More on Hierarchy

More on Hierarchy

Question: Is the Hierarchy of which you speak Infinite and Eternal, or did it come into being at some point in time?

The concept of Hierarchy in the mind of God is eternal and never had a beginning or end, but those who occupy positions in the hierarchical order have a beginning and end to their placement. The externalization of any hierarchical position has a beginning and end, but when one ends, a new one begins.

When I said “All is Hierarchy – Hierarchy is the ALL” I was referring to the visible creations of God. Behind all true hierarchy is the One Life which reflects through them and sustains all things

Question: Is that Hierarchy Created or Self-Existent?

The entities involved are self existent but the manifestations in the various planes of existence are created.

Question: Is that Hierarchy like a triangle in which the number of subdivisions on each level decrease as you move from base to apex?

As far as the Hierarchy which governs all things high and low the answer is yes, but as the various lives move up the ladder of evolution and opportunity, many other positions of a non governing nature also become available, but have a purpose in agreement with and support of Hierarchy.

Does the Hierarchy have a top? Yes, but this is knowledge which has never been revealed. I shall give it to you the way I see it. There is no way to prove this so you will have to merely take it as a seed thought.

I wrote earlier about part of the chain of the Hierarchy. There are various ones on this earth with the highest being the Planetary Logos. The highest in the solar system is the Solar Logos, however there are millions of Hierarchical workers in between.

The major leap above this is a logos over seven solar systems of which our Sun is but one.

In our Milky Way Galaxy we have billions of solar systems and there are many great Logoi. The higher we get the lower their point on their potential ladder. To understand this principle consider that a flower is closer toward the end of its evolution than a human, even though the human is the higher life.

Even so, are humans higher on their ladder than are the logoi. Thus the galactic logos is merely an idea in formation. This also applies to higher logoi up to the entire universe. The highest logos of which anything is revealed is The One About Whom Naught Can Be Said which governs seven solar systems. of which our sun is one.

As you know there are also billions of galaxies which compose our universe, the end of which has not yet been discovered by our scientists. But it does have an end and beyond that we assume there are more universes.

Now most metaphysicians assume the Hierarchy and creation goes on infinitely. They think that our universe is one out of millions and these millions form a greater universe and then there is yet another group higher and so on for infinity.

This assumption is a guess and is not the case.

The hierarchy ends with the universe of galaxies. The creative mind of God in our universe has reached it’s ring-pass-not at this point.

Now there are an unlimited number of other universes, but the hierarchy in one physical universe is not linked to hierarchies in other universes. This is why I say that the Hierarchy stops at the universal level.

But, progression does not stop there. The life of God as it is incarnated in the various physical universes is BECOMING, and as it does, groups of universes will eventually be linked in Hierarchical order.

Any Hierarchy at the top of our universe of galaxies is very loosely tied together for the creative evolution of the universe itself is far from complete.

A Long Way to Go

Different ideas on the oneness of God and the need for us to recognize our oneness with God has surfaced.

Where I disagree with many who concentrate on this subject is on the emphasis.

Many of Hindu persuasion seem to feel that all the creation of form is just a big mistake from which we need to escape as soon as possible.

My view is that creation is made for a great purpose – the purpose of Becoming and while we are here our emphasis should be on the job at hand rather than aborting the mission and escaping to the safety of the womb. The time to return to the womb (in preparation for rebirth) is after life has been successfully lived and completed.

As far as reaching the ultimate goes, there are seven worlds within what is called the Cosmic Physical. The lower three are worlds of form, the physical, the emotional/astral and the mental. These provide vehicles for experience. Above these three are four formless worlds. Just above the mental is the Buddhic plane and above this is the Atmic. The Atmic is the plane where Nirvana is reached by the various sages, but this is far from the ultimate contact. Above this are two more higher planes – the Monadic and finally the Divine, the Adi, or first cosmic ether. All these planes together create the Cosmic Physical plane which is merely the first of a higher seven – so according to the Lodge of the Masters we have a long way to go.

Projection and Hypocrisy

Question: How do we tell when a critic is projecting his own flaws?

The main sign of this is an overreaction of some kind. It could be an overreaction to a statement that was made with no intent to offend, an overreaction also to an truly offending statement (where the person takes it much more seriously than the average person) or just seeing something between the lines which is not there.

It is not a sign of projection to display the normal amount of repugnance at an insult or false statement made toward you or your friends, especially when the offender has made himself clear in his meaning.

