Path: portal!portal.com!sdd.hp.com!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!halsoft.com!netcomsv!sacbbx!wmeonlin!125-430!Michael.Aquino
From: Michael.Aquino@125-430.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com (Michael Aquino)
Date: 27 Jun 94 20:00:28 -0800
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Temple of Set/Church of Satan
Message-ID: <0e2_9406280534@wmeonlin.sacbbx.com>
X-Mail-Agent: GIGO+ sn 1 at wmeonlin vsn 0.99 pl1
X-FTN-To: Tim@toad.com
Organization: Fidonet: Glinda 
Lines: 59

tim> And do not give out this crap about how you LOVE CoS and would not
tim> wish it harm - If you or your organization could do anything to the
tim> CoS it would be DONE.  You cannot - and you know this. I think the
tim> alt.satanism Usenet knows this too, after two moon's of your re-post
tim> of the same information over and over.   So Put Up or Shut up.

A strange post from Tim Maroney, as the language seems that of Ken Rhoades.
Possibly a corrupted transmission. In any case:

Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear the first time. Our regard is 
for the original, authentic Church of Satan that existed only 1966-1975. The
obscene caricature that a few vulgar little people have tried to exploit since 
then is nothing more than a reproach and an embarrassment to the original
vision.

But you bring up an interesting point: Should we try actively and aggressively 
to expose and discredit this scam to the point where those who are trying to
prostitute it give it up and go looking for some other way to expend their
energy?

Or should we just treat the 1966-75 C/S as a "closed book" - as indeed we have 
per my _Church of Satan_ history - and ignore the Anton LaVey of today and the 
type of representatives his present persona has attracted: Blanche Barton, the 
Gilmores, Rhoades?

There is a certain tempting logic to the second option, on the theory that
water seeks its own level and that anyone stupid enough to be duped by people
such as these deserves it. Certainly people like Barton, the Gilmores, and
Rhoades could never qualify as Setians. So why not let the Anton of today have 
them, and them have him, and be done with it?

I suspect the Temple of Set is inclining more and more towards that way of
thinking. Almost two decades have elapsed since the end of the C/S in 1975,
and the vast majority of today's Setians think of the historic C/S as only an
interesting prelude to the Temple - and think of the present-day "C/S" as
little more than a bad joke. They have many more interesting and more
productive matters towards which to devote their attention. Old Satanic
war-horses like me are regarded a bit indulgently, if you'll pardon the term,
for our fits of vehemence about "the good old days".

We took issue with Anton in 1975 for betraying the Prince of Darkness and
betraying the Church into just a vehicle for Anton to exploit. We corrected
both problems with the Temple of Set. Thereafter, of course, Anton has made no 
secret of his current beliefs, motives, and attitude towards other people. So
it may well be that it is his destiny, and that of those now clinging to him,
to do just what they are doing.

As for the Prince of Darkness, he withdrew his Mandate from the Church in
1975; hence we need not be concerned with it thereafter on his behalf. And
even the name "Satan" - that of a mere Hebrew corruption and Judaeo/Christian
scarecrow later on - is better left to those who revel in its negative imagery 
and who cannot step outside of the brittle little universe of J/C.

Destroy the Church of Satan? Anton himself did that almost 20 years ago. The
founders of the Temple of Set, fortunately, rescued and preserved That which
was noble and immortal in it. There is no need to do anything else now.
--
: Fidonet:  Michael Aquino 1:125/430  .. speaking for only myself.
: Internet: Michael.Aquino@125-430.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com