A question came up in class today concerning the “foundation” of human culture, and whether some things exist outside of it, say, a tree before humans began harvesting, pruning, climbing, and so on; before human interaction began. Nature, but not “nature” as culture has created it. A helluva question, for a 101 class.
My response was, yes, everything, even in human culture, is what it is. Culture takes some parts of that “is” and matches it with other “is-es”, creating boxes and classes, hierarchies and categories. I even got to speak of “Firstness”!
So, is there a human-is-ness before human culture, I was asked? Again, the sort of question that makes teaching 101 classes so disruptive and adventurous, at times.
Yes, but we don’t have a word for that “is”. You are what you are, and maybe “you” is as close I’d care to give you a name. “You” are being addressed by “me.” Notice that while we can speak of humans outside of culture, we cannot speak of them outside language.
You are what you are, and that Is is inherently, essentially, or otherwise is-ed by Language.
What is Language? not words, written or spoken or signed. These are representations of Language.
“I am that I am” must be saying something about Language, capital L.
What It Isn’t
Jewish mystics reading these texts in the Middle Ages about “I am that I am” developed a mystical explanation concerning the Name of God, and those explanations got rolled into magical practices concerned with occult manipulation, action-at-a-distance attempts to get Powers and Forces to Do Something. The secret doctrine they espoused was that speaking the Name got one access to the Name’s powers, effectively enabling one to gain power over the thing named by having its Name. I think such doctrines are wicked, at their heart, although well intentioned. Inevitably, priests and mages postured as if possessing the Great Secret of the Name, and taboos on speaking the Name allowed their posturing to continue.
If one knew the Name of God, I suppose that would be one among many names used to refer to or address that Being. What about being Baptized in the Name of God?
That mysterious L-anguage not only “represents” stuff, but it also creates stuff, indeed, most of what we think of as human is created by L, including our thoughts. We are of the Word, perhaps.
Maybe L and the Word, and what-ever-Is-is are really “just” light? Different kinds of Light?
Well, that depends on what you mean by “light.” Probably, what we call “light” is not more “Light” than what we call “language” is really “Language.” Sunlight, electric light, and so on are probably just representations of light: or, Light acting like light, to beings (acting like humans).
We cannot understand Light-Language by taking it apart, and gaining perspective over it. We can create representations of L, and study those, of course. But L will just look or act like what we are looking for or are acting like.
How can we understand L? or EL?
It would be convenient, I suppose, if we could Google it, and have our answer.
Or, if someone proposed a five-step program to take us to L, or to really know L.
I suppose we must believe that L created what L created, and that by understanding L’s creations, we don’t understand L, but we can comprehend how to create in a manner like unto L. Does that make us Like Unto L? Not at all, except as we’ve confused ourselves into believing that imitating a person gets at what that person really is. We have confused acting, say, on a stage, with the character acted out; as if actor and character were really the same, or, like unto one another. They may act like one another, and yet be whatever they be. All are alike unto L. But L doesn’t act like L. L is L.
So, I don’t think we are trying to become like L, or at least, I don’t think such attempts are wise.
What about, then, being Baptized in the Name of God? Would it be correct to say, Immersed in the representations of “God”? Whose representations? We are all baptized in somebody’s representations: Sidney Rigdon’s, Joseph Smith’s, Aristotle’s…But who has been immersed in the Named One’s representations of God? Surely, all of us. Though we rarely let that little light shine, as the song goes.
When one is baptized in the Name, one apparently, following Nephi here, learns the tongue of angels. Is that tongue able to represent L more correctly than, say, English? Apparently. But, still we are dealing with representations, in this case, angelic rather than human. Better, for sure, but not really transcending the divide between the name of L, and L.
Maybe being baptized in the Name is like being immersed in L? At some point we might even find ourselves no longer merely content to represent L with language, being immersed (a-timely) in L?
But isn’t that all just mysticism? The whole I-can’t-explain-but-I-feel-it stuff? In a way. Also, it means one cannot create a public institution to teach people how to immerse in L, or to rank one another based on how much L they’ve been immersed in, and so on. The end of the World is probably not the End of the Earth, but at least the end of institutions-representations-power (most recently, Gentile).
