Category: 2010 April-Dec

Invisible Interactions, Part 2

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 18 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 2, 2010

A reader tells me that he has Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, OCD, and wants to know if evil spirits have anything to do with this and what he can do to overcome it.

Before I answer this let us establish an accurate name for these troublesome spirits. In the Bible they are called evil or unclean spirits, and other times referred to as devils or demons.

These are words that originated with translators from the Middle Ages and not very conducive to accurate communication in our age. Earlier I referred to them as “adversarial life forms.” Such a term or something like “adversarial spirit,” “adversarial intelligence” would be an improvement. For those that do not believe in the supernatural one could substitute the word “energy” for “spirit.” After all, what is life but energy with an intelligent direction.

It is a scientific fact that our body is composed of billions of lives. Many of these lives are called cells and others are called bacteria. Every day harmful bacteria invade our bodies and the body’s defense mechanism has to neutralize or destroy them or it will get sick. It is also a scientific fact that bacteria show signs of an elementary intelligence.

Putting this together then we can conclude that one of the smallest of “evil spirits” is the elementary life that motivates the germs that can do us so much harm. Cancer cells are also evil, or adversarial lives.

Now, let me ask this question. Why is it so difficult to believe in adversarial life forms when it is already a scientific fact that they exist now and our bodies, minds and medicine have to deal with them on a daily basis?

Since we know that these tiny evil spirit lives do exist in cells that we can see through a microscope then why is it difficult to believe that there are other lives that give us problems that have not been identified by science?

For instance, mental disorders are normally not caused by physical disease but the Bible tells us that Jesus cast out adversarial life forms to effect a cure. Obviously there are negative entities that go beyond the normal germs or cancer cells that cause us problems. When and how do they show up?

To understand we must look at the main difference between a healthy and unhealthy body.

The body is an electrical unit and if it is healthy all the energy flows through all of its circuits unimpeded and all the parts receive the energy they need for proper function. Because energy follows thought our negative thoughts are often a cause of disrupting the smooth flow of this energy. When this happens a vacuum is produced and opens the door for an opposing energy to come in and take root. Just like diseased germs are tiny lives even so is such opposing energy composed of actual life and they often draw malignant cells and germs to the center they occupy.

This knowledge helps us understand why Jesus and the disciples healed others by speaking to and casting out “evil spirits.”

Again let me remind you that energy follows thought. Therefore, if the healer wants maximum effect he must make sure thought is directed with the most potent focus as possible. The way that Jesus directed the thought of many people was to call upon a living entity and command it (or them) to leave.

Keeping in mind that focused thought is a powerful healer then imagine which would have the most power – just praying for the person to get better or to command the life form feeding the disease to leave?

If you just pray with no images in your mind then the power of thought is dispersed and not focused enough to cause a healing. On the other hand, if both the healer and the patient visualize a life form being commanded to leave, and then seeing and feeling it leave, a powerful focused energy can be created and sometimes there can be a miraculous healing.

The American Indians used to use this principle in reverse. Instead of calling on an evil spirit to leave they called on a benevolent spirit in the form of an animal, such as bear or an eagle. They then directed the animal to enter the troubled location and either to chase the evil spirit out or to merely supply healing energy.

The visualizing of such images focuses the thought and thought carries energy and energy is always followed by life of some kind, however elemental.

So what about our friend’s Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder? Is it caused by adversarial life forms?

No. They are not the cause. The cause of all disease always has root in our own thoughts and the originating cause may not even be thoughts in this life, but past lives.

BUT…

Our wrong thinking does open the door to the entrance of negative life forms that cause the problem to continue. If one can speak to those lives as Jesus did and command them to leave then the negative space can be filled with positive energy and, if the thoughts are now in alignment with the soul, a healing can take place.

Let us suppose a person has cancer and you want to use the technique used by Jesus. You could actually name the spirit. You could call it the devil or you could even name it something modern like “George.” You old then visualize George inside the body and call on him and command him to leave. If you have faith in Christ you can command George in the name of Jesus Christ to leave. If you believe you have the priesthood you could command George to leave in the name of your priesthood.

In the case of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder you could see George as a computer virus interfering with your internal programming. You must then command George to quit interfering with your software and leave. Then visualize George leaving. If this is done with directed thought the patient may actually feel a negative life leave and sense that healing is now taking place.

Not only did Jesus have a reputation for casting out evil spirits, but so did Paul. Here is a quite curious scripture.

Acts 19:11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
Acts 19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
Acts 19:13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
Acts 19:14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
Acts 19:15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
Acts 19:16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

First, it is interesting that the possessed man had such superhuman strength. He beat the dickens out of seven men until they fled naked and wounded.

Now these men were exorcists and apparently had some past success in casting out harmful spirits. Then when they saw that the disciples of Jesus seemed to have more power than they did they decided to use the name of Jesus also.

Unfortunately, the process backfired on them.

The question is – why did this not work for them? Now the answer given by the Mormons is they say Jesus gave the Priesthood to his disciples and the devils recognized this. They refused to recognize anyone without the proper authority.

.
Now there is a certain amount of truth to this as it is written that Jesus gave the twelve apostles “power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases.” Luke 9:1

Some simplistic priesthood or passed down authority does not explain the power the disciples had as no one I know claiming to have the priesthood today has the power of the early disciples. They had a molecular link to Jesus as I explain in my other writings.

Obviously these seven exorcists had some success in the past but this time spelled disaster for them. Why?

I would guess the answer lies in the purity of their hearts. If a disciple is to fight evil he must not sink to the level of the evil he is fighting, else he will lose his power. These guys had seen the miracles and were witnesses to the fact that God was with the disciples Instead of joining with them they merely wanted their power to obtain the praise of men.

By attempting to gain power without merging with the source of that power they put themselves in danger.

Whatever the case the entity in charge did not have to submit to their commands and chased them away.

Now someone posed this idea. God is big on free agency so it would be against the will and order of God to allow an evil or adversarial spirit to possess or even influence another person.

The first thing to do with our beliefs is to test them against reality. If reality proves to be different than what we believe then we should change or beliefs.

It is true that those great lives who are on the side of light and truth seek maximum freedom for all but in our world this is far from being achieved.

Possession is an established fact that none can deny in our current system – just ask anyone who has been kidnapped or held hostage. Ask any female who has an abusive husband who possesses her and if she tries to escape he says he will kill her and the kids.

Ask any cancer patient who has been invaded by cancer cells and are destroying his body.

Free agency is valuable indeed but in this imperfect world it is taken away on a regular basis.

Now when it is taken away it is always the person’s own fault to a degree. The abused wife probably saw signs of her husband’s problems before she married him. Maybe the cancer patient didn’t take as good a care of his health as he could have.

The same goes with possession from the tiny elementals giving one arthritis to a full-fledged entity seeking to control or destroy another.

An evil entity in a body or out of a body can attempt to attack anyone. Nothing is stopping your neighbor from hitting you with a stick should he so decide. Even so, invisible entities can attempt to pick on whoever they want. They cannot take over a person’s power of decision though unless the person opens the door and somehow invites them in. Thus the importance of walking in the light and being as harmless as possible.

There is a lot of food for thought in contemplating some of these principles.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Invisible Interactions, Part 3

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 19 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 5, 2010
Dean:
If there is a god. How can such a god attend to everyone’s personal life at once? Would someone like me be that important to listen to? How does such a god cope and monitor and attend, answer to every situation from everyone. How does such a being exist and function. Also this belief about karma seems practically impossible to enforce.

JJ
You are a god over all the billions of lives within your body. Even though you are one life, each of your cells receives most of the attention and nutrients they need. The system is not perfect as there arises disease and death at times, but most cells are able to live a healthy useful life.

Even so it is with us in relation to the One Life permeating the universe.

It has been said that evil entities do not use their own ideas, but merely copy those from the workers of light and corrupt them.

This is indeed a true principle and it also applies to the influence and possession of evil entities.

It s interesting that Jesus himself was possessed by a spirit. Here is the account.

John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

The Spirit of God just did not come and go with Jesus, but remained upon him.

Also Jesus tells us that his Father was actually in him:

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Here we see that Jesus was possessed by his “Father” which dwelt “in” him and was the one who gave power to do the mighty works.

So we have evidence that the good guys can possess as well as the bad. What is the difference?

Being possessed by the Spirit of God or a divine being occurs through free will to the benefit of both parties.

The possession of an evil entity usually occurs against a person’s free will. I say usually because every once in a while there comes along a person so foolhardy that he freely gives himself to possession.

Even when a possession occurs against free will the disaster can usually be traced back to free will decisions that opened the door to the problem.

There are two problems that are derived from the so-called evil spirits. The first is attracts and the second is possession. Attacks are centered on often innocent disciples seeking to do the will of God, while possession happens to the foolish who opened the wrong doors.

Here are a couple examples of attack on the innocent. This first is from the diary of my great great Grandfather, Wilford Woodruff
:

“The prospect in London at that time was the darkest it had ever been in since entering the vineyard; but the Lord was with us, and we were not discouraged. On Sunday we met with the Saints three times at Brother Corner’s, read the Book of Mormon, gave instruction, and broke bread unto them. We had a good time, though there were only about half a dozen present. I felt the spirit bear testimony that there would be a work done in London.
“Having retired to rest in good season, I fell asleep and slept until midnight, when I awoke and meditated upon the things of God until 3 o’clock in the morning; and, while forming a determination to warn the people in London and by the assistance and inspiration of God to overcome the power of darkness, a person appeared to me, whom I consider was the prince of darkness. He made war upon me, and attempted to take my life. As he was about to overcome me I prayed to the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, for help. I then had power over him and he left me, though I was much wounded. Afterwards three persons dressed in white came to me and prayed with me, and I was healed immediately of all my wounds, and delivered of all my troubles.
Wilford Woodruff By Matthias F. Cowley, Page 130

Here is another account taken from the site at:
http://ldsbritain.blogspot.com/2010/02/discovering-lds-preston-satanic-attack.html
Upon their arrival in Preston (July 1837), one of the first missionaries, John Goodson, went to find lodgings. “We obtain a lodging in the house of a widow [in St. Wilfred Street], and furnished our own vituals and she cooked it for us.” (Kimball, S.B, p.7-8)
Joseph Fielding referred to them as “comfortable private lodging.” (Fielding 1:17)

A week later an amazing event took place in these lodgings that is oft repeated. What I have tried to do in this post is take different accounts and jigsaw them together in chronological order. Heber C. Kimball recalled:
“Sunday, July 30th, about daybreak, Elder Isaac Russell….came up to the third story, where Elder Hyde and myself were sleeping, and called out, ‘Brother Kimball, I want you should get up and pray for me that I may be delivered from the evil spirits that are tormenting me to such a degree that I feel I cannot live long, unless I obtain relief.”
“I had been sleeping on the back of the bed. I immediately arose, slipped off at the foot of the bed, and passed around to where he was. Elder Hyde threw his feet out, and sat up in the bed, and we laid hands on him, I being mouth, and prayed that the Lord would have mercy on him, and rebuked the devil. While thus engaged, I was struck with great force by some invisible power, and fell senseless on the floor. (Whitney p. 129-131)
Orson Hyde observed this same moment in his account:
“his [Heber’s] voice faltered, and his mouth was shut, and he began to tremble and reel to and fro, and fell on the floor like a dead man, and uttered a deep groan. I immediately seized him by the shoulder, and lifted him up, being satisfied that the devils were exceedingly angry because we attempted to cast them out of Br. Russell, and they made a powerful attempt upon elder Kimball as if to dispatch him at once, they struck him senseless and he fell to the floor… (Elder’s p. 4)
Heber continued…
The first thing I recollected was being supported by Elders Hyde and Richards, who were praying for me; Elder Richards having followed Russell up to my room. Elder Hyde and Richards then assisted me to get on the bed, but my agony was so great I could not endure it, and I arose, bowed my knees and prayed. I then arose and sat up on the bed, when a vision was opened to our minds, and we could distinctly see the evil spirits, who foamed and gnashed their teeth at us. (Whitney p. 130-131)
Years later (1856) Heber told a congregation in the Salt Lake Tabernacle,
“I saw their hands, their eyes, and every feature of their faces, the hair on their heads, and their ears, in short they had full formed bodies.“ (Journal of Discourses Vol. 3 mar 2, 1856, p. 229)

Heber’s account continued:
We gazed upon them about an hour and a half (by Willard’s watch). We were not looking towards the window, but towards the wall. Space appeared before us, and we saw the devils coming in legions, with their leaders, who came within a few feet of us. They came towards us like armies rushing to battle They appeared to be men of full stature, possessing every form and feature of men in the flesh, who were angry and desperate; and I (Kimball) shall never forget the vindictive malignity depicted on their countenances as they looked me in the eye; and any attempt to paint the scene which then presented itself, or portray their malice and enmity, would be vain. I perspired exceedingly, my clothes becoming as wet as if I had been taken out of the river. I felt excessive pain, and was in the greatest distress for sometime. (Whitney p. 130-131)

ORSON: Immediately he [Heber] recovered his strength in part, so as to get up; the sweat began to roll from him most powerfully, and he was almost as wet as if he had been taken out of the water,
(Elder’s p.4)

HEBER: We distinctly heard those spirits talk and express their wrath and hellish designs against us.
(Whitney p. 130-131)

ORSON: We could very sensibly hear the evil spirits rage and foam out their shame.”
(Elder’s p.4)

FIELDING: They could hear a sound from them, i.e the evil spirits, like the grating of teeth, quite plainly. (Fielding, p.22)

ORSON: …After you were overcome by them and had fallen, their awful rush upon me with knives, threats, imprecations, hellish grins, amply convinced me that they were no friends of mine. While you were apparently senseless and lifeless on the floor and upon the bed (after we had laid you there), I (Orson) stood between you (Heber) and the devils and fought them and contended with them face to face, until they began to diminish in number and to retreat from the room. The last imp that left turned around to me as he was going out and said, as if to apologize, and appease my determined opposition to them, ‘I never said anything against you!’ I replied to him thus: ‘It matters not me whether you have or have not; you are a liar from the beginning! In the name of Jesus Christ depart!’ He immediately left, and the room was clear. That closed the scene of devils for the time. (Whitney 131)
FIELDING: They however kept their distances, but turned their heads toward Bro. Hyde; one looking at him said distinctly, but with a murmuring tone, slowly demure, I never spoke against you. He said there seemed to be legion of them. He was alarmed, but very much disgusted. He could scarcely bear to speak of them. (Fielding, p. 23)
However, the Lord delivered us from them, and blessed us exceedingly that day.
(Whitney 130-131)

The aftermath…

This event was soon being related across the ocean in America.
“I (Heber) wrote a few words to my wife about the matter, and brother Joseph called upon her for the letter and said, “It was a choice jewel, and a testimony that the Gospel was planted in a strange land.” (JD v3 Mar 2 1856, p. 229)
Upon his return home Heber walked with Joseph Smith who declared:
“At that time you were nigh unto the Lord: there was only a veil between you and Him, but you could not see Him. When I heard of it, it gave me great joy, for I then knew that the work of God had taken root in that land. It was this that caused the devil to make a struggle to kill you.” (Whitney p. 132)
It is an interesting exercise to compare Joseph’s experience in the Sacred Grove with this manifestation in Preston. In both instances the adversary knew that something significant was about to happen. We can learn some valuable lessons from both:

JOSEPH: “I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. (Joseph Smith History 1:15-17)
Joseph to Heber about the Preston attack:
“The nearer a person approaches the Lord, a greater power will be manifested by the adversary to prevent the accomplishment of His purposes” (Whitney p.132)

An attack does not take away free will but it does have the effect of discouraging the faint of heart from moving forwards.

An actual possession, on the other hand, can take away free will. This violates free will you say. In many cases yes and this is allowed to happen at times just as a violation of free will on a physical level happens – such as a kidnapping. God does not come down and stop the kidnapper or rapist because it violates free will. The teachers of light teach free will and we work toward maximum free will but unfortunately in this world there are many cases where much free will is taken away.

It is the work of the true servants to restore free will to all who can embrace it.

Now some think that we cannot be influenced by evil entities but this is provably incorrect. Hitler was obviously evil and influenced millions.

Good spirits in bodies also influenced many – George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are good examples.

If a spirit in a body can influence others then why cannot a spirit out of a body do the same? It can. All of us have the power to receive communication from sprit to spirit. Millions already actively do this and all others have the ability if they chose to develop it.

Of course we all want to live our lives free of kidnapers, rapists and murderers on the physical plane and to do this we take intelligent steps to protect ourselves.

We also want to live free from negative effects of spiritual attacks. To do this we must not turn our will over to any other person but live according to the highest we know. One must also cast out all fear and have faith in the goodness of God.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

More on Divine Possession

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 20 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 5, 2010

Concerning the divine possession John C writes;

I know we have been over and over this before, but your explanation has never satisfied me. From your explanations, I keep getting this picture of a Russian doll with two or more dolls nested inside.

JJ
The Russian dolls are all made of physical mater. What I have presented involves several grades of matter.

Consider this. You are presently composed of four bodies of form now and even more if we consider the formless worlds.

(1) You have a physical body

(2) Next within this is the etheric double.

(3) Occupying this same space is your astral body.

(4) Still in this same space is your mental body.

These are not like Russian dolls for such dolls occupy different space.

Matter, which is higher than the physical is not nearly as dense. Thus two mental bodies in one physical one does not cause any crowding at all.

John quotes me:

“Also Jesus tells us that his Father was actually in him:

“John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”

John C
I ran across this scripture in Matthew the other day.

Matt 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Then, we have this one in John:

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

JJ
The scriptures you quote do not deal with divine possession but a sharing of consciousness as happened through the Oneness Principle. This is illustrated in the scripture Dan quoted:

I Cor 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
I Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

When you stub your toe and suffer pain all parts of the body feel it together. There is a sharing because not only is the toe in the body, but also the hand, the brain, the feet, etc.

The Spiritual internet is like the soul of humanity and all who are tuned in are part of the body.

This oneness and sharing can be experienced by an unlimited number of entities. When the Oneness Principle is accessed each life is a part of the whole and is tuned into a greater life. One could say they are in and through and with each other.

A divine possession is a totally different matter. They also have a sharing but this sharing is brought down to the physical body of the disciple in that two entities share the same physical body for the purpose of creating a connecting link between heaven and earth, between the kingdom of humanity and the kingdom ruled over by Christ and his Father.

Let me give an imperfect analogy to paint a picture.

The Oneness Principle works like the Internet. Even though we are all in different locations we are like one great life where the parts you and me can share anything we want. I am in Ruth and Dan and John and they are in me as far as sharing is concerned.

A divine possession is more like two processors occupying one computer. These processors not only have access to the internet but also to each other and working together they decide on various courses of action that the computer as a whole will take.

Jesus illustrated the difference between the mere sharing of consciousness and the actual presence of two entities when he answered his critics.

John 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
John 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

He had already said his Father was in him. Now he said he is not alone, but that if they understood they would realize that not one, gut two men were bearing witness.

Now through the Oneness Principle he could have said he had many witnesses, but he was not referring to that. Instead he was referring to one other entity that actually dwelt within him.

These two witnesses were the two entities within the body of Jesus.

John writes:

I’m not questioning the experience. I want to know HOW.

JJ
Let me add this. There is a link between the mental bodies of the disciple and the Master. The astral body of the disciple is affected but not directly involved. This links the consciousness of the two and the disciple shares the higher vibration of the Master which is overwhelming at first but, after adjusted to, the higher sense of purpose and direction is then shared.

As for the technical details of how two mental bodies occupy one physical all I can say is that mental matter is more refined and the higher up the scale you go the more matter can occupy a certain amount of space.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Money Masters

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 21 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 7-9, 2010

Blayne:
The links I posted on mining in my last post before this one show otherwise However lets look at the idea this conveys.

JJ
The link mention adds about 2 billion dollars worth of gold. $2 billion is peanuts in today’s economy.

Blayne
When it is said “$300 worth of gold” I am assuming you mean at the current exchange rate to FRN’s? If so then at around $1200 an ounce your looking at about a quarter ounce of gold. Little bit more then a grain of sand.

JJ
If the whole world went on the gold standard the price would skyrocket and a piece of gold about the size of a grain of sand would be worth about $20 making it impractical as exchange without some type of fiat or fractional money.

Blayne
Second this evokes the idea that everyone would be poor.

JJ
I didn’t say anything to indicate that.

Blayne
Again based on the myth of credit expansion being necessary for a healthy economy. This is based on the current Keynesian model which is failing miserably.

JJ
I didn’t say anything about this, but expansion of production as well as the money supply is essential for a growing economy.

Blayne:
It also does not take into account silver and other monetary metals that could
and would be used and appears to be coming from a strict gold standard
standpoint of government fixing the amount. . When you say not very practical
certainly not in an “inflated” economy such as ours where $300 is a pittance in
terms of purchasing power and trade where all prices are based on this massive
inflation.

JJ
If gold is practical then whether it works should not depend on whether the economy is inflated or not.

Blayne
If we look at it from a different angle where gold is currently at about $1200
on ounce then 300 ounces of gold or 15 $20 gold pieces (what fiat money tries to
mimic) would be equal to $3,600,000 current FRN’s.

JJ
No argument there, but I don’t see this fact making a case for the gold standard.

Blayne
Indeed economy expansion would be much slower but would be stable and there
would be less poor as people would be more likely to have sufficient for their. needs. More on this later.

JJ
Yes, it would be slower, but a stifling of the economy and production is not a necessary thing.

It doesn’t matter what standard we use for corrupt people will try to take advantage of it of it. The gold standard was abused just as the fiat one is. The new financial system needs to be transparent as well as understood by the people for it to operate successfully.

Did you check out that video series that Susan posted? Did you find anything you disagreed with?

***

Blayne:
The links I posted on mining in my last post before this one show otherwise However lets look at the idea this conveys.

JJ
The link mention adds about 2 billion dollars worth of gold. $2 billion is peanuts in today’s economy.

Blayne
When it is said “$300 worth of gold” I am assuming you mean at the current exchange rate to FRN’s? If so then at around $1200 an ounce your looking at about a quarter ounce of gold. Little bit more then a grain of sand.

JJ
If the whole world went on the gold standard the price would skyrocket and a piece of gold about the size of a grain of sand would be worth about $20 making it impractical as exchange without some type of fiat or fractional money.

Blayne
Second this evokes the idea that everyone would be poor.

JJ
I didn’t say anything to indicate that.

Blayne
Again based on the myth of credit expansion being necessary for a healthy economy. This is based on the current Keynesian model which is failing miserably.

JJ
I didn’t say anything about this, but expansion of production as well as the money supply is essential for a growing economy.

Blayne:
It also does not take into account silver and other monetary metals that could
and would be used and appears to be coming from a strict gold standard
standpoint of government fixing the amount. . When you say not very practical
certainly not in an “inflated” economy such as ours where $300 is a pittance in
terms of purchasing power and trade where all prices are based on this massive
inflation.

JJ
If gold is practical then whether it works should not depend on whether the economy is inflated or not.

Blayne
If we look at it from a different angle where gold is currently at about $1200
on ounce then 300 ounces of gold or 15 $20 gold pieces (what fiat money tries to
mimic) would be equal to $3,600,000 current FRN’s.

JJ
No argument there, but I don’t see this fact making a case for the gold standard.

Blayne
Indeed economy expansion would be much slower but would be stable and there
would be less poor as people would be more likely to have sufficient for their. needs. More on this later.

JJ
Yes, it would be slower, but a stifling of the economy and production is not a necessary thing.

It doesn’t matter what standard we use for corrupt people will try to take advantage of it of it. The gold standard was abused just as the fiat one is. The new financial system needs to be transparent as well as understood by the people for it to operate successfully.

Did you check out that video series that Susan posted? Did you find anything you disagreed with?Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Good comments on money from both sides. There is a lot I could say on the subject, but we tackled this once before through general posting and nothing got resolved. What i’ve decided to do is to write a treatise on the subject giving a step by step approach to substantiate my views. I may make this a section in my book since it is an important subject.

I figure that those who provide criticism can only help to make the final treatise more sound.

***
Larry W writes:
I questioned whether JJ actually did use the spiritual connection he claims. But, again, as I got into it the gravity of
that program it confirmed JJ’s process validity and probably confirms his spiritual Internet access.

JJ
Thanks for your faith in my Larry but I want to make it clear that no one should have faith in my writings because they see me as having a connection beyond that which they have themselves. The most I expect is to be respected as an earned authority. This means that if they disagree they will look twice at my reasoning and ask themselves if they missed something – that perhaps i knew what I was talking about. If, after doing this the person cannot accept what i say then they can either reject it or put it on the shelf. It matters not to me.
***

Larry Woods says, Blayne, let me spell it out very simple. The total amount of monetary gold today in the whole world is about 3.4 trillion dollars worth in today’s inflated dollars. Compared to annual world economy of about 60 trillion dollars (inflated exaclty the same) there is NO POSSIBLE WAY 3.4T can directly cover 60T. That is 17 to 1 even if China had not already horded 80% of the world’s monetary gold supply. GET REAL!

Blayne Why would it have to cover 60 trillion? This has been explained several times. Perhaps you can explain why it must cover the inflationary bubble of credit in light of the fact and fundamental law of economics that prices are relative to the amount of currency in circulation regardless of production? Prices would simply adjust to the amount of currency in circulation.

JJ
You’re overlooking something important here that is not even disputed by the Austrian school as far as I know.

We have 3.4 trillion dollars worth of gold. This value is by the standard of dollars as they exist today. In other words, all the gold available can buy 3.4 trillion dollars worth of real estate, oil or whatever.

On the other hand, the amount of money in dollars can buy $60 trillion worth of assets.

If we went on the pure gold standard tomorrow then the people would only have the purchasing power of 3.4 trillion or about 6% of what we have today. This means that if you are making $40,000 a year now in purchasing power that you would only be making $2400 if we suddenly switched to a pure gold standard. Just imagine if the average person had to live on $2400 a year in purchasing power. Not too desirable.

Then if China corned the market on gold, things could be even worse than this.

Let me add one more thing. For there to be a adjustment in prices that you mention then the whole world would have to go on the gold standard. If just the United States did then there would be little adjustment except to lower purchasing power.

If a true adjustment was made then the price of gold would be so high that a $20 gold piece might be as small as a grain of sand like I said.

If we somehow decreed that a $20 gold piece would be equal to one ounce of gold then in the adjusted world you could buy a car for $20. How would you go about buying an ice cream cone in such a system?
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Democracy

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 22 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 8, 2010

Larry W:
Also, many of your quotes are wrong. JJ will be correcting you on
this, I’ve seen him do it before.

JJ
Looks like you’re a prophet. Here goes.

Blayne:
Might want to review what the founders had to say about democracy. there is a reason why it is not mentioned in the constitution. The founders deplored it.

JJ
Not so fast. First let us look at your quotes from Thomas Jefferson

First quote: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”

JJ
This is a fabricated quote, evidently made up by someone who didn’t like what Jefferson really had to say about Democracy.

Check this out:
Click Here

Let us look at your second Jefferson quote:
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Again this is a fabricated quote.
Click Here

It seems to be a true statement though that says nothing negative about democracy itself.

Here are a few of many examples of what Jefferson really thought about democracy.

“The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail.” Thomas
Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.

“I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law.” Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

“Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.

“[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law.” Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808.

“Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, ” Thomas
Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

There are more in my book The Lost Key of the Buddha

Now let us look at the rest of the quotes.
Benjamin Franklin: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

JJ
This is also most probably a false quote and the closest thing to it was originated by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a contemporary with Franklin. No one seems to find this quote being attributed to Franklin before 1988
More information here

That said, let us see if this applies to democracy in our age. It doesn’t, but it does apply to our Republic for this is happening in the here and now before our eyes. We have a small minority having power to vote themselves money and benefits and this, not the majority, is causing our financial ruin. The majority of the people are very concerned over this abuse.

Benjamin Franklin:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Another false quote. There is no record of Franklin saying this.
Click Here

There are a lot of flaws in this quote that Franklin would have seen. For example what we have now is a dozen wolves voting what to have for dinner with none of the lambs being able to vote at all. Since lambs outnumber wolves then a democracy would wind up protecting the lambs.

I’ll assume the rest of these quotes are accurate, as I do not have time to check each one. So far it looks like anti democracy people just make up quotes to fit their need.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy…it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

JJ
Hamilton is dead wrong on this. Where has there ever been a democracy that was a tyranny? Never. Mainly because there has never been a democracy in the history of the world. The closest thing to one was Athens, but even this was a representative government with each potential voter representing at least a dozen people who could not vote.

Even so Athens created the greatest example of freedom and enlightenment the world had seen up to that time. Nearby Sparta was a dictatorship and very little light came from there compared to the more democratic Athens.

John Adams: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

JJ
Adams didn’t know what he was talking about. There has never been a democracy.

James Madison: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

JJ
Yeah, right and the opposite of democracy like North Korea, Cuba and the old Soviet Union are really compatible with personal security and property rights.

John Quincy Adams: The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

JJ
The same could be said of freedom. Wherever freedom surfaced in our world history it only lasted for a short while because all the powers of the beast fought against it. The one great example of a group seeking freedom during the Roman Empire was led by Spartacus. It was short lived and failed. Did this make it wrong?

No. never.

The human spirit will pursue freedom and true workable democracy until they are achieved.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

JJ
Tyranny is always a possibility in any system, however without the right of the people to vote they will have a tyrant by default. The more democratic the government the less likely is tyranny for what people will vote to elect or re-elect a known tyrant?

John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world.

JJ
And where is there a great injustice that the majority of the people of the United States desire?

I can’t think of any.

I can, however think of many that minorities desire. Here are a few.

Murder, rape, racism, slavery, dictatorship, more stimulus, forced socialism and communism, no free speech, no guns and lots of others.

I’ll pick the will of the majority any time over the present will that the minority in our government is attempting to force upon us.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Golden Thoughts

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 23 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 9, 2010
Blayne:
Which is also why I do not advocate a gold standard. I advocate a free market on currency. This is also not what is being advocated even by those who want a pure gold standard.

JJ
If I recall on our last discussion on this you were for a strict gold standard so it appears your views have changed somewhat.

Actually then we seem to be close to the system you advocate as one can now turn his fiat money into gold silver, copper or whatever and then exchange that for what he wants. There are many merchants on the internet now that accept gold and silver for merchandise.

I support your competing money idea to a degree, but think we need a universal money system that is accepted by all. Without this we could have a thousand currencies all having different exchange rates making normal transactions a nightmare. This was one of the problems we had with early currencies that would be exacerbated in this age.

Today we have a general currency and still have the freedom to exchange in gold and silver. This is good. To his we could allow people to experiment with other paper currencies, which are now illegal. These currencies could be backed by a number of different commodities or services and if one or two prove successful it would force the government to adjust its own currency to make it more desirable and stable.

Blayne
As I have said the safest IMO to simply repeal legal tender laws, end the monopoly, and let the market decide if it wants sound money or fiat currency.

JJ
I think we need to keep the law making the main currency legal but loosen the laws to allow citizens to print their own money to compete with it.

Blayne:
If the US did go on a gold standard and the rest of the world did not, we would soon be the economic powerhouse and more we once were as all the nations of earth would store their wealth with us and invest with us because they know the stability it would bring.

JJ
It looks to me that the opposite would happen. If China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan etc could redeem their dollars for gold then all our gold would be gone in about two days and then there would be no gold standard for us because there would be no gold.

Blayne;
what is that scripture where all the nations of the earth would bring their gold and silver up to Zion or something to that effect?

JJ
But we want the nations to bring us their gold, not cart all our gold away. This can only happen when prosperity and unlimited expansion is produced. Just as the universe itself expands in nature even so must our creations have the power to expand with an expanding money supply, not a contracting one. This statement does not support the current system of excessive debt, however.

JJ Quote If a true adjustment was made then the price of gold would be so high that a $20 gold piece might be as small as a grain of sand like I said.

Blayne Only in terms of the current astronomically inflated currency but not necessarily.

JJ
The current inflation has no bearing on this whatsoever. $20 worth of goods and services is what it is. If you buy a watch for $20 then it is worth what it is. If we switched to gold, all things being equal the watch still maintains it’s value and if gold coinage were adjusted to the demand of goods and services you could then buy the watch for a very small piece of gold. This would happen because a universal gold standard would make the price of gold artificially high.

JJ If we somehow agreed that a $20 gold piece would be equal to one ounce of gold then in the adjusted world you could buy a car for $20. How would you go about buying an ice cream cone in such a system?

Blayne That is what you have silver, copper, and nickel etc for.

JJ
Then we’d have the problem of taking valuable metals out of the manufacturing system creating shortages and causing metal prices to artificially skyrocket.. Carrying around tiny metal coins to use in all exchanges does not sound practical to me.

Blayne:
I forgot to address this part. It is still apples and oranges, why does the current fiat bubble have to be the measuring rod?

JJ
That is the only one available. There is no other. We have to deal with reality and use what is, not what is not. Despite its flaws the value of the current monetary system still depends on goods and services which does have intrinsic value.

Blayne
The answer is it doesn’t it is irrelevant to what gold is worth today in terms of inflated fiat currency.

JJ
Why??? I see no reasoning here, just a declaration of belief..

Blayne
The real price is probably 5-10 thousand an ounce due to manipulation of the metals markets.

JJ
If we had a crash this could happen but I see no evidence that your statement applies in today’s market. The value of gold is determined by supply and demand. There is always some manipulation in all money throughout all history.

Blayne:
If we wanted to use puca shells for a currency we could and they would be more stable then fiat money because they can’t be printed, then how would you measure the value in terms of current fiat money? You can’t because there is no value assigned to in current fiat currency. Point is the idea we have to adhere to the current illusions of price and wealth and equal it even scaled down somehow is not necessarily so.

JJ
And how would you assign a value to the puca shells? If you did this and then the production suddenly doubled that value would go out the window.

lwk
A person could live very well on $2400 a year if that currency was a “hard currency” and had sufficient purchasing power.

JJ
But I was talking about $2400 in the value today’s dollars so your point is moot.

lwk
Again purchasing power is not some magical number but the objective result of supply and demand. The “supply” of currency represents the total demand and if somehow we could wipe out 90% of the currency the demand would not change – rather the purchasing power of every dollar would increase to balance the supply/demand equation.

JJ
Agreed. This supports my point that switching to a 100% gold standard, (or several metals) would change the value of gold so $20 of current purchasing power may only require a piece of gold the size of a grain of sand making it impractical to use as gold coins and causing technology that uses gold, silver and copper to rise to obscene prices.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Majority Will vs Representative

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 24 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 13, 2010

Blayne writes:
I finished reading Eternal Words yesterday again. Yes I said again, interestingly I didn’t remember having read it until I began reading it again. Or at least I think I read parts of it online that JJ posted while writing it. Excellent and exciting read well done JJ!

I have a question/comment… I noticed the BOL would not support the books with their spiritual power and influence unless they were in unanimous agreement and not majority rules unless I am interpreting this wrong somehow? I do see that they allowed them to go forward but withheld their spiritual endorsement so to speak. So in that sense there is majority rule on that part but on the weightier matter of throwing their spiritual endorsement behind it they would not unless it was unanimous. Do I have this right?

This actually appealed to me, as I have mentioned I have experimented with some groups where we used this approach and it actually worked out quite well to my surprise. However our caveat was that if you raised an objection you had to bring a remedy along with it. This really cut the objections down quite a bit as lots of folks like to complain but few have a solution to their complaint. This was in a group of about 30 people. When someone raised an objection and brought a remedy the focus was on; will the remedy work and be better, also on modifying the remedy, or why it wouldn’t work. This kept the focus more on constructively trying to solve the problem instead of just bitching and moaning.

JJ
Glad you enjoyed the book.

You are seeing correctly here. The masters do not use the majority rule and the Molecular Relationship does not teach it or practice it. I have outlined in some detail how this works in my book The Molecular Relationship.

So why do I teach majority rule as a current political solution but not for the molecules? Here is the reason.

The Molecular Relationship is basically representative government with the right to vote the leaders in and out. The main way it differs from our Constitution is that a vote can be called for at any time.

Unfortunately, this type of government only works efficiently when there is little or no corruption and the most enlightened gravitate to the top with the power to replace them at any time a mistake is seen. In the current situation the most corrupt rise to the top and become little tyrants.

Among the Masters, representative government works well because the enlightened rise to the top. One important ingredient that causes this is in the Molecular Relationship the leader can be voted out at any time. This puts constant pressure on the leader to respect majority will except in the exceptional times he sees a controversial move that the others do not.

Because of corruption and power grabs of the unenlightened the representative system is not working for us and the majority of the people see with much more clarity than do our elected officials. Therefore, working with majority will makes sense at this time. The great part about it is that if you work with majority will you can eventually get to a greater place of power than any of those representing minority will as is the case today.

It is interesting that even though the Molecular Relationship is representative that it almost always represents majority will.

But…

In our system minority will is represented much more than the majority.

If the representative system is working properly then the majority will be represented around 90% of the time. If it is represented only half the time or less then it needs to be replaced by direct majority rule.

Finally, here is the danger if corruption goes to the limit. When this happens both the majority of the representatives and the majority of the people desire the wrong thing. At this point the nation is doomed to collapse. We are not there yet as the majority still have a little sense. How much longer they can be usable to turn things around I know not. Not that long. – so we must act.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Voting in the Molecule

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 25 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 14, 2010
Blayne writes:
So if I am understanding you correctly (It’s been a while since I read the Molecular Relationship) anyone can call for a vote anytime but the vote has to be unanimous?

JJ
No. The vote happens pretty much the way it does in our republic except it can be called at any time. With our representatives we have to wait 2-6 years before we can vote.

Let me give an example of how it would work. Let us suppose that Jim is not happy with his molecular leader and thinks he can do a better job. He challenges his leader and calls for a vote. After a period of discussion a vote is called. Jim gets 10 votes and the leader gets 14 out of the 24. The leader stays in.

Example two:

Jim calls for a vote and challenges the leader. Ross also thinks he can be a good leader and throws in his hat. A vote is taken. Ross gets 10 votes, the leader 8 and Jim only 6. Ross becomes the new leader.

Let us suppose Jim gets an idea for a group project and presents it to the group. Ross is now the group leader and has the final yes or no decision making power for he group. He doesn’t like Jim’s idea at all and could just veto it if he desires but he senses that if he dismisses it out of hand that the group may think he is unjust and someone may challenge his leadership.

Instead of projecting unjust authority he presents what he considers to be a better plan and calls for a vote. The majority vote for his plan and he not only gets his way, but maintains good relations with his group.

Jim, however, is very frustrated at this point. He thinks he should be the leader but can’t get voted in. He thinks he has good ideas and can’t get them accepted. What can he do? He can go seek other like-minded individuals and form a molecule of his own and become a leader of that as long as the new people will support him. If he is unable to do this then he should stay where he is and support the work being done. If he cannot do this without forming a grievance then he should leave the Molecular order.

Blayne:
The constitution is law for the Federal Government not the people.

JJ
The final arbitrator of law is the people. Jury is supposed to be an example of this. Majority will can ne implemented within the framework of the Constitution and no changes are needed. There is nothing that prohibits majority will.

“The authority of [the] people [is] a necessary foundation for a constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:28

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Declaration of Independence

Blayne
I am a little confused now. You said: “/The masters do not use the majority rule and the Molecular Relationship does not teach it or practice it/”. So how are they working with majority will at all if the vote has to be unanimous? Unless of course you mean being unanimous then of course that is obviously the majority…. What am I missing?

JJ
The only place majority vote has full play is in electing a leader or if the leader calls for or approves a vote. The leader represents the group and can either make the decision or call for a majority vote from the group. The vote does not have to be unanimous unless for some reason this is what the group and the leader want.

There will be many cases where small decisions will need to be made where the leader can save much time by just making them himself. The important ones he will want to discuss with the group and put them to a vote if necessary.

A vote is only mandatory when there is an election for leadership.

One of the ways to see how a molecule works is to watch how I manage the Keys. I have pretty much power here to just decree anything I want for the forum, but I use my authority very sparingly as I could easily chase the whole group away. Instead, I support a maximum freedom of expression and participation and have called for a vote several times when it seemed appropriate.

***

Blayne:
Again clearly majority will here at play, hence my confusion at your statement
the MR does not teach or practice majority will.

JJ
It doesn’t except in elections. As far as the operations of the molecule it operates on the the representative principle similar to our representatives in Congress, except the system will produce more enlightened leaders. How you can see this as majority rule is a mystery to me. The molecular representative has full power of decision over the group and that is not majority rule even though he will be in touch with majority will and work with it as seems appropriate. The majority have to be satisfied in any organization or it will fall apart unless you have a dictatorship ruled by fear. That doesn’t mean you have majority rule.

Because our political representatives are not representing the majority, the majority are dissatisfied the people are demanding real change. That doesn’t mean we have majority rule in this country, but we do have majority influence. That is why they have town halls and read letters and emails.

If you are the leader of a molecule you can run it without taking any vote if you want or not even get any input but if the majority feel they are not being represented or respected your position would soon be challenged.

Blayne:
The majority elect a leader to express their will. How can that be anything but majority will?

JJ
I guess it is a matter of semantics. In this country the majority elect a representative to express their will but I haven’t seen you call this majority will, but representative government, which constitutes a Republican form of government rather than a democracy.

The Molecular Relationship is similar but safer because the leaders will be less subject to corruption. It can’t be called pure majority will because the leader can go against the majority at any time his inner guidance reveals it is necessary. Our government representatives can also go against the majority and often do – not because of inner guidance, but because of outside influences.

Blayne:
I understand the concept that everything does not need to be voted on and the leader can run with it, (I assume the leader is also limited in what he can do too) that is not my confusion, the point is if he ignores the will of the majority then he will be removed (in the MR) again how is that anything but majority will?

JJ
I have said many times the voting for leaders is majority will just as is the case in the U.S. It is the running of business that has the leader and not the majority as the deciding point. This is not governed by majority will, but by a leader accepting or rejecting majority views – or presenting something that has not occurred to the majority to get their response.

Blayne:
This seems also to differ entirely from the BOL in the scenario in your book where they had to have unanimous approval to move forward with the books. So if Christ is the leader he can’t just pull rank and say were doing it anyway..

JJ
I don’t believe that is written in the books. John said he wanted to get unanimous approval, but that doesn’t mean it was required. However, if the leader deems it wise he can require unanimous approval on a direction, or he can go by a mere majority – or just make the decision. If the group sees eye to eye through the soul they should all see the same. On an item that does not involve a principle at play then there is likely to be more disagreement.

I believe I required unanimous approval on one project we did years ago, but most of the time that I have called for a vote we went with the majority. Other times I have just decided and presented a plan. It just depends on the circumstance.

Now the fasting plan originated within the group and fit in with the purpose of the group so the best thing to do was to let it happen. On the other hand, if someone wanted to create a cheerleading section on the Keys for more stimulus spending I would use my authority as leader of the Keys to send the illusionary fool toward greener pastures.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Questions

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 26 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 16, 2010

Ruth:
JJ, you know how you started a list of Principles in the Archives, was there
ever a “Principle of Fasting”?

Or is there one you can write up?

Does this principle circle around Magnetism and Radiance?

JJ
Neither fasting, not eating, or running, or anything else we do is a principle in itself but involve principles. A principle is the concept that brings to the understanding as to why something works. Why do we eat and then refrain from eating? This can be traced back to the principles of interdependence and of cycles. In addition we fast for two additional reasons involving which are cyclic cleansing or rest and communion.

to find the principle you do not look at an action or a piece of data, but you look at the reason for the happening or the cause of the data.

***

Nadell asked, “Well, isn’t freedom simply the absence of selfishness?

Larry Woods says,
That is a very good question.

JJ
Let us know any response you get from your answer.

Actually the unselfish who are in illusion are the first to freely march toward slavery. Freedom from illusion is the key to freedom, not unselfishness.

Hitler was fairly unselfish as he sacrificed all he had for his goals, which he thought was for the good of all.

He was, however, in great illusion as well as his unselfish followers.

It is great illusion to think a forced good will have a good end. Socialism and equality have good ingredients, but when they are forced upon people by leaders who are in great illusion, scarcity and depression are the final result.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Response on Daheshism

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 27 of 62 in the series 2010

Response on Daheshism
Posted Aug 17, 2010
JJ
Mario, it was good to hear from a real Daheshist, especially one who personally knew the founder. I’m glad to see that you are concerned about your image and good name and can certainly understand that feeling.

You say:
However and not unless I am mistaken, while FreeRead.com is a public disseminator of knowledge with unrestricted access, it is not balanced by an equally public discussion forum — one that is able to be viewed by all without restrictions, similarly to its content.

JJ
Actually, it is balanced off by a public discussion group which is this one. All the archive writings appeared here on the keys first.

The Daheshist follower concerned never identified himself but his comments were sent to me through a third party. So we do not know for sure who he was, only that he was a self-proclaimed follower. Now it may be true that he had a screw loose (which we assumed) but it is true that he was a self-proclaimed follower just as portrayed in the posts.

We have had self proclaimed followers from a number of movements post some strange stuff here and in each case we do not blindly accept that he is accurately reflecting the core beliefs of the mother organization.

In fact, Christians sometimes go so far as to post that Christ preached violence, but most realize that this was a distortion.

There is some good material in the concerned posts that took some thought for me to put in works so I do not want to pull it. However, the next time we update freeread I will be willing to put in a disclaimer in the posts as follows:

NOTE: We have been notified by an authorized agent of Daheshism informing us that the above character identified as “Dahesh Follower” was not an authorized agent of the organization and has in fact present a distorted view of Dahesh teachings.

That said, I would be interested in your response to a couple unanswered questions I asked the alleged Daheshist:

(1) To become a Daheshist one must “to live by The Book of Daheshism,” and also to promote it. I understand this book has not even been translated into English (and it is still not available on Amazon) so how is it possible that you are even a Daheshist if you cannot fulfill the promise?

(2) Is the Ramz ritual available for all to learned or do you have to be involved in some inner circle? Have you used it yourself and what has been your results?

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey