Keys Writings 2014, Part 3

This entry is part 4 of 33 in the series 2014

Feb 9, 2014
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?

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
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?

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.”

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
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”?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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
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 Р400 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 Cortés 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–Holocene 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]

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.

Mormon apologists argue the following to deal with this anachronism:

Some Mormon apologists believe that the term “cattle,” as used in the Book of Mormon is more general and does not exclusively mean members of the genus Bos. Thus, they claim the term “cattle” may refer to mountain goats; llamas; or the ancestor of the American bison, Bison antiquus (of the sub family Bovinae).[51]


“Sheep” are mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being raised in the Americas by the Jaredites between 2500 BC and 600 BC. Another verse mentions “lamb-skin” worn by armies of robbers(~ AD 21) [52] However, Domestic sheep are known to have been first introduced to the Americas during the second voyage of Columbus in 1493.

Mormon apologists argue the following to deal with this anachronism:

One apologist claims that sheep wool has been found in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica[53] This is disputed by mainstream archaeologists.[citation needed]
Some suggest that the word “sheep” may refer to another species of animal that resembled sheep such as Big horn sheep or llamas.[54] Critics point out that Big horn sheep have never been domesticated by humans.

Brocket deer – Some LDS apologists believe that “goat” in the Book of Mormon refers to brocket deer in order to explain the apparent anachronism.

Goats are mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon[55] placing them among the Nephites and the Jaredites (i.e. between 2500 BC and 400 AD). In two of the verses, “goats” are distinguished from “wild goats” indicating that there were at least two varieties, one of them possibly domesticated or tamed.

Domestic goats are known to have been introduced on the American continent by Europeans in the 15th century,[citation needed] 1000 years after the conclusion of the Book of Mormon, and nearly 2000 years after goats are last mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The aggressive mountain goat is indigenous to North America. There is no evidence that it was ever domesticated.

Mormon apologists argue the following to deal with this anachronism:

Apologist Matthew Roper of FARMS points out that 16th-century Spanish friars used the word “goat” to refer to native Mesoamerican brocket deer.[56]


The Book of Mormon suggests that swine existed and were domesticated among the Jaredites.[57] There have not been any remains, references, artwork, tools, or any other evidence suggesting that swine were ever present in the pre-entrada New World.

Mormon apologists argue the following to deal with this anachronism:

Some apologists argue that the word “swine” refers to Peccaries[58] (also known as Javelinas), an animal that bears a superficial resemblance to pigs.
Critics rebut that there is no archeological evidence that peccaries have ever been domesticated.[59]

Barley and wheat
Wheat was domesticated in the Old World and was introduced on the American continent by Europeans.

“Barley” is mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon narrative dating to the 1st and 2nd century BC.[60] “Wheat” is mentioned once in the Book of Mormon narrative dating to the same time period.[61] The introduction of domesticated modern barley and wheat to the New World was made by Europeans after 1492, many centuries after the time in which the Book of Mormon is set.[citation needed]

Mormon apologists argue the following to deal with this anachronism:

FARMS apologist Robert Bennett argues[62] that the words “barley” and “wheat” in the Book of Mormon may actually be referring to other crops in the Americas, such as Hordeum pusillum[63] (though Hordeum pusillum was unknown in Mesoamerica and only found to be domesticated in North America).
Bennett also postulates that words may refer to genuine varieties of New World barley and wheat, which are as yet undiscovered in the archaeological record.

Additionally, apologists such as Robert R. Bennett also note that the Norse, after reaching North America, claimed to have found what they called “self-sown wheat”.[64]

Critics[citation needed] reject the notion that Hordeum pusillum was the “barley” referred to in the Book of Mormon. They also note that the earliest mention of barley in the Book of Mormon dates to 121 BC.[65] which is several hundred years prior to the date given for the recent discovery of domesticated Hordeum pusillum in North America.

The Book of Mormon mentions the use of silk six times.[66] “Silk” is commonly understood to mean the material that is created from the cocoon of the Asian moth Bombyx mori.

Apologists argue the following to deal with this anachronism:

Mormon apologist John Sorenson believes that there are several other materials which were used in Mesoamerica anciently which could be the “silk” referred to in the Book of Mormon, including material spun from the hair of rabbit’s bellies, the pods of the ceiba tree, or an unidentified wild silkworm.[67][68]

Old World artifacts and products
Chariots or wheeled vehicles
Chariots depicted in a Mesopotamian relief circa 2500 B.C. Evidence of wheeled vehicles has not been found in the Americas.

The Book of Mormon contains two accounts of chariots being used in the New World.[69]

Critics argue that there is no archaeological evidence to support the use of wheeled vehicles in Mesoamerica, especially since many parts of ancient Mesoamerica were not suitable for wheeled transport. Clark Wissler, the Curator of Ethnography at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, noted:

“…we see that the prevailing mode of land transport in the New World was by human carrier. The wheel was unknown in pre-Columbian times.”[70]

A comparison of the South American Inca civilization to Mesoamerican civilizations shows the same lack of wheeled vehicles. Although the Incas used a vast network of paved roads (see Inca road system), these roads are so rough, steep, and narrow that they appear to be unsuitable for wheeled use. Bridges that the Inca people built, and even continue to use and maintain today in some remote areas, are straw-rope bridges so narrow (about 2–3 feet wide) that no wheeled vehicle can fit (see image and technology at Inca rope bridges). Inca roads were used mainly by chaski message runners and llama caravans.

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

One apologist has suggested that the chariots mentioned in the Book of Mormon might refer to mythic or cultic wheeled vehicles.[71]
Some apologists point out that pre-Columbian wheeled toys have been found in Mesoamerica indicating that the wheel was known by ancient American peoples.[72][73]
One LDS apologist argues that few chariot fragments have been found in the Middle East dating to Biblical times (apart from the disassembled chariots found in Tutankhamun’s tomb), and therefore wheeled chariots did exist in ancient America and it is not unreasonable that archaeologists have not discovered any evidence of them.[74]
Critics counter that although few fragments of chariots have been found in the Middle East, there are many images of ancient chariots on pottery and frescoes and in many sculptures of Mediterranean origin, thus confirming their existence in those societies. The absence of these images among pre-Columbian artwork found in the New World, they state, does not support the existence of Old World–style chariots in the New World.
Finally, one apologist speculates that the word “chariot” in the Book of Mormon may refer to a non-wheeled vehicle.[75]

Iron and steel
Aztec warriors brandishing maquahuitl, which are made of stone. From the 16th century Florentine Codex, Vol. IX.

Steel and iron are mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon.[76] No evidence has been found in North, Central, or South America of iron being hardened anciently to make “steel”.

Though researchers have shown that primitive metallurgy existed in South America, metal production was only used for adornment purposes. The very earliest metal working there dates to 200 AD with the Moche culture[original research?].[citation needed] This dates thousands of years after the Jaredite civilization is alleged to have existed and 800 years after the alleged beginning of the Nephite civilization in the Book of Mormon. Metallurgy spread to Central America by 800 AD (long after the Book of Mormon record closes).[original research?][citation needed]

Between 2004 and 2007, a Purdue University archaeologist, Kevin J. Vaughn, discovered a 2000 year old hematite mine near Nazca, Peru. Although hematite is today mined as an iron ore, Vaughn believes that the hematite was then being mined for use as red pigment. There are also numerous excavations that included iron minerals.[77] He noted:

“Even though ancient Andean people smelted some metals, such as copper, they never smelted iron like they did in the Old World…Metals were used for a variety of tools in the Old World, such as weapons, while in the Americas, metals were used as prestige goods for the wealthy elite.”[78]

Apologists counter that the word “steel”, as used in the Book of Mormon, likely refers to a hardened metal other than iron. This argument follows from the fact that the Book of Mormon refers to certain Old World articles made of “steel”.[79] Similar “steel” articles mentioned in the King James Version of the Bible are actually hardened copper.[80] It has been amply demonstrated that much of the terminology of the English Book of Mormon, parallels the Authorized King James Bible.[81] Copper and its alloys have the ability to corrode, thus satisfying the description of “blades” which had “cankered with rust”.[citation needed] Ancient mound building cultures of North America are known to have worked copper, silver, gold and meteoric iron, although no instances of metallic blades or of deliberately alloyed (or “hardened”) copper have been uncovered from ancient North America.[82]
Metal swords, which had “rusted”

The Book of Mormon makes numerous references to swords and their use in battle.[83] When the remnants of the Jaredites’ final battle were discovered, the Book of Mormon narrative states that “the blades thereof were cankered with rust.”[84]

Apologists counter that most references to swords do not speak of the material they were made of, and that they may refer to a number of weapons such as the Macuahuitl, a “sword” made of obsidian blades that was used by the Aztecs. It was very sharp and could decapitate a man or horse.[85] However obsidian (volcanic glass), cannot rust.

Scimitars (‘Cimiters’) are mentioned about ten times in the Book of Mormon as existing hundreds of years before the term was first coined.[86] The word “cimiter” (Scimitar) is considered an anachronism since the word was never used by the Hebrews (from which the Book of Mormon peoples came) or any other civilization prior to 450 AD.[87]

The word cimiter (scimitar) has at different times referred to a long curved sword used by the Persians and Turks, a smaller curved knife similar to the kopis of the Turks, or makhaira of the Greeks.

Apologists argue the following to deal with this anachronism:

Apologists Michael R. Ash and William Hamblin postulate that the word was chosen by Joseph Smith as the closest workable English word for a short curved weapon used by the Nephites.
Full Article HERE


Feb 27, 2014
Another One Mighty and Strong

The Prophecy Keep guy mentioned Steven C Davis and referenced his site so I checked him out. Looks like we have one more guy telling us to follow him because he is the One Mighty and Strong. It would be nice if just one of these guys who make such claims would tell us to follow his mighty and strong works that are demonstrated rather than mere claims of power.

Jesus would be a good example to follow. He made no claims but just wandered into town and did some mighty works and then people began to ask, “Who is this Mighty and Strong One? Could it be the Christ?

I will give Davis credit for this though. His teachings are more interesting and in alignment with truth than most of the other Might and Strong claimers that I have encountered. I at least agree with some of the things he says. Other things, not so much.

Here are a few of the things he teaches.

Lucifer is really God’s wife who rebelled against him and was cast out of heaven. She has been deceiving the world for the past 6000 years. She and God are to incarnate 33 times each and their first incarnation was as Adam and Eve. Eve/Lucifer is responsible for the suppression of women over the millennia.

Now this latter claim makes little sense. Why would a female Lucifer promote the dominance of men over women so that women have been treated like property through the ages? You’d think she would want it the other way around.

He talks about his mission to present the original Book of Mormon before it was edited as if this is some great revelation. Actually the unedited version has been available since I have been acquainted with Mormonism.

The unedited version indicates that Jesus is both God the Father and the Son and this is a core doctrine for him.

He believes the millennium started April 6, 2000. I would guess he predicted this date and no great change occurred so he added in a 40-year grace period. But he still says that date marked the beginning of the prophesied millennium. The trouble is that it doesn’t mark any change of significance.

He believes polygamy was a mistake inspired by the female Lucifer, partly to keep females in bondage. I agree it was a mistake but why would a female Lucifer be so down on her own kind?
He thinks that Joseph Smith saw the error of polygamy just before his death and his desire to correct his mistake was part of the reason for his death. This is a possibility.

He sees the blood oaths of the temple ceremonies as a mistake as I do.

He believes in building cities of light.

