Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
08-04-2010, 05:24 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-04-2010, 06:56 PM by Monica.)
#31
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-04-2010, 04:54 PM)Questioner Wrote:  IF the purpose of the site is to have only discussions that directly relate to the LLR material, then that ends the discussion right there.

There are, undoubtedly, some other channeled sources that do relate to the Law of One. The problem becomes how to identify which ones they are. It's so subjective.


(08-04-2010, 04:54 PM)Questioner Wrote:  a rule that...

How would the rules be enforced? What do we do if the rules are broken? Delete the thread? How do we handle the objections and protests if that happens?
(08-04-2010, 05:16 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote:  Monica about that topic.. A source that is STS becomes discussed and some people get really into it. Or a source that is STO becomes discussed but some people strongly feel its STS... I think these clear cases will cause only minor problems. And people who are attracted to them will be attracted when outside the forum as well.

This has already happened. There have been about a dozen or so threads started that got deleted, all for the same reason: Other channeled sources. Of those, most were all about the very same source, and there was a wide disparity of opinion about that particular source. Each time this happened, the other mods and I spent many hours explaining, negotiating, soothing those whose feathers were ruffled because we deleted their threads.

It wasn't a minor problem. If it were only a minor problem, we wouldn't mind! And while the cases seemed clear-cut to us, those who started the threads disagreed. I'd say there was even some resentment expressed.

Please understand that we really do want to accommodate everyone, if it's feasible and within the scope of the forum's mission. But I hope everyone can understand why the other mods and I are reluctant to do what is essentially opening a can of worms for us. I say this based on those other experiences. For a taste of what I'm referring to, please see the Cassiopeans thread referenced in the guidelines. This would happen manyfold if we open our doors wide.

(08-04-2010, 05:16 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote:  However a source that is just like a Rorschach test. Without any actual content but where people read in a lot of information based on their personal projections. This is much more nefarious. Some will consider it STS some will consider it STO...

Unity mentioned the orange ray... He's right... This ambiguity in combination with the orange ray will cause some heated discussions. Especially because there is such a strong shared goal to keep the STS out and the polarisation positive it is unavoidable.

No matter what you do then, the orange ray only dies out when it wins, or when enough time passes without it being triggered further. (The choice of letting it go isn't up to the moderators) At that point you have no choice but to shut the experiment down to restrict the damage.

This is a serious drawback that requires a benefit to balance it. I don't feel the privilege of discussing sources outside the Law of One that I enjoy weighs up to this.

Exactly.




Moderator note: Off-topic posts have been split to their own thread:
Strictly Law of One > 6D Wanderers: 3D Lessons?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 10:36 PM,
#32
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-04-2010, 05:24 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  
(08-04-2010, 04:54 PM)Questioner Wrote:  a rule that...
..?..?..?
Monica, again: I think that implementation details are totally irrelevant if this site's owners simply prefer, for whatever reason or no reason at all, to decide that this site will simply not allow any more than the briefest of passing mentions of outside channeled material.

IF that's their decision, then that's a decision for everyone to respect.

IF the site owners are willing to let the moderators decide, then the opinion of non-moderators ultimately isn't relevant.

IF the site owners are willing to let the forum members decide, or if they delegate to moderators who in turn delegate to the overall preference of members, only then would it be up to the overall membership to decide if outside material MIGHT be allowable.

At any of these levels, it might well be that the decision is to simply not open the can of worms, no matter how ingenious a worm-handling system is proposed.

Only IF it's determined that worm handling might be allowable, only then would it even matter to discuss how things MIGHT be handled. Again, the veggie restaurant analogy: if the owners simply say "no meat onsite," then any discussion of how to wash spatulas between burgers is just irrelevant.

My suggestion continues to be that IF we get to that point, that we first agree on criteria that any acceptable solution must implement; BEFORE doing any brainstorming or exploration of potential solutions. IF we get to the point of agreeing on criteria, but can't agree that a proposal meets criteria, then the whole concept should just be shelved for now.

In other words, answering all the material between your question marks quoted above is about five levels down on a string of hypothetical responses to hypothetical decisions.

My interest at this time is in keeping the conversation going until we can get clarity at each of these levels. If clarity at the top most level is that it's OK to continue exploring, we then see if we can get clarity of agreement.

Eventually we either get consensus that we've got a promising idea worth a try about how to bring in outside material, or else we agree that we can't get there at this time.

I feel that the process of going through this discussion helps us better understand what we share as a community. This is my first goal here: to strengthen our community as fellow seekers of Ra-inspired STO Wanderer evolution.

I also feel it might lead to a useful forum for cross-referencing perspectives on other channeled materials within an STO-based, Ra-based community, which I feel would be a valuable outcome. I'd give up that second outcome in a heartbeat if that's the way to build the more important first outcome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 10:53 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-04-2010, 10:54 PM by Monica.)
#33
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-04-2010, 10:36 PM)Questioner Wrote:  Monica, again: I think that implementation details are totally irrelevant if this site's owners simply prefer, for whatever reason or no reason at all, to decide that this site will simply not allow any more than the briefest of passing mentions of outside channeled material.

Sorry I didn't make my point clear. My understanding of Carla's vision for this forum is that discussion of other channeled sources would be acceptable if they are in alignment with the Law of One values and principles.

However, the challenge for the moderators is in how to determine which sources are compatible and which aren't.

Therefore, although I appreciate your systematic approach to solving this problem (I was a software engineer for 18 years so I understand your approach), the whole question of whether outside channeled material is allowed is dependent upon whether we could actually pull it off in such a way as to not compromise the vision and mission of studying and applying Law of One principles, thus facilitating the bringing forth of 4D.

In other words, the answers to my string of questions would determine whether outside channeled sources are allowed, not the other way around.

What I'm getting at is that the rule against outside sources isn't arbitrary. There is a reason behind it, and if that reason could be overcome, that would be fine. But so far no one has been able to offer a solution to the challenges we'd face if we changed the guideline.

I hope this clarifies!

I cannot speak for Carla but am attempting to convey my understanding of the forum guidelines as best I can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 10:59 PM,
#34
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-04-2010, 10:53 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  I was a software engineer for 18 years

You have my sympathy. By the way, can you come over and reinstall Windows for me? There's this thing that used to make the dots blue and now it makes them not as dark a blue. I think it's a virus that my printer downloaded and that makes the thing pop up all over the screen when I click on it. You can fix that, right? Big Grin

So the criteria are:
Unless Carla wants to intervene, any change would have to be one that the moderation team feels completely comfortable with implementing.

I respect that.
I realize that not all the ingredients of feeling comfortable can be put into conscious statements with a logical flow.
I think that to the extent some part of the ingredients of comfort could be stated explicitly, we'd have a better shot at coming up with an alternative which engenders that feeling of comfort.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2010, 11:48 PM,
#35
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-04-2010, 10:59 PM)Questioner Wrote:  You have my sympathy. By the way, can you come over and reinstall Windows for me? There's this thing that used to make the dots blue and now it makes them not as dark a blue. I think it's a virus that my printer downloaded and that makes the thing pop up all over the screen when I click on it. You can fix that, right? Big Grin

Ha! Actually I was a mainframe programmer (COBOL, PLI, etc.) so I'm not very good at pc stuff. Ask a teenager!

(08-04-2010, 10:59 PM)Questioner Wrote:  So the criteria are:
Unless Carla wants to intervene, any change would have to be one that the moderation team feels completely comfortable with implementing.

I respect that.
I realize that not all the ingredients of feeling comfortable can be put into conscious statements with a logical flow.
I think that to the extent some part of the ingredients of comfort could be stated explicitly, we'd have a better shot at coming up with an alternative which engenders that feeling of comfort.

Well, utilizing programmer's logic, I like to have all my IF-ELSE conditions accounted for. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2010, 03:49 AM,
#36
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-04-2010, 10:36 PM)Questioner Wrote:  My suggestion continues to be that IF we get to that point, that we first agree on criteria that any acceptable solution must implement; BEFORE doing any brainstorming or exploration of potential solutions. IF we get to the point of agreeing on criteria, but can't agree that a proposal meets criteria, then the whole concept should just be shelved for now.

i believe you approach rather too optimistically here. its not 'if' we get to that point. its that it WILL get to that point.

when such a forum opens up, you realize that it wont stay with the people you now see here and know in regard to participation. 'we' here currently may not come to that point, but, that forum will get to that point eventually.

so, you need to find a solution for that before opening up anything.

.................

but more importantly, the application of engineering principles to spiritual material, falls way too short.

another understanding, perception, material may be congruent with Law of One. but, it may not be congruent with particular distortions of ra material and the understanding it brings.

remember that, Ra said that they went to other galaxies as wanderers, yet, they were unable to function well due to differences from our galaxy there, which probably includes the way galaxy thinks, acts and experiences.

all galaxies are of the same source, yet their approach routes to infinity is different. this is the reason there are infinite universes, galaxies exist - to experience infinite different approaches and views.

similarly with spiritual material, yeah, all is from one, all is as such, but, it is not until end of 7th density that all combine into harmony, and that pretty much takes infinite time compared to ours, it seems.

so, there are chances that even if a material is congruent, it may not be compatible, and could be hampering for both parties.

this is the reason why people are attracted to different things in the first place.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2010, 07:54 AM,
#37
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-04-2010, 05:24 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  Of those, most were all about the very same source, and there was a wide disparity of opinion about that particular source.

It wasn't a minor problem.

And it wasn't a clear cut STS or STO source like I said. If it has been the opinions would not have been as varied.. It's the less clear situations that will cause the real problems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2010, 08:42 AM,
#38
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-02-2010, 08:58 PM)Questioner Wrote:  I would also like for there to be a discussion of whether it would be appropriate to consider applying the forum rules in this way: BRIEF citation and commentary on outside channeled material could be included in this forum, but only in a given sub-forum (perhaps Olio), and only for the purpose of applying the criteria to consider the level of compatibility between the outside material and the LLR material. With such discussion allowed, we could resume BRIEFLY referring to Mr. B or the C Club in order to cheer or boo them as related to the Law of One material.

I feel that there is increasing interest within this community for such an opportunity, IF it could be provided in a way that entirely supports and respects the primary purposes of this forum as a tool for exploring the LLR material.

At David Wilcock's site, DW let his colleague use a portion of DW's home page. I wonder IF it might be worth considering something comparable here: perhaps there could be a new subforum on bring4th that is about channeled material outside of LLR. All such material would have to be considered ONLY in the context of the LLR material and the forum guidelines.

If the regular bring4th moderation team isn't interested in moderating such a forum, perhaps a volunteer team of users could moderate just that one sub-forum, which would be put on hold (locked for further posts) if there are ever, say, fewer than three active assistant-moderators for that sub-forum to help with its quality control. (Kind of like the Central Park Auxiliary Police - http://www.centralpark.com/pages/general-info/central-park-police/auxiliary-police-program.html)

Perhaps something like this could be a short-term experiment, 1 month renewable to 3, to 6, and then annually, or canceled at the end of the experiment time if the b4 admins feel in any way uneasy about continuing the experiment.

I would like for it to possible to investigate this possibility as a way to honor the spirit of information-gathering, inquiry and cross-referencing of reports that ultimately led Don and Carla to the Ra contact. I note that whenever Don asked Ra about other material ("I have this book here..."), a straightforward discussion of the material ensued except when that risked interference with free will. I wonder if this forum's purposes and community would be well served by harmonizing the forum rules with that spirit of open-hearted curiosity.

You could also join the forums at friends-of-thothweb.com. It is perfectly possible to discuss channelings from various sources there without running afoul of the forum rules. Several of us from Bring4th also post there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2010, 11:03 AM,
#39
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-04-2010, 10:53 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:  My understanding of Carla's vision for this forum is that discussion of other channeled sources would be acceptable if they are in alignment with the Law of One values and principles.

In that case you're in the difficult position of having to decide which other channeled sources are in alignment with the Law of One values and principles. It'd be a lot easier for you if Carla either did not accept discussion of other channeled sources or was willing to open up the forum to discussion of all other channeled sources.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2010, 04:27 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-05-2010, 04:28 PM by Monica.)
#40
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-05-2010, 07:54 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote:  And it wasn't a clear cut STS or STO source like I said. If it has been the opinions would not have been as varied.. It's the less clear situations that will cause the real problems.

Exactly!
(08-05-2010, 11:03 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:  In that case you're in the difficult position of having to decide which other channeled sources are in alignment with the Law of One values and principles. It'd be a lot easier for you if Carla either did not accept discussion of other channeled sources or was willing to open up the forum to discussion of all other channeled sources.

Exactly!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2010, 11:15 PM,
#41
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
It's also tricky because, as Ra points out, many channels start out positive but don't always remain completely so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 07:33 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-07-2010, 07:38 AM by thefool.)
#42
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
First thing is that the mission of this site allows Law of One compatible channeling.

The challenge is that- We can not seem to find a way to keep it 100% STO.

Then I would expect all of us to be 100% STO first. We are not perfect but we are expecting this new forum to be perfect. Almost an impossible roadblock. Do we think we have 100% STO material posted right now? How do we handle that, today?


If we had these kinds of unrealistic expectations in the real world, none of us would have friends and none of us would get married. Oh! What if this friend starts good now but may turn into a bad one ! so, may be I should not become a friend.

We should have more faith in the LIGHT and our abilities to sort those things out. I envision it as a wonderful garden with all kinds of flowers blossoming. And of course when there is a garden there are thorns to deal with...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 08:10 AM,
#43
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
It's not that the forum needs to be 100% STO. It's that, per Monica's understanding of Carla's directive the other channeled sources need to be "in alignment with the Law of One values and principles."

Quote:We should have more faith in the LIGHT and our abilities to sort those things out. I envision it as a wonderful garden with all kinds of flowers blossoming. And of course when there is a garden there are thorns to deal with...

This is a good argument, but it needs to be made to Carla, not to the moderators. One counter-argument would be that, while those who are here now could very likely discuss mixed material from a positive perspective, opening the forum up like that might attract those whose perspective was also mixed or even negative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 08:22 AM,
#44
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-07-2010, 08:10 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:  This is a good argument, but it needs to be made to Carla, not to the moderators. One counter-argument would be that, while those who are here now could very likely discuss mixed material from a positive perspective, opening the forum up like that might attract those whose perspective was also mixed or even negative.

I think Carla has made it clear. She has no issues with outside channels as long as they are compatible with Law of One. It is now for the moderators to figure out how to implement that desire. So it is an execution problem. So it is a moderator's issue to deal with.

Now I agree that we might get mixed orientation just like we might today. But they would not survive this environment as this place will not resonate with them. But we will also get plenty of positive and loving discussion. I think we might be making the mistake of throwing the baby with the bathwater.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 09:30 AM,
#45
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-07-2010, 08:22 AM)thefool Wrote:  I think Carla has made it clear. She has no issues with outside channels as long as they are compatible with Law of One. It is now for the moderators to figure out how to implement that desire. So it is an execution problem. So it is a moderator's issue to deal with.

I thought you were arguing for discussion of all other channeled sources, which would be far easier to implement. As soon as you say "compatible with the Law of One" you are putting the moderators in the position of having to evaluate the other channeled sources.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 03:27 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-07-2010, 03:39 PM by Questioner.)
#46
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
I feel the current guidelines go too far, and also miss an important point.

This week we had a new member post a message that's completely compatible with sincere seeking and respect for the forum. The message asked for comments about an outside channeled source. I provided a friendly, warm return greeting in return. My post included a mention that outside channeled sources aren't currently allowed on the forum. It also mentioned that I'm involved in a discussion about potentially changing the rule while respecting its current presence. The entire thread was suspended, pending moderator review of the linked material.

In my opinion, with all due respect, that response of simply making the discussion disappear feels to me to not honor what this forum could be about. I think it would have been far more appropriate for the mods to have edited the title of the post to "outside material," replaced the name and links to the outside material with "(outside material)", left in place the warm, mutually respectful conversation, and added a one-liner post that confirmed the current rule against outside material while officially welcoming the new member.

In this way, this new member, and other people who might join in the future, could see that mutually respectful and kind conversation is welcome, while the current rules require omitting outside channeled material as the focus of a thread.

Instead, we have a new member who's been put on hold, perhaps finding limbo mystifying; we have a community-building, loving and affirmative positive post from me also put on hold; we don't have an example here of how we can leave positive threads in place, while honoring the current rules; and we have a moderators' task of trying to evaluate a rather extensive batch of material from an outside source.

Now here is the point that I feel is missed.

It seems to me that the moderators' current goal is to shut off any discussion of outside source, unless the moderation team is 100% convinced that the outside material is 100% positive. This is like saying that the kids are NEVER allowed the car keys unless they can 100% prove that they absolutely will not get in an accident, regardless of how corrupt other drivers might be. The moderators will NEVER allow anyone to drive with any map but Carla's, because of the risk that some other map books might contain inaccurate information and wrong turns, perhaps even guiding the gullible to drive off a cliff!

Is this a realistic and necessary standard?

How about saying outside material could only be discussed in one subforum, and that all discussions of outside material must include an explanation of how forum members feel the material resonates with or contradicts the Law of One? Wouldn't those two rules be very simple, clear and objectively enforceable, without requiring moderators to evaluate all outside material before allowing any reference to it? Couldn't the "outside material" subforum be easily coded to add some kind of big red flashing warning at the top of each page or even each post, saying "b4 management and moderators make no claims about the spiritual value of whatever you read about here?"

The question remains, though: what if this outside material's presence, even if in its own area, even with a requirement that forum members discuss it relative to the Law of One, even with disclaimers, might lead some astray, or attract negative people to this forum?

The negative people argument seems to me to not require anything more than the moderation team's existing excellent work to promote a positive tone of discussion that respects the rules.

So the remaining issue is: what if outside material linked here seems good, but actually has something poisonous embedded stealthily? How could the moderators have a clear conscience about honoring Carla's intention for the forum, if they ever let anyone else suggest a route that led to someone else's crash?

After all, the moderators are responsible for shepherding the spiritual evolution of all the members of the site, aren't they?

And I say: no, they probably aren't. I think that moderation can be productively thought of a trustee responsibility, not a responsibility of pastoral care. In other words, if someone wants to drive their own vehicle off a cliff in the "at your own risk" subforum, I think the moderators should let 'em... as long as the bad driver stays in their own lane!

What if the moderators had no burden of pastoral care and oversight to validate outside material? What if the only duty of the moderators was to see that the discussion of outside material proceeds according to certain rules?

For a perhaps more positive analogy: let the moderators be the grand jury, and the members of the forum be the jury. For outside material, the moderation team would need to quickly look it over and answer only this question: In their best judgment, is discussion of this on b4 likely to bring forth perspectives on the Law of One material and its application? If so, let the material into the forum, and let individual forum members decide for themselves, and advocate as they wish, about whether or not the material is compatible with what Ra and Q'uo say. Moderators would need to see the discussion stays polite, NOT that everything politely stated is ultimate truth. Isn't that a much more livable approach, one that respects each member's ability to perceive and learn what they need for their own evolution at this time?

My final entry in the analogy trifecta for today is that of an investment fund. The fund invests in businesses that seem reasonably worthwhile to have the potential for a positive return. The fund does not personally have to work inside each company to answer their phone calls, design their products and package their shipments. The fund merely picks opportunities that look promising, knowing that a certain percentage will probably pay off but not knowing which ones will. What if one portion of this site was the fund of potentially worthwhile discussions of outside material, and the moderators didn't have to try to manage each of those investments, only make a go/no go decision about whether they're worth allowing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 03:36 PM,
#47
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
my subjective feeling is that, allowing such outside channels would derail the concentration. innumerable threads regarding innumerable channelings, and hence their relevant seekers would fill in the forum. ranging from doomsday seekers to cults, from prophecy channelings to less profound seekings. with all the various orientations and concentrations this would bring, it would be much harder to actually discuss ra material itself, for the other, more 'advertising friendly' forum (in the manner of the word don was using in the opening stages of the books) participants would carry their own biases and dogmas to the ra material discussions itself. biases and dogmas which, may not be so friendly towards a lot of delicate points ra material has.

it was noted in the ra material by ra that, this material would be attractive to a certain kind of seeker, seeking a deeper information. i think, the official outlet of L/L Research, the group who have worked in bringing this information to this planet, should stay concentrated and focused on ra material. i very much think that, even if they are not directly channeling ra anymore, due to time/space echoes of the act done before, there is still some kind of link, a channel, at least in time/space. it should stay that way.

there are innumerable forums on the internet where any particular channeling can be discussed. moreover, there are forums of some of these channelings themselves, in which they can be discussed.

just like how outside internet different channels channel different information/energies, because they are most compatible with them, and according to law of attraction, it is also and should be as such on the internet too.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 03:42 PM,
#48
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
unity100, I'm open to the possibility that you might have the most wisely balanced perspective here. I simply want to see that IF there can be harmonious agreement about the rules and the principles behind them, we reach that agreement... whether the agreement is that the rule should stand or be changed.

Another possibility is that only existing members, say with 25+ posts, could introduce threads about outside material. This would prevent "hit & run" new accounts that just say "hey check this out" without showing respect for the LLR material.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 03:53 PM,
#49
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
my point is, spiritually, magically, how you moderate, what rules you put, this, that, do not matter. if you introduce any kind of energy into an environment, that environment will reflect those energies. you can attempt to establish a harmony, but if you think that it takes a long time for even positively oriented planets to become societal complexes, i dont think that we can get to an effective harmony with all these different energies popping up in the middle on this planet, leave aside this forum. 3 major planetary influences plus this planet, and in addition 11-13 minor planetary influences was what ra counted as planetary influences (incarnating entities) on this planet. in addition to that add the fact that there are as many entities and energies attracted by incarnates on this planet due to their seeking (and even outside these planetary influences), then it becomes an overflowing channeling/spiritual material garden. leave aside a forum, even entire planet cannot harmonize them easily.

just like it is best for channels, seekers to concentrate on their greatest calling, i think it is best for communities to do the same. this is not separation, not discrimination. this is similar to abiding and concentrating on inner callings, and its discipline.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 04:06 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-07-2010, 04:08 PM by Questioner.)
#50
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
It seems to me that your reason for retaining the rule is quite a bit different than the reason currently provided by the moderation team.

The mod reason, that I feel very uncomfortable about, is that it's their responsibility to evaluate the wisdom, spiritual integrity and suitability of material that may or may not be useful for my spiritual evolution (and that of other forum members). That really seems to me to involve taking on a role of judge, authority and teacher that contradicts an egalitarian forum. I simply can't feel at peace with being subject to that authority, not just over the tone and courtesy of the discussion, but also of its content and the content of linked material.

Now your reason is one I could feel very good about supporting: regardless of the potential merits of other material, this forum is dedicated to members helping each other maximize their understanding of the LLR material in its own terms. This seems to be to much more respect all members as equals, and removes any responsibility of the mods to be spiritual guides overseeing what other people learn or study. If there was a consensus that this is the best way to go, I'd wholeheartedly support it.

If I can be a spiritual equal of mods, who are also my spiritual equals, and we agree together to study one source, that's fine with me. I simply don't like the implication that I need to submit to the mod teams as my spiritual mentors and guides, rather than as peers beside me in this journey. And I don't like the companion implication that the mods need to have tender pastoral care to prevent other members, especially new ones, from spiritually going astray. That again seems to create a hierarchy of spiritual value, rather than a peer-to-peer shared study group.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 04:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-07-2010, 04:22 PM by Monica.)
#51
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-07-2010, 03:27 PM)Questioner Wrote:  For outside material, the moderation team would need to quickly look it over and answer only this question: In their best judgment, is discussion of this on b4 likely to bring forth perspectives on the Law of One material and its application?

Quickly look it over? How much of it would we have to read in order to make that assessment?

(08-07-2010, 03:27 PM)Questioner Wrote:  The fund merely picks opportunities that look promising, knowing that a certain percentage will probably pay off but not knowing which ones will. What if one portion of this site was the fund of potentially worthwhile discussions of outside material, and the moderators didn't have to try to manage each of those investments, only make a go/no go decision about whether they're worth allowing?

So the mods would have to read enough of the outside material to decide if it looks promising?

We're still back to the mods having to approve some while disapproving others. You're just changing the criteria. We're also still back to the fact that the mods are all volunteers and simply don't have time to read other channeled sources.
(08-07-2010, 04:06 PM)Questioner Wrote:  It seems to me that your reason for retaining the rule is quite a bit different than the reason currently provided by the moderation team.

The mod reason, that I feel very uncomfortable about, is that it's their responsibility to evaluate the wisdom, spiritual integrity and suitability of material that may or may not be useful for my spiritual evolution (and that of other forum members).

Whoa, major miscommunication here! That is exactly what we don't want! We don't want to be in the position of having to decide what is acceptable and what isn't.

I'm not sure how it happened but somehow that got reversed. By not allowing any outside channeled info, we avoid having to judge what is acceptable for our members, and totally leave it up to them to pursue whatever they want elsewhere.

As soon as we are expected to 'quickly look over' outside channeled info, and decide which are promising and which aren't, we are then putting ourselves in the position of judging, which is exactly what we don't want to do.

So, it is the opposite of what you said. We don't have this rule because we want to take responsibility for our members like a pastor takes care of his flock. On the contrary, we have the rule because we don't see ourselves as 'pastoral' as we don't want to decide for anyone else.

(08-07-2010, 04:06 PM)Questioner Wrote:  I simply don't like the implication that I need to submit to the mod teams as my spiritual mentors and guides, rather than as peers beside me in this journey. And I don't like the companion implication that the mods need to have tender pastoral care to prevent other members, especially new ones, from spiritually going astray. That again seems to create a hierarchy of spiritual value, rather than a peer-to-peer shared study group.

I am stunned that you somehow got that implication! That is exactly what we didn't want! Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 04:25 PM,
#52
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-07-2010, 04:06 PM)Questioner Wrote:  It seems to me that your reason for retaining the rule is quite a bit different than the reason currently provided by the moderation team.

The mod reason, that I feel very uncomfortable about, is that it's their responsibility to evaluate the wisdom, spiritual integrity and suitability of material that may or may not be useful for my spiritual evolution (and that of other forum members). That really seems to me to involve taking on a role of judge, authority and teacher that contradicts an egalitarian forum. I simply can't feel at peace with being subject to that authority, not just over the tone and courtesy of the discussion, but also of its content and the content of linked material.

Now your reason is one I could feel very good about supporting: regardless of the potential merits of other material, this forum is dedicated to members helping each other maximize their understanding of the LLR material in its own terms. This seems to be to much more respect all members as equals, and removes any responsibility of the mods to be spiritual guides overseeing what other people learn or study. If there was a consensus that this is the best way to go, I'd wholeheartedly support it.

If I can be a spiritual equal of mods, who are also my spiritual equals, and we agree together to study one source, that's fine with me. I simply don't like the implication that I need to submit to the mod teams as my spiritual mentors and guides, rather than as peers beside me in this journey. And I don't like the companion implication that the mods need to have tender pastoral care to prevent other members, especially new ones, from spiritually going astray. That again seems to create a hierarchy of spiritual value, rather than a peer-to-peer shared study group.

let me tell you what i think bluntly;

ra material is a very specific, purpose intended material that was aimed at a certain group of seeking. unfortunately, there has been, (as far as what we know of the history of earth goes) and there is, no material/text available in the nature and precision of this material.

on the other hand, there is an overwhelming abundance of all other kinds of seeking materials. total overabundance even.

this, as a place which we, the people who have an attraction to ra material can convene and actually discuss with each other the very reason of this convening, the ra material, is more important for us before discussing any other material i think, because, this was the material we were attracted to. it doesnt go more important than that.

we may have to provide references to outside sources when making citations, we may examine various stuff in conjunction with ra text, but, opening up to all kinds of channeling, methinks, would be muddying the seeking that is important to us.

the mere number of those who were attracted to this information was 320,000 something circa 1982. this is a minor, minor number.
can reach me@ unity100-gmail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2010, 04:41 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-07-2010, 04:49 PM by Questioner.)
#53
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
Well, I'm glad to have that confusion cleared up.

There's still a disconnect in communication. I'm trying to find a way to articulate that gap in order to bridge it.

I share with you the goal of honoring Carla's purposes for the site.
We share the goal of having this forum provide harmonious discussion of the Law of One material from LLR. I think we agree that harmonious discussion has to involve respect, courtesy, clarity, and goodwill. But it doesn't have to involve unanimous agreement about interpretation or application of the material.

As it currently stands, individual members could use their own thoughts, feelings, intuitions and personal spiritual experiences to reach conclusions that contradict the Law of One. Moderators don't shut down such conversations by trying to discern right or wrong in what other members say, as long as the conversation remains respectful in tone and seems to show a likely sincere attempt to honor the LLR material.

Now here is where we disagree.
Apparently, if an individual member goes beyond his or her own thoughts, feelings, intuitions, and experiences, to say "I read this and I feel it might be compatible with the Law of One," suddenly that conversation has to be shut down, unless moderators can confirm the spiritual value of the outside material - which they don't have time or skill to do.

And my question is, why should that be any different than other reasons a person might have for their belief that's a different interpretation than yours?

How is it OK for a person to say I think, I feel, I intuit, I imagine, I experience something that leads me to a different interpretation than you of the Law of One; but if I say, I read this or I watched this video or I heard this music or talk, and I think the other person might be on track, now it's somehow something totally different that moderators have to approve or disapprove?

Why is it OK for someone to discuss their own experience, or something other people said based on their own 3D experience, and give the member's own perspective on how it relates to the Law of One, without the mods having to agree that the content is wise; but it's not OK for someone to discuss material that came through outside channeling, giving the member's own perspective on how it relates to the Law of One?

Why do mods not have to validate what I personally feel, think, experience, conclude about channeled material from LLR; but the mods DO have to validate what I personally feel, think, experience, conclude about channeled material not from LLR?

It seems to me that this is a pretty clear double standard. It may be a necessary and wise double standard, but it is a double standard. The mods are responsible for whether or not members' posts are wise and truthful, but only to the extent members refer to non-LLR channeling. Is it possible to see how this does indeed come across as an implication that non-LLR channeling can't be trusted merely because of its origin? Can you see how this does indeed come across as an implication that only mods have the wisdom and discernment to be able to say if material is compatible with the Law of One, in effect making the moderation team into spiritual gatekeepers?

I have the highest regard for the integrity of each of the moderators here. That's why it dismays me that the current rule seems to paint the mods into a double-bind situation: they're not to be trusted as sole source of wisdom about outside channeled material, but at the same time, only they could be trusted to evaluate outside channeled material. That really feels to me a like a self-contradictory position.

Again, unity100's position feels to me to be internally consistent. As I see it, that perspective is: Regardless of whether or not outside material is wise, insightful, helpful, etc., this forum's purpose is for those drawn to the Ra and Q'uo material to discuss that material and only touch on outside material in that context. This is the particular vein of ore we mine for spiritual nuggets we can use. Other mines, no matter how productive, are simply not relevant unless their veins seem to intersect with our particularly productive mine shafts digging deeper and deeper into what Ra said.

This would make for an extremely simple rule: If a moderator isn't convinced that a member's reference of outside channeled material is a side note in an exploration of what Ra and Q'uo said, then the outside material is off topic, will get edited out and if brought back in without a specific connection to the LLR material, the post will get deleted. This requires no spiritual judgment on the part of mods, only observation of whether the discussion shows the member's attempt to use the outside material to illustrate a point about the LLR material.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2010, 12:28 AM,
#54
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  This would make for an extremely simple rule: If a moderator isn't convinced that a member's reference of outside channeled material is a side note in an exploration of what Ra and Q'uo said, then the outside material is off topic, will get edited out and if brought back in without a specific connection to the LLR material, the post will get deleted. This requires no spiritual judgment on the part of mods, only observation of whether the discussion shows the member's attempt to use the outside material to illustrate a point about the LLR material.

First, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I share unity100's perspective here. The Law of One material is all I want to discuss, and I feel this forum serves a high and mighty purpose by providing a place where deep, catalytic, and transformative discussions of that material take place. I would hate to see its focus diluted.

However, I understand that some members would dearly like to be able to discuss other channeled sources. In the bit I've quoted above, Questioner, you seem to be arguing that all channeled sources be allowed but that the discussion center on the Law of One. I think that's more workable than requiring other channeled material to be compatible with the Law of One, but the problem is that it, as far as we know, is not what the site's owner wants.

Much attention has been focused on the moderators in this thread, but really, I think, they're doing the absolute best they can given what is basically an impossible-to-implement directive. I think your attention would be more fruitfully directed towards the author of that directive, but honestly, I hope she turns you down.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2010, 01:41 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-08-2010, 01:48 AM by Monica.)
#55
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  Well, I'm glad to have that confusion cleared up.

Me too! Big Grin

(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  Why is it OK for someone to discuss their own experience, or something other people said based on their own 3D experience, and give the member's own perspective on how it relates to the Law of One, without the mods having to agree that the content is wise; but it's not OK for someone to discuss material that came through outside channeling, giving the member's own perspective on how it relates to the Law of One?

It is ok...in passing, as a brief comment as part of a larger conversation. Our forum has many, many references to outside channeled works, some we might even consider negative, that were never edited.

It only becomes 'not ok' when the discussion centers around the other channeled works as a topic.

(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  Why do mods not have to validate what I personally feel, think, experience, conclude about channeled material from LLR; but the mods DO have to validate what I personally feel, think, experience, conclude about channeled material not from LLR?

?? I thought we had that misunderstanding cleared up! Huh

I'm confused as to how our prime directive of staying focused on the Law of One is being construed as an attempt to validate members' opinions about other channeled sources.

(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  The mods are responsible for whether or not members' posts are wise and truthful, but only to the extent members refer to non-LLR channeling.

Nooooooo...If that were the case, then we wouldn't have allowed the many brief references to other channeled sources we might have personally considered negative.

Questioner, can you cite a single instance in which the mods have ever judged anyone's posts? (Other than for basic courtesy...I am referring to content here.) A single instance in which a post was removed because we didn't approve of it?

You won't find any. In all cases, threads were removed because they violated the prime directive: to stay focused on the Law of One. Individual posts have been removed only when they took the thread off-topic into other channeled sources, and even then, that was very rare.

(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  Is it possible to see how this does indeed come across as an implication that non-LLR channeling can't be trusted merely because of its origin? Can you see how this does indeed come across as an implication that only mods have the wisdom and discernment to be able to say if material is compatible with the Law of One, in effect making the moderation team into spiritual gatekeepers?

If that were what we were doing, then yes. But that is precisely what we wish to avoid!

(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  I have the highest regard for the integrity of each of the moderators here.

Thank you!

(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  That's why it dismays me that the current rule seems to paint the mods into a double-bind situation: they're not to be trusted as sole source of wisdom about outside channeled material, but at the same time, only they could be trusted to evaluate outside channeled material. That really feels to me a like a self-contradictory position.

But, respectfully, that's not accurate. We don't even evaluate outside channeled material at all. That's the whole point! We don't want to be in the position of having to evaluate outside channeled material! We avoid the entire dilemma by not allowing any of it (except in passing as part of a larger conversation).

Which is secondary, of course, to the prime directive of retaining our focus on the Law of One.

(08-07-2010, 04:41 PM)Questioner Wrote:  This would make for an extremely simple rule: If a moderator isn't convinced that a member's reference of outside channeled material is a side note in an exploration of what Ra and Q'uo said, then the outside material is off topic, will get edited out and if brought back in without a specific connection to the LLR material, the post will get deleted. This requires no spiritual judgment on the part of mods, only observation of whether the discussion shows the member's attempt to use the outside material to illustrate a point about the LLR material.

That is exactly what we're already doing!

So what's the problem again? Huh
(08-08-2010, 12:28 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:  the problem is that it, as far as we know, is not what the site's owner wants.

Much attention has been focused on the moderators in this thread, but really, I think, they're doing the absolute best they can given what is basically an impossible-to-implement directive. I think your attention would be more fruitfully directed towards the author of that directive, but honestly, I hope she turns you down.

We (the mods) will be sharing this thread with Carla. All of the opinions expressed on this thread will be considered. Ultimately, you are correct: Carla is the owner of this site. We mods are just volunteers, doing our best to stay true to Carla's vision for this forum. Thank you for understanding this.

If it weren't for Carla's service and vision in starting this forum, it wouldn't be here at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2010, 05:56 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-12-2010, 07:03 PM by Steppingfeet.)
#56
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
Hello friends,

What a discussion! Questioner, you are a force of nature on this one. You all make excellent, solid points. While reading this thread, I felt myself being pulled by each compelling argument made, both for and against.

Here is a synopsis of how the guidelines came to be:

Once upon a time... there was a DW-created internet forum named Asc2k. A good friend of mine, Jeremy, was at one time Asc2k's chief moderator who drafted into existence its guidelines.

When Bring4th came to be, I asked Jeremy if we could draw upon his guidelines for our own. He readily accepting, Carla and the moderators reconfigured them - sometimes tweaking, sometimes rewriting entirely - until we felt they were ready to guide the ship of the coming Bring4th community.

So far, I would say, they have worked remarkably well. These forums are simply astonishing. They continue to blow me away both in terms of the quality and depth of thought, and the goodwill with which each interaction is undertaken. Carla is incredibly proud that the community is what it is and is thriving so.

I would guess that there are four factors involved in this:

1) Community members
2) The material
3) The moderators (most of that credit going to Monica)
3) The guidelines

Each of the four factors are necessary - remove or substitute any of the four and the end result would certainly not be the same - but the most important of the four factors being, of course, number one, the community members. The love in your hearts makes the text on my screen come to life in vivid demonstration of that which, in general, this world tends not to know.

What that means is that, while the architects of the community laid out a blueprint, it is the community itself which has imaginatively fulfilled the design, building the community in beautifully idiosyncratic ways, creating something which many if not most of us feel is a unique source or reflection of light in this world, not "better" than others, just exceptionally bright in a rather dark atmosphere.

To explore the relationship between L/L Research and its readers using a different analogy, it is through decades of unceasing work, sacrifice, and dedication that L/L created the ship - as sturdy a sea-going vessel as there ever was, if you ask me - that serves as a means of crossing from one shore to the next for many of us, myself included. (Not supplanting ones own unique evolutionary process, but providing a tool or aid for the self along that journey.)

It is the community, however, that brings the ship to life and gives it meaning and purpose. Without readers and seekers to enjoy the work of L/L, the ship (i.e., the philosophy of L/L Research) would be gathering dust in an obscure seaport, lonely and wanting for crew and passengers.

As we each choose to join this ship to one degree or another, some of us committed for the long haul, others coming and going as circumstance and desire allow, we embark on a journey together. As such, we, as a community of like-hearted seekers, ought to discuss what it is we want out of the journey, where it is we are going, and how it all relates to who we are.

To wrap this up, then, thank you each who makes the forums what it is. Thank you for taking on this particular topic with such care and concern for the material and the people you love.

I have read this thread, compiling (for efficiency) "For" and "Against" documents which have been printed up and passed to Carla. After she has had the chance to review the issue, the moderators will convene in a huddle to make sure that we're all on the same page before announcing policy, whether it be to reinstate status quo or modify the guidelines to accommodate the needs/desires of some portions of the community. (I say "some portions" because, judging by this thread, the community is split on the issue.) This will hopefully happen within the next 48 hours.

Love/Light,
GLB

PS: If you've made it this far and find that you would like to kill even more time, below is something I sent via PM on this particular issue many months ago to a beloved community member who shall remain anonymous.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote:What you hit on here points to the reason I think that those behind this site are weary to explore material outside their chosen domain.

I wish to refine your statement ever so slightly. The individuals behind this site are not weary of exploring material exterior to the chosen domain in their own lives outside of the Bring4th forums, nor do those behind the website discourage any other seeking individual from exploring other material outside of the domain of Bring4th.

It is in terms of our public discussion on the Bring4th forums that we wish to create a collective focus for our work together, a focus whose parameters are defined by the guidelines. In order to create this focus, limitations and exclusions are necessary and conducive.

Quote:The problem can be likened to that of market branding. When you buy your favorite ketchup, you know what the ingredients are, what the experience will be, and that the quality will be consistent. When you change brands, you have to recalibrate yourself to the new ingredients, taste, and quality consistency. At this site, they are confident that Ra and Q'uo are excellent brands and they are contacted through a set of strictly controlled procedures that ensure quality of the resultant product. The problem I have is that these sources have intentionally avoided including certain ingredients in the product to make it more appetizing to the public at large.

Firstly, I concur that L/L Research has great confidence, trust, and faith in the Confederation message, be that message from Ra, Q’uo, or other of its members. I concur that these members of the Confederation are contacted through a set of strictly controlled procedures in order to ensure the quality (read: caliber, depth, universality, and purity) of the resultant, as you say, product.

Now, if such things as the channeling protocol and the resulting information are comparable to the constituent ingredients blended together to form a richly distinct end product with which its makers are satisfied, why then would its makers borrow the ingredients of another product and add those ingredients to their own? How would Heinz benefit by adding so incompatible and ill-matched an ingredient as out-of-date milk to its ketchup? Would you not think it wise to exclude such ingredients in order to maintain the quality of the end product?

The *recipe* for producing the ketchup will likely remain fairly consistent over the years, perhaps with some minor changes as some new facet of ketchup-making is revealed or a ketchup-enhancing ingredient discovered. There is good reason to keep the process as it is without the need to throw an old, stinky boot into the mix for the sake of variety and experimentation.

You however are not speaking necessarily to how the ketchup gets made (i.e., Carla’s process of tuning, challenging, praying, making a workroom, protecting the circle, channeling, recording the channeling, transcribing the channeling, publishing the channeling to the website, etc.), you are speaking to the limitations of the discussion permitted on the Bring4th forums.

To speak to that point: Carla likes to say that distortions of truth from different and independent sources, be they positive and pure, will harmonize with one another. In a similar sense, there is surely room for experimentation to see what other tastes the ketchup product might compliment and go well with. For instance, will mustard work well? Mayo? Horseradish? Does it go good on burgers? Chicken? Pineapple?

(Some people, like myself, feel that ketchup goes well with, and makes even more delicious, just about all foods!)

It is not so much a question of what ingredients should or should not go into the ketchup, but rather what condiments are available for the improved consumption of the incarnational catalyst, and how do those condiments interact with one another on the palette of the tongue and in the health of the body.

Let us liken the Bring4th forums to a wing within the ketchup factory. Our purpose in the ketchup factory is naturally to produce ketchup. (Though we are an unusual ketchup factory in that we not only sell the ketchup to those who would like to purchase it, but, feeling that the ketchup possesses a great capacity to increase the health and happiness of those who seek it, we offer the ketchup for free.)

Bring4th.org is the place within the ketchup factory where we invite all who enjoy our ketchup to come see the workings of the factory and discuss their life with ketchup amongst each other.

While in the ketchup factory, there are certain natural limitations as articulated in our guidelines regarding appropriate behavior and activity. We ask that first and foremost each who joins the group in the activity of discussion respects one another. We ask that people stay focused on ketchup because this is the reason they made the journey to our ketchup factory. While experimentation within certain limits is acceptable, if someone wishes to experiment and see what the ketchup will taste like on, what to us is the equivalent of, a moldy sock, we ask that the experimentation be done off our premises, as, having some knowledge about ketchup, we are confident that such things as moldy socks and ketchup are not great partners in nutrition or taste and will only serve to distract from our focus.

Ultimately, of course, Q’uo and Ra are not commercial brands. They are brands in the sense that are a “kind or variety of something distinguished by some distinctive characteristic”, but the underlying motive for distribution is not profit-driven. Rather, through our policy of making it unconditionally freely available with no strings whatsoever attached, it is service-oriented in the purest and most positive sense that we know how. No proselytizing, no pushing, no coercing, no deception, no hooks, no loyalty asked for, and no power sought from the reader. On the contrary, few systems of thought confer as much responsibility and power upon the individual as does the Confederation material.

Explanation by the tongue makes most things clear, but love unexplained is clearer. - Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2010, 06:22 PM,
#57
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
oh gary, lol! what a truly wonderful post Big Grin thank you
i haven't contributed to this discussion because i can see the benefits of both the status quo and the proposed change, but i can't tell you how glad i am to have read your post just so i could read your take on all things ketchupy Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2010, 07:04 PM,
#58
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
Great post, Gary!

(08-12-2010, 05:56 PM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:  
Quote:What you hit on here points to the reason I think that those behind this site are weary to explore material outside their chosen domain.

I wonder if that person meant to say wary...?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2010, 08:30 PM,
#59
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
Gary, thank you for the really thoughtful reply and the historical context.

Quote:as sturdy a sea-going vessel as there ever was, if you ask me
I agree with you about the superb construction of the forum and all the wonderful work mods and members put in to making it successful.

Thanks to all, I feel my next step is to simply wait and see about Carla's current perspective. If she wants to stay the course, make a change or clarify instructions to the crew, no matter what choice I'll respect it and be honored to continue our sailing along together...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2010, 10:29 PM,
#60
RE: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
Quote:a community of like-hearted seekers,

I really like how you said that Gary...it's beautiful. I feel a place like this is so much about community and common-unity is how we will bring 4th the new earth. I'm so used to saying "like-minded" , and your terminology is refreshingSmile

I was a moderator on a forum for awhile and found it difficult, and this was one of the problems. When outside material was introduced, boy did the hammer come down! Often it was just an oversight of the rules by a new registrant... the rules did not allow external links, but also if someone mentioned other works, there was an overbearing critical and authoritative opinion offered that, frankly, was not conducive to community.

I struggled personally because though I was charged with enforcing the rules, my heart would want to connect with what the person was saying or needing at the time, and I found myself in a difficult position. In addition, I simply was on the other side of the fence, and I personally felt the policy should be more open. It's been interesting watching this conversation evolve, because I can really understand both points of view.

Whatever you decide to do, you really do have a special place on the web here, a protected sacred space, truly a temple and community. Just the little time I've been here has uplifted me so much, and I am gratefulHeart
May all Beings everywhere be happy and free
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)