Talk:Masonic bodies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Move section

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title: Opening par

message: 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)
thread_title: Problems with this Article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bolding or not? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Unclear text needs clarifying 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A more accurate chart? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Free and Accepted Masons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations to sources needed 

message: How can I join the group? 41.249.12.51 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Grand Lodges have a website where you can find out how to join. Or, if you know a Mason (reasonably well), tell him you are interested. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Joining