matching tracksuits

fun in threes, sometimes fours

religion

Any posts about religion are my views alone and do not represent any attempt to de-convert anyone.

BoM 4: Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Part 1

Thursday 17 April 2008 | 2 Comments

After so many assurances that Joseph Smith did receive revelation from God, we might expect to hear from Smith himself.

The Prophet Joseph Smith’s own words about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are: “On the evening of the . . . twenty-first of September [1823] . . . I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God . . . . “While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor. “He had on a loose robe of most exquisite whiteness. It was a whiteness beyond anything earthly I had ever seen; nor do I believe that any earthly thing could be made to appear so exceedingly white and brilliant. His hands were naked, and his arms also, a little above the wrists; so, also, were his feet naked, as were his legs, a little above the ankles. His head and neck were also bare. I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom. “Not only was his robe exceedingly white, but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. “He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants; “Also, that there were two stones in silver bows–and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim–deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted Seers in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

At last, a question from the Introduction is answered: Moroni is an angel. Yet none mentioned in the Bible. One would think that, if God were going to reveal something through an angel almost two thousand years after his last revelation, that he would set things up in advance, at least mentioning the angel.

Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer — we get these names. Milton gives us others.

And from Smith, Moroni.

DNA and Descendants

“He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” Famously, DNA evidence has cast some doubt on Mormonism’s claims. Jeff Lindsay, a Mormon apologist, writes,

The issue of DNA and the Book of Mormon has raised many questions and some inappropriately harsh attacks by critics. Sadly, I even know of one person who claims to have left the Church because the preliminary DNA evidence did not square with his expectations. Still in its infancy, the application of DNA analysis to ancient history has posed tough new questions for those who believe in the Book of Mormon, just as it poses tough new questions for those who believe in the Bible–and for those who “believe” in linguistics, anthropology, and other sciences. DNA evidence is forcing many old assumptions to be reevaluated, but is also causing genuine head-scratching as it sometimes seems at odds with reasonable conclusions drawn from other fields. (Source)

Those “who ‘believe’ in linguistics, anthropology, and other sciences”? My initial reaction: so much for thoughtful apologetics. “Hey, it’s a belief, just like linguistics!” Lindsay continues,

DNA analysis of multiple Native American tribes generally points to Asian origins. Native American DNA does not appear to have distinctly “Jewish” traits. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed only along maternal lines, primarily falls into four groups — haplogroups — that are termed A, B, C, and D — and these same groups are typical of Asian DNA. Initial studies comparing the mtDNA of Native Americans and other peoples of the world pointed to a definite Asian origin. Latter-day Saints pointed out that Lehi’s tiny group might have had negligible impact on the genes that would persist on the continent if the New World already had thousands or millions of people upon his arrival, as it almost certainly did.

So the argument is, “Well, there were too few to have an impact on the Native American gene pool.” Yet the LDS argument might be stronger than that:

Then it was noticed that 3 or 4 percent of northern Native Americans had a fifth haplogroup called the X haplogroup, which was unknown in Asia but common in Europe and especially the Middle East. Some of us Latter-day Saints pointed to the non-Asian X haplogroup as evidence for possible transoceanic contact with Europe or the Middle East, though probably not as evidence for Lehi’s migration since the estimated date of entry into the New World for haplogroup X was thousands of years before Lehi. But we would emphasize the complete absence of haplogroup X in Asia and its relative abundance in Europe and the Middle East, including Israel.

You see, there is another haplogroups in Native American genes, but even though it would have been present long before Lehi (still not sure who that is — could Google it, but I’ll just keep reading the Book of Mormon and find out like a good, patient reader) migrated. It shows it’s possible, though.

The bottom line, though, is that these criticism of Mormonism are based on a misunderstanding of what the Book of Mormon actually claims: “The Book of Mormon does not claim to explain the primary genetic origins of all Native Americans.”

It explains their geographic origins, but not their genetic origins.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Photo by Sangre-La.com

BoM 3: The Testimony of Eight Witnesses

Sunday 13 April 2008 | 0 Comments

As if three were not enough, we get eight more.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

Enough with the sales pitch!

There is a big difference, though, between these two testimonies. The Eight claim that they saw and handled the plates; the Three simply saw the plates. Additionally, they claim that Smith himself showed them the plates; the Three claimed that an angel had shown them the plates.

Far from putting me at ease, this makes me even more suspect. Not everyone has an experience of being shown something by an angel; everyone, though, has an experience of being shown something by a fellow human. And like Saint Thomas, the Eight are able to put their hands in the wound, so to speak.

It almost seems planned. And they all seem to eager to convince.

The list of signatories is also enlightening. A little research shows that in fact everyone on the list was either of Smith's family or the Whitmer family (early followers of Smith). Even "Joseph Smith, Sen." testified. Apparently, even father vouched for son. If what Joseph Smith claims to be true really happened, then why not? However, if this was a grand hoax, or a case of self-delusion, it's frightening that Smith Senior would assure us that there really were tablets, that his son was not lying when in fact he knew very well that he was.

Nonetheless, it's a little like putting your father's name down as a reference on your resume.

But all of this assumes that these people did see what they claim to have witnessed.

BoM 2: The Testimony of Three Witnesses

Saturday 05 April 2008 | 2 Comments

After the introduction, the Book of Mormon grows odd: "The Testimony of the Three Witnesses" immediately leaves me suspect. I get the feeling I'm talking to a used car salesman.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

"This is a good car. Really -- a good car. Hey, Tony, tell this guy how good this car is."

Photo by Ken Lund

More on ID

Thursday 01 September 2005 | 1 Comment

Thud mentioned “the kind of ID that also rejects short-history ‘the world is 5000 years old’ creationism.” It's been my sense lately that "ID" is an effort by more moderate believers to distance themselves from the more literal, fundamentalist reading of a six-thousand-year-old universe. Look at the

Catholic church's official position: the Vatican holds that God created the universe, but it makes no claim as to how he did it. Very sensible, but too sensible for fundamentalists – who often are rabidly anti-Catholic as well.

The problem lies with the fact that creationists – and I mean the hard-core, 6k variety – take the issue very personally. I once stumbled onto a teen message board of a fundamentalist sect and jumped in on the question, “Do you believe in evolution?” I found that the kids’ initial reaction was always an emotional one. “I’m not descended from primal sludge!” was a common theme. While I fail to see how the origins of my species affect my personal worth and self-confidence, the thought of being able to trace the human race back to amoebas somehow offended their sense of personal dignity.

“Something that used to be sludge can’t possibly be a child of God,” they reason. “I am a child of God,” they continue, concluding with, “Therefore, I did not evolve from primordial soup.”

Not the most well-founded syllogism I’ve ever encountered, but these are emotions we’re dealing with, not reasonable, rational responses.

Accepting evolution is rejecting God. For them, it means rejecting the very bedrock of their lives: the Bible. It makes the Bible a liar, because the use of figurative language has largely escaped them as a possible interpretation. If “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1.5) can be interpreted figuratively, so can “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3.16). If the Bible got it wrong about biology, then what confidence can we have in it regarding salvation.

This black-and-white, either-or thinking permeates the fundamentalist world.

All we had to do was elect an evangelical president to see that.

Reading Strobel

Tuesday 31 August 2004 | 0 Comments

I began reading The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel this week. My parents brought it to me in addition to the two books I’d requested. I’d read some reviews of it on Amazon, and the common complaint against it is that it doesn’t present the other side of the issue. There is a short chapter on the issues raised by the Jesus Seminar, but that’s about it other than occasional objections raised here and there by skeptics. I’ve no problem with this in a way, for the book is The Case for Christ and not Christ on Trial. In other words, even in the title it makes it clear that it’s presenting one side of the story.

One thing I do have a problem with is how much of the argument is based on something being “reasonable” or the alternative being “unlikely.” For example, “Given that Jesus’ followers looked upon him as being even greater than a prophet, it seems very reasonable that they would have done the same thing [(i.e., record his words accurately)]” (41, emphasis mine).

It’s often just conjecture. For example, concerning the casting of the demons into the swine, Strobel points out that Mark and Luke say it happened in Gerasa, with Matthew putting it in Gadara. After the scholar (Blomberg) suggests that one was a town and the other a province, Strobel adds, “Gerasa, the town, wasn’t anywhere near the Sea of Galilee.” Blomberg responds:

There have been ruins of a town that have been excavated at exactly the right point on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. The English form of the town’s name often gets pronounced ‘Khersa,’ but as a Hebrew word translated or transliterated into Greek, it could have come out sounding something very much like ‘Gerasa.’ So it may very well have been in Khersa — whose spelling in Greek was rendered as Gerasa — in the province of Gadara (46, 47).

Goodness — proper understanding of the Bible requires knowing how people could have transliterated or misspelled words! Isn’t the Bible of divine origin? How could this happen?

This issue of divine origin comes up again when discussing the consistency between the gospel accounts. Blomberg says,

My own conviction is, once you allow for the elements I’ve talked about earlier — of paraphrase, of abridgement, of explanatory additions, of omission — the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it’s fair to judge them (45).

The only standards? How about the standard of them coming from a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient source? Of course, apologists like to conjecture that if there was perfect consistency between the gospels, that would be suspect in itself. Perhaps, but there is such a level of inconsistency on basic issues (who saw the resurrected Jesus first, for example).

In some ways, the book is strangely persuasive. I guess it comes from this strange, nonsensical desire to believe again. A childish desire, I suppose — and Christians wouldn’t deny that. “Unless you become like a child” and all that.

Pre-Wedding Seminar

Monday 05 July 2004 | 0 Comments

So we survived this Catholic church’s inability to treat its believers like responsible adults—i.e., we survived the pre-wedding, weekend-long marriage class. I would say “seminar,” but “seminar” implies more interaction than actually took place. The first half of the first day especially was nothing more than a long lecture.

Kinga and I decided that the people who really need such a thing don’t benefit at all from it, because they don’t really pay attention to it; and the people who don’t need it obviously don’t benefit from it all that much. The price was not worth the benefit in our case, I would say. It didn’t really cover anything Kinga and I hadn’t heard/thought/realized before.

What was especially frustrating was the repetition of the Catholic birth control talk. It began with an attempt at justifying it logically (and of course theologically, and even thought “logical” is in the word “theological,” it often isn’t). The presenter hung up a poster of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers and asked us to imagine we’d painted it. In comes a friend who rips the painting and she had us brainstorm what we would feel toward that friend: anger, surprise, hatred, desire for revenge, etc. were the words that came to people’s minds. She then pointed out that we weren’t physically harmed by our “friend’s” action, but that our creation was. “Ah,” I began thinking, “That’s how they’re going to try to justify the church’s absurd position on birth control.” And sure enough, she pointed out that we’re God’s creation, and that according to the Genesis account (which apparently we’re to interpret literally), we were created with four critical aspects/commands. One of them was our fertility and the command “be fruitful.” So the reasoning went, that when we’re tampering with our fertility, we’re tampering with God’s creation, and so on and so on.

She then went on to frame it as a question of faith, and I believe that was a great mistake. “Checkmate,” I thought, recalling my upbringing. In short, I wanted to talk to her about this and say the things I’m about to write, but I didn’t. If it’s a question of faith in God’s almighty power, then going to the doctor is just as much a questioning of that faith as using birth control. It’s one and the same. Catholics pray to God for healing—and then use medicine. If it’s an act of anti-faith (for lack of a better term) to use birth control, it’s just as much to use birth control.

Another one of the critical aspects of the Genesis account that they brought out was the control over creation that God supposedly gave Adam and Eve. So we’re supposed to “panować” all of creation except our fertility…

The church’s position is an antiquated position based on a time when infant mortality was much higher than now, and global overpopulation was an unthinkable concept. “Be fruitful” makes a lot of sense when perhaps half of the children you bring into the world live to be adults. In today’s society, it just makes no sense whatsoever. So the church is left scrambling to explain a first century (and earlier) tradition in a twenty-first century reality.

Interesting that the woman presenting said that the church’s position was not a question of the church wanting to have as many Catholics as possible—having babies for the church, in other words. And yet, just the day before, the priest said just that. That children were a blessing, and that by having many of them (he suggested three!) we would help our “fatherland” and the church.

The whole weekend wasn’t a waste. There were some interesting moments, but it could have been done in an afternoon as opposed to two full days. And the fact that it was required was ridiculous. Of course those conducting it had nothing to do with that, as they pointed out at the beginning when they said that no one would be excuse for any reason, we had to sit there throughout the whole thing. And then actually said bottom line themselves: “Ci który mają świadecwy mają władca.” “Those who have the certificates have the power.” It was meant as a joke, but I didn’t find it terribly amusing.

Soccer Religion

Wednesday 30 June 2004 | 0 Comments

After having written a short review of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code (Okay, I admit it – I have to stoop to some pretty low levels in my English reading while in Poland), I recently received the oddest letter from a complete stranger. The subject line: The DaVinci [sic] Code and The DA Revelation of Avatar Adi Da Love-Ananda Samraj

Dear Gary,

My name is John Forth from Melbourne Australia. I got your e-address from Amazon reviews.

The DaVinci [sic] Code is an interesting book on an important theme: namely the suppression [sic] of the gnostic [sic] strain in Christianity. A suppresion [sic] which has turned out to be a disaster for ALL beings on this planet.

With that in mind please check out The Divine Revelation of Avatar Adi Da Love-Ananda Samraj at:

1. www.adidam.org

2. www.adi-da-samraj.org

A Prophetic Criticism of the "Great" Religions (essays on how non-gnostic [sic] essentially materialist Christianity took over) at:

3. http://www.dabase.net/proofch6.htm

Grace Shines

John Forth

My response, after checking out the links he'd provided, was short: "What exactly does The Da Vinci Code – which is a horrid book filled with historical errors – have to do with a New Age cult?" Of course I knew such a reply was antagonistic enough to get another response out of him. In other words, I realized I was childishly provoking him, but I couldn't help it. After all, it's not every day that you get to speak to a cult apologist.

Mr. Forth replied:

Dear Gary,

Thankyou [sic] for your response.

IF you do your hope work you will discover that Adidam or The Way of the Heart created by Adi Da Samraj is not a "new age" cult. Christianity is a cult. Every body belongs to numerous cults. A cult being a group of people from the very small or in the billions fascinated by some object of desire or fascination.

Please check out "Beyond The Cultic Tendency in Religion----" at: http://www.dabase.org/cultic.htm

You could say that the fascination with the Davinci [sic] Code is a cultish [sic] phenomenon [sic]. AS are the cults associated with The Lord of the Rings, the Matrix films, Star Trek etc etc [sic] Perhaps the relevance to Adidam is that Adi Da addresses in a very real way some of the themes, especially the repressed gnostic [sic] elements of early christianity [sic], mentioned in the Davinci [sic] Code.

Grace Shines

John Forth

Leaving aside the question of what "home work" Mr. Forth thought I was supposed to have done, I took him up on his offer and read – or rather, scanned – the piece Mr. Forth recommended, written by none other than the guru himself: Avatar Adi Da Samraj.

It was full of Things Not Normally Capitalized which were written in Capital Letters to express Their Importance (though he did restrain from some cult/sect writers' typographical IDOCYCRIES), and basically filled with nonsensical Eastern guru babble. (I'm not suggesting that Eastern wisdom is just "babble," just this particular "wisdom.") Some choice quotes:

  • The relationship to Me that is Described (by Me) in the Ruchira Avatara Gita is not an exoteric cultic matter. It is a profound esoteric discipline, necessarily associated with real and serious and mature practice of the "radical" Way (or root-Process) of Realizing Real God, Which Is Reality and Truth. Therefore, in the Ruchira Avatara Gita, I am critical of the ego-based (or self-saving, and self-"guruing", rather than self-surrendering, self-forgetting, self-transcending, and Divine-Guru-Oriented) practices of childish, and, otherwise, adolescent, and, altogether, merely exoteric cultism.
  • Just so, the cult of religious and Spiritual fascination tends to be equally righteous about maintaining fascinated faith (or indiscriminate, and even aggressive, belief) in the merely Parent-like "Divine" Status of one or another historical individual, "God"-Idea, religious or Spiritual doctrine, inherited tradition, or force of cosmic Nature.

The piece mainly dealt with the issue of "cultism," which Adi Da claims is endemic in all religions – except his own, of course. His is the antidote to cults. Clever move: take critics' charges and aim the back at them.

Next step, I decided to do my "homework" that Mr. Forth took me to task for not having done – particularly easy with Google. Soon I was flooded with information about Adi Da, Daism, and assorted goodies.

The Guru

I was initially not sure whether to call this charlatan "Franklin Jones" or "Adi Da." Indeed, Jones himself cannot seem to make up his mind as far as names go. (names.adida.org) Continually referring to him as Jones makes his claims seem particularly absurd, but since they are currently published under the name, it seems to make contextual sense to call him "Adi Da." In the end, I just oscillated back and forth.

I found out that – surprise, surprise – "Adi Da" is in fact Franklin Jones, a sixty-something Long Island born "guru" who has been holed up for over twenty years in Fiji , where he dispenses his Eastern-tinged "Crazy Wisdom" (his term, not mine) selflessly. I scanned a bit of his stuff and it was quickly evident that the guy is a fraud.

Jones' religion, his "Crazy Wisdom," is not a Siddhartha-type Western understanding of Buddhism, something which might raise the eyebrows a bit of a true Eastern master but cause no real consternation. In other words, it's not some new meditation method, some slightly commercialized take on yoga (i.e., twelve positions for the supermarket checkout counter). Nothing so insignificant as that.

The claim that Jones make – the heart of his religion – is that he is an Avatar. A human manifestation of God. To frame it in Western terms, Jones makes the same claim Jesus did: that he is God incarnate. As he explains it:

I Am the Divine Heart-Master of every one, and of all, and of the All of all. Therefore, I Call upon every one (and all) to rightly and positively understand My Divine Self-Revelation. And I Call upon every one (and all) to truly devotionally recognize Me, and to responsively demonstrate that devotional recognition of Me in the
context of, and by Means of, the right, true, full, and fully devotional, and really counter-egoic, practice of the only-by-Me Revealed and Given Way of Adidam (www.dabase.org)
.

He is the Set Apart Guide (I can't help lapsing into some Jones-esque capitalization) for All those Who want to Know the Way. The Way, coincidentally, is Jones himself, so his teaching amounts to how to recognize he is God. Indeed, followers are given instructions that the best way to forget about ego is to meditate on Jones, and since he's living it up in Fiji and not physically available to all his followers, they're provided with a photo album to help with the visualization!

Salvation, it seems, is based on fantasizing about a fat, bald, literally slimey-looking (just scroll down a bit) New Yorker with glaucoma.

The only Liberating discovery is that My Avataric Divine Spiritual Presence is Real, able to be tangibly experienced under any and all circumstances. It is not about imagining My Spiritual Presence or manipulating yourself. None of that is satisfying, in any case. To searchlessly [sic] Behold Me and, in the midst of it, to notice My Spiritual Presence tangibly moving upon you in your real experience–this is the great and Liberating discovery, the only Satisfaction. Ultimately, it is the only Satisfaction in life. Everything else is temporary, conditional, ego-based, and disheartening. Only the discovery of the tangible Reality of That Which Is Divine is heartening and Liberating and Satisfactory (adidam.org).

The practice is searchless, ego-forgetting, altogether to-Me-turned Beholding of Me in My bodily (human) Divine Form. When you are not in My physical Company, you can recollect My bodily (human) Divine Form. You can use My Murti-Form, My Padukas, and so on. Persisting in this practice, there is the potential of moving Me to Bless you further. [March 24, 2003] (adidam.org)

I closed my eyes and pictured him for a few moments and the only result I got was a chill running down my back and a brief
paranoia that, like the catchy melody of the latest pop trash hit, the image would keep popping back into my head unwanted.The Suckers and VictimsThe case of Franklin Jones and his AdidDaSes (the name "Adi Da" supposed just came to him; perhaps he just glanced down at someone's athletic shoes) would be more comic than anything if it weren't for the people that follow him. The difference between a cult leader and a raving schizophrenic homeless man in a subway station is that someone has taken the former seriously, and that's a frightening thought. What makes a cult tragic is of course the devoted, mindless followers.Jones' website speaks of "turning to him," of "recognizing him," of "loving him." It's scary stuff. But the words are not half as scary as the pictures – images from the inside workings of a cultic compound. Imagine David Koresh made pictures available of what went on in Waco. It might look something like this:And what's worse is the fact that there are children being raised on this bullshit. Children of followers living on Jones' Fiji island paradise are taught from birth (i.e., primarily socialization) that this snake-oil salesman is God. It's difficult enough to deprogram adults who have surrendered (voluntarily or not) their grip on reality, but these poor kids will never have had a firm understanding of reality to begin with, and they're going to be warped for life. It's nothing short of child abuse, but unfortunately, such child abuse is legal.Thus armed, I dashed off a quick reply to Mr. Forth:

I read the piece to which you sent me the link, and I found this passage:

All cults, whether sacred or secular, thrive on indulgence in the psychology (and the emotional rituals) of hope, rather than on actual demonstration of counter-egoic and really ego-transcending action.

What is the difference between this "indulgence in the psychology [. . .] of hope" and what Adi Da offers? His form of TM simply offers the hope of getting in touch with true reality.

I suppose, to some degree, as an atheist I would agree. Any time we seek from a religion something beyond what we experience in our senses, quantitatively confirmable through science, we are indulging in "the psychology [. . .] of hope."

Further, I would go so far as to say that Da is exploiting this "psychology [. . .] of hope" to build up his own cult. And for the record, I am using "cult" in the sociological sense of the term. Like Jim Jones (though I don't know that Da will go so far), he has holed himself up in a remote corner of the world and refuses contact with outsiders.

Concerning this, Ken Wilber asks,

[Da's] claim, of course, is that he is the most enlightened person in the history of the planet. Just for argument, let us agree. But then what would the most  enlightened World Teacher in history actually do in the world? Hide? Avoid? Run? Or would that teacher engage the world, step into the arena of dialogue, meet with other religious teachers and adepts, attempt to start a universal dialogue that would test his truths in the fire of the circle of those who could usefully challenge  him. At the very least, a person who claims to be the World Teacher needs to get out in the world, no? (www.beezone.com)

Indeed, what does the Dali Lama think of Da? How is he received in, say, India? Yes, yes, I know that some notables (most disturbing, Allan Watts) have given credence to Da's claim, but as far as I know, true spiritual leaders don't have much to do with him.

When I wrote this, I was still unaware of the extent of Jones' claims to be God. As such, it's a little flawed, for there does indeed exist a Gnostic element in Daism – the knowledge that a fat New Yorker is God.

Now, as far as this and some connection to that horrid The Da Vinci Code, I still fail to see the  connection. Gnosticism was not about mystical meditation but instead knowledge. "Gnosis" means "knowledge," not meditation. The Da Vinci Code attempts to rehabilitate the idea of the sacred feminine – goddess worship, in other words – and not Christian mysticism. If that's what Brown were trying to do in writing "DC" he would have written about, say, Father Pio. Instead, he wrote about Mary Magdalene, the "proper" object of veneration in Christianity as it was originally formulated.

In closing, I'd like to thank you for your emails, and encourage you, if you are involved in Adi Da's cult, to get yourself out as fast as possible.

I never heard from Mr. Forth again. I suppose he realized that time trying to convert me was not time well spent, and I imagine he's off emailing other people who submitted reviews of The Da Vinci Code to Amazon.com.The Ultimate Sell: YourselfOne question remains: to what degree does Franklin Jones believe his own nonsense? There are two equally disturbing possibilities. The first is that he simply knows that he's a charlatan and realizes it's all a big scam. This seems unlikely, for a conscious con-man, no matter how good he is, eventually slips up.The second possibility is that he thinks he is God. This simply means he belongs in an asylum. Indeed, the only difference between Franklin Jones and the probably uncountable number of Jesuses, Buddhas, Thors, and Jehovahs sitting around in state hospitals is that  Jones hasn't been locked away. You can almost imagine a large nurse reassuring a pajama-clad Jones, "Yes, Mr. Jones, I know that my salvation rests on perfect contemplation of you. Now be a sweetie and take your medicine . . ."

Circumcision and the Bible

Tuesday 16 March 2004 | 0 Comments

I was reading this morning, of all things, the Bible. I found an interesting passage in Romans:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way!

First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God (2.25–3.2).

It is very clear here that Paul is not talking about starting a new religion but expanding an old one. Judaism is a religion passed on by blood with the surrounding culture—there aren’t many converts and there’s no effort at proselytizing. But here’s Paul, out converting people not to anything called Christianity (when did they get that name, anyway?) but to be Jews!

Second, he mentions that Jews are the ones who “have been entrusted with the very words of God.” No mention of anything that would eventually become the New Testament “words of God,” and here is a good opportunity at least to mention the oral traditions, if not the gospels if they were being circulated in some fashion. Proof? Of course not—and proof of what? That the gospels were written later? That’s widely acknowledged. It’s simply indications of the ordinariness of Christianity, of it’s non-divine nature.

And I didn’t set out looking for this—I just decided to read for a while, as I drank my coffee.

XCG Thoughts

Friday 07 December 2001 | 0 Comments

Last night I spent a lot of time on the internet, and I found a lot of information about the Philadelphia Church of God. I’d found most of it before, but I hadn’t read it. It is, indeed, a cult. It is almost reminiscent of Jim Jones or David Koresh in its horror. From the account of one Sue Hensley:

March 1993 — He compared what was happening in Waco Texas to the persecution that would happen to us.  He told us the Branch Davidians were an example of the persecution coming upon us because they used many of the same terms we did.  David Koresh talked about a “little book,” he said the “lion roars,” he said Christ was the “Key of David,” he claimed his predecessor was “Elijah,” and he preached about the “Millennium.”  Mr. Flurry also brought up Jim Jones & the People’s Temple during his examples of the persecution to come, and he said Jonestown was their “place of safety.”

Regarding the “college” he’s building, Ms. Hensley wrote:

When the announcements were made in 2000 about the land that was being bought for the college, one of the tapes from headquarters told us a great deal of what was planned for the future of this land. They are putting in their own sewage treatment system, so that, if things reach a critical stage, all the members could stay on the property; they would be capable of handling over 7000 people on site. There was also an old airstrip in the property, which they thought could be refurbished and utilized to either “further the work” or to fly people out to the place of safety when the time came. The swimming pool (announcement made in 2001) is also to serve as an emergency water supply in case of fire or other needs. Even the first time I heard these things, it gave me a chill.

And lastly, regarding Flurry’s status:

He has also lately given the ministry some very strict rulings concerning what the ministers should do if a person in the congregation talks to them about something they think is wrong. Mr. Flurry has told the ministers that even if the person is right, they should never agree with the member because it would be disloyal to God’s Prophet.

I used to think that the PCG was just a silly bunch of neo-Armstrongites who were pissed because the WCG made all these changes. On the contrary — they are a full-blown, physically dangerous cult. The WCG was mentally dangerous. Spiritually abusive, even. But it never made statements like this. It never openly compared itself to the People’s Temple. And if Armstrong had been alive to see the Waco fiasco, I’m sure he wouldn’t have compared himself to Koresh. He would have said something ridiculous about it, no doubt, but I don’t think he would have drawn a direct parallel between the two organizations.

The reason is simple: I don’t think Armstrong really ever actually believed he and his group would “flee.” Why would they? That would mean giving up the luxurious lifestyle he’d grown so accustomed to. You can’t buy prosthetic dildos in the desert; Steuben crystal is fairly impractical in the desert; a Rolls Royce doesn’t take well to the desert. He never actually believed it. It was a good way to milk people of their money. Nothing more.

People like Jim Jones, David Koresh, and, apparently, Gerald Flurry, though, actually do believe the nonsense they’re teaching. And apparently, they’re all willing to die for it.

I’ve really got to get a handle on this obsession I’ve had for the WCG and all its splinter groups. It’s really just a waste of time, I know, but I can’t help it. I can’t bear the thought of something sensational happening in, say, the PCG and me not knowing about it. Why? I guess I just want to be able to watch the fallout as it happens.

From a Letter

Thursday 23 August 2001 | 0 Comments

I’m sitting here watching — guess — Star Wars, typing a letter to you, with Lilly sitting at my side trying to get me to pet her. I’ve already packed once (I’ll be unpacking and repacking again today — I don’t like how things turned out), I’ve eaten, I’ve taken a shower, and I’m feeling all pleased with myself.

So yesterday’s conversation. The more I think about it, the less there is to write about it. Basically, I guess my mom had no idea that I wasn’t a Christian, that I don’t accept the fact that Jesus was the son of God and all that. I’m not sure what she thought my position was on the whole issue, but I guess she just thought that I sort of accepted the idea of a Christ but rejected organized religion. Anyway, we talked about it for a while, and it seemed to me that dad was sort of talking in circles. And it definitely seemed that mom has a much more “traditional” belief set than dad. She’s much more exclusivist (i.e., Christianity is the one true religion and should be shared with the world) while dad seems to be, in theory, a little more open (i.e., “I don’t know whether or not others’ experience in other religions is an experience of God or not — no one can say for sure”). Still, I couldn’t get him to come around to admit that such an admission indicts his own belief system (i.e., there’s no way to know whether what he’s experiencing and attributing to God is of God or something else). The really weird part came in talking about the inerrancy of the Bible. Dad seemed to admit it and deny it at the same time. He admitted that there were indeed contradictions in the Bible, but somehow seemed to argue that that fact didn’t make the Bible imperfect. I really have no idea how he tried to maintain that. It was weird — I honestly didn’t understand a single thing he was saying sometimes. It was like he was talking and then take two cups of flour and add it to the bowl of good tobacco causes lung cancer is a good match for Virgos. Vague connections, but not quite sure how things are intended to look in the bigger picture. It was very disconcerting.

The trip in general was uneventful. We got lost going into New York, though. It was an enlightening experience. We’re going along, looking for exit 6a, counting down. We make it by nine, by eight. I see a sign for 7a in a mile, indicating it’s the left two lanes (we’re tooling along in the left lane). I say, “We’re in an exit lane.” Dad, acting as navigator, says, “Yeah,” sort of absentmindedly as he looks at the map. Another sign: exit 7a, left two lanes, half a mile. Once again, I say something, “We need to be in the other lane.” Nothing is said. And we end up taking exit 7a. As we approach, Mom actually said, “Which way do I go?” In a split second, Dad says, “To the left” (it was more a fork in the road than an exit) and I say, “No, no!!!” A moment later, Dad says, “We’re looking for 6a.” I point out that we just took exit 7a. And thus begins an forty minute adventure in which we finally make it back out to where we needed to be and made it to the consulate. I was shocked, though. Three signs (counting the final one that was over the exit as we turned onto it); two warnings — they still took that exit. I was more amused than I was annoyed. But I quickly got annoyed — mom constantly asking, “Which way do I go?” and dad giving directions. We finally get on 34th avenue and we’re looking for Madison. Dad says, “It’s between fourth and fifth” or something like that. Every intersection, mom asks, “What is this?” Dad answers. “And what are we looking for?” Agghh — I thought I would go crazy.

I still haven’t talked to Marlon. I called him, but he didn’t pick up the phone. Perhaps you could give him my number here and get him to call me? I’d really like to talk to him about all this nonsense.

I still don’t have any firm plans for my time here. Saturday I’m meeting Dave, as I told you; Sunday I’m hoping to visit Michelle; Monday morning I have a dentist appointment. Otherwise, nothing. I’m going to try to call Tonia tonight and see if I can stay with her Saturday night, and maybe try to see Mike Braswell Saturday afternoon or Sunday. We’ll see.

Too much to do.