Month: December 2014

Aug 16, 2014

Glory to God

Greg:

As a former Mormon, I share the story in Moses 4:1 where God talks about Satan (I think we could place the title of beast in place of the name of Satan)

with the beast (Satan) saying “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.” What the beast yearns for is glory. There is great power yielded unto him when we fail to give glory unto him whom glory should be given.

JJ

Good point Greg. The Beast seeks glory where glory is not deserved and does everything possible to direct glory away from the greatest source there is which is God which is within us.

 

Aug 16, 2014

Auras of the Stars

We were talking the other day about original writings not found anywhere else and it was pointed out that we have quite a few of them available on the Keys. Even though just about every subject you can think of can be found on Google we have still managed to present new ones here as well as give new perspectives on old ones.

Today I thought I would write about a subject I haven’t seen even mentioned anywhere else and this surprises even me for I am amazed this knowledge didn’t come to me sooner, let alone others.

As most of you know I have taught a number of classes on how to see etheric body, as well as the human aura and the outer film that encompasses each individual.

I had a strong interest for a couple years in developing this extra vision in my younger days. Back in the Seventies I practiced regularly and got pretty good at seeing that which is normally invisible. Then when I discovered that I could intuitively pick up what I needed with a lot less effort I switched my attention to a different level.

Because I no longer practice regularly my auric vision is not as potent as it used to be, but it is still available when I concentrate. However, my sensitivity seems to come in waves. Sometimes I can see a lot clearer than other times.

Well, the other night I seemed to be in the middle of a sensitive cycle and took a walk outside about 2 AM when the stars were out. I like looking up at the heavens for it fills me with wonder at the majesty of creation and the glory of God.

As I was looking up at the stars I focused for a moment on one of average brightness and contemplated it as the center of a whole solar system like ours, probably teaming with life of some kind.

Then suddenly, I thought I saw something. I blinked my eyes and looked again. Then an amazing thought entered my head which was this: “It is common knowledge that humans have beautiful auras, but stars are living things also. If we have auras then shouldn’t they have them as well?”

Then I thought to myself how much sense that made as it also fit in with the Law of Correspondences. Why hadn’t I thought of this before? Well, I thought of it at this time so I decided to go with it and focused again on that little point of light to discover whether I could see it’s aura, of which I seemed to catch a quick glimpse.

As I focused with concentrated effort it’s beautiful aura flashed into view and what amazed me was how large it was. The human astral aura stretches out about as far as you can stretch your arm, but this star’s aura reached outward billions of times its own diameter. It reached out so far that its aura interplayed with the auras of other stars.

DK says that when he looks at he night sky it is full of light to him because he sees what most people do not. I always thought he was talking about invisible etheric planets, but maybe not. Now I know that the heavens are full of light and the little dots we call stars and just a very small portion of what they represent. If we could see it all we would see the heavens full of the life force of the stars and galaxies all interplaying with each other in the dance and music of the heavens. I had heard teachings that the various heavenly bodies had relationships but know I knew of the reality and that the apparent trillions of miles of empty space between stars is not empty after all but filled with beautiful light and life.

I’m not an artist so I can’t draw what I saw so I thought I would find the closest thing observed by the Hubble Telescope to give you a rough idea.

The closest thing to what I saw was not a picture of a star but of a galaxy composed of billions of stars. To get an idea visualize the point at the center of the picture below as a single star and the rest as the aura and you’ll get the general idea of how a typical star would look if you could see its aura.

LINK

In fact, if any members of the group are sensitive they might try to see what I did. Go outside at night and pick out a star and look at it for a few moments, looking slightly away from it from time to time. If you see anything unusual post it here.

I also looked at the moon, but since it is a dying body its aura was not that strong, though it still has a weak one. We are too close to the sun to see it’s aura but I have looked straight at the sun from time to time and have seen a moving changing symbol in it that is very difficult to see correctly because of its movement. It is a little like a Star of David changing into different geometric forms.

***

I came across an interesting statement by DK where he gives some light on the stars and the sharing of their auras. He talks about:

“the method of understanding the song of life. As the “stars sing together,” as the “chant of the Gods” peals forth in the great choir of the Heavens, it produces a corresponding colour symphony.” TCF Pg 1256

 

Aug 17, 2014

Analysis

Well, I’ve just endured another round of conflict over at Allan’s forum. I must like punishment to have participated again, but it started off innocently enough. One of the members claimed to have remembered a past life where Stephen was a notorious Inquisitor who put the righteous to death and was attempting to make up for it in this life.

I thought that was a pretty outrageous accusation. I was planning on staying away from the forum but decided I should defend Stephen. I decided to defend him as kindly as possible and use Allan’s teachings in doing so. Here is what I wrote to Stephen on Allan’s forum:

“It would seem to me from Allan’s teachings that it would have been impossible for you to have reincarnated from one of these bad guys. Allan says that such people do not reincarnate. The only ones that do are those who have merged with the soul, like James, the brother of Jesus. Therefore, if you go by Allan’s writings, you should have no concern about being one of those undesirables in the past.”

That sounds logical doesn’t it? If Stephen is a unique entity projected by his soul and is here as the first time as Stephen (according to Allan) then he should have no worries about paying off debts from a past life that did not even exist. I figured this should be accepted as I was cooperating with Allan’s views in my conclusion.

If I thought this would just be accepted, and the group would sing Kumbaya, then I was mistaken for they saw this answer as highly offensive. First I was asked to prove where Allan taught such a thing. This perplexed me because he taught this often.

Here was my answer:

Here is a quote that made me think that Allan’s teachings would convey the idea that a killer from a past life would not reincarnate as Stephen:

Contrary to Eastern dogma and the New Age concept of reincarnation, the soul or soul-self does not enter into this world — but rather, what enters into the body-vessel at conception is an embryonic image of the higher soul-self — i.e., “…But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!” And these images which failed to become manifest do not reincarnate — neither do they go to Glory as the Christians believe — but rather, as images that failed to attain the next level of birth, they remain within the Matrix of the Soul.

LINK

It sure sounds to me that a murderer and literalist from the past would qualify as a failed image “which failed to become manifest do not reincarnate.” Therefore, the image which is now Stephen could not have been the same as a failed image that did not reincarnate.

And yes, I understand Allan’s teachings about the Higher Self putting out many “embryonic images of the higher soul-self.” But if one of the bad guy images does not reincarnate then Stephen could not be that bad guy image reincarnated, even if the two have the same Higher Self. It would certainly appear that from what Allan says that Stephen would bear no karma from a failed image of the past that was not him.

Next Allan accused me of finding fault with the teachings of the higher reality of the soul and it went down hill from there. I tried to be as pleasant and courteous as possible for the next couple days where I spent most of my free time answering questions, handling accusations and straightening out wrong interpretations of my words and beliefs.

They were really upset last time that I posted some of their dialog here so in the interests of peace I will not do it this time. Suffice it to say that as the dialog continued their outrage at me just continued to grow. Finally, we reached a point where the dialog, questions, accusations etc were repeating, often more than once.

I came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time as they did not want to resolve or understand anything I was saying, but just wanted to catch me saying any small detail that could definitely be proved wrong. I know, many of you could have told me I was wasting my time, but I felt it was the right thing to do to defend Stephen from such an outrageous public statement and got sucked back in from there.

This time I have decided to not respond there no matter how much they misrepresent me or someone else, unless I am totally moved on by my soul.

Now that I have had a few days to relax from their negativity I have been reflecting on this whole affair and the root cause.

What do the other guys think?

They think I am mean and just bent on attacking Allan. But if you read our dialog you’ll see that I have not initiated any attacks. Most of what they consider an attack is merely me answering their questions or responding to their attacks or misrepresentations toward me.

On reflection I have come up with an interesting insight as to why Allan and his group are so highly offended at me, and some of you.

The core reason goes back to my original post that caught their attention. They interpreted it as an attack on Allan, some even saying I called him a liar.

But was it an attack on Allan?

No.

It was the beginning of a discussion as to the validity of one of his teachings.

So here’s what happened. Allan and his group saw a discussion of one of his teachings as a personal attack on him.

I think Keys members can readily see that this would not occur with the Keys group. Outsiders can discuss what they think of any of my teachings and none of us will take any offense. If someone doesn’t think the Molecular Relationship is a correct idea, none of us will see this as an attack on me.

On the other hand, most offense Allan and his group have had toward us isn’t because we attack anyone personally, but merely because we disagree on teachings.

I maintain that if Allan’s group would have merely allowed us to discuss and analyze Allan’s teachings without taking offense then this great rift would not have occurred for we do not take offense if anyone analyses any teaching here, neither are we offended if someone does not believe what I teach.

Question:

Why are Allan’s group offended when Allan’s teachings are analyzed or disagreed with? Why do we have no problem with such things?

What is the core difference between the two groups?

Below is the original post that was considered highly offensive. Notice the only objective was to discuss the teaching, not attack a person.

The Original Post

One of his (Allan’s) core teachings is that the scriptures are not literally true but written as allegories with hidden symbolic messages that will be understood by the enlightened.

This is not a new teaching as many people think the Bible is not history but stories of fiction designed to present teachings of some kind. Some see the scriptures as presenting simple things while others see deep hidden meanings.

If the scriptures are truly fiction this means that whoever wrote them created a lie for, unlike Jesus presenting parables, and me The Immortal series, they have been presented as true history and in most cases the writers would have known that the narrative wasn’t true.

Questions:

(1) Does this make sense to you?

(2) Would a truly enlightened teacher use such deception?

(3) Are there hidden meanings in the scriptures?

(4) Do you know of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?

***

IamAHebrew writes:

Shalom JJ, I wrote that post and then deleted it, but apparently, the delete button doesn’t truly delete. I have a lot of respect for Allan and how he has dealt with me over the years,

JJ

Sorry, I didn’t realize you had deleted the post. It showed up in my email but not on the forum and I thought Yahoo was playing tricks on us again.

I am amazed that Allan’s forum talks about you like you were a big problem. You seem very respectful.

***

lwk

Don’t know about others, but it seems to me that the built in editor in Yahoo Groups used to create replies is not working very well. What you get after you post can be significantly different after you post it?

JJ

The only way I seem to be able to get my posts to look the way I want is to format them first in Microsoft Word and cut and paste. The problem seemed to start when you wondered why I didn’t use paragraphs – which i did and Yahoo took them out. Hopefully, they’ll fix this problem. I’m glad I’m not the only one having it.

***

A Big Clue

Allan writes on his forum:

So, when JJ asks the question: “Would a truly enlightened teacher use such deception?” He is posing this question from the perception of liner-bound blindness. Which means that his true problem with me, is that I reject the burka he is trying to impose upon me. Moreover, I am very much the voice of his higher soul-self attempting to open his mind to the reality portrayed above in the Gospel of Thomas.

Question:

What does this t

ell you about the difference between Allan and I as teachers?

(Oh, I forgot; he thinks it requires a big ego to refer to oneself as a teacher. He likes to just call himself “the prophet” instead.)

 

Aug 18, 2014

Voice of the Higher Self

One2 quoting Allan

“Moreover, I am very much the voice of his higher soul-self attempting to open his mind to the reality portrayed above in the Gospel of Thomas.”

 

Is he serious?

If he is the voice of your higher soul self, then that makes you his lower shadow self puppet?

That explains everything now.

It is not The Prophet…….It is the Puppet Master at work!

JJ

I’m surprised we didn’t receive more comment on this. It is one of the clearest statements I have seen of one individual attempting to shift the attention of another from his own inner God or Higher Self to an outside source.

Yeah, I think I prefer to listen to my own Higher Self rather than someone else’s version. And this is also the way I teach. I never tell the group that they must believe me or follow me because my God Within is right or I am in contact with the true source and they obviously are not or they would agree with me.

Instead, I give out the teachings and those who are ready can verify them for themselves without my help.

***

Allan:

In JJ’s own words (see below): I maintain that if Allan’s group would have merely allowed us to discuss and analyze Allan’s teachings without taking offense then this great rift would not have occurred for we do not take offense if anyone analyses any teaching here, neither are we offended if someone does not believe what I teach. Well, here it is — i.e., an analysis of the differences between the original suppressed teachings of Jesus as set forth in the Gospel of Thomas and explained, explored and proven in what I write, in relation to the teachings of JJ…

JJ

Completely untrue Allan. You have not analyzed my view of reincarnation nor any other concept I teach. Just declaring what I teach to be wrong and what you teach as right is not an analysis. It is a declaration of your own belief.

If you want to analyze something I teach bring up some actual words I have written and then analyze. Putting words in my mouth is not analysis.

And things are not black and white. Discovering light in the written word does not involve a choice between writings you designate and everything else. There is truth to be found in many different writings and if one achieves soul contact he can have the power to recognize truth when he sees it.

By the way, I am already in touch with my Higher Self and live a consecrated life so it looks like the problem you see for me is solved.

 

Aug 18, 2014

The Beast 106.1

Assignment:

Contemplate what the wording of the most powerful political thoughtform would be and submit it to the group.

JJ

I though Dan gave a pretty accurate one. He said:

“Man is a selfish, greedy, willful warmonger that requires a strong central authority to constantly crack the whip or all would be laid to waste.”

Perhaps we could reduce it even more by saying this:

“Man is irresponsible and must be controlled for his own good.”

There are lots of other thoughtforms out there besides those of religion and politics, as One2 pointed out. There are thoughtforms governing every department of life and are so pervasive as to make any dictatorship look weak by comparison.

Let us examine one at a time. Several powerful thoughtforms govern health care. One2 guessed their thoughtform was “must have injections or medicines etc.”

That is one of the results of the core thoughtform, but not the thoughtform itself. If you were to encapsulate a wording that would describe the directions people follow as if their doctors are outer gods – what would it be?

And how about people who reject all modern medicine. Are they governed by a thoughtform? If so what is it?

***

Robert says he is reminded of the scripture: “Am I now your enemy because I have told you the Truth?”

JJ

Well, then according to your thinking, since I do not see you as an enemy then you must not have told me the truth.

***

Robert takes a stab at the on topic questions. We would encourage any of Allan’s group here to participate on topic rather than switching to explaining their method of salvation. We have heard this many times and get the idea behind it.

The Question:

Why are Allan’s group offended when Allan’s teachings are analyzed or disagreed with?

Robert:

Nothing could be further from the truth.

JJ

It is amazing that you say this when it is extremely obvious that your group was highly offended. I’m sure I could come up with a lot of quotes where your group certainly sounded offended. Here is an exact quote from Allan right after I made the post:

“Before I even made my first post across the forum, I was attacked by JJ”

It is obvious that Allan thinks that a logical discussion of a doctrine that he believes in is the same as a personal attack on him. This belief is pure illusion.

Robert:

Allan truthfully answers every question asked of him…

JJ

Wow. Where have you been? While I have answered hundreds of questions from your group he has rarely answered any. Here are several he has not answered:

(1) What do you believe to be the true story of the death and resurrection of Jesus?

(2) Give me the tenth word of the original Gospel of Matthew which you claim you wrote and remember.

(3) Give us examples of truth hidden in allegory in the New Testament, not counting the parables.

(4) What are the details of your technique which takes people into past lives and contacts the Higher Self?

(5) Allan says Jesus helped him write the original gospel. Did this happen before there was even a crucifixion or resurrection? In what time frame did this happen?

(6) Did the writers of the New Testament scripture intentionally write in people, events and history into them that did not occur as events in this physical reality?

Remember we are not talking about allegorical truth here so answer this. Would such writings be fiction or non fiction, historically true or not true?

(7) Is the intentional presentation of information you know to be not true, as if it were true, a lie or not?

(8) What did Jesus look like?

These are just a few. How you can say that Allan answers questions is strange indeed.

Robert:

and has done an amazing job making the incomprehensible comprehensible in this age.

JJ

I’d say it is more like making the comprehensible incomprehensible as he keeps telling us that the true reality cannot be put in words and the words he does use takes us in circles.

Second Question

Why do we have no problem with such things?

Robert:

Really??? What I pasted in and highlighted above surely suggests otherwise!

JJ

Nothing you highlighted shows anything like that. For instance, my problem with the accusation of Stephen being a murderer in a past life had nothing to do with teachings of past lives or karma, which I have no problem discussing, but with picking on a specific individual and making an accusation with no proof.

You cannot find one teaching that I give that would offend me if your group discussed. On the other hand, Allan and the group were highly offended that we discussed the idea of presenting false history as true for the sake of revealing truth.

Question Three

What is the core difference between the two groups?

Robert:

Allan is a Shepherd who guides seekers to find the True Prophet within as Yeshua commanded us to do. This forum is led by a teacher who asks questions and expects his students to repeat his words back to him. Then either a “Good Student” or “Well Done” compliment can be issued or the student can be further instructed to see things the teachers way.

JJ

Allan is a shepherd all right, but one who claims we should follow him, not because his teachings ring true, but because he was the brother of Jesus in a past life and he has merged with his Higher Self, and thus any disagreement with him has to be wrong. His actual words confirm this, “Moreover, I (Allan) am very much the voice of his (JJs) higher soul-self .” This attitude leads followers away from the true teacher within.

And, as usual, you do your best to mischaracterize me. When I ask questions members often give good answers that are different than I had thought of, which contribute to the understanding of the whole. At the conclusion I give my view which members can take or leave. Generally members like this process better than me just posting teachings because they get to participate – yet you find fault with such a beneficial process.

 

Aug 19, 2014

The Beast and Healthcare

The Question:

If you were to encapsulate a wording that would describe the directions people follow as if their doctors are outer gods – what would it be?

JJ

Olivia was the only one who took a stab at the actual question. She said, “blind adherence to a belief.” Now this idea runs through the general tactic of the Beast in using all governing thoughtforms, but is not a thoughtform itself. Remember that a thoughtform used by the Beast is a computer program that enters the mind like a virus and takes over to the extent that the victim thinks it is he who is doing the thinking when it is the program.

The key is that the thoughtform must be accepted into the brain to have an effect. Remember we are told that all but a few accepted and worshipped the Beast.

But who is there among us who would accept the idea of being a blind follower?

None. No matter how blind the follower he doesn’t think he is following blindly, but always believes he is using his own mind.

So what is the thoughtform then that people willingly accept for their healthcare?

It is basically this old aphorism:

“The doctor knows best.”

I’d guess that well over 80% of the population are governed by this thoughtform which is widely used by the Beast.

Does this mean that the few who are not governed by this will reject all the advice of their doctor?

No. If you are thinking in this direction then you are lacking in understanding of how to escape the mark of the Beast.

He who does not have the mark and listens to the Inner Voice above the outer ones will take into consideration the advice of doctors and other educated authorities, but at the same time they are hearing advice they are running it by he Inner Spirit and coming to their own conclusion. That conclusion may be to accept the doctor’s advice, or it may be to reject it. He who does not have the mark will not automatically accept the advice of a doctor, a priest, a politician or whatever.

He who does have the mark will follow doctors orders if he has accepted the basic thoughtform.

It is interesting that many who are into alternative medicine and think they are independent of “doctor knows best” still are governed by the “doctor knows best” thoughtform when the chips are down. When many who think they are free from such a thoughtform are told by medical authorities that their life is in danger and they must follow orders exactly or they will die then what do most of them do? They drop all alternative ideas and follow orders just as they are told.

The sad thing is the doctors are often wrong and their advice sometimes leads to a painful drugged up last days. Those who escape the mark will often find a life changing alternative, but they have to do a little thinking on their own accompanied by research.

The Second Question

And how about people who reject all modern medicine? Are they governed by a thoughtform? If so what is it?

There are a handful of people who do not trust doctors and will automatically reject all or portions of their advice. This category does not reject doctors because they are free from thoughtforms, but because they are governed by a different one than the masses. Several thoughtforms govern this group. Here are two possibilities:

(1) I trust God rather than doctors.

This guy doesn’t go by the inner voice but what some religious authority has told him God thinks about doctors.

(2) All orthodox medicine is corrupt.

This governs the guy who has read a lot of alternative material that speaks negatively of doctors and orthodox medicine and instead of using judgment he takes in the black and white thoughtform that calls for automatic rejection.

It is a key factor in understanding the workings of the Beast to realize that controlling thoughtforms leave no room for individual judgment but are black and white in their execution.

Another key in understanding the Beast is that this powerful authority is more concerned in control and obedience than what it is you are obeying. If a subject can be tricked into accepting one of his thoughtforms then he can easily be tricked into another one. Bait and switch are key words here.

Now let us switch to science. Name a couple thoughtforms that govern them. Remember there are a number of subjects where scientists can buy into thoughtforms such as global warming, evolution, God etc.

***

ImAHebrew says:

So this Beast, this sinful or carnal man that dwells within each and every sinner, overcomes the sinner and the sinner is enslaved by the Beast:

2Pet 2:19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved.

So I would suggest that the most powerful thoughtform known to man IS the lusts and desires of their sinful flesh, known as the Beast. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

JJ

Well, ImAHebrew, we are in harmony as far as the big picture is concerned.

The Greek from which the word “sin” was translated in the New Testament comes from HAMARTIA which is derived from HAMARTANO which means “to miss the mark.” In other words, when the Greeks 2000 years ago shot at a target with an arrow and missed they “sinned” (HAMARTANO) or missed the target. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon tells us that the Greeks also used it to mean “an error in understanding.”

People largely miss the mark because they listen to outer authorities above the voice of God which speaks within. This misplaced attention is indeed the cause of most of the error or sins of mankind.

However, the lusts and sins of the flesh is not a thoughtform. It is kind of like gravity, which is a force and not a thoughtform, but the pull of the material side is definitely behind the creation of many thoughtforms that deceive mankind.

 

Science and Thoughtforms

The Assignment:

Now let us switch to science. Name a couple thoughtforms that govern them. Remember there are a number of subjects where scientists can buy into thoughtforms such as global warming, evolution, God etc.

In considering the thoughtforms that create misplaced authority in a system the key is to examine how people react to that system. Then one must ask this, “What is running through their heads that they should react the way they do, as if they are reading the same script?

There are two basic thoughtforms governing science. The first affects the vast majority of those who are not governed by religion and the second governs many of the believers.

The first thoughtform is this: “You can’t argue with science.”

This thoughtform affects both those who have studied science and those who have not. There are many out there who have little understanding of science, but when they hear that science supports a thing they figure the argument has been settled. To them the authority of science is the closest thing we can get to the voice of God. Just like the believer wouldn’t think of a rejecting God, even so, will the low educated science believer not question science.

If he hears a report that science says the global warming issue is settled, that it is happening now he will believe and not question. If you show him that the earth is cooler now than in 1998 his eyes will just glaze over. If he says anything it will be accusing you of denying the science which he supports.

On the other hand, many scientists and those with a knowledge of science are captivated by this same thoughtform. Those who are trapped by it will also see science as the highest source of knowledge but will respond differently than those with little learning. If you point out that global warming seems to have been on a pause since 1998 they will give a complicated answer that will seem reasonable to them, but not to the logical thinker. For instance, many say that the earth has indeed warmed but the warming has been trapped deep under the oceans.

So, even though one may be learned in science he can still get trapped in a thoughtform that takes him away from real science and truth. He doesn’t want to challenge the thoughtform that governs his group.

Then in different divisions of science there are supportive thoughtforms, such as:

Global warming: “All scientists agree.”

Evolution: “Evolution has been proven.” While it is true that it has been solidly proven that evolution has happened this does not mean that all theories about how it happened are true.

God: There is no one wording but the general idea in the thoughtform runs something like this, “The belief in a sky god watching my every move is just plain silly.”

There are several thoughtforms governing those who reject science, but a common one is, “Science is godless; therefore, I choose God.”

This fellow automatically rejects anything from science that contradicts his religion or what he thinks the scriptures say.

Both sides are in error because of their acceptance of thoughtforms. While it is true that science has proven many things, there are also many other avenues that are not proven. Many science supporters, and even scientists, often do not differentiate between the proven and the unproven when talking under the influence of their thoughtform. The trick they often use is to give an undisputed fact and follow it by something that has not been proven. By lumping them together they give the impression that neither can be challenged.

Those who have escaped the mark of the Beast will neither automatically reject science or accept all they tell us is true. They will look into the facts and come up with their own conclusions.

The next area to look at is the media. In this, let us include TV, Newspapers, magazines, Hollywood and the internet. What are some thoughtforms governing those who deliver news and influence us?

 

Aug 20, 2014

Illusions in Hollywood

Keith writes:

The most powerful overarching thoughtform of the beast is ‘FEAR’. All of our most awful mistakes in past lives occur because ‘FEAR’ leads us to believe (erroneously) that we have no choice, but to comply with the beast’s demands.

JJ

Great observation Keith. You have touched on the key principle behind all thoughtforms used by the Beast in all departments of life. You are getting a little ahead of the program here. We’ll get back to this when we do a general wrap up.

The Question:

The next area to look at is the media. In this, let us include TV, Newspapers, magazines, Hollywood and the internet. What are some thoughtforms governing those who deliver news and influence us?

Good comments on this.

I was contemplating the principle that would pin down the actual governing thoughtforms and this came to me:

“Find the illusion and you will find the thoughtform.”

That turned on a light in my head. As are all truths it is very simple, but enlightening.

The illusion in medicine is that doctors and authorities there always know what is best better than you do.

The illusion in science is that the scientists can gather scientific facts and always come to a more accurate conclusion than you can, even if you access the same facts.

The illusion in religion is that a minister, prophet or preacher is closer to God than you are or can be.

So, what is the illusion of the media? There are a number of them. Susan pointed out a big one which is basically self importance – they feel their words should carry more weight than the rest of us, just because of who they are.

This illusion particularly applies to Hollywood and is fed by many sources. There are the fans who worship them, business who pays for their endorsements and politicians who want to rub shoulders with them and get their advice. On top of this, they create all kinds of award ceremonies where they have lots of opportunity to pat themselves on the back.

The key to seeing their main governing thoughtform is realizing that the self-importance of the individuals involved is only half the equation. The other half is the weight that they give the opinion of their peers. Therefore, in all their work, most involved in Hollywood seek not only to magnify their own glory through their work, but to get approval from their coworkers. Since it is usually assumed their coworkers are from the Left they will generally do what is necessary to appeal that that thinking process.

So what would the thoughtform be then if we keep this in mind?

“I will do what is necessary to generate praise from others in the business and for this will receive maximum glory with the people that matter.”

Question:

Now, how about those who deliver us the news? What is their illusion and the main governing thoughtform?

***

The Question:

How about those who deliver us the news? What is their illusion and the main governing thoughtform?

Let us analyze the answers so far for illusions to see the progress made.

They want to outdo the competition… Not quite. That is the truth of what they are trying to do. No illusion there.

They want to be the first… No illusion there. That is what we all know they want.

They would think that they are greatly needed in society to keep us all well informed… It is true and not illusion that we do need newspeople to keep us informed. If we did not need the m they would have no power.

It would also be something along the lines of “I can “feed” you information” No illusion there. They can feed us information.

The Illusion is that reporters are better informed than everyone else so they know better about politics than everyone else. The reporters are better informed than average but their job is not to preach politics, but to report the news so this wouldn’t be a core illusion.

Finally Larry says: “But there is another strong thoughtform that works on TV reporters in particular. They must maintain the appearance of unaffected and non-participatory.”

Here Larry is approaching one of the two major illusions in the news media. Let me reword this illusion as follows: They are under the illusion that they report without bias and are unaffected and non participatory.

The thoughtform would be “You are a sincere unbiased reporter just trying to get the important facts to the people.”

Question: What is the second illusion with the accompanying thoughtform?

***

The Question:

How about those who deliver us the news? What is their illusion and the main governing thoughtform?

Let us analyze the answers so far for illusions to see the progress made.

They want to outdo the competition… Not quite. That is the truth of what they are trying to do. No illusion there.

They want to be the first… No illusion there. That is what we all know they want.

They would think that they are greatly needed in society to keep us all well informed… It is true and not illusion that we do need newspeople to keep us informed. If we did not need the m they would have no power.

It would also be something along the lines of “I can “feed” you information” No illusion there. They can feed us information.

The Illusion is that reporters are better informed than everyone else so they know better about politics than everyone else. The reporters are better informed than average but their job is not to preach politics, but to report the news so this wouldn’t be a core illusion.

Finally Larry says: “But there is another strong thoughtform that works on TV reporters in particular. They must maintain the appearance of unaffected and non-participatory.”

Here Larry is approaching one of the two major illusions in the news media. Let me reword this illusion as follows: They are under the illusion that they report without bias and are unaffected and non participatory.

The thoughtform would be “You are a sincere unbiased reporter just trying to get the important facts to the people.”

Question: What is the second illusion with the accompanying thoughtform?

***

Flo:

Here’s a clip from the archives that looks at the media Beast…

The beast in our lives 11.22.98

JJ

Welcome to the group Flo and thanks for posting those quotes. They are very supportive to the topic at hand.

We have covered a lot of material on the Beast, but the depth of the mystery is great and there always seems to be more to discover.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Aug 3, 2014

Bailey Writings

Allan:

And the idea that the Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth, is pure ignorance.

JJ

Who in the world is saying this? The Alice A Bailey writings were one of the few in the area of philosophy that was against Hitler and such ideas from his rise to power.

Please refrain from throwing out wild accusations on this forum with no evidence.

You might also take note that we do not agree with a lot of Theosophical material. We attempt to run all things by our souls for verification.

***

Here is what the Bailey writings actually said:

The gradual dissolution again if in any way possible of the orthodox Jewish faith, with its obsolete teaching, its separative emphasis, its hatred of the Gentiles and its failure to recognise the Christ. In saying this I do not fail to recognise those Jews throughout the world who acknowledge the evils and who are not orthodox in their thinking; they belong to the aristocracy of spiritual belief to which the Hierarchy itself belongs.

Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 544

DK thought that the orthodox practice of Judaism (nothing to do with allegory) will gradually dissipate as well as many other outdated religious practices. This will occur naturally. Nowhere do the Bailey writings advocate wiping the Jews off the face of the earth. That may be the most outrageous and untrue statement ever made on this forum.

 

Aug 4, 2014

Resolving Conflict Through the Soul

This experiment with the Nazirene group has been interesting and intense. Unfortunately, we got off to a rocky start. The first post that got the ball rolling was one I just intended for the Keys only to discuss. It wasn’t intended to be an attack on anyone, but merely an analysis of whether it would be a good or bad idea to write an allegory with apparent history in it that was not true and present it as being true for the sake of teaching true principles.

Then when both groups interacted on this the misunderstandings reached Biblical proportions.

This type of conflict between two groups illustrates just how difficult it will be to find 24 people who can learn to resolve conflict and see eye to eye through the eyes of the soul so the foundation of a human molecule can be laid.

But seeing eye to eye should be easy for our group, right? – since most of us here agree on the basics. Well, remember the experiment we did a couple years ago. I set the group toward discussing a controversial subject, one that I knew that not all on the Keys agreed upon and challenged the members to attempt to resolve the differences through the soul.

The topic involved was whether it was right or wrong for Obama to execute the American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in the foreign country of Yemen with no trial, even though there was overwhelming evidence that he was a participating terrorist.

Indeed it turned out that there were strong opposing opinions on this subject. The conflict turned out to be at least as strong as we have had with Allan’s group. The only difference was that no one saw anyone else as being mean or not nice but lots of stubbornness was on display.

When I saw we were not making any progress I tried to get the group to break the argument down to its basic parts. So I steered them away from whether it was right to whether it was legal. Then the group moved to an argument I did not anticipate and that was the definition of what “legal” is. After about a week of intense argument over the definition of a word I put an end to the discussion by pointing out how simple reaching agreement should have been, yet we could not even agree on the definition of a word that would allow us to get to the first base of agreement.

Now, this doesn’t mean that gathering a group together that can see eye to eye and resolve differences is impossible. There were people involved there that did try and see through the soul, but all it takes in a group is a couple of people overly attached to their belief system to destroy the possibility of union.

If we threw out a net and gathered in 1000 people from the general population there would probably be about a dozen who could drop their bias enough to resolve conflict through the soul.

If we threw out the net again and gathered from seekers seeking spiritual truth we may find ten percent who could do this.

Indeed the path to beginning the next great step in human evolution is difficult, if not impossible.

Meanwhile it is good practice for us to work with each other and possibly other groups in attempting to resolve differences through the soul so we can see eye to eye.

I’ve been thinking about Stephen’s idea and I think anything we do in the future should have very little structure. If every couple weeks Allan or I think it would be advantageous to throw something out to the other group – that may work, but it would be treated as any other post. If it generates interest fine and if not fine. Both groups have their own agendas and this interaction should not interfere with either one.

In addition, we have had some of Allan’s members join our forum and some of ours joined his. These should be accepted and treated as any other member and be encouraged to conform to the protocol of each group.

If anyone has further comment or ideas I would be happy to hear them.

 

Aug 5, 2014

Re: Resolving Conflict Through the Soul

Shohn:

JJ apparently wishes to debase what I have said, effectively calling me an idiot at best and liar at worst, when stating: “Those who say they have read similar things before are like those who say they read about the Theory of Relativity before Einstein because they read about theories and they read about things being relative, or maybe they have relatives. Not the same at all. Actually Shohn needs to read the book before he can even say he has read of similar concepts.”

JJ

Hey, settle down. No one is calling you an idiot. What is it with members of your group having such a thin skin?

My point was that you cannot say that you have read anything that teaches the Molecular Relationship and how it works until you read the book. All you have right now is a rough idea.

You can’t really write on any subject that hasn’t been written about in some degree. Even Einstein was criticized at first for coming up with nothing new because all the ingredients of his theory was already out there. But when the whole picture was seen then his fellow scientists had to admit that he had indeed come up with something new.

One can put pieces together and create an insight in a different way than has been done before – and this I have done a number of times as my readers will attest. I wrote the first draft of the Molecular relationship in 1979 and since then no one has been able to point to any work similar to it in all these years.

If you hang around here long enough and read through the archives you will find a number of insights and principles that should be new to you.

I think most of the group is tired of playing defense here. We don’t want to spend the next three days debating what is new and what is not or comparing my teachings to Allan’s. It is time to move on and discuss some new things.

 

Civility

I thought I should add a few more comments of clarification on civility and name-calling.

Most of us do not mind a little passion in an exchange as long as it does not get too insulting or goes on for a long time distracting the forum.

Secondly, name-calling is different than accurately describing what the person does that may fit the name.

For instance, outright calling a person a liar is probably the most common form of name-calling going on throughout the internet. Often this is thrown out with no evidence just because the writer doesn’t like what the other guy has said. Even with evidence it is still an uncivil thing to say.

What would be the appropriate thing to say to a person stating something you know to be not true?

The civil approach is this. “What you said is just not true and here is why. You said this (quotes his words) but this is what actually happened (give account).

With this type of response readers can examine the situation and determine if the guy did lie or maybe was just mistaken.

Even so, it is with the word hypocrite. If one just calls another a hypocrite with little explanation as to why, or even a good one he is taking the uncivil approach. On the other hand, Larry Woods took a more civil approach with Shohn. Instead of calling him a hypocrite he stated that what he did was hypocritical and explained clearly what he thought that was. Now readers can read the explanation and assess for themselves.

Even giving descriptions though can inflame people. On various forums I often come across statements that seem to be outright lies and if I respond I give my reasons so people can see. I could end with this statement: “This accusation you made is obviously a lie.” Instead I may say something like, “your statement is just not true – here is the actual truth which can be verified.”

Even this gentle response will still inflame many because people do not like their flaws exposed, but sometimes it is appropriate.

***

lwk

If it was misunderstood the first time, then allow and accept an amended explanation. Give the benefit of the doubt. I know, its hard.

JJ

Good point. If people would do this one thing half the arguments on forums would cease. Sometimes people do not want to understand what the other is saying.

 

Aug 7, 2014

Claims to Fame and Power

It seems that about once a year or so I come across someone who is making strong spiritual claims. Many of them have strongly warned me that I need to listen to them or my very soul will be in danger. Because I did not jump on their bandwagon and actually analyzed their claims with reason I have been condemned by several of these as one who has sinned against the Holy Ghost and will reign with the devil and his angels for eternity.

Others have condemned me to a regular Christian hell. Still others have condemned me to extinction or some outer darkness where I will suffer more than one can imagine. Then some kinder ones do not speak so much of punishment but basically tell me that unless I heed them that I will never know what they know or see what they see which is always a great state of knowing or bliss that they assume I know nothing of.

The claims made by some of these guys are interesting and sometimes amusing. The most popular claim is the leader is reincarnated from some great historical being – from Joseph Smith, an early apostle, to Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and even God. One guy who demanded I follow him claimed to be the Logos of the entire galaxy. Another who condemned me for not following him channeled the very voice of God the Father (so he said.) You should have heard this guy bark out orders in a voice not his own. It would have been scary if I had not been seasoned in dealing with such things. Then there was another who topped the list in claims stating that he was above God and was his boss.

Then we can’t forget Chris Nemelka who drew the attention of a number of Keys members. He claims to have had numerous encounters with the resurrected Joseph Smith, Jesus and early apostles.

He is far from the first to make such claims for a number of ex Mormons have claimed to visit with resurrected beings, have visions or speak for God.

On top of this if you surf the Internet a little you’ll discover all kinds of people claiming to be the Second Coming of Jesus or a messiah of some kind.

All these guys stand in stark contrast to Jesus who made no claims. He did not say who he was in a past life, nor did he even claim to be the messiah or anyone great or even that he attained any lofty spiritual state. When he began his work what did he do that caused people to pay attention?

He manifested the Two Witnesses as spoken of in the Book of Revelation. And what are the Two Witnesses?

They are the Words and Works that testified to his mission. His words spoke to the soul and his works manifested faith. Because of these two witnesses he had no need to make a great claim to gain attention.

So why do these various gurus feel the need to make such claims? “Because they are true,” says one. But even if he thinks it is true this is still not a good reason to claim a thing that cannot be proven – just so people will pay attention. The biggest claim to fame for Jesus was his resurrection, but that was not a claim, but an actual happening witnessed by many. A thing that can be demonstrated is not a claim, but an event.

There are several reasons that gurus make claims of spiritual power or greatness.

(1) They realize that few people will listen to them if they merely relied on their words and works.

(2) A strong claim will give them greater recognition.

(3) A strong claim will cause people to lean on the leader for light and give him more power to influence, or in many cases control the lives of followers.

(4) A strong claim creates fear in those without soul contact. Many are afraid to question the words of the guru for fear they are questioning the will of God or will fall out of grace with God or the guru.

Questions:

(1) Even though many of these leaders or gurus think that they are the furthest thing from representing the beast, how are they furthering his power?

(2) Contrast how a representative of the beast instills fear whereas a worker in the light instills hope, peace and faith?

(3) What are the three most common claims made by representatives of the Beast?

(4) What do you suppose the personality traits are that causes certain people to make great claims and expect to be followed because of those claims?

A lot of writings on the beast can be found in the archives. Here is a link.

 

Aug 8, 2014

Beastly Question

Here’s another question to fine-tune our thinking on the Beast.

Both the Catholic Church and the Evangelical churches would be surprised to discover that they compose part of the network of the Beast. But … the power of the Beast controls the actions and thinking of their followers through different means.

What then is the difference in how Catholics and evangelicals are controlled by the Beast?

***

Susan:

The Catholics through Authority claims of being directly linked to Peter and God and the evangelicals through emotions.

JJ

Yes, but where is the current main source of authority for the Catholics and where is it for the Evangelicals?

 

Aug 9, 2014

The Faces of Truth

Allan:

Truth to one man, is not to another.

JJ

Here is a great quote from A Course in Miracles that may shed some light:

For truth is true, and nothing else is true. There is no opposite to choose instead. There is no contradiction to the truth.

The truth is true. Nothing else matters, nothing else is real, and everything beside it is not there. Let Me make the one distinction for you that you cannot make, but need to learn. Your faith in nothing is deceiving you. Offer your faith to Me, and I will place it gently in the holy place where it belongs. You will find no deception there, but only the simple truth. And you will love it because you will understand it.

***

Allan gives a long quotation and writes:

“What is true to one man, is not to another.”

JJ

Incorrect Allan. The truthful wording would be, “What is perceived to be true for one person is perceived differently to another.” If a person interprets that to not be true as true then it is not true for anyone. The person is only seeing illusion and interpreting it as truth.

Let’s analyze your quote and see what stands up to the statement, “The truth is true and nothing else is true.”

“Behold this crystal; how the one light is manifest in twelve faces,”

JJ

It is true that he is talking about a crystal with twelve faces and nothing else is true. To say it has 13 faces would be false.

“each face reflects one ray of light, and one regards one face, and another, another, but it is the one crystal, and the one light that shines in all.”

JJ

This is true and nothing else is true.

“Behold again, When one climbs a mountain and attaining one height, he says, this is the top of the mountain, let us reach it, and when they have reached that height, lo, they see another beyond it until they come to that height from which no other height is to be seen, if so be they can attain it.”

JJ

It is true and nothing else is true that if you climb to the top of a mountain then you are at the top and if you see a higher mountain then it is higher.

“That which appears true to some, seems not true to others. They who are in the valley don’t see what they who are on the hill top see.”

JJ

Again, this is true and nothing else is true that would contradict it.

“But to each, it is the truth as the one mind seeth it,”

JJ

It is true and nothing else is true that those who are in different locations see different things. This is really elementary.

“and for that time, till a higher truth shall be revealed to the same; and to the soul which receives higher light, shall be given more light.”

JJ

If a guy has one piece to a large puzzle he is crazy to say he has all the pieces and can see the whole picture. That would be illusion. The truth that is true and nothing else is true and he has one piece of the puzzle and when he gets all the pieces he will be able to see the whole picture.

“Be faithful to the light you have, till a higher light is given to you. Seek more light, and you will have abundantly; rest not, until you find.”

“God gives you all truth, as a ladder with many steps, for the salvation and perfection of the soul, and the truth which seems today, you will abandon for the higher truth tomorrow. Press toward perfection.”

From Gospel of the Nazirenes

Good advice. It is what we teach here.

***

Allan:

Each person due to the Laws they are born under, each sees a different face of the crystal. And each face is 1/12 of the whole — portraying a different perspective — which appears different than the other 11 faces of the crystal. “And that which is seen and received by one, is not seen and received by another. That which appears true to some, seems not true to others. They who are in the valley don’t see what they who are on the hill top see. But to each, it is the truth as the one mind seeth it, and for that time, till a higher truth shall be revealed to the same; and to the soul which receives higher light, shall be given more light.”

JJ

Yes, all people see different things at different times. That doesn’t mean the truth changes it means their perception changed and the fact that perception changes is a truth that is truth and nothing else that is true contradicts it.

If a bottle of jelly beans has 1000 beans in it, according to your best perception, that does not alter the truth that there are really 1022 beans in it. It doesn’t matter what you perceive or how many perceive differently the only thing that is true at that time is that there are 1022 beans in the jar.

***

JJ

Yeah, I agree Allan it is basic philosophy 101 that to learn anything you have to move forward a step at a time, but you do not abandon any truth as you move forward, you only abandon things that are not true or usable. When you move from Spanish I to Spanish II you do not quit using all the true words from the first class, but just add to them. You would only abandon the words or usage that are not true Spanish.

As I said, it is philosophy 101 that we do not see or understand all things now but we move forward until we do. Truth is true whether it be spiritual of physical. From a higher pt of view all things are spiritual.

***

The Question:

What then is the difference in how Catholics and evangelicals are controlled by the Beast?

Susan:

“For the Catholics Pope Francis and for the evangelicals whomever they are following…a tv minister…”

lwk

Or the Bible? Maybe the Bible itself is the Beast to Evangelicals?

JJ

Now we are headed the right direction.

How is it that the Bible and the Pope represent the forces of the Beast which lead us away from the Inner Voice? After all, they seem so different?

What force works with the Bible to support the Beast for the evangelicals?

Aug 10, 2014

The Beast 101

All right. It’s time to focus and get back on topic. If anyone wants to talk about Allan’s material then please suggest a topic with short description and if the class expresses interest we’ll discuss it when we move to a new topic. The problem we have had lately is that a half dozen things are in play and none of them get covered well. It is best to approach a single topic step by sep until the ingredients are absorbed.

We have discussed the Beast before, but there are aspects of it as it applies in the lives of people that we need to explore in more depth.

Concerning the Beast it is written in Rev 13:

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

All but a handful will worship the beast. The word “worship” here comes from the Greek PROSKUNEO. Literally translated into today’s language it means “to kiss ass”. In more sensitive language it would mean to “fawn over someone” that you see as your boss or master.

The fact that the Beast is fawned over tells us that this is not necessarily a Nero type of character that forces people to acknowledge him but is something that almost all give their minds and hearts to voluntarily. In other words, people love the Beast, respect him, kiss up to him and are happy to replace the inner voice with the voice without.

Shohn asked why this would be the case. The answer is simple. We humans are lazy and tend to take the path of least resistance. Outer answers are easy to find and they are in black and white. Once accepted no more thinking is required.

The Inner Spirit works with our free will and it takes effort and contemplation to connect with it and come up with an answer. And the answer is never the final answer but is always something to help the seeker on the path of true knowledge that will take you to your next step. Another problem is an answer from the inner Spirit is seen as threatening to the Beast and his agents so the person who is guided by the inner rather than the outer God will often meet with great opposition.

It is just much easier to let the outer authorities who represent the Beast do the thinking and tell you what to believe.

So, even though we live in an age where we are not likely to get burned at the stake, there is still strong incentive to worship (kiss up to) the Beast.

So who represents the Beast in the Catholic Church? More people than you might think. The obvious suspect is the Pope but he is only one of many, though obviously he is a big fish.

All the hierarchy down to the local priest represent the authority of the Beast and replace the true God within with the shadow God without. They tell the people what to believe, what sins are forgiven and how they are to worship.

The outreach of the Beast does not stop there. It’s greatest power is with the people themselves who kiss up to this outer authority. Among families and friends Catholics will receive reinforcement of the thinking which has been passed down from higher authorities. If someone wants to break with the thinking of the church he will receive great pressure from family and friends to conform.

Now the good news is this. The hold of the authority of the Catholic and other churches has been diminishing the past couple centuries. Does this mean the power of the Beast is diminishing? Not necessarily. The Beast just moves his power base to other areas as we shall see.

Now the Evangelical churches do not have a strong central human authority as do the Catholics. Does this mean that they are not controlled by the authority of the Beast?

Unfortunate the answer is no.

Where then is their outer controlling authority?

lwk gave us the right answer. It is the Bible.

Questions:

How can an inspired work such as he Bible be a controlling instrument of the Beast?

Can an instrument used by the Beast be someone or something that is seen as good as well as being sinister? Can a kindly old man such as Pope Francis unknowingly really be an instrument of the Beast? Why?

The Bible by itself is just a book… What is it that gives it power in the hands of the Beast?

If the Bible is an instrument in the hands of the Beast for the Evangelicals then what is the deal with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and other religions that have a different interpretation? Do they represent the Beast also?

***

Truth Conversation Continued

.Allan:

..what is seen in the below is the fact that you clearly do not possess an in-depth comprehension of the Laws.

JJ

It’s the other way around. You only state that you comprehend laws, but do nothing to demonstrate an understanding of them. Just stating I am wrong and you are right does not make me wrong or you right.

Allan

And the problem is seen in the fact that the necessary comprehension of what is presented in the below, is as a gateway transition point that has the capacity to open the door to higher understanding and true spirituality. It is clear from your own reply where you attempt to portray me as being wrong, that you fail to comprehend not only WHY each person sees truth and the world from a different and often opposite and conflicting perspective — but just as important as to WHY this great variance in vision and understanding is important to your own development, as well as the development of those who see you as their teacher.

JJ

First, it was you that attempted to prove me wrong and I merely defended my own thinking which you continually insinuate is incorrect or substandard.

Secondly, I perfectly understand why people perceive from different points of view, but I am not so sure about you. You seem to be arguing in support of that which is not real rather than the real.

Allan

Especially in view of the fact that without this knowledge of the Laws, a seeker will not only mentally and spiritually flat-line — but will have squandered away a most important opportunity.

JJ

You’re not talking about me because I am a long way from flatlining and you have no idea of the experiences I have had as I make no claims as you do, but just give out knowledge and let people take from it what feels right to them. You insist we listen because you’ve merged with your higher self. The problem is that you give no more evidence that you have done this than other gurus we have encountered.

Allan

Should I apologize to your forum for knowing and understanding the important knowledge that was suppressed and even outlawed by the Pagan Church of Rome?

JJ

No apology is asked for as we are already aware of this.

Allan

There are members of your forum who are threatening to leave, because I claim to know more than others who did not have the same opportunities that I did over the course of my soul’s previous lives.

JJ

That is not the problem. You need to read more accurately. The problem is all the conflict as well as all the different directions your group has taken us. This particular problem stems more from your group members than you. Outside of insulting our spirituality and insisting you save us from ourselves you behave yourself fairly well.

Allan

If you had what you portray as soul-contact before you replied to me and told me I was wrong, you would have responded differently than you did.

JJ

And perhaps if you were really in contact with your higher self you could understand what I am saying and would have responded differently than you did. You still seem oblivious as to my view of the scriptures and couldn’t seem to answer the questions that would have clarified my thinking in your mind.

Allan

Why? Because your own higher soul-self knows and sees things as they truly are. My only objective is the development and enlightenment of you and your forum members.

JJ

We would like to see you and your group receive an extra shot of enlightenment also, but we have enough light here to see that attempting to force feed you is not the answer. The plan here is just to reveal simple truth step by step and those who are ready will use those truths to advance onward until full soul contact is obtained.

But that is just he beginning.

There is more, much more.

Aug 11, 2014

The Beast 102

Thank you for your participation and thoughtful answers on the Beast so far.

The First Question:

How can an inspired work such as he Bible be a controlling instrument of the Beast?

I just may be the first person on God’s green earth to teach that the Bible is a powerful instrument in the hands of the Beast and its branches, but indeed it is.

Does this mean that the Bible is a flawed or evil book? No. People who are looking in this direction do not understand the Beast for God and Jesus themselves are powerful instruments in the hands of the Beast. After all, its objective is to take the place of God, so, of course, he uses God as a draw. Not the real God of course, who dwells within but a false image of God – a trick god..

The Beast uses unearned authority differently with the Evangelicals than the Catholics. The main thrust of authority with them is the Pope and hierarchy of the church. The Bible may be important to members but the words of the authorities carry much more weight.

For instance, Jesus clearly said, Call no man Father, yet they ignore this scripture and call their local priest, Father. What Jesus said about this doesn’t concern them because of where their worship of authority is placed.

Now the Evangelicals do not have a powerful hierarchy so their reliance on authority is in two areas

(1) The Bible as the infallible word of God. Among this group if one of their own were to doubt the truthfulness of any scripture quoted they would indeed receive the evil eye of disdain. If the Bible says that God created the earth in six days then, by George, that is exactly what happened. If Jesus said he is coming quickly then He is coming quickly, even though we’ve been waiting 2000 years. After all 2000 years is just a moment for God.

To the Evangelical every word in the Bible is infallible and literally true, even the passages that do not make sense to the logical mind. They are not to be questioned, just understood.

Therefore, the Bible is an instrument of the Beast with the Evangelicals because it is set forth as a powerful outward authority which directs many spiritual seekers away from looking to the God Within for answers. Instead, they look to the god without, the infallible words of the Bible which are not to be questioned. If you do question them you will not be accepted as a preacher, teacher or faithful member of the congregation.

If they were free of the Beast they could openly question and discuss the veracity and unorthodox meaning of any scripture.

But the authority of the Beast retains tight control over the minds and hearts of the masses. If you question his agents you will be rejected and often attacked in some way.

(2) If you thought I was just going to give you the second one think again. Here is the question of the day.

The infallible Bible is the first powerful instrument of the Beast among the Evangelicals. What is the second and how is it used to steer believers away from looking within?

***

Accusation

Allan:

Whatever I write is automatically rejected in this forum.

JJ

The few teachings you have presented has been accepted such as;

We have a higher self with which we are to merge.

We do not see all the truth in this land of shadows.

As we grow in truth we change our views.

Actually these things pretty much agree with what is taught here.

What is rejected is the incessant preaching to us by you and your followers that we are not seeing through the spiritual vision as yourself and your group and insinuating we are spiritually inferior. It seems the only solution for us is to accept every word you say without question – then we can enter the promised land.

The problem is that you present no steps for us to follow to enter that exalted state from which you claim to perch yourself.

I have never insinuated to your group that I am more spiritually advanced than they are or that they must listen to me if they want to be saved, enlightened , merged with soul or whatever. If i had approached them the way you approach us their rage at me would have been much greater than it currently is.

***

Allan

In those links exist an in-depth explanation of the workings of the Laws … If you seriously wanted to know what virtually all the biblical authors portrayed as inconceivable from a human organic perspective, then you would read the links and ask meaningful questions in search of the Ultimate Answers. And if you were to do this, then I would be glad to engage you.

JJ

I’ve done this and found mention of law and things that were supposed to be mysteries, but very little in the way of explanation. About half of what I read were quotes and most of these were repeated many times. After a while I got tired of reading the same quotes over and over.

One of what appears to be your most important teachings is about the Twelve Rounds of the Tree of Life. Others teach 10 rounds or 11, but you teach 12 so I guess this sets you apart.

Since this is presented as a very important teaching you would think there would be an explanation of it somewhere. The only place I could find that even named the 12 rounds was a graphic image that I had to blow up to read. I couldn’t find any explanation of those twelve rounds or whether one can progress from one to another or how to progress or absorb all twelve or whatever.

This explanation may be on another site I haven’t read, and that is another problem you have. Your teachings are scattered in lots of places, so I’m sure I must have missed something. You ought to place all your basic spiritual teachings on one site the way I do. That would make searching for things a lot easier. You’d think it would be easier and cheaper than maintaining a dozen sites.

Allan:

I am here to convey the Mysteries of the soul and the Gospel to those who Paul portrayed as being spiritually mature enough to receive this wisdom.

JJ

Then you should do this. Tell us of a mystery that we do not already know.

Allan:

I am not a teacher. I am not a master. I am only a lowly servant who is performing a service to the lost prodigal sons and daughters who desire to Prove the Truth by Travailing in TheWay.

JJ

But you do claim to be “THE prophet” which is a much higher and holy claim than that one who says he is a teacher because he teaches things. Here is a quote from one of your sites:

The world-wide ministry of the Prophet Allan Cronshaw — known to some as the Long Island Mystic — the Nazirene Disciple of The Way — the man who lived in a previous life as Jacob who is known as today as James the Brother of Yeshua/Jesus

***

Re: The Beast 102

The Question:

The infallible Bible is the first powerful instrument of the Beast among the Evangelicals. What is the second and how is it used to steer believers away from looking within?

We can look deeper if the group considers the following.

When we look at the various churches that take the Bible literally, as their personal Beast, we find something interesting. The various denominations have much different interpretations yet within each denomination is amazing uniformity. This uniformity is usually seen as a wonderful thing by them, even the work of he Holy Spirit. Yet what they fail to realize is that each religion has this and the more authoritarian they are the greater the uniformity.

How is it that the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and the Evangelicals (who all literally accept the Bible but believe different things) are uniform in their internal beliefs? In other words, you can go into one of their churches several times and it will not be long before you know what you are supposed to believe and support.

What creates this uniformity that seems to almost be picked up by ESP?

***

Aug 12, 2014

The Beast 103

The Question:

How is it that the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and the Evangelicals (who all literally accept the Bible but believe different things) are uniform in their internal beliefs? In other words, you can go into one of their churches several times and it will not be long before you know what you are supposed to believe and support.

What creates this uniformity that seems to almost be picked up by ESP?

Susan, Duke and Ruth mentioned thoughtforms in some type of context and this is certainly the right direction. The average person doesn’t even realize what a thoughtform is and those who do generally fail to understand how pervasive they are. They not only exist in the religions, but in all walks of life. They are particularly powerful right now in politics.

Even though average people do not understand thoughtforms many do have a sense about what they do. Most are familiar with the term “groupthink” and have some understanding of the power of unified group thought on the individual.

Few realize how potent thoughtforms are, especially when they themselves are controlled or influenced by them. Believers see themselves as attending church and not questioning anything entirely because of their own free will and intelligent decisions. More often than not they have bought into the parameters of the thoughtform and are controlled by it. Ironically, they often see this as the work of the Holy Spirit when they are really controlled by one of the tentacles of the Beast.

I have attended quite a few different churches and movements in my day and being aware of the power of thoughtforms makes the situation quite interesting. As you enter from the outside world it seems as if you are leaving one world and entering another. As soon as preaching or teaching begins you start to pick up what is acceptable and what is not. You do not interact with anyone from the pulpit but there is sometimes interaction in Sunday School Class. Sometimes I will ask a question that is not a part of the thoughtform and you ought to see the looks that generates. The question can seem quite harmless to an outsider, but if it doesn’t fit the thoughtform the group will see it as intrusive, rude and sometimes outright evil.

Questions:

How is a thoughtform created?

Name some thoughtforms in your life which you have to handle?

How can you control the thoughtform rather than it controlling you?

Aug 13, 2014

The Beast 104

How is a thoughtform created?

A thoughtform is created through this principle: Energy follows thought. The more thought that is applied the more power it has.

Basically, a thoughtform in the context that we are using it, is a computer program that writes itself from thought energy and tells a person how he is supposed to think, act and feel. Most people who pick up one associated with his group identifies with it and takes the thoughts and feelings as his own. He is thus controlled without realizing where the control is coming from. It is difficult to go counter to something which you think is you. Why would you want to go against your own thinking?

Now just because the Beast uses thoughtforms does not mean that they are evil in principle. The good guys use them also. Thoughtforms are like plants. Some are weeds and need to be ignored or discarded while others are nourishing and useful.

Most people are controlled by thoughtforms without realizing it, but if one understands them he can use or discard them as suits his goals and needs. If he accepts the thoughtform as part of his own makeup then he becomes subject to the intelligence that created it.

Examples of thoughtforms that can have a positive effect are:

(1) A highly structured successful business that uses its thoughtform to direct its employees to high production and efficiency, making the company successful.

(2) A health spa or program that aids you in keeping in shape.

(3) One you may create for yourself to establish good work habits.

Then there are examples of thoughtforms that can have a negative effect:

(1) The Nazis had one of the most destructive ones in history. It was so powerful it swept good people’s thinking in line with an evil plan with ferocious speed and power.

(2) While some aspects of a religious thoughtform can influence people to moral living, other aspects cause undue devotion to illogical thinking or allegiance to an authoritarian leader.

(3) Some create exclusiveness and feelings of specialness that make subjects see themselves as better than their neighbors.

There are many unconscious assistants of black magicians that create or support thoughtforms that assist the Beast in controlling the hearts and minds of “all kindreds, tongues and nations” as spoken of in Revelations 13:7 Those on the Right Hand Path do not create thoughtforms to control the minds of men but to assist themselves and others through free will.

The distinguishing characteristic of a thoughtform used by the Beast is that of unconscious control that directs the subjects attention toward an outer god that replaces the need for checking with the Inner God.

Those in the light do not use a thoughtform as a replacement of the Inner God, but may use it as an instrument for good just as we use our computers. Just as we realize that our computer programs do not replace our thinking, even so, do workers on the Right Hand bypass all thoughtforms to go to the Inner Voice.

The controlling thoughtform in the Catholic Church, as we said, is created around the idea of unquestioned authority that speaks for God. This was created with the cooperation of both the people and the leaders placing sustaining thought into this idea. In this transition age thought power is slowly being taken away from this idea and the authoritative power there is finally diminishing.

Among the Evangelicals there is not so much powerful thought placed in the direction of their various leaders. Instead, here is where their thought is placed:

(1) On salvation though faith alone in Jesus. Good works are nice, but have nothing to do with salvation.

(2) The inerrancy of the Bible.

Any scripture or person that supports these two ideas is fully accepted and anything that does not is rejected.

For instance, take this passage from James:

“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:17-20

This scripture clearly talks about the importance of works, but even though they believe in the infallibility of the Bible they are more attached to the thoughtform as a whole and ignore this or explain it away. They still believe in the infallibility of the Bible, but see James as really saying something different than appears. Anything that does not support the prime ingredient of being saved by faith only, without works, is automatically rejected. No amount of logic or even scriptures to the contrary will convince them otherwise.

A number of other religions are ruled by strong thoughtforms. Ironically, the Catholics and Evangelicals often look these on with disdain.

(1) The Seventh Day Adventists. These are ruled, as the name implies, by a belief that Saturday is the correct Sabbath and all who do not recognize and obey this have the mark of the Beast. Little do they know that their allegiance to their controlling thoughtform is the true mark.

Now this religion has other ingredients in its general thoughtform such as diet and a number of literal interpretations of the scriptures, but their view of the Sabbath is the major controlling one that is not to be questioned.

(2) Jehovah Witnesses.

Even though this group takes the Bible literally it is not the main source of programming for their thoughtform. The programming comes from its governing body and the publications that we are handed each time they knock on our doors.

Their thoughtform has been powerful enough that it has persisted through a number of failed prophecies about the coming of Christ, Armageddon etc. Through required study and paying attention to governing authorities each member knows exactly what he must do to stay in the good graces of leaders and local members. They know that if they question or get out of line they will be shunned.

(3) The Mormons (LDS)

Since many members are somewhat familiar with this religion let us consider several questions in relation to it.

1. What is the main source of power in its thoughtform?
2. One of its main teachings is about free agency. How can this be accepted as a core belief when they are controlled by a thoughtform?
3. Another core belief is new revelation. How does their thoughtform assure them that they are getting new revelation when there is no revelation to be found?
4. Does their thoughtform answer some of their prayers? Explain.

Aug 14, 2014

The Beast 105

As we delve into thoughtforms that give the Beast its power we need to be aware of this fact. The programming for thoughtforms of various groups changes over the years as thinking changes. Think of a thoughtform as you would a computer program that keeps getting new versions. Each new version is more complicated than the last and often lacks the original simplicity and is more difficult to learn.

The thoughtform that governs the Mormon Church is an interesting one to consider. The Prime Directive that governs its program is “authority.”

Now authority has been important for the Catholics down through the centuries, as they see themselves having authority from Peter who was appointed by Christ to be the rock of the church. But, whereas their emphasis on authority has decreased, that of the LDS has increased. The seeds of this strong authority was started by Joseph Smith who claimed visitations from God, Jesus, angels with the authority of the original church given to him and Oliver Cowdery in person by John the Baptist and the apostles Peter James and John.

Members that accept these visitations give great authority to the words of Joseph Smith. After all, opposing his teachings would seem to be like opposing God, for he not only claimed visitations but often said, “thus saith the Lord,” and then the words were supposed to be Christ himself.

It is interesting that even though Joseph possessed all the ingredients to exercise powerful outward authority to steer members away from the inner voice that he was the least authoritarian of the leaders of the Mormon church. He rarely spoke of his supernatural experiences, or emphasized them to sway the people. Instead, he emphasized that it was important for members to go within and get their own revelation.

Then, after Joseph was murdered Brigham Young became the next prophet and this was where the powerful emphasis on authority really took hold. One reason Brigham placed more emphasis on authority was that he thought that one of the reasons Joseph was killed was he was too lax in its use. Joseph did not clear out al the dead wood that caused opposition and problems. Brigham decided that if he was going to avoid a similar fate he needed to be more controlling and get everyone in line thinking the same thing.

The thoughtform then had an upgrade which told members, “When the prophet speaks the thinking has been done. Independent thinking is not to be tolerated.”

It is strange then that the church started off with powerful claims of authority, and used it sparingly, but then as miraculous events diminished the projection of authority increased.

This quote from the official Church magazine gives the prime directive of the programming:

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan ‚Äî it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”

Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354.

This idea has been repeated many times since then. It thus seems contradictory that one of the central doctrines of the church is free agency. Joseph Smith taught that the original war in heaven was over the free agency of man. Satan wanted to take away the free agency of humanity to make it easy to save them, but Jesus wanted to give us our agency so we could make our own decisions and earn our salvation.

So how do they reconcile free agency with having no agency to think contrary to what the leaders say?

They say that they have the freedom to think contrary to authorities, but a member just may be thrown out of the church for it and risk being a Son of Perdition to reign with the devil and his angels for eternity. In addition they say that there are lots of things they can use their free will on that the authorities have not given orders on. For instance, they can decide who to marry, what career to pursue, etc.

The problem with this rationalization is that even under the greatest of tyrannies people had some freedoms including speaking against the dear leader if they were willing to pay the price.

The other prime doctrine that seems contradictory is that of continuing revelation. Joseph taught that not only the leaders of the church receive revelation of the mysteries, but such revelation was the right of every member.

To any outsider looking in there is a major problem with this belief. The church leaders haven’t presented a revelation in over a century. There was an official pronouncement in 1978 that the blacks could hold the priesthood, but no revelation on it was ever presented to the church. The other problem is that if a lowly member claims to receive a revelation about any of the mysteries that are promised in LDS scriptures he most likely will be excommunicated.

So… how does the Mormon thoughtform tell the members to think to get around this contradiction? It says this:

“When the leaders give instructions to govern the church there is the hand of God at work giving them revelation to do their jobs and when they speak to the church, God is revealing things to their minds that come down to the members. There is more revelation coming down from on high than you can shake a stick at.”

A as far as personal revelation goes, they can’t get revelation on doctrine, the mysteries or the affairs of the church but each member can get revelation for his family or personal; affairs.

So do Mormons get answers to their prayers from a thoughtform?

In many cases, yes. This happens with many religious people, but the Mormons are particularly vulnerable because they pray for answers for all kinds of personal things.

I used to sell children’s books which had good moral uplifting stories in them for kids as well as a children’s encyclopedia. After the presentation everyone fell in love with the books and bought them if they could fit them in their budget. Everyone that is, except the faithful Mormons. Almost every time I gave a presentation to an active Mormon family I received the same reply, a reply I received nowhere else, even from super religious people of other faiths:

This was what they said: “We will have to pray about whether or not to buy the books. Come back tomorrow and we’ll give you our answer.”

When I came back the next day the answer was always the same. God told them to not buy the books. Not once did any LDS family get a yes from God to buy those great books for kids.

One can only conclude that either God hates children’s books or…

The members are picking up the programming from the thoughtform that governs the church.

I think it is the latter because I’m sure God would have liked the books.

Now does this mean that all prayers are answered from a computer-generated thoughtform? No. Now and then a sincere seeker will break through the barriers and make a true spiritual contact. Unfortunately, this is the exception and not the rule.

Now don’t think the Mormons are unique in having rationalizing thoughtforms. All of us are exposed to them and it takes a very spiritually independent person to recognize them for what they are.

Question:

So what about atheists and non believers? Are they influenced by thoughtforms? Are they also controlled by the Beast? If so, where do the thoughtforms come from?

Aug 16, 2014

The Beast 106

The Question:

So what about atheists and non believers? Are they influenced by thoughtforms? Are they also controlled by the Beast? If so, where do the thoughtforms come from?

Looks like the group realizes that atheists and non believers are influenced by thoughtforms. And yes, they are influenced by a thoughtform around Darwinism and anti religious rhetoric, but that is not where they are most powerfully influenced. Since they do not believe in God or trust in Him they believe in man and the power that he has. And what is the greatest source of humanity’s power?

Government.

Political thoughtforms are very powerful, especially the ones on the Left. Many on the Right are controlled by the thoughtforms governing their religious thinking and do not have a lot of attention left over to give to political thoughtforms. If they get involved in politics it is usually because something about their faith is involved, such as abortion, gay rights, drugs etc.

On the other hand, non believers and those not involved in religion do not pay much attention to religious thoughtforms. This frees their attention up to be captivated by powerful thoughtforms in other areas.

Assignment:

Contemplate what the wording of the most powerful political thoughtform would be and submit it to the group.

What other powerful thoughtforms are out there besides that of religion and politics? How are people controlled by them?

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE