Keys Writings 2014, Part 3

This entry is part 4 of 33 in the series 2014

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.