Several years ago, Bruce Moen made this claim in response to my thread:  "We could each cite historical examples to support real contact or false contact by mediums in the past to support our own hypothesis."  This thread reposts my reply.  I'm resurrecting this thread as a counterpart to my thread on issue of spiritual self-deception vs. an honest quest for spiritual truth.
______________

I don’t believe the distinction between “real contact” and “false contact” is as clear-cut as Bruce seems to feel.  In my view, the answers to the ensuing 4 questions cast a pall of suspicion over ALL channeling. It is not impossible that mediums like Gordon Smith channel deceased souls.  For that matter, it is not impossible that the Apollo moon landing was faked in a New Mexico hangar to gain a propganda advantage over the Soviet Union.   But mere ESP or clairvoyance seems a more plausible explanation of the best of channeling in view of the evidence cited in my replies to (1)-(4):

(1) What if sitters request contact with fake deceased relatives and the mediums still oblige with a very impressive channeling?               

(2) Bruce seems to imagine that channeled materials unknown to anyone living provide convincing evidence of contact with the dead.  But what if a drop-in communicator could provide amazing verifications even involving precognition of the future, and yet, be later proven a fraud?

(3) What if the spirit control of mediums with impressive verifications can be proven to be a fraud?   What conclusion would that warrant about other spirit controls whose self-professed identity cannot be verified?            

(4) What if it can be shown that the attribution of channeled materials to discarnate friends and relatives reflects a culturally conditioned bias?   

Channeling can be significantly called into question on all 4 grounds.

(1) Leonore Piper is one of the most impressive mediums ever.   She seemed to have the uncanny ability to channel two entities at the same time, one through automatic writing and the other through entranced speech.   Psychologist G. Stanley Hall had a trick up his sleeve when he went for a sitting with her.    She was currently using the spirit of Richard Hodgson as her control.   Hodgson had formerly investigated her, but had recently died of a massive heart attack.  Hall asked Hodgson's spirit to contact Hall’s niece, “Bessie Beals,” so that he might speak with her.  Miss Beals was duly introduced and proceeded to communicate with Hall through Mrs. Piper.  Actually Bessie Beals did not exist.  She was a figment of Hall’s mind.  “Hodgson,” in embarrassment tried to wriggle out of the situation, saying that he had been mistaken about the name.  He said that the person brought was a Jessie Beals, related to another sitter.  Dr. Samuel Soal visualized incidents with an imaginary friend, John Ferguson.  He then went for a sitting with the medium, Blanche Cooper.  The incidents he visualized came forth as though communicated by John from beyond death! 

(2) At a sitting with medium Blanche Cooper on Jan. 4 ,1922, Dr. Samuel Soal’s deceased brother unexpectedly said, “Sam, I’ve brought someone who knows you.”  Then in a very clear, strong, and familiar voice, Gordon Davis began to speak through Cooper.  Davis was an old school acquaintance whom Soal believed to have been killed during World War I.  Davis seemed to verify this when he said, “My poor wife is my only concern now--and my kiddie.”  Soal thought he recognized Davis' tone of voice with its fastidious accent.  The communicator used forms of expression that typified the real Gordon Davis' speech  (e.g. “old chap”; “confab” instead of “meeting”).  Davis spoke of the school they had attended, Rochford, and provided details of their last conversation.  He proceeded to refer correctly to persons, places, and events from their school days.  At two ensuing sittings on Jan. 9 and 30, 1922, Davis gave a detailed description of his house, its contents, and the arrangement of its contents.   

To his great surprise, Soal learned in 1925 that Davis was still alive after all and went to visit him.  A great deal of the channeled material about the house proved to be correct.  But Davis and his "wife and kiddie” had not moved into the house until over a year after the relevant sitting!  Davis' diary showed that during Soal’s sittings he had been seeing real estate clients.  Only around the  time of the sittings did Davis even inspect this house for the first time.   But Davis did not move into the house until a year later.  More importantly, the furnishings of the house had not been planned in advance!  Yet the details channeled earlier turned out to be correct: a large mirror, lots of paintings, glorious mountain and sea scenes, very big vases with funny saucers, two brass candlesticks, and a black dickie bird.  Two of the paintings were only done after the sittings!  So much of the material channeled in the later sittings about the house must be ascribed to precognitive telepathy (John Heaney, 176-177). 

Why is channeling not discredited in this way more often?  Well, ask yourself how often you are mistakenly informed that your friend has died.   Was the medium able to exploit Soal’s mistaken faith in Davis’ death as an aid in the process of reconstructing Davis’ personality and future by precognitive telepathy?  Or were the medium (Blanche Cooper) and sitter (Sam Soal) duped by an impersonating spirit?

If you ask what sort of test might favor spirit contact over ESP and clairvoyance as an explanation of channeled material, the answer is the demonstration of a skill lacked by the medium (e. g. xenoglossy).  That is, if a channeled entity can respond to questions posed to the medium in a language unknown to that medium, then mere ESP cannot adequately explain this.  Research has shown that ESP does not extend to a full-blown new skill.  But it must be remembered that xenoglossy is a prime criterion for demonic possession.   So the possibility of an impersonating spirit must be taken into account in such cases.  My reply to question (3) and (4) are important here.

(3) Some spirit controls seem clearly fraudulent.  While Richard Hodgson was still alive, he thoroughly investigated one of Leonore Piper's spirit controls named Phinuit in 1892.  The Phinuit persona claimed to be the spirit of a French doctor whose full name was Jean Phinuit Scliville and who had lived in the early 1800s and had practiced medicine in London, France, and Belgium.  But he was unable to speak more than a few French phrases, displayed no more knowledge of medicine than the average layman, and had never (according to medical records) attended the medical schools at which he claimed to have studied and practiced.  Hodgson initially concluded that Phinuit was just a secondary personality of Mrs. Piper which either erroneously believed itself to be or falsely pretended to be the spirit of a deceased French doctor.   But Hodgson later changed his mind and now concluded that some of the material produced in a trance by Mrs. Piper seemd to go beyond what might be obtained by thought transference from the sitters and thus seemed to suggest real contact with the dead. In his words, “Among these (comunicators) are more than half-a-dozen intimate friends of my own, who have produced upon me the impression...that they are the personalities I knew, with characteristic intelligence and emotion, questioning me and conversing with me under difficulties.”  It seems doubtful that Hodgson would have changed his mind if he had lived to discover the Gordon Davis case.

(4) Shamans understand their mediumship to put them in contact with spirits and demons as well as with deceased people.  In earlier centuries Neoplatonists also practiced trance mediumship, but attributed it to the agency of gods or demons rather than to discarnate humans.   Likewise, witches from the 17th and 18th centuries ascribed their channeled material to demons.  Perhaps the modern attempt to identify spirit controls with deceased personalities reflects the wishful thinking of modern cultural prejudice.  Why is Leonora Piper’s spirit control (Phinuit) lying about his true identity?  Why did Sam Soal’s alleged brother lie about bringing Gordon Davis’ spirit through?   Or were these people simply deceived?

Don

A fascinating topic, Don.

I think the cases you raise do point to a problem with a straightforward interpretation of a deceased spirit giving verifiable information through a medium.  But for me, the more fascinating aspect of your stories is that the verifiable information could be obtained in any way, shape or form.  ESP (extra sensory perception) deals with communication of thought or information in the mind (which is a medium not measurable by current scientific means).

What if the information tapped into by mediums is the equivalent of the "Akashic records" or quantum mind or library of all events and thought.  In other words, we are used to thinking of ourselves as separate individuals, yet in a deeper level, we know that we are all part of a greater unity.  Many forms of Eastern and Western thought believe that it is only our false "ego" which causes us to separate ourselves into perceived isolated entities - which in turn often accounts for much of the suffering we encounter on the earthly plane.  Don, you may say that this discussion brings up my "monist" tendencies (and you would be correct).

So what if the medium tapped into the mind or circumstance of a still living person in the future (Don's example of Gordon Davis)?  Well we do know that means it was not a communication with a deceased loved one.  So in that sense, it is fraudulent.  But the accuracy of the communication leads one to believe that there was a direct communication of factual data through a connection with a larger consciousness or mind.  To me, this is no less of an amazing or transcendent experience than an after death communication.  It tells us that there is a realm of thought that can be accessed that contains information about our earthly experiences, past present and future. 

The point against putting faith in mediums is well taken.  Very often, people receive comforting information that they want to hear; their loved one is safe, happy or that they should move on.  However  the ease at which the spirit is summoned and the second hand nature of the communication does call into question the veracity of the experience.

Bruce has advised people explore for themselves, on their own.  In other words, look for the experience, and make it a  "known".  That is much more direct and convincing (in my opinion).  If you experience a direct communication from a loved one, on some level you simply know that it was real.  You call the loved one into your mind's eye, your thought, and if you are lucky enough to experience contact, no one will be able to convince you otherwise. 

Eben Alexander's NDE convinced him, beyond doubt of the nature of his experience; so did the NDE of countless others.

I haven't seen many on this board champion mediums as a preferred way to get first hand experience. I do think the questions you raise are valid.

Matthew

Don,

A serious question from me...

What's your continued interest in discussing this topic?  What are you looking for by doing this?  And why on Bruce's site? 

Vicky: "A serious question from me...What's your continued interest in discussing this topic?  What are you looking for by doing this?  And why on Bruce's site?"

I must say I'm surprised that you could even ask this question.  For 3 reasons:
(1) Bruce begins the AK forum with a thread entitled "Looking for a Good, Certified Medium?"  In that thread, he alludes to the difficulties in assessing mediums' claims of contact with the dead. 
(2) Presumably a forum entitled "Afterlife Knowledge" invites a discussion of reliable and unreliable methods of gaining such knowledge.
(3) My further responses to my thread, "Honest Spiritual Quests Vs. Self-Deception," will explain why conflicting types of evidence from astral exploration, perception, and memory challenge the claim that reliable information of the afterlife can be gained by direct experience.

Don:

I didn't read what you wrote, but I pretty much know from past experience what you are going to say.

Some of us have told you in the past that through making contact with our love-based spirit friends "for years," we don't need the kind of verifications you speak of. Such experience means much more than the approach you outline. Since what we said didn't mean anything to you, it seems as if you have no interest in learning from us. This being the case, why should we have any interest in learning from you?

It is quite obvious to me that your reason for being here is to try to convert everybody to your way of thinking,  such a way doesn't give much credence to what Bruce Moen wrote. If you read his books with a mind that isn't limited by your preconceptions, you might benefit by some of what he says.

I would never go to a forum of a teacher I have little interest in, and attempt a hostile takeover, as you do here with the assistance of people such as Roger, Dude and 1796. If you don't understand why it is wrong to do such a thing, then I wonder if your discrimination is clear enough to help others. I recommended to Bruce that you be banned from this forum. I believe the same is true for Dude, Roger and 1796. Of course it is completely up to Bruce to decide what to do, and I respect whatever his decision is, since "he" "not anybody else" is the creator of this forum.

You know I'm not a big fan of some sources of channeling...yet, I don't speak of these now, because I believe there is a more important issue to speak of now.

Dude, if you want to say I am being disrespectful because  being respectful is so important to you, please be fair about this and point out when Don, Roger and 1796 have been disrespectful. 1796 returned just so he could take an indirect pot shot at Justin, and you said nothing.

Albert and Vicky,

I have to say that I think this thread is totally appropriate and does not appear to be designed to undermine a belief in the afterlife.  Don is basically analyzing experiences with mediums in a factual and critical way.  He is not saying that due to any religious belief we should avoid mediums, etc.

An open spirited conversation should always be welcomed.  I haven't seen a response to my ideas on the subject. This thread does not paint all mediums as frauds, but raises questions about what information is being obtained and from what source. 

Matthew

Doc:

I'm not considering this post in isolation. I'm speaking of numerous threads that have gone on for years.

Bruce took the time to do the exploration he did, he wrote five books, got them published, gained some notoriety, and then started this site.

If Don wants a forum that serves the purpose of promoting his form of Christianity and putting down ways of understanding that include things such as hollow heavens, Disks, retrievals and PUL, then perhaps he should find some way to gain his own notoriety, perhaps by writing a book, so he could start his own forum and advocate his viewpoints there, rather than take over the forum of a person that didn't have the same goals as himself.

Remember, one of the commandments states that people should not steal from others.

I have to say that I agree with Matthew. 

I also have not seen Don violate any posting guidelines, however I have seen both you, Albert and Justin violate the guidelines numerous times over the past few weeks.  You continually make personal attacks as well as take interesting and appropriate threads off track because of you making assumptions based on your own preconceived ideas rather than engaging in the conversation with an open minded spirit of kindness and respect.

Kathy

"I would never go to a forum of a teacher I have little interest in, and attempt a hostile takeover, as you do here with the assistance of people such as Roger, Dude and 1796. If you don't understand why it is wrong to do such a thing, then I wonder if your discrimination is clear enough to help others. I recommended to Bruce that you be banned from this forum. I believe the same is true for Dude, Roger and 1796."

Here we go again. Albert, it appears your only objective is to continually disrupt the forum via ad hominen attacks. I resent the spurious accusations you direct toward me and others. I'm assisting in a hostile takeover of the forum as is 1796 and Dude? Post the links pls. 1796 just returned after a long absence. How is he doing that, by osmosis?

If Vicky allows this sort of paranoid nonsense from you to continue, it'll be the forum that suffers. Things were returning to normal after your friend left, I guess you couldn't deal with that.

R

To try to get this thread back on track.

Don, as Matthew mentioned, the questions you raise are valid and deserve to be explored.

I agree with you that ESP does seem a more plausible explanation of channeling where most contacts are made with records or memory held within a database of consciousness rather than an actual entity that's been "summoned" to provide direct interaction, though direct contact is a possibility, just an unlikely one, especially after a year or so has passed.

I think many times what a person "sees" in the non-physical realm is a "representation" or image of the person they are trying to contact, not the actual deceased person because that person has likely moved on, especially if some time has passed since their death.  When we interact with stored information of a person's life, it makes sense that an image of that person would appear to us as a means for interaction.  The idea that this is what occurs need not take anything away from one being reassured their loved one is just fine.  God is benevolent after all.  His ways are not necessarily what we may think.

ES spoke a great deal about symbols, representations and correspondences.  Since the non-physical realm has no objects, it makes sense that what we see there is a representation or is symbolic of the information we desire as a means of communication.  In Arcana Coelestia 4044 ES says, "Representations are nothing else than images of spiritual things manifested in natural ones, and when the former are accurately represented in the latter they correspond."  He goes on to say if we want to understand a symbol or representation that we should look to what is inside of us.  "But if he will reflect on the things taking place every moment within himself he will be able to gain some concept of them… These actions are able to provide some idea of representations and correspondences."

K

The Donald,

Don't you ever get tired of regurgitating and rehashing of your own old material?  It just feels for me, and some others here, like the continuous barrage of your personal beliefs and self superiority.  Your method for the most part is to pretend you understand the beliefs of someone else, Bob Monroe, me or others you disagree with.  Then you gin up a straw-man argument against those beliefs that conflict with yours, then you destroy the straw-man, and in doing so either imply or state that your beliefs are true and the other person's are wrong.

I for one am getting tired of your long diatribes  professing your superiority with your twisted logic arguments.  I'd like to suggest you post your belittling, self aggrandizing material on your own website because, frankly, I am sick of it.


TheDonald wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 10:02pm:

But mere ESP or clairvoyance seems a more plausible explanation of the best of channeling in view of the evidence cited in my replies to (1)-(4):

You start with one of your typical, straw-man arguments.  Don, "mere ESP or clairvoyance" CAN be used to explain the method by which a person might perceive verifiable, previously unknown information from a deceased person, but this fact cannot explain the origin such verifiable information.  Don, you have used a misleading straw-man argument to pretend that calling it "mere ESP or clairvoyance" eliminates the possibility that the contact and information are real.   One thing as nothing to do with the other.  Don, they don't.


TheDonald wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 10:02pm:

(1) What if sitters request contact with fake deceased relatives and the mediums still oblige with a very impressive channeling?

               
A little research on thought forms might be useful for you, Don.  And again, you resort to a straw-man argument.  An "impressive channeling" that does not include veritably, real information is not at all what I am talking about.


TheDonald wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 10:02pm:

(2) Bruce seems to imagine that channeled materials unknown to anyone living provide convincing evidence of contact with the dead.

No Don, I do not "seem to imagine" that.  What I call my Basic Premise in workshops is.

1.  If you can find a way to make contact and communicate with a person who is known to be deceased . . .

2.If you can obtain information from this deceased person you have absolutely no other way of knowing except by this contact and communication . . .

3.  If you can verify that the information real, you have not really proven anything, yet.

4.  But you have obtained some evidence, thru your own direct experience, that this deceased person continues to exist, some where.


TheDonald wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 10:02pm:

But what if a drop-in communicator could provide amazing verifications even involving precognition of the future, and yet, be later proven a fraud?

Another straw-man bites the dust.  If the information was later prove to be fraudulent, it was not verified, was it.

TheDonald wrote on Jun 1^st, 2017 at 10:02pm:

(3) What if the spirit control of mediums with impressive verifications can be proven to be a fraud?   What conclusion would that warrant about other spirit controls whose self-professed identity cannot be verified?

    

A whole bunch of straw-men.   Don, none of what you describe here has anything to do with information that meets the Basic Premise criteria participants use in the workshops.  Typically over 90% of participants in any given workshop fulfill the Basic Premise, both in the role of "medium" and in the role of "sitter."

  Don, going thru the rest of your straw-man filled diatribe is, for me, senseless.  I do wish you would either find something useful to post about, or post your diatribes on your own website.

Bruce 

Roger:

Bruce wrote his fifth book and holds workshops with the thought that people can find out for themselves what the spirit world is about, by having their own experiences.

You, Don and Dude on the other hand state that people shouldn't have OBEs  or try to make contact with the spirit world in some other way, because people are likely to get fooled by demons. Going by what Don writes, and how you and Dude support him (add Kathy to the list?), one should instead rely on Don's Biblical interpretations, and the portions of Emanuel Swedenborg's teachings that Don approves.

I figure that some people find this site because they read Bruce's books, and they want to find out more. Instead, to a large extent, they find numerous posts by Don, where he  provides Biblical interpretations, and inaccurate and close-minded interpretations of the experiences of Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe.

I figure that if this is what people are looking for, they would've searched a Bible forum that says things such as "you shouldn't interact with the spirit world."





rondele wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 1:57pm:

"I would never go to a forum of a teacher I have little interest in, and attempt a hostile takeover, as you do here with the assistance of people such as Roger, Dude and 1796. If you don't understand why it is wrong to do such a thing, then I wonder if your discrimination is clear enough to help others. I recommended to Bruce that you be banned from this forum. I believe the same is true for Dude, Roger and 1796." Here we go again. Albert, it appears your only objective is to continually disrupt the forum via ad hominen attacks. I resent the spurious accusations you direct toward me and others. I'm assisting in a hostile takeover of the forum as is 1796 and Dude? Post the links pls. 1796 just returned after a long absence. How is he doing that, by osmosis? If Vicky allows this sort of paranoid nonsense from you to continue, it'll be the forum that suffers. Things were returning to normal after your friend left, I guess you couldn't deal with that. R

Albert, Vicky said she was giving everyone a clean slate, yet you continue to dwell in the past and cause trouble where there would be none.  Pestering Vicky and now Bruce when he is ill is shameful.

I don't know what list you're talking about.  Don has not violated any posting guidelines since he's returned to the forum.  If he had I would say so.

Kathy:

If you look at current forum history you'll see that Don continues to use this forum as a way to speak against things such as some of what Bruce wrote about (right here on this thread), and to promote his "alternative" Biblical views with a little Swedenborg added in.

If three people broke into a person's house, tried to run that house according to their agenda, and somebody spoke against this, would you call it shameful for such a person to do so? If yes, well then, I can't say that your definition of shameful is meaningful to me.





Lights of Love wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 7:26pm:

Albert, Vicky said she was giving everyone a clean slate, yet you continue to dwell in the past and cause trouble where there would be none.  Pestering Vicky and now Bruce when he is ill is shameful. I don't know what list you're talking about.  Don has not violated any posting guidelines since he's returned to the forum.  If he had I would say so.

TheDonald wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 12:38am:

Vicky: "A serious question from me...What's your continued interest in discussing this topic?  What are you looking for by doing this?  And why on Bruce's site?" I must say I'm surprised that you could even ask this question.  For 3 reasons: (1) Bruce begins the AK forum with a thread entitled "Looking for a Good, Certified Medium?"  In that thread, he alludes to the difficulties in assessing mediums' claims of contact with the dead.  (2) Presumably a forum entitled "Afterlife Knowledge" invites a discussion of reliable and unreliable methods of gaining such knowledge. (3) My further responses to my thread, "Honest Spiritual Quests Vs. Self-Deception," will explain why conflicting types of evidence from astral exploration, perception, and memory challenge the claim that reliable information of the afterlife can be gained by direct experience.

