I found this on your personal site, which you provided a link to in another post:

"I am much more interested in our discovering and "restoring" Jesus' original gospel, than I am in buying into (or selling) any canned, boilerplate system of Gospel Doctrine."


You also commented here:

"Where are the new comrades to replace all that I have walked
away from? The fruits of Atheistic Compassion seem rather
"thin." And the environment seems to be crumbling about me."


Having read some of your other posts, you seem to be into deconstructing any perceived truth or reality. But the quote from your personal page indicates another goal. Perhaps you've changed your perspective. I'm just curious.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I found this on your personal site, which you
> provided a link to in another post:
>
> "I am much more interested in our discovering and
> "restoring" Jesus' original gospel, than I am in
> buying into (or selling) any canned, boilerplate
> system of Gospel Doctrine."
>
>
> You also commented here:
>
> "Where are the new comrades to replace all that I
> have walked
> away from? The fruits of Atheistic Compassion seem
> rather
> "thin." And the environment seems to be crumbling
> about me."
>
>
> Having read some of your other posts, you seem to
> be into deconstructing any perceived truth or
> reality. But the quote from your personal page
> indicates another goal. Perhaps you've changed
> your perspective. I'm just curious.


I'm not very adept at talking about myself -- and even
less so in trying to discuss metaphysical realizations.

Attempting to communicate via web-based forums seems to
cause me more headaches, than if I simply say nothing.
One-on-one, in old-fashioned personal conversation,
things seem to work out better.

So, what you see in my web communications is necessarily
a narrow, sometimes unfocused reflection of my "mission."

I suppose -- like all Reorganized LDS of my generation --
I began my "mission" as an attempt to convince Mormons
that they are engaged in a delusion and a falsehood.

That was more than three decades ago. In the process I've
come to see Reorganized Latter Day Saintism is practically
the same provlem -- though, I'd say a more benign one.
Its modern evolution into Community of Christ has just
speeded up my own disillusionment with the whole Joe Smith
business. I could not remain in such an organization.

That much said, by heritage, temperment and culture, I'm
still very much a Latter Day Saint. I have no desire to
walk away from "my people," as my wife has so greatly
alienated herself from 60 generations of her Jewish heritage.

If we cannot discern the "original Jesus," I am still very
much interested in the religion of his very earliest disciples.
And, if we can confirm no such disciples, then the religion
of the very earliest pre-Christians of 2000 years ago.

My "restorationism" directs me back to the Q-sayings in the
NT and Book of Thomas -- to pondering the sort of community
that would have preserved and promoted that early religion,
but did not embrace the passion narrative of apostolic
Christianity. Who were those people? What was their community?

I communicate with several people on the topic of Mormon
origins, and particularly ideas as to how the Book of Mormon
was fabricated and how the first manifestations of Mormonism
itself were concocted. By understanding those dynamics, maybe
we can strip away the historical fraud, and attempt to
fathom the experiences of the early converts who did not
perceive that they were being lied to by their religious leaders. In that sense, I remain tied to my Mormon ancestors.

My untangling Mormonism has become a sort of controlled
study in religious deconstruction that I hope may one day
prove useful in fathoming the experiences of the early
converts from Judaism who set the stage for Christianity.

But, like peeling away the layers of an onion, I'm not
sure what, if anything, will remain once the delusion has
been disposed of. Hopefully "community" remains... maybe.

Perhaps my Mormon ancestors (and their erstwhile Christian
prototypes) were so intermingled with the delusion, that it
will ever prove impossible to comprehend them apart from it.

None of this says anything about metaphysical realizations.
Trying to communicate mysticism is like grabbing a handful
of air. Such things must be engaged directly, and should not
be argued in an on-line forum.

Uncle Dale

Thanks for the answer. I'm a bit intrigued by your perspective. I'd even like to hear about your metaphysical realizations, if any. I'll poke around on your site and see if I can find anything.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...I'd even like to hear
...

There is an immediate problem that arises when anybody starts
out a conversation with the words, "My spiritual experience..."

I'd rather not go there.

When I was in Japan I met an old fellow, and asked him how
his good aim in archery was achieved.

He essentially told me that he could only communicate the
skill by standing beside me, as I put an arrow to my own bow.

I had no desire to stick around Kansai for another month...

UD

Oh yeah the metaphors...

Actually, the old dude was telling you the truth about archery.

Now spiritual experiences are individual and cannot be shared as they are subjective but a physical sport certainly can be. Maybe you were going somewhere I missed with that anecdote?

WinksWinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe you were
> going somewhere I missed with that anecdote?


Just that he also said that there would be a problem,
if I considered him to be an archery teacher.

The jist of the episode, was that the important factor
was the arrow hitting the mark -- after both he and I
gave up the goal of making the arrow do just that.

And (I'm interpreting here, and could be wrong) --
after there was no teacher and no archery student,
as separate entities, trying to accomplish something.

I never did understand all that Eastern Religion stuff --
and especially not when the people on that side of the
world seemed to be pretty much the same as on the other.

UD

You say you didn't understand the Eastern religion, but you seem to be applying eastern philosophy to trying to understand the early mormons experience (after peeling away the fraud).

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You say you didn't understand the Eastern
> religion, but you seem to be applying eastern
> philosophy to trying to understand the early
> mormons experience (after peeling away the fraud).


When I went to Nepal, I was told that Christianity there
was illegal -- and yet, in the village where I lived, it
was mandatory that I state my "dharma" before I could
work as a teacher.

The choices on the list were Vedic (Hindu), Buddhism and Islam.

Live for several years in that sort of a closed system
environment, and you too may exit the experience talking
like an eastern guru.

My wife came away from her years there a little less
influenced by the society -- although her vocabulary is
still peppered with Sangskrit-derived words and phrases.

UD

Hm. Lots of flowery words and sentence construction up there in that post of yours Uncle Dale. Unfortunately, having read it carefully at least three times, I still cannot discern what your goal is.

dogzilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hm. Lots of flowery words and sentence
> construction up there in that post of yours Uncle
> Dale. Unfortunately, having read it carefully at
> least three times, I still cannot discern what
> your goal is.


I suppose my goal is to die in bed, with a minimum of pain.

But the "mission" of three decades ago remains -- to help
Mormons understand the falsehoods of their religion and
of its purported history.

I have several web-sites full of those sorts of "helps."
Whether or not anybody makes use of them is not my worry.

UD