Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James C Schultz on 1st mo. 14, 2017 at 1:22pm

If the leading didn't go further than her local monthly meeting, I would suggest that the Quaker Process worked.  My experience is that monthly meetings can develop a great sense of community and fail to balance great personal relationships with deep spiritual discernment.  They also don't have access to as large a knowledge base as quarterly and yearly meetings and can be misinformed.  Personally I am a Thorium advocate but those I know in the nuclear field insist the present systems are safe.  Of course they don't live in Japan or Russia.  As an aside if you haven't watched the foreign series "Occupied" you are missing a possibly prophetic show.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David McKay on 1st mo. 14, 2017 at 2:15pm

My suspicions are similar to yours Forrest; while I am not as ardently anti-nuclear as yourself I do have doubts about instituting a nuclear power project without a plan for disposal of the waste products. And in this current political climate I have serious reservations about the kinds of controls that would be in place or their enforcement.

I'm not sure that my reservations about nuclear power are the same as having a reservation about whether your Friend has had a properly discerned leading. I have learned in my own case that sometimes discernment is only fully possible in media res and not a priori. We do the best discernment we can but when we are in the thick of things we see things differently and we need to be open in the moment. It may be that following this leading will take her somewhere she needs to be in order to speak more fully in that new place. That is why some kind of ongoing support she follows her heart is going to be necessary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith Saylor on 1st mo. 15, 2017 at 1:23pm

There is a different experience of the nature of leading among those who live and remain in the appearance of immanent Presence itself in itself inshining the conscious and conscience as sufficient and complete to guide and rule. Being that is led in this experience knows leading as activity rather than a static notional or ideological distillation ... there is leading not "a leading." This leading is active experience of the relative illumination or appearance of immanent Presence in all things so that it is the increase, decrease, or stasis of the actively inshining Light relative to a particular notion that may distill from the outward world of ideas that is "leading."

Assuming a group of people gathered under the appearance of the inshining Light in their conscious and conscience; the nature of discernment is not in regard to a particular outward notion but in regard to the relative inshining Light. This gathered group would regard and have concern over the appearance of immanent Presence in the person speaking the outward notion. Does this person testify to the witness of actively experiencing inshining Light in speaking their particular notion? Does this person testify that inward Light shines more or less or is there a stasis when they speak the notion?

Certainly, appearance of the inshining LIght in our conscious and conscience discovers things to us. Such a gathered group shares those discovered things not in regard to the things discovered but in regard to the active experience of and leading in the inward shining Light itself. It is not the role of the gathering (monthly, quarterly, or yearly Meeting) to discern the "a true leading." The extent to which the gathering chases after "a leading under the pretense of seeking whether it is a "true" or God given leading is the extent to which the gathering tramples all over the prerogative of Inshining Light itself to guide and rule over the conscious and conscience. All faith, hope, and trust is in the grace of the actively experienced Light itself in itself to discover and to uphold each other in the inshining Light itself without regard to outward notions.

In this particular context, the gathering is not so much concerned with the individual's wish to speak about the benefit of nuclear power, but their wish to speak about it under the pretense of their being led by God. This exposes a potential spirit of imposition. By the power and appearance of the inshining Light in our conscious and conscience we are led out of being that identifies outward notions with God and into a way of being that identifies with and experiences directly immanent Presence (God) itself in itself without regard for outward notions, persons, and institutions. It is one thing to share with the gathering the notion that nuclear power may be a benefit to people relative to climate change. It is another to advise that God has given to them to speak this notion.

We live in the second coming of Christ. In this time of the second coming, this Gospel-Day, outward notional forms given under the pretense of being given by God for others to identify with, to be informed by, and to be anchored in, is of the old way. In this New Day, there is a different way wherein identity, meaning, and purpose, are not in outward forms, notions, ways, but in the direct and immanent Presence itself so that we admonish the inshining Light in the gathering. God no longer lays down outward forms for us to follow because we know immanent Being itself directly and live and have our being in that experience and we uphold each other in the direct experience of the inshining Light itself. So that, when a person comes to speak a particular notion, we attend to attend their notion in the active experience of the Light itself and admonish the Light in them and us as Guide and leave the notion to the prerogative of the Light itself in our conscious and conscience. We hold to the Light in the face of outward notions ... staying in our habitation of the inshining appearance of the Light itself in our conscious and conscience while holding the speaker of a particular notion in that habitation that their notion will not become their source of identity, purpose, and meaning, so that they lose their habitation in the second coming.

In this, the speaker and the gathering holds to their habitation in the appearance of immanent Presence and allows for the spoken notion to work through the gathering in the activity of the inshining Light. Giving the prerogative to immanent Presence itself the notion may fade over time or it may sustain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carolyn Taylor on 1st mo. 20, 2017 at 10:19am

 The Light shines within, and shines without. The Light is Peace, Infinite and Neverending. The Light does not condone nuclear war, nuclear power plants, or anything but the Word of Jesus, which is Peace. And my very Quaker ancestors were pacifists who would never raise a hand in anger or use Nuclear technology which they didn't have and probably abhor in their Place in the Light. 

  Someday we will be part of the Light. We journey towards this end day to day. We must pray for Peace upon the Earth and that all who see nuclear power as an option have their eyes opened to the Light.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cris Fugate on 1st mo. 20, 2017 at 11:19pm

Yes, the Light shines within, without, reflects from us, and connects all sentient beings. I think this interconnection is important to remember. Doing something for the benefit of mankind does not necessarily benefit all life that we are connected to. And harming the environment will eventually harm mankind.

Curious, what do you call entering the Light when you die? Buddhists call it Sukhavati (blissful) referring to the state of encountering the light. Gnostics call it Pleroma (fullness) referring to the fullness of light. I saw a quote of George Fox about an ocean of light which seems to suggest the same thing. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 1st mo. 22, 2017 at 12:11pm

Sorry how long it's taking me to settle on this.

James, the Quaker process worked if the goal was to express the Meeting's sense of community and sympathy for their young member; if its goal is to approximate truth, whole truth, How Stuff Be -- then it frequently falls short (as do we.) While we may yet be led to apply some technical fix to the "problems" caused by our previous technical "fixes", while that may turn out appropriate and necessary -- I certainly haven't gotten a clue as to what that fix would look like (although Gerard O'Neill's engineering class' proposal for orbital solar power would probably be much more doable now, technically, than in the 80's when they concluded it could have been done. The main obstacles then, of course, were political disinterest & sheer public ignorance.)

Mainly, the current Quaker (& academic-retainer class) reverence for 'expert opinion' is probably excessive, certainly seems to overwhelm our reliance on God for deciding whether a given expert opinion reflects truth -- or occupational-ideology.

Yeah, David, we're talking about a very bright, dedicated, promising woman who probably needs to make her own mistakes until she better appreciates the dangers of technically-trustworthy designs implemented by corrupt human agencies -- and I really don't know why her Meeting members made the decision they did. But if this is "Will of God' then it illustrates His Will to have us to blunder now & then; what can I say?

Keith, again I feel a lot of agreement that the presence of God within each & all trumps the urge to have an absolute outward Statement of Truth to force on anyone who doesn't share the inspiration that led to it. But I'm also sure that God is concerned with this world and what we-all do with-&-to it, how that affects everyone and everything living in it.

The externals are more under God's control, far less under ours, than we think -- but we aren't truly aligned with God's will when we're pushing things the wrong direction.

Carolyn, the Light 'condones' all sorts of stuff -- things that I, too, feel would not at first have occurred to me. Maybe we're really supposed to play with a little Fire now & then. But such things are certainly toys we shouldn't play with except under Adult supervision.

Chris, I don't know what happens if-&-when we physically die; but I suspect we just call it "Wow!"

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion