Sunday, August 03, 2008

Joan In Agony, Essence In Bliss

There are two examples of my lack of total concurrence with the Michael's POV that I can illustrate here, and the first comes from a few passages in the "Messages From Michael" books, where Michael states that when Joan D'Arc was being tortured to death, her Essence was in bliss. 'That's some creepy shit', I remember thinking at the time of my first reading (and if I am challenged for chapter and verse I can get my signed copy of MFM and look it up).

Michael later states in a couple places that great physical pain often brings Essence and incarnation into a greater communicative rapport. As I have stated before in this blog, this bothers me (as does Darwinism, for that matter) because it shows that the nature of existance is abusive to incarnation, and oppressive. For a more thorough dissertation on this POV, please peruse my earlier posts.

Another problem I have with the MT, is the namby-pamby alteration of the original teachings for the sake of political correctness. A "Slave" in Essence, IS a slave in essence, and changing the name of the role to "Server", as is now the fashion, dilutes and distorts the Michael Teachings, as does all misappropriation of meaning by revisionist editing.

But hey, that's just my opinion. I am a 'Yarbro Fundamentalist', OK? The original MT were transmitted via Oiuja Board folks, much less chance of that 20% error due to innate bias by channel (which is Michael's estimate of error in channeling) Which is why I trust the innate accuracy of the original MT more than anything that has come through since.

Proper definition through prescriptive sourcing is important, I opine. I had a current Michael channel comment to me recently about 'Life Tasks' being "assigned" by Michael (I have the e-mail and can quote it verbatim). I think I know what they were talking about, nevertheless their lack of specificity in stating their thought illustrates part of this problem.

Michael doesn't "assign" the life task (that is done by Essence for each incarnation). Michael, however can COMMENT upon one's life task, and/or DEFINE it for one through a channel. I'm sure the channel knows this, but this illustrates why I don't channel stuff for other people. I cannot make sure that what I'm saying when channeling is the EXACT right way to convey the proper meaning, in real time, so I don't channel that way. I would never want a new student of the MT to be misled into thinking that the Michael somehow "assigns" one ones' "Life Task". Just my choice.

When something important is misstated, or the actual datastreambytes are re-defined for the sake of currently fashionable sentiment, it can give rise to all sorts of reverberative dissonance in meaning, and can actually be more disinformative than enlightening. I choose my words carefully, therefore, because transmission of data from a higher knowledge source is an awesome responsiblity, one which perhaps I take a bit less lightly than most. Which is not to say that I don't get it wrong sometimes as well.