Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00422)

Here also the explanation (rest of my mail, left out by Larry K.)of 
what I was referring to with my methaphor, wich could aswell 
mention "Christian Science" (as Jerry did in refference to Adelasie's 
mail) and so on, see the rest of my mail:

G. Tillet explained this in a mail directed at Dallas, and could 
just as well describe the religious fundamentalist behaviour 
of "adelasie". Tillet wrote addressing Dallas; "The concept of 
Received Truth is used by some scholars of religion (like 
me), plus some in the areas studying other ideological systems, to 
describe a system of belief which has been "given" (usually, but not 
always, on the basis of a claim of Divine Authority) by a teacher to 
disciples, and which the disciples are unable to question. Multiple 
examples are found in Christian history. 
For example, the claim of Papal Infallibility is a Received Truth 
which is not, within the Roman Catholic Church's theological system, 
a matter for open discussion, challenge, intellectual analysis or 
scholarly criticism - except by those who will find themselves 
penalized or excluded for doing so (for example, Hans Kung).

Received Truth is given for acceptance, not as the beginning of a 
discussion. It can be argued for (which is what True Believers do), 
but not intellectually considered with an open and critical mind 
(which is what scholars are supposed to do). Jehovah's Witnesses 
cannot (if they wish to remain as such) approach the prohibition on 
blood transfusions as a topic for debate (or even discussion). Of 
course, Received Truth is found outside religion (as popularly 
defined). The "true Marxist" or the "true Freudian" (although I am 
not sure if either such still exist) cannot take their teachers 
doctrines as theories or claims for consideration; they are 
statements of fact, unchanging, unchangeable, recognized as such by 
the True Believer and "attacked" (a word used by True Believers to 
refer to any questioning of the Received Truth) by unbelievers or 
(worse!) Heretics. Heresy is, essentially, a challenge to the 
Received Truth from within (and inevitably leads to the Heretics 
being forced out.... and often then establishing a new Received Truth 
position).

Thus, the Adyar position has to be that Leadbeater's 
claims are true; they are Received Truth. ULT approaches Robert 
Crosbies version of history in the same way. He CANNOT have been 
expelled from Pt Loma, therefore discussion of the topic can only 
occur in a defence (by them) or attack (by unbelivers of heretics) 
paradigm. Pt Loma (I presume) takes the reverse position.

Almost inevitably, just what constitute any given tradition of 
Received Truth develops over time into competing rivalries about just 
the Received Truth is, or what are true (as opposed to false) 
intepretations of it. 
Thus: Adyar, Pt Loma, ULT, et al as the "only true successors" to the 
HPB tradition.
To suggest that Theosophy (assuming a single, monolithic version of 
it exists) as a description of "facts of nature" requires the 
assumption of a Received Truth position. Why not accept that (for 
example) Roman Catholicism, Marxism, Freudianism, Buddhism or Islam 
are simply a description of the "facts of nature"? Even the 
acceptance of HPB's teachings (again, assuming that a single 
consensus could be attained as to what those teachings were) is a 
received Truth position. How is it to be tested? Why is it assumed to 
be more accurate as a description than, say, the teachings of 
Swedenborg or Steiner? All disciples of Received 
Truth can provide arguments and evidence to support their claims, but 
all ultimately begin with a Faith Position."

Brigitte


--- In theos-talk@y..., Larry F Kolts <llkingston2@j...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Brigitte wrote: 
> > List members like Adelasie and Dallas really treath HPB's
> > Theosophy as a pseudo-religion, a sort of "Received Truth", not 
> > much different from Mormon's and the "Book of Mormon" (here
> > Isis and the SD).
> 
> Many on this list know me as moderator of BN-Study and thus also 
know of
> my Mormon background (35 years as a active Mormon)
> 
> My Theosophical background is only eight years.
> 
> All this discussion is of interest to me due to the parallels. My
> position in all this is neutral, although I am a ULT affiliate, 
whenever
> historical studies are involved, I am open and ever seeking the real
> truth. Anything less is a cop out.
> 
> Some observations:
> 
> My educational background is in history/political science, though I 
have
> not used it professionaly. I prepared several historical 
manuscripts for
> publication during my Mormon years, but they sit on a shelf, long
> neglected. One maxim I picked up in college is "a little knowledge 
is a
> dangerous thing" or "reading just one book on a subject is a 
dangerous
> thing". No one writes a history without some "spin"to it. That's 
why they
> write in the first place, to share their special insights others 
have
> ignored . To read onlt one author is to be exposed to only one 
point of
> view. I thought it better to read a wide variety of sources and 
form my
> own opinions.
> 
> This liberal/fundimentalist rift is hard to over come. Mormon 
Apostle
> Boyd Packer once made the observation that "all truth is not of 
equal
> importance". That sums up the fundimentalist position in a 
nutshell. If
> the truth supports the official position, promulgate it. If it 
detracts
> from that postion, suppress it.
> 
> But we all know this.
> 
> What bothers me at this junction is the perceived inflexability of
> certain theosophists.
> 
> When comparing Theosophy with Mormonism, I see one similarity and 
one
> difference.
> 
> The similarity is that both are historical institutions. That means 
that
> both rely on the credibility of their history. As Brigitte and 
others
> have said, both have documents which are perported to be of 
supernatural
> origin. Distroy the veracity of that history on down comes the whole
> house of cards.
> 
> The difference is this (as I see it-others may differ)The Church of 
Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints is as close to a monolithic entity as is
> humanly possible. The dogma is clear. The history as the Church 
would
> have it is also clear. Desention is quickly rooted out. A 
discussion such
> as we have been having here is somply not possible. You would 
quickly
> hear statements like "We're not here to give the Devil his due! If 
You're
> going to teach or speak in Christ's Church then teach or speak 
Christ's
> official doctrines." Mormon regularly call members to account if 
the over
> step their bounds. Excommunication is common for those who to not 
relent.
> 
> Now, is that what it's like here? While we seem to have within our
> framework everything from dogmatic fundimentalism to outright 
scepticism,
> other than to post a reminder to be civil to each other, all views 
seem
> to be tolerated. This seems to be a far cry (and a refreshing one) 
from
> my Mormon experience.
> 
> If it is true that "There is no religion higher than truth" then I 
say
> "let's at it"
> 
> Larry Kolts 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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/.