The Passion that Devours

The Passion that Devours

Let us continue to examine Revelation Chapter 12.

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.” Revelation 12:3

John looks again into heaven, or higher consciousness, and sees a “red dragon.” Red comes from PURRHOS which literally means “the color of fire.” This fiery dragon represents that part of the disciple and his fellow workers, which has a fiery passion to achieve and to see his work achieve its place in history. Externally, history is represented by the seven heads, which are seven ages of time through which seven kingdoms pass. The ten horns represent ten political divisions of the world and the crowns represent the world religions.

Internally the seven heads represent the seven centers the disciple has mastered and now has access to their divine powers.

The ten horns with crowns represent the ten petals of the solar plexus. This center is the seat of desire and represents the fiery red passion to aspire and succeed in the eyes of the world.

But one may reason that a disciple who has progressed this far would be beyond the need for recognition of the world. He is in the normal sense. He has no conscious desire for personal recognition, for wealth or comfort. He has dedicated his all to the service of humanity. Even so, his solar plexus energies are alive and well and his fiery passion has to go somewhere so he, as well as his followers, direct this desire energy toward his baby or creation. All the workers are passionate about seeing that his work secures a place in history and is recognized by the kingdoms of the world. The workers tell themselves they desire this for the glory of God, but a portion of the ego still remains and an unrecognized part of them wants some recognition from the world also.

“And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.” Revelation 12:4

The stars stand for the fixed beliefs and established faith the disciple and his associates have had over a long period of time. The fiery desire to see the birth of the work causes part of that which they saw securely in heaven to be cast to the earth. In other words, the disciple sees that he must synthesize heaven and earth, God and mammon, the spiritual and the worldly and the ideal and the practical to secure the birth of the child.

One third of the workers’ beliefs are altered or seemingly compromised and cast down, to be incorporated in the world of men. In this attempt to beat the devil at his own game he finds that his course of action brings the creative female energies before the altar of the dragon of worldly wisdom “to devour her child as soon as it was born.”

He sees that if the spiritual creation is incorporated into the wisdom of the world it will be devoured and no longer exist.

“And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.” Revelation 12:5

As the disciple precariously attempts to bring heaven and earth as well as spirit and worldly wisdom together the creation manifests. At the birth powerful desire manifests, especially in the workers associated with the disciple. The workers quarrel among themselves and fight about how the creation is to be incorporated into the world.

The disciple sees that if the creation is to eventually rule in all nations, and be accepted in purity, that it must be lifted up above the desire nature of the solar plexus passions “unto God, and to his throne.”

He thus teaches about the creation from the vantage point of the soul, divorced from lower desire. He knows he will lose many workers at first, but to save the child he must elevate the work to the level of spiritual vibration or catch it “up unto God, and to his throne.”

Spiritually, the throne of God is the center between the eyebrows. Concentrating focus here brings the spirit of revelation and intuitive knowledge. Feeding the child with such spiritual food will protect it from being devoured by the dragon of passion and desire.

“And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Revelation 12:6

The mothering instinct of the disciple realizes the work cannot survive if all the builders are full of desire, discord, aspiration and passion to blend with the world. He seeks to flee from those who destroy the creation with their misled desires and take with him those with soul contact who have risen above the lower self to initiate this phrase of the work.

These are fed by the soul, or God, for 1260 days or three and a half years, or periods of time. Again, we see that time period of three and a half.

Next we read:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Revelation 12:7-9


  • What caused the war in heaven?
  • What was the war in heaven?
  • What’s the meaning behind Michael?
  • What cast the dragon out of heaven?

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him. John Viscount Morley

Jan 10, 2006

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:

The Game of Life

The Game of Life

A reader says this: If time and space is a creation. Then above time and space is where God Is. Experience involves time. Without time everything IS. Future, past and present. Including all experience within that.

JJ: Without time there is no future, past and present. We incarnate into time just as we incarnate into space and matter. When we leave our body behind, we are no longer controlled by or use that body. The same goes for time. When you leave time behind, time still exists, just as the matter of a body exists when left behind. Time still goes on in the lower worlds when you are in the higher. It does not cease to be any more than the earth ceases to be after you die.

Reader: Experience then, to one free of time/space is the end result of all that experience,

JJ: The purpose of experience is to master time and space and then to joyfully savor the experience during periods of pralaya. Experience without time, space and form is something no one has been able to describe, outside of saying it must  be wonderful.

Reader: Why can’t I just decide to be in Nirvana?

Buddha reached nirvana in consciousness while he was here yet he had the same limitations of time and space as you do.

It is a fact that we are here in consciousness. It does little good to wish we were over there when we are here. If you want to go over there you build a bridge, but one must realize that a good bridge is not built overnight.

Reader: You say we are here to have a good time. But I think I would have a better time in Nirvana beyond time and space.

JJ: Since you cannot even imagine or describe what it would be like to be beyond time and space, what makes you think you would enjoy it more?

Your soul has placed you in the spot where you have the greatest opportunity for progress and joy. Don’t miss it by shooting beyond the mark. If you are making a trip of 1000 miles you have to cross the 100 mile mark first.

Reader: You make out that God is not complete by saying the plan is not materialized. but how do you know this?

Because creation continues. God will never be complete; therefore, He will always create. We should be thankful for this, else we wouldn’t be here.

If you want to understand God then look at yourself, who is in the image and likeness of God. Are you complete to the point where you just want to sit back, relax and do nothing for eternity except bask in your completeness? I don’t think so. There are periods of rest and absorption, but not completeness.

Reader: IT would seem GOD must be free and complete to be god.

Are you free and complete? You are in the image of God. You are his reflection. You must also consider that the use of the word “complete” is relative. You may build a two bedroom home and say it is complete when finished, but then after you have a couple kids you discover that the house does not completely satisfy your needs so you move on a something new to complete.

Even so, God’s creation is complete in the fact that all needs are presently fulfilled but as creation expands that which is complete changes. In other words, there is no ultimate completeness.

Reader: If This is god. Without time/space. We should share this infinite experience, infinite wisdom etc with this God, being it ourself. And we should be in It’s position, which is of an eternal and perfect nature. This I would describe as God being. If God is striving to be this. Not even God is God. But merely something that is blind and limited from the fullness of truth.

JJ: You are looking at God the way orthodoxy has told you to believe in him. Orthodoxy knows nothing about God except that something is either up there or in here.

The higher realms are in the very space where you live and breathe. All that is needed is to lift your consciousness up to find them. Experience stimulates this.

Perfection and imperfection can only exist in the worlds of time, space and form. Many call God perfect, but cannot define what that means without using time, space, form and lower consciousness.

Reader: And so we should be at this point of liberation in completeness and fullness of god. but we are not.

JJ: We should be where we are right now. “Should” only applies to tomorrow. You can plan a new location for the future, but since you can’t change the present, you might as well accept what is and plow with the horses you have. Any other plan will lead to frustration. I do not get frustrated because I accept what IS, but do not accept what others say WILL BE. I will become that which I decide to become.

Reader: Limitation is not always a good time. Far better is the power of being unlimited and having a good time.

JJ: And playing Monopoly is frustrating at times, but the pitfalls and limitations are necessary to make a game interesting. Would you rather play Monopoly or a game that is fully under your control where you will win each time? Such a game never sells because people do not enjoy it.

You sound like you need a get out of jail card so you can move ahead and enjoy the game.

Reader: You say soul is here at different points gaining consciousness through experience. Yet if soul is connected separateness is an illusion. Therefore, the experience of that soul is not separate, nor can its age be. In this way you are contradicting yourself.

JJ: Visualize soul energy as an ocean and us as the fish. All fish in the ocean are connected by the same universal water, but they are still distinct fish. Now the Solar Angel, which is also sometimes called the soul is an advanced entity who assists you and is linked to other solar angels through the vibrations of the waters of space. There is no contradiction.

Reader: If time was a linear process only then time would not be changeable. Time is indeed changeable from it’s linear perspective as has been proven before.

JJ: I’m not sure what you mean. I see no evidence that you can change time. Time is motion. You can change motion as it is headed toward the future, but not the past.

Reader: So my question would be. Why are we not already free? What binds us exactly? IF we have a lack of something, why is it so? If God has a lack of something, why is it so? Why do we not have liberation.

JJ: You are not free because after creating countless situations and rising above them, God sat down and really racked his brain and created a situation that would supremely test his intelligence to the max to free himself. You are in this situation with the intelligence of God within you, but it will take a while to solve the riddles, win the game and return home.

Keep moving ahead. When we obtain the victory, we will all celebrate, rest for a while and then create a more challenging game than ever.

You can’t help someone get up a hill without getting closer to the top yourself. H. Norman Schwarzkopf (1934 – )

Jan 9, 2006

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:

The Truth is True

The Truth is True

A reader comments: After reading your comments on truth I must contemplate out loud here.

What is not true? 1+1=3 is not true. But it is true that it is not true. Yet If I say 1+1=3. I can think it is true. And that thought creates a truth about it.

JJ: A thought about something being true does not make it true, or even close to the truth. Thinking that something, which is false, as being true, is illusion, not truth, though seeing a falsehood accurately is seeing truth.

Reader: The fact it is an illusion that its true is true.

JJ: This is true. But seeing a falsehood as being false, is true seeing. Seeing a falsehood as being true is untrue or false vision.

Reader: BUT as a dream concept it was true for the time I thought it was true according to my experience.

JJ: 1+1=3 is not even true in your dreams.

Reader: So it can be true that I once thought it true and experienced it as true.

JJ: Only truth can be experienced as true. The reason for this is when one registers truth correctly the truth reverberates with his soul and the experience has a reality that feels much differently than an experience fraught with illusion. A falsehood experienced as being true only registers with the emotional body and physical brain whereas real truth is also experienced on higher levels.

One can be captivated by falsehood and think it is true but such a person will be internally bewildered. Then another will focus on the truth that is seen (even though he knows not all truth) and he will have a sense of moving in the right direction and be satisfied.

Reader: It is false and that is true,

JJ: It is true that a falsehood is false, but that does not make that which is false, true. It is true that 1+1 does not equal three, but that does not make it equal three.

JJ: But it was also true for me.

JJ: 1+1=3 is never true for anyone. They can feel it is true, but that doesn’t make it true. You can feel that your stock will go up tomorrow but when it goes down instead, there is no way to cash in for a profit.

Reader: And all that is true. Despite the fact it is false. nothing about anything of this is not true. Whatever angle you look at it.

JJ: 1+1 does not equal three from any angle.

Reader: So is anything really not true?

JJ: 1+1=3

Reader: Am I just aligning my thoughts of the formless, and recognizing truth as something that is nothing?

JJ: Where there is nothing there is no truth except that there is nothing. Fortunately, there is no state where there is nothing. Something is always going on in the life of God.

Reader: I think truth is just another word for reality…

JJ: Exactly right. That which is true is merely an accurate description or representation of reality, or the foundations thereof.

Reader: Can it be defined? Only in your mind.

JJ: We just defined it with our minds.

Reader: What is really outside yourself? Nothing. Neither can truth be.

JJ: But there is truth outside of your body where your consciousness is centered. You are outside my body and it is true we are having interplay.

Reader: What is objective? Nothing.

JJ: Anything with form is objective.

Reader: So truth is a subjective objective concept.

JJ: You’re making things too complicated. Anything that is experienced is a true experience. Even a dream produces a true experience. I still recall some interesting experiences I had in dreams.

Reader: In effect, my perception will never reach you, only your perception.

JJ: Through the soul your perception can reach others, but through the personality there is always distortion.

Reader: BUT The real question is this… Why do you need to evolve, what are you gaining really? A good time.

If there is one source. And all that exists. Shouldn’t it follow that this source is already everything it is going to be?

No. Life would go into non being and nothingness if there were no expansion.

Reader: Because it just IS. How can it be less than itself?

JJ: Nothing is less than itself including your dog.

Reader: How can it gain more than what it already is?

JJ: How is it that Bill Gates is richer today than he was ten years ago?

Reader: It does not seem logical that it would be able to gain something out of something it was not already.

JJ: If something, which was not in form, now identifies with form, it is logical that a new experience can be gained from it.

Reader: Isn’t it just what it is? As a result. Are we really evolving?

Yes, we are really evolving. DK says this about our state after attaining final liberation:

“Life is now liberated, owning the quality of conscious knowledge and the fruit of all experience. These are the gifts of soul and form combined.” Esoteric Healing, Page 502

These gifts will remain with us.

Reader: Shouldn’t we already be at the state we are already going to be? According to what the source is.

No. That would take all the fun out of evolution and the idea is to have a good time, or a fun experience. Of course, even in a fun game like Monopoly there are pitfalls, but they are necessary ingredients for a good game.

Reader: How can we gain anything if it all comes from the source that supports all it would follow that everything just exists as an eternal picture. Just is and always has been.

The picture, or story, is just the plan. We are actors in the picture making it materialize and, in the process, have a unique experience. Experience is the key motivator that keeps the life within us coming back for more as long as we see a benefit.

Reader: This is why soul evolution and the age of souls has never made sense to me. How can one soul be more experienced? When both are the same age. Part of the same source. Soul is just one being.

JJ: Both are not the same age. The idea in the mind of God, which is you, never had a beginning, but the idea incarnating into the worlds where experience can be had did have a beginning. The projection of your monad as a soul had a beginning and there are many beginnings for souls. Some souls are older than others as far as experience goes.

Reader: Why can’t I know infinite truth at this moment?

JJ: All truth is infinite. You know that 1+1=2 and that is infinitely true.

Reader: What stops me? Isn’t everything just one big source of itself? I should be able to know it then, since I am it.

You are a reflection of the One God, but it takes many experiences to know ourselves in our consciousness. Consciousness is created by experience and if you do not have the necessary experience all the seeking in the world will add little. We all have to take one step at a time to add to our experience, thus adding to our consciousness, making higher awareness possible.

Who wants to experience the end of a good movie and bypass the beginning and the middle? You miss all the enJOYment, and joy is why we are here.

Reader: At least you would think you could be yourself and know yourself. But no……something seriously does not seem right here.

JJ: Your soul is a higher part of yourself, which is a reflection of your monad, which is one with God. Because we decided to project into time and space we have to go through a process to return. As you move forward in experience you are a different personality self here than you were a short time ago. Which self are you talking about when speaking of just being yourself? Forget self and move forward in experience until the desire of your soul is satisfied. Then you will rest in peace and prepare for your next adventure.

Reader: I guess I’m just trying to understand what I can’t possibly understand.

JJ: You can understand but you are looking the wrong direction. You are experiencing a boring part of the play of life and just want to skip to the end and be done with it. What needs to be realized is that if you were more aware there would be no boredom.

Visualize a movie like Star Wars where you are Luke Skywalker living a boring existence on a barren planet.

It seems like your life there will be uneventful and has little meaning. BUT, if you realized you were a player in a story line and could see a ways into the future, boredom would flee out the window. The script will provide many points of tension making sure the player will be anything but bored.

Each of us are actors in a story, but some of the more experienced also participate in writing the script. Then with more control the enjoyment increases.

Either way, in the end, each of us will wipe our brow and exclaim, “What an experience!”

Once that experience is gained, even if painful, would any of us be willing to trade it for a non-event?


I must speak the truth even about falsehood. – R.N. Tagore

Jan 6, 2006

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:

The Wonder in Heaven

The Wonder in Heaven

We need to read the first six verses to obtain a beginning picture of the next presentation.

“And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

“And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Rev 12:1-6

The orthodox view here is that the woman is the either Mary, the church or Israel. The man child is Jesus and the lifting up of the child to the throne is the ascension. After the ascension the church had to flee to the wilderness and hide because of persecution.

As I previously mentioned, there will be cycles where a physical fulfillment seems to fit. This is helpful, well and good, but those looking for an exact fit in physical reality will always come up short.

Let us look at the standard interpretations of the woman.

(1) Mary, the mother of Jesus. If we take this literally, then, before the birth of Christ, Mary was in heaven clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and with a crown of twelve stars. How does this description fit Mary before Jesus was born? It doesn’t seem to.

(2) The Church. We are told the woman gave birth to the apparent Messiah. The opposite is true if the woman is the church. Jesus gave birth to the church.

(3) Israel. This is the closest correspondence but not exact. For instance, Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The scripture gives no indication of the woman rejecting her offspring.

When we study this chapter in the light of the orthodox view it also seems out of place. Most of the vision so far seems to have been of the future, yet this chapter appears to switch back into the past for no apparent reason.

But, the interesting thing is, when we study the book in light of the unveiling of Christ within the life of the disciple (rather than the unfolding of the future) everything fits together with much more precision and the picture of the whole makes sense.

The first question we, therefore, must ask is what or who is this woman seen in heaven who was pregnant and brought forth a child?

To understand, let us repeat verse one:

“And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:”

John saw many amazing things in heaven, but this woman was “a great wonder.” What other great being did John see?

He saw God sitting upon a throne.

So we have two great beings seen in the vision: God, the Father and “a woman clothed with the sun.” It is interesting that God also covers himself with “light as a garment,” (Psalms 104:2) just as does the woman.

And where were these two beings?

In heaven.

And how do we see into heaven?

By soul contact the disciple opens the door to higher consciousness and revelation. When this door is open he discovers the God within, the Father sitting upon the throne within the head. He perceives the Will of God and begins a great work to manifest that Will. His labor is followed by two witnesses, which are his Words and his Works. Orthodoxy tries to destroy them, but cannot. The teacher’s eternal Words and Works take hold and gain a foothold in the consciousness of humanity.

At this point, the second great wonder is seen in heaven. The disciple sees that God is much more than a male entity sitting upon a throne, but works through female energy every bit as much as the male.

Male energy is a radiating, sending energy; female energy is a magnetic and receiving energy. The disciple has worked hard, being inspired by the vision of a Father God, but now he sees the great truth of the Mother God in heaven, or higher consciousness.

He has previously understood, somewhat, the duality of God. The vision is much more than a mere glimpse of the masculine and feminine side of God, but a realization of how the two energies create. He realizes that his work so far has used mostly male energy. In this energy he has been a sower of the seeds of life. He sees that the season of sowing is over and, almost without him noticing, the period of gestation of seed in the female side has been silently occurring.

This woman is “clothed with the sun.” The disciple sees a great light when he realizes the work of the female energy is bringing his work to fruition.

She has the “moon under her feet.” The moon is a symbol of desire and emotional energy. To use the full powers of creation the disciple must have full control of his desires and emotions and direct them toward higher creation dedicated to the service of humanity.

“…and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”

The center at the top of the head consists of twelve major petals, which surround 960 lesser petals. The female aspect must be seen in heaven, or higher consciousness, to fully use the power from these twelve petals. These twelve petals in the head are in tune with the twelve petals in the heart; they give the disciple on the path of Christ all power in heaven and on earth. The synthesis of male/female energies provides a direct link from heaven, or Spirit, to earth.

People ask for criticism, but they only want praise. W. Somerset Maugham (1874 – 1965)

Jan 5, 2006

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:

The Good Old Days

The Good Old Days

Read this and count your blessing you live now rather than a in 1905 – not that far back.


The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years.

Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

A three-minute call from Denver to New York City cost eleven dollars. ($30 in 2022)

There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S., and only 144 miles of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily populated than California.

With a mere 1.4 million residents, California was only the 21st most populous state in the Union.

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower!

The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents an hour.

The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year.

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist $2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at home.

Ninety percent of all U.S. Physicians had no college education.

Instead, they attended medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and by the government as “substandard.”

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law prohibiting poor people from entering the country for any reason.

The five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:

[1] Pneumonia and influenza

[2] Tuberculosis

[3] Diarrhea

[4] Heart disease

[5] Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars.

Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska hadn’t been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was 30!!!

Nicola Tesla was introducing Alternating Current.

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn’t been invented.

There was no Mother’s Day or Father’s Day.

Two of 10 U.S. adults couldn’t read or write.

Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated high school.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at corner drugstores.

According to one pharmacist, “Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.” (Shocking!)

Eighteen percent of households in the U.S had at least one full-time servant or domestic.

Jan 2, 2006

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:

Good and Bad Lucifers

Good and Bad Lucifers

A reader questioned my use of the word “Lucifer” in the past and wondered why I didn’t have a problem with Alice A. Bailey and Madame Blavatsky using it in a positive light.

The Bible itself uses the name in a positive light. Here are some words from none other than Peter: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.” II Peter 1:19

The words “day star” are translated from the Greek word for Lucifer which is PHOSPHOROS.

Now let us retranslate: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and Lucifer arise in your hearts.” If Lucifer refers to the devil himself maybe the Christian world should burn their Bibles.

Another variation of Lucifer is Morning star. Note the actual promise of Jesus to the faithful: “And I will give him the morning star.” Rev 2:28 Evidently Jesus will give us the power of Lucifer.

Even more shocking Jesus calls himself a Lucifer: “I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” Rev 22:16 Let us retranslate this: “I am the root and the offspring of David, and Lucifer.” Rev 22:16

Morning Star is only translated as Lucifer once in most Bibles as follows: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north.” Isaiah 14:12-13

Even here most Bible scholars believe Lucifer does not refer to Satan but to the king of Babylon which was addressed by Isaiah. Nevertheless, Isaiah often spoke with dual meaning and this has a definite correspondence to a fallen being.

The English “Lucifer” is from a Roman word applied to the Hebrew HEYLEL and the GREEK PHOSPHOROS which literally means “One who brings or carries forth light.” It could also be translated as “one who is able to hold light.”

Now let us see what the Mormon scriptures tell us about this name. Outside of Isaiah the name is only used once here: “And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son. And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him-he was Lucifer, a son of the morning. And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!” D&C 76:25-27

Notice here that Lucifer was “a” son of the Morning, NOT “the” Son of the Morning.” Also notice that it says he “was” Lucifer not “is.” He is fallen and no longer can be called a “Son of the Morning.” What is a son of the morning?

It is a being who was with God at the beginning, or morning, of time as we know it.

The name, Lucifer, which refers to a son of the morning, is not the name of one evil being, but is a reference to pristine and holy ancient beings who were conscious creators before this earth rolled into existence.

Here is another reference to the Lucifers: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars (Lucifers) sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job38:4-7

Now, here is a thought. If the Lucifer that fell lost his status and there is more than one Lucifer (or bringer of light) – that means there may be some good ones out there somewhere.

Lucifer also refers to Venus and for good reason. It has been called the bright and Morning star for thousands of years. When it is visible it will often be the only star (or planet) visible in the early morning light.

Brigham Young made the interesting statement that the first man (the first Adam) came from another planet and that he had already passed through human existence and had overcome all things and became exalted. After he came here, he took upon himself mortality to father the race of mankind.

Then he also made the statement that Adam was our God, “the only God with whom we have to do.” This harmonizes well with the writings of Bailey and Blavatsky who also teach that the first man came from another planet. They tell us that the Ancient of Days, Sanat Kumara, came here from Venus (the morning star) 23 million years ago.

They also teach that he once lived as a mortal man like ourselves in another system eons ago and came here to be a father and God to the human race.

When the Ancient of Days came here, he arrived with a number of morning stars called Kumaras. Here are Alice A. Bailey’s writings about the one who we call the fallen Lucifer: “In every grouping,-whether in heaven or on earth-there is always evidenced a tendency by some units in the group to revolt, to rebel and to show some form of initiative different to that of the other units in the same grouping. When our solar universe came into being, we are told in the allegorical language of the ancient scriptures, there “was war in Heaven”; “the sun and his seven brothers” did not function with true unanimity; hence (and herein lies a hint) our Earth is not one of the seven sacred planets. There is, as we know, the ancient legend of the lost Pleiade, and there are many such stories.

“Again, in the council chamber of the Most High, there has not always been peace and understanding, but at times, war and disruption; this is made abundantly clear by several of the stories in the Old Testament. Symbolically speaking, some of the sons of God fell from their high estate, led, at one time, by “Lucifer, Son of the Morning”. This “fall of the angels” was a tremendous event in the history of our planet, but was nevertheless only a passing and interesting phenomenon in the history of the solar system, and a trifling incident in the affairs of the seven constellations, of which our solar system is but one. Pause and consider this statement for a moment, and so readjust your sense of values. The standard of happenings varies in importance according to the angle of vision, and what (from the angle of our Earth’s unfoldment in consciousness) may be a factor of prime importance and of determining value may (from the angle of the universe) be of trifling moment.” Esoteric Psychology Vol I, Pages 394-395

Because the name Lucifer is now so rigidly associated with evil instead of light few dare use the term openly, but originally Lucifer was a glorious title.

Even now it is a glorious thing to bring light to others. This principle is behind the entire concept of salvation as we covered earlier.

HPB didn’t use the word to identify her group with evil, but partially to “tweak” the Christians of the time as well as present the word in its true meaning. Alice A. Bailey also used it as the originating name of her organization, but caught a lot of heat from those who go with the popular meaning and changed the name to Lucis – meaning light.

The worst sin – perhaps the only sin – passion can commit, is to be joyless. Dorothy L. Sayers (1893 – 1957), Gaudy Night

Dec 28, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:

Gaps in Logic

Gaps in Logic

An LDS reader comments: JJ wrote that “perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion”

so is this correct:

Joseph Smith taught that all little children who die before the age of accountability will be saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

So if I truly love my children, it is logical that i will kill them before they reach that age. this is the true ultimate sacrifice, for I guarantee their salvation but it cost me eternity in hell.

JJ: You are giving a concrete challenge. This is what I am looking for to illustrate my point.

Unfortunately, many people in the past in and out of the LDS church, have actually used such flawed logic and killed their children and loved ones. Their warped reasoning has led them to kill children to either ensure their salvation or to save them from a spouse or poor circumstances in this life.

Everyone with an ounce of soul contact knows this is wrong and a greater than Joseph Smith said:

“And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. Matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matt 18:5  

It is certainly an offense to a child to kill him.

That said, let us examine your statement and see if perfect (or even reasonable) logic was used.

“Joseph Smith taught that all little children who die before the age of accountability will be saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.”

The first step in logic (as I see it) is to examine the premise, for Joseph Smith also said that if we start wrong, we will end wrong.

It appears that you are just assuming this is a true statement. Why? And if children are saved in the Celestial kingdom, then how long will this salvation last? Will it just last until a time comes to reincarnate again on the earth?

We all realize that mortal experience is extremely valuable. Most likely, the loss of this experience is a greater detriment to the child than the benefit of an unknown period in the celestial kingdom or some type of paradise.

Perhaps Joseph was just completely wrong or there was a great gap in presenting the complete picture.

What does logic tell us about the statement?

It is this: That it would be wrong to condemn a child to hell when he didn’t even realize he did anything wrong; therefore it seems just that the child would end up in a heavenly location after death.

BUT, this is not enough to conclude you are doing a child a favor by denying him the joys of life and sending him to the other worlds in his innocence.

Your conclusion from the iffy premise says: “So if I truly love my children, it is logical that I will kill them before they reach that age. This is the true ultimate sacrifice, for I guarantee their salvation but it cost me eternity in hell.”

Logic tells us that you do not know you are doing them more good than harm. What are the drawbacks of a forced derailment of the path of the soul? Mormonism doesn’t address this and with this gap in knowledge it would be illogical to take the life of a child.

What do we know for sure about the importance of a child’s life?

We know this, that God placed in adults, especially parents, a natural instinct to protect children and preserve their lives.

In addition, God has placed in each of us a natural instinct to preserve our own lives.

Obviously, this instinct is in place because nature dictates that it is better to live to the natural end of our lives than to artificially end them.

Conclusion: Based on what is most probably correct your statement is far from perfect reason or use of logic for the premise presents an incomplete picture..

Our previous reader continues: “The science of correct or reliable reasoning…”

This is correct if one actually knows the details. This science is primarily concerned with the form of correct arguments. It is concerned with what makes “reliable reasoning” given a set of premises. The study of logic itself though is not about the validity of the premises themselves (there are other areas in philosophy that are concerned with that).

JJ The various dictionaries I checked gave several definitions of the word logic. Many give four or five. Their method is to list as number one the most popular use and application of the word. Then number two is the second most common etc.

The definitions I gave yesterday from the various dictionaries were all from the number one definition. On the other hand, it appears that your use of the word as “a formal and structured system of reasoning or argument” applies to a lesser used definition, usually in second, third or even fourth place, but never first.

The problem I see with our communication is that I am using the word in its most popular and accepted usage and you are using it as it pertains to a school of thought taught in specific logic courses in college.

If we continue to do this both of us will be beating our heads against the wall in frustration.

We need to both use the same definition if we are to get anywhere.

As I said I agree with the prime definition from my Random House Dictionary which reads:

“The science of correct or reliable reasoning…”

Now formal logic as taught in college will stress the “correct” part and ignore the “reliable.” I stress the “reliable” part for if logic is reliable (that is it leads to correct conclusions) then it is automatically indicative that the logic was “correct.”

In a college course what is and is not correct is always stressed for this makes it easier to give a grade. You can be as reliable as God and not be correct in the professor’s eyes and receive a failing grade.

The logic I deal with in my teachings have one criteria for the test of its validity. Do the results end in a conclusion that appeals to the highest of mind, soul and spirit as being true?

One must also keep in mind that my logic has wide appeal to students because many times I use it to bring down to earth that which I have received intuitively through The Oneness Principle. Since higher principles are always logical this means that I can always defend them with logic and reasoning.

Reader: However, I do predict that when/if your teachings gain wider acceptance that you will be roundly ridiculed and lampooned for what you have said on this subject. I say that as a friend. I have done my best to try to warn you.

JJ: Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Lincoln, Jefferson were all great exponents of my brand of logic and any lampooning of them usually makes the lampooner look ridiculous. I expect this to also be the case as far as my teachings go.

The difference here and with other groups is if I were to say something that doesn’t register with the highest my supporters know they will generally challenge me and demand both a logical and spiritual explanation.

Of course, the second key of judgement must always be considered. It is best to have one’s attention on seeing truth rather than seeing error. If one’s attention is on seeing error then much truth will be missed and eventually only error will be seen.

If one concentrates on seeing truth with the attitude that error is possible then the truth will be seen and only essential error will come to light.

Why do I use the phrase “essential error?” Because there are many things of little or no significance that can be pointed out or argued as error that will not lead to further light, but just be a distraction. The student should therefore concentrate on essential error, of which the correction will lead to further light and truth. Non-essential error (which may not even be error) can lead to a battle of egos to win an argument and usually ends with no further light gained. Sometimes in the process new teachings will surface often not related to the starting point and this can be a benefit.

That said, let us move forward.

The Reader quotes my challenge. “The truth is always logical. Any false conclusion always involves flawed logic. Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion.”

First let me say that we cannot fault the reader (or anyone else) for accepting my challenge for I did give it out.

And don’t worry about anyone leading me into a trap. If someone can do that to me, I deserve to be embarrassed.

The Reader continues: This just occurred to me. Can you explain this?

About the only place that I have found anything that appears to approach the standard of “perfect logic” is in the field of mathematics. It is pretty hard to refute “2+2=4” and other apparently self-evident truths of mathematics.

I presume you know what this number is?


It is the so-called irrational number PI to the first eight places.

Now mathematicians have used very powerful computers to find the value of PI out to over a million places and reportedly have found no repetition or end in sight. It would seem that PI goes on forever – to infinity.

So if a thing has a beginning, then it must have an end. Only if a thing has no beginning can it have no end.

PI has a beginning. But apparently it has no end.

What is wrong with this “perfect logic”?

JJ: Before we continue let me comment on my use of the word “perfect” here for it seems to have become a stumbling block and a diversion all on its own.

Here is basically the meaning I intended to covey with the word “perfect.”: “The highest possible logic, containing no ascertainable flaw in reasoning.

Concerning your statement the logic is not quite perfect, or beyond the ascertaining of a flaw. The word “apparently” is close but not the most accurate to use.

Let us make a comparable statement and examine it.

“I shot an arrow into the air. Apparently, it went on forever.”

OR “I shined a light into space. Apparently, it is going on forever.”

In looking at these two examples the question that must be asked is “apparent to what?”

In the first case it was apparent to the eyes. You watched the arrow and couldn’t see it land. It appeared to continue forever.

BUT if we bring in other factors then such a thing is not apparent. Newton’s laws of gravity alone tell us that apparent is the wrong word here. When we consider all the facts it is not “apparent” that the arrow will continue forever but will be brought down to earth by gravity and friction.

Now let us take the second example:

I shined a light into space. Apparently, it is going on forever.

To the casual observer it may seem really apparent that a light will continue forever for neither gravity nor friction prevent it from going on forever. In fact, we have seen light that is over 13 billion years old. This means that these photons moved through space for 13 billion years before they reached an end. During all this time it seemed they would go on forever, but they did not. When they finally landed upon condensed matter they reached an end.

If we therefore take the laws of probability into account it becomes apparent that all light will eventually collide with matter somewhere in the universe and reach an end. In many cases it will take longer than 13 billion years, but the time will come even if it has to wait until the end of the universe when all collapses into a giant black hole.

When we take everything into consideration, we can more accurately reword the above two statements:

Instead of: I shot an arrow into the air. Apparently, it went on forever.

It should read: I shot an arrow into the air and it continued in flight beyond my ability to track it with my vision.

Instead of: I shined a light into space. Apparently, it is going on forever.

It should read: I shined a light into space and have no way of calculating when it shall reach an end.

Now let us take your statement: Instead of:

PI has a beginning. But apparently it has no end.

It should read: The attempt of the human race to calculate PI had a beginning and the attempt will have an end just as the human race will eventually have an end. It is unknown whether or not the final attempt will discover the exact number representing the perfect circle. This does not mean the exact number does not exist. There are no means available to prove that the exact number for PI does or does not exist.

In the world of mathematical concepts, the perfect circle does exist, has always existed and will always exist. Therefore, PI is also eternal as a principle.

I am absolutely convinced that the North Koreans are absolutely sincere. There’s really no reason for them to cheat [on nukes]….I looked them right in the eyes. And they looked like they meant the truth. You know, just because somebody’s done something wrong in the past doesn’t mean they can’t do right in the future or the present. That happens all the time. Ted Turner (example of terrible logic)

Dec 26, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:

Reasonable Logic

Reasonable Logic

Reader: I highly respect many things you teach. As a teacher of truth you have been one of the most reliable I have known. I value your friendship. However sometimes I don’t think you always “play fair.”

JJ: Not playing fair is something I am rarely accused of as I always try and play as fair as possible. When someone sees me as not playing fair it is usually because I return similar tactics as my opponent uses in an attempt to nudge them to higher ground.

Reader: As a friend I see this as a fault, and I know that I most certainly have my own serious faults, among them a highly developed dislike of losing arguments. As a friend I think you sometimes share this fault with me. 🙂

JJ I do not mind losing an argument if I am wrong because it means I am learning something new. I may not appear to have this attitude and it is for this reason: I will not yield in an argument when my opponent presents no evidence that I am wrong and I see that I am standing on correct principles. It would be deceptive for me to deny that which I see as correct.

I will add this. I would much rather lose an argument in dealing with principles than one that involves defining terms and words. If I lose the former then I attain a higher understanding of a principle. If I lose the latter, I learn some new data with marginal usefulness.

Also, about half the arguments in this group occur because the other person is not clearly seeing what I (or someone else is saying) so I will stand in there until what is being communicated is understood. Correct communication will often show there was no argument to begin with, but only a misunderstanding or the two having a different definition of words.

I’d say in about half of our arguments there was really no disagreement but misunderstanding instead.

Reader: Please accept the following as the criticism of a friend.

Quoting JJ: “One never has full knowledge so I guess everything every person does is prejudiced in your view.”

This one sentence pretty much illustrates one of your most annoying traits. You are much like a lawyer (that is not a compliment) who breaks down everything that someone else says and micro-analyzes every word to try to show that someone is saying something different than what they intended.

JJ But I was throwing back to you the same thing you did to me.

Let me repeat the statement you made that drew such a response: “I can appreciate your experience with some “logicians,” however to say “I wouldn’t waste my time” sounds to me like a particularly prejudiced approach (“prejudice” as to “pre-judge without full knowledge”).”

Instead of accepting my statement at face value you pulled the attorney thing yourself and dissected my statement and found unjustified fault with it. You also created a straw man which was a nonexistent prejudiced JJ from which to base your argument. You have little idea of the vantagepoint from which I based my decision to not spend time with a course in logic, thus you have no idea if I am prejudiced or not. You have also created a second straw man of extending this to the idea that I do not think such a course is worthwhile for anyone when I have never said such a thing.

True prejudice always results in error and the way to show prejudice is to show the error rather than to proclaim it through a straw man argument.

The word “prejudice” is also an inflammatory and judgmental word to use that I would not use in return with you. If I thought you were prejudiced, I would attempt to illustrate it so you could see your error rather than to pronounce it upon you – unless I just wanted to cause irritation.

Reader: It is the classic case of not “seeing the forest for the trees.”

In logic “a straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To ‘set up a straw man’ is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument.”

JJ: I used no more of a straw man than you did. If you do not like the straw man then you shouldn’t force my hand by using it yourself.

Reader: Now let’s take your reply above. Do you REALLY suppose that I was saying that one must have FULL knowledge in the sense of ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE, and EXHAUSTIVE knowledge? Or do you think that perhaps you might give me some benefit of the doubt that I meant “full” in the sense of “sufficient,” or “full” in the sense of the kind of “full knowledge” one might have if one had studied a subject in some detail?

JJ: You accused me of being prejudiced for not having “full knowledge.” You did not give me the benefit of the doubt as far as my motive so I did not give it back to you. I was attempting to make you reflect on your approach, which seemed unfriendly.

Reader: No. You go on as if there is no doubt that I meant that one is prejudiced if they don’t have FULL, ABSOLUTE, and EXHAUSTIVE knowledge of the subject:

JJ: You’re the one who first said I was prejudiced because I did not have “full knowledge.”

Reader quoting me: “Actually, you only need partial knowledge to be fairly non-prejudicial.”

I should know from experience that one has to be incredibly careful in their choice of words in arguing with you because you will repeatedly use the “straw man” argument in one “micro analysis” after another. You will take one word – like this – and analyze it and impute the worst possible meaning to your opponent and then show how the straw man you have constructed is ridiculous.

JJ This is what I felt you did with me first.

Reader: In any case, and for the record, it is not my position that one must have FULL, ABSOLUTE, and EXHAUSTIVE knowledge to avoid prejudice. It IS my position that one must have at least some knowledge of a subject that comes from methodical study before one can declare it a waste of time.

JJ: If this is your stand then you have no real cause to call me prejudiced for I feel I had enough knowledge to make my decision and that I did not need “full knowledge” as you previously said.

Reader: Any reasonable person knows that humans almost ALWAYS work from partial knowledge. The question is whether the person has honestly tried to get sufficient knowledge before making a judgment. What constitutes “sufficient” is obviously also a matter of judgment and wisdom.

JJ: Yes, and why do you not give me the benefit of the doubt that I assessed the situation with honesty and made a reasonable judgement from my vantage point? Why jump to the conclusion that I am prejudiced when such accusation was not necessary in our communication?

You then give some of your thoughts on what you think logic is and how it works, most of which I have no problem.

Reader: I understand what you are saying, but your use of the word (logic) is not technically correct. It IS important to define your terms exactly.

JJ Is this another straw man? I did define my terms. I said I accepted my Random house dictionary definition, which is: “the science of correct or reliable reasoning.” I like this because it is concise to the point and short and sweet.

If you want more here are the first definitions (which are the most commonly used) from other dictionaries:

“The Science of reasoning; the science of the operations of the understanding subservient to the estimation of evidence, truths, or admitted propositions not previously admitted and all intellectual operations such as classifying and judging, subsidiary to this.” Websters Unabridged Twentieth Century Dictionary

“The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.”Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary Also exactly repeated in my American College Dictionary

“The normative science which investigates the principles of valid reasoning and correct inference, either from the general to the particular (deductive logic) or from the particular to the general (inductive logic).” Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary

“Theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning.” Encarta Dictionary

I have no problem with any of these definitions, but think the Random house is the most concise. I always use words as they are commonly understood unless I redefine or expand the definition to aid in communication.

Reader: It is important to understand that formal logic like a syllogism will tell you that your conclusion is absolutely true if the premises are true. Knowing that, then you can focus on the reliability of the premises as a separate issue, and not confuse that issue with the mechanism of taking the premises to a conclusion – which IS logic.

JJ: This may be what some college course teaches but what kind of logic would be transpiring to start with an illogical premise such as the moon is made of green cheese? The first step in practical logic is to examine the premise. If you do not do this then every definition I gave from the various dictionaries does not apply.

Quoting JJ “Logic tells you a lot about the premise.”

Reader: No. Reason, or rationality can tell you a lot about the premises.

JJ: Now who’s splitting hairs? You cannot reason without using some degree of logic and since the dictionary says logic is “the science of correct or reliable reasoning” then you cannot use logic without some degree of reasoning being involved.

You can’t use reason to discover the truth of a premise without applying some logic.

Reader: Again, we ALL use many of these word ambiguously all the time. But sometimes one needs to use precise definitions (and this is one case where one does need to).

JJ: I do not believe you have given a precise definition. Maybe this would help in our communication.

Reader: Again, this comes down to HOW were are using the word “logic,” and the fact that you refuse to accept that logic does have a very precise meaning.

JJ: The Random House dictionary has a precise definition to which I adhere. Do you have one? Why do you accuse me of not having a precise definition when I have given you one?

Reader: That meaning is NOT arbitrary.

Is us useful to separate how we argue GIVEN the premises, and the separate issue of how we evaluate the premises themselves.

JJ: There may be a minority school of thought that does not define logic as being connected to the premises, but what you are saying does not agree with the first definitions of the dictionaries quoted above – nor does it equate with the common use of the word “logic.” And finally, it is not a logical approach because it leads to erroneous conclusions. Logic is supposed to be an aid to reach correct conclusions. If you start with the accepted premise that the moon is made of  green cheese all results will be flawed so logic around this idea is useless.

Reader: It is useful because we CANNOT always prove our premises.

JJ: Then you are arguing with an unsubstantiated belief and cannot expect an accurate result.

Reader: It is useful because we can study the validity of argumentative methods SEPARATE from the validity of the premises.

JJ This is fine if you are taking a college course on such a thing, but such approach is miles away from the discovery of truth, which we are seeking here.

Reader: Again, what you are talking about is “reason” which is a much bigger thing that logic, which is only a part of “reason.”

JJ: No. If I say I am talking about logic then I am talking about logic. Of course, logic and reason are intertwined so you cannot completely isolate the two.

Reader quoting JJ “Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion.” I am still waiting for anyone to refute this.

Reader: If you accept the generally accepted meaning of “logic” then it has been refuted.

JJ: And this was done when and with what words?

Reader:The fallacy is that one CAN by reason – not speaking of revelation or intuition – reasonably know whether one’s premises are exactly true in all cases.

JJ: I never said this.

Reader: Imperfect human beings cannot create perfect logic. All logic is conditional on the imperfection of its practitioners.

JJ: Mathematics is perfect logic available to us all.

Reader: Basically what you are saying that if we have PERFECT knowledge of the truth of the premises, and then apply PERFECT logic then our conclusion must also be PERFECT.

JJ: No. That’s not what I am saying, but you must have a reasonable knowledge of the premise or the logic derived therefrom is useless. Perfect (or flawless) logic is much different than a perfect premise.

Reader: How is that helpful for imperfect beings?

JJ: Starting with a reasonable premise that is somewhat understood is very helpful to imperfect humans in the discovery of truth.

Reader: If God is itself not absolutely perfect (as you teach), but BECOMING, then how is it useful to speculate on PERFECT knowledge of premises, logic, etc?

JJ: You’re putting words in my mouth. I never talked about a perfect premise, but perfect logic.

Larry: How are we to understand your PERFECT LOGIC when elsewhere you reject the absolute perfection even of God?

JJ This is the straw man that you do not like. One has nothing to do with the other.

If you guess at a true or false question you logically have a 50/50 chance of being correct. Even if you choose incorrectly, you still used flawless logic in perfectly assessing your guess as having a 50% chance of being correct. The logic is flawless because it cannot be improved.

Flawless logic does not create perfection just as in this case flawless logic does not produce a perfect score on a test where the answers are unknown. You did, however, produce a perfect assessment of your chances of success.

God and man can both apply perfect logic and make many mistakes in time and space as they proceed toward the unknown. But the reasonable and logical person will correct his mistakes and move onward toward relative perfection.

Reader: JJ and I have argued repeatedly down the years over the meaning of words and ideas. Sometimes he has changed my mind. Sometimes he has not. But in the end I find we are amazingly close once the cloud of illusion that comes from trying to communicate is finally dispelled.

JJ: Yes, I think we are very close on most issues. We use a different approach to discovery and this causes some miscommunication and misunderstanding.

I think that if we seek to feel into each other’s hearts, souls and intent that many of our arguments will be solved before they surface.

Let me sum this up by saying this. What we have here is merely an apparent disagreement caused by how the two of us differently define our terms. If we both used the same definition of terms, I do not think we would disagree. I can see why college courses will use an illogical premise followed by logic, but that is not a helpful approach in the pursuit of truth. First one must carefully examine the premise.

To look backward for a while is to refresh the eye, to restore it, and to render it the more fit for its prime function of looking forward. Margaret Fairless Barber

Dec 26, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:


Illogical Logic

Illogical Logic

A reader quotes me as saying this: “Any false conclusion always involves flawed logic. Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion.”

One question: Have you ever in your life taken a course in formal logic?

JJ: I wouldn’t waste my time. I’ve looked them over and talked with people who have taken them and using what they have been taught as a logical method leads them to some of the most illogical conclusions.

Logic and pure reason is recognized by the soul and it is almost impossible to teach it to someone who has not had some development in his mental body.

Reader: I can appreciate your experience with some “logicians,” however to say “I wouldn’t waste my time” sounds to me like a particularly prejudiced approach (“prejudice” as to “pre-judge without full knowledge”).

JJ: One never has full knowledge so I guess everything every person does is prejudiced in your view.

Actually, you only need partial knowledge to be fairly non-prejudicial. For instance, you only have partial knowledge about what I have studied about logic and you assume from this very partial knowledge that I have prejudice which makes you prejudice by your own logic here.

If someone comes to me with a new religion and I take a look at a few things in it I can conclude pretty quickly how they think on almost any topic or point of doctrine and be extremely accurate.

Why? Because I have studied many religions as well as the scriptures and this gives me a good idea to accurately conclude how they think without reading every manual they have produced.

Conclusion: It would be a relative waste of my time reading all their materials for it would be obvious to me that my time is much better spent elsewhere.

I have always been interested in logic and would have taken a course in it in college if it had been available at that time. Later I did come across some course materials and after doing a little reading I found I did not miss much. I already inherently knew all the principles included in it. I also have talked with people who have taken logic courses and have been preached to for not being logical by those who obviously are using flawed logic from their course.

Reader: My suspicion for years has been that when you use the word “logic” that you more likely mean something like common sense (perhaps with a touch of intuition) or natural reasoning. This confirms that suspicion.

JJ No. I mean exactly what I say. When I use the word logic I mean it as defined in the dictionary which is: “the science of correct or reliable reasoning.”

Logic does not involve intuition, but that which is derived through intuition is always logical.

Reader: The reason that I asked you if you had ever taken a course in formal logic is because it is apparent that a sophomore student of logic in his second week of the class could refute your claim that:

“Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion.”

JJ: Since your grade level is above that this should be easy for you to do then. Let’s see you provide an example.

Reader: In fact, flawless logic can easily lead to an incorrect conclusion because logic is primarily about method, not content.

JJ: Where in the world do you get this idea??? If the courses teach this then no wonder many college graduates are illogical. You are starting with a huge gaping hole in logic to begin with. Content has everything to do with logic because method must apply and begin with the content. To start with content which is obviously incorrect is not logical. Remember that “reliable reasoning” is in the definition of logic. You cannot have reliable reasoning if you start with a flawed premise that you assume to be true.

For instance, assuming the moon is made of green cheese is an illogical first step as a basis for the discovery of truth.

Reader: Logic, for example, says that if the premises in a deduction are correct, and the method (logic) is in the correct form, then the conclusion must be true. What it does not say, or prove, is whether the premises are themselves correct and true.

JJ: But this is the most important step there is in logic. One must first look at the premise and conclude the probability of it being true in all circumstances. To start with the idea that the premise is infallible is not logical.

Reader: For example, here is the classic Greek Syllogism taught to thousands of college sophomores every year:

All Greeks are mortal. Socrates is Greek. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The first two lines above are the premises. The third line is the conclusion and it must be true if the premises are true (but again, logic tells you absolutely nothing about the validity of the premises).

JJ: Logic tells you a lot about the premise. We know that every Greek in history of which we have record has been mortal and died. There is a small probability that an immortal Greek exists and this must be factored in. The logical person will never accept a premise just because it is written in black and white.

Reader: Here is an equally valid syllogism:

All bears fly. Lassie is a bear. Therefore, Lassie flies.

This is an example of “perfect logic” and indeed Lassie would fly if the premises were true.

JJ: This is FAR from perfect logic because it begins with an illogical premise. There is no such thing as good logic if the premise is not first examined using the logic in the laws of probability to conclude how likely it is to be true.

Reader: Of course, we know that bears don’t fly and that Lassie is not a bear. It is the premises that are faulty, not the logic. The logic itself is flawless.

JJ: Logic must examine the premise or no true logical method even exists. If this is not done this logical method is completely useless, hence illogical.

Reader: For example, let us say that you hear something about a particular philosophy or religious creed that catches your interest. If you decide to investigate, then what is the most efficient method to begin? I would say that it would be to look at the premises, that is, the initial assumptions of that system of thought. These ARE the foundations. If these foundations are solid then you begin to work upwards from there. If however the foundations are built upon sand then one can safely abandon that study and go on to something more likely to be useful.

JJ Looks like we are on the same page here, but I would call this a prime part of the true logical process.

Reader:  No, the real usefulness of the study of logical fallacies is in helping one in one’s “personal navigation” in finding truth. If one truly understands these basic principles then one can quickly dispense with that which is obviously invalid and have more time to focus on finding truth.

JJ For some, the study of logic may be very helpful. I was speaking for myself in reference to how beneficial a course may be.

Reader: I appreciate that perhaps you have a unique approach to finding truth. However, I think you have a prejudice here that will come back to haunt you in the future. That is indeed unfortunate.

JJ: My approach has worked well for me and not once since my birth in 1945 has my logical approach (or results thereof) come back to haunt me. On the other hand, there are hundreds of advances I have made that are partially due to my open minded and logical approach. If what you say is correct something would have surfaced by now that should be haunting me. The only problem I have had with logic is when I sometimes slip and do not take the time to fully think a subject through.

Earlier you said: “…apparent that a sophomore student of logic in his second week of the class could refute your claim that:

“Perfect logic will never lead to a wrong conclusion.”

I am still waiting for anyone to refute this.

One might give an example like this:

I notice that during this past month on every single day, Jim takes his dog for a walk at eight in the morning.

I conclude therefore that tomorrow he will do the same.

But then something unexpected happens and Jim doesn’t walk his dog.

Therefore, this and other logical conclusions are wrong.

The problem with this thinking is the person is presenting a logical expectation, not a solidly  logical conclusion.

He sees Jim walking the dog 30 times in a row so he expects it to happen on the 31sst day.

If he is truly logical he  will not conclude that there is a 100% probability that the next day will be  like the previous ones. It would be logical to bet on the  possibility that Jim will be walking his dog, but it would  be illogical to conclude it is a sure thing.

All future possibilities are probabilities and there is always a chance expectation will not be realized.

The sun has risen every day for billions of years and we expect it to happen tomorrow, but the probability is still not 100% Maybe it would go supernova tomorrow.

True logic always factors in the laws of probability and rarely comes to an infallible conclusion.  The only exception would be math where the probability of 2+2=4 is as close to 100% as anything in this universe of time and space, but even here there is a possibility that our understanding of math is an illusion so it is always wise to factor in the idea that any conclusion could  be wrong.

On the other hand, if Jim walked his dog for 30 days in a row, I would be willing to place a bet that he will do it again tomorrow. That is a logical expectation, but not a black and white infallible conclusion. I could always lose the bet.

No degree of dullness can safeguard a work against the determination of critics to find it fascinating. Harold Rosenberg

Dec 23, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE:

The Great Revelation

The Great Revelation

“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” Rev 11:15

Finally, the seventh angel sounds his trumpet. The full power of the seventh chakra is now, not only open, but awakened, and full power in heaven and earth is given to the disciple who has now become a Christed one. Jesus spoke of this when he said:

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Matt 28:18

Even though he said this, to normal eyes, it did not seem to be true. Why? Most of his followers were killed, his organization corrupted, his teachings misunderstood and the message of love seems to have been trodden under foot for 2000 years.

One would think that if he indeed had all power in heaven and on earth that he would have used at least a small portion of that power to insure the triumph of good.

“Jesus is just sitting back letting us making fools of ourselves and then at the right moment he will use his power and destroy the wicked,” says the believer.

But the real question to ask is what if the Christ not only has had all power as mentioned but has always used it just as the scripture indicates?

This is indeed the case.

But, if all power is in play why do we not see it?

The answer is we do.

Let us go back and look more closely at this verse.

“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven,”

Keep in mind that this not only refers to Jesus but any disciple who reaches this great stage of progression wherein the seven chakras are open and awake.

When the disciple is thus fully awake in the highest of the seven centers he hears “great voices in heaven.” This tells us that he receives revelation, and, not just any revelation, but “great” revelation from the presence of God.

And what is this great revelation?

The latter part of the verse gives it: “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.”

Instead of seeing this as a granting of power from God to the disciple one must realize that instead it is a realization gained by the disciple that the power has been there all along.

In the past he was deceived by the adversary described in Matthew:

“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.” Matt 4:8-9

As he was becoming aware of his mission, but before the awakening of the seventh seal, he was deceived into thinking that a great adversary was the “God of this world” and controlled its kingdoms to the extent that this adversary could grant them to whomever he wished. All the disciple need to do was fall down and worship the adversary and a polluted power would be granted.

The “great” voice, or revelation, awakened him to this great unveiling. No adversary of God, or the good, ever controlled the kingdoms of the world. The world and its kingdoms has been, is, and will be dominated by the will of God. As he retreats again to the “silence in heaven” he sees the world from the vantagepoint of the eternal now, or the past, present and future of the kingdoms in their wholeness. From this wide angle of vision not only does the adversary have no power, but there is no devil and no adversary.

An adversary could only exist in a state where the individual involved does not have all power. If all power exists then any supposed adversary is as nothing and completely powerless. With no power against the good there is no adversary.

Thus does the Christed one awaken to a higher level and sees that in this awakened state that all events touched by him while aware of the will of God will be moved by that all-powerful will to the desired end. He sees the power is in the end and because he sees the end from the beginning he is aware that he and all others who are agents of will have all power in heaven and earth.

He realizes this is a great revelation because it gives him power to continue, to move forward no matter what the appearance of things are in the present. Now he can see the end from the beginning the present loses its power of distraction. He is internally exalted by this awareness.

“And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.” Rev 11:16-11-17

He sees the 24 Elders again that were in the beginning of the vision. They are seen again but in a different light. This time, instead of seeing himself as separate from them, he sees himself as being one with them and understands that God has indeed taken his “great power, and hast reigned.” He has always reigned. The power of God has always been with him and he has not seen it until now.

Now he sees the power he understands that it works differently from the higher angle of vision than understood from the lower vision.

The lower man sees obstacles that get in the way and he feels defeated and powerless.

To the one who sees “all power” the obstacles in the present mean nothing. He knows he will persist and that power of persistence, when divine will is seen, causes all obstacles to melt in time causing manifestation of the vision to occur.

“And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.” Rev 11:18

As the disciple looks into the future, seeing all as in the NOW. He sees the nations are indeed angry as higher will begins to dominate and the Old Guard loses their power.

The dead are those who could not adapt to the higher purpose and history itself will judge them as being insignificant in stopping progress.

As higher will begins to unfold the true servants of God and humanity reap what they have sown and receive their just reward.

Finally, those who destroy the earth are themselves destroyed when the building, began by the disciple, finally takes shape. The true disciple, or Christed one, builds and gives life. Those who seek to destroy rather than build fall away and their power evidentially is destroyed.

“And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.” Rev 11:19

Before this higher vision the temple of God for the disciple was on the earth. At first he thought it was a stone building. Later he saw it as his own body. Now he sees something different. He sees that eternal life consists of merging his consciousness with the temple in heaven wherein lies the presence of God. When he does this he discovers the true Ark of the Covenant which contains all knowledge through the Oneness Principle.

When he obtains this vision and awareness he experiences additional:

(1) Lightenings:; His understanding and wisdom increases. (2) Voices: Additional revelation comes (3) Thunderings: He continues to awaken to even higher levels. (4) Earthquake: His belief system still continues to change. (5) Great Hail: He finds that which he builds is eventually destroyed and replaced by the new. This is an eternal cycle.

Let us move on to the next chapter.

“And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.” Rev 12:1-2

What is the woman and the symbols surrounding her?

I don’t want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them their jobs. Samuel Goldwyn (1882 – 1974)

Dec 21, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE: