Theos-Talk Archives (July 2001 Message tt00258)

>You will find it in FRIENDLY PHILOSOPHER on p.28. In all such
>matters common sense ought to prevail. We are not able
>individually to provide people with short-cuts or "party-lines."

Dallas, that is exactly my position, too.
But why then I find over decades in the publications of the ULT only
one-sided stories about Crosbie and Tingley, stating all what makes Crosbie
looking good and canceled all what speaks more for KT?
Why has the ULT not a neutral position concerning historical matters? Why
this one-sideness?
Why have the ULT members not the opportunity to think for themselves by
presenting them ALL documents and facts which are accessible and not only a
very biased selection?
That is the weak position I know well from wordly organizations, churches,
political parties, trusts etc.
But an organization which claims to follow the truth should be self
confident enough to present the naked facts as they are, without lurking how
their past officials are looking.
One thing is clear: Every try to suppress the truth and to whitewash things
has ever failed in the long run. The truth comes out every time.
And I am convinced that it is better for Theosophists to write the
theosophical history for ourselves, rather than that outsiders write it with
other biased views.
But when it comes out that at least a single theosophical organization like
the ULT is not interested in truth but rather in party-lines and
whitewashing with the false hope that there will be never ever anyone who
checks it then there will come perhaps a time when outsiders will not
believe what Theosophists are saying even in case it is true.
That would be indeed a regretable development.
Frank