I actually had a dream once in which my Rosary prayers were absorbed by a black spaceship and prevented from reaching Heaven. The prayers were the Lord's Prayer, though, which is addressed to the Father, undercutting Bill's suggestion that praying to Mary is the issue. The dream is recounted in my 2023 post "Milkommen":
I was praying the Rosary but my prayers were being "blocked" by an enormous black spherical spaceship hovering above me, an effect caused by some obscure correspondence between the physical structure of my rosary and that of the ship. The dream seemed to go on for an extremely long time. I kept saying "Pater noster," only to be aware of the words being absorbed by the blackness of the ship, prevented from rising to Heaven. In the dream, I began to think that this was because of the words themselves. Pater noster, my dreaming mind reasoned, must mean something like, "homecoming father" in Greek, which means Odysseus, who captained a black ship, and therefore this black ship has the right to "claim" my prayer. Nevertheless, I kept on using those same words, never thinking to switch to a different language or a different prayer.
So in the dream, the prayers were intercepted not just despite but because of the fact that they were addressed to "Our Father." This implies that the form of the prayer is not the issue, or not the only issue.
Something similar happens in the Mormon temple drama, where Adam prays to "God" and is answered by Satan, who claims the right to do so because he is "the god of this world." Is the problem that Adam addressed a generic "God" rather than saying something more specific like "Our Father in Heaven"? Apparently not, because initiates are later instructed to address the true God, in the True Order of Prayer, by repeating Adam’s prayer word for word.
One interpretation of this is as evidence that the temple ceremony we have today (of which it is not clear how much comes from Joseph Smith) is Satanic. (There is some other evidence of this; for example, initiates are instructed to wear something which Satan had earlier called "an emblem of my power and priesthoods.") Another interpretation, consistent with the black ship dream, is that even properly addressed prayers may be received and answered by demons.
Deciding to try a bit of stichomancy, I asked if any of my prayers were being intercepted by demons and got this randomly selected Bible verse:
Fair weather cometh out of the north: with God is terrible majesty (Job 37:22).
That seemed vaguely positive, but the specific meaning was not very clear. Looking at the immediate context, I found this:
Teach us what we shall say unto him; for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness.Shall it be told him that I speak? if a man speak, surely he shall be swallowed up (Job 37:19-20).
This is more on point. "Teach us what we shall say unto him" calls to mind "Lord, teach us to pray" (Luke 11:1), a request which Jesus answers by teaching the Lord's Prayer, addressed to the Father. If we experiment with other forms of prayer on our own, we are liable, "by reason of darkness," to go astray.
"Shall it be told him that I speak?" -- Will he know that my prayer is addressed to him? Or might someone else receive it instead?
"If a man speak, surely, he shall be swallowed up" -- Change he to it, and we have a good description of the black ship dream, with "the words being absorbed by the blackness of the ship."
Anyway, the upshot is that I am suspending my practice of the Rosary and restricting myself to more conventional Mormon prayer, at least for now, as I think things over. I'm not at all sure the Rosary is the culprit -- it, like the Lord's Prayer, is a revealed form of prayer, one "taught" by a heavenly messenger (or conceivably, I suppose, by an impostor) -- but I'm going to stop for a while anyway and see if it makes any observable difference.
⁂
Ungoliant was first brought up in the comments on my post "Ladybird WOW, and She had no choice but to be rescued by the Abelards" -- Bill's idea that the WOW in my dream, being an inverted MOM written in black, represents the dark inversion of the Holy Mother, and that this is Ungoliant, Mother of Abominations. In an email, another reader opined, "I don't think the ladybird and WOW are negative. I'm pretty sure you've encountered at least one W/M inversion sync in the past."
Yes, as it happens, that "W/M inversion sync" was in "Milkommen," the very post that contains the black ship dream. The title is essentially the German word Willkommen with the first letter inverted, and in the post I compare this to another such inversion on the Rider-Waite Ace of Cups. This reinforces the conclusion I had already reached, for reasons also explained in the comments on the WOW post: The black WOW is indeed negative and does indeed refer to Ungoliant.
What about the ladybird? Overall, I think it is distinct from the WOW and is itself a positive symbol, representing (as the etymology indicates) the true Madonna. One of the syncs discussed in the comments there involves a picture of a ladybird next to a black bug that looks like a six-legged spider -- i.e., a spider trying to pass itself off as an insect. (I'll try to get a photo at some point. The book it's in does not belong to me.) The ladybird next to it, though, actually is a ladybird and definitely not a spider. I think these are two different Beings.
Interestingly, though, there is even an indirect ladybird reference in "Milkommen," as it refers to people in Colin Wilson's Spider World novels who farm giant aphids like cattle, the aphids' honeydew being their main food source. Aphids are of course the main food source of the ladybird as well, so these people are in that way ladybird-like. And they are enemies to the spiders.
11 comments:
Prayers can't be intercepted. It's like in the stories of Faust (both Marlowe and Goethe's), you can't actually sell your soul to the devil, it's the willing choice of evil and lack of repentance (hence the contrasting endings of the two stories).
Praying is an act of the will, of directing your will to what is good, not just saying words.
This is an example of the way in which assumptions concerning The Bible, and how to read it, can lead to opposite conclusions.
For a IV Gospel Christian such as myself, Jesus instructed us to pray to the Holy Ghost (which is, the IV Gospel implies - I believe, a prayer to the spirit of the ascended Jesus himself), not the Father.
That aside, if we must pray to The Father (as plenty of Protestants seem to believe) then the entirely of Eastern Catholicism is and nearly-always has been - demonic; e.g. the Jesus Prayer. For me, that is a solid reductio ad absurdum.
But, like NLR, I am 100% confident that things were set-up such that All well motivated prayers - to whoever they are addressed - are heard by the side of God and divine creation, and Not by the side against God and divine creation.
That's what I think, too. I think the only time someone might think they're praying to God but actually be praying to the devil would be if they were asking for something evil.
Bruce, I agree with your main point, but where does Jesus instruct us to pray to the Holy Ghost? I see lots of references to the Holy Ghost communicating things to us, but no explicit mentions of the reverse.
For the reference of other readers (I am sure William is aware of the location), 3 Nephi 18 is one of the primary places in the Book of Mormon that has Jesus' teachings on prayer. He seems pretty prescriptive, in a simple way, in just reading it through again. In fact, I was surprised re-reading through other parts of 3 Nephi and Jesus' teachings just how prescriptive he is with many practices. The tone with many things, such as baptism, administering the sacrament, naming a church, praying, etc., is "Do it this way, do it exactly this way, the way you have seen me do it, or you risk being led away by the devil." I hadn't noticed that as much before. I don't know if anyone else reads it the same way.
There was one instance that the people were praying directly to Jesus (when they were praying for the Holy Ghost to be given to them), but Jesus seemed to clarify this as an exception when he was praying on their behalf to the Father, in saying they were only doing this because he was personally with them at that time, which then seemed to make it OK or the right thing to do.
As a side note, I know Bruce developed the theory he mentions here that the Holy Ghost is the resurrected Jesus, but the account of Jesus' visit to those at Bountiful I don't think is supportive of that, at least in how I follow what is written.
@WM "where does Jesus instruct us to pray to the Holy Ghost?"
Fair point. I was simplifying for the sake of brevity. I would agree that Jesus (in the valid parts of the IV Gospel) apparently did Not instruct people to pray, as such, to anyone.
I was meaning to suggest that it is to the Holy Ghost that we are told look for spiritual guidance and knowledge - but not necessarily by prayer.
I am actually of the probable opinion that petitionary prayer is not part of the essence of Christianity. I think its spiritual benefits, tho' potentially real and important, are actually indirect, and come from thinking on themes or about subjects in a proper spirit: such as thinking lovingly about another person whom we might otherwise forget to think about, or considering our needs and wishes in ultimate terms rather than in mundane ones.
Bill, I’ve always found that scene a bit confusing. In principle, it makes sense that if you want to forbid “praying to Jesus,” of course you’d make the exception that if you’re in Jesus’ presence it’s okay to speak to him — praise him, thank him, ask him for help, things that would normally be considered “praying” — since obviously people did that when he was on earth.
In 3 Nephi, though, Jesus isn’t even really “present” beyond being in the same general area. While they’re praying to him, he’s off by himself praying to the Father, not even listening to them. Or if he is listening (as we must assume), it’s by whatever supernatural means prayers are usually heard, not by virtue of his being present with them. I find the whole thing confusing.
William,
My question would be,
How do we 'sell' our soul?
In this duality dimension of matter everything has a dual nature.
Good / Evil is one of them.
Perhaps that's explains( at least to me ) why in almost all beliefs
( and peoples' opinion of those beliefs, including people
who believe in the same religion ) there are always a gazillion
different interpretations of what a particular ideology does
or does not mean.
Also there is always a nemesis presented as the bad guy (devil)
that we must fight.
Everything is a war in this dimension.
We are told that evil i.e. the devil is something outside
of ourselves who wants to tempt us to join his/her team,
much like in a Baal game.
In this duality dimension there is always a 'winner'(good)
and a 'loser'.(bad)
If everything here in this dimension, including humans,
have a dual nature, then why is it not possible
that the Devil (D-evil ) 'live(s)
inside of us?
Live is evil spelled backwards.
I believe that the high vibrational soul is housed
in the physical body but is not a part of its matter.
I believe that we are more than our physical bodies,
which would explain, at least to me, the paranormal
including dreams, synchronicity, telepathy, foresight
etc.
The paranormal which some would say
is the ''occult' and therefore demonic, which
begs the question, at least to me,
if divination is demonic, as some religions proclaim,
then who exactly was the bee Deborah in the Bible?
A sorceress or a prophetess?
I believe that we choose to succumb to our ego(evil).
Everything in matter in this duality dimension
can be manipulated and controlled, including
our brain( mind).
But not our soul, because the soul is not in matter,
but pure energy.
The ego pleasures and protects the physical
body only. Greed, lust, hate, jealously
thirst for power and control, prejudice , bias,
narcissism are all ego pursuits.
Isn't there a quote that says:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil
is for good men to do nothing.”
I find this information below
particularly interesting as I think
it mirrors my belief about our free will
and allowing evil to conquer us.
copy and paste: link below
"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion
that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends,
than that good men should look on and do nothing.
He is not a good man who, without a protest,
allows wrong to be committed in his name,
and with the means which he helps to supply,
because he will not trouble himself to use his
mind on the subject."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.openculture.com/2016/03/edmund-burkeon-in-action.html
I agree the scene is a bit confusing. It probably doesn't help that Mormon is under a sort of imposed censorship, unable to relate fully what it all means, what was said, etc.
I would push back a little on Jesus not being 'present', though. The disciples begin praying to him when he is with them physically. He then goes off and prays on their behalf, asking for things for them. After doing so, he then physically returns to check in on them. As he physically hears what they are praying to him, it says that the 'light of his countenance did shine upon them" and that the disciples countenance and garments became just as white as Jesus' were.
After seeing this happen while in their presence, and as they continued to pray to him, he leaves again, and thanks the Father, who seems to have answered Jesus' first prayer where he asks the Father to make them one with him. Them appearing to be just as Jesus may indicate something like this is happening, and that this is some part of a purification which Jesus mentions in this second prayer.
He then asks for more things, that people will hear the words of the disciples and become like them (and him). After doing so, he returns physically to hear more of what the disciples are praying, and to see that they remain just as white as he is.
He goes off one final time, but still remains close enough where everyone, including the multitude, can hear what he prays, and these are the words that no one can utter or write down, but Jesus says were greater than anything he shared among the Jews.
So, I count this as him being very much present with them as they pray to him. Further, it seems that he could actually not tell everything through supernatural means what was going on with them, as he had to physically return and be among them to observe for himself what they were doing and to bless them.
I have a thought on how this ties in with praying to Jesus vs. praying to the Father in his name. Will follow up with that.
To do something "in Jesus' name" may be more literal than we typically think. As a Mormon, I would pray something and then close with something like "In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen." or something like that. It's like a closing statement, perhaps. I don't know. Everyone just tacks it on at the end, like an official seal.
But what if it meant more literally taking on oneself the very identity of Jesus in how we approach the Father through prayer? This would obviously make no sense to do if Jesus were physically with us, and he can pray to the Father for us. But in his absence, it may be that we need to act as if we were him in asking the Father for things.
Sort of sounds blasphemous, and I am not sure what it all means, but could be something there. And it isn't without precedent. I've written that the Holy Ghost, for example, will come, being sent from the Father and bearing the name of Jesus, and interpreting this as the Holy Ghost literally acting as if he were Jesus in his absence. The same can be true in our prayers, perhaps, as we perform the role of Jesus approach the Father on our behalf and that of others.
I agree that the LDS temple is probably satanic in what it became, but it doesn't mean that there aren't true symbols in there that we can make right again or at least think of in a different way. In that drama, recipients are taught "The True Order of Prayer". They are taught this, though, only after receiving the tokens of the Melchizedek Priesthood, or the Order of the Son. Those tokens consist of the recipient receiving a nail in their hand, and in their wrist - literally taking on them the marks of Jesus. It is after this that they are able to perform the True Order of Prayer.
In other words, in the temple symbolism, one "becomes" Jesus, who is then able to approach the Father in prayer, and then ultimately able to step through the veil.
If Jesus were with us, it could be there would be no need to approach the Father as if we were him. We could just do what they did at Bountiful, and ask Jesus for something, who could then in turn ask the Father. He isn't here, though, so that may mean we have to take on the role that he would have done had he been here, and thus act as if were were him.
It's not crystal clear in my mind yet what that means, so just throwing that out there into the ether.
Last night I read in the LoTR when Merry and Pippin encounter Treebeard for the first time. Treebeard is surprised at how hasty they are in sharing their true names. While he is honored by their quick trust of him, he does not return the trust, saying he will not tell them his true name, not yet anyway. The implication is that doing so gives someone power over you. It made me think of what it means to take the name of Christ upon ourselves, or even to pray in his name. It seems to be a "hasty" thing for Christ to allow anyone to do that, but such is His trust in those to whom he favors in this way. I suspect the reason those at Bountiful could pray in His name and succeed is bc they had been given his true name. Treebeard tells us what that means in the quote below, which is to know someone's true Story. And in that way, maybe it empowers someone to approach the Father in the way Bill is saying, as if they were literally Jesus, because they know his true story and have taken that story or identity upon themselves in some way. Perhaps that is what was told to them that no man has the power to write or utter to others -- Jesus' True Name or Story.
"Who calls you hobbits, though? That does not sound elvish to me.”
“Nobody else calls us hobbits; we call ourselves that,” said Pippin.
“Hoom, hmm! Come now! Not so hasty! You call yourselves hobbits? But you should not go telling just anybody. You’ll be letting out your own right names if you’re not careful.”
“We aren’t careful about that,” said Merry. “As a matter of fact I’m a Brandybuck, Meriadoc Brandy Buck, though most people call me just Merry.”
“And I’m a Took, Peregrin Took, but I’m generally called Pippin or even Pip.”
“Hm, but you are hasty folk, I see,” said Treebeard. “I am honored by your confidence; but you should not be too free all at once. There are Ents and Ents, you know; or there are Ents and things that look like Ents but ain’t, as you might say. I’ll call you Merry and Pippin, if you please – nice names. For I am not going to tell you my name, not yet at any rate.” A queer half-knowing, half-humorous look came with a green flicker into his eyes. “For one thing it would take a very long while: my name is growing all the time, and I’ve lived a very long, long time; so my name is like a story. Real names tell you the story of the things they belong to in my language, in the Old Entish as you might say. It is a lovely language, but it takes a very long time to say anything in it, because we do not say anything in it, unless it is worth taking along time to say, and to listen to.”
Post a Comment