It is matters such as this that caused Lutherans to be split off from Rome, and Presbyterians to be different from Methodists and Anglicans. There are even different schools of Taoism, based on minor alterations of thought. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, but I suspect that each GM (Gnostic Mass) will be performed according to the protocol of each GM (Grand Master). If this results in different lineages, well, that's history in the making.

Edit: My original response makes no sense now that the page has reloaded and all the rogue parenthesis that I could originally see has all disappeared. Must have been a technical glitch. Pity because my response was very witty.  :'(

Hopefully sorted...

Yes! sorted.  ;D

I got a personal response from HB on the matter...see below:

I don't recall whether K sent a copy of his edition of the Mass, but that
reading is the responsibility of the Polish OTO, not IHQ. I am sometimes asked
for the IHQ standard and I refer people to the version I edited for Magick. This
is common knowledge. I am mildly surprised that Kryzstof made this error.

My concern is that by attributing this "children" reading to IHQ in a forum like
Lashtal you may mislead other groups around the world into thinking that the IHQ
reading is "children" -- and like you, I consider it a simple carryover from
Thelema 1909 into the 1913 TS of the Mass (I have this typescript and it is
there).

I cited this persistent bad reading in my recent writing on AC's proofreading
habits in my discussion of the Windram Thelema and AL III:37.

Try to clear this up if you can.

93 93/93

Bill

No "Polish" jokes, please. This is an impartial forum.

On the other hand, did you hear the one about The Black Lodge ...?

That must have been nice!  ‘HB’ doesn’t seem to respond here, ‘personally’; which is a shame as there are a number of issues which could do with an answer.

Rather than "along with everyone else who helped with", or that “The O.T.O.” edited it, say

Yes, this would prove interesting.  Such a pity we can’t get another controversy going re. a child/ children dichotomy along the lines of the fill/kill one earlier! ;D (that was sarcasm, in case anyone didn’t get it)

No, Shiva – and I’m quite ‘partial’ to a good joke myself – how does it go?

Preparing to split my sides,
Norma N Joy Conquest

Say, I’ve just thought: aren’t these both the same thing?  After all, the [Caliphornian] “O.T.O.” IHQ (International HeadQuarters) is run by its “O.H.O.” (enshrined in the Constitution as an omnipotent autocrat, at least so far as policy is concerned) who is of course HB, and therefore the standing and authority of HB as head would be equal to that of the organization – or perhaps more accurately, the incorporation – itself?

If it’s not a forbidden question, and has not been asked on Lashtal previously, does anyone know why HB is so reticent – not only here but on any other forum including the C.O.T.O.’s own website?  I do know that he is most reluctant & unwilling to commit himself to anything in writing in case he might be challenged on it later – this is perfectly natural in moderation, of course – but has a reason for this evasiveness ever been forthcoming?  By contrast, Mick S. is at least “approachable” for the Typhonians (even if he doesn’t always answer questions, either) - For heaven’s sake, what is wrong with being accountable anyway, especially if one is in charge of what is (or was) meant to be the principle vehicle or engine for propagating Thelema, or at least the [written] legacy of A.C./ To Mega Therion, in the “outer world”, and in view of the benefits accruing from being sole custodian of his archive, his exclusive publisher, and the posthumous spokesperson/ agent in terms of general P.R.?

O Lordy… Fight the good fight!?!
N Joy

I don't know about anyone else here, Jamie, but I'm a little weary of your pot-shots directed at Breeze. It's clear that you have issues arising from your past membership. If you have questions to ask him, why not email him and put them to him? Why do you think he should be held "accountable" to you or indeed to anyone else in a public forum?

A forum is a place to discuss issues, I think we would all agree.  This forum is involved with the legacy of A.C., which would naturally involve the O.T.O.  H.B. is the leader of one recension of this, and by virtue of (t)his position more qualified than any one else to do so, hence by virtue of that fact alone, “accountable”.  However, he does not account for actions done in the name of the O.T.O. or A.C. either on the C.O.T.O.’s own website, nor on any other one to my knowledge, apart from the occasional general response (e.g., re the fill/ kill fuss) which does not answer questions or matters arising therein.

I find it rather surprising, in view of the trouble the T.O.T.O. have experienced in the past in & outside of the courts, that you yourself seem to have such a defensive bearing towards H.B., but you doubtless have your own reasons for this.

The points I have raised – or ‘pot-shots’, as you not quite altogether accurately call them – are nothing to do with my past membership and are of a general nature inasmuch as I am a member of the wider Thelemic community, and therefore what is done in the name of A.C. and/ or the O.T.O. is of valid interest to us all.  It is because it has a wider application, involving these other readers/ thelemites, that there would be no point in my engaging in a private e-mail correspondence on my own with him - assuming that he would even choose to participate, as well.

I hope this has managed to make my position a little clearer?  I have no reluctance in answering any questions myself, at all!
N Joy

Lighten up, fellers !

All Polish Occultists, Thelemites or otherwise, are 'loose cannons' in my experience !

I think we may be listening to the one about The Black Lodge already in this very thread.  Surely, that was not your implication, Shiva ?  8)

Fat chance of that  😮  Some folks have a permanently embedded diatribe against certain other folks and Ordos, and their posts endlessly hint at the inadequacy of their target(s).

All Polish Occultists, Thelemites or otherwise, are 'loose cannons' in my experience !

Well, this isn't a "joke" (it's a "classification"), so I guess it's not partial (as opposed to impartial).

I think we may be listening to the one about The Black Lodge already in this very thread.  Surely, that was not your implication, Shiva ?

No, the one about The Black Lodge was covered in some other thread. I can't remember the punch line, so I won't refer to it again.

[/align:vvl0598r]

I think this forum has gotten off track. It should not be an attack on any individual. It does have relevance to application of authority and maintaining knowledge of history. It questions one of Crowley’s own, sometimes conflicting, statements.

I was inquiring about the differences in the GM that quoted a section from Liber AL.
Crowley's use of "children" is original (1918 International, and 1919 Blue Equinox), even though varying from the 1904 LIber XXXI text. Various editions of Liber CCXX (1909, 1913) use “children” or “child”. In the Big Blue Brick, Liber ABA (1994, 1997), HB (as editor) reverted to the LIber XXXI “child”, citing its verses as marginalia (but with no further rationale in the editorial comments). The use of “chlldren” is correct if one refers to the Crowley original.

The separate GM Missal with “children” that raised the question (title page verso) is copyright 2013 Ordo Templi Orientis. International Headquarters. D-14180 Berlin Germany. Academia Masonica Press. The website listed is www.oto-pl.org. (Please, no Polish jokes here!). As OHO and head of the OTO branch of the EGC, HB has the authority to change the text of the GM. How far outside the OTO his authority applies is a matter of acceptance by the individual. By analogy, the Pope’s ex cathedra statements are not relevant beyond the Roman Church. However, some of his statements may be accepted outside it. Consider also the effects of finding the original Nag Hammadi Library or the Dead Sea Scrolls. They include some “lost” or “repressed = unknown” material. Should not Thelemites, even centuries from now, have access to Crowley’s original material as far as possible? Future understanding depends upon what published data are preserved. Much of history has been lost through selective editing.

My concern is for future Thelemites who should be aware of Crowley's original material, separate from editorial change, and their individual evaluation.

I believe HBs editorial change is warranted and follow it because the quotation reverts to Liber XXXI. However, I do not know whether Crowley just made an error in the GM. Was he quoting from memory? He never did correct this error in print as far as I know. Or, was he deliberate? We know what Crowley wrote and changed other material, such as Liber CCXX (1909 vs 1913). We do not know Crowley’s intent, or whether he even reconsidered this point in the GM.

The change in the Big Blue Brick is editorial, but by an individual who is OHO of the OTO and head of a branch of EGC. We can assume that the change is applicable to all under his authority, though he never stated it. The GM is not an AA document, and not AA relevant, though it uses AA Class A (unchangeable) text.

But Thelema is more than these, and those outside must consider the action as individuals. Let us work to preserve Crowley’s own material for the future.

thanks abn53, for your thoughtful & considered refocusing of the thread back to the original subject.

Related to Crowley's consistent use of "children" in all publications of Liber XV with reference to Liber AL II: 39, is the consideration that the Office of the Children itself reflects this use. 

I thought the quote from HB cleared this up, and thus resolved the OP.

Yes it's getting a bit Pythonesk this search for division and difference. Are we now to have an old school and a new school version or can we simply accept it as an error and move on!

::)
93
Hamal

What's the "Office of the Children"?

Oh, 100 years from now we'll have rival schools of Thelema along the lines of the Sunni and Shia split within Islam. In the meantime, this stuff is small beer.

"The Office of the Children" was a reference to the Two Children who officiate in Liber XV (section II of the rubric). 

Probably the "Office" or "position(s)" or "role(s)" of the two tiny-tots who play certain parts in the Mass.
Or is is the "Human Services" or "Social Welfare" Department that is part of The Establishment, which takes children away from unfit parents, drug addicts, and satanists?

Ah yes it'll be like when his followers find his shoe in the Life of Brian.... Sect 1 - "the shoe is a sign, let us like him hold up one shoe!"  Sect 2 - "No no... we must gather many shoes together... give me your shoes!"

😀
93
Hamal

Does he have this authority!?  Really?!  (Please could you quote your specific source for this assessment, or would you just take it to come under the blanket autocratic powers of the OHO?)

In terms of similar changes, then, one is moved to ask: where will it all end?  First a word – then maybe a bit of a verse here and there – next, before we know it, some wholesale root and branch revision of the entire caboodle ?

And where only one Liber is taken into consideration here, once precedent has been set (if it hasn’t been already!) there are many other Libri subject to the possibility of “change” never mind by the style of one letter.

Why yes, I think I have been saying this all along.  Surely all of the writings of the Prophet, alias A.C., should be, like the Law itself, “for all”?  Does – can – anyone disagree?(!)  None of this “secret” b.s. … none of this “monopoly” b.s., either.  What was it the good book said about restriction (of information here) again?

And, by extension selective publishing (Like Orwell’s Newspeak!)

OHO of one particular recension of the OTO, and given certain legal powers by certain courts which may have judicial but no magickal jurisdiction, apart from anything else.  I go into the matter further in the Blog on Lashtal which covers the same subject (q.v.)

Also, head of “A branch of EGC”?  There is no “a” about it - HB regards it firmly and unambiguously as the EGC.  You may also wish to read my examination of the subject further under the thread "The Gnostic Mass & Catholic Church (E.G.C.)" on the Thelema board, also appearing as Part IV in the "C[aliphornian] Ordo Templi Orientis" thread on the Magick board.  Apologies, but I am not able to link directly!  I wonder, can anyone tell me if there is an “idiot’s guide” on how to do this & other similar basic procedures somewhere on the Lash?  If I knew how to do this it could conceivably benefit other Lashtalian readers too!)

By “Big Blue Brick”, I presume you are referring to what I usually identify as the Big Blue Breezeblock - definition of breezeblock, courtesy of Wiki: “A large, cheap, concrete block, used for constructing poor quality buildings.”  Not that Book Four is necessarily cheap or poor!  However there is “also an inner meaning for initiates” (as particularly Motta used to like to say, in his commentaries…)

I was going to say “lighten up” as well, but I thought someone would be bound to rebuke me for not taking the matter seriously enough…  And talking about comedy,

Reply #7 from jamie barter on: January 15, 2014 at 03:00:42 pm:
Quote from: Shiva on January 14, 2014, 08:17:26 pm:
[...] On the other hand, did you hear the one about The Black Lodge ...?

No, Shiva – and I’m quite ‘partial’ to a good joke myself – how does it go?
Preparing to split my sides,
Norma N Joy Conquest

Where is this joke (about the Black Lodge) then?  I have some memory of seeing something previously, but it was in connection with an A.’. A.’. (not O.T.O.) “lineage”.  C’mon, Shiva, don’t be shy!  I’m sure it would bear the repetition and be very funny… Maybe even funny (haha) and funny (peculiar)?!  If you can’t remember one yourself (punchline and all), maybe we could open it up to further suggestion from the wider Lashtal community outside of the nonagon (I notice it has recently gone up from the octagon!  I might even try to conjure one up myself – but I imagine it would probably piss at least some people off with a “different” sense of humour if I were to do so, though!?)  But I would still like to see the original in all its finery, “old joke” or not, if possible.

Still wanting to split my sides and die laughing or be amused to death (and positively looking forward to it) 😀
N Joy

It is difficult to see that a court case could possibly determine the right of anyone to change a text. The OTO may well have the copyright over the GM, and to publish it, with or without alterations. This cannot possibly stop others from performing the GM in private at least, with or without alterations, such as during the period when the Companions of the Rainbow Bridge in London performed it 8 times a year for a couple of decades or more, allowed the Deacon to add to to the list of saints and changed the word "women" to "treasure" in the HPS' address to the HP.
There is also the rather philosophical point: if you have the copyright on a text and change it, is it still the same text as the one that you have the copyright on?
Looking forward to December 2017 when all hell will break loose on this one,

Steve

Anything published in the US before 1923 is in the public domain already. So The Equinox III/1, published in Detroit in 1919, including Liber XV, is in the public domain, and has been for a long time.

The OHO has noted this publically -

Writing as William Breeze, in the introduction to The Drug and Other Stories (Wordsworth Editions, 2010 (copyright named as OTO), p. XIV):

"Wordsworth excels at affordable editions of public domain literature, but, whilst Crowley's works published before 1923 are public domain in America, in Europe the works authorised in his lifetime are in copyright through 2017, and his posthumous works through 2039."

So.... a publisher in neither America nor Europe... which copyright, either or neither, applies to them?

😮
93
Hamal

Whatever country it is, there way well be variations in copyright law from the American and European models. A good general indication can be gained from Google, but consultation with an Intellectual Property specialist is advisable.

I would imagine that in English speaking countries like Australia and New Zealand, where the OTO has a presence, they would expect you to abide by the copyright laws of the country. I don't know offhand, it'd be easy to check, but like in Europe, it is probably, at least, death plus 70 years (hence 2017). The pre-1923 exception in the US is a special situation. 

Practically speaking, I don't know that the OTO has sued outside of US courts. I'm not aware of OTO's claims being tested in any courts in Europe, although I would guess that the UK would recognize the claims originating in the US - although again, I don't know that this has ever happened. 

Um, Liber XV (The Canon of the Mass) was published in 1919 ("MARCH MCMXIX E.V., THE UNIVERSAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, DETROIT, MICHIGAN"). Stuff published before 1923 in the USA is in the Publick Domain. So, from a "legal" point, it seems the "philosophical" point is that nobody has the copyright of the text - in the USA.

Yes we seem to have arrived back at the all-too-familiar Copyright Debate (and that’s only from reading Lashtal for just over a year now, let alone for the rest of its 20-odd year history when I am certain there must have been many more references!) I suppose it will all come down to what will be like a game of explosive pass-the-parcel, with the parcel as an undetonated bomb: who is going to publish something first after 2017 that will blow up in their faces?  (And it certainly won’t be me by the way!  Or at least, not until I have consulted and received pukka & incontrovertible legal advice from an “Intellectual Property specialist” beforehand (he said, after taking legal advice.)  Plus also, I shall be 80 in 2039 and probably not feeling quite so sprightly in my dotage)...

So it appears definite that the Gnostic Mass can be published by anyone in the U.S. of A. at least.  Being a religious document – in addition to the Mass, a bit like the Anglican Book of Common Prayer as well, it seems - I can’t imagine anyone actually being sued for publishing it even if those public domain conditions weren’t prevailing & even given the C.O.T.O.’s fondness for litigation. 

As to whether the current “Patriarch” of that august body the E.G.C. (or his sometime successor) wishes to make changes in it, time alone will tell.  Some of the minor stage directions in the GM have been modified, but I think the text itself has remained untinkered with – a good thing too, in view of the fact that Karl Germer in effect excommunicated Hermann Metzger for one fairly minor alteration to the textual quotations taken from The Book of the Law peppered throughout in Liber XV.

The issue of adding new names (post Crowley) to the Collect of the Saints will also continue to be a contentious one: for example, some people disagree quite vehemently with the current incumbent’s inclusion of the name of Grady McMurtry/ Hymenæus Alpha 777 – even his own sometime wife and Mistress of the C.O.T.O.’s 418 Lodge (the late Phyllis Seckler aka Soror Meral) vigorously objected, who - if anyone - ought to have known about the fitting aptness of such a gesture.

There have been several instances of strong arm legal action taking place in Europe.  In this country (the UK), the action over the Typhonian O.T.O.’s use of the name, right to publish and disputes over “trade marks” even went all the way to a court of appeal.  However, as I didn’t attend I am probably not the best person to enlighten further upon this episode – maybe someone else who did might do the honours, or refer to where it may have been discussed upon the Lash?

I am crestfallen beyond belief that there appears to be a No-Show regarding this famed “Black Lodge” joke.  I’m sure it’d have been killing!  The dénoument is rather like the (big) prick-teaser in the Beatles song Day Tripper, though: “(s)he [you] only took me half way there”!

Crestfallen beyond belief :(,
N Joy

If by "claim" you mean ownership of copyrights, this was effectively setted in a UK court in 2000 or thereabouts, when the purchase of the Crowley copyrights from the UK Official Receiver was validated.

The trademark dispute which Jamie Barter refers to above was rightly kept seperate from the matter of copyrights.

Interestingly, the copyright holder has made minor changes to the text of Liber LXV, so one wonders whether the Public Domain status of it refers only to the original text, or extends to its modified form also.

The Joke is both in the title of this thread
http://www.lashtal.com/forum/http://www.lashtal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3
and in certain of the various posts in that thread.

Also see The Book of Jokes, er, Lies, Ch 14:

"The Universe is the Practical Joke of the General at the Expense of the Particular, quoth FRATER
PERDURABO, and laughed.
But those disciples nearest to him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow.
Those next to them laughed, seeing the Universal Joke.
Below these certain disciples wept.
Then certain laughed.
Others next wept.
Others next laughed.
Next others wept.
Next others laughed.
Last came those that wept because they could not see the Joke, and those that laughed lest they
should be thought not to see the Joke, and thought it safe to act like FRATER PERDURABO.
But though FRATER PERDURABO laughed openly, He also at the same time wept secretly;
and in Himself He neither laughed nor wept.
Nor did He mean what He said."

That particular thread must come close to qualifying for the award for the most lengthy thread of the year in managing to go on and on & on for 7 pages without discussing anything much with particular evidence or relevance to the title of the topic, which was itself a split-off begun by NOXy from a previous post on the subject of (surprise! Surprise!) “Who own the A.’. A.’. Copyrights”.  - Wheels within wheels!!  And a salutary lesson in waffle, in which I have to confess I played a (albeit minor) part (as I said in one of my later posts there, “merely perpetuating the b.s.”)  In fact, reading it back it had to also qualify as one of the more ridiculous threads of the year, but for all that nevertheless quite amusing and worth reading in parts!  However, of an amusing joke itself there was nary a sign, unless it was of such a subtle nature that I completely missed it.  The closest thing to it seemed to be Christibrany’s observation in the first reply that

if the A.:.A.:. is the Black Lodge, then down is the new up

The rest of it was waffle, sidetrack, waffle, followed by more waffle, spam, sidetrack, spam, eggs, spam, waffle, eggs, spam spam & spam.  And like I said, the inference was that the Black Lodge was the A.’. A.’. rather than the O.T.O. or any other grouping, but:

Is there/ can there ever be an organization e.g. a (Black) Lodge, if everyone is so fundamentally selfish and presumably out for themselves & exclusively their own benefit - even such a minimal form as the vertical contact ‘ladder’ of the A.’. A.’.?  Why would this be if there is nothing (nada, zip, buggerall – as opposed to the mystical Nothing) for its members to gain?  (Since presumably altruism is out.)

There appeared to be the suggestion abroad that as one aspect of the A.’. A.’. currently declares itself to be publically as such (and the only one) in the back usually of books authorised or personally published by the C.O.T.O. (which similarly declares itself to be the only O.T.O.), and thereby encourages Restriction, it was in fact specifically this Black Lodge – quite a serious allegation, if taken on serious terms.  I was somehow under the impression that this was one of the avenues of discussion under this thread title, but it appears not.  (Please note I am not specifically making this allegation myself, merely raising it in the course of enquiry - at least at this point in the ongoing proceedings until further concrete information should become available.)

I suppose that still applies too.  And I’m still waiting to hear (read) that joke which, if it does exist, everyone appears to be skirting around like the elephant in the corner of the room.  However perhaps by going on about it I may've probably already been responsible for

Killing jumbo stone dead?!
N Joy

My concern is that Crowley's original material is preserved. If editors or students choose to change things, fine! However, they should at least footnote what their changes are, so that students in the future are aware.