Sunday, July 15, 2001
“Questions about the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon”
Participants: Mary (Michael) and Howard (Bosht).
Elias arrives at 12:52 PM. (Arrival time is 32 seconds.)
ELIAS: Good morning!
HOWARD: Good morning! (Elias chuckles) It’s good to hear your voice again!
ELIAS: And you also!
HOWARD: Thank you so much.
ELIAS: And how shall we proceed this morning?
HOWARD: I have a shotgun full of questions that have come up, and I’m gonna try to structure this so that I can ask one question more or less at the end. If and when you feel like we’re reaching the end or I’ve extended my time, you need to let me know. But I’m gonna pay attention, so I think everything will be okay.
ELIAS: Very well.
HOWARD: Firstly, I must say that I don’t know if you can tell but the energy around this house has really shifted a bit because we have some relatives, the step-daughter/adopted daughter of Margot and her husband and two girls, are here, and we’ve really enjoyed their company. So I’m up, I’m excited and looking forward to speaking with you about things that I tripped on recently. Three impressions have occurred to me quite quickly in the last week, and I’d like to get some feedback from yourself for clarification.
In the first impression I had, I overheard a conversation between two people recently about nuclear power. One of the persons was for it and the other was against it. As they were speaking, I had this brief glimpse – it was very, very short and quick – of something which appeared to be a salt crystal and seemed to be the source of power. I tried to grasp the image and explore it, but it disappeared. I’m now thinking, as I was writing the question and still today thinking about it, that it’s a future thing. It has the capability to generate electric power by itself without the need to create steam, to drive a turbine generator like fossil fuel and nuclear power plants do.
Because it was so fleeting, I decided that a focus of mine was actually looking at it, and it’s not a future thing but actually available now. I know the answer to this – it’s true, yes – but is it part of this dimension here and now, and are we looking forward to some kind of salt crystal sole-source generator for electricity?
ELIAS: A type of crystal, yes. And you are correct, this is beginning to be examined presently but is actualized in what you view to be future.
HOWARD: Okay, all right. And is this person working on it a focus of mine?
ELIAS: Not within this time framework, but within future time framework.
HOWARD: Good. That’s how quick it was. It was so fast! Good, glad to hear that!
The next impression has to do with an impression that I had of a friend of ours in California when we were there last week. I know this person – not just know, but have interacted with her many times – and the impression came to me that she was the individual who is named Black Elk, of the Sioux. I see it up here in the top right-hand corner of my mind as Black Elk. Is this correct?
HOWARD: Now, the next one has to do also with a Native American, currently alive, who has written a book which Margot and I, well, actually that I’ve read, and I bought the movie based on her book. I’ve shown it to Margot, and I said to her quite out-of-the-blue, “You need to see this movie because this woman is a focus of yours.” And she said, “No, that’s not possible because I’ve identified all my focuses.” So I said, “Well, I don’t know about that.” But because this person is still alive, I don’t want to mention names. I’ll just ask, is Margot a focus or was there what you call an observing essence situation going on here with this lady that wrote the book?
ELIAS: No. This is an identification of counterpart action.
HOWARD: Oh! Very good! (Laughing) I hadn’t even thought of that! (Elias chuckles) Which is cool! I kept my brain out of it! Very good, I’ll share that with Margot.
Now, the last thing that I have in terms of recent stuff is I’ve been asked by the Arizona State School Board to re-evaluate my school bid for blueprinting work. I believe that they have violated their own stipulated bid rules by asking me to adjust my prices, and the whole thing seems unethical to me – so that’s a judgment. Even so, I feel free, because they are bending the rules, to ask them a few questions, and to ask you a few questions and perhaps obtain your future-view impressions of my getting any work from the Board. I’m of a mind to keep my prices the same and explain to the lady why a small company in a small town cannot have the same prices as a large company in a metropolis. I want the work, but I don’t feel that I need to be compromised to do so. I need leverage, and so if you could help me or give me a comment about my feelings on this situation, I’d appreciate it. Thank you.
ELIAS: I may express to you, Bosht, you are presenting to yourself many different expressions of definitions of terms and your beliefs in association with them, the absoluteness of your definitions of terms, and you are presenting yourself with an opportunity to view your own expression in rigidness and holding to the alignment of beliefs in association with your definition of terms.
HOWARD: Yes, I understand. I can feel myself like the oak in the wind that won’t bend.
ELIAS: This is in actuality an opportunity for you to be allowing yourself to not merely become more intimately familiar with your own defined terms, but also to be allowing yourself a new expression of freedom in allowing yourself, in your examination, to be redefining and therefore allowing yourself a new opening to much more choice.
In expressing the rigidness of holding to your alignment with certain beliefs, you also now, in your desire to be genuinely moving in an objective expression of this shift in consciousness, allow yourself to present to yourself a recognition of the strength of these beliefs, but also present to yourself the equal strength of the expression of freedom as you move in redefining these terms, and therefore turning your perception in redefining your reality and how you create it.
HOWARD: Okay! Oh my!
ELIAS: You have presented yourself with quite a challenge!
HOWARD: Yes; yes, it is. I have felt the need to bend or compromise, but I also have to say I have 60 years of experience or wisdom that shows me that my bending is a sign of weakness, and it’s one of the things that has tormented me.
ELIAS: You incorporate 60 years of experience that you view as absolute!
HOWARD: Yes, that’s true.
ELIAS: And the challenge lies in your intimate discovery of self and the influence of your beliefs in relation to the absoluteness of your experiences, and trusting yourself in your abilities, not merely to create but to allow yourself a flexibility. You are expressing many aspects presently of your reality that you have created in a solidity, and this presents a tremendous challenge.
HOWARD: It does.
I have a impression by Giselle and Olivia that Opan was the individual known as [name omitted]. (Pause)
HOWARD: The final one on this page – and I think we’ll go on to impressions, which is one of the latter questions I had in mind – Margot has told me that I am Sumafi aligned with Ilda. Is this true?
HOWARD: The reason I bring this up is at times I feel something else, like I’m getting bleed-throughs from another current focus not vibrationally the same as me. It occurred to me that this might be a maverick or a rogue-like essence that changes family and alignment with different focuses. Is it true, and is that what I’m feeling?
ELIAS: You are expressing an identification of this rogue as yourself?
HOWARD: Yes. (Pause)
ELIAS: No. What you are allowing yourself to be objectively recognizing or in part experiencing, in a manner of speaking, may be associated with a type of bleed-through.
Now; this is a slightly different type of bleed-through than you are familiar with in association with other focuses. The family that you are belonging to remains consistent. But as you are aware, each focus chooses an alignment that may be offering the most efficient qualities expressed in relation to the individual’s unique intent and value fulfillment.
What you are allowing yourself to be partially experiencing is the recognition of all of your focuses of essence as present within you, as you are all of essence. Therefore, as you allow this movement of recognition that, figuratively speaking, all of your focuses are simultaneously super-imposed with this focus, you are allowing yourself in this focus to experience moments of being all of these focuses which experience movement in relation to their different expressions of alignment.
Let me express to you the identification of the difference of this type of movement that may be associated with the terminology of bleed-through. For the most part, individuals that are allowing themselves to objectively connect or view with another focus of essence express this type of movement in the manner of either merging the attention of this focus with another focus individually, singularly, or to be viewing another focus individually.
Now; this action, figuratively speaking, may be viewed as an outward projection of the individual’s attention to other focuses. What you are creating, figuratively speaking once again, may be objectively viewed as a type of opposite movement, in which you are not projecting your attention outwardly but [are] allowing the experience of other focuses to emerge inwardly.
HOWARD: The other night I was thinking about shared focuses, and I began a conversation with myself. I remembered an incident that occurred ten years ago in our Cottonwood apartment when I was alone. I was talking to myself, and this self, this inner self, identified himself as John. My first question is – because I have lots of images of this John – do I correctly identify the name and his association with me?
ELIAS: What is your interpretation of this individual, your identification?
HOWARD: I could tell you now that at the time I felt it was a focus of mine. I still do. This individual has passed on and also has a historical involvement in Christ’s time. That’s all I can say to this, because it’s rather embarrassing for me to even mention it, actually.
ELIAS: I may express to you, I already hold an awareness of the individual that you are speaking of, Bosht. I am inquiring specifically that you allow yourself to recognize that there are no secrets, and that you may allow yourself to view your own automatic response in relation to certain subject matters.
I may express to you that the identification of the name is correct. The identification in association with the specific individual as a focus of your essence is not; although I may also express to you the validation of your impression, for not throughout the entirety of the focus but for partial time framework of the focus, you do participate as an observing essence.
HOWARD: Good, because on that night, actually it was the middle of the week, this voice and myself, we began a dialogue, and I sensed the same humor that I had with him before injected in a serious way. He seemed to know about things and apparently nothing about others, but this seemed normal to me. As we talked, I realized that he actually knew a great deal more than I gave him credit for. But now, and I hope I can express this, the knowingness that he had seemed a bit shaded towards my point of view, and I felt comforted, as if I had overcome a barrier and was actually in touch with my inner self, my essence, because of ... I don’t know. I just felt an overwhelming kind of warmth, so that’s obviously where some of my confusion comes from.
But nevertheless, I sensed that this voice that was going on is like the inner voice that I always seem to have with me. It was less dedicated to placing burdens on me, and the voice seemed to be listening to me. Where before, I might have asked if something was good that was about to happen to me and I heard an answer like, “Are you prepared for your good fortune?” and I’d say something like, “Sure.” Then this voice would begin inserting doubts in a humorous manner, and before the conversation was over, it smelled like a wet diaper – that’s what I wrote here. (Elias laughs) This time, however, I noticed a difference. It was very subtle, and I felt like I was getting clear information without the doubting feedback.
[The other night] I was at the time processing a thought about Margot and our relationship, and a number popped into my head, the 25th anniversary, and I felt immediately like celebrate your 25th anniversary! I immediately did some mental calculations and realized that we had just celebrated our 11th anniversary and the 25th would be far into the future. So I began to kind of dismiss this thing, except that the thought then tumbled upon itself, and it said – and this is my thought – that if I celebrated each day as if it were a 25th, we’d actually make it to our 25th, and that the worth, the purpose of life, the excitement of life would be energized on a daily basis, creating new experiences for us. And I was really excited about that! This is to me like the Archangel Michael – good old Michael, I wrote – and Ramtha-talk, it’s like “be kind to yourself and feel good.”
But at this point, the voice said to me, “Remember that in order to do this celebration that you need to celebrate every day.” And I said, “Wait a minute! Don’t do that guilt and shame thing on me with this idea! I see the concept of awareness in the joy of our celebration of our marriage and our feelings for each other as an on-going, ever-growing thing.” I went on to say, “Don’t make it seem like a penance in order to reap a reward, that we need to keep the idea alive with a celebration every day. If I were to do that, it would become an obligation and a ritual, and that’s not what I was feeling.” I said, “This is a celebration of love, not of ritual!”
This is where the big difference occurred. The voice of the past would have said, “The ritual is important. It reinforces the commitment,” and pretty soon the whole idea would become overlaid with a ton of junk. But the present voice was silent, as if it was thinking, and then it said, “Yes, it is all about love.”
So I shared this conversation with Margot, and it occurred to me that one of the things that the shift is accomplishing is that the inner voice is becoming more aware of me and my struggles with my beliefs, where in the past I might have decided I MUST celebrate every day in order to achieve the 25-year goal, making it seem like a drop-dead date which needs to be replaced with another goal when the time expires, et cetera, et cetera.
I now know that all that is necessary is to celebrate, because it’s all about love, and love is not a commitment. It is a foundation of life. The inner voice was in agreement with me, and I felt for the first time that the two of us, me and this voice, were becoming more in sync and less combative. (Pause) Do you have any comments on this?
ELIAS: I am acknowledging of your movement in allowing yourself to genuinely move into a wider awareness of your own intimacy with self and creating less of a separation of yourself in relation to essence. For now you begin the movement of the mergence of objective association, and re-define self with less separation [than] the expression of “entities.” For prior to this expressed movement, you have viewed yourself as one entity, and essence – or whatever you choose to be terming essence to be – as another entity. And in this experience that you have offered to yourself, you now create the movement of the mergence of the concept of these two entities, drawing them closer together to be one expression.
In this, I shall also acknowledge your communication to yourself in identifying that although there is no wrong expression in ritual, the genuine celebration, so to speak, is merely the expression of love in its identification as a truth, and this is defined as the action and expression of genuine KNOWING and appreciation.
HOWARD: And that’s the feeling or the thought I had with that. I was also, adjunct to that, was thinking that people who are now becoming more aware of themselves and are testing their beliefs, as our house guests today have expressed to us, there’s ... I just feel like two energy balls approaching each other closer, one being the current focus, working through their stuff and their commitments and whatever else, other baggage that they’ve got, moving closer and closer to their own essence, and that this shift is facilitating that quite handsomely, actually, quite well. That’s the end of that image that I have.
ELIAS: Correct. In this, you each are not in actuality moving closer to essence but creating a clearer awareness of what you are as essence.
HOWARD: Okay, that’s right.
I want to go to the old Bible, and this has to do with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I know you would have been with me while I prepared this question, so you’re well aware ... I’ll assume this (laughing), that I pretty much put out my thoughts on this one, and it has been pretty redundantly spoken. But it has to do with a dichotomy that occurred early on in Genesis that I just recently tripped on. I have formulated an idea based upon this, this new awareness that I got, that I’d like to share and get your opinion on.
It has to do with the two boys of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. What got my attention was that the Muslims revere the place in Mecca where the Kaaba is, the stone where Abraham was supposed to have sacrificed Ishmael. In Genesis, it is spoken that Abraham was supposed to have sacrificed Isaac. I have this idea that Isaac and Ishmael were the same person, furthermore that Isaac/Ishmael was the son of Hagar, and that Sarah did not have any children. When it came time for the father in this relationship, Abraham, when it came time for Abraham to bring the boy over to Sarah’s side of the tent, he was called Isaac. When the boy on Hagar’s side, he was called Ishmael. Is this correct? (Pause)
HOWARD: So, of course, now we have the same man who is the progenitor, who is actually bringing forward the teachings of Melchizedek/Zoroaster, to the two groups of people, the slaves and the royalty – Abraham being royalty, the slaves and servants being Hagar’s side, much like what we have with the Anglicans and the Puritans and throughout history, the elites and the not-so.
We get to the second part, where the two sons of Isaac were Esau and Jacob. Now, Ishmael and Isaac were the same person, and I can see that Isaac would have a wife, Rebecca, who would be approved by the patriarch, Abraham and Sarah, and I can see that Ishmael would have a wife that was of Hagar’s people in a polygamist way, and that the so-called fraternal twins of Esau and Jacob were actually children of two different mothers. Is this correct? (Pause)
ELIAS: Yes, you are correct.
HOWARD: That’s a big deal! (1) And it makes the story of the conflict much more reasonable to me, especially Rebecca’s favoring of Jacob over Esau. It just did not sit right. Well, that’s good; I can move on then.
I wrote a story called “The Trial of Sam Hill,” and it’s a name that I have ... I just like that name. “What in the Sam Hill were you doing?” – that’s the closest thing to profanity that my grandmother ever said. I know that Sam Hill, the actual person, was a labor activist, and I just wanted to ask, was that a focus of mine? Was he a focus of mine?
HOWARD: Was I associated with him in any way?
HOWARD: Oh. So I just like the name, huh? (Elias laughs) That’s okay! (Laughs)
Let’s see. I’m still trying to figure out my connection to Miles Davis. Margot said to me recently that she thinks I was Thelonious Monk. Is this correct? (Pause)
HOWARD: Wow! Oh my gosh! Well, that’s probably where my confusion with Phineas Newborn comes in. Well, thank you for that; that was a big leap.
The reason I brought it up is that I saw recently a video of a musical group who is still with us, and I said quite spontaneously that the woman singer was a focus of Miles, and that her husband was a focus of Gil Evans. And Margot asked, why would I say that? I said, “It’s just the way she modulates her voice, just like Miles did with his trumpet.” I know, it’s a reach, but that’s what I felt. I remembered at the same time that you told me what I’m seeing in some of the videos of people – like in the Pink Floyd group, the guitarist there in the video of “The Wall” – that I’m seeing images that I’m resounding or responding to. But I think she’s Miles, and I’ve got to ask, is that correct?
ELIAS: No. I may express to you once again, what you are identifying objectively is the expression of your recognition of similarities of tones and how those tones are expressed in their similarities within your physical dimension. (2)
HOWARD: Okay. I knew that was the alternate ... and I’m getting better at this, don’t you think?
ELIAS: (Laughs) In your terms, my friend, in association with your beliefs, yes! Ha ha ha ha!
HOWARD: (Laughing) Okay, okay! We have, I think, just a bit left, and finally this is an observation that’s been lingering on my “ask list.” Historically speaking, the Book of Mormon has really been a conundrum to a lot of folks. Margot and I have visited the early days of ... the images in my head are quite vivid, very much there. So where do I want to go with this? We have images of that time in the 1820s when the golden tablets that Joseph Smith uncovered were being translated. But the stories as they are written, they seem very real, although incredibly contorted to fit the time frame of 400 BC to 200 AD.
It is my opinion that the plates were real, that they were in fact an historical record of a lost civilization, but they weren’t of this story of the Lamanites moving to the Americas; it was the story of the evacuation in the last days of Atlantis. I believe that the Book of Mormon was severely edited in the beginning to make it a religious document. So my conclusion is that Joseph Smith had a focus as an Atlantean and was more or less led to it, this very thing, dimensional, which it might very well be since the plates are gone now. He was led to it, he interpreted it, and it was distorted immediately. I need to ask that. Is that a correct impression?
ELIAS: Your impression in relation to this individual and their expression of another focus within another dimensional reality that you identify as Atlantis is correct.
As to an actual physical insertion of what you identify as tablets from that dimension into this physical dimension, no. I may express to you that this is an expression and creation of this individual in relation to other focus bleed-through, and you are correct concerning the interpretation and distortion.
HOWARD: So if I heard you right, then the plates were the individual’s creation of another focus in this time frame or in this continuum, not dimensional, and they were distorted.
ELIAS: No actual physical matter was manifest, merely the physical creation of the individual’s through their individual perception, therefore temporarily; yes and no. An actual physical manifestation temporarily was created through the perception of the individual; but as to an actual physical bleed-through manifestation into your officially accepted reality in this dimension, no.
HOWARD: Whew! Boy, I’m no closer to the answer.
ELIAS: The information was offered through a bleed-through action which occurred with this individual in relation to another focus of that individual which does occupy another physical dimension, and is not physically manifest in this dimension. Therefore, the individual offered information to self concerning an other-dimensional focus, and translated that information to fit within the design of this dimensional focus.
HOWARD: Got it! Can I make a leap here? I’m sure I’m invited to. The leap is between the Emerald Tablets of Thoth, which I have rewritten to call the “Song of Thoth,” and these plates, which are all about the same subject, are both the same subject.
ELIAS: Similar, not entirely the same.
HOWARD: Similar, but nevertheless the last days of Atlantis.
ELIAS: In your translations.
HOWARD: Understood; okay. Cool!
Can I introduce a space game, in the space thing, for readers to work with? It has to do with the alignment of the various space peoples, in terms of families, in this book that I wrote which is based upon the channelings of Lyssa Royal and others.
ELIAS: Let me express to you, my friend, a reminder that the families that you hold a familiarity with in this present focus are associated with this one particular physical dimension.
HOWARD: Got it! Yeah, I guess I knew that! (Laughs)
ELIAS: Therefore, the association with other physical dimensions is not relevant.
HOWARD: Then I think I will wrap this up, and thank you very much for helping me bring forward some stuff, especially this school bit thing. It’s very important for me to recognize what’s going on.
ELIAS: I am understanding, my friend, and I shall continue to offer my energy of encouragement to you as you move in relation to this challenge.
HOWARD: Thank you!
ELIAS: You are quite welcome. I express to you, as always, tremendous affection and anticipation of our next interaction objectively. And you may also express my greetings to Giselle.
HOWARD: I will. Thank you so much.
ELIAS: You are welcome. This day, to you as always, my friend, in the expression of the truth of love extended to yourself, au revoir.
Elias departs at 1:51 PM.
(1) Howard’s note: I have never liked the way Rebecca and Jacob treated Esau. First Esau sells his birthright to Jacob, and then later Rebecca and Jacob steal his father’s blessing. I misspoke when I said that Rebecca and Jacob stole his birthright; that was done earlier when Esau gave up his inheritance voluntarily, because he was hungry. That in and of itself is pretty lame for a twin brother to do to his counterpart, unless, of course, Jacob was Rebecca’s child and Esau was the child of another woman. The politics of that moment did not compute for me. Therefore, either it never happened or if it did, this is proof that Esau and Jacob were not twins and were half-brothers.
Then later Rebecca further illustrates the Bible’s preference for Jacob by helping him to steal Esau’s blessing. This, to me, was proof that Esau and Jacob were not twins but half-brothers. It suddenly occurred to me that the father of Esau was Ishmael and that Jacob was the son of Isaac, and that Ishmael and Isaac were the same person.
THIS IS A BIG DEAL! We have Islam and Judaism, two religions that are credited to the same person: Isaac/Ishmael. Therefore, the Arabs and Jews are the same race and are brothers, literally. We have the original religion of one god, taught by Abraham who was a priest of Zoroaster. Later we have Moses who was taught his religion from a priest of Zoroaster, the Bedouin Jethro the Midianite, great-great-great-grandson of Ishmael. All of this happened before 1500 BC, and we are still arguing about which way (and direction) to pray, and how many times a day we need to pray, and we are willing to die for these differences because Allah and Jehovah will it!
We are mad!
It’s a big deal because the same thing is going on within Christianity, and it doesn’t matter.
(2) This sentence was originally expressed by Elias as, “I may express to you once again, this is what you are identifying objectively is the expression of your recognition of similarities of tones and how those tones are expressed in their similarities within your physical dimension.”
© 2001 Mary Ennis, All Rights Reserved.