Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tl00466)

At 10:05 PM 12/16/96 +0000, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu> wrote:
>
>TR
>>I have no information on which to base a definite opinion about
>>any specifics of the "Wheaton oligarchy" except that I
>>personally think very highly of one of the ex-national officers
>>who is a member of my lodge,
>
>JHE
>Well, I guess I was not sufficiently explicit when I used the
>term "Wheaton Oligarchy."  I doubt that if I were to name names,
>they would have much meaning to most of the people on theos-l,
>but for the record, here goes:  The people I have in mind do not
>necessarily sit on the National Board, though all of them have at
>one time or another.  Further, those who are elected to the
>National Board are not necessarily a member of this exclusive
>group, though this group has a lot of influence as to who does.
>I have been a member of the TS since 1963 and have known many of
>them, but most are now dead--E.G.: Ann Green, Fritz Kunz, the
>Sellons, Anita Wild, the Laytons etc.  Those who are still living
>include: Willamay Pym, Dora Kunz, Joy Mills and Austin Bee.  New
>comers to the circle include John Algeo and Betty Bland.  I am
>not suggesting that any of the above named are or were awful
>people--only that they are very powerful influences in the
>Wheaton TS.  I personally get along with most of the above people
>and I'm even rather fond of one or two.

I would not be surprised if Willamay Pym is one of which you are fond, since
she was who I was referring to as the one of whom I think highly.  I would
find it hard to believe that she has been involved in suppressing anyone's
voice.  We both attend most members' meetings at the Seattle lodge, we are
both on the board, and we frequently disagree, but I have never seen a sign
of her trying to suppress anything I (or anyone else) wanted to say, but
just the opposite.  She has gone out of her way to encourage me.

I know little of the politics of the TS, but I find it easy to believe that
these people have the power that you say they do.  But why is that
considered to be a problem?  The only alternative to someone having power is
to not have an organization at all.  That power can be abused does not mean
that it is not a net gain.  My impression so far from the comments on this
list is that the very existence of power, not how it is used, is what is
being criticized.  If Theosophy does not stand for some ideas and reject
others, the word "Theosophy" is meaningless.