Marriage Equality

This post is published at Wheat & Tares — but I wanted to post it here for my own records.  So — if you want to comment on it, please do so over there.

Interviewer: But did [Oscar] Wilde identify himself as gay?

Stephen Fry: No, I don’t think he did. He talked about his nature — he was aware of what people’s natures were, to have sex with their own kind. He wasn’t an idiot — he was fully aware there was such a sexual orientation, but the noun “homosexual” did not yet exist in the English language.

I think Wilde had that advantage that he lived in a time when people were not nouns. You didn’t ascribe labels to them. While he was aware of his nature and never apologized for it, he didn’t shout it from the rooftops in the manner of a modern actor with a Larry Kramer sort of gay sensibility.

And I think those who try to read that into Oscar won’t find it there. You might as well wonder why Oscar didn’t have a Web site. He was more mature than our age is. I mean, he had very little interest in sins of the flesh, or he realized that it isn’t very important whether you call them sins of the flesh or not. The only things that matter are sins of the spirit. In that sense Oscar was quite religious.

That’s what so ironic — the religious complain about sins of the flesh, but sins of the flesh are not the kind of thing that Christ would object to. What you do with your penis or your bottom or anything else is so supremely irrelevant in a moral sense. It’s what we do with our personalities and other people that matters.

I still haven’t heard a convincing argument on how allowing gay marriage would affect my marriage in a negative manner.  It bothers me that we’re so focused on the hot button issue of “gay marriage” that the real issues affecting marriage [like spousal abuse, poverty, emotional fulfillment, etc.] end-up being ignored.

I think [despite what evangelical Americans will suggest] that the scriptures are largely silent on the issue homosexual relationships.  The scriptures that do condemn “men lying with men as with a woman”, etc. refer more to the practice of either:

• sex-rituals [as in, not among married couples]
• using anal sex to show “domination” or “subjugation” over a conquered group
• the physical lust for the pleasure of the sex-act

So it’s possible that those scriptures are condemning those behaviors — not “homosexuality” as such.  As Stephen Fry is explaining in the quote above, homosexuality as a sexual orientation and same-gender relationships based on marriage covenants of fidelity between same-gender couples simply did not exist until relatively recently.

Marriage is not about religion because atheists marry.  Marriage is not about procreation because the infertile marry.  I’d like to say that marriage is just about “love” between two people who desire to get married – however, the problem is we have allowed the State to license marriage and ascribe civil benefits to obtaining that license.  Cohabitation, shared beliefs, procreation, love, etc. – do not require legal permission from the government.  Civil rights and IRS benefits, however, do.

Marriage is basically the formation of a “corporation” between individuals.  This “corporation” gets legal benefits from the State [like any other corporation].  I don’t get upset every time a business incorporates — so why should I get upset when people want to incorporate a relationship?  The prohibition against same-gender marriage isn’t an issue because they’re not allowed to live together and love each other.  It’s an issue because the government’s involvement in marriage means that same-gender couples are not allowed to enjoy civil privileges:  receiving insurance through the spouse’s coverage, visitation rights in a hospital, adopting a child, filing jointly for income tax, taking family leave when the spouse is sick, making arrangements after death, etc. because their status is not legally recognized by a State-issue license.

Obviously, the solution to many of these problems is ejecting the State out of our home, family, romantic, and sex lives.  We have such a problem because with the power of civil benefits, the State is seen as legitimizing what relationships matter and which ones don’t.  The church should be at the forefront of getting the State and Marriage divorced because we [with all other Abrahamic religions] believe that humans were gathered into families prior to the establishment of civil governments.  Whether a couple is considered married “in the eyes of God” or not can have nothing to do with a State-issued license.  Thus, a good first step in this direction would be to no longer require a marriage license to perform religious services like for-time marriages and eternal family sealings.

But even if we want to be secular about it – the historical basis of the “family” was multihusband-multiwife tribes that shared food, labor, childcare, and sexual partners — not our present narrative of the two-parent nuclear family with a college-educated urban employment and a suburban house, with the 3 or 4 kids and a dog.  The church adopted itself into that institution [which is politically-termed “Pro-Family”], and re-framed our “Eternal Families” narrative to garner wider recruitment in the wake of the 1890 Manifesto and renunciation of polygyny.

The church, as presently organized, is a gerontocracy — so leadership today represents a 1950′s era American-style Mormonism from a Utah-centric, cis-, hetero-, anglo-, middle-class privileged lifestyle point-of-view.  And so, with the power concentrated in the hands of these few, we get a gospel presented in those terms only — with nothing for people whose narratives differ either slightly or greatly from that.  I think that with legalized gay marriage in the US being standing a good chance in the near future, the church could be at the forefront of presenting a family doctrine of fidelitous sexual ethics for both straight and gay members.

However, doing so would necessitate a re-evaluation of the stated positions on:

• what the fundamental purpose of marriage covenants really is
• what God’s design for getting adults together into families is really all about
• and what is He wanting us to do/foster in human society by organizing ourselves this way

Because presently the regurgitated, stock-responses are not internally-consistent with themselves:

• We parrot traditional American Christianity by saying that marriage is about One-man-and-One-woman, but we’ll all allow marriages after a spouse’s death and after a divorce [which would be serial monogamy — not a true mono-].
• Then, as LDS, we take it further by sealing polygynous and polyandrous eternal families through our policy of sealing any deceased person to all spouses they had while living [which is, again, not one man and one woman].
• And we’ll also use the natural law argument along with the other Christians to attempt to tie the purpose of marriage families together with reproduction — when many couples are infertile, or marry after reproductive age, and many couples are not economically-sound enough to provide for the maintenance of large families [especially when we keep them separate with sanctions against plural husbands and wives], and there are plenty of already-born children who aren’t cared for well-enough and could be adopted instead.

I think LDS are unique in the position of being able to associate marriage covenants with fidelity, cooperation, commitment, service, intimacy, fellowship, emotional fulfillment, and companionship — without needing them to be hetero- and monogamous.  And I think we can associate “the family” with greater purposes than reproducing children to fill-up the earth.  And while I think that marriage has a God-given “purpose” — I think it needs to be better associated with people having happy, loving, consensual, and faithful cooperative-unions.  If anything’s an “abomination”, it’s not homosexuality — it’s unions where people are taken advantage of, abused, lied to, cheated on, etc.  That should be illegal.  That should be a sin.

The problem is we get more interested in the outwardly-observable behaviors of the flesh — when the only things that really matter are state of the spirit or the heart.  The religious complain about sins of the flesh, but sins of the flesh are not the kind of thing that Christ would object to.  What you do with your penis or your orifices or anything else is absolutely irrelevant in a moral sense — especially when compared to our personalities and how we relate to and treat other people.

Next Article by Justin:

Previous Article by Justin: Using the Word of God as your Tribal Law

Using the Word of God as your Tribal Law

When YHVH, the God of heaven and earth, organized for Himself [from among the tribes of humankind] a family-based nation state to call “His Own” — those 12 tribes were given the word of God [now called "The law of Moses"], written on stone tablets, and later on papyrus, to be their customary mores and their common tribal law.  Thus, were any group today endeavoring to establish a gospel-based tribe unto the Lord, that group should use the written “Law of Christ” to build upon.  This is because, when all is said and done, how closely a tribe conforms to the scriptural patterns will be the key variable for determining its long-term success.

The Lord’s people are always judged by the written word:

It is the he written nature of the word of God that makes it what we’ll be judged by.  Meaning, there is a difference between what is spoken and what is written.  And the Lord judges us most according to the words that are written, not spoken.  The first thing Alma did when he escaped from king Noah’s court was write the words of Abinadi.  Why?  Because once written, they became a scriptural canon [or "measuring stick"] by which the people could now be judged.  When the same Alma was again confronted with iniquity in the church — he inquired of the Lord and received a revelation, which he wrote down so that he could judge the people by them [Mosiah 17:4 and Mosiah 26:33].

Nephi wrote:

wherefore
for this cause
has YHVH god promised me
that these things which I write
shall be kept and preserved
and handed down unto my seed
from generation to generation
that the promise may be fulfilled unto Joseph
that his seed should never perish as long as the earth should stand
wherefore
these things shall go from generation to generation
as long as the earth shall stand
and they shall go according to the will and pleasure of god
and the nations who shall possess them
shall be judged of them
according to the words which are written

[2 Nephi 25:21-22]

And YHVH has said:

for I command all people
both in the east
and in the west
and in the north
and in the south
and in the islands of the sea
that they shall write the words which I speak unto them
for out of the books which shall be written
I will judge the world
every person according to their works
according to that which is written

[2 Nephi 29:11]

And Yeshua told the Nephites:

for behold
out of the books which have been written
and which shall be written
shall this people be judged
for by them shall their works be known unto others
and behold
all things are written by the father
therefore
out of the books which shall be written
shall the world be judged

[3 Nephi 27:25-26]

And finally — in the fifth book of Moses, it is written:

and it came to pass
when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book
until they were finished
that Moses commanded those of the tribe of Levi
who carry the ark of the covenant of YHVH
saying

take this book of the law
and put it beside of the ark of the covenant of YHVH
your god
that it may be there for a witness
against you all

[Deuteronomy 31:24-26]

These sayings show that all people, all nations, the entire world — and more especially the people of the Lord — will be judged by the written word of God.  For this reason, any tribal group should use only the scriptures as their template.  We cannot look to the current, generally-accepted church practices for structure, guidance, and conformity.  Creating a scaled-down version of the same thing that exists in the larger church should not be our goal — rather it should be something that significantly different, yet still totally grounded in the word of God.

Now this doesn’t mean that every tribe that establishes itself according the written word will operate in the same manner or have an identical structure.  Because the gospel is a framework that allows all people within it to exercise their agency in righteousness.  So although it has bounds and limitations, there is a lot of leeway given so that each group can have the variety and diversity required to suit all the conditions and circumstances unique to each tribe.  As long as a tribe stays within the framework of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it will be operating under the principles of righteousness — even though it may function quite differently than another gospel-based tribe.

Following the scriptural patterns is much more important in establishing a gospel-based tribe than following the customs of the modern LDS church today or the country in which you live.  In other words, no one will be judged after death according to how closely they were conforming to what “the Church” was doing and teaching in their day — or by what was “legal” or “illegal” in their day.  Rather, all will be judged by how closely they were conforming to what is written in the scriptures, and what was written on their heart/conscience.  And this principle is the same whether we’re talking about the individual or for the tribe as a group.

In Romans 14, Paul writes:

receive any one who is weak in the faith
without having doubtful disputations
for one believes that he may eat all things
and another
who is weak
will abstain from eating meat
do not let the one who eats meat despise the one that doesn’t
and let not the one who chooses to not eat meat judge him that does eat
for god receives both

who are you to judge another man’s servant
it is by their own master alone that everyone stands or falls
and each shall be upheld
for god is able to make everyone stand

one person esteems one day above another
another esteems all days alike
let everyone be fully persuaded in their own mind
the one who regards the day
does so unto YHVH
and the one that doesn’t
is doing that for YHVH too
he that eats meat
eats it unto YHVH
for he gives god thanks for it
while he that doesn’t eat
abstains for YHVH
and gives the same god thanks

for none of us live unto ourselves
and none of us die to ourselves
for whether we live
we live unto YHVH
and whether we die
we die unto YHVH
whether we live or die
therefore
we belong to YHVH

to this end
the messiah died
rose
and was revived
that he might be the lord of both the dead and the living

but why would you judge your own sister or brother?
or why would you disregard your brother or sister?
for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of the messiah
for it is written

as I live

saith YHVH

every knee shall bow to me
and every tongue shall confess to god

so then everyone of us
shall give an account of own self to god
let us not
therefore
judge one another anymore
but judge this rather
that no one put a stumblingblock
or an occasion to fall
in the way of another
I know
and am persuaded by our master
Yeshua
that there is nothing unclean in and of itself
but to the one that esteems a thing to be unclean
to that person it is unclean
so if your brother is grieved by the eating of meat
walk charitably
and do not destroy a person for whom the messiah died
just because of your diet choices
let not your good be evil spoken of

the kingdom of god is not food and drink
but righteousness
and peace
and joy in the holy ghost
anyone who serves the messiah
in this things
is acceptable to god
and approved among others
let us
therefore
pursue things that make peace
and things wherewith one may edify another

matters of practice
like food choices
do not destroy the works of god
all things indeed are pure
but it is evil for someone who would do something
that would offend their conscience
it is good
to not eat meat or drink wine or to abstain from any other thing
whereby your neighbor would stumble
be offended
or be made weak

do you have faith?
then have it to yourself before god
happy is the one who does not condemn himself
in the things he allows himself to do
it’s the one who doubts that will be damned
if he partakes
because he’s not acting with faith
because whatsoever is not of faith is sin

[Romans 14]

Paul is saying that matters of practice such as:

• observing holy days (or not)
• avoiding certain foods or drinks (or eating/drinking whatever)

are not matters that pertain to our walk with God.  Where we will be judged is in our actions towards others (how we acted towards them) and how we acted in relation to our own consciences.

Saints of God may legitimately disagree on certain particulars of religious devotion and on the exact physical form that a life that’s been turned-over to God is “supposed” to take.  The proper response to that variability among believers is not judgement or self-righteously rubbing one’s own divergent practices in the faces of the others — but it is accept that variation with patience and charity and to do all things that foster edification and joy among the differing groups.

“Gospel-based” tribes:

So — when I write about the “GEMTAM” as a model of gospel-based, egalitarian, multihusband-multiwife anarchical tribes — I don’t mean to equate “gospel-based” with “LDS chruch-based”.  And the “anarchy” means that each tribe should be free to work out the details of their own tribe and make modifications to the model as they see fit and as suits their circumstances suit them best.

The main chapters of the GEMTAM book will be written so as to give the principles of the model in a concise manner using the letters in the acronym “GEMTAM” — and to show how each letter is scripturally-grounded.

However, I’d say that the principles of the gospel [upon which an enduring tribe should be based] need not be “LDS church”-principles.  Rather, they’ll be the principles of the gospel upon which any deist, humanist, or non-theist could see the value in:

• honesty
• forgiveness
• love
• patience
• meekness
• kindness
• fairness
• sacrifice
• etc.

And even then — one is still free to build a tribe that is not based on gospel principles if they are so inclined [and I'm sure they'd have success because the other principles like egalitarianism, marriage fidelity, plural kinship bonds, and common consent have such strength that they'd still see success] — it’s just that it’s the establishment of righteous tribes, established on the foundation which is Christ, that we desire for everyone — because I feel that only those such tribes will be everlastingly enduring.

Next Article by Justin:  Marriage Equality

Previous Article by Justin:  Lukewarm = Good for Nothing

Lukewarm = Good for nothing

I know thy works
that thou art neither cold nor hot
I would thou wert cold or hot
so then
because thou art lukewarm
and neither cold nor hot
I will spew thee out of my mouth

[the apocalypse of John 3:15-16]

Most expositions of this verse use the temperature as a metaphor for righteousness, wickedness, and the degrees in between.  Meaning, [as the standard interpretation will go] God wants people who’ve made up their minds — either to be “hot” disciples “on fire” for Him and His good news, or He wants them to be “cold” and ambivalent towards His law and His word.  And what He abhors and won’t tolerate is someone who is wishy-washy — trying to do a little of the “hot” church-related things, while still being “cold” in other aspects with the rest of the culture.

This common exposition is incorrect.  Most obviously because it teaches that God is more pleased with a wicked person than He is with a person who may be trying to convert to the gospel, but isn’t quite all the way there [mentally-speaking] yet.  But more importantly than that — it misses the nature of the hot, cold, and lukewarm water metaphor.

“Hot water” would have been the kind of underground spring waters heated by geothermal radiation, and were used for medicinal purposes.  Because geothermal-heated water can hold more dissolved solids, “hot water” was prized for its high mineral content and the temperature was therapeutic for soaking aches and pains.

“Cold water” would have again been from underground springs, but remained cold.  The time spent underground exposes cold waters to minerals as well, which give the water its unique flavor and CO₂ bubbles — depending on the nature of the geology through which it passes.  ”Cold water” from such springs is usually very clear and has been naturally filtered — therefore, it was a very healthy and safe choice for drinking water.  Also, it is often the case that such cold-water springs are labeled as “sacred wells” by local folklore.

Now — “Lukewarm” water is like the “salt that has lost its savor“, and the reason the Lord says that he will “spew it out of His mouth” is because it has lost the qualities that gave the hot or cold water their purpose/value [not because it can't make up its mind whether it wants to be hot or cold].

In conclusion:

The Lord finds value and use in both the hot water and the cold water.  One is not “good”, while the other one is “bad”.  The temperatures do not reflect degrees of devotion to the Lord.  He would rather us be either cold or hot because both are identical in having a purpose, or a useful function.  Being “lukewarm” is condemned — not because it means you can’t make up your mind which to be [hot or cold] — rather it’s because lukewarm water has lost either the hotness [medicinal] or the coldness [drinking] that makes the water useful.

He wants us to have use, value, and a purpose [whether it is as "hot water" or as "cold water", either one] — and He condemns those who’ve lost their purpose and are thence “good for nothing”.

Next Article by Justin:  Using the Word of God as your Tribal Law

Previous Article by Justin:  My letter to Prolife Christians about the HHS Mandate

My letter to Prolife Christians about the HHS Mandate

Dear Pro-life Christians Against the HHS Mandate,

The Supreme Court has already decided that there cannot be a religious exception to a law that applies to all persons equally. They’ve already decided that while the Congress can’t legislate that you agree with abortion in your mind — they certainly have the power to legislate that you agree with abortion with your actions.

You might not remember it — but it was back in the 19th century when the LDS were deprived of their 1st Amendment right to freely practice their religion by the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act.  You probably don’t recall because you were too busy celebrating with the rest of the country that those pagan, polygamous Mormons “got theirs” for daring to insist that God wanted them to love more than one spouse at a time.

The church of jesus christ of latter day saints challenged it on the grounds that passing an anti-polygamy law is unconstitutional because consenting adults entering plural marriages was a matter of the religious practice and duty of a Mormon’s faith.

While the Supreme Court said it recognized that under the 1st Amendment, Congress could not pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion — it argued that a law prohibiting polygamy doesn’t fall under that prohibition.  And they said that although the constitution didn’t expressly define “religion”, they quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in support of drawing a hard distinction between religion as a matter of belief/the mind and one’s actions that might flow from religious belief.

It was their opinion that while a matter of belief lies solely between a man and his God — the legislative powers of the state can reach actions [just not opinions] — despite the fact that beliefs inform action, and all action is predicated upon a corresponding belief.

The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion [plural marriages vs. murder — talk about “apples to apples”]:

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.  Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.  Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but every man is presumed to intend the necessary and legitimate consequences of what he knowingly does.  Here, the accused knew he had been once married, and that his first wife was living.  He also knew that his second marriage was forbidden by law.  When, therefore, he married the second time, he is presumed to have intended to break the law.  And the breaking of the law is the crime.  Every act necessary to constitute the crime was knowingly done, and the crime was therefore knowingly committed.  Ignorance of a fact may sometimes be taken as evidence of a want of criminal intent, but not ignorance of the law.  The only defense of the accused in this case is his belief that the law ought not to have been enacted.  It matters not that his belief was a part of his professed religion; it was still belief, and belief only.

[Reynolds v. United States]:

What all this means is — that as soon as the Supreme Court decided that those who believe in practicing polygamy could no more be exempt from an anti-polygamy law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief would be bound by laws against murder:

• religion as a matter of belief and religion as a matter of practice was legally dichotomized
• the state was given jurisdiction over your religion as a matter of action
• you lost your case against a mandate that employers provide contraceptive and abortive birth control as a part of the Affordable Health Care Act.

I’m sorry — but I hear the world’s tiniest violin playing, “My heart bleeds for you” whenever I hear Pro-life Christians complaining about how a healthcare mandate for employers to cover contraception and abortive procedures:  “trashes their freedom of religious expression.”You’ve allowed the State already to declare its power to demarcate religion into the realm of “belief” and the “mind” [rather than a function of “practice” and of the “physical”] way back in the 1890’s.   Sorry — but this is a battle you’ve already lost when the Supreme Court upheld the right of the State to imprison LDS church leaders, confiscate their property, and terminate the church’s corporate charter — all because of the Mormon’s freely exercising their religion.

When all the other Christians sat back and applauded as the State passed laws prohibiting the free exercise of the Mormon religion — simply because of their hatred of men and women having plural spouses — the fate over this comparatively light matter of employers covering birth control in their health care plans was settled.

Sincerely,
A Mormon tired of hearing your whining

Next Article by Justin:  Lukewarm = Good for nothing

Previous Article by Justin:  The Unity of God

Unity of God

A uni-verse [the One-Story]; a tale being told:

The world does not consist of “things”, but of interactions — and it is the interactions that give the appearance of “things”.  All “things” are fundamentally a verb.  But the base-”stuff” of all creation [at the deep-down and far-in level] — the noun, is the same.  What makes the variety of created things that we can observe in the universe consists of the “verb” the one-thing is doing.

Like a whirlpool, we appear as a static-and-solid form — but what we are is actually quite dynamic-and-fluid.  Your body’s cells are in a constant process of dying-out and replacing themselves:  every  moment, every day, every month — year-by-year.  Most of what you “know” was experienced by cells that have long-since been sloughed and replaced with new ones.

When you eat or breathe — your cells [which are communities of atoms] are designed so that they will be put in close proximity to the food or air [which are also communities of atoms] under conditions conducive enough for the right kind-of chemistry to happen — and allow some of these atoms to trade places.

Your skin does not separate you from the world — it’s the bridge through which the external environment flows into you, and you into it.  Because of your skin, you have a definite form/shape that others can recognize, but [as the whirlpool is a constant flow of water] the whole world is constantly moving through you.  All the cosmic radiation, all the water, food, and minerals, all the air, even the feelings and sensations — are a stream of everything, flowing right through “You”.  And you spin that stream into a constant form — a wave that I can wave to, and call “You”.

This is why you can take the particles of my body, bury them in the ground, and have them go on to become:

• the fiber of a toadstool
• the lignin of an oak tree
• the petals of a dandelion
• the keratin of the hair of a rabbit
• starch in a potato
• O₂ for you to breathe
• and CO₂ to buffer your blood

But none of that would cause the “Me” [the stream of consciousness and torrent of particles that you would have seen, experienced, and known as "Me"] to be lost.  When resurrected, I cannot get ALL of the particles that made-up my body — because during the decades of living, there were never any ONE set of atoms that were ever “mine”.

Some of the particles I “had” as a child already went on to become part of something/someone else before I even died.  And some of the atoms that “belonged” to me at the time of death were fertilizing a blade of grass before the time appointed for the resurrection.

“I” am not the particles of my body — I can’t be the “pieces” because those are constantly changing [even right now, at this very moment].  My cells are each a constant flow of atoms and electrons:  from the environment, through me, and back-out again.

“I” am this unique arrangement of nucleotides, amino acids, and minerals — a spell(ing) of alphabetic compounds [A-T-C-G; Met-Lys-Cys-Thr-Arg-Phe; C-H-O-Na-Fe-Ca-P].  The “Me” is the energy that informs [or gives form] to that dynamic stream [or flow] of particles — making them constantly appear as the continuous form everyone perceives and relates to as Me.

The power of the resurrection does not give me the same particles back — because those are irrelevant.  There never were any “specific pieces” that made me, “Me” anyway.  The power of the resurrection is the moment when my unique arrangement of particles is made physical again.

The Supreme Being [the Ultimate Doing], the principle verb:

“Being” is a verb word — and we are Human-beings, and God is the Supreme-Being.  God is that this-or-that one Actor or Actress who is being “God” — rather, God is the “verb” that we can all do [see The Doctrine of Identity].

Those who obtain the ability to do the works of God, to be the Supreme Being — will be the ones who have the capacity to reorganize their physical form and keep it in the kingdom of God.

On the other hand, those who fail to obtain this ability will lose all power to maintain the highly-organized state of “existence”.  Their physical body [the "pieces"] will go on to provide form for other creations, while their spirit/consciousness [the "energy" that informs the pieces] will be lost to entropy, becoming an indistinguishable bit of the cosmic radiation background.

Which category you find yourself in depends entirely upon which “spirit doth possess your body at the time that ye go out of this life,” because that’s the “same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world,” — whether that be

• the spirit of the devil
• or the spirit of the Lord

[see Alma 34:34-35 and A person, being evil, cannot do that which is good].

Works/Doings of the Flesh [which will have an end]:

now the works of the flesh are manifest
which are these

• covenant-breaking
• sexual misconduct
• ritual impurity
• indulging the pleasures of the senses
• idolatry
• use or administration of pharmakeia
• enmity
• contention
• jealousies
• fiery anger
• partisanship
• dividing into divisions
• and sects
• envyings
• murders
• intoxication
• engaging in revelry and debauchery

and other things of like kind
of which I tell you now
as I have also told you before
that they which do such things
shall not receive inheritance in
the kingdom of god

[Galatians 5:19-21]

and

because their hearts are set
so much upon the things of this world
and aspire to the honors of men
[and] they do not learn
this one lesson —

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 the principles of righteousness
that they may be conferred upon us
it is true
but when we undertake to

• cover our sins
• gratify our pride
• gratify our vain ambition
• exercise control
• exercise dominion
• exercise compulsion

upon the souls of the children of men
in any degree of unrighteousness
behold
the heavens withdraw themselves
the spirit of YHVH is grieved
and when it is withdrawn

amen

to the priesthood
or the authority
of that man
behold
before he becomes aware of it
he is left unto himself
to kick against the pricks
to persecute the saints
and to fight against god

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

[D&C 121:35-39]

Upon death, we will each of us find that the laws of physics which had [until that point] allowed us to:

• force air into our lungs by manipulating air pressure differences between our chest cavity and the atmosphere
• force gases to exchange at our lungs and tissues by taking advantage of the partial pressures of the various gases
• prevent our bodies from going right through physical objects [including the ground] by relying on the electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons surrounding our body and the electrons surrounding the other objects
• rob food of its low-entropy/high-energy value by chemically stripping the carbons and the electrons from the fats and starches and giving back out high-entropy/low-energy waste products
• etc.

will have ceased to work “just so”.

The present, mortal environment does not respond to the informing commands of our spirit out of respect for our level of righteousness.  Rather, in His mercy, the Lord has commanded the physical elements here to allow us to push them around and force them — regardless of righteousness or our lack thereof.

They are presently voluntarily-submitting to God’s request — and this is why we are presently able to manipulate the elements that make up our mortal existence, according to a specific set of laws that we’ve observed, studied, and defined as “The Laws of Physics”  [see The seeds of the powers of godliness].

Upon death — God’s merciful probation with the physical elements ends.  The elements will again respond as they always have — according to the principles of free-agency, consent, and respect.  If we have not learned to command our will in the universe according to the principles of righteousness — then we will find ourselves in an awful situation in the afterlife.  For it will be impossible for your spirit [your "soul" or "consciousness"] to force the elements to do anything against their will.

You will find yourself with an insatiable desire to eat, the feeling of unquenchable thirst, the perpetual sensation of suffocation — but have no way to alleviate the feelings.  You will find yourself pulled-down by gravity into the central portion of the earth’s outer shell — a place of immense heat and crushing pressure, a “spirit prison” or hell [see Teachings on hell and the spirit world].

Once at the center of hell, gravity pushes you equally in all direction.  Therefore, your body will act like an astronaut’s does while in orbit.  You will have no power to move this-way or that-way.  There is nothing your spirit could “act upon” in order to move around.

In fact, the only way you will be able to “move” at all is by Satan moving you around [as he desires you to be moved] by pulling on the chains of hell attached to the base of your head [see How to receive what you ask for].

This makes you entirely subject to him — which is the very definition of “damnation”:

if they be evil
to the resurrection
of endless damnation
being delivered up to the devil
who hath subjected them
which is damnation

[Mosiah 16:11]

Works/Doings of the Spirit [which will continue in perpetuity]:

but the fruit of the spirit is

• charity
• joy
• peace
• patience
• gentleness
• goodness
• faith
• meekness
• moderation and self-control

against such
there is no law

[Galatians 5:22-23]

and

no power or influence
can or ought
to be maintained
by virtue of the priesthood
it can only be by

• persuasion
• patience
• gentleness
• and meekness
• and genuine love
• kindness
• pure knowledge

[...]
the holy spirit shall be thy constant companion
and thy scepter
an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth
and thy dominion
shall be an everlasting dominion
and without compulsory means
it shall flow unto thee forever and ever

[D&C 121:41-42, 46]

Divinity is found in being bound to the most, serving the most, and being connected to the most – not vice-versa.  The nature of reality, rather than being monotheistically ONE, is [on its basic, fundamental level] polytheistically MANY.  A plurality of intelligences.

The revelation of God in the scriptures is that the governing Power of existence is a Personage that relates to the universe with [what the Hebrews called] “chesed” – the loving-kindness and compassion of a God who relates to us with the level of intimacy that is only the result of “beriyth” – or a covenant.

God is not self-existent – for He does all things, including creation, through voluntary covenant with free entities.  Creation was an act of council – of covenant between free and independent agents.  This actually means that He is bound to all things.  And a “self-existing” Being is independent and cannot be bound.

This is why God could “cease to be God”.  Our heavenly Father is “God” because of the covenant He has bound Himself into, with us.  His covenant relationship with creation means He exists for/because of us – not Himself.  Likewise, all things exists because they have bound themselves in covenant with God.  That’s why those who breach the terms of this covenant return to “their own place” in outer darkness – where there is no existence.

Neither the elements of the universe, nor God, are self-existing or independent — because the existence of both parties is a covenant relationship with the other.  Both we and God are self-inter-dependent, one with another.

The unity of God, then, comes as a product – not as an ex nihilo starting point — but a result.  Faith, common consent, persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, charity, etc. are not some stop-gap measures or some temporary/transient states-of-mind that we can drop once we’re “with God”.

For even the Gods must have and keep faith and must persuade and cooperate – for these things are the very fabric of the trusting engagement and co-valent, covenant relationship between all things [see Deep Waters: What would have happened if Lucifer had won the vote?].  At the very bottom [the root or base], Reality is plural and “God” is the unity, order, and cooperation that emerges from that.

Each of our Stories contributes to the Uni-story — One-verse in a Multi-verse:

The universe is a fragmented web, an ornate arabesque of energy, a flow of information that moves through all the variety of interconnected “things” – as wind or water moves.  And we are sym-phonic beings — and should not be content with mono-tony:  rows-and-rows of uniform, conformed, industrialized, factory-farmed, marketed, commoditzed sameness.

All of our “mono-“s [mono-theism, mono-culture, mono-gamy] share the common feature of being less robust and less diverse caricatures of a natural and diverse state of Reality.  All of our –archy’s and –ism’s are just temporary, arbitrary, and illusionary attempts to control things that are what they are because they are natural, diverse, and without someone to “rule” it all.

Statists want to see God as “ordered”, “ordering”, “imposing”, etc.  They pattern Him after the cosmic mon_oarch because they arise from cultures that were predominately mon_oarchy-s — and “chaos” or “undirected activity” is a problem that causes them anxiety and fight-or-flight stress.  But there is nothing to be feared from “chaos” — for it is only the unknown we fear when we look upon chaos, nothing more.

It’s not about a battle between “chaos vs. order” — that’s the wrong debate.  It’s about fearing the chaos or desiring the order — pitting one against the other.

LDS are at a bit of an advantage [theologically-speaking] over other Christians in this regard — because the creation of earth in our mythos is said to be an organization of “matter unorganized“.  Pre-existing material, arranged and put to good use.  In our creation myth — the Gods come into a space of chaos, and give it power — give it a purpose worth fulfilling.

But it’s not about “fighting” chaos with order or about embracing chaos “over” order.  For example, the family is an ordered unit.  The higher entropy [greater disorder, "chaos"] state would be for each of the members to exist as separate ego-islands, unto themselves.  Yet we order ourselves into families — and are protected against the effects of entropy by virtue of our organization as a community [called "family"].

And our brains aren’t active by virtue of having some “King Neuron” who runs the whole show — rather it has its strength according to the number of connections running between all the neurons together.

All enduring communities are organized in a more fractal, nature-like interplay and cooperation between the unique units.

I don’t want not to be “anti-order” — rather anti-archy: the imposed order, force, coercion, or compulsive order.  Any “-archy” is that linear, meccano-like corporate conformity and mono-tonous sameness.  It says to tie-up all your sticks into neater and tighter bundles, making sure they are all the same size and length — it’s strong like a brick-wall is strong.

Any an-archy says, let things organize theirselves as they will naturally tend to when they’re left alone — like the cellular cooperation within and between a body’s organs, like atomic cooperation between fundamental particles.  The life in this universe is absolutely built-upon the enduring qualities of such interactions and communities.

Human interactions, then, become less of an oppressive power-pyramid — and something more like a dance, something that we could imagine to be fun to experience with others [see Gimme some a that Mormon-hippie love, with a side of anarchy].

It works like nature does [which can seem "chaotic", depending on how you look at it] — without an outside foreman being habitually obeyed by the “underlings”.

The very people who fear chaos and therefore try to use means of imposed order — end-up causing more chaos.  When order is imposed, when interactions are controlled — from above or from outside [out of obligation or “duty”] things get out of a natural equilibrium or balance — and get more out of control.

Until we end-up spending all our energy fighting to control what our attempts at control have caused.  These will always tend to dehumanize the very people it’s seeking to “serve” by “giving them order” — and those it tends to dehumanize most, are the ones who think they lead it.

When fear drives your actions — it doesn’t quite matter what the goal is, how noble or honorable it may be — fear is still driving, and it will lead nowhere worth going.

Next Article by Justin:  My letter to Prolife Christians about the HHS Mandate

Previous Article by Justin:  A person, being evil, cannot do that which is good

A person, being evil, cannot do that which is good

Genuine spiritual practices come out of  salvation [already being "alive in Christ"] — they are not the tools you use to attach spiritual life on to your normal everyday life.  It is being in God’s love here-and-now and being filled-up with His overwhelming desire to share all that you have with everyone else that blossoms into joyous spiritual community — not your life-long effort to be active in the church in order to “earn” or “get” charity.

To put in plainer terms:  Unless your heart and mind are given over to the passionate love and transcendent experience of God – then any outward behavior, expression of belief, or moral code of conduct doesn’t count one iota to making you either righteous or unrighteous.

Righteous actions describe things that people with justified, purified, and sanctified right-brain-hearts do – they aren’t the instructions you must follow to “possess” a changed heart.

• Prayer, fasting, donating money or time, attending church meetings, meditation, charkha cleansing, pilgrimages, temple participation, yoga, tantra, reciting the rosary, reading tarot cards, service projects, herbal correspondences, etc.

These may all contain truth and may be interesting and useful disciplines in their own right.  But alone, they have nothing to do with an authentic response to the fundamental reality of the created universe:  God’s unconditional, self-sacrificing, and utterly non-stingy love for you [personally and uniquely You].

The way to judge is plain:

Any spiritual devotion or technique can be genuine – but each can just as easily be someone’s vain attempt to gain some personal security by relating to God as some Sovereign in the Sky who returns stability in this life for certain services rendered [see, Making an Image out of God].

I remember the word of god
which says

by their works
ye shall know them

for if their works be good
then they are good also

for behold
god has said

a person
being evil
cannot do that which is good

for if she offer a gift
or pray unto god
except she shall do it with real intent
it profiteth her nothing
for behold
it is not counted unto her for righteousness

for behold
if a man
being evil
gives a gift
he does it grudgingly
wherefore
it is counted unto him
the same as if he had retained the gift
wherefore
he is counted evil before god

and likewise
also
it is counted evil unto a person
if they shall pray
and not with real intent of heart
yea
and it profits them nothing
for god receives none such

wherefore
a person
being evil
cannot do that which is good
neither will they give a good gift

for behold
a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water
neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water
wherefore
a man
being a servant of the devil
cannot follow Christ
and if she follow Christ
she cannot be a servant of the devil

Moroni’s words do not indicate that you can use a person’s actions to judge whether they are righteous or not.  Meaning, it’s not:

If you see what looks like good fruit, then it must be good tree

Rather, it’s that:

If this is a good tree, then its fruit will be good

Notice he said that if a person is evil — then nothing they do, no gift they offer, can be accounted “good” before God.  Even if it would be a thing we might describe as a “good work” if we were asked.  Also, he says that a good fountain cannot bring forth bitter water — no matter what you might think about the quality of the water by looking at it.

It is often the case, with the sin of hypocrisy, that the outward appearances do not match the inner-state of the heart.  The inner-vessel is playing the part of a righteous one – but it cannot manifest the miraculous works of the Father [which are the real “good works”] because all it has are the works of men [which, outwardly, can appear quite charitable and good].

It’s not about being “good enough”:

Whether or not a person is morally virtuous, charitable, pleasant, or nice has nothing to do with salvation or righteousness before God.  Morality and niceness are not really the domain of the gospel.  Though there may be ethical implications of a person accepting, by covenant, the earth-shattering love of God – non-theistic humanists can be equally moral and congenial human beings.

I don’t mean to suggest that being a “good and moral” person isn’t important.  I’m saying that the gospel is concerned with the source of [or motivation for] our behavior — the spirit that is giving form to our actions.  Someone who has covenanted with the Maker of the Universe may very well do some of the same things that a non-theistic person would — but the informing principle behind why each is acting that way will be different.

The gospel is concerned with whether or not people learn to act by Power-Faith [using persuasion, patience, gentleness, meekness, etc. only] before they die — and whether a person’s mind and heart are being led by the spirit of the devil or by the spirit of the Lord [see Alma 34:34-35].

This is an entirely different domain than the collective pool of human ethics and social morality.

The state of the right-brain-heart is the sole determining factor between “good/sweet-ness” and “evil/bitter-ness”.  As the Lord looks – hard hearts desire evil things [by definition], whether the “thing” they desire appears to us to be good or evil matters not.  Conversely, broken/soft hearts will desire good things – things that may appear “evil” to someone observing them from a different historical/cultural viewpoint.

There’s nothing wrong with subjective ethics:

There’s this Western ethic of viewing reality as this binary, yes-or-no, true-or-false, etc. category for things — one that also holds that anything “true” must be universally scalable to be “right”.  You see it come-up anytime you propose or suggest an idea — and some genius pops-up with some outlandish, fringe scenario where that idea might not work. Like if they can invent just a single case where an idea might not be good — then that just invalidates the whole thing for everyone, everywhere, all the time.

There isn’t “One-True Answer” for how all people ought to live — and the search for such an All-True, Correlatable, Scalable, and Marketable Answer is a fruitless endeavor and leads away from getting towards any answer worth having.

God is about love: real love — chesed, agape — that open-faced, fully-naked, no-stinginess at all, complete sharing of all things kinda love.  God is love — which is why God is uncontrollable [or all-powerful], even anti-control.  But there’s a fear of relative truth or subjective ethics because they’re uncomfortable — they aren’t well-defined edges and lines that we can check-off and box-in.  But love requires the situational, the voluntary, and the accepting.

I find it funny that among the religious one will encounter the most hostility towards the subjective/situational — given the situational ethics of the scriptures: e.g., it’s wrong to kill [unless it’s not], it’s acceptable to take plural wives and concubines [unless it’s not], it’s required to circumcise the flesh [unless it’s not].

The reason all of the law and the prophets hang on the single concept of love is that without the context of love — being “true” or “right” is meaningless.  The gospel is meant to apply to every human who’s ever lived – ever.  Each generation, each culture has to bring the word to Life in their language, their world-view, and the conditions found among them, at that time and in that place.  One gospel, expressed through diverse forms according to the doctrine of expediency.

“Religion” must be pragmatic and provisional — a culturally-appropriate symbol of Reality and the Powers [elohim, or Gods] of Life that you’ve personally dealt with and experienced.  Because of this, the only standard for determining that a person is a “true” believer [a good tree, a good fountain, etc.] is the presence of the miraculous works of God, or the signs that follow them that believe:  flowing-out, into the world, through them.

Judging someone’s religion by any other metric is not a righteous judgment – but is an unrighteous judgment based on the outward appearance and the works of men [see, John 7:24 and 1 Samuel 16:7].

Telling me you read the scriptures, participate in the rituals, are active in the church, etc. – tells me nothing about the experiences you’ve had with God.  Those things are just the retelling or reenactment of someone else’s story.  It is all pointless and vain unless it is pursuant to you having the same experience — seeing eye-to-eye with the seers who have laid down those stories before you.

Someone else’s story will not save you [no matter how “true” it actually was for them].  Reenacting events from their stories as a ritual will not generate Joy in you.  Such things are meant to motivate you to get on the same pathway, to receive a similar connection with God yourself, and to see eye-to-eye with them.

I don’t want to hear anything about what system of stories a person believes in their brain are “true”.  Whether those stories “happened” or not is completely irrelevant to me – because what matters is what “happens”, right now – in You.  I don’t care if you believe the stories about Adam or Abraham or Moses or Lehi or Joseph Smith having real experiences with the Father – I care if you’ve had them.

There’s not much value in the religious-fundamentalist idea that This-One religion is “right” and the rest of Those-One religions are “wrong”.  The human concept of “God” means something slightly different to each group that’s used it throughout history and across cultures.  The idea of God formed in one generation could be completely meaningless to another.  Saying “I believe in God,” has no objective meaning, outside the context of who said it.

That’s why our spiritual dynamic cannot be hand-me-down — but must be wholly personal.  But “personal” does not mean “alone”.  Humans are not one-man islands – for all our stories are intertwined and interconnected.  So a community of like-minded believers may share the same story with you — and you may gather together and call yourselves a “church” or a “religion” or whatever —but each person must live out their own story and have their own miraculous experiences.

And it comes to pass…

I’ve read before that Art and Spirituality are [on a basic level] really the same activity.  Both are an outward-expression of your inner-will, intended to produce definite and concrete results.

If used properly:

• a painting can be the formula that brings to pass what was painted
• a song can be the spell that brings about what was sung

And human religious activity is this same dynamic — it’s meant to be functional, meant to make something happen.

So, to me, all that matters is if a person experiences the miraculous works of God in their life or not.  Their religion is “right” or “true” if it works – if it’s living and breathing, everyday in them.  Conversely, their religion is “false” or “corrupt” if it produces no fruit through them, if it’s a dead recitation of by-gone stories inherited from others.

Being of this-or-that religion, practicing this-or-that model of worship, conforming to this-or-that belief system – none of that gives any indication about whether a person’s religion works or not.  And therefore doesn’t matter.  Whether it’s “true” or not should be judged by what it’s doing.

If it’s producing the result — if it’s manifesting the miraculous works — if it’s bringing to pass the vision — then it’s real and then it’s true.

If the painting is just sitting on the wall, being revered as “true” – but the vision that was painting is not coming to pass and it’s just collecting dust — then it’s empty, vain, and false.

Next Article by Justin:  Unity of God

Previous Article by Justin:  Plasma Theology

The Revolution of the Mommies:  A Writer Interview with Joana Smith

Plasma Theology

I don’t know how many people who read this site study/understand/care much about the electric model of the universe, and how interplanetary movements and their resulting plasma interactions shaped human myths and conceptions of the gods — but one can come to appreciate why someone like myself, LDSA, or Anthony Larson view the plasma perspective as the only way to read prophetic narratives [see our posts on: D&C 88, D&C 101, Revelations, and any of Anthony's posts] — if you’ll think about why ancient myths and symbols do not correlate with anything in our present night sky.

From where we stand, the planets appear as these tiny pin-pricks of light.  Without telescopes, we can’t even clearly discern what they look like.  But then why did the ancients view them with such reverence and fear?  Why did our ancestors remember the planets as these immense powers in the sky — wielding thunder, lightning, fire, and storms?

Nothing in our skies, among the regular and silent motions of Venus and Mars — Jupiter and Saturn will ever explain:

• a primeval stationary sun of a “Golden Age”
• a cosmic wheel turning in the heavens
• a glorious mountain or temple where the Gods dwelt above mankind
• winged bulls
• fire-breathing dragons or chaos serpents

or any of the other ideas ancient humans attached to these planetary bodies.

Prophetic narratives describe heavenly [in the sky] events:

There are certain events that can cause all mankind to start to worship gods:  planetary and interplanetary high-powered plasma displays.

When displays are on a solar-system-wide scale, everyone “converts” into a believer in one kind of god or another and starts worshipping something.  This is because the human brain responds to the electrical current of the solar system.  When it “powers-up”, it strikes us on a primitive level.

Historically, this is how it has always been — and it’s the reason the ancients always struggled with idolatry [see, The doctrine of destruction].  Atheism only creeps-in when the skies are asleep, and the drive to worship doesn’t “pull” on us as strongly.  This urge [once "turned-on"] is as basic as our sexual impulse and is a part of our natural state of existence [meaning that atheism, like monogamy, is a more recent human invention].

The prophetic narratives [in myth -- or in scripture] take as their template events that unfold in the heavens:  i.e. the movements of planets and their interactions with each other as seen from earth, in the sky.  “Prophecy” is merely the description of planetary movements and plasma interactions.

The imagery in a prophetic story is imagery observed in the sky.  The mention of a “sword” or a “wheel” or a “dragon” — doesn’t mean there is a literal and physical metallic blade, chariot wheel, and fire-breathing reptile floating around in outer space – but that there are planetary movements and plasma formations that, when seen from the perspective of Earth, create an image or appearance that can be described as these things.

Prophecy is simply the movements of planetary bodies and the resulting plasma interactions, converted into a narrative that describe patterns — that likewise play out in earthly events.  Meaning that after the planets go through their described motions, fulfilling the elements of the prophecy every whit – the same story then plays out here, among people on Earth.

The research done in comparative mythology, plasma cosmology, and the electric universe suggest that the planets are not just big, physical balls of gas and rock, but they are also the idea of what those planets mean – the planets being used as a way to represent a pattern of things taking place among mankind [or within yourself] as though it were a physical event transpiring in the sky.

Their descriptions don’t make sense if you are basing your opinions on them on the current configuration of the planets.  Our current skies are asleep — and the electrical currents are not charged.

The following YouTube videos are full-length documentaries produced by the Thunderbolts research group.  And they present, visually, what I’ve been describing with text.

Remembering the End of the World:

Symbols of an Alien Sky:

Thunderbolts of the Gods:

Next Article by Justin: A person, being evil, cannot do that which is good

Previous Article by Justin:  Fourth Chapter of Luke

Fourth Chapter of Luke

A sense of the “Can-be Doing“:

The number of good things in the world that you can do are innumerable.  The number of things for which we are sent to do is considerably more limited.

and immediately after
when they had left the synagogue
they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew
with James and John
but Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick with a fever
and soon after arriving
they told Jesus about her

and he came
and took her by the hand
and lifted her up
and immediately
the fever left her
and she ministered unto them

At the evening
when the sun did set
the people of city brought unto him
all that were diseased
and any that were possessed with devils
and all the city was gathered together at the door

and he healed many that were sick of divers diseases
and cast out many devils
and suffered not the devils to speak
because they knew him

and in the morning
rising up a great while before the dawn
Jesus went out
and departed into a solitary place
and there prayed
and Simon
and they that were with him
followed after him
and when they had found him
they said unto him

all men seek for thee

and he said unto them

let us go into the next towns
that I may preach there also
for that is the reason I am sent

and he preached in their synagogues
throughout all Galilee
and cast out devils

[Mark 1:29-38]

Peter realized what they had going there in Capernaum.  They could set-up shop in his house.  Jesus stays inside — while he, Andrew, James, and John mediate access to Jesus’ miraculous works as door-keepers.

all men seek for thee

Peter says — why bother traveling around?

But the solitary time Jesus spent — fasting, praying, receiving and over-coming trials from the devil — gave him a sense of calling and purpose, so that he did not get bogged-down in the good works he could’ve done as the town-healer in a city of Galilee.

let us go into the next towns
that I may preach there also
for that is the reason I am sent

Jesus knew that he was come to seek and to save that which was lost [Luke 19:10], not to be sought after.  He was come to minister [Mark 10:45], not to be ministered to.

A sense of the “Should-be Doing“:

and Jesus
being full of the holy spirit
returned from Jordan
and She led him into the wilderness
to there be tried
by the devil
for forty days

and when the devil had exhausted all his trials
he departed from Jesus
for a period of time
and Jesus returned
in the power of the spirit
into Galilee

and he came to Nazareth
the city where he had grown up
and as the custom was
he went into the synagogue on the day of Saturn
and stood up to read the torah
and the leaders gave him
the book of the prophet Isaiah
and when he had opened the book
he found the place where it was written

the spirit of YHVH is upon me
because he has anointed me
to preach the gospel to the poor
to heal the broken-hearted
to preach deliverance to prisoners
and the recovering of sight to the blind
to set at liberty them of a contrite-spirit
to declare the Jubilation year of YHVH

and he closed the book
and he gave it to the minister of the synagogue
and sat down
and the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue
were fixed upon him
and he said to them all

this day
is this scripture fulfilled
in your ears

[Luke 4:1-2, 13-14, 16-21]

How do we get a sense of purpose in our life?

• Time in the wilderness

What do we do with that spirit of purpose?

• preach the gospel to the poor
• heal the broken-hearted
• preach deliverance to prisoners
• recover sight to the blind
• set at liberty them of a contrite-spirit
• declare the Jubilation year of YHVH

What is the most likely result?

and all they in the synagogue
when they heard these things
were filled with wrath
and rose up
and thrust him out of the city
and led him unto the cliff of the hill
whereon their city was built
that they might cast him off of it
headlong

[Luke 4:28-29]

Next Article by Justin: Plasma Theology

Previous Article by Justin:  The Revelation of God in Jesus Christ

(How do we pray? (When flowers do…))

The Revelation of God in Jesus Christ

A “god” is the idea of a god — the idea of a god is a god:

The most basic meaning of the Hebrew “elohim” is that of “powers“.  The human mind names, personifies, and maps-out these various “powers” and their interactions, but ultimately the “gods” are the culturally-appropriate manifestations or mental vehicles for a given power/energy/idea.

The demons, angels, pantheons of deity, Gods and Goddesses — they are all the impulses that inspire and guide You — unpackaged and unfolded as poetry and story-form.  They are personifications of the “powers” arising from nature and found within human-nature, externalized and examined in their most potent and purest symbolic form.

They all exist in our right-brain — as the warring desires in our minds, which battle for dominance in our decision-making.  It is we who make the “gods” real by the ones we choose to be guided by and the ones we “make flesh” by our actions.

Thus — if my “guiding power” is violent, then my actions and worldview will be contentious and hostile.  If my “dominant god” is compassionate, then I will experience my life through the lens of acceptance, mercy, and forgiveness.  Etc.

The long-standing human tradition of myths, religions, mystical experiences, etc. — is the essential activity of differentiating yourSelf from the unconscious forces of existence by personifying them, and then bringing them into a relationship with yourSelf consciously.

“Gods” are the set of ideas and perspectives through whom we view our world and ourselves.  They are but a name for someone’s mode of being — relating to their inner-self and their external interactions.  Our beliefs are our reality tunnels — and every one of them is an individual and culturally-appropriate manifestation of the Singular God.

Which is why it’s not entirely respectful to comment on the specific beliefs of another religion/culture to which you do not belong — because God gives the portion of his Word that is expedient and culturally-tailored to the specific conditions found among the community of the seers/prophets who received it [not to your conditions or culture].

The revelation of God in Jesus Christ:

The “God” whom I follow is the story of Jesus Christ.  A belief-system which commits me to the basic concept of servanthood and compassion.

I have voluntarily bound myself to Christ and his Word by my covenant to obey his every commandment.  This voluntary servanthood [or yoke] binds me to the fundamental reality that “God” is found in being under the most, serving the most, and being connected to the most [instead of vice-versa].

The revelation of God in the scriptures is that the most basic fabric of all existence is “chesed” — the loving-kindness and compassion of a God who relates to the universe with the level of intimacy that is the result of “beriyth” — or a covenant.

God is not “self-existing” — for He does all things through covenant [including creation] — which actually binds Him to all things.  A “self-existing” Being is independent and cannot be bound.  This is why God could “cease to be God” if He acts in certain ways — because the power and unity of God is a product [not a starting point] — and He is God because of the covenant He’s bound Himself to.

Thus — faith is not a stop-gap measure, or transient state-of-mind that we can drop once we’ve crossed-over and are “with God”.  All things [including gods] must have and keep faith, for it is the necessary element of the trusting engagement and active cooperation that is “existence”.

God’s covenant relationship with all of creation means that He exists for us – not Himself.  Likewise, all things exist because they are bound in covenant with God as well.  That is why any damned thing in the created universe can return to outer-darkness ["return again to their own place"], where there is no existence.

Neither the elements of the universe nor God are self-existing or independent entities — because the existence of both parties is a covenantal relationship.

Belonging to the “true church” of God has no meaning or value

There is nothing special that I get for having joined the latter-day church of Christ.  In fact, it gives me nothing special or noteworthy — and that’s the point.  There is no advantage to being LDS, to having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, to holding the rights of the priesthood, or having access to temples, etc. — for me.

You can’t “pass the test” of Life — or “solve the problem” by aligning yourself with the “right religion” on earth before you die — thereby securing your “salvation”.  Life is not a bank you can rob — and “get out” of it with eternal treasure.

Things don’t “get solved” — they comes together and fall apart, and come together again.  “Salvation” or “Enlightenment” comes from letting-go and allowing there to be room enough of all of it to happen — without fearing failure or desiring success.

We naturally desire the immortality of our ego, our beliefs, our group, etc.  God reaches into human history through the person of Jesus Christ to extend immortality to all — on the condition that they accept it unconditionally-alone, meaning by abandoning the hope of securing it for “You” or your “in-group”.

When our “god” is not Jesus Christ — when we do not deny ourselves, cease to identify with this skin-encapsulated center-of-will in the universe, and take up the yoke of Christ — then our fundamental allegiance will always be to Self-preservation, Self-reliance, and Self-centered survival.

We can never be One with God or with others — because we constantly experience God and neighbor as something inherently “Not-Self”.

Having the “mind of Christ” in you means you pour yourSelf out, in love.  Because, in love, surrender is victory.

Instead of falling into Self-centered separation and sin — fall in love, into Christ-centered connectivity and intimacy.

And not just with God — but with your family and your neighbors, your enemies and those who would despitefully use, hate, and persecute you — and this love won’t leave out the animals and plants, the earth and the stars — because deep-down and far-in, it’s all one energy flowing from them, through us, and back out again.

One thing [a uni-verse] that we experience coming through in individual waves.

Next Article by Justin:  Fourth Chapter of Luke

Previous Article by Justin: The Written Records

(A Family that Lives Together…)

The Written Records

Jesus didn’t write any scriptures.  The apostles didn’t write the gospels down as things were happening.  They didn’t sit in that upper room during Pentecost, making sure they got everything written down so they could go out and organize the church of Christ based on the authority of their scriptures.

The point with written scriptures is that they must be understood as the product of believers in Christ organized as his church – not what believers in Christ need to use to become organized as his church.  The written records are the trail that’s left behind – not the hand guiding us through.

The scriptures are just printed ink on processed wooden pulp.  Destroy every copy of the written word of God – and it wouldn’t do a thing.  Because a group of believers in Christ would just produce more scriptures.  Only dead congregations, who have no real connection with God through the spirit of prophecy and revelation, would be scrambling – because they lack the ability to produce anything new.  They can only re-tell the stories they’ve inherited from a by-gone generation.

It’s essentially idolatry [see, Making an Image out of God] – to look at the image that’s pointing and cling to and serve it, rather than to Look, Follow, and Live [see, ...and the labor which they had to perform was to look...].

The church of Jesus Christ is not established on scriptures:

A book cannot authenticate itself.  It takes an outside authority to do that.  Written records become “scripture” when the church of Christ covenants to be bound to that written record by common consent.  That means that the 66 books that make up the King James canon have authority as “the Bible” by virtue of the Catholic Church’s word alone – not by virtue of them simply being “the Bible”.

Further, you accept the English word-choice of the King James translation by virtue of the word of the Church of England alone – God did not dictate the creation story to Moses, or the epistles to Paul using 1611 English words.

The reason the King James text is also known as “The Authorized Version” is because, prior to its commission – there were many attempts by English commoners [i.e., not clergy or royalty] to translate the Bible into English [the language of the unlearned common-folk].  This threatened the power of the elites – who believed that the translations of the commoners did not, “conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.”

So, a new state-sanctioned English translation was commissioned that would render phrases in such a way as to justify and legitimize the hierarchical authority of the crown and of the church.  And it would be the only one “Authorized” by the state and the church for use.

Joseph Smith’s view of the bible:

• It can be ambiguous,

“The teachers of religious understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”

This ambiguity in the meaning of revelations happens when interpreters make false assumptions about the Bible and then just start guessing away at the correct interpretation.

They’ll assume the scriptures are cryptic [that they’ll say “A”, when they really mean “X”], are relevant [that all the narratives can be applied as personal lessons], and are perfect [that there are no contradictions, missing pieces, or extraneous material].  Their guessing either takes place horizontally [applying the past to the present] or vertically [applying the physical to the spiritual].

The meaning of the word of God should not be guessed at in this way.  Guessing is what Laman and Lemuel did.  Guessing is what Judeans did with Jesus’ parables.  Guessing is what the brethren at Jerusalem did [see, And they understood me not, for they supposed].  The meaning of scripture [in a gospel context] has only one signified attached to it.  And there is only one way to “figure out” what it means –to ask God what it signifies.

• irrelevant,

“The Bible contains revelations given at different times to different people under different circumstances.”

The blessings promised in the scriptures pertain to the people to whom they were spoken.  The laws outlined in the scriptures were tailored to the conditions under which they were given.

For example, at Wheat & Tares I commented on the definition that “hot drinks” in D&C 89 means “tea and coffee”.  The standard interpretation used by the church in regards to verse 9:

and again
hot drinks are not for the body
or belly

[D&C 89:9]

says that Joseph and Hyrum Smith all told members that “hot drinks” meant “tea and coffee”.  Sounds pretty straight-forward.

But – so what if Joseph or Hyrum in fact did say that “hot drinks” meant “tea and coffee” to this-or-that member back in the 1830’s?  That’s all well-and-good because that’s what the saints were in the habit of drinking hot at the time the revelation was given.  Brigham Young reasoned:

I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned [in D&C 89]; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee — the beverages in common use.

Now – to follow his reasoning – if the saints ended-up falling out of the habit of drinking tea and coffee hot and started drinking other things hot or started drinking tea and coffee cold — then the revelation still calls us to be guided by the general concept of avoiding the habitual drinking of hot liquids [rather than be bound to the specific conceptions of tea and coffee per se].

The revelation meant “tea and coffee” for them [because that’s what they were in the habit of drinking hot] — but it does not necessarily mean that for us today [if we get in the habit of drinking other liquids hot or drinking tea and coffee cold].

When the Lord said “Don’t drink hot drinks,” Joseph/Hyrum rightly took a look at what the saints were in the habit of drinking hot at that time — and they concluded that it was tea and coffee — so the leaders rightly taught the people to not drink tea and coffee.  But the interpretation of “tea and coffee” pertains to them – given under conditions where the people were in the habit of drinking tea and coffee hot.

• transmitted erroneously,

“I believe the Bible as it came from the pens of the original writers.  Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, and designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.”

If our understanding of some particular point of doctrine is based on a scripture that is the translation of a translation of a translation – that was taken from a copy of a copy of a copy – and somewhere along the line [there are centuries between the original and what we have extant, in many cases] a rendering was screwed-up [whether accidentally or maliciously] – then it may well reveal how weak some of our beliefs could be.

Our centuries long history and traditions of scriptural interpretation, some of Joseph’s wording choices in the Book of Mormon, and much our the temple endowment ceremony are all based on the scriptural renderings common at the time [taken from the King James English text].

I’ve heard people say that:

You’ve got to believe that God created the universe in six 24-hour periods because it says it right there in Genesis, ‘And the evening and the morning were the ____ day.’  The Bible clearly says ‘day’.

When, in reality, the Bible clearly says “yohm”, as it was recorded in Hebrew.  That’s a word that could mean a variety of things in English.

And even getting back to the original Hebrew can be more complex than it might seem at first.  The Meru Foundation found that the origin of the Hebrew characters lie in a series of ritual hand-gestures — or sign language.

Also, the Chronicle Project has found an alternate system for how the written Hebrew characters work, and publishes alternate, “original meaning” renderings of the Hebrew scriptures.

• and incomplete.

“Much instruction has been given to man since the beginning that we do not now possess […] to say that God never said anything more to man would be claiming a new revelation – because such a thing is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God.”

In The Concept of Race, in the Gospel, I wrote:

The best thing to do is to take it as granted that the current scriptural record we have in the Bible is a pretty incomplete picture concerning the affairs of God throughout the whole human race.  The Bible is the book that’s come by way of the Jew and is their record — and so we find that it deals primarily with Arabians [go figure].

Until the scriptural record is more complete — until we receive the prophets of the other nations, tribes, and people, with their prophetic records that will come forth from Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands, etc. — we cannot speak with certainty of how God has dealt with the other races and if there are promises made to them that we know that of.

Now, I’m not trying to say that we can draw no good lessons from our historical translations and traditions.  I’m not saying all current Biblical teachings should be repudiated.  Rather – it’s that any explicit meaning we’re going to gather from them ought to be accepted with the understanding that it comes skewed.  That the scriptures come to us as time-and-space artifacts of a particular culture – given in their language and suited to their circumstances.

What we have is just what we have.  It’s better to be honest about what we’ve got with our scriptural record — rather than try to pedestalize it into something it’s not meant to be.

Religions become concerned with ethical behavior and doctrine, and using the scriptures as an all-encompassing moral rule-book – instead of being concerned with changing people’s minds/hearts and how they view/experience their world, using the scriptures as a collection of stories that motivate believers to go live-out their own stories.

The problem with approaching religion as though it were a method of relaying ethics and doctrines from “the Good Book” is that ethics only teach us how to live as though you were one with your neighbor.  You learn the modes of action that imply a compassionate relationship with another person.  It offers you incentive to act in a certain way – but it cannot generate the genuine feeling of it.

While there may be certain ethical implications of having made a covenant with the fundamental Reality of existence – such things neither add to or subtract from current pool of human ethical wisdom.  It is not the domain of religion to lay down specific “hither thou shalt come and no further” guidelines for human behavior that transcendent time, space, culture, and circumstance.

Rather, religion is about providing the environment for people to experience the miraculous works of God and manifestations of the spiritual gifts.  Because once the experience is had – the very way in which a person approaches and experiences human problems/decisions will be altered.

The gospel is about that transcendent experience of a direct connection with God — one that smashes a hardened, left-brain sensation of being separate and opens a person up the fluid, right-brain awareness that all creation is a continuous and connected event that we are all a part of .

Next Article by Justin: The Revelation of God in Jesus Christ

Previous Article by Justin:  The Concept of Race, in the Gospel

(What R. U. Scared Of ?)