2010-12-31-Conversations with Monjoronson 26
- 1 Heading
- 2 Facilitators
- 3 Session
- 3.1 Opening
- 3.2 Dialogue
- 3.3 Closing
Group: N. Colorado TeaM
TR: Daniel Raphael
- Moderator: Vicki Vanderheyden
Vicki: Dear Father, as we enter the last day of this year, we ask that you provide us the opportunity where all the input and aspects assist us in this very last transmission of the year, that you encircuit us with your truth and beauty and wisdom with us, in allowing his message to come through, clearly and accurately, with gratitude and humility. Amen
- A glimpse of the spirit realm
MONJORONSON: Good morning, this is Monjoronson. (Good morning and welcome!) It is good to be in your presence again, dear ones. You are special to us and you have a particular and even peculiar place in the development of this work that we are doing. You are not alone in this singularity, however, but your numbers are few in comparison to the billions of people on your planet. This day, for you, is the last day of this year, and then begins a new year. You see this as a closing of one era and the beginning of another. However, there are no ‘New Years’ in Havona, or in Salvington; and there is no sunset and no sunrise. We live in the perennial light of the Creator, which is the way the universe was created in the morontial and spiritual realms, and in the eternal realms as well.
We are spiritual beings of this universe, and we are not diurnal; we do not live by the clock, either day or night. We have eras of rest and regeneration, and then, exuberant and joyful work. You will experience the same living way in your afterlife experience. It is something to anticipate, where your bodies do not wear down, but in fact, they continue to improve as you move from one regeneration of the body to another. You will be refreshed after your sessions of relaxations, rest, recuperation and joyful play. Joyful play may as well include joyful creativity on your part. So, my friends, we celebrate the end of the year for you, with you, and the beginning of a new year. I predict—tongue in cheek, as you would say—that this next year will inaugurate some immense changes. This is a preparatory year for 2012 and the decade beyond. This time, heretofore from the end of this year and previously, for the last twenty-three years, has been foundation building for what is to come. With that, I will close and let you begin with your questions.
Vicki: Thank you for that, Monjoronson. Yes, I myself, sense this coming year is going to be busy and unique in itself. I’ve been reading from some interesting sources, Monjoronson, enough so that it has generated questions in many areas. So this session may touch on a variety of topics and how they relate to the afterlife and our belief systems. It just might really surprise us all, where this conversation leads.
I’d first like to engage you in a quick dialog regarding various spiritually oriented pieces that we may read, and possibly ask you to clarify some basic truths related to their validity. In doing so, hopefully this will assist us in discerning and examining beliefs. Is that okay with you? (Monjoronson: Of course.) It would seem, Monjoronson, that historically and into modern times, human societies considered the different scriptures as their codes of law, and as direct instructions from God.
MONJORONSON: Historically, that is correct.
Vicki: Okay, and that human societies construct morals based on these ‘gold standards’ of scriptures, so to speak, that profess to be these instructions from God. Is that correct?
MONJORONSON: Not necessarily.
Vicki: Would you explain?
- Organismic morality is what works for sustaining societies
MONJORONSON: Certainly. There were many primitive societies and cultures, and even civilizations, which did not have religions, which did not have a formalized religious base, and did not codify their morality in the religious precepts of that organization. Morality, and I am glad you have begun this discussion, morality is what works, and what does not work according to maintaining and sustaining a society, a community, a civilization. Morality is the [group of] behaviors by which participants, citizens, within a society adhere, so that the society can remain together, rather than disintegrate socially.
Vicki: Well, thank you for that definition of morality, because I have a fair amount of questions about morals. There seems to be quite a bit of controversy as to how we should view our morals.
MONJORONSON: May I interject, please? (Vicki: Yes.) We had begun working with this one about a year ago, on what we title “organismic morality” — the morality for the organism of the individual, and the morality for the organism of society, and both must be maintained, and both must be sustained. I will leave it at that and I do not use this as a teaser for you, but just to explain to you that this is a topic which we have been exploring and wish to further develop with this one and others who are interested. It is important that your societies be maintained from without, as well as from within—both from within, meaning within the construct of a society, and within the spirituality of each individual. Thank you.
Vicki: That’s interesting, because one of the quotes I wanted to share with you was this, from one of my readings: “The outer peace of your world is so very fragile, because the inner peace of your worldwide society, is virtually non-existent.” Would you agree with that statement, Monjoronson?
MONJORONSON: Wholeheartedly, yes.
Vicki: Would you maybe, speak to it?
- Morality, ethics and standards of social consciousness
MONJORONSON: Yes, certainly. Your society has, [as] has your world, more and more over the recent decades, built its strengths on the outer. You are beginning to see the very gradual, very slow de-sovereignization of nations, so that their boundaries and borders become more porous and ambiguous. You also see international commerce blooming to such an extent that nations no longer have control over the multi-border corporations. There is the penchant of your commerce to emphasize materiality as a means of increasing profits and sales and lifestyles and standards of living. But the inner [workings] of a society, whether it is that of whole societies, or in the inner thinking of individuals, which is the indoctrinated society within the social consciousness within each individual, is very, very fragile. Your morality and your ethics and your standards of social conscience, are at the low ebb, where there is the capacity of a society to allow the acquittal of an individual, who is obviously a murderer, or an individual who has bribed public officials. Individuals begin to accept this double standard within themselves and see their behavior as doing nothing ‘wrong,’ to similar but lesser egregious acts. What is missing is, of course, the connection of the individual to the Divine. There is the lacking of the higher levels of understanding of the ‘Golden Rule’, which we must speak to one day, please.
The fragility of your world and your societies is such that if any of the material aspects of your social equation are upset, that you will verge on the state of anarchy quite rapidly. You are a very fragile people in your world, and in your social constructs. You have almost absolutely no moral backbone as a society. You have moral backbone for individuals, but you, as a society, do not know how to maintain yourselves with a social morality. You have individual morality that is embedded in the statutes of your states and nations, but you do not have a morality within your societies, embedded within your laws for the protection of society as a whole from individuals. You have the protections of one individual from another, but you do not have society being consciously protected from the egregious, violent, predatory acts of individuals, which have been on the rise. This sub-population of your world, of your nation, has been increasing, so that there are fewer and fewer of you with the capacity to be a major-dominating moral majority. And I apologize if there is any political ambiguity there, because I mean none.
Vicki: Thank you for that. I need to take a moment here, Monjoronson.
MONJORONSON: Certainly. I have given you a mouthful to think about.
Vicki: Yes, you have. I’m wondering if this indicates that we’ve been using the wrong tools… We keep trying to get our world to change its behaviors; unfortunately, it appears that if we don’t take this to a deeper level and change our beliefs, then we are not really addressing the full picture. Would you agree?
MONJORONSON: Yes, that is correct. The foundations of this are beliefs.
Vicki: Okay. It kind of reminds me of what I observe in the classroom. For instance, a teacher may handle a situation with a child, by what she ‘believes’ is wrong with that child. And if her belief system is inaccurate, then the actions that she uses to assist that child are then somewhat ineffective. Is that a good analogy?
MONJORONSON: Yes, you see this as conflict of beliefs.
Vicki: Yes, yes, and that it’s our beliefs that dictate our behavior. Hmm… I think what you are saying to us here, when we talk about social morality and individual morality, is that there seems to be an issue with the fact that we have inconsistent beliefs that relate to individual morality, and those that relate to social morality?
MONJORONSON: That is correct.
Vicki: Would you explain that a bit more for us?
- Being oblivious to obvious contradictions and inconsistencies
MONJORONSON: Let me give you an example: Yes, it is quite apparent to us, but you are oblivious to the obvious contradictions or inconsistencies. Where a nation can declare war—or even not declare war—but simply to invade another sovereign country, and kill its citizens, and yet, when they are attacked in that foreign country, they will respond and eliminate the threat. Yet, within your own society, within your own homeland, you do not treat the same aggression equally. You have individuals in your society, who are predators, who are attacking the very moral foundations of your society, who are social predators that kill, maim, and injure for a lifetime innocent individuals, yet these people are not dispatched or removed from your society. They are housed in prisons and released, to once again—and many times, perhaps—incur the same damages. Even if a victim is not killed, oftentimes their post-traumatic stress difficulties will last a lifetime and they are incapacitated for employment, or for engaging in normal, functional, social behavior. This is completely inconsistent with an evolved society.
You must extend the same moral obligations that exist between individuals to include society as a whole and the individual. It is particularly inconsistent with how you deal with other nations and their citizens. You condone war; you condone the killing of other innocent individuals—or let it happen, without reaction or objection—yet you do nothing about that within your own society, and this is the beginning of the undermining of the general level of morality underneath a society. That is, the general moral level of your society is less now that it was only 50 years ago, and this will continue until your society takes steps to protect itself as an organism.
- Society has a moral obligation to protect itself, to sustain itself
If a society is not based on the bedrock of principles of social sustainability, then it will wither and die, as all other civilizations on your world, heretofore. The founding of a permanent society that successfully moves into the days of light and life is based upon social sustainability and the removal of any inconsistency, and the removal of aggression, whether it is from other foreign nations, or from within. You fail to see that society has a moral obligation to protect itself, to sustain itself, from within and from without. There are many more levels of this discussion, to which we could address, but I think it would take you astray from where you want to go today
Vicki: Okay. I think it was interesting in one of my readings, where they stated that we mortals always look upon our aggression as a defensive mode. We rarely see ourselves as the aggressors. We always have a case for the defense.
MONJORONSON: Yes, it is always necessary to defend oneself, but to be aggressive and state that it was necessary as preventative, is erroneous and it is a violation of your own morality.
Vicki: In the process of determining and examining our beliefs, there is much in the way of reading material that contradicts itself in our society. It seems that some reading material is given total weight, and other reading material that may be of a more recent form may be discounted. I’m finding that both have value; both seem to—from my point of beliefs—provide truth. Yet, there is a strong need to discern, not only the modern literature on spirituality, but also the Holy Scriptures. Would you comment on this please?
MONJORONSON: There are two things that you said, that strike to the heart of all you were discussing: One is that one must be discerning in all that comes into their mind, so that they can accept that which is valid in their mind, that which they call ‘truth’ and ingrain that in their mind, and discard the rest. The other part is related to that directly, and that is ‘truth seekers;’ only truth seekers examine the old text, those which are authorized by their religious organization, and compare it to the new material, and seek the truth in both, and to see the relevance to their own lives. It is important 1) to question what one is reading; that is the first element of discernment. 2) The other is curiosity, which leads the truth seeker to examine other sources to see what they say about it, and then to discern and accept that which makes sense to the reader. Not everyone is trained to do that. Not all readers have those capacities or those abilities.
- Revelation comes with every generation
It is important therefore, that teachers, who claim to be teaching truth, know both the truth of their own religious authorized documents, and that which has truth in it from newer revelation. The underlying movement to which direction you are moving is that revelation comes with every generation. Revelation is relevant to each new generation, and there must be a new revelation for every generation. Religions, as they exist, are not sustainable. We continue to thump the table with this theme, and we will continue to do so into the future. Religions, to be sustainable, must be consistent within their belief system, must be consistent within their documents, and remove those inconsistencies. Most religions have many inconsistencies. The Old Testament has dozens, if not hundreds, of inconsistencies, and at least a half-dozen different ‘creation’ stories within it, and they vary within themselves. Thus, the Old Testament is not consistent, and this caused great confusion to readers four hundred years ago, and four days ago.
Vicki: Thank you for that clarity. And also, defining the steps for us: the questioning, the seeking out of curiosity, what others say, and then the discernment. That was very simple, but very helpful.
There are many who do not believe that revelation is ongoing. I see it oftentimes with people who are afraid to take a look at a lot of modern reading material that may have revelations beyond the Bible or the Koran and even the Urantia Book. Would you agree with this?
MONJORONSON: Most definitely.
Vicki: And since revelation is ongoing it does require that we discern when we read these pieces. It seems we aren’t going to be able to really examine our belief systems, unless we accept that fact that our society is changing, which then changes our morals and how we look at them, and practice them. When we do that, we also have to examine our beliefs, to make sure they’re consistent with our morals. Am I on the right track here Monjoronson?
Vicki: Okay. I’m going to move on. You mentioned in our last dialog on beliefs that the more primitive religions were based on the concept of duality. Am I assuming correctly that you meant that beliefs were outlined in very black and white, right and wrong terms, with little room for gray areas, when you spoke of duality?
Vicki: Okay… Would you give us a better definition of what you meant?
- The concept of duality
MONJORONSON: The ancients began with that which works, and which does not work in their societies. They saw that in the behavior of others that there is night and day, that there is black and white, and that there is good and evil. And so they built their religions and their social codes in terms of this great duality. This is a wonderful beginning, but it does not engage the gradations of behavior, thought and does not allow for a discerning mind. They saw life and living, and spirituality as good and evil, night and day, summer and winter. And so, these natural phenomena were easily incorporated into the belief systems that the ancients had. They believed that there was an ultimate Creator who brought the world into existence, therefore, the night and day and what was the mode of operation of the universe, and therefore this dualism was stringently invested in many belief systems, and still carried over into the simplistic religions today.
Vicki: Monjoronson, would you explain how we may approach the examination of our beliefs in a more mature and advanced way, one that is more appropriate for our current evolutionary era?
- Teaching discernment skills is fundamental to the democratic process
MONJORONSON: Yes, I would be glad to. The educational level of your populations in the developed countries is improving greatly. It is important that the skills of discernment be taught early in life. This is fundamental to the democratic process. This is particularly necessary in a developed, democratic society, to teach the skills that sustain that democracy. The morality then begins to be that of the society as a whole. The process of thinking, of discernment, of asking questions, rather than accepting authority, is primary to personal responsibility. It is mandatory in a sustainable society that individuals be taught to be thinking citizens, and this is not solely for political process, but social process and spiritual process, and religious process as well.
The discerning mind applies itself equally to politics and economies, and economies of religion or beliefs or spirituality. It is important that these skills be taught. What you have found, and we are seeing, is that these skills of building capable, competent minds are not being taught. The Socratic Method is based upon learning discernment, to think independently, just as you have done in this question and answer process. It is important that we teach—and you teach—people how to think. We are trying to teach you how to think on your world as a total social entity, as a total global living entity, environmentally and otherwise. We wish to teach you to think of the brotherhood of man within the Fathership of the Creator, so that you see each other as equals and as an opportunity to develop your own skills of service in your social behaviors.
Vicki: Thank you. I do find that our society does not help us very much in that direction. I find that with this high technological base children tend to want immediate gratification; tend to react before they think; tend to be impatient with a slower process, and have a difficult time slowing down their minds, in order to discern and think critically.
MONJORONSON: It is not so much that it is wrong that individuals have fast minds, but how they use that. It is not so wrong that they have technologies, but how they use those technologies as an extension of their own minds. The capacity for individuals to think quickly, to make decisions quickly, and to use technology to fulfill the extension of themselves, just as craftsmen use manual tools in their trade, there is nothing wrong with this. What is deficient is learning how to use their mind and how to use these technologies together.
Vicki: It seems that young children and even older students don’t seem to have the patience; they seem to be in a fast mode…
- Patience is a learned mental skill
MONJORONSON: Dear one, patience is a learned skill!
Vicki: Can you help us with that? What do you suggest?
MONJORONSON: Most certainly. Patience is a learned mental skill. Patience is an aspect of self-discipline, self-disciplining your own mind, observing yourself as being impatient and then bringing yourself into slowness so that you proceed more slowly, more patiently, more carefully, with forbearance, forgiveness, and tolerance. These are the fundamentals of patience, and as they underlie patience as a social behavior. This is a personal skill —a personal discipline—that can also be taught.
Vicki: Yes, I can see that and so I would think one method of teaching this would be to provide students with the opportunity to ‘think about their own thinking’, as I would call it.
- Mental discipline is necessary for advancing civilization
MONJORONSON: This too is a taught skill. What is missing throughout the broad spectrum, the broad parameters of your global social existence and education, is that mental discipline is not taught. Teaching mental discipline is a necessary skill for an advancing society and civilization. Individuals must be taught how to discipline their own mind, how to live their own mind, how to live their lives with structure and form, and their higher self is in charge of that, to make that decision. We are not talking about ninety percent of the world, however; only at this time, twenty-five percent of maximum have the capacity for self-discipline of this nature, to teach themselves how to think more properly, more capably, more competently; how to dissuade themselves from unethical or unproductive habitual thinking. It is part of an evolving social consciousness of an individual, which can be passed on down to children in the family environment. Why family structure is so important is because it is a learning environment for the next generation.
Vicki: Ahhh... It sounds like we have some first steps to take, rooted in our parenting and our family skills.
MONJORONSON: Yes, the educational philosophers are fully competent and capable of designing educational programs to teach the mental skills of an evolving individual, and an evolving civilization. It is whether there is the will to do so. At present, your society is in great confusion as to what to teach children. It is whether they are teaching them skills to become accountants, engineers, or something else. Rarely is the individuals taught to become a social human being in human society, one who can be sustainable by themselves, and happy to be patient for the next step of their life to evolve. This is the mark of a much advanced civilization, though these skills can be taught now; could have been taught four-hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. Your society now has a tremendous responsibility to take on new levels of education for the sustainability of its moral society. It begins with the individual, teaching them the skills of mental discipline, self-discipline, and social-discipline.
Vicki: Thank you for that. I’m going to have to give that some thought. You touched a bit on spirituality and religion, and I’m sure this has been defined for us before, but for the purpose of today’s conversation, would you define and maybe extend for us, Monjoronson, the difference between spirituality and religion?
- The difference between spirituality and religion
MONJORONSON: Yes, I will repeat myself from an earlier session recently, that religion has to do with an organized way of worshiping God, and religion may take perspectives that form behaviors, procedures of doing that become more important to them than the actual relationship with God. It becomes almost a obsessive/compulsive social behavior on the part of religions, which is self-defeating to build a relationship between the individual and God, so that the individual worship of God apart from the house of religion, house of worship. Spirituality is an understanding of one’s connection to all that exists. There is an esprit, a gestalt that exists in the universe.
It is particular and peculiar to this planet, and it is particular and peculiar to the social environment of the individual. There is spirituality connected with the trees, with the earth, with the rocks and plants and animals. There is a spirituality of understanding that all and everything is connected. Spirituality is a point where an individual can simply live in tremendous universe ignorance, satisfied with being in oneness with all that exists, without the curiosity to explore what that means, or how they are connected, or what is the underlying basis for this connection. Spirituality is an understanding that one has a nature that is different from their body, their material existence, that there is something within them that is the essence of creation itself.
Vicki: Our studies are showing that within our populations, people are pursuing spirituality more than they are organized religion. Would you consider this progress?
MONJORONSON: Yes, though humankind has always been progressing, if you define it that way. There are always those that live outside the box of established religions, and therefore not called ‘religious’. There have always been those who are of higher minded feeling, and with even ‘knowing’ that they are part of something far more grand than their existent religions that are taught to them from childhood.
Vicki: I’m not sure I understand this, but when I take a look at our Melchizedek School, for instance, where we’re attempting to assist people in having their own personal relationship with the Creator, with God, are we employing more spiritual technique than religious technique?
MONJORONSON: Yes, let me expound on that, please. The religion of the individual is singular, it is special, it includes the practices of the individual to maintain that relationship with the Creator, the essence of the universe and that which indwells their own mind. When a person wakes in the morning and enters meditation, or in the close of the day, or during the day—or sometime when they are at their typewriter or over their shovel—takes a moment to be in relationship with that essence, then they have an established personal religion. They are wholly spiritual, and they are wholly religious at the same time. There is no conflict and there is no separation between the individual and their religion and their spirituality. They are simply practicing spirituality in a procedure that agrees with their nature, their time, their lifestyle, which is to maintain that relationship with the Divine; and, we whole-heartedly support that.
The Melchizedek Schools, which you have begun, particularly Melchizedek School #1, is of great essence and importance to this, because it is non-religious and does not have an ideological base, in that it does not espouse or identify or affiliate itself with an established religion, but simply assists the individual in developing a system of practices, which assist them to have a personal, conscious and intimate personal relationship with the Creator and the Creator’s hierarchy of beings of light. This enables and empowers individuals to become consciously part of that grand hierarchy, from the individual to the Creator, being assisted by the Creator’s spiritual helpers and messengers, whether they be Guardian Angels, Melchizedeks, or Archangels—these are all available for the individual, and each will assist the individual as that person asks for their help and assistance, and is relevant to that spiritual being. This is a good and wonderful beginning, and there are no strings or attachments for completion of the Melchizedek School. You can complete School #1 and that is fine, or never go on and that is fine. You have established that there are no obligations for dues, organization or structure. You have simply engage individuals of Thoreau’s nature, who can wander about in their life, being in touch with the Divine. That is truly wonderful and grand!
- Understanding the will of the Father
Vicki: Yes, and having experienced that first school, I agree with you, how wonderful it was, and divine for us all. Thank you for that.
You know, Monjoronson, I committed myself to the will of the Father awhile back, not fully understanding what his will was for me at the time, though I trusted that it would be along the path of truth and beauty and goodness and service to others. The more I read, the more I wish to understand even more thoroughly, the will of the Father. I really appreciated what you shared with us in our last session, which were some guidelines of what God requires of us, and I’m going to briefly paraphrase those: The first was believe in a Creator; the second was know the Creator wants us with It in Paradise; third, take the responsibility to follow that path that leads to him; and fourth, know that we are not alone. Am I accurate in paraphrasing these guidelines, first of all?
MONJORONSON: Very well. It is wonderful to review this.
Vicki: Yes, I think so too. That helped me tremendously in understanding what God’s will was for us. It sounds as if these guidelines may be general enough to unify many who seek the basic premises for a World Religion? Is that somewhat accurate?
MONJORONSON: There is accuracy, but we have no wish to establish a World Religion at this time.
Vicki: All right, thank you. In my readings, some say that God does not need anything from us; others have been quite specific in defining the demands and instructions that God has for us. It is difficult, at best, to navigate between these extreme viewpoints. Can you help us with this?
- What does God need from us?
MONJORONSON: Most gladly. First, the Creator for creation is even now sufficient unto itself and does not need you or me. Once the Creator created the universe, and you should be curious why the Creator did that—that is another aspect of theology, which we could delve into later—that having created the universe and you and me, and all others, we became a way of God knowing Itself. We began to become an expression of Itself within the dimensions of the universe, in which we live. Therefore, or ergo, what is it that we need to do to assist God to express Itself, so It experiences Itself to the greatest extent possible, for the benefit of the universe, ourselves as individuals, and for the greater exploration of the experience of the existence, which God appreciates. This is the fundamental basis of learning to do God’s will.
- A subtle pervasive plan of life for each of us, if you accept it
Now, set that aside, please. The other part is that the universe as God has created it is not mandatory. There is no preset obligatory path to which you have to follow. There is, however, a subtle and pervasive plan of life for each of us, if you accept it. And in order to accept it, you must explore how to do God’s will. Now, this creates quite an irony, does it not? But this is the origin of your question, I believe. You learn by doing, dear one, and all who read this; you learn by doing. “Doing” is this: become curious; ask questions; learn whether you are satisfied with where you are or not. You will find that those who are satisfied with where they are have no movement.
You who are of a spiritual nature, who wish to have a personal relationship with God, will experience tremendous change in your life. Many of you will have physical, social circumstances, which are disagreeable, yet you may have a wonderful, joyful, ecstatic life and relationship with the Divine, knowing that where you are is where you should be, and that you understand that the difficulties are simply telling you, “not this way.” Where you find success, it means, “move forward.” Ask for opportunities: when a door of opportunity opens, you walk through it, and you continue to engage it until there is a closed door, and then you stop and ask, “What is this about?” “Is this the way?” “Or is there another way?” So sometimes you have to back out of that door of opportunity and try another one. You will find that when you begin this process, that your spiritual helpers, Guardian Angels, Midwayers, your Thought Adjuster, Melchizedeks, Archangels will assist you and guide you, so that one success opens to another, and you will explore opportunities, sometimes simply for the experience of exploring them. This will empower you and enable you to open another door of opportunity.
Where you make the mistake is where you become stuck. You say, “Oh, I can’t go back, I can’t go forward, I can’t go sideways,” and you just stay there. You must ask the question, “Is this all there is?” “Show me a door.” Ask for what you need; ask for opportunity. Many of you are slow to learn how to ask questions. Similarly, at the dinner table where there are ten of you, dessert is passed around the table and passes you by. You finally ask, “Well, don’t I get some dessert too?” And they say, “Oh yes, of course. Here help yourself.” You are handed the dessert tray, and help yourself. Otherwise, if you just sat there it would go past you, and without asking, you would be left without. Many of you—millions, if not billions of you—are left without, simply because you do not ask for more than what you have. And we are not talking about a better car, a better house, designer clothes, rather than what you would buy at Target or some other store; we’re talking about a better life, where you are happy. Happiness is not generated by goods and materiality; it is generated by peace within, knowing that you are where you are supposed to be, and you enjoy where you are, and you know that you are progressing. This is doing the Father’s will.
Vicki: Thank you for that, Monjoronson. I will read that part of this session, over and over and over again. I think that was extremely helpful.
Now, I wish to talk about worship. People are confused about worship. Does God require that we worship him?
MONJORONSON: God requires that you attempt to become like Him.
Vicki: So, when we are encouraged to worship, I get the sense that it serves a purpose for us rather than for Him.
MONJORONSON: That is correct.
Vicki: Okay. Is it like the way I learned to view gratitude? When I feel and express gratitude, it opens my mind to a higher level of existence, to more of a spiritually receptive state. Is it like that, Monjoronson?
Vicki: Would you tell us more?
What is worship?
MONJORONSON: Yes. Worship is very simple, but many of you have confused worship with your religions, once again. Worship is not a set of practices; worship is not an obligatory sequence of behaviors or rituals that you must do that satisfies worship, as it is defined by the religion. We have experienced many times, individuals in the most humble of circumstances, have a wondrous, wonderful, joyful episodes of worship, whether it is standing beside their shovel, resting upon it with their eyes closed, in total union with the Creator, their God presence within. This is worship. Worship is that state of ecstatic gratitude, which you feel in your heart for being alive in the circumstances of your life as you are experiencing them. Worship is the transpersonal, transcendental experience that is generated within you when you connect with the God presence within you.
What you are teaching in your Melchizedek Schools are the fundamental elements that lead repeatedly, frequently, often and consistently to worship within the individual, anywhere they are. It is such a desperate irony to see so many devout people going to their places of worship, to experience that moment of worship, that connection with the Divine, and fail to receive it or to experience it. This is so sad. It is as though the religions have gotten in the way of the personal relationship between the individual and God. Worship is that moment’s Ah-Ha within one’s self when they know that they are part of something far grander than anything around them, and they experience it and feel it in their body, they know it in their mind. It is something that cannot be taken away from them. This, dear one, is worship!
Vicki: Ahhh, Monjoronson, that was wonderful. I actually felt I was in a moment of worship.
MONJORONSON: Yes, you may have been.
Vicki: Thank you. I believe that has been misunderstood by many of us for a long time.
MONJORONSON: Unfortunately so. It is something that has been placed on a pedestal from the individual as to be almost unattainable, and even many within high positions of their religions have made judgments upon others, as being too humble and seeing that as too despicable to ever have a worshipful moment with the Creator, and this is the ultimate form of blasphemy — judging another as not being capable of having a relationship with the Divine.
Vicki: I can see that. This is another part that needs to be read over and over and over again. Thank you for that.
Monjoronson, I’m going to close this session, unless you have something else you wish to share?
MONJORONSON: In all that we have discussed about many dozens of topics over the years, there is one principle which needs to be maintained in your discerning minds, and that is to ‘keep it simple.’ Thank you.
Vicki: Okay. Thank you. And you know it seems to be that when I get the most benefit is when it’s simple.