Thelema And Mormonism.

[Tsuzuki]

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

Yes, I am saying that obedience to 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?

Then do it. It's just as much your will as theirs.

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?

Yes, it counts as doing your will. Someone who does what they will should take their vows seriously, and not make them lightly.

There is a point beyond which the phrase is meaningless.

No, because many people go along with things just because other people tell them to. "Do what thou wilt" means consciously and deliberately exercising your agency. Edited May 13, 2013 by Tsuzuki

[mfbukowski]

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?"

And if it's not?

That sounds like "What's in it for me?" Suppose the answer is "Nothing but obedience for its own sake"?

Christ totally subjugated his will to his Father's. He did only what his father wanted, even to the point of death when he asked that "this cup pass away from me- nevertheless, NOT my will but thine be done"

If Thelema is compatible with THAT it is hard to see how the maxim "Do what thou wilt" even means what it sounds like it means

[Bill Hamblin]

This is the grimoire that Joseph Smith allegedly used to make his Jupiter talisman.

http://en.wikipedia....he_Magus_(book)

There's no evidence for either claim:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=2&id=364

[Bill Hamblin]

And here's a series of Gnostic Mass training videos.

[media=]

That's my friend James Wasserman conducting the training.

[Tsuzuki]

And if it's not?

That sounds like "What's in it for me?" Suppose the answer is "Nothing but obedience for its own sake"?

Christ totally subjugated his will to his Father's. He did only what his father wanted, even to the point of death when he asked that "this cup pass away from me- nevertheless, NOT my will but thine be done"

If Thelema is compatible with THAT it is hard to see how the maxim "Do what thou wilt" even means what it sounds like it means

I would say that inheriting celestial glory and becoming God is a pretty big "what's in it for me," wouldn't you?

[Bill Hamblin]

And that's exactly why they're compatible.

Just because something may be compatible on one thing doesn't mean that it is compatible on all things.

[Tsuzuki]

That's my friend James Wasserman conducting the training.

Cool. You should ask him about Thelema, because he's a high ranking member of the O.T.O.

[Tacenda]

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 ?

Constantly, and I bet we're not alone.

[Tsuzuki]

Just because something may be compatible on one thing doesn't mean that it is compatible on all things.

Thelema is flexible enough.

[Bill Hamblin]

Evidence, please?

I think he's talking about the "class A" texts which "consist of books or writings [by Crowley] that may not be changed in as much as the style of a letter. They represent the utterance of an Adept beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Order." (R. Kaczynski, The Weiser Guide to Aleister Crowley, 33).

[Tsuzuki]

I think he's talking about the "class A" texts which "consist of books or writings [by Crowley] that may not be changed in as much as the style of a letter. They represent the utterance of an Adept beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Order." (R. Kaczynski, The Weiser Guide to Aleister Crowley, 33).

I know that, but commenting on something isn't the same as changing a text.

[Storm Rider]

I see an echo of the teachings of Jesus Christ in Thelema, but I would still view Thelema as a false religion that is diametrically opposed to the gospel of Jesus. The main reason is that it supplants the power and glory of God, the Atonement, and the purpose of life with a shadow of truths taught by Jesus. I say this with some degree of trepidation because I prefer to think that all truth comes from God and I am willing to acknowledge that all truth leads to God. However, I also acknowledge that some religions are not created by God, but their sole purpose is to lead individuals away from God. What I understand of Thelema is that it takes true principles and twists them out of kilter; the sound nice to the ear, but it excludes the whole purpose of our being and how we become like our Father and that is Jesus Christ.

[mfbukowski]

I would say that inheriting celestial glory and becoming God is a pretty big "what's in it for me," wouldn't you?

If that's your attitude you are not going to get there anyway. You take that all on faith- not as a quid pro quo. You do it out of love for your Father not because you might qualify for blessings

And you did not answer the other questions. It seems as if you are being evasive.

[Tsuzuki]

If that's your attitude you are not going to get there anyway. You take that all on faith- not as a quid pro quo. You do it out of love for your Father not because you might qualify for blessings

And you did not answer the other questions. It seems as if you are being evasive.

Actually, I'm tired, but I'll go back and answer them. Hold on.

[Tsuzuki]

And if it's not?

I never said that all Thelemites were Mormon, just that all Mormons can be Thelemites.

That sounds like "What's in it for me?" Suppose the answer is "Nothing but obedience for its own sake"?

By what criteria do you base who/what you are obedient to?

Christ totally subjugated his will to his Father's. He did only what his father wanted, even to the point of death when he asked that "this cup pass away from me- nevertheless, NOT my will but thine be done"

"It is my will to do the will of the Father."

"To what end?"

"So that I may accomplish the Great Work of Redemption."

Willingly subjecting your will is still doing your will. Paradoxical, I know.

If Thelema is compatible with THAT it is hard to see how the maxim "Do what thou wilt" even means what it sounds like it means

That's because it doesn't mean what it apparently sounds like it means to you.

[Tsuzuki]

And you did not answer the other questions. It seems as if you are being evasive.

Okay, I answered everything. Now go and address this post or I shall accuse you of being evasive.

[MormonMason]

I think he's talking about the "class A" texts which "consist of books or writings [by Crowley] that may not be changed in as much as the style of a letter. They represent the utterance of an Adept beyond the criticism of even the Visible Head of the Order." (R. Kaczynski, The Weiser Guide to Aleister Crowley, 33).

Correct!

[Tsuzuki]

Correct!

Could you kindly point out any instance where I was attempting to change a Class A text?

[MormonMason]

Could you kindly point out any instance where I was attempting to change a Class A text?

Any time you interpret a Class A text any way you like, and that violates the senses given to it by Crowley as sole, rightful, interpreter of the text, you do violence to the intended meanings of the text. You may not be changing the words themselves but you do alter the meanings and purports intended by "Aiwass" to suit your fancy and to assuage the conscience. Incidentally, one cannot and will never achieve and receive exaltation from adherence to the teachings of Thelema or the "Book of the Law".

Edited May 13, 2013 by MormonMason

[Tsuzuki]

Any time you interpret a Class A text any way you like, and that violates the senses given to it by Crowley as sole, rightful, interpreter of the text, you do violence to the intended meanings of the text.

That's not what Class A means. Crowley as sole editor, yes. As sole interpreter, no.

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

each for himself.

"

Even Crowley admitted that he didn't fully understand the Book of the Law, and the text even says that he wouldn't.

You may not be changing the words themselves but you do alter the meanings and purports intended by "Aiwass" to suit your fancy and to assuage the conscience.

As Thelemites have done, and have been encouraged to do, from the beginning.

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

each for himself.

"

Incidentally, one cannot and will never achieve and receive exaltation from adherence to the teachings of Thelema or the "Book of the Law".

Incidentally, that's not what this thread is about. Edited May 13, 2013 by Tsuzuki

[Ntrw]

I think that you can be a Mormon Thelemite but not a Thelemic Mormon; Thelema is compatible with Mormonism but Mormonism isn't compatible with Thelema.

If you're gonna do both at the same time then Thelema would have to take precedence. I just don't see how someone can believe in the First Vision and the visitation of Peter,James John, as physical realities, and not be 100% invested in being a temple Mormon. i like Crowley but he sits with Shakespeare and Blake, not with Joseph or Moses. He was an underrated poet and philosopher.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Ntrw

[mfbukowski]

Okay, I answered everything. Now go and address this post or I shall accuse you of being evasive.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209258554

Yes, I am saying that obedience to commandments is compatible with Thelema.

Then do it. It's just as much your will as theirs.

Yes, it counts as doing your will. Someone who does what they will should take their vows seriously, and not make them lightly.

No, because many people go along with things just because other people tell them to. "Do what thou wilt" means consciously and deliberately exercising your agency.

OK I will answer it but there doesn't seem to be much to answer.

After you clear out all the fluff, what is left out of this is that you should think through your decisions about whom to obey.

I can't argue with that, but who could? I can't think of anyone who advocates blind obedience to anybody.

But that sure doesn't sound like what I think of when I think of the meaning of "do what thou wilt". You are stretching it so far that the words have no meaning.

I mean does this seem equivalent to you? "Do what thou wilt" = "Be careful whom you obey"

I don't think it's even close.

Edited May 13, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That's not what Class A means. Crowley as sole editor, yes. As sole interpreter, no.

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

each for himself.

"

Even Crowley admitted that he didn't fully understand the Book of the Law, and the text even says that he wouldn't.

So he is the sole interpreter but he doesn't understand it himself OR he is saying that he is not actually the sole interpreter but each for himself should interpret it.

To me, it is a mass of confusion, to coin a phrase!

Now that's the kind of guy I want to follow as a religious leader! Yessiree!

You know I hate to bring out the old "S" word here but wasn't it good old Satan who could look directly at the sun and say it wasn't shining?

I may not be your totally traditional Mormon, but Mormonism presents a coherent whole. All I am seeing here is contradiction and obfuscation.

Maybe I am not understanding you well but all I am seeing here are contradictions

Edited May 13, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Tsuzuki]

I think that you can be a Mormon Thelemite but not a Thelemic Mormon; Thelema is compatible with Mormonism but Mormonism isn't compatible with Thelema.

If you're gonna do both at the same time then Thelema would have to take precedence. I just don't see how someone can believe in the First Vision and the visitation of Peter,James John, as physical realities, and not be 100% invested in being a temple Mormon.

I imagine that's up to any individual Mormon Thelemite/Thelemic Mormon. If it's someone's will to be Mormon, they should do their will 100%.

i like Crowley but he sits with Shakespeare and Blake, not with Joseph or Moses. He was an underrated poet and philosopher.

Thelemites can view Crowley however they want. Personally, I don't care about him so much, but I like his philosophy and my friends in the O.T.O.

[Tsuzuki]

OK I will answer it but there doesn't seem to be much to answer.

After you clear out all the fluff, what is left out of this is that you should think through your decisions about whom to obey.

I can't argue with that, but who could? I can't think of anyone who advocates blind obedience to anybody.

You did say "Nothing but obedience for its own sake." That sounds like blind obedience to me, or at least unconditional obedience based on nothing. Even faith that something good will happen (even if not for you personally) can be a sufficient reason to apply one's will to obedience, but not obedience for the sake of obedience.

But that sure doesn't sound like what I think of when I think of the meaning of "do what thou wilt". You are stretching it so far that the words have no meaning.

No, I'm applying it to the examples you provided.

I mean does this seem equivalent to you? "Do what thou wilt" = "Be careful whom you obey"

I don't think it's even close.

That is one example of what it could mean in the context of obedience. Give me a difference context and I'll give you a different example of how it could be applied.