Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Search for a word within this document – use the  Ctrl + F keys  on your keyboard.

Leave a suggestion or comment >CLICK HERE<. 

NET-PMG #31, The “When does a mortal life begin?” debate, The sovereignty of human will

2022-05-16, New Era Transitions Planetary Manager’s Group #31, Machiventa

Planetary Manager’s Group #31– (Find this and previous PMG’s at:

Machiventa Melchizedek, Planetary Manager



The “When does a mortal life begin?” debate I

The sovereignty of human will

The “When does a mortal life begin?” debate II

Epigenetics and the Urantian experiment

Positioning for structural changes today

The arc of our discussion today

A healing discussion process

I stand at the door and knock

TR:  Daniel Raphael, PhD

Invocation: JT


The “When does a mortal life begin?” debate I

Machiventa: Good morning. This is Machiventa Melchizedek, your planetary manager, and it is our pleasure to be here with you, and we are glad you are sharing your time with us today. Today I will forgo an opening. There are several I could make, but I will forgo it today. Let us see what questions you have in mind. Thank you.

Liz: Good morning Machiventa. It’s good to be with you today, as always. I want to say that interacting with you in this forum is a great blessing to me, and I understand that that also means it’s a great responsibility. So, when I ask my questions, I try to make them very well considered. And I did this with the series of questions I have today.

So, this is on the national topic of conversation. First of all, we know (or at least I think we know) that life begins at conception, is that correct?

MM: The activation of the tissue that becomes the embryo begins at that time. We will need to discuss what you mean by “life.” Thank you.

Liz: Okay. Well, we know (or at least I think we know) that if a child dies before he’s granted a Thought Adjuster, he or she goes to the probationary nursery, is that correct?

MM: That’s correct.

Liz: So approximately 15% of all pregnancies result in a miscarriage. What happens to those little sparks of life that fade away before birth?

MM: Your question is what happens to those children who are a miscarry or an abortion before birth? Is that correct?

Liz: Yes.

MM: I’ll be short with this question in as much as it is a curiosity question and doesn’t really affect your personal spiritual growth and development nor that of anyone else’s. For your consideration, it is those miscarries before the connection, the maturity of the mind, are as so much tissue. The mind component of a mortal being at that point does not exist that can be worked with in the morontial realms. [Daniel: MM is reluctant to provide further clarity as it is a topic that our language and cultures do not have the conceptual foundations to understand what he would provide.] Those that do not have a mind component as such do not exist. Thank you. There is no investment of soul, there is no investment of a Thought Adjuster at that point. Thank you.

Liz: Thank you for that answer. I assure you this is not a curiosity question for me. Our scientists define a point at which a zygote becomes an embryo, or when an embryo becomes a fetus at about 12 weeks, or when a fetus becomes viable or able to live outside the womb at about 24 weeks. How do you view this process?

MM: We do not use any of those definitions of the progression of the embryo to a fetus, etc. The definitions that we use separate the definition of a brain from the definition of the mind mechanism. The brain can exist without the mind, but for material beings, the brain nominally is the residence of the mind. Mind is a software. Its investment in the fetus comes at another time, which we will not discuss. Your scientists are still befuddled by the complexity of a human being. You see, for you, as a Urantia Book student, you see that the individual is an adult, which means they have a soul, they have a Thought Adjuster, and they can make moral decisions. Adulthood, for those purposes, begins once the Thought Adjuster is first invested in the child [when] the child is confronted with a moral decision.

Now, the other question and the components that need to be clarified by your scientists, is when does the mind appear? They know when the brain appears, they know when the heartbeat appears, but they do not know when the mind appears. You see, the brain is the mechanism that connects the nervous system to the whole body and also provides the framework—literally the framework—in which the mind operates. A better question would be, “When does the Spirit of Truth become part and parcel of the mind mechanism for the child?” Or “When does the mind appear? When does Spirit appear?”

