Andrew Jackson Davis predicted an enormous amount of modern technology decades before they were developed. I first went into some of his predictions in Were Religions, Including Christian Science, Part of Ancient Aliens Medical Research Project? which includes some excerpts from "The Penetralia" that I won't repeat here. These excerpts describe his predictions which were first written in 1856 that accurately predict the development of the automobile, and road system built to accommodate it; the typewriter; the development of travel through the air; refrigeration and air conditioning and even geoengineering, which is only now being developed.
He also came close to the truth about the speed of light at a time when no one else had a clue how fast it traveled; if they thought of it at all they may have thought it was infinitely fast but Davis wrote in the Penetralia the following:
Notwithstanding which (apparent inertia), our solar body journeys forward at the frightful velocity of four hundred thousand miles per day ... Some stars are yet so distant, that thirty millions of years will sink into oblivion, and infinite scores of human beings will live and die out of matter, ere their light can reach our globe! And it will help your conception to remember that light can fly two hundred thousand miles per second. p.90
The actual speed is 186,000 miles per second, so he was only off by 14,000 miles per second, which comes to about 7%; however no one at that time had any idea what the speed of light was, the few people who might have even thought of it may have concluded that light traveled infinitely fast, but they certainly didn't know for another ninety four years that what the true speed was. According to Wikipedia: Speed of light Einstein began speculating about it in 1905 while developing the theory of relativity; but it wasn't until 1950 that Louis Essen calculated it. There should have been no way he could have come this close, unless it was a wild fluke, and if this was the only thing he got right, I might think that was the case; however many other predictions came true, and a lot of his other teachings were far ahead of his time, and better than other alleged mystics or spiritualists could come up with. Ironically, although there should have been no way for him to know the speed of light he could have known the speed the Earth or "our solar body journeys forward," since that was calculated long before he wrote his book, but it was closer to eight hundred thousand miles per day, that it travels around the sun, about twice what he claimed, so he was farther off on something he may have had access to accurate information on.
But that doesn't mean all of his work was this good, far from it; some of it made abolutely no sense or could conclusively be proven wrong, although at the time they might not have been able to refute all of it. According to Wikipedia: Andrew Jackson Davis Researcher Georgess McHargue claimed the supposed "scientific" passages from his writings are filled with "gobbledegook as to put it in the class with the most imaginative vintage science fantasy." Large portions of his scientific writings do fit this description; and I wouldn't be surprised if Mark Twain came to the conclusion that these portions were "chloroform in print," which is how he described the Book of Mormon which also allegedly came from revelations or other mysterious means of communication.
This is the beginning of a pattern of behavior that surrounds dozens of alleged mystics, prophets or other people or events that are accompanied by a mixture of unexplained phenomena and obvious pseudo-science or other false claims. The result is that people routinely divide up into two groups, those believing in the mystics, often including many of their false claims and those that completely dismiss them, even though they can't fully explain many of the unsolved mysteries surrounding them. There are very few people that try to sort through which things can be confirmed and which ones should be refuted or try to understand why there are so many of these mystics that have little educational background coming up with exceptionally good claims mixed up with incredibly bad ones, often as a result, according to them, an influence from an unknown advanced intelligence of some sort, although I'm not sure their interpretations of this advanced intelligence is accurate.
Many of these alleged mystics or prophets claim to have received messages from God or messengers sent by God, including Joseph Smith Jr., Joan of Arc, Mary Baker Eddy, Padre Pio, and many more alleged profits or Saints; others claim to get their messages through the spiritual world or other unexplained sources, presumably with the approval of God, if not sent directly by God, including Andrew Jackson Davis, Helena Blavatsky, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Edgar Cayce, Grigori Rasputin and more. To the best of my knowledge all of them claim to believe in a benevolent God, which creates a major problem as Epicurus pointed out over two thousand years ago when he said:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
This simple concept leads me to believe that either there can be no God at all, or if he does exist he can't be as benevolent as religious people choose to believe, and presumably must have an undisclosed motive that hasn't always been in the best interests of the human race. If I thought that all the unsolved mysteries surrounding these mystics could be explained then I would agree with the skeptics but a close look at them raises major doubts about it, including the predictions made by Andrew Jackson Davis. And there are other major unsolved mysteries leading me to believe we might have been influenced by an unknown advanced intelligence for thousands of years, the most clear-cut of which is the movement of megaliths hundreds if not thousands of years ago with ancient technology, despite experiments that have shown that this shouldn't have been possible.
I'm not completely ruling out the possibility that there may an unknown advanced intelligence influencing these mystics; and if so, Andrew Jackson Davis is far better than most, partly because he's one of the few alleged mystics, with the exception of Helena Blavatsky and Jiddu Krishnamurti, that encourage critical review welcoming criticism of his own claims, as indicated when he wrote, in his first book
This is just as well, since even though the vast majority of his work is far better than most religious leaders, and he rationally debunks many religious beliefs, he also creates some new superstitions and reinforces some old ones. When he's not speaking in parables or riddles, like many mystics or prophets, many of his teachings stand on their own merits and should be accepted, not because they come from a mystic, but because they make sense and stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore, if there is an unknown advanced intelligence influencing prophets or mystics then we should try to understand what they're trying to accomplish and why; and if there's not, then we should still try to understand the subject, even if many people think it's all superstition, since others do not and we're not going to convince them to abandon irrational beliefs by ignoring the legitimate unsolved mysteries.
IF there is an unknown intelligence that has been influencing mystics and religions, then the leading theory that I've been considering has been the possibility that it's ancient aliens, even though the leading source of information on this subject, the show from the History Channel, is full of colossal blunders, just like many of these alleged mystics or prophets, yet they also get some things right that traditional scientists ignore or misrepresent, including the fact that it shouldn't have been possible to move these megaliths, and after a much closer look at the mystics that there's a legitimate unsolved mystery surrounding them. Although the theorists on the History Channel don't always do a good job investigating the mystics, some which they ignore, including Andrew Jackson Davis.
Although a large portion of his teachings are far better than other religious teachings one exception showing that we still need to be skeptical of some of his writings is the following excerpt, which seems to use a mythical story about contact with the spirit world, perceived or real, that tries to make it seem like deception is justifiable when it's being used for a good cause:
People complain of deceiving spirits; can you explain why spirits deceive?
In addition to ample explanations to be found in preceding volumes, I will reply through a suggestive incident. . While residing in the city of Hartford, there called upon me a lady, a member of a church, but who, unexpectedly to herself, became a medium for impressions. ...
Do you ever get anything from God yourself?” “ Certainly," I replied; “I communicate with him every time I breathe. In fact, I have never supposed — since I have had any reasonable consciousness — that I could exist without a Divine emanation. Therefore I live and move and exist in him.” “No, No,” exclaimed she, “I mean, did you ever receive into your mind words directly from God ?” “Never,” I answered. “Well, I have a communication ; and it is signed God.'"
... He said science had outstripped it; and philosophy had seen beyond it. He had appointed her (the medium) to come to me and say, that from the high throne of Heaven he had chosen me out of all the inhabitants of the earth to re-write the Bible, and adapt it to the wants of the nineteenth century — and for two thousand years to come. ... Therefore I told her the next time she got in communication with god to tell him that, in my conscience, I believed that there were already too many Bibles for the world's good; that any more would be adding insult to injury; and, lastly, that I was too much engaged in other matters to undertake any such commission.
...
In ten days she returned. She had given my message to god. 6 Well; what did he say?" I asked. “Why, he said that he was not the God of the universe, and never pretended to be.” She then opened a spiritual correspondence with the apocraphal “ god.” I asked: “ Why do you sign your name God'?” “Because,” he replied, “I am all the god this my. charge can comprehend.” “Do you take this method to deceive her?” “No,” he exclaimed. “Why, then, did you give her that message ?” “Because,” he answered, “I saw no other way to bring her to visit with you— to bring about the conversation that has passed between you—and the results to grow out of it.” “Do you mean that you are a very high and illustrious Spirit, and a God over many ?” “Not at all; I am only a god in the sense of administering to the needs of my charge, helping her into a new dispensation. I am her guardian angel —I do not believe in her doctrines -- I wish to convert her from them—I have not been deceiving - I gave her that message to secure your conversation - to turn her mind into new channels.” “Do you mean to go on with her now?” I asked. “Yes; I have her confidence; and I will go on with her development.” The Penetralia p.205-7
This is one of many spiritual or mythological stories that leads the faithful to believe that spirits are coming to guide them in the right direction even though they're not always encouraging them to develop good critical thinking skills so they can guide themselves in the right direction, often even using deception. A large percentage of his other writings exposes fraudulent religious teachings, but this story seems to reinforce the belief that we should trust guidance from mysterious beings, whether they're God, guardian angels or some other unknown advanced intelligence.
If there is an unknown advanced intelligence that's been around for thousands of years then it or they could have communicated much more honestly than this long ago and advised people to think for themselves. And when he or they saw fanatical actions based on their teachings like the crusades or inquisitions he could have found a way to say hey, that's not what I meant, before extreme things happened and prevented them. If this is the method that an unknown advanced intelligence is using to get his messages across his primary objective isn't to look out for our best interests, but to control us for his objectives, not ours. Whether that's the case or not it's in our best interests to sort through the good ideas and bad ones and only accept those that make sense and can be independently verified, regardless of the source.
As I explained several times, including in my most recent article on the subject, Fake Corona-virus Apocalypse? my leading theory on the subject is that this unknown advanced intelligence might be aliens of some sort, whether it's
His alleged prophecies are only one of the unexplained mysteries that skeptics have a hard time dismissing rationally, according to Wikipedia "he practiced magnetic healing with much success." I'm sure skeptics would doubt this, perhaps with good reason, few if any faith based healings can be proven conclusively; however, either he was able to carry out these healings or he had the ability to convince large numbers of people that he could do this. He also allegedly went into trances to dictate his earliest works like Edgar Cayce, and perhaps also some similarities with the way the Book of Mormon was dictated by Joseph Smith Jr. too, and there are many witnesses to this; which also means that either he was receiving messages from an unknown advanced intelligence, or he had the ability to convince large numbers of people that he could, both of which are highly unlikely for someone without any education to be able to do starting when he was only seventeen to twenty years old, although it wasn't until he was about thirty when he wrote The Penetralia, which I consider more impressive than his first book, although the alleged circumstances surrounding the way the first book was dictated in a trance may be more bizarre.
Like Andrew Jackson Davis, I don't recommend you believe my views, or his without doing your own investigation, as you see fit, and believing things that make sense, assuming they stand up to scrutiny regardless of the source while dismissing claims that you don't think make sense, including the following reviews of some excerpts from his book The Penetralia:
There are many good modern experts that are much better providing child care advice than Andrew Jackson Davis now, but in the nineteenth century his recommendations were better than the moajoty of accepted experts, especially the most devout ones that recommended strict authoritarian child rearing tactics, as indicated in these excerpts:
The third commandment requireth that parents should respect the rights of the babe before birth by abstaining from all blood-love indulgence; also, after its introduction to objective life, that parents and guardians open many liberties to off- spring, and teach the awakening faculties quietly and only as they ask questions; until the season has arrived when physical industry and mental discipline become both natural and necessary; then the Harmonial Institution should go on with the requisite process of harmonizing the body and mind of the young.
What is forbidden in the third commandment?
The third commandment forbiddeth all inharmonious examples by parents in the presence of the young: such as intemperance, the use of tobacco, the excessive use of meat, the habitual drinking of tea or coffee, vulgar habits, profane words, lack of punctuality in promises, deceptive or evasive answers, expressions of prejudices against neighbors, reiteration of slanders, opposition to persons who differ on religious questions ; also every species of irreverence which could generate laxity of moral principle or blindness to the Divine Existence. p.35
The fifth commandment requireth the honoring of "thy father and thy mother" because they were instrumental in giving you an eternal individualized existence! Gratitude is next to generosity. But this Filial law does not require a child to obey a foolish or intemperate parent; nor slaves to yield themselves blindly to the dictum of self-constituted masters, who appropriate rights and assign only duties to those who serve them; for no human being is obligated by any natural (or divine) law to sacrifice individual " rights" in order to perform " duties" imposed by those arbitrarily vested with authority. p.37
What is life to childhood?
A crown of thanks! dear reader, for asking me this question ; the scene which it unrolls before my spirit is sweet-perfumed and bursting-full of promise. To a well-born and happy Child- hood, Life is one with silently-creeping grasses, with emerald landscapes,(etc. mostly positive babble) p.61-2
What is life to unhappy childhood?
Life to unhappy childhood is the breathing curse of unchaste and discordant progenitors; an organic struggle, panting be- tween smiles and tears; a whipping-post, for the expression of domestic discontent and parental brutality; a receptacle for crude and cramped ideas of God and humanity; the fountain of several diseases to be transmitted in coming years to a consequent posterity. Oh, most unwelcome scene! p.62-3
Even though this isn't as good as modern recommendations by academics like Barbara Coloroso or James Garbarino this is far more impressive than I would expect from an uneducated person with little experience dealing with children only thirty years old at the time he published this book. He also advises against using coercion to force beliefs on other people as indicated here:
I mean, in short, that believers of popular dogmas are tormented with tyrannic fear, and dare not think in freedom,“ lest God should overhear their doubt—for God is thought to be always eavesdropping, and ever on the watch at the keyhole of human consciousness, hearkening for the footfall of a wandering thought-when he will stab at and run them through, and then impale them on his thunderbolt fixed in eternal flame." Hence, the religious man entertains an idea of God which impeaches at once the majesty of divine Wisdom and the universality of divine Love. p.64
Recommendations like this do far more to encourage free thinking than many if any other religious leaders, with the possible exception of Helena Blavatsky. His description of politicians is better than a large percentage of modern voters.
What is life to the politician?
A platform of action, ambition, disappointment; not regulated by Principles, but by policies, and expediencies suited to popularities and necessities of the day; more adapted to govern than to improve, more certain to shackle than to liberate. From the misfortunes of political strifes and unprincipled gladiators in the area of government; from the terrors of the god of aristocracy whose name is “ Mammon;" from all temporary losses, by death, of liberty-loving natures, and, by election, from the reckless legislation of undeveloped minds— Good Lord deliver us! p.68-9
If the lord he asks to "deliver us" was looking out for our best interests, he would have communicated honestly and done so long before Davis was born. Considering Davis was obviously named after presidential candidate Andrew Jackson, who became president when Davis was two years old his opposition to slavery is surprising. The Older Andrew Jackson was a brutal slave owner who amde a fortune by abusing them and also oppressed native Americans.
What can be said of North America as a country?
Politically considered, and notwithstanding its justification of chattel slavery, North America, as a country, is the freest and the best. But France, England, and Germany, while laboring under numerous oppressions, enjoy more freedom of opinion. In America the despotism of opinion is mighty. It is gradually growing less powerful, methinks; still, it rules the the masses. It leads to the organization of fashion — to imitation — to a standard of judgment by which majorities govern minorities, the strong the weak, might is confounded with right, and the worst forms of tyranny and the best phases of liberty dwell side by side 'neath the shade of the nation's banner; the symptoms of future alterations. p.87
Questioning the glory of our own governing system is still rare today, back then most people were almost certainly intimidated far more if they did this. His willingness to question established religion would have inspired far more outrage back then than it does now, and few would dare do it, yet he did.
By investigation I have acquired this knowledge — that all theology is a despotic theory, AN OPINION ; and nothing more.
Do you make any distinction between theology and some of the doctrines of Jesus?
Yes; the doctrines of Jesus, concerning morality and spiritualism, are immutable truths. Theology, on the contrary, is not based upon Nature's facts and principles, but, as already said, upon inferences, presumptions, assumptions, which became despotic just like every other opinion. Knowledge has no slavery in it: opinion has no liberty. Opinion is the builder of dungeons; the inventor and proprietor of torturing racks and rods of iron; the grand Inquisitor who first kindles the martyr's fire, and then executes its terrible judgments. Such is the despotism of opinion. ... And I repeat the affirmation that, church-theology is merely an opinion; a subjective belief; destitute of that knowledge which it arrogates to itself.
Can you give evidence to strengthen this assertion ?
Yes; church-theology, for example, is believed by persons who are in general quite ignorant of the extents of Nature; its laws, its functions, its relations, its harmonies, are never perceived by the believer in a dismal theology. ... Our earth the centre of creation! a stationary orb, the largest, most important, about whose imperturbable majesty the entire heavens revolve! .... p.88-9
By what authority can the Bible be decided as the word of God?
No person, as I said, is capable of pronouncing the Bible the word of God, unless he is sufficiently inspired by a higher revelation. If any man pronounces it to be the word of God, without such higher revelation, his say-so is worth as much as a similar affirmation by the worshipper of Juggernaut. p.129-30
What does the New York Observer teach in regard to the religious education of children?
“Children should be early taught,” says the Observer, " that the Bible is the great authority; and that when it speaks upon any point the question is settled for ever. ... p.133 (additional subtle criticism) ...
... The youth grows to manhood with the shackles upon him. His mind is in bondage to authority; he can not think. He worships, not the Truth, but the authority; he is therefore a bigot and a slave! According to the New York Observer, the book is the final authority. The Bible may be (as it is) a combination of good things and bad things- it may present truth on one side and error on the other—but, no matter! its authority must never be questioned. Poisonous and unnatural as the doctrine of authority is, it is not more pernicious than this: “ that when it (the Bible) speaks upon any point the question is settled for ever.” p.134-5
Few people would have been inclined to believe him if he challenged their worship of Jesus; however Jesus wasn't as benevolent as he describes, and some of his teachings contradict Davis'. Davis discouraged coercion to force beliefs on people; but Jesus did just that in Matthew 10:34-7 when he says " it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword." and "For I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother .... No one who prefers father or mother to me is worthy of me. No one who prefers son or daughter to me is worthy of me." these aren't the words of a benevolent leader as Jesus is portrayed by many including Davis, but a cult leader that often acts against some of Davis' other teachings. But he does invite people to judge for themselves, implying that he doesn't think they should be forced to worship Jesus as he does, and later on he provides his own criticism of Moses.
Do you mean to teach that men are freely to examine, and sit in judgment on the Bible?
Certainly; when the Bible speaks upon any point, that point should be examined as freely as I now criticize the New York Observer. The Bible says a vast number of things which are wrong, and unworthy of a place in a book which claims to be the Word of God. On its pages are to be found good precepts and evil ones; truth and error; wisdom and ignorance; and the child that “early” learns to receive everything the Bible says, as absolute truth, has a painful and difficult lesson to unlearn in after years. The Bible itself teaches us to “prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.” A book is certainly included in the category of “ things.” So the Bible testifies against the New York Observer, and not less against its own contents. Sectarians are already too numerous for the world's good; and there is scarcely a religious journal in existence calculated to increase the number more rapidly than the Observer; I hope, therefore, that some moral revolution will effectually reform it. p.135-6
He raises a very good point, which I didn't previously notice; I've read several modern religious leaders who made similar points, even if they didn't practice them but overlooked 1 Thessalonians 5:21 which he's referring to, and I've heard few if any other people citing this verse. He also makes a good point that was forgotten by the vast majority of the public, including myself when he points to an obscure record raising major doubts about the censoring of books put into the Bible.
The proceedings at the Council of Nice are, like all events in the ancient history of the Church, veiled in obscurity. Indeed, a strong desire seemed to possess Eusebius and others who were present to conceal its details from the world, or at least to clothe the whole affair with the garb of mystery. Thus Pappus tells us that the Bishops, having “promiscuously put all the Books that were referred to the Council for determination, under the communion-table in a church, they besought the Lord that the inspired writings might get upon the table, while the spurious ones remained underneath, and that it happened accordingly."
This recital is quite in accordance with the usual practices of the Church Fathers, who are referred to with so much reverence by the modern priesthood, but who, if we credit the concessions of Dr. Mosheim, were artful, wrangling, and grossly dishonest men. He declares, in vol. i., p. 198, that “It was an almost universally adopted maxim, that it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie, when by such means the interests of the Church might be promoted.” As regards the fifth century, he says: “The simplicity and ignorance of the generality in those times furnished the most favorable occasion for the exercise of frauds; and the impudence of impostors in contriving false miracles, was artfully proportioned to the credulity of the vulgar; while the sagacious and wise, who perceived these cheats, were awed into silence by the dangers which threatened their lives and fortunes, if they should expose the artifice.” p.145
This obscure historical record was also pointed out in "Isis Unveiled" by H.P. Blavatsky 1877 p. 251 another mystic who allegedly got messages from the spiritual world. This is a very good point which supposedly reputable sources routinely ignore, especially religious ones. I'm surprised more atheists aren't pointing this out, you would think they wouldn't want to let mystics take credit for drawing attention to this. His comparison of spiritualism with Christianity is at best only partly correct.
How does spiritualism compare with Christianity in its beneficial effect on mankind?
To give a just answer to this question I must first state the fact, that Christianity has been in the world nearly two thousand years while modern spiritual intercourse is only a little more than eight years old. Now Christianity has never suggested a single scientific fact — has never developed a single broad scheme for the practical relief of a suffering humanity; but, instead, the system has wielded its entire might in opposition to almost every new development— has slandered and denounced as “infidel" each one who has wrought, independent of Sectarianism, to correct abuses in high and low places — has set its power against every leading philanthropist who has labored to abolish slavery and capital punishment, to reform the misdirected voluptuary, and to introduce that practical religion which looks to the moral and intellectual regeneration of our race, instead of fashionable preaching and praying. .... Spiritualism, on the contrary, has already discovered to the world a multitude of the most momentous and practical truths. In the fields of science and philosophy, especially in mental philosophy (which is foremost with all intelligent, cultured minds) it has revealed fresh facts and demonstrated several great general principles. The sciences of magnetism, electricity, chemistry, psychology, clairvoyance, psychometry, &c., have each received valuable additional illustrations and highly suggestive principles from some of the departments of spiritualism.
Does the world refuse such new information?
Yes; such information is superciliously rejected by the devotees of sectarianism-contemptuously repudiated by the advocates of expensive churches and the defenders of a paid priesthoood. p.208
His claim that "modern spiritual intercourse is only a little more than eight years old," clearly refers to the his own activities, since it was just over eight years earlier when he published his first book; however, he clearly describes Swedenborg, Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Galen in his first book, right or wrong, as getting messages from the spiritual world, implying they're spiritualists. I've seen some claims that Swedenborg allegedly received messages from the spiritual world, but not the others, that I know of. Some of his criticism of Christianity may be quite rational but spiritualism isn't necessarily more reliable since it is also a result of a deceptive method of communication.
His writings clearly indicate that he supported the working class; which I don't necessarily doubt, however, this should be considered carefully.
... Unless capricious Fortune seems to smile especially upon their efforts, laboring people, in the present social disorder, are most likely to be kept down in the cesspools of poverty, simply by the antagonism between labor and capital. He who, by industry and personal integrity, has rescued his family from ignorance, wretchedness, and crime, deserves the gratitude of all his fellow-men ; because, under the antagonistic interests of our present social construction, it is unspeakably difficult for a laboring man to earn enough to meet the current expenses of his family, and at the same time avoid debt and dishonesty. If he does this in cities, he must forego almost every species of comforting luxury, and all cultivated amusements.
What are the poor man's disadvantages?
His disadvantages are very numerous. If he be a mechanic, then there are, probably, certain months in each year when his services are not required. But his house-rent and family expenses go on just the same as when his labor is in demand. The wealthy man can pay cash for his drygoods and groceries, can purchase them at wholesale prices, which gives him the advantage. But the poor man must buy in small quantities, must pay high interest for credit, and so lives at a perpetual loss. When he goes to the market, he pays the butchers and stall-keepers 50 per cent. more than the original cost of the articles. When he goes to the grocer, he must defray the accumulated and combined profits upon, tea, sugar, soap, molasses, etc.: first, of the producer; second, of the wholesale merchant; third, of the retailer. Here is a mass of profits which the consumer must pay, and he must work hard, and live very economically, to do it. ... Now this is all wrong; it don't pay. The laboring-classes — who produce all the wealth there is in the country—are the constant and only real sufferers under this system. p.219-20
He provides a great description of the problems between the working class and the ruling class, which still applies today; and my best guess is that he was sincere, and meant it. However, if he was influenced by an unknown advanced intelligence, that had an undisclosed motive then they could have gotten their point across much more effectively by communicating honestly. If this hypothesis is true, then Davis would have been quite sincere, but the powers that be that were influencing him might have been dropping hints that they knew a much more effective way of reforming things but were choosing to impose them in a manner which would have little chance of succeeding, even through they could do much better. The same goes for his criticism of religious support of slavery, especially since it is inspired by religious beliefs.
Is American Slavery sanctioned by the American Priesthood?
Yes; there is a cotton-thread, extending from Maine to Louisiana, which, being more profoundly revered than the principle of Justice, is allowed to hold together the United States and the United Churches. Among Churches I know of some glorious exceptions. In business the agitation of the Slavery question “ don't pay;" so the Churches furnish a “ Thus saith the Lord” in favor of the institution. ... p.221
If there is an unknown advanced intelligence that influenced both spiritualism and early religion, which has a lot in common with it, then, even though Davis wouldn't have been aware of it this could have been part of a control process, where this higher power was influencing one belief encouraging slavery, while the other hand didn't know what was going on, and preaching against it; under this hypothesis then the higher power may be preserving slavery until it no longer suites it's purposes, then setting the stage for it to come to an end when, and only when it suite his purposes, not ours.
His views about prison reform are far more progressive than our current establishment politicians, and even though he didn't provide academic research, which may not have been available in his time, there's plenty of good research available to show that his conclusions were right.
Does utilitarianism look into prisons and criminals?
Yes; the people, especially those who have thought on the subject, begin to discover this important fact—that prisons and capital punishments are exceedingly defective methods of defending the morals and protecting the interests of society. This is a business age. Everything must be looked at and judged by the mercantile standard of “profit and loss." And there are things which do, and things which do not, pay. Among others, it is beginning to be seen that the money which is now expended to arrest, to condemn, to imprison, and to punish, a single criminal, is sufficient, when judiciously and at the right time appropriated, to educate twenty poor children, and to place them in circumstances above the sphere of temptation to crime. It will “cost” far less to save fifty human beings from crime than it now costs to punish ten without improving them. But let me ask :-
Does the Church propose any reformation in this direction?
Not at all. It will oppose the measure until opposition no longer pays. When the people announce their determination to carry through this reform-- then, as they always have, the sponsors of theology will jump upon the platform, and exclaim, “Oh, we always thought so!" p.223
Not only is he right about the opposition of from the church but our political establishment has opposed reforms of our prison system and the media refuses to cover the best research that could confirm that it's far more cost effective to improve education and provide social services to prevent at risk children from turning to crime; and in the cases where this doesn't work, even though reforming troubled criminals after the fact is tougher, it's still more effective than just locking them up and giving them no educational or economic opportunities, which is what most of the country does to this day.
The Kennedy administration began implementing some good educational reforms before he was assassinated; and after he was assassinated the Johnson administration continued them for a while with his war on poverty; but then the Nixon administration began reversing them, and since then they keep repeating the get tough on crime policies, that have been proven not to work. One exception, which has improved dramatically is reductions in child abuse and corporal punishment which has been proven to reduce violence later in life. Modern researchers do a better job covering this than Davis, but he was far better on this than other researcher of his time and politicians both of his time and ours. He was also right about improvements in the education system, although I wouldn't consider this as mysterious as his ability to predict lots of advanced technology, and there are still political opposition to the best educational reforms, which he didn't discuss.
May we expect a more utilitarian method of acquiring knowledge?
Yes; we are not always to have this tedious method of learning to spell and write the English language; this external system of imparting and enforcing the shadows of ideas. Many constitutions are “ruined” by the different irksome and unnatural methods of imparting what is called an education. If the United States Constitution had not been stronger than that of many Yankee children now born, it would have been “ruined” the first two weeks by the tyrannical plan of its ecclesiastical and political schooling. Improvements in education will be so great that between the ninth and twelfth year - the ninth being the true time for children to commence - young minds will obtain more knowledge than they now acquire with much trouble between the ninth and twentieth. ... p.232-3
What will utilitarianism demand in order to inaugurate this new God?
It will call for Teachers to protest against bad laws and speak in favor of good ones. ... p.243
I don't know how politically active teachers were in his time, but he clearly would have approved of teachers protesting against the privatization movement going on today. Our current political institutions discourages those serving the poor or teaching children from participating in politics, claiming there's a conflict of interest, yet remains silent about the much bigger conflict of interests from businesses that are trying to suppress educational and economic opportunities. I wouldn't say teachers have no biases, any more than I would say that anyone else is totally unbiased; however most teachers go into this trade because they're concerned about social issues and want to improve on them; while the business interest have little concern about the best interests of the majority and are often only concerned with maximizing profits and controlling the masses.
He adopted what now seems like a common talking point from conservatives; however, he clearly wanted a government that isn't imposing on the rights of the common man, while even though modern political conservatives claim to do this as well, their policies are designed to protect powerful corporate institutions that often infringe on the rights of the working class with the help of the government.
Will the doctrine of utility be applied to modern law and government?
Yes; although we have the best country in the world, with the best government, yet are we very far from that harmonial condition of reciprocal interests in which Law and Liberty will be synonymous. As a nation we need less government and more growth. ... But, in our progressed condition, it won't pay to have Laws enforced which do not subserve the welfare of the individual as well as the whole. Our laws, as I shall hereafter show, are now against the rights of Individuals. The African race have no rights under our laws. Our laws grant but few liberties and fewer rights to women. Our laws favor the Capitalist. The legal rights of those persons are protected who have money to pay for them. Our laws seek the imprisonment, not the improvement, of the unfortunate offender. The offender is regarded as a willful foe to society; not as a misdirected member of a common Brotherhood. Hence, our laws seek his punishment; not his development. Viewed in a utilitarian light, there is much in such laws which don't pay. p.245
The current interpretation of this call for smaller government only prevents it from defending the rights of the working class while protecting the rights of corporations, or powerful institutions, which often take the place of government, when the government defends the working class. He did not oppose bigger government when it defended the rights of minorities, women or working class, although they didn't do that in his time, and he thought that it should. His call for smaller government seemed to refer to their aiding landowners and corporations from oppressing people. He went into this more when he described a class conflict where one class controls powerful institutions and the majority are abused by them.
On the side of institutions you behold all kings, emperors, popes, priests, and orthodox clergymen; on the side of human Liberty you behold the slave, the serf, working men, working women, hewers of wood, drawers of water, fishermen, and minds who perform their own thinking. Institutionalism dwells in churches, in palaces, in opulent families; individualism, on the contrary, lives in honest heads and courageous hearts. Institutionalism goes to heaven by faith; individualism, by works. One serves theology and the gods; the other anthropology and mankind.
You said that institutionalism serves the gods: have gods any need of human gifts?
Far from it: must slaves work, from babyhood to the tomb, to make rich masters richer? ...
Is institutionalism father of churches and governments?
