Question for Wiccans.

[David19]

This is something i wanted to ask Wiccans, as i'm not Wiccan myself, but after going through the my thread 'Evidence for a New Forest coven', a lot of people made claims about Wicca being an 'ancient, 'pagan' religion' and the consensus seemed to be that that was one of the things that helped 'define' Wicca, or if it suddenly turned out Gardner 'made it all up' (please note, that i'm using it in a hypothetical situation, just so to avoid people going on, again and again, about how Wicca is a continuation of a 'pagan' religion) that Wicca would suddenly be 'destroyed' or would no longer be 'valid', as if it needs that linieage to be 'valid'.

Would you still, proudly, consider yourself Wiccan, even if Gardner did 'make it all up' or would you be like 'ok, well, f*** it, i'm off, it wasn't a continuation afterall', to me, truly dedicated Wiccans wouldn't give a sh*t about the history (and truly dedicated Wiccans wouldn't constantly go on and on and on about how 'evil' the Christians are or how much persecution 'pagans' have faced).

I think those Wiccans, of which, online at least and here on Mystic Wicks, that are truly dedicated (and there are a lot of cool ones here :) and elsewhere) can have mystical experiences, spiritual experiences, have patron deities, see supernatural things and/or beings, experience the supernatural, etc, even if Wicca wasn't a 'continuation' of a 'pagan' survival.

To me, i plan on reading Heselton, Lamond and the rest of Hutton, etc but i'm only 20 so i haven't looked into it much, but i think Gardner may have found some people, who either said they were witches or people who just practiced magic and also worshipped 2 'pagan' gods, he learnt some stuff from them, used stuff from the Golden Dawn (i think he was a member, wasn't he?), etc and modern Wicca was born, or if there was a pre-Gardner coven, then i think it may have started in the 'Romantic period' when people began looking at 'pagan' times and Classical times (isn't that what Gardner also suggested may have happened?), i don't believe there were many (maybe a few, 'pagan' or Christian, Jewish, etc) witches in the 'burning times' (anyone who usually says there were many 'pagans' who died then are usually trying to say 'look, we've suffered more than the Jews' (which isn't true).

Anyway, i kind of got off topic near the end, but i'd like any Wiccan's views/opinions/beliefs, etc, whether you're a Gardnerian, Alexandrian, eclectic, whatever, etc.

Thanks :).

[Morgandria]

Speaking for myself, I already believe that it's likely it was all made up, that it's only 50 or so years old, and I'm still happily and proudly Wiccan.

[Lunacie]

I don't think it's an either/or situation. It's both.

Gardner studied with both Wiccans and Mages and he took elements of both Witchcraft and Cabbalism and combined them with other things that he had studied and created something new. Kind of like the "fusion" food and music we're seeing nowadays. It was a "fusion religion".

For some reason, the way these elements were combined appeals to a lot of people and is spiritually satisfying. I know it is for me.

[Elderbush]

It really doesn't matter to me what the history of Wicca is. If it is suddenly proven to have existed for thousands of years or 50 or so it won't work any better or worse for me now. My belief is centered upon my gods.

[shuvanilu]

It doesn't matter to me either how Wicca came into being. It is my religion because of my love for God and Goddess, and my reverence for nature and life rhythms....When I do ritual, it rings true in my heart. I have been a member of other faiths in my life, and I've never based my beliefs on my feelings toward the founder of the practice, and/or the age of the practice, etc...---shuvanilu

[Tanya]

Because I come from a family tradition as well, I don't really care if he made it up, or if there really was a new forest coven, traditions have been and are out there and clearly he tapped into them.

For the record, I like most Christians and I don't think my beliefs generally conflict with them in any way.

[Ben Gruagach]

In my own personal experience as a Wiccan, and having talked with plenty of Wiccans in person and online, I have to say that it's a minority who still insist that Wicca is an intact lineage that goes back for any length of time before Gardner.

The majority of those I've discussed this with consider Wicca to have started for all intents and purposes with Gardner and have no problem with considering their spiritual path to be valid and meaningful.

I'm sure some would be shattered if it were proven once and for all that Gardner wasn't really just passing on an intact Pagan religion -- but there are many Wiccans like me who will continue to call ourselves Wiccans and to practice what we do regardless. Historical claims are not key for at least some of us. (Check out this interesting thread on another Pagan messageboard (http://mind-n-magick.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1157930259/15) starting around post #16 and following for an example of other Wiccans openly saying they believe Gardner was the starting point and that it really doesn't matter.)

[Carla O'Harris]

I'm also sure there are many who would be shattered if they realized that the lineage didn't begin with Gardner, and far predated him.

Ben is correct. There are many people practicing Wicca who are unconcerned pragmatically with the time of its origin.

It may be that such people are in the majority, and others are in the minority. If true, that should be noted as a simple fact, and not with any democratic fallacy that the majority are correct. It is simply a differentiation.

It's also worthy to point out that some of those who claim they are unconcerned with Wicca's point of origin are embarassed by the "minority" (if it is indeed, which it may be, one) who persist in assessing a far older origin. This embarassment may stem from several sources. One of these sources for some people is a mistaken belief that the minority who persist in considering Wicca to be old are : 1) uneducated, 2) not up to date in their education, 3) clinging to "old myths", and therefore are not reflecting what's being taught in universities. (As if all religions should only teach the history of their religions that is taught in universities!!) But in fact, many of that minority are very well educated, quite up to date in that education, without attachment to "myths" as such but genuinely possessing rational faith in the older provenance of the religion. This is important to point out, lest innuendo slander the position of this "minority".

[Cat]

I consider myself Wiccan, but I don't have a lineage other than my own. For this reason the hardline Gardnerians will tell you I am not Wiccan at all. They seem to claim both that Gardner was part of a pre-existing religion and that anyone not descended from him isn't one of them. I find these points contradictory.

Anyway, I've gone through various beliefs about the connection between Gardnerians and pre-existing covens. For a long time I didn't buy it, and it made no difference to me. Now I do buy it, though I also believe that Gardner made some serious changes to their tradition. And it still makes no difference to me. I'm interested in the history, but it does not impact my own spirituality at all.

I do not think Gardner was in the GD. I've never seen him listed as a member. He did have some contact with Crowley, I believe, though.

[Ben Gruagach]

I do not think Gardner was in the GD. I've never seen him listed as a member. He did have some contact with Crowley, I believe, though.

The other possible connection Gardner could have had with the Golden Dawn is through one of the possible members of the pre-Gardnerian New Forest Coven: Rosamund Carnsew (who might have been who Gardner was talking about when he referred to "Mother Sabine".)

Philip Heselton discusses this in his book "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration." Basically Heselton guesses that Rosamund Carnsew might have been "Mother Sabine" because her married name was Rosamund Isabella Charlotte Sabine. She also happened to have been an initiate of one of the Golden Dawn offshoots, the Order of the Morgen Rothe and even wrote at least one article for an occult periodical about the meaning of Golden Dawn symbolism.

Yet another possible source for Gardner's Golden Dawn derived material could be the published works of Samuel "MacGregor" Mathers, who was one of the founders of the Golden Dawn (and who was the translator/editor of the Key of Solomon grimoire we know Gardner also drew from). Gardner also mentions Dion Fortune as an influence (at least one of her books is listed in the bibliography of Gardner's "The Meaning of Witchcraft"). Dion Fortune was another one who got her occult start within a Golden Dawn offshoot group (in her case, the Stella Matutina.)

So I guess I'm saying that there were lots of opportunities for Gardner to have picked up bits and pieces of Golden Dawn material through published works or through people he had met without himself being a member of one of the Golden Dawn groups.

[Lunacie]

I'm also sure there are many who would be shattered if they realized that the lineage didn't begin with Gardner, and far predated him.

Ben is correct. There are many people practicing Wicca who are unconcerned pragmatically with the time of its origin.

It may be that such people are in the majority, and others are in the minority. If true, that should be noted as a simple fact, and not with any democratic fallacy that the majority are correct. It is simply a differentiation.

It's also worthy to point out that some of those who claim they are unconcerned with Wicca's point of origin are embarassed by the "minority" (if it is indeed, which it may be, one) who persist in assessing a far older origin. This embarassment may stem from several sources. One of these sources for some people is a mistaken belief that the minority who persist in considering Wicca to be old are : 1) uneducated, 2) not up to date in their education, 3) clinging to "old myths", and therefore are not reflecting what's being taught in universities. (As if all religions should only teach the history of their religions that is taught in universities!!) But in fact, many of that minority are very well educated, quite up to date in that education, without attachment to "myths" as such but genuinely possessing rational faith in the older provenance of the religion. This is important to point out, lest innuendo slander the position of this "minority".

Wow, that's true. The vocal majority of those who claim that Wicca is "an historical tradition" have a bunch of misinformation - like all those Witches who were supposedly burned at the stake. And without thinking about it I may have lumped others - who actually know more about the history of Witchcraft and the growth of Wicca - in with them.

I am one of the pragmatists who finds the history interesting but doesn't feel it has that much impact on my own spirituality or my interactions with my other coven mates.

[Elderbush]

I separate out the educated Wiccans from the misinformed. I think it is because I see highly educated/intelligent misguided and also unusually driven individuals every day. I know just because someone is smart and educated that doesn't mean they come to a rational conclusion about anything. It is only sad when it slides over into obsession.

That's a good reminder for the community about there being the two groups.

[Eran]

My own spirituality is not dependant upon the history of the religion of Witchraft, any more the spirituality of a 'christian' or a 'jew' is based on the history of 'christianity' or 'judaism'.

I imagine a lot of modern 'christians' and 'jews' would be shocked if it was suddenly proven that 'christianity' and 'judaism' were 'invented' in the 1900's. I wonder how many of them would drift from their faith. (Of course, it is true that the forms of 'christianity' and 'judaism' which are practiced today have very little resemblance to religions which went by those names hundreds of years ago.)

There are undoubtedly quite a few people who would be incredibly upset if it were proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the religion of Witchcraft is, in fact, an ancient religion. I wonder if they would go look somewhere else.

On the other hand, there are people who are interested in historical matters, historical forms of worship, and historical Gods. It's a shame those who aren't interested in historical forms of worship so often feel obligated to ridicule those who are.

On a related matter - I have seen sad comments on this thread yet again - it is disheartening to once more see the charges that Gardnerians do not view anyone as 'truly Wiccan' unless they have 'lineage'. We went through his argument very recently, and not one person was discovered - on this form or anywhere else - who could be quoted as saying such a thing. Ah, well, such is the nature of misinformation and politicised discourse.

[Silver Crow2]

David19

I think now I have read in at least 14 posts by you references to what is sometimes referred to as "the burning times" as something that either (a) didn't happen at all (b) no witches were killed (c) merely some sort of made up thing that pagans can wear as a badge of martrydom.

Why?

The evidence of mass hysteria persecutions of people suspected of witchcraft is historical fact, easily verifiable.

Obviously, the vast majority of those killed were not witches, devil worshippers, or anything else except ordinary people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is also a certain fact that not a single one of them was a Gardnerian Wiccan :)

what are you up to?

[Elderbush]

On a related matter - I have seen sad comments on this thread yet again - it is disheartening to once more see the charges that Gardnerians do not view anyone as 'truly Wiccan' unless they have 'lineage'. We went through his argument very recently, and not one person was discovered - on this form or anywhere else - who could be quoted as saying such a thing. Ah, well, such is the nature of misinformation and politicised discourse.

It is against the rules to put up quotes from an individual from other forums here, Eran, especially without their permission. I have PMed you the board and one name to search for of a Gardnerian who feel that only Gardnerians are Wiccan.

[Lunacie]

My own spirituality is not dependant upon the history of the religion of Witchraft, any more the spirituality of a 'christian' or a 'jew' is based on the history of 'christianity' or 'judaism'.

I imagine a lot of modern 'christians' and 'jews' would be shocked if it was suddenly proven that 'christianity' and 'judaism' were 'invented' in the 1900's. I wonder how many of them would drift from their faith. (Of course, it is true that the forms of 'christianity' and 'judaism' which are practiced today have very little resemblance to religions which went by those names hundreds of years ago.)

There are undoubtedly quite a few people who would be incredibly upset if it were proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the religion of Witchcraft is, in fact, an ancient religion. I wonder if they would go look somewhere else.

Do you really?
I think that most of them would shrug and continue on the way they've been doing.


On the other hand, there are people who are interested in historical matters, historical forms of worship, and historical Gods. It's a shame those who aren't interested in historical forms of worship so often feel obligated to ridicule those who are.

It's also a shame when people who are interested in historical matters, historical forms of worship, and historical Gods feel obligated to ridicule those who aren't.


On a related matter - I have seen sad comments on this thread yet again - it is disheartening to once more see the charges that Gardnerians do not view anyone as 'truly Wiccan' unless they have 'lineage'. We went through his argument very recently, and not one person was discovered - on this form or anywhere else - who could be quoted as saying such a thing. Ah, well, such is the nature of misinformation and politicised discourse.

That's odd. I didn't notice anything like that in this thread.
Nope, went back and reread and still don't see anything like that.
:huh:
I think most people have the attitude you posted in your very first sentence - that our spirituality is not dependant on the history of the religion.

[Eran]

Do you really?
I think that most of them would shrug and continue on the way they've been doing.
You may be right. I don't know the answer to the question I asked. That's why I said "I wonder". It is certainly my hope that you are correct!

It's also a shame when people who are interested in historical matters, historical forms of worship, and historical Gods feel obligated to ridicule those who aren't.
I invite you to provide examples. Please be certain to provide them in conext - that is, where the quote you provide is not a response to an insult or slight made by whoever they are responding to.

Or wait - perhaps it would be better not to. I think it may be way off topic.

[Lunacie]

You may be right. I don't know the answer to the question I asked. That's why I said "I wonder". It is certainly my hope that you are correct!

I can't be absolutely certain either. Am I going with my instinct based on my experiences with people or is it wishful thinking. I guess time will tell.


I invite you to provide examples. Please be certain to provide them in conext - that is, where the quote you provide is not a response to an insult or slight made by whoever they are responding to.

Or wait - perhaps it would be better not to. I think it may be way off topic.

Ah... which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I didn't see either one in this thread. So yeah, pretty much off topic.

[Eran]

I think most people have the attitude you posted in your very first sentence - that our spirituality is not dependant on the history of the religion.
I believe you are correct here. In fact, I suspect there are very few people - maybe no one - who identifies themselves as "Wiccan" simply because they are convinced that Wicca is an ancient religion.

There are many people I know who have studied the historical questions, and who recognize that there were Pagan religious remnants into the Middle Ages, and who see important connections between those remnants and the modern version(s) of the religion of Witchcraft. And not one of those people, as far as I know, identify themselves as "Wiccan" because of a conviction of the ancientness of the religion. Not one would stop identifying themselves as "Wiccan" if it were shown that Witchcraft is a modern "invention". The age of a religion is unrelated to the value or meaning of the religion.

The religion of Witchcraft provides for its practioners a great many things - a sense of meaning, a sense of oneness with the world, a sense of connectedness to their Gods. In short, it provides all the things a religion is supposed to provide.

Anyone who identifies themselves as a member of a religion because of its history is someone who is missing the whole point of religion.

Questions about the history of a religion are entirely separate from questions about the utility and meaningfullness of a religion. The fact that Witches find Witchcraft to be meaningful says nothing either way about the age of the religion - just as 'jews' would find 'judiasm' meaningful even it if was a 'recently invented' religion.

But the fact that we find it meaningful doesn't mean it isn't a remnant of something ancient.

(By the way - I put 'jews' and 'judaism' in lower case and in quotes, because I assume this is proper - David19 uses this form to refer to a religion other than his, so I must assume he views this as the proper way to show respect to someone else's religion, and I want to return the same level of respect to him. I will accept correction of I am mistaken.)

[Elderbush]

Yes, it is proper to capitalize religions. Eran, since many people haven't been taught that or missed it in their education so don't feel badly. You aren't alone. Others of course get hurried when typing on the computer, of course. It is polite (if it is something that bothers you) to let them know it does bother you. They may or may not change to suit you, however. :)

It could be the remnant of something ancient indeed. What does that mattter? Why not argue it with historians instead since it does not matter to Wiccans?

[Dawa Lhamo]

My response here is about the same as in the similar thread: It wouldn't matter to me. I know that my Gods are real, and I derive real satisfaction from worshipping them. That's all I need, really. I'm happy with that. I'm happy with thinking about the "religious truth" of the great "Wiccan Myth"... (religious truth not necessarily being reflective of historical fact).

I feel rather confident that most religious people would feel the same. If Jesus' bones were discovered (i.e. disproving the resurrection), I think that Christianity would still exist. It might reel a bit and certain people might defect, but on the whole, it would still go on.

I think people confuse the idea of Truth with empirical fact.

[Elderbush]

Well, it seems easier when one is looking at someone else's religion to think "People! It is a mythic truth not necessarily a historical fact!" We look at the people who are trying to prove (or want to teach) that everything that happened in the Christian bible is true just as written as people who have mixed up those two concepts. Then we Wiccans turn around and do the same.

[David19]

(By the way - I put 'jews' and 'judaism' in lower case and in quotes, because I assume this is proper - David19 uses this form to refer to a religion other than his, so I must assume he views this as the proper way to show respect to someone else's religion, and I want to return the same level of respect to him. I will accept correction of I am mistaken.)

Could you show me where i put Wiccan in quotes and lower case, 'cause i'm pretty sure i didn't, but if i have, i'm sorry and i'll correct it :).

I may have put the word witch in lower case and quotes when refering to alledged 'witches' (note the alledged part) in the so-called 'burning times', 'cause that doesn't refer to any particular religion (prove that these 'witches' were real, that they weren't just Christians or Jews or Muslims).

And i'm not the only one who did it like that, there's another Pagan i know who does it when he talks about 'witches' in the Middle Ages.

Anyway, like i said, i am sorry if i put Wicca or Wiccans in quotes and lower case, and again, i'll correct it if i did, but if it's just the fact i put witches in quotes when i talked about the Middle Ages, then prove that those witches were actually Wiccan, and believed the same things as Gardner, then i'll gladly put the word witch, when referring to those in the 'burning times' in capitals :).

BTW, i don't know where you got the idea that i put my own religion in capitals considering i don't have a religion, yet anyway.

So, again, please state where i said anything about my religion ('cause i think it would be cool for me to actually know what it was ;)).

[Silver Crow2]

I feel rather confident that most religious people would feel the same. If Jesus' bones were discovered (i.e. disproving the resurrection), I think that Christianity would still exist. It might reel a bit and certain people might defect, but on the whole, it would still go on.

I think people confuse the idea of Truth with empirical fact.

I don't think you can completely divorce Truth from empirical fact.

To use your example - even though resurrections rarely occur ;) , the fact that the bones have never been found, an evangelical can say that the physical body of Jesus was really ressurrected. There is no absolute empirical proof either way, just lots of circumstantial evidence.

If the bones were found, then someone could truthfully say that "that I believe Christ part was ressurected".

There your statement would have validity.

For a christian to then still insist that "nope, the physical body was resurrected" would be just plain crazy.

Like the Flat Earth Society :)

If someone found a provable quote from Gerald Gardner "I just made it all up to get to see nekkid wimmins" then it would be crazy to insist wicca had some long unbroken lineage.

[David19]

The evidence of mass hysteria persecutions of people suspected of witchcraft is historical fact, easily verifiable.

Obviously, the vast majority of those killed were not witches, devil worshippers, or anything else except ordinary people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is also a certain fact that not a single one of them was a Gardnerian Wiccan :)

what are you up to?

No one's trying to deny that people weren't killed, accused of being witches, but the fact is many Pagans will say they actually were witches (mostly innocent Christians or Jews or Muslims, Native Americans, or Africans that were taken as slaves, if there were, then you'd have a lot of Pagans screaming and shouting for joy saying 'look we were persecuted, those Christians are 'evil').

And again, i didn't say they were Gardnerian Wiccans, i said they probably weren't witches at all.

[Silver Crow2]

Well, it seems easier when one is looking at someone else's religion to think "People! It is a mythic truth not necessarily a historical fact!" We look at the people who are trying to prove (or want to teach) that everything that happened in the Christian bible is true just as written as people who have mixed up those two concepts. Then we Wiccans turn around and do the same.

Yes, I think most people have been guilty of what you speak.

If there are levels or grades of TRUTH, then I think one could make a case that you get closest to absolute truth when you find the commonality in myths across various cultures.

I.E. - lots of death and resurrection in various religions and spiritual paths, and not all of it tied to a corn king concept, although most are.

But, I could be wrong........

[Silver Crow2]

No one's trying to deny that people weren't killed, accused of being witches, but the fact is many Pagans will say they actually were witches (mostly innocent Christians or Jews or Muslims, Native Americans, or Africans that were taken as slaves, if there were, then you'd have a lot of Pagans screaming and shouting for joy saying 'look we were persecuted, those Christians are 'evil').

And again, i didn't say they were Gardnerian Wiccans, i said they probably weren't witches at all.

thanks for the response.

the garderian witch thing was an ironic, bone dry attempt at humor...not implyng that you said it :)

[David19]

thanks for the response.

the garderian witch thing was an ironic, bone dry attempt at humor...not implyng that you said it :)

Oh, sorry, but i am tired so i must have missed it ;) :).

[Eran]

Could you show me where i put Wiccan in quotes and lower case, 'cause i'm pretty sure i didn't, but if i have, i'm sorry and i'll correct it :).
It's off topic, so let's not spend a lot of time on it - you did put Pagan in quotes and lower case a lot. Pagan is a religious term.

I may have put the word witch in lower case and quotes when refering to alledged 'witches' ... 'cause that doesn't refer to any particular religion (prove that these 'witches' were real, that they weren't just Christians or Jews or Muslims).
Okay! Read my website: http://esoterica.bichaunt.org. Plenty of proof there. Let's talk more after you've read that.

In any case, lots of Witches today view it as a religious term. I assume you haven't read "Witchcraft Today"?

BTW, i don't know where you got the idea that i put my own religion in capitals considering i don't have a religion, yet anyway.
You have said you're 'jewish'. I apologize for taking that to refer to a religion - I take from this that you mean to imply it is not.

Anyway, this is off-topic, so if you want to discuss it more, perhaps we need a different thread.

[Carla O'Harris]

I'd be happy to discuss why the history matters to me. It matters to me because I feel I should be able to discuss with like others a certain range of concepts which includes historical premises without being ridiculed simply for invoking concepts well-established through historical research. It's kind of limiting to only be able to speak about the religion in the present tense and not be able to invoke spiritual ancestors. It seems to me that that concept of spiritual ancestry was important to Gardner and to the witches who initiated him, although I'm happy to be corrected on this if I am misunderstanding. Gardner quotes the poem of a witch who remembers an incarnation where she was burned for being a witch. So it seems to me that a concept of Spiritual Ancestry is indeed connected to the religion itself.

It's also important historically. I am a part of something which stretches back into the Middle Ages and which was an important force in people's lives. This should not be erased.

I understand that divinity can touch upon people in any time and place and inspire new religious forms. (Thus, "neo-paganism".) That is wonderful.

But I feel affinity with those witches who came before me, and I take insult to the kneejerk response that they weren't actually witches and had no religious connections to the present. That simply isn't true. They did have a connection, and I think it is incredibly unthoughtful to erase that aspect of spiritual ancestry based on a modern skepticism that has been schooled in the traditions of hostile outsiders who have every reason to deny the history. Skepticism itself, if by that we mean not allowing authoritarianism to foreclose on our sense of wonder and ability to question, is not a bad thing, but the context from which it emerges is important. When one's world view has been shaped by institutions which in many ways are exoteric to a tradition, and beyond that, at times even demonstrably hostile, then one's skepticism is going to emerge out of that particular world view. This is important.

Obviously the integrity of the religion itself is of central importance ; otherwise, one would simply adopt the oldest religion one could find regardless of how much it spoke to one. So I'm not saying that these basic concepts and mysteries are not central, but the fact that their spell has cast its magic upon people century after century after century is certainly no small thing. It is a testament to the magic of the religion itself.

It may be that the Gardnerian Dispensation of this religion may date from either the Napoleonic or Elizabethan age, but the core concepts and practices have an ancestry that goes way back, and which have cast a spell which continues to captivate and enmarvel to this day.

[KeaErisdottir]

It is against the rules to put up quotes from an individual from other forums here, Eran, especially without their permission. I have PMed you the board and one name to search for of a Gardnerian who feel that only Gardnerians are Wiccan.

One person does not mean that there is much more than an emphemeral concept. In fact, even if you found 100 of them, you would not have a view that is shared across Gardnerian Wicca as some truth.

The exception to the rule only proves that it is an exception.

[Elderbush]

He was saying no one had even given him one name. I gave him one name.

[Silver and Iron]

I'll throw in my two cents worth here.
I'm pretty sure that Gardner had one or more links to an already existing group. I'm also pretty sure that the basis for what became 'Wicca" came from those links.
I also am unshakeably convinced that Gardner took the basis, put on some chrome rims, a spoiler, lots of flashy paint and some of those lights that glow under the body, added a kickin' sound system and DVD player and lowered the whole thing to just over street legal.
What I'm saying is, there was a basis where he started out, but then he made some really fundamental changes to the liturgy and made it much more ceremonial than it had been. Sort of like those Baptist churches that have services in stadium sized halls and have a jazzy live band and jumbo-tron for the folks in the nosebleed seats. (Yes, we have one near me. I call it "six flags over Jesus") Both are roughly the same idea......but much is changed in the presentation, so much so the original message (whatever that might be) is nearly invisible.

[Eran]

What I'm saying is, there was a basis where he started out, but then he made some really fundamental changes to the liturgy and made it much more ceremonial than it had been. [snip].....but much is changed in the presentation, so much so the original message (whatever that might be) is nearly invisible.
If by "nearly invisible", you mean, "still there, but carefully hidden from all but the most discerning eyes", I would agree. Most people (especially most non-Gardnerians) tend to get distracted by all those flashy bits, and seem unable to see beyond them.

Your description here makes a clear and vital distinction between "the rites of a religion" and "the religion itself." Even if it could be proven that the rites of Gardenrianism are entirely the creation of Gardner (and/or his friends), that says nothing whatever about the age of the religion which Gardner attempted to describe and express and to pass along.

If I read you right, I agree with you - he had teachers, and was an inheritor of a very ancient spiritual tradition. Looking for the "sources" of the details of the rites he passed along (as people like Hutton and Kelly did) is an exercise in uselessness.

[Silver and Iron]

Yes; precisely.