Talk:Jahbulon

message: First, in reply to Scarletwoman93's two concerns:
# "it does bother me that initations that are supposed to be kept secret (why ruin the surprise for an initiate) can be found so easily" --  the information quoted in this article already has been published in Francis King's book.  Any prospective OTO initiate can read it there.  If it is one's True Will to follow this particular  initiatory path, then one may simply look away when presented with the option of reading ahead in the rituals.  
# "The organization keeps degree rituals secret for the sake of initiates" -- It may violate internal rules or agreements of OTO members to reveal the contents of the rituals, however agreements made by members of an organization (as with signatories of a contract) do not bind non-members who are not parties to the agreement and therefore have not agreed to those conditions.
So, in both of the above cases, those concerns do not apply to inclusion of the information in Wikipedia.
However, the article does need to be changed to remove the (so-called) OTO ritual text, and, the statements regarding the OTO ritual use of the word need to be modified. I will do that after I complete this comment.  Here are the two reasons the change is needed:
#the information about the OTO rituals in this article is taken from Francis King's book and that book in itself is controversial.  There is no third-party source (that I know of) to support King's claims that his transcriptions of the OTO rituals are correct.  It is possible he has it exactly right, but it's also possible that he's wrong.  And further, it's possible that he was correct in his observation of a version of an OTO ritual at the time and place he observed it, but that the ritual he observed was perhaps incorrect or unique.  In any of those cases, we do not have WP:Verifiability and we do not have WP:Reliable sources, so if the article mentions King's use of the word in OTO rituals, it must state that this is simply King's assertion, not that it is a verified fact that the word is used in the OTO ritual.
#the use of the complete poem from Francis King's book must be removed because it is a violation of WP:Fair use (re: text quotations) (also see WP:Fair use#Counterexamples and Quotations). King's book was published in the United States in 1973 by Samuel Weiser and carries the copyright notice of the OTO.  A short section of the poem could be included as an illustration, but the entire poem must not be included.  
Summary: Since King's claim that the word and/or the poem is used in the OTO ritual is (so-far) not verified by a third party, it seems best to modify the article to mention King's claim (which can be referenced to his book), but not to state his claim as fact.  Since King's claim is unsupported, it also seems best not quote any of the poem, in that we don't really know if that poem is in the ritual or not. Parzival418 07:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in broad agreement with this, except as regards no mention of the poem for the reasons stated above. Since the poem forms part of King's unsupported claim then it is no more or less worthy of inclusion (of part of it) where it illustrates the claim. If it does not add to the section any more than reading King's book would then it is not needed in the text. LessHeard vanU 12:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that it was added in/forced in with no citation in the first place.  I'd say also, that there's no reliable source for usage in Masonic ritual either, which again brings us to a fundamental issue regarding the notability and accuracy of that part of the article.  I also agree with the statement that what's good for the goose is good for the gander - we can't keep one and not the other. MSJapan 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concurr with your point that the sources for Masonic usage are also murky, and it would be fine with me if you want to change that section.  Regarding the OTO usage, all we have are King's claims - not corrobaorated at this time - which is why I changed the article to read that way.  I'm not sure I understand your summary of the situation though, I'd be interested if you'd like to clarify your point further. Parzival418 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the poem -  I removed the full text per WP:FAIR and because I could not find a shorter segment that would illustrate the point. But also because we don't know if the words of the song as related by King are accurate or if the song actually even does mock the Masons. It could even be original poetry by King that he felt simulated or described what he thought the OTO ritual conveyed (or maybe it's correct, I'm not arguing either way on that point, just that we don't know for sure). It's also possible that in the greater context of the rituals that the apparent mocking may be a parody or joke or misleading trick (as are commonly part of the psychological-social initiatory process). I wonder if even that claim that OTO ritual mocks the Masons should be softened or removed from the article, since in other situations there has been positive collaboration between Masons and the OTO at some times in history. I retained it, even though is controversial, because I wanted to avoid a sudden major change in the sense of the article from before I started editing here, and while King's claims may not corraborated in detail by others, his book has also not been conclusively repudiated either. If someone really wants to read the poem, then they may want to read the whole ritual which is available in King's book still currently in print. Parzival418 19:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reply to two concerns, and two reasons to modify the OTO-related text

message: I reverted this change: diff because the reference to the OTO already appears in the intro, in the sentence right above the table of contents.  The OTO usage is claimed only by one source, which is strongly disputed as detailed later in the article, therefore it should not be listed in the first intro sentence on an equal basis with the Masonic reference.  The Masonic use is also disputed as discussed in the article, but it is the primary use with older historical references and should be the primary introductory statement.  
If you want to move the OTO reference to the top of the intro, instead of where it is at the end of the intro, that would be OK with me though I think not as good.  If you do that though, then the full sentence about the usage being claimed only by Francis King should be moved from above the table of contents, an additional statement about it should not be added - OTO should not be listed twice in the intro.  Thanks. Parzival418 18:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... I didn't see it lower down in the intro.  Good point.  Perhaps as a second sentence? Blueboar 12:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that the OTO usage is secondary, and claimed by only one disputed writer, so seems too prominent as the second sentence in the intro.  But that's a small difference and  I accept your edit. Parzival418 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reason for reverting addition of OTO to first sentence of intro

message: The article has changed a lot since the early discussions.  I recommend we archive the past discussions of this page to a subpage.  Nothing should be deleted, we would keep the archive link at the top of this page.
 
I request that someone go ahead and do the archiving, or... eventually I'll do it when I can find the time.
If anyone objects, please let us know here.  Thanks Parzival418 06:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this talk page is very long; let's archive the older discussions to a subpage... 

message: Much appreciation to User:MSJapan for archiving this page... and for the cool archive summary infobox!  Parzival418 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you for archiving!

message: :The tag you moved was intended for the talk page, not the article. I've moved it back where it belongs. Jefferson Anderson 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I misplaced that tag. Thanks for pointing that out.  However the article is strongly disputed by many editors, so readers need to be notified so they can make their own decisions.  I'll add a corrected tag.    --Parzival418 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   controversial tag 

message: It seems to me pretty clear that there was not (and is not yet) consensus among the editors that the article is sufficiently support by reliable references; that much of the article is derived from only a small number of historical sources of questionable authority, who have then been repeatedly quoted by others, thereby creating what appears to be multiple references (when really those references are all based on the same few writings).  It seems that much of the historical conflict around this word also resulted from the statements by those same few writers.
For references to be reliable, there needs to be independent corroboration between more than one source.  If the information all comes from one source, or several sources that are not independent because they all quote one original source, then it is not reliable, it's just something someone said or wrote.
In addition, it has been impossible to find any references at all (so far) in etymological writings to indicate that this word exists in any historical context, either as a proper name or any other sort of word. As far as the science of linguistics is concerned (from what I have been able to find on Google and in several etymological dictionaries), this word seems not to exist. The only sources of information about the word are either Masons, ex-Masons, anti-Masons quoting those former sources, and one writer describing OTO usages, whose writings have been called incorrect by at least a few OTO members.  So while it appears that this word has been used in some way in Freemasonry and the OTO, and that some people have been castigated for its alleged use, there are no valid secondary references supporting the details about the word that are currently in the article.
This is only a short summary.  Much more discussion about this appears earlier on this page and in the archives.
If we don't have some sort of template on this article stating that some of its contents are disputed, then readers will see it as an authoritive encyclopedia article, and in its current state that is not accurate.
I'm not going to try and keep that template in place on my own, it's not my job to do that.  If there is no support for marking the article as disputed or unreferenced, so be it, then remove the template. But I hope there is support to keep it there because the article as it is now does not have consensus.
Comments invited.  Thanks 06:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a few comments about lack of sources

message: I figured out a way to retain the King song while reducing its excessive prominence in the article.   By moving it to a footnote it no longer dominates the article as the only quoted ritual segment in the main text.  There are quotes in the footnotes from the text of Masonic rites too.  If the King song is in the main article, then why are the Masonic ritual quotes only in the footnotes?
If those who want to keep the song in the article will concur with the footnote placement, I'll concur to drop my argument to delete it completely. --Parzival418 09:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Jefferson Anderson 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moved the song lyric to a footnote

message: I removed the "disputed" template from the main article page.  Based on our talk page discussions, I don't see this as a disputed article anymore, it's just not finished yet (and that's pretty usual for most Wikipedia articles). There is still plenty room for improvement, certainly, but that's different than an article whose editors are disputing its content.
I feel that our recent discussions and edits have made a big difference.  Topics that could have become edit wars did not, and we as a group found positive ways of working together.  That feels good.  This is a difficult subject; after all we're writing about a secret word and somehow coming up with references and histories.  While we don't all agree about all the details, I believe we did find consensus on the overall approach.   
So, I removed the tag.  If someone feels it should still be there, you're welcome to put it back.  If you do, please explain your thoughts.
Meanwhile, ...thanks to all for editing in collaborative spirit. --Parzival418 05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. LessHeard vanU 12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "disputed" template on the main article page no longer needed 

message: The sum of 5 edits by the above contributor is "* The Word Jah-oh-eh is believed by some to be an Mormon interpretation of the word Jahbulon. See Kolob" I do not note either the Mormon word or Jahbulon in a quick scan of the article. If this is to be included here I think the specific section should be linked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re edits by Meshmaster 

message: The word is the "lost secret" sign of recognition that disappeared with the murder of Hiram Abiff in the 3rd degree. It is found again in the 7th degree: the Royal Arch degree. It is not a name for God, but a secret word that only the chief masons were supposed to know so as to recognize one another as chief masons. Hiram, King of Tyre (a chief mason,) Hiram Abiff (A Hebrew chief mason,) and King Solomon (a chief mason) chose it as their secret word that they would pass onto their successors. But they would not pass it on if one of them were killed. Abiff is murdered, so the word had to be discontinued. But, they hid it in a secret chamber of the temple, which was later discovered when clearing the ruined 1st temple for the building of the 2nd temple. In the 3rd degree, we learn that the true secret word is lost until a time when masons might again be worthy to receive it, so says king Solomon. The word is supposed to refer to lots of different things that touch on masonry and the different cultures of the masons at the time, who were not all Hebrews. Hiram, king of Tyre, for instance was not a Hebrew, not a believer in the Hebrew God. Also, using God's true name (the tetragrammaton) as a mere sign of recognition, would be blasphemy. So, a name that meant various, similar, and positive, constructive and spiritual things in the three major languages of the Middle East at the time was chosen. The word means one thing in Hebrew, another in Chaldaean (Babylonian) and another in Egyptian (if I remember correctly.) Thus, it would be meaningful to no matter what mason was given the secret word, in the ancient Middle East. Using this kind of cipher instead of God's real name is humble and appropriate. The English Grand Chapter changing their recognition sign to God's actual name, would be true blasphemy, and would show a profound misunderstanding of the original password's import. It is probably a spurious rumour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozushi (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its True Import 

message: Is the "ibid" marker in the Footnote section still valid? I did not find any ibid., idem, cit. etc.
--Kathedra87 (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibid marker 

message: Baal is not a proper name, as it is used to describe someone as lord, master, or in later Hebrew, owner. There are several deities known as Baal, but that is not their name. The word was corrupted over the Baal of Tyre, who was the son of El, named Melqart. The Christian fundamentalist's argument falls like a house of cards, when the real definition is known, as there is no single Baal, or false God, as they claim.--Craxd (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Baal is mentioned in the context of one person's breakdown of Jahbulon (actually stolen from Mackey). Nobody said he was right. My own researches indicate that the word was probably coined when the Scots who set up London's Grand Chapter realised that the word of the Royal Arch was given away for free in the Modern's third degree, and needed changed. I'm guessing William Preston solved the problem after too much claret. Grandiloquent attempts to derive Jahbulon from ancient sources are clearly false scholarship, and it would be nice to find a source that said as much. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Many Masonic scholars have been proven to be wrong, on several statements, when looking at religious history. Pike was guilty of thinking St. John, the Divine, wrote the Book of Revelation, when after it was studied by scholars, they found it was by another John all together. They say it could not have been the apostle John, as he would not have been living during the reign of Domitian, when it was written. Now, they give the author as John of Patmos. This happens to appear at the end of the very paragraph that Pike wrote, in which we get so much grief over. I think that the origin of Jabulon is to be viewed in this same aspect.--Craxd (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the usage of Baal 

message: "one Masonic scholar alleges that the word first appeared in an early 18th-century Royal Arch ritual as the name of an allegorical explorer searching for the ruins of King Solomon's Temple; another Masonic scholar believes it is a descriptive name for God in Hebrew; The most common masonic explanation is that it is a word derived from combining parts of the name of God in different historic languages."
Each case needs a citation. Also, a rider needs to be placed, that states that these scholars do not speak for the Rite, nor Freemasonry, as a whole, and that it is their opinions, and not that of the fraternity. In truth, nobody is for sure where it came from, and we use the name for another purpose. The authors of each account are making speculations. I added a 'citation needed', to each account.Craxd (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Please note that citations in the lead section are not encouraged - points mentioned in the lead should be dealt with and referenced in the body of the article. I believe the last bit comes from Mackey. Yes, this article is basic and flawed. Shouting for somebody else to fix it when you obviously know better is not how Wikipedia works. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed for first paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jahbulon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815093041/http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm to http://www.srmason-sj.org/web/SRpublications/DeHoyos.htm
*Added  tag to http://freemasonry.dept.shef.ac.uk/pdf/ovn.pdf?PHPSESSID=bf5645aae288a112e6c99cacdca85a90
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An IP editor has been making changes to this page recently which have been quickly reverted. I think some discussion of these changes is warranted, since some of the IP's edits seemed to me to be constructive - the article in its current state appears to have a certain POV, using words like 'allege' which are explicitly discouraged by MOS:ALLEGED. I'd invite the IP editor to set out the changes they want to make here, explain their rationale, and try to build a consensus for the changes. Pinging ,  and  who have edited this article in the last few days; I'll drop a note on the IP's talk page since IPs can't get pings. GirthSummit (blether) 11:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: It is given in the article that Walton Hannah asserted that the third syllable On was the name of a pagan deity; then the article links to an article entitled Heliopolis, which had the Coptic name Ōn. 
Obviously, a city is not a god, and if anyone cares to refer back to Hannah's text, they will find that the On he mentions is supposed to be Osiris, but without going into how that derivation is arrived at. I always assumed the reference was to the Graeco-Egyptian epithet Onnophris (which apparently means the good being), originating in the full Egyptian title Asar Un-Nefer, which the more dilettante among us will recognise from Crowley's slightly mad rendition of the Bornless Ritual. Nuttyskin (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walton Hannah