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

I think many of us would agree that the Trinitarian concept of God is problematic at best. Three beings in one being. 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Hmmm . . . Yet I am having a bigger philosophical crisis. The Infinite. Plato believed that anything that lived forever had to be completely good. If there were evil in it, it would weaken and die. God must therefore be absolutely Good. He used this argument to counter the Homeric concept of gods, who were even more sinful than their mortal counterparts. From arguments like these western concept of the Absolute, Infinite God was born. In LDS theology the God without body, parts or passions was rejected, the non- anthropomorphic God. BY, following JS's concept of eternal progression, taught that God progresses in knowledge. Bruce R. McConkie later declared this idea heretical, replacing it with the idea that God only progresses in dominion as He creates more. This shift was partly the result of a rejection of AG in favor of a more nomative Christian concept of the Godhead. However, Joseph had revealed that God had a body, parts, and passions, so God continued to be finite in this respect. Today the majority of believers (Brighamite Mormons, ironically) believe that God is infinite and absolute in every respect except for his space limitations. God occupies finite space. I guess I find this concept of the infinite, absolute God in a finite space, as problematic as the Trinity. Wouldn't BY's concept of the finite, progressing God be more logically consistent? Would he not be more appealing as the Father to whom we are connected and with whom we share a common nature? --Boundary_[ID_cCBoDp7Wjd+u3RLAMnKrgg]-- --Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFORCBMDCHV2X0I@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:16:02 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 BAA19622 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:11:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 23387 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:15:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 23377 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:15:58 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:15:58 +0000 Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA21371 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:11:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71]) by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA28558; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:11:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net (8.8.8) id BAA18616; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:11:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:08:00 -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: ?bd36b3$67ca50c0$c7d01fd1@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-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 ___Don Bradley___ 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. ----- It is clear that Don and I are approaching this whole issue from different ends. He doesn't believe in a historical Adam, and therefore, the Adam-God teaching cannot be literal. (It seems to me then that neither can Mormon dispensationalism be strictly true; nor can Joseph's revelations upon which that view is based.) I, on the other hand believe in a God who has revealed himself as Adam. As I believe that God LITERALLY exists, as a matter of course I believe in a literal Adam. If in the distinction HISTORY and MYTH you mean to imply "true" and "false" or "science" and "superstition," then I am happy to confess my belief in the "historicity" of AG. If on the other hand, by MYTH you mean "sacred history" (as opposed to "secular history"), then I am happy to confess my belief in AG as a myth. None of this should be taken to mean that I feel any inclination to ignore scientific evidence; only that there is a place for Adam-God in my faith. ___Don Bradley___ 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. ----- As I said before, spiritualizing the teaching in this way is not without its problems. JSW --Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFQ0UJTLSHV27O6@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:51:56 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 BAA24178 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28770 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:51:52 +0000 Received: (qmail 28760 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:51:52 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:51:52 +0000 Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA05026 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:47:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71]) by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA07508; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net (8.8.8) id BAA25780; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:17:07 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: Adam-God To: proclus , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , 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: ?bd36b4$ae30f860$c7d01fd1@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: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Dear Mutants: I know I said that I wouldn't do it, but here is a posting in which I wander far and wide on who Adam prayed to in the Garden, AG and Freemasonry. This was originally posted on the now-defunct Mormhist forum: Although recent comments on Morm-hist have strayed far from the realm of history and deep into the jungles of theological esoterica, I thought it might be appropriate to answer a few of the questions that have been posed recently by Clark Goble and Scott Vanatter. My *next* post will deal with "qualifying remarks" made by Brigham Young concerning his AG teaching, and what we can reasonably construe them to mean about what he taught. So, while my *next* post will deal with a subject which is clearly relevant to this forum, the issue I address in my *current* post is theological in nature, as opposed to strictly historical, and I beg your brief indulgence. If the question I am addressing is of no interest to you, perhaps it would be best to delete now! One of the common criticisms of Brigham Young's theological posits about Adam is that it confuses the various persons of the Godhead - i.e., if Adam was God the Father, then who was the character he was talking to in the Garden, anyway? Whoever it was, he certainly TALKS as though he were God the Father, since he speaks about His Only Begotten Son, etc. So what's that all about? Isn't Adam *talking to* God the Father?" It certainly seems that he is! I think it might be helpful to review a few salient points here that I believe have some bearing on the issue. First, remember that in BY's view, Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, and Adam are OFFICES in the Priesthood - they are roles pertaining to the Celestial Order, which explains his and other early Church leader's comments about "the Great Elohim, Jehovah," or "Yahovah Michael," or "the Great Elohim, Yahovah Michael." This is all easy to understand. The Celestial Order is Patriarchal, and the revealed offices of that Order are all somehow connected to the roles of either FATHER or SON. P lease keep this in mind as you read the rest of my mini-sermonette! We are all familiar with the concept of divine investiture of authority - that is, where a being comes in the name of another (sort of a PROXY), and performs a specific task or function, speaking and acting as though he were that "other." Turn it around, and you have your answer as to how Adam could be speaking to God the Father in the Garden: "The Priesthood of God is the great, supreme, legal authority that governs the inhabitants of all redeemed and glorified worlds. In it is included all power to create worlds, to ordain fixed and permanent laws for the regulation of the materials in all their varied operations, whether acting as particles, as masses, as worlds, or as clusters of worlds. It is that power that reveals laws for the government of intelligent beings--that rewards the obedient and punishes the disobedient--that ordains principalities, powers, and kingdoms to carry out its righteous administrations throughout all dominions?.when [men] are perfected, they will have power to act in every branch of authority by virtue of the great, and almighty, and eternal Priesthood which they hold: they can then sway their sceptres as KINGS; rule as PRINCES, minister as Apostles; officiate as Teachers; or, ACT IN THE HUMBLEST OR MOST EXALTED CAPACITY. THERE IS NO BRANCH OF THE PRIESTHOOD SO LOW THAT THEY CANNOT *CONDESCEND* TO OFFICIATE THEREIN; none so high, that they cannot reach forth the arm of power and control the same (OP, The Seer, "Power and Eternity of the Priesthood," 1:10). Just as a being such as an angel may by divine investiture of authority (i.e., by PERMISSION) act and speak as though he were of a higher office or calling, so may the Greater (by RIGHT) sway the sceptre of power and fill ANY office, HIGH OR LOW. In the Celestial Order, filling a lower position to effect the salvation of man is an act of CONDESCENSION, and Orson Pratt's words are not only important for what they tell us about the Priesthood on the Earth, but for what they intimate about Celestial Government: "God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways his scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns and worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by law; and all his subjects must comply with law here on the earth, that they may be prepared to do his will on the earth as his will is done by the angelic hosts and those higher order of intelligences that reign in his own presence" (OP, JD 14:276, April 9, 1871). In light of Orson Pratt's comments above, consider: we think nothing of it if JESUS is referred to as both FATHER and SON. But we never turn it around! We give no thought at all about what this both absolutely means and what it might imply about JESUS' OWN FATHER, or GRANDFATHER, or GREAT-GRANDFATHER. This idea is true -- leastways, I do not think you will easily overturn it. I think I am being clear here. Now, as for "condescending to officiate" in an office, let me provide you with an interesting example or two. In Freemasonry, a LODGE will drop to a lower degree to receive candidates who have not yet received higher degrees, and this places certain constraints on their actions. All of the Brethren in the Lodge may be Master Masons, but until the newly obligated Brother is *raised* a Master Mason, the Lodge is obliged to STEP DOWN and perform the work needed to raise him up, in accordance with the rules governing the lower degree. Further, the Master of the Lodge may appoint another to stand in his place at the head of the Lodge while he fills another role (any role he chooses, I might add!) while bestowing a degree. It does not prove that he is not the Master of the Lodge, because he fills another office while bringing a Brother to light. It does not prove that he is not Master of the Lodge, because another acts and speaks in the role of Master, while the Master performs another work. Similarly, Brigham Young commented: "THIS IS A KEY FOR YOU. The faithful will become Gods, even the SONS of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father. Adam is my Father ? but it does not prove that He is not my Father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a Father." (BY, JD 6:274-275) Perhaps a more immediate example will be better suited here. Which office is greater, that of Elder, or that of Bishop? The office of Bishop is the highest office in the AARONIC PRIESTHOOD. Clearly, the office of Elder is greater, since it is associated with the MELCHIZEDEK Priesthood. That fact notwithstanding, when a literal descendant of Aaron cannot be found, the man who fills the office of Bishop is in actuality a High Priest, which office is greater than that of Elder. So, in effect, the High Priest STEPS DOWN to officiate in his calling as Bishop, because a literal descendent of Aaron *cannot be found.* So, while strictly speaking the office of Elder is *greater* than that of Bishop, practically speaking, the Bishop is a High Priest acting in a lower office (see James N. Hall, _Adam God Theory_, 1986. Pp. 21-22). Perhaps this has brought to your mind certain words in the Endowment: "Is man found on the Earth?? MAN IS NOT FOUND on the Earth," and so a God STEPS DOWN and officiates in the calling or role of Adam - which is his RIGHT. Adam is created from the "dust of the Earth." In the Bunkerville Decision, Wilford Woodruff taught that "the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was Eternal Lives" (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson, AG, 156) This quote brings to mind Buckeye's Lament and D&C 132, and reveals if "Eternal Lives" was understood (at least by Presidents Woodruff and Cannon) to refer to the spiritual or physical offspring of Deity. I have perhaps said more here than I intended, but that's alright -- it is easily dismissed since it is all personal speculation anyway. Perhaps it would have been best to skip the sermon and give you Brigham Young's SHORT answer to the question - Adam was talking to THE GRANDFATHER - or was t hat, THE FATHER ? Or then again, was that, the GREAT-GRANDFATHER? Maybe Brigham was really confused: Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were Father, Son, and Grandson. They made this Earth and Michael became Adam (BY, **JOSEPH F. SMITH JOURNAL**, entry for 17 June 1871). Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather (JD 9:148) Warmest Regards -- JSW --Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFPY2W5N4HV26V6@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:50:29 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 BAA04466 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:45:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28604 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:27 +0000 Received: (qmail 28588 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:22 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:22 +0000 Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA23586 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:45:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71]) by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA07583; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net (8.8.8) id BAA25806; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:19:18 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: mormon mysticism To: proclus , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , 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: ?bd36b4$fc353300$c7d01fd1@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-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Ah! It seems we are very far apart on what Mysticism is. I will post up my favorite definitions presently. JSW -----Original Message----- From: proclus 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 Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 7:37 AM Subject: Re: mormon mysticism >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 >> 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 > >-- >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_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFPY5QRPCHV2CSJ@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:50:33 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 BAA04467 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:45:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28615 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:27 +0000 Received: (qmail 28594 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:26 +0000 Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:26 +0000 Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93]) by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA23616 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:45:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71]) by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA07641; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net (8.8.8) id BAA25836; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:26:21 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: Mormon Gnostica and Seedline of Cain To: proclus , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , 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: ?bd36b5$f7cc8c40$c7d01fd1@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-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 ___Proclus___ 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." ----- Yes! Here we agree. And while I am not completely closeminded to racial THEORIES (I mean, I DO believe all that "chosen Ephraim/Israel stuff," which seems to imply that others are "NOT chosen"), I am quite adamantly opposed to RACISM, which in my experience plagues most if not all Fundamentalist groups. As close friends will tell you, I have a VERY hard time with any of that. JSW --Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFQ4HSR0GHV26WB@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:54:52 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 BAA06307 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:50:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 29286 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:54:50 +0000 Received: (qmail 29276 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:54:50 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:54:50 +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 BAA02408 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:50:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71]) by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA07700; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from crc3.concentric.net (ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net (8.8.8) id BAA25855; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:38:17 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth? To: Sidheach@aol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, ken.shaw@dalsemi.com Cc: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.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 Errors-to: jswick@cris.com Message-id: ?bd36b7$a31947e0$c7d01fd1@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-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 "We read in Genesis that The Lord appeared to Abramam by the terebinths of Mamre; He was sitting at the entrance of the tent at the heat of the day. Looking up, he saw three men [messengers] standing near him... "Benno Jacob, commenting on Abraham's intimacy with the Holy One observes that, "God appears to (Abraham) through three men; the closer a person's relationship to God, the more human is the form of God's manifestation." "The Zohar is even more explicit: 'And indeed whenever the celestial spirits descend to earth, they clothe themselves in physical things and appear to men in human shape.'" Zohar I 101a (Kushner, Honey from the Rock 70-1). Yes, the Zohar rocks mightily. Warmest Regards, Joe Swick When Jews appear for Divine Judgement, the angels reassure them: "Fear not, the Judge... is your Parent!" -- Midrash --Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFW6SK5E8HV29NT@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:48:31 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 EAA15737 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:43:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21181 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:48:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 21171 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:48:02 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:48:02 +0000 Received: from imo26.mail.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id EAA15589 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997) id JLKNa18883; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:47:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:47:35 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com Subject: Myth and History To: jswick@cris.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, 74277.3365@compuserve.com, dco mbe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net, Neoptolmus@aol.com, ariel144@h o t m a il.com Message-id: ?f.34e173ba@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 Hail Mutants! Hugh Nibley in his "Abraham in Egypt" said that the "Blacks and the Priesthood" thing was an over simplification of what was really going on. The idea that we are being interfered with by entities from another realm show's up again in the story of the Watchers and the Nephilim. Who were THESE guys? I've said before that things don't have to be "either/or" but could in fact be "both/and". The fact of the matter is that Genesis doesn't read like like a Myth at all. Genesis actually reads like an effort of tribal people to give an account of the coming and goings of PEOPLE FROM THE SKY! The late Grand Shaykh of the Sufis, Idries Shah, taught that we should study the "Cargo Cults" of the Pacific if we want to understand what really happened in our own past. The "Cargo Cults" developed after WW2 in the Islands used by the Japanese and the Allies as staging areas for fighting the war. The pre-literate Island natives took in the situation as best they could and then passed on stories of how "the gods" came and went, bringing great treasures and having great powers. I believe that the "War in Heaven" is describing something objectively and historicaly REAL, and that "they" have established this world as an "outpost" were this conflict continues to be fought in some sort of "Cold War holding action" until the "Big Guns" come around again to settle it. But this war isn't just "space-ships and ray-guns"...it's also disembodied entites, psionic weapons, mind control, and ultimate religious meaning. Check this out from the New English Translation: Ephesians 6:12,13-----"For our fight is not against human foes, but against cosmic powers, against the authorities and potentates of this dark world, against the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens". This is what Joseph Smith means when he speaks of being delivered from the power of "evil spirits" through the "knowledge" obtained through the Holy Ghost. There is clearly something really big going on here, I just pray that we are all lead to the right course of action for our Salvation and the Salvation of our Seed. Ken Shaw --Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG3J90F34HV309X@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:19:23 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 IAA11229 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:14:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 21420 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:19:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 21409 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:19:17 +0000 Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:19:17 +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 IAA21147 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:15:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port3.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG3BI62VKHV27S0@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:13:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:13:12 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: Myth and History 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: ?E1A3D6.6AE1B05D@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: ?f.34e173ba@aol.com> This was a major premise of the television series Babylon 5 in its first four seasons. At the end of the fourth season, we kicked the Old Ones out of the galaxy, because we don't need them anymore (in the 23rd century). ;-} There are alot more B5 parallels that we could discuss, if anyone is interested. proclus Sidheach@aol.com wrote: > > Hail Mutants! > > Hugh Nibley in his "Abraham in Egypt" said > that the "Blacks and the Priesthood" thing > was an over simplification of what was really > going on. The idea that we are being interfered > with by entities from another realm show's up > again in the story of the Watchers and the Nephilim. > > Who were THESE guys? > > I've said before that things don't have to be "either/or" > but could in fact be "both/and". The fact of the matter > is that Genesis doesn't read like like a Myth at all. > Genesis actually reads like an effort of tribal people to > give an account of the coming and goings of PEOPLE > FROM THE SKY! > > The late Grand Shaykh of the Sufis, Idries Shah, taught > that we should study the "Cargo Cults" of the Pacific if > we want to understand what really happened in our own > past. The "Cargo Cults" developed after WW2 in the Islands > used by the Japanese and the Allies as staging areas for > fighting the war. The pre-literate Island natives took in the situation > as best they could and then passed on stories of how "the gods" > came and went, bringing great treasures and having great powers. > > I believe that the "War in Heaven" is describing something objectively > and historicaly REAL, and that "they" have established this world as > an "outpost" were this conflict continues to be fought in some sort of "Cold > War holding action" until the "Big Guns" come around again to settle it. > > But this war isn't just "space-ships and ray-guns"...it's also disembodied > entites, psionic weapons, mind control, and ultimate religious meaning. > > Check this out from the New English Translation: > > Ephesians 6:12,13-----"For our fight is not against human foes, but against > cosmic powers, against the authorities and potentates of this dark world, > against the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens". > > This is what Joseph Smith means when he speaks of being delivered from > the power of "evil spirits" through the "knowledge" obtained through the Holy > Ghost. > > There is clearly something really big going on here, I just pray that we are > all > lead to the right course of action for our Salvation and the Salvation of our > Seed. > > Ken Shaw -- 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_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG4J0WC2OHV32L8@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:47:27 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 IAA01857 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:43:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 26230 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:47:23 +0000 Received: (qmail 26220 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:47:23 +0000 Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:47:23 +0000 Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id IAA23917 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:42:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port3.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG4AR30OGHV2CEV@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:40:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:40:51 -0500 From: proclus Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth? 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: ?E1AA50.530729B1@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: ?bd36b3$67ca50c0$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net> I also usually come down on the side of literalism. Furthermore, current evolutionary theory now has numerous points of entry for the divine, especially now that we understand the underlying technology (ie genetics, computers, protein structure) much better. Of course, the theological gloss all wild presumption, but I don't think that people of faith have much to worry about from science. If your religion is true, it will not be disproven by science. This is part of the basic rational of radical mormonism, IMHO, RE: being open to the latest research. This latest research need not be historical or archeological, but it can also be cosmological and biological. So, I don't shrink from posting science to this circle. proclus Joe Steve Swick III wrote: > > ___Don Bradley___ > 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. > ----- > > It is clear that Don and I are approaching this whole issue from different > ends. He doesn't believe in a historical Adam, and therefore, the Adam-God > teaching cannot be literal. (It seems to me then that neither can Mormon > dispensationalism be strictly true; nor can Joseph's revelations upon which > that view is based.) > > I, on the other hand believe in a God who has revealed himself as Adam. As I > believe that God LITERALLY exists, as a matter of course I believe in a > literal Adam. If in the distinction HISTORY and MYTH you mean to imply > "true" and "false" or "science" and "superstition," then I am happy to > confess my belief in the "historicity" of AG. If on the other hand, by MYTH > you mean "sacred history" (as opposed to "secular history"), then I am happy > to confess my belief in AG as a myth. > > None of this should be taken to mean that I feel any inclination to ignore > scientific evidence; only that there is a place for Adam-God in my faith. > > ___Don Bradley___ > 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. > ----- > > As I said before, spiritualizing the teaching in this way is not without its > problems. > > 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_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw] Return-path: Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG4YBCILCHV1JNW@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:59:47 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 IAA29793 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 28576 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:59:40 +0000 Received: (qmail 28566 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:59:39 +0000 Received: from wilma.globecomm.net (207.51.48.30) by po1.namesecure.com with SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:59:39 +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 IAA12173 for Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from iname.com (ppp-port3.hughes.brandeis.edu) by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG4SEEXY8HV38TU@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for proclus@mac.com; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:06 -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: ?E1ADA6.8A9F99A4@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: ?bd36b4$ae30f860$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net> Joe Steve Swick III wrote: > > Dear Mutants: I know I said that I wouldn't do it, but here is a posting in > which I wander far and wide on who Adam prayed to in the Garden, AG and > Freemasonry. This was originally posted on the now-defunct Mormhist forum: Thanx Joe! My faith in the level of communication that can occur in a group like this one has been restored =}. I neglected to thank you for posting that wonderful vision of God's court. I was astounded by it's beauty. I'm now going to peruse your post. Best Regards, proclus Subject: Re: Adam-God Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:28:06 -0500 From: proclus 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 References: 1 Thanks again for that wonderful exposition, Joe. This idea of offices and councils is what I always believed implicitly. I see a semantic problem, though. AG theorists are fond of the now shocking statements by BY that Adam IS God. If I understand you correctly, it is more correct to say that Adam had an office of God, and should he considered AS God. This is in no disrespect to any of the mighty Eloheim, of course! I am reminded again of the office of Bishop, which is a life calling. I am also reminded of a statement from the book of the law II:59; "Yet there are masked ones, my servants: It may be that yonder begger is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a begger cannot hide his poverty. "Be wa r e therefore! Love all, lest perchance a King is concealed." It continues amusingly, but perhaps not germainly. Anyway... There is an interesting and poetic dynamic here as well. What do we see when we look at Jesus? Is it the Son saving the Father? Clearly, I have a long way to go here. > Perhaps this has brought to your mind certain words in the Endowment: "Is > man found on the Earth?? MAN IS NOT FOUND on the Earth," and so a God STEPS > DOWN and officiates in the calling or role of Adam - which is his RIGHT. > Adam is created from the "dust of the Earth." In the Bunkerville Decision, > Wilford Woodruff taught that "the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the > earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was > Eternal Lives" (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson, > AG, 156) I now understand that we have not been arguing about AG theory, per se, but merely about the origin of Adam's physical body. This must be the quote from WW that you referred to earlier. I must say that this one point is clear as mud to me. I'd postulate that the origin of Adam's body is a REAL mystery. The language for this event did not exist at the time of WW. I can make the same argument on the following passage, which may be less loaded, and more illustrative. > "God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways his > scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns and > worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by law; We now know that it is gravity that keeps the planets in their orbits. The motion of planets does not represent ornate order, but rather whirling chaos. It is common to attribute to God things which cannot be explained; so with the origin of Adam's body. Again, these are the real mysteries IMHO. We don't even understand what gravity is yet, and it is difficult to understand how a god could ordain the law of gravity (In Star Trek, Q does wonderful bit, hacking the gravitational constant, though!). On the other hand, we are at a point where we can speculate confidently about the many varied ways in which a human body could be constructed. Human intercourse is definitely not necessary, as we all now know. Human sperm (seed) is not required either, as Dolly demonstrates. It is probable that all you need is genes and a cell matrix, but the geneticists have demostrated that we share these things with the other lifeforms which are here. All of this is against a backdrop of millions of years of life history on this planet. I think, perhaps, that we need to tease AG theory out of the context of special creation. This is, of course, something that most fundamentalists are loathe to do. proclus Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth? Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:31:56 -0700 From: onandagus@webtv.net (Don Bradley) To: jswick@cris.com (Joe Steve Swick III) CC: proclus@mac.com (Michael Love), MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com (Andy Mcguire), kathleen@enol.com (KathleenMcGuire), trent@goodnet.com (R. Trent Reynolds), ArtdeHoyos@aol.com (ArtdeHoyos), rds@acsu.buffalo.edu (Randall Shortridge), ariel144@hotmail.com (Bethany), Sidheach@aol.com (Sidheach), proclus@mac.com (proclus), rpcman@hotmail.com (rpc man), gaia@nmol.com (Gaia), Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org (Dave), 74277.3365@compuserve.com (Robert R. Black) Joe, I will have to respond to your posts fully later. For now I would like to get some clarification of your own views. Are you saying you accept evolutionary science _fully_ AND accept the Adam-God doctrine, AS BRIGHAM YOUNG TAUGHT IT, _literally_? If so, how do you reconcile the two? (I am especially interested in this since I believed for years that I had found a way to reconcile the two. But I gradually came to see that in attempting to reconcile evoutionary science and the Adam-God doctrine I was staying true to neither. Any such "reconcilliation , so far as I am able to see, requires us to abandon science for science fiction and reject _Brigham Young's_ Adam-God theology for a new theology of our own making. ) I ended up still _wanting_ to believe in a literal Adam-God scenario, but found that I could not rationally do so. I had the "will to believe," but I was not going to believe a contradiction.) Do you feel you've found a _good_ way to reconcile these? If so, I'd love to hear it. More questions: When you assert the fundamental unity of all life, what are you saying? that all earthly species evolved from a common ancestor? What do you understand the scientific evidence re: human origins to be? Are you familiar with the mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA studies showing how closely or distantly human populations are related to one another and to other species? What , in your view, is faith? How do we determine what we should have faith in? (i.e. what constitutes proper grounds for faith?) What is the relationship of faith to evidence and to knowledge? What should we do if we find that the balance of the evidence is decidedly against a proposition we have placed our faith in? To what extent does having faith that a book is scripture entail taking its contents literally? And to what extent does having faith that a man is a prophet mean believing everything he says, or at least believng everything he says is revelation? Finally, what do you mean when you use the terms "Adam and Eve"? Which of the following form part of your understanding of Adam and Eve: 1) the first humans on earth, 2) ancestors of all modern humans (i.e. everybody now living has at least _some_ genetic inheritance from them), 3) _the_ original earthly ancestors of all humans who've lived on the planet since their time (i.e. there are no other human lineages on earth with whom their line mixed], 4) a couple who lived about 6000 years ago, 5] a couple who lived in what is now Missouri, 6] immortals who became mortal,,7] immortals who became mortal by eating mortal food, 8] a couple who, although they lived on this earth, acquired the genes of the bodies they had here on some other (previous) world. I know I've asked a helluva lot of questions. I really want to move forward with this discussion; but I can't say much that will be relevant to what you've already said till I know for sure how you define "Adam" and "faith" and what you understand the scientific evidence re: human origins to be Your heretical pal,. Don Bradley Subject: Re: Adam-God Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:18:45 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III To: proclus , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com, Beth any ___JSW___ Adam is created from the "dust of the Earth." In the Bunkerville Decision, Wilford Woodruff taught that "the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was Eternal Lives" (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson, AG, 156) ___Proclus___ I now understand that we have not been arguing about AG theory, per se, but merely about the origin of Adam's physical body. ----- Perhaps. Or, perhaps how a God could have "offspring" that are "of the earth." Don hits the issue spot-on: if Adam is God, how come "God's genes" don't show up? -- we should be unique and distinct from all other living things on Earth. If we are literally "Adam-God's physical offspring" then why does our genetic pedigree seem to say that we are more or less related to every other living thing on the planet? Don is saying that belief in a literal Adam is scientifically problematic, and for similar reasons, a literal Adam-God is a completely untenable scenario. (I knew I would use that word -- thanks, Don). ___Proclus___ This must be the quote from WW that you referred to earlier. I must say that this one point is clear as mud to me. I'd postulate that the origin of Adam's body is a REAL mystery. The language for this event did not exist at the time of WW. I can make the same argument on the following passage, which may be less loaded, and more illustrative. "God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways his scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns and worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by law" We now know that it is gravity that keeps the planets in their orbits. The motion of planets does not represent ornate order, but rather whirling chaos. It is common to attribute to God things which cannot be explained; so with the origin of Adam's body. Again, these are the real mysteries IMHO. We don't even understand what gravity is yet, and it is difficult to understand how a god could ordain the law of gravity (In Star Trek, Q does wonderful bit, hacking the gravitational constant, though!). ----- Your comments have been very enjoyable! JSW Subject: tarot Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:51:26 -0500 From: proclus To: headgeor@esuvm.emporia.edu, 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 George, I hope you don't mind that I made a quicker downloading version of your tarot keys just for the use of our discussion group. It was Joe Swick that recommended your web page. Thank you for your work on this important material. Here is the link. I also have Rider Waite images for comparison. t2.html t1.html t0.html 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------ Subject: Re: The Tarot Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 04:23:24 -0500 From: proclus 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 References: 1 Thank you Robert for this insightful analysis! I feel that it shows the time and thought that you have put into it. It's brilliant. I have a few comments and questions regarding this material. I want to bring in another POV, as well ;-}. I'm not sure how you all feel about Leary's Game of Life. I know that the reviews in the occult community have been very mixed, if not flatly negative. Nevertheless, it will allow me to paint a few broad strokes in the hopes of eliciting some comments. This together with my personal experiences may, I hope, provide a few examples of what Robert is explaining here. Robert R. Black wrote: > > The following is my interpretation of the Tarot from a mormon POV. > I'm going to pass by the minors, excepting one observation. The minor suits represent the props of the passion of Christ. These observations were key to my implementation of the tarot as a tool for understanding God's higher knowledge. I am reminded that Satan said that he would use money and violence to wage war on the Son of God. The minors are the kingdoms of the earth. Here is the technology of God-killing; cups - the Last Supper coins - 30 pieces of silver for Judas swords - soldiers, Peter and the ear of the soldier rods - the lash and the cross > > The Major Arcana is made up of 22 cards corresponding to the letters in the > Hebrew alphabet. These are divided into three groups of seven plus a zero > card. The zero card is the Fool. He has the right to the royal priesthood > (the Endowment) by birth (see the sign of the Falcon on the purse which is > tied to his staff). But, he knows nothing about it as he is about to walk > off of the side of the Cliff and does not even hear the warning bark of his > dog. Please note that this is you and I and every one who has received his > endowment but does not understand what he has. If we are not careful we > will each die in our sins. Eternal life is the way or path of the Tarot. The words "born under the covenant" come to mind here. Any comments out there regarding Crowley, who put the Fool last instead of first? > The first seven cards are the steps of enlightenment. The first is the > Magician. Remember that the word "Magician" comes from the persian or > Zorastian word for priest. He holds the holy priesthood in his right hand > (The candle with the flame on each end). He has the sign of the Holy Ghost > (the infinity sign) above his head and is wraped aroound by the symbol of > eternity (the snake on his waist). He is wearing the garments of the holy > priesthood and also wears the robes of the holy priesthood. He is in charge > of the signs and tokens of the priesthood laying on the table in front of > him. The Magician is the person who understands what he gets in the > endowment and uses them. He has the roses and lillys (the symbols of Christ > and the Resurrection) in front of him. > > The next step after the endowment is the Second Anointing where the man is > ordained a King and a Priest and the woman is ordained a queen and a > priestess. The next card then is the Priestess with definate masonic > overtones. Note that she carries the Torah half hidden under her robe. This > signifies that there are hidden parts of the gospel only for her and those > of us who progress further than the endowment. She is the 2 card whose mate > is the 5 card (the Priest) 2+5=7. The next step is queen (Empress) card. > Notice that she has the twelve stars of the apostles or tribes of Israel in > her crown and the righteous (the wheat) at her feet. This is the 3 card and > is matched by the 4 card the King. 3+4=7. Please note that the 5 card, the > Hierophant is the High Priest. He wears the triple crown, the robe with the > three tied strings, the Garments. He is incharge of the Keys (at his feet) > of the Kingdom and the two orders of the priesthood (the roses and the > lillies). > > The next card number 7 shows the next order of priesthood. The Adam and Eve > card or the Lovers. You can tell that this is Adam and Eve by the two > trees. The treee of good and evil by the side of Eve (with the serpent) and > the tr ee of Life by the side of A dam ( the tr ee with the fire). The Golden > Dawn Tarot (I think) has a picture of Adam comming down from the heavens to > rescue Eve who is chained by the Devil. > > The last card of the seven is that of God himself. He has the Urim and > Thumum on his sholders. (Honest that is what they are called). He has the > Holy Priesthood in his right hand. The square on his breast and is comming > out of the block of stone (which is a perfect qube). He rides through the > heavens (the stars in his canopy). His chariot is that of the sun (the sun > disk with wings). I want to discuss what for me are a misleading aspect of this imagery. These are adult images, nevertheless, those who are at these levels are still considered as babes and children (children of God). In fact, I'd theorize that people will receive the endowment as children during the millenium. The first seven cards (after the Fool) are the dispensation of the Son. There is a knowledge of God implied, but it is only a partial knowledge, only a glimpse. What follows is the dispensation of the Father. > The next seven cards are the atribute cards. The first of these, card 8 > shows a woman with the Spirit of God (the infinity symbol) controling or > shuting the mouth of the Red Lion with her hands. If you look closely you > will see that she has the Red Lion chained to her waist with a garland of > flowers. The Red Lion is the end of the Work. This card is called Strength. I think that many temple Mormons are operating at this level. The words unction and "sanctified by the Holy Spirit of Promise" come to mind. These are good Mormons who really understand the Gospel, and who like to hang out with eachother. Everyone has a calling, everyone in their place. Some of them have this honed to a very fine art. I really love and admire these folks. Watch out for the tendancy toward dogmatism though ;-}. > The Hermit is called the Ancient of Days (according to Waite's book) and is > holding the light of Knowledge showing (also according to Waite) that where > he is you may also come. Gads, this is brilliant. I didn't know that. I am beginning to understand why AG doctrine is such a touchstone for some folks ;-}. Nevertheless, I don't think that AG theory is necessary for the apprehension of this level. It is the first realization that the temple rites can be implemented towards your spiritual progression, that you can take the Father as your exemplar. > The Wheel of Fortune has the four beasts of the apocolypse in each corner. > Each are studying the gospel. The wheel itself has the word Taro (t) > reading one way and Tora reading the other way. Interspaced between these > letters are the Yod Hey Vav Hey which are the Hebrew letters for God or > Jehovah or Yahwah. On the inside ring is the symbols for the four elements > of Alchemy. If you take all of the letters and symbols out you have left > the wafer of the Euchrist. This card symbolizes (by some but not by me) the > doctrine of reincarnation. > > The next is Justice. Everyone knows what that is. I am going to consider these two cards together. I just have a few disjointed thoughts for you to think about. I feel that I have fully apprehended this level. The key to this was the realization from the minor suits that I alluded to before. Essentially, it is possible to mount an attack on God from the position of Justice. Believe it or not, I got this from Metallica. Their Justice tour and album was filled with temple imagery. I loved the album, I saw the concert twice, once in the Salt Palace with AJ, and then again in Phoenix. Finally, consider a board with two nails. Pluck out one, and you have a spinner, like the wheel of fortune. Sorry to be oblique. There is not much more that I can say about this. I am highly constrained, as you might imagine. I am fascinated that Leary calls this one family centered democracy, implying a final anti-monarcist, anti-papal position. > The next card is the Hanged Man. He is hanging on the tau cross. His legs > are in the sign of Jupiter (God). He is not in pain or distress but is in a > state of enlightenment. What this means I don't know. The operator is not upside down, rather the Universe is inverted. He has performed his first godly act, and has shown that he is worthy of the promises. This is the source of his ecstacy. He is a peer of the Father (notice the solar crown), and the world will never look the same to him. For me, this is the first that we can even begin to think of the idea of spiritual maturity. > Next is Death. It comes to all men. Men, women, children, kings and > priests. Notice that death is carrring the symbol of Christ risen, the > white rose. Self-explanatory? Don't neglect the white horse. There is control implied by the reigns. This is death on a horse. He is going somewhere. I see a rational and disciplined application of the tools of godhood. Perhaps this can only be done sensibly in the next life. The symbol of Christ risen implies leaving the planet. > The next card is Temperance, which is misnamed. The angel is Michael. > Notice the sun symbol in his forhead; the square and triangle on his > breast. He is pouring the spirit from one vessel to the other. This shows > that the spirit goes from the first estate to the second estate. He has one > foot on land and the other in the water showing that the first step is that > of baptism then comes the long road that leads to eternal life. Notice that > at the end of the road is the brightness in the shape of a crown. This ends > the second group of seven. I consider that this is in the realm of the divine brain. I agree with Leary that the divine brain can be prematurely activated through a variety of means. This is like cosmic masturbation, adolescent, and confused, because of a lack of full comprehension regarding the purposes of these tools. > The next seven cards staaarts with The Devil. The man and woman in thsi > card are Adam and Eve caught by the devil and signifies the second death. > Notice that they are bound loosely with chains which they could easily > excape. Adam is infected with the false light of the doctrines of the > world. The devil is the false god signified by the stone his is sitting on > is only half of a complete cube. > > The next card is The Tower. This is the wicked church or temple also called > by some the Hospital or house of God. God (notice the yods) is destroying > the Temple, casting out the priest and king. > > The next card is The Star or Telestial kindom. Those in it are those who > pour out their blessings upon the ground and in the water showing that they > have no use for these things. > > Next is the Terrestial kingdom. Those here (the crab) are being kept from > going down the path of eternal life by fear of the dog and the wolf who are > baying at the moon. Notice that the moon symbolizes the reflected light of > the gospel signified by the yodes. > > The next card is the Celestial Kingdom. There every thing is bright and > signifies eternal life or eternal youth. > > The next card I do not understand. It is generally interpreted as an > initiation card. > > The last card is for those who inherit the World or (by some the Universe). > It is only for those who can look upon Truth in all of her nakedness and > not be afraid.. This Mormon interpretation of the last seven cards is pretty interesting. I never thought of it this way. I would only say that God must encompass all these levels as well. I also like Leary's interpretation, and I don't think that it is entirely incongruent with this mormon interpretation. Unfortunately, we are here leaving the realm of my rational experience with these cards, so there is not much I can say, and I won't parrot Leary for you all. > ******************************************* > > I have forgot a lot here and have probably made a lot of mistakes. But , > this will give you a rough idea of what I believe is the gospel through the > Tarot. Please send me your comments. Thanx again, Robert, for your wonderful exposition. It really stimulated me to think about some things that I hadn't yet fully explained to myself. I hope that you enjoyed my remarks as well. Please feel free all to hack away at the above. I am anxious to learn as much as I can about this stuff. 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------ Subject: RE: God Makes a Comeback Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 21:36:49 -0500 From: proclus 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 > Here is something that looks like it might be an enjoyable topic for group > conversation. It seems to fit right in with our current discussion of > Adam-God. > > http://www.slate.com/Concept/98-02-11/Concept.asp > > Enjoy! > > Joe Swick Thanks for the article, which is highly recommended, if it's been a while since you touched cosmology. I just wanted to touch two recent developments, which were passed over by the article. First, it is now agreed by most cosmologists, and this has been confirmed by widely diverse experimental techniques, that there is _no_ missing matter. The universe will continue to expand forever. It will not contract to a new big bang. There is not enough matter around to create sufficient gravity to cause contraction. Real Estate is now pretty cheap ;-}. Second, an interesting theoretical development out of MIT. Hopefully, I won't mess this up too much. Not only is the universe expanding, but it is inflating. It is creating space much faster than in can fill that space (LVX). The upshot of this theory is that we can finally describe in mathematical and physical terms a kind of "Universe on the Benchtop" scenario. You have heard of Mr. Coffee, and Mr. Fusion. Well, how about Mr. BigBang? That's right, our whole universe could have been created in a room of God's house. Maybe he keeps us as a mantlepiece. This has been stuff of armchair philosophy for a long time, but the idea now has chops. Here's the kicker. We could do the same thing here. We could create a big bang, a new universe. It would not destroy our universe. The theory now describes this as a physical possibility. We just don't have the technology.... yet. Remember these words, inflationary universe. 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------ Subject: RE: Adam-God Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:23:41 -0500 From: proclus 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 > The author of the Temple ceremony was BY. In 1854 he said that > "Jehovah-Michael" was one person. I wonder what the 1876 Temple ceremony > said. > > Robert. Thanx to your patience, and Joe's, I am accepting theses statements by BY in terms of offices of the priesthood. I think that this is the way that AG theory could be advanced. I tried it out on my wife the other night. Just explain that the terms JHVH and Michael refer to offices in the priesthood, that the term Eloheim refers to the heavenly host. This simply explains alot of things that are otherwise difficult to comprehend. Perhaps we could develop this argument. My wife foresaw a few problems in it, but she would not explain what she meant (ach!). Furthermore, it is already implicitly believed my most Mormons, IMHO. They have the model of councils, offices and stewardship right before their eyes in the Church. I feel that a strong argument can be made to Mormons by comparing the earthly order to the heavenly order, a la Pseudo-Dionysius. It can be presented as a practical question. Who was doing Michael's job in heaven, while he was Adam in the Garden? Who was doing JHVH's job in heaven, while he was Christ on earth. If you discuss this in terms of callings and stewardships, most Mormons will nod knowingly. It's almost trivial. When do we start? ;-} Now the most interesting consequence for me is the re-emphasis of Eloheim as plural, as refering to the council of the gods, a la KFS. It is congruent with my vision of the host of heaven, off-world commerce, and genetic stewardship, a seventh circuit trip essentially. Every man and woman is a star. It opens up the possibility for serious reconsideration of the sons of god and the daughters of men, the heroes of reknown, the nephilim, and El Shaddai, Ashoreh and kin. We have not even begun to explore the implications of this lost teaching, which has been unfortunately displaced by the notion of Elohim as a single parent! ;-} Good families, capitalism, and American values; Our heretage has become impoverished. We have set our sights too low. I am feeling an urgency to do something about it. I would love it if we could move this forward somehow folks. proclus BTW, any opinions out there regarding Orrin Hatch's recent performance regarding Microsoft? Don't be afraid to give me your most cynical reaction. I will bless you for it. With all this talk of anti-trust, I think that he is sounding like a Democrat! Maybe he will move to a pro-labor position ;-}. -- 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------ Subject: Re: Adam-God Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:35:56 -0500 From: proclus 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 References: 1 Joe Steve Swick III wrote: > > ___JSW___ > Adam is created from the "dust of the Earth." In the Bunkerville De cision, > Wilfo rd Woodruff taugh t th at " the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the > earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was > Eternal Lives" (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson, > AG, 156) > > ___Proclus___ > I now understand that we have not been arguing about AG theory, per se, but > merely about the origin of Adam's physical body. > ----- > > Perhaps. Or, perhaps how a God could have "offspring" that are "of the > earth." Don hits the issue spot-on: if Adam is God, how come "God's genes" > don't show up? -- we should be unique and distinct from all other living > things on Earth. If we are literally "Adam-God's physical offspring" then > why does our genetic pedigree seem to say that we are more or less related > to every other living thing on the planet? Don is saying that belief in a > literal Adam is scientifically problematic, and for similar reasons, a > literal Adam-God is a completely untenable scenario. (I knew I would use > that word -- thanks, Don). Yes, this is exactly what I have been trying to say. Thanks too, Don. I also think that we now have the biomedical understanding to hypothesize regarding God's methods in these matters. Maybe we will eventually relieve this dilemma. > ___Proclus___ > This must be the quote from WW that you referred to earlier. I must say > that this one point is clear as mud to me. I'd postulate that the origin of > Adam's body is a REAL mystery. The language for this event did not exist at > the time of WW. I can make the same argument on the following passage, > which may be less loaded, and more illustrative. > > "God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways > his scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns > and worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by > law" > > We now know that it is gravity that keeps the planets in their orbits. The > motion of planets does not represent ornate order, but rather whirling > chaos. It is common to attribute to God things which cannot be explained; so > with the origin of Adam's body. > > Again, these are the real mysteries IMHO. We don't even understand what > gravity is yet, and it is difficult to understand how a god could ordain the > law of gravity (In Star Trek, Q does wonderful bit, hacking the > gravitational constant, though!). > ----- > > Your comments have been very enjoyable! > > JSW I have to say that the satisfaction has been mutual. I hope that we can move deeper into this doctrine now. Perhaps there are some unforseen problems with it that we have yet to iron out. For example, do we consider AG theory as a doctrine of reincarnation? How odd that in Mormonism, it is the Brahmin that does the reincarnating, while the degenerate lose the opportunity. proclus Proclus, Please make this my all-in-one address. I believe the Babylon-5/Shakasta/Baalzebub's Tales scenario gives us a chance for a refreshment and renewal of our own tradition. It sure makes the Genesis stuff spring to new and vivid life! The Nephilim stuff is absolutely central. When Genesis speaks of Noah being "perfect in his generation" it's refering to the fact that he had no Cainite or Nephilim in his GENEOLOGY. This is the bases what anti-Semites see as Jewish racism in the Talmud as well as Jesus' parable of "The Wheat and the Tares". You da' man! Ken > From proclus@mac.com Mon Feb 16 21:46:29 1998 > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:45:05 -0500 > From: proclus > Subject: [Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown] > To: Ken Shaw , proclus@mac.com > Mime-Version: 1.0 > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K) > Content-Type> : > multipart/mixed> ; > boundary="------------B1C0AD495BDE490433D1D205"> > Content-Length: 6859 > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --------------B1C0AD495BDE490433D1D205 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Did you delete your sidheach account? Shall we send your email to dalsemi? > > I hope that we can now discuss the nephilim on the list, because of this > direct tie in with AG theory that we have uncovered. If AG is tenable, then > so is the nephilim. I look forward to any comments that you might have > regarding this. > > I hope that you are doing well. > > 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------ > --------------B1C0AD495BDE490433D1D205 > Content-Type: message/rfc822 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Content-Disposition: inline > > Return-path: <> > Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU > (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITNWLP452OHV70P3@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> > for love; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:26:58 EST > Received: from relay16.mail.aol.com (relay16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.144]) > by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id WAA02607 for > Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:21:36 -0500 (EST) > Received: from localhost (localhost) > by relay16.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with internal id WAA20650; > Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:25:43 -0500 (EST) > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:25:43 -0500 (EST) > From: Mail Delivery Subsystem > Subject: Returned mail: User unknown > To: proclus@mac.com > Message-id: ?.WAA20650@relay16.mail.aol.com> > Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) > > The original message was received at Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:25:37 -0500 (EST) > from binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3] > > Your mail is being returned due to one or more non-delivery conditions listed below: > > (Refer to the " ----- Transcript of session follows ----- " section) > 1: SMTP 550 .... User Unknown > Your recipient no longer exists on AOL. > > 2: SMTP 550 .... Mailbox Full > Your recipient's mailbox is full. > > 3: SMTP 550 .... is not accepting mail from this sender > Your recipient has blocked mail from you. > > 4: SMTP 550 ... Delivery not authorized > Your site has been blocked from sending mail to AOL. > > -AOL Postmaster > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to air28.mail.aol.com.: > >>> RCPT To: > <<< 550 Mailbox not found > 550 ... User unknown > > ----- Original message follows ----- > > Return-Path: > Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]) > by relay16.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) > with ESMTP id WAA20643; > Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:25:37 -0500 (EST) > Received: from iname.com (ppp-port2.hughes.brandeis.edu) > by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) > with ESMTP id ?ITNWHFW7KWHV66N4@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> Mon, > 16 Feb 1998 22:23:33 EST > Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:23:41 -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: ?E902B5.DE85A7A5@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 > > > The author of the Temple ceremony was BY. In 1854 he said that > > "Jehovah-Michael" was one person. I wonder what the 1876 Temple ceremony > > said. > > > > Robert. > > > Thanx to your patience, and Joe's, I am accepting theses statements by BY in > terms of offices of the priesthood. I think that this is the way that AG > theory could be advanced. I tried it out on my wife the other night. Just > explain that the terms JHVH and Michael refer to offices in the priesthood, > that the term Eloheim refers to the heavenly host. This simply explains alot > of things that are otherwise difficult to comprehend. Perhaps we could > develop this argument. My wife foresaw a few problems in it, but she would > not explain what she meant (ach!). > > Furthermore, it is already implicitly believed my most Mormons, IMHO. They > have the model of councils, offices and stewardship right before their eyes in > the Church. I feel that a strong argument can be made to Mormons by > comparing the earthly order to the heavenly order, a la Pseudo-Dionysius. It > can be presented as a practical question. Who was doing Michael's job in > heaven, while he was Adam in the Garden? Who was doing JHVH's job in heaven, > while he was Christ on earth. If you discuss this in terms of callings and > stewardships, most Mormons will nod knowingly. It's almost trivial. When do > we start? ;-} > > Now the most interesting consequence for me is the re-emphasis of Eloheim as > plural, as refering to the council of the gods, a la KFS. It is congruent > with my vision of the host of heaven, off-world commerce, and genetic > stewardship, a seventh circuit trip essentially. Every man and woman is a > star. It opens up the possibility for serious reconsideration of the sons of > god and the daughters of men, the heroes of reknown, the nephilim, and El > Shaddai, Ashoreh and kin. We have not even begun to explore the implications > of this lost teaching, which has been unfortunately displaced by the notion of > Elohim as a single parent! ;-} > > Good families, capitalism, and American values; Our heretage has become > impoverished. We have set our sights too low. I am feeling an urgency to do > something about it. I would love it if we could move this forward somehow folks. > > proclus > > BTW, any opinions out there regarding Orrin Hatch's recent performance > regarding Microsoft? Don't be afraid to give me your most cynical reaction. > I will bless you for it. With all this talk of anti-trust, I think that he is > sounding like a Democrat! Maybe he will move to a pro-labor position ;-}. > > > > -- > 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------ > > > --------------B1C0AD495BDE490433D1D205-- > > Subject: The Condescension of the Gods Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 10:28:27 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III To: George Head , Beth any , Neoptolmus@aol.com, Don Bradley , Dave , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Gaia , rpc man , Sidheach , Randall Shortridge , ArtdeHoyos , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Kathleen McGuire , Andy Mcguire , proclus , "Kathy E. Christensen" Dear Mutants: I have included George Head in the current mail.... please welcome him. I wished to say that I disagreed with one or two points of Robert's explication. I would like to focus more sharply on one of the Keys -- The Fool-- which Key I believe to conceal a central concept found in BY's AG teaching, and which is also connected directly to Ken's recent comments on the Kabbalah. I will restrict my comments to the Fool. I believe the center of Robert's and my difference of opinion here lies in the identity of the Fool; some attention to the details of the Key should help to clarify this issue, and will help you to grasp the reason for our *other* interpretive differences. I would point out that in this case, the Rider-Waite Key and the BOTA Key are nearly identical, although clearly the BOTA deck does not conceal as much of the symbolism. I would immediately draw your attention to the fact that this Key is the 0 Key -- the NO THING. It is associated with the Hebrew letter ALEPH, which makes NO SOUND. As Kushner teaches in Sefer Otiyot: "It has no sound. Only the sound you make when you begin to make every sound. Open your mouth and begin to make a sound. STOP! That is Alef." (Kushner, 21) Further, ALEPH is also the first letter in ELOHIM, one of the 70 mystical names of God. This small clue should be most helpful to you in teasing from the Key both the IDENTITY of the Fool, and --as it is clear He is on a Journey-- where He is off to, and where He is from. In this context, it should strike you as interesting and significant that in the Tarot, the FIRST card is also the ZERO card. It is both ZERO and ONE. It is the Cosmic Egg, the Power preceding manifestation, the endless line of eternity. And yet it is also ALEPH -- the Beginning (or, conversely, perhaps the ENDING) of something. Who is the Fool? Let us consider a few items briefly. First, He wears a robe, which I will make a few brief comments upon. The robe is decorated with beautiful green and 10 CIRCLES or SPHERES. One of those Spheres on the lower hem of the garment contains the Hebrew letter SHIN, which is also alluded to by the DOG. In other versions of the Tarot, this DOG is biting the Fool in the leg or on the rump. Interestingly, SHIN means FANG, hence the BITING Dog. As may have already occured to you, the letter SHIN is always related to the Holy Spirit --Ruach HaKodesh-- which in Jewish thought, is constantly ASCENDING and DESCENDING (think of Jacob's Ladder!) through the four worlds. The four worlds are --beginning with the highers-- Azilut (Emanation), Beriah (Manifestation), Yetzirah (Formation), and Assiyah (Action). Of course, in its lowest manifestations, the Spirit may act as the human CONSCIENCE, like the DOG, which warns of coming danger. The name, FOOL, also conceals this truth, as the name is derived from the Latin, FOLLIS, meaning WIND, or SPIRIT, which as Jesus teaches, may come and go as It will. But back to the Robe. With a little thought, you may have come to the understanding that the SPHERES are the Sephirot of the Tree of Life. This would be correct. It is significant that they adorn the BODY of the Fool. The robe is lined with RED, meaning the FOOL has placed the garment on AT WILL. It is bound by a golden belt of SEVEN SPHERES, -- the SEVEN HEAVENLY PLANETS. Consequently, this belt is indicative of TIME. Perhaps our Fool is God. Perhaps --as the Sephirot tend to indicate-- this is Adam Rishmon/Adam Kadmon, the Holy Spirit, which is about to descend into.... manifestation. The beautiful white undergarment contains another clue. If you look carefully about the NECK of that garment, you will notice that the folds spell out the Divine Name ... the Tetragrammaton, YHVH, a Name which Kabbalists have long known to be gematrically equivalent to the name ADAM. Now, let us look at only a few other details. Notice that the Fool --like all good travellers-- carries a WAND, surmounted by a POUCH. Among other things, the WAND and the POUCH represent SEXUAL UNION, or the ACTION OF OPPOSITES. This is confirmed by the EAGLE on the pouch, which is associated with WATER and with the astrological sign of SCORPIO, which of course rules t he hu man genitalia As brief and sketchy as this information is, it should give you an idea of Who the Fool is and where He is headed. I believe that the Fool is that Primal Azilutic Man, Adam Kadmon, who is associated with the Tree of Life. He is beginning the Divine Descent. As He approaches the edge of the precipice -- and yes, He most certainly *is* going to FALL-- (^_^) He looks to the NorthWest -- the direction of the Unknown. We have discussed evolution and creation on this forum, and I would liked to point out to you that this Key has something to say about the subject. You will notice that while the Fool's "Journey" appears to be dangerous and ill-considered (even HAPPENSTANCE), yet it is nevertheless the part of a PLAN, which begins in this Key, and continues through Key 9 (The Hermit). That it is an "eternal round" of evolution and devolution may be surmised from Key 10, "The Wheel of Fortune," -- the ever-turning wheel. Let us turn to a related discussion in Kabbalah by HaLevi, who, in elaborating on the Four Worlds, notes: "The first chapter of Genesis should be understood as the unfolding of the Creation FROM AN ALREADY EXISTING DIVINE WORLD. While this is common knowledge in Jewish esoteric cosmogony, it is still not know to many people familiar with the Bible. this concept disposes of the countless arguments that have gone on over the centuries as to whether the Creation was brought forth out of nothing (ex nihilo), all of which rest on an ignorance of the previous existence of the Divine Emanation (Azilut). this notion of pre-existenbce is alluded to, for instance, in the direct assertion in rabbinical tradition that God consulted the Torah (the Teaching) before the Universe was created, formed, and made" (HaLevi, Kabbalah: Tradition of Hidden Knowledge, ISBN 0-500-81023-0, page 9) Please keep in mind that this BARELY scratches the surface of the meanings of the Key. There is MUCH, MUCH more that could and perhaps should be said. But I wanted you at least provide you with a few hints and clues that would allow us a fruitful discussion. Robert covered quite a bit of ground in a single post, and has made a good effort at an overview. Might I suggest the propriety of discussing each of the Keys in some detail -- much as I have done in this post? I would like to discuss some of the interpretive differences between Robert and myself, as well as the differences between the Rider-Waite and BOTA decks. I would also be most interested in comments by Art and George regarding this topic, as well as the group's impression of the subject. "Bereshith bara ELOHIM" JSW I wouldn't hold out too much hope for Elder Hatch yet. Have you seen his book, "Higher Principles?" Ach! JSW Babylon 5 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:34:51 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com To: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, 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 Proclus, I'm pretty convinced that B5 is coming from a "conscious" source. You know that Harlan Ellison hung out with P.K. Dick. Do you know the film "Zardoz"? There is a lot of stuff in the remake of "The Island of Dr. Moroe" as well. Ken Subject: The Tarot Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 04:12:11 -0500 From: "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> To: 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 The following is my interpretation of the Tarot from a mormon POV. As you know the Tarot is composed by two decks of cards. The Major Arcana contains the gospel and the Minor Arcana which tells four stories related to the gospel. The Minor Arcana which is very much like a regular deck of cards is divided into four suits, signifying the four orders of priesthood, like those taught in the Temple. Two are the Aaronic priesthood (Wands or Clubs and Swords or Spades). And, the other two are the Melchezidec (Cups or Hearts and Penticles or Diamonds) priesthood. Cups has to do with the Patriarchal priesthood and plural marriage. Penticles has to do with seer stones and gold (sometimes called Coins). Wands has to do with the Rod of Aaron. Swords has to do with the Sword of David or Arthurs sword, Excalibur. These are together called the Keys of the Priesthood. And are related to the story of King Arthur. Arthur had the Sword and was supposed to obtain the Holy Grail (or the Sang Real or Cup). Merlin has the Rod of Aaron (or the Staff of Joseph of Arimithea) and Christal Cave (or Diamonds). (I could go on and on here but won't now.) If you will look at the Aces of the various suits you will see that they all come from God. Now the pip cards of each suit tell a story. The face cards have nothing to do with the story. Two tell the story from one to ten. And the other two tell the story from 10 to one. This is one advantage to haveing the Rider-Waite deck as they have the ques as pictures on each pip card. Most of the other decks do not. The Major Arcana is made up of 22 cards corresponding to the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. These are divided into three groups of seven plus a zero card. The zero card is the Fool. He has the right to the royal priesthood (the Endowment) by birth (see the sign of the Falcon on the purse which is tied to his staff). But, he knows nothing about it as he is about to walk off of the side of the Cliff and does not even hear the warning bark of his dog. Please note that this is you and I and every one who has received his endowment but does not understand what he has. If we are not careful we will each die in our sins. Eternal life is the way or path of the Tarot. The first seven cards are the steps of enlightenment. The first is the Magician. Remember that the word "Magician" comes from the persian or Zorastian word for priest. He holds the holy priesthood in his right hand (The candle with the flame on each end). He has the sign of the Holy Ghost (the infinity sign) above his head and is wraped aroound by the symbol of eternity (the snake on his waist). He is wearing the garments of the holy priesthood and also wears the robes of the holy priesthood. He is in charge of the signs and tokens of the priesthood laying on the table in front of him. The Magician is the person who understands what he gets in the endowment and uses them. He has the roses and lillys (the symbols of Christ and the Resurrection) in front of him. The next step after the endowment is the Second Anointing where the man is ordained a King and a Priest and the woman is ordained a queen and a priestess. The next card then is the Priestess with definate masonic overtones. Note that she carries the Torah half hidden under her robe. This signifies that there are hidden parts of the gospel only for her and those of us who progress further than the endowment. She is the 2 card whose mate is the 5 card (the Priest) 2+5=7. The next step is queen (Empress) card. Notice that she has the twelve stars of the apostles or tribes of Israel in her crown and the righteous (the wheat) at her feet. This is the 3 card and is matched by the 4 card the King. 3+4=7. Please note that the 5 card, the Hierophant is the High Priest. He wears the triple crown, the robe with the three tied strings, the Garments. He is incharge of the Keys (at his feet) of the Kingdom and the two orders of the priesthood (the roses and the lillies). The next card number 7 shows the next order of priesthood. The Adam and Eve card or the Lovers. You can tell that this is Adam and Eve by the two trees. The treee of good and evil by the side of Eve (with the serpent) and the tree of Life by the side of Adam (the tree with the fire). The Golden Dawn Tarot (I think) has a picture of Adam comming down from the heavens to rescue Eve who is chained by the Devil. The last card of the seven is that of God himself. He has the Urim and Thumum on his sholders. (Honest that is what they are called). He has the Holy Priesthood in his right hand. The square on his breast and is comming out of the block of stone (which is a perfect qube). He rides through the heavens (the stars in his canopy). His chariot is that of the sun (the sun disk with wings). The next seven cards are the atribute cards. The first of these, card 8 shows a woman with the Spirit of God (the infinity symbol) controling or shuting the mouth of the Red Lion with her hands. If you look closely you will see that she has the Red Lion chained to her waist with a garland of flowers. The Red Lion is the end of the Work. This card is called Strength. The Hermit is called the Ancient of Days (according to Waite's book) and is holding the light of Knowledge showing (also according to Waite) that where he is you may also come. The Wheel of Fortune has the four beasts of the apocolypse in each corner. Each are studying the gospel. The wheel itself has the word Taro (t) reading one way and Tora reading the other way. Interspaced between these letters are the Yod Hey Vav Hey which are the Hebrew letters for God or Jehovah or Yahwah. On the inside ring is the symbols for the four elements of Alchemy. If you take all of the letters and symbols out you have left the wafer of the Euchrist. This card symbolizes (by some but not by me) the doctrine of reincarnation. The next is Justice. Everyone knows what that is. The next card is the Hanged Man. He is hanging on the tau cross. His legs are in the sign of Jupiter (God). He is not in pain or distress but is in a state of enlightenment. What this means I don't know. Next is Death. It comes to all men. Men, women, children, kings and priests. Notice that death is carrring the symbol of Christ risen, the white rose. The next card is Temperance, which is misnamed. The angel is Michael. Notice the sun symbol in his forhead; the square and triangle on his breast. He is pouring the spirit from one vessel to the other. This shows that the spirit goes from the first estate to the second estate. He has one foot on land and the other in the water showing that the first step is that of baptism then comes the long road that leads to eternal life. Notice that at the end of the road is the brightness in the shape of a crown. This ends the second group of seven. The next seven cards staaarts with The Devil. The man and woman in thsi card are Adam and Eve caught by the devil and signifies the second death. Notice that they are bound loosely with chains which they could easily excape. Adam is infected with the false light of the doctrines of the world. The devil is the false god signified by the stone his is sitting on is only half of a complete cube. The next card is The Tower. This is the wicked church or temple also called by some the Hospital or house of God. God (notice the yods) is destroying the Temple, casting out the priest and king. The next card is The Star or Telestial kindom. Those in it are those who pour out their blessings upon the ground and in the water showing that they have no use for these things. Next is the Terrestial kingdom. Those here (the crab) are being kept from going down the path of eternal life by fear of the dog and the wolf who are baying at the moon. Notice that the moon symbolizes the reflected light of the gospel signified by the yodes. The next card is the Celestial Kingdom. There every thing is bright and signifies eternal life or eternal youth. The next card I do not understand. It is generally interpreted as an initiation card. The last card is for those who inherit the World or (by some the Universe). It is only for those who can look upon Truth in all of her nakedness and not be afraid.. ******************************************* I have forgot a lot here and have probably made a lot of mistakes. But , this will give you a rough idea of what I believe is the gospel through the Tarot. Please send me your comments. Robert. Subject: Re: Babylon 5 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:36:15 -0500 From: proclus 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 References: 1 I hope that I am not being tedious, as not everyone is into the sciFi angle. Sidheach@aol.com wrote: > > Proclus, > > I'm pretty convinced that B5 is coming from > a "conscious" source. I've been with Babylon 5 since the first showing of the pilot. I swallowed some craw and got cable, so I wouldn't miss season 5 (It's getting disconnected again this summer!) Did you see 502? G'kar's declaration of principles just about knocked my socks off. I'm wondering for the first time if there is any Mormon influence here. Heroes, the eloheim, the nephilim, ancestral link, still small voice, apotheosis. Everything is there. > You know that Harlan > Ellison hung out with P.K. Dick. I read two biographies of Dick a few years back. I missed this fact, I guess. What do you think is the significance of this link. > Do you know > the film "Zardoz"? Gads, It has been years since I saw Zardoz! > There is a lot of stuff in the > remake of "The Island of Dr. Moroe" as well. Ken, thanx for the tips. I love watching SciFi with my son. I get the classics and we watch them together with the whole family. I printed out your note, and I will take it with me on my next trip to the videomart. 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------ Subject: Re: Babylon 5 Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:51:49 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com To: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, jswick@cris.com, 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 Proclus, My son is reading a biography of Ellison and it says on the dust jacket that he hunted Javelina in Arizona with P.K.Dick. I believe that Dick is tied in with the real stuff, and that Valis is refering to actual experiences. My son the P.K. Dick scholar assures me that this is true. Ken Subject: Re: Myth and History Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:28:42 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com To: 74277.3365@compuserve.com, ariel144@hotmail.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, bethany0@hotma il.com, onandagus@webtv.ne t, kathleen@enol.com, Neoptolmus@aol.com, trent@goodnet.com, dcombe@rain.org, gaia@nmol.com, proclus@mac.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, jswick@cris.com Robert, I haven't read the Stichin books, but my friend James D. Tabor the "Christian Origins" scholar is pretty impressed by them so far. I'm much more influenced by the crypto-Sufi version found in Doris Lessing's "Canopus" series of "science fiction" novels. Ken Shaw Subject: YHVH=Buddha? Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 03:40:52 -0500 (EST) From: Sidheach@aol.com To: 74277.3365@compuserve.com, ariel144@hotmail.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, bethany0@hotmail.com, onandagus@webtv.net, dcombe@rain.org, gaia@nmol.com, proclus@mac.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, Neoptolmus@aol.com, trent@goodnet.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, jswick@cris.com Robert, The path that I've been on convices me that YHVH is not a "personal name" as such, but rather a designation of "Being". Thus any "being" who is "Awake" is YHVH. Thirty years of studying Israelite religion have brought me to the point where it looks a lot like Buddhism and Vedanta. Ken Shaw Subject: bundle Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 18:35:36 -0500 From: Michael Love To: Michael Love -- 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------ Subject: Myth and History Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 01:43:20 -0500 From: "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> To: Beth any , Artdel-Hoyos , Beth , Don Bradley , Kathleen McGuire , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , "R. Trent Reyolds" , Dave , Gaia , Michael Love , rpc man , Andy McGuire , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , Joe Steve Swick III Ken Shaw, <> Amen. Have you guys read the "Twelve Planet"? Robert. Subject: Adam-God: The Mystery and the Hysteri Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:57:52 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III To: Don Bradley CC: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire , KathleenMcGuire , "R. TrentReynolds" , ArtdeHoyos , RandallShortridge , Bethany , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , Neoptolmus@aol.com, Dave , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> Hello, Don: I have to prepare for my lesson on Knowing and Honoring the Godhead on Sunday; in addition, I would like to respond to Robert Black's posting on the Tarot, so forgive me if my responses are rather brief. This is a topic I have been enjoying, and I am very much looking forward to your comments. ___Don___ Are you saying you accept evolutionary science _fully_ AND accept the Adam-God doctrine, AS BRIGHAM YOUNG TAUGHT IT, _literally_? If so, how do you reconcile the two? ----- First, let me say that I do accept evolutionary science. Although it is clear to me that all of the details have not been satisfactorily ironed out ... perhaps a few interesting surprises in store for us ... I believe that it is *substantially* true. I find the evidence compelling, and the explanations I have heard to be satisfying. However, I also believe AG "as Brigham Young taught it." Of course, there are details that President Young did not address ...issues that he did not speak to. But the fundamentals of AG do not seem overly ambiguous or unclear. I believe that in the case of AG, there are many aspects of it that may only be comprehended by revelation. I am sure you know that I do not mean this as a dodge at all. As for reconciliation... it does not trouble me in the least to say I have not completely reconciled these issues, any more than I have my "unscientific" and "irrational" beliefs in the virgin birth, the Holy Resurrection, or God blessing Jacob with speckled and striped goats depending upon the pattern the animals viewed while mating. Maybe the only REAL TANGIBLE "evidence" of God's providence is John Taylor's pocketwatch, but I am sure RPC MAN would disagree with me on that point! I like the idea expressed by Joseph Smith, that "by proving contraries, truth is made manifest" (HC 6:428). I am also aware that I am personally not up to the task of "proving" every "contrary." Leastways, not in THIS lifetime! (^_^) But not to worry. Having lived in the Orient for some years, believing in two things that are inherently contradictory doesn't seem to trouble me as much as it does you. ___Don___ I ended up still _wanting_ to believe in a literal Adam-God scenario, but found that I could not rationally do so. ----- My own religion is based primarily upon my experiences with God (few though they may be). This has been more satisfying to me than the Scriptures, Prophets, the Church, religious dogma or "scenarios." In fact, without meaningful experiences with Deity, my motivation in these other things would be significantly diminished. IOW, I believe in AG as a matter of personal revelation. I am confident that HOW the Adam God doctrine is true, is unfolding for me over time. ___Don___ I had the "will to believe," but I was not going to believe a contradiction. ----- Ah, so impatient. ___Don___ Do you feel you've found a _good_ way to reconcile these? If so, I'd love to hear it. ----- I don't know. Let's discuss "numbers 1~8" below, and see how things look after that. ___Don___ More questions: When you assert the fundamental unity of all life, what are you saying? that all earthly species evolved from a common ancestor? ----- Yes, among other things. ___Don___ What do you understand the scientific evidence re: human origins to be? ----- See above. ___Don___ Are you familiar with the mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA studies showing how closely or distantly human populations are related to one another and to other species? ----- I am familiar enough with this research to find it persuasive, yes. ___Don___ What , in your view, is faith? How do we determine what we should have faith in? (i.e. what constitutes proper grounds for faith?) What is the relationship of faith to evidence and to knowledge? ----- I believe that empiricism, rationalism, and INTUITION (read: revelation) are equally valuable ways of apprehending truth. As for faith, I am persuaded that: "Faith is an ASSURANCE of things hoped for. Faith is the EVIDENCE of things not seen." We carefully weight the rational, empirical and intuitive arguments, and make our best decisions. Sometimes, the three of these ways of knowing come together nicely; sometimes, we rely on one particular way of knowing in a particular area of investigation. Sometimes, the evidence gathered may seem fragmented and contradictory. I believe that faith generally does not exist in the absence of empirical, rational, or intuitive evidence. Further, when we act upon our beliefs, (i.e., "exercise faith,") we are often able to judge from the results if we are moving in the right direction or otherwise. Consequently, the ideal end of our faith in a principle or doctrine is greater knowledge regarding it. ___Don___ What should we do if we find that the balance of the evidence is decidedly against a proposition we have placed our faith in? ----- Of course, you might wish to modify or even discard your item of faith; it seems to me that this would depend on the nature and strength of the evidence for and against it. However. When I have come to know something intuitively, and the nature of the evidence is direct revelation to me --that is, I have had a powerful personal experience which seems to indicate to me that a certain idea is true or false-- then I am not as likely to lay aside my belief. Sometimes the objects presented to the senses in mystical experience are as real as your desk, your computer, your wife or children. And, they can form as certain a part of the memory as any experience in the "real" world. I apologize for the following digression, but I would like to give you one example of this. In January 1977, I learned by personal, direct revelation that the Priesthood Ban was about to be lifted. This had been an area of some concern to me prior to joining the Church. I was born and raised in Seattle, and had numerous Black friends. I knew that in every way, they were JUST LIKE ME. We grew up in the same neighborhoods, had the same teachers and friends, ate at each other's homes, and shared the same joys, fears, and pains. The thought that any of my friends would be prevented from sharing in the blessings of the Priesthood struck me very personally. I had read the Book of Abraham, and recognizing some of the characters in the facsimiles, I felt uncomfortable with a ban based upon this text. My revelatory experience came shortly after my decision to join the Church (which act was itself based upon a powerful vision). I had prayed and expressed my concerns to the Lord over this issue, and asked whether the Blacks would ever hold the Priesthood. The nature of the answer surprised me greatly... unexpected in its intensity. My entire body was filled with the spirit, and the words came as a voice to my mind, quite distinct and clear: "Do not be troubled; in not many days, this restriction will be lifted." I was then flooded with the sweetest and tenderest feelings of joy. I immediately told my family. Later, when the announcement was made in 1978 --I was in my room and listening to the radio at the time-- I cannot express to you the excitement I felt. I came rushing out of my room, told my mother that the Church had removed the Priesthood restriction, and I must have said a dozen times, "I told you so; didn't I tell you?" What a great spiritual witness this was to me. My point in telling this story is this: my own beliefs about the lifting of the Priesthood Ban have been shaped most strongly by my personal experiences, for those experiences have spoken louder to me than arguments on my right or left. ___Don___ To what extent does having faith that a book is scripture entail taking its contents literally? ----- Well, I'm with Brigham Young on this point. I am happy to believe all the truth there is in the Bible, and that is good enough for me. ___Don___ And to what extent does having faith that a man is a prophet mean believing everything he says, or at least believng everything he says is revelation? ----- Again, President Young answers this well. If a Prophet indicates that his utterance is prophetic, then I listen more carefully to it than I otherwise might. ___Don___ Finally, what do you mean when you use the terms "Adam and Eve"? Which of the following form part of your understanding of Adam and Eve: 1) the first humans on earth, 2) ancestors of all modern humans (i.e. everybody now living has at least _some_ genetic inheritance from them), 3) _the_ original earthly ancestors of all humans who've lived on the planet since their time (i.e. there are no other human lineages on earth with whom their line mixed], 4) a couple who lived about 6000 years ago, 5] a couple who lived in what is now Missouri, 6] immortals who became mortal,,7] immortals who became mortal by eating mortal food, 8] a couple who, although they lived on this earth, acquired the genes of the bodies they had here on some other (previous) world. ----- You left out one: 9] Those who, proving faithful in this life, become Gods, beget spirit offspring, prepare a place for them, and then descend to set the machine in motion by which their own posterity obtain physical bodies. I am reminded of my conversation with Elizabeth Dowling, a Greek Orthodox friend I had met on the internet. She had in a previous discussion come to my rescue on the issue of whether or not one could be a Christian and believe in the doctrine of divinization. Later, she asked me if Mormons believe that Jesus was married. I told her that this was not an article of faith, and that MOST Mormons I knew did not believe it. I then told her that I PERSONALLY believed it, and also thought that Jesus had fathered children. Elizabeth -- bless her heart -- was quite amazed by this. She asked with some feeling what I thought the product of such union might be -- direct offspring of Deity: wouldn't they be superbabies (or worse, like Q on Star Trek)? So I asked her: "Do you believe that Jesus is God? Do you believe that he can do anything?" I wonder what the genes of Jesus' offspring are like. I wonder if their genes betray anything about their Father's divinity? Hmmm. I think you have the genetic thing backwards, myself, since WW was clear that "the seed of man was of the dust of the earth." President Woodruff didn't say it was from Kolob or some other place. I think God intended for us to be "of the earth," and I think that this was the purpose of his act of condescension, in taking upon himself an *earthly* body. I think the whole issue might be a bit more complicated than your #7 above. Of course, this is just my own philosophizing. It doesn't mean anything. (^_^) As for the rest of your numbered items above: With qualification, I MIGHT say I believe 5, 6, (7) and 8, and maybe even 2..or is it 4? (^_^). Maybe I should say NONE OF THE ABOVE and join the Scientologists. I hear THEY have a cool myth. JSW "Chabad Elohim HaSatar Debar" (Prov. 25:2) "Uath Tsanavayim Chokmah" (Prov. 11:2) Subject: God Makes a Comeback Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:23:32 -0800 From: Joe Steve Swick III To: proclus , Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com, Beth any Here is something that looks like it might be an enjoyable topic for group conversation. It seems to fit right in with our current discussion of Adam-God. http://www.slate.com/Concept/98-02-11/Concept.asp Enjoy! Joe Swick Subject: Re: Merovingian Kings Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:37:56 -0500 From: "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> To: Beth any , Artdel-Hoyos , Beth , Don Bradley , Dave , Gaia , Michael Love , rpc man , Andy McGuire , Kathleen McGuire , "neoptolmus@aol.com" , "R. Tr ent Rey olds" , Randall Shortridge , Sidheach , Joe Steve Swick III Beth, <> I believe that it is associated with the United Europe thing. Though there might be a united Europe some day. I do not believe that it will be a monarchy. Robert. Subject: Adam-God Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 02:38:06 -0500 From: "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> To: 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 Proclus, <> The author of the Temple ceremony was BY. In 1854 he said that "Jehovah-Michael" was one person. I wonder what the 1876 Temple ceremony said. Robert. Subject: Re: Sunstone Symposium West Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:26:53 -0500 From: Michael Love To: Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge , Beth any , Sidheach , proclus , rpc man , Gaia , "onandagus@webtv.net" , "Neoptolmus@aol.com" , Dave , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com> References: 1 This sounds great! Unfortunately, I'm in Boston. It would be wonderful if some of the rest of you could get together though. This seems like the right moment to me. proclus Robert R. Black wrote: > > I notice that the Sunstone Symposium West will be in Los Angeles 13-14 > March. I notice that Dave Combe is going. Is anyone else going? Maybe we > could get togeather. > > Robert. -- 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------ Subject: Re: Adam-God: The Mystery and the Hysteri Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 09:28:06 -0800 (PST) From: rpc man To: onandagus@webtv.net, jswick@cris.com CC: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.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 >Maybe the only >REAL TANGIBLE "evidence" of God's providence is John Taylor's pocketwatch, >but I am sure RPC MAN would disagree with me on that point! What a memory you have. ;) To fill the rest of you in on the details of this remark... Joe and I had a discussion (heated debate?? ) on this topic about a year ago on a.r.m. I contended that Joseph and Hyrum were the only ones killed in Carthage Jail because they were the only 'targets'. If I remember correctly, Joe's position was that there were no 'targets', the mobsters were just shooting randomly, and Taylor and Richards made it out alive thanks to God. I don't want to debate the topic again. I just bring it up here for clarification. ;)

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

More discussion here!

Visit



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

Related social networking sites that might be lesser known

Make your own free website on Tripod.com