Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00433)

Steve,

Somehow I didn't get my point across as I intended. Let me try one more
time on this last point you comment on.

When Mormon founder Joseph Smith was killed in 1844, the movement
fragmented. Only two of the many fragments held any real lasting
viability however, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which
followed Brigham Young to Utah, and The Reorganized Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints, which formed around the anti-polygamy
faction led by Joseph's wife Emma and came to be led by his descendants.
Early on they were real rivals. However, as the Mormons in Utah became
increasingly hard line and dogmatic, the Reorganites became more liberal.
In recent years they have adopted the attitude you expressed that "even
if the Book of Mormon isn't the revelation from God first thought, it has
interesting moral stories an doctrinal thesis which can be studied simply
for what they are." The Reorganites grew by mid century to 250,000 or so.
Since their new mindset has taken hold, they have been in steady decline.
By contrast, the Utah Mormons stood at one million members at mid century
and have grown to over eleven million since.

If all "liberal theosophists were to withdraw and form their own
organization, or if HPB could be shown to be not all she claimed to be
and Secret Doctrine was truely nothing more than a juxtapotion of other
materials, however interesting, how viable would this movement be?

Again, I'm not advocating the history one way or the other, just
commenting on the social implications of belief.

As you can imagine, one of my hangups has been just how stagnant the
theosophical movement has been membership wise. As a Mormon it was easy
to glote over being the fastest growing church in America. But our
figures are dismal indeed. (one reason for my doing what I do on
BN-Study-try to attract interest)

Anyway, you may still disagree, but at least I've made my analysis a
little clearer.

BTW that is interesting about the age of the source material and it's
ability to hold up with time

Larry



> Everything you say is true, except this one point that
> Theosophy comes down if a particular viewpoint is not
> the only one allowed to stand. It may be true that it
> would be untenable as an object of blind faith, but it
> is not true that it would be compromised as a package
> of interesting ideas, some of which are very profound,
> some of which can and should be questioned by
> reasonable and honest men, and some of which are now
> known to be untenable, even though they may have
> seemed solid enough 125 years ago.
> 
> It is also worth noting that the older the ideas are,
> the better they seem to stand the test of time. Those
> ideas that Blavatsky (or her mahatmas) took from
> Kapila are just as sound today as they were 125 years
> ago. He was a very profound thinker whose ideas are
> still opening up to me after more than 20 years of
> study. The same could be said for the model derived
> from Yogacara and Kabbalism. Ideas taken from more
> recent sources such as the existence of the planet
> Vulcan, etc., do not hold up well in light of current
> knowledge.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 
> http://auctions.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 

________________________________________________________________
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/.