I think there is a distinction to be made between sources who feel it necessary to mention their channels because of a disturbance in the space and sources who mention their channels to praise them, call them special, or in other ways validate the channel in the eyes of the reader.
I would imagine that Nancy’s comments are directed at the latter, not the former (though I haven’t asked her).
SaLuSa today (April 20, 2011) found it necessary to mention the question in Mike’s mind and to address it because so many of us had it as well. But he did not attempt to exalt Mike in our eyes.
Nancy Detwieler runs two Pathway to Ascension websites:
When I first began to look at the 2012 scenario, Nancy’s were among the first articles I read. I’ve always valued her work and opinion.
Nancy wrote to discuss the Matthew/SaLuSa contretemps and her points were germaine to much more than just that issue so I’ve asked her permission to publish them.
I have to say that I agree – that when I see the source praising the channel, unless I very much trust channel and source, I often find myself laying the message down. It’s one hallmark of a possibly-untrustworthy message. And there are a lot of them out there today, unfortunately.
I can think of one exception: when I asked Ashtar a question through Suzy, where Suzy’s own bona fides were at issue, Ashtar commented on her. Interestingly, what he said on that occasion was verified by later circumstances. So here is Nancy:
In reference to the disinformation being spread about Suzy and SaLuSa, I would also add that my main criteria for discernment is: “Can I see the ego of the one purporting to be the channel?”
If the channel includes the Being praising him/her … setting him/her aside as special, better than the others, having a great deal of
responsibility … absolutely any mention of the channel in the form of conversation with him/her, I cease trusting the message.
The ONE exception I make is when Matthew asks his mother to copy a section of one of their books or to give some other instruction to her.
Note the messages channeled by Mike Quinsey, Suzy, Sheldan Nidle … not one word of conversation with the one channeling. It is impossible to see the ego of these three in the information channeled. I have read all three since around 2004. John Smallman is new to me, but it’s also impossible to see John’s ego in what he channels.
You mention another of my criteria … the valid channel of Light does not speak ill of others.
Bottomline: Does the channeling feel intuitively right?
There are some other channels that I read, mostly on your site, but whom I hold at arms’ length, either because the information is generic, there is conversation, or it doesn’t feel right.
The beings of light that I will listen to speak only in love. They may mention the dark cabal objectively, but they do not threaten them with dire consequences or speak with anger.
Blessings to you, Steve,
In a second note, Nancy reviews the need to cleanse and center oneself before channeling:
I use to teach the “Whole Mind Approach to Business” in which I had the participant take time to consider what they were feeling in their physical and emotional bodies and to observe the thoughts they were dominant … after being aware to this part of self, I had them imagine a table on which they laid symbolically all of this … THEN had them enter a room where as a clean person, they sought intuitive guidance.
It is extremely important to set aside self before making contact with the spiritual realms or the information is very likely to be tainted.
Just saying this because I think many channels do not seek to grow holistically. They may be very sincere, but they are not clean when they enter a session. We attract at the level at which we are functioning.