Category: Archives Revised

Failure to Communicate

Note from 2026: I attempted to illustrate how difficult it can be for two sincere people to reach agreement when there is a lack of understanding between the two. This was an important subject because these type of disagreements can come up in the molecule and create a disturbance in the force.

The controversial subject we were dealing with was Obama’s order to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen living in Yemen who was linked to terrorism. Was Obama justified or not?

To keep it simple I suggested that we start with the question as to whether the action was within the President’s rights and if it was legal.

Before we even explored that question the group descended into arguing about what a “right” was and what the word “legal” means.

The argument continued for weeks going through many thousands of words and dozens of posts that I will not include here.

Agreement was never reached as each had their pet definition of the words right and legal and accurate communication was never achieved.

The only benefit of the dialog was that it illustrated the truth of what I was teaching on the difficulty of reaching oneness when people’s biases are at play, and the difficult road we have to travel in reaching the harmony necessary to create a working molecule .

The following is my post which attempts to wrap up the argument and move onward.

My post from 2011:

I’ve been contemplating the unresolved differences we have had lately and have some thoughts to share.

The question that might arise in these discussions, not only with the current members, but others in the past is this.

How is it that any two sincere seekers cannot resolve their differences when both have had a degree of soul contact in the past?

The answer is this. The language of the soul is the language of principles. To resolve differences, you have to distil away the non-essentials until you are left with the pure language of principles. It is then that differences can be resolved.

To understand this let us examine the principles involved in the argument that I [and others] have had..

[1] The Principle of Freedom. This relates to decisions, actions, plans, procedures, laws, etc. that bring the greatest amount of freedom to the largest possible number of people.

I believe that all involved in the discussion heartily accept this principle.

[2] Laws are a branch under the Principle of Order, which are under the Principle of Creation. Just laws should therefore enhance order and creativity, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some laws made and accepted by man conform to true principles and some do not.

[3] The Principle of Justice. I believe that all here accept this and want it to prevail.

[4] The Principle of Judgment. Good judgment is necessary in the creating and application of law as they apply to humanity

I think we all agree on these basic principles and if we had a discussion just dealing with them, not resorting to specifics, we would most likely be in harmony and open to group soul contact. So what causes the actual differences then?

The problem arises when we take our focus off true principles and put them on details that are not principles.

The biggest detail that has been a problem is the definition of “legal.”

The reason that arguing over definitions is a lost cause is that they have nothing to do with any of the principles of the argument. Instead, words can be used in any language with any definition to communicate true principles. Communication of principles is not dependent on how words are exactly defined. If it were, one could never explain a principle translated from a foreign language as all the words are different after the translation.

Every time I have had an augment with someone who reverts to the dictionary or some other source to prove the meaning of words, I know the argument is going nowhere.

On the other hand, every time that I have been in harmony with someone there is never a need to go to the dictionary to define a word to prove something.

Why?

Because two people touching the soul together can understand each other and sense the meaning of the communication even if some of the words may not seem to be used exactly right.

When Jesus said “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” his enemies thought he was referring to the temple in Jerusalem, but those closest to him knew he was speaking of his body.

When we are close to someone and tune into them then we will know what they mean even if they use words differently than we personally define them.

Now our friend thinks a law is not legal if it does not conform to the morality of natural law. That’s fine and I accept that he thinks this way.

The problem is the question in discussion was not related to this definition, but to how the legal system of today defines legal. When a judge, police officer or attorney uses the word “legal” he means something different than our friend does. Since he does not seem to recognize legal by the common use today [and this is what the discussion was supposed to be about] we had a huge communication gap.

The gaps create the illusion that we disagree on principles when we do not.

Maybe I should have asked him something like this. “Was Obama’s action legal as seen through this corrupt system where everything is going to hell in a handbasket?”

Maybe that would have worked.

Perhaps I can illustrate the problem with a different word. Instead of legal or rights let us use the word “cool.”

Jim: That’s a cool song.

Bob: You’re wrong. Cool means a low temperature and a song has no temperature. It cannot be cool.

Jim: But there’s more than one definition of cool. I’m not talking about temperature. I’m saying that was a good song.

Bob: But cool, hot and cold can only be measured in degrees. A thing has to have natural form and mass to be cool. A song has neither.

Jim: You’re not listening. I’m not talking about cool as related to temperature but to the quality of a thing.

Bob: But cool is always related to temperature.

Jim: Where do you get that idea?

Bob: That was the original meaning. Any change of the meaning is just a corruption.

Jim sighs…

Even so, what is called natural moral law is as different from the legalities necessary to legally execute Awlaki as are the two definitions of cool.

When I asked if it was legal I wasn’t asking if it conformed to a version of what is moral nor was I referencing anyone else’s version of morality but merely a legality that would be accepted in a current court of law.

Anyway, the key to union is to first listen to what the other person is actually saying, stay close to the soul and tune into each other so true communication can be established.

Steve Job’s Last Words

Just before his death Steve looked at his sister Patty, then at his children, then his wife and next he seemed to look beyond them at empty space and said these words:

Oh Wow! Oh Wow! OH WOW!!!

Then he passed over, apparently going to the place he was seeing. LINK

Nov 6, 2011

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Infiltrating Religion

One Sunday School Class at a Time

Adam Clayton made an interesting post that needs to be presented in full. Here it is:

My wife, Marnie, has gone through a re-think of Mormonism over the past several years, thanks to me and my experiences and readings, and, in turn, her own experiences and readings. Often now, when she hears or reads some “Mormon speak” in a family or church setting, she cringes. She’s fond of telling me that I’ve “ruined” her. We both, of course, feel very grateful for JJ’s teachings and the “ruin” the teachings have caused us.

Marnie still takes our children to church for the social aspect and to give them some exposure to spiritual teachings and the family culture. Occasionally, Marnie is asked to substitute teach for one of our children’s Sunday school classes, as happened a few weeks ago.

The lesson was on “being pure” – this for a bunch of six-year-olds. It’s amazing what we don’t see when we’re firmly entrenched in thought forms, reinforced by a strong culture. The lesson suggested that the teacher use salt and pepper to illustrate personal purity and impurity – again, this to a bunch of six-year-olds. The lesson emphasized a lot of guilt and unworthiness. Marnie didn’t care for the message, the examples, and the way it was taught, especially given the young audience. [Yes, the church does a lot of good and teaches a few nice things, but other such ridiculous teachings are not flukes or aberrations.

A while back Marnie listened to the Primary President read from Malachi to about 50 children. She told them that those who do not pay tithing will burn! – yes, in so many words and with that emphasis. And many other examples there are. Many of you I’m sure are familiar with such ridiculous and often harmful things that go on in what is supposed to be an educational and spiritual environment.]

Anyway, my wife didn’t like the lesson, so, God bless her, of her own volition, without my prompting or consultation, she changed it. She got out some darts and a target and used JJ’s teaching about Hamartano, the Biblical Greek word for sin. [I know JJ is not the only person to teach this, but JJ’s writings are where we first heard the true definition and analogy to shooting an arrow at a target] Needless to say, the lesson was a hit [yes, punned] with the kids. Aside from being fun and entertaining, the six-year-olds actually “got it” and they gave Marnie insightful feedback, like: “Oh, that makes sense. If we make mistakes we just try again. We practice doing better. Practice makes perfect” and so on. A much healthier message, no? A better message than: “when you sin, you are impure, like little black spots before God; and all of the accompanying thoughts of unworthiness and guilt that are likely to be imagined by impressionable and innocent minds.

A small success. But much more doable, since we can’t all go around dusting our feet to general authorities, much as I would like.

But, the small success didn’t end there. Marnie’s mother happened to be teaching the same lesson this week to the six-year-olds in her congregation. Her mother’s printer wasn’t working, so Marnie downloaded and printed the lesson for her. When her mother came by to pick it up, they started discussing the lesson. Marnie mentioned that she had taught it a few weeks back. She expressed to her mother that she didn’t care for the way the lesson was taught, especially for that kind of an audience. Her mother, a very orthodox Mormon, actually could see what Marnie was saying about the lesson’s poor wording, conceptualization, and analogies. Marnie told her mother what she had done and how successful it had been. Marnie’s mother “loved it.” [Can you imagine how amused/pleased I am as I listen to Marnie repeat the conversation?] “Where did you get that idea?” her mother asked. “That’s a fantastic way to teach about sin. I’m going to use that idea instead.” That’s probably about as far as Marnie could safely go with her mother. I guess we’ll never know whether her mother would have taught the lesson or not, had Marnie revealed her source:]

Truth can actually resonate when it’s not being filtered through pre-existing biases and belief. Truth can actually resonate when it’s not being filtered through pre-existing biases and belief. Oh, what…wait..what?

How we’d love to actually tell her mother where that teaching came from, but that might ruin it and halt further use of the analogy.

Another success. A few more kids who weren’t bludgeoned and burdened with guilt ridden propaganda, for an hour anyway. One Sunday school class at a time. Maybe Marnie’s mom will share with another orthodox adult who will unwittingly teach truth, as taught by an excommunicated apostate. Classic. Had to share.

Thank you for ruining us, JJ.

Adam and Marnie

JJ: Thanks for the encouraging letter Adam. What you say illustrates the power of the enunciation of true principles. A teacher may receive some light and do his or her best to promote it and die unrecognized, but if one has followed the highest he knows some seeds will be planted and the tiniest of seeds will grow to great plants and multiply until all of humanity will someday realize the true reality. You planted a seed in your wife and your wife in her mother and the kids. Some will take that seed and plant it in others until the day comes that the apostles of the church will be talking about shooting arrows a targets until we become proficient in the paths of righteousness. Who knows, that apostle might be one of the kids taught by your wife.

So readers can put this post in context I am inserting a previous explanation that was given about sin:

It may seem strange that I list sin as a principle. The problem with this word is that the true meaning has been lost and this has caused the principle to be lost. In today’s religious world sin is now a fact rather than a principle. Ministers see sin as the idea that we are all sinners and that is that. Jesus will save us if we just believe.

So what is the real meaning of sin and the principle in countering it?

The orthodox Christian view of sin is that it involves breaking the laws given out by God.

The scripture says: “Sin is the transgression of the law.” John 3:4

“The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.” Cor 15:56

For instance, one of the Ten Commandments says to not steal. If you steal you are therefore transgressing the law and thus you commit sin. Sounds pretty simple and cut and dried. Not quite.

To understand sin we have to look below the surface at the principles involved and first ask this question.

What negative effect does one suffer from sin? Forget about the next world for now, for there is no way to prove what happens there, but we do understand effects from our own experience in this life. How does the sinner suffer in the here and now?

Outside of repercussions of the effects of our actions the main suffering comes from guilt. When a person feels he has violated the law of God he suffers from this.

So what is it about sin that creates the guilt?

It is this. When a person accepts a word or command as coming from God, or a strong authority, and then violates that will, guilt is a natural effect. Thus if he violates a commandment as seen coming from God or a parent figure he can feel guilt.

The strange thing that few consider is this point. The command does not have to come from God to create guilt. It can (and usually does) come from an outside authority who is a substitute for God. For a small child this can be a parent but for the grownups it is some human authority who claims to know God’s will and speaks on his behalf.

When a person becomes subject to such an authority then anything he says becomes the law and any violation becomes sin (in his mind) and produces guilt. If the authority tells him that it is God’s will he not eat peas then eating peas will be a sin to him and produce guilt.

We can see this principle at play with the Mormons. The prophet, who they believe speaks for God, tells them God doesn’t want them to drink coffee. A Mormon who thus drinks any amount of coffee violates the law of God (in his mind), sins and feels guilt when he drinks it. On the other hand, a Methodist recognizes no such authority, sees no sin in drinking coffee and feels no guilt.

Since humans do not receive laws directly from a heavenly being we must receive them from some earthly authority. Unfortunately, this substitution of an earthly authority for the voice of God is the Beast as mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

When the scriptures talk about Jesus saving us from our sins the real meaning of this is that he came to release us from the power of human authorities that produce guilt, which pain of guilt can follow us to the next world. He also came to release us from sin as it was defined in his time.

The word sin comes from the Greek word HAMARTANO which means “to miss the mark.” In other words when the Greeks, 2000 years ago, shot at a target with an arrow and missed they “sinned” (HAMARTANO) or missed the target. Therefore, to sin is to make an error. Jesus came to correct our errors which is to save us from our sins. One of the biggest errors that we fall prey to is the acceptance of an outward authority as speaking for God, thus creating many unnecessary laws that result in guilt and pain.

Notice how Jesus attempted to correct this false idea:

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt 22:37-40

So on what hangs all the law and the prophets? The law of love.

What does this mean?

It means that if you are motivated within from true spiritual love that you will automatically follow all the laws of God and guilt will have no power over you. He who is motivated by love needs no commands or law from outer authority for he has the law written in his heart as predicted in scripture:

“After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, (no more outward authorities) and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD.” Jeremiah 31:33-34

True salvation from sin comes from the realization that sin is merely an error which can be corrected by listening to the inner voice of God that speaks to the heart and mind.

True salvation from sin is given in this verse:

“And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written IN THEIR FOREHEADS.” Rev 14:1

The key to escaping guilt from sin is to realize that the Father, God, is in your forehead or within your own mind. You escape the outward authorities trying to control you by replacing them with your true source which is God within yourself. It is as Jesus said, “the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21.

The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it’s just sort of a tired feeling. – Paula Poundstone

Oct 30, 2011

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

 

Momentum

Previously we were discussing a principle called “Pushing the Boundaries.” I asked the group what was the real principle behind it and received a number of answers and I believe each person participating guessed a different principle. They couldn’t all be right, could they?

Well, they all could be partially correct for many different principles are at play in everything we do, just as there are many parts to the elephant. As I said in my recent post – even scratching an itch has principles and forces at play.

On the other hand, there are some things that play out where a core principle is involved and this is one.

The core principle is momentum or the built-up inertia of force. I think the group will see this as I explain.

According to this principle an object in motion will stay in motion unless it is stopped by a force equal to that which is keeping it in motion.

Now when a kid gets his desires in motion for something he wants [like a new video game] the parent may at first dismiss the expressed desire and think that will be the end of it, but it often is not.

The kid has set his desires in motion, desires that have energy behind them, and the parent keeps getting hit with this energy time and time again. Finally, he gets worn down and buys the video game. The purchase is the counter force that neutralizes the energy of the kid’s momentum.

Another parent may not have money to buy the game and lash back at the kid with anger. If the anger has equal energy to the momentum of the desire then the kid will give up for the time being.

Many people visit salespeople thinking they are just going to look, but are not going to buy anything just yet. Then they wind up buying everything but the kitchen sink.

Why?

Because a good salesperson uses the principle of momentum. He throws desire energy at them again and again and if the customers find themselves moving in a current toward the dotted line and they do not counter with high resistance they follow the path of least resistance and will purchase. By the time that they have been hit with the power of momentum they may feel it is easier to spend a bundle of money rather than to resist.

Right now, president Obama is creating momentum behind his jobs bill. It could be the worst bill since the beginning of time, but the appeal to jobs for those who are desperate is great. Since he is pitching this new stimulus again and again the momentum is building and can only be stopped by opposing forces. Some opposing forces have surfaced but some version of this is likely to get through unless the opposing force is increased.

Hierarchical Manifestation

A reader makes this comment: “Something that stood out to me in one of the DK quotes that perhaps you could comment on JJ?

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

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

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

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

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

Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly. – Robert F Kennedy

Oct 29, 2011

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Dealing With Conflict

A short time ago it was suggested that a molecule could be created through online communications. One of the things that will have to be dealt with in a molecule will be various disagreements. Since we had one recently, I thought it may be a good opportunity to illustrate two things. One is how difficult and slow it is to solve any problem online. We could have probably hashed out this Awlaki problem in person within an hour or so but here we have spent many days and intensive hours in writing and still we have not gotten beyond the first simple point of whether Obama’s action to kill Awlaki was legal.

The second problem that is illustrated is how difficult it is to solve personality disagreements when they come up. What seems simple and clear to some is very complex to others.

Another problem is that many tune out when a round of disagreements materialize whereas in person most people are willing to wade through a couple hours of arbitration.

I tried to break down the various elements of the problem in an attempt to make it solvable. If we started out talking about what is right or wrong then emotions will run high. I thought I would begin by examining whether or not the action was legal – which should have had nothing to do with good or bad, but still, we did not escape dealing with conflict from the beginning.

I think that seeing the futility here of bringing harmony between two good people illustrates the difficulty we will face in creating a united Molecule. Obviously, we will need to draw from a large pool of seekers to create the first unified molecule.

After the first one is created the second will be easier, however.

This arguing process on this concise subject has become very time consuming and not doing anything to convince our one guy who is still disagreeing.

Definitions

A reader and I have about exhausted ourselves going round and round on the first point of our discussion concerning the hit on Awlaki. It is time to ask what the root cause of the disagreement is.

One of the main problems in our communications is that we are using different definitions of core words.

I always use the most standard or obvious meanings of words unless I define them otherwise in my writings. Many people do not do this, especially those who have been immersed in some school of thought with a strong point of view. Such people often use their pet words with unorthodox meanings without explaining they are using non-standard definitions.

There are two words that have been interfering with our communication.

The first is “Right.”

Our friend thinks that the noun or legal “right” is similar in meaning to the word when it is used as an adjective or adverb. In other words, you have a right to do a thing if it is right, moral and of good report.

He thus sees himself as having a right to own a gun because it is a good thing that we have the freedom to bear arms.

It is good that we have free speech therefore it is our right, even if it was not granted by the constitution or by any law.

The trouble with using this definition is that following it can get such a believer in trouble.

My friend Wayne went by this definition and thought it was right, moral and good that he should be able to drive without a license. Therefore, he thought he had “the right” to do so and went ahead and did it. This bullheadedness on his part brought him a tremendous amount of grief and expense. He was arrested regularly and several times spent time in jail. Not only me and my wife, but numerous friends tried talking him into getting a license, arguing that it would make his life so much easier. Unfortunately, he thought it was his right to drive without a license because it was immoral for the State to decree otherwise.

Wayne also thought it was his right to not pay income taxes. Because the tax was immoral in his eyes he just did not pay for about 40 years of his life. He would get calls every few years from the IRS but he told them that if they came to his door he would be waiting with a shotgun. Amazingly, that seemed to keep them at bay until he died.

He didn’t have such good luck with the city though. He put up some buildings on his property without building permits and the city fined him on a monthly basis. Again, when the city threatened other action he told them he would be waiting with a shotgun and that seemed to physically hold them off but he had so many liens slapped on his property I don’t think his daughter got a penny of inheritance at his death.

I could write a book about Wayne’s unusual ways. I left out a lot of good stuff about him in The Immortal because I didn’t want to offend him or get him in trouble, but now he’s passed that won’t be such a concern.

Anyway, Wayne seemed to look at rights the same way our current reader does and it led to all kinds of trouble and possibly an early death. He wasn’t very happy with his life and didn’t even want a long life.

When I have been speaking of rights, I have used the common definition which is, “legal authority.” If I have a legal right to do something then I will not live in fear of being arrested. We have the right to free speech and even have the right to criticize the president legally.

In North Korea they do not have that right and would be arrested if citizens criticize their Dear Leader there.

The second word our reader and I are having a problem with is “legal.” Again I use the common definition that the dictionary says is something “allowed by law.”

On the other hand, our friend associates legal with morality and feels that if something is illegal it is immoral. On the other hand, moral things are legal. Therefore, if he is doing good works and seems to be harming no one then he is always legal even if the cops and judges say he is breaking the law.

A member suggested that he use a term more in harmony with our legal system to enhance communication.

That would be helpful but we have probably gone as far as possible with the communication barriers we have. Our reader simply thinks that killing Awlaki was not legal and a violation of rights because it was immoral plain and simple.

It is difficult to turn around a person’s value judgments. For instance, I love my kids and no one is going to talk me out of this no matter what facts they present.

I think the rest of the group are pretty much in agreement on the Awlaki situation and the one who disagrees is merely using a different definition of terms.

The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it. – George Bernard Shaw

Oct 22, 2011

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

The Spiritual Flow

A reader quotes me as saying:

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

and in response to this question:

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

I replied:

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

Please give some additional light on this.

JJ: Let’s start with your first quote:

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

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

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

Concerning your second quote it applies to those seeking consideration for molecular membership. True membership can only be attained through group soul contact and is not up to the molecular leader, but will be affirmed by the Spirit if the Christ. The leader’s job is to only facilitate the process.

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

In the reference you made my next statement was:

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

This happened with the fourth person.

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

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

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

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

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

A formation of a group a 24 people does not a molecule make. True membership is only attained when there is group soul contact. When this happens then all the 24 will become actual members until the time comes blockages must be removed or neutralized so there can be a link which allows the spiritual flow.

Question: Will a molecule have full time soul contact after it is created?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Does even one person out of harmony obstruct the spiritual flow into the molecule?

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

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

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

“This situation is one which the Christ is seeking to alter.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 543

“In the past, the keynote of the Christian religion has been death, symbolised for us in the death of Christ and much distorted by St. Paul in his effort to blend the new religion which Christ brought with the old blood religion of the Jews. In the cycle which Christ will inaugurate after His reappearance, the goal of all the religious teaching in the world will be the resurrection of the spirit in mankind;” Reappearance of the Christ, Page 30

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

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

Question: What happens to the incarnating life of the molecule if the flow becomes interrupted?

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

Question: How likely is it that a functioning member of a molecule could drop out of alignment?

Once the experience of the spiritual link is achieved the member then knows what it feels like and he is likely to be stable and have a sense when he is getting out of alignment and correct it. Us humans, of course are not perfect so there is always a possibility one may lose the connection, though his brothers and sisters will seek to remind him to keep his mind steady in the light

Oct 12, 2011

You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist. – Indira Gandhi

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Oneness Through the Soul

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

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

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

How should we deal with Bob and Alice?

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

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

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

The leader then speaks and gives what he believes to be the truth of the matter. Then the time is turned over to members of the group to give their soul impressions of his words. All but the four felt their soul contact verified his words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How should this situation be handled?

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

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

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

The Beast or Not?

Situation One:

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

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

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

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

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

Situation Two

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

The leader gives them a choice; present their feelings honestly to the group and work through them or we will substitute someone else in their places until they decide to move ahead.

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

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

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

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

One-fifth of the people are against everything all the time. – Robert F Kennedy

Oct 9, 2011

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Is Physical Presence Necessary?

Question: Do we need to be in close proximity to form a human molecule. If so, why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The internet is overcoming this hurdle somewhat with video connections. (written in 2011) On a one-to-one basis we can see the other person as we communicate with them. This doesn’t work so well in a group, however. We could have a video conference where I could speak to the group and they could all see me but my experience with them would be somewhat nebulous for I could not see them all at one time as when they are physically present.

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

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

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

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

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

We’ve had some great gatherings and spirits have often been high but we have not yet touched the soul as a group – though we have come close several times.

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

Note from 2026: We began group video meetings using Zoom in 2017 and this technology has somewhat altered my view on this. Even though meeting in person is always best, the video conferencing of the present day makes communication much more like meeting in person than was the case in 2011. Since we can now see and hear each other almost as well as in person we can now work online toward achieving the oneness necessary to create the molecule.

Lack of something to feel important about is almost the greatest tragedy a man may have. – Arthur E. Morgan

Oct 8, 2011

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Seeing the Real

We’ve established the fact that many humans are inclined to believe in doom because of various programming from their past, but there is another important reason. To understand this reason, we must look at both attitudes toward the future.

[1] A disturbing percentage of the population see the future as dark with lots of gloom and doom, followed by destruction. It is all in God’s [or Nature’s] hands and there is little or nothing we can do about it, except accept the inevitable.

[2] A minority are optimistic about the future and see that humanity does have a reasonable say in their future. We have power to correct past mistakes and create a better world.

What’s the difference between these two attitudes? This answer is key and here it is.

Attitude one embraces the path of least resistance, destruction or the path of entropy. This becomes real if intelligent creative force is not applied. A disintegration of organization always happens if nothing is done to prevent it.

Attitude two embraces the path of high resistance and is the path of creation. Creation of the good and the beautiful take place when we place our attention on building the world we want and desire for happiness.

Another way to look at this is – attitude one is the lazy man’s way. He throws his hands in the air and does nothing but leave his destiny up to God. Unfortunately for him God does not approve of laziness and will leave such a person to his own devises to learn a lesson.

On the other hand, the second attitude is the path of constructive labor and service. This is the path of those who are not lazy but are industrious and usually make something of their lives.

Have you noticed that the vast majority of those who preach doom and gloom are as poor as church mice? Their lazy belief translates to a lazy approach in taking care of themselves and their families.

It takes a certain amount of industrious thought to merely contemplate and expect a better tomorrow.

So what about the fact that real destructive things do happen now and again? If we are not lazy, but positive, does this mean we do not take such future possibilities into consideration.

No, it doesn’t, but what it does mean is that we will not plan on gloom and doom when there is no reason to.

For instance, many have been concerned about the comet Elenin destroying us when there was no reason behind it. From the beginning calculations determined it was only a small comet a few miles across and was definitely not a red or brown dwarf. There was less than a chance in billions that it could do us any harm and any connection between its location and earthquakes had to be coincidence. Remember coincidences happen and they happen often. If we look for them, we will find them.

The creative person will move forward as if he has eternity awaiting him and will only give destruction much thought when reason or intuition tells him to.

For instance in this time, we are faced with a dire economic situation. Collapse is not a sure thing but it is a possibility. For the first time I have recommended that we prepare for even worse times by storing up some food and necessities. At the way inflation is proceeding this is a good investment even if there is no further collapse as food prices have gone up about 25% the past year, so whatever you bought a year ago is worth quite a bit more today.

Right now, it is a good idea to live your life as if everything will work out well, but be prepared for the worst just in case.

Now concerning the question of how to get rid of illusionary foundational beliefs…

The first thing the seeker must do is to realize he probably has a blind spot or two and be open to the possibility that he has some illusion. If the seeker does not find his illusion, then he cannot dispel it and he will not find it unless he looks for it.

I’ve already stated the most important thing we can all do, and that is to follow the highest we know. If we do this in all honesty then illusion will eventually be revealed and dispelled.

One can speed up the process by focusing on finding the real and testing as well as proving all things. If a thing is true then it works. If it is not true then it does not fit into the bigger picture and causes things not to work.

The seeker who feels his life is not working out for him or gets frustrated usually has some illusion because illusion and error cause things to not work as desired.

Find the areas of life where the greatest frustration dwells and it is quite possible illusion is at the root of it. If the illusion is a dearly held belief, it will take an act of will to let it go. If one does not let it go then the soul will bring pain into his life and force him to let it go. This sometimes takes a significant amount of time, however.

To escape criticism- do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. – Elbert Hubbard

Oct 7, 2011

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE