Your views

[androgino]

For you are the Goddess and the God understood in a hard polytheistic, soft polytheistic, monistic, or other way?

Is Doreen Valiente's The Witches' Creed necessarily for Wiccans?

Is the Wiccan Rede (an it harm none, do what ye will) something you apply to most aspects of life or just in the Circle?

How do you understand the Threefold Law? Does what you put out return to you exactly three times? Does it return to effect three things called body, mind, and soul? Does it return to you by the powers of Land, Sea, and Sky?

Did Gardner intend for Wicca to be an initiatory and oathbound mystery tradition? Did he perceive Wicca to eventually become a religion for anyone regardless of initiation? Did anyone else?

[Nox_Mortus]

For you are the Goddess and the God understood in a hard polytheistic, soft polytheistic, monistic, or other way?


Somewhere in between hard polythiesm and soft polythiesm.


Is Doreen Valiente's The Witches' Creed necessarily for Wiccans?



She was largely influenced by Wicca (and vice versa), and that particular powem I think does largely apply to Wiccans


Is the Wiccan Rede (an it harm none, do what ye will) something you apply to most aspects of life or just in the Circle?

It's something that I keep in mind when dealing with things, but I don't think it is something that needs to be strictly followed in all situations.


How do you understand the Threefold Law? Does what you put out return to you exactly three times? Does it return to effect three things called body, mind, and soul? Does it return to you by the powers of Land, Sea, and Sky?

I don't really believe in the threefold law, at least not the way it is usually presented.


Did Gardner intend for Wicca to be an initiatory and oathbound mystery tradition? Did he perceive Wicca to eventually become a religion for anyone regardless of initiation? Did anyone else?

I think it's fairly obvious by the way that it is set up that it is intended to be initiatory and oathbound, the amount of dedication required to learn proper practice is fairly intense, and the oaths of secrecy are largely in place to prevent improper teaching.

[Louisvillian]

For you are the Goddess and the God understood in a hard polytheistic, soft polytheistic, monistic, or other way?
Personally, somewhere between Hard Polytheist and Monist. But not Soft Polytheist. My theology is very similar to that of Pythagoreanism, Hermeticism, and Neoplatonism. Of course, this to be expected, as I try to go with conventional Wiccan theology, which was influenced by Hermeticism.
That is to say, I see all the gods as individual, personal entities. But I also seem them connected to a higher force or being. What Pythagoras called The One (to hen) and Hermeticism called The All.


Is the Wiccan Rede (an it harm none, do what ye will) something you apply to most aspects of life or just in the Circle?Most aspects of life. I don't see the rede as law, though. I see it as, well, a rede. Good advice.
Still, I try to follow it when possible. Because it is good advice.


How do you understand the Threefold Law? Does what you put out return to you exactly three times? Does it return to effect three things called body, mind, and soul? Does it return to you by the powers of Land, Sea, and Sky?The original phrasing was simply Law of Return; something more of a simple karmic idea. I see it more as an ethical ideal of self-responsibility and reciprocity than as an immutable law.


Did Gardner intend for Wicca to be an initiatory and oathbound mystery tradition? Did he perceive Wicca to eventually become a religion for anyone regardless of initiation? Did anyone else?
Gardner probably intended Wicca to be an initiatory mystery religion. But, he wasn't the ultimate arbiter of what Wicca has to be; much of Wicca's basics and standards have come about through consensus.
Now, some of the big leaders in the Wiccan community in the decades after Gardner made it clear that they were in favour of liberalising the initiatory requirements or accepting solitaries without initiation.

[jetpiston]

Since you ask about Gardner, I'll answer from my point of view as a Gardnerian HP...


For you are the Goddess and the God understood in a hard polytheistic, soft polytheistic, monistic, or other way?The phrases "The God" and "The Goddess" are kind of generic placeholders that can mean or be whatever you want or need them to. Whether they are hard polytheistic, soft polytheistic, or anything else is pretty much up to the practitioner or the Coven.


Is Doreen Valiente's The Witches' Creed necessarily for Wiccans?I think it's for anyone who finds it moving or useful, Wiccan or not. Doesn't really do anything for me.


Is the Wiccan Rede (an it harm none, do what ye will) something you apply to most aspects of life or just in the Circle?Not necessarily the Rede itself. I do try to follow the spirit of the "Golden Rule," but I don't find that I must quantify it as a rule. (See comment about "rede" in a post above.)


How do you understand the Threefold Law? Does what you put out return to you exactly three times? Does it return to effect three things called body, mind, and soul? Does it return to you by the powers of Land, Sea, and Sky?I see it as a poetic extension of the sentiment expressed by the Rede.


Did Gardner intend for Wicca to be an initiatory and oathbound mystery tradition? Did he perceive Wicca to eventually become a religion for anyone regardless of initiation? Did anyone else?No, he didn't "intend" for it to be initiatory and oathbound. It is simply that what he was originally passed was already initiatory and oathbound. That it remains so is testament to the value and effectiveness of the system he passed to his lineal Craft descendants.

Jet Piston

[androgino]

I thank you three for the replies that I have received so far.

In response to my question Is Doreen Valiente's The Witches' Creed necessarily for Wiccans? I have received two helpful responses.

Nox_Mortus: She was largely influenced by Wicca (and vice versa), and that particular powem I think does largely apply to Wiccans

jetpiston: I think it's for anyone who finds it moving or useful, Wiccan or not. Doesn't really do anything for me.

I recall several years ago a non-Wiccan Witch who posted Valiente's poem on his website. I must admit that I do like it a lot and one of the best things about it is that its title leaves the meaning of Witch up to the individual. What I specifically mean by that is that one can interpret "Witch" in a Wiccan or even a non-Wiccan context. So I think that The Witches' Creed can be accepted as a universal document for any Witch who finds it meaningful.

To Louisvillian: In response to my question about the Threefold Law you wrote The original phrasing was simply Law of Return; something more of a simple karmic idea. I see it more as an ethical ideal of self-responsibility and reciprocity than as an immutable law. Did Wiccan literature originally not include anything about "threefold" or "three" regarding the Law of Return?

I appreciate the replies that I have received so far. =)

[Louisvillian]

Did Wiccan literature originally not include anything about "threefold" or "three" regarding the Law of Return?
From what I understand, yes. The "threefold" bit really only became popular in the mid-60's when Wicca became influenced by, and became a part of, the general Neopagan movement.

[Lunacie]

For you are the Goddess and the God understood in a hard polytheistic, soft polytheistic, monistic, or other way?

I agree with Jet Piston that this is very much a matter of personal preference or experience. There is no "one true way" for all Wiccans. My view is quite polytheistic, with the notion that just as there are many humans, we are all definitely individuals, all unique and idiosyncretic - and yet we are all similar in as many ways as we are different. So it is with the gods, they are all similar in many ways and yet are all individuals, unique and idiosyncretic.



Is Doreen Valiente's The Witches' Creed necessarily for Wiccans?

That was probably Doreen Valient's intention in writing it. In the early days of Wica as shared by Gardner and Valiente, Wicca was synonymous with Witchcraft. So although she was coming from a specific tradition she also knew that all Witchcraft traditions have some things in common. She was speaking TO Wicca (in its early stages) but she was speaking OF Witchcraft.



Is the Wiccan Rede (an it harm none, do what ye will) something you apply to most aspects of life or just in the Circle?

I try to keep it in mind, as I believe Gardner intended. People who use the simplified form Gardner first used, "Harm none", forget the history of secrecy that was necessary for witches before the 1950's. Gardner was probably pointing out that doing harm through magic would bring unwanted attention to all witches, give them an even worse reputation, and possibly end them up in prison. So for me, I follow what the Lycian tradition advocates: An it harm none, do as you will. And it cause harm, do as you must."



How do you understand the Threefold Law? Does what you put out return to you exactly three times? Does it return to effect three things called body, mind, and soul? Does it return to you by the powers of Land, Sea, and Sky?

The history behind this is that Gardner said it in a joking way. It probably referred to a Wiccan initiatory practice wherein the Priest or Priestess would scourge the initiate, and then it would be the initiates turn to scourge the Priest or Priestess, not knowing until it was their turn to take up the scourge that they were supposed to return the number of strokes three-fold. Doreen Valiente said "I think old Gerald cooked it up in one of his rituals, and people took it very literally."

However, I do think he quite understood the principle of the Law of Returns, otherwise known as Cause and Effect. And I do believe that the results of our actions influence our lives in three ways: mentally, physically, and spiritually.



Did Gardner intend for Wicca to be an initiatory and oathbound mystery tradition? Did he perceive Wicca to eventually become a religion for anyone regardless of initiation? Did anyone else?

Gardner was certainly taught that Witchcraft was revealed to only a few select people, and taught in secret, and that oaths were involved. He certainly seemed to enjoy ritual and understood that it was a gateway to spiritual communion with the old gods. Hard to say whether he had any idea how far and how fast Wicca would grow, but he was certainly open to sharing it with people. I've heard it said that the problem is that once publicized it became so popular that the teachers and leaders and mentors could not keep up with demand, so people began finding information wherever they could and claimed to be self-initiated.

For me, I think initiation into the Mysteries is a gradual thing, and the ritual of initiation is basically a recognition of that growing awareness. People who self-initiate are either giving themselves the recognition that something in their spiritual lives has changed, or they don't really have a clue and think it makes them part of something 'special'. I like to think that Gardner would recognize fellow Witches even if they had come to know the Mysteries on their own - but he probably wouldn't say they were part of the same tradition that he followed. He knew that there are many traditions that Witches follow and that his was just one of the many.

[brymble]

For you are the Goddess and the God understood in a hard polytheistic, soft polytheistic, monistic, or other way?

More or less soft polytheistic.


Is Doreen Valiente's The Witches' Creed necessarily for Wiccans?

I had to do an internet search for it to be quite sure just which poem you were referring to. I think it's a nice bit of poetry, and tends to sum up much of the basic practices of traditional Wicca, but I've never known anyone to follow or quote it as any kind of "gospel". In terms of Valiente's poetry, I think that her Charge of the Goddess has had a much greater impact on Wicca.


Is the Wiccan Rede (an it harm none, do what ye will) something you apply to most aspects of life or just in the Circle?

I think the Wiccan Rede is a nice piece of practical advice, but I do not believe it is a divinely proclaimed "law" or commandment. "Causing harm" has wide interpretation, and so the Rede's application in practice is going to vary greatly. In terms of things like cursing, fighting, and general "negativity" I personally take a more common-sense approach: I do not "curse" not because I have been commanded not to do so by some rule, but because I personally consider it to be a stupid mis-direction of energy that could more practically be spent on improving my own reactions, responses and behaviors instead of getting all up in someone else's business. In the very strictest sense, there are many who therefore would not consider me to be "Wiccan". I think, however, that it's splitting some pretty fine hairs. It honestly doesn't matter to me what anyone calls it, my practice is for the most part unaffected by other people's labels.


How do you understand the Threefold Law? Does what you put out return to you exactly three times? Does it return to effect three things called body, mind, and soul? Does it return to you by the powers of Land, Sea, and Sky?

I always wondered who does the measuring of "three times the good or bad". To me, it smacks of superstition, and fundamentalist literalism to put conditions on responsibility. Furthermore, I think the so-called Threefold Law contributes greatly to the Western misinterpretation of karma.


Did Gardner intend for Wicca to be an initiatory and oathbound mystery tradition? Did he perceive Wicca to eventually become a religion for anyone regardless of initiation? Did anyone else?

It seems to me based on my studies that Gardner did intend to create an oathbound mystery tradition. It doesn't seem to me that he had any intent to create the mass-marketed neo-Wiccan free-for-all where anyone claims to be a "Witch" who has read a glossy paperback with a picture or an overly-made-up pouty bimbo with a low-cut Goth dress on the cover, purchased at Barnes and Noble.

As far as the accessibility of Wicca for solitaries, and self-initiation, it seems to me that the Farrars, Buckland, and Cunningham were among the first to start dragging it out into the open for anyone to examine.

[androgino]

From what I understand, yes. The "threefold" bit really only became popular in the mid-60's when Wicca became influenced by, and became a part of, the general Neopagan movement.

Thank you for this. I read somewhere that the threefold bit becoming added to the Law of Return originated with Buckland (or was it Cunningham?). Now I see it in so many books aimed at Wiccans and non-Wiccans. One author had an attitude like "if you so much as do anything negative it will come back to you three time faster and harder and you will be owned you twisted evil evil person!!!"

[androgino]

That was probably Doreen Valient's intention in writing it. In the early days of Wica as shared by Gardner and Valiente, Wicca was synonymous with Witchcraft. So although she was coming from a specific tradition she also knew that all Witchcraft traditions have some things in common. She was speaking TO Wicca (in its early stages) but she was speaking OF Witchcraft.

Excellent reply, thank you. I have read most of Buckland's Wicca For One and I saw that he mostly if not entirely equated Witchcraft with Wicca. So I can see why The Witches' Creed would actually be more of a Wiccan thing since to these people Wicca was indeed synonymous with Witchcraft. Valiente's poem even includes the Wheel of the Year which is quintessentially Wiccan itself.

Speaking of Buckland's book, it has been an interesting and enjoyable read for me. But his definition of Witchcraft just isn't something that I can agree with. What I mean by that is I cannot believe that there was an "Old Religion" that involved an understanding of a Goddess & God in today's Wiccan context, the observance of the Wheel of the Year, and the calling of the four watchtowers.


The history behind this is that Gardner said it in a joking way. It probably referred to a Wiccan initiatory practice wherein the Priest or Priestess would scourge the initiate, and then it would be the initiates turn to scourge the Priest or Priestess, not knowing until it was their turn to take up the scourge that they were supposed to return the number of strokes three-fold. Doreen Valiente said "I think old Gerald cooked it up in one of his rituals, and people took it very literally."

Very interesting practice there...


I like to think that Gardner would recognize fellow Witches even if they had come to know the Mysteries on their own - but he probably wouldn't say they were part of the same tradition that he followed. He knew that there are many traditions that Witches follow and that his was just one of the many.

*Nods*

I feel the same about that.

[Ben Gruagach]

The threefold thing was planted in Wicca at least back in Gardner's early days in it -- it's in the second degree initiation ceremony (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos04.htm) in his Book of Shadows.

I expect that the idea was then adapted to the Law of Return concept (popular well before Gardner in English occultism thanks to Theosophy) by Gardner or perhaps Valiente... but in any case I suspect it was early on.