Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 24

message: Most definitely a "not proven" fringe theory... the vast bulk of historical evidence does not support this theory... documented evidence says that FM was either a decentant of operative guilds or made up whole cloth around 1600s.  perhaps it could be added to History of Freemasonry if properly sourced, but too Fringe for the main article. Blueboar 01:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pythagorean Brotherhoood 

message: Given that this article is very long, and that we are attempting to cut things or move them to sub-articles, I don't think we need a section on the US Presidents that were Masons (as has twice now been added by an anon editor).  Other than that, I have no real objection to the material. I simply think it would fit better in one of the sub-articles, such as History of Freemasonry.  Blueboar 22:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that it's not that many, and it's been less frequent as time goes on, and that they're all listed in the List of Famous Freemasons, I don't think we need it at all in either article. MSJapan 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem with that. Blueboar 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with BB - redundancy is the bane of Wiki. :) Bdevoe 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Presidents 

message: Toussaint has added a new template to the bottom of almost all of the Freemasonry articles (it was deleted from this article) ... This is an OK concept, but the execution was flawed. I have already caught a few errors - for example, because he used the article entitled List of Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England as a section header, and placed links to all of the articles about various Grand Lodge under that head, he ended up implying that some GLs and GOs (such as the Grand Orient of Italy) are recognized when actually they are not.  I have corrected those errors I could find... but people may want to check the info (at Template:Freemasonry) to see if there are other problems I did not catch.
Given that he added the template to so many articles, it is probably easier to correct the template rather than delete it from each article. Blueboar 20:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd probably delete it anyway for reasons stated on the template talk page, but I hacked it down quite a bit in the meantime.  Good idea, bad execution. MSJapan 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with new template 

message: Would anyone be interested in writing about the lodges that were established in British colonies in Empire days? I know very little about Freemasonry, but I'm curious about the history of Masonic activity in (for example) Africa, the subcontinent, Malaysia - places in which the lay person might not expect to find a Masonic presence. Readers might find a useful starting point here  http://homepage.eircom.net/~lawe/MASONICFOR.htm  Regards, Notreallydavid 11:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this sounds like an interesting subject, I feel that it would belong naturally in the article History of Freemasonry, and not here. After all, this article is currently at 65kb, which is a wee bit more than the suggested lenght. And btw; why would a layperson not expect to find masons in the places you mention? WegianWarrior 12:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should definitely be added to History of Freemasonry... it is a topic that I have been meaning to address in that article for quite a while.  I did some preliminary research on the foundation and growth of Masonry in India and Australia, but want to do more.  Thanks for the nudge.  Blueboar 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar, if you need help with this, please let me know.  I live in southeastern Ontario, where the United Empire Loyalists settled after leaving the US in the late-1700's.  Some of the lodges in this region (Kingston, Belleville, etc.) are tied to the history of Canada (Sir John A. MacDonald, first Prime Minister of Canada, belonged to a lodge in Kingston - his regalia is on display in the atrium; quite fascinating...but I digress...) I would be interested in assisting with research for a section on this, and perhaps even lead it for Canada.  Thoughts? --Absalom (4B54L0M) 19:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great. The History of Freemasonry article does need work. As for advice... Keep it as general as possible (ie focus on all of Canada, not just one province) and try to keep it short.  Thanks. Blueboar 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Will do,Blueboar - I'll work on a proposed outline for the article, and post it on the talk page for History within the next couple of weeks; I will try to keep it succinct, however initial lodges in Canada were formed as offshoots from GLs in England, Ireland, Scotland, and France - and their eventual amalgamation under one GL of Canada, and subsequent forming of other GLs in Canada with provincial jurisdictions makes it a bit of a hodgepodge.  Your comments on the outline will be appreciated.--Absalom (4B54L0M) 16:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for new section 

message: re: unencyclopedic tag. Please add your comments. Blueboar 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New RFC at [[Jahbulon]] 

message: We just had a minor back and forth on the ordering of the appendix sections, and one of the comments said (nope, see Wikipedia:Annotated article and WP:Cite: correct order is 1) see also, 2) notes and references, 3) external links) which, frankly really ticks me off to no end, because neither one of those sections has layout as a policy issue, because it ISN'T, layout is a guideline, as noted at the guide to layout, which says It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices, but the Notes and References sections should be next to each other. For example, you may put "Further reading" above "Notes and references" or vice versa..  So, for Bog's sake, please don't go citing guidelines as if they were policy.--Vidkun 17:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ordering of appendix sections 

message: I've deleted the link just posted (A child's experience at a UK Masonic boarding school in the 1940s). It's obviously a sad story, but I odn't think it is relevant to the contents of this page. Perhaps it would sit more happily on a page about teh specific school (if such a page exists), or on a more general schooling article. Hackloon 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masonic Schooling Link

message: For those of you who are regular contributors, please check the page history before editing anew.  MSJapan 00:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a reminder to all... 

message: Fraternally and editorially, 
Blueboar 01:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best wishes for a happy New Year 

message: Please check out "Category:Masonic images"... these seem mostly to be logos of various Masonic organizations and Grand bodies... I have no problems with any of the images except that I am concerned that some of them may be under copywrite (and thus should be deleted).  Perhaps we should contact the bodies involved and get permission? Blueboar 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copywrite issues 

message: Specifically:
[2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence] "A wide range of faiths, drawn from the Abrahamic religions, other monotheistic religions, or non-monotheistic religions, (subject to candidates answering Yes to the Supreme Being question), include, for example, Buddhists and Hindus."
What's the point of this sentence? It has an awkward construction and I don't know what it's trying to say. I doubt it's even correct grammatically. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.32.169 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the section. Blueboar 13:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership and religion section unclear 

message: Masonic Funeral Music, by Mozart, K. 477 - Does it have anything to do with Freemasons?
:Yup, written for Masonic funerals. Blueboar 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mozart and Freemasonry 

message: *OED = organiZation. I just checked OED & it has organiZation. It mentions organiSation but does not actually have a seperate entry for it.
**OED defaults to most-used
**The publishing world usually defaults to OED
*Commonwealth English uses organiZation
*Who, actually, currently uses organiSation?
*It's organiZation. Period. The only possible exception would be if it were in a quote, or.. a quote.
:Grye 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just making sure it's clear...

message: I am no expert in this topic, which is why I cannot correctly add to it. I would like to see more about the beliefs of Masons, and something about the 'new world order' that I have heard from time to time should be added. Also, some famous Freemasons, like Benjamin Franklin should be added in a list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBollett (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should already be fairly clear in the article that an individual Freemasons beliefs are his, or her, own and that Freemasonry itself does not dictate what these should be.  There is a List of Freemasons article already.  And given that the New World Order is a conspiracy theory which has nothing to do with Freemasonry it has no place in the article.  OTOH if you believe, on re-reading, that the point about the individuals beliefs isn't clear then we'd be grateful if you could highlight where the deficiencies in communication are.ALR 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does bring up a point... looking back through the talk pages we have had several people post similar questions.  Some are obviously Anti-Masons who really are asking "why don't you admit that the Masons worship the Devil?  What are you trying to hide?"  Those we can ignore.  Others, however, seem to be from the simply curious but misinformed, who assume that Masonry teaches some form of "belief" system.   Perhaps we do need to clarify this misconception more explicitly.  Something along the lines of "Freemasonry does not teach a belief system, nor does it tell its members what to believe. Such concepts are left to the religious teachings of each individual member's religion." Food for thought. Blueboar 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It will (& has) become a long & time-consuming address, as it will bring up every issue ever, from every side. Look at BPOE talk, just about Atheism. It just has to be NPOV facts (duh), & little hand-holding (links & cites provided, so do your homework before debating/editing) , as discussion will quickly</I> become factors longer thn the section itself...Grye 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am sorry for suggesting these additions, especially about the 'new world order'. As I said, I am no expert in the topic, and did not know it was a conspiracy theory. Please don't view me as a bigot, or take that with offense, as I was ignorant about the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBollett (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, you have highlighted a useful point about the position with respect to beliefs not being clear.  The article does need some work and anything that points that out is useful.  Actually, I think on reflection that the response to your talk page should have been to the editor of the topic above here.  There is no way that your point should make anyone believe that you are a bigot and I'm sorry that there has been some confusion.ALR 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: While freemasons have differing beliefs as people from all walks of life do. The Interest in the thoughts of certain key freemasons guide and lead others and more considerably other freemasons into similar lines of thought. Central figures such as Albert Pike have been leading freemasons for decades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.186.27.118 (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he is the "Supreme Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry" after all (/sarcasm).  Frankly, Pike is a load of crap sometimes; he knew what he knew, but he also thought he knew what he didn't know, and made a lot of incorrect assumptions as a result - it's a generalized problem with esoteric scholarship of the era.  I'd also point out that even in his own time, folks up in the NMJ could care less about what Pike had to say, and it's generally only Pike specialisits and Masonic detractors that consider Pike central to Freemasonry as a whole, and Pike never professed  to be teaching any sort of belief.  Only the uncritical eye would believe he did. MSJapan 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More added about beliefs 

message: Thanks to everyone who has kept an eye on things (users and admins) through this latest round of puppetry. MSJapan 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't do too shabby yourself MSJ... but I'll echo your thanks... especially those to the admins.  Blueboar 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're both welcome. Dappled Sage 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socks! 

message: *I'm just trying to figure out what exactly this article-worth of posting is about? the issue(s) brought up are addressed in the wrticle itself, and in several indie articles too:
:Freemasonry#Opposition_to_Freemasonry
:Anti-Masonry
:Christianity and Freemasonry
:Catholicism and Freemasonry
:Freemasonry under totalitarian regimes
:Freemasonry#Prince_Hall_Freemasonry
:I count about 110 immediate & obvious lines of text in the main article alone, all referencing additional articles, about some very real form of opposition to Freemasonry &/or Segregation in Masonry. I don't see a valid arguement, or even discussion here, for 1/100th of the conversation existant. To answer (any/all) question(s), there it is, complete with links to additional articles. End of conversation. Have fun with that.
:Grye 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly is this thread

message: User:DakotaDocMartin seems to have taken on a project to change the logo images used on all of the various articles about Masonic organizations.  See his recent edits at York Rite, Scottish Rite, and his recent edit to this article.  Personally, I kind of liked the image he put here (a fancier version of the Square & Compasses).  Sure, the one we have is fine... but the fancier one is fine too.  Any thoughts? Blueboar 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked him to source the images, otherwise they will be deleted as unknown copyright. MSJapan 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... The delete makes sense now.  Thanks. Blueboar 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personaly, I prefer the plain (original) one. WegianWarrior 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with WegianWarrior. Plain isn't bad. Rarelibra 20:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, it's a moot point unless he comes up with a source.  And one is as good as another to me, so I have no problem staying with plain.  Honey glazed, on the other hand... :>)  Blueboar 21:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S&C image 

message: There is no proof (we have only anecdotes written after the fact by individuals who stood a lot to gain by the downplaying of the actual, unpleasant truth) about Freemasons wearing the forget-me-not. If Freemasons had worn it during the one year/winter season that the pin was used for Winter Relief purposes, they surely would not have worn it at any other time... The Nazis (the Gestapo, the Kripo, the Sipo, the SS, et al.) would surely have detected German citizens wearing a non-Nazi/regulation pin, especially one that was supposed to have been used for a specific time period and one that was supposed to have related to a particular activity (i.e. winter reflief). Any Mason seeing another Mason he knew who was wearing that pin would have known that the individual in question was a Freemason already and those who did not know the individual was a Freemason would not have known the symbol was being used to signify the brother was a Freemason. So, maybe some brothers used it for only a short time and as a sort of inside-joke, silent protest, and/or self-referring sign of Masonic membership. I find it ridiculous to believe that the pin would have been used by Freemasons before the time period of the Winter Relief or after that timr and/or in the concentration camps. In addition, this pin was made/used by the brothers of only one German Grand Lodge so the amount of brothers using it, if any, would have been incredibly small. It would have hardly been worn throughout Germany or Nazi-occcupied Europe. But, again, I haven't seen any proof of it being used at all. The individual who started the story after the war had a lot to gain by the circulation of this story... the reputation of the German fraternity was in tatters and it would look good if it was thought and taught that German Freemasons had resisted the Nazis and the Third Reich.
The fact is that most Freemasons in Germany were members of lodges and Grand Lodges that deliberately excluded Jews and other non-Christians from membership. When Hitler came to power, most German Grand Lodges tried to appease the Nazis and to have their members and subordinate/blue lodges survive the Third Reich by changing their names and ritual (as well as formally adopting an Aryan Paragraph) to lessen any perceived Jewish influences. (For more about this, read Ralf Melzer's book and/or his article in Heredom, the annual of the Scottish Rite Research Society)
Lastly, most Freemasons who were rounded up and put in concentration camps were placed there because they were (first and foremost) Jews or members of the Nazi's political opposition (communists or socialists or social democrats) (there were less than 3,000 Jewish Masons in Germany in the immediate years before Hitler came to power). I have not heard or seen any definite proof that any individuals were killed or put in concentration campsts purely because they were Freemasons (there were articles written during the war years that allege this taking place, but those articles also did not take into account that the individuals written about might also have been Jews and/or communists and socialists). I don't know how that web-site figured that 50-80,000 Freemasons died in World War Two unless it is counting the numbers of Jews, communists, and/or socialists who also happened to be Freemasons. User:ATK1966 
Thanks
ATK1966 (January 31, 2007)
:Whether the forget me not was or was not actually worn by Masons in Nazi Germany, is irrelevant.  The story (true or false) has inspired today's Masons to adopt the symbol in memory of those who were slain.  
:It is not a proven "fact" that most Freemasons in Germany were members of lodges and Grand Lodges that deliberately excluded Jews and non-Christians.  Yes, there were such bodies... but there were also several Grand Lodges and hundreds of lodges that accepted such men.  
:It is true that when the Nazis came to power, and it became clear that Masonry was going to be surpressed, some Masons disavowed their membership and tried to form organizations that they hoped would be more acceptable to the Nazis... no one said Masons are not human, and when the choice is between corrupting one's ideals or death, it is understandable that some choose to live... Many others, however, took the more risky step and continued their Masonic affiliations underground.  MOST, simply closed their doors and prayed that the situation would change some day.  
:Finally, It does not matter if the Masons who were killed by the Nazis were also Jews, communists etc. They were still Masons. Their religious or political affiliations just meant that they were doubly "undesirable" in the eyes of the Nazis.  There were still thousands of men who were thrown into concentration camps and killed simply for being a Mason without any other reason.
:Fact - The Nazis outlawed Masonry and killed thousands of Masons.  Nuff said. Blueboar 02:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ATK - masons 'outlawing' jewish membership is no different than Catholics "condoning" the Nazi involvement in the concentration camps... the Pope sat by idly and let it all happen. Known fact. So is the Nazi persecution of masons. Rarelibra 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true.  See Simon Wiesenthal's bio; it's on the first page.  Also, it is very likely that ATK is Lightbringer again, and if not, we've again gone over this 35 or 40 times.  If he's not LB, I'll look at this and disassemble it point by point later. MSJapan 17:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever it is, their signature is incorrect, there is no "ATK1966", he is "Atk1966" and "ATK" is another user altogether! 68.39.174.238 05:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust 

message: Here's a good question for you.  How many of us are there?  :) Jachin 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are 'over 18000' here in Norway... WegianWarrior 19:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be an interesting number. Rarelibra 20:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, are you talking in general, or of a particular segment? Generally, according to Colorado. USA GL, as of some point in 2006 there's over 16,000 in CO, presumably not counting the welcome & recognized PHA Freemasons... I'm pretty sure the number in the USA is just under 1m in 2006. Grye 06:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Distribution

message: Having just read this article i am entirely confused.  The article makes extensive use of masonic (?) vocabulary without first defining the terms or not defining them at all.  as this is an article on free masonry its sort of expected to be confusing and not with complete information but still.  this page would be much more understandable with the concepts illustrated in a simpler manner that any one could understand or with definitions coming at the beginning of the article. Beckboyanch 05:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you perhaps give a few examples of what you consider to be 'masonic vocabulary' that need to be defined? It's pretty useless for others to try and guess as to what might confuse you... even more so because all mason specific terms that I can see is either explained in the article, or links to articles that explains them. WegianWarrior 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As this has come up before, I just read through about half the article.  I can't find anything specialized that isn't either defined or linked to. MSJapan 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have trouble with; "the ritual" in the introduction; the use of (and perhaps the whole section) regularity; jurisdiction; the use of constitution as both a founding document and a religious text.  also much is a matter of order, phrases like landmarks are defined significantly after their initial use. Beckboyanch 06:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ritual is ritual; it's a dicdef, not a special usage.  Regularity is confusing, but it's important; it's what defines where one can and cannot go.  Jurisdiction is a dicdef.  I'm not sure where you see two different usages of constitution; it's pretty plain the need for belief is set down as part of the constitution. The landmarks, while mentioned earlier, are defined in their own section, which is perfectly adequate, as to define them initially would skew the section away from its focus.  Anything in the introduction does not have to be elaborated upon in the introduction.  Now, wth my opinion out of the way, how would you fix this? MSJapan 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need more specific instances of where the article might need clarification.  The intent is that most of these terms are being used in their normal English usage... The words "ritual", "jurisdiction", "constitution" and even "landmark" do not have some sort of special "Masonic Meaning" that is different from how the average person would use the the words.  "Regularity" does have a somewhat special meaning in Masonic context... but that meaning is explained in the text (and linked to an article that goes into it in even more detail).  So I have trouble understanding where things confuse you.  If you could point to specific paragraphs and sentences where something in the article confuses you, we can try to clarify. Blueboar 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing diction 

message: Correct me if I am wrong, but I already mentioned that the article has no reference to masonic cemeteries (which I am currently compiling a list). Also, I do not see any reference or mention of OES, Job's Daughters, etc? Rarelibra 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know such a thing as a Masonic cemetery existed, and while we have links and articles for appendant bodies, I don't think we could possibly mention them all.  IIRC, OES, JDI, and some other groups require a Mason for existence, but that's it, and couldn't be explained succinctly anyhow.  The article is huge as-is, and we need to draw a line someplace. MSJapan 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we do mention OES... under the "Women and Freemasonry" section. As for the others, I don't think it is vital, but it would be nice to have a brief listing of the various youth organizations (DeMolay, Job's Daughters, Rainbow etc.) if doing so would not take up too much space.  I would suggest a simple section called: "Youth organizations", listing the organizations, and simply stating that these orgainizations exist under Masonic sponsorship (without explaining them or going into details). Blueboar 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional info?