From michael@newearth.org Thu Apr 2 04:16:45 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:16:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: LUCERNA: Who is here In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Friends, Here is what the Lucerna mailing list looked like when I sent out the opening message. Addresses with (ANONYMOUS) beside them are not registered in the NewEarth Directory. michael@newearth.org (Michael V. David) hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net (Sherry Huss-Fulmer) fairgrey@iafrica.com (ANONYMOUS) [Meg & Dennis Jordan] lorin@newearth.org (Lori Jane Nelson) JHOdhner@aol.com (Julien H. Odhner II) myardumi@newchurch.edu (ANONYMOUS) [Mira Yardumian] swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens; Swedenborgiana NL) JohnOdhner@aol.com (John L. Odhner) harrisb@poboxes.com (Byron & Emily Harris) bardbyte@idt.net (Jill Sophia Fein) Of the ten of us, at least four are not card-carrying members of The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma. I think this is a good sign, and indicates that the doctrine that inspired the formation of this group can be useful and enlightening to people in a variety of church settings. I am feeling some disappointment at getting no response from a number of people who I think belong here, but it's time to go forward anyway. Please feel free to introduce yourselves and tell us about your interest in the ideas that this group represents. In His Light, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From michael@newearth.org Thu Apr 2 04:26:15 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 09:26:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: LUCERNA: Courses for the Church Message-ID: Dear Friends, I received a message from Hugh Odhner about some new courses of study that are in process of formation in the Philadelphia Society of the Lord's New Church. It's possible that we may want to use Lucerna to work in parallel with some of this activity, especially the course on 'De Hemelsche Leer'. In His Light, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Philadelphia Society of the Lord's New Church which is Nova Hierosolyma is happy to offer the following courses to members and friends of the Church and to those who are interested in the teachings of the Lord' New Church. 1. INQUIRERS CLASS - This course is intended as a general introduction and survey of the Doctrines of the New Church. Designed especially for those interested in learning about the teachings of the New Church and for the young adults of the Church, it will focus on the ABC's of the New Church presented in the light of the Doctrine of the Lord's New Church. 2. UKRAINIAN INQUIRERS CLASS - A course in the Ukrainian language for those interested in the teachings of the New Church. 3. DE HEMELSCHE LEER COURSE - This course is designed to study the volumes of De Hemelsche Leer magazine. Taking a doctrinal/historical approach, this course will begin with a study of the pamphlet "The Beginning and Development of Doctrine in the New Church, then proceed to study the 12th, 20th, and 26th Chapters of the Arcana Coelestia, before studying the three English volumes of De Hemelsche Leer magazine. Initial class size will be limited to 16 participants with 4 to 5 seats reserved for isolated participants who will participate using cassette tapes, e-mail, fax, or letters. Some written work will be required. This course is open to all who seek to gain an understanding of the foundational documents and Doctrines of the Lord's New Church which is Nova Hierosolyma. 4. THE PARNASSIUM GROUP - Taking its name from TCR 693 and its aim from TCR 48, this group will meet and comunicate to discuss, study, and form conclusions concerning Doctrinal issues and questions. This is intended to be a doctrinal work group with its focus on the development and protection of the Doctrine of the Church as a function of the ascending line of the Church. It is open to all baptized members of the Church who are prepared to study, read, and write things pertaining to the Doctrine of the Lord's New Church which is Nova Hierosolyma. Those wishing to sign up for any of these courses must contact the Pastor's office at 215-947-6845 (e-mail: DMSever@aol.com) before Thursday, April 9, 1998. Those who wish to participate but who do not reside in the Philadelphia area are encouraged to enroll and will participate in the courses through the use of cassette tapes, letters, e-mail, fax, and other means of communication. It is hoped that by means of these courses the members and friends of the Church will be educated, enlightened, and drawn closer together as together they study and learn from the Word and the Doctrine of the Church. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His Justice, and all things shall be added to you." From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Thu Apr 2 04:29:58 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Swedenborgiana NL) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 16:29:58 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: Characters involved. Message-ID: <01bd5e43$cff06560$LocalHost@gj> Some of the older members of the Lord's New Church which is Nova Hierosolyma in Holland, who witnessed the separation from the General Church in the 1930's, recently told me [the youngest NL member 'non grata'] the following: "The separation had more to do with the characters involved then with doctrinal differences between GC and Nova". Are there others on the Lucerna list who have an opinion on this ? Sincerely, Guus Janssens. __________________________ S W E D E N B O R G I A N A Postbus 7338 - 4800 GH Breda - NL email swedenborgiana@tip.nl internet http://www.newearth.org/swedenborgiana & http://www.tip.nl/users/swedenborgiana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael@newearth.org Thu Apr 2 06:22:12 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:22:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: LUCERNA: Characters involved. In-Reply-To: <01bd5e43$cff06560$LocalHost@gj> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Swedenborgiana NL wrote: > Some of the older members of the Lord's New Church which > is Nova Hierosolyma in Holland, who witnessed the > separation from the General Church in the 1930's, recently > told me [the youngest NL member 'non grata'] the > following: "The separation had more to do with the > characters involved then with doctrinal differences > between GC and Nova". Are there others on the Lucerna > list who have an opinion on this ? Hi Guus, I usually feel a defensive reaction to the suggestion that personalities caused the split. Sometimes blaming the split on personalities is connected in people's minds with the idea that the doctrinal ideas were also nothing more than an expression of people's personalities. Since I believe that the doctrinal ideas that came out of the Hague Society are from the Lord, I reject that connection. However, I do think the observation is accurate in itself, judging from my reading of 'De Hemelsche Leer' and 'New Church Life' and other publications of the time. I do get the impression that people's personalities were a large factor in the split that happened. To my mind, it was the Lord's will that the Doctrine be born, and His permission that human beings responded in a political way. I think the split was allowed to happen, to create greater freedom to preserve, apply and develop the Doctrine. When I defined the mission of "Lucerna" I had in mind to re-focus on the doctrinal ideas themselves as ideas potentially useful to all people, and be less concerned with the fact that churches have been formed and divided on account of these ideas. The Doctrine of the Church has been given by the Lord to all people. The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma has a special mission to advocate, apply and work to develop this Doctrine, but does not define the entire scope of its usefulness. I had a conversation some months ago with a man who is a priest in the General Church. We talked about the difficulties that have come up in the LNCNH, and he said that it worried him that the LNCNH might cease to exist, because he felt that it was important that a group of people somewhere in the world be engaged in the study of the Latin Word from an explicit acknowledgment of Its spiritual sense. What he said reminded me of the way that different organs of the body depend on each other. He was acknowledging that he depended on another of the "internal organs" of the larger church, even though his own field of participation was elsewhere. A healthy body unites many distinct parts into one whole being. When an embryo begins to form, at first it is a single cell, and later a little ball of cells, that all look the same. As the number keeps increasing, the shape begins to change, and the cells begin to differentiate. After a certain point, the differentiated cells become committed to being a certain kind of tissue, and cannot change into something else. Eventually, the various organs form, and in many cases, part of that formation includes a skin or membrane that separates and distinguishes that organ from its surroundings, and protects it from invasion by surrounding tissues. This process includes, not just the building of the new tissues, but the breakdown and destruction of connections that are no longer needed. Still the circulatory system (spiritual church?) and nervous system (celestial church?) tie all of these organs together, enter into all of them, and allow them to participate in the greater being that is their purpose. In creation, the Lord maintains a remarkable balance of individuality and relatedness. Our natural human tendency is to go just one way or the other, either by kicking out those who are different, or by imposing artificial unity on things that need to be separate. The embryo in my illustration above could not survive if it kicked out every new organ that differentiated itself. Nor could it survive by remaining in its primitive, undifferentiated state. I think the differentiation of churches is something like this. As we grow up more, I think we will become better at seeing our role in the whole body more clearly, and distinguishing between divisions that help our usefulness, like the protecting membrane around an organ, and those that are harmful, like a knife wound that divides what should be together. Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Thu Apr 2 07:35:18 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Swedenborgiana NL) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 19:35:18 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: Opening Lucerna Message-ID: <01bd5e5d$b46f3b80$LocalHost@gj> Dear Michael, Thank you for your prayer at the opening of Lucerna. May we be gathered in the Lord's Name. Aline & Guus. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Michael David Aan: lucerna@novahierosolyma.org Datum: donderdag 2 april 1998 16:11 Onderwerp: LUCERNA: Opening Lucerna >Dear Lord, we know that You are with us in Your Word, and >that through Your Word You can fill our minds from inmosts >to outmosts with Your presence. We acknowledge that You have >led us to this point, and strive to remain open to Your >leading on the path forward. We thank You for the gift of >understanding and insight that You have given throughout the >history of Your Church. We strive to raise the lamp that You >have lit for us, to light up the path ahead of us, knowing >that the lamp is Yours, the light is Yours, and the strength >to walk is Yours. We praise and thank You, Lord. Amen. >Michael V. David ___________forwarded messege________________ Dear Friends, Here is what the Lucerna mailing list looked like when I sent out the opening message. Addresses with (ANONYMOUS) beside them are not registered in the NewEarth Directory. michael@newearth.org (Michael V. David) hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net (Sherry Huss-Fulmer) fairgrey@iafrica.com (ANONYMOUS) [Meg & Dennis Jordan] lorin@newearth.org (Lori Jane Nelson) JHOdhner@aol.com (Julien H. Odhner II) myardumi@newchurch.edu (ANONYMOUS) [Mira Yardumian] swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens; Swedenborgiana NL) JohnOdhner@aol.com (John L. Odhner) harrisb@poboxes.com (Byron & Emily Harris) bardbyte@idt.net (Jill Sophia Fein) Of the ten of us, at least four are not card-carrying members of The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma. I think this is a good sign, and indicates that the doctrine that inspired the formation of this group can be useful and enlightening to people in a variety of church settings. I am feeling some disappointment at getting no response from a number of people who I think belong here, but it's time to go forward anyway. Please feel free to introduce yourselves and tell us about your interest in the ideas that this group represents. In His Light, Michael From JohnOdhner@aol.com Thu Apr 2 11:57:00 1998 From: JohnOdhner@aol.com (JohnOdhner) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 16:57:00 EST Subject: LUCERNA: Characters involved. Message-ID: Dear Guus, > "The separation had more to do with the characters involved > then with doctrinal differences between GC and Nova". > Are there others on the Lucerna list who have an opinion on > this? I agree with what Michael said about this. The doctrinal issues are important in that they spring from celestial origins. If it were not for our human selfishness, I believe the differing points of view might have been embraced by one organization in a healthy way. Or, the new organization could have been born in a healthy way. But this is past, and our task now is to bring about as much charity as we can between people and organizations in the New Church, so all can benefit from the special gifts the Lord has given each one. Love, John From JohnOdhner@aol.com Thu Apr 2 12:45:28 1998 From: JohnOdhner@aol.com (JohnOdhner) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 17:45:28 EST Subject: LUCERNA: Inner Meaning of CL Message-ID: <1731c398.3524150b@aol.com> Dear Friends, I have been wondering for a long time about the work Conjugial Love. On the literal level, it is a book about the relationship between husband and wife. The general sense of the letter, and also the inner meaning, teach that a true marital relationship is from the marriage of the Lord and the Church. On the deepest level, this book is not about natural marriage, but about celestial and Divine marriage. Everything that is said about natural marriage in that book must be telling us something correspondentially about spiritual, heavenly and Divine marriage. Therefore, a person who is enlighted should be able to see the Lord (that is, the marriage of the Divine and the Human) within everything that is said about natural marriage in the letter. I get glimpses of this now and then, but I mostly feel that I need a brighter lamp than I have now. Let me focus on one particular teaching. "In itself the intelligence of women is modest, elegant, pacific, yielding, gentle, tender; and the intelligence of a men in itself is grave, harsh, hard, spirited, fond of licence." (CL 218). Where husband and wife represent the Lord (as in the marriage of Abraham and Sarah), the husband represents the Lord's love, and the wife represents the Lord's wisdom. I am inclined to think that one reason why a wife can represent the Lord's wisdom when a husband cannot, is that her wisdom is more like the Lord's--more celestial, more directly from Him. The intelligence of a man is by comparison more like the rational truth represented by Ishmael. Ishmael represented an aspect of the maternal human, rather than the Divine Human. Similarly, it would seem to me that the hard, harsh, spirited intelligence of men can represent the human that was put off, but not the Divine Human wisdom in the Lord. When you read this and other similar statements about natural marriage in the literal sense of CL, what do you see of the Lord in the inner meaning? Do you see the male fierceness representing something of the infirm human that had to be put off? or do you see right through that fierce intelligence in the male to the masculine love that is within, and within that masculine love see the Lord's Divine Love? Or is this an example of where is it better to study the letter, and not use correspondences to get at the inner meaning (SS 56)? Am I making any sense at all? I am looking forward to any light you can offer me, and I am grateful for a forum in which to discuss the inner meaning of the Latin Word. Love, John From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Fri Apr 3 12:28:31 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Swedenborgiana NL) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 00:28:31 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: 'Hemelse Leer' is not exclusively for 'Novas' Message-ID: <01bd5f4f$d500daa0$LocalHost@gj> Michael wrote: >Hi Guus, > >I usually feel a defensive reaction to the suggestion that >personalities caused the split. Sometimes blaming the split >on personalities is connected in people's minds with the >idea that the doctrinal ideas were also nothing more than an >expression of people's personalities. Since I believe that >the doctrinal ideas that came out of the Hague Society are >from the Lord, I reject that connection. I agree with you Michael, there is much more involved then characters only. The quote was used deliberately, to illustrate that the appreciation of the Nova Hierosolyma Doctrines, at least in this country, is influenced by the level of understanding of these by the priesthood. In this current exemple unfortunately in a negative sence. >However, I do think the observation is accurate in itself, >judging from my reading of 'De Hemelsche Leer' and 'New >Church Life' and other publications of the time. I do get >the impression that people's personalities were a large >factor in the split that happened. According to my information the Society in Holland wanted to remain within the General Church as an independent diocees of the GC. After the removal of its pastor from and by the GC, the Society choosed to re-institute the New Church with a new name. So separation originaly was not intended. >To my mind, it was the >Lord's will that the Doctrine be born, and His permission >that human beings responded in a political way. I think the >split was allowed to happen, to create greater freedom to >preserve, apply and develop the Doctrine. > >When I defined the mission of "Lucerna" I had in mind to >re-focus on the doctrinal ideas themselves as ideas >potentially useful to all people, and be less concerned with >the fact that churches have been formed and divided on >account of these ideas. The Doctrine of the Church has been >given by the Lord to all people. The Lord's New Church Which >Is Nova Hierosolyma has a special mission to advocate, apply >and work to develop this Doctrine, but does not define the >entire scope of its usefulness. I agree. It can be useful to all people. And especialy all who read Swedenborg's books as a relegious revelation. Because of its usefulness it is the responsibility of all who recieved some understanding of the Third Testament, that this be preserved, applied and develloped. In your way you are applying this by being the engine for NewEarth - in another way Aline & I try to do something simular through Swedenborgiana - Meg does so with EK - and various other exemples of recent, active and concerned membership can be added. >I had a conversation some months ago with a man who is a >priest in the General Church. We talked about the >difficulties that have come up in the LNCNH, and he said >that it worried him that the LNCNH might cease to exist, >because he felt that it was important that a group of people >somewhere in the world be engaged in the study of the Latin >Word from an explicit acknowledgment of Its spiritual sense. The Lord in His providence will see to it that there is such a group on earth. Ultimately for the sake of all mankind and the heavens. But that does not necesarely mean within a Nova Hierosolyma NC organization. Often I have met and communicated with members of other Swedenborgian organizations and found more understanding and appreciation, then opposition for the Nova Hierosolyma doctrines; so these doctrines are not exclusive or even unique in that sence ! A fine exemple I do recall, was one evening when I did a period of studies at the New Church College [UK]. I was invited to speak about my appreciation of the Third Testament, or rather the Second Comming Revelation as the Brittish Conference friends prefer to say. Then I was introduced as a 'young Dutch Nova' and invited to speak and explain to an audience what made Nova special. So I did my very best and the people of that parish in downtown Manchester were interested and even amused [probably also due to my Dutch accent and idiom]. Most of these people had normal jobs and education, no theologians, latinists or academics. After over half an hour of 'hemelse leer'-statements in my best English, an older lady asked me: "Guus we understand and like the way you talk about the New Church, but when are you finaly going to tell us something realy new, because we feel and think simular things about the 2nd Comming Revelation as you do, so we must all be Novas too!". The audience agreed and it became an instructive, entertaining and long pleasant evening. So you see that the Heavenly Doctrines are not exclusive for - or in - the Lord's New Church which is Nova Hierosolyma. Actualy it is often better understood by socalled 'simple' people, and even also appart from the Latin. Many more exemples could be added, but I asume there is hardly any misunderstanding about this on this email list ? --- Like others already expressed, I also liked your comparison of the differentiation of churches with the growth of the human organs, Michael. Thank you, and kind regards, Guus. swedenborgiana@tip.nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael@newearth.org Sat Apr 4 07:45:36 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 12:45:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: LUCERNA: Inner Meaning of CL In-Reply-To: <1731c398.3524150b@aol.com> Message-ID: Hi John, I have been thinking about this, but not writing down much. Something that did come to my attention, that might bear on the general meaning of _Married Love_/_Conjugial Love_ is this: In the series of published works, _Conjugial Love_ came right after _Apocalypse Revealed_. _Apocalypse Revealed_ deals with the judgment on those tendencies represented by the Dragon and Babylon, and ends with the vision of the New Church as the Lord's Bride. The end of the last chapter (22) and of the book, is explained in these ways: Under "The content of the whole chapter" : The betrothal (vers. 17,20,21). Under "The content of each verse" : 20. The One testifying these things says, Indeed I am coming quickly [, Amen]. Come indeed, Lord Jesus signifies the Lord Who has revealed the Apocalypse, and now has opened it, testifying the glad tidings that in His Own Divine Human, Which He took upon Himself in the world and glorified, He is coming as the Bridegroom and Husband, and that the Church as the Bride and Wife will long for Him. At the end of the chapter: [962:13] After these things were concluded in that magnificent Council they rose up, and the guardian angel came out of the treasure chamber bringing to each one of those who sat upon the seats shining garments interwoven here and there with golden threads, and he said, 'Take the WEDDING GARMENTS.' And they were conducted in glory into the Christian New Heaven, with which the Lord's Church on earth, which is the New Jerusalem, is to be conjoined. Apoc. xxii 21. THE GRACE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST BE WITH YOU ALL: Amen. In general, the impression I get is of an invitation to a wedding, which is about to happen. Consider the possibility that, in the series of the Word, the next published book is about that wedding. Then, regarding _Conjugial Love_ as being about the marriage of the Lord and the Church is not departing from the letter, but viewing it in the context in which it was written. I think we are told somewhere that Solomon's many wives and concubines represented the ways in which the Lord can be with people of many religions. I wonder if some of the teachings in the second part of _Conjugial Love_ have a similar meaning. I'm still thinking about what you said. Love, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From JohnOdhner@aol.com Sat Apr 4 16:07:45 1998 From: JohnOdhner@aol.com (JohnOdhner) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 21:07:45 EST Subject: LUCERNA: Inner Meaning of CL Message-ID: <8125f2c6.3526e774@aol.com> Dear Michael, In a message dated 4/4/98 9:46:06 AM, you wrote: >In general, the impression I get is of an invitation to a >wedding, which is about to happen. Consider the possibility >that, in the series of the Word, the next published book is >about that wedding. Then, regarding _Conjugial Love_ as >being about the marriage of the Lord and the Church is not >departing from the letter, but viewing it in the context in >which it was written. That is a beautiful connection. Thanks. >I think we are told somewhere that Solomon's many wives and >concubines represented the ways in which the Lord can be >with people of many religions. The people themselves represented the Church, the king represented the Lord, David representing the Lord who was to come into the world and Solomon the Lord after His Coming. Because the Lord after the glorification of His Human had power over heaven and earth, as He Himself says in Matt. xxviii. 18, therefore Solomon who represented Him appeared in glory and magnificence, and possessed wisdom above all the kings of the earth, and also built the temple. Moreover, he permitted and established the forms of worship of many nations, by which were represented the various religions in the world. His wives, who numbered seven hundred and his concubines who numbered three hundred (1 Kings x. 3), had a similar signification, for a "wife" in the Word signifies the Church and a "concubine" a form of religion. - Divine Providence #245 [4] That those ancients had concubines besides a wife, as was the case not only with Abraham and Jacob, but also with their descendants, as Gideon (Judges viii. 31), Saul (2 Sam. iii. 7), David (2 Sam. v. 13; xv. 16), and Solomon (1 Kings xi. 3), was of permission, for the sake of the representation, namely, of the celestial church by a wife, and of the spiritual church by a concubine: - Arcana Caelestia #3246 [3] In order that there might be represented the conjunctions and subordinations of such affections under one spiritual truth, it was permitted the Israelitish and Jewish nation to have a number of concubines - as to Abraham (Gen. xxv. 6), also to David, Solomon, and others. - Arcana Caelestia #9002 We recently finished reading Samuel and Kings in our family devotions. There is a lot of sexual perversion described there. Rape, incest, etc. David represented the Lord, but committed adultery with Bathsheba. I wonder how this works. Does the adultery represent the Lord's inherited evils and influence of the hells against which He fought? It seems to me that my difficulty in seeing the inner meaning here is the same as my difficulty in seeing it in the second part of CL, and both are tied to my spiritual state. Love, John From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Wed Apr 8 09:26:59 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Swedenborgiana NL) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:26:59 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: 3 obvious statements. Message-ID: <01bd6324$4cccbae0$LocalHost@gj> Dear Lucerna friends, There are many statements in favor of the teaching that the Third Testament also has an inner meaning. Allow me to start presenting some very obvious ones; some that are easy to understand and accepted by most receivers of the Writings. --- 1: a mathematical statement = - the Word of the Lord has an inner meaning; - the Writings are the Lord's Word; - therefor the Writings must have an inner meaning too. --- 2: a statement from personal experience = When reading the Third Testament's explanations on the inner meaning and the correspondences in names of persons, cities, nations, etcetera - yes, in fact of all the human and natural phenomena - it accours to me that these meanings are directly addressing me [the reader] and deal wiht my [our] personal experiences in life. It is not on ancient things or stories, but about present things - actualy about our own feelings, thoughts and acts as well as non-acts ! This makes it clear to me that there is much more involved than the reader first meets in the letter of the Writings. --- 3 - a statement from common experience = Reading Swedenborg's books usually is an enlightening experience. Remarkable is that when re-reading a title or portion again later, one sees other and new things, that were not see before. Often this used to embarrasse me, because I tended to feel stupid for not seeing or understanding the subject better in the first place. This process of enlightement and renewal [regeneration] will be extended to eternity, I read in various titles. --- Please feel free to share and add other statements, or comments when you like ? Kind regards, Guus. CC to the Concerned Members email list, for the last time. All can enter the ascending line by subscribing Lucerna. __________________________ S W E D E N B O R G I A N A Postbus 7338 - 4800 GH Breda - NL email swedenborgiana@tip.nl internet http://www.newearth.org/swedenborgiana & http://www.tip.nl/users/swedenborgiana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael@newearth.org Mon Apr 13 07:58:06 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 13:58:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Inner Meaning of CL In-Reply-To: <1731c398.3524150b@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, JohnOdhner wrote: > Let me focus on one particular teaching. "In itself the intelligence of women > is modest, elegant, pacific, yielding, gentle, tender; and the intelligence of > a men in itself is grave, harsh, hard, spirited, fond of licence." (CL 218). Dear John, I have been thinking about this quite a lot lately. I have always been interested in the resemblance between this statement and the descriptions of "rational good" and "rational truth" in the story of Abraham and Sarah. You also noted the resemblance between this description and the description of Ishmael, as for instance, in AC 1950, which I quote below. The context of this description of Ishmael is the early Arcana series about the formation of the rational. This process reaches its turning point in chapter 20, with the recognition that genuine doctrine is "spiritual from a celestial origin" and does not come from the rational. Then the real rational, Isaac, can be born from the conjunction of Abraham and Sarah, in chapter 21. It is at the end of chapter 21 that we find the first systematic teaching about true married love, in the section "About marriages, how they are regarded in the heavens, and about adulteries". This ends the second of the original eight volumes of the Arcana. Are there resemblances between the series of ideas in _Conjugial Love_ and the series presented in the _Arcana_, which might help us relate it to the processes of our rebirth and the Lord's Glorification? I do feel, but can't prove very well, some resonance between these two series. CL begins with a story that explores false ideas of heaven, and arrives at the recognition that heavenly happiness is in a life of useful service. Working through these false ideas of heaven seems to me to connect with the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the Arcana. What we did in the Garden, Noah's wine, the tower of Babel, the decline into idolatry -- all represent immature states, and also attempts to achieve happiness, and ideas of heaven, that don't really work, which we have to move through. In the first part of _Conjugial Love_ there is a descent from the heavenly origin of marriage, (e.g. "Marriages in Heaven") through many intermediate states where this genuine marriage tries to take a corresponding form ("The Marriage of the Lord and the Church and its Correspondence") in the natural mind, through our reception of the Lord in His Word (CL 128). There is a struggle in the natural mind: ("The Chaste and the Non-Chaste" ... "Polygamy" ... "Jealousy") until finally, some spiritual offspring begins to be born, in a new, regenerate life ("The Conjunction of Married Love with the Love of Infants"), this being the life of USE that we looked for in the opening story. This descent of the Divine Marriage into the natural mind seems to parallel the chapters of Genesis in the _Arcana_. In a smaller way, it is visible in the part of the story leading up to the birth of Isaac. Out of this new life, the Lord can begin to bring the hells that are with us into order under the heaven that is with us. The second part of _Conjugial Love_ is about bringing the hells into order ("The Opposition of Licentious Love and Married Love"), and distinguishing things that can serve a use ("Fornication" ... "Concubinage") from those that are opposed to it ("Adulteries and their Kinds and Degrees") even to their most destructive extremes (Defloration, Varieties, Rape, Seducing the Innocent). Thus our relationship with the Lord in His Word is purified ("The Correspondence of Whoredom with the Violation of Spiritual Marriage") and heaven and hell brought into order within us ("The Imputation of the Two Loves..."). This collision of the heavenly life with the hells, and bringing them into order, seems to me to be connected with the chapters of Exodus in the _Arcana_. The culmination of Exodus is the revelation from Mount Sinai, and this is echoed in the final story in CL, in which Swedenborg talks with angels about the new revelation, the angels let the written book down from heaven, and then address the murmuring unbelievers below. Those are all tenuous connections, I know, but they are the kinds of things that come to my mind in attempting to grasp what the deeper meaning of this book might be. Let us keep striving towards the light. Love, Michael [from Grandman] AC 1950. His hand against all. That this signifies that it will wage war upon whatever is not true, and that "the hand of all against him" signifies that falsities will fight back, is evident from the fact that by "Ishmael," as before said, is signified rational truth separated from good; and when it is said of this truth that "its hand is against all, and the hand of all against it," it is evident that such is the signification of these words. It was stated above that by Abram is represented the Lord's in ternal man, or what is the same, His Divine celestial and spiritual by Isaac the Lord's interior man, or His Divine rational; and by Jacob the Lords exterior man, or His Divine natural. The words before us treat of the rational as it would be if not unit ed to the internal, that is, to the Divine celestial and spiritual. Because this rational had its nature from the life of affection of memory-knowledges, that is, from Hagar the Egyptian, Sarai's handmaid, and because this life pertained to the external man, which had an hereditary nature from the Lord's mother that was to be fought against and expelled, therefore the rational is here described such as it would be if devoid of rational good. But after the Lord had humbled, that is, had afflicted and subjugated that hereditary nature by means of the combats of temptations and by victories, and had vivified His rational itself with Divine good, it then became "Isaac," that is, it is represented by Isaac; Ishmael, together with Hagar his mother, being cast out of the house. [2] All the genuine rational consists of good and truth, that is, of the celestial and the spiritual. Good, or the celestial, is its very soul or life; truth, or the spiritual, is what receives its life from this. Without life from celestial good, the rational is such as is here described, that is, it fights against all, and all fight against it. Rational good never fights, however it is assailed' because it is mild and gentle, patient and yielding; for its character is that of love and mercy. Yet although it does not fight, it conquers all, nor does it ever think about combat, or glory on account of victory; and this because it is Divine, and is safe of itself. For no evil can attack good-- it cannot even continue to exist in the sphere where good is, for when this merely approaches, evil withdraws and falls back of itself; for evil is infernal, and good is heavenly. Very similar is the case with the celestial spiritual, that is, with truth from a celestial origin, or with truth which is from good, for this truth is truth that is formed by good, so that it may be called the form of good. [3] But truth separated from good,- which is here represented by Ishmael and is described in this verse, is altogether different, being like a wild-ass, and fighting against all, and all against it; in fact it thinks of and breathes scarcely anything but combats; its general delectation, or reigning affection, is to conquer, and when it conquers it glories in the victory on which account it is described as an "onager," or mule of the wilderness, that is, the wild-ass, which cannot be with others. Such a life is a life of truth without good, yea, a life of faith without charity, and therefore when a man is being regenerated, this is indeed effected by means of the truth of faith, but still at the same time by means of a life of charity, which the Lord in sinuates in accordance with the increments of the truth of faith. -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From michael@newearth.org Mon Apr 13 11:47:53 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 17:47:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Getting the spiritual meaning In-Reply-To: <1731c398.3524150b@aol.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, John Odhner wrote: > Or is this an example of where is it better to study the > letter, and not use correspondences to get at the inner > meaning (SS 56)? Am I making any sense at all? I have often pondered that passage, and what follows is more sharing my pondering than attempting to answer. 56. It might be believed that the doctrine of genuine truth could be procured by means of the spiritual sense of the Word which is furnished through a knowledge of correspondences. But doctrine is not procured by means of that sense, but is only lighted up and corroborated. For as said before (n. 26), no one comes into the spiritual sense of the Word by means of correspondences unless he is first in genuine truths from doctrine. If a man is not first in genuine truths he may falsify the Word by means of some correspondences with which he is acquainted, by connecting them together and interpreting them so as to confirm that which cleaves to his mind from some principle previously received. Moreover the spiritual sense of the Word is not given anyone except by the Lord alone, and it is guarded by Him as heaven is guarded, for heaven is in it. It is better therefore for man to study the Word in the sense of the letter; from this alone is doctrine furnished. I notice that this passage is about the "doctrine of genuine truth". I think the point here is that our doctrinal principles, which govern the way we interpret what we read, including how we apply the correspondences we know, must be things that we see plainly taught in the literal meaning of the Word, so that we see them as the Lord's wisdom, not our own. Often our first idea of the spritual meaning of the Word isn't spiritual at all. It's more like some kind of encryption scheme, where a real meaning is hidden inside a not-real meaning, and can be extracted by using the right key. A lot of people remain in this idea, and think of the Latin Word as a decryption key, which allows them to either look up or figure out the meanings of passages in the Old and New Testaments. One of the difficulties of presenting our doctrinal position is that people who are thinking this way assume that what we mean is that we are going to apply that model to "the Writings", which means we will either be "figuring out" or "looking up" the internal meaning. I think the teachings in _Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture_ make far more sense if we think of spiritual truth, and doctrine primarily as spiritual structures that are built up in our minds. A lamp lit in our minds is an ability to see, not so much an explanation of what we are seeing. The statements and explanations come later, illustrate what we are seeing, and may take a lot of forms. I'm open to the possbility that this form could be explaining passages from the Latin Word, using correspondences, or that it could be a painting, a song, a dance, or something else. Love, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From michael@newearth.org Tue Apr 14 20:20:29 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 02:20:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire Message-ID: Dear Friends, I got a message from Ray Silverman that he wants distributed here. I'm going to relay it, though I also wrote to him and asked that he participate directly rather than asking me to carry messages. I am committed to Lucerna being a forum for everyone who professes a belief in our doctrine. I realize that due to the political situation in the Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma, some of us who believe in this doctrine don't believe in the sincerity of others who profess it. For some of us, it will be a difficult thing to carry on a conversation in which members of the present church government may eventually participate. The International Council of Priests of the LNCNH is going to have a discussion about "the Doctrine of the Church." The first thing I would note, in the relationship of priests to the doctrine of the church, is that it is not their product, but something they are to follow: With respect to priests, they ought to teach people the way to heaven, and should also lead them. They ought to teach them according to the doctrine of their church from the Word; and should lead them so that they live according to that doctrine. The priests who teach truths, and through them lead to the good of life, and thus to the Lord, are the good shepherds of the sheep; but those who teach, and do not lead to the good of life, and thus to the Lord, are bad shepherds. (De Nova Hierosolyma et Ejus Doctrina Coelesti 315) So any discussion by priests about the Doctrine of the Church should start with questions like, "What doctrine did we promise to teach out of the Word? What is it to live according to it? Are we examples of that life right now?" And any priest who wishes to obey NJHD 315 will be seeking and listening for the enlightenment of the people in the church, to better learn how to teach and lead according to the church's doctrine. The forwarded letter from Ray will follow this. Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From raylinc@worldnet.att.net Tue Apr 14 12:09:55 1998 From: raylinc@worldnet.att.net (Ray Silverman) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:09:55 -0400 Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire Message-ID: <01BD67D0.8D10F840@206.philadelphia-06.pa.dial-access.att.net> Dear Michael, I was delighted with your proposal for a Lucerna discussion on the Doctrine of the Church. I was especially touched by your able use of new language to illuminate basic teachings (i.e. spiritutal from celestial origin=true light from living fire). Next week the International Council of Priests will be setting aside a full day to discuss "The Doctrine of the Church." The idea is that if the Doctrine of the Church is from the internal things of the Word, and if our understanding of those things continues to grow, then our expression of that understanding should also grow--and, therefore, we will always have a need to find new ways to clothe (express) this evolving understanding. Some questions to consider: Is the Doctrine of the Church in 1998 exactly the same as it was in 1937? If so, is it because we have made no doctrinal progress? Or could it be that we have indeed made doctrinal progress, but we have not expressed this in written form? Are the "essentials" and "principles," as originally established by the church, the true Doctrine of the Church and therefore not subject to change? Is a change in the "Doctrine of the Church" a sign of progress, or perhaps a sign of adulteration? What I would like to know is where people are today, in 1998. What do they personally regard as the Doctrine of the Church? If they say that "the church is spiritual from a celestial origin," what do they mean by that? Does everyone agree with you that this is "true light from living fire," or do people understand it in different ways? We know that people can use the same words, and still attach different meaning to those words. Michael, I would be most happy if you used this message as a possible springboard for discussion among the people who will be participating in Lucerna. Since the ICP discussion will take place next Wednesday (April 22), I think it would be great if I could include the insights that might be generated in Lucerna. I will also encourage members of the ICP to participate in the Lucerna discussion, in full recognition of the "ascending line." With best regards, Ray From michael@newearth.org Wed Apr 15 05:59:23 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 11:59:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire In-Reply-To: <01BD67D0.8D10F840@206.philadelphia-06.pa.dial-access.att.net> Message-ID: Ray has joined the group. The Lucerna mailing list now looks like this: michael@newearth.org (NewEarth Swedenborg BBS; Michael V. David) hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net (Sherry Huss-Fulmer) fairgrey@iafrica.com (ANONYMOUS) [Dennis & Meg Jordan] lorin@newearth.org (Lori Jane Nelson) JHOdhner@aol.com (Julien H. Odhner II) myardumi@newchurch.edu (ANONYMOUS) [Mira Yardumian] swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens; Swedenborgiana NL) JohnOdhner@aol.com (John L. Odhner) harrisb@poboxes.com (Byron & Emily Harris) bardbyte@idt.net (Jill Sophia Fein) hurst@opim.wharton.upenn.edu (Gerry & Siri Hurst) ccodhner@newchurch.edu (Carroll Chamberlain Odhner) luken@newearth.org (NOT FOUND) [Luken and Dawn Potts] raylinc@worldnet.att.net (Ray Silverman) Please note that (ANONYMOUS) means that address is not registered in the NewEarth Directory. Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Wed Apr 15 09:34:05 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:34:05 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: Welcome from Holland. Message-ID: <01bd68a5$7421b2e0$LocalHost@gj> Michael wrote: >Ray has joined the group. The Lucerna mailing list now looks >like this: --- We found 14 emailers [12 in USA], and we too welcome the newcommers. We want to start our communications on the aspects of 'de Hemelse Leer', by forwarding an emailletter on '3 obvious statements' for your information. Also for your information I add a text that just came in: >> For those of you not aware, the Lord's New Church has done a major site revision, at http://www.swedenborg.net/ Kurt S. << Kind regards, Aline & Guus. swedenborgiana@tip.nl From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Wed Apr 15 10:06:50 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 22:06:50 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: 3 'obvious' statements ? Message-ID: <01bd68aa$07892780$LocalHost@gj> Dear Lucerna friends, There are many statements in favor of the teaching that the Third Testament also has an inner meaning. Allow me to start presenting some very obvious ones, some that are easy to understand and accepted by most receivers of the Writings. --- 1: the mathematic's statement = - the Word of the Lord has an internal sence; - the Latin Writings are the Lord's Word; - therefor these Writings must have an inner meaning too. --- 2: a statement from personal experience = When reading the Third Testament's explanations on the inner meaning and the correspondences in names of persons, cities, nations, etcetera - yes, in fact of all the human and natural phenomena - it accours to me that these meanings are directly addressing me [the reader] and deal with my [our] personal experiences in life. It is not on ancient things or stories, but about present things - actualy about our own feelings, thoughts and acts as well as non-acts ! This makes it clear to me that there is much more involved than the reader first meets in the letter of the Writings. --- 3 - a statement from common experience = Reading Swedenborg's books usually is an enlightening experience. Remarkable is that when re-reading a title or portion again later, one sees other and new things, that were not see before. Often this used to embarrasse me, because I tended to feel stupid for not seeing or understanding the subject better in the first place. This process of enlightement and renewal [regeneration] will be extended to eternity, I read in various titles. Please feel free and invited to share and add other statements, or comments if you like ? Hartelijke groeten van Guus. swedenborgiana@tip.nl http://www1.tip.nl/~t890121/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael@newearth.org Wed Apr 15 10:33:42 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: 3 'obvious' statements ? In-Reply-To: <01bd68aa$07892780$LocalHost@gj> Message-ID: Dear Friends, For me, a turning point in seeing these 'Writings' as the Word came in looking at the _Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture_. It was not so much a matter of saying "this also applies to the Writings" but of seeing that the things described in that book were about my life. For instance, the idea that "those who read the Word without Doctrine are in darkness as to every truth" -- once upon a time, I thought that this might be about books: that you are in darkness without the right books. Then it dawned on me that this statement is not about books, but about people, and that "without doctrine" is a state that exists with all of us, regardless of what books we have. That is how I began to see it applying to all of the Word. Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Wed Apr 15 21:39:20 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 09:39:20 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire. Message-ID: <01bd690a$c520ea20$LocalHost@gj> Ray wrote: Van: Ray Silverman Aan: 'Michael David' Datum: woensdag 15 april 1998 8:27 Onderwerp: LUCERNA: true light from living fire >Next week the International Council of Priests will be setting aside a full day to discuss "The Doctrine of the Church." The idea is that - IF - the Doctrine of the Church is from the internal things of the Word, and - IF - our understanding of those things continues to grow, ...... << Dear Ray, Why do you use the word - IF - in this obvious contest ? Guus. swedenborgiana@tip.nl Ray also asked: >>Some questions to consider: Is the Doctrine of the Church in 1998 exactly the same as it was in 1937? If so, is it because we have made no doctrinal progress? Or could it be that we have indeed made doctrinal progress, but we have not expressed this in written form? << Ray, are you teasing us with these questions, or realy expressing your doubts ? Of course the 1937 Doctrines are basic teaching. --- >> Are the "essentials" and "principles," as originally established by the church, the true Doctrine of the Church and therefore not subject to change? Is a change in the "Doctrine of the Church" a sign of progress, or perhaps a sign of adulteration? << What changes in the Doctrines of the Church could Ray be refering to ? --- > I will also encourage members of the ICP to participate in the Lucerna discussion, in full recognition of the "ascending line." >With best regards, >Ray We are looking forward to that. Best wishes, Aline & Guus. ________________________________________ S W E D E N B O R G I A N A - N L mail: Postbus 7338 - 4800GH Breda - Netherlands. voice: +31.76.5812.597 email: swedenborgiana@tip.nl internet: http://www1.tip.nl/~t890121/index.html & http://www.newearth.org/swedenborgiana From michael@newearth.org Thu Apr 16 01:10:51 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 07:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Three Chapters In-Reply-To: <01BD67D0.8D10F840@206.philadelphia-06.pa.dial-access.att.net> Message-ID: Dear Friends, In the Philadelphia Society, we are going to have a course of study on the Doctrine of the Church, and one phase of this course will be a study of chapters 12, 20 and 26 in the _Arcana Coelestia_. In Genesis, these three chapters deal with episodes in which the husband calls his wife his sister, she is taken away by the king of the country, and then it is revealed that she is his wife, and the king must bring her back. The origin of our doctrinal ideas was not in the logic that if the Writings are the Word, they must also have an internal sense. Rather, it was in the study of these three chapters, and the recognition that the states described here apply to all people. Thus the recognition was not so much that "the Writings also have an internal sense and a literal sense" but that the distinction between thinking from the letter alone and thinking from the internal sense, that we read about in Chapter 26, is a distinction about the state of a person's mind, not about the state of a person's library. We must hope that in a living, healthy church, it is possible for different states of mind and levels of understanding to exist together, and be united in a common acknowledgment of the Lord, of the Lord's Word, and a committment to a life of charity. I think Chapter 26 especially deals with that coexistence of states in a wonderful way. I hope that all of us can reread these chapters as part of our approach to the subject of "the Doctrine of the Church." Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From raylinc@worldnet.att.net Thu Apr 16 05:39:26 1998 From: raylinc@worldnet.att.net (Ray Silverman) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 11:39:26 -0400 Subject: LUCERNA: Guus's questions Message-ID: <01BD692C.65BE74E0@10.philadelphia-05.pa.dial-access.att.net> Dear Guus, In regard to your questions: 1. Why do you use the word - IF - in this obvious contest ? Response: I use the conditional word "if" to indicate my own finite understanding. I choose to be tentative about my assertions, always recognizing that the beliefs that I hold onto so firmly today may change as I evolve and as I am blessed with new insights. I do not mean to imply that I am doubting that the Doctrine of the Church is from the internal sense of the Word, or that our understanding doesn't continue to grow. I just want to be tentative about mu own understanding rather than dogmatic. 2. Ray, are you teasing us with these questions, or realy expressing your doubts ? Of course the 1937 Doctrines are basic teaching. Response: I am not teasing, but am quite serious. I sometimes get the impression that we have fallen into the trap of honoring the insights of the church founders to the point where we feel that it is sacreligious to challenge them or go beyond them. This tends to happen in all organizations where the insights of the founders are clothed with a respect that borders on idolatry. I believe that the early founders of the church believed that doctrinal progress was essential for the church, that they had seen "a new thing," and that they would love to know that this search for new insights still continues today. Let me give an example. In the Academy movement one of the "principles" of the Academy was that "the prevention of offspring is an abomination." In those days people did nothing to limit the amount of offspring they could produce, believing that it was a sin against God. Today, family size is regarded as a matter of conscience and is no longer emphasized as a "principle of the Academy" or as "a sin against God." I would call this doctrinal progress! In 1937 adherents to the doctrinal position of the Lord's New Church which is Nova Hierosolyma liked to emphasize the fact that the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg were the Third Testament. Today many people cringe at the phrase "The Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg" because they believe that these works are from God, not from Swedenborg. I think that we have come to see that the phrase the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg is a useful one because these books are indeed written by Swedenborg, and therefore contain his biases and cultural perspectives. Nevertheless since we regard them as a revelation, it is possible to see beyond what is merely from Swedenborg in the same way that we can read about God's anger in the Old Testament, and go beyond that, recognizing that this is written out of the consciousness of the Old Testament writers. I think that this is an important acknowledgment in the Lord's New Church. It allows us to go beyond a merely fundamentalistic approach ("Thus says Swedenborg) to a deeper appreciation of the Lord speaking through the veil of Swedenborg's human language. 3. What changes in the Doctrines of the Church could Ray be refering to? Response: In this context I was speaking about the "principles" and "essentials" of the church and raised the question about whether they stay the same or are subject to change. Let me give you an example. Many people believe that the essentials of the church are well stated in TCR 3:2 in a passage called "the particulars of faith on man's part." In fact, this statement appears in our church liturgy and is often recited verbatim. The third particular of faith is, "Evil actions ought not to be done, because they are of the devil and from the devil." This is a literal teaching that contains the appearance that evil is from "the devil." Of course we know what is meant by the phrase "the devil" (the devil signifies a crew of hell) but the appearance is rather "old church" in focusing on one devil who represents all of hell. So I would be reluctant to ask people to recite this particular in a church service, especially if newcomers were in attendance. I would even extend this to the second particular of faith, "Saving faith is to believe on Him." We may know what we mean by "saving faith" (a life of true Christian charity which arises when we shun evils as sins against God), but the particular of faith, as stated, contains a strong appearance of "faith alone." It sounds like we are saved by merely believing that Jesus Christ is Lord. I am giving this example of what appears to be a rock solid statement of the Writings--basic teachings, as Guus would put it--and trying to point out that what might seem quite basic and plain to us at one time may later be seen as clothed in appearances. I believe that as a church we have a sacred responsibility to distinguish between genuine truths and appearances of truth as we are given to see them, and to teach that genuine truth which we have been given to see as the genuine doctrine of the church. Thanks for your questions, Guus. Regards to Aline. Ray -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3884 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael@newearth.org Thu Apr 16 06:07:48 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:07:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire. In-Reply-To: <01bd690a$c520ea20$LocalHost@gj> Message-ID: In its context, the following passage is about a false doctrine. But part of it refers to "every church" and so may have application to the development of genuine doctrine as well. Every church at its beginning knows only the general matters of doctrine, for it is then in its simplicity, and as it were, childhood. With the passage of time, it adds particulars, which in part are confirmations of the generals, in part additions which still are not disagreeable to the generals, and also explanations so that open contradictions may be drawn into agreement (in partes), lest they clash with what common sense dictates ... (_Arcana Coelestia_ 4720). Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From michael@newearth.org Thu Apr 16 08:25:00 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 14:25:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire In-Reply-To: <01BD67D0.8D10F840@206.philadelphia-06.pa.dial-access.att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Ray Silverman wrote: > Next week the International Council of Priests will be > setting aside a full day to discuss "The Doctrine of the > Church." The idea is that if the Doctrine of the Church is > from the internal things of the Word, and if our > understanding of those things continues to grow, then our > expression of that understanding should also grow--and, > therefore, we will always have a need to find new ways to > clothe (express) this evolving understanding. I hope that spiritual progress and evolution do happen. I hope this happens with groups of people as well as individuals. If our understanding grows, then the way we express it may grow too. The important question is: How do we cooperate with the Lord in giving us new and better understanding? The living thing must be there first, before we consider ways to formulate it. "We" also need to take a careful look at who "we" mean by "we". One of the principles of the Lord's New Church is that true enlightenment belongs to the spiritual plane of the church, and thus is everyone's business and concern, and that on this plane, there is nothing special about priests. The best thing the priests can do about this is acknowledge that this is everyone's concern and open the discussion to everyone, with a special effort made to include, listen to, and hold themselves answerable to those with whom they have been in conflict. I would caution strongly against any attempt by a closed group to formulate and announce answers. It hasn't worked yet, and isn't about to. > Some questions to consider: Is the Doctrine of the Church > in 1998 exactly the same as it was in 1937? If so, is it > because we have made no doctrinal progress? Or could it > be that we have indeed made doctrinal progress, but we > have not expressed this in written form? Are the > "essentials" and "principles," as originally established > by the church, the true Doctrine of the Church and > therefore not subject to change? Is a change in the > "Doctrine of the Church" a sign of progress, or perhaps a > sign of adulteration? The "Leading Theses Propounded in 'De Hemelsche Leer'" and the "Essentials of the Church and Principles of Doctrine" are very general statements. These formulations are not holy in themselves or binding on anyone, although their language is largely drawn from the Latin Word, and thus they direct our attention to things in the Word which are holy. What these general statements point to is the recognition that the Lord is present with us in the Latin Word, and the willingness to let the Lord work with us to give us a new will and understanding, from His presence in the Latin Word. This includes an acknowledgement that everything about us needs to be born again, everything of the will, and everything of the understanding, including our understanding of the Word. I think this recognition of the Lord's presence and the willingness to be reborn out of that presence, were the gift that the church received in the 1930's, and the doctrinal statements were an attempt to express the quality of that gift in words. The people who formulated those words were not just studying each other's papers and looking for elegant ways to combine their thoughts. They were FEELING the Lord's presence in their societies, and PARTICIPATING in the process of discovering and using new insights. These things can always be said differently, and no human expression is perfect. The important question is not whether we are saying it exactly right, because we won't, but what is the quality of the experience we are expressing? Are we sharing a new presence of the Lord in our lives, or simply reasoning from things we already know and shuffling words around because we think we can say it better than somebody else did? > What I would like to know is where people are today, in > 1998. What do they personally regard as the Doctrine of > the Church? If they say that "the church is spiritual from > a celestial origin," what do they mean by that? Does > everyone agree with you that this is "true light from > living fire," or do people understand it in different > ways? We know that people can use the same words, and > still attach different meaning to those words. I say "doctrine is spiritual from a celestial origin" because I read those words in Chapter 20 of the _Arcana Coelestia_. To me, that means that the light that makes sense out of our natural knowledge, including the knowledge of the Word, can only come from loving the Lord above all things. It doesn't come from "consulting the rational", i.e. that rational mind meant by "Ishmael", that strives to build spiritual understanding out of knowledge learned from without. The revolution described in Chapter 20, turns us from trying to figure out an understanding of the Word and of spiritual life, to letting the Lord's love in us begin to shed its own light. This allows the birth of the true rational, Isaac, which is the beginning of our regenerate life. > Michael, I would be most happy if you used this message as > a possible springboard for discussion among the people who > will be participating in Lucerna. Since the ICP discussion > will take place next Wednesday (April 22), I think it > would be great if I could include the insights that might > be generated in Lucerna. I will also encourage members of > the ICP to participate in the Lucerna discussion, in full > recognition of the "ascending line." I look forward to that. To recognize the "ascending line" we need to recognize how low we have sunk and be willing to let the Lord raise us up. To gain new understanding we need to begin with the recognition that we lack understanding. To understand the "Doctrine of the Church" we need to reach out to find the people of the church, and shun those actions and attitudes that have helped to drive them away. Without listening for and following the doctrine of our church, their can be no priestly work, because this is teaching people out of the Word, according to the doctrine of their church, and also leading them to live according to it (NJHD 315). Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From michael@newearth.org Fri Apr 17 05:22:22 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:22:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire In-Reply-To: <01BD67D0.8D10F840@206.philadelphia-06.pa.dial-access.att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Ray Silverman wrote: > What I would like to know is where people are today, in > 1998. What do they personally regard as the Doctrine of > the Church? For myself: I believe the Doctrine of our Church is the recognition that the Lord is present in His Glorified Human, from first to last, in the Latin Word given through Emanuel Swedenborg, and that we need to be born again by receiving that Divine Human through the Latin Word. This recognition is an internal thing, is an EXPERIENCE first and an explanation only later, and this is "spiritual from a celestial origin." I believe the "Leading Theses" and the "Essentials and Principles of Doctrine" are natural expressions of that spiritual experience, are the imperfect compositions of imperfect people, and can always be said better, and extended further. We can help each other express our experience in better words, but only to the extent that we share that experience. For others I know: I can't speak for "people" but I can make observations based on what they say and write. I'd like to think that there is a spiritual movement, from the earliest days of the New Church, toward the deeper recognition of the Latin Word as the Word, and as embodying the Lord's presence with us. The recognition that the Latin Word is a body that contains the Lord's living soul, which came to fullness in "De Hemelsche Leer," was part of that movement. I think the movement, viewed apart from organizations, has continued to expand since then. Certainly a lot of people in the General Church, and some I have known in Convention and in the unorganized church, accept in a general way the idea that "the Writings are the Word, and have an internal sense." Many accept this idea simply as a more satisfying logical structure, it doesn't _visibly_ affect their approach to the Word, or alter language like "the Word and the Writings." Still, acceptance of a general truth is a valuable thing, and leads to good. Looking at the organization of The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma, it appears to me that the movement has shriveled and nearly died, although recently, in the Philadelphia Society, there has been a revival of interest in learning, discussing and applying the Doctrine of the Church, and the Pastor makes what appears to me a sincere and successful effort to preach from the Word according to the Doctrine of the Church. We are making an effort to reach out to others with what we are doing, and this Lucerna mailing list is one of the effects of that effort. On a broader scale, in the organization, I see a membership and church government concerned mainly with who is in charge of the money, and who is personally loyal to whom, and anything concerning the Lord, the Word and the life of religion seems to run a distant second to those worldly concerns. So it appears to me that in the organization in general, there is not doctrinal development, but regression into the state of children fighting over playthings. What is predictable is that new statements emerging from the organization's councils will do nothing but embody and further express that regression. However, the Lord can work with the most negative of states, and I hope and pray for this possibility, against the predictable. My prayer is that the Lord will continue to work with all those who recognize His presence in His Word, and that a new church, whether organized or not, will arise that embraces and moves forward with the inner recognition that is embodied in our doctrinal statements. I think it is the obligation of the The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma to strive to become that church, but that the Lord will accomplish it anyway, with or without us. Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From michael@newearth.org Fri Apr 17 09:55:59 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Church History In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In the history that led up to the formation of the Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma, there were two major schisms, as well as a number of other doctrinal disputes. When the Academy began, it encountered opposition within the larger church organization, and eventually separated from it. In the General Church, when people began hearing new ideas from the Hague Society, opposition and talk of separation began immediately, with the earliest publications. When the church government took action against the Hague Society, complete separation followed. In each case, what we regard as a doctrinal advance was opposed by the existing church government. Is the lesson of history that organizations cannot advance doctrinally, but react to new ideas by expelling them? Is the lesson of history that doctrinal advancement in our churches will inevitably be opposed by their governments? This certainly seems to be part of human nature. Usually when an organization is founded, there is a clear sense and agreement on what it's all about. It is structured to embody that agreement, and prevent it from being changed. But when we begin to wonder what the next step should be, all our differences emerge. This makes it very difficult for the whole organization to see a next step clearly, agree on it, and take it. In watching the rise and fall of commercial businesses, we frequently see how apparently successful enterprises doom themselves by failing to take the next step in time. The founders of The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma were aware of this problem, and wanted to set up a church organization that was capable of continuing doctrinal development. Their attention was drawn to the teaching about the "circle of life" in _Arcana Coelestia_ 3869, 10057 and _Divine Providence_ 29. This circle has an ascending side and a descending side. Each of us must ascend by approaching the Lord in His Word, and descend by shunning evils as sins against Him, thus using what we see in the Word. In its application to the Church, they thought that the descending side was the work of the priesthood, in teaching and leading the external life of the church, thus bringing the Doctrine down into natural life. They further thought that the ascending side represents the spiritual life of the Church, in which all people participate to enter more deeply into the truths of the Word, and thus bring the Doctrine of the Church into existence. Both sides of this circle were embodied in the government of the Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma, which came to include an "Interior Council" which consisted of laymen and priests together. This council would consider questions relating to the Doctrine of the Church, and present its conclusions to the priesthood. It was seen as the work of the priesthood to give a natural form to that doctrinal understanding, by teaching and applying to life the things seen in the Word from that understanding. The hope was that by entering more deeply into the understanding of the Word, new applications to life would be seen in the literal meaning of the Word, and so a new level of repentance would be possible, which would open the way to another ascent. If an organization could really live that way, then doctrinal advancement might be possible. One problem today is that the RELATIONSHIP of the ascending and descending lines no longer exists, because its forms have been abolished. Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From michael@newearth.org Fri Apr 17 11:14:05 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Church History In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It's somebody else's turn to talk now. --mvd -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From JohnOdhner@aol.com Fri Apr 17 20:37:42 1998 From: JohnOdhner@aol.com (JohnOdhner) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 02:37:42 EDT Subject: LUCERNA: Re: Church History Message-ID: <2da00d0.35384a38@aol.com> Dear Michael, I enjoyed your message about the circle of life and church history. In a message dated 4/17/98 11:56:31 AM, you wrote: >One problem today is that the RELATIONSHIP of the ascending >and descending lines no longer exists, because its forms >have been abolished. The meaning of this is probably clear to those who know more of the history of the LNC. I am not sure what forms you are talking about. Are you referring to an organizational change that has taken place? Are you saying that the LNC was originally capable of creative change, but due to changes that have taken place it can no longer change so purposefully? What are the changes that eliminated the relationship between the ascending and descending lines? Love, John From michael@newearth.org Sat Apr 18 03:49:21 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 09:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Re: Church History In-Reply-To: <2da00d0.35384a38@aol.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Apr 1998, JohnOdhner wrote: > I enjoyed your message about the circle of life and church history. > > In a message dated 4/17/98 11:56:31 AM, you wrote: > > >One problem today is that the RELATIONSHIP of the ascending > >and descending lines no longer exists, because its forms > >have been abolished. > The meaning of this is probably clear to those who know > more of the history of the LNC. I am not sure what forms > you are talking about. Are you referring to an > organizational change that has taken place? There was an organizational change. It happened in the mid '80s, and was supposed to be a temporary measure, due to the small number of people involved, and in preparation for the retirement of Bishop Odhner. Some laymen were invited onto the International Council of Priests, and it became the only governing body, and the Interior Council ceased to exist. There were regular meetings for the purpose of considering matters of doctrine, in Bryn Athyn and the Hague, and these stopped happening too. In every case, there seemed to be perfectly good reasons at the time, but the general effect was that this line of activity ceased. > Are you > saying that the LNC was originally capable of creative > change, but due to changes that have taken place it can no > longer change so purposefully? What are the changes that > eliminated the relationship between the ascending and > descending lines? Originally, I think there was a deliberate effort to create an organization that was open to ongoing doctrinal development. As I said before, this flies in the face of history and human nature. But I think a church should do that: observe what has gone wrong in history, notice that there are evils to be shunned, and form itself around the effort and possibility of doing better. I have heard from members of the church, and experienced, that years ago the priests of the church considered it their duty to give satisfactory answers to people's questions about the organization's operations and how those were seen to relate to the teachings of the church. This sense of responsibility, the commitment to listening and continuing conversations as long as necessary to reach understanding, were good things that seem to be absent today. The relationship between the ascending and descending lines takes form not so much in organization, as in the simple act of _listening_ to another person, from the hope and assumption that there are good and true things in everyone. More than any organizational form, LISTENING is what needs to be restored. Love, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From michael@newearth.org Sat Apr 18 05:05:24 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 11:05:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Friends, On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Michael David wrote: > [...] it appears to me that in the organization in > general, there is not doctrinal development, but regression > into the state of children fighting over playthings. It has been mentioned to me that this language of mine might be seen as putting down and expressing disrespect for people in the LNCNH organization. I agree that there is danger in talking this way, and apologize for any offense it may have caused. At the same time I think it's vital that we notice how, as long as we perceive the natural affairs of the church as disorderly, it will draw our minds away from its real purposes, and down from the level of thinking and action that we have hoped, with the Lord's help, to achieve. We must take care to examine both the quality of our perception and the quality of the natural events themselves. In organizational repentance, it is important that everyone engage in self-examination. For one group to label another as "evil" and kick it out does nothing but leave that group's "proprium" with nothing to challenge it. All of us are in desperate need, at all times, of challenges to our proprium, both from within and without. The "checks and balances" of natural reality, of other people, of civil and moral law, and of our external obedience to the literal sense of the Word, all are vital for creating an orderly space in which spiritual life is possible. It's glaringly obvious to me that I am one of those squabbling children at times, and far from the spiritual adulthood that the Lord intends for all of us. I hope that in bringing up such an image, I am sharing something I have observed in myself that may be useful to others, not hurling insults. Love, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net Sat Apr 18 15:24:34 1998 From: hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net (fred fulmer) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 18:24:34 -0700 Subject: LUCERNA: Lucerna - many messages Message-ID: <199804190117.SAA20574@snowcrest.net> Dear All, I have not sent any messages because I have been traveling out of town on business. This week when I was in town, I was busy catching up with myself. I am sorry I have not sent anything sooner. I hope others who are being silent will share with us soon. I have enjoyed reading the questions, thoughtful responses and ideas that have come through this group. They have caused me to think about certain things in a different way and to recognize some new ways of looking at different issues. I especially enjoyed John's questions about Conjugial Love and Michael's responses. The idea of being invited to a wedding was beautiful. I thought about it in the sense of anticipating coming to our own wedding as we are being regenerated by the Lord. What I also thought about on a more natural level was my own study. As I have studied for over 20 years, I have been either single or married to a man who does not study the Word. What I have noticed is even though I do most of my study in isolation that I have always sought out a male friend or a priest to discuss what I am studying and thinking. I know what I believe and I know what is true. What I do not do well is remember numbers or verses in detail. I remember the essence of it. I know each of us has both the male and female within us and it helps me to be able to connect with both men and women in the study of the Word. I hope more women will speak out here and express their views. I believe we have remained silent too long. In regards to Ray's letter much as already been said so I will try to keep my comments brief. Those of you who know me, know my idea of brief is sometimes rather lengthy. I apologize if I take too long. I do think the Doctrine of the LNCNH has evolved since 1937. It has evolved according to the understanding of those who have studied and discussed their ideas. That was one of the basic premises from the Hague. That there was to be study looking towards the internal meaning of the Word, which includes the Old, New and Third Testaments. I have found this to be apparent just through my study of sermons and doctrinal lessons. Over time there have been subtle changes in the understanding that is taught. As with all doctrine, some of it changes and some stays steadfast as a beacon to guide all of us home. It was of great interest to me to read Michael' s e-mail today in regards to the organizational change in the mid 80's. My initial reaction to Ray's letter took me back to the time Michael was talking about. I have been in contact with LNCNH since the early 70's. Until the late 80's, early 90's I felt as if I was a member of a worldwide organization with priests who cared about all members and their spiritual growth. I am certainly one of those members that Michael is talking about when he said. "I have heard from members of the church, and experienced, that years ago the priests of the church considered it their duty to give satisfactory answers to people's questions about the organization's operations and how those were seen to relate to the teachings of the church. This sense of responsibility, the commitment to listening and continuing conversations as long as necessary to reach understanding, were good things that seem to be absent today. The relationship between the ascending and descending lines take form not so much in organization, as in the simple act of listening to another person, from the hope and assumption that there are good and true things in everyone. More than any organizational form, LISTENING is what needs to be restored." Michael, I couldn't have said it half so well. Thank you for expressing what I feel is the core to how we may all come together and study the Word. For is this not the work the Lord wants us all to be doing? I have signed up for the course on De Hemelsche Leer so will want to have some discussion here on this topic. I noticed that Guus and Aline want to do this as well. The other work that I have always 'struggled' with in my studies is Heaven and Hell. I know this is suppose to be one of the works given to newer members. So I plan to study it again and hope to have a better understanding of the work. I may bring some questions here. In friendship, Sher From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Mon Apr 20 00:36:51 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:36:51 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: Learning more. Message-ID: <01bd6c48$3b2a1260$LocalHost@gj> Dear friends at Lucerna. We are very glad to see the increasing communications on the Lucerna list. Especialy Michael's input and style we feel has a high standard. Also we thank John, Sher and Ray for sharing their appreciation of the Hemelse Leer. Due to personal reasons I have not been able to respond adequatly, and I also found out that the things Michael brought forward need extra study and reflection = gives me many ideas to reflect about. You may expect more contributions from us in a few weeks. We have seen some comments on and off this list about Ray's subsription. Well, I appreciated his answers to some direct questions, and will answer also later. We have no problems wiht ICP members joining in the study of the Hemelse Leer via Lucerna. On the contrary, because that is what our Church is all about. Finaly there will be again an open opportunity to meet and learn from one another, I hope. And there is a lot to learn and to share, now that we hear and see more and more questionmarks circulating about the validity of the Hemelse Leer in the 1990's. What is realy puzzeling me is that the Hemelse Leer seems to provide the authority for Alexander Vasiliev's dismissal as a candidate for the priesthood, based on doctrinal grounds - but we have not what these doctrinal grounds are. Maybe we will learn more when Lucerna grows. The members in the PA area we wish success and joy during the announced doctrinal classes on the Hemelse Leer. Kind regards, Aline & Guus. swedenborgiana@tip.nl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fairgrey@iafrica.com Mon Apr 20 05:28:19 1998 From: fairgrey@iafrica.com (Jordan) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 17:28:19 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: Re: Lucerna: Learning more Message-ID: Dennis and I agree with Guus. You can't imagine how Lucerna makes such a great difference to us. We, like Sher, are also isolated. Thanks so very much for all the enjoyable and thought-provoking messages! Best wishes, Meg From JohnOdhner@aol.com Mon Apr 20 12:22:42 1998 From: JohnOdhner@aol.com (JohnOdhner) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:22:42 EDT Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire. Message-ID: Dear Friends, Michael wrote, > In its context, the following passage is about a false > doctrine. But part of it refers to "every church" and so may > have application to the development of genuine doctrine as > well. > > Every church at its beginning knows only the general > matters of doctrine, for it is then in its simplicity, and > as it were, childhood. With the passage of time, it adds > particulars, which in part are confirmations of the > generals, in part additions which still are not > disagreeable to the generals, and also explanations so > that open contradictions may be drawn into agreement (in > partes), lest they clash with what common sense dictates > ... (_Arcana Coelestia_ 4720). Thanks, Michael. I think in our doctrinal progress we can go forward even though it may look as if we are not, and we can be falling away from the true doctrine at times when we think we are making great progress. Another passage that speaks of the development of the doctrine in every church is AC 3773: "In the beginning, when any church is established, The Word is at first closed to them. But afterwards it is opened up, through the Lord's provision, and from there they learn that all doctrine is based on these two commandments, that the Lord is to be loved above everything else, and the neighbor as themselves. When these two commandments are the end in view the Word is in that case opened up, for all the Law and all the Prophets, that is the whole of the Word, hangs on them, as does everything from them, and so everything has reference to them. And being in that case governed by the primary teachings concerning truth and good people receive light in each particular thing they see in the Word. For the Lord is present with them at that time by means of angels and is teaching them even though they are not directly aware of it, and is also guiding them into the life of truth and good. This may also be seen from the consideration that in their infancy all churches have been such, and have from love worshipped the Lord, and have from the heart loved the neighbor. But in course of time churches have moved away from these two commandments, and have turned away from good flowing from love and charity towards those things called matters of faith, and so have turned away from life towards doctrine. And to the extent this happens the Word is closed up. If we think of the primary doctrine of the church being that all doctrine is founded on love for the Lord and the neighbor (or to say that same thing, that the doctrine is spiritual from a celestial origin, not a rational one), then there is clearly a danger that any deviation from this founding principle of the church will lead to a closing of the Word, not a further opening of it. In a sense the question is not about how we can progress in opening up the doctrine, but how we can progress in love for the Lord and the neighbor. As we progress in love, the true doctrine will be opened up from that celestial origin. Love, John From lorin@newearth.org Mon Apr 20 12:39:29 1998 From: lorin@newearth.org (Lori Jane Nelson) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:39:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire. In-Reply-To: from "JohnOdhner" at Apr 20, 98 06:22:42 pm Message-ID: <199804202239.SAA14285@sapphire.newearth.org> JohnOdhner wrote: > In a sense the question is not about how we can progress in opening up the > doctrine, but how we can progress in love for the Lord and the neighbor. As > we progress in love, the true doctrine will be opened up from that celestial > origin. Thank you for this! Sometimes when I think about the ascending and descending lines I get a mental image of long-bearded men propounding passages to each other, and then relaying conclusions to the council of priests, who then preach at me from it. But, it has been my experience that new insights and applications of truth only come when I am making a conscious decision to love--my neighbor, my enemy, my children, my parents, the experience, whatever. Only then, with a determined effort to have affection for the dispensations of providence however they are occurring in my life at the moment, do ways of being in the situation in a godly way become clear to me. This is "doctrine", for me. Love to all, Lorin From michael@newearth.org Mon Apr 20 13:23:01 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:23:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, JohnOdhner quoted AC 3773: > [...] But in course of time churches have moved away from > these two commandments, and have turned away from good flowing > from love and charity towards those things called matters of > faith, and so have turned away from life towards doctrine. > And to the extent this happens the Word is closed up. Genuine doctrine shows us how to keep love to the Lord and charity toward the neighbor in the first place in our lives. So genuine doctrine sheds light on life, rather than drawing attention to itself. Turning away from life "towards" doctrine is actually turning away from the true doctrine. I think the hells with us are in a constant effort to draw us away from seeing how the Word teaches love to the Lord and to the neighbor. They'd rather we thought it was about how right we are, how to get others to behave the way we want them to, how to predict the future, etc. The hells even use the idea that love comes first, to keep us in a state of "doing good" without shunning evil. In every state of the church, the hells build up defenses against our current way of understanding the Word. That, I think, is why we need doctrinal progress. Not to focus on doctrine, but to keep the focus on the real meaning of the Word, which teaches us how to love. Love, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From JohnOdhner@aol.com Tue Apr 21 07:37:52 1998 From: JohnOdhner@aol.com (JohnOdhner) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:37:52 EDT Subject: LUCERNA: true light from living fire. Message-ID: <38baf682.353cd972@aol.com> Dear Michael, Thanks. I agree completely. Love, John =============== You wrote, Genuine doctrine shows us how to keep love to the Lord and charity toward the neighbor in the first place in our lives. So genuine doctrine sheds light on life, rather than drawing attention to itself. Turning away from life "towards" doctrine is actually turning away from the true doctrine. I think the hells with us are in a constant effort to draw us away from seeing how the Word teaches love to the Lord and to the neighbor. They'd rather we thought it was about how right we are, how to get others to behave the way we want them to, how to predict the future, etc. The hells even use the idea that love comes first, to keep us in a state of "doing good" without shunning evil. In every state of the church, the hells build up defenses against our current way of understanding the Word. That, I think, is why we need doctrinal progress. Not to focus on doctrine, but to keep the focus on the real meaning of the Word, which teaches us how to love. From harrisb@poboxes.com Thu Apr 23 17:02:24 1998 From: harrisb@poboxes.com (Byron Harris) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 21:02:24 -0600 Subject: LUCERNA: The meaning of a "visible God" Message-ID: <199804240203.VAA08387@maat.fastrans.net> In the seekers mailing list (another list maintained by Michael for people learning Swedenborg) John Odhner supplied the following quote to help someone understand how we are to approach the Lord: From TCR107: What person, when he addresses himself to another, directs his address to his invisible soul? Or indeed how is such address practicable? Does he not rather address the person himself, whom he sees face to face and with whom he converses mouth to mouth? Just so it is with God the Father and the Son; for God the Father is in the Son, as the soul in its body. I sometimes wonder what inner meaning resides within these teachings. For example, in AC10429 it states that "the face corresponds to those things which are of the internal man." And in AC8910 it states that the mouth corresponds to thought. Of course the eyes, ears, etc., all have correspondences. What does it really mean to be "face to face" with the Lord? Elsewhere there's explicit mention of the need to worship a "visible God": From TCR339: Men ought to believe, that is, have faith, in God the Saviour Jesus Christ, because that is a faith in a visible God within whom is the invisible. When I read this I tend to focus seeing the Lord in bodily form. But aren't we really "seeing" the Lord when we know his love and wisdom? Thanks, Michael, for providing a forum to share such questions. - Byron From raylinc@worldnet.att.net Fri Apr 24 03:52:18 1998 From: raylinc@worldnet.att.net (Ray Silverman) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:52:18 -0400 Subject: LUCERNA: The meaning of a "visible God" Message-ID: <01BD6F66.B038C620@115.atlanta-37.ga.dial-access.att.net> Dear Byron, I enjoyed your query about seeing God face to face. When I was a child I prayed for all the members of my family, and as I prayed for them I compelled myself to have a visual image of their face in front of me as I prayed. As I grew older and eventually married I added my wife to my prayers. Now I had a real problem because I could never suceed at holding a visual image of my wife in my mind's eye. I have concluded that my love for my wife transcends the physical so completely that I am a miserable failure at trying to visualize her. I am not suggesting that is any else's "yardstick" for measuring the depth of love--but it seems to apply in my case. I just thought I would share this personal experience, hoping that it may add a perspective to the discussion you have initiated about "seeing the Lord face to face." With best regards, Ray Silverman ---------- From: Byron Harris[SMTP:harrisb@poboxes.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 11:02 PM To: lucerna@novahierosolyma.org Subject: LUCERNA: The meaning of a "visible God" In the seekers mailing list (another list maintained by Michael for people learning Swedenborg) John Odhner supplied the following quote to help someone understand how we are to approach the Lord: From TCR107: What person, when he addresses himself to another, directs his address to his invisible soul? Or indeed how is such address practicable? Does he not rather address the person himself, whom he sees face to face and with whom he converses mouth to mouth? Just so it is with God the Father and the Son; for God the Father is in the Son, as the soul in its body. I sometimes wonder what inner meaning resides within these teachings. For example, in AC10429 it states that "the face corresponds to those things which are of the internal man." And in AC8910 it states that the mouth corresponds to thought. Of course the eyes, ears, etc., all have correspondences. What does it really mean to be "face to face" with the Lord? Elsewhere there's explicit mention of the need to worship a "visible God": From TCR339: Men ought to believe, that is, have faith, in God the Saviour Jesus Christ, because that is a faith in a visible God within whom is the invisible. When I read this I tend to focus seeing the Lord in bodily form. But aren't we really "seeing" the Lord when we know his love and wisdom? Thanks, Michael, for providing a forum to share such questions. - Byron -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2915 bytes Desc: not available URL: From michael@newearth.org Fri Apr 24 04:31:54 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:31:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: The meaning of a "visible God" In-Reply-To: <199804240203.VAA08387@maat.fastrans.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Byron Harris quoted: > From TCR107: What person, when he addresses himself to > another, directs his address to his invisible soul? Or > indeed how is such address practicable? Does he not > rather address the person himself, whom he sees face to > face and with whom he converses mouth to mouth? Just so > it is with God the Father and the Son; for God the Father > is in the Son, as the soul in its body. and wrote: > I sometimes wonder what inner meaning resides within these > teachings. For example, in AC10429 it states that "the > face corresponds to those things which are of the internal > man." And in AC8910 it states that the mouth corresponds > to thought. Of course the eyes, ears, etc., all have > correspondences. What does it really mean to be "face to > face" with the Lord? I would suggest that the "face" has to do with our personal relationship with the Lord, because it is in looking into each other's faces that we make contact with more interior things in other people, and this, it seems to me, is the practical meaning of the "correspondence" referred to above. The context of TCR 107 is about how we are to "approach" the Lord Jesus Christ alone. To me, the literal meaning of "approach the Lord" seems to be "address your prayers to the Lord." And "mouth to mouth", in mentioning BOTH mouths, suggest to me the idea that we not only talk to the Lord, but we listen for the Lord's response too. I've been thinking about this a lot, with regard to _Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture_ 55: The doctrine of genuine truth may also be fully drawn from the literal sense of the Word; for the Word in that sense is like a person clothed, but whose face and hands are uncovered. Everything in the Word pertaining to a person's life and thus to his salvation, is unveiled there. The rest is veiled; and in many places where it is veiled it shines through as the face appears through a thin veil of silk. Moreover, as the truths of the Word increase from the love of them, and are co-ordinated by love, they shine more and more clearly through their coverings and become more obvious. But this also is brought about by means of doctrine. As "face and mouth" relate to prayer, "face and hands" relate to reading the Word. What we need for our salvation is (1) the face: a relationship with the Lord and (2) the hands: doing what the Lord says, and also allowing the Lord to 'handle' and change us. The deepest principles we draw from the Word form the Lord's face, or our relationship with the Lord. The practical principles which we obey in life become the "hands." Notice that later in TCR 787, this "face and hands" image is extended, into an image of the Lord reaching out to embrace us: [...] conjunction with a visible God is like seeing a person in the air or on the water, stretching forth his hands and inviting all to his arms. > Elsewhere there's explicit mention of the need to worship a "visible God": > > From TCR339: Men ought to believe, that is, have faith, in God the Saviour > Jesus Christ, because that is a faith in a visible God within whom is the > invisible. > When I read this I tend to focus seeing the Lord in bodily > form. But aren't we really "seeing" the Lord when we know > his love and wisdom? I'd say so, and I'd say this is what it is to have a relationship with another human being too. Just as it's possible to forget the face of a loved one, because the deeper relationship is all we can remember, ideas about the Lord's bodily form become less important as we enter into this relationship. Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From raylinc@worldnet.att.net Fri Apr 24 04:59:11 1998 From: raylinc@worldnet.att.net (Ray Silverman) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 10:59:11 -0400 Subject: LUCERNA: The meaning of a "visible God" Message-ID: <01BD6F70.05BDFF80@115.atlanta-37.ga.dial-access.att.net> Dear Michael, You said: Just as it's possible to forget the face of a loved one, because the deeper relationship is all we can remember, ideas about the Lord's bodily form become less important as we enter into this relationship. Did you notice that this was the same point that I made in my e-mail to Mr. Harris? How wonderful that the Lord has created so many minds through which His messages may be clothed. I am your brother, Ray -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 1543 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JohnOdhner@aol.com Fri Apr 24 13:28:46 1998 From: JohnOdhner@aol.com (JohnOdhner) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:28:46 EDT Subject: LUCERNA: The meaning of a "visible God" Message-ID: <3d6c951e.35412030@aol.com> Dear Byron, > What does it really mean to be "face to face" with the Lord? Check out AC 10554, 10578-9, AR 938. Love, John From harrisb@poboxes.com Sun Apr 26 07:01:15 1998 From: harrisb@poboxes.com (Byron Harris) Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 11:01:15 -0600 Subject: LUCERNA: The meaning of a "visible God" Message-ID: <199804261601.LAA07106@maat.fastrans.net> Michael, Ray, and John, Thank you much for the thoughts and references on seeing the visible God, which I'm still processing. While reading the references in the Writings to what seeing the face of God signifies I was reminded of the description of dying in AC given below. Could this be saying at some level that as our proprium dies the Lord's will is superimposed on our own? - Byron 170 Celestial angels were present occupying the province of the heart, so that at heart I seemed to be united to them - so united that at length scarcely anything of myself was left apart from thought and resulting perception. This lasted for several hours. 171 In this way my communication with spirits in the world of spirits, who supposed that I had departed the life of the body, was broken off. 172 In addition to the celestial angels who were occupying the province of the heart, two angels were also sitting at my head, and I perceived that this happens to everyone. 173 The angels sitting at my head were completely silent, communicating their thoughts by facial expressions only. From this I perceived that a different face was as it were superimposed over my own, two faces in fact, since there were two angels. When the angels perceive that their own faces are being received they know that the person has died. 174 After they had recognized their own faces, they produced certain changes around the region of the mouth, and in that manner communicated their own thoughts to me; for it is normal for celestial angels to speak by means of the mouth. This enabled me to perceive their non-verbal expression of thought. From michael@newearth.org Fri May 1 11:21:18 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 17:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Who's on Lucerna Message-ID: Dear Friends, I got a request for a subscription to Lucerna, from Arcana@worldnet.att.net (Swedenborg Association), an address used by Drake Kaiser and Leonard Fox. Since there seems to be a serious division among the members of the Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma, and since many of the people in this group appear to represent one side of the division, and Messrs. Fox and Kaiser appear to represent the other side, I informed several of the members of this list about that subscription, and requested counsel. I have received four replies. One person asks to be removed from the list if LF and DK are included. Three others spoke up in favor of allowing this discussion to expand. Some hopes have been expressed: that in this arena, we can rise above matters of "proprium" and examine our understanding of the Word; and that this will be a place where real communication can begin to happen. Based on that response, I am not going to object to the new subscribers. I regret that one of our members will be leaving us as a result. Time to move forward. Yours in the Lord's New Church, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Sat May 2 02:35:07 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens) Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 14:35:07 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: Divinity of the Latin Word. Message-ID: <01bd75c6$bd4c23a0$LocalHost@gj> Kurt wrote: >And you may have explained back a ways, >but I don't remember it: >What exactly is Lucerna? >Kurt --------< Easy to find out Kurt by: subscribe: majordomo@novahierosolyma.org where Michael V. David formulates intentions and objectives for this list in a fine style. May I answer you for a start: Lucerna is a site to present statements about the Divinity of the Latin Word. For some there are obvious reasons, for others emotional or by experience, also intellectual statements may be supportive; all are welcome. What makes the Writings differ from other religious literature ? First thing that comes to my mind is: each time I read / reread a portion it appears new / renewed to me ! What would be your first brief observation on the subject: Divinity of the Latin Word / Swedenborg's Writings ? Have a fine weekend, Guus - swedenborgiana@tip.nl Elektronische Swedenborg Publikaties NL http://www1.tip.nl/~t890121/index.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Sun May 3 08:20:20 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens) Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 20:20:20 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: Re: Divinity of the Latin Word. Message-ID: <01bd76c0$22483d80$LocalHost@gj> Dear Kurt, Thank you for your reply to the question: >What would be your first brief observation on the subject: >Divinity of the Latin Word / Swedenborg's Writings ? < You wrote: >With a GC background, not Convention, there has never been any question >about their Divinity in my mind. Dear Kurt, to me this sounds like: 'My parents told me so'. I have been reading many of your contributions @NewEarth on evangelization, and now you say this question never has been on your mind ? My experience as a NC evangelist in Europe is, that this question is the key difference between Conference and General Church. Also, over this last decade in my sophisticated and well educated country, I had many thousends of contacts with new receivers of Swedenborgian ideas - more then 99% were/are: APPRECIATORS of SWEDENBORG ! All these do not see, nor accept the Divinity of the Latin Word, but do appreciate Swedenborgian ideas as inspiring - interesting -ad rem - literature - intellectual - sophisticated - philosophical - mystical - universal. Less then 1% sees / feels /accepts the Divinity of the Latin Word. These are New Church receivers, others are Swedenborg appreciators, which in itself already is quite a high level compaired to most 'new agers'. _____ Kurt: >On the other hand, trying to really get >to understand them in one human lifetime - now there's a challenge. Sure >is a lucky we have into eternity to continue our education! >Best Kurt What is the challenge ? If you do not get started in this lifetime, you may never tend to continue in the next world, would you ? I think the awareness of the Divinity of the Latin Word is a key statement - unlocking celestial influx. It is also the turning point for over 99%; nevertheless worthwhile to devellop. Please give it a second thought ? Kindest regards, Guus. swedenborgiana@tip.nl From ksimons@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu Sun May 3 08:53:47 1998 From: ksimons@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Kurt Simons) Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 14:53:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Re: Divinity of the Latin Word. In-Reply-To: <01bd76c0$22483d80$LocalHost@gj> Message-ID: Guus You wrote >to me this sounds like: 'My parents told me so'. I have been reading many of your contributions @NewEarth on evangelization, and now you say this question never has been on your mind ? Well, to make a long story short, my parents telling me so had little to do with it. I threw it all over for a while, figured I'd been brainwashed, etc. (so much for historical faith!). And only came back to it because it made more sense to me than any alternatives. Your second question I'm afraid I don't understand, maybe a language problem. I'm not aware that I've seen or participated in a discussion on the matter on the Swedenborg list. But again, maybe I'm not understanding you. Kurt From ksimons@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu Sun May 3 08:58:36 1998 From: ksimons@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Kurt Simons) Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 14:58:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Re: Divinity of the Latin Word. In-Reply-To: <01bd76c0$22483d80$LocalHost@gj> Message-ID: > over this last decade in my sophisticated and well educated country, I had many thousends of contacts with new receivers of Swedenborgian ideas - more then 99% were/are: APPRECIATORS of SWEDENBORG ! All these do not see, nor accept the Divinity of the Latin Word, but do appreciate Swedenborgian ideas as inspiring - interesting -ad rem - literature - intellectual - sophisticated - philosophical - mystical - universal. I don't know how familiar you are with the history of Swedenborg's ideas in this country or England, but this was a very familiar situation in the last century, and some of the early part of this century. It's where a lot of those famous names came from who are so often cited as readers of Swedenborg. Not to be confused with religious followers of the doctrines. I mean, think about it. A thinking person's religion, positively intellectually respectable. Of course there's those various kooky things you have to sort of ignore, like Memorabilia, but great otherwise, from that point of view. So, in sum, I don't find your experience surprising. But the Lord has a whole workbench full of tools to get the human race where it's going in this respect, and this presumably is one of those tools. Kurt From ksimons@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu Sun May 3 09:05:05 1998 From: ksimons@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu (Kurt Simons) Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 15:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Re: Divinity of the Latin Word. In-Reply-To: <01bd76c0$22483d80$LocalHost@gj> Message-ID: >What is the challenge ? If you do not get started in this lifetime, you may never tend to continue in the next world, would you ? I'm not quite sure how what I said could be construed to imply not getting started in this lifetime, but that certainly is not what I meant. I was merely observing that there is lots of truth buried in those pages! I think the awareness of the Divinity of the Latin Word is a key statement - unlocking celestial influx. It is also the turning point for over 99%; nevertheless worthwhile to devellop. Please give it a second thought ? Again I am not sure I understand what you're driving at here. Would it answer the thought to simply say that I agree that the Divinity question is key - it's the whole question of authority. If Swedenborg is just another Bible commentator, why pay any attention to him? If it's not Swedenborg and is from God, obviously, that's a whole other matter. Kurt From luken@newearth.org Mon May 11 13:14:51 1998 From: luken@newearth.org (Luken and Dawn Potts) Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 19:14:51 -0400 Subject: LUCERNA: What burns in the lamp? Message-ID: <000b01bd7d32$c4447720$0b3a6acf@potts> Hi -This is Dawn writing some thoughts--- finally. I often feel inclined to put thoughts down but it is difficult. I do enjoy everyone else's communication. I was thinking about doctrine from The Lord and how without it "the Word is not understood" and how important this makes our understanding to be but have been thinking that in order for the lamp to burn and the light to shine there has to be oil in the lantern. Warm beautiful soothing oil... Love which excuses, which doesn't condemn, Love which acknowledges the power of the Lord and the long long struggle of life that everyone has to go through. "They who are being regenerated are let into combats and undergo temptations, if not in this world then after death, thus The Lord's Church is called militant. It is The Lord alone who fights and sustains" AC1692. I am realizing that all of us, if we strong enough to be able to face our evils, are going to have many tough battles in this life. This should make us all the more willing to excuse each others faults and miseries. Without love from The Lord in our hearts there is at most only the Ishmael rational, which condemns all the failings of others. "The man who intends good to his neighbor and thinks nothing but good respecting him and DOES it when he can is among angelic spirits" AC1680. In my own life I find this statement a help to re-read often. Not identifying what is of self in our own thinking is, of course, a hugh hindrance to the lamp being lit. All the "he should haves, he didn'ts, they should haves" are all making excuses for negative attitudes within my own inside thoughts of other people. The Word says unforgiveness closes the mind ... and yet we just go round and round in our life waiting for the other fellow to reach out first. Angels continually forgive. I've been thinking how important it is to think about not approaching The Word just trying to , "draw out doctrine". We know this approach doesn't, and can't work ever - It is Only by going to The Lord in The Word --- Always The Lord first, kept in front of our eyes as a Sun, can the Lord illuminate our minds and give that enlightenment of heaven. This is where the emphasis is so different from The General Church. How it isn't by means of our rational, it isn't figuring out correspondences. All those knowledges are vessels that The Lord uses of course, but approaching " The Writings", not as "The Plain Teachings" but approaching Them with the idea that "The Good and True is something higher" makes all the difference in the world. If the truths we learn aren't brought into our life, if they don't become living they can't be the means of seeing The Lord. A 1000 lamps without oil can't light our path.......To me light will come brightly into our minds in the church, when Love becomes a living force - it IS A LIVING FORCE--- It is The Lord with us..... It is something tangible not just a word. When I am inclined to do something, which changes my life, it feels right, like I am on the right path, remembering to pray for the person I might be fussy at, making a holy place in my everyday world. I feel the desires that want to make a place for The Lord in our life is where the beginning of the precious new will can be implanted. There are so many interfering layers of the mind which block off and tear away the small beginnings that flash on. It is to me like trying to read a book by means of a flash of lightening. The title page becomes clear and unbelievably shining - the beautiful cover and maybe one sentence at a time. To me the opening of the internal of the Word is so far above our everyday thinking minds and the sentences read in that flash of light it is almost impossible to transcribe them. Once I saw some absolutely amazing thing about "all good is from The Lord''. When I tried to explain my words, they were only words, they were just the very same words, but the feeling of that vision was and is still magnificent to me. How we get from studying the letter of the Arcana to living it and bringing it into our lives everywhere is the most important thing in life I feel, I'm sure we can help each other. It is all stated so simply and beautifully ...study The Word, shun evils, pray, obey the commandments, love thy neighbor....isn't it lovely that the whole of life can be stated so simply. Yet self-love can so wrap up my thinking that I can completely loose sight that a path even exists. If I hung a great golden ball like the sun in the middle of the room would I remember to think of the Lord more ? Probably eventually I would just stop noticing it....I love that it describes how the angels continually see the Lord as a Sun before their eyes. How do we really get into the details of life ???????????? The devil is in the details. ........ God must also be. -Keep the lights burning. Dawn and Luken From raylinc@worldnet.att.net Mon May 11 18:05:40 1998 From: raylinc@worldnet.att.net (Ray Silverman) Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 00:05:40 -0400 Subject: LUCERNA: What burns in the lamp? Message-ID: <01BD7D39.B971E920@185.philadelphia-05.pa.dial-access.att.net> Dear Dawn and Luken, Loved your beautiful contribution, "What burns in the lamp?" Especially appreciated your statement "How we get from studying the Arcana to living it and bringing it into our lives everywhere is the most important thing in life." Also loved the words, "Love which excuses, which doesn't condemn, Love which acknowledges the power of the Lord and the long struggle of life that everyone has to go through. . ." Knowing our own failings so well should indeed make us better able to excuse the faults and failings of others. Those words, "Take first the speck out of your own eye. . ." gain more meaning and more power for us day by day. Thank you for setting such a compassionate tone. Now let us strive to live it! Love, Ray and Star -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 1744 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JohnOdhner@aol.com Mon May 11 21:44:39 1998 From: JohnOdhner@aol.com (JohnOdhner) Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 03:44:39 EDT Subject: LUCERNA: What burns in the lamp? Message-ID: Dear Dawn and Luken, Thanks for your beautiful thoughts! What you said reminds me of one of my favorite passages: those who are in enlightenment when reading the Word, see the Lord AC 9411 Just as love to the Lord is also love from the Lord, our seeing the Lord in the Word is not our sight, but the Lord's. no one sees the spiritual sense of the Word but the Lord alone, and hence that no one sees that sense except from the Lord, AR 824 Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Love, John From michael@newearth.org Sat May 16 04:01:21 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 10:01:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: What burns in the lamp? In-Reply-To: <000b01bd7d32$c4447720$0b3a6acf@potts> Message-ID: Hi Dawn, I also loved what you wrote! On Mon, 11 May 1998, Dawn Potts wrote: > [...] in order for the lamp to burn and the light to shine > there has to be oil in the lantern. Warm beautiful > soothing oil... Love which excuses, which doesn't condemn, > Love which acknowledges the power of the Lord and the long > long struggle of life that everyone has to go through. It's so easy to toss of phrases like "... from a celestial origin" without a living sense that this is about loving and being loved -- that to love and be loved is the source of all true light, and thus the possibility of a rational view of life. > It is all stated so simply and beautifully ...study The > Word, shun evils, pray, obey the commandments, love thy > neighbor....isn't it lovely that the whole of life can be > stated so simply. Yet self-love can so wrap up my > thinking that I can completely loose sight that a path > even exists. There is a debate on the "Swedenborg" list about whether these books we have are "the Word" or "doctrine from the Word." There are passages that say the Word IS doctrine, and other passages that speak of reading the Word WITHOUT doctrine (so they are both the same and different). In the letter of the Latin Word, there is an appearance that explaining the internal sense makes a subject bigger and more complex. The reality, I think, is that what is big and complex is the way that our self-love gets involved in the understanding of the Word, and the explanation is about unraveling this entanglement, and making things simple. It's interesting that the true rational mind is represented by the name "Isaac" or "laughter" -- a truly rational view of life includes a kind of laughing at ourselves, that springs from love. Peace, Michael -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W Quidquid latine dicitur, altum viditur. From hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net Sun May 17 16:15:25 1998 From: hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net (fred fulmer) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 19:15:25 -0700 Subject: LUCERNA: Thought - Emanuel Swedenborg Message-ID: <199805180207.TAA09733@snowcrest.net> Today I received an anonymous thought via the Lucerna email. I appreciate the thought. However, I don't appreciate the anonymous nature and that it was sent to undisclosed recipients. In the future please identify yourself so those who receive the message may correspond with you. Thank you for the thought. Sher Huss Fulmer From hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net Sun May 17 16:11:06 1998 From: hussfulmerz@snowcrest.net (fred fulmer) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 19:11:06 -0700 Subject: LUCERNA: What burns in the lamp Message-ID: <199805180207.TAA09721@snowcrest.net> Dear Dawn, For the last week I have been thinking about what you wrote. It was beautifully written and obviously heartfelt. Thank you for your thoughts. I have thought about how when I find excuses for not forgiving; that my mind becomes closed to the Word. When I close to Love and His Light then darkness enters my mind until I am willing to open to the light. I too get caught up in the daily activities of life and forget to light the lamp. Thank you for reminding me how important it is to light the lamp every day if only for a few moments. I will be thinking about what you wrote for a long time. Thank you for sharing. Sher Huss Fulmer From swedenborgiana@tip.nl Sun May 17 22:58:14 1998 From: swedenborgiana@tip.nl (Guus Janssens) Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:58:14 +0200 Subject: LUCERNA: Thought - Emanuel Swedenborg Message-ID: <01bd823b$17e1d780$LocalHost@gj> Sher wrote: -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: fred fulmer Aan: lucerna Datum: maandag 18 mei 1998 4:11 Onderwerp: LUCERNA: Thought - Emanuel Swedenborg >Today I received an anonymous thought via the Lucerna email. I appreciate >the thought. However, I don't appreciate the anonymous nature and that it >was sent to undisclosed recipients. In the future please identify yourself >so those who receive the message may correspond with you. Thank you for >the thought. > >Sher Huss Fulmer ----- Dear Sher, My email program indicates that the sender of the Thought is: owner.lucerna@novahierosolyma.org so it is obviously Michael distributing heavenly thoughts to many on various lists. Best, Guus. From luken@newearth.org Wed Jun 3 06:53:47 1998 From: luken@newearth.org (Luken and Dawn Potts) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 12:53:47 -0400 Subject: LUCERNA: Thanks Message-ID: <000301bd8f10$2f76b780$0b3a6acf@potts> Thank you, thank you...... everyone for all your thoughts and efforts. Too much coming and going to say more now. Hope will carry us miles more. Dawn From michael@newearth.org Fri Jun 19 17:49:33 1998 From: michael@newearth.org (Michael David) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 23:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: Invitation Message-ID: Dear Friends, I gave the following speech at the Philadelphia Society's 19th of June Banquet. Yours, Michael ------------------------------------- Invitation In the table of contents to the little work called _Invitation to the New Church_, we read: [9.] An invitation to the new church, that people should go and meet the Lord (from Rev. 21-22; and also from Chap. 1, etc.) In _True Christian Religion_, we read a description of the Lord's invitation to us: ... conjunction with a visible God is like seeing a human being standing in the air or on the water, stretching forth his hands and inviting all to his arms. (TCR 787). To the extent that the Lord's New Heaven is formed within us, the Lord's New Church can come down from that heaven into our life on earth (cf. TCR 784). If we receive the Lord's invitation, our lives will also reflect those open arms, that loving embrace that longs to include all. Other people in the church are the Lord's gift to us, to help us in our spiritual path. Our reaction to them invites us to examine ourselves and repent of the evils within us. Let us refrain from categorizing others and substituting this for repentance in our own lives. Let us beware of the desire to judge others as to whether they are worthy members of the Lord's New Church. Let us beware of any who would presume to exercise such judgment for us. The Lord reaches out to all. From this unconditional love, from this reach and this embrace, there can be no excommunication. From a church that strives to embody that loving invitation, there can be no excommunication. Let us move away from the falsities of the former church that engaged in such practices. Let us move forward into the Lord's extended arms. Let us accept the Invitation. Michael David -- Michael V. David - MVD53 - michael@newearth.org - mvd@netaxs.com WEB: http://www.netaxs.com/~mvd/ - http://www.newearth.org/~michael IRC: irc.newearth.org #newearth - Earth: 40 07 53 N, 75 04 04 W There is no Lumber Cartel(tm). I am not Lumber Cartel Unit #1384. From lorin@newearth.org Mon Jul 6 07:11:30 1998 From: lorin@newearth.org (Lori Jane Nelson) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 13:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: LUCERNA: One church In-Reply-To: from "Emanuel Swedenborg" at Jul 6, 98 10:09:34 am Message-ID: <199807061711.NAA10726@sapphire.newearth.org> My thanks to E. Swedenborg for recording the inspired words below: > > [doctrinal] things would have been only varieties of opinion about the > mysteries of faith, which true Christians would leave to everyone > according to his or her conscience; and they would have said at heart > that a true Christian is a person who lives like a Christian, or who > lives as the Lord teaches. In this way, one church would have come > into being from all the different ones, and all the dissensions which > result from doctrine alone would have vanished. In fact, the hatred of > one group against another would have evaporated immediately, and the > Lord's kingdom would have been on earth. > > Arcana Coelestia 1799[:4] > > -- >Emanuel Swedenborg > I have been saddened to have been made aware of dissension in the Lord's New Church Which is Nova Hierosolyma. It is in ill-accord with my very pleasant memories of attending church in the Philadelphia Society chapel, where I felt welcomed as a newcomer and delighted to be among people who, it seemed, thought deeply and often about the teachings revealed by the Lord in His Second Coming. Even then, it was clear to me that some had one and some another interpretation of this or that passage. But at the time of my attendance (beginning several years ago and continuing until recently), it seemed to me that there was NOT discord among members over these apparent disagreements. What on earth (in hell?) has happened? It is grievous to think that some members have decided that they may dictate to others what their understanding of the Word ought be. Where is the charity in that? How I wish that we could, in fact, word and deed, form one church! Love to all, Lorin From raylinc@worldnet.att.net Mon Jul 13 11:19:55 1998 From: raylinc@worldnet.att.net (Ray Silverman) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:19:55 -0400 Subject: LUCERNA: Love your enemy Message-ID: <01BDAE82.77246FA0@229.philadelphia-06.pa.dial-access.att.net> Thanks for the passage about "love your enemy." I have been thinking about CL 365 which speaks about the zeal of a good love. It says that in outward form it may look exactly like an evil love, but that inwardly it is "mild, gentle, friendly, and benevolent." These four adjectives are contrasted with four adjectives which describe the internal of an evil love: "hostile, fierce, hard, and breathing hatred and vindictiveness." Does anyone have a hunch about the significance of this series? I have always been interested in the subject of series. Recently my wife pointed out that the series which describes Conjugial Love--Celestial, Spiritual, Holy, Pure, and Clean may line up with the five churches and help us understand the states of marriage. In considering her insight, I thought that the series may go something like this: Celestial beginnings as in the Most Ancient Church where all is perception, because the understanding and will are conjoined; Spiritual as in the Ancient Church where symbols (wedding rings for example) are full of meaning; Holy as in the Israelitish Church where obedience to holy externals help keep order in anticipation of the Lord's Coming (in marriage just being courteous and polite); Pure as in the Early Christian Church just after the Lord's coming when the church was in its pristine integrity and followers of Christ were pure in heart (in marriage a new beginning as husband and wife begin to lay down the love of self); Clean as in the New Church where the Divine Truth cleanses our understanding and creates a new will. I am just offering this as an example of a possible series in the Latin Word. Perhaps someone else would like to develop it further. But the series I am really interested in right now is the series on heavenly zeal--because I need to practice it! What do you make of those words "Mild, Friendly, Gentle, Benevolent"? Why four terms and why in that order? Do they line up with the Four Gospels, or the river in Genesis that parted into four heads, or the four winds, or the four corners of the earth? Any thoughts out there? Best wishes to all, Ray ---------- From: Emanuel Swedenborg[SMTP:emanuel@newearth.org] Sent: Monday, July 13, 1998 10:35 AM To: Several Discussion Lists: ; Subject: LUCERNA: Love your enemy All those are in the good of charity who have conscience, and who, from conscience, think well of the neighbor even if the neigbor is an enemy. Arcana Coelestia 2380 -- Emanuel Swedenborg E-mail Discussion Groups, Bulletin Boards and Chat Rooms: http://www.newearth.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2876 bytes Desc: not available URL: