Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00123)

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote:

> JRC wrote:
> 
> >the current danger is that HQ will spend another half-million
> >dollars of the Society's resources *suing* another one of its own Lodges
> >for studying ... Hitler? no, *Alice Bailey*. 
> 
> I don't particularly care about the politics of the TS, and I have never
> seen the slightest bit of suppression of ideas in the 3 years that I have
> been involved.  If anything, new members are encouraged too much to say
> what they have to say.  I found the above statement to be incredible when I
> first heard it, but, just to prove how open-minded I can be, I thought I
> would ask Willamay Pym about the Boston Lodge fiasco, to which I believe it
> is referring.  She said that she was a member of the national board while
> it was going on, and she got the biggest kick tonight out of my repetition
> of the above statement.  She told me that there was a dispute over the
> property owned by the Boston Lodge, that HQ feared that individuals would
> end up keeping property that belonged to the scoiety, and she described the
> idea that $500,000 was spent suing them, as well as the idea that HQ would
> sue any of its lodges because they studied Alice Bailey, as "crazy."  It's
> a close one, but I think I will take Willamay's word for it over the word
> of someone who thinks it would be "cool" if Alexis was still around.  
> 
So then, to be "open-minded" you questioned someone guaranteed to give the
official party line ... and then apparently decide that because I like a
person you've fought with, that is the foundation upon which to decide
which person to believe. Gee ... that's pretty "rational" bucko. You want
to delibrately goad and disparege people? Fine ... I'll play with you. You
are sitting here on some high horse, talking almost continually down to
people, attacking them for not responding to you "rationally", while
offering little other than freshman logic and unsupported statements. 

You want to do an *OBJECTIVE* examination of the situation? No, I don't
think so - it appears as though you simply wanted to take a quick shot at
me ... as an *OBJECTIVE* examination would be to

1. Approach the subject *assuming you did not know the answer*.
2. To *investigate all points of view* - gathering data - conflicting
though it might be - from *all* the relevent sources. 
3. Form a couple of hypotheses for testing.
4. Create tests that would confirm or disprove one or more of them.
5. Come to a conclusion based on analysis - and assign a relative
likelihood to the truth of the conclusion.

You heard a statement from me - part of a post asserting that a small
coterie of people that run TS Headquarters enaged in certain activities -
so naturally you "objectively investigate" the charge by asking one of the
people at Headquarters who was involved in the situation itself if it was
true or not. Gee I just wonder *what* that person would say? Would you
also have investigated Watergate by asking Nixon whether he did it? 

Maybe you should look at the archives of this list - there was an
*extensive* discussion of the matter here ... with perspectives from all
sides presented ... not just the HQ point of view, but also the points of
view of a number of people personally involved on both sides of the
battle. It is a *fact* that Wheaton sued. It is a *fact* that some moneys
from the sale of the Boston Lodge are now in the possession of HQ - money
that was *not* raised by Wheaton ... but by past and present members of
the Boston Lodge. It is a *fact* that the Lodge is now much smaller ...
and that a group of people that left ... who HQ claimed were threatening
to "sieze the assets of the Lodge" just happened to be also Alice Bailey
afficianados. And one of the members of the Lodge that was one of those
that lost to Wheaton expressed just as much suprise that anyone was
thinking of "taking over" the assets of the Lodge ... in fact the guy was
absolutely *livid* that such charges were being made - there *was* a
battle between different factions within the Lodge ... but *no one* was
intending to personally "take over" any assets ... in fact it is not even
possible to do so - the assets of non-profits, even if they are dissolved
- cannot go to individuals ... at worst they would be distributed back to
other non-profits. Did Willamay happen to mention *who* was going to "take
over" the assets? Or exactly what "taking over" even *meant*? Or did you -
in your obviously deep and extensive questioning - even bother to ask?

The situation was quite
complex ... but *HQ* instituted court proceedings ... and considerable
moneys were spent on legal bills - that is, money that came from
*Theosophists* who probably were stupid enough to believe their dues would
be used to further the cause of Theosophy rather than to line the pockets
of lawyers. Perhaps you would like to go even further and investigate the
Wheaton books ... to actually *see* how much money was spent, and where
the money Wheaton got is now ... but you will probably have little luck,
as several different people on this list have attempted to get just such
information and have been utterly ignored by HQ. Perhaps you might wonder
why until you got on this list you had not even heard a word of the
situation ... It is not just my opinion, but that of virtually everyone
that tried to do a full investigation of the situation for themselves
(including some people quite well disposed towards Wheaton) that not only
did Wheaton supress any awareness of their actions to the membership at
large, but has delibrately thwarted all attempts to investigate it. You
want to make slimey comments about my validity because I like Alexis?
Perhaps you've been reading Liesel's posts - a woman with the balance and
experience of age that Willamay has ... that has been a strong supporter
of John Algeo in the past ... and who (since this is apparently your
standard for judging validity) had *terrible* fights with Alexis - and who
is now ... as a long time Theosophist ... seeking information about the
location of the funds Wheaton got from the Lodge - and hearing absolutely
nothing. 

Now let *me* see, who should I believe? A dozen different people,
both supporters and critics of HQ, who were deeply involved in either the
day to day unfolding of the situation itself or in attempts to pursue in
depth investigations of it ... or a man whose idea of investigation is to
ask one person ... who was herself part of the Board that instituted the
action in the first place ... and accept her word at face value as being
the truth of the entire situation? Gee, that's a close one. On the bright
side, your love of authority and willingness to come to a conclusion about
a several year complex situation based on complete belief in a statement
by one person, who could be depended upon to speak the party line, makes
you a good candidate for TS leadership. You're exactly the sort that will
probably be "invited" to offer your name for a board position a few years
from now - and if some malcontent is running against you? Don't worry! A
"speaking tour" will be  conveniently arranged that has you (in a
delightfully fortuitious coincidence) visit most main Lodges in your
region within a few months of the election. 
								-JRC