there's this thing called "The Way"

[_just me]

I'm reminded of this quote about the path.

Ultimately, you are the path-the path begins and ends with you.~Stephan Bodian

The straight and narrow leads us is inside...our hearts. Our body, being a temple, has a holy of holies and that is also our heart. Each path is individual and we can't walk any other path but our own.

[_Tchild]

I'm reminded of this quote about the path.

Ultimately, you are the path-the path begins and ends with you.~Stephan Bodian

The straight and narrow leads us is inside...our hearts. Our body, being a temple, has a holy of holies and that is also our heart. Each path is individual and we can't walk any other path but our own.

Just Lovely.

That is the same teaching that got Jesus crucified, and it would probably be the same sentiment that would make Jesus unrecognizable to institutional religious leaders of today. It upsets the status quo precisely because it renders external "authority" as irrelevant.

The "Second Coming" won't be Jesus coming down from the heavens, but an awakening on an individual level of that very truth.

[_Nightlion]

I said you want to live in La La Land.

The entire art of the Tao is to be above reproach in your thoughts.........{read}.... say nothing but sound like you are saying everything.

huh? Have you read laozi? zhuangzi? above reproach in one's thoughts? where did you get this? dao is about ziran/naturalness, self-so. In reading zhuangzi, the shengren is never 'above reproach' -- but rather a fool, an uncarved block. the spontaneous, unconstrained self. The infant with an erection (it's in the texts). It's about being truly and authentically yourself, natural, unpretentious, and never, never, above reproach. "That's why the sage wears course clothes, while holding jade in his bosom." The daoist sage (shengren) doesn't give a flying fidaddle as to what others think.

Please just bear in mind that a am fluent in the original language of the texts and have lived in asia for years following this wacked out journey I've been on.

bringing this back to Mormonism, Joseph Smith proposed in section 88 two things: (1) that the power of god is everywhere, and used terminology that equated the power of god with what the chinese would call 'dao'. (2) that all beings, including god, are subject to these natural laws. This places an interesting supremacy on the power of god being before god. In other words, whatever a god may be, a god is subordinate to natural law (either a lesser or greater law, as Joseph Smith put it).

Now to the ontology of a Mormon god. If the power of god is eternal, unchanging, and ubiquitous, then 'a god' is simply a being who is 'at one' with that power. The role of 'god of this world' is not the 'first cause' of the world, but rather a 'calling', like 'the prophet' or 'the bishop'. 'the god' is simply the being who happens to be on the throne of the godhead. While this is not 'Mormon doctrine', it constructs at least a model of 'Mormon god ontology' that doesn't involve infinite regress.

Now let me go one step further. Why is the being of god something necessary for creation? Cannot the properties of this world be emergent rather than designed? Is not the process of evolution simply a mechanism of emergence over a very long time? And according to Peerenboom, who wrote an excellent work on Huang Lao natural law constructs, the emergence of order is a function of dao -- even the emergence of a god is a function of the requirement for us to believe that there is a god.

I have also spent a lot of time studying the nonconscious mind, as the guanzi/neiye puts it, the mind within a mind. This remarkable text lays out the idea that we have a separate mind, the daoist 'shengren' within us all the time. In psychological terms, this separate entity, our non-consciousness, is not controlled by our consciousness, but somehow makes its own decisions independently of our conscious mind. You say that revelation only comes from our own insight? we have within our minds a set of programming engineered into us through millions of years of evolution. Our minds -- particularly our non-conscious minds are much more than us. I don't have time for the details, but you'll find a lot of it on my blog, listed below.

We might call this, 'the holy ghost' as well. There really is no difference in concept. And you know? The holy ghost is "god", and if it resides within us, and reveals to us truth, then, yes, the truth does come from within us.

You can come off like you know what the heck you are talking about with the uninitiates all day. Saying that God is subject to law is absurd. God gives the laws which are his commandments and he is obeyed. Otherwise where is his glory?

You cannot rightly understand Joseph Smith or as single revelation he received until you get the same power that he had.

D&C 88:
4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;
5 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son—
6 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;
7 Which truth shineth. This is the alight of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.
8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;
9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;
10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand.
11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;
12 Which alight proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—
13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the claw by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

Christ/God/the Firstborn who sits upon his throne IS the light in all things which IS the law given to all things.
How can you read this to support God is subject to nature?

D&C 29: 35
35 Behold, I gave unto him that he should be an agent unto himself; and I gave unto him commandment, but no temporal commandment gave I unto him, for my commandments are spiritual; they are not natural nor temporal, neither carnal nor sensual.

We can read by this that nature is abhorent to God as is that which is carnal and sensual. He is spiritual and this is not your natural way.

[_wayfarer]

You can come off like you know what the heck you are talking about with the uninitiates all day. Saying that God is subject to law is absurd. God gives the laws which are his commandments and he is obeyed. Otherwise where is his glory?

well, my fine uninitiated friend, I'll give you your homework assignment from Section 88:

Is God a celestial being?
In the Celestial kingdom, are we not gods?
is the Celestial kingdom subject to laws?
Are beings that fail to comply with law justified?
What law does the earth comply with?

You cannot rightly understand Joseph Smith or as single revelation he received until you get the same power that he had.

LMAO. That is a remarkably funny and naïve statement. Betrays your lack of understanding of the scriptures, and of Joseph Smith.

You're a funny fellow.

[_why me]

Just Lovely.

That is the same teaching that got Jesus crucified, and it would probably be the same sentiment that would make Jesus unrecognizable to institutional religious leaders of today. It upsets the status quo precisely because it renders external "authority" as irrelevant.

The "Second Coming" won't be Jesus coming down from the heavens, but an awakening on an individual level of that very truth.

What is amazing is that we have no idea what exactly Jesus said. What we do have is what others claimed he said. Also, we don't have much of what he said. We have no idea just what he said over breakfast, over lunch and over dinner. Nor do we know what he said in normal conversation with people outside of what was recorded in the Bible years later.

We actually know very little about the man and his ideas. We just know what others wanted us to know.

[_why me]

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.

Except the witnesses did not claim that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon as you have done in your above post by claiming that Joseph wrote 2 Nephi. See my point? You need to keep it simple. Either the witnesses saw what they did or they didn't and they lied. Either the three witnesses had their spiritual experience or they didn't. It is really that simple. No need for intellectualeez about it all by incorporating an over philosophizing.

[_why me]

I'm reminded of this quote about the path.

Ultimately, you are the path-the path begins and ends with you.~Stephan Bodian

The straight and narrow leads us is inside...our hearts. Our body, being a temple, has a holy of holies and that is also our heart. Each path is individual and we can't walk any other path but our own.

Yes, you are right...let us all walk our own path and engage our own heart and soul in what delights us...for as stephen bodian writes our path begins and ends with us and if we put it even further, our own lives begin with each sunrise and ends with each sunset, it begins with each spring and ends with each winter.

To put it nicely, we are just leaves on a tree, each leaf sways to their own wind and falls due to its own weakness. Such is our path of life...

Do you agree?

[_wayfarer]

Except the witnesses did not claim that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon as you have done in your above post by claiming that Joseph wrote 2 Nephi. See my point? You need to keep it simple. Either the witnesses saw what they did or they didn't and they lied. Either the three witnesses had their spiritual experience or they didn't. It is really that simple. No need for intellectualeez about it all by incorporating an over philosophizing.

The witnesses saw plates, as it were, with 'spiritual eyes', and heard a voice, in some cases. Great stuff. Personal witness. I accept that the Book of Mormon is of divine origin.

But the fact remain that as a historical work, it fails a number of major tests, and the meaning of what the witnesses testified to is not exactly what you (or most of us) think it means. A witness with 'spiritual eyes' of something meant to be of divine origin does not prove in the least that the book is anything other than Joseph Smith's inspired writings, certified as such by close friends and family members who agreed with Joseph's claims.

This has nothing to do with intellectualizing or philosophizing. It has to do with the integrity of one's faith. To have faith in something that is not true is not faith at all, but delusion. To say that the prophet will never lead the people astray, and to ignore cases when the prophet has led people astray is not faith, but rather, to participate in perpetuating a lie. I'm sorry if these are strong words, but if we are servants of the truth, then we must defend truth, stop deluding ourselves, and never perpetuate a fabrication as if it is truth.

Joseph did not translate plates. period. end of story. He put his head into a hat and spoke words, which his scribes wrote down. That makes him, as the original copyright said, the 'author' of the book. Was this done by the 'gift and power of god'? Sure. I have faith that this is the case -- and there is no empirical proof possible that says one way or the other on this particular issue. Did Joseph Smith translate a papyrus that contained the account of abraham written in his own hand? Absolutely not. This is a false claim, and perpetuating falsehood is to be at odds with the Savior, the Gospel, and the charge to be honest in our dealings.

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". Since his light infuses all that is, then the Way is how this light -- integrated with the laws of the universe -- affects all we do. Truth has something to do with this. If we train our minds to accept things known to be false as if they are true, then we are altering our ability to recognize truth when it is made known to us. This is a fact of learning, a fact of social behavior, and a fact attested to in scripture (wo be unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell -- wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the judgment of God). It is also 'the Way' - in that it is the Way human relations work. If I lie to someone, then it fundamentally alters the relationship from one of trust, to one of suspicion. Trust is the single most essential element of Faith -- so to cover up the facts of church history is to destroy faith.

[_harmony]

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.

Seems like the way isn't the same for everyone, and a cookie cutter religion, while it make work for some, isn't going to work for all. Which certainly explains why we don't' have a stellar missionary success rate. It's not because the missioinaries don't try; it's because the message just isn't the way, for most people.

[_wayfarer]

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.

Seems like the way isn't the same for everyone, and a cookie cutter religion, while it make work for some, isn't going to work for all. Which certainly explains why we don't' have a stellar missionary success rate. It's not because the missioinaries don't try; it's because the message just isn't the way, for most people.

"the way that we traverse is by no means a constant way." Diversity abounds, and what works for one person does not work for another. I like how paul put it:

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

and what was the "more excellent way"? Agape -- the pure love of Christ.