What about Zion, then? Maybe they are scattered, and few, because they don’t organize, or “gather” as we understand the term? maybe they all have been or will be immersed in L, and that is what “gathers” them, in a union they are not conscious of, as in, “I belong to Zion” sort of consciousness?
I came across this representation of an idea, called a Klein Bottle. It is a flat surface folded in at two corners, and then at the other two corners, as though a flat plane was made spherical. And yet, there is only one surface, not two. It is like unto a Mobius strip, indeed, if one placed a Left-handed and a Right-handed strip together, one has a Klein Bottle. They don’t exist here as bottles, but we can describe them. They exist in L. If we attempt to create a Klein Bottle, we are forced to put that thing described into a fourth dimension, and yet, when it is a stable thing, that means the bottle’s “neck” penetrates the bottle at it’s “base.” In reality, that does not happen. Only in two-dimensions (say, on a computer screen) can we represent the Klein Bottle, without that neck-through-the-base problem; but we then sacrifice one of the other three dimensions (e.g. depth). But that is our best attempt to get at, physically, a thing we can describe with language. In our imaginations we can represent it, however; and yet, what dimension does that Imagination exist in? 3? 4? 1? And that is a L-uva thing, don’t you think?
these mystry woods 
In college, my room mate and I made our first klein bottle with two strips of toilet paper and scotch tape…oh dear….that was over 40 years ago. How time flies.
See, this is why there is an ever widening space on my shelf of “serious religious books” dedicated to Daymon Smith’s writings. It’s right there between John Milbank’s Radical Orthodoxy and Tripp York’s Christian Anarchy. Daymon’s is the only “mormon” voice I find interesting right now.
I sometimes think of Language as “The Authentic” or “The Real.” It’s an Essence of a thing, and language (or music or art) is a vehicle that is meant to convey that Essence and reproduce the same process or way-of-being in the person who receives the tokens. We spend our time trying to parse and compute language, as if it were some kind of math; and then we say we “understand.” But that isn’t really it–that’s merely counterfeit, because it is faithful to the signs only. I know I have received the Essence (or Truth) when, not only does the language compute, but it’s as if *I become the Source of It*. I think that’s what atonement means: Having the same Language.
Good “what is” being described here.
Mr smith.
So what is a Jew and what is a gentile? Can one understand the L of the mormon book without knowing who one is?
What you think of this guy’s explaing in above link?
I’m told one can tell Jew from Gentile by looking at the DNA in hair samples. Some scientists on NetFlix determined that Eva Braun was Jewish by this method, thus showing how stupid Hitler really was. That would make Hitler and the scientists and NetFlix, I believe, Gentile.
For my part, I’d say that the mormon book has no L. It’s a book. I’d also say that L is not something understood, but something possessed. Also, intelligence is a prerequisite for L.
I happened to follow your link and found the exegesis to be a frightful mathematick. Mostly it was tl;dr. It’s a tripe full of “the restoration of the keys of gathering” and other such bullshittery produced by one who apparently believes that truth might be found in a book. No, not even that. The book is something, at least (devoid of any “keys” whatsoever); but this piece seems solidly grounded somewhere in Daymon’s “scripturalization” chart where it churns ridiculous metatexts back into text.
What is a Jew and what is a Gentile? Words taken from language, and assumed to be pure L because they are words seen in a book dubbed “scripture”, which by definition has its own L, as if separate from any other L, and therefore which must be “understood”. Understood how? There will be many willing to teach you (probably in vague terms) how “I Can Understand the L of the BoM”…aaaaand shazaam. Another institution-representation-power priesthood, anyone? Claim that a god has provided you the “key” to translate language to BoM-L, announce it in sacrament meeting, get ex-communicated, spin up a blog about how that proves the validity of your keys, hit the lecture circuit, get a following (reluctantly, of course), and you’ll be well on your way, I suppose, aboard another Good Ship Zion, bound for nowhere.
I doubt it really matters if one “knows” who one is, in order to be immersed in L, especially if by “knowing” one means what that word usually means–boxes, classifications, hierarchies, categories, presumed ability (and forget about the version of the word used incorrectly to indicate “belief”). Look for J and G in the BoM and you’re apt to find them, alive and well, as presented in language, but I don’t think that gets anyone any closer to immersion in L.
“I’d also say that L is not something understood, but something possessed. Also, intelligence is a prerequisite for L.”
Easy does it. “L” is beginning to sound like and be used the same way that another group uses “priesthood.” (You “hold” it, right?) But instead of stating that intelligence is a prerequisite, they say you must be “worthy.”
I’d look at it this way: A trumpet inherently has no sound to it, let alone music. Yet we can take the instrument in our hands and play something beautiful or repulsive. Our skill, if we have any, comes from years of practice and understanding how to play. But even then, we can box ourselves into blowing the same tune someone else composed and call it good enough.
The emerging artist at some point is able to go beyond the written notes and start composing him/herself. But the master, while being able to play another person’s score, or even their own composition, will find true joy (or a “fulness”) jamming with their fellow musicians. The name of the game is improvisation, and what results is unique and beautiful and possibly unexpected. It invites others to join in and participate with its catchy tune.
If we have to give this thing a “name,” then why don’t we just call it ‘Christ?’ But some will call it L-Light or L-Language. I might call it music or art. But I think the bottom line is that it appeals to us, or at least can if we are “tuned in.” It ‘fills’ us with desire to sing ourselves (our let our “light shine.”)
Why can’t we use the Book of Mormon as an instrument “possessed” in this way? More specifically, why don’t we immerse ourselves in the Light that Christ described when he visited the folks in Bountiful? Apparently, if and when the “Gentiles” (whoever that is describing) take this path, then they’ll be given the fullness of the record (of the Lord’s visit to the Nephites). I’d say that comes about as close to a 5-step program as you can get.
Here is an opportunity to illustrate what I mean by “possess.” I use that word to refer to something that I have–some idea that you probably also have but do not index by “possess.” Instead, you interpret the sign as a referent for some other idea in your repertoire of being. You fear that I might be suggesting that Language is something one “holds” like a “priesthood” (“holding the priesthood” is language that does not compute for me, and therefore cannot give me any new meaning). But, we have mis-communicated and Language was not conveyed by the language.
When I say “possess,” here I mean something that is proper to the self. I *have* blue eyes. I *am* blue-eyed. This is a kind of having that is also a kind of being. So the point of my language is to convey something that I have, which is to say, part of my Self. When you receive my language and can use it to recover the authentic thing I intended, then I have caused my own internal processes to be repeated in you. You have become me, as it were; or perhaps incorporated some of what I am into your own being. So genuine communication is an expansion of being, not just a parsing of syntax or semantic mapping.
Perhaps then we can say the same thing that you describe with the word “possess” is going on for how you say, “It is a book.” To follow the dotted lines of your expression, I assume that “it is a book” means you don’t think it is different than any other “book.”
But a simple read of the introduction tells us that this “book” was to “come forth by the gift and power of God,” and it’s interpretation is a “gift of God.” It also says that it is meant to comfort the remnant of the House of Israel (whoever they might be) in their current status of being “cast off,” and to convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God. Lastly, we are advised to “condemn not the things of God,” referring to the “mistakes” that may be contained in the “book.”
Of course, we don’t have to take Moroni at his word here (if there even is such a person), but if indeed the “book” is a gift given to these groups of people, then I would argue that it is no ordinary “book” and by the declaration of the one who summarized its purpose, it was “brought forth” in order to solve something.
Believing this doesn’t make me a puppet, I don’t think. To the contrary, it affords me the opportunity to validate or refute the stated purpose… either cast it off or absorb it as my own “L.”
All books are ordinary in that they are language meant to convey something else. It may be the “something else” that is not ordinary, but this does not change the nature of the book. An interpretation is not a book. It is not the book that comforts, it is not the book that convinces, and if something is solved, it is not a book that solves it. If the book could have solved some problem, it would have done so by now. Something else is missing, and that is the Language. We have a book apparently, but we do not have its Language.
This is just another instance of book-worship, where people are awed by a book because of what it is said to do or say. They confuse the representation for the thing represented, and thinking they have the Authentic because they have the book, never actually receive it. It’s a form of systemic evil, also idolatry.
Finally, my comment regarding a “puppet” is in reply to Flanklin’s implication that “my writing” is somehow the same thing as a failed attempt by god to produce a correct book, like I am some sort of rebellious robot. The comment has no bearing on one’s chosen form of idolatry, or what they choose to believe about a book.
See my above comment about the trumpet and music. I agree that a book cannot do anything on it’s own. But in the hands of the pure-hearted, I believe it will solve the problem it presents when the Reader becomes at one with the message. But unlike almost all other “books,” it is a “gift” of God to us. I don’t worship the thing because of that, but I will certainly view it in a different L than I would all the other books on my shelf (including and especially the Bible).
I personally believe that gifts should be appreciated, which is why I treat it differently than another body of text. (What could be more treasured than a gift from God?) I know there is sentiment in the equation, which can easily lead to idolatry, but as someone just reminded us, it is what it is.
Maybe we’re saying the same thing here… the writers of a book are not the book itself. If I am convinced of anything, it is the individuals expressing their L as symbols via the book which do it. Semantics in my mind, but I can concede the distinction. It certainly makes it a much more personal message if received that way.
I do not see that the book (or any language or sign) is a gift from God. I see that a book is said to have “*come forth by* the gift and power of God unto the the interpretation thereof.” That is not the same thing as the book being a gift. The book is not the gift; the way it came about may have been a gift, and perhaps the “L”anguage it potentially conveys is a gift. It seems to me that sign-seekers recognize signs as gifts, but are typically blinded to what the signs signify.
The problem with making a book a gift (in my opinion)–and to place it in an hierarchy of electness–is that this silences other voices and narrows the realm of the Real which may be contacted through other language.
I will tell you right now that the mormon book/language will not speak to everyone (even when freed from authoritative discourse), but when it is said to be a gift from God, now we have an authoritative voice placing a value on it. And, oh, also if you are “pure in heart,” then the book will “solve problems” when it is in your hands, magically conveying the true Language. Do you care to give me a measure for “pure in heart?” That sounds something like “real intent.” It sounds like a worthiness test to me: This thing, A, solves problems because it is a gift from God (it’s true because it is), and you can experience this if you are “pure in heart,” or if you have “real intent,” or some other non-measurable, ethereal thing, B. So if you don’t get A, then you aren’t B, and for some reason only *we* know what B really is. There is the source of your priesthoods and orders: putting value on language and establishing conditions for Language. Correlating, if you will.
Well, this is all my opinion, and I’ve been shooting my mouth off too much in this thread. I don’t know anything really; certainly not about linguistic anthropology or whatever, so I leave you with that disclaimer. This is just what seems right to me.
Believe me, I have no desire to build an economy around the book. But as insufficient and corrupted as my language is, that’s all I have.
If the coming forth of it is a gift, and the interpretation is a gift, but the content itself is meaningless, then why bother? Perhaps I’m connecting too many dots. Or not enough. When I say “book,” in this case, I am referring to ” the “L”anguage it potentially conveys,” which admittedly are not the same thing.
That Language is a gift, or it has been for me, notwithstanding my inability to perfectly absorb the intended meaning. As you can see from this conversation, comprehension isn’t one of my strong suits.
😉 you haven’t got Language until the real thing that language conveys has been perfectly absorbed/immersed/incorporated. Until then, you’ve only got the signs of Language. Maybe a book. It’s not a gift until you receive it.
“you haven’t got Language until the real thing that language conveys has been perfectly absorbed/immersed/incorporated.”
sounds like a similar expression as this:
“And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day, that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks”
Is “hearken”ing akin to absorbing, immersing, incorporating or receiving? I say, why not? But the true indication of becoming “at-one” in this way would be the subsequent behavior. On the surface, the “deeds” can be mimicked, of course. But apparently God has a way to tell what a “pure heart” looks like, even if we can’t.
