Talk:Societas Rosicruciana

History Errors

This article suggests in its opening remarks that the various versions of Societas Rosicruciana (which are all independent and sovereign) derived from SRIS, however, this is not the case. The SRIA was the first of these societies and gave a warrant to the SRIS. The historical reference to a Scottish Rosicrucian society is correct in that some of the SRIA founders joined a society in Scotland before founding the SRIA, however, this was not a masonic society and had nothing to do with the SRIS, which did not exist at the time.

George Winslow Plummer

The following was removed from the main article:

"In 1909, Dr. George Winslow Plummer (1876-1944) founded the Societas Rosicruciana in America, apparently seceding from the SRICF; this group appears not to retain the requirement that members be Christian Master Masons. Until 1951 it also used the name of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and retains links with a Florida-based group now using that name."

The last sentence is factually inaccurate and a citation is needed regarding the non-existent use of the HOGD name until 1951. There is no citable evidence for any of this. Thus, because of these glaring historical inaccuracies, I've edited the passage to resemble more noteworthy and historically accurate information. MA'AT 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Redone article

I've been working on a rewrite of this culled from the existing SRIx articles and other sources. I will be redirecting the other articles here as well. MSJapan 22:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarify

This article gets a bit obscure in parts, very interesting topic though. The intro could use a bit of work:

The Societas Rosicruciana is a Masonic Christian order whose members are drawn from the ranks of subscribing Master Masons of a Grand Lodge in amity with the Grand Lodge of the jurisdiction.

☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(Pardon, conflicted) There are two spellings for Societas Rosicruciana/Rosicrucianis. That might need explaining or correcting as well. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the various sites of the orgs, Rosicruciana is how they spell it officially, but I've gotten hits on both. The interesting thing is that the -is hits are all third party occult websites, while the -a gets hits to the official sites. Rosicrucianism in general is pretty fragmented, so it's possible these are two distinct groups, so I'm not going to change anything until I can get some better info. MSJapan 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very hard to clarify a statement when it is unclear what exactly needs to be clarified. MSJapan 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. The use of the word amity, (friendly terms/relations) and the difference between a grand lodge and a "GL of the jurisdiction". 'Subscribing' too, maybe 'active'. I don't think that a general reader would be able to get much out of this article without clicking to to half a dozen links. I look forward to seeing how this article turns out. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That I can work on. MSJapan 19:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rosicruciana is correct, I'm an Exponent (SW equivalent). ALR 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good, you probably know the pluralisation of this name, if any. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 20:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Not required, afaik. There will be one but you'd need a Latin scholar.ALR 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The plural of Rosicruciana is Rosucrucianae, as an adjective agreeing with feminine plural Societates. Not exactly a Latin scholar, but certainly a Latinist. Nuttyskin (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

SRIAm

I see this has been added to the MSRICF section as a reference, so I dropped it a level. However, there seems to be a mention of the same group in "Influences", but the dates are different. I can't get a Google hit on SRIAm or SRIUS, so does anyone have a reference for these? MSJapan 19:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SRIH

A few editors keep adding the following unsourced information - The S.R.I.H. is recognised by the Body of Christ. There is no explanation of what they mean by it, though I'm guessing from the earlier lines about recognition that were removed, it means they are an independent, or schismatic group, along the lines of RGLE.--Vidkun (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the entire section about SRIH was a copy vio from here, and so, I have removed it.--Vidkun (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That page has been blanked, in order to avoid the copy-vio claim, I suspect. It doesn't matter however - there are no third party reliable sources supporting the notability of that group.--Vidkun (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

John Yarker

Bearing in mind his reputation as a bullsh!t artist, can we place any belief in claims Yarker was ever a member? He demitted from Regular Freemasonry just seven years after being Initiated, which doesn't leave a lot of time to get into the SRIA as well as all the other side orders he claimed to be in. Nuttyskin (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GLBC&Y has a bio on him, I think, and I would imagine that if it's not in there and stated as a definite fact, it's not true. MSJapan (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Influences: SRIAmerica

The influences section reference to the 'SRIA' is completely off. The SRIAmerica aka SRIAm aka SRIA is the group that currently operates out of Bayonne NJ, founded by Bishop Plummer. The Societas Rosicruciana In Anglia aka SRIA is in England. Currently the SRIAmerica is claiming portions of the early history belonging to the SRICF & claiming to be the continuation of the same. The levity.com website (end note #7) referenced is incorrect in claiming that the SRIA was chartered by England. This is misleading at best. Dr. Westcott Supreme Magus of the SRIAnglia) never chartered the SRIAmerica, nor did he formally recognize them or establish visitation with their Society, though Parsell corresponded with the SRIAnglia frequently, asking high inquiry historical questions (which set off alarms with the Sec. General and the Supreme Magus) and petitioning for recognition and even a charter at one time. It was never granted. And while Plummer claims a lineage through Gould, Gould was in his dotage at the time and not in communication with the members of the SRICF High Council, and did not act with permission of the Supreme Magus or High Councils. So, he was acting in good faith. However, the SRICF was never dead, so the SRIAmerica cannot claim to be the continuation of the SRICF. THe SRIAmerica has other Rosicrucian transmissions (through the contribution of individual members) such as the A+O to stand upon, though I never see them claiming to be the continuation of the A+O. (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)--Willermoz

I can't speak to the veracity of the statement, but we need a non-anecdotal source for the above. Do you have one? MSJapan (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Societas Rosicruciana. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070612163713/http://www.yorkrite.com/msricf/MSRICF.htm to http://www.yorkrite.com/msricf/MSRICF.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)