Keys Writings, Part 20

This entry is part 34 of 34 in the series 2011C

Dec 2, 2011

Sample signatures of Apple founders for handwriting analysis

John C I found this document with signatures of Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne, the three men who founded Apple. Wayne later dropped out.

JJ might find these early signatures from 1976, and if there more recent signatures, it might be interesting to compare them.

Signatures

JJ Thanks for digging this up. Since Steve’s signature is from 1976 I did some digging and found several more recent ones. Unfortunately, I cannot find any of his regular handwriting which would reveal more.

Several things are what I would expect and several were not.

Because he had cancer I would suspect that he had problems with suppression but there is virtually no suppression in his signature. It is strange he died of cancer when he seemed to be on a very good diet and was expressive emotionally. There is one thing I noticed that could cause emotional problems linked to cancer and that is he would yield to others, sometime against his better judgment. This is surprising since he is portrayed as being fairly unyielding. I think this yielding characteristic shows up in the book where time and time again others would share their ideas and views and he would reject them but then the next day he would be totally accepting of them and sometimes act like they were his own. His handwriting would indicate he changed his mind largely because he did a lot of thinking of how to accommodate others even though this did not seem to be true.

Even though he does not suppress emotion he did suppress his thoughts and was quite secretive.

Another thing that is somewhat surprising is he was quite insecure and he was very nervous about taking chances. What compensated for this though was his personal gutsiness and courage. These would override his fears.

One more thing that may surprise some is that he wasn’t concerned about getting a lot of personal recognition. If his products were appreciated then he was happy and that was the main thing.

His writing, especially his later writing shows that he really thought outside the box and was unconventional in many ways. He was very unconventional in almost every way and even though some portray him as a difficult personality the writing reveals that he had powerful personal magnetism and charm. I can see why many were very devoted to him.

He was a very balanced thinker and interested in all phases of life, the spiritual, social and material.

He was intuitive, creative and often compared his work to art which is interesting because he could have been an artist if he had put his attention in that direction.

The interesting thing about Wozniak’s writing is that he writes more like a schoolteacher than an engineer or computer genius. He’s a lot more of a people person and not as intelligent as I expected.

John: This isn’t yielding, this is stealing. But, he, himself, admitted that the best ideas are stolen.

JJ It was both. Stealing ideas does not negate the yielding. I think stealing is a harsh way of putting it when he was running the company and already owned whatever anyone produced. Also both Jobs and the employee involved knew where the ideas came from. Jobs was very sparse with his praise making such very valuable. I think that he felt that just using an employees idea was enough to give them recognition.

Everyone thinks a little differently and one has to put himself in the guy’s shoes to understand. I think that those who worked close with him did understand and that is why most really liked working for him and supported him despite his quirky ways.

Dec 3, 2011

Larry’s Questions

Larry W writes: Dinosaurs and men. What about lizard men? I admit I know little about Atlantis. But didn’t the great final confrontation occur between lizard men and homosapiens in Atlantis times? Was that just 10,000 years ago? Was it before Adam (the latest one who appeared about 6,000 years ago)?

JJ The Atlantis mentioned by Plato as existing around 10,000 years ago was just a small remnant of the civilization. HPB taught that Atlantis reached its greatest quality of civilization hundreds of thousands of years before this. The reptile people were most likely of great antiquity.

There have been many strange human-like skeletons found, some even with horns. Some pictures are presented in the video I referenced a couple days ago. Here is an interesting article about some unorthodox discoveries.

Discoveries

In addition to any physical evidence there are many stories and legends passed down about the reptile race. Here are some: Male

Boreas (Aquilon to the Romans): the Greek god of the cold north wind, described by Pausanias as a winged man with serpents instead of legs. Cecrops I: the mythical first King of Athens was half man, half snake Dragon Kings: creatures from Chinese mythology sometimes depicted as reptilian humanoids Fu Xi: serpentine founding figure from Chinese mythology Glycon: a snake god who had the head of a man. Ningizzida, Lord of the Tree of Life, mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh and linked to the water serpent constellation Hydra. Quetzalcoatl or the “feathered serpent”, the creator god and sky god of the Aztecs; variously depicted as a man, a serpent, or a reptilian humanoid. Sobek: Ancient Egyptian crocodile-headed god Shenlong: a Chinese dragon thunder god, depicted with a human head and a dragon’s body Typhon, the “father of all monsters” in Greek mythology, was a man from the waist up, and a mass of seething vipers from the waist down. Zahhak, a figure from Zoroastrian mythology who, in Ferdowsi’s epic Shahnameh, grows a serpent on either shoulder

Female Cihuacoatl, literally “Snake Woman”, an Aztec goddess Echidna, the wife of Typhon in Greek mythology, was half woman, half snake. Moura Encantada from Portuguese and Galician folklore. The Gorgons: Sisters in Greek mythology who had serpents for hair. The Lamia: a child-devouring female demon from Greek mythology depicted as half woman, half serpent. N�wa: serpentine founding figure from Chinese mythology Wadjet pre-dynastic snake goddess of Lower Egypt – sometimes depicted as half snake, half woman The White Snake: a figure from Chinese folklore

Either Some djinn in Islamic mythology are described as alternating between human and serpentine forms. Nāga (Devanagari: reptilian beings from Hindu mythology said to live underground and interact with human beings on the surface. The Serpent: a character from the Genesis creation narrative occasionally depicted with legs, and sometimes identified with Satan, though its representations have been both male and female.

Larry: But were the lizard men a uniform humanoid race or several different types of reptiles?

JJ You can use the Law of Correspondences to discover this. Look at all the varieties of the human race. This would indicate there was also a variety of reptiles.

Larry Does this relate directly to the snake story in the Garden of Eden?

JJ Yes, the idea of an intelligent serpent goes back to ancient times.

Larry Also, I always wonder what happens to those planets where the lizards kill off all the humans. Are they totally incapable of ever progressing further?

JJ Even steps backward are steps forward in the total scheme of things. If you take a wrong turn and find out it was a mistake and get back on the right road then the wrong turn was necessary to discover the right direction. There is a limit to the progression a soul can make in any form and sooner or later one must move on.

Larry Do those planets eventually get destroyed?

JJ All life forms fulfill a necessary function and do not get destroyed just because they are dominated by reptile life. Some planets and even star systems get destroyed for a variety of reasons.

Larry Will we fly there someday on a seeding mission and blow them away with far advanced tech and spiritual skills and re-seed the planet with humans? This might be a lot like ordinary seeding missions except with extermination at the beginning.

JJ The common sense thing will be to leave their evolution to themselves.

Larry We’ve been told Sanat is an innovator, not doing things precisely the same way as before but shortening up the process by introducing a lot more pain. Did I state this idea accurate?

JJ The enhancement came from stimulating the minds of humans more than pain. There was already plenty of pain to go around.

Larry So were many of us formerly lizard men? Now we/they use human bodies – ourselves, our families, our friends? Half and half? Or some other ratio?

JJ Either in this system or some other most (or perhaps all) of us have been in the serpent kingdom.

Larry: So would lizard men naturally think more like a hunter/killer?

JJ Think Kinglons from Star Trek.

Larry: Would they only eat one meal every other day – all meat?

JJ Your guess is as good as mine.

Larry Another issue that often reveals my ignorance is that of “root races”. I would love to see an outline showing root races one through now and beyond with a few paragraphs under each detailing similarities and differences and maybe something about origins.

JJ The root races are pretty simple; it’s the sub rootraces that are difficult to follow. The first two were in etheric matter so there is no remnant of them. The third, the Lemurian, has a residual in the Australian Aborigines but were more animal like in the beginning.

The Orientals are a residual of the fourth, the Atlantean and the fifth is the Aryan.

Larry: JJ says to look for sixth root race bodies to begin appearing even now. He says the design will pay far more attention to beauty where previous innovations were more utilitarian. So who do you nominate as an example of a sixth root race cutie?

JJ The sixth root race will not be a totally different looking people but a synthesis and refinement of all the races we have now. When it is fully in dominance the average person will be somewhat tan and very refined in features. Some of the best looking people of all races foreshadow the race to come.

John C And, I like some books that nobody here has read nor will read, but which I firmly believe and know are inspired from God. Rhetorical question: Does that me not an Initiate? Does that many any of you not Initiates? I don’t think so.

JJ I’d be interested in inspired books you have read that you think those here would not read. Maybe members would give them a look.

The books we read do not make us initiates, though solid knowledge helps propel us along the path. I have encountered quite a few who have read AAB who show few of the signs of the initiate.

 

Dec 15, 2011

Who’s the Father?

Here’s some dialog I’ve been having with Mark who has an LDS background.

Mark: When you bring up Sanat Kumara, the first Adam, the Ancient of Days, I think of Brigham Young’s Adam God theory. Is this what Brigham Young was referring to? The other question I have: If what you are saying is true, then Sanat Kumara does not appear to be the Father of our spirits. If not, then who is the Father our spirits? Who is our Heavenly Father, the one Jesus Christ referred when he said, “I go to your God and my God”? Reply

JJ Brigham had a rough idea about Adam God but did not know the details.

Our spirits were not created through heavenly parents having physical sex as taught in m Mormonism. We are eternal beings and have always been. Our essence has been stimulated by other beings and we basically create ourselves with the help of others who have progressed far beyond us. The form you have now was designed by you in conjunction with higher lives and was different in past lives. After each live you participate in designing a more perfect body.

Mark: Romans 8:16 “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Psalms: 82:6 “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

Ephesians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:”

Matthew 18:35 “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”

Are we not to take the words “children” and “Father” literally here, but figuratively?

Also, when Jesus speaks of his heavenly Father, is he referring to Sanat Kumara?

JJ Notice that Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse did not teach the idea of heavenly parents giving birth to our spirits.

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.” The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. End Quote

There is no outside creation to our spirit essence. The form we have now had a beginning at our physical birth and changes from age to age or life to life. There are those who assist and have assisted in our progress and in a sense they are fathers and mothers to us.

Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers. Melchizedek overshadowed Jesus and Jesus referred to him as Father.

Mark: Yes, Mormonism has always believed in the above Joseph Smith quote that we have always co-existed (in some form & essence) with God. Notwithstanding, what about the following principle- Matthew 6:10 “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” The Zohar adds more to this principle: Observe that God has made the earthly kingdom after the pattern of the heavenly kingdom, and whatever is done on earth has been preceded by its prototype in heaven. -Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 197a How could something as foundational as marriage, sexual intimacy, children ” the very heart of our earthly sociality ” not even exist in heaven? Yet, the language of the scriptures are filled with family references ” The Father, The Son, Children of God, Sons, Daughters, etc. How could this be?

JJ You are right that all things that exist on earth first existed in heaven, or higher spheres. There are seven planes altogether. The next level up from us is the astral composed of emotional energy. This is what Mormons generally refer to as the spirit world. The next up is the mental plane composed of mental matter and is directed by the energy of mind. These three are the worlds of form, the mental being the highest is similar to the LDS celestial kingdom.

Above the mental is the buddhic plane from which true intuition originates. This intuition links the worlds of form to the next plane, the atmic. This plane governs the universe of ideas. On this plane originates all creation that eventually materializes here on the earth. An idea there is carried through the intuitive plane to the mind, then to emotional matter in the spirit world until it materializes here on the earth. The concept of the form of your body originated in the atmic plane and descended as a seed until it reached the physical plane and developed as a physical vehicle for you.

The idea that our archetypes were created previously is true, but just somewhat different than orthodox Mormonism believes. Mark: You even referenced family language in your last post stating, “Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers.” Why use the term “father”? What definition of father are you using?

JJ The word father is used a number of different ways in the scriptures and other writings. It doesn’t always mean a literal father of a body. Even on this plane an adopted child calls his caretaker his father.

Consider the word in reference to a prophesy of Christ:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isa 9:6

Notice that Isaiah called prophesied Messiah “the everlasting Father.

The Book of Mormon does something similar:

“I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son �” The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And THEY ARE ONE God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. and thus the flesh (Jesus) becoming subject to the Spirit (Christ), or the Son to the Father…” Mosiah 15:1-5.

One reason the Messiah is called Father is that he initiated the fathering of many sons of God. Any creator is a father to his creations.

Mark: Finally, curious to your response to this thought too- John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” Why would Jesus tell Mary Magdalene this if he was referring to Melchizedek? Was Melchizedek Mary Magdalene’s Father too?

JJ Melchizedek, who overshadowed Jesus is responsible for the creation of the sons of God here on the earth. He is therefore the father of all who aspire to be such including Mary Magdalene.

Above him is Sanat Kumara who is responsible for the creation of all human life of earth making him our Father also.

In addition to this if we were able (as did Christ) to ascend to the sixth plane we would arrive at the plane of the monad where the seed of our existence and intelligence resides. This dwells as a point of light in divine space something like a star dwells in physical space. This divine space is the mind of God and there is only one space which is the ultimate Father of us all.

Dec 22, 2011 Taking Advice I received this from a fellow Keys member.

I’m passing this on because it worked for me today…Dr Oz on TV said that to reach inner peace we should always finish things we start, and we all could use more calm in our lives during the hectic Holiday season. I looked around my house to find things I’d started and hadn’t finished, so I finished off a bottle of CROWN, a bottle of Chardonnay, a bodle of Baileys, a butle of wum, tha mainder of Valiuminun scriptins, an a box a chocletz. Yu haf no idr how fablus I feel rite now. Sned this to all who need inner piss. And telum u luvum.

Dec 23, 2011

SNL Skit

If yo haven’t seen it yet check this out.

Skit

Dec 23, 2011

Mysterious Iron Ball Falls from Space

Also check out the comments – very entertaining and creative.

 

Dec 26, 2011

New on Atlas Shrugged

Here’s some sad news about the Atlas Shrugged sequel from a blog:

This train ain’t coming, folks.

Let’s take an end-of-the-year assessment, shall we?

John Aglialoro, who funded it [Part I] using money he made as CEO of Cybex International, said that he wasn’t going to sink more of his own money into producing Part II, and that making that movie would depend on either the profitability of Part I or finding outside funding.

Part I was a flop in the movie theaters, making less than $5M in a five-week release. It was done in by Aglialoro’s cheaping out on advertising, and the fact that the movie was one of the worst-reviewed of the year — a 28 Metacritic score, which, though definitely terrible, was not by any means the worst of the 2011.

“Oh, but wait until the international release!”

The international release right now consists of a single screen at a single theater in Halifax. It looks like the entire international release will not reach even a dozen screens.

“Oh, but wait for DVD and BluRay!”

The DVD and BluRay releases are now very comfortably out of the top hundred on Amazon. A quick logarithmic estimate — based on the facts that the #1 DVD sold 1M units this week, that #30 sold 100K, and “Atlas” is below #150, is that about a thousand “Atlas” DVDs are being sold a week. BluRays are doing far, far worse, below #600.

“Oh, but wait for VOD!”

Thirty-three days after its release on video-on-demand, the movie rental is at #100 on iTunes. Both the home purchase and rental market, in other words, faded even faster than the disastrous theatrical release.

So, add it all up, and what do you have? Everyone now knows quite clearly that “Atlas Shrugged: Part I” will not recoup its investment this year, next year, and possibly ever.

What’s more, John Algialoro couldn’t deep-pocket Part II into existence even if he wanted to, because his main source of wealth  shares in Cybex  have dramatically tumbled. In June 2010, when shooting for Part I began, Cybex was trading at $1.30; it’s last close was $0.48, and it seems certain that NASDAQ will delist it in January for not meeting certain minimum requirements for business size and share price, further knocking the share price down.

So now it’s down to Magic Money Raining from the Sky. Aglialoro has two reasons not to underwrite Part II: he lost his shirt the first time, and he has no shirt left to lose. Are the studios going to step up and make a sequel to a flop, something which was demonstrated to deflate and go belly-up as soon as it hit the screens? Nope.

So where is part II?

Nowheresville. That’s why no cast has been announced, no director, no date for principal shooting, nothing.

This train ain’t coming.

JJ Comment:

I think this is really strange that the movie did so badly when Ayn Rand has such a large following and in my opinion the movie was very well done. I think its failure has more to do with the fact that when a point of light is trying to pierce the darkness that it is just overwhelmed until the darkness loses some power.

For instance, all readers who have compared The Immortal with the Celestine Prophesy think the Immortal is much better yet The Celestine Prophesy has sold overwhelmingly more copies. I certainly have great respect for all those lights who persevere in the face of seemingly unending darkness. Faith in the power of the dominating good is always a source of power and strength.

Dec 27, 2011

Natural Selection

JJ wrote [awhile back]: “… there can be no “natural selection,” or choice unless there is intelligence at work. Without intelligence there can only be ‘random selection.'” – http://freeread.com/archives/4607.html

JJ wrote [in a follow-on post]: “The conundrum comes in when you consider that natural selection as defined by the evolutionists takes place with no apparent intelligence or conscious choice involved. […] In the process of evolution the more appropriate forms survive and the one ill equipped fade away, but both forms were created by intelligent choice.” – http://freeread.com/archives/4609.html

Dan: What do you call it when “the more appropriate form survives and the one ill equipped fades away”?

This surviving/fading away process is what evolutionary theorists refer to as “natural selection”, whether the various forms that are “selected” from are themselves the result of intelligence isn’t addressed in the term “natural selection”, just the fact that one survives and the other fades away without influence (other than which survives/produces more offspring).

The “selection” is “made” by whether the thing lives/reproduces more or does not/dies out, that’s why they refer to it as “natural” rather than “directed” or “intelligent”.

Are you saying some one/thing actually makes an conscious, intelligent “choice” as to which should/will go on (is more suitable in/for a particular environment) and which shouldn’t?

Even if life itself is (the FORMS are) the result of INHERENT intelligence, it would be quite a stretch to use that as a basis for saying: which form survives/prospers and which doesn’t in any particular environment – the “selection” process – is itself intelligent!

JJ Response: After I made those comments my inner self tugged at me telling me that I had painted an incomplete picture but never got around to expanding on the subject. I notice that if I say anything inaccurate or leave anything undone someone here almost always catches it. You guys certainly keep me on my toes.

You quote me saying this: “… there can be no “natural selection,” or choice unless there is intelligence at work.”

The problem I have is with the term “natural selection.” The difficulty caused in using the word “selection” is that the word itself implies an intelligent choice and a choice, as I said, involves intelligence, or intelligently weighing two alternatives and then picking one.

Technically what they call natural selection is really natural default. A default can happen with no intelligence involved but a selection implies an intelligent discriminating mind at work.

Let’s look at a few elementary situations caused by the application of natural selection.

1. If it rains for days on end then we will have muddy streets.

No one really selected or chose the appearance of muddy streets. Instead it is a default situation due to changing circumstances.

Now because of the mud some intelligence may decide to build a sidewalk, but this does not appear by default but through intelligent choice and design and is not a part of what they call natural selection.

2. If it is cold then sooner or later it will snow.

The appearance of snow is what they would call a natural selection of nature, but no one selected the snow. It occurred by default. It always occurs in winter by default due to the arising cold conditions.

Now the cold may force me to wear a coat but my wearing a coat involves a choice and therefore does not fit in the definition of natural selection.

Millions of years can pass ands each year when it gets cold there will be snow but each year this occurs by default with no choice involved. Those applying intelligence to the situation will go beyond nature’s default and not only make coats but created heated homes, cars and thermal underwear. All these materialize through intelligent design, not natural selection.

Now orthodox Darwinists tell us that all life evolved through nature’s defaults with no intelligent selection involved – even though they call it natural selection.

For instance, if the climate changed and became much colder wild animals without a good coat of fur would freeze and those having a thick coat would survive and breed other animals with thick fur causing them to evolve into much furrier animals than before. This they say is the explanation of how evolution moves forward with no intelligence involved.

The problem with this explanation is that their examples of natural selection involves life forms that are already much more complex than our most sophisticated computers. After all, the DNA of a simple plant has most of its ingredients and functions in common with animal and human DNA.

The programming for creating thicker fur was already built into the animal and no one can demonstrate how nature’s default system (natural selection) could have created the complex programming. They can only demonstrate that life can adapt to situations because of programming that already exists, but cannot demonstrate how the programming came to be with no intelligence choice.

To prove the theory of natural selection one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA. If they could then observe inorganic matter coming together on its own to produce a cell then they would have something.

Scientists are hard at work attempting to create life in the laboratory. They say that if they do this it will prove evolution and that there is no God or Intelligent Designer.

To this I give a bug Duh and a dunce hat.

If scientists create life then how did that life appear? Intelligent designers (scientists) created it. This would only prove that a vehicle for life could only manifest through extremely difficult applied intelligent effort.

I know that religious people say that science will never create life, but they are wrong. The beginning of a new life form has already taken place. It is the silicon based embryo life called the computer. This will eventually evolve into a recognized life form. Eventually we will see beings like Data from the Star Trek series.

And Data would be the first to admit that he was not created through a default system of natural selection. He knows he has a creator.

Dec 27, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: To prove the theory of natural selection one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA.

Dan: I think you mean “to prove the theory of evolutionary improvement …”, not the “theory of natural selection”.

JJ To be technically correct I should have written:

To prove the theory that natural selection can create life one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA.

Dec 28, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

LWK Have to wonder what “life” really is and if it is every created? Maybe it is not created but has always existed and always will exist. Perhaps only the physical “vehicle” gets created through which eternally existing life expresses itself?

Really don’t know, but then it occurred to me that I don’t even know what life really is (so how can I know if it was ever created?)? JJ Here’s my definition of life

An energy which exhibits power to create and organize as well as destroy. Evidence of intelligence is manifested through its movement.

Dec 29, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Darwin himself never even discussed the origin/creation of life nor how the variations of form came about that are selected amongst. The most he said about creation was this:

JJ Many scientists who are atheists believe that life itself evolved through the process of natural selection. They only follow Darwin to the extent that he supports their mindset.

Dec 29, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Natural Selection could be the default mechanism/system for evolving physical experience and does not eliminate the possibility of intelligent action by either a pervasive, inherent intelligence or influence by intelligent entities at various points such as Sanat Kumara.

The thing to remember is that the “selection” in (basic) natural selection just means: what works continues, what doesn’t fades away – no DIRECT intelligent choice required. The atheists are right on that point.

JJ Atheists do not believe life evolved through a natural selection involving intelligent selection through trial and error but that random events created the right circumstances for life to just take off with no intelligence involved at all – a much different thing than Edison and the light bulb. It as a natural selection for Edison to pick the bulb that worked but without intelligence involved a bulb would have never been created that lit up.

Dec 30, 2011 When to Initiate Kelly writes: With regards to these initiates that are mentioned (Lincoln, jesus, Washington, Buddha, etc), I understand that it was in their book of life to come here on earth and initiate. Hence, it must be part of a person’s destiny to initiate, part of their soul plan that is and consequently not just some random happening. Is that correct or can someone initiate something…accidentally?

JJ No work done by an initiate is accidental but some of it is unplanned.

In between lives we do plan our next life. The higher the initiate the more accurate the plan and the greater will be the work. But things do not always go according to plan. Sometimes the work is frustrated and other times it comes out different or even better than expected.

Once the initiate is on the earth and sees his vision and sets his goals the move forward doesn’t happen by accident but through great intelligent effort.

Kelly: And when someone does initiate, is there a time frame like a specific age or Saturn stage or something that connotes this? I know there is the age 21 when a person integrates his soul wisdom and gets to the point where he was at his last life. Then 28 at the first Saturn cycle where a person begins his life work. Then what?

JJ A person can initiate a work at any age where he has developed communication skills. Check out this child who began her initiating work at the age of four: http://www.artakiane.com/

After the age of 21 and after each Saturn cycle we have an opportunity to move forward our personal development which may or may not have something to do with initiating a project or work.

When you have the skills to initiate then you can begin a work if you are so inclined no matter what your age.

Kelly: Something tells me this initiate thing must be key to having a longer life. You somehow keep your brain cells alive.

JJ Some initiates may die young – such as Steve Jobs, but they will eventually learn the secrets of long life and extended life.

Dec 30, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: The reason I brought this topic up yet again is because even though the word “selection”, taken literally, implies intelligently weighing two alternatives and then picking one, the term “natural selection” does not.

The word selection in this case was intended METAPHORICALLY by the originator of the term Charles Darwin because he could find no better term. He himself defines it and addresses this literal/metaphorical issue SPECIFICALLY in “The Origin of Species”, saying he uses it in the same way that chemists refer to “affinity” between atoms.

If you bear the true meaning in mind next time you “discuss” evolution with an atheist (as you were in the post I originally quoted), you might have more luck bringing them around – assuming that is your intent.

It just undermines your credibility to insist “Duh, of COURSE natural selection requires intelligence, how can something be selected without someone to select it”. It doesn’t because the metaphorical “selection” that takes place is simply the NATURAL process of “the more appropriate form survives and the one ill equipped fades away”.

JJ I already admitted that my wording needed to be corrected and that you did a good job of pointing out that I was technically incorrect. Why do you keep bring this up when the point has been covered several times? Are you looking for a pound of flesh?

I don’t think we disagree here yet you write as if I am fighting you on this.

We both agree that intelligence in matter causes the natural selection process to work, but atheists do not believe in intelligence in matter and that is the difference.

Also I am writing to believers in intelligent design here. When I talk with atheists I do attempt to speak their language, but it doesn’t do much good as they think that intelligence in matter is crazy talk.

Dan: The natural selection that took place with Edison and the lightbulb had NOTHING to do with him selecting the right materials, the natural selection came in when he turned on the juice and either light came out (it worked) or no light came out (it didn’t work).

Edison selecting/creating each form and then trying them is the intelligence in the system, NOT whether each works or not – whether a form works or not is non-intelligent and up to universal natural law to “determine”.

JJ But if a light bulb turned on in a uninhabited dessert with no intelligence to do any selecting, then it would not be long before the bulb would go out and not seen again for there would be no intelligence to select it. Of course, it is a natural selection to choose a light bulb over a candle but without an intelligence involved the improved selection does not get made.

Entropy is the natural law of the universe unless intelligence comes along and reverses it.

Dec 31, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: Are you looking for a pound of flesh?

Dan: I don’t know what you are talking about here. A pound of flesh would seem to require a vicious attack which seems a pretty harsh accusation given that I haven’t felt adversarial – until perhaps now 😐 Please point out where I have attacked you or cease the name-calling.

JJ I do not call people names and this was certainly not an attempt at it.

You brought this subject up and I thought I clarified my thoughts. Then you brought it up again as if no clarification had been made and I clarified again. Then the scenario repeated one more time and I thought. What in the world does Dan want – a pound of flesh?

In other words, it seemed you wanted me to cry uncle or something of the sort. I didn’t mean to insult you but to express exasperation with what it is I am supposed to be communicating to you so you will be satisfied.

It appears to me that natural selection in the various conversations falls into two categories and this seems to cause the confusion.

Category One.

(1) Natural selection with no intelligence involved.

Examples: Gravity selects a rock to roll down a hill Rocks that roll the furthest have the jagged edges knocked off and are smoother than stationary ricks.

Heavy elements tend to sink lower in the earth and lighter stay near the surface.

(2) Natural selection with intelligence involved.

This happens when a process, product or innovation occurs that is intelligently judged to be superior to that used in the past. When this happens it is just natural for an intelligent entity to pick the superior item.

For instance a sailboat owner will pick a wind going in the direction he desires and adjust his sails.

Humanity selected Edison’s light bulb because it was better than candlelight.

Humanity selected the automobile over the horse and buggy because of the advantages.

In this second category of natural selection intelligent choice was involved but in the first category it was not.

The second category can cause the development of complex forms, such as the computer chip or DNA and first cannot.

Many atheists disagree. They think the first category can cause complex forms such as DNA to evolve. Believers in intelligent design do not accept this but believe that either the second category applies to creation of life or a personal being called God designed and created all things.

I’d be surprised if we are not on the same page on this because category two runs through my teachings from the beginning and the process is elaborated on in Eternal Words as noted by Adam.

Hope this helps.

Dec 31, 2011

Re: When to Initiate–Akiane and my own art success. Re: Akiane

Ruth: I would assume that if she can fold her physical body up and unfold it again, then she could/would be a Master.

JJ Someone did this for her which is much different than having power to do this according to your own will. Because she was worked with as a child when the spirit is pure she will find it easier to adjust higher energies.

She is definitely a disciple incarnated but doubt she is a master. When we examone her conscious thinking that is not channeled when she is 21 then we can get an idea of her real evolution.

Dec 31, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Yes, natural selection is definitely the subject 🙂 Firstly I disagree that it falls into two categories.

JJ That’s because you’re only looking at category one which is only one of the two categories.

Dan: The word “selection” literally requires intelligent choice between options.

In the phrase/term “natural selection”, the word selection is only meant metaphorically – no intelligent choice between options is required, only the operation of natural, universal law.

JJ I realize the take on this but the gravitation of intelligence to natural selection is as predictable as gravity. People will pick staying warm over freezing to death. That is as natural of a selection as a ball rolling down a hill because of gravity.

There are definitely the two categories I mentioned around natural, or default selection.

Dan Natural Selection by intelligence is a nonsensical, self-contradictory use of the term.

JJ I don’t think so.

Dan: Secondly, I disagree that atheists believe that natural selection produces intelligence but rather they, generally speaking, believe that natural selection selecting from amongst random processes of combination/mutation of non-intelligent matter does.

JJ It sounds like you are saying that natural selection does not produce intelligence but then it does.

It is obvious that they believe that natural selection is the prime cause of intelligence. There can be no random processes without natural selection being involved.

Dan Thirdly, I personally do not think that intelligent selection is required to produce intelligence as you seem to think I think 🙂

JJ I do not recall giving my view on this.

Dan: but what I do think is that NATURAL (non-intelligent) selection operating upon inherently intelligent matter will cause it to evolve without any further input of intelligence being necessary.

JJ I think we agree here. Book 4 elaborates on this.

Dan: I could go for “default selection” but it sounds like you are quibbling over proper use of words rather than the concept BEHIND the words as you have admonished others against over the years.

JJ I commented on the meaning of the words because you brought the subject up and it was necessary we speak the same language.

Dec 31. 2011

Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: People will pick staying warm over freezing to death.

That is as natural of a selection as a ball rolling down a hill because of gravity.

Dan: Yep, the first is an example of (intelligent) selection but is not what the biologist (ahteist or not) is referring to when he uses the term “natural selection”.

JJ I know. When natural selection is used in connection with atheistic evolution then they claim no intelligence is involved. But as far as the basic principle of natural selection is involved there are the two categories. Not all scientists who believe in evolution are atheists and many believe that intelligence is involved.

Dan And yep, the second is an example of the type of non-intelligent process that biologists refer to by the term “natural selection” – it happens without any intelligence choice involved. Universal law (specifically gravity) takes care of rolling the ball down to the bottom of the hill.

JJ Agreed. We’ve covered this.

Dan And yes, I agree with you that BOTH are natural to our universe, but ONLY the second is what evolutionary biologists refer to by the term/call “natural selection” they call the other type “artificial selection”.

JJ Many scientists who believe in God believe that intelligence is involved in evolution.

JJ replied: It sounds like you are saying that natural selection does not produce intelligence but then it does.

Dan: Atheists appear to think that atoms will bump against each other by what they nebulously (and variously) refer to as “random processes” and then the action of universal law causes some atoms to stick together and some not (which process they call natural selection) and this will eventually lead to intelligence (us).

JJ Again it sounds like you agree that atheists scientists believe that natural selection creates intelligence.

Dan: Let me say it again a different way:

Atheists do not believe that natural selection ALONE leads to intelligence, they think various vaguely defined “random processes” under the ADDITIONAL impulse of what they call “natural selection” will eventually lead to intelligence.

JJ Still sounds like you are saying the same thing. Natural selection selects from random events and creates intelligence. The selection from events is what created intelligence just as I have been saying the atheists believe.

We are usually on the same page 95% of the time. I think we are here but the semantics sometimes gets in the way.

Whatever the case, sorry for my part in the confusion and Happy New Year.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 11

This entry is part 19 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 8, 2011
Physical Presence

Judy writes: I appreciate that you take time to answer our questions. You left a question that I had yesterday unanswered. When you get around to it can you explain why we need to be in close proximity for a molecule to work as you mentioned it would be hard or possibly not work over the Internet? I do not understand the necessity of being in close proximity.

JJ There are a number of reasons the spiritual flow is so much easier to established in person. To give you an idea of what I mean let me point out a couple things.

How many fall in love and get married through internet communication only? It would be very rare. They often discover mutual interests on line but most will insist on getting to know each other in person before talking the plunge. It often turns out that the chemistry in person is much different than over the internet. If they are a match the flow of the love energy is much easier and stronger after meeting in person.

Do you suppose that phone sex is as good as physical in-person sex? You do not have to be into such things to know that it is not. In person the flow of the sexual energy is much more intense.

We’ve all made friends von the internet, but have you noticed that when you meet them in person that they seem a lot different than the image you created in your mind?

I’ve made friends with many members of the Keys on the internet and then later met them at gatherings, as have many of you. It is often strange how different various people look and act than the image that was conjured up. For instance, I remember Susan Carter telling me that she had this image of me as a very strong overpowering personality and was surprised at how soft spoken and approachable I was.

I had similar misconceptions toward a lot of you but I will say this. Those of you who I saw as nice and friendly people did live up to my expectations in that area but often had different appearances and personalities than expected.

To really get to know someone and their chemistry you pretty much have to meet them in person.

The internet is overcoming this hurdle somewhat with video connections. On a one-to-one basis we can see the other person as we communicate with them. This doesn’t work so well in a group, however. We could have a video conference where I could speak to the group and they could all see me but my experience with them would be somewhat nebulous for I could not see them all at one time as when they are physically present.

The bottom line is this. The possibility of spiritual flow and mutual soul contact is greatly enhanced when in each other’s physical presence than any long distance relationship, even enhanced by technology. This especially applies to a group.

We experimented with a group drawn from the Keys we called the Triads. Even though the members were great people and willing I found it was very sluggish to get any group work accomplished with them. This was not their fault but the fault of the separation we had. If you have a group before you in your physical presence you can decide on assignments and get a lot of feedback within an hour or so. To do the same thing online may take weeks as well as using up a lot of time trying to keep things working.

Another point was made by a Book of Mormon prophet who said:

And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men. II Nephi 33:1

When speaking to a group that is ready and united the door of the soul can open and words can touch the Spirit and all can be elevated together at one moment. This experience is essential preparation for the Molecular experience.

We’ve had some great gatherings and spirits have often been high but we have not yet touched the soul as a group – though we have come close several times. To do this I would probably have to hand pick those who I thought were ready. This would be awkward to do at a gathering as those not picked could be highly offended.

I look forward to the day when the teachings will draw many more people and we can have substantial numbers of seekers physically gather in the various population areas.

Oct 9, 2011
Molecular Questions

Thanks JJ for your time & effort,

No question for us to contemplate this time?

JJ You’re making me think here Rob. Okay… Here goes.

Let us suppose we are proceeding with the creation of a molecule and have a group of 24+ members who are attempting to harmonize for group soul contact. Everything seems to be going well until I give a class which reveals some new information. Most of the members accept it well but four of them have serious doubts. Two of them remain as supportive as they can and say they’ll just put this teaching on the shelf and move forward the best they can. The other two seem quite upset are very vocal. They say their soul contact tells then that I am dead wrong and we need to not include this in the group teachings.

Question: How should this situation be handled? Can a molecule be created with these four involved?

Situation Two: Everything seems agreeable on the direction of the group and the teachings. Then Bob and Alice come to me in private and share a grievance, but they do not think it is a grievance. They are upset that three members of the group are slackers and not doing their share. They tell me I should do something about it. They are also upset at two other members because they are not supportive enough. They think that most of the members of the group need a lot of work and question the motives of some.

How should we deal with Bob and Alice?

Oct 10, 2011
Re: Molecular Questions

Continuation of Situation One. We realize that we must be united by seeing as one through the eyes of the soul if we are going to touch the higher spiritual energies and be linked with spiritual molecules. We therefore meet together to seek oneness, not a oneness imposed by an authority, but a oneness through contacting the Source of truth.

We first seek to meditate as one together while seeking higher contact. When we reach a high state I then explain the necessity of reaching oneness if we are to move any further. I also explain the importance of keeping our feelings positive while we discuss differences. Then I ask the four who disagreed to voice their opinions and reasoning behind their disagreement. I ask the group to tune into their souls as each person speaks to register whether or not truth is spoken.

The four each speak. Afterwards I ask the members to express what they received from their souls as they heard the words.

I then speak and give what I believe to be the truth of the matter. Then the time is turned over to members of the group to give their soul impressions of my words. All but the four felt their soul contact verified my words.

I then ask for a group prayer to petition for one answer for us all. We ask and we wait in silence for five to ten minutes for confirmation.

We arise and several commented on the powerful confirmation they received. We ask the four what they received. The two who said they would put things on the shelf said they received confirmation and were ready to move ahead with the group. One of the remaining two said he wasn’t sure. The final one gave us a lecture. He said he was his own man and an independent thinker and the rest of us were being brain washed. He said he still believed in the molecule and wanted to stay in it but we should make space for different opinions – that everyone thinking the same was not natural.

Question: How should we handle this guy? What should we do next?

Situation Two; I tell Bob and Alice that their problems with the group need to be discussed with the group in our next meeting.

They reply that they did not want to cause a disturbance and that is why they came to me privately.

I tell them that their grievance has already caused a disturbance in the spiritual flow and to restore it the problem needs to be resolved with group effort.

They insist they do not want their feelings made public to the group.

How should this situation be handled?

Oct 10, 2011
Re: Molecular Questions

Continuation of Situation One. We realize that we must be united by seeing as one through the eyes of the soul if we are going to touch the higher spiritual energies and be linked with spiritual molecules. We therefore meet together to seek oneness, not a oneness imposed by an authority, but a oneness through contacting the Source of truth.

We first seek to meditate as one together while seeking higher contact. When we reach a high state I then explain the necessity of reaching oneness if we are to move any further. I also explain the importance of keeping our feelings positive while we discuss differences. Then I ask the four who disagreed to voice their opinions and reasoning behind their disagreement. I ask the group to tune into their souls as each person speaks to register whether or not truth is spoken.

The four each speak. Afterwards I ask the members to express what they received from their souls as they heard the words.

I then speak and give what I believe to be the truth of the matter. Then the time is turned over to members of the group to give their soul impressions of my words. All but the four felt their soul contact verified my words.

I then ask for a group prayer to petition for one answer for us all. We ask and we wait in silence for five to ten minutes for confirmation.

We arise and several commented on the powerful confirmation they received. We ask the four what they received. The two who said they would put things on the shelf said they received confirmation and were ready to move ahead with the group. One of the remaining two said he wasn’t sure. The final one gave us a lecture. He said he was his own man and an independent thinker and the rest of us were being brain washed. He said he still believed in the molecule and wanted to stay in it but we should make space for different opinions – that everyone thinking the same was not natural.

Question: How should we handle this guy? What should we do next?

Situation Two; I tell Bob and Alice that their problems with the group need to be discussed with the group in our next meeting.

They reply that they did not want to cause a disturbance and that is why they came to me privately.

I tell them that their grievance has already caused a disturbance in the spiritual flow and to restore it the problem needs to be resolved with group effort.

They insist they do not want their feelings made public to the group.

How should this situation be handled?

Oct 11, 2011
The Beast or Not?
Situation One:
Through group soul contact we were able to incorporate three of the four who disagreed back into the group. I explain to the group that the principle I taught was an important one for the group. If there was a difference of opinion over where to have the next gathering or what topic we would discuss next that wouldn’t matter much unless hurt feelings were involved. But there are some things where oneness is necessary or group soul contact will not be possible.

I then explain that we will have to release this one dissenter from the molecule and invite someone else to take his place. He will still be welcome in the general group and he is welcome to attempt to organize a molecule of his own if he thinks his beliefs are superior.

The guy is pretty upset and accuses us of being just one more arm of the beast. “This is what the beast does, even according to your own teachings,” he said. “He demands everyone think the same or there will be hell to pay.”

The guy leaves in a very angry state and we are all concerned that he may turn into an enemy, or, at best, never fellowship with us again.

Question: Does the guy have a point? Did we turn into the beast? If not what is the difference between us and the beast?

Situation Two

Bob and Alice do not want to work through their negative feelings with the group. I tell them that the prime directive of the group is soul contact and if they are interfering with that then they will not be able to participate until feelings are resolved.

I give them a choice, present their feelings honestly to the group and work through them or we will substitute someone else in their places until they decide to move ahead.

They were very agitated but finally decided to present their feelings to the group.

When this occurred there was some offense taken by various members but we kept the dialog going until there was harmony. It seemed that part of the problem was just a few minor misunderstandings and lack of communication.

The meeting ended with lots of hugs and a sweet spirit.

Question: Was I right in pressuring them to communicate with the group? Why or why not?

Oct 12, 2011
Hierarchy Manifestation
Blayne writes:

Something that stood out to me in one of the DK quotes that perhaps you could comment on JJ?

“The Hierarchy incarnates on Earth again, and for the first time since its last incarnation in Atlantean days. It is, however, a group incarnation and not the incarnation of individual Members. This is probably a subtle point too difficult for you to grasp.”

Back then this would seem puzzling but since JJ’s teachings have come to light I assume this is the human molecule/s he is speaking of here? How else can the hierarchy incarnate on the earth again but not as individuals? But humans building the body they will incarnate into in the form of the human molecule?

Further I assume the Hierarchy doesn’t just mean a panel of individuals but the Christ energy and principle manifesting on the physical plane? Am I on the right track here?

JJ
Not very often does someone point out something DK said that I missed, but you just did and I’m glad you posted this as it indeed points toward the Molecular Order which will indeed be a manifestation of the Hierarchy.

The point he was making would have been difficult to grasp for those who did not yet know about the Molecular Order but now makes perfect sense in hindsight.

Members of the Hierarchy will manifest periodically as regular mortals but they will increasingly manifest through overshadowing and then though molecules as they come into being.

Oct 12, 2011
Molecular Details
Dan:
Here is what you wrote the other day:

“… one cannot rule anyone out for being in a molecule who is sincere, who seeks the truth and has a cooperative spirit.”

and in response to this question:

“If folks were to decide that they trusted the Molecular Initiate enough to argue/debate but ultimately allow him to make the final decisions, whilst still always SEEKING their own soul contact – would that work?”,

you replied:

“Yes, that would work as long as there is no resentment or grievance.”

[quotes taken from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Keysters/message/53966 ]

On the basis of those 2 quotes, I’m going to say this guy was dealt with unjustly – as far as we know; he is sincere, seeks the truth and soul contact, has a cooperative spirit, and no resentment or grievance (AFAWK – at least until he got the axe).

JJ
Let’s start with your first quote:
“… one cannot rule anyone out for being in a molecule who is sincere, who seeks the truth and has a cooperative spirit.”

My point was that one cannot rule such people out. That doesn’t mean that all who are sincere and cooperative will be workable in a molecule. My point was that one doesn’t have to be a high initiate, but many aspirants who are sincere with a cooperate spirit could reach the group soul contact necessary create the spiritual flow.

When the molecules are created there will be siftings made. The original net has to gather from a large variety as we are doing now. If we do not give all sincere people fair consideration then we may miss some good molecular applicants.

Concerning your second quote it applies to those seeking consideration for molecular membership. True membership can only be attained through group soul contact and is not up to the molecular leader. His job is to only facilitate the process.

Three who disagreed voiced different opinions but still managed to see through he eyes of the soul. One did not. Some disagreements are of no consequence. Others have to be harmonized before there can be group soul contact.

In the reference you made my next statement was:

“A person has to have a degree of soul contact for a molecule to work, but if he ceases progressing toward Spirit then it will only be a matter of time before he has a falling out with the leader or other members.”

This happened with the fourth person.

The tricky fact is this. One doesn’t have to be perfect by any means to be a part of a molecule but he does have to not be a block to the spiritual energy or group soul contact will just not be there and if it is not there the molecule will not materialize.

It is going to be a tricky thing indeed to create the first molecule without hurting some feelings and appearing to be exclusive.

On the other hand, those who are not workable for the first molecule may be more ready for the second or third one.

Stephen asks:
I know JJ is an earned authority in many respects for most of us, so I was just wondering if JJ thinks he is ready to lead a Molecule or if he might want a few more years/Principles before going for it.

JJ
I’m probably as ready as I will ever be but that is not what is needed right now. These teachings must reach a much larger group of people throwing out a larger net. When the net gets large enough the real work will begin.

Oct 12, 2011
Re: Molecular Details

A formation of a group a 24 people does not a molecule make. True membership is only attained when there is group soul contact. When this happens then all the 24 will become actual members until the time comes that there is a blockage that must be handled.

Oct 12, 2011
Re: Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

George Washington executed problem soldiers for much less than this guy we executed. His biographies reveal some actions and discipline that would raise eyebrows today. Here is one account:

During the winter of 1780-1781, George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge, Morristown and Pompton had suffered bitter cold, hunger and inadequate clothing. Also, the soldiers had not received their back pay. The success of the Pennsylvania troops at Morristown who had mutinied in order to bring attention to their condition, encouraged the New Jersey troops at Federal Hill in Pompton to take action to help resolve their grievances. Hoping to demand justice from an apathetic Congress, they mutinied on January 20, 1781.

When George Washington learned of the rebellion, he ordered General Howe to quell it. Sergeants David Gilmore and John Tuttle were executed by a firing squad of 12 mutineers at dawn on January 27, 1781 for their part in the weeklong rebellion. George Grant was given a last minute reprieve from the same fate.

http://www.pomptonlakeshistory.com/events/pompton_mutiny.htm

Oct 13, 2011
Dan’s Questions

Dan: Then the Molecule MAINTAINS fulltime soul contact as a group? Or are they just ABLE to contact the soul at NEED and then only as a group – when there is a question on molecular direction, action, etc?

JJ The first group soul contact of all the members together is a major accomplishment but it is just the beginning. This doesn’t mean the group will have instant soul contact on demand any more than happens with the individual when he gets his first contact.

The first contact is important because at that point all members will realize that a living molecule is indeed possible. The concept will no longer be theory, but reality.

However, the next step is crucial. This involves working together in harmony while seeking continued contact until the group is stable in the soul. A number of members will come and go before this is likely to happen.

The years that both John the Baptist and Jesus spent with the disciples was a part of their training toward this end and it wasn’t until the day of Pentecost that the overshadowing life finally incarnated in the group. This group had the advantage of being a witness to the resurrected Jesus which was indeed a unifying experience.

Dan: Will each member INDIVIDUALLY (have to) be able to contact the soul at will/need also? Or is there a group dynamic at play that assists them at it together as a group but not necessarily individually/personally?

JJ Some will have their first potent soul contact as a group but may not be far enough along the path to have consistent individual contact – though on subtle planes all the pure in heart have some type of contact – often unrealized.

Dan: So, any time a situation such as scenario #1 arises and the group seeks an answer through the soul TOGETHER – in this case as to the correctness of a teaching – if ALL 24 members don’t get the same answer, so to speak, this indicates a “blockage” (with those that don’t get the same answer) that must be corrected or else suddenly no molecule – is that correct?

JJ If the answer sought is essential to the oneness of the group this is correct.

Paul was an advanced soul but he had disagreements with Peter and other disciples so he was never a part of the molecule. He sacrificed greater spiritual contact to do things his own way. It was unfortunate that his slant on the teachings of Jesus was preserved and dominated more than the unified apostles. Here’s a couple quotes from DK about Paul:

“Starting with St. Paul, the theologians interpreted His (Christ) words in such a manner that they served to bridge the gap between the spiritual future of the world and the Jewish dispensation which should have been passing out. So effective has been their work that the teachings of the loving, simple Son of God have been largely ignored; the failure of Christianity can be traced to its Jewish background (emphasised by St. Paul), which made it full of propaganda instead of loving action, which taught the blood sacrifice instead of loving service, and which emphasised the existence of a wrathful God, needing to be placated by death, and which embodied the threats of the Old Testament Jehovah in the Christian teaching of hell fire.

“This situation is one which the Christ is seeking to alter.”

“In the past, the keynote of the Christian religion has been death, symbolised for us in the death of Christ and much distorted by St. Paul in his effort to blend the new religion which Christ brought with the old blood religion of the Jews. In the cycle which Christ will inaugurate after His reappearance, the goal of all the religious teaching in the world will be the resurrection of the spirit in mankind;”

Even though Paul had soul contact his strong personality kept him from becoming one with the molecule and he wound up introducing Christianity’s’ most destructive doctrines through his own personality efforts.

The story of Paul also illustrates that one doesn’t have to be in a molecule to do great works. Paul had his faults but he was still a great initiate.

Dan: What happens to the incarnating entity when/if molecular flow becomes interrupted like this?

JJ The entity doesn’t incarnate until the molecule is stable. After that if there is an interruption of the energy flow the one who is the cause is merely replaced. Remember each molecule has associate members and one of these can replace one of the 24 at any time.

Dan:

In the case of scenario #1, we must assume the guy was PREVIOUSLY a full, active, flowing member and then this one teaching caused him to “fall out” of group harmony, soul contact, flow or whatever. Is that likely to happen very often? That someone is able to contact the soul with the group readily, then POOF, the next day he suddenly CANNOT just because a challenging teaching comes his way?

JJ My intention was to present a situation as the molecule is in a state of formation, before the incarnation. The guy didn’t understand group soul contact because he hadn’t had it yet. Once the experience is achieved he then knows what it feels like and is less likely to disbelieve other members when they tell him they felt it again. If he is stuck in his personality beliefs he is likely to just not seek a contact that would reveal he is incorrect.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to be a member to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

Knowing the Truth, Part 2

This entry is part 14 of 49 in the series JJ Lectures

This brings up an interesting point that many of the religious leaders today teach and that is that we are living at the end times which they say is the most wicked time in the history of man. But it is not nearly as wicked as people think. After World War II we didn’t pour molten lead down the throats or cut out the tongues of the captured Nazis as happened a few hundred years ago in war. A casual study of history tells us that we have become much more civil over the years.

About 20 years ago here in Idaho they made a big deal about the farmers killing the jack rabbits that were threatening their crops. I remember thinking of how sensitive we have become. When I was younger nobody would ever think twice about killing a jackrabbit but now everybody is really worried about these jackrabbits that were destroying crops. We are much more sensitive than we have ever been in the history of humanity. Humanity is actually evolving instead of devolving so if someone tells you that we live in the end of times and people are more wicked than they have ever been before – that is not true. Instead, we are actually making progress. True, we could make more progress and we do have a ways to go but we have made progress.

Audience: Why is that these people are trying to convince us that it is an evil time?

JJ: It gets their congregation to listen to them and they can convince people that since we are wrapping up and we are reaching the end of the world that God is going to step in and burn all the wicked to ash and Jesus is going to appear in the clouds and wipe out all the evil guys and they are going to be taken to heaven.

Audience: The media does tend to focus on all the wicked things that happen every day with over 6 billion people in the world there is bound to be a few bad apples.

JJ: Today is nothing like it was even 200 years ago or nothing like it was in the days of the cowboys. They would just shoot somebody or string him up if a mob demanded it and that was it. There was no more talk about it. We live in a situation now where the laws have stabilized the world to a degree but now we have bigger threats like atomic bombs, biological weapons and other weapons of mass destruction posing a threat like we have never seen before.

Now getting back to the two guys on the internet that I mentioned – they are only two out of the many unusual teachers I have met in my life. The question that might arise in people’s minds is how do you tell if a person is in the light or not, or if you see a teaching how do you tell if it is right or not? Or if you meet a person that makes an unusual claim how do you know the truth behind that person or teaching?

How do we know what is true and should we even take anything seriously? People have been talking about the sealed plates for around 175 years now no one has come up with any claim to finding them that drew much attention. Now within the past 5 years there have been five different versions of the sealed plates showing up. There is a statement that we covered on our discussion group a while back, “the counterfeit guarantees the real,” and that was in relation to the coming of Christ. The writer points out that there are many counterfeit Christ’s appearing in our age and this is an affirmation that the Christ will eventually materialize.

So maybe some type of inspired historical writings will come forth. If they do I think it would just not be like Biblical stuff but would include the history of Atlantis. That would be very interesting to have a true history of Atlantis and Lemuria, wouldn’t it? At present we don’t have anything verifiable. We have had several things that have been channeled and some may be accurate and some may not be but it would be interesting if a record were discovered to give the true history of Atlantis. There are a lot of interesting things that happened back then that have been lost to history.

They had a lot of technology but the problem with Atlantis is the Masters gave too much help to the people of that age. It is like the story of the cocoon where if you help the butterfly escape from the cocoon it will die and if you don’t help it then it will thrive and be a strong butterfly. So by helping the butterfly you destroy it but by letting it gain its own strength through the struggle it becomes strong and lives. The same thing with a chicken hatching from an egg – if you break the egg and try to help it you will lucky if the little chicken will live because it needs that struggle of breaking out of the egg to gain that strength.

The Masters on their plane are not perfect just as we are not perfect, they have their sphere and we have ours and one of the mistakes they made during the days of Atlantis is they helped too much. They walked among the people and they taught them in their temples and they assisted too much so humanity did not develop their own abilities enough and they were given too much assistance and thus the dark brotherhood overcame the brotherhood of light in Atlantis and it had to be destroyed. It was destroyed over a long period of time not quickly as a lot of people think.

So in this time period that we are in now the higher lives that oversee the earth do not interfere unless it is absolutely necessary. In other words, the Masters have learned the lesson of the caterpillar and the butterfly. We are like the caterpillar and they want us to everything possible on our own and they will only step in after we have done every possible thing that we can do. This is much different than the age of Atlantis where they stepped in and assisted much more than they do today and this is very interesting to contemplate.

Audience: Sometimes I hear things in my head that you did not say, when you were talking about the sealed portion I noticed that, was it accidentally that you juxtaposed your comment about wouldn’t it be interesting if a recorded history was discovered of Atlantis, is there a reason that you talked about the sealed plates and the history of Atlantis next to each other, were you consciously suggesting that there might be a story line for the sealed portion?

JJ: Yes it is quite possible. According to the Book of Mormon the sealed portion contains a recorded history of the world from the beginning to the end and if it truly does contain a history of the world it would have to contain the history of Atlantis.

Audience: And King Arthur?

JJ: King Arthur happened after the sealed portion was written. However I believe what it would contain is not specific events about the future from the time that the sealed portion was written but it would contain information on the cycles of the future. There are certain things that can be seen in the future and certain things that cannot be seen. There are certain cycles that we know will begin and end with certain things happening. Tomorrow morning at a certain time we know that the sun will come up and why do we know that? Why do we know that the sun will come up and we can predict the exact minute it will come up?

Audience: Because it is a mathematical certainty.

JJ: Right is it a proven mathematical cycle and it has been this way for millions of years and will continue to be this way until something knocks the earth out of its orbit or something. But it is very predictable cycle that the sun will rise. The moon will be in the same phase it is now in how many days?

Audience: 28 days.

JJ: 28 days, right, a pretty predictable cycle. So 28 days from now you have to be very careful around your wife.

Audience: Laughing!

JJ: So the moon will be in the same phase it is today 28 days from now. There are certain cycles that happen, so that we can see into the future and predict exactly about some things. There is a cycle that is related to a day, a month, a year, the moon going around the earth, the sun cycling around the galaxy, the galaxy circulating around its portion of the universe. There is a cycle for the atom itself – how long it takes to circulate, how long it takes for the internal parts of the atom to circulate around itself. There is a cycle for all these things and all these things are very predictable.

There are also cycles in events that the Masters can look at and predict certain things. These are distilled down to Astrology, the Astrological cycles of Pisces, Aquarius and so on and I believe the end of Pisces occurred when the first atomic bomb went off near the end of World War II. We are actually in the age of Aquarius now but each one of these ages lasts not 2000 years but several centuries over 2000 years. The age of Pisces actually started before Christ came and they were into the age Pisces a bit when He did come. Astrologers say an age lasts approximately 2160 years.

We are entering a new cycle and certain things about the new cycle are pretty much predictable but then within cycles there are things that are not predictable by any life in existence, not even by an Angel, a Master or by God Himself, No one in the universe could predict that I would snap my fingers just now because it is not part of any cycle and it has nothing to do with anything. So no one predicted that and no one even wants to predict such a thing. They say God knows everything but can you imagine God sitting up on some throne and saying well in a million years from now JJ is going to snap his fingers at this meeting. Why would He even want to clutter His mind up with such small details?

Audience: Laughing!

JJ: The answer is that the Greater Lives do not clutter their minds up with these type of details but the Greater Lives look at the cycles and they know that at the beginning of a cycle they that a certain type of creation is going to take place and at the end of a cycle the certain creation is going to end. The creation may or may not be exactly what is desired and if it is not what was desired then it would be destroyed and it will start all over. It is a little bit like creating a piece of art. Leonardo Da Vinci, when he painted the “Mona Lisa” had in his mind what he wanted it to look like and he probably had a gal there that looked like the Mona Lisa and he envisioned what he wanted it look like when the work was completed.

As he was painting along he knew the end cycle was the finished painting of a beautiful Mona Lisa sitting before him. The beginning was just looking at the Mona Lisa visualizing the end. So we have a cycle and the end of the cycle was known to Leonardo Da Vinci. He knew the beginning and the end but he did not everything in the middle. As he began to paint he thought, that color is not quite right so he kept working on the color, and he thought the smile was not quite right so he kept working on the smile because he knew how he envisioned it and he had it in his mind and so he kept working on it so that people would look at it and say, is she smiling or is she not smiling and that is what he wanted people to wonder about.

To get that look he had to made a lot of mistakes until he got it right and when that moment came that he got it right then it was the end of the cycle. But between the beginning and the end of the cycle he had no idea how many brush strokes he would make and he had no idea how many mistakes he would make and have to correct himself and start over again. Maybe some dog was chasing some cat and knocked over the painting and he had to start over and maybe he was going to paint her with a great big grin on her face and after the dog knocked it over he changed his mind. So you never know but we assume the standard story is true, that he envisioned how it would look and the cycle had a beginning and an end and he finally got where he wanted.

The point I am trying to make is that between the beginning and the end of cycles no one knows nor do they want to know all the little details and to think that God knows every little thing like how many times am I going to snap my fingers tonight. There are certain thing s that you don’t need to know and you don’t want to know but the higher the lives are the more their consciousness gets down to the essence of things and the essence of now until the end of time is covered with certain types of cycles and these cycles can be seen and they can be known.

 

Copyright by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

Past, Present and Future

Book Of Quotes

Inspirational, Spiritual & Metaphysical Quotes

From The Writings Of JJ Dewey

1.  “The present as we understand it is not a point, but a package or quantum of time which is composed of past, present and future.”

2.  “The forces of darkness and the thoughtforms of the past always attack and attempt to prevent a gathering of lights and the enlightened changes of an approaching future.”

3.  “In a past age, in the days of Atlantis, the ending was a different story. Hitler was the leader of the Lords of Dark Face and his dark forces won the Great War against the forces of light. This led to the total destruction of that great continent.”

4.  “You cannot change the future because there is nothing to change. The future is not here yet.”

5.  “Prayer, thought, virtually nothing can change the past, but the effect of the past can be changed so the negativity will have no emotional effect on us.

6.  “If you review the past in your mind and alter it through visualization you can create a more positive reality for yourself in the present. To avoid illusion it is important that you realize you are not changing the past, but changing the effects of the past.”

7.  “When we look on the past the future often reveals the illusions of the past and when such illusions are revealed all of us in the present tend to look on the people of the past as being primitive–not realizing that many of us would have been as duped as they were if we had been there. A thousand years ago many of us would have blindly accepted the decree of the Pope that the world was flat. This is an important point to remember when seeking the truth in the present.”

8.  “Consciousness cannot live in the present for the present cannot exist without the future and the past.”

9.  “Present time is created through the interplay of past time and future time just as soul is the creation of matter (a past creation) and Spirit (perfect future creation).”

10.  “For average man the past always has a stronger pull than the future.”

11.  “What would happen if there were no past or future?  Answer:  There would also be no present for the present is the interaction of the two.”

12.  “Everything that exists in the present is here. The future is not here and all the causes of the future have not yet manifest.”

13.  “The future is the future and only generalities are available to us in the present.”

14.  “We only have infinite [or unlimited] potential if we have power to mold the future.”

15.  “The truth is we never see the present, but always see the past. The past is the only thing that can be registered by our consciousness.”

16.  “Now what would happen if we were able to perceive all things and saw the true present? What would we see?

17.  “Just like you can’t see the exact center of a circle you can’t see the present. You only see a quantum of time where the past has taken formation.”

18.  “Our vision of the present is distorted by mingling it with the past, and the present is further distorted by imperfect memory bringing a distorted past forward as a cloudy filter, making it difficult to see the present truth.”

19.  “If then there is no past, present or future what would there be?  Answer:  There would be no form, no energy, no consciousness, nothing to act or to be acted upon, no sadness, no joy, no duality.”

20.  “Use memories of the past very sparingly as you perceive the present and when they are used make sure you only use items that are remembered correctly.”

21.  “We cannot change the literal past, but we can change the effects of the past so a certain negative event in the past is changed so it is no longer negative to us.”

22.  “We can obtain a glimpse at the destiny of mankind by examining [the] lower [macrocosmic] soul and projecting what humans will do on a higher turn of the spiral.”

23.  “A person has to reach a degree of soul contact before there can be communication between the past and the future. When this happens the Will of God is followed and no change in that Will takes place.”

24.  “Another thing that distorts the vision of the past is emotion.”

25.  “Even if you have a good memory, a very positive or negative feeling associated with a past perception can fog the vision of the present.”

26.  “After all, all we have for happiness and joy is what we are going through in the present. Consequently, the present for us is a big deal and it is not “evil” to make it so. Such is not out of harmony with the oneness of the soul, the intuition or the Purpose of God.”

27.  “When the principles of the future are comprehended, the data from the past will fall in place.”

28.  “In the end, what good is any teaching, doctrine, group or destiny if in the present the general feeling lacks joy, love and spiritual flow?

29.  “I will not reveal my past. If there is some necessity for someone to know it the knowledge can be acquired through the Oneness Principle through the soul, but that would be for your personal benefit and not for any publication.”

30.  “Perception does not create the future. Decision does.”

31.  “You cannot change the past or the future. Instead of changing the past and future what you do is create them.”

32.  “When the present becomes the past no relativity can change the past, only our perceptions of the past can change.”

33.  “If all creation were the result of simple multiplication of Original Cause then a high degree of predictability of even small details would be possible. But because Original Cause is duplicated and endowed with intelligence and free will, the future is not set in many of its details.”

34.  “The creation of what is true is relative but, when that creation becomes either present or past tense, then that which IS becomes absolute.”

35.  “Two hundred years from now you would think that the big story in history would be the second coming of Christ. The event will be registered by them, but this person will not be called Jesus and future historians will write about him from a similar perspective as current historians write about Abraham Lincoln. This entity will, however, eventually be recognized as one who is greater than Lincoln, but not until the passage of some time.”

36.  “The possibilities of mankind will be revealed in outer form through technology as a forerunner to the full revelation of the inner powers.”

37.  “Calling forth your future self does not change the past because your calling him forth is a part of his history, as well as anything he tells you.”

38.  “We can see hints of our destiny by looking at the purpose of soul in the present time and projecting this purpose on mankind in its future relationship to forms and the universe itself.”

39.  “The Masters gave out too much too fast during Atlantis and the result was disaster.”

40.  “Present time is no more a true reality than is past time or future time.”

41.  “There comes a cycle of opportunity when the disciple must balance the past, present and future in his consciousness so the Eternal Now can be seen.”

42.  “The past is never lost and is always available for retrieval and enrichment of the present.”

43.  “When the people can no longer hold to the deceptive illusion of the past they are forced to see the truth demonstrated before their eyes that will plant in them the seeds of the Christ consciousness which will eventually grow to maturity.”

44.  “All new creation is built upon the foundation of all creation from the past. This principle not only applies to our physical self, but to our personality self and spiritual self.”

45.  “All is not happening at once. The future is only a projection, missing many details.”

46.  “The way you now think, feel and believe will not exist in the far future, but that which causes them will.”

Return to Quote Index

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE