AMORC Origin Stories (2015)

An Analysis of Differing Accounts, Contradictions and Inconsistencies in the Literature o f AMORC and Harvey Spencer Lewis’ Books, Documents

and Articles in the Light of Cognitive Persuasion, A Subtle Method of Mind Control Uncovered by the Latest Advances in Neuroscience.

* * * * *

The Use of Cognitive Persuasion in the Creation, Modification and Amplification of the Stories of the Founding of a lOO-Year-Old Religious Cult

By Pierre S. Freeman

An Analysis of Differing Accounts, Contradictions and Inconsistencies in the Literature of AMORC and Harvey Spencer Lewis’ Books, Documents and Articles in the Light of Cognitive Persuasion, A Subtle Method of Mind Control Utilizing the Non-Reflexive, Instinctual W ay of Thinking Uncovered by the

Copyright ©2015 by Pierre S. Freeman

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. Please do not participate in or encourage the piracy of copyrighted materials in violation of the author’s rights. Purchase only authorized editions.

“...there is only one universal Rosicrucian Order existing in the world today, united in its various jurisdictions, and having one Supreme Council in accordance with the original plan of the ancient Rosicrucian’s manifestoes... This international organization retains the ancient traditions, teachings, principles and practical helpfulness of the Order as founded centuries ago. It is known as the Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, which name, for popular use, is abbreviated into AMORC.”

Statement of the Grand Lodge of the English Language Jurisdiction, AMORC, Inc., Publishers of

Cosmic Mission Fulfilled

by Ralph M. Lewis 1966 Edition

CONTENTS

AMORC Origin Stories Endnotes

It was quite some time ago when I left AMORC, determined to find a way to prevent present and future members from having to endure the psychological trauma and life-destroying consequences of its subtle, but highly effective mind, control system.

In my various books,

The Prisoner o f San Jose, AMORC Unmasked, The Emperor-Imperator-Speaks: Tales o f

the Puppet Master, Daring to Speak o f Darkness, Mayhem on the Astral Highway—Mind Slaves o f the Rosicrucian

Collectorum

—

Parti,

I have spoken of various methods by which AMORC has lured prospective members into

its stronghold of deception—but mostly remotely—through its advertising and its books, and now, through the wonder of the Internet.

How I Came to Look a t the Origin Stories More Closely

In

Tales o f the Puppet Master,

I presented a series of reviews of various books of H. Spencer Lewis and

commented on the account of one of his origin stories in my review of the official

Rosicrucian Manual.

Following my discussion of

Tales

and its publication that included some commentary of a huge controversy

about Lewis' account of its origin as presented there, I found I had left an important piece out, Lewis’ own

autobiographical account,

A Pilgrim’s Journey to the East,

which was supposedly first published in 1916.

Although I knew about its existence, I could not seem to locate it.

Still curious after

Tales

was published, I spent some time looking for it, realizing that I had run into it

but the title of the web pages that carried it had thrown me off. It seemed like it was only part of the book, but a closer inspection found that it was rather short, some 26 pages, and was really the whole thing. Very shortly after it was published, it was taken out of print, according to an official 1957 publication from AMORC’s organization in London and was permitted republication by the Imperator Ralph M. Lewis, the son of H. Spencer Lewis.

Why was it taken out?

The answer to that is probably the cornerstone of my discussion.

I have always known that one of the fundamental building blocks of AMORC’s mind control system as in many other cults are its origin stories. Just like in comic books where one is always interested in the origin of superheroes, people are always interested in the origins of religions and religious figures because origin stories provide a platform for how institutions or their leaders gathered their authority. And since AMORC claims to be a super cosmic organization, an ancient occult fraternity that sometimes proclaims that it is the only true connection between God and man, a vital determinant for our species taking the right course for human history, origin stories are important in establishing that monolithic, all powerful contact.

In classical hypnosis and in various forms of mind control, the whole basis for creating a trance in a subject is preceded by validating the practitioner’s authority and power. For this reason, AMORC, its Imperator and its leadership, must serve that purpose. In cult mind control in general, the objective is to transfer the sense of their themselves—their essential sense of self (true personality) or what Robert Jay Lifton calls the Protean Self—to a cult personality (false or synthetic personality), which will pay homage to a cult leader and their organization. At that point, the dimensions of control that they can gain over another person are unfathomable.

I know. I was one of AMORC’s mind slaves for twenty-six3 years, a reality that I have fully documented

in my book,

The Prisoner o f San Jose {link).

AMORC’s literature about itself and some outside commentary, including this discussion, reveals that

AMORC has not Just one origin story, but several.

For those interested in the true history of AMORC’s creation, this can be a fascinating journey but for those who are hoping that AMORC is what it pretends to be, perhaps a rather disappointing one.

It really is hard to entangle to find even a kernel of truth.

We are talking here about multiple and contradictory origin stories, or so it appears. If one keeps up with the comic books or perhaps more likely Marvel and DC films about superheroes, you will notice that there are multiple origin stories about Superman, Batman, and Spiderman. They all have similarities, but, if you want to be nitpicking, there are a lot of differences. We can easily forgive that because we all like good superhero adventure stories and the variety is interesting.

But having a distinctive difference in an origin story is not necessarily so appreciated when you are dealing with critical narratives of an organization with extraordinary claims that can affect the entire

direction of your whole life. Those kinds of variations in stories, perhaps, are worth picking apart because they cast a shadow on the organization’s claims? Do they reveal the truth, or does their very contradictory nature reveal the possibility that there is another origin story altogether, one held back from the public and from the majority of those truly invested in the story like the current members of AMORC?

Very intriguing possibility.

Why Do Origin Stories Have Such Power?

In all my books so far, I have emphasized one mind control element as the decisive factor in total cult indoctrination. That component that I believed was the decisive factor in creating full compliance from a cult member, and which I still believe to be true, is trance induction. This technique is combined with various hypnotic triggers to create a state of suggestion capable of even creating positive hallucinatory experiences on a regular basis. Ultimately, trance induction heightens suggestibility to such an extent it helps to create buffers in the human personality that repress both the normal or Protean personality, allowing a false or cult personality to emerge as the predominant conscious decision maker.

The Protean personality is a term used by the famous anti-cult analyst, Robert Jay Lifton, and conveys the idea of an essential, core identity of all human beings, one that can be suppressed but does not go down fighting and can actually war against the cult personality. I have fully described my own battle in the

Prisoner ofSan]os&

(link). I still have some of the aftereffects of that battle.

This type of mind control, featuring the hallucinatory elements, creating a division so great in the cult member that it can cause Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms, is common in religious or paranormally-oriented cults, which need "the miraculous’’ or "other worldly” events to support their claims.

But there is another factor, another element of persuasion that is not trance-based and has recently come to the fore as a major factor in various kinds of human decision-making like politics, marketing or even family interactions, and that is the power of the narrative through the neurologically-based activity of

framing. I call this type of mind control

cognitive persuasion.

Before we discuss the actual technique of cognitive persuasion, let us take a peek at some of the terms used in cognitive linguistics, a subset of neuroscience that looks at language in the face of scientific

used in cognitive linguistics, a subset of neuroscience that looks at language in the face of scientific discoveries about the way we think and talk. One of those scientists is George Lakoff, who classifies himself as a progressive political thinker concerned about the way neuroscience discoveries reveals the persuasive power of storytelling, which serves to propagandize certain political views that actually have the power to overturn the rational and ethical ways of thinking demanded in human rationality.

"Frames,” as explained by George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, are "structures of ideas we use to understand the world.” Frames, he purports, allow us to internally organize and simplify the things and events around us. Each frame is related to a specific neuronal level which, when activated, can actually be observed and measured. Frames strung together in a certain way create narratives, and narratives used in storytelling can be used to trick the mind into a premature act of belief.1 This power to trick the mind is, in fact, what I have called cognitive persuasion, a non-trance form of mind control used a great deal in political propaganda and commercial advertising for centuries, but only today is the scientific basis for this type of mind control being discovery as it is based on the way people are naturally inclined to think, as demonstrated in laboratory experiments.

According to Lakoff, there are two reasons, one allegedly proven and the other still speculative, that give narratives a special power over the human mind.

One is that the part of the brain that responds to, say, seeing or moving things responds in identical

ways to

imagining

that we are seeing or moving something. This is called mental "stimulation." This means

that there is a certain reality to what happens in our imagination that equates internally to what happens in the real world. Yes, we can generally distinguish between the two, but because of this, in some way, unless disciplined by specific oversight coupled with rational thinking, the two appear to have almost equal weight in the mind of the undisciplined recipient. What happens in the real world and the mind has somewhat of an equal power. This process is affecting the brain in this way is called "mental stimulation.”

Lakoff says on page 39 of

The Political Mind.

The same part of the brain we use in seeing is also used in remembering seeing, in dreaming we are seeing, and in understanding language about seeing. The same parts of the brain used in really moving are used in imagining that we are moving, remembering about moving, and in understanding about moving. Mental

"stimulation" is the technical term for using brain areas for moving or perceiving, imagining, remembering, dreaming or understanding language. It is mental stimulation that links imaginative stories to lived narratives.2

But, again according to Lakoff, there is a possibility that there is something called "mirror neuron circuits” which link our own sense of lived narratives to the narratives of another person. So, in a sense, we experience what another person is alleged to do in the same manner as we experience ourselves doing something.

The way "your lived narratives are linked to someone else" could be, according to Lakoff, because of "mirror neuron circuits,” a kind of brain activity" proven in macaque monkeys, but only plausibly assumed to take place in human beings.

“Mirror neuron circuitry" implies that when you see someone in an action or perform it yourself, there are two-way pathways that connect to the brain in the same way: to the primary motor cortex, connecting to neuronal activity in the muscles, which can directly control muscle movement and to the part of the brain that integrates sensory information in the visual, auditory, and somatosensory regions of the brain— what is called the parietal cortex. Also, the positive and negative emotional pathways are connected through the insula.

Also, in this theory of ‘mirror” circuitry, there is a connection to the posteromedial cortex, which actively supports ‘the experience of empathy, say, in compassion and admiration. Finally, there is a connection to the prefrontal cortex that supposedly contains the "super-mirror” neurons, which modulate the activation of the mirror neurons and limit or enhance their capacity for

empathy.’-By understanding the equation between real experience and imagined experience and one’s own experience and another, powerful influences can intentionally create in words or in media that have an influence on recipients that, without conscious reflection and due diligence, can override one's rational processes and unwantedly influence the human personalities’ predilections, desires, and interpretations about events. This is a way of controlling the mind without trance induction or even some kind of submission of authority to a third party through something like psychological transference.

Again, I call this form of mind control “cognitive persuasion.” No drugs, no trances, no enhanced interrogations utilized spontaneously in the past by people with a shrewd understanding of human nature

and how people could be easily manipulated whether they knew the scientific underpinnings or not.

We shall see how cognitive persuasion works in AMORC shortly, but first let us take a deeper look at AMORC’s self-described beginnings.

AMORC LAUNCH-TIME!

The fact is that there are, indeed, several origin stories about AMORC. In this book, I will present eight of them chronologically—six from AMORC and two from outside skeptics about AMORC’s stories. Three from AMORC were initiated by H. Spencer Lewis himself with one of those a posthumous biography by his son, Ralph Lewis, and another by a so-called Rosicrucian historian, Christian Rebisse, but both heavily derived from Harvey’s own writings. A third AMORC writer is "Grand Master" Julie Scott.

The

Rosicrucian Manual,

was undoubtedly ultimately developed, in part, without Harvey’s supervision,

but depended on it. Two more stories, one created by R. Swinburne Clymer, the founder of the Rosicrucian Fellowship, and the other described and analyzed from the historical record by Robert Vanloo, an author and ex-member of AMORC, who has taken considerable efforts to study and report of these origins.

STORY #1 - THE 1916 VERSION

A Pilgrim’sJourney to the East

By Harvey Spencer

Lewis-I

How H. Spencer Lewis, who has studied Rosicrucian literature and engaged in various literary and social activities involved in studying psychical and spiritual matters, makes a personal journey to become an

initiate in the Order. This was an autographical account by H. Spencer Lewis, published in 1916 in

A

Pilgrim’s Journey to the Far East.

This is was the first published autobiography, but apparently, according to its 1957 republication by the branch of AMORC in London1, it was not available for many years, probably quite soon after its original publication. When you see how much it was altered, it is not too hard to figure out why? Yet, there was so much evidence that it was altered, it is sometimes difficult to figure out why

they were not more careful.

STORY #2 - THE 1929 VERSION Rosicrucian Questions and Answers

By Harvey Spencer

Lewis-In this story, H. Spencer Lewis is a self-professed descendent of the founders of a Rosicrucian Order in America who projects that the true Rosicrucian Order operates in 108 year cycles. Having professed he started an organization to explore Rosicrucian traditions and history, he is eager to start a new cycle of the Order in America. Having been encouraged by a “Legate" from India, mentioned in the 1929 book,

Rosicrucian Questions and Answers,

he goes to France to gain the authority to start the Order. This story omits certain information mentioned in a magazine called Cromaat, published in 1918, which indicates who that "Legate" may have been, a Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, a controversial participant in the written history of the Order.

STORY #3 - THE 1935 VERSION Rosicrucian Fellowship in America

Which Contains a Formerly Published Brochure: “Not Under the Rosy Cross”

By R. Swinburne Clymer2

Perhaps Lewis’ most vocal and litigious opponent. Clymer was challenged to a public debate by Lewis in December of 1933. He replied by inviting Lewis to a "complete and impartial tribunal composed of high Masons.” When Lewis refused, he wrote this scathing expose of the connection between AMORC and Aleister Crowley, the Black Magician. His claim was that Lewis’ initiation in France was totally bogus and claimed it took place in England under Crowley’s umbrella. He takes great length to show the connection between the symbolism, teachings, costuming, and rituals of AMORC are not Rosicrucian but from a much darker place.

STORY # 4 - THE 1966 VERSION Cosmic Mission Fulfilled

By Ralph M.

Lewis-This autobiographical account of Ralph Lewis’ father, the former Imperator of AMORC, borrows explicitly

from

A Pilgrim's Journey to the East

but attempts to integrate certain features in other versions of H.

Spender’s Lewis story in

Rosicrucian Q&A

and in the obituary of May Banks-Stacey. He speaks of his father in

the third person, assuming that he wrote it and includes portions of his father’s Last Will and Testament, which perhaps makes it somewhat more personalized. The book seems like an attempt to integrate and explain some of the contradictions in the other versions, but, on inspection, it fails in its purpose.

STORY #5 - THE 1971 VERSION The Rosicrucian Manual

Initiated and Overseen by H. Spencer Lewis

And, Later, Probably Other Imperators with Help of Staff2

This later version is mentioned in the 1971 edition of the

Rosicrucian Manual

but it may have been printed

before. This edition develops the idea that Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, a representative of the Order in India, provides Lewis with certain documents and jewels that gives him the right to start the Order. He then travels to France to start the Order. It draws on information mentioned in the 1918 edition of Cromaat

about Mrs. May Banks-Stacey but not mentioned in the 1929

Rosicrucian Questions and Answers.

In this

story, she is the descendent of the English sponsors of early settlers of the original Rosicrucian Order in America and had been made a Legate from the Rosicrucian Order in India.

STORY #6 - THE 2001 VERSION

“Controversy around a Document? -Is the A.M.O.R.C. an Offspring of the O.T.O. or Not?”

In a sense, Vanloo’s version of the origin of AMORC raises more questions than gives conclusive answers. It certainly throws doubt on the role of Mrs. Banks-Stacey and the Toulouse initiation. On the other hand, although the connection between Crowley and Lewis seems rather clearly demonstrated, Vanloo does not see AMORC as a true branch of the OTO as promulgated through Crowley (or anyone else for that matter), although he sees the possibility of some kind of non-Crowley involvement in the early years. Later on, there was a definitive connection between Reuss’ OTO and Lewis, but not anything substantive in relation to the content of AMORC’s teaching. Crowley, in somewhat of speculative effort by Vanloo (because names are not mentioned), does appear to be a kind of witness to Lewis’ deceptive practices, particularly with Mrs. May Banks-Stacey.

STORY # 7 - 2 0 0 9

“H. Spencer Lewis - Restorer of Rosicrucianism” By Christian Rebisse, FRC

Featured in a podcast,— movie— and article—. The 2009 date appears as a copyrighted version of the podcast and video. As it is so prominently featured, it appears to have the fullest possible authority by AMORC as it is featured in their new multi-media publicity machine.

STORY # 8 - 2 0 1 0

“Clemence Isaure: The Rosicrucian Golden Isis” By Grand Master Julie Scott, S.R.C.—

This article focuses on an anecdote taking place and preceding Lewis’ initiation in the Hall of the Illustrious in Toulouse’s city hall

The Difference in AMORC Generated Stories #1 , #2 and #5

The first question which we believe should be addressed, why are there differences between these different AMORC-originated stories #1, #2, and #5, however small? We are not particularly focusing on

Ralph Lewis’ biography because it is basically an amalgam of Stories #1 and #2. We will be addressing Christian Rebisse’s version a bit later.

In my opinion, when you develop a mind control or hypnotic script, you want it to be power packed with authority as much as possible. And if you don’t particularly care about the truth and you don’t think you can easily be caught, why not change things around and improve on them? Another related possibility is that things may have come up in the stories that made AMORC more vulnerable to its subterfuge about its early history being uncovered and maybe there was a value in hiding these components. Remember, earlier in its history, AMORC was under attack from various opponents, including a legal battle with R. Swinburne Clymer.

Remember all this is done in the days before the Internet when investigating something like this would mean going to libraries or, even more possibly, visiting newspaper morgues or traveling to or corresponding with bookstores or even individuals to find books that probably wouldn’t be found in the ordinary library.

I would like to state here that although it is clear there are inconsistencies in the stories, there may be other documents existing that provide a more complete account of the early AMORC era than I have so far. Any assistance by readers having access to other relevant documents would be very much appreciated. My guess is that additional documents would probably expand the variations in these stories since their obvious intent is to convey whatever the controlling author wished and not necessarily to relay the historical truth.

The Devil is in the Details

In order to explain the difference in these origin stories, I will go into some of the details. As I will go into later in this discussion, the human mind is easily swayed by certain types of narratives, and the hope is that someone truly concerned with the various influences that control his or thinking and life will take the time to make sure these influences are pure and unfiltered by a secret agenda—be it commercial, political, or personal. For such a person, the devil is in the details.

Let me first quote from page 170 in the book,

Rosicrucian Questions and Answers

and look how the

narrative differs slightly from what is in the manual itself and also from

A Pilgrim'sJourney

(please note my

emboldening).

It was in 1909, also, that I made my visit to France for a similar purpose. For many years I had held together a large body of men and women devoted to occult and metaphysical re' search along Rosicrucian lines. As editor of several occult magazines

I had made contact with various Rosicrucian manuscripts and had discovered that I was related to one of the descendants of the first Rosicrucian body in America-that which had established itself in Philadelphia in 1694. This gave me access to many of their old papers, secret manuscripts, and teachings. These we discussed, analyzed,

and attempted to put into practice. Among ourselves, the society, composed of several

hundred persons in professional life, was known as

The Rosicrucian Research Society.—

It is worth noting that this story from the 1929

Questions and Answers

differs somewhat from the story

told in the 1971 Manual, which says on page 6.

"Having had passed to him in the proper way certain knowledge preserved by the descendants of the first foundation in America, he prepared himself through various courses of study and association with metaphysical bodies, for the work he was to undertake in 1909. Then in the month of July of that year he went to France where he was introduced to the proper authorities and inducted into the mysteries and methods of carrying out his life mission.—

; One can note here that it does not, in this passage from the manual, mention that he was a descendant, but rather he had the information "passed to him in the proper way....” Standing alone that would not be a problem, but later in the Manual, on page 129, it says that after many years of scientific and psychic research, Lewis...

the secret manuscripts of the first American Rosicrucians, who established their headquarters near Philadelphia in 1694. A member of the English Branch which

sponsored the first movement in America, Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, * descendant of Oliver Cromwell and the D’Arcys of France, placed in his hands such papers as had been officially transm itted to her by the last of the first American Rosicrucians,

with the Jewel and Key of authority received by her from the Grand Master of the Order in India, while an officer of the work in that country.—

For her role in the alleged role in the formation of AMORC, Mrs. May Banks-Stacey is designated in the

Rosicrucian Manual

as the Co-Founder and First Grand Matre in U.S.A. in a caption below her photograph even though it is alleged that the Grand Matre did not sign the first Manifesto in (check). A passage seemingly confirming she was the "Legate” was published on page 27 in Volume D in a Rosicrucian

Magazine called

Cromaat

back in 1918.

“I further state that the said Jewels and incomplete instructions were delivered into my hands by the R.C. Masters of India, representing the Supreme Council of the World, and that I was there made an initiate of the Order and a Legate of the Order for America. I also state that the said Jewels and papers were represented to me as coming direct from Egypt and France, and that they were given to me to be formally handed to that man who should present certain papers, documents, jewels and “key” in America. Such a person having matured and being Brother H. S. Lewis, I did the duty expected of me, fulfilled my commission and with pleasure express the joy at seeing the work so well under way in accordance with the prophecy made in India to me in person. The history of the Jewels and papers are, to my knowledge, exactly as stated herein and as described by Mr. Lewis, our Imperator, in the History of the Order as published in the Official Magazine.”—

Interestingly, this quote is published in an article colorfully entitled, “The Supreme Matre Emeritus Raised to the Higher Realms." The article is actually Mrs. Banks-Stacey’s obituary.

In

Rosicrucian Questions and Answers,

published in 1929, on page 165, it clearly states that before 1909, when Lewis first visited France, as a descendent himself of the original founders of a Rosicrucian settlement at Ephrata in Pennsylvania, he was going specifically to gain official authority to start a new cycle of Rosicrucianism in America, He says:

I have said that as the year 1909 approached, many men and women journeyed to France or other parts of Europe seeking not only initiation into the Order, but some official permission to aid in the establishment of the Order again in the United States, for its new cycle.—

So, again, his mission to go to France was clearly to found this Order, not just because of a personal passion as described in A Pilgrim’s Journey (which we shall fully document later). One can only imagine

that the "Legate” mentioned in the following passage on page 171

o f Rosicrucian Questions and Answers

was

Mrs. Banks-Stacey, but Lewis does not mention her. This is what he says:

Just before 1909 there applied for membership in our society one who presented papers proving appointment as...’’Legate” of the Rosicrucian Order in India. Many weeks of close association with this member revealed the fact that I might be successful in my search for some form of authority to introduce the true Rosicrucian work in America at the right time. Every means of communication with any official of the Order in foreign lands was denied to me until early in the year 1909 when I was informed that the year for the public appearance of the Order in America was at hand and that definite arrangements for the new cycle had been completed.—

Yes, in Story #2 in 1929, it does not identify Mrs. Banks-Lacy as the Legate, although it, like the

Journey

to the Far East,

her role was published explicitly before in 1918. Further, in 1971, the

Rosicrucian Manual

says that she was the descendent, not Lewis.

Why all these strange little discrepancies concerning Mrs. Banks-Stacey’s role and Lewis’ background and mission?

For the moment, let us look at some notes from Soror Rectifier at the beginning of the 1916’s

A Pilgrim's

Journey to the Far East

republication in 1957. She states that the republication occurred, after years of its being out of print, by the largesse of Ralph M. Lewis, H. Spencer Lewis’ son, who was the then Imperator. In

the 1957 notes, she says,

The information contained in this booklet is given out as a privilege to members. The present Imperator, Fra. Ralph M. Lewis, wishes it to be understood that no questions can be answered in connection with the contents, and that there will be no correspondence about it. It is a publication of the history as written by Dr. Lewis, and, therefore, since he has passed through transition, no one is further qualified to carry on correspondence with respect to his personal experiences.—

I think this is quite interesting because given anyone's sensibilities about what was published already, there surely could be many questions. But I suppose the voice of the current Imperator might be taken as a kind of thoughtfulness on his part out of respect for his deceased father? Or would it have opened a

Pandora’s box of questions if one had read

Questions and Answers and.

the obituary in

CromaaP.

Remember

this is before the Internet and books not printed for a number of years—especially obscure ones—would be very hard to find.

The Reasonfor Lewis’ Going to Paris as Related in "A Pilgrim'sJourney"?

In a further statement in the 1957 prologue to

A Pilgrim’s Journey,

the story about Lewis being a

descendent from Questions and Answers is repeated which clearly states that a “Legate” from India appeared to him and told him "that I might be successful in the search for some form of authority to introduce the true Rosicrucian work in America at the right time.”

None of this is mentioned in the beginning of

A Pilgrim'sJourney

nor does he mention his desire to open

a branch of the Rosicrucian Order in America nor his alliance with a "Legate” from India.

Instead, it is said that he actually writes to the editor of a Parisian paper the following question: “How can I learn of the method to pursue which will secure guidance to the Rosae Crucis?”

When the editor writes back, he tells him to call on the studio of a Professor of Languages in Paris. Lewis says:

After many years' study of the exoteric work of Rosaecrucianism and an increasing, obsessional desire to join with the Brotherhood, unselfish in its great undertakings for the betterment and unity of man, I wrote—after a deep inner impression to do so—to the unknown editor of the Parisian paper.—

Why, pray tell, if he knows the Legate of the Order in India, is he forced to write to an unknown editor in France? After all, the Legate supposedly came to him before he left for France in 1909, according to

Rosicrucians Q&A. Still, when he wrote,

A Pilgrim's Journey,

published in 1916, it isn’t clear he had much

certainty about anything, much less the influence of the Legate. He hadn’t come up with the idea yet.

Further, speaking in

A Pilgrim'sJourney,

he says:

Determination I had, and the visions I dreamed by day and by night kept alive my ambition and my faith. It was early in July that I received my letter from Paris; possibly by the following year I might find it convenient to go to Paris. W hat was a

year of waiting? Had I not waited two, three, four, five years in the hope of even learning that the Order still existed? And so I folded the letter carefully and put it

among the precious papers that constituted my hopes of the future.—

But he knows the Legate from India! He knows the Order exists. To repeat Lewis’ quote from Story #2 in

Rosicrucian Questions and Answers.

Just before 1909 there applied for membership in our society one who presented papers proving appointment as...’’Legate" of the Rosicrucian Order in India.—

Flash forward to his meeting with the professor, who asks him, “and why do you seek to know a Brother of the Rose Croix?”

At this critical juncture you would expect him to say, if the

Question and Answervexsion

is true that he is

a descendant of the Founders of the Order in America and wants to start the new cycle there. But, instead, Lewis says, stumbling:

"Because I want to know if the old Order is still in existence and if it is....’’ I was lost for words. I could not say that I wanted to become a member. One could not bluntly ask such a privilege in the presence of a man like Professor "X.”—

The Professor replies, "And that is your only excuse for coming to Paris, for coming here? Is it what you call a curiosity”?—

Then Lewis gives his reason.

"Ah, no, Professor,” I began, feeling that I had wrongly expressed myself and had done an injustice to my real motives. "I am not acting out of idle curiosity at least. I want to know because I want, some day, to be one of them, if I may.”—

The professor is not impressed until he finally seems to show the real motivation behind his journey. He says:

"But, Professor," I began again, “I only want, desire, to learn how I may proceed if I am ever to have my fond hopes realized. I make no demand now for admission into the Order; I ask for no rare privilege or honour at this time. I come to you only as a seeker for knowledge—for light.”—

His speaking of his ardent desire is what opens the door for him—a purely personal reason. Yes, the professor knows his background as an occult journalist and lecturer, his college degree and recognition by a French academy. But it is desire for Light that opens the door—certainly not his yet unmentioned pedigree.

What This Should Sound Like if Story #1 was True?

First of all, Lewis wouldn’t be writing to an unknown Parisian letter. Having an acquaintance with a "Legate” from India, he would probably be given an address, perhaps to this alleged Professor in France. If he told him a few things in the letter, but not his connection to the mysterious "Legate,” perhaps the

conversation would go like this: If the version in

Rosicrucian Questions and Answers

were true, wouldn’t the

Hypothetical Conversation in Paris with Professor if Lewis Had Come for Reasons Cited in the

Rosicrucian Manual

Professor: So-1 have read your letter and consented to see you. We do know of this

Legate and so I take it you have a serious inquiry?

Lewis: Yes, professor, first I would like to present to you some documents from my

family that can document the fact that I am related to some of the earliest members of the American Rosicrucian Order, which was established in Ephrata in Pennsylvania. The Professor looks over the papers.

Professor: We have done some research on you after we received your letter. It is my

belief that these documents are authentic. So why are you here?

Lewis: I represent a group of people who have spent years with me researching and

studying what we could find about Rosicrucian traditions. I am convinced that not only would I personally make a permanent connection to the Order, but I believe myself to be associated with enough earnest and serious students of the occult as to warrant my being authorized to revise the American Order.

Professor: Well, Mr. Lewis, that indeed is a lofty ambition. You wish to initiate the

108-year cycle in America?

Lewis: With all my heart.

Professor: I’m in no position to grant you your wish or to speculate on your

possibilities, but I think I can say, if you are serious, there are a few people I think you should speak to.

Hypothetical Conversation in Paris with Professor if Lewis Had Come for Reasons Cited in the 1972

Rosicrucian Manual

Professor: So, I have read your letter and am quite excited to see you. Lewis: May I show you these documents, Professor?

The Professor takes the documents and looks them over. At one point, he takes out a magnifying glass.

Professor: I have spent a good bit of my life studying art, including canvas and paper.

These are, indeed, very ancient. And the marks, though faded, seem quite authentic. Congratulations.

The Professor, seeming slightly nervous, looks at Lewis intently.

Professor: May I see the jewels?

Lewis takes a small linen sack out of his jacket and empties the jewels in the Professor’s hand. The Professor sits down at his desk and takes a small microscope out of the bottom drawer, peering at the jewels for almost ten minutes. He then hands them back to Lewis.

Professor: Thanks you so much. It is quite amazing to meet you. There must be quite a

story behind this.

Lewis: Do you know Mrs. May Banks-Stacey?

Professor: Yes, I do. I met her once in London. She is from our English Order and quite

a world traveler, I believe.

Lewis: Yes, she was a member of the very branch that originally sponsored the first

Rosicrucians in America. She is a descendent of Cromwell and the French D’Arcys. Anyway, she gave me papers that had been originally transmitted by the last descendent of the first American Rosicrucians. She also received the Jewel and the Key

of authority from the Grand Master in India. She was an officer at that time in India.

Professor: You spoke of a key?

Lewis: Yes. Would you like to see it?

He removes it from his vest pocket. The Professor takes it from him gingerly. He shakes his head slowly as if in awe of the artifact in his hand, then hands it back.

Lewis: Is there anything else you need to know, Professor?

Professor: Honestly, perhaps I was being selfish in keeping you here so long. But you

are bearing considerable historical treasure, and I felt compelled to take a look.

Lewis: I quite understand.

Professor: Don't worry, Mr. Lewis, our Grand Master and his staff have been preparing

for your arrival. All is ready. I will give you your travel instructions later this afternoon. Will you be able to come back to my office?

Lewis: Of course. I am quite ready for everything and anything I may have to do. I am

at your disposal.

As you can see from my hypothetical conversations based on two other versions that differ from

A

Pilgrim’s Journey,

there is somewhat of a gap between all three stories.

But now let us get back to that original 1916 version, where Lewis is on his way to learn his destiny in regards to joining the highly secretive Rosicrucian organization.

So, after much effort, Lewis finally arrives in Toulouse and finds himself at the Old Tower, a painting of which he saw when he was being interviewed by the Professor. Climbing up a long staircase, he finally reaches a room where he is greeted by an old man with a long gray beard and white hair. The old man says

that he had been expected and, as a matter of fact, Lewis’ horoscope is on his desk. Lewis says: I spent an hour examining some rare hand-illuminated books. I saw one book made in the time of Christ, recording His work for the Order, containing a sketch in water colours of the true Christ and other sketches of incidents of His life. The book was bound with wood and iron, had iron hinges and an iron lock—all greatly rusted. I saw articles from Egypt, from various pyramids and Temples. I saw rare relics from Jerusalem and other countries. And, I saw the last Oath of the Order made by Lafayette before he came to America, the first Rosaecrucian from France to come here. May his name ever remain sacred to the Order in America.—

Following his interview with the old man, who turns out to be the Chief Archivist of the Order, he is given directions to a great estate near the Tolosa, the old Roman city where Toulouse was eventually built. He eventually arrived at a mysterious old building known as the Grand Temple. There, he is finally initiated into the Order Rosae Crucis.

At the end of all this, the day he left, he was allegedly told the following directly by the “Most Worshipful" Grand Master of France, Monsier L:

Brother, these papers appoint you as a Legate of this Order for your country. Your duty and privileges are well defined. The documents you have, and the few jewels I now hand to you, will enable you to proceed at the tim e and in the manner indicated. When you have made some progress you will m eet with a representative from the Order in Egypt who will hand you, under certain conditions, other papers and seals. From time to time there will come to you those whom you will recognize by

the signs indicated. They will add to your papers and devices until your working papers and tools are completed. Our Archivist will send you under seal, with the protection of the French Government, other papers as soon as you have made the progress, which will be reported to us by our Agents. Your semi-annual reports will

warrant, or deny, your progress and assistance. The Master of the world will be glad to administer to your wants and your requirements from time to time; and Peace and Power shall come to America if the dictates of our Order are faithfully fulfilled.”—

So, in this version, he is made the Legate immediately by the Grand Master. He goes to France and is made a Legate. And he gets certain jewels and documents then. And, yes, he is made a messenger to the United States, but the actual original allegedly Rosicrucian community of Ephrata is not mentioned. And, as I have mentioned before, and will mention again, whether or not the Pietists who formed this community were truly Rosicrucian in the sense of being directly a part of an initiatic order is still a controversy. As you can see, the story goes through various stages—not necessarily a straight path—and tumble around. There was not an Internet back then, and as I said, changes in documents were far harder to track.

* * * * *

The Fun Part—Analyzing the Narrativesfrom the Standpoint o f "Persuasive Cognition ” —Another Cult Mind

Control Technique Only Now Coming to the Forefront o f Public and Scientific A wareness

In looking at the way the mind works, one cannot ever underrate the power of narratives, especially when embodied in storytelling. There are various reasons why, which we explore. And, despite whatever

stylistic objections one might have to H. Spencer Lewis' original origin story,

A Pilgrim’s Journey to the Far

East,

there is no doubt that it would have a powerful and persuasive interest on individuals looking to understand various fundamental truths of reality, with the hope that by comprehending these truths, they could better their lives. This, of course, was my hope, as I significantly explain in my memoir of cult

entrapment,

The Prisoner o f San Jose.

In discussing the effect of

A Pilgrim’s Journey,

I would like to point out there is probably no more

powerful kind of narrative than a first person story. In literature, this is meant to create a close bond between the narrator and the reader because of its powerful emotional effect. And when you look at the origin stories of AMORC and couple with them the extensive literature and monographs written or supervised by Lewis, its first Imperator, you can understand why a first person account could be, in people's

minds, the very foundations of AMORC’s appeal. Of course, in literary creations, the protagonist who tells the story is fictional.

However, if you are more of a propagandist than a creator of literature, you want to use narration as a tool for creating “authenticity" in the mind of the reader or listener. A story told by one person has a rippling effect on their consciousness no simple third person narrative could have. Marry this first-person effect with a sense of the honesty and integrity of the narrator and you have a profound step in the direction of creating belief in the mind of the recipient. When a narrative/story is conveyed by an expert in mind control, it can be a fundamental tool for enslaving the human mind. Hitler did it, spreading his poison with Mein Kampf, a masterpiece of political propaganda, resulting in a great deal of Germany losing their soul in a cauldron of well-conceived mind control.

And as we have mentioned elsewhere, it appears, by his writing, that H. Spencer Lewis was a fan and apologist of Hitler’s. And, if someone wishes to debate that, try and debate his infatuation and proximity to Mussolini who he courted in the flesh.

Whatever the degree of untruth is in

Mein Kampf,

there is no doubt it makes Hitler appear to its readers

as a real person.

In a marvelous little literary blog by Chris Gerwel called

The King o f Elfland's Second Cousin,

Chris makes

some points about the manipulative power of the "voice" in narration that I find directly applicable to the power of “reader manipulation” through this device. He says, speaking of the "invisible voice” in literature in a specific blog, titled "Narrative Voice as Mind-control: Thoughts on Manipulating Reader Perception:”

Voice is the ultimate mind control, affecting how the story resonates with us, how we feel about the characters, and what we remember when the last page is turned. At its most impressive, it should be invisible. When we notice the voice, its influence on our responses and perceptions is lessened.

First person narration—when executed well—earns the reader’s instant engagement precisely through its link to voice. The narrator is a character in the story, with their own perceptions, predilections, and foibles. They have their own way of seeing the world, a tendency to pay attention to certain aspects that others might not notice in the same way. One narrator might comment on people’s appearances. Another might pay closer attention to facial expressions. In first-person narration, we are generally locked into the narrator’s voice throughout the story. That’s the trade-off we make for building that super-close reader/narrator relationship.11

In discussing

A Pilgrim’s Journey to the Far East,

I would be remiss in mentioning that it is a wonderful,

intriguing little narrative demonstrating the humility and integrity of the narrator, presumably the author, H. Spencer Lewis, very shiny and believable.

But, maybe, considering its withdrawal from republication for so many years and the substitute of alternative stories, maybe someone in charge thought it lacked the power it needed. And maybe, given that motive, that someone didn’t mind reverting to what might be his strongest point involved in his recruitment of AMORC membership, some more carefully crafted literary fiction.

Cognitive Persuasion

“Cognitive persuasion" is a technique of mind control that rests on a peculiarity of the human mind to favor certain types of narratives. You might cause it the result of a certain protective mechanism, built in the brain, to favor certain outcomes, regardless of their ultimate practicality or truth.

As an example of this, let us look at something familiar to my readers, the so-called "fight or flight syndrome.” Neil F. Neimark, M.D., a Board Certified Family Practice Doctor defines it in his essay, "Five Minute Stress Mastery.”

When we experience excessive stress—whether from internal worry or external circumstance—a bodily reaction is triggered, called the "fight or flight” response. Originally discovered by the great Harvard physiologist Walter Cannon, this response is hard-wired into our brains and represents a genetic wisdom designed to protect us

from bodily harm. This response actually corresponds to an area of our brain called the hypothalamus, which—when stimulated—initiates a sequence of nerve cell firing and chemical release that prepares our body for running or fighting.—

He further goes to point out that during this time, "chemicals like adrenaline, noradrenaline, and cortisol are released" into the bloodstream; blood moves quickly from the digestive track to better fuel muscles and limbs so we can better run or fight. Awareness increases while perception of pain decreases, etc.—

This is obviously an instinctive process.

But sometimes, given human values and goals, we have to fight against this natural instinctive process, built into our physiology, in order to achieve a more important outcome than fight or flight. An example of this would the utilization of passive resistance techniques used to fight segregation in the United States by Martin Luther King who emulated Mahatma Gandhi who deployed this technique to bring down the British Empire. Passive resistance often meant standing one’s ground against an enemy attack and deliberately not fleeing (often because fleeing was not all that possible in an enclosed space like a restaurant where one was illegally perching at a soda fountain counter during the heyday of segregation. Passive resistance was a technique to show one’s determination, to block normal consumer activity unless an expected event occurred (like serving a cup of coffee to a black person) or to shame the perpetuator of violence, who was trying to bully, hurt or maim a non-violent person whose major crime was to be treated equally as a normal human being. Therefore, the conscious human mind would deliberately overcome the instinctual directions embodied in the "flight or fight syndrome.”

As we have mentioned, George Lakoff is a cognitive scientist and linguist, whose metier happens to be,

among other things, the neuroscience behind political persuasion. In his book,

The Political Mind,

he points

out the powerful draw of certain types of narratives in his book, narratives that appeal to us on such an instinctive level that they can easily be easily accepted, unless we insist that our opinions are governed by reflective thinking. Although this book is concerned with political narratives, its findings are clearly

applicable to other areas as well. I think, psychologically, political and cult propaganda are inextricably linked.

The building blocks of narratives are the concept of "frames,” which we have indicated that looks at a structure of ideas we use to understand the world. Another, even more scientific-sounding account of frames is given in Paul Thagard’s glossary of Cognitive Science: "Data structure that represents a concept or schema.’— In that glossary, a “concept” is defined as a “mental representation of a class of objects or events that belong together, often corresponding to a word”— and a “schemata” as “a mental representation of a class of objects, events, or practices.’ —

If frames are like the atom in physics, you could compare narratives to molecules because they are composed of frames and if they are structured in a certain way can do things that atoms cannot. Although frames can be seen as something thought of or a thought embodied in language, the whole point of cognitive science is that these ‘frames’ are also represented in actual neuronal activity in the brain. There is a physiological correlate to frames that can be measured.

Frames can be simple or complex. When H. Spencer Lewis steps onto a trolley in

A Pilgrim'sJourney

that

can be a relatively simple frame compared to that point when he has climbed a long staircase in the Old Castle and is greeted by the Archivist, a little more complex frame.

I know many of you following this discussion are not necessarily interested in a complex discussion of the neurophysiology of frames and narratives, but nonetheless, I would like to take the time to make this concept slightly clearer.

As hypnosis and other trance states levels were first measured by brain waves through an electroencephalograph, the EEG is sometimes used in cognitive research, but, it can also be used in conjunction with other methodologies like an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to measure frame activity on a neural level. To see what this might mean to scientists, let us refer to a 2012 experiment with the prodigious title of "Tracking Down Abstract Linguistic Meaning; Neural Correlates of Spatial Frame of Reference Ambiguities in Language,” by Janzen, Haun and Levinson. Their conclusions in their Abstract show that different specific spatial concepts, described in language and images, can be tracked down to specific, correlated neurological activity:

Using this method, we were able to precisely pinpoint the pattern of neural activation associated with each linguistic interpretation of the ambiguity, while holding the perceptual stimuli constant. Increased brain activity in bilateral parahippocampal gyrus was associated with the intrinsic frame of reference whereas increased activity in the right superior frontal gyrus and in the parietal lobe was observed for the relative frame of reference. The study is among the few to show a distinctive pattern of neural activation for an abstract yet specific semantic parameter in language. It shows with special clarity the nature of the neural substrate supporting each frame of spatial reference.—

I mention this to demonstrate that the conclusions of cognitive scientists like Lakoff who wish to draw conclusions about the way people think or how they are influenced are based on experiments such as this, demonstrate neural activity through using scientific instrumentation that shows physiological brain activity, that correlates to the facts and interpretations they are making. This actually is a huge breakthrough in utilizing science to understand the human mind—not only the deliberative, conscious mind but also the instinctual, built-in power of certain narratives, built out of frames in a specific way.

Since this is a complex subject and my point here is to consider the type of influence we have called "cognitive persuasion,” we will not dwell on the neural substratum of cognitive science but rather some insights into human thought and behavior that have bearing on a specific type of influence that AMORC has attempted to use for the same reason it has used trance induction—to control what people think.

When I say this, I don’t mean that H. Spencer Lewis, during his time, actually knew about cognitive science as we know about it today. But as a trained advertiser, he knew about the power of language and, fully conscious or not, the power of certain types of narratives. This kind of knowledge has existed in a somewhat intuitive level since ancient times. It is the essence of both political and commercial propaganda. This is reflected in modern times as in politics speechmaking, campaign promises and advertising, party platforms and public relations, and in the commercial world primarily in advertising, but also in public relations. We have known for a long time about the power of narratives, but we did not know that much about how and why they worked in respect of brain physiology and cognitive linguistics.

Frames, as we have mentioned, are relatively simple structures, but when they are strung together, they can form a more complex structure out of frames like: H. Spencer Lewis, seeker after Truth; a cruise ship; the office of a Professor Linguistic in Paris, the old Archivist, officious Jewels and Documents. When formed together with a specific direction, this complex of frames is called a narrative. Narratives generally have a Protagonist to whom good and bad things happen.

According to Lakoff, there is a structure to a narrative, which goes like this: Preconditions—pre-conditions that exist before the narrative starts

Buildup—the route to the main event

The Main Event—the subject of the narrative The Purpose—the goal of it all

The Wind Down—the immediate aftermath Result—the short-term consequences

Later Consequences—what happens later o n

-This type of narrative is called an "event schema.” It involves a dynamic structure and is powered neurophysiologically caused by "neural binding,” a way in which neural pathways and activities are locked together in a certain structure. In a moment, we will examine a key dynamic event as described in the literature of AMORC. Suffice to say that event schemas like this can have strong emotional effects via the positive route, the dopamine circuit, which creates a sense of well-being and happiness, or the norepinephrine circuit, which triggers negative emotions like fear or anger.

* * * * *

Why A Pilgrim’sJourney to the East is a Powerful Narrative

First of all, it is complete—a whole story. It is short enough to be read in one or two sittings. Secondly, it is a Hero type of story, a power-packed type of narrative we will examine later. Let us now look at its structure,

Preconditions—preconditions that exist before the narrative starts

H. Spencer Lewis is characterized as a profound Seeker After Truth, who has spent his adult career as an editor and writer of the occult. Where he has various business and educational credentials, his one overwhelming concern is the pursuit of Truth and he wants, with all his heart, to be a part of the Rosicrucian tradition. To this end, he has even written to an editor, who he does not know, in Paris to see if he can make contact with a real Rosicrucian contact.

Buildup—the route to the main event

When the Parisian editor responds, he takes a boat to India. On the boat, he meets a man he supposes to be East Indian. As per his instructions from the editor, he meets a Professor of Languages at his store, which sells artwork and photographs of French monuments. After an interrogation by the Professor, he inspects a painting of a Tower and is sent to Southern France, where he meets his companion from the boat on a train “by accident,” who proves later to be a member of the Order, who is watching him, and has various adventures that lead him eventually to Toulouse,

The Main Event—the subject of the narrative

Once in Toulouse, he meets a photographer who sends him off to another venue, which turned out to be the very tower that the Professor had shown him in a picture, called by Rosicrucians, the Dongeon. There he meets an old Archivist, who proves to him that he has been watched and approved enough to meet the Grand Master and Imperator in his holy temple. Eventually, he heads out, as directed, to the old city of Tolosa and to an old estate and told he will meet the Officers of the Grand Lodge at sunset. That night he is initiated into the Order Rosae Crucias, crossing the Threshold in the Old Lodge in that same building of the estate. He meets the Officers, takes the pledges and is made a Brother of the Order "as the witching hour of Midnight” is struck by the old chimes in the tower of the building.”

The Purpose—the goal of it all

The Wind Down—the immediate aftermath

Lewis remains in Toulouse for a week and gets to go to lectures, demonstrations, and private classes, He also gets to attend the Monthly Convocation of the Illuminati as well as seeing the buildings and courts that are used as a Rosicrucian monastery.

Result—the short-term consequences

The day he leaves Toulouse, he is appointed as Legate for America. The Grand Master tells him: Brother, these papers appoint you as a Legate of this Order for your country. Your duty and privileges are well defined. The documents you have—and the few jewels I now hand to you—will enable you to proceed at the time and in the manner indicated. When you have made some progress you will meet with a representative from the Order in Egypt who will hand you, under certain conditions, other papers and seals. From time to time there will come to you those whom you will recognize by the signs indicated. They will add to your papers and devices until your working papers and tools are completed. Our Archivist will send you under seal, with the protection of the French Government, other papers as soon as you have made the progress, which will be reported to us by our Agents. Your semi-annual reports will warrant, or deny, your progress and assistance. The Master of the World will be glad to administer to your wants and your requirements from time to time; and Peace and Power shall come to America if the dictates of our Order are faithfully fulfilled.”—

Later Consequences—what happens later on

He brings the Grand Master’s blessings to his brothers and sisters in America. Of course, it is understood that after he reaches America, then he begins AMORC.

The Pilgrim's Journey to the Far East,

which incidentally is about H. Spencer Lewis’ journey to Toulouse, France, not the Far East, is a narrative about the humble beginnings of a Spiritual Super Hero.

For someone who actually knows what AMORC pretends to be, as described in their brochure,

The

Mastery o f Life,

and in the monographs, realizes that the position of the Imperator, whose Rosicrucian organization is basically the only authentic and best link with the God on Earth, is more important as a person than the kings and presidents of planet Earth, as well as the Pope and the Dalai Lama and any head of a large corporation in the world. Such a person is a Superhero.

But, if so, why do there appear to be changes to the narrative?

I think there is one clear progressive change in the narratives. They provide more authoritative support given to Lewis outside of himself, which gives more credence to the so-called weight of the initiations in Toulouse.

In the first narrative,

A Pilgrim'sJourney,

Lewis is really just a humble petitioner with a background in

the study of the occult who wishes to join the Order. In the second narrative,

Rosicrucians Q&A,

Lewis is an

actual relative of the founders of the American Rosicrucian Order, who is influenced by a Legate of the Order to petition the Order in France for his involvement. This "Legate,” with the unmentioned name, appears to him before he leaves for France.

He then says, referring to his first journey to France in 1909,

Before leaving France I had the pleasure of meeting several of the highest officers and met in America on my return the Legate from India, who presented to me the Jewels and Papers that had been preserved from the early American foundation.25

Doesn’t this "Legate” seem like she must have been Mrs. Banks-Stacey? But Mrs. Banks-Stacey doesn’t

appear until perhaps the fall of 1914, at least according to Ralph’s account in

Cosmic Mission Fulfilled.

It was in the fall of 1914 that events occurred that accelerated the formation of the Order Rosy Cross for its second cycle. He (H. Spencer Lewis) wrote of this event, "There came to me a grand old lady who had been a deep student of the occult for years. She had traveled much abroad in search for knowledge and had been initiated in many forms of our (Rosicrucian) work.”—

He then goes on to say that the lady was, indeed, Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, a descendant of the D’Arcys of France and Oliver Cromwell and how she had been given a special errand and mission connected to “the Order.”

Thus, on another rainy night in the month of November, on my birthday, in fact, she unceremoniously and reverently placed in my hands a few papers, a small packet, and a beautiful red rose! The papers I found to be some of those which the Masters had explained to me in Europe in 1909 and which were promised to come to me by special messenger when I needed them most.”—

So is this the same Legate from India who inspired him to go to France before he went to France in

1909? Again, why does

A Pilgrim'sJourney

not mention her? Why are not jewels mentioned this time as they

are sometimes—sometimes before he leaves France, sometimes afterwards?

Remember our recent quote from

Rosicrucians Questions and Answers

? It talks about his initiation in

1909 in France, saying he returned to meet the Legate again, who presented him with jewels and papers from the early American Order?

Did it not talk about Mrs. Banks-Stacey giving him jewels and documents in both the 1971 Manual and

her obituary in

Cromaat

of 1929? And why in his son’s book and in the manual does it not mention him as

being a direct descendent of the Founders in America as it does say in Rosicrucians

Questions and Answers?

The stories and their components weave back and forth, jeopardizing their credibility if anyone were wary enough to look at them carefully.

To me, it appears that Lewis alone may not have had the credibility he wanted, and then perhaps the addition of the Legate and his own blood relationship to the Order in Ephrata gave him more power but was not enough. But then, then the bestowal of the jewels and documents by a Legate who received their orders from India was even more authoritative. And so these three narratives evolved, giving more and more support to Lewis’ supposed initiation. But along with this authority being vested in him, why was his descent from the American Order left out? Perhaps it was not such an easy thing to disprove? Who knows? As you can see, the claim has not been forgotten.