Talk:Ancient and Primitive Rite

Freemasonry Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

◆ WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":

Improve to Featured Article status
Add content to stubs…
Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc.
Requests
[Watch this list]
- Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable)
Participate in articles listed for deletion
Need images
New Article to be created

Primitive Rite and Memphis-Mizraim

Article with same content and different topic...see: Memphis-Misraim 88.72.33.104 19:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, since AFAIK, they aren't the same system. MSJapan 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to the Rite being considered "irregular" in many countries, as it seems rather vague, and there are no references. There are lots of non-mainstream bodies working the rite, and a few mainstream ones as well. Most Grand Lodges have no stance towards the Rite at all. Philadelphe 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stance is inherent in the regularity issue. If it's not regular, no regular GL can recognize it as such. I'd say you need to prove your statements saying that it is practiced in jurisdictions when there is negative proof that it is not. MSJapan 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of Romania and the Grand Orient of Italy (both of which are recognized by GLMA) both allow M+M (aka AAPRMM). http://www.masonicforum.ro/en/nr22/memphis.html --Vidkun 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSJAPAN

Do you intend to debate here in Wikipedia what is regular and what is not regular do you wish me to teach you what the diference is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.7.252.130 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, we've got a whole article on it, and I'm well aware of what the differences are. Specifically, APR admits women; thus it is irregular as far as UGLE and all other Grand Lodges chartered by and in amity with UGLE. It's interesting, BTW, that there is abxolutely no country-based contact information, yet penetration into various countries is claimed. MSJapan 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now removed after being tagged for citation for over a year. Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient and Primitive Rite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071203003009/http://freemasonry.dept.shef.ac.uk/pdf/bradlaugh.pdf to http://freemasonry.dept.shef.ac.uk/pdf/bradlaugh.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]