“Q’uotes” that raise some questions

Confederation Philosophy
1

Some thoughts came to mind when reading the daily “Q’uote” today and left some pondering in mind…

After studying “wanderer” quotes for the better part of a year, there was a strange anomaly that kept presenting itself over and over again and this is a good example.

Can I ask why certain material in the channellings are marked this way, with "idolatry [of money]?”

Was that implied by not “channelled” so it was “added” later?

So does it go from “we can offer to those who wish to be free of idolatry is a consciousness of others’s needs, for it stewardship of any gift and talent is expressed, then the gates of abundance open and one is flooded with plenty.”

Did they add what was provided within [ ]’s for clarity or is there another purpose for this method?

Another example:

Consequently, the work and challenge came for those entities experiencing the [higher] densities on Venus’ influence instead of in third density. Those who graduated into sixth density from the influence of the planet known as Venus, then, have often, in coming back into third density on your planet to serve as wanderers, been faced with a very challenging, self-given agenda of learning. That agenda is in rebalancing love and wisdom in order to value them in such as way that they are able to interpenetrate each other in true sixth-density unity.

So, was this channeled as, “the work and challenge came from those entities experiencing the densities on Venus’ influence instead of third density,” and they later added “higher” to clarify?

Maybe that descriptor isn’t necessary at all but it was provided to “define” clearly that they are of “higher density”?

Also, there are several channelings where “the tape ends” and there isn’t anything else to the transcript. What happened to the “missing” information channelled? Did they forget to change the tape(s)? Why do so many just end on a “cliffhanger?”

Does anyone know why this is the “standard” of practice in their “channelling” sessions when the Ra sessions were so “calculated” and “precise”?

Any thoughts on this topic of discussion would be greatly appreciated. :slight_smile:

With l/l :sunny:

2

This is another example, that might “clarify” things clearly.

Maybe this is just a writing “quirk” they have when transcribing documents for their website because this example presented itself while doing some research this afternoon:

Carla

OK. The way I organized 101 was to go back to the Law of One material. I’d figured out, after I’d gotten enough feedback from A Wanderer’s Handbook, which was out in 2001, eight years ago now, that I hadn’t done what I thought I was doing. I thought I was writing an entry-level book. But I was just too far up in the ivory tower, I was just too ignorant of what was going on on the ground. And so I came to the conclusion, after just so many letters saying they loved the book but there were just so many things they didn’t understand, [that I needed to write an entry-level book about the principles of the Confederation philosophy].

So I did a little investigation and discovered that the median reading level in America today is the seventh grade and the median educational level is the 11th grade. So that’s why I wrote 101 which will be a series of books beginning with 101. I wrote the first one [of the series, 101], the bullet one, to get as many people going as possible before 2012. And we won’t really notice the difference, but after 2012, metaphysically speaking, it will be a different kind of life. We will be hearing so much more information than third-density wiring can use that it will be baffling and frustrating and very hard.

So in this example, what was said was “And so I came to the conclusion, after just so many letters saying they loved the book but there were just so many things they didn’t understand, [that I needed to write an entry-level book about the principles of the Confederation philosophy]…”

Did Carla just say, “And so I came to the conclusion, after just so many letters saying they loved the book but there were just so many things they didn’t understand,” and the “[that I needed to write an entry-level book about the principles of the Confederation philosophy],” was added later?

Or was that added because of this statement:

“We will be hearing so much more information than third-density wiring can use that it will be baffling and frustrating and very hard.”

Did she think that those with “third density wiring” could not understand so they “corrected” her initial statement made in an interview to “clarify” for the website?

image
image2048×1536 412 KB

There are more examples of this within the whole of the l/l library and one could wonder why these “corrections” are being made and how much they might “influence” or “change” the meaning of what was originally “said/channelled.”

3

When someone makes a correction or clarification, however well intentioned, it moves from a ‘translation’ into ‘interpretation’ and has the chance of changing the message. I’ve been finding this with the words in the Bible. I would suspect it is no different with this material. One of the principles in translation I was taught is ‘the more difficult, the more preferred’. What that means is that typically, when someone revises something, they do it to make it easier, not harder, to understand. However, in doing so, it has become that writer’s interpretation.

1 Like