Freemasonry, Scouting, and the Order of the Arrow
Oct 25, 2004
Author: S. Michael Adkins
In the latter-half of the nineteenth century the United States witnessed an explosive growth of societies and organizations with a variety of aims, from fraternal to social improvement. It was the current of the times. 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 twentieth Century dozens of youth groups existed. 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, but Beard alone was a Freemason. They 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 ought - organize. Thus 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 influence continued. It is said American businessman William Dixon Boyce was lost in the London fog 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: whether to 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 had begun 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 six Lodges named after B-P, to one of which he gave and dedicated a 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. Its 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 tenth 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, and the highest grades of York Rite Masonry are called “Knights Templar” degrees.
Back in America, there are other affinities. The Church of Latter Day Saints, whose Temple Ceremonies are based upon Freemasonic ceremonies, was the first religious body to officially recognize the BSA, in 1913. The “Lone Scouts of America”, begun in 1915, became a BSA program in 1922. William Dixon Boyce commissioned one F. Allen Morgan to develop tests by which Lone Scouts could earn degrees. Morgan said Seton, Beard and Freemasonry influenced him. In 1924 the Lone Scout program was fully absorbed by the BSA, but Lone Scouts continued to earn “degrees” until the mid-1930’s.
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 between these and 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....” 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 32º Scottish Rite Masons named E. Urner Goodman and Carroll A. Edson founded the Order of the Arrow at Treasure Island, the summer camp of the Philadelphia Council. (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?” Edson was not only articulating the raison d’être of the OA but revealing 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, as long as 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.” 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, just like Freemasonry, in which 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?”
“How do they expect to obtain this privilege?”
“Have they passed the ordeal without flinching?”
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?”
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,” 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 are taught the hailing sign, handshake and admonition. They are then presented with the sash, which marks their membership in the Order. The sash, 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. After 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 that 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.” (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. In other parts of the ceremony one finds references 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.
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. With regards to their respective teachings, the OA seeks to instill less subtly presented values, namely Brotherhood, Cheerfulness and Service. In that, however, there is no disaccord with the expressed values of the Craft. It is not surprising that two active Masons and Scouts would have recognized these affinities and sought to cement the connection more directly. 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, First 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 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.” 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 its 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 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, who 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 some 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.
S. Michael Adkins
Former Brotherhood Member, Order of the Arrow.
32º AASR, Northern Jurisdiction.
Former Life Scout.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon. “Freemasonry and Lord Baden-Powell.” Date unknown, accessed 7 July 2002:
This article introduced me to the Empire Sentinels; it was originally posted by Edward Robinson, Westminster Lodge 308 New Zealand, in “Masonry Universal #32,” located here: http://internet.lodge.org.uk/library/Masonry_Universal/MU032.TXT. The relationship between B-P and Australian Freemasonry is also detailed.
(5) 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.
(6) 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 and have seen versions of the Ceremony for the Vigil Honor.
(7) 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 be 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.
(8) 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.
(9) 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.
(10) 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 as 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.