Talk:2017-08-14-New Era Transition 21

From Nordan Symposia
Revision as of 23:27, 12 December 2020 by Mywikis (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "http://" to "https://")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Lighterstill.jpg

Among the many objections to Daniel Raphael's work are:

  • 1. He cites academic authority using a bogus Ph.D.
  • 2. His work parrots Neo Conservative US foreign policy. NEC 7NEC 8
  • 3. He cites the Rothschild family as a model of social sustainability. NEC 9
  • 4. He has spiritual beings citing the amorality of their protocols.NEC 20

Please see the discussion page on a previous contribution of this author to better understand why the content is in this discussion page rather than in the Transition_21 article page.

Content

August 14, 2017


Peaceful positions


MACHIVENTA: Good morning, this is Machiventa Melchizedek and welcome to another day. As you can see from the developments and events around your world, that there seems to be no shortage of crises that need resolution, particularly from a peaceful position. The antagonisms of old enemies and those who are new have brought your world to another brink of difficulty. I would not say the brink of destruction but a brink of another difficulty. Your world is quite an interesting and unusual planet to observe and to manage. I use the term “manage” quite loosely today as we are in the early stages of corralling or bringing together the forces of good that can work for the best long term results of healing of our planet—your planet and our planet. We know that there are many people who are interested in the good of the world, and yet it is those very few people who are in control who seem to be using the world as their chess board for their personal movement of power, authority, and control.


The average individual who lives in those communities whether it is Vladivostok or whether it is in Baltimore or in Tokyo or elsewhere wishes for peace and wishes that their leaders would bring about peace. Rarely do individuals at the local level understand why there seems to be a necessity by those in power to vie for control and to be in opposition to others. We are seeing egoism at the planetary level being played out as though they were neighbors throwing rocks at each other across their fences, whereas in fact the fences do not exist in your world and the rocks have become missiles.


Assessing your minds and options

We are in great appreciation thankfulness that you are here today attending this session with us. You are in many ways on the planning commission for the healing of your world. We use your minds, your thoughts and your times in meditation to be with you in intimate contact to assess your life, your world, and the options that you think that you would like to exercise to assist us. Planetary management will eventually be seen as a personal endeavor, and that everyone is responsible for their contributions to your world and to how the world can assist the individual. This may seem like some aloof, distant, idealism but in fact today this week, this month, these years we are intimately involved with the daily practices of planetary management and how to bring about the good of the world. The plan for inhabited planets is for the good of all concerned—for the benefit of the universe to have as many individuals grow into the fullness of their soul and to make contributions to themselves, their world and to the universe.


If there are questions, I am open to receive them now.


Racial equality


Roxie: It seems that our country was making progress in our race relations for equality during the Obama years, but now I sense a definite slipping backwards. How do you see it from your greater perspectives?


MACHIVENTA: We have really no comment that would be political in nature. What you are seeing is the reserved prejudice and bigotry that has now seen a permissive environment to release their hostility.


What is missing is a Melchizedek School of Planetary Management


Craig: It has always struck me as odd that we seem to get these leaders or rulers that seem to want to involve us in more trouble than there is any necessity for and that they be one of the challenges to keep those people out of power and somehow get the people who are more interested in peace, in the environment and good working relations into power. Is that an observation and how might we go about that?


MACHIVENTA: I can deal with your statement, thank you. What is missing is a Melchizedek School of Planetary Management. This would include the process of leader selection. It would become an adjunct to your political process. It is important that leaders begin to take on a much larger perspective of their place on the planet. The problem of the sovereignty of nations will not be resolved quickly; it will not be resolved soon. Yet, there is a way of dealing with sovereignty that is outside the boundaries of each nation, and that would be to have a school that teaches Planetary Management, as I mentioned, but one that would see sovereignty as much the same way as you see the 50 states of the United States, [and] that the world would eventually become a Federal Democratic Republic, that each nation would have its own sovereignty, but there would be a co-responsibility between and among the states or nations for the management of the planet.


What is required to support that is a larger-than-life perspective of leadership, one that leads nations and citizens into a sense of oneness with others. What has been missing with the European Union is a sense of otherness that is “us.” When you see “us” as others and others as “us,” then you realize that we are the totality of all people, that there is then less of a division of “us” and “them.” “We” becomes the “we are all in this together,” and that “we are responsible for the peace of the world.” Peace within our own sovereign boundaries and peace within the world. The perspective must be broadened beyond the boundaries and this must be taught in the new public schools of all nations, that there is a responsibility to the higher good of the world by being cooperative. Individuals and nations can surely have their unique identity and their own cultures and so on, but this must give way to a peaceful world by accepting others as you accept yourself.


Is the United Nations viable as an organization?


MMc: Are you able to see this through our present organizations, the United Nations, or is there going to have to be a new organization that comes into the school—to promote the school?


MACHIVENTA: This is not about organizations; this is about a change of attitude, a change of appreciation. These changes can be made within existing organizations; organizations tend to see themselves as isolated and unique and alone, and that even within the United Nations, there is a separateness that is inappropriate for an organization that represents the amalgamation, the confederation of all nations. This can be done within existing organizations. What is required is that leaders begin to lead those organizations into a much broader, global perspective of their position in the universe and they then become teaching organizations. Right now, the United Nations and many other similar organizations are governing and mediating organizations to try to bring about peace. Yet, as we have said repeatedly, peace begins in the home; peace begins as a teaching, instructional module within the family and within the community and within public schools. It is not about indoctrinations; it is not about mind control and so on. Those statements are made by those who are defensive and wish to be in opposition to a broadmindedness that includes others as you include yourself.


MMc: You said that what’s needed is in a school of planetary management. Will we see such a school instituted before Monjoronson is on the planet, or after?


MACHIVENTA: Your question really obfuscates the problem between two different topics, and I will respectfully not answer right now.


Problems with the expansion of society


Liz: I have a couple of questions from my friend, Jeff Cutler. His first question regards the book, Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr. He says the author postulates that when a society expands beyond a certain size, that its problems increase geometrically while the human ability to cope with those problems grows only arithmetically. If this is true, should the social sustainability model take this phenomenon into consideration?


MACHIVENTA: Most definitely. It is a means of addressing growth within a nation, within a society to match that exponential growth. If you do not have growth of thinking and of attitudes and assumptions, then the external growth will dominate that thinking. Continue, please.


The smallest effective size of an organization


Liz: Where in the model should a discussion take place as to the smallest effective size of an organization?


MACHIVENTA: That would be determined by the 7 values. That discussion must take into account the quality of life, capacity of growth and adaptability of individuals and of communities and societies, and for the equal treatment of all individuals. When these organizations surpass their capacity to have empathy for those individuals that they are to “serve,” and to have compassion for them, and then to act in love of humanity as they would for their own organizational existence, then you will have a matched system of growth and adaptability of organizations that serve everyone in a more holistic approach. The difficulty of that equation is that it does not take into account the uncontrollable human population growth. The formula itself is correct, it is something to think about and it could be used for analyzing current situations. Remember that the 7 values dominate, or need to be infused in that formula to end up with answers that are workable. The difficulty with the formula is that it is intellectually advanced and surpasses the capacity of your societies and your civilization to make the correction to where the formula works for them for the future. Do you understand?


Liz: I do. Thank you very much. So he asks, “Is this book an appropriate inclusion in the proposed curriculum reading that we are proposing to these colleges about the curriculum of social sustainability?


MACHIVENTA: It is one book of many that will need to be included. One must, in an academic setting, must not get too carried away with intellectualizing the pragmatics of what is needed for your world to adjust. There is a certain idealism involved in this work, which is akin to accounting—accounting of numbers and formulas, and so on—whereas the human factor is not included in that. If this academic practice of social sustainability and understanding were taken to an intellectual level, then there would be great difficulty for its application at the local level, families and in public educational settings. You will find that this may occur much as economics is a highly intellectual field of thought and development, yet it can be used to examine the fundamental levels of existence for the individual, and in that there can be changes to public policy to make economies more livable for individuals. We surely do appreciate Mr. Cutler’s efforts to work in educational settings, as this is one of the primary areas that we will be pursuing in the implementation phase.


How to ask for assistance with a project


Liz: Thank you for that, and along those lines, this is a private request from him, in that he is meeting with the Dean of the Honors College at Southern Oregon University today. It’s a follow-up to his first pitch to him last June on the social sustainability presentation, which he has now made to many—well several—Southern Oregon University Presidents, so he’s requesting some assistance there this morning so that it all goes smoothly.


MACHIVENTA: One moment. I have finished asking the Thought Adjusters of those individuals who will be attending that meeting to urge their mortals to work together for the greatest good of the ends of these proposals.


Liz: Thank you, Machiventa. That’s all I have for today.


Roxie: Concerning the recent situation between North Korea and the US, if we pray for celestial intervention, is it possible to have celestial help in keeping the thumbs off of the red buttons that send nuclear bombs? [I asked because in the situation of 9/11, the celestials were not allowed to interfere with the freewill decisions of the terrorists.]


MACHIVENTA: Yes, of course.


Melchizedek Schools for Leadership


Liz: I would like to go back to this idea of Melchizedek Schools for Leadership. Is there a plan in place to implement one of those on this planet in the near future?


MACHIVENTA: Yes, most definitely.


Liz: Is there anything that we can do to assist in that implementation?


MACHIVENTA: Yes, there is. Please continue.


Liz: I can see that it would take a lot of manpower organizational work and I can almost envision how the first one could perhaps come to fruition, but it’s a little bit fuzzy in my mind yet. I’m wondering if there is something that we can do besides meditation and prayer. Is there some action that we can take, either singly or as a group to bring one of those into being?


MACHIVENTA: Yes, most certainly. The work of Jeff Cutler at the university level is an appropriate place to consider inclusion of these thoughts. It need not be called a Melchizedek School in a university setting as that probably would not go over too well, but the thought of social sustainability as a process that can be applied to planetary management and to the development of peace surely would be included in an academic program of social sustainability. This is a natural development, don’t you think, because the planet is all there is; there is not any larger social organizational setting than the planetary global setting. National settings have self-interest, but a global setting has the self-interest of the whole planet, therefore, when schools of economics and politics and sociology begin to include the thought of planetary management they will have reached the outer parameters of their thinking and application for their professional work. Do you understand this?


Would “planetary management” be more acceptable than “social sustainability?”


Liz: I am going to have to spend some time thinking about that and perhaps adjusting the parameters of our presentation. It seems as if our universities are all about how they can get funding, and how they can acquire students, and so when we make a presentation to the universities, that is foremost in their minds—how can we sell this, how can we get grants for this class, how can we move this forward to benefit the whole of the university. I’m wondering if courses on Planetary Management or the concept of planetary management wouldn’t be more interesting to these university people than social sustainability.


MACHIVENTA: Yes, you are correct. Just as Harvard and Yale and the primary universities have schools of this and schools of that, as the Slone or Kettering Schools of Economics, for example, you could have the “Cutler School of Planetary Management.” It is a moniker that can be applied to organizations, a university, or a school of thought that would attract many people to see what this school is all about. Social sustainability is a rather bland sort of topic to discuss, but when you have someone sponsoring a school at a university, then it takes on a different meaning; it takes on a certain competitive comparison between universities to have something similar. The point is well taken and thoughtful, thank you.


Liz: Thank you very much.


Ongoing revelation


Craig: I have a question about Urantia organizations or associations. It is to try and clarify what we talked about last week. It sounded like before we were trying to include all the Urantia Book readers, whether or not they were associated with channeling or even believed that it is happening. Now it sounds like we are to move ahead and associate with each other not only as Urantia Book readers, but also readers who are involved or sympathetic to channeling and all the new revelation that’s going on. That’s sort of leaving behind the channeling deniers, or whatever you want to call them. That’s a new direction in a sense. Is that correct?


MACHIVENTA: I would like you to think of revelation as a train, and that this train of revelation does not stop; that there are individuals, organizations who have chosen to leave the train; they do not wish to go forward with revelation to discover greater dimensions of the human mind—how their relationship with their Thought Adjuster, with the organization of the universe, or their personal relationship to their Thought Adjuster, to their guardian angel, to Christ Michael, to Nebadonia and to the celestial realm around them.


Rather than leaving them behind, they have left themselves behind; they have left the train of revelation and have now isolated themselves into 3 groups away from the platform of the station of revelation. It is not that we are deliberately leaving them behind, but they have left themselves behind. Revelation has been spoken of in the Urantia Book many times and the truth of revelation is that it is continuous, it is ongoing, and there is a new revelation for every generation as it says. You must not think of leaving your friends behind, for it is a matter that you would always have an invitation for them to join you, always open to them and available for them and that you would look forward to them joining you in discovering this revelation.


It is not so much that we are advocating that you discuss channeling or TRing, or any of these phenomena of the psychic realm, but rather that you think in terms of revelation. This is the main core of what you have in common. This will give the individual reader of the Urantia Book, whether they are conservative, or a liberal reader of the Urantia Book, an opportunity to engage in mutual discussion that is helpful for everyone. You see what has happened is that channeling as a factor of revelation has become politicized—you are either for it or against it—and so it becomes a competitive vying for control of the believer to believe in it or not to believe in it. What is most important is that you believe in revelation as ongoing.


Revelation occurs with every individual who sits in meditation, who deliberately and consciously keeps their mind in stillness so that their Thought Adjuster can work with their mind mechanism. Yes, dear ones, there are individuals whose minds are busy, but remember it is your intent that is important. Whether your mind cooperates or not is another factor, but when you take into account the will factor of your mind, that is the important part that has the intention to offer the opportunity for the mind to be open to your Thought Adjuster. Again, please focus on revelation; you are the living revelation; you, each individual, have revelation coming into your mind. Remember from our last session, when you open your mind to meditation, when you open your mind by saying, “I will to do God’s Will,” then you have truly opened yourself to receive revelation. And it is only through revelation, whether you hear it in your mind, or whether it is in the inner workings of your mind by your Thought Adjuster, that you grow into oneness with the Father; you grow into becoming a part of the First Source and Center. It is only through revelation that you will ever be embraced by the Creator in Paradise.


Craig: That’s more of an answer than I expected!


Roxie: This is kind of a curiosity question, Machiventa, but is the thalamus involved in the mind to mind connection during TRing?


MACHIVENTA: That is not a question we care to address right now.


Liz: I just want to say that that was such a lovely answer to Craig’s question about revelation and meditation. I so appreciate that; that was very meaningful for me today.


Craig: It adds perspective to that.


Roxie: With Jesus’ Birthday celebration coming up next week, it might give some of us an opportunity to approach the subject [of revelation] during the individual birthday celebration with our friends.


MACHIVENTA: We see that many of you still see yourselves in competition with the 3 Urantia Book organizations. This competitive attitude does not contribute to your personal revelation and we would really ask you to cease the competitive thoughts or trying to convince these people. You are putting your energies in the wrong place, at the wrong time, at the wrong purposes.


Revelatory Commission


MMc: ​ Regarding the decision for the Urantia Book to portray (or state) that it is difficult for an individual to contact their TA (and successfully know that is what has occurred), did that decision come out of the times and those individuals putting together the Urantia book or was that something that was passed down by the Revelatory Commission?


MACHIVENTA: Thank you for your question. That core of your question arose out of the cultural context of the times and the fears of the individuals who were culling the materials for inclusion. When you take into consideration the importance of one individual knowing their Thought Adjuster, you would realize that the Commission would never, never withhold the presence or the encouragement of individuals coming in contact with their Thought Adjuster. This situation of challenging what is there and what is not there, is part of the dynamic of inquiry and discernment that is necessary to receive a fuller understanding of how the Urantia Book came into existence, and what was included and what was not included. Your question is highly relevant and in many ways facilitates a closer examination of the Papers that were included, and why there was a stilted bias against understanding and knowing the Thought Adjuster. When you realize that God wants to know each of you personally, and that the Commission of Christ Michael and the Melchizedeks were centrally concerned about the individual coming to know God more closely and more perfectly, so that the individual may strive to become more complete and perfect as the Creator, you would realize that there would never be any withholding of any information for personal contact with the Thought Adjuster. Thank you for your question.


MMc: Thank you for your answer.


MACHIVENTA: Let us bring today’s session to a close, please.


Authentic, good, effective questions


You have been tuning up your minds; you have been thinking; you have been discerning; you have been using your skills and arts of inquiry to formulate really authentic, good, effective questions that we can address. As we told you many years ago, the quality of the question will determine the quality of the answer. Many times the ones who address you, myself, Monjoronson and others have striven to speak outside the box of the question you have given us, and we have expanded your understanding of the basic thoughts and elements of your question. This is necessary to assist you to begin thinking in larger-than-life parameters of which you are already a part by your belief system in understanding that there is a Creator and that there is a Creator Son, and that there is a whole hierarchy of organization to assist you to achieve the oneness which Jesus, Christ Michael, gave to you as a commandment to attain and fulfill. To your growth and to the development of your minds, we say, “thank you.” You must give us permission to improve the working of your mind; this is a cooperative effort. Many times the Thought Adjuster will take on the responsibility of adjusting your mind to bring you into the position of even asking the question “Is there a God?” Once you ask that question, then of course that allows the entry of the answer, “Yes, of course there is.” We wish you a good day and we look forward to our next session with you. Good day.