Jump to content

Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Unfinished Business

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)

You might wish to add an external link: Light in Masonry

Complete rewrite

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)

It doesn't need a complete rewrite. It needs a cleanup. Seraphim 19:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

I don't understand why people call Nazi Germany politically extreme right. It was a socialist state governed by a socialist party. Somehow, right wing and socialist don't go together, do they? --Nap1815 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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." Although the Nazi's labeled themselves as a socialist party, most political theorists do not place them in this catagory. Please see Nazism and Socialism Chtirrell 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to direct you to Far_right and Far_left. The term Nazi isn't mentioned once in Far_left, but is throughly described in Far_right. Chtirrell 03:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Following your (and a lot of people's) line of thought, Soviet Union was also extreme right! This subject is very complex, but it seems that the left is really ashamed of one of its greatest leaders (Hitler). --Nap1815 04:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NSDAP advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. Private firearms were outlawed and conservative Christians were called “right wing fanatics”. This issue is one of the most misunderstood (intentionally?) of the XX century. --Nap1815 15:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Wow! LMAO! Hey Nap1815, So Nazis are not extreme-right anymore just because conservatives (among others) just happened to be right-wings? Then who are the extreme-right? Don't get confused by the NSDAP's "national-socialist" phrase, which is something different from "socialism", in the same way it is different that the continental-European definition of "liberal" (right-wing party designation) is different from the US/UK/english-speakers' culture of equating "liberal" with "progressive" a.k.a. "left". You need to study language because you also said: "NSDAP advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement". Do you even know what "nationalization" means? Or is there a new topsy-turvy conservative(?) illogic that if a government is ruled by corporate oligarchs then that government becomes not anymore "fascist", not anymore "corporatist" as Mussolini himself said but... wow yes socialist! Now I get it, Hitler persecuted and exterminated the communists because he was a socialist. You Nap1815 belong to the same group of self-declared conservative reverse-psychology-nerds who also claim Hitler was a Jew, a Homosexual etc. And now he is a communist too! Lemme guess, tomorrow you will declare that he is a Gypsy too. LOL! - contributed by a user with the IPO:81.240.173.173

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

Merger Tag

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Moot point anyway. This article is already long, & isn't going to be of an acceptable length after merging the Anti- article. Oh, then, at this rate, the Lodge article, & the Co-Freemasonry article, etc etc. So I'll just wait for the tag to come off. As it should be doing soon...Grye 09:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Ok just a little update. JASpencer and a few others are continuing to work on Anti-Masonry (which the former Anti-Freemasonry page once was). Also alot of the history from the Anti-Masonry page has been merged into "History of Freemasonry" which will eventually make it's way into the "History of Freemasonry" section here. Seraphim 07:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations

SeraphimXI, I'm a little teed off with you. I find your vandalism accusations to be in poor taste. Please be civil. We need to work together to make this article work. Ardenn 01:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I find them t

o to violate WP:POINT as well. Ardenn 01:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am being civil. The merger debate is not only about one section, that is why the merge tag has been at the top of the article for so long. I've explained why it belongs at the top, and the responces are that it belongs in a section since the majority of the merger will end up in that section. By admitting that the majority and not the entierty of the change will end up in that section shows that placing the tag in that section is incorrect. After having that explained, after the users admit the merger is not entirely based around that section, and then they still insist on moving it to that section, that is called vandalism. Seraphim 01:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that the violator of WP:Point would be whoever moves the merge tag from the top of the page where it has been for weeks. Seraphim 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if i am wrong but arent tags suppose to be a majority decision? Tutmosis 01:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That is why it is the Disputed tag. Seraphim 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Just because it has been in a certain place for weeks does not mean that it hasn't been in the wrong place for weeks. & there's no violation in moving it to the section, but rather in removing it w/o consensus. Another violation would be a 3RR on your part, if someone else were to replace the tag, & you were to edit it agian. Oh, & how are you suddenly such an authority, after making the statement "I came here randomly, not knowing anything about the masons" on 29 January? Grye 01:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
People love quoting that line don't they :) It's talking in the past tense. Also there is no 3rr since it is vandalism. The merger tag was placed on the page in good faith, and the merge discussion is about merging the Anti-Freemasonry page into this page, not the Anti-Freemasonry page into the specific section. Also Consensus involves working together to get everyone's issues addressed. Something that has not been done yet. I'd also like to point out Grye that you yourself said "No, it does not belong at the top of the article. a vast majority of it will end up in that section" you said "a vast majority" which means that you agree that some of it will not end up in that section. Moving the tag from the top of the article to the top of a section changes the meaning of the tag from "It has been suggested that this article be merged with Anti-Freemasonry" to "It has been suggested that this section be merged with Anti-Freemasonry". The second statement is untrue. If you would like to suggest that that page be merged with that section, then you are entitled to do so, but that does not change the fact that it has also been suggested that the anti-freemasonry article be merged with the article as a whole. Seraphim 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. Yakknow, the flipside to your arguement is that if I'm proven not Vandalist, then your actions are vandalist.
  2. your talk is about merging articles, but the article to be merged is a section of the article to be merged into. Hence the statement "Main article: Anti-Freemasonry " right under the section, Criticism, persecution, and prosecution . Fact. Period, the end. Grye 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Anti-Freemasonry is not simply "Criticism, Persecution, and Prosecution" of freemasons. If that was the case the merger would have been carried out a while ago since it would be an undisputable POV fork. People on the Anti-Freemasonry page are arguing that it is it's own seperate entitity away from Freemasonry much like Anti-Semitisim. According to Chiterrel "This is not a content fork, Anti-Freemasonry is a distinct movement which encompasses alot of different views." according to Blueboar "Anti-Masonry has a long and complex history, just as Masonry does. It has taken many forms over the years, and many different groups (each for their own individual reasons) have come out against the Fraternity. That in itself makes the topic worthy of an article. it is similar in scope to anti-semitism." according to MSJapan "It really is the Masonic equivalent of anti-Semitism. ". If you would like to argue that Anti-Freemasonry is only that then that is perfectly fine, however that argument has not been presented yet, and would problary end up with the opposite effect you are hoping for. Seraphim 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly what part of "Main article: Anti-Freemasonry" don't you understand? Grye
Oh I understand it perfectly, however if you read my edits, that's what the Anti-Freemasonry article used to be. It's out of date information, if you want to remove it please do so. Seraphim 03:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, uh, what is Anti-Freemasonry, if not Criticism of Freemasonry? Grye 03:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
"Anti-Freemasonry is not simply "Criticism, Persecution, and Prosecution" of freemasons." OK... but that just strengthens the argument for NOT merging the two articles... if it is more than just that, then that article is its own thing and not a sub-section of this article. Again, if you feel a section is incomplete, edit it and improve it. But a merge is not the answer. Blueboar 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I was just quoting you not stating my opinion, I don't feel Anti-Freemasonry has enough content to stand on it's own and it should eventually be re-incorporated into this article, however that is a discussion that will happen eventually, and not in this section. This section was about moving the tag from covering the entire article to covering just one section, I was trying to point out that grye's argument was actually the reverse of what he intended to argue. Seraphim 03:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
We had this discussion on the Anti-Freemasonry talk page. According to other editors of this page it "is a distinct movement which encompasses alot of different views" ~Chiterrel, it "has a long and complex history, just as Masonry does. It has taken many forms over the years, and many different groups (each for their own individual reasons) have come out against the Fraternity. That in itself makes the topic worthy of an article. it is similar in scope to anti-semitisim" ~ BlueBoar, and "It really is the Masonic equivalient of anti-Semitism" ~ MSJapan, these were all their responces when presented with the same argument by JASpencer. (I also mentioned this in my post a few up) Seraphim 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
So... Uh... How is all that not criticism of Freemasonry? Grye 04:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Go read the Anti-Freemasonry talk page for the arguments over there, you're actually arguing that the Anti-Freemasonry page is a PoV fork which I'm sure is not your intent. The only thing relevant to this section is that I feel that some of the content on Anti-Freemasonry will eventually end up belonging in the History section on this page, therefore tagging only one section is incorrect. Seraphim 04:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Scratchpad

Who deleted the "scratchpad"?

There was alot of proposed info with references on that page, what happened to it?

Wasn't the whole point of creating it because the Masonic Editors didn't like to have 'Masonic Secrets' and other criticisms of Freemasonry on this discussion page?

