Talk:Scottish Rite/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rose Croix Anti Christian? and the aprons thing?

All of that is lifted directly from this webpage: http://religion-cults.com/Secret/Freemasonry/Freemasonry.htm, word for word. As such, it's copyvio, and will be removed soon.--Vidkun 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair nough to me, is that the whole section or just the 'Christian but anti-catholic' bit, which is an interesting and moderately amusing internal inconsistency? And FWIW I have, as a collector, got both 18th and 30th degree regalia and disagree with the statements made. :) ALR 19:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}} tag needs to stay

User:RG, I need to ask you to leave the tag on that section of the article (Rose Croix) unless you provide a citation for the claim.--Vidkun 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A question on organization of Supreme Council for SJ

The article says: In the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, the Supreme Council consists of no more than 33 members. The Supreme Council is presided over by a Grand Commander. Other members of the Supreme Council are called "Sovereign Grand Inspectors General" (S.G.I.G.), and each is the head of the Rite in his respective Orient (or state). Other heads of the various Orients who are not members of the Supreme Council are called "Deputies of the Supreme Council." Let me see if I have this right... there are 35 State Orients, plus various territory Orients in the Southern Jurisdiction ... but only 33 spots on the Supreme Counsel. From this, I gather that some of the State level Grand Commanders (ie heads of the various Orients) get to be on the Supreme Counsel while others do not. How does the Southern Jurisdiction deside who will get to sit and who does not? Blueboar 13:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is only one Sovereign Grand Commander in a Supreme Council. As is stated in the article, the head of each Orient (state) is called either a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, if he is one of the 33 members of the Supreme Council, or he is called a Deputy of the Supreme Council, if he is not a member of the Supreme Council. When a vacancy appears in the Supreme Council, the Sovereign Grand Commander replaces him by appointing a Deputy of the Supreme Council to fill said vacancy. Then, after a period of time, the Supreme Council, in its regular biennial session, will hold an election and may elect one or more of the current Deputies to membership on the Supreme Council, depending on how many vacancies there are, at which time those Deputies so elected become S.G.I.G.s. PGNormand 04:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 8 April 2006

Thanks... what I was really asking was how they chose which Inspector Generals get to be on the Supreme Council and which do not. If I understand what you are saying it is done by election every two years, or by appointment by the Grand Commander if a vacancy opens sooner. Do I have it right? Blueboar 21:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. What I meant was that when an S.G.I.G.'s spot on the Sup. Cncl. (or a Deputy's spot as head of his Orient, for that matter) becomes vacant, it is filled by appointment by the Gr. Cmdr. That is, the new appointee becomes a Deputy, and therefore is not a "member" of the Supr. Cncl. By the end of two years, there may be several vacant seats on the 33 seat Supr. Cncl. Then, at the biennial session, the Supr. Cncl. members will vote to elevate any Deputies it chooses to fill the empty seats on the Supr. Cncl. Why any given S.G.I.G. votes for a certain Deputy over another is anyone's guess. Its an election, after all. PGNormand 04:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding the Scottish Rite

To MSJapan: I guess I should apologize for deleting this heading and reworking the short two-sentence paragraph that follows it. However, by adding the expanded section on Albert Pike, I thought I might better explain who Albert Pike was, what he meant to the growth of the Rite, and what exactly he did as far as taking what was virtually unworkable degrees, some with no content at all, and turning them into a coherent system of degrees. To simply say that he "revised the degrees" and that his revision and its lectures in "Morals & Dogma" are "the source of criticism" for the Scottish Rite leaves a lot to be desired. Especially when you offer no source for your comments.

I have no problem with stating that Pike's work is a source of criticism, all great leaders are criticized. But I can't see how the two-sentence paragraph under "Controversy" is better than the expanded section on Albert Pike. Nevertheless, I have left the "Controversy" section as is, and have simply added my section on Pike.

I appreciate your kind words about some of my other edits. Thanks. PGNormand 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was me that last had a hack at the section on Pike, and added these two lines. The level of influence claimed for Pike does need to be considered, particularly the comparison between the SJs treatment cf the spread of A&AR prior to Pikes involvement. I see two issues; first is his undoubted influence on the survival of the Rite in the US, second is the real level of influence of his revised rituals. What would be useful is some kind of evidence of the level of usage of the Pike rituals at the time of their production, and currently. Does the NJ use these rituals as well? The point has been raised but nobody is able to answer as yet, but given your position in SJ I'm sure you could illuminate us. I know that Jackson highlights that they're not widely used, indeed I get the impression from Jackson that there is evidence of Pikes ambitions being bounded by the other Supreme Councils.ALR 20:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good suggestion that it would be useful to know the extent to which Pike's work in the revision of the ritual has effected the rituals of other jurisdictions. However, I can't answer that quantitatively. I would venture that many of the continental European and So. American countries use rituals that are heavily influenced by So. Jurisdiction ritual, but I cannot say with any authority. I know who to ask at the Supr. Cncl. S.J., but it being a holiday today, I'd best wait till next week to check with him. As for the Northern Jurisdiction, their practices in recent years have posed other problems, in that they have begun tossing out many of the degrees and replacing them with entirely new degrees: the "Abraham Lincoln Degree," the "American Indian Degree," the "Four Chaplains Degree," etc. Some of us have jokingly commented that we are waiting for the "Mailman Degree" (the "Cliff Claven Degree"). I do know that most of the Eastern European countries that have formed new Supreme Councils since the breakup of the old Soviet Union use So. Jurisdiction (i.e. "Pike") rituals. As for the British Supr. Cncls., I've often wondered how they turned the rudimentary elements of the Francken MSS. into actual working rituals without someone doing essentially what Pike did. Perhaps the answer is in the book "Ancient & Accepted," by John Mandelberg. PGNormand 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As I see it the reasons for the controversial aspects of SJ ritual is not so much that Pike amended them, as with any ritual amendements happen over time, but the use of certain elements of those amendments, and his musings on the symbolism, to attack the craft in general. I think the topic needs fleshed out. I'm still working through Jackson, I only picked it up in London last week, and it traces the development in a lot more depth than I've seen before, and I haven't got to the chapter that deals with how our rituals were derived from the Francken MS.ALR 20:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are going to have to explain what you mean by saying that the reasons for "the controversial aspects of SJ ritual ... [is] the use of certain elements ... and his [Pike's] musings on the symbolism, to attack the craft in general." To what "elements," and which "musings," are you referring? And did you mean to say that Pike, or the SJ ritual, or both "attack the craft in general"? How so? PGNormand 16:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check out some of the other Freemasonry related articles (mostly Anti-masonic in scope), especially: Catholicism and Freemasonry, Anti-Masonry, and Christianity and Freemasonry. Also look at the associated talk pages. There has been a LOT of discussion about Pike's writings, and the SJ rituals. In particular there have been issues raised about the Knights Kadosh degree being anti-catholic. User:ALR is not saying that Pike attacked the Craft... but that Anti-Masons use (or rather misuse) his writings to do so. We need to address that. By the way... any help you can give on these articles would be appreciated. Blueboar 16:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm assuming a bit much, but given your experience and position I'd have thought you'd be familiar with how Morals and Dogma, and elements of the Pike degrees are used to attack the craft in general. Blueboar reasonably points out the ongoing discussion on the subject. In any case, the issues as I see them:

• Excerpts from the Pike rituals are used to attack Freemasonry.
• Excerpts from his associated writings are used to attack Freemasonry.
• The penetration of the Pike rituals across Supreme Councils globally is unclear at this time, although I would infer from the existence of a number of SCs before Pike assumed control of SJ that they are not as widespread as both critics would have us believe.
• Pike was clearly writing symbolically and as such his writings should not be taken literally.

etc. Hope that's a little clearer.ALR 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am, of course, familiar with the fact that the writings of Albert Pike (rituals, M&D, etc.) are used to attack the craft. However, from my experience, everything in Masonry is used to attack the craft: If it is not being attacked for "being a religion" then it is conversely attacked for being "anti-religion," etc. etc. etc. My point being that, if Pike's writings are "controversial" because they are used by critics of Freemasonry to attack the craft, then every heading in every article on Freemasonry should include the epithet "controversial" (i.e. "Controversial History of...", "Controversial Degrees of...", "Controversial Origins of..." etc.). Undoubtedly, there is "ongoing discussion" concerning criticism of Freemasonry, as there always will be, but should it be included in this article? (I am sure that there are those who are critical of the Methodists for breaking away from the Anglican Church, but is everything in the article on the Methodist Church labeled "controversial"?) It is one thing to criticize a writer from the mid-19th century (that's easy enough for anyone to do), especially for his personal speculations on the ritual in "Morals & Dogma", but his revisions of the ritual are a separate thing. I can't see how his rituals would be any more controversial than the No. Jurisdiction's complete replacement of certain degrees with new degrees that have no relationship to the traditional degrees. At any rate, Pike's ritual revisions of the 19th century are no longer used by the Supreme Council, S.J. PGNormand 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate the point about everything being used to attack the craft in various ways, including the dichotomy of being attacked on both sides of an topic by the same organisation, I do think there needs to be some discussion of the issue. Wikipedia is intended to be encyclopedic and as such should be comprehensive, it isn't just another advertising channel and we shouldn't be afraid to highlight issues. Where there is legitimate criticism then there should be nothing wrong in including that where appropriate, equally something as significant as the misuse of Pikes writings to attack the craft should be included. It may be that controversy is not an appropriate title for the section, and indeed it may be more reasonable to include the discussion in the Albert Pike article.ALR 20:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PGNormand... your last comment, about the SJ no longer using Pike's ritual, is the subject of a {{fact}} tag (request for citation) on another article. Do you know of any websites where this fact is stated clearly that we can use as a citation? Blueboar 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar... No, now that you mention it, I don't. However, I have been involved over the past twenty-five years with the Scottish Rite, S.J., and I was a volunteer on the resource team that assisted Dr. Rex R. Hutchens on his rewrite of the ritual scripts for the S.J. Also, as Director of Work for the Houston Scottish Rite, I have been involved in implementing these new rituals at the local level, and I have complete copies of them at my disposal. Since Scottish Rite rituals are not public information, I guess the Supr. Cncl. S.J. sees no need to make the change public. However, you can use me as a source, if you choose. PGNormand 02:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for wikipedia purposes I can not just accept your word. That would violate WP:NOR. You would have to publish it somewhere for me to cite to you. I am sure that sooner or later, some Masonic historian will include a statement about the ritual change in a book or an article, or some senior member of SJ will mention it in a Masonic magazine... until then we will just have to live with an unreferenced statement. Thanks anyway (a reseacher's job is never done... sigh.) Blueboar 02:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. For me its a non-issue. However, the next time I exchange emails with someone at the S:C: I will ask if the new rituals have been mentioned in the S:R: Journal. If so, then you'll have your official reference. Thanks for keeping us honest. PGNormand 18:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Needn't be a web source, as long as it is available to public scrutiny that should be reasonable. I know some editors have stated a preference for web sources, but in something like FM I think that's an aspiration which is unlikely to be achieved. If someone is able to walk in off the street to the SJ library and review a document then that's open source, anyone can go into the library at UGLE and do that.ALR 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the reason I am so ambivalent about it is because anyone who is critical of the Scottish Rite from an anti-Masonic POV would undoubtedly question the accuracy of any statement that appears in a Masonic publication. The only way for anyone to know for certain that the rituals have been revised is to either 1) take someone's word for it (whether that word is given in a forum like this or in a Masonic publication, it makes no difference), OR 2) to actually go to a degree conferral and compare the current degrees to the original Pike version. Since an anti-Mason can't do the second of these, then we are back to where we started. The only reason that an anti-Masonic critic would not take my word for it (no matter where that word appeared) is if they believed I was stating the ritual had been revised as a means of avoiding anti-Pike criticism. However, I would also be the first to state that any "Pike inspired elements" that the anti-Masonic critics don't like has been carefully preserved in the new revision. So I am content for them to be just as critical of the new revision as they are of the old Pike originals. PGNormand 23:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed (or focused) on the line under "Albert Pike" that reads: "After the War, he moved to Washington, DC, and in 1868 his revision, and de-christianisation, of the rituals was complete." The footnote (25) states that this information is taken from the article on "Albert Pike" that appears in Coil's Encyclopedia. However, when I go to that article and read it I find nothing about Pike "de-christianizing" the rituals. In fact, I believe this was added by an anti-Mason. I don't know that the rituals of the Scottish Rite were any more "christian" before Pike than they are now. There are still many, many christian elements and references in the rituals today, and I don't know that there were any more before Pike's revision. Therefore, I am going to correct that part of the article.PGNormand 19:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a problem with the long cumbersome title of the section: "Controversy Surrounding the Scottish Rite Ritual Revisions." For one thing, the section does not talk about any "controversy." Rather, it simply states that there is a "controversy" without any reference or proof of that there is one. Further, it implies that the only criticisms levelled against "Freemasonry in general" are due solely to Pike's ritual revisions. Of course, this is nonsense. Lastly, and most importantly, the word "controversy" is not an impartial word. In any given situation, there is no controversy unless there is legitimate basis for the criticism that has caused the controversy. Of course, those who believe there is legitimate basis like the word "controversy" because it lends credence to their accusations. Those that don't believe there is a legitimate basis for the criticism don't like the word "controversy" for the same reason. So to be fair to both sides of the argument, the word should not be used. I think all fair-minded people would agree with that. So, I took a step back and re-read the section and put a new title on it that more clearly explains to the unbiased reader what appears in that section: "Anti-Masonic Criticism of the Scottish Rite Rituals." Perhaps the word "Anti-Masonic" is redundant or unnecessary in that it can be assumed that anyone critical of the Scottish Rite Rituals is therefore automatically anti-Masonic, but I think it clarifies. So I left it in.PGNormand 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Morin's Rite; H.A. Francken; and 33 Degrees

I have not made any changes yet to reflect the following, but....

Although many earlier researchers have referred to the 25 degree Rite as "The Rite of Perfection," the latest research shows that the "Rite of Perfection" was only a Rite of 14 degrees, and no more. The 25 Degree Rite can be called either "Morin's Rite," because all the evidence shows that he "invented it," or it can be called "The Rite of the Royal Secret" because it terminates with the Degree of "Master or Prince of the Royal Secret." So any reference to the 25 Degree Rite as the "Rite of Perfection" is incorrect and needs to be changed.

The sentence that says that Henry A. Francken expanded the Rite to 33 Degrees is wrong. All three of the Francken MSS. detail a Rite of 25 Degrees only. All my sources: H.W. Coil, A.C.F. Jackson, Wm. L. Fox, etc. all say that the expansion to 33 Degrees happened at or just before the formation of the Supreme Council in 1801. If anyone has evidence to show that Francken was responsible for expanding the Rite to 33 Degrees please provide that evidence in the form of a footnote to the original entry. PGNormand 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some discussion or feedback on the two lists of degrees that appear in the article. I understand the need for "a" list of Scottish Rite degrees, and I'd prefer to see a "standard" list that is both historic and most commonly used by supreme councils worldwide. But I don't think the article should include variant lists of all other supreme councils that don't use the more common list of degrees. On the one hand, there may be two dozen different variant lists. If so, why not include them all, which could be really tedious. On the other hand, there may be only one supreme council in the world that does not use the "standard" list. If so, then why label the "standard" list as "Southern Jurisdiction"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to label the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction list as such, and label the "standard" list as ... "the standard historic list," or some other similar label? Inotherwords, if the NMJ is the only supreme council in the world that deviates from the commonly accepted list of degrees, then why give it equal billing with the Southern Jurisdiction list, as if one was as common as the other? PGNormand 00:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that trying to list all of the various Jurisdictions choices and attribute them would be unwieldy, but I'm not convinced that NMJ is the only one that has differences from SJ, I'll need to go and dig out my copy of ACFJ but I think we in England have different names for some of the degrees, and as far as I can work out Scotland uses the same ones although the derivation of the warrant is different.

Alternatively we could just list the various options for each degree as listed in ACFJ and not attribute them at all, but I'm not sure that would add much value and would need some explanation, particularly when it appears that NMJ use different names again for one or two.

It might be worth trimming it to a single list as historical and note that some differences exist.

ALR 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be that England and Scotland have different "names" for some of the degrees, but the NMJ has actually gotten into the business of tossing out some of the Degrees and replacing them with entirely new degrees created from whole cloth, and then giving the new degrees new names. (This is akin to a Grand Lodge tossing out the MM Degree, and the legend of Hiram, and creating a completely new one based on the "legend" of, say, King Arthur, or Hercules, or some other ancient hero. It might make a great story, but I'm sure that the vast majority of other Grand Lodges would rule that to be irregular.) But my original point was that "the Scottish Rite" was created in 1801 consisting of a list of 29 degrees (added to the original 3), most of which pre-existed 1801. If any Supreme Council alters that list, fine, that's their business, I suppose. But this article is supposed to be about the historic Scottish Rite. It should include the "original list" of degrees, AND THEN, if anyone wants to include the other lists that have been created since 1801, that's fine, too. But why list ONLY the original list and the NMJ list? What makes the NMJ's alternate list of alternate degrees special? It suggests that there are only two different lists in the world. Maybe that is correct. I doubt it, but maybe there ARE only two. If so, one should be labelled "original list" and the other should be labelled "NMJ list." If, on the other hand, there are a dozen or more different lists of degrees worked by Supreme Councils, then LIST all twelve or so lists. (And I'm not just talking about variant "names" for the same degrees. I'm talking about lists of degrees that actually include OTHER degrees that are not worked by the Supreme Councils that work the original degrees.) PGNormand 00:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Stuart Jacobite Influence

There has been some disagreement about whether there needs to be "fact" tags or "citation needed" tags on the first paragraph of this section, which reads: "Many British expatriates, who were Scottish Jacobites and living in France during the early 1700's, took an active part in high degree Freemasonry there and saw in its symbolism some hope for their political aspirations of a return of the Stuart to the thrones of England and Scotland[citation needed]. Because of its Stuart sympathies, it has been suggested that the Jesuit College of Clermont also had a hand in the development of the high degrees[citation needed]." As for the first sentence, I'd like to see a citation providing the source of information for the statement that the Jacobites saw in Freemasonry's symbolism "some hope for their political aspirations." As for the second sentence: On the one hand, I would agree that it IS a "fact" that "it has been suggested" that the Jesuit College of Clermont had a hand in the development of the high degrees. But, on the other hand, I would point out that the "fact" that "it has been suggested" does not mean that it is a "fact" that the Jesuit College HAD a hand in the development of the high degrees. So, if it IS a "fact" that this suggestion has been made, then I don't see why its so difficult for a Wikipedist to simply tell us who suggested it. (Its also a fact that "it has been suggested" that the moon is made of green cheese. That doesn't mean that it is a fact that the moon is made of green cheese.)PGNormand 00:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some clarification on the statement that reads: "Because of its Stuart sympathies, it has been suggested that the Jesuit College of Clermont also had a hand in the development of the high degrees." And here's my question: The sentence begins with the phrase "Because of its Stuart sympathies..." Does this mean that the suggestion was made "because of its Stuart sympathies," OR does it mean that "it had a hand in the development of the high degrees" "because of its Stuart sympathies"? If its the latter, then the sentence needs to be reworked.PGNormand 01:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comte de Clermont

I just corrected the reference to the "Comte de Clermont" (Count of Clermont). A previous editor (Grye) had mistakenly identified the Comte de Clermont as being the same as one "Gaspard de Clermont-Tonnerre," who was also "Marquis of Cruzy and Vauvillers," and "later 1st Duc de Clermont-Tonnerre" as well as "Constable, hereditary Grand-Master of Dauphiné and Marshal of France" (whew). However, the man who was made Grand Master of the Grande Loge de France in 1743 was "Louis de Bourbon, Comte de Clermont," the 8th and youngest child of Louis III, 6th Prince de Conde, Duke de Bourbon. The Comte de Clermont was also the younger brother of Louis Henri Joseph, Duke de Bourbon et d'Enghien, 7th Prince de Conde. I hope this clarifies who we are talking about. There are a lot men with similar names during this time period, and it can get confusing. PGNormand 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This evening, I had originally written "Duke de Clermont" instead of "Comte de Clermont." I guess I was tired. However, I have since gone back and corrected all such references. PGNormand 04:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing (some facts needed)

I've noted a few places where claims are made and are not verified, and I've changed those things that are wrong.

• I removed the POV stuff - In reality, AASR has no greater importance than any other appendant body.

• I removed the tangential materials on other bodies - they have their own articles.

• If a state is called an Orient, why can't I find a reference to it? I think there's a jurisdictional difference here, so it needs to be sourced for SMJ.

• Not all Valleys have all four bodies.

• I removed the description of degress because there's only three there, they may not be accurate, and if all were to be described, it should be a separate article. MSJapan 14:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I sourced the issue on Orients. I need to point out a minor quibble, it's SJ, not SMJ.--Vidkun 02:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. I actually noticed that when I went to their website after the fact. MSJapan 04:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to take issue with MSJapan's first point where he says that the Scottish Rite has no greater importance than any other appendant body. The fact that the Scottish Rite is a Masonic rite gives it more importance than a mere "appendant body" that is not a Masonic Rite. The Scottish Rite, which is a Masonic rite, is certainly of more importance to Freemasonry than an affiliated organization that is not even "Masonic." The Scottish Rite confers 29 Masonic Degrees, whereas organizations like the National Sojourners, or the Grotto, or the Shrine, or the Order of the Eastern Star, etc. etc. etc., all fine organizations, are not "Masonic" and do not confer any Masonic degrees. PGNormand 22:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the S.J. is "A. & A.S.R.," whereas the N.M.J. is "A.A.S.R." PGNormand 22:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, it's a matter of opinion as to importance, not a fact. The actual fact of the matter is that one is no more a Mason for joining the Shrine than if one were to join OES. No privileges whatsoever are conferred by any appendant body. MSJapan 01:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about male members of OES? I would not call all members of OES Masons.  :>) Blueboar 02:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I just picked a bad example. MSJapan 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So it appears that we actually agree. I concur with MSJapan's statement that "one is no more a Mason for joining the Shrine...." That is true simply because, like the Grotto, the Sojourners, the O.E.S., and many other appendant or affiliated organizations, the Shrine confers no Masonic degree(s), and therefore confers no Masonic status, or Masonic "privileges." So that if the Shrine or any of the other non-Masonic appendant bodies were to drop their prerequisite of Masonic membership, then joining them would not make a Mason out of a non-Mason. All of this places the Scottish Rite, York Rite, Swedish Rite, &c., in a different category, because they DO confer Masonic degrees, and therefore they DO confer Masonic status upon their members. I don't see how anyone could disagree with the statement that a body (like the Scottish Rite) that confers Masonic degrees is more important to Masonry than an appendant body that does not confer Masonic degrees. PGNormand 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Because regardless of whether or not an appendant body confers degrees, an appendant body is still not a Blue Lodge - no man can join any of the above mentioned groups without first going through Blue Lodge. So clearly, the fundamental thing is Blue Lodge, and everything else just serves its own particular purpose. Also, there's a very good statement in ritual regarding Masonic status, and it really renders your argument moot. MSJapan 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In some ways you are both correct, depending on how you are looking at this issue, and what you are comparing. I would agree with PGNormand in saying that the Scottish, York and Swedish Rites are "more important" than other appendant bodies since they offer additional light in Masonry. However, in saying this we run the risk of unwittingly inflating that importance - and implying to an uninformed reader that the Scottish, York and Swedish Rites are in some way "more important" than Craft or Blue Lodge Freemasonry. I think this may be why MSJapan objects. Perhaps we need to make it clearer that, dispite the naming or numbering of any additional degree system, there is no "higher" degree than Master Mason (and, I would argue, no Masonic degree more "important" for a Mason than that of Entered Apprentice). Blueboar 01:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What this discussion is about is MSJapan's definition of term "no greater importance." In the original post, he stated that "AASR has no greater importance than any other appendant body." I disagreed because the Scottish Rite actually confers "Masonic Degrees," that is, degrees of Freemasonry, utilizing working tools, Masonic aprons, etc. and they expand upon the basic legends of the first three degrees, whereas some other "appendant bodies," like the Shrine, Grotto, Order of the Eastern Star, National Sojourners, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, do not confer "Masonic degrees." MSJapan says this difference does not make the "Masonic Rites" more important than the appendant bodies that are not Masonic Rites. Okay, fine, for the sake of argument, I will agree with him that it is merely a matter of opinion whether that makes one "more important" than the other. He maintains that the ability of one appendant body to confer Masonic degrees does not make it "more important." I maintain that it does. And so we will agree to disagree. PGNormand 23:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

weasel words

"Some Craft degrees"

Those are weasel words. Please see: Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. I am now reverting. thank you. Zos 06:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the use of the word "some", leaves things up in the air. We are left with questions like: Who use it? Why do they use it? When did they use it and where? Even how! I'd also like to point out the lack of citation there as well. Zos 06:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree, in some countries, some craft lodges makes clear that nowhere is it universal, however your edit implies that in some contries all craft lodges, which is inaccurate. So until such time as there is an edit which is actually more accurate I'm going to re-add for the purposes of clarity.ALR 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if you disagree. Its not to be used according to Wikipedia. There was no citation, so its been removed. If you wish to add it again, please cite it. Zos 07:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you bothered to read the Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words page, you'd find this:

"Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed." Thank you. Zos 07:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you misinterpret my use of disagree, removal of a single word reduced clarity, I'd be interested in what you think I meant since I don't understand the context of your second sentence. I have no real issue with removing the sentence entirely, it's an incidental point, but it does appear to be the negotiating equivalent of stamping your feet.ALR 07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not to be used, according to Wikipedia. Comma added. And I'm not stamping my feet. I brought up the lack of citation, so it can be disputed, and removed by anyone. Reverting when there is no reason, shows bias. If the sentence in question needs a weasel word, then it needs to be removed. Zos 07:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems I'm not being clear, what is not to be used? You have thus far conflated two points, although you appear to be lining up to introduce a third, your initial removal of the word was on the basis of it being weaseling yet when it was pointed out that your alteration reduced clarity you moved your argument onto the lack of citation.

I have no problem with removing the paragraph based on lack of citation but I still don't understand why you believe that the use of some was weaseling. All you've done so far is provide a reference to the guidance. I would be grateful if you could articulate why you believe that use of some is weaseling, in your own words rather than cut and paste from that guideline?

I'm intruiged as to why you appear to wish to introduce the issue of bias when the reversion of your edit by both myself and MSJ was justified in the edit summary. The fact that you may disagree with our reasoning does not mean that it was done without reason, merely that we ourselves disagreed with your reasoning. Raising the point strikes me as gamesmanship.ALR 07:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words. Weasel words, are not to be used. This is in fact, what we were discussing.

The page I gave in reference, goes into this. See the section called "Examples". This is where they frown on words with "some" in them. Its not my opinion, so I'd rather copy and paste as it were, then ramble about why I personally wouldnt use it. Its not what I believe, its what Wikipedia allows. But as you request, I'll "articulate".

The word "some", is broad. It can refer to a number of "things". This however, is poor usage of words. As I have noted above, it leaves a large number of questions, more so, than the first question the reader has when looking for this article (whats a scottish rite?). Plus, its not allowable on Wikipedia. So I agree, and am disputing it.

I bring up bias, because it is. It gives the illusion of an NPOV (neutral point of view), but isnt. And when its not an NPOV statement, its a POV, which is bias. And support of such a statement, shows it. And gamesmanship...no. Originally I was willing to leave the sentence without citation. Zos 07:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't add a weasel tag to your own response, but I don't feel that you have responded to the question I asked. I'd dispute that treating words in isolation, as you appear to wish to, is appropriate given that words rarely appear without context. Removing one of the two words in the statement (many, some) which highlighted the issue leads to a higher degree of ambiguity which I find unacceptable; the absence of the paragraph is preferable to the absence of the word.

I would agree that a more specific articulation of the issue would be desirable but have no wish for this article, about the A&AR, to turn into a lengthy discussion on the nature of regularity and the relationship between regular (ie UGLE and its derivatives) Freemasonry and irregular (those subordinate or otherwise closely related to a Supreme Council) GLs, since it obfuscates the point of the article and is discussed elsewhere anyway.

I am of the view that your use of a POV/ NPOV argument in this case is specious, the statement was less comprehensive than would be desirable but did reflect the situation. The sentence you were prepared to leave in was a gross misrepresentation.ALR 09:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is, not all countries use AASR ritual for Craft degrees. That's obvious because it is not Craft ritual. However, within certain countries that have lodges, certain lodges do use it. Now, as there are at least 5,000 lodges in the US alone, how do you expect solid numbers that don't violate NOR? Now I know there is a lodge in Louisiana that does use AASR for Craft degrees, and I'm sure there are others; there have to be.

Furthermore weasel words are used to make things vague in order to prove a point - such as saying "Some people say ALR is a schmuck" in an article about ALR, or conversely, "Many people say ALR is the man." These statements seek to make a generalized and central statement about the topic without attribution of source. What we have here is not a central part of the argument; it's simply an aside that adds flavor to the article.

If you're going to wikilawyer, it helps to read the policies and understand them first. MSJapan 13:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how we have someone suggesting that the use of some is a weasel word, and then calling up quotes left and right, let's just look at the facts, shall we?

Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources.

The use of some in this instance has nothing to do with opinion. By the complaining editors logic, it would be weaseling to say "some people are left handed, some people are right handed, and some people are ambidextrous," even though that is an obvious FACT. But, let us look further at what the page Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words actually says:

As with any rule of thumb, this guideline should be balanced against other needs for the text, especially the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions that may need calling out:

* When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth."

* When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify. For example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."

The use of some in the case of this article, to state that that are Lodges which use the Scottish Rite Craft degrees, in place where OTHER Lodges do not, is fact, not opinion, and it is cited.--Vidkun 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Vidkun: I'd like you to take one more look at the article. The sentence which was edited is not cited, it happens to be seperate from any other paragraph which may be cited. There is no reference or citation in place, and will be removed once again.

Furthermore, the sentence may be a fact, but how are we to know? I'm asking myself this question when reading the article, yet cannot verify the fact because there is no citation. The only way I see the use of the word "some", if its its a direct quote, but again, no citation. Understand what I'm saying yet?

ALR: Yes, and the sentence you were prepared to leave is still not cited.

MSJapan: I'm not "wikilawyering" (please see wiki civil). But when I go to read an article, I know that if I still have a question, I like to see whose saying what. So who is saying some lodges use this? This is one of the reasons it was removed. No one can answer this simple question by providing a citation!

Plus, weasel words are NOT used to prove a point. The interpretations and points of view are left up to the reader. We dont get to add our bias or opinions into the article.

"how do you expect solid numbers that don't violate NOR? "

Simple, add a citation!

• Compromise.

Find a source to cite the sentence upon replacing it in the article.

Since you say its cited, and its not...you could possibly be refering to another sentence, where the same source is being used, and could move it to where this mysterious citation is, instead of allowing this sentence to remain by itself, uncited.

Zos 04:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Just peeping in here, I don't often contribute on this page, but my interest was piqued. I've read the original sentence in question, and it didn't include any weasel words. If you think "some" is a weasel word, then I suggest you go and edit the WP:WEASEL page to remove all the instances where it uses this word. Unfortunately, a few of these "weasel words" are actually very useful English words that we would have difficulty getting by without. Fortunately, however, these useful words are only weasel words in specific contexts. The word "some", for instance, is a weasel word when it refers to an unspecified group of people who supposedly hold a particular view (such as "some would disagree with everything I'm saying"). However in a different context the word can be quite benign such as in "words can be weasel-words in some contexts and not others". Notice in the second example there is no implication of an unnamed group of people. I hope this helps...

Now as far as citation goes, if you think that a citation is needed, either see if you can find one yourself (best option), ask the other editors to add a citation as you are now (second best), or add a {{citation needed}} tag (less desirable). Remove text only if you're fairly sure it's incorrect or unverifiable. Text that seems uncontroversial and could be easily confirmed with a slight knowledge of the subject I don't normally insist on providing citations for at all. Fuzzypeg 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have returned from a trip to find this new discussion on "weasel words." In this case, the word in question is the word "some" when applied to the fact that not all lodges around the world use "Webb form" ritual, or "French Rite" ritual, or "Swedish Rite" ritual. In fact, "in many countries, some Craft Lodges use Scottish Rite ritual in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd degrees." However, I wonder if this is simply a disagreement over the use of the word "some" with no hidden agenda on the part of Zos.

What it boils down to is that Zos wants all readers of this article to believe that ALL Craft Lodges use the Scottish Rite Ritual!!! Why is that? What reason does he have to want to mislead the average reader, when in fact MOST lodges around the world DO NOT use Scottish Rite ritual. Hmmmmmmm. PGNormand 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Having waited one week shy of one full year, let me now say that's its nice to see that the "problem" seems to have gone away. PGNormand 04:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

list of scottish rite

anyone feel like putting a list together of all known 32+/scottish rite? o.. and maybe mentioning that mainstream christianity is against freemasonry. something on symbols.. political/business/financial power might be worthwhile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.80.8.2 (talk • contribs)

Actually, we have a number of articles, such as Christianity and Freemasonry, Mormonism and Freemasonry, Catholicism and Freemasonry, and List of Freemasons that address most of your points, and in fact prove you wrong in some of your assumptions. As most Masons are "mainstream Christians" (whatever that means), your statement has no validity. As a further note, for example, every Scottish Rite Mason in the USA is a 32nd degree, so that list would be pointless, as it would cover every Scottish Rite Mason in the entire country. I've removed your other statement as nonsense. MSJapan 00:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"List of Scottish Rite what?" A list of Scottish Rite members? A list of Scottish Rite Valleys? A list of Scottish Rite degrees? A list of Scottish Rite bodies? MSJapan removed his other statement as "nonsense." I think the whole posting should either be clarified or considered nonsense.PGNormand 00:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Knight Kadosh Degree

Some of you may be interested in seeing what is being linked on this page... check out Knight Kadosh. It is mostly a copy from the Scottish Rite section of Catholicism and FreemasonryBlueboar 17:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

There are 33 individual degrees in the A&AR, I don't see value in individual articles for each one. I also don't see any effort to create 33 different articles. Merging the content of the Knight Kadosh article here contextualises it and given that it appears to be the only one there is any interest in creating an article about it would be reasonable to bring it into the fold. there is already a section about misconceptions related to the A&AR in this article.

I appreciate that a likely reaction to this suggestion is for someone to run off and create thirty-two additional stubs, I don't think that's a particularly productive approach.ALR 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the Knight Kadosh article was created more to repeat the allegations that it is anti-Catholic than to be a "degree" stub. while the article has grown a bit since then, I really don't think it is needed. the "controvercy" angle is well covered in Catholicism and Freemasonry and ALR is correct that 33 different stubs would be rediculous (in fact, given that the degrees are different in the Northern Jurisdiction and different yet again in some parts of Europe, we would actually have to write something like 50 stubs to cover every degree in Scottish Rite).

I would not even merge it into this article... I could see a sentence or two on each degree being included, but no more than that. I would simply ADF the article with a redirect to this one. Blueboar 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the Knight Kadosh article was created more to repeat the allegations that it is anti-Catholic - No it was because it was getting to be big enough for it's own article, as simple as that. If I were interested in that aspect I would have played a far greater part in the article - as it is I only made the first two edits. Once again can I point you to WP:AGF. It's getting to be a habit.

I'm fine with the idea that not every degree deserves its own article - after all most of the degrees are only of interest to a minority of a minority. A bit like stamp collecting. Even if Mackey says it's "a very important Degree in many of the Masonic Rites".

However just as not every stamp has it's own entry, some stamps are known outside the incestuous world of stamp collecting, such as the Penny Black and so deserve their own article. Just because it's a stamp doesn't mean it's just a stamp.

The Knight Kadosh initiation not only featured in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, it also is the main charge in James "Larry" Holly's partiallly succesful attempt within the Southern Baptist Conference to indict Freemasonry. It also apears in a number of Christian denunciations.

It's notable enough for its own article.

JASpencer 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As an alternative suggestion... if people feel that discussing the background and developement of the various Scotish Rite degrees (and any controvercy about them) is something that would be interesting, perhaps a smaller group of articles on each of the degree clusters (Lodge of Perfection, Chapter of Rose Croix, Council of Kadosh, etc) could be done... You could outline the degrees, give the background of how they each developed, list their key meanings, and discuss any controvercy without the need for 33 plus seperate articles (I think it would come to around 8 articles when you get through both Northern and Southern Jurisdictions. A much more managable number).

Note that this does not address JAS's issue of wanting a seperate article for the Knight Kadosh degree due to the fact that various Anti-masons have singled it out. It is simply a suggested alternative to either merging or creating seperate articles for all the degrees. Blueboar 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Degree of Knight Kadosh, if not the single most important degree in the Scottish Rite, is at least one of the most important. Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia says this of the Degree: "Though subordinate to Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret ... it was usually mentioned with equal respect." It is one of the oldest and most important degrees of the Rite, and, as it is the "most Templar" of the Scottish Rite Degrees, it is the one degree that gives the Scottish Rite its characteristic Templar element. As a result, any body or grand body that pretends to call itself an "Ecossais" or "Scottish Rite" body that does not include the degree of Knight Kadosh is missing the most important element of the Rite. All of this justifies a separate treatment for the Knight Kadosh Degree. PGNormand 19:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

citation issues

In a number of other articles, there had been a back and forth discussion over whether to include a full quote from a specific citation, or just a page number. Originally, I had felt (but never commented) that simply listing a page number was sufficient. However, some of the portions of THIS article that attempt to say Estienne Morin embellished the Rite of Perfection are making very wild claims, and I feel having quotes supporting each claim would be better in the citation section. Much of my issue with this comes back to the RGLE and Masonic High Council for England and Wales issue, wherein supporters of that organisation claimed there was no foundation for the AASR Charters, and pointed to a document "Declaration of the Grand Lodge of the 3 Globes at Berlin" which has never been shown to have existed, except on webservers relating to the RGLE. Don't get me wrong, I, too, wonder how a Rite went from 25 Degrees to 33, and then can have its leaders say that other high degree bodies are spurious because they made up their degrees, but, I feel better and fuller citations need to be made here.--Vidkun 15:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that we can go with a short citation (author, publication, publisher, date, page ref.) for many if not most of our citations... but that does not mean we should not or can not include a foot note with the quote where requested. Blueboar 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Vidkun wrote: "Some of the portions of THIS article that attempt to say Estienne Morin embellished the Rite of Perfection are making very wild claims...." In A.C.F. Jackson's 1980 book, "Rose Croix," he states that the so-called "Rite of Perfection" was incorrectly named. That term did not appear until 1786 when it appeared for the first time in the Preface to the Grand Constitutions. The so-called "Rite of Perfection" of 25 degrees was compiled (for lack of a better term) by no one other than Estienne Morin, and should be called "Morin's Rite" or the "Rite of the Royal Secret." Morin did not "embellish" this Rite, rather he "created" it. Jackson gives a very interesting and concise history of the development of this Rite in his book on pages 37 through 39.PGNormand 23:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rose Croix

Moved from Talk:Freemasonry

It seems that a Wiki search for Rose Croix links to this article on freemasonry - yet there is no specific mention of Rose Croix or Rose Croix Masonry or Ancient and Accepted Rite for England and Wales in the freemasonry article. Is there a portal for masonic side orders? Is there any appetite for a Rose Croix article? I'm happy to start this but have found in the past it's all too easy to replicate an existing article or theme. Escaper7 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is old... at one point this article listed the various degrees and rites that one can take after the basic three that are common to all of Freemasonry. These have subsequently been moved to various sub-articles. I have corrected the disambiguation page by adding a link to Scottish Rite the Masonic body that contains the Rose Croix degree. Thank you for the heads up. Blueboar 18:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take any discussion of the sub-degrees of the A&AR to the Scottish Rite article. If you take a nose around you'll find quite a few related articles, many of which need work to varying degrees.ALR 18:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok I maybe confusing things a little, I'll look up RC as it applies in England: Rose Croix Masonry The Ancient and Accepted Rite for England and Wales, and its Districts and Chapters Overseas and see if that fits in with Scottish Rite. In other words, is it worthy of its own article or should it simply be part of Scottish Rite? Escaper7 18:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't see a need for a distinct article, structurally the orders are the same and I think the mix of NMJ and SJ influenced Supreme Councils is about the same, with our own being derived from NMJ. There is an issue about the various degrees within the order, Knight Kadosh was created in isolation to support a particular argument.ALR 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we are having a problem between how things are organized and done in England vs. the US. I know we have a similar issue with the Order of Mark Master Masons and the York Rite... in the US we really don't have an "Order" of Mark Master Masons - the degree is part of the Royal Arch, which in turn is part of the York Rite. But in England, it seems that it can sometimes be a seperate entity in its own right (There is a pun there that doesn't work as well when you write it out!). The article on the Order of Mark Master Masons kept getting proposed for merger into the York Rite article... but then people would object to including statements that really only related to English practice. If Rose Croix Masonry The Ancient and Accepted Rite for England and Wales, and its Districts and Chapters Overseas is significantly different than what is done in Scottish Rite (and particularly the two US bodies) then it might be worth having its own article linked in the SR article and the disambiguation page. I will leave that to those of you who know more about the subject.User:Blueboar

Not so much US vs UK, more US vs Rest of the World :)

We are at risk of having the same conversation in a number of different places, and it probably should take place on the project page rather than a specific article page. How do we deal with the various appendant bodies.

A&AR is pretty clear, the order is derived from Eccosais degrees oroginated in France and worked in Europe et al before being exported to the West Indies by Morin then developed under a succession of patrons to become the 33 degree rite formalised in Charleston. Personally I think the SR article could usefully encompass the significant degrees in that order viz 18th, 30th, 32nd and 33rd.

YR is more difficult, since it is a convenient administrative structure which brings together a collection of orders under a broadly unified organisational model. Elsewhere the orders are generally independent, although clearly they share access to temples. There is probably a better case for having each of the orders described independently in that case, as we already have for the Mark and KT.

As to the more esoteric bodies, I've done some work on the Soc Ros, there are others.ALR 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, if a craft freemason, wanted to join a Rose Croix chapter, knowing little about it, and searched for Rose Croix on Wikipedia, he would first get a disambig page with two options. Choose the second and there's no mention of it (as per this article). Choose the first and you go to a long and complicated Scottish Rite article, written largely in American English, from an American pov. That's ok, but surely the first mention of Rose Croix (in the SR article) should lead to another article simply about RC, and how it is the case that a mason joining RC is accelerated from 4th to 18th degree at his perfection. After all, one doesn't join "Scottish Rite" one joins a Rose Croix chapter - the only pre-requisites are being a MM and a Christian. I'm happy to start such an article - but should it just be called Rose Croix, or Rose Croix Chapter? And I don't want it then to be merged with SR. As it stands, the SR article doesn't make it clear that you can go straight into RC - and be an 18 deg at the end of the perfection. Escaper7 11:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Having just re-read the article I'd agree that it does tend to be dominated by a Southern Jurisdiction perspective, with everything else being treated as an exception. That probably reflects the amount of effort put in by a 33rd member of the SJ Supreme Council. I don't think that there is a convincing argument for divergence, the order in general is A&ASR (A&AR in England and Wales). The issues that you're raising indicate more value in developing the article as it stands, rather than adding new articles on local variations.

The article could do with losing a lot of the SJ/ NMJ politics which does tend to obfuscate the actual content. Useful to raise the issue though. It could also do with being properly titled as well.

As to the American English point, that's valid across most of WP anyway, since the majority of editors are from the US and reflect the corresponding culture.

As this is getting very specific I'll move this to the SR talk page.ALR 12:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ALR... this should be discussed here - it should also be raised on the York Rite pages, eventually on the Freemasonry Project Page. We do need to decide how to deal with appendant bodies... the questions being do we limit ourselves to general overview pages for the two Rites?, do we have sub articles for the various chapters and councils that make up the two Rites?, or do we have sub articles for each and every degree? My preference is to see if we can do what we want under the umbrella of the two Rite pages... and if needed go to sub-pages for the various sub bodies within the Rites. I would avoid having an article on each Degree. Blueboar 12:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My issue with that suggestion is that outside the US the York Rite doesn't exist. Each component order within the York Rite exists independently. In that sense Escaper7s point is valid, someoneinterested in joining the Mark will search for thst, interested in joining the Cryptic or Red Cross will search for that. whilst a redirect for A&AR for England and Wales to this article is reasonable, it's not reasonable to do the same for those bodies organised under the York Rite in the US.ALR 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so let's forget anything to do with the masonic aspects of this issue. My point remains the same: An encyclopaedia should serve the purpose of directing someone with no knowledge on a particular issue to the correct source of information. As it stands, someone searching for Rose Croix, could easily think that Scottish Rite is simply another name for it, and it alone. Wiki articles often trip over themselves with too much complicated detail. If that means a seperate article for each side order or appendent body then fine. There are categories of masonic pages on wiki, see also Masonic appendant bodies. Escaper7 12:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so that's an argument for working on this article, not creating another. btw look through the history of that article. ALR 12:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

To get things going, I've broken the Organization (sic) heading into US and UK, and added a source for the founding of RC in UK. BTW... should heading be England and Wales or UK? I've added a reference to one of the handful of English chapters - Beds to be precise. I've also found an interesting article about Oscar Wilde and RC and will add this as I get time. Escaper7 13:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

England and Wales. SC in Scotland and Ireland were warranted seperately, I think Scotland was warranted from Canada and reland from France but would need to look in ACF Jackson to confirm.

English R+C are not permitted dual membership as progression to 30th in Scotland is automagical whereas here in England one must serve as MWS and conduct the MWS work. In Hants I think the timeframe is 5 years then 3*5 year intervals. Similarly dual membership of a US body is not permitted because of the automagical progression to 32nd.ALR 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Automagical? Blueboar 22:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, automagical. Automatic and magical. I assume this reflects the European and English view of Masonry in America as being too easy to progress in. I mean, cowan one friday, 32nd degree by Sunday. That seems to me, and probably to the European and English brethren as being an automatic and magical progression, hence, automagical.--Vidkun 13:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a generic for pretty much anything inexplicable, particularly common amonst my various pagan friends (none of whom are in this craft). It's also entirely appropriate where one is talking about an esoteric initiatory tradition. It applies here in England as well, somehow I went from MM to 18th, with the intervening 14 degrees conferred in name only. In about 9 years, after having been through the chair of my chapter and having done the chair work, I'll have 19 to 29 conferred in name only before actually doing the 30th.

I know a lot of the issue is practicality and cost, an Apron for each degree is in the order of £50 (c$80-100) and doing each of the degrees individually involves a lot of rote learning, time and props which also cost. Setting up a craft Lodge is expensive enough (I've recently been a founder of a Lodge).

I suppose it's a bit of a philosophical discussion, I don't think there is anyone in my chapter who is not already a PM in Craft yet when I was in the states recently I couldn't pick up anything that wasn't 32nd branded. I couldn't even in all honesty get a coffee mug. Online I see a lot of stuff from young masons who still don't really grasp the craft yet career off into the appendant bodies without a firm foundation. My own experience is not untypical, I went into HRA a year after initiation, joined Mark about 6 years after initiation, joined A&AR 11 years after.ALR 13:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not participated in this discussion prior to this, but let me add an observation. From what I understand, the term "Rose Croix" when used to describe the entire Rite (as opposed to describing the 18th Degree alone) is just a British colloquial practice. I don't believe that anyone else uses the term "Rose Croix" to describe the Rite as a whole. If anyone else does, then it is still a colloquialism. This 33 Degree Rite, by whatever name one chooses to call it, was "compiled" and "created" in Charleston, South Carolina, and not anywhere else. It came into being in 1801, and not before that. Yes, it includes a good number of degrees that were worked previously in Europe and the West Indies, but it was not the 33 degree rite we know today until its creation in Charleston. That Rite became known as the "Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry," and it still is! Other, later, subsequent supreme councils MAY have dropped the "Scottish Rite" part of the name, but the Mother Supreme Council did not. I don't believe that the name of this article should be changed, nor should we create a second article, just to satisfy those who use alternate names or are more accustomed to colloquial expressions to refer to "the Scottish Rite." The purpose of this article is to describe the Scottish Rite to the average reader, and not to get caught up with trying to explain all the minor variants and anachronisms developed by individual supreme councils around the world. As a result, I do have a problem with this article listing all the variant degrees from the Northern Supreme Council, unless we are going to do the same for all supreme councils around the world. Wikipedia IS an international encyclopedia, after all, not just a U.S. or English encyclopedia. I'd prefer to see a standard list of degrees, and then, in a different place, if it is thought necessary, mention that this supreme council (in the northeastern U.S.), or that supreme council somewhere else, has a different list from everyone else. PGNormand 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to add to knowledge, not to simply take points out becasue one editor thinks they are irrlelvant. This is not an article being written for masons by masons, it's an encyclopaedia, and most people would not know that Wilde was a mason let alone perfected into a RC chapter, so why take it out? I thought the consensus reached in the above discussion was to expand this article in particular Rose Croix and having tried extremely hard - ie for about two hours to - research this further, I don't think it's fair to simply remove an edit at a stroke. Please bear in mind, some editors spend a great deal of time finding facts to enhance an article. That's a great way of discouraging editors' efforts. Escaper7 15:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Because, unless we intend to go through and point out everyone notable who was a member of the AASR/AAR/RC, adding ONE is misleading. It suggests that only that one person is notable enough as a member of the RC to mention him.--Vidkun 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

When you say 'we' it implies that there's some sort of committee who decides what goes into an article. I have have as much right to edit an article as anyone else as long as my contributions fall within the Wikipedia framework, guidelines and rules. No one has the right to remove a valid point becasue they don't think it's relevant. Wilde was a member of Oxford RC - fact. He's equally a single example and no more - the rest can be found in the MQ article. Usually encyclopaedias, books or whatever give examples of things they're referring to. As I said above. The article is too complicated, and practically useless to non-masons. Escaper7 15:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that those of us who have been editing the various Freemasonry articles for a while had discussed things like this before, and had reached a concensus on how to list famous individuals who have joined the various Masonic Orders. You will note that after I cut your reference, ALR re-added him to the list of famous people that was already in another section of the article.

Please understand that I did not intend to disparage your efforts. I am sure your participation in editing these articles will make them that much better. Those of us who have been editing these articles for a while are familiar with past concensus and often forget that new editors are not. This is our fault and not yours. In general, it is better to discuss additions prior to adding them ... but this is mearly a suggestion. If you feel you have something good to add, go ahead and add it ... if it is cut, please don't take it personally. If you feel strongly about an addition that is cut, do what you did in this case... bring it up on the talk page and explain why you think it was a good addition. We can always add it back if concensus backs your view. Blueboar 15:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Therin lies the problem. If you've been editing an article for a while then maybe you should let a fresh pair of eyes have a look at it while you take a rest from it. Nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that I have to read through (acres) of talk pages before making an edit. In any case, I prompted the discussion on Rose Croix after making a fruitless search for it. It was discussed at length - and the consensus was that editors would add to this article. The second thing that's added is then immediately removed, and yes that does discourage editors. The Wilde example is extremely relevant to a UK/European audience. He was a prolific character and controversial, and if the Masonic Quarterly magazine thinks his substantial masonic exploits are interesting enough to devote an article to it, then that's good enough for me, and should be good enough for any reader or editor of Wikipedia. Escaper7 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Then add him to List of Freemasons, or better yet, look at DeMolay International and see what happens when you start creating lists of people in articles. As a note, the man who discovered the poinsettia was a Freemason, and he's not on our list either.

As a further note, Wikiquette (and general Netiquette, for that matter) indeed states that you should see what's been done before you make edits. MSJapan 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a fan of list of famous x in any case. How do you define notability for the individuals without the article becoming hopelessly biased towards being a list of names. I'd quite happily get shot of the whole list. In any case there are other issues to do with the structure and current content, without adding new bits. I'd suggest dealing with that first.ALR 17:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for Escaper7... if you discuss your edits before you make them, you will not have to dig through pages of discussion to find out what past concensus is - we will tell you. We will also be more willing to change our minds and accept the edit. Blueboar 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've got two heated and time consuming discussions going on two pages at the same time, so I'll make this my final comment. I started a discussion on the Freemasonry page about Rose Croix before making a single edit. Correctly, that discussion was moved to this page. The feeling was that there shouldn't be a separate RC article. No problem. I make two edits, both properly referenced - one is kept the other deleted. I was using Wilde as a simple and effective example of someone who'd progressed through masonry. Do have a look at the MQ article, it's very interesting. I wasn't going to scatter this article with lots of names. As a mm and comp, I found the MQ article extremely useful in building my understanding. I'd like to know more about RC from Wiki and this article doesn't really help me, so I'll leave it to those who've been editing this page for a long time to expand it in time. Regards. Escaper7 18:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood you previously, I thought you already were a Sov Pr in the A&AR. Given that you don't appear to be that puts your issues in a very different light.ALR 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That all being said, I read the MQ article here, which dates from 2003. Wilde was a active Mason for a very short period of time (1875-79), was expelled from his lodge for non-payment of dues in 1883, and was finally stricken from the AASR Golden Book in 1895 after he was imprisoned. Therefore, considering Wilde a Mason is questionable in my book, as he was not a member in good standing at his death, nor was he in good standing for a large portion of his life - Wilde was inactive after 1879, and died in 1900. MSJapan 20:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Move

While I don't mind the recent move from "Scottish Rite" to "Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite"... I think it is a bit improper to move a page with no discussion first. I also have to ask why the move was needed? Blueboar 12:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't needed, so I put it back. Before we decide where this goes, we need to figure out if there's enough material to do an A&AR article. If not, we need to cover both, and the AASR title is therefore inaccurate.MSJapan 14:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it is a more accurate title so personally I'd support the move to that name. I'm not convinced that there is sufficient to support an article on A&AR, since it's only used in England and Wales to describe the ritual structure derived from NMJ. If anything Scotiish Rite is an even more inaccurate title, since the Scottish bit doesn't appear in the title here in England at all.ALR 14:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care on this... but let's take a look at what WP:NAME says:

• Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

• Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists

Thus we need to figure out which usage is more common. I would be willing to bet that this system of degrees is much more common in the US than in the UK and other parts of the world. This would mean that the majority of people think of, and refer to these degrees as "Scottish Rite". If my assumption is true, then we should follow US conventions. Blueboar 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In some parts of Australia (maybe ALL of them) the Rite is known as the AASR, as they decided to add the word Scottish back into their name. In Canada, it is the AASR. In both places, it is colloquially known as the Scottish Rite.--Vidkun 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As I see it two issues, one policy related and one order related:

• The naming policy also highlights that it's not set in stone, so just citing it doesn't offer a defined end point. I'd also say that the article itself is internally inconsistent, is it a policy, a guideline, a convention or a rule? It then goes into specific recommendations which conflict with the 'colloquial usage' principle. Despite all of that, colloquial names are easy to deal with using redirects and disambiguation pages. In that sense the discussion, and I note there is a lot, on the article is so much intellectual navel gazing which doesn't take into account the technology.
• I've mentioned a number of times that England and Wales appears to be the only instance of the order which doesn't use Scottish in the title, I am conscious that there is probably some politics in that because of the parallel negotiations to form a Supreme Council in Edinburgh at the same time as London was being negotiated. tbh that's not the issue here, colloquial usage in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland is Rose Croix similarly I've heard that usage in Australia and on the continent (although there is a recent growth of Supreme Councils warranted directly from DC in the former Soviet republics) . I do appreciate that the vast majority of editors are in the US and much usage of speeling, grammar and punctuation does tend to default to that form (or if not default in some cases just get bulldozed in through sheer weight of numbers) and I wouldn't wish to suggest that there was any cultural imperialism going on, but I don't think it's as simple as saying 'because the majority of US masons call it this'.ALR 10:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

ALR, I definitely was not trying to say "We have to do it this way because the guideline says so." I only posted that in an attempt to help focus discussion. To me, the question we should be asking is: If someone comes here looking for information, what will they be searching for? I would contend that most readers will be looking for information on "Scottish Rite" in general. However, I do understand that some readers (especially those from England) might be looking for info on some other title.

So, I guess the issue really comes down to this... can we have one overarching article that covers both English practice and US practice (and any other practices that are out there) or should break this up into several smaller (but linked) articles to account for the differences? Again, I open on this issue. Blueboar 14:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I see this as two different discussions, one being the name of the article and the other being the requirement for a separate article for the various permutations. I don't see anybody seriously suggesting the requirement for an additional article, at this time, so I think the point is moot.ALR 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of France

In the second introductory paragraph, the article discusses the fact that "most lodges throughout the English-speaking world do not confer the Scottish Rite versions of the degrees." It goes on to say that several lodges in New Orleans do use the Scottish Rite ritual for the first three degrees. Then, at the end of the paragraph, someone has added footnote 2 which reads:

"Grand Loge de France FAQ "Q:"What rite is worked at the Grand Lodge of France?" A:As mentioned above, and like most Grand Lodges in the world, the Grand Lodge of France mostly works the three Craft (Blue) degrees of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite (A&ASR). However some Lodges work the Rectified Scottish Rite and some work Emulation, the latter in English."

This seems to be a complete non-sequitur, and is a pretty blatant and transparent advertisement for the Grand Lodge of France. Why not have 150 other footnotes about 150 other Grand Lodges, detailing how many lodges each has that work Scottish Rite ritual, or not? Further, the Grand Lodge of France is only one of many Grand Lodges in France, some, if not most of which, have lodges that use a version of Scottish Rite degrees.PGNormand 20:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the reason it is in there is because a while back we had someone whining that the phrase "some lodges use the SR Craft Degrees" was a weasel word, and we needed to cite the fact that, indeed, SOME do. That section of the GLdF webpage was the only place we (specifically me) could find a citation, in english, that corroborated the claim that there ARE Lodges which use them. In fact, you yourself participated in that discussion Talk:Scottish_Rite#weasel_words . . . --Vidkun 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good answer. Makes sense to me. I remember that discussion, although I'm still trying to understand the subtle difference between your use of the words "you yourself" versus simply using the word "you." I wish we could find a regular Grand Lodge that stated the same in its website. There are regular lodges in Louisiana that use Scottish Rite ritual in the 3 Craft degrees. Thanks. PGNormand 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Stuart Jacobite Influence - opening paragraph

I note that the opening paragraph of the section on Stuart Jacobite Influence has been tagged as needing citations for quite a while. Is someone actually looking for the cites, or should we delete the paragraph as being unsupported? Blueboar 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK... no response, so I deleted it. Blueboar 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Michael Richards, a member of the Scottish Rite?

Would someone verify the Michael Richards entry? I noticed the Freemason site had some erroneous entries, so the site has been locked; would this be another bogus entry perhaps perpetrated by none other than a fan of Cosmo Kramer? Thanks!

Well, I can not access the Scottish Rite's web page right now (my work computer blocks it for some reason)... but will this do as a stop gap? Blueboar 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also... When you say the "site is locked", are you discussing Freemasonry or some other article? I would be happy to correct any errors. Could you give some examples of the erroneous entries are you talking about? Blueboar 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Try these - [1] and [2] --Vidkun 15:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Richards or not

We seem to have a pattern developing here... the mention of Michael Richards as a notable member gets deleted on an average of about once a month. I don't think the deletions are due to doubt that Mr. Richards is a member of Scottish Rite. I suspect that the deletions are simply made because people dislike him and the racist comments he made about a year ago. Our instinct is, therefore, to treat such deletions as vandalism edits and revert, and so far we have done so. However, I would like to examine his inclusion from a different angle...

How notable is Michael Richards today? Yes, a few years ago he was very notable... he was "Kramer" on Seinfeld... the hottest TV show at the time. He was a phenominon! However, except for the flurry of notariety he gained last year due to his unfortunate racist remarks, his fame and notablilty has faded significantly since Seinfeld went off the air. I expect that in a few more years, most readers of this article will react with "Michael Who?" when they get to the notable members section. Even now, he does not have the same level of notability as the others who we place on the list.

Throughout the years, there have been numerous actors who have been members of Scottish Rite... some of them became quite famous for a while. And yet, we don't list them. Yes, we list John Wayne ... but I would place John Wayne in very different class of name recognition and notability than Mr. Richards. The other members we list are VERY notable people in their fields - people that will still be notable in 100 years time. Michael Richards is simply not in that class.

I propose that we remove his name from the list... not in reaction to the vandal edits, but because he is rapidly loosing his notability. Thoughts? Blueboar 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My thought is to let him come, & go, & come, & go... Hi is SR, so he is a valid entry. Oh, & it doesn't say "famous", or "earth-shattering", it just says "notable". & like him or dislike him, he is notable either way. hehheh... First he was "notable", then he's "notably disliked", that just makes him twice as notable.

But again, I don't care. Watching him come & go is about as entertaining as a tennis match. Grye 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not tennis... This is. But the excitement level is about the same. :>) Blueboar 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, take out the paddle/whacker thingies & use yer hands, & betwixt them all, we might now have a sport...;~D Grye 23:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What if they put a time delayed explosive charge in the ball... set to go off at an unknown point during the match. Now that would be worth watching! Blueboar 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of going off & bombing etc. eachother, could we just settle inter/national differences this way? a'la human bloodsport? Grye 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was present at the Supreme Council Session (S.J.) in 1999 when Richards showed up as a new S.R. member. He'd only been a member a few months at that time. He attended that session at the encouragement of his good friend and Masonic mentor, Michael Marcellos, a California film maker. Nevertheless, the G.C. decided to give him the K.C.C.H. that year even tho' he was technically not eligible, according to the statutes. Richards was very uncomfortable about being given this honor simply because he was a TV personality, and he expressed his discomfort in no uncertain terms to a half dozen members that had been given the task of escorting him around and shielding him from the crush of the curious members in attendance. He was especially concerned about being "obligated" to perform in exchange for the unwarranted honor which he knew most other members labor for many years to receive, if at all. Two years later, he attended the 2001 bicentennial Session at Charleston where he was the featured speaker at the gigantic banquet on the last night at the big convention center. He was honored again that year by being given the 33rd Degree, even though it had been only two years since he'd received the K.C.C.H. Again, he felt very uneasy and frustrated about being forced to accept an honor that he knew he had not earned. I was present on several occasions when he discussed this discomfort with the half dozen members around him. His initial interest in Freemasonry and the Scottish Rite was due to the fact that he had purchased Red Skelton's home in L.A., and with it he had purchased Skelton's library which included books about Freemasonry. I have no idea whether Richards has remained active in the fraternity and the Scottish Rite, or if he has dropped out. That might explain a record searcher at the D.C. H.Q. not finding his name in the current membership files. [I'd prefer to remain anonymous on this post. If that's a problem, erase this post.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.192.207.49 (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Hold on there, Annonny, at least you didn't put this disinformation in the article. But here on the Talk page, we call people on bullsh!t: so stop pretending that Roberts might have "dropped out". You CAN'T drop out! You can't. 68.123.47.245 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon is OK, no worries. & he is at least somewhat present, at the least, in Freemasonry from what I can see. Grye 02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can drop out, either through demit from the Valley, non-payment of SR dues, or even demitting or being suspended from Lodge. All of the appendant require that you be a MM "of good standing" (meaning that you've paid your Lodge dues), and once that changes, you're no longer eligible. Speaking of, that should go in the article if we can get a citation for it. MSJapan 16:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Richards?

I have written the Scottish Rite Temple in DC and they have no record of Richards. You guys can double check if you are so inclined. Jokerst44 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? First of all, proving they have no records of him is not likely. Disproving the claim that he ISN'T a member is EASY: "Michael A. Richards, 33rd, Behind the Symbols" by Allan L. Casalou, and "Brother Michael A. Richards, Renaissance Man, Not 'Kramer'" by Michael M. Marsellos. Are you going to suggest that the Supreme Council, in DC, is going to publish something that isn't confirmed?--Vidkun 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked someone to site it and you have. I am not suggesting the Temple IS or IS NOT doing anything. Don't put words in my mouth. Why do you think I asked to be double checked??? This must raise a lot of emotion in you to warrent such a response. I wrote to them, as I said, they said they had no record. Period. Don't infer anything more beyond that. Jokerst44 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually looked at the talk page, you would see it was already cited. If you would do some homework, before arbitrarily deleting something, you wouldn't get reverted.--Vidkun 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For example of what looking before you leap would have shown you, look here--Vidkun 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. I did double-check, & put him on List of Freemasons, with his referenced Masonic history (at AASR-SJ) for others to go re-check if they like ;~) Grye 22:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's there now, but his picture was on the display of "Famous Freemasons" at the NMJ Museum of our National Heritage in Lexington. MSJapan 04:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous in what sense?

I am a little disillusioned by the term "famous freemason". Michael Richards is famous, but why is he a famous freemason? Being a famous freemason is not the same as being a person who is famous, and just so happens to be a freemason. I wish this could be altered somehow. George Washington and Harry Truman were very famous freemasons who were also famous for being presidents. Both are mutually exclusive in this case. what has Richards done for freemasonry, other than simply being a member, that would make him a "famous" freemason. Jokerst44 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the context used means "these famous people are Freemasons". The page doesn't (at the moment) use the term "famous freemason". or even "famous" for that matter. The referenced source(s) does. Maybe ask them?Grye 04:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

True... just so we don't have to keep switching back and forth between here and the article, this is the text: Notable members of this order include Buzz Aldrin, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, Henry Ford, John Glenn, Arnold Palmer, Albert Pike, Michael Richards, Harry S Truman, and John Wayne.

The key word is "Notable" not "Famous". Yes, most of them are Famous as well, but not all (I would not call Albert Pike famous... your average man on the street has never heard of him... in fact, most Masons have never heard of him... but he is notable, in that just about every Anti-Mason quotes and misquotes him). I suppose Richards is notable right now (or at least notorious) ... the hooplah about his racist rant is not quite over. In time his notariety will fade even further, at which point we can remove him permanently.

Question... are their any people who should be on the list that are not? Blueboar 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An observation. They're all US famous people, similar to the rest of the article being geographically focussed. One of the issues probably is that elsewhere people don't promote their AAR membership in preference to their craft membership.

There is also possibly a point about use of terminology, again probably related to SJ usage, in that AAR is just one of the appendant bodies (concordant/ appendant distinction is another USianism) and there are many more.

It might be easier just to not bother stating any.

ALR 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that. Blueboar 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Jokerst44 13:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too, jumping in very late after a fascinating read of this talk page. One area that has constantly irked me is the US-centred approach to masonry on wikipedia, such as the above-mentioned list of notable US masons. In our part of the world, when a brother pops in to vist and mentions he is from the US, we tend to wince slightly. And then buy him a drink. BrianWalker 06:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, things are a bit different in the US as far as Scottish Rite goes, too - because of the size of the jurisdictions (15 states and 35 states, IIRC) there's a much larger member base, and a somewhat higher visibility of the group for potential members through RiteCare and the Learning Centers, as well as no religious restriction, and a jurisdictional magazine and website that prfiles famous members from time to time. Because of all of those factors, it's much easier to find a famous person who also happens to be in Scottish Rite. That being said, we could just have them listed on the list, and not even bother here, or we could find famous members in other jurisdictions. MSJapan 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this from another perspective... I have another reason for not mentioning famous people here. It comes across as borderline POV puffery.... "gee, ain't Scottish right wonderful? Just look at all of these famous people who are in it." That kind of stuff should be left to the various Scottish Rite webpages. We should talk about what Scottish Rite is and does... not about who is in it. Unless someone has a reason why a mention of famous people should stay, I move that we just cut the whole bit.Blueboar 15:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gone. MSJapan 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How fascinating that there are precisely 33 citations.

We better do the sme thing here in the Talk categories. Please immediately add 11 more Talk threads. 68.123.47.245 03:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference styles

I just updated a couple of the URLs, and while I was at it, I changed the refs I was fixing anyway to use "Cite web". Anybody have a problem with this, and would it be a problem if I went through and updated the rest and added some "Cite book"s as well?--SarekOfVulcan 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

To "and" or not to "and"

As relates to the Northern Jurisdiction... the web site for the supreme council [3] seems to use the "and"... while those for at least two subordinate valleys (in Boston and Chicago) seem not to. Confusing ain't it? Blueboar 22:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Could this be a Valley vs Supreme Council thing? I did a google search on the name with no "and", and it seems as if every Valley (at least those with a web site) does not use the "and". Perhaps it is something that was recently canged? Blueboar 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I've split up SJ and NMJ in order to try to cut down on the external links for charities and such - I'm going to get some info together and work it into those sections, and then try to expand the UK section. MSJapan (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

33 degrees originated in US?

I've been following up on the history of the Scottish Rite in Mackey's History of Freemasonry, and it's in substantial disagreement with this article. His account (summarised by me) is as follows:

A chapter of 25 “High Degrees” was established in the College of Jesuits of Clermont, Paris, by the Chevalier de Bonneville in 1754. This college was asylum to the House of Stuart, who were mostly Scots, and one of these degrees was called “Scottish Master”. The rites were soon suppressed by the Jesuit order, but were adopted by the Berlin Grand Lodge of the Three Globes in 1758 whither they had been carried by the Marquis de Lernais, and revived in Paris later that year under the authority of the “Council of Emperors of the East and West”. The Jesuits “again forced themselves into the Rite and ‘sowed seeds of dissension’”, resulting in the formation of a rival organization, the “Council of the Knights of the East”. In 1781 both these bodies were incorporated into the Grand Orient de France. The system of 25 degrees was known as the “Rite of Perfection” or the “Ancient and Accepted Rite”.

In Germany in 1762 Frederick the Great, patron of all German Masonry, formed the “Grand Constitutions of 1762”, and personally reorganised and reconstructed the Rite of Perfection, adding eight degrees and renaming it “The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry”; these Constitutions were ratified in Bordeaux on 25 October, where they were proclaimed as the governing laws for all Rite of Perfection bodies. In Berlin in May 1786, under the “Grand Constitutions of 1786”, Frederick resigned as Grand Commander of the Order of Princes of the Royal Secret, and Supreme Chief of the Scottish Rite or of Perfection. By this document his Masonic prerogatives were devolved to a council for each nation, to be composed of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General of the 33°.

In 1797 the Grand Constitutions of 1786 and the eight extra degrees were received at Charleston, and in 1801 a new US body was formed, “The Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors General of the Thirty third and Last Degree for the United States of America”. This body of nine members recognized the Grand Constitutions of 1762, the “Secret Constitutions”, and the Grand Constitutions of 1786.

Mackey notes some controversy over whether the Grand Constitutions of 1786 were in fact authorised by Frederick the Great, who was substantially incapacitated by this time, or were forged in Charleston by Morin. The first published copies of them appeared in 1832 (in French) and 1834 (in Latin), and these two versions differ in many details. Others speculated that the Latin version originated with the infamous Cagliostro. These theories were, according to Mackey, refuted by Albert Pike in his Historical Inquiry, who showed that Frederick had still been attending to business in 1786, and that the names appended to the Constitution, previously thought to be spurious, were indeed those of men connected to the Court of Berlin.

Sooo... We have the full system of 33 degrees invented either a) by Morin in Charleston in 1801 (as stated by the article), or b) by Frederick the Great in Berlin in the late 18th century (as stated by Mackey). Now the Grand Orient de France, of which Morin was an emissary (I presume it was them that sent him), is a Scottish Rite body with 33 degrees, and by option a the GOdF must have received this Rite from the US, which seems a little bizarre, since Morin presumably claimed to have received it from them. It's possible, but sounds a little far-fetched. So I want to know what I'm missing here. Is the article incorrect, or is Mackey incorrect, or have I failed to grasp some important point here? Fuzzypeg★ 02:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not rely fully on Mackey. He is quite outdated, and more modern Masonic research has debunked a lot of what he says. As for the origins of the Scottish Rite, we need to distinguish between the Scottish Rite as we know it, and a host of other Rites (some of which contained degrees which were precursors to those now in the Scottish Rite, and some of which were essentially masonic dead-ends). European (and especially French) Freemasons of the mid 1700s created literally hundreds of different and competing Rites (it was a very creative period in Masonic history). These tend to all be incorrectly lumped together under the banner of the "Scottish" Rite (actually French) - as opposed to the "English" Rite (which consisted of the first two degrees, and either the modern 3rd degree or the Holy Royal Arch, depending on whether you are talking about the Moderns or the Antients). Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Michael Poll, Morin was 25th Degree, and he invented the additional degrees. The dangers of mixing the so-called "Rite of Perfection" with the 33 degree AASR come into clear focus (hah!) here. All of the ones who trace themselves down from Morin, including Mitchell who were given the rank of DIG, were "Rite of Perfection" Masons who held the 25th degree of that system. The 32nd degree is that of the 1801 33 degree system. It is apples and oranges. A 25th degree Mason can not make another Mason a 32nd degree. No one was a 32nd or 33rd prior to 1801. Morin is said to have been a 33rd via the so-called "Secret Grand Constitutions of 1762." This collection of documents was rather soundly debunked by Albert Pike himself in his "Grand Constitutions". There he published the complete "Secret Constitutions" and shows why they are fake. There is not one scrap of evidence that Wilmans or anyone else else possessed the 33rd degree prior to 1801. Nothing. When we read things like "he was known to possess" this or that, big red flags should go up. How was he "known" to have this? By some document that we can examine or some book or writer who says that he had this? Big difference. So very much of our "known facts" are just what someone thinks or believes. They are hardly facts. So ... how did Mitchell become a 32rd and then a 33rd? Read Coil's (either edition) and see what happened to the old DIG's of the "Rite of Perfection." When the AASR was created, they "slid over" to the 32nd degree of the AASR. Now read some more of Pike's "Grand Constitutions." You see, in the very early days, the early AASR 33rds acted very much like the RofP's DIG's in more ways than we might think about. In order words, there were times when ones rank allowed him to assume greater authority if there was no one senior to him in the area. That's right. Following the common practice of the RofP, it seems logical that Mitchell made himself a 33rd by the fact that he was both the senior DIG in the area (allowing him to "slide over to the 32nd of the AASR) and then being the senior 32nd, becoming a 33rd. Guy Chassagnard has a book in French about it, called (I believe) To the Roots of the Scottish Rite although I do not know the publishing house.--Vidkun (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So that leaves two options: the French either got hold of the Scottish Rite from the US, or they developed their own 33-degree "Scottish Rite" independently, either before or after 1801. I have to admit, the rituals as described by Pike differ substantially from what I have seen in our French-derived working, although the basic intentions remain unchanged. I must track down some of those books you mention and have a read. Fuzzypeg★ 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Fuzzy, you need to remember, when you say the rituals as described by Pike differ substantially from what I have seen in our French-derived working, that Pike rewrote, or fleshed out (much like GBG?) the rituals sometime after 1855. The article states that the rituals the SC in Charleston had were very rudimentary, and not well written ... what we need now, would be a history of the Scottish Rite rituals as they are worked in France, starting from when the Supreme Council of or for France was founded in 1804-ish.--Vidkun (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you leave out the most obvious option... All through the late 1700s and early 1800s, everyone was freely borrowing bits and pieces of ritual from everyone else, as well as making up there own bits of ritual - there really was no standardization or any single "Scottish Rite" (but rather a whole bunch of different bodies in both Europe and the US, all using the term "Scottish Rite" to discribe themselves). In other words... You can not really talk about one single "Scottish Rite" during the period... you need to talk about there being several Scottish Rites. As for the differences between Pike and other rituals... it is slightly anacronistic to toss Pike's rituals into the mix... he did not come along until the 1850s. The reason why his working is so different is that he substancially re-wrote the entire thing. Blueboar (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar about Pike. My understanding is that Morin's 25 degree rite had members who created the 33 degree rite, in and around 1800-1802. This Rite went BACK to France, because everyone KNEW Morin got it (the 33rd) from the French. Masoniclight yahoo group has some really good information on it, and also has Michael Poll as a contributor, as well. From what I got there, the Supreme Council (of or for???) France was founded in 1804 by de Grasse, which makes it believable that the 33 degree system in France was imported from the new world.--Vidkun (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The new AASR SJ Monitor has a very lengthy history that may also be of use here. I'll get working on that. MSJapan (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)