Gabriel Lopez de Rojas

Okay ML let me ask you- does the OTO have any catechism to learn simular to the Masons? And what if you have absolutely nothing to pledge to the order but dedication and determination. In other words I'm broke what you see is what you get, I have no empire to inherit, nothing. Would the OTO still have me? I have pondered for a long time which direction I should go and my needle leans heavily towards the OTO but I am still uncertain..

Originally posted by TgSoe
Okay ML let me ask you- does the OTO have any catechism to learn similar to the Masons?

I don't know if it's like the masons or not.. but here are "the requirements of Minerval to III
in study and work in O.T.O. in the Order as it has manifested under the Caliph." (Liber MCLI)

www.hermetic.com...

And what if you have absolutely nothing to pledge to the order but dedication and determination. In other words I'm broke what you see is what you get,

Do you mean dues? you have to pay $35 a year to the grand Lodge + whatever your local body dues are. The Larger bodies like Lodges normay have dues $20 a month seems to be about average, smaller bodies like camps might not have any dues. (As you go up the degrees the costs also rise.. In the Blue Equinox there is a chart of the fees from the 20's.... The current fees are not "that" much higher... certainly under the inflation rate.) And there are initiation fees for each initiation. (The first few range from $75 to $93.. your grand lodge dues are included)

BTW required local dues is a hot topic right now in many online O.T.O. forums.

I have pondered for a long time which direction I should go and my needle leans heavily towards the OTO but I am still uncertain..

Do you see yourself accepting the Book of the Law? I you don't see yourself doing that I don't think you will get anything out of the O.T.O (IMHO). and you might be better suited for something like the Golden Dawn or B.O.T.A.

Cug can you give me any clues on how to decipher this quote from the book of the Law II,76?


76. 4 6 3 8 A B K 2 4 A L G M O R 3 Y X 24 89 R P S T O V A L. What meaneth this, o prophet? Thou knowest not; nor shalt thou know ever. There cometh one to follow thee: he shall expound it. But remember, o chose none, to be me; to follow the love of Nu in the star-lit heaven; to look forth upon men, to tell them this glad word.

Ok I was wondering in a book I can remember the author, He kept referring to H.O.A.T.F which does mean Head of all the Freemasons. The author also used the capital letters with He or Him when referring to this person. The author also stated that the HOATF sometimes changes things in freemasonry like some kind of GOD behind the scenes. I talked to a couple masons and asked them and of course they would state they cant tell me like they do know something of this person or being.

Originally posted by neo344
Ok I was wondering in a book I can remember the author, He kept referring to H.O.A.T.F which does mean Head of all the Freemasons. The author also used the capital letters with He or Him when referring to this person. The author also stated that the HOATF sometimes changes things in freemasonry like some kind of GOD behind the scenes. I talked to a couple masons and asked them and of course they would state they cant tell me like they do know something of this person or being.

Cug seems to be right, the term originated with Leadbetter, but he probably borrowed the idea from the Theosophists and the now defunct Rite of Strict Observance, both of whom believed in hidden masters or spiritual beings or some sort of disembodied adepts running everything.

In Freemasonry, the head is the Grand Master, who is generally elected to one year terms, although some jurisdictions have longer terms. Each jurisdiction has its own sovereign Grand Lodge and Grand Master.

Originally posted by TgSoe
Cug can you give me any clues on how to decipher this quote from the book of the Law II,76?

Nope, I'm clueless on that one.

and to telly the truth if I had a personal theory about it I'd say so, but I still would not tell you.

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

I think that code was supposed to have been cracked by Charles Stansfeld Jones in his Liber 31. "One cometh after you," Achad = 1. It seems like Crowley commented on this solution in his "The Law Is For All", but I don't recall to what extent.

Nope Jones discovered the secret key to the Book of the Law.

I: 46. Nothing is a secret key of this Law, sixty one the Jews call it. I call it eight, eighty, fourhundred and eighteen.

The discovery of which caused Crowley to rename Liber L vel Legis to Liber Al vel Legis.

Originally posted by Cug
Nope Jones discovered the secret key to the Book of the Law.

I: 46. Nothing is a secret key of this Law, sixty one the Jews call it. I call it eight, eighty, fourhundred and eighteen.

The discovery of which caused Crowley to rename Liber L vel Legis to Liber Al vel Legis.

According to Crowley, Jones did indeed unravel it. In his Commentary to AL II:76, Crowley says:

It is the prophet, the 'forth-speaker' who is never to know this mystery. But that does not prevent it from lying within the comprehension of the Beast, kept secret by him in order to prove any one who should claim sonship. (Cf. the note in brackets to the new comment on verse 75.
The last part of this verse presents no difficulty.
An XVI, Sun in Sagittarius. In the Appendix[WEH NOTE: the Appendix is still unrecovered] will be found the Qabalistic proofs referred to in the penultimate paragraph, as supporting the claim of Sir Charles Stansfeld Jones, whose occult names, numbers, dignities and titles, are as follows: PARZIVAL, Knight of the Holy Ghost, etc., X degree O.T.O., 418, 777, V.I.O. (Unus In Omnibus), Achad, or O.I.V.V.I.O. (Omnia in Uno, Unus in Omnibus), Fra A.'. A.'., 8degree = 3square, Arctaeon, to be my son by Jeanne Foster, Soror Hilarion. See Appendix for the technical explanation of this verse. I may here briefly mention, however, that "Thou knowest not" is one of the cryptographic ambiguities characteristic of this Book. "Thou knowest" -- see Cap. I verse 26, and 'not' is Nuith. The word 'ever' too, may be the objective of 'know', rather than merely an adverb.
Note "to be me", not "to be I" -- an evident reference to Nuit, "not", MH. Cf. verse 13, comment. One can only exist by being Nuit, as explained in discussing the general magical theory.
Observe that I am here definitely enjoined to proclaim my Law to men, 'to look forth' instead of retiring from the world as mystics are wont to do. I may then be confident that this Work is a proper part of my Will.
Note: This 'one' is not to be confused with the 'child' referred to elsewhere in this Book. It is quite possible that O.I.V.V.I.O. (who took the grade of 8degree = 3square by an act of will without going through the lower grades in the regular way) failed to secure complete annihilation in crossing the Abyss; so that the drops of blood which should have been cast into the cup of Babalon should "breed scorpions, and vipers, and the Cat of Slime". In this case he would develop into a Black Brother, to be torn in pieces and reduced to his Elements against his Will.

www.rahoorkhuit.net...

Crowley said no such thing.

He said in that comment that Jones solved II:75 not II:76. (the penultimate paragraph or next to last, so he is not talking about II:76) Now Crowley may of expected Jones to solve it, but there is no record that he did.

I wonder how many people are going HUH? about now.

Originally posted by Cug
Crowley said no such thing.

He said in that comment that Jones solved II:75 not II:76. (the penultimate paragraph or next to last, so he is not talking about II:76) Now Crowley may of expected Jones to solve it, but there is no record that he did.

Hmmm. In the comment itself, Crowley refers to "Thou knowest", which comes into play in verse 76, and the Comment is listed as being in reference to 76. I'll have to look more into it when I get the time.

I just hope he isn't a distant relative of mine,I have enough trouble here in the states,my mother told me of some strange goings on there,enough where my fathers family changed names and moved to the USA

Originally posted by Cug
Rojas is the current head of the S.O.T.O. a group that lost a court battle over who is the "real" O.T.O.

IMHO his Illuminati Order is just his way of taking his ball and going to another playground.

No, he isn't the head of the S.O.T.O., that is still David Bersson of Pittsburgh, PA. The S.O.T.O. descended from Marcelo Motta, a IX* member of the O.T.O. who passed away in 1987 when he was 53 from a heart attack though he was still sitting in the Dragon Asana when his body was discovered. He named no direct successor and this has resulted in the S.O.T.O. tradition to splinter into various groups such as the S.O.T.O. out of Pittsburgh, the Parzival XI* Foundation in AUstralia (disappeared when the leader died of a heroin overdose), the Society of the New Aeon, Order of the Knights of Thelema, Nu-ISis Lodge in Brazil and Nuit Lodge in Brazil.

Rojas was a member of the S.O.T.O. of Bersson under the guidance of Ramon Santiago. He left the S.O.T.O. and A.'.A.'. when he mistook a statement from Santiago that Bersson was "shutting down the A.'.A.'.". The real meaning was that the A.'.A.'. was going into a period of silence, which it does in five year intervals, followed by five years where the A.'.A.'. receives students and publishes the "Equinox" series. Well, Rojas, who was III* in the Society O.T.O. left the order and integrated it into his Illuminati order. Not to be confused with the Illuminati of the Swiss Initiate Herman Joseph Metzger.

Last count I saw was at LEAST 3 major Illuminati orders from Rojas (really a restructuring of the M-M rites), Metzger (died in the early 90s) and the OAI (Ordo Antichristus Illuminatorum) of Joshua Seraphim.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by TgSoe



I find the OTO very facinating and would join it if I had one close to me but unfortunately I don't have. What exactly is the SOTO? I have never heard that term and can't seem to find a break down on that acronymn.

It stands for Society Ordo Templi Orientis. Back in the '80's, there was court case out in Cali where O.T.O. sued S.O.T.O., and S.O.T.O. filed a countersuit. The question for the court was: will the real O.T.O. please stand up?

O.T.O., at that time under the leadership of Grady McMurtry was declared to be the genuine successor of Crowley's O.T.O., while Marcelo Motta's S.O.T.O. was declared a non-successor organization. The court documents of the case are featured in The Equinox Volume III, No. 10, published by O.T.O.

If you visit S.O.T.O.'s website, you'll see they still claim to be the real thing, although instead of publishing material on their site about Magick, Yoga, Science, etc., they mostly just whine about the O.T.O.

Not all that clear cut. The finding was that Grady McMurtry was the OHO of the OTO in America and that Motta failed to prove membership. Some people will say that Motta testified that he was never initiated into any degree of the OTO but that is half true. He said he was never initiated into any degree of the OTO but the IX* in 1956. Germer, his mentor, never understood ritual and didn't even know the rituals, signs and grips of the OTO's degrees etc. He had no time for it. Germer gave Motta the OTO documents etc. Some will claim this was part of the OTO and A.'.A.'. shared relationship but such things only occur at the 2=9 degree and higher of the A.'.A.'. when the aspirant begins to study the formula of the Rosy Cross, or sexual mysticism. Motta was not a 2=9 until VERY shortly before Germer's death, about 3 weeks or so. Phyllis Seckler (McMUrtry's ex-wife) also recognized Motta as a IX* member of the OTO as well as McMurtry recognizing Motta in a correspondence from the 70s.

It isn't a cut and dried issue though. Germer's wife, who detested Motta, wrote to him that Germer named him the Follower following Germer's death in 1962 and Motta received follow up letters from Phyliss Seckler where she said that Germer had named him the inheritor of the library of the OTO etc and she was trying to help Mrs. Germer find Mr. Germer's Will. The one that turned up though was dated before Germer and Motta met. Why would two people close to Germer name Motta as Germer's heir if Germer hadn't said as such himself?

reply to post by Nygdan


The Lodge JANO worked in Montevideo Uruguay and it was an irregular bodie since the point of view of the english freemasonry. what is regularity? The web site is www.geocities.com/logiajano

I was searching some information about the topics of this forum. Logia Jano is an irregular Masonic Lodge working in Uruguay. It was founden in 2003 by a group of Masters Masons. www.geocities.com/logiajano. The Web was changed many times, so I decided to write to them. The answer was that they have no contact with Lopez de Rojas.

reply to post by AlexKennedy


Is that what you think...think twice! contact me if you wnat to

[email protected]