Theos-Talk Archives (June 2007 Message tt00136)

   There isn't any dispute about ES Instruction IV.  Zirkoff's
"authority" is not that he was right on every fact, but that he had an
UNDERSTANDING of the literature, and what "fit in" and what didn't. 
It seems obviously he saw some things in the later indstructions he
wasn't completely comfortable with, so made the remark..  The "phoney
KH letter" material in ES V, was From Blavatsky's ES meetings, so
differs from most or perhaps all the other material in this respect,
and thus stands out on that count alone.

        - jaqua

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell"
<danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
>
> Jake,
> 
> You write:
> 
> ==========================================
> WHY DID DE ZIRKOFF CAST DOUBT ON THE
> VERACITY OF SOME THINGS IN ES IV & V?
> He was certainly someone who was an
> "authority" on the literature.
> ==========================================
> 
> But the central issue is not whether Mr. de Zirkoff
> was or was not an "authority" on the literature.
> 
> Even an "authority" can be wrong at least from time to time, right?
> 
> But a more important question to ask is:
> 
> What are the primary source documents that
> will help us to answer these questions about
> ES Instructions IV and V?
> 
> For Instruction No. IV, I have already provided extracts from
> several relevant primary source documents. 
> 
> See:
> 
> "Jakes Quotes Boris DeZirkoff on Later Instructions"
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/40757
> 
> These documents and a careful study of them, etc. show that
> what Mr. de Zirkoff wrote as it pertains to Instruction No.
> 4 is not accurate, is not correct.
> 
> Daniel
> http://hpb.cc
>