Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Olive Branch
J.J.,
You have kindly offered me the Olive Branch by sending to me your treatise
on "The Gods of the Bible" [download Word.zip
or PDF] in an attempt to illustrate that our
beliefs may be more cohesive than what I am giving credit.
I've not read through the entire thing, but so far in what I have read I
have some very significant disagreements with where you are coming from.
I've noted some of those as follows. Your statements from your treatise are
set off by the >><< marks.
You said,
>>Perhaps the greatest common denominator among the followers of New
Age Thought is the belief that one has to look no further to find God than
within himself. They are true followers of the injunction of Jesus that
"The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21)<<
Yes, that is probably the greatest common denominator. It is also probably
my greatest qualm with the New Age.
This statement, that is a favorite of New Agers, is found once in all the
scriptures, and is not even a correct translation. Joseph Smith renders it,
"the kingdom of God has already come unto you." Many translations
read 'among,' which is closer to the original Greek, and consistent with
Joseph's translation.
This is not to say that God's omnipresence is not also within us, but it
puts the New Age focus on a mistranslation into a new light as being taken out
of context and amplified far beyond the intent of the scriptures.
>>If, then, the kingdom of God is within it must stand to reason that
God resides in his own kingdom and he is also within.<<
Having God dwell in our hearts through the light of Christ on a lower level
(given to every man) and through the Holy Ghost on a higher level (granted to
those who hearken to the voice of God), is different than saying we ARE God.
>>Obviously, if he is omni-present he cannot be sitting on a throne
in one location of the universe. He is either a being in one location like you
or I, or he is Life itself that is in and through all things.<<
Why not both? In your words later on, "God-in-one-location-with
influence-everywhere."
>>But if God is truly everywhere then all of us who recognize the God
within are also one with God.<<
Believing it and actuating it are two entirely different things. One can
believe a mountain can be climbed, but actually climbing it is what life is
about. Just because God's presence is found within us does not make us Gods.
We must climb the mountain of obedience, overcoming all things as he did to be
able to deserve that title.
>>Jesus was God because he was one with the presence of God within
him.<<
Not that simple. He was God because he overcame all things (in previous
mortalities long, long ago) and arrived at the status of God.
>>Obviously, at that realization, he can join with Shirley MacLaine
and say: "I AM God."<<
No no no no no no no. That is like the baby saying, "I am an
adult." Having God latent within you and actually overcoming all things
and stepping into that godhood are two entirely different things.
>>If God and man are one, then man is God and God is man.<<
False premise. Since when has there been a scriptural statement anywhere
that says "God and man are one," or anything to that effect. Rather,
the scriptures say that the natural man is an enemy to God and ever will be
until he humbles himself and calls upon God that he might overcome his fallen
nature.
God is not man, and man is not God. God WAS man, and man MAY BECOME God is
the correct premise.
>>We only seem to be two because we have been deceived into thinking
it.<<
I'm afraid the deception is yours on this one.
In fact, let's call you on that one.
Where in the scriptures is there a statement that agrees with what you are
saying?
II Thessalonians 2, "so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God." That scripture is in reference to the
"man of sin," "the son of perdition," who in his arrogance
claims to be God when he is not.
It is the spiritual equivalent to those who build the New World Order on a
temporal level. Thinking themselves to be as gods to man, they presume to be
the benevolent stewards over the earth, when in reality, they are servants of
Satan, building his kingdom.
You later paraphrase what Joseph Smith taught in the King Follet Discourse.
I agree with your summary and wonder why you say "we ARE God," when
this discourse very clearly states that it is a future thing conditioned upon
overcoming as God did.
>>He taught the principle of eternal progression - that man does not
stay man and God has not always been God. He later elaborated and taught about
a hierarchy of Gods. He said that there was one being in particular who was
appointed to be the God or Master for this planet before mankind set foot upon
its surface, but that this person was once a man like ourselves, but learned
his lessons of salvation on another planet. It is our destiny to eventually
become as he is.<<
I also agree with this next statement you make, which speaks of a God who
has overcome who is called to preside of this earth, again contradicting your
statement that we ARE gods, rather than that we can BECOME gods.
>>One God in particular was chosen to be the head over this planet.
Later, Brigham Young who was tutored by Joseph said that this God later became
Adam, "The only God with whom we have to do." In the Bible Joseph
said he was also called "The Ancient of Days" (Daniel 7:9, 13 &
22)<<
I follow along with you in agreement in your discussion of the hierarchy of
Gods, and how there is an "individual" God assigned to govern over
this earth, and another to govern over another earth, and a God above them
with whom they are in harmony, and that it is that general "God" of
whom the scriptures speak in saying "by him were all the worlds
made."
However, when you come back to another New Age teaching, I again disagree.
You say:
>>If we looked upon God as being separate from ourselves it would be
arrogant to claim to be God, but if we look upon God as being a part of us
then there is no arrogance.<<
Again, I go back to the distinction of whether we are ALREADY Gods versus
that we can BECOME Gods. That, to me is the major shortfall and deception of
the New Age, for it makes man, in all his weakness and imperfection, God. The
only god he mimics in such a state is Satan.
>>New Age people merely see God as the whole of life and to manifest
God is to recognize that we are a part of that whole.<<
I've no problem with that. But then you go on:
>>In other words, our claim to manifesting God is based on the
injunction of Jesus to be one with the Father and the Son. How can being one
with God be anything else than being God?<<
Yes, we need to become one with them, and can even have a nominal state of
oneness while yet in the human state, but that does not make us Gods, but
rather as emissaries of God so long as we have such a state of oneness with
God. Godhood itself comes when we fully overcome the flesh
I also take issue with your wave analogy. You say:
>>A drop of water is insignificant when it is removed from a giant
wave, but when it is joined back into the wave and cooperates with it, it then
becomes the wave. We are like drops of water that have separated from the Life
wave we call God. When we join back in with the God wave we become one with it
and we can say with all the other billions of lives: "I am the wave"
or "I AM God".<<
I agree that when we become one with God, that we become God. But I do not
believe this is something accomplished in one life-time (nor do you), but
through a long series of many lifetimes until we finally overcome all things
and graduate to Godhood. At this point, we become as one drop joining a wave.
My major point of disagreement is with your statement, "when we join back
in," implying we once were there. In the models you present, and which
I've heard from other New Agers, we start as God, then fall to this lowly
mortal state, from which we come back and are restored to being God by
realizing who we are.
I do not buy that. The parents have a child, who grow to be parents, who
have a child, who grow to be parents, who have a child, etc. That is the
pattern of life around us. We don't start as adults, though our origination is
because of them. We start as a single sperm and egg combined. To me that
bespeaks of an ever-forward progression, not a back and forth, back and forth
as your model would suggest.
A key difference is that with you model, where one had once been God, it is
no crime to claim that title anew. Whereas in the model that I believe is true
to life, it is blasphemy for a human to say he is God until he overcomes all
things at which point he is no longer human, except in those instances where
he chooses to take on a mortal body to help others along, in which case he is
a human again, not a God, by his choice, part of the love inherent in such
acts of condescension.
The body of Christ scripture that you site is a beautiful one indeed, but
does not of necessity support your model. Each of us born to this planet are
given gifts which are meant to supplement one another. That is the body of
Christ principle, and it doesn't mean that we already are a full-fledged
Christ, but that we are assisting in helping ourselves and others to achieve
that.
The scripture you then cite further supports what I said. Note that the
wording in Ephesians is "UNTIL Christ be formed in you." It is a
future hope and aim, not necessarily a present reality.
Then you take the "...That the life of Jesus might be made manifest in
our body" scripture out of context, posting after another scripture as if
the one statement leads to the next. That verse is talking about the
persecution that the believer should expect, that our lives being willing to
die for the cause are as his, who laid down his life for us. It had nothing to
do with any kind of indwelling of his person as you wrest it to say.
Your statement, >>Since we are commanded to be of the same mind as
Jesus then we should also manifest God in the flesh.<< has merit on an
emulation basis, giving us something to aim for, but again, the huge
distinction between the New Age approach that you are promoting and the truth
is that the New Age teaches that man is ALREADY GOD, whereas the truth is that
this attainment is an eventual one after overcoming all things -- and that
overcoming all things requires the remission of sins made possible through the
atonement of Jesus Christ.
>>Jesus refused to let others exalt him as an idol God or even as a
good man any more than his brethren. For instance after a man called him good
he said: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is
God."<<
Yes, there were those instances when Jesus illustrated for us the principle
of being subservient to God, showing that our goodness is a result of him, not
something that we of ourselves can do. But there are ample times in the
scriptures when individuals worshipped Jesus. I've pointed those out, and
you're response was reasonable in saying that he allowed that for they were
worshipping the God-essence that he represented and not his personality. I'm
quite sure that this is what true worship is about. But you only admitted that
when cornered. You other writings seem to go along with the general New Age
sentiment that loathes the idea of bowing before God, for in their pride they
only want to worship themselves.
I don't know about you, but I am growing weary of taking your essay point
by point and showing where and how I disagree. I'm only 1/6 of the way through
and already we see that there are some fundamental differences in our
premises.
Are these differences that can be worked through? There are certainly many
points on which we agree.
I don't claim to have everything figured out, and I do acknowledge that you
have presented several truths to me that I had not previously considered, and
for that I am grateful. However, to me it seems that your belief aligns too
closely with some of the major apostate lies that Satan has sewed among
whatever truths are to be found in Eastern philosophy. For that reason,
I am inclined at this point to pray for a different teacher to come along,
though I imagine I will yet find great nuggets from your teachings.
Sterling
----- Original Message -----
From: "J J Dewey" <jjd@rmci.net>
To: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2000 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: Olive Branch
>Dang, I had thought you believed as I did that in finding the union
between
>Eastern and Western philosophy that Jesus Christ would be acknowledged as
>our Savior. Had I known that you do not believe that, then I don't think I
>would have taken step one with you.
I may not believe in Jesus exactly the same manner as you but I do believe
in Jesus Christ as my savior as it is revealed in the scriptures and as it is
testified to me by the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps we have both received the same testimony but have a different
interpretation of that experience.
Remember the words of Joseph:
"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It
looks too much like the Methodist, 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."
History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.17, p.340
Also: "A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does
not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the
other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more
power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist
us, and give us knowledge of the things of God." TPJS Pg 2.
I have a treatise that I have written explaining many of my views on Christ
from the Bible so Mormons and non Mormons can benefit.
I'm sending it as an attachment. Perhaps this will illustrate that my
beliefs are in alignment with the scriptures. It is saved in Word 95.
If you cannot open it let me know.
JJ
