Talk:Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis

message: Is Rosicrucianism really a 'new religious' movement?   AMORC began in the United States in 1915, but its charter(s)/ideas came from much older groups in Europe.  Also, the AMORC specifically distances itself from religion.   I am just wondering how this article ended up in this category?   Obviously every group can't self-define, but I think it is a stretch to put AMORC here when it follows traditions at least 400 years old.  Also the group doesn't seem seem to me to have anything religious in nature about it??   Interested in thoughts of others. 64.186.246.122 00:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New religious movements

message: Rosicrucian Park in San Jose is in itself a tourist attraction and curio. I think it justifies a page all its own, especially since there is no mention of it on this page. So I created the page called The Rosicrucian Park because the page Rosicrucian Park simply directs back to the AMORC page. Hopefully, someone can straighten this out and we can eventually drop the "The" in "The Rosicrucian Park," and "Rosicrucian Park" can be granted the page I made. But it is my sincere belief that Rosicrucian Park in itself deserves its own page. The Egyptian Museum received its own page. Newager 06:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the page to Rosicrucian Park. -- Scott eiπ 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rosicrucian Park vs. Rosicrucian Park

message: FYI: A major update to this article is scheduled for January 2004. The Positio Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis will be summarized, presenting the main goals and ideas of the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, regarding the current world situation. Some info may be written regarding the Radio Station, the Rosicrucian Park, the 2004 Peace Conference, and more. Also a more complete History section will be written, and information will be added for the Rose Croix University. Some other sections may be rewritten too. So come back if you are interested Optim 13:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: I realize 'secret' is the common translation of this word, but I think the meaning as in AAORRAC is really intended more as 'hidden' or 'esoteric.'   Secret in modern parlance really has a different connotation.   Should this be addressed somehow in the translation of AAORRAC?
64.186.246.122 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arcanus

message: I am afraid that the major update may be postponed for February. Now I wrote some exclusive information on the Radio Station. As far as I know, this information is not published on the Web. I will summarise the Positio manifesto in the future; Now I just added the Rosicrucian Utopia info. More information on Rosicrucian Park, the Order's history, the Rosicrucian University and the Rose+Croix journal will be added some time. I need suggestions on whether Julie Scott (S.R.C.) should be merged with AMORC. I have requested peer review. Especially I need your opinion on the NPOVness of the article. And also, whether it is easy-to-understand. Thank you, Peace Profound .'. Optim 07:36, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: It's a fair beginning for an article, but there is definitely some work needed.  Based on the call for editing for NPOV, I will guess that you are personally involved with the group.  This is something that comes across in the writing style - somewhat.  I would suggest that you look to combine sections together, giving the article less of a bulleted, "brochure-ish" feel, which may be of use to a potential adherent (particularly the "Teachings" section, which could be lost completely), and instead construct paragraphs with some "weight" to the more casual reader, who is interested in the facts without needing to know the more involved details; my guess would be that many of these single-sentence paragraphs could be dropped without changing the fundamental meaning of the article for the latter type of reader.  The Critiques section could stand to quote from sources outside of AMORC - as is, it is really only serving the purpose of being a "straw man".  There are a few places where word choice is questionable; for example, reference to the World Peace Conference as an "important conference" with no further description smacks of a touch of salesmanship.  An alternative way to phrase it may be that the Conference will feature this important person delivering an address on peace in Ireland, or some such.  In other words, show, rather than tell.  By all means, though, stick with it. - Scooter 04:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for checking the article. The article is not finished and I plan to double (at least) its size. The teachings part will probably moved to another article, because these teachings (Rosicrucian Monographs) are not exclusive to AMORC (although written by AMORC's founder Harvey Spencer Lewis, they are used by other organisations too, such as CR+C, which is one of the many "forks" after the 1990's corporate reorganisation of AMORC and some lawsuits regarding financial matters, which should also be mentioned with more details). I will add crititiques by the Gary L. Stewart of Confraternity of the Rose Cross (also written by me), FUDOFSI and Constant Chevillon (in FUDOFSI article, also written by me, I have included some criticisms I think). A large introductory section will be added, too. Again, thank you. May you have Peace Profound More comments are welcome, .'. Optim 05:06, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review Comments by [[User:Scooter]]

message: To me, the article looks more like a web portal site for the AMORC organization than an encyclopedic entry. That's not so much a problem of size, but mostly a problem of coherence and redundancy. For example, in the article it is stated at least three times which publications AMORC publishes, which of these are public and which are members-online. One sentence about the AMORC publications should be enough, something like: AMORC publishes a number of magazines and newsletters: the public Rosicrucian Digest [see here], the members-only Secret Bavarian Rosicrucian [see there] and the highest levels top secret A.A.O.O. brevis, called O.O.A.A. breve for the French lodges. -- till we *) 01:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. In the past some parts of the current article were individual articles. Then, I merged them. Hence the redundancy. The "web portal" problem will be solved together with the redundancy after the rewrite I have scheduled to do this month. Currently there are too many external links in the article but I will get rid of them after I summarise their contents in the article. For example the links to the "Positio" will be deleted after I summarise the whole document here in WP. Optim 10:20, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article is partial and sometimes redundant. It needs a major rewriting, but it is still possible to remove some blatant partiality and rewrite it under a more balanced approach, e.g. I removed and rearranged text in the Mastery of Life and  Positio subsections for a more NPOV writing, but the relevance of these subsections in a WP article is still questionable. --Jdemarcos 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comment

message: To the writer:
You have completely failed to address the most important criticism from both Scooter and till we *), namely, that this entire article is basically an apologetic for AMORC and in no way reflective of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. I'm strongly inclined to delete the whole thing. It really is that bad.
::AMORC may have worthy objectives, but its history is entirely false. Its founder created it out of nothing, he was not initiated into the Order by the "Supreme Council of the Rosicrucian Order" in 1909, Toulouse, since the Order had ceased to exist centuries before.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS IS NOT NPOV 

message: The Positio Fraternitatis Rosae Crucus
The Positio Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis is a document revealed at an AMORC meeting in August, 2001.  It describes what is wrong with the present world situation and the Rosicrucian Utopia:  <--- (What does this sentence mean? does it describe what is wrong with the Rosicrucian Utopia, or does it describe the Rosicrucian Utopia?)
(What is this following list?  Things that are wrong witht the world or elements of the rosicrucian Utopia or some other entirely different thing?)
* Politicians are humanistic and serve the society.
* Scientists are spiritualistic.
* Misery and poverty do not exist anymore.
* A World government exists works for the interest of the whole humanity.
* Spirituality is the way of life
* A Universal Religion exists which is based on the knowledge of God's laws and not on any beliefs.
* Human relations are characterised by love, friendship and fraternity.
(Pedant 18:38, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC))
:I have rewritten that section to make it more understandable and a more NPOV. I still doubt that this list of "utopian" proposals has any relevance in the article, but I am leaving the list untouched until more people say their thoughts about its importance. --Jdemarcos 10:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  can someone make this understandable: 

message: The background
*This article is related to a specific organization, among others which exist nowadays, created in 1915 (XXth century), AMORC: which claims - as other current-day organizations also do - historical-traditional inheritance to the original Rosicrucian Order. Yet there is no public evidence, which one, from a common social point of view or historic perspective, may verify that connection (at the same time it does not mean that there is none).
*The image «"The Temple of the Rosy Cross," Teophilus Schweighardt Constantiens, 1618» is believed or generally accepted to be a symbolical representation of the original Rosicrucian Order as presented in Legend related to its possible founder Christian Rosenkreuz (presented in the 3 initial manifestos (the Fama in 1614; the Confessio in 1615 and the Chymical Wedding in 1616) and which presents also the "Temple of the Holy Spirit" (the Temple of the Order).
the image vs. the article
*The image as it is in the article Rosicrucian it is fine since the article talks about known facts and legend surrounding this movement as a whole (since its historic evidences); but it is not Ok if attributed to one particular modern organization (AMORC or other), because on one hand, it is modern (so not the same, even if there is any connection) and, on the other hand, it is not the only modern organization to claim its (not yet verifiable) inheritance.
The action
* I ask for your benevolence towards my act of removing the referred historical image from this article; but if anyone is interested in introducing an image to this article should use for example one of the emblems, logo or trademark images of this current-day Organization (which may be found at its web sites).
Thank you, --GalaazV 19:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  XVII century symbolic image and AMORC or other modern organizations 

message: Is it appropiate to refer to conspiracy theories without providing evidence or bibliography in a Wikipedia article, as it is done in this article referring to possible links to financial arrangements related to the Order of the Solar Temple and implication in activities such as Operation Gladio? I don't think so for an encyclopaedia that wants to be a credible resource for students. --Jdemarcos 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories in Wikipedia 

message: The title says it all. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.3 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not an article, it's just a piece of advertisement.

message: This is not a serious work. The part about the history of AMORC is totally science-fiction. They may claim what they want, the order goes back only to 1915.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.85.181 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a work of imagination and not of history

message: Can we find a being who is enlightened enough to render this article grammatical? It is so fractured it's impossible to make sense of it even syntactically, much less philosophically. rowley (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enlightened Being Needed

message: This is from the opening section:
As the phrases "Rose-Croix" and "Rosicrucian" are in the public domain, there are a number of organizations that describe themselves as such. According to AMORC members and related publications, these organizations may or may not be related to a real Rosicrucian Order and most of them are not. AMORC claims to be the only organization keeping the teachings of their ancient Rose-Croix Order unaltered and the primordial tradition intact.
Highlight mine.  This is such an inflammatory claim in the world of rosicrucian orders, going back to the legal battles between R. Swinburne Clymer (founder of The Fraternitas Rosæ Crucis) and H. Spencer Lewis (founder of AMORC).  Both groups lay claim to being the only unaltered tradition.  And I'm sure there are others, too.
I guess what I'm saying is that this statement is really not appropriate for inclusion in the wiki article.  It's more akin to fraternal propaganda and advertising.
Ztheday (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Section

message: The constant reference to "conspiracy theorists" takes away from the neutral pov of this article. Also questionable is the following sentence:
"Other Rosicrucian organizations, such as FUDOFSI and Fraternitas Rosæ Crucis have criticized AMORC's authenticity with the benefit of bolstering their own claims of authenticity."
There is no reference to commentary that this was done only for selfish benefit on the parts of FUDOFSI and Fraternitas Rosæ Crucis. Even so, I don't believe that this commentary would have a place within this section due to its already biased nature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.235.17 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the link that was removed was to your personal website, as are the numerous links you have inserted into many articles with that account.  I didn't look at the "publication" you claim is at that link, because I can not be sure it is authentic. Do you have a reliable source? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

text: As I very well know? I've never seen the magazines of which you speak, and I've never heard of the .PDF files either -- sorry.  I do know that the links you inserted to not go to reliable sources, as required by Wikipedia.  Please review that most important policy.  Xenophrenic (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Editing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Would this do? Raymond Bernard LibraryThing page.  It lists one of his works as being included in the Rosicrucian Library, which while not conclusive, is certainly probative. Patterner37 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: I imagine that this name, which appears (thus) today in the Criticism Section, is a typo for Raymond Bernard; however I did a search on that name and there are Wikipedia articles on the following persons:
* Raymond Bernard (10 October 1891, Paris – 12 December 1977), a French filmmaker and son of French playwright, Tristan Bernard.
* Walter Siegmeister (1901–1965), later and better known as Dr. Raymond W. Bernard  A.B., M.A., PhD, an early 20th century American alternative health and esoteric writer, author and mystic. The article on him states that he was born in NY to Russian Jews (though the name is clearly of German appearance, not Russian, which makes one wonder slightly); that he lived in various places including Florida, Ecuador, and Brazil; that he wrote many publications including some under a third name, Dr Robert Raymond, and a fourth, Dr Uriel Adriana.
I think it is obvious there should be a link here if it can be determined that the Rosicrucian reference is to one of these (more probably the latter, but despite all the esotericism and the long list of writings, the article on Siegmeister does not mention Rosicrucianism anywhere); and of course also a mention of, and link to, Rosicrucianism in the article on Siegmeister if that same condition is met. Iph (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this do? Raymond Bernard LibraryThing page.  It lists one of his works as being included in the Rosicrucian Library, which while not conclusive, is certainly probative. Patterner37 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is Rayomnd Bernard?

message: I've removed the entire section because it did not have any citations whatsoever. Please feel free to return any criticism that can be cited, but it is prefered that it be inline with text about what is being criticized. Separate criticism sections are discouraged, as they tend to become magnets for the sort of uncited material that I removed. Yworo (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited criticism section

message: I added Sirhan Sirhan, based on the FBI report of Robert Kennedy's assassination.  
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/Kennedy%20Robert%20assassination.pdf
Page 14 notes a search of Sirhan's car wherein a membership card was recovered, noting his membership in this organisation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.247.39 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't appear to be an active link. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked, and I see the reference he mentions. (new to contributing, so please excuse any faux pas) Patterner37 (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Members 

message: The organization relentlessly advertised in a number of magazines in the U.S. during the 1950s and 1960s... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As earlier: c.f. 1936 Weird Tales https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Weird_Tales_volume_28_number_03.djvu/2 --Prosfilaes (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: Many of the problems with this article which go back to at least 2004, have either gone unaddressed or have resurfaced, in that this article is written from the point of view of a member of the organisation, and takes the internal mythology and history of the organisation as fact, the sourcing of the citations of these facts being from internal documented and publications by the organisation itself. While this is valid in writing about how the organisation sees and promotes itself, in order to be NPOV the article's tone should  be more from the outside looking in.--KTo288 (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Substituted at 07:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This article is an insult to the population of wikipedia. H. Spencer Lewis was a "secret partner" to big business? The citation for this is Lewis's own book so pardon me if I don't find it very convincing. This is a man who held a public demonstration of turning zinc into gold. Right. Honestly it sounds like an interesting organization, but the tone is quite literally that of propaganda. 73.8.253.158 (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously