Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00157)

In a message dated 97-01-07 19:50:03 EST, you write:

<< 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.   >>


Tom Robertson's response to JRC's statement is essentially correct. I had a
telephone conversation last year with another former Board Member who lives
near Philadelphia. I was told basically the same thing...that there was a
dispute over TS ownership versus private ownership of the Lodge property in
Boston. Nothing was ever mentioned about any lawsuit over the teachings of
Alice Bailey. I'm not really a fan of HQ in Wheaton, but such an action on
their part would be bizarre, to say the least. How could such a case be won
in court over such a silly issue. How would someone (like a judge or jurors)
outside the theosophical spectrum even understand such a controversy? Anyway
Alice Baileyites could claim that they're just another school of theosophy
and have as much right to present their ideas at Lodge meetings as do
Blavaskyites and so-called "neo-theosophists" (Leadbeater, Besant, Hodson, et
al).