This is my response to a recent video produced by the LDS Church on the nature of God. My reinterpretation moves away from the supernatural dualistic interpretation, towards a more immanent nondualistic interpretation of the Divine.
We often think that Jesus was the "only begotten," but was he the only one that God begat? What else was "born" from that divine Source?
Did Jesus come back from the dead, or should we look deeper for the truth of resurrection?
We operate from two identities simultaneously during our life, but one of those identities is greater, and is the one that we should strive to know, and be One with.
Eternal life is not eternal if it doesn't exist right now, because that which is eternal has no beginning or end. We either have eternal life now, or we don't have it. Because you are reading this now, you can be sure you have it, even if you don't know it for yourself.
There seems to be an ongoing discussion on the nature of the ego in mysticism and mystical transcendence. On the one hand, some say that the ego-self does not die, but is transformed. On the other hand, some say that ego-self does die, and something else emerges in its place. Which is more accurate? Or could they both have truth?
A few days ago I had the opportunity to see the film Mary Magdalene (2018), which is a biblical drama of the ministry of Jesus, taking interest in the person of Mary Magdalene, as she may have seen it from her point of view. It depicts how she resists the status quo of her family and traditional society, how she is looking for deeper meaning in her life, and how she comes to be a follower of Jesus.
At this time of year the Christian world celebrates the birth of Jesus during a holy day we call Christmas. This birth happened some two thousand years ago, which brought into the world a man who many billions of people today have come to adore and worship as both human and divine.
A short poem.
A kind reader reached out to me and asked me to elaborate how my writings about the nature of God work with Joseph Smith's First Vision, since it seems that his vision was meant to "clear up the confusion" surrounding the nature of God, the prevailing idea that God "was not made with body, parts or passions." Wasn't "the point" of his vision to "define for the world who/what God was"?