Further Elaboration of
Godhood and New Age Fallacies Regarding it
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 6:32 PM
Subject: [keys-l] Reply to J.J.'s
'Reply to Sterling'
> Sterling. I do not have time to respond thoroughly to your post, even
if I
> dedicated all my free time to you. Others are growing weary of this type
> of interchange and I must move ahead with the teachings.
I realize that you have put a lot of energy into answering my questions and
concerns, but I don't think you need to apologize, for the questions have been
good ones and your responses likewise have provided you with additional
teaching opportunities.
> That said, I will give you a limited response here.
>
> You criticize me for not expressing the Mormon belief accurately. I may
> not represent the offshoots of Mormonism accurately, but I think I gave a
> good overview of general Mormon belief. Craig, an ex-Mormon seems to
agree.
Craig did not read your post as closely as I did. He gave a blanket
statement. I pointed out where you were accurate in portraying the mainstream
belief and where you were not accurate. I've been hanging around mainstream
Mormonism much more recently than both of you, so my memory/experience is more
fresh. My Dad having served as 10 years a stake president in Boulder, myself
having served a mission in Japan for the church, my having attended BYU for
five years, having taught at the Missionary Training Center for two, having
lived in Utah for a dozen years, having tried for three years to get
rebaptized into the church after having been excommunicated for
"apostasy," I think I've got pretty good credentials to be able to
convey what "mainstream" Mormonism is.
> You say that God is Omni-present, yet still seem to think that he is
> confined to his physical body.
"Confined" is not an appropriate word, for the ultimate state can
hardly be considered a "confinement."
> It is true that "spirit and element inseparably connected produce
fullness
> of joy." On the other hand, we are told that celestial beings can
choose
> "life or death." D&C 76:59 Mormonism teaches that Adam was
a celestial
> being who came from another world and died here, separating from his
> physical body.
Separating from his resurrected body to take on a body of mortal flesh.
Both are still "bodies."
> Obviously "inseparably connected" means that no one can
> separate you from your body except your own power of decision. If God has
> "all power" then it stands to reason he can separate from the
physical if
> He so desires.
God having "all power" does not mean he does just whatever he
pleases. He is God because he abides by eternal laws.
> Actually, except for rare incarnations, the higher lives are
inseparably> connected with their bodies. In addition their physical bodies
are rolled
> up in the spiritual and they are unfolded (for want of a better phrase)
> when they manifest in the lower worlds with a visitation.
>
> For instance when Jesus appeared to the disciples he walked through the
> walls of the building. Now when Jesus was in the wall was he in an actual
> physical body?
>
> No. Of course not. If he was he would have gotten stuck in the wall. He
> went in and out of the physical as he traveled, yet even when he was out
of
> the physical he was still inseparably connected to it.
You must remember that there is a huge distinction between a mortal body of
flesh and a resurrected, glorified body. The Resurrected body, though
"tangible" is going to have far more freedoms of movement, at least
as much as a spirit personage.
> Entities who have never had physical bodies cannot manifest in them.
> Entities who have had them and have mastered the physical can manifest at
> will but are not confined to them.
>
> Alice A. Bailey and Blavatsky both were visited by Masters who
materialized
> in physical bodies and thus meet the criteria for Joseph Smith's teaching
> on resurrected beings.
I have no background to know what you are talking about here, so I cannot
comment. Were they "incarnates," (e.g. mortals), or were they
resurrected personages?
> You give reference to the following scripture to explain the omnipresence
> of God:
>
> D&C 88:6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all
> things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and
> through all things, the light of truth;
> D&C 88:7 Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he
is in
> the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was
> made.
> D&C 88:8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and
the
> power thereof by which it was made;
> D&C 88:9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by
which
> they were made;
> D&C 88:10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth
upon
> which you stand.
> D&C 88:11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is
through
> him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth
> your understandings;
> D&C 88:12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to
fill the> immensity of space--
>
> Now you say you believe in a hierarchy of Gods as was taught by Joseph
> Smith.
Yes, but I would not consider myself locked into what he did or didn't say.
I'm in agreement with most of his teachings, including this one.
> Which God fills the immensity of space? Is it the God of this
> earth, some higher up God, or the One Universal God of which we are all
> parts as I talked about?
The light of Christ is probably the closest to what you are calling
"the One Universal God." But I would qualify this in that what some
people call "the powers of the Universe," is actually a synonym for
the priesthoods of Satan.
> Mormonism teaches that there are billions of Gods
Infinite -- without number. More than the sands of the sea shore, of which
there are billions in a few buckets full.
> which one is in the stars
> and the power thereof by which they were made?
The light of Christ, which is the "universal God" power, of which
all things, including exalted Gods, are a part.
> Which God said this?
> "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them
for mine
> own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only
Begotten."
> Moses 1:33
The "office" of exalted God-beings. All exalted Gods and those
who labor with them are part of the creation process whenever a new earth or
solar system or galaxy or segment of the universe comes into existence.
> Concerning this God who created "worlds without number" was
it the one who
> is appointed the God of this earth that Joseph talked about or was it the
> universal God speaking through a Master here as I have taught and you
> reject?
It is the universal. That is not what I reject. What I reject is saying
that we ARE Gods in the sense of these exalted beings who govern over their
children for whom they create an earth and send them down for learning and
growth.
> Or perhaps it was some other God. If our God created all the
> worlds what are the other Gods doing?
I've explained myself above.
> By the way, why are you so against calling Christ and God Masters when
> Jesus is called Master periodically in the Bible?
I avoid it because to me the it has become a darling word of the New Age,
along with Christ consciousness.
> You say:
> "These are they who refuse the grace of Christ and who seek to
enthrone
> Satan as the supreme being, who functions by appeals to a person's pride,
> rather than humility as God does. Pride blinds a person to truth, whereas
> humility enables him to see it clearly."
>
> JJ
> I think most of the people on this list are great examples of humility.
In my experience, I have rarely seen the New Age vernacular as including
words like "submissive," "meek," "humble."
Rather, they are all about lifting themselves up. Jesus said, "And
whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble
himself shall be exalted." (Matthew 23:12.)
> On
> the other hand, on your web site you openly proclaim yourself to be God,
> not just a cell in the body as most of us humbly believe.
I have explained what I mean by this in a previous post to this list called
"One Mighty and Strong." It is posted to
http://www.greaterthings.com/Davidic_Servant/overview.htm
> Who are the ones
> here that should be concerned about pride blinding us to the truth?
>
> So it's all right for you to say "I am God," but it's not all
right for us???
I consider myself to be mortal and of the flesh like everyone else and that
I must overcome like everyone else, and that I could blow it like any one
else, and that I need the Savior to overcome like every one else.
> You misunderstand about my teaching about us being Gods because of
oneness.
> This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with our essence
which
> is one with God and therefore God.
The problem with this is that it so alters the meaning of the word
"God" that the word almost becomes meaningless.
Are you omnipotent, all loving, omniscient, full of grace, mercy, truth,
justice? Are you a glorified exalted being? Do you preside over a planet of
people as their Father in Heaven? Do the angels answer to you because of your
majesty? Do the elements obey your voice?
No. Of course not.
Then you are not God. Not in that sense. But can you become that?
Yes.
How?
Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and enduring by faith in his name to
the end, overcoming all things as he did.
Until then, you are just a student, learning the ropes, an apprentice at
best, not the full fledged thing.
> Any entity who is one with God is God, just as your mouth is one with you
> and says: "I am Sterling." It is a part who is one with the
whole life.
God in a VERY loose sense. Even the demons are part of God in that sense.
Satan himself would not exist if it were not for God. He too owes his
existence to God.
So what. So you are part of God. Big deal. So is the rock out in the gravel
pit behind your house. A lowly clod of dirt has as much right to say "I
am God" under the broad definition you make.
And indeed, in my belief, that clod of dirt has intelligence -- a very
early and minutely developed intelligence -- and it too may advance and
eventually become God in the sense I am talking about -- a being who governs
over a planet and watches over his spirit children, giving them opportunities
to grow and develop.
> Again let me quote Joseph: "The mind or the intelligence which
man
> possesses is co-equal with God himself. I know my testimony is
true."
And so are the rocks and the trees. They just are not as developed as you
or I. And you and I must overcome the flesh if we are to become God in the
exalted being sense.
> The church put in parenthesis the word "co-eternal" because
they thought he
> was quoted incorrectly, but this was an attempt to alter the meaning of
his
> words.
This doesn't surprise me, if it is true. At least they left the words in.
We have to give them that much credit.
> He said that intelligence (which was from the beginning) was
> "co-equal with God himself" and that is what he meant.
Yep.
> Again I quote the Master as saying: "Ye are Gods."
Yep -- in a God-DNA sense
> Obviously he was not talking about man becoming Gods or Masters or he
would
> have said "ye are becoming Gods." You have danced around this
scripture
> and do not seem to accept it the way it reads. If he told the truth we
> "ARE Gods."
I believe the scripture is a true statement, but I don't accept your
application of it. This is probably the darling verse of the Bible for the New
Age, but it is by far an extremely isolated instance -- a verse that indeed
gives a glimpse into a glorious truth.
Some Christians do the same sort of literalism with another isolated
scripture that says, "God is a Spirit." But this isolated verse is
contradicted by a whole host of other scriptures which portray a corporeal
God.
It is not a wise thing to create a whole religion out of an isolated verse,
disregarding so many other teachings of the same scripture source in the
process.
> On the other hand God told Moses that he is becoming that which he
decides
> to become. Thus if we are also Gods we do the same thing.
In this sense, yes, we are like God, just as a child resembles his adult
parents.
> One important
> decision for us all to make is to Become like the Masters (who are one
with
> God) did before us. Of this Christ is the great example.
But not just an example. He is our redeemer. The New Age (okay lets aside
with the labels), most people on your keysters list put this role of his
aside.
> You state:
> If J.J. were indeed a true messenger commissioned by God, then I suppose
I
> would be guilty of being "an accuser of the brethren." But I
believe I
> have presented substantial reason that this is not the case.
>
> The scriptures tell us that we are "all brethren." (Alma 23:3).
It sounds
> like you have written me off as a brother so it is all right to have an
> attitude of the accuser.
Okay, I'll back off from that defense and use another. I would submit to
you that every word has both a positive and negative connotation. So also with
the word "accuse." The word "accuse" is an important one
in the judicial process. It is part of bringing "the accused" to
justice. In that positive sense, yes, I am an accuser.
As for brethren, you yourself use a vernacular that talks of the
"brotherhood of light" and the "brotherhood of darkness."
I do not feel out of line in seeking to defend Jesus Christ my Savior before
those who seek to set his role as Redeemer aside and set themselves as their
own redeemers instead. Your name calling does not dissuade me.
> I believe most members of this list still see you as a brother even if
you
> may condemn us to hell.
>
> When you first came here you were a gentleman and seemed to be sincerely
> seeking and asking questions, but now your attitude has shifted to
accusing
> words and phrases. Perhaps you should examine this attitude within
> yourself and sincerely ask if the Spirit of God would approve.
The scriptures use language similar to mine. I am not in bad company.
> Like attracts like and now that you have turned negative on us you have
> aligned yourself with writers like John Ankerburg, Dave Hunt (on that
> anti-New Age web page you linked me to) and others who not only accuse
the
> New Age people of being evil, but also accuse the Mormons of being evil.
> Ankerburg, Hunt and others quoted believe Mormon teachings on God are
part
> of Satan's Great lie and that Joseph Smith was one of the greatest
> deceivers of all time. They strongly oppose everything that Joseph Smith
> stood for and actively work for the destruction of the best of Mormon
> teachings.. Dave Hunt was one of the promoters of the anti-Mormon film
> "The Godmakers" which was full of half truths Are these type of
people
> your new-found friends? If they distort the Mormonism will they not also
> distort the new age people? What kind of fruit are you gravitating toward
> here?
>
> This page is at:
> http://members.ratedg.com/hagvahkoma/
Because others take things too far does not mean we cannot glean something
of merit from them. I agree with you that there are some pretty sour
anti-Mormons out there who lump Mormons together with New Age. I also agree
that this page I mentioned to you takes things too far. However, I do think
that there are some valid concerns raised, and it was those concerns that I
wanted to focus upon -- namely that the New Age approach tends to glorify
"messages" from Satanic spirit beings and call it "light."
> I am concerned Sterling that you think I am in league with the devil. I
> have looked forward to your brotherhood and friendship since the
beginning
> and still hope for it. As one of the members suggested we should look at
> you in return and see the face of Christ, and this I do my brother. If
you
> could see the Christ in us in return I think that you would see the good
> that resides here.
Just because I am calling attention to what I perceive to be a deception,
does not mean that I no longer view you as children of God with potential to
come into a fullness. It is because I desire that for you and everyone that I
even bother to try and call you on what I believe to be serious error. It is a
paltry fellow who just stands by while his friends go on to destruction or
major detour, when he could intervene and spare them from a great deal of pain
and lost time.
> Let me again quote the criteria for deciding which side a disciple is on:
>
> "But he that believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I
visit
> with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record.
> For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it
> persuadeth men to do good.
> "And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good
cometh
> of none save it be of me." Ether 4:11
>
> Is there anything in any of my teachings that does anything other than
> attempting to persuade men and woman to do good?
>
> If there is good in my teachings (and others of this list) then the
> scripture says that this " good cometh of none save it be of
me."
The answer is yes, you are feeding a doctrine that feeds the pride of ego,
which blinds the eyes to the truth and hence from true happiness -- all in the
name of claiming love, peace, happiness. The fullness of joy may only be
attained by those who submit to the will of the Father, and no one comes to
the father but through his Son, Jesus Christ -- no, not the Christ in us,
though it is the spirit in us -- our core essence -- that we need to bring
into alignment with God the Father, and in a very broad sense, this is a part
of God. To become an exalted being as he is, we must abide by his gospel.
Plain and simple. Any other foundation is a sandy foundation, including the
one you are helping to promote.
Let me get more specific in answering your question about whether or not
you teach things that lead people to do evil.
It has been my observation and experience in the two plus months I've been
at this list -- and my experience here only adds to what I have observed
previously among those who gravitate to the "ye are gods" approach
as you do -- that they tend to be very loose in their approach to "good
versus evil," allowing for all kinds of decrepit behavior, they tend to
support liberal government, and liberal sexual practices. Homosexuality is
okay. Abortion is okay. Socialism (forced philanthropy) is okay. Gun
confiscation is okay. The welfare state is okay. Whatever you want to do is
okay. All these things are trappings of the emerging New World Order set up by
ol' slick himself and those who subject themselves to him.
Those are not fruits of righteousness as set forth by the exalted God in
yonder heaven who created this earth and is the father of our Spirits. Rather,
they are the fruits of wickedness which will reap destruction.
The whole New World Order is based on a New Age-like arrogance by
individuals who think that the secular wisdom of man is sufficient to bring
peace to this planet. They are going to show us just how wrong this approach
is. They might get the upper hand for a time, times and the dividing of time
(3.5 years?), but their tower of Babel will crumble to the dust, and great
will be the fall thereof. Out of those ashes will arise a humble people who
finally place their trust in God (the glorified, exalted version who reigns in
heaven and is the father of our Spirits). They will build the kingdom of God
on earth, finally.
In saying all this, I will admit that a lot of your weightings, J.J. do
engender what I would agree is goodness and which promotes freedom. They
foster understanding of differences, they foster love and acceptance of
others.
But do they also foster a too liberal acceptance of sin? Speaking of which,
is there even such a things a sin in your paradigm? I don't remember you ever
using that word. I don't know if it is because you want to be loved by your
New Age audience who would stone you if you used that word, or if it is
because I've not run across it yet though you have addressed it.
> I believe that the good things you have done that has helped others on
> their path was inspired by the Spirit of God within you.
That's a safe and true statement applicable to anyone.
> Will you not
> extend me the same courtesy?
I'm sorry, but I do not consider it courtesy to watch another go on in the
ways of a major deception. I believe in seeking for truth, which means both
embracing new understandings as well as identifying and eliminating false
paradigms.
I think I've pretty well stated my case so that you know where I'm coming
from and why. I believe that I have made a strong case at that. Several people
have contacted me privately thanking me for my various contributions. Several
friends who are not on the keys of knowledge list are breathing a little
easier now that they see that I am not going the way of the New Age, which
they had feared I was as they read various things of J.J.s that I forwarded to
them.
I've certainly learned a great deal in this whole process.
Sincerely, and with love toward you,
Sterling
