Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 14

message: OK... As agreed, I have Archived the previous overly long talk page so that we can start fresh.  Please list below any topics or sections that you feel we need to address.  Blueboar 14:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfinished Business 

message: This article needs a complete rewrite to incorporate the merge suggestions and to overcome the NPOV and factual disputes. Ardenn 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need a complete rewrite.  It needs a cleanup. Seraphim 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Seraphim, no need to completely rewrite as there is a lot of good stuff in the article as it is.  OK, I might disagree with her about which exact parts need a clean up, and how exaclty to word that clean up, but that is how the editorial process works.  You debate and exchange ideas back and forth until something can be agreed on.  We will get there.  Blueboar 19:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, the merge tags are for sections, so those sections will need to be worked on. Glad the persons so eager for their merge are so willing to put in all that hard work...  ;~D  Grye 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Chtirrell, I would agree with the suggestion that Nazi Germany was a more left wing government than right wing, although as ever with politics it's not a simple view.  Economically the Nazi government was collectivist and centralist which is the hallmark of a communist or ideologically socialist context.  Couple that with a nationalist and racial purist mindset which is more ideologically right wing that makes for a confusing picture.  The majority of people only see the right wing nationalist perspective since that was externalised whereas the socialist government was more internalised.  This probably leads to the point that the disctinction isn't really a useful element of this article. ALR 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: NSDAP was not ideologically conservative (right wing) at all. Its members called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and their goal was to completely change the world. There was nothing “right” about Hitler and his supporters. The distinction is a useful element of this article indeed. Either remove the mention of the “extreme right” Nazi Germany or state the truth as it was. --Nap1815 16:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not fact or opinion.  Please look at this page closely.  I have provided a verifiable source with "Nazi Germany was a self-described facist government and the American Heritage Dictionary describes facism as "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."", as well as pointed to wikipedia's own articles on the Far_right and Far_left.  Here are a few more verifiable sources.  James Wilkenson and H. Stuart Hughes in Contemporary Europe: A History, Prentice Hall:1995 p.237 defines fascism as the "radicalism of the right."  Otto Zierer in Concise History of Great Nations: Hostory of Germany, Leon Amiel Publisher:1976 p. 104 writes "The harshness of Versailles, the countinuing humiliation by the victorious powers, the occupation of the Rhineland, the persistent encroachment on the Eastern borders by Polish volunteers, the way Germany was treated as a colonial territory, the desperate poverty, unemployment and the latent threat of Communism all created a climate for "Free Corps", militant groups such as the "steel helments", vehmic groups and national youth movements; but most dangerous of all, this climate was also ideal for the growth of radical rightwing parties.  A demagogogue by the name of Adolph Hitler had already founded in Munich his NSDAP, which was backed up by military movements such as the SA and SS; he had joined up with the Free-corps, the Reichswehr and militant Bavarian groups to prepare for his putsch against the Social Democratic government in 1923." Chtirrell 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, no personal attacks. Blueboar 18:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete rewrite

message: It belongs on the top of the article, it is not a simple merger of the entirety of the Anti-Freemasonry page into the Criticism, persecution, and prosecution section. Some of the information there if the merger carries out will be included in the history section here as well. Seraphim 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When last I checked, the discussion on the Anti-Masonry page is that it was a seperate valid article in its own right.  This is especially true as people continue to work on the POV parts of that article.  Thus, the majority of editors there no longer think it should be merged with/into this article (in fact you seem to be the only one still pushing the merge idea).  In any event, the merge idea is likely to be shot down from both sides.  So... if you dislike what the criticisms section that exists here has to say, do some editing. As far as I am concerned we can remove the tag completely. Blueboar 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true at all.  JASpencer post from this morning "There is still a strong opinion from the non-Masonic editors that this article is a POV fork. I still concur with this. Althought the article has improved and the respect shown to non-Masonic editors has increased markedly, the fundamental flaw in the article is still present.". Just because the majority of people that edit the page are masons does not mean the POV Fork can be ignored. Once all the issues with the POV nature of that article are dealt with, we will see what is left (there are more merge issues going on over there seperate from the main freemasonry page).  Seraphim 00:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it does not belong at the top of the article. a vast majority of it will end up in that section. That section is the basis for the entire article, hence the merge tag in the first place. Leave it in the section, or rewrite the entire article. You may think you will put the article wherever you please, but the reality is it will be edited & re-edited until it is actually apt, & the natural place for the entire article wil be in said section. Grye 00:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a resounding "no" to the entire merge idea from me.  Improving the section here, sure.  But merge, no.  Read what I have to say in that Article's Talk pages.  It stands on its own as a valid article in its own right.Blueboar 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section WAS the basis for the entire article, the article is being fixed so it is not. Also it is indisputable that some issues like the Taxil Hoax are parts of freemasonry history, and will eventually need to be adressed in the "History of Freemasonry" section. "History" does not mean "History sans contravercial issues". Seraphim 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the criticisms section was the origin of the Anti-Freemasonry article.  That is besides the point.  That was then, this is now.  There are two reasons for not having a merge: 1) this article is still TOO LONG. Adding in more information will make it even LONGER.  In fact, to shorten it some sections have to be split off into their own sub-articles.  The key is to do so in a NPOV manner, highlighting the information here fairly and accurately, and clearly pointing the way to the sub-article that explains it more clearly.  The complexity of Anti-Masonry makes it perfect for such a sub-article.  2) Because Anti-Masonry is such a complex and interesting subject, it is worthy of an article on its own merits.  Not as a POV fork, but as a companion to this article.  Now, if you feel that something vital is missing from the criticisms section of THIS article, then include it.  But don't merge the two.  Also, as I have stated before, I am working on a new History of Freemasonry article.  It is going to cover much more than is discussed here (and it is going to be written as NPOV as I can as an historian.  I hope that, when I am done and the first draft is posted, we will shorten the history section here as well. Blueboar 03:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I think the debate is moot.  Freemasonry is too big a subject to be captured in a single article anyway so there is a requirement for an overarching article supported by a number of companion articles, perhaps in the portal structure used for other areas.  Something as basic as Masculine/ Feminine/ Androgynous which is tying Seraphim in knots, whilst there is a co-Masonry article that's not complete either.  This is a collection of organisations which are spread globally without a single unifying approach.  Merely merging two articles doesn't deal with the problem of scale or complexity.ALR 08:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: PoV issues must be dealt with, article length is only a guideline.  Also other sections of this page can easially be moved off to sub pages and summarized. Seraphim 09:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article length is not only a guideline, it is a significant issue, as many web browsers cannot handle them after a certain size.The POV issues will always be there, as long as critics feel that a Masonic editor cannot write anything NPOV, so I for one am not holding my breath on that one. & ...moved off to sub pages and summarized" is pretty much all they've ever been. It looks like a whole new structure is comming about, & that'll be good, & interesting, & yes like you say this article will change a bit with those changes, but not quite as much, I think, as some editors here seem to think/hope. Grye 09:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read WP:SIZE it states that the size rules are no longer "hard and fast" because people can now edit by section, and the browsers that had issues have been updated.  Compare that to NPOV which is "absolute and non-negotiable". I'm not going to debate the merger here or the POV'ness of this page. I'm just trying to make the point that if there is a POV issue with a page, if solving that issue requires a page to go over 50k, the page size issue takes a back seat to the POV issue. Seraphim 09:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Tag 

message: I would also like to address information contained within this section. There are really only three aspects that should be discussed here. First, is the secrecy of business transactions within a Lodge. That is to say, a Lodge, in many areas, is a legal entity, such as a corporation. Information that is voted upon by members is proprietary and no different from rules governing other businesses and corporations. Second are pieces of ritual. While all of this can be found if one spends enough time in a library or online, the value of the ritual is enhanced when the candidate is experiencing it for the first time, and is therefore kept secret. With this there is a tie in to the third issue, which pertains to modes of recognition. As part of the history of Masonry, they are ways to identify one’s self. These are introduced in ritual, and are kept secret. The final two, of course, differ little from the secrecy surrounding a college fraternity. 
As an aside, I see no academic value to including details on oaths, signs or penalties. However, I doubt they will be removed so I would suggest, in the interest of accuracy, that these sort of things be put into context. For example, one might add that Freemasons are bound to obey the laws of their country and cannot inflict bodily harm to another. The only enforceable penalties Masonry has involve suspension or termination of membership in a Lodge. 
Finally, secrecy as trying to keep non-masons from knowing about Masonic activity in their area is not correct. Some Lodges have signs at city limits indicating there is a Lodge in town, and most have clear signs on the outside of the building identifying a Lodge. In fact, if you want to know where a Lodge is near you, try the phone book. --Cauil 09:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Phonebook: Usually in the yellow pages, under "Fraternal Organizations"... ;~D  Grye 09:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The only thing that I want to be included in the article, is the mention of what the secrets are (not their contents). I want it to be adressed in it's own seperate section, that would have statements explaining how what is considered secret changes from lodge to lodge, that the contents of rituals are kept secret because masons feel if the contents of the rituals were public knowledge the experience would be lessened, and that masons swear secret oaths to eachother, and have secret ways of identifying themselves as masons to other masons. I can see no reason or way to include the inherently unverifiable content like "in the ritual for this intiation they say this word and stab themselves here", to me that is all both out of the scope of the article, and rubbish. Seraphim 09:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The assertion that masons swear secret oaths to eachother is inherently non-verifiable anyway, since elements of ritual are secret.  Those aspects which are publically available do not support the assertion.  And I still don't see what is wrong with 'Elements of the ritual are considered secret' since that is all they are. ALR 82.109.66.151 09:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not entirely correct ALR. Since I can use sources already used on this page to prove the existance of the oaths.  I'd also like to point out, just because something is done during the rituals, doesn't make it fall under the umbrella term "ritual".  When people think of "rituals" they think of ceremonies or scripted events, ways of identifying eachother and oaths do not fall under that umbrella term.  Even though the oaths are only mentioned during rituals, and the secret identifiers are only used during rituals, that does not mean they are the same "rituals" that are kept secret so people don't have the experience lessened for them. They are part of those rituals i'm sure, but they are seperate things. The oath that doesn't allow Masons to discuss private Masonic information with non masons, obviously does not only apply in the "rituals". Seraphim 09:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try again, I'm having connection problems, hence the unsigned comment.  The nature of an initiatory ritual is such that everything falls under the umberella term 'ritual', we've already tried to make clear to you that recognitions are part of the ritual and the obligations are part of the ritual as well.  You need to understand where ritual starts and finishes, if indeed it ever does (cf the Zen meditative experience threading through our daily experience), to appreciate how the obligations and use of mvoement and physical symbology constitutes part of the ritual.  With respect to the extracts used by Lightbringer on this page, you can't have it both ways.  His/ her motivations have been made clear and you yourself have highlighted that in two discussion sections above.  One might take the view that in discussing this then one can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy or otherwise of the assertions.  I would re-iterate that the source cited applies to a limited geographic area and is 140+ years old, hardly a credible source.  With regard to your last, an interesting dichotomy:  how do you define Masonic information?  Look at all the web sites, I have a number of links on my user page as well as the ones in the article.  How do you reconcile the wide, and official, availability of non-ritual information with that assertion?ALR 10:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completly understand that you consider all of the secrets to fall under the umbrella heading "ritual". However I feel that since we are an encyclopedia, our audience is people coming here to be educated on the subject. I know when I first got here I didn't understand that you consider all of the secrets to be part of "ritual", and I doubt anyone else coming here with the intention of learning about Freemasonry would understand that either, when people see the words secret and ritual together they think of an event not a group of ideals. What they would understand is a section, explaining all of this, "masons consider all of the masonic secrets to be part of masonic ritual" or something like that. My main point is, people should get the information they need out of the article, not be learning things by talking to masons here on the talk page, currently that is not the case. Also i'd like to point out once again, I feel that none of the information that lightbringer has presented was valid. My only defence towards that information, was when people were wrongly arguing that it cannot be used in the article since it is still under copyright. My feeling is that if you are going to do something do it right, don't just take the easy way out, and saying "removed - copyright infringement" in that case was not the correct way to deal with the information. Seraphim 10:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The oath that doesn't allow Masons to discuss private Masonic information with non masons, obviously does not only apply in the "rituals" I'm not sure, but do you think that this is not a part of ritual? because it is. Grye 10:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean that the oaths you take, do not only apply when your in your lodge taking part in a ritual.  It still applies to you, say when your editing this article.  Seraphim 10:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Your point isn't clear to me either.  Of course an obligation, taken in the name of ones' own Supreme Being, applies at all times.ALR 10:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Whilst I admire your persistence, the majority of that page talks about the outward form, which we've already demonstrated isn't secret (indeed I have a Masonic ring on my finger right now) and the latter part is about the outcome of an initiatory experience and hence not verifiable.ALR 10:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realize alot of the page talks about the overtness of the masons, however I was referring to the middle paragraph "But there are some Masonic secrets, and they fall into two categories. The first are the ways in which a man can identify himself as a Mason--grips and passwords. We keep those private for obvious reasons. It is not at all unknown for unscrupulous people to try to pass themselves off as Masons in order to get assistance under false pretenses. "  Seraphim 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that it will almost definitely be different in the next GL jurisdiction... Grye 10:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd argue that the outcome of an initiatory experience is different for every individual that goes through it, never mind jurisdictions.  No ritual will eer be the same since the participants might change, my own ritual work evolves each time I deliver it so everyone I have taken through a ritual has had a different experience.ALR 10:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to write something up, i've been putting it off for a while while lightbringer was having his fun.  I'm just trying to take some baby steps, make a few points, and explain to everyone where i'm going with it to prevent what I post immediatly getting flamed and shot down. Seraphim 16:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we flame and shoot you down anyway... it's so much FUN! (Seriously, I took a look at the site you mentioned above, and I would have no objections to something similar.) Blueboar 16:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not acceptable. WP:NOT censored for the protection of prospective Freemasons. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you have to verify it. Which you cannot, and if you can, it's under copyright. Ardenn 17:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Copyright does not protect information from being revealed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does prevent some of that information from being used on Wikipedia.  Im not saying anything you may wish to use for this article falls under Copywrite, Only that it does restrict what can be used. Blueboar 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look in archive 13 under the copyrights section, I believe I showed pretty clearly, that as long as the article is properly cited and not plagarized, quotes from it can be used on wikipedia under fair-use criteria. From WP:FAIR "Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis ([emphasis added]). All copyrighted text must be attributed." Seraphim 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However the source also needs to be reputable and comprehensive to be of utility in an academic context, and the source used by Rathbone was neither current nor comprehensive.ALR 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Inorder to claim a resource is not current you need to beable to show a source that proves that the information in the other resource is infact out of date, as far as Duncan's goes the text of it was last updated in the late 1970's and no newer resource that shows that the information in Duncan's is out of date was presented, if the information he was trying to add was not outside the scope of the article it would meet all WP:V standards.  I agree Basil's stuff was junk and doesn't belong in here, I just feel that all this debate should be had so everyone knows the issues before I post what I am working on. Seraphim 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Duncans was last published in the 70's, there is no indication if the content was updated.  As MSJapan has mentioned a couple of times, it is an item of historical interest.  It was one of the earliest attempts to promulgate a form of ritual in one Jurisdiction.  Merely because it was published doesnt actually make it current, reliable, comprehensive etc.  My own ritual book was last published in the early 2000s, my copy is from 1996 :)  But it only applies in some English Lodges, hence thats not comprehensive either.  The one thing that stymies any citation is the comprehensive issue.  You're not going to find a single source which covers universal Freemasonry.  Indeed, I belong to 4 Craft Lodges and each has a different ritual.  And you've been 'working on something' for how long now?ALR 23:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand completly that ritual and the secrets change from lodge to lodge, and that will be noted.  However as I have pointed out since the information in Duncans is still undercopyright the fact that the content was updated is indisputable, since you cannot just extend a copyright on a written work as long as you want.  If you want to prove Duncan's wrong and obsolete you are more then welcome to provide information from your own ritual book that does so and cite that.  I am working on a section, I stopped working on it with the basil issue, and I really haven't touched it from a writing perspective in the last few days, as you can see by me posting that link last night, I am actively researching it.  I'd rather read alot of material and then write the section instead of write the section and then try to find references.  I actually do need help on one thing.  Can you find me a resource that I can use for the line about how what is considered secret changes from lodge to lodge.  Since that line is going to be rather touchy i'd like to have a really good approved resource for it, and sadly the only library I have access to only had one book on freemasonry and it's pretty much rubbish. Seraphim 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could ask Quator Coronati Correspondence Circle, an organisaiton of which both MSJ and I are members.  QC is the premier Lodge of Masonic Research. There's a link on the HFAF and UGLE websites.  You could also ask UGLE for a formal comment on the number of rituals in use in the lodges under their direction.  I can think of at least four but there are more.  There may not be a single source, but you'd need to do some original research, query a range of GLs and compare and contrast the responses.  Some of it is on the web, I think GL of Texas is one of the ones where the entire ritual is secret, since there is no one voice for FM then you'll be stretched to find something which applies globally.  As far as Duncans is concerned.  The ritual need not have been updated, but the contents of the colume may have been, something as simple as changes to the introduction allow that which leaves the main content unchanged, you need to be able to establish that before you can cite it as a valid source, and it still falls at the 'comprehensive' hurdle.  If you look through the archive pages you'll find an ISBN for my own ritual book, you're free to compare that with Duncans and identify where there are differences, your library can order on the basis of the ISBN.  I get the impression that one of the points you're not taking in is that whilst Freemasonry is Universal, there is no universal authority for Freemasonry, notwithstanding the Supreme Being to which we all aspire.ALR 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to include results of original research. Obviously if that line isn't included people will object to the section, however I can't find a resource for it so I can't add it and was hoping you could find one for me. Otherwise there will always be a dagger hanging over the section once it is added. The duncan's issue is moot since I dont' plan on using it anyway so i'll just stop the duncans discussion before we end up repeating a discussion that already took place.  The ritual book you use is available for non masonic reading? Can you tell me the ISBN on my talk page (the talk pages for this article make finding anything almost impossible) i'd be very interested in reading that. I can find the resource about Freemasonry not having a universal authority easially in the references for this page.  The thing that I can't find is a resource to back up the claim that "what is considered secret varies from lodge to lodge, and in some instances the contents of the secrets themselves also differ" which has been pointed out to me over and over on this talk page. Seraphim 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Makes your motivations reasonably clear.  However I would tend to agree, if the material is verifiable from a comprehensive, reliable and respected source then there is a level of legitimacy in its inclusion should that inclusion actually be useful in terms of the article.  However finding a comprehensive, reliable and respected source will prove to be tricky and I'm not convinced of the value of the inclusion of the secrets in the article, for the reasons I gave above.  The secrets are so personal to the individual following the initiatory experience, their import cannot be described in an article.ALR 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hodapp's Freemasonry for Dummies has a story in it that validates variance in secrets.  I haven't got it in front of me, but I'll get the page when I do.  Also, ritual books are sometimes freely available, but whether you can read them without knowing the content already is debatable.  Ritual books also do not have ISBNs, because they are privately printed by the various Grand Lodges. MSJapan 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no way of getting my hands on the book, so just put up here the respective quote and the correct cite for it if you can thanks :p Seraphim 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Works for me :p Will problary post this on... wednesdayish. Seraphim 04:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Expect tomorrow night, got sidetracked with Grye trying to delete the Jahbulon article. Seraphim 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Masonic Secrets''' 

message: had the same edit pattern as Lightbringer and - woohoo! - edited only using open proxies. Blocked. Please keep me up to date on my talk page, he's making a very useful open proxy canary ;-) - David Gerard 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, DG (or anyone) isn't there something about removing banned Users/Sockpuppet's edits & statements, even something about ripping them out of page historys? Somewhere? Grye 06:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No that would destroy the page. Seraphim 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is something about it somewhere. I don't see how it would actually destroy the page anyway... Grye 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can make it so flood vandalism is removed and doesn't show up in the page history.  If they were to remove all of his edits, you would still see all of our edits that were responses to him. It would not look pretty. Seraphim 11:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK yeah that answers my question, that's where I saw it refered to. Thanks. Grye 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Lightbringer sockpuppet

message: Back, after the latest blocking…
(Concerning Wiki Users in general)  
VI.4. BEHAVIOUR IN PRESENCE OF STRANGERS, NOT MASONS
You shall be cautious in your words and carriage, that the most penetrating stranger shall not he able to discover or find out what is not proper to be intimated; and sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently for the honour of the worshipful fraternity.
(Concerning Wiki Users who say they are Freemasons)
VI.6. BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS A STRANGE BROTHER
You are cautiously to examine him in such a method as prudence shall direct you, that you may not be imposed upon by an ignorant, false pretender, whom you are to reject with contempt and derision, and beware are of giving him any hints of knowledge.
*Ref: BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS UGLE, 2005  in the public domain. 
My actions have been quite consistent in upholding the “ Antient Charges”. I am not a “sock”. Several Mason users have been blocked, on the same IP address, and have been called “socks”. This is a lie – as they are different people.
Doh! “S&F” is short for “Sincerely and Fraternally”, not Skull ‘n’ Femurs, at the end of a message. Any true Mason (or “knowledgeable” nosey ant-Mason) knows this. Skull 'n' Femurs 09:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I also refer you to page 158 of the Craft rules at the reference, namely 'And sometimes you shall divert a discourse, and manage it prudently for the honour of the worshipful fraternity', which would suggest that attempts to derail civilised discussion may not be in the best interests of the fraternity.  Notwithstanding that the latter pages of the Craft Rules at the reference make interesting reading with respect to the rest of the discussion here and undermine a number of the assertions made by Lightbringer and his assorted socks and camp followers.  Page 150 onwards, page 153 specifically addressing the nature of who might be made a mason.ALR 10:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANTIENT CHARGES OF A ''UGLE'' FREE-MASON

message: I've restored it as it demonstrates his bad faith toward Wikipedia. I'll be blocking him and putting a notice on WP:ANI about his stated intent (and actions) to systematically remove referenced information - David Gerard 12:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice on WP:ANI and on User talk:Skull 'n' Femurs - David Gerard 12:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skull 'n' Femurs' rant

message: This is to all the editors on the page, since this line has been tossed around at me many times now.  Yes my first edit to this page I commented that I came to this page without knowing anything about freemasonry.  Yes 12 hours later I added a POV warning tag to the article.  If you read the section I added to the talk page, none of the points I made required any knowledge about freemasonry.  The fact that I tagged the article when 12 hrs before I didn't know anything about the subject in no way is "suspicious" or proof that I have an anti-freemasonic agenda.  It is very easy to detect bias in writing, and in this case the puffery line in the first paragraph and the edit history defending that line was enough to justify adding my tag.  Now that I know more there are even more reasons I can list off(which are being dealt with), however at the time I posted it my reasons required no knowledge of the material.  Seraphim 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. Your edits, all, of them, with video game consoles, proves you capable & right. Grye 09:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. you know nothing about Freemasonry. You're looking through a grimy window into a world you don't understand. & to boot, the room you see, which you think is the Lodge Room, is actually beyond the outer door. That's in no way an insult, <U>please</U> understand that, it's just a pretty acurate description... ;~D  Grye 01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:NPA "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." and "Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."". Just because i'm not a Freemason doesn't mean I don't have the right to edit this article.  Infact if your suggesting that I know nothing about freemasonry, I guess this article is a stub or should be deleted, since apparently it contains no information. Please stop with the passive agressive stuff, just because you sign something with a ;-D doesn't make it any less of an insult. I've already asked you to stop it a few times, it's starting to get rediculious. Also so what that I edit video game articles mainly??? How does that effect this page at all. It doesn't. Seraphim 07:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, good point, I made more obscurely elsewhere: write the friggin article. stop with this. Yes, that's been bad here before, & recently with other related articles, but so be it. At this point, the edits are going to be made. fine. edit them then. Methinks that's how all this will play out: the article will basically be destroyed, & reincarnate. The light will shine again. later. Grye 10:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Do we merge Freemasonry and Anti-Masonry? Ardenn 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm more generally content with this proposal, as articulated below.ALR 13:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: A "Master mason" page should be separate from that of freemasonry because it is not just a designation given out by the freemasons. It is a designation of it's own.
For this reason I would like to open up discussion and to get everyone’s opinions.
If it is found to be important enough to make it a page of it's own, then it should be "master mason" and not "master masonS"
Thank you--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RG (talk • contribs) .Vidkun 15:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest we discuss the items on their respective pages, as they're tangential to this article.  I have added ot or started discussions on the relevant pages. MSJapan 15:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Master Mason' a page of it's own 

message: I have submited a valid nomination so DO NOT remove Tag for Fac above. Thanks. Imacomp 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to be kidding... you think THIS version of the article is worthy of being Featured?  Exactly the opposite is true... in fact we are trying to get it off the former featured article list because the current version is so messed up (due to past vandalism).  There is a lot of work to be done before this can be featured again.  How does one register a NO vote on this? Blueboar 22:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a joke right?  And I thought you'd been blocked at the IP level anyway?ALR 22:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking to me, I have never been blocked. Why should I have been? Imacomp 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the "Blue Flower" stuff, fully cited, as I'm a Jewish "Brit" with a Polish Jewish Grandpa - who flew with the RAF (He said he was RC to get in! Ha ha!). "Die you NAZI bastards!" (In Polish c. 1941-1945 - nice one Gramps!) Book Mouse 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are aware that your nomination have not been properly posted to WP:FAC, right? And no, I'm not going to do it to help you out there - you want to promote it as a FAC, you do the work. WegianWarrior 11:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Nomination 

message: I'm not really sure where this Archive came from.  It consists mostly of Basil's last rant and is really his suggested version of the article (it may have come from the sandbox?)  It certainly isn't an archive of the talk pages.  I think it should be deleted. And have done so.  Blueboar 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems with it being a Scratchpad or a Talk:Scratchpad... just a problem with it being an Archive.  Most of the material (From Basil's original postings) is already included in Archives 12 and 13.  Hipocrite copied it onto a Scratchpad so he could continue editing it... and then left his material only partly finished.  I do not think it needs to be Archived as there really was not any discussion on his suggested additions and changes.  It was an (abandoned) work in progress, and we have moved on from it.  Blueboar 02:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 14? 

message: First off, how can you provide a negative citation?
There is no such thing as a Masonic Bible.  There is no way you can provide a citation to demonstrate that there is not.  Notwithstanding that it's not quite true.  I have a 'Masonic Bible', it is a standard King James with a Square and Compass on the front, however I think you'd struggle to find a citation for that.
Beyond that:
*Modes of recognition. Emulation Ritual  my copy 1991 page 81.  I shall therefore proceed to entrust you with the secrets of this degree, or those marks by which we are known to each other
*Discussion of religion and politics.  http://www.grandlodge-england.org/pdf/cr-rule-update2-141205.pdf page xi para 6
*No degree higher than that of the MM. (requested twice?) http://www.grandlodge-england.org/pdf/cr-rule-update2-141205.pdf page xii para 9 and page xv plus various
*Belief in a Supreme Being. http://www.grandlodge-england.org/pdf/cr-rule-update2-141205.pdf page xiv plus various
*Degrees awarded by degree http://www.grandlodge-england.org/pdf/cr-rule-update2-141205.pdf various
*KT descent in refs 7 8 and 9.  Personally I avoided being anally retentive about citing each of them over and over again. Also Holy Blood and Holy Grail, Born in Blood and Hiram Key (much as I hate the book as a work of pseudo-history which does the craft no good at all)
*Halliwell and Cooke: Ars Quaotuor Coronati various.  In fact they've been studied into submission by QC
ALR 23:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal?  Assume some good faith here!  I cannot use the links you provided to directly find the claims you are trying to support.  It is the quivalent of taking a current events page and listing cnn.com as the source, without a specific article or referenced wording.  You want to add the citations, you do the work that shows a good cite, or leave the  tag up there.--Vidkun 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Further to editing here, I'm not a sock. I've been acused of "associating" with "Known blocked pupeters" (what like I passed them in a street?), etc. What you mean is that you think wiki is all yours? Prove or retract these personal attacks - and post in all the places they are made. Otherwise except that an admin can block you. Imacomp 20:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Imacomp, if you think I am making personal attacks, I suggest you go to dispute resolution and deal with it there.  Why not reply TO a person making an accusation instead of making it look like I am attacking you by HOW you indent your responses.  Secondly, this is STILL extremely poor citation, the way you added the UGLE webpage as a whole, and not any of its specific webpages.  wikipedia belongs to no one person or group of person, however, as I have posted before, I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Citing sources when you decide to add a citation.--Vidkun 21:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try leaving me alone and not calling me a sock all the time. All my remarks are consistent with the facts. There is an obsessive element here that is on a mission to suppress evidence of Freemasons involved in suffering under the Holocaust and the use of the badge to remember them. This issue will not go away, even if logic an reason are thrown out here. Also it has been noticed that when I now post here I am auto-logged out. I asume that this is either a virus atack, or one of you has atached some code to me. Thus I will now scrub my system. Imacomp 18:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The requested citations 

message: So, please add cs:Svobodné zednářství when the page will be unlocked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aktron (talk • contribs) .--Vidkun 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That interwiki link is already in there. See Jvano's edit.--Vidkun 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking the page is making problems for adding interwiki 

message: On the 80,000 claim MS Japan has reverted my edit saying "Hodapp is nota Masonic historian".  Err, yes he is.  (It also states quite clearly that he is on the back of the book).  I've put this section as NPOV as there is no way that the reversion is an improvement on the previous edit.  I will change back in 24 hours.  JASpencer 19:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a semantics item, mostly, I suppose, but he is not considered a Masonic historian or writer of the caliber of say, Allen E. Roberts, and I object mostly to the pluralization issue; as the figure is cited as coming from Hodapp, Hodapp himself said it, not a conglomerate of historians.  If Bernheim concurs, and both sources are cited, I would still prefer specifics ("Hodapp and Bernheim state") vs. generalization ("Masonic historians state") because it adds a weight to the statement that really isn't there - as you said, numbers are a guesstimate, and to generalize the figure implies that it is factually supported and generally acknowledged, which it may or may not be.  I have discovered that a number of books have been written in German very recently about Freemasonry, and my local library has them.  I'll see if there is any mention in them about   numbers. MSJapan 05:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The tag is not offensive, declaring it as such is merely an effort to avoid debate.ALR 14:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've put the tag back on.  Can we get to some form of words that we can agree on as to the estimates?  JASpencer 16:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What part of "The number is cited" is hard to understand? Also that most editors are blocked, while one can edit a will - without any debate - is in itself POVerse. Imacomp 23:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Say bye bye to da tag. The tag is extremely offensive in this context."The tag is not offensive, declaring it as such is merely an effort to avoid debate". If I say I find it offensive, then it is, to me. Its called freedom of speach, ya know, it is what a (debated? why?) large number of people (and Masons are people) have died for. Try using this space for debate. Imacomp 23:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The npov tag shows that a debate is ongoing removing it before the debate is over is improper. Also all you need to do to make the citation request go away is to add a reference. Removing tags because they "offend" you is inappropriate. Seraphim 07:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  The fact that the forget me not has been adopted as a casual symbol of Freemasonry is not in dispute, the reason that it marks anything specifically related to the Nazi regime in pre WWII and WWII Germany is what I'm asking for a citation of.  Should you not be able to provide that specific citation then remove the claim.ALR 09:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In general citations are good, so I don't want to take away every citation request. a lot of them are valid.  The only caveat I would have is that taking out so many lines with citation requests in a short time would unbalance the article.  JASpencer 09:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations are definitely good, on that we can all agree.  Over citing, however, can ruin an article.  Not every sentence or statement needs to be cited, especially if the same citation can be used for an entire paragraph or for several statements in a row.  I was simply trying to point out that we have a good working method for requesting citations (asking on the talk page and then discussing) and that we should continue to follow it. Blueboar 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think that asking for a citation is a far more open way of doing this.  It means that citation requests are far more open to the reader and that the benefit of doubt is with the person asking for the citation.  If you think that a citation request is unreasonable then you can also state your case on the talk page. JASpencer 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masonic Historian

message: I note that editing recently means removing info that may conflict with Anti-Masonry. But that is only my observation. Am I wrong? Imacomp 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the fact tags will only excise the section you wrote if you are unable to substantiate it.  If your unable to substantiate it then it has no place in an encylopedia.ALR 14:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing, but no merge 

message: I put up a request at WP:RFPP. Ardenn 05:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits weren't the problem - check the page history. MSJapan 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: I've tried to tidy this up a little.  I'm not convinced of how appropriate the mention of the Boy Scouts is.  It is not an organisaiton which is associated with Freemasonry, so I'm not convinced it needs to be there.  Have left it in for the moment.ALR 16:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've certainly seen scouting (in the UK at least) linked with Freemasonry, although as there are still quite a few Catholic scout troops around the place at least one institution doesn't pay too much heed to this theory. JASpencer 17:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In what context?  I think Baden Powell may have been a Mason, ISTR seeing the name listed somewhere, but thats about it.ALR 17:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Baden-Powell wasn't a Mason (though everyone thinks he was for some reason).  Daniel Beard, however, was, and he was also a Scout Executive in the US.  However, there's no real connection aside from a related moral purpose, which is why Masonry has DeMolay as a youth org. MSJapan 17:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand Scout Masters were in the book for extermination, if the Nazies had made it to the UK main-land.Imacomp 23:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evidence? ALR 09:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've no idea even where I saw it, it's just one of things in the back of my mind.  I really don't see any need for this element in the text.  In the UK context it's highliy likely that Scout Troops have benefited from a donation form a Lodge or other appendant body at some point, but that's about it.  Using that as support for an entry would mean including hospitals, ambulance trusts, hospices, schools etc.  Wit that in mind I'll remove later unless anyone has any significant objection.ALR 09:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appendant orders 

message: For info I posted a sock check request yesterday on Imacomp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Imacomp_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_Skull_.27n.27_Femurs_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29
ALR 09:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok that's nice... but untill he's proven to be a sock going around posting everywhere that you made the accusation is kinda pointless. Look at what Grye did when he accused me. Seraphim 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It draws attention to the fact it's been done.  Grye just made the accusation without asking for a chack.  Different situation.ALR 09:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what his user page is for, you add the Suspected Sock tag there when you file a check user request. Seraphim 09:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not everyone will check his user page.ALR 09:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everyone who wants to report him as a possible sock does.  Posting it here makes it seem like what you did has meaning.  Accusing someone of being a sock means nothing, what means something is when the admin with checkuser verifies it.  I could go around accusing every single person who edits these pages as being a sock, but posting about it on the article talk page would be unnecessary. Seraphim 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So had you checked? ALR 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No because I usually don't accuse someone of being a sock unless I have substancial evidence against them, which in this case, I don't see any. Well I didn't see any untill he had already been reported. Seraphim 09:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a naturally supicious nature, I'm always questioning peoples motivations about things :)  I take it from your phrasing that you can see where my arguments are coming from.ALR 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the warning I placed on his talk page. Calling anti-masons loopy is exactly what SnF was doing and got banned for.  Also you shouldn't be "always questioning peoples motivations", we are suppossed to assume all edits are made in good faith untill you have evidence to the contrary WP:AGF. Seraphim 10:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One can assume good faith at the same time as questioning motivations.  One can question motivations and come to a conclusion based on behaviour related to any questions over activities.  That mindset does lead to quesitoning Good faith when a user contributes little of substance on a topic but persists in undermining the efforts of other editors who have a greater understanding of a topic.ALR 10:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  RE: Anti-M "Sock" ALR. One can assume good faith at the same time as questioning motivations.  One can question motivations and come to a conclusion based on behaviour related to any questions over activities.  That mindset does lead to quesitoning Good faith when a user contributes little of substance on a topic but persists in undermining the efforts of other editors who have a greater understanding of a topic. Imacomp 13:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: assume good faith. I know I need to take my own advice, but that's key here. On the flip side, this is a controversial topic and it wouldn't hurt to discuss the edits before making them. Not every editor who jumps on this article is a sockpuppet. Ardenn 16:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to assume good faith when someone uses the phrases "bully boys" and "Holocaust apologist", while also listing multiple users' contribs in a user talk section about who is attacking him.  It's called personal attacks.--Vidkun 16:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. WP:NPA Ardenn 16:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try leaving me alone and not calling me a sock all the time. All my remarks are consistent with the facts. There is an obsessive element here that is on a mission to suppress evidence of Freemasons involved in suffering under the Holocaust and the use of the badge to remember them. This issue will not go away, even if logic an reason are thrown out here. Imacomp 18:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slow down, Imacomp.  I don't think anyone is denying that Freemasons were involved in suffering under the Holocoust.  There might be a disagreement on the exact numbers involved, citations, and things like that ... but this can be worked through here on the talk pages.  As a new contributer to this Article, and it's related cousins such as Anti-masonry, you have started off on the wrong foot... barging in and demanding that "your' version of edits be accepted.  I do not mean this as a personal attack, but as an explanation of why people have reacted to you the way they have.  If you have patience and are polite to people (no matter how they may treat you), eventually you will find supporters.  If you continue as you have, you will find few. Blueboar 19:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock Check 

message: It is likely Anderson12 is a sockpuppet of Basil Rathbone. Ardenn 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is likely that Ardenn is a vandal who does not respect Wikipedia.Anderson12 09:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Anderson12 have used the IP 24.68.245.148, as proved by him signing edits made by that IP (see here and here). The IP 24.68.245.148 resolves to the same ISP, location and server as the IP 24.68.242.147. The IP 24.68.124.147 is a known IP used by banned editor Lightbringer. Basil Rathbone is a known sock of Lightbringer. So there isn't too much of a leap of logic to assume that Anderson12 is a sock of Lightbringer - I can understand people reacting and ask for a check-user on Anderson12. WegianWarrior 10:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting sidenote: The IP 24.68.243.40, which we also know that Lightbringer used, also resolves to the same ISP and general location. It is quite likely that the POV-warrior hails from somewhere in this area. WegianWarrior 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Helllooo Masons. I  A M  N O T  L I G H T B R I N G E R. Get over it. Sheesh.Anderson12 14:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Another interesting sidenote... I'm sure Several of the long time editors remember this: :Image:Mason penalsigns.gif - uploaded by banned sockpuppet Basil Rathbone and claimed as the socks own work (see his log for proof), and uploaded again by A12 (see his log) and claimed as PD from 1826... this is getting pretty amusing. WegianWarrior 12:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anderson12

message: Someone(almost certainly a Mason) has gone and deleted it again.
I guess we need to start a section on Secrets of Angels, Demons, and Masons.Anderson12 09:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I find it just where it used to be. Maybe it's just the masonic cabal that runs Wikipedia that makes sure you can't find it? 158.112.84.2 09:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just clicked on the link in the ['Freemasonry Scratchpad' thread farther above on this page] and it says deleted. It was deleted by someone on Feb. 11 it says. If you have another link please post it. There used to be a banner at the top of this talk page pointing people to it, but this has been deleted as well.Anderson12 09:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scratchpad is deleted but the second Talk link still works. Of course you would have had to wade though all the threads on this page to know of the existance of it.Anderson12 09:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added box link to Freemasonry Scratchpad above Archive Box link so people can actually find it, read it, and discuss it. Would be curious to know name of Masonic Editor who deleted this top of page link.Anderson12 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scratchpad was moved to Archives (as Archive 14) by Book Mouse (who, as far as I know, is not a Mason) since no one had worked on it for quite a while.  However, as it was not a talk page but instead was a draft of one specific user's ideas for what should be added to the article (a draft which was incomplete and abandoned by that user), I felt that it did not belong on the talk page Archives. I posted a querry about this here on the talk page, and upon receiving no objections, I deleted the Archive.  As for the material on that scratchpad, it consisted of several paragraphs by a known POV vandal.  Most of it had already been cut and pasted into proper talk pages and discussed fully (and rejected by the other editors). So nothing was really lost.  Blueboar 13:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who said anything about you being a sock?  All I said was that you moved the scratch pad to the Archives ... and that, as far as I know, you are not a Mason.  No biggie.  Blueboar 14:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I posted a check request yesterday which demonstrated that Imacomp is likely to be a sock of SnF.  Now Book Mouse seems to think that I was referring to him/ her in that check request, which is odd.  Now someone I have had no dialogue with has started posting a Check request for me as Lightbringer and posting the template on my talk page.  And oddly enough Book Mouse has the same concern about the forget me not as SnF and Imacomp.  I would post a check request on BM as Imacomp, but it's too easy.  Frankly it doesnt contribute to developing the article, which is frustrating.ALR 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I could not care less about this Freemason stuff. Get lives, this page is a waste of space and brings down an otherwise cool source of information. I do care about the Holocaust being used as a football for revising the body count in a daft game. I will not be posting about Freemasonry, or any page near it, again. So leave me alone. Book Mouse 14:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't care about this stuff, why is it so far your only contributions on Wikipedia have been to Freemasonry or a few various talk pages? Ardenn 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because BookMouse is Imacomp. Seraphim 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well ALR uses a proxy server IP and Seraphim is now said to be a sock. Since ALR can remove sock tags, and not get blocked - so can I. QED. Also I'm not Jewish, so not Book Mouse; S'n'F completely blocked as per his Home page, so how can my contributions match? Anyway I'm writing off this article page, but will still post if my "name" comes up. For the record S'n'F was the best editor here, after SofV and MS Japan. (I've checked the history). Also using another account is legit anyway, if you are not posting using two accounts at once to the same place. Wiki needs a proper sign on for users, to clear this up. (I'm not giving my e-mail address to you lot though). Imacomp 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I was accused of being a sock but was cleared. Someone decided to accuse me again 3 days ago unoffically so it hasn't been checked yet but since he's accusing me of being a Lightbringer sock, and you can see that i'm responsible for a lightbringer sock being blocked it's obvious that i'm not lightbringer cause my IP isn't perma blocked :p.  Also your correct that a 2nd account is allowed, however using 2 accounts to edit the same topic is highly frowned upon. And your BookMouse account's edits all happen to fall on this page. If you honestly believe S'n'F to be one of the best editors you really need to re-check the history, he ended up snapping posting a huge warnign where he was yelling at the other masonic editors for talking with non masons, and he was using a sockpuppet called user:Darth Dalek to vandalize diff these pages. And also on feb 9th he pretty much snapped. Seraphim 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're incorrect.  That would be an invalid reason for removing it and as such it still exists.  Lightbringer did not create that page, if you remember he was trying to keep the stuff on here and not on the scratchpad.  You can look at the page itself Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad and see that it's never even been touched by lightbringer or a lightbringer sock.  The page was deleted by accident by an admin who thought it was the talk page for Freemasonry/Scratchpad which was a junk page.  The majority of the stuff on that page is information that obviously does not belong in this article, but it's still there. Seraphim 08:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, but the editor asking for it in the first place is likely, per checkuser, to be a sock of said banned editor... Note how a 'fresh' (first edit two days ago) not just knew there used to be a link to said scratchpad, but also know his ways around Wikipedia well enought to report a fellow editor for 3RR on his 7th edit. It is also interesting how he requests / demands that editors disagreeing with him are banned from this subject - a demand we allready have seen from Lightbringer and his legion of socks. WegianWarrior 15:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  Steps have been taken to rectify the situation in a timely fashion, as it were, but my point is that we shouldn't even have gotten into this discussion in the first place. MSJapan 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I can not be a 'sock' of Lightbringer because I am posting and because Lightbringers i.p. is permanently blocked. Try  using some elementary, i.e. non-masonic, logic. You Masonic Editors seem extremely frustrated. Anderson12 13:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - as far as I can tell, none of the IP's that are known to been used by Lightbringer (ie.:216.184.122.12, 24.68.242.147, 24.68.243.40 and 58.69.0.70) or his army of socks are permanently banned. Unless you know (and can prove beyond reasonable doubt) that Lightbringer used a different IP and that IP is permanently blocked, your conclusion falls. WegianWarrior 14:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They do get banned. When an admin blocks a user the same exact block is placed on their IP. It prevents them from just logging out to avoid the edit.  The block doesn't show up on their IP username because it's an automated block. It causes alot of issues when they try to block users on AOL because aol pushes everyone through cache proxys.  Also the reason lightbringer keeps coming back is that he keeps switching around to different open proxies, not that his IP keeps getting cleared Seraphim 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you're saying is correct - and I'm not saying I doubt you - Anderson12's logic still fails - we (or rather, the admins with access to CheckUser) know Lightbringer uses open proxies, which means it don't matter if his IP is blocked or not. Oh, and if the IP is blocked when a user is blocked, does that mean it's unblocked when the block expires too? If so, A12's logic fails once more - Lightbringer hasn't been blocked from Wikipedia in general since the middle of November last year, just from editing any articles relating to Freemasonry. WegianWarrior 08:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah lightbringer uses open proxy's that's the problem.  I'm assuming that the first sock he created to edit on these pages he was just using both accounts from the same IP, when that sock was indef banned so was the IP that both accounts were on.  The IP blocks last as long as the user is blocked. If your ever blocked (which I had the great honor of recently) you don't get a message saying that your blocked because your on a blocked username, it says that your blocked because your IP was used by a blocked user. What happens is kinda funky. If your editing anonomously you're still considered a user you have a page at user:yourIp, when someone is blocked their user account gets hit with the block message but the ip itself also gets a block, it's just automated and nobody gets to see it :/ I'm sure lightbringers home IP has been blocked for quite some time now. Seraphim 08:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemasonry Scratchpad

message: Anderson 12 deleted a new section that ALR started on Masonry's charitable works, with the comment that the edits need to be discussed first.  I notice that Anderson 12 did not start any such discussion.  OK... trying to maintain AGF (which is sometimes hard to do), I will start that discussion.  I think adding a section on Masonic Charity is a very nice idea.  Charity is an important part of Freemasonry, and it should be mentioned.  Blueboar 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freemasonry says it is not a charity. No government recognizes Freemasonry as a charity. Freemasonry is legally forbidden from making any claims to being a charity for tax receipt purposes. Therefore it is unencyclopedic to have a charity section on the Freemasonry page.Anderson12 13:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to know where you get your information, as I can certainly deduct my contributions to my Grand Lodge's charity drives. Perhaps the tax laws where you are from are different. I will assume good faith and agree that it is possible that such laws could exist in some nations... but it should be pointed out that most Grand Lodges and many individual lodges have set up charitable foundations to carry out their good works. Contributions to these foundations ARE tax deductable. FURTHERMORE... Masons throughout the world give over a million dollars a DAY to charity, whether it is tax deductable or not. Your argument really has no bearing on the subject anyway... the fact is that Charity is a key component of Freemasonry. It should be discussed. user:Blueboar 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: United States Internal Revenue Agency and Revenue Canada. For example the Shrine of North America was forbidden by U.S. Tax Agencies from claimin on it's infamous Circus's promotional literature that the proceeds were going to charity as their investigation found that 95% of the funds went to the operation of the Fraternity's social calender.user:Anderson12 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that is true... if you can cite it in the tax code go ahead. But it is again, besides the point. Masons will give anyway. Tax deductable or not... the Shrine hospitals do not charge one cent for their treatments. It is all supported by donations. And that is just the tip of the iceberg as far as masonic charity goes. user:Blueboar 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Shrine is not part of Freemasonry. Shrine Hospitals are not affiliated with the Shriners they operate from an endowment. Freemasonry does not claim to be a charity, it claims to be a Fraternity. Freemasonry is not allowed to issue charitable tax receipts nor make claims of being a charity as part of it's fundraising efforts because the portion going to charitible concerns is too low to legally make such a claim, not that it has not tried. The Governments of the United States and Canada do not list a single Grand Lodge of Freemasonry or affiliated body of Freemasonry on it's list of registered charities. Either Freemasonry is or it isn't a Charity. Freemasonry isn't a charity. Words have meaning. There is not a seperate Masonic Dictionary where english words have made-up Masonic definitions, as much as some of the editors here may try. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not an Electronic Masonic Disneyland.user:Anderson12 14:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but the section you wiped out, without discussion, did not say that Masonry is a charity, but that it does undertake some charitable efforts, and that there are charities which Masonry maintains, such as the Royal Mason Trust for Girls and Boys. Masonry per se is not a charity, but runs a few charitable operations, as legally seperate entities, BECAUSE of tax laws. For example, the various hospitals, and Scottish Rite Learning Centers, and the Knights Templar eye foundation etc . . . if Lodge or Grand Lodges have drives to help support these operations, the Lodges or GL's do not have to be legally recognized as charities by a tax code for the ACTIONS to be charitable. Evidently you antis have a different dictionary than the rest of the world, one that says charity ONLY means something legally recognised by a tax code.--user:Vidkun 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. "Freemasonry is legally forbidden from making any claims to being a charity for tax receipt purposes. Therefore it is unencyclopedic to have a charity section on the Freemasonry page." is what Anderson12 said. All that means is that donations are not tax-deductible, not that charitable works cannot be undertaken. MSJapan 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masonic Charity 

message: Blueboar I think is a 'sock' of the banned Masonic Editor Skull 'n' Femurs . He uses the same type of language especially the frequent use of the word 'crap'. I request a check user for this editor.user:Anderson12 14:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THANK YOU... there have been many sock accusations flying around recently, but none of them involved ME... now I feel like part of the club! If you really think I am a sock, make an official check. I don't mind at all. And by the way... please stop deleting my comments. Deleting another user's comments on a talk page is considered vandalism and could get you banned yourself. user:Blueboar 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're Welcome, I am quite confident you are the banned user Skull 'n' Femurs. As for the other matter please see my comments after the two affected para's, it was unintentional.user:Anderson12 14:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It was more than two para's, and it certainly was intentional as you deleted only my comments without makeing any other changes (as can be shown by looking at the history of the edits) ... but since you have subsequently added all my comments back, I will let it slide (this time). Blueboar 14:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was only two para's or sections, I removed them accidently as I was removing some other material I did not wish to have included in my proposed additions. You must have been adding comments within a minute of me posting them. Of course the larger issue is that you are a sock of a banned masonic editor and should not be making any contributions to freemasonry related pages.user:Anderson12 15:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK... Let's go to the video tape! You deleted my comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry&diff=next&oldid=41899902, and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry&diff=next&oldid=41899529 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry&diff=next&oldid=41899779 before I corrected you and you added back the material cut. but OK... I will assume good faith and not bother with correcting you on it again. And as for being a sock... If accusations were enough to keep people from editing, you should not be editing either as you have also been accused of being a sock of a banned user. user:Blueboar 15:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspected 'Sock' of Banned User Skull 'n' Femurs

message: Can someone confirm if we are still under a partial block?  Based on some of the recent edits, it does not look like we are.  If not, we should probably remove the tag. (or ask for the block to be restored.) Blueboar 19:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partial block?

message: Someone(almost certainly a Mason) has gone and deleted it again.
I guess we need to start a section on Secrets of Angels, Demons, and Masons.Anderson12 09:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I find it just where it used to be. Maybe it's just the masonic cabal that runs Wikipedia that makes sure you can't find it? 158.112.84.2 09:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just clicked on the link in the ['Freemasonry Scratchpad' thread farther above on this page] and it says deleted. It was deleted by someone on Feb. 11 it says. If you have another link please post it. There used to be a banner at the top of this talk page pointing people to it, but this has been deleted as well.Anderson12 09:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scratchpad is deleted but the second Talk link still works. Of course you would have had to wade though all the threads on this page to know of the existance of it.Anderson12 09:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added box link to Freemasonry Scratchpad above Archive Box link so people can actually find it, read it, and discuss it. Would be curious to know name of Masonic Editor who deleted this top of page link.Anderson12 09:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scratchpad was moved to Archives (as Archive 14) by Book Mouse (who, as far as I know, is not a Mason) since no one had worked on it for quite a while.  However, as it was not a talk page but instead was a draft of one specific user's ideas for what should be added to the article (a draft which was incomplete and abandoned by that user), I felt that it did not belong on the talk page Archives. I posted a querry about this here on the talk page, and upon receiving no objections, I deleted the Archive.  As for the material on that scratchpad, it consisted of several paragraphs by a known POV vandal.  Most of it had already been cut and pasted into proper talk pages and discussed fully (and rejected by the other editors). So nothing was really lost.  Blueboar 13:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who said anything about you being a sock?  All I said was that you moved the scratch pad to the Archives ... and that, as far as I know, you are not a Mason.  No biggie.  Blueboar 14:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I posted a check request yesterday which demonstrated that Imacomp is likely to be a sock of SnF.  Now Book Mouse seems to think that I was referring to him/ her in that check request, which is odd.  Now someone I have had no dialogue with has started posting a Check request for me as Lightbringer and posting the template on my talk page.  And oddly enough Book Mouse has the same concern about the forget me not as SnF and Imacomp.  I would post a check request on BM as Imacomp, but it's too easy.  Frankly it doesnt contribute to developing the article, which is frustrating.ALR 14:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I could not care less about this Freemason stuff. Get lives, this page is a waste of space and brings down an otherwise cool source of information. I do care about the Holocaust being used as a football for revising the body count in a daft game. I will not be posting about Freemasonry, or any page near it, again. So leave me alone. Book Mouse 14:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't care about this stuff, why is it so far your only contributions on Wikipedia have been to Freemasonry or a few various talk pages? Ardenn 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because BookMouse is Imacomp. Seraphim 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Well ALR uses a proxy server IP and Seraphim is now said to be a sock. Since ALR can remove sock tags, and not get blocked - so can I. QED. Also I'm not Jewish, so not Book Mouse; S'n'F completely blocked as per his Home page, so how can my contributions match? Anyway I'm writing off this article page, but will still post if my "name" comes up. For the record S'n'F was the best editor here, after SofV and MS Japan. (I've checked the history). Also using another account is legit anyway, if you are not posting using two accounts at once to the same place. Wiki needs a proper sign on for users, to clear this up. (I'm not giving my e-mail address to you lot though). Imacomp 08:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I was accused of being a sock but was cleared. Someone decided to accuse me again 3 days ago unoffically so it hasn't been checked yet but since he's accusing me of being a Lightbringer sock, and you can see that i'm responsible for a lightbringer sock being blocked it's obvious that i'm not lightbringer cause my IP isn't perma blocked :p.  Also your correct that a 2nd account is allowed, however using 2 accounts to edit the same topic is highly frowned upon. And your BookMouse account's edits all happen to fall on this page. If you honestly believe S'n'F to be one of the best editors you really need to re-check the history, he ended up snapping posting a huge warnign where he was yelling at the other masonic editors for talking with non masons, and he was using a sockpuppet called user:Darth Dalek to vandalize diff these pages. And also on feb 9th he pretty much snapped. Seraphim 09:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're incorrect.  That would be an invalid reason for removing it and as such it still exists.  Lightbringer did not create that page, if you remember he was trying to keep the stuff on here and not on the scratchpad.  You can look at the page itself Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad and see that it's never even been touched by lightbringer or a lightbringer sock.  The page was deleted by accident by an admin who thought it was the talk page for Freemasonry/Scratchpad which was a junk page.  The majority of the stuff on that page is information that obviously does not belong in this article, but it's still there. Seraphim 08:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, but the editor asking for it in the first place is likely, per checkuser, to be a sock of said banned editor... Note how a 'fresh' (first edit two days ago) not just knew there used to be a link to said scratchpad, but also know his ways around Wikipedia well enought to report a fellow editor for 3RR on his 7th edit. It is also interesting how he requests / demands that editors disagreeing with him are banned from this subject - a demand we allready have seen from Lightbringer and his legion of socks. WegianWarrior 15:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  Steps have been taken to rectify the situation in a timely fashion, as it were, but my point is that we shouldn't even have gotten into this discussion in the first place. MSJapan 16:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I can not be a 'sock' of Lightbringer because I am posting and because Lightbringers i.p. is permanently blocked. Try  using some elementary, i.e. non-masonic, logic. You Masonic Editors seem extremely frustrated. Anderson12 13:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting - as far as I can tell, none of the IP's that are known to been used by Lightbringer (ie.:216.184.122.12, 24.68.242.147, 24.68.243.40 and 58.69.0.70) or his army of socks are permanently banned. Unless you know (and can prove beyond reasonable doubt) that Lightbringer used a different IP and that IP is permanently blocked, your conclusion falls. WegianWarrior 14:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They do get banned. When an admin blocks a user the same exact block is placed on their IP. It prevents them from just logging out to avoid the edit.  The block doesn't show up on their IP username because it's an automated block. It causes alot of issues when they try to block users on AOL because aol pushes everyone through cache proxys.  Also the reason lightbringer keeps coming back is that he keeps switching around to different open proxies, not that his IP keeps getting cleared Seraphim 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you're saying is correct - and I'm not saying I doubt you - Anderson12's logic still fails - we (or rather, the admins with access to CheckUser) know Lightbringer uses open proxies, which means it don't matter if his IP is blocked or not. Oh, and if the IP is blocked when a user is blocked, does that mean it's unblocked when the block expires too? If so, A12's logic fails once more - Lightbringer hasn't been blocked from Wikipedia in general since the middle of November last year, just from editing any articles relating to Freemasonry. WegianWarrior 08:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah lightbringer uses open proxy's that's the problem.  I'm assuming that the first sock he created to edit on these pages he was just using both accounts from the same IP, when that sock was indef banned so was the IP that both accounts were on.  The IP blocks last as long as the user is blocked. If your ever blocked (which I had the great honor of recently) you don't get a message saying that your blocked because your on a blocked username, it says that your blocked because your IP was used by a blocked user. What happens is kinda funky. If your editing anonomously you're still considered a user you have a page at user:yourIp, when someone is blocked their user account gets hit with the block message but the ip itself also gets a block, it's just automated and nobody gets to see it :/ I'm sure lightbringers home IP has been blocked for quite some time now. Seraphim 08:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freemasonry Scratchpad

message: If User:MSJapan or any other Masonic editor deletes my proposed additions and their accompanying discussion threads I will file a vandalism complaint against the user! Stop violating Wikipedia Guidelines!Anderson12 13:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Since the material you posted contains a copywrite violation, deleting it would not be considered vandalism. Blueboar 13:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Skull n Femurs the Sock; Episode 14, please point to the "material" that you are claiming is a copyright violation, there is none that I am aware of.Anderson12 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who deleted the 'Signs of a Mason' section along with the relevent images? WHO COMMITTED THIS ACT OF VANDALISM?Anderson12 18:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This section is absolute crap... many disabled men have joined Freemasonry and continue to do so. Blueboar 13:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freemasonry asks all intitiates if they were born whole and refuses admission to any candidate who says he wasn't as part of it's psydeo-levitical priesthood laws. Therefore Freemasonry discriminates against the disabled.Anderson12 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also point out that the citation is in error.  First, The link is not to the Grand Lodge of BC and Yukon as claimed, but is to a page at freemasonrywatch, an anti-Masonic website that is well known for getting things wrong at best, and deliberatly misquoting or changing source material at worst (I have corrected your citation).  Secondly, even if the "membership application" that freemasonrywatch posts is the one used by GLBC&Y, it does not say that the disabled are banned... it asks: " Is he possessed of average good health?... big difference." Blueboar 13:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you avoid responding to the 'was the candidate born whole' psdeo-levitical priesthood regulations matter. Obviously if you are asking if the candidate has certain birth deformities and if you refuse to admit him if he says he has you are discriminating against the disabled. I suppose you choose to avoid answering this question to avoid violating some oath of secrecy or another you took.Anderson12 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will respond... the "'was the candidate born whole' psudo-levitical priesthood regulations matter" (as you put it) is not on the application.  So there is no "psudo-levitical priesthood regulations matter" to discuss.  End of comment. Blueboar 14:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But every candidate is asked by the investigation committee  this question 'where you born whole?' If the candiate says no then he is not given the application. Ergo he can not become a Freemason. Ergo Freemasonry discriminates against the disabled. Thank-you for your contribution.Anderson12 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What is your source for that statement?... I certainly was never asked that question. (and while that is not a citable source as far as adding it to the article... it is good enough for a talk page.) Blueboar 19:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While regular (traditional) Freemasonry does not admit women, there are many Co-ed Masonic groups that consider themselves to be regular. The position of Freemasonry twoards women is already well stated in the article. Thus this section is not needed. Blueboar 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments were deleted in error as I was in the process of posting and formating the material here, and did not realize you had just made a comment.Anderson12 14:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freemasonry refuses to initiate all women, therfore Freemasonry discriminates against women. Freemasonry does not recognize bodies that intiate woman as being Freemasonry or Freemasons, there for Freemasonry discrimniates against women. If the existing section does not include this information it is incomplete and therefore unencyclopedic.Anderson12 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FREEMASONRY does not refuse to initiate women... Individual Grand Lodges do.  There are verisons of Freemasonry that do admit women.  While you or I mihgt not consider these Jurisdictions "regular", they do consider themselves to be regular.  Blueboar 13:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be suggesting that Regular Grand Lodges lack the authority to determine what is and what isn't Freemasonry. If the United Grand Lodge of England, for instance, says this or that body is irregular and clandestine, then it is saying it is not Freemasonry whatsoever. Of course you already know this, ergo you are engaging in some dissembling assuming no non-masons would have gone to the trouble to wade into the minutea of Masonic Jurisiprudence. You guessed wrong Mason.Anderson12 14:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, whether UGLE says it's Freemasonry or not, the people in the group consider it Freemasonry, and I'll give you a citation for it from Freemasonry for Dummies where it says exactly that. MSJapan 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How nice for Freemasonry for Dummies. Not being a Dummy I am unfortunately forced to rely on the constitution of the United Grand Lodge of England.Anderson12 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: completely inaccurate. there are many African Americans in US lodges all through the country (including south of the Mason-Dixon line). And all but a few Grand Lodges now fully recognize their Prince Hall counterparts. This is stated clearly in the Article already... thus no need for this "addition". Blueboar 13:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments were deleted in error as I was in the process of posting and formating the material here, and did not realize you had just made a comment.Anderson12 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water.... the edit history shows that you deliberately deleted only my comments without posting or formating any other material. Blueboar 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Please show us all, will you? I was in the middle of formating my proposed additions when you started adding comments before I was complete. So your comments were based on incomplete or inaccurate proposals IF I HAD SEEN THEM. So you put them back in, I apologized, and I am adding my response. But fear not Mr. Skull all your troubles are about to go away...Anderson12 15:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The comments are completely accurate. Freemasonry has traditionally discriminated against all African Americans under the rational given - 'they are not men free born'. Up until very recently there were no U.S. Grand Lodges that admitted negroes as members. Even today Freemasonry in the U.S. is almost entirely white. In the U.S. south of the 'Mason-Dixon' line not a single Grand Lodge admits Negroes, nor recognizes 'Prince Hall'. Throughout the rest of United States, Canada, and Britain Grand Lodges also do not recognize Prince Hall Masonry as being fully regular, but instead only permits some visitations on special occasions. A Prince Hall Freemason may not enter and sit as a Mason inside a Masonic Lodge during the degree portion, i.e. 'when it is open in the first, second, or third degree'.Anderson12 14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you have it wrong.  My own lodge in New York has admitted black men since 1787.  Yes, there has been racism in Masonry... but there have always been lodges that were willing to buck the societal trend and admit blacks.  Yes, Prince Hall masonry was considered irregular until the 1980s... since then, however, things have changed dramatically.  Yes, the few Grand Lodge's who have not yet recognized their PH counterparts are south of the Mason-Dixon line, but you can not say that all south of that line are hold outs.  check your facts before making charges of official racism. Blueboar 14:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you have it wrong. Prince Hall was formed because Negroe's could not get admitted to any Masonic Lodge in the U.S., including the G.L.N.Y.. And if memory serves me correctly, and it usually does, the Grand Lodge of New York still does not 'recognize' Prince Hall. I also note you dodged responding to my rather important point that the recognition is a rather incomplete affair as it is for only special occasions and that no Prince Hall "Freemason" may sit in open lodge, that is when the lodge is open in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Degree. So the recognition is somewhat akin to the open houses for the public, they have to leave the lodge room when the real Freemasonry starts. Details Mr. Skull. That is why we call it an encyclopedia. Dan Brown standards won't cut it here. Anymore that is. Anderson12 15:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GLoNY most certainly does recognize Prince Hall.  And that recognition includes full inter-visitation, including watching or participating in the degrees. A GLoNY Mason may go and visit a PH lodge and participate in their degrees.  Again, I don't know where you are getting your info, but it is wrong wrong wrong. Blueboar 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting "my information" from Freemasons of course. It is not my fault you are not interested in the history of the status of Prince Hall or Negroe's in Freemasonry.Anderson12 14:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously doubt that any Freemason told you any of this.  If so, the Freemasons you are talking to are incorrect.... here are the facts: if you look at this website it will show that most Jurisdictions in the US fully recognize PH, as does UGLE.  You can believe it or not, as you choose, but this section is simply inaccurate POV crap. Blueboar 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More angry Skull 'n' Femurs like language including his often used 'crap' zinger. For myself I prefer relying on the research of respected writers like William Whalen or other authors on Masonic history, rather than yours. Call me biased.Anderson12 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Additions to Freemasonry Page

message: Freemasonry refuses to admit men born with birth defects as part of it's rules ..[Verson of GRBC&Y Petition and Examination for Membership as found on Freemasonrywatch.com]
. Men are asked during the interview process to become a Freemasons if they were 'born whole'. 
This has led to accusations that the disabled are being routinely discriminated against by Freemasons in hiring, promotions, and business, in those fields where Masonic membership 'placement' is known to be concentrated, such as in the Police, Judiciary, and Public Office.The Brotherhood by Stephen Knight.Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution by Stephen Knight
:This section is absolute crap... many disabled men have joined Freemasonry and continue to do so. Blueboar 13:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freemasonry asks all intitiates if they were born whole and refuses admission to any candidate who says he wasn't as part of it's psydeo-levitical priesthood laws. Therefore Freemasonry discriminates against the disabled.Anderson12 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will also point out that the citation is in error.  First, The link is not to the Grand Lodge of BC and Yukon as claimed, but is to a page at freemasonrywatch, an anti-Masonic website that is well known for getting things wrong at best, and deliberatly misquoting or changing source material at worst (I have corrected your citation).  Secondly, even if the "membership application" that freemasonrywatch posts is the one used by GLBC&Y, it does not say that the disabled are banned... it asks: " Is he possessed of average good health?... big difference." Blueboar 13:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you avoid responding to the 'was the candidate born whole' psdeo-levitical priesthood regulations matter. Obviously if you are asking if the candidate has certain birth deformities and if you refuse to admit him if he says he has you are discriminating against the disabled. I suppose you choose to avoid answering this question to avoid violating some oath of secrecy or another you took.Anderson12 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will respond... the "'was the candidate born whole' psudo-levitical priesthood regulations matter" (as you put it) is not on the application.  So there is no "psudo-levitical priesthood regulations matter" to discuss.  End of comment. Blueboar 14:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But every candidate is asked by the investigation committee  this question 'where you born whole?' If the candiate says no then he is not given the application. Ergo he can not become a Freemason. Ergo Freemasonry discriminates against the disabled. Thank-you for your contribution.Anderson12 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source for that statement?... I certainly was never asked that question. (and while that is not a citable source as far as adding it to the article... it is good enough for a talk page.) Blueboar 19:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of the Disabled in Freemasonry 

message: Freemasonry considers Women 'totaly unfit to discharge the duties of a Freemason' and thus forbids them membership. There are no Women Freemasons. Wives of Freemasons may be admitted to a service organization called 'The Order of the Eastern Star' which principally concerns itself to preparing meals for their husbands Lodge dinners. The head of the Order of the Eastern Star and all sub-lodges are lead by a Master Mason, i.e. a man. 
This sitation has led a number of Women political figures in the U.K. and elsewhere to call for a banning of Freemasonry membership in public life because of the preferement Masons show to each other in hiring, promotion, and business leading to defacto discrimination against all women, as well as all male non-masons.
:While regular (traditional) Freemasonry does not admit women, there are many Co-ed Masonic groups that consider themselves to be regular. The position of Freemasonry twoards women is already well stated in the article. Thus this section is not needed. Blueboar 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments were deleted in error as I was in the process of posting and formating the material here, and did not realize you had just made a comment.Anderson12 14:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Freemasonry refuses to initiate all women, therfore Freemasonry discriminates against women. Freemasonry does not recognize bodies that intiate woman as being Freemasonry or Freemasons, there for Freemasonry discrimniates against women. If the existing section does not include this information it is incomplete and therefore unencyclopedic.Anderson12 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FREEMASONRY does not refuse to initiate women... Individual Grand Lodges do.  There are verisons of Freemasonry that do admit women.  While you or I mihgt not consider these Jurisdictions "regular", they do consider themselves to be regular.  Blueboar 13:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be suggesting that Regular Grand Lodges lack the authority to determine what is and what isn't Freemasonry. If the United Grand Lodge of England, for instance, says this or that body is irregular and clandestine, then it is saying it is not Freemasonry whatsoever. Of course you already know this, ergo you are engaging in some dissembling assuming no non-masons would have gone to the trouble to wade into the minutea of Masonic Jurisiprudence. You guessed wrong Mason.Anderson12 14:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, whether UGLE says it's Freemasonry or not, the people in the group consider it Freemasonry, and I'll give you a citation for it from Freemasonry for Dummies where it says exactly that. MSJapan 15:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How nice for Freemasonry for Dummies. Not being a Dummy I am unfortunately forced to rely on the constitution of the United Grand Lodge of England.Anderson12 17:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Women in Freemasonry 

message: U.S. Masonic Grand Lodges have traditionally discriminated against Black men from joining Freemasonry. Today in the U.S. Grand Lodges south of the 'Mason-Dixon' Line can not count a single Black person among it's membership.Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. FisherDarkness Visible by Rev. Walton Hannah
In the North and West a similar situation existed up until the 1980's, even with the removal of the stricture against Blacks because Masonry considered them 'men not free born' Masonry is primarily 'white'.Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. FisherDarkness Visible by Rev. Walton Hannah
Prince Hall Freemasonry, which Black men do join, is considered by the vast majority of U.S. Grand Lodges to be 'irregular' and 'clandestine' Masonry. In the U.S. and Canada the majority of membership in the Ku Klux Klan consisted of white Masons of 'Regular' Grand Lodges.Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. FisherDarkness Visible by Rev. Walton Hannah In most towns the membership in the local Ku Klux Klan Klavern and the membership in the local white Masonic Lodge was overlapping.Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher Darkness Visible by Rev. Walton HannahFirey Cross by Wynn Wade
:completely inaccurate. there are many African Americans in US lodges all through the country (including south of the Mason-Dixon line). And all but a few Grand Lodges now fully recognize their Prince Hall counterparts. This is stated clearly in the Article already... thus no need for this "addition". Blueboar 13:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments were deleted in error as I was in the process of posting and formating the material here, and did not realize you had just made a comment.Anderson12 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water.... the edit history shows that you deliberately deleted only my comments without posting or formating any other material. Blueboar 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Please show us all, will you? I was in the middle of formating my proposed additions when you started adding comments before I was complete. So your comments were based on incomplete or inaccurate proposals IF I HAD SEEN THEM. So you put them back in, I apologized, and I am adding my response. But fear not Mr. Skull all your troubles are about to go away...Anderson12 15:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The comments are completely accurate. Freemasonry has traditionally discriminated against all African Americans under the rational given - 'they are not men free born'. Up until very recently there were no U.S. Grand Lodges that admitted negroes as members. Even today Freemasonry in the U.S. is almost entirely white. In the U.S. south of the 'Mason-Dixon' line not a single Grand Lodge admits Negroes, nor recognizes 'Prince Hall'. Throughout the rest of United States, Canada, and Britain Grand Lodges also do not recognize Prince Hall Masonry as being fully regular, but instead only permits some visitations on special occasions. A Prince Hall Freemason may not enter and sit as a Mason inside a Masonic Lodge during the degree portion, i.e. 'when it is open in the first, second, or third degree'.Anderson12 14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you have it wrong.  My own lodge in New York has admitted black men since 1787.  Yes, there has been racism in Masonry... but there have always been lodges that were willing to buck the societal trend and admit blacks.  Yes, Prince Hall masonry was considered irregular until the 1980s... since then, however, things have changed dramatically.  Yes, the few Grand Lodge's who have not yet recognized their PH counterparts are south of the Mason-Dixon line, but you can not say that all south of that line are hold outs.  check your facts before making charges of official racism. Blueboar 14:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you have it wrong. Prince Hall was formed because Negroe's could not get admitted to any Masonic Lodge in the U.S., including the G.L.N.Y.. And if memory serves me correctly, and it usually does, the Grand Lodge of New York still does not 'recognize' Prince Hall. I also note you dodged responding to my rather important point that the recognition is a rather incomplete affair as it is for only special occasions and that no Prince Hall "Freemason" may sit in open lodge, that is when the lodge is open in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Degree. So the recognition is somewhat akin to the open houses for the public, they have to leave the lodge room when the real Freemasonry starts. Details Mr. Skull. That is why we call it an encyclopedia. Dan Brown standards won't cut it here. Anymore that is. Anderson12 15:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GLoNY most certainly does recognize Prince Hall.  And that recognition includes full inter-visitation, including watching or participating in the degrees. A GLoNY Mason may go and visit a PH lodge and participate in their degrees.  Again, I don't know where you are getting your info, but it is wrong wrong wrong. Blueboar 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting "my information" from Freemasons of course. It is not my fault you are not interested in the history of the status of Prince Hall or Negroe's in Freemasonry.Anderson12 14:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously doubt that any Freemason told you any of this.  If so, the Freemasons you are talking to are incorrect.... here are the facts: if you look at this website it will show that most Jurisdictions in the US fully recognize PH, as does UGLE.  You can believe it or not, as you choose, but this section is simply inaccurate POV crap. Blueboar 14:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More angry Skull 'n' Femurs like language including his often used 'crap' zinger. For myself I prefer relying on the research of respected writers like William Whalen or other authors on Masonic history, rather than yours. Call me biased.Anderson12 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Negroes in American Freemasonry 

message: The Secret society of Freemasonry employs demands it's members keep secret both the membership of other Freemasons and any information learned about activity by other Freemasons. Masons must obtain the permission of other Masons before revealing membership or other information about other Masons. The Character, Claims, and Practical Workings of Freemasonry by Rev. C.G. FinneyLetters on Freemasonry by President John Quincy Adams
:Membership in Freemasonry is a matter of public record... often by law, as in England.  The above statement is simply false. Blueboar 13:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Please tell me a single Grand Lodge where the general public may freely access the membership records. Can the public go to a Grand Lodge and demand to see it's membership records to determine which of his local elected and appointed officials are members of Freemasonry to ensure there is no preferement taking place in hiring, promotion, or contracts? No they can't is the answer as you well know.Anderson12 14:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing 175 year old material is not the best way to build a modern case, especially on aosurce written 48 years after Finney quit the Craft. MSJapan 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But doesn't every 'regular' masonic lodge carry the initials 'A.F.A.M.' - 'Ancient Free & Accepted Masonry'? Are you really seriously suggesting that the rituals and oaths of Masonry have changed that much? If it they have then how can Masonry still boast of being 'Ancient'? No I think I will take the word of every serious investigation of Masonry's rituals and oaths that have been made available to us rather than that of a Mason who has taken oaths to never reveal secrets and to lead those outsiders who make enquiries on a run a round.Anderson12 17:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, inaccurate.... I will admit that some Masons may hire a fellow Mason because he knows them from the Lodge... the hirer is favoring an applicant he knows and trusts.  However, this is not due to any "requirement" in Freemasonry... it is something that can happen in any group, be it a lodge, a church, a business association, or the local neighborhood watch.  It is known as networking.  In fact, because Freemasons are sensitive to this accusation, they are acutally LESS likely to hire a fellow mason than someone they know through some other connection. Blueboar 13:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? It is right in the oaths that a Masons must prefer another Mason. I guess I will have to post that as well since you seem unwilling to concede a single detail and thereby violate your oaths of secrecy.Anderson12 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: this is also paranoid hogwash.  Masonry does have oaths... to support eachother in sickness, and eachother's family if there is a death... not unlike ANY fraternity, service organization, or the local volunteer fire department. Blueboar 13:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh Huh. The oaths are available in print and on-line. It is not a question of speculation or interpretation. The oaths the Mason takes say he must keep the secrets of another mason and prefer another masons in all things 'murder and treason excepted' in the Master Mason oath and 'murder and treason not excepted' in the Royal Arch oath. Do you deny the existance of these oaths?Anderson12 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: They may have existed, but they were changed many years ago, probably even before your lifetime, and are not in use today.  All that material went out the door a long time ago, as did the blood oaths.  Once again, you're using faulty sources that have no relevance to what you're trying to claim. MSJapan 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? How interesting. Unfortunately the only 'genuine' oaths we have are these. As you have taken oaths of secrecy never to confirm or reveal masonic secrets I find it quite difficult to understand how you could either confirm or deny that these oaths are inaccurate. Please explain yourself.Anderson12 17:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah... now we get to the heart of the matter... gee, I wonder why all this was copied and repasted here (again)... could it be that a POV agenda bashing banned user is blocked from editing the actual article, and yet again insists on this material being included, and so has no alternative but to repeatedly post it on to the talk page?  We have gone over this material before, and it does not belong in the article.  Inaccurate, speculative and POV crap. Blueboar 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your comments abusive and a violation of wikipedia  guidelines. Your general speech patterns seem to mirror a user - Skull and Femurs - who has been banned from editing Freemasonry related pages.Anderson12 13:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your general demeanor and inability to read or think above a third grade level offensive.  I do appreciate the incontrovertible sock evidence, though.  Thanks. MSJapan 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just violated Wikipedia guidelines on civility and abusive language.Anderson12 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masonic Secrets

message: This so-called higher degree of Freemasonry is considered by many Masons to be the completion of the first three degrees of Masonry. In North America it is part of the 'York Rite' of Freemasonry.Inside the Brotherhood by Martin ShortIllustrations of Masonry by William Morgan
 
The Oath in the Royal Arch goes one beyond that of the Third Degree and does not except murder and treason as is contained in the Master Mason oath; “I will aid and assist a companion Royal Arch Mason, when engaged in any difficulty, and espouse his cause, so far as to extricate him from the same, if in my power, whether he be right or wrong. A companion Royal Arch Mason’s secrets, given me in charge as such, and I knowing him to be such, shall remain as secure and inviolable, in my breast as in his own, murder and treason not excepted.” Inside the Brotherhood by Martin ShortIllustrations of Masonry by William Morgan
   
The Secret Word of the Royal Arch is JAHBULON a triparte word displayed on a triangle or delta. The first part JAH represents Yahwah the God of the Hebrews, the second part BUL represents Baal the God of the Babylonians, the third part ON represents Osirus the God of the Egyptians.Inside the Brotherhood by Martin ShortIllustrations of Masonry by William Morgan
Reports prepared for various Protestant Denominations, including the Church of England, specifically singled this 'secret' word out for attention under the charge of blasphemy, as Baal and Osirus are names sometimes associated with the Devil.Inside the Brotherhood by Martin ShortIllustrations of Masonry by William Morgan The word can be also pronounced Diabolon when including the Greek letter Delta, representing the triangle with the three parts written on each side.
::Ah... now we get to the heart of the matter... gee, I wonder why all this was copied and repasted here (again)... could it be that a POV agenda bashing banned user is blocked from editing the actual article, and yet again insists on this material being included, and so has no alternative but to repeatedly post it on to the talk page?  We have gone over this material before, and it does not belong in the article.  Inaccurate, speculative and POV crap. Blueboar 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your comments abusive and a violation of wikipedia  guidelines. Your general speech patterns seem to mirror a user - Skull and Femurs - who has been banned from editing Freemasonry related pages.Anderson12 13:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your general demeanor and inability to read or think above a third grade level offensive.  I do appreciate the incontrovertible sock evidence, though.  Thanks. MSJapan 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just violated Wikipedia guidelines on civility and abusive language.Anderson12 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth Degree or Royal Arch Degree

message: In 1826, William Morgan disappeared after threatening to expose Freemasonry's secrets, causing some to claim that he had been murdered by Masons. 
Morgan's disappearance—and the minimal punishment received by his kidnappers—sparked a series of protests against the Freemasons throughout New York and the neighboring states. Under the leadership of Thurlow Weed, an anti-masonic, anti-Andrew Jackson (Jackson was a Mason) movement became a political party and even ran for the presidency in 1828, gaining the support of such notable politicians as William H. Seward. Its influence was such that other Jackson rivals, including John Quincy Adams, denounced the Masons. Adams in 1847 wrote a widely distributed book titled "Letters on the Masonic Institution" that was highly critical of the Masons. In 1832, the party fielded William Wirt as it presidential candidate, though the party only received seven electoral votes. Three years later, the party had disbanded everywhere but Pennsylvania, as other issues, such as slavery, became the focus of national attention.
What exactly occurred has never been conclusively proven.
::the morgan affair is discussed in the article already... no need to change it. Blueboar 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the Morgan Affair is incomplete, I propose to complete it with the addition of this information.Anderson12 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to be incomplete.  That's why there is a link to the main article posted. MSJapan 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this subject is far more relevant to the understanding of what Freemasonry is that much of the other detail presently included on the page. The aim here is to have a balanced and interesting article unlike the present form 'crafted' largely by Masonic editors.Anderson12 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Morgan Affair

message: In a sectarian age many hold that Freemasonry is a new religion. Externally, to some at least, it has many similarities to a religion:
* it has an altar and a sacred book (VSL-The Volume of the Sacred Law, in most cases the Holy Bible)
* it has its own way of saying "amen " ("So mote it be," a literal translation of "Amen")
* it has far more developed rituals than many organized religions (a debatable point)
* some groups of Masons (especially the Scottish Rite) call their meeting places "temples", (a lodge is a group of Freemasons operating under a charter or dispensation. The place where they meet is often called a temple, but usually, several lodges use the same temple.)
* it has a large amount of iconography and symbolism.
:No need to go into all of this in such detail... the article already states that many people find fault with Freemasonry on religious grounds, and points to the Anti-Masonry Article, which fully explains all this much better. Blueboar 13:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on the Freemasonry page is incomplete, I propose to the addition of this material, to complete the section.Anderson12 14:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been covered quite well in the other article, which is where it belongs. MSJapan 16:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which other article would that be?Anderson12 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets see... Catholicism and Freemasonry, Christianity and Freemasonry, and Anti-masonry just to name three. But then since all three contain the same little bullet list you cut and pasted, I am sure you knew that already.Blueboar 17:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion

message: Another criticism that may or may not have to do with the specific nature of Freemasonry, but may be applied generally to any type of organization or secret society, is the practice of cronyism, or giving favors to fellow members. For example, many people have the impression that one increases chances for employment by joining the Masons. This type of cronyism can be seen in the movie  Gypsy, where the general idea is alluded to.  Some Masons have been known to claim they can get out of driving tickets because of Masonic logos on their car.
:See comments above... fully discussed in Anti-Masonry which is linked.
::The info is not fully discussed on the Anti-Masonry page. This material is related to Freemasonry, as it is criticism of Freemasonry. Anti-Masonry is a seperate topic.Anderson12 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of alleged Masonic cronyism

message: Although any institution with moral overtones, religious or secular, can be criticized for the moral faults of some of their members, Freemasonry is especially vulnerable to criticism because amongst its aims is the drive to improve its members' morality above and beyond whatever religion the individual member believes in.
A general fault ascribed to the Masons is that a Freemason would be charitable mainly to other Masons, an assumption which is made worse by the accusations of classism and racism sometimes leveled against Masonic Lodges. The phrase "charity begins at home" goes some way towards justifying this natural proclivity.  
Critics also attack what they perceive as a preoccupation with ritual minutiae and personal status within the hierarchy of the organization. Some critics also argue that the Freemasons are primarily a social club.
::Ditto this section.... fully explained in Anti-Masonry which is linked.
:::The info is not fully discussed on the Anti-Masonry page. This material is related to Freemasonry, as it is criticism of Freemasonry. Anti-Masonry is a seperate topic.Anderson12 14:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms based on the moral faults of known Masons

message: Writing of Freemasonry's dominance of the public life of France during the Third Republic (1870-1940), historian Mildred Headings, said the Fraternity established a firm and determined policy that nothing should occur in that country "without the hidden, secret participation of Masonry." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
With that goal in mind, the Craft made a concerted effort to have as many Masons as possible in parliament, the ministries, and in other official capacities. As a result, "the public power, the national power [was] directed by Masons." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
To demonstrate the political power of Masonry in France during that period, Ms. Headings noted that in 1912, for example, 300 of the 580 members of the House of Deputies (52.7 percent) were Freemasons, as were 180 of 300 Senators (60 percent). .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
What of the United States? The preceding pages of this book have disclosed how Masonry dominated public policy in a number of individual States, and, nationally, through the Nativist, Know-Nothing, APA, and Ku Klux Klan Movements. But if Masonic dominance of the national legislature is used as a criterion for the strength of Freemasonry in France, the same criterion applied to Masonic membership in the United States Congress shows the Fraternity's control of public life on this side of the Atlantic has been much more pronounced than in France. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
In 1923, for example, 300 of 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives (69 percent) were members of the Craft, as were 30 of 48 members of the U.S. Senate (63 percent). Six years later, 67 percent of the entire U.S. Congress was comprised of members of the Masonic Brotherhood. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Although Masons continued to hold a dominant position in the House and Senate in 1941, their proportion of the total membership dropped to 53 percent in the Senate and 54 percent in the House. In 1957, a "typical" member of the 85th Congress was a Mason..Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher 
Subsequently, Congressional membership in the Masonic Fraternity seemed to be less pronounced, so that by 1984, for instance, only 14 Senators (14 percent) identified themselves as members of the Craft, as did 51 House members. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Those figures, however, are not entirely accurate, because some public figures do not always announce their membership in the Craft. Typical of such coy Masons in public life is Congressman Jack F. Kemp (R., N.Y). The former football star and Presidential candidate does not list his Masonic affiliation in the biographical sketch he provided for the 1983-1984 Official Congressional Directory; nor does it appear in the routine curriculm vitae handed out by his office. However, the Buffalo News reported in 1986 that Rep. Kemp is "a member of Fraternal Lodge, F&AM, in Hamburg, New York; a member of Palmoni Lodge of Perfection, 14th Degree; Palmoni Council, Princes of Jerusalem, 16th Degree; Buffalo Chapter of Rose Croix, 18th Degree; and Buffalo Consistory, 32nd Degree." In September, 1987, the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite of the Northern Jurisdiction singled him out to receive the 33rd Degree of that Rite in Boston in September, 1987. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
But it has not been the Legislative Branch alone in the United States which has been subjected to strong Masonic influence. The Craft's control of the Supreme Court already has been explored; and although Masonry's authority has not been as pronounced in the Executive Branch as in the two others, the secret Brotherhood has had good representation among Chief Executives Fifteen of 39 Presidents have been members of the Craft,some of whom have been more ardent in their attachment to the Fraternity than others. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
In addition to George Washington and Andrew Johnson, among more recent Presidents who have been Masons are Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald R. Ford. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Of Roosevelt, the Grand Lodge of New York remarked in its official publication that if world Masonry ever comes into being, historians will give much credit to the period when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
President Harry Truman, a Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Missouri, was quoted as saying: "Although I hold the highest civil honor in the world, I have always regarded my rank and title as a Past Grand Master of Masons as the greatest honor that has ever come to me." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Following President Truman's death in 1972, the Scottish Rite Grand Commander hailed the Missouri-born Chief Executive as "a devoted son" of the Fraternity, and "the first President of the United Statss to have been coroneted an Inspector General Honorary of the Thirty-third Degree (1945)." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Masons serving in Cabinet posts under President Roosevelt were Henry Morganthau, Secretary of the Treasury; Homer Cummings and Robert H. Jackson (later a Supreme Court Justice), Attorneys- General; Daniel Roper and Jesse Jones, Secretaries of Commerce; George Dern, Secretary of War; and Claude Swanson and Frank Knox, Secretaries of Navy. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Among Masons in President Truman's Cabinet were James F. Byrnes and George C. Marshall, Secretaries of State; Tom Clark, Attorney General (and later Supreme Court Justice); Fred Vinson, Secretary of Treasury (and later Chief Justice); Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defense; Clinton Anderson, Secretary of Agriculture; and Henry Wallace, Secrtary of Commerce. Mr. Wallace also served as Vice President during Franklin D. Roosevelt's third term. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
During World War II, under both Presidents Roosevelt and Truman the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General George C. Marshall; the Commander of the U.S. Fleet, Admiral Ernest King; and the Chief of the U.S. Army Air Corps, General Henry H. Arnold-were all members of the Masonic Fraternity. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Freemasons serving under President Dwight D. Eisenhower (a non-Mason) were Sherman Adams, his Chief of Staff; Christian Herter, Secretary of State; Douglas McKay, Secretary of Interior; and Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of Treasury. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
It must be emphasized that many members of the Fraternity do not disclose their Masonic affiliation, as Congressman Kemp's curriculum vitoe indicates. That aspect of the Craft's operations was made clear in a 1962 New Age editorial, which said: .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
"That a man is a Mason is something only another Mason can know, and the secret of the Master Mason can be simply and subtly communicated amongst eavesdroppers without the slightest awareness of non-Masons. [It] is [part of] the continuing and ancient charm of the age-old rituals and rites." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
The same editorial said: "Masons set the basic policies of our society. Yet the order is not political, and its purposes are not public. It is religious . . ." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
And one member of the Craft pointed out that there are at least 160 organizations (which he did not identify) that require their members to also be initiates into the Masonic Fraternity. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
In 1948, the New Age boasted that some ten million adults were linked directly, or were indirectly associated with the nation's three million Master Masons. The Scottish Rite publication estimated that "between one in five and one in 10 of the adult thinking population come directly within the circle of Masonic influence . . ." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
A candid statement on Masonry's dedication to imposing its philosophy on the nation, often through men who hold positions of national leadership, was set forth two years later by a high-ranking member of the Brotherhood. He said: .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
"Any teaching which is completely antagonistic to all that we consider sacred, in religion, in morals and in government, is subversive of those fundamentals, and on them we depend for our very existence as a Craft. Our first duty, therefore, becomes one of self preservation, which includes defense of those principles for which we stand and by which we live. This duty cannot be discharged by complete silence on the subject, and this view, it is encouraging to note, is today shared byv most of those who speak Masonically in the United States." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Significantly, the writer concluded by noting that some men who were leading the nation at that time were also "leaders of the Craft." He declared : .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
"This nation was nurtured on the ideals of Freemasonry; . . . most of those who are today its leaders are also members and leaders of the Craft. They know that our American Democracy, with its emphasis on the inalienable rights and liberties of the individual, is Freemasonry in Government . . ." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Perhaps typical of how leaders of the Craft work within the government was the cancelation in 1955 by the Senate Judiciary Committee of a hearing to openly explore and discuss the real meaning of the relgion clause of the First Amendment. It is possible such a hearing might have been considered discussion of a teaching which is completely antagonisitic to all that consider sacred." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
At any rate, the New Age reported that the Senate committee had announced in August that it would commence hearings on the religion clause of the First Amendment beginning October 3. The Masonic publication also made clear that it was opposed to such hearings. Subsequendy, the magazine reported: "On September 30, hasty announcement was made by the Chairman of the subcommittee, Sen. Thomas C. Hennings, Jr. , of Missouri, that public hearings on the religion clause would be postponed." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
The late Sen. Hennings was a 33rd Degree Mason. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
In 1960, the Grand Commander related how the federal government was used to help consolidate two lodges in Italy into one Supreme Council. The situation developed as a result of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini taking over the Masonic Temple in Rome. Following his assassination, the Temple's ownership passed to the Italian government, a transaction upheld by Italian courts. The courts also ruled that the Italian Masons owed 100 miiiion lire in interest and back rent..Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher 
U.S. Masons organized American Friends for Justice for Italian Freemasonry, under the leadership of Admiral William H. Standley. A deadline for payment of the 100 million lire was set for February 18, 1960; however, "a sympathetic hearing" was given to the U.S. Masons by Secretary of State Christian Herter, a 33rd Degree Mason," and the deadline was extended 90 days. Moreover, while the Temple remained in the possession of the Italian government, Masons were given the right to certain portions of the building for 20 years , beginning in July, 1960. The 100 million lire debt was reduced by fourfifths, so the Craft was required to pay only 20 million at the rate of 1 million per year for two decades. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Secretary Herter received the Gourgas Medal of Masonry, which is awarded by the Fraternity "in recognition of notably distinguished service in the cause of Freemasonry, humanity or country." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
In 1976, the Grand Commanders of the Scottish Rite bodies of the Southern and Northern Jurisdictions honored a number of the Masonic Congressmen. During the ceremonies it was made clear that "much credit must go to the Brethren in governmental positions." It was also stated "that good, dedicated, patriotic men can determine the fate of a nation and contribute to the fulfillment of Freemasonry 's high ideals." .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Among the Fraternity's "high ideals" is prohibiting government support to children attending religious educational institutions. In that regard, a Washington newspaper colunm ran two items which were separated in time by eight months, but clearly reflect how Masonry's agenda can be acomplished within the government even if the President of the United States seems to hold a contrary view..Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher 
The unsigned colunm, "Alice in Potomac Land," reported on April 5, 1983:.Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher 
"Not many lobbyists have the ability to alter public policy like Timmons and company. Its top dogs, Bill Timmons and Tom Korologos, are not only veterans of the Nixon/Ford Administrations, but also helped the Reaganites in the 1980 campaign. They have the luxury of picking and choosing their clients. So, when they move into the area of family issues, you you that more is afoot than a [Sen.] Jesse Helms filibuster . . . .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
"And then word reached us that Timmons has been using his old contacts at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to bring about a meeting between President Reagan and Henry Clausen, the head of the Masonic Order. The purpose of the chat is to talk the Old Man out of his support for tuition tax credits, which the Masons adamantly oppose. " .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Just over eight months later, on December 13, 1983, the same column ran the following item: .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
"Those folks who were active in the fight for tuition tax credits said all along that White House legislative affairs director Ken Duberstein didn't have his heart in the struggle, even though his boss, the President was leading the charge. Now they think they know why. .Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Mr. Duberstein is leaving the administration to join Timmons and Co., the high-powered lobbying firm. Conservatives feel that Mr. Duberstein was so intent on moving out of government into the big bucks that he didn't want to risk his marketability by twisting arms for conserative causes.".Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
:Most of this is crap... innaccurate and down right paranoid material that all comes from one single POV source... it is also way too long.  It is all much better discussed on the Anti-Freemasonry page which is linked. Blueboar 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your language inappropriate and not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. I feel you may be a sock of skull and femurs a banned user, who used similar language, especially the frequent use of the vulgar expression 'crap'.Anderson12 14:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not only is this all from one single POV bashing source... I strongly suspect that it is copied directly from that source, which is a Copywrite Violation.  Here is just one reason.... look at the line: "What of the United States? The preceding pages of this book have disclosed how Masonry dominated public policy in a number of individual States, and, nationally, through the Nativist, Know-Nothing, APA,..."  WHAT BOOK?... "behind the closed door" of course. Blueboar 13:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Masonry's Involvement in Politics

message: In the general requiremenst section I think the line Traditionally Freemasons do not actively recruit new members needs work.  It's not inaccurate, just open to challenge.  One must not actively solicit an individual for an application however Freemasonry as a whole does advertise its existence and the requirement that one must approach a Mason to request to join.  the overt advertising could be considered to be 'active recruitment', although I know that the term is actually aimed at individual solicitation.  Any thoughts on a more approproate wording?  I'm having a hack at the rest of that section justnow.ALR 16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would change the line to something like: Traditionally, Freemasons have not actively recruited new members. We should point out that some jurisdictions are now advertizing, and encouraging the Brethren to discuss Masonry with non-Masons who might be interested in joining... "Asking them to ask us" is the way my District Deputy GM puts it.  Also, the "Ask one to be one" tradition is only true for some jurisdictions, others take exactly the opposite approach to the "Traditional"... they do not allow men to ask, they must wait to BE asked (I can find a citation if needed).  In other words... once again... different jurisdictions do things differently. Blueboar 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference would be useful, it does apply in some of the appendant orders, such as ROS, AoL, and CBSC, but I'd be interested to know where it applies.ALR 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that it is stated in John Robinson's "A Pilgims Path"... it would take me some time to dig up the exact page (and he does not list which jurisdictions).  I think it is also stated in "Freemasonry for Dummies" (If I remember correctly, the author says this is true in many South American jurisdictions but does not list them).  Give me a few days while I dig further. Blueboar 19:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I do understand that Brazil takes a fairly hard line on a number of issues.  There has been some dialogue on UKML about it a little while ago.ALR 19:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Blueboar, I would like to see a citation of your contention that some jurisdictions "take exactly the opposite approach to the Traditional ... they do not allow men to ask, they must wait to BE asked." That would mean that a name would have to be presented to the Lodge by someone other than the potential member, then he would have to be balloted upon, pass the ballot, and THEN be "invited" to take the Degrees. Since you offered, I'd like to see the citation and know which jurisdiction(s) does/do this.PGNormand 00:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comes of his own Free Will 

message: OK, now that's settled, again, for the moment, until he appears again.......
Can someone revert back and I'll re-include the substantive edits I made earlier.  I suspect I'd reasonably be done for 3RR myself now if I did the main job.ALR 21:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. Ardenn 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ThanksALR 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page 

message: And now that the latest to do is over... anyone mind if I archive the current talk page so we can (again) start fresh? Blueboar 22:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: crack on ALR 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Knock yourself out. Ardenn 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: WHAT ARE MASON SIGNS AND SYMBOLS?208.54.94.17 06:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SIGNS