Discussion:
Garry Stewart - son of daughter of son of MLewis
(too old to reply)
Hans
2008-05-12 09:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Fratres and Sorores
Is it true that Garry is son of one of the Daughters of Maxwell
Lewis(son of HSL) and that,s why he won the dispute to keep all the
teachings and the title of Imperator, because there is a blood reason?

Fraternal REgards

Marcos Hans
Brasil
South America
member of Amorc
Ben Scaro
2008-05-13 12:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans
Dear Fratres and Sorores
    Is it true that Garry is son of one of the Daughters of Maxwell
Lewis(son of HSL) and that,s why he won the dispute to keep all the
teachings and the title of Imperator, because there is a blood reason?
     Fraternal REgards
Marcos Hans
Brasil
South America
member of Amorc
GLS is probably around and able to answer this.

On the title of Imperator.

I think this can be explained by looking at two arguments in the legal
action in 1990. This argument wasn't decided in the court, as the
case never proceeded.

1. AMORC argued the title of Imperator is like the president of a
company. Therefore, they said an Imperator could be removed as though
he was president of the board of a company - ie, voted off by the
other directors. So AMORC's view was that Christian Bernard replaced
Gary because the board of Grand Masters wanted it that way.

2. GLS argued said the title of Imperator wasn't just like president
of company. It had a two-part nature, a corporate side and a mystical
side, and the title could not be removed by a vote of a simple
majority of directors.

Because of the two-part nature of the Imperator role, AMORC has a
special procedure for removing an Imperator. They did not use it in
1990.

We can't know why. They probably did not use this special procedure
because they knew they *would not* find evidence to remove GLS, and
were worried that the procedure *would* reveal damaging information
about their own hierarchy.

So the main reason Gary is Imperator is that very simply, since 1987
he has been Ralph M Lewis' successor, and no one has validly taken
that title from him.

I do not think it is anything to do with a family relationship.

Christian Bernard is the leader of a new corporation called AMORC that
was created in 1990. It is a corporation, not a fraternal order like
the body that existed before 1990. The corporation has no initiatic
connection to anything that existed before.

Ben
gls
2008-05-13 21:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Marcos;
Post by Hans
Dear Fratres and Sorores
Is it true that Garry is son of one of the Daughters of Maxwell
Lewis(son of HSL)
Ralph Lewis never had any children and I am totally unrelated to him
by blood.
Post by Hans
and that,s why he won the dispute to keep all the
teachings and the title of Imperator, because there is a blood reason?
I hold the title of Imperator and its responsibilities because of
traditional reasons as Ralph selected me as his successor. Under SGL
constitution as set forth by h spencer lewis, to remove an imperator,
*first* the imperator has to be convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude in a court of law; and *then* an internal tribunal must be
held to address the situation traditionally.
Post by Hans
Fraternal REgards
Marcos Hans
Brasil
South America
member of Amorc
best

gls
Sid
2008-05-13 23:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Just thought I'd let you know that your photo is being used on a Orkut
newsgroup:

http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=3435884
gls
2008-05-14 18:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Sid;

thanks for letting me know. It's about 25 years old. I look a bit
different now.

best

gls

On Tue, 13 May 2008 16:21:23 -0700 (PDT), Sid
Post by Sid
Just thought I'd let you know that your photo is being used on a Orkut
http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=3435884
Mike
2008-05-15 04:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Greetings,

Background:

In my early learning I learned that the Pituitary Gland was the master
gland of the endocrine system. The pituitary release hormones that have
specific targets as well as those that stimulate other glands, example
the Hypothalamus, to secret other hormones. These hormones included
testosterone, human growth hormone, thyroid-stimulating hormones, etc.

Later I was taught that the Pituitary Gland is in central relation to
the coordinating organs of all the senses and sensations, and to the
thinking brain which perfects and coordinates ideas. To some it is the
abiding-place of the human soul, and as such can play a role in mystical
or psychic experiences. Thus, exercises were created to simulate it via
meditation, etc.

To date:

I have aged into my fifties and while being treated by my medical doctor
it has came to light that I have very low levels of some hormones in my
blood. We are now doing testing of the pituitary and hypothalamus to
better understand and than treat the condition. BTW, we are also going
to have a MRI done to ensure there isn't a brain tumor affecting their
functioning as well.

The plan is that if there isn't any other issue, rather than supplement
the low/missing hormones and attempting to balance them manually, there
is a prescription drug that will stimulate the Pituitary to function at
a higher level, and than we would let all the natural functions balance
themselves, with verifications of course.

Questions for you experienced individuals:

Have you known anyone having decreased Pituitary functions, and what
affects did it have on their mystical experiences.
Have you known anyone having used a medication that affected their
Pituitary functions, and what affects did that have on their mystical
experiences.

My thoughts run include an old memory from a monograph talking about
how some people used ether to bring on a bastardized mystical
experience, and that such things are over all harmful to attaining the
proper training, but are harmful to the body and may cause enough damage
to disable those kind of mystical experiences.

I'm going to follow the medical advice from my doctor regardless of what
you post, so don't worry about me in that regard. I am just looking for
input to have an idea of what I can be on the look out for.

Regards,
Mike
gls
2008-05-15 06:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Mike;
Post by Mike
Greetings,
<snip>
Post by Mike
Have you known anyone having decreased Pituitary functions, and what
affects did it have on their mystical experiences.
Glands may have an effect upon your psychic functions to a small
degree, but they will have no effect upon any mystical experiences you
may have. If a mystical experience wants to come through, it will come
through regardless of your physical health, That's the beauty of it in
my opinion.
Post by Mike
Have you known anyone having used a medication that affected their
Pituitary functions, and what affects did that have on their mystical
experiences.
I haven't known anyone on such medication, but it won't effect
mystical experiences one way or the other. It's your subtle body and
not your physical body that matters here. Your subtle body doesn't get
sick.
Post by Mike
My thoughts run include an old memory from a monograph talking about
how some people used ether to bring on a bastardized mystical
experience, and that such things are over all harmful to attaining the
proper training, but are harmful to the body and may cause enough damage
to disable those kind of mystical experiences.
Only if your intent is damaged by the medication or whatnot, will your
abilities be diminished. It sounds to me like your're pretty
determined to not let these things adversely influence you, and that's
what is important. Go through your procedures and don't worry about
your mystical life as that is your true being and won't be adversely
influenced by whatever else is going on.
Post by Mike
I'm going to follow the medical advice from my doctor regardless of what
you post, so don't worry about me in that regard. I am just looking for
input to have an idea of what I can be on the look out for.
good luck, but it sounds like you have yourself covered.
Post by Mike
Regards,
Mike
best

gls
Melanaigis
2008-05-15 04:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gls
I hold the title of Imperator and its responsibilities because of
traditional reasons as Ralph selected me as his successor. Under SGL
constitution as set forth by h spencer lewis, to remove an imperator,
*first* the imperator has to be convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude in a court of law; and *then* an internal tribunal must be
held to address the situation traditionally.
Post by Hans
Fraternal REgards
Marcos Hans
Brasil
South America
member of Amorc
best
gls
---------------------------------------------------------
Some deception here; the Constitution and Statutes did not demand a criminal
trial before removing an imperator; the task was to be done in house without
recourse to the courts. The Constitution and Statutes demanded that the
Imperator be guilty of illegal activity to justify removal. The Imperator
was to be given a chance to answer to the tribunal. Neither did the
Constitution and Statutes specify the size of a tribunal; the only specific
was that it was to be composed of hierarchy members.

The board of directors may have constituted themselves a tribunal; all
hierarchy members were qualified to sit on the tribunal.

The removal of Gary Stewart was sloppy and done in a hurry. It was poorly
explained to the membership; deception and secret information and private
agendas played a part in the whole mess.

However, the removal was justified; if Gary Stewart had remained Imperator,
AMORC would have imploded even worse then it did.

