|
I think it's instructive to look at what Dr. Sadler himself had to say about the phenomena:
In the interests of scientific accuracy on the one hand, and of strict fairness on the other, it becomes necessary to explain that there are one or two exceptions to the general statement that all cases of psychic phenomena which have come under my observation have turned out to be those of auto-psychism. It is true that practically all the physical phenomena have proved to be fraudulent, while the psychic phenomena are almost invariably explainable by the laws of psychic projection, transference, reality shifting, etc. But many years ago I did meet one trance medium, a woman now deceased, whose visions, revelations, etc., were not tainted with spiritualism. As far as my knowledge extends, at no time did she claim to be under the influence of spirit guides or controls, or to communicate messages from the spirits of departed human beings. Her work was largely of a religious nature and consisted of elevated sayings and religious admonitions. I never had the privilege of making a thoroughgoing psychic analysis of this case, and am not in a position to express myself as to the extent to which her revelations originated in the subconscious realms of her own mind. I make mention of the case merely to record the fact that I have met one instance of psychic phenomena apparently of the trance order that was not in any way associated with spiritualism.
The other exception has to do with a rather peculiar case of psychic phenomena, one which I find myself unable to classify, and which I would like very much to narrate more fully; I cannot do so here, however, because of a promise which I feel under obligation to keep sacredly. In other words, I have promised not to publish this case during the lifetime of the individual. I hope sometime to secure a modification of that promise and be able to report this case more fully because of its interesting features. I was brought in contact with it, in the summer of 1911, and I have had it under my observation more or less ever since, having been present at probably 250 of the night sessions, many of which have been attended by a stenographer who made voluminous notes.
A thorough study of this case has convinced me that it is not one of ordinary trance. While the sleep seems to be quite of a natural order, it is very profound, and so far we have never been able to awaken the subject when in this state; but the body is never rigid, and the heart action is never modified, tho respiration is sometimes markedly interfered with. This man is utterly unconscious, wholly oblivious to what takes place, and unless told about it subsequently, never knows that he has been used as a sort of clearing house for the coming and going of alleged extra-planetary personalities. In fact, he is more or less indifferent to the whole proceeding, and shows a surprising lack of interest in these affairs as they occur from time to time.
In no way are these night visitations like the seances associated with spiritualism. At no time during the period of eighteen years' observation has there been a communication from any source that claimed to be the spirit of a deceased human being. The communications which have been written, or which we have had the opportunity to hear spoken, are made by a vast order of alleged beings who claim to come from other planets to visit this world, to stop here as student visitors for study and observation when they are en route from one universe to another or from one planet to another. [emphases mine]
First, by "auto-psychism", Dr. Sadler was referring to the content of the alleged communications originating in the mind of the medium/subject/channeler. Again, the term "channeling" wasn't in use then. Where there is auto-psychism, there isn't what one would consider "true" or "real" channeling or mediumship. So, Dr. Sadler's point is that in his opinion all such activities aren't what they seem to be, with two exceptions, which he could not classify as auto-psychism.
The first exception may have been Ellen G. White, but since he doesn't name her we can never be certain of this identification. Nonetheless, he does characterize her as a "trance medium" but one whose activities were "untainted by spiritualism." That means that he at least recognizes the possibility that there could be such a thing as a trance medium who is not engaged in spiritualism. But what would that even mean?
He tells us the answer: She didn't appear to be using "guides or controls" or to be receiving messages from dead human beings. So obviously, as Dr. Sadler understood these terms, it was the use of guides or controls, and the alleged receiving of messages from the deceased, that was the mark of "spiritualism", but not the mark of trance mediumship in itself. But since he didn't have the chance to study Mrs. White (or whoever) while in the trance state, he has no further comment, beyond his opinion that her deliverances were not the product of her own mind.
Turning to the second exception, we're now dealing with the sleeping subject himself. Dr. Sadler expresses the view that his was "no ordinary trance" in several respects, but of course it's well known that trance states in general can and do vary quite a lot. It's well documented, for example, that the well-known trance medium Mrs. Piper was not able to be awakened by smelling salts and jabbing of needles into her skin. So the sleeping subject was not the first person to be seen in a trance state as deep as what Dr. Sadler describes.
Finally, Dr. Sadler repeats the point that the case of the sleeping subject differs from spiritualism in that there is no alleged contact with deceased human beings. But there is communication with "a vast order of alleged beings," including "student visitors." That is, there is communication with someone.
And at least some of the time, this communication involved the other beings using the speech organs of the sleeping subject, as we have described in Larry Mullins's account, purportedly based on eyewitness recollections:
Lena Sadler noticed the subject was moistening his lips. “Perhaps he wants to say something. Perhaps we should ask a question,” she said. “How are you feeling?” To the great astonishment of everyone, the subject spoke! But the voice was peculiar, not his normal voice. The voice identified itself as a student visitor on an observation mission from another planet! This “being” apparently was conversing through the sleeping subject by some means. Both doctors thought they were simply observing a phenomena known as automatic speaking. This activity involves the subconscious mind, and can take place without the awareness of the patient. A History of the Urantia Papers (Kindle Locations 770-775). Kindle Edition.
So, we have testimony that celestial beings of various sorts conversed with the Sadlers (and others), at least sometimes using the physical resources of the sleeping subject's body, and that in their judgment this phenomenon was not "automatic speaking", which they understood to be only a form of auto-psychism. Today the term "ideomotor activity" would be used.
Sadler's own account from The Mind at Mischief, quoted above, was written in 1928, published in early 1929, well before any Papers were received.
My point is simply this: If you look at Dr. Sadler's own description of what went on, and you look at the range of phenomena now referred to by the term "channeling", the two obviously coincide. Channeling, as the term is currently used, is not simply about talking to dead people. It refers generally to any alleged contact with non-mortal personalities, especially when the mind of the channel is (allegedly) bypassed and the non-mortal personality supposedly "speaks through" the channel. Dr. Sadler's emphasis on the passivity of the sleeping subject with respect to the communications matches what is often reported with respect to channeling phenomena today.
I'm not making any claim about whether contemporary channeling phenomena are authentic. I'm only describing what they purport to be. If you simply apply the concept of channeling to the phenomena described by Dr. Sadler, you get a very good fit. For this reason, it is simply misleading to claim, as some do, that what went on back then at 533 Diversey is utterly different from what is now understood by "channeling."
In particular, the argument "All modern channeling is fake. The oral contact phenomena preceding the Urantia Papers were not fake. Therefore, the oral contact phenomena preceding the Urantia Papers were not channeling" is unsound. Even if all modern channeling is fake, it's not fake by definition, and it wouldn't follow that all channeling phenomena that ever occurred are fake.
_________________
Todd
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
