Freemasonry, Scouting and the Order of
the Arrow
by S.M. Adkins
In the latter-half of the 19th Century the United States
witnessed an explosive growth in the number of societies and organizations aimed
at bringing people together and improving society. It
was the current of the times.“Reform” was key. As an agrarian society evolved
into an urban industrial one, people dealt with an increasing sense of
dislocation by banding together with like-minded folks. Not surprisingly, many
of these groups were aimed at youth. Young people were seen as increasingly
dissolute, falling to the temptations of the city as the old social mores that
bound them fell away. At the dawn of the 20th Century dozens of
youth groupsexisted. Some of these were social, some had a martial aspect to
them and many of them were religious. Two groups that were to have a profound
influence on the development of the Boy Scouts of America were Ernest Thompson
Seton’s Woodcraft Indians (1902) and Daniel Carter Beard’s Sons of
Daniel Boone (1905). Both men were naturalists, authors and artists with a
penchant for the outdoors who sought to establish organizations that would
combat the debilitating influences of the city and help restore to young men
self-sufficiency and virility.
In England, Lord Robert
Baden-Powell (B-P) regarded these organizations with interest. Baden-Powell was
a veteran of the British colonial wars in South Africa. In 1899 7,000 Boers
laid siege to 700 British at Mafeking and B-P, short on men, used uniformed boys
as messengers, lookouts and orderlies. 217 days later he was relieved; Mafeking
had not fallen, and he was regarded as a hero. When he returned to England in
1903 he found that the manual he had written for his boys—Aids to Scouting—had
been bootlegged and was being widely used by boys for fun. He saw a need and
began doing what any good Victorian would—organize. By 1908 he had put his
ideas to the test at Brownsea Island and transformed his manual into Scouting
for Boys. He based his book on his own martial experiences, Victorian
notions of chivalry and duty, and much of what he found in the work of Seton and
Beard. Within a few years troops dotted England.
The Transatlantic exchange
continued. An apocryphal tale has it that American businessman William Dixon
Boyce was lost in the London fog one night and stopped to ask a young lad for
directions. The youth took him to his destination and refused to be
compensated, saying he was a Scout and it was his duty to assist others. Boyce
was impressed, made some inquiries and returned to the States primed to
transplant the movement. On February 8, 1910 the Boy Scouts of America (BSA)
was incorporated. Seton wrote the first manual, based in turn upon the B-P
manual and his earlier work The Birch Bark Roll. In these early days
there was a lot of debate about the direction Scouting in America should take:
follow B-P’s martial model or Seton’s example which was influenced by Native
American lore and traditions. The B-P model won out, albeit with significant
“Americanization” of the language of the law and the promise. It should be
noted that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) did not at first hold a
monopoly on Scouting. William Randolph Hearst had funded two more militaristic
groups called American Boy Scouts and United States Boy Scouts.
Peter Bomus had started the Boy Scouts of the United States (which had
merged with the BSA by the Fall of 1910) and William Verbeck the National
Scouts. The plethora of groups in this early period is more than an
interesting historical footnote; it indicates just how much the notion of
Scouting appealed to white America. Seton once claimed that B-P told him his
original aim had been to prepare youth for war. The idea that Scouting was
somehow a response to the dwindling colonial interests of Great Britain—and that
its’ even wilder success in America a response to the beginnings of colonialism
in this country (the Spanish-American War of 1899 being commonly regarded as
America’s first colonial war)—merits further examination. The original Scout
uniform, after all, is essentially that of a Rough Rider, or a doughboy.
B-P’s Scouting movement had
emphasized campaigning, camp life, tracking, chivalry, lifesaving, citizenship,
etc. He devised the promise and law, the sign, salute and handshake. Each
grade of Masonry, of course, has its own promises (obligations), hailing signs
and handshakes (grips). One could also point out that the hierarchy of
Scouting, a system of ranks culminating in the Eagle, is similar to Freemasonry,
a system of degrees that in the Scottish Rite culminates in the Double Eagle.
There are seven ranks in Scouting; seven steps figure prominently in the Middle
Chamber Lecture of the Masonic 2nd Degree. Philosophically, a
Scout’s duty to God and Country, his brotherhood and the slogan “Do a good turn
daily” is something with which any Freemason would concur. B-P himself was not
a Freemason, but his good friend Rudyard Kipling was, and it is known that
Kipling influenced B-P in the formation of the Cub Scouts. B-P himself stated
that he could not be a Freemason because he did not want to offend Roman
Catholic Scouts, but he seemed to have approved of it, and Freemasons of him.
In Australia, for example, there are four Lodges named after B-P, one of which
he visited and signed its Bible. Furthermore, B-P was a Knight of Grace of
the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem. Freemasons recognize a bond with this
order and both Saint John the Baptist and John the Evangelist are the Patron
Saints of Craft Masonry (Craft, or Blue Lodge Masonry, refers to
the first three degrees). The symbol of John the Evangelist is of course the
Eagle; the Boy Scout Eagle is superimposed upon a fleur-de-lis, the
international symbol of Scouting.
The fleur-de-lis,
incidentally, is a symbol used by nearly all civilizations past and present,
from 3rd millennium B.C. Assyria to modern-day Quebec. It has been
variously interpreted as an iris, lily or lotus and said to stand for purity,
light and perfection. It has been associated with both Christ and the Virgin
Mary and used as a military emblem by Joan of Arc and units of the United States
Army. It’s association with the French monarchy dates back to the Merovingian
King Clovis, who was said to have received the symbol directly from God upon his
baptism. Another story is that Clovis, on his way to fight the Aquitaine King
Alaric near Poitiers, was led by a doe to a hidden ford in a river. After
crossing, he placed one of the yellow irises growing on the banks in his
helmet. He was eventually victorious. Perhaps one story is the metaphorical
retelling of the other. When exactly the fleur-de-lis was adopted as a
heraldic emblem by the French kings is still a matter of divided opinion, but it
appears on coins and scepters as early as the 10th century. One
author states that it was probably under Saint Bernard’s influence that Louis
VII (1154-1180) adopted it as a personal emblem, having by that time acquired a
strong religious significance. Incidentally, Saint Bernard is also said to be
the primary inspiration behind the Knights Templar—the highest grades of York
Rite Masonry are called Knights Templar.
In New Zealand, another Boer war
veteran and friend of B-P named Major David Cossgrove (probably not a Freemason)
started something for older boys called the “Empire Sentinels.” Sentinels were
organized into “Towers” and the scheme had three degrees based on religious
duty, patriotism, sacrifice and work, each with a corresponding “Watch,” or
ritual. A quick list of other details, gleaned from letters between Cossgrove
and B-P, shows that the idea had very direct Masonic affinities: The Tower is
opened on the third Watch and dropped to the first or second as required;
Sentinels enter the Watch using a password and a salute; the alarm is a series
of knocks; halters and blindfolds are used; the phrase “So Mote it Be” is used;
there are four principal officers; the Watch works in darkness with the symbols
of each Watch illuminated. Substitute the word “Lodge” for “Tower” and “Degree”
for “Watch” and one finds practically no difference from describing the workings
of a Masonic Lodge. In a letter to B-P dated 1919, Cossgrove writes: “....the
scheme has already been taken up enthusiastically in Africa, America and in
Austria, I believe, and will be here when our young warriors return and settle
down....”[1]
He is presumably referring to young men abroad in the British colonial army, and
the attitude of his letter does much to support the theory that Scouting was
given impetus by colonial psychology. They were, after all, the Empire
Sentinels. But where, if Cossgrove was not a Mason, did the Masonry of the
Empire Sentinels come from? That remains a mystery.
While there is no evidence that
the Empire Sentinels blueprint was “taken up enthusiastically in...America,”
there is plenty of evidence, much more copious, of another scheme that was. On
July 16, 1915, two Scouters named E. Urner Goodman and Carroll A. Edson founded
the Order of the Arrow at Treasure Island, the summer camp of the Philadelphia
Council. Edson was a 32° Scottish Rite Mason; Goodman only became a Mason after
the OA was founded but also eventually attained the 32°. The writing of the
ritual, however, was entrusted to another, unknown 32° Mason. (Interestingly
enough, the Masonic affiliation of its founders is omitted from the official OA
history from which the following details were culled. There is, in fact, not
one single reference to Freemasonry throughout the book.) By 1922, the year the
first Grand Lodge of the OA was formed, ten Lodges were known to be in
existence. This was also the year of the first OA “crisis.” In September of
that year a biennial national BSA meeting was held to discuss various topics;
one of the first items on the agenda was the existence of camp fraternities and
secret societies, which some present felt ought to be discouraged. Carroll
Edson rose to their defense by saying: “If we find...that we can effectively
use ceremony and symbolism in furthering Scout ideals of personal service, why
should the entire body...say you shan’t do it?”[2]
Edson was not only articulating the raison d’être of the OA but reveals a
very Masonic point of view. Most definitions of Freemasonry speak of it as an
organization which uses “ceremony and symbolism” to instill in its members the
purpose of the Craft. In any event, the OA was not banned and allowed to
continue if its growth was not actively promoted—another similarity to
Freemasonry, which traditionally does not promote itself through recruitment.
An interesting innovation of the OA is that non-members elect Arrowmen; it may
be the only organization of its kind that follows such a practice.
By 1934 there were 45 active OA
Lodges and the BSA officially approved the OA for use nationwide. As part of
this approval, however, several changes were required of the OA by the BSA.
According to the official history, “The BSA requested these changes to avoid
confusion with other usages of these same terms.”[3]
For “other usages” substitute “Masonic usages.” The changes included using
“tribe” instead of “lodge,” “national” instead of “grand,” “honor” instead of
“degree” and “admonition” instead of “password.” These changes have persisted
into the present with one exception. In 1936 the use of “lodge” was
re-approved, ostensibly to avoid confusion with the use of “tribe” by Lone
Scouts.
What happened in 1934 was a
“de-Masonification” of the OA nomenclature, but the basic Masonic
structure remains. The Order of the Arrow consists of three honors: Ordeal,
Brotherhood (known in 1927 as the “blood-rite” degree!) and Vigil
Honor. These correspond to the three Masonic degrees of Entered
Apprentice, Fellowcraft and Master Mason. In the OA, each
honor has its own handshake, hailing sign, and “password”. (For the Ordeal this
is called the admonition. The Brotherhood member responds to a ritual
question. The Vigil Honor has three watchwords.) Each honor has its own
obligation and ceremony that intensifies the teachings of the Order. In
Masonry, each degree has its own grip, step, sign, password and obligation. We
have already noted that they are both organized into Lodges; in the OA one
National Lodge enforces regularity. For Freemasonry there is a Grand Lodge for
every state.
And what of the OA initiation
ceremonies? First, the Lodge is opened after it has been determined “all
present are members.” This is done by demanding the handshake and password of
the honor to be performed from those present. In the Ordeal, for example, the
admonition is whispered into the ears of a member by a chief called Kichkinet
while hands are clasped, and the member responds by whispering its’ definition.
The Lodge is then opened during which time the sign of the degree is given. The
candidates are announced and Kichkinet is sent out to greet them.
In Freemasonry the Lodge is
opened in the same manner. Membership is determined with the grip and word,
whispered into the ear, hands clasped, and the Lodge is opened on the sign of
the degree. The candidates are announced and the Junior Warden is sent out to
greet the candidates.
In the Ordeal ritual, the OA
candidates are conducted by an “elangomat” (friend) to the ritual circle where
they meet Kichkinet, who becomes their conductor and prepares them by
symbolically binding them with a rope by which he leads them into the circle.
They are led clockwise around the circle and challenged three more times by
other chiefs—Nutiket, Meteu and Allowat Sakima—where the same questions are
asked and answered. Kichkinet, Nutiket, Meteu and Allowat Sakima represent the
guide, the guard, the medicine man, and the mighty chief. They exchange three
ritual taps on the shoulders, before Kichkinet is asked:
“Who are these strangers who seek
admission to our circle?”
Answer.
“How do they expect to obtain
this privilege?”
Answer.
“Have they passed the ordeal
without flinching?”
Answer.
Here Nutiket lets them enter, but
Meteu and Allowat Sakima inquire further:
“Have they been given the
admonition?”
Answer: “They have not, but I,
their friend, have received it, and will give it to you
for them”
“What is the admonition?”[4]
In Freemasonry, candidates are led by a steward, already “bound” by rope and blindfolded, into a similar situation. The Junior Deacon, who exchanges three ritual taps on the Lodge door with the steward, meets them. A challenge follows. Although the language is different from that of the OA, the essence is the same. Who are these strangers? How do they expect to obtain the privilege of entry? Have they the password? They do not, but their guide does and gives it for them. They are then turned over to the care of the Junior Deacon and led clockwise, around a square, and meet the same challenge three more times. In these instances the three ritual taps are banged out on mallets and answered by staves banged on the floor.
After their circuit of the Lodge, Allowat Sakima orders the candidates placed in “the proper position to receive further knowledge,” [5]just as the Worshipful Master orders in Freemasonry. They do this by taking three steps forward, mimicking the steps a Masonic candidate makes. When they have received the Obligation, they are told to drop the rope they have been carrying and taught the hailing sign, handshake and admonition. They are then presented with the sash that marks their membership in the Order. The sash is worn over the right shoulder, is white, and represents a red arrow. In Masonry the candidate, when he has received the Obligation, is released from the cable-tow and given the signs, token, grip and word of his degree. He is then presented with a white apron, which in the Entered Apprentice degree is worn with one corner tucked up so as to form a triangle. In both Freemasonry and the OA, there then follows an explanation of the ritual. Following that, the Lodge is closed, with each principal recapitulating his role in the Lodge. Both OA and Craft Lodges follow this procedure.
There are differences. The OA candidate does not take his Obligation upon a Volume of Sacred Law, (i.e. a Bible, Torah or Koran) nor does he take the Obligation blindfolded. Much of the dramatic and symbolic effect of this moment of Freemasonic ritual depends upon the removal of the blindfold, but the effect is not entirely absent in the OA. Three candles placed in a triangle around the Volume of Sacred Law represent the light in Masonry, and the OA candidate takes his Obligation in front of a campfire, which in a small pre-Ordeal ceremony the night before, remained unlit. While current ritual handbooks require nothing specific of the campfire other than it be in the center, a reconstruction of the original 1915 ceremony says the fire should be made in the shape of a triangle. (Some Lodges continue this tradition today. Incidentally, Masons use the triangle to represent Deity and the sash of the Vigil Honor has a triangle with three small arrows inside superimposed upon the larger red arrow of the Ordeal sash.) Three candles, however, are also present; they represent the Scout Promise and are placed in the North. Furthermore, because OA ceremonies usually take place after nightfall in a remote location, the effect of being brought into the circle is in itself similar to being brought into the light.
Other differences should be mentioned here. For example, the OA Lodge is not a square, but a circle. Additionally, the challenges made in an OA Lodge occur in the South, West and North, the North being the position of the mighty chief Allowat Sakima. In Freemasonry the challenges occur in the South, West and East, the East being the position of the Worshipful Master. It is tempting to say that the East, by its very exclusion in the OA, is emphasized. In the 1915 ceremony Kichkinet was called “Guard” and acted as “guardian of the trail.” Nutiket was called “Sachem” and acted as outer guard. “Sakima” was inner guard, and “Medeu” was head of the Lodge. His position in the north was explained thusly: “As in the heavens, the north star is fixed and all the other stars revolve around it, so stands Medeu in the north for the lodge circle to revolve around him. He, alone, opens, directs, and closes the lodge.”[6] (Interestingly enough, the Chief Sentinel in the Empire Sentinels scheme was positioned in the north.) In Freemasonry, a different astronomical metaphor is used to explain the Worshipful Master’s position and duties in the East, but the language is strikingly similar.
In the 1915 ceremony the closing bears a sharper Masonic character than current practice; the characters’ functions are explained in a language and fashion much more reminiscent of Freemasonry than one finds in current ritual, and in other parts of the ritual one finds reference to “rites,” “mysteries” or “our mystic circle,” but no longer. The move away from this Masonic character is probably a result of the de-Masonification of 1934, but the original ceremony surely lies closer to the founders’ inspirations. Interestingly, the letter of introduction which accompanies this earlier ritual is dated “October 1, 1915 + 60” (i.e. 1975), a dating method which brings to mind Masonic methods of dating. According to Craft Lodge dating, for example, the current year is 6003 A.L., i.e. 2003 A.D. + 4000. What is clear from the two methods, despite their differences, is that a new timeline begins with the founding of the Lodge.
The OA rituals are much simpler than those of Freemasonry, but the basic structure is the same: the Lodge is ceremonially opened, the ritual performed, a recapitulation of the ritual is given and the Lodge is ceremonially closed. In 1927 the OA Grand Lodge proposed a series of questions to test the Brotherhood candidate’s knowledge of the structure and significance of the Ordeal ceremony in a fashion clearly modeled on the “questions and answers” a Masonic candidate must know before advancing to the next degree. The OA ceremonies, however, unlike Masonic rituals, become shorter and simpler as one progresses; the Brotherhood ceremony retains the structure summarized above, but the Vigil Honor abandons it all together. Thus the highest honor of the OA is ritualistically the least Masonic; it appears to derive from Seton. The OA seeks to instill the value of Brotherhood, Cheerfulness and Service into its members and in that there is no disaccord with the expressed values of the Craft. Both groups share common values, are traditionally male and share a similar hierarchic structure. In the OA we do not find any explicit interpolation of Masonic values; rather, there is an intensification of values already present in Scouting. The Masonic values are almost incidental. What is more important, however, is the very Masonic vehicle Goodman and Edson chose to communicate these values. They understood the power of ceremony and symbolism as a means of instilling ideas. Not surprisingly, a candidate for the OA must be a more advanced Scout, 1st Class or higher, which requires a lad to be a slightly older adolescent. The OA is an intensification of the Scouting experience, a rite of passage for young lads embarking on the path to manhood. Like many others before them, Goodman and Edson drew upon a familiar and proven system, Freemasonry, for their inspiration.
A cursory glance over the history of fraternal organizations in America will reveal that the majority of them have drawn heavily on Freemasonry. From college fraternities to the Knights of Pythias, one finds the Masonic stamp. On the more esoteric side of things, in England we find Freemasonic influences in the rituals of the Golden Dawn, the O.T.O. and Gardner’s Wicca. In America we find Freemasonry behind Mormon rituals and in a host of irregular and crypto-Masonic practitioners of ritual magick, some of them practicing along legitimate lines of inquiry opened up by Freemasonry. Perhaps it should not be surprising that BSA literature ignores the obvious Masonic characteristics of one its most popular institutions.
I originally conceived of this article to focus on the correspondences between Freemasonry and the Order of the Arrow. By the time I sat down to write it, a text appeared on the Internet entitled “The Order of the Arrow, Another Masonic Ritual?” by John R. Goodwin. The author cites a number of parallels between Craft Masonry and the OA but concludes: “Were the ceremonies of the Order of the Arrow derived from Masonic ritual? I do not know.” Also: “I have been asked....if there was any doubt in my mind as to the origins of the Order. The lack of physical documentation forces a sense of doubt. But the similarities are staggering.”[7] The similarities are staggering, and the reticence of Mr. Goodwin to take a firm stand leads one to wonder why, because there is physical documentation in the rituals themselves. Perhaps it is scholarly prudence; perhaps he would rather have his audience draw their own conclusions.
The BSA in recent years has expressed an increasingly conservative moral tone. The President of the United States used to sign an Eagle Scout’s certificate, for example, but the BSA eliminated the practice during the Clinton years as a form of chastisement in response to his perceived moral laxity. In addition, the BSA’s expulsion of and refusal to admit homosexuals and atheists, and the ensuing lawsuits, has caused conservative Christians nationwide to view the BSA as a bastion of traditional morality and a defender of shared values. The widespread knowledge that millions of Scouts belong to an organization of a decidedly Masonic character might prove troublesome for some of its’ Christian defenders, be they fundamentalists, Southern Baptists or Roman Catholics, all of whom have condemned Freemasonry at one time or another. Type “Freemasonry” in any internet search engine and you will find as many watch groups condemning Masons as the servants of Lucifer as you will pro-Masons. One plucky website includes both Freemasonry and the OA in it’s list of “demons to be exorcised.” This is not the kind of publicity the BSA wants.
Some might argue that characterizing the OA as essentially Masonic is a bit spurious. They might point out that the OA ceremonies contain symbolic tests which do not correspond to anything in Masonic ritual, and that Masonic rituals contain lectures and symbolic dramas that have no corollary in OA ceremonies. They might also point out that the inspiration for the OA is explicitly stated in the OA legend: as the Native American imagery indicates, it lies in the legends of the Delaware Indians. But Masonry has its’ own legendary founder—Hiram Abiff—and the OA legend probably bears about as much relation to authentic Lenni Lenape traditions as Hiram Abiff does to Jewish ones concerning the building of the Temple of Solomon. That is to say, very little to nothing at all.
The Native American imagery one finds in the OA does not appear out of thin air. Baden-Powell was inspired by his military experience, Victorian morality, Seton and Beard. When Scouting came to America, its’ organizers did not receive the movement ready made but sought to redefine it upon their own terms. Seton wrote the first prototype of the Boy Scout handbook, but there was a great controversy as to whether or not American Scouting should follow his model, drenched as it was in Indian lore and inspirations, or B-P with his martial and chivalric adaptation of Seton. A remarkable cross-fertilization occurred which led to the BSA. By 1915 there was a definitive break with Seton, but also in 1915 the Order of the Arrow was born. The OA, like the BSA, represents a synthesis of influences. On the surface, its message of brotherhood and cheerful service derives from Lenni Lenape legends and is ritually expressed by representatives in Native American garb. Not very far below the surface, however, one finds a ritual system so Masonic in character that to dispute it is next to impossible.
Finally, there will also be those on the other side of the argument, that will see in the Order of the Arrow a kind of “B-team” DeMolay for Masonic recruitment. When one reads Cossgrove’s assertion that his Empire Sentinels had been “enthusiastically embraced” in America, one is tempted to speculate if perhaps what he was actually referring to is the Order of the Arrow. But this is rather whimsical speculation. That two 32º Scottish Rite Masons in America would together come up with a Scouting scheme based upon their Masonic experiences is in no way fantastic; one need not make the leap that they were under some higher directive. There are many who see in Freemasonry the same kind of monolithic structure that many used to see in Communism. But in Masonry, there is no Moscow, no central direction, and no global plan. The cat has been out of the bag a long time, and it has left its’ prints everywhere.
Works Consulted
Davis, Kenneth P.
The Brotherhood of Cheerful Service: A History of
the Order of the Arrow,
2nd
ed. Irving: Boy Scouts of America, 1996.
As the title indicates, I used this book for details
concerning the origins and development of the OA. It was especially useful for
details concerning the 1934 changes in nomenclature outlined in the text of my
article. I was flabbergasted that no mention of Masonry is to be found in the
book.
End-Time Deliverance Ministry. “List of Demons to
Cast Out in the Name of Jesus.” Date
unknown,
accessed 7 July 2002:
http://www.demonbuster.com/z14lod.html
This is the “plucky website” that includes both the
OA and Freemasonry in its list of “demons.” Ironically, the author doesn’t seem
to be aware of the Masonic connections of the OA, for it is included in a
separate section with aspects of Native American lore and culture.
Goodwin, John R. “The Order of the Arrow, Another
Masonic Ritual?” Jan. 1996; accessed 7
July 2002:
http://www.vamason.org/ra1753/papers/1arrow.htm.
This text is a transcript of a talk given by Goodwin
before the Virginia Research
Royal Arch Chapter No. 1753 on January 25, 1996. Goodwin doesn’t point out any
similarities between Masonry and the OA I had not already noted when I read
this, but his caution motivated and helped me to crystallize my own thoughts on
the matter.
Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon.
“Freemasonry and Lord Baden-Powell.” Date
unknown,
accessed 7 July 2002:
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/baden-powell.html.
This article introduced me to the Empire Sentinels, which in turn was originally posted by Edward Robinson, Westminster Lodge 308 New Zealand, in Issue 32 of “ ”, located here: The relationship between B-P and Australian Freemasonry is also detailed.
Hittner, Phillip M. (open letter), October 1, 1975.
This letter by Hittner, Chief of Unami Lodge in 1975, details the origins of the reconstruction of the 1915 ritual. It also uses a dating system (1915 + 60) by which the current date is given relative to the date of his organization’s founding. This strongly echoes Masonic practice. For a summary of Masonic Dating, see http://www.bessel.org/masdates.htm.
Order of the Arrow. Ceremony for
the Ordeal.
Boy Scouts of America, 1981.
All quotes and details from the Ordeal Ceremony come from the 1981 version, revised in 1999. I consulted earlier versions other then that of 1915, but the changes appear to deal mainly with the ritual tests. I passed through the Ordeal and Brotherhood Ceremonies in Florida in the latter half of the 1980’s.
Peterson, Robert W. The Boy
Scouts: An American Adventure.
New York: American Heritage
Publishing Co., 1984.
An excellent overview of Scouting’s origins and development. Info on Seton, Beard, B-P, Boyce and Morgan are to found here. Although Peterson notes that Morgan was influenced by Freemasonry, he doesn’t mention that Beard was himself a Mason. I chanced upon that fact in Jasper Ridley’s The Freemasons (NY: Arcade, 1999), p. 273
The Pine Tree Web. “Lord Baden-Powell, Benefactor of
Boyhood,” Date unknown, accessed
7 July 2002:
http://www.pinetreeweb.com/bp-freemasonry.htm.
This article establishes that while B-P was
most likely not a Freemason, perhaps out of respect for Catholic Scouts, he was
a Knight of Grace of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem.
It also discusses the
well-corroborated influence of Kipling and provides a short introduction to the
Order of St. John.
Unami Lodge, Ritual for the First
Degree of the Wimachtendienk, Philadelphia: Unami
Lodge, One, 1975.
Quotes and details of the 1915
Ceremony come from this reconstruction widely available online in .pdf format.
The script was originally prepared in 1971 in consultation with surviving
charter members. When presented in 1975, Goodman was present and he believed it
to be “very much like” the original. Bearing in mind that it came 56 to 60
years after the fact, it is likely to be a fairly accurate reconstruction.
Velde, Francois. “The Fleur-de-lis,” Heraldica.
Date unknown, accessed 7 July 2002:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/fdl.htm.
All information on the fleur-de-lis in my text comes from Velde, with one exception; curiously, he does not mention that it is the international symbol of Scouting.
Supplementary details and
observations come from my experiences as an active Freemason and a former Boy
Scout and Brotherhood Member of the Order of the Arrow. Needless to say, my
conclusions and opinions are not necessarily shared by members of these groups
or by the authors of the works I have consulted in the preparation of this text.
[1]
“Freemasonry and Lord Baden-Powell”: par. 8-14.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/baden-powell.html [7 July 2003].
[2]
Kenneth P. Davis, The Brotherhood of Cheerful Service, 2nd ed.
(Irving: Boy Scouts of America, 1996), 20.
[3]
Ibid., 49.
[4]
Order of the Arrow, Ceremony for the Ordeal, (Boy Scouts of America,
1981), 12-13.
[5]
Ibid., 13.
[6]
Unami Lodge, Ritual for the First Degree of the Wimachtendienk, 6.
[7]
John R. Goodwin, “The Order of the Arrow, Another Masonic Ritual?”
Virginia Research
Royal Arch Chapter No. 1753 (Jan. 1996) : par. 11.
www.vamason.org/ra1753/papers/1arrow.htm [7 July 2003].
