Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
5,021
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 34:
Line 34: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |Plain Statements and Explanations|3-170}}
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |Plain Statements and Explanations|3-170}}
...
{{Style P-No indent|Blavatsky, we beg the favor of our readers, while we refer to several of our able correspondents.}}
At what date Madame Blavatsky came to this country we do not know; we did not see her until July last, and then but several times, nor have we seen her since. In the month of March, without previous acquaintance or preliminary correspondence, we received from her the article, “Who Fabricates?” This had been refused by all other Spiritual journals, for it contained direct charges against Dr. H. G. Child, indicting him as a conspirator with the Holmes in producing the photographs of Katy King and his wonderful book. And this Spiritualist, this leader, has attempted no reply to the evidence adduced, and is still accepted and endorsed by “leading Spiritual journals.”
Previous to this time, the month of November, we think, she alone undertook a reply to Dr. Beard, who charged the Eddy’s with fraud; her evidence at that time was the most conclusive proof we have yet seen produced, of the genuineness of the mediums at Chittenden, Vt. The defence was an able article.
The Brotherhood of Luxor circular was published; the last week in April; but we have not asked our readers to accept any wonderful explanations, nor do we intend to at this time of writing.
Madame Blavatsky recognized in the Spiritual Scientist a spiritual paper; it was plain and outspoken in its opinions, recognizing the evils which encumbered and checked the progress of Spiritualism, and calling for a reform which would divest it of its tricksters, hypocrites, and sensualists. We'' ''believe the Scientist owes it success to this policy, from which it has never deviated. We think Col. Olcott, Gen Lippitt, Mrs. Emma Hardinge Britten, Prof. Wm. Denton, J. M. Peebles, and our many other correspondents and warm, firm friends made since the first number of the Scientist was printed, are such for this reason and no other. We stepped from secular journalism into Spiritualism, having no acquaintance with Spiritualists. We were actuated by a stern sense of duty, which was ours: consequences or results belong to God. The columns of our paper are open to Spiritualism and knowledge; but closed to sensualism and ignorance. We can say with Paul, “our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience.”
Dr. Bloede says further:—
“Should any further indications of the same designing power be needed, we may refer the reader to the article in No. 2 of the Spiritual Scientist of Sept. 16th entitled, ‘A Theosophical Society.’ There we are informed that ‘One ''(sic) ''movement of great importance has just been inaugurated in New York under the lead of Col. Henry S. Olcott, in the organization of a society to be known as the ‘Theosophical Society.’ This event, which occurred in the parlors of Madame Blavatsky and under her auspices and those of one M r. George Henry Felt, (as we are told ‘the discoverer of the geometrical figures of the Egyptian Cabala’) is hailed by the Scientist ‘with great satisfaction’ as likely to bring order out of our present chaos, (?) furnish cs a true (?) philosophy of spirit intercourse, and afford a neutral ground upon which the tried wrestlers of the Church and College may rest from their cruel and illogical strife. (!!!)”
When Dr. Bloede writes concerning what the Jesuits may do or are doing, he should glance his eye over the field and see what “Free Love” {{Style S-Small capitals| Has Done}}. Had he told us that ''this ''was an engine of destruction, invented by departed spirits of Jesuits, we might see some consistency between cause and effect. Compare Spiritualism and its societies to-day with Spiritualism and its societies of four years ago, before the advent of these jesuitically controlled individuals who consider sensualism paramount to Spiritualism. Judge a tree by its fruits; then will he welcome, as we do, the discussion of “occultism,” “elementaries,” or aught else that has the slightest bearing upon Spiritualism, or furnishes a subject upon which the learned, and those giving instruction can write, and upon which the ignorant and monomaniacs must be silent. Then he may see, as we do, that a society devoted to Theosophy, will attract able and philosophical minds, who will unite for an object, incite others to do the same, and thus “bring order out of chaos.” The object will be to experiment and study for {{Style S-Small capitals| Facts}}, on which, perhaps, we may build a “true philosophy” of spirit intercourse; our present philosophy is imperfect and full of mystery. The minds thus attracted will stand upon the “neutral ground” of ignorance seeking for information, rather than on the positive dogma of “what, ever is, is right” And they will cease denouncing each other as fools, knaves, or Jesuits, which we call “cruel and illogical strife.” We hope when Dr. Bloede reads this courteous explanation, he will regret having so far lent himself to the “mysterious” as to use, when quoting our remarks, such cabalistic signs, as (?), (?), (!!), (!!!) in so great profusion.
He “hopes the Banner will reprint the entire article for the instruction of its readers.” We think it will not. It has passed over too many similar golden opportunities through its prejudice to any new and powerful enterprise in Spiritual journalism. It does not give credit to the Scientist, for Col. Olcott» letter used in its last issue. Dr. Bloede is on dangerous ground, if he gives much of this advice, and we wonder that he had sufficient influence to gain us a notice in its columns, even though it was loaded with the damaging insinuations which called forth the above explanations.