Your ShelfYour Projects

Spiritualism—No. 7

2%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 15, 1874

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 44, No. 13.

Read the full edition

Spiritualism.—No. 7.

By John H. Waggoner

The quotations given from the writings of spiritualists show conclusively that their doctrines are truly the “doctrines of devils.” And these, together with those on the dangers of mediumship, are sufficient proof that the tendency of spiritualism is to evil and to evil only. If iniquity did not abound under the influence of such teachings and such spirit possessions we should have reason to be disappointed.
Dr. Randolph, a medium, testified that under spirit control, the tendency was strongest toward licentiousness, as five could be made to err in that direction where one could in any other. This will account for the wondrous growth of “free love” sentiments since the rise of spiritualism. It has presented a fruitful field of licentious theories and practices. And it has grown so bold and outspoken in this direction that the President of the National Association of Spiritualists has publicly declared that the especial mission of spiritualism is to free the world from the bondage of marriage; that it has dealt in mere theories long enough, and it is now time to put in practice, openly, the theories which they have been proclaiming.
But the long-established journals of spiritualism, the Banner of Light of Boston, and the Religio-Philosophical Journal of Chicago, profess to repudiate the doctrines advocated by Mrs. Woodhull, Moses Hull, and others. In this we easily convict them of deception. They evidently fear that public sentiment is not yet prepared for such open advocacy of licentiousness; but they have for years been laying the foundation for it, and substantially advocated the same thing. We will prove this assertion by showing first the position now occupied by the boldest advocates of “free love,” and then that the almost unanimous sentiment of spiritualists has been in that direction, and that the body of spiritualists have occupied that ground for the last fifteen years or more.
Less than a year ago a large meeting of spiritualists was held in Vineland, N. J., at which Mrs. Woodhull was the chief speaker. Of her leading speech in that Convention the Boston Daily Globe said:—
“After having blasphemed religion, laughed at the decencies of social life, scoffed at marriage, and advocated universal prostitution, this notorious woman concluded by stating that it was the sublime mission of spiritualism to free the human race from the thralldom of matrimony and to establish sexual emancipation. There was not one word of dissent from her listeners. On the contrary, the filthy theories and the disgusting arguments were applauded to the echo. No woman was shocked and no man offended by the upholding of a theory that would reduce humanity to the level of beasts.”
Of the extent to which these doctrines have been taught for years past, and are now received, the same paper said:—
“We would not dwell upon this revolting subject were it not for the fact that the sentiments so boldly uttered by Mrs. Woodhull were fully indorsed by a large body of spiritualists. We do not intend to enter upon the question of the truthfulness or falsity of spiritualism. We simply take its teachings as here exemplified for the past fifteen years. What the few timid hangers-on to the skirts of this great delusion may do or believe is nothing to the point, while it is indubitable that the leaders give their support to the vilest and most destructive of doctrines.”
At this meeting in Vineland, a Dr. Fairfield said:—
“The Jews needed a Moses to lead them out of Egyptian bondage; so we need a Victoria C. Woodhull to lead society from the bondage of the marriage relations.”
And the same speaker, professing to be “inspired” by the spirit of Lorenzo Dow, dismissed the meeting with the following “benediction:”—
“And now may the life and power, the wisdom, love, and mercy, of Victoria C. Woodhull save us from all our married curses, and bring us into individual and universal freedom, with love and good-will for all. Amen.”
The Michigan State Convention of Spiritualists, held after the Vineland meeting, indorsed Mrs. Woodhull and her doctrines.
The National Convention, held in Chicago last fall, not only indorsed her by adopting a radical free-love platform, but she was elected President of their National Association by a large majority. The following brief extracts from the report in the Chicago Times will give some idea of the spirit of the Convention:—
“Mrs. Woodhull contended that the issue was before them clearly. They had to vote whether they were in favor of free sexual relations, unrestricted by law, or whether they were in favor of tyranny.”
“The speech was received throughout with cheers from the thronged galleries, and the delegates in the body of the hall.”
And accordingly they adopted the Woodhull platform by a very large majority. In her lecture she said:—
“She defined freedom to be in general terms, that each and every individual has the right in his or her own proper person to make use of all his or her powers and capacities as he or she may elect to do.”
“It is simply none of your business what other people do, nor any of the business of society what any of its members do, unless they interfere with somebody else without his or her consent.”
“What does it matter whether the child or any one knows who is the father? Is he, or is society, any the better for the knowledge?”
“If it cannot be determined what will become of the children, that fact should not be held as an obstacle to freedom, if it be proved that freedom itself is right.”
“Relationship in the future will be based upon kindredness of spirit, rather than upon ties of blood; while family clanship, like all similar cliquishness, the remnants of barbarisms, will be forever banished from the earth.”
“They say I have come to break up the family. I say, Amen, to that with all my heart. I hope I may break up every family in the world that exists by virtue of sexual slavery.”
“Mrs. Loomis, of Battle Creek, wanted to read a poem on ‘progression.’ She did so, and at its close announced that copies could be had for 25 cents each. There was an immediate rush to get copies. The poem was rather blasphemous.”
“Mr. B. Todd, of Michigan, also was moved by the spirit. His address was devoted chiefly to proving that no law prevented the free use of his eyes, his hands, and his feet; that it was wrong altogether to impose any restrictions upon the use of his sexual organs.”
“Laura Cuppy Smith ascended the platform and delivered a thrilling address, in which she defied all the elements of society, religion, politics, &c.”
A delegate charged Mrs. Woodhull with resorting to prostitution to advance the cause she was advocating. To this, Mrs. Woodhull replied in terms which we do not wish to publish, that it was nobody’s business what she had done; and she was not ashamed of anything she had done.
This will suffice for Mrs. Woodhull and the National Convention. We now turn to the case of Moses Hull, who has been very prominent before spiritualists and the world for some time past. In a chapter of his “Personal Experience,” published last summer in Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly, he said Mrs. Woodhull had “somewhere intimated that she believed promiscuity in the social relation to be abominable.” Mrs. Woodhull denied the statement. But Mr. Hull continued:—
“It may be, and is in certain cases, abominable, yet I can mention many things which are to me more so, one of which, in many instances, is the entire confinement of one man to one woman, and one woman to one man, in the sexual relation.”
Of his experience he said:—
“I lived years in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity, especially the bond that said: ‘Forsaking all others I will cleave unto thee.’”
But he is now free from those bonds, and the reasons he urges in justification of his course are sickening and sometimes blasphemous. For what is it but blasphemy to denominate the depraved lusts of the flesh, “the law of God written in the heart”? See the following as an instance:—
“Several years have elapsed since the first choice between the law of God and the law of man, and I have never regretted the step, but have continued to repeat the offense against man-made institutions whenever God’s law in me commanded.”
Of his home relations, he says:—
“My wife, so far as I am concerned, has had the same privileges I had taken. Whether she used them or not is not for me to say.”
But his wife is not willing that he and the public should remain ignorant on this point. In a letter on the subject, dated Aug. 20, 1873, published in Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly, she says:—
“I am a firm believer in the doctrine, and my friends who know me best will say that I will not preach what I dare not practice.”
These short extracts are sufficient to show where the parties stand on this question.
But in this position they have been assailed by the spiritualist papers in Boston and Chicago. The Banner of Light, without any regard for facts or for its own consistency, said:—
“If such ideas are an integral part of the church to which he some time since belonged, he had better go back to it again. Spiritualism has no affinity with such grossness.”
To which Mr. Hull replies:—
“Why does Luther make a dash at the church of which we were once a member? More than ten years since, we renounced that for spiritualism, where we found just what we preach, write, and practice.”
If the Banner of Light knows of any church which ever recommended or tolerated “such grossness,” let it speak out and inform us when and where it existed. This slur shows its utter disregard for truth and justice. It very well knows that just such grossness has, for years, been the leading sentiment of the majority of spiritualist authors and speakers, and of publications emanating from its own office. Let the following facts be well weighed.
Dr. A. B. Child is a popular spiritualist author. He wrote a book with the title of “Christ and the People,” which was published at the office of the Banner of Light. The following extracts are copied from that book:
“The present laws of marriage, that now give birth to regrets and sorrows unnumbered, to prostitution, with its long train of curses and agonies, will be abandoned for a holier, purer, diviner revelation that will ere long be given to the people.—P. 27.
“A religion more spiritual will be discovered and acknowledged, . . . a religion without written laws, without commandments, without creeds,—a religion too sacred to be spoken, too pure to be defiled, too generous to be judged, resting upon no uncertain outside standard of rectitude, upon no dogma of another, no purity of earthly life, no glory of earthly perfection,—a religion that every soul possesses by natural endowment, not one more than another.
“This religion is simply desire. . . .
“With every one desire is spontaneous and sincere, pure and holy; no matter what the desire is, whether it be called good or bad, it is the natural God-given religion of the soul.”
He occupies a chapter in deriding justice; he scoffs at holiness, and exalts sin, as the following brief extracts show:—
“Ere long, man will come to see that all sin is for his spiritual good. . . . To see that holiness lays up treasures on earth. . . . Sin destroys earthly treasures, and causes them to be laid up in Heaven.”—Pp. 32, 33.
“There is no criminal act that is not an experience of usefulness. The tracks of vice and crime are only the tracks of human progress. . . . There has been no deed in the catalogue of crime that has not been a valuable experience to the inner being of the man who committed it.”—P. 137.
“Man has yet to learn and yet to admit that all sins which are committed are innocent, for all are in the inevitable rulings of God.”—P. 175.
“He who wars with sin leaves nothing lovely in his tracks.”—P. 191.
Here we find in full the very doctrines which Mr. Hull now preaches and which he openly says he practices. And this book predicted that such sentiments were soon to prevail as the “religion” for the age. And this book, with its licentious sentiments, was published at the office of the Banner of Light, and received from that paper the following strong indorsement:—
“This book should find its way to every family. . . . Its liberality reaches the very shores of infinity. It is born of spiritualism and reaches for the manhood of Christ. It is the most fearless presentation of the folly of the present moral and religious systems of the land of any book yet written. It is free from fault-finding; but its truthful descriptions of self-conceived goodness everywhere, in morals and religion, are withering. Through sacrifice and sin it shows the open gate of Heaven for every human being.”
Thus we leave it to the reader, and would appeal to the Banner itself, if it has shown any regard for truth and consistency, that that paper has published and indorsed just what Mr. Hull now practices.
J. H. WAGGONER.