AMORC IS A SHEEP IN WOLF’S CLOTHING
In an Introduction to Degree 4, Christian Bernard, the Imperator, warns against “displaying or allowing the contents of your monographs to be read by nonmembers, even when motivated by the best intentions.” He further warns that “through disrespect for the oaths you have taken before the Rose Cross, you would create a negative Karma which would need to be compensated sooner or later.”
In an Introduction to Degree 4, Christian Bernard, the Imperator, warns against “displaying or allowing the contents of your monographs to be read by nonmembers, even when motivated by the best intentions.” He further warns that “through disrespect for the oaths you have taken before the Rose Cross, you would create a negative Karma which would need to be compensated sooner or later.”
Perhaps I should be trembling since
I have exposed some of this exact content from time to time- short quotes, though- but mostly summaries. Am I supposed to be afraid because of this?
Of course, “oaths of secrecy” are utilized by various types of organizations for both legitimate and non-legitimate reasons. Certainly, it is legitimate for certain organizations with proprietary patents to demand secrecy from their employees, for government and military organizations to have classified material only open to specially qualified citizens, for certain organizations to keep their material for members only.
But what about information that has a disastrous impact on its readers or society at large? What about information that is used for criminal purposes, for libeling the innocent or based on and used for Mind Control purposes? Asking for “oaths of secrecy” for these matters is certainly not legitimate.
Of course, “oaths of secrecy” are utilized by various types of organizations for both legitimate and non-legitimate reasons. Certainly, it is legitimate for certain organizations with proprietary patents to demand secrecy from their employees, for government and military organizations to have classified material only open to specially qualified citizens, for certain organizations to keep their material for members only.
But what about information that has a disastrous impact on its readers or society at large? What about information that is used for criminal purposes, for libeling the innocent or based on and used for Mind Control purposes? Asking for “oaths of secrecy” for these matters is certainly not legitimate.
Comments