Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00356)

Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
> > 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? 
Here are the rules, as I understand them:

1) You can only be a voting member of one lodge.
2) You can be a non-voting member of as many lodges as you want.
3) The National Lodge has no voting members (which means that, 
according to the bylaws at least, it is NOT a lodge, in spite of its name).

> > 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.
I wasn't talking about astrology, per se; I was just using it as an 
example of something that happened in the past. Dedicated "lodges" 
could, for example, include discussion of ethical problems in developing 
technology, how to create a stronger and more effective international 
community, or, for that matter, inter-society networking.

Bart