Anthropological Motivation For Not Fighting About Politics


For context, look up popular American news articles for March 12th, 2016.

Raja Yoga (the Hindu philosophy of using physical movement to achieve a higher spiritual state–called simply “yoga” by most westerners) seems to have arisen out of a collection of movements and postures practiced as part of human life. From bowing to a king, to taking a wide stance in preparation for delivering a sword blow, to stretching in the morning and evening to alleviate muscle and joint pain, to picking up a baby–this is a system of kinetic learning intended to explain and teach the human condition and how to function within it.

Humans are loving. Humans are powerful. Humans fight for survival, spend their days gathering resources; humans follow leaders; humans battle for control over the followers and means of acquisition. (Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably seeing you as their follower…) This method of teaching translates literally to “royal yoga”. As profound as it once was, it fails to teach apt governance or understanding in the absence of the cultural understanding that could only be truly had in the more revered and wealthy circles of the ancient world.

What would such a system look like, if it were created out of the successful strategies of governing and being governed within our own society? Are there any motions that we can still use to universally increase our usefulness and success as a part of the human meta-organism? Today, we crave a method that works for almost everyone, and mourn the absence of any such thing that can make us happy. There is currently no “one size fits most” method for anyone born after 1980, or, perhaps, before.

In politics and religion, alike, we are bereft of truly effective guidance. We celebrate the death of “storge” love while complaining about lack of agreement in public matters. (This is a contradiction.) We seek ancient wisdom that hardly translates to how to make a real living, today. We are amply taught, in school, church, home, and in casual society everything but what is known to be truly, universally effective–because nobody knows of any universally “human” means of survival that has, itself, survived the test of time.

In the last decade, much of the world has awoken to this predicament, and we are fighting each other because nobody can figure out how to make things work, again. The information age arose out from Pandora’s box, and our greatest minds have yet to tame it in a way that lets everyone live happily, who is willing to keep trying.

Or maybe that is the nature of the human condition: as the Buddhists say, “suffering exists”, and it’s up to us to figure out how to deal with that.

It is a part of human nature to fight. We committed genocide against every human species that came before us, until only Homo sapiens remained. (A chilling thought, but true, according to archeologists, evolutionary biologists, and anthropologists.) A new way of living will one day emerge out of the ashes of analog society and the minds of those who, like Homo erectus, failed to adapt (despite having a larger brain). In the mean time, let’s limit our battles to the ones that actually matter.

If an idiot or a fool gets elected president, let them show us how not to do things.

Some arguments can only be won by letting your opponent win, and then realize, on his own, that he should have been wiling to compromise (A.K.A. “adapt”). We decided in the late 40s that killing all the stupid people is wrong, so if such people end up running things, and we don’t crash and burn because of it, we will have proven that the antiquated morals of centuries past–survival of the fittest, when you boil it down enough–are truly not as good as the softer ones we revere, today.

And if letting stupid people self-actualize turns out to be a problem, we can always decide that Hitler had the right of things and commit genocide until all the stupid people are extinct, and we evolve into a species that’s better than Homo sapiens. (Personally, I don’t advocate this method.)

Seriously, folks, don’t get into physical fights over political beliefs unless you think we should silence, cage, and eventually extinct all the imbuciles–including, possibly, you.

Trump and Sanders fans, I’m looking at you.

The Parable of the Circular Track


Imagine that life is lived upon a circular track.  It’s not a race, of course, but rather, an event wherein every participant uses this opportunity to better themselves.  Here, we seek to become more physically and mentally fit.  We seek to improve our running, jogging, and walking techniques, and to learn proper pacing.  The more we learn, and the harder we work at it, the faster and more steadily we are able to proceed around the track.  Eventually, we decide we’ve had enough, and walk off, hopefully better than we were when we stepped on.

There’s a huge throng of people on this track–everyone who’s alive right now.  It’s crowded, and we often bump into each other, sometimes becoming annoyed or aggravated.  Still, we do our best to see what’s ahead, and to respect and travel peaceably with those around us.  Some people on the track have gotten into better shape than others.  Some have learned pacing better than others.  The most sought-after teachers are those who have learned how to better themselves and those around them at a great rate.

The Runner In Front

About 50 feet ahead of you is a runner who’s moving a bit faster than you are.  He appears to be confident and in decent shape.  Naturally, you assume that this person would be good to learn from, so you shout ahead, “Please share your understanding with me, so I can go faster, too!”

The runner glances back, and, seeing that you’re moving slower than he is, begins to tell you everything he’s learned, since–obviously–he must have some insights that you haven’t gathered, yet.

The Runner Behind

About 50 feet behind you is a runner who’s moving at about the same pace as you.  She’s in decent shape, but seems to have little or no interest in going faster.  Consequently, you shout back to her, “Let me show you how you can go faster!”

Assuming that, because you’re in front, you must be more skilled than her, she accepts your offer and tentatively begins trying to emulate you.

Teacher vs. Student

The reality is, however, that the person in front of you is actually almost an entire track-length behind you; and the person behind you is almost an entire track length ahead of you!

The person in front has no grasp of pacing, and keeps urging you to run faster; and the only reason you can see him is because he keeps trying to run faster than he has strength, and has repeatedly fallen down due to exhaustion.  At the moment you see him, he’s desperately trying to catch up, again, still confident that if he only runs fast enough, he’ll be able to re-join his friends.

The person behind you has no immediate interest in running faster because she’s found her rhythm: by running just a hair’s breadth faster than you are–imperceptible to the untrained eye–she’s able to consistently out-pace everybody else on the track.  She doesn’t care who’s going faster or slower, but is still keenly interested in improving herself, and is willing to take advice from anyone who gives it, in hopes of learning something new.

So, whose lesson do you really want to learn?  Chances are, you can learn valuable lessons from both people, but you’ll only be able to run alongside one of them for any noteworthy distance, before the other vanishes from sight.

