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.

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,

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:

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:

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:

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. 

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: