- Keys Writings 2013, Part 1
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 2
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 3
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 4
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 5
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 6
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 7
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 8
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 9
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 10
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 11
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 12
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 13
- The Parable of Decision
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 14
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 15
- The Eyes Have it
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 16
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 17
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 18
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 19
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 20
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 21
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 22
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 23
May 27, 2013
“We may have to gather thousands before we find the 24 capable of creating the first molecule.” Link
These two statements seem conflicting.
First you say we may have to gather thousands before we find the 24 capable of creating the first molecule.
That’s not what I said. I said WE MAY HAVE TO. On the other hand, we may not. We may get lucky and create a molecule from the group we are creating here in Boise. We will sift through thousands as we already have on the internet, that’s for sure.
Then you say that all you need is 24 people capable of sustained soul contact to initiate a gathering?
A molecule would have power to initiate a gathering but a gathering may be underway before a molecule is formed.
I asked and answered this question:
“Is Susan doing the right thing in creating a gathering place on her own initiative?”
To this Ruth responded:
You and Dan seem quite defensive over Susan, considering I never implied any of the above in my past post on this.
The point I was making in my previous post in regards to the Safe Haven was not about questioning her “right or wrongness”, but more about seeing eye to eye.
From what you said it did seem necessary to make the clarification that I did and had nothing to do with being defensive. Here are your words:
“Where are the WE or group that has inner confirmation from the Spirit or the Lord that is telling them to gather at a particular “stake” of land which is approved by the Spirit?
“If it was the Safe Haven, then why hasn’t JJ moved there as well? I doubt that Susan would get inner confirmation and then JJ didn’t get inner confirmation. They both would have had inner confirmation together to call the Safe Haven, the first “stake”?
“I think the Safe Haven is a great idea, but if it is not the first stake, and there was no inner confirmation from the Spirit or Lord, then it won’t be that safe if there was an attack from an outer group of rampaging hungry hordes.
“How do WE gather, if we all get given our own separate missions?”
So you were questioning that maybe there should just be one stake designated by revelation that we all gather around or we would not be “safe” and we may not gather correctly if we have separate missions etc.
Your questions were indeed cause for me to clarify the rightness or wrongness of Susan’s project. They seemed to go beyond just seeing eye to eye. And even the eye to eye comments implied that this was perhaps not the case and something may be amiss.
As far as seeing eye to eye with Susan on her project I indeed support it completely. If I were in charge of it I’m sure some of the details would be different, but that is of no moment. At best she will create a safe haven for people in that area and at worst it will be a learning experience.
I have had no revelation on the major gathering place. At present I feel impressed to stay in Boise and create a group here. When we are ready to gather the place will be manifest.
Here is one of my favorite Mormon scriptures around individual initiative:
D&C 58:26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
D&C 58:27 Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
D&C 58:28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.
D&C 58:29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.
May 27, 2013
With which parts of his (Newton’s) teachings do you disagree?
How do you reconcile those disagreements against the consistency of detail
reported by his subjects?
I can’t say I disagree with anything that he brought forth that was verified by a number of subjects. I did disagree with some of his personal interpretations of his discoveries. For instance, he didn’t seem to think there were higher spheres, but there was evidence of them in some of his regressions.
I also do not agree with his interpretation of how people volunteer to be bad guys in life. I think the lesser evolved will see ahead – that they will do bad things in their next life but they do not do these things for the purpose of the greater good.
Is the Source God and what do you mean by the person is recycled? How does
That wasn’t from me but Mr Newton. DK does elaborate on this though and tells us that when a person denies the soul time and time again that his personality bodies are dissolved and his essence sent back to the Source to start progression all over again.
May 28, 2013
During this time of mediocre music it is nice to find some good material. Here are three selections I like from the Group “Of Monsters and Men” from Iceland. I wonder if Johann follows them.
May 28, 2013
A recent Gallup poll reveals that 54% believe the Federal government has too much power.
Thus we have a slim majority who have a spark of common sense and desire for freedom for the individual.
The mystery is that some of these obviously have voted for many of the big government politicians we see in office today including the head guy. Believe it or not 36% of Democrats feel the government has too much power.
It’s a little disturbing that two years ago this figure was 59%.
On the bright side “forty-six percent of Americans said they agreed with the statement that the federal government `poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens,'”
36% believe the government has about the right amount of power.
We have here over a third of our populace who are oblivious to the threat of big government. These are like ostriches with their heads in the sand.
The odd thing is that there are 8% of us who believe the government doesn’t have enough power. Link This 8% must be divided into two groups.
(1) Those who have a death wish.
(2) Those who aspire to political office.
Is the size of government really such a relevant issue?
When I hear people talk of smaller government, they really don’t have much more of anything valuable to say about the subject.
Not me and like minded souls. I have lots to say about it and have said lots of things that I consider extremely valuable.
Smaller in what way?
Some people who preach about smaller government prefer less power in the government only in some areas but more power in other areas or more power in institutions other than the government.
I’m definitely not your “some people.” Outside of having power to defend us I want the government smaller in every way. I’d be happy to see Congress in session less, not only making fewer laws but eliminating the useless and detrimental ones.
Perhaps the quantity of government isn’t as much of an important concern as is
the quality of government.
If government is too big then quality is a joke.
Here’s downright proof that big government trying to help us often does more harm than good. Here is a doctor who dropped out of the system propped up by government and decided to go on a cash only basis.
The results: His prices dropped by half.
Conclusion; Paperwork demanded by government increases medical costs by double. Link
Sure, you inflate the government and it will overstep its boundaries. However,
the government also becomes inflated due to incompetence. The notion that the
only solution is to slash the government is simplifying the problem. It does not
address the issue of incompetence within the government. It’s not like there are
only two choices either. This seems to me to be a very simplified,
black-and-white viewpoint mainly because there are varying ideas of what a
“small government with maximum freedom” is.
The trouble is that government is always much more incompetent than private enterprise so it is always logical to make it as small as possible so the incompetence will be reduced to the smallest possible black hole. Trying to make the government more competent is like trying to make Bernie Madoff more responsible by giving him more money.
Nathan: The board of directors has a monopoly of force on that society. What the board says goes.
lwk: Of course, I had forgotten that a board of directors of a company could issue a legal arrest warrant, bring you before a judge, force you to be tried by a jury, and then put you in jail. Of course, it is obvious, a company with a board of directors is just like government with all of its legal powers.
Nanthan is changing the definition of government in an attempt to make his point. Here are the first two main definitions of government from my online dictionary:
(1) the people who control a country, region, or city and make decisions about its laws and taxes
(2) the members of the main political party in a legislature, or the members of the cabinet (=the group of politicians with the most important jobs) in a system with a legislature. Link
According to Nathan’s use of the word even a family would have a government because the parents impose discipline on the kids.
There is a huge difference between government and administrative authority that exists in groups, corporations and businesses. Here are a few:
(1) Scope of power. Government has power over the whole. Administrative authority has power over a small portion of the whole.
(2) Escape. You cannot escape the power of government. You can move to a different city, state or even country and you still cannot escape it’s reach. It is always there and you must abide by its rules and laws.
On the other hand, if you do not like a policy that Chevron is promoting you can just drop your support and buy from Texaco. If you work for Chevron and are unhappy you can quit and sell “I Hate Chevron” Tee Shirts. You can’t quit government.
(3) Government has power to make laws which will result in fines and prison if you beak them. Administrative authority in businesses and groups have no such authority. They can make rules for the group but cannot imprison you if you break them. In some cases they can legally fire you but you can then get another jog somewhere else. On the other hand, you just can’t go out and get another country.
(4) Government has exclusive power to tax. Other organizations do not. Businesses pay you, you do not pay them. Some groups such as unions impose dues for membership, but membership provides a service for which members willingly pay. You can refuse to pay your dues at any time and drop your membership and you will have no fear of going to jail. On the other hand, much of the money that we pay for income taxes does not bring back a just return in services.
(5) One of the legitimate jobs of government is to provide a defense and security for citizens. Other organizations are very limited in this regard. What they can do is controlled by government.
(6) The government has power over the money system and issues and regulates money. If any individual or business attempts to issue legal money they will be prosecuted by government.
Conclusion: Government and private administrative power are two entirely different animals.
June 1, 2013
The Atomic Force Microscope
The Atomic Force Microscope is allowing us to see into the lives of atoms and molecules as we never have before. Check out these links.
June 3, 2013
Ruth quotes me:
The three disciples from the story were not Kumaras from Venus but a remnant from a previous earth. They probably see themselves as Ancient of Days since they are very ancient. On that earth they became Masters, but did not want to go into pralaya and be reborn into a new creation. They wanted to continue with the old creation and keep their knowledge of it.
These are not members of the Dark Brotherhood but are seeking to serve and have a disagreement with their own hierarchy as to what the most effective service will be.
Because they have cut themselves off from their own hierarchical link they have to backtrack eventually and submit to their molecular link.
Jesus obtained a vision of the higher reality that is our destiny and did not cooperate with these three and concentrated on the love aspect instead and linked with the true Ancient of days who did come from Venus. Link
And then asks:
Are these 3, from the last incarnation of Earth, and now are on this Earth, but these are not the same race as the Laggards? (Were they the Egyptian race?)
No. They were the originators of the physical Jewish race. Jesus was descended from one of them according to DK.
Which Hierarchy did the other 3 Ancient Disciples belong too, if not the Venus Hierarchy or the Saturn Hierarchy?
They belonged to a hierarchy long past from a past solar system. DK doesn’t tell us if they are seeking to building a hierarchy of their own in this system. It’s quite possible they are.
If there was an Earth Hierarchy on the previous Earth
chain, then why isn’t it still with this Earth chain, instead of the Ancient of Days stepping in? Or does the Ancient of Days work with the Earth Hierarchy – Shamballa? or the Christ’s molecule?
When a new creation appears hierarchies controlling the worlds of form are established anew. Entities gravitate to their proper place according to the degree of their intelligence.
The Ancient of Days works with all olives on earth including Christ and the Masters who are molecularly linked to Shamballa.
The laggards from the previous system are merged with us and are in the same school as the rest of humanity. Some are doing well and are on the path of discipleship where others may remain laggards for a second time.
June 3, 2013
Good dialog between lwk and Nathan. One of the problems those on the right have with arguing with those on the left is pinning down exactly what the argument is. It is often difficult to get a clear statement of belief from them. Unless the demarcation of belief is clear then the argument becomes circular and nothing gets resolved.
It is true that both sides do this to a degree, but overall the right does it much less. The philosophy of the right is usually quite clear cut and the student can generally get a good idea of where he is coming from. On the other hand, the person of the left will often make a statement that is argued with and he will then respond with, that is “not what I believe.” Then the problem is that he still doesn’t make his belief clear.
I think it would be helpful to thus clarify Nathan’s beliefs so we can effectively discuss them. Let me list what appears to be some of them and then he can correct or clarify if I am wrong.
(1) The free market system has failed us.
(2) The free market system is not fair.
(3) People do not get paid fairly in the free market system.
(4) The government has power to make employee salaries fairer.
(5) Because the market is not fair (in his opinion) the government needs to step in and use force is make it fair.
(6) This force needs to be applied so employees receive a larger distribution of the profits if it is making money but should still receive good compensation when the company is losing money.
(7) Even though starting a business involves a high degree of risk, the initiators are not entitled to high profits if they are available. The employees who are not risk takers are just as entitled to profits as the initiators.
I’m not sure if Nathan is aware of this but I have presented a plan that will create greater fairness in business, but what makes this different is it will be created through 100% free will with no government involvement or force necessary. Here are the links to The Molecular Business: Link1 Link2 Link3 Link4 Link5
Jun 4, 2013
A Familiar Voice
Just for kicks, I sometimes frequent a website www.abovetopsecret.com. Today, I started reading a thread titled “A*New* Window of Opportunity: Ask, and ye shall receive”. The thread was started by a person called “Initiate” and as I’ve read through the thread, many of his ideas were very, very familiar to what I’ve read from here (I don’t know, maybe it is you). Anyway, just thought I’d let you know. I’d be interested in knowing your thoughts on his posts (given its not you!).
Thanks for giving us this reference. One benefit we receive from group participation is that members often come across material that we would never find as individuals.
First, let me make it clear that the guy is not me. My style is much more direct.
I read through all the posts I could find written by him and here are my conclusions.
(1) He’s probably read some Bailey but I think he leans toward Theosophy even though he says he is not a theosophist. I think it is possible he has read some of my teachings as there are some similarities, but that could be coincidence.
(2) He is intelligent and obviously has done some serious study and thinking on metaphysics.
(3) He doesn’t present any new principles but does post some fairly unique information that may or may not be true.
(4) Motive. Whenever a teacher comes forward people always wonder at the motive. This guy says his motive is to do some good works to pay off karma.
Looks like he posted for a couple months and then just quit. If he wants to pay off karma he needs to do a larger labor than writing a few thousand words. He hasn’t seemed to write anything the past couple months. If he posts again it would be interesting to have a couple members here ask him some questions.
I don’t think he is the messiah by any means but he is one of the more interesting characters that has surfaced. Let us know if you come across him again.
June 5, 2013
The main question that I have after reading that thread, and really, much of the information you teach is this – How does one come to know this kind of information for oneself? I read things and it sounds reasonable and I may “like” the information and feel good about it, but it never goes farther than that. I mean at one point, Mormonism felt good and reasonable too, but I’ve lost that. I just don’t know how to take it to the next level and actually “know” something for sure. Maybe I’m not meant to, or just to lazy to put in the effort.
I’ve written quite a bit about this. There are two significant streams that may help. The first is my teachings on soul contact. If you go to freeread.com and use the search feature and type in soul contact all kinds of things will come up. I recently posted an audio of a class I gave on the subject. You can find it here:
We spent quite a bit of time covering 23 Principles of Discovery. I’m thinking of covering them in greater depth and perhaps expanding upon them. Meanwhile here is what we did cover:
1. Take the things you know (for reasonable surety) to be true and use them as a foundation or stepping stones for testing additional truths.
2. Be willing to let these foundation beliefs be either altered or dropped as some of them are replaced by higher vision.
3. The teaching should be in harmony with common sense.
4. It should increase the power of Decision and free will.
5. It should bring you to a new level of awareness and usefulness.
6. Seek out true sources of knowledge, study and incorporate them into your life. Knowledge dispels error and illusion.
7. Gather all the reliable information you can about a subject of interest and try and see the principles suggested by the data. Then draw conclusions and run the conclusions by your soul and see if you receive a response.
8. Follow all the aspects of the Will of God that are within your perception and your sensitivity to the truth will increase.
9. The Process of Elimination. Eliminate those things that are definitely not true and contemplate on that which remains.
10. Effective Communication. Communication through perception of the outside world; Person to person communication, and communication through the soul.
11. Truth is in harmony with spiritual principles; therefore we discover that which is true through the application of those principles.
12. The principle of planting and harvesting.
13. The Law of Correspondences. The principle behind it is “as above so below,” and visa versa.
14. Take that belief which is embraced by the world and look in the opposite direction. In this opposite direction much truth lies hidden.
15. Discernment. In particular the disciple should seek the power to discern beyond physical seeing so he can see the difference in effects from the astral/emotional world and the world of the soul.
16. Seek proven authorities and learn from them.
17. Put your attention on finding that which is true rather than that which is in error.
18. Faith in the Dominating Good — or a belief that God is good.
19. Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened – Ask and you shall receive.
20. Plant a seed thought in your mind and heart, and feed this thought with contemplation and meditation. Observe the fruit that comes forth, and accept that which is sweet and registers with your soul.
21. Understand and develop the principle of intuition through which quantums of truth can be downloaded into your mind and understood by the heart.
22. The Pendulum Principle.
23. Since the soul is the door to all true principles, the seeker must learn to recognize the higher spiritual vibrations and differentiate them from the lower.
The ‘small quiet voice’ is not a voice at all and it does not speak any verbal
words. I’m beginning to believe the phrase is very misleading.
The phrase should say: ‘a small quite impression’ or ‘ a small quite thought
impression’ that communicates an idea or concept. The soul has no voice and
speaks no physical language. If you hear a small quiet voice in your head that
speaks a physical language; then it is not the soul.
Good point Keith and you are technically correct. However, that “quiet impression’ is often translated into words by our mental facilities and this sometimes comes across as a quiet voice.
The problem is that “still small voice” has a better ring to it than “quiet impression.”
June 5, 2013
Article on the IRS Scandall LINK
June 6, 2013
Oliver & Joseph
Joseph Smith did not excommunicate Oliver, but a High Council did. As this was going on Joseph was in the middle of the Kirkland bank collapse and he and Brigham were occupied with saving their own lives from angry members.
Later on Joseph invited Oliver back into the church but he did not come until right after Joseph’s death. He then sought for a leadership position since he was the “Second Elder.” but nothing significant was offered him. He died a few years later.
Did Oliver and Joseph have a big fight?
If so, what about?
I think that Oliver believed that JS was involved in sexual immorality.
The more law the less justice.
It is interesting that Oliver was also accused of early polygamy, but is one of those things that can’t be proven one way or another. Here’s an article on it.
Historians have different views regarding the possibility that Oliver Cowdery was ever involved in unauthorized plural marriage during the period of his close association with Joseph Smith (182938). Danel Bachman wrote, “Before the close of the Kirtland period, Smith and Cowdery both began polygamous households.” Glen M. Leonard, author of Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, a People of Promise, penned: “In Kirtland, Oliver Cowdery knew of the revelation on marriage but was denied permission to take a plural wife. He proceeded anyway and engaged in an illicit relationship.” A close look demonstrates that assessments such as these are not based on any contemporary evidence.
Several nineteenth-century Church leaders accused Oliver Cowdery of either unauthorized polygamy or adultery. It appears that the first mention was by President Brigham Young in 1857, some twenty-five years after the alleged events. On August 26, Elder Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal: “President Young stayed three-plus hours in compiling his history. He remarked that the revelation upon a plurality of wives was given to Joseph Smith. He revealed it to Oliver Cowdery alone upon the solemn pledge that he would not reveal it or act upon it. But he did act upon it in a secret manner and that was the cause of his overthrow.” In 1872, President Young also reportedly taught:
While Joseph and Oliver were translating the Book of Mormon, they had a revelation that the order of Patriarchal Marriage and sealing was right. Oliver said unto Joseph, “Brother Joseph, why don’t we go into the order of polygamy, and practice it as the ancients did? We know it is true, then why delay?” Joseph’s reply was “I know that we know it is true, and from God, but the time has not yet come.” This did not seem to suit Oliver, who expressed a determination to go into the order of plural marriage anyhow, although he was ignorant of the order and pattern and the results. Joseph Said, “Oliver if you go into this thing it is not with my faith or consent.” Disregarding the counsel of Joseph, Oliver Cowdery took to wife Miss Annie Lyman, cousin to George A. Smith. From that time he went into darkness and lost the spirit.
This report is problematic in several ways. Numerous participants date Joseph Smith’s first awareness of the appropriateness of plural marriage to 1831. Available evidence indicates that this realization resulted from the New Translation of the Bible rather than the Book of Mormon, likely while Sidney Rigdon was serving as scribe.
Full article HERE
Copyright by J J Dewey 2013
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE