Sunrise Spiritual Harmony P.O. Box 27217 Washington, D.C. 20005 May &, 1989 Dear Mr. Cochran: As an individual human being my only claim on earth is to be a seeker of truth. The Word of God is the truth. Only truth will set us free. See, Aquarian Gospel ___: &, see also, Luke 8: 32. If the Bible is "the truth," and we have been reading the Bible for the last 2,000 years, why are we not free from sin? I believe that the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, by Levi, is the truth about what Jesus said and did, and that if we take heed to the words in this book, we will truly be set free. I try not to be involved in politics, but I do recognize the injustice of the system ... including schools, churches, etc. Repeatedly your writings challenge me personally, amy I put the Jehovah's Witnesses to the test? Are they following the true words of Jesus the Christ, words of a "bible," or their own interpretation of these ideals in order to justify living in the middle and upper-middle class? "Come now, and let us reason together saith the Lord, though your sin be as scarlet it shall be as white as snow." This statement indicates to me that we should reason together about God or truth which in turn will help us overcome sin. If you are going to prejudge me by defining my work stero- typically, then there is not much reasoning we can do. However, if you are willing to accept the possibility that almighty God, Jehovah, could send us a book to help us out of this confused world, then, please, let us open up the pages of the books and reason together about the "truth" or with the Lord, for God is truth. Thomas P.O. Box 27217 Washington, D.C. 20005 May &, 1989 Dear Lee: The conscientious manner in which you have pursued this discussion is most laudable. When each of us consistantly displays such devotion to communication, I believe, the understanding of our Creator will finally be made manifest. "(M)arriage is the uniting of two minds, two personalities, two backgrounds and sets of spiritual values, and two tongues. This presents quite a challenge. Yet, understanding is essential to a happy marriage. -- Proverbs 17: 1; 21: 9." Watchtower, May 15, 1989, pg 13. If unity is such a challenge between a man and a woman, how much more so between two men? Your first letter began after "a brief review of (Sunrise's) appeal and consolidation briefs." Both your first and second epistles seem to indicate that you failed to understand several significant circumstances. To allow for an in depth study of the legal points at issue a copy of Sunrise's briefs are enclosed. First, as mentioned last Sunday, Sunrise says he has been attempting to follow Jesus. Whether or not Sunrise is properly following Jesus can only be addressed as a theological question. However, the facts that the government itself states Sunrise is "living by biblical principles, and emulating the life of Christ," and is attempting to send him to prison for that "crime" can only be fairly addressed as legal questions. Second, Although Murdock was a case which involved Jehovah's Witness, as I interpret the Supreme Court's opinion, there was no intention that the ruling was to protect or apply to only Jehovah's Witnesses. Rather, it seems, that the Court was articulating principles intended to apply across the board to protect the "religious freedom" of all people. You say that "ceasar" came to the aid of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and you are grateful for ceasar's protection. May the Creator be kind to us all, but if Jehovah's Witnesses merit ceasar's protection how shall we read the Fifth and Fourteenth (not to mention the First, Fourth and Ninth) Amendments so as to deny Sunrise the same protection? In your second letter you refer to "religious elements insitgat(ing)" prison terms for your brother in 1918, and their exoneration by ceasar's court in 1919. since "Enclosure #1" is mentioned - but not included - my limited knowledge leads me to the assumption that you are refering to a Catholic judge sentencing Jehovah's Witnesses to prison for violating one of ceasar's regulations, and that ceasar's chief justices later decided that the First Amendment should prohibit ceasar's judges from imposing such a sentence. Let us not ignore the fact that ceasar's judge may also have happened to be a Catholic, but it was not by the authority of the Catholic church that the Jehovah's Witnesses were sentenced to ceasar`s prison by ceasar's judge, but by the authority of ceasar's (police) force as vested in ceasar's judge. In legal chronology, of course, Sunrise's case is presently at the stage where your brothers' cases stood before the judgment of ceasar's higher judges reversed the judgment of ceasar's lower judges. Third, You seem to accuse Sunrise of disrespect for the "ordinances of men." You probably know that ceasar's chief justices have not always sided with the Witnesses. E.g. Cox v. New Hampshire &&& U.S. &&&. In that case, based on some logic that I have difficulty following, the court decided that the Witnesses weren't, as Peter might have put it, "honouring ceasar's ordinances." As the court put it the Witnesses "kenw a permit was required, but made no effort to obtain one." Here, it appears, that you have overlooked a factor which makes this situation quite different. No permit was required of Sunrise but, going the extra mile, he got one. Yet he was con- victed for dong no more than the permit specifically called for. See Exhibit &. Could it be that in their zeal to show appreciation to ceasar for protecting them from persecution by main stream religious sects the Witnesses themselves have slipped somewhat into the mainstream? Fourth, in your first letter you said you felt you could make "appreciable argument as regards ... certain regulations as regards certain usages of public parks," but refrained from doing so. Having heard the government's arguments with regard to a specific regulation as regards Sunrise's usage of a specific park, I would be interested to see whether you can add anything to make the government's argument in this specific case any more appreciable. THE BIBLE vs. THE AQUARIAN GOSPEL It is not my place to defend Sunrise's theological beliefs. As I believe I explained to you, I personally hold to the Bible as my primary spiritual guidebook. While I have never even read Sunrise's book, I must admit that I presently find a major stumbling-block in adopting the Biblical subscription which you are suggesting. FIRST As I understand it you subscribe to the primary tenent that the Bible is the "inerrant" or "infallible" Word of God. This primary subscription is the foundation upon which you then con- struct the entirity of your belief system. You will recall the question of the 2nd chapter of Ezra and the 7th chapter of Nehemiah. As I recall it you explained the obvious numerical differences in the two lists with the theory that one list, you couldn't say with certainity which, included the women in the tally, and the other list didn't. I then asked you to explain why both Ezra and Nehemiah place the "number of the whole congregration (at) fourty-two thousand three hundred and three score," and why neither list adds up to anywhere near that number. You brushed that question off by saying it wasn't important. As I thought there were more important things to discuss at the time I did not bother to bring to your attention the fact that your explanation of the numerical differences seems to have a very large hole in it. For example, if you compare Ezra 2: 5 and 8 with Nehemiah 7: 10 and 13 you will discover that the numbers given by Ezra are higher than those given by Nehemiah, but in comparing Ezra 2: 6 and 10 to Nehemiah 7: 11 and 15 one discovers that the numbers given by Ezra are lower than those given by Hehemiah. If one writer was including the women mustn't his figures be consistantly higher than the writer who was excluding the women? Similarly it is very difficult for me to understand how two clearly stated lists of numbers, both of which must be accepted as "inerrant" or "infallible," may both claim without equivocation to total fourty-two thousand three hundred and three score, when, in fact, neither list equals the stated figure. It is equally difficult to comprehend why - if I am to stake my eternal soul on the total "inerrancy" and "infallibility" of the book containing these two lists - what certainly appears to be an "error" should simply be written off as "unimportant." SECOND You probably know better than I the history of the collection of writings which you and I are now calling the "Bible," so I would appreciate your correction where I am wrong. We may believe that in the fourth century A.D. a pagan, named Constantine, allegedly had a vision, similar Paul's on the road to Damascus, which changed his life. Prior to Constantine's vision he had been slaughtering people, as a pagan, in an effort to maintain his morally bankrupt empire. As a result of his vision Constantine began to slaughter people, as a Christian, in an effort to maintain his morally bankrupt empire. Prior to the beginning of the fourth century A.D. what you and I now call the Bible did not exist, and Christians were not in the main stream. As a result of Constantine's "rebirth" "Christianity" moved out of the catacombs to become what must reasonably be called a "state religion." To "universalize" the state's control over it's new religion Constantine arranged for several "councils" to take place in the city of Niceia. Those councils produced certain dogma to which christians thereafter were required - by Constantine's laws - to conform. More importantly to our discussion those councils also produced the book which we are calling the Bible. That book was not all that it might have been in that it did not include all of the relevant writings which were available. Instead Constantine's ministers selected only a small number of the available manuscripts which might have been included, and we can only guess at the criteria by which they made their selections. But there is no room for us to guess at the nature of Constantine's church, it was, of course, the Catholic church. In light of this history I perceive certain difficulties in accepting without question that the book produced by Constantine's ministers was either without error or complete. As I do not subscribe to throwing the baby out with the bath water, I do not subscribe to abandoning the entire Bible even if if seems to be less than perfect. On the other hand, in all honesty, I can not pretend to believe that something is perfect if it seems to have faults. DOGMATISM or LOGIC You closed your first letter by "grant(ing, (Sunrise's) position may well represent the god that inspired the production of the `Aquarian Gospel.'" I am at a loss for any logical or historic reason to explain why the inspiration for Constantine's Bible was any more or less Divine than the inspiration for the Aquarian Gospel. There is no question but that many fundamentalist Moslems presently calling for the death of Salmon Rashdie to punish the blasphemy of his "Satanic Verses" have never even read the book. If, unlike myself, you have read the Aquarian Gospel then you are certainly in a better position to point out the errors, or blasphemies which it contains. For myself I merely believe that it is a waste of time for people to insist "my book's better than your book." And particularly when neither has read the other. To me it seems that, day by day, we can be guided toward the truth through the Living Word. So I do not argue with Sunrise about whether the Bible or the Aquarian Gospel is the Word of God. Instead I attempt to reason with him regarding the manner in which the Creator would have us live, and which I believe Jesus examplified for us, on a day by day basis. JEHOVAH HELP US Which brings us to the closure of your second letter: "(D)oes your park position stamp you as one destined for ... blessings ... (o)r have you ran ahead and set yourself in opposition to his `timed' arrangement?" A very good question, one I ask myself daily. Nothwithstanding the fact that Sunrise and I do not share the same literary tastes, it is obvious that this question applies to myself as well as Sunrise. As I am not given to masochism I would certainly hope, and do pray, that I have not set myself in opposition to the Will of God. Assuming that I have not set meyself in opposition to God it would appear that others have. As I am also not given to sadism I certainly hope, and pray, that if my position stamps me as one destined for blessings others may alter their own positions so that they may also partake of those blessings. Thus we seem to arrive back at the beginning. If my position is mistaken then perhaps my only hope for salvation is that someone will conscienciously pursue discussion for the purpose of clarifying my misunderstanding so as to bring me to the Creator's understanding. Your reply is prayed for,