Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00169)

At 03:59 PM 1/8/97 -0500, you wrote:
>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). 
>

There was a lot of first hand information posted on Boston Lodge affair
about a year ago on theos-l. I am sure they are available in the archives.
They throw a lot of light and will help everyone to understand and make up
their own mind.

The bottom line is no one misappropriated any of the property and no one
personally benfitted from the property. The only ones who came out ahead
were the lawyers who got a lion's share. It is rather unfortunate that money
donated by earnest Theosophists for spreading the motto "There is no
Religion Higher Than Truth", was wasted on litigation. The donors, if they
are able to see from whatever plane they are now, they will shed tears and
would be heartbroken. 

MKR