Hello Ceci:       My name is Tony and I have a few comments on your "rosicrucian" adventure. I hereby state that I am not claiming or denying membership in any Order, fraternity etc. with or without the word "Rosicrucian" in the  name of the organization. I only claim having done some "homework" :-)       This is intended as a friendly article and if at times it seems different, it's my lack of writing skills showing, nothing else. Heck, English may be my second language! (And then again maybe not by now :-)       I proceed: > >I had an ehum, interesting experience with the Rosicrucians, or at >least Rosicrucians of some sort last Sunday. >      Let's start with the name "Rosicrucian". I took me a long time to come to the conclusion that there is a difference between a *member* of a "rosicrucian" body and BEING *a* ROSICRUCIAN. So when you say that you met some 'rosicrucians' you mean "members of a group that calls themselves rosicrucian". At least that is what your observation suggests :-)       I'd prefer if you would have stated up front that it was the Lectorium Rosicrucianum, only because they may be confused, by some readers of this newsgroup, with the Rosicrucian Order AMORC based (the USA Jurisdiction) in San Jose, CA; this being the RC org with the most members (last time I looked). Of course, "most members" does not *necessarily* mean "best".       Anyway, the Lectorium Rosicrucianum claims they descend (at least in part) from what was the "Gold-und-Rosenkreuz" (Golden and Rosy Cross), from the 18th century. There were two "Golden and Rosy Cross", the first (chronologically) more alchemical, the second with Masonic tinges, but their history is the subject of a complete chapter :-).       "You'll have to trust me" when I tell you that if that lecture/class/whatever had been presented by AMORC, it is unlikely that you would have had the same impression, i.e., you'd probably have had a positive impression more likely than a negative one, IMHO.   >The first guy also said that the R:s are a mystical Christian order, and >that they base their teachings on the teachings of the Kathars >(English?) from the thirteenth century. >      Again, instead of R:s, it should be "Lectorium Rosicrucianum" :-). It is curious to know that 3 other RC 'orders' (in the USA) claim to be *non- sectarian*.       The Cathars were a 'heretic' christian sect that directly challenged the 'authority' of the medieval catholic church. They flourished during the 12th century, century which saw the religious zeal expressed in the crusades and also the growing disillusion with the catholic church and the worldly ways of its clerics. It was largely in response to the church's unseemly pomp and splendor that Catharism took root, first in northern Italy, then throughout the south of France.   >What made me a bit suspicious, was the way they first said that we all >contained something divine, and could find our way back to divinity, >then that we couldn't become divine as the persons we are currently, >but if we worked really hard we would reach eternal bliss.       I don't see nothing *fundamentally* wrong with "us containing something divine"... And yes I don't like phrases like "eternal bliss" either! :-)  >How to robotize people and brainwash... >      For a moment I thought you were referring to Madison Ave :-) (Madison avenue in New York City is where the most influential (read $$$) *commercial* advertising is produced here in the USA :-)  Peace,  Tony