And by the way, thanks for the conversation. It is quite en”L”ing.
Pmmcombs-
Sounds like in destroying the metatext of one book, you’re creating a new metatext of the Book that came to solve the problem in the first place.
In Islam, God is incapable of producing even a perfect son. In your writing, apparently God is incapable of producing even a correct Book.
Sorry, I just don’t see a book as a talisman that “came” to solve anything. I see signs of authors and signs of self that may or may not connect me to something authentic. This only works as long as these signs remain unencumbered by the authoritative discourse of the deluded who imagine themselves to be a measure of “a correct book.” So, I am unconcerned with your incapable god and do not presume to speak for him or to be his puppet.
Pmmcombs
Indeed you are unconcerned. That is what is alarming about your writing in a place about God and this book that most here are convinced is from God.
It is not the book per se that is worshipped, nor the language thereof. But in our mortal capabilities, what other proposal do you have to offer a communication from those who had reached Oneness with God in the manner you describe, if not in their language, which in their writing admit is the best they can do?
Within the realm we live in, or at perceive to, the concept of a ‘book,’ is a record of communication of times past. That this record exists in a translated language, through the gift of God nonetheless, we can conclude is about the only way mere mortals have been studying all we have- including your writings which happen to all exist on this page in the mere language you and I use. If you propose another way of communicating your Oneness so that I may unerstand you completely and utterly WITHOUT you writing in L, try it- don’t write another word from this day on. Don’t worry, I’ll sit in a corner in my house and wait for you to make me enlightened with your Oneness when it finally arrives. Somehow. In your special way, sans writing imperfectly in the only way you know, like those Nephite simpletons.
My point is, to use someone else’s Oneness above about music, is it is what it is. And thus, using the medium of acoustics, which like writing is the best this mortal can do, is the only way we have. You can’t understand Coltrane without listening to what he has to say using your ears to interpret, and your spirit to feel. Holding a saxophone, and dressing like him exactly to try to be as One as possible won’t do a thing. He plays, we listen. Should it touch us, we marvel. But to state his notes and sounds, and doing so without repeated listenings with our ears and spirit to Coltrane’s offering,
and thus our interpretation of his musical L is useless, is missing the boat entirely. To offer up a theory that listening to Coltrane is a faulted method of being one with him and his music, because we ourselves cannot do what the Master can with his sax, is just humourous, or unconcernable, as you might say.
Reminds me of the opening scene of a Bruce Lee film- he points a student to the moon and chastises the kid- ‘don’t concentrate on my finger! Or you’ll miss out on all the heavenly glory it is pointing to!’
I’m giving L the finger right here.
“That is what is alarming about your writing in a place about God and this book that most here are convinced is from God.”
On the contrary. I find it alarming when in such places people speak with great concern. Why? Because, to borrow an idea, when it comes to God I walk by faith and not by sight. You speak with no authority whatsoever, hence it warrants no concern. There is another Voice, and I can hear it for myself.
“It is not the book per se that is worshipped, nor the language thereof.”
Bullshit. Holy books regularly get ranked and revered. Indeed, some people even get offended at my *unconcern* in such a place as this about God and this book that most here are convinced is from God. I take that as a sign of worship. Such concern. What is worship, if not concern?
“But in our mortal capabilities, what other proposal do you have to offer a communication from those who had reached Oneness with God in the manner you describe, if not in their language, which in their writing admit is the best they can do?”
I propose no other way, this being utterly unrelated to anything I have been saying.
“To offer up a theory that listening to Coltrane is a faulted method of being one with him and his music, because we ourselves cannot do what the Master can with his sax, is just humourous, or unconcernable, as you might say.”
Thankfully, I offer no such theory. I only state that Coltrane’s signs, howsoever imperfect, are useless until through them I *become* Coltrane. That is the only way I will ever understand him. Until then, I will only revere his signs, or not.
You are right about the bullshit. There’s plenty of it in your last response. You sound like a dog going round and round chasing after its own tail.
Glad you realized I don’t have any authority- good thing, as I don’t want any. On the other you propose that you do? Someone else does? Glad you know that answer too- once again I don’t.
You talk (and talk) in a style, let’s call it L, that reeks of Daymon’s style. Yet you propose nothing. Zilch. Just torrents of words that critize, confuse and confound.
You speak of ‘becoming’ Coltrane- yet you missed the gist of it. Hint-the title says it’ It is what it is’. You and I aint Coltrane, is my point. HE is. We are the listeners- we have our own role. You and I ain’t God- unless somehow you can cheat death by yourself? create a few universes and people them too? You sir, dont sound like an ‘incapable’ God but a most dependable and powerful one.
Bullshit once again. You aint Gid and neither am I. I have no authority and could give two shits about having any. Yet somehow, in your wanna-be Daymon tone, (L?) you spin the words and say nothing. Just a whole lot of L. LLLLLL.
At least Daymon has a few proposals- vol 5 provides plenty.
I’m still waiting at home for your enlightenment to come save me.
If you’re gonna denigrate something with a thesaurus of word, have something to say. Big difference to just having something to say.
Must be tough being the center of the universe, yours and others. Your ‘voice’ cannot be mistaken. Its called bullshit. And it is evident by the smell thereof.
Look, Flanklin. I’m an asshole. Well, 70-75% asshole; in that neighborhood. That much of my is-ness has been appropriately conveyed through my commentary, although I fear that isn’t what I intended, because now I have made you atone with an asshole. By the signs, that is what has happened. Most people leave the conversation before it gets to this point. But your last comment, I have to say, is *way* more sensible than your first one. Yes, indeed. There is some useful stuff in there; good discussion material.
No, I don’t suggest that anyone has authority. If they did, we’d know it. I don’t want it either. There–we agree!
But honestly, I read Daymon Smith, and I come away with something. You read Daymon Smith and you come away with something. Are we even reading the same guy?
You read Daymon Smith and you still think “onewhoiswatching” is maybe on to something? I read Daymon Smith, and I think “onewhoiswatching” is a nutter.
You read Daymon Smith and you still think we can’t BE Coltrane, or even God? I read Daymon Smith and I think that, unless we ARE them, we can only be LIKE them, which falls utterly short of the point.
You read Daymon Smith and you still think that a book can be a gift from God? I read Daymon Smith and I think that the gift isn’t the book, nor does it come from the book or reside “in” it.
You’re looking for people to make proposals. You’re looking for messengers. Is that it? Do you see Daymon as a messenger? A Proposer? A prophet?
Fine, I’ll make a proposal. Make yourself the center of the universe. Take this indignity you feel, and turn it against all Proposers. Like me, they are all degrees of asshole, and like me, none of them have any authority. But we might still do something together, all of us; once we have the is-ness for ourselves, rather than the proposals of messengers. We see our place and our calling. You can only get it when you are at the center of the universe, and not at the end of a chain of others who pass mere tokens down for you to consume.
The is-ness is in you.
There must be something to the L in this post, if it generates comments of the quality I find here. I don’t disagree with PMC, on most points. Nor do I disagree with Flanklin, on most points. I think, really, you two are nearer than the words on this screen make them appear. That is me looking at the L, and seeing it “in” your words/language. Can I describe the nearness? Probably, if given time, and listeners.
Must we become Coltrane to understand the L of his music? We can approximate Coltrane (mannerisms, dress, and so on) and come no nearer to the L, as many have said already. Forms devoid of the power.
But what about the L? That seems to be present with/in/under [fill in the blank] _____ the music. we cannot separate it from the music, that seems to be what we mean by “music”; although we can represent the music in other ways: notes, bytes, and so on. We can even separate it from the person Coltrane, and yet retain something of the L. Yet, even when we hear those sounds/notes, we represent them chemically-electrically, right? But there is something that continues, from the instrument to the ear, to the Imagination, which probably moved through Coltrane’s Imagination. Kant refused to follow this line of thought, for reasons I discuss in Volume 4B. He was left with this separation of thought from the thing represented. But what is thought, and the thing represented, or the music and the imagination that “hears” it? Or, what are its effects? Movement. Creation. Growth.
Now, was that L original to Coltrane’s Imagination? Probably not, although the particular composition of that L as it moves through Coltrane, and then through the audience, is unique to every one of them. that diversity is one effect of L. It only becomes “confusion” when we have a single correct version, right? One can read the Bible and come away with X, and another with Y. Does that mean the Bible is the cause of such confusion, or that X and Y are “really there”? Maybe. It could also mean they bring X-ness and Y-ness to the text, which somehow magnifies X or Y, and makes it seem “separate” from their own hearts, where we find L. In the case of the Bible, that X and Y probably came from the Bible read by their ancestors, and so on, back in time…
Being Like Unto God seems like a dangerous path, one pointing “down” into the Void. Being God? Well, if you say, “God is [abstract noun]” or “God is [mystery]” and then offer to tell me the correct interpretation, I’d say you don’t know what you are talking about. We cannot “be” God, in that manner; as I think both PMC and Flanklin would consent to as a true statement. It is what it is. Can we become at-one with God? Yeah, and at-one is a good word, allowing both parties to Be what they Are, and yet, also at-one.
What is the oneness, then? I guess that was what I meant by L. It isn’t a oneness of some quality, especially some abstract noun, I assume most people know that. Those qualities, the ones we have words for, “love” “language” “joy” and so on, are not that L. It is what it is…but. What it is, this L, is creative, and so we are apt to confuse the creations with the L. It is almost as if that confusion is another effect of L, say, when we really “buy into” a play or a movie, while it is playing. After the play, we may be inclined to think on the play/movie, and increase in understanding or even spread forth L. Or not. The “energy” of L seems to increase as we come nearer to Jesus: I know I am speaking figuratively, but doing so in a literal manner, and that is confused. But I can’t put it any other way.
So it seems like the “path” to Jesus is single, but not exclusive to one course, if that makes sense. The more we seek L (sorry for the metaphor!), the more we find at-one-ness with Jesus. We can move very near indeed, and then break, fearing Jesus is like us: really there to stay on top. In that break we “fall” and must learn more about L, and the L-as-man we call Jesus.
Is that L “in” the Book of Mormon? No. Can it be “played” there? Yes. Can it be played there more “easily” without compulsory means, than in other books? I think so. Is that what PMC is saying? I think so. Is that what Flanklin or DJL is saying? I think so. Must it be played a-right? I think if we play it in a way Mormon or Moroni play it, we are closer to “right.” And as far as they play in a way Jesus would play, even closer. But the “playing” of Jesus is not a single script, to be recited by protégés, as I think everyone here would agree. The playing is of L, creating for the joy of creating, and so other minds (also of L) might create here also.
The playing seems to generate worlds for others to inhabit, until they move on and create their own worlds. Some worlds are well connected to that L (and so, continue to live-grow-create), others less so. Our particular world-age-time is missing some story about “the Lamb” which, if told aright, would liberate souls, and unite or at-one others. I think DJL is saying this. They would be more “free,” if “freedom” is something one can “more or less.” But I think you get the idea. More free to create, in a manner that is creative. If that means “pure in heart,” the creating-to-create-for-others-, can bring forth the magic, and do so “better” than the impure (more approximating Jesus’s efforts), than I suppose L would “know” or discern such a thing, by L’s nature. Obviously many others use the Book of Mormon for anti-L ends: to bind, and re-bind also called in Latin, Religion.
If at some point we create these worlds and put bounds around them, and insist that our characters cannot leave, that none-shall-pass until meeting a threshold of “worth” or “value,” we have insisted our metrics are universal, and not merely local to our creation. The only reasonable “test” seems to be: Can we create/play in L? If given forty, can we create sixty? If so, have a good time. Be Careful. Can we create/play in a manner that is open-ended, and allows for others to create/play L? Well done, Coltrane. Rest from your labors, and watch L unfold in the lives of others, increasingly free and independent agents.
I suspect that the commenters on this particular post are creating worlds, and just wanting to make sure they aren’t inviting a Destroyer into their worlds. I get that. But I don’t think Destroyers are here, however, on this thread. So, Here’s my proposal to PMC, DJL, and Flanklin:
Please write up a post on your understanding of the matter current in discussion, and I’ll post it. send it to my email. If you don’t have my email, let me know in this thread, ok?
After years of visiting this website, I am shocked to conclude that people like pmmcombs use your words and books to promote what is blatantly Anti-Christ.
I read your ridiculous last response pmcombs and thought better than to waste my time arguing with someone who has to gall to accuse me of looking to Daymon to be my prophet, after I have clearly shown you model yourself in language to be a Daymon wanna-be. Unfortunately your third rate act is highly embarassing.
If you don’t believe that the Book of Mormon is true, that it is a gift, and that Jesus is the very Eternal Father, and that one doesn’t need any of this but simply to be full of ‘I, Me & Myself, then I am barking up the wrong tree. And indeed I will have to agree on your assessment of your highly centrifugal force of asshole-ness. Ten points there.
Sadly, you have come to these conclusions using Daymon’s name as the catalyst, and perhaps I have been thusly wrong- I thought I was reading Daymon to understand better the marvel of God/Jesus’ condescension and unconditional love.
However, it seems that perhaps your take on Daymon may be correct after all- perhaps I get rid of the books of hid I have purchased and (aqquired through this website) before I turn my ways anti-christ, and, frankly, athiest, like my bud mccombs. Your have the right to do that bud, and perhaps you are at the right place and I am not.
For me, I view myself in a particular manner, one in need of mercy and miracles from Jesus directly. I want this for my children and my grandchildren as I have seen miracles with my own eyes when in a state of great faith and even when my lack of faith needed a miracle at its saddest points . I couldn’t provide any of this by myself pmcombs but Jesus’ infinite mercy stepped in. This is the God I believe in and need every waking hour. You obviously can do it all by yourself and, somehow have Daymons words to back you up and turn you from Jesus and more into yourself. You no doubt are already a god amongst men. Bless me once in a while if you can have the same mercy of Jesus. No doubt you do, notwithstanding being a self acclaimed asshole.
Daymon it is sad when you go from the greatest new voice on the pure beauty and power of the book of mormon to an author who has somehow got a hidden agenda- that of discrediting Jesus, His words at Bountiful, the BoM and its ‘interpretation thereof which is a gift from God’ so says the first page of the Book. All this according to mccombs is your incredible doing.
I’ll stand by what I believe through experience, deep, sorrowful, and light, joyous at other times. Jesus is my God. The Book of Mormon is His gift to me.
As far as I see on this page the yoke is difficult and the burden is heavy. The straining at the gnat by those who have swallowed the camel is blatant. That fruit most pure and delicious above all, has become rotten.
I’m in the wrong place and definitely won’t be coming back. Birds of a different feather…
And purely for for consolation prize- at no point did I mention that I agree with onewho is watching. Once again, your conclusions are remarkable. At least the man on that blog puts forth an effort to bring souls to Jesus.
I can’t say the same here.
God bless. Well, those who need Him anyway. And the others- will just have to pretend that He doesn’t bless them.
As Moroni says, adieu.
Flanklin, if there is any peace to be had at this point, let us have it. I am no atheist, and I do not mean to disparage. As Daymon said, there are no destroyers in this thread. I simply mean to say that the book, rather than being the gift by itself, perhaps only conveys the true gift. I have submitted my essay, and if Daymon posts it, perhaps you will understand me better.
Also, Flanklin, I wouldn’t mind reading what you have to say on the topic, and what it is that you saw in Daymon that you connected with. We see things differently, that is all. Here is an opportunity for understanding.
And just for clarity’s sake I am not a member of any Mormon church.
Whatever became of this story? Did Flanklin and pmccombs at-one in their views?