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
___Don Bradley___
OK, let's see the tarot stuff so we can "_really_ mutate."
-----
ROTFL! Easier to do in a discussion with Robert, as he is already familiar
with Tarot. I know he is partial to the Rider-Waite deck, and I am partial
to the BOTA deck, but these are very close and one could benefit by looking
closely at either. Hmmm. Let's see.... if you are familiar with the Fool,
you likely already know that hints of the doctrine of the Eternal Round...
the present world as a world of opposites... of Ascending and Descending
Deity... the Divine nature of procreative power... and Adam-God... among
other things... are concealed in that single card, and find further
expression throughout the Major Arcana. A small aside.... notice that
several of the Keys are also concerned with certain positions of the hands,
and with what Masons know as "right angles, horizontals, and
perpendiculars." While there are some fundamental differences in the
Doctrine of the Tarot with LDS Temple teaching, there is certainly plenty to
draw the mind towards the Confidential Teaching as known by the Saints.
Perhaps these small items from Key 1 are entrance-points of common interest.
If any of this catches the eye, then perhaps we can have some small
conversation. Although he has been rather quiet, I can't imagine that such
similarities haven't occurred to someone as well-versed in these traditions
as Art.
SVAT,
J. Swick
"Chabad Elohim haSatar Debar"
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
I should mention.... I am happy to have this discussion, but I wish to avoid
the megaposting of my past. I really would prefer a more equally-distributed
discussion! My time is severely limited these days, what with my
several wives, and all...
JSW
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
proclus wrote:
> 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,
I guess I should have added that it is only a typical LDS perception that the
two are
separate. The reality is that a 'United Order' as a typical LDS member
understands it,
is NOT a separate issue. In fact, in this tyipacal context, the UO doesn't
exist but as
a misperception. It is misconstrued to be a different principle or law, when
it is only
the natural funtion of those who fulfill the Law of Consecration personally.
The confusion comes when LDS start talking about the UO as Gaia explained it.
In this context a 'United Order' did exist, but not how typical LDS perceive
it to be.
It was a business venture. A ficticious entity meant to interact with Babylon.
It is a 'good idea' that has NOTHING to do with the natural funtion of a
families living
the LoC together in a society.
> 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.
>
She's correct. They had such a difficult time making Zion function
independandly, they
'jury-rigged' the business venture 'United Firm' to interact with Babylon
untill Zion
could funtion independantly. What the saints didn't understand, was this was temporary
until the point of self-sustainment.
Once Zion was strong enought to stand on her own, thy were to discard the
crutch (United
Firm/Order), and go back to the way Father wish them to operate.
That being as it is written in D&C 42.
Unfortuately, the saints saw their prosperity increase with this temporary
fix, and
liked it so much they wouldn't stop adding the Babylonian crutches (a bank
printing it's
own $$$, for instance).
They weren't becoming Zion, they were converting Zion into a Babylon of their
own. From
here on out, the saints just couln't get the 'blessings' the 'crutches' provided
eliminated. THIS is why Lyndon Cook is so far out of whack. He apologises and attempts
to justify all the modifications the saints made to a perfect plan, and thinks
it is
better the way it all turned out. His contorted explanations of how these modifications
are a type and shadow of the Temple symbolism, is misdirected.
The fact is the saints could have been translated if they had been obediant to
D&C 42.
They weren't, so they never got a chance to establish Zion where she belongs.
The church
was cast out into the wilderness until a righteous remnant was worthy to
fulfill the LoC
and establish Zion in her House from whence She came.
> > 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?
Because it had no 'stop gap' measures, and the saints hadn't discovered the
easy mixing
of Babylonian concepts into Zion was possible yet. They adulterated the LoC in different
ways, and it corrupted Zion.
> What does it mean to be "congruent" in this case?
Obediant, righteous, staying fast in His will for them, listening.....
> > 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?
Not 'UO', but ALL the disobediance that lead up to being cast-out into the wilderness,
and the continuous failure of the saints to be a righteous people, and to
fulfill the
first part of the Plates given to them. This includes the 'modifications' to
the LoC,
and the rebellion to Father in the obediance required to obtain the blessings
that He
promissed to them if they would Trust Him to fight their battles against their enemies
for them (including the US gov't).
> I would really like a reference for this, if possible.
It is easily had. The church Library should have the Gen. Conf. video tape of
it. I have
seen it twice myself, and even had a S.S. lesson on it once.
> > 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.
>
121:34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not
chosen?121:35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this
world, and
aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson--
121:36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the
powers of
heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon
principles of righteousness.
121:37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake
to cover
our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control
or dominion
or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness,
behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved;
and when it
is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
121:38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the
pricks, to
persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
121:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition
of almost
all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately
begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
121:40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
> This is why I think that all of this should be nailed out in great detail.
> I'm sorry if I am being tedious.
how much detail do you want ?
>
>
> proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
Hail Mutants!
I've been mulling things over and over since
this merry band formed, and it's become clear
to me how problematic "belief" really is.
In my younger days I thought it would be possible
to hammer out a comprehensive systematic theology
along the lines of B. H. Roberts and bring "reform"
to the Church from the ground up. Me and about a
thousand other guys of varying degrees of paranoid
delusionality.
I noticed that more clearly I defined the doctrinal
system of Mormonism, the less I felt the Living
Presence of the Mystery. I got to the point
where I didn't really pray anymore because
somehow I felt like I had already apprehended
the Mind of God...and then again it was hard
to feel the simple love of calling out "Abba"
to a loving Father when I was concieving
chains of "Adam-Saviors" and Joseph Smith
as Logos...blah...blah...blah..blah...
Maybe it's like the "Uncertainty Principle" in
quantum mechanics, you can either have theology
or you can have God, but you can't have both at
the same time.
I guess this is why I pretty much lost my taste
for "Fundamentalist" rant, because I heard it all
and I don't like where it takes me.
I find myself drawn irresistably to the simple piety
and ancient spiritual practices of Orthodox Christianity.
It looks to me like Mormonism was an post-Protestant
attempt to reclaim the Cosmic Christianity that Orthodoxy
is to this day. It strikes me as odd that the Book of Mormon
clearly refers to the Roman Church, but never mentions the
other four united Churches of the Orthodox East. Even the
text of the Book of Revelation can be tortured to make it
look like the Roman Church is Apostate, but there is no
way to fit Orthodoxy into that exigesis. Joseph Smith
apparently made no statements at all about the status
of Orthodoxy...maybe because it never came to his attention
that there even was such a thing.
All I can do is to follow what seems to improve my character
and makes me feel happy and holy.
Kenneth Shaw
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
In a message dated 98-01-24 12:57:20 EST, jswick@cris.com writes:
> Although he has been rather quiet, I can't imagine that such
> similarities haven't occurred to someone as well-versed in these traditions
> as Art.
Other affairs (*not* of the alleged Clinton-type!) have kept me from
responding to recent posts, but I've been quickly glancing through them as I
have time.
Since 1984 I've kept a written record of qabalistic and tarot symbolism which
strike me as having an equivolent to "esoteric" LDS doctrines (including the
temple ceremonies). I'm not sure what I'll eventually do with the notebooks,
but I have tried to stick to substantive issues.
It's easy to see much in the Rider-Waite deck, but for the most part it's also
all there in the GD and Crowley decks (for obvious reasons), as well as
several other older versions.
It all started when I went through the temple for my first time in 1978. I
had several tarot decks and used various keys from a "mini" Rider-Waite deck
as book-marks. I stuck Key XI, "Justice" in my copy of either the _The
Egyptian Book of the Dead_ or Nibley's _Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri_
(I forget which book it was now).
Well, the day before I went through the endowment ceremony, I was glancing
through one of the two books and was impressed with the concept of the twin
virtues of Justice and Equity (the up-raised sword and scale are depicted on
the card). It recalled the "weighing of the soul" in the _Book of the Dead_
(chap. 125). As you know, for the deceased Egyptian there were two options:
(1) the deceased was either "truth of voice" and his heart weighed as light as
a feather (maat) on a scale (which allowed him to pass on to Osiris in His
shrine), or, (2) he was found unfaithful and his soul was consumed.
So, anyway, I go through the temple, and as I listen to the veil instructions
I recall that the there's a veil behind the figure of Justice on the tarot
card. Then the "weighing of the soul" made even more sense. When I learned
that -- in the Salt Lake Temple -- the veil was between pillars (as depicted
in the tarot card), I was elated. Of course, the equilibium "between the
pillars" is even bettter depicted in Waite's Key 2, The High Priestess.
In any case, fascinated as I was by the temple, Freemasonry, the GD, the QBL,
etc., in 1984 I started making notes that eventually grew into (almost) three
large spiral notebooks. I showed them to a fellow GD boy in 1992 who was
familiar with the LDS temple (though a non-member), and he pronounced me
"obsessed"! So mote it be!
Khabs am Pekht!
---Art.'.
P.S. -- for those interested, see my online Masonic book at:
http://members.aol.com/adehoyos/chap1.htm
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
IN>From this I discern that Bob Black is Mr. Tarot ;-}? I was lucky to uncover
>some of the the kabalistic and enochian elements of the temple ordinance in
>the years from 86 to 89. I made entries in my magickal journal about it.
>Many of these elements were lost when the rite was changed in 90.
GAIA:
Since i left the Church around 84-85, i'm not familiar with the changes.
Would you please tell me about some of them? For a while, i was
attending the Temple a minimum of once per wk with the group of BYU
profs and others i was involved with.... Those sessions REALLy
rocked!
IN>If there is a parallel with the kabalistic tree, then there would also be a
>parallel with the tarot. I would also be interested in having Bob Black's
>material presented to this group, if he would agree to it.
GAIA:
Can't wait to see that stuff....i can contribute some to a discussion on
Tarot and Kaballah, since i've had classes on both, and teach on Tarot.
IN>The only trouble I foresee is that we have a few literalists around
>Mormonism is not mysticism. I'm not sure that Blayne agrees with that eithe
GAIA:
First, might be helpful to define terms. What is mysticism? Do you
think it's mutually exclusive to Mormonism, and if so, why? Why not a
"Mormon mysticism", as there is a "Christian Mysticism"??
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
Ken and all of you godless apostates,
I know exactly what you mean about how the thought of space gods and
Adam-savoirs etc. going back forver feels....
I came to a turning point within the last week or so with having "all of
the answers".
For some reason this image of an empty bowl kept coming to me and there
was kind of an Eastern flavor to this experience.
I just started thinking after this "I am an empty bowl", without really
even understanding what I was saying. (I used to be a control freak
about information, a regular info junkie. I had to know everything now.)
Suddenly after feeling this way for a few days all of my preconcieved
notions and opiniond just flew out the window. I felt as if a major
burden had been lifted from my shoulders. A black chain of fear
that had weighed heavily on me and that I was very unaware of lifted
and it felt like I was free from something I didn't even know was
shackeling me. I felt very light and free.
I seem to have entered a type of bliss, or at least no fear.
Yesterday I posted a reply to something on Shulemna I thought I would
cut and paste here. It reminded me of Kens post.
Lee wrote:
>>>Life is interesting
>>>we are the temple of God, and we are God>>>
Beth:
Amen. I felt God touch my arm today when the sun was shining and I said
"thank you". I said "you are beautiful God" when I looked at
the Oak tree in front of my window. I talked to God today when a
homeless man came and sat next to me on the streetcorner in Berkeley. He
talked to me about what a good piano player he was... told me he loved
Motown and the Righteous Brothers...I grinned and said to myself, "Wow
God loves Motown...I never knew"... =)
Yes Lee, what how fascinating life is...when you see good, you see god.
Beth
--------
The Mystery lives on Mutants!
Afanasias Kirshner (sorry if I hack the name)
the 15th century alchemist:
The highest mountains
The oldest books
The strangest people
There you will find the Stone.
Seek slack my friends,
Beth
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
IN>gaia@nmol.com wrote:
>> First, might be helpful to define terms. What is mysticism? Do you
>> think it's mutually exclusive to Mormonism, and if so, why? Why not a
>> "Mormon mysticism", as there is a "Christian Mysticism"??
IN>There are many ways to make an argument that Mormonism is not mysticism, for
>example; You can be a mormon and not be a mystic. In the same way; Mormoni
>is not magick, masonry, wicca, or cabala. I think that we are studying
>parallels and compatibility on this list.
IN>It is difficult for me to see any basis for a mormon mysticism in light of t
>King Follet address, or the portrayal of God in the temple. Our God is not
>mystery IMHO.
GAIA:
Mormonism *can* be seen as a mystery cult: you must go thru an initatory
experience before being "introduced" to the innermost mysteries (in the
Temple). In a "mystery" or "mystical" religion, it's not necessarily
that God is a mystery, but rather that there are some things that may
only be experienced THRU a mystical experience. They do no lend
themselves to rational explanation/ exposition. They must be
*experienced* to be understood.
So a better question is, what is a mystical experience?
What is a "mystical" consciousness?
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
gaia@nmol.com wrote:
> First, might be helpful to define terms. What is mysticism? Do you
> think it's mutually exclusive to Mormonism, and if so, why? Why not a
> "Mormon mysticism", as there is a "Christian Mysticism"??
There are many ways to make an argument that Mormonism is not mysticism, for
example; You can be a mormon and not be a mystic. In the same way; Mormonism
is not magick, masonry, wicca, or cabala. I think that we are studying
parallels and compatibility on this list.
It is difficult for me to see any basis for a mormon mysticism in light of the
King Follet address, or the portrayal of God in the temple. Our God is not a
mystery IMHO.
Furthermore, I consider that the planet is literally in a lost and fallen
state. This is not figurative for me. Blayne and I had quite some difficulty
over this point. I am REALLY bothered by the condescending "You just don't
get it yet" that I hear sometimes. I'm not interested in discussing mental
states. Just pass me the technology. ... sorry for the rant here ;-}
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
The web address will be on my revised links page which should be up, but
still under construction, by tomorrow (Tuesday). You can go to the
address on the links page or to the new one:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rds/lds/temple.htm
The site will be called "Temple of God" and will include links to some
of Kehau's stuff as well as other things about the symbolism of the
endowment. I will say that I don't agree with all of the things that
will be on the page (including some of Kehau's things and
interpretations in the Temple book), but it will be there anyway for
anyone who is interested. Hope the site doesn't offend anyone on the
mutant list cause it will link the temple book which is posted in
Jahnihah's site. Well, if I get kicked off, I guess I can call myself
"super mutant" or "mutant mutant" or something similar.
Mutant squared? ;-)
Randall/Eleazar
Beth any wrote:
> Randall,
> Blayne posted some fascinating posts from the man you mentioned.
> Could you give the web address please?
>
> Love ya,
> Beth
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
> >Well, here I am eating my lunch again and trying to keep from getting
>
> >further behind on reading the growning stack of unread messages. I
> >guess I need to sleep less. ;-)
> >
> >Anyway, I will vouch for Blayne. Very good fellow who writes
> insightful
> >posts. He is the one that showed me Kehau's site which I find to be
> >very meaty (sheeesh, sounds like a ravoli commercial). I see that
> >JSSwickIII has many messages listed on said site.
> >
> >Randall.
> >
> >Michael Love wrote:
> >
> >> Don Bradley wrote:
> >> >
> >> > By all means put the quote in the FAQ. Seeking truth everywhere
> is
> >> the
> >> > essence of radical Mormonism.
> >> >
> >> > Don
> >>
> >> I thanked Blayne for the quote. I sometimes think about inviting
> him
> >> into the circle, if he'd have us ;-}. I often find his comments on
>
> >> our
> >> threads very illuminating. He's brilliant, but so damned tedious
> >> sometimes. Any opinions out there?
> >>
> >> proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
c
Hey Beth, heres another gem I ran across from Brother Brigham, I thought you
might like. He even says "if theres any truth in hell we claim it too" .
Journal of Discourses, Vol.16, p.160 - p.161, Brigham Young, August 31, 1873
The Gospel of life and salvation that we have embraced in our faith, and
that we profess to carry out in our lives, incorporates all truth. We
frequently testify to each other that we know that this Gospel is true; and
as I have a great many times said to those that listen to my conversation,
upon the principles of life and salvation, I believe this work, I believe
this Gospel, I believe this doctrine, that is brought to us through the
Prophet Joseph, in these latter days, in this our time, for the simplest,
plainest and most palpable reason that can be given. "What is it?" Why,
because it is true. The Gospel that I have embraced comprehends all truth.
"How much of it is true?" All of it. "How much does it embrace?" All the
truth that there is in the heavens, on the earth, under the earth; and if
there is any truth in hell, this doctrine claims it. It is all the truth of
heaven, the truth of God, the life of those that live forever, the law by
which worlds were, are, and will be brought into existence, and pass from
one degree or one state of being to another, pertaining to the exaltation of
intelligence from the lowest to the highest state. This is the doctrine that
the Latter-day Saints believe, whether they realize it or not. Well, now,
upon apostacy. What have the Latter-day Saints got to apostatize from?
Everything that there is good, pure, holy, god-like, exalting, ennobling,
extending the ideas, the capacities of the intelligent beings that our
heavenly Father has brought forth upon this earth. What will they receive in
exchange? I can comprehend it in a very few words. These would be the words
that I should use: death, hell and the grave. That is what they will get in
exchange. We may go into the particulars of that which they experience. They
experience darkness, ignorance, doubt, pain, sorrow, grief, mourning,
unhappiness; no person to condole with in the hour of trouble, no arm to
lean upon in the day of calamity, no eye to pity when they are forlorn and
cast down; and I comprehend it by saying: death, hell and the grave. This is
what they will get in exchange for their apostacy from the Gospel of the Son
of God. This is their reward, and it is foolishness, not merely nonsense; a
person can have a little nonsense and pass it over; but this is foolishness.
There is not a particle of good sense about it; not light, no intelligence,
nothing that is ennobling, elevating, cheering, comforting, consoling, that
produces friends, or anything of this kind. I call it foolism; I do it this
time, consequently we will not talk anything about apostacy.
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 1843ñ44, p.324
%%%%%%
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/7397
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
If you are not into secret combinations and conspiracies, just hit
delete now.
A few weeks ago I heard that the IMF has historically encouraged
constrictive monetary policy in the pacific rim economies. IMF has the
chops to enforce these policies, because they control the debt of these
countries. Since the crash, this seemingly mindless policy has not
changed. Constrictive monetary policy in a contracting economy is is a
recipe for disaster, as it will lead inevitably to a protracted
depression in the area. There were food riots today. China's
significance grows immensely in such an atmosphere, especially in light
of the Hong Kong interests. US Pacific rim techno-moguls are pacified
by what they shortsightedly perceive as bad for their competitors.
I'd propose that the Chinese are being set up as the next big enemy by
the US defense interests. In this way US economic prosperity could be
diverted again into the military industrial complex. I see this as a
last ditch effort by the industrialists to wrest control from the
pacific rim interests. A typical Cowboys v. Yanks move. No wonder the
Europeans don't understand us!
In light of this theory, a lot of stuff starts to make sense, in a
conspiratorial sort of way. For example, Clinton's legal problems
divert attention from the hidden hand of the IMF banksters. As a bonus,
Clinton feels increased pressure to intervene in Iraq. Us v. them
madness is being created before our eyes. One of the main instigators
in all of this, Linda Tripp, has security clearance at the Pentagon, and
is rumoured to be a Defense covert operative. You can hear the cash
registers ringing miles away. Snap your seatbelts, buckos. We are in
for another ride!
forever paranoid,
proclus
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
___Proclus___
It is difficult for me to see any basis for a mormon mysticism in light of
the King Follet address, or the portrayal of God in the temple. Our God is
not a mystery IMHO.
-----
I entirely disagree. I believe that by their very nature, Joseph's Smith's
own encounters with God are mystical and "transcendent," and that Mormonism
is situated quite squarely in this tradition, our own nay-saying
notwithstanding. What in the KFD do you suppose hints otherwise? Now, I
don't believe that Mormonism IS Mysticism -- and certainly there is a
strongly anti-mystical, anti-charismatic current in the Church. However,
"mysticism" need not mean "unreal" or "imagined," or even simply "mental
states," as is clear to any who have had such experiences. I highly
recommend Kaplan's book, _Meditation and the Bible_, and _Meditation and
Kabbalah_. These are worthy of your attention for the quoted source material
alone. (Interestingly, Kaplan draws a line between authentic prophetic
traditions and techniques and those soothsayers and fakirs! Kaplan notes
that the "other techniques" work, but are not authorized.)
As for the idea that in Mormonism "God is not a mystery," I would argue that
while He is not a mystery TO SOME, He certainly is to most! King Follet
notwithstanding, God becomes more of a mystery the closer we draw to the
Protestant theological vocabulary and view. I'm not the guy who has
repeatedly said that we don't really understand what the KFD means when it
says that God was once a man; I'm not the one who said "I don't know that we
teach that." Traditional Mormonism encourages members to seek the
Transcendent; it does differ with most traditions in that it posits a God
that is NOT essentially unknowable. Yet even in Mormonism, the Gates of
Revelation generally open for one man at a time, and individuals blessed to
pass through this Gate are not able to fully communicate their experience to
those who have not shared in it (Alma 12:9-12). Like Lehi and Nephi's shared
vision, we may (must) each recieve it for ourselves... individually. How is
this NOT mysticism?
___Proclus___
Furthermore, I consider that the planet is literally in a lost and fallen
state. This is not figurative for me. Blayne and I had quite some
difficulty over this point. I am REALLY bothered by the condescending "You
just don't
get it yet" that I hear sometimes. I'm not interested in discussing mental
states. Just pass me the technology.
-----
You only say this because you are trying to understand it
with your carnal mind. So knock it off, and "let it be." You already have
the technology; you just haven't awoke to the fact yet.
Warmest Regards,
JSW
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
Mike,
Hail Eris!
Let us bring this down to earth.
I am afraid that I lean toward Joe's position on this. When you throw out the
dictionary definitions of 'mysticism' and 'mystic' and look at the people are
mystics, what do you get? Mainly people who know there is something outside or
above themselves, and who aspire to it. They usually aspire to it through
meditations and similar spiritual practices: Practices that have the potential
to change the person profoundly from within. Practices that are also often
frowned upon by the corporate church.
So what happens if you step outside the mystic mindset and say that God is no
mystery, but I still aspire to be like him? The answer is to aspire through
obedience, diligence, etc.....in other words, the mindless crap that flows in
the typical Sacrament Meeting High Council talk. I don't know about you, but
that kind of action leaves me spiritually empty.
So as you look at the two alternatives, what do you choose? Become like God
through a 'Corporate Ladder' model? Or become like Goddess by ascending the
mystic's stairway to heaven?
As for 'Give me the technology', the techniques and beliefs of the mystic ARE
the technology. Although I don't know why I am telling this to you, Mike, the
man who started me on the mystic's path. "We place not our trust in virgin or
pigeon. Our method is science, our aim is religion."
All Hail Discordia!
-AJ
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
From: Neoptolmus@aol.com
>Howdy! Is your name a reference to Ptolemy? It's grat to
>have you on board. My own interest has gone beyond
>ancient texts to the possible living continuations of ancient
>traditions. I followed the clues that (I believe) Joesph deliberately
>left imbedded in the body of his implicit teachings.....
Neoptolemus is the son of Achilles, and while he is most often portrayed in an
unfavorable light, I am taking the name particularly from the Philoctetes of
Sophocles, where Neoptolemus is clearly an initiate into the mysteries of the
Mannerbunde (sp) or warrior secret society.
It sounds as though you have much to teach me. I too believe that there are
implicit teachings imbedded in Joseph's teachings, though my interest in
continuations of the ancient teachings is mostly in Mandaean and Freemasonic
circles.
If you want to join the discussion, just click here..
Back up to Mutant's Home
Find more discussion here.
Visit