Talk:Freemasonry/Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 8 Oct 2005 and 17 Oct 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_6. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan 10:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Direction this page is heading under Masonic Editors

What is the point *IN YOUR MINDS* of having the Wikipedi entry be an exact mirror of hundreds of other Masonic websites? Don't you Masonic "lights" think people will just take one look at it, realize it is a duplicate of what they have seen elsewhere and trundle on off to say, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Freemasonry, or some other non-masonic website?

Masonry still retains among its emblems one of a woman weeping over a broken column, holding in her hand a branch of acacia, myrtle, or tamarisk, while Time, we are told, stands behind her combing out the ringlets of her hair. We need not repeat the vapid and trivial explanation... given, of this representation of Isis, weeping at Byblos, over the column torn from the palace of the King, that contained the body of Osiris, while Horus, the God of Time, pours ambrosia on her hair.

Illustrious Albert Pike 33°
Morals and Dogma, page 379

Lightbringer 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (This content was placed at the top of the discussion page in err by Lightbringer, placed in it's correct position by myself, Jachin)

I don't understand, Lightbringer, why you can't seem to come to a consensus with the other editors of this article on what should and shouldn't be included. They can seem to come to a consensus, yet you somehow are incapable of this. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand why I can't come to consensus with the Pro-Masonry Propagandist 'consensus's' deletion of any information they dislike? Go figure Jimmy.Lightbringer 15:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Should a second "anti freemasonry" page be created?

Note: This section restored afer user:Lightbringer removed [1] it for no apperant reason. WegianWarrior 10:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

should a second "anti freemasonry" page be created?

grazon 23:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There was one already, and someone had the lame idea to merge it into the main article. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll create a new anti freemasonry page then

grazon 01:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem with articles specifically about minority views on larger topics is that 1) the info is not integrated into the main article, where it usually deserves to be, 2) POV-pushing individuals see an article specifically about their stance and tend to think they "own" it as represntatives of that stance and can say whatever they want, dispensing with the NPOV policy because they claim the "balance" comes from the existence of the main article, and 3) editors tend to ignore the side articles and focus on the main ones, so those pushing agendas on these fork articles get away with a lot more because fewer people are watching. In this case with a known POV pusher on the loose, this just reopens the battle that was put on hold while this page was locked. You can still see him creeping around to other articles to try to sneak anti-Mason comments in as it is. DreamGuy 01:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll keep it restricted to Historical movements and important people then.

grazon 02:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused -- why create a new page instead of just removing the redirect from the old page? That way, we could just delete anything from the main article that was duplicated there. Theoretically. --SarekOfVulcan 06:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the page because it is a violation of the block and arbitration of the Freemasonry page in obvious disregard for the Wikipedia process, and the information contained is not factual and unsupported by any references. Wikipedia is not a place for Masons to propagate their fiction and misinformation.Lightbringer 15:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't violate a thing. It's a separate article, and as such has nothing to do with arbitration of this article. grazon can do whatever he wants, because that's his article. Neither you nor I nor anybody else has a right to delete that page. MSJapan 18:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Nor is Wikipedia a place for Anti-Masons to propagate their unrefereced fiction and misinformation. You're throwing stones when you're in a glass house there buddy. WegianWarrior 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

But Brethren I am merely applying the same 'jurisprudence' Dreamboy and MSJapan applied to me in serially deleting all of my page creations. Secondly the 'progression' of the debate in the last two months of the Wikipedia Freemasonry entry (I silently observed and followed the state of affairs here for six weeks before interjecting myself) is that you had a anti-masonry page where all the 'criticism' views were contained. Some Wikipedians complained about the continual deletion of links and edits of "anti" pages and material and the CONSENSUS decided to combine the 'anti' page and the 'freemasonry' page into one. Now it is all blocked and under arbitration at MSJapan's and Dreamguys "frustrations". So now MSJapan is trying to "seriously" suggest that the creation of a 'anti-freemasonry' page is not a violation of the block, not to mention the Pro-Masonry P.O.V. tagline at the top that the content of the page 'can only contain historical figures' or some such. The material posted (obviously intended as the new version of anti-masonry, deleting all 'criticsm' paragraphs now on the freemasonry page, is a rote rip-off cut and paste from virulent anti-anti-masonry Masonic websites, of course in keeping with the MSJapan double standard, containing not a single reference to the masonic website the list was swiped from, and without a single reference, also in keeping with the Dreamguy/MSJapan double standard. Do we see a pattern developing here kiddies?Lightbringer 05:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I spent about 40 minutes tonight adding some interesting info about the history of Freemasonry under the nazi's then I thought what is the point, there shouldn't be a serpate sub page for this 'anti' material anyways as it is integeral to the whole. I then read about subpages on Wiki and see that it is really something they are trying to get away from. If it is used it is only used sparingly and should be for extraneous material, which this under arbitration topic clearly is not. I also see that Dreamguy has once again deleted my addtional paragraph to the Taxil hoax with his usual caustic comments. So it appears to be still 'game on'. I have placed a redirect on the 'anti-freemasonry' page, and that is that. We are under arbitration and block and the subpage is not following Wiki guidlines. Lightbringer 07:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

With the latest comment from Lightbringer on the Anti-Freemasonry talk page, it is - when wieved in context with his desire to 'prune' away important information (like the Landmarks and the History sections) from the main article - where he wants to take this article... if he gets his way it'll turn into an article on the critisim of Freemasonery (and one thats not particulary NPOV either). Never mind the fact that current concencius seems to be to keep the articles on Freemasonery and Anti-Freemasonery seperate... WegianWarrior 06:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

By All Means 'Freeze' the Page

I don't need this, go back 30 days and freeze it, I've only been 'editing' here for a few weeks I think. Would suit me just fine, at least it would stop the continual slow deletion game being done to an otherwise pretty good page on Freemasonry, and believe me I've seen most of them on the net.

This "war" all started with the "Masonic" editors continual deleting of a couple of links to newspaper articles by the way. Like I said I thought it was already a pretty good page on Freemasonry that included both perspectives. Freeze away please. Lightbringer 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (This content was placed at the top of the discussion page in err by Lightbringer, placed in it's correct position by myself, Jachin)

Wikipedia cannot link to copyrighted material without permission. I looked at the Post's website, and the $400 per year charge was for that article for non-profit websites. Clearly, any definition of "fair use" does not apply, and we have no right to circumvent that, such as by getting it off another site that does not have the required permissions displayed. Never mind the fact that the main site is already bookmarked.

Your 'point' about this is really a hoot. Are you the webmaster of the Freemasonry Watch website? It is obvious you are just making this stuff up as you go along. And what about all the material you have 'removed' from Masonic websites, did you get permission for that? Did you pay those Masonic webmasters $400? It is obvious you will say anything to try and justify deleting information you intensely dislike, no matter how transparantly silly and ridiculous the 'point' you are making may beLightbringer 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a cursory search will reveal that some of the NYT "facts" are wrong (the accidental shooting did not occur either during ritual or in the Lodge room, for example). There isn't really any other choice open to us other than deleting articles like that if we're going to provide correct, factual information and adhere to Wikipedia's policies.

Gee you certainly seem to have an amazing resource of 'facts' at your disposal. You seem to have memorized page and verse the Freemasonry Watch website, you imply you are an Editor of the site, or a manager of the Washington Post, and you have access to New York Police department files and information, that the New York Times doesn't. And you are aware of the 'fact' that well known Masonic author Waite is not a 33rd Degree Freemason, even though he says so on the front cover of his books. You are either the greatest scholar of Freemasonry, in the history of Freemasonry, or you are the greatest charlaton. Only time will tell which is the truth. Lightbringer 13:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have the feeling that reverting to a month ago will only put us back in the same situation, because the articles will go in again, somebody will delete them, and the whole thing will go on ad infinitum until we end up at the same place. As it stands, the only way to get this mess sorted out is to lock it down, because it's getting to the point where the edits are past the point of following. Now, ideally, people can grab bits they want to work on, and post them on the talk page for perusal, so we won't lose the ability to improve the article. However, I would first suggest that nothing be done to the article until arbitration is complete. MSJapan 02:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We already can see by your wholesale deletion of the Prince Hall, Women in Freemasonry, and Membership sections, as well as repeated deletions of Lucifer quotations, Taxil Hoax additions, and offsite links, of what kind of Freemasonry page you have in mind for Wikipedia readers. Wouldn't is just be easier to have all the Wikipedia pages related to Freemasonry just hotlink to MSJapan's own website? Lightbringer 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What you call "destruction" is a little thing called the NPOV policy. You should read up on it. Also, why do you keep calling all the editors who revert your propoganda in this article "Masons"? I've already explained that I'm not, I'm just someone who likes to have an encyclopedia free of fiction, wild conspiracy theories and bizarre accusations presented as if they were factual when they are not. Rant and rave all you want. Wikipedia policies and the consensus of the editors here all oppose your actions. DreamGuy 00:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

What I call destruction, is exactly that. What you call "NPOV" is in fact your extremely biased Pro-Masonry POV. The remainder

of your comments are simply more personal attacks and extremist masonic rhetoric, something you specialize in. You're not intersted in facts or references, which I have provided in abundance, only in putting the best face you can on Masonry, and insulting those who don't.Lightbringer 15:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Lightbringer quite understands that Freemasonry as a whole appreciate Prince Hall, Co-Freemasonry and other appendant bodies as an example of the diversity of the Craft and it's expansion and enlightenment of society, heck, every 'new age' religion is based on Freemasonry, from Gardner's Wicca through to the Mormons, from the Church of Satan to certain born again Christian sects. It's a cross spectrum thing and a good illustration of work. Jachin 05:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry as a whole certainly does not appreciate Prince Hall and Co-Masonry as part of the diversity of the Craft, because they do not recognize them as 'being part of the craft' AT ALL. There is not a single black man or woman who is a member of the vast majority of Masonic Lodges in the U.S.A.(zero for women) because YOU WON'T ADMIT THEM. Why exactly would the Church of Satan, wicca, and 'new age' religions be a good thing? Run that one by me again. Lightbringer 15:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer et al, you are all forgetting the WikiLove. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer, The entire anti-mason argument falls flat on it's arse if you take away 'religion' from the perspective. That Freemasonry is a code of conduct and moral beliefs, much like chivalry. One can be chivalrous and be hindu for all I care, likewise, with Freemasonry, it is a code of conduct that brings people together. Much of the 'ritual' where anti masons would have them slaughtering goats is generally illustrative of early man's mnemonic cultural history, passing on stories of the history of man through a parable or illustrative means.

Sometimes the obligation to omerta vexes me greatly in the fact that if anti-masons SAW and UNDERSTOOD they'd realise just how paranoid and dilusional they are. But people so filled with hate need scapegoats, there will always be a comeback or little wit or intellect. "You just don't see the goat slaughtering and satan worshipping because you're too low a degree.", or "Maybe in your country it's like that, but here .." At the end of the day, anti-masonry is moot, the preachers thereof have no understanding of what they're damning to hell, but that being said the same people who damn what they don't understand have just as much right as the next man to join and examine it and walk away whenever they see fit.

In my lodge, as I said earlier, there is a minority of whites. This whole prince hall thing is American drivel and considering there are 241 other countries in the world I pay it no heed. If you want to deface an article and ruin it for 241 other countries, to victimise ALL of us equally on behalf of your opinion from what you have read of ONE COUNTRIES actions and beliefs, then I really have no time for you. I have looked at both sides of the story, before becoming a freemason I read through every single anti-masonic site out there, once you get past the paranoia and obvious borderline personality and behavioural disorders of the owners and participants, you can gain much knowledge about what FM is about. Well, was about, a few hundred years ago, as almost all of the information is so outdated.

That being said, I just want to reitterate, there are hundreds of other countries out there, we're all constantly subjected to the woes of America every day in the media as it is, a lot of us come to the internet for freedom of press, so to find an international encylopedia bogged down with American he says she says shits me to no end.

At risk of this turning into a norse edda, let me say, the above is purely -my- opinion as an individual and probably not fit for this forum, but I want to get things straight, so as an individual to an individual, whilst I can appreciate where you are coming from, as I have held somewhat similar beliefs about certain organisations in the past, the method through which you are going about things is incorrect. Wiki requires a consensus of authors, so you're just beating your head against a brick wall by making yourself look like a vindictive agressor in this situation. I suggest you just chill, relax, learn a little more about Wiki before you jump straight in like you have and work WITH people instead of against them. Your opinion is respected and appreciated, just making sweeping generalisations and statements on the article without even questioning the validity of the data on the talk page is problematic. Jachin 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

There are two 'streams' of anti-masonic 'thought', as you are probably aware of - religious objections, AND social objections. So if an eternity in hell doesn't turn your crank, you can ponder having your application for government employment or contracts being shelved in favour of the Bro's down at city hall giving all the plums to their fellow masons. Since the vast majority of masons are motived by preferment and preference rather than communing with dislocated spirit of Albert Pike this is an extremely effective denomination of the anti-masonic faith. To put in laymens terms 'they're a bunch of crooks'. Hope this info helps to clear up your confusion on the matter.Lightbringer 05:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I know this is probably not the forum for psychological profiling, but I have to ask. Lightbringer, have you ever been directly wronged by a Freemason, or with your own eyes sighted such wrongdoings? It takes a lot more than conspiracy theories to show so much hate towards any organisation, surely? Jachin 08:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Wine and Whiskey improve with age. Let's just say the little skirmish here is not the first. I knew exactly what would happen if I started posting critical material of Masonry here. The point of it wasn't to illicit a rise out of the resident Masons, it was to show them that the era when they could get a free ride to disseminate their p.r. in the public arena, like they have done for a century or more in the English speaking world, is no more. There are two sides to every story, Masonry being no exception. The 'second' side, should be authentically told, and it will. So help me God.Lightbringer 05:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Masonic Academic Research Methodology

James Anderson (d. 1739), a Scottish Presbyterian minister, wrote the Book of Constitutions in which he contrived the "traditional" albeit spurious history of freemasonry. Masons hold that God, "the Great Architect," founded freemasonry, and that it had as patrons, Adam and the Patriarchs. Even Jesus is listed as "the Grand Master" of the Christian Church. They credit themselves with the building of Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, the Pyramids and Solomon's Temple. In all, freemasonry borrows liberally from the history and traditions of cultic groups such as the Druids, Mithars, Egyptian priesthood, Rosicrucians and others to weave its own history.

-Fr. William P. Saunders

Fr. Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls and a professor of catechetics and theology at Christendom’s Notre Dame Graduate School in Alexandria.Lightbringer 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (This content was placed at the top of the discussion page in err by Lightbringer, placed in it's correct position by myself, Jachin)

You know, I hate to break it to you, but every Masonic researcher is aware of this. Entries on all those things appear in just about every Masonic encyclopedia or dictionary. It doesn't mean we necessarily believe it to be the absolute truth. Rather, it explains where certain thungs came from. For example, two Masons, Lomas and Knight, attempt to tie Freemasonry as far back as pre-Judeo-Christian Venus cults in their book The Hiram Key. It's got lots of sources, but nobody takes their research seriously, because it's a lot of speculation masquerading as fact. Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true, the same way not everyone believes that the world is less than 6000 years old. These same people who invented this history also thought that good medical treatments were giving people mercury and leeching blood out of them. Given the application of Reason, I fail to see a) why that quote says anything about Freemasonry that is valid now, and b) what that quote supposedly says about Masonic research methodology. MSJapan 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently reading Snow Crash, where "the application of Reason" has quite a different (and rather tempting) meaning. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 00:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas are not Freemasons and have never been Freemasons. (A fact that they freely admit -- with good reason -- in their book 'The second messiah'.)

The above paragraph rebuttal was not written by me. I don't know if it is written by a unsigned third party, or it is some kind of little game by MSJapan. For the record I am well aware of the book/books by these authors, as well as their Masonic membership. Lomas is generally disliked by 'mainstream' masonry, especially for his revealing of certain rituals and images.Lightbringer 05:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Update: see my comments on Spinboy hacking and stiring the pot on this thread. Lightbringer 06:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

From the back inside dust jacket of the selfsame The Second Messiah - "In 1976 [Christopher Knight] became a Freemason...In 1986 [Dr. Robert Lomas] became a Freemason...". From the inside front jacket of The Book of Hiram - "When Freemasons, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas..." From the inside front cover of The Hiram Key - "When Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, both Masons..." I don't have Uriel's Machine, but I'm sure something similar is there, and finally, from the inside back of the dust jacket to Freemasonry and the Birth of Modern Science - "In 1986 Robert [Lomas] became a Freemason and quickly became a popular lecturer on Masonic history before coauthoring the international bestsellers..." MSJapan 01:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not just Knight and Lomas, they are just the tiny tip of an iceberg full of Masonic claims about it's origins and accomplishments. Read Pike, read Mackey, read Hall. The list and claims are endless. One thing is certain is that Anderson was trying to cover up his burning of the real original constituions of the Lodge, which were Trinitarian Roman Catholic. Instead what we have is Satanic inspired Occultism from the Rosicruicians and other heretics who opened the gates of hell for 300 years of apostasy and terror.Lightbringer 05:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Repost of deleted remarks.Lightbringer 06:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy reversing Talk Page

I posted a response to MSJapan's comments in the Masonic Research Methodology para about Lomas and Knight and ten minutes later see Spinboy deleted them 'reason given: vandalism'. What the heck! You will note that MSJapan responded to an unsigned paragraph, apparently thinking I wrote it, I guess now we can guess who the real author is. Get a grip Spinboy!!! Lightbringer 06:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You went and changed messages left by other users, that's considered rude and vandalism. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous users don't tend to sign their comments. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You're seeing things then. I never changed anything MSJapan or the anonymous author of the para about Knight and Lomas not being Masons. Sometimes if I see a spelling error or want to add another thought I will 'edit' MY OWN comments immediately after making it, but that is it. You can easily verify this if you read the versions before I responded and after. I didn't bother to find out who wrote the unsigned para, maybe it was you, maybe it was someone else, but MSJapan thinks it was me I think.Lightbringer 06:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm 99.9% sure I saw you edit MSJapan's comments. No matter, you're doing fine now. I'm not here to be against you, I'm just making sure that everyone plays fair. If I see MSJapan, DreamGuy, etc doing this, I'll revert it too. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

00.1% You "saw" me edit his comments? By the way did you "see" who changed the heading for this sub para from 'Spinboy hacking Talkpage' to 'Spinboy changing Talkpage'?Lightbringer 06:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

3.0 Now it's "reversing". Spinboy you definately have what it takes to be a Mason.Lightbringer 06:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I renamed the section as per Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

For those too lasy to look thru the history of the talk-page in order to 'see' who did what;

• User:Lightbringer 'changing' (well, technicly splitting up) the comment left by User:MSJapan. I'm not sure is splitting up a previous comment is considered vandalism as such, but I find it impolite and disrespectfull myself.
• In the same spirit, User:Spinboy moving (per the guidelines for talkpages) this section, and renaming it from "hacking" to "reversing". I have no clue where User:Lightbringer saw the word "changing"...

WegianWarrior 14:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I must admidt it's interesting to see how quiet User:Lightbringer got once someone point to simple facts like this that proves him wrong... Since he has edited the talkpage multiple times since the links was posted for the world to see, I'm assuming he has indeed seem them. WegianWarrior 10:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)