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