The Lesson This Track Teaches

Sometimes, we latch onto the teachings of those who appear to be more wise than we are, because we desperately want to speed ahead and improve ourselves as fast as we possibly can.  In doing so, we primarily rely upon our perceptions of social currency, and trust that whomever has the most (according to what we presently value) must be the person(s) most fit to teach us.  We look to gurus, priests, PhDs, celebrities, popular friends, and others, and do everything in our power to emulate them.  Simultaneously, we dismiss or seek to teach–but not learn from–those who, by our current standards of perceived social currency, seem to have nothing to teach us.  Only after we’ve spent years, or even a lifetime following those who are more clueless than we are, do we sometimes come to realize that we’ve been valuing the wrong things.

So, here’s the lesson:

Sometimes, the person who’s the least attractive to our current sensibilities is the person most fit to teach us the things we desperately want or need to know.

“Ordain Women”


Fair warning: you might not like this post.  If you can’t stand reading about Abrahamic or patriarchal religions, (or all religions,) in general, this post probably isn’t for you.  If you consider your religious beliefs extremely traditional or conservative, this post probably isn’t for you, as I’ll be covering a bit of doctrine that may, traditionally, fit better in wiccan or pagan philosophies.  For the record, I consider myself religiously syncretist and politically centrist: even if you hate my ideas, I probably don’t (entirely) hate yours.  🙂

(End of disclaimer.)

I’m writing partly in reply to several good posts by my friend, Erin Wooldridge on her blog about the movement that some women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“Mormon Church“) are participating in: a push to have women ordained to the Priesthood.  Some of these women have taken to calling themselves, “Ordain Women.”  I won’t be commenting much (if at all) on the specifics of the movement or the temporal social dynamics involved.  Instead, I’m going to comment on doctrine, current societal shifts, personal gnosis (A.K.A. personal revelation), and why things are the way they are.  This is a “down the rabbit hole” kind of post.

Some (Light) “Required Reading”

Please follow the links, below, to see what the LDS Church has to say about the Priesthood.  After each link are the most relevant quotes to the topic at-hand.

Priesthood (general)

“The word priesthood has two meanings. First, priesthood is the power and authority of God. It has always existed and will continue to exist without end (see Alma 13:7–8; D&C 84:17–18). Through the priesthood, God created and governs the heavens and the earth. Through this power, He exalts His obedient children, bringing to pass “the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39; see also D&C 84:35–38).

Second, in mortality, priesthood is the power and authority that God gives to man to act in all things necessary for the salvation of God’s children. The blessings of the priesthood are available to all who receive the gospel. (“Priesthood Authority” Handbook 2, Administering the Church)

In the spring of 1835, Joseph Smith received a revelation explaining the name of the priesthood: “There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood. … The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations. Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances” (D&C 107:1-5, 13-14).”

Aaronic (lesser) Priesthood

“Although the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred in the Church today without restriction to the lineage of Aaron, the keys of this priesthood rightly belong to the firstborn of the seed of Aaron, and in the restoration of all things the office of bishop (president of the priests) will once again be conferred on one of that lineage, as it is designated by revelation to the president of the Church (D&C 84:14–21; 107:13–17).”

Melchizidek (greater) Priesthood

“The higher or greater priesthood, as compared with the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood. The reason for the name is given in D&C 107:1–3. The Melchizedek Priesthood is mentioned in Ps. 110:4; Heb. 2:17–18; 3:1; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; but the Bible does not give many particulars concerning the functions of that priesthood, except that Christ was a high priest after that order. From latter-day revelation we learn that within the Melchizedek Priesthood are the offices of elder, Seventy, high priest, patriarch, and Apostle (D&C 107), and that this priesthood must be present and functional whenever the kingdom of God is upon the earth in its fulness.”

Women and the Priesthood

“Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained the companionship role of the priesthood and women: “In the true Patriarchal Order man holds the priesthood and is the head of the household, … but he cannot attain a fulness of joy here or of eternal reward hereafter alone. Woman stands at his side a joint-inheritor with him in the fulness of all things. Exaltation and eternal increase is her lot as well as his. (D. & C. 131:1–4.) Godhood is not for men only; it is for men and women together. (D. & C. 132:19–20)” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 844).”

Race and the Priesthood

“In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.8″

(Please read the rest of that article for context.)

Mother Eve

“Genesis 3: 16 states that Adam is to “rule over” Eve, but this doesn’t make Adam a dictator. . . over in “rule over” uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling with, not ruling over. The concept of interdependent, equal partners is well-grounded in the doctrine of the restored gospel. Eve was Adam’s “help meet” (Genesis 2:18). The original Hebrew for meet means that Eve was adequate for, or equal to, Adam. She wasn’t his servant or his subordinate.

–Elder Bruce C. Hafen”

Becoming Like God

“Eliza R. Snow, a Church leader and poet, rejoiced over the doctrine that we are, in a full and absolute sense, children of God. “I had learned to call thee Father, / Thru thy Spirit from on high,” she wrote, “But, until the key of knowledge / Was restored, I knew not why.” Latter-day Saints have also been moved by the knowledge that their divine parentage includes a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father. Expressing that truth, Eliza R. Snow asked, “In the heav’ns are parents single?” and answered with a resounding no: “Truth eternal / Tells me I’ve a mother there.”45 That knowledge plays an important role in Latter-day Saint belief. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles wrote, “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.””

Elohim (which may mean, “God the Father,” “The Gods,” or “The Father and The Mother.”)

“In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods.”  –Joseph Smith Jr.

Now, let’s address the nature of the priesthood.  In short, the highest priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God.  Who is God, in the original sense?  “Elohim.”  Who is Elohim?  The greatest, as elected by the council of the gods.  Is this person single?  No, it’s a husband and wife.  Therefore, what is the Priesthood, really?  It’s the authority to act on behalf of the Divine Male and/or the Divine Female.

Now, onto the current state of the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  There are two versions of the priesthood, therein: the Aaronic (limited/lesser) and Melchizidek (full/greater).  By what type of authority do they exist?  Patriarchal authority.

In fact, the entire power structure of the Church is based upon patriarchal authority.  Yes, women have many important roles in the Church, and act as leaders in many capacities; but every officer of the Priesthood–from prophet/president to deacon’s quorum leader–can only be held by men.  Every “calling” (“job” within the Church–the vast majority of which are volunteer positions and not paid ones) must be ordained by the presiding priesthood holder.  It doesn’t matter if you’re being called to organize a movie night or head up the Relief Society for the entire Church; to begin the calling, you must receive a blessing and “setting apart” via an authorized Priesthood holder laying hands upon your head.  This a good thing, and a great help and comfort to the members of the LDS faith.  Still, it’s an unavoidable fact that the power structure of the religion is, presently, patriarchal.

Nevertheless, there is such a thing as a female priesthood.

In the LDS Church, there are few clues about this.  The principle one stated is that women are given certain powers of the priesthood for use in temple ordinances–specifically, the Initiatory ceremony, in which parishioners are anointed with oil and given blessings of spiritual gifts after the fashion of certain Old Testament ordinances.  Herein, those administering the ordinances anoint various parts of the body, like the kidneys, legs, forehead, etc. with oil, while pronouncing blessings.  For various reasons, it makes sense for women to administer to women in this capacity, and as a result, women are ordained (by male Melchizidek Priesthood holders) to a specific branch of the Priesthood–in much the same way as the ancient Levites were given access to only a specific branch of the same Priesthood.  True, this could well be seen as a “borrowing” of patriarchal priesthood; but it shows that, technically, women can hold at least some version of the Priesthood.

Still, this doesn’t quite imply that women have their own priesthood.

The temple endowment ceremony sheds some more light on the matter, but doesn’t yet clarify it, entirely.

(Note to my LDS readers: the contents of the endowment ceremony are not required to be kept secret, except for the signs, tokens, and names given therein.  Please see the explanation in the linked site for details.)

“Brethren, you have been washed and pronounced clean, or that through your faithfulness you may become clean, from the blood and sins of this generation. You have been anointed to become hereafter kings and priests unto the most high God, to rule and reign in the house of Israel forever.

Sisters, you have been washed and anointed to become queens and priestesses to your husbands.

Brethren and sisters, if you are true and faithful, the day will come when you will be chosen, called up, and anointed kings and queens, priests and priestesses, whereas you are now anointed only to become such. The realization of these blessings depends upon your faithfulness.

You have had a garment placed upon you, which you were informed represents the garment given to Adam when he was found naked in the garden of Eden, and which is called the garment of the holy priesthood. This you were instructed to wear throughout your life. You were informed that it will be a shield and a protection to you if you are true and faithful to your covenants.”

Again, we see evidence that women are intended to be priestesses to the patriarchal order; but this still doesn’t offer clues as to what happened to the divine priesthood of our Heavenly Mother.  Here, we come to my thesis about the nature of an innately female priesthood.

The female Priesthood was lost, and is now being restored from outside the Church.

There’s a single, irreconcilable, fundamental flaw with the Ordain Women movement in the LDS Church: they’re asking for the wrong Priesthood.  Just as the Prophets have revealed that gender is an eternal trait, so, too, is the nature of whatever Priesthood associates with that gender.  No female spirit can fully interact with a male Priesthood, as if it were her own.

The Gospel According to dane:

The above is a huge simplification, designed to help the people living at the time this revelation was given to understand the basics of the matter.  The complexity of this becomes more apparent once we detail the non-linear nature of time, and the consequent possibility of multiple and even concurrent lives.  Gender is eternal…but each avatar of a given spirit creates a “splinter” of that spirit that can ultimately remain independent or re-integrate with its “parent spirit.”  There seems to be no requirement for a given spirit to have only one preferred “shape,” but frequently, this is the case.  Nevertheless, it’s apparent that all spirits enjoy variety.  Every avatar (i.e. physical creature) of a given spirit has its own gender identity.  This may be described in greater detail in another post, and will certainly be described in great detail in my (eventual) upcoming book.

Here is what LDS Relief Society President, Julie B. Beck said on the matter of spiritual gender identity:

“As spirit daughters of God, women ‘received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth’ (D&C 138:56) on the earth. They were among the ‘noble and great ones’ (D&C 138:55) who ‘shouted for joy’ (Job 38:7) at the creation of the earth because they would be given a physical body with the opportunity to be proven in a mortal sphere (see Abraham 3:25). They wished to work side by side with righteous men to accomplish eternal goals that neither can attain independently. Female roles did not begin on earth, and they do not end here. A woman who treasures motherhood on earth will treasure motherhood in the world to come” (“A ‘Mother Heart,’” Liahona and Ensign, May 2004, 76).”

(The Relief Society is the overarching womens’ organization in the Church.  Every adult female is automatically a member.)

So, let me ask you this: from whom did the women gain their lessons about womanhood in the pre-mortal existence?  From their Father?  Doubtful.  They had a Mother, and they learned it from her!  Who was she?  God.  If ever She has an interest in having mortals act in Her name, does she have the power to bestow that authority?  Of course!  What do we call the authority given to act in the name of God?  Priesthood.

Therefore, the authority to act in the name of Heavenly Mother (A.K.A. “The Divine Feminine”) is the female priesthood.  But where did it go?

The LDS Topical Guide contains an almost-comprehensive reference to scriptural passages by topic.  Here is what it says about what I’ve come to believe is the female priesthood:

Witch, Witchcraft

I apologize if this is galling to my wiccan or pagan friends.  Please bear with me, and I’ll explain why it was so.

Two things should be quite clear from the above-quoted scriptures:

1) Judaism, Middle-Eastern Christianity, and Ancient American Christianity (per the Book of Mormon) all expressly forbid witchcraft and sorcery.  (Please see the context of the last citation for clarification, if needed.)
2) Witchcraft, as understood by these peoples, reliably involved men and women using power to abuse others for personal gain, and subvert the patriarchal priesthood.

So, really, it comes down to power–but probably not in the sinister way that naturally comes to mind when I say this.

