What is the name of the God you worship?
Could you tell me a little more about the Heavenly Parents you believe in?
Are they spirits?
Yes, but then They are everything .
Do they have personality?
How many Heavenly Parents do you believe in?
Two ultimate Parents - the Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, but They are part of a 32 member Heavenly Family. They are a Unity, a Trinity, and an Ogdoad.
Do they have separate names?
Yes. We are not given Their ultimate names, but Their titles are preserved for us in Valentinian Gnosticism as the 30 + 2 Aeons of the Pleroma. Deep, Silence, Mind, Truth, Logos, Life, Man, Church, etc.
What connexion to they have to the Yahweh (Jehovah) of the Bible?
Jehovah is Their "manager" (Demiurge / Sabbath / Zaur Anpin) in this universe. He executes Their plans. He is the one who appeared to John in Revelations. He is holy, pure but not the most holy or pure. He is subservient to Yeshu and Maria.
How do you determine what is true and what is not?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ will physically return to the world?
Which is more important for you - your feelings or a revealed Word?
What is the difference between objective and subjective truth?
All truths start out subjective. As we move toward deeper comprehension of the divine our truths mature and become ever more objective and ever more based on Heavenly Father and Mother's truth, rather than our own personal views
I do not understand this. One of the first things we realize is that we exist. Only a tiny minority of people deny that we exist. We are spirits living in a physical universe. Everything outside us must therefore be objective, and we in our selves must be subjective. The Savior came and dwelt amongst us to reveal the nature of God as well as the standard by which men might live by. He taught that he was the fleshly manifestation of the Heavenly Father to Philip and after his resurrection demonstrated that the next world was both a spiritual as well as a continuing physical one. When He went to heaven He was seen objectively by thousands. An angel, also seen objectively by thousands, said that the Savior would return in the same way, descending physically from heaven. Is this not objective truth?
Yes, Yeshu came to reveal the Father and live as an example. But we understand that there was a great watering down and changing of the original Way as taught by Yeshu, which resulting (sic) in many Roman customs and attitudes being overlaid and replacing the original Nasarene customs espoused by Yeshu and Maria. See the "
Islam on Roman Christianity" on our Beni-Amin web site for more details on this.
You seem here to state that we have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly
Mother. One God and one Goddess. Where does Jesus fit into the Godhead?
Yeshu and Maria are the representitives of these Heavenly Parents to all the rest of the universe. They are part of the Godhead, one with Their Parents as we hope to be one with Them.
What is your view of the orthodox Trinity doctrine and the Mormon
doctrine of Three Gods?
Three distinct divine couples, eternally united and functioning as one Deity.
What is your view of married life and the family?
How large is your community in Arizona?
Is it true you were once called Sons Ahman Israel and that you are a break-off of the Mormon Church?
We spell our name many ways, including the spelling you mentioned. We feel a certain calling to teach to the Mormon people, but do not consider ourselves a breakoff, nor do we espouse their culture or many of their doctrines and attitudes
I would be interested to learning where and how you diverge from the Mormons. From another homepage I read the Oracles of Mahonri which, I understand, claims to be the sealed portion of the LDS Book of Mormon.
Our organization was initially set up by the founder of Mormonism, Joseph the Seer. He brought the Oracles of Mohonri which was our founding scripture. 
The Book of Mormon seems to be a very trinitarian book and very much
like orthodox Christianity in teaching and yet the Oracles have a very different doctrine. Why are the doctrines so different?
They represent different levels of the Gosplel, one of the Gentiles (Paul's watered down and altered version of truth) and the other is an Israelite pattern (Nasarene sect of Judaism).
On another site I came across the name "Ahman" as being an Egyptian
spirit entity (I understand the Mormons use it too). Is this why you call yourself "Isis"?
Ahman is a universally used title of Deity. In Egyptian it means the most hidden and unrevealed god. It is only a coincidence that Amma Isis bears this name.
What is your connection to the Evangelical Church of Christ?
I'm not even sure I know what the Evangelical Church of Christ is? 
We have had various associations with different small spiritual groups, but have never found any peace in those relationships or a harmony of doctrine with them. Certain persons have tried to establish a link between us and the new age, or an imfamous mormon group (which may be the one you mentioned), but these conjectures are not founded on truth. Who and what we are cannot be adequately determined by the various rocky relationships we have tried to establish with other groups and individuals.
When studying a Mormon site I came across an article which said that you had been a member of a gnostic sect called the Evangelical Church of Christ led by a man called Byrant or Bryant. It has, I believe, changed its names a few times.
How would you define the New Age?
Deep truths taken out of context and mingled with feel good nonsense.
And how do you differ from New Age teachings?
Formost in our strong emphasis on spiritual disciplines and serious sacrificing.
How do you decide which groups to affiliate with?
We try to unite with whomever we can, gaining a unity of the faith thru courteous exchange of doctrines. We do not like the present division among many who believe mostly the same thing.
Do you have any affiliations with groups in Europe or Asia?
Do you accept any of the Hindu scriptures like the Vedas?
The Hindu writings of Patanjali are honored by us.
What is your eschatological teaching regarding the final outcome of this world?
That it is now, and always will be, a perfect school house to train Gods and Goddesses in embryo. All transitions are slow, and as outlined by Yeshu in the Pistis Sophia, it will only cease its present state when the last soul has been perfected.
Do you believe in a personal devil called Satan?
Yes, and lesser entities as well.
Which Bible books do you consider to be the purest?
Gospel of John, 1st John, Revelations and Hebrews.
In reading a site by a man called "Absalom" I came across a scripture called the "Writings of Moroni" by someone called Pratt.
I noticed that you use a scripture called the "Gospel of the Holy Twelve".
Do you believe in reincarnation?
As taught by Yeshu and Maria - Yes.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time with my questions but I am very interested in learning how people differentiate between objective and subjective truth. It seems to me that what claims to be "objective" is little more than the personal, subjective opinions of people. It concerns me that the world has been left with so many different writings that none but the most intellectual can possibly sift through them all and come to any kind of reasonable conclusion about the universe. I believe in God, and I believe that He loves everyone and desires them to be saved. The trouble is that people have different acumens and all can't be expected to wade through different traditions.
Our premise is that Yeshu and Maria have led us into a greater understanding, but not perfect understanding, of who They really were and of what They really organized and put forth as Their Way. That this original Way has been obscurred and must be sought out thru the clues and fragments of truth left over from the great purges of the fourth century.
How do you believe we will be judged at the last day?
By who we have become, not what we have done or what organizaation we belong to, although what we do and what world we choose to move in determines what we become. We believe in minor "judgement days" between each incarnation. We are not punished as much as we are rewarded for our attitudes, whetehr food (sic) or bad.
How does a man know where he is supposed to be religious-wise?
How does his choice of religion affect his future in the eternal worlds?
Without a wise discerning of what group to belong to, we can not make much headway in perfecting ourselves. There are many many different enclaves of truth and partial truth, each of us belongs to only a few at any given time. By sincerily listening to spiritual leadings, we can find ourselves in the right organization for us at any given time. By advancing in the gifts and experiences offered by that group, we enable ourselves to progress to a more true group, eventually entering a group with enough truth to allow us to graduate from this world altogether.
In my third letter to Gilbert Clark I tried to narrow him down even further in his answers, and attempted to get more detail to the 20 points above. He chose, instead, to give a general reply, ignoring questions he did not wish to answer. His reply follows (in italics) and the several paragraphs have been numbered for easy reference. I have added my comments under each section (in ordinary typeface):
Aumen, our Heavenly Parents, are in, around and thru all things. They are one with everything. They are one with, and are the Archetypal expression of, the totality of oneness, sometimes called the Tao, the Pleromah, the Ain Soph, the Clear Light and other such terms. They have personality because They go into, and out of, such oneness at will. They enter it to conceive universes and entities to populate them, They then withdraw to a degree so that They might be known by those creations They have created. The Ultimate Father is called Depth, and the Ultimate Mother is called Silence, because of Their association with such oneness. Yeshu (Jesus) and Maria (Mary Magdalene), called the Christos and the Hagios Pneuma in some Gnostic writings such as Ptolemy, make up the two additional "Aeons" of the 30 mentioned by Valentinius. Yeshu-Maria are those who know the First Parents most intimately, and therefore can communicate Their essence to the rest of us. They therefore stand next to them in closeness to the Ain Soph Unified Light. These doctrines are spoken of in our Ptolemy scripture from the Scriptorium page of the Yesu-Mari Abbey site.
We use the 32 Aeon titles to refer to these "Individuals" in the Atziluthian world. In the higher world of "Adam Qadmon" They merge into indistinct unity and oneness. In the lower Briatic and Yetzric world Their Archetypal essence manifests thru other semi-divine beings. We often use Egyptian Neter Archetypes for Briatic expressions of Their ultimate nature, and Hebrew Archangels as Their expression in Yetziric worlds. In this world of Assiah, we try ourselves to express one or another of these 32 "energies" or "forms of spirit" by choosing one fo the 32 Qabbalistic Paths to concentrate our energies upon.
This view of God is a combination of Greek Gnosticism and Jewish Kabbalism, the latter of which views creation as a series of emmanations on various levels. The SAI pantheon is essentially polytheistic with every person a potential deity. Gnosticism (see Part 3 of this essay) originated as a fusion of Christianity and Persian Zoroastrianism (Fire Worship) and mutated repeatedly during the first centuries of the Christian era. The mortal Mary Magdelene is viewed by SAI as the equal to Christ even though in the Bible He is depicted as the sinless incarnation of Yahweh-God (Jn.1:1; Heb.4:15) and she as a sinful mortal out of whom seven demons were cast (Mk.16:9; Lk.8:2).
As elaborated upon in the Clementine Homilies, the Greek pantheon entities have so much "personality" because they are based on human characters and weaknesses. We view these as aberant forms of the various 32 energies flowing downward from the 32 Aeons above.
The ancient Greek gods were regarded as personifications of various forces in nature and this view is evidenced sometimes in the SAI view of Deity. Since it is a fusion of many (sometimes mutualy exclusive) traditions it is not surprising that SAI often evidences considerable contradiction in its teachings.
The beginning parts of the Gospel of John actually contain reference to these 30 Aeons, as outlined in early Gnostic writings. We see Yeshu as all things, including the "Logos" principle of early Greek philosophy. Although Yeshu-Maria created all things, They did so indirectly thru the Demiurge and others.
We understand the "Logos" to be the mystery of 888 extended outward from the Depth, or Ultimate Source, like rays of light from the central sun.
Like most occultist organisations, SAI is obsessed with numerology and gematria, Gilbert Clark so structuring his pseudonym - Davied Asia Israel - so that numerically it added up to 888 (the number of Yah'shua/Jesus/Iesou in the Greek). Interestingly, the Hebrew for Jesus - Yah'shua - adds up to 333 gematrically (the Hebrew is not 'Yeshu' as Clark maintains). Aleister Crowley, the notorious Satanist and sexual pervert, some of whose works SAI use, was equally obsessed with the number 777 .
Arik Anpin, or Aatic Yomin the Ancient of Days, is a higher Deity than Zaur Anpin, the Stern faced one, or Demiurge who is Jehovah (also called the little IAO). It is not impropper (sic) to call the Ancient of Days IAO , but the Deity of the Old Testament is considered by us to be the Demiurge (the manager).
Following the Gnostic belief, SAI views the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob and Yah'shua (Jesus) as being a Demiurge - an angel given custodianship of the planet during the "dark ages" of the Mosaic period but who has now submitted himself to Christ and has in fact been "saved" by him. This is completely at variance with the Hebrew tradition and the testimony of the New Testament that Yah'shua/Jesus is, in fact, the incarnate Yahweh Himself - God-in-the-flesh (Jn.1:1).
The higher Aeons, Yeshu-Maria, descended down and became incarnate in flesh.
"Incarnation", by SAI standards, is in fact a form of reincarnation, and as we shall see later, does not include resurrection in the traditionally accepted sense. Most occultists believe "resurrection" to be spiritual only, excluding the physical body. SAI also believes that one must be resurrected before one dies though I never received a clear explanation of this peculiar doctrine! 
Christ takes away sin only by revealling the ultimate light, which when embraced, allows us to rise above all inferior vibrations.
Yeshu is the Lamb of the age of Aries (fulfilling prophecy uttered during this time frame), the Fish (IX0YS) of the age of Pisces, and is now the Waterman of the Aquarian age.
This is a well-known New Age astrological teaching. Astrology plays an important part in SAI life and while I was there (or shortly afterwards) Gilbert Clarke cast a horoscope for me in a bid to prophesy my future movements.
Spiritual rebirth - reforming of interior souls sheaths thru Ritual, with corresponding changes in consciousness and ability to manifest virtues.
Rituals (ordinances) are indispensible to the SAI way of life because they believe that divine power is only manifested through them, adapting a teaching of Joseph Smith who maintained exclusive legalistic authority for the ordinances of his Outer Church - Clarke's ordinances are so numerous as to virtually envelop the whole of an SAI disciple's life. They have multiplied enormously even since I was last acquainted with the sect back in the mid- to late 1980's. The concept of "spiritual birth" follows the New Age thinking that being born again is part of the discovery of the true self. Spiritual rebirth in the New Testament is a supernatural event which occurs by active faith in Yah'shua/Jesus.
The Kingdom of God, meaning "Rule" or theocracy of Aumen, is, as Yeshu states, here already for those with eyes to see. It is the state of harmony and communion with heaven which manifest physically as the Beni-Amin monastic level of life. By being renewed in deeper states of spiritual awareness, we are able to perceive the value of this "monastic" level of living and embrace it as our own.
The Kingdom of God as revealed in the Bible is the very opposite of the monastic life, but is shown to be the national life of a righteous people engaged in the usual business of human beings. He is right, though, in saying that it is here to be seen, though not in the method by which it is seen.
Jehovah (Sabbaoth) once thought He was the ultimate God. At the coming of Yeshu and Maria He realized He was inferior even to a human being (Yeshu-Maria). The faithful centurion is His conversion symbol in the Gospels.
In this SAI picture the God of the Old Testament somehow deludes himself into thinking that he is almighty, something only Satan has ever thought. The ultimate blasphemy of this cult's teaching is that the Creator "discovers" that He is even inferior to a human being! This doctrine of an unredeemed god/angel Demiurge who gets inflated ideas as to his greatness is borrowed straight from the Gnostic cults (see Part 3).
We usually understand Lord to be YHVH and God to be Elohim in most, but not all, the Bible translations also. Where we differ with Trimm and others is that we believe the Old Testament a fabrication of Ezra, and much of the New of Rome, per Islamic records and Epiphanius' account of the attitude of Nasarenes to the Pharasee torah. Although we feel much of the New is corrupt or interpolated, we do not have much of a problem with Revelations. Jehovah is considered a God, even the God to those under lesser Law, and so we do not have a problem with Sabbath being refered to as God, even tho Yeshu said He was the Lord of Sabbaoth. There is ultimately only one god, as Paul states. Other gods and demi-gods being but diverse manifestations of the One. These are deep doctrines covered in the Ancient of Days parts of the Zohar, not easily conveyed in a few sentences. The Letter to Flora, on the Scriptorium page under Ptolemy, sums up our position reasonably well.
James Trimm is a Messianic Jew working on a Hebrew version of the New Testament. Here Gilbert Clark reveals his belief that the Old Testament is a fake written by the prophet Ezra, borrowing this time from Islamic traditions and pseudepigraphical gospels. The statements here are full of bold errors: the Book of Revelation totally contradicts the SAI beliefs about atonement , teaching a vicarious atonement by blood which Clark hates to much (e.g. Rev.1:5b). He perpetuates the midiaeval error that God's Name is "Jehovah", known to be the mistake of pious scribes who dared not articulate the Tetragrammaton, combining YHWH with the vowels of 'Adonai' (Heb. 'Lord') . He confuses 'Sabbath' with 'Sabbaoth', erroneously supposing that when Yah'shua/Jesus said He was the "Lord of the Sabbath" that He was therefore the Lord (Master) of Sabbaoth, and therefore of Yahweh ('Jehovah') Himself. The word "Sabbaoth" is a Greek word meaning 'hosts' or 'armies' (Rom.9:29; Jas.5:4) whereas 'Sabbath' (Heb.
shabbat) means 'rest' or 'cessation' (the Gk. equivalent is
sabbata). Though the words sound similar their meaning is completely different. Such mistakes Clarke often makes, confusing "bow" with "bough", for instance, in the
Oracles of Mohonri in the patriarchal blessing of Jacob to Joseph (Gen.49:24) . The Bible speaks of no other deities than Yahweh ('Jehovah'), Yah'shua (Jesus) and the seven-fold Holy Spirit (Hochmah) and when the word 'elohim' is used in other contexts it is only of created beings like angels and the judges of Israel.
We mourn the loss of the original Matthew which was used by the "Jewish-Christians", even as late as Jerome. Epiphanius claimed they, the Jewish-christians (possibly Nasarene remnants) had changed Matthew, but the truth is obviously the opposite - that the Roman Church had altered Matthew when it (sic) rewrote it from memory. (see islamic notes).
The original Matthew in Hebrew actually exists and offers no support to the SAI belief system whatsoever. Matthew remains substantially unchanged even in the Greek rendition we have though much of its Jewishness has been lost in translation. Clark's "mourning" should be over the impossibility of ever finding the imaginary Matthew which supports his private theology.
The texts of the "Nasarene Bible" were collected during the early days of Sons Aumen Israel, with the understanding that they represented only one of four groupings of texts, or bibles. The criterea for their collection was that each represented at least some of the energies and associated truths behind one of the 22 Qabbalistic paths on the Tree of life, hence their crystalized number of 22 books.
The search for the "god of forces" ('energies') (Dan.11:10. KJV) is firmly entrenched in occultic and New Age belief. This study of forces in astrology and other occultic practices is strictly forbidden in the Scriptures (e.g. Dt.18:9-12).
The Gospel of the Holy 12 is the main, Aleph, text of the Bible of the Assiah world (Essene Bible). The Nasarene texts are Yetzirah texts for those gathered into spiritual communities. They were collected from different sources and spiritual traditions, with slight rewordings to crete a uniformity of style and title for Deity.
The children, and teenagers under 16, have as their main text the Essene Gospel (of the holy 12). The Essene Church who we are associated with and who we see as the more active fulfilling of this "Essene" level, use other texts as well, but they are still in the process of determining their canon. The one thing we are all agreed upon is that the Lord wants the Essene Gospel to be the main Laeph text of this level of light. The Nasarene canon was crystalized many years ago and will no doubt remain unchanged. (The New Testament canon, by the way, was not finally determined till many centuries after Christ. Early writers and different locales all had different canons for centuries.)
The Essene Gospel is a New Age text which has more in common with nature worship than Christianity. The translator of the text into English, Edmond Szekely, mentions in his preface of
The Gospel of the Essenes that he asked his friend, natural evolutionist Aldous Huxley, to proof-text it, which ought to turn the red lights on, for Huxley was a staunch enemy of biblical Christianity. A decade ago the main text used for the children at SAI was the LDS "Book of Mormon" which Clark described as the Gospel "on a lower level of light". Evidently today it is regarded as being too "low" (or perhaps containing too much orthodox 'Pauline' doctrine) even for their children.
The Way used by the early Nasarenes was slightly altered by Paul. So whether he spoke of the True Way or the gentile version of the way, is hard to determine. We use the term to denote the "Derek" of the Masshiach Yeshu-Maria.
Though Clarke speaks respectfully of Paul as being a builder of the spiritual temple's 'porch' (see §21.44 ), he elsewhere condemns him as a heretic. This is not an uncommon ploy of occultists who pay lipservice to the greats of the Bible but inwardly despise them. This 'double-game' he played many times with me in order to seduce prospectice converts into his occultic circle.
O.M. [Oracles of Mohonri] exists in two versions, both essentially the same. The version on our web site has "aumounite" terminology which is mostly the changing of the English terms for Deity - Lord and God, for ones we consider more correct, such as Aumen or IAO. The content is the same, only it has been further translated to reflect our unique "jargon".
SAI has never explained why the
Oracles of Mohonri, a slim volume about one third the size of the Book of Mormon, is so small. The sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, according to Joseph Smith, was twice the size of the unsealed part. In private conversations to me at SAI and in correspondces, Clarke admitted that there were no 'gold plates' and that the vision he saw of the sealed plates were but symbolic, though at other times he claimed they were literal and acted as 'batteries' . He was not too interested in such 'practical' exoteric inconsistencies, however. Hava Pratt who co-founded SAI with Clark, believed that the "Sealed Portion" included not only her own "Writings of Moroni" but
any text that agreed with OM. Since Joseph Smith claimed to have possessed literal gold plates with presumably a fixed number of scriptures, either Pratt is completely wrong or Smith never possessed gold plates (as Clark claims). Pratt has since left SAI, presumably taking a part of the "sealed portion" with her, thus reducing the golden plates in size somewhat.
The other Bibles are also collections from different traditions. They are not fully crystalized at this point.
The SAI canon is enormous, probably 20 or 30 times larger than the Christian and Latter Day Saint ones. And they are constantly growing. To reach perfection requires an extraordinary literary knowledge, each day in the year being meticulously planned out with scripture study, meditation and ritual practice.
In reference to original Matthew, there is an early comment that the "sayings" (logon?) of Matthew, in other words not the stories of present Matthew, were translated by all
the best they could. Some scholars therefore believe that the earliest Matthew was more after the Thomas format than the later story format. We feel this is likely in asmuch as many of its stories are obvious takes off Elijah and other Old Testament legends. The Islamic info newly come to light seems to verify this possibility. In light of this, and because of the obvious refreshing and illuminating nature of the Thomas text, we feel it a likely canidate for one of the earliest forms of wisdom sayings of Yeshu-Maria. It does not betray the extensive tampering that the "Q Gospel" research indicates. We wholey approve of its emphasis on gnosis verses blind belief in vicarious atonement, which was a Roman doctrine that crept into early churches thru the influence of Paul and others.
There are as many theologies as their are scholars and to simply endorse a tiny minority because they agree with one's own beliefs is not rigorous scholarship. The Islamic texts and the counterfeit, apocryphal 'Gospel of Barnabas', have long since been proved to be forgeries but form a strong link in the pattern of foundation stones of SAI belief. The Gospel of Thomas as discovered at
Nag Hammadi, though undoubtedly containing many authentic sayings of Yah'shua/Jesus that predate the Synoptic Gospels, also contains many Gnostic interpolations of a later date. The
Quelle (Q) thesis of getting to the "original sources" is a liberal attempt to "demythologise" the Gospels by removing the supernatural and the consensus that supports it consists for the most part (if not entirely) of unbelievers. The doctrine of vicarious atonement, obnoxious to all but those who have come to know Christ, permeates the entire Bible from cover to cover. Little wonder that SAI has thrown most of it out. Ironically, they have retained such books as
Hebrews which strongly endorses the concept of vicarious atonement, though Clark adds the caveat that it is not "perfect", thus allowing him to ignore or remove the parts he does not like.
We also have canonized the Pearl Hymn found in the Acts of Thomas, but not the whole Thomas Acts story of India travel. We feel it likely that he actually went there but have no strong position on it. We also have canonized the Life of St. Issa which accounts Yeshu going to India and Tibet. This text is our rational for employing so many Tibetan and eastern concepts into our Path. It is our position that such was also accomplished during the days of the Messiah, but that these concepts were weeded out by the Roman culture when it condemned all things Nasarene.
The belief that Yah'shua/Jesus visited India and Tibet is a relatively modern attempt by New Agers such as the author ('Levi') of the
Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ to place the Saviour within the milieu of pagan belief and custom. Some traditions even say that He is buried in Kashmir. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Yah'shua/Jesus ever left the boundaries of Israel save for a brief sojourn in Egypt as a young boy to escape the wrath of Herod the Great and one trip to Syro-Phoenicia. His attested mission was to the House of Israel and not to the Gentiles and He made a point of refusing to administer to a Greek-Phoenician woman until she prevailed upon him with a clever response to his objection (Mk.10:24ff). The SAI 'rationale' is weak indeed - canonise an obscure work which claims Jesus visited India and then use that as a basis for absorbing Hindu and Buddhist ideas! The burden of proof that Rome mutilated our Bibles lies not only with SAI but with Restorationists in general, an utterly impossible task given the widespread multiplication of the New Testament across the length and breadth of Caesar's realm.
The Gospel of Thomas is not considered more valuable by us, just a more likely historical candidate for one of the most original recordings of Yeshu-Maria's sayings. More true in the sense of being more "historical", which, by the way, is not our yardstick for valuable.
It is at this juncture that we run into a wall when it comes to SAI for historicitity - which is the basis of the Christian witness of the life, death and resurrection of Christ with all the addentant human observers - is irrelevent to occultists like Clark and his 'Aumenites'. Christianity is
the only pure historical religion, all else being based on different degrees of myth. Reality is not so important to them, only the subjective inner experiences of the individual. I met this when it came to Mormon claims. It did not seem to bother Clark in the least bit that Joseph Smith may have lied about the gold plates in order to create a myth-vehicle for faith .
We are relativily happy with John, feeling that the tampering has been slight in comparrison with the other synoptic texts - hence its inclusion in our canon with only slight slight terminology / gender changes. We do not consider it a perfect text.
John is the darling of occultists and mystics because he uses the
language of the Gnostics in order to reach them with the
orthodox Gospel. His message is, however, entirely antithetical to SAI and occultic beliefs in general., for he is a powerful witness of the physical resurrection...which is probably why Clarke does not see it as a "perfect" text.
All ideas of a physical resurrection of corpse like parts, of a physical return of a tangiable photographical being, of God destroying the wicked in one fatal swoop are categorically rejected by us as having no foundation in early Nasarene theology or world view. These are Roman and Qumran-like ideas that were grafted onto the pure Nasarene Way and have caused nothing but distraction to true seekers ever since their introduction.
With one fell swoop Clark, in this statement, declares himself an enemy of the Christian faith whose locus is the physical death and ressurection of Christ. He is unable, moreover, to offer an iota of proof for his claim that Romans and Qumranites somehow "mutilated" the original "Nazarene" Gospel. The disappearance of Yahshua's/Jesus' corpse caused such consternation that the Talmudic Jews have been trying to "explain it away" for two millennia. Had the photographable physical body remained behind at Yah'shua's/Jesus' "resurrection" the Christian faith would have been still-born from the beginning. It was the 100% absence of the physical body from the tomb (and not just the
khat flesh - see §2.3.b - whatever that is) and the hundreds of witnesses who handled their resurrected Lord and watched Him eat fish that gave the Christian faith its tremendous impetus and revived the demoralised disciples after the crucifixion. The "distraction", as Clark calls it, is
the key evidence of the true faith.
We believe Christ was born of Joseph and Mary, under the overshadowing of the Shekinah. That he was born to immaculately pure and holy parents in a natural fashion, but that coupled with this purely natural birth were certain supernatural overshadowings. This was the original teaching which still exists in a scattered condition in the Roman Bible. These late changes, introduced to make Christ more like Zeus' son, were completed so late that some early versions of the bible still contain the original wording.
When, during my one visit to SAI I asked Clark to tell me why he rejected the Matthean account of the virgin birth, his reply to me was:
"It does not accord with my personal beliefs". There was no attempt to prove his point using manuscript corruption arguments. Inspite of this arrogant statement by a pagan, the testimony of the virgin birth stands, and all that it implies about the deity of the Messiah and the vicarious atonement He effected for us. Aumenites like Clark wish to save themselves through obedience to law (much of it unscriptural), failing to understand that salvation is by faith alone with obedience a natural fruit of salvation. It is the common error of
all non-Christian religions who teach that man has to do something for God in order to be saved. Not only does Clark reject the Virgin Birth but believes Christ was conceived by Joseph and Mary in a mystical temple on Mount Carmel using the
same techniques as SAI (and before them, Bryant's group) use today to try and make perfect children.
We believe Yeshu was crucified and definitely died shortly thereafter, that his most outer physical form, his Guph body, was not resurrected or resuscitated , but that
He was resurrected. He being His inner most self along with many of His more outward sheaths, but not his most outer sheath.
This explanation is not unlike that of the Jehovah's Witnesses though Clark nowhere attempts to explain what happened to this "Guph" body (the Witnesses say that 'Jehovah' dematerialised it though the Bible says no such thing). If
any part of Yah'shua's/Jesus's physical being had been left behind it would have undermined completely the faith of His disciples and given the Jews a pretext for denying that He had, in fact, risen from the dead.
Our contention is that the true Nasarene Way of Yeshu-Maria quickly gave way to another gospel, the main pivotal point being 135 AD when the Bishops of the Circumcision were ousted from Jerusalem. Because of the historical situation, expressed by the following quote, we do not beleive the texts reliable.
'He (Isha, or Yeshu) and his companions behaved constantly in this manner, until he left this world. He said to his companions: "Act as you have seen me act, instruct people in accordance with instructions I have given you, and be for them what I have been for you." His companions behaved constantly in this manner and in accordance with this. And so did those who (came) after the first generation of his companions, and (also) those who came long after (the second generation). Then they began to make changes and alterations, (to introduce) innovations into the religion (al-din), to seek dominion (ri`asa), to make friends with people by (indulging) their passions, to (try) to circumvent the Jews and to satisfy the anger (which) they (felt) against the latter, even if (in doing so) they (had) to abandon the religion. This is clear from the Gospels which are with them and to which they refer and from their book, known as the Book of Praxeis (Acts).
There can be no doubt that there is an element of truth in this for the Hebrew MSS certainly became corrupted by Constantine and the emergent Roman Catholic Church. However, nothing here would support the 'Aumenite' claims.
We also agree with the following quote:
"Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since--as already it has been often proved--these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of half Jews, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them."
St. Faustus, Fifth--Century French Bishop
Quite apart from the fact that I would be suspicious of anyone with the name of 'Faustus' (!) this statement -- if it is genuine and not some anti-semitic tract (for anti-semitism had become rampant by this time) does nothing to support SAI claims. The fact that the
Catholics in Alexandria had by this time already begun to create false manuscripts (MSS) to undermine the
Textus Receptus actually works
against Clark's claims for this was a deliberate attempt to occultise the Gospel in the direction Clark believes in.
Our web page
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3607/gop31nt.htm is our most complete argument on this subject. As for the "minority texts" you mention, these would not be dismissed out of hand by us because of their relative scarcity, nor would we be too quick to assume they were throwaways of no value. Our position is that alterations were made so early on that even the most early texts are not wholely reliable. The idea being that as soon as the Way was taken out of rural Nasarene encampments and cloistered enclaves like the Essene Quarter, it immediately began to be watered down or altered to urban and worldly viewpoints:
None of these claims can be historically substantiated or even hinted at and are mere speculation.
1 QILPOTH Carnivore Fed Flesh: Aaronic Priesthood (Oblates are raised as vegans.) Weighable, tangiable, photographical physical form.
2 GUPH Lacto-Vegetarian Flesh: Melchisedec Priesthood (Oblates are raised as vegans.) Weighable, tangiable, photographical physical form.
3 KHAT Vegan Flesh: Jaradite / Essene Order Weighable, tangiable, photographical physical form.
4 KHAIBIT Lower Nepheshian Sheath: Mohonrite / Nazarene Order
5 SAHU Middle Nepheshian Sheath: Zadokian / Ebionite Order
6 KA Upper Nepheshian Sheath: Enochian Order
7 BA Ruachian Sheath: Berashithian Order
8 AKH Neshamah Sheath: Mazzalothian Order
9 SEKHEM Yechida Sheath: Yohonian Order
10 HAMMEMIT Chia Core: Messianic Orders
It should be noted in the system above (and in other SAI systems) that the error of the 'Aaronic Priesthood' having something to do with the New Covenanrt dispensation is continued from Mormonism. The Epistle to the Hebrews completely undermines the teaching of Joseph Smith that the Old Covenant Aaronic Priesthood is an appendange of the New Covenant Melchizedek Priesthood which is clearly stated to have
passed away and been
replaced by the latter (Heb.7:12; etc.).
We acknowledge the existence of Shadim (pretan entities) as a psychological interference in the reception of truth, but not as any real barrior 
. We believe that one who seeks will find, that as we sincerily knock the answer will come. Not all at once, but it will trickle in and as we take heart to incorporate new truth into our lives, more is given. Line upon line. The actual keys are given by Peter in the Clementine Homilies. There he says that any scripture, or part of scripture, that contradicts the ultimate compassion of altruistic nature of Deity is an interpolation of men and to be rejected.
I would not want to advocate someone walking a certain "Path" because of scholarly evidence. I believe that there is enough evidence to date to make one suspicious of the purity of the received and orthodox christian tradition, but the historical evidence is yet slim, or poorly understood, that makes any alternative stand our clearly. Events of the early years are still understood differently by different students of these times, and almost every book on the subject has a new theory it seems. So trusting on the word of scholars who cannot even agree among themselves seems shaky to say the least, but then so does relying on the standard party line developed by early opponents to the "Jewish-Christians" who were the only ones with a real oral and written link to Yeshu and Maria.
As someone involved in deliverance ministry (casting out demons)I know without a shadow of a doubt that the demons ('Shadim') are a
major obstacle to human beings, substantiated by the many New Testament accounts of those hopelessly bound by them until released by the Saviour or by His apostles. The altruism of Deity is, furthermore, detached from the justice of God, both of which are required for the stable operation of a Universe defined by laws. Clark does at least admit here that the historical evidence for the SAI religion is 'slim' (practically non-existent would be a better description), though he would have us believe that the historical evidence for
orthodoxy is slim too. A careful examination of the manuscript (MS) evidence will reveal the opposite.
We are left, in the end, with our own conclusions, hopefully drawn from reasonable research and prayerful annalysis, and hopefully inspired by a loving Heavenly Parent who desires to lead us up the best road possible. The external evidence is not strong enough to be all convincing at this point in time, perhaps in a few years when work such as the Q endeavor comes to greater fruition, or when another large find like Qumran or Nag Hamaddhi (sic) produce more original texts. If one feels the Lord, after due study and prayer, has given them a testimony of a certain scripture, or Path, then that is what one must ultimately rely on.
This is the conclusion that the occultists would like to leave us with, viz, that in the end we cannot rely on the orthodox evangel and its sacred texts, the Biblem but must search the rubbish tips of the deserts in the hope of finding something "better". Yet if we are to believe this occultic view of history we are forced to conclude that the god of the Aumenites was powerless to preserve a potent enough form of His Word for a struggling humanity and that it has been left up to Clark (and his predecessor Smith), with a church membership of maybe a dozen souls, to restore it to a disinterested world desperately in need and which, several decades on, is showing no interest at all. And what of the 1,8000 years before Smith and Clark came on the scene? Were there no men "righteous" enough to restore all this supposedly lost material? The absurdity of this notion is conveniently hidden in Darwinism for he may comfort himself in believing that man has millions of years and countless incarnations to "work it all out". The same absurdity of natural evolution in which the universe creates itself out of nothing without any sort of intelligent input to make our amazing biosphere (for example) may be layed at the feet of vast aeons of time, which is the mystical organising ingredient, and whose existence is highly dubious and in any case unamenable to scientific examination, placing the whole thesis within the realm of speculative philosophy. To be sure, if we have zillions of years to work out our salvation (and we would most certainly need to do that to follow Clark's path), and if we are to meet Christ in heaven and not look forward to a Second Coming  or a Millennium of Theocratic Rule, then Clark may be right. This is absolutely not, however, the teaching of the Bible, and it is absolutely not the evidence of unfolding history which is definitely moving towards a rapid and apocalyptic climax, and all according to the signs that Yah'shua/Jesus spoke of.
Our understanding of the trintity is Qabbalistic - that the 3 higher Sephiroth on the Tree of Life, the Supernal Ones, represent divinity in a variety of ways. In one facet, the highest Keter is the Undifferentiated Oneness we refered to earlier, called by us Aumen. The Second and Third Sephirah are Maria and Yeshu as masculine and feminine expressions of this unity in the outer, non-pleromatic, worlds. We use this Pythagorean model to describe the monad, duad and triune nature of Deity. Yet there are other allocations, one being that Abba and Amma Aumen are Keter, Yeshu and Maria are Binah (#2) and the Ruach HaQadesh, the enlightened, are as the third Sephirah.
The influence of pagan Greek ideas (such as Pythagoreanism) is again confirmed in this statement, the same forces which so strongly influenced Gnosticism at the beginning of the Christian era and, to a lesser extent, Catholicism, its exoteric outer shell (see Part 3). It is surprsing that Clark uses such ideas as "trinitarianism" which was a much later
Roman Christian devlopment.
Mary Magdalene was conceived naturally, and spiritually, as Yeshu was said to have been by all Aramaic followers in the first few centuries.
We may agree with the former statement but not the latter for the reasons already given.
Six is one legitimate grouping of the Divine, in harmony with the Qabbalistic itnerpretation of the first verse in Genesis. So are the Duad (Mother and Father in Heaven), the Tetrad (Parents plus Yeshu-Maria - YHVH), the Hexad and the Ogdoad of the Gnostics (8 + 10 + 12) and the Decad of the Pythagoreans, Qabbalists and Gnostics (ogdoad pluse Christus and Pneuma). But all of these Pythagorean complexities are best resolved in Aumen being One, the Monad, the Unity of all things.
According to the Bible the opposite is true for six is always the number of
imperfection and the number of
man. That six would have such a special place in the SAI scheme of things is perfectly consistent with its man-made, naturalistic view of the spiritual realm. Six is also the number of the
end of man, for it is the sum of
creation (4) and
division (2), or Grace (5) with man's addition to it (1). The combination of 666 represents the worship of man as God, and is the biblical number of the Beast (Rev.13:18).
Six is actually the only perfect single digit, as 28 is of double digits and 496 of the triple digits.
We believe in a multiplicity of lives. Many spent in the celibate state so as to fine tune our virtue over the vice of lust. This is not an ultimate state, however, for it does not create. Whereas its temporary abating of creativeness has a good side, the pairing in the homosexual bond is considered most unfortunate by us. Plurality, inasmuch as it represents a certain unbalancing of forces (male and female), has its limits as well. Spiritually infused tantra between divine beings, such as Heavenly Father and one or more Wives, is another subject altogether.
This is the complete anthithesis of truth for six may actually be said to be the only
imperfect digit since it represents incompleteness. This repetition of 6 in endless 6's of reincarnation is the devil's own scheme. Surprisingly, perhaps, even Joseph Smith denied the transmigration of souls (reincarnation) and yet this would be consistent with the occultist's inner/outer Church 'double-speak' - that the kabbalist Smith should reject as uninspired
the kabbalistic text of the Bible, the
Song of Solomon.
Whilst I would agree that periods of celibacy are indeed desirable in the quest for spirituality, this would only be
within the one incarnation we have in this physical world, even as the New Testament teaches (Heb.9:27). And I also agree with his statement about homosexuality.
However, in my brief association with SAI, it was my observation that homosexuality was
tolerated. It was also the belief at that time - supported by revelation from Gilbert Clark - that homosexuality was cured by homosexuals having sex with SAI's matriarchs or women leaders (the "Isaac-Sarah" Revelation, also called "Sexual Succor"). This involved sexual intercourse and -- particularly important -- the sucking of a matriatch's breasts which it was believed supplied the deficient energies that would the homosexual to being a heterosexual (Clark believed that the sudden rise in homosexuality was in the main caused by the bottle-feeding of babies). Sleeping in a "matriarch's aura" was considered an important part of the therapy. I knew of one homosexual man (who briefly associated with the Independent Church before being excommunicated for practicing sodomy) who was briefly assigned Clark's first wife for such therapeutic purposes, and of another homosexual man from Utah who slept with Clarke himself (though without sex) in order to be bathed in and healed by Clark's "patriarchal aura". Neither men were healed of their homosexuality. When I confronted Clark with this system of failed 'healing' and asked him if lesbians were cured by a similar methods involving the male progenerative organ, he literally fled out of the house we were talking in (without answering) and hid himself for several days in his 'closet' at SAI . (Though SAI believes that its vegetarianism makes them immune from sickness, he was actually suffering from a 'flu virus while I was staying at the colony).
The belief in Tantric (Sexual) Yoga dominates SAI thinking and practice. The belief in the 1980's was that the Holy Spirit in its most potent form is only passed on from one person to another by sexual intercourse - by which the "seed of deity" was transferred. This idea was obtained initially from John Bryant whom we met in Part I of this article and in Clarke's attempt in his first letters to me to throw a smokescreen over (see §1.9 above). All new members of SAI must obtain this "spirit" by having intercourse with one of the matriarchs or patriatrchs in a special sexual ritual. As those like myself who are involved in deliverance ministry know, there is no more quicker way to pass demons on from one person to another than through unlawful sex. There are many sexual ordinances at SAI, some of which take place under water in their special 'baptismal font'. They believe that by having ritualistic sex leading to orgasm in such a font that the water is magically 'charged' so that those bathing in it afterwards can be healed of physical ailments.
Sex lies at the very heart of the SAI belief system . The hierarchy of SAI are all "married to one another" and may have sex with whomever they choose by arrangement, though 'revelation' through Clarke is the ultimate 'authorisation' of such. It has been known for more than two to have sex at the same time and I personally know of one time when two women and a man (Clark) engaged in such activity together . It is also the belief of this sect that children, once mature and 'pure' enough may have sex with their own parents and with one another. They believe that this is how the first apostles  and the SAI godhead lives, a concept developed by Clark which he got from John Bryant (who, unlike Clark, also encouraged bisexuality and perhaps homosexuality too) whoc in turn obtained it from Joseph Smith's secret Nauvoo practices, discussed in an earlier article of mine on Mormon polyandry . The marriage covenant is entirely physically-based and if no sex takes place between partner over a period of one year, their marriage is at an end .
Is the Mormon conception erroneous? For the most part, due to its faliure to take into account the fact that individuals, in different incarnations, may wed different mates. Original Mormonism taught woman could have many husbands as well as men. Brigham Young changed this to the Islamic pattern with all its limiting factors for the female. We do not advocate either system, but tolerate a form of both in individuals if they are sincere spiritual practicioners and have committed relationships that do not degenerate into open marriages which are to us no marriage at all.
Why do we allow it? Because it is not considered evil by us any more than having 3 kids is considered more evil than just 2. We do not agree that salvation lies in plural marriage, but rather in a pure and loving heart and a clear and wise mind. We do not practice sexual communism here.
When the historical witness of Scripture (the Bible) is rejected so too are the laws of the Creator, Yahweh-Elohim. Whist Clarke is right in saying that salvation does not lie in marriage (whether plural or monogamous - or the abberant polyandry and mixed marriage), it does not exist in man's puny works at attempting to be pure and loving either, but in the finished work of Christ by faith, though purity and a loving attitude will be recognisable fruits of that salvation.
To say that SAI does not practice "sexual communism" is a half truth, for though the whole colony may not be "married" together, it is a fact that the hierarchy of patriarchs and matriarchs
is. And since the community is so small, and since most are probably in the hierachy on one level of another, and since
all must have had sex with the hierachy to obtain their "spirit", then it would be true to say that "sexual communism" is a way of life there to one degree or another. And the ultimate goal is certainly for all to be "wed" together. When I visited in 1988 Clarke had 'married' the wife of a man on a 'lower level', seeking her less regularly than those in the hierarchy. This last statement is therefore a lie.
As the Tibetans teach that everyone was once our mother, there is a certain possibility, due to reincarnation 
, that many of the opposite sex involved in our spiritual path have been our spouses at some point. This does not matter, for we are not who we really are destined to be as of yet. As we become more mature in our spirituality, our marriages become more enduring. Eventually we become enabled to settle into an eternal union that cannot be ravaged by time or death. We are, in one sense, always married to whoever we were once married to in another life, making polygamy but a present manifestation of this fact. On the other hand, however, we have become new people and should seek for that mate, or mates, who perfectly compliment who and what we have now become.
Yah'shua/Jesus taught that we are all married to one another and to Him in a
metaphorical sense only.
The Oregon group is concentrated on teaching and sharing the Essene Message, whereas we are concentrated on the Nasarene message (i.e. kibbutz / moshav cooperative settlements). We are smaller because our way is harder and requires greater dedication. There are dedicated souls there as well, but they are the few rather than the many. Souls from here hold offices in the Church headquartered there. Souls there filter and send qualified candidates here for deeper training.
Nazariah is the head of the Essene Church, Isis and Davied Israel are the heads of Sons Aumen Israel, and Abba Nazariah, Amma Nazarina, Amma Isis and Abba Davied are the equal heads of the Nasarene Order beginning to be built up here (the Order of Yahshua-Maria). Alesha, Mem and Hava are all former members of Sons Aumen Israel. None of them are current leaders or other names for Isis.
According to recent information that I have obtained from a leader from the "Oregon group", SAI has been expelled from their association because of their suspicion of deviant sexual practices.
'Alesha', 'Mem' and 'Hava' are three of the woman victims of SAI, the first being my ex-wife who was given this name which is that of the Egyptian fire goddess. Clark broke up the families of the first two, encouraging them to abandon their husbands and families. Have Pratt, as mentioned above, was one of the forunders of SAI and was together with Clarke in John Bryant's Church, abandoning her husband and children to join it. She was regarded as "too Mormon" and "senile" by him latterly which is probably why she left SAI though I do not know of the exact circumstances that caused her to leave. I know nothing of his present parner 'Isis' unless it is the name of his first wife (who was promoted to being a 'matriarch' because she was willing to 'marry' other men and sleep with at least one homosexual, as stated in a 'revelation').
No association with Azrael. The Independent Church was a slanderous breakoff from Sons Aumen Israel, once claiming preisthood (sic) from us and using the Oracles. They have since disclaimed such associations, at least publically, but still promote negativity about us and are the source of much misinformation. We wish them well.
'Azrael' was a former member of the Mormon Church and had published a book which taught that immortality came through vegetarianism with whom Clarke had contact. I saw, though did not speak, him when I was visiting SAI for a fortnight in 1988.
As to the Independent Church, which I founded, I know considerably more. The Independent Church was never a formal part of SAI and so we never "broke off" though we briefly used Clark's
Oracles believing them to be the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. We never claimed priesthood from SAI either and it has always been the teaching of the Independent Church and its successors (when it finally left the Restoration Movement) that the Priesthood was Christ Himself which was obtained by faith alone (the orthodox Christian teaching of a 'Priesthood of all Believers'). As to us being the sourse of much misinformation on SAI, we have documentary proof of all our allegations, most of which is in the handwriting of Clark himself in his voluminous correspondences to me at a time when he thought he was winning me over to his theology, even calling me to be SAI's "Patriatch to the Gentiles" even though I was not converted . The amount of material we have on this cult would fill several encylopaedia-sized volumes. Like the archeologists in Egypt who found gnostic scriptures in ancient desert rubbish tips, I also discovered many documents buried in Clark's own handwriting in the SAI rubbish tip showing how Clark effected a syncretisation of his early Mormon beliefs with the Egyyptian mystery religion . One of these documents was published in a former Independent Church publication .
The Independent Church had a brief 'association' with SAI but no more, gradually dropping its scriptures over a 3-4 year period. We consistenly rejected his mixed marriage system and ordinances, and once we saw that he was hostile to the Bible, even the loose association was quickly terminated. As an illustration of the arrogance of this group I was even baptised by proxy into their organisation by one of Clark's "brother-husbands" called Ted
without even being consulted in the matter. Worse than that, when I would not give my permission to let my wife become Clarks' "wife", a "revelation" was received appointing a proxy to stand in my place! 
With the exception of our using (though very rarely) the
Oracles for a while, every other statement above is false.
One of my earlier articles still appears on their homepage from a time when I was advertising the
Oracles for SAI. My name appears in my initials with the explanation that I am "dead", no doubt referring to my former brief association with them . Fortunately, I am very much 'alive' thanks to the spilled blood of Yah'shua/Jesus!
Joseph Smith set up a second secret Church, which dwindled away after his death. Sons Aumen Israel claims to be a restoration of that defunct organization, initially inspired by visits from an angelic Joseph who brought spiritual plates which were transcribed and became the Oracles Text used by us.
That Smith did this is certainly true and that SAI claims to be the successor of this secret organisation I would conceed, for the same powers that drove Joseph Smith most certainly drive Gilbert Clark. Both were involved in occultism. Gilbert Clark (aka Davied Asia Israel) has, in my opinion, taken Joseph Smith's esoteric ('Inner Church') "restoring" work to its logical conclusion. And it was in part my discovery of this that led me to finally reject the Restoration Movement (Mormonism) altogether and turn to Bible Christrianity as the only source of historical and theological truth.
Trimm, I thought, was based in Texas. Similarities are only surface. They are a Pauline-Pharisee mix from our view, whereas we reject both traditions.
Clarke's observations about Trimm are certainly correct here.
A level is a tradition or school with a certain amount of truth, but not all truth. Similar to secular educational levels. One enters this life with a propensity to accept a certain level of truth, a certain religion. If one is faithful, in either this life or the next one may embrace a deeper layer.
This is a pure Hindu teaching. Though I would conceed that we
may sometimes need to move between orthodox Christian
denominations in our search for greater light and truth (and perhaps even amongst heterodox ones occasionally), I would most certainly reject the claim that we may freely move between different
religions and obtain the same benefits. Though my own journey through non-Christian religions was instructive in the sense of identifying false paths, I would by no means consider it of any
spiritual benefit in terms of santification of my soul. As for the next 'life', there is none (on earth), for after this life, comes the judgement (Heb. 9:27).
Paul was inspired. The porch of the Temple needed to be built, and he did it well.
And yet elsewhere Paul is described by as a heretic by SAI! How kind of them to conceed the 'porch' to him!
Gentile converts lived an easier level of the Nasarene Way while under their influence. It was the far off non-Aramaic congregations that eventually altered the customs and traditions, and eventually the scriptures, of the original groups of faithful gentiles and Nasarenes. This occured because of the language barrior more than the distance barrior, and because of the pact with the Roman authorities outlined in Islamic fragments.
Yes, they altered the customs and traditions, but no, they did not alter the Scriptures. Again, his source material is bogus Islamic documents (Islam, it should be remembered, was strongly influenced by the Monophysite 'Christian' sect). There is also good evidence that Islam was the brain-child of the Roman Catholic Church.
Paul was correct in his asserion of equality of people, but the equality of cultures is a different story.
I would have to agree with him here but on different premises.
Whether Paul, or another interpolating in his name, apparently wanted no competition to his version of the truth. Paul speaks of milk and "meat" levels of the gospel, however, as did Clement and others.
It is true that there is a 'milk' and a 'meat' Gospel but the latter is most definitely
not occultism of any kind (which is disjunctive with other Bible teachings). It is rather a deeper understanding of the atonement and of the consecrated life as a disciple.
Isis, to us, is but an earlier shadow of Maria of Magdalah - certainly not a witch. The complexity of the Egyptian system sytem does not lend itself to an easy borrowing from Babylon and Nimrod, so I do not trust these assertions.
The Egyptian religion was pure witchcraft as is attested in the contest between Moses and the Pharaoh. Isis features prominently in the Masoic traditions as the Osiris-Isis-Horus triumvirate, the counterfeit Christian Godhead similar to the Hindu's Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva. Isis was the goddess of fertility, an appropriate name for Clarke's consort who goes under the pseudonym 'Amma Isis' or 'Mother Isis'. Isis is, moreover, most certainly linked to the Babylonian Nimrod tradition for she, like Semiramis who was Nimrod's mother and wife, was Osiris's sister and wife, and the mother of Horus. Isis was also known as Cerridwen (the goddess of wisdom and wicthcraft), Venus (also known as Lucifer), and Hectate (queen of the witches who taught sorcery and witchcraft). One of the emblems of Isis is the lotus, symbol of
reincarnation and the awakening of spiritual consciousness. Isis was known as "the virgin and mother" and eventually passed into Roman Catholic tradition as the counterfeit 'Madonna'. Isis is also known as 'Saturn' and according to Masonic writer J.S.M.Ward is really another name for 'Satan'. In the occult Saturn is related to the Ouroboros (or the serpent which bites its own tail). Saturn's symbol, as is well known, is the scythe which is symbolic of renewed hopes for rebirth or reincarnation. Osiris, according to Egyptian myth, has a rebirth due to
spells performed by Isis. The list of Isis' honours are longer still for she is traditionally seen as the guiding light of
prostitution. Saturn was also one of Nimrod's names. Another of Isis' symbols (worn as a crown) was horns between which lay a solar disk which sat atop the head of the Memphian bull-god Apis which the fallen Israelites made a golden image of in Sinai . To therefore attempt to distance Isis from witchraft and satanism is shere nonsense.
Interestingly, SAI has apparently discarded it's earlier logo consisting of a 6-armed swastika within a Star of David with the Sanskrit "Om" character in the centre with various astrological signs around it. The new symbol consists of a modified Egyptian Ankh cross with two smaller parallel cross beams beneath the main one. The Ankh (or
crux ansata) is an ancient Egyptian symbol of life very popular with New Age adherants and consists of two parts: a Tau, a phallic symbol used by Freemasons, and an oval loop at the top, representing the female yoni. It was used by the Egyptian gods as an instrument for awakening the dead to new life .
Very vague and general ideas of the new age, those borrowed from deeper religions, have some truth to us but are nothing but nonsense when taken out of their monastic context. None of them, nor any specific writing, stick out in my mind. I have not heard of any specific new age group practicing traditional spiritual disciplines, but if there are some, I would propbably class them as eccletic mixes of older paths. When I think of new age, I generally think of bookreaders convinced that they have already arrived or those who await salvation in a ufo.
Serious sacrificing - several hours or more a day doing spiritual practices such as prayer, meditation, study, etc. Denying material ambitions and comforts for spiritual veracities.
Sacrifice is certainly an important part of the spiritual life but not to the extent practiced in SAI where, as in many cults, the children are seriously neglected. My two eldest children, who spent two years in SAI, were psychological wrecks when I obtained custody of them through the courts. Many of my friends described them as mere 'shells'. Children at SAI used to be left to roam around on their own unsupervised by adults who were too busy with their lengthy 'spiritual devotions' and ordinance work to meet their very real needs. My own son was punished by Clarke for not eating food he did not like by having pepper put all over it and then being made to eat it. One of Clarke's babies had a cardboard box as a crib. My own children were forbidden from going to the toilet at night for fear they might see some of their orgies in process, for at that time they lived in small, cramped trailers. Thank goodness these memories are now all but forgotten since coming into the normal stream of life again.
We are unaware of any groups of close affinity to us. The Norway group was, as far as we know, but one man who put up the web sites against us and who tried to start the Independent ....church. His wife left him to join the community here, and it created bad feeling with him. He only visited here once or twice briefly, and we really did not know him very well.
This is a most dishonest statement. I visited only once and during that time Clark kept himself hidden away much of the time. Pratt used to call him the "closet prophet". But we knew each other very well through our lengthy correspondences over a couple of years so to say that he did not know me very well is absolute nonsense. I never created 'websites' against SAI but created one page on the NCCG homepage, the only one in existence that has told the truth about this cult. I did not "try" to start the Independent Church - it was established and then scrapped when we left the Restoration. That I had bad feelings is certainly true as would any husband watching his family ripped apart, losing his children and witnessing the wife of his youth committing adultery.
Everyone will not ultimatly be exalted, but will eventually gravitate to their true heaven or hell after multitudes of lives. From our vantage point of this incarnation, the process seems infinite - yet it has a termination date that "only the Father knows".
A misquotation of Scripture for "only the Father knows" when Yah'shua/Jesus is coming back (Mt.24:36).
Shaitan [Satan], and all Shadim [demons], evolved to their present state by choices they made. They can still choose the light if they wish.
Absolutely not true. There is no salvation for Satan and his demons whose rebellion in heaven irrevocably condemned them to a bodiless existence in an eternity apart from God.
Hebrews authored most likely by Barnabas. We call it the Book of Barnabas. Yeshu made a general atonement for sin, but not a specific one for either himself or others. We do not look at Jehova as an angel as much as a lesser God representing the Highest God to all who have no vision to see higher than Him.
The authorship of Hebrews is unknown with at least five possible candidates - Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Apollos, Silas, and many others.It is more than possible that Paul wrote it (Phil.3:5; 2 Pet.3:15-16). Most early Christian writers acknowledged Paul as the writer. The fact that the Greek is different need not trouble us if, as I believe,
most if not
all the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. It is my belief that Paul did indeed write it and that his Greek translator used a very polished style peculiar to him in
Hebrews quite unlike the
koinê Greek of his other epistles.
Yah'shua/Jesus by His own testimony came to earth to die, to make an atonement for cosmic sin and for the sins of those who accepted His Messiahship and obeyed the commandments (John 12:27; 1 Pet.2:24; Rom.5:1-11).
Yahweh ('Jehovah'), whom I have have commented on, declared that there was no God besides Him . Either He was a liar or ignorant which seems hardly likely. Yah'shua/Jesus acknowledged His sovereignty and even bore His Name (YAH-shua). The SAI gnostic belief of a Demiurge is refuted by the Scriptures which Yah'shua/Jesus acknowledged as infallibly inspired in His numerous quotations thereof (e.g. Jn.5:39).
Although Christ takes a somewhat passive role in the affairs of this universe, allowing it to take the course its inhabitants have designed for it, They are in ultimate control of its affairs. Man neither frustrating Their plans, nor delaying them. Because we believe in reincarnation, we cannot accept your conclusion that only a thousand or so have been saved if our understandings are correct. The Aquarian Gospel is not honored by us. The Ouseley passage of 49 years is understood by us as 49 phases. We believe that Yeshu died in 28 AD. probably on April 23, not at age 49. As to your other numerous questions, I feel they have been answered, for the most part, by the above. Since we look upon the New Testament canon as suspect, a word by word annalysis (sic) of its various books would seem to be of questionable profit.
I would agree with the first sentence for sure. Clarke has misread me about who is saved, for NCCG has always taught that a "vast multitude" are saved, too numerous to count. What we have said is that of the 144,000 firstborn elect, probably no more than a few thousand are alive today.
As for the Scriptures, Christ underlines their importance almost everywhere .
Abba and Ammas spiritually counsel, encourage, gently teach the sincere, administer ordinance work, give blessings and represent heavenly forces and presences.
The expression "represent heavenly forces and presence" is just another way of saying "spirit channeling" in New Age jargon. According to the New Testament, there is only one "force" or "presence" that allows us to communicate with our Father-God, the Ruach haKodesh/Holy Spirit. But SAI, as with the Essene teaching generally, believe in communing with many "forces", "presences" and "deities". Clark claims to have been visited by the Mormon angel "Moroni" and the late Mormon prophet "Joseph Smith" and many other supernatural beings, including the "Ancient of Days" and "Christ". These things alone should cause us to pause and think. The dispensation of Priestly intermediaries and channeling ended with the Cross and the termination of the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood. Every human being who believes in Christ now has direct access to the Father in the Holy of Holies (the veil of which has been torn allowing all to pass in, and not just the Levitical High Priest once a year) through Christ, and needs no intermediaries . Though we may indeed counsel, encourage, gently teach and administer the ordinances we may most certainly
not "represent heavenly forces and presences". Representative ministry of this kind ended 2,000 years ago, and channelling  (spiritualism) is strictly forbidden upon pain of death.
In my third and final chapter on 'Sons Ahmen/Aumen Israel' I shall be looking at the spiritual ancestry of both SAI and Mormonism The reader may well be wondering why I am spending such an inordinate amount of time and effort on a group numbering probably less than a dozen souls. Whilst it is true that my association with SAI caused much persobal trauma and heartache, this was a long time ago and most of the wounds have since healed. I do, however, have another more important reason, which I have hinted at in this essay, namely my assertion that the evolution of SAI casts a light back into the very hub or Mormonism itself, from which it came, and where upwards of 12 million souls today find their spiritual home. To understand Gilbert Clark and SAI is to better understand Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that he founded.
 In fact, Clark believes in a multi-tiered system that includes the Church of the Unborn, the Church of the Firstborn, the Church of Enoch, the Church of Christ, etc.. He was, however, constantly tinkering around with ideas so that no one single model survived for very long. He even “squeezed” the former Independent Church into his system. Return
 Lance S. Owens, “Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Vol.27, No.3, Fall 1994, pp.117-194). This article may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.webcom./~gnosis/ahp.htm Return
 Lance S. Owens, “Joseph Smith: America’s Hermetic Prophet” (Gnosis: A Journal of Western Inner Tradition, Spring 1995). This article may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.webcom./~gnosis/jskabb1.htm Return
 Christopher C. Warren, “Polyandry or ‘Matriarchal’ Marriage: An Historical and Theological Analysis of the Doctrine of a Woman Being Married to More Than One Man in Latter Day Saint and World Tradition”, Restoration: The Journal of Latter Day Saint History, Vol.7, No.3, July 1988, pp.11-21. This was written at a time when the author still regarded himself as part of the Restoration Movement - not all the views expressed in the penultimate section, “The Position of the Independent Church”, pp.20-21, are held by the author today. Return
 The only known time Joseph Smith discussed the doctrine of evolution, called at that time “the transmigration of souls”, was in a conversation with “Joshua the Jewish Minister” who claimed to be the reincarnation of Matthias the apostle. Smith’s reply, “I told him that his doctrine was of the devil, that he was in reality in possession of a wiced and depraved spirit” may be interpreted to mean that Smith rejected reincarnation. A closer examination of the whole incident may, however, indicate that Smith was referring to the man’s whole doctrinal scheme which included the claim that he was “the Spirit of Truth” and that he “possessed the soul of Christ” (Doctrinal History of the Church, November 9, 1835, Vol.2, pp.304-307 and Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Deseret, Salt Lake City, 1977, pp.103-105). This ambiguity may explain in part why an LDS schismatic group, ‘The True and Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days’ based in Manti, Utah, believes and teaches a doctrine of reincarnation - for details, see, Christopher C. Warren, “Correspondences with the True and Living Church on the Topic of Reincarnation, Restoration: The Journal of Latter Day Saint History, Vol.10 1998, pp.24-27. Return
 Key to the numbering system: 1.2.b = First letter - second question - subquestion in a second letter. Return
 A curious rendition. The original Hebrew for Jesus is pretty well agreed on by everyone as being either ‘Yah’shua’ or ‘Yeshua’ (though a very small minority claims ‘Yehoshua’). Clark’s dropping of the final vowel may, however, have something to do with his gematric beliefs about sacred numbers, ‘Yahshu’ (under SAI’s private ‘Aumounite’ system) yielding 330 as compared to Yah’shua (334) and Yeshua (338), or he may simply be confused with the Greek form, ‘Yesu’ which he also uses. Return
 A clear example of occultic Pantheism. In the Christian tradition Yahweh-God is both everywhere in His creation as well as being entirely separate from it. Return
 The “Oracles of Mohonri” or “Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon”, claimed by Clark to be that part of the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith was forbidden to open and translate. An extract of the rewritten third edition may be found in The Journal of Latter Day Saint History, Vol.12 2000, pp.23-27, and the whole book at the SAI website at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5774/om1.htm. The Second unchanged edition may still be downloaded at the site of ‘Absalom’ at ftp://ftp.absalom.com/pub/absalom in the zip file mohonri.zip. Return
 “If you know the O[racles of] M[ohonri] are true, then you are called, by virtue of that belief, to gather to Zomer Zion [SAI] and there prepare for His [Christ’s] Second Coming” (Letter from Gilbert Clark to the author, undated, received 9 May 1986, p.10). Either Clark’s belief has changed about the Second Coming or he lied in order to appeal to my strong belief in it. I tend to the latter view because Clark always pandered to people’s beliefs, giving the impression he believed the same way to then reveal a completely different belief later, a practice he has subsequently justified. Return
 Though he does not explain it very clearly, Clark does not mean that Smith brought the Oracles during his life time but as an allegedly resurrected persage Return
 Clark is not telling the truth here for he was heavily involved in that organisation, albeit for only a year, and caused a schism. See Part 1 of this article for that story. Return
 In fact, most of SAI’s core beliefs are directly derived from those of John W. Bryant, including the key doctrine that the Holy Spirit is only transmitted in fluids and principally through sexual intercourse. Return
 Jean Poulson, aka ‘Hava Pratt’, with whom I had lengthy corrspondences, was the co-founder of SAI with Clark and a passionate supporter of his work. Her reasons for abandoning the movement, along presumably with her second husband Robert Cummins and his first wife, are not presently known, but may possibly have something to do with Clark’s abandonment of classical Mormonism (which she was passionately committed to) and his overt occultic beliefs. She and Clark first met in John Bryant’s ‘Evangelical Church of Christ’ and formed a schismatic group. Poulsen abandoned her Mormon husband and ten children to join the SAI cult. Return
 Clark believes that his particular form of salvation is not through Yah’shua/Jesus alone but through both Yah’shua and Mary Magdalene, the latter of whom is a co-redemptrix. The Roman Catholic Church is even at this time pressing for the Virgin Mary to receive a similar status to Christ as co-Saviour. Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a strong supporter of this movement. Return
 One of the reasons scholars have problems accepting Pauline authorship of, for example, Hebrews, is the more polished Greek style inspite of the the fact that nearly all of the Church Fathers (especially those in the eastern part of the Empire) recognised Paul as the writer and the fact that the text contains numerous Paulisms (e.g. Heb.13:22-25). Return
 ‘Mem-Maria Israel’, whose family Clark is known to have broken up, former leader of SAI, now believed to have to have left the community, wrote in to David Bowie’s Latter Day Saint Movement Religion Page (see http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie/restore/sunsai.html) on 1 January 1996 and listed Aleister Crowley’s, Book of Law as one of SAI’s scriptures. She also lists occultist Frazier’s The Golden Dawn as one of the texts they study: “We also study Tibetan and Zen Buddhist text [sic], the Golden Dawn writers, Jungian psychology, astrology, numerology, ancient alphabets, alchemy, herbology, and the healing arts”. Return
 IOU is the Greek for Yah, the abbreviated Name of God, Yahweh. Interestingly enough, the first edition of the Oracles of Mohonri, now rewritten, which is regarded as the esoteric text of SAI, claims to have been written by YAHWEH, the stern-faced “Demiurge” angel Clark believes is inferior to Christ (e.g. OM 1 Mohonri 1:1-2, 1st edition) who is acknowledged as being the Creator of the whole Universe (see whole of Chapter 1). It is this “Yahweh-Elohim” who is the revealer of all of SAI’s “secrets” (2 Mohonri 1:1), “secrets withheld even from my angels...” (v.2). This immediately contradicts current SAI theology who maintain that an inferior angel-deity, “Yahweh”, inspired the Old Testament (at other times that Ezra changed the original), that the next deity up in the heirarchy, Yah’shua/Jesus inspired the (supposedly unmutilated parts of the) New Testament, and that the supreme SAI deity, Aumen (Ahman) inspired the SAI scriptures! Clark, seeing an obvious error in his key scriptural work, was thus obliged to “change the terminology” in his lastest edition which appears on his website (see http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5774). The “new” version reads: “We Are IAO Elohim, And Inasmuch As Ye Inquire Into Our Mystery, We Disclose To You Our Secrets” (OM 7, Eastertide Shawua Eve 15 Of 49; Shaur Lunar Evening 8 (First Quarter Moon); (Lectio For Havdalah High Mass)). The original text reads: “I am Yahweh-Elohim, and inasmuch as you inquire into my mystery, I disclose to you my secrets” (2 Mohonri 1:1). How come the singular Demiurge has suddenly become the plural IAO? Who is talking in this book? This may be seen as a typical example of shifting SAI doctrine with Clark resorting to changing his own scriptures. Either it was the SAI Demiurge that spoke or it was the SAI gods. He can’t have it both ways. Return
 “We must be resurrected before we die” (Gilbert Clark, letter to the author, October 15, 1987, p.10). Return
 There are so many scriptures in the New Testament that establish that salvation is by faith alone, with works the fruit of one thus saved, that it would be inappropriate to list them all here. A careful study of Paul’s epistle to the Romans will reveal what the Christian doctrine of salvation actually is. Conveniently, Clark dismisses the writings of Paul as a perversion of the ‘original Nazarene Gospel’. Return
 In the SAI system “atonement” is acquired by the worshipper in a seven-fold process involving ritual, meditation, etc., by which one receives more and more atoning ‘light’ (Gilbert Clark, undated letter to the author, ca. 1987, p.2). Moreoever, Clark claims that “the real pain of Christ’s crucifixion was not physical, but the heartbreak caused by his intense love of Mary [Magdalene]...” (Undated letter to the author, postmarked August 27, 1988, p.2). Return
 Joseph Smith made the same mistake, using “Jehovah” as the Name of God in the last verse of the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10:34), in fact a quote of mistranslated Acts 10:42 (King James Version). Return
 First edition of OM: “I am called Joseph [Smith] the fruitful bow...” (1 Moroni 2:4), cp. “Joseph [the son of Jacob] is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall” (Gen.49:22, AV). When writing this passage Clark evidently had the Book of Mormon story of Nephi’s bow in mind (1 Nephi LDS 16:18ff, RLDS 5:20ff) and the prophecies about Joseph Smith himself (2 Nephi LDS 3, RLDS 2), mixing the three together.Though Clark tried to dismiss this as a simple spelling error when I first confronted him with it, there is clearly an association of mixed ideas taking place, and evidence that the OM is a collection of conceptual revelations from a dubious spiritual source. And yet Clark claims: “I know O.M. [Oracles of Mohonri] to be 100% pure because of the intensity of the experience, and because of how my mind was so totally shut down...” (Undated letter to the author, received May 9, 1986, p.4). Joseph Smith said much the same about his Book of Mormon though 150 years of research has shwon it to be riddled with errors. Return
 It was I who first introduced Clark to this book. His reaction was: “I enjoyed and agreed with much of it, but also disagreed in places” (Letter to the author, January 10, 1987, p.3). Return
 OCC (Old Covenants & Commandments of the Independent Church), Section 47. Return
 “Some of the contradictory statements made by the early B[oo]k of M[ormon] witnesses, such as they ‘saw the plates with their spiritual rather than their physical eyes’, I am not closed to the possibility that Joseph [Smith] had an experience similar to my own in that the later version of hefting plates, etc., was embellished to appeal to the more ‘practical’ viewpoints of those he was dealing with at the time. Perhaps the Lord allowed stage props to help the weak faith of those not able to appreciate a purely spiritual experience...” (Letter from Gilbert Clark to the author, undated, received 9 May 1986, p.3). Return
 See Christopher C. Warren, “A Letter to the Editor”, The Journal of Latter Day Saint History, Vol.9 1997, pp.61-62, on the appropriateness of using myths to build religious faith whilst claiming the myths to be historical. Return
 One is reminded a little here of Ron Hubbard’s Scientologist idea that humans are inhabited by “Thetans” and that man’s goal is to become a “clear”. Return
 In another variation of endless ‘Second Coming’ doctrines Clark claimed that once SAI was purified that Christ would come and physically live in the colony with them (Letter to the author, January 31, 1988, p.1). Return
 “If one does away with Matriarchal Marriage [polyandry - one woman married to several men], & by this I mean marriage to a Patriarch who has at least two other spouses, then one will rob a Holy Order [SAI] of its balance of light & it would cease to be. Homosexuality could not be cured either...As the genitals of the man are the organ to transmit Ra-shin light [“male Holy Spirit”] to a female, as the breasts are the female counterpart which transmits Ra-mem light [“female Holy Spirit”]. They both protrude from the body in order to fulfil this function...The ordinance to cure homosexuality is [first] by firstborn baptism. The water is consecrated thru union [sexual intercourse] therein, which can be done...by the Patriarch and Matriarch...Just as in actual childhood, the homosexual adult child must absorb both masculine & feminine energy thru breast feeding on its mother...[and]...by sleeping in the aura of a Matriarch...Only thru actual sucking [a breast if a man, a penis if a lesbian] can enough [healing energy] be absorbed...such healing can not take place without [sexually] endowed women becoming true Matriarchs [by being married polyandrously in the SAI system]” (Gilbert Clark, letter to the author, February 9, 1988). The mechanism by which homosexuals and lesbians are supposedly to be cure is explained in great detail in a revelation received by Clark called the “Isaac-Sarah Revelation” received on August 30, 1987. I critiqued this document round about the same time it was received in an article entitled, “Why I Reject the ‘Isaac-Sarah’ Revelation: Some Preliminary Observations and Comments”, my main argument being that it either severely neglected the atonement in the healing process or rejected it altogether. Return
 “There is a certain level of Light or Priesthood that can only be transferred thru [sexual] union in Messianic Marriage...There must be a true, sexually-sealed marriage to Christ, to become a literal member of His family [SAI]....[The holy] Spirit passes with the seed & fluids of the body...” (Gilbert Clark, letter to the author, ibid.) Return
 “...I lived with members of Sons Ahman Israel...in a trailer in a corner of the estate and took part in the life of the community while I was there. I had originally intended to stay longer, but left after 2 months...The purpose of my visit was to find out more about what the group stood for. I had studied their theology beforehand and exchanged letters with a couple of the members....as time passed, I discovered that there were two major points which meant that I could not accept the community...The first of these was that the spiritual aspect of the community seemed to be subordinated to the physical (actually sexual) ordinances. In other words, the elements of worship and ceremony at the core were based on sexual or sexually related acts. Spiritual and mental healing were supposed to take place through sexual relationships between the people there. The sexual aspect seemed to pervade everything and was given an exaggerated prominence. It was supposed to provide a means through which conflicts of all deep problems, i.e. emotional, mental, and spiritual in general could be resolved. Alcohol also played a central part in the ceremony of the ordinances, the belief apparently being that under the influence of wine the soul would be open to positive spiritual influences from the outside. I can give some examples of this as follows:- (a) Davi[e]d Israel [Gilbert Clark], the founder and male leader of the community claims that he was ordained a patriarch (i.e. the hightest priesthood on earth) by Mary Magdalene. This “ordination” supposedly took place through sexual intercourse between him and Mary Magdalene; (b) A basic idea and the main goal for SAI is to found a polyandrous (many men and many women being married to each other) marriage consisting of 15 patriarchs and 15 matriarchs. The community believes that only by this number of patriarchs and matriarchs can sufficient divine power be generated for the community to receive Christ. Only then can peace be established on the earth and Christ take over the government of the world; (c) Davi[e]d Israel does not exclude the possibility of sisters and brothers being married to each other if required by the circumstances; (d) The supreme female leader of the community and one of its founders, Hava Pratt [Jean Poulsen], claims to have been “married” to the late Mormon prophet Joseph Smith (who lived from 1805 to 1844). She maintains that Joseph Smith is her patriarchal husband and therefore her contemporary husband is more of a concubine on a lower level; (e) Hava Pratt told me on one occasion that all love is erotic love and that if a child, for example, looks up to his or her teacher, this implies the pupil is sexually attracted to the teacher; (f) A man named Aaron Stills claims that he has taken part in a homosexual relationship consisting of many “holy men”, Christ being one of those. This same Aaron Stills who did not live at the premises of SAI, but is closely associated, claims to have had an intimate physical relationship (although not sex) with Davi[e]d Israel on at least one occasion...Davi[e]d Israel is, according to the group’s own rites, married to a woman called Faith, another woman called Patty and also the Respondent. He was also interested in inviting other male friends to begin a relationship with his first wife Faith. While the group felt that this ought to occur, the exception was a man called Ted, who was strongly perturbed by the thought of my being invited to be the third husband to Faith. The woman called Patty was legally married (I believe) to a man called Delbert Cummins [aka Ammaron Israel] who was the only person at that time who had a regular job, and who was very bitter because he was not invited to be a member of the expanded polyandrous marriage...I understand that both Davi[e]d, Ted and Faith shared a bed together from time to time. I mention all these details by way of showing the degree of confusion and tension which existed between the members, and I decided there was definitely no place in the community for me” (Extract from an Affidavit sworn by ED, a former member of SAI, on 27 June 1990 in Oslo, Norway, pp.4-7). Return
 “My head & heart are filled with visions of the firstborn family & their intimate unions with one another during and after the days of Christ” (Gilbert Clark, letter to the author, undated, received December 1987). Return
 op.cit., Christopher C. Warren, “Polyandry or ‘Matriarchal’ Marriage: An Historical and Theological Analysis of the Doctrine of a Woman Being Married to More Than One Man in Latter Day Saint and World Tradition”, Restoration: The Journal of Latter Day Saint History, Vol.7, No.3, July 1988, pp.11-21. Return
 “If one has not had sexual relations with one’s spouse since Rosh Hashana, one technically is not married to them [any longer]” (Gilbert Clark, letter to the author, February 9, 1988). Return
 LDS D&C 132:51-56 Return
 Letter from “Faith Israel”, undated, ca. mid 1988. Return
 In 1987 Clark claimed that he does not actually “believe” in reincarnation (called by him gilgulim) “because I do not believe it is Christ’s way and plan because it is ruled by other powers but such will cease when dominion of it returns to Christ at Adam-ondi-Ahman...” (Undated letter to the author, postmarked September 1, 1987, p.5). At this time he taught that Christ would be returning to the earth, a doctrine he now rejects, along with the Mormon concept of Adam-ondi-Ahman. It is interesting that he believes that the souls of men are in the control of “other powers” who apparently have the know-how to reincarnate us contrary to Christ’s Plan. Return
 Gilbert Clark, letter to the author, July 28, 1987, p.4. Return
 SAI Archive of the New Covenant Church of God, #1988-SAI/MSS. This is probably the largest archive of SAI materials outside SAI itself as well as containing materials long since removed/destroyed by Clark in the evolution of his religious system. Return
 Christopher C. Warren in the Evening & Morning Star, No.20, May 1989, “Deception: The Antichrist is Here”, pp.1-14, Independent Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Oslo, Norway. Page 8 is a reproduction of one of these documents showing in Clark’s own handwriting (a) that Mary is our Heavenly Mother; and (b) that SAI is “New Age Mormonism/Essenism”. The font cover also shows part of the original SAI logo of a six-armed swastika, Buddhist lotus and Hindu OM/AUM sign in Sanskrit. Return
 ‘Revelation’ received by Clark on January 6, 1988. This ‘revelation’ caused Clark’s bona fide legal wife, faith, to go berserk because it appointed my wife as his co-head at SAI. Some angry letters were exchanged between Faith and my wife (and doubtless there were some ‘scenes’ between Ckark and Faith) resulting in Clark denying that this was the meaning of the revelation at all. He later wrote a letter to my wife showing his change of heart: “I now feel that you have been called to stand in Binah as a Matriarch, not as a Matriarch over any other Matriarchs, not as “queen matriarch”, but as one among equals” (Gilbert Clark, letter to my wife, dated February 10, 1988, p.5). And so the original ‘revelation’ went out the window and his wife Faith was placated. My own wife in her turn went berserk and had a temper tantrum. This was typical of the way Clark the seducer ‘solved’ blunders and abused ‘revelations’ to get his own way or to smooth over troubled waters. In the ‘revelation’, moreoever, I was appointed to be my wife’s polyandrous concubine. Worse, there was a homosexual and bisexual New Ager involved in the ceremony. The reader may well imagine how I felt about the whole business and conclude what he/she may about the whole spiritual tenor of SAI. He would never admit to any wrong. When I accused him of stealing my wife, he replied: “It is not I who have “stolen” your wife, but it is the Lord who has taken her unto Himself as a bride [through Clark, of course]” (Letter to the author, February 10, 1988, p.1). A ‘revelation’ addressed to me (dated January 20, 1988) was soon in the coming to calm me down as he realized that he had in me an adversary determined to right the wrong done to my family. The reason he confided so much in me in his numerous latters was because he feared that if I was not converted I would expose the whole SAI fraud. At one point I issued a fake ‘revelation’ on March 21, 1988 whilst visiting SAI which spoke of Clark and his colony in glowing terms to test the cultic leader’s prophetic gifts. Both he and Hava Pratt swallowed it hook, line and sinker, with Pratt even embracing me in tears and testifying that I was truly a “prophet of God”. Needless to say such demonstrations only convinced me further that I was dealing with a nefarious cult. They spared no pains to win me to their cause, even financing my visit when they were economically destitute. After I departed from my visit to SAI, I received a part-threatening, part-reconciling letter from Clark (May 4, 1988, Seguin, Texas). Return
 See http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3607/lds.htm which contains a reworked version of an article I wrote for the preface of the Second edition of OM. My requests to have the original article removed from the SAI site were ignored and the author was originally listed as being “dead”. Most of the material in this article is mine though no credit is given. I no longer believe in this material. Return
 Ex.32:4-8, 18-25, 35; Dt.19:16, 21; Neh.9:18; Ps.106:19-20; Ac.7:41; D.J.Wiseman, Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology, 1959, p.39, fig.33. Some believe it was the Mnevis bull of Heliopolis. There were several bull-cults in the eastern part of the Nile delta near where the Hebrews lived in Goshen. Return
 “The Crux Ansata, so frequently observed in the hands of the statues of the old kings and gods of Egypt, was evidently both solar and Phallic in signification, and represented a combination of the male and female principles in nature” (Robin C. Blackmer, The Lodge and the Craft: A Practical Explanation of the Work of Freemasonry, St.Louis, Missouri, 1923, p.249). Return
 “...we know that any government set up on the earth is set up by satan... (Delbert Cummins, aka ‘Ammaron Israel’ - whose legal wife Patti is a polyandrous concubine to Clark - in a letter to the author, dated February 6, 1988). Return
 “I found this desire for total isolation from the world very peculiar. The Respondent in her action has also taken an isolationist stance: she has broken all contacts with her friends...I feel that the community is isolated from the outside world in many ways: geographically, socially, morally and intellectually. I do not think this is a good environment for raising children, and I believe I have the ability to discern this as a professional teacher. I do not think my own view of SAI is restricted by my own theological views. I would describe myself as close to the mainstream of Protestantism, but I judge the environment of child raising from the perspective of the wider secular world. I do not think SAI is a healthy place for children to grow up in for the following reasons: (a) It displays a distorted and abnormal way of thinking and behaving; (b) It places considerable emphasis on like-mindedness; (c) The adult examples and social ideas are extreemly restricted and dubious; (d) There is no generally diverse stimulation for the children from being a part of the wide adult world, which will make it difficult for them to relate to other children and adults when they themselves become older; (e) The social intercourse and skills which they develop at SAI is, in my view, quite lacking in preparing them to cope with members of a greater society. I believe that when the time comes for the children to move out of the community, either for higher education, or finding work or friends, they will be totally unprepared and in consequence lobely and ostracised” (Extract from an Affidavit sworn by ED, a former member of SAI on 27 June 1990 in Oslo, Norway, pp.8-9). Return
 “As far as I am aware, [Davied Israel] has never had a regular job and is dependant upon his parents for financial support. There are many members of the community who get supplies of basic food stuffs from coupons distributed by the welfare department of the state. Without this state support there would have been a major lack of food in the community. Davi[e]d Israel thinks of himself as a visionary, but I would describe him rather as a man who has his head in the clouds. He lives in his own world of ideas without any real grasp of the realities of ordinary life. At first I was struck by his extreme calmness of mind, but after I came to know him a bit better during the time I was there, I saw that he really did not understand people and had a lack of discernment of people’s needs and problems. I was also very surprised that he was apparently disinterested in the expansion of the community. This did not seem to correspond to his claimed vision, and I wonder whether he was in fact more motivated in his desires for a comfortable lifestyle isolated in the wastes of the Arizona desert than in serving his fellow man” (Ibid., p.8). Return
 Is.44:6; 45:5, 21; 1 Cor.8:4; Dt.32:39 Return
 Mt.21:42; 22:29; 26:54; Jn.5:39; etc. Return
 A careful study of the Epistle to the Hebrews will clearly reveal the truth of these assertions. Return
 Clark’s interest in channelling is proved by the fact that when I was investigating SAI he sent me a photocopied article from Life Times: Forum for a New Age (No.3, pp.82,93-98) entitled, “Channeling” about which he made some positive comments in an accompanying letter (postmarked July 21, 1987). Return
This page was created on 22 March 2000
Last updated on 22 March 2000
Copyright © 1987-2008
New Covenant Ministries - All Rights Reserved