[lucerna] discrediting credit

Lucerna Discussion lucerna@lists.newearth.org
Wed Jun 28 04:13:07 HST 2006

Dear David Chambers, I want to be sure we are not talking passed each other 
(what Gerald Hurst has referred to as “a dualogue”).  What you have written 
here today (below) and elsewhere is a truly eloquent testament to your 
experience in coming to the New Church Movement and finding Leon James’ 
ideas and so forth. It is also perfectly understandable that you would want 
to share this experience and insight with others (as Brother Greg and 
Richard Campbell wish to share theirs). From my perspective, it is similarly 
understandable that Stephen Burleigh would react to Leon James’ ideas as he 
has, coming from the background and experience he has. We cannot expect to 
model each others’ background and experiences.

It is even understandable that you would want to debate Stephen and me and 
anyone: call to our attention the need for a positive bias; want us to 
examine Third Testament numbers of your choosing; even spend some time 
reading what Leon James has written. All this makes sense to me. However, 
when you write “your tendency was to dismiss or discredit [Leon] by 
providing numerous search engine quotes (sorry Alan, I know you don't like 
these),” I think your tone is a disservice to your intentions. It is one 
thing to challenge another’s ideas: it is something else to give the 
appearance of divining—I intentionally chose this verb—another’s 
motivations.  On the Lucerna site I have cautioned Brother Greg that his 
TONE is counterproductive to his intent of alerting New Church people to 
problems he sees.  Choosing words like “discredit” in speaking of what 
another has written does not do CREDIT to your argument. That’s my point. 

>Reply-To: Organization and government issues <reform@novahierosolyma.org>
>To: reform@novahierosolyma.org
>Subject: Re: [reform] turnabout's fair play
>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:07:33 EDT
>Dear Stephen,
>Well, I'm reluctant to because as I stated at the  beginning, my intention
>was to simply provide my observation and leave it at  that.
>Leon, has in fact explained the point far better than I  can, in his 
>e-mail today (Re: [reform] turnabout's fair play), but in  case that 
>answer your question precisely:
>when presented with Leon's declaration of a new doctrine  from the Lord, 
>tendency was to dismiss or discredit it by  providing numerous search 
>quotes (sorry Alan, I know you don't like  these) to the effect that only
>someone who is in genuine truths from the Lord  can be imparted the 
>sense. Although an unarguable statement in itself,  used to respond to 
>offering of the DOW, etc., the only impression one  could assume from it, 
>is that
>you don't consider him (or anyone, for that  matter) to be in genuine 
>so the DOW must be false. When yet, only  the Lord can decide who is, and 
>is not.
>Also in Leon's reply today, he clearly demonstrates that  such spiritual
>insights can only come through others (and always given the  benefit of the 
>that they are indeed in genuine truths from the  Lord) to be confirmed
>personally by us when we have that 'Aha!' moment by the  Lord. But not to 
>prevent others from perhaps being  enlightened, with Scriptural quotes to 
>contrary, when we don't yet see  something ourselves.
>As a newcomer to the NC, perhaps I may provide an  example from personal
>experience how this works?
>If so; before I discovered the Writings at 17 years old, I  use to read the
>bible, completely isolated from any church influence. As I said  in my 
>biography, I was the only one in my family with any 'religious'  tendency.
>Consequently, in those formative years, I read the Word and understood  it 
>only a 'personal' relationship with God for understanding. As a result,  
>(and as
>you can imagine) my interpretation of it was with a very 'Jewish' or OT
>mentality (even to becoming a practising 'jew' for a short while!)
>However, by discovering Swedenborg, I was provided  through this 'other
>person' (a man, like any other man) a spiritual sense to the  OT & NT.
>If however, I had read your assertion that no one is in  genuine truth from
>the Lord, then I would have dismissed Swedenborg's  revelations instantly. 
>had to have the positive bias that Swedenborg was in  genuine truths from 
>Lord, for it to benefit me in any way.
>However, since that tender age and up until recently  (and still in 
>from any Church), I've had the present GC idea  that the Writings were
>speaking about the spiritual sense of the OT & NT,  not that it also 
>applied to the
>Heavenly Doctrines. It was all I could  know; no one had enlightened me to 
>So, once again, this new insight had to come through  someone else; Leon
>James. And, had I not positively assumed him to be in genuine  truths from 
>Lord, I would have dismissed this spiritual sense as from his  own
>self-intelligence. Now however, that I've discovered through others (DHL,  
>LNC) that they
>too have positively accepted a spiritual sense to the  Writings, I'm taken 
>another level of understanding which I hope will  continue to eternity.
>I consider this next step to be the DOW and Theistic  Psychology, because 
>'personal' relationship with the Lord now, is in the  new understanding 
>His Mind is the true Heaven, and to enter that 'Mind', I  have to align my 
>with His (what we refer to as regeneration, or being in  the Lord's
>The spiritual sense of the Writings (in other words,  Theistic Psychology)
>helps me to achieve this because I now realise instead of  the Lord being 
>there' in the form of the Spiritual Sun, that He is  constantly working 
>of me as a Divine Psychologist actively healing my  mind/proprium by 
>and opening various societies from the heavens and the  hells in my 
>as I co-operate with Him by shunning evils, doing good  and extracting the
>spiritual doctrine of the Writings. And in the  meantime, sharing any 
>insights I
>may receive (like my Theistic Astronomica  pages) to the degree that I too,
>acquire genuine truths from the Lord. (Which I  also hope will be received 
>with a
>positive bias, but still closely examined for  their validity.)
>In other words, I don't believe we have to be totally  perfected in genuine
>truths from the Lord, before we can begin to impart this  information to
>others. There will be things about the DOW that are right, and  things 
>about it that
>are wrong (which Ian Thompson and I have already expressed  to Leon), but 
>don't reject it entirely simply because Leon may have not  reached a state 
>perfection yet. Instead we confirm those truths that are  revealed to us, 
>place aside the others that haven't, for another  day.
>(Sorry this is so long, but I think I've said all I can  say on the matter
>Warm regards,

>reform mailing list

More information about the lucerna mailing list