2013-03-15-Conversations with Monjoronson 71

Session

• Moderator: Michael McCray

Opening

Prayer: Heavenly Father, we gather together once more in your over-care of love and light, ever grateful for all you have created in this universe for our pleasure and education. We ask for the presence of Christ Michael and Mother Spirit to be with us and guide us as we meet with Monjoronson or Charles and their staffs, with the intention of gaining wisdom in our search for meanings and values that we may share with our brethren on this world of Urantia. Know that we love you all and are truly grateful for this experience of working with spirit. Amen.

MMc: Good morning.

CHARLES: Good morning; this is Charles, here to receive your questions and to speak on behalf of the Triumvirate.

MMc: Very good. Would you like to address our audience first?

CHARLES: All is well; please begin.

Dialogue

• Is the program of raising consciousness related to the new Pope?

MMc: In CWM #69 on February 8, Monjoronson said: “we feel more sure about our capacity to engage more people on your planet, this planet, in the programs that we are developing.” . . . “It is much more of a global effort in raising the consciousness of your whole world.”

Then in CWM #70 on March 1, you said: “I report for her, Nebadonia, that they have now completed their network, their consciousness broadcast work of all Central and South America.” And “The work of the angelic corps in Middle and South America is to raise the consciousness of receptivity, which augments and assists the Spirit of Truth in its work.”

Does the work of the Angelic Corps in South America to raise the consciousness of receptivity there have anything to do with the selection of a new Pope from South America?

CHARLES: Yes. Next question.

MMc: That’s the short answer; is there a longer answer?

CHARLES: Yes. Would you like to hear it? (MMc: Yes, I would.) We—and when I say “we,” I mean the full staff of the Triumvirate—who are particularly focused on this planet—have been particularly interested in, and have been looking forward to, this selection at this time. This comes at an incredibly convenient time and circumstance for the work that we have been doing in South America. As your media has reported repeatedly, the 1.2 Billion people on earth who align themselves with the Catholic Church, that approximately half of them live in South America.

• The tremendous interest in South America

Hopefully, you see why we have taken such a tremendous interest in South America and that the angelic corps has so diligently worked its function of raising the consciousness on this continent. It also highly affects those other continents, particularly those who are related to this large organization. Because the Christian Church at large has been in a chrysalis state and stage of its own evolution, it has begun to experience the spring of warmth of belief and the need for compassion and humanity for the Church to express in its doctrines and its treatment of its membership. South Americans, Latins, are particularly heartfelt and family oriented, which gives rise to the ease in which they can accept the principles of social sustainability. These principles will underwrite the reformation of the Catholic Church and of other churches that wish to accept this at their higher level, their strategic levels, to move forward into a new era of growth and social responsibility to their membership.

MMc: Thank you; interesting. Last time we met did I hear you say that the eventual re-organization of all the states of South America will result in two states, one including Mexico down through Central America, the other to include the South American Continent up into Central America?

CHARLES: No, those were none of my thoughts.

MMc: Oh, I see. I misread entirely that section; I’ll have to read it again. What were your thoughts on that subject? Do you remember?

CHARLES: First, I would suggest you reread the text, but in essence, what I said was that all nations of South America, with the exception of two nations, would begin to dissolve the borders and boundaries that separate them. There is far more good to be achieved by integration and the softening of borders between nations than by living separately and alone. Does that help?

MMc: It certainly does. Now I understand how I got off base.

CHARLES: There will still be individual nations, just as there are individual states in the United States, but the borders will be very permeable and very easily negotiable; there will be a unified trade arrangement or agreement among all those nations with the eventuality of a unified monetary system. The European Union has not fulfilled its potential yet because of the ethnic and sovereign distinctiveness of those nations.

MMc: I wish to thank you for your appreciation and support for those of us who are actively involved in raising the consciousness of our planet. And I wish to extend our appreciation for your turning up our rheostats so that we might transmit a positive, uplifting and evolutionary consciousness upon our world.

CHARLES: You are most welcome.

MMc: Early in this work it seemed very important and now it appears perhaps even more important with the announcement of the work of raising the consciousness of receptivity in South America and also the spread of your new philosophy and the morals of sustainability.

• A moral structure to support social sustainability

Because of The Urantia Book, these sessions and the rise in consciousness, I believe our audience is much better informed than the majority of Americans about the real nature of the Father, the realities of heaven and the necessity of a moral structure that supports social sustainability, would you agree?

CHARLES: Yes.

MMc: You said that it is your hope that the issues of the morality of social sustainability will become openly discussed this year. Are you willing to openly discuss some of those issues with me now?

CHARLES: Of course.

MMc: Before we get into that, let me make sure I completely understand what has been said so far. In reading through what you said in CWM #70, I’m not having any trouble understanding the arguments that you have made, but I am having some difficulty in understanding how you phrased those arguments. I’m in need of some better definitions of the concepts that you used. Would you be kind enough to define for me social sustainability as it is used in the concept of the morality of social sustainability?

CHARLES: Certainly. Socially sustainable morality supports the social sustainability of a whole planet or a community. It provides a uniform methodology for individuals and organizations—and global organizations—to make decisions that are in keeping and that support the social sustainability of the individual, family, community and the global civilization.

MMc: Is this the same as the concepts of moral sustainability?

CHARLES: Are you drawing a distinction?

MMc: I’m not trying to draw a distinction, if there is no distinction to be made. Is this the same as the concepts of moral sustainability? If not, how do they differ?

CHARLES: There is none.

MMc: You said, “It is time to present an organizing, centralizing, rational and universally applicable philosophy and a means of pragmatically invoking that philosophy in the re-invention of social and cultural institutions.”

• The symbiotic responsibilities of the individual and society

Might we briefly state this humanistic philosophy like this: If we organize society around the three core values of social sustainability, then society becomes a true symbiotic social relationship between the individual and social agencies, institutions, organizations and social processes. It is then, the responsibility of society to nourish, support and protect the individual and it is the responsibility of the individual to nourish, support and protect society? Is this the philosophy you wish us to carry forward?

CHARLES: That is one aspect of that morality and the philosophy of social sustainability. There are responsibilities and obligations of the individual to support themselves and the larger community and civilization, and it is the responsibilities and obligations of social organizations to support the sustainability of individuals. This symbiotic relationship has not been in overt existence in the past, and it has not been looked upon as viable; it has been denigrated by many who are much more individualistic and who are much more commercially aggressive.

• The morality of social sustainability

MMc: I see. You said, “It is our hope,” and you shared with us, “that the issues of the morality of social sustainability will become openly discussed this year.” Concerning the moral limitations of political rights, to answer the question “when do political rights impinge upon the morality of social sustainability, or violate the boundaries of social sustainability,” could you rephrase that question for me, please?

CHARLES: I could, however, we have determined it is succinct unto itself. Is there some aspect that you do not understand?

• How does politics fit into the picture of morality and sustainability?

MMc: Well, again, it’s the definition of social sustainability that throws me here. Is the question, “when do the political rights of the individual impinge upon the morality of the symbiotic relationship between the individual and the social agencies and institutions or violate the boundaries of that relationship?” Is that the question we are dealing with?

CHARLES: Yes. Let me explain: What you are looking for is an explanation rather than a redefinition. We will use the United States as an example: It came into existence to counterbalance the authority and control of a monarchy, where only one individual had the sole rights, politically, unto itself, and that the individuals, the citizens under the monarchy, were seen as stewards or subjects under the control and authority of the monarchy. The United States Constitution saw the individual, the common person as an equal to the king; equal as one; one person, one vote; one person is equal to any other person.

• The First and Second Amendments of the Constitution

To this extent, the Congress and Legislatures and populace have moved to expand this right of voting, this right of participation, this right of equality to the furthest extent possible, so that by the 1970’s all individuals over age 18 had an equal value of one, compared to the value of others. We see then, in this right of voting, that it extends into the First and Second Amendments, particularly, the right to free speech, the right to a free press, a right to carry arms. These rights have been granted to individuals, but there has been a disregard, there has been an absence of attention, to look to the responsibilities of society and of your jurisdictions to balance the rights of individuals against the responsibilities of society to protect other individuals. For instance, now, an individual—and we will use these egregious examples of the recent shootings in an elementary school, a movie theater and a high school in the United States, to demonstrate that the right to bear arms has been taken to a wholly inappropriate position, where an individual can carry an automatic rifle with magazine clips of immense quantities, so that the kill-power is multiplied many times over.

• The balancing of rights, responsibilities and obligations of societies

This right has not been balanced by the responsibilities and obligations of societies to protect other individuals, either from or after the fact of the use of these weapons. For instance, there is no obligating contractual relationship for your jurisdictions to care for those people, whether it is in a bank robbery or whether it is in a random shooting, a drive-by shooting or a malicious occasion of violence in a classroom against unarmed children. What are the responsibilities of society to care for those individuals who are injured, who remain traumatized through the duration of their lives? This may be so far out of your box of reality that you cannot relate to our response. Your society has an obligation to also protect the rest of the population, the individuals and your whole society, from the adverse use and expression of individual rights. Do you see that clearly yet?

MMc: Yes, I can see that….

• In granting rights, you must also grant protections

CHARLES: In granting rights to individuals, then you must grant protections to the rest of your societies and populations from the abuse of those freedoms. To offer a balance to this situation does not deny the individual the right to bear arms, [however,] society does have an obligation and responsibility to protect other citizens from weapons, from arms, that can cause inordinate destruction. This is reasonable, and this is a just thing to do. We do not argue that individuals have a right to bear arms, but the right to what kind of arms? You have the right to free speech; does that mean you have the right to drive down a street or every street, or put a speaker on every street corner of every city with someone blaring advertisements? Most of you would see this as an abuse of the freedom of speech proposition. The right to free speech also can extend to abuses in other situations.

There is a responsibility and obligation by society to protect its sustainability. When the rights of individuals threaten the sustainability of the family, the community and the larger society, then those rights have gone to the extreme ends of their expression. The balance of this morality is that individuals must be moral in the use of their personal and political freedoms and rights freedoms, and society has a right to protect itself from those individuals in that expression. As was mentioned, the life of an individual is very short compared to that of societies, which must endure for future generations. Obviously, it is the society, it is the culture that must endure, and at times, this requires a sacrifice of individuals to insure the survival of your society, your communities. It means that sometimes that the responsibilities and obligations of society are such that individuals’ rights and political rights would be curtailed, but not eliminated.

• The missing moral code of social sustainability

Your societies have not come to a balance yet of the rights and responsibilities of individuals and of society. You will see this occurring more and more so in the future. What is missing is for your courts and for individuals to make moral decisions that are consistent and fair for everyone, and fair and responsible for society is a “moral code of social sustainability.” This is the missing element. This must be published and published soon, so that your societies—and particularly your social agencies, whether the courts or social agencies of government or non-profits, are able to make moral decisions that are fair to all. When this code is used, there will be less and less judicial attention needed than currently in your society. Apparently, there is only the old ancient moral code, which was developed in a tribal and clan situation for a small society. It is a person-to-person moral code. There is no social code or a global code of morality for those respective organizations. This must be clarified. A moral code of social sustainability would define the responsibilities of individuals and the responsibilities and obligations of societies, both of which would insure the social sustainability and the perpetuation of your societies.

MMc: Thank you.

• [Long internal discussion among the members of this session.]

CHARLES: This is Charles. Can we begin again, please?

• On the subject of life and death

MMc: Very good. I’d like to talk to you about a subject that I know a little bit about—life and death. As a physician, I’ve got a better than average view of how people live, and how they approach death. You said that our society “has a highly bent orientation to preserve life at all costs, whether it involves criminals, or whether it is a terminally ill patient. Your society has a warped sense of priorities and importance of life, as it is willing to tolerate the abuse and murder and damage to individuals, while preserving the life of those who have perpetuated those crimes. This is nonsensical.”

I agree with you, Charles. It is nonsensical. From what I see, you are basing your reasoning for a sustainable society on the fact that these practices are unsustainable because they are a waste of resources. I have another reason that I agree with you. You and I can agree because there is no reason to fear death and that those who abuse, damage and murder others should be taken out of society. We can agree because we share the knowledge of the reality of God and Heaven. This knowledge is not known to most Americans. Therefore, they are left in the situation where they lack real knowledge of God, which leads to fear. We avoid death at all costs because we don’t really understand what it is, so we fear it. This manifests with our holding onto life at all costs.

Would you be willing to talk with me about how this lack of our knowledge dovetails into our need for social sustainability and our orientation to preserve life at all costs? I guess the question I want to ask is: Do you want to present the economics of the terminally ill and the criminals as the only reason for… (Pause.) I believe I’ve lost it here. Do you wish to provide the waste of resources, the economic issues as the only reason for suggesting that terminally ill patients be allowed to die without creating a great deal of cost, and that we do away with those individuals who are of no worth to society?

CHARLES: Well, if you see it that way, then you have completely missed the point of social sustainability. Social sustainability is based on the three core values of improving the quality of life of individuals and of society, assuring their growth, allowing for, and not only allowing or permitting, but encouraging the growth of individuals and the growth of societies, and for seeing the equal value for each individual as contributing to the social sustainability of themselves and others.

The morality of social sustainability does not take into account the finances involved at all; it is completely dependent upon improving the quality of life of the individual and of their community and society. Those individuals who are terminally ill, who are mindless vegetables have no awareness of the quality of life that they are living; they are unable to make conscious decisions. However, there are others who are terminally ill who are highly conscious and who can still appreciate and enjoy a great quality of life. However, those who are terminally ill and in intense pain, who are almost unconscious from the gravity of the pain, their quality of life is less than zero, perhaps. Their capacity to grow is no longer available to them, even though their value as an individual is that of everyone else. Their capacity to contribute to their own sustainability and to that of their family and community is perhaps zero.

Whether the individual lives their life or terminates it at that point is a conscious decision that only that individual can make. You, as a believer, know that death has no fear to you because of what lies on the other side, and that death is simply no different than going to sleep every night, as you have for the duration of your life. But for a secularist, how do you sell this proposition of social sustainability and the ease of death to one who does not believe in God? Social sustainability has the capacity to make that argument because of the three core values.

Most everyone can understand that life has value, but has value only when the capacity to improve your quality of life is there, that there is hope. When there is no hope, then, my friend, life becomes very short, mean and ugly. When you are unable to grow and to fulfill the desires, the potentials that lie within you that you are so intimately acquainted with, then life has little purpose, does it not? And at that point, your value is easily seen to you that you have less value to yourself than you had before, and little or no value to anyone else. So the equation of introducing money and monetary proposition to the arguments of social sustainability is misplaced.

MMc: I see. Sometime before we started this session, I came to the conclusion that I had missed the mark here. That fact is completely apparent to me

• Reasons behind misunderstanding celestial teaching

CHARLES: This is not unusual, my friend, for you, too, to misunderstand what we are saying. You have lived in this culture all your life; you have many assumptions that you are unaware of, that you have come to be familiar with and to accept that which is used in your culture. It is natural and normal to now ask you to leap outside of these bounds of normality and belief to accept something which is quite different, which does take some reorientation and some thoughtfulness and even daily prodding to keep your focus on a new system of thought. So, you need not be embarrassed by your forgetfulness.

MMc: I’m not feeling embarrassed; I’m not sure what I am feeling, but the situation is that I’ve missed the mark. There is much more to this that I have not allowed myself to see, for whatever reason. It may be because I have certain assumptions about the material that we have been talking about for so long now.

CHARLES: We have engaged the process of using a facilitator, a moderator as yourself, to assist readers and listeners to understand your position, that they are more easily able to put themselves in your position. You, in many ways, represent most or many of the readers and viewers and listeners so that your discomposure or your inability to grasp some of these concepts is quite natural and we accept this and appreciate it as part of the learning process for the larger audience.

MMc: I understand.

CHARLES: Many of those who have read these transcripts have “missed the mark” and are not sure of what they are reading, or their understanding of what they are reading. It may take many times to explain these concepts and this new philosophy of life and living.

MMc: Is there anything that you would like to say? I don’t have any further questions.

• Clarification on “caring for damaged individuals”

Roxie: Charles, I would like a clarification on the section from last time about “caring for damaged individuals.” I know that the statistics that I heard yesterday were rather startling that one out of every 5 boys are abused and one out of every 4 girls are [abused]. Are you saying that the individual that has been raped should not be allowed to bear children so that their trauma is not passed on to their children?

CHARLES: No, no, dear heart, not at all. This is not our statement at all. It is that we must instill new practices of childrearing and parental education to raise children so that they are whole and complete. In the meantime, until that [ratio] changes from 1:4 to 1:100, we must be tolerant and tremendously supportive of those individuals who have been injured, to assist them to become whole and complete. We would not withdraw them from the process or the privilege of childbearing. You have seen yourself in your own life that there have been individuals who have been seriously abused or injured in their childhood, where they know that they are incapable of raising children and have chosen to become sterilized or to abstain from having children. Are there further questions to your topic?

Roxie: No, I think that covers it because I was thinking that it was kind of harsh to further punish people that have been raped through no fault of their own, to be deprived of the joys of raising children of their own, and I see that you have already covered that, so thank you very much.

I do not have any other questions right now, but I have enjoyed this conversation.

• Reasons for bringing up topics that cause sharp thoughts

CHARLES: You will find that the topics that we have revealed in session #70 and then this one will cause a lot of sharp thoughts, and that you have questions that develop that need clarification. Our subsequent sessions may be quite brief, but they are nonetheless necessary to help bring clarity to the topics and to a thorough understanding of social sustainability.

The full field of social sustainability is included in the responsibilities of a Planetary Manager. Most of you have not ever thought about the perspective and responsibilities of a Planetary Manager, and the projects and the programs that they must develop to assist the whole planet—a population of now over 7 billion people—to evolve and grow as societies and a global civilization, and at the same time, simultaneously, having those programs completely specific to the needs of the individual to grow into who they can become, to make a major contribution to their own life, to their family and to their community and society. If you have trouble grasping the magnitude of this project and the concepts involved, do not be surprised. It will take at least two generations for these thoughts to become ingrained and useful and accepted into your societies. In the meantime, your societies will have many other dynamic and difficult situations to engage simultaneously.

Closing

We offer these programs, and again repeat that these programs, which may seem untimely to you, will become very necessary as a source of your hope for the future, for your children and grandchildren in times ahead when times are tough and difficult, where there seems to be no way out. We provide them at this time, which may seem premature to you, but these are evolutionarily necessary to assist the right direction and development of your societies and the healthy development of fruitful individuals who have the privilege of exploring the potential that God has given them. Thank you and good day.

Translations

Spanish