From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (stephen) Subject: Mt Carmel and Faith Transcript of phone conversation between myself and Livingstone Fagan from last Saturday evening, July 24th. LF is the spokesman David Koresh appointed to explain their faith to the public. As best I can tell, He is being held in jail by the federal authorities as a religious prisoner, and an example to others of the harassment and violence which will be used against those who don't bow down to the system. l: Mt Carmel is a situation right now where, we're not effectively here to call people to accept the truth which we possess. We're here to call people to make a decision. s: ok l: There's been a lot sensationalizing, and distorting the story about Mt Carmel. In a sense that's good, because it will capture the insincere in their own craftiness, which allows people to come to a decision. Which is just my point -- about .... s: May I point out something? l: Go ahead. s: It's very obvious to me when they [the authorities] bull-doze, burn, propagandize, and cover-up an issue -- it's being obscured -- it's being "fuzzied-up." l: Precisely. But at the same time, that you are able to... ahmm, see through all of that, and realize what the government is doing... there is a large class of personalities who don't want to know. s: That's right. l: In fact, irrespective of what God would do, to bring those individu- als, individual minds, to a knowledge of The Truth, they would still resist it, because they feel that -- "by remaining in an indecisive position... ahmm, they will hold God in a position where The World can not come to a conclusion, because God can not judge without people making a decision." They *must* be in a decisive position. s: ok l: So, ahmm... they will make a decision, whether they know it or not against Mt Carmel, because of the distortion and the sensationalized reporting. That has been a very prominent observation. s: Yes, in everybody I've encountered. l: That's right. So, ahh... the reporting itself is very much a part of the process -- the decision making process. Even though it's distorted, it's not something that will ultimately stop, if you understand my meaning. s: ok l:That's not to say I have no sympathy for people. But if individuals are not prepared to have sympathy for themselves, then it creates a rather difficult situation. s: Ok. Speak slowly and clearly please. l: Yes. It creates a rather difficult situation. So at this point, ahmm, decisions are being made, either for or against the truth that Mt Carmel *represents*. Of course, *we* have to experience the situation that we are experi- encing at present... s: Yes, I understand. l: ...which is not in itself intolerable. It's bearable, since we are seeing it in the light of the greater purposes of God, so that maybe you can understand and endure the process. Ahh, but what I desire for individuals who are sincere... (And I have received letters from many. I mean only this morning a person wrote to me expressing concern, ahmm, encouragement, and ahh, personal support. Which I found to be extremely, ahm, how shall I say... soothing.) s: Yeah, I'm sure. It's nice to get the feedback. l: That's right! s: But, at the same time I feel there's a strong desire to have a speeding up the process. So for their welfare, I've taken the opportu- nity to contact particular individuals of this group, in order to... to try and explain, and highlight the fact, that we have a genuine theolog- ical foundation for the position we hold. Ahm, I am naturally limited; rather, we are naturally limited, as far as we can go with that. Not that God is depending upon this in order to accomplish His purpose. I think, the world-wide media coverage of Mt Carmel has already accomplished that. It's just a matter of waiting for people to be fully decided in their own minds. s: ok l: So this is what we are dealing with at this time. The opportunity you afford me, to actually communicate over the fax and the computer net- works, ahm, some items of doctrine, like the last article I wrote, and there are some letters I have, that I would like to present to you... s: ok l: ...which may well benefit the sincere. Because, quite frankly I can only see that it's the sincere that would be operating along the lines that you're working along. You follow? s: Yes. You know why? The rest are hard-hearted, hard-headed... l: Precisely. s: ...and jaded... l: Exactly. s: The Apocalypse would not have been put in the language that it was put in... l: Uh huh. s: ...or it wouldn't be played out in the events it's going to be played out in, if it weren't for the fact that's what's going to have to happen, to get through to a lot of people. l: Ah, it's a sad situation. I wish it were not this way. s: And by the way it's something that comes from people having free will. l: And, nobody really, not even God can effectively overrun that. s: Nor *will* overrun it anyway... l: Exactly. s: ...as in the Promises of God. Go ahead. l: So eventually what we're going to see is that in the conclusion, *everyone* will acknowledge God's justice. s: We can cite Scripture, sure -- "Every knee shall bow," [Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10]. l: Right. So at this present moment in time, the issues as they relate to the process of salvation, has been clearly prevented. s: The "what" of salvation? l: The process. s: The process, go ahead. l: Ahmm, there is another area I would like to direct the attention of a lot of... or at least those individuals I have the opportunity to communicate with, and that's to deal with the issue of "present truth." I don't know whether you've had the opportunity to read an article by a guy called, Richard K. Hoskins, of "The Hoskins Report?" s: No. l: It would be very useful if you could, because I think he's done a very, very good job of "capturing" the psychological warfare that the United States government practiced upon us. And has been practicing through the medium of communications, the *public* medium of communica- tions, for at least the last 75 to 80 years. s: ok l: It's an extremely interesting article. It's entitled, "Chairman Mao and the Massacre in Waco," published on May 3rd, 1993. As I say, the editor's name is Richard Kelly Hoskins. s: Where was it published? l: Essentially it's his own publication, I haven't actually got it... give me a moment and I'll get you his address. s: I can probably find the publication from my... l: Right, he's the editor, it's called "The Hoskins Report." And the issue is May 3rd, 1993. I think it's number 224. s: ok l: There's another publication as well, by ahh, Project 93. I don't know if you've every come across that yet? s: Uhh, vaguely, go ahead. l: Well, what's so interesting about Project 93 is an article entitled "... ever wondered" (???), actually it's a booklet, and it's entitled, "Ever Wondered Why?" s: "As I wondered why" ?? l: "Ever Wondered Why?" s: "Ever Wondered Why?" l: Yeah and it covers developments in the financial arena as they relate to the United States, in it's alliance with the United Nations. It brings to view a very, very important development that's taking place at this moment, which correlates to events spoken of by the prophet, in Revelation 13 through chapter 17. I make reference to this simply because of the fact of ahmm, as I mentioned, the fact of Present Truth, which identifies where we are along the process of salvation. I find that this book by, ahm, Project 93, actually affords a beautiful grasp of the conceptual... the con- cepts... the conceptual background to understand those texts in Revela- tion 13 and 17. s: 13 & 17 ?? l: That's right. s: ok l: Which refers to, in chapter 17, remember the ahmm, 7th and 8th ahh, beast? [see Rev. 17:11] And in Revelation chapter 13 the two horned breast, and the image to the beast that was created? s: But you mentioned the 7th and the 8th beasts? l: That's right, in revelation chapter 17. s: ok l: Those issues are to do with Present Truth, and I would like to have been able to get in more depth into some of the symbolic language, which prior to my leaving Mt Carmel on March 23rd, I had spent some time with David, discussing. s: ok l: And I can see the reasons why, even more clearly now, as I see the developments taking place, in the international arena. s: Say again that last part. l: Yes. As I see the developments currently taking place in the interna- tional arena. s: In the international arena. l: I would like to be able to discuss those with you in detail. Ah, one of the things I want is that ah, the terms be accurate, but even in context it does not necessarily communicate the spirit behind the words that are written. s: Let's talk about that. l: That is very important. That is, it's because of The Spirit, that is through The Spirit, that one receives context the context, for what is written. You follow? s: Receives the context? l: Yeah. The Spirit illuminates the written word. And when I write a book, or when I write an article -- a person reads that in light of their own understanding. Do you follow? s: Yes. l: It is very difficult to try and separate one's own perceptions, and to try and grasp the perceptions and meanings behind the words, senten- ces and paragraphs, of the letter. Unfortunately it is very difficult to bridge that. There is that limitation in language, that makes it so dif- ficult to address that. s: That's because you can't speak with what we have available to us, which is the indwelling Spirit. [cf. John 16:13] l: Exactly. s: The requirement there is for The Groom, (The Husband), to do the speaking. l: Exactly. How does one deal with that? I really don't know other than direct... direct communication. As you can see, my present situation prevents that. So, the articles I write, the information that I transmit, is as limited as possible, yet is ahmm, I was going to say "as potent as possible," but that's very difficult to assess. s: Yes. l: So, what I hope is that (as I continue to write articles), my hope is that people will continue to respond with any question they feel may arise from those articles, and I can try it by first of all understand- ing the premise that they're coming from. PLEASE NOTE: Please, use the postal services, and I suggest short one page letters with sase included, or a phone number for a collect call. Livingstone is pre- sently imprisoned at McLennan County Jail, 510 Columbus, Waco, Tx. 76701 s: Livingstone, it would help to start out with the ah, simple "yes/no" [questions], that nobody seems willing to approach you with, for in- stance [concerning] the ah, what first and foremost must be on a lot of people's minds is: "Who is Jesus Christ to you?", "Was David Koresh the Messiah?" These types of questions. l: Alright. s: That is the way to catch their attention. l: Ok, I understand that, ah, that concept. The thing is,that even that presents it's own problems. Let me try to address that question that you ask as a ahm... means of identifying some of the problems. David Koresh being Christ. The first question I would be forced to ask you is what is your understanding of Christ? s: My understanding of Christ is the physical manifestation of God. l: Right, indeed that's true, God in the flesh. Ok. The physical mani- festation -- God in the Flesh. Part of that concept is of the Melchize- dek priesthood, that ahm, Paul sought to address, in the Hebrews. s: Yes. [Heb. 5-7] l: Which Psalms 110 develops. [and Genesis 14:18] s: Psalms 110, you say? l: 110 right. Which goes back to the time of Abraham. s: ok l: 2000 years ago there was also a manifestation of that same priesthood when Christ came into the earth. But as John the apostle pointed out, it was impossible for the darkened human mind to *comprehend* [cf. John 1:5] this reality, because Christ is really a principle, The Word of God, or God's thoughts expressed. s: Yes! l: And the problem here is that humanity, in it's dullness of percep- tion, finds it extremely difficult to appreciate or comprehend that. And that was demonstrated 2000 years ago which resulted in his death, which from my premise, having been a recipient of the knowledge contained in the 7-SEALS, I conclude the same thing occurred at Mt Carmel. So, when faced with an issue in respect to that question, I can only address it from the premise from which you come from. I can present something... s: Then let me help. l: Go ahead. s: In the sense, we know that from Revelation 19, that "The Marriage Supper of the Lamb" is referred to. The question is, "Who is being married?" We know in Revelation 19 that The Word of God is The Lamb. l: Precisely. s: So, who's the Church? The Church appears in Revelation 12. In other places in the New Testament, we know that the Church is made up of the Body of believers. Now here's a mystery -- the Head of the Church is Christ... l: Uh huh. s: ...however, Christ is also the First Born of that union. That union is between The Word and The Spirit, (elsewhere called The Comforter). l: Right. s: Now we are given in Acts, The Spirit, to indwell, as a gift, if we ask, by God. And it comes to us as "The Nurturer." l: Ok, ok. Let me hold that, let me hold that point. Let's develop that. s: Go for it. l: We are given that indwelling Spirit if we ask for it, ok. What is your perception of that indwelling Spirit in terms of, "when you ask for it." Most people identify it as some kind of feeling. s: Most do. They expect to get the tingles, or the shivers, or some sort of high. l: Exactly. But the truth about it is, that spirit was the Spirit that motivated Christ when he was upon the earth 2000 years ago. s: That spirit is... ?? l: The Spirit that was in the flesh 2000 years ago. s: ok l: Now that Spirit, in Luke chapter 23, when Christ was crucified, that Spirit was *commended* into the hands of The Father. [Luke 23:46] You follow? s: Yes! Into The Word. l: Into the... right. So, in Revelation chapter 4, when John gets taken to heaven... yes? He goes to heaven, a door is opened, he sees a judgement. He sees One who sat on the Throne. Now, the one that sat on the throne is surrounded by 24 elders. Now, in chapter 5 it highlights that in the right hand of the One who sat on the Throne -- is The Book -- sealed with 7 seals. This correlates with Luke when he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Telephone company recording: "ATTENTION, ONE MINUTE REMAINING." [Though LF calls me collect, the calls time out after 30 minutes --Sdt] s: You wanta call back? l: Yes. So, what we have there was that, that Spirit, which Christ sought to express -- which was rejected -- was commended into the hands of The Father. And then you go up to the [tape garbled, sounds like "sentry"] as John did, we see on the right hand -- the Book, Sealed with Seven Seals. So that Spirit is now written. Do you follow? s: The Spirit is now embodied in writing? l: Right. In written form -- The Book. s: The question is, "What is The Book?" Is it The Book of Life? l: [both talking, tape garbled] l: In Revelation 22, after The Lamb in chapter 6, begins to loose The Seals, it states that He's going to come to earth with that Book, sealed with 7 seals. That's His reward... s: ok l: ...to give to every man. This is where Mt Carmel came in, in that David Koresh was teaching the book. The question is, "What is the Book?" Well, in Revelation chapter ahh.... s: ...Operator I accept the charges. Yes, I'm here Livingstone. l: Right. We're dealing with The Book. When Christ came 2000 years ago, that Spirit of God, which is really the expressed thought of God in the flesh, was made available to mankind in a flesh form, something they can identify with. When Christ was killed that Spirit was commended into the hands of The Father. John looked up to see the judgement, and saw in the hand of The Father, a Book, sealed with 7 seals. In Revelation 22, He's to return again, with the intention of commu- nicating the contents of that Spirit. Now that Spirit is Life -- Eternal Life. That's what they rejected at The Cross. Now, the thing about it is, that the issue is, "What is that Book?" Well the whole scene of Christ's returning is depicted in summary form in Revelation, chapter 10-11. s: Summary form? l: In summary form, yes. The actual details of it, is the subject matter of the 7 Seals, but it's summarized in those 2 chapters, 10 and 11, of Revelation. You see an Angel, a strong Angel, that comes to the earth, with a Book -- opened. That's of course, the Book that was in the hand of The Father, in Revelation chapter 5. Now, in the 7th verse, ahmm, it is stated clearly that the voice of the 7th angel, when He shall begin to sound, the mystery of God, which is the content of the 7-Seals. And note the statement, "the mystery of God." Everybody seeks to know God, but the mystery is contained in the 7-Seals. The mystery of what God really is. That is the essential knowledge that is missing from humani- ty. Now, as I stated, the voice of the 7th Angel, when He begins to sound, the mystery of God will be *finished*... s: Yes. I recall. l: ...as He hath declared, to his servants, The Prophets. Do you follow? s: I understand. l: Now the content of that Book was already declared to The Prophets. The 7-Seals, if you go back to the summary that is given of the Seals, as the Lamb opens them in chapter 6 onwards; you will see certain information. Now, as I mentioned before to you, people have sought to interpret that information. Do you follow? s: With their human understanding... l: Exactly. s: ...rather than with the Mind of God, which is Scripture. l: Precisely. Yes, you got the point. The fact is that only One can open that information in the first place. The Lamb, yes?? Mankind can not do it, because you're dealing with information which is synonymous with the Mind of God. Now can the human mind comprehend the things of God? Being in it's humanity, it's impossible. Therefore it has to be revealed to him. Hence, the only way it can be done is for Christ, or rather Christ being The Word, the expressed thoughts of God, to come into the realm of humanity. s: Now let me... let me, I don't want to throw you off, but I do want to ask two very important questions. l: Go ahead. s: When Christ... when Jesus came, Jesus, as it was written -- He made that reference very, very often -- "as it is written"... l: Precisely. s: He knew from early on, from a very young time -- The Scriptures... l: Precisely. s: ...very well. The Word indwelled Him. l: Precisely, yes. s: And, this is a lesson. The lesson we find that also happened to Koresh. The parallel is there. The Word working in Koresh... l: Exactly! As you're bringing it up, you're bringing it out. Christ could only quote Scripture 2000 years ago. And a lot of the Scriptures have to be received purely by faith, even though at the time, they did not meet the perceptions of the human mind. Because, really they were written from the premise of the eternal mind. You follow? s: Oh, yes! l: So humanity can not of itself comprehend them. What humanity does is to receive The Scripture by faith. Having, receiving...In the process of receiving a progressive knowledge of the Revealed Truth, declared as Scriptural -- the human mind will be elevated to the place where it can comprehend *over time* that information. s: Yes. There's a gestation period. l: Precisely. Humanity has actually been taken out of it's *human* thinking, and elevated to the divine thinking, which is what 2nd Peter talks about in 1-4. Through the knowledge of God... s: You say in 2nd Peter 1... l: 2nd Peter chapter 1 verses 1-4. s: ok [The Promises of God] l: Through the knowledge of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, humanity becomes a partaker of the divine nature. What a person thinks -- is what he is. s: Ok, I hear that. Now, I'm wondering this, ok? l: Go ahead. s: It's clear to me that there is a marriage. l: Right. s: In The Marriage of The Lamb... l: Ok. s: ... here the Bride comes. Now to me, (this may be my mind), in other words I may be reading into it, or I may be inspired in this, I don't know. But as best I can tell, The Marriage of The Word, The Marriage of The Lamb (same entity) -- with The Spirit, The Bride, which is The Comforter -- is accomplished in each one of us. l: Right. As you received, *received* that Spirit. Let me go back to show you where the basis of that concept of the marriage comes from. s: ok l: It goes back to the book of Genesis. When God created Adam, Adam was a lifeless form, alright? s: Yes, clay! Dust of the earth. l: Exactly. What gave him life, was when the Breath of God, entered him. That breath joined with the clay -- in the actual marriage -- the prin- ciple. You follow? s: ok l: Now...ahm, The Breath itself, or The Light, (which is what John is referring to in John chapter 1), the light that lighteth everyman that cometh into the world, is to have an expression. It's not just light as we see light. There is detail to it. There is form, feature. There is ah, how can I explain it? It has a definition; it has meaning, it has expression, it's got autonomy. Do you understand what I'm talking about? s: I think I do. I would not have put it only in terms of light, which is a type of signal... l: Uh huh. s: ...but the word, which is also a type of signal. For instance, when some very powerful statement is made, such as "Love your enemies"... Ok? l: Uh huh. s: And that thought, that word, that signal, orders, I mean structures, how people act. l: Exactly. s: It structures matter itself. l: Precisely. s: Without that ordering we'd be just like the Moon... l: Ok. s: ...pure dust. l: Ok. So you can see that the Word expressed has ahmm -- creative po- tential. It has ahhh, I'm still struggling to find a word to express... Well if you look at humanity, as separate from divinity, (because really, what humanity fails to appreciate at any given time is that there is an element of divinity in it)... s: That's right. l: ... it's just that -- it's been *blocked*. It's not allowed to take expression, or give expression within the human personage. Had it been allowed to do so, then humanity would conform to it. s: "Conform" is a very telling word there. l: Oh, . When I say conform, the reason why it is not allowed in humanity en masse to give general expression, is because of the human free will. s: Exactly. l: The Mind of God, or The Will of God, is expressed in that word. Human beings have the freedom to actually allow or surrender it's will, to the divine will, or they can continue in the light of their own understand- ing, which is really darkness. It extends purely from the clay. s: It extends from the...? l: The clay. The body, the lusts of the body. Most of the reasoning, most of the constructions and institutions established by man, are not in themselves possessed of anything divine. They are basically based upon the lusts of man; like for example, there are 3 major ones: food, reproduction and [maintaining] life. Most of the institutions that exist in society are based purely upon these 3 lusts. s: Yes, very much so. But this then is what we expect of an organism with a 5 pound brain -- 5 pounds of meat. l: Right, exactly. Exactly. But there is a divine... the ability for a divine element within humanity. Unfortunately in this day and age, with its degeneracy, debaseness, that element has been blocked, (and it's unable to give expression to itself), somehow internally, from within man. And it's for that reason as it is now, there was a necessity for it to come on the outside. Do you follow? s: Yes, as a leadership principle. l: Precisely. To draw men to a knowledge of that which is within. That's why Christ kept on saying, "The Kingdom of God is within you." And He was trying to bring it out, to bring man to an appreciation of that principle. The fact is, to be quite frank -- God is thought! s: Ok. You say, "God is thought?" l: Thought! And the expression of that thought is THE WORD, which is Christ. s: ok l: And the manifestation of, the embodiment of, thought expressed -- is man. s: ok l: So for man to throw out God, is really actually dishonoring himself. In the process, you can see, you'd become debased, degenerate to the level of beasts, which is really what we have today. s: Yes! No Spirit indwelling. l: That's right! s: Like a machine, there's nothing there. l: Exactly. s: Like a whore, there's nobody home. l: Right. s: Like a mercenary, who do things just for the external... l: Exactly. s: ok l: And until the Thoughts of God, once again re-establish in man those Thoughts, (and those Thoughts are written in The Book, sealed with 7- Seals)... until those Thoughts are re-established then man does not have God within him. All he has is the potential... s: ok l: ... to have God. Now, that's what the 7-Seals were designed to address. That's what that Spirit that Christ was trying to give 2000 years ago, which was rejected... and bear in mind in Luke 23, I think verse 34, "Father, forgive them; for they *know* not what they do." They're in a state of ignorance. s: Yes. l: And until they receive that Spirit which was commended in the hand of the Father, they can not have that element of God within them, which become the directing principle of humanity. So, then what happens is you begin to have external government. All men were supposed to be governed from within -- they were their own kings and priests, but now we have an external form of government, like what you can see in the United States probably, and what is devel- oping on an international scale, via the United Nations, is oppressive. And there is no way to stop that. Not until that Spirit, which is what God is, that Thought, enters humanity. But the current thinking of man, which is born of the flesh is temporal, and when the body dies it will die too. But the eternal Thought of God (which is the Spirit which Christ sought to give, which is placed in the hand of The Father in the form of The Book Sealed With 7-Seals) is eternal. To receive God you are actually receiving The Eternal, an eternal spirit which enables you to live forever. The problem here is that uhm, rather not the problem, but whether someone can be saying[?] that more closely, ahh, the life substance of humanity is actually the thought of God, in man. It's your thought that gives you motivation, your life-substance. It is your thought, rather the more thought you have, the more life you have. You follow? s: So far, so good. I'm curious about, I know that in a union, in a marriage union... l: Uh huh. s: ... the same flesh must join, ok? l: Right. s: So, I'm comfortable with the... l: Let me try to address that point. s: ok l: The spirit that is in man, is that which is separate from the Spirit of God, God's Spirit. And it's born... the human spirit is born, as I mentioned, of the lusts of man, and is essentially a homosexual spirit. Do you follow what I'm saying? It's of itself. s: It's of self, yes. l: That's right it's homosexual. s: Yes, it's for-self, of-self, yes. l: Ahh, what you might have had a tendency to do, is uhhh... you see that selfishness expressed in man, and everything that is consumed on this earth (even other people) is consumed for the purpose of self. Now, the Spirit of God in man predominating (which is really the Will of God) -- facilitates trust, and all those other positive virtues (above all *selflessness*, as was demonstrated on the Cross and also here) as demonstrated here at Mt Carmel, (where the people were prepared to surrender their existence for the Truth which they hold), -- is that Spirit which is associated with God as a Thought, guiding their thoughts. s: The world will ask do you mean suicide? l: Well, we've got to go back to Christ. I can address that simply by saying *no*, it was not suicide. But I'd like you to see it in the context of Christ 2000 years ago. Now Christ knew that His course of action was eventually going to end up with him being killed, in some way, shape or form. Because the capi- tal form of punishment at that time was the Cross, it was the inevitable one that was going to be chosen. Can you see that? s: Yes. l: Would you conclude from that, that Christ was the harbinger of his own suicide? s: If He knew full well that if He continued in the path He was in, yes, it would result in His... l: His death. s: Yes, His death. l: Do you conclude that His was a suicide from that situation? s: You understand the world want's to see it as a suicide because that's a "self-motive"?! l: Precisely. And that's what they should have concluded about Christ 2000 years ago, yes?? From the same premise. Well, the truth about it is that I know that the sincere of heart will be able to see, of a truth, that this has got nothing to do with suicide. The thing about it is, that along about 2000 years ago, say in 1st century Palestine, had they received Christ, then He would not have had to die, yes? s: Oh, absolutely. l: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." That forgive- ness would not have been needed, because they would have received what Christ had to give them. It's a similar situation here. I mean David sought to present the 7- Seals, that is clear to the sincere, they can see that. s: Some people will have a hard time with seeing the 7-Seals as being a separate book than the Bible. l: I did not conclude it to be a separate book than the Bible. What I'm saying is that, that same sealed book, was the same sealed book that Daniel, in chapters 10 through 12, was dealing with. s: Yes. l: In Daniel chapter 12, it was told by the Angel that brought Daniel to Elijah... and incidently in Daniel chapter 9, Daniel was making refer- ence to specifically the book of Jeremiah, the prophet, but also mention was made of the other prophets, and indeed Moses. Now, it was out of those books, that the Angel was teaching Daniel, the information recorded in chapters 11-12. And at the conclusion, Daniel was told to close the book, and to seal it until the time of the end. So, at the time of the end, the book will be unsealed. But this was the same book Ezekiel had to deal with, and you'll find that in chapter 10, well it's... yes in chapter 10, the latter part. Ahhh, when John was told to take the book, it was going to be sweet as honey in his mouth, and bitter in his belly; that was the same thing that Ezekiel had to deal with in chapter 4 and chapter 5 of Ezekiel. You follow? s: Precisely, yes. l: Now, the issue is, that this book, that was actually in heaven is somewhat different than the book is on the earth, although the informa- tion is noted in the Scriptures. Do you follow? s: Are saying that the Bible is a physical manifestation of the spiritu- al book? l: Precisely! That's right. Good. In other words, as stated very clearly in Peter, the prophets which comprise the Bible, the information that they wrote was via the illumi- nation of the Spirit, yes? So they speak, so all the prophets speak of this one message, and that information is contained in what we call the Old Testament. Effectively. Because really, the New Testament is just a record of an event, Christ's coming 2000 years ago -- to give that Spirit. That's all it was. The primary purpose of Christ 2000 years ago was to give His Spirit. Now, He didn't even get a chance to be accepted as a messenger from God. Do you follow? s: Yes, very much so. l: For that reason, He never communicated that Spirit. If the world would not accept Him as a messenger from God, then obviously they were not gonna accept what He said. And eventually they will not accept the One Who sent Him. Which He constantly ahh, ahm, made mention of, in the Gospel of John. s: Yes, "if you reject the one who comes in my name... l: So if they... s: ...certainly you're going to reject Me when I come too," would be God's point. Yes. l: So, if they rejected him, and as I mentioned, 2000 years ago they did reject him, but the question is from that time forward the life-force that has facilitated the continuation of humanity has been basically this statement, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." We've been living on that. That is not Life, that is just grace. Life is as John 6:63 says, "the words I speak ... they are spirit... they are life." And that Spirit was committed into the hands of the Father. So, until we receive that spirit in man, he does not possess life, he's merely living on grace. But grace is not an eternal thing -- it has an end. Now the thing is that while humanity was in the position of where they were resting or living on the basis of "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" Christ was caught in a trap. Because as long as humanity was in a state of ignorance, He could not judge the world. s: The Law originally came to ensure that they were not in a state of ignorance. l: But with the statement, `Father, forgive them, for there ignorance' - - If God was to honor that statement, He'd have to forgive them. But there had to be a way for God to communicate this truth to break that deadlock. To invalidate that law, `Forgive them, for they don't know what they do,' and this was done at Mt Carmel. Inasmuch as, once I sit here and speak to you, Stephen -- you are aware of the 7-Seals, yes? s: I am aware of the 7-Seals, and I think I can point to the 7-Seals in the New Testament. Now, that may be different than what you understand. l: Precisely. Well actually, the 7-Seals are not... other than what is recorded in Paul, rather "in John" -- the 7-Seals are not in the New Testament. There are allusions that Paul makes for example, or allusive statements that are made in The Parables, that Christ speaks of. But I'm afraid the detail is far, far greater, than you can imagine. s: ok l: The actual detail, or the context of the 7-Seals is contained in the Old Testament. David did give a basic reference to specific books, like for example: Psalms, Zechariah, Hosea, Ezekiel with respect to the 1st 4 Seals. But then to deal with the other 3, which they are so extensive, in the Old Testament, ahmm, the information contained in the Old Testa- ment, that it is very difficult to actually bring them to the perception of humanity without changing the context within which humanity operates. In other words, humanity, within it's human thinking can not appreci- ate the 7-Seals. No more than they could appreciate Christ, 2000 years ago. No more than they can appreciate what David is really about. I'm trying to be as frank and as truthful as possible, and I hope you can see that in my context Stephen. s: It's necessary. Keep going. l: So I'm faced with a situation here that it's very... I can't communi- cate the 7-Seals. That's outside of the realms of my operation. I can speak in respect to their origin, where they can be found. I can show you the consistency of doctrine, that was shown to us as they relate to the 7-Seals, to demonstrate, and beyond any doubt, that David Koresh taught us the 7-Seals. It's in the context of the 7-Seals that we are now living. Because really, the 7-Seals basically highlight the Purposes of God as they relate to this world. That's what we're dealing with. But the marriage that God is teaching is a union between the divine and the human. That is The Marriage... s: ok l: ... and it's Principle, and it's Expressed Form. It's the tantamount to humanity becoming equal with God. s: As "Children" though? l: Well no. It goes beyond that. It... it goes beyond that. Remember when Christ came -- in the flesh -- He was depicted as the Son of God. Right? s: Yes. l: Outside of the flesh, in His divinity -- He is God. You follow? s: Spiritually, and in the eternal present, Yes. l: Yes. Eventually, we were supposed to transcend the flesh. Remember, ...well actually, I can't say remember, because I doubt very much whether you were there during the Garden of Eden. But the thing is, Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of God. Ok. As children. And as children, they were confined, because of the flesh they were housed in, the clay pots. It's that clay pot, to which they were contained in just facilitated the process of maturing in humanity, The Will of God, and the divine purpose. So that they themselves would become God. That's where we get the statement in Psalms 82, where he talks about God goes among the gods, and `know ye not that ye are gods?' Christ men- tioned it Himself, 2000 years ago, which caused great consternation among the Pharisees. s: Well it should. Now let me, lemme interject... and I'm going to ask a hard question... l: Go ahead. s: ...because in my walk with Jesus, I've found that anything that has any form of seduction in it is usually of the devil. l: I agree with you. s: It's a seduction, or so it seems to me, to be offered the Godhood. l: "It's a seduction to be offered the Godhood." Well, here's the thing. Let me just try to demonstrate it on the most basic premise of humanity. You have the family unit which consists first of all of a mother and father. Yes? s: You have something human? l: The family unit. s: The family unit. l: The family unit, which is headed by a mother and a father. They have children, yes? s: Yes. l: Eventually those children themselves grow into becoming mothers and fathers themselves, alright? s: Oh, yes. l: The only difference between those children and the mothers and fathers which bare them, is that the mothers and fathers were first... s: Yes. l: ... in their status of mother and fatherhood. Yes? s: Yes, very much. l: That is the only difference ultimately that was supposed to exist, between God and his children. And anyway, they too ere to obtain unto that position. I mean listen, there's a great big universe out there... s: Yes, huge. l: ... and that universe is for His Children. s: That's right. l: And there are going to be provinces that they populate with their own creations. Do you understand what I'm saying to you? s: Ah, yes -- it's grand. But now I need to make another hard question. l: Go ahead. s: We know that the end-time comes when the son-of-perdition, when satan-incarnate, stands up, as he's tried to do before, in caesar and pharaoh, and others -- as the world ruler -- and says "I am God." l: Precisely. You see this in Isaiah chapter 14 and Ezekiel 28. These 2 chapters develop this concept very well. Now, I can understand that from what has been reported in Mt Carmel, someone could perceive Mt Carmel this way. That is interesting... that we should have a lone person, like what we're dealing with here, saying that he is God, or rather, he didn't say he was God, and in fact he didn't say he was Christ, which was what was reported. What David actually said was "let me address for you the 7- Seals." In other words, the 7-Seals, as Revelation chapter 1:1 says, speaking about what God gave... what The Father gave to The Son, or to The Lamb. In Revelation 1, it says it's a revelation of Christ. So if you know the book, you would be able to identify Christ in the earth. You under- stand? s: I... Telephone Company Recording: "ATTENTION, ONE MINUTE REMAINING." l: For he's the One revealing The Book. You follow? s: The One who is able to unseal The Book, is Christ operating in the earth?? l: That's right. And it's true, from a knowledge of Him unveiling The Book, can you make a judgement of whether He's Christ. Which is what I was privileged, along with the others who are with me right now, to experience, during the 4 1/2 to 5 years that I was listen- ing to David, during His teachings at Mt Carmel. s: Livingstone, how would you explain... and you're going to have to call back. How would you explain then, Christ was killed a second time. l: How would I explain He was killed? Well, let me ask you. How many times did Moses strike the rock? Can you recall? One of the rocks during the wilderness journey, was a symbol of Christ. l: ...Stephen? s: I'm with you. l: I ask you a question before we got cut off, "How many times did Moses strike the rock?" s: You know, I honestly don't recall. l: Alright. Well the story goes back to the Wilderness Wandering, when Moses actually struck the rock twice... [Numbers 20] s: ok l: ...which was an indication of what was to take place. [1st Corinthians 10, note verse 4] s: That's looking for water in the wilderness? l: That's right, "in the wilderness." And the wilderness represented a *dry land* with *no trees*. A desert -- a darkness, effectively. And you remember also in John, there was a statement made by Christ himself, to the effect that ah, in regard to what was being done to him, `if they do these things in a green tree, can you imagine what they'll do in a dry tree.' s: That's right. [actually Luke 23:31] l: You remember that statement? s: That's a good point. Yes, scripturally that's a very good point. Go ahead. l: There was also highlighted, when the children of Israel was traveling through Egypt to Canaan... And note, I make reference to the Law of Moses, and the writings of Moses too, because there is much that is contained in there that pertains to this reality, just as though in The Prophets. But, do you remember the time that God permitted the serpents, to bite them? To address the bite, because when the serpents bit them they actually died. But uhh, Moses was instructed to actually take a brass... to make a serpent of brass, and put it up on a stick. s: Yes, I think it's called "sherutan." l: Right. Well, what's intriguing about this is -- why would God choose a brass *serpent*? You know what the symbol of the serpent is don't you... s: Yes. l: ...going back to the Garden of Eden. I t's supposed to be satan. You will also notice, that ahh, God did cause Moses (and I'll come back to that other statement) God did cause Moses to ahm, employ his rod, which turned into a serpent... s: True. l: ...which ate up the other serpents of the other magicians. [Exodus 7] Interesting. In going back to the "brass serpent on a stick," the serpent is a symbol of the devil. [cf. Numbers 21] But what is brass a symbol of? Well, that goes back to the book Daniel, that talked about an image in volume two [ie chapter 2], which had a head of gold, breastplate made out of silver... [In text it's "arms of silver." Over the phone there were loud noises making it hard to hear.] ...belly of brass, and uhhh, that's right... belly of brass, thigh of iron, etc. etc. going all the way down. [Actually, belly and thighs(sides) of brass, and legs of iron. see verses 31 through 45.] Now, the brass, as we know, represented the kingdom of the grecia... of Greece. Do you follow? s: Brass was Greece? l: You'll have to read the story in Daniel 2. s: Ok. l: The brass was Greece. Now what's Greece noted for -- its *philoso- phy*... s: Very much so. l: ... and sophistry. s: Sophistry, and eventually to today's time, it's logic, and worship of reason. l: Precisely, "human reason" at that. s: Yes. l: Ok. Now, the objective of the brass-serpent, was that Christ was to be lifted up, but there was another aspect of that lifting up -- in what was visible -- that is to say the serpent. There was supposed to be something about that which is contrary to the perceptions of men... [The situation arises around complaints about lack of substantial food and water.] So this was a maxim that was going to take place, just like 2000 years ago when they expected Christ to come as this, this uhhh, I don't know, this... this messiah that was going to destroy the Romans with some kind of army of some sort. But what would be the point to destroy the Romans in front of a kingdom that is still built upon the feelings of humanity? s: Well, He could have done it! He could have called legions of angels down to destroy the Romans, and He chose not to. l: Precisely... s: Because Christ came, because Jesus was focussed on love, and grace extends from His love. Much as Moses... when God sought to uh, destroy the children for their wickedness in the desert; Moses said "blot my name out..." [Exodus 32:32, Numbers 14] l: Right. Yes. He [Christ] could not set up a kingdom. The Jews at the time, in their thinking, were no different than the Romans. So, the Romans were left to continue ruling... s: Yes, if Christ had come in power, as Jesus, then it would have killed us all. l: Oh, exactly. If he were to come in power right now, to humanity... (ok, we'll tie it into the event of Mt Carmel) the same thing would've happened, because christianity today is *no* different. It's a known fact. I mean, you observe what we in the western world call christianity. It's just a part of this political process. For God to come down at this moment -- humanity would be destroyed, because of it's so... sinfulness. I mean right now humanity has no perception of the meaning of the book of Reve- lation. s: Are there exceptions? l: At this present moment, no. I used to be a minister before I was ahh, introduced to David... s: Let me ask you a question about that -- do you have divinity degrees? l: I have a Masters in Theology. s: Go ahead. l: When I came, David even showed me the fact that, there was to be *somebody* to come into the earth (as Revelation 22 pointed out) where even the concept of The Judgement, as declared by John... I have to admit, that that knowledge had escaped me! [Rev. 22:17,16,2 and cp. Numbers 14 esp. verse 21] And I have to admit, that outside of that knowledge, everything else that I had and was taught, was of very little significance. Remember, the last book given to man was the book of Revelation. In truth, you can preach everything you want, about Jesus Christ being the Savior, but without the knowledge of Present Truth which depicts to us where we should be in relationship to the Divine Purpose... s: In the last times. l: Yeah. ...then it's of no significance. Christ is of no significance without a knowledge of what He's doing. s: Well, one of the things that was always apparent to me was, anyone who was drawing upon the material from the Gospels, and drawing upon the material from Revelation, was pointing to those things which dealt very frankly, and very definitely, with Jesus Christ. Now that comes from my background of course. l: Let me make a point in respect to that. You recall in Matthew 24, Christ makes a statement to the disciples that "many shall come in my name..." saying that I am Christ. Not saying that they are Christ, but saying that the person who lived 2000 years ago is Christ, "and shall deceive many." [Matt. 24:5] Now, that's exactly what's happening today. Virtually every Christian denomination teaches that the person who lived 2000 years ago is Christ, yes? s: Yes. l: Now, that's what Christ warned about, in His statement that they will deceive many. In essence the deception is this, they do not teach *the Message of Christ*, but rather teach -- *His historical presence*. Do you follow. s: Yes, yes. They do not do His commandments. l: Well, in not teaching the Message of Christ, what He came to say, from "focussing people's minds on the fact that He lived 2000 years ago", and "establishing church denominations," and yet, these denomina- tion churches doubtless are the basis of this. So that particularly, a denomination can be isolated from others, which merely just sets up a situation where rites, and buildings, and rituals, and tithes, and all the rest of it -- is not the essence of Christ's purpose 2000 years ago. And to that degree, there is deception. Furthermore, it's interesting to note... s: Deception on who's part? l: On the part of humanity... s: Yes. Yes I know. I needed to ask the question, go ahead. l: They're deceived. Without the knowledge of The Message Christ came to give, which in Luke chapter 3 makes clear, mankind was in need of. And that knowledge which is His Spirit was commended into the hand of The Father. Without that knowledge, then mankind is lost back there 2000 years ago, on what is recorded by the uhh, the Gospels. But the truth about it, no one really needs another human being to come and teach them what is so plainly stated in the Gospels. s: That's right. l: And certainly, you don't need to pay someone to teach you that. s: That's right too. l: I think it would be easier for you to spend your money gaining a basic knowledge of written English. Or developing your reading skills, and read it for yourself. s: There's a better coin-in-trade than money, anyway. Ok. Livingstone on the point of Jesus, who Jesus is. Jesus went through a very unique experience, and there will be those who want to ask how Jesus plays into this? From my perspective, what I want to ask because this is an expression of my belief... Jesus became part of God, in a sense Jesus became united with, uhm, joined with God... After the resurrection. l: Ok, let me demonstrate. s: ok l: That's true, but there was an experience while He was on earth... s: Yes. l: ...that made Him One with God before that... s: Yes. l: The uhm, 40 days in the wilderness... s: Was it that Livingstone, or was it The Baptism? l: Well, actually it was that. The Baptism was significant as an outward show. To those who were receptive enough to see the right things, like John and those around him. s: Well, didn't we have two Manifestations occurring at that point, in other words, we saw the Spirit of God come into Christ at The Baptism. However, in The Wilderness, what was given to Christ, was it The Word? l: Well, in The Wilderness, let me present it this way -- can a human person, a human body, live for 40 days without food? No. Christ went in there... I mean up to that point He had come to appreciate, that ahh, He was divine. But we have to prove that. Cause if The Word dwelt in Him, It most essentially means that He was eternal... so, that He could go to The Wilderness, He could live 40 days without food, and yet He would not die. That was a test for Him. That He had appointed to complete, that He was indeed called of God. s: Now you understand, many will say that's not scriptural. l: What? s: In respect to there being any evidence of Him not taking food during that time. l: Well, ok, I can accept that statement. If people find difficulty with that, then I'd have to use something else to demonstrate to them, the truth of that. But... I mean, 40 days in the wilderness -- where's He going to get food from? s: Well, we have the instance with hmm, was it the prophet Isaiah that was fed by ravens, and we have the instance of manna for those on The Exodus. Are those [some examples] that would be pointed out. [I was wrong. It was Elijah fed by the ravens.] l: But there is nothing to prove that. One thing that's certain is that while He was in the wilderness, and satan came to him, one of the things that satan *tempted* Him on was (as you know) -- food. s: Yes. [Matthew 4 and Luke 4, esp. verse 3&4 in both cases] l: Now, why would he do that, if Christ was being taken care of as far a food was concerned? It certainly wouldn't be a temptation. s: Yes. He had to hunger. l: I'm not absolutely sure, but I understand that He was led away into the wilderness to be tempted. Now it states in the text itself that he was a hungered. [Matt. 4:2 and Luke 4:2] The point I'm trying to make from that I think you perceive already -- is the fact that Christ needed proof, of His divinity, whilst He was in humanity. And it had to be that way, because of the fact that if He was totally 100% ahmm, aware of His divinity, then there would be questions as to whether or not He was fit to be a Redeemer for humanity. Remember the statements about His being in all points tempted as we were? s: Yes. [Hebrews 4:15] l: And his being able to succour us? s: Yes. [Hebrews 2:18] Many point to that, to Him being tempted in affairs of sex as well. l: Precisely. That had to be. Otherwise, there is questions about His fitness. Now there was the former argument, that, "Well, it's alright being tempted...", and it's fine, to be able to meet humanities needs, for those of us who have only suffered temptations. But as men have fallen as a consequence of temptation, ah, satan would argue, and quite reason- ably, that all human beings who have in fact fallen in temptation, are his. And outside of the redeeming, or the salvation process of God, then we'll have to come down a step lower to address that argument, yes? s: "All would have to come down a step lower to address that"? l: Yes.. s: Yes, they don't have their eyes on the Power of God. l: In other words, what I'm saying to you is that, God would have to meet fallen man where he is at any point in the process to be able to show Himself as being a redeemer of mankind. There is no depth of degradation that man can reach that God can not save him. s: That is what Paul guarantees us in that we have a High Priest (in Hebrews) a Priest of the Melchizedek [Heb. 5-8], Who is there, Who has paid the blood sacrifice, for us to be in The Holy of Holies, *continu- ally*, as an intercessor for us. l: But the point being is that if Christ is not... can not... Christ's ability as a high priest, Christ's ability as a redeemer, must be corre- lated to His experiencing or the depth of experience encompassing those He seeks to redeem. Now if my sins are outside of Christ's redeeming abilities, his redeeming qualities, then He can not save me. s: Say that all again. l: Christ's redeeming qualifications rests upon His abilities to encom- pass the extent of humanities sins. s: That's right. l: If I personalize it, what I'm saying is that, Christ, can not under- stand, or can not appreciate sins committed, rather than temptations. And this is by virtue of His own experience. Now, there is a question that must arise, as to whether or not He is fit enough to reach down and meet somebody who is fallen into sin. s: I understand that you're leading up to Koresh. Let me stay with Christ for a moment. Christ made the assertion that, if you lust in your heart, it's the same as if you had the sex act... [Matthew 5:27-28, regarding adultery] l: That's right. s: ...and if you hate it's the same as if... l: You commit murder. s: ... you killed. [Matthew 5:21-22] l: Alright. s: So that, to Him there was no distinction between... l: Ok. Fine. s: Ahh, yes. Uh huh. ok Is the justification important to man in that the sentence be carried out? In that, The Judgement be carried out? l: For man yes, because at the end of the day, every man will stand before God -- without an argument. The truth about it is that if God never came down to the level of mankind, then essentially you could argue with... mankind could argue, "Well, God, it's alright, that talk about being able to suffer me, but listen -- You didn't sin." I recommend that you read Psalms 40, in respect to this issue. Now there is spoken of a person there. That a body was prepared for. It speaks about him in the volume of the book. Now, if you read that chapter in it's truest context, something very significant is brought out about the *person* spoken of in the chapter. s: You say this is Psalms 40. l: That's right. Preferably with Psalms 139 and Psalms ahmm, Psalms 89. s: 139 & 89 ?? l: That's right. What I need to do to be able to develop this argument... now, hold on a second, all that we're doing is developing an argument. At the end of the day you must decide based on information presented, what position you take. Do you follow what I'm saying? s: Oh, yes. l: But, what I feel is, [it's] necessary for you to be able to perceive the frame of reference that I'm operating in... there is a certain con- ceptual reality that is necessary for you to understand, for us to build our discussion. Do you follow? s: To build on... ? l: To build our discussion. s: To build the discussion. l: That's right. And some of this information I'm now giving to you. With your having a background in those things we can then proceed, in our discussion. But until that is so, I can not assume, as I said in the article, that we're actually operating in the same conceptual frame of reference. Cause I know that we're not. s: Yes. I understand. l: I really do know that we're not. s: To me it's a simple matter of "impedance matching." I think in terms of signals and antennae and such. l: Right. s: We've got to have that bridge, that right framework, and mesh-up before the best and most accurate transmission of power can occur without reflections. ["self-reflections"] l: That's exactly it. So at the moment, even as we have been discussing over the past, I think roughly, an hour now. In our discussion thus far there are many things that I have said that I know do not... are not received in the context of my expression. You are still viewing them in the context of where you're at. s: Yes. l: Now, I understand in my there is a lot of individuals who do that to protect themselves. But the truth about it is, if I'm showing you Truth, you really do not need to protect your self, because it's really... we're talking about freedom. s: Yes, truth is the way by which I know how to correct those things which are wrong. l: Sure. Anything that is in error is enslaving you. s: That's right. Amen. That's right. l: So with the basic conceptual reference that we're operating in, you can enter in there for your self, and judge it. Your mind and your free will is not in any way, ahmm, sacrificed. It is necessary for you to demonstrate an element of trust, to facilitate the discussion. Nobody forces anybody, (certainly not where we're coming from), to be able to understand this truth. Everybody that's here, that is currently being identified as Branch Davidian, adopts this position out of absolute free choice. s: They voluntarily entered into whatever the situation is? l: Voluntarily. s: They were not coerced by anybody? l: Yes. s: Would you say that for the children as well? l: Well the children go with the parents. s: Yes, it's so. l: So from that premise, it's likely what the government would be saying is that, "Ok, you can do what you want, but don't take your children along." BUT THAT'S A RIGHT. That's a PARENTAL RIGHT! It's your right, if you have kids, that you should take a responsibility to ah, ahm, take care of the temporal; as well as the eternal, destiny of those children. Now listen, I'm going to have to conclude now. We've got a problem right here. Somebody else wants the phone. s: I understand. One thing more for me and I'm not recording this. l: What's that. --- End --- | -- J -- "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples | indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth | stephen shall make you free." (Jesus to the Jews who believed on him. John 8:31-32)