Talk:Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Waite information

User:Codigo38 seems insistent on establishing that A.E. Waite was some sort of "high level" Mason and thus in some way authoritative. This contention is contradicted by the cited reliable sources, and is not supported by the citation he gives. I am going to assume good faith, and presume that his edits are well meant... and I have started this thread to give him a chance to talk the issue through. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that -- you have factual errors, such as becoming a Master Mason and Master of his lodge in the same year, when the source clearly states there was a seven-year-or-so gap. You also give "The Book of Black Magic" as being published in two different years. "Many Christian authorities...has led to suspicions...they also believe" and so forth is WP:Weasel wording. Who says? Who believes? You refer to his becoming Master of his lodge as "an authoritative high-level Mason". Heh. No. As anywhere, the chief official of a local chapter of a large organization has no particular notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the "high position" was probably the honorary Past SGW, but I would also note that this is the first I've ever heard of it, and it was likely not given due to his work on black magic, but to contributing to esoteric research, or for some other reason we cannot guess without going to the GL of Iowa's Proceedings and finding out why. To say otherwise is speculation. The rest of the paragraph is textbook synthesis, however: "Waite was a Freemason, Waite was interested in black magic, so Freemasonry = black magic". There is neither justification for the addition nor sourcing for it, no matter what the argument might be. If it comes back, it's a v4im followed by an AIV report and that's the end of it. MSJapan (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church sectoin - undue weight

In what way is this section giving Undue Weight to any particular view? Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than continue to play silly POV warring games, I have taken the article back to its last relatively stable version (from the middle of December). Even that version isn't really neutral... a lot of the material is there as an obvious attempt to "prove" that either the Church is right (and Freemasonry is bad), or that the Church is wrong (and Freemasonry is good), using either primary material or outdated sources. I think we can do better if we work together (here on the talk page) to craft a new version that will present topic accurately and neutrally. Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The undue tag was about the post 1974 misinterpretations (admittedly more credible with Seper than with Anslow or Canon Law). These deserved a few sentences, even if they should be well referenced. But they did not deserve the amount of treatment that they got. That's why I put together a paragraph, while maintaining each of the references and explaining each edit.

As to the "proving" this will be the case with a theological points. If you have Christianity and Slavery you will have a history of the relationship, an examination of the different sects treatment of it (with perhaps more weight naturally given to those that have torn themselves apart over it or have founded themselves on one side or another of the issue) and a treatment of the theological points. You cannot have a treatment of the relationship between a religion and a (often competing) moral structure without looking at the theological arguments and this will involve some "he said, she said" points.

JASpencer (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of having a (brief) history of the relationship... And I don't mind going into some of the theological points (although I don't think we need to go into as much detail on the theological/masonic points as we currently do). I think we should avoid all the quoting (and misquoting) and direct "he said, she said" citations... that is where things definitely slip into undue weight. Also, I have, for a long time, had a problem with the extent to which this article relies on the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia... it is seriously outdated. Surely we can find more modern sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

By far the fairest and most accurate page to date.--Alexanderpope21 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But we can do better. Blueboar (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ties to Christianity

Just FYI, I removed a lot of the body material in this section, because it's not entirely accurate. YR College is for membership in all bodies (at minimum; some require presiding), KYCH is for presiding over all four YR bodies, and many of the others listed are also for presiding officers as well, so the profession of faith is really secondary and these bodies don't affet the vast majority of members. The only really picky ones are Red Cross of Constantine (which is additionally only for Trinitarian Christians), and I have no idea (even having looked it up), as to what St. Thomas of Acon is about, although it's only about 12 years old as a group anyway, and therefore it might have some undue weight even being mentioned. MSJapan (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Title move?

I am thinking that we should change the title of this article. First and foremost, please read: WP:Article titles#Titles containing "and", I think it applies here.

I also think the current title is somewhat imprecise in describing the topic. The focus of the article is on the various Christian denominations that oppose Freemasonry, and why they oppose it. The title should reflect that focus. Some initial suggestions for an alternative title include:

• Christian denominations opposed to Freemasonry,
• Opposition to Freemasonry within Christianity,
• Christian Anti-Masonry.

Any of these would be better than the current title, however I freely admit that none of them are perfect (so I am very open to other suggestions). I list them to inspire discussion and give you an idea of where I think we should go. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The first one is reasonable descriptive, the last one is short and snappy. I like the second option most though - even if Opposition to Freemasonry within a handful of Christian denominations might technically be closer to the truth :) WegianWarrior (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... but since one or two of the denominations in that "handful" are fairly significant, I think we should stick to something a bit more neutral. :>)

I too lean towards my second suggestion... the first would be more appropriate as a title for a list article (which this article isn't). The third, while concise, could be misinterpreted as indicating that all of Christianity is Anti-Masonic, which is definitely not accurate. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My tounge-firmly-in-cheek suggestion would also spiral into a discussion as to how many a handful even is, in addition to being way to long to be convenient :) I would say - unless someone disagrees within a day or two - that you should go ahead and rename this article.

The last one could also be be understood to mean that 'christian anti-masonery' is a unified group different from, for instance, 'islamic anti-masonery' or 'atheistic anti-masonery'... which it's not. Off course, that also means the last one isn't descriptive enough.

A bit of a tangent but with the name as it is today, there is an important sentece that is missing from the beginning of the article: "The wast majority of christians either view masonery in a favorable light or have no opinion on it"...

WegianWarrior (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed... I will give it a day or two to see if anyone steps in with an objection or another suggestion... and if not, I will move to Opposition to Freemasonry within Christianity (and if if there is an objection, I'll send it to WP:RM for broader input).

As for the "missing" sentence... yeah, that is an important fact to note, even if we change the title. Unfortunately, I also suspect that a statement along those lines is "likely to be challenged" by the POV warriors on the anti-masonic side of things... so we should come up with a source. Any suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Been looking for a while now, but the problem is that people seldom bothers to make a book or a website stating the obvious... even less so if they have no opinion. I won't hold my breath, but I will keep looking. WegianWarrior (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

New tags

In all honesty, this article contains some of the most irrational material I have ever seen. No rational editor could ever say the majority of Christian churches agree on anything. Regarding this statement starting the article, "While the majority of Christian denominations are either supportive of Freemasonry or take no stance on it", I have to say that could very likely be taken as intentionally misleading. First, it premises that someone has numbered the total number of Christian denominations. I would love to see evidence of that. Many small denominations are of one or two churches only, and it is very hard to determine what positions if any they have taken on anything but themselves.

Two, there are reliable sources, which I believe have already been introduced regarding this topic, which have said that a number of the larger, more notable denominations have taken rather clear stances on the idea of whether their ministers should be Masons. In many, if not perhaps most of those which have made such statements, they have opposed ministers being Masons. That material is of significance, and could hardly support such a basically unsourced, blanket statement as starts the article.

It is also said clearly that the majority of American Masons are supporters of Freedom of Religion. This, of course, premises that there have been polls of Masons requesting their opinions. I see no evidence of any material whatsoever supporting such a blanket claim.

I request that those editors who wish to keep these statements in the article please provide the references required to substantiate these claims in a reasonable period of time, or have the material removed as unsourced, and almost certainly unsubstantiatable, claims. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic stance on Freemasonry.

This article states, "In 1983, the Canon Law was changed to read: ""A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict," thus eliminating the penalty of excommunication for Masons. Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, wrote in a letter that those who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion; the penalty of excommunication is not declared in the current code of canon law, but membership remains forbidden. However, the letter does not form part of Canon Law and during his tenure Benedict XVI did not make any attempt to change Canon Law to restrict Freemasons from taking communion." I'm pretty sure that unless a Roman Catholic received a dispensation from his priest to join Freemasonry, he could still at least potentially be prohibited from taking communion if he was openly a member of Freemasonry and there was not a compelling reason (such as employment or political connections), that he needed to remain a member. Freemasonry is still prohibited by the Vatican. The last sentence of the quote makes it look like Benedict XVI tolerated Freemasonry during his reign as Pope, and I do not believe that is true. I think at the very least the last sentence should be removed. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Also, this quote, "The Catholic Church argues that the philosophy of French Freemasonry (the Grand Orient, not the dominant variety of Freemasonry or the branch that is active in the English-speaking world) is antithetical to Christian doctrine and that it is at many times and places anti-clerical in intent." gives the potential misleading impression that the Catholic Church does not oppose Anglo-America or Grand Lodge Freemasonry, the mainstream version. It is true that Anglo-American Freemasonry is far less anti-Roman Catholic and far less anti-religious in general than French Freemasonry is, but I'm pretty sure the Roman Catholic is opposed to Freemasonry in all its forms, not just the anti-Catholic French version.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Removal of material

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Opposition to Freemasonry within Christianity Comment. Can we fix this article rather than just hack out the bits a certain editor doesn't like? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dead or Misdirected Links In References

References 46 and 48 refer to "Freemasonry: What Do Christian Churches Really Think about The Lodge?, hosted by Jubilee Resources International", on http://www.jubilee.org.nz/ which is now a blog run by a personal trainer and does not address Freemasonry at all.

At the very least these references ought to be edited to remove the erroneous link to which I refer. Sourcing to replace this link is also needed and if it cannot be obtained, the references and perhaps the passages they support ought to be removed.

I'm mentioning this to get consensus before I take the action I'm proposing. loupgarous (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mormonism

Another criticism I have of the article is mentioning the Mormons at all, whether they're being pro-Masonic or anti-Masonic. Mormonism does NOT fit into the correct definition of Christianity. It is a different religion from Christianity. It is actually more different from Christianity than Judaism and Islam are, because Christianity is a monotheistic religion, like Judaism and Islam. For that matter, Mormonism is probably more different from Christianity than Freemasonry is, because I believe that Freemasons believe in one God, deistic/universalistic Freemasons believe in a generic Supreme Being, and Freemasons who believe in Freemasonry as its own religion I believe believe in an ancient Jewish God called Jahbulon, both of those propositions are more similar to Christianity than Mormonism is, because Freemasonry and Christianity are both monotheistic. Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion I've ever heard of. Mormonism teaches that the Trinity are three different Gods, not one, that Jesus is not the main God but a lesser God, that Jesus is not to be worshiped, but only his Father is, that his Father is ancient God called Elohim who was originally not a God but lived on another planet and then was elevated to Godhood by the God who created him and who he served, and that humans can become Gods after they die. Mormons teach that there are an unlimited number of Gods in the universe. No eastern or pagan religion teaches this. To include Mormonism in this article is off topic, because it is not Freemasonry and it is not Christianity. No Christian church other than the Mormons considers them Christian, the Roman Catholic Church does not require Protestants who were baptized as Protestants to be baptized as Roman Catholics if they convert, for example when I was 17 years old my family and I converted to Roman Catholicism, and we were not forced to be baptized again because we had been baptized as Protestants, but the Roman Catholic Church does NOT accept Mormon baptisms and requires Mormon converts to be re-baptized if they become Christian. Mormonism is more incompatible with Christianity than Freemasonry is, so to list Mormonism's anti-Masonic stance as part of Christian anti-Masonry is absurd. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Please be more succinct in your statements regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and provide sources for your statements regarding the status of that church among other sects which profess Christianity. I have no dog in that fight, being an Episcopalian, but I would like to see any action taken regarding the references to Mormonism and Freemasonry be made on the basis of sourced material that isn't biased - as a proclamation by, say, the Vatican would be.

A statement by an ecumenical council of many Christian churches regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would have much more weight than one Christian Church attacking the Christianity of another, as the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI did of the entire Protestant branch of Christianity while he was Pope, on July 10, 2007: "Protestant communities, the pope said, “cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense,” because they lack apostolic succession, that is, the ability to trace their leadership back to Christ’s original disciples".

Wikipedia is not an axe to be ground and used by editors to advance their own religious beliefs. When that happens it's the duty of other editors to prevent or revert such changes. loupgarous (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Manly Hall should not be cited as a source about Freemasonry, in my opinion.

"Manly Palmer Hall, a noted occultist and author on Masonic topics, wrote a book called Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins in 1929 (long before he ever became a Mason)and the Rosicrucian author Max Heindel wrote a book in the 1910s, both of which portray Catholicism and Freemasonry as being two distinct streams in the development of Christianity." Manly Hall is NOT in the mainstream of scholarship about Freemasonry. He was an occultist, a New Ager, a person obsessed with linking Freemasonry with ancient pagan religions and with ancient Judaism. He tried to prove Freemasonry was connected to the ancient pyramids, and to King Solomon's Temple. Citing him as a legitimate authority about Freemasonry here would be even more bizarre than citing, say Sigmund Freud or Alfred Kinsey as authorities in the puberty article. Martin Short, in Inside the Brotherhood said Manly Hall had a "slim hold on reality". His scholarship is generally not respected by either Masons or non-Masons, he's generally considered a crank, except by lunatic fringe Freemasons who want to claim ancient Jewish origins and crackpot anti-Freemasonic and anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists like David Icke and Pat Robertson.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of a Manly Hall quote to show mainstream a Masonic scholar he was, "The day has come when Fellow Craftsmen must know and apply their knowledge. The lost key to their grade is the mastery of emotion, which places the energy of the universe at their disposal. Man can only expect to be entrusted with great power by proving his ability to use it constructively and selflessly. When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the 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 and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. He must follow in the footsteps of his forefather, Tubal-Cain, who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a plowshare. Incessant vigilance over thought, action, and desire is indispensable to those who wish to make progress in the unfolding of their own being, and the Fellow Craft’s degree is the degree of transmutation. The hand that slays must lift the fallen, while the lips given to cursing must be taught to pray. The heart that hates must learn the mystery of compassion, as the result of a deeper and more perfect understanding of man’s relation to his brother. The firm, kind hand of spirit must curb the flaming powers of emotion with an iron grip. In the realization and application of these principles lies the key of the Fellow Craft."http://www.manlyphall.org/text/the-lost-keys-of-freemasonry/chapter-iv-the-fellow-craft/ --PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, as Manly Hall wrote the book, The Lost Keys of Freemasonry, in his early twenties, way before he ever joined Freemasonry, and most agree, scholars included, that he got everything completely wrong, and Hall even admitted the fact, after he did join a Lodge in California. His Luciferianism quotes can be traced back to A C de la Rive, and Leo Taxil as the main source, including Edith Starr Miller.--Craxd1 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Blavatsky

I personally also think Blavatsky is off topic to the article. I think Crowley is also to a lesser. Most of the Christian accusations that Freemasonry is satanic have to do with Albert Pike's writings and with an allegation that was never proven that he stated Lucifer was God, and Albert Pike really was involved in mainstream Freemasonry, Crowley was not involved in mainstream Freemasonry very much, and Blavatsky was not at all. In fact, Blavatsky had political views similar to Nazism, so she probably would have opposed western Freemasonry (I mean the Freemasonry of the British Empire, the United States, and France, etc.), since western Freemasonry advocates liberalism at least in its original classical sense, its certainly not conservative or reactionary in the original senses of those terms, and since some people of Blavatsky's persuasion, like Hitler and Luddendorff, viewed western Freemasonry as controlled by Jews.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Annie Besant, Blavatsky's friend and collaborator, brought mixed masonry to the English speaking world, personally starting the first lodges in the UK and USA. The Droit Humain lodges still using the descendant of the Besant-Leadbeater ritual still have strong Theosophical links. This seems to be the point the references are making - it just needs explained better. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Blavatsky is not a credible source, and is certainly not scholarly.--Craxd1 (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Article and title don't agree

Criticisms and counter-criticisms are so intermingled in this article that it appears written by a Freemason under attack. Rather than learning what Christians say about Freemasonry, I learned why Freemasons think Christians are wrong. While I expected bias, I certainly didn't expect the bias to argue with the article's title. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to where you think Criticisms and counter-criticisms are intermingled, or that the article is biased... The only section where I see any counter-criticisms is the last section (the section on how some Christian anti-Masons misquote various texts) and that is simply stating fact. The bulk of the article lays out the Christian opposition without any counter-argument. If anything this article goes out of its way to be biased towards the anti-Masonic view. Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Even though I oppose Freemasonry I have to say that this article does seem to have an anti-Masonic bias in some ways. It cites as legitimate evidence for Freemasonry having satanic tendencies fringe authors like Manly Hall and even some non-Masons like Blavatsky. Even Pike is not really evidence of Freemasonry being satanic. Martin Short wrote, "Even if the quote is genuine and Pike a satanist, his writings and rituals have no place in English Masonry's version of America's Scottish Rite, Rose Croix, even if it [the Lucifer quote] did, Rose Croix has no authority over Masons who do not belong to it. To demonstrate that satanism is part of mainstream Freemasonry, any "prosecutor" has to prove direct links between the Grand Lodge of England and satanist groups." I think the information about Manly Hall, Pike, et al. should be removed, because they are not in the mainstream of Freemasonry. And the main reason most Christians oppose Freemasonry is because it is viewed as deistic and a naturalist religion that is incompatible with Christianity, not because they think it is satanic. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

They cite the New Catholic Encyclopedia as a source for what is considered as religious in Freemasonry, and several things the encyclopedia has completely wrong. Quote: "Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward or punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiation and burial rites." Regular Freemasonry does not. They have a prayer, led by a chaplain, just like many other fraternities or clubs do, and say a few words at a burial, which is not a rite. Freemasonry has no worship, nor does it give any sacraments, all of which are required in a church. Militaries also have vestments, along with many other fraternities and clubs, such as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Last, there is nothing mentioned of a promise or award in the afterlife, except that which matches Christianity and many other religions. Freemasonry does not have temples, they have Lodges. Temples are used in the appendant bodies, which are separate organizations from Freemasonry. What is left are the very things that many other fraternities and clubs have, including the Knights of Columbus. Yes, this article is more biased toward pro-religion and against Freemasonry--Craxd1 (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)