Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A "conspiracy theory" sort of thinking about Leadbeater's birthdate

Expand Messages
  • Daniel H. Caldwell
    A number of Leadbeater students, in effect, adopt a conspiracy theory sort of thinking, to cast doubt on the following historical records/evidence showing
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      A number of Leadbeater students, in effect, adopt
      a "conspiracy theory" sort of thinking, to cast doubt
      on the following historical records/evidence showing
      that Leadbeater was born in 1854 instead of 1847 as he
      contended.

      (1) British marriage records indicate that
      Leadbeater's parents were married on May 26, 1853.

      (2) Leadbeater's own birth record indicates that he
      was born on February 16, 1854.

      [NOTE: Connecting the facts presented in (1) and (2),
      one can see that Leadbeater was born about 9 months
      after his parents were married. Not surprising in
      light of known facts about human reproduction.]

      (3) Leadbeater's mother gave his age [confirming the 1854 birthdate]
      when registering her husband's death.

      (4) In the Anglican diocesan records, Leadbeater gave his birth date
      [1854] on his application for ordination in the Church of England

      (5) In the census return submitted by Leadbeater in 1881, he stated
      as Head of the Household that his age was 27 (i.e. born in 1854).

      These followers contend that one cannot take the records at face
      value, that there is something wrong with these records.....

      Daniel
      http://hpb.cc
    • thaw win
      hi execuse me sir i am the new one in theosophy so,i have to know a lot of things and i need to learn verythin. can u do me afvour i don t understand
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 11, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        hi
        execuse me sir

        i am the new one in theosophy so,i have to know a lot of things and i need to learn verythin. can u do me afvour i don't understand what's is that mean " leadbeater "
        can u explan to me.please.
        "Daniel H. Caldwell" <danielhcaldwell@...> wrote:
        A number of Leadbeater students, in effect, adopt
        a "conspiracy theory" sort of thinking, to cast doubt
        on the following historical records/evidence showing
        that Leadbeater was born in 1854 instead of 1847 as he
        contended.

        (1) British marriage records indicate that
        Leadbeater's parents were married on May 26, 1853.

        (2) Leadbeater's own birth record indicates that he
        was born on February 16, 1854.

        [NOTE: Connecting the facts presented in (1) and (2),
        one can see that Leadbeater was born about 9 months
        after his parents were married. Not surprising in
        light of known facts about human reproduction.]

        (3) Leadbeater's mother gave his age [confirming the 1854 birthdate]
        when registering her husband's death.

        (4) In the Anglican diocesan records, Leadbeater gave his birth date
        [1854] on his application for ordination in the Church of England

        (5) In the census return submitted by Leadbeater in 1881, he stated
        as Head of the Household that his age was 27 (i.e. born in 1854).

        These followers contend that one cannot take the records at face
        value, that there is something wrong with these records.....

        Daniel
        http://hpb.cc







        Yahoo! Groups Links








        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Konstantin Zaitzev
        ... Dear Thaw, tw i don t understand what s is that mean leadbeater tw can u explan to me.please. It s a proper name. He was an author of many books
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 13, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, thaw win wrote:

          Dear Thaw,

          tw> i don't understand what's is that mean " leadbeater "
          tw> can u explan to me.please.

          It's a proper name. He was an author of many books about theosophy.
          You may see some of them at http://www.theosophy.ca &
          http://www.anandgholap.net/

          dc> A number of Leadbeater students, in effect, adopt
          dc> a "conspiracy theory" sort of thinking, to cast doubt
          dc> on the following historical records/evidence showing
          dc> that Leadbeater was born in 1854 instead of 1847 as he
          dc> contended.

          There can be one more explanation.
          It seems unlikely that Leadbeater intentially forged his birthdate for
          dubious advantage to look several years younger, for he could be
          easily exposed, so it was very risky. Moreover, everyone knows that
          HPB's life was short and she didn't look much young even when she was
          40 and earned the title of "old lady" when she was 50, so those
          considerations couldn't play great part in theosophical circles of
          that time.

          Assuming the date of marriage of his parents to be true, we may
          suspect that Leadbeater was born out of marriage, and to provide him a
          better career (or legacy rights) the parents (or adopters, it they
          really weren't parents at all) bribed some officers to register him on
          the later date.

          After joining the Theosophical Society he had no reason to hide his
          earlier birthdate, for he presumed that theosophists are above such
          superstitions.
        • Daniel H. Caldwell
          Konstantin, You write: Assuming the date of marriage of his parents to be true, we MAY SUSPECT that Leadbeater was born out of marriage, and to provide him a
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 13, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Konstantin,

            You write:

            "Assuming the date of marriage of his parents to be true,
            we MAY SUSPECT that Leadbeater was born out of marriage, and to
            provide him a better career (or legacy rights) the parents (or
            adopters, it they really weren't parents at all) bribed some
            officers to register him on the later date." caps added

            But we could also say that we MAY SUSPECT that Leadbeater
            was NOT "born out of marriage"....

            And we have two documents to support that....

            What historical documents do you have to support your
            suspicion?

            I would suggest you read my essay titled:

            "Possibility versus Probability" at:

            http://blavatskyarchives.com/possibleversusprobable.htm

            It seems to me that you are simply indulging in
            mere speculation...isn't it possible that Leadbeater
            was born out of wedlock and isn't it possible that
            his parents bribed an official.....and isn't it possible...

            In my article pay especially close attention to the section that
            begins with the following paragraph:

            "If you receive a letter from a relative that [1] bears what looks
            like her signature, that [2] refers to family matters you and she
            commonly discuss, and that [3] was postmarked in the city where she
            lives, the probability is very great that she wrote it."

            Barzun and Graff in their work THE MODERN RESEARCHER state:

            "The rule of 'Give Evidence' is not be be violated. . . .No matter
            how possible or plausible the author's conjecture [at step 2 in the
            4 step process] it cannot be accepted as truth [at step 4] if he has
            only his hunch [which is not evidence] to support it. Truth rests
            not on possibility or plausibility but on probability. Probability
            means the balance of chances that, GIVEN SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE [at
            step 3], the event it records happened in a certain way; or, in
            other cases, that a supposed event did not in fact take place."
            Caps added.

            ...GIVEN SUCH AND SUCH EVIDENCE....

            You have no evidence.............only possibilities.

            Throughout all three of his books on HPB and the Masters, K. Paul
            Johnson also indulges in the same kind of speculation and constantly
            violates the historical rule of "Give evidence."

            In his Theosophical History review of Johnson's THE MASTERS
            REVEALED, Dr. John Algeo mentions Johnson's penchant for
            speculation spinning and cites an excellent example. In a single
            paragraph, Johnson attempts to make a connection between Ranbir
            Singh and Morya using the following "possibility-plausibility"
            qualifiers: "it is not unlikely . . . may have . . . it seems
            possible that . . . perhaps . . . would have made . . . could have
            found . . . may have made . . . might have been . . ." (The Masters
            Revealed, p. 136)

            Daniel
            http://hpb.cc
          • Cass Silva
            Daniel Any chance Leadbeater was adopted? Cass __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 13, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Daniel
              Any chance Leadbeater was adopted?
              Cass










              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.