Yes; there are already hundreds of thousands of churches dedicated to the gods; but there are not ten consecrated to Mankind. Governments are made to defend the rich; and to subjugate the poor. In Louisville, Kentucky, a rich man's son was recently freed from the gallows, through the power of money ; while almost every month we hear of “the dignity of the law" being vindicated by the formal strangulation of friendless persons for crimes far less aggravating. Institutions are made, by the strong, to maintain power. Individuals, therefore, have but one course to pursue— namely—to rebel against Institutions, and take the penalties. p.302
Sometimes he appears to support the idea of benevolent gods or spirits, other times he opposes them. One possible interpretation of this could be that he opposes the way that we worship Gods, and that it's the religious leaders that are corrupting the institutions controlling how the faithful worship God. There may be some truth to this, especially if the Gods don't exist at all; however, if there is an advanced intelligence known as God, and he did inspire religion then failed to speak out against those corrupting religious institution and using them to support tyrants and mislead the people, then this advanced intelligence would be negligent, and as responsible, if not more responsible than the religious leaders themselves.
A follow up argument could be that the spiritual world communicated through mystics like Davis or Blavatsky; however, if they do exist, they could have communicated in a far more honest manner. Honest communication from an advanced intelligence with a better understanding of social issues would do far more to prevent political and religious despotism than what he recommends, even though his suggestion is good, since many of his followers wouldn't understand how to carry them out.
What plan would you suggest whereby to prevent political and religious despotism?
The only certain plan whereby to prevent the establishment of political and ecclesiastical despotism, is this: a universal education of our people to revere and to practice the principles of Absolute Individual Liberty. All faith in a miraculous, arbitrary, despotic Revelation, must be carefully removed, and placed upon Father-God and Mother-Nature. The inner Light, the religion of Justice in the soul of each, must become the rule of faith and practice. American Theology and Roman Catholicity would then die— never to breathe again, never to know a resurrection! p.306-7
Faith in the miraculous has routinely been used to worship religious leaders that have been oppressing those that trust them; however, his method of alleged communications with the spiritual world could be considered miraculous. If there was an unknown advanced intelligence influencing him it could have accomplished this goal much more effectively by communicating directly to all people, not just through alleged mystics like Davis who often mix up their good teachings with more superstitions, even though he does debunk a large amount of old cult indoctrination tactics.
If there was an unknown advanced intelligence influencing mystics, whether it's God, aliens or something else, then it could also be influencing other mystics, some going back thousands of years others more modern, including Joseph Smith Mary Baker Eddy, Rasputin, Padre Pio, Edgar Cayce, and many more. If that's the case then this advanced intelligence could be putting out messages through flawed sources, that they know may not catch on, while putting out other messages that does the opposite, possibly to teach people to think rationally, on a small scale, when and only when it suits their purposes, but at other times using mystics on larger scales to encourage cult indoctrination. If this unknown advanced intelligence does exist, it must have an undisclosed motive.
In my most recent article on this subject, Fake Corona-virus Apocalypse? it reviews an article claiming that The Coronavirus is the "Pale Horse" predicted in the book of revelations, which many people believe is the final event before the return of Christ; however, this can't possibly be true, since their assumptions surrounding this prophecy involve a benevolent God that allegedly has the higher moral authority to pass judgement over us. Any "God" that withholds advice that could have prevented these atrocities can't be a higher moral authority. Instead what seems more likely is a clownish fake scam, especially since the evidence shows that many of these alleged biblical events that keep happening all fall apart in a clownish manner.
The evidence is growing that the deaths caused b y Coronavirus have been greatly exaggerated. The most comprehensive source for the total deaths that I found, which many scientific sources and media outlets cite is Worldometer, listed on my article. I've been checking their global death rates for the past few days, and will be updating that article explaining how their own data shows the global death rate isn't rising as much as it should, assuming these Coronovirus deaths are caused solely by the virus; and the CDC is also starting their own tally which contradicts it already, but they won't have compete data from death certificates for four to six weeks for the past few weeks and data for late April and May will take longer.
The article even speculates about the possibility that they might make it seem as if Bernie sanders might miraculously turn around the cheating, although this keeps getting less likely, especially with Bernie endorsing Biden, who opposes everything he stands for, and has far more in common with Trump. Even though it's looking increasingly unlikely that this will happen I'm not completely ruling it out; but if it does happen, it won't be miraculous, it'll be rigged to look miraculous. Which means that even if Bernie does manage to win and advance some good goals, we still have to be prepared for him to cave on many issues and push them from the grassroots. The most effective solutions for many issues won't come from candidate the mainstream media cover, unless we get major media reform and much more diverse reporters from different points of view.
Even this theory seems absurd and insane; but, something absurd and insane is going on.
Andrew Jackson Davis "The Penetralia" 1856 (Additional select excerpts)
Andrew Jackson Davis "The Penetralia" 1856 (Complete online copy)
Andrew Jackson Davis
Arthur Conan Doyle "The History Of Spiritualism" 1926
Andrew Jackson Davis - Psychic and Channeler
Andrew Jackson Davis
American Prophecy
Mark Twain All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the "elect" have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment