I often ask Archangel Michael to confirm for me the credibility of one channel or another.
My bias is to exclude any channel that doesn’t pass credibility analysis (1) and/or confirmation from AA Michael.
Here I asked him about a particular channel who made claims that did not resonate with me.
He confirmed that the channeling was not credible.
There are other large claims being made today by some channels which he said were pure fantasy, but to discuss them would risk a light war. We simply don’t post those messages here.
Unfortunately discernment is still required.
We also have very limited time to look for new channels, so many really-fine channels do not get posted here, simply from a lack of knowledge of their existence. Thanks to Dana for our transcript.
Steve: Now X’s column about Y. I don’t know how much is true and how much is not true. I tended to turn my back on it altogether because of some of the things that she said in the column.
AAM: We would suggest you not use this column.
Steve: Is Z [her source] actually real?
Steve: And what about W [another alleged source]?
Can you see how I can be very economizing? You have often wondered if I was capable of yes or no!
Steve: Yes, and you are.
AAM: Well, I have proved the point.
But, let us talk a little about these flights of fancy that some who truly wish to be the voices of transformation are taking. And you are discerning very well.
It is not that these channels are voices of darkness or plants or anything of that nature. It is simply that they are allowing their own internal understandings or scripts to be brought forth as universal truth.
When you are feeling that there is something awry, my beloved friend, there is something awry. So understand that. This is going to increase, not decrease.
So one of the things that your team/our team, will expand into is the vetting of some of these channels to understand whether it feels and senses [to be] the truth, leading to peace.
And if it does not, then it is simply, “thank you and we’ll get back to you”.
Not everything, as you well know, that is submitted is necessarily positive or good for public consumption. And you are doing well in this regard.
Steve: Okay, that’s very handy to know that.
AAM: And many who are true channels and – now we are not distinguishing because all of these wish to be and are of the light – so it is a matter of degree and discernment. And you are also being sent and/or publishing many who are good and pure and clear channels.
So let it be and simply allow others as well to assist you in this chore of separating what is desirable from that which does not fit at the moment. (2)
(1) When I assess the credibility of a channel myself, I use these standards: The assertions in the channeled message must be possible, plausible, and probable, with no inconsistencies or contradictions, either internal to the message, or in the channels’ messages over time, or when compared to other channeled messages deemed to be credible.
(2) An example of “allowing others to assist you” is a lightworker who contacted me recently about a channeling that had implications he felt I should consider. His comments were very helpful and changed my mind on some subjects.