Talk:Masonic bodies

Move section

I am moving this paragraph to the talk page as I think it belongs there rather than in the encyclopedia:

A number of youth organizations exist, mainly North American, which are associated with Freemasonry, but are not Masonic in their content (Comment from MSJ: That is very debatable. Having seen Rainbow and DeMolay ritual done in the lodge room of Lodge of Instruction (which works differently here than in the UK, IIRC, which is why it could be done), I'd say that it teaches a lot of the same principles, and has ritual which needs to be memorized. A Master Mason is required to be at meetings as an advisor, so while there is no S&C, it's a pretty good approximation, so if you want to make a case for the statement, you're going to need to clarify the definition of "Masonic content". J S Ayer 01:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me provide a definition of "Masonic content" if I may. In most Masonic writing that I am familiar with, especially when categorizing appendant, associated or affiliated organizations, the term "Masonic" refers ONLY to those affiliated organizations that actually confer degrees and orders that teach, well, "Freemasonry." This means that they: 1) derive from early traditions of the speculative Freemasons, 2) base the legend of the degree or order on early Masonic legend, and 3) teach lessons based upon symbolic application of Masonic working tools. This EXCLUDES the Shrine, the Eastern Star, the DeMolay, Rainbow Girls, National Sojourners, Jesters, etc. On the other hand, if you are going to apply an incredibly loose definition that only requires that an organization: 1) teach moral principles, and 2) has a ritual that needs to be memorized, then you open the door for literally hundreds of organizations to be counted as "Masonic." In effect, you are left with only one category which includes every organization. To me, the term "Masonic" refers to "Masonry", and "Masonry" is the craft of working in stone and/or the speculative application of the stonemason's tools to teach moral lessons utilizing the ancient traditions and legends of the stonemasons craft. If that's not right, then call me crazy. PGNormand 19:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

History

The section on "History" includes the opening statement: "The history of Craft Masonry, prior to the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717 is unclear, and the history of the various appendant bodies is even more opaque." I have to take issue with this statement. This is clearly a restatement of the old London-centric view of Masonic history. This might have gotten by in the early 1900's, or even up through the late 1970's, but there has simply been too much 17th-century Masonic history published over the last 25 years for this to be acceptable. The history of Freemasonry in Scotland during the 1600's is quite clear, and there are numerous minutebooks, catechisms and other records to document its history. Further, any number of reputable historians have written extensively on the early history of speculative Freemasonry in Scotland, from its early roots up through the 1700's. The fact that there is a dearth of similar documentation in England, and especially in London, has always been an embarrassment to the London craft. And it should not have been. There should be no shame in having to admit that speculative Freemasonry had its earliest roots in Scotland, and that the practice of it slowly spread to England during the 1600's. Instead, the London brethren, simply because they formed what they called a "grand" lodge at a rather late date in Masonic history, have ever since then attempted to foist upon the rest of the world the notion that they invented Freemasonry from whole cloth on St. John's Day in the year 1717. They claim that this was done by what they call "the four old lodges of London." But how "old" are they? They are unable to produce one minutebook or other scrap of evidence that one of these four lodges existed much before the death of Queen Anne in 1714, and the subsequent ascent to the throne of George I. So, when confronted about "the history of Freemasonry" prior to 1717, the London Masons have always equivocated by saying, "the history of Craft Masonry prior to the formation of OUR Grand Lodge in 1717 is unclear." (Maybe that is simply because they are not wearing their reading glasses when they have a copy of David Stevenson's books about early Freemasonry in Scotland in front of them.) Furthermore, (I'm on a roll now) the grand lodge of 1717 was not, and did not consider itself, or call itself, "the Grand Lodge of England" until much, much later. Neither did the founders of this first grand lodge even contemplate that they were forming a "national" grand lodge. They were simply forming a grand lodge for the metropolis of London and Westminster with no defined "territorial jurisdiction," and certainly not one that was "exclusive." It was simply a grand lodge FOR its own constituent lodges, like a franchisor with franchisees. And there were other lodges in 1717, and other Masons, in London, and in England, not to mention older lodges in Scotland, at the time. But the purpose of the first grand lodge was NOT to be inclusive, it was to be "exclusive" and it purposely excluded lodges and Masons that it did not wish to associate with -- primarily those who were, well, um, you know ... Irishmen. These other lodges, called Ancient (or "Antient") Masons, continued happily along with no need of a "grand" lodge for another thirty-something years, derisively referring to the "grand lodge Masons" as "Moderns." The Ancients' lodges finally formed their own Ancients' Grand Lodge in 1751. Its interesting to note that this Ancients' Grand Lodge was quickly recognized as the regular Masonic authority in London by both the Grand Lodge of Scotland and the Grand Lodge of Ireland. In the American colonies, the Ancients' brand of Freemasonry was vastly more successful than the Moderns' version. In fact, many Moderns' lodges and their members eventually converted to the Ancients' persuasion. At the eventual union of the two rival London grand lodges in 1813, the larger and more successful Ancients' Grand Lodge virtually swallowed the smaller Moderns' grand lodge of 1717.PGNormand 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening par

The opening par need something bold any suggestions, or should it be rewritten to include the line "Masonic appendant bodies"? Escaper7 16:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Appendant vs. Concordant

The distinction between "appendant" and "concordant" is not in any way clear. Is there a reference for this distinction? If not, we should perhaps organize these bodies on more explicable grounds, such as the type of legends used in the ritual, or the requirements for membership. --Bolognaking 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I too am a bit confused as to what makes one organization such as the Scottish Rite, the Royal Arch, or the The Mark Master Degree, "Concordant" bodies, while other organizations such as the Allied Masonic Degrees, the Order of the Red Cross of Constantine, and the York Rite College, are all considered "Appendant" bodies. The fact that one or two editors "say" that one organization is "Concordant" and another is "Appendant" does not make it so. Clear criteria need to be provided so that the reader can understand why these two different caterogies exist. PGNormand 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, if the two categories are to be allowed to stand, either defined or undefined, then the title of the article needs to be changed to "Masonic Concordant and Appendant Bodies." PGNormand 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A more clearly defined division of categories can be found in many Masonic library classifications where 1) "Masonic Rites, Orders & Degrees" are listed in one category, 2) "Affiliated Organizations, Associations & Clubs (admitting only Masons)" in a second, and 3) "Androgynous, Adoptive, Women's, and Children's Organizations" are listed in a third category. The first of these, "Masonic Rites, Orders & Degrees" are organizations that either confer or control Masonic Degrees, such as Capitular (Royal Arch) Masonry, Cryptic (Royal & Select Masters) Masonry, York Rite College, Scottish Rite, Swedish Rite Bodies, Grand College of Rites, Early Grand Rite (HRAKTP), Red Cross of Constantine, Royal Order of Scotland, SRIA & SRICF, A.M.D., Knight Masons, etc. The second category, "Affiliated Organizations ... " includes "Non-Masonic" but affiliated orgs like The Grotto, the Shriners, Jesters, Tall Cedars of Lebanon, High Twelve, Lunch-Timers, National Sojourners, Masonic College Assn.s, etc. And the third category lists European Androgynous (male & female) and Adoptive (female) Orgs like the Egyptian Rite, the French Rite of Adoption, as well as American Androgynous and Adoptive Orgs like the O.E.S., the Amaranth, Heroines of Jericho, True Kindred, Beauceants, White Shrine, Ladies Oriental Shrine, Daughters of Mokanna, as well as the children's orgs like the DeMolay, Rainbow, Builders, Job's Daughters, etc. PGNormand 18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say go for it! Let's have an introductory section explaining the differences between the sections, especially the first and second. The first group I take it consists of orders open only to Masons which use a degree system, have a serious purpose, expand upon or extend the legendary material contained in the Craft Degrees (or perhaps not--would this apply to KT?), and have historical roots. The second group consists of orders open only to Masons who do not fall into group one. --Bolognaking 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't sound quite right, because some of the bodies listed above are invitational only, and are generally classified as such. Moreover, why are we defining three groups to clarify two terms? Don't change anything for the time being - I'll figure this out by tomorrow. MSJapan 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GLBC&Y says that the concordants are the York and Scottish Rites, the appendants are all the women's and children's groups, ROS and other invitationals are "bodies in amity", and Shrine and Grotto are "clubs". This is a little closer to what seems accurate to me, although I'd see a case to call the Shrine "concordant" - some of this is jurisdictional issues, too. This lodge site pretty much states that the terminology is nonstandard, meaning that no matter what we pick, it's not going to work for somebody. However, I think GLBC&Y makes a pretty good attempt at classification, and I would lean towards that classification as opposed to PGNormand's, which seems a little too nonstandard. MSJapan 03:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. There are as you know buckets of bodies associated with Masonry in some way. To just list them would be confusing and uninformative. They have to be grouped in some way, and in some way which will not seem arbitrary. Grouping them by whether or not the members must be Masons is one way. We could group them according to whether or not they are invitational, or the subject matter of the legends taught, or the country of origin. I don't think it really matters as long as we are able to be consistent and to cover all of the bodies who need to be listed. But I do not think it helps the reader if we say "This body is called a body in amity by GLBC&Y". Why? What does it have in common with all of the other bodies we call "bodies in amity". If the basis for the taxonomy can be explained I'm happy to go with it. --Bolognaking 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that just being a Master Mason isn't enough for many of these so-called appendant groups that are actually invitational (like those in the bodies in amity cat), so if appendant means only "must be a MM to join", then they aren't appendant. Another problem is that not all of the organizations exist in all the jurisdictions, so there's some notability issues involved as well. Moreover, there are sometimes two sets of these groups when one considers PH Masonry as well. Maybe this article needs to be fundamentally rethought. MSJapan 16:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that the distinction between the terms "concordant", "appendant", "allied", etc. is often not explained even to Masons... or if it is, it is done in an oral, haphazard way.

You ask most Masons and they will probably tell you: "Well, when I joined the Craft, it was explained to me that 'Concordant' means... while 'Appendant refers to... " etc., but saying this in the article would definitely be OR. What we need is a ref to an authoritive source that makes the distinctions clear. Blueboar 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Or indeed many don't make the distinction, there is Craft and Everything Else/ Higher Degrees/ Additional Orders.ALR 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MS raises a good point in that even within an order tf the same name not every jurisdiction's requirements or organization is the same, not only in PH but also in British Masonry and even more in Continental Masonry. The Mark Degree is definitely something different in Scotland from what it is in the US. This may be a difficult way to organize the article. I think that the easier way would be to forget about concordant/appendant (unless we can find the kind of source Blueboar suggests) and look at the nature and origins of the rituals/legends of each order. --Bolognaking 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK then...what if we don't get tied up in terminology, and instead just call the article "Masonic Bodies"? We then have much more freedom of definition without compromising the information. MSJapan 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. --Bolognaking 15:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is one trait that is common to all of the various 'appendant', 'concordant', 'allied', etc bodies - and it is something that we need to make clear in what ever article we end up with... all are in some form or fashion recognized as being "Masonic" by a (regular) Grand Lodge. The current article excludes those bodies, rites, degrees etc. which might consider themselves to be "Masonic" but are not recognized as such by a Grand Lodge. I worry that an article entitled simply "Masonic Bodies" might open the door to adding every wanna-be quasi-masonic irregular body to the list. Blueboar 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a slippery slope again - it works for large groups, but what about smaller groups like AMD or Sciots? Are they recognized, consideried GLs don't concern themselves with anything outside Blue Lodge? AFAIK, even AASR deputies are only invited to GL meetings as a matter of courtesy, not for any official reasons. Again, we're trying to general that which is not really generalizable. I see the issue, but I don't think there's an easy way to correct it. That being said, most of these groups have websites (they're pretty much all in the same webspace for the US), and there may be some way to factor that in. MSJapan 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you wore your A&AR regalia in craft over here you'd get expelled.ALR 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution of Our Grand Lodge lists "Bodies in Amity" and includes AMD among others. Needless to say, that doesn't mean that you can turn up to a craft meeting in AMD regalia, but rather that the GL recognizes its "Masonicness". However the SRIA for example is not included (pointedly so). To use Blueboar's criterion as long as some Grand Lodge had the SRIA on its list we could put it on this list, assuming that every Grand Lodge has such a list. It's not a slippery slope because it draws the line firmly--but we might be surprised by what is on one or the other side of that line. --Bolognaking 21:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with using, or "borrowing," the terms of "concordant, appendant, and affiliated" is that these are terms that are already variously defined by different grand lodges. If you "borrow" these terms for this article, then whose definition of them are you going to use??? Wikipedia cannot, and should not, be used to try to find one common definition for these terms to satisfy all the divergent definitions used by different grand lodges. Rather, this Wikipedia article simply needs to be concerned with classifying the many related organizations of Masonry into categories to assist the reader to understand their differences and similarities. I see three major categories. The first two categories admit Masons only, but one is limited to organizations that confer or control Masonic degrees, rites and orders, and the second includes organizations that do not confer or control Masonic degrees: 1) This includes organizations such as the Royal Arch Chapter, Councils of Cryptic Masons, the Scottish Rite, Knights Templar, K.Y.C.H., Allied Masonic Degrees, Knight Masons, Royal Order of Scotland, the Early Grand Rite (or H.R.A.K.T.P.), the Grand College of Rites, Order of the Red Cross of Constantine, Societas Rosicruciana (S.R.I.A. & M.S.R.I.C.F.), Reformed Rite (C.B.C.S.), etc. 2) This second group includes organizations for Masons only, but that do not confer or control Masonic degrees: Grotto, Tall Cedars of Lebanon, Shrine, Jesters, National Sojourners, High-Twelve International, and other clubs, etc. 3) This third category includes all the other organizations that admit non-Masons: Order of the Eastern Star, Rainbow Girls, DeMolay, Job's Daughters, White Shrine of Jerusalem, Amaranth, etc.PGNormand 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, one writer above said that he saw an argument for putting the Shrine in the same category with the York and Scottish Rites. That dumbfounded me. What would that argument be? The Shrine, unlike the York and Scottish Rite bodies, confers no Masonic degrees and has no Masonic content whatsoever. I see a much closer relation between the two Rites and, say, the A.M.D., the Royal Order of Scotland, or the H.R.A.K.T.P. PGNormand 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PG, the problem is that the recognition is not universal. You claim SRIA and MSRICF (and ROS, for that matter) confer Masonic degrees - why have I never seen any reps at Lodge or Chapter or Council Quarterlies, then, as I do with York and Scottish Rites? Moreover, many of these so-called "degree-conferring groups" are invite-only, or have other prerequisites. KYCH, HRAKTP, RCoC, ROS, etc. aren't things you can just join as a Mason. Therefore, I think your categorization is too simplistic. Whether Shrine has Masonic content, BTW, is largely dependent on one's personal definition of what Masonic content is. Personally, I see very little difference between the way AASR does degrees and the way the Shrine does its initiation. I'm just going to avoid the issue altogether and move the article to Masonic Bodies and be done with it. That way we note their existence, and let the reader sort it out as far as his jurisdiction is concerned. MSJapan 15:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

MS, you began with the words "the problem is that the recognition is not universal." This betrays the fact that you assume my categorizations have to do with my own GLs recognition of certain bodies. But, it does not. In fact, when you ask "why have I never seen any reps at Lodge or Chapter or Council Quarterlies ... as I do with York and Scottish Rites," it betrays the fact that your own POV has everything to do with how your own GL views affiliated organizations. You go on to puzzle over the fact that some of these "degree-conferring groups" are invite-only, or have other pre-requisites. Why should that present a problem for you? Either an organization confers "Masonic" degrees (that is, degrees with "Masonic" content) or it does not. Whether it has additional prerequisites for membership, or is invitation only, has nothing to do with whether the content of its degrees are "Masonic" or not. You want to place the K.Y.C.H., the H.R.A.K.T.P., etc. in another category because they have additional qualifications other than simply being a M.M. But any Masonic organization that has the additional requirement of being a Royal Arch Mason would have to fall into that category as well. Further, your statement that "whether the Shrine has Masonic content ... is largely dependent on one's personal definition of what Masonic content is," indicates that you do not understand the basics of what a "Masonic degree" is. A Masonic degree is, quite simply, a degree that derives from the medieval legends of the operative and early speculative Freemasons, and which inculcate moral and social virtues by the symbolic application of the stonemasons' working tools and by allegories, lectures and charges. (See the "Definition of Freemasonry," in Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia.) This is not my personal definition. I don't know if you are a Shriner or not (I am), but the fact that the Shrine ceremonial (which is not a degree, nor does the Shrine claim it to be one) has no Masonic content is underscored by the fact that the Shrine has on numerous occasions contemplated admitting non-Masons to membership. Since the Shrine ceremonial has no Masonic content, then making a non-Mason into a Shriner will not make him a Mason, and will not confer any Masonic status upon him. Further, even though you condemn me for using what you deem to be a "personal definition" of Masonic content, you then turn around and say, "Personally, I see very little difference between the way AASR does degrees and the way the Shrine does its initiation." Why is your personal viewpoint more valid than mine, especially when my viewpoint was originally promulgated by a renowned Masonic encyclopedist? The fact that the Scottish Rite may choose to use costumes on occasion, and may choose to confer its "DEGREES" on stage, and the fact that the Shrine may choose to do the same, has nothing to do with the Masonic content of the Scottish Rite degrees or the lack of same in the Shrine ceremonial. You state that the reader should "sort it out" based upon his jurisdiction. Again, you want to revert to using colloquial and provincial definitions of recognition. I do not. Many readers are not Masons at all, and have no idea what the local practice is in his or her "jurisdiction." Instead, I prefer to categorize affiliated organizations the way Masonic librarians do. That is, 1) books about "Masonic" organizations (conferring "Masonic" degrees and orders) in one classification, 2) books about organizations for Masons that confer no Masonic degrees or orders in a second category, and 3) books about organizations that admit non-Masons in a third. You may be able to block these classifications on Wikipedia, but you cannot block their use in hundreds of major Masonic libraries around the world, as they have already been in use for years.PGNormand 18:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you said "you prefer to categorize", not "they are categorized". That's an important distinction, because it implies such as system is not universally in place, and my point is we cannot create that here because it violates WP:NOR (as opposed to my preconceived notions, as you imply). Why couldn't you replace "degree conferral" with "initiation" or "ceremony" and remove one of your categories? In practical terms for the average member it's all the same. Frankly, what we'e doing here is getting bogged down in semantics and abstractions instead of disseminating information by improving the article.

From my perusal of GL websites, the same bodies are perceived differently depending on GL, and I see no reason to categorize based on inconsistent and non-universal semantics (and in effect forcing an interpretation), when we can just as easily cover all the same information without the categorizing headaches. Moreover, we couldn't use your format here even if we wanted to, because it's your format and therefore your original research; Wikipedia simply doesn't do that, and obviously, you're free to do what you wish in your own library regardless of what Wikipedia does. MSJapan 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear MS: I did not say "you prefer to categorize." I said that "I prefer to categorize." I DO have a preference, as you do. And my preference is based upon a categorization system that is used by most large Masonic libraries. Where did you derive your preference? In refering to the system that I prefer, you state that "such a system is not universally in place." That is true. There is no "universal" library categorization system for Masonic libraries. But the categories that I have given are common to all the major systems that I have found. I have copies of the categorizations used in Massachusetts (at the GL, and at the AASR-NMJ), in Philadelphia, in Iowa, and at the A&ASR-SJ. Most other large Masonic libraries, GL libraries, etc. use variations of these systems. What I have suggested here is that we "educate" the average reader, whether that reader is a Mason or a non-Mason. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. I think its important that we make a distinction between a) those organizations that confer Masonic Degrees that extend and expand upon the traditional legends of the first three degrees, and b) those other affiliated organizations that do not confer Masonic Degrees. There are your two categories, if you want only two. If you choose, you may break that second category down into organizations that admit Masons only, and those that do not. OR -- you may do as you seem determined to do, and that is make no distinction among all these organizations at all. But that does not "educate" the uninformed reader. All that remains now is for me to vacate the field and give you my permission to do with this article as you choose, as it seems that Wikipedia is now your private domain.PGNormand 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering I wasn't the one who brought up the lack of clarity, you make a bold statement in your last sentence. In any event, what is most important is to show the uninformed reader that these groups exist - if the reader wants more info, he or she can go find out what the status of the group is in their location. Getting hung up on terminology really doesn't help the uninformed reader you posit - why would the uninformed reader interested in what, for example, KYCH is particularly care about its relation to a GL or any other group? Whether it's in amity, concordant, appendant, whatever, doesn't matter; the constant is that it is a group that requires its members to have been heads of Lodge and all YR bodies. You're conflating a Masonic academic viewpoint (yours, and mine, for that matter, where where a group sits in the system defines what it does and how it does it) with that of a general reader (which is who WP caters to, and to whom York Rite, Scottish Rite, KYCH, ROS, the Shrine, etc. are part of the same umbrella group called "Masonry" - not accurate informationally, but accurate per viewpoint). I don't deny the value of a system, but I don't think it's appropriate here; it adds a level of complexity that is totally lost on the readership - you should see the terminology trouble we have on the main Freemasonry article. I would rather the substantive information be correct than the semantic, which is clearly open to debate. I think the differences are interesting, but I'm also well-aware that only a certain mindset finds those minutiae useful, and it's not the general public WP caters to. That being said, I've got an idea, and I'll post on your talk if the idea is feasible.MSJapan 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with this Article

The section titled "The Bodies," lists "The York and Scottish Rites." Aside from the fact that this omits other Rites like The Swedish Rite and The French Rite, and is written from an entirely American POV, the section has other problems. It starts off with the words "In the United States there are two main bodies:". (sigh) What does this mean -- "two main bodies...."? I think what the writer of this section probably meant was "In the U.S. there are two principle Masonic appendant organizations." But why limit your comments to the U.S.? Freemasonry AND Wikipedia are both international, not simply U.S. national. PGNormand 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The subsection (?) on the York Rite begins with a sentence fragment, which is probably why the writer left the period off the end of it. This could easily be resolved by changing the word "comprising" to "comprises." However, it states that "the 'York" ... Rite, comprising three separate and distinct bodies ...", enumerates them, leaving out "The Lodge," "The York Rite College," and "The Priory of Knights of the York Cross of Honour," which, of course, would make six York Rite bodies, and not three. But then, in the next subsection it says "Elsewhere in the world, parts of these rites are known by other names," and then goes on to list several that are not "part" of either the Scottish Rite or York Rite, namely: The Royal Ark Mariners, and the Order of the Red Cross of Constantine. The Royal Ark Mariners is a part of the Allied Masonic Degrees and is not a part of either the York or Scottish Rite. The Order of the Red Cross of Constantine, while having the prerequisite of membership in a Royal Arch Chapter (in the U.S.), or the Royal Arch Degree in England and other parts of the world, is not "a part of" the York Rite. PGNormand 20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Early in the article, it states: "... there are a number of related organisations ...." And, "These include, but are not limited to: Scottish Rite, York Rite, and the Shriners." The endnote given for this is Keith B. Jackson's book, Beyond the Craft, the subtitle of which is The indispensable guide to Masonic Orders practised in England and Wales. I've searched this book and cannot find any reason why the above statement, listing the "Scottish Rite, York Rite, and the Shriners" would credit Jackson's book as its source. Jackson does not mention either the York Rite or the "Shriners." And when he talks about "The Ancient & Accepted Rite" he does not call it the "Scottish Rite." PGNormand 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I did some heavy copyediting to this, and I'd like to see opinions and more references added in before I move the article. MSJapan 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Much improved!--Bolognaking 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious as to why you took out the section on the three categories; vengeance etc?

Thats from a discussion in ACF Jackson on the Rose Croix.

ALR 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I felt that it was too much of a discussion of the content of the degrees that didn't fit with a general informative article on the different bodies. I'm also not sure those categories apply to all the other bodies besides Rose Croix. However, it probably is worthy of inclusion in the AASR article, so maybe fish it out and put it there? MSJapan 00:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Recent edits have shown that there needs to be some sort of lower bar, or we get a whole bunch of things that aren't really known outside of themselves. Therefore, I think we need some minimum criteria. Any ideas? MSJapan (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing Info

The entry states:

"In the United States there are two main Masonic appendant bodies:

The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, which is further subdivided into four bodies. "

But it does not identify what those four bodies are. If jumps to the entry on the Scottish Rite there is no ref there as to what the 4 subdivisions of the Scottish Rite are. LAWinans (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, but what they are called and which degrees they control depends on the jurisdiction, which is why there isn't a usable section link. MSJapan (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I recently made edits which were reverted (actually rolled back) with this edit by User:MSJapan, who also left this comment on my talk page.

• I don't have a big issue with the first item "premier" or "Premier" Grand Lodge of England, though I note that UGLE and several other masonic websites use the lowercase, I see no reliable sourcing for the uppercase, and I'm concerned that the word creates a connotation of "preeminence" . But this is relatively minor.

• "Rightly or wrongly" has no place here. It is either superfluous to the blatantly obvious fact that this was either right or wrong, or it's a qualitative judgment that suggests that they were not in fact right. Normally, when someone says "rightly or wrongly" they are trying to say "wrongly" while appearing unbiased.

• As for the "there are two umbrella bodies, both of which are further subdivided into four groups, and that's obvious information from the web pages of both groups." - I don't see where this is obvious, I have read the other articles. If the information can't be specificied, let alone cited to reliable sources, then it is not worthy of being in the article.

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The edits you made were wrong, and MSJapan was correct to undo them. With respect, I think MSJapan is correct in saying that you appear to be trying to edit the detail of a subject you do not fully understand. Regarding the three points you make above: (1) The original "Grand Lodge of England" (founded 1717) is universally known as the "Premier Grand Lodge". This is not an assertion of preeminence, but rather a reflection of the simple fact that it is the first documented Grand Lodge ever. Whether you think the language is right or not, it IS the language used by Freemasons and is therefore appropriate to the article. A split occured (largely over the question of whether the Royal Arch was a 4th degree of mainstream Freemasonry or something different and additional), and the break-away Grand Lodge became known as the 'Antients'. Thus the original Grand Lodge became known as the 'Moderns'. However this is confusing, as the term 'Moderns' ends up being applied to the older organisation, hence the general use of the term 'Premier'. In any case, there is no competition today, as the two Grand Lodges were reconciled in 1813 and reunited to form the 'United Grand Lodge of England'. (2) Regarding who was correct in the 'split' the jury is very much still out - so the phrase 'rightly or wrongly' is entirely appropriate. (3) Regarding the Scottish Rite in the USA, I think you are confusing 'jurisdictions' and 'masonic bodies'. There are two jurisdictions (north and south) in the USA, but each of these jurisdictions divides its total Rite into four subordinate bodies. They differ slightly in the exact manner of dividing the degrees between these four bodies, but it is four bodies in each case. This is, as MSJapan has stated, quite clear from the websites of both jurisdictions. Indeed, in the case of the Northern jurisdiction this is spelt out clearly on the home page of their website (Lodge, Council, Chapter, Consistory). So in all these areas I'm afraid you are wrong and MSJapan is right. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Timothy, this is a general encyclopedia, not a Masonic encyclopedia, if the article isn't understandable to a general reader then it needs to be re-written. I am not confusing anything, the article fails to explain the point. Explaining to me on the talk page, things I already know is both unnecessary and pointless, the article must stand on its own. Your references above again appeal to "it's obvious" which is not an acceptable form of verification. The references need to support the points in the article directly, you can't simply create a bibliography of websites, some of which are no longer valid, at the end of the article and say "it's blatantly obvious if you knew anything about this topic and read the websites listed"

Re "Rightly or wrongly" you say "the jury is still very much out" - only among masons, this isn't a factual matter but a characterization of opinions. It needs to go.

Additionally, any editor can edit any article, there is no requirement for technical knowledge.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course anybody can edit any article. But if I edit the article on nuclear physics I'll expect to be wrong, as it's not my field. I disagree with your observations. I believe the article is entirely clear, despite the fact that you are misreading it, and seem to confuse 'jurisdictions' with 'masonic bodies'. As for "the jury's still out", no, not merely amongst masons. If you go to the original sources at academic institutions dedicated to the study of Freemasonry, such as the Canonbury Centre, or the Masonic Research Department at Sheffield University, you can find plenty of academic research to support the fact that this remains a grey area, owing to conflicting contemporary reports. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then please cite those original sources. Nuclear physics is something that you can be objectively right or wrong on - but if you edit in an incorrect manner then you still deserve respectful treatment, the history of the Masons is something more subjective in many ways - and my edits were intended to clarify on points of grammar and style not factual matters for which I haven't got evidence one way or the other. I have not confused jurisdictions with bodies, the article fails to convey what these "four subdivisions" are and it is not at all obvious that it is talking about "four bodies" as is clear with the York Rite article.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You make the next logical point for me - thank you! This article is merely a summary of the very many different 'masonic bodies' that exist. Someone wanting detail - like the precise break-down of the four sub-divisions within the American version of the Scottish Rite, can click the wikilink and go to the relevant article - where you yourself say all is explained! Admitedly, not ALL the masonic bodies have blue links yet, but we are working on that as fast as we can. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand me and I mis-wrote, the York Rite entry here on this article lists the constituent bodies here on this article, it doesn't just say there are four. The Scottish Rite entry here does not explain that there are four constituent bodies nor does the Scottish Rite article, go to Scottish Rite and search for the word "four" (and the number "4" if you like), you will find only one reference to "four bodies" in the sentence: "Each Valley has up to four Scottish Rite bodies, and each body confers a set of degrees." (which by the way is only found at Scottish Rite#Northern Masonic Jurisdiction). So, I know that in the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction, there may be up to four bodies. I have no idea ho likely this is, what is done in Southern Jurisdiction or in Canada, or anywhere else and I still have no idea what the bodies are! The reference should likely be removed from that article as well, since it's uncited and by itself rather meaningless. Now by googling, I can find that there are also four in Southern Jurisdiction and what they are called but I find no independent third party sources so I'm not going to add it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A Valley is the smallest unit. Not all Valleys have all four bodies, but most states do have at least one Valley that does. You could figure this out by looking at the Valley maps. The names of the bodies differ depending on which jurisdiction it is. Your statements above are a result of reading too much into the particular statements you did read, and not reading other material. MSJapan (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue needs to be resolved. Doug is making good points and has valid concerns - my point being that if he is unclear in his reading - and others are saying that he is - then the article unclear and requires improvement. It need not be dumbed down to the ridiculous but surely the wording can be expanded and improved to resolve ambiguities no matter from which place of experience or knowledge a reader is viewing the landscape. And, no, I am not going to do it, because I have no problem with anyone's edits. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 12:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Because I'm interested, I did some research and found a decent explanation at de:Degree (Freemasonry)#Scottish Rite (AASR), as well as a pretty good discussion of the Swedish Rite and the Germanic high grades. I'll see if I can import the article soon as it really covers the topic better, then we can consider a text merge as I'm not sure that the two articles would be necessary together.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Bolding or not?

I started to clean up the list of organizations, adding the wiki markup to bold them, especially the ones with wiki links, as many of those were bolded already. In Rites, Orders and Degrees, all of the bodies for England and Scotland are bold, but not all of the rest are. All of the ones in Other Orders and Degrees are now in bold, however, the Other Affiliated Bodies section and Youth Organizations section are not. For sake of consistency, should it be one or the other, or should we be bolding only that which do not have a wikipedia article?--Vidkun (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unclear text needs clarifying

The following text in the introduction is not clear:

"Whilst there is no degree in Freemasonry higher than that of Master Mason, the degree of the Holy Royal Arch is of great antiquity, and has a special importance in many masonic systems, including those of all three of the oldest 'Constitutions' (masonic authorities), namely the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in all of which it is considered (by varying constitutional definitions) to be the completion of the mainstream masonic structure,[2][3] A number of related organisations which have as a prerequisite to joining that one be a Master Mason, such as the Scottish Rite, the York Rite, and a large number of 'stand-alone' Orders and Degrees.[4]"

If this is two sentences, separated at "...masonic structure,[2][3] A number..." then the second sentence, standalone, does not make sense (and additionally, the comma needs replacing with a full stop). If this is one sentence then as a whole it, too does not make sense. I cannot correct this myself as I lack the subject knowledge. Darren uk (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It used to make sense, but following various edits that have tinkered with the lead section, the sense had indeed been lost. I have re-written the entire lead section, and hope it makes sense again now. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A more accurate chart?

I have never been happy with most of the charts and images that depict the degree structure of Freemasonry. Most perpetuate the erroneous idea that the the degrees of the York Rite and Scottish Rite are in some way "higher" than Craft Freemasonry. Does anyone know of an image that more accurately depicts the actual relationship between the various bodies? Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Free and Accepted Masons

This sentence in the opening rubs me the wrong way: "Freemasonry, also known as "Free and Accepted Masons"..." Is it 100% true? What about AF&AM and AFM, would they not also be known is Freemasonry? I'm sure there are others that would be excluded my this statement. I propose to remove the aka statement. Truther2012 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, it doesn't read well, but it is still true. Accepted relates to the operative lodges such as the Lodge of Edinburgh that accepted interested gentlemen into their lodges, then had to invent different rules for those who had never whacked a cold chisel. Later, in England, lodges descended from the Moderns referred to themselves as Free and Accepted, while those descended from the other lot, (and the older body at York) used Ancient, Free and Accepted. Possibly not relevant here. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... I find that sentence odd as well... I would use word "Freemasonry" to refer to the fraternity as an organizational entity, and the phrase "Free and Accepted Masons" to refer to the people who belong to the fraternity. We would not say: "Christianity, also known as Christians" or "Judaism, also known as Jews". Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds odd. Different Grand Lodges use such a range of different secondary designations, often including some or all of feee, ancient, accepted or other words. The only title that is truly universal is Freemasonry. We're not going to list every alternative designation, so probably best not to list any. Let's just say "Freemasonry". Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 05:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Citations to sources needed

As the article grows, a lot of information has been added without citations to reliable sources that support the information. This is especially true when it comes to describing how the various bodies and degrees fit together in different Masonic jurisdictions. I suspect most of the information that has been added is accurate (added by knowledgeable Masons based on their personal knowledge) - However, we still need to cite a source to verify it. Please... don't add information without a source to support it. It is better to omit information than to say it based purely on personal knowledge. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)