Misplaced Pages

Talk:Freemasonry: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:31, 22 August 2005 editJachin (talk | contribs)1,784 edits →Freemasonry and Christianity← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:32, 25 December 2024 edit undoBlueboar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers53,079 edits →JoiningTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{featured}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=RBP
|action1date=2004-03-15, 01:47:02
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Freemasonry/archive1
|action1result=kept
|action1oldid=2852200
|action2=FAR
|action2date=2006-02-23, 08:24:51
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Freemasonry
|action2result=demoted
|action2oldid=40769085
|action3=FAC
|action3date=11:05, 24 February 2006
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Freemasonry/archive2
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=40960440
|action4=PR
|action4date=2006-04-28, 11:13:10
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Freemasonry/archive1
|action4oldid=50523456
|action5=FAC
|action5date=21:24, 28 April 2007
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Freemasonry/archive3
|action5result=not promoted
|action5oldid=126631274
|action6=GAN
|action6date=05:20, 29 May 2007
|action6link=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 26#GA pass
|action6result=listed
|action6oldid=133869233
|action7=GAR
|action7date=30 June 2007
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Archive 25#Freemasonry
|action7result=delisted
|action7oldid=141689208
|action8=GAN
|action8date=23:34, 13 June 2012
|action8link=Talk:Freemasonry/GA1
|action8result=not listed
|action8oldid=49
|action9=GAN
|action9date=4 January 2014
|action9link=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 38#GA Review
|action9result=listed
|action9oldid=589928454
|topic=Philosophy and religion
|currentstatus=FFA/GA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Freemasonry|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities|importance=high}}
}}
<!-- Please do not remove this tag. -->
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader={{aan}}
|maxarchivesize=100K
|counter=41
|minthreadsleft=5
|algo=old(90d)
|archive=Talk:Freemasonry/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Freemasonry is a secret society ==
*] - up to March 2004


The lexical knowledge:
* ] : '''''Freemasonry''', the teachings and practices of the fraternal (men-only) order of Free and Accepted Masons, '''the largest worldwide secret society''' — an oath-bound society, often devoted to fellowship, moral discipline, and mutual assistance, that conceals at least some of its rituals, customs, or activities from the public '''(secret societies do not necessarily conceal their membership or existence)'''.''
* Misplaced Pages: ]: ''Historian Richard B. Spence of the University of Idaho offered a similar three-pronged definition: The group's existence is usually not kept secret, but some beliefs or practices are concealed from the public and require an oath of secrecy and loyalty to learn. ...Spence's definition includes groups traditionally thought of as secret societies ('''Freemasons''' and Rosicrucians) ... Historian Jasper Ridley argues that '''Freemasonry is, "the world's most powerful secret Society'''".''
The logical thinking:
* The principle of secrecy with the obligation of confidentiality and the hierarchical initiation system implies that there must necessarily be secrets kept, otherwise it would be an open community like any other. It is also known from Freemasonry that there is secret ] (]), ]s, ]s, ]s, ]s and ]s for mutual identification, as well as non-public membership lists. All of these secret aspects are therefore more reminiscent of the practices of a ] than of an ethical association that only withholds a few scientific secrets from humanity that could be learned by oneself anyway.
* To assume that just because some (very old) secrets of Freemasonry are now publicly known, is as naive as believing that a secret service would stop its work just because a few of its ]s were decoded. Of course it can be assumed that, as with any secret service, these methods are constantly being improved and developed in secret.
* If secret symbols and codes have been used once (secret society), it can be assumed that they can always be used. It is not possible to prove the contrary. An exposed enemy secret agent will always be classified by security authorities as a possible spy, even if he becomes a stonemason afterwards. Because it is impossible to prove, that he no longer is an enemy agent.
* Thank you.
] (]) 22:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)


:Actually, neither Britannica nor Misplaced Pages are considered reliable sources here. They're both tertiary. ] 12:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
== Change ==
::Another issue is that there are ''multiple'' definitions of the term “secret society”. While some of these definitions do apply to fraternal groups (such as the Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, Elks, and college fraternities)… ''other'' definitions DON’T apply.
No this isn't biased 'Lodges
::And because there are multiple definitions, we can not state in Wikivoice that such and such fraternity IS a “secret society”.
Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons meet as a Lodge and not in a lodge. (This is similar to the distinction made by Christians who meet as a church, with the actual building officially considered no more than a meeting place.)' According to who? If its to Catholics.. Not all Christians are Catholics... Clarify or remove, I think this is useless. --] 15:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
::What we CAN do is note that while definition “X” applies to such fraternal groups, definition “Y” does NOT apply (see ]). And ''that'' requires going into context and nuance that isn’t really appropriate for the lead sentence. ] (]) 13:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
:::As to the specific definitions discussed above: at least in the United States, Freemasonry does not fit even ''those'' definitions.
:::Let’s look at Brittanica’s definition: it defines the term as concealing “at least some of its rituals, customs or practices from the public”… Freemasonry does not. It freely acknowledges that ALL of its rituals, customs and practices have been exposed SO MANY times (often with pictures and diagrams) that NONE of it is secret any more. You can even purchase copies of the various “official” rituals on-line.
:::Same with Spence’s definition… again, what may have once been concealed from the public is now publicly available.
:::As for your “logic”… it seems you really don’t understand the subject matter. You talk about Freemasonry having a “cypher”. I assume you are referring to the ], which some sources refer to as the “Masonic cypher”. It is hardly “secret”. Schoolchildren learn it. (I remember learning it when I was around 10 years old. I thought I could send messages to my classmates without my teachers knowing what I was saying… turned out my teachers had learned it when ''they'' were children). More importantly it ISN’T actually taught in Masonic Lodges. I’m not sure how it became associated with Freemasonry, but it isn’t Masonic at all.
:::As for the “secret” handshakes, passwords, symbolism etc etc… this is stuff that once (back in the 16th century) WAS a secret way for Masons to identify each other… but because it was all exposed over and over again, it is no longer considered secret. In the modern day, Grand Lodges issue dues cards so masons can verify their membership to each other. Or they can simply email the relevant Grand Lodge main office and ASK: “is so-and-so a member in good standing?” (In fact, anyone can do this… The membership rolls are a matter of public record).
:::The basic problem is that you ''assume'' that Freemasons “must” be doing ''something'' secret behind those closed doors, but your assumption is incorrect. The reality is that the Freemasons don’t have ANY secrets any more. They simply ''pretend'' at secrecy (out of tradition). Oh, It did have secrets once… but NONE of it is actually secret anymore (and hasn’t been for about two hundred years). ] (]) 20:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Fine, i had a similar disussion already in the german wikipedia (i'm from germany). My conclusion was to write an own article with criticism on freemasonry - i have too much points to discuss them all individually here. It would take months for probably only some changes in the end. In a more critic article is place for this - i think it's the right way to do. The article is nearly complete in german - i'll then transalte it to english. Thank you. ] (]) 18:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::FYI, you should probably see our existing article on ]… it may already cover much of what you are talking about. ] (]) 20:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Anti-Masonry for me is a too strong term. This article is more about politics and religion. Criticism for me is something else. But thank you for that hint. ] (]) 20:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No problem… just didn’t want you to waist your time duplicating what has already been done. As Billy Crystal said in ''The Princess Bride'': “Have fun storming the castle!” ] (]) 21:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you. twink twink. You mean one of the freemasonry headquarters - the '''holy wood''' on '''I am the bee (imdb.com)'''? i already had. twink twink. the secret is about the keywords there. do you have any further questions, i can give you a short instruction how to disturb their global communication. twink twink. greetings to your masters. they're not mine. ] (]) 15:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)


== History creep ==


I note that over time, a lot of editors have been adding subsections to the “History” section - outlining the history of the fraternity in specific countries/regions (China, the Caribbean, etc). I am wondering if these subsections are appropriate for this article (which should be an overview - with links to more detailed articles). We have numerous ] articles that might be a better venue for this sort of information. Please discuss. ] (]) 13:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
== Blacklisted external links on Freemasonry ==
*
*
*


== Fellowcraft vs Fellow Craft ==


We seem to have a disagreement on the spelling of the name of the second degree. One word or two? I did a google ngram that seems to support that it should be one word (“Fellowcraft”), and this matches the sources I have in my library. Also, I note that the United Grand Lodge of England spells it as one word, and this article is marked as using UK spelling. ] (]) 11:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


:Greetings @], I understand that many jurisdictions have lost the ancient way of writing Fellow Craft and now just spell it as one word, which is becoming more popular now, same thing happened with Free-Masonry, Free-Mason, and it might happen in the future with Master Mason and Entered Apprentice, I am not advocating that we get rid of Fellowcraft in this article, but that we present both spelling, Fellow Caft is the historically accurate way of spelling the word, which is why Rituals use the abbreviation F.C. and is still used in many jurisdictions, thus this spelling is relevant today as a way to understand why F.C. is used, to respect jurisdiction that are still using this spelling and as the correct historical spelling. Again I do not want to get rid of the other spelling just present both for a more accurate and encyclopedic understanding.
:'''Addendum:''' After some research it looks like ''Fellow Craft'' is still more used than ''Fellowcraft'' and gaining in popularity, and looking at historical mentions of the term, you can see the overwhelming use of Fellow Craft vs Fellowcraft pre-1950. ] (]) 00:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


== Moderns to Premiere Grand Lodge ==

The term "Moderns" was originally coined as a derogatory label by a newer Grand Lodge that referred to themselves as the "Antients." This misleading terminology persisted for centuries, causing significant confusion within Masonic circles.
Here are some links that have been blacklisted from the Freemasonry page. I wonder why that is? These links may have different views from the Pro-Freemasonry page, but there are a lot of pages that give both pro and con links. Why should this one be different? My grandfather was a mason, what are you people affraid of? ] 17:46, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
In recent years, most Masonic jurisdictions have agreed to adopt the more accurate term "Premiere Grand Lodge" to refer to the organization previously known as the "Moderns." This change aims to clarify the historical timeline and avoid the negative connotations associated with the older terminology.

To improve accuracy and reduce confusion, it is recommended that all mentions of the outdated term "Moderns" be replaced with "Premiere Grand Lodge" throughout this article. This update will better reflect current Masonic scholarship and nomenclature. ] (]) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

: Not without some cites for "most Masonic jurisdictions", please. --] 17:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The Complete Story behind the Anti-Masonic Movement
::The ] guide lines alone should suffice, in the "Revised Style Guide - Ars Quatuor Coronatorum" to publish any research papers, it is stated page 12-13 that: ''"In Masonic writing the words ‘Antients’ and ‘Moderns’ call for especial care. It would seem preferable to refer to ‘the Antient Grand Lodge’ or ‘the Antients’ rather than to ‘the Antients’ Grand Lodge’. It is in any event recommended that the Grand Lodge of 1717 be described as ‘the Premier Grand Lodge’ rather than that of the Moderns."'' You can access the document . ] (]) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
==Joining==
Before the year 1826, nothing slowed the progress of Freemasonry to occupy every seat of political and religious importance in America. By 1826, so confident had the Fraternity become that it began to congratulate itself in broad speeches at their public festivals. That year a Mr. Bainaird (no first name available) announced, “Masonry is exercising its influence in the sacred desk, in the legislative hall, and on the bench of justice.”
How can I join freemason,am from Kenya ] (]) 19:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

*First, if you look on line, you will find that most Grand Lodges have websites with information on how to join. So that should be your first step. In the case of Kenya, you should search for the “District Grand Lodge of East Africa”. ] (]) 15:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Captain William Morgan, who had been practicing the craft of Free-masonry for many years, heard Bainaird’s speech. Morgan, under the command of Freemason Andrew Jackson, had fought the British in the War of 1812. As was the custom of military men in those days, Morgan had joined Freemasonry for protection, and worked his way up the degrees to become a Royal Arch Mason. When he accepted Christ as Savior and Lord of his life, he renounced Freemasonry and demitted from the Lodge. When he heard Mr. Bainaird’s speech, Capt. Morgan was disturbed. Charles Finney writes of Morgan’s opinion of Freemasonry: “He regarded it as highly injurious to the cause of Christ, and as eminently dangerous to the government of our country.”

As was John Adams aware that the Illuminati had infiltrated American Freemasonry, and was planning to take over our government, Morgan was likewise aware. Captain Morgan could not let Mr. Bainaird’s speech stand without revealing these facts. The captain began to voice his intent to publish a book exposing the Illuminati, as well as revealing the Masonic rituals and vile oaths of the first three degrees.

Morgan contracted with a local printer, David C. Miller, who had likewise renounced Freemasonry after salvation. No sooner had the ink dried on the contract than trouble began. Morgan disappeared. His badly decomposed body was found a year later in Oak Orchard Harbor and identified by his wife and dentist. Miller was abducted, but escaped to print the book.


Masonic Oaths and Masonic Partiality were behind the
Murder of William Morgan and the subsequent cover-up

On June 13, 1861, the Committee of Correspondence, Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, wrote:


Masonry is as old as government. It constitutes a government in itself. Its origin, principles, organization and administration are to be found in loyalty, obedience, hope charity, love. It is operative everywhere, because its foundation can be laid among mankind wherever mankind exist. Resistance to, or disobedience of any of these principles is not permitted in Masonic sovereignty. Masonry could not exist a moment, it would not have lived longer than languages, races, and empires, if it had tolerated insubordination or rebellion against its authority.


A heavy burden is placed on the shoulders of a Mason when he joins the lodge. He is no longer his own man. He must obey unseen powers set above him, whether he agrees with them or not, or else he pays the penalty with his life. Yet, there is a reward for those who obey – Masonic partiality.

As documented earlier, Masonic partiality means success in this present world. To a soldier it means protection during war. To an applicant it means work. To an employee it means a promotion. To a businessman it means customers and/or a loan. To a politician it means a vote. To a civil servant it means an appointment. To a criminal it means protection from the law.

Simply put, Masonic partiality can get a Mason where he wants to go in life, whether he is honorable or dishonorable. If he fails to obey the rules in this game of partiality, he is not successful. If he blatantly breaks his oath, or disobeys Masonic authority, he meets the most gruesome death — so say the words he pronounces against himself when taking the oaths.


Oaths of the Blue Degrees

(1st three degrees)


First, a Blue Lodge Mason (degrees 1-3) agrees to “ever conceal and never reveal any of the secret arts, parts or points of the hidden mysteries of Ancient Freemasonry.” Second, he promises “to always be ready to obey all Masonic authority set above him, and never cheat, wrong, nor defraud a fellow Mason.” Then he takes the following blood oath:


All this I most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steadfast resolution, to keep and perform the same without any equivocation, mental reservation or secret evasion of mind whatever, binding myself under a no less penalty than that of having my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots and buried in the rough sands of the sea at low water mark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours… .

…having my breast torn open, my heart plucked out and given as a prey to the beast of the field and the fowls of the air… .

…having my body severed in twain, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, and the ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven, that no trace or remembrance may be had of so vile and perjured a wretch as I… . …should I ever knowingly violate this my solemn obligation. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.


These oaths are crucial to the success of Freemasonry’s conspiracy for world dominion over governments and its planned annihilation of the Church. The Fraternity’s ability to maintain secrecy among its membership has determined its success in the past. Now, to guarantee its success in the future, William Morgan’s blatant disobedience to his Masonic obligation to “ever conceal and never reveal any of the secret arts, parts or points of the hidden mysteries of Ancient Freemasonry” demanded his immediate death.

Morgan’s 9/11 Capture and Subsequent Murder

Sept. 11, 1826, Morgan was abducted. Within 48 hours three Masons murdered him. Twenty-two years later one of the three made a deathbed confession, the details of which can be read in Finney’s book on pages 6-10.

In 1826 and the year following there was a general consensus among Masons that Morgan was indeed killed as penalty for his crimes against the Brotherhood. How or when Morgan was killed, and what Mason or Masons were “honored” with the task, was not known by the majority of lodge brothers. But, like the Niagara River in which he was drowned, rumors flowed endlessly among them. Following are four.

Elias Wilder of Elba, New York, himself not a Mason, said that “two or three weeks before William Morgan was carried from Batavia, I had a conversation with Freemason Cyrus Grout on the subject of Morgan’s attempt to publish the secrets of Masonry. Mr. Grout told me that the Masons had sent to the Grand Lodge of New York for instructions, and when they got word from them there would be something done.” After the abduction of Morgan, Mr. Wilder had another conversation with Cyrus Grout on the subject of what had become of Morgan, and Grout said to him, “Morgan was gone a fishing on the Niagara River of Lake Ontario.”

A Mason by the name of William Terry of Niagara County was told by a fraternity brother that Morgan was “taken and carried away, had been killed, and sunk in Lake Ontario.” Mr. Terry also stated that word came from the New York Grand Lodge that those engaged in the murder of Morgan, if indicted, were “to be kept harmless, and that all expense requisites to pay any fines that might be imposed was to be defrayed by the Grand Lodge; and that the actors in the affair of the abduction of Morgan so acted in obedience to orders coming from Grand Lodge.”

Mason Sylvester R. Hathaway of Niagara County was told by another Mason that “two ruffians had taken him out and cut his throat and tied his body to a rope and stone and threw it into the lake.”

Dr. Samuel Taggart, a Freemason from Byron, New York, told two other Masons, John Southworth and Luther Wilder of the same city, that he would “not be afraid to bet a thousand dollars that Morgan was not in the land of the living; that he had taken a voyage to Lake Ontario without float or boat and would never be seen again by any human being.”

Many decent men of the order of Masons justified the murder of Morgan by saying, “that efforts to learn the fate of Morgan would be useless – that if they had done anything with him, it was no one’s business but their own.”

These quotes are taken from depositions made March 9, 1827 by Justice of the Peace Andrew Dibble of Genesse County, NY. Mr. Dibble was one of several J.P.’s to whom 38 law-abiding citizens took witnesses after forming committees to conduct an independent investigation into the abduction and murder of Morgan.

Citizens of “the land of the free and the home of the brave” were forced to take action, because proper authorities delayed, botched, or hid evidence. To the man, these “proper authorities” were Masons, obeying orders from the Grand Lodge of New York, while disobeying the laws of the land.

Seven citizen committees in as many counties were established to investigate these crimes. For nearly a year they took leave of their jobs and paid their own expenses to return justice to our land. In contrast, Freemasonry used civil servants and public funds to obstruct justice. Upon completion of their investigations, the citizens presented evidence and demanded action.

Masons directly involved in the abduction, murder, and cover-up of these crimes numbered at least 136. They were not all from the same locality, but scattered along 100 miles of countryside. They worked in perfect concert a daring and criminal scheme without incurring the risk of full conviction or punishment. Many were of respectable character, yet their reputation came second to their primary obligation of obeying their diabolical oaths.

All that was necessary to conceal Morgan’s kidnapping and murder was Masonic partiality found in oaths taken in the first three degrees of Freemasonry, as well as oaths taken in Royal Arch and Knights Templar degrees. Oaths in the first three degrees forbid Blue Lodge Masons from divulging criminal acts of brother Masons, with the exception of murder and treason. Royal Arch and Knights Templar oaths forbid Masons from divulging all criminal acts of brother Masons, including murder and treason. Of the Masons involved in the crime, 136 were of the latter degrees.

Evidence against Freemasonry was so compelling that it precipitated a mass exodus from the Lodge. Of 50,000 Masons in America at that time, 45,000 withdrew their membership and renounced their oaths, forcing the closure of 2,000 lodges.

The Crime in more Detail

When William Morgan contracted with printer David C. Miller of Batavia to publish Illustrations of Masonry, the Masonic fraternity went into action to form a conspiracy to stop them. One group of sixty-nine Masons moved against Morgan, while another group of sixty-seven Masons moved against Miller. Their intrigues were carried out in six stages from Aug. 9 through Sept. 20, 1826. Stages 3-6 began Sept. 10 and ended Sept. 20.


1. In New York newspapers published at Canandaigua, Batavia and Black Rock, an anonymous Mason denounced Morgan as an imposter. Although these places were far apart from each other, all were within the limits of the region in which subsequent acts of violence were committed.

2. Masons employed a spy to infiltrate the meeting between Morgan and Miller for the purpose of betraying the manuscripts of the proposed work to the Masonic Lodges in an attempt to frustrate the printing of the book.

3. Masons employed an agent to secretly prepare materials for torching the printing office.

4. Several masons from various locales rendezvoused at the home of a high-degree Mason to plan the forcible seizure of the manuscripts and the destruction of the printing press.

5. Masons abused laws by hunting up small debts or civil offenses with which to carry out harassment suits against Morgan and Miller. Once arrested, these men were in the hands of Masons for easy abduction.

6. By abusing the due processes of the law, the Masonic hierarchy planned the capture and murder both Morgan and Miller. Officers of justice who themselves were Masons, were involved in the conspiracy. Their efforts failed in the case of Miller, but succeeded against Morgan.


The Plot Thickens

On Aug. 9, 1826, a newspaper article was published in Canandaigua, NY exactly as you see copied below. The print was immediately picked up by other newspapers throughout the state, including Spirit of the Times and the People’s Press in Batavia, Morgan’s hometown.





The article denouncing Captain William Morgan is actually a coded Masonic call-to-arms. And Masons are obligated to obey this notice, because of the following oath: “I promise and swear that I will obey all regular signs, summonses, or tokens given.”

The article is a two-part coded command (one written, one visual). These commands are calling to arms Master Masons and Royal Arch Masons.


Written message: “Brethren and Companions are particularly requested to observe, mark and govern themselves accordingly.

Visual Message: two right hands with index fingers pointing to both the coded problem and the coded command.


Message decoded: Master Masons are called “Brothers.” Royal Arch Masons are known as “Companions.” We shall once again quote the obligations of these two degrees before we decipher the coded message.

During the initiation of the Master Mason, he is told, “You must conceal all the crimes of your brother Masons, except murder and treason, and these only at your own option….”

The Royal Arch Mason swears, “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.”

The first portion of the written code identifies which degree of Mason is to respond to the call-to-arms. The second portion informs Brothers and Companions “to observe, mark and govern themselves accordingly.”

Observe in context means to “vigilantly observe Morgan’s movements.”

Mark, in Masonic parlance, refers to a “token,” “debt,” or “favor” that must be returned when asked. A favor is returned when a command is obeyed.

Govern means, “to organize a strategy for the capture of William Morgan.”


The command handed down is found in the visual coded message of the “pointing right hands.” A right hand is one of the most important symbols in Freemasonry. It both identifies and commands. It identifies with a particular and peculiar “grip” of a “brother” or “companion,” even in the dark. We read how it commands in Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. “The right hand has in all ages been deemed an important symbol to represent the virtue of fidelity…to an obligation.” In another place we read, “The right hand was naturally used instead of the left, because it was…the instrument by which superiors give commands to those below them.”

The two pointing right hands give a reason and a command: (1) “Morgan is considered a swindler and dangerous man,” meaning “he has broken his oath of silence by exposing Masonic secrets”; and (2) “There are people in this village who would be happy to see this Capt. Morgan,” meaning “Morgan is to be captured and brought before the lodge tribunal.”

Simply stated, Master Masons and Royal Arch Masons were ordered to observe and report the movements of Morgan, plan a strategy for his capture, and when commanded, meet out just punishment to this traitor.


The Plot to Kidnap and Murder William Morgan
(following pages are actual depositions taken from court records)


On Sunday, Sept. 10, 1826, the Ontario county coroner, Nicholas G. Chesebro, himself the Master of the Lodge at Canandaigua, applied for and obtained from Jeffrey Chipman, justice of the peace, a warrant to arrest Morgan, who lived fifty miles away at Batavia. Morgan’s alleged offense was larceny for neglecting to return a shirt and tie that had been borrowed the previous May. Armed with the warrant, the coroner hired a carriage at the public’s expense to pick up ten Royal Arch Masons along the fifty-mile route. Their names and occupations were: Holloway Hayward – constable; Henry Howard – merchant; Asa Nowlen and James Ganson – innkeepers; John Butterfield – storekeeper; Samuel S. Butler – physician; and finally, Ella G. Smith, Harris Seymour, Moses Roberts, and Joseph Scofield – occupations unknown. All ten men were anxious and willing to share in avenging the insulted majesty of their Masonic law.

On the evening of 9/10, the party stopped at the tavern of James Ganson. They were six miles from Batavia. Before daybreak Monday morning on 9/11, five of the Masons were led by the constable to rent another coach at public expense. They proceeded from Ganson’s Tavern to Batavia. At daybreak they seized Morgan.

Near sunset on 9/11, the Masons arrived back in Canandaigua. The prisoner was immediately taken before the justice of the peace who had issued the warrant. The futility of the complaint was established and Morgan was set free, since the person from whom he had borrowed the shirt and tie had not shown up in court. In fact, this person was unaware of the actions against Morgan and had not sought a prosecution for the so-called offense. The idea originated in the mind of the coroner, who executed the plan by using the law to serve the vindictive purpose of Freemasonry.

Morgan’s release posed a problem for the conspirators. They needed him jailed to give ample time to complete their schemes against him. Out of jail, Morgan could elude them. So, no sooner had the hapless prisoner been released that he found the same coroner tapping him on the shoulder; this time armed with a bogus writ for a debt of two dollars to a tavern keeper of Canandaigua. Without the ability to pay, Morgan was returned to jail.

With Morgan secure, the Masons could concentrate on making arrangements to complete the remainder of their plot. On Tuesday evening of the next day (Sept. 12), the same coroner made his appearance at the jail. After some negotiation, Morgan was once more released. No sooner was he on the street dreaming of escape from these annoyances, when upon a given signal a yellow carriage and gray horses were seen by three witnesses rolling toward the jail in the bright moonlight with extraordinary speed. A few minutes passed. Morgan was seized, gagged, and bound, then thrown into the carriage, which was filled with Masons. Without turning, the carriage sped away. Morgan was now completely in the power of his enemies. With the veil of law removed, the arm of the flesh would now be employed.


Drawing of Morgan’s kidnapping

Life Magazine, Oct. 8, 1956, p. 122.




The carriage moved along night and day, over a hundred miles of well-settled country. Fresh horses and carriage drivers were supplied at six different places, with corresponding changes of men guarding Morgan to carry on the conspiracy. With one exception, every individual involved was a Mason bound by secret oaths “to conceal and never reveal the crime of a brother Mason.” The inadvertent exception was Corydon Fox, a last minute carriage driver on one of the routes to Lewiston. Fox was later initiated by unanimous vote of the Masons in Lewiston. Officiating in the ceremony to initiate Fox was a reverend clergyman from Rochester. This clergyman was the only Mason in the carriage with Morgan on the leg from Rochester to Lewiston. The driver of the carriage on that leg was Freemason Jeremiah Brown, a member of the New York state legislature.

It afterward appeared in evidence gathered by citizen investigators that the Buffalo lodge was also involved in the plot, as were the lodges at LeRoy, Bethany, Covington, Lockport, and Rochester. Each lodge contributed manpower, horses, or other preparation made along the route traveled by the party. Nowhere was there delay, hesitation, explanation, or discussion. Everything was carried out in silence, right up to the hour of the evening of Sept. 14, when the prisoner was taken from the carriage at Fort Niagara and lodged in the place originally designed for a powder magazine.

Fort Niagara was an unoccupied military post near the mouth of the Niagara River. During the War of 1812, jurisdiction of the fort had been turned over by the State to the Federal Government. At the end of the war the Federal Government had entrusted the Fort to a Mason. This Mason opened the gates to the conspirators.

On the evening the carriage arrived at Fort Niagara, there was an installation ceremony at the Masonic Lodge “Benevolent” in the neighboring town of Lewiston, at which the arch conspirator, Nicholas G. Chesebro (the coroner), was to be made Grand High Priest. The ceremony was actually a cover for planning the next move against Morgan. An invitation was given to Masons from distant points to come together at the ceremony and consult upon what to do next with this Masonic traitor.

At the “ceremony” several Masons hesitated at the idea of murder. Messengers were dispatched to Rochester for advice. At Rochester they did not proceed hastily, nor adopt their ultimate decision without long and painful reluctance. They earnestly deliberated upon their Masonic obligation. Their final conclusion was that Masonic oaths were binding. Morgan had certainly and essentially violated them. The Masons at Rochester made a unanimous decision that Morgan must die.

In understanding Masonic thought, as well as Masonic common sense — if their obligations are binding, Masons are righteous in their decision to execute Morgan. Hence, it was not a sin, but rather an honor for the eight Masons who volunteered to draw lots to carry out the penalty. Three of the lots were marked. The executioners were not to look at their lots until they arrived home. Those three with marked lots were to rendezvous at a predetermined location and carry out their Masonic duty.

The same clergyman who had accompanied Morgan from Rochester to Lewiston adjourned the meeting in prayer. He blasphemously invoked God’s blessing upon the premeditated violation of His most solemn law – “Thou shalt not kill.”

At midnight Sept. 19, the three executioners took their victim from the fort, rowed him by boat to the middle of the Niagara, fastened weights around his body and pushed him overboard. Twenty-two years later (1848), one of the three confessed on his deathbed the evil deed he had done. That deathbed confession is printed in detail in Finney’s book, pages 6-10.

That such a tragedy could be executed in a land that guarantees freedom of speech, security of life and liberty; that it could enlist citizens of good reputation from so many quarters; that it could secure the cooperation of legislators, judges, sheriffs, constables, coroners, clergymen, generals, physicians, and lawyers; that with impunity it could involve all these possibilities and more, turned the current of popular indignation from the guilty individuals toward the Masonic institution itself. Thus, the Anti-Masonic Movement turned into a political movement, which opposed all secret societies at the polls.

Freemasonry, instead of repenting of its diabolical murder of William Morgan, has since reinforced its devilish obligations by reminding Masons of what happened to Morgan when he broke his Masonic oath. From the Masonic Hand Book we read:


When a brother reveals any of our great secrets; whenever, for instance, he tells anything about Boaz, or Tubalcain, or Jachin, or that awful Mah-hah-bone , or even whenever a minister prays in the name of Christ in any of our assemblies, you must always hold yourself in readiness, if called upon, to cut his throat from ear to ear, pull out his tongue by the roots, and bury his body at the bottom of some lake or pond.

Of course, all this must be done in secret, as it was in the case of that man Morgan, for both law and civilization are opposed to such barbarous crimes, but then, you know you must live up to your obligation, and so long as you have sworn to do it, by being very strict and obedient in the matter, you’ll be free from sin.

The Plot to Kidnap and murder David C. Miller

While coroner Nicholas Chesebro led one group of sixty-nine Masons in deliberating the fate of Morgan, constable Jesse French led another group of sixty-seven Masons in an attempted destruction of Miller’s print shop, as well as the kidnapping and planned murder of Miller. Like Morgan, Miller was a Mason, albeit only an Entered Apprentice (1st degree). Yet, the attitude of Masons toward Miller was the same as that toward the high-degree Morgan. Miller must also be killed. Following are some quotes of Masons concerning the fate of Miller:

In Buffalo a politician said he was astonished Miller had been permitted to go so far in printing the book; that if he should come to Buffalo, there were twenty Masons willing to take his life in less than half an hour.

In Leroy a physician and former sheriff of the county declared at a public table, “The book should be suppressed, if it cost everyone of us our lives.”

In Batavia a Mason holding a respectable office declared, “Miller’s office will not stand there long.” Two Batavia justices of the peace (both Masons), left town on the day Miller’s print shop was to be leveled. As they boarded the stage, one justice turned to a citizen and said in the presence of the other justice, “I should not be surprised if when I return to Batavia I find Miller’s office leveled with the ground.” The citizen asked, “Do you two think such proceedings against Miller right?” The second justice answered with a smirk, “If you found a man abusing your marriage bed, would you have recourse to the law, or take a club and beat his brains out?”

The conspiracy against Miller actually began before the conspiracy against Morgan. In the early summer of 1826, rumors began to spread in the town of Batavia that Miller, a newspaper publisher in town, was planning to print Morgan’s book. The rumor excited no one but Masons, who avowed that the suppression of the work was determined at all costs.

Their first attack was an attempt to bankrupt Miller. A large number of subscribers to his paper suddenly withdrew their subscriptions, followed by numerous lawsuits against Miller to enforce the payment of small debts. The collection of these debts was done in a manner so as to embarrass Miller.

This failing, Freemasonry’s second attempt was to infiltrate his business and steal the manuscript to Morgan’s book. The Mason selected for the task was well known for his skill in deception. His name was Daniel Johns, a Knights Templar who lived about fifty miles from Batavia.

About the middle of August, Mr. Johns appeared in Batavia and lodged at one of the public houses. The next morning he presented himself before Miller, proposing that he assist the printer in the publication of the book, offering to advance any sum of money that might be needed in the venture. Johns was accepted and received into Miller’s confidence. Within days Johns absconded with the manuscript.

Miller, a shrewd man himself, had prepared for such an occasion. When contracting with Capt. Morgan, he had the captain write four copies of the manuscript. Two were to remain at the captain’s home – one visible and one hidden in a straw mattress. Two were to be held at Miller’s office, one visible and the other likewise hidden. Johns absconded only with the visible copy.

When Miller proceeded to print Morgan’s book, only then did the Masons learn that there was another manuscript. They supposed it to be hidden either at Morgan’s house, or at the printing office, and made plans to get it.

One Saturday evening in August, when Captain Morgan was away, three Masons (Johnson Goodwill, Daniel H. Dana, and Thomas McCully) were sent to the Captain’s home to find the manuscript. As Mrs. Morgan opened the door, Goodwill and Dana, without permission or ceremony, brushed her aside and proceeded upstairs to rummage among the trunks, boxes, drawers and every other place where it was probable the manuscript might be found. McCully remained downstairs to keep Mrs. Morgan from sounding an alarm. They left without the papers, unaware they were hidden in the straw mattress.

Upon hearing of the unwelcome intrusion on Mrs. Morgan, Miller anticipated the Masons might attack his office, so he set up a fortification. When the Masons learned of the printer’s defense, they planned to burn the building to the ground, capture Miller and kill him along with Morgan.

Miller’s office was in a wooden building. Occupying the ground floor was a family of ten. Upstairs was the print shop, with sleeping quarters for six employees. The reckless determination of the Lodge to burn out Miller gave no concern for these sixteen souls, nor for the villagers, for had the fire made much headway, a considerable portion of the town would have been consumed.

The arsonist was Freemason Richard Howard of Buffalo, a bookbinder by trade. Howard’s plan was to implicate John Mann, a blacksmith from Buffalo, by having him purchase the ingredients to torch Miller’s office. The blacksmith declined, so Howard purchased a keg of turpentine himself, which purchase later tied him to the crime.

Howard took a late stage to Batavia and arrived in the city on Sunday night, 9/10, the evening before Morgan’s 9/11 capture. Howard immediately went to Miller’s office, splashed turpentine on the siding directly under the stairs leading to the printing apartment above, then soaked cotton balls and straw with turpentine and scattered them around the foundation.

Anticipating trouble, Miller had earlier set a watch on the print shop. Almost immediately after the flame was lit it was discovered and quickly extinguished. Howard was chased by one of the lookouts and barely escaped. When he was later implicated in the crime, he never stood trial, for he mysteriously disappeared. It was believed he had been spirited out of the country by Freemasons and lived the rest of his life in a foreign land, leaving behind his wife and children.

Failing in their attempt to burn out Miller, the Masons planned to take the print shop by force, level the building, destroy the printing press, capture Miller and kill him. The Lodge at Batavia informed the Lodge at Buffalo that Tuesday, Sept. 12 would be the perfect day, since the two local justices of the peace were scheduled to stand as witnesses before a justice of the peace in a neighboring town. The only official left in Batavia was the sheriff, and he was one of them.

Meanwhile, on September 9/11 Captain William Morgan failed to return home to his 23-year-old wife and two small children. Early Tuesday morning, September 12, Mrs. Morgan sent for Sheriff William R. Thompson to inquire of her husband’s whereabouts. The sheriff informed her that Morgan had been arrested for stealing a shirt and tie, that he believed it was a pretense to spirit him out of town and kill him. Mrs. Morgan, knowledgeable of the manuscript hidden in the straw mattress, offered to give it up in return for the release of her husband. The sheriff accepted and took the manuscript to a Mason named George Ketchum, who in turn took the papers to the Masons in Rochester. Morgan, however, was not released.

At about high noon that same day, while the sheriff was visiting with Mrs. Morgan over her husband’s fate, and while the two justices of the peace were officiating in a neighboring village, a crowd of sixty-seven men suddenly appeared from all directions in the little town of Batavia. Nearly all were carrying clubs or sticks newly cut. So as not to be recognized, each dressed alike. Leading them was constable Jesse French.

French selected six of the ruffians and together went to Miller’s office, and in a rude and violent manner arrested him under the pretense of having a warrant. They carried Miller to a neighboring village where he was illegally confined in a Masonic Lodge room, assaulted and threatened with the fate of Morgan. By the assistance of friends and his own intrepidity, Miller escaped. Meanwhile, the citizens at Batavia, hearing of Miller’s capture, surrounded his office with weapons in hand. Gradually, the crowd of Masons disbursed.

Citizen Investigators

These outrages extended over six counties. In this alarming emergency, the agents of government were paralyzed. The public institutions and provisions for the preservation of tranquility and the repression of crime seemed worthless. Therefore, in a move unprecedented in our nation’s history, and in defiance of the most malignant, persevering, and ingenious counteraction by Freemasons, the citizens of New York took the matter into their own hands. At great expense of their own time and money, they suspended their private concerns and gave themselves up to all the labors of a complicated investigation. At every turn they met obstruction to justice. They could obtain no involuntary testimony; they received no assistance from public office; and in their travels their lives were endangered. Still they went on fearlessly and successfully – inquiring cautiously but persistently into all the circumstances of these most revolting crimes. Their sole purpose was to obtain enough evidence to be effective for the judicial exposure and punishment of the offenders. Yet, all the while their motives were venomously slandered and their conduct belied in the Masonic-controlled press. Such tenacity on the part of these citizens is indicative of the safety, and prophetic of the perpetuity of our free institutions.

In the end the citizen investigators uncovered enough evidence to bring charges against individual Masons and the Masonic Institution as a whole. However, the sheriffs in all the counties in which these deeds of violence against Morgan had been committed, whose duty it was under the laws of New York to select and summon the grand juries, were all Freemasons. Several had themselves been party to the crime. Hence, they did not hesitate to make use of their power as officers of justice to screen the criminals from conviction. The jurors were most of them Masons, with some of them participants in the crimes into which it became their civil duty to inquire.

Five years were consumed in attempting to obtain a legal conviction of the various offenders, but to no avail. Some of the suspected persons indeed stood trial. But it was a mockery of justice, for the secret obligation prevailed in the jury box. Consequently, they were one and all rescued in the moment of their utmost need. Others vanished from the scene and eluded pursuit even to the farthest limits of the United States. The Masonic coroner, the one most guilty of perpetuating these offenses, was tracked to a Lodge in New York City. From there the citizen investigators discovered that Masons in that city secreted him aboard a vessel below the harbor and sent him to a foreign land, leaving his wife and children behind.

Important witnesses were carried off at the moment their evidence was indispensable, and placed beyond the jurisdiction of the State. Those who were called to testify, and actually sat on the stand, stood doggedly mute. Others placed themselves entirely under the guidance of legal advisers employed to protect them from incriminating themselves. All the while, distant Lodges responded favorably to the call for aid in the defense of their accused brethren by forwarding sums of money for their legal liabilities.

The sixty-nine Masons who actually participated in the abduction and murder of Captain William Morgan gradually dropped out of sight. So well hidden were they that it was the belief of all who were knowledgeable of these events that they lived and died outside of the United States, secure from every danger of legal punishment. Twenty-two years after the fact, one of the three who actually murdered Morgan made a deathbed confession, which is printed in detail in Finney’s book on pp. 6-10.

Persons engaged in these outrages were either Royal Arch Masons at the time of their crimes, or made so shortly after. As such, they were obligated by oath to conceal and never reveal the crimes of brother Masons, treason and murder not excepted. Should they disobey, they knew the consequences. Hence, Masons called as witnesses perjured themselves. Others were excused from testifying by alleging they would incriminate themselves. And yet, all those who were guilty of participating in the offenses were praised by the Fraternity as heroes of fidelity to their duty, and victims to the prejudices of their fellow citizens. To their dying day, they were still retained as worthy and cherished members of their beloved Fraternity.

One faithful and able state officer, whose lawful duty was to investigate these offences, officially reported on the proceedings in which he had been in charge:


Difficulties that never occurred in any other prosecution have been met at every step. Witnesses have been secreted: they have been sent off into Canada, and into different states of the Union. They have been apprised of process being issued to compel their attendance, and have been thereby enabled to evade its service. In one instance, after a party implicated had been arrested and brought into this state, he was decoyed from the custody of the individual having him in charge, and finally escaped. These occurrences have been so numerous and various as to forbid the belief that they are the result of individual effort alone; and they have evinced the concert of so many agents as to indicate an extensive combination to screen from punishment those charged with a participation in the offences upon William Morgan.


The irony of all ironies is that shortly following the ransacking of Mrs. Morgan’s house by three Masons, and the murder of her husband by three other Masons, benevolent Freemasonry came to her financial aid. James Ganson, who was directly involved with the abduction of her husband, visited Mrs. Morgan, assuring her that the Lodge was making arrangements for her support, that she would be well-provided for, that her children would be sent to school as soon as they were old enough.

After Freemasonry determined how Mrs. Morgan and her children were to be cared for, they appointed Thomas McCully to deliver the message. McCully, you recall, was one of the three Masons who had earlier bullied their way into her house, ransacking it in their attempt to find the manuscript to her husband’s book. Now benevolent McCully informs Mrs. Morgan, “Freemasonry has raised support for your family, and has provided board for you and your children at a public tavern in the village.” The tavern was the same where her husband had been detained after his arrest.

Six months after the murder of her husband, Henry Brown of Batavia, who was Grand Commander of the Knights Templar at LeRoy, New York, called on Mrs. Morgan and handed her a bag containing silver dollars that had been collected from the various Lodges throughout the state.

Her distress of mind and unprotected situation did not sway her to bow to their hypocritical benevolence. Without hesitation she said, “I shall accept no assistance from the Masons.” Several years later Mrs. Morgan was provided for when she became the first wife of former Freemason Joseph Smith — founder of Mormonism.

During “The Morgan Affair,” the ends of justice were defeated by the oath of Freemasonry, which came in conflict with the duty to society and to God, and succeeded in setting it aside. Gradually, the opposition to Masonry became more and more political and the Anti-Masonic Party was formed.




http://groups.msn.com/psycologicalwarfare

http://www.lufa.ca/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=999

http://www.scarletandthebeast.com/william%20morgan.htm


Pitchka, see ] to get a general idea. -- ] 04:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that ] carries over into the external links. Adding a couple of links related to Freemasonry that may or may not be in favor of Freemasonry does not go against the NPOV policy from what I can make out. The article has not been changed. Take a look at the ] article there are many links that would seem to break the same NPOV policy if so. ] 20:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

If there is a problem w external links, sort them into "pro" and "con" catagories. Try to keep things balanced, giving favor to well respected sources. ] ] 01:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with anti-Masonic links that are founded in fact. On the other hand, links that are built around innuendo, hearsay, and frauds for which the author actually took responsibility have no place in an encyclopedia. -- ] 21:00, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:As Sam said, we need to keep things balanced. While I don't think that means we need to have tons of articles against Freemasonry, having one article against freemasonry versus thirteen articles biased toward it seems far out of balance. ] 09:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Furthermore, a few of the articles should be responses other than Christian critiques of Free-masonry. There are economic/political criticisms of Free-masonry as well. ] 19:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ] article is a perfect place for these links. I'm putting them there. Let that page collect all the Masons-are-cryptofascits-that-bow-before-before-lucifer links we Wikipedians can find. &mdash; ] 15:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Just a note that Misplaced Pages ]. --] 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:No, it isn't the perfect place, Clarknova; it's being merged with this article. ] 19:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Entry level mason ==

Sorry if I am wasting your time with this question, but I am a little confused. The other day I was walking along and seen one of my brothers, I introduced myself and told him I was new to the brotherhood and town. I asked him where I could find a home and he asked me, if I was international or prince hall. I told him prince hall and he sort of made a face. My question is what is the difference between prince hall and international?
:No honest question is a waste of time, Brother. Prince Hall and 'International' (or 'Blue Lodge') Masonry is a reflection of a sad schism in American (only) Masonry.

:Very simply in the Bad Old Days, Blue Lodges would not (generally) admit Black men as Brothers. As a result, Blacks formed 'Prince Hall' Lodges. (All this is outlined in the article.) There is a Prince Hall Grand Lodge in each American state, and a (formerly) White-only Blue Lodge. The two groups did not recognize each other, and the Brothers could not visit the other Lodges.

:Only now are we getting our stuff together. Many states are recognizing each other. This means there is only traditional differences between a PH or BL Mason in many states. We are all Brothers.

:So the difference is going away, but the two groups will almost certainly never merge. We are all proud of our Masonic heritage and darn few Masters want to combine Lodges and loose their gavels.
:I hope this helps.
] 14:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)]]

As an ]n Freemason, I was surprised to visit ], ] in the mid-1990s and find a distinctly puzzled reaction when I tried to make inquiries at a lodge in town. I was directed by the very nice Negro man who managed the building to a 'white' lodge in town. Later, in ], I met another Negro gentleman who welcomed me warmly when I commented on his obviously Masonic belt buckle, and we had a marvelous conversation. It was only after I returned from the holiday that I found out about Prince Hall lodges, and was frankly amazed at the antipathy I thought would not be part of Freemasonry. ] 17:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
:Yes, very un-Masonic. A sad chapter in our (American) history. Still, it is wrong to characterize our relationship as one of antipathy. Certainly that was true at one point, but mostly it was amtter of each ignoring the other. ] 02:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)]]

Brethren, here in the U.S. the primary forms of Masonry are Prince Hall and what is rather awkwardly called "mainstream" today (because in the old days, Prince Hall Masonry was so thoroughly ignored by other U.S. Lodges that they didn't see any need to differentiate themselves, they were just "Masons"). I am not as well-versed in the craft as many of you undoubtedly are, but as far as I am aware, we do ''not'' use the term "International" to identify "mainstream" Lodges.

In some parts of North America, yet another separate branch of Freemasonry has been established under variations of the name "International F&AM, Inc.". These Grand Lodges happen to be primarily African-American in membership as well, but while Prince Hall Masonry has a long, well-documented and regular history, the "Internationals" are new and do not have any claims to regularity, as far as I know. (See for information on how Prince Hall Masonic scholars are documenting irregular practices which target African Americans.) If our original poster here is African-American, and perhaps lives in an area where "Internationals" are active, it would not surprise me if he were being asked about Prince Hall vs. ''that'' organization rather than Prince Hall vs. "mainstream". It seems to me anyone in the U.S. who might be inclined to "make a face" at Prince Hall Masonry wouldn't need to ask a brother which one he belongs to if they are meeting in person! (None of this discounts in any way the excellent points about allowing the shame of segregation and bigotry to creep into the body of Freemasonry in this country; things are improving, but we have a long way to go.) &mdash;] 03:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Removed from the "Ritual and Symbols" section==
:''] is also a well known Freemason, whose dogma of Free Software comes from principles put forth in the 16th century Free Press movement in France.''

I don't know if this should be included at all, and if it should, it certainly shouldn't be in the Ritual and Symbols section. Should there be a list of notable freemasons this information should go in? ]] 06:32, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

He isn't a Mason. He's an avowed atheist . He can't be a Mason in any of the US juristictions. See ].
]

== Categorization ==

After some exhaustive work I have gone through and got Freemasonry as well as the related Masonry Organizations categorized to make them flow much better and show relation to one another. Hope all enjoy the work -- I think it was all spurred when I saw Freemasonry on the same list as the Ku Klux Klan, that did it for me.

] 06:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Senior DeMolay)

== Simpsons ==

Who thinks the Simpsons reference devalues this article? --] 23:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Not I. It's relevant to the subject, presented factually and fairly, and it's tucked safely away in the "cultural references" section where it won't contaminate the rest of the article with its pop culturalness. Perhaps it will look less out-of-place if people added more references, I'm sure there must be plenty out there. ] 00:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::Neither do I. Too bad the Stonecutter's Song isn't public domain yet... -- ] 03:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

== Swedish Rite ==

This is a very interesting page, allthought sadly lackin on the branch of freemasonery I'm a part of... the Swedish Rite. I will (probaly) see if I can't get time to get the article on it started during this week, but it would be nice if someone could do something about it on this page as well... ] 10:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've started the page on ]... any help on that will be, uhm, helpfull ;-) ] 07:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Reorg ==

I moved "Landmarks" to this page from ] where its inclusion just didn't make much sense; it seems like an obvious section to have here. There is overlapping content under Ritual and Symbols and in other sections that might work well to remove from those locations and consolidate into the new section.

I also rearranged the sections into (what seems to me to be) a more logical order. I reworked sentences that obviously needed to be adjusted to address the new order, but I'm sure I have missed many.

Although I'm not crazy about having Org Structure be the first major heading, the thing is, the description of Grand Lodges and jurisdictions is necessary to understand most of the rest of the article, particularly Membership and Landmarks, as well as understanding the recognition issues surrounding atheists and agnostics. Things make a lot more sense if it comes first. (History ''could'' go first, followed by Criticism, followed by Org Structure etc., but I thought it'd be nice to focus on what Masonry ''is'' rather than what it ''was''.) If we wanted to condense the Org Structure section further and merge its content into ], that'd be fine too; that article needs a bit of work. The main facts this article needs are that Grand Lodges mutually decide issues of recognition and that no supreme entity exists to regularize all practice or resolve disagreements.

I made the Women and Prince Hall sections into sub-sections under Membership, which seemed like a reasonable place for them.

I see we're getting length warnings on this article, so ''if'' we are looking to condense more, we could move the bulk of the History section over to ], an article in need of help one way or another (the "summary" here is currently much better than the "main article" over there).

Hope these changes meet with approval. &mdash;] 03:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

==Lack of references==
Misplaced Pages articles should have references and ] properly. This article has only external links, and none being listed as being used as references. If they were used as references, they should be cited properly. Print references would be ideal, as long as they are used to contribute something to the article. While all articles should have references, that is now one of the ] for featured articles. Please do what you can to get a hold of some print references and cite this article properly. - ] 23:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

==Charitable Activities?==
I've never been involved with Freemasonry myself, but I thought it involved elements of public service, charitable donations, and other good works. Yet there's no mention of anything like that in this article (in constrast to, say the entries for the ] and the ]). This page makes it seem you guys have no goals beyond obscurantism and infighting ,which I'm almost sure would be a very unfair conclusion.

And, while I'm complaining, can someone please define 'degree', and add a link on ]?

] 01:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Freemasons are enjoined to be charitable, but the organisation itself is absolutely not a service club. The Shriners have an element of donating money, but the charity which a Freemason is meant to exhibit is far more wide-reaching and broad in meaning than simply giving money, or even service (for example, see I Corinthians 13 in the Christian Bible (not meant as an advertisement for Christianity, but I feel this passage speaks well to the comment)).

Freemasonry has no "goals" beyond the improvement of its members and the world. Period.

Alex Kennedy


Dear Alex Kennedy,
Your retoric has greatly inspired me, and you seem to be a very wise individual, but you lack a talk page, and sadly this is the only way i could think of of contacting you personaly. I would greatly like to engage in intelligent conversation with you, please dont take this as anything sinister. I find your way with words moving, and with a lack of well....intresting characters around me, i often run into people online that i wish to extend the hand of friendship, such is the case in this matter.] 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

== Secrets ==

So I suppose that the secrets of the Freemasons aren't going to be published here. Shame. I wanna know what these secrets are without having to waste time "enrolling" in all the ritual stuff. I don't imagine the secrets are that exciting though--] 11:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:If you are interested and actually willing to put forth your own effort, the secret signs and passwords are available for checkout at most libraries. No, they're not very exciting. (However, if you think the ritualistic work is a waste of time, then it's already impossible for you ever to learn the one and only true secret of Masonry: how good it feels to participate with others in such a worthwhile community activity.)

:Masons are oath-bound not to reveal the secret work, but I don't see any reason why wikipedia, having taken no such oath, should be prevented from publishing information that's already widely available to the public. I realize this makes some Masons on wikipedia uncomfortable, but non-Masons simply do not have any moral obligation to keep secret the stuff they've read in library books. The real problem is, nothing presented as supposedly being "secret work" can ever be substantiated. Any random vandal can write up a paragraph about anything from handshakes to bestiality to human sacrifices, claim it's a "Masonic secret", even claim it's been "published" somewhere (e.g., Chick tracts), and then claim "Masonic secrecy/cover-up" when Masons say they don't do that. That seems like a losing deal for wikipedia... better fought out on the partisan websites where it belongs. &mdash;] 22:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::Speaking as a norwegian mason myself, I would say that the original poster is driven be a "childlike curiosity" (nothing wrong with that as such). However... I have pawed thru a lot of the avilable littereature on masonic secrets, and my guestimate is that 75% or more of them are, simply speaking, wrong. Sorting whoever gotten it right from whoever gotten it wrong has got to be hard for a non-mason, and made worse by the simple fact that no mason will ever tell him what the real secrets are.
::There are however good reasons why the secret rituals are secret - and thats tied into the biggest non-secret about the masons that most non-masons are not aware of: what the purpose of masonry is: Masons are trying to educate themself into becoming better humans by learning about themself and others. If someone told an aspiring masons about the "secret ritual" beforehand, the experience will diminish or disapper alltogether. And that is why the secrets are secrets, and why I will edit out any secrets I see in this article (as I'm sure any other mason will).
::We do slaughter and eat animals though... allthought not as part of the ritual, but because (at least in my lodge) we have dinner afterwards ;-)
::] 04:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::Bear in mind that no matter how laudible your goals, deliberately removing information that you know to be both valid and relevent to an article is a violation of ''Misplaced Pages''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s purpose and the guidelines its contributors are supposed to operate under. If verifiable Masonic secrets wind up being added I think you'd have a hard time supporting their outright removal solely on the basis of Freemasonry's own guidelines. Perhaps spoiler warnings and a separate "Masonic beliefs and practices" article might be in order (akin to how the Scientology stuff is handled, for example)? Quite a while back someone added a description of a Masonic handshake to the article and I made this suggestion back then, but the handshake info got removed for Misplaced Pages-based reasons so at the time it turned out to be moot at the time. ] 08:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

::::Off course, since no mason will verify that something that comes here is a "genuine secret", we can always claim to to be false... That, and I don't know how relevant "genuine sectrets" are in this article - it is an article about freemasonery, but not necesarely about masonic secrets and rituals in detail.
::::Your idea of a seperate article is a sound one however, and one I support. At least that gives people an option NOT to read about stuff they ought to know thay shouldn't know - as knowledge will dimish the experience.
::::] 13:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, verifiability of stuff like this is always a problem. What I imagine would likely happen is that we'd get a whole bunch of "Author A says X in book N, and Author B says Y in book M. Both of them say P, but they differ on Q." Non-Masons may have no way to verify whether any of that is "really" true without becoming Masons ourselves (which kind of defeats the concept of independant verification :), but we ''can'' at least verify that certain statements are made in certain books and try to determine the credibility of the sources. If nothing else, articles might get written someday about the books themselves that summarize some of the stuff within.
:::::Not that I've read any or am volunteering to do any of this myself, of course. It sounds like it'd take a lot of work and I'm way too lazy. :) You're also quite right about "genuine secrets" not being relevant to this particular article, I recall the handshake one was put in as something along the lines of "Masons have many secrets, such as this one: ." Not only was there no cite of any sort, but it didn't fit into the narrative flow anywhere. ] 00:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:::::: Trying to remove Masonic "Secrets" from the internet is in general a losing battle anyway. Normally decent people who would never presume to ask you about your sex life or gossip about your family are nonetheless quite willing to demand that we reveal what we do in the privacy of Lodge. Such is the way of things -- for some odd reason, the fact that we're an "organisation" (possibly the least organised one in the world, mind you, since each Lodge is, to some degree, an independant entity) suddenly means that we no longer have the right to privacy and free assembly. Not that I'm bitter -- well, I am, but I shouldn't be.

:::::: Here's the problem: there are many, many non-Masons out there who have no idea what we're doing in Lodge. They think we're up to something sinister. We know we're not, but no matter how many times we tell them that, there will be some who don't believe us. We have an obligation to be charitable and not allow hatred or distaste for these people into our hearts (and it's no easier for me than for anyone else), just because they are suspicious of us or want to profane our rituals by treating them like Bazooka Joe comics, freely consumable provided you buy the bubble-gum (as you can tell, I am insufficiently charitable). They have no similar obligation, nor any way to know how much it hurts us that they wish to diminish what we do, or strip Freemasonry of her mystery so that she may stand naked for their idle curiosity and amusement.

:::::: No amount of explanation or even rhetoric will change this. I was speaking yesterday to one of my most intelligent and best friends, who is no doubt a genius (despite being an atheist, ha ha). I told him that no amount of knowing our rituals would reveal our "secrets" to him, because the secrets themselves are ineffable, and can only be '''experienced''', never simply ''read''. Of course, he could not believe this. If even this basic understanding is impossible, how can we convince non-Masons that it is foolishness to pursue our "secrets" in the ways mentioned above. It cannot be done. Sigh, shed a tear if it helps, and accept that attacks on our privacy will never cease, and have faith in the fact that the true secrets can never be penetrated by the merely curious. -Alex Kennedy


:::::::The bottom line is, I think, that the attempts to conceal information once it has reached the public domain, <i>that</i> is going to be taken as a bit sinister. Partially because, in a way, it <i>is</i>. I'm mainly talking to WegianWarrior at this point; sorry, but as soon as you even say that you're going to delete valid information (though I suppose you haven't, you've nonetheless directly said that you, and masons thinking likewise, would do so), there are going to be many people taking issue with you. In future, if you <i>do</i> see anything you feel obligated to delete, I would request, as someone who believes purely in whatever the truth may be, to use that as a lazy way to start that Secrets page; move it instead of deleting it.
:::::::As a sidenote, if the rituals are mundane, <i>and yet</i> diminished into complete uselessness if people know of them beforehand . . . I really don't see that. Go ahead and claim that it's the experience that matters, not the dry facts; I don't believe that, but I can see where you're coming from (I suppose at this point I'm addressing WikiMasons in general here), <i>however</i>, if the experience matters so much that a genius wouldn't be able to gleam it from knowing the rituals, if they are that powerful (which is the claim being made here) . . . then, by the Supreme Being, simply knowing the hollow shell of them beforehand shouldn't be such a horrible sticking point!
:::::::Alright, that's enough for me, I can't argue here any longer; in a fit of irony, the Bad Religion song "The Answer" just came up on shuffle, and I truly can't take anything here seriously when that's the music setting my mood :) - ]

The Masons that I know are to a (no pun intended) degree secretive.
I am in Possession of a number of papers and ritual jewels along with a copy of 1 of there cipher booklets for the changing of the WM of a lodge it is in code but from what I have been told and what I have read myself these people believe themselves to be “working” on a inner temple. They seem to want to keep others “in the dark” for just that reason to be able to share the so called secrets between themselves. I ,in my gut, believe them to be of a less than honest nature from my dealings with them in the outside world their odd loyalties between themselves strikes me as a bit racist for lack of a better word – why should I not get the same treatment from a mason if I was not a mason just because I haven’t be hoodwinked is no reason to treat me as less of a person. If you choose to be a good person is your choice and if you happen to be a mason you may have a tendency to think you can hide behind the already secretive ways of the brotherhood … I think in the end it is up to the person in general to decide if the teachings of masons are in tune with their beliefs,not the other way around ] 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

:While I have no idea - nor interest in knowing - how you came into possesion of the papers and 'jewels', you are mistaken if you think these items alone represent the ''secrets'' that masons keep among themself. Yes, in some rites masons do talk about working on an 'inner temple'. This is hardly any secret at all, nor is it secret (at least in the swedish rite) what it's meant by this - we simply strive to become better people, both towards our brethren and towards people outside of our fraternity. It does saddens me considerably that the masons you have been in touch with seems to misunderstand this simple (but hard to attain) goal - but we are just human and as such is prone to failures. However, it could it be that your feelings towards masons (and to be honest, it seems to me that you don't like us *smiles*) shone thru, and they treated you with the same, uhm, how to put it in english, respect that you showed them? I'm agreeing with your last point thought... a man chooses of his own free will if he agrees with the masonic ideals or not. And if he don't, well, he probaly shoudn't join a lodge.
:On a parting note, you might want to sign your comments on the Misplaced Pages; simply put <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your comment. ] 20:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well Sir , Just how is a man to know if he agrees with the masonic ideals if the whole thing is coverved in a veil of seceracy , could it be in some cases that the ideals you profess indeed hide ... something other than what you tell "The Outsiders" untill you get them fully into the lodge and show them the benifits of have a "Us Only Club"? ] 14:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

:Because, at least to my experience, things like the ideals and goals of freemasonery isn't covered in - to use your word - a veil of secrecy. What is secret howeever is the rituals used to convey the teachings. Compare it, if you like, to go to watch a movie. Would it not ruin the experience if someone, before the movie started, told you not just the general outline of the plot, but also all the details and dialoge? Some things are secret because otherwise the experience of going thru the degrees are lost. ] 03:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If your movie had unnecessary violence ,sex ,abuse ,foul words or unmoral themes my "brother" would let me know that theses things would be present in this movie I was going to see to prep me for what I would encounter ( see the difference between a R movie and a NC-17 movie ) If each degree is so special in its own uniqueness why do masons have 1 day classes where you can go from EA to FC to MM in a 8 hour period since , in your statement, the experience is the thing that counts not the teachings? Furthermore, the experience of having a hood over my head, a noose around my neck and knife at my chest are things I can do without along with swearing to cut out my tongue for betraying your “secrets” http://www.ephesians5-11.org/masonicritual/ ] 15:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) The Web.

:AS for the 1 day classes... Personaly, and I know I got a lot of fellow masons with me on this, I don't think they are a good idea at all. One simply don't have the time to absorb and reflect upon things if they are rushed thru in one day. Please do not assume that because some lodges do such a thing it is common or seen as a wise move among masons in general - as mentioned in the article : <nowiki><qoute>Many Grand Lodges in the U.S. have tried a variety of often-controversial measures to address declining membership, including "one-day" ceremonies of the three degrees for large groups of candidates</qoute></nowiki>. On a personal note, I feel the whole thing with one day classes and the like will backfire, as it means they try to attract people who probaly will see the masons as something other than what it is meant to be.

== Diversity ==

Are U.S. Freemasons typically tolerant of homosexuality?

:There's no one answer to that question. It's always going to depend on the Lodge and its members. Perhaps region and demographic would serve as a useful guide, but since ballots for membership must be unanimous and are always secret, there's no way to know which Lodges would admit openly gay petitioners and which wouldn't; and of those Lodges that might reject such a candidate, there's no way to know why or even by what margin. That also doesn't say anything about whether an openly gay member would, in turn, be treated respectfully by members of his own or other Lodges. (Exactly the same can be said for ethnic and religious minorities, except that global Freemasonry has a history and tradition of acceptance which is lacking for homosexuality; there would, at least, be a Masonic foundation to condemn systematic rejection of candidates based on ethnicity or religion, which isn't nearly as clear for sexual orientation.) I don't know that there's anything intelligent we could add to this article on this subject, though. &mdash;] 01:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== Women and non-theists in US Freemasonry ==

I have a female friend who is very, very interested in Freemasonry. She fulfills every qualification, including belief in a Supreme Being, except for the fact that she's female. I, on the other hand, am quite the solid agnostic - I don't believe it's possible to know the nature of the divine, supernatural, etc., given the limited nature of our perception. But again, the ideas of freemasonry appeal to me greatly. I've read that the Supreme Being clause can be widely interpreted; I could be said to believe in a sort of Supreme Being, just not a conscious entity (more like Supreme Being = Natural Law).

What my question comes down to is this: Is there a place for my friend and I in American freemasonry, or will we have to learn French and head to the Continent? Are there any English-speaking descendants of the Grand Orient de France in the US? Are we just plain out of luck and doomed to being marginalized?

--] 23:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Your friend can join American co-Masonry. The web page with the information about joining is . I have little doubt that she will find the Order worthwhile. I'm very pleased to see that there are women who want to join Masonry not simply because they don't like the idea of a "men-only" order, but also because they actually have a calling.

:American co-Masonry is not considered "regular," but it is very closely related to "regular" Masonry.

:On the other hand, if an individual does not believe in a Supreme being, then not only will they be unable to join "regular" Masonry, but I'm not sure that they should. There's little point in joining the order if you do not believe, in some sense, in a Supreme Being. Wanting to join Freemasonry without believing in a Supreme Being is like wanting to join a creative writing class when you hate writing -- you may learn a few things, but what's the point? You're not going to get much that's personally useful to you, and the deeper meaning of the rituals will just be gibberish or nonsense to you.

:I have nothing against atheists or agnostics. Many of them are very nice people, with a profound sense of "ethics." Many, if not most, of them have tremendous integrity and honour. But why join an organisation which rests its foundation on the Parenthood of God and the Brotherhood of Humanity? -Alex Kennedy

::Thanks much for your reply. My friend is going to find that incredibly helpful! As for me - well, the thing is that Masonry is the closest organization of sorts which matches the majority of my beliefs about the world, while remaining non-dogmatic and non-religious. I try to focus on self-improvement and understanding of my place in the universe, try to always keep everything in perspective, practice a great deal of toleration and value human life, rights, and general dignity. I suppose I feel that it doesn't necessarily have to be founded on the belief in a Supreme Being, since I find myself seeing things in a very similar way. And I'll admit that regular Masonry may not be for me - I've been reading more about it and particularly the California branch seems to put far too much emphasis on the Holy Bible for my comfort. But again, the basic tenets of Masonry (aside from the Supreme Being bit) strongly appeal to me, as well as the fact that it is so decentralized worldwide. I'm much more curious about the Grand Orient de France and Le Droit Humain because of the fact they apparently admit atheists and agnostics. Le Droit Humain's websites that I've found thus far are lacking in revealing whether or not they have locations where I live and plan to live (San Diego and Washington, DC, respectively). So that's somewhat discouraging. So I suppose you could say I'm not interested in regular Masonry so much as I am in the GOdF/LDH version? --] 05:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:::Certainly. And I wish more power to you -- but it's important to understand that the requirement for belief in Supreme Being is not something that's just "tacked on" to Freemasonry... it is the root and the marrow of Freemasonry. If you take out the belief in the Supreme Being, then Freemasonry collapses. That's why I'm not sure that the GOdF should call itself "Freemasonry." It's certainly an initiatic and esoteric fraternity, but its connection to Freemasonry is only superficial. This is not to denigrate the organisation -- it's simply not traditional Freemasonry.

:::Additionally, I should mention that I believe that the DH has publicly repudiated the idea that they allow atheists to join -- I may be incorrect about this, but I'm fairly sure that I saw it somewhere (not very good evidence, I admit). -Alex Kennedy

== Cult of the Supreme Being ==

An anon with no other edits has just added information to the article on ] drawing a direct line between that religion and Freemasonry. I'm wary of the information for a number of reasons but cannot say personally whether it is true or false or some mixture.

:I removed the offending material. It read like a conspiracy theory. --] 02:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::Perhaps it might be mentioned that some theories exist as to a connection between these two groups, without including any potentially misleading specifications? (another anonymous)

== Contemporary Challenges ==

I have edited the following paragraph on the presumption that what remains is fact. Is it? I have no idea. Also, I do not understand the last sentence of the paragraph. Does it mean anything? Are young men less likely to get advancement in the movement because older men are blocking the way? Or are few professions offering preferential job opportunities to Freemasons so that it is not so worth while becoming a member? I am also not clear why any lack of opportunity allows "more focus". Is the statement about Freenmasonry in South America and (continrental) Europe factually correct?] 14:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:The great irony about modern Freemasonry as it is in the United States, the UK and other Anglo jurisdictions is that despite the protests of conspiracy theorists who make the accusation that it is an occult society which rules the world, it is losing members faster than it can get new petitioners. In the United States, the average age of members is around 45. This is probably due to the lack of opportunities within the order which would attract more young men, allowing for more focus on the philosophical and esoteric side of Freemasonry as is available in jurisdictions in South America and Europe, where the number of masons is generally on the rise.

It's important material, but my goodness, this section was extremely speculative and POV. I have rewritten much of it. The question of ''why'' U.S./U.K. membership might be declining is vast and there aren't any answers that aren't wild guesses or just personal opinions/likes/dislikes. (''Some'' Brethren particularly enjoy the philosophy and esoterica; others prefer the philanthropic work; others just want fellowship and fun. There's never been agreement on which one of those are the "right" way to be a Mason.) The issue of one-day conferrals just struck me as a personal screed. I don't like them either, but I don't think that discussion belongs on wikipedia, particularly not all the high-minded statements about how this is the worst break from tradition in Masonic history, etc. Likewise, the issues of advertising and recruitment were presented POV. I have whittled this down to what I think is a reasonable summary of the changes, the fact that they are breaks from tradition, and the basic arguments for and against. The intro paragraph indicts U.K. as well, but the follow-on paragraphs focus solely on the U.S., which is all I know. If similar debates are occurring in the U.K. then perhaps clarification would help; if not, then U.K. should be left out of the opening paragraph rather than lumped in. &mdash;] 20:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can I just suggest that the decline in Membership is due not to fewer initiations than previously, but that the period shortly after WW2 saw greater initiations than normal. There are many accounts of Masons in POW camps helping eachother and others, and in general, the military is a giant fraternity, and after the war more than likely many ex-soldiers found themselves following comrades into the Fraternity.

This makes sense, the membership has been declining only in the last decade or two, and many WW2 veterans are dying now. Freemasonry became over-extended by a surge of membership, and is now finding itself unable to upkeep all its lodges simply because that boost of membership is over, and Masonry must return to a more natural level of membership. -- Brandon Jacobs, 12:15am, 9th Mar 2005

:The mere fact that anyone serving in any Goverment Post,Armed Srevice, would violate one oath (country) to act on another oath (mason) to help "A Brother" makes me wary of that person in general. ] 21:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

::I'd say that's a very circumstantial gripe, 68.44.153.204. All Freemasons swear to obey the laws of the country they are in. Allegations of cronyism are loose at best, considering betterment as a person is the aim, betterment of career or income is definately frowned upon and something I have never seen occur. ] 03:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As you will read they ,Armned Services, take a oath to uphold, protect, ect. If a brother asks them to break one oath to fulfill a masnoic oath - the real test occurs - what oath will they uphold ?
... and i have seen it occur from traffic stops to prison camps
The brothers ALWAYS stick together no matter what.
] 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

==Scottish Rite and York Rite==

As a non-mason, I've often wondered what the differences were between the Scottish and York rites. I think this article could be further improved by a discussion of this. ]

: There are actually quite extensive articles on the Ancient and Accepted ] and the concordant bodies which are often (inaccurately) referred to as the ]. I will check the article and add links to these if necessary. --]

::Readers like me would appreciate it if you would explain what the differences are between the rites. The article on Scottish rite gives the history of the order and lists the names of the degrees, but it doesn't explain what the Scottish Rite has to does that the York Rite lacks.

::: I can comprehend your desire for further information, but doing justice to the differences between the Scottish Rite and the "York Rite" (meaning the Royal Arch, Cryptic Rite, and Preceptory) would require delving very very deeply into esoteric material.

::: I will state my '''completely subjective''' opinion that the "York Rite" bodies are more specifically related to spiritual, sacerdotal, and prophetic matters, while the Scottish Rite concerns itself to a greater degree with philosophical and moral issues. I am qualified so to say in that I am both a Royal Arch Mason and a Master of the Royal Secret. --]

::The simplest explanation IMO is that the Scottish Rite typically meets in a large group 2 or 3 times a year, in a large body, while the York Rite groups typically meet monthly in small local bodies. I also agree with brother Kennedy that there is some difference in the emphasis of the rituals.--] 17:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:There is a problem in trying to describe all larger permutations of Freemasonry, as Freemasonry is complex and consists of many appendant organizations (no, not secret clubs, appendent organizations), such as Memphis-Mizraim (a united rite, once two seperate mystical versions of Freemasonry). Notably, many of these organizations are vanishing due to lack of members, so one must not assume that information is being surpressed, although this might be a swift cognitive association for some. The article appears to me unbiased and regular to the norm of Misplaced Pages articles. A fine, square job, lads! --again, an anonymous

== Freemasonry & World Conspiracy ==

Being an "outsider" to freemasonry, I am curious to know how, when and why freemasonry has become associated with world conspiracies. Can anyone provide insight into this subject?

: This concept would probably take as much time to outline as the history of exoteric Freemasonry itself. The works of people like ] and ] obviously have had some influence, but at a recent Masonic Spring Workshop I was shown a poster from before the public emergence of the "Moderns" (I believe it was 16th-century) which implied that "Freed-Masons" were up to something sinister. I don't know of any work offhand that traces the origins of anti-Masonic hate, maybe some of my brethren here do? I suspect, however, that you'd find the origins of this kind of thinking as difficult to trace as those of anti-Semitism. ]

: Freemasonry is, in general, a family of charitable organizations that not only require dues but also regularly petition members for donations to their chosen causes. The dues and initiation fees are prohibitive to those with an income below that of the lower middle class and the donations and activites require what some would consider serious financial commitment. Therefore Masons tend to be persons (and often community leaders) of means. The disproportionate number of Masons in high social positions can give the impression that Masons are actually in charge of the organs of government and commerce. One has but to look at the roster of U.S. presidents who have been Masons to have their suspicions circumstantially confirmed.
: Comraderie between Masons often leads to favorable buisness associations as well. This can only deepen extant class issues. &mdash; ] 01:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:: Actually, the dues and initiation fees vary wildly between jurisdictions. While I've often had income that dipped below lower-middle, I haven't felt in ME, RI, or WA that the fees were "prohibitive". --] 20:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought Class had nothing to do with masons who "Meet on the level" free of class ideas. “The dues and initiation fees are prohibitive to those with an income below that of the lower middle class and the donations and activate require what some would consider serious financial commitment.” Kind of makes me wonder if the house of cards is starting to fall apart hummm? ] 21:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

== Etymology ==

What about the origins of the term 'freemasonry'? This name or term is found as directly translated in all other languages I know of, but what's the original word? What does it mean? I would guess it has to do with 'building freely', as in: building yourself while not constrained to a church or religion. Can someone elaborate? -- fbjon ]

It is something akin to 'journeyman,' a mason who if free to work without a boss. A worker who can travel and work where he likes, no a slave. ] 16:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)]]

:The terminology derives from the guilds and livery companies of England, see the article ].

==Questions==

A long time ago, I read an old encyclopaedia which said that the initiation ceremony of exposing the knee, breast, blindfolding and noosing were in memory of a member of the fraternity who was tried as a heretic and went to his death without revealing the secrets of freemasonry. I cannot access that encyclopaedia now, and I wonder if anyone here knows what this man'd name was and when he died?] 00:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:I apologise it has been three months or so since you posted this and no one has addressed the issue you raised. I too recall reading such, whilst there are alternate meanings given to each of the things you raised, many places will also cite it as reference to being tried as a heretic, or in some instances mentioned as reference to the treatment of ], the last Grand Master of the ]. Which of these is true, I personally could not say, it's open to too much grounds for speculation; very much a chicken or the egg scenario. If any more educated brethren can address this issue, please speak up. ] 12:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

== hmmmmmmmmm ==

I just read the article ,then the discussion page.

The article is a gross whitewash of Freemasonry, and its cleear from the discussion page that theres a cliche of writerse here intent on supressing ANY negative reference to Freemasonry.

For example, I see no refernce to the 33rd degree, the inner circle, of whom ALL the US presidents were members.

I think NPOV went out the window on this article and someone is keeping it shut.

] 21:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:There is a link to Anti-Masonry on the top of the page, and there is no 33rd degree. (BTW, I'm not a Mason.) --] 21:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Actually, there is: it's an honor given to a very limited number of Masons. Expressing an interest in receiving it is said to disqualify you. I think it's a Scottish Rite thing, but I'm not sure. --] 21:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Then that'd be to do with Scottish Rite, and not Freemasonry directly, and thus, not this article. --] 21:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:What reliable sources do you have that ALL the US presidents were Masons? Or, for that matter, what parts do you think are a whitewash, and how do you know that your understanding of what the Masons are is accurate? It sounds to me like you have taken a side and thus aren't really talking NPOV at all but wanting your side to be the main side being discussed. ] 23:07, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, a guy called Stephen Knight wrote two very interesting books , one of which was called 'The Brotherhood', exposing the 33rd Degree (which DOES exist). He died very mysteriously of a 'heart attack' before he could write his third book, which was odd as he was only in his 40's and there was no history of heart disease in any of his ancestors.

But I know better than to argue the point, If I posted anything anti masonic here I've no doubt it would get removed very quickly, just from reading the talk page and seeing whats already been removed.

] 18:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::] has been reading too many conspiracy books. Stephen Knight was a whack. He also thought Jack the Ripper was a Freemason and loosely tied them into it by the method of murder -slightly- representing masonic oaths and the 'juwes' claimed to be a reference to Jubela, et al. All very poor links, yet his work is taken as gospel by many anti-masons / whack job conspiracy theorists. ] 05:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:That's just one guy, you need more than one source for something like that, otherwise it may not be factual. Anyone can write a book. Self publishing exists. --] 19:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:You also have to back up your claim that every US President is a mason with credible sources. --] 19:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Stephen Knight is also well known to be a highly unreliable author, not just what he says about the Masons but also his claims about Jack the Ripper. The guy invented things up out of thin air. ] 19:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

]

:: There certainly is a 33rd&deg; of the ], and it's hardly any secret. Simply read the Scottish Rite article, follow its link to the Rite's on the 33rd&deg;, or for further proof, look at this of Morals and Dogma.
:: Only the particulars of the initiation ritual itself are kept secret from members of the lower degrees. It's existence isn't hidden, or even in dispute.
:: That said, I think behind any strong declaration that Masons are involved in a sinister conspiracy you'll find someone that's read only one publication, or a clique of publications that all quote each other. Source materials reveal a far less exciting picture. &mdash; ] 22:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The point is its extremely to prove with hard evidence anything about Freemasonry, thats what its managed to protect its secrets for so long. TYou know that and so do I. If your saying that you cant put anything in the article that cant be proved without hard evidence, then this smacks of hipocrasy, or cover up, because elsewhere in wikipedia there are plenty of articles based on speculation and guesswork, eg, the origin of the universe and the existence of god. yet you are happy to allow these articles unapposed. You just make me even more suspicious about the motives of the people that wont allow this article to express anti views.

] 19:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:So.. basicly you say that since 'we' (ie, people who have edited this article for various reasons) are taking part in a huge cover-up / worldwide conspirace because most of us think that a proper encyclopedic article should be backed up by reputable references? If you're able to find good sources for your claims, I suggest you are bold and add them in the appriate places in the article. Be sure to cite your sources thought.
:As to compare freemasonery with, and I qoute, "origin of the universe and the existence of god"... well, I wont even bother to point out anything else than how different they are - on one hand we have a collection of organisations, on the other hand we have a physical phenonomen from a few milliard years ago (20, I seem to recall) and a question of faith...
:You're off course free to believe that we're all part of a world wide conspiracy to rule the world.
:] 04:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:So it appears you would rather let people make wild, unsubstantiated claims and include them as fact. Sorry, but thats not the way this project does or should work. If various claims are true they can generally be substantiated, if not they either should not be included or if they are a widely held belief, they should be attributed to those that hold the belief. Check the NPOV policy again. Facts and evidence rule the day here, not speculation. It would work the same way if a mason wanted to claim the Freemasonry actually was responsible for winning World War II and curing AIDS. They would need solid proof to back that up, not just speculation. By the way, I have no connection to and actually little interest in the topic at hand. I have this page watchlisted for other reasons. - ] 14:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
::Now going back and reading the article, there is a distinct lack of coverage of the controversy and just how common the criticisms and conspiracy theories are. The section that is there is very short and fails to cover the books and press and web time that discuss the controversy or believe the criticisms. So back up the sources that make those claims and describe them in an NPOV way and don't put inordinate focus on it in the article and NPOV would be well served. The top of this talk page with some links negative re Freemasonry, should probably not be excluded just because they are negative either. The lead should probably also mention the controversy, depending on how widespread it really is. - ] 14:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
:::Beyond conspiracy theories, there should be some mention of authentic Masonic controversies in Mexico and Italy particularly.--] 23:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

::'Check the NPOV policy again. Facts and evidence rule the day here, not speculation.' So wheres the factual evidence to prove beyond doubt the exsitence of God? I await with bated breath to see it!! or are we allowing unsubstantiated opinion to support it, in which case the same rules allow us to print the unsubstantiated opinions of the anti freemason view? Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You cannot apply a different standard from one to the other!!!
] 14:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===Mexico and Italy controversies===

Which controversies are these, and can you back them up? Keep in mind, ]. --] 00:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Italy is an easy one - ]. I'm not sure what happened in Mexico however.
:On the other hand, to point to P2 and use that as an argument that all masons are involed in various conspiracies simply don't work... we might as well point to the (relativly) few chatolic priests that has been molesting kids and claim that the catholic church is a cover up for a gigantic pedhophile netwok worldwide.
:Some mention should be in the article - with links to the relevant article(s). Perhaps something like: "In a few cases, various crimes have been traced to masonic organisations. Some of the better known cases include ] in Italy and..."
:Masons are just people... sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes they act less than perfect. It reflects badly on masonery when they do, but thats life I guess.
:] 04:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that takes us back to the top of the page, explain why those links at the top are blacklisted and why they cant be in the main body, if, as various people have just said, anti views need to be included to maintain an NPOV?

] 14:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to write something balanced about anti-clericalism and Masonry in Mexico. It needs work obviously. Check out http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/arnaldoGeng.html for more on Portugal and Italy and Masonry. Note that this is a Masonic website, not one written by conspiracy theorists or Catholic sectarians. Really, the article needs to talk about Garibaldi, etc. and the important historical role of freemasory. I think in a way the article is very Anglo-American centric in it's treatment of freemasonry. The article is written from a partisan pro-freemasonry viewpoint. For instance, the mention of the Catholic Church prohibiting its members to be freemasons is in a section on totalitarian repression, effectively conjoining Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church rather than two voluntary organizations which have at times mutually prohibited membership in the other.--] 07:39, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

==Merging with ]==
The merge notice has been up for a long time, without me spottting much in the way of merging going on... so I decided to be bold and do it myself. Could need a second pair of eyes to look it over and make sure it 'flows' well... english isn't my native tounge =) ] 06:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? There are many good reasons not to do the merger, and no good one:
* The Anti-Masonry article is almost as big as this article. If you were to merge them in any way that does Anti-Masonry justice the resulting article could be easily exceed the size limit.
* The merger was only passed by four votes, and no one who voted to merge actually wanted to do the work.
* The quality of the Anti-Masonry article is considerably lower than the Masonry article. In fact it was so low that the vote was originally for deletion. It would be a shame to sully the one with lousy material from the other.
If these things don't daunt you then go ahead. I've often considered just removing the Merge tag for these reasons. If you do it I'll help you, but please be certain you really want to. It's going to be no small task to bring the prose of ] up to the standard of ]; a complete re-write may be in order. (''Disclaimer: I am not a Mason and have no particular reason to protect Freemasonry. I have added material to both articles.'') &mdash; ] 03:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== What are the secrets of a secret society? ==

I have seen some here using the arguement that, because masons aren't allowed to reveal what goes on in a lodge, that books "exposing" freemasonry can't have their information substantiated. My question is, how can we have a wikipedia article with so much information about a secret society who's members aren't allowed to reveal their secrets? That is, what information is and isn't a secret in freemasonry?
:While YMMV in various lodges, at least in Norway the only thing that is really secret is the actual rituals (including the infamous words and handshakes) themself, while everthing else (who are members, the 'laws', the budget and so on) is not secret. ] 22:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Also, we can quite verifiably state what the various ''books'' have said. We'd want to limit ourselves only to the most notable, and hopefully also ones that are generally accepted as credible, but we could then say things like "In book X author Y explains secret practice Z as follows..." and leave it up to the reader to decide what they believe about Freemasonry themselves. These books can have entries of their own for details about why people belive they're credible or why they believe they're full of hooey. ] 23:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I asked because I was having a discussion with my parents about freemasonry, and they were saying how dangerous it was, and I was saying how what they've read is either hooey or unsubstantiated since Freemasonry is a secret society and no mason or ex-mason would reveal the rituals. My dad replied that I couldn't be sure whether or not anything I or he read then, because it is all information about a secret society which no mason would reveal information about. So you see, I was wondering just what parts I can be sure are substantiated and true, whilst also weeding out the unsubstantiated information.

::: There are many books by Masons that were intended for members, but have come into general circulation. Some go as far as to reveal the secret passwords, and discuss aspects of closed rituals, but not perhaps the precise formula for thier execution. One author might conceal a specific detail, while another might reveal it. There's almost nothing of significance about Masonic rituals that can't be discovered by reading around and filling in the gaps.
::: One book you could pick up is <u>The Meaning Of Masonry</u> by W.L. Wilmshurst. He takes a liberal view of what is permissable to publish. It's very cheap .
::: Masons also print small handbooks to help members study the rituals beforehand, so they can perform them correctly in lodge. If you search enough library catalogs you may be able to find one in a reference section. &mdash; ] 00:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Query to Masons here on Wiki? ==

I am extremely interested in the Freemasons, and this article has only irked my curiosity. So interested in fact I am on the verge of deciding to attempting to join. A few things are bothering me though, has there ever been cases of Members wishing to leave the brotherhood. It seems like the kind of thing that one is in for life, but with its relatively secretive nature one cannot properly gauge if one wish's to agree with the standing of the organization. Although it seems to me that the Masons are very open and would not present such a situation it still sits at the back of mind...what exactly happens to someone who no longer wishes to be a mason?
:Are they ousted? Are they permitted to leave quietly under the provision they keep the secrets? Or is there some sort of Trial period, where no real important secrets are revealed but enough so that one can decide if they wish to continue participation?

] 17:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
:Men who fall away from the Craft stop paying their annual dues. Not much to say about it, it is unfortunate, but is fairly common. People move, they drift away, they get busy, have children. New men come in, some old one leave. ] 02:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)]]

::Not at all what i expected, thank you very much. ] 17:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

:::To some degree what you said about 'no real important secrets' being revealed is also true. Depending on what country you are in of course. In America one can partake one degree per lunar month. In other countries it is one degree per year, which is much more logical as the experience should be enjoyed and not taken lightly. ] 15:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

== Request for references ==
Please add references to this article, see also ]. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Misplaced Pages. The ] has more information. Otherwise this article will likely be de-featured pending a FARC nomination. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Women in Freemasonry ==
I have seen a few books on the topic, most are circa 1920's - 1930's yet are very vague. My question is to international Freemasons, in which countries are women accepted into the AAR of Freemasonry? I am located in Australia and this does not go on here. The ambiguity of all references to sex having a female alternative in this article, for a fraternal organisation, vexes me greatly.

I have reason to believe that perhaps this is an Americanism that has been plastered on an article as a universality, yet I would also accept that various countries of libertine holdings would have, over time, gone against the doctrine of the Craft and allowed women. The article doesn't really touch on this aspect, yet across the board the article addresses Masonry as though women are accepted, when in fact, they are not anywhere that I know of.

If any international Freemasons could clarify this for me, it would be greatly appreciated.

] 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Just to disambiguate my request, what I am asking for is a list of countries that FREEMASONRY (as in blue lodge and it's further persuable degrees, which is what this article is about) allows females. Not derivatives of Freemasonry, but the Ancient and Accepted Rites of Freemasonry proper.

:] 17:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::None of them, or other lodges wouldn't recognize them. --] ] 20:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is what I thought, why then is the Freemasonry article written in a 'politically correct' manner of 'he/she' and 'any man (or woman)'? It is a fraternal organisation, just as there are numerous groups out there organised for women only, I'm sure they don't still add in the PC 'he' when defining their organisation.

] 22:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I seem to remember there being Dames in the Templars - its a side degree of the full shebang - that is the Ancient and Accepted Rites of Freemasonry proper.

Guest
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think there should be any "he/she's" in this article or anywhere Freemasonry is written about in even a remotely offical capacity. After visiting with my grandfather today (Freemason of over 70 years) he contends. *shrug* ]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone appears to have reverted my prior changes back to: -

''Generally, to be a Freemason, one must:

be a man who comes of his own free will (or a woman, in the case of a feminine jurisdiction, or either a man or a woman if joining a co-Masonic jurisdiction),''

As this article is about Freemasonry and not any derivative, I am going to revert that back to what it previously was (ie: the true requirements of being a Freemason) and whoever wants to play the rv game can throw their feminine jurisdiction stuff in the co-freemasonry subheading.

] 12:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

== Clarification (wording?) ==

Under the section ''The two great schisms of Freemasonry (1753 and 1877)'' we have the text

Most Lodges conduct their Work in accordance with .. '''the York Rite''' (which is popular in the United States; '''not to be confused with York Rite'''),
I'm guessing this must be a error. Can someone clarify?

* York Rite, and Scottish Rite, are appendant bodies to Freemasonry. They grant "higher" degrees than the 3 degrees of Blue Lodge. York Rite includes a subdivision called the Knights Templar. Being a full York Rite or Scottish Rite member used to be a requirement to join the Shriners. --] 22:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Clarification (intent?) ==

After reading the article, I am still at a loss to understand why people join the Masons.

If I have an interest in stamp collecting I join a stamp club. Then I can trade stamps and share knowledge with other collectors. If I like to play basketball, I will form a basketball club, because it's boring to play by myself. In contrast, it is hard to identify what draws Masons together. The article does mention very vague shared religious beliefs, but the need for association based on beliefs would seem to be served by the established religions, which benefit from greater focus and have their own aura of social prestige.

In short, while I grasp the role of an organised social outlet, wouldn't it be more logical for people to seek contact within a group sharing a common interest or affiliation?

I get the picture of a group of older men with nothing much in common (except perhaps the wish to avoid the Mrs?) getting together one evening a week for the fun of practicing their secret handshakes.

Can anyone clarify?

http://www.seanscreenplays.com/BeteNoireCD/Articles1/HIDDEN%
20POWER.htm

--] 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

* It's not so much shared religious beliefs, as the shared belief that men can meet together as brothers regardless of religion, color, etc. This, sadly, is not a belief always reinforced by our churches... --] 22:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Just moral men, with a belief in a supreme being and a desire to do good for the community - Charities and orphanages supported ect.

If i may clarify, the steretype of older men wanting to avoid the Mrs has really died out - but since you often need to attend THE SAME LODGE for about 3 years it does mena that you have to be settled in that area - hence the misconception

Guest


If I may state the obvious; it is difficult for an article of an encyclopedic nature to extrapolate reasons for joining any organization or group; at least, one’s with objectives greater than mere admiration of shared objects (i.e. stamps). This is because an individual’s reasons for joining would be different from another individual’s, perhaps subtly, perhaps severely. Considering the infinite possibilities for human character (with some people, I know, this is a questionable philosophy to employ, however, we will remain optimistic), this means there could be infinite answers to your question, why people join. Perhaps, however, if a considerate sample of Freemasons could be interviewed, themes would surface within subject’s response as to why they joined, and your question would be easier to answer. But, considering this is a ‘secret’ society (so was the tree-house club I joined when I was twelve; we too attracted several conspirator theorists, such as my neighbor, who thought we killed her cat), how many members do you think will agree to an interview? (I at least will talk about why I joined friends at the tree house: sounded like fun) - another guest



Well, I was never a Mason, but I was a member of an affiliated "junior" Mason group (DeMolay) and knew a number of Masons. The Masonic organization MAY have had more complicated beginnings "back in the day" - the "day" being hundreds of years ago....but today, it is just a social club, ie Moose or Elks. The "secret" rituals, to my knowledge, are hardly Satanic and exist just to drive the points home - e.g., be a good Christian, don't screw your neighbor's wife, don't kill anyone, don't be a selfish pig, etc. The guys that join - IN MY OPINION, not hard fact but what I have experienced - are white, Christian, and Republican to a T. They are usually non-smoker, non-drinker types that would not likely be found at the local Regal Beagle Lounge. They do get very involved in charity work, and they supported the youth groups like ours - partly out of wanting to be charitable and partly to groom their new members. None of it is my cup of tea now, but there are worse things one can do in the suburbs with one's time.

Oh, and it's not quite leaving the Mrs. at home - she's normally, in about half the cases, in the Masonic-affiliated woman's group Eastern Star. The young girls have two groups to choose from - Rainbow Girls (open to all girls) and Job's Daughters (only open to daughters of a Mason).

I would add this to the article, since the writer says they don't have a sense of why people join, but it's largely an observation, not a "fact". ] 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone stated "Recently the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest association" two things Recently (Give a date?) and highlight Southern Baptist as one because they are different from Baptist. ] 8:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

== Russia? Estonia? ==
Today, user 82.131.22.158 has been addind a fair bit of content on masonic history in Russia and Estonia... would this perhaps be better suited as seperate articles? I know I could be bold, but since I'm at work right now.. ;) ] 12:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The consecration of the Grand Lodges of Estonia (a daughter of Finland) and Russia (of France) are both wonderful stories that would do well as a separate articles, methinks. ] 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

== Merged ] with Freemasonry ==

Just so you know.

== Some edits made, and some feedback requested ==

I've made some changes to the Freemasonry page, and I wanted to explain them, because they might be seen as bad edits otherwise. All my edits come from my own personal experience as a member of the Craft in the US.

1. Scottish Rite is not a complete system, except unto itself. You need to be a Master Mason before you can do AASR, so the numbering goes from 4 to 32. Same with York Rite, which interestingly enough, the author did not state was a complete system.

2. In North america, a Blue Lodge is considered to be the first lodge you joined (the one where you became a Master Mason). If you join another lodge, that one is not your Blue Lodge. Thus the term does not apply to all Craft Lodges in general.

3. Templars is not open to Royal Arch members. KT is in sequence after Cryptic, so you need to do that first; you can't jump directly to that point from Royal Arch.


There were also a few things I wanted to change, but I wanted feedback on first, mainly due to the article coming from a UGLE perspective.

1. What I've read as far as AASR goes says that it was originally designed entirely in France, and only changed later by Pike and others. Therefore, to say "it was designed predominantly in France" seems not entirely wrong, but not entirely right, either.

2. Grand Lodges vs. Grand Orients -- AFAIK, the latter term also applies only to France, and there, only to the irregular lodges that no other bodes recognize. Thewrefore, to define them both as equal is incorrect, I think. Does anyone have any insight on this?

3. Masonic buildings are called "Masonic Temples", rather than just "Temples". Is this too nitpicky?

4. In my experience, we use "Lodge" to refer to the building, and we do indeed meet in a Lodge, not "as a Lodge". Has anyone heard it used otherwise?

5. "Lodges of Research and Instruction" are two separate types of specialty lodges, not a combined title, at least in the US. Once again, does it differ under UGLE or some other jurisdiction?]

:First off Welcome to the Wiki, be careful! Some find it addictive. Second, you can sign your comments by adding three tildies after your comments. This way we know who we are talking to.

:The first Landmark of Masonry cites the necessity of Masons meeting in Lodges. Therefore you may call the building as you like, but the men inside are a Lodge when tiled. ] 03:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

== Observations ==

A note to those who have worked on this article or who are interested in Freemasonry/Masons:

I think this is an example of an excellent, well-written, fair and comprehensive article on a difficult subject. I am not a Mason or member of any organization related to Freemasonry. But I am interested in history, religion, philosphy, and I've been reading quite a few articles on Misplaced Pages about these subjects.

I've also read one or two extremely difficult-to-comprehend books involving conspiracy theories, Freemasonry, the existence of a descendant of Christ, the Priory of Sion (sp?), and all those related, tangled, quasi-historical symbols and stories that attempt to prove some great hidden truth about God, man, and the world, by an author who has "discovered" said truth by decoding documents related to Freemasonry, obscure paintings, and Latin inscriptions over church doorways in France. If you know what I mean.

This article gives some of the most concrete information about the actual Masonic organizations in existence in the world. I think it is admirably open to describing criticism and complaints leveled at Freemasony/Masonic organizations. Of course, some folks will never be happy unless an article about a religion/organization they don't belong to says "it's all a satanic, evil, blasphemous lie, because it's not____" -- (fill in the blank with Roman Catholicism, Islam, Zen, Vegetarianism, Republican, Humanitarian, whatever).

Heck, the members of any organization, much less a worldwide organization, rarely agree completely on the purpose, beliefs, and value of the organization. That's why in the U.S. we have "conservative democrats" and "liberal Republicans" (to use a political example) and "hard-partying fraternities" and "scholarly fraternities" that are all part of the overall fraternity system in universities, and so on. I imagine this article makes some Freemasons mad, some pleased, some disappointed. If it doesn't please everybody, it's probably fair and balanced.

One personal note: As a reporter for a local newspaper in the late 1980s, I was invited to attend an initiation ceremony (I forget what they actually called it) at a local Masonic lodge (I believe Scottish Rite). I took photos, I interviewed the man who was being initiated (or promoted in rank, whatever it was) and the elders who were performing the ceremony. There was very little secrecy, it was an open attempt to publicize and promote their organization -- I understood they were having a hard time attracting new members. Being a group in the U.S. in a community with a lot of retirees, they may have been more of a social club (like Elks or Moose) than others elsewhere. I can't believe this group had any sinister rules or rituals or motivations. They certainly aren't taking over local government, much less the world.

Again, thanks to all for an interesting and informative article. ] 18:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

In the 1996 election Dole a 33 degree SR Mason lost to Clinton a non Mason.

explain that conspiracy theorists.

Ummm ... Clinton was a member of DeMolay,(Masonic) I think the higher ups knew Clinton would be better "received" by the sheep of the Nation and if we look back he was indeed,even through many shall I say missteps.
] 14:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

:References that Clinton was a member of a masonic order please?

From pages 44 and 45 of Bill Clinton's best-selling autobiography, My Life, published by Alfred A. Knopf publishers, New York, in 2004, President Clinton speaks about his involvement with, and attitude towards, Freemasonry and DeMolay, a masonic youth group ] 15:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

The DeMolay are not Masons they are a youth group run by Masons.

If i may ... The Hitler Youth were not part of the German Army they were just run by it ] 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

:Actually, it would be more correct to say that the HJ was not the NSDAP, but the NSDAP ran the HJ and the German Army at that point. I'm not sure what this has to do with freemasons thought - one of the first things Hitler did was to outlaw freemasonery (I think the Nazis refered to it as a 'jewish organisation'...). ] 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:Actually, they considered Freemasons to be one of many organizations that were against the party. On the very first page of Simon Weisenthal's biography Nazi Hunter, freemasons are categorized as separate from Jewish groups, and from some other research (from Henderson, Kent, and Tony Pope. ''Freemasonry Universal: the new guide to the Masonic world; vol. 2 Africa, Europe, and Oceania''. Williamstown: Global Masonic Publications, 200. pp.199-214, Bernbeim, Alain. “German Freemasonry and Its Attitudes Toward The Nazi Regime”. ''The Philalethes'', February 1997, found at and some other places, I found that the Nazis outlawed even the completely Christian Lodges (called "Old Prussian")]

I think he just wanted to make a hyperbolic comparison.

== Should we list countries have made laws about Masonry? ==

Should we list countries have made laws about Masonry including the dates what the laws were and for what reasons?

For example Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, and Russia have all had strict rules about or outlawed Freemasonry.

And at the 1922(?) international (world?) Communist (socialist?) congress they banned members from being Masons.


:In a historical context, maybe, but Freemasonry has been in Japan since 1857, and they've got their own GL. I have no idea when it was ever outlawed. Germany only outlawed Masonry during WWII (which is what caused all those other countries to ban it as well, save Russia and Japan), and their Masonic history goes back to the 1700s (and earlier, according to some folks).

:It probably deserves a paragraph, but it would end up being a largely historically isolated item, that would take up more space explaining historical circumstances than a=nything else. Furthermore, I think a delineated list gives it more importance than it really deserves - None of those laws existed for any lengthy amount of time.]

== Not a Satanic Cult? ==

"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls? Doubt it not!"
: Emphasis 'not' added, actually. :-) And quoting out of context is really easy. :-) Let me try quoting in context, from that same book.
::"Everyone is free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound. It is only required of him that he shall weigh what is taught, and give it a fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment."
:--] 23:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

So if I "weigh what is taught, and give it a fair hearing and unprejudiced judgment" and deem it not to be in conjunction with my thoughts - do I still get to be a mason even thought I don't believe the full teaching of the lodge? ... Sounds like the stone is not set on a firm foundation ] 15:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

:An important thing to note is the book in question (''Morals and Dogma'') relates (at least in this passage) to Scottish Rite Masonry, not Blue Lodge Masonry (though there are chapters on the first three degrees), and to be fair, a lot of what is in it is not Pike's own thoughts, but rather philosophical cullings from other sources. It's a much more "useful" book if you are aware of the content of the degrees before reading it. Of course, if you don't agree with the principles that are taught in Freemasonry, why would you join? It's entirely of one's own free will whether one joins or not. By joining, you willingly agree to certain principles, so it is a very firm foundation indeed.--] 04:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Those principles are ? ] 16:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC) The Web

Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth of course. ] 18:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Truth ... to quote a wise old man "what i said was true from a certain point of view" in the end your POV from the inside of the Us Only Club would be favorable where my view might not. I just fell it is wrong to think that all people are not equal,GOD made us all the same NOONE is higher than anyone else we are all EQUAL / Esotericism refers to knowledge suitable only for the advanced, privileged, or initiated. ] The Web

I am told you are not devil worshipers but some quotes i found differ from your statements - here is one - is this book wrong or what ? "When a Mason learns that the Key to the warrior on the block is proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of LUCIFER are in his hands and before he may step onward or upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply (this) energy." (Lost keys of Freemasonry, Manly P. Hall Page 48)

== Ritual Sacrifices ==

I accidently came across a lodge one time, and i was stopped by some initiates who were willing to talk to to me about masonry. they didnt say much, just it was a spiritual organization and "not a cult". But they said the masons would ritually sacrifice animals, but never said to what or whom. I even saw what supposedly was used for this. Is this is the truth and if so, what exactly do you sacrifice it to?

It is an old joke. Why people think we sacrifice animals is a mystery to me, but from time to time (like at initiations, I have made reference to it. I ought not to, I suppose. (You can sign your name to your comments by adding three tildes.) ] 18:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

that sounds nice but... this kids werent laughing. They seemed pretty keen on wanting me to join them. Why would you joke if you wanted people to take you seriously?

:They were taking the piss my friend, in Australia the usual joke isn't about sacrifice, usually it's about goats though, be it riding or copulating with one, just random fun poking really. I have no idea where the tradition of larrikinistic behaviour when it comes to the Craft began, undoubtably in England (Australian humour is very English in origin, we take very little seriously and have light hearts.)

:So, I'm sorry to dissapoint you, Freemasonry won't even let you poke the goat with a stick as such, we're animal lovers not slayers. ] 12:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

== Animal Sacrifices ==

that sounds nice but... this kids werent laughing. They seemed pretty keen on wanting me to join them. Why would you joke if you wanted people to take you seriously?
So if anyone can tell me if they're heard actual accounts or further rumors, that would be interesting. <== this was posted by 68.234.213.64, by the way.

Well I am a Master Mason, have been for twenty years. I have served as Lodge secretary and have sat in Lodges in three continents. No animal sacrifices. No human sacrifices. Sorry. Zero, none, zilch, nada. It is just an old joke and you were having your leg pulled.

I would further point out that we do not recruit. If someone asks about the Craft, we can talk about it, but we are not supposed to encourage people to join. At least not in the US, UK and other places I have been. Drop me an e-mail if you have questions. ] 09:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

:: We do not ostensibly recruit, no. However, because all the US GLs are independent, you can't generalize too much. Because Masonry has, in recent years, lost its community visibility, many jurisdictions will allow you to ask someone if they're interested in joining, answer some questions, and whether anything happens is up to the individual. All they have to do is ask.

:: Re: Animal sacrifice, I seem to recall something about some Masonic Lodges back in the 1920s or earlier making candidates ride mechanical animals. That's not quite the same thing, but it is a reference. I'll get the page, but it's from American Freemasons by Mark Tabbert.

::A lot of it, though, comes from what people think goes on, so of course, a lot of people joke around to put people at ease.]
Paul I am a Ex-Mason lets be honest...We do recruit, we drop hints to see who will bite, we wear our t-shirts,rings,plates on our cars ,emblems on our I.D.,give large amounts of money to "Good" causes. It is the most insidious thing i have ever seen,to show off who we are, to get people to ask about the brotherhood. You may be that one odd mason who doesn’t show off ... but I doubt it ] 14:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

:Gee, 68 (may I call you 68?) I would not know. I am in Saudi Arabia, where Masonry is illegal. As a result, and out of respect of local customs, I do not wear my ring, I do not have a shirt and I do not recruit. If you are a Mason, you realize we do not do animal sacrifices. Why then did you bring the subject up?

:Further in previous posts you asked about the principles of the Craft. If you are a Brother, why bother? You also asked questions about how to join a Lodge. Which is it, are you or are you not a Mason. Not that it overly matters. I would just like to know if you were fibbing then or now. ] 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Paul I see the truth is hard to bring to you - you must know that to understand your opponent you need to know how they think and what they think. I needed to see what sarekofvulcan meant when he quoted pike's book and since he never replied to me I take it he found TRUE enlightenment - the person that did reply opened up another set of questions,the ones you replied to,so you must be wary when you jump into the middle of a conversation so you don't make a mis-step - Lastly I did not open the subject of sacrifice, as I have never witnessed it, I was pointing out that, at least in the US, covert recruitment is practiced Thank You - please note my full number sequence 68.44.153.204 and I always sign my statements - The Web ] 18:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

This discussion seems to be headed somewhat off the rails. Remember that although we call these "discussion" or "talk" pages, they are for discussing things about the ''article'', not the topic. If you are debating whether to include mention of animal sacrifice in the article or not, then it would be better to turn the discussion toward that aim. If, on the other hand, the discussion is about something that is not going to go in the article but is nevertheless of interest to the two of you, it would better to either a) Take it to an online forum that talks about these things or b)quietly let the discussion drop if it is causing temperatures to rise. To the original anonymous poster, we have the ] which is generally a better place for asking questions (since talk pages are for article discussions), although it is unlikely that anyone there will comment on speculation. The Reference Desk is intended for a quick answer to a specific question really. -] 22:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:Thank you Splash. I shall ignore him. ] 03:27, 6 August 2005 (

Ignorance is bliss ] 14:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

:: This is not the place to air whatever gripes or problems you have against Masonry. Furthermore, you will not educate anyone in your supposed "truth" by using empty rhetoric and sniping at other users. The choice is simple, and you should be old enough to make a mature decision, if anything you have said previously is true. So, act appropriately to the page and participate, or act inappropriately and be ignored, and probably banned. The third option is for you to leave peacably.]

This is my final post to this section as I can see the brothers are once more protecting each other. I did not start the "sniping" as you put it. Brother Paul did with his opening reply when the discussion began to go "off the rails". I will however thank Splash as that post was dead on right I will only post things related to the article not the topic - thank you splash for some good guidance. ] 14:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

== Is this too well-written? ==

This may sound kind of silly, but I'm having the same problem reading this entry as I have when trying to read articles about freemasonry. I don't understand a THING. The article is extremely well-organized and written fluidly but it seems to be written for an audience of people who already know everything. I find very little definition of terms, a lot of elaboration on topics using terms and ideas not covered until later in the article, very little attempt made to "dumb it down" for someone who doesn't know the first thing about the group. I remember when I read a pamphlet called "an introduction to Freemasonry" and barely being able to read past the first page, because of this same problem.

:I'd say quite the contrary. Prior to my initiation, I read over this page with frustration that it told me absolutely nothing I hadn't already picked up from other sources. Whilst there are some things best left unsaid, there is still plenty more to say. ] 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

== Freemasonry and Christianity ==

Whilst I've heard various stories as to whether the canonical law pertaining to Roman Catholics being excommunicated for being Freemasons (which in 1983 was revamped and didn't feature the word Freemasonry at all), recently, in Sydney Australia, the Anglican Synod was held and apparently to be Anglican and persuing Freemasonry is a big no-no amongst the Anglican church now.

Any Anglican's in Australia who can verify this or clarify what exactly went down?

] 02:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

can someone explian this to me - if freemason are not a religion why dose it seem to inclue so many religious practices for instance
COIL’S MASONIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
"Freemasonry has a religious service to commit the body of a deceased brother to the dust from whence it came, and to speed the liberated spirit back to the Great Source of Light. Many Freemasons make this flight with no other guarantee of a safe landing than their belief in the religion of Freemasonry.""(page 512).
:Certainly Coil says that, and certainly it is true some Brothers think Masonry is a religion, but you get a few million guys over a couple of centuries and some of them are going to think, say and do some silly things. Funerals? Yeah, we do those. Does that make us a religion? I don't know, the US Army has funerals, is the Army a religion? (I know some senior NCOs who seem to think so.) I have even been to a Boy Scouts (of America) funeral. Damn bad day that was.
:There are no Masonic weddings, baptisms, or catechism for youth. No Communion, no Confession (oops, Reconciliation, now), We do show up at our Brother's funerals if the family asks. Why not? We miss the guy too.
:Masonry makes no promises about an afterlife, redemption, reconciliation. I would say it is no more a religion than the Boy Scouts. But of course you can make up your own mind. ] 14:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

::This isn't really pertinent to the topic question raised. I'm sure I can find well sourced books out there that claim all sorts of things, one reference does not a fact make.

"some Brothers think Masonry is a religion ... But of course you can make up your own mind." Time for Truth. Is it a religion or not,and if it is not why dosn't the brotherhood tell the misinformed masons who "think Masonry is a religion" the fact that it is not ? ] 15:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

::My POV BS detector is in alarm. Surely there is some other friendly group of people you can choose to bash? :)

:We do, certainly you have come across our many protestations that Masonry is not a religion. What else would you have us do? Heck, I have had people petition Lodges thinking we provided low-cost life insurance! (I am still puzzled by that one.) Some people think silly things. (Oh, please excuse me, Web, we agreed to ignore each other. In light of our recent tiff, perhaps that would be best.) ] 15:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No No Paul i do ENJOY debating you !!! Your POV from the mideast on the subject opens me up to many new ideas and i should like to countinue our debates in the future / back to the point at hand If you tell them it is not WHY do they continue to think otherwise ?] 15:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC) The Web

:Sorry, no I am ignoring you (Covers ears and chants yah-da-yah-da) Simply the Wiki is not the place for this. Perhaps you could come over to the Straight Dope Message Board? Lovely crowd of people there, my second-favorite place after the Wiki. Come on over! I use the same name there too. ] 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

'''Can someone possibly address the initial question raised?'''

== Freemasonry and Buddhism ==

Buddhists have no belief in a supreme being as such, yet you often see them in (especially American) blue lodges. Could a more enlightened brother clarify this one for me? I've been asked it twice in the last week and I really don't quite know how to approach it.

:I am certainly no expert, but I understand that during the Raj the British Lodges in India ruled that Hindus Buddhists in fact simply used different names for the differing manifestations of The One God. I am not sure that I agree, but what is done is done. ] 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

:: I don't know tghe historical context, but I can comment on the religious. As the Masonic requirement is historically stated as "one must believe in a Supreme Being" (it was vague on purpose), it was merely a matter of clarifying that how that being manifested itself wasn't important. Buddhists do have a single Supreme Being -- the Buddha -- who manifests in various forms and incarnations.]

== The Bible in Freemasonery ==

I have been told by many in the craft the bible is a important LIGHT in the brotherhood - however i have run across many texts that flatly say the bible is only a sign of a "Holy Book" and carrys no real value in the teachings of the masons

"No lodge with us should be opened without its (the Bible) presence. Still, it is but a symbol; it represents divine truth in every form…But the shadow must not be mistaken for the substance. There is nothing sacred or holy in the mere book. It is ordinary paper…it is what it typifies that renders it sacred to us. Any other book having the same signification would do just as well…In fact, that book should be used which to the individual in question most fully represents divine truth…We dare assert that neither the Constitution, Regulations, no Ritual of any Grand lodge in the world required a belief in the teachings of the Bible…(we must) frankly acknowledge the Bible to be symbol only. Those Christian Masons who would enforce belief in the teachings of the Bible have simply mistaken the symbol for the thing itself." ("Symbolism of the Three Degrees"); Masonic Service Association, Washington, DC, 1924, pp 44-47)

"Masonry has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible, that it is not founded upon the Bible, for if it were it would not be Masonry, it would be something else". (Digest of Masonic Law", p. 207-209)

I don't know who is telling me the truth and other posts in this page tell me that the truth is 1 of the main goals of freemasons - can anyone help me understand ?
:In Masonry, the Bible is called the Volume of Sacred Law (VSL). I have sat in Lodges that used the Bible, the Pentearch (I spelled that wrong, didn't I?) and the Koran as VsSL. In Singapore I understand they have five books on the altar, all providing equal light. So the Bible is used in mostly-Christian countries, but not in Hindu, Jewish or other communities. So it certainly looks like Masonry is Christian, Jewish, Islamic, whatever, but that is not in fact the case. ] 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)



== Politics ==

:So your point would be that older people are racists? Could be, I suppose. I have sat in Lodges that were mostly Jewish (and mostly Christian), I have sat in Loges that were mostly Black (however you determine that).
:Masonry believes in the Brotherhood of all men, under the Fatherhood of God. Sounds pretty old-fashioned now, doesn't it? Yet a couple of centuries ago, this was cutting-edge stuff. The American (and for that matter the Filipino) revolutions were led by Masons. They stood (and do stand) for everybody being equal before God. If these ideas do not sound too strange to you, perhaps it is because of the influence we have had on history.
:The Prince Hall thing is as embarrassing as all get out to American Masonry. Still, that problem is being addressed and no Lodge in America has a racial qualification.
:Masonry and what it stands for have been suppressed by by dictators of the left and the right. Doesn't sound too fuddy-duddy to me. Finally, as an ancient and transnational movement, Masonry cannot (by definition) be chauvinistic. ] 12:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

:Sorry, FDR, having checked your history I now realize that discussion with you about people who died in the 1880s would be non-productive. ] 14:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:32, 25 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Freemasonry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former featured articleFreemasonry is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleFreemasonry has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 23, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
February 24, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 29, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 30, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 13, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
January 4, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFreemasonry Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":
WikiProject iconOrganizations
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFraternities and Sororities High‑importance
WikiProject iconFreemasonry is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Freemasonry is a secret society

The lexical knowledge:

  • Encyclopedia Britannica Freemasonry (Definition): Freemasonry, the teachings and practices of the fraternal (men-only) order of Free and Accepted Masons, the largest worldwide secret society — an oath-bound society, often devoted to fellowship, moral discipline, and mutual assistance, that conceals at least some of its rituals, customs, or activities from the public (secret societies do not necessarily conceal their membership or existence).
  • Misplaced Pages: Secret Society#Definitions: Historian Richard B. Spence of the University of Idaho offered a similar three-pronged definition: The group's existence is usually not kept secret, but some beliefs or practices are concealed from the public and require an oath of secrecy and loyalty to learn. ...Spence's definition includes groups traditionally thought of as secret societies (Freemasons and Rosicrucians) ... Historian Jasper Ridley argues that Freemasonry is, "the world's most powerful secret Society".

The logical thinking:

  • The principle of secrecy with the obligation of confidentiality and the hierarchical initiation system implies that there must necessarily be secrets kept, otherwise it would be an open community like any other. It is also known from Freemasonry that there is secret cipher (Masonic cipher), rituals, gestures, handsigns, symbols and passwords for mutual identification, as well as non-public membership lists. All of these secret aspects are therefore more reminiscent of the practices of a secret service than of an ethical association that only withholds a few scientific secrets from humanity that could be learned by oneself anyway.
  • To assume that just because some (very old) secrets of Freemasonry are now publicly known, is as naive as believing that a secret service would stop its work just because a few of its encryptions were decoded. Of course it can be assumed that, as with any secret service, these methods are constantly being improved and developed in secret.
  • If secret symbols and codes have been used once (secret society), it can be assumed that they can always be used. It is not possible to prove the contrary. An exposed enemy secret agent will always be classified by security authorities as a possible spy, even if he becomes a stonemason afterwards. Because it is impossible to prove, that he no longer is an enemy agent.
  • Thank you.

Wikiprediger (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, neither Britannica nor Misplaced Pages are considered reliable sources here. They're both tertiary. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Another issue is that there are multiple definitions of the term “secret society”. While some of these definitions do apply to fraternal groups (such as the Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, Elks, and college fraternities)… other definitions DON’T apply.
And because there are multiple definitions, we can not state in Wikivoice that such and such fraternity IS a “secret society”.
What we CAN do is note that while definition “X” applies to such fraternal groups, definition “Y” does NOT apply (see WP:NPOV). And that requires going into context and nuance that isn’t really appropriate for the lead sentence. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
As to the specific definitions discussed above: at least in the United States, Freemasonry does not fit even those definitions.
Let’s look at Brittanica’s definition: it defines the term as concealing “at least some of its rituals, customs or practices from the public”… Freemasonry does not. It freely acknowledges that ALL of its rituals, customs and practices have been exposed SO MANY times (often with pictures and diagrams) that NONE of it is secret any more. You can even purchase copies of the various “official” rituals on-line.
Same with Spence’s definition… again, what may have once been concealed from the public is now publicly available.
As for your “logic”… it seems you really don’t understand the subject matter. You talk about Freemasonry having a “cypher”. I assume you are referring to the Pigpen cypher, which some sources refer to as the “Masonic cypher”. It is hardly “secret”. Schoolchildren learn it. (I remember learning it when I was around 10 years old. I thought I could send messages to my classmates without my teachers knowing what I was saying… turned out my teachers had learned it when they were children). More importantly it ISN’T actually taught in Masonic Lodges. I’m not sure how it became associated with Freemasonry, but it isn’t Masonic at all.
As for the “secret” handshakes, passwords, symbolism etc etc… this is stuff that once (back in the 16th century) WAS a secret way for Masons to identify each other… but because it was all exposed over and over again, it is no longer considered secret. In the modern day, Grand Lodges issue dues cards so masons can verify their membership to each other. Or they can simply email the relevant Grand Lodge main office and ASK: “is so-and-so a member in good standing?” (In fact, anyone can do this… The membership rolls are a matter of public record).
The basic problem is that you assume that Freemasons “must” be doing something secret behind those closed doors, but your assumption is incorrect. The reality is that the Freemasons don’t have ANY secrets any more. They simply pretend at secrecy (out of tradition). Oh, It did have secrets once… but NONE of it is actually secret anymore (and hasn’t been for about two hundred years). Blueboar (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Fine, i had a similar disussion already in the german wikipedia (i'm from germany). My conclusion was to write an own article with criticism on freemasonry - i have too much points to discuss them all individually here. It would take months for probably only some changes in the end. In a more critic article is place for this - i think it's the right way to do. The article is nearly complete in german - i'll then transalte it to english. Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
FYI, you should probably see our existing article on Anti-Masonry… it may already cover much of what you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Anti-Masonry for me is a too strong term. This article is more about politics and religion. Criticism for me is something else. But thank you for that hint. Wikiprediger (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
No problem… just didn’t want you to waist your time duplicating what has already been done. As Billy Crystal said in The Princess Bride: “Have fun storming the castle!” Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. twink twink. You mean one of the freemasonry headquarters - the holy wood on I am the bee (imdb.com)? i already had. twink twink. the secret is about the keywords there. do you have any further questions, i can give you a short instruction how to disturb their global communication. twink twink. greetings to your masters. they're not mine. Wikiprediger (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

History creep

I note that over time, a lot of editors have been adding subsections to the “History” section - outlining the history of the fraternity in specific countries/regions (China, the Caribbean, etc). I am wondering if these subsections are appropriate for this article (which should be an overview - with links to more detailed articles). We have numerous Freemasonry in X articles that might be a better venue for this sort of information. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Fellowcraft vs Fellow Craft

We seem to have a disagreement on the spelling of the name of the second degree. One word or two? I did a google ngram that seems to support that it should be one word (“Fellowcraft”), and this matches the sources I have in my library. Also, I note that the United Grand Lodge of England spells it as one word, and this article is marked as using UK spelling. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Blueboar, I understand that many jurisdictions have lost the ancient way of writing Fellow Craft and now just spell it as one word, which is becoming more popular now, same thing happened with Free-Masonry, Free-Mason, and it might happen in the future with Master Mason and Entered Apprentice, I am not advocating that we get rid of Fellowcraft in this article, but that we present both spelling, Fellow Caft is the historically accurate way of spelling the word, which is why Rituals use the abbreviation F.C. and is still used in many jurisdictions, thus this spelling is relevant today as a way to understand why F.C. is used, to respect jurisdiction that are still using this spelling and as the correct historical spelling. Again I do not want to get rid of the other spelling just present both for a more accurate and encyclopedic understanding.
Addendum: After some research it looks like Fellow Craft is still more used than Fellowcraft and gaining in popularity, and looking at historical mentions of the term, you can see the overwhelming use of Fellow Craft vs Fellowcraft pre-1950. Here is a comparison. HyperSite (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Moderns to Premiere Grand Lodge

The term "Moderns" was originally coined as a derogatory label by a newer Grand Lodge that referred to themselves as the "Antients." This misleading terminology persisted for centuries, causing significant confusion within Masonic circles. In recent years, most Masonic jurisdictions have agreed to adopt the more accurate term "Premiere Grand Lodge" to refer to the organization previously known as the "Moderns." This change aims to clarify the historical timeline and avoid the negative connotations associated with the older terminology. To improve accuracy and reduce confusion, it is recommended that all mentions of the outdated term "Moderns" be replaced with "Premiere Grand Lodge" throughout this article. This update will better reflect current Masonic scholarship and nomenclature. HyperSite (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not without some cites for "most Masonic jurisdictions", please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076 guide lines alone should suffice, in the "Revised Style Guide - Ars Quatuor Coronatorum" to publish any research papers, it is stated page 12-13 that: "In Masonic writing the words ‘Antients’ and ‘Moderns’ call for especial care. It would seem preferable to refer to ‘the Antient Grand Lodge’ or ‘the Antients’ rather than to ‘the Antients’ Grand Lodge’. It is in any event recommended that the Grand Lodge of 1717 be described as ‘the Premier Grand Lodge’ rather than that of the Moderns." You can access the document here. HyperSite (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Joining

How can I join freemason,am from Kenya Opieunana (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

  • First, if you look on line, you will find that most Grand Lodges have websites with information on how to join. So that should be your first step. In the case of Kenya, you should search for the “District Grand Lodge of East Africa”. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: