Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00519)

As far as I know every ULT-lodge has a Secretary as head, who gather 
around himself/herself a group (a working group) of the most active 
members. These groups are self recruiting. The decisions are made in 
this group. Within the ULT, the lodges do not "own" anything, 
officially at lest. Everything, as publishing companies, libraries, 
archives, money, estates etc is controlled by a private foundation 
(as the Theosophy Company) which has its own officers, but most 
often the same persons as in the groups above mentioned.  

Way do they not tell in public how those "Lodge Secretaries" and 
working group member are? They (the ULT) say that they don't want 
anyone to stand in the way of Theosophy. That means that if one of 
the ULT-officers "flips out", ULT as an organisation not will have 
to suffer in any way, coursed by this, hence nobody, outside the 
organisation (the ULT), knows (or should not know) which is an 
officer. 

Carl

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, gregory@... wrote:
>
> Carlos appears to have a problem with the idea of archival 
material being
> stored in an attic – and for more than five years! Contributions 
to buying
> a mansion with sufficient space to keep all my Theosophical 
material in a
> readily accessible manner will be gratefully received! At present, 
I only
> keep material relevant to current research in an accessible 
location – and
> I have no particular research interest in Crosbie, the ULT, etc.
> The comment of mine quoted by Daniel is genuine. When I was 
undertaking
> research on Leadbeater in California I met with a number of people 
who had
> been at Point Loma when Crosbie departed. For some reason, 
the "real
> reasons" for his departure seem to have been regarded as a deep 
secret,
> but I was eventually told his departure related to his claims of 
contact
> with HPB and the Masters. Obviously I have no way of knowing 
whether this
> was true, but it would explain an otherwise unexplained action. 
Certainly
> the DES material I have, or have seen, implies an authority for 
the DES
> which is not based on any historical succession. No doubt all 
could be
> explained if the ULT's archives were accessible.
> My limited contact with the ULT has been entirely pleasant. My 
criticism
> of ULT relates to the manifestly bogus claim that it is somehow an
> organization without authorities or leaders, and its strange habit 
of not
> identifying the authors (other than HPB, WQJ, et al) of its 
publications.
> For example, neither the ULT as such nor all its Assoiates 
wrote "The
> Thosophical Movement"! The book had an author or authors – so why 
aren't
> they identified? This, by the way, is a technique also adopted by 
the
> Jehovah's Witnesses. There are obviously leaders and authorities 
in the
> ULT – it's just that (unlike Adyar or Pasadena) their identities 
are not
> disclosed. When I sought to do research at the ULT library in 
London,
> "permission" had to be obtained. From whom? If I want to access 
the ULT
> archives (which presumably exist somewhere and under the control of
> someone), to whom do I apply? If I write to the ULT someone will 
reply,
> although the letter may be "signed" with "The United Lodge of
> Theosophists". Someone decides who may and may not speak at ULT 
meetings.
> Someone legally owns ULT assets and edits its journals. How and by 
whom
> are those actually in charge appointed?
> As I previously wrote to Daniel, unknown and unknowable sources of
> authority exercise greater power because they are effectively
> unchallengeable.
> 
> Dr Gregory Tillett
>