Fluffy issues with authority?

[Czidnoma]

The primary idea behind the described fluffy bunnies saying that no one else has the right to tell them what to believe or how to worship is assuming a right to inaugurate their own tradition, right? A "so-and-so began their own path, so can I and no one can tell me different" attitude?

It's mind-boggling to me. For most of my life, I've been involved in a religion whose central figure and authority is at least known by most of the world. Is the fluffy attitude a rebellion against this kind of structure? After all, as I grew away from the hierarchical religion of my childhood, I developed a sense of personal relationship with the Divine, similar to what I observe in the fluffy mindset. But I don't see the value of discarding authority completely. We may personally disagree, but our respect for authority provides us another facet of understanding that we don't have without it.

Also, even if they insist that their system is valid because they have the right to begin their own, why do they usurp beings from established systems? I note that a certain laziness of thought characterizes the fluffy, but is that all that lies behind their ideological theft? That is, if they want to defend their own path, shouldn't they and why wouldn't they discover their own deities? That line of questioning would get into hard vs soft theism and other potentially delicate matters that I know little about, but I wonder about it nonetheless.

Ah, and something else which just occurred to me. If a fluffy insists that no one else can tell them what their religion or beliefs are, why do they not grant the same proprietary rights to the religions they "adopt" from?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Czidnoma

The primary idea behind the described fluffy bunnies saying that no one else has the right to tell them what to believe or how to worship is assuming a right to inaugurate their own tradition, right? A "so-and-so began their own path, so can I and no one can tell me different" attitude?

I do not feel this is what makes a person fluffy. Instead, I feel that being fluffy is centered in a person's denial of what really is in favor of what they want it to be.

For this reason, I would say that people who justify the creation of their path by the actions of those who came before them are not fluffy for that reason alone, though someone who decided to do so while disregarding basic truths would be fluffy. If your premise was true, all eclectics would be fluffy, as would all Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims and come to think of it, almost all forms of modern paganism would be fluffy because at some point the religions were created in the face of social norms because what was around them was not spiritually fulfilling.

I feel that the term fluffy is used more commonly as a label to undermine the value of what a person is saying by attacking them as people, rather than their positions. I have found myself called a fluffy because I do not agree with others positions- even when we cite the same source and I explain that given the exact same materials I came to a different conclusion.

Czidnoma

It's mind-boggling to me. For most of my life, I've been involved in a religion whose central figure and authority is at least known by most of the world. Is the fluffy attitude a rebellion against this kind of structure? After all, as I grew away from the hierarchical religion of my childhood, I developed a sense of personal relationship with the Divine, similar to what I observe in the fluffy mindset. But I don't see the value of discarding authority completely. We may personally disagree, but our respect for authority provides us another facet of understanding that we don't have without it.

I try not to make assumptions so I won't guess which religion you are part of, but I feel it is worth noting that being fluffy isn't limited to one group. There are fluffy Buddhists, fluffy Christians, fluffy pagans- I am sure there are fluffy bunnies in all religions, no matter how the religions are structured.

An example of a fluffy Christian would be someone who believed Jesus was a woman because he is depicted as having long hair- and no matter how many times someone like I explained that all the cultural and linguistic evidence in the Bible shows that he was male, they insist he was female.

Czidnoma

Also, even if they insist that their system is valid because they have the right to begin their own, why do they usurp beings from established systems? I note that a certain laziness of thought characterizes the fluffy, but is that all that lies behind their ideological theft? That is, if they want to defend their own path, shouldn't they and why wouldn't they discover their own deities?

The most common answer to this is that they are working with the gods who have called them, and are not pulling out god names from nowhere, but instead are developing relationships with gods who exist and who have contacted them.

Czidnoma

Ah, and something else which just occurred to me. If a fluffy insists that no one else can tell them what their religion or beliefs are, why do they not grant the same proprietary rights to the religions they "adopt" from?

I feel this is mostly due not to deliberate malice on their part, but instead they aren't able to approach the information in the same way those who criticize their practices are- though this is likely a less common reaction to someone feeling they are being attacked by others who do not know how to communicate effectively with them.  

[Czidnoma]

Brass Bell Doll

For this reason, I would say that people who justify the creation of their path by the actions of those who came before them are not fluffy for that reason alone, though someone who decided to do so while disregarding basic truths would be fluffy. If your premise was true, all eclectics would be fluffy, as would all Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Muslims and come to think of it, almost all forms of modern paganism would be fluffy because at some point the religions were created in the face of social norms because what was around them was not spiritually fulfilling.

Thank you for pointing that out. To call it "primary" was overreaching. I was specifically referring to those who inappropriately consider themselves Wiccan. But I didn't make that clear.

However, Christians and Muslims and other hierarchical religions do not fall under the generalization I made, since I did say that I wondered if the fluffy attitude is one of rebellion against that way of organizing religion. Still, I did fail to clarify that I was questioning a certain type of fluffy.

Quote:

I feel that the term fluffy is used more commonly as a label to undermine the value of what a person is saying by attacking them as people, rather than their positions. I have found myself called a fluffy because I do not agree with others positions- even when we cite the same source and I explain that given the exact same materials I came to a different conclusion.

I'm inclined to agree. But what else is there to call those who are, as described elsewhere, willfully ignorant toward theology? I'd also say it's definitely overused, as in the example you cite. Isn't that a matter of someone having a poor grasp of when it should be used, though?

Quote:

An example of a fluffy Christian would be someone who believed Jesus was a woman because he is depicted as having long hair- and no matter how many times someone like I explained that all the cultural and linguistic evidence in the Bible shows that he was male, they insist he was female.

o0 Really? That is a whole new level of "wtf"? Is the argument, "He's depicted having long hair to expose the truth behind a patriarchal misogynistic campaign to give men all the religious power"? Just a guess. But, I mean, really... Who is that unaware? At that time, long hair was far more common for men than short. His disciples are all depicted with long hair, too. Christ and her disciples were women fighting the patriarchal power structure for their rights and that's why Christ was crucified! gonk

Quote:

The most common answer to this is that they are working with the gods who have called them, and are not pulling out god names from nowhere, but instead are developing relationships with gods who exist and who have contacted them.

Mmm, good point. Still leaves me with the idea that a sense of entitlement is very, very prominent.

Quote:

I feel this is mostly due not to deliberate malice on their part, but instead they aren't able to approach the information in the same way those who criticize their practices are- though this is likely a less common reaction to someone feeling they are being attacked by others who do not know how to communicate effectively with them.

Oh, I don't think it's deliberate malice, either. I do, however, think it reveals an inherent contempt in those who misappropriate gods and other beings from religions they, the person, have no part in. Respecting something that has and wants nothing to do with you means leaving it the hell alone. What I mean is I theorize that it's the source of the malice that arises in them when confronted. Reactionary and more than a little unconscious, which might be why communication with them is ineffective.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Czidnoma

Thank you for pointing that out. To call it "primary" was overreaching. I was specifically referring to those who inappropriately consider themselves Wiccan. But I didn't make that clear.

I feel it is important to note that there are differing opinions on who is able to use that as a title for themselves. There are Third Degree Gardnerians who consider people who practice certain styles of eclectic neo-paganism to be Wiccan.

Czidnoma

However, Christians and Muslims and other hierarchical religions do not fall under the generalization I made, since I did say that I wondered if the fluffy attitude is one of rebellion against that way of organizing religion. Still, I did fail to clarify that I was questioning a certain type of fluffy.

It may also be worth noting that not all Christians or Muslims follow the systems of hierarchy common in the most popular sects.

It may also be a point worth noting that British Traditional Wicca has a hierarchy within their covens and through the lines of initiation.

Czidnoma

I'm inclined to agree. But what else is there to call those who are, as described elsewhere, willfully ignorant toward theology? I'd also say it's definitely overused, as in the example you cite. Isn't that a matter of someone having a poor grasp of when it should be used, though?

At times I think you're correct. Other times I think the practice stems from frustration, since often people become so used to seeing the same arguments time and again, they may make snap decisions about any who disagree.

Alternatively, instead of dismissing someone as a Fluffy, we would have to invest the time and effort in educating someone. When the people respond to attempts at education with hostility or more flawed reasoning, it can try a Saint's patience.

Often people do not have the time and energy to invest in someone who does not take the time to understand what is being said by the other party. This goes both ways though.

Czidnoma

o0 Really? That is a whole new level of "wtf"? Is the argument, "He's depicted having long hair to expose the truth behind a patriarchal misogynistic campaign to give men all the religious power"? Just a guess. But, I mean, really... Who is that unaware? At that time, long hair was far more common for men than short. His disciples are all depicted with long hair, too. Christ and her disciples were women fighting the patriarchal power structure for their rights and that's why Christ was crucified! gonk

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning, but long hair would have been more a function of the later European artistic renditions than the historical Jewish traditions.

Czidnoma

Mmm, good point. Still leaves me with the idea that a sense of entitlement is very, very prominent.

Perhaps, but if a Third Degree Wiccan says that someone who is not initiated may use the title if they meet other standards, would you say that is still entitlement?

Czidnoma

Oh, I don't think it's deliberate malice, either. I do, however, think it reveals an inherent contempt in those who misappropriate gods and other beings from religions they, the person, have no part in.

I feel we have found the crux of the issue then. Those who criticize them say they have no part in the title or the relationships with certain gods and they along with those who agree with them say they do.

Czidnoma

Respecting something that has and wants nothing to do with you means leaving it the hell alone.

I am afraid I disagree. I feel often respect can be paid through acknowledgment, for example while I play no role in Canadian politics, I still acknowledge victories that my friends experience.

Czidnoma

What I mean is I theorize that it's the source of the malice that arises in them when confronted. Reactionary and more than a little unconscious, which might be why communication with them is ineffective.

While I feel this is true for some, I also feel that examples I have seen would also show there is a one-sidedness to some of the conversations on the part of both parties that may go against the grain of people's sense of justice.  

[Czidnoma]

Brass Bell Doll

I feel it is important to note that there are differing opinions on who is able to use that as a title for themselves. There are Third Degree Gardnerians who consider people who practice certain styles of eclectic neo-paganism to be Wiccan.

Said Gardnerians have the right to make that decision though, right? Since they carry an authority established by the founder of Wicca.

Quote:

It may also be worth noting that not all Christians or Muslims follow the systems of hierarchy common in the most popular sects.

It may also be a point worth noting that British Traditional Wicca has a hierarchy within their covens and through the lines of initiation.

Also true, but the main bodies of Christianity and Islam are hierarchical. Isn't it similar to the above-mentioned Third-Degree Gardnerians recognizing a non-Gardnerian person as a Wiccan? That is, even if a person does not belong to an organized body of the religion, they can still be recognized as rightful and honorable followers of it?

Quote:

At times I think you're correct. Other times I think the practice stems from frustration, since often people become so used to seeing the same arguments time and again, they may make snap decisions about any who disagree.

The same may be said of many words. "Gay", for instance. It has been relegated to an invective. But it still the word used most by homosexual people to describe themselves and it is to them a genuine and honest descriptor.

Quote:

Alternatively, instead of dismissing someone as a Fluffy, we would have to invest the time and effort in educating someone. When the people respond to attempts at education with hostility or more flawed reasoning, it can try a Saint's patience.

I'm not sure calling someone a fluffy is automatic dismissal. It is often used as a dismissal, but there are people who are genuine examples of its definition. The word itself, then, is not the problem. Overruse of it is, because it is then that the user is being automatically dismissive. They aren't applying it judiciously.

Quote:

Often people do not have the time and energy to invest in someone who does not take the time to understand what is being said by the other party. This goes both ways though.

Ah, true. It's hard to put someone off respectfully when one is pressed for time or feels anxious to be doing something else.

Quote:

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning, but long hair would have been more a function of the later European artistic renditions than the historical Jewish traditions.

Again, really? o0 But it seems like most of the men in the Bible are described with long hair, when their appearance is described at all. I suppose that doesn't qualify as a reliable cross-section of the societies, though...

Quote:

Perhaps, but if a Third Degree Wiccan says that someone who is not initiated may use the title if they meet other standards, would you say that is still entitlement?

No. And again it was my failure to specify. A person who has earned the recognition of someone with the authority to recognize them has also earned the right to say so. A person who has not earned such recognition from authority but assigns authority to themselves does not have the right to act as if they had real authority, nor to be offended when someone points it out.

Quote:

I am afraid I disagree. I feel often respect can be paid through acknowledgment, for example while I play no role in Canadian politics, I still acknowledge victories that my friends experience.

You are experiencing it by proxy, though. You know that you do not have a voice in or on the behalf of that system if you are not involved in it. Are you Canadian and choosing not to participate? In that case, the nation offers you the right, you just aren't accepting it. If I, on the other hand, an American, tried to go vote in Canadian elections, I would not be allowed to and it would likely be seen as disrespectful of me to intrude.

Quote:

While I feel this is true for some, I also feel that examples I have seen would also show there is a one-sidedness to some of the conversations on the part of both parties that may go against the grain of people's sense of justice.

True, but reaction instead of thought defies justice itself. If someone is basing their sense of justice on their reactive emotions, they have a serious bias. That's practically the definition of a bias, one's reasoning being swayed by emotional response. If a conversation is one-sided, it's because the other side is mired in a reactive position.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Czidnoma

Said Gardnerians have the right to make that decision though, right? Since they carry an authority established by the founder of Wicca.

I completely agree, which is my point- the Gardnerians have extended the right to call oneself Wiccan to people other members of the religion do not extend that right to.

Czidnoma

Also true, but the main bodies of Christianity and Islam are hierarchical. Isn't it similar to the above-mentioned Third-Degree Gardnerians recognizing a non-Gardnerian person as a Wiccan? That is, even if a person does not belong to an organized body of the religion, they can still be recognized as rightful and honorable followers of it?

Very similar, though I may be mistaken, it looks like there has been a miscommunication. There are Gardnerians who call people who follow things like Standing Stone Wicca. These same people are often told emphatically that they are not Wiccan by other lineaged members. Hence the issue that you addressed when it comes to "entitlement". If you have some members who have authority through their lineage saying it is okay, and others saying it isn't, then the people who are using the title aren't relying on their sense of entitlement as much as they are accepting one side's position as valid over another.

Czidnoma

The same may be said of many words. "Gay", for instance. It has been relegated to an invective. But it still the word used most by homosexual people to describe themselves and it is to them a genuine and honest descriptor.

I agree. One interesting point to consider in that case is how we can reclaim words that have initially been slanderous.

Czidnoma

I'm not sure calling someone a fluffy is automatic dismissal. It is often used as a dismissal, but there are people who are genuine examples of its definition. The word itself, then, is not the problem. Overruse of it is, because it is then that the user is being automatically dismissive. They aren't applying it judiciously.

I feel any discussion that resorts to name calling has failed. If instead of addressing why the person is engaging in behavior that is called fluffy, we simply tell them they are fluffy, we have not resolved the issue.

Czidnoma

Again, really? o0 But it seems like most of the men in the Bible are described with long hair, when their appearance is described at all. I suppose that doesn't qualify as a reliable cross-section of the societies, though...

Truly. There were only certain situations when a Jewish man was allowed to grow his hair long.

Czidnoma

No. And again it was my failure to specify. A person who has earned the recognition of someone with the authority to recognize them has also earned the right to say so. A person who has not earned such recognition from authority but assigns authority to themselves does not have the right to act as if they had real authority, nor to be offended when someone points it out.

Ah, but the issue is that these Gardnerians have extended this right openly and publicly. Anyone who fits their standards does not need personal recognition from them.

Czidnoma

You are experiencing it by proxy, though. You know that you do not have a voice in or on the behalf of that system if you are not involved in it. Are you Canadian and choosing not to participate? In that case, the nation offers you the right, you just aren't accepting it. If I, on the other hand, an American, tried to go vote in Canadian elections, I would not be allowed to and it would likely be seen as disrespectful of me to intrude.

I feel that there is confusion between acknowledgment and participation. If we extend this very same metaphor to say, British Traditional Wicca, while those not initiated are not participating in say- Alexandrian rituals, they may still acknowledge the Lord and Lady.

Some feel that they do not need the title to explain this. Others feel that the title, by the terms that members of the religion have assigned to it, addresses them.

Czidnoma

True, but reaction instead of thought defies justice itself.

I feel this is a disservice to those who are different. If we expect everyone to process the world the way we do and then devalue those who process the world differently by saying their actions defy justice, we are engaging in a kind of bias that protects our worldview without giving theirs the benefit of the doubt.

Czidnoma

If someone is basing their sense of justice on their reactive emotions, they have a serious bias. That's practically the definition of a bias, one's reasoning being swayed by emotional response.

Unfortunately this is a bias in and of itself since it isn't dependent on the actual definition but on a purported definition.

Bias does not need to be emotional. There can be "reasoned" bias that stems from a thought process. The most common forms of this are seen in formal debates where statistics are misrepresented to draw a conclusion.

Czidnoma

If a conversation is one-sided, it's because the other side is mired in a reactive position.

I feel that conversations can be one-sided by both sides not engaging the other side in a way they can relate to. I do not see that it has to be only one side engaging in the behavior.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

Brass Bell Doll

Czidnoma

Said Gardnerians have the right to make that decision though, right? Since they carry an authority established by the founder of Wicca.

I completely agree, which is my point- the Gardnerians have extended the right to call oneself Wiccan to people other members of the religion do not extend that right to.

Czidnoma

Also true, but the main bodies of Christianity and Islam are hierarchical. Isn't it similar to the above-mentioned Third-Degree Gardnerians recognizing a non-Gardnerian person as a Wiccan? That is, even if a person does not belong to an organized body of the religion, they can still be recognized as rightful and honorable followers of it?

Very similar, though I may be mistaken, it looks like there has been a miscommunication. There are Gardnerians who call people who follow things like Standing Stone Wicca. These same people are often told emphatically that they are not Wiccan by other lineaged members. Hence the issue that you addressed when it comes to "entitlement". If you have some members who have authority through their lineage saying it is okay, and others saying it isn't, then the people who are using the title aren't relying on their sense of entitlement as much as they are accepting one side's position as valid over another.

And therein lies the issue with having a decentralized authority, really. You get confusing and occasionally somewhat irrational moments like this, where some people say 'It's cool, you're Wiccan 'cause I said so and I'm 3rd Degree' and others (sometimes quite literally from within the same coven) turning around and yelling at the newly crowned 'Wiccans' for title misappropriation and stripping them of what was just bestowed.

It's a flaming mess.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Byaggha

And therein lies the issue with having a decentralized authority, really. You get confusing and occasionally somewhat irrational moments like this, where some people say 'It's cool, you're Wiccan 'cause I said so and I'm 3rd Degree' and others (sometimes quite literally from within the same coven) turning around and yelling at the newly crowned 'Wiccans' for title misappropriation and stripping them of what was just bestowed.

It's a flaming mess.

I feel it is fair to say that this is less of an issue with a "decentralized authority", and has more to do with expectations for the structure it was never intended to address.

In a case such as Wicca and similar to what we were speaking of in the Unitarian Universalist thread, the role of authority is meant to ensure certain things happen. I believe neither of these structures were designed to regulate language and the attitudes that shape and alter language. As a result, personal opinions are filling that role, and these opinions are formed with reasoning that draws from many sources.  

[aoijea23487]

Byaggha

Brass Bell Doll

Czidnoma

Said Gardnerians have the right to make that decision though, right? Since they carry an authority established by the founder of Wicca.

I completely agree, which is my point- the Gardnerians have extended the right to call oneself Wiccan to people other members of the religion do not extend that right to.

Czidnoma

Also true, but the main bodies of Christianity and Islam are hierarchical. Isn't it similar to the above-mentioned Third-Degree Gardnerians recognizing a non-Gardnerian person as a Wiccan? That is, even if a person does not belong to an organized body of the religion, they can still be recognized as rightful and honorable followers of it?

Very similar, though I may be mistaken, it looks like there has been a miscommunication. There are Gardnerians who call people who follow things like Standing Stone Wicca. These same people are often told emphatically that they are not Wiccan by other lineaged members. Hence the issue that you addressed when it comes to "entitlement". If you have some members who have authority through their lineage saying it is okay, and others saying it isn't, then the people who are using the title aren't relying on their sense of entitlement as much as they are accepting one side's position as valid over another.

And therein lies the issue with having a decentralized authority, really. You get confusing and occasionally somewhat irrational moments like this, where some people say 'It's cool, you're Wiccan 'cause I said so and I'm 3rd Degree' and others (sometimes quite literally from within the same coven) turning around and yelling at the newly crowned 'Wiccans' for title misappropriation and stripping them of what was just bestowed.

It's a flaming mess.

To add, some Gardnerians don't even consider Alexandrians to fall under the title "Wicca."  

[Czidnoma]

This is an interesting line of discussion. To interject, though, none of them, Gardnerian or any other valid Wicca tradition, would use their authority to recognize as Wiccan someone who doesn't recognize its founder and core tenets, would they? Not being snarky; I, despite my limited experience, just doubt that the rightfully entitled would validate the wrongfully entitled.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Czidnoma

This is an interesting line of discussion. To interject, though, none of them, Gardnerian or any other valid Wicca tradition, would use their authority to recognize as Wiccan someone who doesn't recognize its founder and core tenets, would they? Not being snarky; I, despite my limited experience, just doubt that the rightfully entitled would validate the wrongfully entitled.

It's an interesting line of thought. My question would be this though- Who are the "wrongfully entitled"?

Some Wiccans do not hold Gardner as Wicca's founder. I have seen two lines of thought on this.

One grouping seems to look to his writings and other information that suggest that he was initiated into a group that was already using the title. He then took some of their practices and added to them and Gardnerian Tradition was born.

Another group seems to suggest that there was not a single founder of the religion, but that it was a collaboration between Gardner and others usually including some of his priestesses and Crowley in the mix.

As for core tenants, the Third Degree Wiccans that extend the title to people who are not initiated into a lineaged tradition suggest that there is a difference between Wicca and British Traditional Wicca or Wica.  

[Cranium Squirrel]

Illiezeulette

To add, some Gardnerians don't even consider Alexandrians to fall under the title "Wicca."

Now that's just...I dunno what. I mean, TECHNICALLY, they trace to Gerald G too, don't they? Alex was part of his coven, wasn't he?

I am so lost. crying  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Byaggha

Now that's just...I dunno what. I mean, TECHNICALLY, they trace to Gerald G too, don't they? Alex was part of his coven, wasn't he?

I am so lost. crying

Alex Sanders wasn't part of Gardner's coven. There are letters that suggest that Alex Sanders was claiming Wicca before he was initiated. Still others claim that his initiation wasn't valid. Some claim he had dishonored the oaths of others by copying a Book of Shadows before his initiation. Some claim he has changed the religion too much. I can't say for sure any of this is true (except for the letters that all into question his claim to being part of Wicca).  

[Czidnoma]

Brass Bell Doll

It's an interesting line of thought. My question would be this though- Who are the "wrongfully entitled"?

Some Wiccans do not hold Gardner as Wicca's founder. I have seen two lines of thought on this.

One grouping seems to look to his writings and other information that suggest that he was initiated into a group that was already using the title. He then took some of their practices and added to them and Gardnerian Tradition was born.

Another group seems to suggest that there was not a single founder of the religion, but that it was a collaboration between Gardner and others usually including some of his priestesses and Crowley in the mix.

As for core tenants, the Third Degree Wiccans that extend the title to people who are not initiated into a lineaged tradition suggest that there is a difference between Wicca and British Traditional Wicca or Wica.

o.o I see. It's very involved, so there's really no way of telling who's right and who's wrong? But if that is the case, why is "Gardner founded Wicca" still so common a dispute of claims made by, mostly, people who consider Silver or Cunningham experts on Wicca and refuse to own up that they might be wrong?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Czidnoma

o.o I see. It's very involved, so there's really no way of telling who's right and who's wrong?

To my knowledge there is no absolute proof, no.

There is some physical evidence that is inconclusive and statements made by people who were around in Gardner's era.

Czidnoma

But if that is the case, why is "Gardner founded Wicca" still so common a dispute of claims made by, mostly, people who consider Silver or Cunningham experts on Wicca and refuse to own up that they might be wrong?

I feel this is largely due to one of the previously mentioned positions- that Gardner did not create Wicca, but expanded and popularized it. Combine Gardner's claims with initiation along with his support of Margaret Murray's books and it becomes understandable why this popular information shapes people's opinions- especially since a lot of Gardner's work is out of print and not widely available.

It may be a game of Telephone. Margaret Murray's books influenced Gardner who made claims about covens existing. Other people could have read Murray's books and made covens. Gardner could have met some of these people and seen their existence as proof, which he would then publish as part of his books. People read and emulated his works, some would eventually be initiated, others would be indirectly influenced by them.

The pagan movement gathers steam. It grows. More people pop up making claims about ancient witchcraft family covens. Covens have disputes and people leave, but continue to practice, bringing other people into witchcraft based religions.

People become more interested in spiritual practice than history and the legends outgrow their creators. Later, this information is repeated so many times that the actual source of the tales is forgotten. Some of it may have been invented. Some of it may have been true. But the people who were around in the very beginning are gone. Some of the early people are still around, but they have their own opinions and motivations- they're human after all. So even well intentioned people draw conclusions in the absence of absolute proof that are shaded by their opinions.