This thread is titled “Anyone Have Experience with the ‘Michael Teachings’?” and I responded. I was only here to share as someone who actually experienced the teaching, not as someone who glanced at a blurb about it and drew conclusions, or shared an anecdote of a friend of a friend. But my experience is my own, and no one should consider my sharing it to be proselytizing or any attempt to change minds. Your mind is just fine. I love the range of strict beliefs expressed in rejection of the concept of channeling, and I am happy that there are people who aren’t tolerant of any bullshit and fraudulence. Yes, it doesn’t feel great to be lumped into that category, but I’d rather roll with it in support of there be more discerning people in the world than gullible and manipulated people, so I kind of feel like this trade off is just part of my job. Thanks for putting up with my responses, though. I just wanted to try to be clear, not to push the issue.
In the interest of clearing things up, [link deleted]
Here’s an even easier question, and you don’t even have to justify anything on your own website: Since you have said that there are channelers out there that are fraudulent, can you name any of them? Such information would certainly be of benefit to others looking for a path to wisdom,
Well, I said there are fraudulent and repulsive representations, but I meant that in light of that being a subjective matter. I do think there are more obvious scenarios where people are being scammed and manipulated, and sometimes these fall into criminality, but even when I’ve thought someone’s work is fraudulent, there are thousands more who don’t. When it comes to such subjective arts, I can only speak for myself as to whether it rings true, or not. I feel the same way about manufactured music and musicians, as well, though. It’s still music, and people will love it and eat it up, but there is something gross to me about its being manufactured with nothing more than profit at its heart. For other people, that doesn’t matter in the least, so they would consider my judgment of fraudulence to just being judgemental.
I can only hope that my work stands on its own for those who find it interesting, as it comes from years as a labor of love, freely shared, and with as high a standard of questioning, integrity, and authenticity as I can bring to it. The nearly 30 years of positive responses helps me to think that something good is coming from it, even if I still question the nature of channeling.
It’s totally fair to put these up for judgement. That’s cool. If someone is really interested in reading them with any sincerity, be careful to remember that these are transcripts archived from chats with long-term and informed students, so some of the terminology may be confusing, and context may be missing. I’m not sure these transcripts will clear anything up, but you might either find some interesting things there if you scroll through the topics, or maybe someone will just find some fodder for gleefully kicking around and mocking. Either way, it could be fun!
Are there any obviously fraudulent channelers out there that people should avoid, in your opinion?
In my opinion, yes, definitely. That’s why I don’t want to challenge you guys too much. I relate too much to your own opinions, which is a conflicting feeling for me to have in my field of work. But my opinion is not really helpful for definitively pointing out a fraud to someone else, though. If my opinion were litmus, I’d say 99% of what passes as channeling is well-intentioned pandering, and delusion, if not outright intentional fraudulence. I’d say the same thing for most religions, too. I’ve questioned my own channeling over the years, too. I don’t know if there are any empirical tests for validating just exactly what is happening when someone is legitimately in a state that I experience as “channeling.” I know there are brain wave readings that have been cited as proof of something happening, but that’s not enough for me. For me, nothing beats experience. And my experience keeps me curious and open for the next amazing instance that “proves” that something is going on that’s extraordinary. But yeah, I don’t resonate with about 99% of what is claimed to be channeling, but that’s not particularly indicative of fraud, and I am particularly critical of others claiming to channel Michael when I see what comes through them as so biased and completely contradictory to the consistency of information that’s been coming for over 30 years. I do make room for nuances in biases, because there’s no way for channeling not to have some of the biases of the channel in it, but some of it is just… well, I just don’t resonate with it.
Not exactly answering the question…but that is to be expected in cases like this. In almost all aspects of woo, the practitioners will claim that there are frauds out there, but will almost never name them. The reason for this is because it might cause a backlash from those who follow more than one aspect of that particular woo, and because it might cause followers to compare the supposedly real woo and the supposedly fraudulent woo, and find out that in reality there really isn’t any difference at all.
And then declare them both to be real. :smack:
I have taken the links to Cocteau Boy’s site out of every post it was in since that is considered spam.
Don’t post spam again, please, because it really looks like you only came here to get traffic to your site and the only reason I’m not banning you is because you have shown you’re still here discussing things rather than just putting your link down and leaving forever (as typical spammers do).
Psychology is an empirical field, and incorporates scientific research. You’ll want to update your schtick to reflect that reality.
That almost never happens. In fact, at most message boards dedicated to any particular woo moderators will clamp down heavily on any badmouthing of competitors. You never name the “faker” that can name you back, period.
Since I didn’t post those links, I’m perfectly fine with that. I didn’t come here to promote anything, and I haven’t promoted anything. I’m glad you didn’t ban me because i I only offered an informed response to the original question, and responded to questions and comments directed specifically to me. That’s it.
I answered the question. I’m sorry it’s not an answer you prefer. Your analysis of my response actually ignores my response. But to be fair to you, I’ll just simplify my answer to say no, I do not know any fraudulent channels. I only have my opinions about which ones sound like bull, and which ones don’t, and that’s entirely subjective. The only time I have such a definitive stance is when a teaching has significant, consistent, historic, divisive harm to a people. Ironically, those are some of the most widely accepted and unquestioned of teachings.
Such as…?
CocteauBoy, what is the source of the very specific and detailed information given in this video?
From the official Michael website:
Are you affiliated with the official group, CocteauBoy?
LOL, I have no idea who that is, but the terminology is similar
See, you guys aren’t even reading. You are just drawing crazy conclusions at a glance. Come on, guys. I was kind of hoping for more informed assessments from such a discerning group. You can’t just be a prejudiced dog with a bone of contention.
Yarbro is not, and never claimed to be a spiritual leader. She was just the person who first wrote about the teachings in an accessible way, but that’s it. No one involved with the teachings ever claimed, nor wants to claim, any position as a spiritual leader. It’s just one of many ways of looking at the world, ourselves, and each other. It’s not a movement.