Beth,
It's great to have your presence in our little circle.
You'll find that our comments are often brief to the
point of being aphoristic, but that's because we
usualy only have to point in the direction of an idea
for everyone else to "get it". There is something of
a different order happening here. Only a few months
ago I would have seized upon this "strange thing" with
all kinds of ego-centric mela-dramatics and emotion
but now it seems that we are just facing up to the
realities of who we are and acting like adults.
You da' babe!
Ken
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Samuel Kingston wrote:
>
> If you were satan which blood line would you be most interested in infiltrating and
> corrupting first?
> Samuel
I knew someone would say this. While true, it does not show in any degree
that the Merovingians are that line. We could just as well argue that the
generation of Jesus was lost in ignominy. Furthermore, we have every reason
to believe that they are not the generation of Jesus. They were simply too
sneaky, opportunistic, and evil not to exploit a fraudulent geneology for
their own self-aggrandizement.
Has Joseph's line been traced to the Merovingians? This would not prove
anything, but it is required, if this argument means a thing. Are their any
writings by modern prophets regarding this dubious christolic geneology?
And one more question. If I said I were a descendent of Joseph Smith, would
you follow me out of the Church? Personally, I would want these geneological
claims checked out at the very least. I feel that there are many around here
who are putting an inordinate amount of faith in Holy Blood Holy Grail, a
suspect book at best with a huge agenda of its own. I'm going to the source
for my information. You simply cannot say anything intelligible about the
Merovingians, if you don't know History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours. I
have a website about the Merovingians.
https://proclus.tripod.com/phistory.html
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
> > If a woman was given the authority with the same offices as a man, it
> > would be out of order, but all priesthood is Melchizedec,
>
> I've heard this before, but I have never understood the basis for this
> teaching. I tend to view the true order as an order beyond the Melchisedec,
> at least as it is practiced in the Church. Sure, Abraham payed tithes to
> Melchisedec, but there is more to religion than tithes.
>
> Speaking of kings and priests; no one has answered the issues I raised
> regarding the Merovingian kings and the lineage from Christ, so called. Sure
> Jesus probably had kids, but the Merovingian kings are more properly called
> the sons of Satan. If you look at their works, you will come to that
> conclusion as well. Read History of the Franks, and you will find out that
> these Merovingians were bloody Master Mahan. All royal geneologies are
> suspect by definition. It is abominable sin and tyrannical usurpation to
> exploit a frauduent sacred lineage to grind the face of the poor. Monarchists
> wake up! "Every man a priest, every woman a priestess, every home a shrine."
> Remember Samuel's warning to the Isrealites.
>
> > > Ashoreth was once the the consort of God in semite theology. I'm
> > > studying this stuff again right now. In that world women had
> > > authority. Our right hand has cut off our left hand. It is sad
> > > that we have lost something so beautiful. We did not give our
> > > priestesses proper respect, and now they are gone.
> > > Actually they are not gone. They are merely hidden in the
> > > rectilinear precincts of the temple. They are protected from a
> > > world that destroys beautiful diversity (think Michael Jackson).
> > > When the whole earth is made holy, we will have our priestesses
> > > again. We will have our Ashoreth again. I am thirsty for that day.
> >
> > Ashoreth can take a hike; give me an Eve, or at least an Eliza! :)
>
> God has a Wife. In ancient times She was known as Ashoreth. I'm sorry, if I
> am not amused, but I feel that this is holy ground. The reason that women can
> be priestesses is that they are Her hiers. Don't believe the lies that have
> been spoken about Her by the tyrannical patricarchal monotheists.
>
> > But yes, this being the fulness of times, nothing can be revoked or
> > taken away. Everything is still in place, obscurred in some areas,
> > rejected and "given to another" in others. Isaiah was right when, in
> > speaking of our day, he said that all tables were full of vomit.
> > Just trying to wade through the barf....
>
> Ugh! Why do you feel such revulsion towards your Heavenly Mother?
>
> proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>>>I have to meet this Beth! I tried to subscribe to mahonri-l, but I
>>>never got a reply. Too bad. Looks interesting.
>>>Look for the website to be updated with these links and any related
>>>discussion within a few days.
>>>proclus
Pleased to make your acquaintance ;-)
What have I been missing while I've been wasting my time on those
?other? lists??????? Geez where have I been all this time?
Jumping right in.......
[Proclus]
>>>It was about 1980. I read Illuminatus! before my mission and soon
>>>after Naked Communist, Naked Capitalist, and None Dare Call it a
>>>>>Conspiracy. This blew
>>>my mind bigtime! Wilson reconciled all the contradictions of
>>>conservativism for me, and made me solidly more anarcho-
>>>libertarian.
Beth: These could be my words. I saw Wilson speak at the national
libertarian convention in ?93. I live in the Bay Area which is basically
always been stomping grounds for Wilson, McKenna and Leary. You can find
me on the 3rd floor of Moe?s Books in Berkeley much of the time.
[Proclus]
>>>While visiting another area I found a bookstore and bought Cosmic
Trigger, Nag >>>Hammadi Library, and Gnostic Gospels. Later, I picked
up Aquarian Conspiracy.
>>>The combined effect of this blitz was a total mutation. I determined
that I had >>>uncovered the historical lineage of the endowment. The
words from the tracts >>>"Primitive Christianity" took on new meaning.
Beth: Could?ve been my words again.
[Proclus]
>>>For example, prayer circle == circle dance,
>>>cross-referencing Starhawk's Spiral Dance with early Quinn papers. I
>>>did a series of posts on Prodigy, years ago, regarding this.
>>>Furthermore, the rite of encircling the alter is not limited to Wicca
>>>and Mormonism. There is much more that I could say regarding this,
as
>>>Andy will remember.
You people apparently think a lot like I do. Call it mutation, call it
synthesizing truth - Pattern Recognition is my specialty.
Something that popped into my mind the other day, the relationship
between the words:
coven=covenant
also in connection to Gaia?s pointing out that ?church? and ?circle? can
mean the same.
So Proclus, I want to know about this ?much more? that you have to say!
I go to a goddess circle that a two of the women in my circle are
involved with a cutting edge graduate school in San Francisco called
California Institute for Integral studies, one woman being the head of
the Women's Spirituality Department. Some of the board and faculty
members include people like Stanislav Grof, Angeles Arien, and STARHAWK.
I am attending an event that she is holding at the school in a couple of
weeks with our circle. It is my greatest wish at this time to hurry and
get my Bachelors so I can get into this graduate school and start
exploring the very things that you have been discussing on this list.
[Ken]
> > European "witchcraft" was a SURVIVAL of original
christianity...that's why
> > it was persecuted!
Ken,
you have put into words something I have KNOWN and haven?t been able put
into words until now! Thanks for doin' it for me. Even though Proclus
appreciated =) my ?Mormon magickal Studies? materials but took exception
to my ?British Israel? recommendation, he he, that was exactly what I
was trying to say by including that Druid book from the British Israel
people. Sometimes I stumble onto books like that that give me some
information that leads to an idea like this and it?s interesting because
the people who have written the book really don?t have any idea of what
they are saying.
But if you recall that Mormon magickal studies post I did then you will
see that what I was getting a sense of for myself, in trying to put
together this bibliography, was what Ken so brilliantly was able to sum
up in just ONE sentence.
I am considering posting some old posts of my mine just so everyone
knows where I?ve come from, but I?ll only do it on condition that people
realize how rapidly my paradigm is shifting. It seems to be evolving on
a daily basis. At the time of these old posts I was looking at world
religions in terms of their relationship to Mormonism, as remnants of
previous dispensations. Now my focus is more the reverse, looking at
Mormonsim within the larger context of world religion and history and
how it fits into the big picture rather than how everything fits into
Mormonism. So just keep that in mind.....
Beth
___________________
>Let me introduce Beth, our latest refugee from mahonri-l ;-}. It's
>great to have her on board (at last!). That makes ten of us now (if
Don
>ever wakes up!). Maybe we are the clay feet, the lost kings!
>
>proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
[Tim sent me this, he is interested in joining the list -
Beth]
Beth asks:
When did you go to the Y?
Aug 1981 to Aug 1986..I was 26 when I went back to school.. I
met
Art and Ken Shaw at Grandpa's books the Late Earnest Strack's bookstore
,... and others there so many I cannot remember them all..
I worked first on BYU Grounds crew .. then I worked for the BYU
archives for the late Dennis Rowley he was the head of the archives
then..I use to go once or twice a week to the Church archives to do
research..
Then I worked as a research assistant to Don Cannon and Bill
Hartley and finally for Jack Welch on the Book of Mormon translation
piece.. also research on the salamander letter and other Hoffman
documents all forgeries ... I took classes from Mike Quinn, Phil Flammer
.and Dean Jesse among others I majored in history at the "Y". I did
some work for the Seventh East Press also...
take care...
Tim Rathbone
SUAVITER ET FORTITER
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>Let me also chime in with a "Welcome Beth!"
>
>> There is a guy I met on the net through Blayne Sukut (from Mahonri-l)
>> named Tim Rathbone who says he is friends with Art De Hoyos. This
guy
>> Tim said that he also contributed to Quinn's revised
>> addition of "Early Mormonism..." and is credited in the book. He
told me
>> he was looking for like minded people on the net in the form of a
list.
>> So I gave him your email address and told him to contact you about
it.
>
>I've known Tim for some seventeen years or so, just as long as Ken Shaw
and I
>have been friends. We all attended BYU at the same time (the early
1980s) and
>moved in the same circles. I don't know that he contributed anything
to
>Quinn's book, but they certainly are friends.
>
>Pax et L.V.X.
>
>---Art deHoyos, 32°, KCCH, KYCH
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Just thought I'd post one of Gaia's recent posts, I know she won't mind.
She hasn't returned any of my emails the past few days like she usually
does. She has a lot going on in her life but I'm sure she will come
aboard when she gets time. Gaia is a 3rd degree High Preistess in her
order (not sure exactly which group).
Beth
_____________________________
>>GAIA ON SIMILARITIES BETWEEN WICCA AND LDS THEOLOGY
>>
>>Ok, here it is.
>>
>>1. Wicca says that Divinity manifests as both male and female:
Goddess
>>and God, and that sex is one of the highest, most sacred expressions
of
>>Their energies. Sacred Sex fuels the universe, so to speak. It's the
>>love, the passion of the Lord and Lady that bonds one atom to another,
>>solar systems and people together.
>>
>>2. Wicca says that divinity is both transcendant and immanent --
>>existing both beyond this realm, and within the very fibers of the
>>universe. Matter itself is sacred, for it partakes of the very
>>*substance* of Divinity. The Goddess is *in* all things. She does
not
>>rule the earth, She IS the Earth.
>>
>>In LDS theology, according to D&C 88, the Spirit of God "is in and
>>through all things, giveth life to all things...."
>>
>>3. Wicca is a mystery religion, meaning that at its heart there are
>>mysteries which *cannot* be told because there are no words for them.
>>
>>At the heart of LDS theology are the mysteries that are taught in the
>>temple, which cannot be told, only experienced.
>>
>>4. Wicca says we are all a part of God/dess -- a part of the Whole
>that
>>*is* God/dess -- as are the trees, rocks, etc.
>>
>>LDS: "As God is, wo/man may become,,,,
>>
>>YEs, there are (major) differences, but i prefer to focus on the
>>similarities
>>
>>Gaia
>>12/16/97
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>Let me introduce Beth, our latest refugee from mahonri-l ;-}. It's
>great to have her on board (at last!). That makes ten of us now (if
Don
>ever wakes up!). Maybe we are the clay feet, the lost kings!
>
>proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
A recent post to "another" list ;-)
Beth
>><<<<<>Patriarchs here.
>>
>>The Papas have always been terrified by the Mamas.
>>
>>Kento>>>>>>>
>>
Hallelujiah brother!!!
BTW, Gaia, just catching up on older posts here....Thank you for
taking so much time and drafting all of those posts defending yourself.
The tail end of the posts was BEAUTIFUL! Ultimately ALL religious
beliefs whether they be Mormon, or anything else, is ABOUT THE
LIVING!!!! NOT 1000 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN YOU ARE LONG DEAD! Man is
that he might have JOY! Right now!
How can we truly love when we are so fearful that we might be decieved
around every corner! I am one of the biggest conspiracy nuts around
but 99% of conspiracy theorists don't even have the critical thinking
skills to know how the power structures REALLY operate. Most
conspiracy theories are nothing but disinformation.
You have to wonder WHY it is that so-called pagans have been SQUASHED
by the power structures of the world for a very, very long time???
There is obviously SOMETHING about them that threatens their CONTROL
over the people! This is one way you have to look at things.
A lot of stuff that is called "pagan" today had it's roots in truths
passed down from Adam as well Christ or "shining beings" visiting many
indiginous cultures and also from the Isrealites migrating to the
European countries and practicing truths that have been lost EVEN TO
MORMONS!
Now meditate on this shocking fact for awhile and I will document it
with some follow up posts if I can find some of the old ones that have
the documentation
in my archives.
For GOD's SAKE JOSEPH SMITH DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO RESTORE EVERY DAMN
THING IN THE WORLD, he only lived so long! The church started heading
for apostacy right at the moment that man died! It is up to us to keep
restoring truth wherever we find it. You think he didn't do that with
Kabbalah and Hermeticism and Masonry? You think that Masonic stuff was
given to him directly from God? Nope.
On the flip side many things we call "Christian" have been given to us
by the "satanic" Romans who were the ones who crucified Christ.
I have never once met a single person who has brought up the fact that
they thought it was a little suspicious that the same people who
killed the guy (OK so they couldn't keep him dead) were the ones to
start a church for him. This is a classic tool of the Power Structures.
"If you can't beat them join them" at least you can control it if it's
in your hands. So thats what they did.
Gosh darn. People think so SIMPLISTICALLY! I can't beleive how people
can never sort through issues. Even the holy ghost is aided by
critical thinking skills.
Doesn't anyone here even know that it has been proven beyond a shadow
of a doubt that Joseph Smith was involved with ceremonial magic? If you
don't beleive me then you ask Ken Shaw or Proclus (from Mahonri-l) to
get you in touch with Art De Hoyos because I have photo copies that he
put together of not only the more known magical talisman of Jupiter
that he had but of MAGICAL parchments that he and Hyrum drew that have
all kinds of MAGICAL symbols that you can find in any number of
magick books. Even the Smith's ceremonial DAGGER has been found.
This was SERIOUS stuff they were messing around with. This was stuff
that way beyond just dowsing for treasure.THESE ARE THE SAME KINDS OF
THINGS THAT GAIA IS DEALING WITH. Why is it that Gaia should be bashed
for things that JS was PROVEN to be involved with?
What in the heck do ya think Joe was doin, huh? He was just playin
around, experimenting like you and I and everyone on this list does.
While I will concede that Joseph Smith did have amazing spiritual
pngts that are probably more advanced than most, but NOT neccesarily all
of us, here on this list the fact is he had to go through the same
process that WE ALL go through to find truth. He is not the superhuman
UNTOUCHABLE that we will never come close to in our lives like the LDS
church has led us to believe.
I think one of the single greatest tragedies that LDS have commited is
to whitewash Joseph and turn in him to something that not only he
wasn't BUT THAT NO ONE CAN EVER BE!!! They have literally gone in and
edited and rewriteen history in numerous publications.
I think there are some people on this earth and I will not say who or
where I think they are, that really in some ways at this point in
evoloutionary history actually know MORE than Joseph did in his
lifetime. What an amazing thought. It certainly puts things in
perspective however and thats the point. I hope no one will take that
the wrong way.
That does not mean that I dont beleive that Joseph wasnt one of the
finest people to ever grace this planet, because I do. I have the
greatest love in the world for that man. I have framed the only known
photo of him which is sitting next to me as I write (even the stupid
paintings the church has of him are so LIFELESS and totally devoid of
the passion and charisma that he was famous for) but this photo is the
only decent rendering of him. He was quite beautiful.
This stuff is not black and white. The power structutres have been
using semantic games, labeling things, to contol us from time
immemorial.
Take the Celtic cross for example. I bet if I showed you all a celtic
cross there would be some of you who would instantly denounce it as a
PAGAN item not even realizing that that circle and square are TEMPLE
symbols. Taught to you in the temple!!! Do you want to play word
games?
If it is "pagan" then that is probably a good reason why christian
fundamentalists call Mormon temple cermonies 'pagan'. If you want to use
that defintion and you want to be CONSISTENT then you would have to
agree that the temple is "pagan". Do you know what I call it??? I
don't call it pagan and I don't call it Mormon and I don't call it
Christian. I CALL IT TRUTH.
Beth
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Beth any wrote:
>
> Proclus, this is urgent!
> Cancel subscribing Tim Rathbone to the Mutants.
Done. I love consensus.
I dropped Ken and Art a little note about this. It will be interesting to see
what they have to say. BTW, Ken changed his screen name again. Maybe he was
having trouble too. Here is his new address
A cautionary note; It has been the practice up to now that people be screened
for a while before adding them to the list. There are many reasons for this.
It is not a simple matter to cancel someone from mutantRMs once they are in.
It would be like excommunication or divorce, because it would require that the
person be unanimously shunned. Likewise, "there is no out. there is no
through." ;-}. This is because the list exists in everyone's address book.
If anyone really wanted to stop receiving mutantRM posts, it might be
annoyingly difficult. If the list grows, this may become more of an issue.
Of course, all of would be solved, if we had a listserver, but at what cost?
I do not believe that you can have a consensus roundtable discussion on a
listserver. That is because the administrator has the ultimate power to
delete people from the list, so it always feels like he is the host, like he
is the one running the show. I know that these guys try to set a rule and be
fair, but for our purposes, I prefer our anarchic free association. These are
our glory days.
We are a metaprocess. We need the listservers as a kind of vestibular world,
greater circle, outer court. Welcome to the elite inner circle ;-}.
We also have a front door for people to self select. That's the website. Ken
is the only one who ever came in that way.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
ArtdeHoyos wrote:
> I've known Tim for some seventeen years or so, just as long as Ken Shaw and I
> have been friends. We all attended BYU at the same time (the early 1980s) and
> moved in the same circles. I don't know that he contributed anything to
> Quinn's book, but they certainly are friends.
On Tim; It is a bit of a mute point as he has been vetoed. Nevertheless,
this description is a little incongruent with the problems that they are
apparently having with him over on shulemna. I would like to have this
cleared up. I am not a subscriber to that list, but I am proud of the fact
that many consider our group as a haven against the sniping that happens on
the listservs. Many consider that they were not welcome on the other lists,
but they were welcome here.
Art's comments reveal an interesting demographic. I count at least five of
ten of us that were in college in the early eighties. I was an older student
gone back to school. At BYU there were Ken, AJ, and Art. Trent and I were at
Phoenix college and ASU. I was also in Provo frequently visiting AJ. It is
not unlikely that we bumped into each other, and didn't even know it, because
of our shared interest in unusual books. What of the rest of you? Where was
the best incense in Provo? If SLC is Gomorrah, where is Sodom? Where were
you in those materialistic eighties, those black spandex years? What a
decade! =}
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Tim wrote:
> Aug 1981 to Aug 1986..I was 26 when I went back to school.. I
> met
> Art and Ken Shaw at Grandpa's books the Late Earnest Strack's bookstore
> ,...
This reminds me that Andy and I may have visited Grandpa's bookstore once when
i was visiting him in Provo. Isn't this where you got some of your used
Wilson books, Andy? What are the best bookstores in Provo these days?
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Beth any wrote:
>
> >>>I have to meet this Beth! I tried to subscribe to mahonri-l, but I
> >>>never got a reply. Too bad. Looks interesting.
>
> >>>Look for the website to be updated with these links and any related
> >>>discussion within a few days.
>
> >>>proclus
>
> Pleased to make your acquaintance ;-)
> What have I been missing while I've been wasting my time on those
> ?other? lists??????? Geez where have I been all this time?
What a long strange trip it has been, but I feel like we just met! There is
this point in the GD Adeptus Major ceremony when the chamber is filled with
light on the raising of the adept from the crypt. The Priestess appears and says;
"I am the Veiled One. No mortal may see my face and live, but the Star-body
may enter the place of mystery. Child of Light, I welcome thee."
Once again, Beth, welcome. Say, if you all would like to hear more from this
beautiful ceremony, I will post it. I think that it is certainly germaine.
> Jumping right in.......
>
> [Proclus]
> >>>It was about 1980. I read Illuminatus! before my mission and soon
> >>>after Naked Communist, Naked Capitalist, and None Dare Call it a
> >>>>>Conspiracy. This blew
> >>>my mind bigtime! Wilson reconciled all the contradictions of
> >>>conservativism for me, and made me solidly more anarcho-
> >>>libertarian.
>
> Beth: These could be my words. I saw Wilson speak at the national
> libertarian convention in ?93. I live in the Bay Area which is basically
> always been stomping grounds for Wilson, McKenna and Leary. You can find
> me on the 3rd floor of Moe?s Books in Berkeley much of the time.
That's cool. When we lived in Phoenix, my wife and I would go out of our way
to visit the Bay Area, which we love. I've always been a BMUGer too. Too bad
about BMUG, eh? Now that Res Rockets headquarters is in SF, we may be out to
visit again one of these days. Maybe we can have a coke and visit your
favorite bookstores.
> [Proclus]
> >>>While visiting another area I found a bookstore and bought Cosmic
> Trigger, Nag >>>Hammadi Library, and Gnostic Gospels. Later, I picked
> up Aquarian Conspiracy.
> >>>The combined effect of this blitz was a total mutation. I determined
> that I had >>>uncovered the historical lineage of the endowment. The
> words from the tracts >>>"Primitive Christianity" took on new meaning.
>
> Beth: Could?ve been my words again.
>
> [Proclus]
> >>>For example, prayer circle == circle dance,
> >>>cross-referencing Starhawk's Spiral Dance with early Quinn papers. I
> >>>did a series of posts on Prodigy, years ago, regarding this.
> >>>Furthermore, the rite of encircling the alter is not limited to Wicca
> >>>and Mormonism. There is much more that I could say regarding this,
> as
> >>>Andy will remember.
>
> You people apparently think a lot like I do. Call it mutation, call it
> synthesizing truth - Pattern Recognition is my specialty.
> Something that popped into my mind the other day, the relationship
> between the words:
> coven=covenant
> also in connection to Gaia?s pointing out that ?church? and ?circle? can
> mean the same.
Well, the Church has its circles, you know. I remember the local prayer
circle group being disbanded, when I was a kid in Ogden UT. People wagged
their tongues about that in about 1970 or so. Quinn has an old paper out
about this. I should dig out the material comparing the prayer circle to cone
raising and wiccan initiation. We were discussing it on Prodigy about seven
or eight years ago, then Strangers in Paradox came out, but it all still feels
edgey. It seems to me that the endowment is in two parts; a blue lodge
raising for the god, and a veiled circle for the goddess. In the mountain of
the Lord's house things are essentially paganistic. We are the trees of the
Lord. I understand that things are still a little paranoid in Provo on
account of this stuff. Meanwhile, here in Boston, in the shadow of the
temple, the book discussion group is still listed in the ward bulletin. ;-}
Well, you have joined our circle now, in mutantRM's.
>
> So Proclus, I want to know about this ?much more? that you have to say!
OKay OK! After I finish this note, I will go find the archive and put it on
the website for you =}. I'll also post a few gems. I can't imagine that
there would be a mutantRM's, if Andy and I hadn't already staked out alot of
this territory way back then. Maybe Stephen Escobedo would like to hear about
this too, because he knows many of the old Prodigy crowd. (Andy, maybe you
could pass this on to some of the old crew as well.)
> I go to a goddess circle that a two of the women in my circle are
> involved with a cutting edge graduate school in San Francisco called
> California Institute for Integral studies, one woman being the head of
> the Women's Spirituality Department. Some of the board and faculty
> members include people like Stanislav Grof, Angeles Arien, and STARHAWK.
> I am attending an event that she is holding at the school in a couple of
> weeks with our circle. It is my greatest wish at this time to hurry and
> get my Bachelors so I can get into this graduate school and start
> exploring the very things that you have been discussing on this list.
Unfortunately, my circle is in a far away land ;-}. Actually, I consider
myself as a sole mental operator. My wife would kill me, if I really did
anything! ;-} Not much time for it anyway, as I am also trying to graduate
soon. Besides, I've got you my friends on this list. When I need to talk in
real life, there is always my son.
BTW, I also love Margot Adler. You should have heard her story on Animorphs
the other day. This stuff is circuit seven programming for our kids. I
finally understand what my son has been talking about.
> Ken,
> you have put into words something I have KNOWN and haven?t been able put
> into words until now! Thanks for doin' it for me.
This is Ken's pngt. I am reading Hiram key right now, and it has been the
subject of much discussion here. I was troubled by their simple assertion
that the Celts migrated from Sumer. I'm sure that you realize how
controversial this is. What is your take on the origin of the Celts, Beth?
Weren't the Druids isolated in Britain until the arrival of the Celts (with
the exception of a few marauding vikings ;-} ). What is your trad, if I may
ask? What do you think of Bonewits?
> At the time of these old posts I was looking at world
> religions in terms of their relationship to Mormonism, as remnants of
> previous dispensations. Now my focus is more the reverse, looking at
> Mormonsim within the larger context of world religion and history and
> how it fits into the big picture rather than how everything fits into
> Mormonism. So just keep that in mind.....
No problem here. I know others on this list who may share that orientation.
I would amplify further by saying, read your adversary's book. I have learned
much from the anti-gnostics, old dominicans, and Dave Hunt, who was the most
sophisticated antimormon heresy-hunter of all IMHO (hehe). I can only say
that this is a good strategy. In order to avoid the headhunters (both in and
out of the Church), you have to understand the headhunters.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Yes, I'd be interested in reading the ceremony, as well as the other
archived stuff. Sounds great.
Yes, if anyone is ever in the Bay Area and wants to hang out my phone
number is 510-938-3029. I'd love to meet ya.
The Hiram Key is on my endless book list.
As far as whether the Sumerians migrated to the Celtic lands....
In exactly what time period are you referring to??? I can't comment
specifically on Sumerians, per se, I do know about a lot of contact and
migration of Hebrews back to Abraham's time as well as Phoenecian's
(involved in the tin trade in England and crossing the Atlantic over
1400 yrs BC), Trojans and lots of Semitic people's and more. Early
migrations into Britain are by tradition said to have begun as early as
the time of Noah. There is a particular island in Spain said to be
settled by his daughter.
I don't know what time period of Sumerian's you are referring to. Was
Babylon/Assyria/Chaldee in Abraham's day a REMNANT of Sumerian culture
or was this well post-Sumerian? There is information out there about
early descendants of Abraham migrating to the British Isles prior to the
Celt's. Some say that the Celt's themselves were of Hebraic origin.
I have been a passionate student of anthropology for a couple of years.
I have been especially fond of some of the more controversial theories.
In every field of science there are renegade factions. The
Establishment's school of thought about the way most cultures arose, of
course, is that they were all pretty isolated from one another but there
is another school of thought called Diffusionism (which a lot of Mormons
should be interested in since Mormons believe that Lehi made a
transatlantic voyage) but what diffusionist's are saying is that there
has always been a tremendous amount of international travel and sharing
of culture from time immemorial.
An anthropologist named Gunnar Thompson has done a lot of work in this
area, you might be able to find information about his work on the web.
He has mainly concentrated on the vast Pre-Columbian diffusionism in the
America's, however I am sure some of his theories might apply to the
"big picture" surrounding this question. He has a number of ancient maps
that are quite accurate and are just "not supposed to exist" for their
time period.
How much did the ancients get around? I believe quite a bit. The
evidence is there, it just gets ignored when it doesn't fit the Power
Structures paradigm. I have a few documentaries from television
reexamining a lot of the evidence that's being reconsidered. In fact
there was a very good documentary on diffusionism on the Learning
Channel the other day. I wish I would have taped it.
Now I wish I was more of a scholar in this area but I am still a young
student. I don't have many references off the top of my head so I'm
sorry this has been partially anecdotal but I have read a great deal
about the Hebrew and Semitic influences on ancient Europe. And no it's
not ALL from the British Israel people either =). I have read that there
are great similarities between the Hebrew language and the Gaelic
languages. In the book (on that old version of my book list that you
have) called "Whence Came They: Israel, Britain and the Restoration".
(OK so this this LDS publication may not be the most 'respectable' in
the world but I am not biased. I read anything and everything and
extract what I deem valuable and leave the rest.)
It says:
" George Jowett states that the British archeologist, Sir William
Flinders Petrie, discovered at old Gaza in the Near East, gold ornaments
and enameler of Celtic origin from Briton made about 1500 BC, and also
found Egyptian beads at Stonehenge in England.
Linguistic studies also confirm associations between early Britons
and the Near East. Jowett says that "the Keltic or Cymeric tongue is
the oldest living language. It's root words have a basic affinity with
ancient Hebrew....E.O. Gordon (Prehistoric London: It's Mounds and
Circles) details many similarities in tradition, language, moral codes
between Britain and the Near East....." These Kymri record in the Triads
that when they got there there was nothing there except a list of
animals which they listed off.
In ancient Hebrew BRITH means 'covenant', ISH means 'man', so British
means "covenant man". The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. 2, page 509 and 567,
gives the same definitions for BRIT, BERIT, IAN, and ISH.
"Tradition connects many Hebrew names and over 6000 Hebrew related
words with the Welsh language. Ancient Welsh is believed by some to be
nearly pure Hebrew. An account of a very early migration of Kymry (or
Cymry) to Britain is recorded in the Welsh Triads.....Today the Welsh
still refer to themselves as the people of Cymri."
..."Migrations of lost Israel from their homeland to Assyria, then
through Asia, Europe and into the British Isles, have long been studied.
Written records, legends, archeology and paleontology have yielded
fragments of information which when compiled form a reasonable coherent
picture.."
E. Raymond Capt has summarized Israel's routes of travel and their
identities and dates. He wrote a book that's on my book list entitled:
"Stonehenge and Druidism." I may not believe every piece of information
in the book but some of what he's got in there I don't think can be
entirely dismissed. It's only 5 bucks. Couldn't hurt to check it out.
But there are plenty of non-religious scientists like G. Thompson who's
work is gaining more recognition. Even Mr. Capt however has beliefs that
would curl the toes of most "Christians", the earth being far older than
6000 yrs., "the great flood" as a localized event not covering the
planet, pre-adamites, catastrophism, cyclical history not linear.
But no, I don't believe in the kind of isolation the staus-quo preaches.
I do feel that until recent history most scientific fields were pretty
isolated in their research and a lot of connections between things
weren't made until there began to be some collaboration between fields.
Now that there seems to be a lot more sharing of information between
fields, information that was previously deemed anomalous in one field
now seems to be making more sense with this more holistic approach.
moving on....
I know of Isaac Bonewits but am not familiar with his activities. What
is it that you like about him?
Yes, the circuits of consciousness as described by Wilson and others are
fascinating. I've heard of Margot Adler and Animorphs...haven't read
anything. I will check out all your references on the web.
I loved what you said about reading your adversaries book. I have always
found that extremely beneficial. That is the best strategy.
I used to get such a kick out of studying the anti-Mormons and the
anti-anti Mormons...Masons, anti- Masons and anti- anti everything. I
have a library of them all.
As far as my studies go I was the only teenager (in the 80's) I have met
yet =) who had a subscription to Dialogue. My mother has been calling me
an apostate since I was about 15. When I was 18 I moved to Provo from
California and used to smoke cigarettes out on the lawn while reading
Sun stone on Sunday's as people walked to church. It was completely
innocent...wasn't trying to draw attention to myself.
Don't smoke anymore.
But the words "sole mental operator" really resonate with me. As far as
the paganism and every other "ism" I have studied in my life, perhaps at
this point I am more interested in studying these things as an exercise
in anthropology. I feel that it is very easy to get caught up in the
outward rituals and it can become a stumbling block. I actually get
quite burned out on it at times and like to concentrate on the "simple
faith" or the basics. "The kingdom of Heaven is within".
Thanks for your interest,
Beth
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>Beth any wrote:
>>=20
>> >>>I have to meet this Beth! I tried to subscribe to mahonri-l, bu=
>t I
>> >>>never got a reply. Too bad. Looks interesting.
>>=20
>> >>>Look for the website to be updated with these links and any rela=
>ted
>> >>>discussion within a few days.
>>=20
>> >>>proclus
>>=20
>> Pleased to make your acquaintance ;-)
>> What have I been missing while I've been wasting my time on those
>> =93other=94 lists??????? Geez where have I been all this ti=
>me?
>
>What a long strange trip it has been, but I feel like we just met! T=
>here is
>this point in the GD Adeptus Major ceremony when the chamber is fille=
>d with
>light on the raising of the adept from the crypt. The Priestess appe=
>ars and says;
>
>"I am the Veiled One. No mortal may see my face and live, but the St=
>ar-body
>may enter the place of mystery. Child of Light, I welcome thee."
>
>Once again, Beth, welcome. Say, if you all would like to hear more f=
>rom this
>beautiful ceremony, I will post it. I think that it is certainly ger=
>maine.
>
>> Jumping right in.......
>>=20
>> [Proclus]
>> >>>It was about 1980. I read Illuminatus! before my mission and so=
>on
>> >>>after Naked Communist, Naked Capitalist, and None Dare Call it a
>> >>>>>Conspiracy. This blew
>> >>>my mind bigtime! Wilson reconciled all the contradictions of
>> >>>conservativism for me, and made me solidly more anarcho-
>> >>>libertarian.
>>=20
>> Beth: These could be my words. I saw Wilson speak at the national
>> libertarian convention in =9193. I live in the Bay Area which is ba=
>sically
>> always been stomping grounds for Wilson, McKenna and Leary. You can=
> find
>> me on the 3rd floor of Moe=92s Books in Berkeley much of the time.
>
>That's cool. When we lived in Phoenix, my wife and I would go out of=
> our way
>to visit the Bay Area, which we love. I've always been a BMUGer too.=
> Too bad
>about BMUG, eh? Now that Res Rockets headquarters is in SF, we may b=
>e out to
>visit again one of these days. Maybe we can have a coke and visit yo=
>ur
>favorite bookstores.
>
>> [Proclus]
>> >>>While visiting another area I found a bookstore and bought Cosmi=
>c
>> Trigger, Nag >>>Hammadi Library, and Gnostic Gospels. Later, I pic=
>ked
>> up Aquarian Conspiracy.
>> >>>The combined effect of this blitz was a total mutation. I deter=
>mined
>> that I had >>>uncovered the historical lineage of the endowment. T=
>he
>> words from the tracts >>>"Primitive Christianity" took on new meani=
>ng.
>>=20
>> Beth: Could=92ve been my words again.
>>=20
>> [Proclus]
>> >>>For example, prayer circle =3D=3D circle dance,
>> >>>cross-referencing Starhawk's Spiral Dance with early Quinn paper=
>s. I
>> >>>did a series of posts on Prodigy, years ago, regarding this.
>> >>>Furthermore, the rite of encircling the alter is not limited to =
>Wicca
>> >>>and Mormonism. There is much more that I could say regarding th=
>is,
>> as
>> >>>Andy will remember.
>>=20
>> You people apparently think a lot like I do. Call it mutation, call=
> it
>> synthesizing truth - Pattern Recognition is my specialty.
>> Something that popped into my mind the other day, the relationship
>> between the words:
>> coven=3Dcovenant
>> also in connection to Gaia=92s pointing out that =93church=94 and =
>=93circle=94 can
>> mean the same.
>
>Well, the Church has its circles, you know. I remember the local pra=
>yer
>circle group being disbanded, when I was a kid in Ogden UT. People w=
>agged
>their tongues about that in about 1970 or so. Quinn has an old paper=
> out
>about this. I should dig out the material comparing the prayer circl=
>e to cone
>raising and wiccan initiation. We were discussing it on Prodigy abou=
>t seven
>or eight years ago, then Strangers in Paradox came out, but it all st=
>ill feels
>edgey. It seems to me that the endowment is in two parts; a blue lod=
>ge
>raising for the god, and a veiled circle for the goddess. In the mou=
>ntain of
>the Lord's house things are essentially paganistic. We are the trees=
> of the
>Lord. I understand that things are still a little paranoid in Provo =
>on
>account of this stuff. Meanwhile, here in Boston, in the shadow of t=
>he
>temple, the book discussion group is still listed in the ward bulleti=
>n. ;-}=20
>Well, you have joined our circle now, in mutantRM's.
>
>>=20
>> So Proclus, I want to know about this =93much more=94 that you have=
> to say!
>
>OKay OK! After I finish this note, I will go find the archive and pu=
>t it on
>the website for you =3D}. I'll also post a few gems. I can't imagin=
>e that
>there would be a mutantRM's, if Andy and I hadn't already staked out =
>alot of
>this territory way back then. Maybe Stephen Escobedo would like to h=
>ear about
>this too, because he knows many of the old Prodigy crowd. (Andy, may=
>be you
>could pass this on to some of the old crew as well.)
>
>> I go to a goddess circle that a two of the women in my circle are
>> involved with a cutting edge graduate school in San Francisco calle=
>d
>> California Institute for Integral studies, one woman being the head=
> of
>> the Women's Spirituality Department. Some of the board and faculty
>> members include people like Stanislav Grof, Angeles Arien, and STAR=
>HAWK.
>> I am attending an event that she is holding at the school in a coup=
>le of
>> weeks with our circle. It is my greatest wish at this time to hurry=
> and
>> get my Bachelors so I can get into this graduate school and start
>> exploring the very things that you have been discussing on this lis=
>t.
>
>Unfortunately, my circle is in a far away land ;-}. Actually, I cons=
>ider
>myself as a sole mental operator. My wife would kill me, if I really=
> did
>anything! ;-} Not much time for it anyway, as I am also trying to gr=
>aduate
>soon. Besides, I've got you my friends on this list. When I need to=
> talk in
>real life, there is always my son. =20
>
>BTW, I also love Margot Adler. You should have heard her story on An=
>imorphs
>the other day. This stuff is circuit seven programming for our kids.=
> I
>finally understand what my son has been talking about.
>
>> Ken,
>> you have put into words something I have KNOWN and haven=92t been a=
>ble put
>> into words until now! Thanks for doin' it for me.
>
>This is Ken's pngt. I am reading Hiram key right now, and it has bee=
>n the
>subject of much discussion here. I was troubled by their simple asse=
>rtion
>that the Celts migrated from Sumer. I'm sure that you realize how
>controversial this is. What is your take on the origin of the Celts,=
> Beth?=20
>Weren't the Druids isolated in Britain until the arrival of the Celts=
> (with
>the exception of a few marauding vikings ;-} ). What is your trad, i=
>f I may
>ask? What do you think of Bonewits?
>
>> At the time of these old posts I was looking at world
>> religions in terms of their relationship to Mormonism, as remnants =
>of
>> previous dispensations. Now my focus is more the reverse, looking a=
>t
>> Mormonsim within the larger context of world religion and history a=
>nd
>> how it fits into the big picture rather than how everything fits in=
>to
>> Mormonism. So just keep that in mind.....
>
>No problem here. I know others on this list who may share that orien=
>tation.=20
>I would amplify further by saying, read your adversary's book. I hav=
>e learned
>much from the anti-gnostics, old dominicans, and Dave Hunt, who was t=
>he most
>sophisticated antimormon heresy-hunter of all IMHO (hehe). I can onl=
>y say
>that this is a good strategy. In order to avoid the headhunters (bot=
>h in and
>out of the Church), you have to understand the headhunters.
>
>proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Hello,
I keep stubling upon sections of scripture, particularly in the D&C
lately that sound just like Eastern philosophy to me. ?I AM in all
things and through all things?.... etc.
I believe that Michael and the creator Gods are like immortal
extraterrestrials.. space gods seeding the universe.. and that we can
evolve to the same level of creation someday. But I am essentially
pantheistic, wondering if the supreme God is the creative intelligence
force itself. I keep trying to convince Mormons that there is not
neccesarily a contradiction there.
Is "the Light of Christ" just another name for the basic creative force
which springs endlessly from the void or the Tao?
Recently I recieved a post from Blayne on Shulemna which includes a
piece by BH Roberts, that if read carefully seems to be saying the same
thing...(Or maybe he was almost onto it but not quite?)
Beth
At 11:21 PM 1/9/98 PST, N2 wrote:
>I have a question that someone might have the answer to:
>I have heard from my youth that Jesus Christ has created
>worlds without number. Now I picked up the notion somewhere along the
>way that each world has it's Adam, and also it's Redeemer. Am I way
>off base? I do believe that the Holy Ghost is a calling, like bishop
>or something, that one is called for a time, then released when it is
>someone else's turn. Is that possibly true with being a Savior to an
>earth? When he says "worlds without number...", is he using the
>pattern of speaking
Blayne:
When he talks about "worlds without number have I created" he is talking
about the 'Light of Christ' not the man Christ. but the Creative
Intellegence that governs the universe (D&C 88:50) that is in and
through all things. LDS teach that Christ did what he saw his Father do
so they conclude that His Father must have been the saviour or messiah
on his earth. But that is becuase they fail to know who Christ's father
is. Christ did what he saw his Father Adam do. He laid down his
celestial Life to allow us to come here for this experience and then
took it up again this is what Christ saw. So not everyone has to be the
messisah to make it to godhood. Its all symbolism about you and who you
are....
Perhaps this quote from B.H. Roberts can help. I posted it here before
but don't think you were here yet. this was a conference address. It is
one of my favorites.
Truman G. Madsen, BYU Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, p.289
This Light then, the Light of Truth and named for us men "the Light of
Christ"--"which proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the
immensity of space,"--is also God, even the Spirit of God, or of the
Gods, for it proceeds forth or vibrates, or radiates from all the
Gods--from all who have partaken of the One Divine Nature--hence "the
God of all other Gods"--mentioned by our Prophet of the New Dispensation
(Doc. and Cov. sec. cxxi) "the God of Gods," "the Lord of Lords,"
proceeding from MANY yet ONE! Incarnated in all personal Deities, yet
proceeding forth from them, to extend the one God into all space that He
might be in and through all things; bearing all the powers in earth and
sun and stars; world-sustaining power and guiding force. Bearing all the
mind and spiritual attributes of God into the immensity of space,
becoming God everywhere present-- omni-present; and everywhere present
with power--omnipotent; extending everywhere the power of God; also
All-Knowing; All-Seeing; All-Hearing--Omniscient! Bearing forth in fact
all the attributes of Deity:
Knowledge, Wisdom, Judgment, Truth, Holiness, Mercy--every
characteristic or quality of all Divine Intelligences--since they are
one; and this Divine Essence of spirit becoming "the Light which is in
all things, that giveth life to all things which is the law by which all
things are governed, even the POWER of God, who sitteth upon His throne,
who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things."
United in this Divine Essence, or Spirit is the mind of all Gods; and
all the Gods being incarnations of this Spirit, become God in unity; and
by the incarnation of this Spirit in Divine Personages, they become the
Divine Brotherhood of the Universe, the ONE GOD, though made of many.83
The last seven discourses of B.H. Roberts
Peace be unto you and your house, Blayne
%%%%%%
If we have any CLAIM ON OUR HEAVENLY FATHER FOR ANYTHING, it is for
knowledge on this important subject. Could we READ AND COMPREHEND ALL
that has been WRITTEN FROM THE DAYS OF ADAM, on the relation of man to
God and angels in a future state, WE SHOULD KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT IT.
READING THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHERS, OR THE REVELATION GIVEN TO THEM, CAN
NEVER GIVE US A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF OUR CONDITION AND TRUE RELATION TO
GOD. Knowledge of these things can only be obtained by experience
through the ordinances of God set forth for that purpose. COULD YOU GAZE
INTO HEAVEN FIVE MINUTES, YOU WOULD KNOW MORE THAN YOU WOULD BY READING
"ALL" THAT EVER WAS WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT!!!!
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44, p.324
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
The archive is on the web. If you have any recommendations, they are welcome
of course. Andy, I especially need you to have a look, since you may remember
this stuff better than I. Is Charlie dead? Maybe we should dedicate it to
him. Here is the link;
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/6443/prodigoid.htmll
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Hail Mutants!
The mention of Wilson (R. A. not Collin) took me
back to a terrifying night almost four years ago
when I traveled down to Big Sur with my Jewish
filmmaker girlfriend from SF to score my first Acid.
We ended up staying the night at Esalen Institute
because it was so late and we decided to dose up.
Since my primary characteristics as a human being
are impatience and greed (as well as attention seeking
and name dropping), I decided that my first trip should
be at a "heroic" dose as advocated by McKenna...soooo
I ate four hits...1000 mics.
I was up all night ranting and raving to my poor little
big city girl friend who had only half that...boy was
pissed! I finally when down to the Lodge to start
drinking coffee, hoping that it would "sober me up".
So there I was, franticly pacing back and forth in front
of the coffee dispenser tripping like a man-man while
none other that Robert Anton Wilson was sitting at a
table looking at me and chuckling sardonicly while
making quiet asides to the lady with him. I was sooo
VERY paranoid at that point. But now it just makes
me smile.
I love you all,
Ken
PS I can't even really remember Tim Rathbone, but I
figure that "Mormonism" is so mindbending on it's own
that all of us end up going through some mighty rough
rides.
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Oops, here is the real link.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/6443/prodigoid.html
proclus
proclus wrote:
>
> The archive is on the web. If you have any recommendations, they are welcome
> of course. Andy, I especially need you to have a look, since you may remember
> this stuff better than I. Is Charlie dead? Maybe we should dedicate it to
> him. Here is the link;
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/6443/prodigoid.htmll
>
> proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
I saw this discussion in the archive and it reminded me of my own
exploration of the universality (is that a word? he he) of prayer
circles and the wonderful diversity that attends them in each culture.
from the Mutant archive:
<<>>>
<<<< Yes, but let's not forget the main point, that this circle dance
relates directly to the mormon prayer circle. Prayer circles existed
outside the temple for many years, and can be thought of as Mormon
covens. ;-} I suggest it is more likely that Mormon temple prayer
circles are related to the circle formed in the Royal Arch degree, in
which participants surround the altar, make the signs of the degrees,
join hands, and offer a prayer with members repeating the words aloud in
concert.>>>>>
<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Beth:
I rarely have expert research or solid documentation (not that I don?t
appreciate these things) but it?s all rather subjective anyway...
For this I am sorry, however I do meditate quite a bit on the things you
talk about here....So I don?t know how valuble my musings are to the
scholars =) but for what it is worth....
I always felt that if the LDS native americans want to have a prayer
circle why not do something like the Ghost Dance that is in "their
language" why do we force Joseph's western/ European/ Hebrew/ Masonic/
Kabbalistic/ protestant rituals and church services upon them? Not that
there is anything wrong with those but it?s not in their language.
(yeah, I now the cultural imperialism in Utah is famous for
mistaking Utah culture with doctrine)... Not that I have expected the
bretheren to make this correlation....
Instead of the compass and the square why not let the Asian's use Yin
and Yang in their temple ceremony? They always had a common meaning for
me (not that there aren?t additional meanings about each that one has
and the other doesn?t)
... Most people don't realize the universality of the Mormon religion...
They don't understand how numerous things in Mormonism correlate with so
many of the other great mystery/wisdom/indiginous traditions of the
earth (unbeknownst to most Mormons). The common threads are too numerous
to be ignored....most people don't realize that these rituals and
symbols are saying the same things in whatever the language that culture
is. It says this right in the D&C that god speaks to men in the language
that they understand.
So I was exploring this prayer circle thing, before I heard of the
Mutant's, when I made this post on Mahonri aways back:
?.......The Ghost Dance was associated with the old battle at Wounded
Knee and the modern one. It is being revived again by Robert Ghostwolf.
I have spoken with him on the net. He is well known. The dance was given
to the prophet Wovoka in 1870 in a vision. Then in 1890 (which I
understand was the year that the Lord told Joseph Smith in the D&C that
if he lived to be ?such and such an age? he would see Christ return to
the earth again or something like that). From what I understand that
would have been in 1890 if you calculate it. Sorry I don?t have time to
check out the reference for this.
In 1890 the spirit led native Americans from coast to coast as well as
central America (and even some islands?) to Walker Lake Nevada. The
Lord (or some shining being) appeared there and everyone heard him speak
in their own language. He instructed them in many things including the
Ghost Dance. He told them that if they did it that it would part the
veil and allow them contact with the ancestors and those that would
minister to them.
Sounds like a type of Prayer Circle in intent! in fact Hugh Nibley
has stated that his research has shown that many of the early Christian
prayer circles were RING DANCES!
He announced that the millennium would begin soon and that the more they
did the dance the more the energy would quicken and hasten the
millennium. He said that the whites would mostly be destroyed if they
didn?t become more like the natives, which, in one interpretation, is
what the book of Mormon prophesies when it says that if any gentiles are
to be saved they must join the house of Isreal. One reason the
government made the Ghost Dance illegal and wiped it out was because of
this last prophecy. The Dance had temporarily empowered a beaten people.
The whites didn?t take too kindly to anyone saying they were going to be
destroyed.
The legends say that the Lord chose twelve disciples, including one
named Porcupine, who was instructed to tell President Woodruff about the
whole thing. Woodruff said that it couldn?t be the Lord because he
would only appear to the Brethren and so it must have only been one of
the 3 Nephites. All of the major newspapers of the day reported the
whole thing but it was labeled a hoax put over by the Mormons.
They were also given a garment, which I have seen, and it has what I
would call ?the 2 organizing principles of the universe? over the
breasts like our garment. Except they are native symbols, but God speaks
to everyone in the language that they understand.
There are times that I personally resonate to the symbology in systems
other than the Hebrew/Masonic/Protestant framework we have been given in
the LDS church. Sometimes in order to find truths that were always
inherent in the LDS system I had to look to other systems, bring truths
back and then correlate them to what was being said all along in
Mormonism, things I just didn?t see before.
I have taken a great interest in decoding and correlating the symbology
of all cultures. It is my belief that there are two symbols that
correlate to the compass and the square in every culture. They all have
a common meaning and then each culture? usually appears to have
additional meanings specifically for that culture.....?
Beth
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
If you want Kent's most beautiful, irreverent voice on the list (as per
your request)
then email him and ask him. his address is -
phikent@aol.com
He writes the funniest posts (and often quite true) on Shulemna and gets
the conservative
crowd riled up for days......
I'm afraid that even what us crazy Mutants are doing is too religious
for Kent however. Old men doing funny rituals wearing funny costumes are
the perfect target for Kent. And you know what, most of the time I
think hes far more enlightened than most. He he.
Beth
___________________Kent wrote:
<<<<< IOW all our collective database of
accumulated knowledge of good and evil is the fruit of that tree. Yes
the experience is necassary.>>>>>>
Kent responds:
Now let's see, Satan, alias Lucifer, is a mighty angel of light, maybe
the
actual Firstborn, older brother of Jesus, that somehow blew it by
arguing with
the Gipper,
and therefore got his butt cast down to Los Angeles or some other
equally grim
berg.
However, AHA, it worked into the Gipper's utimate plan anyways, that is
to
bust up the monotony of eternety by preening a bad guy, who would in
turn make
it possible for meatball humans to discover free agency, sandwiched
between
the good and the bad, and therefore become like God hisself.
Therefore Lucifer is actually, bad-ass as he is, a good guy like he
started
out to be in the first place.
In fact the Gipper rewarded ol' Lucy by making him Lord of the earth,
not that
he wanted it.
HOWEVER, if we dumbo humans give any credit to Lucifer, who helped us
become
something other than swamp-suckers, then we don't get to be God after
all
because somehow we in the confusion we blew it. Meanwhile, God teases
us us
once in awhile by telling us we are actually like him, that is, eternal
beings
that are stuck in some kind of deep trance, like maybe too much TV.
WHEW! My advise to God in this whole mess would be to set up a bunch of
priests on earth pretending to be able to FIGURE this all out. Then I
would
advise that once the priest business gets really hot and heavy, to blow
the
whistle on the whole order, yank away the priest-license and therefore
shock
everybody into nudging beyond adolescence and realize who the samhill
they
were in the first place.
Meanwhile what to do with Lucifer, who got tricked into a really bum
deal?
Kento
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Beth any wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I keep stubling upon sections of scripture, particularly in the D&C
> lately that sound just like Eastern philosophy to me. ?I AM in all
> things and through all things?.... etc.
>
> I believe that Michael and the creator Gods are like immortal
> extraterrestrials.. space gods seeding the universe.. and that we can
> evolve to the same level of creation someday. But I am essentially
> pantheistic, wondering if the supreme God is the creative intelligence
> force itself. I keep trying to convince Mormons that there is not
> neccesarily a contradiction there.
I don't know that it is possible to reconcile this contradiction. I have
always wondered how mormons could maintain pantheism in light of the basic
teaching that God is a man with a body. I have taken "in all
things" as figuratively describing God's method, like the light of Christ. In
other words, God's influence fills the universe, just like I affect my kids
behavior, even when I am not around. Furthermore, as God, He can be anywhere
he wants to be, but not two places at the same time. As a divine
intelligence, He can apprehend the whole universe (so can we), but this
doesn't mean that He is the whole universe. I believe that it is a Mormon
teaching that the universe is alive with diverse intelligences. These
intelligences are not God, rather they can be gods. In this manner they can
be representative of God, like the prophet for example.
On the other hand, I have the same doubts about those who take adam-god oh so
seriously. I have been influenced by McKonkie here. How can someone who has
been through the temple possibly imagine that Adam and God are the same being.
It defies reason, and what is presented plainly in the endowment. Again,
Adam is merely godlike. He is an image of God, a reflection of God, an
emanation of God. He emulates God. He is in the form of God. If this is
what it means to be God, then I agree that he is God.
That is why I give wide latitude to the Adam/God theorists. I agree with
them, but only by metaphor. Like all metaphors, it seems like an
oversimplification to me. Same for the pantheists. I prefer the human God,
who I can emulate.
> Is "the Light of Christ" just another name for the basic creative force
> which springs endlessly from the void or the Tao?
Thus, the Light of Christ would be the influence of God, or a tool of God, not
God himself. It seems metaphorical to me, like Abinadi's interesting views of
the Godhead.
If any of you folks disagree with these views, please let me know, because I
want to understand this.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>Tim wrote:
>> Aug 1981 to Aug 1986..I was 26 when I went back to school.. I
>> met
>> Art and Ken Shaw at Grandpa's books the Late Earnest Strack's bookstore
>> ,...
>
>This reminds me that Andy and I may have visited Grandpa's bookstore once when
>i was visiting him in Provo. Isn't this where you got some of your used
>Wilson books, Andy? What are the best bookstores in Provo these days?
>
>proclus
I definitely remember Grandpa's books, but that was in the days before I heard
of RAW ot Uncle Tim Leary. The place I took Mike to was Pioneer Book (which is
still in business after several moves, but is a real dive now.) My main
interest in those days was Military history, an interest shared with a buddy of
mine from Provo High and BYU named Greg Preston. I mention Greg because he was
a History major at BYU and was a friend of Tim Rathbone. Even if Art and Ken
don't remember Greg by name, they may by appearance: Short, stout (a polite way
of saying 'fat') and had a leg problem that made him walk like a weeble. He
was also best buddies with Professor Neil York (Neil is still at BYU, has two
lovely daughters, and Carol, his wife, is still anchoring news for KSL).
Up until three years ago, the best bookstore in Provo was Cafe Haven. 1600
South state in Orem, run by a prototype Mutant RM by the name of Stan Burnett.
Stan served in one of the London Missions and, when I last saw him, was
practicing Kaos Magick (derived from Crowley and Spare). Cafe Haven was the
main hangout for two groups: Pagans and Lesbians. (Guess which group I belonged
to. Guess which group my wife belonged to.) The food was good, the incense was
fantastic, and the book selection was out of this world. But, alas, Stan
closed the place down and moved on. Since then the best book store in Provo is
in Salt Lake (Golden Braid). For used and LDS books, the hot spot is now
Grandin Books on Center Street (they also publish, specializing in reprints of
older controversial LDS works by such men as Orson Pratt.)
It was from the clients of Cafe Haven that I organized my first Wiccan group
ritual. It was about as close as I have come to having a 'conversion
experience' and hooked me on paganism forever.
If all goes according to plan, Provo will have a new best bookstore in 5 or 10
years. I just need to save a bit of seed capital and find a good location...
I will bore you with no more nostalgia. I need to leave and read Beth's
heavy-duty notes.
-AJ
PS: Why was Tim dropped from the list?
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Proclus,
The Mormon view makes sense using
Buddhist cosmology and metaphysics.
The ultimate ground of being is called
"The Clear Light"...not to far from "Light
of Christ" or "Glory of God is Inteligence".
But organic life exists for a reason, it's
almost as if the Universe exudes "beings"
in an effort to OBSERVE ITSELF!
That's my take on it.
Ken Shaw
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>Beth any wrote:
>>=20
>> I saw this discussion in the archive and it reminded me of my own
>> exploration of the universality (is that a word? he he) of prayer
>> circles and the wonderful diversity that attends them in each cultu=
>re.
>
>I visited the in-laws for Christmas this year. Actually, they were
>ste-in-laws ;-}. Anyway they have Quaker roots there in Pennsylvania=
>, you
>know Church of the Brethren? The blessing on the food was a prayer c=
>ircle,
>very simple, but very powerful. It is quite a liberating ritual.
>
>It is interesting that this is supposed not to be done outside the te=
>mple
>these days. Any Babylon 5 fans out there? It reminds me that the Ps=
>iCorp is
>always supposed to wear gloves. The establishment is afraid that if =
>they
>actually press palms, that they will become "rogues". I wonder what =
>Wilhelm
>Reich would think of all of this.
>
>> Beth:
>> I rarely have expert research or solid documentation (not that I do=
>n=92t
>> appreciate these things) but it=92s all rather subjective anyway...
>> For this I am sorry, however I do meditate quite a bit on the thing=
>s you
>> talk about here....So I don=92t know how valuble my musings are to =
>the
>> scholars =3D) but for what it is worth....
>
>Everyone brings unique talents to the group. Yours are welcome here =
>as well. ;-}
>
>> So I was exploring this prayer circle thing, before I heard of the
>> Mutant's, when I made this post on Mahonri aways back:
>>=20
>> =93.......The Ghost Dance was associated with the old battle at Wou=
>nded
>> Knee and the modern one. It is being revived again by Robert Ghostw=
>olf.
>> I have spoken with him on the net. He is well known. The dance was =
>given
>> to the prophet Wovoka in 1870 in a vision. Then in 1890 (which I
>> understand was the year that the Lord told Joseph Smith in the D&C =
>that
>> if he lived to be =91such and such an age=92 he would see Christ re=
>turn to
>> the earth again or something like that). From what I understand tha=
>t
>> would have been in 1890 if you calculate it. Sorry I don=92t have t=
>ime to
>> check out the reference for this.
>
>I studied the Ghost Dance years ago. I think that was before I went =
>through
>the temple. The parallels with Mormonism are fascinating, but I neve=
>r
>realized the ghost dance=3Dprayer circle parallel. Duh! I guess I w=
>ill have to
>look into this again. Thanx!
>
>> In 1890 the spirit led native Americans from coast to coast as well=
> as
>> central America (and even some islands?) to Walker Lake Nevada. The
>> Lord (or some shining being) appeared there and everyone heard him =
>speak
>> in their own language. He instructed them in many things including =
>the
>> Ghost Dance. He told them that if they did it that it would part th=
>e
>> veil and allow them contact with the ancestors and those that would
>> minister to them.
>>
>> Sounds like a type of Prayer Circle in intent! in fact Hugh Nibley
>> has stated that his research has shown that many of the early Chris=
>tian
>> prayer circles were RING DANCES!
>
>More than ever in my life, I am willing to accept God's influence on =
>other
>peoples. Mormons have dropped the ball in many respects. It is no w=
>onder
>that God has chosen other avenues for His continuing work.
>
>> He announced that the millennium would begin soon and that the more=
> they
>> did the dance the more the energy would quicken and hasten the
>> millennium. He said that the whites would mostly be destroyed if th=
>ey
>> didn=92t become more like the natives, which, in one interpretation=
>, is
>> what the book of Mormon prophesies when it says that if any gentile=
>s are
>> to be saved they must join the house of Isreal. One reason the
>> government made the Ghost Dance illegal and wiped it out was becaus=
>e of
>> this last prophecy. The Dance had temporarily empowered a beaten pe=
>ople.
>> The whites didn=92t take too kindly to anyone saying they were goin=
>g to be
>> destroyed.
>
>This is a beautiful example of the liberating power of this ritual. =
>Have you
>ever noticed how the female temple worker gets up and stands outside =
>the
>circle? In many Wiccan groups, the alter is outside of the circle. =
>The
>circle is for the Goddess, Isis unveiled.
>
>> The legends say that the Lord chose twelve disciples, including one
>> named Porcupine, who was instructed to tell President Woodruff abou=
>t the
>> whole thing. Woodruff said that it couldn=92t be the Lord because =
>he
>> would only appear to the Brethren and so it must have only been one=
> of
>> the 3 Nephites. All of the major newspapers of the day reported the
>> whole thing but it was labeled a hoax put over by the Mormons.
>
>It would be great to have a source for this, if possible. It seems t=
>hat I
>have heard it before. Back in those days, the true order of prayer w=
>as a
>routine occurance among the saints, occuring more frequently out of t=
>he temple
>than in. It is a ritual of power. We were fighting those Gentile Am=
>ericans,
>instead of accomodating to them. How are we supposed to get back to =
>our roots now?
>
>> They were also given a garment, which I have seen, and it has what=
> I
>> would call =91the 2 organizing principles of the universe=92 over t=
>he
>> breasts like our garment. Except they are native symbols, but God s=
>peaks
>> to everyone in the language that they understand.
>
>Wow! I've really got to get back into this stuff.
>
>> There are times that I personally resonate to the symbology in syst=
>ems
>> other than the Hebrew/Masonic/Protestant framework we have been giv=
>en in
>> the LDS church. Sometimes in order to find truths that were always
>> inherent in the LDS system I had to look to other systems, bring tr=
>uths
>> back and then correlate them to what was being said all along in
>> Mormonism, things I just didn=92t see before.
>>=20
>> I have taken a great interest in decoding and correlating the symb=
>ology
>> of all cultures. It is my belief that there are two symbols that
>> correlate to the compass and the square in every culture. They all =
>have
>> a common meaning and then each culture=92 usually appears to have
>> additional meanings specifically for that culture.....=94
>
>
>Let's make a table. =20
>
>compass/square
>Yin/Yang
>the balance scale
>cup/dagger
>disk/wand
>mercy/justice
>
>Any others? One more question. Can anyone detect a vestigal dagger =
>in the
>temple ritual as it stands today? Maybe not. =20
>
>proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Tim Rathbone wrote:
> Mike I was only towing the church line to see where they were..
> Remember just because I post something does not mean I agree with it. I
> like to generate a lot of discussion on subjects.
I believe that is called geurilla ontology. ;-}
> The cutting edge is the only place to be pushing the edge of the
> envelope .. Hanging out over the edge...
Whew man, I've gotta hang with you doooood. =}
> I like and agree with the faqs..
> I have talked to Joe Swick and others as I have mentioned.
> before...
> As I have enjoyed this correspondence.
Me too. Too bad you have no access to the web. There are so many links I
want to give you for discussion.
> I am presently enrolled in a New Testament class at the local
> college catching up on all of the latest research. Really very
> interesting. I am learning a lot...
Yea, for me it is a sideline. I'm a biochemist/crystallographer. I do the
religious studies stuff for fun. Right now I am reading The Hiram Key and
Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Isreal in Ancient Times. Skimmed some egyption
first dynasty stuff in the library as well. I was unsatisfied with the
documentation in Hiram, so I went to the source. I'm preparing a post
regarding this to mutants.
I took my favorite religious studies course Arizona State. It was called
Medieval Christianity and the Early Church Fathers. I guess that was about
'85. It was fascinating; Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, Mysticism, Monasticism.
These are the many ways that people rebelled against the empire. They
rebelled, but survived. It really shaped me, and it continues to shape the
evolution of our circle. We have so many kindred spirits in history.
Then, along comes Joseph Smith. He reinvents the social order and almost
creates a new civilization. Here was a man who understood that power derived
from the invention of a new symbol. Create a new symbol, and you create a new
reality. Now, his life and death are a symbol, and we are living in a new
world. How modern he was, such a hacker.
> Where was it you and Andy were on your mission. I know Greg went
> to Arizona. was it northwest u.s.??
While Greg was in AZ, Andy and I were in eastern Pennsylvania and surrounds.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
As I said earlier, I have been bothered by the sketchy documentation in Hiram
Key, so I have been going to the egyptian first dynasty sources for
conformation. I have found Redford's recent book; Egypt, Canaan, and Israel
in Ancient Times, to be invaluable in this regard.
Although their wording is a little imprecise, the first dynasty material in
Hiram checks out. It turns out that the pre-sumerians of Uruk and neighboring
cities were slowly and relentlessly inventing the tools of civilization over
the course of many generations. These included written script, and the first
agri-business; monarchy.
Ironically, these things emerged in Egypt full blown, virtually over night
during the first dynasty (about 3000 BC) in Egypt. This is of course one of
those glittering mysteries, but it is entirely plausible that Egyptian
civilization was seeded by the pre-sumerian city builders. This theory was
advanced my most of the archeologists and egyptologists that I read. I think
that the reason that the Egyptians always get the credit for civilization is
that their neighbors were enamored of them, and always trying to flatter them.
Anyway, although the language in Hiram is a little imprecise on this point,
it checks out in its essentials.
Redford's book is also about Canaan; you know, the semites, Palestine and all
that. It turns out that the early third millennium towns of Palestine are
very germane to this discussion. See if this sounds familiar ;-}. These
towns were grouped no farther than a days journey apart. Within the towns the
buildings were laid out in a regular orthogonal pattern, "which bespeaks a
consciousness of town planning." The Egyptians called these folks "kilt
wearers" or "shoulder knot people", because their form of dress consisted of a
leather jerkin with a band over the shoulder. They called themselves "mw",
which was probably pronounce a'amu (alamu) with a hard guttural "a" typical of
semetic languages. Redford thinks that this simply means "the people", being
reminiscent of Amerindian tribal designations.
With writing going on all around, it is interesting that the Canaanites did
not create their own form of writing, rather they adapted the writing of other
civilizations phonetically to their own language, Sumerian cuneiform script in
the east and north, and Egyptian hieroglyphics (like reformed egyptian) in the west.
Redford postulates that ideas about Sumerian writing and monarchy arrived in
Egypt from the north as well.
I hope that you are all enjoying this material as I am. I will post another
report in a few days.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
> >section regarding Abraham in Sumer. I was flabergasted to read that
the
> >Celts were Sumerians who migrated to central Europe, wandering
around
> >abit, then landing of course in the British Isles and Briton. This
is
> >stated as fact with no references, as if the authors have no idea
what a
> >controvery surrounds the origins of the Celts! Does anyone out
there
> >know what these guys are talking about? If this happens again, I
may
> >begin to loose confidence in their research.
>
>
>GAIA:
>Yes, there is some discussion about this....also that they were related
>to the ancient Dravidians. The Goddess Kali-Ma is thought to be
related
>to the Celtic Goddess Calleach -- both of them are Goddesses of
>death and regeneration/ renewal.
>
>An *excellent* resource on this history of the Celts (not all of them
>are reliable, you know) is "History of the Celts"....
>Also, anything by the fine English academician, Geoffrey Ashe is good.
>Geoffrey has published over 20 books on Celtic history, myth and lore,
>and is considered an expert on Arthurian legend -- he was a principle
>resource for Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon."
>(If you've got any questions on any of this stuff, let me know, he's a
>good friend, i frequently have a chance to have nice long talks with
>him!)
>
>
>IN>Ashoreth was once the the consort of God in semite theology. I'm
> >studying this stuff again right now. In that world women had
authority.
> >Our right hand has cut off our left hand. It is sad that we have
lost
> >something so beautiful. We did not give our priestesses proper
respect,
> >and now they are gone.
>
>IN>Actually they are not gone. They are merely hidden in the
rectilinear
> >precincts of the temple. They are protected from a world that
destroys
> >beautiful diversity (think Michael Jackson). When the whole earth
is
> >made holy, we will have our priestesses again. We will have our
> >Ashoreth again. I am thirsty for that day.
>
>
>GAIA:
> Hey, your priestesses are still here....some of us are busy as
>all getout!
>And beleive me, Ashtoreth/ Ishtar/ Asherah are quite present. Next
full
>moon, you can connect with thousands of us who will be invoking Them
all
>over the world!
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
> >Because we
> >>rejected His word. To speak plainly, we rejected the united order
and
>
>GAIA:
>Uh, just a little note -- the United Order was NOT the same thing as
the
>Law of Consecration and Stewardship. That's a common fallacy. The UA
>was a temporary, stop-gap measure instituted briefly during the early
>Utah period, but it was NOT the same thing as the LofC.
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>GAIA:
>Yes, there is some discussion about this....also that they were related
>to the ancient Dravidians. The Goddess Kali-Ma is thought to be
related
>to the Celtic Goddess Calleach -- both of them are Goddesses of
>death and regeneration/ renewal.
>
>An *excellent* resource on this history of the Celts (not all of them
>are reliable, you know) is "History of the Celts"....
>Also, anything by the fine English academician, Geoffrey Ashe is good.
>Geoffrey has published over 20 books on Celtic history, myth and lore,
>and is considered an expert on Arthurian legend -- he was a principle
>resource for Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon."
>(If you've got any questions on any of this stuff, let me know, he's a
>good friend, i frequently have a chance to have nice long talks with
>him!)
Excellent. This material is going to the top of my reading list as soon as I
finish hacking Hiram Key. Gaia, You may know that I am skeptical of the
covenant brittish isles material. I am anxious to get my hands on some
genuine scholarship regarding this important point. Thanx!
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
> >Because we
> >>rejected His word. To speak plainly, we rejected the united order
and
>
>GAIA:
>Uh, just a little note -- the United Order was NOT the same thing as
the
>Law of Consecration and Stewardship. That's a common fallacy. The UA
>was a temporary, stop-gap measure instituted briefly during the early
>Utah period, but it was NOT the same thing as the LofC.
Hmmm, could you expand on that? I'm not sure that I follow you there. I have
this equation in my head; true order = united order = law of consecration =
plural marriage. It's a package. Obviously, I am oversimplifying. Given the
thrust of this group, I think that we need to make this all very explicit. We
need to understand this like a fundamentalist or better, if possible.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
rpc man wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure that I follow you there. I have
> >this equation in my head; true order = united order = law of
> consecration =
> >plural marriage. It's a package.
>
> How do you equate the united order with plural marriage? The united
> order was, for the most part, a Sidney Rigdon creation. It was
> discontinued before plural marriage was in full swing and the two don't
> seem to be inter-related to me. We all know how Sidney Rigdon felt about
> plural marriage. ;)
Law of Consecration=United Order, and plural marriage are at the core of the
true order and temple ritual development. Maybe someone can clarify the
terminology here. These concepts were developed around the same time in
Nauvoo. They were also implemented institutionally at SLC by BY, with a
peculiar thrust which was different from Nauvoo. This different thrust was
even reflected in the layout of the cities. In SLC, the houses faced east,
but in Nauvoo, the houses were grouped and faced inward, toward a shared
court. These groupings formed the basis of temple cells, what we might call
prayer circle groups. All of this is documented in an early article by M.
Quinn. I feel that the full impact of the true order of prayer is unclear
outside the context of united order and polygamy, which forms its basis. It
is a level of sharing that ratifies the ritual circle. In the circle we are
building eachother's houses.
What I really don't understand is how the united order is not the law of
consecration realized.
Sidney Rigdon presents an interesting asymmetry here. How is it that he
supported the united order, but not plural marriage? As I explained above,
they are a package, at least for me. I am unaware that he originated UO.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>> How do you equate the united order with plural marriage? The united
>> order was, for the most part, a Sidney Rigdon creation. It was
>> discontinued before plural marriage was in full swing and the two
don't
>> seem to be inter-related to me. We all know how Sidney Rigdon felt
about
>> plural marriage. ;)
>
>
>Law of Consecration=United Order, and plural marriage are at the core
of the
>true order and temple ritual development. Maybe someone can clarify
the
>terminology here. These concepts were developed around the same time
in
>Nauvoo. They were also implemented institutionally at SLC by BY, with
a
>peculiar thrust which was different from Nauvoo. This different thrust
was
>even reflected in the layout of the cities. In SLC, the houses faced
east,
>but in Nauvoo, the houses were grouped and faced inward, toward a
shared
>court. These groupings formed the basis of temple cells, what we might
call
>prayer circle groups. All of this is documented in an early article by
M.
>Quinn. I feel that the full impact of the true order of prayer is
unclear
>outside the context of united order and polygamy, which forms its
basis. It
>is a level of sharing that ratifies the ritual circle. In the circle
we are
>building eachother's houses.
This makes more sense now. I still think that the two (UO and poly)
originated at different times and for different reasons though. I do see
how they fused together more in the Nauvoo temple period (and
thereafter).
>Sidney Rigdon presents an interesting asymmetry here. How is it that
he
>supported the united order, but not plural marriage? As I explained
above,
>they are a package, at least for me. I am unaware that he originated
UO.
He began and practiced the UO with his congregation before joining
Mormonism. It was his urging, after he joined, that led to JS's
revelations on the subject.
You have to remember that the UO was a practice started (and in some
ways finished) with SR's (subsequently converted to Mormonism) followers
in Kirtland. By the time the Nauvoo church was well underway, the UO had
become more of a principle than an actual practice.
See Van Wagoner's book for more on this:
http://www.california.com/~rpcman/SR.HTM
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
rpc man wrote:
> >Sidney Rigdon presents an interesting asymmetry here. How is it that
> he
> >supported the united order, but not plural marriage? As I explained
> above,
> >they are a package, at least for me. I am unaware that he originated
> UO.
>
> He began and practiced the UO with his congregation before joining
> Mormonism. It was his urging, after he joined, that led to JS's
> revelations on the subject.
>
> You have to remember that the UO was a practice started (and in some
> ways finished) with SR's (subsequently converted to Mormonism) followers
> in Kirtland. By the time the Nauvoo church was well underway, the UO had
> become more of a principle than an actual practice.
OK, but this does not address the fact that the practice was taken up
again in SLC in a kind of second try, if you will. There is something
about UO that Mormons fine very compelling. I don't think that you can
underestimate the effect of UO on early mormonism. Furthermore, its
connection with the temple rite puts it at the core of the religion.
> See Van Wagoner's book for more on this:
> http://www.california.com/~rpcman/SR.HTM
Thanx for the link! It looks like an interesting book, and I will
definitely keep my eyes open for it.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
rpc man wrote:
> >Sidney Rigdon presents an interesting asymmetry here. How is it that
> he
> >supported the united order, but not plural marriage? As I explained
> above,
> >they are a package, at least for me. I am unaware that he originated
> UO.
>
> He began and practiced the UO with his congregation before joining
> Mormonism. It was his urging, after he joined, that led to JS's
> revelations on the subject.
>
> You have to remember that the UO was a practice started (and in some
> ways finished) with SR's (subsequently converted to Mormonism) followers
> in Kirtland. By the time the Nauvoo church was well underway, the UO had
> become more of a principle than an actual practice.
OK, but this does not address the fact that the practice was taken up
again in SLC in a kind of second try, if you will. There is something
about UO that Mormons fine very compelling. I don't think that you can
underestimate the effect of UO on early mormonism. Furthermore, its
connection with the temple rite puts it at the core of the religion.
> See Van Wagoner's book for more on this:
> http://www.california.com/~rpcman/SR.HTM
Thanx for the link! It looks like an interesting book, and I will
definitely keep my eyes open for it.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Dear Gaia and All,
I have to jump in here because Consecration and
the United Order is my favorite personal obsession.
Brigham Young claimed that the Trotsky-esque
United Order was A NEW REVELATION to him
as an advance on the apparently unworkable
Consecration and Stewardship plans. Joseph's
ideas were clearly more of a Tolstoyist Christian
Anarchism than the rigourous and thorough-going
Christian Communalism of Brigham Young.
My question is this: What is the relationship of
of the earliest Chistian Communalism of the Jerusalem
Church with the institution of Monasticism that comes
about 400 years later? Isn't the United Order, in effect,
a kind of "lay" Monasticism?
One thing is certain, without Consecration and/or United
Order, the Saving Power of the Gospel is serverly limited.
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Jahnihah wrote:
>
> The Law of Consecration was given to the saints at D&C 42 in the Ohio.
>
> It is NOT simply a 'law' or 'commandment'. It is a complete plan of
> organization to establish Zion, and for each member of the church to
> permanently come out of Babylon, temporally AND spiritually.
>
> The Law of Consecration is a complete plan revealed to JS by Father so
> that we could escape the Babylonian system that holds us captive in our
> own land, as well as establish an entire communal society (United Order)
> that would allow a City wide Translation ala Enoch.
>
> This revelation was exactly the same plan as the City of Enoch, and king
> Benjamin's Zion.
I tend to agree with you here J. ;-}
> There are two different references for the United Order. The first is
> simply the joint communal society established by two or more families
> living the Law of Consecration, and the other is as Gaia explained with
> great accuracy.
This is a murky area, and I'm not sure what you are saying here. You seem to
be in opposition to Gaia's point. If I understand you correctly, you are
saying the the UO is at the heart of God's plan, but Gaia said it was a stop gap;
>GAIA:
>Uh, just a little note -- the United Order was NOT the same thing as
the
>Law of Consecration and Stewardship. That's a common fallacy. The UA
>was a temporary, stop-gap measure instituted briefly during the early
>Utah period, but it was NOT the same thing as the LofC.
> The first fulfillment of the Law of Consecration in Ohio was the most
> successful. Not necessarily from an economic, or temporal standpoint,
> but as a matter of Love for Father and congruency to the spirit of the
> whole program.
In what way was the Ohio version superior to later versions? What does it
mean to be "congruent" in this case?
> When the saints rejected Father and failed to trust Him and His promises
> to protect them and fight their battles for them, they were 'cast out in
> to the wilderness' just as ancient Israel. The church is under
> condemnation now for this rebellion, and ETB reminded the saints of it
> in General Conference as Prophet.
This is a bombshell for me. Did ETB really validate this doctrine of our
being under condemnation for abandoning UO? I would really like a reference
for this, if possible.
> BY had only the 'gumption' to try this sacred program again, but with
> only a partially purged membership (pioneer trek killed many) he was
> still left with a rebellious people and the further attempts in SLC
> failed miserably.
>
> The LDS church would have 'hastened', as JS put it, the Coming of Christ
> FOR THE CHURCH, if they had been obedient. They would have been
> translated like Enoch's, or Benjamin's cities were. They would have
> received the sealed portion of the plates that reveal the Higher Laws of
> the Gospel. They would never been cast into the wilderness, and Zion
> would have been a nation of Kings and Priests.
Yes Yes YES! go J GO!
> The REAL place for Zion to be established, never got touched. It was
> forbidden until the saints proved themselves first. The place is well
> known among LDS, and is the obvious choice to establish a permanent
> Zion, but it required what Adam himself couldn't overcome in his days.
> Needless to say, the saints came close, but failed in this major
> opportunity.
I feel that the world is condemned for the beautiful things that could have
happened. Wonderful people like Joseph and Martin Luther King have so much to
offer us, such grand visions, but we reject them and lose. Their visions are
twisted by blind heirs. Nevertheless, one day the shining city will be established.
This is why I think that all of this should be nailed out in great detail.
I'm sorry if I am being tedious.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Sidheach wrote:
>
> Howdy!
>
> Karl Marx said that marriage is the principle
> of private property extended into relationships.
>
> In the book "Religion and Sexuality" (by I don't
> know who at the moment) the author builds an
> argument that Joseph wason a trajectory leading
> to some kind of "group marraige" or "polyamory".
>
> Paul and Margaret Toscono have done much to
> bring this line of thought to light.
>
> Ken Shaw
My mind jumped to this as well, Ken. Here is Blayne's amazing response. It
is a little difficult to follow, but this is a difficult subject, right?
> Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three 1838-39, p.127
> When we consecrate our property to the Lord it is to administer to the wants
> of the poor and needy, for this is the law of God; it is not for the benefit
> of the rich, those who have no need; and when a man consecrates or dedicates
> his wife and children, he does not give them to his brother, or to his
> neighbor, for there is no such law: for the law of God is, Thou shalt not
> commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. He that looketh
> upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already in his heart.
> Now for a man to consecrate his property, wife and children, to the Lord, is
> nothing more nor less than to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the
> widow and fatherless, the sick and afflicted, and do all he can to
> administer to their relief in their afflictions, and for him and his house
> to serve the Lord. In order to do this, he and all his house must be
> virtuous, and must shun the very appearance of evil.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Michael Love wrote:
>
> Blayne Sukut wrote:
> >
> > "WE SHOULD GATHER ALL THE GOOD AND TRUE PRINCIPLES IN THE WORLD AND TREASURE
> > THEM UP, OR WE SHALL NOT COME OUT TRUE MORMONS." (TPJS, p. 316.)
I think that we should put this one in the FAQ. It expresses what I
think we feel, that outside reading is good mormonism. Opinions?
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
___KEN SHAW___
Karl Marx said that marriage is the principle of private property extended
into relationships.
In the book "Religion and Sexuality" (by I don't know who at the moment) the
author builds an argument that Joseph wason a trajectory leading to some
kind of "group marraige" or "polyamory".
-----
Lawrence Foster, Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons and the
Oneida Community. University of Illinois Press, 1984. ISBN 0-252-01119-8.
I don't recall that Foster is arguing that Mormonism was headed towards
Oneida-style marriage, although he does compare and contrast them.
JSW
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
___Comment___
Let's have a vote, a thought experiment. We are establishing Zion in this
circle here and now. Shall we have the anarchic UO of Joseph or the
communal UO of Brigham?
-----
Have any of you read Lucas and Woodworth's _Working Toward Zion: Principles
of the United Order for the Modern World?_ Wondering what others thought of
this, and how it relates to the thought experiment above.
___Comment___
One thing is certain, without Consecration and/or United Order, the Saving
Power of the Gospel is serverly limited.
-----
Yes, as it is part of Celestial Law, there cannot be a fulness of exaltation
in the Celestial Kingdom without it.
___Jahnihah___
The Law of Consecration was given to the saints at D&C 42 in the Ohio.
It is NOT simply a 'law' or 'commandment'. It is a complete plan of
organization to establish Zion, and for each member of the church to
permanently come out of Babylon, temporally AND spiritually. The LDS
church would have 'hastened', as JS put it, the Coming of Christ FOR THE
CHURCH, if they had been obedient. They would have been translated like
Enoch's, or Benjamin's cities were. They would have received the sealed
portion of the plates that reveal the Higher Laws of the Gospel. They would
never been cast into the wilderness, and Zion would have been a nation of
Kings and Priests.
-----
As you know, Jahnihah is not my favorite netizen, but IMHO he hits this one
pretty close to home.
Regards,
JSW
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
>> Brigham Young claimed that the Trotsky-esque
>> United Order was A NEW REVELATION to him
>> as an advance on the apparently unworkable
>> Consecration and Stewardship plans. Joseph's
>> ideas were clearly more of a Tolstoyist Christian
>> Anarchism than the rigourous and thorough-going
>> Christian Communalism of Brigham Young.
>
>Ken, you are a beam of light. To me Joseph's system seems more idealized,
>whereas Brigham's system seems more fashioned on the necessity of the
moment.
>For accuracy, which one IS the UO?
>
>Let's have a vote, a thought experiment. We are establishing Zion in this
>circle here and now. Shall we have the anarchic UO of Joseph or the
communal
>UO of Brigham?
>
>> My question is this: What is the relationship of
>> of the earliest Chistian Communalism of the Jerusalem
>> Church with the institution of Monasticism that comes
>> about 400 years later? Isn't the United Order, in effect,
>> a kind of "lay" Monasticism?
>
>This is a topic of Hiram Key, which I am looking forward to. If we could
get
>all of this nailed out as far as the Mormon end goes, then I will give some
>research to the primitive church.
>
>As for the monastics, they have had all things in common as well. This
seems
>to me to be closer to Joseph's vision. They shared a house, a meal, a
common
>court. On the other hand, Joseph's vision does not include a vow of
poverty!
>The prediction here is that the primitive church did not take a vow of
>poverty. I can understand these monks though, having seen how wealth
>corrupted the papacy. My question is did the monks pray in a circle.
Anyone
>care to bet?
>
>As a sideline; Our ward hosted the Belmont Martin Luther King breakfast
this
>year. Times have changed, eh? It was great. The Unitarian/Universalist
>pastor gave the invocation. He asked us all to join hands around our
tables.
>You should have heard the muffled giggles. It was wonderful! I wonder if
>this fellow knows that the Mormon God is a white man who loves the military
>industrial complex! ;-}
>
>> One thing is certain, without Consecration and/or United
>> Order, the Saving Power of the Gospel is serverly limited.
>
>Over on rm-l J. has been saying the same thing. Here is an excerpt which,
I
>think, represents the feelings of many Mormons on this subject;
>
>Jahnihah wrote:
>>
>> The Law of Consecration was given to the saints at D&C 42 in the Ohio.
>>
>> It is NOT simply a 'law' or 'commandment'. It is a complete plan of
>> organization to establish Zion, and for each member of the church to
>> permanently come out of Babylon, temporally AND spiritually.
>>
>> The Law of Consecration is a complete plan revealed to JS by Father so
>> that we could escape the Babylonian system that holds us captive in our
>> own land, as well as establish an entire communal society (United Order)
>> that would allow a City wide Translation ala Enoch.
>>
>> This revelation was exactly the same plan as the City of Enoch, and king
>> Benjamin's Zion.
>>
>> The LDS church would have 'hastened', as JS put it, the Coming of Christ
>> FOR THE CHURCH, if they had been obedient. They would have been
>> translated like Enoch's, or Benjamin's cities were. They would have
>> received the sealed portion of the plates that reveal the Higher Laws of
>> the Gospel. They would never been cast into the wilderness, and Zion
>> would have been a nation of Kings and Priests.
>
>Yes Yes YES! go J GO!
>
>> The REAL place for Zion to be established, never got touched. It was
>> forbidden until the saints proved themselves first. The place is well
>> known among LDS, and is the obvious choice to establish a permanent
>> Zion, but it required what Adam himself couldn't overcome in his days.
>> Needless to say, the saints came close, but failed in this major
>> opportunity.
>
>proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
IN>Law of Consecration=United Order, and plural marriage are at the core of the
>true order and temple ritual development. Maybe someone can clarify the
>terminology here.
GAIA:
Part of JS's genius was that he was not merely a spiritual seer/
revelator, but he revealed an entire social, economic, political and
spiritual system for the "perfecting of the Saints." He recognized that
simply revealing a religion would not be sufficient to truly improve
humanity's lot. Religion was only the beginning -- getting people to
become justified, then sanctified spiritually was a noble goal, but you
cannot be truly sanctified while you're still living a telestial (or
lesser) political, economic, social system.
So he revealed an entire program, that covered the entire length and
breadth of human expereince/ need.
The economic system is the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. It
consists of consecrating your all to God, and receiving back a
stewardship over which you are responsible and for which you *reap*
*the* *rewards* . This is quite different from the United Order, where
"all things are held in common." While the latter is more like
socialism, the former makes use of the best elements of free enterprise
-- the incentive to constantly grow, improve, because you reap the
rewards of your efforts. And it works in not only an agrarian culture,
but in all kinds of systems. We will not have to go back to farming in
order to institute the LofC.
The political order is the Kingdom of God on Earth -- in which those
who've been anointed "Kings and Queens" in the Kingdom "rule and reign"
under Christ. Not everyone will have to be members of the religious
order to benefit from this system, btw. Diversity is more than
tolerated, and everyone's rights are respected and upheld. (Jahnihah,
please do NOT split semantic hairs with me on this, ok? You may have a
word / concept that you prefer over "rights" and you're welcome to share
it, but i certainly hope you will do so respectfully -- and frankly,
it's about time you learned how. I think most of us understand what i
mean when i use the word "rights" -- basic civil and human rights with
which, i believe, we are ALL "endowed by our Creator".)
The social order of the Kingdom is based on the idea that everyone
deserves a mate who fulfills them emotionally, spiritually,
psychologically, intellectually, physically; and that all children
deserve to be raised in an environment of (emotional, spiritual
and material) abundance.
If a couple feels that they can accomplish both of these ends in a
strictly monogamous relationship, i see absolutely no reason why they
should not be able to do so. (Congratulations, Laura and Eleazar, and
others of you lucky, hardworking folks who've accomplished this!!) And
perhaps in a perfect environment, with perfect people, this may be the
norm. But as many of us have experienced, it is sometimes difficult for
one single person to fulfill all of one's needs. And It was especially
true that more women than men were capable of living higher laws.
Therefore, polygamy was instituted to
a) allow more women to have men that fulfilled them;
b) raise more children to build up the church;
c) enable "sister wives" to care for the children while women obtained
training and education to come back to the church as doctors, lawyers,
etc.
The reason you associate all of these things with the temple is that the
temple is the focal point for them all -- it's where one receives the
instruction, power and authority to function in all these arenas as
God's anointed, and put under covenant to do so.
>Quinn. I feel that the full impact of the true order of prayer is unclear
GAIA:
No doubt part of the reason the TOP involves people togoether in a
circle, touching each other, is to encourage the flow of *energy* and
*power* which occurs when a group is physically touching.
Blessings --
Gaia
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Joe Steve Swick III wrote:
>
> ___Comment___
> Let's have a vote, a thought experiment. We are establishing Zion in this
> circle here and now. Shall we have the anarchic UO of Joseph or the
> communal UO of Brigham?
> -----
>
> Have any of you read Lucas and Woodworth's _Working Toward Zion: Principles
> of the United Order for the Modern World?_ Wondering what others thought of
> this, and how it relates to the thought experiment above.
It's now on my list. Here is the full info if anyone else is
interested.
Working Toward Zion: Principles of the United Order for the Modern
World.
James W. Lucas and Warner P. Woodworth.
Aspen Books. ISBN 1-56236-228-3), $19.95.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Blayne Sukut wrote:
>
> "WE SHOULD GATHER ALL THE GOOD AND TRUE PRINCIPLES IN THE WORLD AND TREASURE
> THEM UP, OR WE SHALL NOT COME OUT TRUE MORMONS." (TPJS, p. 316.)
Excellent quote. I printed it out. I think it should be a bumper
sticker.
Thanx man!
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Blayne Sukut wrote:
> Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three 1838-39, p.127
> When we consecrate our property to the Lord it is to administer to the wants
> of the poor and needy, for this is the law of God; it is not for the benefit
> of the rich, those who have no need; and when a man consecrates or dedicates
> his wife and children, he does not give them to his brother, or to his
> neighbor, for there is no such law: for the law of God is, Thou shalt not
> commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. He that looketh
> upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already in his heart.
> Now for a man to consecrate his property, wife and children, to the Lord, is
> nothing more nor less than to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the
> widow and fatherless, the sick and afflicted, and do all he can to
> administer to their relief in their afflictions, and for him and his house
> to serve the Lord. In order to do this, he and all his house must be
> virtuous, and must shun the very appearance of evil.
I found this so compelling that I could not forget it. I know that you
deserved a better response than you got to this, Blayne. Thanx again
for the excellent quotes.
If I recall events correctly, JS was at this date just developing the
endowment. I'd expect that he was also still heavily under the
influence of Sidney Rigdon, as rpcman indicated. Let me ask you to
consider this one point, that Joseph was in the process of backing off
from this position. It is very difficult to rationalize this position
with his behavior at Nauvoo, which is well known, despite what he said
in public. Also, he was known to be dogmatic in his support of Rigdon's
teachings at times, but often harbored different feelings, which he
nearly brought to fruition at Nauvoo.
Consider that JS, like us, was in the process of _unlearning_. We bring
alot of baggage and preconceptions to Mormonism. In order the learn a
higher law, we must let go of them. Just a thought =).
Regards,
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
By all means put the quote in the FAQ. Seeking truth everywhere is the
essence of radical Mormonism.
Don
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
From:
rpc man
Reply-To:
rm-l@troubador.com
To:
rm-l@mail.cm2.com
>If I recall events correctly, JS was at this date just developing the
>endowment. I'd expect that he was also still heavily under the
>influence of Sidney Rigdon, as rpcman indicated. Let me ask you to
>consider this one point, that Joseph was in the process of backing off
>from this position. It is very difficult to rationalize this position
>with his behavior at Nauvoo, which is well known, despite what he said
>in public. Also, he was known to be dogmatic in his support of
Rigdon's
>teachings at times, but often harbored different feelings, which he
>nearly brought to fruition at Nauvoo.
Joe can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the quote from
TPJS was well before the development of the endowment. It was from 1838
and the endowment didn't begin its *real* development until 1842. By
this time Rigdon's influence wasn't nearly as potent as it was in the
Kirtland period (even though he was JS's running mate in the 40s).
>If anyone finds anymore related to this topic let me know.
"If the infidel has got truth it belongs to Mormonism". -- Brigham Young
"The gospel is the truth. All truth is part of the gospel regardless of
how the truth has been learned." -- Henry Eyring
On a somewhat related topic, see:
http://www.california.com/~rpcman/mothink.htm
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
rpc man wrote:
>
> >If I recall events correctly, JS was at this date just developing the
> >endowment. I'd expect that he was also still heavily under the
> >influence of Sidney Rigdon, as rpcman indicated. Let me ask you to
> >consider this one point, that Joseph was in the process of backing off
> >from this position. It is very difficult to rationalize this position
> >with his behavior at Nauvoo, which is well known, despite what he said
> >in public. Also, he was known to be dogmatic in his support of
> Rigdon's
> >teachings at times, but often harbored different feelings, which he
> >nearly brought to fruition at Nauvoo.
>
> Joe can probably correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the quote from
> TPJS was well before the development of the endowment. It was from 1838
> and the endowment didn't begin its *real* development until 1842. By
> this time Rigdon's influence wasn't nearly as potent as it was in the
> Kirtland period (even though he was JS's running mate in the 40s).
I don't have a copy of JS' journal, but wasn't his blue lodge initiation
around 1838, or was it 1842? In either case Nauvoo-style UO can be seen
as a departure from Rigdon's pedantics and rigid system.
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Blayne and Proclus,
For years and years I felt like the public
talks of JS could only be viewed as
deliberate disinformation in the same
way that Isma'ili Islam teaches different
doctrines depending on the level of Initiation.
But now Proclus has brought up another way
of looking at things...JS was just like us...trying
to sort everything out and struggling against the
persuasive power of the "proffessional theologians".
Thanks Proclus...you really ARE da' man!
Ken
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Proclus wrote:
>I think that we should put this one in the FAQ. It expresses what I
>think we feel, that outside reading is good mormonism. Opinions?>>>
This was exactly why I asked everyone on RM-l to look up the quote
for me. Because I thought it had everything to do with what we
are doing here. I have a notebook and I print out all the the relevent
posts from the Radical Mormon list and the archive and keep it as part
of the research that I am doing relating to the topics we have been
addressing. On the title page of the notebook that I put together I
printed out those quotes (the ones I was looking for that Blayne
provided) and used them for the title page.
Thanks Blayne!!! (This is a double post to RM-l)
I couldn't remember if it was Joseph or Brigham who had said these
things but I am glad we came up with such a good quote from one of them.
I know that there are some quotes by Joseph on the topic of "universal
truth" that I'm using as well. Here is one:
This is reportedly from The Journal of Joseph: The personal diary
of a Modern Prophet pg. 203 (I found this quote in another book)
"...the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day
Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed
by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the priveledge
of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day
Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles
that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."
Here's some more:
>From "An American Prophets Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph
Smith" pg. 395:
"One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to recieve
truth. LET IT COME FROM WHERE IT MAY." (emphasis added)
D&C 88:118 "SEEK YE OUT THE BEST BOOKS, words of wisdom; seek learning
even by study and also by faith." (emphasis added)
D&C 90:15 "study and learn and become acqauinted with all good books,
and with languages, tongues, and people."
(Boy that's music to an armchair cultural anthropologists ears,
who seeks after the wisdom of ancient and indigenous cultures :-)
>From "Joseph Smith Begins His Work - volume 2": The original 8th article
of faith states, "We believe in the word of God recorded in the Bible;
we also believe the word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon, and in
ALL OTHER GOOD BOOKS." (emphasis added)
14th article of faith from JSBHW - volume 2: "Everything virtuous,
lovely, praiseworthy and of good report we seek after."
If anyone finds anymore related to this topic let me know.
Beth
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
Beth any wrote:
>
> Proclus wrote:
> >I think that we should put this one in the FAQ. It expresses what I
> >think we feel, that outside reading is good mormonism. Opinions?>>>
>
> This was exactly why I asked everyone on RM-l to look up the quote
> for me. Because I thought it had everything to do with what we
> are doing here. I have a notebook and I print out all the the relevent
> posts from the Radical Mormon list and the archive and keep it as part
> of the research that I am doing relating to the topics we have been
> addressing. On the title page of the notebook that I put together I
> printed out those quotes (the ones I was looking for that Blayne
> provided) and used them for the title page.
I hope that you will keep us posted regarding your research. =}
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click
here..
Back up to Mutant's
Home
More discussion here.
Visit