Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Maidservant

  1. Also my favorite. Semantics, I think, about whether or not one can use the word 'fail' to cover the ground one or the other or both of us is talking about, and the mechanics we will arrive there. I will submit easily that there would be a better word. But it was the one given in the discussion so I riffed off that (not you, I think it was brother Storm Rider). I think we can agree (? I'll let you say) that the society we have now is not the one we are going to have. And in my opinion, we have thousands of years of paradigm to undo for that; and nowhere are we more blind than in the structure of union and family. Nice. This and brother Tuhan's story--exactly MY point. That we choose and create. And if we arrived where there is still hell and not paradise, we have more choosing to do and it may not look like we thought it did, otherwise we would already be there. ('Celestial' laws yielding a 'celestial' experience.)
  2. And Jesus. Promised us a better one. 🙂 That's pretty much who I'm reading when I say such a thing (that our current society needs to fail).
  3. Yes. To continue on the theme of what I was trying to say of 'essence' vs 'structure', I think it's good to start from scratch, at least in our thinking. What is family? Is it support? Is it love? What do those look like? What does sex have to do with it (if anything at all, how much should it have to do with it)? Is it about children? Is it not? Do we want to teach our children to meet the expectations of the past? Or how do we prepare them for a changing future? Does number and gender in a family matter? How much? Does the number of persons a person has sex with (assuming that person is mature and has integrity in the matter) really destroy them? Do families have to live in the same house? Do human beings have to live in houses at all? Do we really need to go to school to learn what we need to learn? Do we really need to have 8-5 to bring in income? Should we all go back to being farmers? How much time do family members need to spend together? What is the union of a man and woman (or woman-woman) (man-man) really supposed to be about? Is it about who does the dishes? Or is there a much deeper calling here? What do children need to see modeled and from how many models? Is one okay? Is more than two better? Is 18 years old really the age of emancipation? Should it be earlier? Later? Why is emancipation even a thing? I could go on. But I'm saying, we are at a period of history where we need to re-ask ALL the questions and assume nothing.
  4. I think the issue of family is so much more complicated than the binary--yes, we have a family and lots of wonderful things happen; and no, we do not have a family and lots of horrible things happen. Not to mention--that a world of families--which those who wish to 'hark back to better days' say was the case--is the world that gave rise to the issues we have including less homogeneous families. So what gives? If a world of two-parent (ish) families was so wonderful, how did we arrive at this moment then that we say is worse? Not that I am, again, saying I am against two-parent (ish) families--that, again, would have me playing the binary game. But perhaps we should ask how living in two parent families with strict roles and and and and and++ did NOT prepare us to well create and well weather the present (if that's what we wish to say about it). Even the article speaks of university, government benefits, 'working class' as something inherent in the organization of human beings and as if inherent values of family can be drawn from these puzzle pieces. And @The NehorNehor describes well some aspects of the organizational, institutional, and economic moment we are in historically. But are these inherent or invented? And do we need to do some serious re-inventing, including family structures, maybe or maybe not, but to understand the ESSENCE that a structure is meant to give and allow that ESSENCE permeate any structure we might next invent? Maybe we need to have our social and economic structures revamped before we can know what the family ought to be. Not to mention that everyone everywhere ought to always be family to each other. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Historically, "marriage" has been a horrible deal NOT a good one. The union of man and woman is almost NOWHERE to be found in history except as an accident or anomaly. What we have is the buying and selling of women from fathers to husbands (and other worse situations, that's the best scenario). A WEDDING is not a MARRIAGE, but is a contract for sale and has traditionally involved a lack of agency for women (or both genders as children married who their parents told them to). I don't know how ANY good can come of this, and it has been less than a hundred years since we have seriously punctured this after thousands of years of it, so it might be a little messy still until we reground! The question is how men and women ought to relate to one another; and how ought children to be welcomed and raised (to what? in what?). I don't think we've seen what the real way to do that is, yet on this planet. This is the case in some cultures where there is a lost generation of young men who cannot 'buy' their wives. In the United States, I don't think women think that her husband is going to or needs to provide for her. (Maybe Mormon ladies.) What some men lack that women no longer tolerate is an emotional absence and authoritarianism. Women also are not emotionally mature, either, in their own way. No one is . . . no one is mature. In the past, maturity wasn't necessary for marriage. It was simply the social unit, as has been said. Nobody has to be happy in the marriage. Today, still very few know how to be happy in a marriage, but maybe it is at least partly because they were raised by two-parent households who stayed miserably or at least absently married. I do agree that this is not the best approach. People ask, "How do I feel?" instead of better questions like "What is the purpose?" But, again, it's complicated. Feeling IS important. Purpose IS important. Structure IS important. Essence IS important. Heritage IS important. Brand new things ARE important. The questions and the answers need to be more complicated, subtle, piercing, challenging, and based on new territory not the thousands of years of past territory which is broken, because it is basically hell and the telestial world. Ah. Before then . . . the roaring twenties . . . the gay nineties . . . . ancient Egypt . . . the more things change, the more they stay the same . . . . Our society needs to fail. We haven't had a good one yet. Our societies for thousands of years have been based on bloodshed, oppression, things in the dark, and ignorance. The society we have is NOT worth preserving. There may be gentler ways to go into the future. I'd like to think so. I don't know if we need to implode. But even a forest fire makes the conditions possible for the seedlings. I hope we will see life, freedom, light, and knowledge as the foundation of our continuously emerging, and occasionally disrupting, society. But in my opinion we need to ask better questions and expect better answers. Not to mention that two-parent nuclear families are NOT how families were traditionally organized--that is also a recent come about, probably due to the pressures of the industrial age and mass immigration to a new world; and, again, I think there is a problem in that as to possibly lack of support and similar issues that could be solved with other kinds of family structures.
  5. Here May was positively cold, and June is cool; unheard of here too.
  6. Is this the first Muslim country to do so? Not sure. There is no proselytizing among Muslims, of course. Beautiful. Kuwait Formally Recognizes the Church of Jesus Christ
  7. I can't recall, but then again I haven't been looking. I guess I can also add that in my personal life, I find apologies worthless. I don't give them and I don't receive them or require them of others. If a person could change, they would. No words said. If they can't change, then words don't help. Not sure if you mean the General Authorities or local bishops, because I think my approach would be different. I trust generally speaking the General Authorities are good men trying to follow the Savior and lead the church according to the direction of the Savior, and there is no conspiracy or whatnot. I don't really feel much connection to them or what they have to do with my life. It's in the background, albeit a mostly nice background. For local bishops and such, I have no expectation at all from them anymore. I know better lol. I have been in leadership positions and I don't ever want to be again and I'm glad it's not me and I'm willing to give ward leadership a lot of room for mistakes because that's the Golden Rule, I know I made plenty in the same callings. So I get it now. I'm just in awe now that men accept these callings at all and do their best--whatever that is--and I find it even more precious in awe some great moments I've had with bishops or Relief Society prezzes or whatever--the times they really met me and loved me. By the same token, if I don't agree with something, then I don't. Or if I need to speak up, I do. Or if something doesn't get done or goes wrong, I process the situation and move on. I do know there is 'mantle' or whatever you want to call it. I've seen it, felt it. Everything. My questions are my faith. My questions are the conception beginning of my revelation. I have a process--or rather, God has a process and taught it to me--that I 'set' a question. I know, know, know, know from experience after experience after experience after experience that I will be answered. It may take 10 seconds, it may take 10+ years. It used to happen organically--a question would affect my mind and heart, and I didn't even really have to do specific study, although I could also, but things would be brought to me over time, until I would realize (sometimes years later) that I had clarity on it. It would surprise me. Now I am conscious of the process and literally 'set' a question and then I know I am in the answer process. That is why on this board (I doubt anyone would have noticed, nevertheless) I use the phrase "in my level of understanding" because this is due to what questions I may have asked, and where I am at in the answer process; I don't see everything yet--I only see what I see right now. Puzzle pieces come bits by bits, and sometimes questions and answers have to take place before I have enough conceptual and energetic structure to comprehend an earlier answer I wanted. This process has absolutely nothing to do with any church leaders whatsoever. Rather, Isaiah 54:13 'taught of the Lord'. It is the Conversation that I am having with God every second of every day in the veil of this lifetime. Between ME and HIM and no one else. I have felt much discomfort over the years as I have learned to do things based on my own revelation and experience, needs, choices, preferences, personality, etc etc--to trust myself and my own agency--when I have thought about it in foil to what I learned at Church or thought I learned at Church. It's a process that makes me sad, mad, dismayed, betrayed, bewilderedd, alone, etc. For example, way back when I started to work instead of being a stay-at-home mom. Even that was a huge fracture for me from what I thought God/leaders wanted and even I wanted for myself, and some different adventure that God was actually calling me to. I felt evil. I had to re-learn God. Or un-learn the God I thought I had had. (I was helped by some Buddhist (I think?) principles that described how everyone goes through this fracture of how you once thought things were; i.e. if you're bewildered, you're going the right direction.) I continue to feel discomfort because I know there are some things that, forget Church leaders, even if Jesus himself were standing in front of me (which basically He is, so He's heard this before lol), I would give him a piece of my mind! One that is really big for me right now (to keep the list short, just saying one) is the 'modesty' 'principle'. I can't even. To me, the modest-immodest axis of judgment, conception, viewpoint, etc is one of the greatest bondages and falsehoods there is. Enough already. Well, I'd tell you what I'm going to do with this dissonance . . . if I knew. All I can do is be myself and keep learning. I'll either be right or I'll be wrong. And if I'm right, others will catch up to me. And if I'm wrong, I'll catch up to them. Well, I don't know what this means at all. I don't think it has meaning in the Church concepts. Not sure, because I don't consider myself those things, and don't use those value judgments at all for anyone inside or outside of the church. It's much lighter after I laid down that rock. 😄 But if I'm being honest, I do feel way out from the Church or the Church I once thought I knew; but then every once in a while I get a glimpse that the church is not about agreement, it is about union, which is not the same thing at all; and I do have such a great ward, the women there are very loving of everyone, they don't need anything from me or from each other, not even 'correct' belief, except to be there, so I do. Be there. I go by Elder Uchtdorf's once invitation to find reasons to stay, so I do. And that there is a place for me. So I go with that for now, unless I feel specifically called to go somewhere else in the future. But I don't want to simply be running away; I want to be going toward the revelation and the greater union and agency and integrity, etc. So God and I go round and round each week it seems. "You done with me yet?" he asks. "Nope," I say as I throw on a skirt and get ready to attend the temple. "You done with me yet?" I ask Him. "Nope," he says. "Okay then," he continues, "I'll meet you there." "Yep. I'm coming."
  8. Without completely mechanically understanding it--although it becomes more and more comfortable for me to comprehend in whole--I accept that I (we) have always lived and I (we) always will. In this sense, I have no mother and no father. Simply . . . I AM. Ayah Asher Ayah. I AM that I AM. (The Scriptures begin for me in that phrase; every thing else hangs on this and if it does not hang on it, it drops. Life and knowing, for me, begins with that phrase.) Every Being partakes of this--and not humans only. Rocks and rain partake of this. The matter then becomes, not really who is the parent and the child, who is the god and who is not, but rather the understanding of the mystery that we are all--ALL--brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters of one another through endless progressions; and that we come into one heart, one mind, perfect union in both time(s) and eternity(s). We had glory before we arrived here, and this earth life adventure is not really a matter of losing that glory, but rather an exercise in adding to it. Really, what happens here is so small. So tiny. In the matter of the thousands upon thousands of years of experience we had before coming here, so tiny of a time and effect. Earth life is significant because it is the pearl of great price. Everything matters. You matter. I matter. Rocks and rain matter. Crucifixion matters. Resurrection matters. But it is a passage that . . . will come to pass. And then we will be in other scenes in eternity. We may remember our time here. We may forget. Either will do.
  9. I'm not at this time. For health reasons I am going in that direction. However, I would not be vegetarian for reasons that animals ought not to be killed; because we DO have to eat something else alive to stay alive, whether animal or vegetable. Thus to be 'humane' also for me would mean not eating vegetables, so that's impossible for most people (not everyone--there is such a thing as a prana-arian, and I think I'm going in that direction too). So rather, we should kill quickly with the least amount of pain,, for the purpose of eating, without waste or sparingly, and with great thanksgiving. Not saying I'm deep into that in real time, but I this is what I come to when I think about it. But I don't feel good eating meat. It's not the right thing for my body any more, if it ever was. And it is starting to feel metaphysically weird to be eating muscle and the taste is starting to feel weird to me.
  10. I don't see this as an issue of obedience. But, then again, I don't see anything as an issue of obedience. (I tend to set down heavy on the 'agency' side, although not to say that obedience and agency are mutually exclusive.) If it is a matter of meat eaters, then performing sacrifice to make it sacred; I don't have a problem. Or some temporary device if it truly points the mind, body, and soul to the deeper truth. But there isn't something better? Or let's just be plain and not learn only by a ritual with hard side effects. What is difficult for me at this time is the sense of teleological progression to higher law(s). And part of that is the knowledge that animals are persons with the right to life. I feel that the Hindu approach to cows, making them sacred by living, rather than killing them. I don't know that the 'celestial law' involves vegetarianism, but I personally think that it does. I think it involves not eating anything but light. You have to stop eating and killing things you can have a conversation with i.e. animals in celestial. Again, is there a verse and chapter on this? Maybe not. But it's where my understanding has gone based on a variety of threads and factors that DO have verse and chapter. (Not that I build my world view solely from verse and chapter. There is much that is right that has never been written and never could.) The problem I have with it is if I would not kill a child on an altar, I would not kill a pigeon. Because I would have repented of thinking a pigeon is something much different than my child. To me, that is a falsehood; that we can't see better how precious every life form is; brother bear and all that. I mean, obviously I would rather a pigeon than my child die, but I would rather another's child than mine die too, if those were the choices. Let's not make them the choices. It is also a better understanding (or as I say at this time) of 'sacrifice': to make holy, to give life to oneself and others. It is not about losing something or going without something or killing something or something getting hurt. Sacrifice is the opposite. If you think of the Sun of our solar system and how it 'sacrifices' daily--it is what it is, a burning being, and by its burning It gives life to our planet. I do have a hard time thinking of how a commitment to life would involve a killing ritual for the sake of prophecy (which is not the only sake that I'm saying every one is coming from, but its one). Sacrifice is to give of oneself to allow others to live, instead of taking from others so that only you can live. We sacrifice by living, not by dying. So saying we need to do something simply and only to prove or show the Restoration as if there were boxes to be ticked off (again not saying it is everyone's point of view or only point of view, only one possible), I really think that is a poor way for me personally to accept things as right.
  11. I shall be thinking about this for a very long time. Wow. I also noted that "Araunah" means Lord.
  12. Indeed. 🙂 I love the Catholic way of viewing and practicing the Eucharist. People don't really pay attention, but there is an altar in every LDS chapel, upon which there is the shroud placed, and upon which the body and blood (i.e. a person, Savior, or Lamb) has been placed and 'killed', shattered really, into hundreds of pieces and drops, and resurrected inside each one of us.
  13. I find it likely that Joseph was contemplating animal sacrifice. But I do hope I never see it again.
  14. A sacrifice is prepared every Sabbath in every Sacrament Meeting. The Teachers prepare the sacrifice, the Priests and Deacons perform the sacrifice. I am not one who thinks it will happen as an 'animal sacrifice' per se or thinks it ought to happen, in any other way.
  15. Oddly enough, I can't think of any discussion in the Book of Mormon that describes the reception of the Holy Ghost as a result of the laying on of hands by priesthood authority. But the Book is full of descriptions of the reception of the Holy Ghost, the manner thereof and the consequences thereof. I had remembered this scripture and wanted to share it with you as an agreement to the point of view you hold: "3 Nephi 9:20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not." So here 'the baptism of the Holy Ghost' is a result of a broken heart, a contrite spirit, faith, and conversion. It seems to be a pretty universal offering, for those who prepare in that manner. But when I went to look up that scripture, I found a ton of stuff I hadn't seen before because I had been blind to it because of our current tradition. The following places in the Book of Mormon you might enjoy re-reading on the subject: 2 Nephi 26:13 "And that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith." Alma 13:12, Alma 36:34, Ether 12:14 (referencing this story I think, one of my favorites: Helaman 5:40-51), and all of 3 Nephi 19.
  16. I know this isn't the main topic, but 'mystery' in the scriptures doesn't mean something we can't know or aren't supposed to know; if anything, the opposite. A mystery is meant to be revealed, line upon line. We've lost the original meaning and function of the term and its application in our life journey. I remember reading something from the Millennial Star where Parley P Pratt was talking about how our entire body (skin) would be able to 'see' i.e. intake light and feed that signal to the brain for interpretation. Cool. I really don't see resurrection or whatever body future we have as a religious topic. It is as much 'science' as anything we else we can know. Obviously, it is more important to love and be good and have life meaning, obviously, but that doesn't mean we haven't figured out cell phones (like prayer?) and there's no reason to shy away from a conversation about resurrection on the same basis. It's just cool. And we ought to know as much about our bodies as possible. My understanding is that we will resurrect ourselves. And our bodies at all times take the condition of the law we are living, which may be called 'telestial', 'celestial' etc, although I'm not a fan of those terms. We take, or make, a body that works well with the world we need to be in at a given time (or have the capacity to be in at a given time). Also there is actually very little if any reason for the body to die anyway (of old age), even in the condition we have it now. The fact that we die under 100 years just goes to show how shabby we treat it. The resurrection IS also a pathway template i.e. we are shown that the path we are to trod to follow the Savior includes (among other things) our crucifixion, our tomb, and our rising. This is not really about body primarily (although body is always involved-we're always in a body, even after 'death' we are in a body for that realm), but resurrection is one aspect about life journey or rather ETERNAL LIFE journey. So I find that this is the primary meaning of the resurrection in any case. But I think that immortality is the way things actually work, and the fact that we have death in this realm is actually the anomaly, like how do we simulate death? since there really is no such thing? said the council of the gods in eternity before ever there was the first world established. We have to fake it. Because we are actually never dead, we are always ourselves and always alive--somewhere, in some body.
  17. Not to mention that our own bodies right now are not a static, solid object. The atomic bits are always get swapped out and put in (not to mention the bio bits i.e new cells). So we are a body NOT because of the particular atoms that make us up at any given moment but rather due to some organizing principle that constantly organizes whatever atoms it can lay a hold upon, according to a 'blueprint'.
  18. I agree with you. I do think that often people don't want to peek behind 'the story', and when they do, they feel forbidden and lost. And, indeed, who has got time for it all? And when I myself lift 'the curtain' and push through to understand the real time implications and consequences of 'the story', it often leads me to places that are very strange and really not at all what I once thought the story meant. And thus I find myself wondering, was I supposed to look? i.e. according to the general authorities, according to God? And the answer maybe 'yes' I was supposed to look, or 'no', 'the story' was supposed to satisfy you. I'm still not sure. For example, simply pondering on the length of eternity and the number of beings in eternity . . . and what we've been doing, some are doing now, and will be doing . . . it actually leads me, at least, to very different conclusions than what gets said across a pulpit or even in scripture. But I like exploring and taking it to rubber-meets-the road conclusion. And, for that matter, I question this way about every establishment story--the government story, the education story, the gender story, the science story, the medicine story, the history story--it's all story and most stories don't hold up under too much push back i.e. thinking and learning a little more.
  19. I love the washing of the feet passage; and it is to this approach to life and others that I aspire (but am still far from).
  20. I accept that there is only one substance in the entire universe, that can be called whatever but I call energy; and all the forms we see are but images or appearances in that energy, in other words sets of data that are rendered as the (3-D) images; including our bodies. Kind of like when you watch TV and you can see a human, a chair, an apple, but you also know that they are all just pixels (one substance, many forms). That's happening in real time as well on a 3-D, thousand-point-oh, planetary server. So in order to have a body of a certain kind, you just need the data. It's not even that hard, relatively speaking.
  21. I found all the ones I knew, and you found even more! Nice!
  22. 2 Nephi 31:3 "after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding." [I think this may also mean: according to their paradigm, according to what they will understand] Alma 29: 4-5,8 "he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction. Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience . . . . . . the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; 1 Nephi 14:10: "Behold there are save two churches only; [READ: TWO WAYS, TWO PARADIGMS] the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations" (do NOT read that the 'way of the Lamb of God' = The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; rather, one is the way of Life and Liberty; one is the way of Bloodshed and Oppression; and either people can be found in any organization or people; also see 2 Ne 2:27) D&C 18:44 "I will work a marvelous work among the children of men, unto the convincing of many of their sins, that they may come unto repentance, and that they may come unto the kingdom of my Father." D&C 10:53-69 "If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them. Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church; Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center. Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. . . . I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. . . . And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them. Therefore, I will unfold unto them this great mystery; For, behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts; Yea, if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely. Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them." Moroni 7:5 "if their works be good, then they are good also. " Moroni 7:12-13 "all things which are good cometh of God . . .wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil." 16: for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." [CHRIST here is not 'Jesus of Nazareth'; it is a template that ALL MANKIND may participate in]
  23. The 'celestial kingdom' is a code word or device that covers a lot of reality (that I no longer think is served by the term). I personally do not like the term because it no longer explains a thing and is a barrier to understanding (in my opinion) and isn't really in the scriptures at least to the degree we use it now. The current way that I most often hear the phrasing used these days about our eternal destiny is "return to our Father in heaven". I'm not actually a fan of those terms either, although I can understand why it might be chosen; I'm not a fan for a few reasons, but one of them being that (per Joseph Smith) our destiny as humanity remains on this earth (made celestial)--we are not leaving for anywhere; and secondly that it's not really scriptural either. Other reasons if I went on. Nevertheless. The celestial kingdom is not given; it is made. Like the 'make home a heaven' idea. The celestial kingdom is not a place and not a 'capitalist heaven' i.e. with the best toys. The celestial kingdom describes the condition of a person and a body--those that become and overcome. And what do they overcome? All kinds of ****. All the **** that there is. The celestial kingdom are those who have come into union--one heart, one mind. Who see as they are seen. Union is not sameness. In fact, those who are the 'same' (as if that could ever be) would never have any idea what union is. Union is the union of those who are very different, but know how to keep room for each other and look at each other without beams in their eyes. The 'celestial kingdom' will reveal itself organically in real time on this earth, will emerge as a consequence of: as people become clean and forgive each other and minister to one another as themselves; as well will have no reason for disease or death in the body. As people stop the shedding of blood. This transformation is already taking place and many people are already part of this covenant of peace. I already consider that I am in 'my' celestial kingdom, because there is no where else I'd rather be. Even if I got all 'my toys' (i.e. endless library and time to read it), I would not last long. I would say, "Send me back. Send me where I'm most needed. Let me learn. Let me love. Let me give birth again." So I'd end up down and out in some mortal probation ha ha ha in my best eternity. Kind of like now ;).
  • Create New...