Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00421)

Brigitte wrote: 
> List members like Adelasie and Dallas really treath HPB's
> Theosophy as a pseudo-religion, a sort of "Received Truth", not 
> much different from Mormon's and the "Book of Mormon" (here
> Isis and the SD).

Many on this list know me as moderator of BN-Study and thus also know of
my Mormon background (35 years as a active Mormon)

My Theosophical background is only eight years.

All this discussion is of interest to me due to the parallels. My
position in all this is neutral, although I am a ULT affiliate, whenever
historical studies are involved, I am open and ever seeking the real
truth. Anything less is a cop out.

Some observations:

My educational background is in history/political science, though I have
not used it professionaly. I prepared several historical manuscripts for
publication during my Mormon years, but they sit on a shelf, long
neglected. One maxim I picked up in college is "a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing" or "reading just one book on a subject is a dangerous
thing". No one writes a history without some "spin"to it. That's why they
write in the first place, to share their special insights others have
ignored . To read onlt one author is to be exposed to only one point of
view. I thought it better to read a wide variety of sources and form my
own opinions.

This liberal/fundimentalist rift is hard to over come. Mormon Apostle
Boyd Packer once made the observation that "all truth is not of equal
importance". That sums up the fundimentalist position in a nutshell. If
the truth supports the official position, promulgate it. If it detracts
from that postion, suppress it.

But we all know this.

What bothers me at this junction is the perceived inflexability of
certain theosophists.

When comparing Theosophy with Mormonism, I see one similarity and one
difference.

The similarity is that both are historical institutions. That means that
both rely on the credibility of their history. As Brigitte and others
have said, both have documents which are perported to be of supernatural
origin. Distroy the veracity of that history on down comes the whole
house of cards.

The difference is this (as I see it-others may differ)The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is as close to a monolithic entity as is
humanly possible. The dogma is clear. The history as the Church would
have it is also clear. Desention is quickly rooted out. A discussion such
as we have been having here is somply not possible. You would quickly
hear statements like "We're not here to give the Devil his due! If You're
going to teach or speak in Christ's Church then teach or speak Christ's
official doctrines." Mormon regularly call members to account if the over
step their bounds. Excommunication is common for those who to not relent.

Now, is that what it's like here? While we seem to have within our
framework everything from dogmatic fundimentalism to outright scepticism,
other than to post a reminder to be civil to each other, all views seem
to be tolerated. This seems to be a far cry (and a refreshing one) from
my Mormon experience.

If it is true that "There is no religion higher than truth" then I say
"let's at it"

Larry Kolts 
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.