Talk:Co-Freemasonry

message: Found this quite interesting:
:Our chief object in visiting England at this time was to attend the World's Anti-slavery Convention, to meet June 12, 1840, in Freemasons' Hall, London. Delegates from all the anti-slavery societies of civilized nations were invited, yet, when they arrived, those representing associations of women were rejected. Though women were members of the National Anti-slavery Society, accustomed to speak and vote in all its conventions, and to take an equally active part with men in the whole anti-slavery struggle, and were there as delegates from associations of men and women, as well as those distinctively of their own sex, yet all alike were rejected because they were women. Women, according to English prejudices at that time, were excluded by Scriptural texts from sharing equal dignity and authority with men in all reform associations; hence it was to English minds pre-eminently unfitting that women should be admitted as equal members to a World's Convention. The question was hotly debated through an entire day. My husband made a very eloquent speech in favor of admitting the women delegates.
:Elizabeth Cady Stanton Source webmaster@sgovd.org - 84.61.2.230 22:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote by Elizabeth Cady Stanton

message: :“the elders taking the Booke, he or shee (sic!) that is to be made Mason shall lay their hands thereon, and the charge shall be given.” (York Manuscript No. 4 from 1693)
So this is older than the Old Charges by Anderson. webmaster@sgovd.org, 84.61.5.97 19:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This, according to Mackey, is a likely mistranslation from the latin in York Manuscript No. 1, in which the phrase is ille vel illi (he or they). It was read and approved by the Grand Lodge, so you'd think they would have discovered the mistake, but maybe not... Fuzzypeg 08:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: York Manuscript

message: In response to User:Alexmb who added:
:It [Co-Freemasonry] is also different to Freemasonary in that belief in a Supreme Being is not required by all bodies.
I still disagree with adding this statement to the introduction, and I particularly disagree with the comment you gave in the edit summary (This is THE major difference in philosophy and should be emphasised).
I see you have amended your last attempt at this edit, to recognise that some Grand Lodges do require belief in a Supreme Being. How then can the fact that a subset of Co-Freemasonry differs in this respect lead to the conclusion that Co-Freemasonry in general is different to Freemasonry? That's like saying "US senators are immigrants to the US since Arnie Schwarzie was born in Austria (or wherever it was)". My second disagreement is with your claim that Co-Freemasons are not Freemasons. We are Freemasons, as far as I and many other Co-Freemasons are concerned. What you've written would be highly contentious if we left it in the article. Furthermore, considering that many Grand Lodges do require a belief in a Supreme Being, the major difference in philosophy seems clearly to be that Co-Freemasons allow women, while most other Freemasons do not. I'm therefore reverting your change. Fuzzypeg 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference from Freemasonry: no belief required in Supreme Being - I disagree!

message: There have been a swathe of edits recently by User:Comason that have removed rather a lot of material and got the article into a bit of a shambles. My problems with these edits are:
*most of the information regarding the British Federation has been removed, and replaced material relating to Le Droit Humain in general, which read like advertising rather than a balanced article. This is not going to impress readers, nor inform them. I suspect this has something to do with the fact that many of the lodges that once formed the British Federation have since broken from Le Droit Humain, which now presumably would prefer to draw attention from these lodges and their philosophy. Our lodge split to form the Eastern International Order after pressure was brought to bear from France to allow the admission of atheists and make various other important changes. I suspect the British Federation is by now atheist and has been brought back in line with the French working, however since we are no longer in communication it's hard to tell. If this is the case, then it's worth mentioning in the article by all means, however the historical details of the Annie Besant concord should not be removed!
*some points distinguishing Le Droit Humain from Male Craft Freemasonry have been reworded to be less informative, and to make Co-Freemasonry sound more like the status-quo. This is misleading, because in fact most Freemasons do not officially recognise Co-Freemasonry as legitimate: we have to convey this if we are to present a neutral point of view!
Please, in future, don't make such big changes without being sure that you're following Wikipedia policy. This is a contentious topic, and it's taken a lot of work to get the text to a stable point. Also, I point editors to the Wikipedia policy "Neutral point of view": this is not a leaflet for attracting members, nor for promoting one form of Freemasonry over another. This article should be truthful, informative, balanced and historically accurate. If it is still attractive after that, then that's just a bonus. Fuzzypeg☻ 10:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having exchanged some messages with User:Comason I'm less convinced they were trying to promote Le Droit Humain. I'm leaving my comments above, though, since they mention details that may be of interest for the article. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits by [[User:Comason]]

message: Since when does the GLdF recognize LDH? Such is purported in the section:
:The International Order of Co-Freemasonry Le Droit Humain is in fraternal relations with the following Orders (meaning recognition is reciprocal and members can intervisit):
:*Grand Loge de France
:*Grand Loge Féminine de France
:*Grand Orient de France
I'm just not buying that.  No citation?--Vidkun 23:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Additionally, all members of Grand Orients and Lodges of other countries that are recognized by the GOdF can be intervisited, too, of course. (E.g. Lodges of the SGOvD ;)) Nonetheless, the GLdF seems not to be recognized by the UGLoE?  --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIUC, the Grand Lodge of France has a sort of "tradition" of keeping aloof from big Masonic organizations such as CLIPSAS, of which the Grand Orients and Feminine Grand Lodges of France and Belgium, the "Grande Loge Traditionnelle et Symbolique Opéra", the Grand Lodge of Belgium, as well as the Belgian and French Federations of Le Droit Humain, and many other "Obediences" (Grand Orients, Grand Lodges, etc.) across the world, have been members. IIUC the Grand Lodge of France prefers bilateral agreements, and it keeps friendly bilateral relations with many members or former members of CLIPSAS. Being Belgian, I don't know the details of the relations between the Grand Lodge of France and the French Federation of Le Droit Humain. AFAIK, when there is no written decision from the respective Grand Orient or Grand Lodge allowing or prohibiting reciprocal visits, the decision belongs in each particular case to the Worshipful Master (the president) of the lodge to which a Brother or Sister requests admittance, under guidance of what is usually done in the Masonic Power (Grand Orient, Grand Lodge, etc.) to which his Lodge is affiliated. — Tonymec (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recogniton?

message: Recent changes to the article assert that Co-Freemasonry is nor recognised by any regular Lodges, that it is not "true or real" but is clandestine and that it doesn't follow the established Landmarks of regular Freemasonry.
I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. Take a look at the articles Regular Masonic jurisdictions and Masonic Landmarks. They explain that exactly what the landmarks are and how they are interpreted, and what constitutes "regular", are things that vary significantly from Grand Lodge to Grand Lodge. There is no single authoritative version. Le Droit Humain considers itself to be regular and to be following the traditional landmarks, even though they do indeed initiate both women and atheists, and are indeed considered irregular by many Freemasons.
The thing is, this is a controversial point, and instead of the article passing judgement one way or the other it should take a neutral point of view, and simply present the terms of the controversy. A reader can make up their own mind; our job is to provide sufficient information for them to do so. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out, but I'm not going to do anything about it, I'm sorry. Someone else may want to fight to get the Co-Freemasonry link restored, and it may indeed be a bit petty, removing useful info from an article just to make a point, but I don't personally have time for an edit war. At least there is still a link to Co-Freemasonry in the Freemasonry navigation box on that page. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cheers for that. Yeah, I don't have any point to prove on the general Freemasonry front. Just trying to keep this article in good shape. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a good point made here, though; why duplicate the link in See also when it's already in the navbox?  Second, it was the only link in the "See also" - so what was so particularly relevant about that article as opposed to any other Masonic article, including the main Freemasonry article?  So, who exactly is trying to make a point, especially by dragging the discussion over here where it doesn't belong? MSJapan 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet again, controversy of recognition

message: This is an edit with relevance to this page, including a link to it.  ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍  contributions 06:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out, but I'm not going to do anything about it, I'm sorry. Someone else may want to fight to get the Co-Freemasonry link restored, and it may indeed be a bit petty, removing useful info from an article just to make a point, but I don't personally have time for an edit war. At least there is still a link to Co-Freemasonry in the Freemasonry navigation box on that page. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cheers for that. Yeah, I don't have any point to prove on the general Freemasonry front. Just trying to keep this article in good shape. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a good point made here, though; why duplicate the link in See also when it's already in the navbox?  Second, it was the only link in the "See also" - so what was so particularly relevant about that article as opposed to any other Masonic article, including the main Freemasonry article?  So, who exactly is trying to make a point, especially by dragging the discussion over here where it doesn't belong? MSJapan 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Regularity''

message: Le Droit Humain has recently (2012 IIUC) modified its official English-language title, replacing "Co-Masonry" or "Co-Freemasonry" by "Freemasonry for Men and Women". The French title remains "Ordre international maçonnique mixte «Le Droit humain»". — Tonymec (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Is there a reason why DH name is capitalized throughout the article? If not, I will proceed to change it to normal capitalization according to WP:Capitalization. Truther2012 (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE --Truther2012 (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  LE DROIT HUMAIN 

message: Co-Freemasonry as term was, I believe, coined by Annie Besant as an analogy with co-education. The problem now is that it is fast disappearing. The DH use Freemasonry for man and women, as do the Eastern Order. Should the article title be changed to reflect this (Mixed masonry perhaps)? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Co-Freemasonry. 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/20060824074319/http://sophie.byu.edu/sophiejournal/New/Huffmire-format.pdf to http://sophie.byu.edu/sophiejournal/New/Huffmire-format.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.standrew518.co.uk/ENCYC/MacEncA1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819052056/http://users.1st.net/fischer/MacEncE1.HTM to http://users.1st.net/fischer/MacEncE1.HTM
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefreemason.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=3471
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517203710/http://www.godf.org/foreign/uk/histoire_uk_03.html to http://www.godf.org/foreign/uk/histoire_uk_03.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619072344/http://www.australianco-masonry.netfirms.com/ to http://www.australianco-masonry.netfirms.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060205054508/http://comasonic.net/ to http://comasonic.net/
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) 22:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Co-Freemasonry. 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/20060410075233/http://www.grandlodge.org.uk/press%20release1.htm to http://www.grandlodge.org.uk/press%20release1.htm
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) 08:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Regular Masonic jurisdiction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress