baphomet

reply to post by Masonic Light

Hi Masonic 'Light' --

I’m not quite sure where you get all your dis-information from, but Manly Hall certainly had loads to say about BAPHOMET, whether you wish to read his material or not first hand.

Here’s another quote from MANLY P. HALL: (you’ll find the majority of Hall’s words are borrowed texts from his multitudinous sources, so don’t get too bent out of shape if he quotes somebody else !)

From: Baphomet: The Goat of Mendes by Manly Hall (1936)

QUOTE

The practice of Magick – either White or Black -depends upon the ability of the Adept to control the Universal Life Force – that which Eliphas Levi calls the great magical agent or astral light. By the manipulation of this fluidic Essence, the Phenomena of ‘Transcendentalism’ are thus produced.

The famous Hermaphroditic (i.e. androgynous, male-female) Goat of Mendes was a Composite Creature formulated to symbolize this very astral Light.

It is identical with BAPHOMET, the mystic Pan Theos (‘god of All Nature’) of those disciples of ceremonial Magick… who probably obtained it from the Arabs…..

See also his DIONYSIAN MYSTERIES & MASONRY Philosophical Publishing House, 1936
“The Goat of Mendes or BAPHOMET whom the Templars were accused of worshipping is a Goat Headed deity, being formed of both male and female principles, with a Caduceus of Mercury in oplace of its Phallus.
One arm points up and one down , with the Latin ' Solve et Coagula' written on them (meaning: ‘flow and ebb’)

This is NOT the image of a Christian Devil but a symbol of the ancient Alchemists representing Nature and natures God being a Combination & Balance of Male andFemale forces, light and darkness, moisture and dryness.

The very principle of Hermes Trismegitus: As Above So Below" is what is symbolized by BAPHOMET..."

UNQUOTE

Here's an extract taken from the Scottish Rite Journal quoting Manly Hall's beliefs about BAPHOMET ( Manly Hall died in Sept of 1990 and thus cannot be emailed for comment !)

"Masonic writer Manly P. Hall (33o) lionized at great length in the SCOTTISH RITE JOURNAL stated that Baphomet was another name for the "Goat of Mendez" whose picture is featured prominently in the Tract...

The Goat of Mendes is, of course, ...a city of ancient Egypt where fertility worship-Ba'al worship-was practiced.

This god, also known as the 'horned god', is one of the oldest fertility god in history whose representation is found on paintings from cavemen in Ariége, France.

Kenneth Grant, the head of the Ordo Templi Orientis-Order of Eastern Templars states that BAPHOMET actually means Bapho-Mitras- or 'son of Mithras' and that Masons admit readily that BAPHOMET is an ancient fertility god-and that Freemasonry itself is based on an ancient fertility cult religion.

The Supreme Masonic leader of the Scottish Rite in the 19th century Albert Pike also clearly equates Freemasonry with "the occult sciences" .."

You want more? I got lots....!!

Originally posted by Sigismundus

Hi Masonic 'Light' --

I’m not quite sure where you get all your dis-information from, but Manly Hall certainly had loads to say about BAPHOMET, whether you wish to read his material or not first hand.

I'm very familiar with Hall's work. He was misquoted in the previous post. He did not mention Baphomet in "Lost Keys of Freemasonry". Here is what Hall actually wrote:

When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. - Hall, "Lost Keys of Freemasonry", p. 48

Nothing there about Baphomet.

Here’s another quote from MANLY P. HALL

I didn't say that Hall never wrote about Baphomet. I said that the quote given earlier was fake, which it is.

Kenneth Grant, the head of the Ordo Templi Orientis-Order of Eastern Templars states that BAPHOMET actually means Bapho-Mitras- or 'son of Mithras' and that Masons admit readily that BAPHOMET is an ancient fertility god-and that Freemasonry itself is based on an ancient fertility cult religion.

Grant is quite famous for making elaborate claims that have no basis in reality. Even the fact that he claimed to be the head of the O.T.O. is false (he was expelled from the O.T.O. in the 1950's).

Grant died this past January, and also unfortunately can't be emailed for comment.

The Supreme Masonic leader of the Scottish Rite in the 19th century Albert Pike also clearly equates Freemasonry with "the occult sciences" .."

That's true (at least sort of), but has nothing to do with what I originally said, namely, that the Hall quote given was fake.

reply to post by Masonic Light

Hi Masonic Light -

I'm not sure how disreputable Mr Kenneth Grant actually was (as you claim) when he in fact held his top Masonic post back in the1950s (you seem to think he was some kind of Masonic criminal), but he certainly did get it wrong when he claimed that the term BAPHOMET actually meant 'son of Mithras' when it clearly derives its coded name via an ATBASH Gematria Cipher (Hebrew Gematrial reverse lettering) from the Greek term SOPHYA (i.e. the goddess of 'wisdom' or 'occult-esoteric knowledge')...

I don't know of any Masonic writings penned by actual Freemasons which out and out claim that BAPHOMET was the same creature as the Christian Satan-Devil, as I am sure you would agree...

But that 'Baphomet' (despite his rather eerie looking goat face-body, forehead-pentagram and horns, female breasts and cadeuceus notwithstanding) was seen as an emblem of personal 'Illumination and Wisdom' (i.e. SOPHIA) couched as he is in the ancient 'pagan' (i.e. preChristian) imagery of solar worship (Dec 22 being Capricorn's birth, the 'goat' therefore an emblem of the sun-god, the god of light etc.) with all of its dualist overtones (and undertones) e.g. solve et coagula (with one arm raised and one arm lowered, representing the sunrise/sunset as well as the seasonal changes of winter (shorter days- down) and summer (longer days - up) also see the figure of the Christ in Leonardo da Vinci's 'Last Supper' fresco secco, c. 1497 which displays a similar up-down hand motion)

Are you of the opinion that BAPHOMET was NOT a positive 'Illuminatory' Masonic Symbol esp. post 33 degree rituals? I'm not sure where you actuall stand on this whole issue...though it appears that you are something of an apologist for the masons in some form, to judge from the language of your posts...unless I am mis-reading them !

Originally posted by Sigismundus
I'm not sure how disreputable Mr Kenneth Grant actually was (as you claim) when he in fact held his top Masonic post back in the1950s (you seem to think he was some kind of Masonic criminal)

I'm not familiar with Grant, but from my brief searching, I've seen nobody claim he was a Mason. In fact, the articles I found suggested he was the one who removed some of the more Masonic structures from the OTO.

When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. - Hall, "Lost Keys of Freemasonry", p. 48

Nothing there about Baphomet.

Lucifer is a representation of Baphomet, we all know this. From the bible Lucifer is the morning star.
Why are you hiding the truth ?

reply to post by JoshNorton

Hi Josh Norton

I hear ya. Here’s some of the often tedious & cumbersome background to the rather messy 'egocentric' history of the ‘authority figures’ of the OTO since its formation in the early 20th century…

The Ordo Templi Orientis was apparently founded before 1902 by persons going by the names of Karl Kellner (‘INNER Head’) and Theodore Reuss (the latter called himself Merlin as its ‘OUTER Head’) in Germany, with a mailing address in Lugano, Switzerland by 1917…

Prior to the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, O.T.O. "traditional" history claims that they were descended from some members of the Weishaupt Illuminati of the 1770s & also (like many another group !) the Crusading Order of Knights Templar of the 11th century – though we all wonder how true any of these claims actually are …many other organizations also claim as much but without any hard evidence to back it up…so one never knows how true these claims ever are…

Ordo Templi Orientis under Theodor Reuss, Outer Head of the Order (O.H.O.), was predominantly a Masonic organization, claiming ties with the Scottish Rite as its primary Masonic credential…but by 1922 was said to have been disputed and later ‘disproved…’ – again one wonders about the full or actual truth of these links …especially when we are dealing with ‘secret’ societies…

As early as 1912, the OTO had boldly claimed to have ‘absorbed’ numerous smaller Masonic Lodge like organizations , including the Gnostic Catholic Church, The Order of the Knights of the Holy Ghost, The Order of the Illuminati, The Order of the Temple, The Order of the Knights of St. John, The Order of the Knights of Malta, The Order of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, The Hidden Church of the Holy Grail, The Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, The Holy Order of Rose Croix of Heredom, The Order of the Holy Royal Arch of Enoch, The Antient and Primitive Rite of Masonry, The Rite of Memphis, The Rite of Mizraim, The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Masonry, The Swedenborgian Rite of Masonry, The Order of Martinists and the Order of the Sat Bhai as well as several other tiny splinter lodges, some of which had less than a half-dozen actual members !
Scottish Rite and other Masons were granted membership in O.T.O. degrees by direct recognition of Masonic degrees already held…Theodor Reuss became ill and resigned as Head of the O.T.O. in 1921 e.v., dying in the next year.

The infamous Aleister Crowley was the 'designated successor' to the Headship of the international O.T.O., & his claim was apparently confirmed by all the 10th Degree National Heads.

Crowley ostensibly served as the 'Outer Head' of the OTO from 1922 until his death on 5 December of 1947…and in accord with his ‘express’ wishes, a German-born gentleman by the name of Karl Germer became International Head of O.T.O., serving from late 1947 until Germer's death in 1962 after which the Lodge OTO ceased to hold regular Lodge Meetings (well, as far as anyone knows, that is...)

Grady McMurtry, the USA national master of O.T.O. with apparent ‘charters’ from Aleister Crowley, attempted to convince Germer of the need of getting the O.T.O. back to regular meetings and assemblies – Herr Germer apparently authorized McMurtry to form a nucleus of new O.T.O. public access.

Apparently shortly afterwards, Germer and McMurtry had a falling out over money; McMurtry had to go to Washington DC and look for work.

Germer did not expel McMurtry or revoke any of McMurtry's charters he took from Crowley. Following Karl Germer's death in 1962 years passed before the issue of Succession as to who exactly should head up the O.T.O. was actually addressed.

Germer had died without designating a successor; and some ranking members, including Grady McMurtry, were not notified of his death for years.

Hmmm !

Metzger in Switzerland claimed to be the Head of the OTO but this claim was based on an unnoticed election represented to have been held in Switzerland. Ranking members of O.T.O. were not informed of Metzger's purported election until after the alleged fact. Metzger was not generally accepted as Head of the Order outside his own group.

Kenneth Grant also asserted a claim to being Head of the O.T.O., but this was done after Germer had expelled Grant from OTO Membership. In later years, Marcello Motta, a former student of Karl Germer, also asserted that HE (Motta) was the actual Head of O.T.O.

Kenneth Grant (born in England) as asserted head of the OTO began to attract adherents in the US apparently - the "Grant O.T.O." supporters alleged that O.T.O. had ceased to be a membership organization in its traditional sense of having separate ‘Lodges’ and meetings.

Grant's adherents occasionally publish newsletters in the name of O.T.O. and in support of Grant's claim to being the Head of O.T.O. Grant's supporters also asserted (and still do assert) that O.T.O. should not have legal existence in the sense of incorporation or ‘legal association’.

Kenneth Grant's representative in the USA has been changed an unknown number of times.

Grant asserted that Karl Germer was acting improperly when Germer expelled Grant from O.T.O. in the 1950s and that Grant never recognized Germer as paramount in O.T.O.

This assertion is flatly contradicted by Grant's own "Manifesto of New Isis Lodge":

"New Isis Lodge is in accord with the Master Therion (a Past Grand Master of O.T.O.); with the present Master S.'., who is World-Head of O.T.O. in th Outer, and who operates in the United States of America; and with the aforementioned Lodge in Germany controlled by the Master G.'.", p. 6, (S.'. = Frater Saturnus, Karl Germer).

Some former adherents of Grant have become estranged from him and have asserted that they are independent O.T.O. leaders on their own.

So... I suppose... as I said in my earlier post, one can view Kenneth Grant's claim to legitimate head of the OTO in different ways, depending on what side of the OTO fence you happen to be on…!

I noticed that very often certain of these Societies tend to confuse the ‘Thelemic’ sex-magick ‘religion’ of Aleistair Crowley with the OTO/Ordo Templi Orientis, - interestingly so, since many of Crowley's writings on Thelema have been published under the auspices & with the watermarks of the O.T.O.

One common practice has been the formulation of names for new occult societies with acronyms similar to O.T.O, e.g. O.T.A. for Ordo Templi Astarte, O.T.B. for Ordo Templi Baphometis – which brings BAPHOMET back into our discussion…

To which we shall return, post haste !!

reply to post by Sigismundus


That's all fine and good, but has nothing to do with your claim that Grant held a "top Masonic post in the 1950s".

reply to post by JoshNorton

Hi Josh -

Read my post once more in detail to see what I am talking about - I suppose it all depends on your point of view when 'the rubber hits the road' -- viz. how one actually regards Kenneth Grant's claims of OTO leadership and authority - he certainly had many loyal followers who DID believe that he DID head up the OTO even after his 'apparent dismissal' by Karl Germer in the 1950s...but then personal ego plays a big role in these secret organisations, and one can never be sure how much that has come down to us as 'facts' are nothing more than face-saving smoke and mirrors...

It's akin to arguing that King Richard II was still 'the Rightefull Kinge of England' even after Henry Bollingbroke had defeated him at Shrewsbury - many persons then living back in those days still believed his cousin Henry IV to be an usurper despite the pedigree of his lineal descent from Edward III...de jure v. de facto...

I'm not sure how much solid hard facts can be gleaned (i.e. really known 'for sure') about who actually headed up the the 'inner' and 'outer' divisions of the O.T.O. in the early 1950s - since the OTO was after all a highly elitist and 'above top secret' type of Masonic 'Mystical' Lodge organisation' and certainly had its own internal struggle for power even while the infamous Crowley was still alive - and certainly after the death of Karl Germer in 1962 , several years had apparently passed before the OTO officially deccided upon the actual succession - and I suppose only the inner circle of initiates would know its exact composition not only of members but also of its weird heirarchy (inner v. outer circles, 'wheels within wheels', etc.)...

I myself would be very open to subscribe to the possibility (at least) that Kenneeth Grant was still in possession of some top 'authority claims' in certain key ('hidden'?) circles within the OTO - that is about as much as I would admit, since I am not privy to the inner circle of the inner heads of that organisation, and I cannot be sure the official history is in any way representative of hard facts (common enough with secret organisations such as the OTO who like to dandle about red-herrings to keep their internal secrets...well, secret !

It is akin to the schismatic issues within primitive stages of the formation of the new religion of Islam, in terms of who was to be its leader immediately after the death of Muhammed (hence the Shiya and Sunni split over which party was the 'authoritative' and 'legitimate' leader...which is very much like the same 'legitimacy' issue concerning 'that Bastard and Usurper Elizabeth I' in the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of Catholic supporters of Mary Stuart aka The Queen of Scots over her 'rightfull succession' to the throne of England back in the mid-16th century...

But I suspect you probably won't be able see any of this the way I do...

Originally posted by pepsi78
From Oxford dictionary.

Origin of the word:

oxforddictionaries.com...
Origin:

Late Middle English (in the sense ‘translation’): from French, or from medieval Latin versio(n-), from Latin vertere 'to turn'

Or from medieval Latin Version

Wow. The English translation of a word in French. What is the LATIN word for version? Oh, right, there is none.

reply to post by Sigismundus


But the OTO is not and has never been a Masonic organization. It may have borrowed bits of Masonic structure, and perhaps even ritual, but that doesn't make it Masonic. So Grant was never a Mason, and you've shown no evidence that he ever set foot in a Masonic lodge.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

It's from medieval Latin with the "O" with a cap on it, that is a Latin character.

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's from medieval Latin with the "O" with a cap on it, that is a Latin character.

But the definition is of an ENGLISH word (taken from the French), not Latin. They only give the etymology, not a Latin definition. Want to know why? Because there is no Latin word for 'version' otherwise you would have posted it by now.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's from medieval Latin with the "O" with a cap on it, that is a Latin character.

But the definition is of an ENGLISH word (taken from the French), not Latin. They only give the etymology, not a Latin definition. Want to know why? Because there is no Latin word for 'version' otherwise you would have posted it by now.

It's not french, it's english or french or Latin.

Can't you read ? or medieval Latin

O with a hat on is from classical latin alphabet.

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's not french, it's english or french or Latin.

Can't you read ? or medieval Latin

Let me help you.

You are using the Oxford ENGLISH Dictionar (notice the emphasis on English).

The Oxford ENGLISH Dictionary is used to define words in what language?

(I will give you a few minutes to ponder this)

The answer, since you are undoubtably stumped, is ENGLISH.

When you want to define a word in LATIN, what type of dictionary would you use?

Right! A LATIN dictionary. Sort of like Cassell's LATIN Dictionary where the defintion of the word 'version' is????

Hmmmm, not what you said. I wonder, why is that?

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

The word is from Medieval Latin, it's the origin of the word.
Additionaly the word has a cap on the "O" this can be found in the Classical Latin dictionary, not that we needed it, it states clear from medieval Latin

Originally posted by pepsi78
The word is from Medieval Latin, it's the origin of the word.

I think you may be finally starting to understand. The ORIGIN of a word is not the DEFINITION of a word. Particularly when the defined word comes AFTER the originating word. Meanings change, new words are invented, like 'version'. Follow?

You may carry on with your unmitigated ignorance regarding Latin.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


It's what adversary means, to add another version.
To add another version is to turn everything upside down as it was "not the original version"
It's what the criminal fascist ruling party, "masonry included "part of the roman empire criminal rule did . Now we have to search for the facts bit by bit just to find out the truth.

Originally posted by pepsi78
It's what adversary means, to add another version.

No, it does not.

It literally means in Latin 'to turn toward'. This is a literary fact and is not disputable.

To add another version is to turn everything upside down as it was "not the original version"

Your premise is flawed as it is based on an erroneous arguement. See above.

It's what the criminal fascist ruling party, "masonry included "part of the roman empire criminal rule did . Now we have to search for the facts bit by bit just to find out the truth.

I see you have completely abandoned using facts and reason and are allowing your personal sentiments to influence what you believe to be the truth. It looks like it is almost time for another one of your non-sequitur Star Wars or Star Trek references guised as 'evidence'. Keep up the good work Darth Ceausescu.

reply to post by JoshNorton

Hi again, Josh--

Aleister Crowley used to claim that the OTO originated in Germany as a later offshoot of 'Rosicrucian' Masonry (18th Degree) from the late 18th century - but he freely admitted that (at least after 1918) the OTO had begun to move on beyond the confines of its Mother Lodge.

So I guess the answer is both YES and NO...in other words, it is more of a Semantic discussion.

Weirdly, perhaps, it seems clear that if the OTO is NOT actually in fact a ‘Masonic Order’ i.e. ipso facto, its Members have first to be Initiated Masons, and apparently highly initiated Masons are the only ones who can ever be allowed membership into the OTO organisation.

The actual (i.e. literal) ‘Masonic Constitution’ of the OTO is hard to define exactly – it’s a little like saying Massachusetts is NOT technically a State of the United States (which it literally is not) since, like Pennsyvlania, Virginia & Kentucky, it is a ‘Commonweatlh’ and does NOT style itself a ‘State’ although it partakes in all things that States partake in - that is as part of the United States of America etc..

Confusingly there are also other ‘states’ in the US also refer to themselves as ‘Commonwealths’ interchangeably with the term ‘State’

e.g. Vermont which uses the term "Commonwealth" 3 times in its own 'State Constitution', Delaware also called itself a "Commonwealth" in its 1776 Constitution, but also calls itself a 'State' interchangeably with 'Commonwealth'.

So I guess the answer to the question: 'Is Massachusetts Really a State' would be both YES and NO.

Again, a Semantic Disscussion more than anything else.

It is nearly as messy when dealing with the actual literal 'Masonic status' of the O.T.O., since by 1912, the system of O.T.O., despite its various occult influences, remained ‘Principally Masonic’ according to their own writings, but as Reuss (one of the OTO founders) also admitted, in the Jubilee Edition of the Oriflamme, the O.T.O. "is not technically a Masonic order, pure and simple, but every member of our Order, man or woman must proceed through the Masonic Craft Degrees of Free-Masonry and also those of high-grade Freemasonry, before they themselves can be Illuminated and initiated members of our Order."

Hmmm…

Aleister Crowley included the following statement in his Manifesto of the M∴M∴M∴:

“The O.T.O., although an ‘Academia Masonica’, is not actually a Masonic Body so far as the Craft degrees are concerned, that is to say, in the sense in which that Expression is usually understood in England.

Therefore the OTO in no way conflicts with, or infringes the just privileges of, the United Grand Lodge of England. “

So what does one make of … ‘the OTO is not actually a Masonic Body…in the sense in which that Expression is usually understood in England..’ ?

Sounds like Double Speak. Or more Semantics.

Not to go too far off the point here, but perhaps the situation with the ‘authority of Ken Grant’ within his place in the OTO and within the schema of larger World Masonry can be seen to be largely semantic – perhaps akin to the thorny situation of ‘authority’ that haunted all the various different ‘Christianities’ that existed in the 1st five centuries AD - including some of the the Gnostic (‘Marcionite’) Christian Churches who regarded the clan god of the Jews as an evil Demi-Urge who created the ‘evil material world’ out of lust and was NOT the ‘same loving god as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ…’ or the Torah Abiding Ebionite Nazoreans Messianic Christians who operated out of Jerusalem (prior to 70 CE) whose Bishops (Aram. ‘Mebaqqqerim’ / Gk. Epi-scopoi, lit. ‘overseers’) were chosen out of the blood relatives of ‘iesous’.

And then there was the uncomfortable gentile loving splinter-groups headed up by Saul of Tarsus (aka ‘Paul’), who was in the habit of calling himself an ‘Apostle (apostolos) of Christos Iesous’ -- a man whom he never ever met in person, and who fought bitterly with the blood relatives of ‘Iesous’ (e.g. James, the ‘Lord’s Brother’ in Jerusalem over doctrinal issues (mainly over circumcision and keeping the Kashrut diet) – see Galatians chapter 2, where this ‘Paul’ the self-appointed apostle, called James and Simon Peter (‘Kephah’) ‘those so-called Pillars’…

Even the author of the Apocalypse of Yohanon the Levite (aka ‘Book of Revelation’) mentiones ‘those who run around calling themselves Apostles, but are not, but are of the Synagogue of Satan…’ see Rev 2:2)
And yet, even though ‘Saul/Paul’ did not receive an official Charter from the original Christian churches, 97% of all Christian Churches to-day are in fact ‘Pauline Christian churches’ i.e. followers of his own peculiar theology…
Clearly, this Paul person had splintered off on his own from the original Jerusalem ‘Church of the 12’ in order to preach to the god-fearing goyim a kind of heretical ‘Salvation by Faith in Christ Alone’ doctrine (i.e. open to Diaspora goyim without Torah obedience), in opposition to the ‘Salvation by Works of the Torah’ doctrines of the Nazorean 'Followers of the Way' in Jerusalem headed up by the Daviddic blood relatives of ‘Iesous’ (most were wiped out by 70CE following the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome) leaving the ‘Paulinists’ alive and well and able to promulgate his own ‘heresy’…

So technically, one could say that what we to-day call ‘Pauline Christianity’ is technically not ‘Nazorean-Jesian,’ but there would be a lot of persons who would vehemently argue the point (especially those who believe ‘the authority to preach’ comes from ‘dreams and visions’…and not by official charters from ‘founding members of the family of Iesous’ etc.

So to answer the Question, is Pauline Christianity to be considered 'Jesian' (i.e. derived from 'Iesous') the answer would be again, YES and NO. Again, Semantics...

But back to the OTO and the Masons. I suppose it depends on what you consider a Mason to be (is there a stricter/narrower Definition AND a wider more general One? Some Masons would undoubtedly say, OH YES there IS...!)

We noted that on 17 July 1920, Reuss (one of the OTO founders) attended the Congress of the "World Federation of Universal Freemasonry," held at the Libertas et Fraternitas Lodge in Zürich ostensibly intended to investigate the work of Papus's "International Masonic and Spiritualist Conference" held in Paris in 1908.

Reuss, with Bricaud's authorization, advocated the adoption of the religion of Crowley's Gnostic Mass as the "official religion for all members of the World Federation of Universal Freemasonry in possession of the 18° of the Scottish Rite."

But apparently, Reuss's efforts failed to get the other Masonic heads to agree and he fought with Matthew McBlain Thomson (who was elected Honorary President of the International Masonic Federation) over the OTO’s actual jurisdictional issues….

So..does it follow that immediately after the fight between Reuss and McBlain in 1920, the OTO ‘automatically ceased’ to be part of World Masonry ?

As you know Reuss died in 1921 – shortly after the argumeent with McBlain…and Aleister Crowley took over until his own death on 5 Dec 1947.

Aleister Crowley (who called himself 'BAPHOMET' and 'THE BEAST 666' among other charming epithets) joined the OTO in 1910 – here is a Transcript of a Masonic Document signed by certain chief London Masons (dated 29 Nov 1910) which shows that by that time Crowley had been granted the Degree of 33 in the Masonic Orders…and was by then already an OTO member…so he was part of BOTH worlds, it seems...


T. T. G. O. T. S. A. O. T. U. DEUS MEUMQUE IUS SPES MEA IN DEO EST

( Great Seal )

SUPREME GRAND COUNCIL OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS PRINCE OF THE ROYAL SECRET POST PUISSANT SOVEREIGN GRAND INSPECTORS GENERAL of the 33rd AND LAST DEGREE of the ANCIENT AND ACCEPTED RITE OF MASONRY H.R.D.M.

R.M.S.H. SITTING IN THE VALLEY OF MANCHESTER

PEACE - TOLERANCE - TRUTH

From the East of the SUPREME GRAND COUNCIL of the SOVEREIGN GRAND INSPECTORS GENERAL of the 33rd and last degree of the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Freemasonry in and for Great Britan and Ireland under G.L. near the D.B. coresponding to 53', 25" N. Latitude 2', 3" West Meridian of Greenwich.

To all Illustrious, Ineffable and Sublime FREEMASONS of every degree Around and [spread] over the surface of the Globe, Greetings:

HEALTH - PROSPERITY - FRATERNITY

KNOW YE - That the undersigned Sovereign Grand Inspectors General do hereby certify & proclaim, viz.

Our Illustrious Brother ALEISTER CROWLEY of *London* to be an Excellent Master Mason, Secret Master, Royal Master, Intimate Secretary,Provost and Judge,Intendant of the Building,Elect of Nine, Elect of Fifteen, Sublime Knight Elected, Grand Master Archetect, Ancient Master of the Royal Arch, Grand Elect Perfect and Sublime Mason, Knight of the Temple, Prince of Jerusalem, Knight of the East and West, Knight Rose Croix of Heredom, Grand Pontiff, Master ad Vitam, Patriarch Noachite, Prince of Libanus, Chief of the Tabernacle, Prince of the Tabernacle, Knight of the Brazen Serpant, Prince of Mercy, Commander of the Temple, Knight of the Sun, Knight of Saint Andrew, Grand Elect Knight Kadosh, Grand Inspector Inquisitor Commander, Prince of the Royal Secret, Most Puissant Sovereign Grand Inspector General of the 33rd and Last Degree.

WE ALSO COMMAND: All the Knights, Princes and Sublime Masons under our Jurisdiction and we pray all other MASONS over the Surface Of The Globe, to Welcome and Honor Him as a SOVEREIGN GRAND INSPECTOR GENERAL, and to give credit to these LETTERS PATENT, we have caused to be signed in the margin by our said Illustrious Bro. ALEISTER CROWLEY, that they admit no other than himself. Signed and Delivered by us SOVEREIGN GRAND INSPECTORS GENERAL of The 33rd and Last Degree with the Seal of our said SUPREME COUNCIL affixed in the Valley of Manchester this 29th day of the 11th month
A.M. 5071 coresponding to the 29th November, A.D. 1910.

+--------------+ +------------+ |
/S/_________________________ Ancient & (SEAL) [*]
John Yarker 33~ Accepted| M.P.S. Gr. Comm. of England | Scottish
Rite (SEAL)
(Foil Embossed) (Rubber Stamp) |
|
/S/__________________________ /S/_____________________________
[*] Rich Higham 33~ [*] Edward Yarker 33~
M.W. Chancellor of England W.^.Gr.^. Secretary of England
|
RATIFIED AND CONFIRMED &tc.

So there does seem to be quite a connexion between the OTO and Masonry the more one digs into it...just how to weigh up this connexion however is a matter of opinion...


NB: the sources for the Above were extracted from writings of Calvin C. Burt, W.B. Crow, Isaac Blair Evans, Antoine Faivre, S.E. Flowers, René Le Forestier, Joscelyn Godwin, Dr. J.A. Gottlieb, Ellic Howe, Francis King, Peter-Robert König, Helmut Möller, William G. Peacher, M.D., Martin P. Starr, John Symonds, M. McBlain Thomson, A.E. Waite, James Webb, and John Yarker, William Breeze, Martin P. Starr, Parsival Krumm-Heller, Soror Meral, Soror Grimaud, Lon Milo DuQuette, James T. Graeb, Bjarne Salling Pedersen & P.-R. König.

reply to post by Sigismundus

Self proclamation doesn't mean its true. At best they are quasi-Masonic, but not recognized.

Reuss is to said to have attended that Congress, but he failed at his goals and left after the first day. Although the only thing I've ever heard of "Universal Freemasonry" is tied to the hoax pushed out by Leo Taxil.

Aleister Crowley joined an irregular Scottish Rite organization. The Supreme Councils in the US did not recognize him as far as I know nor did any recognized Grand Lodge. I do believe that John Yarker, an associate of Crowley's, was expelled from Freemasonry for some of his actions. Also, anything I can find shows that Crowley went through the Mexican Scottish Rite at a time they were not recognized.

Yarker, old and with few allies left alive, welcomed Crowley with open arms, gladly recognizing his Mexican 33° and conferring upon him by patent dated 29 November 1910 6 the 33° of the irregular 'Cerneau' Scottish Rite, the legitimacy of whose claims Yarker had argued in print for decades; in addition, Yarker granted the equivalent degrees in the other 'fringe' Rites he controlled, the 95° of the Rite of Memphis and the 90° of the Rite of Misraim.

SOURCE