Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00943)

At 09:02 PM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote:
>----------
>> From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>
>
>> I'm happy to hear that the LCC is developing its own identity in
>> your area.  My experience with the LCC is from the Los Angeles
>> and Ojai areas where the TS Bishops still run the churches.  I do
>> remember one person about ten years ago at Far Horizons camp who
>> was involved in the LCC and was trying to compile a set of
>> doctrines for it (under the auspices of the proper authorities of
>> course).  I remember that he personally regarded CWL's writings
>> as ridiculous but was rather fond of Alice Bailey's.  He lives in
>> your neck of the woods now, so you may know him.
>
>The two bishops that ran the Chicago church since 1971, one
>now deceased, were obviously Theosophists and included
>theosophy in their talks, but never actually mentioned any link
>with TS or encouraged it.  There is a new bishop, consecrated in
>1993, who is closely connected with TS and aggressively proselytizes
>TS to any members who have not joined TS.  As I suspected, it
>depends on the individual's approach.  But they've been
>battling about whether the LCC should be primarily Theosophical or 
>Christian for decades.
>
>I'm not aware of the person you describe, unless he's a closet
>Baileyite.
>
>> AEB
>> >I'm not sure I understand you about the one important
>> >function of the LCC.  To provide bishops who will then be
>> >leaders of TS?  Very few bishops or priests that I know have
>> >much to do with the other groups - they're too busy trying to
>> >make a living, keep a church running and have time for
>> >their families.
>>  
>> JHE
>> I'm writing from the point of view of the inner group of the TS,
>> not from the point of view of the LCC.  Of course the LCC sees
>> itself as a religious institution and sets its aims accordingly. 
>> On the other hand, for potential TS leaders to work their way up
>> through the ranks of influence in the TS, they are expected to be
>> involved in the LCC, Co-Masonry and the ER.  
>
>The Emergency Room? :-)
>
>Well, those potential high-flyers must have working
>wives support them while they pursue this course, or they manage
>to function without sleep.  Active holy orders would require their
>Sundays, not to mention clergy and vestry meetings.  Co-M is at
>least several hours once a month in this area.  I have
>no idea when the ES meets or how often.
>
>They also better be well off, as the clergy robes at
>the LCC have to be tailored to CWL's specs (unless you have a
>wife who is handy at sewing - but there's still the material.  Linen
>is $10-15 a yard.)  And in the Co-M, you pay more the higher
>you climb through the lodges.  Is there a fee for ES?
>
>I strongly suspect that the requirements to be a part of all
>these groups were made at a time when people had more time.
>
>JHE
>>This is why the
>> current lawsuit over the Larkspur Co-Masonic split is considered
>> so critical to the TS. 
>
>I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group
>trying to take all the resources and form another group.  Are
>you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with
>TS is a potential threat?
>

        Co-M's HQ is in Paris. They wanted autocratic remote control from
Paris. The majority of members in the US rebelled to this foreign control
and decided to say bye-bye to Paris and set up its own Grand Lodge in the US
owing no allegiance to any one outside the US. In the masculine masonry,
every State of the US has its own Grand Lodge. So it is in line with the US
tradition. The Paris followers in the US sued the US (co)masonry to take
control of the assets. The litigation is going on in Denver Federal District
Court. It would be interesting to see how the litigation turns out to be.

        However it turns out to be, the bottom line is large sums of money
donated for charitable purposes is being spent on lawyers who are happy to
litigate. 

        Couple of years ago, TSA put the Co-Masonic (Paris) faction program
in the official agenda of the annual convention. I took objection to it
because it is an overt attempt to get TSA mixed up with Co-Masonic
Organization. I wrote to TSA and Adyar about this issue at that time.

MKR
>> Perhaps the LCC will also eventually
>> split and the whole system in the TS will fall apart.
>
>Numerous priests and clergy have gone off to start their own 
>churches or join other independent ones.
>
>> AEB
>> As for new associations, there is a rather large congregation in
>> Fairfield, Iowa, near Maharishi's school that is filled with 
>> members who publicly espouse both Liberal Catholicism
>> and Maharishi's philosophy.
>>  
>> JHE
>> Great.  I've noticed that the TS doesn't seem to be threatened by
>> Maharishi philosophy.  I wonder what would happen if Alice Bailey
>> people filled the church. 
>
>I'm not sure they'd be interested.
>
>BTW, I received Candle in the Sun today.
>
>Thank you,
>-AEB
>