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.
Freemasonry To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Freemasonry Improve Order of Quetzalcoatl Stubs... Recent changes Add all articles within the scope of this project to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Freemasonry/Articles page by category. Use the recent changes function to check these articles for improvement, vandalism, or other changes. Review Vandalism Requests Articles for all UGLE-recognized Grand Lodges In the article on Rudyard Kipling, add a small referenced para on his involvement in masonry Listed for deletion Grammar corrections Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta Wikify Watch this list — Edit this list

Contents 1 Merge 2 MM in Modern American Freemasonry 3 Separate Page for Philadelphians? 4 Unreferenced 5 Rite vs. Lodge

[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)

When arguing whether the Rite of Memphis-Misraim is regular or not, one should probably clarify "which" Rite of M-M he is talking about. For instance, the Grand College of Rites in the U.S. (which is legitimate and recognized by most, if not all, grand lodges that are in amity with the greater family of grand lodges recognized by the parent grand lodges of Europe) owns and controls the original Rite of M-M. Therefore, any group that attempts to "gin up" a new, different and separate Rite of M-M will, of necessity, be considered spurious and irregular by the grand lodges that share recognition with the parent grand lodges of Europe. As for the regularity of the A. & A. Scottish Rite, it does not base its regularity on the authenticity of the signature of Frederick the Great on the Constitutions of 1786. In fact, the Scottish Rite did not exist in 1786, nor did the Constitutions of 1786 "create" the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite did not come into existence until 1801.PGNormand 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of Romania and the Grand Orient of Italy (both of which are recognized by GLMA) both allow M+M (aka AAPRMM). GCR did not have the right to claim exclusive ownership of extant rites. http://www.masonicforum.ro/en/nr22/memphis.html --Vidkun 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, "which" Rite of MM is of course an interesting question. Let's look at some of the history of how the MM got dealt with in the US: The Scottish Rite SJ, disapproved of degree sellers, people making a quick buck off of purported higher degrees. They also lumped a valid, yet different, Masonic Rite into that category.

When they did so, they called the Rite clandestine and spurious. This would lead me to believe that they, the SC of AASR SJ, felt NO ONE should pursue membership in that Rite (Memphis Misraim), that it never WAS a valid Rite.

Pike argued that certain members of the AASR NMJ, who were 33rds, had violated their 33rd obligations by joining the Memphis Misraim Rite, as the AASR 33rd obligation said you will not obtain, or recognize, any degree of masonry higher than the 33rd.

Yet, even after Pike said that, members of the AASR pursued and obtained MM rituals, performed them on their own, and claimed charter lineage for the MM groups. After they did so, they met, as Memphis-Misraim for the sole purpose of closing MM and folding it into the GCR. The GCR was not formed to propagate the rituals of MM, but to suppress them.

The men who formed the GCR claimed that MM was never valid, then went on to make it their own and close it.

Now, if it was never valid, how could they validly claim membership in it?

If it was valid (which their seeking suggests they truly thought it was), and they were already 33rds in AASR, they were forbidden, BY THE AASR obligations, to seek anything beyond the 33rd. They broke that obligation, in order have the rights and benefits of the Memphis Misraim Rite. What benefits and rights did they seek? The right to shut it down.

But, it is suspicious, that when the AASR made itself up from whole cloth, out of the 25 degree rite that had already existed, creating newer higher degrees, and automatically claiming authority over the all other degrees of their rite by fiat, they then turn around and say that another degree granting body doesn't have the same right to do so.

I ask: why wasn't anyone else allowed to do that at the time? What gave them the right to dictate to other groups "hey, don't recognize this other group that did what we did ... we did it first, so we are better, and we will continue to support you, if you do not recognize them."

William L. Cummings, 33°, of the GCR, said

"These very cases furnish evidence on the spurious rites to be discussed in this article. Although the Memphis and Misraim rites have been practically dormant for long period, there are several parties who claim more or less doubtful authority over them, and it is not at all improbable that attempts may again be made to propagate them in the United States. For this reason we present to the American Masonic Craft, through the columns of the Masonic press, positive evidence of the history of these rites and their ***illegal and illegitimate nature.*** In every case the activities of these rites are tainted in their diffusion because they have been promoted, mainly, either by those who had no legitimate or recognized Masonic status whatever or who have been expelled or excluded from the Craft of Freemasonry because of unworthy acts."

The asterisks are added by me. Cummings contends that from the start, MM is illegal and illegitimate. Again, quoting:

"The Rite in the United States rests upon a foundation which was unsound from the very inception."

So, someone from the GCR, and also a member of the AASR, said the Rite was illegal, illegitimate, and unsound.

Now let's look at some historical info:

"Proceedings held in the matter of the organization of the Sovereign Sanctuary of the United States of America, its Dependencies and Territories of the Egyptian Masonic Rite of Memphis.

Brother Henry V.A.Parsell of New York,N.Y.,holding Patent of the 95th Degree, dated April 24, 1906, signed by Harvey G.Goodale, 96°, M. I. Sov.Grand Master General, John S. Phillips, 95°, Grand Chancellor General and Edgar F. Stewart, 95°,Grand Secretary General, acting as Grand Hierophant 96° of the Sovereign Sanctuary for the United States of America, etc., conferred the 45° on J. Raymond Shute II of Monroe,North Carolina, Feb. 10, 1931.

...

A meeting was held at Washington, D.C. on October 22, 1931, being called to order at 11 o'clock a.m. for the purpose of reviving the Sovereign Sanctuary of the Egyptian Masonic Rite of Memphis. Brother H.V. A. Parsell, having called said meeting, acted as Chairman.

...

On November 14, 1931, the said Henry V.A.Parsell,Grand Hierophant, 96° elevated and invested Brother Harold V. B.Voorhis of Red Bank,N.J. with 18°, 45°, 90° and 95°.

...

On May 12, 1932 the Sovereign Sanctuary of the E. M. R. of M. was opened at 2400–16th Street,N.W. at Washington,District of Columbia—9:35 p.m. The Grand Hierophant, Henry V. A. Parsell, 96° presided and the following other members of the Sovereign Sanctuary were present: J. Edward Allen John H.Anderson Luther T.Hartsell, Jr. William B.Hodge Kennon W. Parham J. Raymond Shute II J.Hugo Tatsch Harold V. B. Voorhis

It was regularly moved and carried unanimously that the Sovereign Sanctuary surrender the Sovereignty of its three Rites for the purpose of being absorbed by the Grand College of Rites for the United States of America about to be formed."

...

"THE GRAND COLLEGE OF RITES for the United States of America Minutes of Convocation – May 12, 1932 The formation meeting of the Grand College of Rites convened at 2400–16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. at 9:25 p.m. on the above date. Present: J.Edward Allen, N.C. Kennon W. Parham,N.C. John H.Anderson,N.C. Luther T.Hartsell, Jr., N.C. William B.Hodge,N.C. Henry V. A. Parsell, N.Y. J. Ray Shute, N.C. J.Hugo Tatsch,N.Y. Harold V. B. Voorhis,N.J.

Thereupon Brother Henry V. A. Parsell was elected Chairman and Brother Harold V. B.Voorhis, Secretary of the Convention by unanimous consent. It was resolved that it was expedient to form the Grand College of Rites, which resolution was unanimously adopted. The proposed Constitution was then read for adoption by articles and after various changes had been made, it was regularly moved and carried that the Grand Registrar be granted authority to write the Preamble to the Constitution. It was regularly moved and carried that the rank of Past Grand Chancellor be conferred upon Brother Henry V. A. Parsell in recognition of his services to the establishment of this Grand College of Rites. It was regularly moved and carried that the Grand Registrar cast one ballot when there was but one nomination in the election of officers. Election resulted in the following selections: Grand Chancellor J. Edward Allen Grand Vice-Chancellor J. Raymond Shute II Grand Registrar Harold V. B.Voorhis Grand Prelate Henry V.A. Parsell, P.G.C. Grand Redactor-General J. Hugo Tatsch Grand Archivist Luther Hartsell, Jr. Grand Seneschal William B. Hodge Grand Marischal John H.Anderson"

So, senior members of the AASR deemed Memphis Misraim to be illegal and invalid, and a few of those leaders said that any AASR 33rd taking MM degrees was violating his 33rd obligation ... yet, a number of AASR men managed to claim the degrees, and used those claims to fold the Rite into the GCR.

From the Grand Lodge of BC and Yukon's webpage about Memphis:

"Today, the non-masonic Grand College of Rites in France claims authority to revive the Rite of Memphis, while its corresponding (and derivative) body in the USA, the Grand College of Rites(USA) continues to suppress the rite. Other individuals and bodies claim authority and lineage to practice Memphis-Misraim rites."

To see a much more in depth, and, to my mind, telling explanation of what happened with MM in the US, look at the article in Heredom (journal of the Scottish Rite Research Society) [1]

Repeatedly the article says MM always was illegitimate. But it also goes on to show that a number of masons from the AASR, claimed the right to open a MM body, for the sole purpose of surrendering its sovereignty to the GCR. I'll also point out that some jurisdiction, among them some of the oldest in the US, do not recognize the GCR. Massachusetts is one of them. It is not in the list of organization in section 700-701 of the GL Constitution, so, therefore, MA Masons should not be considered bound by the rulings of the GCR. Heck, because AAPRMM is left out, MA Masons are not allowed to join; this would mean that because GCR is left out, they're not allowed to join that, either. However, most of the men running GCR are also in the AASR, and the clauses regarding which organizations are recognized by MA were put in during the Cerneau AND MM issues ... you draw your own conclusion.--Vidkun 20:39, 16 August 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)

[edit] Unreferenced

I can not believe that this article has had an unreferenced tag since June of 06... it is obvious that no one is trying to locate sources for this article. Unless this changes, I will start to delete material until this is back to a pure stub. And may even nominate it for AfD. Blueboar 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, another month has passed and still no work is being done on references. I repeat my warning above... unless references are found soon, I will start to delete. To help indicate where I think references are needed, I will put citations requests through out the article... ugly as hell, yes... but it should highlight the problem.Blueboar 19:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign earlier)

I don't know that sources exist for this apart from its incarnation as Antient and Primitive Rite. It was on the project to-do, but I don't think anyone there knows anything about it. MSJapan 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... If the sources don't exist, then isn't this mostly OR? Also, if they don't exist, I'm not sure the subject is notable enough to have an article on it. Never the less... I'll give it a bit more time, just in case. Blueboar 19:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rite vs. Lodge

1. It would be helpful for a reader to find a definition of the topic in the first line of the article.

2. Was there a lodge in France called "Memphis-Mizraim"? I thought that "rite" does not refer to a particular lodge, but then I found a link (http://www.loge-carpediem.de/carpediem/infos/uebersicht_europaeischen_logen.htm) mentioning "Feminine Großloge Memphis Misraim" and "Alter und Primitiver Orientalischer Ritus Memphis Misraim" in the list of European Grand Lodges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Shakhray (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)