Talk:Rosicrucianism/Archive 1

Restructuring

- Stumbling on: while the article shows promise it is bogged down by jargon, non-encyclopedic writing and non-referenced sources. As such it suffers from an "insider's" attempt to be thorough, rather than an authoriative, digestible, entry. Wiki is not a forum for metaphysical and esoteric debate. Rather it is a starting point where readers can reference to citations if interested. Some of this can be accomplished by spinning off some sections to their own page. Completists may consider a "Rosicrucian project" to more thoroughly define and clarify the topic at hand, in plain english.

suggestions as follows;

Origins (cv. Christian Rosenkreutz) publicatons (cv.The publications of Fama Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis (1614), Confessio Fraternitatis (1615), and Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz (1616)) and history (development) should be clearly separated from concepts, interpetations and later developments, and be limited to fact based information.

Any interpretations of history and source material can be catagorized according to the groups espousing such.

citation: lines such as "The founder of the Order of the Rose-Croix belonged, as affirmed by historians, to a noble family, but there is no document that allows us to confirm this. However, it is certain that he was an orientalist and a great traveler.'"are quite nonsensical. Citation is required.

Development of Rosicrutianism: suffers from x begat y begat z. Much if this is draws on the rhetorical device of appealing to authority, ie Shakespere, etc and should be deleted or separated clearly into context.

Confusing stuff. These are Inside baseball debates. Wikipedians don't post controversies if Phil Nekro threw a junk pich in the bottom of the fifth in august 1990 on the Mariner's page. don't argue. and elaborte, points past the average knowege of the reader. And instead of parsing, point to, say , alchemy

Obviously i don't know enough about Rosicrutianism to be in any way authoritative on the subject. from first read there is worthwhile content, that simply requires reoranization and a KISS: keep it simple, stupid.

Confusing Stuff

In the point of view of the Spiritual Alchemy [1], the materia prima is the human soul, and about the athanor, it is constituted by the physical body and the subtle bodies; these last ones maintain the life of the most dense one and assure the connection with the soul. The laboratory is the human existence during which the soul has the possibility of accomplishing the learning needed to perfect itself, operating the transmutation of the vices and defects of the vil metal into spiritual, that is, into related virtues and qualities.

In his laboratory, the alchemist works on the materia prima and surrounds himself, among other tools to accomplish the operations, of a furnace with a peculiar form, called athanor.

Not quite sure exactly what this means. Tried to make it a little more gramanical. If I messed it up just put it back in.

- I think it is Ok, it is just to give a brief idea of the thought and conceptions conveyed in those manuscripts, at the time not easly accessible to external world understanding, maybe nowadays still not yet. Anyway, the Alchemy texts are a lot more hermetic than this one. ;)

If one abstracts from the symbolic associations of the rose and the cross which have been visioned by many since ancient epochs, it is known, as evidence, that in 1614, 1615 and 1616 there where published three treaties or manifestos, in German language, which gave rise to this movement:

- Done: verb form "were" (published in those years).

Another point of similarty between the two groups was found, during the 18th century. The masonic circle "Gold und Rosenkreuzer" (Golden and Rosy Cross), published the Geheime Figuren or "The Secret Symbols of the 17th and 18th century Rosicrucians" in 1785 and 1788. This circle was developed along the masonic lines by Hermann Fictuld in 1777 who had important descendants in Russia. These descendants may have introduced Freemasonry and Martinisminto the region.

didn't even touch these

- Done: rewrote (influence of this rosicrucisnist-masonic 18th century in middle Europe and Russia).

--Banana04131 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• too many words in bold
• uses words which and may too often
• run on sentances
• correct tenses not always used

I did a rough edit of the article, mainly to break up run-on sentences. — RDF ^talk 04:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Things to do

I added a rough list of things to do from the fac comments, etc. Add to or edit the list as needed. Strike out items as they are completed. — RDF ^talk 04:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Perhaps Wikipedia may have now the most complete one page article in the whole Internet, probably with the best accurate data available and presenting different views on various subjects. Of course, it is not a book; but it may give a reliable insight to any reader. It needs to be worked in its English language (sentences and spelling, without altering the meaning too much:) but this task is devoted to users User:Banana04131 and User:RDF, to whom I present my thanks for their aid --GalaazV

I added strikeouts to the clearly stated "done" items and move the above note here. The remaining items should be clearly stated as done and/or new, more specific items should be added to the to do list. — RDF ^talk 11:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

- I consider them as done; however I left them as open, with the respective answer related to what was done, in order to whom made those points see if there is no objection. Should I mark them as 'Done'? --GalaazV 12:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If you believe something is done, go ahead and mark it as done. Someone else always can take responsibility for adding another "to do" item to the list. :-) — RDF ^talk 12:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

- Good point! Done. :) --GalaazV 12:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Optim

This article contains some links to redirects and unwritten articles. Please do not remove these links, or if you do save the links on this talk page. I use these links to remember what I need to write. Optim 01:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

so, go ahead. There is a lot to do :-))) Umberto

---

I see the name Rosenkreutz alternating with Rosencreutz. Which is it? heidimo 02:33, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They're interchangeable- just two differing anglicizations, both found in historical documents.-FZ 21:27, 10 Jun 2004

Not even different anglicizations but just 17th century spelling variants. ([email protected])

Rosy Cross

Is it worth noting that the rose and cross are symbolic of the female and male genitalia? Pmurray bigpond.com 04:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure it is, but should not be overconsidered either. All successful initiatory societies owe at least part of their appeal to the fact that their symbolism is open to a wide range of explanations -- especially if there are so many different representations as there are of the "rose croix", from a cross within a rose to five roses on a cross. Maybe someone could present a few examples? I have (from Golodowin's "Dictionary of Symbols"), but they are under the publisher's copyright. ([email protected])

Famous persons considered to be Rosicrucianists

Am I the only one to think that this chapter may be exagerated ? Apparently, prior to the 17th century, there is no mention of the rosicrucian order. Ramon Llull for instance was known to be a christian with progressist ideas but he was a member of a known monastic order. The lack of evidence and the proeminence of very famous people in the list as well as their geographic dispersion makes me wonder if this paragraph is not just propaganda or even hot air.

---

I have just added some more :-)
But I also made it more precise by saying that some of these persons are just influences (all people who lived/published befor ethe 17th cent. cannot be considered rosicrucians, as the term was not coined yet - the manifestoes were not yet published). And in the end, you are right of course: this is mainly "hot air", as there was (probably) no real "rosicrucian order" at that time anyway.
memo 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding the reverted edition made by me «  18:59, 4 September 2005 GalaazV m (→History & origins - rv edition: list is just about deceased notorious Rosicrucianists, not for living persons (with which Purpose?) [1]) » I request please do only add persons known to be notorious "Rosicrucianists" of the world at the related period and please never persons alive, since this article was never written with the intention of promotion but as a NPOV resource for users who would like to deeply understand what is meant with "Rosicrucian" term, movement, history and conception, and who knows: the Order. If not sure, post the name for a while at this discussion page. --GalaazV 05:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

In order to comply the "featured article", and also in order to not be seen as any type of publicity, I moved the sub-section of "Rosicrucianists" to the discussion page. If any reference toward any of these names is to be done at the article it should be acompanied, at least, of a brief explantation of his/her connection to Rosicrucianism. The majority of the listed personalities of the 20th century are connected to "modern groups" and are already referenced at the section related to these groups. Please, let the "History & origins" section at the article to speak only about the influence and connection to Rosicrucianism of personalities listed under the earlier centuries. --GalaazV 15:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Famous persons alleged to be Rosicrucianists or having had an important impact on Rosicrucianism were:

in the pre-Manifestos centuries

• Ramon Llull, Dante Alighieri, Denis of Portugal (the King-Poet), Elizabeth of Portugal (alchemy of the Roses), Leonardo da Vinci, Cornelius Agrippa, Paracelsus, François Rabelais, Nostradamus, Miguel Servet, Camoens (author of The Lusiads), John Dee, Giordano Bruno, Heinrich Khunrath, Jan Baptist van Helmont.

in the 17th and 18th centuries

• Francis Bacon, William Shakespeare, Michael Maier, Robert Fludd, Jacob Boehme, Comenius, René Descartes, Elias Ashmole, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Johann Sebastian Bach, Benjamin Franklin, Alessandro Cagliostro, Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Count of St Germain.

in the 19th and 20th centuries

• Victor Hugo, Richard Wagner, Paschal Beverly Randolph, Franz Hartmann, William Wynn Westcott, Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers, Rudolf Steiner, Max Heindel, Arnold Krumm-Heller, Reuben Swinburne Clymer, Harvey Spencer Lewis, George Alexander Sullivan, Hermann Hesse,Walt Disney.

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

french vikipedia

dear sir in the french vikipedia you could find information about "Ecole de la Rose-Croix d'Or " (Lectorium rosicrucianum) créated by two dutsch in 1924 ans have 15000 pupils in the world Are you interested in your article i'm french and my english is not very good Friendly [email protected]

- It is a very nice article [2]. I have not the opportunity at this time to rewrite it to English language, but I've inserted the reference to Lectorium Rosicrucianum at the related modern groups' subsection. Maybe someone will see it and may aid to create a new article related to this organization. Friendly and In Christian Fellowship.

Fellowship of the Rosy Cross

Dear user Goblin, the article Fellowship of the Rosy Cross you purpose to be merged is POV about a modern group which is stated, and linked, already at the related Modern groups section: AMORC (which entitles themselves as the real Order; which is their own POV). If you'd like to merge it, you should do it into the article about this refered modern organization and not in the article about the Rosicrucian Order ("Rosicrucian") - legend, history, movement, 19th/20th century modern groups, etc. - presented in a NPOV way. Following this explanation I'm reverting the merge tag. Regards, --212.113.164.104 16:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC) GalaazV P.S.: On the other hand, the Fellowship of the Rosy Cross was a Christian-Kabbalastic organization founded by Arthur Edward Waite [3] in England (as it was written in the first edition of the article) and not by AMORC. This means that even the words presented at the article your purpose to merge are not true (according to history events); My point of view is the all article Fellowship of the Rosy Cross seems innacurate, misguiding, publicity and POV and, as such, it should be erased (or reverted to its first edition) and not merged with any other article.

small addition to "reference list"

On the "Reference List" of the original article in the English-language article, the author notes a reference to the Rosicrucians in the Leonard Cohen song "Dress Rehearsal Rag."

She or he may wish to note that Mr Cohen's album called New Skin for the Old Ceremony has a cover illustration identified as The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rozenkreuz.

There's some fundamental issues in this article...

One being the lack of citations. There's a 200 year discrepancy in the dating of the College of the Invisibles that isn't explained, but there seems to be solid proof that they were responsible for the movement, or si it is claimed.

Unintentional weaseling (i.e., vagueness) - "a lesser-known Masonic legend in literature"? If its existence and content is known, why can't it be sourced any better than this?

Also, some real factual issues and /or weaseling (probably also due to sourcing): Why is it that the alchemical/hermetical Rosicrucian groups are called psuedo-Masonic, and the Christian ones are not, especially when the modern link is tenuous at best, and the split in interpretation was historical according to the article? Colleges have degrees, but I don't see those societies being called "pseudo-collegiate". It makes it look like the alchemical Rosicrucians are a bit sinister, while the Christians are OK, since they get glossed right ove when it comes to the section on Gnosticism and trans-Christians

Weaseling: Current-day Rosicrucianists (like modern Freemasons, who do not construct cathedrals anymore) direct their concentration toward the work of spiritual alchemy. --> Which is what exactly, since it's not explained, and what exactly is the relevance of Freemasons in particular to this? Modern stonemasons don't build cathedrals anymore either.

Writing process: The "Rose Cross: Alchemy..." section has no lead-in whatsoever, and therefore doesn't make a lot of sense, and the last three paragraphs of the section have nothing to do with anything as it is written (it's spiritual alchemy, most likely, but there's no indicatrion).

I have a feeling, given the size of the source list, that all this problematical material exists as it has been written, but has simply not been attributed properly to an author and has instead been called a general statement, or simply has not been organized properly.

List of groups -- may violate WP not being a collection of lists, and also ascribes importance to certain groups over others. It should probably get taken out, or at least only be minimal in coverage. The people need to go, as they don't belong in a list of groups, and I will take them out. MSJapan 14:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten it was 1. Donnot forget the words once applied by a Mason at heart toward the Masonic Legend: "Every mystic movement has its legend, which tells in symbolic language its status in the cosmic order and the ideal which it tries to realize" 2. We may not quite understand it, yet, but as Shakespeare points out: "There are more things in heaven and earth... that are dreamt on your [the world] philosophy". Regards, my friend. --Rosaecruz 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC). P.S. - The groups you refer have a formal system, and some present closer connections during their historic development, which demonstrate some level of close proximity with Freemasonry (speculative) system, so, the denomination "para-Masonic" ("pseudo" is a POV word and a rather offensive one); this definition does not imply or state that they are Masonic groups. --Rosaecruz 20:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another: "Although many serious research attempts were made to learn about the change from the operative Masonry to the speculative Masonry, no concrete answer has yet been found, other than it occurred between the end of 16th century and the beginning of the 17th century." There was no time between the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the 17th century. What did someone really mean? J S Ayer 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Are there any Rosecrucians here?

The article is pretty good, but I'm still unsure of exactly what kind philosophy and beliefs Rosecrucians (particularly, modern ones) tend to have. From a personal standpoint I would like to know more about Rosecrucians because this article sparked a deep fascination for me. I'm Catholic, and don't consider myself to be very 'mystical', but the idea of Rosecrucianism has piqued my interest. ChildeRolandofGilead 12:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome dear friend. Hope this required edition 1 may be helpfull. Regards, In Christian Fellowship. --Rosaecruz 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are loads of them out there. Of the ones I have checked out the two most interesting are Jan Van Rijckenborgh's Ducth-founded movement the Lectorium Rosicrucianum and Max Heindel's American-based one. You'll find them listed on the article. No-one knows how related they are to the original movement which is not surprising as they did such a good job of concealing themselves, if indeed they ever existed. The one big link is the image of the Rose Cross itself and the inclusion of Christian Mysticism in their imagery. ThePeg 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See also links...

I find it very hard to believe all of those links are either necessary or have relevant information. I'm going to start paring them down a bit once I read up a little more on how all these things interrelate. MSJapan 21:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does this new info come from?

We've got some new additions to the page, which seem a bit problematic. Talking about most groups claiming lineal descent from the original rosicrucians:

However, one of them did not claim such heritage and metioned to be a renaissance of the Order in the Western World.

Which one? It seems like a very pointed statement, but then it doesn't get explained. Then discussing the esoteric Christian movement:

The esoteric Christian movement may be defined as representing a "rebirth" in the New World of the Rosicrucian Order, formed in the year 1313, and it states that it has the mission to prepare the whole wide world for a new phase in Religion, man's awareness of the inner worlds and development of the related subtle bodies, during the next six centuries toward the coming Age of Aquarius.

Several groups are mentioned as fitting into the category of esoteric Christian Rosicrucianism, but do they really all state their mission in these words? And how was the date 1313 arrived at, seeing as this predates both the Rosicrucian Manifestos and the discovery of the new world by Columbus! I don't suppose Leif Ericcson was a Rosicrucian? There's a lot of explaining to do here, or failing that, the article needs to be reverted back to a previous version.

Please remember that all information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. The best person to find the source documents needed for verification is generally the editor who first submits the information, seeing as they generally know where it comes from. Thanks, Fuzzypeg 00:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've sourced the sentences. In order to understand more, we have to study deeper into the Mason Word and live the life needed to acquire the Second sight ! ;) --Rosaecruz 05:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this encyclopedia has a policy of no original research. The submitted material will have to be removed. Fuzzypeg 21:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my dear Friend, is this cold excuse originated in the same individual who once wrote the warm lovely inspired words: "Starting down this path is simple: just start practicing complete honesty, and try to always do good. It is a very long road (some say endless), but travelling along it is also an end in itself. This approach is vastly transformative - there is great joy, great sorrow, and constant learning."? Original or not, the "material" is sourced in human fellows, already gone into the Great Beyond, recognized to have been above the average in the occult field. Are you so eager to do the job that our all western civilization has been doing since its inception? Yes, the world does not look for Truth, because Truth shows to them the illusions the world lives in. Do what you have you to do; there was a time that those who did it had to carry blood in their own hands: Fortunatly, today it is little more than words, not lives anymore, taken by the wind (or the wire). If this is to be the case, my only deep sorrow is to have unveiled here, at the Free Encyclopedia, so peaceful and sacred Symbols to those who, by their own actions, proved not to be yet prepared to be acquainted with their presence. Oh great Shakespeare, how difficult is to all of us to understand the beautifull Truth you revealed to us all "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...". Regards, In Christian Fellowship --Rosaecruz 00:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, like it or not, the same policy that requires material to be sourced from something tangible is the same policy that prevents people from claiming nonsense like "Christian Rosicrucians are Satanist pagan baby-eaters" as truth without any proof provided. MSJapan 00:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The challenge here is to figure out how to use this tool (Wikipedia) properly. With each mode of communication there are things one can communicate and things one can't. Please don't see me as the Adversary here, or else remember that the Adversary is also the teacher, looked at another way, for he causes you to build better than before (Demon est Deus inversus). I doubt if what you had written would bring anyone any revelations – it read like a poorly-edited Wikipedia article and would most likely just make people distrust the whole article. We live in a world of forms, and these forms dictate the way people perceive things. Struggling to express spiritual truth through these forms can be terribly frustrating, however one can learn how to turn the forms of the mundane world towards spiritual effects. This is a fairly basic alchemical concept. Wikipedia, with its various policies and operating procedures, is merely another piece of alchemical apparatus for one who recognises it as such. It has its particular application, and can be powerful if used well, but if applied incorrectly will not yeild any useful results. Fuzzypeg 01:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Very wise words! However, please regard it from my perspective: How many articles with so detailed data together do you have, available on the wwww, about the "Rosicrucian Tradition" (i.e. legend, history, thought, authors, studies, literature, ...)? If you talk about bringing "revelation" you have really missed the point: since its inception, with the contribution of several editors, the article has been constructed to put available the most central themes in order for the reader to understand by himself/herself a bit more about what this Noble Tradition may be. Yet, it does not intend (neither it is possible here) to show what It is. But the article can be seen as a basic tool for the reader who may want to research further according to his/her own comprehension; it's aim: to combat ignorance! Yes! Because it is due to the fertile field of Ignorance that some rotten seeds, the "blowers" (some of them following our discussion in the obscurity of their thrones), have been usurpating with different coverages (wolves masked as sheeps) the "Rosicrucian Way" during last centuries - leading good-heart people, who strive to understand Life, into no-end obscure ways - and promoting their own inflated and all-powerfull egos turning their followers not to become friends, equals or free but unconscious slaves to their hunger for temporal power. Readers, as you pointed out, may distrust the article, but at least this article does not try to impose any misguiding view, usurpating whenever they can the "Rosicrucian Way" to their own personal or organizational advantage [4]. On the other hand, I have a secret to whisper to you (all): this individual, who is now addressing to you and who wrote around some of the articles around this subject, is not at present even a member of any modern Rosicrucianist group, as noble as some may be. On the other hand, the almost 100 years School - financial poor, but indeed the most Pure one, that this individual has presented here and at those articles around - she never in all these years have made the minor gesture to defend herself against all the attacks it has been suffering from every infamous corner, neither has she ever made any publicity of herself. They have always been there - without demading any gold - to welcome and auxiliate each soul that throughout the century requested and recognized their all-embrancing Aid, which carries: Light. In Truth: it is not the physical organization itself that matters, but the Compassionate Ones who through her open the Way. You may continue to feed your illusory organizations and related deviating publicity, but sooner or later you all will realize where the door is: as Christ spoke "Knock and the door will be made open unto you." -- "May the Roses bloom upon Your Cross". Rosaecruz 04:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

I'm wondering why this article should be featured under a different language than english. Anyone? Zos 05:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

July 2006

Wikipedia is not a news source - unless these events are truly notable (which they really don't appear to be), they will have to be removed. MSJapan 15:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for posting your view here in first place. I do agree with you in the sense that Wikipedia is not a news source. However, as described at the specified section, these are current events which touched from the beginning a "modern group" carrying Rosicrucian teachings; group which is listed and spoken of in this article. As such, although being a current event, I think the lines I have added could be seen mainly as a description of how this current conflict interacted with the mentioned group (which does not represent any official position of this group as you may deduce), and, on the other hand, it shows the way this group could have a role in order to help find an harmonizing and permanent solution to this conflict; rather than being a source of news. Once this sad war current events are gone (The Purpose of War and Our Attitude Toward It -- The Philosophy of War), it will not be regarded as news anymore, but only as a description of past events. Nevertheless, if you still consider not to be fit into this article I can not oppose to your decision, as your perspective is well sustained. Meanwhile, it would be nice to listen also to what other readers and editors may have to say. Regards, --Viriathus 23:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving section spoken of above, from the article's page into here (discussion page), for record purposes:

" Recent world events

July 2006

On 17 July, during the dramatic 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, a testimony was given and an appeal was made by a Lebanese citizen to the students of Rosicrucian teachings worldwide [5] — which can also be seen as extensible to all the brothers in the 'Craft/Tekton' [6] and to all individuals of good will [7] — in order to unite efforts for the harmony to be restored soon in the entire Levant region and to all our fellow man living these hours of agony, that are causing suffering and mourning (The Purpose of War and Our Attitude Toward It -- The Philosophy of War).

In respect to the origin of the appeal and the ancient sensitive religious issues and wounds involved, it becomes reasonable to assume that the international community, including the United States and the United Nations, could gather a consensual voice and will in order to request diplomatic mediation to be conducted in the fraternal and service organization جمعية مؤلفة من مسيحيين متصوّ فين neutral and holy grounds of Mount Ecclesia. "

--Viriathus 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Experience

Some however know from first-hand, personal and familial experience that the Rosicrucians are very real.

Clearly the existance of Rosicrucians (or followers, or whatever) today is not disputed; the details of their existance in the 17th century are. Therefore either that sentence is useless or talking about those of the 17th century. No-one, of course, can have had first-hand or personal (what's the difference?) experience with them then and still be around now, and familial experience is at best nothing more than hearsay. That sentence is therefore useless and POV, since it's sounding as though there's a lot of anecdotal evidence for them of people around today.

Useless or just silly, I'm taking it out.

fel64 23:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Link suggestion

Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner):

Philosophy and fraternities (contains section on rosicrucianism): http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 08:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, for the same reason that this link was not acceptable on Freemasonry or anywhere else on Wikipedia -- it violates WP:RS, and frankly, most of site is a links collection. MSJapan 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things to a Wikipedia newbie. I apologize for the inconvenience caused by my Wikipedia guideline infringements. Pvosta 07:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Freemasonry reference

I rm'ed "the Rosy Cross is found in rituals beyond Blue Lodge Freemasonry" for a few reasons: one, it's weaselly and uncited; two, I can only think of its appearance in one place, and it is not associated with Rosicrucianism at all in that context, and to state otherwise requires interpretation that violates WP:OR; and three, appearance in one area in one country does not make a generalization like that valid, and lastly, it really makes no sense in context of the article. MSJapan 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rose Cross & the Templars

There are huge similarities between the organisation and ideals of the Fraternity of the Rose Cross in the Manifestos and the original organisation and ideals of the Knights Templar when it was only nine rather penniless knights. Given the link between the use of the image of the Rose Cross by the Lisbon Templars this might have some credence behind it. The Portuguese Templars, along with the Scots Templars, were one of the branches which didn't get arrested and put on trial. The King of Portugal thought the charges were fake and found his Templars not guilty, no-one knows quite why the Scots Templars got away... ahem... Scot-free. :-) If there is a link between the Templars and the Rosicrucians it would make sense of the legend that Christian RC spent a lot of time in the Middle East talking to Arab mystics and doctors. The Templars were accused of spending a little too much time with the Sufis, as did St Francis of Assissi apparently. ThePeg 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See Alsos

Has someone deleted all the See Also links? ThePeg 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I believe there were a number of links that were removed without any justification or reasoning for it. It was quite a comprehensive listing.

-Bill

Fri, May 25, 2007

Intro

The intro was reworded according to my best knowledge [8] (the English usage may need some tune up:) in an attempt to present to the reader the two main perspectives involved in current times, from 'inside' [as far as i was able] and from the outside, when trying to understand the immense Work of this Noble Order. I think most this data, if not all, can be factually documented in published works of individuals who tried also to analyze the Rosicrucian Tradition during the last centuries (some of those works are even in the literature reference section at the end of the article). Thank you for your attention and patience; Regards. --Lusitanian 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What was brought into here, by this little servant, under the ideal of a so much sought spirit of an universal friendship, is being rejected by those individuals so attached to the illusion of materialism dogma (see here, here and here); yet, dear reader, inside they all feel the Truth of these things in heaven and earth; still the majority of us sleeps... Once more at this time the friendly words of advice of Our Lord are brought into my mind: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."... --Lusitanian 11:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Listing of Rosicrucian Organizations

I think an extended listing is needed. The last one was erased without any justification. The one that is listed now is only a partial listing.

-Bill

Friday, 25 May 2007

Frankly, I wouldn't list any at all. Modern Rosicrucianism is so politically fragmented that it is ridiculous, and Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Moreover, I did explain in my edit summary that one SRIA group is no more notable than any other. See Wikipedia's external links policy for more details. MSJapan 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

--- I felt a listing is needed BECAUSE there are so many different Rosicrcian groups. I felt a single listing on the subject is making a broad generalization of Rosicrucianism that may not be accurate and too general. The general public infact may have the wrong perception that there is ONLY one rosicrucian organization and not many with completely different beliefs.

MSJapan said: "I did explain in my edit summary that one SRIA group is no more notable than any other." Problem being why mention one Rosicrucian organization and not others? Readers may suspect you of favoritism and being bias (not saying you are or anything). One should mention all of them then.

As for original external links. I dont think it was intended as a "collection" originally but rather a useful tool for research purposes (at least that was my perception of it at the time when it was up).

• And for that person who removed the links. They should at least post it in the discussion section befor removal. (not pointing finger at anyone in particular)

-Bill May 300, 2007

---

hu! "found in Rhone River, Germany", i read under one picture.. actually, the Rhone is in switzerland and france, not in germany..

"legendary"

This article opens, "The Rosicrucian Order is a legendary"... it can't be legendary if there are adherents. --194.176.105.40 13:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply not true. The original order is legendary and may not even have existed except on paper as manifestos. The subsequent orders calling themselves Rosicrucian are not the original legendary order. And please get an account if you wish to discuss further. IPSOS (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous and biteish. IPs are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. --Dweller 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rosicrucianism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Existing content looks to be good, but needs more reference citations. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)