Teachings – Page 56

What Is Good and Evil?

April 28, 2014 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 45 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Forty-Six

What Is Good and Evil?

This may seem like a silly question to ask. After all, isn’t it obvious what good is as well as evil? Good is doing … well, good things like helping the poor, doing good deeds, loving people etc. And evil is hurting people, abusing animals and committing crimes. Figuring it out is pretty simple, isn’t it?

Not so much.

We often forget that every war that has been fought in the history of the planet has been over a different interpretation of what good and evil is. For example, Hitler thought the democratic system of the West was evil and his more authoritarian dictatorship was good. He also thought it was a good thing to exterminate an entire race of people, the Jews, whereas the rest of us saw this as a great evil.

And just look at the struggle we have in the present time to convince others what is good and evil. Here are three examples.

(1) Many believe it is good to make any sacrifice necessary to prevent climate change, even if it means higher taxes, more spending and lots of inconvenience.

Others see this as a great evil piece of propaganda designed to tax us to death, steal our money and take away our freedoms.

(2) Many see the implementation of lots of social programs as a good thing that even Jesus would have praised.

Others see them as a great evil that robs us of our wealth and freedom. They also think Jesus would agree with them.

(3) There are those who think it is a very good thing that the Jews have gathered in the Middle East and created a nation of their own.

Then there are many who see this as a great evil that must be destroyed at any cost.

Obviously what is good and evil is not such a simple thing after all. The prophet Isaiah wrestled in frustration at the people’s lack of understanding on this subject. He complained that peopled called “evil good, and good evil; they put darkness for light, and light for darkness; and put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isa 5:20 The scriptures further say: “There is none that doeth good, no not one.” (Psalms 14:3)

In other words, the seeing of that which is truly good or evil is so subtle that there have been times that the whole population of the world was deceived about it.

So, is that which is truly good so difficult to see that the truth is hidden from the eyes of the many? Indeed the answer is yes and the Bible backs this up.

After Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil God said, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Gen 3:22

This is one of the most profound statements in all scripture. Knowing good and evil is such a wonderful thing that it will cause us ordinary humans to “become as one of us.” And who is “us?” That would be God or the Gods depending on how one interprets the scripture.

The Jerusalem Bible gives an interesting variation of translation:

“Then Yahweh God said, Now that the man has become like one of us in knowing good FROM evil…”

One reason this and several other versions use “from” instead of “and” is largely because of the meaning implied by YADA, the Hebrew word from which “to know” is translated.

YADA implies a knowledge gained through discerning or coming to a recognition or understanding.

Therefore, “to know good and evil” implies much more than just leaving paradise and being subject to pleasant and unpleasant sensations. The animals do this much. YADA implies that he who becomes as God will rise above the animals and acquire the ability to discern the good and the evil. Such discernment would result in knowing good FROM evil as well as good and evil.

Think on this. We are told that he who acquires the knowledge (YADA) of good and evil will be as the Elohiym, or God.

This explains why the prophets told us that there were times when no one understood the difference between good and evil for their understanding was upside down. In other words, people are not very godly in their understanding of it and often have it all wrong.

So, again we are faced with the question – what is the real truth of the matter? What is the true good and true evil?

Before we tackle that we must first understand why good and evil is so difficult to discern. The reason it is so problematic is that the customs, the thinking and the consciousness of the people change with each passing generation, century and age. That which is good or evil at one time can become the opposite at another. Allow me to give several examples.

(1) Eating too much sugar is bad for you, but if you were starving to death and all you had to eat to save your life were cookies, then eating them would be a good thing.

(2) Moses taught the people that eating unclean animals was wrong, but then later Peter was shown a vision that it was good that he eat these animals.

(3) As civilizations began to form in ancient times it was seen as a good thing that there be a strong central authority, such as a king.

But as humanity progressed, and people began thinking for themselves, having a king was seen as wrong and the participation of the people in some type of democracy was good.

Because that which is good changes with circumstances and the consciousness of the people this means that good and evil cannot just be spelled out in black and white, but must be discerned.

To be able to make that judgment or discernment accurately requires a gift from God that few people are able to exercise at all times. We can though give out a guiding principle that will help the seekers of the world see correctly. Here it is.

Good is that which moves us forward in the direction of greater health, happiness, peace, love, understanding and spiritual living. Evil is that which takes us away from these things.

Sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? Believe me it is not. To have the power to choose the good on a consistent basis indeed requires tapping into the mind of God.

Let us hope that more of humanity will be successful at this so we can one day achieve, “peace on earth, goodwill to all.”

Easy Access to all the Writings

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

Is There Good And Evil?

April 25, 2014April 26, 2014 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 44 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Forty-Five

Is There Good And Evil?

The average person in the West will look at this question and answer, “Well, duh… Yes, of course there is. That’s a silly question.”

The reason this question is included is that many of the people of the world believe there is no such thing as good and evil. They get this idea from numerous teachings of eastern religions, and those who have rejected Christianity and Islam have increasingly accepted the idea.

Many who accept the idea that there is no good or evil do so as an automatic rejection of standard religion they feel was crammed down their throat as a kid. Those who feel this way often accept alternative new age and eastern thought without first sifting it through the mind, applying good judgment.

Here is the essence of the teaching, which is often credited to Taoism.

All things are created from duality, which manifests as the yin and yang, light and dark, good and evil, positive and negative, male and female, hot and cold, up and down, etc. But in between the two extremes of duality, such as manifest in the wavelength, there is a point that is neither up nor down. This point existed before the universe was even manifest. It then exists during manifestation and is still there when creation disappears.

The reasoning then goes like this. Because all creation we see about us is a temporary manifestation of the Great Invisible Tao then it is all illusion. This means that all things manifested from duality do not really exist. To find the real you must find the space between the two extremes and go there in your consciousness.

Then advocates take this a step further and claim that good and evil are “two sides of the same coin” and there really isn’t any difference between the two.

This thinking can create a real problem to anyone possessed with common sense. If one believes there is no good or evil then the manifestation of that which society sees as evil is likely to cause little concern. If a new Hitler were to arise such a believer may rationalize that the guy is not evil because evil is an illusion making him no worse than a Winston Churchill. Many who incorrectly digest this philosophy therefore do not struggle for the good and fight against evil and would allow tyranny to flourish, if given the chance.

We must be open-minded here and ask – is there any truth behind this teaching? Yes, of course, there is truth behind all the teachings of the world. The key, as always, is to use good judgment and take those ingredients, which are true and put them together in a way that makes sense.

Let us look at what is true. The universe is indeed created on the principle of duality. Without the existence of positive protons and negative electrons, light and dark, heat and cold the universe indeed would not exist.

But does the universe really come from a point of nothingness? If so, how can that nothingness be acted upon to create the duality of existence? Even if the universe came from a point of nothingness you still have a duality. You have the point and then you have that force which acted upon the point causing it to vibrate into existence. That is still two things, or duality.

Let us use a guitar string to illustrate further. The string is one thing representing the foundation Tao. If we pluck it we create the illusion of three strings. If you look at the vibrating guitar string there appears to be three strings. There is one in the middle, one to the left and another to the right.

We realize that there is only one string but there is only the illusion of three strings. Now this apparent illusion of three strings from the guitar as well as the singer’s vocal chords creates some great music.

Does this mean that all music we hear is an illusion and does not really exist? Does the idea that a string is not really three, but one, mean that duality does not really exist and there is no good and evil in the universe?

Let us examine further. Yes, the guitar string is one item, but is it a line or point with no existence? No. You can touch it, pluck it or even tie up a package with it. Let us say we make the string smaller and smaller so it is thinner than a human hair. Is it still something? Yes. Now, suppose it shrinks to nothingness. Is here anything left to vibrate? No there is nothing, neither can anything act upon it. Therefore, nothing acting upon nothing does not create one string let alone the illusion of three as many believe.

Conclusion: even though the foundation of duality seems to be nothing in a state of vibration, logic tells us this cannot be the case. There is still duality. You have the invisible something as a beginning string and another something causing the string to vibrate. Our Source is not nothing, but something acting upon something.

There is some illusion within duality, but duality itself is eternal and always in play. There is that mysterious source of all substance and then the force that acts upon it. That is two things, not one.

Since duality is real then existence is real. Even when we dream we have a real experience and if life could be defined as a dream we are still having a real experience based upon a real foundation of duality.

This means that good and evil is not pure illusion but is based in reality. However, in order to correctly judge good and evil we must first understand what it is. We will cover this next.

Easy Access to all the Writings

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

Is Abortion Murder?

April 24, 2014 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 43 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Forty-Four

Is Abortion Murder?

In Genesis it is written:

“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Genesis 2:7

Pro choice supporters take this to support the idea that life begins at birth when the baby takes its first breath. Before that first breath they see little if anything wrong with destroying the fetus.

On the other hand, most pro lifers see the baby in the womb as a living entity. Many believe it qualifies as a human life from the point of conception. Others think it surely qualifies shortly after conception, for after a few weeks it develops a heartbeat and human features – and definitely moves around as a living being.

It is difficult to prove which side the Bible supports, for there is little in there to prove it one way or another. Those who are pro life mainly use pictures and videos of the fetus to make their case that the fetus is alive, rather than arguing from the Bible.

Now the Bible is clear on one thing. It says, “Thou shalt not kill.” The laws of all nations on earth agree with this and make it illegal for an individual to kill another human after he draws his first breath.

But the big question is this. Is it murder to destroy a fetus?

To determine the seriousness of abortion it is necessary to know when human life begins. Does it begin at the first breath, or the first movement, the first heartbeat or what? Obviously some type of life animates the fetus, but is this just an extension of the mother’s life or an entirely separate and distinct life?

Unfortunately the scriptures do not provide an answer on this and neither does current science. To find it we must look beyond the normal avenues to the “raincloud of knowable things.” Here is an answer that you can run by your own soul and judge for yourself.

The first thing that needs to be understood to accurately survey the situation is that reincarnation is a fact and we live many lives. In between lives we live in what is commonly called the spirit world. When the time comes for an entity to be born again he will often choose his parents some time before conception will occur. He or she may establish a spiritual link with the mother before conception, at conception or some time after conception. After the link is established he begins to pour part of his life essence into the fetus.

The fetus is animated by three sources. First, as an extension of the life of the mother; secondly, it draws from the universal life of God. Finally, it draws from the connecting life link of the entity who will soon occupy the body.

As the fetus develops the designated entity places more of its consciousness into it. Then at birth when the first breath is taken the consciousness becomes anchored in the body.

But, that is not the whole story. Even after birth the entity is not fully conscious in the body. A part of his consciousness is in the body and another part is still in the world of spirits. Let’s face it, it is pretty boring to be a baby and it would be uncomfortable for a fully conscious person to have to live through the first few years being so helpless and dependent on others. The entity is connected to the baby by a life thread and controls it from a distance. For 6 to 8 years he pours his consciousness into the body until be becomes self-aware. Usually around seven years of age, when he sees himself as a distinct human being and is fully aware of his actions his consciousness allocated to the new life becomes fully encased in the body until death occurs.

That said, let us get back to the main question. Is abortion murder?

Answer: Abortion of a fetus is not as serious of a moral crime as the murder of a breathing human being, but the act is usually the wrong thing to do and has negative consequences. Often the abortion frustrates the plan of the entity linked to the body. Sometimes the birth situation was exactly what he needed to right some wrongs from a previous life and he is very upset at the abortion. Then there are other times that the entity isn’t that upset and is happy to go back to the spirit world to wait for another turn at life.

And this piece of knowledge is key. That is, we have more than one shot at life. An abortion does not frustrate the plan of God and prevent a person from mortal life for all eternity. Instead, abortion merely delays the entity’s plans.

So, as usual, the answer is between the two extremes. Abortion is not in the same league as cold-blooded murder on one hand, and neither is it without consequences on the other.

Easy Access to all the Writings

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 3

April 22, 2014 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 4 of 33 in the series 2014

Feb 9, 2014
Avatars
Ruth asks: When DK says this:

“Such a man was Abraham Lincoln, coming forth from the very soul of a people, ”

What exactly does this mean?

Actually, DK wasn’t the first to say something like this. Many who have written about Lincoln have commented that the man seemed to come from the soul of America, or to represent the essence of the American spirit or the ideal.

Now this does not mean that the actual entity who was Lincoln was created by the soul of the people. What it does mean is that the soul of the people called an entity like this to come forth.

The entity who was Lincoln took on the rays and essential energies necessary to fulfill his mission as a racial avatar.

A thing that is not understood by many is how we as individual entities can take on different personalities as we move from life to life. This does not mean we become different people but we come under different influences.

Think of how different you act when you are in a state of joy compared to pain, in a good relationship vs a bad one, under a lot of pressure compared to having the wind at your back. Even so, in different lifetimes we are under different ray influences, different circumstances and different types of associates.

Lincoln is this referred to as coming from the soul of the people because this entity was sensitive to the group soul of the people, responded to it and subjected himself to the influences necessary to carry out a mission to benefit the group soul.

Feb 11, 2014
Giants in America
Here’s an interesting video on Giants in Ancient America.

Feb 16, 2014
Plural Marriage
Larry woods writes:
1) If John Taylor, Joseph Smith, and Jesus support polygamy, does it still serve a legitimate purpose today?

2) If Lorin’s record about this is wrong, then does this also invalidate the included prophecy about the one mighty and strong?

JJ
I wouldn’t guarantee that Jesus would support polygamy though I don’t see any big sin in it as long as it is done through no violation of free will. I think that a polygamous marriage would be much more difficult to bring balance than a one to one relationship.

Unfortunately, most polygamous marriages materialize because those involved think that this is what God wants them to do rather than considering what they need to do for their own happiness.

Lorin and others had a strong motive to create a version of the vision that agreed with their mindset so they could head up the kingdom. John Taylor may or may not of said the words attributed to him and if he did they may or may not have been correct. This is why it is so important to rely upon your own soul and not to do anything that will affect your life without inner confirmation.

Feb 20, 2014
Karma
Joan asks:
Every soul must incur many lifetimes in order to “perfect” himself (is what I am gathering from your posts and books). But does that mean we have to go through more suffering and repentance due to these sins in our collective history, in order for the waking up (and/or healing) process to manifest TODAY? or can we find ourselves in an instant ‘state of bliss’ by right thinking and manifest all that is good, due to not “identifying” with the past, and the suffering and darkness back then or even in our lives today?

JJ
All negative karma must be paid off, but there are two ways to do it. The first is through suffering. This requires a long period of time and it is not a fun thing to do.

The second is through service and this can be quite joyful.

No matter how much karma a person has he can through free will take a step toward the light and feel the joy of higher contact and of moving forward. It is not always immediate but it will come.

By the way, your website and artwork look great. Thanks for sharing.

You can read more about karma HERE

Feb 23, 2014
Can Karma Be Neutralized?
LWK writes:
I also wonder if the idea of exact repayment is somewhat off the mark too.

Something about forgiveness of sins, and by that I mean explicitly the possibility of the effects of sin being taken away, seems to be a part of the message of Jesus. Now I agree with you that the modern, most likely distorted message, of the church today is probably not exactly what was meant.

You mention in the quote above the Lords of Karma. Is it not possible that part of their job is not to just make sure that every cause is neutralized by an opposite and equal cause, but perhaps the very real possibility of neutralizing the effects when the effects have served their purpose, regardless of a mathematical accounting of cause and effect?

I don’t claim to know the answer, but it seems like an interesting idea that Jesus was indeed teaching the possibility, under some circumstances, of sins truly being forgiven in the sense of not always having to pay off the “last farthing.”

JJ
Good comments. Let us explore this a bit. First of all when the scriptures speak of forgiveness of sin what do they really mean?

Forgiveness in the Bible is translated from the Greek APHIEMI. The trouble is that this word does not mean forgiveness as we understand the word today, even though it seems to, when it is used in connection with the forgiveness of sins. But unknown to most the real meaning of the word is difficult to decipher and is translated a number of different ways. Here are some verses where the word APHIEMI is used

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:8 For LAYING ASIDE (APHIEMI) the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Matt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have FORSAKEN (APHIEMI) all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

Matt 19:29 And every one that hath FORSAKEN (APHIEMI) houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

John 14:18 I will not LEAVE (APHIEMI) you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 14:27 Peace I LEAVE (APHIEMI) with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I LEAVE (APHIEMI) the world, and go to the Father.

Matt 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, YIELDED UP (APHIEMI) the ghost.

Now if you substitute the modern word forgiveness in each of the above cases you will see that it just does not make consistent sense. For instance, in Mark 7:8 do we forgive the commandment of God? Or in Matt 27:50 did Jesus forgive the ghost when he seemed to die?

If you go through the New Testament and examine all the places where APHIEMI is used you will see that the most consistent meaning of the word is “to give up, let go, yield or release.”

Now in this light let us retranslate the Biblical term “forgiveness of sins.” A much more accurate translation would be “the letting go or giving up of error.”

The error that Jesus released the people from was guilt. When the scripture speaks of sin as if it was he cause of disease, what was really connected with it was guilt. When forgiveness of sin seemed to be the healing factor what happened was that the person affected saw God as working in Jesus so he saw his words as coming from God. This gave Jesus power to release various people from guilt.

On the other hand, forgiveness by any definition does not release one from effects. The law of cause and effect is binding upon all, even God.

The Aquarian Gospel presents the disciples as wondering about cause and effect as have you.

Chapter 138
THE Lord with Peter, James and John were in Jerusalem; it was the Sabbath day.
2 And as they walked along the way they saw a man who could not see; he had been blind from birth.
3 And Peter said, Lord, if disease and imperfections all are caused by sin, who was the sinner in this case? the parents or the man himself?
4 And Jesus said, Afflictions all are partial payments on a debt, or debts, that have been made.
5 There is a law of recompense that never fails, and it is summarised in that true rule of life:
6 Whatsoever man shall do to any other man some other man will do to him.
7 In this we find the meaning of the Jewish law, expressed concisely in the words, Tooth for a tooth; life for a life.
8 He who shall injure any one in thought, or word, or deed, is judged a debtor to the law, and some one else shall, likewise, injure him in thought, or word or deed.
9 And he who shed the blood of any man will come upon the time when his blood shall be shed by man.
10 Affliction is a prison cell in which a man must stay until he pays his debts unless a master sets him free that he may have a better chance to pay his debts.
11 Affliction is a certain sign that one has debts to pay.
12 Behold this man! Once in another life he was a cruel man, and in a cruel way destroyed the eyes of one, a fellow man.
13 The parents of this man once turned their faces on a blind and helpless man, and drove him from their door.
14 Then Peter asked, Do we pay off the debts of other men when by the Word we heal them, drive the unclean spirits out, or rescue them from any form of sore distress?
15 And Jesus said, We cannot pay the debts of any man, but by the Word we may release a man from his afflictions and distress,
16 And make him free, that he may pay the debts he owes, by giving up his life in willing sacrifice for men, or other living things.
17 Behold, we may make free this man that he may better serve the race and pay his debts.
18 Then Jesus called the man and said, Would you be free? would you receive your sight?
19 The man replied, All that I have would I most freely give if I could see.
20 And Jesus took saliva and a bit of clay and make a salve, and put it on the blind man’s eyes.
21 He spoke the Word and then he said, Go to Siloam and wash, and as you wash say, Jahhevahe. This do for seven times and you shall see.
22 The man was led unto Siloam; he washed his eyes and spoke the word, and instantly his eyes were opened and he saw.

Here we see that the man was healed but still had a debt, but it wasn’t to be paid in kind: “Behold, we may make free this man that he may better serve the race and pay his debts.”

But what happens if we just decide to forgive a debt? Is all neutralized? Take a look at this parable:

Matt 18:23″The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date. 24In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him $10 million! 25He couldn’t pay, so the king ordered him sold for the debt, also his wife and children and everything he had.
26″But the man fell down before the king, his face in the dust, and said, ‘Oh, sir, be patient with me and I will pay it all.’
27″Then the king was filled with pity for him and released him and forgave his debt.
28″But when the man left the king, he went to a man who owed him $2,000 and grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment.
29″The man fell down before him and begged him to give him a little time. ‘Be patient and I will pay it,’ he pled.
30″But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and jailed until the debt would be paid in full.
31″Then the man’s friends went to the king and told him what had happened. 32And the king called before him the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil-hearted wretch! Here I forgave you all that tremendous debt, just because you asked me to 33 shouldn’t you have mercy on others, just as I had mercy on you?’
34″Then the angry king sent the man to the torture chamber until he had paid every last penny due. 35So shall my heavenly Father do to you if you refuse to truly forgive your brothers.” (From the Living Bible)

Notice that after the man had his debt forgiven that he had an opportunity to pay off part of his karma by doing the same thing. But because he refused to cooperate with taking the easy way out he was forced to pay his debt the hard way.

Let us say that a man steals $100 from you and you discover it and confront him. He admits to the crime but says he doesn’t have the money to repay you. You decide to forgive him if he promises to not do it again.

Is the effect of the crime neutralized?

First of all you are still out $100. Your forgiveness did nothing to change that. Secondly, just like the man in the parable, the thief will be given opportunities to forgive others who have wronged him. If he cooperates the debt will be paid the easy way. If he acts contrary to the cause you passed to him with your forgiveness then he will have to pay the hard way. The punishment may not come from your hand but it will come from someone who will carry it out.

Learning our lessons diminishes the effect of karma and allows us to pay it off through serving and helping others rather than undergoing lots of personal pain.

Feb 24, 2014
Questions
Joan asks:
Should we not attempt to understand it (irritation)? Should we not “feel the feelings” and examine what is at the root cause of the irritation– so we don’t repress it and end up producing an even bigger shadow?…Will this help to pay off the “karma of irritation” or am I wasting time? Should I throw away the guilt and try to just “shift my attention”?

JJ
Negative feelings should never be suppressed or denied but must be understood, dealt with and sent to their right place. Denial and suppression gives the negative feelings power to diminish your physical and spiritual energy and can lead to disease.

If someone irritates you then you must learn how to neutralize this negative emotion without injuring yourself.

What I do is to use the Lion Principle. If you get in a cage with a lion he will most likely do you a lot of damage and this could be very irritating. When looking at the caged lion you know he can kill you but you do not get irritated at his behavior. Why.

Because he’s a lion and that is his nature and there is nothing you can do about it. If you do not accept the lion for what he is you could be irritated all the time.

Even so, irritating people are what they are whether they are in our lives or not. If we let them get to us then that is like entering the cage with the lion. Keep your emotional distance and realize that they just are what they are and there is generally nothing you can do to change them.

If I find another person irritating or obnoxious I take the vantage point of the observer so they rarely affect my emotional body no matter what they do. Then I make no effort to include them in my life.

Irritation and guilt are two different things. You can suffer some irritation without having any guilt associated with it. Guilt is cause by the illusion that an outside voice represents God and you are making God unhappy with you.

Ruth:
I am amazed and impressed that JJ types so well, considering he only has one working hand with all the fingers attached.

Or does Artie do the typing?

JJ
If I had to depend on Artie to type for me you wouldn’t be hearing much from me.

I do all my own typing using my one good hand. The biggest disadvantage is I have to look at the keyboard and do not catch mistakes on the screen as I type. My first draft always has a lot of typos.

I’ve tried dictation software in the past but it wasn’t any faster than my typing after I made the adjustments. I haven’t tried the latest version and realize they are improving so maybe the next time I try it my typing speed will increase.

Ruth wants to know if we have to take emotional abuse from our kids or just let them go and find their own way.

When kids become adults the good and bad they get from parents is pretty much ingrained and creating change is difficult at that point. You need to let them go as much as possible. On the other hand, if they need help and you see that you can offer help then as a parent you feel an obligation to do what you can. There is no easy solution to assisting a difficult child.

An interesting point is this. Our children often come as packages to teach us lessons and one of the main things they reflect back to us are things inside ourselves that we suppress or deny.

Let us say, for instance, that you do not stand up for yourself. You may wind up with a child who stands up for herself so much that you find her difficult to manage and dealing with her takes a lot of your attention.

Let us say you are very judgmental toward gays. You may wind up with a kid who is gay etc.

Ruth asks if we have to take emotional abuse from our kids?

Answer: Anyone can dish out emotional abuse and each of us needs to neutralize it whatever the source may be. Family members take the most wisdom here because you just can’t always snap your fingers and get them out of your lives. If you have to deal with negativity the Lion Principle is one good ingredient to use.

If you find that certain people are in your life and causing you grief over a period of time then there is probably a past life connection and a lesson involved where you need to learn to either deal with the situation or master it.

Ruth:
I seem to be going through a really unstable time at the moment, so I try to view this hard time as a karmic lesson for me because of mistakes I made in the past.

JJ
You can’t do anything about the past, but you can make a difference in the present. Seek to know what you can do to improve your situation right now. It would be helpful to visit a counselor or third party with your girls and after both of you give your side to the story see what advice an impartial observer would have.

Feb 26, 2014
Origin of the Book of Mormon

Jason sent me an interesting link on a new study concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon. You can check it out HERE.

The video is over an hour so if you want to read a blog on it go HERE

The guy repeats a lot of what critics in the past have said but then adds a new item of research. Since the Book of Mormon was published in 1830 he decided to run all the published works available before that time (over 130,000) through a computer program and compare it to the book of Mormon and check for similarity of writing mode.

I watched the video and read several articles on this and found several points where he presents reasonable evidence such as anachronisms, like steel, wheels, European animals etc. This point is a good one and has been made many times before.

I don’t see the fact that some phraseology, names etc are similar to other books as giving much weight to the argument against the book. If he were translating a book written in symbolic language then he would have to make the translation using words and phrases that he is familiar with. Since we know he read the Bible then naturally we would expect some similarities there as well as other books he may have read. One can also expect to see some similarities with books that he has not read – just because of natural coincidence.

I can’t find any direct evidence of plagiarism. Real plagiarism involves line by line copying or at least copying close enough that it would be obvious even to believers. Natural similarities occur with all books. You would be surprised at how many people have written me thinking I got my ideas from books that I have never heard of – or that my writing style is similar etc. Then when I check them out I just don’t see what they are talking about.

As far as the Book of Mormon copying mistakes in the Bible goes I will say this, many of the supposed errors are not agreed upon by scholars.

Secondly, the copying of the Bible was not a translation but merely a copying of the Bible because it was close enough. For instance, the scholar Dan Vogle gives evidence that Joseph Smith was out of town when Isaiah was written for the Book of Mormon. He thinks that Oliver just copied it from the Bible and when Joseph returned he merely checked it over.

I have no problem with that. I may have done the same thing if I were translating an actual record with Isaiah in it.

As for New Testament phrases – I have no problem with them. If the phrase fit the thought then why not use it? If I were to translate Plato I would use lots of modern phases that Plato did not have available.

Now it looks like Joseph Smith did lie about polygamy. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. If he deceived about one thing ten the probability of finding deception in another is high.

If the Book of Mormon is a fabrication of a mortal man then it would have had to have been Joseph who authored it. No one else he associated with was capable of it.

If it is a total fabrication written by him then I would consider this to be a greater miracle than the actual story presented. All that he pulled off would be very difficult to do, such as writing a book that fooled millions of people, predicting witnesses to the plates and then manifesting them, and convincing a number of scribes that he was translating from the plates live.

His mother said that he didn’t read as much as the rest of the family, that about all he read was the Bible, yet if the critics are right he must have been extremely well read at the age of 23.

Other books of supernatural origin had a much simpler origin. Books such as the Koran, A Course in Miracles, Urantia and Oaspe were merely channeled from the unseen world. All the author had to do was write the message down and present it to the world as inspired.

The Book of Mormon origin is much more complex and if one of its ingredients is definitely proven false the whole thing falls apart. Here are some.

(1) An angel gives Joseph the golden plates.
(2) 11 witnesses claim to have seen the plates and three of them claim to have been presented the plates by an angel.
(3) Joseph translates or produces the record by looking at a seer stone in a hat and not writing it down himself but dictating it to at least three different scribes. This would be very difficult to do if he were just making it up as he went. Much more difficult than say taking time to write A Course in Miracles.

There are numerous accounts of the witnesses to the plates that are difficult to dismiss. Here are a couple:

I was plowing in the field one morning, and Joseph [Smith] and Oliver [Cowdery] came along with a revelation stating that I was to be one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. I got over the fence and we went out into the woods, near by, and sat down on a log and talked awhile … when all at once a light came down from above us and encircled us for quite a little distance around; and the angel stood before us … dressed in white … A table was set before us and on it the records … from which the Book of Mormon was translated … While we were viewing them the voice of God spoke out of heaven saying that the Book was true and the translation correct. ‚ÄîDavid Whitmer, interview, Saints’ Herald, 1882.

In 1847, Hiram Page said: To say my mind was so treacherous that I have forgotten what I saw, to say that a man of Joseph’s ability, who at that time did not know how to pronounce the word Nephi, could write a book of six hundred pages, as correct as the book of Mormon without supernatural power . . . it would be treating the God of heaven with contempt, to deny these testimonies.
Joseph Smith the First Mormon Page 92

Here’s my best guess so far.

Joseph did have some spiritual experiences along with past life memories of life in Ancient America. He translated book through a channeling process connecting with his higher self as well as other entities that may have been assisting him. It is possible that Joseph thought the book was 100% true even though some of it was derived from illusionary thoughtforms and human error. On the other hand, some of the stories are based on actual events gathered from spiritual discernment and past life memories.

Were there really actual ancient gold plates involved or were there plates that existed on etheric levels? That is the big question. He definitely had something physical that were represented to be golden plates. Critics think he manufactured something of his own out of tin.

Hopefully, we can one day learn the outer truth. Whatever the case there are many teachings and examples of right action in the book that speak to the soul and that is why the book is accepted by millions.

More on the Origin of the Book of Mormon
Here is an except from Wikipedia of the pros and cons of the various things in the Book of Mormon that critics deem as out of place.

Old World species
Horses
A tapir – Some Mormon apologists believe that the word “horse” in the Book of Mormon refers to a tapir in order to explain the anachronism.

Horses are mentioned eleven times in the Book of Mormon in the context of its New World setting.[32] There is no evidence that horses existed on the American continent during the 2500-3000 year history of the Book of Mormon (2500 BC – 400 AD) The only evidence of horses on the American continent dates to pre-historic times,[33] (between 12,500 and 10,000 BC.[34]). It is widely accepted that horses were extinct in the Western Hemisphere over 10,000 years ago and did not reappear there until the Spaniards brought them from Europe.[35] Horses were re-introduced to the Americas (Caribbean) by Christopher Columbus in 1493[36] and to the American continent by Cort√©s in 1519.[37][38]
See also: Quaternary extinction event

Mormon apologists argue the following to deal with this supposed anachronism:

Mormon apologist John L. Sorenson at FARMS claims that there is fossil evidence that some New World horses may have survived the Pleistocene‚ÄìHolocene transition,[39] though these findings are disputed by mainstream archaeologists.[40]
Mormon apologist Robert R. Bennett suggests that the word “horse” in the Book of Mormon may have referred to a different animal, such as a tapir.[41]

Elephants
Mastodons existed in the Americas, but are known to have gone extinct by 10,000 B.C.

Elephants are mentioned twice in a single verse in the earliest Book of Mormon record, the Book of Ether.[42] Mastodons and mammoths lived long ago in the New World; however, as with the prehistoric horse, the archaeological record indicates that they became extinct along with most of the megafauna in the New World around 10,000 BC. The source of this extinction is speculated to be the result of human predation, a significant climate change, or a combination of both factors.[43][44] A very small population of mammoths survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 3700 BC,[45] but is still several thousand years before the time period where “elephants” are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
See also: Quaternary extinction event

Apologists deal with the “elephant” in much the same way as they treat the “horse” anachronism; countering with the following arguments:

Various amateur archaeologists and LDS authors have cited controversial evidence that North American mound builder cultures were familiar with the elephant.[46] This evidence has long been a topic of debate with most archaeologists concluding that the elephantine remains were improperly dated, misidentified, or openly fraudulent.[47]

Cattle and cows
Llamas are the only large mammal known to have been domesticated in the Americas.

There are six references to cattle made in the Book of Mormon, including verbiage suggesting they were domesticated.[48] While the Book of Mormon may follow the common Biblical precedent of referring to all domesticated animals as cattle,[49] there is no evidence that Old World cattle (members of the genus Bos) inhabited the New World prior to European contact in the 16th century AD. Further, there is currently no archeological evidence of American bison having been domesticated.[50] It is widely accepted that the only large mammal to be domesticated in the Americas was the llama and that no species of goats, deer, or sheep were domesticated before the arrival of the Europeans to the continent.