From heidrick@well.com Mon Aug 19 20:07:11 1996 Received: from nova.unix.portal.com (nova.unix.portal.com [156.151.1.101]) by jobe.shell.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA26823 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:07:11 -0700 Received: from mh1.well.com (mh1.well.com [206.15.64.22]) by nova.unix.portal.com (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA29562 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:06:53 -0700 Received: from well.com (heidrick@well.com [206.15.64.10]) by mh1.well.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id UAA28022 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:08:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 20:08:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Heidrick Subject: Re: queries To: xiwangmu In-Reply-To: <199608192018.NAA02311@jobe.shell.portal.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO 93 Mu, [much text of unrelated and/or personal nature omitted] >what was the history of the Constitution between its 1917-1919 versions >and its 1980's revision? i.e. apparently Crowley or someone else rewrote >the thing or amended it from the Kellner/Reuss revisions, no? if so, >who was involved? Some conceptual problems there. Crowley published glosses and summaries of the 1917 e.v. OTO constitution in the _Blue Equinox_ of 1919 e.v. -- the most obvious being "Intimations...". Other than that, there has been no revision since. The International Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws are much like a revision, but amount to a functional attempt to get most of the constitution into practice for the first time. The thing never worked in very well under Reuss and Crowley, while Germer mostly ignored it outside of an occasional remark. To become fully active, the old Constitution requires 2,000 OTO members in a province. There have never been that many in one country. It has a lot of bugs in it, including some provisions that have to be different from country to country according to the law of the land. >my question was intentionally more broad than this. I wanted to know >*under what conditions* such a thing *would* be allowed. I am under >the impression (again, from texts by Koenig and memory otherwise) that >this was important to the EGC's history, especially as regards its >present Patriarch. please advise, thanks. The present Patriarch has such a connection (not exactly that, but similar) in one of the two lines he claims to the Wandering Bishops. Under Grady's line, there is no such intangible linkage, all being by laying on of hands. Speaking entirely personally, I don't accept that sort of thing and don't expect to change my mind on the point. OTO could change it's rules to accept that sort of thing, but I see no sign of it. [rest omitted] 93 93/93 Bill