From: rtsumn01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: My probs with FAQ
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:13:59 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1d6rscINNbeg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, ttk@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (the troglodyte killer) writes:
> 
>>Subject: Re: my probs with the FAQ
>  
>>>      The dues are trivial -- $182 per year, paid quarterly, which 
>>> comes out to about $15 a month.  
>>
>>It may not be a large sum to you. It amy not be much compared to what
>>some other magickal organizations charge (I don't know, I haven't
>>checked). But it is hardly TRIVIAL!!!
>  
>      :blinks.  It's trivial.  How much do you spend on gasoline in 
> a month?  (Assuming you drive, that is.)

I do on rare occasions. I certainly spend less than $10 a month on it, as
lately the only trips we've been making were quite necessary ones that don't
come up more than once a month. Driving constantly is unhealthy.
  
>>That's a lot of money to lay out for a group that may or may not do 
>>you any good, 
>  
>      By and large, those who are ready to learn what AMORC has to 
> offer are the only ones who bother joining.

Um. Whatever you say. I guess you should know. I still have my doubts. I've
known people who consistently wander into the wrong places and who insist on
spending more money than they have on fake fixes.
  
>>Particularly for those of us who don't really have $15 a month to 
>>spare. My god, I wish *I* had $182 right now!
>  
>      Naturally if you're spending everything you have putting 
> yourself through college, you have other things to pay attention 
> to.  Join when you're older.

Most of the people in my life don't have that kind of money, no matter that
they have been working for years and are definitely older--in their 30s and
40s. Do you expect people to wait until retirement to begin investigating
magick? (not that they'd be likely to have enough on social security anyways)
  
>>Do they ask for the $182 up front?
>  
>      As I said, it's paid quarterly.

So I pay my dues and don't eat for two weeks. The fasting will do me good.
  
>>>      They don't want people studying Crowley because Crowley 
>>> teaches the opposite of what AMORC teaches, though they draw upon 
>>> similar sources for their teaching material.
>>
>>Pretty good. Right now you are taking another's word on faith, when
>>that other just so happens to have a vested interest in what they're
>>telling you.
>  
>      Who has a vested interest?  AMORC officers don't get paid for 
> what they do.  They're volunteers, and aren't in the position for 
> any reason other than altruism.

Allow me to clarify. They have a vested interest because, if Crowley's works
are in fact similar to AMORCs, then you would be as well off reading Crowley
as listening to them. They stand to lose your attention. Without you they would
lose their function. AMORC would lose its function. It's self-perpetuated
existence.

Note that I am saying "if." I don't know whether or not the two are similar,
not having looked at AMORC. I try to avoid making judgement calls on someone
based solely on what a third party has told me.
  
>>If they suggest "Maybe reading Crowley would be misleading," and 
>>you have several other people telling you that he teaches exactly 
>>what they teach (for less), why don't you take a look for yourself?
>  
>      I have better things to do with my time.  Like study sources 
> which I trust.

I can agree with the sentiment somewhat, but I feel it's misguided. It 
wouldn't take *that* long to check out one book and look over some of it. You
wouldn't have to read the whole thing.

The problem is that you are making assumptions and expressing them to others
without having a real basis for them. If you feel that AMORC is just right for
you, fine. I wish you the best with them. You can put your faith in their
teachings, and maybe you'll go the right way. Me, I like to take a look once in
a while, even at things I think will be worthless (Crowley, for example).

--Semhaza