Visualize your washed corpse, wrapped in bandages and lying in a sarcophagus. Around you stand the Four Sons of Horus. To the east stands Duamutef, a mummy with the head of a jackal. He will
    speak to you of the understanding you attained in your lifetime. Before he does so, imagine in detail what you would wish for him to say regarding the understanding you attained in your lifetime. Remember this.
    After Duamuetef has spoken, you become aware that to the south stands Imsety, a mummy with the head of a man. He will speak to you of your accomplishments, those thing that you intended to do and then did in your lifetime. Before he does so, imagine in detail what you would wish for him to say regarding your accomplishments. Remember this.
    After Imsety has spoken, you become aware that to the west stands Qebehseneuf, a mummy with the head of a hawk. He will speak to you of your relations, how you were to others in your lifetime. Before he does so, imagine in detail what you would wish for him to say regarding your relations. Remember this.
    After Qebehseneuf has spoken, you become aware that to the north stands Hapy, a mummy with the head of an ape. He will speak to you of your life, of the quality of your lifetime. Before he does so, imagine in detail what you would wish for him to say regarding your life. Remember this.
    After Hapy has spoken, you become aware for a moment that to the west of you, beyond Qebehseneuf, stands a large pair of balances. In one pan is the feather of Maat. In the other pan is your heart. You see Anubis beginning to examine the balances before the whole scene fades from your view.

    From here, you can either end the practice, or proceed to AAA steps 3 through the end. This is intended to be a tool to assist the discovery of your True Will. These, and many other devilish ideas, are explored every Thursday evening at 8:00 (except for the second meeting in March, when we will assemble on Wednesday) in the library at Thelema Lodge. The series will conclude this month with our eleventh meeting on Thursday evening 29th March.

Editorial notes:
Yegyanzin -- the Irrawaddy port town of Yenangyaung.
Mindon -- river port town of Myingyan, about 150 miles up from Rangoon; the
    name may have been confused or conflated with that of the great Burmese
    king Mindon Min (reigned 1853-78) who successfully capitulated to the
    British and sustained a cultural renaissance under imperial administration.
Kyaukpyu -- coastal town on the Bay of Bengal in the Arakan district of lower
    Burma, across the ocean from India; until the mid-twentieth century
    inaccessible overland through the mountainous jungle from the rest of
    Burma, and conducting all its commerce by sea.
aigrette -- long feather plumage, typically of egrets, especially prized
    during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in both the Orient and
    Occident for various fashionable decorations of the head, such as on hats,
    turbans, and hairdressings, and on related clothing and ornaments.
cooey -- a long distance cry, the sound of which was supposed to be especially
    piercing, sometimes explained as being of Australian origin.
Arakan Hills -- the Arakan Yoma mountains, along the western coast of lower
    Burma, are covered with jungle and were largely impassable during the
    nineteenth century (one of the principal passes in use today is over a
    thousand feet high).
Irrawaddy -- the great river of Burma, thirteen hundred miles long, connecting
    upcountry Mandalay with south coastal Rangoon; it swells with monsoon rains
    in the summer into a wild seething waterway which is not entirely
    navigable, but in February at its lowest it is reduced to a sleepy stream.

   Glenn: -- April seventh, and I, Glenn Turner, am interviewing Grady McMurtry. Again, we're picking up at -- I guess -- his childhood years; perhaps at the grandparents', or --
    Grady: Yes. Now, I've forgotten; did I tell you about how I got shipped from Ponca City to Sallisaw, Oklahoma? Okay, I told you that, right? Now, my first memory, as a child -- it was a little confused; I have two memories. One of them (which I told somebody once) is strange. Do I hate my mother, or could I hate my mother? I do not know. But the story is this; I had a memory -- it could be a racial memory, I don't know. Anyway, the memory is this; and that is that when I was a very young child, my mother threw me into the pig pen, so that the hogs would eat me, and I crawled out, and didn't get eaten. Is this true, or is this not true? I do not know; but I do know that I have had this memory. Now, two: memories -- childhood memories -- very early childhood memories. There was -- this is Oklahoma; this is eastern Oklahoma, rural Oklahoma, right? Okay, fine. My grandfather is a farmer, right? And I've been shipped off to him. Okay, fine; now: there's something they had in those days (which they may still have, for all I know); it's called -- the place where you break the canes and make the syrup, out of the canes, you know. And this mule walks around in a circle, tied to this god-damned thing, which breaks up canes -- and as the sugar canes go in, and are broken up in the thing, a small child could stand there and you know -- like, eat the syrup, right? Three: my first memory that I can be positive about is a broken watermelon. And it was so stupid, because as you know I have a sweet tooth -- I have hyperglycemia -- I love sugar. That's why I don't eat sugar any more. And anyway, one day, I had gone out. I was about five at the time; maybe four. Anyway, this is eastern Oklahoma, in Sallisaw, on my grand-daddy's ranch, and of course they had this buckboard. You know, when I saw the film -- you know, "Oklahoma," -- they talk about the buckboard -- that's old memory. We had a buckboard, with a couple of horses, you know, trotting. And you literally could pull down the cellophane shields, when it started to rain. Anyway, so one day I went into the watermelon field, and I picked up this nice ripe watermelon, and I came back. But there was a little problem: this barbed wire fence. And I would learn about barbed wire in the war, of course. When you go into barbed wire fences that's in the mine field. That would be much later. Um - by the way, the way you walk through a mine field - anyway. {laughs} And maybe I learned my first lesson there; maybe that's why I survived. Because what happened was - as I came back, a very small boy, you know, carrying this great big watermelon. But here's this wire fence. Well, you know, in Oklahoma -- in any farm field -- you spread 'em apart like that -- so you can go through, right? Or you step over, if you're big enough. I wasn't big enough to step over, so I had to crawl through. When I leaned over, to crawl through, I dropped it, and it broke. And I looked at it. It happened to be a yellow one, by the way; yellow meat inside. And I looked over, and I cried. I broke my watermelon. {laughs}
   
    Glenn: So you were pretty young; that's one of your first memories.
   
    Grady: That's my first memory that I can be sure of.
   
    Glenn: Right. That it was really happening.
   
    Grady: That's when I began to realize what was happening, right.
   

    Taking an overview, Lucifer and Luciferians have been with us since the 4th century e.v. Lucifer is a name applied to Venus when it rises as the morning star, just as the planet is called Prometheus when it seen in the evening at another time of year. As a word, Lucifer simply signifies Bearer of Light, just as Christopher signifies Bearer of Christ, in reference to the myth of a man who carried Christ across a stream. St. Christopher is no longer recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, but that hasn't decreased the popularity of St. Christopher medals to protect travelers or the tendency to name children Christopher. Until the latter part of the 4th century, Lucifer was also a perfectly acceptable name, not only used by Christians for their children, but even the name of an influential Bishop of the Church. St. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate (Old Testament), got into an aggressive argument with Bishop Lucifer and saw fit to taint his reputation and that of his followers by plugging a shaky translation of the name of a Babylonian King into the Vulgate as Lucifer. This occurs in Isaiah 14:12, where the verse is variously translated into English as: "How have you fallen from the heavens, O morning star, son of the dawn!..." (Douay version), "How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning!..." (Jewish Pub. Soc. of America, 1955), and "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!..." (King James version). The last follows the Latin usage of the Vulgate Bible of Jerome. Lucifer is not in the Hebrew or Greek Septuagint translations. Jerome's usage is roundly remarked as a very bad translation, and the context makes this term a poetic title of king Nebuchadnezzar, not of the Christian Devil. People have been at a loss to figure out why Jerome made such a blunder. Here is the secret revealed: This is a link to an English translation of a dialogue written by St. Jerome, against Lucifer and the "Luciferians".

    https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.iv.html   (Link updated August 22nd, 2020)

There are also letters from Jerome about and to Bishop Lucifer and his followers. If you use the back button on that page, you can find them.
    Simply put, Lucifer became a sobriquet for the Christian Devil as a consequence of a snit between two churchmen, one bearing that as a respectable personal name and the other abusing his position as Bible translator to continue blackening his rival's reputation posthumously. This is further compounded by the fact that St. Jerome received his own ordination from one who was himself consecrated a bishop by Bishop Lucifer. Rude and obnoxious behavior is not an innovation of the modern Church, but it's rare to rise to Jerome's level of elaborate sneakiness.
    Over the intervening centuries from the 4th and the time of Jerome and Lucifer, there have been many instances in history where Lucifer has been treated as a positive term, even movements that called themselves Luciferian. One of the oldest of these, after good Bishop Lucifer's own time, involved the Cathars, a late sub-sect of which was known as the Luciferians or Luciferani. These people had taken refuge in Milan, but they were suppressed there in 1233 e.v. Pope Gregory IX gave a purported and likely very distorted account of their initiatory rites in his Vox in Rama. Joachim of Flora may have indirectly contributed to their doctrines, and he does describe similar practices in his allegations concerning the Cathars. There have been many other instances of the appearance of groups using the term Luciferian to describe themselves, including a development out of the 1960's e.v. hippy movement known as The Process Church. Variations on Lucifer and Luciferian abound in literature, from Dante's Inferno to Lucifera in Spenser's Faerie Queene. In the 19th century, many lay writers became familiar with Patristic sources. Very likely that and an interest in Astrology is the occasion for Blavatsky and Pike feeling that the word should be used simply as a nice remark hinting at the glory of a new dawn of intellectual freedom.

    For the benefit of our friends who may not find the internet convenient, here is the 19th century introduction to Jerome's Dialogue Against the Luciferians, From A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of The Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. VI, p. 319, Eerdman edition, 1892 and reprinted in 1968. This provides a biographical note to the life of the good Bishop Lucifer. Substantially the same text in another transcription may be found on the link cited above, along with the dialogue itself. Athanasius is the author of the Athanasian Creed, often considered second in importance after the Apostles' creed in the Roman Catholic church..

    This Dialogue was written about 379, seven years after the death of Lucifer, and very soon after Jerome's return from his hermit life in the desert of Chalcis. Though he received ordination from Paulinus, who had been consecrated by Lucifer, he had no sympathy with Lucifer's narrower views, as he shows plainly in this Dialogue. Lucifer, who was bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, first came into prominent notice about A.D. 354, when great efforts were being made to procure a condemnation of S. Athanasius by the Western bishops. He energetically took up the cause of the saint, and at his own request was sent by Liberius, bishop of Rome, in company with the priest Pancratius and the deacon Hilarius, on a mission to the Emperor Constantius. The emperor granted a Council, which met at Milan in A.D. 354. Lucifer distinguished himself by resisting a proposition to condemn Athanasius, and did not hesitate to oppose the emperor with much violence. In consequence of this he was sent into exile from A.D. 355 to A.D. 361, the greater portion of which time was spent at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, though he afterwards removed to the Thebaid. It was at this time that his polemical writings appeared, the tone and temper of which is indicated by the mere titles De Regibus Apostaticis (of Apostate Kings), De non Conveniendo cum Haeretics, etc. (of not holding communion with heretics). On the death of Constantius in 361, Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return; but Lucifer instead of going to Alexandria where a Council was to be held under the presidency of Athanasius for the healing of a schism in the Catholic party at Antioch (some of which held to Meletius, while others followed Eustathius), preferred to go straight to Antioch. There he ordained Paulinus, the leader of the latter section, as bishop of the Church. Eusebius of Vercellae soon arrived with the synodical letters of the Council of Alexandria, but, finding himself thus anticipated, and shrinking from a collision with his friend, he retired immediately. Lucifer stayed, and "declared that he would not hold communion with Eusebius or any who adopted the moderate policy of the Alexandrian Council. By this Council it had been determined that actual Arians, if they renounced their heresy, should be pardoned, but not invested with ecclesiastical functions; and that those bishops who had merely consented to Arianism should remain undisturbed. It was this latter concession which offended Lucifer, and he became henceforth the champion of the principle that no one who had yielded to any compromise whatever with Arianism should be allowed to hold an ecclesiastical office." He was thus brought into antagonism with Athanasius himself, who, it has been seen, presided at Alexandria. Eventually he returned to his see in Sardinia where, according to Jerome's Chronicle, he died in 371. Luciferianism became extinct in the beginning of the following century, if not earlier. It hardly appears to have been formed into a separate organization, though an appeal was made to the emperor by some Luciferian presbyters about the year 384, and both Ambrose and Augustine speak of him as having fallen into the schism.
    The argument of the Dialogue may be thus stated. It has been pointed out above that Lucifer of Cagliari, who had been banished from his see in the reign of Constantius because of his adherence to the cause of Athanasius, had, on the announcement of toleration at the accession of Julian (361), gone to Antioch and consecrated Paulinus a bishop. There were then three bishops of Antioch, Dorotheus the Arian (who had succeeded Euzoius in 376), Meletius who, though an Athanasian in opinion, had been consecrated by Arians or Semi- Arians, and Paulinus; besides Vitalis, bishop of a congregation of Apollinarians. Lucifer, in the earnestness of his anti-Arian opinion, refused to acknowledge as bishops those who had come over from Arianism, though he accepted the laymen who had been baptized by Arian Bishops. This opinion led to the Luciferian schism, and forms the subject of the Dialogue.
    The point urged by Orthodoxus throughout is that, since the Luciferian accepts as valid the baptism conferred by Arian bishops, it is inconsistent in him not to acknowledge the bishops who have repented of their Arian opinions. The Luciferian at first in his eagerness, declares the Arians to be no better than heathen; but he sees that he has gone too far, and retracts this opinion. Still it is one thing, he says, to admit a penitent neophyte, another to admit a man to be bishop and celebrate the Eucharist. We do not wish, he says to preclude individuals who have fallen from repentance. And we, replies Orthodoxus, by admitting the bishops save not them only but their flocks also. "The salt," says the Luciferian, "which has lost its savour can not be salted," and, "What communion has Christ with Belial?" But this, it is answered, would prove that Arians could not confer baptism at all. Yes, says the objector, they are like John the Baptist, whose baptism needed to be followed by that of Christ. But, it is replied, the bishop gives Christ's baptism and confers the Holy spirit. The confirmation which follows is rather a custom of churches than the necessary means of grace.
    The argument is felt to be approaching to a philosophical logomachy, but it is resumed by the Luciferian. There is a real difference, he says, between the man who in his simplicity accepts baptism from an Arian bishop, and the bishop himself who understands the heresy. Yet both, it is replied, when they are penitent, should be received.
    At this point the Luciferian yields. But he wishes to be assured that what Orthodoxus recommends has been really the practice of the Church. This leads to a valuable chapter of Church history. Orthodoxus recalls the victories of the Church, which the Luciferians speak of as corrupt. The shame is that, though they have the true creed, they have too little faith. He then describes how the orthodox bishops were beguiled into accepting the creed of Ariminum, but afterwards saw their error. "The world groaned to find itself Arian." They did all that was possible to set things right. Why should they not be received, as all but the authors of heresy had been received at Nicaea? Lucifer who was a good shepherd, and Hilary the Deacon, in separating their own small body into a sect have left the rest a prey to the wolf. The wheat and tares must grow together. This has been the principle of the Church, as shown by Scripture and Apostolic custom, and even Cyprian, when he wished penitent heretics to be re-baptized, could not prevail. Even Hilary by receiving baptism from the Church which always has re-admitted heretics in repentance acknowledges this principle. In that Church and its divisions and practice it is our duty to abide.

    Valuable as that bit of history is, it may bog down a bit in heavy going. Rather than end this issue with such laborious matter, here's a clip from Addison and Steele's The Spectator, No 204. Wednesday, October 24, 1711 e.v. This is a letter from a reader, intended to be read by another much in the style of a personal's item in a modern newspaper:

    'SIR,
             'THERE were other gentlemen nearer, and I know no necessity you were under to take up that flippant-creature's fan last night; but you shall never touch a stick of mine more, that's pos.

    After nearly 300 years nothing further is known of the lady author, for the piece is published with a false name supplied by Steele acting as editor.

    Here you have two schisms, and damn me if I can tell which is the worse consequence: to be forgotten for all but a fribble or remembered 1,600 years later as the Devil!

---

Thelema Lodge Events Calendar for March 2001 e.v.

    The viewpoints and opinions expressed herein are the responsibility of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of OTO or its officers.

Thelema Lodge
Ordo Templi Orientis
P.O. Box 2303
Berkeley, CA 94702 USA

Phone: (510) 652-3171 (for events info and contact to Lodge)

Production and Circulation:
OTO-TLC
P.O.Box 430
Fairfax, CA 94978 USA

Internet: heidrick@well.com (Submissions and circulation only)