Talk:Rite of Memphis-Misraim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Merge

I suggested a merge of these two articles. Adding will give credibility. Any thoughts? Zos 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok well, I merged the two and added the tags for cleanup and no citations. Have fun. Zos 22:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Still needs sources, which I for one cannot provide. I'm working on cleanup, though. MSJapan 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MM in Modern American Freemasonry

As far as I know, MM is totally irregular to all GLs in the US, and a google search proves this, while Scottish rite is not irregular at all, so I have changed the section accordingly. MSJapan 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

However, your edit says ALL GLs, not all US GLs, and there are GLs that are in mutual recognition with GLs that are in mutual recognition (friend of friend) with UGLE wherein: AAPRMM is NOT deemed irregular; or is deemed regular; or is not addressed (there are SOME GL's that do not have a GL Constitutional clause like GLMA's 700-701 stating what is and isn't a regular appendant body, and simply deem GLs to be what GLs should discuss regarding regularity) . . .--Vidkun 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. On further reflection, as this Rite is not confined to the US, there's no real need to have a US-specific section, so I've just removewd it entirely -- there's too many unsubstantiated statements for my liking. MSJapan 21:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No doubt MM have their own Grand Lodges, however small. As far as I know, they're considered irregular by all the Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England. Regarding the strange sounding claim that the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite is itself irregular, the claim was based on the strong possibility (the likelihood, some Masonic historians say) that the Rite's Grand Constitutions of 1786 were not actually signed by Frederick the Great. If Frederick's supposed sponsorship of the Rite in the Constitutions of 1786 was actually a fabrication, then, some would argue, the whole subsequent organization is illegitimate. But what should this matter if we're doing good work? Best not to get too hung up on who officially recognizes whom and get on with the work of Masonry, I think. 66.167.48.61 20:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Page for Philadelphians?

If the two pages are to be merged would it make sense to create a separate page for the Philadelphians, as it coincerns to a greta extent their political involvement?Harrypotter 21:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)