Session 202309241

Our Guidelines Are for Us, Not for Others


“Our Guidelines Are for Us, Not for Others”
“The Difference Between Fairness and Justice”
“Religions and the Construct of Family”

Sunday, September 24, 2023

Participants: Mary (Michael) and Vivienne (Eliza)

[Excerpt begins]

VIVIENNE: Last time we spoke about fairness, that I have a guideline of fairness. Is that the same as the guideline of justice, or is this different?

ELIAS: It's different.

VIVIENNE: Could you explain that to me then, please?

ELIAS: Very well. Fairness is actually something that is expressed in a more personal capacity, that it's something that [inaudible] perceive that everything should personally be expressed in a manner that is acceptable to every individual and being – it isn't only expressed in relation to people – but that it’s a personal expression that whatever is important to each person or being should be honored.


ELIAS: Justice is very different, because justice involves wrongdoing, and it's not necessarily something that is personal. It CAN be; it can be, but it isn't always. And in that, it is something that is expressed in relation to vindication, that when there is wrongdoing that has occurred, that there is supposed to be justice that will vindicate the injured or the victim. Which, that's very different from the other.

And in that, I would say that fairness is also different from equality, because fairness is about honoring each [inaudible], and those are very different. And in that, they’re not all the same, and equality moves you in the direction of sameness.

VIVIENNE: Okay. Thank you, because I looked over my jottings that I write, and the lack of fairness was coming back again, so…

ELIAS: And that, I would say, is something that most people value – not everyone, but people do value fairness, because it has to do with honoring what is important to you.

But a difficulty with that, which is the same as with all guidelines – although fairness is not always a guideline for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's not important to them – the point is that with guidelines, they are designed to be expressed by you; not by other people TO you, but guiding your behaviors, therefore guiding YOU to be fair, meaning guiding you to honor people's importances.

The problem with most people with guidelines is that they turn them around backwards, and that they're not so much concerned with expressing them themselves but that they expect others to be expressing them to them. Therefore, an individual that has consideration as a guideline, they expect other people to be considerate of them, but they don't necessarily expect themself to be considerate of others. Or fairness, that other people should be expressing that honoring of what's important to you, but you don't necessarily always pay attention to what is important to them.


ELIAS: In actuality, these guidelines are in place to guide YOUR behavior, not everyone else's behavior.

VIVIENNE: So why did we reverse it, then?

ELIAS: That's very simple, and a very easy answer. Everything you do, everything that you express, everything that you believe, you automatically perceive that everyone else is the same, that if you think something is right, then everyone else should think it's right also. If you think something is wrong, then everyone else should think that that's wrong also. If you express that tea is delicious, it’s difficult to comprehend how someone else could not like it. It's automatic, because essentially, as I've expressed repeatedly, each of you, in manner of speaking, is the center of the universe. Each of you is ultimately important; and in that, that innate piece about you creates a situation in which you automatically project onto other people whatever is important to you. And in that, it's difficult to understand that if something is important to you that it might not be important to someone else.

Now, I will say that this is partially what influenced some of the expressions in the religious era – which have also carried over to now – in which there is that opposite expression, the pendulum swinging to an extreme, in that there is that expression that you as an individual are inconsequential and that you are small, and that you shouldn't be generating any expression of uniqueness and tremendous value with yourself because that should be afforded to God.


ELIAS: Now, in that, part of that was designed to squelch that piece of you being the center of the universe, you being the sun, and therefore also expecting other individuals to express in the same manner as yourself. If you are made to become UNimportant, then there's not so much of a problem with you expecting others to be the same as you in an important capacity, or for others to acknowledge your importance.

It shows through in everything you do, my friend. I would say that even in how you speak and how you listen, you listen to other people in the same manner in which you speak. Therefore, if you are an individual that pays considerable attention to detail in how you speak, you will listen to other people in the same capacity. Therefore, if they are NOT speaking in tremendous detail, you will likely be in a position in which you are constantly asking a lot of questions, because you will be constantly expecting the other individual to clarify themself and to express themself in more detail, because that's what YOU do.

It's not something that you necessarily think about; it's something that is very automatic. But in that, just as you will speak in the manner that you think – and you do; you speak in the manner that you think, and in that, [inaudible] also an example of fairness would be evidenced in that if you notice something that someone else is doing that isn't acknowledging your importance or something that is important to you, or thinking, “This is important to me. This is something that this individual should acknowledge, [that] that is fair.” And in that, when they move in an entirely DIFFERENT direction, then that is perceived as being unfair, because you're not being acknowledged.

In this, I would say that it's all very automatic, my friend. And I would also say that through time, people have become more and more self-centered – not in the manner that I express self-centeredness, or not in a beneficial capacity, but in a manner in which they are self-absorbed. And the more an individual is self-absorbed, the less they express that awareness of and that recognition and acknowledgement of interconnectedness, and therefore NOT expressing that awareness of everyone else's guidelines and of differences.

And this is one of the things that this Shift is changing. It's bringing people back into the direction of being self-aware and aware of their interconnectedness, and therefore bringing back into balance and harmony things that are very basic to your existence in this reality, such as your guidelines and what you individually believe. Not what your beliefs are – you all share those – but what you believe, because that is what you trust. And you all trust different things, and even when you trust the same things, you trust them in different capacities.

VIVIENNE: Hm. Well, I don't know why, but I think there's some sort of connection here, so I'll ask anyway. Jean wanted to ask a question, and she said, “Elias, in the March 11, 2015 session on family constructs, I've always had a curiosity. You stated, ‘When the British culture, when the British people as a nation, as a country, changed their religious affiliation and changed their allegiance in that capacity, it also changed the culture, and one of the factors that was very strongly changed in culture was associated with this concept of family.’ One, are you referring to Henry VIII and his establishment of Protestantism? And two, why exactly with this new religion did the family unit, consisting of closeness and sharing, become unimportant and ultimately replaced by the importance of numbers in a family and expected obligation? Did it have something to do with the redistribution of land and wealth under the new religion?” That's her question.

ELIAS: The redistribution of land and wealth was one of the results of the change. And in that, if you were to study religion, the family unit under Catholicism – although I will express that there was considerable distortion of this – but the ideal was that the family was very important and that holding the family together was very important. Children were important; the roles and the unit of the family, and therefore, in a manner of speaking the legacy, was a very important factor. This is the reason that in relation to Catholicism, divorce was not sanctioned, and any type of contraception or any type of abortion was also not acceptable. It was a matter of preserving the family as the highest expression of devotion to God.


ELIAS: Now, I would say that it wasn't simply Henry VIII that changed the religion and the culture in Britain. That was already on the way, in a manner of speaking. It was a matter of the teachings and the infiltration, in a manner of speaking, of Martin Luther and his teachings, his writings, his philosophy that was already in play. It was already becoming a part of the establishment of challenging the religious order of the day. And in that, yes, Henry VIII established that as being the official religious expression of the country, and therefore generated a beginning, but it didn't necessarily entirely take hold simply because he chose to move in that direction. It took several generations before that actually became the official direction of the country, because there were still many, many, many people that were quite devoted to the Pope. Therefore, in that, what I would say is that what occurred from that point is that the family unit was not as strictly adhered to. It wasn’t expressed in the same value as it had been previously, and in that, through time it lost its cohesiveness, in a manner of speaking, through the loss of its tremendous importance and value, and therefore through the centuries became less and less of a consistently held establishment.

I would say that in Catholicism, in the time prior to the dawn of Martin Luther, the expression of family was much more similar to what you will observe with your present-time Latter Day Saints, that in that, they hold very strongly to the establishment of marriage and family. And once you move in that step, which you are expected to do, because if you are not going to be expressed as a clergyman then you are expected to express marriage and family, and in that, the more children you have, the more you are glorifying God. And I would say that the Catholic Church generated a very similar – not entirely the same, but a very similar idealism.


(Excerpt ends after 30 minutes)

Copyright 2023 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.