Miscellaneous Messages from Dr. Samuels

Legal Marriages, Divorce, Adultery, Birth Control and Abortion.

April 1st, 1961

Received by Dr. Samuels.

Washington D.C.


I am here, Jesus.1

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 Trent2, 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:

  1. free will and consent on the part of both parties,
  2. the marriage must be expressed publicly and performed in the presence of at least two witnesses,
  3. the contracting parties must have the reasoning power of mind to know in the ordinary sense what they are doing,
  4. the couple must have the inner intention to fulfill all the obligation which marriage entails
  5. 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.


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.


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 Onan3 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


1 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 on earth, 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. It is worth reading a message from Judas on this topic of Divorce. Geoff. October 3rd, 2001.

2 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.

3 Onan, second son of Judah, by the daughter of Shua the Canaanite. B.C.1700