Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 17

message: Just so no one panics... User:Ardenn has archived the previous discussions.  We had hit a lull in the discussion anyway.  Blueboar 21:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, I should have posted a note. Thanks for doing so, Blueboar. Ardenn 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous discussions Archived 

message: I have deleted the following line from the "Christian religious opposition" section: "Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical."  I know what this line is trying to say... but it has problems.  Being Christianized is not an opposite of being anti-clerical.  One can be Christian and anti-clerical, Christian and pro-clerical (if that is a word), Non-Christian and pro-clerical, Non-Christian and anti-clerical. In regards to Masonry (especially if you include irregular Masonry) both halves of the statement are historically true... but they made no sense linked together the way they were. Blueboar 13:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd separate it and expand it, actually.  There's no way to deny that Rose Croix and KT, while not Blue Lodge, are Christianized, but the anti-clerical statement still gets us into the political realm, I think. MSJapan 02:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Note that crap will not stick there very long. Imacomp 18:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not an important part.  It is a minor area which is currently given a disproportionate coverage just to keep you from having yet another hissy fit.  It should be removed, if we can't agree on that then it should be slimmed down to little more than a line in the history section.  You may belong to a lodge where the forget-me-not is in the name or something like that, but that doesn't make it an important subject!ALR 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To continue in your tone. IT STAYS (STOP) Brother. It is important because so many people want to see it gone. It shows that far from being the New World Order, or a Satanic cult, we are an organisation that was, is, and will be, supressed by dictatorships of the left, right, etc. Imacomp 20:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust again

message: FYI - User:VQHernandez has been confirmed as another Lightbringer puppet.  We can feel free to revert anything he added. Blueboar 14:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation of puppetry 

message: Anti-Masonry (alternatively called Anti-Freemasonry) is defined as "Avowed opposition to Freemasonry".Oxford English Dictionary (1979 ed., p. 369). However, there is no homogeneous anti-Masonic movement. Anti-Masonry consists of radically differing criticisms from sometimes incompatible groups who are hostile to Freemasonry in some form.
:OK... I will play along until you are banned again... All you have done is open the door for accusations that this article does not maintain NPOV.  Discussion of Anti-masonry is needed.  Perhaps this section can be summarized better than it is in the article, but your proposed "summary" is FAR too short for such a complex topic. Blueboar 14:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Masonry 

message: Christianity and Freemasonry have had a mixed relationship, with various Christian denominations banning or discouraging members from being Freemasons. Freemasonry has at times and in certain places been heavily Christianised, while in other times and places been thoroughly anti-clerical"The Church had placed itself in opposition to the Craft. The manner in which it was done fostered a virulent anticlericalism within Italian and French Masonry." The Miter and The Trowel by William Madison, Albert Pike (Masonic) Lodge #1169.
:Again... far to short.  Also, the second sentence does not make sense (as I discussed in a previous talk page segment)... one can be Christianity and anti-clericalism are not opposites.  The third sentence would need to make it clear WHAT Church you are referring to... there are others besides RC that have no problem with Masonry.  Also, it only discusses a part of Freemasonry and not the Craft as a whole ... you would need to discuss the reaction of mainstream Masonry to the Vatican's opposition. Blueboar 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again... who cares what your opinion on what should or should not be on this page is, especially given the appalling behaviour you and your secret handshake 'brothers' have exhibited here over the last while. The purpose of these changes is to 1. follow the current page style used elsewhere on this article. 2. to shorten the article. 3. to use summaries used on the subpages that have been formed over time rather than used the highly biased and poorly written attempts at propaganda, that you and other club members continue to prefer, which is ruining this page.Jake the wiki 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And, how, Jake, would you know this, having ostensibly only been here a week? MSJapan 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would be very interested to know why Jake assumes I am a Mason.  Nothing I have said to him would indicate this.  The only reason I can think of is that he has posted here before...  more evidence of puppetry. Blueboar 12:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps in this instance it would be a good place to start addressing the issue of born-again Christian cultists and their anti-Freemasonry angle; further the copious amounts of libel and even hate crimes that are committed by them against Freemasons?  Perhaps Lightbringer / Jake the Wiki can assist us with our argument on this topic, I would like to see what he can contribute to the issue of persecution of Freemasons by distributed-denominational pentacostal/evangelically oriented born again cults. Jachin 06:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity and Freemasonry 

message: I've put him on WP:CHECK.  Ardenn 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He'll be back under another guise in a day or two tops.  His motivation, if he is our mate Lightbringer, is delusional zeal by which he thinks he is doing right by Christianity in persecuting and spreading hatred about fellow man.  Go figure, you can't beat already flawed logic. Jachin 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jake the wiki]]

message: Why are there two sections here?  RC was Christian the last time I looked, although I appreciate some of the evangelical churches don't tend to agree.  Would it not be more reasonable to group the two sections and lose the Catholicism header?ALR 12:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The split occured during the last round of Lightbringer sock puppet editing here, and no one noticed until recently ... I will see if I can clean up the mess, while incorporating the newest edits (so that if anyone has issues with them, they can be properly discussed). Blueboar 23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity/ Catholicism sections 

message: Have y'all thought about starting a Freemasonry Wikiproject?  Ardenn 23:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject

message: With regards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Christian_religious_opposition
Quaesitum est says it is forbidden, not discouraged. I quote "Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden." If you have a problem with this please discuss here. Thank you. Simonapro 00:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you take your own advice.  Ardenn 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you have provided a quote, I no longer have a problem. The only statement that I saw prior to this was the one about being "in grave sin", which (as I said in an earlier edit) is not the same as an outright ban.  This clarifies the statement,  Thanks.  (by the way... if Quasitum est is on line some where, I suggest that it should be cited and linked.)  Blueboar 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbid vs. Discourages in Christian religious opposition 

message: The section on Origin Theories has gotten a bit bizarre. There is an entire paragraph beginning with the unverifiable (and unsubstantiated) premise "it is thought by many..." (big yawn). It continues by challenging the "transition" of Freemasonry from the medieval stonemasons guilds. The paragraph gives two reasons for challenging the transition: 1) that stonemasons lived near their building sites and did not need "secret signs", and 2) that the rules provided in the Ancient Charges are "nonsensical" as rules for operative lodges. I've got questions for the author of this paragraph:  1) "who" are these "many" that think this? 2) I"ve never read that anyone has ever stated that the operative freemasons had "secret signs", or grips or passwords. I believe those are the inventions of the early speculatives. And 3) the Ancient Charges are entirely appropriate rules of behavior for operative masons. Where they become "quaint" and archaic is when they are applied to later speculative Freemasons. Unless someone can give me good reason to keep the above paragraph, I'm going to flush it. PGNormand 08:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to delete or alter the confusing paragraph referenced above, and replace it with a couple of paragraphs on 1) modes of recognition, and 2) Ancient Charges. PGNormand 17:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin Theories

message: Anybody have detailled information about this picture? Should it be moved into the article? Scriberius 06:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen anything like it in my life... but I can tell you that it is not a Masonic Emblem. So, no, it should not be moved into the article. Blueboar 11:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise it's not something i've seen in either craft or appendant bodies.  So no, it has no place in the article from my perspective.ALR 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have seen this sort of thing, but I cannot remember where. Let me try and recall . . .Harrypotter 19:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a masonic or appendant thing, but it's bloody interesting.  Does anyone have any information pertaining to these things?  It's very reminiscent of the hand of destiny, an occultist symbolism.  Jachin 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick google seems to indicate that the picture is from a book called "Montfaucon’s Antiquities" published in Nürnberg in 1757. Not sure if that helped, or even told you something you didn't allready know =). I'm not familiar with the book in question, and havn't been able to find much online either (granted, I searched for a whole five minutes...) WegianWarrior 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hands

message: I believe this page has been protected from editing due to the background knowledge some people may have of the Freemasons and as such, it has been protected so noone will ever be able to know the true secrets of the freemasons. 206.159.133.201 13:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to shot down your little conspiracy theory, but it's been semiprotected because of recurring vandalism; most likely caused by a single, disgruntled induvidual. WegianWarrior 13:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear god.  [sigh]  Can anyone clarify whether suggesting that someone illustrating obvious psychological conditions seeks help is a personal attack or not? Jachin 00:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think there is something that should be included, present it here with reliable sources and you may get it included. If you can't do that, then it doesn't need to be in there. Wikipedia isn't a message board. Ardenn 00:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved comment by 206.159.133.201