Ardor's Account - The Full Confession
Speech of Christ
Speech of God's servant
Concluding Summary
Questions & Answers Part I
Questions & Answers Part II
Atonement and the Shorter Road
History, Proofs and Results
The Light Universal
Toward the Light
Pt II - Sec 1, Q & A 1 - 20

Toward the Light

Questions & Answers

An Addendum to Toward the Light

Part II



When a scribe asked which commandment was the greatest, Jesus answered (Mark 12: 29): “Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord . . .” Since Jesus quoted this ancient Hebraic tenet with deep conviction, should we not assume that he himself taught that God is one?


If so, how can the Church teach that God is three equal beings Father, Son and the Holy Ghost—who together are One?

The clergy should actually be asked this. They should be fully qualified to answer it truthfully, as difficult as it might appear to make these words of Jesus conform to the “Dogma of the Trinity”. But so as not to trouble the clergy, we shall give the answer according to the knowledge we possess.


Jesus did not “believe” in a triune God, of course. To him, indeed, such a concept of the personal Being of the true God was entirely unknown. To him, God was the Father—the One, the only One!

The doctrine of the Trinity is the work of man, but behind its original thought stood Ardor. The unity of the Son with the Father was agreed upon at the Church Council of Nicea in the year 325 A.D. (by the prevailing calendar)—or long after the time of Jesus. The “Holy Ghost” was included in parenthesis as the third part of this entity, but the parenthesis was deleted at the Church Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. and the “Holy Ghost” accorded, instead, equal status with the Father and the Son.

As many know, and all should know, the “Synoptic Gospels” and the Gospel of John have been much altered. None now appear in their original forms. To make all four Gospels conform to the teachings of the early Church, during the first centuries, much was deleted or amended—or rather, fabricated—as judged best by the learned Fathers of the Church. But by such arbitrary deletions from, or additions to the text, the inherent contradictions of the Gospels became even more conspicuous than they had been from the start. The place referred to in Mark 12: 29 was simply overlooked during these revisions.1 In the corresponding passages in Matthew 22: 37 and Luke 10: 27, the first sentence of the answer by Jesus is missing: “Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is One”. (The absence of these words is easily verified by looking up the relevant passages.) The learned Church Fathers had “overlooked” Mark 12: 29, and when discovered it was too late to correct the error. The “camel” was there to stay!  And generation after generation of prelates have “swallowed the camel”, feeling no obligation to reinstate the words of Jesus and expunge2 the Doctrine of the Trinity, the work of man, from the teachings of the Church.

Many a sensitive mind has been disturbed deeply by these words of Jesus, and because of this overlooked quotation many have dissociated themselves from the doctrine of the Trinity.


We await that man of the Church who, in view of these words of Jesus overlooked3 at the Church councils of Nicea and Constantinople, will have sufficient courage to undertake this necessary purging of the Christian teaching.


Some biblical scholars believe an ancient original Gospel was perhaps the source of the now known Gospels. Did such an original Gospel exist?


The present Gospels, both the Synoptic ones and the Gospel of John, are only copies of copies. Back of these scriptures were not only one, but several “original Gospels”.

Our task is not to restore the Gospels4 to their original form and wording. Besides, it would be an impossible task. Therefore, rather than elaborate needlessly, we shall refer to the life, words and acts of Jesus as set forth in Toward the Light, both in Ardor’s Account and in the Commentary, as well as in the two Supplements, for what is stated in these works is the truth!

We must also point out that Jesus himself had some knowledge of the older mystic religions5 and that his beliefs and pronouncements were therefore influenced in certain respects by his knowledge of the ancient cults.

It would thus be a hopeless task for any biblical scholar to attempt to separate the true from the false in the many doubtful passages, for despite the many distortions, arbitrary insertions and deletions all the Gospels do contain glimpses of truth, and words actually uttered by Jesus.



Why did Jesus demand that Joseph of Arimathea give away his wealth to the poor and renounce all power, honors and rank? (Toward the Light, page 57: 2.) Had Joseph declared himself a follower of Jesus, could he not have exercised great influence upon his fellow citizens, precisely because of his wealth and esteem?

Although Jesus belonged not to the Essene communities he did practice some of their ideas, believing many had great virtue. Thus, he fully agreed with the Essenes that all should share the good things of life and none amass unnecessary wealth for themselves. From his purely human point of view, therefore, he reasoned that those possessed of abundant worldly goods ought to share with those who had none—that they should be poor among the poor. He was for the same reason contemptuous of all earthly power and esteem.


Had Jesus suggested that Joseph contribute part of his great wealth to help the poor, he would then have been in accord with God’s Thought. For never does God demand of the rich that they give away all that they possess and retain nothing for themselves. God most definitely respects the individual’s rights of ownership. And Joseph’s position in life on Earth was indeed such that in accordance with God’s desire and intention he could have supported Jesus through his wealth, esteem, power and authority. Thus, in this instance, Jesus was much too Earth-bound, his demands of Joseph much too harsh.


It is stated (Toward the Light (page 145) that Jesus searched the Earth’s astral plane for centuries before finding Joseph of Arimathea. Was he absent all that time from his work in the sixth sphere, or did he search but intermittently? To human eyes this seems an unreasonably severe penance for an apparently minor guilt by Jesus. Why could he not with God’s help find his missing brother sooner?

During the time the eldest of the Youngest, Christ, searched for Joseph, he could return as often as he wished to his home in the sixth sphere. He also discharged in full the task6 God had entrusted him—to lead the Youngest and mankind. He searched for Joseph every day and at every available moment.

But in the centuries that passed before he found Joseph, he was never once with God in the Paternal Home. This should be compared with the parable of the “Two brothers” wherein the son says: “Father, I will go forth and seek my brother—I will not return, except that I bring him with me.” This is thus a penance that the son—Christ—imposes upon himself, and not a penance imposed by the father—by God. For in the parable the father says: “Take up your staff and turn back; seek until you find the brother who fell behind you upon the way!”  He says not that the son cannot return without his brother.


The inquirer suggests this penance was too severe for an apparently minor guilt ascribed to Jesus. But God looked not in this way upon that which passed between Jesus and Joseph in Palestine. The guilt that Jesus in his earthly life incurred toward his “brother” was—in God’s view—by no means trivial. By his uncompromising attitude, Jesus alienated Joseph rather than drawing him closer as had been God’s intention.


God had chosen these two among the Youngest, known to man as Jesus of Nazareth and Joseph of Arimathea, to cooperate during life on Earth. They were to support one another in the difficult task He had entrusted them; together they should counter the anger, hatred, misunderstanding, opposition and condemnation of their contemporaries. But by his attitude, unrelenting despite the urgent promptings of his conscience to draw Joseph toward him, Jesus thus came to bear some of the guilt for the failure of their joint mission. Similarly, he cannot be held entirely blameless for the fact that Joseph followed the ways of Darkness, that he took the life of his old servant so that he should not reveal that he had removed the body of Jesus from the tomb. Perhaps, in the eyes of man, this guilt might appear of little significance, but to God it was of importance. And the penance which God imposed upon the eldest of the Youngest was therefore no more than just: he was to seek the missing brother and help him find the road back to their Father, because, during the course of his life on Earth, he had failed to concern himself with the fate of his fellow-worker, because, never once on the road of his journey, had he turned to call his brother back.


God of course knew where Joseph could be found. After many years of aimless wandering on the Earth’s astral plane, Joseph had sought refuge in the Darkness of “Hell”—drawn there by his guilt of sin. And God could have conveyed this knowledge to Christ. But would it have been of any use? Joseph could still not return, could still not be released from the bonds of Darkness until grief and remorse would overcome him. But there was a possibility that Christ in searching for him would be able to evoke this grief and remorse when he suddenly stood before him as the good Samaritan who sought for the one he could help and sustain. And this is what did come to pass. When Christ suddenly stood before Joseph in the Darkness of Hell, when his radiant figure cast a clear light on the dismal surroundings, then did a yearning for the Father’s forgiveness awaken in the darkened mind of Joseph, and he followed his brother.


But behind Christ’s search was God’s Thought, and the moment God saw the first feeling of unease emerge in Joseph’s mind, saw Joseph’s first shudder of horror at the memory of his act of murder, God led Christ to his brother’s refuge, for then He knew there was a possibility that the son lost in the depth of Darkness might be overcome by grief and remorse over the failure of his earthly life. He knew that now there existed a possibility the son might return home to ask his Father’s forgiveness.



According to Toward the Light Jesus confirmed before Caiaphas that he was the Son of the Most High. Did Jesus mean that he was in fact7 the Son of God and thus of a different nature from God’s other children?


Through his spiritual struggles, Jesus had come to a full understanding that he indeed was the Messiah, God’s emissary. He recollected, faintly, that he held an exceptional position in the heavenly abodes as the chosen one among his peers. He faintly recalled that God had entrusted him the power and authority over beings who lived and existed in the “heavens”.8

Jesus said often: “My Kingdom is not of this world”, showing clearly that he was aware of his exceptional position in the world invisible to man. However, he felt that not only he but all human beings were children of God, and that as such they were all equal. When Jesus spoke of God he would as often say “my Father” as “your Father” or “our Father”. And in his teaching he emphasized again and again that God was the loving Father of all.


 At the time that Caiaphas questioned him, fatigue had overcome Jesus. He knew he had been chosen to be sacrificed, knew he was to pay with his life for the attempted revolt by the priests and the Sanhedrin9 against the Roman overlordship. He knew his answers would be of no consequence, for Caiaphas would be certain to turn and twist his words so that they would express exactly what Caiaphas desired to hear, that Caiaphas might deliver him to Pilate. The Sanhedrin was determined to be rid of him—and Jesus knew this. When Caiaphas asked if he were the Son of the Most High, Jesus could have answered according to his teachings: the Most High is my Father as He is your Father and the Father of all! But as said, Jesus was in a state of fatigue when he stood before Caiaphas, and his answer was not well considered. His words were such that the Sanhedrin saw blasphemy in them—and the fate of Jesus was thereby sealed.



The clergy are reproached (in the Appendix to Supplement 1) for applying the expression “The Bride of Christ” to the congregation in the terminology of the Church. But can they properly be reproached for this, since for example John 3: 2910 and Revelation 19: 7, 21: 9 and 22: 17 can be said to set a precedent for this expression?

The wording of these passages has its origin in the older mystic religions. These words stem from ancient rituals but have since been distorted.11 They were spoken at the festivals consecrated to the nuptials of the God of Fertility and the Earth. The God of Fertility was represented by a handsome youth chosen by the priests of the temple from among the young disciples, while the Earth was represented by a fair maiden chosen by the priestesses from among the young temple maidens. The youth was subjected to various lengthy rituals to render his body worthy as an abode for the “god” during his stay on Earth. These rituals were climaxed with a “baptism”, which purged the soul and body of all sin and earthly impurity. Afterward, the youth was led to the altar where he knelt in a prescribed manner and inhaled narcotic vapors rising from the glowing embers in a brazier before him. And when he fell into a stupor, at that moment the god took possession of his body! After the administering of some stimulants, he regained consciousness and was hailed by the priests as the god descended from heaven—the bridegroom. Outside the temple, in the center of a semi-circle of white-robed and flower-bedecked priestesses and temple maidens, the chosen bride, adorned also in white and bedecked with flowers, awaited the bridegroom’s arrival. The priests, chanting softly, led the “god” to his waiting bride. The priests then all gathered before her, and the high priest stepped forward, raised his staff and called out: “Behold, the bridegroom is come! Where is the bride?” In chorus, the priestesses answered: “The Earth stands adorned as the bride, longingly she awaits the coming of the bridegroom!” Again the high priest called out: “Behold, the bridegroom is come! Where is the bride?” The young maiden then stepped forward and bowed deeply before the “god.” Under alternating chants by the priests, priestesses and temple maidens the chosen bride was forthwith delivered over to the “god”—the bridegroom.

The mystic cult from which this account is taken belongs to the more ancient cults, but we are not permitted to reveal from which people or from which time it originated. In antiquity, this festival, or rather this drama, was enacted with a certain chaste beauty and solemnity. Only those chosen to take part in the invocation were present. And a tragic drama it was! For as soon as the youth had enacted his role as the God of Fertility, he was put to death by the chief priest so that the “god” who had descended into the body of the youth could again be released. This was also done so that sin or earthly impurity would never taint the earthly body that had served briefly as the god’s abode .

This feast, once so exalted and solemn, also developed later into an orgy in which all the people participated.


The comparison of Christ with the heavenly bridegroom springs therefore from an ancient mystic cult. And in view of the foregoing, the congregation—the bride—thus becomes an expression of earthly fertility.


With the knowledge that the quotations cited from the New Testament are offshoots of an ancient pagan cult, a symbol of the union of the God of Fertility with the flourishing Earth, one can rightfully say that it is unethical, unesthetic and unseemly to compare Christ to the bridegroom who awaits his bride, the congregation. And if the Church had not brought human marriage contracts under its domain, this metaphor of Christ’s relationship with the congregation would probably long since have been removed from the terminology of the Church as a most offensive expression.



Why did many followers of Jesus and the Apostles believe baptism12—as practiced by John—cleansed them not only of past but of future sins as well, even though Jesus said repeatedly that baptism was only symbolic?

Both in his day and in earlier times, the general populace of the native land of Jesus knew about as much concerning older mystic cults as the general public of, say, Denmark knows today about the ancient pagan feasts of the Winter Solstice (now “Christmas”), the New Year and Shrovetide.

Baptism” was thus widely known in Palestine as an initiation, as a cleansing that purified and consecrated those who dedicated their lives to the service of the mystic god. But then came John the Baptist, bringing baptism to all. With his ceremony, that is, he consecrated all who would accept what he proclaimed. But when he took water from the River Jordan and poured it over his disciples, he said: “As with water I cleanse your bodies of earthly dust and soil, so shall the Lord cleanse your hearts with heavenly fire, cleanse you from the impurities13 of sin and evil.” This was therefore a twofold cleansing, for the heart—the soul—should be purified by the “heavenly fire” of the Lord. Many therefore understood this to mean that the Lord let His fire cleanse their souls while John poured water from the river over their bodies. And when the fire had purified their “hearts” of the taints of sin and evil, being thus doubly cleansed they could no longer be tainted by sin—even though they sinned. A remarkable logic, but thus they reasoned! And it was this erroneous conception that Jesus sought to root out by countering the question of baptism with the analogy of the daily cleansing of the body, as related in chapter 19 of Ardor’s Account.



Christ says (Speech of Christ in Toward the Light, page 113, line 19)“For there shall be no progress for you, nor shall you be able to begin a new life upon the Earth before you have acknowledged your errors, before you have repented of your sins.” Elsewhere he says: “. . .for each must atone in full for that sinned. But if you will not right your wrongs—for no one compels you to do right—then you cease your progress toward the Light and the Kingdom, and through many lives upon the Earth shall you remain at the same place.” Do not these two pronouncements contradict one another?

No! These two statements fully agree with and supplement one another.


In the first instance, Christ says the human spirit must acknowledge and repent of its guilt of sin before a new life on Earth can commence, otherwise the spirit cannot advance. That is, it cannot develop further spiritually. According to God’s Law of Incarnation, each new earthly life normally advances the human spirit in development, knowledge and experience. It is this that Christ emphasizes by saying: “For there shall be no progress for you.” But—and it is this that Christ emphasizes in the second instance—neither is any progress possible for the spirit that refuses to submit to the Law of Retribution15, that is to say refuses to atone for its guilt of sin. Provided that it has repented of its guilt, a spirit that refuses to atone for this guilt can well be incarnated to a new life on Earth, but that earthly life will never advance or develop it spiritually. The spirit will therefore remain at the same level it had reached when it refused to atone for the errors and transgressions committed in its last normal incarnation. In the second passage quoted, from the section dealing with the Law of Retribution, Christ speaks not of prior repentance, he speaks only of spirits who refuse to restore what they have destroyed, refuse to atone for what they have sinned. But in the other quotation Christ speaks of repentance, the remorse that all must sooner or later fully experience before a new earthly life of progressive spiritual development can begin.


Numerous human spirits are willing enough to acknowledge their errors and repent of their sins, but however deep and true their remorse may be, many a spirit will still attempt to evade the Law of Retribution, evade the atonement, will refuse outright to submit to the provisions of this law. Since none, however, are incarnated under the regular Law16 of Incarnation without their consent, the spirits who refuse to atone for their sins must remain in their homes in the spheres with no possibility of further progress. (Toward the Light, page 184: 4.) Thus they take part in no preparatory instruction that could be useful to them in their coming incarnation. However, this idle and lonely existence will usually soon bring the spirits to reason so that they willingly submit to the provisions of the Law of Retribution. But if, after a certain time, the spirits are yet unwilling to submit to these provisions, they will be permitted to incarnate again rather than stay in their home in the spheres. This permission has always been accepted, since everyone prefers to live as humans on Earth among others, rather than remain utterly alone in their home in the spheres. But such extraordinary incarnations bring no spiritual progress to the individual. In such instances, many incarnations are often required before the recalcitrant spirit yields. When the human spirit finally understands that almost all its contemporaries have progressed and moved on to higher spheres, the full weight of solitude will make itself felt and the spirit will submit to the unavoidable—the incarnation of atonement.

These extraordinary incarnations count not in the development of the human spirit, and it is this circumstance to which Christ refers with the words:  “. . .then through many lives on Earth you remain at the same place.”



Christ says (Speech of Christ, Toward the Light, page 111: 1): “I speak to you of some of our Father’s laws!” Thus he mentions there only the most important laws—those that all humans should know of. But of course under the principal laws are also found numerous sections and subsections, each important for the continuous development of the human spirit, although it is not essential that they all be made familiar to mankind. If information on all these sections and subsections were to be given, that subject alone would fill heavy volumes—an impossible task. However, there is one provisional clause, referred to in Question 18 (First Supplement), which we shall describe in greater detail. It is found under the principal law for the incarnations of human spirits and pertains to the position of “Christian” spirits under the Law of Retribution:


The majority of human spirits who have lived and worked in Christian societies during their last previous incarnation will, during the contemplation of the errors and sins of their earthly lives, sooner or later come to understand the erroneous implication in the principal dogma of Christian teaching, namely the teaching of the Death of Atonement of Jesus. They realize that it must be absurd that someone else should atone or suffer for their wrongdoing in life on Earth. And even though numerous human spirits have sighed and grieved because they have had to renounce this—to them so convenient—mode of atonement, they fully concede that a loving and just divinity would never allow a “Christ” to suffer or atone for the sins of mankind. And having so conceded, they understand that only they alone can make amends for their errors and atone for their sins. These spirits then enter their incarnations of atonement in the normal manner. But among the “Christian” human spirits are unfortunately a great many not open to reason. All arguments founder on that one single, at times differently formulated but invariably repeated, tenet: “Jesus Christ has atoned for my sins, and I am saved and absolved of my guilt of sin through my belief in his death of atonement.” Remorse is out of the question for these beings. Repent they will not, because, as they insist, they have already repented, having done so when they partook of the Sacrament of the Communion on Earth and received the “remission of sin”.

But when God has seen that their repentance on Earth is superficial, is anything but deep-felt, then must they indeed consider carefully the errors and transgressions of the life they have just ended, until they become truly and deeply remorseful. It cannot be avoided, for to God the remission of sin through Communion is of no significance at all. But these obstinate “Christian” human spirits refuse to submit, and in most cases are even greatly dissatisfied with their stay in their home in the spheres because: 1) the spiritual self does not “sleep” until the “Day of Judgment”, as many imagine that it does after the death of the body; 2) they are not in Paradise, although, to be sure, neither are they in the dreaded Hell; 3) They see no host of angels with great white wings, harps or palm fronds; 4) There are no songs of jubilation, no hosannas, no hallelujahs!  There is nothing of all that they had expected, hoped for or believed in. There is but a grey and dismal existence,17 a total solitude and silence, when the conscience does not speak. But because of their trust in Christian teaching, these spirits find such a condition utterly intolerable and understand not that this solitude and this silence is necessary for the voice of conscience to be heard within themselves, so that everything from the completed life on Earth can be recalled and carefully pondered. They brood therefore first and foremost upon how they may escape from this unendurable, this quite incomprehensible existence. Again and again they cry out that they wish to return to life on Earth! For they would rather live in the human world, among others, than reflect in solitary silence upon the errors and transgressions that in their view had long since been forgiven through participation in the Sacrament of Communion, and removed by their belief in the Death of Atonement of Jesus Christ. When God after a time sees that nothing can be done with these spirits, He grants their request to return to life on Earth. But even though they are told that in the new incarnation they must themselves atone for the sins they would neither consider nor repent of, they all seize eagerly upon the prospect of living once more among their fellow beings. They all hope yet that in one way or another they will manage to avoid atonement when they enter a new life on Earth. Not until they have endured one or more earthly lives in which—under the Law of Retribution—they have had to atone for previous sins and errors, do they finally concede and admit they were wrong in their “Christian” views. With this concession, their obstinacy is broken and then acknowledgment of sin and feelings of remorse awaken.

The journey of these “Christian” human spirits is indeed a longer one; but it is a necessary detour, and it must continue to be followed until human beings understand that the doctrines and postulates of the Christian religion are in error. Not until then can there be any expectation that all human spirits, when confronted in the beyond with their completed earthly life, will be more open to the prospect of penance and atonement for the transgressions of their human life. (See also Question 18 of the First Supplement to Toward the Light.)



In answer to Question 36, Supplement I, it is stated that the total time of incarnations will be longer in future than in the past. Assuming of course that the activities of the Eldest have greatly hindered and delayed human progress, and considering that these activities have now ceased, mankind should consequently make faster progress, leading to a more rapid completion of the total time of incarnations. But the answer to Question 36 is that the opposite will prevail—the total time will be lengthened. How can this be understood and explained?

 This should need no further explanation beyond that given in reply to Question 36, where it is clearly said that the willful incarnations of the Eldest have brought disorder to the calm and steady progress of the human spirits through earthly rebirth. And since the nature of this disorder is explained with equal clarity in Toward the light, everyone should be able to see why both the total number and the total duration of incarnations will increase rather than decrease. However, since the logic of this appears difficult for humans to comprehend we will explain it further, though this would seem unnecessary:

First, above all, remember that millions upon millions of human spirits remained on the astral plane of the Earth for thousands of years, thus evading the normal succession of rebirths. These millions must therefore atone in times to come not only for transgressions in their lives on Earth in the remote past, but also for the guilt incurred during their Earth-bound existence through the incitement—by the influence of their thought—of human crimes, misdeeds and transgressions. Consider also the transgressions of humans while they lived on Earth during the time of the willful incarnations of the Eldest. All this must be atoned for in full, inevitably demanding a longer series of incarnations than previously needed for the earthly development of the human spirit—before the self-incarnations of the Eldest began. To the questioner this might appear as a gross injustice, but in no way is it unjust. This provision is founded upon perfect justice. Remember that the individual is entirely free to decide to give way or not to the influence of Darkness and sin, and remember, as often stated, that all human beings are guided by their conscience. Had the humans during that period followed their conscience rather than allowed themselves to be tempted or guided by the self-incarnated Eldest, there would of course have been no reason to increase the number of incarnations; for then mankind would not have transgressed to so great a degree. By studying world history from known ancient times to the present, anyone can learn of the misdeeds and crimes of the successive generations. But as humans are easily tempted, as they easily submit to the guidance of the emissaries of Darkness, they must also fully atone for what they have sinned. They were not compelled to follow the ways of Darkness. Had they so willed, they could have chosen the ways of the Light. At some time, millions of years from now, when atonement is completed—for there must be balance according to God’s laws—it is possible the number of incarnations can once more be reduced. And since those Eldest whom Ardor had incarnated will, at some time, be removed from the Earth forever, it is likely that, as time passes, man’s lot in life—and the circumstances for atonement on Earth—will be more favorable than if the Eldest had continued their incarnations.

In answer to Question 36 (First Supplement) it is stated: “. . .and since the sequence of incarnations of human spirits will be longer in the future than hitherto, the period of development in the worlds of Light will be of shorter duration for these spirits than for those who have been released from earthly life and now live in the worlds of Light”. The reason is of course that these first-mentioned spirits, through the numerous rebirths, will learn much that was unknown when the previously released spirits lived through their periods of learning and development upon Earth.



Words as we know them are of Earthly origin (Toward the Light, page 3: 3). Do transcendental beings also make use of audible language for song and speech? If so, do all spiritual beings speak one identical language?

All spiritual beings can use audible language in speech and song. They can also communicate by means of thought over short as well as over long distances.


The language by which God, His Servants and His first children—the Eldest and the Youngest—communicated and still communicate among themselves is very different from earthly language. No further information regarding this language will be given.

The human spirits in the spheres speak the earthly languages familiar to them, but can also communicate by thought if they desire. They possess no knowledge of the language spoken by God, by His Servants and by His first children. When these “speak” to human spirits, they do so usually by thought or in the language familiar to the spirits from their most recent life on Earth. (Regarding God’s speech to the human spirits in the spheres, see Toward the Light, page 186: 2. 3).

When the human spirits have been released from their earthly incarnations to continue their development in the distant transcendental worlds, they will also be taught the “Divine language”. Thus, all God’s children will speak the same language when finally gathered in their Father’s Kingdom. They will also be able to communicate by thought and, if they desire, by the earthly languages they once spoke.



The Youngest taught humans the use of speech (Toward the Light, page 19: 10). Why then are languages so different, so grammatically complex? Can the transcendental world advise if humanity ought to adopt an artificial or an existing language as a common tongue?

When some of the Youngest went through their first lives on Earth, bound to the human bodies that Ardor had created, their intelligence stood at a very low level. To enable the Youngest to dwell with the animal-like human beings of the first ages, it was necessary to limit and reduce their high intelligence to the lowest possible level. The spiritually life-giving cord that connects the psychic and the physical brains was therefore brought into contact with only a few sharply defined centers in the psychic brains of these Youngest. Consequently, the first groping attempts to establish any form of language were vague and deficient. And since these Youngest—the first leaders of mankind—were incarnated at widely scattered places across the Earth, it was impossible for them to communicate with one another. Guided by their guardian spirits, each had to think and act independently and according to the intelligence allotted them. It was thus quite impossible to create and develop a common form of speech for all peoples. However, with each rebirth on Earth the life-giving cord of the Youngest was interwoven with additional centers in the psychic brain, thereby increasing their human intelligence by some few degrees and enabling them to broaden the mental horizon of their fellow beings who then gradually achieved greater fluency of speech so as to be able to create new words, devise better sentence structure, and invent better designations. Even so, progress was exceedingly slow, groping and faltering, building always upon the existing but diverse forms of speech. Later, when human intelligence began to awaken in earnest, people themselves—within each nation—contributed new words to their languages, new names for objects, animals, plants and natural phenomena, and so on. Later still, when the discarnate Eldest began to intervene through the influence of their thought in what the Youngest were teaching mankind, they also left their stamp upon the various language groups. During their many and long migrations from place to place in the earliest times, in the pre-historic era and in the later age of ancient history, humans again and again borrowed words and expressions from one another, adopted them into their own language and in many instances built further upon them.


And when the Eldest began to incarnate on Earth, beginning around 12,000 B.C., these also improved upon and expanded the vocabulary and grammar of a number of the existing languages through the mighty intelligence of their personalities. Further development then took place in the course of thousands of years upon the basis laid down by the Eldest, or upon their linguistic innovations. The forms of speech of the many nations and peoples thus were created not in a single event. They all gradually developed over time from the primitive, hesitant and unsure attempts to build a bridge between human individuals—a bridge over which thought could be communicated in words that could be gathered into sentences and resound in audible speech and thus convey to others the thoughts and feelings of the individual and express joy, sorrow, passion, pain and suffering.



Humanity must itself choose if it is expedient and desirable to adopt an artificial language as a common tongue, or to employ one of the existing, living languages.



Some readers have expressed surprise that Ardor’s Account was given in an archaic style of language. Was that style more familiar to Ardor, or was the intent simply to establish a more solemn and “biblical” tone?

Ardor did not employ an archaic form of speech so as to to give his Account a “Bible-like” effect but rather to give it a more solemn tone than would have been possible with modern idioms and style, especially when recited aloud.

He could of course have presented his Account in accordance with modern usage, but since he wished to bestow upon it a more personal stamp and to show how beautifully the Danish language can be formed and can sound when shaped by a highly developed spiritual intelligence, he composed his words in the form presented.

To compare Ardor’s language with that of the Bible would be to its disadvantage.18 Ardor’s entire account, from first word to last, is couched in an eloquent and graphically descriptive style. (The same cannot be said of the Bible, a work pieced together from manuscripts of widely varying composition.) The first chapters of Ardor’s Account, especially, are so styled that even someone of moderate poetic gift cannot only appreciate the outstanding beauty of the language19 but can also clearly “visualize” the events described as they pass before the inner eye. Gradually, as Ardor enters historical ground, his language becomes freer, becomes more descriptive. Yet he retains his characteristic choice of words and sentence structure.

 Not until scholars of Danish language and literature undertake a close study of Toward the Light at some future time will the full beauty of its poetic form be widely understood, for it is not given to everyone to recognize the linguistic quality of this work without some guidance.

With the hope of being recognized as Jesus of Nazareth, Christ presented his discourse (Speech of Christ) in a language similar to that of the New Testament.20 But it will soon become apparent to the observant reader that Christ’s discourse is, in its form and choice of words, much more poetic than the New Testament. His discourse is authoritative, is dignified and eloquent, and in every way transcends the quite ordinary language of the New Testament.


One cannot expect that the general populace will be able to judge the linguistic quality of Toward the Light; though in future that aspect of this work will also be fully recognized, when the spirit of the time has matured sufficiently to allow understanding and acknowledgment of the unique significance of Toward the Light for all mankind.



Why was Toward the Light not given in a better known language, such as English, which would have made it accessible to many more people without translation? Did it appear in Denmark for a reason similar to that for which Jesus was sent to Palestine?


At the time that God incarnated a multitude of the Youngest, both male and female, to be human helpers for Christ in his special task of winning back Ardor, they were incarnated in all civilized countries. Among many other considerations, attention also had to be given to Ardor’s ether-recordings, some of which loomed ominously on the horizon of human life at the exact time when these incarnated Youngest were to extend their help to Christ in his difficult mission. We refer to the so-called World War, planned and pre-determined by Ardor but brought to reality through human action. And when God saw that there was a possibility—albeit faint—that Denmark would remain neutral, He sent to that country some of the Youngest who in previous incarnations had proven especially suited to allowing themselves to be guided by the voice of their “conscience”. It was among these that Christ succeeded in finding the needed assistance.21 For this reason, then, Toward the Light and its supplementary works were presented in the Danish language. But with the knowledge of various languages that people possess today, it should not prove too difficult to find qualified translators so that in time these works may become universally known, may become a possession of all.



Why is the structure of Toward the Light based on questions from human beings? Would it not have been easier for the spiritual intelligences to create this work from their own knowledge of the truths important to humanity?

The answer can be both yes and no.

It would have been a great relief for the spiritual intelligences could they have so proceeded. But had the work originated exclusively with the transcendental world, a great difficulty that probably could not have been overcome would have presented itself when it came to “transferring” it to the earthly world. The only possible method would then have been for our helper on Earth to memorize the complete manuscript page by page during many nightly sleep releases22 from her human body; and page by page the spiritual intelligences would have had to transfer each day the memorized subject matter from the helper’s psychic to her physical brain. In other words, by the same method as was employed by some “deceased” Danish poets when they produced a collection of poems, Greetings from Denmark, as a proof that the “dead” were alive and able to send a greeting to their former native country and its people. But even though the first part of the work, the production and the composition of Toward the Light, would have been an easy task for the discarnate spiritual intelligences, the many nightly sleep releases22 could have harmed considerably their earthly helper, just as the transfer from the psychic to the physical brain would have been difficult, perhaps quite impossible. And since it involved so many significant truths and important explanations, which would have had to be reproduced exactly according to the manuscripts of the spheres, it was too risky a procedure to embark upon when in all likelihood it could not have been successfully concluded. But we cannot give an account of all these many and severe difficulties, because humans lack any basis for understanding them. We can only ask you to bear in mind that the human brain tissue will always lose some of its original elasticity over the years, a condition which in this specific case probably would have left “voids” in the text while transferring it from the psychic to the physical brain of the earthly helper. And since it is most unlikely that sufficient resilience could be restored to the slackened physical brain cells and brain-centers in order to fill possible “voids” by repeated transpositions of the missing sentences and paragraphs, it would still have been necessary to resort to a different procedure for these sections. But the only recourse would then be to use thought-dictation, the inspirational and intuitive procedure, or in other words the method that was in fact used for the production of the greater part of this work in the Danish language (See also the Postscript to Toward the Light).


