. Members of  each distinct Order have recognised fraternal inter-relations with their respective Rite within the York system, provided that UGLE regards the parent “Craft” jurisdiction  as regular. Talk Image: Masonic_Skull_n_Femurs_little.PNG Skull 'n' Femurs 03:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a perfectly good explanation of a certain compound word, using only the Hebrew language. Reference, The Rev’d Canon Richard Tydeman, An Address to Grand Chapter, (of England) – as reported in the public domain. The first syllable indicates eternal existence, the continuing and never-ending I AM. The second syllable really does mean in Hebrew, "in heaven" or "on high". The third syllable is a Hebrew word for Strength or Power. Thus we do not need to go into apologies for faulty scholarship in the past, and we can leave Syria and Egypt and Chaldaea out of it altogether; for what is pronounced are not three names of God (or worse still the names of three gods, as some would suggest) but three aspects or qualities of the God that are well known and well used, in Christianity and in other religions, namely His Eternal Existence, His Transcendence, and His Omnipotence. Unfortunately there are many printed rituals which still refer to a name and not a compound word. Now, nothing that is done in another Lodge or Chapter can be described as "wrong", it can only be described as "different". It is for this reason an Alternative View of an entirely Hebrew interpretation emphasises reverence for God and  proclaims Him in no uncertain terms as "The True and Living God — The Most High — The Almighty". This is the explanation, which is now encouraged. Millennium Sentinel 14:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In English the adjective cannot designate case, number or gender. That means we are limited in how we can use this device. We always designate case in English by position in the sentence. But we have no way of designating the number or the gender of an adjective, except by the noun it agrees with. Therefore, a substantive adjective all by itself in English can only have the number and gender that convention assigns to it, and that usually is the plural of the non-specific gender, or "people." This word is a ritual compound, is a Hebrew substantive adjective - and convention assigns to it the singular masculine gender. Skull 'n' Femurs 23:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I retain any of that, SnF, I will have learned more about the English Language than during any 1 year of US H.S...;~D Grye 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: S&F I'm uncomfortable about one individual removing anothers comments on talk pages.  The points were legitimate although I would agree they were somewhat overstated and clearly intended to be confrontational but that can easily be managed with reasoned discussion, a reader may take their own conclusions from what is essentially censorship, and I would suggest that the impressions given by censorship are not what those of us in the craft would wish to give.  The other point is that my own response to Rathbone is now orphaned without context.ALR 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Whilst I'd agree that the word should remain in Wikipedia/ Wiktionary, as a RA Mason I can confirm that the word above does not appear in the ritual under Supreme Grand Royal Arch Chapter.ALR 13:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darth Dalek, I concur with you, and I have left a post at the "discussion" page. Imacomp 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we need to make a case for it being the name of a Jamaican deity?  "'Jah' is a reference to the deity of that name, beloved of Rastafarians and stoners everywhere. 'Bulon', following from Jamaican dialect, is a contraction of 'blond/e', and therefore it means 'to have blond dreadlocks and be smoking a joint'."  In any case, next time I and I see Jahbulon, I'm going to tell him (or his, if he turns out to be an adjective) he doesn't exist and he needs to go away.  Problem is, that makes me sort of a libertine atheist. MSJapan 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, it is my contention that this word is a misspelled combination of "Ja" - the german for Yes, and "Bullon" - a type of west indian fish (scarus croiensis).  I think that this word is used by German tourists around the world to indicate what they want for dinner. Usage: Waiter: "And your order, sir?" German: "Ja, Bullon ... er... I mean... Yes, I will have the fish, please" Blueboar 13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  אלך 'own (Pronunciation Guide  {one} ) Strong's Number 0202 , as strength 7 times in the Authorized Version, (King James Version of Scripture). I. m. (from the root, faculty, ability, hence – (1) strength, power, Job 18:7,12;40:16; Hos. 12:9; specially of virile and genital power, “first fruits of strength,” first-born, Gen. 49:3; Deu. 21:17; Psa. 105:36; as pl. Isa. 40:26,29; Ps. 78:51. (2) substance, wealth, Hos 12:9; Job 20:10. Citation: Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for “strength* 'own (Strong's Number 0202)”. Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2002.  Ta-da! Skull 'n' Femurs 15:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spurious Words ‘n’ Such

message: Comet's Virtual Lodge of Freemasonry 
Interesting site. Can't agree with it, but might it be worth leaving?--SarekOfVulcan 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with it is that it is only half true, and nothing it says in a negative light is true - e.g., the parts about OES and DeMolay being "inferior", and that the path of the Mason leads to hell.  I have therefore removed it. MSJapan 03:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I support your action MSJapan, and that the link remains on the discussion page, as a curiosity. Skull 'n' Femurs 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comet link 

message: I've rv'd a link. See History of Main Page. EA Tyler over-n-out. Skull 'n' Femurs 22:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rv Links 

message: *Laudable Pursuit: A 21st Century Response to Dwight Smith Laudable Pursuit addresses the subject of Masonic decline and what can potentially be done to reverse it.
SnF, why did you remove this link? Not encyclopedic enough? It was certainly an interesting read, even if I couldn't quite figure out what organization it came from.
:Oops: just spotted the above comment. Question still applies, if phrased differently now...--SarekOfVulcan 22:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a PDF, which would need to be noted as such (it's not a link so much as a document you need to download, which will wreak havoc on dialup), and it also requires some foreknowledge about the state of the Fraternity (which is also somewhat disputable, IMHO, because the membership issues are predicated on a whole host of things, many of which cannot be controlled by simply projecting a better image) which might make it not quite appropriate for what we're aiming for, which is information for the non-Mason (the useful bit for that is 8 or so pages in, and the same info, better researched, is available in American Freemasons by Mark Tabbert.  I think that that document, as structured, is not going to fulfill intent in the way it seems to. MSJapan 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline of Freemasonry 

message: I looked up "De Homunculo Epistola" - it was a tenth degree of the Ordo Templis Orientalis, and it was written by Aleister Crowley.  In short, nothing to do with Masonry, other than superficially.  Does anyone get the feeling a lot of this is coming about due to misinformation due to amalgamated e-books that put anything and everything that has symbolism and was written before 1973 under an "occult masonic rosicrucian" heading? MSJapan 07:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  For future reference, if needed - "De Homunculo Epistolo" 

message: I have noticed that some of the articles linked to Freemasonry as a category are really stubs that give nothing more than a definition of various masonic terms, concepts and/or Words (see "Tyler" or "Jahbulon" for examples).  Would it not make sense to move all of these to Wiktionary?  (I would do so, but I do not yet know how that is done.)Blueboar 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one possibility: Tyler, though, I think could possibly be expanded out to a longer article, if you want to mention there about meetings formerly being held in private homes or pubs.--SarekOfVulcan 22:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah I vote 1000% to get them over to wiktionary. I'm...uh... proven not good at it tho.  Grye 09:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms and Words 

message: This is the capitalization discourse, consolidated, in order, from the several pages it spanned: Freemasonry's history page, user talk:Grye & User talk:DreamGuy
::DreamGuy, I didn't do any of this thread's moving out of malice, wanted it in one place for all of our consideration. Did the same on ourtalk pages.
[from summary] (cleanup... who keeps going through here and making things capital letters for no reason? remove duplicate wikilinks, etc.) DreamGuy 08:05, 16 December 2005 
*[from summary] (Reverted DreamGuy's well-meant but erroneous de-capitalizations) Grye 08:12, 16 December 2005
*there's a bunch which are capitalized, like "Lodge". & Supreme Being. Etc. Grye 08:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammatically speaking, "Supreme Being" should be capped, as it is a proper title.  "Lodge", however, should only be capped in certain places via context (it is clearly correct is some instances, and clearly wrong in others.  The subheadings are questionable; either capped like a title or uncapped like a phrase is fine, as long as it is consistent.  Can we pick one, stick to it, and put this very minor issue to rest? MSJapan 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalization issue 

message: My post removed from here, by myself, ok? Millennium Sentinel 17:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... how did he get 4 warnings when his contribution list shows he's edited twice?--SarekOfVulcan 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I pondered the same, espesially seeing as how both the users edits was before even the first warning. A cause of mistaken identity perhaps? Not that I'm defening vandals, but still... WegianWarrior 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just backed out the second two warnings.--SarekOfVulcan 17:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User talk:Basil Rathbone]]

message: On the other hand, Del.icio.us is a list of links. And there's a nice Mozilla plugin to make it easier to work with...--SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on LP: it's useful for us, but not terribly encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 22:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you mean of the Main article? For starters, If we're going to start adding the links to the Freemasonry#See also section which are in the Category:Freemasonry, why not just add them all? And I do mean all the links on these pages...: magazines, Freemasons, especially links to other Masonic Orgs? Isn't that what the catagories are for? I dunno... I'm but an egg... But wait, wasn't that you above? "I don't think we need any more links"..;~D Grye 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are links to articles: anything I said above applied to external links.--SarekOfVulcan 07:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, cool-I/O but also, see the point? I don't want to exclude a critical page, but I don't want to list a bunch of pages where other [more relevant] pages exist from the same list... Grye 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, because we need to give some basic info for those not interested in reading the P2 articles, but it was a good third of that whole section. MSJapan 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP is not a list of links 