Now someone has gone and deleted it and erased all the material? Real fair and npov situation you Masonic and Masonic-Wannabe Editors are running here.Humanun Genus 02:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the deletion log "18:19, February 11, 2006 Delirium deleted "Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad" (content was: '== Crapola by the page full, or when POVs go mad=== Suggested Additions to Freemasonry Page===Criticism of Masonry's Involvement in Politics (Or....') " it looks like vandalism on it by Skulls 'n' Femurs was not removed, and a delete happy admin deleted it. I'd like to point out that the information on that page was created by a banned user (who said that "Freemasonry isn't Satanic, it is Satanism" and he stated that he is part of the very important war against freemason propaganda), and was entirely unverifiable and POV(the contents of the secrets cannot be verified). I will be working on a section to address the masonic secrets in a NPOV way, please check back in here tomorrowish (when i get the first draft done) and join in the discussion about the section, the more editors we have the better the final result will be. I can assure you, I am not a Mason, and I will work to get a NPOV Factual section in the article. If you look on Archive 13 the section called "Masonic Secrets" you can see the start of the discussion on what I intend to do. Seraphim 03:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The situation on this page and it's related side pages is quite unacceptable. The main article is very poorly written and extremely pov towards Freemasonry. There seems to be a clear pattern of abuse and bad faith actions by Masonic Editors on these pages.Humanun Genus 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The information you want included is completly invalid and does not belong in this article. Seraphim 03:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Is that you, Lightbringer?
Grye 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we need a partial lock on the Talk Page too? Blueboar 03:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had seen the recently-created Freemasonry/Scratchpad, which was an obvious candidate for deletion, and assumed Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad was just its talk page (should've checked the history). I've restored it. --Delirium 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Status of the Disabled in Freemasonry

The information contained here is misleading. Part of the problem in defining Masonic practices and beliefs is that they vary from one jurisdiction to another. However, there still seems to be some confusion over the general policies of Masonry. This can be somewhat cleared up however in that all regular Masonic Lodges have and publish complete sets of laws. These are voted upon by members in a given jurisdiction at annual legislative sessions.

With regard to the disabled in Freemasonry, we have a clear example of a published law stating exactly what the rules are. In the California Masonic Code, as an example from one jurisdiction, an applicant is required to be free of a physical or mental impairment that would keep him from learning the principles of Masonry. There is nothing about someone simply being disabled. In fairness, such practices may be included when discussing Masonry's historic practices, but not modern ones. --Cauil 07:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alot of the information on the scratch pad came from a anti-mason fanatic that is banned from editing mason related pages. However apparently deleting false information on a scratch pad is not proper wikiettiqute. I know from personal experience that both colored people and disabled people are allowed to become freemasons. Seraphim 07:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

...& women, regular Freemasonry, & Co-Freemasonry...

And women, despite your continued assertions in the face of the evidence. http://www.hfaf.org/ 82.109.66.151 08:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that was meALR 08:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Alr we have gone over this too many times. I cannot become a member of the same masonic body that this page describes. I can become a member of a copycat organization with alot of the same teachings and ideals. However I can never be considered equal to someone in say a UGLE lodge, for example there is no possible way for me to go sit with you in your lodge. OES may be closely related to freemasonry, but the fact is it is not freemasonry. Seraphim 08:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting OES, whilst I am not a member anything I've seen of it doesn't strike me as interesting. I also wouldn't recognise OES as Freemasonry anyway. However there are both feminine and androgynous forms of Freemasony which I would recognise as being Freemasonry in terms of their core content and that is what I would recommend. HFAF is Feminine and on their links page is a link to two forms of androgynous Masonry, in the UK. I know that Androgynous FM exists in the US as well and whilst I don't have access to the information would suggest that Feminine xists as well. User:Vidkun has already said that he has access to appropriate contacts in the US for at least the Androgynous form. Your persistence in asserting that OES is in any way comparable is obstructing the debate.ALR 08:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok then, what group can I join, so I can go sit in with you or Vidkun at lodge. Seraphim 08:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a wholly different issue. Should you wish to become a Freemason, there are routes which are open to you. Should you wish to sit in lodge with Vidkun or I then that would assume either of us wish to sit in lodge with you. Since neither of us wish to sit in androgynous lodges then it's a non-starter.ALR 08:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Why can't I sit with you in your lodge? Seraphim 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Because I chose not to join an Androgynous orderALR 09:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I never said anything about an Androgynous order, I want to go sit with you in your lodge. Seraphim 09:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Why?ALR 09:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not? You are claiming that I can join Freemasonry, part of freemasonry is the ability to visit other lodges. I want to go visit your lodge, what group can I join. Seraphim 09:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
How much do you understand about initiatory traditions and the effect of the initiatory experience, and how that is affected by the nature of the participant group? What does 'sitting in lodge' actually mean to the participants? FM is not a social club, until you stop thinking of it as such then I can't make clear to you what the issues are surrounding the experience. You can become a Freemason, you just can't attend a Masculine Lodge. Compare with Catholicism and Protestantism. I am a member of a Protestant chucrch, I take communion there but am not permitted to take communion in a Roman Catholic Mass, because I haven't been 'initiated' into the RC tradition. I am considered a Christian by the RC church, but not admitted to the full range of their ritual. This is really the point where banging on about the mechanics of FM really misses the point, and the reason that the 'Secrets' can't be articulated in an article.ALR 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to get the point accross that what you are describing is "Seperate but Equal" however it is not equal because I will never in the eyes of your lodge be considered equal. Even the article says it Women cannot be a part of regular Freemasonry. Seraphim 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
And you are getting caught up in the mechanics. Merely 'sitting in lodge' does not make one a Freemason. The view of UGLE, as stated in the declaration, is 'equal but separate'.ALR 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
How is it equal for me to not be allowed to join "regular" freemasonry. I don't see how treating women seperatly, and preventing us from joining "regular" lodges can be considered equal. In various article's i've read that this page uses as references, it says that part of being a freemason means that you can go to any other lodge and be included there as a fellow brother, that is not the case for women. Seraphim 09:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The operative word there is "brother". & do not even imply that equality has anything to do with it. Go out & ask your local Lodge (&/or OES if you're in the USA) & ask them why women are not allowed. Do your homework, don't demand that we do it for you. & in doing your homework, if you get some "Oh, because they're a bunch of raciest woman-bashing bigots, then you get an F-... ;~D Grye 01:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I never ever implied that I feel that the exclusion of women from the fraternity is a bad thing. That is what a fraternity is, I wouldn't expect sororities to admit guys either. I just don't like the fact that people keep insisting that women can become freemasons, and then in the next sentence they say we can't become "regular" freemasons. Seraphim 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think each gender needs it's own organizations. Ardenn 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I once met a married couple that had both been Grand Lodge Officers. They knew the same ritual, but did nonetheless sit in different Lodges. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, or that one gets a better Masonic experience. I think it's what you put into it and a Lodge that is active in ritual and the community is going to have the same experiences as another Lodge that does the same regardless of the membership details. There is nowhere in the world that I would be able to sit in a Lodge with a woman, maybe that will change someday, but the way things are now wouldn't, I hope, interfere with the ability of people in a co-Masonry Lodge to fully enjoy their Masonic experience. Just my two cents. --Cauil 08:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I know a number of people who are Co-Masons, or couples who are seperately members of Masuline and Feminine Lodges. Each has it's own attractions and features. It's a question of selecting what's appropriate to the individual and their relationship with their own Supreme Being and their fellow sentient beings. The initiatory experiences are different, but their value is comparable.ALR 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
In Colorado, USA, a Regular Freemason cannot sit in Lodge with an irregular Freemason, be it the Regular Lodge or the irregular; nor Discuss private Masonic information with same. To willingly do so would be to bring Masonic charges against oneself, & almost definite disassociation. Oh, & Disabled: "...free of a physical or mental impairment that would keep him from learning the principles of Masonry" is pretty close to CO USA's policy too. I think it says something more like "free of a physical or mental impairment that would keep him from Practicing the principles of Masonry". Grye 09:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Suppose we better throw out the Pro Grand Master then :) http://www.canonbury.ac.uk/ ALR 09:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanna say that while I agree with what Cauil, ALR and Grye are saying here, I must throw in that "seperate but equal" is never truly equal. They use that argument to discriminate against gay people to deny them marriage rights. Ardenn 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with that. Nothing. Women are inherantly different from men, & I don't see where anyone but the critics here said anything at all about equality or inequality. ALR quoted UGLE, who said they are equal. I said it really isn't a matter of equality, at all. Women cannot be included in Regular Freemasonry. There is Freemasonry of one form or another out there for you. It isn't a bad thing, it's just the way it is. Cars have wheels, & those wheels are round; etc. 3/4 of this page's length has become about Seraphim's questioning Women in Regular Freemasonry. This issue is several centuries old. We cannot tell you anything better than someone more adept at answering your question. Especially when we are going to be quoted. Besides, no-one here speaks for all Freemasonry. Lovingly, I ask for this issue here to end here. Grye 01:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As everyone keeps saying "Women cannot be included in Regular Freemasonry." that is my entire point. A seperate irregular version of Freemasonry is not "Freemasonry" it is a Masonic-like or Masonic-Inspired group. Saying that women can become freemasons is just incorrect. I like the version that is in the article. Seraphim 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This article is about Freemasonry, which is Regular Freemasonry. Your point is valid, of course, but Regular Freemasonry is what it is. Period. You & I simply are not going to change it significantly. & remember, What is today called Regular Freemasonry is the original Freemasonry. There is an entire section, w/ a corresponding article, about Co-Freemasonry. By all of your arguements, That entire section should go away, with a simple link to Co-Freemasonry. This article is about regular Freemasonry, & that is about Co-. This article in & of itself is the history of Co-Freemasonry. So, the alternative is that pretty much the entire Freemasonry article should be replicated as the Co-Freemasonry#History section, & any statements made here about women in Freemasonry should be changed to reflect men in Freemasonry, & replicated there. So.... Are you game for all that work? Grye 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would like to respectfully interject something into the discussion of "regular vs. irregular". I am a Freemason within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas. While I certainly cannot begin to speak "for" Freemasonry (which, indeed, is outside of the ability of any one person or group), I can speak "about" Freemasonry. "Regular Freemasonry" is not an absolute. It is subjective and will depend on where one stands. When one speaks about a lodge or jurisdiction being "regular", one must also ask, "Regular according to whom?" For example, my jurisdiction would not call Co-Masonry "regular", but there are other jurisdictions in the world which might. Of course, those other jurisdictions which DO recognize Co-Masonry as "regular" also run the risk of being thought of as "irregular" by my jurisdiction. Another example is that of the three Grand jurisdictions which operate in France, only one of which is considered "regular" by many Grand Lodges in the United States. However, there may be plenty of other jurisdictions around the world which would consider one or both of those other two Grand jurisdictions to be perfectly "regular". It would be correct to say that women cannot become Masons in any lodge or jurisdiction which my own would consider "regular". It would be incorrect to say that women cannot become Freemasons at all. ~Ken Dickinson~ 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That's probably the most useful contribution to the debate thus far, thankyou Bro Ken. ALR 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
It is very useful, i'll support saying that women cannot become Masons in any lodge or jurisdiction that one would consider "regular". However listing off the ways that women can become Irregular Freemasons is outside the scope of this article in my opinion. Seraphim 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Ardenn 23:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Depends what one considers Freemasonry to actually be, for many it is more than the mere mechanics of organisation. the topic is Freemasonry which is a vehicle for developing ones' relationship with ones Supreme Being which leads to the mildly philosophical point about the nature of this article. Is it intended to talk about the mechanics and structure, or Freemasonry itself? In that sense there is probably an argument for a numnber of sub-articles rather than trying to blob up a complex subject in one. The point about regularity is a trivial little rabbit hole.ALR 08:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I do have a question for you. Since sharing the contents of the teachings with non-brothers is forbidden, how do these other "irregular" lodges claim to have the same teachings? Or are they claiming that they are based on the ideals of freemasonry... in which case what are those Ideals? On another note, obviously you cannot define Freemasonry as a vehicle for developing one's relationship with one's Supreme Being, because you could easially attribute that to any religion(which freemasonry is not). Seraphim 08:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I've asked this question before, but to have a meaningful discussion then it's something that you need to think about. how familiar are you with the concepts underinning Initiatory traditions and the related experience. We need to understand what is meant by 'teachings' and 'secrets', compared with the experience undergone by the individual. Once we have that understanding then we can appreciate how that might translate. As to your latter point, Supreme Being is a generic term, FM works in parallel with ones religion/ faith/ belief system; complementary to it rather than replacing it. It does not carry its own religious teachings but uses those of the individuals nomination; Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or whatever.ALR 10:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Ken interjecting again here, now that I've gone ahead and registered myself. Seraphim, I think I understand where some of the confusion is coming in with regard to women becoming Masons in "regular" lodges. Many people outside of Masonry (and perhaps even quite a few inside it as well) have a difficult time with the concept that each Grand jurisdiction is completely and 100% autonomous. The Grand Master of Masons in Texas is answerable to no one above him in the organization, anywhere in the world. The same can be said of every Grand Master of Masons in every jurisdiction. It is hard for some people to conceive that within such a large, globe-spanning organization that there is not some form of centralized leadership guiding it, but the fact is that there is not. The question of "regularity" is left completely to the Grand jurisdiction in question. That is what I meant in my first post when I said that "regular Freemasonry" is not an absolute. Just because one jurisdiction labels one another as "irregular" does not mean that other jurisdictions are obliged to follow suit. A more meaningful term, perhaps, in regard to the question of the acceptance of female Masons, might be "mainstream Freemasonry". Most jurisdictions, I think, which would recognize female Masons as "regular" would readily admit that they are not "mainstream". To my knowledge, however, "mainstream" is not an official Masonic designation and there is no official criteria set by the jurisdictions to define it. "Mainstream Freemasonry", as I understand it, can be equated with could also be called "traditional Freemasonry."
Additionally, the answer to the question of how an "irregular" lodge could come to have knowledge of the same teachings - and by that I assume you mean the secret, or esoteric portions of the work - as a "regular lodge is a simple one. Many lodges thought of as "irregular" did not start out that way. The Grand Orient of France is a perfect example of that. During the late 1800's it strayed far enough away from certain landmarks that most jurisdictions in the United States withdrew their recognition and deemed it "irregular". Another, older example is the conflict between the "Moderns" and the "Antients" in England during the 1700's. Neither group recognized the other as "regular", even though they stemmed from the same organization. Ken 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Status of Negroes in Freemasonry

