Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00144)

Bart,

Some additional background may help in understanding why perhaps the 
Boston Lodge got it's charter yanked...and this might rankle some 
Adyar folk, and y'all ULT'ers out there will be without something of 
a clue here.

The 80's were a very tumultuous time for Wheaton. Dorothy Abbenhouse 
was elected as a "safe alternative" to the "revolutionary minded" (by 
the old guard) Bing Escudero (perhaps with good reason, we'll never 
know). A number of Lodges and Study Centers were very pro-Bing and 
had formed loose alliances at the time. Both Abbenhouse 
administrations were tied up in dealing with the situation, which was 
always in the background no matter what else was happening. This 
caused something of a bunker mentality at Wheaton resulting in a 
defensive posture regarding the Bing Escudero situation. At this 
time, Adyar was also very sensitive to incursions by Bailey groups on 
the various sections and Boston just happened to be at the wrong 
place, at the wrong time, in the wrong circumstance. I don't know 
what the exact program was, perhaps a few monthly programs from that 
era would be helpful to peruse to see what the balance was. In any 
case, from what I know of the general attitude at Wheaton, someone(s) 
must have been making one hell of a ruckus in Boston at the time (as 
I understand, the lodge was pretty well split), because HQ does not 
want to hear about the troubles in an individual group, and by the 
time it gets there, something has gone badly out of control. There's 
something that's not being said here, I strongly suspect...

Having Bailey on the program is no sin, especially for a public 
group, or to use the lodge for meetings with prior agreement, but 
there are organizations out there to promote Bailey and her work and 
it is wrong for them to consciously try to hijack a TS group for its 
assets just the same as it would be wrong for it to happen likewise.

Otherwise, the story of the Boston Lodge is a fascinating tidbit in 
the history of the modern Theosophical movement. Thanks for everyone 
who is putting in their two cents worth.

Joe

P.S. I was Ohio Federation Pres. in late 80's, early 90's and we had 
no problem keeping our VP's busy <grins>. 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:
> Zack Lansdowne wrote:
> > In Dec. 14, 1992, Dorothy Abbenhouse, National President of the 
TSA, sent a
> > letter to the Theosophical Society in Boston (TSB) that stated in 
part: "The
> > charter of the Besant Lodge, a branch of the Theosophical Society 
in
> > America, is hereby revoked and withdrawn, effective immediately. 
All members
> > of the Besant Lodge are hereby designated members at large. 
Pursuant to the
> > terms of the Bylaws of the Theosophical Society in America, you 
are hereby
> > directed to cause ownership of all property, real and personal or 
otherwise
> > over $200.00 in value, to be transferred into the name of the 
Theosophical
> > Society in America."
> 
> For the sake of completeness:
> 
> I have heard both sides of the story. I have heard nothing 
but good 
> things about the Independent Theosophical Society of Boston, by the 
way. 
> Have you ever seen RASHOMON (if not, off topic, it is a REALLY 
great 
> film)? Well, it has NOTHING on this story. Both sides have 
demonized the 
> other, but the people I have met and/or corresponded with on both 
sides, 
> I feel are good, decent people. It is one of the reasons why I have 
> currently refused all requests to run for office in the TS 
(although I 
> freely admit that, when I was VP of the Northeast Federation, my 
entire 
> set of accomplishments consisted of keeping the seat warm).
> 
> However, there is one fact that the documents back up. 
According to the 
> TSA bylaws, if National wants to dissolve a Lodge, they must inform 
the 
> Lodge why it is being dissolved, and give the Lodge 6 months to 
either 
> change its behavior, or explain why it should not be dissolved. I 
have 
> read a cc of the letter sent by National to TSB, and it contained 
no 
> mention or even implication of Alice Bailey. However, the TSB 
refused to 
> even communicate with National for that 6 month period. In my own 
> opinion, that alone was grounds for dissolution, in clear violation 
of 
> the 1st Object.
> 
> The Board of the TSB was upset. Based on their point of view, 
they had 
> good reason to be upset. They believed that the fix was in, and 
nothing 
> they could do would prevent their dissolution. I, personally, 
don't. But 
> by refusing to even discuss the issue, they took what I consider to 
be a 
> low road, and made the lawsuit inevitable. At the risk of sounding 
like 
> Ramadoss, I believe that if the Internet backchannels of 
communication 
> were widely available at the time, the Lodge would never have been 
> dissolved in the first place.
> 
> Bart