In a message dated 98-02-08 01:13:20 EST, proclus@mac.com writes:

<< I also have a question for Neoptolmus.  Have you read Hiram Key?  They
discuss
 many of these wild theories regarding the origins of freemasonry.  They give
 alot of good background for people who have broader interests outside of
 freemasonry as well. >>

I have read that book.  Sinfully speculative and amazingly good fun. Portions
of it may be possible (if not probable- pace Art). It certainly got me
thinking. One problem I find with the theory is the insistence that Rosslyn
chapel is unique because of its floorplan. I have heard to the contrary that
other churches have floor plans that mimic the design of Herod's temple. Does
anyone have more information on this? Well, these problems are probably just
the tip of the iceberg.

What I find more interesting about the book is Freemasonic and J. Smith's
common interest in things Egyptian. There must be something more Masonic to
the Book of Abraham. . .

By the way, I am currently reading up on the Mandaeans. There are practices of
real interest in their ritual. Amazingly, Lady Drower took some pictures of
them giving their ritual handshake. Very interesting stuff indeed. The belief
system seems very gnostic, though there are some vague correspondences to LDS
doctrine. The whole Nasuri portion of Hiram Key was the most interesting part
of the book for me. 


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

In a message dated 98-02-08 01:13:20 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: << I've already posted most of what I know about kabbalistic parallels. This implicates the tarot automatically. Furthermore, as a depiction of the initiatory path, the tarot keys would certainly have other parallels as well. I have never seriously explored this myself, but if there is someone who has, I can't think of a better venue for discussing it. >> Can anyone explain the significance of Freemasonic imagery in Tarot to me?

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

In a message dated 98-02-08 01:13:21 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: << Adam is God in the same sense that Isaiah is Elijah, that is, they have things in common. They are in the same class. Platonically, Adam is a lesser image of God, an emanation of God. You are too. Adam as Michael is LIKE God. You are too. That's my two cents worth. >> This does not seem consistent with BY's teaching that Adam came hear with a celestial body and one of his wives, does it?

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

Krosspost (remove unwanted address to reply): Life Force Energy in Mormonese: The Light of Christ (check D&C I think) and The Breath of Life as described in Book of Abraham (not the temple ceremony). Other cultures and scientists who have researched it: 5000 BC China - Chi 3000 BC India - Prana 500 BC Greece/Pythagoras - vital energy 1200's Europe/ Paracelsus - Illiaster 1800's Anton Mesmer - magnetic fluid Wilhelm von Leibnitz - essential elements Wilhelm von Reichenbach - odic force Freud - Libido Nikola Tesla - Ether and Radiant Energy 1911 Walter Kilner - Aura and Human Atmosphere 1940 George De La War - emanations 1930-`950 Wilhelm Reich - orgone 1930-1960 Harold Burr and FSC Northrup - Life Field 1950's L.J. Ravitz - thought field 1970 - 89 Dr. Robert O. Becker - electromagnetic field 1970/80's Barbara Brennan, Richard Dobrin and John Pierrakos - HEF (human energy field) 1970-90 Hiroshi Motoyama - chi 1970-90 Victor Inyushin - bioplasma 1970-90 Dr. Valerie Hunt (at UCLA) - biofield - Hunt beleives it is a scalar field. 1960-90 Andria Puharich - life enhancing field 1980-90 Dr. Robert Beck - Schumann waves (correlated healers magnetic pulses with pulsations of the earths magnetic field, the Schumann waves. I do professional level "energy work" BTW and have seen some pretty amazing things using this energy in my time. Beth

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

[remove shulemna address from cc box to reply] Ken wrote: > It dawned on me clear back in '82 when I > re-read "The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph > Smith" that Joseph's soterology was purely > "Gnostic", that is, that evil is ignorance and > salvation is the removal of that ignorance. I think the scriptures are so plain about this (particularly the D&C on what "Light" and "Darkness" actually are - knowledge vs. lack of knowledge. Socrates said that the only evil is ignorance. The D&C says the same thing. When I first came to my personal understanding of the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil I syncronistically (I am telling you synchronicity is just a daily way of life for me) stumbled upon Robert Anton Wison's version of what Wilhelm Reich would have had to say about how partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil kills! I understood from one (of the pioneers in!) spiritual / body mind healer to another how the fruit of that tree physiologically leads to death. This is so great I just have to cut and paste it here! Oh the irreverence of it.... The timing is always so funny. It has everything to do with what I have been studying with my beloved psychology professor (he is also world reknowned in a number of fields of research in his own right Dr. James Daley) who studied directly under those who studied under Freud. He knew so many of the greats and we have been talking about these very things lately. Beth -------------------- Wilhelm Reich in Hell: a 2-act musical An excerpt from Robert Anton Wilson's Introduction to the Falcon Press edition: As every schoolchild once knew -- back in the reactionary days when schoolchildren were expected to know something -- the U.S. Constitution ordains that there shall be "no laws" abridging freedom of speech or of the press. There is considerable internal evidence in the Constitution, and external evidence in the other writings of the authors of the Constitution, to support the contention that the creators of the Republic were versatile in their handling of language and very precise in their usage. One would assume that when they wrote "no laws" they meant "no laws." Nonetheless, the U.S. Supreme Court sits every year and determines, in various cases, if certain laws abridging freedom of speech and of the press are or are not in violation of the Constitution. As the late justice Hugo Black said sardonically on one occasion, the majority opinion of the Court appears to be that "no laws" means "some laws." Like Justice Black, I am a plain blunt man and not sophisticated enough to understand the recondite arguments by which the Supreme Court has arrived at the opinion that "no laws" means "some laws." Justice Black said that his problem was that he was a simple farm-boy and "no laws" in English seemed to him to mean "no laws." I'm not sure what my problem is, but I also have the na´ve view that "no laws" means "no laws." It was with some horror, and considerable indignation, then, that I reacted to the news, in 1957, that the U.S. Government had seized all the scientific books and papers of Dr. Wilhelm Reich and burned them in an incinerator in New York City. This was only twelve years after the U.S. had fought a prolonged and bitter war against Nazi Germany and I had been raised on anti-Nazi propaganda in which the Nazi "crime against freedom" in burning books had been stressed as much as their crimes against humanity in killing people. I was astounded and flabbergasted that the U.S. government was imitating its former enemy to the extent of actually burning scientific papers it found heretical. One result of all such Inquisitorial behavior, which Inquisitors never seem to expect even though it is historically predictable, is that some people get curious about books they are forbidden to read. I spent a lot of time, in 1957-58, hunting for people who owned copies of Dr. Reich's books and doing exactly what the Inquisitors had wished to prevent me from doing -- reading the verboten books and forming my own judgement on the validity or lack of validity in Dr. Reich's various theories..... excerpt from Act I (The scene: Wilhelm Reich is on trial in Hell. The trial looks in all respects like a 3-ring circus, complete with jugglers, acrobats, fire-eaters, etc. The prosecuting attorneys are the Marquis de Sade and Count von Sacher-Masoch, both of whom are dressed as clowns. The Ringmaster (Satan) presides as judge. Early on in the trial, Dr. Reich introduced as evidence a Computer which continually monitors the growth of the worldwide nuclear weapons stockpile. The Computer emits an ear-splitting whistle every time there is an increment in firepower equivalent to the original Hiroshima bomb.....) SADE: Why did you rebel against Freud? REICH: (slowly) I rebelled against Freud because he was a coward. The Computer whistles again. SADE: A coward? The man who challenged all the taboos of his age? REICH:He back-tracked, he evaded, he weaseled. He would not say flatly what his theories all implied. The Computer whistles again. SADE: (shouting over whistle) You mean he did not share your Utopian fantasies. REICH:Look at the photos of him; look at that jaw. The Computer whistles again. REICH:Look at his expression, those clenched teeth. He was holding back -- and I tell you, all of you, that is why he got cancer of the jaw finally. He wouldn't speak what he knew. He held it in, behind those clenched teeth, until it killed him. SADE: And what is the truth Freud dared not speak? REICH:Everybody knows it by now. Look at the crime news on TV -- Computer whistles again. REICH:or go into the emergency clinics and talk to the rape victims. Talk to the battered wives and the abused children. Our whole species is mad, emotionally plagued. We have been mad so long that every attempt to break out of the Trap just unleashes unconscious rage and increases the violence. Computer whistles again. REICH:We all know we're in the Trap, but nobody knows how to get out of it. We attack each other thinking that's the way out. SADE: What? That is the truth Freud dared not speak? I thought he said all that in Civilization and its Discontents. REICH:He would not say there was a way out of the Trap -- one way only -- SADE: Your way, of course. REICH:The way I discovered, gradually, after many mistakes. SADE: Which is? REICH:Work on the breathing and the muscle tensions. And tell people frankly that there is no metaphysical Good and Evil in the human world any more than there is in the animal world or the chemical world or the physical world of gravity and mass. SADE: Hedonistic materialism, in short. The permissive society. REICH:Not permissiveness. Sanity. If a child is a nuisance, tell him so. Tell him his behavior is annoying. But never, never make a metaphysical moral issue out of it. Never, never say anything is sinful or wrong in a cosmic sense. Never pass on the lunacey, the Emotional Plague, that has come down to us from ages of superstition and barbarism. SADE: A world without morals. Anarchy. That is what you mean? REICH: It is not anarchy. It is what every person with an ounce of sanity knows. Nobody is to blame for anything. We are all in the mess together because our ancestors were mad and a mad society has passed on their repression from generation to generation. SADE: And the things I did before I was brought here and cured? They were not Evil? REICH: You enjoyed feeling Evil because it made you seem heroic. The humiliating truth, Marquis, is that you were merely ill. SADE: And Hitler was merely ill? REICH: That is the horror of the situation. We all know it by now, but we cannot remember. We repress it and go on blaming one another -- we forget what we know, because remembering it means remembering that we are robots, too -- that we have all been crippled in different ways by trying to live in the imaginary world of morals instead of the real world of nature. SADE: So we just teach people how to breathe properly and relax their muscles and we will have Utopia? REICH: No. I never said it was that easy. I said it was almost impossible, but we had to try, if there was to be any chance of survival at all. Removing the Emotional Plague is just like removing bubonic plague. It will take decades of work all over the world by thousands of specialists. But if we don't try -- Computer whistles again. REICH: We must understand that every moral idea is strictly a hallucination. It creates guilt which creates muscular tension, which creates rage. That leads to further armoring, to hold the rage in. That leads to all the psychosomatic illnesses that orthodox medicine can't cure and to all the social pathologies around us. Rape. Child-beating. War. Computer whistles again. REICH: (excited, beginning to harangue) You compared me to Rousseau. Yes, in the Age of Reason, he had to recreate the myth of Eden again; he called it the Noble Savage. A hundred years later, Marx had to recreate it: he called it the primitive matriarchy, before private property. Eden is always recreated, because we know there is a natural grace and a natural way of life we have lost. We lost it through the invention of Good and Evil. As soon as we believed we were sinners, the Trap closed on us. We accepted the sin and punished ourselves. Or we projected the sin outward and punished scapegoats. Computer whistles again. REICH: (rage bursting through) Masochism or sadism -- those were the only choices once we believed in Good and Evil, once we believed in Sin. We are animals. We are no more guilty than a dog, a cat, a horse, a chipmunk. Everybody has known it since Darwin. But we are still in the Trap. SADE: You really hate the Morality that caused you to kill your parents. REICH: It is causing the whole human race to kill its children! We cannot see what we are doing. We have been robbed blind by our damned Morality. SADE turns away sharply. SADE: Your Almightiness, the prosecution rests. We believe it is obvious, out of his own mouth, that the defendant is a menace to civilization as we know it. REICH: Wait! Do you know why that moment in nature is so precious, that moment of peace and oneness? RINGMASTER: The defendant will not speak at this time. REICH: It is a moment beyond Good and Evil! RINGMASTER: You can argue that later. Fifteen minute recess. Then we will hear the case for the defense. (He rises) The Computer whistles three times rapidly. MASOCH: All rise! Houselights up. As audience starts to leave, REICH begins addressing them. REICH: Listen to me a moment! That moment of peace, that moment in Nature, beyond Good and Evil -- that is the essence of us. Our core. Our true selves. We normally never feel it because -- RINGMASTER: Clear the Court! REICH: because our muscles hold it down. Our muscles are chronically tense, it is so chronic that we never notice it. We only notice the peace when on a rare moment the tension relaxes. What do you think the Drug Culture is all about? Relaxing the muscular armor, getting rid of that tension for a few hours, or a few moments. ACROBATS go down into the audience and persuade people to leave. They are very polite, like well-trained policemen, and become very threatening (in a polite way) with those unwilling to leave while REICH is still talking. REICH: We are diseased -- dis-eased. We have lost touch with natural feeling. When the Life Force tries to break through the muscular armor, it gets deflected, I say, and comes out dis-eased and violent. That's why all political revolutions fail. That's why there are no political solutions. That's why RINGMASTER: Silence the defendant. MASOCH and SADE "beat" REICH with bladders again and drag him offstage right. REICH: (as he goes) You can't feel naturally. You can't see what you are doing, or what is being done around you. You are robots. Robots. All of you. All of you. Curtain.

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

In a message dated 98-02-08 01:13:20 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: > Nevertheless, this traditional theory is irresistibly glamorous. Do you think > that it is plausible that there could be a link with the templars? Likely? > > How about the Mandaeans/Nasare? It appears that this very old religion > includes some masonic practices. There is no direct evidence of a link that > I > am aware of, but the idea of a link is certainly tantalizalizing. It ain't > history, but it sure is fun! For many years it has been believed that Baron von Hund's Masonic Order, "The Rite of Strict Observance" (originated in 1754, if I remember), was responsible for the introduction of Templar degrees in Masonry. However, a document discovered only recently (which has been authentically dated to 1750) now demonstrates that a version of the Templar "Kadosch" degree was worked prior to von Hund. The degree, known as _Chevaliers Elus_ ("Elect Knights"), includes the same passwords and symbols which are in later Templar degrees. Adding to this, is a statement by Jean-Baptiste Willermoz, who *was* believed to have "fleshed out" the Templar degree, and was responsible for changing the character of the Rite of Strict Observance (at the Convent of Wilhelmsbad, in 1782), when he moulded it into the _Rit Ecossais Recifie_ ("Rectified Scottish Rite"). Willermoz stated that when he was elected to preside over a lodge in 1752 he had been conferring a 4th degree, which taught that Freemasons were the successors to the Templars *and* their hidden knowledge! Willermoz further declared that he learned this from his predecessor, and that it had been passed down from "an ancient tradition." When I told Neoptolmus that "there is *no* credible evidence that Freemasonry has any lineal historical ties to the Knights Templar," I am stating a fact. However appealing the Willermoz theory is (and it *does* have an appeal, I admit!), we cannot be swayed by the appeal! As a Past Commander of an Encampment of Masonic Knights Templar, I have to admit it would be fun to say that I was a "spiritual descendant" of Jacques de Molay. Until we have more proof, I'll happy with what we do know. > I also have a question for Neoptolmus. Have you read Hiram Key? They > discuss > many of these wild theories regarding the origins of freemasonry. They give > alot of good background for people who have broader interests outside of > freemasonry as well. If I can add two cents of info here also? The Hiram Key is, IMHO, one of the worst books on Freemasonry by "educated" authors to date. They assume that the practices of their lodge are ancient when, in fact, they date from the post-1813 union which resulted in the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). When the Lodge of Reconciliation agreed on and exemplified a ritual for the new ULGE in 1814, they combined the practices of the two competing bodies (the "Antients" and the "Moderns") into the now-famous "Emulation-type" English ritual. The authors of The Hiram Key cite example-after-example of post-1814 ritual practices while presenting them as "proof" of Masonic antiquity! Finding a mummy with injuries to it which roughly correspond with the English version of the legend of Hiram Abif means nothing. Suggesting that the two are related is irresponsible. The Hiram Key has been justly denounced by N.B. Cryer in his review in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum vol. 109 (1996), pp.254-55. Bro. Cryer notes, "The authors are freemasons but they display throughout the book a continual lack of knowledge about some very fundamental masonic facts." Even in this statement, I believe Bro. Cryer is being unduly kind. ---Art deHoyos, 32░, KCCH, KYCH

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

Proclus, I've picked my old worn copy of "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" for the first time in at least ten years, but your obstinancy forces me to this extreme measure :-) The real question is: What IS the process of revelation and the action upon us of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost"? TPJS p. 238--"No man can recieve the Holy Ghost without recieving revelations. The Holy Ghost is a revelator". TPJS p. 151 "A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure inteligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas (this sounds so Sufi like!--Ken), so that by noticing it, you may find it filfilled the same day or soon; those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus".---(If this isn't "mysticism" in some sense then I don't know what you think "mysticism" is--Ken) TPJS p. 217 "AS far as we degenerate from God, we decend to the devil and lose knowldge, and without knowledge we cannot be saved". "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, consequently more power than many men who are on earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us and give us knowledge of the things of God". TPJS p. 160 "Salvation cannot come without revelation; it is vain for anyone to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without being a Prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except he has the tesimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy." TPJS p. 297 "The principle if knowledge is the principle of salvation. This principle can be comprehended by the faithful and diligent; and every one that does not obtain knowledge suficiant to be save will be condemned. The principle of salvation is given us through the knowledge of Jesus Christ."--(This is way I make SUCH a big deal about Christology-Ken) This particular scheme looks explicity "gnostic" to me, and doesn't require the "Mormon Church" to make it work. So it looks like to me that Joseph was saying that Salvation is deliverance from the power of "evil spirits" by having greater "knowledge" than they, and that this special "knowledge" can only be obtained through the action of the Holy Ghost upon us each individually. My own personal experience of surrendering my life to Jesus convinces me that when Joseph speaks of the "knowledge of Jesus Christ" he means intimate "knowledge"...almost like sex...rather than the mental aprehension of an idea. I'm talking about feeling Jesus "inside" of you and being in constant conversation with him. My experience has been completely Pauline in that I felt almost as is I was "possessed" by the Spirit of Christ and that he lived in and through me. In that particular state you begin to understand what Jesus means when He speaks of "Revealing the Father", as there is all kinds of subtle "psychic unfolding" that happens and you begin to be aware of a "realm of Being" far beyond anything you could have even been able to imagine. That's all for now, Kenneth Shaw

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

Neoptolmus@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-02-08 01:13:20 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: > > << I also have a question for Neoptolmus. Have you read Hiram Key? They > discuss > many of these wild theories regarding the origins of freemasonry. They give > alot of good background for people who have broader interests outside of > freemasonry as well. >> > > I have read that book. Sinfully speculative and amazingly good fun. Portions > of it may be possible (if not probable- pace Art). It certainly got me > thinking. One problem I find with the theory is the insistence that Rosslyn > chapel is unique because of its floorplan. I have heard to the contrary that > other churches have floor plans that mimic the design of Herod's temple. Does > anyone have more information on this? Well, these problems are probably just > the tip of the iceberg. I once read that this type of architecture is common in cathedrals. I don't know how realiable the info is because I never followed it up. > What I find more interesting about the book is Freemasonic and J. Smith's > common interest in things Egyptian. There must be something more Masonic to > the Book of Abraham. . . What do you think of Nibley's work, Abraham in Egypt, Egyptian Endowment, and Timely and Timeless? These works would seem to address this question, at least indirectly. > By the way, I am currently reading up on the Mandaeans. There are practices of > real interest in their ritual. Amazingly, Lady Drower took some pictures of > them giving their ritual handshake. Very interesting stuff indeed. The belief > system seems very gnostic, though there are some vague correspondences to LDS > doctrine. The whole Nasuri portion of Hiram Key was the most interesting part > of the book for me. Yea, this got me very excited too, and I'm investigating it further. Ken has been talking about these little known religions of the Mesopotamian basin. I think the origins of these groups need to be trace. I'm trying now to get some background on this. proclus

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

Neoptolmus@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-02-08 01:13:21 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: > > << Adam is God in the same sense that Isaiah is Elijah, that > is, they have things in common. They are in the same class. > Platonically, Adam is a lesser image of God, an emanation of God. You > are too. Adam as Michael is LIKE God. You are too. That's my two > cents worth. >> > > This does not seem consistent with BY's teaching that Adam came hear with a > celestial body and one of his wives, does it? I don't necessarily see a conflict here. We know that the universe is filled with such beings. proclus

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

Beth any wrote: > > Krosspost (remove unwanted address to reply): > > Life Force Energy in Mormonese: > > The Light of Christ (check D&C I think) > and The Breath of Life as described in Book of Abraham (not the temple > ceremony). Breath of life.... That makes alot of sense to me. > > I do professional level "energy work" BTW and have seen some pretty > amazing things using this energy in my time. I know what you mean. For years, wiccan energy concentration was the only thing that could relieve an undiagnosed herniated disk for me. None of the old energy flows from esoterica were working for a long time. I haven't had a headache in years, because as soon as I feel a little twinge, I just swirl it away with energy flows. I once zapped my wife's headache with an energy concentration as well. There is definitely something happening here. proclus

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

I read Wilhelm Reich in Hell, and loved it. I highly recommend the book, if just for RAW's biting satire! proclus

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

Thanx Beth for your work on that huge and excellent summary. We are not alone. As I read your post, I thought that maybe we should have a mutant bibliography of some sort. Maybe this will be the start of it. proclus Beth any wrote: > > You know I drive myself crazy.... > As soon as I finish a little project like that list I sent > out, which is one of many projects I'm continually working on, > I push the "send" key and then instantly a flood of things > I would like to add comes to mind....Oh it just never ends. > > But actually this is good. Becuase I got the idea that rather > than only I adding to yet another update to that list, I think > it would be far better served if I got all of YOU to add to it! > So this is what I am looking for in the addendum that I would like > to add soon. > > Please send reviews of the following topics: > > Reviews of your favorite introductory type magick books or any magickal > books you feel would be appropriate for the list. > > Reviews of your favorite Hugh Nibley books. > > Reviews of The Hiram Key and any other interesting books or > websites you would like to add to the list. > > And hey there's still one more day left this weekend to get started! > > Beth

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

Thanks for bringing a LVX to the situation! ;-} I am grateful to the folks who pointed me to Hiram Key, because the book pointed me in some important directions, in spite of its dangerous and wild speculations. Hiram Key sits dusty and unfinished while I read Redford's book, and this is just the beginning! Perhaps you are correct that my recommendation of Hiram Key was too hearty, and certainly _irresponsible_. ;-} > > How about the Mandaeans/Nasare? It appears that this very old religion > > includes some masonic practices. There is no direct evidence of a link > that > > I > > am aware of, but the idea of a link is certainly tantalizalizing. It > ain't > > history, but it sure is fun! proclus

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

Sidheach@aol.com wrote: > > Proclus, > > I've picked my old worn copy of "Teachings of the Prophet > Joseph Smith" for the first time in at least ten years, but > your obstinancy forces me to this extreme measure :-) > > The real question is: What IS the process of revelation and > the action upon us of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost"? Sure, I will definitely go along with that. > TPJS p. 238--"No man can recieve the Holy Ghost without > recieving revelations. The Holy Ghost is a revelator". > > TPJS p. 151 > "A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the > spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure inteligence > flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas (this > sounds so Sufi like!--Ken), so that by noticing it, you may find > it filfilled the same day or soon; those things that were presented > unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus > by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow > into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ > Jesus".---(If this isn't "mysticism" in some sense then I don't know > what you think "mysticism" is--Ken) As long as this mysticism doesn't encompass some great unknowable, I can live with that. I'd caution that spirit is a form of matter, and so must operate materially. Indeed, there is no other way to operate. > TPJS p. 217 > "AS far as we degenerate from God, we decend to the devil > and lose knowldge, and without knowledge we cannot be saved". > > "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does > not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil > power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, > consequently more power than many men who are on earth. > Hence it needs revelation to assist us and give us knowledge of > the things of God". I think that this could be explained in terms of simple understanding with no transformation necessary. I'm not ruling out a transformation though, as long as it is comprehensible. > TPJS p. 160 > "Salvation cannot come without revelation; it is vain for anyone > to minister without it. No man is a minister of Jesus Christ without > being a Prophet. No man can be a minister of Jesus Christ except > he has the tesimony of Jesus; and this is the spirit of prophecy." > > TPJS p. 297 > "The principle if knowledge is the principle of salvation. This > principle can be comprehended by the faithful and diligent; and > every one that does not obtain knowledge suficiant to be save > will be condemned. The principle of salvation is given us through > the knowledge of Jesus Christ."--(This is way I make SUCH a big > deal about Christology-Ken) And this is of course a major thesis of KFS. KFS emphasizes that this knowledge is an understanding of God and how He came to be a god. It is a knowledge that we are like God and can follow the same path that He did. Christ followed God to immortal glory by "doing the same thing that God did". > This particular scheme looks explicity "gnostic" to me, and > doesn't require the "Mormon Church" to make it work. Yes and no. This is certainly a greater emphasis on knowledge than in normative christianity, but this knowledge is not redemption itself. Rather, it is enabling knowledge. This knowledge implies a path to follow, an action to take, a reliance on Christ's example and saving power. proclus ___Proclus___ Adam is God in the same sense that Isaiah is Elijah, that is, they have things in common. They are in the same class. Platonically, Adam is a lesser image of God, an emanation of God. You are too. Adam as Michael is LIKE God. You are too. That's my two cents worth. ___Michael Love___ This does not seem consistent with BY's teaching that Adam came hear with a celestial body and one of his wives, does it? ___Proclus___ I don't necessarily see a conflict here. We know that the universe is filled with such beings. ----- The conflict is that Brigham Young states specific things about Adam as God that are inconsistent with your generalization. He is stating something specific about Adam being Heavenly Father, Eve being Heavenly Mother, the both being the parents of both our spiritual and physical bodies. The idea is that God the Father and God the Mother descended to Earth to prepare the physical bodies for their own children, and did so by partaking of the Fruit of the Tree. Further, it is clear that he teaches that Adam is not only OUR Father, but that Jesus was the *Celestial* Adam's Only Begotten Son in the flesh. He also taught -- as may be demonstrated clearly from scripture and as was the doctrine of the Church until Talmage -- that the Great Elohim, Jehovah is the Father of Jesus. Read into this what you will, but I believe it is a key to understanding AG. This wheel of eternity is ever turning, turning; and according to both Joseph Smith (80% certain he taught it) and President Young (100% sure he taught it), if we are faithful, we will -- as resurrected, exalted beings-- each serve as an Adam and an Eve for our own posterity. That is the teaching. This of course poses unique doctrinal challenges for Latter-day Saints. It challenges our understandings, and sets certain doctrines on their corners. I firmly believe that whatever truth may be couched in AG may only be answered for each individual through personal revelation; and those who know generally keep quiet about it. I DO NOT believe that the easy answer -- that Adam will eventually become exalted with the rest of the righteous of this creation, and is God in this sense -- even comes close to what Brigham Young had in mind when he preached his mind-blowing discourse on October 18, 1854. Warmest Regards, JSW

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

What I find more interesting about the book is Freemasonic and J. Smith's common interest in things Egyptian. There must be something more Masonic to the Book of Abraham. . . ----- Absolutely. The Book of Abraham is a response to the Masonic claims of antiquity, and its 19th-century boast to be the inheritor of the mysteries. Masonic themes run thick through the text, its "genealogy" paralleling several passages in noted Masonic writers Hutchinson and Oliver. Even the production of the text, and the implied BoA teaching re: the purpose of heiroglyphics seem to be strongly Masonic in flavor. This is an area I have been researching for my book; the more I research and write, the more I realize how daunting a task this whole area is. I have also been writing about the Danites as a Mormon group intentionally made to imitate the then-current stereotype of the "Avenging Masons." Once I have this subject covered well, I am hoping to publish a paper on the subject. ___Proclus___ What do you think of Nibley's work, Abraham in Egypt, Egyptian Endowment, and Timely and Timeless? These works would seem to address this question, at least indirectly. ----- I think that Nibley is a cheat on the subject. But an interesting cheat. His direct comments on Masonry (as found, for instance in Temples and Cosmos) seem to be quite ... unfortunate? inaccurate? polemical? And this is being generous to Brother Nibley -- a man I generally respect and enjoy reading. As for the Nibley Egyptian material, I suggest you read Nibley's Masonic predecessor, J.S.M Ward, for Masonic writing that is as theoretically provacative and as deliciously irresponsible as anything by Hugh. My own favorite is: JSM Ward, _Who Was Hiram Abiff?_, Lewis Masonic, 1986, ISBN 0-85318-148-9. This book was first published in 1925, and is quite remarkable in style and approach to Brother Nibley. Regards, Joe Steve Swick III

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

Joe, I'm astonished by your insight. It's clear to me that the "normative" Fundamentalist interpretation of AG is simplification meant to stabilize the doctrine. But as you point out, this simplification has to trim off the very ambiguities that make the doctrine comprehensible in the bigger picture of ancient Jewish "theosophy". The AG doctrine is the very thing that makes Mormonism look like an ancient Jewish Apocalyptic movement. As I've gone on and on about to the point of being annoying, the key to Pauline Christology is to be found in the Rabbinic "occultism" of Paul's own time, the Heikhalot and Merkavah systems which developed into Kabbalah as we know it in the Zohar. It looks like Heikhalot was a kind of "meditiation" method in which the practitioner recreated the Apocalyptic scenarios of Ezekiel or Enoch using visualization. When the vizualization became vivid enough, the whole thing would open up into a brand new "acension" of the practioner's disembodied soul into the "Halls" and "Chambers" of Heaven. The technique sounds somewhat like the "scrying in spirit vision" methods of the GD, but is also very close to straight-ahead Shamanism or even Tantric Buddhist methods of divination. In Heikhalot we find the concept of the Heavenly Adam as the first creation of the Invisible Father fully developed. Joe, I realize that I really want to hang out with folks like you. Ken

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

I have read most of BY's statements on this matter. I was on mahonri long enough to fairly well be beaten about the head with these ideas, but I never heard them stated so succinctly and clearly. Thanx Joe! I'm sure that you are aware that this is not the only possible interpretation of the Adam-God current. At core, most of them postulate that our physical bodies are of extra-terrestrial origin. This is an extraordinary postulation. In fact, I think the the literal interpretation of AG falls flat here in light of modern evidence. BY, misinterpreting some statements of JS, was probably wrong about AG. (Don't kick me of the list. ;-) The demonstrable fact is that we share a genetic heritage with the other species on this planet. Our DNA is virtually indistinguishable from that of the other primates at the sequence level. This means that we share something in our origin. I don't think that this can be argued any other way. Human bodies are not of extraterrestrial origin unless all of the other species are as well in a kind of panspermia scenario. If anyone wants to bat about mystical experiences, I have to say that seventh circuit gaia consciousness experiences, like the ones that I referred to earlier, are in accord with the idea that we share our genetic heretage with the other lifeforms of this planet. I have been a frog, a forest, and an interplanetary evolutionary steward of light. =} Now, if we accept our common genetic link, then I see only one possibility for keeping the literal AG interpretation. That would be that God used his own DNA to make the plants and animals as well! This presents an abyss of problems in terms of science and doctrine. For me a literal physical AG is out of the picture for now, but I am open to symbolic, spiritual, or neoplatonic AG theories. Even metaphor is a difficult road though, because, if you've been to the temple, then you have seen that Adam and God are two different people doing different things at the same time. This basic substance of the temple rite has never changed in its whole history that I am aware of. Adam, God, and Christ are portrayed as different people with different roles. No AG theorist has ever explained to me how God could be in heaven and in Eden at the same time. Any theological wresting of these facts will be at odds with JS' basic teaching in KFS that God is an advanced human. I am accepting that BY could have been wrong about this one. He was certainly on shaky ground in a few other areas. proclus Joe Steve Swick III wrote: > > ___Proclus___ > Adam is God in the same sense that Isaiah is Elijah, that is, they have > things in common. They are in the same class. Platonically, Adam is a > lesser image of God, an emanation of God. You are too. Adam as Michael is > LIKE God. You are too. That's my two cents worth. > > ___Michael Love___ > This does not seem consistent with BY's teaching that Adam came hear with a > celestial body and one of his wives, does it? > > ___Proclus___ > I don't necessarily see a conflict here. We know that the universe is > filled with such beings. > ----- > > The conflict is that Brigham Young states specific things about Adam as God > that are inconsistent with your generalization. He is stating something > specific about Adam being Heavenly Father, Eve being Heavenly Mother, the > both being the parents of both our spiritual and physical bodies. The idea > is that God the Father and God the Mother descended to Earth to prepare the > physical bodies for their own children, and did so by partaking of the Fruit > of the Tree. > > Further, it is clear that he teaches that Adam is not only OUR Father, but > that Jesus was the *Celestial* Adam's Only Begotten Son in the flesh. He > also taught -- as may be demonstrated clearly from scripture and as was the > doctrine of the Church until Talmage -- that the Great Elohim, Jehovah is > the Father of Jesus. Read into this what you will, but I believe it is a key > to understanding AG. > > This wheel of eternity is ever turning, turning; and according to both > Joseph Smith (80% certain he taught it) and President Young (100% sure he > taught it), if we are faithful, we will -- as resurrected, exalted beings-- > each serve as an Adam and an Eve for our own posterity. That is the > teaching. > > This of course poses unique doctrinal challenges for Latter-day Saints. It > challenges our understandings, and sets certain doctrines on their corners. > I firmly believe that whatever truth may be couched in AG may only be > answered for each individual through personal revelation; and those who know > generally keep quiet about it. I DO NOT believe that the easy answer -- that > Adam will eventually become exalted with the rest of the righteous of this > creation, and is God in this sense -- even comes close to what Brigham Young > had in mind when he preached his mind-blowing discourse on October 18, 1854. > > Warmest Regards, > JSW

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

Sidheach@aol.com wrote: > But as you point out, this simplification has to trim off > the very ambiguities that make the doctrine comprehensible > in the bigger picture of ancient Jewish "theosophy". > > The AG doctrine is the very thing that makes Mormonism > look like an ancient Jewish Apocalyptic movement. Do you think that the literal AG in the BY trad is required to fulfill this parallel to jewish apocalypticism? If I understand the idea of the heavenly Adam, it is clearly intended as a metaphor, especially in Paul. proclus

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

I am really enjoying our engaging conversation tonite. In between posts I am reading and listening to nirvanet. I just want to remind you all of this excellent website. Fire up the real audio and prepare for a big wow. Here is the address of one of my favorite pages at nirvananet; http://www.nirvanet.fr/welcome/cybergate-en/cybergate_pad-en/entree.html They have a supurb real audio presentation by Terrence McKenna here; http://www.nirvanet.fr/son/mackenna100.ram proclus

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

In a message dated 98-02-08 10:12:28 EST, ArtdeHoyos writes: << The authors of The Hiram Key cite example-after-example of post-1814 ritual practices while presenting them as "proof" of Masonic antiquity! Finding a mummy with injuries to it which roughly correspond with the English version of the legend of Hiram Abif means nothing. Suggesting that the two are related is irresponsible. >> I must thank Mr. deHoyos for offering me one more solid reason to disbelieve a book that reads like pure fantasy from beginning to end. Without his knowledge of the history of Craft I would have never seen one of the most glaring errors in what has to be the worst attempt at history in recent memory. Once the facts are known, even the appeal of the fun nonsense cracks into rubble. But, I have to say that it was fun while I was reading it. Glad I didn't buy it though.

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

In a message dated 98-02-08 10:49:09 EST, Sidheach writes: << This particular scheme looks explicity "gnostic" to me, and doesn't require the "Mormon Church" to make it work. So it looks like to me that Joseph was saying that Salvation is deliverance from the power of "evil spirits" by having greater "knowledge" than they, and that this special "knowledge" can only be obtained through the action of the Holy Ghost upon us each individually. >> My main contact with the mystical tradition is in the writings found in the Nag Hammadi library. What bothers me about these works is the material that passes for this greater knowledge. So much of it seems like neoplatonic gobbledy-gook. It is a far cry from the call that Joseph issues to the saints to gain true "gnosis" through the Spirit. While I do appreciate some of what is expressed in the gnostic works (particularly in the gospel of Thomas which may not even be gnostic at all), works that are designed to be intentionally obfuscational strike me as being the products of pseudo-intellectual elitists who are trying to string together a pastiche of esoteric information to hide the fact that they lack the very thing which they profess to possess. -Just a thought.

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

In a message dated 98-02-08 11:01:15 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: << What do you think of Nibley's work, Abraham in Egypt, Egyptian Endowment, and Timely and Timeless? These works would seem to address this question, at least indirectly. >> At this time in my life I am not very impressed with what Nibley has done with the Book of Abraham or the antiquity of the endowment. The practical side of my soul is convinced that Joseph adapted the ritual of Freemasonry in much the same way he re-"translated" portions of the Bible, according to his inspired intuition. The only resemblance I see between our Endowment and ancient forms of initiation that set it apart from Freemasonry is its more explicit and overtly religious nature. In a way, the subtlety of what I have read about Freemasonic ritual draws me more toward it. As for Egyptian connections, most credible Egyptoligists, even LDS ones, would have to reject the historic value of the Book of Abraham and any supposed connections that Nibley discusses. John Ghee (sp?) may be one exception, and though he may be brilliant, he willingly overlooks obvious evidences about the Book of Abraham that place it in a 19th century context, and not an Abrahamic one. I believe that initiation rituals share common elements because of our common human heritage, not because everyone in the past was a closet Mormon.

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

In a message dated 98-02-08 11:01:15 EST, proclus@mac.com writes: << I don't necessarily see a conflict here. We know that the universe is filled with such beings. >> I'm not sure I'm following you. BY seems to be literally saying that Adam is our God, the being whom we worship, and the literal Father of Jesus. I suppose it is possible to reinterpret his statements in many ways, many of them more attractive than what he says, but many of them are based on our thinking, not BY's intellectual environment.

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

In a message dated 98-02-08 19:07:19 EST, jswick@cris.com writes: << that the Great Elohim, Jehovah is the Father of Jesus. Read into this what you will, but I believe it is a key to understanding AG. >> I have heard speculation that Elohim represents either a council of gods or the Father of Jehovah who is the father of Michael who is the father of Jesus. Do you have any further information of comment upon these views? Are they simply wild speculation or is early LDS theology strictly patriarchal in the sense of the second interpretation abovementioned?

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

In a message dated 98-02-08 19:42:05 EST, jswick@cris.com writes: << the purpose of heiroglyphics seem to be strongly Masonic in flavor. >> Having looked at the Egyptian grammar recently, thanks very much to Don, I was struck by the impression that Smith treats the heiroglyphics almost as a form of code, as though he had some familiarity with codes himself. The other aspect of the translation that struck me was the concept of translation by degrees. Any thoughts? (Particularly from JSW?)

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

More discussion Here!

Visit





LE FastCounter

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

Related social networking sites that might be lesser known