This section is not accurate either. The Alternative Version is on the right track, however a comment added about recognition is not correct. In California, Masonic Code includes a section that maintains the Grand Lodge of California and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of California have concurrent jurisdiction and recognize one another.

The title which includes the word "negro" may not be the best choice. It is often thought of with a negative association, even if that was not the intent of the original writers. I suggest "African-Americans". --Cauil 08:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No kidding it's not accurate :). None of the "Status Of" sections are correct, and most GLs in the US recognize PHGLs now, as does UGLE. I believe Paul Bessel has a page on this at his website.
I don't mean to suggest that this has to be done in WP, but the typical designation in academic circles is "black" when referring to a person of African origin. Freddie deBoer 14:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Masonic Secrets

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)

Phonebook: Usually in the yellow pages, under "Fraternal Organizations"... ;~D Grye 09:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I was digging around on the internet and found this page http://www.masonicinfo.com/secrets.htm obviously it is POV and in first person, but I really like how he words the part about the recognitions. This is a pretty good example of how I feel a masonic secrets section should look, if anyone was wondering. Seraphim 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
Not to mention that it will almost definitely be different in the next GL jurisdiction... Grye 10:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

There really needs to be a section on Masonic Secrets within the article. I understand Masons trying to protect their organisation, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why there should not be a section on Masonic Secrets here. Nobody is asking for specific examples of what constitutes Masonic secrets as far as I can see. Just an admission within the article that there are secretive behaviours within the article would suffice for me. This talk page appears {I stress APPEARS} that Masons have something to hide. I'm sure that is not the case, so why not allow Seraphim to draft a section on Masonic secrets? I'm confident that she will adhere entirely to the guidelines and POV policy here. The obstinance on this issue - and the lack of reasons to omit aforememntioned section - is frustrating. Let's break this impasse soon - by allowing the section or putting forth a compelling argument on why it should not be there. Deucelow 15:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

I have no problem with a section of this, so long as no actual secrets are revealed/spoilers. I'd hate to ruin the experience for anyone who is not a mason and reads the article, but is considerng it. Ardenn 17:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. WP:NOT censored for the protection of prospective Freemasons. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Then you have to verify it. Which you cannot, and if you can, it's under copyright. Ardenn 17:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Copyright does not protect information from being revealed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

"Freemasons who go traveling may visit Masonic lodges all over the world, but not every lodge uses the same methods of recognition." (Hodapp 18) "Making matters even more confusing is the fact that one jurisdiction may use different ritual ceremonies, different passwords, and different grips than another." (Hodapp 18) Freemasons for Dummies, Christopher Hodapp, Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2005 (ISBN 0-7645-9796-5) Chtirrell 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Latest Lightbringer sockpuppet

Humanun Genus (talk · contribs) 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)

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)
No that would destroy the page. Seraphim 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Yeah. I wouldn't remove the edits from the history - that isn't generally done except with grievous libel or personal information that may put someone in danger (phone numbers of editors, etc) - David Gerard 12:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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

ANTIENT CHARGES OF A UGLE FREE-MASON

File:Political enemies repeaters.svg
Brethrens’ Red Delta

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 [1] 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)

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)

Skull 'n' Femurs' rant

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)

Notice on WP:ANI and on User talk:Skull 'n' Femurs - David Gerard 12:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User:SeraphimXI is (not) User:Mahabone

Funny thing is, it's also a sockpuppet of another user, I just haven't recognized & documented which. Look & yee shall see. Grye 10:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking, but I don't know what I'm looking for... since accusing people of sockpuppetry is a rather serious thing, might you be more spesific? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just afraid we're starting to see socks where there are none. WegianWarrior 11:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
And? So what? Whilst the style and empty 'I'm working on something' is frustrating, some of the resulting dialogue has been useful. And as with WW, I don't see what your getting at with those links.ALR 11:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I did the checkuser to calm people's minds. They're not related in the slightest :-) Please try not to get too jumpy! I know how it can get after a long and horrible floating-flamewar type article with a sockpuppet or two involved, you do start seeing socks under the beds ...
I think I'll be asking other admins for help on this one - I only have close knowledge of Lightbringer, and seem to find myself cleaning up a mess I don't quite know the Wikipedia history of well enough ... - David Gerard 11:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL this is great. For the record, I have a static IP on a campus network that's specifically for me. Another user on this IP is physically impossible. It's also impossible for another person to use this network that i'm on without being a resident here. Thanks for accusing me I guess, now that that's cleared up we can move on. Seraphim 16:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to thank WegianWarrior for actually posting this to get a checkuser result. Grye decided to post these accusations on my user-page this page and talk:Jahbulon and then dissapear, without posting a checkuser request. Seraphim 16:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that one of Mahabone's first edits was requesting that his old userpage as an anon user be deleted. That IP tracert's back to a Greek ISP, accusing me of being a sockpuppet of him was simply rediculious. Seraphim 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, kitten. I'm sorry, for only & of all, that I had to pass out tired get some sleep before a checkuser was already performed like 6 hours later. but hey, you're cool with like 6-12 hour timespans, right? I mean, you learned all there is to learn about Freemasonry in less time than that... & go ahead, keep talking like I didn't clarify that it was a circumstantial mistake that I tagged you a sockpuppet. you know otherwise, based on your diatribe here, so keep talkin. Meanwhile, I'm out. Have fun with your little world here you've created for yourself, & all of us. Grye

Comment

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)

Yes, you're right. Your edits, all, of them, with video game consoles, proves you capable & right. Grye 09:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
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, please understand that, it's just a pretty acurate description... ;~D Grye 01:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

It seems that there is a whole lot going on here other than writing an article on Freemasonry. Talking about various topics is fun, but I don't see much progress being made. What are typically the issues that hold things up? Do they all stem from genuine disagreements or what?

As a side note, I see several users have a Square and Compass icon on their user page. I assume this is just something people decide to put up on their own. Is this assumption correct?

Thanks, --Cauil 10:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Regularity, Masculine, Feminine and Androgynous Masonry

Reading through this article, and recently the Co-Masonry article, and given the difficulty in communicating the relationships between Masculine, Feminine and Androgynous Masonry I think we need to have a critical look at how the issues are reflected in the article. As an example in the Organisational structure section it is very unclear to the unfamiliar reader that GOdF is 'irregular' as far as UGLE, and lodges in amity with UGLE, is concerned yet on the other hand the issue of regularity as regards Feminine and Androgynous Masonry is concerned is given much more prominence. I'd also suggest that it's worth breaking 'Origin Theories' out from 'Foundation to 1717', there is clear documentary evidence for some form of existence, predominantly Operative, prior to 1717, but some of the Origin theories are nothing short of fanciful cf Knight & Lomas for example. To that end I'll add a section on Regularity, and a section on Origin Theories.ALR 19:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Those details about that particular Lodge would go on that Lodge's article page. If there isn't one, create it. If it isn't worth an entire article, leave it out: It's not worth a sentence here. It is covered when speaking about C0-Masonry & atheists. If we detail their standing, we'd have to detail hundreds of others. Grye 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It's reasonaable to talk about general cases, and there is a precedent in that GOdF is articulated as being Freemasonry when it's clearly irregular by virtue of its' atheism. There are very few things which really define regularity anyway; masculinity/ femininity, atheism, political involvement.ALR 22:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually GOdF has pretty much defined irregularity in Freemasonry, & with that, I might -might, we'll see- have to agree that they may be a good citation & mention in an article like this. But it's gotta be done well. If you can do that, good luck & go to it. But please, don't do it poorly or half-asked [sic]... ;~D
I can give it a go, but I'm not a Completer-Finisher, there are detail freaks around to do that :) I'm also dyslexic which doesn't help.ALR 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Do we merge Freemasonry and Anti-Masonry? Ardenn 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree I say it stays as-is. Ardenn 07:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree the current "Criticism, persecution, and prosecution " section should be replaced with the contents of the Anti-Masonry page which has had extencive work done on it. Also the information added to "History of Freemasonry" from the Anti-Masonry page should be represented in the "History of Freemasonry" section. Seraphim 07:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree the Anti-Masonry article has turned from a difficult to read conglomeration into a parent article with four appendant articles on various aspecs of Anti-Masonic thought. Despite that the summary on the Anti_masonry page is still too big to meaningfully integrate into this page without dominating the discussion. Freemasonry is too big a subject to be covered usefully in one article, it needs to be a collection of related articles for the lay reader to be able to get a grasp on it without being intimidated by verbage. A lot of credit to JAS for applying the editorial discipline and turning one article into five. Agree that the current summary needs to be slimmed down.ALR 08:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ‘’’Agree’’’ With reservations. I have a different proposal, see comment below. JASpencer 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm more generally content with this proposal, as articulated below.ALR 13:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

Before voting please go view the newest version of the Anti-Masonry page don't assume you know what it looks like it has been changed drastically. It is a far more concise version of the Criticism section, with better references and written in summary style to keep the page size down. It is actually smaller in size also then the section in the article now, so length is not an issue. It is no longer the POV mess that caused it to be tossed out of this article, and infact a few editors of the page have commented that it was alot easier to keep track of the page while it was part of this article. Seraphim 07:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry as it is currently constructed is in reality a “criticisms of Freemasonry” article and is better suited here. It does not cover a homogenous or meaningful movement with common themes (as Anti-Semitism does).
‘’However’’, the “Political Anti-Masonry” area is a subject that deserves an article in it’s own right. There is a common thread of allegation towards Freemasonry that it’s secretive oath-bound nature and obligation to help fellow Masons, it leads to a corruption of civic society and distracts from patriotism. This motivated the first bans (in Protestant countries such as Holland, Geneva, etc), it was a strong factor in the ‘’’initial’’’ Papal bans, it motivated a whole party in the United States in the nineteenth century, it influenced Volkisch thought in the Twentieth and even today it can be seen in some actions of New Labour in the UK. That should be the basis of the article. I would not then wish to merge that article.
The Social Anti-Masonry section should be merged into the Criticisms of Freemasonry section.
The Religious Anti-Masonry section should be removed from the Anti-Masonry article. The ’’relationship’’ of Freemasonry with Christianity and Catholicism (and probably Islam as well) are articles in their own right. However they are not always a relationship of outright hostility, but is more subtle than that. Putting Religious Anti-Masonry in it’s own section gives an erroneous impression of hostility. The general religious criticisms of Freemasonry, religious Indifferentism being the main one, could be covered in this article, with the relationship between Freemasonry and a specific religion covered in their separate articles. (See Christianity and Freemasonry or Catholicism and Freemasonry).
JASpencer 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with the statement that Anti-Masonry is really just a "criticisms of Freemasonry" article. Perhaps you have been editing it with that goal in mind, but if so you did not succeed. Your good work has cleaned up a very bad article, one that was indeed a POV fork, and given it a structure on which to build a comprehensive article on a unique phenominon. Now we can add back some of the material that you removed (in a proper NPOV way of course) and make it a very good article. I do not mind the idea of creating various sub-articles for the political and social forms of Anti-Masonry (as has been done with the various religious objections). But they should have the main Anti-Masonry article as their parent. The idea is to summarize the topic in the main article and then point to the sub-article for further information.
On related note... you and Seraphim have suggested several merges recently. You need concensus for a merge to happen. I do not think you will get that concensus. These articles are going to stay seperate. Given that, if the reason behind your merge proposals is that you feel the criticism section of this article is flawed some how, you should work with us to improve that section... and not waste your time and efforts on trying to force an unwanted merger. Blueboar 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The flaws in this article are very apparent. Look at the Anti-Masonry page and then the Critisism's section here. The Anti-Masonry page covers every single thing in the Critisism's section in a much cleaner format. Also the "History of Freemasonry" section in this article is a sanitized history, it never mentions any scandals or contravercy. Since you guys like insisting that Anti-Freemasonry is on the same level as Anti-Semitisim, the "History of Freemasonry" section in this article would be like not mentioning the Holocost in a "History of the Jewish People" section. Even though the merge is not going to happen(which was very unlikely since you guys have a huge block of votes) the POV issues with this page will still be dealt with. I'm not going anywhere. Seraphim 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. I have no problem with someone trying to fix this article if they find that there are problems with it (I may have a problem with how they try to fix it... but that is a different issue). If the criticism section here is not to your liking then EDIT IT. If you think something is missing from the history section, then EDIT IT and add it in. However, Anti-Masronry is a complex enough topic that it deserves an article of it own. THAT is why I am against a merge. Blueboar 01:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Everything that could possibly be covered in the Critisisms section is covered in the Anti-Masonry article. Infact the Critisisms section says that the Anti-Masonry article is it's main article. The Anti-Masonry article is smaller then the current critisism's section. That in itself should be enough to justify the merge. What I cannot understand at all, is why way back in april 10 months ago, the merge was carried out (pushed by Weigan Warrior) without even a dispute. Yet now 10 months later it suddenly deserves it's own page. Seraphim 01:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The Anti-Masonry article may be smaller right now... but it is definitely going to grow as we continue to work on it. Now that things are in a better format, we can (for example) beaf up the historical information. We can also go into more depth about the various forms of anti-masonry and discuss some of the Masonic responses to the criticisms that are listed (all in a NPOV way of course). As for past merges... since I was not here at the time, I can not say why it was merged and then split off again. I would suspect it was due to POV disputes. All I can say is that NOW it should not be merged. It is a better article which is improving and it deserves to stay on its own. Blueboar 02:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If anti-masonry is a completly seperate entity from freemasonry why would the article contain masonic rebuttals? The anti-semitism page has no such jewish rebuttals. By suggesting that you have a masonic responce to each item on the anti-freemasonry page you are agreeing that anti-masonry is tied to freemasonry and is not it's own seperate entity. Seraphim 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Masonic rebuttals? Are you even discussing the same article as the rest of the people here? I mean, the only thing remotly like a rebuttal is the mention (in the section Criticisms based on the moral faults of known Masons) that Masons respond to these criticisms by pointing out that there are many programs and initiatives sponsored by lodges that do give back to the community at large, which is a verifiable (and properly cited) fact more than a rebuttal. As you yourself pointed out, be sure to view the newest version of the page we're talking about. And yes, the pages was merged (by me, allthought if you look closer you'll see I did not take part in the discussion back then - I was new to the article and Wikipedia in general), but both articles was very different back then. That the articles was once merged (AFAIR, there was some controvercy over it when I did - the simple fact that the merger tag had been up for a while with no one doing it is proof of that) doesn't mean it must be right to keep them merged for all eternity. WegianWarrior 04:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I know there are no rebuttals on the page. Read BlueBoar's post that I was responding to "We can also go into more depth about the various forms of anti-masonry and discuss some of the Masonic responses to the criticisms that are listed". I think you should explain why you decided to merge it the first time, and why now you feel it shouldn't be merged? And you are recalling wrong, there was no controvercy last time, there was no talk page discussion. The merger tag was up for a while and you carried out the merger. Since both articles were very different back then why did none of the masonic editor make the same claims that Anti-Masonry is it's own seperate movement, and therefore deserves it's own page? Since that seems to be the tag line this time around. I just can't understand how everyone completly flip-flopped on the issue. Seraphim 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not assume that "everyone" flip-flopped on this issue. I wasn't editing Wikipedia at the time and would have fought the issue of merging had I been here. Several other editors here were not editting at the time as well. The Anti-Masonry article has just gone through a major restructuring and alot of uncited material was removed, as it should be. However, much of this material will return once proper cites are found and the article will grow, making it a more lengthy analysis of anti-masonry. Just because it is small now, does not mean it will stay that way. Unless of course, the plan was to slim down the article using POV and uncited section removals, thus reducing it in size as a justification to merge it into this page. Chtirrell 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to make the point that we have been discussing merging these two articles for over a month now... How much longer must we discuss this? Is it not clear that the marjority does not wish a merge, but instead want two strong articles on related subjects? Can we not end the discussion and remove the tags? Blueboar 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

From Blueboar "a comprehensive article on a unique phenominon" Anti-Masonry is not unique nor (and this is more to the point) is it homogenous. Political Anti-Masonry is both and has the same terms that go from the eighteenth century to today. However if you want a weaker article putting keeping this article is an open invitation for a victimfest. In six months time that is what it will become. Again.JASpencer 13:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The comparison Anti-semitism = Anti Masonry is obviously a counterfeit one. Anti-Semitism means RACISM it goes against a PERSON whether the person is or isn't a member of a group or an organization, in this case against a JEWISH "RACE" (in the ethnic sense). Anti-Masonry is more in-league with Anti-Judaism (the religion), Anti-Christianity, Anti-Islam, anti-communist, anti-capitalist... etc. A Jew can be for example in-theory "excommunicated" out of his community/religion/organization but that doesn't turn him into a non-jew "aryan" or something. Anti-Semitism is by definition illegitimate. But there CAN be a legitimate criticism of an organization as a whole, a culture as a whole, a tradition as a whole... etc. But there can NOT be such a thing as a "legitimate criticism" of the very ethnic-race itself. So the two "antis" Anti-Masonry and Anti Semitism are in separate league. Two concepts don't automatically become equal just because the prefix "anti" is added to them. Unless of-course one follows the homosexual method and claimes a "scientific" argument that one is Masonic not by an act but by birth (which may be on the verge of being alleged, judging by look of the overwhelming amount of Wikipedia POV-flammers swarming around here :D --Wikitron 19:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

'Master Mason' a page of it's own

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)

This posted following my request on the authors talk page. See contribution at Master Masons.ALR 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

FA Nomination

I have submited a valid nomination so DO NOT remove Tag for Fac above. Thanks. Imacomp 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Archive 14?

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)

Yup... it was indeed the contents of the "scratchpad/sandbox" (when I clicked on the sandbox it sent me to Archive 14). Both have been deleted... if we need a scratchpad/sandbox please create a new one... but it is not really part of the talk page and should not be archived as such. Blueboar 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Freemasonry/Scratchpad "mostly of Basil's last rant" resorected by User:Hipocrite. Imacomp 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

The requested citations

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:

ALR 23:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And here is more fun. The latest additions' citations are pretty much useless. If a book were cited, a specific page number would be used as a reference. If a website is cited, the actual specific page upon which the supporting information may be found should be cited, not simply the main index page. By the logic of the recent additions by User:Imacomp, the only citation needed for any of the page is the UGLE webpage. That's not going to cut it here.--Vidkun 00:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are a bit personal. If cited page is not good enough, then find a clearer citation. I've done my best, sorry. Imacomp 00:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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 {{fact}} tag up there.--Vidkun 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC))
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)

From my talk page: My statement is that I saw the identification, not that I agree with it. HTHALR 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Copied here Imacomp 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC) So propergation of an abuse is ok, if you say "I only saw it done and stood by"? Nice :( Imacomp 20:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Locking the page is making problems for adding interwiki

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)

That interwiki link is already in there. See Jvano's edit.--Vidkun 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Masonic Historian

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)

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)

On the 80,000 claim. I would not “dream” of accusing, erm anyone, of denying the Holocaust – or asking what figure of murdered Freemasons would be expectable as an estimate to a Nazi apologist, if I saw one post a comment. I do not think that “libelling” erm sorry “labelling” an author as Masonic adds anything to the discussion, since many many times Anti-Masons have stated that a citation is valid, if true false or anything else. I say that the reversion is an improvement. “I will change back in 24 hours. JASpencer 19:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)” What are “you” going to change back into? Assuming you actually mean to change the edit, then I’ll have the pleasure of changing/editing it also. Imacomp 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: removed offensive tag on the Holocaust section. Reverted to this edit, when it was added again. Imacomp 23:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC) ALR disputes his bad taste. Imacomp 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Several edits by ALR @ Holocaust. I will re-edit as I see fit also. Imacomp 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please restore the NPOV-Section tag to the Holocaust section until the actual nature of the claims about deaths have been agreed? Are there any estimates made by non Masonic historians? They may be "Conservative estimates" but if they are coming from Masonic historians then it should be qualified. JASpencer 10:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag is extremely offensive in this context, as is any comment that anything that a “Masonic” historian says should be qualified. A statement with one reference is all that is required by Wiki. Imacomp 12:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The tag is not offensive, declaring it as such is merely an effort to avoid debate.ALR 14:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)


Posts copied from: Editing Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry”

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)
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)
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)”

Editing, but no merge

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)

ALR's 15 "fact" tags will, in effect remove an entire section from the article "(case studies,crime,etc). So Freemasons must now generally agree to all the "uncited" anti-Masonic stuff rebutted? Will this pave the way for an uncontested ant-Masonic section? If this is so, then how will this serve NPOV? Imacomp 00:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

The Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz needs updating for modern usage, yes or no? Can anyone direct me to a reference for Catholic/Protestant/Nazi cooperation in the Holocaust? We may need it for this article. I think Jewish/Christian/Freemasonic Resistance to the Nazies reference could be usfull as well. Imacomp 00:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

I put up a request at WP:RFPP. Ardenn 05:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC) I agree with the request, to protect editors from power blocks.Imacomp 12:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous! I haven’t changed the article after my last discussion entries and you decided to protect the page. NSDAP advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. Private firearms were outlawed and conservative Christians were called “right wing fanatics”. This issue is one of the most misunderstood (intentionally?) of the XX century. --Nap1815 15:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits weren't the problem - check the page history. MSJapan 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Appendant orders

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Evidence? ALR 09:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

Sock Check

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ALR Lets keep looking at you ALR Imacomp 14:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from above Requests for CheckUser link by ALR:

user Imacomp and user Skull 'n' Femurs

"Gratefull if someone could check this out. The assertion has been made before that Imacomp is one of SnFs stable of socks and when the point was highlighted the other day it wasn't denied, the response was threats and mutual accusations. Imacomp has only shown an interest in edits within a section posted by SnF shortly before his block and is refusing to contenance discussion, just accusing anyone disputing the detail as acting in poor taste (issues are related to the Holocaust). The use of threats as a response to any request for dialogue is also very similar. Many thanks. ALR 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

IT WAS denied to ALR, and I asked for a retraction. However he persists. ALR is one of a stable of socks by Anti-Masons (posing as a Mason) only shown a more active interest in edits within a section posted by SnF after his block, and and is refusing to contenance discussion. "Skull 'n' Femurs" did once post an unsolicited comment on my Home page once, and I gave him a Barnstar in his early (better)days. That is the sum total of interactions - and many other editors interacted more. ALR's actions are in poor taste (issues are related to the Holocaust), as are several others. I removed stuff on the subject, and complained on the talk page of Freemasonry. The use of threats as a response to any request is ALRs style. Many thanks." Imacomp 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk David Gerard:

Sock Checking on skull n Femurs

"I raised this on RFCU as well, but since you'd dealt recently it might be worth letting you know. I think User:Imacomp is a sock, probably being run by Skull n Femurs who you recently dealt with. The suggestion is being met with return accusations but without substance, and being spread all over a number of pages which is becoming disruptive. It would be useful f you could check one way or the otehr. Thanks. ALR 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

ALR is carrying on a personal vendeta against me. Read talk page @ Freemasonry. Would you block HIM (over the Holocaust apologetics or just general bad taste)? Thanks Imacomp 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)"

Imacomp 15:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
Not everyone will check his user page.ALR 09:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
So had you checked? ALR 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Well, here we go again: we have an editor who, if they don't like the reverts made by someone, uses the edit summaries to make personal attacks. Evidently, if you question either Imacomp or Skull 'n' Femurs about the verifiability of the Forget Me Not issues, you are not only an Anti-Mason, but a Holocaust Apologist.--Vidkun 16:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
Agreed. WP:NPA Ardenn 16:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Anderson12

It is likely Anderson12 is a sockpuppet of Basil Rathbone. Ardenn 07:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is likely that Ardenn is a vandal who does not respect Wikipedia.Anderson12 09:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Freemasonry Scratchpad

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Can you Masons/Anti-Masons leave me alone. (Now I'm a sock, coz ALR/Lightbringer says so!). I could not care less what lies you tell each other, but leave me out, I'm not interested. Book Mouse 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Because BookMouse is Imacomp. Seraphim 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

I'm putting the below statement in bold because it really solves the whole issue:

Since all of you seem to have forgotten, the reason the scratchpad is gone is because it consisted entirely of unsourced edits from a sockpuppet of Lightbringer, who is not permitted, by ruling of ArbCom, to make edits to Freemasonry articles. MSJapan 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Freemason Recruitment TV commercials ???

A commercial just popped up on tv about AskAFreemason.org that was a freemasonry recruitment message along the lines of the national guard/armed forces commercials. Is the drop off in members that steep? It might just be a local commercial cause it's sponsored by "The Grand Lodge of Masons in Massachusetts" which is my state. But wow I just sat there stunned for like 5 minutes after seeing that. Seraphim 00:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that the drop off in numbers is so steep, as it is that GL's are finally recognizing it, and trying to fix it desperately. I'm not in a greement with all of what the GL of MA is doing, and i was there when the first Ask a freemason ad was screened in front of a major Masonic audience. A number of the middle aged men (40-55) nodded their heads in agreement, a numer of us younger guys (25-35) were annoyed or appalled. Basically, most US GL's are realising that they missed the "Vietnam era" men, and there is a massive age gap . . . now add in the mortality rates for men who joined when they were 21 right after WWII (which would make them, what, 75-82+?) and we are losing members faster than we are gaining them. That being said, many of us feel that the HUGE numbers were a bloat we don't need to try and maintain. When a Mass. lodge has 200+ members on its rolls, but 75% of them live in Florida from October-May, and, if we arelucky ten percent actually show up for a meeting . . . this is what leads to some of the controversial practices like lowering the age requirement, allowing recruitment, one day classes . . . --Vidkun 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the commercial again, and read up on their website a bit. It was just very shocking to me that they feel that the shortage is such a crisis that they actually paid for tv commercials. Interesting stuff. Seraphim 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a very divisive issue, as Vidkun noted. However, the reason for advertisement is that a lot of people are interested, but don't know how to go about joining. Part of it is that the comparison numbers that are being used for membership dropoff date to the height of interest in fraternal organizations in general after WWII. These same orgs had memberwship problems in the 60's because they were seen as "establishment", and therefore that generation had no interest in them. The result of that was that the children of that generation (today's 20-30 somethings) also never learned about these organizations. So, in order to adapt to the changes in society, things like advertisements occur. However, that is also not so new either; only the medium is different, because I know I have seen newspaper ads prior to now. MSJapan 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Last year a local masonic temple had an open house and advertised it in the newspaper under commuity events. Sadly I wasn't able to attend. Ardenn 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The initiative isn't universally popular, putting it lightly. Here in the UK there is an increasing view that the membership surge after WWII was unsustainable but it now leaves us with far too many lodges which are individually unsustainable. In the temple where my Mother Lodge meets we have three different lodges, none of which have high membership number. Reducing to a more reasonable level is a painful and difficult process. Generally the view in the UK is that the level of overt recruiting such as TV Ads isn't the kind of thing we need to be doing, it removes a level of QA about the candidate. However in Scotland the details about meetings are published in local papers including the nature of the working to be carried out (1st, 2nd, 3rd or Mark) which makes it easier for prospective members to just show up to talk to someone. The issue with membership is that it supports quite a lot of infrastructure, nursing homes, hospitals, schools as well as the temples themselves. As membership reduces it becomes more difficult to support these things, particularly as funds are all gathered internally. There is serious disagreement about the 'one day class' initiative which cannot have the same impact on the individual as the initiatory experience.
One of the interesting thigns is that the post WWII generation tend to be a bit more 'social' in their masonry, the structure of the craft substituted for the fraternal experience in the military. Younger masons, including myself in that :), tend to be more interested in the philosophical and developmental aspects of the craft which would tend towards a view that we should have fewer members, fewer lodges and focus on what the craft is actually about rather than anything else.(neglected to sign) ALR 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by ALR (talk • contribs)

Masonic Charity

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Suspected 'Sock' of Banned User Skull 'n' Femurs

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
OK... Let's go to the video tape! You deleted my comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry&diff=next&oldid=41899902, and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry&diff=next&oldid=41899529 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry"

Messed up talk page

Folks... user:Anderson12 deleted about half of this talk page. I notice that the material he cut was mostly previous discussion about the same material he insists on posting again, above. (the stuff that Basil posted {see archives} and was then on the scratchpad). It is getting very hard to keep AGF going. I have reverted the talk page to the point where the delete was carried out, then added back the comments made since that deletion... or at least I tried to do so. If I left something out, I appologize. A12... it is considered very bad form to delete things on a talk page. That is our record of what has been discussed before. please do not do it again. Blueboar 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I cut out the repost. we discussed it once, reached a consensus, and that's the end of it. MSJapan 00:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I must state one objection... I just chastized user:Anderson12 for deleting other people's comments, so I must chastize you as well... BAD BAD MSJ!!! For shame! There, consider yourself chastized. Blueboar 00:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, I took out everything, not selected bits and pieces. :) MSJapan 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
True... OK, I will assume good faith and let it slide. Blueboar 00:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't delete anything, I moved very old discussion threads to the archive. YOU however deleted my material and I will now restore it. There was absolutely no consensus. Having eight Masonic editors agree amongst themselves not to have material critical or exposing of Freemasonry is not consensus. If you delete my material again I will file a vandalism complaint against you!Anderson12 13:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Funny... I did not see any new archive page containing the discussions you deleted. And no, I did not delete your material. MSJapan did so (because it contained a copywrite violation from "Behind the Closed Door" which is NOT vandalism). Blueboar 13:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Correct you did not see any new archive page containing the discussions I moved. However if you had clicked on the last archive, archive 13, you would have.Anderson12 18:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OK... I'll accept that. And I will appologize for that accusation. For future reference, once something has been archived, you should not add or subtract from it. The accepted practice at Wikipedia is to do things by consensus... first ask on the talk page if anyone minds archiving the page (to make sure there are no ongoing discussions), then, if no one object, move it to a NEW archive page. in otherwords, you should have created an Archive 14, not added the material to Archive 13 (Just so you know, I will be going back and reverting Archive 13 so it is accurate to the date it was archived... so don't go complaining that I am vandalizing or something).
I do find it interesting that what you chose to delete and archive included any prior discussion of the material you have proposed for inclusion in the article (or rather re-proposed, as if it were a new proposal, which it was not). It does highlight what I am finding is an extreme POV bashing agenda on your part. But all of that is moot since what you deleted (and, yes, archived - allbeit incorrectly) has been returned to this page. Blueboar 18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Partial block?

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)

Freemasonry Scratchpad

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Can you Masons/Anti-Masons leave me alone. (Now I'm a sock, coz ALR/Lightbringer says so!). I could not care less what lies you tell each other, but leave me out, I'm not interested. Book Mouse 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Because BookMouse is Imacomp. Seraphim 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

I'm putting the below statement in bold because it really solves the whole issue:

Since all of you seem to have forgotten, the reason the scratchpad is gone is because it consisted entirely of unsourced edits from a sockpuppet of Lightbringer, who is not permitted, by ruling of ArbCom, to make edits to Freemasonry articles. MSJapan 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Freemason Recruitment TV commercials ???

A commercial just popped up on tv about AskAFreemason.org that was a freemasonry recruitment message along the lines of the national guard/armed forces commercials. Is the drop off in members that steep? It might just be a local commercial cause it's sponsored by "The Grand Lodge of Masons in Massachusetts" which is my state. But wow I just sat there stunned for like 5 minutes after seeing that. Seraphim 00:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that the drop off in numbers is so steep, as it is that GL's are finally recognizing it, and trying to fix it desperately. I'm not in a greement with all of what the GL of MA is doing, and i was there when the first Ask a freemason ad was screened in front of a major Masonic audience. A number of the middle aged men (40-55) nodded their heads in agreement, a numer of us younger guys (25-35) were annoyed or appalled. Basically, most US GL's are realising that they missed the "Vietnam era" men, and there is a massive age gap . . . now add in the mortality rates for men who joined when they were 21 right after WWII (which would make them, what, 75-82+?) and we are losing members faster than we are gaining them. That being said, many of us feel that the HUGE numbers were a bloat we don't need to try and maintain. When a Mass. lodge has 200+ members on its rolls, but 75% of them live in Florida from October-May, and, if we arelucky ten percent actually show up for a meeting . . . this is what leads to some of the controversial practices like lowering the age requirement, allowing recruitment, one day classes . . . --Vidkun 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I just saw the commercial again, and read up on their website a bit. It was just very shocking to me that they feel that the shortage is such a crisis that they actually paid for tv commercials. Interesting stuff. Seraphim 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a very divisive issue, as Vidkun noted. However, the reason for advertisement is that a lot of people are interested, but don't know how to go about joining. Part of it is that the comparison numbers that are being used for membership dropoff date to the height of interest in fraternal organizations in general after WWII. These same orgs had memberwship problems in the 60's because they were seen as "establishment", and therefore that generation had no interest in them. The result of that was that the children of that generation (today's 20-30 somethings) also never learned about these organizations. So, in order to adapt to the changes in society, things like advertisements occur. However, that is also not so new either; only the medium is different, because I know I have seen newspaper ads prior to now. MSJapan 04:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Last year a local masonic temple had an open house and advertised it in the newspaper under commuity events. Sadly I wasn't able to attend. Ardenn 04:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The initiative isn't universally popular, putting it lightly. Here in the UK there is an increasing view that the membership surge after WWII was unsustainable but it now leaves us with far too many lodges which are individually unsustainable. In the temple where my Mother Lodge meets we have three different lodges, none of which have high membership number. Reducing to a more reasonable level is a painful and difficult process. Generally the view in the UK is that the level of overt recruiting such as TV Ads isn't the kind of thing we need to be doing, it removes a level of QA about the candidate. However in Scotland the details about meetings are published in local papers including the nature of the working to be carried out (1st, 2nd, 3rd or Mark) which makes it easier for prospective members to just show up to talk to someone. The issue with membership is that it supports quite a lot of infrastructure, nursing homes, hospitals, schools as well as the temples themselves. As membership reduces it becomes more difficult to support these things, particularly as funds are all gathered internally. There is serious disagreement about the 'one day class' initiative which cannot have the same impact on the individual as the initiatory experience.
One of the interesting thigns is that the post WWII generation tend to be a bit more 'social' in their masonry, the structure of the craft substituted for the fraternal experience in the military. Younger masons, including myself in that :), tend to be more interested in the philosophical and developmental aspects of the craft which would tend towards a view that we should have fewer members, fewer lodges and focus on what the craft is actually about rather than anything else.(neglected to sign) ALR 09:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by ALR (talk • contribs)


Proposed Additions to Freemasonry Page

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)

Note: Since the material you posted contains a copywrite violation, deleting it would not be considered vandalism. Blueboar 13:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Status of the Disabled in Freemasonry

Freemasonry refuses to admit men born with birth defects as part of it's rules ..[1] . 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.[2].[3]

This section is absolute crap... many disabled men have joined Freemasonry and continue to do so. Blueboar 13:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Status of Women in Freemasonry

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) - this comment re-added after user:Anderson12 deleted it. Please note that deleting another users comments on a talk page is considered vandalism. Blueboar 14:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Status of Negroes in American Freemasonry

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.[4][5]

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'.[6][7]

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.[8][9] In most towns the membership in the local Ku Klux Klan Klavern and the membership in the local white Masonic Lodge was overlapping.[10] [11][12]

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) - comments re-added after user:Anderson12 deleted them. Removing another user's comments from a talk page is considered vandalism. Blueboar 14:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Masonic Secrets

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. [13][14]

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)
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)
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)
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)

Additionally Freemasons are required to prefer other Freemasons in hiring, promotions, and business. [15][16]

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)
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)

To ensure these rules of internal discipline and secrecy are maintained Freemasonry requires it's members to undertake a number of oaths, and employ a number of secret recognitions signs and words to ensure non-masons do not become aware of Masonic activity or preferement in their immediate surroundings.

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)
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)
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)
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)

Signs of the three Degrees

File:Masonsigns1.gif
Signs of the three degrees of Masonry
File:Masonsigns2.gif
Signs of the three degrees of Masonry
File:Masonsigns3.gif
Signs of the three degrees of Masonry
File:Masonsigns4.gif
Signs of the three degrees of Masonry

1- Entered Apprentice: Cut my throat and tongue.

2- Fellow Craft: Cut open my chest, and put my heart and lungs on my left shoulder.

3- Master Mason: Put my bowels out.


Oaths of the three Degrees

1- In the First Degree, Apprentice

He swears, with his hand on the Bible, "I (name), in the presence of Almighty God, most solemnly promise and swear that I will always hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the arts, parts of points of the hidden mysteries of Freemasonry... binding myself under the penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out, and my body buried in the rough sands of the see..."

2- The Second Degree, Fellow Craft

He swears on the Bible, in the presence of Almighty God, "under the penalty than of having my breast open... and my heart and lungs thrown over my left shoulder... so help me God".

3- The Third Degree, Master Mason

He swears "under the penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burn to ashes... so help me God".

Fourth Degree or Royal Arch Degree

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.[17][18]

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.” [19][20]

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.[21][22]

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.[23][24] 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)
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)
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)
You just violated Wikipedia guidelines on civility and abusive language.Anderson12 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Morgan Affair

Main article: William Morgan (anti-Mason)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Freemasonry and anticlericalism

Historically, Freemasonry has been identified with 19th-century bourgeois liberalism, and some Freemasons have regarded traditional Christianity as allied to reactionary powers defending the status quo against the advance of human freedom. Masonic Lodges of this period were often associated with anticlericalism, and were part of a broader movement, as is pointed out by Ralph Gibson: "The republican enemies of the Church did not simply attack it on the grounds of its political alignment, but also in terms of more positive ideologies: to the old traditions of the Enlightenment were added first positivism, and then scientism. Science was supposed to be the key to the understanding of the universe, and even to enable men to grasp its essential meaning. Social science was believed to be able to provide the basis for an ethical system. This new faith was ardently preached under the Third Republic in Masonic lodges and circles of libre pensée, in learned journals, and in educated republican society in general" (A Social History of French Catholicism, 1789-1914 [London & New York: Routledge, 1989], pp.237-38).

Controversies over the historical involvements of Freemasonry and anticlericalism reach a peak in attempting to understand the role of Freemasonry in the history of anticlericalism in Portugal, Italy, and Mexico. Freemasons were prominent in the foundation of the modern Mexican state and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and the writing of its anticlerical constitution. Under the regime of Plutarco Elías Calles, the enforcement of anticlerical laws provoked the Cristero War. These animosities persist. As recently as 2004, Norberto Cardinal Rivera of Mexico at a conference in Mexico City denounced the influence of Freemasonry.

Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion

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)
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)
It's been covered quite well in the other article, which is where it belongs. MSJapan 16:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Which other article would that be?Anderson12 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
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)

Criticisms of alleged Masonic cronyism

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)

Criticisms based on the moral faults of known Masons

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)

Criticism of Masonry's Involvement in Politics

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." .[25]

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." .[26]

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). .[27]

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. .[28]

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. .[29]

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..[30]

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. .[31]

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. .[32]

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. .[33]

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. .[34]

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. .[35]

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." .[36]

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)." .[37]

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. .[38]

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. .[39]

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. .[40]

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. .[41]

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: .[42]

"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." .[43]

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 . . ." .[44]

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. .[45]

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 . . ." .[46]

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: .[47]

"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." .[48]

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 : .[49]

"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 . . ." .[50]

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." .[51]

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." .[52]

The late Sen. Hennings was a 33rd Degree Mason. .[53]

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..[54]

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. .[55]

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." .[56]

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." .[57]

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..[58]

The unsigned colunm, "Alice in Potomac Land," reported on April 5, 1983:.[59]

"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 . . . .[60]

"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. " .[61]

Just over eight months later, on December 13, 1983, the same column ran the following item: .[62]

"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. .[63]

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.".[64]

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)
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)
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)

References

Removed this section.... we do not need a long list of references posted on the Talk page (almost all were to "Behind the Closed Door") If any of the material gets added to the article (which I doubt will happen) the citations can be added then. Blueboar 14:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You had no right to remove the references. It is very important for there to be references on a controversial page such as this. Furthermore it had been previously agreed that references should be included on this page using the method of insertion used here. I find the deletion of these references by the suspected sock of the banned masonic editor skull and femurs particularly offensive.Anderson12 14:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter, because it's violation of WP:Copyvio. Reference it all you want - if it goes in the page, it's gone. MSJapan 16:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
And you are? Thank-you for sharing your opinion, no matter how little it relates to Wikipedia guidelines.Anderson12 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ [Verson of GRBC&Y Petition and Examination for Membership as found on Freemasonrywatch.com]
  2. ^ The Brotherhood by Stephen Knight
  3. ^ Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution by Stephen Knight
  4. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  5. ^ Darkness Visible by Rev. Walton Hannah
  6. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  7. ^ Darkness Visible by Rev. Walton Hannah
  8. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  9. ^ Darkness Visible by Rev. Walton Hannah
  10. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  11. ^ Darkness Visible by Rev. Walton Hannah
  12. ^ Firey Cross by Wynn Wade
  13. ^ The Character, Claims, and Practical Workings of Freemasonry by Rev. C.G. Finney
  14. ^ Letters on Freemasonry by President John Quincy Adams
  15. ^ The Character, Claims, and Practical Workings of Freemasonry by Rev. C.G. Finney
  16. ^ Letters on Freemasonry by President John Quincy Adams
  17. ^ Inside the Brotherhood by Martin Short
  18. ^ Illustrations of Masonry by William Morgan
  19. ^ Inside the Brotherhood by Martin Short
  20. ^ Illustrations of Masonry by William Morgan
  21. ^ Inside the Brotherhood by Martin Short
  22. ^ Illustrations of Masonry by William Morgan
  23. ^ Inside the Brotherhood by Martin Short
  24. ^ Illustrations of Masonry by William Morgan
  25. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  26. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  27. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  28. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  29. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  30. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  31. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  32. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  33. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  34. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  35. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  36. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  37. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  38. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  39. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  40. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  41. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  42. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  43. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  44. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  45. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  46. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  47. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  48. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  49. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  50. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  51. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  52. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  53. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  54. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  55. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  56. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  57. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  58. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  59. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  60. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  61. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  62. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  63. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
  64. ^ Behind the Lodge Door by Paul A. Fisher
Please provide publishing info and page citations to any references, so that readers can check and be sure the books and articles you cite actually say what you say they do. Given your track record of making misleading and erroneous statements, I would not be surprised if the citations say something completely different. Blueboar 14:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It is I who are adhering to Wikipedia guidelines, unlike the Masonic editors who blanked my proposed additions along with the discussion threads.Anderson12 14:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
"It is I who AM adhering".... is what you mean to say... and no, you have not been. Deliberately deleting other editors' comments, posting copywrited material as if it were your own, and extreme POV bashing all go against Wikipedia guidelines. But that is besides the point.... You should give publishing information and page citations for a proper refference. Blueboar 16:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comes of his own Free Will

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

signs of degrees

The info on the signs of the degrees looked cited and relevent to me. What was the problem with it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This material has come up in repeated vandalism claims... and each time the user who posted it was banned for vandalism. It is extreme POV pushing to include the material. It has repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate. Need I continue? Blueboar 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It's cited information, and as such requires that you show me it's not accurate, not assert it's not accurate. I have updated the section to make it clear that it has a specific source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is now internally inconsistent. It is clear from the section that discusses the Volume of the Sacred Law that a candidate obligates themselves on the VSL appropriate to their religion, not the Bible. Morgan is inaccurate therefore not a credible source, hence legitimate to question anything else sourced from that volume.ALR
The criteria for inclusion in wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY, not ACCURACY. Since your dispute is with the primary source, please summarize that dispute in the section, citing reputable sources. I have removed the innacurate tags, as you do not dispute that morgan wrote what he wrote. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has reinserted accuracy disputes. Is it disputed that Wm morgan wrote what it is asserted he wrote? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Cited or not... the inclusion of the material is extreme POV vandalism by a suspected sock/meat puppet of a banned user (even if he did go running to someone else who could to try to "lawyer" it in by making it all a "citation" instead of violating 3rrr). I would revert it awau, even with your changes, but I am up against 3rrr myself. There is a strong concensus that this material is not accurate and thus not wanted in the article. I also find it interesting that every other time this material has been proposed, it has been cited to Duncan's Masonic Monitor... which is it? Duncan or Morgan? Blueboar 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good question, and Blueboar is correct, it has been cited to Duncan before. We have also gone over the inaccuracy of the oaths already. Not to mention that Hipocrite is editing not only against consensus but against an ArbCom decision by allowing material added by a sock of a user banned from editing Freemasonry remain in the article. MSJapan 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Open a RFC about Hipocrite if you feel he's to blame here. Ardenn 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Just unusual that he responded to Basils request for an Advocate, then didn't identify himself when he appeared, now when Anderson12 starts spouting the same garbage that Basil had done he appears again to defend him. It would be unreasonable to suggest that he's trolling or acting in bad faith to only force one irelevant section in, so I won't do that.ALR 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Main page

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)

Go ahead. Ardenn 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
ThanksALR 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive?

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)

crack on ALR 23:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Knock yourself out. Ardenn 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

SIGNS

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_14&oldid=1060446064"