Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ordo Templi Orientis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removed "inc." in reference to modern OTO...their organization does not use it as a self-reference, and is mentioned nowhere in any source materials or on their website. The "inc." was probably put in to make OTO sound like a business (as a derogitory)...although it is run in business way, it is first and foremost a fraternal membership organization.

I agree, but why the other change? By writing of "Crowley's O.T.O.", you seem to have endorsed McMurtry's claim of succession. Why would the 'pedia take sides in this dispute? Dan 01:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Good question. I've changed it to "McMurtry's revived" which is how it is introduced in this section. I've also restored the parenthetical notation that it is referred to by some as the Caliphate O.T.O. - this is a fact, and should be included, even if members of said organization don't like it. It isn't included here to be derogatory, but simply as a fact. --999 15:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The "inc." is a mandatory designation of all California nonprofit corporations. It need not be used in most instances, and most churches don't use it in their documents; however, it is required in all legal filings, for example. 02:58, 09 March 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of a reference to the "memoir" by "Satyr" is found objectionable by some readers on the grounds that this anonymously presented document names several people in a manner they consider libelous. The matter has not been adjudicated so Wikipedia cannot be forced to remove the reference, but at least the dispute should be addressed so that potential readers of the "memoir" will know that it has not gone unchallenged by those who consider it mischaracterizes them. -- 20:27, 2005 Jul 18 (UTC)

One line towards the end of this article (currently) reads in part: "...Crowley eventually cut all formal ties with Freemasonry—largely because of the integration of the Law of Thelema and the Order's equal acceptance of women." This article being my first introduction to the O∴T∴O∴ (cool, a valid reason to use special HTML entities) and because there is no mention of a gender requirement in the article, it is unclear to me which "Order" this sentence refers to. I am guessing that since the Freemasons traditionally excluded women that it is the O∴T∴O∴ that has equal acceptance of women. Any experts care to give their suggestions on clearing up this ambiguity? --Jarsyl 06:53, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

    Yes, the OTO _does_ accept women, traditional Freemasonry doesn't.  It should be 
    noted that the comment quoted above sounds a little ambiguous as Crowley did not make      
    the OTO co-ed (so to speak) the OTO allowed both women and men from it's inception 
    (i.e. pre-Crowley).    It should also be noted (I should probably just edit the 
    page?) that the OTO actually had no formal ties to Freemasonry from it's inception, 
    Freemasonry viewing it as clandestine.  What Crowley actually did was take the 
    rituals which were Masonicly derived and re-wrote them to conform to the Law of 
    Thelema.  There by purging them of a large ammount of their masonic content. 
    Worlock93

Not to rain on Jarsyl's parade, but this is not a valid reason to use the "honor dots" HTML entity. Crowley did not use them for O.T.O. nor does the current organization. Just plain periods will do —Anlala 22:08, March 26, 2005 (UTC)

To try and ensure an article that is Neutral. I have edited the article to reflect the fact that rulings in the US Courts do not apply to the rest of the world. --Old Nol

I don't intend to add much more info. on this subject as like some previous contributors I feel no empathy with the OTO. If I get time I will add some details about the OTO before Crowley. If anyone else is interested some useful info is available at http://oto-usa.org/history.html but of course has to revised for NPOV and corroborated to ensure there is no infringement of copyright. --Old Nol 19:30, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

This article will be contentious as the various modern factions have their own agendas. All of them like to be regarded as the Only True Order, cynics say this is what the the initials OTO now stand for . Since no changes had been made for 4 months I decided to try to rewrite adopting a NPOV. It is not the role of the wiki to arbitrate in this dispute, we should endeavour to present facts. Please feel free to contribute whilst maintaining a NPOV Old Nol 4 June 2004

I changed the article. It's not finished, but I may update it soon. It's not a very joyful job for me to write on these subjects (since my position on OTO is very negative, but of course I tried to keep a NPOV tone in the article), so for now I prefer to take a break. I hope the readers of the article will have the common sense to understand what is true and find the real spirituality. Please do not delete the old article from this talk page, I will return another day to make more changes and I want it for reference. .'. Optim 08:12, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC) .'.

This article is scheduled for rewrite on January 25. Optim 10:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

FYI: I have to say that the present article is not good and not well suited for Wikipedia. During January, I am about to rewrite the article and add more info, from official sources. If anybody knows more and can help, feel free to do so, but taking care to write in encyclopedic style and follow a NPOV. Optim 13:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Holy Three Dots are supposed to be in O:.T:.O:., it is the proper format...

Just as in A:.A:. for Argentum Astrum. Khranus:.

Umm, no they aren't, O.T.O. is a simple abbreviation for Ordo Templi Orientis. The OTO never has nor ever will use the three dots in it's name. worlock93

Just in case anyone is wondering, the Holy Three Dots (:.) represent many things, but in part represent the Trinity of the Mother Goddess... Isis--Sirius, Three Stars glowing bright in our sky, flowing round eachother in the black aether of space, burning bright red, like a Rose Within a Cross, shining everlasting, letting forth Love and LVX evermore... Khranus:. IAO!

Actually it believe it's "O∴T∴O∴" rather than "O:.T:.O:.". —Ashley Y 21:58, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

Re: Three Dots in O.T.O. name. There is not a single instance I know of in any of Crowley's published writings where he uses the Three Dots in his abbreviation of O.T.O., while he consistently uses them with A∴A∴. This would indicate that Khranus is wrong. —Anlala 20:48, March 9, 2005 (UTC)

Am I alone alone in thinking that this article has completely lost all objectivity and NPOV since the recent edits by Ashami??I think the article needs to be re-edited or a disputed label added until this matter is addessed. --Old Nol

I once worked to keep sacred knowledge secret, concealed, hidden... But now, I realise my err in doing this... Now, I work to reveal knowledge to the masses--to spread the memes--to set humanity free...

I think perhaps that I believed in secrecy once because I didn't believe in Humanity. Either that or it was the arrogant rush I got when feeling as though I knew something that someone else did not...

But all that is so childish, so senseless... Esotericism is dead--or at least dying. If it's not dead yet, I'm going to work to help kill it. Khranus:.

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

On the above remarks regarding secrecy, I have only this to say: That the nature of the "occult" is to hide a thing only that it may be revealed. Understand then, that there is power and truth to be found in the process of discovery and that a "truth" told to you directly is no truth at all but only the confused vanity of self-important men. You, who work to reveal the secret of things, do the work of ages, and you join countless others in your quest. I wish you well in your endeavors.

Love is the Law, Love under Will. Yours in Service, Frater Iamblichus, IIIº O.T.O.

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

As a member of the O.T.O. I must disagree with much of the content of this article as presented by the author. The most glaring omission being a link to the U.S. Grand Lodge of the O.T.O. Which I will now provide. http://oto-usa.org/

Love is the law, love under will. Wade Laszlo

THE OLD ARTICLE:

This article is scheduled for complete rewrite on January 25. Optim 10:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Archived the old version of the article which was saved here to Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis/oldarticle. 999 17:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It says in the entry:

"The mission of O.T.O. U.S. Grand Lodge

Ordo Templi Orientis U.S.A. is the U.S. Grand Lodge (National Section) of Ordo Templi Orientis, a hierarchical, religious membership organization. Our mission is to effect and promote the doctrines and practices of the philosophical and religious system known as Thelema, with particular emphasis on cultivating the ideals of individual liberty, self-discipline, self-knowledge, and universal brotherhood. To this end, we conduct sacramental and initiatory rites, offer guidance and instruction to our members, organize social events, and engage in educational and community service activities at locations throughout the United States."

Our? We? huh?

I completely agree that the subsection you refer to is self-promotion by the subject of this article. Since you've preserved the text here, I've removed the POV paragraph. Adityanath 02:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. "Our" and "we" refer to the members of OTO in the US. Plus, it's a quote and therefore gives a good idea as to the general goals of that organization from their point of view. I say return it. Somecallmetim 17:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not NPOV. Encyclopedia articles should be written from an outside perspective and should never be written in the first person. If you want to return it, simply rewrite it from an objective, non-member perspective. I don't see the point as I don't find that the paragraph adds anything not already covered in the article. 999 18:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

But it was presented as a quote, naming it as the U.S Grand Lodge mission statement. How is that not a quote? Somecallmetim

How is it a quote, Somecallmetim? It is not attributed as a quote, there are no quote marks, no indenting, no reference, no mention of source. It's just a paragraph in the article the way it is formatted, and as such shouldn't have first person references in it. Adityanath 19:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It was presented as "The mission of O.T.O. U.S. Grand Lodge" and indented. It is a direct quote from their website: http://oto-usa.org/mission.html. How about adding a small sentence to this effect, eg:

The mission of O.T.O. U.S. Grand Lodge

According to the U.S. Grand Lodge website, the Mission of O.T.O. in America is as follows:

Ordo Templi Orientis U.S.A. is the U.S. Grand Lodge (National Section) of Ordo Templi Orientis, a hierarchical, religious membership organization. Our mission is to effect and promote the doctrines and practices of the philosophical and religious system known as Thelema, with particular emphasis on cultivating the ideals of individual liberty, self-discipline, self-knowledge, and universal brotherhood. To this end, we conduct sacramental and initiatory rites, offer guidance and instruction to our members, organize social events, and engage in educational and community service activities at locations throughout the United States. [1]

Somecallmetim 23:23, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing identifies the source! Nothing marks it off as a quotation! Only someone familiar with the O.T.O. web site would have any idea where it came from just from a heading! There are heading all over Wikipedia, and they should not be used to introduce an uncited quote. Without citation, including the paragraph is plagiarism! Yes, your sentence solves the problem and should have been there to begin with. I would also recommend citing the source url at the end of the quote with [http://oto-usa.org/mission.html] at the end as I've modifed above. Adityanath 00:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing here is related to Freemasonry. Imacomp 17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

999 prove your point about a link by citing a ref... Imacomp 17:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. -999 (Talk) 17:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)