If you want to check out his teachings here are two websites.

Website One

Website Two


March 3, 2014
Prophecy Guy
I have read so many “channelings” that are contradictory of each other that I find the entire concept totally ridiculous.

That’s because channelings comes from many sources just as philosophies do. just like one does not automatically rule out all philosophies (such as in the Bible) as being untrue just because they all do not agree even so channelings or any other teachings must be ran by the soul to discover if they are true.

To accept or deny something just because of an outside authority disagrees is to have the mark of he beast.

Prophecy Guy
God’s house is not a house of disorder.

And where is this house where there is no disorder? This would be a good question for the group.

Prophecy Guy
The Law of Moses remained exactly the same… it as never been cancelled or superseded…or God is a liar.

So then do you think Sabbath breakers and unruly kids should be put to death then? I know you said that it is rare today, but the scripture does not say the punishment is to be rare. It is written like it should always be executed.

Prophecy Guy
I am afraid you mix apples and oranges. Mediums peep and mutter.

Mediums don’t use The Urim and Thummim used by Abrahamic prophets and seers.

It appears that you do not know what a channeler is. It is a person who transmits information from one source to another.

There are unconscious channelers which are the traditional mediums and there are conscious channelers such as Joseph Smith, Alice A Bailey and the prophets. If you want to read some real truth and light read some of the Bailey writings.


March 3, 2014
More on Karma
There is also the word APHESIS (859) which doesn’t appear nearly as often, but looks to most often translated as “remission” as in “remission of sins.”

I searched the older archives and have yet to find a case of you discussing that word.

The core meaning of this word is “release,” so a remission of sins means to be released from error. That’s very similar to APHIEMI which means “to give up, let go, yield or release.” In fact they both come from the same root word APO.

I am not totally convinced that there is not some component of forgiveness in the message that Jesus preached and which people found so exciting at that time. Clearly Jesus healed people who apparently suffered illnesses due to their sins and also apparently Jesus in some way wiped out some consequences of their sins (although he warned the might suffer worse if they went back to their old way.

Yes, you are right Jesus wiped out the consequences of sin, which is error or illusion, but he did not alter the Law of Cause and Effect. The Law of Cause and Effect cannot be altered. Once a cause is in motion its effects can only be changed with the addition of new causes.

Let me explain further. In what religion calls sin there are two types of effects created. One is created by the action or the deed, and the other is created, not by action, but by the illusion or error in the mind of the perpetrator and the victim when he holds a grievance by not forgiving.

Let me give some examples.

Let us pick on the one the individuals that Jesus healed by forgiving his sins. What sin could have been so bad that it caused an illness and how was that illness induced? It could have been any action that the sinner thought offended God. For instance, he could have merely broken the Sabbath for the first time in his life and suffered tremendous guilt from it. The action of working on the Sabbath will not make you ill, but guilt from breaking the commandment can.

The guilt is caused by illusion or error and that is what Jesus had power to remit so the man could be healed.

BUT the effects of working on the Sabbath remain. As Jesus said “the Sabbath was made for man.” In other words, it is a principle to help us and we need to give ourselves a Sabbath of rest so we can recharge, look within and take our minds off the cares of the world.

Those who gives themselves a Sabbath of rest are better off than those who do not. Working on one Sabbath would have an effect, but it would be small, nothing compared to the error of guilt a man can suffer for thinking he is making God angry at him.

Example Two
Jim steals $1000 from his neighbor Al. Then Jim gets a bad case of the flu and Al feels bad for him and shovels he snow off his walk and then asks if there is anything else he can do while bedridden.

Al’s kindness makes Jim feel terrible and he finds himself ridden with guilt. Even after recovering from the flu the guilt bothers him more than being sick did.

Finally he confesses and also apologizes that he doesn’t have the money to pay him back. Al is one heck of a nice guy so he forgives the debt and tells Jim to do the same for someone else in the future.

This confession relieves Jim of the illusion of guilt but the effects of his theft remain. Al is still out $1000 and Jim has $1000 more than he had before. Since Al does not want to be repaid Jim must now look for opportunities to pay for that stolen $1000 in service and future forgiveness of the debts of others.

The illusion of guilt can be nullified by adding causes that will bring understanding that takes it away. Not even God can take away the effects of a cause. All God or man can do is work with cause and effect to bring about a desired end.

I would even suggest that ‘Love’ holds ‘no’ karmic contract. How can it when its purpose is Unity and Oneness? A reasonable question then would be ‘Does Love actually undermine or even heal karmic debt?’
Producing unity and oneness has nothing to do with nullifying karma. Love works with cause and effect and inspires the initiation of causes that produces good effects. If Al loves Jim even though he stole $1000 it does not nullify the effect that he is out $1000. It doesn’t matter how much Al loves, it will not make the $1000 materialize in his hand.

The benefit of love is that it inspires causes that creates constructive effects. Al’s love toward Jim will probably cause him to cease being a thief and that is a good thing. The sin is forgiven, in other words, the error is corrected.


March 4
Karma Again
lwk on karma
I can see a possibility that God has a basic law but does not require it be enforced with mathematical purity (like gravity), but rather allows that it has a purpose, and these intelligences that watch are capable of assessing the true state of a person’s soul and when true forgiveness serves a real purpose of the creator of the law.

Yes, you are on the right track here. If a person does not learn his lessons then he will have to suffer as he made others suffer so he can understand what his victims went through. But if he learns his lesson then he can pay his debt through more productive means.

Let us take Bernie Madoff for example. Through his Ponzie scheme investors lost around $18 billion with him and this has caused an untold amount of grief to many people.

He has been placed in jail for the rest of his life. This may give the victims a little satisfaction and cause him to reflect a bit on his actions, but if he had it to do all over again and could get away with it then he would probably defraud people all over again.

Let us look at a possible scenario as to a possible fate for him.

Bernie dies in prison and reborn a few years later and has not yet learned his lesson. He is still devious and still schemes to defraud. He attempts the same thing all over again but instead of getting away with it for decades he gets caught right away and sent to prison. After he gets out he creates another scam and gets sent back again. Near the end of his life he reflects on how his life is just not working and gets converted to Jesus and decides to go strait.

He dies a short time later and in his next life he is quite religious and tries to run a legitimate business with a good Christian partner. The partner has a gambling habit and withdraws all their money from the account and loses it all. Bernie is devastated and looks to the skies and says, “Why God, is this happening to me?”

He starts anew and saves a little money and invests it in get rich quick schemes. In each case the companies were fraudulent and Bernie loses all he had. Again, he looks to the skies and asks, “Why God, is this happening to me?”

Bernie goes through a couple lifetimes having extremely bad luck in trusting people. He thinks to himself, “I’ve always tried to live the good Christian life and treat people fairly but how is it that so many people betray me? It just doesn’t seem fair.” Bernie then vows to himself that he is never going to be like those evildoers who have taken advantage of him. He is going to treat people fair and square because he knows what it’s like to be betrayed and it indeed hurts.

His soul then determines that he has paid off the first stage of his karma. He’s learned what it is like to be betrayed and suffer loss because of it. He has learned his lesson. He has two things that must be made right. He has caused financial loss and lots of emotional pain and has only paid for a small portion of this. Now he must create financial benefits and cause a similar amount of good feelings and security that offset the previous bad.

In his next life he creates a successful multi billion-dollar business which gives financial security and benefits to many employees. He also gives away a lot to charity. He continues in this vein until his karma from the life as Bernie Madoff is balanced off. After this he is then able to create a surplus of good karma.

Karma is sometimes paid off with an eye for an eye, but after the lesson is learned the soul arranges for a more productive way to pay it off.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Series NavigationKeys Writings 2014, Part 2Keys Writings 2014, Part 4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *