If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
I think many of us would agree that the Trinitarian concept of God is
problematic at best. Three beings in one being. 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. Hmmm . . . Yet
I am having a bigger philosophical crisis. The Infinite.
Plato believed that anything that lived forever had to be completely good. If
there were evil in it, it would weaken and die. God must therefore be
absolutely Good. He used this argument to counter the Homeric concept of gods,
who were even more sinful than their mortal counterparts. From arguments like
these western concept of the Absolute, Infinite God was born.
In LDS theology the God without body, parts or passions was rejected, the non-
anthropomorphic God. BY, following JS's concept of eternal progression, taught
that God progresses in knowledge. Bruce R. McConkie later declared this idea
heretical, replacing it with the idea that God only progresses in dominion as
He creates more. This shift was partly the result of a rejection of AG in
favor of a more nomative Christian concept of the Godhead. However, Joseph had
revealed that God had a body, parts, and passions, so God continued to be
finite in this respect.
Today the majority of believers (Brighamite Mormons, ironically) believe that
God is infinite and absolute in every respect except for his space
limitations. God occupies finite space.
I guess I find this concept of the infinite, absolute God in a finite space,
as problematic as the Trinity. Wouldn't BY's concept of the finite,
progressing God be more logically consistent? Would he not be more appealing
as the Father to whom we are connected and with whom we share a common nature?
--Boundary_[ID_cCBoDp7Wjd+u3RLAMnKrgg]--
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
(PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFORCBMDCHV2X0I@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:16:02 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id BAA19622 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:11:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 23387 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:15:59 +0000
Received: (qmail 23377 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:15:58 +0000
Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:15:58 +0000
Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA21371 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:11:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71])
by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA28558; Wed,
11 Feb 1998 01:11:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from crc3.concentric.net
(ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net
(8.8.8) id BAA18616; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:11:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:08:00 -0800
From: Joe Steve Swick III
Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth?
To: Don Bradley , Michael Love
Cc: Andy Mcguire ,
KathleenMcGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge ,
Bethany , Sidheach ,
proclus , rpc man ,
Gaia , Neoptolmus@aol.com, Dave ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>
Errors-to: jswick@cris.com
Message-id: ?bd36b3$67ca50c0$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
___Don Bradley___
The genetic and paleontological evidences show clearly that we are closely
related to Earth's other lifeforms and that there is no primal couple from
whom we all descended unless you look back 100,000 years or more in Africa.
We simply did not originate with an extraterrestrial couple that lived in
Missouri 6000 years ago.
-----
It is clear that Don and I are approaching this whole issue from different
ends. He doesn't believe in a historical Adam, and therefore, the Adam-God
teaching cannot be literal. (It seems to me then that neither can Mormon
dispensationalism be strictly true; nor can Joseph's revelations upon which
that view is based.)
I, on the other hand believe in a God who has revealed himself as Adam. As I
believe that God LITERALLY exists, as a matter of course I believe in a
literal Adam. If in the distinction HISTORY and MYTH you mean to imply
"true" and "false" or "science" and "superstition," then I am happy to
confess my belief in the "historicity" of AG. If on the other hand, by MYTH
you mean "sacred history" (as opposed to "secular history"), then I am happy
to confess my belief in AG as a myth.
None of this should be taken to mean that I feel any inclination to ignore
scientific evidence; only that there is a place for Adam-God in my faith.
___Don Bradley___
how can Adam-God be true if "Adam" is not a man but a mythical
representation of all men? At best it is mythically or allegorically true.
-----
As I said before, spiritualizing the teaching in this way is not without its
problems.
JSW
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from fred.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138)
with ESMTP id ?ITFQ0UJTLSHV27O6@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for love; Wed,
11 Feb 1998 01:51:56 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id BAA24178 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:47:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 28770 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:51:52 +0000
Received: (qmail 28760 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:51:52 +0000
Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:51:52 +0000
Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA05026 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:47:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71])
by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA07508; Wed,
11 Feb 1998 01:46:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from crc3.concentric.net
(ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net
(8.8.8) id BAA25780; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:23 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:17:07 -0800
From: Joe Steve Swick III
Subject: Re: Adam-God
To: proclus , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge ,
Sidheach , rpc man ,
Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>,
Dave , onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com,
Beth any
Errors-to: jswick@cris.com
Message-id: ?bd36b4$ae30f860$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Dear Mutants: I know I said that I wouldn't do it, but here is a posting in
which I wander far and wide on who Adam prayed to in the Garden, AG and
Freemasonry. This was originally posted on the now-defunct Mormhist forum:
Although recent comments on Morm-hist have strayed far from the realm of
history and deep into the jungles of theological esoterica, I thought it
might be appropriate to answer a few of the questions that have been posed
recently by Clark Goble and Scott Vanatter. My *next* post will deal with
"qualifying remarks" made by Brigham Young concerning his AG teaching, and
what we can reasonably construe them to mean about what he taught.
So, while my *next* post will deal with a subject which is clearly relevant
to this forum, the issue I address in my *current* post is theological in
nature, as opposed to strictly historical, and I beg your brief indulgence.
If the question I am addressing is of no interest to you, perhaps it would
be best to delete now!
One of the common criticisms of Brigham Young's theological posits about
Adam is that it confuses the various persons of the Godhead - i.e., if Adam
was God the Father, then who was the character he was talking to in the
Garden, anyway? Whoever it was, he certainly TALKS as though he were God
the Father, since he speaks about His Only Begotten Son, etc. So what's
that all about? Isn't Adam *talking to* God the Father?" It certainly seems
that he is!
I think it might be helpful to review a few salient points here that I
believe have some bearing on the issue. First, remember that in BY's view,
Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, and Adam are OFFICES in the Priesthood - they are
roles pertaining to the Celestial Order, which explains his and other early
Church leader's comments about "the Great Elohim, Jehovah," or "Yahovah
Michael," or "the Great Elohim, Yahovah Michael." This is all easy to
understand. The Celestial Order is Patriarchal, and the revealed offices of
that Order are all somehow connected to the roles of either FATHER or SON. P
lease keep this in mind as you read the rest of my mini-sermonette!
We are all familiar with the concept of divine investiture of authority -
that is, where a being comes in the name of another (sort of a PROXY), and
performs a specific task or function, speaking and acting as though he were
that "other." Turn it around, and you have your answer as to how Adam could
be speaking to God the Father in the Garden:
"The Priesthood of God is the great, supreme, legal authority that governs
the inhabitants of all redeemed and glorified worlds. In it is included all
power to create worlds, to ordain fixed and permanent laws for the
regulation of the materials in all their varied operations, whether acting
as particles, as masses, as worlds, or as clusters of worlds. It is that
power that reveals laws for the government of intelligent beings--that
rewards the obedient and punishes the disobedient--that ordains
principalities, powers, and kingdoms to carry out its righteous
administrations throughout all dominions?.when [men] are perfected, they
will have power to act in every branch of authority by virtue of the great,
and almighty, and eternal Priesthood which they hold: they can then sway
their sceptres as KINGS; rule as PRINCES, minister as Apostles; officiate as
Teachers; or, ACT IN THE HUMBLEST OR MOST EXALTED CAPACITY. THERE IS NO
BRANCH OF THE PRIESTHOOD SO LOW THAT THEY CANNOT *CONDESCEND* TO OFFICIATE
THEREIN; none so high, that they cannot reach forth the arm of power and
control the same (OP, The Seer, "Power and Eternity of the Priesthood,"
1:10).
Just as a being such as an angel may by divine investiture of authority
(i.e., by PERMISSION) act and speak as though he were of a higher office or
calling, so may the Greater (by RIGHT) sway the sceptre of power and fill
ANY office, HIGH OR LOW. In the Celestial Order, filling a lower position to
effect the salvation of man is an act of CONDESCENSION, and Orson Pratt's
words are not only important for what they tell us about the Priesthood on
the Earth, but for what they intimate about Celestial Government:
"God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways his
scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns and
worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by law;
and all his subjects must comply with law here on the earth, that they may
be prepared to do his will on the earth as his will is done by the angelic
hosts and those higher order of intelligences that reign in his own
presence" (OP, JD 14:276, April 9, 1871).
In light of Orson Pratt's comments above, consider: we think nothing of it
if JESUS is referred to as both FATHER and SON. But we never turn it around!
We give no thought at all about what this both absolutely means and what it
might imply about JESUS' OWN FATHER, or GRANDFATHER, or GREAT-GRANDFATHER.
This idea is true -- leastways, I do not think you will easily overturn it.
I think I am being clear here.
Now, as for "condescending to officiate" in an office, let me provide you
with an interesting example or two.
In Freemasonry, a LODGE will drop to a lower degree to receive candidates
who have not yet received higher degrees, and this places certain
constraints on their actions. All of the Brethren in the Lodge may be Master
Masons, but until the newly obligated Brother is *raised* a Master Mason,
the Lodge is obliged to STEP DOWN and perform the work needed to raise him
up, in accordance with the rules governing the lower degree. Further, the
Master of the Lodge may appoint another to stand in his place at the head of
the Lodge while he fills another role (any role he chooses, I might add!)
while bestowing a degree. It does not prove that he is not the Master of the
Lodge, because he fills another office while bringing a Brother to light. It
does not prove that he is not Master of the Lodge, because another acts and
speaks in the role of Master, while the Master performs another work.
Similarly, Brigham Young commented: "THIS IS A KEY FOR YOU. The faithful
will become Gods, even the SONS of God; but this does not overthrow the idea
that we have a father. Adam is my Father ? but it does not prove that He is
not my Father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a
Father." (BY, JD 6:274-275)
Perhaps a more immediate example will be better suited here. Which office is
greater, that of Elder, or that of Bishop? The office of Bishop is the
highest office in the AARONIC PRIESTHOOD. Clearly, the office of Elder is
greater, since it is associated with the MELCHIZEDEK Priesthood. That fact
notwithstanding, when a literal descendant of Aaron cannot be found, the man
who fills the office of Bishop is in actuality a High Priest, which office
is greater than that of Elder. So, in effect, the High Priest STEPS DOWN to
officiate in his calling as Bishop, because a literal descendent of Aaron
*cannot be found.* So, while strictly speaking the office of Elder is
*greater* than that of Bishop, practically speaking, the Bishop is a High
Priest acting in a lower office (see James N. Hall, _Adam God Theory_, 1986.
Pp. 21-22).
Perhaps this has brought to your mind certain words in the Endowment: "Is
man found on the Earth?? MAN IS NOT FOUND on the Earth," and so a God STEPS
DOWN and officiates in the calling or role of Adam - which is his RIGHT.
Adam is created from the "dust of the Earth." In the Bunkerville Decision,
Wilford Woodruff taught that "the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the
earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was
Eternal Lives" (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson,
AG, 156)
This quote brings to mind Buckeye's Lament and D&C 132, and reveals if
"Eternal Lives" was understood (at least by Presidents Woodruff and Cannon)
to refer to the spiritual or physical offspring of Deity.
I have perhaps said more here than I intended, but that's alright -- it is
easily dismissed since it is all personal speculation anyway. Perhaps it
would have been best to skip the sermon and give you Brigham Young's SHORT
answer to the question - Adam was talking to THE GRANDFATHER - or was t hat,
THE FATHER ? Or then again, was that, the GREAT-GRANDFATHER? Maybe
Brigham was really confused:
Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were Father, Son, and Grandson. They made this
Earth and Michael became Adam (BY, **JOSEPH F. SMITH JOURNAL**, entry for 17
June 1871).
Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we
are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit
his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were
more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more
or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather (JD 9:148)
Warmest Regards -- JSW
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
(PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFPY2W5N4HV26V6@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:50:29 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id BAA04466 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:45:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 28604 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:27 +0000
Received: (qmail 28588 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:22 +0000
Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:22 +0000
Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93])
by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA23586 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:45:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71])
by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA07583; Wed,
11 Feb 1998 01:46:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from crc3.concentric.net
(ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net
(8.8.8) id BAA25806; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:31 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:19:18 -0800
From: Joe Steve Swick III
Subject: Re: mormon mysticism
To: proclus , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge ,
Sidheach , rpc man ,
Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>,
Dave , onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com,
Beth any
Errors-to: jswick@cris.com
Message-id: ?bd36b4$fc353300$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Ah! It seems we are very far apart on what Mysticism is. I will post up my
favorite definitions presently.
JSW
-----Original Message-----
From: proclus
To: Michael Love Andy Mcguire
Kathleen McGuire R. Trent
Reynolds Joe Steve Swick III
ArtdeHoyos Randall Shortridge
Sidheach rpc man Gaia
Robert R. Black ?.3365@compuserve.com> Dave
onandagus@webtv.net
neoptolmus@aol.com Beth any
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 1998 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: mormon mysticism
>On the definition of mysticism:
>The mysticism that I have encountered involves the apprehension of
something
>ineffable or unknowable, then going about spouting contradictory
statements,
>like a master of the temple adept. I've been there. This is fine. I
think
>that Heisenberg Uncertainty is great allegory. I just don't think that it
has
>anything whatsoever to do with the nature of the Mormon God nor our
>apprehension of that nature. Joseph abolished the trinitarian theological
>mess, and I say good riddance. There are enough genuine mysteries in the
>world without our inventing new ones.
>
>proclus
>
>Joe Steve Swick III wrote:
>>
>> ___Proclus___
>> As I have said elsewhere, Joseph testified that God is a man, and that if
we
>> encountered him, that we would encounter a man.
>> -----
>>
>> And how does this invalidate "mysticism" for you? Personally, I don't
see
>> this as antithetical to mysticism at all. Or do you think that most
mystics
>> see God as some sort of fluffy stuffed elephant or cosmic muffin?
>>
>> As for what Joseph meant by seeing God, I refer you to his first vision,
>> which or even the history of D&C 76. Joseph's descriptions are
>> matter-of-fact, but this does not lessen the transcendent nature of his
>> experiences: heavenly beings descend in a pillar of light; the glory is
so
>> overwhelming that it apparently takes him some time to recover. I mean,
Bro.
>> Joseph was not meeting God in Joe's Spic and Span Diner over a plate of
>> sausage gravy on biscuits; it was not something that he wrote in his
>> Franklin Planner a week in advance, and God showed up for the business
>> portion of the meeting.
>>
>> It seems that we are not connecting on what qualifies as mysticism. You
>> seem to say that God is not a mystery, therefore, mysticism and Mormonism
>> are at opposite ends of the religious spectrum. You seem to think that
>> mysticism cannot be "practical" or "pragmatic," or conversely, if
something
>> is "practical" and/or "pragmatic" it cannot be "mystical." Again, I
would
>> disagree.
>>
>> You may recall Joseph's comment that if you could look into heaven for 5
>> minutes, you would know more than all that had ever been written on the
>> subject. Now, why do you suppose that is so? And, if it is true about
the
>> Celestial Kingdom, do you not think that it may equally apply to that
>> Kingdom's Anchor Tenant?
>>
>> ___Proclus___
>> I think that the Adam Qadman material is purely allegorical.
>> -----
>>
>> I think that whether Adam Kadmon is allegorical or not has little bearing
on
>> Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. Certainly, BY did NOT intend for AG
to
>> be taken as mere allegory, its similarities with certain Jewish mystical
>> traditions notwithstanding.
>>
>> ___Joe___
>> Even in Mormonism, the Gates of Revelation generally open for one man at
a
>> time, and individuals blessed to pass through this Gate are not able to
>> fully communicate their experience to those who have not shared in it
(Alma
>> 12:9-12). Like Lehi and Nephi's shared vision, we may (must) each recieve
it
>> for ourselves... individually. How is this NOT mysticism?
>>
>> ___Proclus___
>> It can be more easily explained in terms of a human God who can only be
in
>> one place at one time.
>> -----
>>
>> Is that what your own EXPERIENCE tells you, or is that your opinion in
the
>> absence of experience? I rather think that while God may be like a man
in
>> form, if he were to actually be in the same room with you "as He is," it
>> would be only because of a special dispensation of grace/spirit that you
>> would not be entirely consumed by His glory. While I do not have any
>> difficulty with an anthropomorphic Deity, I seem to read into your
comments
>> a minimizing of God's Deity because of his shared humanity. I think this
is
>> a mistake. Just because God is an Exalted Man, does not mean that he is
not
>> a transcendent Being.
>>
>> Again, my reading of the story of the Brother of Jared underscores the
point
>> for me. I believe that his experience is transcendent -- in spite of the
>> fact that God appears in form like a man. More importantly, this accords
>> with my own experiences with God.
>>
>> ___Proclus___
>> Furthermore, I consider that the planet is literally in a lost and
fallen
>> state. This is not figurative for me. Blayne and I had quite some
>> difficulty over this point. I am REALLY bothered by the condescending
"You
>> just don't
>> get it yet" that I hear sometimes. I'm not interested in discussing
mental
>> states. Just pass me the technology.
>>
>> ___Joe___
>> You only say this because you are trying to understand it with your
carnal
>> mind. So knock it off, and "let it be." You already have the technology;
you
>> just haven't awoke to the fact yet.
>>
>> ___Proclus___
>> ROTFL! How did you keep a straight face while saying that! ;-}
>> -----
>>
>> Months of practicing in front of the mirror. (^_^)
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> JSW
>
>--
>Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html
>-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
>Version: 3.1
>GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V--
>PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h---
>r+++ y++++
>------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
(PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFPY5QRPCHV2CSJ@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:50:33 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id BAA04467 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:45:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 28615 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:27 +0000
Received: (qmail 28594 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:26 +0000
Received: from fred.globecomm.net (207.51.48.31) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:50:26 +0000
Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93])
by fred.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA23616 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:45:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71])
by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA07641; Wed,
11 Feb 1998 01:46:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from crc3.concentric.net
(ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net
(8.8.8) id BAA25836; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:37 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:26:21 -0800
From: Joe Steve Swick III
Subject: Re: Mormon Gnostica and Seedline of Cain
To: proclus , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge ,
Sidheach , rpc man ,
Gaia , "Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>,
Dave , onandagus@webtv.net, neoptolmus@aol.com,
Beth any
Errors-to: jswick@cris.com
Message-id: ?bd36b5$f7cc8c40$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
___Proclus___
I am always amazed by how many mormon fundamentalists still have leanings in
this direction. I feel that this is part of the politic of our separation
from the fundamentalists here at mutantRMs. We are spiritual and
intellectual warriors. Like I said in the FAQ, "Real bombs are for real
weenies."
-----
Yes! Here we agree. And while I am not completely closeminded to racial
THEORIES (I mean, I DO believe all that "chosen Ephraim/Israel stuff," which
seems to imply that others are "NOT chosen"), I am quite adamantly opposed
to RACISM, which in my experience plagues most if not all Fundamentalist
groups. As close friends will tell you, I have a VERY hard time with any of
that.
JSW
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
(PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFQ4HSR0GHV26WB@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:54:52 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id BAA06307 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:50:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 29286 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:54:50 +0000
Received: (qmail 29276 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:54:50 +0000
Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:54:50 +0000
Received: from uhura.concentric.net (uhura.concentric.net [206.173.119.93])
by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id BAA02408 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:50:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from marconi.concentric.net (marconi [206.173.119.71])
by uhura.concentric.net (8.8.8/(98/01/20 5.9)) id BAA07700; Wed,
11 Feb 1998 01:46:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from crc3.concentric.net
(ts004d43.sea-wa.concentric.net [209.31.208.199]) by marconi.concentric.net
(8.8.8) id BAA25855; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 01:46:43 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:38:17 -0800
From: Joe Steve Swick III
Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth?
To: Sidheach@aol.com, onandagus@webtv.net, ken.shaw@dalsemi.com
Cc: proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com, kathleen@enol.com,
trent@goodnet.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com, rds@acsu.buffalo.edu,
ariel144@hotmail.com, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com, Neoptolmus@aol.com,
dcombe@rain.org, 74277.3365@compuserve.com
Errors-to: jswick@cris.com
Message-id: ?bd36b7$a31947e0$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
"We read in Genesis that The Lord appeared to Abramam by the terebinths of
Mamre; He was sitting at the entrance of the tent at the heat of the day.
Looking up, he saw three men [messengers] standing near him...
"Benno Jacob, commenting on Abraham's intimacy with the Holy One observes
that, "God appears to (Abraham) through three men; the closer a person's
relationship to God, the more human is the form of God's manifestation."
"The Zohar is even more explicit: 'And indeed whenever the celestial spirits
descend to earth, they clothe themselves in physical things and appear to
men in human shape.'" Zohar I 101a (Kushner, Honey from the Rock 70-1).
Yes, the Zohar rocks mightily.
Warmest Regards,
Joe Swick
When Jews appear for Divine Judgement, the angels reassure them: "Fear not,
the Judge... is your Parent!"
--
Midrash
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
(PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITFW6SK5E8HV29NT@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:48:31 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id EAA15737 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:43:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 21181 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:48:03 +0000
Received: (qmail 21171 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:48:02 +0000
Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:48:02 +0000
Received: from imo26.mail.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.154])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id EAA15589 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:43:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Sidheach@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv12/Dec1997)
id JLKNa18883; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:47:35 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:47:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Sidheach@aol.com
Subject: Myth and History
To: jswick@cris.com, proclus@mac.com, MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com,
kathleen@enol.com, trent@goodnet.com, ArtdeHoyos@aol.com,
rds@acsu.buffalo.edu, rpcman@hotmail.com, gaia@nmol.com,
74277.3365@compuserve.com, dco mbe@rain.org, onandagus@webtv.net,
Neoptolmus@aol.com, ariel144@h o t m a il.com
Message-id: ?f.34e173ba@aol.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 57
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Hail Mutants!
Hugh Nibley in his "Abraham in Egypt" said
that the "Blacks and the Priesthood" thing
was an over simplification of what was really
going on. The idea that we are being interfered
with by entities from another realm show's up
again in the story of the Watchers and the Nephilim.
Who were THESE guys?
I've said before that things don't have to be "either/or"
but could in fact be "both/and". The fact of the matter
is that Genesis doesn't read like like a Myth at all.
Genesis actually reads like an effort of tribal people to
give an account of the coming and goings of PEOPLE
FROM THE SKY!
The late Grand Shaykh of the Sufis, Idries Shah, taught
that we should study the "Cargo Cults" of the Pacific if
we want to understand what really happened in our own
past. The "Cargo Cults" developed after WW2 in the Islands
used by the Japanese and the Allies as staging areas for
fighting the war. The pre-literate Island natives took in the situation
as best they could and then passed on stories of how "the gods"
came and went, bringing great treasures and having great powers.
I believe that the "War in Heaven" is describing something objectively
and historicaly REAL, and that "they" have established this world as
an "outpost" were this conflict continues to be fought in some sort of "Cold
War holding action" until the "Big Guns" come around again to settle it.
But this war isn't just "space-ships and ray-guns"...it's also disembodied
entites, psionic weapons, mind control, and ultimate religious meaning.
Check this out from the New English Translation:
Ephesians 6:12,13-----"For our fight is not against human foes, but against
cosmic powers, against the authorities and potentates of this dark world,
against the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens".
This is what Joseph Smith means when he speaks of being delivered from
the power of "evil spirits" through the "knowledge" obtained through the Holy
Ghost.
There is clearly something really big going on here, I just pray that we are
all
lead to the right course of action for our Salvation and the Salvation of our
Seed.
Ken Shaw
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
(PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG3J90F34HV309X@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:19:23 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id IAA11229 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:14:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 21420 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:19:17 +0000
Received: (qmail 21409 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:19:17 +0000
Received: from betty.globecomm.net (207.51.48.28) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:19:17 +0000
Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3])
by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id IAA21147 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:15:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from iname.com (ppp-port3.hughes.brandeis.edu)
by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138)
with ESMTP id ?ITG3BI62VKHV27S0@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for
proclus@mac.com; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:13:17 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:13:12 -0500
From: proclus
Subject: Re: Myth and History
To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos ,
Randall Shortridge , Sidheach ,
rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" ,
"neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any
Message-id: ?E1A3D6.6AE1B05D@iname.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: ?f.34e173ba@aol.com>
This was a major premise of the television series Babylon 5 in its first four
seasons. At the end of the fourth season, we kicked the Old Ones out of the
galaxy, because we don't need them anymore (in the 23rd century). ;-} There
are alot more B5 parallels that we could discuss, if anyone is interested.
proclus
Sidheach@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hail Mutants!
>
> Hugh Nibley in his "Abraham in Egypt" said
> that the "Blacks and the Priesthood" thing
> was an over simplification of what was really
> going on. The idea that we are being interfered
> with by entities from another realm show's up
> again in the story of the Watchers and the Nephilim.
>
> Who were THESE guys?
>
> I've said before that things don't have to be "either/or"
> but could in fact be "both/and". The fact of the matter
> is that Genesis doesn't read like like a Myth at all.
> Genesis actually reads like an effort of tribal people to
> give an account of the coming and goings of PEOPLE
> FROM THE SKY!
>
> The late Grand Shaykh of the Sufis, Idries Shah, taught
> that we should study the "Cargo Cults" of the Pacific if
> we want to understand what really happened in our own
> past. The "Cargo Cults" developed after WW2 in the Islands
> used by the Japanese and the Allies as staging areas for
> fighting the war. The pre-literate Island natives took in the situation
> as best they could and then passed on stories of how "the gods"
> came and went, bringing great treasures and having great powers.
>
> I believe that the "War in Heaven" is describing something objectively
> and historicaly REAL, and that "they" have established this world as
> an "outpost" were this conflict continues to be fought in some sort of "Cold
> War holding action" until the "Big Guns" come around again to settle it.
>
> But this war isn't just "space-ships and ray-guns"...it's also disembodied
> entites, psionic weapons, mind control, and ultimate religious meaning.
>
> Check this out from the New English Translation:
>
> Ephesians 6:12,13-----"For our fight is not against human foes, but against
> cosmic powers, against the authorities and potentates of this dark world,
> against the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens".
>
> This is what Joseph Smith means when he speaks of being delivered from
> the power of "evil spirits" through the "knowledge" obtained through the Holy
> Ghost.
>
> There is clearly something really big going on here, I just pray that we are
> all
> lead to the right course of action for our Salvation and the Salvation of our
> Seed.
>
> Ken Shaw
--
Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V--
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h---
r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
(PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG4J0WC2OHV32L8@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:47:27 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id IAA01857 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:43:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 26230 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:47:23 +0000
Received: (qmail 26220 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:47:23 +0000
Received: from barney.globecomm.net (207.51.48.29) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:47:23 +0000
Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id IAA23917 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:42:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from iname.com (ppp-port3.hughes.brandeis.edu)
by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138)
with ESMTP id ?ITG4AR30OGHV2CEV@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for
proclus@mac.com; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:40:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:40:51 -0500
From: proclus
Subject: Re: Adam-God: History or Myth?
To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos ,
Randall Shortridge , Sidheach ,
rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" ,
"neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any
Message-id: ?E1AA50.530729B1@iname.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: ?bd36b3$67ca50c0$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net>
I also usually come down on the side of literalism. Furthermore, current
evolutionary theory now has numerous points of entry for the divine,
especially now that we understand the underlying technology (ie genetics,
computers, protein structure) much better. Of course, the theological gloss
all wild presumption, but I don't think that people of faith have much to
worry about from science.
If your religion is true, it will not be disproven by science. This is part
of the basic rational of radical mormonism, IMHO, RE: being open to the latest
research. This latest research need not be historical or archeological, but
it can also be cosmological and biological. So, I don't shrink from posting
science to this circle.
proclus
Joe Steve Swick III wrote:
>
> ___Don Bradley___
> The genetic and paleontological evidences show clearly that we are closely
> related to Earth's other lifeforms and that there is no primal couple from
> whom we all descended unless you look back 100,000 years or more in Africa.
> We simply did not originate with an extraterrestrial couple that lived in
> Missouri 6000 years ago.
> -----
>
> It is clear that Don and I are approaching this whole issue from different
> ends. He doesn't believe in a historical Adam, and therefore, the Adam-God
> teaching cannot be literal. (It seems to me then that neither can Mormon
> dispensationalism be strictly true; nor can Joseph's revelations upon which
> that view is based.)
>
> I, on the other hand believe in a God who has revealed himself as Adam. As I
> believe that God LITERALLY exists, as a matter of course I believe in a
> literal Adam. If in the distinction HISTORY and MYTH you mean to imply
> "true" and "false" or "science" and "superstition," then I am happy to
> confess my belief in the "historicity" of AG. If on the other hand, by MYTH
> you mean "sacred history" (as opposed to "secular history"), then I am happy
> to confess my belief in AG as a myth.
>
> None of this should be taken to mean that I feel any inclination to ignore
> scientific evidence; only that there is a place for Adam-God in my faith.
>
> ___Don Bradley___
> how can Adam-God be true if "Adam" is not a man but a mythical
> representation of all men? At best it is mythically or allegorically true.
> -----
>
> As I said before, spiritualizing the teaching in this way is not without its
> problems.
>
> JSW
--
Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V--
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h---
r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
--Boundary_[ID_a3oMiJyZxh1pBWdi0LPaQw]
Return-path:
Received: from barney.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
(PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITG4YBCILCHV1JNW@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
for love; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:59:47 EST
Received: from po1.namesecure.com (po1.namesecure.com [205.229.232.3])
by barney.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with SMTP id IAA29793 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 28576 invoked by alias); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:59:40 +0000
Received: (qmail 28566 invoked from network); Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:59:39 +0000
Received: from wilma.globecomm.net (207.51.48.30) by po1.namesecure.com with
SMTP; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:59:39 +0000
Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3])
by wilma.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id IAA12173 for
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from iname.com (ppp-port3.hughes.brandeis.edu)
by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138)
with ESMTP id ?ITG4SEEXY8HV38TU@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> for
proclus@mac.com; Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:07 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:55:06 -0500
From: proclus
Subject: Re: Adam-God
To: Michael Love , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos ,
Randall Shortridge , Sidheach ,
rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" ,
"neoptolmus@aol.com" , Beth any
Message-id: ?E1ADA6.8A9F99A4@iname.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: ?bd36b4$ae30f860$c7d01fd1@crc3.concentric.net>
Joe Steve Swick III wrote:
>
> Dear Mutants: I know I said that I wouldn't do it, but here is a posting in
> which I wander far and wide on who Adam prayed to in the Garden, AG and
> Freemasonry. This was originally posted on the now-defunct Mormhist forum:
Thanx Joe! My faith in the level of communication that can occur in a group
like this one has been restored =}. I neglected to thank you for posting that
wonderful vision of God's court. I was astounded by it's beauty. I'm now
going to peruse your post.
Best Regards,
proclus
Subject:
Re: Adam-God
Date:
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:28:06 -0500
From:
proclus
To:
Michael Love , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos ,
Randall Shortridge , Sidheach ,
rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" ,
Beth any
References:
1
Thanks again for that wonderful exposition, Joe. This idea of offices and
councils is what I always believed implicitly.
I see a semantic problem, though. AG theorists are fond of the now shocking
statements by BY that Adam IS God. If I understand you correctly, it is more
correct to say that Adam had an office of God, and should he considered AS
God. This is in no disrespect to any of the mighty Eloheim, of course! I am
reminded again of the office of Bishop, which is a life calling. I am also
reminded of a statement from the book of the law II:59;
"Yet there are masked ones, my servants: It may be that yonder begger is a
King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but
a begger cannot hide his poverty.
"Be wa r e therefore! Love all, lest perchance a King is concealed."
It continues amusingly, but perhaps not germainly. Anyway...
There is an interesting and poetic dynamic here as well. What do we see when
we look at Jesus? Is it the Son saving the Father? Clearly, I have a long
way to go here.
> Perhaps this has brought to your mind certain words in the Endowment: "Is
> man found on the Earth?? MAN IS NOT FOUND on the Earth," and so a God STEPS
> DOWN and officiates in the calling or role of Adam - which is his RIGHT.
> Adam is created from the "dust of the Earth." In the Bunkerville Decision,
> Wilford Woodruff taught that "the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the
> earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was
> Eternal Lives" (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson,
> AG, 156)
I now understand that we have not been arguing about AG theory, per se, but
merely about the origin of Adam's physical body. This must be the quote from
WW that you referred to earlier. I must say that this one point is clear as
mud to me. I'd postulate that the origin of Adam's body is a REAL mystery.
The language for this event did not exist at the time of WW. I can make the
same argument on the following passage, which may be less loaded, and more illustrative.
> "God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways his
> scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns and
> worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by law;
We now know that it is gravity that keeps the planets in their orbits. The
motion of planets does not represent ornate order, but rather whirling chaos.
It is common to attribute to God things which cannot be explained; so with the
origin of Adam's body.
Again, these are the real mysteries IMHO. We don't even understand what
gravity is yet, and it is difficult to understand how a god could ordain the
law of gravity (In Star Trek, Q does wonderful bit, hacking the gravitational
constant, though!). On the other hand, we are at a point where we can
speculate confidently about the many varied ways in which a human body could
be constructed. Human intercourse is definitely not necessary, as we all now
know. Human sperm (seed) is not required either, as Dolly demonstrates. It
is probable that all you need is genes and a cell matrix, but the geneticists
have demostrated that we share these things with the other lifeforms which are
here. All of this is against a backdrop of millions of years of life
history on this planet. I think, perhaps, that we need to tease AG theory out
of the context of special creation. This is, of course, something that most
fundamentalists are loathe to do.
proclus
Subject:
Re: Adam-God: History or Myth?
Date:
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:31:56 -0700
From:
onandagus@webtv.net (Don Bradley)
To:
jswick@cris.com (Joe Steve Swick III)
CC:
proclus@mac.com (Michael Love), MCGUIREA@a1.bellhow.com (Andy Mcguire),
kathleen@enol.com (KathleenMcGuire), trent@goodnet.com (R. Trent Reynolds),
ArtdeHoyos@aol.com (ArtdeHoyos), rds@acsu.buffalo.edu (Randall Shortridge),
ariel144@hotmail.com (Bethany), Sidheach@aol.com (Sidheach), proclus@mac.com (proclus),
rpcman@hotmail.com (rpc man), gaia@nmol.com (Gaia), Neoptolmus@aol.com, dcombe@rain.org (Dave),
74277.3365@compuserve.com (Robert R. Black)
Joe,
I will have to respond to your posts fully later. For now I would like
to get some clarification of your own views. Are you saying you accept
evolutionary science _fully_ AND accept the Adam-God doctrine, AS
BRIGHAM YOUNG TAUGHT IT, _literally_? If so, how do you reconcile the
two? (I am especially interested in this since I believed for years that
I had found a way to reconcile the two. But I gradually came to see that
in attempting to reconcile evoutionary science and the Adam-God
doctrine I was staying true to neither. Any such "reconcilliation , so
far as I am able to see, requires us to abandon science for science
fiction and reject _Brigham Young's_ Adam-God theology for a new
theology of our own making. ) I ended up still _wanting_ to believe in a
literal Adam-God scenario, but found that I could not rationally do so.
I had the "will to believe," but I was not going to believe a
contradiction.) Do you feel you've found a _good_ way to reconcile
these? If so, I'd love to hear it.
More questions: When you assert the fundamental unity of all life, what
are you saying? that all earthly species evolved from a common ancestor?
What do you understand the scientific evidence re: human origins to be?
Are you familiar with the mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA studies
showing how closely or distantly human populations are related to one
another and to other species?
What , in your view, is faith? How do we determine what we should have
faith in? (i.e. what constitutes proper grounds for faith?) What is the
relationship of faith to evidence and to knowledge? What should we do if
we find that the balance of the evidence is decidedly against a
proposition we have placed our faith in? To what extent does having
faith that a book is scripture entail taking its contents literally? And
to what extent does having faith that a man is a prophet mean believing
everything he says, or at least believng everything he says is
revelation?
Finally, what do you mean when you use the terms "Adam and Eve"? Which
of the following form part of your understanding of Adam and Eve: 1)
the first humans on earth, 2) ancestors of all modern humans (i.e.
everybody now living has at least _some_ genetic inheritance from them),
3) _the_ original earthly ancestors of all humans who've lived on the
planet since their time (i.e. there are no other human lineages on earth
with whom their line mixed], 4) a couple who lived about 6000 years ago,
5] a couple who lived in what is now Missouri, 6] immortals who became
mortal,,7] immortals who became mortal by eating mortal food, 8] a
couple who, although they lived on this earth, acquired the genes of the
bodies they had here on some other (previous) world.
I know I've asked a helluva lot of questions. I really want to move
forward with this discussion; but I can't say much that will be relevant
to what you've already said till I know for sure how you define "Adam"
and "faith" and what you understand the scientific evidence re: human
origins to be
Your heretical pal,.
Don Bradley
Subject:
Re: Adam-God
Date:
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:18:45 -0800
From:
Joe Steve Swick III
To:
proclus , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge ,
Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave , onandagus@webtv.net,
neoptolmus@aol.com, Beth any
___JSW___
Adam is created from the "dust of the Earth." In the Bunkerville Decision,
Wilford Woodruff taught that "the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the
earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was
Eternal Lives" (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson,
AG, 156)
___Proclus___
I now understand that we have not been arguing about AG theory, per se, but
merely about the origin of Adam's physical body.
-----
Perhaps. Or, perhaps how a God could have "offspring" that are "of the
earth." Don hits the issue spot-on: if Adam is God, how come "God's genes"
don't show up? -- we should be unique and distinct from all other living
things on Earth. If we are literally "Adam-God's physical offspring" then
why does our genetic pedigree seem to say that we are more or less related
to every other living thing on the planet? Don is saying that belief in a
literal Adam is scientifically problematic, and for similar reasons, a
literal Adam-God is a completely untenable scenario. (I knew I would use
that word -- thanks, Don).
___Proclus___
This must be the quote from WW that you referred to earlier. I must say
that this one point is clear as mud to me. I'd postulate that the origin of
Adam's body is a REAL mystery. The language for this event did not exist at
the time of WW. I can make the same argument on the following passage,
which may be less loaded, and more illustrative.
"God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways
his scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns
and worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by
law"
We now know that it is gravity that keeps the planets in their orbits. The
motion of planets does not represent ornate order, but rather whirling
chaos. It is common to attribute to God things which cannot be explained; so
with the origin of Adam's body.
Again, these are the real mysteries IMHO. We don't even understand what
gravity is yet, and it is difficult to understand how a god could ordain the
law of gravity (In Star Trek, Q does wonderful bit, hacking the
gravitational constant, though!).
-----
Your comments have been very enjoyable!
JSW
Subject:
tarot
Date:
Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:51:26 -0500
From:
proclus
To:
headgeor@esuvm.emporia.edu, Michael Love ,
Andy Mcguire , Kathleen McGuire ,
"R. Trent Reynolds" , Joe Steve Swick III ,
ArtdeHoyos , Randall Shortridge ,
Sidheach , rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" ,
Beth any
George,
I hope you don't mind that I made a quicker downloading version of your tarot
keys just for the use of our discussion group. It was Joe Swick that
recommended your web page. Thank you for your work on this important
material. Here is the link. I also have Rider Waite images for comparison.
t2.html
t1.html
t0.html
proclus
--
Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V--
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h---
r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Subject:
Re: The Tarot
Date:
Mon, 16 Feb 1998 04:23:24 -0500
From:
proclus
To:
Michael Love , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos ,
Randall Shortridge , Sidheach ,
rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" ,
Beth any
References:
1
Thank you Robert for this insightful analysis! I feel that it shows the time
and thought that you have put into it. It's brilliant.
I have a few comments and questions regarding this material. I want to bring
in another POV, as well ;-}. I'm not sure how you all feel about Leary's Game
of Life. I know that the reviews in the occult community have been very
mixed, if not flatly negative. Nevertheless, it will allow me to paint a few
broad strokes in the hopes of eliciting some comments. This together with my
personal experiences may, I hope, provide a few examples of what Robert is
explaining here.
Robert R. Black wrote:
>
> The following is my interpretation of the Tarot from a mormon POV.
>
I'm going to pass by the minors, excepting one observation. The minor suits
represent the props of the passion of Christ. These observations were key to
my implementation of the tarot as a tool for understanding God's higher
knowledge. I am reminded that Satan said that he would use money and violence
to wage war on the Son of God. The minors are the kingdoms of the earth.
Here is the technology of God-killing;
cups - the Last Supper
coins - 30 pieces of silver for Judas
swords - soldiers, Peter and the ear of the soldier
rods - the lash and the cross
>
> The Major Arcana is made up of 22 cards corresponding to the letters in the
> Hebrew alphabet. These are divided into three groups of seven plus a zero
> card. The zero card is the Fool. He has the right to the royal priesthood
> (the Endowment) by birth (see the sign of the Falcon on the purse which is
> tied to his staff). But, he knows nothing about it as he is about to walk
> off of the side of the Cliff and does not even hear the warning bark of his
> dog. Please note that this is you and I and every one who has received his
> endowment but does not understand what he has. If we are not careful we
> will each die in our sins. Eternal life is the way or path of the Tarot.
The words "born under the covenant" come to mind here. Any comments out there
regarding Crowley, who put the Fool last instead of first?
> The first seven cards are the steps of enlightenment. The first is the
> Magician. Remember that the word "Magician" comes from the persian or
> Zorastian word for priest. He holds the holy priesthood in his right hand
> (The candle with the flame on each end). He has the sign of the Holy Ghost
> (the infinity sign) above his head and is wraped aroound by the symbol of
> eternity (the snake on his waist). He is wearing the garments of the holy
> priesthood and also wears the robes of the holy priesthood. He is in charge
> of the signs and tokens of the priesthood laying on the table in front of
> him. The Magician is the person who understands what he gets in the
> endowment and uses them. He has the roses and lillys (the symbols of Christ
> and the Resurrection) in front of him.
>
> The next step after the endowment is the Second Anointing where the man is
> ordained a King and a Priest and the woman is ordained a queen and a
> priestess. The next card then is the Priestess with definate masonic
> overtones. Note that she carries the Torah half hidden under her robe. This
> signifies that there are hidden parts of the gospel only for her and those
> of us who progress further than the endowment. She is the 2 card whose mate
> is the 5 card (the Priest) 2+5=7. The next step is queen (Empress) card.
> Notice that she has the twelve stars of the apostles or tribes of Israel in
> her crown and the righteous (the wheat) at her feet. This is the 3 card and
> is matched by the 4 card the King. 3+4=7. Please note that the 5 card, the
> Hierophant is the High Priest. He wears the triple crown, the robe with the
> three tied strings, the Garments. He is incharge of the Keys (at his feet)
> of the Kingdom and the two orders of the priesthood (the roses and the
> lillies).
>
> The next card number 7 shows the next order of priesthood. The Adam and Eve
> card or the Lovers. You can tell that this is Adam and Eve by the two
> trees. The treee of good and evil by the side of Eve (with the serpent) and
> the tr ee of Life by the side of A dam ( the tr ee with the fire). The Golden
> Dawn Tarot (I think) has a picture of Adam comming down from the heavens to
> rescue Eve who is chained by the Devil.
>
> The last card of the seven is that of God himself. He has the Urim and
> Thumum on his sholders. (Honest that is what they are called). He has the
> Holy Priesthood in his right hand. The square on his breast and is comming
> out of the block of stone (which is a perfect qube). He rides through the
> heavens (the stars in his canopy). His chariot is that of the sun (the sun
> disk with wings).
I want to discuss what for me are a misleading aspect of this imagery. These
are adult images, nevertheless, those who are at these levels are still
considered as babes and children (children of God). In fact, I'd theorize
that people will receive the endowment as children during the millenium. The
first seven cards (after the Fool) are the dispensation of the Son. There is
a knowledge of God implied, but it is only a partial knowledge, only a
glimpse. What follows is the dispensation of the Father.
> The next seven cards are the atribute cards. The first of these, card 8
> shows a woman with the Spirit of God (the infinity symbol) controling or
> shuting the mouth of the Red Lion with her hands. If you look closely you
> will see that she has the Red Lion chained to her waist with a garland of
> flowers. The Red Lion is the end of the Work. This card is called Strength.
I think that many temple Mormons are operating at this level. The words
unction and "sanctified by the Holy Spirit of Promise" come to mind. These
are good Mormons who really understand the Gospel, and who like to hang out
with eachother. Everyone has a calling, everyone in their place. Some of
them have this honed to a very fine art. I really love and admire these
folks. Watch out for the tendancy toward dogmatism though ;-}.
> The Hermit is called the Ancient of Days (according to Waite's book) and is
> holding the light of Knowledge showing (also according to Waite) that where
> he is you may also come.
Gads, this is brilliant. I didn't know that. I am beginning to understand
why AG doctrine is such a touchstone for some folks ;-}. Nevertheless, I
don't think that AG theory is necessary for the apprehension of this level.
It is the first realization that the temple rites can be implemented towards
your spiritual progression, that you can take the Father as your exemplar.
> The Wheel of Fortune has the four beasts of the apocolypse in each corner.
> Each are studying the gospel. The wheel itself has the word Taro (t)
> reading one way and Tora reading the other way. Interspaced between these
> letters are the Yod Hey Vav Hey which are the Hebrew letters for God or
> Jehovah or Yahwah. On the inside ring is the symbols for the four elements
> of Alchemy. If you take all of the letters and symbols out you have left
> the wafer of the Euchrist. This card symbolizes (by some but not by me) the
> doctrine of reincarnation.
>
> The next is Justice. Everyone knows what that is.
I am going to consider these two cards together. I just have a few disjointed
thoughts for you to think about. I feel that I have fully apprehended this
level. The key to this was the realization from the minor suits that I
alluded to before. Essentially, it is possible to mount an attack on God from
the position of Justice. Believe it or not, I got this from Metallica. Their
Justice tour and album was filled with temple imagery. I loved the album, I
saw the concert twice, once in the Salt Palace with AJ, and then again in
Phoenix.
Finally, consider a board with two nails. Pluck out one, and you have a
spinner, like the wheel of fortune. Sorry to be oblique. There is not much
more that I can say about this. I am highly constrained, as you might
imagine. I am fascinated that Leary calls this one family centered democracy,
implying a final anti-monarcist, anti-papal position.
> The next card is the Hanged Man. He is hanging on the tau cross. His legs
> are in the sign of Jupiter (God). He is not in pain or distress but is in a
> state of enlightenment. What this means I don't know.
The operator is not upside down, rather the Universe is inverted. He has
performed his first godly act, and has shown that he is worthy of the
promises. This is the source of his ecstacy. He is a peer of the Father
(notice the solar crown), and the world will never look the same to him. For
me, this is the first that we can even begin to think of the idea of spiritual maturity.
> Next is Death. It comes to all men. Men, women, children, kings and
> priests. Notice that death is carrring the symbol of Christ risen, the
> white rose.
Self-explanatory? Don't neglect the white horse. There is control implied by
the reigns. This is death on a horse. He is going somewhere. I see a
rational and disciplined application of the tools of godhood. Perhaps this
can only be done sensibly in the next life. The symbol of Christ risen
implies leaving the planet.
> The next card is Temperance, which is misnamed. The angel is Michael.
> Notice the sun symbol in his forhead; the square and triangle on his
> breast. He is pouring the spirit from one vessel to the other. This shows
> that the spirit goes from the first estate to the second estate. He has one
> foot on land and the other in the water showing that the first step is that
> of baptism then comes the long road that leads to eternal life. Notice that
> at the end of the road is the brightness in the shape of a crown. This ends
> the second group of seven.
I consider that this is in the realm of the divine brain. I agree with Leary
that the divine brain can be prematurely activated through a variety of means.
This is like cosmic masturbation, adolescent, and confused, because of a lack
of full comprehension regarding the purposes of these tools.
> The next seven cards staaarts with The Devil. The man and woman in thsi
> card are Adam and Eve caught by the devil and signifies the second death.
> Notice that they are bound loosely with chains which they could easily
> excape. Adam is infected with the false light of the doctrines of the
> world. The devil is the false god signified by the stone his is sitting on
> is only half of a complete cube.
>
> The next card is The Tower. This is the wicked church or temple also called
> by some the Hospital or house of God. God (notice the yods) is destroying
> the Temple, casting out the priest and king.
>
> The next card is The Star or Telestial kindom. Those in it are those who
> pour out their blessings upon the ground and in the water showing that they
> have no use for these things.
>
> Next is the Terrestial kingdom. Those here (the crab) are being kept from
> going down the path of eternal life by fear of the dog and the wolf who are
> baying at the moon. Notice that the moon symbolizes the reflected light of
> the gospel signified by the yodes.
>
> The next card is the Celestial Kingdom. There every thing is bright and
> signifies eternal life or eternal youth.
>
> The next card I do not understand. It is generally interpreted as an
> initiation card.
>
> The last card is for those who inherit the World or (by some the Universe).
> It is only for those who can look upon Truth in all of her nakedness and
> not be afraid..
This Mormon interpretation of the last seven cards is pretty interesting. I
never thought of it this way. I would only say that God must encompass all
these levels as well. I also like Leary's interpretation, and I don't think
that it is entirely incongruent with this mormon interpretation.
Unfortunately, we are here leaving the realm of my rational experience with
these cards, so there is not much I can say, and I won't parrot Leary for you all.
> *******************************************
>
> I have forgot a lot here and have probably made a lot of mistakes. But ,
> this will give you a rough idea of what I believe is the gospel through the
> Tarot. Please send me your comments.
Thanx again, Robert, for your wonderful exposition. It really stimulated me
to think about some things that I hadn't yet fully explained to myself. I
hope that you enjoyed my remarks as well. Please feel free all to hack away
at the above. I am anxious to learn as much as I can about this stuff.
proclus
--
Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V--
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h---
r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Subject:
RE: God Makes a Comeback
Date:
Mon, 16 Feb 1998 21:36:49 -0500
From:
proclus
To:
Michael Love , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos ,
Randall Shortridge , Sidheach ,
rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" ,
Beth any
> Here is something that looks like it might be an enjoyable topic for group
> conversation. It seems to fit right in with our current discussion of
> Adam-God.
>
> http://www.slate.com/Concept/98-02-11/Concept.asp
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Joe Swick
Thanks for the article, which is highly recommended, if it's been a while
since you touched cosmology.
I just wanted to touch two recent developments, which were passed over by the
article. First, it is now agreed by most cosmologists, and this has been
confirmed by widely diverse experimental techniques, that there is _no_
missing matter. The universe will continue to expand forever. It will not
contract to a new big bang. There is not enough matter around to create
sufficient gravity to cause contraction. Real Estate is now pretty cheap ;-}.
Second, an interesting theoretical development out of MIT. Hopefully, I won't
mess this up too much. Not only is the universe expanding, but it is
inflating. It is creating space much faster than in can fill that space
(LVX). The upshot of this theory is that we can finally describe in
mathematical and physical terms a kind of "Universe on the Benchtop" scenario.
You have heard of Mr. Coffee, and Mr. Fusion. Well, how about Mr. BigBang?
That's right, our whole universe could have been created in a room of God's
house. Maybe he keeps us as a mantlepiece. This has been stuff of armchair
philosophy for a long time, but the idea now has chops. Here's the kicker.
We could do the same thing here. We could create a big bang, a new universe.
It would not destroy our universe. The theory now describes this as a
physical possibility. We just don't have the technology.... yet. Remember
these words, inflationary universe.
proclus
--
Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V--
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h---
r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Subject:
RE: Adam-God
Date:
Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:23:41 -0500
From:
proclus
To:
Michael Love , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos ,
Randall Shortridge , Sidheach ,
rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" ,
Beth any
> The author of the Temple ceremony was BY. In 1854 he said that
> "Jehovah-Michael" was one person. I wonder what the 1876 Temple ceremony
> said.
>
> Robert.
Thanx to your patience, and Joe's, I am accepting theses statements by BY in
terms of offices of the priesthood. I think that this is the way that AG
theory could be advanced. I tried it out on my wife the other night. Just
explain that the terms JHVH and Michael refer to offices in the priesthood,
that the term Eloheim refers to the heavenly host. This simply explains alot
of things that are otherwise difficult to comprehend. Perhaps we could
develop this argument. My wife foresaw a few problems in it, but she would
not explain what she meant (ach!).
Furthermore, it is already implicitly believed my most Mormons, IMHO. They
have the model of councils, offices and stewardship right before their eyes in
the Church. I feel that a strong argument can be made to Mormons by
comparing the earthly order to the heavenly order, a la Pseudo-Dionysius. It
can be presented as a practical question. Who was doing Michael's job in
heaven, while he was Adam in the Garden? Who was doing JHVH's job in heaven,
while he was Christ on earth. If you discuss this in terms of callings and
stewardships, most Mormons will nod knowingly. It's almost trivial. When do
we start? ;-}
Now the most interesting consequence for me is the re-emphasis of Eloheim as
plural, as refering to the council of the gods, a la KFS. It is congruent
with my vision of the host of heaven, off-world commerce, and genetic
stewardship, a seventh circuit trip essentially. Every man and woman is a
star. It opens up the possibility for serious reconsideration of the sons of
god and the daughters of men, the heroes of reknown, the nephilim, and El
Shaddai, Ashoreh and kin. We have not even begun to explore the implications
of this lost teaching, which has been unfortunately displaced by the notion of
Elohim as a single parent! ;-}
Good families, capitalism, and American values; Our heretage has become
impoverished. We have set our sights too low. I am feeling an urgency to do
something about it. I would love it if we could move this forward somehow folks.
proclus
BTW, any opinions out there regarding Orrin Hatch's recent performance
regarding Microsoft? Don't be afraid to give me your most cynical reaction.
I will bless you for it. With all this talk of anti-trust, I think that he is
sounding like a Democrat! Maybe he will move to a pro-labor position ;-}.
--
Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V--
PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h---
r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Subject:
Re: Adam-God
Date:
Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:35:56 -0500
From:
proclus
To:
Michael Love , Andy Mcguire ,
Kathleen McGuire , "R. Trent Reynolds" ,
Joe Steve Swick III , ArtdeHoyos ,
Randall Shortridge , Sidheach ,
rpc man , Gaia ,
"Robert R. Black" ?.3365@compuserve.com>, Dave ,
"onandagus@webtv.net" , "neoptolmus@aol.com" ,
Beth any
References:
1
Joe Steve Swick III wrote:
>
> ___JSW___
> Adam is created from the "dust of the Earth." In the Bunkerville De cision,
> Wilfo rd Woodruff taugh t th at " the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the
> earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was
> Eternal Lives" (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson,
> AG, 156)
>
> ___Proclus___
> I now understand that we have not been arguing about AG theory, per se, but
> merely about the origin of Adam's physical body.
> -----
>
> Perhaps. Or, perhaps how a God could have "offspring" that are "of the
> earth." Don hits the issue spot-on: if Adam is God, how come "God's genes"
> don't show up? -- we should be unique and distinct from all other living
> things on Earth. If we are literally "Adam-God's physical offspring" then
> why does our genetic pedigree seem to say that we are more or less related
> to every other living thing on the planet? Don is saying that belief in a
> literal Adam is scientifically problematic, and for similar reasons, a
> literal Adam-God is a completely untenable scenario. (I knew I would use
> that word -- thanks, Don).
Yes, this is exactly what I have been trying to say. Thanks too, Don. I also
think that we now have the biomedical understanding to hypothesize regarding
God's methods in these matters. Maybe we will eventually relieve this dilemma.
> ___Proclus___
> This must be the quote from WW that you referred to earlier. I must say
> that this one point is clear as mud to me. I'd postulate that the origin of
> Adam's body is a REAL mystery. The language for this event did not exist at
> the time of WW. I can make the same argument on the following passage,
> which may be less loaded, and more illustrative.
>
> "God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways
> his scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns
> and worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by
> law"
>
> We now know that it is gravity that keeps the planets in their orbits. The
> motion of planets does not represent ornate order, but rather whirling
> chaos. It is common to attribute to God things which cannot be explained; so
> with the origin of Adam's body.
>
> Again, these are the real mysteries IMHO. We don't even understand what
> gravity is yet, and it is difficult to understand how a god could ordain the
> law of gravity (In Star Trek, Q does wonderful bit, hacking the
> gravitational constant, though!).
> -----
>
> Your comments have been very enjoyable!
>
> JSW
I have to say that the satisfaction has been mutual. I hope that we can move
deeper into this doctrine now. Perhaps there are some unforseen problems with
it that we have yet to iron out. For example, do we consider AG theory as a
doctrine of reincarnation? How odd that in Mormonism, it is the Brahmin that
does the reincarnating, while the degenerate lose the opportunity.
proclus
Proclus,
Please make this my all-in-one address.
I believe the Babylon-5/Shakasta/Baalzebub's Tales
scenario gives us a chance for a refreshment and
renewal of our own tradition. It sure makes the
Genesis stuff spring to new and vivid life!
The Nephilim stuff is absolutely central. When Genesis
speaks of Noah being "perfect in his generation" it's
refering to the fact that he had no Cainite or Nephilim
in his GENEOLOGY. This is the bases what anti-Semites
see as Jewish racism in the Talmud as well as Jesus'
parable of "The Wheat and the Tares".
You da' man!
Ken
> From proclus@mac.com Mon Feb 16 21:46:29 1998
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:45:05 -0500
> From: proclus
> Subject: [Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown]
> To: Ken Shaw , proclus@mac.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; 68K)
> Content-Type> : > multipart/mixed> ; > boundary="------------B1C0AD495BDE490433D1D205">
> Content-Length: 6859
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------B1C0AD495BDE490433D1D205
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Did you delete your sidheach account? Shall we send your email to dalsemi?
>
> I hope that we can now discuss the nephilim on the list, because of this
> direct tie in with AG theory that we have uncovered. If AG is tenable, then
> so is the nephilim. I look forward to any comments that you might have
> regarding this.
>
> I hope that you are doing well.
>
> proclus
>
> --
> Visit proclus' realm! http://www.proclus-realm.com/home.html
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GMU/S d+@ s: a C++ UUI++$ P L E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++ V--
> PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-@ b !DI D- G e++>++++ h---
> r+++ y++++
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> --------------B1C0AD495BDE490433D1D205
> Content-Type: message/rfc822
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Return-path: <>
> Received: from betty.globecomm.net by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU
> (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138) with ESMTP id ?ITNWLP452OHV70P3@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>
> for love; Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:26:58 EST
> Received: from relay16.mail.aol.com (relay16.mx.aol.com [198.81.19.144])
> by betty.globecomm.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) with ESMTP id WAA02607 for
> Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:21:36 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from localhost (localhost)
> by relay16.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with internal id WAA20650;
> Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:25:43 -0500 (EST)
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:25:43 -0500 (EST)
> From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
> Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
> To: proclus@mac.com
> Message-id: ?.WAA20650@relay16.mail.aol.com>
> Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
>
> The original message was received at Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:25:37 -0500 (EST)
> from binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3]
>
> Your mail is being returned due to one or more non-delivery conditions listed below:
>
> (Refer to the " ----- Transcript of session follows ----- " section)
> 1: SMTP 550 .... User Unknown
> Your recipient no longer exists on AOL.
>
> 2: SMTP 550 .... Mailbox Full
> Your recipient's mailbox is full.
>
> 3: SMTP 550 .... is not accepting mail from this sender
> Your recipient has blocked mail from you.
>
> 4: SMTP 550 ... Delivery not authorized
> Your site has been blocked from sending mail to AOL.
>
> -AOL Postmaster
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
> ... while talking to air28.mail.aol.com.:
> >>> RCPT To:
> <<< 550 Mailbox not found
> 550 ... User unknown
>
> ----- Original message follows -----
>
> Return-Path:
> Received: from binah.cc.brandeis.edu (binah.cc.brandeis.edu [129.64.1.3])
> by relay16.mail.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
> with ESMTP id WAA20643;
> Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:25:37 -0500 (EST)
> Received: from iname.com (ppp-port2.hughes.brandeis.edu)
> by BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU (PMDF V5.1-7 #17138)
> with ESMTP id ?ITNWHFW7KWHV66N4@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU> Mon,
> 16 Feb 1998 22:23:33 EST
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 22:23:41 -0500
> From: proclus
> Subject: RE: Adam-God
> To: Michael Love