Talk:Lautaro Lodge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User Argentino posted:

The Lautaro Lodge was a lodge founded by Venezuelan Francisco de Miranda. Supposed to inspired by the masonic lodges but beeng this fact denied by those [1], the main purpose of the Logia Lautaro was to establish independent governments in the colonial Latin America. The Lodge is named after Mapuche leader Lautaro.

This is one opinion contradicted by what historians have been saying up to this point, and by other sites, such as LatinAmericanStudies.org and others [2] [3] [4] [5].

His assertion seems to be that San Martin and other fathers of the nation (próceres) were not either memebers of masonic lodges or beiung influenced by them.

This issue should be discussed before asserting a deviation of common agreement among historians. Alexf(t/c)

Well, no historian in in the position of contradicting what the very same Great Lodges say about the matter. Think about it, they would be proud of being the indirect liberators of America, but they keep saying they were not.

• Your source number 1 doesn't even mention the word "mason"
• Your source number 2 is automatically elliminated because www.elmason.blogspot.com, since it is a blog, is not a reliable source per WP:RS.
• Your source number 3 States that in that time the Lautarical lodges had all the features (oaths, names of positions) but fails to determinate whether they were masonic lodges or not by citing people that thought they were not (historical people) and people who thought they were (some historians, not all agree).
• Your source number 4 says:

La sociedad estaba formada de la misma manera que las logias masónicas de Cádiz, Londres y Venezuela, que tenía por miembros a Miranda, Bolívar y Andrés Bello.

The society was organized in the same way the mason lodges of Cadiz, London and Venezuela, which had as members Miranda, Bolívar and Andrés Bello.

To have the same organization does NOT impy being part of the masons.

• Your source number 5 says there were 2 Lautaro lodges, and that San Marin's WAS NOT the mason one.

Conclusion: there are no reliable sources that say the Lautaro Lodge was a part of the masonry, the masons deny it and reliable sources support the denial. If there isn't any other objection i'll put what you took out again —Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I think it would be better if we skipped the masonic accusations. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)