Thelema And Mormonism.

[Ntrw]

While I generally agree with such a philosophy, Crowley himself decried that sort of thinking with respect to his book. He himself stated that only he, and he alone, had the right to interpret the meaning of passages in the book, not his followers. They can do that now in their new variant of OTO but it was not always so. Today's OTO is a little different animal in some of its parts than was the case in the old ways. But the root still is the same.

Great, so read the commentary Crowley wrote about the passages you cited. Once you get past the Halloween layer, Thelema is about as diabolical as Buddhism. Nothing to see here, folks.

[MormonMason]

Evidence, please?

Read his books and biographies. Much of the evidence you need is there.

[Tsuzuki]

Read his books and biographies. Much of the evidence you need is there.

Already have. Can you point out something specific I may have missed? Until then, I'll take Thelema as it's lived right now as evidence against your argument.

[MormonMason]

Already have. Can you point out something specific I may have missed? Until then, I'll take Thelema as it's lived right now as evidence against your argument.

Even though Crowley would have identified you as a pestilence to be shunned for even discussing the book with others? Edited May 12, 2013 by MormonMason

[Tsuzuki]

Even though Crowley would have identified you as a pestilence to be shunned for even discussing the book with others?

What, you mean like every other Thelemite in the world, past and present?

Have you not been paying attention?

[MormonMason]

What, you mean like every other Thelemite in the world, past and present?

Have you not been paying attention?

Don't you mean "every other [modern] Thelemite"?

[Tsuzuki]

Don't you mean "every other [modern] Thelemite"?

I did specifically say "past and present." This includes those who knew Crowley personally.

[MormonMason]

I did specifically say "past and present." This includes those who knew Crowley personally.

Which of the original members actually discussed the details of the Law with and in the public, Apprentice?

As to further discussion of the compatibility of Crowley's thinking with Mormonism:

One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.

(Crowley, Liber ABA 4.II)

[Tsuzuki]

Which of the original members actually discussed the details of the Law with and in the public, Apprentice?

Aleister Crowley, in his publication, "The Equinox." That's where it was first published... to the public... and people talked about it.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/The_Equinox

http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/

Correction: It was first published in the book "Thelema," but was later republished in "The Equinox." Regardless, "Thelema" was also a public book.

As to further discussion of the compatibility of Crowley's thinking with Mormonism:

I would agree with Crowley's statement, but as other Mormons have already mentioned in this thread, you don't have to take the Bible literally. Edited May 13, 2013 by Tsuzuki

[volgadon]

Read his books and biographies. Much of the evidence you need is there.

I have no dog in the fight, but do please be a little more specific.

[MormonMason]

Aleister Crowley, in his publication, "The Equinox." That's where it was first published... to the public... and people talked about it.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/The_Equinox

http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/

Correction: It was first published in the book "Thelema," but was later republished in "The Equinox." Regardless, "Thelema" was also a public book.

...

Specifics...? I really don't want to comb through a lot of gobbledygook to see the examples. Publishing the book and briefly discussing the purport of publication is one thing. It is another to discuss specific details in public with profanes. Edited May 13, 2013 by MormonMason

[Tsuzuki]

Specifics...? I really don't want to comb through a lot of gobbledygook to see the examples. Publishing the book and briefly discussing the purport of publication is one thing. It is another to discuss specific details in public with profanes.

Then how about his official commentaries, which were also publicly available.

http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/

Seriously, you are grasping at straws here in your claim that I'm somehow a Thelemic center of pestilence just by talking about the Book of the Law. Only an idiot would interpret the comment that way.

[MormonMason]

Then how about his official commentaries, which were also publicly available.

http://hermetic.com/legis/new-comment/

Seriously, you are grasping at straws here in your claim that I'm somehow a Thelemic center of pestilence just by talking about the Book of the Law. Only an idiot would interpret the comment that way.

His own public commentaries are acceptable. He alone had the right to interpret the meanings and purports and none of his followers. And, I am not calling you a center of pestilence. Crowley himself would have called you that had you been alive and under his tutelage. He likely also would have taken you to task for speaking of things you didn't understand when but an Apprentice--perhaps after he had snorted a few lines with you.

[Tsuzuki]

His own public commentaries are acceptable. He alone had the right to interpret the meanings and purports and none of his followers. And, I am not calling you a center of pestilence. Crowley himself would have called you that had you been alive and under his tutelage. He likely also would have taken you to task for speaking of things you didn't understand when but an Apprentice--perhaps after he had snorted a few lines with you.

*yawn*

[volgadon]

Specifics...? I really don't want to comb through a lot of gobbledygook to see the examples. Publishing the book and briefly discussing the purport of publication is one thing. It is another to discuss specific details in public with profanes.

You really can't expect him to post specifics when you will not do so yourself.

[Tsuzuki]

http://hermetic.com/legis/tunis/

THE COMMENT.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.

Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.

Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.

All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings,

each for himself.

There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

Love is the law, love under will.

[blackstrap]

The last two lines of that comment seem contradictory. I have now read every post on this thread and it continues to amaze me just how labyrinthine the human thought processes can be. Also, does anyone else see the thread title and think , Thelma and Louise ?

[3DOP]

I am curious as on what is your definition/description of a black mass based? Knowing you, it is not just pulled out of the air or your opinion.

I came across the expression "black mass" today in a benign setting. It was in my missal but I cannot find it now. A "Black mass" is sometimes a reference to those occasions when the priest wears black vestments. If I am not mistaken, the New Mass, which I rarely assist at, has suppressed all use of black vestments, but in the Traditional Mass, black vestments (priestly garments, and the colors used on the altar) are used at all funerals and for the Feast of All Souls on Nov. 2.

I had thought that black masses, the kind we Catholics would abhor, only occur when a corrupt, but lawfully ordained priest truly consecrates the Body and Blood of Christ, and deliberately exposes Him to sacrilege. It is hard to even think of such an horror.

[mfbukowski]

And that's exactly why they're compatible.

In Mormonism the will is to be overcome by obedience to God's will

The very basis of the philosophies are totally different. In Thelema the will reigns supreme, in Mormonism it must be subjugated.

Sounds to me that they are total opposites.

[Tsuzuki]

I had thought that black masses, the kind we Catholics would abhor, only occur when a corrupt, but lawfully ordained priest truly consecrates the Body and Blood of Christ, and deliberately exposes Him to sacrilege.

Likewise. Simply not being Christian doesn't make something a black mass. It's true that Crowley was inspired by the Orthodox Mass, but the Gnostic Mass is entirely his own invention. I don't remember the source, but I recall that once when Crowley was accused of performing a black mass, he responded that it couldn't possibly be a black mass because he was never a Catholic priest.

[mfbukowski]

There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

Love is the law, love under will.

Doesn't seem to compatible with obedience, you know, all those pesky little "Thou Shalt Nots......."

[Tsuzuki]

In Mormonism the will is to be overcome by obedience to God's will

The very basis of the philosophies are totally different. In Thelema the will reigns supreme, in Mormonism it must be subjugated.

Sounds to me that they are total opposites.

Subjugated or harmonized? If you're doing theosis right, your will is still as strong as ever.

"The distinguishing characteristic of a person is the possession of will, the power to accept or reject, to move or to stand still, to obey or to disobey. From the very beginning the being now known as man possessed a will, and by the operation of his will has reached his present condition. Above all other things, man is a will. If that be so, the training and use of the will is man's first concern."

- Elder John A. Widtsoe, "Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Even in Thelema, "Do what thou wilt" doesn't mean "do whatever you want," and the phrase actually originates with Saint Augustine ("Love, and do what thou wilt").

[Tsuzuki]

Doesn't seem to compatible with obedience, you know, all those pesky little "Thou Shalt Nots......."

It's compatible if your will is to be obedient to a precept to obtain a specific result. Or as we Thelemites say, "To what end?"

[Tsuzuki]

"Will" (the Theleimic version of grace before meals):

Speaker:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Response:

What is thy will?

Speaker:

It is my will to eat and drink.

Response:

To what end?

Speaker:

That my body may be fortified thereby.

Response:

To what end?

Speaker:

That I may accomplish the Great Work.

Response:

Love is the law, love under will.

Speaker:

Fall to!

Edited May 13, 2013 by Tsuzuki

[mfbukowski]

Subjugated or harmonized? If you're doing theosis right, your will is still as strong as ever.

"The distinguishing characteristic of a person is the possession of will, the power to accept or reject, to move or to stand still, to obey or to disobey. From the very beginning the being now known as man possessed a will, and by the operation of his will has reached his present condition. Above all other things, man is a will. If that be so, the training and use of the will is man's first concern."

- Elder John A. Widtsoe, "Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

Even in Thelema, "Do what thou wilt" doesn't mean "do whatever you want," and the phrase actually originates with Saint Augustine ("Love, and do what thou wilt").

So yes or no- you are saying that obedience to the commandments is compatible with Thelema?

This whole thing "Do what thou wilt" is accepting a commandment you did not create- to the point of making the slogan meaningless. What if you want to do something someone else wants you to do?

Suppose you are Catholic and join a religious order and accept a vow of obedience to do whatever you are told- does that count as "doing your will" because you voluntarily take on that vow- to NOT do what you will to do?

There is a point beyond which the phrase is meaningless.