HPB, Handwriting and the Mahatma Letters, Part 4

HPB, Handwriting

and the Mahatma Letters, Part 4

The question now is, if I am correct that she did write the Mahatma letters in her own hand, what are we supposed to make of Madame Blavatsky? Was she then a complete fraud who should be totally rejected?

I certainly do not write her off, but instead look at her life and works as a whole. There are accounts in her life that testify that she must have had help at times from a supernatural source and her greatest work, The Secret Doctrine testifies to a knowledge beyond normal human understanding.

In addition to this, Djwhal Khul through Alice A. Bailey, acknowledged that she worked under the guidance of the Masters and performed a great work while at the same time realizing her flaw of forging the Mahatma Letters. He said:

The Master K.H., in one of the few (the very few) paragraphs in The Mahatma Letters which are genuine and not simply the work of H.P.B., gave a hint to aspirants of that time when He said that so many of them were so “spiritually selfish.”

Rays and Initiations, Page 342

It is indeed interesting then that DK tells us that only a few paragraphs of all the letters are the genuine words of a Master and the rest are “the work of HPB.”

Here is what I think led up to the fabrication. DK tells us that HPB was Count Alessandro Cagliostro in a past life and during that life did not live up to expectations in the service of the hierarchy, but yielding to glamour did much harm to the cause.

Evidently Cagliostro used some trickery and deception to promote his own agenda instead of the Hierarchy and this flaw carried over in part to her life as HPB. The difference was that she used some deception, not to promote her own will, but something greater than herself. She moved a step forward from the life of Cagliostro, but did not distance herself from all past flaws.

Here is what I think happened. HPB did receive some true contact from the Hierarchy and had a true sense of mission toward fulfilling a part of the Divine Will. As she went about her work she found it was difficult to gain and keep followers and the Hierarchy didn’t seem to be much help. She kept thinking that if they would just materialize a few miracles that it would be much easier to convince people. Unfortunately for her the Masters are not much into supporting glamour so they did not cooperate in the ways she wanted.

She therefore decided to give the work a kick in the pants by producing her own miracles. In her travels she had gained a number of secrets from various magicians and knew how to do a few tricks that would appear quite miraculous. She used her skill to make it seem as if the Mahatma Letters just materialized out of thin air as well as other tricks such as making other objects appear or be found at some strange location.

These seemingly outward miracles did help her convince followers that she was in contact with a higher source, but also had the negative effect of planting the seeds of glamour that affected many of her followers to this day.

You’ll notice that Alice A. Bailey working on behalf of DK did not ask for or produce any type of miracle that would appeal to glamour. She did produce one astounding miracle and that was to write many great words that were beyond her own intelligence to manifest. Thus the life of Alice A. Bailey did not plant seeds of glamor similar to HPB. That doesn’t mean all Alice A. Bailey students are free from glamour, but that she just didn’t feed such glamours.

Similarly, I think the one important miracle in the life of HPB was her connection to the Masters. I believe that most of her writings are in her own words, but she received many impressions and pictures in her mind of various words, quotes and sources for her writings.

I think the hierarchy understood Blavatsky’s flaws, but continued to work with her anyway because there was no one else that could get the job done.

None of the messengers or prophets of the past have been perfect. Look at the lives of David, Solomon, Jonah, Peter, Paul, Mohammed and others. They did great work despite their flaws.

Does this mean that I endorse their flaws?

No. We must all do all in our power to rise above such things for flawed people produce a work that will have seeds of its own destruction built in. Let the servants in this new age not let their own imperfection infect the work but move forward with no deceit in a spirit of harmlessness to promote truth verified by the Divine Self.

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts – includes this series

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


HPB, Handwriting and the Mahatma Letters, Part 3

HPB, Handwriting

and the Mahatma Letters, Part 3

The evidence so far indicates that HPB wrote the letters attributed to KH. Assuming this is true some of the differences in the look of the two handwritings could be explained merely by the fact that she wrote at a slower pace in order to make the script more readable. It also had the effect of creating a slightly different look than her normal handwriting giving some credibility to the idea that the handwriting of the letters did not belong to her.

A slowing down of the speed of handwriting may produce a less pronounced slant, larger middle zone and add or take away a few idiosyncrasies. The two writings do differ some in these respects.

What makes an analysis extra complicated here is that HPB was not consistent in her letter formations. She used different letter formations for the letters y, g, f, capital I, w, d, p and others. This shows she had a very versatile mind and it allows her defenders to point out examples of certain letters in the two handwritings that are different. For instance the f in the word “of” looks quite different here. Two KH samples are in the left and HPB on the right.


They overlook the fact that HPB was all over the map in letter formation and the KH samples had quite a bit of variety also.

Here are samples of the word “of” that are quite similar. Again KH is on the left with HPB on the right


Then too HPB did make some looped fs as noted below:


This same argument was made concerning the small letter p. KH seems to have a different formation than HPB, but if you look over all the samples you can find examples of similarities here also with the differences explained away by the writer using different writing speeds and attempting to produce some differences.

If a writer tries to make his handwriting look like that of another he may create a handful of differences, but there are too many ingredients in handwriting to cover all his tracks. We’ve already covered a number of fairly striking anomalies that are similar. Now let us compare some standard features. Links to samples of writing from HPB and the Mahatma letters are in the first part of this treatise.

(1) The Slant The slant of a writer may range from a backhand to being far forward. The general slant of both writers is moderately forward. This is quite common with about one out of three writers in this category. There are subtle ingredients in the slant we could go into but we want to keep this simple.

(2) The Middle Zone The upper zone are strokes like the small letter L that ascent above most letters. The lower zone are those such as the small G and Y that go below the baseline. Small letters such as he a, c, e, m are all in the middle zone. The middle zones are similar with that if KH being a little larger – which could be expected from a change in writing speed.

(3) The Lower Zone Similar though HPB did have considerable variety in the length of some of her lower zone letters.

(4) The Upper Zone Similar.

(5) Margins Both have small margins on the left and particularly the right with words going downward from the baseline when reaching the end of the page. This is unusual and in both handwritings.

(6) Spacing between words and lines Similar

(7) Evenness of lines Similar

(8) Hooks at the beginning of strokes Found in both writings.

(9) Letter formation Similar combination of angles and rounded letters.

(10) Break-away Strokes These are strokes that break away to the right instead of returning normally. These are in both writings. See samples below. HPB on the top and KH on the bottom.


(11) Letter Connections. The most common writing has all the lower case letters in the words connected. Then you have writing with various degrees of breaks between the letters and finally you have printing where most letters are not connected. Both scripts are in the second category with a similar amount of breaks between the letters.

(12) The T Crosses The T crosses in both writings are placed on the average higher than normal and are longer and heavier than average.

(13) The Capital I In both the acknowledged handwriting of HPB and the KH letters there is a wide variety of formations of the letter I, most of them somewhat conventional looking and somewhat similar, but in one sample I have HPB breaks away and makes a very unorthodox I. It is interesting that the writer of the KH letters does the same thing. The HPB sample is on the left and KH on the right.


(14) Signatures It is interesting to compare the signatures of HPB and KH. Below is a signature of HPB taken from the cover of the Secret Doctrine and below that is KH signing as Koot’ Hoomi Lal Sing.


There are three significant similarities.

(1) Both end in a flashy loop

(2) The lines creating the loops both get stronger as they go ending with very heavy pressure.

(3) Both of them have extra and unnecessary dots added.

That should be enough to confirm that the evidence is very strong that HPB wrote the Mahatma letters and not just part of them but all of them for which I have samples.

It is true that one can find a few letter formations that are different the HPB writing and KH, but you can also find differences between the early and later KH handwriting within the Mahatma letters themselves. The degree of similarities are very strong in all the samples and it is my conclusion that they are all written by the same person – Madam H. P. Blavatsky.

So, does this mean that I think we should disregard HPB’s life and writings? No. That is not my thinking at all. We’ll assess HPB and her possible motives work in the final section next.

Go To Part 4

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts – includes this series

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

HPB, Handwriting and the Mahatma Letters, Part 2

HPB, Handwriting

and the Mahatma Letters. Part 2

If a person wants to disguise his or her handwriting from an expert he is up against a difficult task. The amateur will think that by changing one or two things that he can pull this off, but doesn’t realize that there and many different factors that are unique to a particular writing. The most common attempted change is in the slant. This can produce the quickest and easiest instant change but is unlikely to fool a handwriting expert. The complete slant is determined by the direction of all the upstrokes and an attempt to change the slant usually results in only the longer ones being affected leaving the shorter ones unchanged – and these are the majority of the strokes. Such a change will thus affect only a small percentage of the strokes in the handwriting and can fool some but not the seasoned analyst that takes a serious look.

Interestingly the slant is roughly similar in all the sample writings so there was no overt attempt to do this.

The next thing one may do is to change the speed of the handwriting. If one normally writes quite quickly and the writing is difficult to read then slowing it down will make it more legible and alter a number of characteristics. Many of us slow down the handwriting when addressing an envelope. One will want to make sure the post office can read the correct address so the writer slows down and makes a conscious attempt to write quite legibly. As a result the slowed down writing will look quite a bit different than notes he may take from a lecture. Even so, many similarities will show up in both samples.

The third thing a person can do is to alter certain letter formations so two scripts will have a different look as one compares them.

So, is there a change in speed in the various samples?

Yes, the samples attributed to KH are written at a slower speed and are more legible than Blavatsky’s handwriting. HPB wrote very quickly and her handwriting is difficult to read. If she did write the Mahatma letters it is only logical to assume she would slow her writing down, not only to change the look, but to make the letters legible enough to be correctly read.

Were there any unusual changes or differences in letter formations?

Between the writing samples I have of HPB and the 1880 KH samples there are no changes that couldn’t be attributed to a change of speed. However, the biggest changes on letter formations occurred within the Mahatma letters themselves.

Hodgson noticed this and pointed it out. He noticed that the small fs and the Ys and Gs changed in the letters as time progressed. The changes in the latter over a four-year period were most pronounced as you can see in the sample below.

    Sample4 KH Gs

Normally the writing of a seasoned adult does not change like this unless a conscious attempt was made to do so.

The Theosophists explained that KH may have had a scribe do part of the writing, but the evidence is strong that they were all written by the same person. And it doesn’t make much sense that KH would use a scribe.

That said let us take a close look at the handwriting of HPB and the letters, for if she wrote any of them she undoubtedly wrote all the samples I have.

When two handwriting samples are presented before me with the question as to whether they were written by the same person the first thing I look for are unusual characteristics not found in most handwriting. If even one thing shows up in common then this is evidence that I need to look further. If two or more show up then the chances become strong that the two writings were from the same individual.

Are there any such unusual traits in common between HPB and the 1880 Mahatma letters? Indeed there are. Let us look at a few.

In both samples the beginning capital T and some other letters begin with a large loop with the letter formations being quite similar. Take a look. The writing on the top belongs to HPB and the bottom KH.


Another odd thing in HPB’s handwriting is she often begins her letters with a large hook. A small hook is quite common but a large one like hers is fairly unusual. Notice that the KH writing (bottom two lines) shares the same characteristic. Also notice the similarities between the capital As.


HPB has the unusual habit of crossing two separated Ts with one stroke. Notice the KH writing on the bottom has the same characteristic.


Some very unusual strokes show up in some of HPB’s small Ds. Normally her writing slants strongly to the right, but then her D ‘s make an abrupt swing to a backhand while incorporating a large loop. This change is highly unusual and this trait is also found in the KH writing. (Always on the bottom line)


HPB’s writing has the unusual characteristic of having large gaps between letters that are generally connected within a word in a cursive script. Most of us have significant space between words, but not letters within a word. Now small breaks between letters are common in cursive, but not large ones. Take a look. The top three lines are from HPB and the bottom three from the 1880 KH letters.


These and other similarities give pretty powerful evidence that HPB wrote the Mahatma letters with her own hand. It would be highly unlikely to find these and other anomalies in the writings of two different people.

Next we’ll look at some of the general characteristics of the two handwritings and see how they measure up.

Go To Part 3

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts – includes this series

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


HPB, Handwriting and the Mahatma Letters, Part 1


HPB, Handwriting

and the Mahatma Letters, Part 1

I was asked to check out the handwriting of H. P. Blavatsky with the Mahatma letters to see if the letters are in her handwriting or distinct enough to be written by someone else, such as the Master KH.

I am a good person to tackle this project as I have over 50 years experience in handwriting analysis and am not out to prove HPB is a fraud or otherwise. No matter what the findings reveal I see her as doing an important work and personally believe in the existence of the Masters.

I was surprised to discover that no serious attempt has been made since Richard Hodgson with the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in 1884 to determine whether HPB or someone else wrote the Mahatma Letters. In consultation with a noted handwriting expert of the day he determined that HPB was the author of the letters – that the handwriting was from the same person. Then he also examined other phenomenon produced by her and determined fraud was used in some cases. Confessions and accusations made by those who turned on HPB did not help matters.

What did give him pause was this happening:

By the end of the first week of January, Hodgson, having little more to do at Headquarters, moved back to Madras and on the ninth he paid a call on Emma and Alexis who were living at Saint-Thome with a missionary family, the Dyers. In the course of a general conversation, about premonitions, Hodgson was just admitting he had no theory to account for them, when

“something white appeared, touching my hair, and fell on the floor. It was a letter. I picked it up. It was addressed to myself. M. and Madame Coulomb were sitting near me and in front of me. I had observed no motion on their part which could account for the appearance of the letter. Examining the ceiling as I stood I could detect no flaw; it appeared intact. On opening the letter, I found it referred to the conversation which had just taken place.”

From: Madame Blavatsky, the Woman Behind the Myth, by Marion Meade, Page 338

This unusual occurrence was not enough to change his mind as he suspected trickery.

The Theosophical Society never accepted Hodgson’s report but it stood as accepted by the SPR until 1986 when SPR member Vernon Harrison scrutinized the report and found various flaws within it. It appears that he investigated the report rather than refining an investigation into the handwriting itself. Amazingly, I cannot find anyone who has carefully compared Blavatsky’s to that of the letters since 1886. I guess then that it is about time that such an examination should take place.

I checked out HPB’s handwriting a few years ago, but at the time samples were scarce. All I could find on the internet was her signature and one ragged sample of regular writing. Now, fortunately, a few more samples are available, though not as many as I would like.

Fortunately, there is quite a bit of handwriting on the web from the Mahatma Letters.

I have a good selection written in 1880 and some others up to 1884. Curiously, while appearing to be written by the same person, the 1883 KH letters have significant differences in some letter formations from the ones from 1880. Such changes usually do not happen in an adult individual over such a short period unless a conscious attempt was made at making a change.

For my comparative analysis I will mostly concentrate on the 1880 samples of the Mahatma letters as they are consistent in style and I have plentiful samples of them. Here is the site from which they were derived.

For HPB’s handwriting I used all the readable samples I could find on the web. They are located at these links.


The question now before us is this. Were the samples I have of the K.H. Mahatma letters all written by Madame Blavatsky, or by K.H., or some by K.H. and some by a scribe? In other words were there one, two or three writers involved in the samples?

First let us put out the samples for the reader to examine. Here is one from HPB in 1882

Sample1 HPB 

Here is one from KH in 1880

Sample2 KH

And here is one from KH, verified by HPB as written in his handwriting:

Sample3 KH

The untrained eye will see that none of these are an exact match, but they do have similarities.

Few realize this but one of the first things a forgery expert looks for are two sets of writing that are very close to an exact match. If he finds such a thing then he can be 95% sure that a forgery is at work.


Just take a look at two or three of your signatures. They have similarities but they are not generally close to an exact match. Everyone’s handwriting will have some variation in it. Intelligent people will generally have more variation than the average person.

HPB was far above average in intelligence and, not unexpectedly, her writing varied much more than average. This is a good part of the reason that no one has been able to make a convincing case as to whether or not she wrote the Mahatma letters. She was a complicated person who was very versatile and adaptable. If she wanted to pull of a trick or two she would be quite good at it.

Now whether we love her or hate her we must take off the blinders and look at the evidence as it exists in the real world.

Go To Part 2

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts – includes this series

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

Keys Posts 2012, Part 2

This entry is part 6 of 40 in the series 2012A

Jan 17, 2012

Glenda Green & Jesus

Glenda seems to claim much more than an impression. Here are some quotes from her book – love Without End:

Jesus appeared to me and was with me for almost four months between November 1991 and March 1992.

In the fall of 1992, much to my surprise, those special circumstances were arranged and another vision was brought to me. It happened in a little country church where I had given the evening presentation. During the closing prayer, I noticed the rare fragrance I always sensed when Jesus was in my studio. Lifting my head and opening my eyes brought confirmation of what I suspected. He was there! Without a word to startle the others, I quietly beheld a fascinating process. With every passing second He regressed in age until He became an infant in His mother’s arms. Mary was young and classically Hebrew in appearance. In her loveliness, she was the image of innocence and barely more than a child herself. After a few minutes, the vision stabilized and remained unchanged for the two months required to paint it. The Flame of Love, as the painting came to be called,

A wry grin began to take shape on His face as He focused a quizzical look at me.

“His eyes were like clear pools of water, as I gazed into them, and beheld the simplicity of His succinct reply.

While nodding to the reality of our history, His countenance remained calm and serene. A comforting smile spread across His face…

In His presence there was love overflowing. Glowing with an aura of contentment and happiness, His face radiated joy, and He often smiled from ear to ear. I was fascinated, however, by the fact that I never saw Him laugh.

Jan 17, 2012

Sarah’s Story

Sarah: I was diagnosed dyslexic at the age of 7, as well as intellectually gifted. At 15 I was diagnosed ADD and medicated with stimulants. At 21, I was diagnosed Bipolar and they added an anticonvulsant and an antipsychotic to the mix. At 24, they added a sedative. At 25, I found freeread.com, got off all my meds that very night, told my doctors an parents I was not mentally ill…then I went crazy for a bit as I withdrew and then I changed my diet to predominately raw vegan and added vitamins and supplements including Klamath lake blue green algae.

And now I’m perfectly normal.

My cousin is diagnosed with Aspergers as well as other labels. His mother, my aunt, is a biologist as is a clinical coordinator of some kind for autismspeaks.org.

There is no real biological evidence that famous people who are no longer living had Aspergers. They also say most of them were ADD and Bipolar as well…back when those diagnoses were up and coming.

Just my two cents. I am also an artist. I believed I was mentally ill my whole life because doctors labeled me and plus artists and musicians usually are crazy. But, I decided that was bullshit and I had control over my own mind.

Sent from my iPhone

JJ I would think that i would have a heck of a time typing a message like that on an iphone.

I’m really glad the writings helped you. I’m curious what you read on freeread that first night that altered your course so.

My boy asked me which supplement I would recommend if I was limited to just one and it was the one you mentioned – the blue green algae from Klammath Falls.

Jan 19, 2012

Can Love Be Defined?

JJ DK didn’t say that there are things that cannot be put in words but that we lack the words to define some things. He often complained that AAB had a limited scientific vocabulary and this limited his ability to explain some things clearly.

Some languages completely lack words that are common in English so this would limit their ability to put some things into words. If I am trying to explain a concept for which we do not have words I will usually put a new twist on an existing words – such as my use of Purpose in the Molecular Relationship.


Jan 19, 2012

Newt Gingrich Handwriting?

LWK asked me to take a look at Newt’s handwriting. It looks like only the first link supplied has a serious attempt to analyze Newt. I’ll make a few comments.

Lets look at the sample here: http://www.crackingthecodesite.com/

Let’s examine some of his analysis.

1. Major daddy issues. This is probably true. He thinks he can greatly exceed the accomplishments of his parents. There are things about his childhood and upbringing he would just as soon forget.

2. He points out an undotted i. I checked out other samples and he seems to leave around 20% of his Is undotted. This can merely mean absent mindedness, but in Newt’s case it seems to mean lack of attention to details that are not essential in his view.

3. “Maniac d” then he says – “yes, the trait that is in serial killer’s handwriting.”

This is a d with a slant that shifts quite a bit farther to the right than the surrounding letters. I checked out two other samples of his handwriting and this shift in slant did not occur there. Strange shifts in slant of the letters whether they be Ds or other letters is a sign of inner emotional turmoil. These shifts often occur in teenagers as they are trying to figure our who they want to be. Newt does indeed act like an emotional teenager at times, but then other times he has pretty good control. This shows up in his various handwriting samples where some are more stable than others.

Looking at the handwriting as a whole there is not much likelihood he would be a serial killer but he is likely to react strongly to an attack as evidenced by his reaction to Romney’s ads.

4. Explosive. He will explode now and then but not an abnormal amount. He’s very sensitive and when offended he feels like lashing out but usually just lets off enough steam to stay sane.

5. Nasty, nasty, nasty temper. Yes he has a temper and lets off enough steam to avoid dangerous explosions.

6. A seriously mean person.

Sometimes uncaring, neglectful, and capable of vengeance, but I wouldn’t call him seriously mean.

7. Is dishonest. Actually in normal circumstances he is quite honest. He likes to be direct and to the point. He enjoys openly and honestly sharing his conventional thoughts. On the other hand, he has secrets, perhaps a secret agenda that he keeps to himself. Aside from these things he likes honest sharing.

8. Ruthless towards his enemies. This could be true if his feelings are stirred.

9. Careless. Yes, sometimes, but not always.

10. Unethical. Probably about like your average politician.

11. Greedy. Sometimes.

12. Skirts the rules. He will do this when it makes sense to him.

13. He says Newt Gingrich is The Inventor – INFP (Introvert – iNtuitive – Feeler – Perceiver) + Analytical. I agree with this.

14. He says Newt Gingrich is unqualified for leadership.

He’s better at coming up with ideas than gaining the trust of his fellow men in carrying them out. How effective he will be as a leader will largely depend on who he chooses for his inner circle. The trouble is that he will ignore the advice of his inner circle if convinced his ideas aren’t being advanced.

Overall he is very intelligent, never at a loss for words, intuitive, fiercely independent and determined to go his own way. He’s also very emotional and overly sensitive. Sometimes he’s at peace with his inner feelings and other times he is in conflict. He has a big ego and loves to be the center of attention – not as bad as Obama, however.

Jan 22, 2012

Possible Life on Venus Found   http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318302


Jan 27, 2012

War with Iran

Ruth asked me to comment on this: “Ramtha has warned on several occasions war with Iran is likely if Republican is President.”

JJ There is a danger of war with Iran no matter who is president – except for maybe Ron Paul. We may avoid war for a while by following a pacifist policy as we did before WWII but the best course when you have enemies is peace through strength – as well as smart policy.

Jan 28, 2012


Rut asks about the timeframe before great destruction will come.

JJ I’ve never placed a time on a scenario of great destruction but have merely said that the gathering needs to have a serious beginning between 2025-2030. It may be 100 years or more before something is created that could really be called Zion where the inhabitants see eye to eye or soul to soul. The gathering will provide a refuge from all sorts of possible calamities that may befall the planet as the communities will be self sustaining. The work I am involved in extends way beyond this life.

Jan 28, 2012

Re: Bill Wood Interview with Project Camelot

Judy It is hard to follow what he is trying to say about 911 being actual Tomahawk missiles and that Cheney and Bush knew about the attacks beforehand,

JJ Even though we do not have video there were dozens of witnesses who actually saw the plane hit he Pentagon and none of them saw a Tomohawk missile. They all saw a plane and I hear one guy interviewed who said he was close enough to see the windows of the plane and people inside.

Jan 28, 2012

Re: The Literal Gathering of Israel, Chapter Four

Ruth: So there needs to be a small gathering first of 24 or 144,000 people? and then a major gathering might take place later on.

The people that gather first are the ones who are directed by soul to get together in the flesh at a specific destination? This is where I am confusing the time lines and phases of Zion.

JJ No, that’s not what I said. We may have to gather thousands before we find the 24 capable of creating the first molecule. The first 24 gathered will not create a working molecule. How many we will have to sift through before 24 can be found who can take all kinds of grief yet remain firm in the soul is hard to say. Time will tell.

After the gathering begins it will continue from henceforth for thousans of years with gatherings from the gatherings and regatherings as time goes on.

Feb 2, 2012

Sequence of Events

Judy writes: Is this right so far? ( please advise if I have wrongly followed the sequence of events.) 😮

Sequence of events:

1. The nation of America is broken and no government. 2. Gathering of Zion into a designated locale and into stakes of maximum 20,000 populations. 3. Step 1: gathering out of the Mormons 4. Step 2: These will hold up constitution as an ensign and non-Mormons will come to gather. 5. The desolations occur. 6. Step 3: a group will emerge out those that had gathered to go to Missouri and they will establish New Jerusalem there and then the ensign will gather more from all nations. 7. The second coming occurs 8. Then another calling is established and only the ones who can commune with the Christ are called out.

JJ This is pretty close to the way ostracized Mormon believers see it. I find, however that few have been able to make accurate predictions by studying the prophets. Our nation is in danger of a collapse in the near future but such an event is not a sure thing. The next president may turn things around.

At the time I wrote the treatise I thought the enlightened Mormons would gather first but now I am inclined to think that interest there will be very small and non Mormons will show much greater interest initially.

When writing about the future we are always dealing with possibilities that can be altered by free will.

By the way, I privately gave Stephen some advice. Say a prayer for him so he can be released from the negative force attacking him.

Feb 2, 2012

Possession Problem

Stephen, The fact that you are experiencing this problem after attempting automatic writing indicates that you opened yourself to an external entity or at least elemental negative forces. It doesn’t sound like the Dweller experience proceeding the third initiation because you have not mentioned anything indicating the Angel of the Presence.

You mentioned that things seemed worse after saying the Song. This could indicate the entities revulsion toward the Song and that you should say it more not less.

Reread everything I’ve said about the principle of attrition in Book 3 and the archives. Even though you undergoing a painful experience proceed with your life as if nothing negative is affecting you or even in your presence. This is a state of mind you must acquire. Don’t do any type of meditation until you are healed. Prayer is fine.


Feb 2, 2012

UFO Crash Site?

To this Dan writes:

I can do ya one better:


Copyright 2012 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 Posts 2012, Part 1

This entry is part 5 of 40 in the series 2012A

Jan 1, 2012

Gaps in Words

LWK Speaking from personal experience, the _only_ thing that will really convert the atheist mindset is pain; physical, emotional, and spiritual. They have to see for themselves that they need to somehow step outside the paradigms they have defined for themselves and take a leap of faith (“faith” as JJ defines it in The Gathering of Lights, Ch. 19 – Real Faith).

JJ You are right here Larry. In fact I have been arguing with atheists on another forum for the past couple days, kinda as a diversionary vacation, and I use their terminology and of course have changed no minds. I did find one guy who explained to me why he lost his faith who may have some hope.

Anyway, we are all like the alcoholic who has to hit rock bottom before we will make real change. I’m not clear what turned you around but I am sure it was something painful rather than a peaceful argument.

Jan 2, 2012

Re: Intelligent Aid

There are indeed two ways that we evolve. The first is through trial and error. Eventually the next learning point dawns on us as we stumble forward.

The second is with the assistance of a teacher or some type of guidance beyond the physical, perhaps from a higher life.

Now, even in the first category we are not alone for we slowly progress through interaction with other lives who are fellow travelers. These may not be able to explain to us the knowledge we need but they may stimulate or motivate us.

On this note DK gave an interesting thought. He said that higher lives looked upon primitive humans and their struggle to survive and basically felt sorry for them. They decided to help them and came to the earth and stimulated their minds greatly speeding up their evolution. He said that if they had not done this humanity would have still moved forward but much more slowly. The most advanced among us would be living like the Australian Bushmen in a primitive condition with little civilization. It would have been a long time in the future yet before we would have arrived where we are now.

As I’ve reflected on this it could give an explanation as to why we have not yet picked up an intelligent radio signal from another solar system. Perhaps we are one of the few planets that have received such stimulation and most of the life on other planets is still quite primitive. Maybe one of our purposes is to visit them in the future and stimulate them.

Jan 3, 2012

Odds on Candidates

Back in May I gave my odds on the various potential candidates getting the nomination. Since we are approaching the first primary in Iowa I thought I would revamp my odds.

At that time I gave Romney the highest odds for the nomination stating that he has karma on his side because of the way the press destroyed his Father when he ran for president in 1968.

I think he still has the best chance for the nomination, but it’s been a weird year. Every month or so a new favorite has arisen who has looked like he would eclipse Romney so far this hasn’t happened. Romney hasn’t seemed to move much up or down but of late he has been inching upward. In his favor is that he seems to be a known quantity with no hidden vices, actions or comments that can be exposed and he’s performed well at the debates without making a major error.

The greatest criticism at the debate came from him offering to bet Perry $10,000 that he was correct on a point. In my book I thought it was his finest moment but others were upset the average person could not bet $10,000.

My overall odds have changed as the landscape has changed. Here they are.

Romney: 60% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 70%

Ron Paul: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 30%. It looks like he will do reasonably well in Iowa but his past newsletters is starting to hurt him with new converts as I earlier predicted. If Romney views him as a threat he will do to him what he did to Gingrich with an attack ad blitz

Rick Santorum: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 45%

Gingrich: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 60%

This leaves a 10% chance anyone else will get the nomination

There’s a 30% chance Donald Trump will run as a third party candidate. If he does all bets are off and a reevaluation will be made at that time. A third party run by Trump would definitely increase the odds of an Obama win. A third party in development called Americans Elect started by Obama supporter Peter Ackerman has about $22 million to advance its cause and could wind up with someone like Trump or Huntsman for its candidate and could help Obama get reelected. This may be its purpose. In my view this has a 20% chance of having a significant influence on the election. We’ll hear more about this group as we approach the election.

Another thing that could change the election equation is if Hillary is selected for vice president. Most Democrats want this to happen, but the two people most opposed to it are Obama and Clinton.

I think Obama doesn’t want her because she may overshadow him and he doesn’t trust her in that position. Clinton is reluctant to seek the vice presidency because she wouldn’t have much power there. If she were nominated for this position it would increase Obama’s election chances by about 10%.

Only time will reveal the truth for sure. It will be a interesting political year.

Jan 6, 2012

Re: JJ Quote from the Archives for Today

JJ Quote: “Each odd number representing a ray or plane (and even years) is polarized in the positive energy and the even numbers are polarized in the negative energy. Notice that concerning this great number of seven that we have four positive numbers and three negative which gives all creation a domination toward the positive, or the dominating good.”

Ruth: I am wondering that now we are entering an even number year which means the polarization more towards the negative energy, or rather female/intuitional/receiving/magnetic energy may come into play more in all aspects of living etc.?

JJ When we speak of the energies being positive and negative the meaning is not to be taken in black and white as good and evil. Both polarities are necessary for creation. Nothing would exist without the both of them. Both male and female aspects have their positive points and there would be no dominating good without them both working together.

The odd years will reveal more male energy and the even numbered years the female or emotional side will be stronger. It is no accident that U.S. elections are on even numbered years where emotion reaches a high point.

Jan 7, 2012

Re: Big Bang Theory

It’s one of my favorite shows.

I also like Revenge, Chuck, The Mentalist ,Hell on Wheels, Castle, The Middle, Two and a Half Men, and Fringe.

Jan 9, 2012

Re: A question for JJ on the Face of Jesus.

This gives me an idea for a group assignment. There are two portraits online where the artists claimed to paint Jesus from actually seeing him. The first is the one you mentioned by Akaine at: http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/princeofpeace13.jpg

The second is by Glenda Green at: http://www.lovewithoutend.com/

Take a look and these two and see if either registers as a true image.

Next go to Google image search at: http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en

Type in “Jesus portrait” and scroll through the images. If you see any that strike a chord give us a link with your impressions.

Jan 10, 2012

Re: A question for JJ on Jesus.

Thanks for your comments and participation on the face of Jesus. There is something one can say for sure about him if he were to come across a true picture which is this. The eyes would be interesting and exude intelligence and a strong life force. Take this picture for instance: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186

It is a composite put together using research and guesswork and though some ingredients may be more accurate than the traditional pictures the eyes are surely way off. The guy just doesn’t look very bright and if a person is truly intelligent it is revealed through the eyes as well as the whole look of the individual.

Other pictures make Jesus look weak, wimpy, and effeminate in a syrupy way. These type of pictures can be ruled out as being good representations

I do not see any pictures on the internet that strike me as being 100% accurate but some capture part of his essence. I would have to say that I like Akaine’s picture best at: http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/princeofpeace13.jpg

I did see one many years ago in a tabloid that impressed me as accurate. I cut it out and saved it for a long time and was finally lost in one of my moves. It hasn’t surfaced anywhere on the internet. I wish I had it to show it to you. I’m sure the group would be impressed.

It was painted by a lady who claimed to have had a vision of Christ when he was in his twenties. His hair wasn’t that long and he didn’t have a beard at the time, but it was the most interesting looking human being I had ever seen.

Ruth brings up an interesting item of discussion. If one has soul contact does this mean he would recognize a true picture of Jesus?

Not necessarily. If one had known Jesus in a past life this would be possible but if he had not then it would require true psychic powers rather than soul contact to bring forth the right image.

Remember soul contact deals with principles more than data. Sometimes when it is important the soul will send an impression on a piece of data but more often than not we are on our own to reason it out. On the other hand, the person with reliable soul contact is very capable in seeing true principles and how they play out in this reality.

Jan 10, 2012

Re: recognizing Jesus.

Dan: How about if the overshadowed Jesus were actually standing before us? It seems almost incomprehensible that MOST folks wouldn’t feel the impact – I suppose to some it would just evoke irritation rather than peace but SOMETHING would register in almost everyone wouldn’t it?

JJ The actual presence of a person is much different than a photo or painting. In this case soul contact is a great help for you can sense the aura of the person as well as his inner being. As I said before one with soul contact can recognize another with it in their physical presence and often in communication away from their presence.

Jan 12, 2012

Ron Paul & World War II

Ron Paul was drafted for service He had to go. FDR did not get the approval of Congress to help Churchill during the war before 1941 but had to bend the rules. His good judgment made a world of difference – something Ron Paul would have never done. I doubt if Paul would have declared war on Germany until they were at our shores.

Keith: Ron Paul may or may not have gone to to war in 1941 if he was President. There is no way for anybody to know for sure. I honestly do not know. My gut instinct tells me Ron Paul is being unfairly painted as an isolationist who would never go to war. I do not believe this is true.

JJ No one is saying he would never go to war. He has made it clear the conditions in which he would go to war though.

(1) The United States must be attacked by the enemy. (2) Congress must first officially declare war.

His statements indicate that he would have not responded to Hitler until he had attempted to invade our shores and that wouldn’t have happened until he had first conquered all of Europe and Russia. At the end of the war he was close to developing nuclear weapons and if he had some more time he would have had them available when the time came to attack us. Even so, with Iran Paul wants to do nothing to make them mad but will wait until they send a nuclear bomb somewhere.

As far as controlling spending and reducing the size of government I am with him 100%.

I would guess that Paul would have declared war on Japan but waited on Germany even though they were allies. Their alliance was not that tight before the U.S. got into the war. I’m not even sure he would have declared war on Japan since Hawaii was not yet a state. After all he was opposed to even going after the terrorists in Afghanistan (after 911) until a revolt by his staff changed his vote at the last minute: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/fmr-staffer-ron-paul-planned-no-vote-for-afgha\ nistan-invasion-staff-threatened-mutiny/

I’m not saying he wouldn’t have done anything after Pear Harbor, but not sure he would have retaliated with an all out war. If he was set on not retaliating for 9/11 then it is probable he would have been reluctant to do much because of Pearl Harbor, specially since Hawaii was not a state.

Here is additional powerful evidence I am correct with his own words:

Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GOP’s leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a moral imperative.

“I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn’t”

“I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that,” Shapiro wrote.

(Like someone on their own was going to make war with Hitler)



Jan 12, 2012

Inside Ron Paul’s Mind

Here’s another quote, this time from a former member of Ron Paul’s staff, Eric Dondero: Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that saving the Jews, was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just blowback, for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325052.php

Jan 13, 2012

Re: Ron Paul Predictions

Keith: The only part I slightly disagree with is your assessment that we are not in a dollar crisis. I think we have been in a dollar crisis for a few years now.

JJ I think you misread me there. Here was the dialog.

Ron Paul: An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.

My response: Didn’t happen. Interest rates have been very low over the past 10 years.

What didn’t happen was a dramatic rise in the interest rates due to any dollar crisis. I made no statement saying there was or was not a dollar crisis. It’s up to interpretation whether one would call the current instability of the dollar a crisis, but there is certainly a danger with it considering the world situation. The danger from the European situation is much greater right now than the fact that we have printed so much money.

Copyright 2012 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 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.


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.


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.


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

Past and Future Lives, Part 3

This entry is part 25 of 49 in the series JJ Lectures

What finally made me take reincarnation seriously was a disc0overy of two handwritings that matched. The one was a living person who I knew well and the second was a person who had died long ago. Comparing the handwriting of one life with another will sometimes be a close match if the person has not changed a lot. There are no two handwritings that are the same just like there are no two fingerprints that are the same and finding two matched handwritings is like finding two fingerprints that are the same. I found two handwriting samples that matched almost identically and even had a couple little quirky things that are in maybe one out of every thousand writings. Then when you add several of them together it would make the probability of them being this close one out of millions. I stepped back and I thought I had been seeing this evidence and I had rationalized and now I had to take a second look and look at it with fresh eyes.

I had been seeing what the church told me to look at it and now I must look at it without the church’s influence. I decided to take all the scriptures and read them anew as if I did not know anything and when I did this I found hundreds of pieces of evidence both in the Mormon scriptures and in the Bible that there is reincarnation. It was amazing how many there were. Some of the early church fathers in the Christian church were against reincarnation and when the first bibles were put together there was a lot of editing where they took doctrines out but they could not get everything out because the subtle things proving reincarnation they missed. Like with John The Baptist for instance, there is a prophecy that Elijah was supposed to come again and precede the Messiah. Well the disciples came to Jesus and said if you are the messiah than where is Elijah? And Jesus said point blank, Elijah did come again and he came again in the person John The Baptist. John The Baptist is Elijah and so and he did precede the messiah so the prophecy was fulfilled.

That is about as clear as word can be in the Bible and when you give this to a religious person the only counter he will hit you with is the account of somebody coming to John The Baptist and asking him if he was Elijah and he said no I am just a voice of one crying in the wilderness. There are several reasons why John the Baptist said no and Jesus said yes. First, Jesus saw with a higher vision than John the Baptist and it is quite possible that John the Baptist did not know that he was Elijah and maybe he just did not remember. Secondly if he would have said he was Elijah he probably would have been killed prematurely and he wanted to avoid giving a dangerous answer. After all, Jesus was killed for not denying he was the messiah so John had a really good reason to avoid answering that question directly and he said no I am just a voice crying in the wilderness.

So anyway, I read all the scriptures through and I found evidence after evidence and from that point on I changed my course of study. I have always been interested in oddball things. I studied hypnosis when I was 16 and supposedly a good Mormon but then I started studying many interesting things that were far outside the realm of the church. One of the things that caught my attention the most were the writings of Alice A. Bailey, I think her writings are the deepest writings on the planet and contain tremendous depth of teaching and many of the things that are taught by the new age gurus comes from the Alice A. Bailey writings.

When I first took people back I used hypnosis but after using hypnosis for a while it did not take me long to see that it is not as dangerous as the elders in the church use to warn me about but it does have some negative effects. If a person is hypnotized on a regular basis, he gets more susceptible to hypnosis so what I did was switch from hypnosis to guided meditations and in guided meditations you do go deep enough to loose the awareness of what is going on around you. In regular hypnosis you go so deep that when you are awakened you do not even remember what happened and when you get that deep it is really easy to take people into past lives. Guided meditation works just about as well and I have not been able to find any negative side effects with it and as a matter of fact everything associated with it is positive as long as the intent behind the meditation is good.

We will now proceed with a guided meditation for the whole group.

The first thing we will do is relax ourselves and the more relaxed you are the easier it is to go back. Relax clear your thoughts and we are going to concentrate relaxing all the muscles in the body first and get ourselves in a nice relaxed state of mind. This makes it easier to go through the guided meditation. First of all concentrate on your right leg and let your concentration go clear up to your toes and visualize a beam light coming through the ceiling and touching your toes producing a nice warm tingling sensation. Now the beam of light is proceeding up your toes to your feet, then your ankle and moving slowly up your leg and as this beam of light moves up your leg you can feel that there is something about this beam of light that is relaxing you. It is moving up past your knee to your thigh to your hip, your whole right leg is completely relaxed and feels very, very good. Now the beam of light switches over to the toes on your left foot, it is proceeding upward covering your whole foot, on up your leg to your knee, your thigh, your hip, and now your whole left leg is totally relaxed and feel both of your legs and they feel like they are floating on a cloud or in warm water, they are so light. They feel very relaxed, now concentrate on your right arm and the beam of light is now touching the fingers on your right arm producing that nice, pleasant warm sensation and livening you yet relaxing you at the same time.

The beam of light is proceeding up your hand to your wrist, your arm, up to your elbow and now proceeding up to your shoulder and you can feel your whole right arm completely relaxing and now the beam of light is proceeding to over to your left hand and proceeding up your left arm relaxing all the muscles in your left arm completely relaxing your left arm, proceeding up to your elbow and shoulders and both arms and hands are now completely relaxed. They feel like they could float they are so relaxed. Now the beam of light is centered in the top of your head and again you feel the warm sensation from the beam of light, it is proceeding down your forehead and touches both of your eyes and it is very comforting. Your nose, mouth, your cheeks, your throat, your neck, all the muscles in your head are completely relaxed like they have never been before. Now the beam of light is centered around your neck area and is moving down your body, all around your shoulders, to your ribs, stomach and covering all of your torso, until your whole body is now covered with the beam of light and every single muscle in your whole body is now completely relaxed. You have never felt so peaceful, so tranquil, like you are floating on a cloud, just floating away without a care in the world and it feels very, very pleasant and you feel very relaxed, very relaxed.

Now in this very relaxed state it is easy to visualize and see anything you want to see. You see your self floating, floating up and there is a cloud above you and you float up to the top of this cloud and you are laying there not worried about anything. You can look down from this cloud and because you are so light it is impossible to fall because you are as light as a cloud. You look down and you see a path, a path that is leading to a forest, and you decide to jump off this could and gently descend to the path. You land on this path and you start walking on it and you look ahead and some distance ahead you see a forest. The path continues into the forest and you decide to walk on the path into the forest. There are little birds chirping as you walk along the path and little cute, harmless animals running around in the forest. You continue walking and you come to this wall, you look at this wall and you think you want to go to the other side, you walk back and forth and you discover a door and somehow you know this door will take you wherever you want to go. It can take into the past or into the future. This particular door will take you into the past. You grab the door and you pull it open and discover ten steps downward. As you move onward down the steps and reach the tenth step you will be in your past life. You will be able to think as you did then, feel as you felt then, to see as you saw then, to remember as you remembered then and you will be able to remember who you have been in the past.

You walk through this door and this takes you back into the past. You begin to walk down the ten steps and when you get down to the tenth step you will be back in your past. You step on the first step, the second step, the third step and each step that you take you feel more comfortable and very much at peace, prepared to see whatever there is to see. You are on the fourth step, fifth step, sixth step, seventh step, each step takes you to a deeper more comfortable relaxed state, eighth step, ninth step, and to the tenth step.

Who are you is the question? You are back into a past life, you ask yourself, who are you? I am going to count to three and the answer will come, you know who you are, where you are, what you have been doing, one…two…three, who are you? Think to yourself that you know who you are, I know who I am, I know who I am. Say it to yourself three times, I know who I am, I know who I am, I know who I am, You know where you are and you know what time period you are in. Now you are proceeding along this lifetime to the time that you met the person that you love very much. It could be a spouse, family member, someone you admired. This person is coming into your view. You know who he or she is and you know what the relationship is.

Now you can step back from this life and look at it as an observer. Look at the beginning of this life and you can follow it along clear to the end of this life and you can get a good idea of what this life was all about. Now you are an observer again just observing and you see another wall, there is another doorway that takes you back to another life still. You open the doorway and there are ten more steps and it will take you to another life even farther back in the past. You open the door and you begin to descend, one step, two, three, you are going even deeper than before and you are more relaxed and peaceful, four, five, six, seven, eight, just about there, nine and ten. You know who you are. Think to yourself, I know who I am, I know who I am – think that to yourself. You can see this lifetime and you know what you are doing, if you have accomplished anything of worth or not, a lesson that you have learned and so on. I am going to count to three and the name in this life will come to your mind. One, two, three, your name comes and you know what your name was and you know who your friends are. Now there was a particular lesson that you had to learn in this life and this particular lesson is coming to you, I am going to count to three and the lesson that you learned in this life will be made clear to you. One, two, three, the lesson that you learned is coming to your mind. Now we are returning to the present and I am going to count to three and you are going be in the present and you are going to remember very clearly everything that you saw and encountered in your past. One, you are returning to the present, two, you are almost there and three you have returned to the present feeling very good.

Okay now we’ll check with some of you to see what kind of memories you retrieved.


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

Joseph Smith’s Handwriting

This entry is part 10 of 50 in the series 2011A

John Crane asked me to analyze Joseph smith’s handwriting and gave me this reference to some samples.

Handwritten Documents Here

The first two samples are consistent with Joseph’s handwriting but the third one from Carthage in 1844 looks like a dictated letter – as it doesn’t look like his handwriting. The mystery is who wrote it? It definitely does not match Hyrum or John Taylor’s writing. That leaves Willard Richards who was also in prison. I can only find a small sample of poor resolution handwriting belonging to him and the match is possible but there are differences. The other possibility is that Emma made a copy or had one made after she received it. I do not have a sample of her handwriting handy so I cannot compare it to hers. The back of the page does have the word “copy” on it.

That said I will give a few details from the handwriting that we know belongs to him.

Joseph had an outgoing friendly personality and came across with lots of warmth, empathy and a sense of emotional understanding.

He had very strong feelings, was very passionate and had a magnetism about him. He liked sharing on an emotional level whether it be romantic or strong outward expression. He didn’t like to keep his feelings in and if he was pleased, displeased or angry he usually communicated these feelings quite clearly and honestly.

His consciousness was not centered on any one aspect of living, but all aspects. We know he was interested in the spiritual side but he was equally at home when centered on he social side of life, the material side, or the intellectual side.

Most people as emotionally centered as he was are not that intellectual yet he had a strong desire to explore new knowledge and would leave no stone unturned in discovering it. He was also very perceptive and a quick thinker. He would have been a good debater.
He was one of those people who could come across as all things to all people. He had a good sense of charm and could get people to do things his way when they did not realize they were being influenced. He was very inclusive and would associate with the high and the low. He was very trusting but difficult to fool.

He was more of an extrovert than introvert and loved variety and change. He didn’t have strong feelings of self importance and was fairly humble for such an outgoing personality.

He had secrets but did not like keeping them forever and was always pleased to find someone he thought he could trust to share them with.