Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: A new beginning - Frank?

Expand Messages
  • Frank Smith
    ... So that was the situation in 1923: the Anthroposophical Society was re-founded and the Building Society continued to exist. Apparently an attempt was made
    Message 1 of 33 , Feb 1, 2006
      --- Frank Smith <eltrigal78@...> wrote:

      > Yes, and there are many opinions about this. Mine is
      > that the A.S. exists as the baseline for the Free
      > School for Spiritual Science and, originally, Rudolf
      > Steiner's activities within it. It was re-founded
      > during the Christmas Conference in order to unite
      > the
      > anthroposophical movement with the Society - because
      > there were so many people in the movement who were
      > not
      > in the Society because it was, well, a mess. So
      > Steiner officialy took over the leadership of the
      > Society as well as the movement, which were to
      > become
      > one. Previously he had been the teacher, and not
      > even
      > a member. If we look at the Free School today, we
      > easily see that it has become a shell as far as
      > Steiner's initiatary intentions are concerned. The
      > continuous re-reading and study of Steiner's
      > original
      > lectures and mantrams. One could say, fine, this is
      > enough, we haven't yet mastered them. Others could
      > say
      > no, there is no esoteric school within the Free
      > School
      > as originally intended because it consists of the
      > same
      > old material, with no progress, no initiate to lead
      > it.
      > >
      > Stephen: The other thing is, that in his
      > magnificently
      > > Luciferic fixation upon
      > > cosmic esoteric horizons, he [SP] does not address
      > the
      > > irreduceable
      > > Ahrimanic content of the Christmas Conference: its
      > > formal legal
      > > structure - one which has been conclusively found
      > by
      > > the Swiss courts
      > > (the venue that the Society chose to use) to have
      > > been a failed form.
      > >
      > > No form = no content.
      > Frank: This is not really the case. During the C.C.
      > the Anthroposophical Society was correctly founded,
      > formed. What the Swiss courts decided was that 3/4
      > of
      > a century later it could no longer be considered to
      > exist because it had had no General Meetings, no
      > balances, nothing, in all that time.
      > >
      > Stephen: And in actuality, if there are indeed _NO_
      > remaining
      > > members of the
      > > pre-CC Society still alive, this refutes his
      > appeal
      > > to the "loyal few
      > > members" who still might retain connection to the
      > > essential mission
      > > of the Society.
      > Frank: You mean the A.S. founded at the C.C. in
      > 1923,
      > which legally only existed until Dec. 1925. I think
      > there is one person still alive - in America. In
      > 2001
      > or 2, the Vorstand presented to the court an
      > undated,
      > un-authenticated letter from her, which the court
      > rejected as insufficient.
      > >
      > > No doubt Frank would offer some additional
      > questions
      > > from out of his
      > > long investigations into this matter of the
      > provenly
      > > failed
      > > reorganization of the GAS/GA. Your opinion, or
      > > clarification of
      > > these questions, Frank?
      > Frank: Alas, Stephen, you well know that this is
      > much
      > too complicated to go into convincingly here. But
      > I'll
      > try. As I wrote above, the Anthroposophical Society
      > was correctly re-founded in 1923. Since 1923,
      > however,
      > another Society existed (Building Society for short)
      > which was the legal owner of all the Society's
      > properties, including the Goetheanum. It's like you
      > have a Waldorf school, call it the R.Steiner School.
      > Who owns it though? In the U.S. it's called a
      > not-for-profit corporation (I think), in LAtin
      > America
      > a civil association, in Germany and Switzerland a
      > Verein.
      > (to be continued)
      So that was the situation in 1923: the
      Anthroposophical Society was re-founded and the
      Building Society continued to exist. Apparently an
      attempt was made to unify the two in 1924, but was
      never carried out, for unknown reasons. On Feb. 8,
      1925 a General Meeting of the Building Society took
      place during which its name as changed to “General
      Anthroposophical Society”. The Vorstand named was
      the same as that of the Anthroposophical Society of
      1923; the previous Vorstand were to be administrators.
      According to the modified statutes, a sub-section of
      this Society was “The administration of the
      Anthroposophical Society”, which indicated that the
      A.S. of 1923 still existed. Because of his illness (he
      died a little over a month later) Rudolf Steiner did
      not attend this meeting, but he did sign the protocol.
      Then, in December 1925 another General Meeting of this
      re-named G.A.S. was held. It was not a G.M. of the
      A.S. of 1923, but the members thought it was, and were
      incorporated into the G.A.S. (ex-Building Society)
      without their knowledge. Were they duped? Yes.
      Intentionally so? I don’t know; no one knows. As of
      then only one Society existed, and it wasn’t the
      A.S. of the Christmas Conference. However, since then
      and for decades the various Vorstands have insisted
      that the re-named B.S. is in fact the A.S. of 1923, in
      other words it was the G.A.S. which was re-founded
      then. However, the documents indicate otherwise. For
      example, the membership cards and statutes of that
      Christmas Meeting (and to this day) read
      “Anthroposophical Society” and not “General
      A.S.” The Vorstands have maintained that the 1925
      statutes (which were completely different from those
      of 1923) exist only as a legal necessity because those
      of 1923 were not acceptable under Swiss law, and that
      the Society functions according to what they called
      the “principles", i.e., the statutes of the A.S. of
      1923. However, later investigation has shown that they
      were and are acceptable as legal statutes. That was
      the situation, which began to change in the eighties
      when a “memorandum” was published (
      http://southerncrossreview.org/memorandum.htm ). (I
      lived in Switzerland during its drafting, but had
      moved to Argentina by the time it was published.) It
      was bitterly contested by the Vorstand and others.
      However, in time others began to look into the history
      and saw that the facts were incontestable and in
      2001/2 the present Vorstand recognized the situation
      (which was that many members were now aware of the
      facts and wanted to be members of the Christmas
      Conference Society (A.S.) and not the re-named
      Building Society). So the Vorstand attempted to
      rectify the situation by claiming that the A.S (which
      they still maintain is really the G.A.S.) still
      existed and convoking a General Meeting of same. They
      prepared new statutes which, imo, had the effect of
      simply calling the G.A.S. of 1925 the A.S. of 1923.
      The great majority of members present approved this.
      However, it infuriated many others and finally 3
      different groups sued the Society in Swiss courts. The
      Society lost, appealed and lost again. So now nothing
      has changed (except that the Society has had to pay
      large amounts in court and lawyers fees) - status
      quo. This is complicated, I know, and I regret to
      inform those interested that it is impossible to have
      a complete overview without knowing German, for the
      documentation is voluminous – although much is
      obviously also missing – most of which has not been
      translated. (cont.)

      > >
      > >
      > > I would like to see SP turn his acumen to this
      > > question, for if
      > > unresolved, it calls into question many of his
      > > secondary conclusions
      > > and admonitions about the significance of the CC.
      > >
      > > Stephen
      > Frank Thomas Smith
      > http://SouthernCrossReview.org
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
      > protection around
      > http://mail.yahoo.com
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > --------------------~-->
      > Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and
      > poor with hope and healing
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Frank Thomas Smith

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    • Steve Hale
      Dottie, I haven t seen any of GA100 from November 1907, but I can definitely tell you that in the Gospel of John lectures, given from May 18-31, 1908, that
      Message 33 of 33 , Feb 13, 2006

        I haven't seen any of GA100 from November 1907, but I can definitely
        tell you that in the Gospel of John lectures, given from May 18-31,
        1908, that Steiner makes the specific point that two sisters do not
        have the same name, referring to Jesus' mother and her sister named
        Mary standing next to her under the cross. And also the fact that
        Jesus' birth mother is never named in this gospel.

        So, we have to take the Fifth Gospel, the supersensible gospel into
        account in order to bring to light the really extraordinary facts
        here. Because only here do we find out that Jesus' stepmother is
        the mother of the other Jesus boy, who first bore the Zarathustra
        Ego as the culmination of the physical hereditary blood line of the
        Hebrew cultural stream and its 42 generations from Abraham to
        Joseph, the father of this Solomon Jesus child. And we mut give
        great consideration to the fact that these two boys lived as
        neighbors in Nazareth for ten years, until the events that occurred
        when they were twelve years old.

        And where else can we discern that Jesus' own mother died not long
        after he was found missing after three days and discovered in
        Jerusalem talking with the scribes and priests? And that both the
        Solomon Jesus and his father, Joseph, died around that time as
        well. This boy's mother was named Mary, who lived with her child
        and husband in Bethlehem until the boy was about two years old.
        Then they travelled to Egypt until Herod's death was announced, and
        upon returning home, Joseph was struck with the intuition to go to
        Nazareth, largely because of uncertainty about Herod's son and his
        possible intentions to continue the massacre of the two-year olds,
        but also as a stroke of divine destiny that these two boys would
        live together as well as these two families for ten years.

        So, we know that the mother of the Matthew Jesus entered the
        household of the Nathan Jesus and his father, Joseph, when Mary's
        own husband and son died, and Jesus' mother died, leaving her
        husband a widower. This then becomes the basis for the account,
        contained nowhere else but in the Fifth Gospel, the supersensible
        gospel, wherein Jesus sits down with his stepmother at the age of
        twenty-nine and pours out his soul to her. And the Mother is
        resurrected in the stepmother. We know this clearly because it is
        stated emphatically in this gospel.

        And as a result this can mean no other than that Jesus' mother,
        spiritually restored in the stepmother, the mother of the Matthew
        Jesus named Mary, must be the one seen supersensibly by Jesus
        looking down from the cross. Thus, they must be sisters. The two
        Jesus boys had sisters for mothers.


        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
        <dottie_z@...> wrote:
        > Hey Stephen,
        > I've referenced the Isis Mary Sophia book but I seemed
        > to never have noticed the phrase 'three sisters' which
        > obviously include the Magdalene in that family. And
        > this is why I was wanting to see if you had the John
        > lecture at home where you could check directly to see
        > if this was Rudolf Steiner's exact wording. Not that I
        > doubt the editor of this Isis Sophia Mary book but I
        > am always one who needs to see the original
        > translation versus the second translation in another
        > book.
        > I am imagining you do not have this John lecture at
        > home. Does anyone have this original lecture that is
        > referenced in the Isis Sophia Mary book by Steiner
        > Books?
        > And its important Stephen to note if it does in fact
        > say 'three sisters' including the Magdalene. That is a
        > pretty stunning quote and one that works directly in
        > line with my findings.
        > And your opinion is fine as to how it relates to the
        > idea of the two sisters and so forth. But what are
        > Rudolf Steiner's words directly? That allows me to
        > work past what others opinions are and see how he was
        > relating these women and what that has to do with my
        > own work on these three women.
        > Lecture on the John Gospel anyone?
        > Best,
        > Dottie
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.