The Advent of Dionysus / New Church of the Reformed / 13.01

The False Prophet

I'm now going to relate my disagreements with Roy Masters and the Foundation of Human Understanding, which I view as The New Church of the Reformed. And so alludes to Revelation

chapter 13, which speaks of the beast out of the sea and the false prophet. And in Swedenborg's Apocalypse Revealed, he says these correspond to the Church of the Reformed: the beast out of the sea signifying "the laity," and the false prophet signifying "the clergy." Hence I'm drawing a parallel to the staff-members at the FHU, or clergy, which is the "false prophet." And though I consider Roy Masters a part of this, with much of its blasphemy initiated through him, I don't disagree with him as much as with the three Davids who have worked there: i.e., the spark of originality remains with Roy, and is much less callous than it is sincere.

When speaking of the Five Earls of Roy and Seven Principals of David, I'm referring to the numbers 1 through 12: the Five Roys corresponding to the numbers 1 through 5, and the Seven David corresponding to the numbers 6 through 12. And to the three Davids at the FHU I've ascribed the numbers 8, 9 and 10. (I refer to the other Davids later in this chapter.) To the first David, who is actually Roy's son-in-law, I've ascribed the number 8. He's the person who is/was in charge of Tall Timber Ranch in Selma, Oregon. To the second David, "Roy's son," I've ascribed the number 9, who I believe was in charge of both Tall Timber Ranch and the FHU headquarters in Grants Pass, before filling in for his father. And to the third David, I've ascribed the number 10, who was later put in charge of the FHU headquarters. This is the David I wrote the letter to in chapter 8. While all three are the actual staff members I'm referring to in chapter 9.

Hence in

Revelation 13:18 it refers to the false prophet by the number "666." Which is interesting for the name David corresponds to the number "6": much as the Star of David has six sides. Whereas when describing the Church of Philadelphia, the 6th church in

Revelation 3:7, it says: "...he that hath the key of David ..." thus making a connection between David and the number 6. The name David also means "beloved," which is a quality ascribed to the bride to be (6), much as the

New Jerusalem, the Lord's bride, is also called the City of David. Swedenborg also says the number 666 signifies the "triplication of 6"—i.e., "6-6-6." And since there were three Davids working at the FHU, again the triplication of 6, it's easy to see the connection.

The Reformation

But before anyone gets too alarmed, especially those of you who call yourselves Christians, I'm reminding you that this refers specifically to the Reformation: which began with Martin Luther and later became the Protestant Church—your church! More than anything, the book of Revelation is referring to The Reformation. Hence what I say about the Foundation of Human Understanding, is only an echo of what occurred back then; in fact it's an improvement! But there are still falsities here, which need to be addressed.

And for a time I wondered if 666 applied specifically to Roy Masters or not—even more so with Martin Luther. And though he was responsible for the Reformation, I believe its negative connotation applied more to what came afterwards. (Indeed, when Swedenborg describes Martin Luther in The True Christian Religion [number 796], it sounds very much like Roy Masters.) I wondered about this for at least two years, before receiving my answer in January 1993—on Martin Luther King's birthday! And when substituting a chapter for a month, and verse for a day in

Revelation 13:18 (see chapter 6), his birthday—which was observed on January 18th—corresponds to chapter "13, verse 18": where the number 666 is revealed! Thus it seems this number is all inclusive of the Reformation. And while I'm not bad-mouthing Martin Luther King, it's apparent that he corresponds to the same church; and indeed, can be portrayed as a "modern reformist"—even a second Martin Luther.

I initially intended to discuss these discrepancies at length, but since I've covered much of it in the preceding chapters, I decided it wasn't necessary. Besides I didn't write this book expressly to bad-mouth these people. And, as I view Roy Masters as very astute, my disagreement isn't so much a matter of what, as it is to what degree: with the example I give of the pendulum in Prudence probably best exemplifying it. The discrepancies are listed below and will be briefly discussed. While in the latter half of the chapter, with King Lycurgus, I'll be relating the experience I had with David at Tall Timber Ranch, and some other ideas.

"And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard [falsity], and his feet were as the feet of a bear [ignorance], and his mouth as the mouth of a lion [power]: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority."

Revelation 13:2 Sound like Roy's all out war against sin? And indeed his whole doctrine is levied upon the backs of the people (the leopard), while speaking from such a prowess (power of doctrine) that no one can refute (the lion). And he has the audacity to stand up and say Americans are a bunch of ignoramuses, and that these are the Soviet States of America! While treading on the turf of the Great Bear? Yet as Swedenborg explains, man is nothing but evil, and the Devil is none other than man himself. Careful with that axe Roy! Or would that be King Lycurgus?

Points of Contention

1) No one has to die

2) The Devil is an alien

3) The imagination is off-limits

4) It's wrong to dream

5) The intellect is off-limits

6) Pleasure is to be shunned

7) Women should be passionless

8) Sexuality is weakness

9) Man needs to transcend his sexuality

10) Women aren't supposed to enjoy sex

1. No One Has to Die

Though it sounds a little unusual, it's speaking of "the resurrection." And it's the premise by which Roy bases most of his beliefs: for there's a God in heaven who grants eternal life to those who are faithful. I don't disagree with this so much, as with the criteria that decides who's faithful. And according to Roy, he claims only those who "die as martyrs," or have been translated from the body to "the spirit" (while alive), are eligible: e.g., Enoch and Elijah. And there are biblical references, like the one he quotes from

John 11:25-26, where Dionysus and Jesus says: "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die...."

Indeed it's a compelling argument, especially if you weren't already disposed to religion, and Roy makes it very plausible. But because it requires a "spartan stringency," it smacks more of "jumping through hoops." On the contrary, the resurrection occurs after we die, nor at some "future date," as many Christians believe. Then, depending on our life in the world, we're prepared for either heaven or hell, and we receive eternal life—or damnation! This has been thoroughly detailed in Emanuel Swedenborg's work, Heaven and Hell.

2. The Devil is an Alien

This error is propagated not only by Roy Masters, but by most of Christendom, and it's an outright lie! For the Devil is none other than "man himself." (As Swedenborg explains in Heaven and Hell, "Man is nothing but evil.") Thus hell is where a man goes if he chooses the life of hell—there are lots of devils in hell! And if we choose to believe the Devil exists, it's through our ignorance that we give him the wrong power, of supernatural entity—or alien—equal to God but the opposite. Thus when I confronted this myself (through Roy's program), I nearly freaked out, for the Devil had all the power and I had no recourse. Remember the Minotaur? And it's not an uncommon reaction.

As Roy espouses this, the whole complexity of his beliefs involves: "eluding the Devil." Which polarizes your viewpoint, to give it a high contrast (between good and evil). Hence it requires the utmost care and discipline, "and stringency," to hold him at bay—and utmost austerity! And if you can't handle it, you're drawn ever closer through fear—"into the Labyrinth." But the Devil is man! And we need not look any further than this (ourselves). The Golden Rule says, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." Which Roy violates when he employs his "brutal measures" over the Devil. They'd be acceptable if he weren't human! And as Dionysus and Jesus tells us to forgive our enemies, then we must forgive the Devil.

Granted there is a heaven and hell, where "spirits dwell" (angels and devils), and the Devil does have power over us. Which requires we be judicious and moral. But by knowing his identity, we can give up the mental gymnastics, and stop struggling with our hands tied behind our back—and flee the Labyrinth!

3. The Imagination is Off-Limits

According to Roy, the imagination is "no man's land," and the Devil resides here. Which has its merits, for we're speaking of the seat of the ego: and through our "daydreams" we preoccupy ourselves with glory and illusions of grandeur, and enforce our pride. As they say, "An idle mind is the Devil's workshop." And through his meditation technique Roy introduces you to your imagination and "thought processes," and teaches you how to disconnect: and become objective.

On the other hand, when speaking of transcendental meditation, which is essentially the opposite and promotes the "mind's imagery," Roy has nothing but bad things to say. He says it's a form of "escapism," and it's very dangerous. Indeed it has its merits, but he also claims his technique is dangerous! And under the prescribed criteria, it is! Hence we seem to be speaking of two extremes: objectivity versus subjectivity. Shouldn't we be promoting their balance instead?

Thus we're to believe these images are "empty fantasies." But I say something more tangible is possible if we first understand the nature of spiritual cause and effect: i.e., "true correspondences." Then the imagination becomes a very useful tool. After all, if any credence is to be given to religion, who was addressing the prophets in their minds? But like the analogy I give of television's development in Prudence, the black and white TV had to come first, before the advent of color TV. And this was Roy's task.

4. It's Wrong to Dream

Most of us aren't aware of this, but we come in direct contact with the spiritual world in our dreams. And being a more "fluid realm," where we don't spend enough time, we're unaccustomed to it, and rarely become conscious. But then there are the times when our dreams become very real, and we're hard pressed to explain why. (Swedenborg says the soul is "resuscitated" three days after death.)

According to Roy, our dreams are danger zone one. And being the extension of our imagination, where "insanity lurks," you get fully immersed—"or baptized." Hence it's the "total escape," and you're apt to encounter the Devil or one of his "evil host" (spirits), who do their utmost to possess you. Thus you approach your dreams from a "polarized view," and when you realize you're dreaming, you're gripped with fear when you ask: "Where's the Devil?" It's the sort of thing I've experienced, and it usually resulted in conflict: at first I would flee, before a struggle ensued, and then I'd have to wrench myself awake. (It was an ongoing thing.) Then, if I was too tired before going to bed—exhausted and/or upset—one of these "spirits" would overpower me, and "possess me."

Hence in Roy's view of what's normal, it's wrong to dream. And indeed, because of the effectiveness of his meditation, he rarely dreams. (He's also a light sleeper.) But where does he go when he dies? Of course he speaks of dying as a martyr, or "being translated." But he still becomes a part of the spiritual world. Will he just be a part of someone else's fantasy?

5. The Intellect is Off-Limits

Like the imagination, Roy says the Devil resides in the intellect, or our thinking process. Thus by spending too much time caught up in our minds, with knowledge and unsubstantiated facts (conventional wisdom), it becomes a distraction, and tends only to serve our pride. And, when we "overindulge" in either area, we're speaking of neurosis. Which is symptomatic of addiction and, can be ascribed to "the Devil" (remotely). But when the two are "balanced out," and we're not consumed by either, we tend not to get "fixated." Then it's barely discernable, almost as if we were engaged in neither. This I'm afraid is where Roy gets his idea, and promotes the diminishment of the two.

Thus we're speaking of a state of imbalance, where the solution isn't so much a matter of removing the two, but of their integration. And while I'm not sure their removal is Roy's ultimate goal, it's one thing he focuses on, and it's a primary side effect of the meditation. Thus by shunning the thinking and feeling process, he shuns humanity, and promotes sterility, "instead of fertility" (their integration). And so claims God intended for man to be "asexual." One thing which illustrates their integration, occurs when you shine the three colors of light, red, yellow and blue, on the same area. The colors will disappear, while all you see is "white light." It doesn't mean they've been removed, just integrated. Hence the opposite is significant, i.e., "no light at all," for Roy accentuates the negative!

It's interesting how my name, Dennis, or the number "49," when spelled backwards reads, "sinned." And that the number 49 becomes "94," which corresponds to the number 10, and to the colors black (9) and white (4). Thus in order to maintain "their objectivity," as corresponds to the number 10, they focus on the negative first (black before white). And, when looking at someone like me they say: "This man has sinned," and it rarely goes beyond that.

6. Pleasure is to be Shunned

Because we're afraid of looking bad, which is born out of insecurity and/or selfishness, we give ourselves over to "peer pressure." We align ourselves emotionally, "through our feelings," but with a lack of understanding. This is a mistake, for it's a false allegiance, and there are no true correspondences. Thus we make a display of our emotions, and it often comes across as loud and insincere—or self-serving. So in the process of fooling ourselves, we clearly show how blind and suggestible we are, especially to authority!

Given this, it's easy to see Roy's distinction. And as people develop in "lopsided ways," their behavior is reinforced through their emotions, and they're easily led. And he says our emotional state, which smacks of "pride and ego," gives rise to this, and through its process we're swayed over to the Devil. Consequently, our "pleasure faculties" should be moderated and continually reduced (extinguished). But, by shunning our emotions, we become callous "and sterile."

Why should we deny ourselves pleasure when it's legitimate? The key here is not to force ourselves into something we don't understand, and not become "contrived." Then by keeping our feelings and pleasures in context, it becomes a true correspondence—"of good to truth." (The two coexist.)We therefore become as "little children," and retain our innocence. As Dionysus and Jesus says: "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 18:3 Indeed, a little child's life is full of joy and pleasure!

7. Women Should be Passionless

By nature, women are more emotional than men, and are therefore more pleasure oriented. Hence they become a temptation to men: "to become more emotional." And as it leads a man "out of his senses"—here we are back to the Garden of Eden

Genesis 3:17—a man should place constraints on his woman, so she becomes more and more passionless. And ultimately, if he's effective, she becomes very much like him. How boring!

But if this is her nature, why should we mess around with it? (I like to say the FHU Fouls Her Up.) And similar to what I said above, the key to maintaining a healthy emotional state, is to provide a suitable environment for keeping it in bounds. This is the husband's role—"as corresponds to the truth"—who maintains the exterior aspect of the relationship; and protects his family from the outside world. Indeed it's something the FHU is very good at. Unfortunately the husband's role gets magnified, while the woman's role gets lost, and it amounts to a "glorified masculine will."

Hence I view the FHU as the hull of a seed (i.e., a walnut shell, as I spoke of in chapter 11), which is designed to protect the seed and repel the assaults from the outside world. And I see them with this big bag of nuts—the truth—which they guard jealously, but neither eat nor plant. And they hold them up for display and pronounce them the very ideals of religion but, failing to realize the shells were meant to be discarded, the inside withers away: "...behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison; and ye shall have tribulation ten days..."

Revelation 2:10 But as soon as a seed falls to the ground, and gets assaulted by the microbes in the soil, the hull breaks, and gives way to something "truly spiritual."

8. Sexuality is Weakness

As we're speaking of the ultimate experience between a man and a woman, hence the ultimate pleasure, sex becomes highly suspect. For if pleasure is to be shunned, sex must be at the top of the list. But with the ultimate joy being the birth of a child, how could it be so morose? And as it seems our purpose is to "perpetuate the human race," why shouldn't it be pleasurable? "Be fruitful, and multiply!..."

Genesis 9:1 And when we view the human body, nude and at the peak of its form, we find it very appealing; everything about it is sexual. Hence the whole of nature is geared towards sexual reproduction, and we as humans, having evolved further, should be endowed with a similar but higher proclivity. This is the role eroticism plays.

On the other hand, Roy says eroticism is carnal lust. And being the very antithesis of marriage, whoredom—with its express use of sex, and all its forbidden aspects—becomes very profane. But why can't we have a happy sex life? That's like saying we shouldn't be allowed to drive because irresponsible people drive cars and kill people! So it's our intent, that determines if we're totally selfish or, mutually responsive; while eroticism focuses on the quality of the experience. Hence from the standpoint of whoredom, we're not to judge other people, as Swedenborg says. For which reason he says prostitution should be legalized (in Conjugal Love), as it provides an outlet for the unmarried man, who wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to marry.

9. Man Needs to Transcend His Sexuality

As Adam wasn't born of a woman, Roy equates sex with "original sin," and says it gives rise to our weakness. Thus as a man approaches the state of "Adam's fall," while in the process of becoming spiritual, he needs to transcend his sexuality. Of course the book of Genesis gives only scant detail here; indeed it's open to a lot of speculation. The only reference it gives to the woman is that Adam "hearkened to the voice of his wife."

Genesis 3:17 Roy also draws reference from The Forgotten Books of Eden, which gives more insight to the matter, but it doesn't expressly say sex is original sin. Besides, as well meaning as the author may have been, who's to determine its authenticity?

As it gives rise to "the beast" in man, Roy says sex needs to be brought within constraints; indeed, its wild aspect does. And when referring to the war of the sexes, he says the proliferation of sex promotes hell on earth. Which has its merits. But what's really implied is that a man should overcome "his aggression" towards his wife, and refrain from taking liberties. Besides what are men and women to do? Hold hands throughout eternity? Or would that be too suggestive? Surely this doesn't imply what it means to be spiritual! Thus given all I've said, it sheds enough doubt on Roy's doctrine, to suggest he's given himself over to conjecture. Or it at least requires some deliberation before affirming what he has to say.

10. Women Aren't Supposed to Enjoy Sex

His "burning desire" evidence of original sin, which a man is supposed to give up, eventually, the woman in conjunction with this, needs to assume a less passionate role with sex. Consequently there's little room for her own fulfillment. And initially, because a man's advances are typically outward and aggressive, she exhibits little interest; for she has to bear the burden (pregnancy). This is where Roy makes the distinction. But as she continues to receive undue attention from "the beast," she begins to feel a sense of power, which she misconstrues as worship—"of her divinity." And if allowed to continue, the man becomes more of a beast, while she becomes more seductive—i.e., "sex and violence." And the forces can become so strong, that transference takes place: where the woman is so overwhelmed that she assumes the role of the man, and the man is so overwhelmed that he assumes the role of the woman. Hence the seeds of homosexuality are implanted. Perhaps we should keep the politics out!

This is not a very pleasant sight, and it does happen. But as sexuality itself is the medium, it's only evidence of misguided inclinations. Thus when a woman senses a man's concern is genuine (or she's tricked like above), she's encouraged to participate emotionally. And with the human body very sensitive to touch—why we're speaking of the "sins of the flesh"—a woman can exact a lot of pleasure from the experience. And with a higher threshold of sensitivity than a man (why I equate her with the man's penis), she has the capacity to experience it more completely. Consequently, it's not as critical for her to experience orgasm, which Roy views as the "ultimate disgrace" i.e., she may become wild and unruly. But so long as it's contained within context of the joy and love in the relationship, it shouldn't be ruled out.