|
| |
It Looks Like J.J. Could be
the One Might and Strong Prophesied
The following comes on the heels of a post from the day prior: Wait,
is JJ the OMS or are You?
From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
To: "hawkiye" <hawkiye@uswest.net>
Cc: "David's Outcasts e-group" <davids_outcasts@listbot.com>;
"J J Dewey" <jjd@rmci.net>; "SDA Friends list" <SDA_friends@listbot.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 1:19 PM
Subject: [888] JJ/Joseph Smith & OMS
Forwarded with permission; my comments interspersed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "hawkiye" <hawkiye@uswest.net>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@GreaterThings.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 11:56 AM
Subject: JJ/Joseph Smith
> You may be on to something with your parallel of JJ thinking he is the
> arch type OMS
It sure looks that way to me too.
> ( by the way as an aside his repsonse that part of his
> mission is to duplicate himself fits with the more then one OMS's).
Unlike so many other OMS's that come along and the first thing they want to
say is "I'm the OMS, follow me or go to hell," without even telling
you what they stand for, let alone wanting to duplicate themselves or their
mission (there can only be one, and they are it).
> The hints, and that it was someone born in HJG's time and Joseph
> reincarnated etc. It dawned on me JJ's name is Joseph
I first picked up on the OMS thing near the beginning of "The
Immortal" when John tells him "Dewey" means "David,"
and tells him how important names are and the meanings of names.
Joseph John David is a pretty cool name.
Almost as cool as Sterling (genuine) David Allan (God, like god) <smile>
Seriously, though, if I were to be put up against the wall right now and told
I had to say who THE ONE was -- who is the archetype, my choice would be J.J.
> also I wonder if
> he thinks he is Joseph Smith reincarnated?
I've had Keys of Knowledge list members e-mail me privately saying essentially
that this has come up in private conversations and that this has indeed been
set forth as a likely scenario.
> There are many things that
> would support that he is ( I am not convinced just trying to be
> objective)
Me too. Still not convinced, but having lots of fun "figuring it
out."
> He definitely has a source of knowledge from a source
> beyond most and gives it with much clarity much as Joseph did.
yep
> His
> teachings are controversial for our times as Joseph's were for his
> time.
He stretches even those of us who are seasoned "apostates" from the
Mormon mainstream.
> His veiling of things was not uncommon for Joseph etc.
A practice of men of God and a hallmark of the scriptures. Speaking in
parables as it were so that those who are prepared will "get it,"
while others say, "I don't get it."
> He
> attracts the outcasts and the newagers and those who are disillusioned
> with the current models of religion and spirituality not the
> mainstreamers much as Joseph did.
Yes, he has a charisma about him, a gift for teaching and presenting things.
> He is lacking a little in Mormon
> history and repeats some common errors of history that most are
> unaware of except those who have studied deeply but Joseph Smith made
> some errors similar also.
Yep. That is why I was so concerned when it seemed to me that he was not
teachable. Like any person, he is subject to ego and pride. I think Joseph got
carried away many times in pride because he was SO incredible. J.J. has the
same tendencies, but hopefully his friends will keep him in line.
> Perhaps these stood out to me because I have always leaned toward
> Joseph being the OMS come again on the earth.
I knew he was coming back, but I had kind of thought it would be AFTER allthe
fireworks. You see, in my paradigm for the past decade, I was the OMS, so J.S.
didn't quite fit.
> One of the main
> differences is I felt it would be a resurrected Joseph however this is
> a form of incarnation.
I've always disbelieved the resurrected scenario because God uses mortals to
do his main work on earth, not resurrectected beings or angels. Once the
kingdom of God is established on earth, then resurrected beings and angels and
gods can mingle freely among us.
In my scenario, according to my studies, the OMS is kind of a four phase dude.
First phase, he is just like anyone else, and has no clue who he is or what
his mission is. Second, he begins to wake up to his calling, he studies,
learns, and begins to step into his calling with earnestness. it is a
preparatory phase. Third, he does the fancy stuff (still pending), being part
of the Lord making bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations. Fourth, once
the kingdom is established, he is crowned and glorified along with those who
assisted in the work -- Adam-On-Diahman. I'm guessing that it is in be very
beginning of this fourth phase when he suddenly appears to the temple and
cleanses the temple -- the beginning of the setting in order, the test of
apostasy being complete and having run its full cycle.
> Notice JJ did not respond to your questions of
> him being the OMS?
Yes, I noticed that. This to me is yet another "hint." If he didn't
believe this of himself, he would have denied it. At least two others on the
Keys list (Glenys and Zia) asked him point blank yesterday in their posts if
he was "the one."
> Not that he won't
I actually think he will avoid this one, because he does not wish to get into
a discussion of who he thinks he is and why. In my case, I have been much more
open, such as in my web site in certain documents, for I have felt it
important to be obedient to what I was finding rather than hiding it. Still I
do conceal the stuff so that it is not right up front, but rather is several
layers in.
> but regardless of how this all
> turns out I haven't had this much fun on this sort of thing in years
> :-) Comments?
Yep. That would be cool if it was him.
Regardless, I feel that at least he is after the order of one mighty and
strong (of whom there are hundreds if not thousands on this planet), and
definitely one of the primary players at that; and he has something to teach
all of us who feel inclined to lend and ear.
> Blayne
> --
>
> ********************************
> Only dead fish go with the flow!
I love your e-mail slogan.
Sterling
 Blayne's Reply
From: "hawkiye" <hawkiye@uswest.net>
To: "David's Outcasts" <davids_outcasts@listbot.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [888] JJ/Joseph Smith & OMS
Still through all this my warning bell keeps going off periodically but I
cannot put my finger on it. It may just be the temptation of pride and its
potential to bring anyone down even those called of God for some great
mission. It is clear there is an agenda with JJ yet to be divulged or
discovered. If I was backed into a corner and had to say who it was, I in all
honesty could not say because I don't know. I am not going o jump on any bandwagon
nor ever put a man between me and God again. And am not so sure its as
significant for me to know as I once thought. I know I have things to do and
whoever the arch type turns out to be (if that's how it plays out, that there
is an arch type) I can best help by doing what I need to do that God would
have me do weather I am privy to who the arch type OMS is or not.
Blayne
Sterling's Reply
From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
To: "David's Outcasts" <davids_outcasts@listbot.com>;
"SDA Friends list" <SDA_friends@listbot.com>
Cc: "J J Dewey" <jjd@rmci.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: JJ/Joseph Smith & OMS
Blayne writes:
> Still through all this my warning bell keeps going off periodically
but I cannot
> put my finger on it.
Me too. I need to be careful that I don't get too excited over the
"newness" of all of this, and the pride that can come in thinking
you are part of some leading edge group of people who are going to usher in
Zion. I tend to be impulsive -- and indecisive -- which attribute combined
lends to being jerked around a times pretty bad.
There are still significant unresolved questions that linger for me.
One of them (and this is no small one to say the least) is his take on
Jesus and the return of the Christ will not entail the "coming in the
clouds of glory" as we have traditionally anticipated in terms of it
being a grand event, like the appearance of Jesus Christ to the Nephites. He
hasn't come close to answering that one for me in light of the overwhelming
number of prophecies about it, but rather seems to take isolated verses and
put a different twist on them to support his teaching.
Another hesitation toward J.J. on my part regards the atonement of Jesus
Christ. I've not read enough of the archives to grasp his stand on this and
how he ties it all together, but from what I can gather, he departs too far
from the scriptural teaching that Jesus Christ is our Savior, besides through
whom their is no salvation; that Jesus is the very Son of God in the sense of
having been fathered in the flesh by Heavenly Father. For that matter, he
seems at times to eliminate the being you and I think of as "Father"
or "God" and replaces him with a collective "brotherhood of
light." And yet he speaks of the "Ancient of Days" and has him
as the "Father," I think. But then, he is not the literal father of
Jesus of Nazareth, but Jesus is considered the "Son" because he is
overshadowed by the Father -- or something like that. I feel like a
kindergartener all over again on the basic teachings. All of this is
completely new.
I see glimpses of how things tie together in his new paradigm, but part of
the confusion comes from being on "The Keys of Knowledge" list an
listening to all the New Age-like metaphysical-leaning people who have a
completely different slant on this. It's hard not to say, "It's a mass of
confusion" and turn and walk away. I find it difficult to separate their
teachings from Dewey's, remembering clearly who said what.
Another question/qualm still unresolved is J.J.'s stance on seeing the face
of God. In Book II of "The Immortal," JJ sees the back side of the
ancient of Days, who was the first Adam (18 million years ago?) on this
planet. He has said several times that one cannot behold the face of God,
quoting the two or so scriptures that say this, ignoring Joseph Smith's
rending of those which bring them into harmony with the huge bulk of other
scriptures that say that not only can we behold God but we should "seek
his face always."
Another big one for me is that J.J. does not believe what I have concluded
from my studies regarding the Father come in the flesh in the latter-days
among the Mormons as Jesus did among the Jews -- in other words, that the OMS
is the Father come in the flesh; and that he is crowned at Adam-On-Diahman
after successfully accomplishing his mission among the Gentiles and being
marred by them.
Still lots of sifting left to do. The jury certainly is not in yet.
Meanwhile, I am enjoying the search.
Sterling
| |
|
