Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01588)

You wrote:

"That's pretty much what most members do. The only issue that I 
personally care about (as opposed to care about in theory) is the 
downgrading of the lodges, and the lack of communication between 
lodges. I used to be on the board of directors of my local lodge, 
and was, for one term, vice president of the Northeast Federation 
(the latter mostly as a seat-warmer)."

Okay.  I had noticed a curious thing when I had questioned someone 
at the Theosophical Society Headquarters at Wheaton.  I asked a 
simple question regarding if they had social gatherings like many 
local churches do.  And I was told that all of the other 
Theosophical locations typically do, but that Wheaton, in it's 
uniqueness, does not.  At least not officially.  Rather, there were 
strictly lectures and classes.  So I thought to myself: 'Hhmm, it 
must be sorta hard to meet people there then; how do outsiders like 
myself get involved?'.  It seems that I have to filter meeting 
people through lectures and class sessions.  No officially-scheduled 
socials available.

"One major problem is that the Theosophical Society has a large 
amount of property, all of which was donated, much of which was 
donated by people who are either still alive, or whose heirs are 
still alive and active in TS business."

A terrible contrast to this would be the intensive money campaigns 
launched by Christian fundamentalist churches.  They're always 
crying for money, due to a lack of individual investors.  So there's 
the opposite extreme.  So the TS's current financial structure is 
actually slightly refreshing to me, at least in contrast to 
moneyhungry churches that spend fifteen minutes a service telling 
people that 'GOD' wants their money.

"Due to its technically democratic structure and relatively low 
membership, it makes the lodges and sections very tempting targets 
for hostile takeovers by outside organizations (the Arcane School 
has been particularly active in these hostile takeovers). Those who 
donated the property and moneys, and their heirs, are understandably 
concerned that these donations will go to an organization which they 
consider to be (and, in many cases, rightly so) hostile towards the 
cause for which the donations were made in the first place."

Competition.  Churches engage in that too quite often.  Although 
churches tend to center their methods moreso around trying to steal 
members away from each other, versus infiltrating one another with 
hostile property takeovers.  Not that those are unknown in 
churches.  Church takeovers usually originate from factions 
internally residing within core membership bases.  They seldom come 
from without.

"The major problem is that the measures that have been taken to 
prevent a hostile takeover also tend to prevent a non-hostile 
takeover; dedicated Theosophists who believe that the current 
management is moving in incorrect directions, but have no problem 
with the TS itself."

Churches are often inherently oligarchal, so 'lodges' never get 
formed in the first place.  They are quite skilled in preventing 
hostile takeovers.  Donations are demanded by 'GOD', so the donators 
have no say what happens with the money.  Money goes to paying the 
leaders and expanding the property base.  'GOD' decides all that, 
and communicates it through the leaders' mouths.  Any other 
perspectives strictly constitute insubordination against 'GOD', and 
stirs dissension among the members.

"For example, there are many Theosophists who believe that if the 
Mahatmas couldn't find someone who could be both a managerial and 
spiritual leader of the TS, then an electoral process almost 
certainly can't, either, and that the directors of the Theosophical 
Society should stick to management, and not set themselves up as 
spiritual leaders, as well. Others feel that the Mahatmas said that 
the Esoteric Section shouldn't interfere with TS business, and if 
it's good enough for the Mahatmas, it's good enough for them."

So who decides?

Vince

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@...> wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> > I'm sorry to hear about all of the politics that yourself and 
others 
> > have to grieve over.  Right now, I'm just attending a few of the 
> > courses so I can learn new things, paying the suggested non-
> > membership donations for each individual session that I attend.  
I'm 
> > not really desirous to get involved in the political power 
structure 
> > of the organization.
> 
> 	That's pretty much what most members do. The only issue that 
I 
> personally care about (as opposed to care about in theory) is the 
> downgrading of the lodges, and the lack of communication between 
lodges. 
> I used to be on the board of directors of my local lodge, and was, 
for 
> one term, vice president of the Northeast Federation (the latter 
mostly 
> as a seat-warmer).
> 
> 	One major problem is that the Theosophical Society has a 
large amount 
> of property, all of which was donated, much of which was donated 
by 
> people who are either still alive, or whose heirs are still alive 
and 
> active in TS business. Due to its technically democratic structure 
and 
> relatively low membership, it makes the lodges and sections very 
> tempting targets for hostile takeovers by outside organizations 
(the 
> Arcane School has been particularly active in these hostile 
takeovers). 
> Those who donated the property and moneys, and their heirs, are 
> understandably concerned that these donations will go to an 
organization 
> which they consider to be (and, in many cases, rightly so) hostile 
> towards the cause for which the donations were made in the first 
place.
> 
> 	The major problem is that the measures that have been taken 
to prevent 
> a hostile takeover also tend to prevent a non-hostile takeover; 
> dedicated Theosophists who believe that the current management is 
moving 
> in incorrect directions, but have no problem with the TS itself. 
For 
> example, there are many Theosophists who believe that if the 
Mahatmas 
> couldn't find someone who could be both a managerial and spiritual 
> leader of the TS, then an electoral process almost certainly 
can't, 
> either, and that the directors of the Theosophical Society should 
stick 
> to management, and not set themselves up as spiritual leaders, as 
well. 
> Others feel that the Mahatmas said that the Esoteric Section 
shouldn't 
> interfere with TS business, and if it's good enough for the 
Mahatmas, 
> it's good enough for them.
> 
> 	Bart
>