What is spiritual brotherhood?

No, I don’t think so.  Spiritual brotherhood is the cause for the effect of social brotherhood.  All true love springs from the Spirit and our First Source and Center.  All such love is a powerful cause for endless effects.

The spiritual brotherhood contains only those who choose to live thusly and be directed by the Divine love.  All such believers belong to this kingdom and brotherhood/sisterhood family.  All others are self-excluded, no matter their beliefs, faiths, and proclamations.

We may only come to know who’s who by the fruits evident in motives, intentions, priorities, and acts freely chosen and expressed by each.  The collective result of those who bear such fruit is the spiritual family of God.  Those have made entrance into the friendly universe of God’s creation.

Man may progress, collectively, by cooperation which serves the each and all, by the mutual self interest and benefits which do accrue to such progress…..but until love dominates and hate subsides, the social “brotherhood” awaits a more replete spiritual awakening and the truly spiritual brotherhood to become the force it will inevitably be….someday.

Some text to better articulate my thoughts above:

170:3.8 (1862.5) It therefore is evident that the true and inner religion of the kingdom unfailingly and increasingly tends to manifest itself in practical avenues of social service. Jesus taught a living religion that impelled its believers to engage in the doing of loving service. But Jesus did not put ethics in the place of religion. He taught religion as a cause and ethics as a result.

170:3.9 (1862.6) The righteousness of any act must be measured by the motive; the highest forms of good are therefore unconscious. Jesus was never concerned with morals or ethics as such. He was wholly concerned with that inward and spiritual fellowship with God the Father which so certainly and directly manifests itself as outward and loving service for man. He taught that the religion of the kingdom is a genuine personal experience which no man can contain within himself; that the consciousness of being a member of the family of believers leads inevitably to the practice of the precepts of the family conduct, the service of one’s brothers and sisters in the effort to enhance and enlarge the brotherhood.

170:3.10 (1862.7) The religion of the kingdom is personal, individual; the fruits, the results, are familial, social. Jesus never failed to exalt the sacredness of the individual as contrasted with the community. But he also recognized that man develops his character by unselfish service; that he unfolds his moral nature in loving relations with his fellows.

170:3.11 (1862.8) By teaching that the kingdom is within, by exalting the individual, Jesus struck the deathblow of the old society in that he ushered in the new dispensation of true social righteousness. This new order of society the world has little known because it has refused to practice the principles of the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. And when this kingdom of spiritual pre-eminence does come upon the earth, it will not be manifested in mere improved social and material conditions, but rather in the glories of those enhanced and enriched spiritual values which are characteristic of the approaching age of improved human relations and advancing spiritual attainments.

4. Jesus’ Teaching About the Kingdom

170:4.1 (1862.9) Jesus never gave a precise definition of the kingdom. At one time he would discourse on one phase of the kingdom, and at another time he would discuss a different aspect of the brotherhood of God’s reign in the hearts of men. In the course of this Sabbath afternoon’s sermon Jesus noted no less than five phases, or epochs, of the kingdom, and they were:

170:4.2 (1862.10) 1. The personal and inward experience of the spiritual life of the fellowship of the individual believer with God the Father.

170:4.3 (1863.1) 2. The enlarging brotherhood of gospel believers, the social aspects of the enhanced morals and quickened ethics resulting from the reign of God’s spirit in the hearts of individual believers.

170:4.4 (1863.2) 3. The supermortal brotherhood of invisible spiritual beings which prevails on earth and in heaven, the superhuman kingdom of God.

170:4.5 (1863.3) 4. The prospect of the more perfect fulfillment of the will of God, the advance toward the dawn of a new social order in connection with improved spiritual living — the next age of man.

170:4.6 (1863.4) 5. The kingdom in its fullness, the future spiritual age of light and life on earth.

170:4.7 (1863.5) Wherefore must we always examine the Master’s teaching to ascertain which of these five phases he may have reference to when he makes use of the term kingdom of heaven. By this process of gradually changing man’s will and thus affecting human decisions, Michael and his associates are likewise gradually but certainly changing the entire course of human evolution, social and otherwise.

Me here:  please note that only believers in the gospel of a paternal God and family of creation are included in the above descriptions and by the quote posted by Midi.  This “spiritual brotherhood” is not defined nor determined by believers or unbelievers – it is only defined on high.

There is no question we are commanded to love one another and serve others in love and act as ambassadors of this kingdom when once we join this family/kingdom.  We cannot discriminate in our love without inviting the opportunity for error/evil to visit such judgments.

I find the issue of like minded groups joined in service ministry a more complicated issue for consideration.  Mara began this topic as a “follow-up” to the issue of removing a post which represented content and claims that are contrary to the host organization of this website and forum.  This organization – Urantia Association – has thousands of members around the world and they have adopted the policy and their standards for membership.

Is this self defining aspect exclusionary for those who disagree?  Or is it inclusionary for those so inclined and in agreement?  What is the model or pattern found in the Master’s ministry?  What might be learned in consideration of 12 apostles – only – and 12 others that were John’s – and a separate corps of disciples – and another of messengers – and those of other groups by other affiliations and definitions?  Does unity mean one group that satisfies all people?  Can such a thing ever happen when in the hands of mortals?  Interesting topic.

Well…..group, congregational, and institutional religions are, we are taught, to be focused only on the enhancement of the personal and individual religious experience – and should not be social or political groups or secular.  They should be ministries of love, truth, beauty, and goodness – or so I understand it.

Spiritual groups is a confusing term to me as I would think they too are like churches or religions – focused on the spiritual adventure of the individual.

So there are secular groups organized around a cause (environment, human rights, education, child welfare, hunger, etc.) and there are service groups where individuals support causes by participatory, hands on volunteerism.

Some of those groups are the hybrid format as Mara says above.  I think the Urantia movement, especially the organizations of the movement fall into this hybrid category?  Some few of these have taken on the form of actual religious groups but most, and by far the largest ones, are focused primarily on the dissemination of the UB, supporting gatherings of readers/students in study groups, conferences, class rooms, etc. where learning about the book and gaining access to books is the priority – it is not a religion but its participants and supporters are engaged religionists in recognition that each religionist is having a unique and personal religious experience – the groups do not impose creeds, dogmas, ceremony, priesthood, etc. upon these individuals.

The topic here originated from a post being removed as a violation of a stated and published policy of the site sponsoring group.  Another topic here at the forum – The Michael Plan – was started by one who says that the entire UB movement should return to a singular organizational structure despite all the variety and disparity that exists with individual and groups within the current, multiple organizational spectrum.

I like what Midi said about “united” which indicates, to me, that a wide spectrum of groups with distinctions between each group, might better consider a form of a united cooperation rather than a homogeneous singular representative organization.  I agree and think it a far more workable format than the attempt to gather all into some single organization.  On the secular level, there are many environmental groups for example, that may often cooperate or collaborate or join voice in support or opposition of issues they hold in common.  But the diversity of the many different groups themselves contributes to the activation of volunteers, donors, and supporters by personalized appeal rather than the inherently flawed theme of trying to be all things to all people and consolidate all such into a single organizational structure….where the attempt to find agreement as to purpose and priority would be endlessly contentious I think.

I like diversity and options and definitive distinctions from which to personally select those groups and causes that appeal to my experiential perspective of meaning and value.   There is only one spiritual brotherhood but there are many forms of association and group endeavor.  It would be good if the UB movement could be “united” and without uniformity which I find the current multi-faceted and distinctive organizations offer today.  And why I agree with the policy discussed and referenced – surely there is room for a group and a forum that does not give voice to or support for those who claim the power to speak for God or celestials to other mortals; and I do not find such a policy to be exclusionary – it is inclusive for myself and those who hold to that which we share together to have a group that is not disturbed by such claims and practices which are allowed and even supported by other, distinct, groups of also like minded individuals.

Bradly wrote:

So then, organized efforts of those holding the same ideals and goals is a good thing, an evolutionary progression, wherein and whereby the individual is strengthened in their service efforts by the affiliation with that group or those groups which help them in their expressions of love, duty, loyalty, friendship, cooperation, and fraternity.

You mention “organized efforts of those holding the same ideals and goals” being a good thing, however could that be a misinterpretation when being applied to one of the goals for “light and life”, where a merger to one race, would require a non-loyalty, to control over any one race, or peoples.  The subject has moved into a religious faction, however it would also apply to a racial factor as recent events have indicated that “fraternity” could never be achieved giving or allowing for personal or individual prejudice, where giving one will allow for a group prejudice.

When any group, lead by individual prejudice becomes a supremacy over others, will there always be an use verses them attitude, thereby any effort to add “love” to any equation would fail.  You have added “love” to many other group equations presented here, but what kind of “love” are we really talking about?  The “love” of or for others, or the “love” of for an idea which may become a misguided ideal, which will work itself into an augmentation from the Golden Rule to a do unto others before they have a chance to do unto us, mentality.

When we define “love” as parental love, for our children, how do we teach them to “love” one another, when we as parents present examples which seem to differ from what many think or feel that our Fathers love for us, is?  Therefore, we may find that “love” is only a word which may be defined differently by many, and should really be defined by the fruits of one’s labor of “love.”