The New Revelation by Doyle

This thread is bringing up a subject I've seen hashed over on this site a number of times. So, people may be tired of the subject, but after reading THE NEW REVELATION by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I wanted to post this. I ordered the book from ABEBOOKS.com and it arrived in the mail a couple of days ago, and I finished it last night (it's not a large volume).
I attend a Spiritualist Church, but I must confess that this is the first Spiritualist book I've ever read. I've read all of the Spiritist books (the Gospel, the Medium's Book, ect.)... I actually read some from these books every night, and have always been content with their content.
I've always admired Sir Arthur, and have read most of his fiction (A Study in Scarlet being my favorite), but had never read his religious works.
I was curious if I'd disagree with any of Doyle's religious views, and was pleasently surprised to discover that there was only one sentence in the the whole book that would disagree with what I've learned from my normal readings.
I don't see anything in Sir Arthur's book, THE NEW REVELATION that would contradict anything I've read in Spiritist books, save for a sentence that says something to the effect of "spirits wont ever return to the material world again." (the book is currently at a friends house, so I can't go to the book to quote him accurately).
I think that the differences between Spiritism and Spiritualism aren't necessarily doctrine (to a major point), but more:
1) culture (Brazilian vs. Enlgish).
2) organization.
3) empansis.
I understand the differences between Spiritism and Spiritualism, and I've come to the conclusion that the sort of Spiritualism I'm familiar with could be considered more akin to Spiritism than Spiritualism.
But, I really don't see much of a difference between the two groups, other than perhaps a name.

How are you Mike? Good post to come back to thank you. Doyle was anti reincarnation I think. EH certainly was and hey were chums. Doyle if he was around in England today with the same views woul probably have ben more at home with the Christian Spiritualits than with the SNU or secularist independent. He would fit right in at Camp New Era for sure.
Spiritism stems from Roman Catholicism and has animist and syncretist offshoots . Kardec possibly would not recognie some of its contemporary manifestations. Spiritualism comes via radical protestantism mainly unitarian and universalism. The secularist streams growing ou of Owenism and the socialist Sunday schools ,certainly in the North of England. London Spiritualism was lway different being more upper middle class and big names compared to the working class radical roots of the northern movement.

To all intents and purposes Spiritualism became denominational with each flavou having its own papers and meetings. SNU and GW continue that pattern. People joined the group they liked best and reflected that denominational ethos.
Next step of course is...
We are right. THEY are wrong.
That' human nature as it' repeated in all religions and political movements throughot history. Factions split.
A black Brazilian Spiritist in a Rio slum has little in common with her white professional Spiritist counterpart in leafy Oxford. A dyed in the wool secularist Spiritualist may pour contempt on a Christian Spiritualist or vice versa.
Birthight SNU Spiritualists may look with incomprehension on birthright secularist Spiritualist were they bothered to do so and the same goes all round through GW and the old independents. By and large though for those brought up to it,WAT they have been brought up to is,to them;what Spiritualism is. A lived experience. Now I rckon that all lived experiences are equally valid. None o us know Jack for sure so if you chose to believe A and evidence bears that out then fine. My A may be a little different and the evidence I have bers that out. One is not RIGHT nor the other WRONG,both are manifestations of Spirit. We all see 's through a glass darkly'. As a rule when things turn sticky it's where one set of 'true believers' take issue with another set. Now that isn't particularly Spiritualistic but it does make for interesting fora.

Thanks for that wonderful reply! You put into words what I've been thinking for quite a while. To me, personally, it doesn't matter what type of Spiritualism a person practices... as long as they get the comfort and proof that they need. As long as they come to the knowledge that death doesn't end it all.
Spiritism, as Kardec taught it, isn't necessarily the same as some systems that are dubbed Spiritism in Brazil. The African-based Spiritist groups aren't the same as the general Spiritist groups that are beginning to flourish here in the USA and elsewhere.
Yes, I figured from that comment of Doyle's in the NEW REVELATION that he did not believe in reincarnation.
Now, I've thought about the reincarnation difference between Spiritsm and Spiritualism. I've decided that, for me, there isn't a big difference, even though some believe in many physical lifetimes, and some believe in just this one. But, on the flip side, they are teaching the same thing (this may sound like a contradiction)... that same thing being progress. Spiritism teached progress in this life, in the spirit life, and in successive incarnations. Spiritualism teaches progress in this life and in the spirit life. But, both teach progress upwards and onwards.
The family and I were out to New Era Church today. A beautifuld day to drive south into the country. Barbara gave a sermon on Our Spirit Guides and the music was lively and fun.
I hope you had a wonderful vacation

KatyKing wrote:Doyle was anti reincarnation I think. EH certainly was and hey were chums. Doyle if he was around in England today with the same views woul probably have ben more at home with the Christian Spiritualits than with the SNU or secularist independent.

Always knew I liked that boy!

Jim

Back to the comments about Spiritism. I think that at one end of teh Spiriist view just lies the imponedrable difference between Kardec and reincarnation and the Spiritualist view which could probably be summed by reference to the work of Styainton Moses and Silver Birch.

Just instinctively I prefer Spiritualism over the more pompous approach of Spiritism based upon Kardec's books which are not particularly loving getting more towards a punitive God again.

However they promote very well

http://explorespiritism.com/SITE%20INDEX.htm
http://explorespiritism.blogspot.com.au/2012_06_01_archive.html

I am less concerned at their extreme end because it is only a mirror of our Ne Age Progressive Metaphysiocal Centres that call themselves Spiritualist

Spiritism a la Kardec is very French indeed very sange froid and rationalistic. The inherent danger of authoritative text is that tends to stifle development [see also SB, Zodiac and White Eagle]. Kardec's works replaced holy writ for the Spiritist societies and woe betide anyone promoting other authors. Contrast that with the huge and diverse output of the early Spiritualists from newspapers through magazines to books. We still punch above our weight for book production. Nice to see that the Spiritualist Socity of Athens are advertising English language editions again in PN. Their Greek Orthodox rooted and quasi Christian Spiritualist lens is quite unique and most intriguing. Lots of Greeks in Oz Jim, does the SS of Athens have any influence out there?

I sold a silver Coronation Tea Spoon at an estate sale here in the US. Now I wonder if it was bought or given by the Queen to a relative of the estate. I'm glad you had a good holiday. I need one.

KatyKing wrote:Letter in current PN tells of a church with a notice up forbidding the mention of reincarnation as it is 'against church policy' Made me chuckle. Bet if the Dalai Lama offered to visit they'd not say no to the publicity.
I identify with What Joyce LaJudice the late archivist of Lily Dale had to say....
'There'll be claw marks on the clouds if they try to get me to come back'.
But as the old hymn has it..
When we've been there ten thousand years.....
Who knows?
Maybe by then another ride on the merry go round will beckon.
Emma HB was virulently anti reincarnation but some of that probably stemmed from her turning against Theosophy.
Straw poll at tea in our church indicated more believe in reincarnation than those who don't and it's certainly not an issue in our independent cause anyway.
Excellent holiday lovely weather. Extra two days off now for Queens Jubilee, God bless her. She sent me a silver tea spoon when was born. Every kid born in accession and coronation year got one.

I understand what you mean when you say that authoritative texts can have in inherent danger. But, on the other hand, some people need a volume to look at as 'inspired.' They need a foundation; something tangible that can guide them through this life. The Church has the Old and New Testaments; Islam has the Koran; the Hindus have the Bhagavadgita and the Mahabarata (sp?) and the Spiritists have the Spiritist Codex. I think that people instinctively need something that they can turn to and say "This contains the truth."

KatyKing wrote:Spiritism a la Kardec is very French indeed very sange froid and rationalistic. The inherent danger of authoritative text is that tends to stifle development [see also SB, Zodiac and White Eagle]. Kardec's works replaced holy writ for the Spiritist societies and woe betide anyone promoting other authors. Contrast that with the huge and diverse output of the early Spiritualists from newspapers through magazines to books. We still punch above our weight for book production. Nice to see that the Spiritualist Socity of Athens are advertising English language editions again in PN. Their Greek Orthodox rooted and quasi Christian Spiritualist lens is quite unique and most intriguing. Lots of Greeks in Oz Jim, does the SS of Athens have any influence out there?

[i]

Well I'm a Bible chap as you know Mike but pre KJV Geneva/ Coverdale every time as he retains the word 'Luck' in its accepted sense of being lucky. I like that. I should have distinguished between Kardec SB and that canon and the culturally embedded texts. Koran is an authoritative text as is Guru Gran Sahib. Rather like Book of Mormon it sets the norm for a cult its all of a piece and has one author. Koran simiilarly though apparently what we have today is of quite receent assemblage. Kardec likewise. All those authoritative textx helped shape cultic movements. Not to use cult in any derogatory sense. SB is cultic in that he has his followers likewise Zodiac and White Eagle. Bible on the other hand may be cultic as per KJV-only born agains but is more likely,in lived eperience to be a diminishing part of consciousness. Older people are aware of it but an ever decreasing number use it as any sort of benchmark. Richard Dawkins is a great KJV advocate on the grounds of language and poetry.
Bible to me is a record of mediumship and healing over a long time and inspired of Spirit. The rest are maybe inspired in part who knows but they tend to be one trick ponys being put together by a single writer who may or may ot have been mediumistic. As such their relevance is maybe more of and from when they were written. They each have their fans and followers but for fresh every morning relevance give me Coverdale's Psalms every time.

eirefox wrote:I understand what you mean when you say that authoritative texts can have in inherent danger. But, on the other hand, some people need a volume to look at as 'inspired.' They need a foundation; something tangible that can guide them through this life. The Church has the Old and New Testaments; Islam has the Koran; the Hindus have the Bhagavadgita and the Mahabarata (sp?) and the Spiritists have the Spiritist Codex. I think that people instinctively need something that they can turn to and say "This contains the truth."

But that's the difference between a religion based on faith, vs. Spiritualism, which is based on experience.

I thin faith comes into Spiritualism too Jim. We know the basics via evidence but the big picture is more faith than knowing. I believe there are higer realms beyond summer land but I don't know what they are like for sure. Just hope it isn't Buddha up there just waiting to tell me to come back as a worm. Hence I have decided to settle for summer land even if it's a shed to live in and Joan's tomato soup to live on.

Summer Land and tomato soup sounds wonderful to me. You will have the shed and I'll probably get a dog house. But, hey! That will be fine with me.
I like the KJV also. I try to read a chapter of the Gospel in the evening. There's something about the story of Jesus... the spiritual manifestations et al that thrills me every time I read.

KatyKing wrote:I thin faith comes into Spiritualism too Jim. We know the basics via evidence but the big picture is more faith than knowing. I believe there are higer realms beyond summer land but I don't know what they are like for sure. Just hope it isn't Buddha up there just waiting to tell me to come back as a worm. Hence I have decided to settle for summer land even if it's a shed to live in and Joan's tomato soup to live on.

Coverdale's yer man Mike. The introduction to each chapter plus overall bolshiness of the geneva are brilliant. Very anti clerical-statist hence the KJV was commissioned to bring that translation more into line with the then staus quo anf filter out the anarchic bits (which I think are the best).
Church has always been down on luck as a concept since KJV when it's actually cejntral to teh steer of the whole Bible. You get lucky sometimes other times you don't.. what the hey?
KJV is far more anodyne.
:-)

I believe that Spiritualists need faith also, Peter. I've read these Spiritualist and near-death accounts of what people have seen and are experiencing in the next world, and I believe in the essence of it all, though I've not experienced an NDE, nor shaken hands with a materialized spirit or heard the direct voice of a deceased relative.

But then: I've also heard things from mediums (including yourself ) that I can't figure out how they would have known, were it not for contact with a life beyond.

And I've even had a few strange personal experiences that I don't know how to explain otherwise.

Old beliefs and customs die hard.

One of the funniest things I ever heard was a Romanian being interviewed about vampires. He made the comment that "When disease breaks out, when there are deaths that can't be explained: naturally, right away, you suspect a vampire!"

Most Westerners would find that comical. But I'm sure that in his world, it IS one of the first things you'd suspect, in such situations.

I don't know about the UK or Australia, but cryptozoology is a big deal here in N. America. There's programs on the TV such as Monster Quest, Ancient Aliens, ect. that are always trying to find hidden creatures in the woods and vales. It's actually quite entertaining to watch these programs. Just watched one a couple of nights ago about the Wolf Man.... one about Vampires in America not too long ago too!

Well, one never knows. I've never seen Big Foot, but I know people who have. I tend to believe people, especially if they are not sole witnesses to an event.
I was watching ANCIENT ALIENS this afternoon, waiting for family to show up for dinner. There's a fellow who is often on the program. I looked up his website. It's pretty interesting. I just subscribed to his magazine, Legendary Times. The website is at: http://www.legendarytimesbooks.com/legendary-times-magazine-a.a.s.-r.a.-membership/
This is the sort of thing that seems to be catching on here.