Talk:Builders of the Adytum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Occult Portal Builders of the Adytum 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. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	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.
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

The spelling of Kabbalah, Qabalah, Kabalah, ... Just as the article Kabbalah uses one consistent english spelling throughout the article, I think we should here.

Here's the quandery: Although the generally accepted practice is to spell Qoph Beth Lamed Heh (קַבָּלָה) as 'Kabbalah' (See http://www.nostradamus.net/files/uahc1977.pdf and http://urj.org/_kd/go.cfm?destination=ShowItem&Item_ID=4029), Case and B.O.T.A. spell[ed] it 'Qabalah'. My suggestion is to spell it 'Qabalah' throughout the article (just as B.O.T.A. does and its founder Paul Case did.) Further, we can set all the links to refer to 'Kabbalah' but to display 'Qabalah' like this Qabalah. This is the pattern on many of the Thelema/related articles, and by analogy how several articles handle the related 'Cabala' vs. 'Kabbalah' question.

For those wanting to weigh in on this, check out the article on transliterating Hebrew into English: Romanization_of_Hebrew which makes the statement "Hebrew-to-English transliteration is wildly inconsistent. Different standards occur simultaneously, often in the same document." Duquette would say arguing over spelling is worse than pointless, and he may well be correct.--Jason Richards 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there've been no objections, I'll go ahead and make the change.--Jason Richards 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ex Member's comments

As an ex member of B.O.T.A. I would like to comment on the organization's policy of secret initiations into their ritualistic work. B.O.T.A's mandatory vows of secrecy were very damaging to my marriage and family, and after over 20 years of suppressing a deep psychological wound caused by this policy, I would like to bring this side of occultism, especially those organizations with masonic ties, out in the open.

I found B.O.T.A.'s use of secrecy particularly oppressive, controlling and unjust because they use the Hebrew wisdom of Kaballah as the root of their teachings. As the daughter of a holocaust refugee, I found the stewards' use of secrecy very hypocritical. Many of the stewards of B.O.T.A.'s work are not Jews, and yet they use the power of kaballah for thier own spiritual pride and self-aggrandizement, without having had to suffer from accidentally been born into a particular religious ancestry.

I do admit that B.O.T.A.'s lesson material written by Paul Foster Case and Ann Davies is of a very deep nature. I studied the lesson material for 7 years before visiting the Los Angeles temple and was invited to join a beginning ritualistic group. Three years later, after having completed much of the study courses I was married in the bota temple to the organization's librarian (who, incidentally, was responsible for much of the research on Paul Foster Case's biography and timeline compiled by others).

When I asked if I could join the same ritualistic group that my husband belonged to, I was refused, on the grounds that I asked, rather than being invited. When I questioned this decision, the ministers in power at that time found every opportunity to judge my personal behavior to find reasons why I was not "ready" or worthy for the special voltage of spiritual electricity which came with initiation into these higher grades of "the work". My personal life was judged despite the fact that I had studied many more of the lessons than some people who were already in the group, and the fact that these members were guilty of the same personality flaws as me.

I was told the same story over and over agian, which roughly summarized was about the holders of power being karmicly responsible for people who were not ready for this special group work, and for the damage that might come about because these initiations stir up one's subconscious patterns. This was repeated to me ad infinitum from sycophants who had and possibly still have no real understanding of the term brotherhood. I was certain that if they could just love and accept me as I was, instead of judging me, I would be protected from any negative demons in my subconscious. B.O.T.A. claims that its work is guided by the inner Christ, but this behavior to me is very un-Christlike. It was just a bunch of rules maintained to preserve the stewards' sense of power over others, rather than any real love or understanding.

I think that the stewards at the time felt threatened by my insight into their real motives, and then attacked me with a final blow - they said that I had only married my husband in order to join the secret ritual group of which he was a member. I do not think that I am unusual in believing that there should not be secrecy between a husband and wife; in the Christian marriage vow it does say that one "forsakes all others" should devote oneself to one's spouse. My husband and I both left the organization as a protest to this bullying attitude.

However, the conflict with these people, who represented the spiritual teaching in which I had placed my trust and hopes, left a permanent scar on my relationship with my husband. I think it also influenced the way I brought up our children, especially our first child who was conceived while all this conflict was going on. I think that I might have been a lot kinder as a mother had I not been treated so harshly by the ministers in power at B.O.T.A. in the 1980s, and it is only now, 25 years later and after much meditation that I see how damaging the policy of secrecy from organizations like B.O.T.A. can be.

I hope that Wikipedia allows my comments to remain on this site, at least for a while. I hope that they may bring some sort of justice and healing to anyone else who has suffered in a similar way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.151.146 (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not actually an appropriate place for comments of this nature. We're compiling an encyclopedia, and your or our personal views regarding the Order are of no consequence. We can only add material from reliable third-party sources. As sad as such internal politics can be, until they are reported in some verifiable source we cannot report them in the article.

One small comment I will make is that I don't see how they can be criticised for using Kabbalah because they're non-Jewish. Kabbalah has been taught outside of Judaism for nearly 800 years. And it has often been veiled in secrecy. Fuzzypeg★ 05:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Controversy

I moved the Gay exclusion conversation off the article page and into the talk page--it needs to be rewritten to match wikipedia's NPOV policy. I do not disagree with the effort to inform and add to the article, but the language should be written from a neutral point of view. --Jason Richards 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

So here's the original section in question:

Needing NPOV help--start

==Caveat Emptor: B.O.T.A. Homophobia==

Initiation into the mystery school tradition requires receptivity and trust. If you are a sexual minority and/or are committed to promoting social justice, there is reason to question B.O.T.A.'s worthiness on both counts. See / "B.O.T.A.'s Pink Triangle of Prejudice" on tribe.net for an illuminating and disturbing thread regarding B.O.T.A.'s policy of excluding gays and other sexual minorities from Inner Order initiations that are offered to heterosexual members. This link provides evidence showing that this policy was kept secret from BOTA's membership as of 1990 and possibly as late as 1997. The rationale for this policy is elucidated by a former officer in B.O.T.A., whose / letter claiming that barring gays from higher initiations was an "act of mercy" is available for public viewing. The originator of this thread claims that B.O.T.A.'s justification for this destructive policy was pretextual and that the real driver was homophobia. The thread contains a number of cogently presented arguments that support that view. B.O.T.A.'s policy can hardly be kept secret from its membership or the public anymore. In September 2006, B.O.T.A. was asked to publicly repudiate this policy and clarify whether it is still in effect. Updates will follow as appropriate.

==External links==

• / "B.O.T.A.'s Pink Triangle of Prejudice"

Needing NPOV help--end

Here is an attempt to parse out the issues, preparatory to someone writing NPOV content. Disclaimer: I have been an individual correspondence member of the BOTA for 34 years, but I have never visited the Temple in LA or participated in any Temple activities.

The initiator of the Tribe thread, Miguelino Tatiana, has posted a 1990 letter addressed to her as Michael Greene from Joseph Nolan, who was then in a BOTA leadership position. She refers to "patronizing, ignorant and tautological nonsense" and accuses the BOTA of keeping "homophobic policies" secret from BOTA members. She speculates that this "had to have caused a lot of pain, confusion and consternation. That these emotions were only subliminally apprehended and then suppressed or repressed only adds to the tragedy." She does not identify any injury to herself, other than not being admitted to certain higher initiation ceremonies.

In the referenced letter, the core assertion is that "all patterns, positive and negative, are energized through the work of the Mystery Schools." Then in particular "If you feel angry at the general rejection that homosexuals experience, this too will be increased and here is the real danger," so anger is the limiting factor. As anyone knows who has been seriously involved in this work, it can involve what might be called high voltage, requiring due respect and circumspection. Because of harm done in the past to certain people by admitting them to these ceremonies, the exclusion is called "an act of mercy."

There seem to be several presuppositions that should be made explicit.

On the part of the BOTA leadership, as expressed in the letter:

• A generalization or stereotype that all homosexuals are caught up in anger at the general rejection that homosexuals experience. On this basis, homosexuality rather than anger was stated (in the letter) to be the criterion.

On the part of the contributors to the tribe thread:

• An assumption that the real reason for not being admitted was homophobia, and that talk of any other reasons is just a "patronizing, ignorant, and tautological" cover.

• An expectation that invitation to these higher initiations is a right that should be made available to all who respond to the "Open Door" invitation to join the organization as aspirants.

• An expectation that the BOTA must publish its criteria for being invited to the higher-order ceremonies.

Nolan says he has "no political influence in BOTA" and it is clear that he did not number himself among "those who decide who does and who does not gain entrance to those higher grades". It is unstated whether or not Greene carried anger that would have prohibited entrance, and the letter to which Nolan was responding has not been made available. Nolan refers to members who had previously left because of an escalating cycle of "feeling rejected and becoming rejective". Whether this began with rejection or with a feeling of rejection cannot be determined, though one might readily presume according to one's preconceptions. Those individuals have not made their present views known.

The contributors to the thread demand that official representatives of the BOTA acknowledge and disavow this prior policy. They might better challenge the underlying generalization. There are lots of people angry about social inequities that affect themselves and a class of people like themselves with whom they identify. The essential error is that invitation to such a thing cannot be based on legalistic requirements. It is unclear whose was the error. It may be that Nolan was taken to task for stating it in such terms, rather than (as is claimed) for revealing a secret policy. He cannot be asked, being deceased.

Other than the allegation that Nolan was reprimanded for revealing a secret policy, there is no evidence in the letter that this policy was specifically made secret, although in general the criteria for admission to higher-order ceremonies, or indeed their very existence, appear not to be published. Only attenders at the Temple or a Pronaos would have experience of these outward ceremonies. A great many members of the BOTA (I have no idea what proportion) participate only through the correspondence course plus perhaps some email communication with other members. It is to these that the "open door" invitational brochure of the organization is addressed, and on that invitation there are no restrictions. Tatiana alludes to "intellectual laziness," "personality worship," and "mindless obeisance to leaders" of participants in Temple activities at that time. These are negative consequences of the "hot house" of group work to hasten inner development. Nolan's letter concludes with the assurance "that you can really progress further in increasing your conscious awareness and the Will-to-Good (which is our total work) without this extra load of pressure." This was not acceptable.

6/5/08: Preceding was by me, user bn, I guess I had failed to log in.

       128.107.110.139 (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides the Tribe.net thread referenced to above, there is also a lengthy and insightful discussion of B.O.T.A's policy towards homosexuals at http://www.divineparadox.com/Conversations/homosexuality.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.218.105 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Vandalism

A user, or users has been repeatedly blanking the article -- save for a section about the BOTA's policy on homosexuals -- I've reverted the article twice -- I'm going to stop now so as not to run afoul of 3RR -- I'd appreciate it if an admin would intervene. Zero sharp 02:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the following quote in the section that keeps getting reinstated "Note that BOTA appaarently keeps deleting this post, which is against Wikipedia policy. Each time it gets deleted, I will delete one of their blurbs." -- leaving aside that this person has no way of knowing who is 'deleting this post' (I'm sure he or she meant 'article') -- the tit-for-tat strategy described is, I'm nearly certain _NOT_ in line with Wikipedia policy. Zero sharp 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Since this report is substantiated by a letter that appears on BOTA’s own letterhead, no “vandalism” of its statement on Wikipedia can be asserted and none is intended. Since this report has stood for about a month with no repudiation from BOTA, I am assuming that it is reasserting its covert intent to be secretive about this policy. There is no reason for secrecy. In an attempt to build consensus and issue a “neutral” report, I acknowledge BOTA’s right to include not so secret homophobic or racist policies into their policy structure. If BOTA wants to espouse openly Nazi policy, in fact, that’s just fine with me. The issue for me is OPENNESS. If BOTA or Wikipedia removes this edited post from inclusion on Wikipedia, please justify this in an email to me.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdgr2000 (talk • contribs) Zero sharp 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mdgr2000, I *exhort* you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, in particular WP:NOT#SOAP. If you have an axe to grind with Builders of the Adytium, this is NOT the place to do it. If you have referenceable, verifiable, non-POV content to add about BOTAs policies, please, by all means add it. No editor at WP "owes" you a justification, in email or otherwise. Zero sharp 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero sharp, It looks like, someone is upset; but not enough to bother wikifying their concerns. I'll look into other wiki pages to see how they deal with similar controversy and see if we can find a neutral POV way to say, "B.O.T.A. does not publicly acknowledge the existence of ritual groups other than Pronaos. However, some [I don't know of any publicly available documents to cite here] have alleged that B.O.T.A. members at the Los Angeles temple participate in additional rituals, perhaps akin to Golden Dawn Lodge rituals [this would also need a citation]; and a few have even alleged [citation], including allegedly the late Joseph Nolan, a former B.O.T.A. officer [citation to the letter], that in addition to excluding 99.99% of all B.O.T.A. members from the alleged ritual group, a policy allegedly exists to also exclude homosexuals from the alleged group."

There are so many allegeds in there that it starts to sound like a tabloid or something.... I don't know whether we'll be able to avoid the taint of "Original Research," here. But if there is a policy like they describe, and someone happens to go shopping for a Mystery School here at wikipedia, and they plan on rising through the ranks to the very highest offices in that Mystery School; they might want to know that their sexual orientation might have a bearing on their goal. It seems a little out there, but if it'll stop the vandalism.... --Jason Richards 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the way the Boy Scouts of America article handles it might work here too. They mention the controversy in a paragraph in its own section of the main article and include a link to a separate article where the controversy is covered in greater detail.--Jason Richards 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think? Vote here:

I think that is a good solution. Highlighting the controversy separately in a seperate article would also allow for the discussion of other controversies. Johnfryar 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remember that you are trying to give a summary of the B.O.T.A for the lay reader

What I mean is sentences such as this "uses the dramatic image-in-motion method to aid aspirants in creating effective symbology." need to be explained because the average reader, unless they are a member of B.O.T.A, don't know what is meant by the 'image in motion method' in this context, so it doesn't tell them anything. I've gone through the article trying to make it more intelligible for the lay reader with no knowledge of mysticism etc. I may have gone wrong so if for instance you meant experience of the 'One Will' to be experience of oneness with the will of the cosmos/god, rather than experience of their shared group intent, please explain this in simple, encyclopedic language in the article. What I mean is these concepts aren't encyclopedic with out being explained or linked to the relevant article on wiki, it can't be assumed the reader shares your knowledge/perspective. While you are writing, assume they've just heard the name B.O.T.A then searched for it on wikip, and know nothing about it. Write as if writing for your mum (assuming she's not an occultist.) :)Merkinsmum 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)