No Further Revelation
I feel like I've turned into some conservative Christian with that title. What a way to start the weekend!
Since I left it a few years ago, I've avoided Tumblr like the plague. Something about that website doesn't jive with me. But this Moura, I started checking back in occasionally to see if there were any posts on Moura -- I've really struggled to find things to share on Facebook that weren't from the Mother God website, and I'd love to have different views and practices to share. There's nothing wrong with sharing from MG, but I want to share more than one perspective or it becomes just a mirror page for the Mother God website!
But some of the posts I began to see crop up have made me look twice. Particularly those concerning further revelation.
"The material that was added to the Clear Recital was compiled from
things that other members of the community had shared that had been
revealed to them as I had noted over the last five years as well as what
I had revealed to me during that time period. I believe that further
revelations from Déa are going to come as time goes on. As I mentioned
earlier, I believe our religion is in a growth stage. The growing pains
are happening but we’re still growing in faith and under Déa’s loving
care."
There are some in our community who believe that further revelation -- additional messages from God Herself not included in the Scriptures, revealed personally to people -- are not only possible, but are occurring right now. That they will continue to happen. Sinclair thinks that we are still in a growth stage, and that further revelation is to be expected. I politely disagree.
We have our Scriptures. They were in their final form already when they began to circulate in the 70s (see the Critical Apparatus in the 2nd edition of the ECE, 'Origin and Transmission History'). The priestesshood has died out. But now, so many years on, we are expected to have further revelations? To again sound like a conservative Christian -- that worries me greatly. Branches of Christianity that expect and claim to receive personal revelations even now have departed alarmingly far from even the most basic tenets of their faith; I could only expect our faith to do the same if we begin to allow and expect personal messages to come to us.
The Mother and the Daughter can speak to us, help us, guide us -- but to add to revealed messages to the Scriptures? That alarms me. No matter how benign or well-intentioned, this is not a path I would like to see anyone tread. It opens the door to so much more than anyone would like. It opens the door to those who will manipulate others using "revealed messages", to those who will stray far from goodness chasing bright illusions she thought were divine and bring others with them into those dark woods, to the sort of cherrypicking that makes the Scriptures useless: if you don't like it, throw it out, and use these new messages instead! It sounds like something that could quite easily be manipulated by keres (demons) to pull good Filianis away from their faith into something warped.
At best, these revelations are UPG. Even in polytheistic circles where UPG originated and is quite common, UPG is just that: UPG (unverified personal gnosis; something you believe about a deity that is not corroborated by the historical record). It is not a requirement for others to believe your UPG, nor are you required to believe another's. UPG is not given out to everyone like it is now a standard part of the faith -- even in a faith like Modern Minoan Paganism where there is shared UPG amongst members that eventually becomes part of how most members practise or look at a deity, it is still marked as something the members of the faith have come to believe rather than an historical reality. It is good manners in those circles to mark clearly whatever you share that is UPG as such so no one takes it as proven fact; people may choose to believe it based on their own judgement, but you don't add it to a holy text. Polytheism in general does not have Scripture, or any revealed text, but we do -- and you don't add UPG to a holy text.
I do not mean this to be a personal attack on Sinclair alone: there are others in the community who are sharing these ideas. Some websites have additional Scriptures. For now, they are merely poetic pieces, drawing heavily on imagery already found in the Scriptures. Perhaps they had some personal benefit to the one who wrote them. But I worry that they begin a precedent of penning your own.
I sound alarmist and like an old worrywart, I am sure, telling the youngsters off for doing their own thing. I struggled a lot with portions of the Scriptures and some of the Madrian texts when I first got started, but over time I have found that with further study I can appreciate them in a different light: our Scriptures often have an entirely different meaning to them than what I thought it was a first blush. It would be a sorry thing if newer members of the faith lose that experience because older members have tried to simplify or correct things on their behalf. I would love to see perhaps a children's version or beginner's introductions of some things that explain or go through portions of the Scriptures in simplified format, perhaps according to denomination -- but not the Scriptures themselves.
~x~
I agree with this article. There were many times when I thought about publishing a more updated version of the scriptures, but I was extremely worried about the copyright. Finally, I spoke with my sister, a PhD scholar of English and Literature. She explained to me that as long as the authors were living, the copyright was still valid. Even if the author had died, the copyright could possibly be transferred to the author's heirs/family. I have often wondered if concerns about the copyright was one of the reasons why Sister Julia came out with her statement a couple of years ago with regards to the authorship of the scriptures. (She is one of the authors, there were others.)
ReplyDeleteAt first, I really liked the Children of Dea edition, but as I read it more thoroughly, I became quite alarmed at some of the changes... especially with the Mythos. There are places where the original meaning of the scriptures was changed, completely. That is a violation of copyright and also a tragedy in that the original meaning was lost to be replaced with the author's own belief system.
Also, the idea of 'personal revelation' is just that...personal, not necessarily authentic. Rather than replacing valid scripture with personal revelations, perhaps a completely separate book containing such things would be a wiser choice.
Lady Valentina, (Pamela Lanides), Sanctuary of the Supernal Moon.
Copyright law can seem to be very tricky, to be sure! There are some details in the ECE that Race MoChridhe publishes that deals with the copyright surrounding the Filianic Scriptures, and I believe they are referred to as "orphan copyrights", in that since Lux Madriana was dissolved, there isn't a clear line as to who would inherit the copyright by law. It is also complicated since a great deal of the materials originated in the UK and many of us are in the USA now working with these texts.
DeleteI have read Sister Julia's comments, & I do not think there is any issue concerning copyright in her statements, or it would have been mentioned at some point. She seemed more focused on addressing where she feels the movement made mistakes and taking responsibility to some degree for them. I definitely have to think on what she has said for a good deal longer though.
I have not read the Children of Dea edition, so I can only comment on what I have heard others say is changed and whatever details are shared publicly by Sinclair & those who worked on it. I am very interested to know how they come to the idea that perhaps the First Daughter is the Dark Queen. When I was a newbie Filiani (and still to this day I wonder), I thought that perhaps the Dark Queen came into being when the Snake was given a form, based on the Holy Mythos:
"And because she [the First Daughter]was suffused with the delight of the Mistress of All Things, the Snake immediately took on shape. And its shape was like to hers, but its body was filled with weight, and was barren, for being not a creature of spirit, it had not the power of creation."
And it always seemed that the First Daughter was Maid, our ancestor, the first of those with choice. So I would love to know what they say about the First Daughter and how they come to their conclusion, just as a matter of interest!
Yes, you have raised some points in favor of the Children of Dea edition (which I do love that title). I felt that it did clear up some confusion. I, also, was not always certain who the First Daughter was, but it seems like the common consensus is that she was the first Child of the Earth.
DeleteI am certainly not an expert on the scriptures, but I have been Deanic (Filianic Madrian) for ten years and I never heard the idea that the first daughter was the Dark Queen. In fact, given what it says in the original scriptures, I'm not certain how that makes sense. One positive with the Children of Dea edition is her interpretation of the Descent through the Seven Realms. In this, the author's beautiful sense of mysticism shines through. What I found alarming, however, is that I felt too much liberty was taken with the Mythos. I also felt (and perhaps I misunderstood) that she put in her own idea of gods in the Creation Mythos. I also felt there were important concepts missing. While there are some areas of scripture that might benefit from being updated, I feel that if we stray too far from the original, then many teachings and some of the original beauty will become lost in the process.
I forgot to add that it is very interesting that you have thought about the snake being the beginning of the Dark Queen. A few years back, this idea was brought up by a very wise woman in our group. It made a lot of sense to us, but I believe it was either the Chapel or David Kay who stated that the snake was not Irkalla.
Delete