B Open 2 Spiritual Guidance {Channeled}

Cedomil Vugrincic, M.D, Ph.D.

WWW.CHRISTMICHAELSGLOBALSPIRITUALNETWORK.COM

SERVICESECTOR12@Yahoogroups.com

(SUPERHUMAN MINISTRY Service Sector)

606agondonter@comcast.net

PR
Conversations with Monjoronson #70 – Focused move to South America – Mar. 1, 2013

Topics:
The networking in Central and South America
A permanent upliftment of consciousness
Receptivity to leadership
The work with organizations
Universal focusing commonalities of humanity
Humble beginnings
The issues of morality to be openly discussed this year
“Political morality”
The repercussions of political morality
Balancing the rights of individuals with the obligations of society
The responsibilities of society to protect individuals and families
Questioning the rights to life
Caring for “damaged” individuals
Why this bluntness now?
Making that important decision about participation

Teacher:   Charles
TR:     Daniel Raphael
Moderator:  Michael McCray (MMc)

March 1, 2013

Prayer:  Heavenly Father, Michael, Nebadonia, we come to you this morning, your children.  We know you hold our lives in your hands and our futures are with you.  We accept that and look forward to that future.  This morning we will be talking with your representatives here in the Correcting Time.  We thank you for your help and we love you.  Amen.

CHARLES:  Good morning, this is Charles.  (Group greets him.)

The networking in Central and South America

I provide this monolog with you today as actively representing the Triumvirate, including Nebadonia, and beside me is Avila, who works closely with Nebadonia and the Angelic Corps, as I do with Christ Michael, Machiventa and Monjoronson.  This one [Daniel] has been in almost continual communication with Nebadonia within recent weeks, having far more contact in these weeks than heretofore.  I report for her that they have now completed their network, their consciousness broadcast work of all Central and South America.  We are delaying the work into North America until there is a need to push the message and consciousness northward, when it is more receptive to receive this awareness, this consciousness.

A permanent upliftment of consciousness

The work [of the angelic corps] in Middle and South America is to raise the consciousness of receptivity, which augments and assists the Spirit of Truth in its work.  While the Spirit of Truth validates statements and situations, the work of the angels has been to provide blanket coverage of the increase in receptivity by individuals to the messages that will be shared with all of South America through this work, and through other avenues of work of the Triumvirate in the Correcting Time.  This is not a temporary blanket of consciousness upliftment, but it is a permanent one, one that will last.

We must begin at some point and there must be a place of receptivity, minds of receptivity to accept what is provided, and then when those minds receive and are uplifted and their awareness is complete, then they can become teachers and augment the distributions of these ideas to their own societies.

Receptivity to leadership

We are treating all of South America as one cultural entity, though Brazil has a different language and while there are other patois languages in some smaller nations, the culture is relatively the same.  Although North America, including Canada, has a culture that is relatively similar, the extreme individualism of North America makes it difficult for our messages to be received.  That, however, is not the case in South America.  As this one has told you, [they] are receptive to leadership.  They are open to leadership in many forms; they are only jaundiced when it comes to political leadership, as they have seen how this has been abused so much in the past.  However, when it comes to spiritual, religious, educational and cultural leadership, they are very observing and very quickly discerning of what is legitimate and what is not.  They soon learn what is financially motivated, or politically motivated for positions of authority, control and power, and those that are not.

There eventually will be a unified repository for wisdom gathering that is Spanish language/Portuguese language oriented, much as you have heard about the Institute of Human Sustainability that we have developed with this one, which now lies dormant.  Although it can take on similar forms in other language-based nations, the function remains the same.

The work with organizations

We have shared with you—the two of you and others—that we have begun to infiltrate and become influential with organizations.  We have done that through the material of sustainability in the broad category, and we have done that through environmental interests, organic interests, and those self-sustaining programs sponsored by governments and foundations and non-profit organizations.  Now, it is time to present an organizing, centralizing, rational and universally applicable philosophy and a means of pragmatically invoking that philosophy in the re-invention of social and cultural institutions.  This is because, as you have read in the material of “Healing a Broken World,” and the other materials from this one, that the core values of social sustainability are universal, and thus everything that spins out of them provides a commonality to all societies that show the oneness.

Universal focusing commonalities of humanity

You have long appreciated that you are brothers and sisters in the family of God, and God, your Father, is your Creator and Father.  Now, you will come to realize—you and all others—that truly there is a commonality that makes all of you brothers and sisters in humanity.  That [commonality] is the three core values—these are universal.  These will become the universal focusing commonalities for the eventual re-organization of all the states of South America—with the exception of two—as they find that their borders are unsustainable and do not promote the sustainability of their nations or of a common cultural South America.

Other developments will come along; they will reduce the factors of separation, which will augment the factors of integration: one by decreasing the factors of disintegration, [which] automatically increases the factor of integration and oneness and wholeness.  This is evident among the states of the United States, where you can freely travel from one state to another state without having to change your money at the border from Colorado to Kansas, or from Wisconsin to Minnesota, for example.  You are able to travel and have commerce that transits easily across the continent.  This too, is the eventual form and development of all South America.  Central America, however, presents another difficulty, and it will be from the north and the south that the centralized areas of Central America will become homogenized.

Humble beginnings

The separatism that was developed by dictatorships and strong authoritarian leadership will eventually dissolve, as it will become highly apparent that these are aberrant and highly contribute to the unsustainability of their own societies.  You, my dear friends, are now in the front row of viewing the introduction of the new era, the new paradigms of your societies.  You have been the instigators with us to co-creatively redesign and reinvent your global civilization.  Many of you are too humble to accept these statements.  Those in South America, Colombia, as this one has witnessed, have said as much.  They say, “Why Pereira?”  And our answer was, “Why Bethlehem?” and so they begin to see the parallels, that humility and humble beginnings are, of course, the way of Christ Michael’s Correcting Time.  It begins with you, individuals, and then develops from there, and then returns again back to the individual from society.  It becomes then a true symbiotic social relationship between the individual and social agencies, institutions and organizations and social processes.  One must support the other.

The issues of morality to be openly discussed this year

It is our hope, and I share this with you intentionally, dear ones, that the issues of the morality of social sustainability will become openly discussed this year, concerning the moral limitations of political rights, to answer the question “when do political rights impinge upon the morality of social sustainability, or violate the boundaries of social sustainability.”  This is central to the expansion of this work within the context of discussion that this nation is capable of adapting and listening to the concepts of social sustainability in secular terms.  It will later come to awareness of these spiritual implications of social sustainability through the little book that you have now begun to produce, and which will be published this year.  [Ed. Referring to “Healing a Broken World,” now being readied for publication.]

It is a true pleasure for me, a Mighty Messenger, as it is for Avila, to see the tremendous work of Christ Michael in the Correcting Time that embraces all the planets that were in rebellion, and now to see it intimately developed within the context of a world, Urantia, a global civilization on the grand global scale that you are aware of, and that it has now been developed through the complete hierarchy of a global civilization down to the level of an individual and back again to the level of a global civilization.  Our plans, the plans of the Triumvirate, are now roughly complete; there are areas which do not need to be complete at this time, but which will enter into completeness, as they are developmentally necessary to do so.  They say then that, “We are in charge” (and you are welcome to put that in quotes.)

“Political morality”

MMc:  I have some questions for you, Charles.  (Please.)  You mentioned political morality and that’s a concept that I’m not familiar with.

CHARLES:  An oxymoron for you, is it not? (All laughing, including Charles.)

MMc:  Yes, it is

The repercussions of political morality

CHARLES:  Our discussion to you today particularly of the repercussions of the political morality, has to do with political rights, not necessarily political positions or partisan politics.  These are concerns politically because they are based on the rights of the individual, which are inherent in the Bill of Rights [of the US Constitution] and we particularly cite Amendments #1 and #2.  The other ones pertain or are germane only in part and peripherally.  The right of free speech, the right of free press, the right to bear arms are core to the discussions of morality of sustainability, which we wish to apply to the public controversy that is now going on concerning the tragedies at Sandy Hook, and the theater in Aurora, Colorado, and previously at Columbine High School.

We do not want to miss the opportunity to interject the concepts of moral sustainability into this arena at this particular time.  We are not asking you to do that; we are simply alerting you to our interest of presenting this to that public discussion.  It is a way for us to broach these concepts at a very particularly sensitive time concerning an unresolved political situation, where the political rights of individuals bumps into and violates the morality of social sustainability.  I hope this answers your question.

MMc:  Yes, I’m sure that I’m going to have a few more questions on this topic.  I’ll allow those to develop.

You mentioned a philosophy that you’d like to see put forward at this time.  I wonder if you would succinctly talk about that for us?

Balancing the rights of individuals with the obligations of society

CHARLES:  Yes.  I will strive to do so, briefly.  In order to develop a sustainable democracy, there must be a balance between the rights of individuals and the obligations and responsibilities of society to protect individuals, families and communities from the expression of freedoms by individuals.  Are you with me so far?  (MMc:  I believe so, yes.)  If there is not that balance, then a socially sustainable society cannot come into existence.  As you are seeing in your own nation, there is a tremendous imbalance between the political rights of individuals, which also is supported by the unspoken assumptions of your extreme form of individualism in your culture to the point that the individuals are using their right to bear arms, to use assault weapons with tremendous capacity in their clips, with a rapid-fire capability of killing many individuals within seconds.

Now, what are the responsibilities and obligations of society to protect those children?  To protect your neighbors?  To protect you from violent individuals as this?  It is not a rhetorical question; neither is it an actual question I pose to you.  I pose it to the reading audience as a question that must be answered.  We have no argument that there is a necessity for citizens to bear arms.  You live in a malevolent society, which is only slightly older than a precocious eight-year old, as far as a mature, developed society is concerned.  It can make a peanut butter sandwich and feed itself, and see the dog out, and collect eggs from the chickens in the hen house, but not much more than that.  And so, your society needs to have a rational forensic argument concerning the rights of individuals and the obligations and responsibility of society.

The responsibilities of society to protect individuals and families

Right now, your society and culture is headed to the sewer of decline and disappearance due to the lawless nature of your society at large and individually.  Responsibilities of society are ominous to protect the rights and lives of individuals and families.  It is ominous because it will eventually require the elimination of all influences which are detrimental to the social sustainability of individuals, families and societies as a whole.  Society has an obligation and responsibility to simultaneously increase the factors of social sustainability of individuals, families and communities, while also decreasing the liabilities that prevent the increase of social sustainability of individuals, families and communities.  It is ominous because the rights to life will be questioned.

Questioning the rights to life

The loss of your sustainability will have to be argued and argued diligently by those who support social sustainability as being more important than the rights of life of an individual.  Socially sustainable individuals are necessary to support the longevity of social organizations and of society as a whole.  Society as a whole must have capacity to transcend and sustain itself past the miniscule lives of individuals.  Individuals live lives of approximately eighty years, while the life of society that is striving to become sustainable could be quite infinite; it could exceed fifty years, five hundred years or five thousand years quite easily, but in order to do that, it must eliminate the elements within it that would eventually cause its demise and its destruction.

Only because the continuity and longevity of society transcends the rights of life of the individuals, does society have a right to eliminate individuals who are bent upon the destruction of others, individually and to the detriment of those lives that decrease their sustainability.  It is ominous because your society has a highly bent orientation to preserve life at all costs, whether it involves criminals, or whether it is terminally ill patients.  This in a far more mature society would be seen as being greatly immature.  It is not that we do not respect life, for we fully do.  God has given each of you a life; It has also given you a particle of itself to reside with you, yet there are some people who are so bereft of morality in your society that their God presence has abandoned them, as those individuals are futile and fruitless to be taught and enculturated in the ways of an infinite ascendant spiritual career.  Your society has a warped sense of priorities and importance of life, as it is willing to tolerate the abuse and murder and damage to individuals, while preserving the life of those who have perpetrated those crimes.  This is nonsensical.

Caring for “damaged” individuals

Yet, on the other hand, your societies do not fully care for, or take on the responsibility of caring for those individuals who have been damaged in their lives.  If an individual is raped as a child, it will carry this rape scene in their lives forevermore, until they die.  Their social sustainability will be decreased emotionally, socially, psychically, spiritually and religiously.  How can a person who has been raped be a conscientious, capable, loving mother or father?  It is most difficult, and they go on to instill in their children factors of that damage in their lives, so that damage to abused individuals becomes multi-generational.  That is a philosophy that must be discussed.

MMc:  Thank you.  You’ve made that most clear.

CHARLES:  We do wish to have that published.

MMc:  Yes, I think it should be.

CHARLES:  You now have quite a bit of grit for the wheel to grind on in future sessions, do you not, Michael?

MMc:  Yes, I’ve suddenly gone from having no questions to having a bunch of them that are topically formed to the point where I can verbalize them.

Why this bluntness now?

CHARLES:  We have delayed the bluntness of this philosophical proposition to you until now, as we have laid the seeds of social sustainability solidly in your minds, of your willingness to make the decision to pursue social sustainability, for when societies and individuals have made that decision to pursue social sustainability, it means all of these things together.  Social sustainability can be begun piecemeal, but eventually it will all become integrated and all of these difficult, hard, philosophical questions must be answered pragmatically to support a socially sustainable individual, family and community, and eventually a society.  It is inescapable.  On the other hand, to say that these are too tough to make, that you wish to delay making these decisions, that you are not ready to engage social sustainability, really is the decision to allow your future generations to decline in the quality of life and the capacity of growth equally, and that you are willing to let your society decline and eventually disintegrate and perhaps even disappear because of your incapacity to make a decision that is tough.  That is the existential crisis of most nations, but particularly those technologically evolved, developed democracies.  Now is the time to really move into a new era, a new paradigm of democracy, a sustainable democracy.

We, who are with you today, have completed our presentation.  If you have further questions, you are most welcome to ask them; otherwise we will bring this to a close.  Do you have questions, Roxanne?

Roxanne:  Concerning that last bit of your discussion, I see that it is going to be very difficult for the North American culture to make these necessary changes until the population has been brought under control and Monjoronson has made his appearance.  Do you see it that way also?

CHARLES:  No, we do not.  We see it this way: that it is important to introduce these politically difficult questions as a means of confronting your society with the issues that they eventually will have to deal with.  The decline in population is an eventuality, of course, which will make answering these questions even more imperative.  As for the appearance of Monjoronson, this is a developmental question/answer that will be provided when the time is right, then to use his appearance to bring your world into alignment that is sustainable from a spiritual perspective.  Premature introduction of his personality into your world would be more detrimental than helpful.  Christ Michael’s Correcting Time is highly rational on many levels, and many planes.  The introduction of Monjoronson is a coordinated effort between Salvington, Uversa and Havona, that this will be done at a particular developmental time when it is most advantageous to support the ongoing growth and sustainability of your societies.  This is perhaps the most definitive answer that we can give at this time to that question.

Roxanne:  Thank you.

Making that important decision about participation

CHARLES:  On behalf of the Triumvirate and those present, we thank you for this opportunity to provide this voluntary discourse to you.  We thank you for your questions.  We wish you all—readers and those who are listening to this—that you consider these thoughts carefully, that you, personally, each of you, will decide the future of your world through your assent or inability to make a decision concerning social sustainability.  This is a decision that will be made by action or inaction, whether you make a vote politically, socially, culturally, or whether you hide at home, failing to make a decision, you have nonetheless made a decision concerning the welfare and future of your world.  This is not ominous; it is one of the responsibilities of participating in a socially sustainable world.  We know it is uncomfortable, but it is something that you must eventually become used to, even though it is uncomfortable.  Making highly moral decisions about the life of another is certainly one that must be made with diligence, caution and with a uniform and fair method of doing so, that supports the sustainability of your life, your family and your community and your world.  Thank you and good day.

```````