You completely deleted your first response to my question.  Your first response said that you called it simple-minded and naive to trust one's own direct experience.  Too bad I didn't copy that response now that I see you've deleted it.

Why are you surprised I ask this question? 

1).  You use the same topic over and over on this site...and it seems your goal is to constantly and consistently try to change the minds of anyone who doesn't believe as you do.  It's obvious that you're not interested in Bruce Moen's work...you're merely using his work and his site as a means of propagating your own writings. 

2.)  You do not bring it up to discuss and hear other people's views.  You do not write in a sharing and conversational way.  Instead, you write speeches and then come post them here. 

3.)  You do not bring it up because you are in search of how to have your own direct experience.  You are on a mission to have people listen to you, not one of learning yourself.  You use the guise of acting as if you're doing people a service by telling them how they must properly discern the truth and telling them how it must be done.

4.). You are here to be an author...to write and be read, that's it. 

These are what I see of you Don.  So that's why I ask why you do this, what you get out of it, and why you are here on this site.  Even Bruce is tired of it.  What does that tell you Don?  Do you still want to continue what you're doing here?

Great post Don, and in no way inappropriate. Even before my conversion I had understood the potential deception involved with channels and spirit contacts. I had my share of personal contacts with deceased relatives in the out of body state. At the time I was convinced they were genuine, but upon later reflection, I realized that I only believed this because I wanted to. Sure, the experiences seemed real, and perhaps my relative seemed genuine, but for all I really knew, it could have been nothing more than a realistic lucid dream. So I took the honest approach of holding these experiences as being possibly genuine, while acknowledging the fact that perhaps they were not.

Vicky, please don't get yourself involved in making personal attacks. It's not fitting of a moderator. Don makes legit points, a statement which several members have already supported, so instead of questioning his purpose at the forum, please, take the intellectually honest approach and debunk what Don has said. The vast minority of Don's posts are about spirit channels. I know this because I've read every one. You've previously admitted that you tend not to read his posts.

Bruce's counterarguments are not convincing. For example:


Quote:

[quote]But mere ESP or clairvoyance seems a more plausible explanation of the best of channeling in view of the evidence cited in my replies to (1)-(4):

You start with one of your typical, straw-man arguments.  Don, "mere ESP or clairvoyance" CAN be used to explain the method by which a person might perceive verifiable, previously unknown information from a deceased person, but this fact cannot explain the origin such verifiable information.  Don, you have used a misleading straw-man argument to pretend that calling it "mere ESP or clairvoyance" eliminates the possibility that the contact and information are real.   One thing as nothing to do with the other.  Don, they don't.[/quote]

Clearly, channeling is a form of ESP. The point is that channeling may simply be ESP with no relation to contacting the deceased, an idea which Don provided evidence for and has yet to be debunked. Don's statement has nothing to do with the validity of the information itself, only its source.



Quote:

[quote](1) What if sitters request contact with fake deceased relatives and the mediums still oblige with a very impressive channeling?

          
A little research on thought forms might be useful for you, Don.  And again, you resort to a straw-man argument.  An "impressive channeling" that does not include veritably, real information is not at all what I am talking about.[/quote]

How is this a straw man? It has been proven to happen. It's reality, not a faulty argument.


Quote:

[quote]But what if a drop-in communicator could provide amazing verifications even involving precognition of the future, and yet, be later proven a fraud?

Another straw-man bites the dust.  If the information was later prove to be fraudulent, it was not verified, was it.[/quote]

The grammar of Don's sentence indicates that it's the "drop-in communicator" that is proven a fraud, not the information. That's the whole point- real information from a deceptive source.

The issue I see with the basic premise is that it relies on subjective experience. The thing about deception is those who are deceived are not aware of it. The possibility of pulling the information from some kind of akashic database or a spirit impersonator cannot be disproved through the four point system.

That's not to say real contact isn't being made. It's simply acknowledging all of the possibilities. The fact that spirit contact has been proven to be deceptive in some cases demands that all contact be carefully considered before assuming it's genuine.

This is not fear mongering. It's simply wise advice.

I Am Dude,

I have a right to my own opinion which I've expressed.  It's not an attack and should not be seen as one.  I question why Don continues to undermine what "simple-minded and naive" people like me believe whole-heartedly in.

It's as if nothing that I've experience matters because I don't measure up in Don's eyes to his criteria.  And I believe in the basis of having one's own direct experience with which to base your belief. 

I don't understand the purpose of debunking.  I guess that's my whole gist.  Why debunk other people's beliefs and claims?  Seriously, why??

Instead, have your own claims to make!  That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of Bruce's work and teachings. 

So I asked Don my honest questions and gave my honest views of how he comes across to me.  It's not an attack.  I could just as well call what Don does as an "attack".  But there's no point in arguing semantics because that's just petty and beside the point.

The "just ESP" argument doesn't hold water for me.  If ESP is used as a means of communication, how does that equate to not being actual contact with the deceased?  See, again we are boiling it down to semantics.  I know an awful lot about using ESP and various other forms of psychic senses of perception, what we call nonphysical senses of perception.  And I know this from my OWN personal experience.  I don't have to fall back on quoting other authors to back up what I know and believe. 

I don't have to debunk the use of psychic ability because I know first-hand how it works, why it works, and that it's real and validated. 

Let me provide a very simple analogy that is not to be taken as an "attack".  It's just going to be used for simplification purposes.  Let's say that I ask you, "Why don't you debunk the Bible and Jesus?  Why don't you try to prove them?"  My point is, you can't debunk or prove them right?  We can only rely on what's been written in the past about the Bible and Jesus, what people teach and preach about it, and what your own faith and religion, beliefs, and personal experiences tell you, right? 

I don't base my experience on what other people have written or what they tell me.  I base it on my own direct experience.

Like I said, Don's first reply to my question was to say that it was "simple-minded and naive" to trust one's own direct experience and to only go by that.  Meaning, he says that's not good enough and that his criteria must be followed in order to find the truth.  Well, that's Don's opinion. 

I don't call him simple-minded and naive...which I find to be more of an "attack" than what I have said to him. 

Any post that doesn't directly address the points made by Don is a distraction from the topic. I'll respond to the part of your post that isn't a distraction.


Quote:

The "just ESP" argument doesn't hold water for me.  If ESP is used as a means of communication, how does that equate to not being actual contact with the deceased?  See, again we are boiling it down to semantics.  I know an awful lot about using ESP and various other forms of psychic senses of perception, what we call nonphysical senses of perception.  And I know this from my OWN personal experience.  I don't have to fall back on quoting other authors to back up what I know and believe.

 

Perhaps look at it this way. If ESP is a legit possibility for accessing information, and ESP does not depend on contacting spirits, then the possibility exists that what we believe to be channeled messages are actually being accessed through an ESP which is not from spirits.

Also, if deceptive spirits exist, which I'm sure we all agree is true, and ESP is real, then surely these spirits would have even greater access to information than a physical-body spirit channel would, as they are likely more "in tune" with the nonphysical source of the information accessed via ESP, so the possibility exists that a deceptive spirit could access information about any given person and put on a convincing show based on that.

Of course, these are just possibilities, but as there is evidence that such things have occurred in the past, they are possibilities worth considering.

Don hasn't told anyone what to do. You say you are just expressing your opinion, but my point was that your opinion is against the poster and not the content of the post, which has been a big problem on this forum lately. Don is expressing his opinion as well, only he speaks of relevant subjects, theories and supporting evidence that demands consideration. If you believe he is saying that a certain type of experience is not legit, all it takes to settle the issue is to refute his argument with a more logical one. This is what I meant by "debunking." If it can't be done, then perhaps he is on to something.

It is worthwhile to ask why is Dude still on this site. As his below post shows, he believes all new age thought is Satanic.

If he doesn't appreciate Bruce and his work, why does he hang out at this site? He should go to A Born Again Christian  forum where it is considered fashionable to make blanket statements of new age thought.

I doubt that Bruce set up this site so Fundamentalist Christians that like to demonize everything that is contrary to their Biblical beliefs, could try to convert others to their way of thinking.


http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1491614012/0#0

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 10:56pm:

It is worthwhile to ask why is Dude still on this site. As his below post shows, he believes all new age thought is Satanic. If he doesn't appreciate Bruce and his work, why does he hang out at this site? He should go to A Born Again Christian  forum where it is considered fashionable to make blanket statements of new age thought. I doubt that Bruce set up this site so Fundamentalist Christians that like to demonize everything that is contrary to their Biblical beliefs, could try to convert others to their way of thinking. http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1491614012/0#0

Actually Albert the thread you mention was posted in the "Off Topics" section and everyone including both you and Justin made replies that were respectful even though the subject is controversial.

Since then you have used what Vince's thread says to disrespect him by making personal accusations as you've done yet again here.

I Am Dude wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 10:30pm:

Perhaps look at it this way. If ESP is a legit possibility for accessing information, and ESP does not depend on contacting spirits, then the possibility exists that what we believe to be channeled messages are actually being accessed through an ESP which is not from spirits.

But if information is accessed via ESP, why does that assume to mean it's not from a spirit? 

Again it just seems like semantics.  What kind of route of accessing information from a spirit would be real to you since you don't like calling it ESP?  Is it the idea of ESP that seems "less than" to you? 

I personally don't use the term ESP.  I use terms like nonphysical perception and psychic ability, but these are just umbrella terms for many types of ways of perceiving. 

Do you see these terms differently or do they mean the same to you as ESP?


On the side topic you bring up of the possibility of deceptive spirits, just because some information can be false, it doesn't negate that other information is real.  I think the real disagreement we're in is the "half glass empty" notion.  I see the half glass full, the positive.

The positive for me is that as a person who is psychic, it's true that I don't get everything right, but what I do get right is outstanding.  It's also true that I am not able to be psychically aware of everything.  But what I am aware of is outstanding.  It's outstanding to have any form of psychic ability.  It's truly remarkable. 

So yes, I guess I see your "half glass empty" point Dude.  Some people are frauds, some get things wrong, some get deceived, etc. 

But I'm still very happy on my side of the fence, where I know what I know through my own direct experience.  I've had such amazing experiences, including contact with the dead, with validation and verification and proof beyond doubt. 

I wish you well in your search for whatever it is that your beliefs are leading you to.  You may not find what I've found and that's ok.  I don't judge what that may be.  I say to each his own. 

I honestly just wanted to know why Don was so adamant about pressing this continued debate of his.  Although, I see now that you and Don don't want to "debate" it.  You just want to talk about it a lot.  Seems boring to me.  I say that not as an "attack", seriously I don't mean that. 

What I mean is that I have been psychic since I was very young but my parents didn't understand it.  Of course as a small child you don't have the proper words or know-how to explain this kind of stuff.  But even as I grew up I was surrounding by people who couldn't understand my interests and they were not willing to believe it...mostly due to religious beliefs, such as a Christian co-worker telling me to "be careful of the devil's work.  She thought psychic ability was the devil's work.  I don't understand that, but like I said, to each his own.

So as a adult I've stuck with my desire and beliefs, and have studied and practiced and developed my psychic abilities.  No, I'm by no means a great psychic.  I don't call myself "a psychic".  But my point is I've learned more than I could have imagined. 

And you're right...this isn't my thread so this isn't about me.  I am done chiming in my take on things.  I just wanted to add my 2 cents in since other people who don't post will be reading this conversation and they may find my take on it interesting.

I believe that Vicky made some very good points.

She and Bruce are good friends, and there is nothing wrong for her to speak up for her friend, even if somebody would define it as shameful. Perhaps some people might consider having appreciation for Bruce (since he made this forum available), rather than coddle a person that seems to have little appreciation for Bruce and doesn't consider Bruce's reason for creating this forum.



Vicky wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 9:03pm:

TheDonald wrote on Jun 2nd, 2017 at 12:38am: Vicky: "A serious question from me...What's your continued interest in discussing this topic?  What are you looking for by doing this?  And why on Bruce's site?" I must say I'm surprised that you could even ask this question.  For 3 reasons: (1) Bruce begins the AK forum with a thread entitled "Looking for a Good, Certified Medium?"  In that thread, he alludes to the difficulties in assessing mediums' claims of contact with the dead.  (2) Presumably a forum entitled "Afterlife Knowledge" invites a discussion of reliable and unreliable methods of gaining such knowledge. (3) My further responses to my thread, "Honest Spiritual Quests Vs. Self-Deception," will explain why conflicting types of evidence from astral exploration, perception, and memory challenge the claim that reliable information of the afterlife can be gained by direct experience. You completely deleted your first response to my question.  Your first response said that you called it simple-minded and naive to trust one's own direct experience.  Too bad I didn't copy that response now that I see you've deleted it. Why are you surprised I ask this question?  1).  You use the same topic over and over on this site...and it seems your goal is to constantly and consistently try to change the minds of anyone who doesn't believe as you do.  It's obvious that you're not interested in Bruce Moen's work...you're merely using his work and his site as a means of propagating your own writings.  2.)  You do not bring it up to discuss and hear other people's views.  You do not write in a sharing and conversational way.  Instead, you write speeches and then come post them here.  3.)  You do not bring it up because you are in search of how to have your own direct experience.  You are on a mission to have people listen to you, not one of learning yourself.  You use the guise of acting as if you're doing people a service by telling them how they must properly discern the truth and telling them how it must be done. 4.). You are here to be an author...to write and be read, that's it.  These are what I see of you Don.  So that's why I ask why you do this, what you get out of it, and why you are here on this site.  Even Bruce is tired of it.  What does that tell you Don?  Do you still want to continue what you're doing here?

Vicky wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 11:32pm:

I Am Dude wrote on Jun 2nd, 2017 at 10:30pm: Perhaps look at it this way. If ESP is a legit possibility for accessing information, and ESP does not depend on contacting spirits, then the possibility exists that what we believe to be channeled messages are actually being accessed through an ESP which is not from spirits. But if information is accessed via ESP, why does that assume to mean it's not from a spirit?  Again it just seems like semantics.  What kind of route of accessing information from a spirit would be real to you since you don't like calling it ESP?  Is it the idea of ESP that seems "less than" to you?  I personally don't use the term ESP.  I use terms like nonphysical perception and psychic ability, but these are just umbrella terms for many types of ways of perceiving.  Do you see these terms differently or do they mean the same to you as ESP?

Let's say there are two main ways to receive information nonphysically. One is to access some type of "akashic record," tuning into a state of consciousness in which information is directly accessed from some kind of nonphysical informational energy field, whatever you want to call it. The other way is to receive the information indirectly by means of communication with a spirit, in which you are relying on the word of another being rather than tapping into the information directly.

So the point is, how do we distinguish the two, and how do we know we are not deceived in the conclusion we come to regarding the source of the information? Don has provided solid evidence to indicate that it is not as simple as some teachers lead people to believe.

While we are talking, Recoverer has again targeted me in his post.

Quote:

It is worthwhile to ask why is Dude still on this site. As his below post shows, he believes all new age thought is Satanic. If he doesn't appreciate Bruce and his work, why does he hang out at this site? He should go to A Born Again Christian  forum where it is considered fashionable to make blanket statements of new age thought. I doubt that Bruce set up this site so Fundamentalist Christians that like to demonize everything that is contrary to their Biblical beliefs, could try to convert others to their way of thinking.

I have been respectful to everyone here and I don't deserve to be singled out, told to leave the forum and have lies told about me. He continues to bring up past posts and make false claims as a way to try to discredit me. I don't know why he is still allowed to make such posts. They are personally offensive and contribute absolutely nothing good to the forum.

Dude:

It seems to me you are complicating things so you don't have to admit what is so.  You recently stated that you believe that all new age teachings are Satanic; therefore, it isn't difficult to surmise that you feel the same about Bruce's meaningful contributions to this world through his books and other means. When Don says something against what Bruce and Robert Monroe wrote, you have a tendency to support him. It is quite transparent why you do so.

So again, why are you at a forum when you don't appreciate what the founder of such forum has to offer?

You won't dumb me down with responses that don't accurately represent what has been taking place in recent times.

If you don't want people to speak as I just did, then don't provide reasons for people to do so.

Kathy:

Don't expect other people to not be willing to see what is going on, simply because you aren't willing to see what is going on.

If you believe that Vicky and I are seeing something that isn't there, perhaps this has more to do with your reluctance to see what has taken place, than what is so.

What would you think if Don and Dude went to Tom Campbell's forum and said that Tom is either deluded or misled by lower dimension beings, and then tried to convert people to their form of Christianity? Would this be a good thing?

What if some extreme Islamic people walked into one of Don's churches, referred to its members as the Christian Ghetto, and then tried to convert everybody to their form of Islam. Would this be a good thing to do?

You really don't do Don a favor when you coddle him. Sometimes it is nicer to speak the truth.



Lights of Love wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 2nd, 2017 at 10:56pm: It is worthwhile to ask why is Dude still on this site. As his below post shows, he believes all new age thought is Satanic. If he doesn't appreciate Bruce and his work, why does he hang out at this site? He should go to A Born Again Christian  forum where it is considered fashionable to make blanket statements of new age thought. I doubt that Bruce set up this site so Fundamentalist Christians that like to demonize everything that is contrary to their Biblical beliefs, could try to convert others to their way of thinking. http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1491614012/0#0 Actually Albert the thread you mention was posted in the "Off Topics" section and everyone including both you and Justin made replies that were respectful even though the subject is controversial. Since then you have used what Vince's thread says to disrespect him by making personal accusations as you've done yet again here.

For the last day and a half, I've lost my internet connection and phone service.  Then tonight I see this!  Truthfully, I returned to the site to renew communication with oldtimer posters like Roger, Kathy, and Matthew, and because I heard about Vince's conversion and was eager to learn more about his new way of thinking.  How ironic that these nasty ad hominems are directed at me just as I'm rereading Bruce's book "Curiosity's Father" and am reflecting on my efforts to practice  some of his techniques!  Lost in this diversion of my thread is the point that I'm creating a companion thread here for my other rather undeveloped thread on "Honest Spiritual Quests Vs. Self-Deception," which I'm currently trying to rethink.  I've delayed my development of that thread because I'm contemplating the best way to make it probing and critical, but not offensive.

My thread on "Spirit Baptism and Speaking in Tongues" is an instructive parallel to my AK posts.  As I explain in that thread, by far the most life-changing and powerful experience of my life was an experience of involuntary speaking in tongues at age 16 so beautifully loving and intense that I thought it might kill me and so mystical that I felt as if my ego was about to vanish into God consciousness.  I have no doubt whatever that if anyone here had that experience, they would deem it by far their most precious experience of divine love ever.  So nothing would make me happier than to see all of you replicate that experience for yourselves.

But there's a problem: Based on lifelong experiece with such phenomenam I'm convinced that about 95% of such experiences are counterfeit.  This revelation creates suspicion of my motives on the part my Pentecostal friends.  I'm very frustrated that the counterfeit experiences prevent me from promoting a pursuit of such an experience for  my friends.  The best I can and will do is outline the method that worked for me.

In my view, there is no one here for whom the issue of spirit retrievals is more important than it is to me.  If I have my way after death, one of my first questions will be how I can get involved in retrieval work.  I even served as an official advisor for a PhD thesis on a related topic.  It is just for that reason that I want to sift through the counterfeit to get to the real.  The ultimate spiritual wellbeing of trapped souls is more important to me than my need to feel comfort in their alleged rescue.  That priority is why ES's superior verifications matter so much to me.  The more valuable a type of spiritual experience is to me, the more important is the courage to doubt it in the hope of guiding others into something marvelously self-authenticating.
   

Dude,

Since you addressed me I will come back and respond. 

So you use in your example "nonphysical informational energy field" vs communication with a spirit, and you're asking how do we distinguish between the two?  How do we know we are not deceived in the conclusion we come to? 

What if there is no way to get the kinds of answers and proof you’re asking for in the way in which you’re looking for it?   Because if you really are searching for knowing how to distinguish between information from one source vs information from another, the answer is to have experience with one and experience with the other, and then base beliefs and truths on that experience, so that any time you experience one or the other you will know which is which. 

If you can formulate beliefs based on your own experience, and those beliefs alter and expand your consciousness awareness it will change something at the core of your Being, not just the core of your logical, intellectual mind.  That kind of change is real spiritual growth.  That’s the truth that I am talking about…the truth that lives inside me, that is me, that defines my consciousness.  It can’t be taught.  I can’t teach you what you need in order to distinguish between the two and find your truth and your proof.  You have to experience it for yourself.  That’s more important to me than the intellectual proof and truth you’re seeking. 

As for how do you know you're not being deceived?  Well, maybe it comes down to knowing oneself well enough to trust your own judgement.  It's really as simple as that.   The "truth" that I have sought and know is something that exists within my Being.  Therefore I don't need to use something outside of me to prove or debunk it.   

I think what you’re looking for can only be found by you.  It's up to the individual to do their own investigating, and then when that step is reached, experience will be reached.  When that step is reached then new beliefs will be reached.  When that step is reached then you will probably not be asking these same questions. 

It's kind of like when you don't know something so you come up with all these questions that you think are important questions, when they really aren't the questions you'd ask after finding something out.  But you don't find it out until after you go through something step by step until you're able to see everything from another perspective. 

I appreciate Don’s writings. And I consider them appropriate for a forum of reasonable people discussing the nature of life, death and the hereafter. 

Don is showing that things may not necessarily be as they appear or as believed, but might be something else, different or as well as. I don't think he saying that every case of communicating with the dead is a false case, but that there may be other things going on too. He is introducing further possibilities and chances, that is all, and he is doing so appropriately, with logic and sound references.

Personally, I find him educational. I like to check his references and read more from whom he quotes.

Don takes a wider view of the subject matter, while at the same time pointing out details and connections between such details. I think Don comes across as genuine, as an educated and intelligent man of goodwill.

Don is not narrowing the field of debate but widening it. He maintains that what others say is possible, but puts forward other possibilities too. He is simply widening the forum’s Overton Window. There should be nothing wrong with that.

But some people cannot tolerate that. Some believe a wider view than their own is a disagreeable thing, even though the wider view includes their own view or an understanding of their own view.

And if they are insecure, then they also see it as a personal attack upon themselves, and then attack back, even though they were not attacked. Some even see it as heresy and believe the one with the wider view does not belong among them. 

I don’t see Don using straw man tactics, not markedly or intentionally anyway. And even if he did, that could be exposed and countered easily by his opposition clarifying their own position.

I don’t agree with Bruce that Don is being belittling and self-aggrandizing. Don is well educated and uses his intellect well. Others should not feel put down by that. And Don works hard for others, he is a man of service, who puts his spirituality to practical work in his community. That is just who he is. He is not self-aggrandizing, not about his life nor in his writings. I don’t think so anyway.

cb

I've learned a lot from Don and if he's banned it'll be the forum's loss.

I think it's time to fill in the missing pieces. There's an agenda at work in the background. The agenda should be easy to see but it gets obscured in the midst of the current contretemps regarding Don.

Let's put it out there. Two members, one active on the forum and the other active in the background, are working in tandem to target specific people and engage in ad hominen attacks with accusations they cannot backup when challenged.

It just so happens that the folks they want removed are those who have stood up to them in the past. They have gone so far as to accuse me, Dude, 1796 (!) Kathy, and most of all Don as trying to engage in a "hostile takeover" of the site. This is preposterous but in keeping with their other equally preposterous posts in the past.

The irony is that it's they themselves who continually take over and hijack threads to promote their own beliefs. If they want examples I can provide them, whereas when they are challenged they cannot. Again, I can provide evidence of that as well.

For years these two have disrupted the forum. They are trying to gain traction for their own selfish purposes all the while pretending they are taking the moral high ground by protecting the forum.

Hostile takeover my butt.

R

Albert,

First of all, I think Vicky can see just fine.  She is one of the most thoughtful, compassionate, generous, courageous and loving people I have ever had the pleasure to know.  The list of beautiful adjectives to describe Vicky could go on and on and I'm sure that is why Bruce asked her to take care of this board for him.   

It is you that seems to not be able to follow the board guidelines Bruce put forth.  And that is what this is about.  You have repeatedly violated the posting guidelines with personal attacks, bullying, falsely accusing people of saying things they did not say, you believe in your own inaccurate conspiracy theories about certain members, and worst of all you pester Vicky and now Bruce when he is dealing with so much.   That kind of behavior is uncalled for and against the posting guidelines.  The only person doing these forums a disservice, is you.

Please stop violating the posting guidelines and disrespecting and bullying people.  If you have a complaint about someone violating the posting guidelines, use the peer monitor system to point out where the infraction is.  That's why it's there.

Kathy



Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 12:59am:

Kathy: Don't expect other people to not be willing to see what is going on, simply because you aren't willing to see what is going on. If you believe that Vicky and I are seeing something that isn't there, perhaps this has more to do with your reluctance to see what has taken place, than what is so. What would you think if Don and Dude went to Tom Campbell's forum and said that Tom is either deluded or misled by lower dimension beings, and then tried to convert people to their form of Christianity? Would this be a good thing? What if some extreme Islamic people walked into one of Don's churches, referred to its members as the Christian Ghetto, and then tried to convert everybody to their form of Islam. Would this be a good thing to do? You really don't do Don a favor when you coddle him. Sometimes it is nicer to speak the truth. Lights of Love wrote on Jun 2nd, 2017 at 11:29pm: Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 2nd, 2017 at 10:56pm: It is worthwhile to ask why is Dude still on this site. As his below post shows, he believes all new age thought is Satanic. If he doesn't appreciate Bruce and his work, why does he hang out at this site? He should go to A Born Again Christian  forum where it is considered fashionable to make blanket statements of new age thought. I doubt that Bruce set up this site so Fundamentalist Christians that like to demonize everything that is contrary to their Biblical beliefs, could try to convert others to their way of thinking. http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1491614012/0#0 Actually Albert the thread you mention was posted in the "Off Topics" section and everyone including both you and Justin made replies that were respectful even though the subject is controversial. Since then you have used what Vince's thread says to disrespect him by making personal accusations as you've done yet again here.

I find both Monroe/Moen material and Christianity to be interesting, but what matters most to me is getting to the bottom of things. I want to know the truth, whatever it is.

Everybody here is free to engage or not on the forum and a participant must be able to handle having their viewpoints challenged even under the best of circumstances. My advice when participating on the forum is to engage debate in a similar mode to the mode you are in when studying. Have you tried studying when you are emotionally focused? That does not work out well for me, and it's fair to say I'm full of myself when being too emotional.

Cognitive dissonance, that was my reaction for quite some time when reading the posts of 1796/Crossbow. Dissonance between my view of Christianity and what was presented before me so to speak. I'm grateful to have my perspective challenged and broadened. I do see much more potential in the world now than I used to do. In the process I also learnt more about love and I don't mind learning more.

As I don't have a dog in this fight, and no wish to have a dog in this fight, I offer only my observations as one who — at this writing — is present to this forum at this juncture. I left this forum seven years ago, and report what I find.

The genesis of my long, strange trip that brings me to this juncture likely "began" circa 1977 — and certainly earlier. Much earlier. But it's nice to have a date to say: it started here, as misleading as that may be. Completed my TMI stuff way back then, right? And dove deep into Bruce's material yada yada. And came here and found:

Factionalism, religious proselytism (largely, but not exclusively, Christian), petty arguments and egoic games, and — most of all — a lot of talk and very little action. That was then.

Went elsewhere, hey?

Returned after a long hiatus and found: factionalism, religious proselytism (largely, but not exclusively, Christian), petty arguments and egoic games, and — most of all — a lot of talk and very little action.

My personal and professional interests in these realms are not strictly aligned with afterlife knowledge. Some of my work occasionally touches on the afterlife territories. Afterllife retrievals aren't strictly my turf. I report what I am present to here, as is appropriate to the forum. Sometimes I am paid as a professional to join the soon-to-be-bioexorcized in their journey to the "afterlife". It's good work, it's honorable work, and I am grateful for it.

It's a much wider world for me, personally. Afterlife knowledge was start for me. Grateful to Bruce and all others who opened these paths. I know what is mine to do, I know who I am. No personal need to seek answers. Nor do I position myself as a teacher, or a big know-it-all or how-do-you-do. What is mine to do is mine to do.

Well how do you do. veni vidi, adnoto (I came, I saw, I take note of.)

We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

Vicky wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 2:46am:

Dude, What if there is no way to get the kinds of answers and proof you’re asking for in the way in which you’re looking for it?   Because if you really are searching for knowing how to distinguish between information from one source vs information from another, the answer is to have experience with one and experience with the other, and then base beliefs and truths on that experience, so that any time you experience one or the other you will know which is which.

But herein lies the issue, as you have presented no method of knowing the true nature of any given experience. For example, we have an experience of conversing with a spirit, then we have an experience of receiving information without the presence of a spirit, so we classify these as two different types of experiences, two different sources. But do we really know the source of the information from that second experience? Do we even really know the true nature of the spirit in the first experience? Probably not. There will always be a degree of faith involved.


Quote:

If you can formulate beliefs based on your own experience, and those beliefs alter and expand your consciousness awareness it will change something at the core of your Being, not just the core of your logical, intellectual mind.  That kind of change is real spiritual growth.  That’s the truth that I am talking about…the truth that lives inside me, that is me, that defines my consciousness.  It can’t be taught.  I can’t teach you what you need in order to distinguish between the two and find your truth and your proof.  You have to experience it for yourself.  That’s more important to me than the intellectual proof and truth you’re seeking.

I'm not looking for intellectual proof. Just discussing some ideas.


Quote:

As for how do you know you're not being deceived?  Well, maybe it comes down to knowing oneself well enough to trust your own judgement.  It's really as simple as that.   The "truth" that I have sought and know is something that exists within my Being.  Therefore I don't need to use something outside of me to prove or debunk it.    I think what you’re looking for can only be found by you.  It's up to the individual to do their own investigating, and then when that step is reached, experience will be reached.  When that step is reached then new beliefs will be reached.  When that step is reached then you will probably not be asking these same questions.  It's kind of like when you don't know something so you come up with all these questions that you think are important questions, when they really aren't the questions you'd ask after finding something out.  But you don't find it out until after you go through something step by step until you're able to see everything from another perspective.

This is actually exactly where I'm coming from. I once entertained very similar beliefs as you are expressing, but a change in perspective that came after years of experience has allowed me to question the nature of my beliefs and experiences in a way that I was unable to do before, so that I was no longer blind in my faith or overly trusting. There was a degree of emotional attachment to my beliefs that took a while to release. I believe it's a similar attachment that gets some upset at Don's posts.

Kathy:

Both Vicky and Bruce made comments about Don on this thread that pretty much are the same as my comments yet you choose to define only me as the villain. Why the inconsistency? I say the things I said about Don not because I am a mean boy bully, but because I can see what is going on. Do not say I am wrong, if you aren't willing to also say that Vicky and Bruce are wrong.

Bruce said that he wishes Don would post somewhere else. Do not think for a minute this is because of what I said to Vicky in PMs (I haven't communicated to Bruce about this). Surely Bruce is intelligent enough to decide for himself.

Regarding Dude, below are some of the things he said. Are you certain that I am falsely accusing people?

--The disk concept is incompatible with the Biblical worldview. How would individual judgement and eternal heaven/hell work if we are actually "one" with multiple other individuals, all of them having various beliefs, values and moral standards? You'd have 2/3 of your disk going to hell and the other third in heaven, LMAO. For those who take the word of God seriously, it's a silly and deceptive idea, as it gives people the impression that they themselves are gods and it contradicts much of what the Bible teaches.

Keep in mind that just about every demonic spirit channel out there pushes this higher self concept as truth. It's essentially an ancient Hindu teaching that has been repackaged for the modern new age deception. Also keep in mind that Hinduism itself is entrenched in Satanic teachings and practices, so I wouldn't be surprised that the demons teaching about the disk in the new age movement today are the same ones who taught the ancient Hindus."

--Don said along with other things while trying to promote Swedenborg and de-legitimize Robert Monroe:  "Entities from the lower astral convey a contrary narcissistic principle to Monroe: "There is no good, there is no evil.  There is only expression (UJ 217)."

And Dude responded: "Great post Don. You bring up a good point. It's rare to see anyone consider the possibility that these astral explorers themselves are deluded or limited in their perceptions by their beliefs and biases. Talk about putting your faith in the wrong person.

Back when I was a Monroe fan-boy I was discussing my Monroe-induced beliefs with my mom while questioning her beliefs in Jesus and she said, "so this Monroe guy is your Jesus." At the time it seemed like a very ignorant statement. But looking at it now, her comment was more accurate than I had imagined. No, I wasn't worshiping Monroe as a deity, but I did indeed put complete faith in his words.

Don, do you think God is against us communicating with spirits in light of what is written in the Bible? I'm wondering how we could trust any spirit or "angel" if we are instructed not to get involved with them."

"I have come to the understanding that the new age movement is actually part of a larger plan, a Satanic deception to distort people's minds and hearts away from the truth of the most high heavenly father and son Yeshua."

I believe it is okay for me to believe that people who have the goal of getting people to not believe what Bruce and Robert Monroe wrote (They are a part of the same Disk, so I speak of them together), and instead believe in their Biblical interpretations, should find another place to run their campaign. After all, I doubt that Bruce set up this forum for that purpose. If you read his post on this thread, it doesn't seem as if he did.

If you believe I am being paranoid about what Don and Dude are trying to do then consider this.

Does Don write posts where he tries to de-legitimize what Bruce wrote without any motive for doing so, or because he has a motive?

Does Don write numerous posts where he speaks of the Bible and Swedenborg because he has no motive for doing so, or because he has a motive?

Does Dude write posts where he speaks of things such as the Disk viewpoint as Satanic because he has no motive for doing so, or because he has a motive?

Does Dude pat Don on the back when he tries to de-legitimize some of Bruce's viewpoints because he has no motive for doing so, or because he has a motive?

Does Dude promote the Bible here because he has no motive for doing so, or because he has a motive?

It is true that there have been occasions in the past when I was somewhat pushy. I never had a negative motive for doing so. My motive was to be helpful. I never viewed people as deplorable New Age Ghetto people that should be viewed in a condescending way. If you believe I am wrong about this last point, before you say so, remember that Bruce and Vicky made the same point.


Lights of Love wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 10:50am:

Albert, First of all, I think Vicky can see just fine.  She is one of the most thoughtful, compassionate, generous, courageous and loving people I have ever had the pleasure to know.  The list of beautiful adjectives to describe Vicky could go on and on and I'm sure that is why Bruce asked her to take care of this board for him.    It is you that seems to not be able to follow the board guidelines Bruce put forth.  And that is what this is about.  You have repeatedly violated the posting guidelines with personal attacks, bullying, falsely accusing people of saying things they did not say, you believe in your own inaccurate conspiracy theories about certain members, and worst of all you pester Vicky and now Bruce when he is dealing with so much.   That kind of behavior is uncalled for and against the posting guidelines.  The only person doing these forums a disservice, is you. Please stop violating the posting guidelines and disrespecting and bullying people.  If you have a complaint about someone violating the posting guidelines, use the peer monitor system to point out where the infraction is.  That's why it's there. Kathy Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2017 at 12:59am: Kathy: Don't expect other people to not be willing to see what is going on, simply because you aren't willing to see what is going on. If you believe that Vicky and I are seeing something that isn't there, perhaps this has more to do with your reluctance to see what has taken place, than what is so. What would you think if Don and Dude went to Tom Campbell's forum and said that Tom is either deluded or misled by lower dimension beings, and then tried to convert people to their form of Christianity? Would this be a good thing? What if some extreme Islamic people walked into one of Don's churches, referred to its members as the Christian Ghetto, and then tried to convert everybody to their form of Islam. Would this be a good thing to do? You really don't do Don a favor when you coddle him. Sometimes it is nicer to speak the truth. Lights of Love wrote on Jun 2nd, 2017 at 11:29pm: Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 2nd, 2017 at 10:56pm: It is worthwhile to ask why is Dude still on this site. As his below post shows, he believes all new age thought is Satanic. If he doesn't appreciate Bruce and his work, why does he hang out at this site? He should go to A Born Again Christian  forum where it is considered fashionable to make blanket statements of new age thought. I doubt that Bruce set up this site so Fundamentalist Christians that like to demonize everything that is contrary to their Biblical beliefs, could try to convert others to their way of thinking. http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1491614012/0#0 Actually Albert the thread you mention was posted in the "Off Topics" section and everyone including both you and Justin made replies that were respectful even though the subject is controversial. Since then you have used what Vince's thread says to disrespect him by making personal accusations as you've done yet again here.

I'm astonished by how far Recoverer will go to make personal attacks and take any and all threads off topic when he doesn't agree with the poster's views. I'll ask this again, why is he allowed to do this? Any moderators that can answer this? He relentlessly makes accusations of members when all we are trying to do is discuss topics relevant to the afterlife. Several other members are complaining about this as well. Vicky, do you think this is acceptable behavior?

Keep in mind this forum isn't a Bruce Moen fan club or a new age cult. It is a place for discussing afterlife-related topics. Having a different opinion than Bruce in no way implies disrespect for him. Recoverer is relentless in demonizing anyone who does not conform to his own personal belief system. He requested that myself, Don and others be banned for having differing views, but perhaps he should be banned for continuously breaking the posting guidelines with his incessant personal attacks. We should be able to express different perspectives on this forum without being constantly harassed and demonized. 

Albert,

Clearly you are relentless in pushing your agenda.  You are entitled to your beliefs.  They are different than mine and that is fine.  But your insistence to continually disrupt everyone else in a disrespectful manner is not.

Why can you not simply use the peer moderator system to report any infractions?

You said you haven't contacted Bruce.  Does that mean what you said to Don in reply #4 is a lie?  To refresh your memory.

Quote:

I recommended to Bruce that you be banned from this forum. I believe the same is true for Dude, Roger and 1796.

Albert, I'm begging you. Stop. Please just stop. For the sake of the forum and in respect for Bruce, for heaven's sake knock it off. Enough is enough.

Vicky, you need to make a decision on this, hopefully soon.

R

Kathy:

When I wrote the below I wasn't intentionally being dishonest. Rather, Vicky passed on what I said to her to Bruce. The below is simply a matter of my not being specific about how I communicated to Bruce. The main thing I wanted to be is forthright about the fact that I have spoken up about how I feel about what Don etc does. I knew that some people would want somebody they could throw stones at after Don's ways were mentioned, so I volunteered myself to be the recipient. I figured this strategy would work well, because I know that there are some people that would like nothing more than throw stones at me.  If you choose to read something insidious into this, well, that is not surprising.

I write what I say for the reasons I already explained. People who have an open mind about it might understand what I am saying.

I see that you conveniently continue to the ignore the fact that Vicky and Bruce have viewpoints that are similar to my viewpoints. How bold it is for you to focus on me, when you don't have the courage to say anything to them. I believe this is hypocritical.

It is unfair for you to accuse me of being relentless and disrupting things, when I am replying to your posts on this matter. Why is it that it isn't relentless and disruptive when you say what you believe, but it is when I do so? It is unreasonable for you to write posts where you make comments about somebody, and then when that person responds you accuse them of being relentless and disruptive. Perhaps it is significant that you have to rely on such a strategy as you try to shut me up, when I have no need of such a strategy.

Why is respect so important to you when it involves me, but when Don speaks to people in a condescending way, accuses Bruce and Robert Monroe of being deceived by lower dimension beings,  and is inconsiderate as to why Bruce created this forum, respect no longer matters? Why is it okay for Dude to say that people who believe in Disks are being fooled by demons? I believe Don is disruptive to the original purpose of this forum.

Go ahead, say some more negative things about me. You say more about yourself when you hand out criticism in a selective way, than you say about the person you criticize.






Lights of Love wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 5:27pm:

Albert, Clearly you are relentless in pushing your agenda.  You are entitled to your beliefs.  They are different than mine and that is fine.  But your insistence to continually disrupt everyone else in a disrespectful manner is not. Why can you not simply use the peer moderator system to report any infractions? You said you haven't contacted Bruce.  Does that mean what you said to Don in reply #4 is a lie?  To refresh your memory. Quote: I recommended to Bruce that you be banned from this forum. I believe the same is true for Dude, Roger and 1796.

Roger:

If I respond to your post below, are you going to do as Kathy did and accuse me of being relentless and disruptive?

That's a great strategy. Make a comment about a person, and then accuse them of being relentless and disruptive when they respond.


rondele wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 6:10pm:

Albert, I'm begging you. Stop. Please just stop. For the sake of the forum and in respect for Bruce, for heaven's sake knock it off. Enough is enough. Vicky, you need to make a decision on this, hopefully soon. R

Dude:

You accuse people here of being deceived by Satan and his demons, and then you are going to have the audacity to accuse those same people of making personal attacks towards you, when they comment about what you say?

Do you expect people to say, "Oh, golly gee, Dude accused me of being influenced by Satan and his demons. I should speak up for myself, but duh, I shouldn't do anything that makes it seem as if I am attacking him."

Bruce spoke up for himself after Don spoke of him in a demeaning way. Do you believe that Bruce attacked Don, or he simply spoke up for himself?

Your attack talk doesn't fool me at all.


I Am Dude wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 5:18pm:

I'm astonished by how far Recoverer will go to make personal attacks and take any and all threads off topic when he doesn't agree with the poster's views. I'll ask this again, why is he allowed to do this? Any moderators that can answer this? He relentlessly makes accusations of members when all we are trying to do is discuss topics relevant to the afterlife. Several other members are complaining about this as well. Vicky, do you think this is acceptable behavior? Keep in mind this forum isn't a Bruce Moen fan club or a new age cult. It is a place for discussing afterlife-related topics. Having a different opinion than Bruce in no way implies disrespect for him. Recoverer is relentless in demonizing anyone who does not conform to his own personal belief system. He requested that myself, Don and others be banned for having differing views, but perhaps he should be banned for continuously breaking the posting guidelines with his incessant personal attacks. We should be able to express different perspectives on this forum without being constantly harassed and demonized.

I'd like to add that some of you are mystified by what I have been saying on this thread, simply because you just don't get it.

Someday you'll realize that you don't walk into somebody's house, and then repeatedly speak in a way that is disrespectful towards the host. It is one thing to offer a differing opinion, and another thing to not consider the wishes of the host.

To Bruce, Vicky, and Albert,
Just a reminder that since my recent return I have started 20 new threads.  Only 1 of the 20 is devoted to channeling!
It is fascinating how people stuck in a closed-minded perspective confuse honest critiques with "demeaning" posts. 

Now kids, don't make me pull over!  I'll do it!

Seriously, friends.  How about we remove all posts on this thread not related to channeling or to discussions about it?  Bruce may have been unhappy with Don, but at least he pointed out some issues with the questions at hand. 

Everyone has their point of view.  Having an opinion may mean having an agenda too.  I have noticed certain members praising near death experiences or other paranormal verifications as being "more striking, valid or noteworthy" because they were part of the same religion or reinforced biblical scripture.  However the paranormal experiences are no less inspiring or valid in people of other beliefs.  Is it not obvious that, apart from the ritual of religion we are all part of the same divine spark?

In any case, let us agree to discuss things without getting personal.  Engage in discussion with the threads you want to, or pass them by. 

Don:

I do not believe that you are a completely different Don now, than you have been during the past 10 plus years I have been seeing your posts at this forum. Therefore, it would be stupid of me to conclude that what you have done in the past has no connection to what is taking place now.

When it comes to recent history, you are able to hide your anti-new age posts with so many other posts, because you have started numerous threads that serve the purpose of promoting "your" version of Christianity.

Within current history there is more than one post where you continue to speak against the things that Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe wrote about (past subjects include PUL, the Disk/I-there viewpoint, Hollow Heavens, Retrievals (you tried to discredit the retrieval accounts people shared on this forum) and Robert and Bruce's Creator experience.

For recent history,  you restarted a thread call "My Criteria for a True Heaven," therefore it is now a part of the present: Within this thread you say:

Bruce Moen once describes a "City of Angels" in a way that seems distinct from Focus 27.  My impression from Bruce's description is that he was unable to explore this realm in depth.

In my view, Robert Monroe's aversion to the loving God of conventional spiritualities prevents him from exploring the heavens beyond Focus 27.  Some of his "Knowns" seem traceable to misunderstandings emanating from the lower astral planes:  e.g.

"These to me are Knowns: This, our Creator...does not demand worship, adoration, or recognition, does not punish for `evil' or `misdeeds', does not intercede or interdict in our life activity (UJ 224-25)." 

His biased terms "demand" and "punish" deflect attention away from two  truths disclosed by Swedenborg's angels: (1) the heavenbound delight in in worshiping God and feasting on His love.  (2)  Many people are truly evil, but they in effect punish themselves by choosing to ignore the godly loving path in favor of the hellbound path on the basis of the principle like attracts like. 

Entities from the lower astral convey a contrary narcissistic principle to Monroe: "There is no good, there is no evil.  There is only expression (UJ 217)."  This stress on self (valueless self-expression) stands in contrast with the resolve of the heavenbound according to ES: their humility and respect for the greatness of creation fuels a deep resolve to be with others and be of significant use to them.  In the heavens, says ES, the joy of one is the joy of all.  By contrast, the general design of the hells is an orientation towards self over others.  This splits existence apart and causes hell's  dissension.  Despite this, those with this orientation will most comfortably drift towards the company of likeminded people in the hells because they nevertheless feel better there than in the company of saints.  It just suits them better than the heavens. 



In a thread called "Swedenborg: Father of Astral Projection you said:"

[i]Vicky: "You believe that past life regression practices are vulnerable to evil influences??  Why?"

(1) Because on subjective matters like this, the verification question becomes crucial; and ES discovers that past life memories are deceptive forms of inflowing memories from hidden spirits who have merged with the astral traveler without that traveler being aware of this merger.  Indeed, ES was even able to dissuade a discarnate soul that such memories are legitimate.  ES's claim gains special credibility due to his uniquely impressive verifications.

(2) Because Robert Monroe's alleged astral past life recalls can't pass the snicker test: e. g. a past life with his wife Nancy who was tied down in a tribal ritual in which Monroe thrust a spear into her abdomen that "hurt so good;"  a past life on another planet in which Robert was flying in a machine over primitive natives who were throwing spears up at him.

Also on that thread you said: Justin you again demonstrate your inability to season your penchant for bluster with even a modicum of critical rigor.  So you refuse to watch videos from OBE adepts who refute your New Age perspective and you continue your mindless insults that have made you the poster boy for the doctrinaire New Ager.  And thanks, readers, for your encouraging PMs!

Also on that thread you said:

-Vicky: "Is it your point to point out that ES had a greater ability than most?"

ES's unique intellectual brilliance and the superiority of his paranormal abilities should be obvious to anyone who wades through this thread and reads the testimonies. Yet even ES was deceived at times in serious ways.  That tells me that I too can achieve spiritual breakthroughs and then wrongly conclude that my overview need no longer be questioned.  So this basic question must permanently lodge in my psyche: "If my overview is flawed in important ways, how can I ever find that out?"

Vicky: "Is it your point to discredit anyone else who isn't as great, in your view, as ES was?"

No, but his far superior skills coincide with his portrait of the afterlife and its principles that often clashes with that of modern New Age adepts with inferior skills.  An honest seeker must at least attempt to reconcile those contradictions into a logically coherent worldview.  That task can only be pursued by doing something unthinkable within the groupthink of the New Age Ghetto, namely taking intellectual trips outside the Ghetto to discover and examine contrary evidence that challenges the subject certainty of one's own experiences and intuitions.   

Vicky: "If I had been of the frame of mind to balk at Dad's visits for their lack of "bonafide verification", oh what I would have missed out on!!  The love experienced of these visits is MY verification that they are real.  So you see why I couldn't care less if my experiences impress you or anyone else?" 

I have posted videos featuring Johanna Michaelson, author of "The Beautiful Side of Evil."  She recounts her prior mediumistic skills in which she participates in miraculous shamanistic healings and experienced profound PUL in doing so.  Only later, when she imagined she could establish a relationship with the conventional Jesus did her loving spirit guides shower hate on her and even try to kill her.  She is now a radiant Christian.  So no, imagined astral experiences of PUL are not equivalent to the discovery of spiritual truth. 

Vicky: "I admit, Don, I don't read much of your posts, so maybe there are posts you share which talk about your ability to perceive nonphysically, about your experiences of PUL and ability to expand your awareness and perception beyond its normal limits??"

You admit what is true of most New Age posters here and that's one reason why I speak of their careful isolation within a groupthink Ghetto.  An honest spiritual quest should include this objective: to be capable of articulating the opposition's perspective more cogently than they can articulate it themselves--and that requires the emotionally difficult task of reading and listening to experiences and perspectives that one finds very threatening.  Here is one way Jesus' approach can be summarized: He comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable. 


With the below two threads you try to state that the Disk viewpoint isn't true.

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1495051705

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1494701075

In a thread called "Honest Spiritual vs. Self Deception" you said.

Is imagined PUL sufficient grounds for belief in a set of alleged spiritual truths?  Like myself, most posters here reject the Book of Mormon's historical claims of a faith anchored to Israelite tribes in ancient America as fiction.  But consider how the angel Moroni claims that the book's teaching can be validated by direct revelation:

..........

In this thread, I want to discuss the problem of assessing the Monroe/ Moen belief system and methods by examining its basic assumptions. To the degree that these assumptions are rooted in widespread New Age groupthink, I will broaden the discussion accordingly.  Readers are of course invited to share their perspectives on each example and issue raised.

It seems clear to me that you want to discredit some of the things Bruce Moen and Robert Monroe have written, and have people instead accept your Biblical interpretations and the portions of Emanuel Swedenborg's findings you consider acceptable.

Let's be real now, if you haven't had and don't continue to have the above goals, then why do you continue to do as you do?


TheDonald wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 9:12pm:

To Bruce, Vicky, and Albert, Just a reminder that since my recent return I have started 30 new threads.  Only 1 of the 20 is devoted to channeling! It is fascinating how people stuck in a closed-minded perspective confuse honest critiques with "demeaning" posts.

Doc:

Is the below your way of saying that you don't care about what is important to other people? Bruce, Vicky and I took the time to state how we feel, and you suggest that we delete what we have written.

I believe that Bruce and Robert Monroe have made an important contribution to this world. Bruce played a big part in my getting involved retrievals. Since getting involved I have done thousands of retrievals. I figure that Bruce has played an important role helping other people get involved with the retrieval process. There are other things that Bruce has written that I have found valuable.

Therefore, I believe it is important that people don't try to  use Bruce's site to move people away from what he taught, and replace it with what they teach.

Bruce has provided ways for people to make contact with the spirit world. Don writes that people shouldn't get involved with the spirit world because one is likely to make contact with a demon, Roger says he learned from Don, and now he believes the same thing.

It is sad that only Vicky, Justin and I have spoken up for Bruce. I believe he is worthy of more appreciation.




DocM wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 10:19pm:

Now kids, don't make me pull over!  I'll do it! Seriously, friends.  How about we remove all posts on this thread not related to channeling or to discussions about it?  Bruce may have been unhappy with Don, but at least he pointed out some issues with the questions at hand.  Everyone has their point of view.  Having an opinion may mean having an agenda too.  I have noticed certain members praising near death experiences or other paranormal verifications as being "more striking, valid or noteworthy" because they were part of the same religion or reinforced biblical scripture.  However the paranormal experiences are no less inspiring or valid in people of other beliefs.  Is it not obvious that, apart from the ritual of religion we are all part of the same divine spark? In any case, let us agree to discuss things without getting personal.  Engage in discussion with the threads you want to, or pass them by.

In short, if you disagree with Bruce and R2's views, you are not welcome on this forum. I think a moderator needs to take some action here. This is just out of hand.


Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 11:04pm:

Doc: Is the below your way of saying that you don't care about what is important to other people? Bruce, Vicky and I took the time to state how we feel, and you suggest that we delete what we have written. I believe that Bruce and Robert Monroe have made an important contribution to this world. Bruce played a big part in my getting involved retrievals. Since getting involved I have done thousands of retrievals. I figure that Bruce has played an important role helping other people get involved with the retrieval process. There are other things that Bruce has written that I have found valuable. Therefore, I believe it is important that people don't try to  use Bruce's site to move people away from what he taught, and replace it with what they teach. Bruce has provided ways for people to make contact with the spirit world. Don writes that people shouldn't get involved with the spirit world because one is likely to make contact with a demon, Roger says he learned from Don, and now he believes the same thing. It is sad that only Vicky, Justin and I have spoken up for Don. I believe he is worthy of more appreciation.

Dude:

If I walked into your church, told all its members they are being deceived by demons, and then tried to get them to believe what I believe, what would happen to me? I would rightly be thrown out.

Since you believe Bruce was deceived by demons, why don't you find a forum where you appreciate the owner of the forum.

You really need to learn what respect is actually about.


I Am Dude wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 11:17pm:

In short, if you disagree with Bruce and R2's views, you are not welcome on this forum. I think a moderator needs to take some action here. This is just out of hand. Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2017 at 11:04pm: Doc: Is the below your way of saying that you don't care about what is important to other people? Bruce, Vicky and I took the time to state how we feel, and you suggest that we delete what we have written. I believe that Bruce and Robert Monroe have made an important contribution to this world. Bruce played a big part in my getting involved retrievals. Since getting involved I have done thousands of retrievals. I figure that Bruce has played an important role helping other people get involved with the retrieval process. There are other things that Bruce has written that I have found valuable. Therefore, I believe it is important that people don't try to  use Bruce's site to move people away from what he taught, and replace it with what they teach. Bruce has provided ways for people to make contact with the spirit world. Don writes that people shouldn't get involved with the spirit world because one is likely to make contact with a demon, Roger says he learned from Don, and now he believes the same thing. It is sad that only Vicky, Justin and I have spoken up for Don. I believe he is worthy of more appreciation.

A real life example is posting on Afterlife Knowledge forum telling all the members they are being deceived by aliens, and then try to make them to believe, and what would happen next? Discussion.

Reducing an idea/topic that says "The New Age is a Satanic deception" into "since you believe the owner of the forum was deceived by demons" is is a deliberate act of using somebody (and not just anybody) as a weapon to attempt to silence those and that which one does not like. This is not respectful by any standards.

Vince, I used to consider you the posterboy of the dogmatic astral projector.  I am absolutely inspired by your openness to the Truth and your willingness to reassess all you prior convictions.  Such intellectual honesty is in my observation a rare commodity among New Agers.  So I have a deeply invested interest that your altered quest have a most fulfilling conclusion.  So find a church or worship community that you like!

Matthew, it is obvious to me that the entrenched New Agers here find it hard to come to terms with the fact that I am an unconventional Christian and you are (shudder!) a Jewish Monist!  Yet you are one of my favorite posters on all the sites I have explored because you are obviously willing to think outside the box and follow wherever your spiritual quest leads you. 

Roger, I have fond memories of my visit to your summer cottage and have always valued your honest questions. I doubt I'll ever return to the Buffalo area-- unless Carissa asks me to come back to perform her wedding ceremony, as I did for her older brother a few years ago! Maybe we'll have that coveted glass of Scotch in Paradise (er, um, in Focus 27)! 

And Kathy!   I was terrified that you would hate all my praise choruses, hymns, and quartets.  I'm glad you like some of them.  I wish you would share more of your paranormal experiences here--'cause the one you shared and apologized for as a repeated post was new to me!   If we never get to meet for a Scotch (er, cup of Joe) in this life, I dearly hope we can do so in the next!

Albert, when I said I've learned from Don, I meant about Christianity. But you, in your inimitable way, twisted it to say I learned about demons.

You don't grasp the irony of your accusations! You and Justin for years posted about evil reptilian aliens, but you roundly criticize Dude and me and others for warning about malevolent spirits in the afterlife!!

This gave me a much needed laugh!  Thank you for that. If medical science invents an irony pill, I'll personally buy you a year's supply. Because if it weren't for double standards you'd have none at all.

You are priceless. You no longer annoy me. You're a source of much amusement. Remember the little alien guy who RAM encountered? The little fellow who was looking for jokes to take back to his planet?

I think we've found a perfect source for him! Good job.

R

To all:

Please to consider how this internecine squabbling affects those who come here in sincere desire to learn more about afterlife knowledge.

I myself as a "new face" here (incorrect as that is) was accused of all manner of things and cross-examined as if guilty of some infraction of rules of a private club.

Is this how you (general you) wish to present yourselves to the world?

  I (Justin) am temporarily back.  Most of you will be addressed, but in the Off Topic section on the below thread.

http://afterlife-knowledge.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1496583723/0#0

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2017 at 11:39pm:

Dude: If I walked into your church, told all its members they are being deceived by demons, and then tried to get them to believe what I believe, what would happen to me? I would rightly be thrown out. Since you believe Bruce was deceived by demons, why don't you find a forum where you appreciate the owner of the forum. You really need to learn what respect is actually about.

It sounds more like you need to learn the difference between a church and a public forum. This is not a church. This is a place to discuss a topics related to a particular concept (the afterlife) and is not limited to just one point of view. Your analogy is deceptive and false.

I have never made any personal remarks about Bruce. You are simply trying to cause trouble with your false inferences. I do not believe what you have said. But I am used to you making false claims about me by now. What I don't understand is why moderators at this forum allow this to continually take place. It is offensive and should not be allowed. 

It is clear to virtually all members here that you are the one lacking respect. The outcry against your behavior on this thread should serve as a hint that perhaps you are the one that does not belong in this forum. Perhaps take a lesson from Justin (although I expect his quick return) and find a more fruitful means of channeling your energies. Perhaps find a place where everyone is forced to conform to your particular belief system and varying ideas are not allowed to be discussed. This is what you seem to want. Perhaps start your own forum?

A Church is located where? On a public street. That doesn't make the Church a public place. It belongs to the people who put in the effort and expense that was required to support the Church. Therefore, a person couldn't just walk into the Church claim that he is an equal owner of the Church.

An Internet site is located where? On the Public Internet. That doesn't make the internet side a public place. It belongs to  the person who put in the effort and expense to create the site. Therefore, a person couldn't just join the forum and claim that he is an equal owner of the site.


I Am Dude wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 10:00am:

Recoverer 2 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2017 at 11:39pm: Dude: If I walked into your church, told all its members they are being deceived by demons, and then tried to get them to believe what I believe, what would happen to me? I would rightly be thrown out. Since you believe Bruce was deceived by demons, why don't you find a forum where you appreciate the owner of the forum. You really need to learn what respect is actually about. It sounds more like you need to learn the difference between a church and a public forum. This is not a church. This is a place to discuss a topics related to a particular concept (the afterlife) and is not limited to just one point of view. Your analogy is deceptive and false. I have never made any personal remarks about Bruce. You are simply trying to cause trouble with your false inferences. I do not believe what you have said. But I am used to you making false claims about me by now. What I don't understand is why moderators at this forum allow this to continually take place. It is offensive and should not be allowed.  It is clear to virtually all members here that you are the one lacking respect. The outcry against your behavior on this thread should serve as a hint that perhaps you are the one that does not belong in this forum. Perhaps take a lesson from Justin (although I expect his quick return) and find a more fruitful means of channeling your energies. Perhaps find a place where everyone is forced to conform to your particular belief system and varying ideas are not allowed to be discussed. This is what you seem to want. Perhaps start your own forum?

Quote:

And Kathy!   I was terrified that you would hate all my praise choruses, hymns, and quartets.  I'm glad you like some of them.  I wish you would share more of your paranormal experiences here--'cause the one you shared and apologized for as a repeated post was new to me!   If we never get to meet for a Scotch (er, cup of Joe) in this life, I dearly hope we can do so in the next!

Don, you are teasing me.  You knew I would love them.  I'm sure meeting you for a Scotch would be a pleasure and our conversations delightful!

Dear KarmicBalancer-

Darn it I lost my bet. I wagered with one of the members as to how long it would take before you came slithering back with yet another name to add to the collection.

I actually thought it would have been before now. I knew it was inevitable and sure enough here you are.

You two really missed your calling. SNL should give you guys  an audition.

R

Don, you're one of the good guys and I feel fortunate to have personally met you. I hope you're not leaving the forum.

I have plenty of scotch on hand (JW Blue!) but Karen and I will opt for a dry Bombay Sapphire martini. I'm raising an imaginary birdbath glass in your honor.

R

Roger:

You and 1796 have a mean streak that I haven't seen in either Don or Dude.

You have been lurking at Bruce's forum for years.

Do you believe it is okay for Dude to say that Bruce met up with demons when he interacted with what he referred to as his Disk? Does it seem strange to you that Dude speaks of respect, and then he says such a thing? What does Don think of the Disk viewpoint? Are his beliefs about this similar to Dude's (Don just recently praised Dude)? If so, does it seem strange to you that Don lurks at this forum for years, when he doesn't appreciate Bruce?

Seriously, if you guys don't appreciate Bruce, you should show a little human decency and start your own forum.


rondele wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 10:19am:

Dear KarmicBalancer- Darn it I lost my bet. I wagered with one of the members as to how long it would take before you came slithering back with yet another name to add to the collection. I actually thought it would have been before now. I knew it was inevitable and sure enough here you are. You two really missed your calling. SNL should give you guys  an audition. R

This Topic was moved here from Afterlife Knowledge by Vicky.

To all, 

I have received many complaints about this, so for now it's been moved off- topic. 

Yes I'm aware of and hear your complaints.   I was not home yesterday, so I wasn't here for all this discussion.  I haven't been neglecting it.

Bruce is still in charge of banning, and I'm still in training and learning to follow what he wants/ doesn't want for his board.  So please all have patience.   You all want quick action and resolution and I'm asking you to be patient.  Several issues are contributing factors to this on-going problem here.  We will come up with a solution that, hopefully, will fix this problem once and for all.

In the meantime, I politely request that you engage in other threads and topics, or at least not spread these issues to other threads.

Thank you