Talk:Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Secret Societies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Secret Societies,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Secret Societies.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within Secret Societies articles.

The following comments about the quality and importance of this article have been left: (Mystical Order Rosae Crucis/Comments|action=edit}} edit – Mystical Order Rosae Crucis/Comments|action=history}} history – Mystical Order Rosae Crucis/Comments|action=watch}} watch – Mystical Order Rosae Crucis|action=purge}} refresh)

Needs reference citations. John Carter (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Occult Portal
Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Peer review Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] New religious movements

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)

[edit] The Rosicrucian Park vs. Rosicrucian Park

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)

I have moved the page to Rosicrucian Park. -- Scott eiπ 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

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)

[edit] Somebody's answer

..largely needed..(from Germany)

Comment added by reader: What sort of answer do you need from Germany?

[edit] Arcanus

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)

[edit] Peer review

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) .'.

Place your comments here, use * and headers if you like:

[edit] Peer Review Comments by User:Scooter

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)

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) .'.


[edit] General Comment

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Apropos of Nothing

I just love that old AMORC ad: "There are some things that cannot be generally told - things you ought to know". If they can't be generally told, how come they think I can be trusted with them???!!!

[edit] Whole article replaced???

I can not believe it! I was working on an essay and somebody has totally replaced this article with another one. Very sad to see, how people can abuse Wikipedia. Thanks to this guy who has done all this! You have done a great job for the Confraternity. Maybe more people want to join them now. The light of enlightenment really shines upon you "Confraternity-brethren"! Gosh, I can only shake my head.

Alright, I have reverted the whole page to an earlier version.

[edit] THIS IS NOT NPOV

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.


[edit] Fixed (somewhat)

till we *) was right, this article was a blaspheme upon Wikipedia. Hopefully I've done it some good. While I know almost nothing about the AMORC, I was able to condense the article drastically and remove small insignificant pieces of information regarding every specific publication they produce with no other information than the fact that it was produced. Also, I took out the obscene bolding. There are some areas where I am not inclined (I've already spent an hour fixing this one crap article) to research at the moment, specifically Criticism which in the form I found it was literally TAKEN FROM THEIR WEBPAGE! So, if anyone knows more about them than I, please look over the article and make sure I didn't take out anything important and if I did please replace it with MORE INFORMATION! Finally, I took out the largest block of web links I have ever seen on a page. Most of the deletions occured because they were multiples of the same website or because they were individual Rosicruician members. If there was an important website I took down, please replace it but don't go overboard. There are already too many for such a small group.
Thanks
--TheGrza 05:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] can someone make this understandable:

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?)

(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)

I tried to explain why "manifesto" has signifiance in the Rosicrucian tradition, and gave background info on the concept of Utopia. Hopefully this should clear things up a bit for the random reader. I left the specific points untouched. Not sure the entire list is necessary, especially since a link to the source is given? 64.186.246.122 23:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XVII century symbolic image and AMORC or other modern organizations

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)


[edit] Conspiracy theories in Wikipedia

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)

I haven't been able to find ANY remotely credible evidence for this theory AT ALL--even in the refered articles. In my opinion this paragraph should be either supported or removed. Rosicrucianinitiate 21:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)