Theos-Talk Archives (January 1995 Message tl00192)

Jerry:

Please keep the issues you raise in front of theos-l folk.  The
important issue, as you say, is the deceit and selective editing
of material that has taken place over the years.  One wonders how
many "cover-ups" we *do not* now about there are.

As a student of Christian History as well as church liturgies,
and a one-time supporter of CWL's Liberal Catholic Church (which,
IMO is neither liberal, nor catholic) I share with all known
scholars in these areas the view that his _Science of the
Scaraments_ is no more than one man's peculiarly psychic point of
view - using the word peculiar in all its senses.

There is absolutely *no* evidence anywhere in the history of the
entire Christian church that supports the fantasies contained in
this book, but like you, i have come across people who would
defend it to the death *simply because it was written by CWL.*

This is not good enough, and if we *truly* believe that there is
no religion higher than truth, then we should be prepared to
examine serious claims based on original research which will help
us towards the realization of this lofty goal.

As you rightly suggest, the editing of texts for more up to date
editions is usually accompanied by information stating why and
how the text has been re-presented in its edited form.  Even some
of the most odd organizations do this.  (But rarely the TS).  I
have a book by the British Israelite movement called _St.  Paul
in Britain_ by the Rev.  R.W.Morgan [See also my "Bishops
Irregular"] in which they state the omission of his opening
chapter as not being of importance to the main body of the work,
and therfore omitted.  This is actually (IMO) true, but having
later obtained a copy of the original containing the omitted
material, I discovered that Morgan was without doubt seriously
lacking in scholarly skills, and that his opening material and
its conclusions were seriously flawed - which of course then
places the value of the remainder of the text in a less favorable
light, even though it is still of some value as valid
speculation.

The same may be said of much of Ledbeater's work.  I regard him
on the whole as something of a loveable old fraud.  Much of what
he wrote merely re-hashed standard theosophical "dogma" - a
contradition there I think - and was not original work in any
case.

As you and I both know, all such suggestions (as I call them) or
allegations (as some call them) or slanders against a saint (as
some would have us believe) are capable of investigation, and
susceptible of verification or otherwise.  I find it very sad
indeed that anyone who claims to support TS ideals should reject
the search for the truth of any matter, especially if the reason
is clearly that they *want* to believe things which can be
determined at best to be no more than theory (Einstein's
Relativity is still only a theory, not an absolute truth) and at
worst to be plain falsehood.

The following has always been, and will remain [as long as I
remain] my advice to my own students:

"This is the teaching as I have received it.  Don't believe a
damn word of it.  *Check it out!*"

Someone care to explain why this should not be done? You would do
it with a used car, wouldn't you?

-- Please send E-mail to: guru@nellie2.demon.co.uk [Mailbox
shared with various worthy causes - IMHO]