Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00238)

Bee:
>I took a member of our Lodge to the last Theosophy Convention and she was
>most upset at what she percieved as un-theosophical behaviour by a number of
>people and it seemed she had Theosophy on some sort of pedestal and it got
>knocked off and now she is slowly withdrawing from the Lodge as she no
>longer finds us quite what she thought.

This reminds me of my own experiences, particularly when I was heavily involved
with the LCC.  Some members there felt that to be a member of the church, one
should be a Theosophist and "know" Theosophy, even though the church was readily
accepting people with no Theosophical background.  It was also assumed that
everyone that was a church member/Theosophist was a strict vegetarian.

As for myself being a Theosophist, I have felt uneasy about putting that label
on myself, simply because I didn't quite know what it meant to be one.  I
wondered - how do I measure up to the list of requirements when I don't even
know what they are?  So what does *define* a Theosophist?  Eats lots of soy
protein?  Reads Blavatsky?  Goes to the Annual Meeting?  Fights with other
members?

Personally speaking, I would prefer this definition: A Theosophist agrees to the
three objects.  The rest is open to discussion.  Lots of discussion.

-Ann E. Bermingham