If someone attacks you without visible cause with the phrase: “You’re stupid!” and you run home in tears and are highly disturbed over this for days and you dream of getting the guy back, then this would be a sign of some projection or hidden issue. The receiver probably has a problem with his own intelligence.

But, if the person merely does not appreciate this kind of judgmental name calling and replies to the person that he should be more aware of his language then there is no sign of projection. Instead it is the reverse. His calm spiritedness is a sign that he is secure in his intelligence.

The cry of hypocrisy is thrown out completely without cause in various groups and when it is the issue at hand it should be clarified.

Hypocrisy was the only sin that Jesus openly condemned and I do agree with pointing it out when it manifests, but to throw the accusation out without cause is as offensive as hypocrisy itself. This happens from time to time here against my supporters and in not one instance has it been shown to be justified.

Hypocrisy is simply teaching of one thing and then doing another in opposition to it.

For instance, the parent is hypocritical if he tells his kid to not drink, but drinks himself.

As for myself I challenge anyone who has issues with me to find even one hypocritical statement I have made in the thousands of pages I have posted. If you cannot find anything concrete then let us not accuse.

As for those who support my teachings I think they have been very patient (with rare exceptions) with name calling and accusations made at them. To display normal distaste for such behavior while calling someone on to examine their overreaction for something read between the lines is not hypocrisy. Comparing apples and oranges does not hypocrisy make. Hypocrisy is preaching apples and then not doing apples.

If we look for personality issues we can always find them. It’s time to look beyond the personality to the soul wherein true oneness lies.

All of us have faults and if we let even one of them get in the way of our vision then the oneness of the soul will be hidden from our view. If the personality issue comes at us so strongly that it smacks us in the face then let us acknowledge it, dismiss it and refocus.

June 6, 2001, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

Questions for New Agers

Questions for New Agers

I’ve gotten some criticism for my Questions for Mormons. Today we will pick on the new agers. Now we realize that not all discount good and evil, but many do.

Good and Evil, Part I

QUESTION: So what is your belief concerning good and evil?

ANSWER: There is no such thing as good and evil.

QUESTION: Could you explain what you mean by this statement?

ANSWER: The whole idea of good and evil is based on the illusion of duality. In reality good and evil are the same thing. They are the two sides of the same coin.

QUESTION: So do you disbelieve in both good and evil or just evil?

ANSWER: If I had to answer it would be both. Anything that happens is neither good or evil. It just is.

QUESTION: What is that which you are wearing on your wrist?

ANSWER: You mean my watch.

QUESTION: Yes. What brand is it?

ANSWER: A Timex.

QUESTION: And what time does it say?

ANSWER: Eight thirty. What does this have to do with anything?

QUESTION: Now I take it then that your watch is neither good or evil, but just IS. Is that correct?

ANSWER: I guess you could say that.

QUESTION: So we have this thing that tells time, which is based in duality, and is really illusion, yet you have given the name “watch” to it. Is this correct?

ANSWER: I admit that I call it a watch.

QUESTION: If good and evil “just IS” and you do not want to label them, then why call this timekeeper which also just IS a watch?

ANSWER: You’re being silly here.

QUESTION: Humor me.

ANSWER: I call; it a watch so I can communicate to others what it is and it’s called a Timex because that is the manufacturer.

QUESTION: So even though the watch just IS, or even if it is an IS NOT, you have to call it something to be able to communicate thoughts and communicate concerning it in this reality. Is that correct?

ANSWER: I suppose.

QUESTION: Do not we have the same necessity with the quality of events that come into pour lives? For instance if someone gave you a taste of a homemade pie and asked you how it tasted and it was delicious – what would you say?

ANSWER: I would tell her how it tasted.

QUESTION: And in describing a delicious taste are you likely to use the word “good.”

ANSWER: It’s possible.

QUESTION: Let us suppose the pie tasted like rotten eggs. How would you answer the host if she asked you how it tasted.

ANSWER: I’m not sure what I would say.

QUESTION: Is it possible you would use words like “bad,” “rotten,” “terrible” or something like that?

ANSWER: It is possible.

QUESTION: So even though the pie “just IS,” you still call it by the name of “pie” and when you taste it you judge it to be good or bad, is this not correct?

ANSWER: I suppose.

QUESTION: If then you are willing to use good and evil judgments in relation to a pie which just IS, why is it that you believe that others are wrong in referring to numerous things and events as good and evil?

ANSWER: Because in the end, or in the NOW good and evil does not exist.

QUESTION: And in the end of all things and perhaps in the NOW this pie does not exist, yet even you with your beliefs on this still call it a pie and still judge the taste to be good or bad. Do you only apply good and evil terms to pies but not to other things

ANSWER: You’re distorting things.

QUESTION: I’m clarifying things. The point is that even if you are correct and that in the highest reality there is no good or evil, that does not negate the need here in this world to deal with duality and differentiation. We have to use words to communicate. We need to call a watch a watch, a pie a pie and good and evil good and evil. Why would this not be true?

ANSWER: He cannot think of a good reason

Good And Evil Part II

New Ager: Shakespeare was right when he said: “There is no good nor evil save thinking makes it so.” So if Shakespeare was right, as I believe he was, then there is no such thing as good and evil.

QUESTION: There is one thing you overlook here.

ANSWER: What is that?

QUESTION: I think, therefore, I AM.

ANSWER: What do you mean?

QUESTION: Thinking makes everything so (or real) including good or evil. Are you prepared to cease thinking just so you can prove your philosophy?

ANSWER: I don’t understand.

QUESTION: If someone poisons your dog and he dies a horrible death, would you have thoughts about this event reflecting on the undesirability of this occurrence?

ANSWER: I suppose.

QUESTION: Since you think this is a negative/bad/evil occurrence then your thinking has made it so, has it not?

ANSWER: What is your point?

QUESTION: If evil is an undesirable outcome and what is undesirable is determined by our thoughts then good and evil have to exist as long as thought exists. Do you wish to discontinue using your ability to think?

ANSWER: Of course not

QUESTION: Then how can you say you think and exist, yet there is no good and evil?

ANSWER: He has no answer the average person can relate to.

June 5, 2001, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

Influences and Questions

Influences and Questions

There are numerous examples where the Jupiter/Sun energies are at play in the world today and where Saturn has strong influence.

Let me give you examples as I see them starting with the Saturn influence.

(1) Islam from shortly after the death of Mohammed to the present. When Mohammed was alive Islam was controlled by Venus and they were generous toward their enemies in defeat and the people as a whole were inspired in the direction of creativity and building. Now their main emphasis is Saturnian obedience.

(2) Many current Christian religions who interpret the scriptures in a black and white manner.

(3) On the positive side of Saturn, it is connected with the Holy Spirit within us which disciplines us in the ways of the Spirit and guides us in the direction we need to tread.

The Jupiter/Sun influence

(1) The evolving idea of Christ Consciousness which is permeating society.

(2) The concept of love and forgiveness as initiated by Christ and still developing in the minds of humanity.

(3) Charitable organizations which have sprung up over the past couple hundred years.

A reader questioned the wisdom behind my question and answer series.

Everyone has different tastes and approaches to learning and presentation.

Let me tell you why I think this question presentation is beneficial.

A teacher can teach basic principles and truths and those on the receiving end will often embrace them without applying them to real situations and belief systems and thus miss the lesson of the truth received.

A good example of this is found with many religious folk who give and receive lessons out of the Bible on the simple teachings of Christ. In theory, they may think turning the other cheek is a great idea, but often in practice they fail miserably at living this and are completely unaware of the connection.

The effective teacher will not only mouth the platitude “turn the other cheek” but will also present an example the student can identify with so he can apply the principle in his life.

For instance, he may say something like:

If you are waiting in line for a movie and someone cuts in front of you how would you apply this teaching?

The advantage of these questions is that it gives people the opportunity to examine various beliefs in the light of day to see how much sense they really make.

A person may be in illusion in a certain area all his life, but in one moment awaken to a higher truth because someone had the wisdom to shed some stark light on his belief.

As we leave the age of Pisces, a strong water sign governed by emotion, we enter into Aquarius, an air sign governed by mind.

The old Piscean way is to feel after truth, but the new Aquarian way will be to think after it and reason it out as soul contact is approached.

Those who are in illusion because they feel after truth will have high resistance and often be highly offended when truth is presented on a mental level.

Christ himself had a great problem with this because his presentation of truth was so jolting the religious authorities were offended and had him crucified. In fact so many were offended at him that he once said “Blessed is he who is not offended in me.”

I believe these questions and answers serve a good purpose and plan on writing some more of them. And yes, I think the new agers deserve a few of them also. Illusion is everywhere.

Question: Are you trying to reveal these belief systems don’t have merit … because they do. Each of us are a melting pot of all we’ve been exposed to and absorbed.

You missed the point if you think that I do not believe these various belief systems have merit.

I embrace teachings from numerous faiths. But because I respect a belief system and embrace much of it does not mean that I shirk responsibility to shed a little extra light when the opportunity presents itself.

I wouldn’t call what I am doing pointing fingers. I am representing these beliefs with a high degree of accuracy and they thus speak for themselves. I hope to accomplish the dispelling of illusion in some. I hope readers will ask these questions to those who embrace illusion. Without the exposure of differences to cast a shadow, light cannot be revealed in this world.

Question: What is the belief system of this group?

I wouldn’t call what I am presenting a “belief system.” There is no system about it for all can believe as they please and be a member of this forum.

If there is any systemization to my belief it would be to verify whatever comes along through the soul.

Comment: I found it disturbing that a person’s beliefs were seen to be so illogical and also judgmental.

Keep in mind that the character in the conversation is fictitious so there is no one to belittle. If a person’s beliefs are on a solid foundation then it is impossible to belittle them. On the other hand, many of us do have beliefs that turn out to be somewhat silly when a greater light comes. I know this has happened to me before and I am thrilled that I saw how silly I was in the past and am happy and appreciative to all those in my life who have helped me find my own illusions.

Would you deny someone else the same joy I have received through having illusions contrasted with common sense?

My intent is NOT to ridicule or judge but to inform, enlighten and guide. To ridicule usually implies some type of name-calling and mean spiritedness and I assure you that I have called no one any names since the beginning of this group. I have no mean-spirited intent and if anyone sees that in my writings they are seeing something between the lines that is not there.

Many of these conversations are almost word for word a replica of many I have had in the past so they are an honest presentation of reality. Reality does not ridicule, but reality can make one feel ridiculous.

I’ve had these type of conversations with many people and some have disagreed with my reasoning and some see my point but none showed any signs of feeling belittled.

I’ve had people respond positively in the past to this line of questioning and they are currently quite grateful to me. Some say their dialog turns out to be very close to my presentation.

I do agree with a reader that those with illusionary beliefs may feel insulted, not only by my questions, but by other teachings I have given out. Where one person may relish a challenge to his beliefs (as I do) another may feel highly insulted that others may consider they lack common sense.

There are two basic approaches to teaching available.

(1) Hold your finger in the air and feel everyone’s thoughtforms and make sure that what you give out does not disturb any of them.

(2) Search your soul for what needs to be said and then say it as clearly as possible, even if thoughtforms are disturbed.

Just before the days of Jesus there came another Messiah named Jahaha who also had great power to do miracles and knew the mysteries of heaven.

But Jahaha had a different approach. When he realized that his miracles offended the Pharisees he decided to do only little miracles in obscure places to make sure none were offended.

He refused to raise his friend Jobba from the dead, as did Jesus with Lazarus, because he knew the religious leaders would be infuriated.

When he saw that teaching the stark truth in contrast to old illusions offended many he toned down his speech and structured all his teachings around strict obedience to law. He tried to sneak in teachings of love, but found he always had to teach in support of animal sacrifice and strict obedience to be liked.

Once he tried contrasting the law of love with the old emphasis of strict obedience and some were offended because they thought Jahaha was accusing them of being unloving. When Jahaha saw their hurt feelings he never again made the contrast.

Now of course, when we look back on history we see that our Jahaha never made his point and is lost and forgotten, but the teachings of Jesus are yet alive and well. Those who were angry at Jesus for contrasting love with strict obedience are now seen as embracing illusion that needed to be dispelled.

(Note Jahaha is fictional, but I assure you there were some like him in those days)

This same principle of contrast applies today. Contrasting truth (or even perceived truth) with error will often enflame some, but to walk on eggshells to avoid contrast is a sure sign of death to most any teaching.

Buddha, Jesus, Ghandi, Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Smith, Mohammed and most other effective teachers and innovators made a large portion of the people angry at them because of the contrasts they made with old belief systems.

For a current example of this look at the two most popular, and most loved, talk show hosts in the United States. On the right we have Rush Limbaugh and on the left we have Howard Stern. Both of these have many listeners who love them to pieces, but both are also hated by many because they present their thoughts clearly with no excuses.

On the other hand, I have seen many sensitive talk show hosts come and go. They are neither loved nor hated. They are just there taking up space and wasting the listener’s time.

There are many groups on the Web with several times our membership yet some of them only get a post every couple days. Even though they have the numbers they have few contrasts because everyone is trying to be so nice in their presentation. The trouble is that they become so lukewarm that nothing is happening.

I would rather be where there is thriving life in the midst of a dozen than be in staleness among a thousand.

May 28, 2001, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Questions for Mormons, Part 3

Questions for Mormons, Part 3

THE WORD OF WISDOM

QUESTION: The LDS are famous for their word of Wisdom and good members abstain from coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco. Do you support this idea?

ANSWER: Yes, of course.

QUESTION: Do you view it as a commandment?

ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: And apparently it is such a strict commandment that you can’t get a temple recommend if you do not obey it, is that right?

ANSWER: That is correct.

QUESTION: Let me read you the introduction to the Word of Wisdom. It says: “To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days.” D & C 89:2 Now the church was given a commandment here that the revelation was only a word of wisdom and was not to be “by commandment or constraint.” Why is the church violating this commandment (to not make it a commandment) by making it a commandment?”

ANSWER: It was not a commandment when it was given, but was made one later.

QUESTION: Who did this?

ANSWER: I think it was Brigham Young around 1860.

QUESTION: You mean the same Brigham Young who owned a distillery, made his own wine and kept it at his mansion, operated a bar in the Salt Lake House and drank coffee and tea?

ANSWER: I’m not so sure about that, but yes, we are told that it was Brigham that first encouraged strict obedience and then later presidents put more emphasis on it.

QUESTION: Now the original commandment stated it was to be a word of wisdom only and not a commandment to constrain people. This was given by revelation and you would think that any change to this would come by revelation. In other words, a revelation of the will of God can only be changed by revelation. Can you tell me of a revelation to the church that made this change?

ANSWER: I’m sure Brigham and other leaders received revelation about it.

QUESTION: Can you tell me where this revelation may be?

ANSWER: Brigham and other church leaders have spoken about the Word of Wisdom hundreds of times.

QUESTION: But did any of them speak in the name of the Lord or by way of revelation?

ANSWER: I’m not sure.

QUESTION: Let me assure you, my friend, that they have made no such claim. If the church leaders claim no revelation on the matter then why do you give them credit for something they have never said?

ANSWER: Because they have told us they will not lead us astray.

QUESTION: And a salesman told me the other day that his formula could grow my hair back. Are you aware that Joseph Smith and many of the early brethren drank alcohol in moderation after this revelation was given?

ANSWER: Yes, but, as I said, the members were later commanded to cease from drinking alcohol.

QUESTION: Yes, but this is a commandment given by men that makes no claim as being from God. Are you also aware that Joseph installed a bar in the Nauvoo house and Porter Rockwell was the main bartender?

ANSWER: I haven’t heard that one.

QUESTION: Are you also aware that Joseph ordered in a bottle of wine to the Carthage jail to cheer their spirits just before he was killed?

ANSWER: I think I read that.

QUESTION: Now, if a little wine was all right for Joseph, Brigham and many other early brethren to use as wisdom dictated, then why is it not all right for you today? Do we have less brainpower today?

ANSWER: Because the current authorities say differently today.

QUESTION: Now read verse 17 of the revelation.

ANSWER: “Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.”

QUESTION: What does it say that barley is to be used for?

ANSWER: The animals.

QUESTION: And what else?

ANSWER: Mild drinks.

QUESTION: What is the most popular mild drink made from barely?

ANSWER: We sometimes drink one called Pero. It’s a good substitute for coffee.

QUESTION: Pero was not in existence in the days of Joseph Smith. Now think, for hundreds of years, what has been the most popular mild drink made from barley?

ANSWER: Surely you’re not thinking its beer?

QUESTION: This my friend, is an historical fact. Beer is a mild alcoholic drink and it has been made from barley for thousands of years. If you are going to now consider the Word of Wisdom as a commandment then it looks like you are commanded to drink beer made from barley.

ANSWER: You’re being ridiculous.

QUESTION: I don’t think so. The revelation promises good health to those who are obedient, and recent studies tell us that mild beer drinkers have better health, especially healthier hearts, than those who do not drink at all. Moderate wine drinkers like Joseph and Brigham are also healthier than those who abstain completely.

It makes sense to me to follow the original intent of the revelation, that the members be allowed to use their own wisdom as to what to eat or drink without some authority “constraining” them. Are you going to follow this commandment and not allow others to “constrain” your sense or wisdom?

ANSWER: I’ll follow the living prophet, thank you.

The Sacred Name

QUESTION: I notice that each prayer and speech in the LDS church ends with the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.”

ANSWER: That is correct.

QUESTION: Do you know when this tradition began?

ANSWER: I think it has been in the church from the beginning.

QUESTION: Not so. Read here the end of one of the most solemn prayers given by Joseph Smith as he dedicated the Kirkland Temple in D & C section 109 verse 80.

ANSWER: “And let these, thine anointed ones, be clothed with salvation, and thy saints shout aloud for joy. Amen, and Amen.”

QUESTION: So how did Joseph end this prayer which is perhaps the most important one of his adult life?

ANSWER: Amen and Amen

QUESTION: Do you see it anywhere saying “In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen?”

ANSWER: No, I guess not.

QUESTION: Can you find any speech or prayer that Joseph ended with the phrase?

ANSWER: I’m not sure.

QUESTION: They were few and far between. Have you checked the Journal of Discourses for this phrase?

ANSWER: Not specifically.

QUESTION: It was used only once in a while by these early brethren. Do you know why it was used so sparingly?

ANSWER: I’m not sure.

QUESTION: It was because they were commanded to. Read D & C 63:61-64

ANSWER: “Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ.

“Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips.

“For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority.

“Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off.

“Remember that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation.”

QUESTION: Some of the early brethren were under condemnation, but for what?

ANSWER: Using the name of Jesus Christ in vain, not having authority.

QUESTION: Now these men were given the standard priesthood authority through the laying on of hands, so what authority did they lack?

ANSWER: I’m not sure.

QUESTION: In verse 64 we are told what we must do to obtain authority. What is it?

ANSWER: We must speak the name with care and constraint of the Spirit.

QUESTION: And how do we receive the Spirit according to the scripture?

ANSWER: Through prayer

QUESTION: So would you agree that we receive authority to use the name through revelation from the Holy Spirit?

ANSWER: I suppose

QUESTION: Do you think that everyone who gives a talk or prayer in church receives a revelation to use the name of Jesus Christ?

ANSWER: I must admit that is doubtful.

QUESTION: Would you agree that most use it as a matter of habit without even checking with the Holy Spirit for permission?

ANSWER: Perhaps.

QUESTION: What does it say in verse 63 that God will do if the church does not repent of this sin and others?

ANSWER: We will be cut off.

QUESTION: Does this not concern you, then?

ANSWER: Not really. I’m sure the prophet will let us know when we are misusing the Lord’s name.

QUESTION: But if you are “cut off” how can the prophet let you know anything concerning God’s will?

ANSWER: (He has no answer).

July 4, 2001, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

Questions For Mormons Part 2

Questions For Mormons Part 2

Free Agency

QUESTION: I understand that you believe in the doctrine of free agency. What does this mean to you?

ANSWER: It means I have freedom to choose.

QUESTION: Why is that such an important doctrine in the church?

ANSWER: Because the original war in heaven was fought over this principle. Satan wanted to take away the agency of mankind and God wanted man to have it.

QUESTION: Isn’t it also said within the church that the spiritual war on this earth is a continuation or the War In Heaven?

ANSWER: Yes, I have heard that.

QUESTION: Have you also heard it taught that members sometimes have to give up some of their free agency for the good of the whole?

ANSWER: Yes, I heard that taught also.

QUESTION: In what circumstances do you think it is right to give up your agency?

ANSWER: Well if I need money I should not have the freedom to rob a bank.

QUESTION: If you rob someone then the overall freedom of the whole is diminished, is it not?

ANSWER: Yes, I suppose.

QUESTION: Would you say that this should be the principle governing any yielding of freedom, that the freedom of the whole is enhanced?

ANSWER: That sounds right.

QUESTION: So how about the freedom of speech. Should this ever be infringed?

ANSWER: Maybe in exceptional cases where careless speech can be the cause of some type of danger.

QUESTION: You mean like shouting “fire” in a crowded theater?

ANSWER: Yes and some types of harmful slander should be governed by law.

QUESTION: That sounds reasonable. Could we agree then that there should be freedom of speech except in cases where real harm is done to another?

ANSWER: I suppose

QUESTION: And in these types of cases we are already governed by the laws of the land are we not?

ANSWER: Pretty much.

QUESTION: So if I disagree even with the President of the United States, should I be free to stand on a street corner, run an ad or speak to my friends to declare my views?

ANSWER: Yes, definitely.

QUESTION: What if the President does not like my views – should he have any power to punish me for them?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION: What if my views hurt the President’s feelings? Does he then have any power to do me harm?

ANSWER: Unless you are slandering with lies you have pretty much power to say anything about anyone or anything.

QUESTION: So, do you agree with having this type of freedom?

ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Does it not seem logical that since a core belief of the LDS church is free agency that you should have as much or more freedom of speech in the church than you do within our country?

ANSWER: I suppose.

QUESTION: Do you feel that this is the case – that you enjoy as much freedom of speech within the church as you do within your country?

ANSWER: Yes, I think so.

QUESTION: So, do you feel you can say pretty much what you want to express within the church then without fear of retribution?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION: Let us suppose you were in a Sunday School class and the teacher read a quotation from the current prophet that was totally contrary to your view. Would you feel free to tell the class that you think the Prophet is wrong, just as you are free to express your opinion that the President of the United States is wrong?

ANSWER: That would not happen because I have never disagreed with the prophet and I never will.

QUESTION: And why is that?

ANSWER: Because he speaks for God upon the earth.

QUESTION: So disagreeing with the prophet is a little like disagreeing with God from your point of view?

ANSWER: Something like that.

QUESTION: So the prophet would never lead you astray then?

ANSWER: No. We are told that if he tried to he would be removed.

QUESTION: You mean God would zap him?

ANSWER: I wouldn’t put it that way, but he would either be removed by the other General Authorities or suffer some calamity.

QUESTION: So the way you see it is that you have free agency in the church because you never have the need to speak anything in opposition to the brethren. In other words, everything you desire to speak are things permitted in the church?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION: Let us take this basic idea and put it in a different location. Hans was living in Germany under Hitler during World War II and agreed 100% with Hitler and the NAZI party. Does this mean the Germans as a whole had freedom of speech?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION: Why not?

ANSWER: There were many others who did not agree with Hitler and many of them were punished for their disagreements.

QUESTION: In other words, if someone spoke up on a street corner, ran an ad or communicated disagreement with Hitler among friends then he was in danger of severe punishment was he not?

ANSWER: Sadly so.

QUESTION: So the fact that you feel free to speak your mind in the church because you agree with authorities does not mean that all are able to speak their mind, does it?

ANSWER: No. But everyone I know of is able to speak his mind.

QUESTION: Now getting back to the hypothetical Sunday School class here I’m sure you will agree that all LDS are not as austere as yourself in agreeing with the authorities. Suppose there was someone in your Sunday School class who did disagree with the prophet. Would he or she have the freedom to speak up and voice their opinion?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION: And would you say then that there would be no discipline or punishment of any kind meted out for this freedom of speech?

ANSWER: No. I don’t think there would be any.

QUESTION: But if the Bishop found out that this person did not agree with all the prophet said, would he not call him into his office to have a chat?

ANSWER: It’s possible that the Bishop may want to see if he could help with his understanding.

QUESTION: And if, after questioning, the Bishop found out that he disagreed with the prophet on a point of doctrine, do you think he would just smile and let it pass?

ANSWER: It would depend on what it was.

QUESTION: Take Sonja Johnson, who was reported in the papers a few years ago, as an instance. She disagreed with the authorities on equal rights for women and was excommunicated because she exercised her legal freedom to speak her mind. Was she not punished for using freedom of speech?

ANSWER: But she was leading people astray.

QUESTION: But you maintained that the Church has as much or more freedom of speech than our country. Are the Democrats able to have a Republican arrested because they think he is leading the country astray?

ANSWER: No, but that is different.

QUESTION: How is it different?

ANSWER: It is very serious to lead members of the church astray. Their eternal salvation is at stake.

QUESTION: Is it more serious than taking away free will or free expression?

ANSWER: This is one of those cases where we should give up our free agency.

QUESTION: You never mentioned this situation when we talked of this subject earlier. So do you think then that there should be no free will in the church to express your opinion if it disagrees with the authorities?

ANSWER: You shouldn’t be in the church if you disagree with the authorities.

QUESTION: Funny, I thought the church of God was supposed to be for all who are seeking the kingdom of God with a sincere heart. Now Sonja Johnson may have had some views that were impossible to prove right or wrong but suppose a person expressed views that were very accurate and could be proven beyond dispute to be true. Would the church allow freedom of expression in verifiable truth?

ANSWER: I would think so.

QUESTION: Are you aware there are many who have written accurately about certain parts of Mormon history and have been excommunicated for it?

ANSWER: If they distorted history maybe, but not if they told the truth.

QUESTION: One of the most famous examples is the BYU professor and church historian Michael Quinn. He had access to historical information never before published and was excommunicated for writing about it and refusing to retract on what he saw as historical fact. Is this what you support as free agency?

ANSWER: I am sure the authorities had good reason to excommunicate him.

QUESTION: Or how about Abraham Gileadi. He was excommunicated for writing his own interpretations of the Book of Revelations. Do you call that freedom of speech?

ANSWER: He was probably teaching doctrine out of harmony with the church.

QUESTION: It is interesting that in 1843 the High Council excommunicated a member named Pelatiah Brown for teaching unapproved doctrine from the book of Revelation also. Do you know what Joseph Smith’s reaction was to this?

ANSWER: I imagine he approved of it.

QUESTION: He did not but was very upset by it and ordered the man to be reinstated. Does it not seem reasonable that he would also order Abraham Gileadi to be reinstated?

ANSWER: It’s hard to say

QUESTION: You might find Joseph’s rebuke of the High Council interesting. He said: “I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-Day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.” (DHC 5:340)

This does not sound like the attitude of the current authorities, does it?

ANSWER: Perhaps circumstances are different today.

QUESTION: Do you agree with Joseph Smith that “it does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.”

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION: So if Michael Quinn, Abraham Gileadi and many others merely erred in doctrine they should not be excommunicated should they?

ANSWER: It depends. If they were leading members astray then perhaps they should be.

QUESTION: But the High Council thought that Pelatiah Brown was leading members astray and Joseph castigated them for taking away his freedom of speech. Aren’t you concerned about this core principle over which the War in Heaven was fought?

ANSWER: Of course I am. Now, I realize that all the brethren are not perfect, but if they do get overzealous in cleansing the church, God will work things out in the next world.

QUESTION: So should we let injustices such as the suppression of free expression, slavery, oppression, racism and other wrongs just continue here on earth because God will work things out in the next world?

ANSWER: No of course not.

QUESTION: Yet you and millions of members of the church just sit by and allow free expression to be suppressed, which thing is contrary to the teachings of your founding prophet. Why do you do this?

ANSWER: We are told that our leaders will never lead us astray so we trust them.

QUESTION: But the scriptures tell you not to lean on the arm of flesh. Is not leaning on the arm of flesh the same as placing your faith in men of flesh who you call your authorities?

ANSWER: Not if they speak for God.

QUESTION: Earlier we talked about the War In Heaven. Again, what was the battle over according to Mormon scriptures?

ANSWER: Free agency.

QUESTION: And before the war was fought how many of the hosts of heaven did Lucifer persuade to come over to his side?

ANSWER: A third of them.

QUESTION: How many do you suppose that was?

ANSWER: It would have been billions of them.

QUESTION: And how long do you suppose it took for him to convince these billions of beings that the Father was wrong and he was right?

ANSWER: I never thought about it, but it probably took a while.

QUESTION: When you think of how much time and energy it takes LDS missionaries to convert a few souls then one can indeed conclude that it probably took Lucifer quite a few years in our time to accomplish such a deed. But when was Lucifer kicked out of heaven?

ANSWER: The scriptures says that it was after the War in Heaven.

QUESTION: But before the war broke out there was a lengthy period of perhaps a hundred, a thousand or maybe a million years where Lucifer just preached to his heart’s content and made converts. During this period, did God take away his agency to speak what was a dangerous doctrine?

ANSWER: I suppose not.

QUESTION: And during this period did God excommunicate him, or kick him out of heaven?

ANSWER: I guess not.

QUESTION: Is it not taught that Lucifer was not kicked out until he openly rebelled and made war?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION: So why then does the church not follow the example of God himself and allow for freedom of expression and cease excommunicating peaceable people who may have different opinions, but have no desire to make war against the church?

ANSWER: He has no answer

QUESTION: Is the church not supporting the same side which Lucifer took in seeking to destroy the free agency of its members?

ANSWER: He becomes uncomfortable and wants to end the discussion.

June 4, 2001, 2001

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE