Inside View of Spiritualism.
By Editor
WHILE we do not admit that the spirits are the spirits of dead people, as claimed by these writers, we do admit that the mediums are made to believe they are such spirits, and are controlled by them for evil and licentious purposes. And it is astonishing that, with such facts before their eyes, any should wish to be developed as mediums. We knew a man of intelligence and of standing in community, who was well-disposed toward Spiritualism. He took considerable pains to attend their meetings; but after examining the subject of mediumship he declared he would rather see every member of his family laid in the grave than have one of them developed as a medium. And who would not? We have known the most abominable and shameful crimes to be excused by the perpetrators, by saying that spirits of such propensities took possession of them! And is anything else to be expected? Several years ago there was a tragedy enacted in Battle Creek, Mich., under the direction of “the spirits.” A mother poisoned her three children, in order that she might be free to travel and labor in the cause of Spiritualism. She was instructed by the spirits that this was her duty, and with her belief it was no detriment to the little ones; it was only passing them over “the transition” to a happier sphere. It was “translating” them to a more desirable home. Our main object in noticing this crime, is to call attention to the false reasoning of Spiritualists concerning it. The Religio-Philosophical Journal, of Chicago, a paper devoted to the religion and philosophy of Spiritualism, said that crime was no more to be laid to the charge of Spiritualism than a similar crime by a professed Christian is to be laid to the charge of Christianity. And it referred to the case of a Methodist minister who had then recently been convicted of a crime. The editor of that paper had the reputation of being a man of ability, and he knew there was no parallel in the cases. Suppose two communities: one pledged to maintain the marriage tie sacredly; the other pledged to do their utmost to destroy it. Now if a member of each community should be found guilty of adultery, would the two communities be equally chargeable with complicity in the crime? Surely not. The first would be violating the principles of his community, while the second would only be carrying out the avowed intention of all his comrades. The first community would stand free from the crime of one of its members, committed against their rules; while the second would be chargeable, as accessories, with a crime which they sanctioned, and had banded together to commit. The fact cannot be disguised that immorality is the natural outgrowth of the teachings of Spiritualism. We will carry the comparison further. Or rather, the contrast, for a direct contrast is seen. In the case of the minister, we find the Methodist Church, in common with all Christians, denouncing immorality and licentiousness; withdrawing their fellowship from those who work iniquity; teaching that God condemns the evil-doer, and that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him; that God will bring every work into judgment; they exhort to purity of heart and life, and subject to discipline those who violate the rules which they adopt or draw from the Bible. But what do Spiritualists teach on these points? And what is their action in reference to immorality? A. J. Davis says it is “a sort of atheism” to blame any one for his actions, and that no law of God can be violated. Dr. Hare said it would be a miracle if anything should exist contrary to the will of God. A book written by a medium, published by Governor Talmage, says: “God does not condemn.” “Unto God there is no error; all is comparative good.” Dr. Potter, long a Spiritualist, in a protest against the course and conduct of the fraternity, said:— “Spiritual literature is full of the most insidious and seductive doctrines, calculated to undermine the very foundations of morality and virtue, and lead to the most unbridled licentiousness.”
Dr. Child, as quoted, says that desire, whether it be called good or bad, is the “God-given religion of the soul;” that all which is called sin is innocent. We heard Benjamin Tod, a well-known lecturer, say in a public lecture, that that which men regarded as crime should not be condemned or abhorred, as it might be the richest experience in the soul’s progress. And Dr. Potter, himself a Spiritualist, remarked:— “At the National Spiritual Convention in Chicago, called to consider the question of a National Organization, the only plan approved by the committee especially provided that no charge should ever be entertained against any member, and that any person, without regard to his or her character, might become a member.”
And why not? Dr. Child says the true, pure religion depends upon no outside standard of rectitude, no purity of earthly life, and that sin is for man’s spiritual good, and sin lays up treasures in Heaven! The Banner of Light says that Dr. Child’s book should find its way to every family, and that “it is born of Spiritualism”! We fully believe that that is true; such a book with such teachings could have had no other source. We ask the candid to decide this question: If, under the influence of such teachings, a man commit a crime, is not the body of Spiritualists at large responsible as instigators and abettors of the crime? A Spiritualist of a moral life is inconsistent with the avowed principles of that people. “O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united.”—BIBLE.