Full Version: Wisdom in evaluating sources outside of L/L Research
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
A recent discussion thread here included two components:
1. What criteria can we use to identify whether a channeled source is compatible with the Law of One teachings, as brought forth by Carla and the L/L Research team.
2. Applying these criteria to specific channeled material available from sources other than L/L Research.

(These aren't chronologically the order things came up in the thread. They're my interpretation of the thread's themes in order of importance.)

The thread was cut, apparently for the second theme contradicting the current rules of this forum when the content of material from "Mr. B," "The C Club" and so on were discussed.

I would like to know if we could restart the conversation on the first theme - criteria based entirely on LLR material - without running afoul of the current rules of the forum.

I would assume that this would fit within the current forum rules IF we use only two sources for such criteria:
1. Channeled material published by LLR.
2. Our own personal experience, reason, and intuition.

Could the moderation team please reflect & respond to this request, and leave clarified guidelines here or in to the guidelines forum.


The next part of my post may need to be split off to a new thread, or may be appropriate here.

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 -

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.
evidently, allowing outside channeled material to have their own subforum or threads would in a sense mean that this outlet, channel would be condoning and approving those material.
Which for many positive sources is of course not a problem. However in the cases where material is not clearly positive the impossible burden of determining even before discussion whether the material is acceptable or not will land squarely on the shoulders of the moderators. And no matter how good they are, asking them to be clairvoyant might be pushing things.

This also leads to situations where the approval and disapproval of the moderators might offend and attract the attention of those outside the forum. "What do you mean {insert random guru}'s sessions are not positive enough?"

So if this is done then the rule of discernment between acceptable and not acceptable should be so clear that even the completely uninformed can see the difference.

Right now the rule is this clear. I would enjoy discussing the likes of Bashar in this forum. But it's a decision that has some repercussions.
there is also the consideration of wisdom. an outside source may be positive, but, it may contain less pure understandings of existence, and thus while giving a positive 4d understanding, it may distort other ray understandings. by condoning outside positive sources, l&l would have also condoned all their approaches and give them credibility, including impure distortions.
"it may distort other ray understandings" is impossible to evaluate for me. I know what it means, I just can not use it in any practical situation.

This is why I suggest to keep things simple and in terms everyone can evaluate.
it is actually quite simple. there may be a valid, positive channel praising 4d service to the extent of martyrdom. this may be acceptable and valid for 4d understanding, but, it would be folly when looked from the perspective of early 5d and higher. 4d understanding is more distorted than 5d, and 5d is more distorted than 6d, and so it goes.

when such a channeling gets its own subforum etc to get published, in a sense, it would mean that l&l would have endorsed, empowered that message. imagine that an entity which is just waking up or starting on its journey of spiritual path reads up on ra material, likes it, comes to forum, and sees this kind of message. it is possible that even subconsciously entity may give a higher credence to that material than its own spirit would, because it is being let out through the website officially related to ra material.
Thanks for helping me see the difficult position the moderators would have if the rule is relaxed: how could they judge what material, or portion of material, is positive and helpful for other people? Even if they're familiar with all of an outside source's content - which might run to a LOT of pages or hours of material - how can it be fair to put them into a position of deciding whether or not that material is primarily compatible with the LLR material?

I like this forum, the way it works, the people and the respectful tone towards one another, the way the conversations are public, the thoughtful moderation, and freedom from tacky ads or intrusive demographics-based signups. Private messages here and Yahoo forums have drawbacks in some of these areas.
Shall we drop the side discussion about Unity's interpretations? Whether or not Unity is correct is not relevant since we're discussing an algorithm or test that should be evaluated by every one that has an account on this forum.. I hardly think everyone on the forum can be expected to know the details of densities and wisdom versus love to the level we THINK we know them. And clearly there is controversy even here. So at the very least we should conclude this to be a dead end regarding this topic.

It sounds like a good discussion to have but not in this topic. Have it in some other guys.

For the record, I would love to discuss outside sources with you guys. Especially you guys. Going to a dedicated forum and discussing the sources there is less valuable to me since everyone is supposedly a fanboy for going there. So if there is a way that would be valuable to me.

As part of the brainstorm I suggest that: Private hidden but fairly accessible sub forums would avoid insulting outsiders. And outsiders would not be attracted to this forum in order to speak in those topics because they would not know they are there. It's not a secret it's just a thing that doesn't attract attention. So it would take some of the weight and risk away from the moderators. And a discussion for example about hidden hand there would not be associated with bring4th. Maybe we can remove topics that get negative on a basis of complaints.

The idea is not perfect, or even good enough (especially the complaint bit), I realize that. I just want to get the brain juices flowing Wink I have a feeling our mods are paying close attention and want to see where this goes before speaking out. So lets speak without personally attaching ourselves to outcomes and give them a chance to build an opinion.

Lets share our desires ideas and worries on the subject.


I am open to locked sub-forums where the members are based on interest of the topic--- there is much to be learned--- and although Qu'o and RA and others that Carla channels are GREAT... they can not possibly hold the whole story.

It is here that there are many of the best minds and hearts that I have had the pleasure to communicate with. I find it quite distressing that entire threads are deleted based on the interpretations of Forum Guidelines. Some of those threads have been helpful to others in deepening their understanding of the Law of One and how to live a Good Life despite all the "cataysts" that are slung at us.

It would be lovely to be able to come here and truly share what one is learning and deepen that understanding of the Law of One in life by exploring other sources in a supportive and caring and astute environment of wandering peers--

Thanks for your consideration of my focus with this particular thread, unity100.

(08-03-2010, 02:56 PM)fairyfarmgirl Wrote: [ -> ]It is here that there are many of the best minds and hearts that I have had the pleasure to communicate with. I find it quite distressing that entire threads are deleted based on the interpretations of Forum Guidelines. Some of those threads have been helpful to others in deepening their understanding of the Law of One and how to live a Good Life despite all the "cataysts" that are slung at us.

It would be lovely to be able to come here and truly share what one is learning and deepen that understanding of the Law of One in life by exploring other sources in a supportive and caring and astute environment of wandering peers--

That's how I feel also.

I see the entire b4 forum as like a restaurant, serving food based on a particular line of recipe books. Now the diner has wound up with a great crew of regulars and good hospitality for visitors. This is terrific, the challenge is that we want to bring in some outside food as well. Is there a way that people with outside food could have a potluck at the patio, without interfering with the restaurant's regular business? Even though some of the outside food might not meet the dietary guidelines of the cookbooks that got us to gather in the first place?

If I had time and funds available, I'd set up a server and get a copy of the forum software; but I don't, and even if I did, I'd want there to be a self-regulating community rather than it just being up to me. This is why I keep coming back to the question of whether there is an appropriate way to have the outside-material discussion be based on the existing community, forum, and software here, all of which are excellent.

Ali's idea of a by-inquiry forum makes a certain amount of sense. However, I'm also wondering if there's a way to balance that with a way to let the off-topic discussions still be publicly visible, and picked up by the public search engines that regularly index this site.
I have my own server and could easily set up a forum similar to this, but would not do so without the approval and blessing of Bring4th.
Personally, I support the notion that there is a sub-forum in the Olio section in which one can discuss the relevance of channeled material with regard to TLOO. There is much help available which compliments Ra's teachings, giving a broader understanding and specific techniques for self development.

Why are the moderators expected to study each and every source? That is the job of the members who are interested in it, or would like to help another in discerning the polarity of the source.

For example, if member A posts a thread about the relevence of source X, the members then investigate source X and offer their opinion. There is no need for a moderator's time, as we each are using our discernment. That is the key: we are all responsible for ourselves, and do not need others to discern for us. Offering help and/or advice to another to aid their own discernment on the other hand, is of great service.

The question is: is this a LOO forum or a Ra forum? Ra coined the term The Law of One. It is their own term, as All That Is certainly did not name and enforce it. It's Ra's interpretation. There is much material about Oneness, and the Creator being within. Just because it's not offered under the same name - TLOO - does not make it irrelevant. Hence, is this forum about Oneness, and developing and expressing the Creator within, or is it a forum for Ra's interpretation only.

There are many great minds on this forum, much wisdom. I would vote towards trusting the members to use their discernment, and openly discuss the polarity and messages of other related material.

What ever the decision from the moderators, my support and understanding will offered.
(08-03-2010, 04:09 PM)Pablísimo Wrote: [ -> ]My apologies for helping to get the thread off topic, questioner. If there were a way to delete my own posts here, I would.

I'm done posting, completely, that I promise.

Love to all

I suspect that if you ask nicely Big Grin a moderator may be willing to help you move your debate to a new thread, or to simply delete your posts here of your debate with unity100, whichever you prefer.

I'd welcome any further thoughts you have about my original questions for this thread. I also think that the distinctions you're making about teach/learning as an interactive process may be worthwhile in their own thread, as would be unity100's discussions about whether wanderers need to recapitulate learning of previous densities they may have already graduated.

Meanwhile, thanks for your help as well with refocusing this particular thread.
(08-03-2010, 05:21 PM)Namaste Wrote: [ -> ]Why are the moderators expected to study each and every source? That is the job of the members who are interested in it, or would like to help another in discerning the polarity of the source.

Without putting words into other peoples' mouths, I can see two concerns that have been stated or implied by the moderation team here.

First, there's the risk of negative forces riding the coattails of the positive material here. Perhaps that would give a chance to manipulate or deceive some people, who'd otherwise not have been exposed to the negative material, or not been sucked in by it. That risk might be offset by the opportunity to expose the darkness of some other outside material, as sincere learners help each other avoid falling into error.

Second, even if only positive learning happens regarding outside material, there's the risk that even positive material from outside sources may dilute the unique value of this site: as a lighthouse providing the distinctive illumination of the Ra and Q'uo material.

There may be other concerns as well. My impression is that these are the greatest two concerns informing the current rules.
Moderator Note: Thread split. Off-topic discussion moved to:
Strictly Law of One > 6D Wanderers: 3D Lessons?

Questioner, thank you for so graciously and respectfully offering your suggestions.

To all those who favor a new sub-forum in which other channeled sources may be freely discussed:

Are you proposing that only STO-oriented channeled sources be allowed? If so, who gets to decide which are STO and which aren't?

Or, are you proposing that the new sub-forum be a free-for-all, ie., anything goes, ie. free of moderator intervention? If so, are you ok with obviously STS oriented sources being granted equal access to our community?

Clarification would be appreciated! Thanks
Forum members,

I haven't had a chance to personally read this thread, nor do I have the time now. Just wanted to quickly offer a couple of thoughts.

1) The relative merits of the guidelines are forever and always open for discussion. Please feel free to question, poke, and prod the guidelines - as long as it's undertaken in a spirit of respect, no harm is done. Not all guidelines are written in stone, there is room for evolution.

2) In my super cursory review of this thread, I didn't see reference to this moderator thread That particular thread captures the thinking of the moderators on the matter and nothing as of yet has been presented that has caused that thinking to be overturned. (Granted, I haven't read this thread (not sure if Monica and Steve have), so maybe something better has already been put forth.)

Monica, Steve, and I will definitely take to heart anything that's offered in this thread.

Thanks for the reminder, Gary. Anyone participating in this thread: Please be sure you have read BOTH of the guideline threads Gary posted above, before commenting further.

Also, here is a dialog between Namaste and me (via pm):

Bring4th_Monica Wrote:
Namaste Wrote:Hi GLB, Monica.

