Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00200)

Dear Larry:

Many thanks for your interesting comments. It was reported in the 
press at the time that the federales and the chuech were on a 
collision course, and that Kemball had a "revelation" and avoided 
said collision. Considering the position he was in, I do not blame 
him. One news story I read said Kemball was holed up with some of 
his advisors pondering what to do when he had his "revelation."

As for polygamy, I read a history of the church years ago written by 
a mormon which did not urge any conclusion on the reader (i.e., took 
a scholarly position toward the subject) but which did point out for 
consideration that Joseph Smith was a ladies man with an enormous 
sexual appetite before he received his "revelation" that he should 
have lots of wives. Similar revelations were received by David 
Koresh, Jim Jones, and numerous other revelators with tremendous 
sexual appetites. Revelators who were asexual tended to have 
revelations that we should be celibate, and revelators such as 
Leadbeater and (probably) the apostle Paul who were secretly 
homosexual tended to have revelations that men and women should avoid 
each other. In each case the content of the revelation seems to 
tally precisely with the psychology of the revelator. You can see 
how an outsider who is not committed to any system of belief might 
tend to think that it was Smith's hankering for the ladies and not 
divine revelation which led to polygamy. There is nothing "vehement" 
about this. It is simply a conclusion that is hard for an unbiased 
person to avoid. Revelations in every religious institution have an 
amazing way of serving the immediate self interest of the revelator. 
It is always God's will that the self interest of his earthly 
representatives be served in every possible way.

That said, there is a simple way out of the dilemma, namely: become 
your own prophet. This is a role into which one grows over time. 
Instead of making a religious practice out of believing what someone 
else says uncritically and without regard for whether it is true or 
false, which is the practice urged on us by every institutionalized 
system, give yourself permission to examine these things logically 
and work to develop your own connection to your Higher Self, which is 
the source of all legitimate revelation anyway. Then if your common 
sense or your HS or both tells you something is wrong, you have to 
have the courage to face that honestly. With the facts staring me in 
the face, I cannot pretend I do not see them.

As for Theosophy, applying the above criteria to it, I find much of 
great value and much of lesser value. The psychologcal model, the 
psychic model, and the cosmogenetic models all strike me as 
remarkably ingenious, well grounded in fact, and worthy of credence. 
The model for explaining psychological and psychical phenomena stands 
alone to this day. There is nothing to compare with it. The 
anthropogenetic theory, however, has numerous serious problems with 
it. It is the weakest part of the whole system, and one which I find 
impossible to take with as much confidence as I would like. I would 
be less than honest if I said I can take it dogmatically as inerrant 
truth. Frankly, I do not believe Blavatsky wanted her stuff studied 
with an uncritical atittude. She said in her Key to Theosophy that 
she could not do our thinking for us (which strongly implies that she 
wanted us to think). And The Voice of the Silence, you will notice, 
was not dedicated to The Many but to The Few.

Agree or disagree, I much appreciate your thoughtful comments and the 
opportunity to participate in an interesting interchange.

Not just unbashing, but unabashedly yours,

Steve Stubbs
Not High Pirest of Anything