Liz: Well, thank you for that. I know you know where I’m going with this. The national discourse has to do with abortion at six weeks, or at 10 weeks, or at 15 weeks. And I’m concerned with not only knowing God’s will for this—these procedures—because we’re mammals, and mammals will breed, and the sex urge is great, and I’m not even sure what form of birth control is appropriate. So, I am asking for the planetary manager’s perspective on all of these issues.

MM: Your field is far too broad for an answer. You have asked numerous (upwards to about seven) different topics that you would like to have covered in this answer, which makes it very difficult and impossible. If you could hone your question more thoroughly, I would be glad to answer.

Liz: So then at what point in a pregnancy is an abortion against God’s will?

MM: This is Machiventa. I would like to give you a hard and fast answer. And it depends on when there is life that is beginning. And the definition we like to use is when there’s a combination of an active brain and an active heart. This brings about the capability of the child sustaining itself to become complete in the gestation episode. Later, upon birth, it requires the nurturance of the parents and others to fulfill the capability of that child becoming self-sustaining. And self-sustaining does not occur in your societies until the age of awareness of their needs. This can be from age six or seven up until the later part of the second decade. There are some children who do not mature and know how to feed themselves or forage for themselves until they are late in their teens. Other children are more capable and are able to forage for themselves when they’re quite young. God’s will is for the individual to become a self-sustaining individual. This is, in the spiritual sense, developed when the child is approached by their first moral question and knowing right from wrong at the time of investment of the Thought Adjuster. Life continues all through the era of life within the uterus and life outside the uterus. I know that this does not answer your question specifically. However, there are no specific answers for each individual. Thank you.

Liz: Well, thank you. You know, that clarifies [it] for me, perhaps more than you know. And of course, in a perfect world, which this is not, every child would be planned, and wanted, and cherished. But that is not the world that we live in. The different options for birth control, other than abstinence, are very controversial here, and I know that controlling our population is important to our survival as a species. And I’m wondering if you could speak to anything with regards to wisdom, with regards to birth control or controlling our populations—other than abstinence. Abstinence doesn’t seem to work.

MM: You’re correct. It didn’t work when I was here in the flesh, and it doesn’t work now. Our interest is not in birth control. I say that bluntly and matter of factly as it is not. Our mission here is to bring your societies, your nations into social maturity so that societies can become self-sustaining.

We are striving to create societies as a bedrock, a formative environment for healthy families where children can be raised with intentional guidance, information, knowledge, and skills before they become independent. This begins as we have said, in the paper on the Learning Centers for Sustainable Families and other documents, that the reformation—the change of society—begins in the family early on. The situation of your world at this time is in the very earliest phases of transition to the settled days of social stability and peace, without even approaching the initial days of Light and Life.

Your question is one that is part of a far larger international policy program and development that needs to take place. As you are aware of the turmoil involving the question of abortion in your nation and the great unsettlement that is going on in your world, there is almost no agreement as to how to control population or involve rational population management. As we see it, population management is a matter-of-fact development that begins early in the family as parents raise children to become mature adults fully aware of those issues that the individual child who becomes adult must resolve in their own life. This rampant sexual behavior of begetting more and more children is beyond primitive. It is self-destructive and it is naive. There is absolutely no room for guilt involved in these topics. As we have said in other documents, population management is as necessary as treatment of acne in teenagers. It is a matter of fact. It is something that needs to be addressed without guilt, without shame, and without any social repercussions. The guilt factor is a matter of the primitiveness and backwardness of your religions and the tremendously immature nature of your philosophies that could be used to examine these difficult problems of humanity.

Now, I know that I have gone far past the answer to your question, but you have given me a bully pulpit to stand upon and which I am using to the greatest ability that I have. Proceed if you have further questions.

Liz: I don’t have further questions at this moment. You answered pretty much everything that I had. This was a difficult series of questions for me to ask, and I appreciate the grace with which you answered me. So, thank you.

MM: You’re welcome.

JT: I’ll take advantage of this opportunity to give my thoughts on this subject. I’ve been around a while, and I was socially conscious when abortion was illegal in this country before about 50 years ago. I was aware of the deaths associated with the “back alley abortions” we used to call them. A lot of women died in those unprofessional abortions, so I thought it was a real note of progress when we legalized it and was a little bit taken aback by the opposition and the growing strength of the opposition over the years. My thoughts today, having read The Urantia Book are: The last time I read about Jesus’s birth with this in mind, The Urantia Book says Gabriel came to Mary the day after conception. So that focalization of life was already assigned to Jesus—that was Jesus’s fetus. The Urantia Book also says that Jesus came about in the normal way that all people, all mortals, on a planet do. So, I’ve concluded that personality is assigned at the moment of conception. And, you know, whatever God creates cannot be destroyed. Any personality he creates will either grow into an individual or become part of God the Supreme if that personality later chooses not to participate. So, my conclusion from all that is: If there’s an abortion, a personality has already been assigned and while that personality will get a chance to live, they will miss out on the experience of living a mortal life on an evolutionary world. And I’m open to feedback on that.

MM: You’re correct in your analysis. You see the extensiveness of the knowledge of individuals who have read The Urantia Book and read it thoroughly, and have striven to understand the parts of their life that causes them concern, and to understand that better and more thoroughly through The Urantia Book, have a knowledge far past that of most people. And that is wonderful. You are now considering the life of a deceased fetus after the mortal transition to the morontial realm. This is wonderful. However, most individuals throughout the world at this time would have not the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. There is a great confusion in your world at this time. The greatest confusion is [with] those who are for abortion and for those who are not. They are people who want to protect life at any stage and even against the will of the individual who is carrying that embryo. So, there is much confusion that has not been resolved and which is desperately in need of resolving.

You also recall, do you not, that there is a tremendous retardation of the development and evolution of philosophical discussion and the arts of philosophical discussion on your world. You have been told by The Urantia Book that the physical sciences have excelled tremendously, but the social sciences have not. The social institutions have not evolved either. That includes government, the social science of philosophy, and so on. There is much catching up to do. The problem of the juxtaposition of the social sciences and the physical sciences is so huge, most people cannot accept even the idea of the evolution of the social sciences to become active agents of recommending philosophically correct propositions that are backed by advanced and evolved social science theories. You are all in this discussion today, spinning around within this… it’s even hard to describe it. I can’t bring a parallel to the surface to tell you the tremendous difficulty you’re in [regarding] societies and the social sciences.

What we are striving to do with the development of the article that This One and Avahlah have produced entitled Abortion, The Perfect Moral Storm [JT: ]  is exactly the situation now. And it is not just abortion. Abortion brings to bear upon your society immediately the same kind of confrontation that your society has with what you call capital punishment, euthanasia, and a number of other topics. These all could be resolved through the appropriate evolution and maturity of philosophical discussion. Most of you are puzzled by my use of the phrase “philosophical discussion” as very few of you have ever experienced that other than witnessing what goes on between academics in the academic forum, which is as removed from the ordinary need for practical, philosophical solutions as it could be. There must be a movement of the social sciences and social institutions towards greater maturity and evolution.

When I and my Melchizedek team are discussing this, we have a horizontal display board that is also two dimensional and three dimensional, and also carries a component of time in it—the evolution and development of concepts and so on. And this problem of resolution of death in your species and in your societies is so large as to occupy a great deal of this space. We could make the display much larger, of course, but then the parts of it would still occupy the same proportion. This is a tremendous problem which I and my team are confronting as we are striving to use abortion as the placement—as the example—of the need for the development of philosophical discussion that is useful to the resolution of practical problems that are involved in your social institutions: the family for one, health care for another, education, government, and so on. As you could see, when you begin thinking of the topics that spiral out of this one question, you see that it fills a great deal of space in our planning for this world at this time. What we’re striving to do now is to open the discussion through this article, this paper, so that there is curiosity about what the author is talking about and that there will become a public discussion or an institutional discussion of these topics in a more practical way. It is confounding for us to work with you at the level of maturity of your societies. It is not impossible for us to do as we have time on our side, and time will bring about the greater urgency for the resolution of these questions and these problems to your societies and to your cultural leaders in your nations. Yes, there is resolution that will be forthcoming, but there is much agony to get there. Thank you.

JT: Thank you.

The sovereignty of human will

Walt: Yes, Machiventa, my question is, how has the sovereignty of human will changed in time, along with the social and civilizational evolution?

MM: It has not. The human sovereign will is the human sovereign will. It is much as, in mathematical terms, the sum of zero. It does not change. It is always present. It is the one quotient, the one additive, the one decimal place that changes all aspects of human behavior and which also does effectively change and mature social issues and processes. Thank you.

Walt: Okay, thank you. And the follow up question is, does that mean that this sovereignty of will began at Andon and Fonta?

MM: We will not answer that now. This is a question for those experts of The Urantia Book. Thank you.

Walt: Okay, thank you. How do I ask this question? If you were mortal today, what would your diet be? I’m just cognizant of how so much of our health problems are related to how and what we consume, and I’m wanting to get some insight from you or guidance on what main things we need to focus on in a self-sustaining diet?

MM: Certainly. This question has been answered long ago by Rayson and several others. The principal aspect being, if I were human at this time, I would be an omnivore. I would not limit my diet to any one specific field of input. What I would insist upon is that these not be contaminated by man-made chemicals, but that these be as natural as possible. There are natural gardens that use natural fertilizers which are incredibly productive and can produce all the main ingredients to sustain life. Thank you.

Walt: Thank you too Machiventa. That is much appreciated. Thank you.

Stéphane: Good morning Machiventa, Stéphane here. How are you today?

MM: I’m excellent. I am an omnivore of all types of spiritual energy.

The “When does a mortal life begin?” debate II

Stéphane: I like to hear that and that would perk my imagination, but I have other questions. My mood is a bit more somber today after the discussion on so called abortion if we can’t use any other word. And we’ve discussed conception. You know, what are the arguments we have on the table for determining what is God’s will with respect to this. And, you know, we’ve mentioned conception, on the physical side a heartbeat and brain development. On the spiritual side, we’ve mentioned personality endowment, brain developments up to the point where it is capable of mind endowment. And not only that, an early mind endowment may not be enough, it has to be a mind endowment capable of harnessing a soul. And it’s not just a physical question, which I think is what people today are trying to answer, but it is also a much more involved question involving mind endowment and soul development. Clearly, evolutionary religion does not have the tools to answer those questions.

Revelation, revelatory religion does have the tools, but I would argue that even The Urantia Book does not provide all the tools that we need to be able to answer such a question as to when it is God’s will or not. Which leads me to believe that the revelatory commission knew this ahead of time and did not want to load us with such heavy spiritual material. Clearly, we’re not advanced enough spiritually to be able to make a call as human beings on this yet. So, if we go back to preventing abortion, what it is today, what society is trying to do, in my view, is that it is trying to make that a punishment to human beings so that they would not do it. And of course, punishment is the lowest form of understanding of these issues, similarly to punishment of crimes for adults, and things like that. And what you’re saying is that care of the family should be the focus. So, society should be focusing on caring for these parents that end up in these situations where they want to abort the pregnancy. And I think that’s as far as we can go as a society and you know, governments and laws are trying to make it a punishment. Can you comment on that or am I too deep in my discussion?

MM: This is Machiventa. I and my team of Melchizedeks who are here are saying (clapping) “Bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo” over and over again. Your conclusions are excellent, they’re very accurate. They are “spot on” as the British would say. Bravo and hoo-rah. You are absolutely correct that government’s concern, in all social institutions, should be concern for the family. How does the family survive? And the organizations of social institutions should be asking, “How can we assist the family to survive as the most productive means by which cultural change and the advancement of civilization can occur?” This is the necessary question. When that occurs, then the second question will already be answered. And the second question is, “What do we need to do to support the survival and positive, constructive operation of societies?” Now, in the first case, individuals have sovereign control of their lives. And they can control whether they have abortions and cease the production of embryos or not and to cease the life of the embryo and so on.

