# What is "within Freemasonry"



## BryanMaloney (Feb 19, 2013)

Do we speak with two mouths regarding what is and is not "within Freemasonry"? We tell ourselves and the world, over and over, that Freemasonry consists entirely and exclusively of the three Blue Lodge degrees. Nothing else is Freemasonry.

Then we have books written by Masons for Masons that state "_Within Freemasonry itself, in the fourth degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite..._" (Hogan, T. 2009. _The 32 Secret Paths of Solomon: A New Examination of the Qabbalah in Freemasonry_. T. Hogan, self-published?) This is only one of thousands of such quotes that could be amassed to this effect.

How can we snuffle on about how the "appendant" bodies do not define Freemasonry and are merely auxiliary to the truth of Freemasonry when we, ourselves, go around telling each other that the "appendant" bodies are "within" Freemasonry?

Flat-out, what is "within" Freemasonry? Are the teachings of the Scottish Rite "within" Freemasonry (and, thus, normative) or are they "appendant to" (and, thus, actually not to be seen as normative for) Freemasonry? The same could be asked of the York Rite and other degree-granting bodies.

I don't expect a straight answer, but I thought I'd ask.


----------



## MarkR (Feb 19, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Do we speak with two mouths regarding what is and is not "within Freemasonry"? We tell ourselves and the world, over and over, that Freemasonry consists entirely and exclusively of the three Blue Lodge degrees. Nothing else is Freemasonry.


Well, I've never said that. 

 I'll repeat the "no degree is *higher *than a Master Mason" line, but I believe that the Scottish and York Rites provide "more light in Masonry" so I'd never say that they are not Freemasonry.


----------



## BroBill (Feb 19, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Do we speak with two mouths regarding what is and is not "within Freemasonry"? We tell ourselves and the world, over and over, that Freemasonry consists entirely and exclusively of the three Blue Lodge degrees. Nothing else is Freemasonry.
> 
> Then we have books written by Masons for Masons that state "_Within Freemasonry itself, in the fourth degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite..._" (Hogan, T. 2009. _The 32 Secret Paths of Solomon: A New Examination of the Qabbalah in Freemasonry_. T. Hogan, self-published?) This is only one of thousands of such quotes that could be amassed to this effect.
> 
> ...



The first three degrees (EA,FC, MM) are just that, the FIRST three. The first three degrees are the required degrees for full recognition as a Master Mason. No further degrees offered through any other body (York or Scottish Rite), make you any _more _of a Mason or any "_higher_". 

The York Rite of Freemasonry (the Texas form of Freemasonry) is comprised of the the first three degrees (Blue Lodge), four Chapter degrees and two Council degrees. The four Chapter and two Council degrees build on, or complete the first three. The three Blue Lodge degrees together with the six Chapter and Council degrees are the required minimum degrees to be a York Rite Mason, but there is an optional third Council degree that can be taken if/when offered.  Completing the York Rite is the Commandery which is not required to be recognized a York Rite Mason but is the fourth body of the York Rite of Freemasonry.   

The Scottish Rite is similar in that the first three degrees are provided in the Blue Lodge and the following degrees in the Scottish Rite. While I'm a Scottish Rite Mason, it's not my strong suit.  I devote most of my time and energy to the Chapter and Council. The Scottish Rite degrees are beautiful and highly informative, but they differ in style and form. I'm sure a brother with more expertise in the Scottish Rite can clarify further.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 20, 2013)

BroBill said:


> The first three degrees (EA,FC, MM) are just that, the FIRST three.




Therefore, these other bodies aren't really just appendant? Blue Lodge is just the baby steps? Master Mason isn't the top, and the rest don't hang beneath (append--that's what "append" means, after all) that? Likewise, if the teachings of the Blue Lodge are flawed and incomplete--which is what men like Pike hammer hammer hammer hammer hammer over and over (cue the weasel words about Pike not being an infallible authority), why say that Master Mason is the top of anything?

Are York and Scottish normative for Freemasonry or not? If so, then they are not merely appendant.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Feb 20, 2013)

Master Mason is the top. Once you are raised to Master Mason you cannot be anything higher. It does not matter that in the Scottish Rite they number up to the 33Â°, you will never be higher than a Master Mason. Just because someone finishes all the SR degrees and YR degrees it doesn't make him a super MM. I have been through the SR and it expands upon the lessons from the Blue Lodge degrees. I would never say the 3 Blue Lodge degrees are baby steps. I know one Brother that just received his 60 year pin last month and has never been through the SR, YR, Shrine, or any other appendant body. Would I consider him lower than me because I have gone through the SR and received my 32Â°? I think not.


----------



## jvarnell (Feb 20, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Therefore, these other bodies aren't really just appendant? Blue Lodge is just the baby steps? Master Mason isn't the top, and the rest don't hang beneath (append--that's what "append" means, after all) that? Likewise, if the teachings of the Blue Lodge are flawed and incomplete--which is what men like Pike hammer hammer hammer hammer hammer over and over (cue the weasel words about Pike not being an infallible authority), why say that Master Mason is the top of anything?
> 
> Are York and Scottish normative for Freemasonry or not? If so, then they are not merely appendant.



I am only a new MM but what I have learned is that first 3 degrees are a minimum on this road we are travling.  We may have enough in us at this time but always have growing room.  The Blue Lodge is not flawed or incomplete there is just more we can gain.  When I started doing metal shaping I got to a point where I could make a replacement or patch panel for any car part.  Is this all I need.  It may be but I think the more I learn about how the metal reacts I can make parts better and faster.  So was the first part of my learning or flawed or incomplete I could do it all or can i make things better.

Sorry for the analogy this what came to my head when I read the post and I just said it.......


----------



## BroBill (Feb 20, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Therefore, these other bodies aren't really just appendant? Blue Lodge is just the baby steps? Master Mason isn't the top, and the rest don't hang beneath (append--that's what "append" means, after all) that? Likewise, if the teachings of the Blue Lodge are flawed and incomplete--which is what men like Pike hammer hammer hammer hammer hammer over and over (cue the weasel words about Pike not being an infallible authority), why say that Master Mason is the top of anything?
> 
> Are York and Scottish normative for Freemasonry or not? If so, then they are not merely appendant.



First, I like the way Bro. Heilman explained it just a moment ago.  Here's how I normally explain it. Scottish Rite and the Chapter, Council, & Commandery (on the York side) are continuations of your Masonic journey. In the Blue Lodge you are provided the minimum required "light" to be recognized a Master Mason. Many brothers desire more light and continue their journey through the degrees provided through either the Scottish Rite or through Chapter/Council/Commandery. 

The additional degrees provide additional lessons much like formal, higher education.  You may received your master's degree in business finance & accounting, but you may need to take some further classes that the "baseline" master's cirricula do not include to gain the background in a specialized field in accounting. This doesn't make you a "super" accountant, nor does it make your master's a "super" master's degree. It merely provides additional instruction based on your interest or need. 

If your basic question is really "are the York and Scottish Rites Masonic bodies?", then yes, they are recognized masonic bodies.


----------



## widows son (Feb 20, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

Great explanation BroBill. Also I think it's safe to say that Pike advocated the necessity of the other degrees for the speculative mason, as additional light. As we know things aren't complete in the third degree, and both sides have their way finishing of the story, with continued Masonic light. As stated before MM is the requirement to prove one can gain more knowledge.  In England however, in order to sit in their blue lodge, one must have the royal arch degree, which completes the blue lodge degrees. So the RAM degree is a recognized appendant degree that completes the blue lodge MM degree.


----------



## Mac (Feb 20, 2013)

They are masonic avenues for further philosophical discussion, but I see the Blue Lodge as a hub.  We may leave and explore other areas, but I would hope you would return to Lodge to participate in that group which initiated you.  When you "come back," no matter what you've done in the YR, SR, etc, you don't wear those honors and awards, because they were not earned in the Lodge.


----------



## widows son (Feb 20, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

I like that, hub. Also one can bring back to the lodge the continued light they've gained from exploring outside the hub.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 21, 2013)

BroBill said:


> First, I like the way Bro. Heilman explained it just a moment ago.  Here's how I normally explain it. Scottish Rite and the Chapter, Council, & Commandery (on the York side) are continuations of your Masonic journey. In the Blue Lodge you are provided the minimum required "light" to be recognized a Master Mason.


 
Therefore, since it is merely the "minimum required", Blue Lodge is necessary but not sufficient. It's just the lowest bar, but not all that high, in and of itself. That's the masonic doctrine?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 21, 2013)

*Re: What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

And what of how Pike gobsmacked the Blue Lodge over and over as being inferior in knowledge and teaching, compared to the Scottish Rite? Should Pike just be ignored? And if ignored on this, then why not completely?


----------



## widows son (Feb 21, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

I don't think he believed the blue lodge to be inferior. He always relates masonry to the mysteries, in which there was always an outer "lesser" followed by the inner or "greater"mysteries. Lesser and greater don't reflect any superiority, but rather a starting point. As we know after the blue lodge one can continue their Masonic light in either appendant body, so like Pike said, after receiving the lesser mysteries, in the outer portico, one can continue on into the sanctum sanctorm to receive the greater mysteries.


----------



## BroBill (Feb 21, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Therefore, since it is merely the "minimum required", Blue Lodge is necessary but not sufficient. It's just the lowest bar, but not all that high, in and of itself. That's the masonic doctrine?



I think you may be over thinking this a bit.  Blue Lodge is totally sufficient and is absolutely required to become a Master Mason. All freemasons begin their masonic journey the same way with a "baseline" of knowledge.  Depending on the mason and his needs/wants/interests and depending on what he personally wants from masonry, Blue Lodge may completely sufficient for his individual need. 

Men approach masonry for different reasons and have different expectations and desires. Blue Lodges prepare every mason for his own unique journey. They provide the necessary knowledge to understand and relate to fellow masons and to understand the underlying "story". Some masons desire more "light" and choose to continue their personal journey through either a York or Scottish Rite path. It's really no more complicated than that. 

I'm sure you also know that Pike is somewhat controversial and I've personally never recommended his writings for new masons. He's views are interesting and he provides a insight into how some things came about. But he is just one mason among millions with his own opinions, preferences, and expectations. I've read some of Pike's writings and find them interesting, but by no means definitive or "directive". There are many credible masonic authors and historians which add to our understanding of our fraternity. I've found that focusing too much on Pike too early in a masonic journey can create some level of confusion. Just my opinion... one among millions....


----------



## MarkR (Feb 22, 2013)

All Masons are encouraged to make advancement in Masonic knowledge.  We are TAUGHT that the path to light is not complete after receiving the MM degree, that we are encouraged to seek further understanding.  The degrees of the York/Scottish Rite are a good way to work on your Masonic knowledge.  Doing those degrees no more says that the three degrees of the Blue Lodge are insufficient than does reading Masonic books, which I do every day.


----------



## timgould (Feb 22, 2013)

I think we may be getting hung up on semantics here. Masonry is much like Christianity. Once a person receives and accepts the Son, that person becomes a Christian. There is nothing greater from there than to be in the Family of God. But, that Christian has a choice to stay there, with the limited relationship, or purposely pursue more knowledge in order to grow internally. He/she is no more important, no more righteous, no more holy than the day they received Christ. But they have a greater reward in that they know the GAOTU betterâ€¦. Thus improving the quality of their life and equipping them to better serve mankind.

I see the journey of a Mason the same way.


----------



## calo (Feb 23, 2013)

*Re: What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*



BryanMaloney said:


> And what of how Pike gobsmacked the Blue Lodge over and over as being inferior in knowledge and teaching, compared to the Scottish Rite? Should Pike just be ignored? And if ignored on this, then why not completely?



The blue lodge is inferior to the teachings. The blue lodge is meant to represent the stages of a man's life. The appendent bodies are additions to the degrees. The arcane symbolism with in the SR degrees cant and shouldnt be made available to anyone who has not mentally reached adult hood, masonically speaking. 

Same as the public education system. You don't enroll someone who doesn't know proper grammar into a comprehensive writing course.

Oh, and no. Pike should never be ignored.


----------



## BroBill (Feb 23, 2013)

*Re: What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*



calo said:


> The blue lodge is inferior to the teachings. The blue lodge is meant to represent the stages of a man's life. The appendent bodies are additions to the degrees. The arcane symbolism with in the SR degrees cant and shouldnt be made available to anyone who has not mentally reached adult hood, masonically speaking.
> 
> Same as the public education system. You don't enroll someone who doesn't know proper grammar into a comprehensive writing course.
> 
> Oh, and no. Pike should never be ignored.



I don't advocate ignoring Pike, but I do think his writing requires a lot of reading of other writers to provide some context in which consider his views. I stated I don't recommend Pike for NEW masons, but I do think Pike should be read as part of a broad education on mansonry.


----------



## widows son (Feb 23, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

I agree with you on that bro. Bill. Pike draws from many sources, and to make sense of what he is saying, one should read the relative literature. Calo, I wouldn't say that the blue lodge is inferior to anything. Without the blue lodge there wouldn't be the Scottish Rite, and the York Rite for that matter. Pike stated the blue lodge degrees to be the Lesser degrees of the craft, as in the outer, where the man becomes acquainted with the craft, but he didn't mean inferior. As you've stated blue masonry can be seen as the stages of life, the sublime degree of a master mason being adulthood. With that degree one is able to continue their Masonic journey for light in the other masonic degrees.  Remember though that the "outer" or  blue lodge degrees are the starting point for further profound truths that can be found in the Masonic order.  The blue lodge prepares the mans mind and heart to receive the information the other degrees have to offer. So in no way is the blue lodge inferior.


----------



## scialytic (Feb 24, 2013)

They are different. It probably also has a lot to do with the person as well as to where they end up travalling through on their Journey. This topic was brought up in a fairly confrontational way, or at least in a manner that can easily lead to argument and disharmony. I would be hard-pressed to find a Brother that says a 32* Mason is above a Master Mason. We all clearly understand the heirarchy in that respect. 

There are other considerations that do need to be recognized about the appendent bodies. There are many accomplishments and positions that should be looked at differently and with reverence, but that has to do with responsibility, accomplishment and authority. Again, this thread was started in an antagonistic manner so most answers can be taken out of context. We are all Master Masons (if you are) and that is all that matters. The rest is further Light and that only changes the internal qualities of the man, but doesn't make them *more* of a Mason...just maybe *more* enlightened...

(Why is there always somebody that wants to pick fights? ... ... ... we should be bettering eachother through Brotherly Love not brute force!)


----------



## youngblood2002 (Feb 24, 2013)

So mote it be...


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 25, 2013)

scialytic said:


> They are different. It probably also has a lot to do with the person as well as to where they end up travalling through on their Journey. This topic was brought up in a fairly confrontational way



I am a scientist by inclination and profession. I formulate and ask direct questions, the more direct and to-the-root, the better. It's how all the froofraw is cut away and the heart of a matter is exposed. My life is too short to tippy-toe dance. When I see an apparent contradiction, I point it out directly and plainly. Thus, all the better to have it resolved, directly and plainly. I have found that, when exposure of apparent contradiction is followed by indignation, it means that this issue has not actually been resolved. It has just been swept under the rug. It is our nature to sweep under the rug, so as to avoid making waves--part of the human condition. Our society despises dialectic in general and insists upon the didactic. We are taught to shut up, sit down, and mildly accept whatever an "authority" pours upon us, even when those authorities desperately want to be questioned and confronted. (I used to have a teacher in high school who deliberately fed us rubbish, just to train us to speak up once in a while.)

I believe Timgould's explanation may be most fruitful to explore for me.


----------



## Mike Martin (Feb 25, 2013)

I'm just going to chuck a bit of "English" into this for you all as I think it may just give a bit of an all-round view that you may not necessarily get in the States.

When the first Grand Lodge in the World started in 1717 Freemasonry consisted of two Degrees (Apprentice and Fellow) topped off by becoming the Master of a Lodge (Master Mason) by 1730 we had already cobbled together a third Degree (also called a Master Mason) and had started calling the Master of the Lodge an Installed Master. 

In 1737 a Scottish Mason called Chevalier Ramsey made an oration to French Masons in Paris regarding what he saw as the link between Freemasonry and the Orders of Chivalry. Soon after the French Freemasons invented the Rite of Perfection this led onto the fact that by 1766 the French had invented a whole load of extra Degrees. These proto degrees were then exported to America and finally in 1801 launched as the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry under the Supreme Council of the Southern Jurisdcition of the US followed quickly by its sisters France - 1804 and the Northern Jurisdiction US in 1813. 

It is probably worth highlighting that despite the "snow-job" that surrounds the marketing, that this new set of Degrees finally arrived in England in around 1845 and only arrived in Scotland in 1846. The only connection this Rite has to Scotland is Chevalier Ramsey (because he was scottish), they are actually american Degrees based on earlier french Degrees that themselves were invented more than a hundred years after (speculative) Freemasonry can be proven to have existed (1641). Oh yes and we don't call it Scottish Rite here, it is either the Ancient & Accepted Rite or Rose Croix, it is also a Christians-only Order.

Also someone mentioned that a Mason has to have been exalted before he can sit in an English Lodge of Master Masons this is entirely incorrect. While the Royal Arch completes the MM Degree it is not necessary to be exahalted to be a MM and any Master Mason is welcome to sit in our Lodges as long as he can prove himself to be so.


----------



## widows son (Feb 25, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

Yes I mentioned that only because our DDGM in my district approx ten years ago was invited to sit in a lodge of a friend of his who is from England. He wet through the Scottish rite instead of the York rite. But he was informed that he couldn't sit in his English friends lodge because he didn't currently have the RAM degree, and so he had to get the degrees conferred on him in two days. Bryan, you say as a scientist your inclined to cut out any loose fat to get to the heart of the of the matter, and to question authority, but on another thread you say you had to get permission from your priest to join masonry. That seems a bit on the contradictory side if you ask me.


----------



## Mike Martin (Feb 25, 2013)

*Re: What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*



widows son said:


> Yes I mentioned that only because our DDGM in my district approx ten years ago was invited to sit in a lodge of a friend of his who is from England. He wet through the Scottish rite instead of the York rite. But he was informed that he couldn't sit in his English friends lodge because he didn't currently have the RAM degree, and so he had to get the degrees conferred on him in two days.


Then you actually mean he tried to go to a Chapter meeting not a Lodge one. As I said earlier and repeat any Master Mason who is from a recognised Lodge may sit in an English Craft Lodge (we do not call them blue). However Chapters are only open to RA Companions and he would have had to be Exalted in order to attend one if he wasn't already a Companion.

The only time an american Mason would have a problem would be at an Installation meeting during the Board of Installed Masters as a Past Master here is not always the same as in America. Here a Past Master is only a Master Mason who has been the Master of a Lodge for a minimum of one year and who has Installed his successor into the Chair of King Solomon.


----------



## widows son (Feb 25, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

Interesting. BTW I'm Canadian not an American. Lol.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 25, 2013)

*Re: What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*



widows son said:


> Yes I mentioned that only because our DDGM in my district approx ten years ago was invited to sit in a lodge of a friend of his who is from England. He wet through the Scottish rite instead of the York rite. But he was informed that he couldn't sit in his English friends lodge because he didn't currently have the RAM degree, and so he had to get the degrees conferred on him in two days. Bryan, you say as a scientist your inclined to cut out any loose fat to get to the heart of the of the matter, and to question authority, but on another thread you say you had to get permission from your priest to join masonry. That seems a bit on the contradictory side if you ask me.



Not in the least bit contradictory, unless one is of the belief that religion and science cannot co-exist. There are many extremely narrow-minded people on both sides of the false "division" between religion and science.


----------



## otherstar (Feb 25, 2013)

*Re: What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*



BryanMaloney said:


> Not in the least bit contradictory, unless one is of the belief that religion and science cannot co-exist. There are many extremely narrow-minded people on both sides of the false "division" between religion and science.



Don't forget to add philosophy to that list! (only partially kidding, I have an MA in philosophy and two of my areas of interest is classical/medieval philosophy of nature and the philosophy of science).


----------



## widows son (Feb 25, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

Religion and science can co exist, however that's not what I was referring to. You live in country that advocates freedom of choice, and was built on rational principles, and I can't help but feel that something similar to a scientific method was applied to the creation of the principles that embody the western culture. I understand that your respect for your faith is at the top of your list. But if you live in a free country, and make it clear that your firm in your faith, why would you need to to ask permission to join something?  After all isn't it ultimately your choice?


----------



## widows son (Feb 25, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

Especially after you saying to question authority.  I'm sure you've gain a lot by being a part of the Masonic fraternity, but what if you were not permitted to join and those gains were never gained at all?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 26, 2013)

*Re: What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*



widows son said:


> Religion and science can co exist, however that's not what I was referring to. You live in country that advocates freedom of choice, and was built on rational principles, and I can't help but feel that something similar to a scientific method was applied to the creation of the principles that embody the western culture. I understand that your respect for your faith is at the top of your list. But if you live in a free country, and make it clear that your firm in your faith, why would you need to to ask permission to join something?  After all isn't it ultimately your choice?



Choice is not the same thing as license. For example, I live in a free country, but that doesn't mean that I consider myself more qualified than an osteologist regarding bone medicine. Freedom is not the same thing as "I am God." I consider my priest to be both better instructed and more skilled on moral questions than am I. Thus, I spoke with him on the matter. I was free to disobey him, but I have freely chosen to be under his guidance on such issues.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Feb 26, 2013)

*Re: What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*



widows son said:


> Especially after you saying to question authority.  I'm sure you've gain a lot by being a part of the Masonic fraternity, but what if you were not permitted to join and those gains were never gained at all?



Questioning authority is not the blind, childish rebelliousness of a teenage boy. One can question authority and rationally conclude that a specific authority is valid. Masonry is not God. What I need, God will provide, however He sees fit. What can be had through Masonry, God can easily provide without it.


----------



## widows son (Feb 26, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

Gotcha. And I absolutely agree with you on questioning authority, and that is shouldn't be carried out in a childish manner. And freedom and choice definitely doesn't mean I am God.


----------



## timgould (Feb 26, 2013)

With choice one could say, "Everything is permissible, but not everything is benfitual. Everything is permissible, but I will not be ruled by any.” And further: “There is wisdom in the multitude of counsel.” (Great Light)

With fredom comes responsibility. It is a wise brother who asks questions so as not to belead astray.

I find no harm in questions. They battle ignorance. What we do need to be mindful of,especially via email, or forums like this, is the manner in which we ask the questions. I have seen many times that a question is misinterpreted as hostile,because it was asked very frankly. The intention may not have been hostile, but the the particular writing style was so interpertated. Then, much time is wasted defending the intention and the question itself becomes lost. 

It is well worth the time up front to qualify ones intention, or to be more mindful of how ones question is posed. It saves getting off on a rabbit trail later. IMHO


----------



## widows son (Feb 26, 2013)

*What is &quot;within Freemasonry&quot;*

Well put timgould.


----------



## scialytic (Feb 26, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> Do we speak with two mouths regarding what is and is not "within Freemasonry"? We tell ourselves and the world, over and over, that Freemasonry consists entirely and exclusively of the three Blue Lodge degrees. Nothing else is Freemasonry...
> 
> ...I don't expect a straight answer, but I thought I'd ask.



Here is a quote I thought appropriate:

_"The teachings of Jesus were summarizes in these words: 'Thou shalt love thy Lord your God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind.
"'This is the first great commandment.
"'And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.
"'On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.'

"Yet not withoutstanding this summary and essence of His message to mankind, Jesus continued to teach, to expound, to illustrate the principle involved and exhort His hearers through the use of illustration and parable, time anfter time, day after day, night after night, in the endeaver to get them to apprehend and apply in their hearts, minds and souls, the simple, direct, plain and clear presentation of principle contained in the summary above quoted."
_[Russell, Edgar A., "Thoughts Inspired by the A:.A:. Scottish Rite Degrees," (1919)]

This was his answer when questioned about the validity and necessity of the appendant bodies. I believe that they are definitely *within* Freemasonry, but as each of us are on a personal Journey...you may take and leave what you will. Being Raised to the Sublime Degree has afforded you with all you *need* to be a Master Mason...the rest is optional; but clearly "within" Freemasonry.


----------

