Keys Writings 2014, Part 19

This entry is part 23 of 33 in the series 2014

Aug 30, 2014

Teaching the Teacher


What happens when anyone should attempt to teach a Mormon Elder? My experience is simply that any such teaching will not be allowed.

I understand that Joseph John Dewey is an Elder, and I understand that Joseph John Dewey is a teacher.


I am a teacher here in this forum but I am far removed from being a Mormon Elder.


What I need to know is whether or not Joseph John Dewey can be taught?


Sure, but this is not the place to do it. If you have something of interest that you think I do not know just let me know where it is and I’ll check it out.

This is a classroom and people join the Keys to learn from me and rub shoulders and share with other lights.

A good classroom can only function well with one teacher at a time. Imagine that you have a Spanish class taught, as usual, by one teacher. Then a student raises his hand and says, I want to teach you some German. What will the teacher say?

He will say this is not the place to do it. If he is interested in German the teacher will learn it apart from the class, as mixing German and Spanish could be very confusing.

Does this mean that I do not learn from members here?

No, of course not. We have some very intelligent members who often post something that teaches me something, but they do not set the agenda.

On the other hand, if someone wants to discuss a new subject that hasn’t been covered, anyone can suggest it, and if the group is interested we generally go ahead. Members are also free to ask any question they want.

Overall, members just complain when someone comes here with an agenda to teach me and others about their belief system without first checking to see if is of interest to the group.

That said, if you feel you have some knowledge that we need to learn, let us know what it is and we’ll see how the group reacts.



So I should just call myself the BEAST worshiper or maybe the BEAST Master.


How about the Beast Whisperer?



Thanks for the welcome, JJ. I also wrote a post and thought it went to you, quite a while ago, sharing some of my experiences during my visits to Allan’s Christian Reincarnation forum, but after fencing with his usual members that you did, i.e.


You seem like a reasonable respectful guy. No wonder Allan’s forum came after you. You’ll note that Allan just made a post in response to you calling you “Old Man Jim” over and over. What a low class thing to do, especially when he looks quote old and out of touch himself.

The according to him you no not know anything about anything and he knows all. And why are we supposed to believe this?

Because he says it and he is in touch with his God Self and you are obviously not.

If Allan’s Higher Self were really coming through he would understand the principle behind the Beast which is essential to clear the lines of communication.



Hi JJ: Praise The Lord young Feisty Allan survived his trip to London with out blowing a gasket.


Now I know why they didn’t like you more than most. You have a bit of well placed sarcastic humor in you, like I do. That seemed to drive them crazy more than anything. I remember one member came after me sounding quite disturbed and I asked him if he had his bran muffin yet that day. They seemed to think that was the meanest thing they ever heard.

Have a good time the next few weeks with whatever you are up to. Hopefully it will be as fun as being here.



What say you J.J.? Do you yourself have expectation of life in the flesh until the return of our Messiah Yahushua? If not, why not?


Yes, one can achieve a renewal of his body and extend his life, but first he must master the physical and emotional desire, illusion and sacrifice that which the personality holds most dear. Then he must perform a work that furthers the purpose of God on the earth. I am working on achieving this end as are most on the forum.


Aug 31, 2014

Dead or Living Works?

ImAHebrew writes:

How would you respond toward the return of Paul to Jerusalem that was about 11 years after the Council of Acts 15, and the events which transpired there in Acts 21:17-29? To further explain, Paul comes back to Jerusalem to meet with James and the elders (supposedly this James is someone you have butted heads with at the “other” forum), and they tell him how many thousands of Jews which BELIEVE, and they are all ZEALOUS of the Law. And then Paul is told that there are RUMORS about what he teaches Jews who are among the Gentiles, that they should forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the customs (the Oral Law). It appears they had a dilemma. All of these BELIEVING Jews, who were zealous at keeping the Law, would hear that Paul was in town, and be quite upset at what he supposedly was teaching. So, to quell any doubt as to what Paul was teaching concerning what Jews should be doing, they have Paul pay the expenses of four men under a vow, and have him go through the rites of purification along with these four men as they end their vow. This was done to prove and let everyone know, “that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are NOTHING; but [that] thou thyself ALSO walkest orderly, and KEEPEST the Law.” And Paul consented.

What is your take on this? Was James and the elders misinformed about keeping the Law while staying shackled under the Beast? Or was the Beast causing Paul to be dishonest in submitting to their requirements, Just exactly how do you explain this zealousness of them to keep the Law, was it something to do with the Beast or Dragon?


First note that it was quite a widespread belief by orthodox Jews in the area that Paul was lax about following the law. Many were so sure of it that they tried to put him to death. Forty of them were so convinced he was guilty that they vowed to not eat or drink until they had killed him.

There was probably some truth to this rumor for even though Paul had respect for the law he realized and taught that God “made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” II Cor 3:6

He also downplayed the law in saying this:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Eph 2:8-9

The law, of course, consisted of a lot of works. We are told to “purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Heb 9:14

So here was Paul’s situation. Word had gotten out that he was not strictly teaching the Law of Moses and his life was in danger. Anyone who is a threat to the law was seen to deserve death. Because it was important that Paul live they devised a scheme to make him look like a devout orthodox Jew. He was to go through a purification ritual as well as pay the expenses of four others doing so. At the end of this they would shave their heads. Seeing Paul with a shaved head after going trough the ritual was thought to convince the local Jews he was one of them.

This plan did not get off the ground and backfired on him almost costing him his life.

Now, let us take a look at the ritual Paul was going to endure. Here is what Barclay’s commentary says about it:

The leaders saw a way in which Paul could guarantee the orthodoxy of his own conduct. Four men were in the middle of observing the Nazarite vow. This was a vow taken in gratitude for some special blessing from the hand of God. It involved abstention from meat and wine for thirty days, during which the hair had to be allowed to grow. It seems that sometimes at least the last seven days had to be spent entirely in the Temple courts. At the end certain offerings had to be brought–a year old lamb for a sin-offering, a ram for a peace offering, a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil and a meat offering and a drink offering. Finally, the hair had to be shorn and burned on the altar with the sacrifice. It is obvious that this was a costly business. Work had to be given up and all the elements of the sacrifice had to be bought. It was quite beyond the resources of many who would have wished to undertake it.

So it was considered an act of piety for some wealthier person to defray the expenses of someone taking the vow. That was what Paul was asked to do in the case of these four men and he consented. By so doing he could demonstrate so that all could see it that he was himself an observer of the Law.

There can be no doubt that the matter was distasteful to Paul. For him the relevancy of things like that was gone.

So, does God want us to do these purification rituals today and kill a lamb at an alter and shave our heads?

These things all had their time and place in our history but as our consciousness evolves we shift from dead works to living works and look for the principle involved in all inspired writings and follow that. This will always ring true to our souls whereas literal black and white ritual does not.



What I would like for you to consider is WHY did Paul circumcise Timothy, and not Titus?


I do not care why he did it and discussion of these fine points of scriptural law and interpretation is not what this group is about. Here we are looking into the principles that give the big picture. Instead of looking at the minutia we try to see the big picture and understand that. If the big picture is seen the details just fall into place automatically.

One of my core teachings is this.

It may take a thousand facts to portray a true principle, but the understanding of one true principle may reveal more than a thousand facts.

The principle behind all laws in all religions is love and this principle often gets left behind when the focus is not on the love of God and our brethren, but on the details.

Jeremiah expressed well how this was supposed to work out when the principle is understood.

“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, 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,” Jer 31:33-34

We are now entering the time where we do not need someone to tell us how to be saved by strictly obeying some law, but many are capable of seeing the big picture and following the law as it is written within – in our hearts and minds.


The Shotgun Approach


And while JJ seemed to be offended when I conveyed to him that my own higher soul-self instructed me to abandon the Alice Bailey books,


It is amazing how often you get things entirely wrong. I am not in the least, let me repeat, not in the least bit offended if you think your Higher Self does not want you to read Bailey, The Bible or Mad Magazine. What you do that just involves you is not my concern.


…they ignore the fact that the cause is seen in their refusal to acknowledge or in any manner discuss important concepts and issues that have been set before them over the course of forum-discussion.


I have discussed hundreds of important subjects. There is not much that we have not covered in this forum including the Higher Self.

You seem to feel that you are presenting something important that we have overlooked, but what is it? It is hard to tell because you use a shotgun approach and throw out a small amount of information on a lot of things so nothing much catches the reader’s attention.

For instance, in this one post you made that I am replying to you touched on these subjects:

(1) “The One truth has many sides.”

This is an obvious truth that we have discussed. What you think was left out is a mystery.

(2) The Tower of Babel Syndrome.

You say this is imposed upon us but do not even give us a clue as to what you think it is. How can we respond to such ambiguity and ephemeral statements.

(3) We are “spewing forth the fruit of the forbidden tree as a poison nourishment they expect us to consume.”

More meaningless words just meant to demean and not teach.

(4) Jacob’s Ladder

You keep bringing this up but never explaining what it is. Are we supposed to know your thoughts by osmosis?

(5) Secret inside teachings.

You keep repeating this over and over, but even fundamentalists already believe this so you’re preaching to the choir.

(6) Duality

There are probably over 100,000 words written on this in the archives.

Each major posts you make covers a half dozen or so subjects and only scratches the surface. Then you post again and the material repeats itself. If you want to get anywhere with us you need to cover one subject at a time the way I do when I teach.

But first remember that the group is involved. If you want to talk about a subject present it first to the group to see if they are interested. If they are then it will be considered.

As it is now your posts are a distraction because they are never on topic nor do they deal with a single topic.



I’m not sure if you understand Latwur’s speech. Let me explain… he speaks of a sort of immortality, not simply extending ones life, Latwur already will not die and reincarnation is simply not possible — why seek a way of death and not a way of Life? Reincarnation is a way of death, while living forever, what YahShua has promised to those who believe and do right — that is what life is. The Way of Life is life eternal, the way of reincarnation is not seeking life, but seeking death as your savior. Correct me where I have errored Latwur,


We have no problem with people coming here who think differently than ourselves. Some of the discussion that has resulted in the past has brought forth some of the best teachings here.

There is no such thing as eternal life confined to one changeless form. All form is temporary, even the universe itself. The formless Self, which is one with God, is that which is eternal and uses form as it sees fit for its learning and enjoyment. Reincarnation is an eternal principle for we are destined for eternal lives on the unending creation of worlds.


Sept 1, 2014

The Beast and the Fear Factor

Time to get back on topic. Here’s the question:

We talked about the Beast using fear as a means of control. What is the greatest fear he uses against spiritual seekers and how is it overcome?


I believe Susan was the first to point out that the greatest fear manipulated by the Beast is the fear of hell, eternal punishment or extinction of body and soul to nothingness.

Sure, powerful unjust authority can punish us in this life in a number of ways and in some cases even put people to death, but all this is nothing compared to suffering for eternity or going into oblivion because you are supposedly going against God. If you really believe that some authority has power over the destiny of your soul then that person becomes a powerful outside God to you, a spokesman for the Beast.

For anyone who takes life after death seriously the thought of some undesirable destination that will last for millions of years is frightening indeed.

Curtis and I witnessed this power after we were excommunicated from the LDS church. Following this event we did everything in our power to enlighten our Mormon friends. We taught quite a few about the errors of church doctrine and reincarnation. Quite a few saw truth in our words, but when it came to taking any action that would risk their church membership they became paralyzed with fear and continued to follow the thoughtform.

When pressed for their reasoning they would give an answer something like this:

“I really like what you are saying an it makes a lot of sense and feels right to my soul, but if you are wrong and the church is right that means rebellion could put me in danger of becoming a Son of Perdition and I can’t take that risk. Besides if there is reincarnation, I’ll get another chance, so staying in the church and supporting the authorities is the safe bet.”

Mormons have good reason to fear based on the following verses from their scriptures:

42 “That through him all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him;

43 “Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.

44 “Wherefore, he saves all except them–they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment–

45 “And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows;

46 “Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof;

47 “Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again;

48 “Wherefore, the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except those who are ordained unto this condemnation.”

Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 76:42-48

And who are the ones who will suffer this condemnation so great that it cannot be put into words? It is assumed it will be those who are excommunicated for not endorsing all the teachings and directions of the authorities of the church.

Consequently, when the standard Mormon gets a little curious and begins to give some clues that he is unorthodox in his thinking other members will often make statements to him like the following:

“You are entering into dangerous territory, brother. Just follow the prophet and forget about these other thoughts.”

“Stay away from the mysteries. If God wants us to know any of them he will reveal them through the prophet. If you get something and teach it that runs contrary to the teachings of the church you are in great danger my friend.”

“Stay with the simple things like faith, baptism and repentance. If you delve into more than this you may find yourself in rebellion against God.”

“Just follow the prophet and you will be safe. He will never lead you astray.”

So, how does one overcome such fear and defy the control of the Beast? A few are just very brave and take their chances, but the only secure way is to get confirmation from within. A sure witness from the Holy Spirit will give the seeker the sure knowledge he needs to stand up to the Beast.

Ra asked some interesting questions that would be good for the group to consider. He pointed out that if we are controlled by a thoughtform of the Beast we may not even be aware of it – so, how could we tell if we are controlled or not and how do we rid ourselves of the thoughtform?

In other words, we may all be under control of the Beast and not be aware of it.

Question: How can you tell if you are controlled by the Beast and his mark or have freed yourself? There is a core principle that reveals the truth here that we have discussed a number of times. Let us see who can tell us what it is.


The Hidden Power of the Beast

The Question: How can you tell if you are controlled by the Beast and his mark or have freed yourself?

I didn’t think anyone would get this on the first round but Adam fooled me. He nailed it when he said, “guilt from external forces.”

You can’t tell if you are controlled by the Beast through regular self examination. 99% of the people out there do not think they are controlled by the Beast or any thoughtform so even if they try they cannot see it because seeing it is not on their radar.

It’s like the story of Magellan’s ships. The concept of such ships was so far removed from the consciousness of the natives that they could not see them even though they were visibly floating in their waters.

Just ask any LDS guy if the church or authorities therein interfere at all with his freedom of choice. He will give you a definite no. You can teach the guy all day long about thoughtforms and the Beast and he will not be able to see that anything is there controlling is mind.


The answer is given in this dialogue from a Sherlock Holmes movie:

Lord Blackwood : Sherlock Holmes. And his loyal dog. Tell me, Doctor… as a medical man, have you enjoyed my work?

Watson : Let me show you just how much I’ve enjoyed it. [starts towards Blackwood]

Holmes : Watson, don’t! [Holmes stops Watson a few feet from Lord Blackwood, then looks at Blackwood’s hands] Observe…

[Watson looks down to see there is an almost imperceptible thin glass needle with a sharp point less than a foot from where they stand]

Watson : How did you see that?

Holmes : Because I was looking for it. [breaks the needle]

Now Watson had every bit the ability to see everything that Holmes could see, but did not see it. Why? Because he was not looking for it.

Holmes did see the deadly needle. Why? Because he was looking.

Being controlled by the Beast in some acceptable form is so much a part of most people that they do not even consider looking for the Beast or his thoughtforms.

We will not look until it enters our consciousness that something may be there to look for. And what is the key that will clue us in?


Guilt can only exist when the eyes of the pilgrim are focused on an outward god and his thoughtform. As soon as he illusion of the outer god is completely dispelled and the inner God is trusted guilt is no more.

So if you want to know if you still have the mark of the Beast to some degree then ask this question. Am I still plagued with guilt? Is there anyone or any teaching that can make me feel guilty?

If the answer is yes, then you need to start looking for the thoughtform that has power to create the guilt.


Once the source of the guilt is discovered, how do you dispel it ands why is this a desirable thing to do?


Dan asks:

How can you tell the difference between useful (I assume) non-external and external guilt.


All guilt is experienced internally, but has an external cause. The cause is an external substitute for the God within – the Beast. The one experiencing guilt has done something to violate the commandments or expectations of the thoughtform.


And please define “guilt”. Do mean generally feeling “bad” over past misdeeds or must guilt also include feeling worthless, or as though one is unworthy of any “good” coming to them, or worthy of god/heaven?


Guilt has a feeling of unworthiness about it that goes beyond the feeling bad that would be the logical outcome.

If you are a good Mormon and drink coffee you’ll feel some guilt because the thoughtform commands you not to. If you do not buy into to the thoughtform you’ll feel no guilt, but you could suffer a little gas if you drink too much.

Without guilt you only suffer the effects of an action. There are no extra feelings of unworthiness or shame.

Here are a few words on guilt from my presentation at the 2005 gathering:

You are not looking for the voice of God within but the voice of god without. Now when a person goes against the voice of god without he will feel guilt. Guilt is one of the most destructive things in the universe, because guilt is caused by accepting a god without. A man, woman, Bible or even a piece of paper, or a building, something without can represent God. If you cross it and go against it you violate its will, and when you violate that you will have guilt.

The way to eliminate guilt is to eliminate the authority on the outside and put it on the inside. The 144,000 that were redeemed from the power of the Beast are those that have the name of the Father in the forehead. In other words, those that can look within with the third eye so to speak and find God — they are the ones who have escaped the power of the Beast and they have no guilt. The biblical scripture says, they are as virgins before the throne of God, and they are virgins before the throne of God because they have no guilt.

Now when I tell people that I have no guilt they think that my conscious must be seared with a hot iron, and I do not have a conscience. No, I have a conscience. When I do something wrong, I realize it is wrong and then I think that will just try not to make that mistake again.

This goes back to the definition of sin that we talked about earlier. Sin means to “miss the mark.” If you are shooting an arrow at a target and you miss it then you do not feel guilty about it but, you think “I screwed up.” If you are bowling and the ball rolls off into the gutter like what happens with Assaf all the time (laughter) then you think, “Wow that is not too bright of me to do that; give me another ball!” You can’t wait to throw that ball again so you can show everybody that you do not always throw a ball in the gutter. In either case you do not feel guilt over your mistake.

When you cross the voice of god from without then guilt is created and you experience shame, you feel like you are not worthy to move ahead and be loved by God and this guilt affects so many people. To release yourself from guilt, release yourself from every outer authority from being the voice of God, even me. It is possible that somebody might accept me as being in the place of God. My mission is not to be in the place of God but to stimulate the God within you. This is where the subtleties come in, in finding the truth about things, because if a person misunderstands the way I am teaching, then I could become a god to them so to speak. That would largely be their fault because that is not what I teach.

I teach everyone to listen to me and verify it from within. The priest, pastor, reverend, Mormon bishop and many spiritual leaders do not say, “Listen to me and then go verify it from within and if sounds right then do it.” These people will likely say, “This is what the Bible says and this is what the word of God says so go and do it and if and if you don’t do it you are going to go to hell.”

Now these people that take the place of God are very subtle. I have talked to people quite a number of times that say they have guilt and they can’t see where they have an outward authority that they are still holding on to. These outward authorities are very elusive because many of them can be traced back to an earlier life. There are lot of new agers I have met that think they have moved beyond this, but when you talk to them you will find that they still have guilt.

In other words there a lot of new agers that I have met and when you talk to them a bit you will find that they still have guilt, and when touch the areas of conversation where they have this guilt they are very sensitive about it. They are very likely to attack on you something or get irritable when you bring it up. You can’t even hardly mention a religious word or the word Bible around them without the hair on their neck standing up. Yet they claim they have left all that behind. But, if they have such a powerful reaction then they have not left it all behind. They would like to leave it all behind, they want to, but many in the metaphysics world had a bad experience in their childhood with their parents, religion, preacher or friends when they were growing up, and they still have some reservations about what they are taught.

Deep within themselves they will think, “What if the standard religion is true, what if this spiritual path I am on really does lead me down to hell and there really is a lake of fire down there and I am going to get thrown in it?” They try to block this out of their minds but instead of blocking it out of their minds it has to be evaporated with soul contact.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 18

This entry is part 22 of 33 in the series 2014

The Second Thoughtform

The Question:

Question: What is the second illusion (in the news media) with the accompanying thoughtform?

When I tell you this I know it will register as correct because it seems really obvious when you think about it.

This second illusion explains why they are caught in the first illusion of thinking they are just reporting the pertinent news without bias. The illusion is that they see themselves as standing in that great center between the two extremes. They think they look at both sides and take that reasonable position which is neither left or right, but what the reasonable public wants and needs to know.

This illusion is particularly prevalent with what is called the “major media,” which all report pretty much the same news and usually leave out the same things.

The thoughtform that controls them goes something like this:

“I will avoid if at all possible any news that will give credibility to extremist views and will report nothing that would offend my friends from the center.”

The problem with this thoughtform, is what it calls extreme are often views held by half the country and many of his friends who he sees as being in the center are really far left.

This newsperson thus believes he is doing an admirable job of reasonable reporting from the center when he really takes a stand with the minority from the Left. He therefore carefully crafts his stories so they sound reasonable but gives extra time and attention to stories that support his personal point of view and minimizes, disparages or leaves out stories that do not support his thinking. You can tell where a media person (or network) stands by what he doesn’t cover, or covers with a negative slant.

Bernard Goldberg who worked for CBS for many years wrote a book called “Bias,” giving an insiders fairly objective view of bias in the media. He tells us that those who work with the news do not see themselves as biased to the left or right but sincerely believe they are coming from the center and being fair to both sides. If someone points out their bias it just goes over their heads. They just will not consider such a thing no matter what.

We are fortunate today to live in an age where there are many sources of news, including the internet. This doesn’t help the person who has little desire for the truth, but for those who do, the truth is out there and available with a little searching.

There are numerous other organizations controlled by thoughtforms based on illusion. The unions are another big one. Theirs runs something like this:

We have done great things to help the laborer and know what is best for him. He (or she) owes us.

This is the opposite of what the thought was when the unions used to do their job. In the beginning what the worker wanted was the important thing. Now it is what the union bosses decree.


Most members here see me as a pretty reasonable person who would not take any action to assume beastly control.


Is it possible that I could function as a beast to some?

Could Jesus himself be a beast to us if he were here?

How could this happen and how do we avoid such a thing?


As a group do you think we are successful in avoiding the mark of the Beast?


Aug 22, 2014

Seeing the Beast

The questions:

Is it possible that I could function as a beast to some?

Could Jesus himself be a beast to us if he were here?


The group seems to assume the answer is yes.


How could this happen and how do we avoid such a thing?


Even if the teacher makes every effort to not exercise any unearned or unjust authority over others he can still be put on a pedestal and accepted without question. Jesus and the teachings he is supposed to have endorsed are a large part of network of the Beast.

In the seekers quest for truth perhaps his greatest temptation into illusion comes through an “I found it” moment. He finds a source, a guide, a teacher, a book that seems to take him where he has not gone before. He tests everything to the best of his ability and he can find no error. At this point his temptation is to relax and depend on this outer source as a substitute for the inner. He just accepts what the teacher says without running it by his own soul as well as his maximum power to reason.

No matter whether the teaching comes from an angel, devil, prophet or a talking dog the seeker must run it by his highest preceptors of truth and not accept it completely until it satisfies the soul ands makes sense.

Now some go the other extreme and question everything with a jaundice eye when much of what the teacher gives out is easily seen as true by those with soul contact. Some of these types of people are governed by a thoughtform that says something like this, “Everything that is outside of my current belief system, or isn’t approved by the authority I rely on, is wrong.”

The true seeker will not accept all things without running them by the mind and soul and neither will he reject all things outside the comfort zone. He will avoid getting lazy and automatically accept or reject, and, instead, run anything that is in any way questionable past his highest personal truth detectors.

If something doesn’t sound quite right the first thing to do is to make sure you understand everything correctly. I’d say that about half the time that my teachings seem questionable to someone is because they are not getting the full picture and a more complete explanation takes care of the problem. If the student sincerely disagrees then he should open up dialog with the teacher and see where it leads. If the teacher is an earned authority and has satisfied your soul 99% of the time, but this one teachings seems wrong, then it’s a good idea to put it on the shelf and see if the picture changes over time.

I have put things on the self before only to take it off the later having achieved a greater understanding.


As a group do you think we are successful in avoiding the mark of the Beast?

We have an advantage over other groups because we know what the Beast and the mark is.. We are not waiting for a great one-world dictator to show up and plant a computer chip in our right hand or forehead, but realize the Beast has been here all along and the world worships those who use unearned authority in the present time. Members here know they are free to question me or anyone else. We are not perfect, of course. Some may question too much or not enough, but all must learn to run every new teaching by their own souls.

Keith mentioned that fear is a device used by the Beast and this was a good observation indeed. You will find that when one enters a group that is controlled by an authoritarian thoughtform that most will be fearful in speaking up or going against hat thoughtform while participating in the group?

Why is this the case? Give examples of situations where people are afraid to speak up to authorities. What is the best way to overcome the fear and challenge the Beast?


Aug 24, 2014

The Fear Factor

The question;

Why is fear such a core ingredient in the Beasts power and what is the best way to over come or challenge it?

Larry talked about what a driving force fear is in the workplace. We never talked about the thoughtforms at play there.

The power of the Beast works differently in the workplace than it does in other groups and this is why.

In the workplace you know you are being controlled and you know you are cooperating with it and you know what will happen if you do not go along with your boss. At best your movement up the ladder will cease and at worst you’ll just get fired.

Basically the main thoughtform in the workplace is this: “Do what the boss says or you are out of here.”

Of all the controlling thoughtforms the workplace is the least insidious. Why?

Because you get paid to cooperate and the laborer is constantly working to transcend the thoughtform so he is not controlled by it.

After all, who will accept a nasty boss barking orders at him for a minute longer than he has to?

Very few.

The controlling thoughtforms in other organizations are different in that participants gladly embrace them and they govern their thinking. After work, and the laborer goes home, he tries to distance himself from the controls at work. So, the thoughtform governing the employee could be classified as a partial one. You are only controlled for around 40 hours a week and most likely looking for an opportunity to break free. Other thoughtforms work in the background eight days a week.

The Beast therefore doesn’t use thoughtforms to control the thinking of people in private enterprise as much as other groups. On the other hand, government employees are under much more control of the Beast than are private ones. Here the independent thinking employee not only has a boss to contend with, but there will be overriding thoughtforms sent down from on high from Uncle Sam that must be subtly absorbed and followed if one wants to get ahead. Here are samples:

You have as much power as Uncle Sam says you have and the people need to respect this power.

You know what is best better than the people you serve.

We are all a family so don’t rock the boat if you know what’s good for you.

Religion has powerful thoughtforms that members buy into of their own free will and sustain them 24 hours a day. Perhaps the religion with the most powerful thoughtform among those with a substantial membership are the LDS. Yet if you tell the average member that they are governed by a group think that they are fearful to challenge they will most likely laugh and say something like this:

“As LDS we believe in free agency and we are free to think and say whatever we please. I accept the teachings of the church of my own free will. Nothing is controlling me.”

Here’s the key piece of knowledge. When you are a member of any group and buy into its thoughtform and follow the programming it will seem like there are no controls – that you can sincerely express yourself any way you want.

However, things completely change when you step away from the thoughtform and have an independent thought. This is where the fear steps in.

Question: So how does fear step in for control when one challenges the thoughtform? How does it suddenly appear you have gone from having free will to little or no free will?


Florence writes about the legends of the fall of the female side of creation..

You would probably enjoy the book Right Use of Will by Ceanne Derohan. She claims to have a revelation from God telling us how the female side was suppressed and it needs to be rediscovered and released. I think most of her books are from her fanciful imagination but do think she struck the right chord on female suppression and that it needs to be released and set free to express itself.

Male and female dominion goes in cycles and right now we are entering a cycle where the female energies are moving toward greater dominion. Right now, as evidence of this, there are more females than males in our colleges and those with the most education usually wind up in the dominate roles.


Distorted Good

One2 Quotes me saying:

“Good is a distorted reflection of positive and evil is a distorted reflection and misuse of negative.”

So Good is a distorted reflection of male energy and evil is a distorted reflection and misuse of female energy?

Good is still a distortion in reflection of the male energy or the Father energy then?


The Father (sending) aspect always represents the positive polarity and the Mother (receiving) the female.

The wording of that quote should be changed for clarification to:

“What is called good is a distorted reflection of positive and evil is a distorted reflection and misuse of negative.”

What people see as good is often miles away from what the real good is. For instance, until recent history slavery was seen as a good thing. They saw it as being good for the slaves because they were too backward to govern themselves and needed someone to tell them what to do. They thought it was good for society because slave labor created a better standard of living for the slave owners. Everything was seen as win/win and even many slaves bought into the prevailing thoughtform.

Now looking back we see that this version of good is indeed a distorted version of the positive energy of being.

Now, in this age many people see another version of slavery as good. They think that it is for our best good to be taxed 50% or more to provide services for those who do nothing to earn the benefits. Centuries from now we will look back and see the current system just as much distorted good as we now do slavery in ancient Rome for the slaves in Rome were often allowed to keep two thirds of their earnings if they ran a business.

The actual principle of good and evil never changes. Good is that which moves us forward in our spiritual evolution and evil is that which takes us backward.


Aug 24, 2014

Challenging the Thoughtform

The Question: So how does fear step in for control when one challenges the thoughtform? How does it suddenly appear you have gone from having free will to little or no free will?

I am quite familiar with the thoughtform of the LDS (Mormon) church for I was active in it for 20 years, from ages 13-33. I am now 69 so it’s been a while since I graduated.

There were a number of things that attracted me to the church. Here are several:

(1) I was inspired by the Mormon scriptures. They seemed to bring me closer to the Spirit than the Bible.

(2) I was inspired by their early history and teachings.

(3) I liked their doctrine that we were eternal beings that did not begin at birth.

(4) I liked the doctrine of eternal progression, that we will evolve until we become like the Father of our spirits.

(5) It made sense to me that there just wasn’t a heaven and hell but a number of places we will go to after death, as the Mormons teach.

(7) I liked the idea of lay participation, that there was no paid monastery, except the upper levels. Members could participate in speaking, teaching and healing.

(8) I was captivated (and still am) of the idea of building Zion, a gathering of the pure in heart, which was to produce a near perfect society.

(9) The teaching that God can speak to prophets today just as in ancient times made total sense, as well as the idea that even lowly members can get revelation.

The LDS church was so unique that if a member has some type of rift with it then he has nowhere to go. With many protestant churches, if you do not like your minister you can just go to a different one and hear similar sermons. Not so with the LDS. Their basic sensible logical doctrines set them apart, and once you accept them you are stuck with that church or nothing. I checked out a number of different churches and didn’t find any with the least bit of appeal.

That said, I wasn’t the type of member who thought everything about the church was ideal. Here were some things that bothered me.

(1) Whereas I was attracted to the teachings I found many members didn’t even know what a lot of the teachings were. Most were drawn to the church for the social aspects and since every member gets a job or two many felt it gave them purpose.

Outside of a small handful I was not drawn there for the association with other members, as most of my best friends through life have not been religious church goers.

(2) I found that most of my time spent there to be boring as they taught the simple things over and over. I rarely learned anything.

(3) I really wondered how heaven was going to be such a great place when it was going to be filled with boring Mormons as I found non religious people more interesting and fun to be around.

(4) The members idolized the Prophet and General Authorities. They gave them much more credit for knowledge and spirituality than they deserved and this was a big turn off to me. Most appeared to be pretty ordinary men to me.

(5) Before I knew what a thoughtform was I picked up a group think among the members that greatly repelled me. Every member that was really into the church seemed to have invisible antennas that told them how to behave and what to think. They all knew instinctively what movies would be approved by the church, what books and which people and groups they could associate with, etc.

In private I ignored this thoughtform but when attending church or associating with other members I sensed that I needed to play along or my church standing could be in danger.

(6) One of the things I liked about the Mormon scriptures was that they told us to seek out the mysteries of God, but this seeking was not in the thoughtform. It was the opposite. Everyone knew not to seek for if God wanted them to know a mystery he would reveal it to the Prophet first.

When I realized this was the mindset of members I decided to set up my own test in search of someone who could transcend the thoughtform. Whenever I found a member who seemed to be intelligent I would ask him or her about one of the mysteries of the church. One of the mysteries was the location of the lost Ten Tribes of Israel, so this was the simple question I asked as a test:

“So, have you ever wondered where the Ten Tribes are?

To my disappointment, time after time I received the same answer which was:

“I’m sure that when the time comes that we need to know, the Prophet will tell us.”

When I received this answer I knew that I was dealing with an individual controlled by the thoughtform and it would be dangerous to pursue mysteries any further.

For years I asked this question seeking a kindred spirit to share many of the mysteries I had discovered, but to no avail until my nephew, Curtis Harwell moved into town and attended the same church. Since the Bishop often asked new members to give a talk so we could get to know them he asked Curtis. I was pleasantly surprised at how interesting his presentation was and invited him to dinner.

After dinner, I asked him about the Ten Tribes. To my delight instead of giving the standard answer he said that he would really like to know where they were and that it had puzzled him for some time.

I opened the scriptures and gave him my ideas and he was not scared off. Instead, he kept asking, “What else do you know?”

Then I would share something else and he would ask again, “What else do you know?”


Encounter with the Beast

Curtis kept asking me for more knowledge. He was like a sponge, for he realized that he hadn’t learned anything really new in the church for years.

After I shared with him numerous mysteries I had discovered in the scriptures I then moved to metaphysical teachings. I shared with him some of my books that few Mormons had laid eyes on. After he did some reading he exclaimed to me, “Wow, I didn’t know that knowledge like this was in existence.”

After a couple months of sharing with him he told me that he was moving about 300 miles distant to Blackfoot, Idaho. He said he was looking forward to sharing some of the teachings I gave him with the members of his new ward.

I explained to him that even though he may not be breaking any official rules of the church in doing this that he needed to be careful or he could lose his membership. He laughed at that, thinking that such a thing would not happen.

Then he mentioned a small treatise I wrote called Eternal Progression and said that surely this would be all right to share with others as it was merely giving scriptural evidence of progression in the next world.


I then told him that even the sharing of this fairly innocent writing could get him into trouble. He didn’t think this was possible and asked why.

I told him that even though the LDS scriptures seem to say otherwise that a recent prophet in the church declared that there is no progression from one kingdom to another and that is the view of the authorities today. My treatise talked about the three kingdoms from Mormon doctrine and proves that there can be progression from one kingdom to another. I told him that the Powers-That-Be will not like this challenging point of view at all.

He had a hard time believing that the examination of a minor point of doctrine would be of much concern to the authorities. He could understand reincarnation being problematic, but not this. When he moved I kept my fingers crossed that he would not be too eager to share what I had taught him with fellow members but seek to feel them out the way I did with him.

All seemed to go fine for a while and within a few weeks he had several jobs in the church. Then he decided that my treatise had to be harmless and he made a number of copies (not listing the author) and passed them out. Among those he gave copies to were his Elders Quorum President and the Bishop. He innocently thought that they would find it interesting and want to know more.

A couple days later he received a summons from the Bishop to meet him privately in his office. The Bishop sat him down and explained to him that the paper he was passing out contained false doctrine that runs contrary to what the current prophet endorses. He had conferred with the Stake President and they concluded that it would be wise to have a trial for his membership before the High Council. He was herewith relieved of all his church duties and the trial would be held in three days.

That evening Curtis called me up being very emotionally wrought telling me of his situation. Then he explained that the only witnesses that were going to be allowed on his behalf had to be good members of the church and since I was a member still in good standing he asked me to come down there and testify on his behalf.

I told him that any testimony I could give would probably make no difference and the result would be that I would also be excommunicated and most likely wind up losing my wife and kids.

He then said, “You got me into this situation and now you have to get me out.”

I reminded him that I had warned him, but did feel somewhat responsible and agreed to go testify on his behalf.

Sure enough, they excommunicated him despite my testimony and then came after me and excommunicated me also.

Curtis was fired from his job by his Mormon boss who decided he couldn’t put up with an apostate working for him.

No one could fire me because I was self employed but my wife was a true believer and thought I was being led by Satan. We divorced shortly thereafter and she did everything in her power to keep me from seeing the kids.

I tell this story because it illustrates the workings of the Beast of unearned unjust authority. When you are in the thoughtform as was Curtis it seems like you are free to say or do what you want as long as you are supportive and obey the rules. Curtis found out this was not the case.

In my case I realized what I was up against and that even a slight challenge to the authority of the Beast would bring down the maximum attack allowed by law.

Fortunately, we have some protection from the law for one of those on the council that excommunicated me approached me afterwards and told me his only regret was that they could not put me to death for that was what I deserved.

When the seeker senses correctly the thoughtform and understands the attack that will be forthcoming then he can either be paralyzed by fear or he can face the dragon and deal with whatever comes.

I knew my days were numbered in the church as I couldn’t stand the suppression of thought much longer. Curtis forced my hand a little early as I would have liked to plan my exit on my own terms. But maybe the way it happened was for he best.

Have you ever gone up against the Beast of authority? If so, tell us your story.


Aug 26, 2014

More to the Story

For any who want to read a fuller account of our excommunications and the aftermath I prepared some links. The first part is a fictionalized account with the names altered. I was David Johns in the story and of course Curtis Hartel was Curtis Harwell.

The events and dialog of his excommunication trial is very accurate. Wayne and I were only allowed in to testify but for the rest I placed my ear on the door and was able to hear all the conversation.

There is no fiction in the aftermath links as they are written from experience to the best of my ability.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5



Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Aug 27, 2014

Spiritual Experience

Greg related to us some great spiritual experiences and has chosen the path of light time and time again and we are honored to have him with us. I hope he doesn’t mind using him for teaching purposes.

He relates this:

“In early March 2010, I received the voice of God declaring over and over again, that on this day I was His son and that He had begotten me. I had received the declaration of the Lord that my calling and election was made sure.”

Let us suppose that this experience went to his head and he was tricked by illusion and ego to support the Beast. How could he use his spiritual experiences to give power to the Beast? Contrast this with the path he would take if he were free from supporting the Beast.


Aug 28, 2014

The Authority of the Beast

There are several categories of people in the spiritual arena who assist the Beast in this world.

(1) Those who have a true spiritual experience, high or low, and see themselves as unique or special because of it. They create a thoughtform that tells followers that this person has the key to such an experience and if you look to him or follow him you will have this salvation type of experience. The end result is the followers look to the outside leader rather than the God within – for the leader emphasizes his spiritual authority.

(2) Those who have a true spiritual experience, high or low, and see themselves as unique or special because of it. But the experience or source of revelation seems so removed from followers that they look to him as the only source rather than looking within. The leader only encourages this.

(3) Those who have a delusional experience or other worldly contacts they see as real and put emphasis on this in a way that directs others away from the God within.

(4) Those who fabricate spiritual experiences and contacts so followers will look to him for truth rather than within.

(5) Those who hold up an authoritative source, such as the Bible, a prophet, Jesus, reincarnation of a notable person, etc and claims special understanding or relationship.

(6) Those who attain an authoritative position in a spiritual organization and encourage the followers to look to them or the organization for knowledge and solutions.

In almost every case where a leader is empowering the Beast we see that he makes the claim that he is empowering individuals. One must wisely look between the lines to see that the way to empowerment is to not look outward to the leader and buy into his thoughtform but to the kingdom of God within. Any thinking running contrary to the authoritative thoughtform will be seen as an attack by a delusional soul.

Let us say that Greg decided to cooperate with the Beast and sought out his share of authority over the minds and hearts of men. What could he do?

He could start teaching the uniqueness of his experience that God had spoken to him and remind followers of this on a regular basis. Next he could come up with teachings and tell students that they either came from God who spoke to him or were approved by Him. Therefore, if you disagree with Greg you are disagreeing with God. You will therefore disagree at the peril of your own soul. This is where fear enters in.


What are several differences between those who empower the Beast and those who do not? What course would Greg take after his experience if he is free from the Beast and his mark? Why is it difficult for the average seeker to tell the difference between one who is free from the mark and one who is not?


Aug 29, 2014

Freedom From the Beast

First, let us deal with this question:

Why is it difficult for the average seeker to tell the difference between one who is free from the mark and one who is not?

One of the main reasons why the average person cannot tell who supports the Beast is that he looks at the surface of things. Those in the spiritual world who support the Beast are often very good at appearing righteous. They will generally preach about avoiding sin, keeping commandments, honoring God, etc. In fact they will often walk the walk and be very fastidious themselves in obeying the letter of the law.

The Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus gave the “appearance” of righteousness to the people and were more careful about obeying the letter of the law than he was. Their big criticism of Jesus was that he did not follow the letter of the law in obeying the Sabbath. The also accused him of being “a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” (Matt 11:19)

On top of this they accused him of being in league with the devil:

“But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.” Matt 12:24

By all appearances the Jewish leaders were the righteous ones and Jesus was the free spirited fun loving guy who didn’t care what people thought.

They criticized the disciples of Jesus for not washing their hands before a meal. The Jews of that time were very diligent in ceremonial washing of hands in case they had touched something unclean previously. To them Jesus said:

It is “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Matt 15:11

If Jesus were with us today he would not come across as the squeaky clean “saints” who expelled Greg from their midst. He would be easy going and a friend to all classes just as Greg is.

Here are some qualities of the person who escapes the mark of the Beast, contrasted with those who worship the authority of the Beast.

(1) They look for the spirit of the law and the principle behind things to determine their behavior rather than the letter of the law, scriptures or any written word.

(2) He doesn’t mind anything in his belief system being honestly examined in the light of day. He who has the mark will often take offense if his thoughtform is questioned or examined.

Did you notice that when I told Greg we were going to examine him to see whether or not he supported the Beast that he took no offense at all? That is one of the signs that he is free from the mark. On the other hand, those who excommunicated him would take great offense if we examined their thinking. Those bearing the mark of the Beast are easily offended when their belief system or their standards of righteousness are challenged.

(3) He judges his fellowmen by how they treat others rather than how pious they are or how closely they are allied to his belief system.

(4) He always follows the Inner Voice over the outer. This is the main sign of the person free from the mark. He who has the mark will look to some outside authority for his decision making for he will fear going against the outer voice. What makes this difficult for the person with the mark is he often thinks he is own man when he is actually controlled by the Beast.

So what course would Greg have taken if he was free from the Beast? Keith said it right in that “Greg has done exactly what he should have done.”

Greg has had a great spiritual experience, but he has stayed humble and doesn’t show any signs of feeling superior because of it. Neither does he insist that we all have the same experience or be damned. He just puts out there what happened to him and we can take it or leave it.

Most of the Keys members who have shared their spiritual experiences have been very humble about them and for this I am thankful.

We talked about the Beast using fear as a means of control. What is the greatest fear he uses against spiritual seekers and how is it overcome?


Aug 29, 2014

Principles and the Law

ImAHebrew writes:

Shalom JJ, in overcoming and being free from the Beast and the Dragon, does commandment keeping, turning from sin, and resisting the Dragon come into play at all? How do you interpret Yeshua’s words in these Scriptures:

Mt 23:1 – 23:3

1 Then spake Yeshua to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.


You must remember that sin is translated from the Greek HAMARTIA, which means to error or miss the mark. There are many ways to error besides that of not literally following the decrees of a belief system.

Jesus was not strict in his interpretation of the Sabbath but looked at the principle. His words give evidence of this:

“The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Mark 2:27

In other words, the law of the Sabbath wasn’t made to inconvenience or test us, but was made as something we can enjoy and benefit from. The scribes and the Pharisees had it backwards, seeing it as something that man must follow to the point of weariness and drudgery.

Then we recall the woman accused of adultery who should have been stoned to death for the act – that is according to the law. Instead if saying, “yeah, go ahead, Jesus maneuvered the situation so she was not executed. He then said to the woman, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

Jesus was looking at the principle and overall good. In seeing this he did not condemn her as would the strict followers of the law but saw that she should be given a second change.

So, why did he encourage following the law of Moss then?

For two reasons:

(1) If he had spoken against the law in any measure he would have been crucified before he finished his mission.

(2) People are judged according to their own belief systems. The Book of Mormon expresses this point well and the principle presented here is true, even if one does not accept the source.

7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?…

9 And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.

12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; AND I SHALL ALSO SPEAK UNTO ALL NATIONS OF THE EARTH AND THEY SHALL WRITE IT. II Nephi 29:7; 9-12

Where are these scriptures from the other nations?

The answer is quite simple. Every people of every nation have available sacred writings containing truths geared for the “salvation” of the people to whom they were given. These writings can range from the sacred teachings of the Hopi Indians to the Koran of Islam, to the Bavagad Gita, to the ancient Vedas to the writings of Confucius, to the sayings of Buddha to name a few.

Notice what God says about these words of his to all nations: “I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written.”

Thus, those people who do not have the Christian scriptures but have other words of God, will be judged by those words that are accepted by their own people.

All the scriptures of all the religions teach the principle behind baptism – a new spiritual birth. But not all of them teach about the physical act of baptism.

Notice that the above scripture tells us that each group will be judged by their own scriptures. Therefore, if one joins a particular religion and the precept of that religion decrees that physical baptism is necessary then he is required to comply to be a full participant in the group of which he is a member.

So, when Jesus spoke to the Jews he encouraged them to follow those laws toward which their conscience was trained. If he had been talking to Buddhists he would have encouraged them in the same way to follow the precepts of their own religion.

These religious precepts are training wheels to guide people until they obtain power to escape the Beast and be guided by the inner God.


If sinning and not keeping the commandments doesn’t mean anything in overcoming the Beast and Dragon, why don’t we all eat, drink, and be merry while joining in with them?


Jesus said that on the principle of love hands “all the law and the prophets.” Matt 22:40

In other words, the one who follows the pure love of Christ from within will automatically fulfill the purpose of the law even though he may be seen as a lawbreaker by those with a black and white view. This is what happened to Jesus.

He who follows the law of love from within will not lead a carnal life, but will certainly not be beyond having a good time in harmlessness.

How do you explain this verse:


Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Here is what is written in my book, The Unveiling:

“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Rev 12:11

The group has cast the aspiration of the ego from the center of decision in the head to its rightful place in the lower self, where it can no longer cause division in the body of the group. Even so, fiery desire is strong and still seeks to override the selflessness of the spirit and assume control.

Three things give disciples domination over the dragon:

(1) The blood of the lamb. Blood is a symbol of life and the lamb is a symbol of submission to the Christ consciousness, or the soul, before the lion of Christ is manifest. The group, which in the past submitted themselves to the outward authority of the dragon and his angels, now must subject themselves to the inner Christ. Their very life must now be guided by principles revealed through the soul.

(2) The word of their testimony. Their testimony is manifest as the two witnesses, or the Words and the Works, which they have accepted through the soul. They teach eternal words and perform selfless works of service to their fellow men and women. Their teachings and service takes their attention away from low desire and aids them in subduing the dragon.

(3) “They loved not their lives unto death.” The true disciple is willing to give his life as a sacrifice if necessary, but, more often than not, the physical sacrifice will not be required. Even so, he still gives his life. The life he yields is the life that is held dear by the dragon of desire and lower aspiration. He gives up the life and control of the lower self in favor of the control of the “lamb” or the Christ within. In many ways this is more difficult than sacrificing the physical life. For one thing, the temptation to revert to the lower is always there, tugging at the disciple and the group. He must stay in focus and cease to love the lower nature and embrace the higher.

After the complete sacrifice of the lower life is made the disciple is pleased to find that the higher can fulfill the lower nature better than the lower can fulfill itself. He becomes holy, or whole, because his whole self is happy with the Christ self in charge.


Book Cover


Why on the fourth book do you have an all seeing eye (or is that a UFO) above the pyramid which represents a hierarchy rather than at the top on the capstone. What is the significance of this symbology?


The cover isn’t meant to convey any deep symbolism but to be attractive and give a hint as to what lies within. The eye, of course, represents the all-seeing eye of God, which is not confined to the pyramid – which is a symbol of the New Jerusalem. The rays of light, of course, are symbols of rays of light and true knowledge.

By the way, the cover was done by Duane Carpenter who I think did an excellent job.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 17

This entry is part 21 of 33 in the series 2014

Aug 16, 2014

Glory to God


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

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


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


Aug 16, 2014

Auras of the Stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


Aug 17, 2014


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

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

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

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

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

Here was my answer:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do the other guys think?

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

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

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

But was it an attack on Allan?


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

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

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

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

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


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

What is the core difference between the two groups?

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

The Original Post

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

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

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


(1) Does this make sense to you?

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

(3) Are there hidden meanings in the scriptures?

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


IamAHebrew writes:

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


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

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



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


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


A Big Clue

Allan writes on his forum:

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


What does this t

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

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


Aug 18, 2014

Voice of the Higher Self

One2 quoting Allan

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


Is he serious?

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

That explains everything now.

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


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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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


Aug 18, 2014

The Beast 106.1


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


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

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

Perhaps we could reduce it even more by saying this:

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

The Question:

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


Nothing could be further from the truth.


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

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

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


Allan truthfully answers every question asked of him…


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(8) What did Jesus look like?

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


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


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

Second Question

Why do we have no problem with such things?


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


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

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

Question Three

What is the core difference between the two groups?


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


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

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


Aug 19, 2014

The Beast and Healthcare

The Question:

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


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

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

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

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

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

It is basically this old aphorism:

“The doctor knows best.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Second Question

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

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

(1) I trust God rather than doctors.

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

(2) All orthodox medicine is corrupt.

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

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

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

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


ImAHebrew says:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


Science and Thoughtforms

The Assignment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global warming: “All scientists agree.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Aug 20, 2014

Illusions in Hollywood

Keith writes:

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


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

The Question:

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

Good comments on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


The Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

The beast in our lives 11.22.98


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

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

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 16

This entry is part 20 of 33 in the series 2014

Aug 3, 2014

Bailey Writings


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


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

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

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


Here is what the Bailey writings actually said:

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

Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 544

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


Aug 4, 2014

Resolving Conflict Through the Soul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Aug 5, 2014

Re: Resolving Conflict Through the Soul


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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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


Aug 7, 2014

Claims to Fame and Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Aug 8, 2014

Beastly Question

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

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

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



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


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


Aug 9, 2014

The Faces of Truth


Truth to one man, is not to another.


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

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

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


Allan gives a long quotation and writes:

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


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

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

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


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

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


This is true and nothing else is true.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

From Gospel of the Nazirenes

Good advice. It is what we teach here.



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


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

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



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

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


The Question:

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


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


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


Now we are headed the right direction.

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

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

Aug 10, 2014

The Beast 101

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

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

Concerning the Beast it is written in Rev 13:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunate the answer is no.

Where then is their outer controlling authority?

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


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

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

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

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


Truth Conversation Continued


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

But that is just he beginning.

There is more, much more.

Aug 11, 2014

The Beast 102

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

The First Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Whatever I write is automatically rejected in this forum.


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

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

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

As we grow in truth we change our views.

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


Re: The Beast 102

The Question:

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

We can look deeper if the group considers the following.

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

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

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


Aug 12, 2014

The Beast 103

The Question:

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

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

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

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

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

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


How is a thoughtform created?

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

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

Aug 13, 2014

The Beast 104

How is a thoughtform created?

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

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

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

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

Examples of thoughtforms that can have a positive effect are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The inerrancy of the Bible.

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

For instance, take this passage from James:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Jehovah Witnesses.

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

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

(3) The Mormons (LDS)

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

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

Aug 14, 2014

The Beast 105

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Aug 16, 2014

The Beast 106

The Question:

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

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


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

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


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

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

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 15

This entry is part 19 of 33 in the series 2014

July 28, 2014

Discussions with Another Forum

You (Allan) say that Larry does not use the scriptures for their intended purpose – that he doesn’t live “the necessary Consecrated Life” that he doesn’t seek the kingdom because of his concern with the cares of the world, that he doesn’t seek self knowledge, and does not endeavor to know himself. And you know all these things about Larry because???

Note this from the Gospel of the Nazirenes which you use:

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again; and as you do to others, so shall it be done to you.

2 “And why behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Let me pull the mote out of your eye; and behold a beam is in your own eye?’ You hypocrite, first cast the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast the mote out of your brother’s eye.

Instead of judging that about which you know not, how about giving us something usable? You say that you have assisted many in recalling their past lives as have I. We would be interested in hearing your method as well as how you did it yourself the first time.


New Direction

We have just about milked this scripture-allegory-deception-history thing for what it is worth. I believe that we understand the points that Allan is making but I do not think he and his group understand the main point I was trying to make. Oh, well, I gave it my best shot.

Meanwhile, Allan makes an interesting claim that he is the reincarnation of the Brother of Jesus and even helped write the scripture. Since he claims to have a memory of that life he could answer some interesting questions. Here are mine.

Are the current gospels accurate in stating that Jesus was physically crucified and resurrected? If not could you tell us what really happened and how Jesus really died?

Did Jesus walk on water, calm the storm, raise Lazarus from the dead and pay his taxes with a coin from the belly of a fish?

What did Jesus physically look like?

I’m sure others will have their question as we move forward.


The Scriptures

A reader wants to know how I view the scriptures.

I see the Bible as a composition of a number of endeavors. The farther back in history the Bible compilers had to go the more they had to rely on legends passed down by word of mouth. There was indeed a creation and a first family but there are many legends of what happened and the Bible compilers took the best and what they thought was the most accurate available and created a narrative containing as much truth as they could encapsulate until we ended up with the Old Testament scriptures. The farther back we go the more myth is incorporated, yet some of the greatest truth is revealed through allegory. But even the allegorical stories are a mixture of historical truth and symbolism.

I believe there has been numerous Adams and Eves who have represented new beginnings after cataclysms. The first Adam appeared over 18 millions years ago.

As the scriptures get closer to the present the historical part becomes more accurate.

The New Testament accounts we have were written between 60 – 120 AD, some of them based on earlier records. I do not think they wrote them as allegory, though there is a lot of symbolism in them but did their best to make their accounts accurate as far as the teachings and history go. Of course, we do not have the original manuscripts but current scriptures are translated from about the twentieth copy or so. Thus there is no way of telling how much any of the scriptures have been altered and corrupted, but I think the original writers of New Testament scriptures did their best to relate real happenings. It just so happens that many of those happenings have allegorical and symbolic meaning.

Some, but not all the Bible writers were inspired. Works of particular depth are Genesis, Isaiah, Daniel, the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.

The scriptures were written by intelligent, but flawed mortal men and are bound to have some imperfections, thus they, along with all other writings, need to be read by the light of the soul to avoid deception.

I do not believe that the whole of the scriptures are full of hidden meaning placed there on purpose by the writers. The more inspired scriptures do have a lot of hidden meaning, but they weren’t always placed there consciously by the writers so hidden knowledge could be passed down – with maybe a few rare exceptions.

How is it then that so much symbolic and hidden things are found in the scriptures? The answer is this. When any writer touches the Spirit with his consciousness as he writes, the words that are written will contain more than seems to appear on the surface. There will be interesting things to discover through numerology, symbolism and other means.

But the greatest discoveries are made through the contemplation of the words themselves. The student must let the words take hold as planted seeds and see where they take him. Jesus said it well when speaking of inspired words, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63

All words of truth are words of life.

How about the idea that the Gospel writers had to write in allegory because it was too dangerous to tell the truth?

This does not make sense because nothing they could have written could have been more dangerous than the portrayal of an entity such as Jesus who was much more powerful than Caesar and even rose from the dead. In fact what was written was so dangerous that thousands of Christians were persecuted and put to death. What hidden meaning was there that could have upset the authorities more than that which already happened? One would have to stretch his imagination to come up with something.

In other words, there was no reason to alter the historical accounts in the gospels in order to pass along hidden meaning, but hidden meaning wound up being there naturally because many of the words and actions recorded touched the Spirit.

July 29, 2014

Knowledge & Relationship


True friendship doesn’t require agreement in all things, can withstand differing opinions, cannot be built upon deception and is lasting.


Your words reminded me of my many interactions with my good friend Wayne, who has now passed. When we had lunch together we often got into very intense disagreements and had some very good discussions, but neither of us let any disagreement interfere with our friendship in the least.

Even so, here I have had strong disagreements with you (Dan), LWK, Susan, Blayne and others, but they remain great friends. This is as it should be.

It is too bad that there are so many who see anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy that should only be attacked. This clouds a person’s vision from seeing the inner Christ and the true concepts that they may be saying.

On that note, even though Wayne and I had disagreements I found myself amazed at what he would come up with at other times. He was capable of manifesting amazing light that I would have missed if I had stereotyped him as one in darkness whose thoughts could not be trusted.


A Synthesis


BUT, and it’s a big but 🙂 if there IS both an outer and inner meaning(s) to soul-infused writings then there was not necessarily deception involved on the part of initiates when they wrote the scriptures, they just wrote in the outer manner KNOWING that the inner meaning would be preserved for those “with eyes to see”.


The deception I was talking about was the intentional type. If, for instance, some writer made up the story of Jesus walking on water for teaching effect then that would be an intentional deception. That is a lot different thing than writing what one may consider a true account of Jesus walking on water and manifesting some true symbolism in the process.


Re: The Scriptures

Allan maintains that the gospels were not written to be historically accurate but to be allegory containing events that did not happen in historical reality. It is interesting that a quote he gives in this post says otherwise. He quotes Gibbon as saying:

“But the secret and authentic history has been recorded in several copies of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which these sectaries long preserved in the original Hebrew, as the sole evidence of their faith.”

So, according to Allan’s quote here the original gospel did not contain just made up allegorical history, but “authentic history.”

Now I’m sure he can argue that the real “authentic history” is allegorical and did not really happen, but that would require a stretch of the imagination and believability to interpret this way. When 99.9% of the population says “authentic history” they mean history as it has actually occurred, recorded to the best of humanity’s ability.

Then the more widely circulated edition was translated into the Greek from the Hebrew. The translation was undoubtedly imperfect but there is no evidence that wholesale changes in the history were made. I would bet that the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection were quite similar as they are in both the Gospel of the Nazirenes and the modern gospels.

Those who had the early texts didn’t just keep them among believers merely because the writings were sacred to them but it was dangerous to give out writings to the masses. A character like Jesus who was elevated above Caesar was dangerous to the Empire. It was so dangerous to be an early Christian that the sign of the cross was developed originally to be a means of one Christian identifying another. It appears the story of the “authentic history” of the gospel was given out to all who were willing to listen whether it was dangerous or not. After all, the apostles went all over the known world teaching the message in the original gospel.


Some believe that there is hidden or allegorical meaning in all he scriptures. For those who are so inclined I would like to see then reveal the hidden meaning is a scripture like this:

Numbers26:16 Of Ozni, the family of the Oznites: of Eri, the family of the Erites:

Numbers26:17 Of Arod, the family of the Arodites: of Areli, the family of the Arelites.

Numbers26:18 These are the families of the children of Gad according to those that were numbered of them, forty thousand and five hundred. 26:19 The sons of Judah were Er and Onan: and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.

Numbers26:20 And the sons of Judah after their families were; of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites: of Pharez, the family of the Pharzites: of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites.

Numbers26:21 And the sons of Pharez were; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites: of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.

Let’s face it. Some scriptures are full of meaning while others are just somewhat boring accounts of what the writer deemed to be true.


July 31, 2014


A reader gives this partial scripture apparently as evidence that we are not to be called teachers.

“or One is your Teacher, and you are all … brothers?

Let us give the whole quote.

“But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

“And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Matt 23:8-12

The first thing to look at is the main point that Jesus was making, which was revealed in verse 12. He was teaching the disciples to avoid titles which would place them in a position of authority which would take their attention away from the inner Christ.

First he told them to not be called Rabbi. A Rabbi was seen as an authority, like a priest, whose words were supposed to be followed above what a seeker may receive from within.

Secondly, he says to call no man “Father.” Now people who take things too literally may go so far as to not call their own fathers this, but is this what he means? If it is then we shouldn’t call our parents Mom and Dad, Father and Mother, etc. By extension Grandma and Grandpa would be forbidden.

Does such a restriction make sense? That is what the true seeker must always ask and the answer he gets should be in harmony with his spirit, mind and emotions after he thinks it through.

No, it doesn’t make sense to refuse to call your Father and Mother by what they are for it doesn’t unjustly exalt then. How could we honor our Father and Mother if we cannot call them by what they are?

What Jesus was against was substituting the authority of the inner Christ for the outer that takes it’s place. The Catholic Church as done this by insisting members call the priest “Father.” He is seen as a father that is a substitute for God and this exalts him, which thing Jesus was against.

Finally he says, “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

Master here comes from the Greek, KATHĒGĒTĒS, and these verses in Matthew are the only place in the New Testament where it is used. Here in the King James it is translated, “Master,” but other versions render it “teacher, instructor, leader, director, and even preceptor.” The first suggested translation from Vine’s as well as Strong’s is “guide.”

KATHĒGĒTĒS is derived from two other words which are KATA and HĒGEOMAI. KATA is a common preposition indicating motion but HĒGEOMAI denotes power or regal authority. That us without doubt the reason Bible translators in the past have rendered KATHĒGĒTĒS as Master, for Master is a much more authoritative word than teacher.

The common word for teacher in the New Testament is DIDASKALOS, which is used 58 times. When we think of the English word teacher, this would be the Greek word we would want as comparable. Nowhere does Jesus tell us to not use this word.

Jesus was called DIDASKALOS a lot of times and he did not correct anyone for doing this.

In addition to this the teachers Jesus confronted in the temple were called DIDASKALOS. (Luke 2:46) Jesus also called Nicodemus a teacher (John 3:10).

Disciples were called teachers or DIDASKALOS in numerous places after Jesus left the scene.

“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger,” Acts 13:1

“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles,” I Cor 12:28

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” Eph 4:11

Paul says, “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.” II Tim 1:11

Obviously neither Jesus or the disciples saw any problem with using the common word for teacher which was DIDASKALOS.

Even so, common designations like teacher can be misused. I call myself a teacher in a way that applies to anyone who teaches for we all teach one time or another and are students at other times. What could create a violation of the principle that was being stressed by Jesus was if I demanded that I be called “teacher” when being addressed. This was why Rabbi was on Jesus’ list of forbidden words because when meeting one with such a position you are expected to address him as such.

It is not the words that concerned Jesus, but the way they could be used. If a title is applied to you in a way that is forbidden to others then you are falsely exalted and this is an error.

Such designations are the “names of blasphemy” which were applied to the beast of Revelations. (Rev 13:1)

Here are some more comments on this subject from my book, The Unveiling.

We are told that on his heads are the names of blasphemy. The King James says “name” but most modern versions correctly translate this as “names.” What are the blasphemous names on the heads of the Beast?

The emperor of Rome was proudly called Caesar Augustus. “Augustus” implies Caesar was Lord, or God. We all know many Christians were fed to the lions and crucified. Few know that much of it had to do with the refusal to accept this and other names chosen by the Roman emperors.

The current names of the Beast are not negative names like anti-Christ, Satan, devil and so on. The names of the Beast are adored by the world.

Here are some of the names of blasphemy used in the religious and political world:

*   His/Her Royal Highness

*   Holy Father

*   His Holiness

*   His Eminence

*   His Grace

*   Reverend

*   Imperial Majesty

*   Serene Majesty

*   Lordship

*   Most Reverend

*   Most Worshipful

The Pope has been accused of having the name VICARIVS FILII DEI (in the place of the Son of God) written on his hat or some other item. The roman numerals on this name add up to 666, but this seems to be a fabricated accusation made by the enemies of the Catholic church who believe they singly represent the Beast. Little do they realize that the Beast has infiltrated all the organizations of the earth.

The great name of blasphemy was extended through the Caesars who went beyond Augustus to being called Lord and being deified as a God. Once a year each citizen in Rome had to appear before authorities and acknowledge that Caesar was virtually God. Once one did this, he could go worship according to his choice undisturbed. But, if one put Jesus or some other version of God above Caesar, he was seen as a danger to the state and was usually executed.

Thus, the most blasphemous name of the Beast occurs when a flesh-and-blood man, like the rest of us, is called and worshiped as a God. It is true that even Jesus said that men are Gods (John 10:34), but he was speaking of God in all of us with equality, great and small. Caesar was declared God as one who was special and unique among men. Caesar demanded to be worshipped, and it is blasphemy for one man to worship another man or even see another person as having more rights than he himself possesses.

The interesting thing about the emperors of Rome is that it was not the government who it was the people. The early emperors thought it was a silly thing for the people to do, but eventually the people called them gods long enough and with enough repetition that they began to believe it, and also see that the idea would secure more political power.

One does not need to go to the extreme of calling himself a God to his fellow men and women to have a name of blasphemy, but any name that brings the person a reverential respect takes away from the glory that belongs to God alone. Even Jesus was very cautious about not taking away from the respect due God alone. A man once addressed Jesus as “good master.” To this he responded:

“Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” Matt 19:16-17

Jesus did not even want to take the chance of looking too “good” to his followers, but in the present time his mindless followers think it is blasphemy to call Jesus anything less than the best and most perfect creator God of the universe.

Here is another example: “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” Matthew 23:5-15

Isn’t it interesting how clearly Jesus tried to teach the principle of not using a name or title that exalts one person above another because “all ye are brethren.”

The Catholic Church has certainly disregarded the command of “call no man your father …” Using the title or name of “reverend” violates the same principle and is blasphemous. One man is to be revered no more than another because “we are brethren” as Jesus taught. Many religions use the title of “Holiness” or “Holy” in reference to their leaders. Many New Agers use the title Master when talking about a teacher, but there is one Master over us and that is the Christ within all of us. If a teacher does not speak to that center within us then we should ignore him.

Royalty uses all kinds of blasphemous names for God such as “Your Highness,” “Your Majesty,” “Your Excellency,” and so on. Even the idea of one being a king or the divine right of kings is blasphemous. One person has no more divine right to be a king than does another. There are many titles that are not blasphemous because they do not indicate that a man is taking the place of God. A title is correct if it merely indicates the job he is attempting to do in this life such as president, mayor, judge, senator, doctor, teacher etc. “Master” may be legitimate as an acknowledgement of one’s mastery over an activity, but not in relation to being a master (or in the place of God) over an individual. There is nothing untruthful or disrespectful about these names.

You will find, however, that wherever unjust authority rears its ugly head, the person exercising it will revel in the chance to be called by some title that belongs to God alone.

There are religious and political organizations where blasphemous names are not allowed, but the leader is still revered as one who is infallible or able to commune with God in a way that the average person cannot. This type of fixation corresponds to a name of blasphemy and it will be just a matter of time before the illusionary names surface to fit the thoughtform.

Truly great leaders are examples of what we are to become, not examples of holiness that we cannot attain. When is the last time you heard a person with a God-like title speak in such a way that it spoke to your inner Christ and caused your heart to burn? Probably never. It is different when a true teacher, who wears not the names of blasphemy, speaks or writes. Then the soul of the seeker will be stirred.


Comment to Allan who claims Jesus doesn’t want us to be called teachers:

Allan is teaching you but he is not a teacher.

You are learning from him but you are not students.

Throughout the world we have millions of teachers teaching students but they are not teachers.

We have billions of students, but they are not students…

Are you sure I am not on the Twilight Zone forum here? The illusion here is of Biblical proportions.

To call yourself a teacher when you teach is a description not a title. It is like calling one a human when he is human.

You need to spend more time on writing some enlightened teachings you think to have gotten from your higher self rather than creating minutia that has no significance one way or another.

There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us not to use the word teacher as a description. That must e hidden in the original Gospel of Matthew that no one can see but Allan.

A reader accuses me of calling myself a master. To this I respond:

Completely untrue. It is amazing how many falsehoods are thrown out here with no quotation marks.

As far as being a teacher goes which of you are not teachers to your children? A Parent is a similar term. Which of you with children are not parents. Some of you are looking for evil where there is not a hint of any.


Aug 1, 2014

Past Lives & More

Rather than spending all my time answering questions on nuances of meaning and defending myself it may be more productive at this point to switch to looking at doctrines that Allan has presented here and commenting on the bigger picture rather than fragments. His teaching the shadow and higher selves seems to be of concern to the group. It goes something like this:

(1) We have a Higher Self which is a being of light and much more enlightened than ourselves.

Though I have read quite a bit, I haven’t read everything Allan has written, but haven’t found any more information about this being, like: How did it originate? Where does it dwell? Did it have a beginning and will it have an end? Does it have a Higher Self also? What is its purpose?

So, about all he says about the Higher Self is that there is one and it is a fantastic being.

Comment: We both agree with the basic teaching that we have a Higher Self.

(2) We as individuals are not much more than shadows created by the Higher Self and have nothing in common with it and are only given one life to have a chance at salvation. After death, all but a few are consigned to some dwelling place where they have no access to the Higher Self, or apparently the kingdom of God. He doesn’t say much about this place, except it isn’t nearly as glorious place to dwell as where the Higher Self lives. Because these lower selves are just shadows one must assume they live in some type of shadow land after death. One guesses that maybe this is a hell of some kind.

On the other hand, there are a handful of shadow people who, during their life on earth, follow in Allan’s footsteps in some mysterious way only known to certain special people, and merge with their Higher Selves thus becoming saved and enter the Kingdom of God after death. There they can dwell with their Higher Self in a glorious mansion world. The secrets of this are too sacred to put into words so we must discover them for ourselves, apparently by osmosis, without much help from anyone. All that the unwashed are told is that there is a way called TheWay and we are supposed to find it.

Allan says he knows this is true because he has communicated with his Higher Self and even communicated with his past lives, including the failed ones. He does talk about progressing through the 12 spheres of the Tree of Life but I don’t see much instruction on what these spheres are or how to move through them.

Comment: Allan has part of the truth here but is mislead on a couple of items.

Each life you live is created by your soul essence in connection with your Higher Self. You will determine what you want to accomplish and then create mental, emotional and physical bodies that are suitable for your needs. Each life these bodies will be somewhat different and the entity’s identification with them will cause a different personality expression.

Some time before birth your Higher Self will determine how much of its essence and consciousness to endow in the new life. The more demanding the life mission is expected to be the more essence is made available. This means that a part of itself is born into incarnated earth life and a part, the greater part, remains in the spiritual world. So it is interesting that as we live our lives here we are really living in two places at once but the lower part of ourselves is generally unaware of this.

At death the entity goes through a process of shedding the personality self and then merging again with the Soul essence. You, as an individual existence ever remains but the bodies which created your personality are left behind to make way for a new creation in a new incarnation. On returning to your soul you realize the truth that is taught in my books, that you are not your body, nor are you your feelings or your mind, but an eternal intelligence with power to decide.

To understand this better we need look no farther than the dream state as a correspondence. When you go to sleep and dream, only a part of your consciousness enters this state. It is the consciousness connected with your emotional body with some access to the physical through the brain. The mind part of yourself is off in a higher sphere. Just like your Higher Self is in two places at once so now in the dream state is your lower self. The lower part of the lower self is in the emotional body in the dream state, completely unaware of what the mind is doing. The mind is in a higher sphere with full awareness of the two parts. Because the mind is away from the body at sleep the brain has no recollection of its activities when it returns.

When you awake the “you” of the dream state no longer exists, but you the entity which is you certainly does. You feel no loss when you realize that the you of the dream was a projection that is no more. Instead of loss you feel a gain because you have greater consciousness and power of decision in the waking state than the dream state.

Even so, death is like awaking up and discovering that the real you has more parts, greater consciousness and greater power of decision than did your projected personality while on earth. There is no sense of loss, but of gain, especially if the life went as planned.

Why is it then that some teach that all of our past lives are still in existence? Some go so far as to teach that they are not just alive, but still living that past life as a monk, a warrior or whatever. As proof some will claim they have communicated with their past lives. How could this happen if we have really moved on?

Let us go back to the dream again. Le us say you dream you are rich and famous and all kinds of fans are wanting your autograph. When you wake up that rich guy no longer exists, but you, the dreamer certainly does. As time passes does that rich guy return? No. Most likely you will never see him or dream of him again.

BUT, can that which he was be recovered? Yes, at any time. Through hypnosis or a guided meditation he can return to the dream and fully recover the consciousness and experiences of that rich guy.

On a higher turn of the spiral, in the realms of greater consciousness, such a recovery is similar but with differences and more potent. Each one of your past lives still exists as a recording, but much more sophisticated than a tape or digital recording. All that made up you as an entity is recorded like a super computer program which can be accessed by tuning into its frequency.

If you were Jessie James in a past life and tuned into his frequency you could meet Jessie James, even though you may be Jim Jones in this life. But you are not really encountering yourself, but a recoding of yourself. Your consciousness is no longer Jessie James, but what you detect is a simulated consciousness.

Every life past and present has a simulated consciousness that can be accessed with the right frequency. When we see psychics contact the dead, they usually do not contact the real person, but merely tune into the right frequency and pick up some details from their recorded self. The real entity generally ignores most of the psychics.

The real you then lives numerous lifetimes trough its creations. When one life is finished the soul unravels its makeup and moves on to another. As you reach liberation you become one with your Solar Angel and it goes back to its Source leaving you with its reflection which now has access to a still Higher Self, the Monad, or your Father in Heaven.

There are many steps involved in the whole process that would take a book to cover.



I am not going to reply to your below points, because that would be a negative reply.


So, I take it that you think your replies so far are of a positive nature then? Interesting and revealing.


Unlike you, I ceased to read books about 30 years ago.   And everything that I write on, is based upon first-hand knowledge.


This must one of those allegorical statements you talk about that has no historical truth in reality.

You obviously read books and lots of them – apparently quite a few more than me. You rarely make a post without quoting from some book or author of books. Even in this post, where you say you don’t read books, you quote from books you have read. Strange indeed. You quote from more outward authorities than anyone I have encountered – as if you feel your teachings are not potent enough to stand on their own. So how do you get all these quotes without reading books and outward authors? Does your Higher Self project them on a wall or something?


In this life when I was first communicated with my higher soul-self in the Realm of Souls, I was told to get rid of the Alice Baily and other books because of their gravely misleading content — much of which is in fact a cosmic type of allegory.


So, let me get this straight. You apparently were told not to read any modern books that attempt to present higher knowledge but it was apparently fine to comb through every book available from centuries past by the church fathers or anything relating to them? Or maybe you are just being a disobedient rascal and defying your Higher Self in reading all the books from which you quote. I’m surprised none of your group has called you on this. I know my group would if I made such a contradictory statement.


The focus was to open the door to my higher soul-self in order to write what had previously been portrayed as the incomprehensible mysteries of God — and set them forth in a way that genuine seekers could receive the necessary edification to begin their own walk in TheWay.


And where is this information available?


With respect to my portrayal of the scriptures, I authored the original Gospel along with the historical man that you call Jesus —


So, are you saying here that Jesus helped you write about his crucifixion and resurrection when he was still on earth and nothing like that had occurred or would occur? I know you do not like to answer interesting questions, but please answer this one or your credibility on this will go to zero.


but since the manner in which the scriptures are allegorically written has already been portrayed by some people as a fiction and a fraud, if this is their judgment of the man they call Jesus, then their own judgments will come back upon them.


And where has this happened? Most of the Keys members think as I do and accept what a writer says as either true or possible as a true event unless we see evidence to the contrary. I accept the New Testament as written except in a few cases where I conclude evidence indicates otherwise. That doesn’t mean that all I accept for consideration is historically true. Some could be true and some not. The truth of the history of the scriptures is not something have placed much attention on as I read them and other works for the principles.

Thus we do not portray the scriptures as a fiction and a fraud. You have been told this many times, but it seems to go over your head. It makes me wonder that if you received things from your Higher Self if they would go over your head also.


The genuine Yeshua does not want you to study history


Are you talking about the Jesus who obviously studied all the history in the scriptures and often quoted from that history?


much of what I have written exists no where else.


I have found that some of the names you have given to writings are found nowhere else, but then when you read the details most of them are found in pretty standard new age teachings or break-away religious thought. You must not be aware a to how common some of your teachings are since you do not read modern books.

The only thing I have found in your writings that I have found nowhere else is the idea that the average guy does not reincarnate but the spiritual guy does.


But, in order to bring about Stephen’s vision of a Spiritual Community, the people will have to begin to learn the Language of the Soul — and properly interpret what they see — i.e., (5)


Interpretation. People must accept and interpret the scriptures as Allan presents them.


Admittedly, what I write can be difficult to comprehend — but since it has been portrayed as incomprehensible by many enlightened men of the past, I can live with the assessment that what I write as being portrayed as difficult.   As I stated, it exists no where else.


I do not see anyone as saying your writings are difficult to understand. They are pretty easy to understand. The trouble is that you do not go beyond the basics and answer questions that would reveal some real usable knowledge – like how does one contact the Higher Self as you see yourself as having accomplished? How did you go about retrieving your past lives and what did you do to assist others in doing this? I have asked lots of questions you just refuse to answer.


Knowledge & Relationship

lwk wrote:

… the idea that the agents of light started off with little or no concern for factual truth should be obviously false to anyone who understand the principles of soul contact and the Holy Spirit.


What? You and I have completely different understandings about what JJ has taught on these subjects then and I ALSO must not “understand the principles of soul contact and the Holy Spirit”.

According to his teachings, these “agents of light” are ALL fallible human beings that are subject to that same horror of horrors that we all are: being wrong. Getting it flat-out twisted up and backasswards.

To decide in the extremis of possible, even probable, persecution unto death if discovered (or whatever) to camouflage secret teachings in the guise of historical accounts or teachings does not NECESSARILY mean one has “no concern for factual truth” – for crying out loud!


Hate to see two good friends having a conflict here.

You are both making good points. Larry doesn’t like the idea Allan presents that the original writers of the scriptures may have written them as fiction and presented allegory as true history. As I have said, wherever conscious deception is applied then a lower amount of light will manifest and negative karma will set in.

Dan is correct in that all past disciples have indeed been fallible people and thus we always need to run all things by our souls. It is possible that those working for the light decided to create a fictional/allegorical historical account and present it as fiction for some reason they thought was justified. Good intent though does not negate the negative karma incurred from deception though.

One reason that this history/allegorical presentation does not carry a lot of weight with me is that I have seen no one come up with any good inspirational knowledge or principles contained in them. Allan and others quote and interpret the parables, which we all know is intentional allegory, but where is the interpretation of allegorical New Testament history? If something is hidden there someone ought to be able to find it. I have seen little if any of this discovery from the New Testament.

If a bunch of truth is being hidden in allegory then where is it and who is seeing and using it or doing anything with it??? It appears that if this was truly what was done then all that effort was a waste of time.



I don’t know whether you realize it or not, but Alice Bailey portrayed the black race as not evolved and inferior.


Obviously, you have not read the Bailey writings. In them she asserts that the black race will prove the ideas of the inferioty incorrect by establisjing at some pont in the future a society in Africa that will be as advanced as any on the planet. She also wrote that Christ could very well chose to come again as a black man.

Here are a couple other quotes from Problems of Humanity

Behind the many separative religious cults of that dark land, there emerges a fundamental and pure mysticism, ranging all the way from nature worship and a primitive animism to a deep occult knowledge and an esoteric understanding which may some day make Africa the seat of the purest form of occult teaching and living.

…goodwill must be demonstrated. Right human relations must be firmly established between the emerging Negro empire and the rest of the world; the new ideals and the new world trends must be fostered in the receptive Negro consciousness and in this way “darkest Africa” will become a radiant center of light, ready for self-government and expressing true freedom. Increasingly these Negro races will forsake their emotional reaction to circumstances and events, and meet all that transpires with a mental grasp and an intuitive perception which will put them on a par and perhaps ahead of the many who today condition the environment and the circumstances of the Negro. … The destiny of this great land will clarify itself and Africa will take its place as a great center of cultural light, shining within a civilized land.


All races have child souls. Child souls incarnate into the more primitive cultures as a whole and it is a fact, especially almost a century ago, that a lot of the tribal people were black. As any race create situations where greater civilization and opportunity exists then more evolved people will incarnate into it. The black people in America today live in a time a great opportunity and this is drawing many evolved souls to incarnate among American blacks. It is not the race that draws the evolved but the opportunity.

And to suggest that to help any race or people in their progression as being racists is crazy talk and has no logic whatsoever behind it. I suppose you think that those who merely disagree with Obama are racist too.


Okay, it is noted Ra that you do not like how Djwhal Khul the Tibetan oriental Master of Wisdom who actually wrote through Alice A Bailey wrote about blacks. None of it offended me and I have two black granddaughters who are fairly advanced souls. One size does not fit all.

On his forum we do not recognize any text on earth as being infallible and run all things by our souls before we accept them.

Aug 2, 2014


Bailey was also eventually opposed by some within the Theosophical movement.   They said that she was channeling inferior spirits.


Not eventually. They opposed her from the beginning. Every group resists new teachings – like your group doesn’t want to consider anything I teach. We would consider what you say if you’d answer our questions – but as it is there is not a lot to consider. We already use the Key of going within.



She (Alice A. Bailey) wanted to rid the world of Judaism. She actually was of the position that the violence in the Old Testament represented actual historical events. And yes, she was against interracial marriage.


The real author, the Tibetan Djwhal Khul, who we call DK, did not say he wanted to get rid of Judaism, spoke very little about the Old Testament and merely said that interracial marriage was difficult to make work, which indeed it was in the 1930s. He spoke positively of the interracial unions that were brought about through various soldiers and natives of foreign lands indicating that this would further evolution and inclusion.

You ought to break with your rule of not reading books and read some of the AAB material.



You were asked questions about what we portray as the Law of Octaves, the Tree of Life, the Divine Marriage, as well as a whole host of other such topics. I believe you told one forum members to go and search your writings. They are not satisfied with the depth and understanding of your writings.   I back virtually point that I make — which as questioning minds, they respond positively to.   I have been criticized in this group for information overload.


This is a completely unfair accusation as usual.

What they wanted would have required me to comb through the millions of words I have written and compare them to their list of subjects, some of which I am not that familiar. To read through all your material on those subjects and then research trough all my material for comparisons would take hundreds of hours and weeks of time. I told them that if they wanted to know the comparisons to just do a search of my site, which search feature you do not have. And because you have so many sites one is limited even with Google search features.

I did read a little on the Law of Octaves and gave samples that seemed to compare and was told it did not, so I researched more and gave more material and again was told there was no comparison (but nothing to back the statement up), so this indicated to me that the only way to satisfy them was to comb through the minutia of everything both of us had written and compare them side by side which in my mind would accomplish nothing, but at least I tried.

On the other hand, questions that need a simple answer concerning my beliefs or do not take a lot of research I have answered to the best of my ability, which thing you have not done.

For instance you could easily answer these questions.

(1) What technique do you use to regress people to their past lives? Is it guided meditation, hypnosis or something else? If it is something else please briefly describe.

(2) Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected in a physical body? If not what is your belief about it?

(3) Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?

(4) Since you believe the gospels is mostly analogy with hidden meaning to teach us why is no one, including yourself, coming up with hidden meaning to illustrate this is true?

I have had no problem with simple questions like this that can be answered off the top of my head. I have answered probably around a hundred of them on your site. On the other hand, you dodge. Why?


Re: Past Lives & More


You don’t have to lean on the crutch of “the Greatest Source” and capitalized mysterious phrases if you are actually in possession of truth. If you are in possession of real truth then speak it, speak it to the soul of the listener. But lay off the mumbo jumbo and mysterious claims. Just teach truth, if you have any of it.


Great advice, Larry. That is what I attempt to do. There are times I could reinforce my teachings with some claim of spiritual authority, but I do not do so, for it would set me up in the position of the beast. Instead, i just throw it out there for people to take or leave and I find the words that rang true to my soul usually ring true in the souls of others who are seeking.


Olivia’s Post

Great Post Olivia. That deserves to go in the archives.


Thank goodness you wrote that last paragraph because that first one was all over the place!

So you admit that you strive to bring your lower nature under your control or to become “kosher” but this is not necessary for indigenous people because they want to be immersed in their lower nature. You criticize AAB for being racist by stating that they are child like souls but it is OK for you to state that they should be left to express their lower natures with their animal consciousness.

The whole point of existence is to subjugate the lower so that the higher may come through wouldn’t you say?

After all you a black man, “as black as the ace of spades” according to YOUR WHITE TEACHER have decided it is OK to subjugate your lower nature in pursuit of the higher and yet you say making this opportunity available for indigenous cultures is wrong.

In New Zealand we have the Maori who are indigenous here. Yes good old Mother England came over and made settlements. With them came Missionaries. Some tribes embraced them, some did not. Some traded and became wealthy, some did not. We had land wars and much upheaval.

In order to redress some of the past we have given back land and payed many millions in compensation. Some tribes have done so well that they are a business force to be reckoned with internationally. Others have lost money and this has caused tribal infighting.

Despite all this virtually none of the tribes apart from a few radical individuals really desire to loose the benefits of being part of a modern society with all the opportunity this offers, and go back to trying to survive off the land with no modern conveniences. And if they did want to they could, no one would stop them.

So really in your long convoluted back hand way, you do agree with AAB, that there ARE child like indigenous cultures, yet you don’t think they should benefit from the opportunities that modern society can offer them, even though you do. Because you have a different consciousness than they do?

According to you we should leave these people to express their lower animal consciousness and they will be better off.

Ra, if you had been locked in a room with only enough to keep you alive, do you think your inner intellect would have automatically risen you above these limitations and educated you, or have your experiences and opportunities that “you have been blessed with” stimulated your intellect and helped shape who you are today?

Confusing double speak and verbiage seems to characterize the way your group communicates. Now may be a good time to read the link that Dan gave you. Perhaps that will provide some clarity for you and your group.



Hallelujah. Allan finally partially answered a couple questions. Now maybe we can get somewhere. Let us review them

(1) What technique do you use to regress people to their past lives? Is it guided meditation, hypnosis or something else? If it is something else please briefly describe.


I use Age Regression.


This is a method similar to that used in Scientology where you regress to unpleasant memories and reprogram or release them.

Perhaps you just meant that you take them back step by step using hypnosis.

Whatever the case, from reading your writings it sounded like some very mystical process was used and now it seems you use fairly standard hypnosis.

If you want to clarify further about your technique we would be glad to hear more.

(2) Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected in a physical body? If not what is your belief about it?


I believe that Jesus so transformed and perfected himself, that he literally took his body with him.


At least you gave us some information. I asked if you believe he was resurrected, not whether he was transformed. Resurrection means he would have had to been put to death first by crucifixion or some other means. I’m sure the group would like some clarification here. Was he resurrected as implied in the scriptures or not? If he was just transformed instead, then when and how did this come about?

(3) Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?


How can I believe in the Jewish dietary laws when I am a strict vegetarian for the last 40 years?


You have a talent for seeming to answer a question yet not answering it. The truth is that as a vegetarian you automatically conform to Jewish dietary laws so you haven’t told me if they should be obeyed or not.


The Sabbath is a Universal symbol of Completion.   The Jews, being carnal, have never experienced a true Spiritual Sabbath.


That is in harmony with my teachings except it doesn’t answer the question so let me ask it again:

Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?

In other words, are we bound by the dietary laws of what not to eat? We realize you have gone the extra mile here in being a vegetarian.

Should we literally keep Saturday apart as a holy day as is taught in the Ten Commandments?

(4) Since you believe the gospels are mostly analogy with hidden meaning to teach us why is no one, including yourself, coming up with hidden meaning to illustrate this is true?


By Divine Design, everyone who opens the scriptures is supposed to see a different message — in accord with the Laws they were born under — their Spiritual DNA — and the condition of their mind, or where they are at. Therefore, the scriptures should be a personal learning and self-discovery oracle between themselves and their own higher soul-self, and ultimately them and the Indwelling Logos.


Sorry this sounds like a dance to me. In your previous writings you say that the inner group had the original gospel written in allegory, but they knew the inner meaning which had to be kept hidden so the mysteries could be passed on.

Now are you telling me that the mysteries are different for each person? That doesn’t make sense. If they are true allegory containing teachings to be passed down then a thousand people interpreting them a thousand different ways would make them meaningless. If there is truly hidden knowledge contained in the original gospel then it can’t be different for everyone.

This is a complete non answer as far as I can see here and think you should clarify


If you were nice to the people on the other forum, they might begin to share their experiences with you.


My response to your group is posted on my site and I think if people go through them they will have difficulty in finding examples where I have not been nice.


I believe that if you ask the members of the other forum, they will say that you have not answered any thing they have asked of you. Moreover, they feel your hostility.


Again I ask all those who are objective to look at the links I’ve given and ask if I answered the questions or not.

Except for one that would have taken lengthy research I think I have gone out of my way to answer questions. This is something that was Not reciprocated by Allan or members of his group.

And any hostility seen is in your imagination. I speak as the greatest expert in the universe on my own thinking.


John C
“This is a method similar to that used in Scientology where you regress to unpleasant memories and reprogram or release them.”

This is not exactly true, and it has nothing to do with hypnotism. As, LRH says “we are trying to wake people up, not put them to sleep.”

Allan said he used an age regression technique which may or may not use hypnosis. Here is some information on this:

I haven’t been in the program like you but as I understand it to become clear all the negative engrams need to be removed in Scientology as well as Dianetics. Correct me if i am wrong.

I have never said my regression techniques at the gatherings is anything like Dianetics or Scientology.


Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 14

This entry is part 17 of 33 in the series 2014

July 23, 2014

The Bible – Fact or Fiction?

About time I give out another question or two. The group seems to like this John type of method as we usually get some pretty good responses.

Stephen has drawn some attention to some of Allan’s teachings who claims to be a reincarnation of James, the brother of Jesus. Let us examine a few of his teachings.

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

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

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


(1) Does this make sense to you?

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

(3) Are there hidden meanings in the scriptures?

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



I find it hard to believe Allen is stating the Bible is completely allegorical with no basis in history. Is this really his contention?


Sometimes he talks about it as if it is pure allegory, but then other times he acknowledges that there is some history thrown in. He seems to think all the Old Testament is allegory and few if any of the characters are real. He does acknowledge that Jesus, Paul, James and some of the characters of the New Testament are real but most or all of the miracles are allegory, but doesn’t seem to tell us what the meaning of the allegory is. He seems to take most of the Gospel of Thomas pretty literally though.


Welcome to the forum Allan. I have been gone most of the day so haven’t been able to respond until now.

Since I hadn’t heard from Stephen for a while so I thought maybe the project was shelved, but I did want to cover this subject of the Bible a being allegory. It wouldn’t have been my first choice in the Stephen’s project, but here we are so we’ll go with it.

The question:

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

To this you say that you believe you have presented a case for this. The trouble is that your post mainly deals with parables which are not presented as historical fact. Most Bible students realize that the parables have a surface meaning and then a deeper meaning as you teach. I have said a number of times that many ancient Jewish teachers believed that the scriptures have three levels of meanings, called the body, soul and spirit. Some even give as many as seven meanings to them.

But the point is that parables are not a part of the answer to the question because a parable is a fiction story that obviously presents a teaching of some kind. A parable is not presented as historical fact.

On the other hand, many of the scriptures that are not parables are presented as historical fact such as Jesus walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, the Resurrection, the Pentecost and many more things. Are you saying the writers of these things lied and presented fiction as historical fact to teach some type of truth?

And what truth was presented in any of this that was not obvious to begin with? I do not see how you have presented am example.

You say that you and Jesus wrote the original gospels. Did you devise the miracles as fiction to be presented as truth? And for what purpose? To teach deeper meaning you say? What is the deeper meaning that could have not been conveyed in an honest parable?


July 24, 2014

Re: [Keysters] The Bible – Fact or Fiction?

It looks my reply disappeared into the ethers. Here it is again.

Again, the question:

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

The closest attempt I can see to answer this by Allan is:

“Solomon did not have 700 wives and 300 concubines — yet, these numbers in conjunction with the name Solomon convey important meaning to the seeker/disciple.”

Yes, you say there is some important meaning here but do not say what that important meaning is.

It is important to point out that any myth from the Old Testament presented to us in the scriptures is a much different animal than a fabricated or altered account of known recent history.

Let me explain.

Those who compiled the stories of the Old Testament gathered together stories that had been passed down by word of mouth for many centuries. They did not know if all the stories were literally true, but this was the best information they had. In other words, the compilers did not write fictional accounts and create myth, hut compiled the stories from the best sources they had.

Because various accounts were passed by word of mouth for centuries a certain amount of corruption was incorporated as well as a number of stories that may have been pure fiction.

The compilers did not know what was true and what was fiction so they just put together the best of what they had available.

I cannot fault them for this because they did not write the stories themselves. All civilizations had to do this with their stories passed down by word of mouth and preserving them to the best of the compiler’s ability did not involve intentional deception.

On the other hand, after we learned to write and keep a recorded history the records were kept much closer to real time and the authors knew whether they were writing about events that were true or creating fabrications.

Thus the New Testament is much different from the Old, as when Jesus showed up followers had full ability to record events in writing during or shortly after his ministry. The writers did not have to rely on legends a thousand years old or more.

Scholars say the Gospel of Mark was written within 30 years of the crucifixion. Jesus would have been as fresh in his mind as is President Reagan in ours. It would be pretty difficult for me to convince anyone that Reagan walked on water or changed water into wine, but if I could it would indeed be a deception, even if I thought I was conveying a great truth in the account.

Writing a stated fiction book conveying Reagan as a miracle worker would be one thing and fairly harmless, but creating one that is presented as true is quite another and would be a great deception.

Jesus said that Satan was a liar from the beginning and we certainly do not want to emulate his approach.

If any of the Bible writers created fabricated stories about Jesus and presented them to the world as true then they were in grave error, for a lie always gives the powers of darkness additional power to accomplish their ends. Deceptions causes a cloud to develop over the soul. The greatest key to liberation is truth. This includes not only higher higher metaphysical truth but truth as things really happen in history. Those who distort history, whether it be for good or bad intent, will create harm for future generations and karma for themselves.

So I ask again:

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

I would say that most of the stories from the Old Testament would not count here as the compilers did not know for sure what was true and what was fiction. Its creation was not an intentional deception.

The compilers of the early New Testament knew the historical truth and generally knew if what they were writing was historically true. So what myth was knowingly placed in the New Testament teaches us any significant truth and what is that truth?


Here is a response I made to a member of Allan’s forum.

Peter M.

You are still looking at this through a very linear male pattern and with a literal bias toward scripture.


It sounds like you are trying to put me in a box as if I am some type of fundamentalist. I find a lot of symbolism in the Bible and have written volumes on it. I wrote a whole book explaining he symbolic meaning of the Book of Revelation. I have no problem in finding symbolic meaning in the scriptures or any other writing.

And yes, I realize the Gospel of Mark was probably based on an earlier version as most orthodox scholars also believe. Allan quotes from the Gospel of the Nazirenes which some believe to be an earlier version, but this presents the miracles as true history, including the resurrection.


The reason you do not understand the story of Solomon is because you are still trying to read it as some kind of historical record handed down by word of mouth without once understanding that there were a whole group of mystics living during that time period who wrote it down for a specific purpose that was not to document history.


And why do you think I do not understand the story of Solomon when I have not even given you my interpretation? You need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say.

And what do you think that “specific purpose” was? And what was the real meaning of the 300 wives and 700 concubines?


In the higher spiritual realm where our souls reside, the history of human beings is pretty much a joke.


And you think this because? It sounds like you are saying that the things which are true are a joke, but deceptive presentations, where the truth is altered is much better.

You may be surprised to learn after death that accurate records are kept in the higher realms of not only the true history of humanity, but of all creation.

True history has more true usable symbolism in it than a concocted and altered history, even if the writers were clever and had good intent. Good intent does not create the communication of true principles whereas real truth pieced together does.


What is important is the development of the soul and soul does not speak in our language. We have to learn the language of the soul and in order for the most basic concepts to be past down from one generation to the next it has to be written in allegory using context clues that would reawaken within true seekers the clues to the language of the soul by applying the “Key of Knowledge” to each passage.


I am all for teaching in allegory as I have done it many times but little can be gained writing something that is not true (with some hidden meaning included) and then presenting it to the world as true history when it is not. If it is accepted as true, as the New Testament is by most, then, readers will not be looking for the hidden meaning. The few that do will rarely agree with what that hidden meaning is. If Allan is the only one who understands the hidden meaning what then was accomplished by the fictional presentation, other than the masses accepting a thing that is not true?

As it is, there are many parables presented by Jesus with no deception involved at all. Everyone understood that they were not literally true and they had an allegorical meaning. Jesus also clearly explained that they had a higher meaning than the obvious. I notice that Allan uses the parables a lot in teaching but rarely uses the historical narrative which he says is also supposed to contain mysteries in allegory.


…because we are not giving you the answer you want and you won’t stop until we agree with you.


That is not the problem. The problem is that I have not yet received an answer.


Well I hate to break it to you…it has been asked and answered by Allan through his soul directly to you and you just don’t want to accept it.


Then could you tell me in a sentence or two what the answer was?

Again, here was the question:

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


July 25, 2014

The Bible Fact or Fiction Continued


You have an entirely different vision and understanding of scriptures than I do. What you seem to portray are accounts — i.e., historical, folklore, or even myths — that are passed down and recorded in the scriptures.


You seem to incorrectly see me as someone with a fundamentalist view. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not see all the scriptures a literal historical truth though some may be. They were written by imperfect people and then most of them have been altered since originally written. I read the scriptures like I read everything else – by the light of the soul. If it speaks to the inner spirit I accept it and if not then I do not.

A quotation attributed to me is:

One with soul contact can find more truth from the National Enquirer than one who is in illusion can find in the Bible


In contradistinction to this view which you share with those in the linear-intellectual community, my perception is that every word and aspect of the scriptures is a conscious portrayal of body, mind and spirit embodied in a road-map of the Laws and Forces of Mind and Being.


I’m surprised you would think that “every word” is part of a roadmap when you teach that the scriptures we have today are corrupted. There are also a lot of mistranslations from the earliest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

But I agree that the scriptures in general present a roadmap to higher truth if one interprets them by the Spirit.


While the authors of the scriptures may begin with a commonly held belief or story out of man’s historical past, every word of what they compose has been reformed into a spiritual account that would be better portrayed as a work of spiritual art. Every name that is used in the scriptures has a meaning — as does every name, place and thing — and these names and quasi-historical events are brought together in the creation of a masterpiece that portrays the blueprint and workings of the mind — and its interaction with spirit and flesh.


I probably do not see them as infallible as you seem to describe, but, yes, there is a lot of meaning there to be discovered. If you read my writings you’ll see that I have presented a lot of symbolic and inner meaning from the scriptures, including many names.


Every word of the scriptures — both Old and New Testaments — possess a sacred meaning that is not at all apparent to the vast majority of readers. And the true meaning can only be revealed to the mind of the reader by one’s soul-self or ultimately, the indwelling Logos/Son of God.


If one is creative he can come up with some type of symbolic meaning from any scripture, but some are much closer to the words of spirit than others. In fact some are quite ordinary and I notice that most of the symbolic meaning you mention from the scriptures are the parables and very little in connection with events. I agree with your emphasis and believe the parables of Jesus are vey rich with meaning compared to some other scriptures and they are presented honestly as fictional stories that teach.


Moreover, the true meaning is simply beyond the organic limitations of man to comprehend — and this higher meaning of body, mind and spirit must be revealed to the seeker/disciple from inner spiritual sources that are not in any manner of the thinking of this world. And this is why the reader is instructed not to attempt to interpret the scriptures with preconceived (human) ideas — or, to take an interpretation from without, and attempt to apply this to the scriptures.


I’ve read a lot of your interpretation of the scriptures and it certainly appears that you are using your organic self to the highest of your rational ability to interpret them just as do many other sincere teachers. Some of your interpretations are more linear and literal than mine and others do use some good symbology.

A student cannot rely on the interpretation of another just because he claims a high contact but must verify all things for himself through the Inner God.


With respect to you position that the scriptures are historical accounts, nothing could be further from the truth.


I think we both agree that the scriptures contain some true history but are not 100% accurate.


The authors of the scriptures therefore had no motivation to record Cave shadow-images — when the objective was to escape the illusions of this world and open the mind up to the higher reality of mind and spirit — bringing about the next stage of soul-birth that permits the seeker/disciple of Light to become their True Self.


It sounds like you are saying that the writers of the scriptures are attempting to escape illusion by presenting more illusion. This makes no sense.

In other words, to present truths to the world to enable seekers to escape illusion they create fictional, or illusionary history, and present it as true history.


You see the scriptures from an entirely different perspective than I do. I would never use such words as fabrications, myths or deceptions to portray the scriptures.


If a story is not true and yet presented as if it is true then what is it if it is not a deception? Why are you so reluctant to call a spade a spade? If Jesus did not walk on water, and the writer knew this, yet presented the story as being true then this was a lie plain and simple and such a writer will have to answer for his act.

“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Matt 12:36-37


You see the scriptures as historical or quasi-historical accounts — whereas, I see the scriptures as patterns and blueprints of mind impressed into accounts that reveal the Laws and Forces of Consciousness to those who are able to perceive beyond the garb of the cloak of the written word. Our perception of the scriptures therefore has nothing in common.


We have more in common than you acknowledge.

(1) We both see the scriptures as part allegory and part true history. We only differ in degree.

(2) We both believe that they need to be interpreted through the light of the inner Christ or soul.

(3) We both believe they have a lot of inner meaning not apparent to the average student.

(4) We both believe they have suffered from corruption.

(5) We both see a lot of meaning in the parables not obvious to Bible students.

The main point where we differ is this.

You think the writers did a good thing in fabricating history and presenting it as truth because they placed a lot of hidden truth in them.

I, on the other hand, believe in the simple truth that honesty is the best policy and we cannot obtain liberation from the physical plane by using deceptive means. We trust God and His spirit which dwells in us because we know that whatever is revealed is true and not just something fabricated to teach us a lesson.

You have covered a lot of material (and I agree with a lot of it) but still have not answered my question.

Can you give me an example of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?

It would only take a paragraph or two to answer this.


The Value of History


I would ask this question, what do I gain if it is a history? Does it advance you spiritually at all?


That is like asking if truth advances us spiritually. Everything of which we can write or speak is either truth or error. Why would anyone on the Path choose error? Every piece of truth is a piece of the puzzle of the whole and when error or deception is chosen the individual is then faced with a missing piece.

“But we live in a world of illusion so it matters not how the illusion is presented because it is still illusion.” says one.

Well, a dream is even more illusionary than waking life but what happened in the dream is still a real experience with symbolic meaning. If my wife asks what I dreamed of last light and I relate a total lie because it sounds good then that is a sin against the light of the soul. It is a sin against the light to lie about a dream, about events that happen in our normal waking state or about any experience in our or out of the worlds of illusion. A deception blacks out a piece of the picture of the whole truth and pulls the deceiver further in to illusion.

Allan, in his actual writings, seems to support the idea of presenting true history. He considers it true history that he was the brother of Jesus in a past life and presents this as true history many times in his writings.

Many times he attempts to accurately quote the true (not the untrue) writings of the church fathers to support what he sees as truth.

Then he attempts to relate the true history of how the scriptures were corrupted and the true disciples were persecuted.

He emphasizes the importance of finding the true historical scriptures as they reveal more pure truth than the distorted ones.

It indeed appears that the truth of history is very important to Allan in the presentation of many of his writings.

Almost daily in your forum is the presentation of historical facts giving it meaning. Peter just gave some historical information today also mentioned previously by Allan. Let me quote:

“What Allan spoke of happened within the Ebionite communities within the gathering of the elders. Each community was roughly around 50 or so to keep the attention down and therefore have less focus on them. Within each community were elders or those whose souls were more spiritually advanced in that they could perceive spiritual concepts from multiple perspectives, but there were some who were slightly less advanced who could see things from only a select few perspectives. Now in their gatherings when someone spoke the other elders would listen and understood that while they might have a differing perspective on a subject they also understood that the individual speaking was speaking from their perspective at the level they were at. It was understanding that each person was on a different rung of Jacob’s ladder. They were free to speak openly and without judgment but there was as Beth mentioned discernment.”

I didn’t see anyone criticizing Peter for bring up useless true history.


Looking at it as a history and literally you may lead a slightly less selfish life. You may help the needy and you may sing songs on Sunday. What would it benefit you if Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, was raised to to the heavens to be tempted by Satan to rule all the earthly kingdoms? It doesn’t benefit you at all.


Totally untrue. If Jesus really turned water into wine then this tells me that this is something I can also learn to do. If he didn’t really do it and this power has never been demonstrated then maybe such a power is beyond our abilities.

They used to think the four-minute mile was impossible but when this milestone was surpassed, and this true event circulated, the truth was out there that this feat could be done, and after this many others accomplished the same thing.

The truth of the possibilities of human ability is of extreme importance to know.

On the other hand, let us take an apparent inconsequential true event. Let us say I got up at 8 AM and told a friend that I got up at 7 AM knowing that this was not true. No harm done, right? Because it makes no difference to the friend what time I get up.


The truth makes a difference to the soul and when we knowingly replace truth with error we sin against the light whether that deception has small or large consequences. And it matters not whether the deception seems to be for the other persons own good. Every unfaithful spouse who lies to his partner does so to avoid hurting him or her. Does this effort to benefit his partner justify the lie?

No, it does not.

These are lessons that children rightfully learn in Sunday School. It is strange indeed that I need to repeat them here on a forum seeking higher truth. The most basic of all truth is truth itself.


Knowing Jesus/Yeshua rode on top of a donkey into Jerusalem on top of palm leaves through a certain gate of the city does nothing for me. However, the allegory presented in that portion of text is full of information. The animal and mineral/vegetable kingdom being domesticated/submissive to the Jesus speaks volumes.


So by extension, when we see the Lone Ranger riding his horse we are witnessing the great truth of “the animal and mineral/vegetable kingdom being domesticated/submissive” to the rider?

Give me a break. I got to give you credit for a good imagination here though.


When Jesus healed the blind man, what did this do from a historical context? He healed one blind man. He had done many miracles before so why was this one included if it was historically true?


Maybe because it was historically true. Why would you think otherwise? Because someone told you so?


If it is an allegory we can look past the literal


A seeker can always look past the literal whether the story be truth or fiction.


Like your question, you demand an answer yet could you handle the unveiled truth? Would it do more harm than good?


Test me out and see if I can handle it. For some odd reason no one has answered my very simple question.

Can you give me an example of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?

You mentioned Jesus riding the donkey but did not give me a clue as to how the information you gathered was useful and furthermore how do you know the incident did not really happen?


Answer to Beth


Actually I did not say “historical truth” .. I said “as originally written are truth”….you added the word historical.


But if you label historical events, such as in the Bible as true, then one would naturally assume that you are referring to the history as well as any inner meaning.

For instance, if you say the scripture about Jesus walking on water is true then one naturally assumes you think Jesus walked on water.

Peter talked about the history of the Ebonites and I assume he is talking about more than allegory.


I have recently read some of your articles and find interesting things there as well as some things I do not see the same way… and that is OK. Wasn’t the goal of the cross pollination between the forums to share your perspective with us and vice versa? If so, then it may be more fruitful if you tell us more about your thoughts instead of critiquing Allan’s writings or demanding we answer your specific questions as if it is some sort of test.


Good point. I didn’t plan on starting out on this subject as I knew it would press some buttons. Here is how this evolved.

Stephen came up with this idea of cross posting and Allan didn’t seem that interested, but Stephen thought he could convince him. Some time had passed and I thought the idea was shelved. In the meantime I thought that discussing his idea of the scriptures not being true history would be of interest to the Keys group so I asked some questions for consideration.

Immediately after that post Allan responded, apparently thinking this was my first post in Stephens plan. After the discussion was placed in effect I figured the best thing to do was to go with it.

If this accident had not occurred I would have started off with some type of teaching that would have been more agreeable to the your group.

Maybe the next subject attempted will be more harmonious to both groups

By the way, I pick up a positive vibe from you as a sincere and kind person. One more thing Allan and I have in common is the fortune of having good companions.


Useful Knowledge

Here is another response I gave to Allan’s group.

Pure Practice (Gary):

I get the feeling you are playing a version of 20 questions. That is you have an answer, from your perspective, that you believe is valid to your OWN question:

Can you give me an example of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?

If you do, why not just share it and let it be examined?


There are many possible answers to this question as it is not complicated at all.

Allan tells us that most of the history as presented in the New Testament is fiction, as it was not written with any consideration of historical fact but to convey inner meaning to the more evolved seekers. The outer presentation was fiction presented as true to pacify the unwashed masses.

In other words, the writers knowingly fabricated accounts and presented the material as being something that literally happened, or as true history.

There are hundreds of examples that could be drawn from the New Testament if Allan is correct. There are also hundreds of false teachers out there who are presenting false accounts as if they are true in an attempt to teach truth and gain followers.

In all my experience I have not found much light that pointed me to new knowledge among any writings where the author presented the teachings or history to be true when he knew it was not.

When I first asked this question it was just to my group, but now it has been expanded to this group. I am wondering if anyone has actually gleamed any significant knowledge that is not already readily available from anything in the New Testament or other works where the writers presented fictionalized accounts as being true.

My belief is that there could not be a lot of light hidden in such deception.


Even if every miracle recorded in the Gospels were literally true, exactly as written, how would “knowing” that such and such a thing happened transform YOU into Messiah/Christ?


It wouldn’t, and I do not know of anyone who thinks that it would. On the other hand, presenting fiction as being a true account or falling for the deception would hinder one from manifesting Christ.


July 26, 2014


I posted this on Allan’s forum:

Allan writes:

If you are going to post on their forum, be respectful and practice humbleness. It is clear that they are at a different level than the members of this forum — and we can’t be of assistance to them if we offend them.


Three or four times now you have insinuated that the Keys members are of a lower level than your group. So far I have let this slide but now I see you are repeating this I must stand up for my students who I would favorably compare to any others on the internet.

Of course, you must keep in mind that there are several who have joined and are moderated who see me as an enemy and are not students. Through limited moderation I seek to allow as many diverse opinions on the forum as possible.

Both your forum and mine have members who are at different grades of spiritual evolution, but one of the greatest mistakes one can make is assuming that one has a higher seat at the table than is earned, and even if one thinks this, he should take the lower seat and let his actual words and works speak for themselves.

Instead of judging the other group to be inferior I think we should be open to the possibilities that there are some significant lights in both groups.

You have dealt with Stephen and I’m sure you will agree that he is a true seeker, seeking to manifest the Christ within. There are quite a few others like him on the keys.



Stating, up front, that a book, broadcast or movie is fiction is no guarantee that it will be seen as such.


That is indeed true but that misses my point which is this. If a person produces a work of fiction with the intent of deceptively presenting it as truth then the one with deception as his motive would be working on restricted light and anything he produces would be of low value. True, some may get something out of it, but nothing like Eternal words delivered by one dedicated to pure truth.


Kindred Soul

Larry W says:

Object lesson: you don’t enhance rights by taking them away. Even so you do not enhance truth by taking it away.


Great statement.

Normally Larry is a harmless fuzzball, full of love and kindness, but this idea presented that the scriptures are based on intentional historical untruths has really riled him up.

Note to Larry, who is not moderated.

I agree with you that it would be an outrageous violation of the principle of truth if Bible writers fabricated history in an attempt to teach truth acceptable to the masses, but I see no evidence that Allan is trying to be deceptive or lies in his current life.

We have an opportunity to befriend another group and share with them as an experiment. Let us not stop it before it gets a good start by calling anyone a liar – for that is pretty strong language.

If there is something that you see that is not true identify it and then explain why it is not true without using any name calling. Let us demonstrate the quality of this group by being as civil as possible.


July 27, 2014

Questions from Flo

Here are some answers to Flo, Allan’s wife. I was thinking that Beth was his wife, but i guess it is Flo.


I write to you about a good man, a man with integrity, the man I have been married to for almost forty years…


I’m sure he is a good man. I have never said otherwise.


You implied on your forum that you rather not converse in a confrontational manner… I think you called it in the “manner of John”…


I do not mind confrontation when it is called for. The “manner of John” has nothing to do with confrontation but refers to teaching and learning by asking questions as related in my Immortal books. This method is not confrontational, but provokes thought.. This whole exchange began when I asked a couple questions to my group and happened to get posted over here.


Yet you portray Allan as someone that does not believe in the Bible???


This I have not done. I have said that we both see the Bible as part true and part myth, but differ in degree and in the intent of the writers.


Allan’s position is the Bible (except for the Epistles) and all Scripture is truth with a three-fold meaning. Allan would never say that any Scripture is fabricated, a lie, untrue, a myth, a deception, fiction, and made up.


It seems to be you are is not representing Allan’s belief’s correctly. Does he or does he not believe that the Bible writers made up some of the history that is in the Bible? Does he believe that Jesus fed the 5000 with fishes and bread? Does he believe that Jesus walked on water, got tax money from a fish and other miracles as written? He has pretty much said in black and white that many of these things did not happen but were placed there by the writers of scripture and contain symbolism for teaching.

He just said today that when the names like Peter James and John are mentioned in the gospels that they do not really refer to them but we need to see the meaning behind the names instead. In other words the accounts of such men are made up, fabricated or fiction even though they may contain hidden meaning.

So when the group here says the Bible is true or truth they are not referring to all of it, but parts of it. If the Bible writers knew Jesus did not walk on water yet say he did with no caveat of it being a parable then obviously that part presented as history was not history and was fabricated, fictionalized, made up or whatever you want to call it. Because history is seen to be made up for a benevolent purpose the group seems gun-shy about calling it what it is. If a thing is said to have happened when the writer knows it has not then that is a know untruth. I do not know any other way to honestly say it. Sorry.

I do not understand why you would be upset at me restating what Allan has already said.


Now, I totally respect the fact that you are taught by the Spirit within… why do you not respect that Allan also was taught from the Spirit within him?


I do. I think he has received some good things and doing a good work, but that doesn’t mean I automatically agree with everything he says, just as he does not agree with everything I say.


Your words are more than confrontational… They are insulting, and you are confronting Allan in a negative way. Why???


I am trying to be as civil as possible. Can you give me an example of something negative I’ve said that bothers you? Most of my writing here has been answering questions and I am trying not to offend anyone.


why do you feel it necessary to put a negative twist on Allan’s words???


I have tried to represent Allan’s views as he has presented them. If I present anything incorrectly just let me know.


Every scripture is written with a three-fold…Body, Mind, and Spirit


I agree and have taught this many times myself, even before Allan started teaching on the internet.


Why not state what you have been taught by Spirit and likewise with Allan and leave out the insults? Like it or not, Spirit will touch others, each according to their condition.


I do not believe I have insulted anyone here. If I have I apologize. I believe in keeping all discussions on a friendly nature.

As I said earlier this first topic here occurred by accident and it has generated a lot of questions to which many seen to want answers. I’ll try and introduce a less controversial topic next time.


I thought Allan was an invited guest to JJ’s forum, as he was invited to ours! Does insults rally his base? For what purpose does JJ be so uninviting? He is guiding his forum members into being not only unloving, but being nasty.


Again I do not see how I have been nasty or uninviting. All of Allan’s posts on the Keys forum is welcome by me.

One guy sent Allan a nasty email but he is not a student and is just as nasty toward me and one member overreacted. I have cautioned the group to be civil and if they go too far off base I will take action. I try to give the group as much latitude as possible.

Meanwhile I hope you will realize that I am attempting to respond to your husband according to his stated beliefs.


Gary’s Question

Gary asks:

So if you know of “many possible answers”, why not share a few?

He is referring to this question I have asked many times and still waiting for an answer.

Tell us (those who read this) a fabricated story presented as true that has taught you a significant truth.

I personally have not gotten much truth from fabricated stories, but if one reads through the eyes of the soul he could get some benefit from the words of the devil himself.

To answer your question I will put myself in the thinking mode of a good group member here. As I understand it Allan believes that Jesus did not really walk on water but the story was created, fabricated, fictionalized, or whatever you want to call it, for the purpose of conveying a truth.

If a member here answered my question using this example he could have said.

“Yes, I believe the walking on water thing was fiction but water is a symbol of the emotions and air is a symbol of mind. The idea of walking on water conveys the idea that we need to master our emotions so we can breath the clean air of pure reason undisturbed by negativity.”

You overlook the reason I asked the question to begin with. I believe there is much more truth presented in true history than in fiction presented as true history.

So, I was curious to see if anyone could come up with a false event which has been presented as true and still get anything significant out of it.

I believe that there is good symbolic meaning in Jesus walking on water because he did actually walk on water, but there is no way to prove this one way or another.

Even in this the symbolism nothing new is taught that couldn’t be conveyed in simple words or a good parable – or fiction presented as fiction.


More Questions


Wouldn’t it be fair to say that since God is a God of Truth according to Deuteronomy 32:4 that the language that He speaks is Truth as it relates to what you hear from Him when you hear His Voice in your inner Kingdom?


Yes, that would be fair indeed and we should seek the inner voice.


Allan has been trying to show that not only are the Scriptures allegory; but so too is all of life. So that would include the Lone Ranger too.


One can interpret anything allegorically, but most are inclined to enjoy fiction for fun rather than serious interpretation. Unlike regular fiction a parable is mentally put together to clarify some important truth.


Since you wrote about judgment, do you understand the difference between discerning and judging?



Allan writes:

While there was an historical man named Peter, John and Jacob who they call James, when these names are used in the scriptures, the scriptures are not making reference to the historical person — but what the meaning of the name signifies within one’s own mind and being.

Then there must be a tremendous amount of meaning hidden in these names. Do you mind sharing what several of them mean and why you think the meaning is significant or useful?

Matt 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

Matt 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

Matt 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

Matt 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Matt 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

Matt 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

Matt 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

Matt 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

Matt 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

Matt 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

Matt 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

Matt 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

Matt 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

Matt 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

Matt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


Truth Be Told


You continue to portray what I write as suggesting the scriptures are fiction, because you are attempting to repeat a lie in the hope that others will believe you.


You seem to be in extreme denial on this and I’m surprised no one from your own group has called you on it. This is evidence that they are relying too strongly on you as an external authority and not checking with the inner truth verified by the soul. The denial also explains why it takes you thousands of words to state what could be simply explained in a paragraph.

Your teaching of the truth of the Bible is extremely confusing and obscure to those who are not enamored with your claims to authority, so let us clear this up once and for all.

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

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

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

Please answer this in your own words without relying on outer authorities, or linking to a lengthy website, and try and be concise.


To Beth

Beth relating what she sees as new principles.

  • Holographic Pattern of Creation
  • Keys of Knowledge
  • Higher Soul Self and its Soul Images
  • Being of Light
  • Pre-Existent Soul
  • Predestination
  • Reincarnation
  • Living Biofeedback Organism
  • Octaves – Intervals and Twists
  • Consecrated Life – Good Ground
  • Do NO Harm
  • Scriptures – Language of the Soul
  • Tree of Life – 12 Spheres
  • Duality and Oneness
  • Divine Marriage
  • Gnosis – Truth Within
  • Entering the Kingdom


Teachings on most of these can be found in many new age sites and topics of conversation are not principles. Principles are the true language of the soul but first one must understand what a principle is.


JJ, I agree with Flo that it seems you started this off by basically saying Allan is a liar


I have never called anyone in my life a liar and have not called Allan one. If someone says something that appears to not be true I will point out why the statement seems to not be true and allow for the person to explain himself.


and you called your “students” to answer 4 questions to prove or disprove Allan. Whether that was just intended for your forum or both forums is not important… it is what you set in motion in either case.


And what is the matter with a class taking a teaching, examining it in the light of day, and then reaching the best possible compulsion as to whether it is true? Allan has done this numerous times.


It feels like the attacking/discrediting tone overall was triggered by your approach. It is you that must set a different tone, a cooperative environment where everyone can easily share their thoughts and questions without joining a battle of sorts or forced to declare allegiance. Does this make sense?


It takes two sides to create a battle


Allan, I understand what you are saying with crystal clarity as you have repeated the same simple teachings many many times. There is nothing complicated here except that you are making it so by refusing to speak in plain English and when you get in a situation that you can’t handle you just tell everyone that theanswer is too far above us to understand.

Do you realize how silly this sounds?

Me understanding you or your lofty thoughts us not the problem.

The problem is simple communication which you outright refuse to do on this issue.

Why don’t you take a stab at those three questions so we can once and for all clarify how you really view the scriptures so we can have a good starting point for a discussion that involves real truth.

If a guy says a thing is red at one time and yellow at another then this makes it difficult to discuss anything to do with the color.

You say the historical accounts of the scriptures did not happen on one occasion and then insist they are true on another. We need to have consistency in order to have an intelligent conversation.



Peter’s Question


Before we can go further, do you think people learning from their inner Christ (soul-self) get the same message person to person?


If you are asking whether or not two will get the same message on the same subject without contradiction the answer is yes.

So, why does everyone who thinks they are in contact with the Inner Christ not agree? Several reasons.

(1) Many merely contact their emotional/astral body which turns many things upside down and takes them into illusion. High emotional contact can still feel quite Christlike to one who has not felt the real thing and lead him to illusion.

(2) One may make contact and then fail to accurately communicate that which was received and thus appear to be at odds with another who has received the same thing.

(3) There are yet others who think that anything they imagine that feels good to them comes from God.



We want to see the New Age wisdom on the twelve (12) sphere Tree of Life. The Law of Octaves. The Divine Marriage. The New Age version of the Images generated by the soul-self . Also, their biblical understanding of the Key of Knowledge — and how to properly apply the scriptures by turning them within self. I really want the links that JJ is referencing, so I can read this New Age wisdom.


It might be a good start for you to explain some of these yourself. For instance I have not seen you explain “how to properly apply the scriptures by turning them within self. ” You have said that we need to do this, but haven’t seen you demonstrate it or show others the path to achieve this.

As for me, I have written on about every spiritual subject there is. You can start with this link:



I have been reading several of JJ’s archived messages today and have found things that resonate right along with TheWay teachings… but it is like some force is fighting to derail this interaction. This runs deep… feels like a replay of a battle from a prior life. It is fascinating, amazing and exhausting all at the same time. Hmmm….


I commend you for being open minded enough to check out some of my writings. This is an important step. Before we even started this process I read about 150,000 words from Allan’s websites. This gave me a pretty good idea of where he is coming from – as I do not like to enter any enterprise such as this with false assumptions.

I said earlier that I received a good vibe from you but I seem to have been mistaken in thinking you were Allan’s wife.

I may not have come across as Mr. Nice Guy here (and Allan isn’t on our forum) but the Key to making progress on this enterprise is accurate communication. We have hit a very unnecessary snag in communication with this Bible history fiction thing. I’m not saying anyone is a liar, evil or a bad person but just think that a simple thing like what is fiction and what is not should be easy to see. If we cannot see the easy things together how then can we see the difficult ones?

Allan thinks I do not understand him, but I do. I am just attempting to get us to both say that red is red so we can identify the simple truth when red is seen on the horizon.


To Flo


Scripture is written having a body, mind, and Spirit meaning to it. To which you said you agree. The words have a deeper meaning than that which are written…a Higher Truth on a three-fold level… Not a falsehood, untruth, lie, deception, fabrication, etc. but a Higher Truth.


But if it says that Jesus walked on water when he did not how can you with a straight face say there is is no untruth there??? Just because there is symbolic truth underneath does not mean that the outer is also true – if it is historically false.

I am amazed that this simple thing is so difficult for this group to see.


No One, is going to say the Bible is anything but Truth, so can you move on…


But Allan has said the historical part is not true. Strange approach you have here.

If we cannot resolve this through honest communication without claiming the other side doesn’t see the higher truth then this problem is likely to reoccur. But if the mindset here is to avoid questions and not answer them on this subject then we may have to move on to something else and hope for the best.



I do NOT consider physical history to be fact…


It’s pretty difficult to have a logical discussion with a group that doesn’t believe facts like Kennedy was assassinated, that George Washington was our first president or that Obama is our historical president today.

This is a really odd belief system I am dealing with here that I have encountered in no other group and it has nothing to do with truths in the Bible, finding Christ within or spiritual progress. This hindrance of seeing reality just interferes with it.


To Shohn


Fishing around on the Internet for a quote from Origen, I found a web site which seems to use a similar line of reasoning as can be found in some of Allan’s writings:

“What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars, and the first day without a heaven. What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise in Eden, like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil? I believe that every man must hold these things for images, under which the hidden sense lies concealed” (Origen – Huet., Prigeniana, 167 Franck, p. 142).

The same blogger continue on to say: “Sometimes the untruths in scripture are so blatant that only a fool would believe the literal text of the scriptures”.


If what Origen writes is true, maybe only an … idiot … would think Jesus actually walked on water?

If I were to use a comparison to the modern time frame, what if you encountered someone who believed in Spiderman?


You and others seem to completely, absolutely miss the point of the problem here, It has nothing to do with finding symbolic meaning in the scriptures, contradictions in scripture or whether Jesus walked on water.

It has to do with the support of the idea that the Bible writers presented false history as true history and thinking this deception was not a deception and was a righteous thing to do. Why do you think that the fabrication of history was not a fabrication of history? I am amazed that more than a dozen people on the planet can swallow such a contradictory idea.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 13

This entry is part 16 of 33 in the series 2014

July 5, 2014

Questions on Glory


How likely is it that one will retain such knowledge (lesson, Principle, Eternal Word), as of the Principle of Glory, beyond death, if one hasn’t ALREADY previously had the consequences of such transgression beaten in to him over and over again (so to speak 🙂 in previous incarnations?


There is a big difference between the registration of a fact, or piece of data and a principle or some type of knowledge that requires understanding. A fact is most strongly registered in the physical brain whereas a thing that requires understanding is registered much deeper within the soul. This deeper registration rises with you in the next life and is available to your consciousness whereas mere facts rarely are.

Now this does not mean that facts are lost or that you are born understanding all that you acquired in past lives. All data is recorded in the akasha and can be retrieved through powerful focus, but we start each life with a hard drive in the brain that is wiped clean of regular memory storage so most of us have to add data into that hard drive from external sources through study and memorization.

On the other hand, the higher parts of our operating system are not lost and the wisdom we acquire that pieces together those facts in a way that makes sense stays with us. Then when one acquires the understanding of a principle his higher mind keeps that understanding from life to life so when the necessary facts are placed in his physical brain he is able to piece then together and see a picture that was not available to others who lacked such understanding in past lives.

This is why I place so much emphasis in understanding and principles. You will lose the facts I now teach in your next life but the understanding and principles will come back quickly when you get a few new facts stored in that future life.


It seems to me ya just gotta do whatcha gotta do and let it all come out in the wash.

So my question (statement? 🙂 seems to be – even if a person NEVER receives glory in (this) life, they shouldn’t necessarily be disheartened should they?

Just work, Work and WORK (follow the highest you can hold yourself to) and have faith the Universe will “know” when you “get it right” and you will reap as ye have sown, right? Give Glory to others (god) and in this manner, if/as you deserve it, it will return an hundred-fold. Right?


A good show to watch that illustrates the drawbacks of attempting to steal glory is The Words, starring Bradley Cooper. He was an aspiring author who discovered a lost unpublished manuscript and then published it as his own and gained great fame. The problem was that the deception ate at him and he realized that he was not able to enjoy the false glory that had been thrown at him. His life turned into a real mess.

Then he met the real author who was gracious enough to not make demands. Even though the real author did not receive name recognition he still achieved satisfaction in that his work was glorified.

Then, after death, the full truth will be revealed and in that circumstance the correct recognition will be granted. In the great libraries there, the real authors will be cited.

In addition to this, in a future life one who was denied his full recognition will be given more opportunity to attain it there.

If we examine just one life it will seem that life is not fair, but overall we spend a lot more time out of incarnation than in it and the truth of accomplishment is more clearly seen in the spirit realms. When we take into consideration our lives between lives and adjustments made in future lives we will see that life is fair and in the end glory goes to those who deserve it.

I have received very little recognition for he truths I have given out in this life. Am I concerned/


If my writings are truly of value then they will endure and the recognition will increase to its right place whatever that may be.

If my teachings prove to be of little value then they will have at least provided a learning experience for me so I can come back and present new teachings in a better format that will prove useful and then receive recognition. In any work one does, he has to mentally prepare for acceptance or rejection.


You also said in a previous post, that Truth is earned.   I thought Truth was learned, so could you expand a bit more on that statement.   Do we earn Truth by seeking it out with all our heart and soul?


Data is learned but the knowledge of true principles and understanding has to be earned. Also, I was talking about the discovery of new truth that is not taught in books. This definitely has to be earned and is not just dropped randomly in our laps.



Re: Glory


I thought the fact that Glory has to be given TO you by someone else to be so implicit in the concept of glory itself that THAT is why neither I nor anyone else had specifically articulated it – because it was such a given that it was unnecessary to speak of it.


This is the problem with all Keys and Principles. When articulated in a few words they all seem so simple that it appears that only the obvious is being presented and there is nothing new to be seen.

Think of the first two Keys represented by the key words Decision and Judgment. We all know what they mean so if explained in a paragraph or two the receiver would often see nothing there to contemplate.

The problem is covered briefly in the Immortal. Here is the dialog:

I gathered my forces and inquired, “So, how do we go about doing this?”

“If I were to just tell you the keys your understanding of them would be quite limited and you would not appreciate the depth of knowledge that lies behind them. Instead, we will use what is called the Intuitive Principle. I will give you pieces of information, or hints, and you contemplate where they are leading you and give me your intuitive feedback. Then I give you more hints until you come to an understanding of the principle. Sometimes that understanding comes gradually and other times it comes instantly in a flash of light.”

Just like there is much more to Decision than the dictionary definition there is much more to the Principle of Glory than getting a pat on the back or stroking the ego. You went to the effort of carefully going through my words and even transcribing them in an attempt to see something more than the obvious and you were rewarded with greater insight. All greater insights come through seeking, focus and contemplation.


Is there a similar list of questions we could contemplate on our own regarding Glory, now that we have the basics of the Principle?


That is a good assignment for me. I’ll see what i can come up with.


Looks like I need to add some clarification:

There have been many times that I thought I have written a profound post or a post with something profound in it that received little or no comment.

Should I have said, “Hey you guys, you overlooked my brilliant words. What’s the matter with you refusing to give credit where credit is due?”

If I had said that I would gave been attempting to glorify myself and the group’s opinion of me would have gone downwards.

So what did I do?

I followed the Principle of Glory and did nothing. At most I may have repeated the ideas later on in a different wording thinking maybe they could have an effect this time.

So in what circumstances do I defend myself to preserve the Principle of Glory?

There are two circumstances.

(1) If someone comments on my words in such a way that reveals they sincerely do not understand them.

In this case I will write more to clarify my words saying nothing about how profound I think they may or may not be. If the thoughts put forward have value then recognition will naturally come with clarification.

(2) If a reader steps forward and takes my words, attempts to diminish the value and distort the meaning.

In this case again I will clarify, but for a different reason. I do not want to let the distortion of my words stand as I see that as a deception and clarify further so the truth can be rightly seen.

Taking these two steps will assist the Principle of Glory, allowing the thoughts to register in their correct level. Insisting others recognize how clever I am would be a disaster and contrary to the principle.


The Principle of Glory is NOT centered around giving glory or credit where the person thinks he deserves it, but where the observer thinks it is earned.

Let us say I write something I think is the best thing ever penned in the universe and Jim Smith reads it and says, “It’s okay, but I’ve read better a lot of times.”

Has Jim violated the Principle of Glory?


If he honestly does not see value in what I have written (even if everyone else does) then he cannot honestly give glory. Jim has done nothing wrong.

Similarly, if Dan does not see enough value in another member’s words to go out of his way to praise then he has done nothing wrong. To receive glory from another the other person must sincerely feel the value and acknowledge it out of free will.

A violation of the Principle of Glory comes if…

(1) A person distorts or lies about the praiseworthy words or actions of another.

(2) A person attempts to take credit for himself for the words or actions of another.

If one does not appreciate the words or works of another then the laborer must accept that fact and let it go. If his work has lasting value then the guy will realize this in some distant future. For instance, many who opposed the Christ are now reincarnated and cherish his words.


July 7, 2014

Other Groups

Since there has been quite a bit of discussion about Allan Cronshaw’s teachings I thought I would make a few comments.

But before I specifically comment on him I’ll make a few points about our approach to other teachers and groups in general.

(1) It is unlikely that you will find any other teacher or group in full alignment with all my teachings.

(2) Some teachers are in the work for the sake of he ego where others have a sincere desire to serve. Then there are others who are a combination of the two.

(3) Those with soul contact will find a number of questionable teachings, and sometimes outright falsehoods, in other teachers. Then, from time to time they will discover some inspiring statements and truths.

(4) There are good and sincere people who are members of all groups… However … the greater the light which is manifest in the group the higher will be the percentage of the pure in heart.

(5) No group or teacher is perfect. Even groups ran by initiates will often have flaws in their teacher, their teachings and their members.

(6) We must always be open to the possibility that teachings that run contrary to our mindset may be true or have value and check with our souls before condemning them.

(7) We must remember that different teachings appeal to different people at different places on the path. Some sincere seekers who are near the beginning may be more comfortable in a regular church and then the more advanced will select different teachers according to their level of consciousness. That which has no interest for one seeker may be very stimulating for another.

(8) As long as seekers are asking questions and seeking with an open mind to learn they will move forward, even if their group and teacher have quite a bit of illusion.

So, what should we do when we encounter another teacher or group that may have some things in common with us? Should we seek to merge or join forces?

No. That is not practical. You’d be hard pressed to find even one teacher on the planet who is willing to merge with another or give up an ounce of his authority with his followers.

That is the reason Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest prophet who ever lived. He recognized one greater than himself and gave up his followers to Jesus. You would have to look long and hard to find a John the Baptist in this age.

I would like to think that if the Christ showed up and needed my help that I would recognize him and be willing to yield to him anything he needed, but such a thing may be a greater test than I realize. I have encountered a number of lesser souls in illusion who have demanded or asked for my allegiance which I have rejected out of hand.

You’ll note that when Jesus came along and John recognized him, that he did not join forces with Jesus. Jesus and John did not work together cooperating as co-leaders at the top. John continued with what was left of his group and Jesus moved on with a new advanced group.

Why didn’t they join forces?

Because two strong teachers cannot share the same position of power. Even if they agree they will place their teachings in different wording and the students will become confused. Therefore, these two strong men managed their separate groups, but cooperated and moved toward the same goal.

Even so it is with us. We will not merge with any other group but will cooperate and share wherever it is feasible.

Aren’t I afraid that if we cooperate with other groups that we will lose some people to them?

Not in the least, for if that happened it would generally mean they are merely going where they belong. On the other hand if my teachings are exposed to other group members some may decide they want to come here so this works both ways.

A number of good Keys members have been past members of groups and churches which are full of illusion, but they still learned from them and have followed the voice of the soul until they arrived here.

Stephen is to be commended for attempting to initiate here. He may or may not be successful but the effort itself is bound to create some reward. You cannot build anything of value unless you try.


I said this:

“I would like to think that if the Christ showed up and needed my help that I would recognize Him and be willing to yield to him anything he needed, but such a thing may be a greater test than I realize.”

To this Ruth expressed an exasperated astonishment at my possible fallibility. Among her comments were:

“Is it going to be that hard to recognize Christ, that even one’s soul contact isn’t enough?”

Ruth, you are taking my simple statement and projecting it to every possible contact with the Christ or His spirit.

The first point I will make is that my statement was following The Principle of Glory. Instead of proclaiming that I am a sure thing and infallible in taking the highest seat at the table as he one who can be depended upon to recognize Christ, I took the lower seat noting that I am a fallible being just like the least of you.

If Christ were to show up and I identified Him then if the members here adhere to my teachings they will not accept this just because I say it, but will check it out for themselves using their own soul contact.

This is as it should be.

There are many circumstances where it would be close to a sure thing that I would recognize the Christ. If he placed his spirit within me to establish a molecular link it would be pretty obvious because of the intensity.

On the other hand, there are other circumstances where it may not be so obvious. Let us say that He decided to not send out much of a spiritual vibration and decided to appear among us and see who would recognize him by the spirit in his words and works alone.

Let us say that he joined the Keys and decided to post something controversial just to see how we would handle it. It might even seem to disagree with something I have said.

How many of us would be able to neutralize the natural reaction of rejection and even check with our souls in that circumstance?

In such a situation, I would hope that I would do this.

The question is not whether soul contact is enough to recognize the Christ, but whether we will be still and check with our souls if a test should come.

“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” Matt: 25:13

This commandment applies to all, including myself. We must all be vigilant and watch and be aware or we will not be prepared for the encounter, or may miss it completely.


July 8, 2014

Other Groups, Part 2

Stephen seemed impressed with Allan Cronshaw’s teachings so I downloaded a good portion of them and read them to give them a fair examination

Overall he seems to be a sincere teacher and seeker. I didn’t encounter much new material in the way of teachings though he did come up with a number of quotes from the early church fathers that are not widely circulated. I added a couple of these to my collection.

His core teaching centers around basically what we call “soul contact” and he calls it “The Key of Knowledge.” He didn’t borrow this term from us but got it from the words of Jesus.

“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:52

He says that the Key of knowledge which was taken away was the idea that seeker must find the kingdom of God which is within us and get revelation for himself.

In other words, he must obtain soul contact and obtain knowledge and verification through inner contacts as we teach here.

This is as good a teaching as any for a central idea but he places almost total emphasis on the inner world at the expense of the outer. When I read his writings I wonder if he realizes that he is an outer teacher that his group is looking to for knowledge and sometimes we need such outer stimulation to be motivated to check with the inner.

Another major thing he teaches is that most of the Bible is not literal history, but a combination of both fact and fiction, written for the purpose of teaching rather than something that is literally true.

That sounds like the approach I made with the Immortal series so you’d think he would endorse my approach, but he seemed somewhat skeptical of it.

Actually, the Immortal des not exactly follow this approach as I clearly state that it is all not literally true but a combination of fact and fiction. I would think that if Bible writers wrote fiction and presented it as literal truth that they may have accumulated some bad karma for their deceit.

I noticed that he doesn’t go into what is fact and fiction except he does seem to take Jesus and the apostles as literal characters.

He seems to believe the laws of Moses should be still followed quite literally and we should worship on the original Sabbath of Saturday. This emphasis on outward laws seems to run contrary to his teachings of going within to discover law and truth.

He doesn’t come out strongly and itemize laws that we are to follow except to say we need to follow the whole of the ancient law.

He talks a lot about the need to interpret the symbolic meaning of the scriptures since they are not to be interpreted literally, but hen he does not present many teachings explaining the symbolic meaning.

Since he is into symbology I sent him a copy of The Unveiling, which gives the inner meaning of the Book of Revelation. It will be interesting to see what he thinks of that.

He teaches that we need to go on a vegetarian diet to achieve enlightenment. This indicates he will be drawing those who are approaching the first initiation, as it is important for these aspirants to go on a vegetarian diet to prove that they can master the physical appetites. Some inner work is made easier by a vegetarian diet, but it is not essential for overall enlightenment. Many advanced initiates find it essential to eat meat because of their purpose or situation – especially those who are doing outer work. Those concentrating on inner work will often be vegetarians. There is not a one size fits all diet in this age.

He correctly teaches about reincarnation and presents himself as James, the brother of Jesus born again. Since James has not received a lot of glory in the scriptures or the historical record it seemed to add some credibility since another apostle or Bible figure would have been glamorous. That is, until I read a quote he discovered in relation to James. He wrote:

In the recently discovered Gospel of Thomas it is written: (12) The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”   So to once again restore the teachings of TheWay which is today known as Christianity, the Lord has sent Jacob/James, the Brother of Yeshua/Jesus, back into the world in order to guide the faithful flock into the Truth, the Light, and the Kingdom within (Luke 17:20-21).   It is there that my brother Yeshua/Jesus awaits you.

So here we read that James was so important that he is the reason “heaven and earth came into being.” That puts James right up these with the standard thinking about Jesus.

If one with a strong ego reads this quote he may be inclined to desire to be James in a past life even more than Moses, Elijah or Peter since heaven and earth was created for his sake.

I don’t know how such an outlandish statement got into the Gospel of Thomas for heaven and earth was not made for the sake of James any more than it was for you and me. Something obviously got lost in the transcription or translation.

If Allan’s followers take this statement seriously it would place him in a position to be a powerful outward authority. After all, who wants to disagree with the guy for whose sake heaven and earth was made?

Do I think Allan was James in a past life?

It doesn’t matter. What matters is what he does and teaches now. He is an intelligent man and is apparently appealing to a number of souls to seek for greater light and knowledge. I wish him well in encouraging his group to seek the inner God.


I would guess that the original words of Jesus are not represented correctly in this scripture. One can take any set of words and give some symbolic meaning to them but nothing works as well as just clearly stating what is true, whether it be for aspirants or high initiates.

Symbolic teachings such as parables only advance understanding when it is understood that there is deeper meaning involved and the symbolism adds to the understanding.

Let us say that Jesus did not really walk on water but this was given as a symbolic teaching.

The first problem is that readers do not know this so they do not even look for the deeper meaning. If one does not look he will not find.

Then let us suppose that the meaning to be conveyed was that the seeker (represented by Jesus) is supposed to master the emotions (represented by water) and thus take in higher knowledge (represented by air for the mind).

What would be the advantage of making up a false story that few get compared to just coming out and stating he truth?

I can’t see a lot of benefit here. If you approach teaching as Jesus did then there is a benefit. He taught various principles and then illustrated them with parables which had obvious symbolic meaning. Using this method the symbolism was helpful.


JJ wrote:

What would be the advantage of making up a false story that few get compared to just coming out and stating he truth?


  1. If the masses weren’t ready yet but you wanted to preserve the encoded teaching for insiders that are to pass on the “key” to deciphering them.
  2. Or if you thought the real deal would get altered or deleted (by a future authority/church say 🙂 and yet wanted to preserve them as in #1.


I think you have a good point when dealing with parables or visions, such as the Book of Revelations. But i think it is confusing to record a thing as historical fact when the real purpose is to teach a symbolic message. The problem is that if Bible stories are meant for this purpose it would seem that no one knows the purpose for sure. On the other hand, a parable can have several levels of meaning and the reader knows there is symbolism hidden there. The nursery Rhymes we read our kids were really written to convey symbolic meaning and to make fun of authorities. The common people knew the meaning but the authorities did not, but no one took them as literally true.

In addition, I think real history has more underlying symbolic meaning than fictional history would have.


The interesting part of the quote about Bible history really being only a symbolic teaching aid is the only symbology mentioned is not historical scripture but a parable (prodigal Son) which was never presented as history. If that which is taken to be Bible history was really written to contain hidden symbolic teachings them someone ought to use them to teach just as much or more than they use parables which were never intended to be taken as history.


July 9, 2014

James/Heaven & Earth

Dan points out that because Allan teaches the scriptures are not literal that the Gospel of Thomas should be interpreted figuratively when saying that heaven and earth was created for the sake of James.

That is a good point except when we consider a couple details.

First, Allan has not interpreted this key scripture symbolically but what he has said in connection with it has a literal, not figurative basis. He teaches that James was the main leader in that day to whom the true disciples gathered around and he is James reincarnated to fulfill that literal purpose which James had back in that age. He is to literally restore the purity of the teachings of Christ to which men are to come to in order to be guided toward the true key of knowledge.

Even if we interpret the scripture symbolically it does not seem to fit in with the “come to James” idea.

James comes from the Greek IAKOBOS, which is derived from the Hebrew for Jacob. The Patriarch Jacob had two names. First, he was known as Jacob, but then, after he wrestled with God, he was renamed Israel.

Jacob signifies the lower nature and comes from the Hebrew YA`AQOB and is derived from AQAB. From this word and its variations the Bible gives these various translations: “heel, take by the heel, supplant, restrain, lie in wait, crooked, deceitful, polluted, and subtlety.”

After Jacob wrestled with God his name was changed to Israel, which means “to prevail as God.”

When the disciple, as symbolized by James (Jacob), meets the Christ (God) he wrestles with his lower nature until he prevails as Israel and then lives a life through the consciousness of Christ or God.

So to symbolically tell seekers to come to James is like saying to come to the lower nature. It would make more sense if the scripture made some subtle reference to the name Israel, which signifies overcoming. It could have been written, “Come to James, the Israelite,” or something to that effect.

It appears that Allan is referencing the scripture to be taken fairly literally, rather than figuratively.

Furthermore, it appears that he gives a lot more literal weight to the New Testament than the Old. He definitely sees most of the Old Testament, including characters, as figurative but when he quotes from the New Testament he teaches from it as it the words are literally true. All the characters mentioned, such as Jesus, the apostles, Paul, John the Baptist, the Jewish leaders etc., are presented as real people. The only teachings given a lot of figurative interpretation are the parables, and this all men do.

I think one thing he needs to do to clarify his teachings is to itemize some of the things in the scriptures that he sees as true accounts and those which are figurative. Which people are real and which are not?

As it is, when Allan quotes scripture one always has to wonder how he really sees the words he is interpreting.


July 10, 2014

The Deniers

Here’s another letter I’ve written to my paper. Unfortunately, I am limited to 200 words.

Since having a number of letters published skeptical of the orthodox global warming view I have been attacked in print and online with great intensity.

The most common attack is to call me denier of some kind even though I deny nothing factual.

Where alarmists cannot point out any facts that are denied by me I can point out plenty by them.

(1) They deny the value of skepticism which has always been a scientific staple.

(2) Many deny there has been a warming pause since 1998.

(3) They attempt to deny skeptics a platform to speak, publish and be heard.

(4) They deny or suppress the benefits of global warming.

(5) They deny that data has been altered to make warming seem worse than it is.

(6) They deny that a researcher’s career could be ruined if he doesn’t get his mind right and support alarmism.

(7) They deny the fact that skeptics such as myself understand that human released CO2 can have a warming effect. That is not part of the debate. The real debate, which is denied by them, is how much that effect is compared to many natural causes and what to do about it.

July 12, 2014

Post to Allan’s Group

I visited Allan’s group and noticed that some of my teachings were discussed with some misunderstandings. So, I decided to make a clarifying post. Here it is.

My fellow seekers,

Since there has been quite a bit of dialog between one of our Keys of Knowledge members and Allan, which has been followed up here by some discussion I thought I would make a few remarks.

First, I think there should be more interchange of ideas between the various groups seeking higher knowledge. One thing that is an obstacle to this is that many from one group will approach another with the idea of proving them wrong or converting them. Our group has certainly come across our quota of these characters.

If various visitors would concentrate on sustaining the good things of the group they visit while leaving an open door for a visit to their group we would see some mutual benefit of having exchanges. To understand this group I have read around 150,000 words of Allan’s teachings from his websites and find some praiseworthy thinking there.

There has been some discussion of my teachings which tells me there is some misunderstanding of what I teach so I thought I would make some notes of clarification.

Allan writes:

If the Jesus that is portrayed in the Gospels is allegorical, then so it the disciple John — which Mr. Dewey promotes as an actual person who is still physically alive..


I make no such claims. I have two sets of writings. One set of over 6000 free articles contains my teachings which are to be taken as written. The other set are my books on The Immortal series. These books are written allegorically, the way that you say the scriptures are written. The allegorical series says that John is still alive but my much more voluminous teachings are silent on this and leave the truth up to the reader to discern.

Just like the scriptures contain part history and part allegory so also is the case with The Immortal books. It is up to the reader to determine the whole meaning through his own contemplation.


When the scriptures speak of the Christ, the reference is not to a man or being — but rather, the Christ is a Power of Enlightening Light that can only be manifest within one’s self by those who first come to Know Thyself — and then seek Oneness with the Indwelling Logos.


Agreed with the note that Jesus or anyone else can become a Christ.


The people who are attracted to JJ Dewey’s books and groups are still at a level where they look outwardly for a Messiah to come.


Jesus and the Spirit which entered him are certainly not limited to one life, just as you and I are not. Many great entities from the past will be reborn to which you must agree since you see yourself as the return of James, the Righteous.

We do not see Jesus or the overshadowing Spirit returning in a blaze of glory in the heaves as do regular Christians, but advanced entities can reincarnate or communicate spiritually with certain people on earth.

Our main emphasis is not based on waiting for some great entity to arrive but to manifest the Christ within, similar to that which you teach. That which opens the door to this we call “soul contact.” A search of my website at for this phrase will reveal lots of teachings on this.


In contradistinction, all of my writings and teachings are totally concerned with the coming of the Kingdom within the seeker’s own mind and being, and the process of them becoming the Messiah.


We may differ a little here as I teach about both the inner and the outer. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says, “the Father’s kingdom is within you and it is outside you.”

Jesus recognized both the inner and the outer and if you have a gathering of those who discover the inner kingdom then the outer manifests making God’s will realized on earth as it is in heaven.


Where Mr. Dewey is attempting to gather twelve couples together in order to manifest Jesus as the higher being of the group, I work to manifest what Jesus represents within the mind and life of the individual.


That is not what I am attempting. I am attempting to create the next great step in spiritual evolution with the creation of a greater life form, which will not be Jesus. First however, the individuals involved must find the Key of Knowledge within. That is not the end of the quest, however, but just the beginning.


Moreover, if Mr. Dewey was to adopt these points which I hold as important, he would quickly be abandoned by many of his followers who are quite New Age in their thinking.


And the reverse would be true. If you adopted certain parts of my teachings some here would think you lost your mind.

All we can do as teachers is be tolerant of each other and let the students use the Christ within to assist in discerning truth from error.


If some cosmic messiah could come and zap the earth — invoking an artificial peace and goodwill among men — then the actions of such a messiah would suspend the Laws and derail the spiritual evolution of the individual souls.


Agreed and I have taught this myself a number of times.


While the utopian mindset is with good intentions, its wishful thinking is based upon the ignorance of self and the Cosmology of Mind.


As far as the utopian ideas and methods of communism or the political left I completely agree. However, I believe it is an error to see that humans cannot improve their condition and after a sufficient time there can be a literal “peace on earth and goodwill to men.” The Will of God will manifest on earth as it is in heaven and the time will indeed come that the brotherhood of humankind will be a reality.

The hearts of the fathers (those of us in the present) must turn to the children (to the benefit of future generations) or the earth will be smitten with a curse. See Mal 4:6

July 13, 2014

Initiation analogies

One can never go far wrong when contemplating the Law of Correspondences.

The important thing about diet is what the seeker receives from his own soul. One size does not fit all. He should be guided by inner guidance much more than some commandment from a priest or guru.

Those working on the first and second initiations are guided at some point to go on a vegetarian diet. For the fist it is important to master the physical appetites and for the second the vegetarian diet reduces the strength of the carnal passions. Most have difficulty mastering the emotional plane while on a standard meat eating diet.

As the disciples moves forward he gains greater self control and can handle the astral plane no matter what diet he is on. At that point, he chooses his diet depending on whether his attention is to be on the inner our outer work. Many western disciples (such as Churchill) concentrate on the outer work and eat and drink as seems good. On the other hand, if one wants to concentrate on the inner work one not only wants to go on a vegetarian diet, but a very light one of raw foods.

Another factor in the minds of disciples is heath. The disciple, whether he be a vegetarian or meat eater, will carefully choose foods that will keep him healthy.


July 16, 2014

Precept Upon Precept

Greg being overwhelmed by new terms and the knowledge available is familiar to many of us who have either been kicked out of or left past orthodox belief systems.

Many of us call this moving away from orthodoxy as “graduation from spiritual kindergarten.” Indeed, kindergarten serves a purpose but we do not want to stay there forever. Once the simple basics are learned then it is time to go on.

Unfortunately, the churches have done such a good job of brain washing their members that they see it as a good thing that the people learn the same things over and over.

Isaiah spoke accurately of this situation.

“Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will be speak to this people.” (Isaiah 28:9-11)

There has been much written about the stammering lips and another tongue that miss the point. The English word “stammering” is translated from the Hebrew LAEG. When one speaks stammering or LAEG., he speaks in a sort of repeating baby talk to jokingly irritate his listeners. Isaiah himself is using this sort of talk with the Jews when he repeats himself unnecessarily in verse 10. When he speaks of “another tongue”, we must remember that our tongue today is a different one than that used by the ancient Jews.

A higher interpretation of the other tongue is refers to a new way of speaking and teaching to Israelites. Jesus spoke with a different tongue, or manner of speaking, than Moses, and God will speak in new and different ways as the times change in this age. The teachers of the various ages and climes teach so differently (even though it is all one message) that it seems to be “another tongue.”

“But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” (Verse 13)

Here Isaiah again used his “stammering” language for he again uses his repetitive speech. He clearly illustrates how the word of the Lord has been presented to the resisting religions. He says it is, “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept;” the repetition or stammering indicates the manner of presentation of the gospel to the churches today. The church teachers say the same things over and over, and the Sunday School manuals teach the same simple lessons over and over. Because they “would not hear,” this is the backward manner that teachings would come to them.

Why is this? So that they “might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” “Taken” is from the Hebrew LAKAD which signifies being “caught in a trap.” God is allowing the churches to follow the backward course it is taking so they will be caught in a trap, and when its bands are made strong the real truth through wise virgins will come forth to reveal the bondage to those who thought they were free. There must be great contrast between light and darkness or the light will not be seen or sought.

“For the bed is shorter than a man can stretch himself on it: the covering narrower than he can wrap himself in it.” (Verse 20)

The “bed” refers to the foundations of the church and kingdom as presently constituted. They are not enough to fully satisfy the earnest seeker; therefore, he cannot “stretch himself on it.” The “covering” refers to the teachings available. The fullness of revelation is no longer with the church; therefore, the covering is narrower than a member can wrap himself in it.”

Visualize yourself going to bed in a cold room to take a rest. Your bed is so short that your feet hang over the edge. The covers are so short that they only cover half your body. Would this not be an uncomfortable situation you would want to rectify at the first possible moment?

Yet the foundation teachings, the good, the beautiful and the true, of most religions have been in large part shorted or removed making the bed of religion too short and a very uncomfortable resting place. Foundation teachings and new revelation have been suppressed so members do not have sufficient light as a covering and shiver inside stone buildings lacking warmth.

I remember feeling unsatisfied by being restricted to church teachings for knowledge. I looked for greater knowledge but little came outside of my own inner reflections. Finally, I discovered the freedom of exploring everywhere from inside myself to the outside world for greater light and truth. When this happened I was delighted to find that there is much more available than anyone can learn in one lifetime. But this is a good thing.


July 18, 2014

Dark Brotherhood Dream Assassins?

Aphoenix writes:

I, too, came under the worst attack in all the years I’ve endured them…this time in a gang of 3.


I’m sorry you had to go through such an experience. Because energy follows thought there were several things I was hesitant to include in the books, but I figured the positive knowledge conveyed would be worth the risk.

When one hears or reads about dark attacks the best course is to watch your thoughts and emotions carefully. Do not let your thoughts be directed toward the possibility and do not fear. Not providing any energy of thought or feelings provides a good shield. Absorb knowledge of the principle of Attrition discussed in the Lost Key. Learning to let negative energy pass through you as if it does not exist is an important key.

Stay focussed in the light and you will get the assistance you need from time to time.

Jenny writes:

I was wondering on what plane the “deceiving spirits”, dark brothers, etc. reside. Is it the astral plane or is there such a thing as a spiritual plane?


Most work on the lower levels of the astral or from the Eighth Sphere. This Sphere is a very low level plane of illusion even more dense than the physical where it is said lost souls dwell. Here the inhabitants are in the process of disintegration.

More advanced dark brothers who have not yet entered the Eighth Sphere sometimes dwell in the higher astral or lower mental. The lower mental is the highest level any of them can function. An advanced dark bother is difficult for many to recognize because when they work in the higher astral or lower mental they can come across an a regular inhabitant. This is why the trusted teachers there are from the higher metal plane or vibration.


July 19, 2014

Why we need the Astral body


The Emotions drop below the threshold of consciousness eventually, just like our instincts have dropped below the threshold, but we are still able to tap into them when we need to. Is this assumption correct, JJ?


Not quite. All those in physical incarnation have an astral body and all disciples have fully functioning emotions that are not below the threshold of consciousness just like the physical body and it’s feelings of pain and pleasure are not below the threshold.


If we got rid of our astral body, then we would no longer have any more emotions, correct?


No. The astral body is a lower reflection of the buddhic body and plane where the higher more true feelings reside. As long as we reside in some part of this universe there are feelings of some kind.

All entities incarnating on this planet have an astral body and do not get rid of it any time in the foreseeable future.


Most people die and pass over into the astral realm on the various levels of consciousness, so if there was no astral realm, then we would pass over to _______?


No need to be concerned. The astral realm will be there in any future that concerns us.


Although I understand that Disciples etc can pass over onto the mental realm when they die.


Passing to the mental realm does not make the astral world disappear, nor does it mean a disciple cannot use his astral body or later incarnate into the physical.


When humanity reaches and works through it’s collective mental body, then the emotional body does not disappear and become non existent, but rather just drops below the level of consciousness, because humans are living and using their mental consciousness.   Is this correct?


No. They will still use their astral body, but control it with the higher mind.


July 22, 2014

The Feeling World

One2 asks:

Thanks for clearing this up for me because I was wondering if the emotions dropped below the threshold in millions of years, like our instincts have.

Although the emotional body has to be mastered like our physical body, but the instincts belong to the animal soul, so that is why the instincts dropped below the threshold?


The feeling nature and instincts are two entirely different instruments. Instincts are like computer programs. You don’t use a computer program all the time and there are some that you don’t need any more and you may not use them at all in the present, but they can be retrieved when needed and attention is focused on them. These are below the threshold of consciousness until retrieved.

The feeling/emotional nature is not like a computer program but is generated by your consciousness interacting with your environment. As long as you interact with the worlds of form you will have feelings about what is happening. You can negate certain feelings but you cannot negate feeling itself. For instance, if you hate your next door neighbor and conclude that you are being unreasonable and through understanding replace hate with friendship, then you negated the negative feeling. It is not below the threshold of consciousness, but just doesn’t exist any more. That doesn’t mean that you could not wind up hating something else.

What we feel about things changes over time but some type of feeling always remains, even in the higher worlds. And who among us would ever want to negate happiness, joy, peace or bliss?


Also is there a Principle of Sealing?   Or is Sealing incorporated into the Molecular Relationship?


Sealing exists, but not in the way the LDS church teaches it… And they should be thankful this is the case. After all, there are many thousands of unhappy married couples sealed together for all eternity (in their minds). Who wants to be bound for eternity to someone you cannot stand? This would be especially difficult if you found someone who you truly could love that was not currently your spouse.

Two things will bind you to another person so you will meet them in a future life: Love and hate. Love will cause your Higher Self to arrange a future life so you can enjoy each other’s company again and hate will cause you to meet again so you can learn to work things out and let the negative feelings go.

The Molecular Relationship is the closest thing to sealing as is generally understood in that you and others joined learn to share group consciousness so it will be as if you are never separated in life or death.

Joan basically says that she is a helpful person and people seem to be taking advantage of her but when she withdraws they are upset, which thing concerns her.

Yes, those who take more advantage than they should are legion, but the key to handling it is this.

Your peace and happiness is just as important as anyone else’s and if you do not do the basic things to insure this happens for you then you are doing just as much of a disservice as when one ignores the legitimate needs of others. If you do not keep yourself mentally and emotionally healthy then you will not be of much use to others, so for the sake of the whole you must examine your feeling needs and keep them satisfied.

If you have too many people coming into your life draining you of energy this means you are sending out signals that draw them to you. Reflect on what signals you must be sending and reduce them. Once reduced then fewer people will come out of the woodwork asking for favors.

The worst thing that can happen is if people impose so much that you suffer a grievance. Such a thing can fester into ill health and low energy. It is of extreme importance that the seeker keeps his emotional body balanced and happy.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE



Keys Writings 2014, Part 12

This entry is part 15 of 33 in the series 2014

July 4, 2014

The Principle of Glory

The following presentation at the 2014 Gathering by JJ Dewey on the Principle of Glory was transcribed by Dan Howell

Well, but that’s not what the scripture says. God said to Moses, because you did not give me Glory, you will not enter the Promised Land. So, according to God’s own words it wasn’t a trumped up thing, it was really the reason. According to the way the scripture is written.

And because Glory lies behind everything. It lies behind all progress, all creation, all incentive, all everything.

Without Glory nothing, virtually, would be created or nothing would happen or nothing would get organized.

Because . . . we all do it because of the Principle of Glory. We all do it because we want recognition, because we want a feeling of achievement, and this is one of the reasons god created everything.

If you’re all alone, where’s the Glory? God had no Glory when he was alone. No Glory at all, he had to create us in order to have Glory.

He had to create in order to achieve this . . . because Glory is the root of all creation . . . when you think about it.

So, what is the Principle behind it?

Glory is basically recognition of ability or achievement. When you get recognition for something, you get Glory. In varying degrees. When people give Glory to God, what do they do? They praise him.

[regarding parable of the feast in Luke 14:7-11] And he says in the same way, he says, he taught that we should be humble and not assume that we have more glory than we have coming. Or not try to grab glory to ourselves.

Here’s the Principle: You cannot glorify yourself, but must be glorified by others. In other words, that guy that came in to the festival, he thought, Ah if I sit in the place of glory I can glorify myself. And he sits there, but you can’t glorify yourself.

So, the guy with the power to give the Glory says No, you don’t belong there you go back here. So, he was unable to glorify himself.

[regarding John 7:18-19, John 8:50, John 17:4-5, John 17:22] So, He talks about this transfer of Glory. That Jesus’ Glory was dependent on the Will of the Father. He had no power to give glory to himself, but he was dependent upon the Father giving him Glory. And the disciples were dependent on Jesus giving them glory. They had no power to get glory for themselves.

So, there was God, all alone, with no one to give him Glory. In order for the Glory of God to be manifest, he had to have more than one available. So, he created us for his own Glory. And that was part of the motivation. And why do we do any work? Well, we want a little bit of recognition.

A lot of people think it is bad to go seek recognition. If you do it the wrong way it is bad, if you do it in a selfish way. But if you do it in the right way where everybody gets their share of the Glory . . . Then, you are on the path to Glory yourself.

Let’s suppose you are all alone. So, let’s say you are the best speller in the whole United States. And you are all alone and nobody knows about it. Well, are you gonna go learn any new words? No. You think, well, I’m the best and its not doing anything for me so, I’m not gonna learn any new words. But, if say there is a national spelling bee – Oh, I can go get some recognition there.

So, then you get to studying more, learning more words, and you go into the competition and if you win you get glory not because you proclaim yourself to be the best, but you have convinced others to give you recognition.

Let’s suppose I was Stephen King, standing right here before you. A lot of people think Stephen King is the greatest horror writer of all time and some people think he was one of the greatest writers period of all time.

Now, lets suppose I was Stephen King and I’m speaking before you about my writings and I say, I’m Stephen King and I’m the best damn writer you’re ever gonna come across. I am the BEST! There’s nobody out there better than me. What would you think?

Right, he’s taking glory to himself, and even though you’ve read his books, you think, Boy, what a jerk!

So, whenever you try to take glory to yourself, you do the opposite, you take away from it, your own glory. The only way to achieve glory, is to recognized by others. You cannot take glory to yourself, it must be given to you by others. And a lot of people don’t understand this principle. A lot of very highly evolved people don’t. Moses didn’t even understand it and he was one of the greatest souls of all time.

God told Moses, he says, Behold, I am a jealous god. Why did he say that? Because, the Glory that he had, he didn’t want to give it to anybody else.

He [God] wanted other people to achieve their own glory. Now, remember the story about Satan and the Christ coming to God offering to redeem mankind. And Jesus says to him, I will be the saviour but I will give you all the glory but Lucifer comes to God and says I will redeem all mankind but I will take glory to myself and I want your power so that I can have the glory. And god says, no, I don’t give my power to anybody. I won’t just give you my power carte blanche.

It’s like a chain. One person recognized the person above him in the chain and that person recognizes the person above him, and sends Glory up the chain from the lowest life to the highest life in the Universe. And what happens when the chain is broken, is the path of Glory becomes broken.

And it’s broken at humanity right now as we do not understand how to pass the glory up. Most of humanity are doing everything they can to take glory to themselves.

Let’s say – and this happens quite often – somebody fairly unknown comes up with an idea and somebody with power comes across the idea and says, Oh, I like this, I’m gonna take this for myself. And so he takes it for himself and doesn’t give the guy credit, but presents it as if he came up with the idea himself. This is where the principle of glory is violated. And what the person does is, he puts a wall between himself and his soul. So Light from his Soul is diminished when this happens.

Any type of deception puts a wall between you and your soul. So, its important that every word that comes out of our mouth is true. And why do we trust God? Or a representative of God? Because we believe that every word that comes out of his mouth is true!

Now, there are a lot of people around that say, Well, even God lies. Well, if he does, and if he lies every now and then – like every fifth time – then how do you know that this isn’t the fifth time, even if you get a vision from God? How do you know it’s true then?

We have faith in God because his word is true and if we want to be like God, we have to make sure our word is true.

Now, in the scriptures it says it is the glory of God to conceal a thing. In other words, all of God’s words are true, but he doesn’t tell us everything that he knows. There’s a lot of mysteries that he hasn’t revealed to us. And it’s part of the Glory of God that a lot of these things are concealed. Because he can reveal them at the right moment when he sees an opportunity to increase his glory.

And so it is important that we copy god in this way. You don’t have to spill your guts on everything. If some female asks you if her thighs are too big, you just . . . be careful. [laughing] Change the subject, just don’t lie. [laughing] You look just wonderful the way you are in my eyes. Or whatever. But, it’s important that every word that comes out of your mouth is literally true. As much as it can. And every promise that you make, you keep.

And if you do that, you’ll be on the path of liberation. There’s nothing that will take you on the path of liberation more than having your word be true.

And this is what has caused the downfall of many great men in history. Even people sent on a mission with a great spiritual value, have fallen down in this particular area. And have not been true to their word. And have felt it was important to lie to cover things up.

I’ll tell you one very important reason why the Principle of Glory needs to apply – because if it’s not applied then there’s deception.

So, let’s say that somebody else claims to have written The Immortal and that I stole it from him. Well, he’s taken Glory to himself – he’s deceiving. He’s saying something that is just not true.

Moses said, Behold, I will deliver you water, and he smites the rock. That was an outright lie. If Moses just would have told the truth, he would’ve said, The power of God will deliver you water and smite the rock. If he would’ve said that, he would’ve been telling the truth. Moses told a lie. So, when the Principle of Glory is violated a lie is told, and Glory is only revealed in Truth – True Glory.

Now, there’s false glory. Like say, if somebody like Stalin or Hitler or somebody like that, or Saddam Hussein – they have everybody under their control and everybody has to give them glory or else they’re head gets cut off, right? Or they get shot, or thrown in prison. But is that real Glory?

No, it’s a lie. These tyrants are having people lie to get a false sense of Glory. They want Glory so bad they’re willing to torture and kill people in order to get . . . to try to steal, true Glory.

But, you can’t steal Glory. In people’s hearts, they know the tyrant is a bad guy and in people’s hearts they’re not giving him glory. And as soon as they can speak freely, all the Glory is gone. Which really isn’t Glory. Because forced Glory is not Glory. When Glory is given in a circumstance where untrue words are spoken, then it’s not glory.

In circumstances where there is not true Glory, there is deception. And deception is the main thing that holds you back from progression. So, one of the reasons the Principle of Glory is so important is that it takes away deception.

You can give Glory either way, you just can’t give Glory to yourself. You can give glory to those higher, you can give Glory to those lower.

If you’re a teacher and you’re teaching Spanish and you have a star student that’s really learned the language good, you can say, Well Jim over here, he’s really doing good, I give him a lot of praise. The whole class looks at him and thinks, Oh, teacher’s pet, uh? [laughter] Whatever, but anyway he stands out as the one that’s learning more than anyone else.

But if Jim gets up and says, Hey, I know Spanish better than anyone else in the class, teacher ought to give me a little recognition! What’s everybody going to think? Even if deserves it, they’re gonna think, Jerk! [laughter], we aren’t giving HIM any glory because he’s seeking it for himself.

Even if it was TRUE that he was a good student. If he gets up and DEMANDS attention – and this happens every once in awhile. I get a letter saying, You don’t give me the recognition I deserve! I want some recognition from you! I want some more respect!

I don’t go around thinking, Well, who can I show recognition and respect to today, I mean that’s not what I do, I just give out the stuff and if people want to take it and do something with it, fine and if you want to reject it, that’s fine. And sometimes I will give praise out if somebody really shines and other times, people say some really good stuff and I just don’t have time to comment on the good stuff they say, so it gets overlooked somewhat.

When you look at motivation, few people that are on the right path are motivated by the Glory alone. But, it’s a side benefit of going forward. And when you go forward in service, and you forget about the self, then Glory will follow. But Glory is just a natural evolution of doing the right thing. And eventually it will come.

Okay, let’s suppose that a teacher has a student and he teaches him something but the teacher doesn’t want, for some purpose, doesn’t want the information to come back. Well, maybe like in Nazi Germany he may have somebody, an underground thing, and he says, If this gets back that I’m teaching this, then I’ll be lynched. So, don’t tell anyone where this came from.

In that case, the student may get some glory and he may say, Well, I can’t tell you where this came from. In that case, he’s not taking Glory unjustly in any case. But, all the teachings that I have that are true – yeah there may be some error in my teachings just like with anyone – but all my teachings which are true come from above, so I give all the Glory to Life above me for what I receive.

But the thing is, to not take Glory to yourself that does belong to somebody else, and that’s something I have always tried to abide by.

Now, you get Glory the most when you don’t go after it. It’s like happiness. If you want to be happy, you don’t think, Well, I going to to do ABC today and that’s going to make me happy. It doesn’t work that way. You just do what’s natural, and you do the right thing, and pretty soon, happiness will just be an after effect. Or a benefit of the whole thing.

And the same thing with Glory, you don’t think, Well, I’m gonna get lots of Glory, I’m gonna go out and I’m going to do this work and everybody is going to love me. That’s not the motive, that’s not the thing that motivates you but what motivates you is doing the right thing, doing service, doing things that people will appreciate, and then you just know that it will come back to you.

And when it does come back to you, it will often come back to you at unexpected moments.

The right approach is to just be the servant, if you’re the servant then Glory will come back to you. This is why the Principle of Glory is so important, is if Glory doesn’t come back in its rightful place, then something is amiss. Something is amiss in the chain. Because we have the chain from the lowest to the highest life and Glory flows up and down this chain. And if its broken, this produces a ripple in the force so to speak, or the glory doesn’t flow smoothly.

And mankind is a big problem for the Gods as they look down upon us because we don’t understand the Principle of Glory. So the Glory doesn’t manifest in the Kingdom of God as much as it should because we’re a kink in the armour of God so to speak. Because we want Glory to ourselves.

We want to be like Lucifer a little bit and take Glory to ourselves. That was the difference between . . . that’s the difference between the dark brotherhood and the light brotherhood, one of the differences was the dark brotherhood seek to take Glory to themselves. The Brotherhood of Light are willing to pass the Glory on to who deserves the Glory.

He who will give his life for my sake shall save it. The same with Glory, He who seeks Glory for its own sake will lose it. He who is willing to relinquish the Glory and serve us will be given Glory.

Like Jesus says, Every idle word you’ve ever spoken, you’ll be held accountable upon the day of judgment. In other words, everything that you’ve ever done, whether good or bad, isn’t forgotten. You’ll either be acknowledged for it or the opposite.

Yeah, self-interest and selfishness are two different things. Selfishness is wanting more than you deserve. Self interest is wanting what you DO deserve. And so, self-interest is not selfishness. Wanting what you do deserve – say if you’ve done an hours worth of work, you want an hours worth of credit, you want the hours worth of wage, you earned it, you deserve it. But, say if you’re getting ten dollars an hour and you want twenty, then you’re being selfish because that is more than you agreed upon. You can ASK for more, you can say, Well, I did work hard, I’d like a raise. That’s fine. But to demand it when you’ve agreed to something less is not correct.

So, with Glory, it gives God the incentive to create and gives us incentive to create. Because, if there was no recognition at all – you may not see that as your motive, you may see that as serving people or whatever – but, let’s say you served and served and served and nobody appreciated anything, pretty soon you’d get tired of serving and wouldn’t do it anymore.

But if you serve, not thinking of Glory, but if it starts to come back and people appreciate it then your incentive is increased and then you follow the path even more. But if nothing comes back to you after a period of time, you’d quit doing it.

If God created the Universe and the being in the Universe, none of them believed in him or none of them gave him Glory, He’d say, Well, the heck with this, I’ll make that universe disappear and do something else. [laughing] So, you gotta get some satisfaction out of your work and just the job for the job’s sake . . . that’s halfway there but it doesn’t take you all the way there.

Eventually, you expect some feedback. Even Jesus did, at the end of his life he says, Father, Glorify thou me with thine own self. With the Glory I had before the World was. So, even Jesus sought God to glorify him, he asked God to glorify him. He knew he couldn’t glorify himself but near the end of his life he thought, Well, you know, I’ve done … I’ve done some hard work here God, so … you know … you should give me a little recognition. [laughing] So, even HE did this.


The Fourth and Freedom

Since today is the Fourth of July it seems to be appropriate to say a few words about freedom.

Before I get into that it is interesting to note that it seems the Fourth of July was selected as the date to celebrate because it has a good ring to it. The Fourth of July just sounds a lot better than any other date you could think of. Here are some interesting details:

On the night of July 2nd, the Pennsylvania Evening Post published the statement: “This day the Continental Congress declared the United Colonies Free and Independent States.” John Adams thought July 2 was going to be the day future Americans celebrated, or so he said in a letter to his wife, Abigail Adams:

Americans didn’t first celebrate independence until July 8, when Philadelphia threw a big party, including a parade and the firing of guns. The army under George Washington, then camped near New York City, heard the news July 9 and celebrated then. Georgia got the word August 10th. And the British in London found out on August 30th.

Though both Jefferson and Adams later claimed the signing ceremony took place on July 4th, David McCullough writes in his biography of John Adams:

“No such scene, with all the delegates present, ever occurred at Philadelphia.”

In fact, most delegates signed the document on August 2nd, when a clean copy was finally produced by Timothy Matlack, assistant to the secretary of Congress; some waited even later to sign, and the names on the document were made public only in January 1777.


One thing we do know for sure is that July 4, 1776 marks for us the beginning of a free America – the first major nation in the history of the world to offer its people the power to escape the beast of unjust and unearned authority.

Yes, before independence we were subject to a king who ruled with absolute authority at the seat of the beast. After independence, we were ruled by a wise president who did his best to rule by the will of the people and then relinquished his power after eight years.

The struggle between good and evil at this time is the struggle between those who want powerful centralized control at the seat of the beast and those who want minimal government and maximum freedom.

What confuses the low information non-thinking masses is that both sides claim to represent the highest state of freedom. This has always been the case.

Rome and other empires conquered surrounding nations in the name of liberating them and giving out more freedom.

Hitler tried to conquer the world in the name of freedom. He spoke about freedom in many of his speeches that aroused the masses.

Slave owners in the Southern States claimed slavery was a good thing as it gave the white people more freedom and the blacks did not need it.

Now today the illusion persists in that many want to over tax us, over regulate and make restrictive laws in the name of freedom.

The question must then be asked. What is the difference in the views of freedom from both sides?

The answer is quite obvious to any fair minded person who studies the use of freedom in the past by those we know were on the wrong side of history, such as slave owners, Hitler and King George.

The leaders on the left hand path seek full freedom for themselves at the expense of others and will give out limited freedom to supporters in order to further their selfish goals of power and wealth. When they talk about freedom that are talking about what they and their supporters will receive. Those who do not support them will have little or no freedom if such leaders get their way.

Those on the right hand path seek freedom for all, even those who do not support or agree with them. They so not seek to take from one group by force and give to other groups, but emphasize personal responsibility which is essential to insure the preservation of maximum freedom.

Those on the right do not want to enslave one group so another group can have greater freedom but seek equal freedom for all.

This was the goal of our founders, but is now being sabotaged and subverted. Those with the spirit of freedom in their hearts must stand up and be counted and do all in our power to fulfill the dreams of our fathers.

May it be so.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE


Keys Writings 2014, Part 11

This entry is part 14 of 33 in the series 2014

June 23, 2014

The Fifth Key

We had a great gathering with a lot of fresh faces. The Principle of Glory is now out there. For those who were not at the gathering here is an additional hint.


Who is it that can give glory and what is the only way it can be created?


June 25, 2014

The Fifth Key Revealed

Here is the latest hint:

Who is it that can give glory and what is the only way it can be created?

To this Assaf gave the closest answer:

“The ones who see the accomplished creation can give glory to the one who accomplished it, to the creator, whoever it may be.”

That is pretty close to the principle. What Assaf saw here is that the Principle of Glory may have nothing to do with God, but one who creates (God, angel or man) and the one who recognizes the glory of the creation.

Here is the principle of Glory:

One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.

The group kept making the mistake of saying that only God can create glory, but this is not true. God could have created the whole universe and if there were no living being in it who appreciated the creation there would have been no glory. Not even God could pat himself on the back and given Himself glory. If he were alone there would be no evidence that the creation would be seen as a thing of value by another living being.

Let us say that Stephen King gave a speech saying, “I am one of the greatest writers who has ever been born and you’d better appreciate that.”

Would that enhance his glory as a writer?


It would take away from it. People in the audience would think, “What a jerk!”

On the other hand, if a respected person introduced King and said, “Here is Stephen King, one of the greatest writers ever born, and he deserves our appreciation.” What would be the response? The audience would agree and his glory would be enhanced.

The story of Moses not giving glory to God illustrates that God himself cannot give glory to himself and depends upon others to do it. In the work that God and Moses were doing together God depended on Moses giving him credit where credit was due. Moses smote the rock and took credit for the water coming forth and violated the principle which is sacred, especially among the higher lives. God calls himself a jealous God because even He depends on others for glory and does not want others to deceptively take credit when the credit is due to Him.

In the parable of the best seats the guest tried to take glory to himself by taking the most honored seat. But he had no power to take the glory to himself. The host ordered him to take the lowest seat and placed someone else there.

John 7:18 “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true.”

This very clearly illustrates the principle that you cannot be glorified by seeking it for yourself, but must be glorified by another. Jesus realized that  he was to give glory to God and in return God would glorify him. Neither Jesus or the Father could glorify themselves.

If we want glory and recognition we cannot demand it for ourselves but must wait for others to give it. If you do what you consider to be a great work and no one says anything then there is no glory. You cannot rectify the situation by demanding to be recognized. The only solution is to enhance the work until someone does recognize it and gives glory. After glory is given by one then others usually follow.



Sorry, but this so-called principle is plain common sense, and has nothing profound in it.


Then obviously you do not understand it with its implications. The highest of us all, the Christ, saw the profoundness of the principle and often talked about it.


If anything, it is so broad in definition (glory = external/public recognition)


You are not enunciating the Principle of Glory so obviously you do not understand it. The principle has little to do with the definition of glory as you just related.


that it actually encourages cult leaders and other delusional folks to think they are actually receiving glory because they are worshiped by ignorant people…


The principle has nothing to do with cult leaders and only worship as far as God is concerned. You are really confused here.


This looks more like the principle of idolatry than the principle of glory.


So if you think someone does a good job and you tell them so you are them practicing idolatry? Strange reasoning indeed. I guess you are not an idolater then for I do not see much praise coming from you for anything to anyone.


There are people that received no external recognition but they are maybe more glorious than anyone else out there, anonymous people that sacrificed themselves for truth and justice.


This statement tells us you do not understand the principle which you just called “plain common sense.” There is no glory without recognition. Glory is created from the consciousness of intelligent lives. As I said, if God created the universe and there was no one in it to praise or appreciate the work then he would have no glory. You cannot glorify yourself. Thinking that a work deserves glory does not glory make. Many have sacrificed themselves for a cause and received no glory because no good was produced by the sacrifice.


June 26, 2014

Re: The Fifth Key Revealed


So, a molecule is activated only when someone gives glory to others in that molecule? Is that what this principle means?


Glory has nothing to do with the activation of a molecule. It is activated by the members achieving unity through soul contact, and being accepted by the Christ. The violation of the Principle of Glory could hinder group soul contact though.


Thomas Kinkade never received glory for the great artwork he has done as most people put his artwork down…maybe he received glory from a few that

liked his work but most people hated his artwork and would not give him glory…what do you say to this,


I do not recall anyone here saying anything negative about your artwork.

All of us, whether high or low, must do the same thing with our work. We must do our best at creation and then present it to the people and let them decide. If they give us glory we will feel everything was worthwhile. If they say negative things or ignore the work then the creator must reassess his work and either work to improve or change direction.

Believe me… I have done many things for which I have received no glory and if I did not just accept the response and move on the effect on me would have been negative. Sometimes an attempt at a work that receives little recognition in one life is preparation for great recognition in a future life.


What if someone was working behind the scenes and helped create stuff for Steve Jobs that he later used for the computer but he never gave him any credit and took the credit for him self. This unknown person received no glory for helping to initiate the computer.


If you’re working at the creative level at Apple you are probably making over $200,000 a year. That is pretty hefty recognition for your contribution. A company does not pay that kind of money unless it recognizes a person’s talent.

A new product coming on the market is usually the result of the hundreds if not thousands of cooperating minds and rarely does the company list them all. If it is a fair company the management will do it’s best to acknowledge the contribution of its various employees.

Now if Steve Jobs had lied and stated he created an improvement when someone else was behind it then he would have been violating the Principle of Glory. When something like this happens in a company there are usually people who do know the truth and acknowledge the work.

Even if someone else takes credit for a work the creator still receives glory when people praise the creation because the creator will know that they are praising something he initiated.



I must be missing something,

The way the story reads to me, Moses was not intentionally deceptive…


No one said that Moses was intentionally deceptive, but when he gave the impression that the power was his then he was thoughtlessly deceptive.


but rather committed a social faux pas by not taking the time to explain that God deserved the credit.


It wasn’t that he was expected to give a sermon on it. God expected Moses to not take credit. After all Moses said,

“Listen to me, you rebels. Must we get water out of this rock for you? Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out in abundance and they all drank, men and beasts.”

If Moses had merely said something like “God will create water for us” he would have kept out of trouble. Instead God saw a violation of the Principle of Glory, which Moses understood, and “the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘You did not trust me so far as to uphold my holiness in the sight of the Israelites; therefore you shall not lead this assembly into the land which I promised to give them.’” Numbers 20:10-13 NEV


I also don’t see where God let him know he’d screwed up and gave him a chance to apologize and correct his mistake either; maybe he did and Moses refused, but I kinda doubt it.


He made it plain that Moses screwed up in the above verse. Moses did not lose his reward but the Principle of Glory is so sacred to the higher lives that God did not want to take the chance of Moses assuming unearned glory to himself again and thus falling into darkness. For the rest of his life Moses got to practice the Principle of Glory but suffered the effect by not entering the promised land.

As it was, Moses received great recognition:

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face. Deut 34:10

As disciples to enter the promised land of full soul contact we must consistently practice the Principle of Glory for as soon as we assume unearned glory a cloud of darkness descends which is difficult to lift.


Must admit I’m not really impressed with this God that Moses was busting his butt to serve and then Moses uses the wrong wording and God holds it against him for the rest of his life.


Suppose you wrote a book that you were really proud of and you gave the book to a trusted friend to share with a group. Then you find out the friend makes the claim that he wrote the book and takes credit for it’s contents. You may not write the friend off forever, but you would be offended and not trust him again until he has proven himself over a period of time.

We are in the image of God and if we want to understand God we must understand ourselves and when our glory is taken by another we become angry. So do the higher lives on their own level.

Before the Principle of Glory is understood in its fullness the inclination is to think it is small minded to desire appropriate glory be given, but it is not small minded at all for without the implementation of this principle creation would come to a halt and the glory or God would cease to be.


So does God really need his pats on the back, and does he really get that indignant when he doesn’t get them?


All life forms in the universe need this, even God. Truth is the core principle guiding higher lives and the Principle of Glory can only be violated with deception. To uphold truth, the Principle of Glory must apply. There is much more to it than desiring a pat on the back. If that is all one sees he does not understand the principle.


Should we be like that too, and punish the people in our lives who fail to give us the glory we feel we deserve?


You are not seeing this correctly. That is not the problem. The problem is not receiving glory for what we feel we deserve but what we do actually deserve.

If I think a book I write is a masterpiece and you think it is a piece of junk and say so then you have not violated the Principle of Glory just because I think the book is good. I would accept that and allow you your opinion, as I should. But if you read the book and think, “This is great, I wish I would have thought of this,” and then proceed to present the book, or its original ideas, as if you wrote it yourself, then you are stealing my glory and I would be upset and would not trust you for some time.


Yes I understand that credit should be properly given, but how pissed off should we be, and for how long should we hold our grudges, if we feel slighted?


I have had people steal my ideas numerous times and do not feel a grudge but do not trust the person in this area until he can prove he is willing to follow the Principle of Glory.

No one likes to be stolen from and the stealing of intellectual or spiritual property is seen as a much greater violation than the stealing of a physical commodity. Artists, for instance, are very upset when someone plagiarizes their songs or writings. This is why we have copyright laws which uphold the Principle of Glory.


God still needs help in uplifting his lower self.


The Principle of Glory applies to higher and lower selves. Upholding truth is universal and applies to all planes of existence.

Greg Anderson’s Account of a Past Life Regression at the Gathering


June 22, 2014

Past Life Regression

By Greg Anderson

As part of the Gathering of Lights 2014 JJ Dewey did a past life regression exercise with the group. He began by having each in the group relax and then placed us in a deeper state of conscious hypnosis. He took us to our most recent past life. As I tried to view and understand what I was looking at, I saw a deep blue view before me. I thought it might be the sky, but there was little recognition or confirmation of what it was I was seeing


I next had a very brief view of a city in rural America much like what I imagined in pioneer days or seen in western movies. Inside I was straining to clarify the picture, but it would not budge. I felt hopeless in trying to see. To my surprise, JJ then went further and had us as a group; go deeper in thought and to see our next life. At his suggestion I was there. I could sense and see where I was. I was hiding in a wooded area a small distance from a military fort, and I knew instantly that I was a spy. I was looking upon the troop movements of the British army. I was thrilled. I had actually seen something. The feeling was profound. The visions was clear.


At about this time JJ chose to bring us out of the deep meditative thought and we were then brought back to the present. JJ then went around the room and questioned each as to what they experienced and saw. I shared with him, and the group, what I relayed above. After JJ visited with each person regarding their experience, he came back to me and asked me to come forward. He sat a single chair in the midst of the group, and had me sit down. JJ took me back to the deep meditative state and the life two times before.


I found myself back in the forested area looking upon the movement of the British troops. I knew instantly why I was there. I would record what I saw and then in code I would send the information to Washington and the Continental Army. I then saw that I was spotted by a patrol, chased down and captured. JJ asked me if I knew George Washington. This brought forth a flood of memories. I shared with the group that I indeed did know George Washington. I knew him very well. We lived in proximity of each other.


He asked me what I knew of the character of George Washington. My memories knew him to be honorable and a good man. JJ asked me if he was perceived as such by others in the area. The memories came forth and I shared that there were those within the area that were loyal to the crown and did not trust Washington. JJ asked me about my conversations with Washington. I remembered that they were of the finest conversations; much of what we discussed rang true to my soul. I had developed a trustworthy relationship with Washington. As the time came and war broke out, I was asked by Washington to be a part of a special group that was to gather information regarding the enemy and their movement. JJ asked me “What then.” My memories went back to my capture. I was questioned and beaten for two days as to Washington’s movements and plans. I did not respond. I did not yield, for I knew I held in my hands the lives of many friends.


On the morning of the third day I was dragged before a wall to be shot. I arose slowly as my broken body would allow in an act of last defiance. At this point tremendous fear flooded back to my memory. I began to weep as I continued relaying what I remembered. There were six muskets aimed at me. I looked into the eyes of each of my executioners, and then closed my eyes. JJ asked me what happened after I left my body.


Where did I go? I remembered a great peace that came over me. I was brought before an entity. I only remember the form and the intense light. A review of my life took place. JJ asked me how many people were there at the review. My memory could only recall two. JJ asked me what they looked like, but I could not gather any further clarity other than a form with great light. JJ then asked me what was the conversation between me and the entities. The memories came forth that in the review of my life that I had been sent to learn and manifest courage in the face of adversity. I remember being very disappointed that I was not able to help in the further cause of independence. I did however have satisfaction and peace regarding my purpose in this round.


JJ asked me what I knew of the outcome of the time regarding the war for independence. After searching for the right words to answer his question, it basically was that I knew that the probable outcome would be successful. JJ then asked “What then?” I remember planning with these entities my next round and what was need for my development, but also in furthering the cause of light. JJ asked me if I had ever been with these two other beings in carnation? The overwhelming feeling was yes! Who they are or were, I cannot clarify in my memories.


JJ then asked me to go ahead to a time between lives. He asked if it was a reunion with friends. I did not recall that. I remember the desire I had in my heart to be in the presence of those I considered to be Gods. I remember finding great love and solace in being with them for a time. JJ asked me if I had any birthmarks. I shared with him I did, and JJ indicated that they often indicate trauma from past lives.


At this point JJ brought me back to the present consciousness. At this point I was conscious in the present, but I was also still seeing this past life. Members of the group asked some questions which I tried to answer. The gathering was closed, we said our good byes to those who were not going to dinner with us, and left for the restaurant. However, as I was traveling with my wife and companions to the restaurant, a very profound experience then took place, with an extraordinary exchange between me and persons from that era, whom I had associated with regarding some instruction for the remaining time I had on earth.


I won’t share in this forum the remainder of those events, but it reaffirmed to me the doctrine of eternal lives and the principle of re-incarnation. I am indeed very grateful to Artie and JJ for the gathering and the time and efforts that were spent to help make me a better person. I feel very fortunate to have made many new friends, whom I can honestly say that I love. There is a familiarity with them that goes beyond this past weekend’s activities. To some this may seem like nonsense. To me it was very real, and I think those in the group that experienced it with me can attest to the extraordinary spirit that was with us.


June 27, 2014

Re: The Fifth Key Revealed

JJ Quote

“Many have sacrificed themselves for a cause and received no glory because no good was produced by the sacrifice”


What about those that sacrificed themselves but there was nobody around to observe the good produced? Maybe they received the unseen glory of God.


Such people could not glory themselves but any sacrifice that accomplishes something good is seen and appreciated by someone, either in this world or the next, and thus the person receives recognition and glory.


Your principle is:

“One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.”

My question is how does this principle help you discern between false and true glory?

For instance, you see glory for Bush when he started the war in Iraq, but I see false glory and accuse him of murder.


False glory is that which is forced upon people as has happened with tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Un etc. Here people have to praise their leader or go to jail, or be killed. Praise given in that situation is not real praise but truly false glory.

If praise is given freely then it is not false glory but sincere praise. Now, there are many situations in life where the decision to praise, be apathetic or condemn is a judgment call. Moses was not praised by everyone and I’m sure there were a number who though he was guilty of lots of sin including murder. His own brother and sister judged him to be unworthy because he killed an Egyptian, but Jehovah affirmed (gave glory) that he was the man for the job.

Most everyone who receives glory for something that is a judgment call does not receive accolades from all. Some people even hate the Beatles but since a high percentage give them glory they will go down in history in a positive way. The fact that some hate the Beatles does not take away from the glory given by those who like them.

Even so with Bush. The fact that you do not approve does not take away from the sincere glory of those who praise him for certain actions.

Some time from now the world may see Bush in a much different light than they do now just as we now see Truman in a much better light than those did who lived under his administration.

The main point of the Principle of Glory is not to get everyone to agree or disagree that a certain action is good but that glory comes from sincere praise and recognition from somewhere else besides the creator of the action or work. The one responsible for the work should get the recognition (good or bad) and not another. Glory should not be stolen.

Believe me if Bush had found lots of WMD people on both sides of the aisle would have been lining up to share the glory. When glory is achieved people come out of the woodwork to take or share credit when no credit is deserved.


I use the principle “Judge a man by his actions”, and consider the evidence out there.


That is what everyone tries to do, not just you, but different opinions are formed and for every action some give glory and some do not.

Whether or not an action or a teaching is good or bad is a judgment call and the closer it is to the will of God the more glory the person will eventually have. Jesus only had 200 people to give him glory after the resurrection while the world condemned him, but now billions give him glory. Even though a small number still do not give him glory he is probably the most glorified person in our history.

It is definitely true that Bush was responsible for taking us into the war with Iraq and deserves the recognition, pro and con, for that action. It is also true that John Lennon wrote the song Imagine and deserves to be recognized for that. By following the Principle of Glory the ones who are responsible for an action get the glory or the condemnation. If someone plagiarized Lennon’s work then he would be violating the Principle of Glory.


Secondly, how does your principle add more to the standard definition of glory?


It doesn’t. Why would you ask a question that has nothing to do with the Principle of Glory? People already know what glory, praise and recognition is. We do not have to add to it. Obviously you are not looking for the principle.


The meaning of glory already presupposes the idea of recognition by others. That’s the simple meaning of the term. It’s common sense.


All principles are simple and appeal to the common sense. The key to understand the principle has nothing to do with understanding the definition that everyone already knows but in realizing that you cannot give glory to yourself or obtaining it by demand or theft. It must be voluntarily given by others. Even God would have no glory without us voluntarily giving it to him.


How can you tell between a good job and a bad job if only the good job should receive glory? Your glory principle ignores this point…


No it doesn’t. Through deception a person can obtain temporary glory for a bad job but when the final results are seen the job can be more correctly assessed. For instance, Obama started out in a blaze of glory which is quickly diminishing because of poor results. Bush is now more popular than Obama according to Gallup.

After we leave this world the true quality of a person’s work will be much more accurately seen and there the right people will receive just glory.


I am not saying that your definition is wrong, what I am saying is that it adds no new understanding to the concept of glory.


I do not believe I have defined it because everyone knows what praise and glory is. You are missing the principle. When you see it vistas of understanding will open before you as it has for many who see a glimpse of the keys of decision and judgment – two other key words of which everyone knows the definition.

I will post the audio on it soon. Maybe that will help.



Both you and JJ get so upset sometimes, which is surprising for honest seekers of truth.


It does not mean that I am upset just because I disagree with you. If we used that criteria it would mean you are upset all the time. You have no power to upset me.

Sorin quoting JJ

Glory should not be stolen. […]


The issue is not that people steal glory because they don’t know what your principle of glory is, they know what glory is.


You need to argue with what I say not with what I do not say. Of course that is not “the issue.”


They steal it because they are jealous and want the glory of the truly glorious one.


Agreed. And your point is?


Your principle doesn’t help much in convincing people not to steal glory.


That is not the main benefit of understanding the principle, though such understanding does make one more sensitive to all the ways it can be stolen. When one realizes how important this principle is to higher lives then seekers will take it to heart with more intent and be more assiduous in not violating it. I know that such understanding had that effect on me.

However, the main benefit is in seeing how glory is obtained and then taking the correct path to receive it.

Obviously, most people do not understand the principle as the majority go the wrong direction numerous times in attempting to receive recognition and glory.


The principle of karma is a much more effective principle in preventing people from stealing glory.


The Principle of Karma is the root of all other principles so the understanding of this naturally leads to more correct behavior. BUT the more we understand branch principles related to karma (cause and effect) the better we can control the outcome of this and future lives. If one attempts to create his own glory it will have the effect of reducing glory. This is karma in action.


True glory should be given to God, not to himself, because creativity is a gift from God not a self concoction.


So if one practices all his life to master the violin are you saying the guy should get absolutely no recognition for the great effort that creates a performance that people enjoy? God himself in the scriptures gives glory to those who perform well and it is a correct principle for humans to do this also.


It’s kind of a false dichotomy. You don’t need a principle for this to happen, it happens automatically…


All principles work automatically. What else is new?


Well, maybe because your principle is not really a principle, and only repeats the definition of glory?


This has obviously gone over your head. The people in the Keys had weeks to guess the principle and over and over I told them that the definition of glory was not the principle. Now I have told you this in my recent posts and you still do not get it. After many attempts no one here got the principle so it is obviously not so obvious as you seem to think.

There is an insight here that has never been presented to the world before and as evidence of that you can use Google all you want and not find it. You can find lots of definitions of the word glory but you cannot find anyone teaching the principle and it’s implications – of which there is more to come.


Everything you say is fair, but it’s nothing new or illuminating.


Okay, find someone else teaching the principle. You may find others teaching ingredients but not the whole principle, which has gone over your head, and when you argue with me you keep going back to the definition of glory rather than talking about the principle and it’s implications.

Nothing any teacher says is entirely new but sometimes new insights are given. Even many of the teachings of Jesus had been given before but not with the insight and emphasis in which he presented them.



You’re logically inconsistent. How is “Glory should not be stolen” NOT part of the main benefit of the principle which is “seeing how glory is obtained and then taking the correct path to receive it”?


You have little power to prevent people from plagiarizing or stealing glory from you, but you do have full power over your behavior which will determine the steps you take to receive glory.

For instance, in the seating parable I cited. The guy had full power to pick his seat and he chose the highest in an attempt to glorify himself.


That’s based on the law of karma not on the principle of glory.


All principles are related to karma, but you need to examine more than the word “karma:” to understand them. You are really being nit picky here lately. What is getting into you? You were not like this until you realized you disagreed with me politically and now you act like I am an enemy who can say nothing right. You are acting very out of character compared to the way you used to be. I think you should dispassionately examine your bias here.

Here are ten other principles out of many I have covered.

1 Male-Female Energies

2 Freedom

3 Law of Correspondences

4 Energy Follows Thought

5 Initiation

6 The Name of Christ

7 The Ring-Pass-Not

8 Good and Evil

9 The Ancient Law of Evil Sharing

10 Law of Dominating Good

These are all related to karma, but a surface understanding of karma will not explain any of them, just like it will not explain the Principle of Glory which you are attacking merely because I have presented it. It appears that from here on out that anything I present that is new will be attacked in the same way with your new approach to my teachings – with no effort to see the significance.


No. Karma for instance has to be known to be actively used, otherwise its usage is passive.


There are people who suffer or benefit from the results of karma every day, not because they understand it but because it is automatic. After all, it is merely the result of cause and effect. When a cause is set in motion the effect is automatic whether the cause is known or unknown.


While your principle of glory “One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.” states something widely accepted by everybody


If this is so widely understood them why did no one, including yourself, get the principle after weeks of time and dozens of hints? It is because that most have not realized that even God cannot give glory to himself but must get it from others. Where have you ever read before that God is powerless to manifest his own glory? You haven’t. Obviously I am not just stating the obvious. If it were so obvious someone in the group would have seen it after the dozens of hints I gave.

On the other hand, after a principle is explained it always seems quite simple though the real meaning is still going over your head, as you do not want to see it.


June 29, 2014

Re: Past Life Regression


Awhile back you mentioned something about hypnotizing someone in order to have their “higher self” diagnose their illness.

1) What “higher self” would you contact via this method; solar angel, guardian angel, higher mental, etc?


If I said higher self I may not have been technically correct. Deep hypnosis can access all the computing power in your subconscious and often this access can give the patient a pretty accurate diagnosis. In doing this sometimes a link will be established with a higher part of oneself, in turn linked to the solar angel, and some information will filter down, but not always.


2) You have mentioned that hypnotic experiences are fraught with illusion from various sources. Is there a way to “invoke” this particular “higher self” such that you have less chance of contacting a less reliable, “lower” self or the hypnotized person’s desire to please, and etc.?


There are many grades of hypnosis and the first thing to do to avoid illusion is to get the subject in a deep state. Information retrieved from a light state is not as reliable as that retrieved from a deep state unless the person is very sensitive. Even in a deep state the subject may be relating some misinformation. An experienced hypnotist can usually tell how reliable a subject is and there are things he can do to help with accuracy.

Greg seemed to be quite accurate. Some of the signs were the depth of the feelings retrieved and the amount of details given. If we had more time he could have come up with a lot more information.


3) Is it possible to do this via self-hypnosis? If so, will you suggest a technique/method/script for doing so.

4) Is “self hypnosis” really possible?


Most self hypnosis puts you in a light hypnotic state compared with regular hypnosis, hence to accomplish the same thing you need to give yourself suggestions or visualizations many times. The best way to do this is to make a recording of an affirmation and play it over and over. You can also enter the hypnotic state by using a recording of a hypnotist’s voice, but I would recommend one be present if you want to go deep. Once you go so deep you do not recall anything that transpired unless directed to.

With rare exceptions the only way to go deep through self hypnosis is to get a hypnotist to put you under and then direct you to have the power to put yourself under and safely bring yourself out of it.


5) Assuming #4 is “yes”, then will repeated self-hypnosis be as potentially detrimental as hypnosis (by another) and cause one to become more susceptible to hypnosis (hypnotic suggestion) from other sources?


Regular self hypnosis would do little to make you more susceptible, but if a hypnotist directs you to have the power then it could over time.

Except on rare occasions I use guided mediation which puts subjects in a light harmless state where they can bring themselves out at any time. This is deep enough to always get some in a group back to past lives. Going deep a couple times should be fairly harmless, but I wouldn’t recommend doing it often as it does increase one’s susceptibility to suggestion.


if Greg had not had that past life experience at the Gathering, would those two past life people still have been able to contact him later on at some stage to tell him more?


Probably not though he may have had impressions through dreams or reflection.


Was it just a coincidence, or did you specifically pick Greg out of the group at the Gathering to stimulate more contact with those working behind the veil.


In each group regression I pick someone who I think is sensitive to go deeper. We usually get something interesting retrieved.


I know you have said in the past that our past lives are not that important to focus us because we need to work in the now and with who we are in this life, and sometimes past life information can cause a glamor for that person if they think that they were an important person in one of their lives etc.

Or do the people at the Gathering who you take back into past life regression need to know who they were in that life and how they are connected to you?


I do not believe I said past lives are not important. After all, they make us what we are today. What I did say is that it is not important to let the world know who you are, especially if you think you were someone famous. There is a lot of glamour and control around this as many gurus claim they need to be believed because they were a great sage in a past life.

All knowledge can be useful and if one can retrieve a past life it will broaden his perspective. The knowledge of the retrieved past life should be for personal use and not as a tool to show the world how great you are.


June29, 2014

Here’s a treatment for gallstones which worked like a miracle for my wife.

Liver And Gallbladder Cleanse

  1. Monday through Saturday noon, drink as much health food store apple juice or apple cider as your appetite will permit, in addition to supplements and regular meals.
  2. At noon Saturday, eat a normal lunch.
  3. Three hours later, take 2 teaspoons of disodium phosphate or Epson Salt dissolved in one ounce of hot water. The taste may be objectionable and may be followed by a little freshly squeezed citrus juice.
  4. Two hours later, repeat step 3.
  5. For the evening meal, have grapefruit juice, grapefruit, or other citrus fruits or juices.
  6. At bedtime have
  7. 1/2 cup unrefined olive oil followed by a small glass of fresh grapefruit juice, OR
  8. 1/2 cup warm unrefined olive oil blended with 1/2 cup fresh lemon juice
  9. Go immediately to bed and lie on your right side with your right knee pulled up close to your chest for 10 minutes
  10. The next morning, one hour before breakfast, take 2 teaspoons of disodium phosphate dissolved in 2 ounces of hot water. Eat a large, greasy breakfast. (Ex. Bacon & eggs, fried potatoes, etc.) This will get the gall bladder to flush out any gallstones within hours.
  11. Continue your normal diet and nutritional program. If a large number of gallstones is found in the stool, repeat in 2 weeks.


Re: The Fifth Key Revealed


I understand that criticizing can be annoying, but I am a bit disappointed when your response is an invitation to piss off. Obviously some will disagree with you, but it’s not the end of the world.


I do not believe I have told anyone to piss off in my life. Where are you getting this? You need to complain about what I do and say not with what I do hot do and say.

You have undergone a drastic change in approach of late, as if a switch has gone off in your mind, and you must now look at everything I say with a jaundice eye and disagree even before it is clear that you have anything to disagree with. After all, I haven’t even presented the audio yet on the Fifth Key.. I think the switch went off in you after we discussed the Iraq war.

The switch has not happened because I was reasonable in the past and now, all of a sudden, everything I say is completely unreasonable. That makes no sense at all and no one else is seeing such a change in me.


You provided some good answers to my questions, hopefully your answers will be useful to some other people as well.


Actually even though you seem to have made a big switch in attitude your challenges are useful for they bring our more detailed explanations.

JJ Quote

It is because that most have not realized that even God cannot give glory to himself but must get it from others.


On the other hand, if God suffused himself in all creation, isn’t God giving glory to himself?


A person can pat himself on the back but that doesn’t do much until someone else acknowledges that it is deserved. We have a local crazed guy who has run for president several times. He pats himself on the back thinking he is the best man for the job, but it doesn’t do much good until he can get others to vote for him.

To receive glory God had to nurture distinct individual lives. When we all realize our oneness and go to the great rest of pralaya then there will be go glory or light and dark, but rest and absorption to prepare for the greater glories to come.


Gathering Audio Explaining the Principle of Glory



June 30, 2014

The Gathering 2014

Yes, since we are talking about the Principle of Glory we should give Steve Evans recognition for coming the closest to enunciating the principle. This was the first gathering for Steve and Jenny and a number of others who were a delight to meet.


July 1, 2014

Re: The Gathering 2014


Why did you say in the audio that you gave out the 12th key earlier, just in case something happened to you in the future?

Are you worried that things are not progressing as fast as they should be, because of the failure to get enough home study groups or study groups off the ground around the World to prepare for molecules and the gathering?


The future is not 100% predictable and i am getting older so I figure I should get as much as I can out there in case something unpredictable happens.

The work has not progressed as much as I had hoped but we still have a ways to go to meet the time for the beginning of the gathering in earnest which I have always said should be around 2025-2030.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE