|
|
Webmaster's Note:
This message does not feel like a pure message from a Celestial never mind a message from our dear brother Jesus. It is too dogmatic, too political, and in fact appears to be based on false underpinnings. Messages received after this, indicate that soulmate love is not a major issue in the Celestial Spheres, hence it cannot be a sound basis for a policy on Divorce. Messages received before this indicate that the reason Jesus opposed divorce on earth was based on the realisation that the Divine Love could effectively repair a relationship on earth, by leading both parties to a higher understanding and practice of love. For this reason, we do not believe this message is sound.
It is quite likely that the beliefs of the medium have intruded. In the interests of historical accuracy, we have decided to leave this message on this site. Please remember it is up to every reader to discern Truth.
Geoff. October 3rd, 2001.
April 1st, 1961
Received by Dr. Samuels.
Washington D.C.
I am here, Jesus:
Since marriage is a vital area of living whose importance can never be
too highly affirmed, I wish to write you again on the subject stating
the position towards marriage, which I hold and which is therefore the
position of the Church of the New Birth. I want to tell you that for the
foreseeable our church will unite mainly protestant people of different
groupings, including Christian Scientists, for Mary Baker-Eddy is actively
with us, but there are Catholics who, while conforming outwardly to their
church doctrines, in their hearts are either doubtful or do not believe,
and I wish to also mention here the Catholic's attitude towards marriage
and to show just what the New Birth Church concept of marriage and the
marriage relationship shall be, as distinguished from these other religions.
I need not deal with the Jewish marriage, since this is very similar to
the protestant position, in essence, if not in externals.
Because soul-mate marriage continues in the spirit world and throughout
eternity in the Celestial Heavens, and because soul-mates must eventually
unite in the spirit life, if not on the earth plane, marriage stands as
one of the most important features of soul life, and goes on to the highest
spheres throughout eternity.
Marriage has always been, through intuitive knowledge, an event of the
greatest importance, the cause of solemnity and rejoicing, an event holy
unto man and God, and it would be absurd to think that only Catholicism
recognizes the holiness of this institution, as it pompously claims, for
Catholicism here simply continues the holy traditions of the Hebrew faith
under which my own parents, Miriam (Mary) and Joseph, were wed, with all
the colour, pageantry and love that went with the ancient Hebrew rite.
Marriage was never a sacrament instituted either by me or by the Catholic
Church as defined by the Council of Trent*, but simply a reaffirmation
of Hebrew principles and mutual love and understanding reaching back to
the day of Abraham and Sarah, models of love and piety and devotion, and
theirs was just as much a "Sacrament" as were those performed
after the idea of the sacrament was formulated by the Council of Trent.
In the first place the Church of the New Birth recognizes as
valid all legal marriages performed by other churches or civil authorities,
and people who have accepted my teachings as containing the truth, if
legally married by whatsoever Church or civil law in a legal way, are
legally married in the eyes of the Church of the New Birth. Baptism, or
lack of it, as I have discussed it elsewhere, has nothing to do with marriage,
and the distinction among Catholics between a marriage of un-baptized
couples and those united in the "Sacrament" of matrimony because
of previous baptism is merely man made and without foundation by the laws,
will or intention of God.
Secondly, the New Birth affirms that marriage is monogamous,
that is, limited to one wife or husband, at the same time. Ancient Hebrews
practiced plural marriages, yet in time, this practice progressively fell
out of favor, and in my time on earth, this custom had been condemned
by Hillel. (Pirke 11 8, "The more wives the more witchcraft").
And although polygamy lingered on for many centuries after Hillel, no
sincere or pious rabbi cared to marry more than one wife at a time, and
in the year 1000 A. D. the rabbi Gershom ben Judah, the spiritual leader
and guide of the Jews in Europe at the time, declared polygamy prohibited,
and he issued a cherem, or religious decree, promulgated against anyone
who sought such a marriage through fraud or subterfuge.
Thirdly, when a couple, not previously married, appears before
an authoritative minister or officer of the Church of the New Birth for
marriage, this couple must comply with the legal requirements for marriage
of their particular state or country having civil jurisdiction, and in
addition, the marriage must be based on:
- free will and consent on the part of both parties,
- the marriage must be expressed publicly and performed in the presence
of at least two witnesses,
- the contracting parties must have the reasoning power of mind to
know in the ordinary sense what they are doing,
- the couple must have the inner intention to fulfill all the obligation
which marriage entails
- a non-consummated marriage may be dissolved or annulled by either
party in formal application by the appropriate religious officer of
the Mother Church.
Fourth, the Church of the New Birth has nothing adverse to declare,
nor has any objection to, a mixed marriage where either of the parties
belongs to any of the Protestant Churches, or any of the reformed or liberal
Jewish sects, but in view of the present intransigence of the Catholic
Church and the Orthodox Jewish Group, I think it would be advisable to
make no blanket statement of approval for them at this time, but base
a decision on each individual case as it may come up. In the past, these
church groups have insisted categorically on their own way and family
discord, loss of faith and neglect of religious instructions of the children
have resulted, but many mixed marriages can be and have been very successful
and happy where the contracting parties from within either Protestant
or Jewish group have joined a more liberal, non-sectarian religious organization
where principles of right living are stressed rather than narrow, restrictive
rites and ceremonies, and I feel that the church of the New Birth, cutting
across lines of strict and narrow sectarianism and interpretations, in
favor of emphasis on ethical living and prayer to the Father for soul
health and divine essence for eternal life with God in the Celestial Heavens,
will encourage tolerance of divergent backgrounds and human shortcomings,
deep in faith and loyalty to the spouse through the efficacy of the Father's
Divine Love in the soul of each party and increased respect and understanding
for each other's personality through knowledge of the soul life.
Divorce
Fifth, I wish to state the position of the Church of the New
Birth with respect to divorce. This act of legal separation was granted
by Moses, in accordance with the usages of his day and to resolve conditions
of material discord in a practical way, for a practical community. When
I appeared on earth, I declared against divorce, because at that time
I was preaching the Kingdom of God to man, and meant that under the ideal
conditions of soul in the Celestial Heavens, there could be no divorce,
for soul-mates are simply one integrated soul under the appearance of
the male and female portion. When later New Testament writers had this
under discussion, they had no comprehension of what I said and thought
that the marriage "Sacrament" of the people in the flesh could
not be broken through divorce or separation. Thus they lowered my concept
of soul-mate union, through non-comprehension, to the level of the earth.
Now, I wish to reaffirm what I have stated in my sermon through Dr.
Samuels on January 3rd. 1955, that where discordances in marriage arises
through evil of the soul, or through different training, education, religious
and ethnological background and economic or other factors which produce
divergence of views and practice, prayers to the Father to eliminate egotism,
self-will and evil in the heart is the best and most efficacious means
of promoting harmony and happiness in the marriage relationship: have
faith and pray and you will see what God's Love in the soul can do and
has done. In addition, action on the perfect human love plane is also
urgently recommended; recourse to those public agencies, which help, clarifies
differences and promotes tolerance and willingness to compromise.
I therefore am recommending that couples, in their marriage vows, or previous
to them, agree to consult a reputable marriage clinic to obtain appropriate
treatment where needed and turn to all that modern approaches can offer
to seek to restore the health on that level of a sick marriage and do
everything possible and available, including consultation of the church
of the New Birth Officer, or the Trustees, for appropriate action and
advise, before any action for separation or divorce is instituted. Divorce
if granted by the civil authority will be recognized by the Church of
the New Birth and so will a legal remarriage.
We all know that human beings are subject to evils and vicissitudes
of the earth plane, but the unhappiness that stem from soul imperfections
can be turned into the greatest joys and felicity through prayer to God
for the abiding of His Love in the soul. This is the meaning of our church,
and faith in this Church and in my words will bring peace and happiness
of soul and in the delicate and sensitive relationship between husband
and wife.
Adultery
I also wish to restate my position with respect to adultery in the marriage
relationship. In the Mosaic Laws, adultery by a woman was punishable by
stoning and in the earlier days of Hebrew existence and including the
unsettled conditions of the Judges this punishment was resorted to, but
the primitive brutality involved was recognized as time went on by a people
whose humanness is attested by their rejection of human sacrifice, and
every conceivable obstacle placed in the way of capital punishment by
law, and husbands had in general turned to divorce as the punishment for
this offense. In fact, the Talmudic law declares, "A woman who has
committed adultery must be divorce" (Kithubah 111, verse 5).
When the scribes and some of the Pharisees with whom I was in disputation
in Jerusalem, (as related in John, Chapter V111, verse 3), came to me
with a woman taken in adultery, they came not with the intent of stoning
her, for this was now a thing of the past as Talmudic Laws proves, but
they came as a test case for my judgment, to see in what way my decision
would differ from that of Moses. The New Testament states that: "
This they said, tempting him, (that they might have something with which
to accuse)" (Chapter V111, verse 6) For, if I declared against stoning,
they would accuse me of breaking the Mosaic Law, and if I upheld the Mosaic
Law, they were going to accuse me of inhumanity, inconsistent with the
divine forgiveness of God, and a brutal imposter. The Gospel of John does
not mention their motives but I knew what was in their minds and I made
my decision as John recorded it; "He that is without sin among you,
let him cast a stone at her". (Chapter V11, verse 7)
And this continues to be my decision on adultery. Human beings err,
and that is why God has made His Love available to mankind, to enable
them to free themselves from sin and error. There is no sin that is unpardonable
except that against the Holy Spirit - the sin of refusing to allow the
Holy Spirit to bring God's Divine Love into the soul of man. Therefore,
it is my will, as coming from the Will of the Father, and this reaffirms
what I have said in my above-mentioned sermon on divorce, that adultery
be considered a pardonable sin and that and that it is not to be a mandatory
cause for divorce, as the Talmud and Christians teachings declare. As
I have explained in that sermon, the phase "except for adultery"
(Mathews, Chapter XIX) was inserted by a later writer, and was never said
by me or ever represented the views of any of my apostles.
Birth Control
Again, I wish to consider Birth control. In the Old Testament Onan* was
believed to have been punished by God for refusing to impregnate a woman
having become his wife through a levirate marriage. It occurred at a time
when life in barbarous time was precarious, with death a very frequent
visitor due to wars and disease. The Hebrews needed every birth as a means
of keeping their community alive against the ravages of human and natural
enemies and for Onan to spill his seed on the ground was considered a
crime against the Hebrew people.
In your day, when the birth rate is expanding at a rate that may in time
produce great troubles on earth, for population may outstrip productivity,
the act of Onan is considered, by many religious groups, a form of birth
control that is, otherwise, unsatisfactory sexual expression, but certainly
not a crime against the national group. The Catholic Church picked out
the passage about Onan as proof of God's wrath and disapproval of birth
control, but like other views of the Church, particular passages were
culled from the Old Testament without thought, knowledge or reference
to the current problem that gave rise to them, or the historical events
or development, or the underlying principles involved. In ancient times,
the situation for human survival requires birth to the point of a religious
demand, whereas the present situation requires a lowering of the birth
rate to prevent a terrible Holocaust to make room for other generations.
The Catholic Church considers sinful the prevention of birth by use of
any chemical, mechanical or other artificial means. They are oppose to
any form of birth control, which they consider a violation of the natural
purpose of sexual intercourse. They make a distinction, however, between
this and natural periodic method which makes use of knowledge when conception
is not likely to take place. They fail to realize, or do not wish to realize,
that practice of this periodic method has the same intent and purpose
as use of a contraceptive, and that the results will be the same. Here,
then is nothing but a hair-splitting distinction and a de facto hedging
to permit the faithful to prevent conception and at the same time for
the church itself to save face, for as constituted, the Church cannot
confess to being in error, although very much aware that it is a failure
in this area of imposing standards. I should also like to state that while
the natural purpose of intercourse is, of course, to perpetuate the race,
this natural desire resurges so frequently in man that if mortal, legal,
economic or other restrictions were not placed upon this function, pregnancy
would be the constant condition and fate of womankind. It is pertinent
to state that in this aspect of living, natural man, like all natural
growths, partakes of nature's way of insuring propagation, a profligate
expenditure of organisms, for in reproduction as witnessed by all forms
of living things, including plants, and in man himself, vast amount of
sperm cells are lost
even when one individual cell causes conception to take place.
Also to consider is that sexual union need not be specifically for the
begetting of children as on the natural level, but on the higher level
as the fulfillment of the expression of love between two people who by
their legitimate marriage have made know this love to the community, and
the physical and psychological benefits derived from their acts of union,
where propagation is not at all involved, are part and parcel of this
higher marriage relationship.
Birth control is not, therefore, an unchaste lust and a sex perversion
as wrongly stated by the catholic spokesmen, but a very legitimate exercise
of free will on the part of married people as given to man by the Father.
This Free Will is a great gift of God, and He leaves the begetting of
children to the voluntary acts of the married as one of the prime functions
of this Free Will.
If a contracting party, however, enters into marriage with no intention
of having children, then the other party has recourse to the proper authorities
to have the marriage annulled.
I am therefore now affirming that I am in favor of, and strongly support,
the declaration of the Lambeth Conference of 1958, representing the Anglican
Churches, stating that the responsibility for deciding upon the number
and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciousness
of parents everywhere.
I am also I agreement with the 171st. General Assembly of 1959, of the
United Presbyterian Church endorsing birth control and I also wish to
refer to the statement by Bishop James A Pike of the California Episcopal
Diocese, to the effect that Sate Laws which prevent Protestants and other
non-Catholic from obtaining planned parenthood information are a violation
of the principle of religious freedom, and indeed I say that they are
in violation god's gift of Free Will to mankind; and the legislators who
exact and bring these laws to bear against their fellow man are guilty
of aggression against God's Will and against mankind will eventually pay
the penalty of their wrongdoing in the Spirit World, just as others in
past ages, and with more brutal method, have paid, and some still paying,
for their offenses through the working of the law of compensation.
Abortion
Lastly, I wish to consider abortion. This act does not simply prevent
conception, but destroys the life of the unborn child. Abortion is a great
sin where practiced as a social or economic convenience or to prevent
birth when conception took place out of ignorance and out of pride to
prevent the reshaping of the female figure, and I believe, with the Catholic
Church, that this is a crime, but where the death of the mother will result,
if, because of structural malformations or other internal difficulties,
to pregnancy is allowed to continue, then the question resolves itself
into whether the mother or the unborn child shall be permitted to live.
On religious and humanitarian grounds I say that the woman shall be saved
in preference to the unborn child for, religiously speaking, deliberately
permitting the mother to die is murder, whereas the unborn child has not
been in the world at all and cannot miss what it had never possessed.
In such a case the death of the infant may be attributed as due to the
operation of those different laws which cause death by accidents or disease,
as some defect of the mother's generative system, or possible medical
error or miscalculations.
On humanitarian grounds, also, the life of the mother must be safeguarded
because other lives are bound up with hers, the deprivation caused the
husband and the dislocation of their home and other previous children,
if this were the case, bringing about a tragedy far grater in depth and
proportion than that caused by the unborn infant's death, and because
frequently organic defects may be remedied and other children brought
safely into the world.
On the other hand, a child born through the sacrifices derives from a
cruel and heartless act, for a motherless child is a pitiful object which
no amount of religious rationalization can atone for, and the loneliness,
rejection, despair and brutality to which this unfortunate child is usually
subjected is a terrible experience which, if that choice were applied
to them, those responsible for such an enactment would scarcely wish to
go through it themselves.
I believe these observations are sufficient as the guiding lines for our
attitude towards marriage and many of its related problems, and I shall
stop now and close, affirming that I am:
Jesus of the Bible
And
Master of the Celestial Heavens
* Council of Trent (1545-47 and 1551_52) the ecumenical council of the
Roman Catholic Church met to discuss the widespread reform within the
churches.
*Onan, second son of Judah, by the daughter of Shua the Canaanite. B.C.1700
|
|
