The heart of the matter...
In a recent post, ash93 suggested the creation of a position or committee within the OTO that would “hear, review, and make recommendations on grievances from members” of the MOE. ash93 states that the MOE members, when coming in conflict with those of the lovers or hermit triad often get the short end of the stick or the case gets whitewashed. ash93's solution
( Read more... )
I have visited many groups in many areas. The one's that have their act together assume I am ill-informed about the group and immediately work to set my expectations correctly and explain things to the best of their and my ability. I think it is a valid point to say that if someone was coming around for a month or two flips out that there was a clash of expectations or some other kind. But we have people leaving after years! This is not a class of expectations, this is a result of inconsistency and a lack of application of principles; a result of a failure of trust.
If we see people who are not acting based on fundamental principles, whose responsibility is it to inform them? Who responsibility is it to consistently and clearly communicate to all members what the principles are? And when or if people are not with "the program," assuming for a moment we have one, who's responsibility is it to council the members that they are not in step with "the program."
The answer to all of this is The Leadership. The MOE of wholly ignorant about what the OTO is about by design. It is the lovers and hermit triad's responsibility to inform them. To keep the faith of the MOE that the lovers and hermits have something to offer, they must maintain trust so that the MOE knows that if things go bad, they have he upper triads for assistance; failure to do so results in mistrust, disillusionment and resentment - much of what we see happening today.
Again this all comes down to principles. What are the OTO's principles? Where are they clearly stated? Where are they consistently promoted? How are they consistently upheld?
We both know, they are not. That is one of the root reasons we are in the bind we are in today!
Reply
Excellent question! I resist Ash's idea for more reasons than just 194 or the fact that it simply adds red tape to muddy waters (to mix metaphors). I resist it as a reflection of my fundamental value that the Authority in the Order manifests from the top down. It's bad magick to give IIIrd degrees the ability to call IXth degrees on the carpet.
As I see it, Ash's idea is based on an egalitarian value system which I have grown to reject in the past four years or so. Moreover, I believe that rejection is a result of my own deepening initiation. In short, I believe Ash's idea is counter to the principles of the Order, clearly he believes the contrary.
If we had a clear barometer of informing principles from the leadership I don't think these sorts of discussions would occupy so much of our time. I think that the leadership tries to please everyone, and as the consequence often is, pleases no one. On the other hand, it also seems that there is alot of stratification of values according to degree. VIIth seem, as a rule, alot more Shellyean than IXth. IVth seems very invested in bridging the gap between the MoE and Lovers triads. Vth degrees tend start out as firebrands for justice. These are peculiarities particular to the nature of the degrees and grades in question. And there has to be a stretch factor to allow all of these people to grow at their own place in the organization. I'm sure the leadership have Ordeals of their own.
Which is not to say that I approve of higher triad members throwing their weight around. It might behove them to remember that their authority over any individual member only goes as far as that member is willing to play along. If they want people to continue to play along they should behave decently.
I think the membership would do well to remember this, as well. I actually lost sleep for a couple of nights when Sashatra justified not calling the police in regards to her allegations of sexual abuse by citing the prohibition against lawsuits between members. Uh, hello?
First of all, it bothers me that a local body master so misunderstands the guidelines by which she is supposed to operate that she reads the OTO prohibition against litigation between members in such a starkly incorrect fashion. Secondly, even if it were so, who is so easily led and morally bankrupt that they would not report a violent crime because of such a rule?
And in the case of Burningblue, I have to question the common sense of someone who endangers his finances to such a precarious degree as he paints over an OTO body. Since he has chosen to not explain himself, despite repeated requests, I honestly find myself disinclined to put a great deal of store in his vague claims.
Reply
I could not agree more with the above!
Also a note to Sashatra's & Buringblue's situations...I know next to NOTHING about them. All I know is that there is a conflict, there are two sides to each, one is leaving the OTO in each situation. The members both feel they have been wronged, the OTO cannot/will not present its side and so people like you only see the one-sided claims and the local bodies/grand lodge in this case have no way of clarifying the situation or clearing up the allegations made about it to the membership in general. Now who does this serve in the end? No one! The OTO looks bad; the persons become resentful, bad mouth the OTO and fuel people like Koenig. Overall a lose/lose situation.
I am sure though if the principles of the OTO were clear, communicated in advance, and consistently applied, what ever behaviors that took place, could be judged from a consistent view point and the parties involved would have a clear understanding (to the best of their ability) of what is expected of them and what would happen if those expectations were violated. We don't have that kind of foundation right now.
PS: You really need to change that icon, it is confusing to write to you but see someone else I know pictured.
Reply
Leave a comment