But one other aspect of the matter must also be considered. Had the work been successfully conveyed to the human world from a text prepared by spiritual intelligences, then humanity could with some justification ask: “What should we in fact do with this work? We have surely had enough ‘revelations’. Spare us yet another of this kind”, and so forth. God pointed this out to those of the Youngest whom He selected for the task of creating Toward the Light. He therefore said to them: “Lead the thoughts of your earthly helper and her closest friends toward questions of religion, ethics, science and philosophy. Say to them that within those limits they may ask about anything that they believe could be of interest to them and to their fellow humans. For then can you give them answers to their questions, then can they receive answers on the subjects about which they believe it is necessary to ask, then can they receive solutions to some of the riddles over which human beings have puzzled for thousands of years and more without being able to unravel them.” In accordance with God’s wish it was thus left to certain individual humans to pose questions upon which Toward the Light could be based and drafted by the spiritual intelligences chosen for that task. But great freedom was also left to these intelligences to lead the chosen human beings to ask at least the most essential questions. Thus no one has any right to say: “This work has no significance for us, it does not tell us what we need to know, it gives little of the information that is of interest to us, the whole work is quite meaningless, our own interpretations are much superior”, and so on. For that which is now given to mankind through Ardor and a number of the discarnate Youngest is the very answer to that which has been asked by human beings. And those who have posed the questions show, through their questions, that they represent that part of humanity—though doubtless only a smaller part—whose spiritual level is higher than that of the average human being. This therefore means that only a few people—few in relation to the total population of the Earth—will be able to fully understand the answers given. But the others, the greater part of humanity, will at some future time through numerous incarnations achieve the same spiritual level, if all will heed the “Message” that is now given.

At the time our earthly helper announced that neither she nor her circle had any further questions, the work was temporarily concluded. But as God had seen that there were still many matters of importance to mankind not asked about yet, He chose to augment the work so far given with one or possibly two supplements. God therefore entrusted some of the Youngest the task—within a certain number of years—of leading those people who had accepted or shown interest in the “Message” to submit written or oral questions to our earthly assistant, in order to have them answered through her intuition and through the inspiration of the Youngest. These Youngest thus became the helpers of the spiritual guide who had been assigned to our earthly interpreter and translator.

The structure of the First and Second Supplements is therefore also based on questions from humans. Only the Appendix to the First Supplement was, at God’s wish and direction, given solely from the transcendental world,23 since it had not been possible to elicit any questions relating to sexual matters before the First Supplement had been concluded.

Discarnate spiritual intelligences and human beings have thus worked hand in hand. And the work will continue in this way until the point has been reached established by God as the ultimate limit in time for obtaining answers to questions on matters spiritual and of the Spheres and of the Earth. But if we succeed in eliciting the still missing questions and answering them before the time established by God has been reached, the work will be definitely concluded with no further additions.



The language style in the Commentary to Toward the Light appears somewhat different than that of Questions and Answers. Did the same intelligence originate both texts, or do their origins lie with a number of different intelligences?


In answer, we must go back to the time when The Doctrine of Atonement and the Shorter Road was concluded. With the completion of that work, the promise given our earthly helper that she should receive a gift consisting of “three golden fruits”24 was fulfilled. However, as stated in answer to Question 15, there still remained a number of essential matters to be elucidated in order to give human beings a more complete picture and a fuller understanding of the transcendental world, and of the circumstances that form the basis of the individual personality of the human spirit. Similarly, there remained a number of answers in Toward the Light that could well be further clarified and expanded through new questions, thus contributing to a clearer understanding of the subjects already treated. Our Father then chose—as previously stated—some of the discarnate Youngest to assist our earthly helper’s spiritual guide, and He instructed them to elicit with the means at their disposal the missing questions from the people who had accepted Toward the Light and who understood its significance. With our earthly helper’s permission, the time for answering such questions was stipulated to be for as long as she lived on Earth. However, should it prove possible to elicit and answer the missing questions within a shorter period, the work would then be brought to a final conclusion so that all response to any further questions would cease, even though our helper’s life on Earth had not yet ended.


As Toward the Light and The Doctrine of Atonement and the Shorter Road were being given, the spiritual intelligences were present in our intermediary’s earthly home. Invisible to her, we stood each at her side and communicated what we intended to convey with the help of our thought—but these words and sentences of thought were expressed in the Danish language.25 The style of language thus directly expressed the individual personality of each of the spiritual intelligences present. But this intensive and concentrated procedure could clearly not be employed in the case of the subsequent questions, because the chosen Youngest—the helpers of the spiritual guide—first had to elicit these questions in the thoughts of several different human beings before the spiritual guide could answer them. Our Father then established a direct spiritual “radio” link between our intermediary and her guide. Wherever he happened to be in the spiritual26 world or in the spheres, the guide would thus at any time be able to answer the questions posed through the intermediary. These answers were, as usual, given by thought, but given in the “divine language.”27 When her spiritual leader’s thought-messages reached our earthly helper’s psychic brain, her thought28 would automatically convert the given words and sentences into the Danish language. And because of this translation” minor departures have occurred from the literary style of the Commentary, which was conveyed in her mother tongue.



Were the entire human race to follow the course suggested in the Appendix to the First Supplement and have no more children—a logical possibility—how would the Law of Reincarnation then operate? Would it cease to function and bring to a halt that form of development of the human race?

A suggestion to limit the number of children is not the same as a command to bring no more children into the world under any circumstances. The questioner suggests there is no logical hindrance to envisaging the possibility that the whole human race might cease to bear children on account of the suggestion in the First Supplement that humans should limit the number of children. Can this truly be called a logical thought? We think not! First, because no consideration is given to the individual’s need to have children, the need to give love to beings of one’s own flesh and blood. This instinct cannot be eliminated from the human race by decree, much less by a mere appeal to limit the number of children. This is quite out of the question. Secondly, no account is taken of the primitive peoples, nor of those millions of humans not yet benefited by civilization in, for example, China and other places. 3) No account is taken of the survival instinct of the various races. It is hardly likely that any one race would willingly eliminate itself in favor of any other.

Thus: God demands not that humans should refrain from bringing children into the world under any circumstances, since such a demand would be in deep conflict with His love for His children and with His sense of justice. But He does ask that none bear more children than they are fully able to support. And this request is perfectly justified.29



In theory, birth control could be practiced to the extent that the human race would eventually die out. How would God and the Youngest view such a possibility—or the prospect of a drastic reduction in the Earth’s population?

God and the pioneers of humanity—the Youngest—would only welcome a drastic reduction in the number of people on Earth. It would in every way bring about better circumstances and conditions for mankind. However, not the least danger exists far into the future that the human race will become extinct through birth control. Should, however, the possibility of extinction ever arise, humanity would have no cause for anxiety, for God would certainly know of other ways to continue the development and education of the human spirits according to His plans and wishes. And such a continuation would take a form that would create no injustice whatsoever for those human spirits who would—should such an hour ever come—have concluded their earthly development.



Some see a discrepancy between Toward the Light where it states (page 328) that divorce should be “a means of last resort”, and the Appendix to the First Supplement which recommends easy access to divorce. Should it be understood that the first statement applies as a moral obligation, and that easy access to divorce is demanded only because freedom strengthens the individual’s sense of responsibility and facilitates divorce in those cases where it is definitely justified?

In Toward the Light, the statement on divorce as the last resort should not be understood as a question of morality but as a norm for marriage, a goal for which all people who are married should strive. What is stated is thus the ideal of human marriage, an ideal pointed out also in the First Supplement, page 108 1. Human beings can give substance to this ideal, and it has been fulfilled in many marriages both present and past. But as long as rigorous laws for the dissolution of marriage bind people and as long as marriage is regarded as a Sacrament and divorce in general as a disgrace, the average human being cannot attain to this ideal. Then, also, people should be given the freedom to dissolve or to continue their marriage. The more difficult it is to obtain divorce, the heavier the “yoke of matrimony” for either one or both partners. Forget not that humanity, on average, stands yet at such a low level in very many respects that it would be quite unrealistic to attempt to tie people down through rigorous laws for the dissolution of marriage. Such laws give rise only to anger, hatred and bitterness. Many who could have led happy and peaceful lives with someone other than the partner first chosen have stagnated in life or broken down completely, both morally and spiritually, because their marriage was regarded as a Sacrament and its dissolution a disgrace, or because one of the partners has clung tenaciously to his or her “right”. Humans—especially the male—must seek to reject the archaic view that marriage partners are each other’s property. Under God’s law the man has no more right of ownership over the woman than she of him. Both partners must be equally free in their relationship, but if this cannot be, then divorce is much to be preferred—especially if there are children. For the mental character of the children can be considerably impaired by constantly witnessing parental disputes and quarrels.


The questioner is right in stating that complete freedom in questions of marriage strengthens the individual’s sense of responsibility, and that easy access to divorce should be granted in all justified cases.



Many will likely also see a contradiction between the insistence on purity and the easy access to means of contraception recommended in the First Supplement. Should this be understood to mean that abstinence—also within marriage—is preferable when consistent with bodily and spiritual health?

Easy access to contraceptive means should be seen from the point of view of birth control. For according to God’s laws human beings have no right to give life to more children than they are fully able to support and educate. 

The demand for purity has nothing to do with birth control and nothing to do with sexual abstinence. And In Toward the Light there is nowhere any condemnation of bodily union. This union has once and for all time been given humanity by the creators of the human body as the basis for its propagation. The sexual instinct and its satisfaction must be regarded as a part of human life in the same way as are all other functions of the body. Human beings cannot refrain from taking nourishment, though this may seem an unesthetic process, unless they wish to expose themselves to death from starvation. Nor can they retain in the body the wastes that must normally be expelled. For if humans defy nature they will simply destroy their bodies, even though their action be based on apparently esthetic considerations. It is necessary for all to respect the body’s various demands and processes; no good can come of seeking to ignore the natural functions given the human body by its creator at the dawn of earthly time. But everyone can—by the strength of their God-given will—subdue and refine the crude sexual instinct that dwells in the body. Through the strength of the will, humans can thus govern and regulate their sexual life so as not to give way without restraint or moderation to the sexual instinct. For if humans seek not to govern this instinct, it may manifest itself in atavistic and abnormal behavior and result in abusive or criminal sexual conduct.

Thus, God demands not that bodily abstinence be regarded as an ideal expression of “purity”. This would be quite absurd in view of the natural functions originally established for the human body. What God does ask of people is purity of mind and thought! The will can also be employed for this purpose, for everyone can by power of will cleanse the mind and thought from that which gives impure, amoral and obscene ideas and fantasies. But those who are subjected to compulsory abstinence, for example through the Catholic vow of celibacy, are seldom pure of mind and thought. Often they practice in secret—not only in thought, but often also in reality—what the vow of celibacy denies them.


If abstinence is practiced within marriage, without damage to spiritual and bodily health—and with the full agreement of both partners—then God objects not. But never does He uphold sexual abstinence as an ideal of “purity”, either for the married or the unmarried.


Thus: the purity demanded by the laws of God is purity of mind and thought! It means not that one must force the body to refrain from satisfaction of the sexual instinct. It means that all, through the power of their will, should seek to hold the urges of the body within the proper and normal limits and not become slaves to their instincts, so as to commit lewd, unchaste, atavistic, abnormal or criminal acts.


One should thus respond to the demands of the body within the limits that one’s inner self and the conscience believe proper for the satisfaction of the sexual instinct.



How should the ancient commandment30 “Thou shalt not commit adultery” be properly understood, and how far-reaching is its significance?


Adultery in the sense of the Old Testament covers many different forms of transgression. Various sinful and morally wrong acts, both within and outside marriage, are described in Leviticus 20: 10-21. The transgressions within marriage discussed there, and the penalties cited, must first and foremost be judged in the light of the very stringent view held in those ancient times of the male’s absolute ownership of one or of a number of women, and of the inadmissibility and immorality of sexual relationships between close relatives.31

The sexually immoral, abnormal, lewd, atavistic and criminal conduct of human beings was far worse and widespread in those times than today. Thus from a human point of view there had to be severe penalties for these offences and crimes.


The New Testament not only supports the views of the Old Testament on such matters but adds a new element, with the words of Jesus:32 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”.


As stated earlier, Jesus agreed in many ways with the dogmas and ideas of the Essenes. He was deeply disturbed by the immorality of his time. Chaste himself, he felt the Essene demand for sexual abstinence justified. But he saw deeper than his contemporaries. He understood that not only the act itself but what preceded the act, the background for it, was important, namely the feelings of the heart and the thought’s desire. Jesus thus touches upon what God asks of humans: purity of thought, purity of mind, purity of feeling! For if the mind and thought are clean, the individual is no longer drawn toward the unclean, toward immorality, toward sexual transgressions and sexual crimes. But Jesus understood not that even though male desire can be aroused at the sight of an attractive woman, this desire can still be clean, the thoughts and feelings still be clean.


Therefore, although Jesus went a step further by including the mind, the thought and the heart in the concept of adultery, he was still unable to differentiate between clean and unclean desires, between clean and unclean thoughts.

Every age has its laws for immorality and sexual crime. Each period in time has its views on such offenses, but only God can determine how deeply these sexual transgressions and crimes are rooted in the mind and thought of the individual. Consequently, no fully valid definition of adultery can be given from the transcendental world for all peoples and for all times. Only this can be said: each individual must first of all strive to cleanse the mind, the thought and the feelings. If this is done, one’s33 attitude toward all sexual excesses, toward all abnormal or immoral sexual offenses will remain pure.


(Page references apply to the 1979 edition.)

Question 1

1) The scribe’s reply to Jesus, Mark 12: 32, was also overlooked. Here he confirms that God is one, but it is deleted in the two other Synoptic Gospels.

2) The fact that various sects and societies have been established to proclaim that God is One is of no consequence. Nothing will help until the Church itself undertakes a complete purging of its own teachings.

3) In a number of other places in the Gospels and the Epistles are words by Jesus, overlooked and not in accord with the teaching of the Church. The original evangelists, the actual authors of the “synoptic books” and of the Gospel of St. John cannot, of course, be held responsible for the numerous distortions, deletions and additions. It was they who received help from the transcendental world. (See Toward the Light, page 233: 2-3). But even so, the first scriptures were still deficient and often misleading.

Question 2

4) Toward the Light, page 233: 2.

5) Toward the Light, page 208: 6

Question 4

6) It is stated in the parable that he bore no burden, meaning that he was not incarnated.

Question 5

7) See Supplement I, Question 47, regarding Jesus as the Son of God in the earthly sense.

8) These faint recollections of the beyond brought Jesus through his spiritual struggles to an understanding that he was in fact the chosen of God, the “Anointed One”, God’s emissary. His conscience (God’s voice) constantly reminded him that he was the Messiah, that he was to teach the Jewish people of God’s love and compassion, that he must lead the people away from and out of the constraining Mosaic Law. But Jesus was not able to make these ideas conform to the expectations of the people concerning the mission of the coming Messiah. For he felt not that he was the “King of the House of David”, nor the “Savior” of all the people, sent by God. His conduct in those matters therefore became uncertain. But had he, according to God’s intention, openly acknowledged that he and no one else was the “promised” Messiah, he would have stood forth with much greater authority, and the Jewish people would perhaps have understood that their conception of the mission of the Messiah did not conform with God’s intention.

9) Supplement I, Questions 50 and 51.

Question 6

10) The original form of this Gospel has undergone many alterations, and the words now attributed to John the Baptist were, of course, never uttered by him.

11) For example, Revelation. 19: 7 originally read: “The nuptials of the God are come”. Later, “Lamb” was substituted for “God”. Revelation, 21: 9 read “the wife of the bridegroom”, and Revelation, 22: 17 included “bridegroom” where it now says “spirit”.

Question 7

12) Toward the Light, page 51, footnote 2, and page 52, chapter 20.

13) Toward the Light, page 38: 6.

Question 8

15) If the human spirit cannot obtain the forgiveness of the victim of its transgression, it becomes subject to the Law of Retribution and must atone for its sin through the sufferings of its own making. For example, in cases involving murder or killing, including also infanticide and abortion, the forgiveness of the victims can seldom be obtained since the “deceased” reside in a higher sphere, or because they have entered upon new incarnations. Transgressors cannot then face their victims in the spheres in order to ask forgiveness.

16) See Toward the Light, page 249: 3, concerning the law for spirits who visit the Earth without permission, drawn by the demands of relatives, friends and mediums. See also Question 23 in this Second Supplement.

17) This state of existence lasts until grief and remorse awaken.

Question 12

18) The implied comparison is, of course, between the original Danish text of Ardor’s Account and the Danish-language Bible. —Translator’s note.

19) In translating from Danish to English, the style of Ardor’s Account has inevitably been altered. However, the translators have tried their best to reproduce the corresponding stylistic effect in the English language. —Translator’s note.

20) The words of the Speech of Christ, in Toward the Light, as well as his discourse in The Doctrine of Atonement and the Shorter Road, have both been translated into language that attempts somewhat to emulate the vocabulary and style of the Synoptic Gospels. —Translator’s note.

Question 13

21) Since these Youngest were merely to serve as Christ’s earthly helpers in his special task, they were incarnated in such a way that their human personalities stood only slightly above the level of those of advanced human spirits.

Question 14

22 twice) See Postscript to Toward the Light, page 343: 1.

23) In the same way as, for instance, in  the Speech of God’s Servant, in Toward the Light and the discourses of Christ and Ignatius in The Doctrine of Atonement and the Shorter Road. No questions from human beings form the basis for these discourses.

Question 15

24) See Some Psychic Experiences, page 22.

25) Our intermediary nevertheless had to memorize certain passages while disembodied during sleep. See Postscript to Toward the Light.

26) The globes of the Light, where human spirits dwell after release from life on Earth.

27) See Question 10 in Supplement 2 regarding this language.

28) When the thought-messages were given in the Danish language there were instances—such as with synonyms—in which the intermediary’s thought might take the nearest available word in her psychic brain and use it in rendering the “thought-dictation”, although another more suitable word was used by the sender. This could occur whether the thought-dictation was given in Danish or in the “Divine” language.

Question 16

29) See also the answer to Question 17.

Question 20

30) God did not of course literally inscribe the ten commandments on the two stone tablets of the law as related in the ancient myth. The commandments originate with humans, although some were inspired by God’s Thought, for example the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”.

31) Related both by birth and by marriage.

32) Matthew 5: 27-28.

33) This applies only to the normal individual, not to sickly, abnormal persons not in full possession of their faculties.

HomeArdor's Account - The Full ConfessionSpeech of ChristSpeech of God's servantParablesConcluding SummaryPostscriptQuestions & Answers Part IQuestions & Answers Part IIAtonement and the Shorter RoadHistory, Proofs and Results