Originally posted by star in a jar

While I cannot identify an OTO member

The O.T.O. has roughly 3,000 members worldwide. They can't afford to buy their own buildings for their lodges, so they either rent space, or meet in members' homes.

The vast majority of its members are young, college educated, and fringe. There is a very high turnover rate in its membership, as most members eventually become disillusioned and quit, or criticize the leadership and get expelled.

The order does teach sex magick, but not really seriously. It teaches nothing that is not already commonly known by occultists. It is not a "sex club" either. They don't have sex at their meetings, they just give instructions for various tantric practices that members can practice in the privacy of their own homes should they wish to.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by star in a jar


Seeing as the OTO is a large Masonic group I'd bet they have some rather influential members- as to who they are- who knows...

Does anyone?

It's not as if they do press releases as to who their members are.

Members of O.T.O. are generally public about their membership. You can, for example, go on the MySpace O.T.O. group and find most of them there.

Today, the occult author Lon Milo DuQuette is a members, and is relatively well-known among occultists. The leader of the organization is a musician named Bill Breeze.

Besides those two, they don't have any more really well known members, with the possible exception of the two brothers who wrote and direct "The Matrix" films.

MasonicLight is right on in all of his posts.

I am an O.T.O. member and feel no need to hide that fact from anyone. Most O.T.O. members would openly share their affiliation as well. Of course, not everyone advertises it on their MySpace or Facebook page, but most wouldn't deny it if asked. (Being a "Secret Society" in this case, means that the Order or it's members won't disclose your membership, but you are certainly under no obligation to do such yourself.)

However, there are members in every walk of life, some members are very influential in occult circles, some are influential in masonic circles (we do have a number of 33rd Degree Masons amongst our ranks), and some that are famous in Hollywood. At one point there was a US Senator that was a member of the O.T.O. However, I think our most famous member has always been David Bowie.

However, I can assure you that even the highest ranking of O.T.O. members who have served on the Electoral College and obtained the highest degrees of the Order, have little interest in NWOs or even politics. As the magickal work that is involved in these later degrees involves subjugating the Ego to the Higher Self (symbolized by "Crossing the Abyss" or "Passing into Da'ath"), worldly matters tend not to important any longer to such individuals.

There is no common religious doctrine in the O.T.O. Nor is there any mandatory teaching curriculum any longer (Liber MCLI which outlined a teaching curriculum for the degrees is now entirely optional, up to the discretion of each individual initiate). The only thing any two O.T.O. members may have in common is an appreciation for the philosophical "Law of Thelema" ("Do what thou will shalt be the whole of the law." "Love is the law, love under will.") and an interest in various forms of occultism and ceremonial magick. Outside of that, they come in many different shapes and varieties, from scholar to kook and everything in between.

Most importantly, since Hymaneus Beta (William "Bill" Breeze) became the O.H.O. of the O.T.O., the Order is nothing more than a Social Order with an Initiatory Process. I guess, if you consider that, the O.T.O. isn't any different than the Benevolent & Protective Order of the Elks or the Fraternal Order of the Eagles (except the O.T.O. doesn't have any of their own drinking halls, bowling alleys, or club houses).

To the O.P., the Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. published by Francis King was done so at a time when their were doubts that the Order still existed. Francis King did such to ensure that these Rituals would not be lost. When it was made aware to him that the Order still operated, the publication of the book ceased. It is not that the material in the book is "dangerous" or "incriminating" to the O.T.O. if it is let out to the public. However, considering that the O.T.O. still practices that initiatory process means that it shouldn't be publicly available lest it spoil it for those interested in undergoing that initiatory process. I personally use The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. myself to review an initiation *AFTER* I've gone through it myself, sometimes being able to see symbolism that I may have missed during the process (and I have gotten flak from some members for doing such), so I personally am grateful that such material is freely available (with a little bit of effort on the individual to find that material).

However, it is important to note that the Initiatory Rituals that are detailed in that Francis King book are grossly outdated (they were from early drafts that were co-written by Crowley and Theodor Reuss) and have changed numerous times since (both by Crowley and also by later O.H.O.s). Thus, they are sometimes dramatically different from what the modern O.T.O. practices, although the symbolism, in most cases, remains the same.

Thanks for your replies to fill in the blanks! I understand more about the O.T.O, especially from the members themselves and those more knowledgeable.

My intent from the start was mainly to let others see this book, unfortunately making some flippant comment about there being members in high places in the process without concrete evidence.

---

---

I know this if alittle off topic, but as a thelamite and this being about the O.T.O I thought it'd be okay.

The personal soul, can it logically exist? In true thelamic belief god is considered indivisible, then how can it be divided into a personal soul? One free form characteristics, so a pure soul couldn't be considered personal, because if it really is the idivisible god any personal characteristics must be strictly human in nature, the idea being if you put a point in the infinite it is now finite. Hell logically speaking this god has to exist, as there must be a fundamental SOME-THING, or else there would be nothing because logically something cannot come from nothing or else nothing would have been something... yeah.. but back to my point how can the indifinable be.. well defined? especially in terms only human? I think the whole idea of god being experiable without being anything but pure spirit (it being rooted in the purely idiological world) doesn't make much sense, so do we really have a personal soul or do we simply grow a conception of what soul is, thus rooting ourselves into the idiological god head enabling ourselves to connect to the experiable god as the "idea" of the original idea, the spirit of the spirit, of the everything. And if any of this makes any sense to anyone what do you think to personal and social implications of this is? does this explain the religion problem (not that I have problems with religion as such) that being that people are only to willing to follow the christ and not to be it, and that maybe people kinda really did miss the point that the original messiah (and I mean all of them) aimed to make by letting the social ME virus (as I so named it) take root in our spirit, as it is no longer OUR spirit, OUR world, or OUR god, but MY spirit, world, god. if you are well versed in crowley the ME virus is like a yetziratic version of the great demon Chronozon centered in yesod the unconcious man, so yeah its a problem.. Well that's my rant. any takers?

-93- Frater OUT

Sorry it's me again, but to make my point alittle clearer, I only posted before in regards to the teachings of the O.T.O and what you think about it.

Originally posted by Eleleth

Wait, what? I never heard about that.

Me either. If he was an actual member, can you verify his lodge aor oasis membership?

It was my understanding that he, like Jimmy Page, were interested in Crowleyana, but were not members of the O.T.O. It should also be noted that the Caliphate O.T.O., as such, did not exist at the time that Page and Bowie were serious students.

WASN'T JOHN CARRIDINE A MEMBER OR AFFILIATED WITH IT, COULD IT BE CONNECTED TO HIS SONS RECENT DEATH? UNDER WITCH CIRCUMSTANCES HE DIED YA THINK IT'S QUITE ODD?

Originally posted by goveglexisays
WASN'T JOHN CARRIDINE A MEMBER OR AFFILIATED WITH IT, COULD IT BE CONNECTED TO HIS SONS RECENT DEATH? UNDER WITCH CIRCUMSTANCES HE DIED YA THINK IT'S QUITE ODD?

It is my understanding that John Carradine, like many other bohemian artists and actors of the '50's and '60's, took an interest in Crowley's work.

However, he was not a member of the O.T.O., which really didn't even exist as an organization at that time. The modern group calling itself O.T.O. was not created until the 1970's, and functions mostly as a social club for those interested in Crowleyana. They don't go around killing people....instead, you're much more likely to find them holding Tarot workshops and lectures on Renaissance hermetic philosophy.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Masonic Light]

The OTO was started by Crowley from a lot of his knowledge he received from the Golden Dawn when he went public so to speak with this information he was banned from the G.D.. Crowley magick he teaches is mostly from Enochian the same Dr John Dee used and their degrees are different in their own right from any other organization or fraternity respectively. But correct me if I am wrong did the Grand Lodge put out a flyer or something of that nature stating that it didnt want its members affiliating with the OTO.

Originally posted by blackpheonix
The OTO was started by Crowley from a lot of his knowledge he received from the Golden Dawn when he went public so to speak with this information he was banned from the G.D..

O.T.O. was actually started by Theodore Reuss around 1899. Crowley joined in 1912, and Reuss appointed him Grand Master of England, although, technically, the organization did not exist in England. After Reuss' death, Crowley became international Grand Master, although only a couple of Lodges actually existed here and there.

O.T.O. is not based on the traditional Golden Dawn methods, although they eventually adopted some of them (for example, the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram).

One O.T.O. Lodge was active in the United States by the time Crowley died. This Lodge eventually went defunct, and the order ceased to exist for a couple of decades, with the exception of Kenneth Grant's New Isis Lodge in England, which rejected Crowley's version of O.T.O.

The order was re-formed in the 1970's in the USA by Grady McMurtry, who had received the degrees from Crowley in the 1940's.

But correct me if I am wrong did the Grand Lodge put out a flyer or something of that nature stating that it didnt want its members affiliating with the OTO.

Which Grand Lodge?

Originally posted by blackpheonix

I haven't come across the information but I believe it was the Grand Lodge of England however I am not certain. I know that their are some lodges that accepted Crowley and others that denied his affiliation to the Fraternity.

The Masonic Lodge that Crowley was a member of (Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343 in Paris) was not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England, nor the US Grand Lodges.

However, O.T.O. is not technically a Masonic organization, so Freemasons are free to join O.T.O. if they wish, and vice versa.

But arnt there some orders of the OTO in the US who take their total founding from Crowley?

All modern O.T.O. bodies of the so-called "Caliphate" branch follow the Crowley line. My only point was that the organization had been around before Crowley joined it; when Crowley became its leader he introduced many changes, which are still followed by the Caliphate O.T.O., but were more or less dispensed with by the Typhonian O.T.O.

Hey, star, and a flag to you. You tried, and that' better than the "i saw an owl", or "your an alien" thread. You tried to shine a little light on things.

I have looked into the oto a long time ago. I don't know that it goes anywhere. However, the occult does. It can be good in some respects, but the arena we see it in is used by the NWO. Of course, that is 'way' bad.

Regarding who's who in which organization? Well they are secret, but those 'yokals' always need to show their errogance with a good hand sign.

My 'verdict' is still out on crowley. No doubt many have used his work for Evil intentions, but I think that is generally how this world goes.

Good luck, on your Illumination.