This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
User: FlagsofScarlet has been attempting on a couple of occasions to edit this article to suit their own POV, specifically removing mentions of religion, and attempting to downgrade the status of O.T.O. First time around I assumed Good Faith, and tried to work within their edits to improve the article, but this time the edits are so bad, both factually and stylistically, that I've been forced to simply revert, which is not something I like to have to do. FoS, please stop vandalising the article like this - please note that it has already attatined Good Article status, and we would like to keep it that way. If you disagree with the way the article is presented, please discuss proposed changes here before charging in again, ok? That way we can work together to keep things getting better instead of falling into a change/revert cycle. Thanks -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The following statement in the lead appears to be improper synthesis: "People have interpreted and applied Crowley’s work in widely different ways, sometimes leading to harsh disagreements." Sources do not appear to state this, but rather are used as examples of widely differing interpretations and of harsh disagreements. This appears to be improper synthesis or possibly original research. Article should not make claims that are not made by sources cited. -- Thiebes ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well, the book in #11 definitely talks about differing interpretations of Crowley, though I think someone has confused the issue by removing some of my page numbers at some point. The same book says roughly that many occultists consider the OTO evil -- that seems like a pretty harsh disagreement to me, and it seems related to those differing interpretations that the author mentions in the same chapter or anecdote (as well as earlier in the book). #10 deals in part with the identity of Aiwass but also with general disagreements among Thelemic orders. #12 deals with Crowley; it does try to minimize his role in the issue, but the writer says explicitly that "Rabelais is a convenient name to show that Crowley borrowed his ideas and was just one thread in much wider fabric." This work and the related speech from Sabazius (#32) state disagreements in what I'd call rather harsh terms (though still more politely than our banned friend Ek). Because of these latter points, I didn't think we needed much of a source for the clear existence of disagreement. Dan ( talk) 08:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose removing the claim that the Cakes of Light used in public EGC celebrations of the Gnostic Mass sometimes do not contain blood. This is inaccurate. All cakes must contain either fresh animal blood or burned human blood. I do not have a public source to cite at this time, however, the citation currently provided points to the instructions on how to make cakes (which is already covered in linked the "Cakes of Light" article) without offering any backing of the claims about OTO's use of them. Removing the false and uncited claim leaves no purpose for the current citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrPangloss ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the mention of the Gnostic Mass into the main paragraph on rituals, where I think it belongs, and trimmed out all the irrelevant fat. As others have mentioned, there's a link to the full Gnostic Mass article right there, and anyone interested in the GM can (and should) use that link. The entire section is now a lot clearer and more focused in my opinion. -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It looks like this source has been officially deemed non-notable, and the references to the source in the article seem kind of... irrelevant. Is it just me? Mind if I go ahead and clean this up? -- 71.236.167.39 ( talk) 07:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops, my login expired. The above was: -- Thiebes ( talk) 07:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
See now, the article has a lot to say about historical precedents (and rightly so) before it starts quoting Mahendranath. Mr. Gurudev goes further than that in promoting the view of the banned user who added him for this reason. He makes strong, disputed claims about Dashwood and the meaning of Thelema (I don't know about Asia). We've tried to fix this, but giving Mahendranath a section in "Historical use of the word Thelema" just doesn't work. Even the title in quotes there seems like a failed kludge, a valiant attempt to avoid taking a stand on who "Thelema" includes and who merely counts as a precedent, but an attempt that fails to describe the section under the title. And by the way, recent edits have inadvertently pushed the article even further in the banned user's direction by removing at least one credible alternate claim about Dashwood. (Though if we include the connection to Freemasonry, I think we have to add the Real True Masonic Lodge© disclaimer.) And is it just me, or does the paragraph break in Dashwood's section reduce the impact of the more scholarly and certain point about lack of evidence? Dan ( talk) 08:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not sure why the Randi "million dollar challenge" is mentioned in the article now. I have never considered his offer to be genuine, nor is it particularly relevant to the religion of Thelema - are we to insert this also into articles on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or every other religion that teaches that the divine can have a physical effect on the world? (As it happens, I once spent a day with James Randi, and it left me with major doubts about his sincerity, to say the least). -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello to all concerned. I'd like to suggest that the image opf the Universal Hexagram be moved into the introductory paragraph, which I believe has several advantages; firstly it provides immediate visual interest for the reader, secondly it is the commonly held symbol of this religion, and such symbols are virtually unanimously used in the introductory paragraphs of pages on religion in Wikipedia, and it would have more relevence here than in the section that it is currently in. I just wanted to celar it by all you first. ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC))
93 Greetings to all! I would like to consult regarding this sentence: “Thelema is a religion that uses three deities adopted from Ancient Egyptian religion, namely Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.”
I don't know if it's what the author had in mind, but it sounds like an implication that they are the only Godforms of Thelema. It doesn't sound right to me. Consider Aiwass, Ankh-af-na-khonsu, Babalon, Baphomet, Chaos, Choronzon, Heru-ra-ha (composed of Ra-Hoor-Khuit & Hoor-paar-kraat), Horus, Isis, Ma'at, Osiris, Pan, Therion, and so forth.
Has anyone got any any suggestions on what we should do about it? If no-one's got any objections, I'll probably edit the statement. Thank you for your attention. Frater Liberabit ( talk) 13:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 93 93/93
Do what thous wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I agree. Edit away as you see fit. My suggestion is that Thelemic ritual of the Gnostic Mass focuses on the 3 deities, as does the book of the law. Thelemic cosmology focues primarily on the 3 deities, but also includes concepts of the other deities as you stated. ?Perhaps that can be of use? (Ritual vs. Cosmology/World Map) I was just reading the wikipedia article for Hinduism and maybe the FORM should be changed as opposed to simply thinking about CONTENT. (i.e. The Hindu scriptures refer to celestial entities called Devas,... and the... are integral part of Hindu culture and are depicted in...). One could state that Thelema's sacred Book of the Law referes to the 3 deities, and the books 3 chapters form a three-fold concept of the universe or cosmology. Then state the use of other godforms as important to Thelemic practices (and some Thelema Holy Books... but your authority trumps mine brother). Just some suggestions, however, it seems as though to edit this one sentence really should require adding a substantial amount of language concerning deities. Heck, you could even speak to the ideas of duality in Thelemic thought as well as unity/theosis/etc. Love is the law, love under will. -KTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.8.250 ( talk) 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
93!
"A SUGGESTION":
In Thelemic religion (or "In Thelema as a religion") all forms of deity are subsumed into an ultimate source, or ultimate Deity, similar to
henotheistic worship, (cite: Brandy Williams, "Feminist Thelema" in NOTOCON VI: Beauty and Strength, Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial National Ordo Templi Orientis Conference, 2009, page 167
ISBN
1-4392-4734-X), and thus is difficult to differentiate from
Pantheism,
Monism, and
Monotheism. However, Thelemic religion may also be understood opposing monotheistic belief because the Thelemic tradition does not limit divine imagery to a single deity to the exclusion of all others. (Id, Pg. 168, "...Thelema includes a multiplicity of deities from multiple sources").
93/93
(What I hope to put forth in this suggestion is that when it comes to describing a relgious tradition as polytheistic, or montheistic, I believe Thelema resists both interpretations. A lot of Thelema's tradition resembles Western Hermeticism which contains NeoPlatonic and Platonic ideas. Thelemic ritual, also is not strictly polytheistic, or even triune as there is the concepts of 4 qabalistic worlds creating the one universe, the panthiestic and alchemical idea of the divine being present in all matter. Also, one might dive into other "ism"s and describe Thelema as kathenotheism a.k.a. worshiping one God at a time. Thelema has a cosmology that involves elements of montheism, but in devotional practices Thelemites hold sacred the Book of the Law which depicts Deity as Triune, and worship other Godforms in their spiritual meditations and ritual.) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.23.155.233 (
talk)
00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This new section was by me - John Mitchell - relating to my experiences in May of 2009, when I applied through the Court Officer of Lewes Crown Court to have Thelema recognised, as I – as a Thelemite, though not yet a member of the OTO - did not wish to take the Affirmation.
Below is an article I wrote for the Shemesh Lodge OTO publication, 'Sorath', which was published at the end of 2009, about my experiences.
Thelema in Court
During the last two weeks of May, 2009, I had the dubious honour of being picked for Jury Service by Her Majesty's Courts Service – it was originally set for last October, however being in Frankfurt on (my now ex) employer’s time setting up their book fair stand didn't really bode well so my service was deferred.
The paperwork sent to me put me onto the HMCS website, where besides all of the usual tedium of when to turn up and how the whole thing worked, there was the most unusual passage regarding the swearing of oaths: “When your turn comes you must either take an oath on a holy book of your choice, or affirm…” ( http://juror.cjsonline.gov.uk/all-about-the-trial/being-sworn-in/)
I thought to myself that “a holy book of my choice” was leaving themselves wide open, would they let me use The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy? The Story of O? Watchmen? Time to be more realistic, Wicca hasn't got a holy book (the Book of Shadows is more of a cookbook, with collected rituals and the odd bit of politicking by Gerald Gardner or Doreen Valiente to suit the times, plus quite a bit of Crowley), neither has ‘Jedi’ (I'm really sure that the Timothy Zahn Star Wars books wouldn't count).
Sadly, the affirmation is the most tedious bit of fluff going, “I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”, compared with the General Oath, “I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence" I thought that there must be some other way. At least the threat of being struck down by Almighty God might give Christians something to think about when finding someone guilty, so they make sure they’re making the right decision.
Personally, being Wiccan wouldn’t have got me anywhere – as I had already tried the argument of being a Wiccan High Priest, therefore a ‘Minister of Religion’ to get out of jury service, which failed miserably (someone at HMCS must have just laughed, as I got a ‘thank you for acknowledging your letter’ notice) – I would have just had to make the affirmation and lumped it, so after reading a book on the beginnings of Wicca and Crowley's part in it all, I thought I would try my luck with Thelema and in turn, get Liber Al recognised as a holy book.
I turned up at Court on my first day, with my copy of Liber Al stashed away in my rucksack with the relevant pages from the HMCS website and my query printed off. After the video I'd already sat through and my demeanour at the time, with my upcoming redundancy I went up to the court officer who had asked for any questions. I pointed out the relevant page and said (rather cheekily in the circumstances) that I was a Thelemite and asked if I could use The Book of the Law as a holy book to swear an oath upon. I was half expecting her to tell me to stop being so vexatious (the term used when someone’s trying to have the Prime Minister arrested for treason, for signing various EU treaties) and to sod off! However, surprisingly, she sounded interested in what I had to say. I explained all about Liber Al, Thelema and of course Aleister Crowley (from what limited knowledge I had, having read a fair bit but only recently coming into contact with Shemesh Lodge).
The first day on any jury service – unless you’re really unlucky and get picked for a case, which should have started the previous week – is lots of waiting around. None of the jurors know anyone so they don’t talk to each other. So I had plenty of opportunity to talk to the court staff. The court officer spent most of that day going back and forwards between one of the judges and me. Half way through the day, she asked if she could borrow Liber Al for the judge as he was really interested (it was good that the book has gold lettering and looks like a quality publication – well done OTO Publications!) Later, she asked if I could present some evidence on Thelema that could be put to the judge, while he had quite an interesting night, too.
That evening, I spent on the internet looking up everything I could on Thelema, Liber Al and the OTO. In the article, “Duty” by Crowley, one paragraph stood out, headed, Your Duty To Mankind:
“Crime being a direct spiritual violation of the Law of Thelema, it should not be tolerated in the community. Those who possess the instinct should be segregated in a settlement to build up a state of their own, so to learn the necessity of themselves imposing and maintaining rules of justice. All artificial crimes should be abolished. When fantastic restrictions disappear, the greater freedom of the individual will itself teach him to avoid acts, which really restrict natural rights. Thus real crime will diminish automatically.”
This, in itself is perfect as far as jury service is concerned as it gives the opinion that Thelemites give a damn as to what’s happening in the world.
About this time I’d just ventured onto Facebook and was seeing what all of the fuss was about when a friend request popped into my inbox from Lon Milo DuQuette (Facebook’s a funny thing!). I asked him what he thought of the subject – and if he saw Thelema as a religion, and he said, “As things are different over here, you’re best asking your lodge master”. So I did. Adrian said “go for it, as there’s nothing to stop you!”
On the second day I got some good feedback from the court officer – the Resident Judge (i.e. the Senior Circuit Judge, His Honour Judge Richard Brown) had agreed in principle, however, he still needed to see more evidence that Thelema was a religion (which of course, to some people, it is). I handed my research over. On the third day, I was called in for a case but by this time, firm plans hadn’t been sorted out so I – as I said I would originally – took the affirmation.
Day four beckoned, and I was handed a letter which said that if I got a case the week after, I could swear on Liber Al, providing I come up with a suitable oath. The oath had to involve deity otherwise it would not be recognised, so I came up with the following: “I swear upon Nuit and by my own True Will, that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”. This oath was then taken by the court officer and typed up onto one of the proper laminated cards that is used in court for the swearing of oaths.
The second week dawned with quite a large snag. The court officer and usher were both on holiday that week. Luckily, their stand-ins had been briefed about my oath – so I thought anyway. Another case came up, we were all ushered into the courtroom and the fifteen people were reduced to twelve for the jury. I was handed a copy of my oath card, and started to read the oath when the QC for the Prosecution started to object, as neither he, his opposite number for the defence or the judge had been notified. A major legal argument ensued (with some much-needed amusement for the accused, as it took the heat off her for a bit) – about court procedure, etc. various old tomes were referred to on the matter. Luckily, the stand-in court officer had a copy of the letter from Mr Justice Brown to me, saying I could use the oath and swear on Liber Al. The sitting judge – Mr Justice Tain – ruled that if this is the case, HMCS should be notified so this sort of thing does not happen again to avoid any further embarrassment for Thelemites who are called up to jury service.
So there you have it… Liber Al, and Thelema (as well as Nuit) have been recognised by Her Majesty’s Court Service in our local area. I don’t know how it will work nationally, but surely what’s happened in Lewes – and Mr Justice Tain’s recommendation – should set a precedent in the rest of England and Wales. It remains to be seen. Of course, the only way it will get recognised nationally is if people use it and refer the court staff to Mr Justice Tain’s judgement (Lewes Crown Court, 27th May, 2009).
For a religion/philosophy that only came into existence in the early part of the twentieth century to be recognised by the courts is quite an achievement. Some people I’ve spoken to in the Order recognise what I’ve done as a worthwhile part of the Great Work. I’m more than happy with that.
© John Mitchell 78.147.154.8 ( talk) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Questions: Since when does a Thelemite need the affirmation of a restrictive establishment? And why should Thelema be pushed on to the ignorant public has a "religion"? For all we know this could be perceived as the Caliphate OTO attempting to manipulate the legal process for its own political agenda. Just plain arrogance.
"i'm baack"....-- 86.162.107.247 ( talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Currently awaiting Her Majesty's Court Service to update their website. They have some difficulty clarifying their information at the best of times. As soon as it is up there, I'll make sure a link is posted in the references.
John Mitchell 4 January 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.227.130 ( talk) 15:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Have received word from Her Majesty's Court Service (10-1-2011) to say that they are looking into having a list of all recognised religions on their website for Jury purposes. Once this is done, I will be able to provide a reference. Otherwise, all I have is Sorath (the Journal of Shemesh Lodge OTO, 2010 edition). John. Mitchelljohn93 ( talk) 10:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Done... will just need tweaking a tadge. Mitchelljohn93 ( talk) 11:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This section does not explain how it relates to the topic of the article. -- Thiebes ( talk) 10:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This Should NOT be on Wikiepedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.33.48 ( talk) 03:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I added this section today and have been working on it because I felt it should be here. I would like some opinions on it. I have the feeling it should be made a page all its own and put into the table of contents on the main Thelema page. However, I feel it may be a bit out of place on its own page. What do you think? FUTURI ( talk) 02:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
In 'Portable Darkness', a collection of excerpts of Crowly edited by Scott Michaelson, Crowley says that Aiwass contacted him *through his wife* in Egypt. This is hardly alluded to at all in the wikipedia article, which seems a serious omission, as a skeptic, or indeed any non-Thelemite would have reason to believe her contribution was at least the qual of Crowley's in the making of the text, seeing as the words came out of her mouth!
I think this issue needs mentioning in the article, and more than mentioning, highlighting, in the interests of neutrality and completion. What do you think? - h.b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.171 ( talk) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This section is useful but contains a list of names and publications of dubious legitimacy. In particular, several of the publications listed are Caliphate OTO lodge newsletters and, as such, are prone to heavy bias in favor of that particular brand of Thelema.
I propose that organizational newsletters listed in the article be only those officially sanctioned by the national or international headquarters of that particular organization. Without this stipulation what is to prevent every minor OTO body, HOOR temple, etc. from coming in here and listing their own publication for the sake of advertising their existence? Who will edit such content and will such edits appear to further promote bias? 24.119.74.180 ( talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This section describes [Israel Regardie]] as a "thelemic writer", implying that he regarded himself as a thelemite. On the contrary, in The Eye in the Triangle Regardie expresses scepticism about the origins of the Book of the Law, stating the opinion that Aiwass was an unconscious expression of Crowley's personality. I think it would therefore be more appropriate to describe Regardie as a writer on Thelemic topics (among more general occult writings) rather than a "thelemic writer".-- Smcg8374 ( talk) 08:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thelema isn't quite like the other hermitic religions. Personally, I equate Thelema with Crowley for the most part, and you know what Crowley was like, but some or most Thelemites don't, so here's what the good Book says about the whole thing—AL II, 18, 19, 20, 21, sealing these with “It is a lie, this folly against self” (II:22)—and that's just something to start with. The words quoted in the title may be misleading. Everything Is Numbers ( talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I hear many pronouncing 'Thelema' as 'thel uh muh', but in Greek the first 'e' is an epsilon & the second an eta; so shouldn't it be pronounced 'thuh lay muh' & Thelemite "Thuh lay might"? 74.209.54.156 ( talk) 16:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
After the constant removal of mention of the evident perfect anagram in AL 1,7 - "Aiwass the Minister" = "I sin, I was the Master" then I've asked an editor to clarify whether an evident perfect anagram in a text constitutes original research or not.
Dara Allarah ( talk) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I rewrote a section on second-hand books not being sold due to copyright ( dif). As far as I know, merely being second-hand doesn't allow copyright to be invoked to prevent a book from being sold. If the books were found to be stolen, or printed as a copyright infringement or something... but that's very different from what the article said. I don't have the printed source, but the online source is about copyright and trademark issues that don't seem to have anything to do with second-hand books. It seems like the gist of the section is that OTA and A∴A∴ protect their rituals and attempt to keep them somewhat private. That's probably true, but it should be better explained or better sourced. Grayfell ( talk) 21:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Just chiming into the "religion" debate. I found the quote "Thelema is essentially a polytheistic religion" to be confusing for several reasons: (1) the Book of the Law seems to stress unity (2) practioners of Thelema do not approach their devotion like other polytheistic faiths and (3) I have no darned clue what "essentially" would mean in this sentence. Anyone agree that this sentence adds confusing rather than adding to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 ( talk) 10:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. "Polythieism" from Wikipedia does not match the discription set forth in the "Thelema" article. As far as Wikipedia defines polytheism it says "The deities of polytheistic religions are agents in mythology, where they are portrayed as complex personages of greater or lesser status, with individual skills, needs, desires and histories" as well as "contrasts with monotheism, the belief in a singular God. Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally." (How many Thelemites have rituals JUST to one of the three "deities"? ...is there any foundation to assume that rituals to Hadit alone are done, or that conceptually that deity, or Nuit for that matter, functions on a singular basis like the deities in polytheistic religions?... how many myths only involve only one of the three Thelemic deities??) Excuse the step ahead, I mean no arrogant afront ("As brothers fight ye!" III:59) but I'm just going to go ahead and delete "polytheistic" if edits to the Thelema article are possible. (The three steps to the high altar are also NOT a good reason to call the ritual POLY-theim). If there is enough talk about adding it back in for good reasons, then please discuss and I trust it will be re-added into the Thelema article. Thanks to everyone contributing to this article, this article is genuinely informative. Love is the law, love under will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 ( talk) 16:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, one biased, non-academic book doesn't get to define religions, at least in Wikipedia. Care to find a source that explicitly notes it as such? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
To sum up, our system is a religion just so far as a religion means an enthusiastic putting-together of a series of doctrines, no one of which must in any way clash with Science or Magick. Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief.
Crowley, Magick Without Tears.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Thelema on wikipedia is stated as a "religion"? Proposed edit: Thelema contains religious and philosophical systems, as originally conceived in the writings of Aleister Crowley and the Book of the Law (Liber AL vel Legis). There appears no one write way to describe someone who is a "Thelemite" I agree with Futuri directly above. Readers here PROBABLY know at least a FEW people in our lives who espouse enthusiasm for the Book of the Law in VASTLY different ways (some religious, some VERY NOT SO). Some Thelemites explicitly hold themselves out as promulgators of the Law of Thelema, yet these individuals have no religious affiliation, no organized doctrine, and blatantly declare that there is no divinity or doctrine or holy "Truth"! (I think we do no wrong in calling someone who has no religion a Thelemite, See Liber Al vel Legis, Book One, Verse 40... okay: vague enough for you!?). What's even better yet is that if you look at doxa and proaxis (belief and practice), many "Thelemites" look and act drastically different, very much as if these Thelemites do not SHARE A RELIGION. ARARITA lodge states on THEIR homepage: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law! Our mission is to effect and promote the doctrines and practices of the philosophical and religious system known as Thelema, with particular emphasis on cultivating the ideals of individual liberty, self-discipline, self-knowledge, and universal brotherhood..." I simply believe stating in this article that Thelema is a religion sets up the reader to quizically ask themselves, "Well, what do Thelemites bleiev if they all share one religion?" This steers readers down a confusing path because Thelemites are NOT sharing a religion. If we were sharing it, then we wouldn't be following our Duty and the True Will. Instead, I believe it is more accurate to state what Thelemites DO SHARE: certain systems of practice and certain goals, but not a religious belief NOR A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Love is the law, love under will. - ktb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.200.250 ( talk) 13:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious that Thelema in a more general sense is a philosophy, but that when the philosophy is adopted by religious bodies such as the OTO then it becomes central to their religion. The 'Gods' are a mere literary convenience according to Crowley. Thelema is foremost a philosophy then, and only secondarily a religion when it is espoused by institutional bodies or groups such as churches - and I think they have no business trying to tell Thelemites that are not members of their church that they are practising a religion. Dara Allarah ( talk) A .'. —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to do edits because I do not know anything about the topic as such, but it strikes me that the first line ("Thelema (/θəˈliːmə/) is a religion based on a philosophical law of the same name [...]") may be served by linking to an article that actually mentions it; otherwise the implication is that Thelema is part of a system of philosophical laws (as opposed to "a law, in the philosophical sense, called Thelema"). Moreover, the line is further confused by the suggestion of a separate system of philosophical laws ([...] a philosophical law of the same name [...]), one of which is called Thelema, which is also the name of the law this article describes, as well as the religion.
Unclear to the point of obfuscation.
Noumegnos ( talk) 16:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Thelema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This may have been addressed and I could be wrong, but the central 5 pointed portion of the universal hexagram should be with a single point up. The current version is essentially upside down to Crowley's diagrams. For example, the cover of the 1st edition of Magick: http://www.lawbright.com/logdos/magick1.jpg and this original illustration: http://www.lawbright.com/logdos/magick2.jpg I suggest it be rotated to the form Crowley himself used. -- Solar ( talk) 19:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
JesseRafe; As per your request, I am respectfully responding on the talk page. What is the rationale for removing the sentence " Lon Milo DuQuette has written several books which analyze Crowley's system."? Many of the references in the article are from books he has written. That seems self-evident that he has written books "which analyze Crowley's system". You're not going to find a citation that says "DuQuette has written books analyzing Thelema" when the books themselves (and their titles) are evidence of that, and nearly anyone at all familiar with modern Thelema and the OTO is going to have heard of DuQuette. See: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue Also see: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed (specifically the part "Subject-specific common knowledge")
I'm not familiar with many of the people listed in the rest of what you removed, so fine, if you really feel that it should be removed, I don't have any real objection. Although I would think for much of it a citation, or alternatively a "citation needed" tag, would make more sense than deleting what many people would surely find as useful material, assuming that what is written is true.
The part about "The Neverending Story", sure, I suppose that is reasonable to remove, as it wasn't especially written in an encyclopedic tone.
I'm not sure what anyone could possibly find controversial about my edit correcting a wording error. A word was clearly left out, as the sentence simply didn't make sense the way it was written, so I'm not sure why you reverted both of my edits and not just the first one. Vontheri ( talk) 15:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Many Thelemites believe that, in one or more senses, Thelema is represented by at least one of these kinds of system, if not all or some combination thereof, insofar as it is expressed as a framework of ideas.
It reads awkwardly, IMHO, and is redundant anyway, as the previous paragraph adequately conveys the existence of a diversity of positions among Thelemites. 108.200.234.93 ( talk) 09:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove these paragraphs also, but I don't want to do so without consensus, as this edit would be more intrusive:
I understand the message that's trying to be conveyed, but I think this maybe can be re-worded into something more coherent. I think the sentiment of Thelema as a religion vs. philosophy is handled appropriately in the preceding paragraphs.
Numerous Thelemites also feel that, while essentially religious or spiritual, Thelema as a worldview may have meaningful implications for how its adherents view, relate to, and act with regard to culture, ethics, historiography, history, metaphysics, politics, psychology, psychospirituality, and society, including sociocultural or sociopolitical systems. Thelema is not monolithic: it has myriad, extremely diverse, and often conflicting interpretations, whether made by Thelemites themselves or non-adherents.
I think this addition was made by someone who is not a native English speaker, and that's OK, but these edits lack clarity and the language is confusing. It reads like something that has been translated from Mandarin into English. The use of the word "myriad" without being preceded by "a" is especially annoying. 108.200.234.93 ( talk) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I am reverting the revert by JesseRafe. There was no opinion in my edit. As can be seen on the article Scientology and the occult, there is legitimate scholarly debate as to whether or not Scientology was influenced by Thelema. For example, that article states "Hugh B. Urban, a scholar on religion who has written much about Scientology, writes that while some writers, such as Jon Atack, assert that Crowley's ideas on magic are at the core of Scientology, others, including Roy Wallis and J. Gordon Melton, have dismissed the connection between occultism and the Church." Additionally, note this scholarly article, which is cited on the page Scientology and the occult: http://nr.ucpress.edu/content/15/3/91 it states: "While some critics argue that Crowley's magic lies at the very heart of Scientology, most scholars have dismissed any connection between the Church and occultism."
It is documented fact that L. Ron Hubbard was involved with Thelema before starting Dianetics and Scientology. Whether or not he incorporated elements of Thelema and/or other occult philosophies into Scientology's doctrine is very much up for debate. Personally, I think it's quite obvious that aspects of Scientology were indeed influenced by Thelema, so if there is any opinion in my edit, it is an opinion contrary to my actual opinion! I feel that, in the interest of neutrality and presenting all legitimate viewpoints as held by scholars and experts on the subject, that it is necessary to add the word "arguably" to the last sentence of the introduction, because there definitely IS scholarly debate about this. Additionally, the article referenced (which was added by a previous edit of mine some number of months ago) does not explicitly state that Scientology was influenced by Thelema, but does go into great detail regarding L. Ron Hubbard's involvement with Thelema.
If you still have objection to my edit, what exactly is that objection? Is there anyone else who would care to weigh in on this, as well? 2600:1700:F640:4280:9D0A:FB18:E02F:5BA5 ( talk) 01:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Fine. Summarize it in one word as was afforded the other large branches of thought. We'll wait. 67.242.92.97 ( talk) 04:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Why not include Lord of the Rings on the Bible page? It is offensive and inappropriate to include one man's disputed research about this in the main summary of this page. It detracts significantly from an understanding of the rest of the article, and I have serious questions about the motives of anyone who would want Thelema associated with a cult like Scientology. Anyone who sees this referenced on the page should delete it unless these points are refuted. 74.70.156.130 ( talk) 22:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The broader point of what a work inspires not receiving such a position in its own article, stands. This information belongs on the Scientology page, and it is clear that its inclusion, where it is, is part of an ongoing unresolved controversy that has nothing to do with Thelema. 74.70.156.130 ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
For a long time the opening paragraph has only referred to Thelema as a philosophy, when, while it is a philosophy, it is primarily adhered to and practiced as a new religious movement. (NRM.) It is already a part of Wikiproject New Religious Movements and even Henrik Bogdan, a superior scholar of religions, among other scholars of religion and NRMs, refer to it as an NRM. (See Bogdan's discussion of it as an NRM in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements: Volume II, Ch. 4.) Therefore I added that it is an NRM in the opening paragraph.
Bodhisvaha5 ( talk) 21:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The article says: 'The Book of the Law states, "there is no god but man".' This quote is not from the Book of the Law, but from Liber OZ. I'm not sure whether Liber OZ was the first place to contain this sentence, but it certainly isn't from the Book of the Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGenesis ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The quote is from the "new comment" on III.60 in the Liber AL, which contains a section that is very similar, but not identical to, Liber OZ. I've corrected the attribution and added a citation, but the citation must be accessed through Wayback Machine and should be replaced with a better one if someone can find one. XenuTheSpacelord ( talk) 11:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was awarded GA status in 2008, back when Wikipedia's general standards were far beneath what they have since become. (The article was nominated by a German IP [7] while the editor who then gave it GA status, User:Jackturner3, has not edited since 2014.) Even at the time, its listing was controversial; User:Redblossom challenged the awarding of GA status at the Talk Page shortly after (archived here). Certainly, the article in its current form is nowhere close to GA quality. Large sections of it are completely unreferenced, and of the sources that are used, most appear to be primary, constituting either the writings of Crowley himself or of subsequent Thelemites. Virtually no academic publications are cited, despite the growing scholarly literature on this topic. All in all, this seems like a clear-cut case for de-listing. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The article in question contains long passages devoid of citations, some of which make claims that really need to be cited. One example is, "The Book of the Law can be taken to imply a kind of pantheism or panentheism" from the "God, deity, and the divine" section. This needs a scholarly source, or to be removed. Other passages like, "Thelemites differ widely in their views of the divine, and these views are often tied to their personal paradigms, including their conceptions of what demarcates objective and subjective reality, as well as falsehood and truth: some hold unique, or otherwise very specific or complex views of the nature of divinity, that are not easily explained; many are supernaturalists, claiming that the supernatural or paranormal in some way exist, and incorporate these assumptions into their spiritual practices in some way; others are religious or spiritual naturalists, viewing the spiritual or sacred—or whatever they feel is, or may be, in reality, analogous to them, or their equivalents—as identical to the material, natural, or physical." are possibly anecdotal and need scholarly citations, and also need a great deal of formatting help. This selection is possibly the worst run-on sentence I've ever seen. Because of citation and formatting issues, the article ought to be stripped of its GA status until it meets the new standards. XenuTheSpacelord ( talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
We don't need any more additions sourced only to primary sources - especially no more Crowley or Book of the Law quotations. That is not an improvement to the article, as the article needs more secondary sources. Please source all new material to secondary sources, such as those listed as such in the references. This article lost good article status because it got stuffed with that type of proselytizing, primary-sourced material. We need third-party observations and analyses, preferable academic, not more "in-universe" material.
Also, please follow the existing citation style. This article uses the {{ sfnp}} citation system, not the <ref> citation style. Please learn to use it as additions with other referencing styles may be reverted. Skyerise ( talk) 12:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't really like the wording of this heading but can't come up with anything I like better. Post-Crowleyan is definitely worse. Skyerise ( talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I moved the right-facing image back to the left where I put it. It's standard design that people's portraits should not look out of the page, but rather into it. It's in the image use policy. And I removed that weaselly written Urban bit again... Some this and some that without saying who the some are. Needs to be rewritten in a non-weaselly way. I don't think it's really very important and we should really have two sources for it if Urban isn't any more specific than that. Pretty sure it means the OTO says one thing but non-OTO Thelemites think they are daft. If that's what he's saying, let's not beat around the bush. And if he was too chicken to be explicit, but just weasels around it, let's either find another source that actually says it or leave it out. Skyerise ( talk) 11:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I moved the new portrait of Crowley so it was below the info box. I'm not certain where I placed it is necessarily an improvement though (it resulted in a bunch of white space) but I don't really know how to work with the picture elements so feel free to improve this. Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 09:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The claim that "every man and every woman is a star" refers to the "body of light," needs a citation, as well as the claim that Plato said that the "body of light" was composed of the same stuff as stars. Likewise, the particular interpretation of "Love is the law, love under will," is not universal in Thelema, and needs a citation. These two claims contradict the way Crowley himself explains these principles in the commentary on the Liber AL, which in and of itself is fine, but only so long as the particular interpretation written is noteworthy and cited. Writing here instead of editing the page in case citations for these claims do exist, and other editors consider them appropriate to the page. As it stands, these claims seem both unfounded and irrelevant to the page, so I recommend removing these claims if no citations are added, or if the citation sources are deemed irrelevant to the page, within some appropriate timeframe. XenuTheSpacelord ( talk) 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
His association to Thelema and his invention of "English Qaballa" seems very dubious in this article. Infact, the James Lees section doesn't link him to Thelema or Crowley, at all. Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 12:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
User: FlagsofScarlet has been attempting on a couple of occasions to edit this article to suit their own POV, specifically removing mentions of religion, and attempting to downgrade the status of O.T.O. First time around I assumed Good Faith, and tried to work within their edits to improve the article, but this time the edits are so bad, both factually and stylistically, that I've been forced to simply revert, which is not something I like to have to do. FoS, please stop vandalising the article like this - please note that it has already attatined Good Article status, and we would like to keep it that way. If you disagree with the way the article is presented, please discuss proposed changes here before charging in again, ok? That way we can work together to keep things getting better instead of falling into a change/revert cycle. Thanks -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The following statement in the lead appears to be improper synthesis: "People have interpreted and applied Crowley’s work in widely different ways, sometimes leading to harsh disagreements." Sources do not appear to state this, but rather are used as examples of widely differing interpretations and of harsh disagreements. This appears to be improper synthesis or possibly original research. Article should not make claims that are not made by sources cited. -- Thiebes ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, well, the book in #11 definitely talks about differing interpretations of Crowley, though I think someone has confused the issue by removing some of my page numbers at some point. The same book says roughly that many occultists consider the OTO evil -- that seems like a pretty harsh disagreement to me, and it seems related to those differing interpretations that the author mentions in the same chapter or anecdote (as well as earlier in the book). #10 deals in part with the identity of Aiwass but also with general disagreements among Thelemic orders. #12 deals with Crowley; it does try to minimize his role in the issue, but the writer says explicitly that "Rabelais is a convenient name to show that Crowley borrowed his ideas and was just one thread in much wider fabric." This work and the related speech from Sabazius (#32) state disagreements in what I'd call rather harsh terms (though still more politely than our banned friend Ek). Because of these latter points, I didn't think we needed much of a source for the clear existence of disagreement. Dan ( talk) 08:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose removing the claim that the Cakes of Light used in public EGC celebrations of the Gnostic Mass sometimes do not contain blood. This is inaccurate. All cakes must contain either fresh animal blood or burned human blood. I do not have a public source to cite at this time, however, the citation currently provided points to the instructions on how to make cakes (which is already covered in linked the "Cakes of Light" article) without offering any backing of the claims about OTO's use of them. Removing the false and uncited claim leaves no purpose for the current citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrPangloss ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the mention of the Gnostic Mass into the main paragraph on rituals, where I think it belongs, and trimmed out all the irrelevant fat. As others have mentioned, there's a link to the full Gnostic Mass article right there, and anyone interested in the GM can (and should) use that link. The entire section is now a lot clearer and more focused in my opinion. -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It looks like this source has been officially deemed non-notable, and the references to the source in the article seem kind of... irrelevant. Is it just me? Mind if I go ahead and clean this up? -- 71.236.167.39 ( talk) 07:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops, my login expired. The above was: -- Thiebes ( talk) 07:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
See now, the article has a lot to say about historical precedents (and rightly so) before it starts quoting Mahendranath. Mr. Gurudev goes further than that in promoting the view of the banned user who added him for this reason. He makes strong, disputed claims about Dashwood and the meaning of Thelema (I don't know about Asia). We've tried to fix this, but giving Mahendranath a section in "Historical use of the word Thelema" just doesn't work. Even the title in quotes there seems like a failed kludge, a valiant attempt to avoid taking a stand on who "Thelema" includes and who merely counts as a precedent, but an attempt that fails to describe the section under the title. And by the way, recent edits have inadvertently pushed the article even further in the banned user's direction by removing at least one credible alternate claim about Dashwood. (Though if we include the connection to Freemasonry, I think we have to add the Real True Masonic Lodge© disclaimer.) And is it just me, or does the paragraph break in Dashwood's section reduce the impact of the more scholarly and certain point about lack of evidence? Dan ( talk) 08:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not sure why the Randi "million dollar challenge" is mentioned in the article now. I have never considered his offer to be genuine, nor is it particularly relevant to the religion of Thelema - are we to insert this also into articles on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or every other religion that teaches that the divine can have a physical effect on the world? (As it happens, I once spent a day with James Randi, and it left me with major doubts about his sincerity, to say the least). -- Rodneyorpheus ( talk) 12:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello to all concerned. I'd like to suggest that the image opf the Universal Hexagram be moved into the introductory paragraph, which I believe has several advantages; firstly it provides immediate visual interest for the reader, secondly it is the commonly held symbol of this religion, and such symbols are virtually unanimously used in the introductory paragraphs of pages on religion in Wikipedia, and it would have more relevence here than in the section that it is currently in. I just wanted to celar it by all you first. ( Midnightblueowl ( talk) 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC))
93 Greetings to all! I would like to consult regarding this sentence: “Thelema is a religion that uses three deities adopted from Ancient Egyptian religion, namely Nuit, Hadit and Ra-Hoor-Khuit.”
I don't know if it's what the author had in mind, but it sounds like an implication that they are the only Godforms of Thelema. It doesn't sound right to me. Consider Aiwass, Ankh-af-na-khonsu, Babalon, Baphomet, Chaos, Choronzon, Heru-ra-ha (composed of Ra-Hoor-Khuit & Hoor-paar-kraat), Horus, Isis, Ma'at, Osiris, Pan, Therion, and so forth.
Has anyone got any any suggestions on what we should do about it? If no-one's got any objections, I'll probably edit the statement. Thank you for your attention. Frater Liberabit ( talk) 13:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 93 93/93
Do what thous wilt shall be the whole of the Law. I agree. Edit away as you see fit. My suggestion is that Thelemic ritual of the Gnostic Mass focuses on the 3 deities, as does the book of the law. Thelemic cosmology focues primarily on the 3 deities, but also includes concepts of the other deities as you stated. ?Perhaps that can be of use? (Ritual vs. Cosmology/World Map) I was just reading the wikipedia article for Hinduism and maybe the FORM should be changed as opposed to simply thinking about CONTENT. (i.e. The Hindu scriptures refer to celestial entities called Devas,... and the... are integral part of Hindu culture and are depicted in...). One could state that Thelema's sacred Book of the Law referes to the 3 deities, and the books 3 chapters form a three-fold concept of the universe or cosmology. Then state the use of other godforms as important to Thelemic practices (and some Thelema Holy Books... but your authority trumps mine brother). Just some suggestions, however, it seems as though to edit this one sentence really should require adding a substantial amount of language concerning deities. Heck, you could even speak to the ideas of duality in Thelemic thought as well as unity/theosis/etc. Love is the law, love under will. -KTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.177.8.250 ( talk) 20:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
93!
"A SUGGESTION":
In Thelemic religion (or "In Thelema as a religion") all forms of deity are subsumed into an ultimate source, or ultimate Deity, similar to
henotheistic worship, (cite: Brandy Williams, "Feminist Thelema" in NOTOCON VI: Beauty and Strength, Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial National Ordo Templi Orientis Conference, 2009, page 167
ISBN
1-4392-4734-X), and thus is difficult to differentiate from
Pantheism,
Monism, and
Monotheism. However, Thelemic religion may also be understood opposing monotheistic belief because the Thelemic tradition does not limit divine imagery to a single deity to the exclusion of all others. (Id, Pg. 168, "...Thelema includes a multiplicity of deities from multiple sources").
93/93
(What I hope to put forth in this suggestion is that when it comes to describing a relgious tradition as polytheistic, or montheistic, I believe Thelema resists both interpretations. A lot of Thelema's tradition resembles Western Hermeticism which contains NeoPlatonic and Platonic ideas. Thelemic ritual, also is not strictly polytheistic, or even triune as there is the concepts of 4 qabalistic worlds creating the one universe, the panthiestic and alchemical idea of the divine being present in all matter. Also, one might dive into other "ism"s and describe Thelema as kathenotheism a.k.a. worshiping one God at a time. Thelema has a cosmology that involves elements of montheism, but in devotional practices Thelemites hold sacred the Book of the Law which depicts Deity as Triune, and worship other Godforms in their spiritual meditations and ritual.) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.23.155.233 (
talk)
00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This new section was by me - John Mitchell - relating to my experiences in May of 2009, when I applied through the Court Officer of Lewes Crown Court to have Thelema recognised, as I – as a Thelemite, though not yet a member of the OTO - did not wish to take the Affirmation.
Below is an article I wrote for the Shemesh Lodge OTO publication, 'Sorath', which was published at the end of 2009, about my experiences.
Thelema in Court
During the last two weeks of May, 2009, I had the dubious honour of being picked for Jury Service by Her Majesty's Courts Service – it was originally set for last October, however being in Frankfurt on (my now ex) employer’s time setting up their book fair stand didn't really bode well so my service was deferred.
The paperwork sent to me put me onto the HMCS website, where besides all of the usual tedium of when to turn up and how the whole thing worked, there was the most unusual passage regarding the swearing of oaths: “When your turn comes you must either take an oath on a holy book of your choice, or affirm…” ( http://juror.cjsonline.gov.uk/all-about-the-trial/being-sworn-in/)
I thought to myself that “a holy book of my choice” was leaving themselves wide open, would they let me use The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy? The Story of O? Watchmen? Time to be more realistic, Wicca hasn't got a holy book (the Book of Shadows is more of a cookbook, with collected rituals and the odd bit of politicking by Gerald Gardner or Doreen Valiente to suit the times, plus quite a bit of Crowley), neither has ‘Jedi’ (I'm really sure that the Timothy Zahn Star Wars books wouldn't count).
Sadly, the affirmation is the most tedious bit of fluff going, “I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”, compared with the General Oath, “I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence" I thought that there must be some other way. At least the threat of being struck down by Almighty God might give Christians something to think about when finding someone guilty, so they make sure they’re making the right decision.
Personally, being Wiccan wouldn’t have got me anywhere – as I had already tried the argument of being a Wiccan High Priest, therefore a ‘Minister of Religion’ to get out of jury service, which failed miserably (someone at HMCS must have just laughed, as I got a ‘thank you for acknowledging your letter’ notice) – I would have just had to make the affirmation and lumped it, so after reading a book on the beginnings of Wicca and Crowley's part in it all, I thought I would try my luck with Thelema and in turn, get Liber Al recognised as a holy book.
I turned up at Court on my first day, with my copy of Liber Al stashed away in my rucksack with the relevant pages from the HMCS website and my query printed off. After the video I'd already sat through and my demeanour at the time, with my upcoming redundancy I went up to the court officer who had asked for any questions. I pointed out the relevant page and said (rather cheekily in the circumstances) that I was a Thelemite and asked if I could use The Book of the Law as a holy book to swear an oath upon. I was half expecting her to tell me to stop being so vexatious (the term used when someone’s trying to have the Prime Minister arrested for treason, for signing various EU treaties) and to sod off! However, surprisingly, she sounded interested in what I had to say. I explained all about Liber Al, Thelema and of course Aleister Crowley (from what limited knowledge I had, having read a fair bit but only recently coming into contact with Shemesh Lodge).
The first day on any jury service – unless you’re really unlucky and get picked for a case, which should have started the previous week – is lots of waiting around. None of the jurors know anyone so they don’t talk to each other. So I had plenty of opportunity to talk to the court staff. The court officer spent most of that day going back and forwards between one of the judges and me. Half way through the day, she asked if she could borrow Liber Al for the judge as he was really interested (it was good that the book has gold lettering and looks like a quality publication – well done OTO Publications!) Later, she asked if I could present some evidence on Thelema that could be put to the judge, while he had quite an interesting night, too.
That evening, I spent on the internet looking up everything I could on Thelema, Liber Al and the OTO. In the article, “Duty” by Crowley, one paragraph stood out, headed, Your Duty To Mankind:
“Crime being a direct spiritual violation of the Law of Thelema, it should not be tolerated in the community. Those who possess the instinct should be segregated in a settlement to build up a state of their own, so to learn the necessity of themselves imposing and maintaining rules of justice. All artificial crimes should be abolished. When fantastic restrictions disappear, the greater freedom of the individual will itself teach him to avoid acts, which really restrict natural rights. Thus real crime will diminish automatically.”
This, in itself is perfect as far as jury service is concerned as it gives the opinion that Thelemites give a damn as to what’s happening in the world.
About this time I’d just ventured onto Facebook and was seeing what all of the fuss was about when a friend request popped into my inbox from Lon Milo DuQuette (Facebook’s a funny thing!). I asked him what he thought of the subject – and if he saw Thelema as a religion, and he said, “As things are different over here, you’re best asking your lodge master”. So I did. Adrian said “go for it, as there’s nothing to stop you!”
On the second day I got some good feedback from the court officer – the Resident Judge (i.e. the Senior Circuit Judge, His Honour Judge Richard Brown) had agreed in principle, however, he still needed to see more evidence that Thelema was a religion (which of course, to some people, it is). I handed my research over. On the third day, I was called in for a case but by this time, firm plans hadn’t been sorted out so I – as I said I would originally – took the affirmation.
Day four beckoned, and I was handed a letter which said that if I got a case the week after, I could swear on Liber Al, providing I come up with a suitable oath. The oath had to involve deity otherwise it would not be recognised, so I came up with the following: “I swear upon Nuit and by my own True Will, that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence”. This oath was then taken by the court officer and typed up onto one of the proper laminated cards that is used in court for the swearing of oaths.
The second week dawned with quite a large snag. The court officer and usher were both on holiday that week. Luckily, their stand-ins had been briefed about my oath – so I thought anyway. Another case came up, we were all ushered into the courtroom and the fifteen people were reduced to twelve for the jury. I was handed a copy of my oath card, and started to read the oath when the QC for the Prosecution started to object, as neither he, his opposite number for the defence or the judge had been notified. A major legal argument ensued (with some much-needed amusement for the accused, as it took the heat off her for a bit) – about court procedure, etc. various old tomes were referred to on the matter. Luckily, the stand-in court officer had a copy of the letter from Mr Justice Brown to me, saying I could use the oath and swear on Liber Al. The sitting judge – Mr Justice Tain – ruled that if this is the case, HMCS should be notified so this sort of thing does not happen again to avoid any further embarrassment for Thelemites who are called up to jury service.
So there you have it… Liber Al, and Thelema (as well as Nuit) have been recognised by Her Majesty’s Court Service in our local area. I don’t know how it will work nationally, but surely what’s happened in Lewes – and Mr Justice Tain’s recommendation – should set a precedent in the rest of England and Wales. It remains to be seen. Of course, the only way it will get recognised nationally is if people use it and refer the court staff to Mr Justice Tain’s judgement (Lewes Crown Court, 27th May, 2009).
For a religion/philosophy that only came into existence in the early part of the twentieth century to be recognised by the courts is quite an achievement. Some people I’ve spoken to in the Order recognise what I’ve done as a worthwhile part of the Great Work. I’m more than happy with that.
© John Mitchell 78.147.154.8 ( talk) 20:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Questions: Since when does a Thelemite need the affirmation of a restrictive establishment? And why should Thelema be pushed on to the ignorant public has a "religion"? For all we know this could be perceived as the Caliphate OTO attempting to manipulate the legal process for its own political agenda. Just plain arrogance.
"i'm baack"....-- 86.162.107.247 ( talk) 19:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Currently awaiting Her Majesty's Court Service to update their website. They have some difficulty clarifying their information at the best of times. As soon as it is up there, I'll make sure a link is posted in the references.
John Mitchell 4 January 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.227.130 ( talk) 15:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Have received word from Her Majesty's Court Service (10-1-2011) to say that they are looking into having a list of all recognised religions on their website for Jury purposes. Once this is done, I will be able to provide a reference. Otherwise, all I have is Sorath (the Journal of Shemesh Lodge OTO, 2010 edition). John. Mitchelljohn93 ( talk) 10:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Done... will just need tweaking a tadge. Mitchelljohn93 ( talk) 11:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This section does not explain how it relates to the topic of the article. -- Thiebes ( talk) 10:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This Should NOT be on Wikiepedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.33.48 ( talk) 03:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I added this section today and have been working on it because I felt it should be here. I would like some opinions on it. I have the feeling it should be made a page all its own and put into the table of contents on the main Thelema page. However, I feel it may be a bit out of place on its own page. What do you think? FUTURI ( talk) 02:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
In 'Portable Darkness', a collection of excerpts of Crowly edited by Scott Michaelson, Crowley says that Aiwass contacted him *through his wife* in Egypt. This is hardly alluded to at all in the wikipedia article, which seems a serious omission, as a skeptic, or indeed any non-Thelemite would have reason to believe her contribution was at least the qual of Crowley's in the making of the text, seeing as the words came out of her mouth!
I think this issue needs mentioning in the article, and more than mentioning, highlighting, in the interests of neutrality and completion. What do you think? - h.b. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.33.171 ( talk) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This section is useful but contains a list of names and publications of dubious legitimacy. In particular, several of the publications listed are Caliphate OTO lodge newsletters and, as such, are prone to heavy bias in favor of that particular brand of Thelema.
I propose that organizational newsletters listed in the article be only those officially sanctioned by the national or international headquarters of that particular organization. Without this stipulation what is to prevent every minor OTO body, HOOR temple, etc. from coming in here and listing their own publication for the sake of advertising their existence? Who will edit such content and will such edits appear to further promote bias? 24.119.74.180 ( talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This section describes [Israel Regardie]] as a "thelemic writer", implying that he regarded himself as a thelemite. On the contrary, in The Eye in the Triangle Regardie expresses scepticism about the origins of the Book of the Law, stating the opinion that Aiwass was an unconscious expression of Crowley's personality. I think it would therefore be more appropriate to describe Regardie as a writer on Thelemic topics (among more general occult writings) rather than a "thelemic writer".-- Smcg8374 ( talk) 08:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thelema isn't quite like the other hermitic religions. Personally, I equate Thelema with Crowley for the most part, and you know what Crowley was like, but some or most Thelemites don't, so here's what the good Book says about the whole thing—AL II, 18, 19, 20, 21, sealing these with “It is a lie, this folly against self” (II:22)—and that's just something to start with. The words quoted in the title may be misleading. Everything Is Numbers ( talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I hear many pronouncing 'Thelema' as 'thel uh muh', but in Greek the first 'e' is an epsilon & the second an eta; so shouldn't it be pronounced 'thuh lay muh' & Thelemite "Thuh lay might"? 74.209.54.156 ( talk) 16:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
After the constant removal of mention of the evident perfect anagram in AL 1,7 - "Aiwass the Minister" = "I sin, I was the Master" then I've asked an editor to clarify whether an evident perfect anagram in a text constitutes original research or not.
Dara Allarah ( talk) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I rewrote a section on second-hand books not being sold due to copyright ( dif). As far as I know, merely being second-hand doesn't allow copyright to be invoked to prevent a book from being sold. If the books were found to be stolen, or printed as a copyright infringement or something... but that's very different from what the article said. I don't have the printed source, but the online source is about copyright and trademark issues that don't seem to have anything to do with second-hand books. It seems like the gist of the section is that OTA and A∴A∴ protect their rituals and attempt to keep them somewhat private. That's probably true, but it should be better explained or better sourced. Grayfell ( talk) 21:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Just chiming into the "religion" debate. I found the quote "Thelema is essentially a polytheistic religion" to be confusing for several reasons: (1) the Book of the Law seems to stress unity (2) practioners of Thelema do not approach their devotion like other polytheistic faiths and (3) I have no darned clue what "essentially" would mean in this sentence. Anyone agree that this sentence adds confusing rather than adding to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 ( talk) 10:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. "Polythieism" from Wikipedia does not match the discription set forth in the "Thelema" article. As far as Wikipedia defines polytheism it says "The deities of polytheistic religions are agents in mythology, where they are portrayed as complex personages of greater or lesser status, with individual skills, needs, desires and histories" as well as "contrasts with monotheism, the belief in a singular God. Polytheists do not always worship all the gods equally." (How many Thelemites have rituals JUST to one of the three "deities"? ...is there any foundation to assume that rituals to Hadit alone are done, or that conceptually that deity, or Nuit for that matter, functions on a singular basis like the deities in polytheistic religions?... how many myths only involve only one of the three Thelemic deities??) Excuse the step ahead, I mean no arrogant afront ("As brothers fight ye!" III:59) but I'm just going to go ahead and delete "polytheistic" if edits to the Thelema article are possible. (The three steps to the high altar are also NOT a good reason to call the ritual POLY-theim). If there is enough talk about adding it back in for good reasons, then please discuss and I trust it will be re-added into the Thelema article. Thanks to everyone contributing to this article, this article is genuinely informative. Love is the law, love under will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.155.233 ( talk) 16:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Um, one biased, non-academic book doesn't get to define religions, at least in Wikipedia. Care to find a source that explicitly notes it as such? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
To sum up, our system is a religion just so far as a religion means an enthusiastic putting-together of a series of doctrines, no one of which must in any way clash with Science or Magick. Call it a new religion, then, if it so please your Gracious Majesty; but I confess that I fail to see what you will have gained by so doing, and I feel bound to add that you might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding, and work a rather stupid kind of mischief.
Crowley, Magick Without Tears.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Thelema on wikipedia is stated as a "religion"? Proposed edit: Thelema contains religious and philosophical systems, as originally conceived in the writings of Aleister Crowley and the Book of the Law (Liber AL vel Legis). There appears no one write way to describe someone who is a "Thelemite" I agree with Futuri directly above. Readers here PROBABLY know at least a FEW people in our lives who espouse enthusiasm for the Book of the Law in VASTLY different ways (some religious, some VERY NOT SO). Some Thelemites explicitly hold themselves out as promulgators of the Law of Thelema, yet these individuals have no religious affiliation, no organized doctrine, and blatantly declare that there is no divinity or doctrine or holy "Truth"! (I think we do no wrong in calling someone who has no religion a Thelemite, See Liber Al vel Legis, Book One, Verse 40... okay: vague enough for you!?). What's even better yet is that if you look at doxa and proaxis (belief and practice), many "Thelemites" look and act drastically different, very much as if these Thelemites do not SHARE A RELIGION. ARARITA lodge states on THEIR homepage: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law! Our mission is to effect and promote the doctrines and practices of the philosophical and religious system known as Thelema, with particular emphasis on cultivating the ideals of individual liberty, self-discipline, self-knowledge, and universal brotherhood..." I simply believe stating in this article that Thelema is a religion sets up the reader to quizically ask themselves, "Well, what do Thelemites bleiev if they all share one religion?" This steers readers down a confusing path because Thelemites are NOT sharing a religion. If we were sharing it, then we wouldn't be following our Duty and the True Will. Instead, I believe it is more accurate to state what Thelemites DO SHARE: certain systems of practice and certain goals, but not a religious belief NOR A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Love is the law, love under will. - ktb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.92.200.250 ( talk) 13:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious that Thelema in a more general sense is a philosophy, but that when the philosophy is adopted by religious bodies such as the OTO then it becomes central to their religion. The 'Gods' are a mere literary convenience according to Crowley. Thelema is foremost a philosophy then, and only secondarily a religion when it is espoused by institutional bodies or groups such as churches - and I think they have no business trying to tell Thelemites that are not members of their church that they are practising a religion. Dara Allarah ( talk) A .'. —Preceding undated comment added 10:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to do edits because I do not know anything about the topic as such, but it strikes me that the first line ("Thelema (/θəˈliːmə/) is a religion based on a philosophical law of the same name [...]") may be served by linking to an article that actually mentions it; otherwise the implication is that Thelema is part of a system of philosophical laws (as opposed to "a law, in the philosophical sense, called Thelema"). Moreover, the line is further confused by the suggestion of a separate system of philosophical laws ([...] a philosophical law of the same name [...]), one of which is called Thelema, which is also the name of the law this article describes, as well as the religion.
Unclear to the point of obfuscation.
Noumegnos ( talk) 16:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Thelema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
This may have been addressed and I could be wrong, but the central 5 pointed portion of the universal hexagram should be with a single point up. The current version is essentially upside down to Crowley's diagrams. For example, the cover of the 1st edition of Magick: http://www.lawbright.com/logdos/magick1.jpg and this original illustration: http://www.lawbright.com/logdos/magick2.jpg I suggest it be rotated to the form Crowley himself used. -- Solar ( talk) 19:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
JesseRafe; As per your request, I am respectfully responding on the talk page. What is the rationale for removing the sentence " Lon Milo DuQuette has written several books which analyze Crowley's system."? Many of the references in the article are from books he has written. That seems self-evident that he has written books "which analyze Crowley's system". You're not going to find a citation that says "DuQuette has written books analyzing Thelema" when the books themselves (and their titles) are evidence of that, and nearly anyone at all familiar with modern Thelema and the OTO is going to have heard of DuQuette. See: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:You_don%27t_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue Also see: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed (specifically the part "Subject-specific common knowledge")
I'm not familiar with many of the people listed in the rest of what you removed, so fine, if you really feel that it should be removed, I don't have any real objection. Although I would think for much of it a citation, or alternatively a "citation needed" tag, would make more sense than deleting what many people would surely find as useful material, assuming that what is written is true.
The part about "The Neverending Story", sure, I suppose that is reasonable to remove, as it wasn't especially written in an encyclopedic tone.
I'm not sure what anyone could possibly find controversial about my edit correcting a wording error. A word was clearly left out, as the sentence simply didn't make sense the way it was written, so I'm not sure why you reverted both of my edits and not just the first one. Vontheri ( talk) 15:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Many Thelemites believe that, in one or more senses, Thelema is represented by at least one of these kinds of system, if not all or some combination thereof, insofar as it is expressed as a framework of ideas.
It reads awkwardly, IMHO, and is redundant anyway, as the previous paragraph adequately conveys the existence of a diversity of positions among Thelemites. 108.200.234.93 ( talk) 09:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm tempted to remove these paragraphs also, but I don't want to do so without consensus, as this edit would be more intrusive:
I understand the message that's trying to be conveyed, but I think this maybe can be re-worded into something more coherent. I think the sentiment of Thelema as a religion vs. philosophy is handled appropriately in the preceding paragraphs.
Numerous Thelemites also feel that, while essentially religious or spiritual, Thelema as a worldview may have meaningful implications for how its adherents view, relate to, and act with regard to culture, ethics, historiography, history, metaphysics, politics, psychology, psychospirituality, and society, including sociocultural or sociopolitical systems. Thelema is not monolithic: it has myriad, extremely diverse, and often conflicting interpretations, whether made by Thelemites themselves or non-adherents.
I think this addition was made by someone who is not a native English speaker, and that's OK, but these edits lack clarity and the language is confusing. It reads like something that has been translated from Mandarin into English. The use of the word "myriad" without being preceded by "a" is especially annoying. 108.200.234.93 ( talk) 02:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I am reverting the revert by JesseRafe. There was no opinion in my edit. As can be seen on the article Scientology and the occult, there is legitimate scholarly debate as to whether or not Scientology was influenced by Thelema. For example, that article states "Hugh B. Urban, a scholar on religion who has written much about Scientology, writes that while some writers, such as Jon Atack, assert that Crowley's ideas on magic are at the core of Scientology, others, including Roy Wallis and J. Gordon Melton, have dismissed the connection between occultism and the Church." Additionally, note this scholarly article, which is cited on the page Scientology and the occult: http://nr.ucpress.edu/content/15/3/91 it states: "While some critics argue that Crowley's magic lies at the very heart of Scientology, most scholars have dismissed any connection between the Church and occultism."
It is documented fact that L. Ron Hubbard was involved with Thelema before starting Dianetics and Scientology. Whether or not he incorporated elements of Thelema and/or other occult philosophies into Scientology's doctrine is very much up for debate. Personally, I think it's quite obvious that aspects of Scientology were indeed influenced by Thelema, so if there is any opinion in my edit, it is an opinion contrary to my actual opinion! I feel that, in the interest of neutrality and presenting all legitimate viewpoints as held by scholars and experts on the subject, that it is necessary to add the word "arguably" to the last sentence of the introduction, because there definitely IS scholarly debate about this. Additionally, the article referenced (which was added by a previous edit of mine some number of months ago) does not explicitly state that Scientology was influenced by Thelema, but does go into great detail regarding L. Ron Hubbard's involvement with Thelema.
If you still have objection to my edit, what exactly is that objection? Is there anyone else who would care to weigh in on this, as well? 2600:1700:F640:4280:9D0A:FB18:E02F:5BA5 ( talk) 01:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Fine. Summarize it in one word as was afforded the other large branches of thought. We'll wait. 67.242.92.97 ( talk) 04:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Why not include Lord of the Rings on the Bible page? It is offensive and inappropriate to include one man's disputed research about this in the main summary of this page. It detracts significantly from an understanding of the rest of the article, and I have serious questions about the motives of anyone who would want Thelema associated with a cult like Scientology. Anyone who sees this referenced on the page should delete it unless these points are refuted. 74.70.156.130 ( talk) 22:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The broader point of what a work inspires not receiving such a position in its own article, stands. This information belongs on the Scientology page, and it is clear that its inclusion, where it is, is part of an ongoing unresolved controversy that has nothing to do with Thelema. 74.70.156.130 ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
For a long time the opening paragraph has only referred to Thelema as a philosophy, when, while it is a philosophy, it is primarily adhered to and practiced as a new religious movement. (NRM.) It is already a part of Wikiproject New Religious Movements and even Henrik Bogdan, a superior scholar of religions, among other scholars of religion and NRMs, refer to it as an NRM. (See Bogdan's discussion of it as an NRM in The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements: Volume II, Ch. 4.) Therefore I added that it is an NRM in the opening paragraph.
Bodhisvaha5 ( talk) 21:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The article says: 'The Book of the Law states, "there is no god but man".' This quote is not from the Book of the Law, but from Liber OZ. I'm not sure whether Liber OZ was the first place to contain this sentence, but it certainly isn't from the Book of the Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGenesis ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The quote is from the "new comment" on III.60 in the Liber AL, which contains a section that is very similar, but not identical to, Liber OZ. I've corrected the attribution and added a citation, but the citation must be accessed through Wayback Machine and should be replaced with a better one if someone can find one. XenuTheSpacelord ( talk) 11:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was awarded GA status in 2008, back when Wikipedia's general standards were far beneath what they have since become. (The article was nominated by a German IP [7] while the editor who then gave it GA status, User:Jackturner3, has not edited since 2014.) Even at the time, its listing was controversial; User:Redblossom challenged the awarding of GA status at the Talk Page shortly after (archived here). Certainly, the article in its current form is nowhere close to GA quality. Large sections of it are completely unreferenced, and of the sources that are used, most appear to be primary, constituting either the writings of Crowley himself or of subsequent Thelemites. Virtually no academic publications are cited, despite the growing scholarly literature on this topic. All in all, this seems like a clear-cut case for de-listing. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The article in question contains long passages devoid of citations, some of which make claims that really need to be cited. One example is, "The Book of the Law can be taken to imply a kind of pantheism or panentheism" from the "God, deity, and the divine" section. This needs a scholarly source, or to be removed. Other passages like, "Thelemites differ widely in their views of the divine, and these views are often tied to their personal paradigms, including their conceptions of what demarcates objective and subjective reality, as well as falsehood and truth: some hold unique, or otherwise very specific or complex views of the nature of divinity, that are not easily explained; many are supernaturalists, claiming that the supernatural or paranormal in some way exist, and incorporate these assumptions into their spiritual practices in some way; others are religious or spiritual naturalists, viewing the spiritual or sacred—or whatever they feel is, or may be, in reality, analogous to them, or their equivalents—as identical to the material, natural, or physical." are possibly anecdotal and need scholarly citations, and also need a great deal of formatting help. This selection is possibly the worst run-on sentence I've ever seen. Because of citation and formatting issues, the article ought to be stripped of its GA status until it meets the new standards. XenuTheSpacelord ( talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
We don't need any more additions sourced only to primary sources - especially no more Crowley or Book of the Law quotations. That is not an improvement to the article, as the article needs more secondary sources. Please source all new material to secondary sources, such as those listed as such in the references. This article lost good article status because it got stuffed with that type of proselytizing, primary-sourced material. We need third-party observations and analyses, preferable academic, not more "in-universe" material.
Also, please follow the existing citation style. This article uses the {{ sfnp}} citation system, not the <ref> citation style. Please learn to use it as additions with other referencing styles may be reverted. Skyerise ( talk) 12:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't really like the wording of this heading but can't come up with anything I like better. Post-Crowleyan is definitely worse. Skyerise ( talk) 20:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I moved the right-facing image back to the left where I put it. It's standard design that people's portraits should not look out of the page, but rather into it. It's in the image use policy. And I removed that weaselly written Urban bit again... Some this and some that without saying who the some are. Needs to be rewritten in a non-weaselly way. I don't think it's really very important and we should really have two sources for it if Urban isn't any more specific than that. Pretty sure it means the OTO says one thing but non-OTO Thelemites think they are daft. If that's what he's saying, let's not beat around the bush. And if he was too chicken to be explicit, but just weasels around it, let's either find another source that actually says it or leave it out. Skyerise ( talk) 11:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I moved the new portrait of Crowley so it was below the info box. I'm not certain where I placed it is necessarily an improvement though (it resulted in a bunch of white space) but I don't really know how to work with the picture elements so feel free to improve this. Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 09:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The claim that "every man and every woman is a star" refers to the "body of light," needs a citation, as well as the claim that Plato said that the "body of light" was composed of the same stuff as stars. Likewise, the particular interpretation of "Love is the law, love under will," is not universal in Thelema, and needs a citation. These two claims contradict the way Crowley himself explains these principles in the commentary on the Liber AL, which in and of itself is fine, but only so long as the particular interpretation written is noteworthy and cited. Writing here instead of editing the page in case citations for these claims do exist, and other editors consider them appropriate to the page. As it stands, these claims seem both unfounded and irrelevant to the page, so I recommend removing these claims if no citations are added, or if the citation sources are deemed irrelevant to the page, within some appropriate timeframe. XenuTheSpacelord ( talk) 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
His association to Thelema and his invention of "English Qaballa" seems very dubious in this article. Infact, the James Lees section doesn't link him to Thelema or Crowley, at all. Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 12:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)