message: The number of links is getting out of hand.  I removed Freemasonry Collection as a commercial link (they're a shop that sells reproductions), and I also removed freemasonry.fm, as it is a site (more a links repository) sponsored by the aforementioned shop, and is clearly a) too POV, and b) more commercial advertising. Anyhow, I reqally thin we don't need any more links unless it's something truly amazing.  I'm tempted to remove the "Laudable Pursuit" link as well, since it is of no use to the general public, but no one commented on it. MSJapan 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on LP: it's useful for us, but not terribly encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 22:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think we need any more links 

message: Ok, I'll bite -- why revert this repeatedly?--SarekOfVulcan 03:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean of the Main article? For starters, If we're going to start adding the links to the Freemasonry#See also section which are in the Category:Freemasonry, why not just add them all? And I do mean all the links on these pages...: magazines, Freemasons, especially links to other Masonic Orgs? Isn't that what the catagories are for? I dunno... I'm but an egg... But wait, wasn't that you above? "I don't think we need any more links"..;~D Grye 03:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are links to articles: anything I said above applied to external links.--SarekOfVulcan 07:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, cool-I/O but also, see the point? I don't want to exclude a critical page, but I don't want to list a bunch of pages where other [more relevant] pages exist from the same list... Grye 09:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really, because we need to give some basic info for those not interested in reading the P2 articles, but it was a good third of that whole section. MSJapan 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda Due 

message: For some reason, Freemasonry related magazines is at the bottom of this page.  Does anyone know how to edit it out? MSJapan 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never seen that. Can't edit it from here, sectionally; from the main page; an old archived page. Only thing I can think of is that the Archived pages have something to do with it, or listing as a featured article, but no, because main page OK to remove section. Must be attribute of being Archived. Grye 06:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it - apperantly if you try to wikilink to categories, the mediawiki software believes you want to place the article (or talk page) to the categories in question. WegianWarrior 11:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my bad. Sorry, & thanks for fixing it. Grye 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous categories at bottom of talk page 

message: *Merge here. if at all: All of these that should be on the page at all, are in catagory:Masonic organizations
:There is no content on the page besides links to orgs
:There's not that many of them, now or possibly
:A Bibliography would make an article 2+ times the size of the List of Masonic organizations article, as-is, right from the Freemasonry article.
Grye 19:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE the donor article ( List of Masonic organizations ) has had the redirect tag removed, then the speedy delete tag removed, & currently has the AfD tag. If you have a thought or consern of the welfare of either page, please consider going to the article's AfD page & commenting. Grye 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We can have it here, but we need some basic guidelines.  Notability is a good one - there's less than 10 Sciots Pyramids, and they're only in 3 states or so, whereas S&C Clubs are more well-known, so I would remove one in favor of the other.  Furthermore, "Masonic affiliation" needs to be clarified, because as it stands, we could include the Elks, Kiwanis, BSA, Rotary, and a whole host of other groups, mainly because Masons started them or were notably involved in them, which is not what I think the intent of the category is.  There's also a lot of invitational bodies with limited presences.  Do they go in or not?  Most people won't ever have heard of them, Masons included. MSJapan 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points, & i agree: some go, some go elsewhere, & where? These are all things that aren't watched when it's a page "over there". I don't really care, I'll support the catagories as they evolve, & watch & edit them, but all that is not happening as a seperate article, which allows for increadibly unrelated and inapropriate listings to appear unchecked. Grye 07:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge: List of Masonic organizations  

message: I don't know anything about the Masons, but I noticed this paragraph in this article:
Alternatively, the argument is made that because Pike claims the works of Plato and Philo were as divinely inspired as The Apocalypse of Saint John, and because Plato and Philo were pre-Christian pagans, and that all pagan beliefs are Satanic, therefore that Pike and other Freemasons are Satan worshippers.
Wasn't Philo actually Jewish?
Mwalcoff 04:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Philo]] 

message: I have undertaken a revision of the history section to tighten up some of the language and give it a bit more structure (I would like to do a similar revision and extend the History of Masonry page as well, but that is another project).  Unfortunately, in the process, I lost the various links to other articles that were included in the previous version.  Perhaps someone could edit them back in? Blueboar 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History