If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home

In a message dated 98-02-08 11:01:15 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: << What do you think of Nibley's work, Abraham in Egypt, Egyptian Endowment, and Timely and Timeless? These works would seem to address this question, at least indirectly. >> At this time in my life I am not very impressed with what Nibley has done with the Book of Abraham or the antiquity of the endowment. The practical side of my soul is convinced that Joseph adapted the ritual of Freemasonry in much the same way he re-"translated" portions of the Bible, according to his inspired intuition. The only resemblance I see between our Endowment and ancient forms of initiation that set it apart from Freemasonry is its more explicit and overtly religious nature. In a way, the subtlety of what I have read about Freemasonic ritual draws me more toward it. As for Egyptian connections, most credible Egyptoligists, even LDS ones, would have to reject the historic value of the Book of Abraham and any supposed connections that Nibley discusses. John Ghee (sp?) may be one exception, and though he may be brilliant, he willingly overlooks obvious evidences about the Book of Abraham that place it in a 19th century context, and not an Abrahamic one. I believe that initiation rituals share common elements because of our common human heritage, not because everyone in the past was a closet Mormon. --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from wilma.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITCT3ZDWMO90EDCZ@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Sun, 8 Feb 1998 23:48:22 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id XAA05318 for Sun, 08 Feb 1998 23:44:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21239 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 04:48:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 21229 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 04:48:19 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 04:48:19 +0000 Received: from imo26.mail.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA10293 for Sun, 08 Feb 1998 23:44:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from Neoptolmus@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 0PPZa18875; Sun, 08 Feb 1998 23:48:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 23:48:08 -0500 (EST) From: Neoptolmus@aol.com Subject: Re: mormon mysticism To: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, Sidheach@aol.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, ariel144@hotmail.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-08 11:01:15 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: << I don't necessarily see a conflict here. We know that the universe is filled with such beings. >> I'm not sure I'm following you. BY seems to be literally saying that Adam is our God, the being whom we worship, and the literal Father of Jesus. I suppose it is possible to reinterpret his statements in many ways, many of them more attractive than what he says, but many of them are based on our thinking, not BY's intellectual environment. --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITCVBXU81C90HPRL@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 00:52:03 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id AAA01589 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:47:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 1424 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 05:51:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 1414 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 05:51:56 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 05:51:56 +0000 Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.184.79]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id AAA01576 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:47:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [207.155.184.71]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id AAA11480; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts003d38.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.146]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.8) id AAA04111; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:47:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 21:43:27 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: mormon mysticism To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Beth any , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, Dave , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> Errors-to: jswick@cris.com Message-id: ?bd351d$a5631620$LocalHost@crc3.concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 X-Proc-type: 3 ___Michael___ I have read most of BY's statements on this matter. I was on mahonri long enough to fairly well be beaten about the head with these ideas, but I never heard them stated so succinctly and clearly. Thanx Joe! ----- Thank you for the compliment.... but I really don't think I've done this idea justice at all. ___Michael___ I'm sure that you are aware that this is not the only possible interpretation of the Adam-God current. . .No AG theorist has ever explained to me how God could be in heaven and in Eden at the same time. ----- Don't take offense, but... I don't believe that it is anyone's obligation to explain AG to you at all. (^_^) As I said, there are aspects of this that are only apprehended by revelation. However, the point you raise is answered quite handily by Brigham Young in more than one place. If you have read him extensively, then it seems to me that this question should have been answered for you already. Excuse me for the dodge, but I won't answer it; (^_^) I only pause to note that it is about as problematic for me as how Christ could pray to his Father in Heaven, and yet be called the "Mighty Father, the Everlasting God" (Is. 9:6-7). It is certainly no more problematic than believing that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, when Acts clearly teaches that "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified His Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him" (Acts 3:13 see also 5:30). ___Michael___ At core, most of them postulate that our physical bodies are of extra-terrestrial origin. This is an extraordinary postulation. In fact, I think the the literal interpretation of AG falls flat here in light of modern evidence. ----- Not at all. Only GOD's physical body is of "extra-terrestrial origin." We, by contrast, are made of the "dust of the earth," the definition of which phrase is clearly and profoundly given by Wilford Woodruff at the Bunkerville trial. FWIW, I personally believe that ultimately, there is only one kind of life on the earth. ___Michael___ BY, misinterpreting some statements of JS, was probably wrong about AG. ----- I rather think that Brigham Young understood Joseph Smith's teaching quite well. Whether he was wrong or not in his doctrine is another issue altogether. What specific statement of Joseph's do you suppose BY misinterpreted? Consider these Nauvoo doctrines by the Prophet: 1) Adam is the Ancient of Days (HC 3:386-7; 4:207-8) "I heard Joseph say that Adam was the ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel" (John Taylor, as quoted, L. John Nuttall Papers, Jan 13, 1880) "Who could the Ancient of Days be but our father Adam? Surely none other" (EMS, May 1834) In every other Christian tradition of which I am aware, the Ancient of Days is God the Father. I cannot tell you the great surprise it was to me when I first read the Prophet's teaching on this point. Even more amazing is the description of the Heavenly Council given by Parley P. Pratt in his pamphlet, "Angel of the Prairies," written in 1844, and ostensibly read in the presence of Joseph Smith: "On entering this room, a vast and extensive hall was opened before me.... In the midst of this hall was a vast throne as white as ivory, and ascended by seventy steps, and on either side of the throne and of the steps leading to it, there were seats rising one above another. On this throne was seated an aged, venerable looking man. His hair was white with age, and his countenance beamed with intelligence and affection indescribable, as if he were the father of the kingdoms and people over which he reigned. He was clad in robes of dazzling whiteness, while a glorious crown rested upon his brow; and a pillar of light above his head, seemd to diffuse over the whole scene a brilliance of glory and granduer indescribable. There was something in his countenance which seemed to indicate that he had passed through long years of struggle and exertion in the achievement of some mighty revolution, and been a MAN OF SORROWS AND ACQUAINTED WITH GRIEF. But, like the evening sun after a day of clouds and tempest, he seemed to smile with a dignity of repose. In connection with this venerable personage sat two others scarcely less venerable, and clad and crowned in the same manner. On the next row sat twelve personages, much of the same appearance and clad in the same manner, with crowns upon their heads; while the descending seats were filled with some thousands of noble and dignified personages, all enrobed in white and crowned with authority and power and majesty, as kings and priests presiding among the sons of God. "You now behold," said the Angel... "The Grand Presiding Council organized in wisdom, and holding the keys of power to bear rule over all the earth in righteousness And of the increase and glory of their kingdoms there shall be no end.".... "Son of mortal, you now understand the nature of the government you have beheld. . .it is a theocracy, where the great Eloheim, Jehovah, holds the superior honor. He selects the officers. He reveals and appoints the laws, and He counsels, reproves, directs, guides and holds the reins of government. The venerable Council which you beheld enthroned in majesty and clad in robes of white, with crowns upon their heads, is THE ORDER OF THE ANCIENT OF DAYS, before whose august presence thrones have been cast down, and tyrants ceased to rule" (Pratt, Angel of the Prairies, 8-10, 21-2). 2) Adam presides over the spirits of all men. "Adam is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men" (TPJS 157). Further, "Whenever [the keys of the Priesthood] are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority," (Ibid) as he "obtained the FIRST PRESIDENCY ... in the creation, before the world was formed" and he holds these keys "from generation to generation" (Ibid). Which is to say, the authority came FIRST to Adam, and THEN went to others (TPJS 158). In fact, even the keys of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times are held by Adam (TPJS 167). "Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the KEYS OF THE UNIVERSE, but retains his standing as the head of the human family" (HC 3: 387) "The Father loveth the Son, and HATH GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HAND" (John 3:35). 3) The Gospel, Ordinances, Keys of the Priesthood, Christ are Revealed from Heaven by Adam's Authority TPJS 157, 167, 168. 3) God was once a Man, and is the Product of the Process of an Exaltation (KFD) 4) Life Comes from Life "God has set many signs on the earth as well as in the heavens; for instance, the oak of the forest, the fruit of the tree, the herb of the field, all bear a sign that seed hath been planted there; for it is a decree of the Lord that every tree, plant, and herb bearing seed should bring forth of its kind, and cannot come forth after any other principle" (TPJS 198). "If Abraham reasoned thus -- if Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and . . . the Father of Jesus had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without there first being a son? Whenever did . . . anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And EVERYTHING comes in this way" (TPJS 373). Brigham Young taught this same doctrine: "[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that was, that ever will be" (Brigham Young, JD 11.122). "Who was it that spoke from the heavens and said, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him?" Was it God the Father? It was. The Apostles bear testimony that such a voice was actually heard, "This is my beloved Son" ... Who did beget him? His Father, and his Father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ -- Who is He? He is Father Adam -- Michael -- the Ancient of Days. Has he a Father? He has! Has he a Mother? He has!" (BY, Feb 19 1854). 5) God may "fall" with all his creations (Nauvoo Expositor 1:1) 6) As Gods, We Will Populate Worlds With Our Own Posterity "There you may shine like mighty Gods, "Creating worlds so fair, "At least a world for every wife "That you take with you there. "The man that has got ten fair wives, "Ten worlds he may create; "And he that has got less than this, "Will find a bitter fate" ("Buckeye's Lament for Want of More Wives"). Brigham Young also taught this doctrine: "I ask this question of you, mother Eves, every one of you. If you are not sanctified and prepared, you ought to be sanctifying and preparing yourselves for the blessings in store for you when it will be said of you, this is Eve. Why? Because you are the mother of all living. You might as well prepare first as last. If you wish to be Eves and mothers of human families you ought to bear the burden" (JD 12:97). I don't want to tire you with quotes. But I believe that Nauvoo doctrines are consistent with Brigham Young's claim that at Luke Johnson's house, he heard the confidential AG teaching from the Prophet: It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God...God COMES TO THE EARTH AND PARTAKES OF THE FRUIT. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, or if people had it revealed, it was not told" (4 April 1860 Quorum Meeting Minutes, BY Papers) Brigham Young seems rather clearheaded about what Joseph taught, when and where he taught it. ___Michael___ if you've been to the temple, then you have seen that Adam and God are two different people doing different things at the same time. This basic substance of the temple rite has never changed in its whole history that I am aware of. Adam, God, and Christ are portrayed as different people with different roles. ----- Unfortunately, it HAS changed. I might ask, when does Jesus appear in the Endowment? As Jehovah? I would point out to you that scores of Latter-day Saints (at least until the early 1900s) attended the Temple and generally interpreted this wh ole scene diff erently. These Saints firmly believed that Jehovah was a name-title of Heavenly Father, and not of Christ, only insofar as the name of the Father was placed upon the Son. ___Michael___ I am accepting that BY could have been wrong about this one. ----- Although I really don't think I have touched at anything but the edges of this idea, I really think Brigham was running way ahead of us. Warmest Regards, Joe Swick --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITCWX37TTS90FS6X@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 01:37:21 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id BAA12422 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 01:33:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 7927 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:37:18 +0000 Received: (qmail 7917 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:37:18 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:37:18 +0000 Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.184.79]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA12408 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 01:33:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [207.155.184.71]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA17856; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 01:35:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts003d38.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.146]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.8) id BAA12975; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 01:35:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 22:31:20 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: nirvananet To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Beth any , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, Dave , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> Errors-to: jswick@cris.com Message-id: ?bd3524$556ddcc0$LocalHost@crc3.concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 X-Proc-type: 3 WOW. I'd never heard McKenna before. Neo-psychedelic thought? His "story" sounds as much like a "Myth" as anything else I have ever heard. "The Future is a forward escape into the past." Into the paleolithic! "This is what the psychedelic experience means. It is a doorway out of history...." What a preacher, although his message sounds rather familiar: "Shamanism, ecstasy, orgiastic sexuality...." Hmmm. On hold...mutating...mutating...mutating....please hold....... lemme just drop this blotter acid, because "dying without ever having a psychedelic experience is like dying never having had sex....." (^_^) Where oh WHERE did you find this! It's classic. JSW --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITD0SZ8FVK90EORX@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 03:28:34 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id DAA28579 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 03:23:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 22681 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:28:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 22615 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:28:30 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 08:28:30 +0000 Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.184.79]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id DAA28525 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 03:23:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [207.155.184.71]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id DAA27856; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 03:26:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts001d12.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.24]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.8) id DAA27750; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 03:26:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 00:22:10 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: mormon mysticism To: proclus , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Don Bradley , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com, Beth any Errors-to: jswick@cris.com Message-id: ?bd3533$d14360e0$LocalHost@crc3.concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 X-Proc-type: 3 ___Proclus___ As I have said elsewhere, Joseph testified that God is a man, and that if we encountered him, that we would encounter a man. ----- And how does this invalidate "mysticism" for you? Personally, I don't see this as antithetical to mysticism at all. Or do you think that most mystics see God as some sort of fluffy stuffed elephant or cosmic muffin? As for what Joseph meant by seeing God, I refer you to his first vision, which or even the history of D&C 76. Joseph's descriptions are matter-of-fact, but this does not lessen the transcendent nature of his experiences: heavenly beings descend in a pillar of light; the glory is so overwhelming that it apparently takes him some time to recover. I mean, Bro. Joseph was not meeting God in Joe's Spic and Span Diner over a plate of sausage gravy on biscuits; it was not something that he wrote in his Franklin Planner a week in advance, and God showed up for the business portion of the meeting. It seems that we are not connecting on what qualifies as mysticism. You seem to say that God is not a mystery, therefore, mysticism and Mormonism are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. You seem to think that mysticism cannot be "practical" or "pragmatic," or conversely, if something is "practical" and/or "pragmatic" it cannot be "mystical." Again, I would disagree. You may recall Joseph's comment that if you could look into heaven for 5 minutes, you would know more than all that had ever been written on the subject. Now, why do you suppose that is so? And, if it is true about the Celestial Kingdom, do you not think that it may equally apply to that Kingdom's Anchor Tenant? ___Proclus___ I think that the Adam Qadman material is purely allegorical. ----- I think that whether Adam Kadmon is allegorical or not has little bearing on Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. Certainly, BY did NOT intend for AG to be taken as mere allegory, its similarities with certain Jewish mystical traditions notwithstanding. ___Joe___ Even in Mormonism, the Gates of Revelation generally open for one man at a time, and individuals blessed to pass through this Gate are not able to fully communicate their experience to those who have not shared in it (Alma 12:9-12). Like Lehi and Nephi's shared vision, we may (must) each recieve it for ourselves... individually. How is this NOT mysticism? ___Proclus___ It can be more easily explained in terms of a human God who can only be in one place at one time. ----- Is that what your own EXPERIENCE tells you, or is that your opinion in the absence of experience? I rather think that while God may be like a man in form, if he were to actually be in the same room with you "as He is," it would be only because of a special dispensation of grace/spirit that you would not be entirely consumed by His glory. While I do not have any difficulty with an anthropomorphic Deity, I seem to read into your comments a minimizing of God's Deity because of his shared humanity. I think this is a mistake. Just because God is an Exalted Man, does not mean that he is not a transcendent Being. Again, my reading of the story of the Brother of Jared underscores the point for me. I believe that his experience is transcendent -- in spite of the fact that God appears in form like a man. More importantly, this accords with my own experiences with God. ___Proclus___ Furthermore, I consider that the planet is literally in a lost and fallen state. This is not figurative for me. Blayne and I had quite some difficulty over this point. I am REALLY bothered by the condescending "You just don't get it yet" that I hear sometimes. I'm not interested in discussing mental states. Just pass me the technology. ___Joe___ You only say this because you are trying to understand it with your carnal mind. So knock it off, and "let it be." You already have the technology; you just haven't awoke to the fact yet. ___Proclus___ ROTFL! How did you keep a straight face while saying that! ;-} ----- Months of practicing in front of the mirror. (^_^) Cheers! JSW --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: ?.3365@compuserve.com> Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITD6M0DW1C90DG4H@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 06:14:45 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA28643 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5711 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:14:40 +0000 Received: (qmail 5670 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:14:38 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:14:38 +0000 Received: from hil-img-8.compuserve.com (hil-img-8.compuserve.com [149.174.177.138]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id GAA05183 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:09:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by hil-img-8.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.10) id GAA08897; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:13:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:00:44 -0500 From: "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> Subject: Adam-God Sender: "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> To: "(unknown)" , Beth any , Artdel-Hoyos , Beth , Don Bradley , Dave , Gaia , Michael Love , rpc man , Andy McGuire , Kathleen McGuire , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , "R. Trent Reyolds" , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , Joe Steve Swick III Message-id: ?_MC2-3281-8075@compuserve.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Michael Love, <> The temple rite has indeed changed. And, it has changed in significant points. One of them is the deletion of the Adam-God portion of the Lecture Before the Veil. As for the "Adam, God, and Christ . . . as different people with different roles" position, I refer you to the 1854 discourse on Adam-God. In it BY says that Michael and Jehovah are the same person. Eloheim on the other hand is merely the patriarchal representitive of the Council of Gods. Jehovah is merely the person who is currently acting as God. When Adam fell he was no longer Jehovah. But at Adam-ondi-Ahman Adam was once again Jehovah. Robert. --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: ?.3365@compuserve.com> Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITD6MJIZ4W90DWPV@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 06:15:10 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA05402 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6112 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:15:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 6087 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:15:07 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:15:06 +0000 Received: from hil-img-4.compuserve.com (hil-img-4.compuserve.com [149.174.177.134]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id GAA05374 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:10:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.10) id GAA15037; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:14:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 06:01:00 -0500 From: "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> Subject: Tarot Sender: "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> To: "(unknown)" , Beth any , Artdel-Hoyos , Beth , Don Bradley , Dave , Gaia , Michael Love , rpc man , Andy McGuire , Kathleen McGuire , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , "R. Trent Reyolds" , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , Joe Steve Swick III Message-id: ?_MC2-3281-8076@compuserve.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Beth, <> I prefer Robert. <> I would rather do it by phone but there may be some in the group that would like to listen in. So, I can do it here if you want. I went out and bought another (my sixth) deck. All of my others are packed away. Remember that my books aaare packed away so I my not get everything. Robert. --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITD8QBF3LS90HCCI@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 07:15:30 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id HAA01831 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:11:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2869 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:15:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 2841 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:15:25 +0000 Received: from wilma.globecomm.net (207.51.48.30) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:15:25 +0000 Received: from imo25.mail.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.153]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id HAA19243 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:11:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 0XGMa26146; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:14:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:14:56 -0500 (EST) From: Si dheach@aol.com Subject: Re: Joe Swick's AG discourse To: proclus @iname.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com , kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Message-id: ?a.34def342@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Proclus, In the apendix of Hugh Schonfeld's "Those Astonishing Christians" Schonfeld has an essay on the Christology of Paul in which he makes the case that Paul believed that Jesus was the actual embodyment of the "Cosmic Adam" and therfore to be united to Him was to be reintegrated with the Life of the Cosmos. The concept of Adam the inter-planetary pioneer doesn't fit completely with the Heavenly Adam doctrine, but when you add the Gnostic texts like the Apocalypse of Adam into the picture it sure looks like Brigham was trying to describe something that looks very old. Ken --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITDC6QKEXCHV0W0O@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 08:54:14 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id HAA22749 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:18:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9213 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:23:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 9193 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:23:06 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:23:06 +0000 Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.170]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id HAA22722 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 0CPZa04922; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:22:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:22:56 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com Subject: Neoptolmus-mormon mysticism To: Neoptolmus@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, donbradley@webtv.net, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, ariel144@hotmail.com Message-id: ?a8c.34def523@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Neoptolmus, Thanks for your thoughful response. Your insight is actually right in line with Hugh Nibley's, as well as the early Church Fathers like Clement of Alexadria and Cyril of Jerusalem. These Church Fathers said that there IS a "Saving Gnosis" but that it isn't in the hands of the arrogant "Gnostics". Ken --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITDCW8KUDCHV0X15@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:14:48 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id JAA12984 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:10:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 8252 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:14:44 +0000 Received: (qmail 8224 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:14:42 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 14:14:42 +0000 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id JAA12935 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:10:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ArtdeHoyos@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id CDQGa04254; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:14:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:14:06 -0500 (EST) From: ArtdeHoyos@aol.com Subject: Abraham & Nibley To: jswick@cris.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, Sidheach@aol.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, ariel144@hotmail.com Message-id: ?aa6.34df0f30@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-08 19:42:05 EST, jswick@cris.com writes: > Absolutely. The Book of Abraham is a response to the Masonic claims of > antiquity, and its 19th-century boast to be the inheritor of the mysteries. > Masonic themes run thick through the text, its "genealogy" paralleling > several passages in noted Masonic writers Hutchinson and Oliver. Even the > production of the text, and the implied BoA teaching re: the purpose of > heiroglyphics seem to be strongly Masonic in flavor. I here agree with my Bro. Swick. This idea first occured to me in 1981 when I attended a temple session in which one of the temple presidency gave a question-and-answer session. Although I was not yet a Mason I was recently familiar with Morgan's exposure. The temple presidency member said that figure 7 in Facsimile No. 2 ("God sitting upon his throne, revealing thorugh the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood....") showed God holding His right hand in front of him, the right arm forming a square, and the left arm being raised to the square (above which appeared a compasses). (Thanks to the Tanners(!) I knew that it represented the ithyphallic God Min. A couple of weeks later I had the chance to ask Hugh Nibley about it (like a good raised-in-Provo-Mormon-boy should!). Nibley said that *if* it were an ithyphallic deity it would be the appropriate representation of "power in the priesthood.") As luck would have it I was then reading for my first time J.S.M. Ward's _Who was Hiram Abiff?_ . I believed (at the time) that the BoA was an "authentic" account of what Ward was trying to trace. As I gradually distanced myself from accepting everything the Church taught, I considered that Joseph had written his own mythology (the BoA) to validate the endowment and counter claims that it was taken from Masonry. The BoA seemed to parallel the Masonic "Constitutions" which included mythical histories, many of which mentioned Abraham, e.g., "Also Abraham, and Sarah his Wife, went into Egypt, and taught the Egyptians the Seven Liberal Sciences...." (The Old Constitutions [London: J. Roberts, 1722], pp.5-6). > I have also been writing about the Danites as a Mormon group intentionally > made to imitate the then-current stereotype of the "Avenging Masons." Once I > have this subject covered well, I am hoping to publish a paper on the > subject. Good! I look forward to reading it. > I think that Nibley is a cheat on the subject. But an interesting cheat. > His direct comments on Masonry (as found, for instance in Temples and > Cosmos) seem to be quite ... unfortunate? inaccurate? polemical? And this is > being generous to Brother Nibley -- a man I generally respect and enjoy > reading. Nibley has lost whatever respect I held for him; not on account of his abilitites (he is certainly intelligent and pngted), but rather because of his willingness to defend the Church dishonestly. He's smart enough to know that a study of the evolution of Masonic ritual does not help the endowment's claims to antiquity. Yet, I am still happy to own his books, and his bibliographies have provided great resource material. I think the Church would be better served if Nibley, and other staunch defenders, would simply say that Freemasonry was the "alphabet" with which the endowment was written. In other words, why not simply say that Masonic ritual and symbolisim was the most appropriate means of expressing "the eternal truths constituting the endowment"? ---Art deHoyos, 32*, KCCH, KYCH http://members.aol.com/adehoyos/chap1.htm ======================================== | Past Master and endowed life member, | McAllen Lodge No. 1110, AF&AM of Texas; | Board of Directors, Scottish Rite Research Society; | Resource Team, Ritual Revision Committee, | Supreme Council, 33*, Southern Jurisdiction, | Grand Archivist, Grand College of Rites; | Ambassador-at-Large, San Antonio, TX, Valley, AASR; | Class Director, Santa Fe, NM, Valley, AASR; | Standard Bearer, South Texas Conclave, Corpus Christi, TX, | Red Cross of Constantine and Appendant Orders; | Allied Masonic Degrees; | York Rite College; | Royal Order of Scotland ======================================== --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITDF6QVV1SHV10RH@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 10:20:32 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id KAA08484 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:16:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26240 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:19:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 26219 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:19:50 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:19:50 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA08171 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:15:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port2.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITDEZNBSB4HV10KQ@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:14:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 10:14:32 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: nirvananet To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any Message-id: ?DF1D52.D458C7EF@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: ?bd3524$556ddcc0$LocalHost@crc3.concentric.net> Glad to be of service. It is eight clicks from the mutantRM website to that file (through the MkzdK site log to ZenPlanet then up to Nirvananet). The link is found in one of the main HackTV/Cybergate pages at Nirvananet. I have hesitated to give ZenPlanet or NirvanaNet a link, because you really have to dig for germaine material, even deeper than at MkzdK. Here are the links again for those who missed them. http://www.nirvanet.fr/welcome/cybergate-en/cybergate_pad-en/entree.html http://www.nirvanet.fr/son/mackenna100.ram proclus Joe Steve Swick III wrote: > > WOW. I'd never heard McKenna before. Neo-psychedelic thought? His "story" > sounds as much like a "Myth" as anything else I have ever heard. "The > Future is a forward escape into the past." Into the paleolithic! "This is > what the psychedelic experience means. It is a doorway out of history...." > > What a preacher, although his message sounds rather familiar: "Shamanism, > ecstasy, orgiastic sexuality...." > > Hmmm. > > On hold...mutating...mutating...mutating....please hold....... lemme just > drop this blotter acid, because "dying without ever having a psychedelic > experience is like dying never having had sex....." (^_^) > > Where oh WHERE did you find this! It's classic. > JSW -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from iname.com (chopin.rose.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITE28IFFBKHV1V5C@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:20:07 EST Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 21:20:06 -0500 From: Michael Love Subject: [Fwd: Abraham & Nibley] Sender: love@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU To: Michael Love Message-id: ?DFB956.A60AC320@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.3 IP32) Content-type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="Boundary_[ID_Qx895BMDR32QaAJ7JULukA]" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_[ID_Qx895BMDR32QaAJ7JULukA] Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --Boundary_[ID_Qx895BMDR32QaAJ7JULukA] Content-type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Return-path: Received: from wilma.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITDWIAYIO0HV1DBM@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:36:14 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id SAA28553 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9217 invoked by alias); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:36:11 +0000 Received: (qmail 9207 invoked from network); Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:36:10 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:36:10 +0000 Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.175]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id SAA26795 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:31:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from Neoptolmus@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id JWQHa05584; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:35:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:35:51 -0500 (EST) From: Neoptolmus@aol.com Subject: Re: Abraham & Nibley To: ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, jswick@cris.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, Sidheach@aol.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, ariel144@hotmail.com Message-id: ?d37a403.34df92da@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-09 09:14:06 EST, ArtdeHoyos writes: << I think the Church would be better served if Nibley, and other staunch defenders, would simply say that Freemasonry was the "alphabet" with which the endowment was written. In other words, why not simply say that Masonic ritual and symbolisim was the most appropriate means of expressing "the eternal truths constituting the endowment"? >> Oh how I wish they would. --Boundary_[ID_Qx895BMDR32QaAJ7JULukA]-- --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITE2Y7544WHV1N9O@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 21:40:50 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id VAA21441 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 21:36:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26652 invoked by alias) ; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:40:48 +0000 R eceived: (qmail 26641 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:40:47 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:40:47 +0000 Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.172]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id VAA07543 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 21:36:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 0TESa09271; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 21:40:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 21:40:33 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com Subject: Art... To: ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Message-id: ?e5.34dfbe29@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Art, It's been a while since you've said much to me, I figure that my postings of late have put you off some, but I'm still working on your painting. The only thing is that it's much larger than you specified, 23"X46" on hardwood. I'm afraid that the complexity of the scene makes working at a small scale too much for my meager talents. My problem with the deconstruction of early Mormonism down to a "psychoanalytical" level, is that from time to time in my life I've experienced "something higher" in connection with it, a kind of "taste" of "blessedness" that makes me sit up like a hound-dog catching a scent. There is plently of circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith was getting some sort of special insight, even if he was a real flake at other times. We should give him as much credit as we would...lets say...John Dee...or even AC. Where are you at man...what DO you believe these days? Thanks man, Cinaed Sidheach --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from wilma.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITE44XOISWHV1UNN@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:14:31 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id WAA23900 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:10:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 4909 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:14:28 +0000 Received: (qmail 4899 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:14:28 +0000 Received: from wilma.globecomm.net (207.51.48.30) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:14:28 +0000 Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.169]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id WAA23876 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:10:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ArtdeHoyos@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id 1ZOYa14251; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:14:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:14:13 -0500 (EST) From: ArtdeHoyos@aol.com Subject: Re: Art... To: Sidheach@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Message-id: ?d575.34dfc607@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-09 21:40:33 EST, Sidheach writes: > It's been a while since you've said much to me, I figure > that my postings of late have put you off some, but I'm > still working on your painting. The only thing is that it's > much larger than you specified, 23"X46" on hardwood. > > I'm afraid that the complexity of the scene makes working > at a small scale too much for my meager talents. > > My problem with the deconstruction of early Mormonism > down to a "psychoanalytical" level, is that from time to time > in my life I've experienced "something higher" in connection > with it, a kind of "taste" of "blessedness" that makes me sit > up like a hound-dog catching a scent. > > There is plently of circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith > was getting some sort of special insight, even if he was a real > flake at other times. We should give him as much credit as > we would...lets say...John Dee...or even AC. > > Where are you at man...what DO you believe these days? This letter was answered privately. ---Art.'. --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITE4G95XR4HV1TXE@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 22:23:38 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id WAA27517 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:18:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6994 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:23:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 6973 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:23:34 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:23:34 +0000 Received: from imo13.mx.aol.com (imo13.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.167]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id WAA27470 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:18:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id ENLZa04254; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:22:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:22:21 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com Subject: Mormon Gnostica and Seedline of Cain To: ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Cc: ken.shaw@dalsemi.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hail Mutants! There are a bunch of us on this list who cut our teeth on the old-line Mormon Fundamentalism that has preserved a great store of the "Oral Tradition" of the Utah Period. The old-line tradition is an astonishingly baroque elaboration of the "standard" Adam-God theology, not the least of which is the doctrine that Cain was the semi-demonic off-spring of the Serpent and Lillith. There is a whole far-out elaboration of Cain being functionaly "immortal" until he can get to the next world to become the "Serpent" of that Garden, at which time he will "father" of the next Cain in an ongoing series. Later I found in "Hebrew Myths" by Graves and Pattai that the Jewish tradition is that the Serpent fathered Cain on Eve and that Seth is the only true heir of Adam. Then I found this in "A History of Gnosticism" by Giovanni Filoramo pg. 111: ""This intrerpretation seems to be confirmed furtherin some passages of "Genesis Rabbah"according to which Cain and Able were really sons of the Devil and Seth was the only true son of Adam. In the Pirke of Rabbi Eliezeer it is further maintained that Samael (Satan) was joined to Eve, who then conceived. Cain, the fruit of this marraige, was the father of a wicked race. Rabbi Simeon says that 'from Seth were born and decended all the generations of the just. From Cain were born and decended all the generations of the wicked'". This ties together the whole "blacks and the Priesthood" thing with the complex of very ancient notions that make up the Adam-God theology. My question is...where did this stuff come from in Utah Period Mormonism? Was it part of the esoterica transmitted through the Masonic-Kabbalah line, or was it a pulled out of air as a genuine intuition? This is the kind of stuff that makes Mormonism really look like an ancient near-east tradition. Be well friends, Ken Shaw --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from wilma.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITE7N0MGSWHV19UK@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:55:23 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id XAA15723 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:51:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 27336 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:55:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 27326 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:55:20 +0000 Received: from wilma.globecomm.net (207.51.48.30) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:55:20 +0000 Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.184.79]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA15692 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:51:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [207.155.184.71]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id XAA21871; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:51:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts001d38.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.50]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.8) id XAA05707; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:51:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:45:49 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: Abraham & Nibley To: Neoptolmus@aol.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, Sidheach@aol.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, ariel144@hotmail.com Errors-to: jswick@cris.com Message-id: ?bd35de$c24733e0$32d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 X-Proc-type: 3 ___AH___ I think the Church would be better served if Nibley, and other staunch defenders, would simply say that Freemasonry was the "alphabet" with which the endowment was written. In other words, why not simply say that Masonic ritual and symbolisim was the most appropriate means of expressing "the eternal truths constituting the endowment"? ___Neoptolmus___ Oh how I wish they would. ----- That makes several of us, you can be sure! Warmest Regards, Joe Steve Swick III --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITE7RZ7ILSHV1DM4@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:59:22 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id XAA21845 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:55:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28152 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:59:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 28131 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:59:19 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:59:19 +0000 Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.184.79]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA17320 for Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:54:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [207.155.184.71]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id XAA22826; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:55:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts001d38.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.50]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.8) id XAA07114; Mon, 09 Feb 1998 23:55:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:51:54 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: Blunder? To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Beth any , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, Dave , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> Errors-to: jswick@cris.com Message-id: ?bd35df$9c26a780$32d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 X-Proc-type: 3 Having "rassled" in the kitty litter with Johnny Cat --re: Mormonism and Masonry-- I would agree with Beth. In this case, perhaps it is best to ignore him. Just curious...what specific posting by Art went to Shulemna? Not the LV quote I hope. That would be most heinous. JSW --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITE8DXI36OHV133E@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:16:18 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id AAA26206 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:11:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 2147 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:16:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 2136 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:16:14 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:16:14 +0000 Received: from darius.concentric.net (darius.concentric.net [207.155.184.79]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id AAA26625 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:11:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [207.155.184.71]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id AAA26544; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:12:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts001d38.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.50]) by newman.concentric.net (8.8.8) id AAA11845; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:11:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 20:58:42 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: Mormon Gnostica and Seedline of Cain To: Sidheach@aol.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Cc: ken.shaw@dalsemi.com Errors-to: jswick@cris.com Message-id: ?bd35e0$8f2a4360$32d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 X-Proc-type: 3 ___KS___ My question is...where did this stuff come from in Utah Period Mormonism? Was it part of the esoterica transmitted through the Masonic-Kabbalah line, or was it a pulled out of air as a genuine intuition? This is the kind of stuff that makes Mormonism really look like an ancient near-east tradition. ----- Obviously, they just made it all up, Ken. What ARE you thinking! (^_^) My own recent AG rant notwithstanding, I believe --as you mentioned-- that we are only touching the edges of many of these ideas. Blessings, Brother! JSW --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITE9VKGLDCHV1TZN@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue , 10 Feb 1998 00:59:32 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id AAA164 01 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9418 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:59:30 +0000 Received: (qmail 9406 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:59:29 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:59:29 +0000 Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.165]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id AAA16925 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:54:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id JWKVa19035; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:59:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:59:24 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com Subject: Joe-What AM I thinking! To: jswick@cris.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Cc: ken.shaw@dalsemi.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Joe, Thanks for your response! I am a little foggy about where the transmission of tradition ends and the completely "original" material begins. However it worked, there is clearly a great mystery at work here. Thanks Brother, Ken --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEF3MI1VKHV1NHE@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:28:49 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id DAA23916 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:23:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28573 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:28:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 28563 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:28:45 +0000 Received: from wilma.globecomm.net (207.51.48.30) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:28:45 +0000 Received: from mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (mailsorter-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.95]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id DAA24992 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:24:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net (mailtod-122.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.90]) by mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/ms.gso.08Dec97) with ESMTP id AAA08610; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:28:30 -0800 (PST) Received: (from production@localhost) by mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/mt.gso.08Dec97) id AAA28338; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 00:28:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:28:29 -0700 From: onandagus@webtv.net (Don Bradley) Subject: Adam-God: History or Myth? To: proclus@mac.com (Michael Love) Cc: MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com (Andy Mcguire), kathleen@enol.com (Kathleen McGuire), trent@goodnet.com (R. Trent Reynolds), jswick@cris.com (Joe Steve Swick III), ArtdeHoyos@aol.com (ArtdeHoyos), rds@acsu.buffalo.edu (Randall Shortridge), ariel144@hotmail.com (Beth any), Sidheach@aol.com (Sidheach), proclus@mac.com (proclus), rpcman@hotmail.com (rpc man), gaia@nmol.com (Gaia), Neoptolmus@aol.com (Neoptolmus@aol.com), dcombe@rain.org (Dave), 74277.3365@compuserve.com (Robert R. Black) Message-id: ?.AAA28338@mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I certainly agree with JSW that BY's A-G doctrine was internally consistent. But I agree just as strongly with Proclus that the doctrine cannot be literally true. The genetic and paleontological evidences show clearly that we are closely related to Earth's other lifeforms and that there is no primal couple from whom we all descended unless you look back 100,000 years or more in Africa. We simply did not originate with an extraterrestrial couple that lived in Missouri 6000 years ago. I, therefore, interpret the whole Adam, Eve, Fall story allegorically. Adam & Eve represent men & women, respectively. (Does this sound familiar?) We men & women lived with God in an immortal, paradisical state (the preexistence). Then we made the choice to leave God's presence and live as mortals in a lone and dreary world where we would encounter thorns, thistles, and noxious weeds and live by the sweat our faces. We made this choice (represented allegorically as partaking of the "forbidden" fruit) in order to experience the good and the bad, thereby becoming "as gods."And now our goal is to return to the presence of God (allegorically represented as Eden). The story of Adam and Eve is the story of _all_ mortals. But how can Adam-God be true if "Adam" is not a man but a mythical representation of all men? At best it is mythically or allegorically true. Perhaps A-G, like the Job story, the masonic Hiram Abiff legends, and Jesus' parables, teaches powerful lessons without being historically accurate. Perhaps, as Proclus suggested, the significant point made by the Adam-God story is that we are the same kind of beings as God. Trevor and Joe, you're right, this ISN'T fully how Brigham Young saw it. But Brigham Young interpreted Moses' teaching about Adam allegorically. May we not interpret _his_ Adam teaching in the same way? And if we do, then are we not adopting, not Brigham's precise interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, but his very method of interpreting it? Don Bradley --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from wilma.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEFIC3F34HV1V19@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:40:40 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id DAA01260 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:36:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 501 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:40:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 491 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:40:37 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:40:37 +0000 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.177]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id DAA22151 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:36:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id ONLEa23610; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:40:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:40:13 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth? To: onandagus@webtv.net, proclus@mac.com Cc: MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Message-id: ?f2bfe37.34e0126f@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Don, What I'm personaly interested in is how the "myth" effects those who believe in it. It seems to me that ultimately what Joseph was trying to do was to "resacralize" the world, and bring the Holy back into the present life of ordinary people. The Adam-God theology brought a sense that the ultimate Mystery was now on the earth among us. You da' man! Ken --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEGJQWA8GHV1RZB@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:10:03 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id EAA16148 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:05:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3966 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:10:00 +0000 Received: (qmail 3956 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:10:00 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:10:00 +0000 Received: from mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (mailsorter-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.95]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id EAA16127 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:05:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net (mailtod-122.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.90]) by mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/ms.gso.08Dec97) with ESMTP id BAA19729; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:09:57 -0800 (PST) Received: (from production@localhost) by mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/mt.gso.08Dec97) id BAA01571; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:09:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:09:57 -0700 From: onandagus@webtv.net (Don Bradley) Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth? To: Sidheach@aol.com Cc: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Message-id: ?.BAA01571@mailtod-122.bryant.webtv.net> MIME-version: 1.0 (WebTV) Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Ken, Yes! The Adam-God myth sacralizes humanity. It also sacralizes the earth, especially Jackson County (it says _God_ lived there!), thereby strengthening our desire to "return" there and build Zion. (After all, shouldn't Zion be where Eden was, where God Incarnate lived?) No doubt the Adam-God myth has beneficial effects on those who accept it as historical fact. My question is, what about those who reject its historicity while embracing it as a powerful myth? Can our myths still empower us and give meaning to our lives when we have come to see them as nonhistorical? In other words, what happens when we accept our myths AS MYTHS? Don Bradley --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEHQC9U7KHV1U9H@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:44:23 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id EAA19096 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:40:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9141 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:44:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 9130 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:44:20 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:44:20 +0000 Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id EAA19077 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:40:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from cliff.concentric.net (cliff [206.173.119.90]) by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id EAA16832; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:41:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts004d29.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.185]) by cliff.concentric.net (8.8.8) id EAA19292; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 04:41:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:37:45 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth? To: Don Bradley , Michael Love Cc: Andy Mcguire , KathleenMcGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Bethany , Sidheach , proclus , rpc man , Gaia , Neoptolmus@aol.com, Dave , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> Errors-to: jswick@cris.com Message-id: ?bd3607$8accf200$b9d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 X-Proc-type: 3 Don: I surely don't mean to be a head-banging dogmatist; but I would prefer that we could see clear and admit without apology or obfuscation precisely what it was that Brigham Young taught, and that we do this BEFORE we choose to hack and chop said doctrine to bits. As we have talked about this privately, I have not doubt that you personally understand clearly the essentials of BYs teaching. However, my observation is that most folks try to apologize the teaching away before they have even "taken it out of the box." As for AG, allegory and organic evolution: as I have already said, I believe in the fundamental unity of all life on the planet. There is only one kind of life on the earth, manifesting itself in myriads of forms. However. My faith in science notwithstanding, I am quite satisfied to leave a space for my religious faith as well. As a matter of faith (based on my own experience), I believe that BY's AG teaching is true. Explaining to another precisely HOW it is true for me, is of course more problematic. My question to you is this: why do you wrestle with Blayne over issues of theology if you believe what you say below? It seems to me that if you can reduce or spiritualize AG in this way, then its take-home allegorical message is that "Man is God," just as Blayne says. IOW, from my perspective, if you make AG an allegory, then that allegory would appear to argue for Blayne's view of the essential transcendent nature of Man. Hmmm. Maybe if I follow McKenna's suggestion, drop acid, and pass through the door of the future into the Neolithic Age, I will find the truth of Adam God on the mushroom-studded plains of Eden / Africa. Or not. JSW -----Original Message----- From: Don Bradley To: Michael Love Cc: Andy Mcguire KathleenMcGuire R. Trent Reynolds JoeSteve Swick III ArtdeHoyos Randall Shortridge Bethany Sidheach proclus rpc man Gaia Neoptolmus@aol.com Dave Robert R. Black ?.3365@compuserve.com> Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 12:28 AM Subject: Adam-God: History or Myth? I certainly agree with JSW that BY's A-G doctrine was internally consistent. But I agree just as strongly with Proclus that the doctrine cannot be literally true. The genetic and paleontological evidences show clearly that we are closely related to Earth's other lifeforms and that there is no primal couple from whom we all descended unless you look back 100,000 years or more in Africa. We simply did not originate with an extraterrestrial couple that lived in Missouri 6000 years ago. I, therefore, interpret the whole Adam, Eve, Fall story allegorically. Adam & Eve represent men & women, respectively. (Does this sound familiar?) We men & women lived with God in an immortal, paradisical state (the preexistence). Then we made the choice to leave God's presence and live as mortals in a lone and dreary world where we would encounter thorns, thistles, and noxious weeds and live by the sweat our faces. We made this choice (represented allegorically as partaking of the "forbidden" fruit) in order to experience the good and the bad, thereby becoming "as gods."And now our goal is to return to the presence of God (allegorically represented as Eden). The story of Adam and Eve is the story of _all_ mortals. But how can Adam-God be true if "Adam" is not a m an but a mythical representation of all men? At best it is mythically or allegorically true. Perhaps A-G, like the Job story, the masonic Hiram Abiff legends, and Jesus' parables, teaches powerful lessons without being hi storically accurate. Perhaps, as Proc lus suggested, the significant point made by the Adam-God story is that we are the same kind of beings as God. Trevor and Joe, you're right, this ISN'T fully how Brigham Young saw it. But Brigham Young interpreted Moses' teaching about Adam allegorically. May we not interpret _his_ Adam teaching in the same way? And if we do, then are we not adopting, not Brigham's precise interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, but his very method of interpreting it? Don Bradley --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEJNL7SO0HV206C@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:39:26 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id FAA25539 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:34:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 16801 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:39:24 +0000 Received: (qmail 16774 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:39:23 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:39:23 +0000 Received: from hotmail.com (f94.hotmail.com [207.82.250.200]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id FAA25511 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26355 invoked by uid 0); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:39:20 +0000 Received: from 208.202.191.167 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:39:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 02:39:19 -0800 (PST) From: Beth any Subject: Interesting post To: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, Sidheach@aol.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com, ariel144@hotmail.com Message-id: ?.26354.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [208.202.191.167] I thought Kento's terms were interesting today on the other list. I wondered if maybe anyone here has some interesting ideas about some of the more esoteric meanings behind these words. Let me know. Beth ------------- Samuel: <<> >"Jehovah" was a sanskrit mantra, like AUM. >"YAH-WAH." Deals with the control of breath. > >It was used for meditation, sometimes conjuring. > >Kento > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEKUJ38JKHV1TYW@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:13:16 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA09136 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:08:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23034 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:13:14 +0000 Received: (qmail 23023 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:13:13 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:13:13 +0000 Received: from hotmail.com (f49.hotmail.com [207.82.250.60]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA09104 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3847 invoked by uid 0); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:13:10 +0000 Received: from 208.202.191.167 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:13:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:13:08 -0800 (PST) From: Beth any Subject: Re: Art... To: ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, Sidheach@aol.com Message-id: ?.3846.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [208.202.191.167] I too am intensely curious about the feelings and theories of others on this matter. The more people that would respond the more interesting I think it would be. I mean isnt that question the one that would seem to be the most obvious to ask a group like this and I dont see that anyones ever noticed or answered as to what they think it was all about. Beth ------------------- >There is plently of circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith >was getting some sort of special insight, even if he was a real >flake at other times. We should give him as much credit as >we would...lets say...John Dee...or even AC. > >Where are you at man...what DO you believe these days? > >Thanks man, >Cinaed Sidheach > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITELE348HSHV1XDH@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:29:02 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA15246 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:24:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 24681 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:29:00 +0000 Received: (qmail 24671 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:28:56 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:28:56 +0000 Received: from hotmail.com (f132.hotmail.com [207.82.251.11]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA28967 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:24:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3308 invoked by uid 0); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:28:51 +0000 Received: from 208.202.191.167 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:28:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:28:49 -0800 (PST) From: Beth any Subject: Re: Mormon Gnostica and Seedline of Cain To: Sidheach@aol.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, donbradley@webtv.net, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com, ariel144@hotmail.com Message-id: ?.3307.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [208.202.191.167] >This is the kind of stuff that makes Mormonism really look like an ancient >near-east tradition. > >Be well friends, >Ken Shaw > > Yeah or like neo-nazi's. You know I never thought of the LDS as being like that type ...I swear it never would of occured to me. And then I ran into some neonazi christian people who talk about the same exact things. Like some of the wacked out british isreal people. I mean there are things a few of them have said that have been curious or intersting to me like about christ being in England or something because it's kind of linked with some of the mysteries like Holy Blood Holy Grail kind of lore. But... then there's that whole segment that really gets into the "seed of cain" stuff (Eve had sex with serpent B.S.) and the devils seed needs to be annhilated kind of thing. It's pretty awful stuff. But if you think about how eerily similar it is to some of this LDS stuff. Those LDS words could have come out of a Eustace Mullins or Arnold Murray hardcore christian white supremist book that I have encountered. I have heard people accuse the LDS church of being linked to the Klan and I always thought it was a pretty outrageous claim.... I am laughing right now. I could be totally wacked tonight at 3:24 in the morning but.....you never know... PS - Did this stuff start with Brigham or Joseph? I don't want to offend anyone here if that's what they beleive. But personally the segregation stuff in the church always really bothered me. I have seen to many people take that stuff to an extreme. Beth ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITELKFMIBKHV1YZW@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:34:09 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA00999 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:29:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25130 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:34:07 +0000 Received: (qmail 25120 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:34:06 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:34:06 +0000 Received: from hotmail.com (f125.hotmail.com [207.82.251.4]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA17477 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:29:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 10476 invoked by uid 0); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:34:03 +0000 Received: from 208.202.191.167 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:34:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:34:01 -0800 (PST) From: Beth any Subject: Re: Blunder? To: jswick@cris.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, donbradley@webtv.net, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, Sidheach@aol.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com, ariel144@hotmail.com Message-id: ?.10475.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [208.202.191.167] I dont think 90% of the people there would have even known what it was. I think the vast majority of them don't care. Probably only a couple. I think Samuel/Steve actually would have been interested in a positive way. So most of em'll delete it and not think twice about it. Most of the people on that list are totally open minded and benign. It's just one or two who like to duke it out with others I think. Beth >From jswick@cris.com Mon Feb 9 20:55:54 1998 >Received: from newman.concentric.net (newman.concentric.net [207.155.184.71]) > by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) > id XAA22826; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:55:44 -0500 (EST) > [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] >Errors-To: >Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts001d38.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.50]) > by newman.concentric.net (8.8.8) > id XAA07114; Mon, 9 Feb 1998 23:55:39 -0500 (EST) >From: "Joe Steve Swick III" >To: "Michael Love" , > "Andy Mcguire" , > "Kathleen McGuire" , > "R. Trent Reynolds" , > "ArtdeHoyos" , > "Randall Shortridge" , > "Beth any" , "Sidheach" , > "rpc man" , "Gaia" , > , , "Dave" , > "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> >Subject: Re: Blunder? >Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 20:51:54 -0800 >Message-ID: ?bd35df$9c26a780$32d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > >Having "rassled" in the kitty litter with Johnny Cat --re: Mormonism and >Masonry-- I would agree with Beth. In this case, perhaps it is best to >ignore him. > >Just curious...what specific posting by Art went to Shulemna? Not the LV >quote I hope. > >That would be most heinous. > >JSW > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from wilma.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITELT8GU7KHV1NYG@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:41:15 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA23545 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:37:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26007 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:41:13 +0000 Received: (qmail 25997 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:41:12 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:41:12 +0000 Received: from hotmail.com (f123.hotmail.com [207.82.251.2]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id GAA20561 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 06:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 3791 invoked by uid 0); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:41:09 +0000 Received: from 208.202.191.167 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:41:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 03:41:07 -0800 (PST) From: Beth any Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth? To: proclus@mac.com, onandagus@webtv.net Cc: MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, Sidheach@aol.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Message-id: ?.3790.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [208.202.191.167] I have been pondering this exact thing lately. I am so tempted to think this is exactly the way Brigham intended it. I really think he did sometimes... but even'if he didn't it still may be true on that level anyway. I am so close to thinking this is true. Beth ------------------ >I certainly agree with JSW that BY's A-G doctrine was internally >consistent. But I agree just as strongly with Proclus that the doctrine >cannot be literally true. The genetic and paleontological evidences >show clearly that we are closely related to Earth's other lifeforms and >that there is no primal couple from whom we all descended unless you >look back 100,000 years or more in Africa. We simply did not originate >with an extraterrestrial couple that lived in Missouri 6000 years ago. > >I, therefore, interpret the whole Adam, Eve, Fall story allegorically. >Adam & Eve represent men & women, respectively. (Does this sound >familiar?) We men & women lived with God in an immortal, paradisical >state (the preexistence). Then we made the choice to leave God's >presence and live as mortals in a lone and dreary world where we would >encounter thorns, thistles, and noxious weeds and live by the sweat our >faces. We made this choice (represented allegorically as partaking of >the "forbidden" fruit) in order to experience the good and the bad, >thereby becoming "as gods."And now our goal is to return to the presence >of God (allegorically represented as Eden). The story of Adam and Eve is >the story of _all_ mortals. > >But how can Adam-God be true if "Adam" is not a man but a mythical >representation of all men? At best it is mythically or allegorically >true. Perhaps A-G, like the Job story, the masonic Hiram Abiff legends, >and Jesus' parables, teaches powerful lessons without being historically >accurate. Perhaps, as Proclus suggested, the significant point made by >the Adam-God story is that we are the same kind of beings as God. Trevor >and Joe, you're right, this ISN'T fully how Brigham Young saw it. But >Brigham Young interpreted Moses' teaching about Adam allegorically. >May we not interpret _his_ Adam te aching in the same way? And if we do, >then are we not adopting, not Brigham's precise interpretation of the >Adam and Eve story, but his very method of interpreting it? > >Don Bradley > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from mail.cm2.com (ns2.cm2.com) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEP3OYR6OHV1ZRH@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:15:12 EST Received: (from mail@localhost) by mail.cm2.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA16790 for rm-l-out; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:12:55 -0800 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:11:00 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: [rm-l] Questions for Art Sender: owner-rm-l@mail.cm2.com To: rm-l@mail.cm2.com Reply-to: rm-l@troubador.com Message-id: ?E051D4.18152EAD@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Precedence: list X-Authentication-warning: mail.cm2.com: mail set sender to owner-rm-l using -f HEEEHEEHEE! How have you been, Tim? I will forward J's note to Art today. proclus Tim Rathbone wrote: > > The big JJJJJ.... > You have been reading too much Ed Decker and Howard Baer...and William > Schniberling...All RABID ANTI-MORMONS perhaps too much acid and other > things.... > > Perhaps you should visit htis websight for your answers... > About masons go read this... > go see HTTP://members.aol.com/adehoyos/chap1.htm > > _____________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Renagade Radical Rude Radiant Whatever you want it to be called... > Mormon Doctrinal Discussion List > Visit the Mahonri web site at http://www.troubador.com/~mahonri > > For help send mail to rm-l-info@troubador.com with the > word "help" in the body of the message. > To be removed from the list send mail to rm-l-info@troubador.com > with the words "DELETE mynam@myserver" in the body of the message > > RULE #1: NO FIGHTING OR PERSONAL INSULTS. TAKE IT OFF LIST. -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Renagade Radical Rude Radiant Whatever you want it to be called... Mormon Doctrinal Discussion List Visit the Mahonri web site at http://www.troubador.com/~mahonri For help send mail to rm-l-info@troubador.com with the word "help" in the body of the message. To be removed from the list send mail to rm-l-info@troubador.com with the words "DELETE mynam@myserver" in the body of the message RULE #1: NO FIGHTING OR PERSONAL INSULTS. TAKE IT OFF LIST. --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEQ7E6GUOHV21RM@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:46:25 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id IAA25191 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:42:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17778 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:46:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 17768 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:46:21 +0000 Received: from wilma.globecomm.net (207.51.48.30) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:46:21 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id IAA23136 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:42:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port4.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEPYJ1KG0HV1EYK@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:40:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:40:02 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: Blunder? To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any Message-id: ?E058A1.25545A81@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: ?bd35df$9c26a780$32d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net> Art's Adam God veil communication went to shulemna. proclus Joe Steve Swick III wrote: > > Having "rassled" in the kitty litter with Johnny Cat --re: Mormonism and > Masonry-- I would agree with Beth. In this case, perhaps it is best to > ignore him. > > Just curious...what specific posting by Art went to Shulemna? Not the LV > quote I hope. > > That would be most heinous. > > JSW -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEQ2J8T00HV21B5@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:42:30 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id IAA16556 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:37:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 17082 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:42:27 +0000 Received: (qmail 17072 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:42:26 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:42:26 +0000 Received: from imo24.mail.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.152]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id IAA23546 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id OZKFa13561; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:41:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:41:26 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth? To: onandagus@webtv.net, ken.shaw@dalsemi.com Cc: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com Message-id: ?a5299.34e05908@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Don, This is exactly why I beleive that the study of orthodox Zoharic Kabbalah is the vital next step in the development of our religious understanding. Orthodox Kabbalah explains the nature of the self is astonishingly sophisticated detail, at least as "scientificly" as the Buddhist system (which is saying a lot!). Kabbalah provides the clear theoretrical framework for "vicarious atonement", the "law of adoption", the concept of connection to God through a Mediator as well as sophisticated understanding of the Adam-God theology. Even though it looks like our particular tribe of monkeys has been cluttering the planet for a long time, there is plenty of circumstancial evidence that there has been ongoing intervention and interference from shining being who come down out of the sky! The very fact that the cerebrial cortex suddenly exploded in size without any long term development and for no observable adaptation advantage seems to indicate that some kind of new genetic material was added to the mix. Thanks man, Ken --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEQT1ADZ4HV20PX@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:03:52 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id IAA26190 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:58:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21131 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:03:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 21119 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:03:46 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:03:46 +0000 Received: from imo26.mail.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id IAA01953 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:59:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id PEUNa18883; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:03:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:03:24 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com Subject: Beth-Seedline of Cain To: ariel144@hotmail.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, donbradley@webtv.net, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dcombe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com Cc: ken.shaw@dalsemi.com Message-id: ?f45b10b.34e05e2e@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Beth, The whole reason I went nuts of Jahanihah was because of the direction I found myself going in "politicaly" when I was doing Fundamentalism so hot n' heavy. The "Two Seedline Theory" of the "Identity Christians" is so persuaisive exactly because it can be extracted from the Torah by fairly straight forward exegesis. Then there is the whole body of Jewish tradition about the seedline of Cain and the seedline of Seth that eventual develops into the Sethian Gnostics. This stuff is very old! Like I said, it's one of the things that makes Mormonism's claim of antiquity look like it might has something to it. The question of whether this stuff come from Brigham or Joseph may never be answered, but I have a hunch that it was part of the 1880 "School of the Prophets" lore. You da' babe! Ken --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from wilma.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITES9I6GDSHV1Y9L@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:45:23 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id JAA23849 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:41:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29900 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:45:19 +0000 Received: (qmail 29890 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:45:18 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:45:18 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id JAA17872 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port4.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITERXNNRDSHV1BO6@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:36:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:36:37 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: Art... To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any Message-id: ?E065E1.B61B300A@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: Neoptolmus@aol.com wrote: > I believe that initiation rituals share common elements because of our common > human heritage, not because everyone in the past was a closet Mormon. Beth any wrote: > I too am intensely curious about the feelings and theories of others > on this matter. The more people that would respond the more > interesting I think it would be. > I mean isnt that question the one that would seem to be the most obvious > to ask a group like this and I dont see that anyones ever noticed or > answered as to what they think it was all about. > Beth > > ------------------- > >There is plently of circumstantial evidence that Joseph Smith > >was getting some sort of special insight, even if he was a real > >flake at other times. We should give him as much credit as > >we would...lets say...John Dee...or even AC. > > > >Where are you at man...what DO you believe these days? > > > >Thanks man, > >Cinaed Sidheach Ken has said recently that belief is problematic, and I agree with him, in a sense. I feel that faith becomes less significant as we pass onto knowledge. I think it is fair to say that in this group, we know alot ;-}. Nevertheless, I have a core faithful commitment to Mormonism, which I explain below. I agree with Neoptolmus that these initiation rituals are an expression of our common human heretage. This is part of what I tried to express in my bio, which is online at the website. I know that there are others on the list that share this view. Nevertheless, I am also maybe a closet FARMS dude. Don't beat me up! My take on this is that there is a forward looking segment of humanity that believes that we can overcome all of our limitations, that we can attain divinity. I call this apotheosis. It means to attain godhood, the SMI^2LE scenario. This is not necessarily some mystical union with God, but rather, it means that you are immortal and you go about the universe spreading life. As we are told, "all power, all heights and depths..." and so on. I believe that this human project, this apotheosis, is IMMANENT. I love Job 38-41 in this regard. Job is given a list of things that man can't do, but God can do them. Now, in 1998, if you read the list, you will realize that we have already done over half of these things. I'm working on the rest. ;-} Obviously, the Bible (which I love) is a half dead book. Continuing revelation and adaptation is needed for this rapidly changing world, and that is where Joseph Smith comes in. He established Mormonism, which is an artful and adaptive expression of this ascending thrust. Mormonism first gave me the tools to start me on this project. It gave me an unwavering faith and knowledge of a God who has reached th is level of attainment. This ancestral knowledge has been confirmed to me again and again. It is the divine heretage, the infinite potential, that we all share. You certainly don't have to be a Mormon to feel this way, and I think that it forms the core teachings of many other groups. It is not difficult to see in the writings of Crowley or Leary, f or example. I feel that Mormons have d ropped the ball in many respects, not that many other groups are doing much better at this point. It is no simple task that is before us. proclus -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from wilma.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITESBX7RDSHV21HR@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:47:20 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id JAA25019 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:43:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 422 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:47:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 412 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:47:15 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 14:47:15 +0000 Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.166]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id JAA23127 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:42:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ArtdeHoyos@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id OXIa022181; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:46:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 09:46:55 -0500 (EST) From: ArtdeHoyos@aol.com Subject: What does Art deHoyos believe? To: onandagus@webtv.net, ariel144@hotmail.com, proclus@mac.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org, Sidheach@aol.com Message-id: ?b26402b.34e06861@aol.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 62 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 98-02-10 06:13:12 EST, ariel144@hotmail.com writes: > I too am intensely curious about the feelings and theories of others > on this matter. The more people that would respond the more > interesting I think it would be. > I mean isnt that question the one that would seem to be the most obvious > to ask a group like this and I dont see that anyones ever noticed or > answered as to what they think it was all about. > Beth In a message dated 98-02-10 03:43:00 EST, onandagus@webtv.net writes: > I noticed Martin Gardener on your list of personally influential authors > awhile back. As one who regularly imbibes from such fountains as > _Skeptic_ magazine and _Skeptical Inquirer_, I have been wondering what > you make of all the magic and esoterica you study and what you believe - > or disbelieve - respect to Mormonism in particular and religion in > general. Hi all, I don't recall who (in addition to Martin Gardener) I listed, but among the more "rational" authors I should have added Paul Kurz, Eric Hoffer, Douglas Hofstadter, William James, Andrew Weil, Jacques Ellul, Julian Jaynes, William Calvin, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell and many others. My personal policy is to study both sides of an argument by the principal (or most articulate) advocates and detractors. What do I make of the magic and esoterica I've studied? I look at myself more as an historian of ideas than as a guru! Sure, I've had personal involvement with some groups, but I might flatter myself to have been a Richard Burton, clothed as a believer, entering Mecca. :-) And yet I think there was a part of Burton which believed and disbelieved at the same time. I don't know if you're familar with Aleister Crowley's "Liber O." In it, he writes: "In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth, and the Paths, of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether they exist or not. By doing certain things certain results follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them." Who am I to argue with the "Great Beast"? :-) From personal experience I have satisfied myself that "by doing certain things certain results follow." And this follows well with an accepted definition of magick, i.e., the art and science of causing change to occur in conformity with the will. I'm reminded of Albert Pike wrote in an unpublished manuscript, called "The Symbolism of the Blue Degrees of Freemasonry": "Plato, Cicero and the divines and philosophers have laboriously formulated their demonstrations, but if they have convinced others they have never fully convinced themselves. I have attempted it, have convinced others, they thought I had convinced myself, but doubts have returned...." And in the same manuscript: "With the same right I have to believe that Moses was a real person, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was, and that the account of his arrest, trial and crucifixion is, at least in the main, historically correct. What in my opinion he was, man, Divine or Deity, it concerns no one but myself in the world to know.... I have not the slightest desire to convince anyone that he is in error and I am right." Having said this, I will say that I tend to concur with my Brother Pike. I am a "believer" in a Supreme Being; though that, in my opinion, is a weak description. I perhaps prefer "the Infinite." I have personal reasons for "believing" in a Supreme Being, which have nothing to do with my LDS upbringing. Indeed, in an effort to discover what was "real" for myself, I was willing to sacrifice the faith of my upbringing (Mormonism) upon the altar of truth. Like Pike, I don't feel it necessary to try and convince anyone of my personal beliefs, or even to fully express them. I am satisfied to walk among believers and disbelievers alike, treating both equally, being a friend to all. I understand both camps and am comfortable in either. Neither of them sways me, as I am my own harshest critic. If I have opportunity to share information, I'll usually do it (if I have the time, or feel it would do any good). And with respect to Mormonism? I think there is something to it (as there is in other religions), but I don't think the current leaders have the same "vision" as Joseph. I'm of the opinion that Joseph was a "myth maker" who realized a mythology adapted for his environment. His theology expressed truths and ideals as he saw them (all lenses differ in how they focus light). I'm reminded of a statement in the Golden Dawn document, "On the General Guidence and Purification of the Soul": "In true religion there is no sect. Therefore take heed that thou blaspheme not the name by which another knoweth his God for if thou doest this thing in Jupiter, though wilt blaspheme YHVH; and in Osiris YEHESHUAH." Of one thing I *am* certain: people are capable of convincing themselves of anything, if they want to. :-) ---Art.'. ---Art deHoyos, 32*, KCCH, KYCH http://members.aol.com/adehoyos/chap1.htm ======================================== | Past Master and endowed life member, | McAllen Lodge No. 1110, AF&AM of Texas; | Board of Directors, Scottish Rite Research Society; | Resource Team, Ritual Revision Committee, | Supreme Council, 33*, Southern Jurisdiction, | Grand Archivist, Grand College of Rites; | Ambassador-at-Large, San Antonio, TX, Valley, AASR; | Class Director, Santa Fe, NM, Valley, AASR; | Standard Bearer, South Texas Conclave, Corpus Christi, TX, | Red Cross of Constantine and Appendant Orders; | Allied Masonic Degrees; | York Rite College; | Royal Order of Scotland ======================================== --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITET1ZXTZKHV19BF@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:08:22 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id KAA01947 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 5429 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:08:19 +0000 Received: (qmail 5418 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:08:18 +0000 Received: from wilma.globecomm.net (207.51.48.30) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:08:18 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA08257 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:04:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port4.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITESSCDALSHV25UL@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:00:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:00:35 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: mormon mysticism To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any Message-id: ?E06B7E.F21D638C@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: ?bd351d$a5631620$LocalHost@crc3.concentric.net> Joe Steve Swick III wrote: > ___Michael___ > At core, most of them postulate that our physical bodies are of > extra-terrestrial origin. This is an extraordinary postulation. In fact, I > think the the literal interpretation of AG falls flat here in light of > modern evidence. > ----- > > Not at all. Only GOD's physical body is of "extra-terrestrial origin." We, > by contrast, are made of the "dust of the earth," the definition of which > phrase is clearly and profoundly given by Wilford Woodruff at the > Bunkerville trial. FWIW, I personally believe that ultimately, there is > only one kind of life on the earth. I love this. We are debating the nature of our divine origin! Ironic in some sense, but obviously we have a clue, eh? I am unfamiliar with the Wilford Woodruff statement on the dust of the earth, but it sounds like it would be very interesting. I'm no simple evolutionist, but I would like to make the following point. Common early teachings of the Church also included the following; 1. Different animal species are made of different stuff. 2. Our bodies are the literal physical generation of God(dess). These points are not reconcilable to the physical evidence, but they have been made to me again and again by AG theorists. I think that AG theory, as it is commonly apprehended, needs a serious overhaul. That is part of the reason for the existence of mutantRMs, IMHO. Nevertheless, I also feel that AG is an idea that needs to be defended, for all the reasons that Ken gave. It is an important expression of our divine heretage. I am not anti-AG, much to the contrary. I simply feel that these types of questions are not being addressed by AG theorists, who fall to silence, demanding that I seek a revelation. proclus -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITETJ74YPCHV245A@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:22:13 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id KAA10485 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:18:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 9118 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:22:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 9104 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:22:08 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:22:08 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA09973 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port4.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITETBS91A8HV27BR@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:16:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:16:17 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: mormon mysticism To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any Message-id: ?E06F2B.F863B48@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: ?bd3533$d14360e0$LocalHost@crc3.concentric.net> On the definition of mysticism: The mysticism that I have encountered involves the apprehension of something ineffable or unknowable, then going about spouting contradictory statements, like a master of the temple adept. I've been there. This is fine. I think that Heisenberg Uncertainty is great allegory. I just don't think that it has anything whatsoever to do with the nature of the Mormon God nor our apprehension of that nature. Joseph abolished the trinitarian theological mess, and I say good riddance. There are enough genuine mysteries in the world without our inventing new ones. proclus Joe Steve Swick III wrote: > > ___Proclus___ > As I have said elsewhere, Joseph testified that God is a man, and that if we > encountered him, that we would encounter a man. > ----- > > And how does this invalidate "mysticism" for you? Personally, I don't see > this as antithetical to mysticism at all. Or do you think that most mystics > see God as some sort of fluffy stuffed elephant or cosmic muffin? > > As for what Joseph meant by seeing God, I refer you to his first vision, > which or even the history of D&C 76. Joseph's descriptions are > matter-of-fact, but this does not lessen the transcendent nature of his > experiences: heavenly beings descend in a pillar of light; the glory is so > overwhelming that it apparently takes him some time to recover. I mean, Bro. > Joseph was not meeting God in Joe's Spic and Span Diner over a plate of > sausage gravy on biscuits; it was not something that he wrote in his > Franklin Planner a week in advance, and God showed up for the business > porti on of the meeting. > > It seems that we are not connecting on what qualifies as mysticism. You > seem to say that God is not a mystery, therefore, mysticism and Mormonism > are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. You seem to think that > mysticism cannot be "practical" or "pragmatic," or conversely, if something > is "practical" and/or "pragmatic" it cannot be "mystical." Again, I would > disagree. > > You ma y recall Joseph's comment that if you could look into heaven for 5 > minutes, you would know more than all that had ever been written on the > subject. Now, why do you suppose that is so? And, if it is true about the > Celestial Kingdom, do you not think that it may equally apply to that > Kingdom's Anchor Tenant? > > ___Proclus___ > I think that the Adam Qadman material is purely allegorical. > ----- > > I think that whether Adam Kadmon is allegorical or not has little bearing on > Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. Certainly, BY did NOT intend for AG to > be taken as mere allegory, its similarities with certain Jewish mystical > traditions notwithstanding. > > ___Joe___ > Even in Mormonism, the Gates of Revelation generally open for one man at a > time, and individuals blessed to pass through this Gate are not able to > fully communicate their experience to those who have not shared in it (Alma > 12:9-12). Like Lehi and Nephi's shared vision, we may (must) each recieve it > for ourselves... individually. How is this NOT mysticism? > > ___Proclus___ > It can be more easily explained in terms of a human God who can only be in > one place at one time. > ----- > > Is that what your own EXPERIENCE tells you, or is that your opinion in the > absence of experience? I rather think that while God may be like a man in > form, if he were to actually be in the same room with you "as He is," it > would be only because of a special dispensation of grace/spirit that you > would not be entirely consumed by His glory. While I do not have any > difficulty with an anthropomorphic Deity, I seem to read into your comments > a minimizing of God's Deity because of his shared humanity. I think this is > a mistake. Just because God is an Exalted Man, does not mean that he is not > a transcendent Being. > > Again, my reading of the story of the Brother of Jared underscores the point > for me. I believe that his experience is transcendent -- in spite of the > fact that God appears in form like a man. More importantly, this accords > with my own experiences with God. > > ___Proclus___ > Furthermore, I consider that the planet is literally in a lost and fallen > state. This is not figurative for me. Blayne and I had quite some > difficulty over this point. I am REALLY bothered by the condescending "You > just don't > get it yet" that I hear sometimes. I'm not interested in discussing mental > states. Just pass me the technology. > > ___Joe___ > You only say this because you are trying to understand it with your carnal > mind. So knock it off, and "let it be." You already have the technology; you > just haven't awoke to the fact yet. > > ___Proclus___ > ROTFL! How did you keep a straight face while saying that! ;-} > ----- > > Months of practicing in front of the mirror. (^_^) > > Cheers! > > JSW -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEU118NXCHV27CZ@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:35:50 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id KAA17382 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 12285 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:35:46 +0000 Received: (qmail 12275 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:35:46 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:35:46 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA17043 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:31:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port4.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITETQQD71SHV1SA6@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:28:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:28:19 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: Adam-God To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any Message-id: ?E071FD.82398838@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: ?_MC2-3281-8075@compuserve.com> Robert R. Black wrote: > > Michael Love, > > < temple rite has never changed in its whole history that I am aware of. > Adam, God, and Christ are portrayed as different people with different > roles. No AG theorist has ever explained to me how God could be in > heaven and in Eden at the same time.>> > > The temple rite has indeed changed. And, it has changed in significant > points. One of them is the deletion of the Adam-God portion of the Lecture > Before the Veil. As for the "Adam, God, and Christ . . . as different > people with different roles" position, I refer you to the 1854 discourse on > Adam-God. In it BY says that Michael and Jehovah are the same person. > Eloheim on the other hand is merely the patriarchal representitive of the > Council of Gods. Jehovah is merely the person who is currently acting as > God. When Adam fell he was no longer Jehovah. But at Adam-ondi-Ahman Adam > was once again Jehovah. > > Robert. Samuel: <<> >"Jehovah" was a sanskrit mantra, like AUM. >"YAH-WAH." Deals with the control of breath. > >It was used for meditation, sometimes conjuring. > >Kento > Now this is an AG doctrine that I could sink my teeth into. JHVH is an office, a calling. Adam was acting as God before Eden. After Eden, another took his place. Thanks Robert and Beth! You know, I think that Kento is brilliant and funny, and I miss him terribly ever since he was banned from mahonri-l. Now, This is still inconsistent with the temple ordinance as it currently stands, because it is clearly stated that Adam is Michael. From this we can infer that Adam was not JHVH before Eden. Hmmm.... Must we reject the current wording of the endowment in order to accept AG? proclus PS Can I be JHVH today? ;-} proclus -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEUB7OCKWHV1V0F@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:44:02 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id KAA21775 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:39:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 13940 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:43:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 13927 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:43:58 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 15:43:58 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA21737 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:39:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port4.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEU4HBWPSHV1KQ8@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:38:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:38:40 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: Abraham & Nibley To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any Message-id: ?E07469.2A367FAF@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: ?aa6.34df0f30@aol.com> ArtdeHoyos@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-02-08 19:42:05 EST, jswick@cris.com writes: > > > Absolutely. The Book of Abraham is a response to the Masonic claims of > > antiquity, and its 19th-century boast to be the inheritor of the mysteries. > > Masonic themes run thick through the text, its "genealogy" paralleling > > several passages in noted Masonic writers Hutchinson and Oliver. Even the > > production of the text, and the implied BoA teaching re: the purpose of > > heiroglyphics seem to be strongly Masonic in flavor. > > I here agree with my Bro. Swick. This idea first occured to me in 1981 when I > attended a temple session in which one of the temple presidency gave a > question-and-answer session. Although I was not yet a Mason I was recently > familiar with Morgan's exposure. The temple presidency member said that > figure 7 in Facsimile No. 2 ("God sitting upon his throne, revealing thorugh > the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood....") showed God holding His > right hand in front of him, the right arm forming a square, and the left arm > being raised to the square (above which appeared a compasses). > > (Thanks to the Tanners(!) I knew that it represented the ithyphallic God Min. > A couple of weeks later I had the chance to ask Hugh Nibley about it (like a > good raised-in-Provo-Mormon-boy should!). Nibley said that *if* it were an > ithyphallic deity it would be the appropriate representation of "power in the > priesthood.") What an excellent story! Thanx for that, Art. This is definitely the kind of thing that I love about Nibley. I think that most of us cut our teeth on Nibley, and I will always have respect for him. Anyone who defends Joyce's Ulysses can't be all bad. I guess that I am just not at the level yet where I can criticize his work, but I understand that many do. That's OK with me. You know, many Mormons still consider his dabbling in paganism as quite shocking! ;-} proclus -- Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --Boundary_[ID_Az3iYDQ8JNGLENpCa5MXKg] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEWS7565SHV22K9@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:55:04 EST Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id LAA00528 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:50:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29029 invoked by alias); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:54:48 +0000 Received: (qmail 29019 invoked from network); Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:54:47 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:54:47 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id LAA24588 for Tue, 10 Feb 1998 11:50:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port4.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITEUT6OK28HV26KI@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:58:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 10:58:32 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: Mormon Gnostica and Seedline of Cain To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any Message-id: ?E07912.83DBA375@iname.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: ?.3307.qmail@hotmail.com> Beth any wrote: > > >This is the kind of stuff that makes Mormonism really look like an > ancient > >near-east tradition. > > > >Be well friends, > >Ken Shaw > > > > > > Yeah or like neo-nazi's. You know I never thought of the LDS as being > like that type ...I swear it never would of occured to me. Yea, it is a little scary how much we share with those idiots, no? I knew a devout mormon lady who was big into conservative politics, gun rights, food storage, and so on. She used to go to all of those freedom fighter conferences before Oklahoma City. THAT changed a few things. I am always amazed by how many mormon fundamentalists still have leanings in this direction. I feel that this is part of the politic of our separation from the fundamentalists here at mutantRMs. We are spiritual and intellectual warriors. Like I said in the FAQ, "Real bombs are for real weenies." proclus

If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home

More discussion here!

Visit

username: geek
password: indulgence

Visit



Michael L. Love/proclus/GNU-Darwin link block

Related social networking sites that might be lesser known