there's this thing called "The Way"

[_Tchild]

"The Way" has many names. Joel Goldsmith calls it the "Infinite Way". Eckhart tolle labels it "The Now", and Vernon Howard calls it "The Supermind". For Jesus it was "I AM", but the concept is the same: it is the timeless, eternal component within ourselves. It is the only place God dwells, and you cannot access it in the past or the future. It can only be experienced in the present moment.

I can dig it, even though I cannot seem to find it in myself yet.

[_Chap]

"The Way" has many names. Joel Goldsmith calls it the "Infinite Way". Eckhart tolle labels it "The Now", and Vernon Howard calls it "The Supermind". For Jesus it was "I AM", but the concept is the same: it is the timeless, eternal component within ourselves. It is the only place God dwells, and you cannot access it in the past or the future. It can only be experienced in the present moment.

Well, I hope it does not seem uncool if I ask how we could tell whether you are right or wrong about that series of quite confident assertions.

[_lulu]

You are exactly what Mormonism needs, IMHO, wayfarer, along with a good dose of process theology.

But I've all but gotten to the point where I don't care what Mormonism needs.

[_Tchild]

"The Way" has many names. Joel Goldsmith calls it the "Infinite Way". Eckhart tolle labels it "The Now", and Vernon Howard calls it "The Supermind". For Jesus it was "I AM", but the concept is the same: it is the timeless, eternal component within ourselves. It is the only place God dwells, and you cannot access it in the past or the future. It can only be experienced in the present moment.

Well, I hope it does not seem uncool if I ask how we could tell whether you are right or wrong about that series of quite confident assertions.

Well Chap, I am not trying to be "right". It is only my subjective observation from reading these authors (and others) and believing that the underlying message is the same, while the terminology to describe this place, or state of being, varies somewhat.

Like I stated, I have not experienced any of this personally (at least not in any consistent manner), so I truly do not know. You know what? Not knowing anything is a perfectly comfortable place for me now.

[_Chap]

... You know what? Not knowing anything is a perfectly comfortable place for me now.

Me too, in spades.

[Guest]

from a morthodox point of view, There's the god completely without (HF), Jesus Christ -- somewhere in the middle, and then the Holy Ghost, the god within. Seriously.

HF provides us a 'divine nature'. Jesus Christ is the 'head of the church, but all sorts of other things, icnluding the 'light of christ', our conscience, which lies within. So that's why I put christ more or less in the Middle. ;-) as for the holy ghost, this is clearly the 'god within'.

We need to get simple here. The 11 witnesses had a spiritual experience as they related in their testimony in the Book of Mormon or they didn't. If they did, then the church is true and moving forward. If they lied, then the church is false. And the same goes for Joseph Smith and his experience. It is really that simple.

[_wayfarer]

wayfarer - basically I am delighted to read the kind of posts you are contributing here. It is so good to have something from a completely non-theistic perspective, as well as from outside the parts of the world where the Abrahamic varieties of theism have dominated.

Having said that, and being as I am an anonymous coward who has no claim to know anything in particular, I hope you won't mind if I suggest that there is room for discussion about some of the things that you assert in your post (such as, for instance, the provision of universal health care and social security under the Han in the second century BCE). But this is not the place for that kind of debate, perhaps?

Let's just say that philosophical daoism, to me, is part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so we can make sure that as we reside in the terrestrial kingdom, we might be topical.

Of more general interest: have you ever looked at the translation of the Lao Zi book by D.C. Lau, I wonder? The accompanying essays are quite interesting on the historical evidence relating to such questions as, for instance, whether there ever was such a person as 'Lao Zi' at all. It is rather appropriate, is it not, to see even the author of the world's most famous 'Daoist' text disappearing before our eyes?

I have a copy of every english (and some french and german) translation of Laozi, both in physical book as well as in my online database. This isn't a passive interest for me, but rather, a major obsession, one I set aside about three years ago when I went to India for a couple of years and immersed myself in Advaita Vedanta.

Prior to that, I had a site, "Huanglao.org", where I explored every aspect of the huanglao period under the Han. I'm happy to resurrect that stuff, if I can find it. Emperor Wen of Han - 179 - 154 BCE. the first of the two Daoist emperors. In 168 BCE during this reign, a cache of silk manuscripts was buried in mawangdui, giving us the earliest authenticated, reliable manuscript of the laozi, yijing, and other critical texts, giving a perfect snapshot of the cherished and received texts they revered as part of huanglao daoism. Prior to this, any copy of the laozi is quite abbreviated, so it may well be that the Laozi is truly a huanglao text.

As for whether Laozi existed, you obviously know the term means 'old boy(s)', or since 'zi'/boy was used to refer to teachers/masters as well as children, the term might be translated 'the old master' or 'masters'. Plural wasn't used unless one wanted to emphasize the plurality, so there is no concrete indicator of whether this title pointed to a person. All legends around Laozi are indeed suspect. But I do like the legends in the zhuangzi, where we get where Kongzi (confucius) visits Laozi, and has met a dragon.

(Relevant to this board: Some early accounts of the origins of the text make reference to a mysterious figure called 'Old Dan', believe it or not. How can that be a coincidence?)

Lao Dan could never be related to or similar to the current 'old dan'. Whether Lao Dan was laozi, who knows, but if he was, he was into going with the flow and being one's authentic, natural self. Something the current 'old dan' has serious problems with.

[_Yong Xi]

We need to get simple here. The 11 witnesses had a spiritual experience as they related in their testimony in the Book of Mormon or they didn't. If they did, then the church is true and moving forward. If they lied, then the church is false. And the same goes for Joseph Smith and his experience. It is really that simple.

This explanation is "simple" because it appeals to someone with a mechanistic mind who cannot accept ambiguity. Can you think of no other explanation?

[_wayfarer]

We need to get simple here. The 11 witnesses had a spiritual experience as they related in their testimony in the Book of Mormon or they didn't. If they did, then the church is true and moving forward. If they lied, then the church is false. And the same goes for Joseph Smith and his experience. It is really that simple.

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic of the thread, nor how your logic applies.

and, how is anything I said in that statement you quoted inconsistent with LDS Doctrine? In even the least?
- Is not our Heavenly Father the 'god without' -- in other words, that exists outside of us?
- Do we not inherit from the Father a divine nature?
- Are we not born with the Light of Christ?
- Cannot the Holy Ghost dwell with us as our Constant Companion as faithful LDS?
What about this is either (1) not simple, or (2) inconsistent with Mormon Doctrine?

In the same text that the 11 witnesses testify to, there is this little gem:

For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.
For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.

I'm sure you realize that Joseph Smith was highly syncretic -- he adopted different faith traditions, literature, even masonic ritual into what he restored into the religion. As a faithful latter day saint, when I found the text "health to the naval and marrow to the bone" within the text of the laozi in its chinese form, I think it gave me evidence that the Laozi is at least one of those texts to which Nephi is referring.

So, my writing of the way in this thread is entirely consistent with the object of the 11 witnesses.

As well, the technique you and your MAD-board colleagues seem to adopt seems to be to find some little snippet that doesn't agree with you, and then to go back to the founding claims and all-or-nothing proposition so often spouted by the church and its defenders.

Honestly, you ought to lose that 'all-or-nothing' paradigm, because the "all" is provably false in very specific and important details, and that leaves you with...nothing. Game over.

Actually, you betray what I think is the REAL INTENT of MADB and the mopologists. You all are actually intent on destroying the church by making it so absurd that no-one can reasonably buy into what the LDS church represents.

[_wayfarer]

wayfarer,

Have you yet considered becoming a Bhikkhu?

It appears you very much appreciate their ways and thence might do well to join them. That would be pretty rad.

Zee.

Believe it or not, I'm an active practicing LDS, albeit with unorthodox and heretic point of view. That said, I went on a faith journey 25 years ago (starting December 1, 1987, actually) where I traversed many of the major faith traditions to understand what it is to 'be' buddhist, daoist, hindu, muslim, sikh, or catholic. There are things I like of all of them, but also, a lot of things I don't like. My religion remains LDS, and I identify with it as home. It has baggage, but it's MY baggage. I own it, and I can deal with it.

As for Bikkhu/Buddhism, there is too much that is artificial in the idea of being a monk, and adopting the strict standards of buddhism. Gautama was very concerned with the right this and that to overcome the suffering of the world, and while I really appreciate the no-self concepts, the challenge is that there is a natural self, we cannot deny it, nor avoid it.

There is no ancient or current religion that has all the answers and is the One True Way. Most point, some very well, but none actually contain the 'one true way'. But this may be what Joseph Smith learned in his first vision: that the idea of a creed: a dogma promoted by a religion, is actually at odds with acquisition of the Way. As Joseph Smith put it, "LDS have no creeds, but shall accept all truth existing, as it is made known".

So, if you will, consider that the LDS church points to the Way, the ultimate reality. Jesus said he IS the Way, and this indicates that the "I AM" is in some way reflective of that ultimate reality. Let's say as well, Islam, Buddhism, Daoism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Christianity all point to the way -- perhaps under different names. None of them fully embody the way, so it is something that we're going to have to work on by ourselves -- to learn through our own experience, to seek out the mysteries of godliness, whatever you want to call it.

Imagine, metaphorically, a set of towers that reach up to an ultimate destination. I climb one tower, and as I ascend, I get closer and closer to the ultimate destination. Do I jump over to another tower if i feel that this one isn't high enough? Maybe, but the cost is too great.

But the tower metaphor is wrong. We don't ascend to find the Way. The Way is made by walking on it. So we're on a path, an imperfect path, but a path. we see another parallel to us, so we jump over to that one and we keep walking thinking we're going to get to the Way. One after another, and we exhaust all paths available. we still didn't find the way, because we were walking on it all the while.

The Way is not an abstract concept -- it is simply the laws (tendencies) of nature, which are relatively simply, yet difficult to follow at times. To be 'on the Way' means to be in harmony with these laws, to be connected. When I say that i'm doing "god's will", then in some way, this is 'on the way', except that 'god's will' has often been intepreted as some pretty bad stuff -- like genocide.

Let's say that the Way could be put into words. Let's say, as well, there is a Way about human nature, that what we tend to receive what we dish out to others. Greeks may have said that nemesis arises in response to hubris. It turns out that we have in our minds a set of constructs called 'mirror neurons'. These neurons reflect the sensory input we receive from others and reflect back to them treatment in kind. So, in the Way of human nature, literally, others reflect back to us exactly what we dish out, and knowing this, we can adapt the simplest and most important of natural law: that which we find contemptable in others, we should never do. Laozi put it: "to the kind, I am kind, to the unkind, I am also kind." Calmness, serenity, the ability to return anger with kindness, and thus allowing the Way of human nature to settle into a reflection of my kindness.

This stuff isn't rocket science. It's also not necessary to become a buddhist monk to follow this path. The Way is all about us -- it's in everything we are and do. We don't need to change our religion, and in fact, religion is simply a pointer to the way, and when it doesn't point to the way, it's not on the way.