A Supreme Grand Lodge Officer informed me (and others) that one of the
"projects" Gary Stewart and his advisors talked about was to buy junk real
estate in New York City and somehow sell it for a profit. (Gary Stewart
admitted there were "projects" he was working on with his financial
advisors, but would not be specific as to what they were.) Flipping junk
property is high risk speculation; none of the Board members had experience
in this type of business; the financial advisors were not experienced in
this; and moreover it is illegal for a non profit corporation to engage in
this business. It was also forbidden by the Constitution and Statutes. It is
still illegal if the money for the project is sent to a trust fund in a
foreign country with loose banking laws and then moved back into the United
States. If the money being used to finance the operation is an employee
pension fund, it's likely that more laws would be broken. Even though the
plans were not carried out, it is illegal to conspire to break the law.
Since the plans were thwarted, and several of the principal players in the
drama are dead, none of the others have been forthright about the events and
plans, there will always be a cloud over the events. The fact that two board
members were unaware a few million dollars was being transferred to a trust
account in a foreign country shows there was confusion and deception taking
place. Gary Stewart claims the contract with his financial advisors was
vague and he claims to have no copy or memory of it. But we do know three
quarters of a million dollars went into the pockets of the financial
advisors, and AMORC received nothing for it.

Now all posters are invited to deny, obfuscate, repudiate and call me filthy
names to distract attention from what I've posted.

Keranos Melanaigis


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
gls
2008-05-15 06:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Melanaigis;

On Thu, 15 May 2008 00:31:03 -0400, "Melanaigis"
Post by Melanaigis
Post by gls
I hold the title of Imperator and its responsibilities because of
traditional reasons as Ralph selected me as his successor. Under SGL
constitution as set forth by h spencer lewis, to remove an imperator,
*first* the imperator has to be convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude in a court of law; and *then* an internal tribunal must be
held to address the situation traditionally.
<snip>
Post by Melanaigis
---------------------------------------------------------
Some deception here; the Constitution and Statutes did not demand a criminal
trial before removing an imperator;
If you read above, my reference was to the Supreme Grand Lodge
Constitution which, as you know, was a different document than the
Constitution and Statutes which could be bought in the supply bureau.
No deception here and I know you know that. If you don't have a copy,
go to the court documents and get one there.

<snip>
Post by Melanaigis
Neither did the
Constitution and Statutes specify the size of a tribunal;
correct
Post by Melanaigis
the only specific
was that it was to be composed of hierarchy members.
incorrect. At the time the procedure and initial document was written,
there was no such thing as a "hierarchy" member as such a distinction
didn't come into being until the 12th degree was introduced in the
1930's. The imperator removal procedures and tribunal references were
first introduced circa 1918 when the Saunders/Sykes problem arose.
And, in fact, the tribunal procedures initially called for the
inclusion of non-amorc members, preferably masonic members, in an
attempt to counter Saunders successful campaign to get hsl blackballed
from the blue lodge of masonry, 2nd degree -- which is quite odd in
and of itself.

<snip>
Post by Melanaigis
However, the removal was justified; if Gary Stewart had remained Imperator,
AMORC would have imploded even worse then it did.
really? And you got that information telepathetically?
Post by Melanaigis
A Supreme Grand Lodge Officer informed me (and others) that one of the
"projects" Gary Stewart and his advisors talked about was to buy junk real
estate in New York City and somehow sell it for a profit.
This is the first time I even heard about this. Needless to say, it's
untrue and quite contradictory to what the board was claiming in their
lawsuit. They argued in court they knew absolutely nothing about my
plans ... and now it comes to light they actually claim to know
something? Which is it, it can't be both.

<snipped gossip and outright ignorance >
Post by Melanaigis
Since the plans were thwarted, and several of the principal players in the
drama are dead,
I haven't heard ... who died?

<back to snipping ignorance>
Post by Melanaigis
Now all posters are invited to deny, obfuscate, repudiate and call me filthy
names to distract attention from what I've posted.
You still haven't answered my questions regarding why you think the
dionysian mysteries are part of the Rosicrucian tradition. I explained
my point of view and all you seem to want to do is ignore what could
conceivably be an interesting and enlightening discussion on R+C
history and present idiocy and ignorance about your understanding of
the events of 1990.
Post by Melanaigis
Keranos Melanaigis
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
gls
Ben Scaro
2008-05-15 14:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gls
incorrect. At the time the procedure and initial document was written,
there was no such thing as a "hierarchy" member as such a distinction
didn't come into being until the 12th degree was introduced in the
1930's. The imperator removal procedures and tribunal references were
first introduced circa 1918 when the Saunders/Sykes problem arose.
And, in fact, the tribunal procedures initially called for the
inclusion of non-amorc members, preferably masonic members, in an
attempt to counter Saunders successful campaign to get hsl blackballed
from the blue lodge of masonry, 2nd degree -- which is quite odd in
and of itself.
Conversations with researcher David Lindez, who is examining Masonic
Rosicrucian history in the US, side apparently reveal that part of the
reason HSL never went further in Blue Masonry was that SRICF's GM had
sufficient pull with NY GL to ensure that he couldn't.

I am not sure how that ties in with the Alfred Saunders angle, it may
just be a distinct and separate issue.

This was because of his promotion of AMORC as the only true R+C order,
among other things.

I believe there was a deal of confusion, with Masons who'd joined
AMORC turning up at SRICF colleges expecting to gain admittance and
similar farcical events. Apparently such things happened a lot, and
SRICF, a very private and discreet body, was mightily annoyed at being
thrust into the limelight and having to deal with it all.

Ben
MalcolmO
2008-05-17 11:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SRICF
What's that?
gls
2008-05-17 15:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Maclom0;
Post by MalcolmO
SRICF
What's that?
Societas Rosicruciana In Civitatibus Foederatis, established in 1880
and is open by invitation only to christian masons. Other than that, I
know little about them. Although I believe ben has looked into them a
bit more.

best

gls
MalcolmO
2008-05-18 05:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gls
Societas Rosicruciana In Civitatibus Foederatis, established in 1880
and is open by invitation only to christian masons.
Thanks for the info, Gary.
Ben Scaro
2008-05-15 14:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gls
incorrect. At the time the procedure and initial document was written,
there was no such thing as a "hierarchy" member as such a distinction
didn't come into being until the 12th degree was introduced in the
1930's. The imperator removal procedures and tribunal references were
first introduced circa 1918 when the Saunders/Sykes problem arose.
And, in fact, the tribunal procedures initially called for the
inclusion of non-amorc members, preferably masonic members, in an
attempt to counter Saunders successful campaign to get hsl blackballed
from the blue lodge of masonry, 2nd degree -- which is quite odd in
and of itself.
Conversations with researcher David Lindez, who is examining Masonic
Rosicrucian history in the US, reveal that part of the
reason HSL never went further in Blue Masonry was that SRICF's GM had
sufficient pull with NY GL to ensure that he couldn't.

I am not sure how that ties in with the Alfred Saunders angle, it may
be a distinct and separate issue.

This was because of his promotion of AMORC as the only true R+C
order,
among other things.

I believe a deal of confusion ensued as Masons who'd joined
AMORC would turn up at SRICF colleges expecting to gain admittance,
and
similar farcical events. Apparently such things happened a lot, and
SRICF, a very private and discreet body, was mightily annoyed at
being
thrust into the limelight and having to deal with it all.

This early period rather interests me because Clymer in his
‘Rosicrucian Fraternity in America’ publishes a letter that he wrote
to Thor Kiimalehto c.1915 informing him that the ‘Rose Cross’ had
existed for sixty years in the US (he was referring to the Randolph
Foundation) and that he Clymer, had the charter ‘in my hands’ since
1895.

This I don’t understand at all as FRC itself claims Clymer was GM of
FRC from 1905 – he celebrated fifty years in the role in 1955 so it
seems it was long understood that he’d been GM since that date. I
guess the holder of the charter need not be the GM, but you’d expect
it . . .

Ben
gls
2008-05-16 22:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Ben;

On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Ben Scaro
Post by Ben Scaro
Post by gls
incorrect. At the time the procedure and initial document was written,
there was no such thing as a "hierarchy" member as such a distinction
didn't come into being until the 12th degree was introduced in the
1930's. The imperator removal procedures and tribunal references were
first introduced circa 1918 when the Saunders/Sykes problem arose.
And, in fact, the tribunal procedures initially called for the
inclusion of non-amorc members, preferably masonic members, in an
attempt to counter Saunders successful campaign to get hsl blackballed
from the blue lodge of masonry, 2nd degree -- which is quite odd in
and of itself.
Conversations with researcher David Lindez, who is examining Masonic
Rosicrucian history in the US, reveal that part of the
reason HSL never went further in Blue Masonry was that SRICF's GM had
sufficient pull with NY GL to ensure that he couldn't.
I disagree and don't think the SRICF had any involvement whatsoever. I
have quite a bit of correspondance between hsl, normal lodge and the
NYGL regarding the issue and everything points to Saunders as being
the cause of the blackball.

I'll recap the story from the correspondance and then include a couple
of quotes.

In a nutshell, hsl joined Normal Lodge No. 523 F. & A. M. in 1917 and
received the first two degrees. He was blackballed by one person prior
to being raised as a Master Mason. The reason why he is blackballed is
unclear, but there are references to hsl's wife as somehow being
involved bby being of low and questionable birth, but I'm not sure if
there was anything else about her. All correspondance over the course
of the next 17 years refers to Saunders as being the one behind hsl's
blackball. Never is the SRICF mentioned even once, and there is only
one reference to the SRIA in 1935 by a Frank E. Stromberg who mentions
them in passing. From what I gather, Stromberg may have been a member
of the SRIA, joined AMORC, found out that hsl was blackballed from
masonry, and then proceeded to discover why. At the end, he accepts
hsl's version of events.

Anyway, according to the secretary of Normal Lodge in the 1920's and
30's but master in 1917, Dr. H.E. Tompkins, (a lawyer but never a
member of amorc, by the way) hsl found himself in a catch 22 that he
couldn't get out of which was prompted by saunders (Saunders was in
good standing in a masonic lodge in Birmingham, England). Saunders had
a friend who was a member of Normal Lodge blackball hsl prior to the
3rd degree. In so doing, under NY rules, hsl couldn't demand a trial
as he was not a master mason, nor could he make application in another
city as being blackballed inbetween the process would always keep him
in the NY jurisdiction -- i.e., New York GL would'nt issue a demit
because he wasn't a master mason and without a demit, he couldn't
affiliate anywhere else.

Throughout the years, Tompkins attempted to help hsl get initiated,
but to do so, they had to get clearance from the GL. The GL wouldn't
help and they always refered the case back to the local lodge.
Tompkins advised hsl to forget ever having been involved in New York
and giive application as a newcomer. HSL refused to withhold his
previous involvement and when he applied in Florida first, and then
california, he would always mention his 2nd degree standing in New
York and couldn't get a demit.

1. Letter on Normal Lodge stationary dated 2/16/1934 by Dr. H.E.
Tompkins, secretary: "It may intererst you to know that this Lodge had
the honor of conferring the First and Second Degrees in Masonry upon
Harvey Spencer Lewis and Alfred R. Brassard -- both members of the
same club -- and both subject to restraints entered by the Saunders
mentioned ..." In the same letter about Saunders: "... It appears that
Saunders was the stronger man ... but his efforts were misdirected. He
failed in his ambition. When he realized this, his true nature began
to assert itself. He sought and found 'dumbells' whom he could and did
use as 'tools'. They did the real dirty work (at his behest) while he
sat back and grinned ... Its [sic] just too bad that Saunders was not
the one on trial on criminal charges."

2. Letter on Normal Lodge stationary again by Tompkins dated April
2nd, 1934: "Speaking of your kind lady [hsl's wife];- She might have
been what Saunders said - she might have been almost anything, but
whatever she was or is, you are the one with whom she had to live with
and if you could stand her, why should outsiders bother. We know she
made a good wife ... if her background was lowly, she deserves the
more credit. ... as for Saunders - BLAH."

3. From Tompkins to Frank Stromberg dated Sept. 26, 1935: "Harvey
Spencer Lewis was accepted in this Lodge in 1917. He received his
first and second degrees. Thereupon, a lying, sneaking, seducing,
proffessor [sic] (of bastardy) - one Alfred E. Saunders - laid implied
charges against Brother Lewis and his comapnion - Brother Brassard -.
These charges were extremely hazy. ... I, as Master started an
investigation and found that all charges would have been baseless. ...
This Lodge has invited Bro. Lewis to attend and to receive his Third
Degree whenever he is in NYC on our meeting nights. We are proud to
add his name to our membership."

Needless to say, hsl never took the initiation.

4. From secretary Tompkins to HSL on June 27, 1927 after hsl wrote
requesting a demit after having been blackballed 10 years before so he
could join a lodge in Florida. This is the letter that started the
involvement of tompkins to assist hsl: "With reference to your request
of the 14th, that this Lodge release it's jurisdiction over your case.
Unfortunately, the Lodge cannot do this for the reason that the matter
is not within its power. The matter must be straightened out with the
N.Y. Grand Lodge before we can take any action ..."
Post by Ben Scaro
I am not sure how that ties in with the Alfred Saunders angle, it may
be a distinct and separate issue.
Personally, I think it's the only issue. If there was something else
going on, I have no references to it.
Post by Ben Scaro
This was because of his promotion of AMORC as the only true R+C
order,
among other things.
no doubt this was a bone of contention with the SRICF, but it had no
bearing on the masonic lodge hsl joined or the NY Grand Lodge who
simply saw blackball before initiation, therefore catch 22 ...
Post by Ben Scaro
I believe a deal of confusion ensued as Masons who'd joined
AMORC would turn up at SRICF colleges expecting to gain admittance,
and
similar farcical events. Apparently such things happened a lot, and
SRICF, a very private and discreet body, was mightily annoyed at
being
thrust into the limelight and having to deal with it all.
I've not heard of any of this either. It's not to say it didn't
happen, just that I never heard about it. But, I personally know of
amorc members (as well as others) who would go out and do silly things
like that all on their own accord because they *think* they have the
right and no prompting was necessary.
Post by Ben Scaro
This early period rather interests me because Clymer in his
to Thor Kiimalehto c.1915 informing him that the ‘Rose Cross’ had
existed for sixty years in the US (he was referring to the Randolph
Foundation) and that he Clymer, had the charter ‘in my hands’ since
1895.
This I don’t understand at all as FRC itself claims Clymer was GM of
FRC from 1905 – he celebrated fifty years in the role in 1955 so it
seems it was long understood that he’d been GM since that date. I
guess the holder of the charter need not be the GM, but you’d expect
it . . .
when it comes to the dispute between lewis and clymer, I suggest
taking either's comments and arguments with a grain of salt. There was
a lot of mistatements on both sides which I'm sure both cringed after
reading what they wrote ...
Post by Ben Scaro
Ben
gls
Ben Scaro
2008-05-19 00:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gls
I disagree and don't think the SRICF had any involvement whatsoever. I
have quite a bit of correspondance between hsl, normal lodge and the
NYGL regarding the issue and everything points to Saunders as being
the cause of the blackball.
Ben: I believe Mr Lindez is publishing a book on this so more detail
will hopefully be revealed there.

It might of course be that Lewis would have only come up against the
SRICF hurdle had he gotten past the Saunders hurdle, but that's me
speculating.
Post by gls
Post by Ben Scaro
I believe a deal of confusion ensued as Masons who'd joined
AMORC would turn up at SRICF colleges expecting to gain admittance,
and
similar farcical events.  Apparently such things happened a lot, and
SRICF, a very private and discreet body, was mightily annoyed at
being
thrust into the limelight and having to deal with it all.
I've not heard of any of this either. It's not to say it didn't
happen, just that I never heard about it. But, I personally know of
amorc members (as well as others) who would go out and do silly things
like that all on their own accord because they *think* they have the
right and no prompting was necessary.
Ben: I don't know all the details but I know similar confusion has
occurred from time to time in Australia, at least as regards AMORC
members trying to gain admittance to Masonic R+C college meetings. I
am not sure it's really a case of arrogance on their part. It may
well be explicable in one way because in the public eye, for many
years as far as most people were concerned, AMORC 'was' the
Rosicrucians. If a Mason who was also an AMORC member saw 'the
Rosicrucians' listed as meeting at a local lodge he'd probably quite
reasonably think 'Fine, I'll take my dues card and go along.'

Even now, you can still come across the odd Mason in the
administration of Masonic GLs who don't know that there is such a
thing as Masonic Rosicrucianism, a bit alarming as there have been
Masonic R+C bodies in Australia nigh on thirty years before AMORC was
even thought of.
Post by gls
when it comes to the dispute between lewis and clymer, I suggest
taking either's comments and arguments with a grain of salt. There was
a lot of mistatements on both sides which I'm sure both cringed after
reading what they wrote ...
Ben: Certainly I do, but I have no compunction about examining
Clymer's claims in the same way I would HSL. Or indeed PF Case,
Heindel, or Plummer.

Ben
gls
2008-05-19 17:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Ben;

On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Ben Scaro
Post by Ben Scaro
Post by gls
I disagree and don't think the SRICF had any involvement whatsoever. I
have quite a bit of correspondance between hsl, normal lodge and the
NYGL regarding the issue and everything points to Saunders as being
the cause of the blackball.
Ben: I believe Mr Lindez is publishing a book on this so more detail
will hopefully be revealed there.
I look forward to seeing what he contends when it is released.

Incidentally, you mentioned ordering a book written by an amorc member
a while back. Any news?
Post by Ben Scaro
Ben
gls
Hans
2008-05-20 12:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gls
Hi Marcos;
Post by Hans
Dear Fratres and Sorores
Is it true that Garry is son of one of the Daughters of Maxwell
Lewis(son of HSL)
Ralph Lewis never had any children and I am totally unrelated to him
by blood.
Post by Hans
and that,s why he won the dispute to keep all the
teachings and the title of Imperator, because there is a blood reason?
I hold the title of Imperator and its responsibilities because of
traditional reasons as Ralph selected me as his successor. Under SGL
constitution as set forth by h spencer lewis, to remove an imperator,
*first* the imperator has to be convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude in a court of law; and *then* an internal tribunal must be
held to address the situation traditionally.
Post by Hans
Fraternal REgards
Marcos Hans
Brasil
South America
member of Amorc
best
gls
Thanks Garry
I meet you personally one day at a convocation in San Jose,
(California) when you where the master of the Lodge.It was back in
1986 when ML was still alive. I remember you, after the convocation
looking up how many member attended the meeting.
Now I understand why here in Brazil(AMORC) had changed the
monographies.They are using new texts and just for the old students
they still send the HSL material. I suppose this was part of the
agreement after 1990. Right?
By the way, is R+C growing in Brasil, I mean on membership?

Best Regards

Marcos Hans
Montenegro
Rio Grande do Sul
Brasil
gls
2008-05-21 14:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hi Hans;

On Tue, 20 May 2008 05:51:59 -0700 (PDT), Hans <***@terra.com.br>
wrote:

<snip>
Post by Hans
Now I understand why here in Brazil(AMORC) had changed the
monographies.They are using new texts and just for the old students
they still send the HSL material. I suppose this was part of the
agreement after 1990. Right?
There were no doctrinal/ritualistic agreements made or even discussed
between myself and amorc in 1990 or any other time. The only agreement
entered into was the mutual release calling a cessation of the lawsuit
in 1993.
Post by Hans
By the way, is R+C growing in Brasil, I mean on membership?
With the CR+C, yes. I don't know about amorc.
Post by Hans
Best Regards
Marcos Hans
Montenegro
Rio Grande do Sul
Brasil
best

gls

Loading...