Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikiproject_Thelema Ordo Templi Orientis is part of WikiProject Thelema, an attempt to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to Thelema. You are invited to participate by editing the article or by joining the Thelema WikiProject as a participating member.


Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Archived

Please check archives before posting. Thanks. Zos 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I archived the talk page, as it was getting bulky and I assumed Blueboar wasnt going to contest me putting the citation in. Zos 05:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's keep talking please

We're talking through this thing; let's continue to. Blueboar's position desiring a disclaimer is reasonable; the opinion of Freemasonry is is about as important to OTO as the opinion of the "several Christian churches" mentioned in the "criticisms" section. It is certainly a fact that the organizations most people thing of as "Masonic" don't want anything to do with OTO (if they care about it at all). This can be neutrally pointed out. Question for Blueboar -- is it possible that the UGLE disclaimer is actually targeted to far less esoterically oriented groups than OTO? What other organizations fall under its rubric?

Oh, and one more thing -- I don't have any right as an admin to force one or another form of the article. I threw my weight around to stop the edit war, not to impose my own will the article. Don't defer to me in that regard. We do things on Wikipedia by consensus, and what I've been doing here is trying to get one. So far it's not been successful, but I think we're pretty close.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, in an interest in putting this behind us, I've thrown the statement into the article. Personally, I dont want it in there, as it has nothing to do with OTO. But I found something under reliable sources mentioned in the archive which made me include it, to be of NPOV about it. And jpgordan, I understood your position as mediator and I thank you for taking on the role. And if I refered to you as anything other than that, I apologize. Zos 05:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, none needed, but thanks anyway. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to say this, after all our time bickering... but I have found what I think is a much better way to deal with my underlying concerns... rather than quote what UGLE says about all sorts of groups that are similar to Freemasonry, I can quote something OTO itself says. While looking for verification of the UGLE quote on various encyclopedias and OTO websites, I found that OTO-US addresses the underlying issue (OTOs relationship to Freemasonry) in detail. So, I can quote OTO itself and achieve the same purpose (making it clear that there is a difference between OTO and Freemasonry, dispite the similarities). I have added this to the article and removed the reference to UGLE. Jpgordon, thanks for your support and guidance in all of this. Hopefully, this will allow both Zos and I move on and concentrate on editin this and other articles. Blueboar 12:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

whoops... Imacomp seems to disagree with my edit and has reverted... OK, back to discussion. Imacomp, is there a reason to keep the UGLE quote if we add my OTO quote? Perhaps both are needed? Blueboar 13:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Blueboar. They have been put back Imacomp 13:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok i'm agreeing to talk first, but that whole section about freemasonry and oto has to go. Zos 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not. Imacomp 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I only say this because it appears more like an argument. Zos 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I am withdrawing from any administrative roles regarding this article, as I've blocked Imacomp for 3RR violations and for repeatedly blanking Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Imacomp. From this point on, I'm just another interested editor. Imacomp's brand of edit warring is the reason admins exist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Jpgordon... I understand your shift from acting as "mediator" to "editor". I thank you for the time you have spent on this. You have been a help in calming tensions, so I hope you will continue to help us work out our differences no matter what role you are acting in.
Zos, how can you object to quoting something that OTO says on its own website? Or perhaps more to the point, why do you object to quoting something OTO says on its own website. I am honestly confused.Blueboar 16:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the only reason I object is that the matter needs to be addressed in the intro. A whole section doesnt need to be added for a few simple statements. I mentioned this in the archive, sorry to have archived this so fast, as I figured it would be over the moment I agreed to ading UGLE as a source. So can we just add it into the intro, and leave out a section? Plus it reads like an argument, what with the football reference.
Jpgordan, thanks for the help, I understand fully. Zos 16:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If you prefer UGLE over OTO... (although please note that the "argumentative" wording is OTO's and not mine :>)... I don't really care which is used, as long as some sort of statement about all this is included, I am content. I just thought it would solve all our issue's by using something from OTO instead of UGLE. I'll make the changes. Blueboar 17:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Whatever is fine, as something needs to be there. Zos 17:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
done... and Zos, thank you for being civil during all this. I know how frustrating a "one issue gad-fly" (like me) can be when you want to get other edits done. Good luck perfecting the rest of the article. Blueboar 18:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. It wont be perfected by me, but also it doesnt have to be perfect for it to be nominated for a featured article. This wont come by me alone, but by other editors willing to extend that extra effort. Zos 18:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On a completely different topic...

I notice that you use the Free Encyclopedia of Thelema (2005) as a citation. Wiki-type encyclopedias are usually considered not very reliable sources. You would strengthen the article if you could find a better source for the material. I am not objecting ... just suggesting. Blueboar 18:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I didnt put that there, and I dont recall who did. Zos 18:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment directed at editors in general. After all this time being negative about the article, I wanted to try to make a positive contribution... I would replace it with a better citation myself, but I don't know enough about Thelema etc. to know where to look. It is an interesting part of the article, (and an interesting link) so I am hoping someone can find a solid cite. As for the wiki, perhaps that can go into an "external links" section (or something similar) so readers are still directed to it. carry on. Blueboar 20:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memphis and Misraim / Ancient and Primitive Rite

I changed the link to Rite of Memphis (which redirected to Ancient and Primitive Rite) and Rite of Mizraim (which was redlinked) to Ancient and Primitive Rite. However, there are three separate articles which deal with this rite, the above mentioned Ancient and Primitive Rite as well as Rite of Memphis-Misraïm and Memphis-Misraim. If someone here knows a thing or two about this rite/these rites, could they work on consolidating the articles into one which describes the history of Memphis and Misraim, their merging, and use today? OzLawyer 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're two different rites, right? So they'd need different articles in my opinion. Zos 22:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, after looking it over I suggested the merge. If there is no objection in a day or so, I'll merge the two. Zos 23:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, no, they're one rite (I think). I think Misraim was first, Memphis grew from that, and then they joined together. The "Ancient (or Antient) and Primitive Rite" is just another name for it (it's often called the "Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis and Misraim"). OzLawyer 00:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] current reverting of Freemasonry claims

I just knew that 999 wouldnt like it!. SynergeticMaggot 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that by disclaiming a claim that has never been made, it implies that the claim has indeed been made, which is false. This is why normally one cannot disclaim something in an article which has not been claimed in the article. It is a sneaky method of introducing external bias into the article. -999 (Talk) 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I understand that. Which is why I was in the same revert warring with BlueBoar. Jpgordan had to step in. I just let it go until someone else had a problem with it. SynergeticMaggot 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Zos, you and I did not have a revert war (well... to be honest, we did engage in one minor one, but we stoped and discussed rather than continued to revert each other)... the revert war was with Imacomp. We engaged in a VERY lengthy argument here on the talk page (which is where such aguments should take place.) Any how... to make my argument again...
999 - While the article does not make a specific claim stating that it is part of Freemasonry, it does make quite a to do about the similarities between OTO and Freemasonry, it is a claim that is made repeatedly (three times). the article also repeatedly discusses the fact that the founders of OTO were Freemasons, and that OTO was originally seen as being derived from Freemasonry. An uninformed reader is thus left with the clear impression that there is indeed a relationship - that OTO is in some way Freemasonic. By adding the disclaimer (as you call it) this impression is corrected. No bias is meant... just clear information. Blueboar 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
As for mentioning "similarity", it's entitled to, that is what OTO claims and it has been clarified as a claim in at least one place. You are welcome to disclaim the actual claim by finding a reference which says that the OTO rituals or degree structure were never similar to Freemasonry. But your agenda to put disclaimers in every article that mentions Freemasonry even where no corresponding claim has been made is out of place on WP. This is not the place to beat your "but it's not really affiliated with Freemasonry" drum... -999 (Talk) 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The reader is left with the impression that the OTO is in some way simular to Freemasonry. And it is. It is in fact POV-pushing to add in OR to the article. The UGLE website makes it clear who it is they are talking about, and its not OTO. If and when they get around to updating their information, it should be added. Until then, like I have said before, find a better reference/source for what you wish to include BlueBoar. SynergeticMaggot 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with this. If it doesn't explicitly mention OTO, it doesn't belong in this article. -999 (Talk) 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yet I have to disagree with 999 agreeing with me. It confuses my daily tasks on Wikipedia :p SynergeticMaggot 20:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on, Zos. You know we agree much more often than we disagree... -999 (Talk) 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You're gonna have to get used to calling me SynergeticMaggot! I caught flack for having a different signature. And your usage of "..." indicates we have more disagreements to come :D We should just create an entire article based on Occult organ's/orders who are simular to Freemasonry in any respect. That way we wont have to deal with this forever. SynergeticMaggot 20:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rv. to 21:04, 18 July 2006 Blueboar as I agree with that edit. Mousescribe 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That't not sufficient reason to do a revert in the middle of a discussion. -999 (Talk) 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
999, I really don't want to have to repeat the entire argument that I had with Zos ... er... SynergeticMaggot (how about just SM?) ... please look at it (if it isn't above, it will be in the achives). In that discussion, I detailed why I felt that the use of the UGLE citation was appropriate and allowable under Wiki guidelines. JPGordon agreed with my take on it. Now, the alternative is MUCH harsher... remove all the references to Freemasonry (if there is no association claimed, this should not cause a problem - right?) To show you what that would be like, I have (temporarily) done this... feel free to revert it, as I do not actually think this is the right approach. I will not revert it back. The point is to show you how much this article relies on stating that OTO is similar to Freemasonry, grew out of Freemasonry, and has a Masonic history. I have no problem with this. The more I study OTO, the more I agree that all of this is true. However, because the article talks so much about Freemasonry, it is vital that Freemasonry's view be included. To exclude it would be very POV. There are many different organizations that either grew out of Freemasonry or based themselves on Freemasonry. UGLE does not specificly mention each and every one of them on their web site. Instead they put the UGLE statement quoted. It is a blanket statement that covers all of them, including OTO.
Now... I originally was willing to simply have the UGLE statement appear in a foot note so as to make it less jarring to the flow of the article... I offer that again. I also am willing to stick it in the "criticisms" section. In addition, I am willing to discuss other ways to solve my concerns about uninformed readers coming away from this article thinking that OTO is connected directly to Freemasonry. If you have a suggestion, I am willing to consider and discuss it. Blueboar 23:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 999. There is NO ASSERTION of association, only that the structure is claimed to be similiar. Therefore, it is similarity that you must refute, if you can. —23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hanuman Das (talk • contribs).
Welcome to the discussion Hanuman :p SynergeticMaggot 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops, too many squiggles. Funny how five just give the timestamp... —Hanuman Das 00:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Dah. And BlueBoar: All this time, and you havent gone out and found some source that agrees with your POV? And the UGLE, for the last time, does not mention OTO! This is purely just a rant with a point to proove and I'm glad to see you wont be reverting. SynergeticMaggot 00:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
SM, once again, I do not need to find a site that agrees with my POV... My POV does not matter (and should not be included in an article since I am not notable)... what I have is a cite that states freemasonry's POV which is notable. HD- since the article makes repeated mention of the similarities, it is appropriate to quote what Freemasonry says about this similarity. To not allow Freemasonry's view on the subject would be a violation of WP:NPOV. however, I am willing to let OTO speak for itself on the subject, since it agrees with UGLE. My personal feeling is that UGLE's version is a much simpler statement, but if you object to letting Freemasonry speak, then OTO will have to do. Blueboar 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This whole thing continues to be pretty dumb. What Freemasonry(TM) thinks of OTO is simply irrelevant to this article. OTO rituals were drawn from Masonic rituals and the initiatory structure was inspired by and to some degree derived from Masonic rituals. There's just no need for any disclaimer, since nobody is saying OTO is part of Freemasonry(TM) -- just that it is inspired by and derived from some or another branch of it. A bastard step-grandchild, if you will. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Did I say a site? No. I said a reference/source. And yes you do need to find one to implement a POV into any article. Until you find a source that is saying what you say, then its Orignal Research and your POV. No one is saying that Freemasonry's POV is not allowed here, but you have not found a valid Freemasonic source. Why do you not understand this? SynergeticMaggot 01:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't that I don't understand what you are saying, it's that I very much disagree with you. Frist, I am not inserting MY POV into the article... I am inserting Freemasonry's POV into the article, which is a very different thing. Again, this article goes on and on about how similar OTO is to Freemasonry. Thus, I feel that it is definitely appropriate to include a statement from a Masonic Source stating what Freemasonry thinks about this similarity. I feel strongly that I HAVE found a valid Freemasonic source. Who better to speak for Freemasonry than the oldest and most influential Grand Lodge? Second, This is NOT Original Research... The UGLE statement says clearly that there are many organizations that use rituals similar to freemasonry. It is an inclusive statement that covers ALL organizations that do so. Thus it clearly includes OTO in it's statement. The UGLE citation IS a valid source. I will echo your question... Why do you not understand this?
That said, I am trying to be reasonable here. I am not insisting on the UGLE quotation. But I do think some form of "disclaimer" is needed. It is my contention that this article does indeed say that OTO is part of Freemasonry... not explicitly, but by repeated reference to the similarities. It implies the connection clearly. Thus, to not include a statment with an alternative view seriously violates WP:NPOV. Because of this, and because this is the second time I have had to argue all this, I am going to flag the article as NPOV until my conserns are addressed.
Finally - OTO has obviously had this problem before. Uninformed people think it is a branch of Freemasonry. If not, why would OTO put a similar disclaimer prominently on it's own web site? Now, it happens that the OTO disclaimer also can be used to solve my issues about implied connection, so I tried including it as an alternative... it was removed. What objection can you have to including a statement taken from OTO's own website? It obviously reflects OTO's view, and thus is appropriate to include in an article about OTO. Blueboar 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem here, Blueboar, is that the OTO disclaimer was not removed. It was simply shortened to its essence and put in the same place where you put the UGLE "disclaimer". It clearly states that OTO initiates do not become Freemason by virtue of initiation into OTO, and it is still in the article. Why, precisely, do you feel that this is insufficient? -999 (Talk) 15:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

there has been a misunderstanding here... as I say below, I now see that the OTO quote was not removed... it was shortened and moved up by HD... I missed that when I posted my last comment (my appologies). Just to be clear, I do NOT think the OTO disclaimer as it is currently included is insufficient, it satisfies my concerns and there no need for a POV tag. Hopefully this will end the debate. Blueboar 15:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. I thought it was a good solution and didn't realize you hadn't noticed exactly what HD had done... -999 (Talk) 16:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOPV tag

999 - you removed the NOPV tag I placed on the article stating that I had to post my reasons on the talk page... I did (see above). That said, I do not think the tag needs to be returned, as Hanuman Das's recent edit (which I had missed when I added the tag) satisfies my concerns. Blueboar 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have done the same. The only dispute pertaining to NPOV is you BlueBoar. Find a source for what you wish to add. And again, if there is a POV, any POV, and someone wishes to add it to an article, you'd need to have a source saying this for a citation. And since you dont, its your POV until proven otherwise. SynergeticMaggot 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ron hubbard

some idiot keeps taking his name off the list and it's getting quite annoying. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081840499X/ref=ase_conspiracyarc-20/104-8924776-1297547?v=glance&s=books —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.138.164.249 (talk • contribs).

That idiot would be me. I previously placed the name on the list. 999 removed it, in which I had to recheck my source, and my sources in fact didnt say specifically that Hubbard was a member, only that he and Parsons did some weird freaky sex rituals to produce a blah blah blah it can be found here: Babalon Working. Anyway, showing me a book exposing Hubbard will do little to make me include him as a member of the OTO. SynergeticMaggot 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it is my understanding that Hubbard was never initiated into OTO and that Parsons simply shared OTO rituals and material with him even though he was not a member. We'd need a source that clear says he was a member before including him. This is important as we don't want any Scientologists to start an edit war about it. If some citable source says he was a member, then add him with a citation to that source... -999 (Talk) 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly like what is going on right now about Freemasonry POV pushers. SynergeticMaggot 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Anyway, to elaborate, every valid source I've seen has tended to include the claim that Parson's broke his oaths by sharing oath-bound material with Hubbard. That would certainly be the case if Hubbard was never a member, but would also be the case if Hubbard were say a Minerval or First Degree and was given IX° material. None of the sources I've seen clarify this by saying whether or not Hubbard was ever initiated... -999 (Talk) 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Piece of Blue Sky

By the way, the text of this book is available online at [1]. I've looked through the chapter on Hubbard and Parsons and don't see any clear statement that Hubbard was an OTO member. Only an account of his magical work with Parsons. -999 (Talk) 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I searched for "Hubbard was never a member of OTO" and found a clear statement from Bill Heidrick (who did or maybe still does keep the membership books for OTO) and that should resolve the issue. -999 (Talk) 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't have been a matter of "membership books", I don't think. However, Helen Parsons Smith (Jack's widow) was a font of information, and my guess would be that Bill would have gotten that information from her. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, on alt.freemasonry of all places :-) -999 (Talk) 20:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, alt.freemasonry thelemically adds up to Aiwass...j/k :p

Yeah, but Aiwass is just wise Ass spelled sideways. -999 (Talk) 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Gotta give that one a soldier and the hunchback clap ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? : here ends the clapping, on the square. SynergeticMaggot 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L. Ron Hubbard

We have a categorical statement from an OTO official that "Hubbard was never a member of OTO". The section is "Known members" and it is going to stay titled that. Association is too vague and would open the list to a potentially infinite category. Hubbard was never officially associated with O.T.O. He was associated with Jack Parsons and the Babalon Working. Please feel free to add to those articles. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That would really open it up to wicca via Gardner. SynergeticMaggot 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it would. Not sure there is any reliable information on the topic, but Gardner did have an OTO charter. I've seen pics of it online, though I forget where. -999 (Talk) 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the sources for it, he was given one, but never used it. SynergeticMaggot 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
That's sort of debatable. I'd say he used it and was even encouraged to use it, to create a three degree system of Wicca based on the OTO rituals of the time. Now, I suspect he never collected or paid dues, but his first coven was basically formed under the auspices of OTO... -999 (Talk) 19:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa there. Thats high speculation. I've seen articles about the subject but nothing to convince me that it was purely, I mean 100% taken from OTO or Crowley (Equinox). SynergeticMaggot 19:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I'm not going to try to put it in any articles :-) -999 (Talk) 19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Good. :) SynergeticMaggot 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
How you you say that he was never "officially associated"? Did he or did he not personally participate in OTO rituals with Parsons, et al.? If he did, he was clearly associated. As for your slippery slope argument that changing the section title would turn the section into a "potentially infinite category," I'm not convinced. As for your assertion that the section "is going to stay titled that," please see WP:OWN. Community consensus, not your personal preference alone, will decide what the section is called, as well as whether or not the section will even continue to exist. Hubbard has been reported by notable sources to be explicitly and directly associated with OTO. Either prove the sources unreliable, or leave the addition. Dick Clark 19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I would add that L. Ron Hubbard is a person whose history is of great interest to many readers. This is not only a verifiable assertion, but also a notable, pertinent one. Dick Clark 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Its not a matter of OWN. There is more of a conensus to keep it like it is. SynergeticMaggot 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Also "asociated" and "member" are two different things. SynergeticMaggot 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hubbard was not a member. Parson's broke his oath and shared some rituals with him - that's it. I think you will find that the consensus here is against you. Feel free to create a survey. -999 (Talk) 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You can find this information at WP:POLL, or you can create an RfC. SynergeticMaggot 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In any case, you have NO SOURCE that says he was a member. And the former Treasurer of the OTO categorically states he has the membership records for the period and Hubbard is not on them - here. And no, I don't think that The Watchman Expositor qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS. In any case, they are some interesting facts about Hubbard which have no real significance to the OTO article. Why not add them to the L. Ron Hubbard article, hmmm? -999 (Talk) 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Given the insights offered above, I would tend to agree that the lion's share of the details regarding LRH's association with OTO do belong in his article. However, it is a generally accepted convention on Wikipedia (in my experience, anyway) to at least note such associations in both articles. That is to say, I would agree that the details of Hubbard's association with OTO belong at the LRH article, but both articles should contain some nominal reference, especially since LRH is so notable relative to OTO. I, for example, never heard of OTO until I read a magazine article somewhere that discussed it in light of LRH's (perhaps brief) association with the organization. And to those who are objecting based on the section title, I would note that I changed the section title in order to comply with 999's objection that LRH was never a "member" per se. Dick Clark 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The OTO has a small association with Freemasonry. Yet we didnt go over there and start adding things that didnt belong. Seeing as how he was never a member, it should go to Parsons page. Yet there is already a page for what you wish include. I think its Babalon Working. SynergeticMaggot 20:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
He was never a member at all. Being a member of OTO is a very specific thing; the only way you can "kinda" be a member is to be of at least a certain degree and not have paid your dues. Was Hubbard actually associated with the organization? I kinda don't think so, since after 1947, the organization pretty much ceased functioning. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Steiner as member of OTO

Firstly I wish to apologise for the vandalism I caused on this page by removing Rudolf Steiner from the known member list. The reason I did this is that I know of no evidence that Rudolf Steiner was ever part of the Ordo Templi Orientis. I would like to request for Rudolf Steiner to be removed from the list. Please also see this link http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm and this one http://www.defendingsteiner.com/articles/rs-reuss.php Lkleinjans 08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Steiner accepted an O.T.O. charter from Theodor Reuss in 1905 or 1906 which licensed him to work as head of a national lodge called the Mysteria Mystica Aeterna. This was before Crowley joined O.T.O. By way of comparision, Crowley's charter was for a national lodge called Mysteria Mystica Maxima. I understand that Steiner claims to have broken off the relationship with Reuss and the O.T.O. later in 1906; however Steiner continued to use the "Mysteria Mystica Aeterna" nomenclature until 1914.
I understand that there is some argument that Steiner's charter does not have "O.T.O." printed on it but rather is a charter for the Rites of Memphis-Misraim, but the same was true of Crowley's O.T.O. charter. The O.T.O. was formed in 1895 and O.T.O. purchased a charter for the Rites of Memphis-Misraim in 1902. From that point on, any Memphis-Misraim activity performed by Reuss was under the auspices of O.T.O. though he continued to use printed material (i.e. charters) that he purchased along with his charter. See here (last paragraph) and here. The latter has the text of the announcement of Steiner's charter in the Oriflamme, the O.T.O. newsletter of the time:
Bro. Dr Rudolph Steiner, 33º, 95º, of Berlin and the Brothers and Sisters associated with him have been granted permission to form a Chapter and Grand Council under the title 'Mystica Aeterna' in Berlin. Dr Steiner has been appointed Deputy Grand Master with jurisdiction over members already received or to be received by him. Sister Marie von Sievers (later Steiner's wife) has been appointed General Grand Secretary for the Lodges of Adoption.
I think this quote helps clear up the matter. Clearly if his charter was announced in the O.T.O. newsletter, he was a member of O.T.O., even though he was never a member of Crowley's O.T.O. but rather the original Reuss O.T.O. before Crowley joined it. The attempts to claim that he wasn't are simply misdirection based on the intentional omission of the fact that Reuss' Rites of Memphis-Misraim were part of Ordo Templi Orientis from 1902 on. -999 (Talk) 15:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a differentiation between known members who were part of Reuss O.T.O. and those of 'Crowley's' O.T.O. because, as I understand it, they had quite different practices. Lkleinjans 15:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mel gibson

anyone have proof that he's a member? what % of scientologists are OTO people? and do they deal much with ordo sinistra vivendi?

  • Has anyone even suggested he's a member? Probably few scientlogists are OTO people, since scientology is essentially a slave religion, while the basic idea of OTO is "think for youself, asshole." And 3, I doubt it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation notice

The following notice was removed:

This article is about the California corporation, for the Great Britain-based magical order, see Ordo Templi Orientis (Typhonian)

There are problems with this wording, so we need to hash it out. We need a more accurate way of describing this article. First, although OTO is incorporated in California, it is an international organization. Second, it is based on Crowley's foundational documents. Third, as found in the US, it is a continuation of Crowley's OTO. Now then, we don't need to say all that, but if we need a disambiguation (personally I don't think we do, since there is only one actual OTO), I would rather say something like:

For other organizations using the name O.T.O., see Ordo Templi Orientis (Typhonian), etc.

–Frater5 (talk/con) 00:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the organization authorized to use the name Ordo Templi Orientis in the United States. For the Great Britain-based organization, see Ordo Templi Orientis (Typhonian)
Any issues anyone? This seemed to me to be the most matter of fact way of saying it in a neutral manner. I haven't read the US OTO court rulings in a while, but I'm presuming this to be the case. I'll eyeball it again tho. --Jackhorkheimer 03:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, OTO isn't just in the US...it is international. –Frater5 (talk/con) 15:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of criticisms

Honestly, the revision of the section regarding criticisms of OTO regarding sexism struck me the wrong way. Whatever one feels about the validity of these claims, they do represent an honest, ongoing line of criticism. As such they deserve inclusion. WP:POV and WP:NPOV provide some illuminating points on the usage of dissenting viewpoints in these articles.

It truthfully just seems off to me that the section regarding claims of sexism be converted into simply "Some conclude that the teachings of OTO, which accepts both men and women as members, are misogynistic." Which seems phrased in such a way as to be dismissive and internally contradict the assertion, like, "How can the OTO be sexist? They admit both men and women."

Truthfully, P.R. Koenig has dubious merits as a scholar, however he has a valid point as a critic with this, namely that the sex magick of the OTO is geared towards male and not female use. As such, I'm putting it back in. If someone else has a suggestion about what source could be good to represent dissenting viewpoints in this regard, suggest it, but something needs to be up, so I'm going to put this back in. --Jackhorkheimer 05:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/d/Talk%7EOrdo_Templi_Orientis_eb06.html"