Are Billy Meier’s Spiritual Teachings Homophobic? – Part 2/2

Deception and coverup from mid-1990’s


In the first part of the article – Are Billy Meier’s Spiritual Teachings Homophobic? – Part 1/2: The original teachings from 1970’s, 80’s and early 90’s – we have concluded that the so-called “spiritual” teachings disseminated by Meier, either conveyed by him or through PETALE/High-Council/Plejaren ETs/Jmmanuel, unambiguously espouses a vicious, reprehensible and pseduoscientific homophobic doctrine. As a result of our exposé, FIGU instead of allowing its members to have a rational discussion on our findings in its forum, rather decided to ban Mahesh Karumudi from posting any texts or BMUFOR links on the FIGU forum.1 Towards the end of that Part 1/2 article, we have also indicated that Meier perhaps under the pressure or barrage of complaints received from his own group members, readers/followers and critics was compelled make a flip-flop on this issue from around mid-1990’s. And one set of complaints has clearly originated from the readers of the 2nd English edition of Talmud Jmmanuel (TJ) published in 1992, a year after the 2nd German edition came out.2 So, in this Part 2/2 article, we will be addressing the following questions:



How did Meier flip-flop?

Meier, in all earlier publications since 1975 has described male homosexuality as having its origins either in a self-generated or acquired mental illness, or from the current lack of determination (in this life time) for the aspired gender in the next life. Consequently, those who indulged in this ‘degenerate sexual relationship form’ that goes ‘against the laws of The Creation and of Nature’ has been condemned by PETALE/High-Council/Plejaren ETs/Jmmanuel/Meier to get ‘castrated and expelled and banned before the people.’3

However, in stark contrast, since around mid-1990’s Meier has made a complete U-turn by describing homosexuality as also fundamentally genetic in origin (considered by most scientists to be one factor along with the complex interplay of hormones, environment and social factors), hence as a natural sexual variation that shouldn’t be ‘considered, judged or condemned as degeneration, unnatural and depraved, nor looked upon as disgusting or a transgression against the laws of nature and humanity.’4 A lot more details on this, as well as on other flip-flops within this topic will be discussed shortly below.

When did Meier flip-flop?

Meier most likely flip-flopped on the issue in 1994. During his alleged 248th contact (February 3, 1994) with the Plejaren extraterrestrial Ptaah, Meier presented him with two articles –  Homosexualität und wie kommt es dazu? – Homosexualität – eine natürliche Widernatürlichkeit / Homosexuality – What is its Cause? – Homosexuality – a Natural Occurrence in Conflict with Nature and AIDS-Herkunft und Schuld der Widernatürlichen / AIDS: Its Origin and the Guilt of Those who Act against Nature – for his opinion on his attempt to ‘counteract misunderstandings that can arise during simple readings of the Genesis, OM, and Talmud verses and that will probably also arise with those readers, to whom the subject matter of the language of the spiritual teaching is foreign.’ Ptaah, after reading, responds by saying Meier’s article is described precisely and exactly, so no misunderstandings would arise. He then tells Meier to publish it, to which Meier responded by saying he already published the (first) article in a slightly modified form in the next Stimme der Wassermannzeit / Voice of Aquarian Age issue. This modified article – Homosexualität und deren Ursprung: Homosexualität – eine natürliche Widernatürlichkeit / ‘Homosexuality and its Origin: Homosexuality – a natural, unnaturalness – was first published in Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 91, Jahrgang 20 in June 1994. However this first article which was allegedly shown to Ptaah seems to be only published, with more explanations, a year later in FIGU Bulletin, Nr. 2, May 1995 titled – Juden- und Homosexuellenfeindlichkeit / Hostile Attitude toward Jews and Homosexuals. This 1995 English article, which is an official and authorised translation of an original German FIGU publication, was mainly published as a response to the criticism leveled against Billy/FIGU by the readers of TJ as mentioned earlier. Another much more detailed and extensive article was again published by (ex-) FIGU core group member Hans Georg Lanzendorfer (HGL) in 2003 on pgs. 5-27 in Meier’s periodical Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 64.

Since the rest of the publications contain the same “explanations” and “clarifications” as cited in the above sources, and the trivial nature pertaining to the new information on homosexuality, we shall focus our investigation mainly on the following two sources:

FIGU Bulletin, Nr. 2, 1995

Meier, after nearly two decades, makes a drastic U-turn and simply states that there are two causes for male homosexuality. (For some unexplained reason, Meier seems to have never discussed the third type of homosexuality that arises from the current lack of determination in this life time for the aspired gender in the next life, in any of his texts. Perhaps Meier dropped it because it isn’t palatable to him anymore or it contradicts his other claims regarding the transfer of “information” between human incarnations. In any case, for this article we shall consider just the two other types.) The first cause – as we have come to know from all of his pre-1994/1995 publications as the ONLY cause – is exclusively self-generated by indulging in degenerated, sexual-gratifying thoughts and fantasies. And the newly interjected second cause is of genetic in origin.

The type of homosexuality that arises from the second cause is referred to by Meier as natural, anti-nature homosexuality.5

Why ‘Natural’?

Why ‘Anti-nature’?

The type of homosexuality that arises from the first cause is referred to by Meier as degenerated homosexuality or pseudo-homosexuality or as unnatural, anti-nature homosexuality.6

Why ‘Unnatural’?

Meier also claims that this degenerated type – where the person is even able to influence his genes and their characteristics – as a rule, is coupled with other pseudo-, self-produced sexual abnormalities and transgressions against nature, such as sodomy (sexual intercourse with animals), masochism and sadism, etc.

It is both ironic and at the same time amusing to see Meier, who after preaching a homophobic doctrine for nearly two decades, make a drastic flip-flop and claim7 the following regarding those people who view male homosexuality as a degeneration (perfectly fitting the profile of Meier):

This is only intrinsic to humans in conscious form, who also has the audacity to denigrate and condemn the homosexuality sexual-type, in his megalomaniacal thinking of being wise enough, as the ‘crown of creation’, to know about all things and to be elevated above all kinds of other manifestations that are different from themselves. These kind of people are to be told that they with their misguided, self-indulgent and dehumanizing erroneous judgment reveals them as plain egoists and narcissists, whose need it is to first learn to thoroughly orient themselves on the laws and commandments of nature to become human.

What was Meier’s excuse on the “perceived” unambiguous homophobic doctrine, he so fervently preached for almost two decades?

Meier, on this issue, basically gave two sets of responses. First, he begins off by responding to the complaints received from the readers of the 2nd English edition of TJ. And second, he quotes an entire article – Homosexualität und wie kommt es dazu? Homosexualität – eine natürliche Widernatürlichkeit / Homosexuality and How Does it Come About? Homosexuality – a Natural Occurrence Against Nature – that was allegedly shown to Ptaah during his 248th contact (February 3, 1994), and that also got published shortly after in Geisteslehre Lehrbrief/Spiritual Teachings, Lesson #121. Now, we shall address Meier’s first response under Rebuttal #1 and the second response under Rebuttal #2.

Rebuttal #1

The following are the key points mentioned by Meier in his response to the complaints received from the readers of the 2nd English edition of TJ:

  1. These homophobic accusations and vile defamations against Meier and FIGU have been made by some deluded individuals from America, which according to such people is crawling with extraterrestrials and contactees.
  2. Even though the texts were written without any form of hostility in mind towards homosexuals, there were certain passages in the TJ that could conceivably give the uninitiated reader an impression of hostility.
  3. Such may be the case because passages from the TJ were taken from and then reproduced in the ancient script form, which originated at a time when humanity was still lacking in higher knowledge and understanding of these concerns. Consequently, their explanations could not be interpreted in a way that would allow everyone to understand them; even the scribes, philosophers and other highly educated individuals had difficulty with them. The language format and contents of the text have been adapted to the understanding of the people from that era and later everything was reproduced accordingly in the identical format provided in FIGU books.
  4. Meier having no intention of leaving this material in obscure form, since the very beginning wanted to publish the TJ’s indispensable and profound explanations according to modern Man’s understanding.
  5. He accomplished this by publishing these more profound explanations in works other than the TJ and OM, which the slanderers do not read, and even if they did question arises regarding their intelligence to understand the explanations.
  6. These other works include – Stimme der Wassermannzeit/Voice of the Aquarian Age Nr. 91, Contact Report 182 (Block 12 of February 3, 1983, pages 2324-2326, sentences 305-327), ’49 Questions’ booklet, Contact Report 248 (February 3, 1994) and Spiritual Teachings, Lesson #121.

Points 1 and 5:

Once again Meier is seen insulting anyone who questions, doubts, or criticizes him or his writings.  Here, he implies that those who point out the homophobic nature of his writings are deluded or stupid (which is particularly ironic in this instance, given that he then immediately proceeds to admit that the text can indeed be construed as homophobic. Gratuitous personal insults are a hallmark of Meier’s defenses.

Point 2:

Meier tries to whitewash his earlier doctrine which, as demonstrated in Part 1, is beyond reasonable doubt proven to be explicitly homophobic, by claiming that it would only ‘conceivably’ give such an impression to an uninitiated reader.

Point 3:

This is a bizarre and self-contradictory explanation. Meier first argues that since people from ~2,000 years ago are lacking in higher knowledge and understanding regarding the topic of homosexuality, the ‘language format and contents of the text [TJ] have been adapted to the understanding of the people from that era.’ But in contrast, he further argues that the ‘scribes, philosophers and other highly educated individuals’ from that time even had difficulty interpreting correctly the text on homosexuality (supposedly non-homophobic according to Meier/FIGU) from TJ. Now imagine the plight of common folks who are the majority and who at the same time are illiterate. Also, try to imagine the plight of all people from around 389,000 years ago8, the time when the wisdom of OM was purportedly first proclaimed by the prophet Henok (one of Meier’s earlier incarnations as a prophet).

What is the point of preaching a doctrine on homosexuality when the majority of the folks of that time don’t even understand your gospel? This is supported by the fact that even ~389,000 years or ~2,000 years later (today) these same texts supposedly reproduced in their original content and “easily understandable” format unambiguously conveys a homophobic message. Principally, it could be argued that all the horrors and tragedies – being rejected and reviled by their families, driven to depression and suicide, discriminated against by anti-gay laws and condemned to death for the “sin” of sodomy, etc. – faced by the several millions of homosexual and bisexual people throughout millennia could be traced back to the alleged proclamation of OM and TJ by Meier’s earlier Biblical prophet-incarnations who fundamentally laid the foundations for the three main monotheistic religions of today – Judasim, Christianity and Islam.

If the real intent of Jmmanuel aka Jesus ~2,000 years ago or Henok ~389,000 years ago was to proclaim that homosexuality as a normal, natural sexual variation and not reprehensible, they would have stated the same in multitudinous ways through simple, meaningful terms – without the need to mention the complex concept of genetics to the millennia old people – as expressed below in at least one verse among several hundreds that were published in both texts combined.

But the lack of any such unambiguous, pro-gay precepts in the supposed ancient teachings such as TJ and OM (including Genesis), strongly support the fact that these teachings published by Meier in reality vigorously espouses a homophobic doctrine, which he since 1994 onwards is trying to deny and cover up.

Points 4-6:

After ~400 millennia of preaching and dissemination of spiritual teachings – that strongly reeks of homophobia – by Meier’s earlier incarnations (as prophets or otherwise), Meier finally had a change of heart and decides to publish these supposedly ancient, timeless spiritual teachings according to the understanding ability of the modern Man. We are told that these profound and unambiguous “positive” teachings on homosexuality were not published in OM and TJ but in publications listed under Point 6, which however have been ignored by those people who slander Meier/FIGU of homophobia. Here, Meier is clearly implying that these other publications with teachings on homosexuality that are both “positive” and easily understandable, have been published and available in or before 1992 (year of the publication of TJ, English, 2nd ed.). While it is true that the below listed publications contain a positive attitude concerning male homosexuality, the fact of the matter is that not one of those publications/editions has ever been or at least demonstrated to have been published either in 1992 or before. See below for their first publication dates arranged year wise.

An even more blatant (but failed) attempt of backdating can be found in the notes from Meier’s 182nd contact that supposedly occurred on February 3, 1983. During this contact (see the transcript below), Meier says to Quetzal that he has already extensively published the theme that both male homosexuality and bisexuality are natural, hence gene-conditioned and not reprehensible.

315. Normal homosexuality and normal bisexuality are naturally against nature, but they are not reprehensible and they do not violate natural law, just as bisexual and homosexual relations among female life forms are not abnormal and are not unlawful.
The reason is well-known to me, and I have also described that in detail in my writings; thus, at least for those who know, there can be no doubt that homosexuality is naturally against nature as well as genetically conditioned and that it is not unlawful, as also the lesbian uniting of female forms is not unnatural.
316. That is well-known to me..

But as already demonstrated in Part 1/2, all the pre-1994 publications (including the ones published before Contact Report 182, 1983 – Genesis from 1975 and TJ from 1978) are explicitly homophobic. And most of all, as pointed out earlier, the transcripts (at least the excerpts on homosexuality) from Contact Report 182, that supposedly taken place in 1983, were only published for the first time 12 years later in 1995 in Semjase Kontakt Berichte, 2nd ed., Block 12, one year after the flip-flop.

Another more revealing aspect here is that, Meier who cited Contact Report 182 (1983) and 248 (1994) under his list of  pro-gay publications, somehow “forgets” to cite the in-between Contact Report 231 (November 8, 1989). During this 231st contact, Meier reminds Quetzal that he (Quetzal) had once informed him about the genetic nature of homosexuality, and then proceeded to ask for more information concerning it. In response, Quetzal acknowledged and further stated that hypothalamus plays a determining factor in sexual orientation in both humans and as well as in animals. Following are the excerpts:

..Since we are already into such things: homosexuality, which is gene-conditioned, and has accordingly a biological cause, which will long be denied by our scientists, as you once mentioned. Can you say something about this, I mean homosexuality? It is not supposed to be a scientific treatise.
110. You have already mentioned the relevant facts.
111. I would just like to add the following:
112. That human beings, as well as animals, prefer same-sex partners, is founded on a genetic inclination, consequently the sexual preference has a biological cause, as you said.
113. The hypothalamus is thereby the determining factor, since this controls the sexual behavior.
114. In lesbian women and homosexual men, as well as in the case of similar animals, a very special accumulation of nerve cells is greatly reduced in the hypothalamus, which results in a tendency to homosexuality.
115. More is actually not to explain.

Now the million-dollar question is – why didn’t Meier cite this Contact Report 231 (November 1989) in his 1995 Bulletin article under his list of publications that were purportedly published in or before 1992 (year of the publication of TJ, English, 2nd ed.) that supposedly clarifies and vindicates him/FIGU from being called homophobes? Most likely, the simple answer is that there never was a 231st contact, it was only fabricated later by Meier. This is further supported by the fact that this contact report, even though supposedly taken place in 1989, was only for the first time verifiably published 16 years later in Plejadisch-plejarische Kontakberichte Block 6 in 2005.

Rebuttal #2

Meier after responding to the readers complaints on TJ, cited an article which besides newly interjecting the genetic cause for homosexuality (which we already pointed out above), further attempted to rationalize his/FIGU’s earlier vicious homophobic doctrine published in Genesis, TJ and OM, which he hoped would exonerate him/FIGU from being perceived as deep-seated homophobes.

So what convoluted logic or spin did Meier deliver?

Following is a summary of Meier’s second response:

  1. Meier attributes verses 11-15 from Genesis (1975) as exclusively representative of pseudo-homosexuality.
  2. Cites “newly interpreted” verses 6 and 8 from Chapter 12 of TJ (1978/1991) and verses 138 and 139 from Canon 24 of OM (1987), and states that the dreadful punishments for the transgression of Creational Laws and Commandments such as castration, expulsion, or banishment, mentioned in those verses actually refers to the homosexuals who would have ‘intercourse in a manner that makes them capable of giving birth (such as through genetic manipulation, etc.), in an anti-natural and wanton way and having sexual relationships in order to procreate children.’

Point 1:

Genesis (1975)

The Seven Commandments of Sexual Life
3) Homosexuality

11. Designated as homosexuality is the physical joining of two beings of the same species and gender, also called male and male or female and female.
12. Among all male life forms it is an aberration against nature; among all female life forms it is a natural arrangement.
13. Therefore, the sexual joining between two males is an aberration against nature because insemination and insemination come together in a wrong act of procreation.
14. This is a form of aberration generated by male life forms with degenerate sensory perceptions and self-generated, unnatural perverse forms of desire.
15. This type of sexual activity can only come about among male, human life forms with inherent homophile selfishness who, as life forms, are misled and degenerated through factors of false teachings, uncontrolled perverse desires and unlawful lusts.

It is true that verses, to be specific, 14-15 from Genesis do indeed point out the various causes that gives rise to homosexuality; the kind which Meier only designated as being one among the two types of homosexuality i.e. pseudo-homosexuality, for the first time verifiably only in 1994. In fact the full number of verses from the same section that Meier cited above contains a total of 26, all of which were delivered under the comprehensive heading ‘Homosexuality,’ transmitted by none other than the PETALE plane as the 3rd commandment, one among The Seven Commandments of Sexual Life10 in Genesis. Since, Meier in his first part of the response (under Point 5) emphatically stated that the profound and unambiguous “positive” teachings on homosexuality have been given in books other than TJ and OM, one would naturally expect such information would be certainly available either in the rest of the verses from the chapter on Homosexuality or from any other part of this book. Besides, PETALE, on pg. 186 of Genesis, did convey to Meier that his explanations on homosexuality have been specifically and deliberately transmitted in a format that is ‘fully sufficient and understandable, so any further written interpretations and explanations may not be needed’. In addition to that, both PETALE, on pg. 87 and Meier, on pg. 91 has again reiterated that the entire book Genesis is presented in its whole values and according to earthlings comprehensible language and understanding ability.

But the truth of the matter, as already discussed in Rebuttal #1, is that there is absolutely no indication at all whatsoever, even remotely, either in the entire section exclusively dedicated to homosexuality or even throughout the entire book that even slightly hints at there being more than one type of homosexuality – natural (genetic) and unnatural (self-generated). In fact the Genesis unequivocally and categorically indicates that there exists only one type of homosexuality, homosexuality that is self-generated through indulging in degenerated, sexual-gratifying thoughts and fantasies.

Isn’t it weird, that the God-like being PETALE while preaching Universal commandments on sexuality and specifically on homosexuality to enlighten us earthlings on sexual behavior, ethics and orientations, would totally disregard the normal, natural type of homosexuality? This same pattern of course repeats in all the rest of the publications (other than TJ and OM) – Gesetz der Liebe, Stimme der Wassermannezit and Randolph Winter’s interview – that were printed/recorded before 1994, strongly indicating the fact that Meier since 1994 tried to cover up his past homophobic “spiritual teachings” by deceiving readers with newly concocted incoherent and self-contradictory explanations.

Point 2:

Before discussing the “newly interpreted” verses, let us go through the original verses first. The original verses 6 and 8, published in Chapter 12 of TJ in the pre-1994 editions i.e. the ones that were published in German, in 1978 and 1991 and in English, in 1984 and 1992 say the following:

6. If two men bed down with each other, they shall be punished also, because the fallible are unworthy of life and its laws, and they are acting heretically; thus they shall be castrated, expelled and banished before the people.
8. Whenever inseminator and inseminator join together, life is violated and destroyed.

Also, the original verses 138 and 139 (including 136-137) from Canon 24 in OM, published in 1987 say the following:

136. And the man may have wives in several numbers, because he is the impregnating and procreating one, who can pair with and impregnate several wives.
137. And as the man is the part of the whole impregnation and pairing of the woman, and of himself he can not be birth-giving, so is given to him as sexual partner to sleep with only the woman as the only lifeform.
138. For as a man cannot give birth, so a sexual contact from man to man or between man and man can’t exist, which would be a trespass against the guidance of Creation and against Its laws and commandments and against the sevenfold order.
139. But if the man trespasseth against the guidance of Creation in this matter, if therefore he as man gets together in wanton manner of sexual contact with another man, he becomes guilty for life for a measure-fulfillment-place, and the same measure shall prevail, if man or woman put themselves together with other lifeforms which are called animals.

While OM, purportedly proclaimed for the first time ~400 millennia ago, advocates sending the guilty ones to correctional facilities for a lifetime, the “more recent” TJ, from ~2 millennia ago, however strongly condemns homosexual men having sexual relations with unjustifiable and gruesome punishments such as castration (removing genitals), expulsion and banishment from the community. Whatever the kind of punishment it is, the “crime” has been unambiguously adjudicated, which is – having gay sexual relationships. As a side note, isn’t it interesting to see how the prophet Henok (Meier’s earlier incarnation), in verse 139 of OM, equated the seriousness of the “crime” in both accounts, i.e. homosexuality and bestiality?

So what fantastical excuse did Meier treat us with this time?

Meier, for the first time in 1994, offered “new interpretation” to these homophobic verses which he hoped would absolve him/FIGU from the accusations of being homophobes, and also at the same time would allow them to justify condoning the brutal punishments. In this FIGU Bulletin from 1995, the English verses 138 and 139 from Canon 24 in OM (1987) and verses 6 and 8 from Chapter 12 of TJ have been craftily altered to mean a lot different, even though the original German verses were left untouched.

As for the OM, the new verses from the 2011 ed. now reads:

138. Just as the male cannot give birth, neither can there be any procreative-sexual contact from one male to another male or between male to male that would be considered a transgression against Creation’s guidance and against its laws and directives and against the Order of Seven.
139. If a man transgresses against the guidance of Creation in this manner, if he, as a man, has a wanton intimate relationship with another man therefore to perform a true sexual act, he shall make himself culpable for life and shall experience the impact of the consequence in the same manner a man or a woman would, who has an intimate relationship with life forms of different species, which are called animals.

A more accurate translation11 (compare the underlined parts for changes) published by Meier/FIGU later now reads:

138. For as a man cannot bear a child, so a procreative-sexual contact cannot exist from one man to another or between one man and another; otherwise, it would be a transgression against the direction of Creation, against Creation’s laws and directives, and against the sevenfold order.
139. Thus, a man transgresses against the direction of Creation in these matters if he sacrilegiously joins another man in a procreative, sexual relationship, and thereby he shall be guilty and punished for the remainder of his life to a place for fulfilling the corrective measure. And a similar measure shall also apply when a man or a woman joins with life forms of a different kind that are called animals.

Following is the summary of the above two new verses:

138: Since a man can’t give birth, a procreative-sexual contact can’t be said to occur among gay men, which would be considered a trespass against Creation et al.
139: But if the man ignores the Creational laws and gets into a procreative-sexual contact with other men, then he should be sentenced to spend the rest of his life time at a correctional facility.

Now compare the meaning of the above new verses with the meaning of the original verses derived below:

136-137: Since man can’t get pregnant and give birth to a child, Creation has bestowed man with woman as the only sexual partner because he can now procreate offspring by impregnating several women/wives.
138: Since a man can’t give birth, gay sexual contacts shouldn’t occur as it it would be considered a trespass against Creation et al.
139: But if the man ignores the Creational laws and gets into a sexual contact with other men, then he should be sentenced to spend his life time at a correctional facility.

This comparison reveals that, Meier in order to justify the brutal punishments condoned by TJ and OM, has not only conveniently changed the meaning of the verses but also reinterpreted the definition (compare the bold, underlined text) of the original German phrase ‘geschlechtlich-sexuelle Berührung’ (from verse 138, which actually until his flip-flop meant ‘gender-sexual contact’ or simply ‘sexual contact’) in order to mean ‘procreative-sexual contact’ which of course is impossible for gay men. Similarly in TJ, the German word ‘Beischlaf’ in verse 6 (which actually until his flip-flop meant sexual intercourse) has been reinterpreted to mean procreative-sexual contact.

In support of these arguments, Meier notes a (bogus) distinction in referring to sexual activities performed among male homosexual and among heterosexual partners. He states that, since among gay men as there is zero possibility of procreation, any sexual activity among them can’t be truly called a genuine sexual activity (Sexualakte) as is the case with heterosexuals but instead should only be referred to as sexual gratification (Geschlechtsbefriedigung). Here, Meier is suggesting that when he used the phrases geschlechtlich-sexuelle Berührung (gender-sexual contact/sexual contact) in OM and Beischlafen in TJ, the distinction (sexual act vs sexual gratification) mentioned above has already been presumed. How convenient and dubious? Again, how should the rest of the people throughout the millennia supposedly know these self-serving, contrived definitions and distinctions? Did Meier cite any evidence from historical literature to support his arguments? Of course, not.

[On a side note, later he also claims that the sexual activity even among heterosexual couples with one or both partners being infertile, can also be referred to as a genuine sexual act. How can this be when the couple fails the possibility-for-procreation factor, which was cited to make a distinction with the gay sexual activity? To this, Meier simply responds by saying that the ‘decisive factor’ here according to the ‘spiritual teachings’ is having partners with opposite genders. What spiritual teachings? And how does by simply having opposite genders change the definition of their sexual activity? Doesn’t the possibility-for-procreation factor play any role? Why is this factor applied only to gay men but exempt to heterosexuals? Meier of course doesn’t answer these critical questions. A one more example of his incoherent and contradictory reasoning, and perhaps a reflection of his deep-seated bias against gay people.]

And in the next verse 139, it talks about the kind of punishment delivered to those gay men who would try to make the impossible possible i.e. to try to engage in a procreative-sexual contact which OM considers as a transgression against Creational laws. How can homosexual men get into a procreative-sexual contact i.e. a sexual contact that can potentially leads to the birth of a child, a deed which according to TJ and OM demands castration, expulsion or banishment?

According to Meier, the kind of punishments to be discharged as stated in both TJ and OM, actually are directed at those specific homosexual men who would undergo a medical procedure in ‘an anti-natural and wanton way’ – such as through genetic manipulation, etc. – that would alter their bodies in order to get inseminated, impregnated and finally to procreate children.


Meier/FIGU are trying to make us simply believe that the “seemingly” homophobic teachings contained in OM, proclaimed ~389,000 years ago and again in TJ, proclaimed ~2,000 years ago are actually warnings targeted against certain specific homosexual men who would undergo such super-advanced medical technologies that are neither possible today nor in the near future, and certainly impossible in the distant past. Why would these Universal prophets (all incarnations of Meier’s earlier spirit-form) over several thousands of years supposedly tried to warn people against artificial methods of procreating children, for whom it would be very difficult to conceptualize and impossible to execute?

Are those warnings, perhaps, meant for future humans who might be able to carry out such a process for the procreation of children? If that is the case, then why issue such warnings since ~389,000 years ago or ~2,000 years ago when you could just issue them at a time when people are at the cusp of gaining the ability to conceptualize such complex, technical processes or before the time of its realization using the available advanced medical technology? Doesn’t these premature issue of warnings wrapped in “seemingly” homophobic doctrine, in principle, led to homo- and bi-sexual people experiencing several horrors and tragedies over millennia as already mentioned earlier in Point 3 under Rebuttal #1? Even if such a treatment is made possible in the future, what makes it morally or biologically wrong? Meier, of course, didn’t offer any (logical) answers to any of these critical questions in this article.

Some Meier followers have argued that the reason why Jmmanuel around 2,000 years ago in verses 6 and 8 didn’t explicitly mention the process of homosexual men conceiving a child through genetic manipulation is because people at that time would have difficulty understanding the complex modern concept of artificial genetic manipulation. But if Jmmnauel felt it convenient and appropriate to describe the totally foreign concept of beamships/extraterrestrial spaceships to his followers ~2,000 years ago as ‘singing lights’, ‘metallic lights’ and ‘chariots of fire’12, then why not use a similar strategy to describe the process of male-procreation through artificial genetic manipulation? Why not say something like this:

Chapter 12 (2001), v. 6: And if two men bed down with each other and procreate offspring through tools/skills which we will come to possess in the distant future, then they shall be punished, for those fallible are unworthy of life and its laws and behave heretically; thus they shall also be castrated, expelled and banished before the people.

Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 64, 2003

The original homophobic article – Homosexualität: Betrachtet nach Aspekten des ‘OM’ und des ‘Gesetz der Liebe’ / Homosexuality: Considered according to the aspects of theOM‘ and ‘Law of Love’ – published by FIGU core group member, Ms. Bernadette Brand on pgs. 6-20 of Stimme der Wassermannzeit (SWZ), Nr. 64, Jahrgang 12, in September 1987 was removed in its entirety since 2003 and was replaced by a new article – Gleichwertigkeit gleichgeschlechtlicher Lebenspartnerschaften oder Homosexualität und Lesbierismus in den Schriften der FIGU / Equivalence of homosexual partnerships or Homosexuality and lesbianism in the writings of FIGU13 – that was published by another (ex-) core group member Hans Georg Lanzendorfer (HGL) on pgs. 5-27. This article, just like the others since 1994, contains a strong pro-homosexual and pro-bisexual content. HGL, other than presenting the same information from FIGU Bulletin, Nr. 2 (May 1995) on pgs. 6-10, offered several new and more detailed explanations in the rest of the pages (see summary here). Following is a list containing several flip-flops and contradictions, immediately followed by rebuttals.


In order to support Meier’s excuse (that when he mentioned ‘geschlechtlich-sexuelle Berührung’ in OM, it actually meant specifically the procreative-sexual contact and not any other sexual activity, as was generally understood), HGL put forths three examples noting that individual words and situations, especially those concerning genders and sexual behaviours, have their exact definitions and should be used accordingly. These examples include the incorrect use of the phrase ‘Phallic Stage’ to girls (having no phallus/penis) in child development psychology (pg. 14), evolution of the meaning of the words masturbation and onanism and their purported distinction (pg. 13), and finally the distinction between the terms specifically referring to discrete sexual behaviours – sodomy, child sexual molestation and fornication (pg. 10). Regarding the 1st example, HGL makes a mistake in reasoning that since girls have no phalluses, the phrase ‘Phallic Stage’ referring to a particular age in their psychosexual development (Freudian psychoanalysis) is wrong. But he ignores a simple fact that in this psychoanalytic sexual drive theory, originally proposed by Sigmund Freud and later amended by his student-collaborator Carl Jung, the central element in the Phallic stage for both boys and girls is the phallus (see penis envy). And regarding the 2nd example HGL is right, as the meaning of the words (semantics) aren’t fixed forever but dynamic that differs depending upon the field of study or changes with time as a result of linguistic, psychological, socio-cultural and cultural/encyclopedic factors. The 3rd example is self-evidently right.

From this seemingly acceptable premise HGL then unwarrantedly jumps to argue that when Meier used the word ‘sex’ in the phrase ‘geschlechtlich-sexuelle Berührung’ in OM, it never meant what is generally understood today (sexual contact, self-stimulation, kissing, nudity, etc.) but actually implies the purported original meaning preserved in the original Latin word ‘Sexus,’ which is ‘procreative-sexual contact’ (pgs. 10 and 12-13). But apparently the etymology of the Latin word ‘Sexus‘ reveals that its actual meaning was either gender (state of being either male or female) or division/separate, but never meant procreative-sex. For some reason HGL ignored or failed to produce substantiation to Meier’s claim that the definition of ‘Beischlafen’ used in TJ to be actually referring to a procreative-sexual contact. All these self-serving interpretations and definitions by Meier and FIGU of course are simply rubbish as any online etymology source can quickly demonstrate.

Using this specious and groundless definition, HGL makes a distinction between sexual activities and partnership designations among heterosexual and homosexual partners (pgs. 14-15). In the case of sexual activities, he argues that the word ‘sexual act’ should be used only in the case of heterosexual partners because of the existence of possibility for procreation (and even in the case of lesbians, when conceived through parthenogenesis) and the word ‘sexual gratification’ should be used only in the case both male and female homosexuals because of the zero possibility for procreation. HGL further claims that the term ‘homosexuality‘ is illogical and false because there is no real sexual act (Sexualakt) occurring between the gay partners as the word ‘sex’ actually only refers to sexual activity between heterosexual partners (pgs. 12-13). And in the case of partnerships, he claims that it is not considered as a ‘marriage’ when two gays or lesbians unite together because they lack the procreation ability, instead the union can only be simply referred to as an ‘alliance’, where each gay partner have the same rights as any traditional heterosexual married couple has over pension, insurance claims, residence permit, etc (pg 23).

Pole and Anti-pole

HGL, on pg. 11, claims that even though homosexuality is anti-natural, it is not designed for destruction as is falsely claimed. And on pg. 23, he says that gay alliances too, just like in the heterosexual marriages, form with a union of the pole and anti-pole. In such alliances, as a rule, one partner takes the role of a ‘male’ and the other ‘female’. This is a total reversal to Meier/FIGU’s earlier statements in the original SWZ article (pg. 9), where they have cited this below excerpt from Gesetz der Liebe/Law of Love (pg. 17 ff.) to support their doctrine that the coming together of two gay men would be destructive to their partnership:

… It is now given that positive (male) and negative (female) complement each other in the entire universe, with a single positive able to absorb several negative and in their union even be constructive, creative and evolving, whereas the coming together of two positives would destroy each other, cause an explosion and sow destruction.

Homosexuality in Animals

On pg. 15, HGL claims that both male and female homosexuality also occurs even in animals, even more so in female animal species than in the male animal species (pg. 25). But the claim on male homosexuality is exactly opposite to what was published in old editions of Genesis, TJ and SWZ.

Genesis, 1975

12. Among all male life forms it is an aberration against nature; among all female life forms it is a natural arrangement.
No other form of life has gone astray in this degenerate sexual relationship form, except the human male.

Talmud Jmmanuel, 1978/1991 (German), 1984/1992/1996/2001/2007 (English)

9. Verily I say to you, there is no animal under the sky, which like man would go against the laws of The Creation and of nature. But are you not more than the animal?
10. There is no animal under the sky with two males cohabiting together, but females are found together with females; for male and female follow the laws of nature.

Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 64, 1987

2. Furthermore, it is likely often argued by homosexuals, that indeed in nature, between certain animals, are known forms of homosexuality or homosexual behavior, and consequently the Creation very well authorizes and even consents the homosexuality in humans. After all, the Creation would not add certain inclinations to its creations, precisely in order to then later condemn and prohibit these tendencies. Such assertions correspond to malicious lies and they spring unambiguously from the religious deformed thinking of people who equate the Creation with God, for never would or could the creation create unnatural aspects, because this alone rises by the power of man and his wrong, misguided and guilty thinking and acting.

Wanting to excuse homosexuality in this form, means that man not only puts himself up on the same level with faunal life forms, but that it is even still looking much deeper and to see the level of his logic and his ability to think. Wanting to relate a homosexual to an allegedly homosexual fauna, is probably the most stupid and insane excuse, people have ever sought and found for guilty wrongdoing, because it is so far never happened before in the whole universe, that faunal life forms have become extinct due to homosexual inclinations, but logically, would have to be clearly the case, if they were capable of such inclinations.

These and similar statements on the emergence of more or less pronounced homosexual inclinations can be basically written with a tired smile in the wind.

Meier also purportedly discussed about homosexuality in animals during 231st contact with Quetzal in November 9, 1989. But as already discussed in Points 4-6 under Rebuttal #1, this information is only for the first time verifiably published 16 years later in Plejadisch-plejarische Kontakberichte Block 6 in 2005 i.e. more than a decade after his flip-flop in 1994.

Mutated Monsters

HGL, on pgs. 15-17, claims that nature embodies and fulfills an essential part of its own existence in the creation of offspring, by providing human bodies as instruments to the reincarnating spirit-forms and overall consciousness-block, with a specific purpose and creative destiny. In the case of women, Creation has specifically determined their bodies (egg cells, uterus, etc.) for conception and birth of new life but not men, which is why it would be a violation of Creational law if a man tries to artificially restructure his body into women in order to conceive and give birth.14 Since this is not intended by Creation, the descendants would degenerate and mutate into monsters, consequently they could no longer fulfill the Creation-determined spiritual and consciousness evolution. Because of this, the Meier-lineage prophets (Henok and Jmmnauel) since several millennia have specifically issued the Creational laws and commandments in a prophylactic manner against the gay procreative-sexual contact in order to stop the misuse of genetic technology in the future that enables gay men to give birth (pg. 10).

This seems to be the first instance where it is stated that the reason for being against gay-procreative sex is the generation of degenerated and mutated monsters, deprived of Creation-intended evolution. What makes this excuse very suspicious is its timing. Meier took nearly decade to offer this excuse, after his first verifiable publication on pro-homosexuality in 1994. What made him conceal this information for almost a decade? Perhaps, the simple answer is that Meier who after feeling that his original excuse (since 1994) ‘gay-procreative sex is wrong because Creation said so’ didn’t convince a lot of his  followers, was compelled to come up with an even more solid reason that would accomplish his goal of persuading and retaining his followers.

This is also first time that it is explicitly stated that verses speaking against the supposed gay procreative-sex, in both TJ and OM, was given as a prophylactic measure. Even if we assume that degenerated and mutated monsters would be created from such an artificial procedure, as already discussed in Point 3 under Rebuttal #1, this absurd manner of extremely-premature warning could be the reason behind the deaths of several million homosexuals and bisexuals through several millennia.


Meier, who from 1994 and until 2003, citing the verses 6 and 8 of TJ from Chapter 12 (Regarding Marriage and Cohabitation), condoned the castration or cutting off the genital parts of the “guilty” gay men as punishment for trying to artificially restructure their bodies for conception and giving birth, has now reversed his position and claims (on pg. 17) that the word ‘entmannt’ (entmannen) mentioned in TJ as punishment for the “guilty” gay men doesn’t mean castration at all as many have falsely interpreted, but, in the old sense, actually meant to remove/expel/separate them from their community. Actually a year before in 2002, FIGU core group member and SSSC director, Christian Frehner in response to James Deardorff’s questions stated that when they consulted Meier after one of their group discussions on Chapter 12 of TJ, did they come to know that the meaning of the words ‘entmann’t and ‘entweibt’ as was generally understood by everyone as incorrect, instead they actually meant the same as ‘to expel/banish from the community’. A more comprehensive meaning of these words have been provided by Meier in his 218th contact (published in PPKB 5, 2004), where the word ‘entmannt’ now means  to remove men from women (in the community), and the meaning of ‘entweibt’ is to remove women from men (in the community), whereby they are then sent to measure-fulfillment places (places of compliance) separately, so that no sexual relations and intercourse could happen among them, thereby preventing the possibility of descendants who would also then become fallibles, asocial ones and criminals because of bad upbringing by their fallible parents and by their environment.15

There are 3 main reasons why these arguments (read excuses) doesn’t hold up at all.

Reason #1:

The claim that Meier only noticed it in 2002 is extremely unlikely, because Meier has overseen and approved the English translation, proofreading and the final publication of four editions – not one but four editions – of TJs,  that have been published over nearly two decades in 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2001. Also it sounds highly implausible that no one in all the decades since the first publication of TJ in 1978 (German) have sought the explanation on these controversial verses from Meier, who would then have immediately clarified the “misunderstanding”. In fact at least someone did and it concerns the feasibility of sterilization that is handed out as punishment to the “guilty” people mentioned in Chapter 12 of TJ. As it turns out, the only way to sterilize a women requires surgically opening the abdominal cavity which is unknown before the 19th century. This is clearly an anachronism.16 How did Meier/FIGU justify this anachronism? In a fax, dated November 5, 1991, the FIGU core group member Brunhilde Koye on behalf of Meier has responded to question (no. 6 in a total of 12) posed by the Wild Flower Press (TJ publishing house) owners Brian L. Crissey and Pamela Meyer as follows17 :

Question 6.
In verse 12:15 it says, “A person who marries a man or woman divorced in guilt should be castrated or sterilized, because  he or she is unworthy of life and Its laws, and they should both be expelled and banished before the people.” Do we know anything about what it meant to sterilize a woman in those days?

We know from the Plejadeans how sterilization was done. There were both medicinal and surgical operations, just as we know them today – but with a more pronounced and longer-lasting effect – which often lasted a whole lifetime. For example, they added sterilizing medicine to food and beverages.

This clearly supports the notion that Meier/FIGU are not only well aware of the straightforward meanings of ‘entmannt’ (=castration) and ‘entweibt’ (=sterilization) but have a theory (sterilizing medicine; ex: herbs, etc.) on how they would have been carried out. Moreover, in Contact Report 248 (1994) Ptaah certified that the two articles written by Meier – where he condones entmannt/castration and entweibt/sterilization – in 1994 in order to ‘counteract misunderstandings’ have been elucidated ‘precisely and exactly’ in a way that ‘no misunderstandings’ would occur. This strongly suggests that even the alleged ET Ptaah has condoned those brutal punishments since 1994 and until 2002. And the final nail in the coffin, comes from Meier’s own “clarification” article – Hostile Attitude toward Jews and Homosexuals – an official and authorized translation published in FIGU Bulletin, Nr. 2 (1995). Here, in verse 6 of Chapter 12 from TJ (see below), Meier explicitly mentioned the word ‘castration’ as punishment for engaging in procreative-homosexual intercourse (ex: genetic manipulation).

6. If two men bed down with each other, they shall be punished also, because the fallible are unworthy of life and its laws, and they are acting heretically; thus they shall be castrated, expelled and banished before the people.

Reason #2:

We have looked into several German etymology sources (ex: DWDS) and found out that not even one of them supports the contrived definitions provided by Meier for the words ‘entmannt’ and ‘entweibt’. Not even one. The same is also the case with the punishments themselves. We failed to find any historical publication that mentions the segregation of men from women who would then serve their terms (lifetime or several years) at specified remote locations, as a kind of punishment for men indulging in homosexual activities.

Reason #3:

Even if we accept Meier’s excuses at face value, it would lead to several redundancies. Following are just two examples, the rest are available in the References section. Comparison of selective verses given below, from top to bottom, are from the 1991 German ed., and its English translated 2001 and 2007 eds. respectively. We have skipped mentioning the rest of the editions (German-1978, English-1984, 1992 and 1996) because the verses are identical in them.

Talmud Jmmanuel, Chapter 12

6. Schlafen aber zwei Männer einander bei, sollen sie bestraft werden also, denn die Fehlbaren sind des Lebens und dessen Gesetzen unwürdig und handeln ketzerisch, so sie entmannt werden sollen und ausgestossen und verbannt vor dem Volke.
6. “And if two men bed down with each other, then they shall be punished, for those fallible are unworthy of life and its laws and behave heretically; thus they shall also be castrated, expelled and banished before the people.
6. “And if two men bed down with each other, then they shall be punished, for those fallible are unworthy of life and its laws and behave heretically; thus they shall be cut off from the community.

11. Welcher Mensch aber Hurerei treibet um des Lohnes oder der Freude willen, der soll entmannt oder entweibt werden und ausgestossen und verbannt vor dem Volke.
11. Whosoever indulges in fornication for the sake of pay or pleasure shall be castrated or sterilized, expelled and banished before the people.
11. Whosoever indulges in fornication for the sake of pay or pleasure shall be cut off from the community.

Observation of the above verses from 1991 and 2001 eds., clearly indicate that Meier, in all his earlier editions, selectively chose four different German words to mean four different things for punishment, as shown below:


But in the 2007 English ed., all the four different words (entmannt, entweibt, ausgestossen and verbannt) in verses 6 and 11 respectively, were given the same meaning – ‘cut off from community’. If they basically express the same idea/thing, then why use 4 different words in all earlier editions instead of just one? Moreover, why didn’t Meier clarify their original meanings in German editions (1978 and 1991) and also object to the “incorrect” English translations when they were published in 1984, 1992, 1996 and 2001?

It is quite obvious that all of the four different German words meant four different meanings, originally. Even the information (specifically verse 21 below) from Contact Report 23 (June 3, 1975) not only condones the different punishments mentioned in Chapter 12 of TJ (Regarding Marriage and Cohabitation) but also clearly makes a significant distinction between ‘Entmannung’ or ‘Entweibung’ with ‘Verbannung’:

21. Statt Eliminierung, Entmannung und Entweibung usw. wird die  Handhabung des Gesetzes einheitlich und die Form einer Verbannung auf Lebenszeit umgeschrieben, und zwar in getrennte Kreise.

21. Instead of elimination,18 castration and sterilization etc. the use of the law becomes uniformly changed into the form of a lifelong exile, and that in separated circles. (original translation)

During this contact, Semjase (one of Meier’s alleged Plejaren contact persons) affirms Meier that these laws of castration and sterilization are valid throughout the universe, up to this day. But, Semjase states that the only difference being that the old punishments as found in TJ – castration, sterilization or outright execution – have now been replaced among the Plejaren as a result of their spiritual development with lifelong exile to different planets or islands, according to gender, so that opposite sex would not be sent to the same planet/island where they will be able to procreate descendents.

If we assume the meanings of ‘Entmannung’ and ‘Entweibung’ to be what Meier lately offered, then the translation of the verse 21 renders into a self-contradictory and redundant one:

21. Instead of elimination, separation of men and women (away from the society, separated by sex) etc. the use of the law becomes uniformly changed into the form of a lifelong exile, and that in separated circles. (new altered translation)

This redundancy argument has also been acknowledged by James Deardorff who simply stated that – ‘I would predict that the TJ critics will have a good laugh over that.’

The only way to make sense of everything here is that Meier under the criticism of his readers and followers felt compelled to cover up and soften his earlier condoned brutal punishment of castration (in case of men) and sterilization (in case of women), which doesn’t fit the image of a wise, loving and caring Universal prophet Meier and his many biblical incarnations including Jmmanuel/Jesus, through a series of self-contradictory and redundant explanations.

Homophobic Teachings

On pg. 20, HGL states that in no FIGU publication was it published that homosexuality was something reprehensible and should be disregarded or regarded as inferior. Instead, HGL alleges that it was always clearly stated that homosexual people like all other people, are just as natural and normal. The same was again reiterated in his September 2003 FIGU Special Bulletin, Nr. 9 article, as follows:

In around 20 other writings of FIGU, homosexuality and the associated things are extensively clarified and expounded. Meanwhile Billy has written over 300 Spirit Lessons of the spiritual teaching wherein at least 7 deal with homosexuality. Many wrongly informed and incorrigible FIGU antagonists still always claim that the writings of the “Free Community of Interests…” are focused against same sex couples and even condemn them. That is plainly and simply one of the many false claims and rumours concerning ‹Billy› Eduard A. Meier (BEAM) and the FIGU.

In deed and in truth the FIGU texts and the spiritual teaching teach exactly the opposite, so namely the regard and the respect towards every human being independent of their nationality, their skin colour or their sexual orientation..

This is a straight out lie that was unambiguously demonstrated to be absolutely false by us in Part 1. What HGL, rest of the FIGU and even Meier never disclose, is the simple fact that these so-called Meier’s “extensively clarified and expounded” positive writings on homosexuality have only been published after his flip-flop since 1994 and never prior. As it turns out, in April 2003 HGL was pointed out by a German FIGU forum member named Karin about the original Bernadette Brand’s homophobic article from 1987. In response HGL retracted his earlier statement and officially apologized on the forum to all homosexual and lesbian people who have been harmed as a result of this dangerous homophobic article from 1987. In addition he provided the following reasons on how this article had been slipped into the SWZ without the notice of Meier:

When Mahesh Karumudi wrote to Bernadette Brand and Christian Frehner in August 2016 on this same issue, Mr. Frehner on August 10th wrote back saying (Brand didn’t respond) – ‘Bernadette Brand wrote her early articles based on a misunderstanding of the term “natürliche Widernatürlichkeit”.’ But as already pointed out in Part 1, this 1987 article by Miss Brand was in fact among those articles that were proofread and corrected multiple times with the help of Meier himself. Another lie to cover the previous lie. When Mahesh responded back by reminding both of them about this, there was zero response even to this day. If HGL was well aware of this homophobic article way back in 1989, why would he make the demonstrably fraudulent claim in his 2003 lecture/article that there were no FIGU publications that speak against homosexuality? Perhaps the reason is to project his leader, Meier as infallible, incorrigible and worthy of the Universal Prophet title.

Homo/bi-sexual’s personal freedom

On pg. 23, HGL claims that when two or more homosexuals or lesbians want to live together, then it is solely their own matter as is the case with heterosexuals and not of the state, judge, you or me. This is in contrast to the original SWZ article from 1987, where Bernadette Brand stated that the government should take stringent action against the risk groups (homosexuals, bisexuals etc.) who are responsible for the rapid spread of AIDS. Following is a summary of those excerpts:

Homosexuality – Origin and Cure

On pg. 24, HGL presents different causes from which homosexuality may emerge. They are shock, coercion, sexual fantasies, seduction, gene mutations or gene mutilations, etc. Except the genetic cause, the rest kind of were implicitly alluded to in the original Brand’s article on pgs. 14-15. But strangely these were never stated by Meier (or ETs) himself, who always maintained that the condition of male homosexuality only arises solely through one’s own thoughts and fantasies, at least until the year 2001.19 Further on pgs. 26-27, HGL stated that depending upon the person’s choice and degree of sexuality (homo-, bi- or hetero-), he/she can be redirected back to the normal and natural heterosexuality (or can make him/her sexually repulsive) by motivating them to ponder about the Creational philosophy and through appropriate psychological and psychiatric methods.

Also, an excerpt (see below) from Meier’s 331st contact with the Plejaren ET woman Florena (Paris Hilton or her look-alike?) was also presented where she states that the gene-determined homosexuality and same-sex life companionships exists on their planet where it is accepted and respected, and when it is not desired by the individual then it can be remedied and neutralised (using technology?), thereby establishing the state of heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is a natural unnaturalness and can be genetically determined as well as acquired. However, you know that already. Naturally this also exists with us as it does among all human forms of life. Yet it is the case that a homosexuality, if it is due to a genetic determination, can be remedied and neutralised as desired and the state of heterosexuality can be established. However, if that is not desired, then it is accepted and respected, because no discrimination prevails with us in regard to these matters. And if same-sex couples get together in a life companionship, then that is absolutely right and thus also corresponds to our system, because each form of life must be respected, no matter how it is formed in any relationship.

This contradicts the information (see excerpt below) published by Meier on pg. 235 of his 1997 book ‘Aus den Tiefen des Weltenraumes…Kontakte mit den Plejadiern/Plejaren‘, where he says that the homosexuality among the Plejaren is considered as an anamoly that has been banished by them through genetic technology and does no longer exist among them since ancient times.

This abstinence, however, only refers to sexual union with those of the opposite sex, but which does not mean that homosexuality among men would occur, because this does not exist with the Plejadians/Plejarians since times of old any longer. Since homosexuality is a gene-related matter, it was banned from human life through a corresponding gene-manipulation, but only because it refers to an anomaly appearing in nature, not because it would be condemnable as many Earth humans, unfortunately, assume and thereby trouble, revile and harm those befallen therewith, which is also a greatly condemnable peculiarity of Earth Man.

In addition, the conversion method suggested by HGL has already been mentioned in Brand’s article, but as already discussed in Part 1, there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. And moreover almost all the mainstream medical bodies state that conversion therapy can be harmful because it may exploit guilt and anxiety, thereby damaging self-esteem and leading to depression and even suicide. There is also concern in the mental health community that the advancement of conversion therapy can cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation and the ability of homosexual and bisexual people to lead happy, healthy lives.


Above investigation makes it abundantly clear that Meier while trying hard to cover up and deny his unambiguous homophobic teachings (since 1975) and his later flip-flop (since 1994), was compelled to publish several new “explanations” and “clarifications” that nevertheless suffers from several inconsistencies and contradictions. In addition, we have also witnessed Meier/FIGU, who with no explanations or indications at all have replaced the original Bernadette Brand’s homophobic article published in Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 64 in 1987 with a new pro-gay article in 2003 authored by another (ex-) core group member Hans Georg Lanzendorfer. And we have also heard directly from Lanzendorfer himself, about him giving instructions to burn all the original 1987 booklets that contain Mrs. Brand’s homophobic article. Burning of potential incriminating evidence seems to be the standard modus operandi with Meier and his group, FIGU. When Mahesh Karumudi has approached Meier/FIGU for the first edition contact notes in order to verify their often repeated claims of Meier’s “accurately fulfilled” prophecies and predictions, he was told that all of the old edition books have been deliberately burnt for the simple reason that they contain mistakes and printing errors.

More recently, Meier, as a part of his ‘cover up-and-deny’ strategy, has greatly altered the excerpts dealing with homosexuality in all publications – Genesis (2012), Talmud Jmmanuel (2011) and OM (2011) – that originally were plainly and irrefutably homophobic. For more contradictions and flip-flops, compare these new altered editions with the original ones. Brief reasons cited by Meier for his heavy revision or editing or supplementing include the mistranslations (because of his deeply-grained Christian conviction) from Aramaic to German TJ unconsciously committed by Isa Rashid20 and in the case of Genesis and OM, the confusion and misintrepretation caused by lack of understanding among certain people regarding the ancient way of writing and the meaning of those words. But aren’t these the same publications which Meier, ETs and the pure spirit-forms have not only hailed as being immutable and identical to the ancient scripts purportedly delivered thousands of years ago, but also have been supposedly conveyed according to modern man’s understanding and language? For example, consider the following verses from Genesis (1975/2012) and OM (1987/2011) that ironically are identical (except the Interpretative declaration in Genesis) in both editions – old and the altered new:


2. Thus to prevent another time the distortion and denial of the values of the Genesis, it’s now for the first time given in written form through us and your Prophet in its whole values and according to your comprehensible language and to your understanding, explanatorily phrased through your Prophet in great wisdom and the knowledge of wisdom and in the sevenfold love and concern for you, human of the Earth, without a jot of desire for worldly honors or rewards within him, only done in truth and honesty in deep veneration before the sevenfold omnipotence of the Creation. (pg. 87)

4. In my mission the task entrusted to me, dear human being, is to expositorily explain the transmitted teachings, which follows manifold as principle-tenets, in a form that is adapted to your understanding and your language. (pg. 91)

Interpretative declaration
These statements [note: on homosexuality] of this commandment by PETALE are fully sufficient and understandable, so any further written interpretations and explanations may not be needed. (pg. 186)


3. This is the book of the laws and directives of Creation, laid out and explained with understandable words. (Canon 3, verse 3, pg. 2)

102. And this truthfully is the book of the word of truth, which is revealed through the JHWH and the Prophet, and which is unchangeable and not in need of reform for all times. (Canon 20, verse 102, pg. 38)

Contradicting oneself and adding, deleting or modifying text is nothing new to Meier. We have documented plenty of such evidence during our investigation into Meier’s prophecies and predictions. Hypothetically speaking even if we accept Meier’s fairy tales of “misinterpretations” and “mistranslations” as a possibility, a few selected comparison verses below (for more comparisons, visit the References section) that probably wouldn’t fall under the above excuse actually serve as striking examples strongly suggesting that Meier has deliberately fabricated his spiritual teaching verses on homosexuality from being explicitly anti-gay to pro-gay.

OM, Kanon 32, 1987 vs. 2011

1574. Women are all sisters, for uniformly they have a shame for the same purpose, but men are not all brothers, although they have a shame, yet many degenerations exist among them for homosexuality.
1574. Women are all sisters, for uniformly they have a shame for the same purpose, but men are not all brothers, although they have a shame, yet many kinds exist among them for homosexuality.

1575. Homosexual men are degenerates who blaspheme life and Creation.
1575. Homosexual men are not degenerates who do not blaspheme life and Creation.

1743. The dung heap stinks less than whores, male-whores and homosexuals.
1743. The dung heap stinks less than whores, male-whores and criminals.


  1. Following is a message sent to Mahesh by the English FIGU forum administrator, Scott Baxter on facebook on September 7, 2016:

    Mahesh, I received the following email from Christian a few weeks ago: “Well, based on Mahesh’s actual attack (regarding his defamation of Billy regarding an alleged homophobia) I come to the conclusion that we will ban all of Mahesh’s further posts on our forum and that no links to his or connected websites are published anymore.” Perhaps you will need to speak with him concerning this matter. Scott.

  2. Hostile Attitude toward Jews and Homosexuals‘, FIGU Bulletin, Nr. 2, May 1995.
  3. See Are Billy Meier’s Spiritual Teachings Homophobic? – Part 1/2: The original teachings from 1970’s, 80’s and early 90’s.
  4. Hostile Attitude toward Jews and Homosexuals‘, FIGU Bulletin, Nr. 2, May 1995.
  5. The original German word for the natural, anti-nature homosexuality is given as ‘natürlich-widernatürlicher Homosexualität’ on pg. 13 of the article, Homosexualität und deren Ursprung: Homosexualität – eine natürliche Widernatürlichkeit, published in Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 91, Jahrgang 20 in June, 1994.
  6. The original German word for the unnatural, anti-nature homosexuality is given as ‘naturwidriger, unnatürlicher Homosexualität’ on pg. 13 of the article, Homosexualität und deren Ursprung: Homosexualität – eine natürliche Widernatürlichkeit, published in Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 91, Jahrgang 20 in June, 1994.
  7. Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 91, Jahrgang 20, pg. 11, June, 1994.
  8. According to Human Evolution, the humanoids present around 389,000 years ago period are either ancient predecessors of humans or neanderthals. But apparently Meier insists that our scientist’s version of events are wrong and that there were humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) at that time that live in a complex culture like us human beings today. For this article, we will just allow this Meier’s fictional narrative to pass.
  9. Even though the copyright dates for this ’49 Questions’ booklet are listed as 1986/1992/1996/1997/2000, based on the citations of other books contained in this booklet, it must have been first published in 1996 or later.
  10. The Seven Commandments of Sexual Life:

    1. Eheliches Sexualleben / Marital Sex Life
    2. Onanie / Masturbation
    3. Homosexualität / Homosexuality
    4. Uneheliches-Sexualleben / Illegitimate Sex Life
    5. Pflicht-Sexualleben / Obligatory Sex Life
    6. Gewaltsames Sexualleben / Violent Sex Life
    7. Sodomie, Hurerei, Inzucht / Sodomy, Fornication, Incest.

  11. Homosexualität und wie kommt es dazu? / Homosexuality – What is its Cause?, pgs. 8, September 2001.
  12. Talmud Jmmanuel, 2007

    Chapter 3, v. 19: This will come to pass when the human species build singing lights and chariots of fire, with which they can escape into the cosmos, as is done by god and his followers, the celestial sons,
    Chapter 4, v.11: From there he went to the North towards the ends of the Earth, where the metallic lights and chariots of fire came down from the sky or shot upwards with a singing sound, enveloped in smoke and fire.

  13. Taken from the Hans Georg Lanzendorfer’s lecture held at Gasthaus Freihof, Schmidrüti, Switzerland in 2003.
  14. HGL, on pg. 16, did talk about the only exception, which is the seahorse where the female species deposits her eggs in the pouches of the males, where they get fertilized and born. He stated that, when he asked Billy about this unique case for his 2003 lecture, Meier acknowledged and mentioned that according to the Plejaren, they found no such examples among human species through out the entire Universe.
  15. This clarification is also published in Talmud Jmmanuel, Chapter 12, pg. 64, Annotation 1, 2007; Goblet of the Truth, Chapter 1, verse 269, pgs. 44 and 45, 2008.
  16. Jim Deardorff, professor and hoax apologist, by Åke Eldberg, a Lutheran-Episcopal minister in Sweden.
  17. James Deardorff’s archives.
  18. Eliminierung = Execution.
  19. In an excerpt from Contact Report 296 (March 10, 2001) – published on pg. 3235 of Semjase Kontakt Berichte, Block 17, 2nd ed., 2004 and on pgs. 227-228 of Plejadisch-plejarische Kontakberichte Block 8, 2005 – Ptaah explains to Meier that even though there are other factors that play a major role in homosexuality, nevertheless genes always play a role in each one of them. So Meier/ETs seems to suggest that the external determining factors of homosexuality (first explicitly suggested by HGL in 2003) such as shock, coercion, seduction, etc. indeed have a genetic basis, which implies that only certain persons with specific genetic markers under the experience of shock, coercion, seduction, etc. will mould into homosexuals, while others won’t.
  20. FIGU Special Bulletin, Nr. 58, September 2011.

2,799 total views, 1 views today

Last modified on October 30, 2017 at 3:46 pm