While I’m not prepared to go into the finer details of how this started, I will provide a summary thereof, based on the revelations I’ve received upon inquiring about the matter.  As with anything I say, I request that you not believe it unless you, too, have asked the Divine and received a confirmation that it’s correct.

Methuselah and Morrigna

In the time of Adam and Eve, men and women were equally powerful, both physically and spiritually.  Together, they co-created the world we know.  This balance was maintained until shortly after Enoch, a prophet, high priest, and king, and his people were translated, ascending into the eternal worlds without tasting death.  Enoch’s son was named, “Methuselah;” and his wife was called, “Morrigna.”  (Note: transliteration from revelation is hard!  People back then didn’t speak English, Hebrew, or any other language with which we’re familiar.  Such names are only correct if thought of as very rough approximations to the originals.)

After the city’s ascent, Methuselah and Morrigna were among the few people remaining on Earth.  There was a crisis, and our species was in danger of extinction as a result of being unable to compete with the wild beasts and preternatural creatures of the day.  So, the two hatched a plan, and the remainder of the people agreed to it.  They would change the balance of power between the genders, so that men would become stronger, both in the ability to change the world through spiritual means, deductive reasoning, inventiveness (i.e. machines and tools), militaristic conquest, and physical prowess.  In exchange, they would become protectors of settlements, while the women, children, and elderly would, theoretically, live a basically peaceful and safe existence.  To accomplish this, they used both the male and female Priesthoods in a great ritual.

Sadly, as it turns out, the power to protect is also the power to dominate.  The men went mad with power, and took to conquering the women, making them subservient to themselves.  Also, they then turned their power to dominate towards each other, seeking to conquer each others’ tribes, villages, cities, and nations.  Among the men, Methuselah was the most powerful.  Among the women, Morrigna was the most powerful.

Morrigna pleaded with Methuselah to come to his senses and help restore the balance of power, but he refused.  At length, she left him, and lived across a stretch of ocean, in a colony comprised primarily of women, with men who would accept women as their equals or betters.

There was a great war between the two factions.  From this, after millennia of corruption, we derive the Ulster Cycle of Irish mythology; the tale of the Japanese witch-queen, Himiko; and several stories of Hindu and other affiliations.

The ultimate outcome of this was that men did everything they could to squash the female source of divine authority–the female Priesthood–and created a world with relatively little gender-contest (since women have been rendered unable to put up a serious fight, in most cases), but substantial oppression of nearly all kinds.  Ever since, the use of “witchcraft,” “sorcery” (by some definitions), and the female Priesthood (by any other name) has, by unfortunate default, been employed largely to undermine patriarchal Priesthood authority in hopes of re-claiming for women what the war of our genders has taken away.  This, however, as history has shown, has been the wrong way of achieving that goal.

The Solution

The female Priesthood still exists, but has been forced into hiding.  Its scriptures have been destroyed or corrupted; its authority has been almost entirely taken from the earth.  Currently, the most powerful manifestations of the female Priesthood I’ve seen–by women with wonderful hearts, enlightened minds, and astonishingly-powerful and pure spirits–have been no greater than the Aaronic or Melchizidek Priesthoods, as they were circa 2,000BC–during the time when most male Priesthood authority was gone from the earth.  Some hold the keys to the ministering of angels.  Some hold the authority to give burnt offerings to female or male deities and receive some minor or moderate blessings in exchange.  Some can give blessings to cure the sick and afflicted (as only very few priesthood holders in the Old Testament could do).  Today, sadly, most holders of the female Priesthood can do almost nothing with it, because they lack the understanding of how to get revelation, the training of mothers and grandmothers who could have otherwise raised them to be powerful priestesses (as men in the LDS Church are taught to do for their sons), and the wisdom found in pure, properly-translated and revelation-purified and -inspired scriptures intended for the edification of female priests.

Nevertheless, there is hope.  All over the world, women are awakening to their divine potential and hungering for the authority to exercise it to its fullest.  Some have been called by Morrigna–A.K.A. “The Morrigan”–to begin to right the mistakes of her era, including bringing to light an understanding of who these aspects of the feminine divine are and were, and what we can learn from them.  Some have begun to openly offer inspiration according to the gifts within them, as women who are acutely touched by divinity.  Some have begun to demand ordination to the priesthood in the LDS Church.

So, I’m going to finally offer the solution to all this: at great length and long finality, an end to the gender war.  So long as the two genders compete, we can’t be whole–and moreover, according to the quotes I posted near the beginning of this “verbal perambulation,” without one another, as equals, we can never become fully-exalted beings.  Until we learn to fully cooperate with one another, we simply cannot become the gods and goddesses we were born become, and our existence in mortality will be eternally frustrated.

So…

Women of the LDS faith: don’t demand the current LDS Priesthood.  Demand the one to which you were already–and always–entitled.

Eternal Truths: Q and A


Foreword:

After being prompted repeatedly (in the spiritual sense) to use my gifts more to help others, I’ve made the offer, below, to several groups on Facebook.  I’m aware that to some, it will sound presumptuous or outright looney.  I hope that those people will either withhold judgment until after praying and meditating on this content; or if not, refrain from commenting.  This post will be updated as questions come in.

The Offer:

I’m about to make a very strange offer. Those of you who know me well probably suspect that I get a lot of curious information from “above.” I’ve recently gotten a strong, “kick in the pants” prompting, so here goes…

My offer is this: if there’s any one thing that you want to know about the nature of reality, the universe, God, etc., ask me, and I’ll tell you. If you don’t believe my offer is genuine, or that I can fulfill it, please pray about it. (In fact, please pray about it, in any case! If you do decide to ask me a question, it’s best to ask one that will actually help you…) This question should not pertain to another person (i.e. please tell me a secret about so-and-so); the offer is for eternal truths, only.

One per person, please (since the answers might take a while to explain). Private messages are welcome.

Questions and Answers

Q: Is murder forgivable? What is the eternal destiny of murderers? Where will they go?

A: Yes and no.  First, we need to define murder.  For the purpose of this question, I believe this definition will suffice:

“The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”

So, this rules out killings in self-defense, and all other killings that have been deemed acceptable by the laws governing a given individual or society.  Why do mortal laws matter?  The short answer is that all people will be judged according to the laws with which they are familiar and understand to be true/valid.  This applies to both mortal and spiritual laws.  Naturally, this gets into the “sticky” topic of moral relativism, which can, itself be broken down into roughly two categories:
1) The sense of morality or ethics that a person has inside, as influenced (but not necessarily dictated by) social and religious norms.
2) The “cop out” that some people use to decide that they can violate what they know to be right, based on the above sense of ethics and morality.  This always requires some amount of self-deception, and is, essentially, invalid in the spiritual sense.  Someone trying to justify this kind of moral relativism might use a phrase like, “it isn’t wrong because I don’t think it’s wrong;” whereas if they truly believed it wasn’t wrong, they would probably say, simply, “there’s nothing wrong with that.”  (Of course, the language used isn’t always a good indicator of what’s happening; try not to judge people falsely because of it.)

So, is the unlawful, premeditated killing of another human being forgivable?  It depends on the level of moral accountability of the person who does it.  A young child (below the age of 8), for example, is not morally-accountable; this is the time when parents are supposed to instill the values of right and wrong.  Similarly, a person who is not sane, or is otherwise mentally-incompetent (such as a person with mental disabilities) is not accountable, in the spiritual sense: they who don’t know right from wrong on a particular issue, and can’t be held accountable for it.  Likewise, a person who, given everything he/she knows, including life experiences, believes that an act of killing is the right thing to do, commits murder (by the definition of others)–well, it’s not murder, so far as that person knows, so in the spiritual sense, it’s 100% forgivable.  (Note: genuine belief is required–not something that they had to talk themselves into, not simple rage/jealousy/whatever, and nothing involving even a “drop” of self-deception.)  Examples of this might include people who grew up in war zones, as well as those who were severely abused by parents or others (to the point of not ever learning right from wrong, or of having to defend themselves outside the allowances of societal norms).  Such people have no “moral compass” telling them it’s wrong, and therefore can’t be held accountable for what they don’t know.

…But what about those who commit murder, knowing fully-well that it’s wrong?  What about those who merely suspected it was wrong, or who did so in a rage, rather than with premeditation?  The best I can tell you is that it’s 100% on a case-by-case basis.  The circumstances do matter.  The level of premeditation does matter.  The level of mental/moral competence at the time of the act, and leading up to it also matter.  So, regardless of what society decides to do, or needs to do about it (such as locking the person up forever, or executing that person, in order to protect the public/set an example, etc.), the level of spiritual forgiveness that such a person can receive is 100% dependent on how that person will feel about when all self-deception is stripped away, and all emotional issues have been worked through.  (Note: this will probably have to happen over a time period that’s greater than that person’s mortal life–hence what many would call “limbo” or “spirit prison.”)

Where do people who committed an unforgivable act go?  Depending on the severity of that act (or acts), they go to roughly one of four places:

“Outer Darkness”: This is reserved for those who have near-absolute enlightenment and do something that goes against everything they know and hold most dear.  Even murder can’t usually land a person here.  A prophet who turns anti-Christ, or a Buddha who becomes a warmonger would probably land here–but it’s not even available to normal folks.

“Lowest Kingdom”: Murderers typically land here.  This place is a lot like our current earth, but people are immortal and unable to progress, spiritually, beyond this kingdom.  (Well, the subject of eternal progression is pretty complicated, but for the sake of brevity, we’ll leave it at this.)  Those who fail to follow even the most basic laws of human decency–after knowing them–belong in this kingdom.  Those who make terrible mistakes and then genuinely and sufficiently “repent”/”find a better path”/etc. and follow through with that commitment do not end up here.  (What “sufficient” means, again, depends on personal circumstances.  Since we can’t undo all of our past mistakes, sometimes, the best we can do must suffice.)  So, in other words, if you already knew that the murder was wrong, and there weren’t substantial mitigating circumstances, then it is, in fact, “murder”–so this is where you land.  It’s hard to express just how horrible this fate is, since we’ve never actually experienced such a thing in mortality.  Consider the worst disappointment you’ve ever felt for yourself, multiply it by infinity (since this is a permanent state), and add knowing that you really did know better, and acted so badly that you got sent here, anyway.  This is what’s referred to in Abrahamic religions as “eternal fire and brimstone.”  Your guilt and self-disappointment will eat you up inside as if it were fire; we just don’t have words to describe it accurately, since mortals always have a chance to progress, whereas those who are stuck here don’t.  This place qualifies for the title, “Hell.”

“Middle Kingdom”: Also a form of “Hell,” since progression is blocked–but a lot nicer.  People who, knowing better, refuse to advance spiritually, but who generally keep mortal laws end up here.  Those who commit murder but genuinely and sincerely repent might end up here, depending on their level of accountability, at the time.  These people, like all of us, had a shot at godhood, and knowingly turned it down.  So, that “fire and brimstone” description, above, still applies, but isn’t as nasty, since they at least didn’t act like complete schmucks.  People who end up here can’t progress beyond being “angels” or similar, but do minister to the lower kingdom, on behalf of the gods.

“Highest Kingdom”: People who killed, but only when they had to, or who didn’t kill at all (assuming this didn’t violate a “higher law,” such as caring for and protecting children, etc.), who did everything in their power to seek spiritual growth end up here.  In essence, this is where “really, really good people” go.  There is eternal progression and eventually godhood for such people, and they minister to the lower kingdoms (often through intermediaries).  Murderers (using the above definition) need not apply.

More Questions and Answers may be forthcoming!   Please feel free to ask anything, as described above!

The Laws of Spirituality


As you read the following, please note that nothing but the last “law” mentioned should be truly satisfactory to any of us.  Do you think you know what it is?  You’re wrong (almost certainly)!

Let this also serve as the “big reveal” for what I truly believe.

Disclaimer:

In fact, I don’t entirely expect anyone to like this post.  I’m about to challenge the beliefs of pretty much everyone on the planet.  I do, however, expect this to be quite fun (yes, my sense of humor is such!), and that, hopefully, by reading this, people will gain a better appreciation for the beliefs of others, and cease to delude themselves quite as much about what it means, or doesn’t mean to be “spiritual.”  I’ll be addressing agnostics, non-denominational spiritualists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and anyone else who has an inkling about there being “something else out there.”  Please try not to be offended, since that precludes learning and teaching, alike.

Also, please note that while I have received rather lengthy and intense personal revelations about much of this, I can’t yet say that my understanding hereof is complete.  Also, in any semi-reasonably-lengthed essay, no matter how complete my understanding may be, I simply can’t fit it all here.  (Indeed, I’ve experienced lifetimes of memories from people who have known these things; I simply can’t write it in a short enough period of linear time to be acceptable to me–or even possible in under about 950 years..)

End Disclaimer.

The Four Laws

I’ll be using a mostly-Christian (specifically LDS) nominclature, but the concepts should work with any set of names.  (Note to my LDS readers: these terms don’t coincide exactly with the Kingdoms of heaven–except for the last two.)  There’s also, in the strictest sense, more than four laws, but I’ll be categorizing them more broadly than the 1,000+ religions of the world would otherwise allow.

Outer Darkness

Outer Darkness is the absence of law.  Strangely, this looks a lot like the Celestial Law (see below), but the motivations behind it are entirely different.

In Outer Darkness, we give no concern for the well-being of others; we have no care for the laws of the land (when they’re just); and would happily say or do anything that’s convenient toward obtaining our ends.

A person without spiritual law will be completely separatist, with regard to fellow beings, except when those beings provide pleasure, entertainment, wealth, or other desirables.  When a person is living this “law,” all cares become ephemeral, with the exception of a given person’s immediate pleasure.

In practical terms, this could be characterized by hedonism (see also: “drunken frat house”), malice (white supremacists, black supremacists, religious bigots, atheist bigots, etc.), warmongers, amoral capitalists, and so on.  If you don’t care what your actions do to anyone else, then you’re here.

This law cannot help a person progress, except by providing inner dissatisfaction and contrast, and thereby prompting a person to seek a higher law.  In that context, this law isn’t necessarily “evil,” so much as woefully lacking: if it helps a person progress to any place above it, then it’s doing its job.  I’d only categorize it as “evil” insomuch as a person has descended here from a higher law, and doesn’t eventually choose to ascend again.

Telestial

This is the law of basic ethics.  If you’re living peaceably on Planet Earth, and don’t fit into either of the following categories, then you’re probably here.

Such things as are included in this law are (by whatever wording, and in no particular order):

-Honor your parents/elders
-Don’t commit murder
-Don’t steal
-Don’t commit adultery (extramarital affairs)
-Don’t lie (including making false accusations)
-Don’t be a nasty to other people (whatever that means in your culture)

Obviously, more such guidelines can be included here; the important thing, is that this is the law of “ethics,” as compared to “morality.”  (Morality is discussed in the following law: “Terrestrial.”)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

This law is fine in a secular sense–in that it does a fair job of “keeping society intact.”  If everybody lived this law, we’d be doing alright.  Of course, many people live only the aforementioned one, and we should hope that something better than simply “getting along” is possible.  See below!

Terrestrial

This is the law of morality.  Herein, we expand on the basic guidelines set forth in the “Telestial Law” to include things like:

-You shall have no other gods/religions before this one (relative to whatever religion one subscribes to)
-Keep the Sabbath Day holy (several Abrahamic sects)
-Don’t seethe a yew in its mother’s milk (Judaism/”Law of Moses”)
-Do not kill animals (certain Hindu sects)
-Meditate daily (Buddhism and other religions)
-Do not consume alcohol (“Mormonism,” some Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.)
-Treat others as you want to be treated/”Golden Rule” (Please note: I include this under “morality” because this notion wasn’t popular in most of the world for most of humanity’s existence.  Organized/popular religions brought this notion to popularity.  This is not to be confused with “charity”/true altruism/compassion/pure love!  This is just reciprocal altruism that’s been upgraded slightly.)
-Learn martial traditions to help secure your sovereignty (Morrigan Wicca)
-Hold nature to be sacred, and treat it accordingly (druidism; many Wiccan sects; some pagan sects)
-Alcohol (especially mead) is a sacred blend of fire and water.  What you speak over it in ritual is binding.  (Norse paganism)

Basically, ANY tenet that is subscribed to in religion that isn’t commonly subscribed-to in “ethics” belongs in this list.

…But why isn’t this satisfactory?

We can clearly see that the unintended result of people having morality is that of all moral people hating each other (except those whose morality is nearly exactly the same as that of a given individual).  Even though we’ve mostly gotten over the insane desire to crusade across the planet and kill “non-believers” (a misnomer in almost any case, since nearly everybody believes something), many Muslims still hate Christians; many Christians still hate non-“mainstream” Christians (often including Mormons and Catholics) and anyone who isn’t, in fact, mainstream Christians; many Mormons still hate Pagans and Wiccans; nearly every Pagan seems to hate basically any Abrahamic faith (usually with some good reasons, if only historical ones); Hindus often look down upon other faiths (for a variety of reasons)–in spite of being a generally-inclusive religion; Buddhists (in all their great tranquility) tent to hate people for not being free of hate; and for that matter, pretty much everyone in the world still hates anyone else whose beliefs differ much from their own.  In fact, how many religionists/spiritualists have real, deep respect for those who do not appear to have any faith (or who genuinely don’t)?  Have you ever met an atheist who, at some level, doesn’t disrespect religionists?  I know I haven’t.

But let’s not discount religious morality, yet.  Even putting aside Pascal’s Wager, religious law does at last three wonderful things for us:

1) Help us to put aside our vices, so as to better learn self control and ultimately obtain our greater goals.
2) Teach us beneficial things that we could not have otherwise known.  This includes health laws, such as avoiding foods that could not be properly prepared in a reliably safe fashion at the time (pork and shell fish for Ancient Israel, for example); and teaching us to avoid things that can ensnare us (alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, sexual addiction, etc.).  This also includes greater spiritual truths, such as are easier to obtain while living a certain way (meditation, avoiding intoxicants, prayer, etc.).  I’ll also point out again that one of the first people to popularize the idea of the “Golden Rule” (if not the first) was Jesus Christ and his followers–and this idea was considered utterly radical, at the time.  The world is quite obviously better as a result of that notion (insomuch as we practice it).
3) Set the stage for us to see the folly of this and each law below it, in order to progress to the (in my understanding) highest law: “the Celestial Law.”

Celestial

Put simply, this law can be summed up as “compassion,” “charity” (as the term is used in the Bible, not as it’s used popularly), or “pure love of all beings.”  In this law, there are no other strictures: you do as you wish, so long as you are loving of others in your thoughts, intentions, and actions.  You put the love of others on par with your love for yourself (see also: the “second greatest commandment,” according to Christ, when questioned about it).  This law is the one whereby we can truly become gods–just as the Buddhas ascended; just as did Morrigan; just as did Christ, Enoch, and others.  So, what is the “greatest commandment,” according to Jesus?  To love God above all else.  Who is God, when we get right down to it?  The human race.

I know that many will scoff at this notion; but are scriptures (of all denominations) not replete with the notion that we are “children of God;” that we participated in the creation of all-that-is; that “as man is, God once was; as God now is, man may become?”  Some versions of Genesis don’t say “God did this…” they say, “the gods did this.”  Hindu texts speak of a man who changed the constellations of heaven to compel the gods to act–but who can do so, but one who is already their equal?  I realize that those who do not want to be convinced of this simply won’t be, so I’ll leave this point where it stands; but before I end my present argument, please consider that no spiritual truth can be proven or disproven.  What you now know is something you know inside, but you cannot deductively convince anyone else of it; you can only testify that it’s the case.  I know that we are already gods, living under the illusion of disempowerment.

(If you’re of the LDS faith, and you want to know where Kolob is, look upward at noon!  Think of concentric spheres around the earth: these are the kingdoms that mortals don’t typically see.  Also reference: “Celestial Earth as an Urim and Thummim.  How can the higher kingdoms see everything?  They look down.)

All of this being said, it’s not nearly so easy to live this law and ascend as it might sound.  (My “awakened” friends, I’m looking at you!)  How can we have pure love of all beings if we are still selfish?  How can we be unselfish if we are not in control of our appetites (which is to say, not ruled by addictions of any kind, including to hedonism in its various forms)?  How can we learn to control our appetites without first placing some reasonable, (and usually temporary) prohibitions upon ourselves, until such a time as we no long need them?  If we’re busy craving alcohol, sex, nicotine, marijuana (yes, it’s addictive, if only psychologically), gossip, video games (yes, I’m still working on this one), or anything else that places the spirit in subjugation to the flesh and carnal mind, then we’re not fully living this law.  Now, don’t get me wrong; if we’re not having lots of fun, we’re doing it wrong!

To illustrate this last point, I’m going to briefly discuss the main chakra nodes (please bear with me; I’ll explain why this is important, shortly):

Note: various traditions define chakras differently.  Also, there are a lot more than are listed here–all over our bodies.  Of certain note are those in the palms of the hands, which are extremely adept at giving and receiving energy.  The classic “stigmatas”–hands, wrists, and feet–all pierce very noteworthy/powerful chakra points.

0) Between the feet.  This is the last place energy goes before it grounds.  It can come down from the root chakra (1) or out the balls of the feet.  This chakra node seems to deal entirely with waste elimination, and should not “spin” like the others; it should be an “open valve.”

1) Root chakra, at the tip of the tailbone.  Deals with waste elimination and basic physical needs (food, water, air, heat, etc.).  Energy impasses often cause problems for this chakra, and can result in numerous helath problems.  If you aren’t getting your basic needs met, or are blocked elsewhere, you will be perpetually unhealthy.

2) Sacral chakra, in the lower belly, between the stomach and tailbone.  Men: this is centered between the testes and anus.  Women: this is centered in the uterus.  This deals mostly with reproduction and sexuality, and certain aspects of creativity.  Blockages in this chakra can cause, among many other things, urinary problems, blockages in the heart chakra, and reproductive issues.  Those who perpetually deny their sexual needs (even if for good reason, as noted above, under the Terrestrial law) tend to have blockages here, and will feel sort-of “dead,” inside.  This can also lead to over-rationalism and fear of emotional intimacy.

3) Digestive chakra, centered in the stomach.  Eating foods that disagree with you, gluttony, starvation, and long-term emotional problems (among other things) will cause blockages in this area.  This can cause lower back pain, digestive problems, adrenal problems (and other endocrine problems, as with the other chakras), and more.  If you find yourself not taking pleasure in food, you might end up with a problem here.  Also, those with chronic depression, anxiety, repressed (or over-expressed) anger will have no end to problems here, until those problems are resolved.  Also includes the gallbladder and issues surrounding it (see: Chinese medicine).  This node is also the seat of personal power, so denying/repressing your personal power will cause problems here.  (In a society wherein “rocking the boat” too much causes problems, this is something of an epidemic.  See also: Ritalin.)

4) Heart chakra.  This is where theists tend to have a lot of problems.  We commonly get so tied up in what’s doctrinally “proper” that we forget to care about ourselves and others; we care perfunctorily, but we never really care.  In other words, for all the teachings to love our fellow beings (every religion seems to have this thesis, when you “boil them down”), we get so caught up in the details of how to to love that we entirely forget how to love!  I’m currently attending a church congregation wherein this problem is present in fairly epic proportions.  Blockages in the heart chakra occur when a person feels hurt, unloved, denied the “good things in life,” and so on.  Blockages in the heart chakra will destroy your social, family, and romantic life; they’ll cause people to be suspicious of you (especially certain kinds of empaths, particularly “Crystal Children”); they can even make you wish you were never born (literally).  What’s more, every part of our bodies need energy from the heart (in the form of love) to live and thrive.  If your heart is blocked, no amount of medicine will help you become fully whole.  The paradox, here, is that if we open our hearts and let that energy flow outward, our hearts will produce much more energy than we’re letting out!  If you want more of the good things of life; if you want to be loved; if you want to not be hurt (even if somebody does bad things to you), then the way to do that is to give love!  Conversely, if you find yourself shying away from someone whose heart chakra is blocked, because it’s blocked, you’re only making it worse!  If you want to help someone heal, you need to love them, not exclude them.  You’ll find that after a while of this, you’ll have this love returned, in kind (usually), or at least, you won’t be devastated if it’s not.

Special note: To church congregations and the spiritualist groups: if you can’t show love to those whom you find unnattractive in some way (especially those with hurt feelings and closed heart chakras), don’t call yourselves Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, (insert religion name here), or awakened beings; it insults the rest of us and drives people away from the light and knowledge over which you have stewardship.

5) Throat chakra: communication.  Speak your mind!  If you fail to do so when you feel the need, you’re damaging your throat chakra.  This can result in breathing problems, voice problems, glandular problems, etc.  You have light!  You have truth!  Your opinions and needs are valid!  The world needs you and your ideas.

6) “Third Eye.”  Located just above your nose, on your forehead, this is the spiritual organ that allows you to see into the spirit world.  Prophets, mystics, psychics, empaths, Buddhas, Messiahs, and others all have this chakra developed and “opened” to a certain degree.  The more open it is, the more you see and know, beyond your “natural senses” (technically a misnomer).  Also, it makes you more vulnerable to outside energies–to the extent that until you “grow into” your “second sight,” you may experience long periods of illness due to “energy overload:” you might be overwhelmed by thoughts, ideas, sights, sounds, smells, etc. that are somehow outside your physical senses.  You may find yourself getting a lot of colds and flus.  Being in crowds can be unbearable without learning certain “tricks” and eventually getting tougher to the energies of others.  On the other side, though, a fully open third eye sees everything.  The spirit realm, the past, the future, distant sight (and other senses), telepathy, etc. are all yours if you manage to open this fully.  For most people, this takes a lifetime, but it’s an amazing and extremely worthwhile journey.  This also opens the door to real “magick.”  (Also a misnomer, since you’re really just tapping into “real” reality, rather than the illusion that’s before us.)  While affecting things in the material realm (not just the spiritual realm) is usually extremely difficult, I can tell you from personal experience that it’s possible.  Even so, most people who open their third eyes learn how to “manifest” things–like getting what they want/need, seemingly out of nowhere, often with little or no effort.  If you’re looking to learn how to manifest, go here.  If you’re one of my personal friends (or a friend of a friend) and want help opening your third eye, I’ll be happy help you do so.  (Keep in mind, if you’re not ready for this part of your journey, don’t try to force it!  It’s best to start when you feel ready.)  Those who open their third eyes also begin to see the truth in all religions, independent of the mores of their current ones.  This is important, as we’ll shortly discuss.

7) “Crown,” “Divinity,” or “Lotus” chakra, positioned atop the head.  This is how we contact and receive communication from the divine.  (To my LDS readers: have you ever wondered why priesthood blessings are given through the top of the head?)  If your 7th chakra is open, you can speak with deities, hear the “still small voice,” and find your place in heaven.  You can contact your own divinity through this chakra, and affect the world as the gods do.  The degree to which you open this is the degree to which you can begin accessing the chakras above the 7th.  Many traditions consider there to be 12.  I hold there to be a functionally infinite number that “loops around,” such that our current 12 are really in the middle of a kind of “eternal cycle” of divinity.  See Joseph Smith’s teachings on this.  It’s currently held that one who fully opens his 12th chakras, and all below it ascends. (“Transfiguration,” “translation,” etc. hint at this meaning.)

For more on chakras, go here.

The thing about living the celestial law is that we cannot fully do so without activating all our major chakras.

What does this mean for the law, itself?  It means that at some point, all prohibitions must be done away, because whatsoever we deny ourselves is something that our spirits want to experience, but are being prohibited from experiencing.  Does this mean we should all go out and do methamphetamines?  Of course not–unless you feel like this is truly important for your spiritual growth.  The problem, of course, is that if you take such an incredibly addictive, destructive drug, you’ll also do damage to your ability to master your own cravings.  Also, you might do permanent damage the temple that is your body.  (A “temple” is the house of a god/goddess, right?  We live in our bodies; therefore they are our own, personal temples!)  Similarly, if you feel the need to have sex, you must also accept that there is a price to pay–emotionally, physically, socially, whatever–and that you must not let it become a vice for you, or otherwise prevent you from becoming the highest “self” that you ultimately can become (or, more precisely, become again).

So, in other words, to deny ourselves something we feel the need to experience, when we’re able to handle that experience forces us to keep certain chakras closed, to some degree.

We are here in mortality to experience things that are not possible to experience outside of mortality.  This includes both unpleasant and pleasant things.  It includes things that are generally “safe” and things that can imprison us.  What kind or mortality would this be if our spirits left it with anything short of the knowledge and experiences that we initially set out to gain?  (Obviously, this includes a lot of unpleasant experiences, as should by evident by recalling any of our own lives.)  Nevertheless, what kind of spirits would we become if we acted in this capacity, but not out of charity, wisdom, and the desire to ultimately become better?

Therefore, the greatest, and highest possible law–to my current knowledge (having not yet ascended [again])–once we understand all that we need to in order to live it well, is one word:

LOVE.

The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians

Chapter 13

Paul discusses the high status of charity—Charity, a pure love, excels and exceeds almost all else.

 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not acharity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of aprophecy, and understand all bmysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the apoor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

aCharitybsuffereth long, and is ckind; charity denvieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself aunseemlybseeketh not her own, is not easily cprovoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in ainiquity, but rejoiceth in the btruth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never afaileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a aglassbdarkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth afaithbhopeccharity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

–Dane Mutters, 2013