Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt00869)

I'm not sure why you think a public policy of denial in relation to 
CWL would not be maintained - for a very long time.

I'm in a similar situation researching matters around the AMORC 
founder HS Lewis who himself had a colourful and largely manufactured 
history. 

However, adherence to that party line - or at least not challenging 
the details of it - continues to be AMORC policy.  And why not ?  

Esoteric organisations are in the business of attracting members, not 
engaging in historical arguments.

The number who care about the real facts is miniscule compared to 
those attracted by the myth.  

Ergo, surely it at some point leaders make a choice, and it is 
usually to stick to the party line and the critics be damned.  

They continue to pull members in the door.  Maybe they end up with 
two or three trenchant critics, but I am sure they are not overly 
bothered by that for a very long time. 

Further, as leaders become more publicly identified with 
the 'history', it becomes a matter of personal pride and presumably, 
vulnerability, for them if the 'history' is challenged.  

Unfortunately, for many members, elements of the 'history' become 
part of their belief structure, and they respond emotionally, often 
with personal attacks, to questions which an outside questioner might 
consider rather mundane. 

For a researcher, this can be difficult to understand until one 
realises the processes that have created the situation.  

I tend to prefer the Masonic attitude where such 'history' is 
presented as 'traditional' and not something to be literally 
believed.  I feel this encourages a more healthy mindset- I have 
observed occult organisations with strong Masonic links to have this 
attitude and in some cases, for example the SRIA, even happily engage 
in debunking the more fanciful aspects of their own history. 

Ben Scanlon

>
> Gregory,
> 

> 
> There has been some 20 years since your book "The Elder Brother" 
was published. The "official" policy towards it - as towards the 
facts which it helps document -- is still pure denial... at least 
publicly. 
> 
> This won't go on eternally. 
> 
> Regards,  Carlos. 
>