Theos-Talk Archives (February 1997 Message tl00053)

Someone wrote:

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?

A year ago I posted a detailed msg on the Masonic Litigation. I am reposting
it so that those who have not seen it may like to know.

If anyone has any factual information to correct what I am posting, please
post a msg. It will interest everyone,

===========================================================================
30 Jan 1996 00:55:49
CoMasonic/TS Matters

The following message is posted due to requests from abroad and
 posted here because of strong common membership between TS and (Co) M.
 Anyone not interested can hit the delete key now.

----------------------------------------
    (Co) Masonic Organization in the US:

    Some participants, especially abroad, and some are members of
either/both of TS and Co-Masonic organizations and some are not, have
evinced some interest in the Co-M developments in the USA. In order to
better understand the recent developments in the US and the legal fight
that is going on, the following background information is provided,
especially for those outside US.

    The Co-Masonic organization in the US, for a long time was set up as  a
non profit corporation in the State of Colorado. As a non profit
corporation, it had democratically elected its President and other Board  of
Directors who are responsible to run the business affairs of the
corporation. On the ritual side, there was always a representative of
Paris. Traditionally, by consensus a senior member will be recommended  to
Paris and Paris will appoint this person as its representative. The
representative did not have any powers to over rule the decisions of the
elected Board of Directors of the Colorado Corporation.

    About two years ago, two events took place. For the first time,  Paris
chose not to appoint the person recommended by the members in the  US.
Secondly, Paris wanted changes to the bylaws of the Colorado  Corporation.
The stipulation was that the appointed Representative is to  have veto
powers on any and every decision taken by the Board of  Directors. Once
anything vetoed, the Board of Directors had no choice  but to accede to the
veto. So in effect the Representative would run the  decisions of the
Colorado Corporation by Veto and the Representative is  not answerable
anyone but Paris.

    In many other countries, especially those which had been colonies of
Great Britain and other European Countries, this kind of veto wielding
Representative is very acceptable since these countries are used to
accepting the representatives of the Colonial powers and to them it  seems
nothing unusual.

======== end of part 1 of 3 ===