Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00266)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "safron2803" <annsafron@s...> 
wrote:

> This will be my second post to theos-talk and probably my last. 
What 
> truly amazes me is that the discussions here are very much the same 
> discussions that were on theos-l. I'm just not one to watch re-runs.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Ann Safron

Dear Ann
Your response to Perry's posting is perhaps understandable given your 
apparent history with the subject a number of years ago. It is 
disappointing to me however in that it summarily dismisses a number 
of matters which are currently of obvious concern to some deep 
thinking students. 
My interest in Perry's concerns, along with those most recently 
posted by Dr Gregory Tillett, Daniel Caldwell and others, is the 
pursuit of "ordinary" truth. Ordinary in the sense where related 
events, situations and the written word can be tested for 
veracity "beyond a reasonable doubt."
It has been demonstrated, to my satisfaction at least, that Bishop CW 
Leadbeater was wilfully untruthful on a number of occasions relating 
to himself and certain events. As a voluminous theosophical author, 
lecturer, priest and self-promoted clairvoyant, he claimed to be in 
direct contact with the same masters as Madame HP Blavatsky and spoke 
often about the absolute necessity of morality and truth in thought, 
word and deed. His information and style of authoritative 
pronouncement has endeared him to thousands of truth-seekers the 
world over.
When certain committed Theosophical students discover Bishop 
Leadbeater's untruths it can cause a crisis of confidence for them in 
relation to his other pronouncements and teachings. When some of 
these students, using this forum, attempt to engage senior 
representatives of Bishop Leadbeater's Theosophical Society and his 
supporters in meaningful debate over these matters they have often 
found themselves either stonewalled or their questions avoided 
altogether.
Now, this might be boringly repetitive for you and, as said, this is 
perhaps understandable, but surely these points need to be regularly 
brought to the surface and exposed for current and new truth-seekers 
to ponder upon? 
Are students to determine whose information has the greater 
credibility from their "feelings" alone as has been suggested in this 
forum. This may satisfy some, but for those who prefer clear-thinking 
discussion and debate this is highly unsatisfactory.
Through a determined search into the issue of credibility, however 
that may be determined, students can save valuable time sifting 
through volumes of literature in their search for truth.
Regards
nhcareyta