Home Forums Thelema Thelema How many lashtalians are (c)OTO members?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 59 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #109371

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    From the 4 features listed at the top of on Lashtal’s front page at the moment: does anyone know where there’s a transcript of Gunther’s curiously entitled presentation “Messianism in the Aeon of the Child” which was listed to take place at the 2017 “London Working” – which I was unfortunately not able to attend – held in a suite at the celebrated Columbia Hotel (which by an interesting coincidence was also the exact location thirty years ago of the first “O.T.O.” London Bennu Bird Oasis meetings I organized way back in the late 1980s. Glad to have helped “pave the way” there…)?

    Could the address possibly have been meant to have been delivered from a, um, first person perspective? Regrettably it seems that the talk itself – scheduled as the climax of the weekend’s whole “Working” – was removed by someone for some reason from its pride of place as the last talk at nearly the last minute, along with the similarly enigmatically titled “Who Am I and what shall be the Sign?”, both replaced by the rather more anodyne and frankly relatively much more boring sounding trot through “The Forces of Life”.

    Or maybe it was meant to come across more in the way of a “How To” Guide (How To Identify, How to Become, one etc) from an “it takes one to know one” position?

    From what I have read Gunther’s outlook, despite all of the statements or protestations made to the contrary, seems to be from an irredeemably Old Aeon perspective upon the New which has not been “abrogate”. Far from crapulous creeds being cursed, it seems to be more a case of ‘carry on, jolly good show’.

    If J. Daniel Gunther really is the new (or latest) Messiah, don’t you think we should all be told about it? For our own good, I mean… It’s bound to be of particular interest to the Chief Rabbi and the Pope, too!

    Heil — I mean of course, Hail! (?)
    N Joy

    #109375

    Shiva
    Participant

    JB: … all of the statements or protestations made to the contrary, seems to be from an irredeemably Old Aeon perspective upon the New …

    That lineage (under discussion here) started with Marcello Motta. Need I say more?

    #109378

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    “Need I say more?”

    I could have said more myself (and was slightly exaggerating by saying “irredeemably”, etc) but was rather hoping that thereby I might goad some defenders of JDG into sticking their heads above the parapet and shooting off. To be fair to him, Gunther does mention in his books that spelling of INRI is defunct and that LVX has been replaced by NOX; I even think (though can’t be sure as I don’t have text to hand to check it up) ) that he likewise mentions IAO as having been superceded by FIAOF. But these can all be looked on as exceptions which go to prove the general rule. Namely, that his outlook upon the New Aeon is from a peculiarly sympathetic rather than condemnatory Old Aeon perspective. Come on, now! — does anyone want to take issue with that, or do I speak the truth?

    To be fair to Motta, I don’t think his outlook could be called pro-Christian in any sense, and he would have had no truck at all with any attempts at sympathetic revisionism.. Didn’t he recommend the uttering of “Apo pantos kakadaimonos” by Thelemites upon seeing a cleric of the old religion? (or am I getting him mixed up with Amado Crowley? again, the texts are not to hand). But what I want to know is how and why, all of a sudden since his passing Motta’s stock has soared and he is “Mister Can Do No Wrong” as far as the relevant upper echelons of the “O.T.O.” are concerned?

    “Bahlasti” & “Ompehda”, etc.,
    N Joy

    #109379

    ignant666
    Participant

    After the (co)OTO spent a great deal of money on suing Motta over who was the “true” OTO, and thus (all concerned thought) heir under AC’s will to the lucrative AC copyrights (particularly the US Games income from the Thoth deck), it turned out that they were fighting over nothing, since AC died a bankrupt.

    The Californians subsequently bought the AC copyrights from the UK bankruptcy authorities.

    Some time later, an A.’. A.’. imprimatur was thought necessary or desirable for the (c)OTO, and so Motta’s ex-disciple, Brother J. Daniel “Handsome Dan” Gunther, became the new “duplex” A.’. A.’. Chief, and alleged “World Teacher”, and/or “Messiah Of The New Aeon”.

    This may be because W.’. T.’. Gunther is high (c)OTO official James “Bang-Bang” Wasserman’s A.’. A.’. superior, and i think also the (c)OTO OHO’s A.’. A.’. superior as well.

    Some old-fashioned sorts and sticklers for the rules might have thought that this was problematic because of the fact that J. Daniel Gunther quit the Motta A.’. A.’. in 1982, while at either a Probationer 0=0, or at most a Neophyte 1=10:

    James Daniel Gunther: once a legitimate O.T.O. representative; demoted for plotting to murder his hierarchic superior; withdrew voluntarily from the A∴A∴ and was expelled from the O.T.O.” [Motta] Equinox V:4 (1982); emphasis added]

    The normal A.’. A.’. idea is that, having resigned, one has opted out of the Order for the current incarnation. By this reckoning, W.’. T.’. Gunther has not been a member of what is sometimes called the “temporal” A.’. A.’. for 26 years. His Eye has been closed for this incarnation; one blushes to think what may have happened to his Pyramid.

    We know W.’. T.’. Gunther’s grade at the time of his 1982 resignation from A.’. A.’. was no higher than than either:

    1) Probationer 0=0 (if we listen to Germer, Motta’s A.’. A.’. superior, and believe Motta (W.’. T.’. Gunther’s superior) was a Neophyte 1=10 on the death of Germer), or perhaps

    2) Neophyte 1=10 (if we take Motta’s own word for his (Motta’s) being in fact a Zelator 2=9).

    _____________________________________________
    Source for all above factual statements:

    https://sites.google.com/site/truthaboutaa/

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by  ignant666.
    #109381

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    (Text in bold, is not in bold in the original text.)

    ignant666: “… Gunther, became the new “duplex” A.’. A.’. Chief, and alleged “World Teacher”, and/or “Messiah Of The New Aeon”.

    If the Aiwass mentioned within his The Book of the Law, dictated the original handwritten text to this book, as claimed by AC, and this dictation came from ‘above the Abyss’, then this Aiwass can be the one called ‘Messiah’ by J. Daniel Gunther in the following quote from the latter:

    “Lest there be misunderstanding on this point and it is mistakenly believed that we are fostering a false Soteriology, I will speak plainly. The Messiah was not Aleister Crowley; despite all his genius, which is undeniable, he was merely the scribe for a greater Adept. Neither does V.V.V.V.V. only represent a motto for Aleister Crowley. Frater Perdurabo, upon attaining to Magister Templi, took a motto with these initials of the A.’.A .’. It would be improper to discuss this matter openly in this place. However, it is essential to understand that V.V.V.V.V. is another Magister entirely, individual and unique, insofar as such terms apply above the Abyss.” (Source: J. Daniel Gunther’s book Initiation In The Æon of the Child – The Inward Journey, published 2009, page 124 and 125.)

    #109382

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    Clarification:

    The Aiwass mentioned within AC’s The Book of the Law, can be the ‘Messiah’ described by J. Daniel Gunther as “another Magister entirely [than Aleister Crowley], individual and unique, insofar as such terms apply above the Abyss.” (Source: Page 124 and 125 in the first edition of J. Daniel Gunther’s Initiation In The Æon of the Child – The Inward Journey, published 2009.) If this Gunther understands this Aiwass as having dictated the original handwritten text to this The Book of the Law to AC, as claimed by the latter, and if it is this Gunther’s conviction that this dictation came from ‘above the Abyss’.

    #109383

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @wellreadwellbred

    The Aiwass mentioned within AC’s The Book of the Law, can be the ‘Messiah’ described by J. Daniel Gunther as “another Magister entirely [than Aleister Crowley], individual and unique, insofar as such terms apply above the Abyss.”

    Yes, no doubt it “can”, could, or might be, but whether in fact it “is” is – as that nice young man Donald Trump might say – a whole new ball-game. It is not a statement of fact, but merely a matter of opinion. In the same way, the notion that The Book of the Law is a reformation (or reformulation) of the “law of God” as expressed through the “Christian Bible” remains an opinion held by Big Beasts such as Wasserman and yourself, though one that I happen to find ludicrous.

    #109384

    Shiva
    Participant

    JB: Didn’t he [Motta] recommend the uttering of “Apo pantos kakadaimonos” by Thelemites upon seeing a cleric of the old religion? (or am I getting him mixed up with Amado Crowley? again

    That was Crowley.

    Ig: After the (co)OTO spent a great deal of money on suing Motta over who was the “true” OTO

    If I’m not mistaken, Motta sued the McMurtry OTO. The (c)OTO spent its money on defense … and probably counter-suing. Motta lost, of course, but then somehow his 4 primary disciples moved over to the (c)OTO camp. I’m very fuzzy on how this “transition” took place.

    Some old-fashioned sorts and sticklers for the rules might have thought that this was problematic because of the fact that J. Daniel Gunther quit the Motta A.’. A.’. in 1982, while at either a Probationer 0=0, or at most a Neophyte 1=10:

    Right. And Motta himself never got higher than 0=0, until he went off by himself and snatched 8=3 under the vague guideline allowing such a leap. Along the same lines, McMurtry was quick to claim 9=2, even though he was dumped as a Probationer by Meral because he wouldn’t do the work. This gives great and new meaning to the phrase, “Self-appointed Battlefiel;d Promotions.”

    #109385

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    Thanks ignant666 for that additional information. The document you quote is sympathetic to the claims of the Seckler A.’. A.’.. specifically the Shoemaker recension: would it be too cynical to suggest perhaps it was written by them? There still seems to be a lack of direct documentation though. For instance, what was it that Lon Duquette actually came across that motivated him to make his declaration of non serviam?

    From J. D. Gunther, quoted by wrwb above:

    “I will speak plainly. [3 sentences omitted] It would be improper to discuss this matter openly in this place.”
    (Loud) Groan. Not that old excuse again. This is another sign of P.C. (political correctness) running amok. One longs for more people to do anything improper these days…

    @wrwb :

    If this Gunther understands this Aiwass as having dictated the original handwritten text to this The Book of the Law to AC, as claimed by the latter, and if it is this Gunther’s conviction that this dictation came from ‘above the Abyss’.
    Well, then that’s that.

    @shiva :

    That was Crowley.
    Yes, Crowley originated it. But one of those two (maybe even both) copied it from him

    Motta lost, of course, but then somehow his 4 primary disciples moved over to the (c)OTO camp. I’m very fuzzy on how this “transition” took place.
    I think it was a mixture of Motta’s charmless over-the-top foibles within his personality combined with the comparatively easy-going bearing of Grady McMurtry, combined with his tempting them forth with offers of IXth degrees and Lodgemasterships, plying them with drugs and alcohol and generally being more approachable, with-it and a party dude than their uber-strict A.’. A.’. superior. Also, I don’t know how much Motta had to do with driving them to it, but it’s surprising how many of his [C].O.T.O.-defectees/ex-disciples turned out to be heroin addicts as well. This is largely conjecture however. Does anyone have anything else more illuminating on this deal-changing epoch-making great “transition”?

    Meantime joining you in a state of relative fuzziedom,
    N Joy

    #109386

    faust
    Participant

    Jamie J Barter
    ” I was one of the original seven at the very first inaugural meeting held in the UK back in ’86, and then ran the London “Bennu Bird” group for a further seven years until ’93.”

    Are you “Fr Conquest, “IV K.E.W.”, Ex-Master of BeNu Oasis, London”? What a coincidence? I just read your text/mail on the website of G.M. Kelly. A few hours ago. I was googling, but couldn’t connect any name or eMail address to the fraternal or magickal name. Now I read you here, if you’re the same person. Coincidentia oppositorum. I’d like to get in touch with you. Please write me: ezekiel1000@Safe-mail.net

    #109389

    Serpent 252
    Participant

    @shiva, @Jamie J Barter, et al.

    Just for less relative fuzziness’ sake

    [The Maine Trial]

    In 1983 e.v., Marcelo Ramos Motta brought a civil lawsuit against Samuel Weiser, Inc., for copyright infringement in the matter of works authored by Aleister Crowley.

    (Source: The New Court of Last Resort, In Defense of Marcelo Ramos Motta, Presented [on the internet] by Parzival XI° O.T.O. Foundation, Section 9.0)

    [The California Trial]

    Grady McMurtry, William E. Heidrick, Phyllis Seckler, Helen Parsons Smith, William Breeze, Francis I. Regardie, James Wasserman, and Kenneth Anger, individuals, Ordo Templi Orientis, a corporation, and Thelema Publications, a business entity, Plaintiffs,

    versus

    Society OrdoTempli Orientis, a corporation, Thelema Publishing Company, a corporation, Marcelo Ramos Motta, an individual, Defendants.

    (ditto, Section 10.0)

    [Another list of the plaintiffs & defendants in the California Trial]

    Plaintiffs: Grady McMurtry, William E. Heidrick, P. Seckler, H. Parsons Smith, James Wasserman, individuals, Ordo Templi Orientis, a California corporation, and Thelema Publications, a business entity

    v.

    Defendants: Society OrdoTempli Orientis, a corporation, Thelema Publishing Company, a corporation, Marcelo Ramos Motta

    (Source: here: http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys4/judgment.htm)

    The following names appear in the transcripts of either the Maine or the California trials: (…)

    William Breeze – Plaintiff in the California trial, once a Probationer in the A.·.A.·., was cut contact with by Marcelo Motta; later became the “successor” to Grady McMurtry in the position of “Caliph” of the fake “O.T.O.” outfit.

    Martin Starr – Former student of Mr. Motta’s; once a Director in the Society O.T.O. as legally organized by Mr. Motta; testified on behalf of Mr. Motta in the
    Maine case; subsequently failed his Ordeals and testified against Mr. Motta in the California case.

    James Wasserman – Plaintiff in the California case; employee of Donald Weiser, given a power-of-attorney by Mr. Motta to secure his rights in the Library, breached his duty and assisted McMurtry and Seckler in obtaining the Library; joined the “Caliphate O.T.O.” (…)

    (Source: The New Court of Last Resort, In Defense of Marcelo Ramos Motta, Presented [on the internet] by Parzival XI° O.T.O. Foundation, Section 5.0)

    The fourth “primary disciple”? It could had been either late Richard Gernon (d. 1989 e.v.), or one J. Daniel Gunther, or … only Shiva knows.

    #109390

    wellreadwellbred
    Participant

    Me, wellreadwellbred: The Aiwass mentioned within AC’s The Book of the Law, can be the ‘Messiah’ described by J. Daniel Gunther as “another Magister entirely [than Aleister Crowley], individual and unique, insofar as such terms apply above the Abyss.”, within this Gunther’s book Initiation In The Æon of the Child – The Inward Journeys.

    Michael Staley: “It is not a statement of fact, but merely a matter of opinion.”

    The title of this thread is “How many lashtalians are (c)OTO members?”, and among “(c)OTO members” there will be knowledge with respect to how the said statement is understood with the (c)OTO.

    That is, are core doctrinal statements in a new A.’. A.’. “Class B” text (Initiation In The Æon of the Child – The Inward Journeys), authored by one J. Daniel Gunther, the leader of the only A.’. A.’. order on this planet accepted as legitimate by the (c)OTO, understood as authoritative within this (c)OTO?

    #109395

    Michael Staley
    Participant

    @wellreadwellbred

    That is, are core doctrinal statements in a new A.’. A.’. “Class B” text (Initiation In The Æon of the Child – The Inward Journeys), authored by one J. Daniel Gunther, the leader of the only A.’. A.’. order on this planet accepted as legitimate by the (c)OTO, understood as authoritative within this (c)OTO?

    Not being a member of the (c)OTO, I wouldn’t know for sure. However, I doubt it. Several good friends of mine are long-term members, and they think for themselves rather than accept as “authoritative” views that come from this or that illustrious personage. For instance, I recall that there was plenty of dissension within the membership over the kill/fill substitution by Breeze in The Book of the Law. I doubt that the notion of The Book of the Law being a reformation or reformulation of the “law of God” as expressed through the “Christian Bible” has much widespread support either.

    These are opinions, not papal encyclicals.

    #109399

    ignant666
    Participant

    One certainly hopes so, Michael. What with:

    1) The “kill/fill” editing controversy;

    2) The ongoing sexual harassment/sexual violence issues with regard to female initiates;

    3) The efforts by at least Wasserman to enlist the (c)OTO under the banner of the “alt-right”, as a sort of occult “Trump Legion”;

    4) The elevation of A.’. A.’. drop-out J. Daniel “Thelema Is Basically Catholicism, Sort Of” Gunther as at least “the orthodox voice of Thelema”, and perhaps the “World Teacher”, or even the “Messiah”, of the New Aeon;

    and of course

    5) The utter failure in promulgation, what with more and more of AC’s work out of print, and books said to be “in proofs” a decade or more ago still not published (eg the full edition of Confessions)

    it looks like the leadership of the (c)OTO have lost it. Exemplars of “Success is thy proof” they ain’t.

    #109402

    Shiva
    Participant

    JB: hat was Crowley.
    Yes, Crowley originated it. But one of those two (maybe even both) copied it from him

    Everybody in Agape & Solar Lodges copied it from him.

    S.’.252: Martin Starr – Former student of Mr. Motta’s; once a Director in the Society O.T.O. as legally organized by Mr. Motta; testified on behalf of Mr. Motta in the
    Maine case; subsequently failed his Ordeals and testified against Mr. Motta in the California case.

    This is correct. But Starr hardly “failed his Ordeals.” In Maine, Motta and Starr were walking towards the courtroom. Starr commented upon Motta’s disquieting demeanor. Motta turned to Starr and said, “Don’t you get it? I’m an alcoholic!” Due to Motta’s condescension and Dictatorship, Starr promised himself that he would see Motta through this (Maine) ordeal, and then he would leave. He did, and then he left. He joined with Breeze and Wasserman (after California), but also left BB’s ministrations because BB offered to sue him if he published a certain Crowley work. He went on to join other pilgrims and has flourished in his own right. He did not “fail his failed his Oredeals.” (We were comparing our paths, the part where we each bravely attended to one more task, and then left the domain of a guru/Grand Master who had lost his/her marbles.

    The fourth “primary disciple”? It could had been either late Richard Gernon (d. 1989 e.v.), or one J. Daniel Gunther, or … only Shiva knows.

    Gunther qualifies here.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 59 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.