p. 71 | THEY DENY SIN AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 18, 1874

THEY DENY SIN AND ACCOUNTABILITY

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Modern Spiritualism.—No. 4.

THEY DENY SIN AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

The denial of the existence of sin, and of man’s accountability for his actions, tends directly to destroy conscientiousness and to remove all feeling of just restraint. Under such teachings, people become reckless and immoral, as certainly as any effect can follow its cause. But this has been the prevailing theory of spiritualism since its rise. We quote briefly from prominent spiritualists. A work published by N. P. Tallmadge says that God does not condemn any one. It also says:—

“Unto God there is no error; all is comparative good.”

And of an inspired teacher it says:—

“He vieweth error as God vieweth it, as undeveloped good.”

A. J. Davis says:—

“Sin, indeed, in the common acceptation of that term, does not really exist.”—Nat. Div. Rev., p. 521.

“The innate divineness of the spirit prohibits the possibility of spiritual wickedness, or unrighteousness.”—Id., p. 413.

And he says again:—

“In the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures it is affirmed that sin is the transgression of the law. But by an examination of nature, the true and only Bible, it will be seen that this statement is erroneous. It gives a wrong idea both of man and law. . . . It will be found impossible for man to transgress a law of God.”

The above is from a lecture on the “Philosophy of Reform,” given in New York city; but if this is true, there is neither need nor chance for reform, unless it is God’s will that needs reforming! But he goes further, and says:—

“Reformers need to understand that war is as natural to one stage of human development as peace is natural to another. My brother has the spirit of revenge. Shall I call him a demon? Is not his spirit natural to his condition? War is not evil or repulsive, except to a man of peace. Who made the warrior? Who made the non-resistant? Polygamy is as natural to one stage of development as oranges are natural to the South. Shall I grow indignant, and, because I am a monogamist, condemn my kinsman of yore? Who made him? Who made me? We both came up under the confluence of social and political circumstances; and we both represent our conditions and our teachers. The doctrine of blame and praise is natural only to an unphilosophical condition of mind. The spirit of complaint—of attributing ‘evil’ to this and that plane of society—is natural; but is natural only to undeveloped minds. It is a profanation—a sort of atheism of which I would not be guilty. And all our religions, all our schemes of reformation, operating on this superficial plane, need the very elements which are necessary to reform.”

So revenge, war, polygamy, and every violation of the principles of morality, may not be blamed. According to “the true and only Bible,” it is impossible to do wrong! To call murder and adultery evil is “a sort of atheism.” When this lecture was given, in 1857, we said they might go further in practice than they had then gone, but in the theory of lawlessness they were fully developed. This declaration of Davis, who is the chief apostle of spiritualism, will sanction every abomination which has since been manifested among them.

A. P. McCombs, a spiritualist, in a tract entitled, “Whatever is, is Right, Vindicated,” says:—

“I will not contend about how Pope or anybody else viewed the axiom, or into what departments of God’s universe they give it entrance; I believe that ‘whatever is, is right,’ in its fullest and broadest sense, covering every act in the past, present, and future.”

More testimony to this point will be given when we come to speak of the immoral tendencies of the system, and the practices of its adherents.

It is well known that they teach that the spirits obtain entire control of the mediums, and that passive yielding to their influence is necessary to development as good mediums. Any prudent person would wish to know the nature of the spirits to which he had so passively to yield, and avoid the influence, unless he could fully identify them. But so reckless are spiritualists that they court the influence and control of the spirits, while they confess that they cannot identify them. We will prove this by quotations from the very best spiritualist authorities.

A Mr. Hobart, of St. Joseph Co., Mich., in 1857, in a discussion on spiritualism, said:—

“The spirit sometimes assumes the name of an individual belonging to the same church, to induce them to hear. This is necessary with some who are so bigoted they would not believe unless a name was assumed which they respected.”

This was an admission that we did not then suppose any intelligent spiritualist would make. We had not before known that they had so little confidence in these communications, but investigation proves the fact. Yet it is an obvious fact that all spiritualists have changed in their faith and lives under the influence of the spirits. This is a point worthy of careful consideration, that they are continually being molded and fashioned by an influence in which they dare not publicly avow the least confidence.

Joel Tiffany was an able speaker and publisher among them. In a discussion with Pres. Mahan, in Cleveland, he said:—

“Persons have supposed that when they get correct answers they get tests. But when we come to understand that the spirit can come into rapport with the mind in the circle, we then discover that he can perceive his thoughts and get the answer as well as the question from his mind, and then being in communication with the medium can answer all his questions, and give him perfect answers, as to identity, at the same time that he is a far different spirit from what he purports to be.”

Judge Edmonds, in “Spiritual Tracts,” No. 7, page 4, says:—

“One day while I was at West Roxbury, there came to me through Laura as the medium, the spirit of one with whom I had been well acquainted, but from whom I had been separated some fifteen years. His was a very peculiar character—one unlike that of any other man whom I ever knew, and so strongly marked that it was not easy to mistake his identity.

“I had not seen him in several years; he was not at all in my mind at the time, and he was unknown to the medium. Yet he identified himself unmistakably, not only by his peculiar characteristics, but by referring to matters known only to him and me.

“I took it for granted he was dead, and was surprised afterward to learn that he was not. He is yet living.

“I cannot, on this occasion, go into all the particulars of an interview which lasted more than an hour. I was certain there was no delusion about it, and as certain that it was just as much of a spirit manifestation as any I ever witnessed or heard of.”

But the credulity of spiritualists knows no bounds. With all the evidence before him, and the well-known admissions of spiritualists that lying spirits personate our friends so well as to defy detection, the Judge yet thinks it was the spirit of his friend yet living!

The following experience of a circle of “six ladies and gentlemen” is taken from the Boston Bee. The spirit of a dog first identified itself. The paper states:—

“Several satisfactory answers were given relative to its name, that of its late master, time of its decease, &c. . . . The next spirit was that of a cat, who revealed the secret that it had been drowned while at a very tender age, in a cistern, by a young lady who was present. The answers in this instance were correct and satisfactory.”

“After this, a gentleman (who was a medium) asked if the spirit of a favorite horse was present. The raps were in the affirmative. The raps then gave the name of the horse by the alphabet, its age, the number of years it had been dead, the name of the place where it had been struck by lightning, &c.”

These were as “satisfactory tests” as have ever been obtained.

A. J. Davis, in answer to a question concerning the appearance of spirits, said:—

“These appearances are intended merely as reminders and as tests of identity. All intelligent spirits are great artists. They can psychologize a medium to see them, and to describe them, in the style which would produce the greatest impression on the receiver. . . . They can easily represent themselves as being old or young, as in worldly dress or in flowing robes, as is deemed best suited to accomplish the ends of the visitation. They substitute pantomime and appearance for oral explanations.”

In the Spiritual Telegraph of July 11, 1857, the leading editorial is entitled, “On the Identification of Spirits.” The following is the commencement of the article:—

“The question is continually being asked, especially by novitiates in spiritual investigations, How shall we know that the spirits who communicate with us are really the ones whom they purport to be? and for want of a satisfactory answer many minds are thrown into perplexity, and even doubt, as to whether the so-called spiritual manifestations are really such. In giving the results of our own experience and observation upon this subject, we would premise that spirits unquestionably can, and often do, personate other spirits, and that, too, often with such perfection as, for the time being, to defy every effort to detect the deception. Not only can they represent the leading personal characteristics of the spirits whom they purport to be, but they can relate such facts in the history of said spirits, as may be known to the inquirer, or to some one else with whom the communicating spirit is or has been en rapport. And this, in our opinion, is done so often as to very materially diminish the value of any specific tests that may be designedly instituted by the inquirer for the purpose of proving identity; and that if direct tests are demanded at all, we would recommend that they be asked for the purpose of proving that the manifesting influence is that of a spirit, rather than to prove what particular spirit is the agent of its production.”

So it appears that all their talk about “tests” and “test mediums” is entitled to no credit whatever. The “experience and observation” of the editor of the Telegraph entitles his testimony to as much credit as that of any spiritualist in the country. According to his view we can only assure ourselves “that the manifesting influence is that of a spirit,” which we would not deny, but we cannot ascertain “what particular spirit” is communicating, as they “personate with such perfection as to defy every effort to detect the deception.” This is all that we have ever claimed, or could claim, in regard to this great system of falsehood. The following from the same article is equally expressive of their characters and actions:—

“From much experience and observation, however, we are satisfied that if, after having received, in all good faith, such messages directly from the spirit friend whom it purports to be, we proceed to inquiries about matters of theological faith or speculative philosophy, or even about such practical concerns of human life as may involve the ambition, conceits, or prejudices of other spirits than the one with whom up to that moment we have been talking, then other spirits who may be more nearly related to, or who may have more perfect control over, the mediums, will most probably assume instantly the name and position of our friend, pushing the latter aside, and will set forth his own theories, fancies, and probably falsities, using the name of our friend and all the confidence we may have gained in the latter’s identity, by way of enforcing what he would have us believe. And we receive the communication perhaps with the utmost surprise that our friend, in passing into the spirit world, should have so soon changed his opinion on that particular subject!”

A. J. Davis makes a statement similar to the above. If only the main points of the spiritual theory were true, we could not be surprised if all changed their minds in many respects when they enter the “spheres.” But what a confession is this! How completely are all their tests of identity and claims of reliability swept away.

Mr. Tiffany has also given pointed evidence on this subject:—

“When communications are received through public mediums, the probabilities are that the communicators belong to a very low plane of development, and that the communications cannot be relied upon, whatever may be the professions of the communicator. There is almost always an influence which belongs peculiarly to each medium—an influence which seems to be a presiding spirit, which that medium will usually recognize, answering to the name of ‘Jim,’ or ‘John.’ It is generally the case that this spirit will be found on hand first, and is the one to do whatever is to be done, and he becomes the father, mother, brother, sister, or friend of everybody. . . . The circumstances of a public circle are exceedingly unfavorable to getting communications from spirits of a high degree of refinement. The most that can be obtained under such conditions is some external evidence of spiritual existence. The point to which I wish to call your attention is the almost universal fact that mediums devoted to external manifestations, while under the influence of this presiding spirit, are under an influence to deceive, to cheat, which is almost irresistible. It does not matter particularly how good manifestations they get. I have seen this deceptive disposition manifested in mediums who could get very remarkable manifestations, such as the movement, in the open light, of a table with several men standing upon it.”—Lect., pp. 122, 123.

These are quite sufficient to prove the point. And such being the facts, all can see that deception and delusion are unavoidable in the practical workings of spiritualism. We propose now to offer proof from their own writings, that it is not a mild or innocent deception, but a very dangerous one.

J. H. WAGGONER.