nigris (333) <nagasiva@...
>so by masonic standards the OTO died in this lineage. however,
>Freemasons seem to require more members for initiations.
Not that simple. For one thing, OTO is not Freemasonry. For another,
appendant Masonic rites are chartered to individuals or groups. One
surviver, with proper charter, is sufficient.
>when the minutes changed to "lodge" how many members?
Difficult to be precise, since the usage of camp and lodge alternated for a
while. Agape was remarked as a lodge in the first minutes of 1935 e.v.,
but it was also refered to as "camp" in the minutes of 1938 e.v. It's
quite possible that no distinction was made in a general way. Agape again
was noted as "lodge" in the minutes of 1942 e.v.
>> and has a specific VSL.
>are there any other organizations of which you are aware
>which have specific Volumes of Sacred Law (VSL)?
>> Throughout the Reuss, Crowley and Germer years, charters were
>> to individuals.
>any minimum necessary to generate a charter?
Depends on the charter. Often these were either speculative (go and find
other people) or tentative (you say you have interested people, go and see
if they will form under OTO). In either case, one to be chartered.
>see what I'm
>getting at? if that minimum is *1*, then there can really be
>no objection to the construction (or retainment) of
>alternative OTO charters, however disputed as to legitimacy.
Makes no sense to me. The issue isn't head count, it's valid charter
maintained in accord with conditions.