Mark, thank you for actually addressing my questions: perhaps the
rarest thing on the Net it seems...
You said: "If your question is about OTO theological doctrine or
dogma, I don't know that such a thing exists, strictly speaking.
It's true that certain symbolsand concepts are used in the context
of certain ceremonies - the Gnostic Creed in the Gnostic Mass, for
example. The more these symbols are understood and accepted by the
participants, the more likely the group will be to raise the energy
This is a point which occupies my mind a lot at the moment... surely
any group which initiates uses certain form and symbols, relies upon
access to certains energies, etc.. all vague terms I agree. But the
essence is that something informs an initiation and I get very
confused by the acceptence of the idea that the only thing which
does this informing is the what the person(s) going through it bring
(s) to it. This strikes me as simply false. The organisation upon
the "authority" (take that however you want) of which the initation
occurs directly informs the initiation. This seems so obvious to me
as to be axiomatic.
Now the O.T.O. as you say seems to me to simply point to Crowley as
the source of its dogma. "We represent Crowley", this type of thing.
The problem is that Crowley is dead, he has nothing to do with the
way the current O.T.O. sees itself as implementing his legacy. This
is what I have been searching for and seem unable to find -
anywhere! What is the current theological/doctrinal position of the
O.T.O.? I used the KEW ritual as a point of referrence because my
understanding is that this was written by the current O.T.O. and not
I am not sure if I have expressed my concerns or needs well. I guess
it is this: what is the O.T.O.s current doctrinal position with
respect to its own beliefs? Anyone who says: it doesn't have any is
surely simply wrong. Am I right?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Marc Anton <marxaos@e...> wrote:
> If I may jump in and attempt to answer what I think to be a
> I'm a Thelemite who has been through a number of OTO initiations
> course of several years. If you want to consider me a
representative of the
> OTO because of this, you may feel free to do so.
> If your question is about OTO theological doctrine or dogma, I
> that such a thing exists, strictly speaking. It's true that ertain
> and concepts are used in the context of certain ceremonies - the
> Creed in the Gnostic Mass, for example. The more these symbols are
> understood and accepted by the participants, the more likely the
> be to raise the energy they want. One of the functions of religion
> enabling common belief among the participants of a group ritual,
> might be able to consider the liturgy of the Gnostic Mass as
> kind of religious dogma.
> But in my experience, the closest thing to a doctrine or dogma in
the OTO is
> the obvious "Do what thou wilt..." Beyond that, belief systems
> members of the Order seem to be pretty varied.
> There are plenty of symbols and concepts in OTO and other
> Magickal rituals that have Jewish and Christian associations. Some
> symbols have other, more ancient associations as well. And, of
> are numerous other symbols that are not really Judeo-Christian at
> Personally, I have found it useful to ritually access energies
that are in
> common circulation. A bit of cultural context can go a long way.
> Would I recommend the OTO to anyone? I think anyone can benefit
from the OTO
> initiatory experience, and that many of ideas prevalent in the
Order can be
> very useful. They have been for me. Will they be for anyone else?
> say for sure - it depends upon the person.
> As for the eschatological implications of the Book of the Law, I
> nothing to add to that discussion. I prefer to keep my
> what I have read in it to myself. Others have specific opinions
> that they are eager to share.
> And if they want to do that, then God bless 'em ;-)
> 93 etc.
> - Fra. N3
> On 12/13/05 7:45 AM, "kelly_westcott" <kelly_westcott@y...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, M Evans <malgwyn@g...> wrote:
> > Ummm... I am not really used to this style of communicating but
> > reply from M Evens strikes me as highly ascerbic. I don't really
> > understand why as I was simply asking a question... but let's
> >> On 12/13/05, kelly_westcott <kelly_westcott@y...> wrote:
> >>> . What struck me most about it was the heavy almost
> > fundamentalist
> >>> Judaeo-Christian theology that runs through it. It basically
> > accepts
> >>> and sort of celebrates the writing of The Book of The Law as
> >>> actual unleashing of the seventh seal of the apocalypse as seen
> > in the
> >>> Oracular writings of John.
> >> That will teach you to open that box, PANDORA. Again and again
> > there
> >> are things that we aren't ready to deal with yet, but we
> >> persist, and must suffer the inevitable consequences. It is
> >> nature, and came long before Evangelical John. After the awful,
> > there
> >> is hope.
> > I don't understand 'we'? Do you mean me, Kelly Westcott? I am not
> > sure what I am "suffering" by way of consequences... can you
> > elaborate on the consequences you think I should be suffering?
> > I also don't follow what came before John, human nature? That
> > kind of like stating the obvious...
> >>> Now I kinda see this whole seven seals thing as a load of
> > it is
> >>> just not a theological space I buy into.
> >> It is a load of crap, and we are worms on the turd.
> > again I don't understand 'we' - are 'we' all like you and so your
> > mean you, you are a worm on a turd...
> >>> Does this mean that the OTO is not really something I should be
> >>> getting into?
> >> Are you a person with free will, or an automaton that needs to
> > told
> >> what to do.
> > I don't think your implied assertion follows from anything in the
> > actual question. The question means: if I do not believe in the
> > seven seals routine then am I not going to gel with the OTO? That
> > seems like a question that someone with actual knowledge could
> > answer...
> >>> Where are the theological doctrines that the OTO holds as
> > dogmatic
> >>> made clear?
> >> ?zzz.
> > You seem to be implying that the theological doctrines of the OTO
> > are not relevant to prospective candidates, that you find them
> > boring...? this strikes me as highly imprudent and cavalier
> > an adjective, not a noun)
> >>> It seems like this ritual is quite a serious business, but
> >>> there is a lot of metaphysical assumption that informs it and
> > these
> >>> beliefs held by the OTO that I need to know more about before
> > forming
> >>> an opinion as to its suitability for me...
> >> Well, if the OTO thing doesn't work for you, there is always
> >> Scientology, or back the way you came.
> >> Malgwyn
> > Is this your path of initiation, or the one you are recomending
> > me based on my question? What a rash and stupid thing to say...
> > Malgwyn I hope that you are not representative of OTO people and
> > that someone is going to respond to my question with tact and
> > intelligence. :-)
> > Yahoo! Groups Links