Talk:York Rite

message: I don't think the article reads well at the moment, it gives the impression that YR is the default model, whilst concentrating on the differences in 'England'.  I'm going to have a hack at reworking slightly.  Need to make clear that the orders are conflated in the US but not elsewhere.  That probably means discussing the US structure, then adding further discussion to make clear the different structures elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALR (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrived structure 

message: I like the new layout, though I did add a new top heading to move the TOC to a better place, and make the intro a little more self-contained.  I believe that the Sovereign College entry is inaccurate, though.  I yhave always been told it is the York equivalent to the 33rd, and is therefore for service, not proficiency (though they are related).  We also need an entry on KYCH. MSJapan 20:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have "heard" or "been told" that this or that part of the York Rite is the equivalent of the 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite. All of this is nonsense, of course. I asked for, and quickly received, an application form for the York Rite College long before I was even a PM of my local lodge, and a decade and a half before I was a Past Presiding Officer in ANY York Rite Body. I applied for the YR College and was accepted immediately. So much for its equivalence to the 33rd Degree. PGNormand 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new article 

message: I take issue with the idea that the Red Cross of Constantine is a York Rite Body, and therefore believe that it should not be included in this article. I'm not certain as to why some believe that it is. It may simply be that because the RA Degree (a YR Degree) is a prerequisite for membership in the RCC, that some make a giant step to assume that this makes the RCC a YR Body. Following that logic, then the Shrine was once "a part of both the YR and SR" as they were once prerequisites for the Shrine. If anyone can provide any other logical reason why the RCC is considered a "part" of the YR, I'd like to be enlightened (before I finish my year as Sov. of my Conclave). PGNormand 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't know who added that, though you are correct, and I'm personally very leery of adding invitational bodies to these articles.  I've removed it. MSJapan 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got sidetracked by another edit and forgot to remove it. PG got it.  MSJapan 00:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Cross of Constantine: Not a "York Rite" Body 

message: Looking at the sections on KT and HRA I would think it best to remove them from the York Rite page as they are not necessarily just York Rite.  It happens that in the US they are part of what is known as York Rite, but else where they are not considered part of it. Boooooom (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first of all, they can't be removed.  They are part of the York Rite where the York Rite exists.  KT has already got its own article.  We also clearly have a section that lists the equivalent bodies outside the US.  So I'm not entirely sure what the issue is. MSJapan (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From looking at it, the HRA article is exactly what was here already.  I don't see a need to maintain the same information in two places, and the section isn't so long as to be unwieldy, so I've redirected the other article space to here. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article

message: I am not a Mason but I was told by a Mason that the York Rite is known as the "Red Lodge", the "Blue Lodge" being the first three degrees of Masonry. If this is true then perhaps someone with greater knowledge of this subject can confirm it and make the appropriate reference.
If this is incorrect info, please send me the appropriate info. Thanks, LAWinans (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite's first three degrees are the Blue Lodge, they're all the same. The Scottish Rite starts with the 4th degree, and finishes with the 33rd, an honorary degree. You must be a MM, 3rd degree, to become a member of the AASR, which you receive by taking the 4th to the 32nd.--Craxd (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

text: that's now covered in the scottish rite article Jjazz76 (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Lodge? 

message: We should probably include a section on the history and development of the York Rite.  I realize that there is much that is not known (such as when the Royal Arch first developed), but there is a great deal that is known (For example, we do know where and when the Cryptic degrees were created).  Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because they post-date the other bodies by a considerable margin.  For the other bodies, I don't know that we could do anything that wouldn't be disputable.  For example, I found a Chapter claiming a formation date of 1758, which Turnbull apparently found spurious, because he didn't mention it at all.  Formation dates of the Commanderies in NY and MA that formed Grand Encampment are also subject to a bit of wrangling, and I know VA is around that same period (but did not join the group).  In short, are we going to create something useful if we do this, or something that is either such a qualified statement that it is useless, or something that is always under dispute from somebody? MSJapan (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter the cause, some sort of history should be shown, as the Scottish Rite has a good article on it's history. A general quote from a historical book would be enough, to show an estimated date. Most estimate the founding date to be around 1770 to 1780. See; York Rite History--Craxd (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: In the Knights Templar section, it's claimed that the Templar Order's "affiliation with Masonry is based on texts that indicate persecuted Templars found refuge within the safety of Freemasonry." The source for this claim is given as http://www.knightstemplar.org/faq1.html#origin, but if you follow the link you'll see this is not at all what the site says. In fact, it states most emphatically: "THERE IS NO PROOF OF DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ANCIENT ORDER AND THE MODERN ORDER KNOWN TO DAY AS THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR." Yonderboy (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misused Reference 

message: That's not the right logo, because the Sovereign College doesn't govern the Rite, and in fact, to join it, one has to have presided in all the YR bodies (IIRC).  There is a combo logo that often gets used for pins.  That would be much more appropriate. MSJapan (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: The article claims that "the Knights Templar require members to be of the Christian faith". This is simply not true. I am a Master Mason, Royal Arch Mason, Cryptic Mason, Knight Templar, 32nd Degree Scottish Rite Mason, and Shriner. I am also Buddhist, and this fact is well-known among others in these organizations. There are a series of questions that are asked of each Knight Templar candidate, some of which ask about the candidate's faith, however one does not need to be a Christian to be accepted into the Knights Templar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.19 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  Another way to look at it is that what a local Commandery does has no effect on what the Grand Encampment says, and the latter is really what is encyclopedic here.  Sometimes theory and practice conflict, but that's out of our scope here. MSJapan (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knights Templar and Christianity 

message: Unfortunately, the material describing the various degrees that was recently added (here) is copyrighted.  The editor who added it acted in good faith (believing that it was public domain) but unfortunately he was mistaken... the text is taken directly from the  York Rite webpage, who in turn copied it (with permission) from the webpage of the New Bern (NC) Chapter.  THAT webpage was last copyrighted in 2012, which means it is not in the public domain.  It is wonderful material, but unfortunately we can not use it. I have reverted. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descriptions of degrees is copyrighted material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on York Rite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090831070625/http://www.knightstemplar.org:80/faq1.html to http://www.knightstemplar.org/faq1.html#member
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090831070625/http://www.knightstemplar.org:80/faq1.html to http://www.knightstemplar.org/faq1.html#origin
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified