Judgment by Thought

2000-2-1 00:11:00

Thanks for your comments Blayne. No. I did not assume that you were looking for iniquity, but I did ask you if that was the reason why you were here, which, by the way, you did not answer. Then as long as we were on the subject, I gave a dissertation on it, as I am sure that if there are not watchers of iniquity now, there will be in the future.

If you believe me to be deceived by Satan, you obviously are not here to learn. That leaves two possible reasons I can think of. You need to keep an eye on what I am doing so you can fight against evil. This group of people here are such a great bunch that you want to rub shoulders with them.

If you do not wish to answer the question that is fine, but I'm sure many are curious. I can see why you would be drawn by number 2 for this list does have a great gathering of lights.

I'm glad you still want to be friends. I am trying to be careful with my words to you so as to not cause offense. However you said one negative thing I cannot let pass by without comment:

Blayne "Well, news flash, there is and some of them have emailed me privately to say they are glad I bring up issues because they don't want to deal with the yapping dogs who bark every time anyone says anything that might be perceived as less then praise for J.J.'s latest discourse."

JJ: Insulting the loving people on the list by calling them "yapping dogs" bothers me much more than if you were to insult me. "Whatsoever you do unto the least of these, my brethren, you do unto me." Tell me, if Jesus were to pay you another visit, would you call Him a "yapping dog"? If I were Him I would make that my last visit.

Let me stress again, to all people on this list that we recommit to treat each other with common decency. It's fine to disagree and ask questions, as politely as possible and still get the question clearly stated, but name calling is definitely below all of us. I suggested that if name calling surfaces, that a number of us come forward and call the person on it so they will be humiliated into not using this tactic.

Strong, emotional, knee jerk, hurtful reaction should also be below our consciousness. None of us are perfect enough to walk on eggshells to the extent that we will not offend anyone, but we do have control over how we decide to react. Let us react with reason and kindness.

Now to Sterling. That's quite an article you have written and it, again, would take me a book to answer it thoroughly. I'm sorry that you have switched back today with the inclination that I am on the side of evil again. On the positive side, the evil you see seems to be getting more subtle all the time.

Even you acknowledge that many of the things I write seem to touch your spirit. This makes the evil (if I am evil) more and more difficult to put your finger on. Just maybe this evil will eventually become so hard to detect that you will only see the face of Christ in me, and we can join hands as brothers.

Concerning the mission of Christ, Alice A. Bailey's account of it did not agree 100% with Blavatsky's. I have also written quite a bit about it. I differ slightly with Alice A. Bailey and give additional details.

Blavatsky received much information from the Brotherhood, but she put all the writings in her own words and added many of her own ideas. Therefore, I have no intention of defending every word that she wrote, for I do not believe everything she taught. There is also much of her material that I have not even read yet.

She has revealed many things that have not surfaced for thousands of years, and like all things, she must be read through the light of the soul. When I read her I take that which registers as true, reject that which registers as false, and put on the shelf that which does not register.

Do you not even have to do the same thing with Joseph Smith? Was he correct in introducing plural marriage? Was he correct in lying about it? Was he correct in joining and borrowing from the masons when the highest orders of that time saw Lucifer as a good guy? Was he correct in letting the Danite organization slide in the hope that his enemies would be discouraged?

You even state that you do not believe the Book of Mormon to be 100% correct. I believe you used a figure of around 90%. This means you must read it through the light of the soul to discover real truth there. Why not do the same thing with Blavatsky?

The next teacher was Alice A. Bailey and she received, in full consciousness, all her teachings directly from a Master. I believe that part of the reason the actual words of a master were used this time, was because Blavatsky injected too much of her own error into her writings.

As far as verification through the soul, these writings pass the test far more than anything else I have come across. As I said before, I can almost let my soul get lazy when reading her. In all her writings I have found only two or three things that are not verified to me. I have studied all of her writings given by DK.

I will cover many of your questions as we progress, but for this time the solution to our impasse is not further scriptural debate. You will continue to see many good things and then another red flag will come. The big question you need to resolve is whether or not I am on the side of light or dark.

The reason that you are having such difficulty on this is that you are using the wrong criteria for judgment. The scriptures say that we will be judged by our works. But instead of judging me by my works you are judging me by my thoughts. Then sometimes you judge me by the thoughts of others, such as Blavatsky.

I was also in the Mormon Church many years ago, and I obeyed all their rules and was known widely as a man of good works. I do not think there was even one in the church, who knew me, who did not consider me to be a good person. Then I wrote a short paper showing how there is progression from the lower kingdoms into the higher. I was concerned about this because it disagreed with the church authorities.

Then my nephew visited and we discussed deep doctrines together, and I shared the paper with him. He was impressed and later he shared it with his Elder's Quorum president and several others. Shortly thereafter he was called in by his bishop and an excommunication trial was set up with the High Council.

After I went to his trial to defend him, and it was discovered that my thoughts were "not in harmony", a trial was set up for me. At my trial I was not judged by my works, for my works were in harmony with all the teachings of the church. Instead they excommunicated me for my thoughts.

After that time 22 years ago, I immediately noticed a great difference in hundreds of people who just days earlier called me friend, inspired teacher, loving person etc. Now, not because of any work of evil, but because of my thoughts, I was seen as being evil, in league with Satan, worker of darkness. I went to church maybe a couple times after this event and often, when I offered a handshake, I saw fear in their eyes, and if they did shake my hand the exchange was brief, and no one wanted to be seen talking with me.

I thus left behind many friends that took a lifetime to accumulate, all because of their judgment of me by my thoughts and not my works. This was not the last time I have been judged by my thoughts, but generally it has been by those who have not gone through the experience. But what grieves me, Sterling, is that you have gone through the same process that I have. I am sure that you are also a man known for good works and when you were excommunicated from the church, you also were rejected because of what you thought more than any transgression you made. Did you not feel that it was unfair to be rejected so unjustly?

This is how I feel toward you my friend. I feel that I am being judged as being in league with Satan because of my thoughts rather than my deeds. Is this not using the same criteria as does the church that you deem in apostasy?

When you first read The Immortal, your heart was filled with joy and hope. Then you joined the list and your hope for greater knowledge increased as you studied. But then red flags went up and "this is too good to be true" was whispered in your ears. But remember my friend. There is nothing too good to be true.

The only way you can settle this issue once and for all is to get a witness on me through the Spirit, but you cannot see the light in the sky if you are trying to see the sun through a hundred red flags. You must drop all preconceived notions, and become as a little child and ask in faith.

Am I on the side of Christ or not? If for some reason you cannot get an answer, then please at least judge me by my works.

Let us suppose the worst, that my teachings have many errors. That tricky devil has been whispering into my ear and I have been posting his subtleties to the group. At worst this gives the group a good opportunity to discern truth from error, through the use of their inner selves, because I have stressed that they do this more than any other thing.

Before evil can be manifest I must actually "do" something evil. I must harm someone somewhere. I must instill more hate than I do love, more fear than I do peace, more pain than I do healing, use force more than free will...

Look at any man in history who was considered evil on hindsight. Most historians believe that Hitler killed his girlfriend when he was a young man. As soon as he joined the NAZI party, he actively worked to make change by force no matter how much pain and suffering was the result. He taught the concept that the Jews needed to be eliminated long before he became leader of Germany.

Now let us look at Abraham Lincoln. Today all the religious people adore the man and quote him regularly from the pulpit. But do you realize, in his day, that most of them saw him as an agent of the devil? For one thing he did not belong to any church. Many saw him as anti Christian and even a heathen.

He also drew their wrath because he advocated the freeing of the slaves. Well this was against God's will because nowhere in the Bible does it say you cannot have slaves, and besides, some of the great patriarchs had slaves.

Then to top it off he, and especially his wife, visited spiritualists from time to time. The Bible was definitely against these guys. Every good Christian knows that all spiritualists are in league with the devil.

Fortunately, there were enough common people who were not tied to black-and- white religion to elect this great man, for any lesser man would have lost the war to the South, and the history of the world would have been forever changed.

During his campaign when he saw the entire religious world against him, he sadly made this remark. "The day will come when they will read their Bibles correctly and see their error."

I ask you, Sterling, who would you have voted for if you had lived in that day? Lincoln, an apparent non-Christian, who took the advice of mediums more than preachers, or would you have voted for one of his church-going opponents? Would you vote for Lincoln, who didn't seem to be going along with the scriptures, or an opponent who seemed to think correctly?

Just think how much different the world would be if the preachers did have their way, and convinced the common people that Lincoln was the devil's agent? Just think of how different things may be if the voters judged Lincoln by what may or may not be in his mind, rather than looking at the actual man. Just think or as John Lennon said: "imagine."