Talk:Church and School of Wicca/Archive 1

Archive 1

Toadsboon comment

I figured people need to know what they're getting into. --Toadsboon 09:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the statements found in The Witches Bible should be explained and expressed, as well as their connection to several chartered churches that have acted upon such, but it is also important to note that since the late 1970's they've been using a different work titled The Good Witches Bible which, in the eyes of pedophiles and literotica enthusiasts, may not be considered "as good." At any rate, we should approuch this in an objective manner. I thank you for your help in this manner and look forward to your future contributions. Sethimothy 01:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A note from Clifford Alford

Clifford Alford left a note under the Controversy section of the article, which was not written as part of an encyclopedic entry, but as a comment on the article. I've moved it here:

With reference to paragragh number two above, my name is Sir Clifford Alford, and I am both a Gnostic Templar Knight and a proud member of the Church and School of Wicca. As to the christian's dead nailed god, and his counter-part called Satan, I don't believe in either of them, and seriously wish that people would stop saying that I do. According to christian belief, this statement has "condemned me to Hell." But, since the only "hell" is living in a world with slanderers who hide their true identities, like the cowards they are, and the other one does not exist, I just can't bother with getting worried over it. The only one who has named himself tries to hide behind the assumed name of Kerr Cuchulain, but his real name is Detective Constable Robert Innis of the Vancouver, B.C. Police Department.

Now, I do admit that I am not a very good Wiccan in that I am not willing to "live and let live." I have tried to contact Innis, and Jo Frost, President of the Church and School of Wicca, told me that when he called them she figured out real fast that he was just a trouble hunter so she hung up on him. So, how am I a bad Wiccan? Well, I have never wanted to kill a cop before, but I do want to now. I am tired of this sorry little prick!

Most sincerely,

Sir Clifford Alford, KTpl

cliffordalford@sbcglobal.net

I will also take the opportunity to briefly respond to Sir Alford: I suggest you shouldn't be too offended by the attention Cuchulain has put on you, since you actually set out to draw attention to yourself in the first place, and since you represented Wicca in a way that most Wiccans are very unhappy with. If it wasn't Cuchulain it would have been someone else. Essentially he is acting as a mouthpiece for the concerns of the Wiccan (and greater Pagan) community, and if it hadn't been him, it would be someone else. Think of it this way: it is not him personally who has you under scrutiny, but the community at large. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

As far as I can see, this section about the "controversy" associated with the Church and School of Wicca is simply an attempt by A.J. Drew (or one of his friends) to take over the article and make it primarily about an issue that only he is perpetuating. His attacks on the Frosts over the content of this decades-old book are well known, and they (in great part) were responsible for his loss of the major speakers at the Real Witches' Ball this year, and by his own statements may lead to it's demise. I do not think it is encyclopedic to devote 80% or more of an article about this church to his campaign against the Frosts. The only citation provided is a link to Drew's own letter on his own blog. As far as I know, there has never been a single legal action even attempted against them or the church concerning any of his accusations, nor a legitimate accusation that they have broken the law, and most if not all leaders in the Neo-Pagan community have refused to support Mr. Drew in his efforts. A Wikipedia article should not be used as a soapbox for an individual's attempts at character assasination. Rosencomet 18:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the controversy section for all the above reasons, and more. The only references given were reviews posted on Amazon.com and Mr. Drew's own blog. Most of this information was about the book "The Witches Bible" (which has been revised with much of the offending material excised), not about the Church. Also, the claim that the Church has been criticized for the actions of people who got instruction from it and later became or revealed themselves to be anti-Pagan is not supported; where is this "criticism" outside of Mr. Drew's head? Furthermore, do we criticize universities for the actions or positions taken by their graduates? I do not think the material placed here is encyclopedic, well-supported by objective sources, or appropriate in an article about this subject.Rosencomet 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the one article in the notes entitled "Warlocks" by Kerr Cuhulain has been misrepresented, where it says "The Church and School of Wicca has also been criticised for accepting as members and providing correspondence-course training to Bill Schnoebelen, John Todd, Tom Sanguinet, Clifford Alford and Eric Pryor, all of whom went on to denounce Wicca as a satanic conspiracy, making extravagant claims about their degree of expertise and involvement in the religion." The article does NOT criticise the Church for not knowing in advance that these individuals who took their correspondence course would later use this data as part of their scams; on the contrary, much of the information Cuhulain uses in the article comes from the Aquarian Anti-Defamation League investigations CONDUCTED by Gavin Frost and Isaac Bonewits, who took GREAT pains and efforts to publicize these frauds in the Pagan community. Subsequently, the Church ceased to issue charters at all.Rosencomet 22:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can put this all down to an individual's attempt at character assassination; I myself have been involved in this article and have nothing to do with A.J. Drew. There are some really interesting things mentioned in that section, which are well known and discussed in the Wiccan community, and as much as they make the Church and School look a bit dodgy, they are verifiable, and of interest to readers of the article. Your point about Gavin Frost and Isaac Bonewits conducting investigations into the "warlocks" is also interesting, and should be added to the article, as is the fact that the Church stopped issuing charters; these tidbits would go a long way towards balancing the tone of the article. However I believe we need an informative article that attempts to achieve balance, rather than an article that avoids the issue of balance altogether by remaining uninformative.

To put it bluntly, the facts you've removed are probably the most notable details about the school, as far as the general public is concerned. They're what it and the Frosts are most famous for. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of editing, and the text below is what I've come up with, that seems fairly well referenced. Please add/edit it to include the extra information you mentioned above (I don't know your sources, so you'll have to add this), or correct any mistakes I've made. Then I'll add it back to the article. Text follows:

---

The Church and School of Wicca gave membership and training to Bill Schnoebelen, John Todd, Tom Sanguinet, Clifford Alford and Eric Pryor, all of whom went on to become Christian evangelists and publicly denounce Wicca as a satanic conspiracy, making extravagant claims about their degree of expertise and involvement. Of these, Todd was chartered by the Church and School to open a new church; he was investigated by the FBI in the 1970s for allegedly using this charter as a front to seduce underaged girls. Years later in the 1980s he was jailed for the rape of several college students.

The Church and School of Wicca has also promoted sexual practices at odds with most Wiccans. Their reading list included a book by the Frosts which promoted underage sex and incest and suggested that Wiccan girls should be deflowered as young as possible:

"The physical attributes of male and female virginity are destroyed at the youngest possible age, either by the mother or by a doctor. In the female case, the hymen is painlessly broken surgically. In the male case, the mother makes absolutely sure that the foreskin can be drawn fully back by cutting the underside attachment membrane. [...] At the last sabbat or eshbat before the initiation, the female novice is given the sacred phallus and the instruction sheet in Table 5 so that she can learn to insert and remove the phallus quickly and comfortably. She is also taught how she should lie and what she should do during the initiation ceremony...Throughout the fast the female novice wears her phallus, and at some time during the fast the novices are given a demonstration of introitus by a couple selected by the coven. The novice makes her own decision on contraception or lack of it. If she needs advice or help, the sponsor is the one to give it. (The IUD is the recommended Wicca preventive.)"

Table 5 contains instructions for pubescent Wiccan girls: "You have been entrusted with two phalli; these are in our care until your initiation. We would like you to be initiated at the next coven meeting, which will take place on ... This means that, excluding your menstruation time, you have three weeks to prepare your muscles for introitus. Your father or your sponsor will help you if you have any difficulties or pain."

This book, The Witches Bible was republished in 2000 as The Good Witches Bible, with disclaimers stating that sections of the book describe "controversial practices of the old path taught in the earliest days of the Church and School of Wicca", and that "No formal initiation into a group that practices the great rite should be done before the candidate attains the age of eighteen.".

In traditional forms of Wicca (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc.) sex is sometimes involved in third degree initiations into the High Priesthood, however this is generally between established couples, and sex is never required for first or second degree initiations or to join a group.

---

Text ends. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that just because an issue is the best piece of gossip about a topic doesn't mean it is the most encyclopedic information. "Interesting" and "encyclopedic" are not the same thing. Also, concerning several of the points you include here:

1. "John Todd, an evangelist who used his charter as a front to have sex with underaged girls in the 1970s"

I don't know or care about John Todd, but what proof do you have that this is so; both that he had sex with underage girls or that he "used his charter" (whether he had one at the time or not) to do it? Is there a citation? Was he convicted of this, or is it just gossip?

2. "It includes information on sex magic and suggests that wife swapping is the norm in Wicca"

Information about sex magic is included in MANY books on magic and witchcraft. That's nothing new; one might say that such a book would be incomplete without such information. And where is the citation that they "suggest" wife swapping is the norm in Wicca?

3. "The Church and School of Wicca also gave membership and correspondence-course training to Bill Schnoebelen, John Todd, Tom Sanguinet, Clifford Alford and Eric Pryor, all of whom went on to denounce Wicca as a satanic conspiracy, making extravagant claims about their degree of expertise and involvement in the religion."

I contend that since "membership and correspondence-course training" is given by mail, the Church can certainly not be held responsible for the character of the people who sign up, or the possibility that they had ulterior motives for gathering this information. Furthermore, there is no balance here concerning the many people who got training and did NOT misrepresent themselves, nor of the incidence of the same thing happening in other traditions of magic or religion; and it certainly does occur in other traditions and religions. Just ask the Catholic and Evangelical Churches.

Furthermore, how can the Church be held responsible for what actions correspondence-course students "went on to do"? This doesn't belong in an article about this church and school any more than the crimes or other unethical acts of past graduates of Harvard belong in the Harvard University article. Less, since Harvard presumably had four years or more of personal contact with the students.

4. I suggest that the information about the book "The Witches' Bible" and the later publication of "The Good Witches' Bible" be placed in it's own article, as several other books on Magic and Witchcraft have, and the Wiki community can decide whether it is notable enough. (Examples include What Witches Do, The Spiral Dance, Dreaming The Dark, The Book of the Law, Magick Without Tears, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, and Drawing Down the Moon. There are many more.) Such an article can include pubic statements Gavin & Yvonne Frost have made about this controversy for balance. But just because a book was on the reading list of a school doesn't merit a discussion of the controversy surrounding the book in that school's article that is longer than the rest of the article! If it did, every article about a school with an anthropology department should include a long section on the controversies around Darwin's Origin of Species (which, BTW, does have its own article).Rosencomet 17:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the text, but I'm very reluctant to drop much more out of the article without good cause; I presume you have some connection with the school and understandably want to "clean up" its image; but you have to understand we're not going to hide away important factual information that is highly relevant to the article. I'll try to answer your points:

1. John Todd is one of the most notorious of the Frosts' graduates, who went on to supply the fundamentalist Christian world with a great deal of defamatory information against Wicca, witchcraft and paganism. From what I've read so far (not a great deal) there doesn't seem to have been any proof or criminal conviction when he was attempting to seduce girls in the 1970s, but he is currently in maximum security prison for multiple rape. I have altered the text above to reflect this. I'll track down some more solid references when I have time.
2. I've removed the references to sex magic and wife-swapping.
3. Of course it is of interest who the church gives membership to. Certainly the Church can't easily distance itself from those it invests as priests and makes representatives of the Church by providing them with charters! Don't forget that in more traditional forms of Wicca training is never given by correspondence like this, and this kind of training is seen in a rather dim light. An initiating high priest or high priestess is generally considered to be karmically responsible for those they take on as students and particularly those they initiate. So this is a highly notable deviation this School makes from other forms of Wicca. Your other point: yes a Harvard graduate who went on to become, say, a credit card fraudster (to choose a random crime) wouldn't feature in the Harvard University article. However if there were a significant number of credit card fraudsters coming out of Harvard, and they all claimed that they had attended lectures in credit card fraud at Harvard, then that might indeed feature in the Harvard article. Harvard isn't a good comparison, because it's a big university notable for a great number of things, whereas the Church and School of Wicca is notable for little other than its unfortunate crop of bad-apple students and its rather bizarre ideas surrounding sex. As you point out, the Catholic Church has more than its fair share of pederasts, and I'm sure you'll find something about this in the article on the Church or one of its associated articles. Same goes for the Frosts' school: more than its fair share of prominent satanic conspiracy claimants. Heck, how many of these guys have there been who claim to have been in the upper eschelons of the satanic illuminati and then become evangelists? And what proportion of them come from the Frosts' school?
4. I don't think this book warrants its own article. The text above contains pretty much all of the negative details I would bother including; it doesn't contain the Frosts' public statements (and it would be helpful if you could add those), but I'm sure those wouldn't take a lot of room. If the section grows we can split it into its own article. The normal approach in WP is to keep the text in situ until it grows large enough to split out. Then the parent article would contain a brief precis and a link to the new article. But I don't see that we're ready to split yet, unless you've got a whole heap of text to add. Furthermore, the information about that book isn't there randomly, just to describe a book with only passing relevance to the article; it's there to give some idea of the early teachings and character of the school. The Frosts have stated that the practices described were indeed "taught in the earliest days of the Church and School of Wicca". That's highly relevant. To say it isn't would be like saying that the communist manifesto wasn't relevant to the Soviet Union!

Hope you understand... Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You presume too much, and your information is not supported.

1. I have NO CONNECTION TO THE CHURCH AND SCHOOL OF WICCA! I do know Gavin and Yvonne Frost as speakers who have been booked several years ago at Starwood, as have over a hundred others. I simply think the article is giving way too much weight to a single article in Witchvox who's content is refuted by the founders of the church and school that is the subject of the article.

2. According to Gavin Frost, John Todd is NOT a graduate of the Church and School of Wicca, nor has he ever been given permission to represent it. Frost says that whatever terminology he used must have been taken from his books, which were and are available at bookstores without being connected to the organization. He was never chartered by them, no matter what either he or Kerr Cuhulain claims. Also, what he did ten years after this controversy definitely does NOT belong in an article describing the Church and School of Wicca!

3. Your information does not come from a reliable source concerning the memberships in the Church. According to Gavin Frost, the only ones in your list (Bill Schnoebelen, John Todd, Tom Sanguinet, Clifford Alford and Eric Pryor) that actually were members of the Church wer Tom Sanguinet and Clifford Alford. Allford denies that he "went on to become Christian evangelists and publicly denounce Wicca as a satanic conspiracy"; on the contrary, he denies belief in Satan or Christ and proudly calls himself "both a Gnostic Templar Knight and a proud member of the Church and School of Wicca" in this very page and claims, as does Gavin Frost and Isaac Bonewits, that the "Warlocks" article is inaccurate in many ways.

4. I disagree with the premise that the subsequent actions of someone who CLAIMED to be a member of an organization, or even an actual member, should be part of an article designed to descibe and define that organization. In fact, I think the notion is absurd, and would never be applied to any other Church or School. Unless you can show that these people had the SUPPORT of the organization rather than, in fact, harming them by their false claims, then you are simply HELPING these charlatans defame the Church and School by perpetuating the connection, and all based on a single article on a website with no journalistic oversight whose content the organization and others in their community say is untrue. I further think that mentioning the uncited claims about Todd raping college students TEN YEARS LATER seems suspiciously like an attempt to associate this church and school with rapes that, if they actually existed, could not POSSIBLY be connected to a school Todd may or may not have sent away for a correspondence course from over a decade earlier! I find it quite hard to assume good faith concerning this.

5. Whether the book merits its own article or not (and I agree it probably doesn't, nor do many book articles I've seen), what you say about an article about a book originating in some other article like this one does not hold water. None of the books I've listed (What Witches Do, The Spiral Dance, Dreaming The Dark, The Book of the Law, Magick Without Tears, The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, and Drawing Down the Moon) began that way (although the section on the book Spiral Dance did begin as part of the now far smaller article on Spiral Dance). Also, when that DOES happen, it generally begins in a biographical article about the author, NOT in an article about a school or church that happens to have had this book as part of it's past ciricullum. Also, we're talking about a book that had less than 500 copies printed before the revision you mention. Many schools, my high school and college among them, had books in their ciricullum that said obsolete and currently unacceptable things about women, and African-Americans, and Darwin, and Judaism, and Catholicism, and homosexuality, and many other topics, including scientific "facts" that were later completely refuted. While this information may be facinating and certainly belongs in a good research book and a host of articles, it has, IMO, NO place in an article about a Church and School, especially one that has moved on with the times and revised such inaccurate and/or offensive material. I've never seen a comparable example of the content of an abandoned form of a single book from the cirriculum of a school or church given a section of the article about that organization. Have you?

6. Where is your citation for this statement: "In traditional forms of Wicca (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc.) sex is sometimes involved in third degree initiations into the High Priesthood, however this is generally between established couples, and sex is never required for first or second degree initiations or to join a group."

What does "established couples" mean in this context, how is that different from anything described in the edited text you propose, and where is the citation that sex IS required by this church or any other to "join"? For that matter, are you aware that sex magic couples historically are often not couples outside this function, and that some sex magic texts even advise against it? (This comment isn't particularly related to Wicca or initiation.)Rosencomet 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You make some really good points here, which could have shortened this discussion significantly if you had made them earlier. You say for instance that only Clifford Alford was ever actually associated with the school, and if this is true then they should probably be removed from the article (why "probably" rather than "certainly"? see below); of course you imply above in your comment dated 22:42, 5 November 2007 that they all did take the correspondence course; forgive me if I'm being dense, but I don't quite understand how you can give someone witchcraft training without membership? This whole correspondence course thing just doesn't make sense to me, and again I ask you to direct me to the Frosts' refutations, which presumably will explain things clearly. I haven't come across these refutations yet; you have; please direct me to them.

Regarding that book, I'll repeat: the intention here is not primarily to provide information about a book, but rather to provide information about a Wiccan organisation. Some striking information about that organisation is contained in the book, therefore we describe those relevant contents. Of course if, as you say, John Todd never actually came into contact with the school, then the sexual ideas in those books are not quite so vitally interesting, because we no longer have the situation of a pedophile/soon-to-be-rapist as a chartered member of the Church.

Regarding my lack of citations, I'm aware of this lack, as I mentioned in my previous post; I haven't had time to gather together the supporting citations for these widely recognised facts about BTW. I know they exist on the internet; somewhere like the New Wiccan Church or witchvox. But I haven't had time to search for them (or for the Frosts' rebuttal). I wouldn't post the above text without spending quite a bit more time cleaning up the citations. And yes, I'm aware of the full range of sex magic that Wiccans get up to. In most groups the only time there's sex outside of a working partnership is during 3* (and even this is surprisingly uncommon) or if two people have an affair (probably more common, but this is generally not intended as "sex magic"!).

The reason I'm here trying to reinstantiate this material is because it was removed without a clear and convincing explanation, which seemed suspicious. I've been trying to engage you in dialogue so that you explain clearly what was wrong with the text; you are gradually actually doing so, which is great, although I still need a bit more info. You say you're not associated with the Church and School; I'm not associated with Mr. Drew. We're both, I presume, just interested in making this article balanced and truthful.

Now, I said above that we might potentially keep this group of miscreants in the article, even if it was determined that they weren't connected with the school. The reasoning is that if there is sufficiently notable controversy connecting these figures with the school in the popular imagination, then the article could correct this misinformation by stating that these figures had claimed connections to the school but in fact were unassociated. That would be an important thing the article could do, because as I said, I believe one of the things the Church and School of Wicca is most widely noted for is its supposed unsavoury connections to these preachers. Being able to correct this misinformation might serve the school well.

Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll do what I can. I have contacted Gavin Frost and asked if he could direct me to, or post anew, his responses to the mterial in question.

One correction: I did not say John Todd "never actually came into contact with the school", just that he "is NOT a graduate of the Church and School of Wicca, nor has he ever been given permission to represent it". I have asked Gavin to verify the actual status and history of the five individuals as best he can thirty-five years or so later; he said he'd check the card catalogs, just to show you how far back that goes.

I think it is important not allow an article to become a blackwash of an individual or organization just to make it more interesting. It does great harm to people to associate them with criminal activities or the promotion of the same, and creating associations by perpetuating unfounded accusation victimises the subject and aids their detractors. It's like saying "All accusations of Satanism / drug dealing / Communism / puppy beating on the part of Mr. Jones are, at this time, insufficiently supported to have lead to a conviction." It defames someone without bothering to prove anything, and it certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This isn't a gossip rag.

You may not intend such a result, but I feel obligated to try to prevent it if I see the article going in that direction. I would certainly delete something like "a former member of such-and-such organization went on to rape a woman ten years later" from the description of ANY article (unless there's a Deca-Annual Woman Raper's Society). Rosencomet 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, and yes, I agree with the importance of making sure that facts are well established, especially in cases like this. Bear in mind that anything we attempt to put in the article that isn't properly verified by a citation of a reliable source can be challenged by you (or anyone), and even removed immediately if it's potentially defamatory. Gavin's refutation will hopefully be made in some public place where it can be reliably authenticated to him, such as on their website if they have one. Remember that all the editors here are anonymous, and personally (but not publically) available information is not much use. If you're in contact with Gavin, you might pass that on. See WP:V for more details. And thanks for going to all this bother... Fuzzypeg☻ 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So far, I can report the following:

1. There is no support for the claim that Eric Pryor had any connection with the Church of Wicca; he doesn't even seem to have sent away for their courses, much less having been ordained by them. Even Kerr Cuhulain lists that claim as one of Pryor's claims that seem to be untrue, along with several other claims of ordination and priesthood in different religions. I can find no article with both "Eric Pryor" and "Church of Wicca" in them at all except Cuhulain's Witchvox article, in which he says, "The Frost's have never heard of Pryor and have no record of him as a mail order student. He was certainly not ordained by them. Pryor refuses to this day to produce any ordination papers to substantiate his claims."

2. There is no support for the claim that Bill Schnoebelen had any connection with the Church of Wicca except that he sent away for their courses. The Church has given him no ordination or charter. He has claimed to have one at least once, but the Church doesn't even have a record that he completed his correspondence courses. Even Kerr Cuhulain says that the only thing that can be supported is that Schnoebelen studied the Church's material, since he quotes it at times. According to William Schnoebelen's Big Black Lie, written by Thomas Blackwolfe, both his initiations and the covens he and his wife established in Iowa were Alexandrian, and he established a Church of All Worlds nest in Milwaukee. He never did anything claiming authority from the Church of Wicca.

3. IMO, it would be a mistake to believe ANYTHING written by or ABOUT John Todd. It's like reading about the Illuminati (who, by the way, Todd claims personally contacted him on several occasions). I'm still trying to get a read on his true relationship with the Church from Gavin. However, individuals are not granted Charters from the Church; it was the Watcher's Church of Wicca in Dayton, OH that was granted the charter, and he was associated with them. Interestingly enough, Todd called in the Aquarian Anti-Defamation League to address his claims that the local police were infringing on their rights (and bragged about it to the newspapers), and the AADL investigation (run by Gavin Frost and Isaac Bonewits) determined that this allegation was false and that TODD's behavior merited revoking the charter.

4. Still waiting for material on Tom Sanguinet as well. Cuhulain claims that Frost confirmed that he worked for them as a welder in their boat dock, took and completed the two-year course, and was awarded a Charter which was subsequently revoked. I haven't gotten a confirmation of this from Gavin yet.

5. Clifford Alford is the only one who has commented himself on this page. His website claims that he has "a Doctor of Divinity (D.D.) from the Church and School of Wicca", but there's no such thing. Even Cuhulain only says that besides Alford's claim to be ordained by the Church, have this degree, etc, all he has ever seen is a photostat of "a Church of Wicca ID and of a certificate showing that he got A in this school's "Essential Wicca" course, A+ in "Advanced Witchcraft", Pass (no letter grade given) in "Doctorate of Celtic Witchcraft" and A in a "Mentoring Class"". The Church has not, as far as I can tell, "awarded him a charter", nor does he seem to claim it has.

So of the five, three are not confirmed as ever even completing the full course of study they sent away for (much less being ordained or having a charter), no matter what they claim, and their greatest critic and the only source cited in the article seems to agree that these are merely among their dubious claims. In another article, Cuhulain states, "I'm not suggesting that the Frost's school made these people what they are now. I've pointed out how these people have used their knowledge of Church and School of Wicca practices to augment their fantastic tales." Gavin has stated that they could have done the same by simply buying his books. And yes, to answer your question, you can take correspondence classes from the School, or audit them, without being a member of the Church.

I don't consider the info about these frauds to be encyclopedic, and I do consider it defamatory. However, I would consider a statement like the following to be encyclopedic:

"In the early years of the Church, ordination and sometimes even charters had been offered to some individuals solely on the basis of their correspondence courses. However, due to a few incidences of fraudulent use of Church credentials, misconduct by these individuals, and/or the use of course material to defame the Church and the religion of Wicca, and public controversy about these cases, this practice has been abandoned and, in some cases, charters have been revoked."

...with a link to the "Warlocks" article by Cuhulain. I think this satisfies the desire to include the issue without naming names (while lacking sufficient documentation of these people's actions and if each really were guilty of crimes, used their credentials to seduce underage girls, were under FBI investigation, etc), all of which belongs in the articles of those individuals rather than that of a school they sent away to for correspondence courses, IMO. In the case of one who is notable enough to have an article, like John Todd, inclusion of a link in a "See Also" section would also be appropriate. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me add that the Church and School of Wicca seems to have been singled out here. These same individuals, and I invite everyone who cares about this issue to read the entirety of all Cuhulain's articles about them, have shown equal or closer connections to other Pagan organizations and individuals: Covenant of the Goddess, Church of All Worlds, Kenny & Tziporah's group, Herman Slater, Z. Budapest, and others, and have claimed connections of every sort to everyone from Reclaiming, Ray Buckland, and the OTO to the Church of Satan, the Illuminati, and the FBI. All this can be found in the same articles, but only the Church and School of Wicca article has included such info about assholes like these who join these groups to gain info to use against those same groups and their adherents, or to misrepresent themselves for personal gain. It's all stuff that needs to be read, but does not IMO belong in an encyclopedia article about the organization, and this one seems to be the only one containing such material.Rosencomet (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent work you've done. I'm now happy with either leaving the article as it stands (with no mention of controversy surrounding the School), or inserting the paragraph you suggest above. I think inserting that paragraph would be informative to some people who come to the article with misconceptions (like myself). Well done! Fuzzypeg☻ 21:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversial material restored

I cut and pasted the controversial section from an old version of this article, as it is factual. The material is still contained in the book which now has additional statements confirming that the quotes here were part of the original teachings of the Church and School of Wicca. If there is an article on the Church and School of Wicca, the founding teachings of that Church and School is encyclopedic, especially when they are this controversial.

Should we not reference the Constitution of the United States of America in an encyclopedic manor because it states that black men are not equal to white men for the purpose of establishing electoral votes? Sure, we do things differently today. But the Constitution of the United States of America is part of the living history of the United States of America and this book is part of the living history of not only the Church and School of Wicca, but Wicca as a religion in and of itself.

Rosencomet, you are an associate of Gavin Frost and organizer of events at which he speaks. Wikipedia should be above the infighting that is represented in this talk page and in the edits and present only facts. The quotes from the book are factual and controversial. They belong.

(Now100 (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

First of all, you are mistaken. I am in no way connected to Gavin Frost. I am not a member of any organization of his, and he is not a member of any organization of mine. I have never visited his home, or even his city, and he has not visited mine. I have never worked on a project with him. I have no economic connection with him, and he has not appeared at any event I organize in a matter of years. You, on the other hand, seem to have come into Wikipedia with only one agenda, and it concerns Gavin Frost and the Church and School of Wicca. Are you associated in any way with A.J. Drew, or are you, in fact, he?

Second, you have ignored my documentation that much of what was deleted was NOT factual, is defamatory, and is refuted by the works of the very author who wrote the ONLY article provided as a citation to those facts. You have chosen to ignore the entire discussion on this talk page. I think your actions are inappropriate, your characterization of me is inaccurate, and your analogy to the Constitution is, well, let's just say flawed. These are not "the founding principles of the school", they are part of 3 pages of one of several textbooks the school used decades ago. As I say above: "Also, we're talking about a book that had less than 500 copies printed before the revision you mention (in 1976, less than 4 years after the original version). Many schools, my high school and college among them, had books in their ciricullum that said obsolete and currently unacceptable things about women, and African-Americans, and Darwin, and Judaism, and Catholicism, and homosexuality, and many other topics, including scientific "facts" that were later completely refuted. While this information may be facinating and certainly belongs in a good research book and a host of articles, it has, IMO, NO place in a Wikipedia article about a Church and School, especially one that has moved on with the times and revised such inaccurate and/or offensive material. I've never seen a comparable example of the content of an abandoned form of a single book from the cirriculum of a school or church given a section of the article about that organization. Have you?"

What you see here is not "infighting". It is a process of discussion and documentation between two editors who dealt with the issue respectfully and came to an understanding on the talk page. What you did, just reverting the text and making accusations, that is infighting.Rosencomet (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the quotes because they are important. The Frosts claim they founded a religion. Their book contains the original teachings and ritualized pedophilia. Those instructions remained without disclaimer for almost 30 years. The current version of the book does have a legal disclaimer, but still contains the teachings with the ritualized pedophilia. That seems very important to me. .Buffbrahma

Note: Moments after I changed this page, someone changed it back to exclude the quotes from the founding documents of this church and marked it as "possible BLP issue or vandalism". Uh no, the founding documents / teachings contain those quotes, the book is currently available and the quotes can be checked. Is there some attempt at revising history going on?

This is simply factual information of great importance to any discussion of the organization.

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

It is factual, no opinions or point of view given. On a side note, I don't think pedophilia is a good thing. So I think I gave a rather Neutral Point of View.

Verifiability

The quotes are in the first edition and the current edition. Seems very easy to verify.

No original research

Nothing original about factual quotes from a book originally published in 1972 (37 years ago). Just very relevant and factual quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffbrahma (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Buffbrahma —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC).

The additions violate WP:UNDUE. In your version, they make up half of the article and appear before such basic info as cirruculum. They also fail WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. To put it in perspective, it is akin to stating that Christians advocate the murder of witches because the bible states that "you shall not suffer a witch to live" or that they believe gays should be killed because of Leviticus 20:13. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could sign your vandalism?

We are speaking about the FOUNDING teachings and principles of an organization. To put this in its place, what you are saying is that in a discussion of the United States of America the Constitution is not all that important. Further, the Church and School of Wicca is not Wicca. It is one tiny sect with radical ideas.

This Church is to Wicca what The Family is to Christianity - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_International

You will note that the Wikipedia article on the Family includes reference to child abuse. Please stop attempting to rewrite history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffbrahma (talk • contribs) 11:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems rather clear there is an ongoing attempt to exclude factual and non-point of view matters concerning the Church and School of Wicca. Perhaps it is an attempt to discount the factual information concerning its founding doctrines and creation. I feel that information is as important to a discussion of the Church and School of Wicca as is the Constitution to a discussion of the United States of America.

When ever this factual information is included, someone deletes it. It seems the deletions are a “point of view” effort to distort the truth of this organization’s foundation and founding doctrine. It would be nice if the person conducting the vandalism of this page would at least sign his or her attacks on the document. Maybe s/he could explain their actions here or conduct his or her self as an intelligent adult.

Thank you - Buffbrahma —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Once again a vandal who neither signs in nor comments to the talk page has removed content describing the founding teachings of this organization.

Thank you - Buffbrahma —Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

You really need to review WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:VAND and Wikipedia:Anonymous user before you throw around any more spurious claims about the validity of my edits. Wouldn't hurt to read the rest of this section also. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous User at IP 98.248.33.198 – Maybe you could spell out just why it is that you keep deleting the information instead of just referencing policy.

Neutral Point of View – Although most readers would find pedophilic rituals damning, I have stated nothing but factual information with ZERO point of view. As these pedophilic rituals are the founding teachings of the Church and School of Wicca as stated in the publication itself, it seems as important to the subject as would be the Declaration of Independence to a discussion of the United States of America.

Please explain how this is a violation of Neutral Point of View? I haven’t even said pedophilia is wrong, bad, immoral, or unethical. I have simply stated factual information concerning the initial teachings of the Church and School of Wicca.

Reliable Source – The quotes are from the book written by Gavin and Yvonne Frost who are the very founders of the Church and School of Wicca. Who exactly would be a more reliable source than the founders of the organization we are talking about?

Vandalism – You remove content and claim it is for the above reasons. Seems like vandalism to me. If it is not, if you are not attempting to rewrite history, maybe you could explain / respond to the above observations. I’d especially like to know who is a more reliable source than the founders of the organization quoted from their own book.

Seriously, what is up with you and this issue? Do you think I am some nut trying to give Wicca a black eye or something? Every religion has it's nut cases. That's why I mentioned that the Church and School of Wicca is vastly different from other forms of Wicca. I wouldn't want people doing to Wiccans what many have done to Catholics.

Hoping to have a conversation - Buffbrahma —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

I saw this at the third opinion noticeboard.

There are several concerns with the section. Overall, please keep in mind "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." - WP:ORIGINAL and "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." - WP:UNDUE. (both uses of emphasis mine) There is nothing wrong with stating that ritualistic pedophilia was taught in theory but it needs to be presented correctly and through appropriate use of reliable sources.

What jumps out:

• Is what is surgically breaking the hymen and what appears to be circumcision pedophilia? Has a source said it is?
• Weight. This section is given too much weight within the overall context of the article. At quick glance one would assume that this is the most important aspect of the subject.
• Context. I am having a hard time understanding why. Detail is given on how it is done. The detail should be a summary of the reasoning and significance per reliable sources.

Style concerns include:

• Ritualized Pedophilia - Pedophilia should not be capitalized per WP:Headings
• Inline citations are needed

Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I came here from wp 3O too, so I guess you could consider this a fourth opinion. The only thing I have to add to the above is that the phrase

The authors / founders knew this conduct was illegal and provided instructions on how to avoid problems with not only the courts but to avoid paying child support.

unless properly sourced to a something that actually states that, is probably in violation of WP:BLP and should be removed--UltraMagnus^speak 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cptnono & UltraMagnus - Both of your points are well taken and I am going to work on the section today. The thing is, if I document everything properly it will be deleted and the person will claim that it is because the section gives undue weight to the issue. Look at the history of this page, it's insane.

Seriously, I use Wikipedia a lot. My wife commented that I should give back to the community since I take so much. So when I see things that I can add to, I do. I saw a huge section deleted here and tried to work it back in. It was deleted again almost instantly. That got my goat as it does seem a major issue.

I will try to do better with the next addition, but PLEASE if you see something I could do better, especially with style, please take the time to change it rather than just undue all of the work. Lets work as a team, produce a better article, and help me to be a better Wikipedian... uh Wikipedianer?

Thank you for the conversation and in advance for the help - Buffbrahma —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC).

Controversy

I have removed the new section. There are multiple concerns.

• Style - Multiple issues including:
  • Proper inline citations are required
  • Section headers were not provided and capitalization was incorrect
  • It reads primarily as a list when prose are preferred.
• Commentary by the editor derived from their interpretation of the sources (see WP:OR). Too many examples to list since that is mainly the whole of the section is but 1 is "When a child develops to a stage where the physical attributes of reproduction are present, he can become a full member of the coven.(14)" Being listed under the intended "Pedophilia" section. Basically, we are not allowed to criticise them or make a rap sheet. We can use Dr. Raymond Buckland.
• WP:Undue weight Controversy is slanting the article. Please read the wikilink Cptnono (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Below is the section. I would recommend moving it into a subpage (user sandbox)and reworking. It should be proposed before included due to the editors lack of experience but that is up to them.

The Church and School of Wicca is dissimilar to main stream Wicca in many ways. When introduced, it presented an anti gay and lesbian ideology, called for the surgical modification of children’s genitals in preparation for sexual initiation, and insisted on Wife / Husband swapping. Mainstream Wicca advocates none of these practices. More controversy can be found in the Church and School of Wicca’s claim that they created the Wiccan religion. Main stream Wicca tells a completely different story.

Anti-Gay Ideology

The teachings of the Church and School of Wicca were first made widely public in 1972 with the publication of The Witches Bible: How to Practice the Oldest Religion. This book included the initial teachings of the Church and School of Wicca. Controversy followed almost immediately. In 1973, the headline of Dr. Leo Martello’s Wica Newsleter No. 22 read: “The Witches Bible is Bullshit”. Among other matters, Dr. Leo Martello, a pioneer in gay civil rights, and others objected to Gavin and Yvonne Frost’s initial anti-gay stance.

”the practice of lesbianism and homosexuality is not condoned by Wicca” (1)

The Founders of Wicca?

Gavin and Yvonne Frost claim to be the “Founders of Wicca as a religion” (1) . In their book, A Good Witches Bible they claim to have “founded Wicca as a new spirituality and religion”(2). Their blog states that the school is “the oldest Wican school in the universe” (3).

These claims are contradicted by most references (4), including Dr. Raymond Buckland who became known as “The Father of American Wicca”(5) after making Gardnerian Wicca available in the United States in 1964(6), four years prior to founding of the Church and School of Wicca in 1968(7). Gerald Gardner, founder of Gardnerian Wicca, claimed to have been first initiated in 1939 (8) is widely regarded as the public origin of modern Wicca. Mr. Gardner did not claim to have founded the religion, but instead claimed he discovered it via the New Forest Coven (9).

Modification of Children’s Genitals in preparation for Pedophilic Rituals

The initial teachings of the Church and School of Wicca instructed parents to have their children’s genitals surgically modified to make them ready for pedophilic rituals.

“The physical attributes of male and female virginity are destroyed at the youngest possible age, either by the mother or by a doctor. In the female case, the hymen is painlessly broken surgically. In the male case, the mother makes absolutely sure that the foreskin can be drawn fully back by cutting the underside attachment membrane.” (11)

In the case of female children, a further process of stretching and toning the child’s vaginal tunnel is specified. The girl’s father or sponsor is instructed to help in the process using two different sized homemade penis like devices. Detailed instructions on creating these devices are provided with diagrams and instructions on the proper lubricant.

“They are coated with petroleum jelly, then wrapped in plastic wrap and in linen or cotton cloth.” (12)

Table 5. Use of the Phallus (13) details the practice a girl must complete with two of these home made “phallus” to stretch and tone her vaginal muscles each morning and evening for the three weeks prior to sexual initiation.

Pedophilic Initiation Rituals

“When a child develops to a stage where the physical attributes of reproduction are present, he can become a full member of the coven.”(14)

“It is hoped by Wicca that the first full sexual experience will take place in the pleasant surroundings of the coven…” (15)

“At the last sabbat or eshbat before initiation, the female novice is given the sacred phallus and instruction sheet in Table 5 so that she can learn to insert and remove the phallus quickly and comfortably. She is also taught how she should lie and what she should do during the initiation ceremony” (16)

“Throughout the fast the female novice wears her phallus, and at some time during the fast the novices are given demonstrations of introitus by a couple selected by the coven.” (17) A Modern How to Manual of Pedophilia

The Witches Bible was first published in 1972 as a “How to” manual. This is evidenced by its subtitle “How to practice the oldest Religion”. As it describes the use of nylon in the creation of the phallus, claims that it is an ancient reference based in a time when puberty was much older are countered by the fact that nylon was first produced in 1935. (18) The average onset of puberty in present time is about 10 years of age with menstruation beginning before the age of 12 (19). Some girls experience their first menstruation at the age of 8 (20)

“Carnal Knowledge The daughter of a local Wicca couple wishes to join the coven. She is sixteen. May she join? The answer in most states is that when she is a member, all of the men of the coven could be jailed; no amount of formal releases properly signed will help. So if she wishes to join, all the male members of the coven must sign an agreement absolving the other members from responsibility” – 21

Speaking of pregnant women:

“Toward the end of their term, though, when they find they are unable to participate fully in coven activity and are worried about the future, they sometimes panic and sue for child support. Therefore, all single women joining the coven must sign a release.” (22)

Mandated Wife / Husband Swapping

“It is inherent in Wicca belief that marriage is mainly a matter of the mind, not of sex. Can you allow the woman you live with to have sex with another in the perfect faith that she will return to you and will feel more, not less, love toward her?” (23)

Table 11 of the Witches Bible details which spouses will live with which.

“…our rule is that twice a year every male and female in the coven will live with a female or male other than the spouse for one full lunar month.” (24)

Section references:

GWB = The Good Witches Bible – Reprinted December 1999 by Godolphin House Publishing

 1 - The Witches Bible 1973 by Nash.

 2 - http://www.wicca.org/gavinandyvonne/bio.html

 3 - http://gavinandyvonne.blogspot.com/

 4 - GWB - Foreword, page I, paragraph 5

 5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

 6 - http://raybuckland.com/

 7 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Buckland

 8 - http://www.wicca.org/gavinandyvonne/bio.html

 9 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardnerian_Wicca

10 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Gardner

11 - GWB - Chapter 4 – Page 66 – paragraph 4

12 - GWB - Chapter 5 – Page 99 – paragraph 3 and Figure 30. “Phalli Details”

13 - GWB - Chapter 4 – Page 67

14 - GWB - Chapter 4 – Page 65 – Paragraph 4

15 - GWB - Chapter 4 – Page 66 – Paragraph 3

16 - GWB - Chapter 4 – Page 66 – Paragraph 5

17 - GWB - Chapter 4 - Page 66 – Paragraph 7

18 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon

19 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

20 - http://womens-health.health-cares.net/menstruation-age.php

21 - GWB - Chapter 4 – Page 139 – Paragraph 2

22 - GWB - Chapter 4 – Page 139 – Paragraph 3

23 - GWB - Chapter 8 – Page 159 – Paragraph 5

24 - GWB - Chapter 8 – Page 160 – Paragraph 1

This material has been rehashed over and over again. The anti-Church of Wicca contingent simply refuses to hear what the rest of the editors have said. Calling these quotes from a 37 year old book "the founding principle of the Church" is unfair and untrue, and irrelevant besides. This is an encyclopedia article about a Church and School, not a re-examination of a single book. As has been said above, this is as absurd as saying that since the Bible orders death for witches and homosexuals, an article about a particular church or synagogue (say, Trinity Cathedral or Young Israel synagogue in Cleveland) should have a lengthy section about their horrible "founding principles" in this book; ignoring both the fact that the organization neither teaches nor practices any such thing now, nor has there EVER been ANY evidence that they actually practiced such in the past. (On the other hand, both churches and schools in America once owned slaves, bred them, broke up their families, and in some cases mutilated their bodies and condoned sex with them. But IMO these facts don't belong in an encyclopedia article about the particular church or school. A book about their history, perhaps. )

If the book Witch's Bible merits an article itself, and I don't think it does, it might be appropriate to include a discussion of these issues in such an article. But an encyclopedia article about a school doesn't merit a controversial soapbox section, bigger than the entire article, about the contents of a single old textbook. This is an attack on the organization masquerading as relevant content. It's as inappropriate as an article about Harvard being taken up by a long accusatory section about how some of their law books used to say black men were 3/5ths of a person, their science books used to say the universe was full of ether, their psychology texts used to call homosexuality a psychosis or perversion, or that their medical texts recommended mercury infusions and leeches. Such data may belong somewhere, but not in the article about Harvard University. (As an aside, saying that Wicca doesn't "condone" homosexuality is not the same as saying it condemns it; sexual orientation could simply be irrelevant to Wicca, as it historically is NOT to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Also, Judaism states that a child enters the Jewish community at the age of thirteen - the average age of puberty - and is eligible to be be married off, engage in sex, and bear children. Is this pedophilia? Is circumcision child mutilation? More to the point, would such issues be appropriate in an article about Yeshiva University, just because the Talmud and the Bible are texts used there?)

The article at present contains only factual, verified information, and it took a lot of work to get it that way. The info is neutral, and does not contain any of the claims about Gavin originating Wicca that Buffbrahma inserts merely to contest. It is an article about an organization, not the content of a single textbook, and IMO it should remain such. It should be protected by the repeated attempts to insert inappropriate defamatory material that has been rejected time and time again on several basis. Rosencomet (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Rosencomet:

Yes, it is an article on an organization. The Witches Bible is the original teachings of that organization. Your stance is equal to saying the Constitution of the United States of America is not important to an article on the United States of America.

Defamatory? These are quotes from the book in question, from the founding teachings.

Inappropriate? The founding documents of an organization are inappropriate for an article on the organization? The documented claims of the founder are not appropriate? He says he invented the Wiccan religion, hence the Church and School of Wicca is the FIRST tradition of Wicca. How is that not relevant?

I would love to see your point, but it seems to me the only point you have is that nobody should point out the truth in this organization if it is something that people might not like.

Buffbrahma —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Read the reasoning provided for removal and address it. The sky isn't falling.Cptnono (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)