It occurred to me that Rosicrucianism and Mormonism have certain things in common. Both movements were started by heterodox Christians who felt that the True Church was "none of the above". Both kicked off with literary works which challenged the very definition of Christianity. Both involve temple rites not open to the public. Fast forward to the H. Spencer Lewis tradition in particular, both founders could be described as charlatans, visionaries, or both.
But the original Rosicrucian manifestos were authored by intellectuals. The Book of Mormon wasn't. Whatever Joseph Smith was, he certainly wasn't a university-trained classicist. And the Church he founded was organized around prophetic doctrine and strict obedience enforced by ecclesiastical courts. It might be said that Mormonism is the Catholicism of Protestantism, whereas Lewis' tradition is philosophical and esoteric in nature, experimental rather than revelatory.
In the CR+C versions of the Lewis monographs, footnotes are provided alluding to new scientific discoveries which the adherent might want to read up on. And while I haven't read the modern AMORC variations, their official journals are chock full of articles on the mythology and philosophy that the movement draws upon. Mormonism, it seems, tends to excommunicate people whose published ideas veer in that kind of exploratory direction. There's a right way and a wrong way. (I wonder if online Mormon interactions take on that character. In my experience, online Rosicrucian interactions often take the form of "I believe X" - "I believe Y" and both parties appreciate each other's insights.)
Is the future of mysticism brighter than the future of religion ? Or will childhood indoctrination win out ?
No comments:
Post a Comment