Happiness doesn't come by acquiring more. That is what the world believes. Happiness comes by comprehending what you already have. One need not seek far and wide to get what is precious above all. It's already here. It's always been so and always will be. That's why the sages say that man is mad. Man acts mad when he searches far and wide for what he already has, but doesn't comprehend. Man is mad when he can't see what is so close to him that he misses it because he is seeking further out. -- PoTai
by Eleazar, March 2009
This document offers a few more responses to common questions. Some questions are implied through statements that are made. There is no claim that these responses are the final word, so to speak. They are meant to be candid responses at best, but misleading at worst. They are not organized to appear in any particular order.
Why is there suffering in this world?
Suffering has a purpose, but no one has to suffer. To find understanding, we must return again and again to this question of 'Who am I?' In doing that, we might find that we are something that was, is not, yet is. Those are the same words used for describing the Beast in Revelation. As one reaches understanding, the ego (carnal mind) which was and is not, will fall away to reveal that which is. Our ego is what brought us suffering, but it will fall away from us like the illusion that it was, or isn't, since it is not real. When that happens, only one thing is left which is the only part that is real. When reality is the only thing left, then how can there be unreality? We come to find that suffering was something that we created as a result of identifying ourselves with the world around us. Suffering was as real as it seemed. Our experience of suffering was as real as our belief in what caused it. This is not to say that we become hard-hearted or unfeeling. It's quite the opposite. If you have a toothache and look in the mirror, then do you think the image in the mirror feels the pain? No, because the image in the mirror isn't real. Try to see the carnal world as the same, unreal. The pain is felt, suffering happens, but it's because the creation that upholds it is believed to be real. The creation is in the mind which itself is a creation. When we can truly understand that, the creation doesn't affect us like it does when we believe in it. Pain is an opinion, a point of view, a sensation, a creation. In nightmares, is there pain and suffering? On waking from sleep, we sense that what was appeared in the dream was a figment, unreal. Yet while we were in the dream, we thought it was real. Well, there we are. So, try to see this world too as a dream, one that is believed to be real. Admittedly, that is hard for us to understand, but that's because we are still trapped in the dream. When we see reality, the dream disappears or, rather, is seen for what it is. So, return to this question, Who am I? There you will find the answer to all of it.
I don't understand your responses. They appear convoluted and complex.
Explanations never substitute for real experience. Only the experience that's real will bring us to a comprehension of what it means. All this talk can do is point the way by helping us to understand that there can be a way. In the end, you must do. Or rather, you must first undo. Undo those preconceived notions and be willing to find what is there and has been there all along.
Do you claim to be a prophet?
We are prone to not know what we say. Prophet is not an illustrious, admirable, or desirable title, except in the world. Rather, it's a demeaning title. It only appears in the Fallen world. Some think that in heaven, there must be a lot of Prophets, but all that would create is a lot of meaningless babble which isn't needed. It's not that these many Prophets would re-create Hell, but that it does.
Are there real prophets in the world?
Maybe. The purpose of the world is to bring you to an experience of who you are. You will have to do that by yourself. No one can substitute and no one can do for you what must be experienced by you. A false prophet and a true prophet can only point the way. It's suffering and frustration that must appear first. These are the prophets, both of them.
But, I know the church is true and that there is a living prophet that leads it!
You might be more right than you understand. It's all for you.
So, does that mean that my testimony is meaningless?
No. It may be helpful for us to ask what is meant by what we have a testimony about. There is great meaning in it, but we might have mistaken it to mean something that it doesn't. We may have sought for a sign and then mistakenly worshiped that sign. The sign isn't what's wrong. It's the one who worships the sign who is mistaken. Do the Godly need signs? Of course not. It's the unGodly who need them. You are right in asking this question because what a testimony means is something that many of us will have to reconcile with. It's admittedly a hard thing for us to do, especially after being bound by it for so long.
Do you believe in the Ten Commandments?
Let me respond to that with a rhetorical question: Why is it that you don't know that killing, stealing, coveting and so forth are wrong? That is, why do you feel a need for an outer law to tell you such things? Do you not know these things without a law to tell you? So, saying that you need these is pathetic, isn't it?
Is there a devil? Are Lucifer and Satan the same beings?
These are a legion of things. Look in a mirror to see them. Although this might sound offensive so some, most worldly religions are Luciferian. To understand this better, think about popular religious notions in Christianity of the second coming of Christ. What is it to mean? It's believed that Christ will come in a grand parade of events where the wicked are removed from the earth by force. Now take time for a reality check and ask yourself what God that describes? That is not to say that a second coming of Christ is not real, but rather that we understand it wrongly. We worship a God that we say we don't believe in.
All you've done is to confuse me.
Yes, this brings up an interesting dilemma. If Eve still believes the fruit tastes delicious, then she might be best left unto herself to experience first hand that it's a bitter fruit that she holds onto. Maybe my purpose in writing these things is not to convert you, but it's to convert me. The fruit of that tree is indeed hard to let go of. How can one know? Well, perhaps this is one possible response: Knowledge isn't the answer. That is, we must first go beyond an illusion of having knowledge.
Do you have doubt about things?
Everything. It might be that finding wisdom requires that it is preceded by doubt. Doubt needs to arise in the mind. When we do not doubt, then there is a type of slavery, a binding down, a closing of the mind. It's the mind that we have mistakenly honored and trusted and this has led to our Fallen condition. Experience is the only thing that leads to finding something beyond doubt. Yogi's will say that by eliminating all the things that are not, then there is the path to finding the one nothing that is. So, what is it that one is finds that is left not to doubt? It's the one who is already there, but not seen. It's the one who is seeking the answer. Our problem is that we've mistaken that for the mind. We are not the mind. The mind is a creation. That is, we are not the one that doubts, because that too seems to be a creation, an illusion. The only real thing seems to be the one out of which the doubter rises. What's undoubted is before the mind, but carnal man places it last rather than first. Then, true to form, carnal man consumes it upon his lusts and mistakes his certainty of mind for faith. That's where carnal man Falls into the Telestial world in which he lives. Out of his mind he creates an unrealistic world in which he suffers because of his experience at failing to find in the world, that which he seeks.
Since you left the safe confines of the gospel, what has it done for you?
I am not as afraid as I once was. And there are a lot of presumptions underlying that question as you have posed it.
The Church does so much good in the world. How can you say it's bad?
I never said the Church was bad. The Church is perfect. Perfection of the Church is not meant to say that it is good at being evil. Rather, these notions of good and evil are appearances, illusory. They arise from a belief in opposition.
I need to speak with you. Where can I get your phone number?
You'd be talking to the wrong person. The best thing I can do for you is turn you away. Use your desperation and your frustration to seek the Christ in yourself.
What can you tell me about the Elohim?
The Elohim are symbols in the familiar creation parable which is the subject of the LDS temple endowment, but also found in many religious societies as well as in many places in this creation. In a literal sense, the Elohim are demi-Gods, impostors. In a symbolic sense, they symbolize that which is, the only thing that is, yet at the same time, it comes back to such ideas as 'first cause', which itself is a creation out of that which is (real). Occult societies rightly believe the Elohim are synonymous with the Nephillim, the Annunaki, or “those from heaven to earth came”. Mormon cosmology views the Elohim as a legion of Gods with physical bodies who gave life to the first man Adam. Yes, that's true, but it's a circle that spoken of, for the first man came before them, didn't he? That is where they found their own embodiment and became lost in it. In the Book of Mormon, there appears the name 'Nephi', singular for Nephillim which is plural. That itself tells you that Nephi, or at least the name, is one of the Elohim.
What is the Mark of Cain?
The Mark of Cain is one of the many symbols of creation. In creation, the Mark of Cain is a covenant with God. That's why earthly contracts are codified with a mark (signature of agreement) which is sometimes done with an X. When Cain became fearful that he would die (ie. be killed), God supplied him with an agreement (covenant) that if that happened, then he would be avenged seven-fold. The Mark of Cain is also symbolized by familiar icons like the cross, the horizontal bar of which represents the earth and the vertical bar the heavens coming down. The crossing of the bars in the cross symbolize the covenant, the law, and so forth. Note the same with X. The double cross, as it appears on the British Flag, symbolizes the new covenant which is doubled in meaning as seventy plus seven in it's symbolic number(s). That is the meaning of the words of Lamech in the Bible when he said: “If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.” (Genesis 4:24). The double cross means a passing of the old covenant and a coming of a new one and a further descent into illusion. You might say we've double-crossed ourselves. The same is symbolized in the LDS endowment where Adam is given a garment and a covenant before being cast out. The claim by LDS that “we are a covenant-making people” is a revealing statement which is rightly spoken, but devout LDS will tend towards offense at this suggestion. Mormon religion does not use the symbol of the cross, but there is a use of other symbols that mean the same thing. For example, in the LDS temple endowment, there is the symbol of the Nail and Sure-Sign-of-the-Nail. These, like the cross, symbolize the Law or, rather, the demands of the Law upon which the Christ is crucified. Unlike how they are popularly taken, these are not flattering symbols. When LDS are asked why they don't use the symbol of the cross, they often say that it's because it symbolizes the death of Christ. That statement is well said and appropriately spoken. This is despite the fact that fundamentalist Christians think of the cross as a symbol of life (resurrected Christ) rather than a dead one. For devout LDS, the symbol of the nail is taken in the same way to mean life rather than death, freedom rather than slavery, good rather than evil. Appropriately, these ides get turned upside down a lot.
The early leaders of the Church believed that the Mark of Cain was a black skin.
That is a manifestation of a belief in appearances.
Is the story of creation mythical or historical?
First mythical, then perhaps historical. Adam is the so-called 'first man'. That title isn't a flattering one. LDS work at trying to trace their genealogy back to Adam and when this is done, it is held in great admiration. Both as a myth and potential historical event, the ideas are profoundly symbolic. What it symbolizes can be better seen when history is not looked upon as a past event, but rather a present occurrence. There is enough said enough about that elsewhere in other writings by Eleazar, so it is not necessary to repeat it here. There is also another aspect of it that appears in the purpose of genealogical work by the LDS church. This is a belief that the children of God, so to speak, is also a genealogical stream that confers certain (literal) birthrights. That is a manifestation of a strong belief in the importance of the physical body as an essential object needed for entering heaven. However, this really emerges as a symbol of a Fall into illusion which includes worship of creation. A worship of the Elohim as Gods with physical bodies places an unrealized limitation on God as a man. God is much more than a man. Man is short for manifestation, which points to the carnal creation or, rather, the outer objective world that surrounds us. In doing that, we worship the image which, in turn, is the man-ifestation before us. We act out as carnal and Fallen beings who are so convinced that we do right that we are unwilling to accept any notion to the contrary. That is what being lost is really about. So, it's appropriate.
Do you believe the Book of Mormon is true?
Yes. And it's true in the same way as all in creation. The Book of Mormon is a powerful symbol. Yet, like all books of scripture, it's a manifestation. Many believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal and historical record of the Ameri-Indian who are remnants of a lost tribe. Try to see that in the message being conveyed and that it's more profound about the present rather than the past. You might say it's our own history. It was, and is not, yet is.