Dear Gramps,
What is your opinion regarding Keylonta/Keylontic explanations and definitions, (the so called underlying structure of earth, planets and of what matter is created from, DNA, of consciousness, of microcosms and macrocosms interrelationship and of biological). Some of it seems to correlate with some Mormon doctrine in part, but am unsure as to the source of the Keylonta information. There are some concepts that are discussed in the BYU Farms research which seem to correlate with Keylonta.
Richard, from Farmington, Utah

Dear Richard,
There never is an end to the man-made philosophies that attempt to imitate or replace the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Each has many good points, but at the same time insinuate beliefs or practices that attempt to copy or replace the principles and practices of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no man-made philosophy that even begins to replace the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the first place, they are without Divine inspiration, in the second place they have no Divine authority to teach any eternal principal, and in the third place their philosophies are composed entirely of information gleaned from a telestial environment–the lowest of the three degrees of glory.
If one were to practice the principles of the doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ in those areas of personal awareness, self esteem and social interaction there would be absolutely no need for any other philosophies or organizations to attempt to achieve the same goals. The ultimate in personal happiness, sense of worth, and understanding of the world around us is to be had within the spirit of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Now let’s see if we can be a bit specific about the value or worth of the philosophical elements that you bring up.
Science and philosophy know NOTHING of the creation of the earth. They follow false premises and unfounded postulates to arrive at ridiculous conclusions. Tracing the history of science from the early Greeks to the present, there have been dozens of theories promoted by the scientists and accepted by the populous as being eternal truths–the facts of the history, composition and structure of matter, the earth and universe. All of these theories of past ages (and many in the not so distant past) have been thrown into the dustbin of history, and are looked on with derision today by the erudite scientists and philosophers, who believe that they have finally arrived at an understanding of the ultimate truth of the laws of nature–an exercise in completely unfounded egotism and arrogance!
To cite just one typical example of the fluid nature of man’s scientific knowledge, let’s look at the theory of light. I will be bold to say that science does not know what the phenomenon that we call light is. Sir Isaac Newton believed that light was composed of particulate matter. His mathematical explanation of light was adequate, based on that belief, to explain many of the properties of light. For instance, he could mathematically demonstrate why a stick, partially emerged in water, appeared bent at the water-air interface because the light particles were thought to travel slower in water than in air. But he was at a loss to explain the phenomenon of diffraction. However, diffraction evidence finally mounted to the point where it could no longer be denied that light was a wave phenomenon, as diffraction could be explained by waves, but not by particles. (It is interesting to note that because of Newton’s prominence as a scientific authority, the wave theory of light was held back by about a hundred years). So the particulate theory of light was finally replaced by the electromagnetic wave theory of light. Now, since a wave is a manifestation of a substance that undulates, light from the stars had to travel by undulations of some interstellar medium that could transport the light energy through space. So a name was given to that universal underlying medium: it was called the ether. That theory solved the concept of the transport of energy through space, but introduced another fundamental problem. As scientific instrumentation became sophisticated enough to measure the velocity of a light wave, it was found that the velocity was a constant. This was extremely puzzling, since the frequency of any wave is effected by the relative velocity of both the source and the observer through the medium carrying the wave.
With that understanding, a classical experiment by Michelson and Morley demonstrated that since the velocity of light was a constant, there could be no ether through which it traveled, since the stars from which the light came and the earth that carried the measuring equipment were in relative motion of one to the other. So the ether theory was swept into the dustbin, and was replaced with a theory that accepted light as a stream of particles that traveled in wave-like groupings!
A scientific philosopher, P.W. Bridgman, in his book, The Logic of Modern Physics, the Macmillan Company, 1948, p 131, says the following about the nature of light—
“The most elementary examination of what light means in terms of direct experience shows that we never experience light itself, but our experience deals only with things lighted. This fundament fact is never modified by the most complicated or refined physical experiments that have ever been devised; from the point of view of operations, light means nothing more than things lighted.”
Now, let me reveal to you what light really is!
And the light which shineth, which giveth you light [physical light], is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space– The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things (Doctrine & Covenants 88:11-13).
Light is a spiritual, celestial phenomenon, the very power of God, and as such its nature is forever beyond all the instrumentation and intellectual machinations of any being in a telestial kingdom, that cannot measure in the laboratory celestial phenomena.
So, I would leave all these organizations that attempt in any way to replace, substitute, amplify or change the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ strictly alone, and have nothing to do with them. There is nothing that they can do that cannot be done much better, and with legal authority, by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Gramps