Society has not resolved the problem of how to cease the production of those individuals who cause tremendous detrimental effects to the operation of society. It begins in the family. And for the individual who has been raised in a God-loving family, that individual would want to do God’s will and would be knowledgeable from the early training that they would want to bring life into existence at the right time for the offspring, and for themselves as a parent. This is where we hope all of this will be going. Those questions and those situations—the planning that is required to bring that about—have not even begun. The beginning, as we have said, what we want to do and will do is retraining families and preparing children to become effective, knowledgeable, loving parents of children who will be raised the same way. These convoluted questions about abortion are societal in nature, and in many ways, we’re not interested in them, except for the fact that they do need answering, but answering through a means and a functional process of changing the future by making more effective decisions today.

You are totally correct in that how this topic, whether it is capital punishment, euthanasia, or abortion are resolved is punishment. Now punishment is the most retarded form of learning. The learning must be individual, must be familial, and must be societal. And so, it begins with the individual in the family, and the family—the parents, mother and father—must be aware of how to raise their children so they become socially self-sustaining individuals in a larger society no matter how the society proceeds.

Your summations are exquisite, if I may say so. And I know that you will not get a bloated head over that as it is an accomplishment that is needed by millions of people. Let us continue please. Thank you.

Stéphane: Yes, thanks, Machiventa. I mean, to me, even with the revelation that I’ve cherished for over 40 years now, you know, if this situation, and I’ve raised a family, and I hope to the best of my ability, along those, those lines, but you know, I cannot even preclude myself being confronted with a situation where abortion is considered. Not for myself at my age, but for my children, for instance, you know. This world is so convolutedly difficult and complex that these situations can pretty much happen to anyone in this world. And I would hope that if under circumstances I would advise someone to go with an abortion that I would have some principles in mind to make that advice and that I would consider making that advice under the consequences of being judged, you know, after this life having made that recommendation. So, to me it is not a black and white issue and, if I can justify it with all the spiritual help that I can get today, then I think I would make it in a way such that I would be willing to confront my decision in the afterlife.

MM: Let me comment if I may. This involves the 1.) humans have sovereign self-will— their decisions are sovereign. Your self-will is sovereign. Individuals have the right of self-determination and that it is a sovereign fact of being human that each individual does have sovereign self-determination as an individual. You have given some of that up, what we would call your sovereign self-determination—freedom, but you have given that up to live in a state of liberty, where freedom is constrained by laws so that multiple people can live together as families, as communities, neighborhoods, societies, nations, and international relations. Liberty is a compromise for the individual. As a primitive society, you—the gross you of societies of this planet—must be willing to accept that individuals can make those decisions to abort or not to abort. And [if] there is the latitude of a society to sanction or approve abortion, then the society is free to disregard other aspects of it.

However, living in a society, a primitive society, as yours and others, if society does decide to constrain the activities to abort or not to abort, or to use birth control appliances and medications or not, that if society decides to control abortion, then society must approve, and even provide individuals with population management devices and medications beforehand—before conception occurs. Also, part of that is foreknowledge—that the individual must have foreknowledge of the consequences of abortion on a societal basis, and as the use of sex and the consequences of sex, and the responsibilities of reproduction, and must be fully aware of all of these philosophical thoughts and practical thoughts for society is applicable to an individual before they become sexually active. In other words, we’re talking about practical, philosophical discussions beginning at age nine, and through the rest of their life.

Age nine is usually what social psychologists call the age of separation. This is the age when the individual begins to think of themselves apart from their family, and in the process of entering the larger aspects of society. It is that time when the individual must be educated in the social and personal responsibilities of reproduction, with full knowledge of what that means and what they’re capable of. It means for society, that those individuals who are reproductively active and capable but do not have the brain or the mind or mechanism to constrain their own sexuality would then be neutered in some manner. So, the aspect of mind comes into this aspect fully as mind is an endowment of spirit. And mind is a facet that is capable of tremendous nonphysical behavior and actions and results.

I’m talking now esoterically, but for your world on a pragmatic basis, mind is the necessary mechanism for understanding right and wrong. You add weight to your soul by understanding right and wrong, to make moral decisions that benefit you and others adds weight to your soul. To be capable of that you must have a mind that is more mature than at the level of imbecile. Therefore, when you are acquainted with people who have Down Syndrome and so on, they do know right from wrong. And so, they do have a soul. And they are able to confront those issues of right and wrong and know what is good and what is not. Those individuals who do not have that level of understanding in their mind to make moral decisions, they must be limited in their reproductive capabilities. It has all been proven by your social scientists, that two individuals, a man and woman, who are Down Syndrome individuals are capable of raising normal children. So, the answers that you have been provided today from questions that you have asked about God’s will, that’s a little bit circumspect. When we begin dealing with the facts of life, on the basis of mind, then you become capable of understanding God’s will more thoroughly. Understand?

Stéphane: Very enlightening. I do understand, and I have a close family member that has Down Syndrome, and this really hits home. One last comment, Machiventa. We’ve mentioned in the past, or you’ve mentioned in the past that we could get co-creative teams capable of asking Celestials whether someone’s life has been achieved and in a decision around euthanasia—that we could get a celestial point of view regarding a decision of a senior family member whether euthanasia would be acceptable. I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that, but could we expect the same for an abortion decision?

MM: Yes, you would want to have a co-creative design team of spiritually enlightened individuals. You would need to have an individual who is very adept at being a clairaudient channel, and this would be dealt with the greatest level of sincerity in all phases, whether the team deals with euthanasia, capital punishment, or abortion. These are all events of life and death. And these are fully capable of being resolved by individuals who were in contact with a celestial being who has the authorization—very important—authorization to speak in that way. Thank you.

Stéphane: Thank you. Much to ponder on.

Epigenetics and the Urantian experiment

Recca: Good morning, Machiventa. I’m pleased to be in your company today. I’m pleased, very pleased to be part of this team of conversationalists today because my question has to do with the epigenetics (and I speak as a complete novice in using that word) but I’d like to say something first. Since the Lucifer Rebellion and the Caligastia betrayal, my question right now is, because we’re a decimal planet, because we’ve been in in quarantine, has the generational pregnancy by pregnancy through 200,000 years of generations or more, has the epigenetics of the population of Urantia resulted in today’s level of social and physical reality? That’s my first question.

MM: Most definitely. Next question,

Positioning for structural changes today

Recca: Then I’m intrigued by your whiteboard—your two-dimensional, three-dimensional, four-dimensional planetary management whiteboard. What’s the pulse of the current world population now for making the changes that care of the family, attention to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and questions of death? What is the worldwide capacity for taking on the structural changes, the systematic changes, the systemic changes that the planetary management goals are?

MM: Certainly, I’d be glad to answer that. Your question is very appropriate. To use the phraseology of your contemporary society, this is about as good as it gets. Meaning that there is cultural shredding that is occurring between those who are morally, culturally, societally, retarded and those who are prepared to advance into a more mature and evolved societal situation. There are as many people now as there will be, who are capable of assisting in bridging the gap between what exists now and what needs to exist in the future. In other words, there is a large reservoir of individuals who are capable, and there is a large reservoir of individuals who are seeking to find ways to improve the social architecture of their societies, nations, and the world. I believe that answers your questions concerning that. If not, please ask again.

Recca: I’m taking my questions from each of my previous cohorts here. The will of God, as I understand the will of God, is the way of God—the way of the father. But our individual freewill responsibility, and choices are now as we understand it through The Urantia Book and based in the evolution of the Supreme, and that our choices are our sovereign choices without the compelling question of whether it’s God’s will. It’s whether we choose to contribute to the Supreme? How do we convey that to Urantia at this level of “couldn’t get any better than this?” This is as good as it gets, meaning that it could get worse. Is this a concept of free will choice contributing to the Supreme that we can…

MM: Oh, stop please.

Recca: Sorry.

MM: Your question is sincere. You’ve definitely thought this out, but it is a gross deflection from the topics that we’re dealing with in this conversation today. As the MC, so to speak, I am going to not answer your question.

Recca: All right. Thank you.

MM: It can be answered at another time. Thank you.

Recca: I’ll rephrase it later. Thank you.

JT: That’s all the questions we have today. Do you have a closing Machiventa?

MM: This is Machiventa. Let me provide a pre-closing and then the benediction.

The arc of our discussion today

The pre-closing is this: I hope you all now understand the arc of the discussion that we’ve had in this last hour. It began through sincere questions, and that we as a group proceeded rather raggedly—we were stumbling ahead through the process to get answers. I perceived this from your consciousness and the consciousness of This One. And then we began to flow in this arc into the deeper, philosophical, pragmatic discussion. Now, this latter part of our session today is a perfect example of a philosophical, pragmatic discussion that must engage people in your community, and through guided facilitation, many individuals can ask and answer these types of questions philosophically and pragmatically. In an evolved society, there is no separation from the philosophical, religious, and pragmatic discussions that are necessary to have a whole and holistic society that is self-supporting and has the processes in place to be self-healing of the differences. The great tragedies of your societies now involving the argumentation and vociferous argumentation of the topic of whether to abort or not is an example of a highly retarded primitive society. It does not have the means by which it can even discuss this in a rational manner, let alone come to self-healing solutions that bring about the maturity of your society and the social peace and stability that is necessary for your societies to become more mature and provide a more positive, beneficial social environment for forthcoming generations.

A healing discussion process

We hope you think deeply about what has occurred in the latter part of our discussion today. That this is a healing process. And that discussions that are healing do not have to be vociferous, do not have to be physical, do not have to be laden with emotions. As you may have noted from my discussion, these pragmatic, social discussions about sex and abortion do not need to involve guilt or shame, but these are pragmatic issues of growing up that the individual must eventually resolve for themselves—or not. And I say “or not” because you have many priests and ministers who live in ongoing agony of guilt and shame, who have not resolved this for themselves. And the churches do not help them do that. These are not part of the ministerial preparation for priesthood, for rabbinical education, or the ministerial profession.

Now, when you consider these things, I present these to you rather strongly. And it’s necessary to do so strongly because these situations need to be rectified. And if you’re going to have a Urantian religion, then you must have a Urantian religion that is socially mature, philosophically mature, religiously mature, and must be able to discuss all the topics that sustain a society, a family, an individual, and a government.

This argumentation that is going on in your nation about abortion shows the stark immaturity of this nation. And not just this nation, but almost all nations. Now, some of you ask, “What can we do to help you bring about the Days of Light and Life? Well, children, I have laid it before you.

I stand at the door and knock

Now the benediction. You, my friends, are blessed with the presence of Christ Michael and Nebadonia here with you now. You have the Spirit of Truth, real Spirit that enlivens you, that is part of you, that is part of your mind. You have these guests who are here to assist you. You have seen the old painting of Jesus knocking upon the door, and that truly is a wonderful parallel for your situations as individuals—that you have someone knocking on your door who has asked to enter. And so, you have the time and opportunity now to ask, seek, and give permission for your Thought Adjuster, for the Spirit of Truth, for Christ Michael, Nebadonia, and your guardian to be there with you—personally, to assist you, and you give them permission to participate in your day, in your life, and in your thinking with a free and easy process so that you mature and grow—to overcome your own insecurities, your own shames, and your own guilts so that you can be free of that. You have seen very few individuals, children, who grow up to occupy that space of total freedom; free from guilt, free from shame, and who are also empowered to become all that they can become. Now, this is an invitation that cannot be resisted for those who want to do God’s will. Good day.

JT: Thank you Machiventa and thank you Daniel.

Daniel: You’re most welcome.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Email this to a friend
Twitter Tweet
Share on Facebbok
WhatsApp -Share document