Talk:Illuminati

Wrong to associate Illuminati and freemasons

the freemasons are not illuminati. Freemasonry is not a secret society. You can find anything you want on line and in the real world. It is perceived to be secret but it is not. It is just discreet. D612m (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a clear link between Freemasonry and the historical Illuminati, with its founder being a former Freemason and several lodges being influenced. They also both were secret societies, until these were banned and the Freemasons forced to maintain membership lists etc. in 1785 by the Holy Roman Empire. Calling it "discreet" is (I'm assuming) a modern approach, which doesn't apply to the 18th century versions of both organisations. Call me Matt - Bling Collector 12:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

of course there are links. But Freemasonry is not secret. Here it reads as a blanket statement that Freemasonry is a secret society. It should be clarified that: Freemasonry although perceived as secret, especially in the 18th century, is a discreet society. 38.122.241.122 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is discussing 18th century organisations. At the time, the Freemasons were a secret society. That is not open to dispute. If modern Freemasons have issues with accurate statements regarding historical events that is their problem, not ours. We are not going to misrepresent what our sources say for their convenience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Meh… a lot depends on what region of the world you are talking about, and what you mean by the term “secret society”.

In the UK and its American colonies, for example, the Freemasons of the 18th century frequently marched public processions dressed in their Masonic regalia. They definitely did not keep membership secret. In European countries (and especially Catholic countries), however, they were far more “secret”… even as to membership.

We also have the problem of defining what sources mean when they call something a “secret society”. Today, that term conjures images of masked men in robes, meeting to plan something nefarious… but as recently as the 1960s the term was used much more broadly - to describe any fraternal group that had “secret” handshakes, passwords and initiation rituals they did not share with non-members - this included college fraternities and eating clubs, the animal fraternities (Elks, Lions, Raccoons and Waterbuffalo), the Knights of Columbus and even the Boy Scouts’ Order of the Arrow. It is estimated that, in the 1920s, one in five American men belonged to at least one “secret society”.

All that said… in the context of the 18th century… there is good reason why the Illuminati was based in Germany. GERMAN Freemasonry in that era was indeed far more “secretive” than its UK or American counterparts. It was also far more “esoteric” in outlook than Anglo Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain 2600:100B:B01A:B22:0:59:901C:5901 (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no curtain. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Rosicrucians

I seek to delete stuff about Rosicrucian from the article. Reason: Rosicrucians appeared in the 1760s, so they were too late to have quarreled with the Illuminati.

Edighoffer, Roland (2005). "Rosicrucianism I: First half of the 17th Century". In Hanegraaff, Wouter J.; Faivre, Antoine; Broek, Roelof van den; Brach, Jean-Pierre (eds.). Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism: I. Brill. p. 1009. ISBN 978-90-04-14187-2. The manifestoes originated in the "Learned and Christian Society" established by → Johann Valentin Andreae in Tübingen in 1610. This small group of bosom friends of Andreae's, notably Christoph Besold and Tobias Hess (his amici secretissimi), together conceived of and constructed the Rosicrucian myth.

Edighoffer 2005, p. 1014: "This influence remained literary, however: there is no proof that the Brotherhood of the Rose Cross described in the Fama Fraternitatis ever existed, and it is only in the 18th century that actual organizations calling themselves “rosicrucian” first come into existence."

That is, 1762 is the birth of a Rosicrucian degree in Freemasonry. In 1763 was apparently founded the first Rosicrucian order.

From the birth of the first Rosicrucian organization till the sunset of the Illuminati were less than 25 years, so I guess that it is a rather short time for fighting against each other. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Edighoffer 2005, p. 1016: "He then went to Leipzig, and next to Wiesbaden, and entered into relations with J.C. Wöllner (1732- 1800); this former pastor who had become a Freemason was thirsty for supernatural knowledge, and had been accepted into the Rosicrucian circle of Berlin in 1779."

So, Wöllner could only speak as a Rosicrucian against Illuminati for 8 years, which makes it rather improbable. And till 1783 (the decision of Frederick the Great) were only 4 years. So, again, the idea that Wöllner became an important Rosicrucian and convinced the Freemasons that the Illuminati were dangerous, seems improbable.

In the same book Monika Neugebauer-Wölk states that the Illuminati cultivated not only Enlightenment rationalism, but also Christian theosophy and Gnosticism. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Once again… WHICH Rosecrucians are we talking about? There were several groups that were influenced by Rosecrucianism running around in Germany at the time. “Rosecrucianism” wasn’t one monolithic thing. So which group are we talking about? Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• More specifically, I'm speaking about Wöllner. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Erzurum?

The city of Eichstätt has been shown as Erzurum — are you sure about that, guys? Erzurum is a city located in the eastern part of Turkey. Ömer Berkay (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Shown where? Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggested addition to “Modern Illuminati” section (source and phrasing feedback welcome)

Hi editors,

I previously attempted to add a brief, well-sourced sentence in the Modern Illuminati section that was reverted with the note “not a reliable source.”

The sentence was:

“Some modern researchers argue that while these contemporary groups lack historical continuity with the Bavarian Illuminati, they often borrow selectively from its documented structure and symbolism.”

While The Odd Signal is a non-academic but well-documented publication, the article referenced draws upon historical materials (including Bavarian police archives, John Robison, and Freemason records) and includes secondary references such as Britannica and academic summaries.

That said, I understand the source may be unfamiliar. To improve credibility, I’m happy to revise the sentence and pair it with a more traditional citation, e.g.: Trevor McKeown – A Bavarian Illuminati Primer, Grand Lodge of British Columbia

https://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/illuminati.html

Would editors be open to the combined use of a traditional and a newer source in this case? Or would you prefer a more academic-only phrasing for such a contextual note? I’ll defer to consensus.

Thanks in advance for feedback. Josediz (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• McKeown would be an acceptable source (he is well respected) but an academic source would be even better. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, @Blueboar — much appreciated. I agree and will revise the sentence using only the McKeown reference, as suggested. That should keep the addition solid and within source guidelines. Josediz (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

References