Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner Rosicrucian "Transmission"

Expand Messages
  • DoctorStarman@aol.com
    bscaro@yahoo.com writes: ... *******Well, in his autobiography, Steiner says he was aware of Theosophists but was not particularly drawn to them until after
    Message 1 of 25 , May 25, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      bscaro@... writes:

      I am interested in the early days of Steiner and his relationship
      to 'occult' type groups. 



      *******Well, in his autobiography, Steiner says he was aware of Theosophists but was not particularly drawn to them until after he underwent initiation about the turn of the century. Relevant to this thread, he did not belong to any Masonic, Rosicrucian or other lodge or order in this world, and did not base what he had to say on any of them, but rather on direct perception of the spiritual worlds and the Great White Brotherhood there, to whom anyone can apply for initaiation anywhere at any time. His knowledge came directly from the spiritual worlds and was not derived from any occult group: in fact, from his direct knowledge he was able to inform these groups of their many errors.



      >Arthur Edward Waite, whose face, as I recall, Crowley put on The Fool card of his Tarot deck? ;-)


      This seems a little unfair.  And are you saying that you regard
      Crowley as a credible judge of character, compared to Waite ? 


      *******I'd say both were dabblers who read books and then engaged in mere speculation on what they read ---- or, even worse, in Crowley's case, pretended to know what they actually didn't. Neither were in Steiner's league.




      [[He was a competent but uninspired writer on minor occult matters ]]

      He was something more than that.  Despite his somewhat turgid style,
      he was a very influential occult writer, and was of course more
      widely influential due to his role in the creation of the Rider-Waite
      Tarot drawn by Pamela Coleman-Smith. 



      *******Which began the corruption of the Arcana and the obscuring of their symbols, a process completely finished now with the hundreds of decks on the market totally disconnected from the original Kabbalistic source of what Steiner in lectures called the "Book of Thoth" ---- as it can still be seen, for instance, in the old Marseilles deck. For example, Key #1, The Juggler, has the Hebrew letter Aleph turned into a man's head and arms in a lemniscate pattern in the original, but this was completely distorted by Waite; Key #13 (never called "Death", just #13) had a half-flesh, half-skeleton figure holding a scythe in such a way that arms and scythe make the glyph of Saturn, but Waite's image completely destroys this. Steiner referred many times to the originals of the Major Arcana coming from Egypt as 22 plates with geometrical symbols: Schure points out in his Great Initiates there were once 22 large metal plates that stood in the Grand Gallery of the Great Pyramid (the socket holes that used to hold them are still there), signifying the stages of initation leading up to the King's Chamber. The semi-legendary Egyptian Moses took and used these to create the Hebrew alphabet. None of the games people play with the Tarot symbols now contribute much to seeing the original 22 forms as they exist in the etheric world when the sounds are spoken, or understanding them. Eurythmy does. Perhaps Brother Ron could tell us his thoughts on Kabbalah and Tarot.



      >
      >   Steiner rejected Masonic-type secrecy totally from the start
      and repeatedly emphasized everything must now be public....
      He gave out meditative exercises to develop clairvoyance, and
      publicly, not Masonic-type rituals..... The
      high school or college of Spiritual Science founded directly by Steiner uses no
      such rituals.]]



      On the essay on this area on his site, debunking the old myth that
      Steiner was an OTO member, PR Koenig states:

      'For the setting up of his own E.S., Steiner wants to link with
      symbolic-ritual effects of existing masonic traditions, for "absolute
      truthfulness and maintenance of continuity".'

      I am not sure of the actual words Steiner used, but if this
      paraphrasing is accurate, it dos suggest that he wanted some
      connection with the ritual of Masonry at least.





      *******But there were no masonic-type rites in Steiner's first "ES" (esoteric school) in Berlin (see Guidance in Esoteric Training), and once more, there are no secret or masonic-type rituals in the Anthroposophical Society. The spiritual realities that once were pictured in Masonic rite-plays were given entirely new form in Steiner's Mystery Plays, however, but all out in the open.




      [[ Dr. Steiner got his knowledge directly from the spiritual worlds,
      not from any masonic-type order in Germany in the early 20th century]]


      That is as may be, but it does seem that he wanted a connection. 
      Steiner writes to Marie Sivers on 30 November 1905  '... We have to
      deal with "a framework" only and not with more [substance] in the
      reality.' 
      The framework I think would include the secrecy, as it's fairly
      central to Freemasonry.
      If Steiner acknowledges here that he will deal with the 'framework'
      then it is hard to argue that he totally rejects Masonic-type secrecy
      from the start. 
      Indeed he seems to accept it, albeit reluctantly and for his own
      purpose.



      *******That's quite a lot to read into a dozen words from one of Steiner's letters that don't even mention Masonry or anything remotely similar. No idea how you're drawing those conclusions from a few words, but it contradicts everything Steiner said and did.



      --- most of which,
      >in fact, by that time were quite degenerate and later gave birth to
      the Nazi Party, by the way.

      Can you substantiate the degeneracy in 'most' Masonic orders ?
      I have only heard allegations about Reuss himself, who was on the
      fringes of Masonry at best, and hardly typical of Masonry. 
      But again, how did they they gave birth to the Nazi Party ? - which I
      understand persecuted Freemasons.


      *******Just as they burned down the Goetheanum and wanted to kill Steiner----they didn't want any competition.
          After the defeat of the World War, the old Masonic leaders fell into disrepute, since their class had lost the war---- and in the chaos of 1919-1923, some quite loathsome characters started splinter groups filled with anti-Semitism and very low or "left-hand" occultism. One of these was behind the NSDWP which became the Nazi Party. Not everything Trevor Ravenscroft wrote in "The Spear of Destiny" is factual, but neither is it all made up, for instance Karl Hauschofer and the Thule Group, the ritual use of peyote, etc. Steiner had nothing to do with these black magic groups and in fact was openly warning against them at the end of his life. They had nothing to do with his impulse.

      -starman
    • bscaro
      [[ Relevant to this thread, he did not belong to any ... A distinction is necessary here. Belonging to an order is not the same thing as receiving a
      Message 2 of 25 , May 26, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        [[ Relevant to this thread, he did not belong to any
        > Masonic, Rosicrucian or other lodge or order in this world, ]]

        A distinction is necessary here.

        Belonging to an order is not the same thing as receiving a
        transmission. One may receive a transmission from an individual or
        group without joining that group. One might then go on to found
        one's own order, to do something quite different [as Steiner did] or
        perhaps do nothing at all.

        Critically, reception of an R+C transmission *does not mean* that you
        are in any way bound to receive or propagate the teachings of the
        group or individual who passed you the transmission.

        The neo-Rosicrucian groups of the early 20th century were all founded
        on connections to individuals or other groups, but typically
        developed their own teachings, either from their own work or by
        synthesising and copying from others.

        An example. Lewis of AMORC also claimed connection with the Great
        White Brotherhood himself. Obviously he came to it via a different
        route than Steiner, having received transmissions or recognition from
        two sources and then synthesising his own group's teachings from a
        variety of sources largely unrelated to the teachings of those
        sources.


        [[and did not base
        > what he had to say on any of them, but rather on direct perception
        of the
        > spiritual worlds and the Great White Brotherhood there, to whom
        anyone can apply
        > for initaiation anywhere at any time. ]]


        As above, just because a transmission is received does not mean that
        one can necessarily identify features of the transmitter's teachings
        in those of the receiver of the transmission.



        >
        [[> *******But there were no masonic-type rites in Steiner's
        first "ES" (esoteric
        > school) in Berlin (see Guidance in Esoteric Training), and once
        more, there
        > are no secret or masonic-type rituals in the Anthroposophical
        Society. The
        > spiritual realities that once were pictured in Masonic rite-plays
        were given
        > entirely new form in Steiner's Mystery Plays, however, but all out
        in the open.
        >
        >

        *******That's quite a lot to read into a dozen words from one of
        Steiner's
        > letters that don't even mention Masonry or anything remotely
        similar. No idea
        > how you're drawing those conclusions from a few words, but it
        contradicts
        > everything Steiner said and did.]]


        Well, the letters seem to be about the prospect of co-operation with
        Reuss, specifically the letter of the 30th November to Sivers would
        seem to be about the negotiations of 24 November, for a membership in
        Memphis-Misraim and the right to use the `Misraim' name.

        By 2 January 1906 Steiner does specifically refer to Masonry as 'a
        caricature' having said to Marie Sivers on 30 November that Reuss
        could not be trusted and that the occult forces withdrew themselves
        from 'the thing'. Now, Reuss was a trader in Masonic charters and
        that was pretty much the passion of his life.

        So I can't really see what else Steiner might have been referring to
        here other than Masonry.

        Maybe there is more evidence to show Steiner is talking about
        something else, if so, I'd like to see it. But it is not apparent
        here.

        The number of words is neither here nor there, so far as I can see.

        I am not sure whether Steiner is contradicting himself, but if he is,
        well, he was human, so . . .

        The main reason I can see for his brief and atypical foray into this
        area is his interest in Rosicrucianism, about which he wrote widely.

        If one were to set out to write books on a highly secretive subject,
        surely it would be sensible, as part of one's research to contact
        people and societies in the field ?

        I'm interested in Rosicrucianism too, and as a result have met with
        people I would categorise in the same league as Reuss. It's part of
        the territory I'm afraid.


        >
        [[ *******Just as they burned down the Goetheanum and wanted to kill
        > Steiner----they didn't want any competition.
        > After the defeat of the World War, the old Masonic leaders fell
        into
        > disrepute, since their class had lost the war---- and in the chaos
        of 1919-1923,
        > some quite loathsome characters started splinter groups filled with
        > anti-Semitism and very low or "left-hand" occultism. ]]


        Yes, but these few splinter groups, while they involved some Masons,
        hardly goes to substantiate the claim of 'degeneracy' in most Masonic
        orders. In fact these individuals were as marginal to Masonry as
        Reuss and his ilk.

        Well, I can agree with you that not everything Ravenscroft wrote was
        factual, no argument there at all.

        Fra Ben
      • Pierre Gringoire
        Firstly, many thanks to Joel for this informative link: http://www.defendingsteiner.com/articles/rs-reuss.php ... This assumes Steiner was being unconsciously
        Message 3 of 25 , May 26, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
           
          Firstly, many thanks to Joel for this informative link:

          Secondly, regarding the following remarks made by Ben in his last post:

          > just because a transmission is received does not mean that one can
          > necessarily identify features of the transmitter's teachings
          > in those of the receiver
          of the transmission.
           
          This assumes Steiner was being unconsciously guided.  It is a restatement of the same slur made by Samuel.

          > I am not sure whether Steiner is
          contradicting
          > himself, but if he is, well, he was human, so . . .
           
          Meaning: he was capable of lying.  Been here before haven't we?

        • fratermaui
          Dear List I received quite a bashing here when I said that Steiner created a masonic lodge and that it still continued to operate. People here either didnt
          Message 4 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear List

            I received quite a bashing here when I said that Steiner created a
            masonic lodge and that it still continued to operate. People here
            either didnt want to know, said Steiner was never a member or worked
            any such lodge and called me a liar. Now while I did make several
            mistakes concerning some details I´ve since compared the oral
            teachings of our lodge with those that still exist in Germany and
            others and have formed a better picture of what happened through the
            transmission of his masonic rituals to us. It was Theodore Ruess that
            gave Steiner the authority to work the masonic rite, however Steiner
            took no authority from him and changed the ritauls, for example the
            second degree contains Lucifer and Ahriman. Now while I havent read
            this book here it is given for those who simply told me to get lost
            and said that no such rituals from Stiener ever existed. This book
            proves that wrong and also in the reveiws shows that lodges in both
            Germany and New Zealand still exist and another in Sweden.

            See http://www.amazon.com/Freemasonry-Ritual-Work-Documents-Cognitive-
            Ritual/dp/0880106123 to find out more about Steiners Masonic school

            in LVX Frater Maui






            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, DoctorStarman@... wrote:
            >
            > In a message dated 5/8/2005 11:20:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            > fraterm@... writes:
            >
            > > No Pierre, we are quite aware of Steiner’s take on secret
            orders and the
            > > such as after he left the order he did indeed reject the society
            and would have
            > > nothing to do with it and Pat Z should have some references to
            that. Again
            > > its only given for historical reference, I’m not sure if the
            title Supreme
            > > Magus is correct as they had another name for it also (ie another
            language) but
            > > SM is the standard to describe the head of an order. Waite left
            too many
            > > references to Steiner being in this society for a time and he was
            in just about
            > > every society during his era and knew everyone’s going on’s
            quite well. The
            > > order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also an
            umbrella group, it
            > > will again drive you nuts to hear that the Theosophical society
            came under
            > > its wings as well....
            > >
            > >
            >
            > *******To assert that Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society,
            which fought
            > pitched battles with all Masonic-type groups for the same reason as
            Steiner,
            > that she believed that everything must be revealed openly----and
            for which
            > practice of revealing their secrets, Blavatsky herself suffered a
            lot----shows even
            > less understanding of it than of the Anthroposophical Society on
            your part.
            >
            > There was no order Steiner was a head of which he later
            rejected; he was
            > a loner in the late 1890s in Berlin except for the many literary
            figures he
            > associated with. Neither he nor any of his biographers have ever
            said anything
            > about any Order. He described a SPIRITUAL being tutoring him at
            this time, whom
            > he called the Master.
            >
            > Once more, if you are interested in the study of Steiner and his
            > anthroposophy you are welcome here. You are not, when you talk
            about some stuff which
            > is completely foreign to him and assert it was his source, implying
            superior
            > knowledge, which might account for not having heard one single
            question from
            > you. That would seem to indicate you just want to spam this list
            with ads for
            > your own list, which you are promoting by the aid of definite
            falsehoods about
            > Steiner. Stop these baseless assertions and show some interest in
            what we're
            > about or you will be removed.
            >
            > -starman
            >
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > In LVX Samuel
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > From: steiner@yahoogroups.com [mailto:steiner@yahoogroups.com] On
            Behalf Of
            > > Pierre Gringoire
            > > Sent: Monday, 9 May 2005 7:57 AM
            > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner
            Rosicrucian "Transmission"
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > I must say that I am in complete agreement with Sheila and Dr.
            Starman. The
            > > following is highly questionable:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > "In 1897 Rudolf Steiner travelled to Berlin to become Supreme
            Magus over the
            > > Grand Lodge there."
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > It is quite possible that the person using the pseudonym 'Frater
            Maui' or
            > > 'Samuel' is unaware of the contentious nature of these remarks.
            If so, he
            > > displays an ignorance of both Steiner and the circumstances of
            his life. It
            > > would be highly surprising if any genuine Rosicrucian Order would
            fail to inform
            > > its members exactly why such remarks are controversial. The
            exact motive
            > > behind this 'revelation' is as yet unclear.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Pierre Gringiore
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > www.DrStarman.com
            >
          • Durward Starman
            That link leads nowhere, very symbolic since what you re talking about doesn t exist. 1.) Steiner was not a Mason; 2.) He did not establish any organization
            Message 5 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              That link leads nowhere, very symbolic since what you're talking about doesn't exist.
               
              1.) Steiner was not a Mason;
              2.) He did not establish any organization besides the Anthroposophical Society;
              3.) Anyone seeking to say he did so, in the face of all facts to the contrary which can be verified by contacting the Goetheanum, is trying to hijack Steiner to get his stamp of approval on some fake group based on lies.
              4.) If you have no interest in Steiner's teachings you do not want to be part of this group. You're welcome to form your own Theodore Ruess list and do whatever you want with it. Try to say he was "Steiner's teacher" and you will be contradicted, however.
               
              -Starman
              www.DrStarman.com



              To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
              From: fratermaui@...
              Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:17:11 +0000
              Subject: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner Rosicrucian "Transmission"


              Dear List

              I received quite a bashing here when I said that Steiner created a
              masonic lodge and that it still continued to operate. People here
              either didnt want to know, said Steiner was never a member or worked
              any such lodge and called me a liar. Now while I did make several
              mistakes concerning some details I´ve since compared the oral
              teachings of our lodge with those that still exist in Germany and
              others and have formed a better picture of what happened through the
              transmission of his masonic rituals to us. It was Theodore Ruess that
              gave Steiner the authority to work the masonic rite, however Steiner
              took no authority from him and changed the ritauls, for example the
              second degree contains Lucifer and Ahriman. Now while I havent read
              this book here it is given for those who simply told me to get lost
              and said that no such rituals from Stiener ever existed. This book
              proves that wrong and also in the reveiws shows that lodges in both
              Germany and New Zealand still exist and another in Sweden.

              See http://www.amazon. com/Freemasonry- Ritual-Work- Documents- Cognitive-
              Ritual/dp/088010612 3 to find out more about Steiners Masonic school

              in LVX Frater Maui

              --- In steiner@yahoogroups .com, DoctorStarman@ ... wrote:
              >
              > In a message dated 5/8/2005 11:20:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              > fraterm@... writes:
              >
              > > No Pierre, we are quite aware of Steiner’s take on secret
              orders and the
              > > such as after he left the order he did indeed reject the society
              and would have
              > > nothing to do with it and Pat Z should have some references to
              that. Again
              > > its only given for historical reference, I’m not sure if the
              title Supreme
              > > Magus is correct as they had another name for it also (ie another
              language) but
              > > SM is the standard to describe the head of an order. Waite left
              too many
              > > references to Steiner being in this society for a time and he was
              in just about
              > > every society during his era and knew everyone’s going on’s
              quite well. The
              > > order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also an
              umbrella group, it
              > > will again drive you nuts to hear that the Theosophical society
              came under
              > > its wings as well....
              > >
              > >
              >
              > *******To assert that Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society,
              which fought
              > pitched battles with all Masonic-type groups for the same reason as
              Steiner,
              > that she believed that everything must be revealed openly----and
              for which
              > practice of revealing their secrets, Blavatsky herself suffered a
              lot----shows even
              > less understanding of it than of the Anthroposophical Society on
              your part.
              >
              > There was no order Steiner was a head of which he later
              rejected; he was
              > a loner in the late 1890s in Berlin except for the many literary
              figures he
              > associated with. Neither he nor any of his biographers have ever
              said anything
              > about any Order. He described a SPIRITUAL being tutoring him at
              this time, whom
              > he called the Master.
              >
              > Once more, if you are interested in the study of Steiner and his
              > anthroposophy you are welcome here. You are not, when you talk
              about some stuff which
              > is completely foreign to him and assert it was his source, implying
              superior
              > knowledge, which might account for not having heard one single
              question from
              > you. That would seem to indicate you just want to spam this list
              with ads for
              > your own list, which you are promoting by the aid of definite
              falsehoods about
              > Steiner. Stop these baseless assertions and show some interest in
              what we're
              > about or you will be removed.
              >
              > -starman
              >
              >
              > >
              > >
              > > In LVX Samuel
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > From: steiner@yahoogroups .com [mailto:steiner@yahoogroups .com] On
              Behalf Of
              > > Pierre Gringoire
              > > Sent: Monday, 9 May 2005 7:57 AM
              > > To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
              > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner
              Rosicrucian "Transmission"
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I must say that I am in complete agreement with Sheila and Dr.
              Starman. The
              > > following is highly questionable:
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > "In 1897 Rudolf Steiner travelled to Berlin to become Supreme
              Magus over the
              > > Grand Lodge there."
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > It is quite possible that the person using the pseudonym 'Frater
              Maui' or
              > > 'Samuel' is unaware of the contentious nature of these remarks.
              If so, he
              > > displays an ignorance of both Steiner and the circumstances of
              his life. It
              > > would be highly surprising if any genuine Rosicrucian Order would
              fail to inform
              > > its members exactly why such remarks are controversial. The
              exact motive
              > > behind this 'revelation' is as yet unclear.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Pierre Gringiore
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > www.DrStarman. com
              >




              Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! Check it out!
            • Mathew Morrell
              ** Aren t Masons the ones that ride around in little cars during parades? ... worked ... the ... that ... Steiner ... Cognitive- ... society ... another ...
              Message 6 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                ** Aren't Masons the ones that ride around in little cars during
                parades?



                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "fratermaui" <fratermaui@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Dear List
                >
                > I received quite a bashing here when I said that Steiner created a
                > masonic lodge and that it still continued to operate. People here
                > either didnt want to know, said Steiner was never a member or
                worked
                > any such lodge and called me a liar. Now while I did make several
                > mistakes concerning some details I´ve since compared the oral
                > teachings of our lodge with those that still exist in Germany and
                > others and have formed a better picture of what happened through
                the
                > transmission of his masonic rituals to us. It was Theodore Ruess
                that
                > gave Steiner the authority to work the masonic rite, however
                Steiner
                > took no authority from him and changed the ritauls, for example the
                > second degree contains Lucifer and Ahriman. Now while I havent read
                > this book here it is given for those who simply told me to get lost
                > and said that no such rituals from Stiener ever existed. This book
                > proves that wrong and also in the reveiws shows that lodges in both
                > Germany and New Zealand still exist and another in Sweden.
                >
                > See http://www.amazon.com/Freemasonry-Ritual-Work-Documents-
                Cognitive-
                > Ritual/dp/0880106123 to find out more about Steiners Masonic school
                >
                > in LVX Frater Maui
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, DoctorStarman@ wrote:
                > >
                > > In a message dated 5/8/2005 11:20:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                > > fraterm@ writes:
                > >
                > > > No Pierre, we are quite aware of Steiner’s take on secret
                > orders and the
                > > > such as after he left the order he did indeed reject the
                society
                > and would have
                > > > nothing to do with it and Pat Z should have some references to
                > that. Again
                > > > its only given for historical reference, I’m not sure if the
                > title Supreme
                > > > Magus is correct as they had another name for it also (ie
                another
                > language) but
                > > > SM is the standard to describe the head of an order. Waite left
                > too many
                > > > references to Steiner being in this society for a time and he
                was
                > in just about
                > > > every society during his era and knew everyone’s going on’s
                > quite well. The
                > > > order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also an
                > umbrella group, it
                > > > will again drive you nuts to hear that the Theosophical society
                > came under
                > > > its wings as well....
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > > *******To assert that Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society,
                > which fought
                > > pitched battles with all Masonic-type groups for the same reason
                as
                > Steiner,
                > > that she believed that everything must be revealed openly----and
                > for which
                > > practice of revealing their secrets, Blavatsky herself suffered a
                > lot----shows even
                > > less understanding of it than of the Anthroposophical Society on
                > your part.
                > >
                > > There was no order Steiner was a head of which he later
                > rejected; he was
                > > a loner in the late 1890s in Berlin except for the many literary
                > figures he
                > > associated with. Neither he nor any of his biographers have ever
                > said anything
                > > about any Order. He described a SPIRITUAL being tutoring him at
                > this time, whom
                > > he called the Master.
                > >
                > > Once more, if you are interested in the study of Steiner and
                his
                > > anthroposophy you are welcome here. You are not, when you talk
                > about some stuff which
                > > is completely foreign to him and assert it was his source,
                implying
                > superior
                > > knowledge, which might account for not having heard one single
                > question from
                > > you. That would seem to indicate you just want to spam this list
                > with ads for
                > > your own list, which you are promoting by the aid of definite
                > falsehoods about
                > > Steiner. Stop these baseless assertions and show some interest in
                > what we're
                > > about or you will be removed.
                > >
                > > -starman
                > >
                > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > In LVX Samuel
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > From: steiner@yahoogroups.com [mailto:steiner@yahoogroups.com]
                On
                > Behalf Of
                > > > Pierre Gringoire
                > > > Sent: Monday, 9 May 2005 7:57 AM
                > > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                > > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner
                > Rosicrucian "Transmission"
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > I must say that I am in complete agreement with Sheila and Dr.
                > Starman. The
                > > > following is highly questionable:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > "In 1897 Rudolf Steiner travelled to Berlin to become Supreme
                > Magus over the
                > > > Grand Lodge there."
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > It is quite possible that the person using the
                pseudonym 'Frater
                > Maui' or
                > > > 'Samuel' is unaware of the contentious nature of these
                remarks.
                > If so, he
                > > > displays an ignorance of both Steiner and the circumstances of
                > his life. It
                > > > would be highly surprising if any genuine Rosicrucian Order
                would
                > fail to inform
                > > > its members exactly why such remarks are controversial. The
                > exact motive
                > > > behind this 'revelation' is as yet unclear.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Pierre Gringiore
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > > www.DrStarman.com
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.