Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00353)

>
>
>Essentially, you can only 
>be a voting member of one Lodge, but the National Lodge is not a Lodge, 
>but a discussion group.
>
Have the rules changed? Can one be a member of a Lodge and of the 
National Lodge--even if you don't have a vote? 

>I wanted to expand that out, and create online 
>"Lodges" specializing in a given topic (like Alan Leo's Astrological 
>Lodge), but got a cold shoulder from National (not that we can't just go 
>ahead and do it on our own).
>
Astrology is making a comeback. I would get in touch with some of the 
better known astrologers, get their feedback, questions, anticipated 
problems, organizational and substantive issues etc. and work with them 
to put something together. If you do it that way, you won't have an 
organization looking over your shoulder and giving you a hard time about 
it.

>There was a couple down in Washington, DC, who had broken away from 
>ULT. They had a theosophical bulletin board, and they created a telnet 
>link to it (they had the domain, theosophy.org). Essentially, they had 
>created their own little Theosophical Society.
> 
>

I've heard about them. I suspect that within ten years, quality live 
broadcast over the internet will be possible and the technology pretty 
widely available.

>Well, I hope to be a friend of yours, even if we don't agree on everything.
> 
>
If we agreed on everything, there would be no point in dialogue.

--j




Bart Lidofsky wrote:

>Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
> 
>
>>fold. Consequently, the member-at-large population began making up a 
>>greater and greater percentage of the total membership. A "National 
>>Lodge" was formed, under the control of Headquarters, which effectively 
>>encouraged and accelerated this new demographic. 
>> 
>>
>
>	I have my own experience with that. As one who has been VERY close to 
>the bylaws process (at the New York Lodge, I'm still the chairman of the 
>bylaws committee by default; every few months, I ask the board if they 
>want somebody else for the job, and they say, no), I had some long 
>conversations with John Algeo about the National Lodge, and how it was 
>created, in the light of the current bylaws. Essentially, you can only 
>be a voting member of one Lodge, but the National Lodge is not a Lodge, 
>but a discussion group. 
>
> 
>
>>We considered chartering under ULT or Pasadena, but had no reason to 
>>believe that things would be much different there either. We further 
>>concluded that the Theosophical Movement is for more important than the 
>>organizations. Therefore, we decided to independently continue our work 
>>under the same original program laid out in the beginning, and promote 
>>the same objects and the same teachings. Otherwise, we would be 
>>completely unconnected to the TSA. 
>> 
>>
>
>	There was a couple down in Washington, DC, who had broken away from 
>ULT. They had a theosophical bulletin board, and they created a telnet 
>link to it (they had the domain, theosophy.org). Essentially, they had 
>created their own little Theosophical Society.
>
> 
>
>>While I was not successful in getting a discussion going here, I did 
>>succeed in making new friends, and continue to dialogue with them 
>>privately.
>> 
>>
>
>	Well, I hope to be a friend of yours, even if we don't agree on everything.
>
>	Bart
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]