4 July 2003

Over the last four days I have been involved in an e-mail exchange with David Griffin, the head of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn one of the two organizations I specifically cited as having no authentic lineage back to the original Golden Dawn. Mr Griffin challenged me on this statement, to the point where he mentioned the possibility of legal proceeding if I did not amend my statement, which is as follows:

"Note: Neither Taylor nor Percy Wilkinson (see 1990-93) could legitimately warrant a temple. However, this is no great mark of shame as there is NO Golden Dawn temple in existence that holds an authentic warrant and this most certainly includes David Griffin's Paris Charter organisation, or the Hermetic Order of the Morning Star International. In fact, the Thoth Hermes temple (through Taylor) and the Horus Temple (Wilkinson) could claim the strongest lineage after the closure of Whare Ra."

The timeline that I provided the Temple of the Dark Moon is simply a sketchy framework, notes in tabular form, as it were, and does not go into any detail regarding explanations or elaborations on its contents. As a result of the correspondence between Griffin and myself, I thought it may be of interest to the reader how I came to formulate the conclusion that I indicated, namely Griffin's Golden Dawn lacks authenticity from the point of view of a valid, warranted, lineage back to the original Golden Dawn.

Before I go any further, I wish to make three clear points:

1. That while I am specifically dealing with the claims of Griffin's organisation at this point in time, for the sake of fairness I will also give a more detailed explanation regarding my (historical) objection to HOMSI [Hermetic Order of the Morning Star International] at a future date.

2. I have not in any way altered my published statements regarding Griffin's Golden Dawn organisation's lack of an authentic warrant, either as a result of correspondence with Griffin or in light of threats of legal action. Nor will I make any changes, unless evidence comes my way to the contrary. As yet Griffin has not provided any degree of proof of the validity of his argument that his organization does indeed hold a valid lineage back to the 1880s.

3. While I believe it is plainly implied in the disputed passage, I wish to make clear my general position on the issues of warrants and charters etc. The following is quoted from an e-mail I sent to Griffin on 2 July 2003:

   "Further more, I also wish to categorically say that in my opinion the holding of a warrant is neither here nor there when it comes to the quality of the Work of the Order. It is the icing on the cake, as it were, and not the cake itself. To hold or not hold an authentic warrant is secondary to the intent and quality of the temple/s operating under it."

On with the show…

The central point of dispute is I do not believe that any current Golden Dawn organisation or temple has a legitimate unbroken lineage back to the original Golden Dawn of the 1880s. This specifically includes Griffin's organisation.

The reason for my belief (as far as Griffins organisation is concerned) originates in information he published on his website concerning the authority of his organisation. The page itself has gone, but the information it provided were words to the extent that after the death of Mathers, the Ahathoor temple operated for a number of years before falling into abeyance. The dates and timings were vague/non existent, but the impression I got was that the period of abeyance could be measured in decades, rather than years. After a period of abeyance the temple was rededicated, and from there Griffin's organisation claims its authenticity. Therein lies my objection - can a temple be legitimately reactivated after a number of decades of 'abeyance'?

Unfortunately the logical consequences of this line of thought would be that I could declare the Isis Uraina temple (the original temple of the Golden Dawn) in abeyance and thus rededicate it and be a legitimate lineage holder in the tradition. For me to claim such a lineage would be an obvious and plain absurdity. However, there are additional factors which may, in some way, mitigate the claims made on that webpage to legitimacy via Mathers' Ahathoor Temple and officially sink my pretentious claim to be the rightful heir to the Golden Throne. I do not know, but I am assuming that Isis Uraina was ceremonially closed and formally ceased labour. If this is the case, then there is absolutely no reasonable grounds to claim a reactivation of it. However, if Mathers Ahathoor temple just fizzled out and stopped working, then a case could possibly be made for reactivation.

The question then needs to be asked, is reactivation a legitimate way to inherit a lineage? To my mind a temple that is in abeyance is a temple that has ceased effective labour. Once a temple has ceased effective labour, it ceases to be an institution and thus not a valid initiatory channel. This is because, to use an esoteric model of the universe, either the energies associated with the temple were not strong enough to sustain the Work (thus indicating that the energies were flawed, not in the right place at the right time, etc) or the spiritual mandate for the temple's work had been withdrawn by the Secret Chiefs/Inner Masters/Ascended Masters/Great White Brotherhood/Spook Central or which ever mysterious, and most likely non corporeal, folk act as the guardians of the tradition in which the temple works. To use a more mundane model, there are various statutes of limitations on a variety of things, be it on crimes or how long a person must be missing for before he is declared legally dead. This also applies to dormant temples. If a temple had been in abeyance for five years, that is one thing - for it to be in 'abeyance' for 50 is a whole other game.

Thus, to summarise, I do not accept Griffin's claim because (according to his web page at the time) it is based on the notion of reactivating a long dead temple.

The issue has further complications. The first and most obvious of which is that the page on which I based my information on has been taken down and thus not available for examination. However, I do note with a degree of interest that it is not the only page that is no longer in existence. A number of other pages which have, in the past, made controversial statements or claims- either in support of their own organisation or critical of other groups- have also disappeared. Pages such as Internet Confusion (critique of HOMSI in particular), the HOMSI curriculum, Confusion on the Internet: Will the Real Golden Dawn Please Stand Up ('ernest' critique of all other GD orders, with the exception of the Cicero's). Confusion on the Internet: Will the Real Rosicrucians Please Stand Up (general sideswipe at other Rosicrucian groups) and the so-called 'Landmarks' of the Golden Dawn, all lead to a page announcing 'This Page is Currently Under Construction'.

The issue of 'Landmarks' is also another concern of mine regarding Griffin's organisation, though it did not materially enter our correspondence. Landmarks are a distinctly Freemasonic concept, and in Masonry the landmarks are those essential features of Freemasonry which define it. If you change one of the landmarks of Freemasonry, it no longer is Freemasonry, it is something else. Excellent idea to safeguard the traditions of the organisation, however to my almost certain knowledge no Grand Lodge (autonomous national or state administering body) has officially defined what the landmarks actually are- though many individual have offered their suggestions. Certainly no British/Imperial Grand Lodge has done so (the area I am most familiar with). Griffin, or someone in his organisation, borrowed this concept and tried to use it as a tool to legitimise their claims and undermine the claims of other organisations. The suggested landmarks were almost all self referential and obviously produced in harmony with a definite political agenda. Examples of the landmarks (ie, those essential features that by their definition, define, the Golden Dawn) include legal access to the trademark/copyright name 'Golden Dawn', 'recognition' of other GD organisations (ie, acknowledgement of other groups legitimacy - the only group thus recognised was the Cicero's, who they share the copyright with) and so on. Neither of these points bare any relationship to the original Order of the 1880s, and in the case of the trademark issue, it is a uniquely American preoccupation (like threatening law suits, apparently) and bears little relevance to the United Kingdom and many other countries.

In Freemasonry, suggestions provided for landmarks include the belief in a Supreme Being, the exclusion of women and comprising of three degrees. A rather different approach to the concept of landmarks as I see it than Griffin's offerings. Further more one of the features of Griffin's organisations is that they have moved all the Second Order material into the Outer Order, something which I would have thought would have run contrary to any landmarks the Golden Dawn might have. This also ties in with my objections to Griffin's organisation as being legitimate representative of the tradition. Such a move certainly violates the spirit and practice of the early temples and changes the essential framework of the spiritual development the Golden Dawn was trying to achieve. Having said that, I also agree to a large extent with one of the published reasons given for this regarding the absurdity of taking oaths to keep secret material that has been in print over 50 years and held by every man and his dog. But that is not entirely the point of the oaths…

So, that has been my position prior to Mr Griffin's e-mails.

On 1 July Mr Griffin e-mailed me via the site owner, concerned that the quoted passage was wrong and indeed libellous. I outlined my reasons for holding my opinion that his organisation does not hold a legitimate link to the 1880s, expressed doubt that any legal action would be successful, enquired as to what exactly was libellous and invited further discussion on the matter, indicating that I would be more than happy to make an amendment on receiving proof of what he claimed.

Mr Griffin made the first of many replies which progressively became less and less concerned with the issue at hand, until I requested him to communicate to me via his attorney and not personally. However, in one of his e-mails he did say:

"Monsieurs Jean-Pascal Ruggiu and Nicholas Tereschenko, Imperator and Cancellarius from the Ahathoor Temple no. 7 in Paris, were in turn each duly advanced to the 7=4 Grade at the Serapis temple in London, and the Ahathor temple was duly granted authentic warrant directly from LONDON in England!" (E-mail, 1 July 03)

Which confirmed my position in the first place, namely that the Paris lineage that was claimed on the website was erroneous. I am sure any dishonesty which may be apparent in the initial claims of the current Ahathoor is not wilful or deliberate but rather an oversight by Mr Griffin or his organisation. I also think it is worthy of note that the warrant for the current Ahathoor temple derives from Serapis in London in the early 1980s (according to Griffin), but the temple is still being referred to as number 7. By a similar reasoning, should I reinitiate Isis Uraina, I would obviously be justified in referring to it as Isis Uraina number 3, despite its almost century old 'abeyance'.

However, Mr Griffin kindly provided me with details of an alternative lineage which on first sight bears further examination. Unfortunately Mr Griffin refused to discuss the lineage and forbad me to make my own enquiries and so, without any degree of proof, I have no option but to reject his assertion to legitimacy through this other lineage.

Hopefully this gives a clearer insight into my reasons and the thought processes that went into my statement that there is no legitimate Golden Dawn temple operating (regarding charters/lineage), as it relates to David Griffin's organisation. This, I hope, will enable the reader to accept or reject my conclusions as they see fit, based on their own understanding and information on the situation. As a researcher, I welcome any correspondence on the matter that is productive and especially look forward to people who bring information to the table to prove me wrong - it means that I have gained a new perspective and that my horizons are broadening.

Sincerely
Roel van Leeuwen

Return to the Labyrinth © Temple of the Dark Moon (unless otherwise stated) © Logo by Nightshade Unique Magickal Designs