Theos-Talk Archives (August 2007 Message tt00167)

A few thoughts.  

Rather than being peculiar, I would say this mindset is all too 
common in this area.  

I've encountered it for years.  Anyone doing objective historical 
work on an occult order is likely to face these sorts of 
recriminations.  

I believe followers of less popular gurus use a similar rationale to 
that of the band manager in the movie 'Spinal Tap', ie, 'we're not 
unpopular, our appeal is just becoming more selective'.  

Meaning that their group, despite its obscurity, is ipso facto, 
an 'elite'.  

The group's history, ignored largely because it isn't of much 
relevance to the wider community, is focussed on and cherished to 
the extent that it becomes a thread of illumination for members.

Hence any objective consideration of the history is unwelcome, 
because the group feels it alone 'owns' its history.  

I don't think, by and large, you see the same distinct type of 
emotional instability among followers of larger religions, maybe 
because their leaders and history are usually not 'owned' by them in 
the same way.  

Further, their mythos does not perform the same emotional function 
for members, ie convincing them, despite being ignored by an 
uncaring world, that they are part of an 'elite'. 

For example, there are many Christian denominations with varying 
views about Jesus, so an attack by a Richard Dawkins is not greeted 
with the same paraonid, beady-eyed, whackjob frenzy by Christianity 
generally (although there are obviously localised cases!).

But an objective focus on the acts of a Leadbeater, an HS Lewis or a 
Dr Ann Davies will get you a much more poisoned response, with 
inevitable questions about your motives and/or sanity !  

I firmly believe most of these disciples are not interested in 
equipping themselves to do objective research on their founders. 

Doing so would inevitably disrupt the mythos they rely on so much 
and the house of cards would come tumbling down. 

Ben 


 

> The appropriate response to the work of an historian with whom you 
do not
> agree is to publish evidence that his or her history is flawed.
> If that is beyond your intellectual or moral capacity ? or you're 
simply
> too lazy to undertake the necessary research -  then personal 
abuse is
> always a convenient alternative!
> 
> Dr Gregory Tillett
>