2007-12-17 Evergreen Co-Creative Design Team – CDT#4
Celestial Teachers: Machiventa Melchizedek & Sondjah Melchizedek
TR: Daniel Raphael
December 17, 2007
MACHIVENTA: Good evening, this is Machiventa Melchizedek, Planetary Prince and Governor of this world. I am here tonight to thank you for your presence, for your contribution to the beginning of the healing of this planet. You, my friends and supporters, are the ones who will assist this world to co-creatively come into the days of light and life, that era which you have heard the Bible speak about, “when lions lay down with lambs, and the jackals and rabbits are at peace.” So too, you will be at peace with your neighbors, nationally and globally. This may seem like an unexpected, impossible situation, but this is the eventuality of every mortally inhabited world in Christ Michael’s Universe. You are vitally important to this outworking of Christ Michael’s plans.
I hope you realize that you are fully partnered with Christ Michael and his partner, Nebadonia. You are essential ingredients to the healing of your planet. We have said numerous times before that your world could be healed by fiat, by miracle within seconds, but what would you learn? What would generations to come learn, except a dependency upon miracles, and the miracles, my friends, are in you. You are empowered by Christ Michael to participate effectively with this program; you—you individually are a part of this. You have a responsibility to engage this in accord with your commitment, and we bless you, we enthuse you, we fill you with energy, we surround you, and more so, we provide all that you need to engage this and to fulfill this program with us. I thank you for your presence tonight; I leave you in the good hands of Sondjah.
Group: Thank you, Machiventa.
SONDJAH: My friends, this is Sondjah. Welcome and good evening. It is a pleasure to be here with you once again. Last time, I gave you a two-part question, and the question was this: “What is a sustainable marriage?” “How would you design one, and how does marriage contribute to a sustainable society and civilization?” Whereupon, you broke into two groups of three each, and you discoursed this among yourselves and developed and devised some questions. In the meantime, you also developed a tremendous enthusiasm, came back to the larger group, and spoke at length, to the extent that we had no time for dialog. This is no fault of yours, but rather a loose leash that I have given you, and I am about to shorten the leash.
We have sparse time to work together; we have less than two hours, once per week. Eventually it is hoped that we will have dedicated groups that will work every day, and hopefully, through some miracle of your brotherhood, you will find the means to be supported through this, so that it becomes an occupation, what you might call an employment, where you contribute and you are compensated for your time. Do you have any questions from last time, and I anticipate that there may be a few, and we will limit the questions to ten minutes, please. Do you have questions?
Student: I was wondering if you could remind us as to whether we are supposed to be posing questions or raising statements?
SONDJAH: Either one. You may ask questions, asking for clarification, and you may as well make statements of a probing nature, if you wish.
Student: Sondjah, are you referring to questions from the groups that we broke up into last week, questions from when we got together in that discussion, or are you open for input? What questions are you looking for right now?
SONDJAH: I wish you to bring forward any questions that developed in the sub-teams last week.
Sheralyn: Sondjah, I’m curious to know what is your definition of a sustainable marriage.
SONDJAH: That is the point, isn’t it? I posed the question because it is a co-creative answer that we must discover together. I could give you a definition of a sustainable marriage, but then what would you have to work with? I am particularly enthused and specific about the process of devising answers or plausible answers. The answers themselves, at this point, would be premature. I am interested in your engaging each other in the process of inquiry, exchanging ideas, formulations and designs that you may make on the notepads that you bring with you each week. You will have an opportunity tonight to break into new groups, and work on this in a more specific way. I will give you a challenge in a few minutes.
I do not want to set the parameters for a sustainable marriage—you are the ones who have to live with these marriages. You must engage this question and challenge from the perspective of really living in a sustainable marriage. I would imagine that each of you could possibly design, on your own, at least four or five, maybe six marriage scenarios that you may wish to devise into sustainable marriages, sustainable relationships. Do not limit yourself to tradition; think far, far, far outside the box of tradition and religions. Remember, we are concerned about devising social institutions and social relationships that are sustainable, meaning ones that you know the parameters of their existence, and when you come to the end of them, when you engage a new one, and so on.
We will be engaging many social institutions in the future, but this is one which I know that you are intimately aware of, and which you have given much thought—even worry to, for having or not having, and why some work and why some do not, and why they last and why they do not. Do you understand my limitations for you, concerning this question?
Sheralyn: Yes, I think I do. I have another question, if I may ask? Then I’m assuming that if we are looking into a sustainable marriage, that marriage is part of our evolvement into this New Era.
SONDJAH: Yes, it is. Marriage is a relationship. You can devise it, you can invent it, you can define it, you can limit it, you can expand it however you wish. I will tell you this, though, and this is the only clue I will give you concerning this subject, is that marriage is a contractual relationship, which fosters the care taking of children. Outside of that, it can be anything you want to design. We wish that your civilizations and societies be sustainable, which requires a contractual marriage relationship that has as its primary concern the procreation and socialization of the children that it produces, until their maturation.
Group: Thank you.
Cayce: We talked a little about it last week; we talked about a contractual relationship and came up with a question of a contractual relationship for how long? I think you were kind of going that way when you said, “through the maturity of children?” So we talked about it for how long, and what was the intention, and where does it play at different stages of life. And then I went back to the idea of marriage, and contractual and childbearing for stability—raising children in a stable environment—that the parents act as a socializing agent for the child. And for that to happen, the kids have to have parents that are available to them, and I know that’s pretty common here, but if we are looking world-wide…
…I was thinking about this especially since my daughter was talking about what she had seen in Peru, where the kids are just on the streets and shanties, and so they have relationships that are producing children, but they can’t take care of them. They don’t have a stabilized society, and if you don’t have a stabilized society, you don’t have a stabilized marriage. It seems like it is just a… if you don’t have the society to support the marriage and the children, then the children and the marriage can’t support the society. It seems like it just goes in a circle.
You have to have a sustainable society, and we’re looking at, it seemed like from reading the Monjoronson information, that a lot of our problems, [is] that our society is not sustainable, because of over-population, and yet we have cultures that just produce children, and produce children, and produce children without having the stable family behind them. So it sounds like it’s the over-population… it sounds like [in order for] having a sustainable family that you need to have worldwide awareness of the children and your function as a parent to provide the socialization for the children and the education for the children, instead of just producing children. Does that make sense?
Mike: If it’s okay, before you answer, I’m having a bit of a different take or reaction to the term “contractual.” Especially in the context of sustainability, because normally when we think of contractual, we think of legal, a contract, the legality, the signing of the contract. My intuitive sense is that the contract underlies a sustainable marriage, in particular with respect to the raising and caring of children, to whatever age. It’s based not on law, but will be based on a covenant, a promise from the heart, based upon two people who see Christ within each of them, and Christ within the child and make a commitment, a covenant to raise that child as one of God’s “critters.”
Not necessarily with any legal documents or sworn statements or anything that goes along with it—contractual yes, but contractual at the level of love, trust—all based upon the notion of oneness and Christ within—being able to see and sense and know completely know in your heart the presence of Christ, that all of that context gives rise potentially to a balance—physically, emotionally, and mentally—that doesn’t exist in today’s unsustainable marriage.
[[Daniel: Okay, Sondjah is going to answer the questions now.]]
SONDJAH: To answer your questions, societies do not have a soul; individuals do.
[[ This is Daniel: The two questions from two different people —that doesn’t work for me. I need one question and an answer, and the contexts were very different. It’s not a criticism, it’s just a procedural one. Your question had to do with where do we start?]]
Cayce: Yeah, basically where do we start because everything is so out of control?
SONDJAH: The concern of the Creator, the First Source and Center, is with the individual. Out of billions of inhabited worlds, and trillions of sentient, soul-filled individuals, the Creator’s concern is always with his relationship with the individual. And it is always with the individual that we begin. Our concern for society, for civilization is secondary and tertiary. Our primary concern is always with the individual and this is where we start.
And from the individuals, develop families, communities, states, regions, nations, and a world. Always it begins with the individual. The quality of an individual life dictates the quality of the civilization that will come into existence. And how well civilization prospers, then it prospers the individual. But always, it is the individual that is central to all our schemes, to Christ Michael’s schemes, to the Correcting Time, and to the work of Monjoronson and this program of co-creative teams. This is where we begin.
And so, the individual is of primary concern. If this is the first point of inquiry, then how do we design a family from which a child is begotten, from wherein a child is socialized by two individuals, who have an agreement, an arrangement, a moral and spiritual contract with this new entity, this new soul coming into existence? For parents are truly co-creative and co-responsible for the endearing, growing, engendering of the spiritual quality of the soul of this child during their formative years. This is primary to all the work that we will do in the co-creative teams. It always must reach to the individual and point towards the larger social entities.
Your statements, which were numerous, will force us and force you to engage many, many primary questions, which have been neglected and swept under the rug of your societies and your nations. Public policies are bereft, backward and ignorant in most of your nations, and are in need of tremendous upliftment for your societies and nations to be sustainable. How many children should be raised by a family? How many children are best raised by a couple? For some couples, it may be one; for others it may be five—but is that fair for others? You must decide. You must live with the equation. What is the best environment for raising children? Two people who are present, or both working and absent? No, you must decide what makes a sustainable individual, a sustainable family.
Concerning issue of marriage, the only contractual existence for it’s being is to socialize and raise children, so that they can raise their children and socialize them in a like manner, so that your communities and societies are sustainable. When families break down, so does the moral fiber and ethical fiber of your civilizations, of your communities. This city, which you mentioned, is bereft, it is in chaos and those people will beget even more children, who are left to live in the gutters and out of the trashcans. So it is a demoralizing, debilitating, uninhabitable soul situation for many people, who will never come to know God, never even come to know the yearning of reaching for a higher Being, the friendship with God, the friendship which lies essentially within themselves.
Families are responsible for raising children so that they become inhabitable by the God presence, at their early age of 4 or 5, as you’ve been taught. You must take family seriously, as socializing, and then spiritualizing social entities that empower the spiritual development of children, to become worthy adults, to be partners with God, partners with their soul, to fill their soul then with value by social, ethical, moral decisions, and service without the expectation of return by their fellow brothers and sisters.
I apologize for pontificating, but I wish you to know how essential the family is, until the time of maturation of the child. Families are essential for the continuity of worlds, and your world is on the brink of extinction, because of this problem. We are very concerned because if there were cataclysms or serious catastrophes in your world, one after another, without recovery time, your world would be depopulated very rapidly, and who would be left? The children in the streets? We certainly hope not; we hope that they have mothers and fathers who love them and care for them, and want them to know Christ Michael and the God within them. I hope this answers both of your questions.
Student: Thank you.
Mike: Thank you. I would like to rephrase the question succinctly.
Mike: Is it correct to conceive of what you referred to as a contractual relationship, in something other than legal terms?
SONDJAH: Most definitely. We have set no parameters for the design team work. When we say “contractual,” you may assume that this is legalese, but we do not make the same assumption. It may be contractual on a much different level, as you have suggested.
Now, my assignment to you tonight, for the next twenty minutes, is to break into three groups, and design one sustainable marriage. You may take any marriage situation that you like, and try to devise it as a sustainable being. Does this confuse you? (No response.) Thank you, you have 20 min. please.
[[Recording turned off during this time.]]
[[ Daniel: Just for the tape’s record, we’re going to have a representative from each group. There are 3 groups of 3 people each, and one individual from each team will present their findings for the next 3 minutes each. ]]
Group 1: We talked about a number of things. Not relying on traditional definitions of marriage, excepting each other with unconditional love, welcoming change in the other person, communication, common faith and values, unexposed promises, unconditional trust and respect. Being spiritually in love, and exploring scenarios of upsides and downsides and how things could change and where that would put us.
[[ Daniel: Did any others have anything significant to add to that? ]]
Mike: We started getting into a conversation about how to do it different—gee, I wonder why I have that thought now? So if you talk about real life issues, how would you do it different? (I think of that in terms of my relationship with _____.) Workshops that were professionally organized, so that you would experience things like having one day, and not having the next, to really break through the barrier of the unannounced expectation that the people you are today and the expectations you have of how you are going to live and how much you are going to make, and how you’re going to progress in life. What if that changes?
And I think you have to have some experiential relationship to cope with that—it’s not something you just say, “well don’t forget now, someday …?…. “ You’ve got to get at the heart; you have to get it to work. I think that would be very constructive. We talked about 4 people who were considering a commitment to one another, with children. We sort of go into it with, “You are who you are today, and I am who I am today, and we’re going to go get married on Sunday, and that’s the way things are, the way we are. Well, hello? Maybe not; maybe they’ll accelerate; maybe they won’t.
[[ Daniel: Next group. ]]
Group 2: We talked about the encouragement of each other’s paths to wholeness, as a central theme in a sustainable marriage. This came out of Sheralyn’s comment last week about “whole people” coming together, and we felt that the path to wholeness is a life-long process, but that it takes special intention, covenant, vow or pledge to stay with a person in their ugliness, or their emotional over-reactions or their withdrawal, or their running or their anger, or whatever, and so we wanted people to learn how to be spiritually and emotionally married to each other, so that no one was ever blamed for anyone else’s feelings, but the person who was experiencing the feelings, could count on someone abiding with them as they worked through them.
We decided that the wisdom we had to offer as older, non-child bearing women, is that there would be communities of support with “elders” in intentional community.
And we also spoke about the elevation of the Divine Feminine to the level of the Divine Masculine, to produce a sacred child that could serve God. This is a symbolic child, obviously. That would be work that would happen within each individual, as Sondjah spoke about the primary relationship between that realm and this realm is with the individual. So, this is the Divine Feminine and Divine Masculine within a person—a Divine Marriage, if you will—to then raise the person’s aspirations to the service of God, rather than ego.
Group 3: Basically, we talked about a lot of similar ideas that you guys have had, and one thing that stands out is that we would come into partnership on equal footing, where a couple would assume a role reversal or accept role reversals. Also, if a man wants to stay home and raise the child, if he’s impassioned about that, then that should be supported, as well as the wife—whatever. We spoke of values changing to be committed to the child, and not ego; raising the child to serve God’s purposes, and maybe education all along in that realm. Personal responsibility within the individual. Would anyone like to add something?
Sherille: Not to be so fun to have a child and as soon as the child is old enough to leave in daycare or leave with another relative, so that both parents can go back to work, as if this child is just left under the teachings of someone else, and it could be someone who is just never going to care for the child like the parents would care for the child.
Student: So you thought that was good or not good?
Sherille: No, I don’t think that’s good.
[[ Daniel: Anything else from your group? ]]
Student: We talked a little bit about going into a relationship for having children, with a certain level of maturity and shared values, so you know where your partner is on that line, but a lot of it was about taking responsibility for instilling the social, ethical and moral values for your child, yourself. Being there; being available.
Sherille: And prolonged education.
[[ Daniel: Is everybody satisfied with that, with his or her reports? All this is new turf to me! Sondjah, where are you? ]]
Student: I’d like to argue with Sondjah. Is that permissible?
[[ Daniel: Sure, of course! Wait until he shows up. ]]
Sheralyn: I think he’s still recovering from that Dick and Jane. I think that’s when Sondjah left the room.
Mike: Dick and Jane?
Student: I suggested those as names for our hypothetical couple.
[[ Daniel: I guess the next thing would be to talk to Sondjah, is that right? ]]
[[ Daniel: I have to tell you guys, this is really a challenge to me. When I first started TR’ing 14 years ago, I had no idea that it would morph into this kind of dynamic. It was challenge enough just to go, “…uh, I think there’s somebody here that wants to talk to me….” ]]
Student: This really is co-creation.
[[ Daniel: Yes, it is totally dynamic. ]]
Sheralyn: I really appreciate you sharing that with us—it makes this authentic. So if Sondjah doesn’t appear? Would it help if we all went within and joined with the Merkaba?
[[ Daniel: Yes, that’s a good idea, because when I do close my eyes and I get centered and wait for his being here, it’s just a matter of me being at his vibration level so he can come through, and that is very helpful when everybody does the same thing, because your emotional energy really raises it up. ]]
SONDJAH: Well my friends, you have had quite an experience, have you not? You have gotten to exchange personal experiences, your ideals, your values, the things that underlie your beliefs. You have expressed in many ways your expectations for a marriage, and what this means, and you have also projected yourself into the lives of children, who come forth from these families. How do we proceed now? And I will continue to lead you in this process.
We do not want you to divest yourself of this exercise by being bored or being over-challenged by the dithering of too many ideas, but give you a focus to work on. I will now become more and more defined in this proposition, as we go along. I have been given a teaching plan, a design plan for presenting these ideas to you, for in unfolding the sub-strata of ideas of sustainability in families and society, and for raising children, and for whole individuals, you are experiencing this co-creative process as a truly experiential process. We are engaged with you for the first time, doing this, as you are engaged as well with each other and us in this experience.
We want to provide the perspectives that you need, for designing sustainable families, for designing sustainable relationships and marriage is included. We want you to work on designing sustainable relationships with children. Your children may be problematic, but we are working in an ideal situation of designing an ideally sustainable family and family relationships between the two parents, and each parent and the child or children. So the dynamics are there for you to engage. This is a process—again—that we are experiencing with you. We have some ideas about how to proceed.
Now the thoughts that you have written down, the opinions, the estimations, the beginnings of a design of a relationship, keep these in mind. Do not throw them aside. Though we may not entertain them again for a week or two, do not feel that your thoughts and your contributions have been forgotten, for they surely have not. These will be very valuable for you individually, and for your teams as well. Be prepared friends, to change teams, and also be prepared to engage the same team repeatedly, if you have a good, productive relationship with these individuals. It is fully your choice—we do not project any format or formula for a team formation, other than we hope you are amicable and do not argue about the topics.
For in designing a sustainable civilization at this point, no one is right; no one has the perfect idea—we do not either, and we are here to explore that with you. I will give you the assignment, which you will engage next time, and these are the assignments. You can choose which ones you wish to work on. You may choose to work on one or two; we would hope that you not try to engage all of them, unless you do so in a very cursory, outlined manner, rather than in detail. You are invited to work on one with your fellow teammates, if you wish, in detail and that too is a matter of choice.
Here are the propositions:
1) Design a family relationship. This may include “marriage” or it may not. In any case, where children are involved, you should think in terms of a contractual relationship, where there is an agreed upon obligation to raise the children into the future and to their maturity. Do you understand this part so far?
2) There may come a “marriage” that exists between a co-creative couple, meaning a young couple, which bears no children. You may wish to design a relationship for them.
3) You may wish to design a “marriage” or relationship in a couple’s relationship, after children are born, and mature, and have left the nest.
4) You may wish to design a “marriage” relationship or companion relationship, between two mature individuals, who are in their 50’s and above. What would this look like?
5) And you may wish to again, devise or design a “marriage” relationship for those who are past retirement—70 and above.
So you see, “marriage” is in quotes, it is an agreed upon relationship between two individuals, who wish to engage the future together. You may define what that future means. What are the limits of termination? How early can they terminate; how late can they terminate; for what reasons would they terminate the relationship? These are truly important questions to answer.
Again, at the beginning of each of these different relationships, engage them with this question: What is the intention of this relationship, with the intention that there are obligations. In the case of a procreation couple, the obligations are imminent; they are paramount, they are of the acme of importance for the maintenance of society. These things must as well be engaged in this very complex relationship. You do not have to answer all parameters, problems, situations, or developments for any one of these relationships. You must simply begin by stating the intention for the relationship, for coming together.
5) Now, you obviously must have in mind that not everyone wants to be in a relationship—this is true. None-the-less, individuals are in perennial relationship with their community, whatever that may be, and they are always in relationship with society. What are the intentions of single-hood? Now, I do not give this as an assignment, but only as a thought for you to engage in the future, for I am striving to plant the seeds for future discussions, future developmental designs in your life.
I would imagine that you have some questions. I would appreciate it if you would limit your questions to clarifying questions, concerning this assignment at this point. Again, you do not need to work on this during the next week, if you do not wish to. I know however, it will be in your mind, and you will work on it. The fruits of those thoughts will come forth, with your team members next week, and you will share them and you will discuss them. You must come together as a whole in your team; you must decide upon a relationship that you want to design—this is essential. It makes no difference to us which relationship you wish to begin with.
I know that some of you will work backwards; you will work backwards from the elderly relationship, backwards to the developmental stages of human growth and maturity, to the time of marriage and obligated relationships for child-bearing, and this is surely a good way to proceed, for it is the easier path. Later we will discuss the intentions of having children, and we will ask you for the intentions that children will have for participating in a family. We know that this is too much to ask of infants and children, but not too much to ask of those who are nine and above.
You may, as this one has suggested to you, approach the perspective from the future, looking back two centuries, or you may take it from this moment and look forward and striving through your ignorance and your personal experiences, how to devise a sustainable relationship. This is not an easy task for you to do. Very few of your world leaders in political realms or even scientists have engaged these questions in this way.
There are academic studies that have been completed, which would be of assistance to you. There are related studies by the hundreds that relate to specific aspects of this question. There has been much research done. You can engage this later, and we will assist you to do so, in weeks to come. I would hope that you, though it is the Holidays next week and the week following, that you would strive to reconvene and engage these questions with us.
Before we adjourn, I am open to all questions, no matter what the concern or issue that you may have.
Mike: Sondjah, it seems like there is something of a paradox. On the one hand, we are encouraged to appreciate the challenge of over-population, and yet we are engaging in assignments, which would hopefully result in more population—but of a different quality and sustainability.
SONDJAH: Exactly. This is the issue, and the population problem that you have mentioned, courses throughout all issues that we will be speaking of. This over population of your planet is of paramount importance, but it is not a problem that we can solve, or that you can solve. It is something that will be resolved in time, only through difficult stretches of existence. The concern is as you have said so succinctly and nicely, you have said that yes we are engaging the prospect of raising more children, but of quality, and this is the essential ingredient for a sustainable future. Those individuals, who are not sustainable, let us not worry about them at this time.
Mike: Sondjah, I have one more question, and we can defer it, if appropriate, but intuitively, as I think about these many initiatives as we might undertake in the co-creative design effort, across the spectrum of issues we’ve discussed, whether it’s wellness and health, or whether it’s economic issues or agriculture on the regional or local level, or etc., all of them would seem to me to necessitate starting, as you said earlier, with the individual. And starting with the individual, connecting with spirit, with presence, however one would express that. So I for one, would love to have dialog in the future, about that topic—us today, parents in the future, children in particular, connecting with presence, since that would seem to me to be the key to anything sustainable.
SONDJAH: You are most certainly right, and without individuals connected to presence, to God presence, to the presence within themselves and the presence of others, then our work is for naught. Our work here is in the engagement between mortals and celestial and angelic beings, with the God presence among us. This is an important aspect and this is part of the centering, which occurs early in the meeting. We would wish, hope, and encourage you to engage with the presence of spirit, outside of these moments here, in these evenings that we spend together. It is vital to do this.
You have raised an important part, an aspect of all the sustainable work that we will do co-creatively together, but always there must be given the acceptance of the individual, as primary, but in relationship to the Creator, to the God presence within them. This is sustainability into the infinite future of the individual. To design sustainable civilizations without considering sustainable souls in the afterlife and their progress towards Paradise in the infinity of time, is a useless endeavor, and we certainly appreciate your point of view. Thank you.
Group: Thank you.
SONDJAH: Other questions?
Cayce: Would it be recommended to continue this exploration in the group that we are in, or should we contact each other in the entire group? What is your recommendation?
SONDJAH: That is your choice; we have no recommendation. We feel, however, that in the larger group, you will simply share your opinions, which may fertilize the other teams. Productivity will come from committed teams of individuals who will work on one idea until they have something on paper, which is something they can be proud of and which will accomplish the goals they have set out to accomplish.
Group: Thank you.
Mike: From a procedural standpoint, a process standpoint, would it be beneficial if we were to circulate to all those present, the list of assignments and ask people to respond to one or two that they were specifically interested in, and then let everyone know, who was interested in what, so they could, on their own, figure out how to work together?
SONDJAH: Yes, please, that would be most advantageous and help prepare for future meetings. Would someone please accept responsibility for this small chore?
Mike: I would be happy to do that, although I will need some help—unless someone else would like to do it. I’m not sure I got…oh, thanks, I got my help already; we’re on the way!
SONDJAH: Excellent. I will close now but will entertain one further question, if there is any? (None.)
SONDJAH: Thank you for your time. You have engaged this with far more enthusiasm than we had anticipated. Your eagerness is palpable to us; we feel the kindling of energy occurring in your hearts and your bodies and your minds—and some of your minds are quite literally dancing with ideas. We appreciate your enthusiasm and we also appreciate your tolerance for ambiguity at this very early stage. Definition will come as we have experience and we become more acquainted with how to proceed. You too have ideas about how to proceed, as this one has suggested. Please do not be shy or timid to share your ideas, which can assist our productivity for the future.
We wish you well; we look forward to meeting with you. Also know dear friends, that you may call upon us at any moment, even now as you depart. Take a moment or two to speak with your guardian who is with you, to your higher self, and to your guides, for assistance during the week as you work on these problems, these situations, these designs, for they have oftentimes, good ideas which can be given to you wordlessly or with words. I wish you well in all your good relationships. We pray, hope, and know that they are sustainable in the infinity of time, through the grace of our Creator. Good night.