Theos-Talk Archives (February 1999 Message tt00121)

Richard Taylor wrote------
>David, I do know who the seven trustees are, but I can assure you they 
DON'T
>"run" ULT, nor do they have "ultimate power."  Listen to my experiences 
before
>you brush off my assessment.
>
>I have been involved in ULT for over a decade, and there are a number 
of
>things I would change about ULT if I had the power to do so (which I 
don't).
>At one time I too thought that the Theosophy Company controlled ULT, 
but I
>have since learned that this simply isn't true.  The board members 
simply
>supervise the printing of books and the activities of the Los Angeles 
lodge
>that require financing, like putting out money for newspaper ads.  The 
board
>members have no direct control over any other lodge or its finances, 
that I
>know of, although the Los Angeles company does hold title to a few of 
the
>buildings of other lodges.  This is (presumably) because some lodges 
are small
>and in danger of closing -- in absence of a clear title-holder, 
buildings tend
>to revert to the state.  But most ULT lodges own their buildings and 
property
>themselves.
>
>Neither this board, nor any one person, "controls" ULT, though I can 
see the
>romantic attraction of such an idea.  I have personally been to half a 
dozen
>lodges, and a numbner of study groups in other areas, and I can report 
to you
>that often they follow very different courses of study.  The New York 
and Los
>Angeles lodges tend to be more formal, and generally keep to Mr. 
Judge's OCEAN
>OF THEOSOPHY, HPB's KEY TO THEOSOPHY and other classics, year after 
boring
>year, no matter whether everyone in the group has read it 100 times 
before.
>It find this boring, although I agree those classical works are 
important.
>
>Other lodges have video programs (I recently heard of a video series on 
the
>Old Testament being used by the Washington state group) while in San 
Diego
>they are running a study of the social and political effects that 
various
>world religions bring to their adherents.  Santa Barbara is 
responsible, in
>addition to other things, for the Institute of World Culture, which 
includes
>inviting guest speakers, often from universities -- a program similar 
to that
>carried out by the Bombay lodge in India.  (More conservative lodges 
NEVER
>invite guest speakers).  The Paris and Dijon lodges contain members 
from the
>scientific community (cool, huh?) and their programs tend to reflect 
those
>interests.
>
>I certainly don't mind stating that ULT has a problem with power flow, 
in that
>it tends to get bogged down in the hands of the few without any 
guarantee of
>democratic process.  Many lodges tend to have a handful of old-timers 
that run
>the show, and newcomers kind of have to "wait their turn" to have a
>significant say in the program of study, or to be permitted to give 
talks from
>the platform.  Other lodges, however, have no problem with this.  In 
the San
>Diego lodge, for instance, I myself witnessed a vote by a show of hands 
as to
>whether for the next year they would continue their world religions 
study
>program.  Their was no consultation with any "leader" and actually the 
person
>who volunteered to supervise that particular study series is a relative
>newcomer to that lodge.
>
>So what I've learned about ULT, and what I'm sharing with you, is that 
while
>it does have its problems (and some of its problems are quite 
significant,
>like inflexibility) it is not an organization in the typical sense, and
>individual lodges are truly free to act as they wish.  I have found 
that
>lodges tend to bow to the wishes of very senior students in LA and NY, 
but
>this is not always the case, nor is there any mechanism to MAKE people 
follow
>certain lines laid down.  It tends to be a fact that the people who 
have the
>most time to give to ULT are elderly people, retired, with time on 
their
>hands.  After being in the lodge 60 years or more, they tend to have 
very hard
>and fast ideas as to "how things should be done" and don't take well to 
"back
>talk."  As one of the more rebellious associates of ULT, I have 
certainly felt
>pressure to act in certain ways, but this has come from individuals, 
and not
>from any organized program to make me toe the line.
>
>So I encourage you to take ULT lodges independently, and not lump them 
all
>together as a whole.  Why not try visiting a few lodges as an 
undercover
>student, without announcing your interest in studying them 
sociologically?
>And then report what you find.  This will get you farther than 
allegations
>posted to a public forum.



Richard, I apppreciate your long reply.

I've visited ULT Los Angeles twice & ULT
New York once.  Nice bunch of people.

I'm puzzled by your closing remark about 
>This will get you farther than allegations
>posted to a public forum.

Much of this was quoted directly from
Dr Campbell's historical study.  The lady
who is my ULT contact comments that what you
write applies to last ten-fifteen years of
ULT.  Things were different thirty-forty years ago.  
She writes Grace Clough & Henry Geiger 
literally ran the show at ULT Los Angeles.  
In recent years, my informant tells me ULT 
LA resisted selling S Cranston's biography 
of Mrs Blavatsky. After much haggling, the "leaders" 
finally gave their blessings & permission.

I see you know the names of the 7 directors.
Please share them.  I'm sure you won't.
I learned yesterday their names,
etc. can be obtained thru the California 
Secretary of State from the Corporation, Non-
Profit Division.  It's called public information.

David



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.