Talk:The Book of the Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Wikiproject Thelema The Book of the Law is part of WikiProject Thelema, an attempt to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to Thelema. You are invited to participate by editing the article or by joining the Thelema WikiProject as a participating member.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Occult Origins

I've just read the article, it's very good but IMO could do with a little more sceptism. I can't see any mention of the many critics, sceptics, historians and many other individuals who have heralded Crowely as nothing more than a self-proporganderist and a charlattan. There is no mention of this sceptism, which in light of the fact that Crowely has founded more than 1 religious doctrine seems very... well, flakey. I'm happy to knock something up but I don't want to tread on anyones toes, I just think this guys religions need to be viewed with a healthy dose of common sense. Perhaps the section on changes to the text could be expanded to include some references to sceptics comments etc? 90.152.12.130 (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links to manuscripts

I was looking a the site to which the Manuscript link was recently pointed, and I think the original link was the better choice. While the AOTOA site provides somewhat clearer copies of the text pages, the OTO-USA site provides more accurate scans in all their flawed and aged glory, and includes the title page as well, making it more complete. However, since they both have advantages in the eyes of different readers, I will edit the links such that both remain available. --Geoff Capp 20:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What else to add?

I think that there could be a section covering the non-AL material that often accompanies its printing. The centennial edition reprints some material Crowley added to earlier printings, which could be interesting to note. –Frater5

  • Also there were changes in the introductory chapters from time to time and place to place. For example, "Democracy dodders" was censored from some editions...On another matter, anyone know where the actual manuscript is these days? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested Additions

Why is there no mention of the connections between The Book of the Law and certain "cult" (or "occult") organizations, like Britain's O.T.O, and modern Wicca? The latter was obviously influenced by Crowley but, in their Rede, distorted "the law" to say essentially "Do what thou wilt as long as you do not harm others".

Further, at least some editions of the book, such as one with a red cover published by the O.T.O., include drawings that are loaded with clear and indisputable Satanic symbolism. An inverted pentagram containing a goat's head is just one obvious example.

These would seem to bear mentioning. -- Jane Q. Public 18:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influenced 'occult' organizations

It would be quite easy to find references to Liber AL in Wiccan writings like the 'Charge to the Goddess.' As for 'Britain's OTO,' this is less about Book of the Law specifically and more about Thelema as a whole. The Wiccan reference seems to me to warrant a mentioning or twoPsionicpigeon (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It's a little confusing to me when phrased like that. Thelema took influence (or at least is heavily similar) to what the christian view of occult & wicca is. If anything it would be good to draw out comparisons between Thelma and previous religous doctrines simply to show the naivity of those who listened to Crowleys increasingly unlikely tale and subsequently highlight the nonsense that he choose to put to paper. Tie that in with the fact that the author openly admits to changing some lines throughout the work after the initial notation and I begin to wonder if the people who write this article are all Thelemites or something. This is one of the cons of the century so why is there no references to all these blatant discrepencies, the history of the man (as Crowley had prevously launched a completely different religion) and the similarities between Crowley's story (i.e confirmed by the "wife"; no confirmation at all if you think about it) and the Mormons story (i.e. confirmed by the guys "friend"; no confirmation at all if you think about it).... this article reads like it's accepting the doctrine as fact when every other religous article has a healthy dose of sceptism. There are many more sceptics than supporters but I can't find many references to these well known works, instead there are lot's of implications throughout the article that seem to take it seriously... I still think Crowley was a comidian and no ones got the joke yet. 90.152.12.130 (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic symbolism?

I see no "satanic symbolism" on the cover of the Book of the Law. Anton LaVey's satanism should not be conflated with Crowley's Thelema or even the 'old school' satanism. To say a goat with a pentagram on his head is Satanic is to miss the majority of the symbolism - it is included on the 15th card of the Thoth Tarot as well and is a symbol of man attaining Godhead, according to Crowley.Psionicpigeon (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It can be viewed merely as an inverted pentagram...which can be a bad thing depending on the magick or rite performed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.17.246 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true, besides "Satanic symbolism" is a subjective, christian based term. I think this is a case of the term satanic being thrown around by people who have been influenced by christian idealogy rather than people who have read a dictionary. I would suggest that people use known and well defined terms rather than using a subjective christian term that automatically implies a negative quality. 90.152.12.130 (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no consensus. Vassyana (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Book of the Law → Liber AL vel Legis — "The Book of the Law" is a general term used in more than one religion. In Judaism it refers to the Torah; in Mormonism it refers to "The Book of the Law of the Lord". Suggest we move it to its actual distinguishable title —84.74.3.179 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • support since according to the article, the full title is "Liber AL vel Legis, sub figura CCXX, The Book of the Law, as delivered by XCIII=418 to DCLXVI", the change would seem justified. We should then do as dismab. page rather than just a redirect. DGG (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose: Book of the Law is the title of this specific book. It is not the specific title of the TaNaK. It is not the specific title of the Mormon work. Liber AL vel Legis, sub figura CCXX. is an alternate title of this work. jonathon (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Not true. Liber AL vel Legis is the official title of the work. "The Book of the Law" is essentially a nickname. 58.91.14.173 (talk) 05:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Crowley typically gave his work three titles. One in English, one in Latin,Greek,or Hebrew, and one that was simply a number. In this instance the number is 31 (holographic manuscript), 220 (printed version), with Liber Al Vel Legis being the Latin title andThe Book of the Lawbeing the English title. As to which title is the most official, that depends upon which list one considers to be "authoritative".jonathon (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Here's the detail, originally named Liber L vel Legis and name officially changed. Noted on this page. 62.141.50.141 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • And here is the title page of the book. 62.141.50.141 (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The actual name is Liber AL vel Legis. Valtyr (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:UE. Even if "The Book of the Law" is a nickname, wrt this article I think it is a name that most users would understand, so it would be best for it to remain at the current name. – Axman (☏) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, a book should be listed under its actual title. Since the proposal seems to be that a disambiguation page be put here, the user would easily be able to find the several possible books of the law they might be looking for. Will in China (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. People above make the false claim that Book of the Law is a 'nickname' of Liber AL vel Legis. If anyone knows basic Latin, Liber Legis means Book of the Law. I believe it would be best if Book of the Law was retained as this is the name that is spoken quite often and many people refer to it by this name.Psionicpigeon (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Added an additional interpretation on the identity of "The Beast" based on both the appearance of Therion in The Star Ruby and the Old Comment by Crowley himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.151.90 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)