Upon seeing the Bashar thread locked/deleted, I would like to offer a perspective for contemplation. This message is of the best intention, please read within that context. Headers have been used for key points as this aids an easy digestion of concepts Smile

Namaste, Namaste!

Thank you for your well-thought-out, respectful, and constructive feedback. This is very refreshing. You're not the first person to disagree with this particular guideline, but more often than not, we get complaints without much in the way of constructive ideas. So your input and style of input are very much appreciated!

Before we go any further, just to avoid reinventing the wheel, I invite you to read the following thread if you haven't don so already, just so we can be on the same page:

Olio > laura and the cassiopaeans? ...and forum guidelines

Namaste Wrote:Firstly, consider the source of this rule regarding channeled information. Does it stem from a foundation of love, unity and acceptance, or fear and separation?

That is a very good question. Of course our intention is to base our decisions on a foundation and love, unity and acceptance. Whether we actually pull that off or not is a different matter. But we do our best to not react in fear.

I can see how this guideline might appear to be fear-based. But, in actuality, if it were fear-based, then we wouldn't allow any mention of other channeled sources whatsoever. We'd be afraid if someone posted a link to Hidden Hand or whatever, that we might get infiltrated by some STS agent. I've seen such fears expressed on other forums and they sometimes danced on the edge of paranoia, resulting in undue control and censorship. Such is not the case here at Bring4th.

Rather, our decision has less to do with fear (or love and acceptance, for that matter) than it does with sheer practicality.

You have organized your points very well, and I do understand what you are trying to convey. But it can all be boiled down to this:

Who gets to discern?

You mentioned your chosen sources of Bashar, the Law of One, and Abraham. Evidently, you consider those to be congruent. But if we allow discussions devoted to Bashar and Abraham, then do we also allow discussions of Hidden Hand and all those others that say the world is ruled by reptilians who eat our children and we're all going to get rounded up into concentration camps and there will be earthquakes and Armageddon?

Do we allow those also? Because, I know of several members who are into that stuff. I consider that stuff really fear-based, and not in alignment with the Law of One, and yet we have allowed casual mention of it on our forum, rather than censor it just because we find it distasteful. We just don't allow entire threads devoted to such.

If we remove restrictions on other channeled sources, does that mean we adopt an anything goes policy?

Here is the question:

Are you proposing that we allow any and all outside sources? Or only if they are deemed STO?

If the former, then are you saying we should have no restrictions whatsoever? Stuff like Hidden Hand, a self-professed STS entity, and the 'reptilians will eat your children' should be allowed?

If the latter, then how do we decide what is STO? Exactly how do we define positive/negative channelings? Based on what criteria do we decide what is acceptable and what isn't? Who gets to decide?

If we remove all restrictions and just leave it up to each member to decide/discern for themselves, then that means our forum will be like all the other New Age forums, with the Law of One being but one of many sources discussed. Can you see how our focus would be lost?

On the other hand, if we allow only those sources which we, the moderators, have decided are 'STO enough' to meet our standards, then that will open a can of worms. There is just no way we will be able to please everyone. Does HH become acceptable? if HH is acceptable, then just where do we draw the line? Any STS channeled source now becomes quoted and mixed in with all our Law of One discussions? And if we allow Abraham but not Hidden Hand, or Bashar but not the reptilian stuff, how do we handle the huge outcry of unfairness that will surely erupt? Wouldn't that be infringing, if we decide, for example, that Abraham is acceptable but Hidden Hand isn't?

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Do we, the moderators, have the ability or responsibility to analyze and discern for everyone else?

Even if we did, do we have the time to read every other channeled source out there? On a practical level, we just don't have the time to do that. We're just volunteers. We have jobs, businesses, families, and lives. If we are expected to become familiar with every other channeled source of info out there, and then decide which are congruent with the Law of One, then how are we any different from the religions who tell their flocks what they can read and what they can't?

We don't want to turn this into a religion. Neither do we want it to be a free-for-all and invite STS entities to exploit our members. The only way we have to avoid being in that position is to draw the line somewhere. Drawing the line at other channeled sources is a clear-cut demarcation that is workable, provided our members understand the reasons behind our decision (which we keep trying to convey).

Rather than viewing this as an attempt by the mods to infringe on the free will of our members, we see it as an attempt to NOT infringe! Because as soon as we begin passing judgment on what's STS and what's STO, we have projected our own biases, fears and flaws onto the other members of our forum.

By not allowing ANY outside channeled sources, we avoid being in that position entirely.

It's a big world out there in cyberspace. Everyone is still free to pursue other channeled sources of info, or whatever else they may be interested in, with a simple search. In addition, they are free to contact one another privately, as well as post such info on blogs. By not allowing in-depth discussions of those sources on our forum, how is that infringing on the ability of others to pursue such topics elsewhere?

We can't be everything to everyone. We have a mission and a focus.

Again, I do see your point. And if there was a way to all agree on what is allowed and what isn't, the other mods and I would welcome comparisons of other sources with the Law of One, etc. I agree with you that content is more important than source. But again, who gets to analyze and judge the content? Logistically, we just don't see how we can do that without putting ourselves in the position of discerning for others.

In addition, as explained on the above thread, other channeled sources are often viewed as authoritative. So they really aren't quite the same as just discussing human-based philosophies. And their numbers are vast. To take on the task of analyzing the content of other channeled sources would be virtually impossible, with out little staff of volunteers. Nor would we want to do that. We would not want to infringe on the free will of our members by doing that for them.

If you have a suggestion as to how we can overcome this obstacle, we are always open to hearing about it!

Thank you for your feedback!


Bring4th Moderator

Namaste Wrote:Content over source; discernment is key. The source of the information is not as important as the content - it's message - and more importantly, the discernment of the reader. Ra has stated that the entire point of our lives here is to experience, learn and understand. Holding back information can only stunt this process. Much information talked about on this forum is influenced by the STS powers that be. One has to apply discernment over the content in which to decide how they feel that entity/person is polarized, and whether it resonates with them.

Free will. This is a rather deep one to ponder. Using Ra's definitions, any action to stop the will of another goes against the very first distortion of the Creation; free will. Not allowing certain topics to be discussed is doing exactly that. I appreciate you feel there has to be rules in which to keep things neat and tidy, however, where is the line drawn with regard to your own opinions over others? This is a deep topic for discussion and of course, the answer will be entirely subjective.

Limitation yields limitation. I stated this in another thread, in reply to one of GLB's posts, it is not a good idea to limit ones self to a single source of learning. This is a universe of inclusion, not exclusion (this works on many levels), and is the foundation of this density; choice. By stating that all other channeled information is not to be discussed, the forum, and hence it's participants, potentially miss out on a wealth of empowering and congruent information that can help people springboard their consciousness, and life, to the next level. Ra has a specific flavour, and his questions are limited to that of the questioner. This means that the information is limited. Bashar, as the apt example, has a different flavour, and a different focus. The messages are in-step with TLOO and compliment it, adding to the curriculum, as so to speak. I can speak from personal experience that his words helpful and empowering, and I have helped many other people using a combination of Ra, Bashar and Abraham's teachings and methods. It does not make sense to devoid people of empowering information.

Missing out on the wisdom of others. Ra is channeled information, which indicates that the readers are quite likely going to be interested in other channeled information. Not being able to discuss the relevance of this information means only one thing; the people here who can offer wisdom on the subject cannot do so. The person looking for help may then follow advice or guidance from another board, which is less polarized towards STO, and find themselves in a more negative environment. This is the key concept - how does this offer service to others? It does not, and is in fact, not allowing it at all. The Bashar thread is an example of this, one asking for direction is refused it. Please contemplate this point, as it is the crux the message.

Love and light to you both.


Namaste Wrote:Hi Monica,

By all means, please do. Save your fingers :¬)

Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Namaste, Namaste!

Now that there is a new thread devoted to this topic, would you mind if I shared yours and my comments on the thread?

That way I can avoid re-inventing the wheel.


Namaste Wrote:Thank you for your time and thoughts, Monica.


Bring4th_Monica Wrote:
Namaste Wrote:Thank you again, Monica.

Quote:Have you considered the possibility that the reason B4 attracts these kinds of people is precisely because of our adherence to our guidelines?

In all honesty, and with much respect (I used to be a moderator and appreciate the personal effort it requires), no. Myself, and I would imagine many others, are not attracted to this forum because of the guidelines.

To clarify, I didn't mean that anyone would be attracted to our forum because of our guidelines. What I said was that maybe people are attracted to our forum because of our adherence to the guidelines, ie. that we require respect and have a focus, which is study of the Law of One.

Namaste Wrote:This forum is closely linked to the Ra Material, and it is this material that attracts people who are of a certain mindset. People of this mindset are generally open and welcoming. This in turn attracts more people. The subject is key, guidelines being peripheral.

I agree that the subject is key. However, not all our members have even read the Law of One. Some just like the community. Some like anything New Age. And some have tried to turn it into a place to disseminate their own flavor of spirituality and, in some cases, fears.

We haven't had any major problems, thankfully. Most of our members truly are here for the subject matter. My point is that we have no way of knowing how much that might change if we eliminate a core guideline.

Namaste Wrote:
Quote:So Olio would become open to any and all discussions, with the mods leaving it totally alone?

The idea is a sub-forum within the Olio section, in which members may choose to participate in discussions of channeled material that they feel are in-step with TLOO and broaden their understanding/truths.

The topics would not be contained in Olio. I've seen people quote stuff from one forum to the next, not remembering where they read it. On that other forum, I frequently saw people quoting another channeled source, mixing it up with the Law of One. It was difficult to tell what was being quoted or discussed.

And even if it were possible to contain it, does that mean that the mods wouldn't enforce the other guidelines on that particular sub-forum?

A specific example: If a proponent of obvious STS channeled sources starts writing prolifically in that sub-forum, do we stand by and do nothing?

In order to consider your proposal, we need to be clear on exactly what you are proposing.

Namaste Wrote:The hands-off notion was offered since it was mentioned that the moderators have limited time.

Quote:Why, then, must we host such a place here at B4, when there are plenty of other places like that already?

What I'm trying to get at here is why you think it's important to have such a place at B4.

The Law of One contains much material regarding how one can evolve their minds, their soul, and their awareness. However the material is very generic, and precise techniques are few. Ra did not give any specific meditations or techniques.

There are other sources of precise, focused material that compliment this perfectly and aid personal growth. Not permitting the discussion of said material due to a fear based assumption that all hell will break loose and the forum will crumble, seems, well, fear-based. Growth and protection are mutually exclusive. One has to decide which is more important.

OK, this is a tangible reason. Thank you.

My response is that, while it is true that Ra didn't provide much in the way of specific techniques, Q'uo has. There are countless Q'uo sessions in which specific meditation, chakra balancing, dealing with emotions, etc. techniques are given, and these haven't even been explored at B4.

Personally, I would much rather see more participation in the vast, largely untapped Q'uo library than introduce outside sources. Maybe after we've already done that, it would be wonderful to expand, but I haven't seen much participation in the Sessions section of our forum. I have started several threads about chakras, sex, emotions, current events, and other pertinent topics that have been covered in the Q'uo sessions, with very little response.

Nevertheless, I will bounce your idea off of Steve and Gary.

Namaste Wrote:
Quote:Some members might want to discuss politics, sports, or basket weaving. Are we denying them their free will by focusing on the Law of One here at B4?

Not at all, as this is allowed in the Olio section.

Our guidelines do request that all topics be at least loosely related to the Law of One.

Namaste Wrote:
Quote:Some members might want to exercise their free will and indulge in porn. Does that mean we must set aside a special forum for those who like porn?

Drawing parallels with pornography and channeled sources bears no value. The Ra Material is channeled, and many other channeled materials are closely related and offer similar principals.

That's true. It is equally true that many other channeled materials aren't closely related and offer STS philosophies.

Namaste Wrote:
Quote:Namaste, I know your intentions are good. I know that there is a lot of good info out there that is worthy of discussion. But have you really thought out all the ramifications of this? You seem to indicate that an open-door policy would be overall a warm and welcoming place, where STO sources like Abraham could be discussed. But have you considered what we would do if that sub-forum gets overrun by obviously STS entities? What then? Do we shut it down? Do we censor the ones we don't like?

Quote:I've moderated another forum before. STS entities can and do infiltrate. It's not fear-based to realistically plan for probable contingencies. We would need to have a specific plan for handling these situations, if we were to make any changes.

Quote:I think STS entities would be thrilled if we allowed them free reign in our domain. What better place to polarize by throwing STO's off-balance, than a place inhabited by STO's?

Quote:You might counter that other channeled sources are in a different category, since they are spiritually related. But my response to that is, if we open our doors to any and all other channeled sources, we will surely attract some that are decided STS, and a decidedly STS source might be just as counterproductive to spiritual growth as porn, violent movies, etc.

Here seems to be the crux of your perspective; allowing the discussion of non-Ra channeled material is akin to 'opening doors to STS entities'.

It's highly unlikely an STS entity would avoid this forum because the discussion of channeled material was not permitted. An STS entity would take any opportunity to offer a negative opinion in any topic of discussion.


I concede that point.

However, it's not just about avoiding STS infiltration. It's also about maintaining the focus of our forum.

The other mods and I will consider your suggestions and get back to you.


Bring4th Moderator
Although I sympathize with the desire to have a safe place to discuss other channels and channeling, my vote, for what it's worth, is no. I don't see it as part of L/L Research's mission to provide a place to discuss other channels. It doesn't seem appropriate. L/L is itself a channel. A place to discuss channels, it seems to me, should not be affiliated with any particular channel. I understand that there may well be no such place at the moment, but that doesn't make it L/L's responsibility to provide it.
(08-04-2010, 12:33 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see it as part of L/L Research's mission to provide a place to discuss other channels. It doesn't seem appropriate. L/L is itself a channel. A place to discuss channels, it seems to me, should not be affiliated with any particular channel. I understand that there may well be no such place at the moment, but that doesn't make it L/L's responsibility to provide it.

I think it boils down to what IS the MISSION of this site. I went to the home page and found some information there about the same.

"In a way, that is what we are attempting hereto form a place where people may connect in unconditional love, to learn and serve together. Our thought was that this next level of unity would include forming an on-line ashram, coffee shop, or cyber café—a place where everyone can express themselves in whatever way they wish, given that it is consonant with supporting, encouraging and being a force for the enlargement of love and light on Planet Earth. This Bring4th site has places for you to share your thoughts, your creativity, your questions, and your stories in forums, blogs, intra-website messaging, and chat rooms. Our hope is that as the site gathers momentum, Bring4th will endure as a friendly and welcoming place where people can surf to their heart’s content while exchanging thoughts and ideas in a warm and loving atmosphere. "

So what I am reading here has nothing to do with such one source of information. The mission is to facilitate bring 4th by connecting people in love and form community. It does not say communities around the L/L Research material. That would be like putting chains on the expressions.
my opinion is, discussion for ascertaining the nature of outside sources should be done. not discussion of their materials at length. any source, today, is able to set up a website/forum for providing a community. it doesnt take 30-40 minutes to set one up, and doesnt even cost $10-20 a month.
We are going in circles because of a lack of clarity in this discussion. I would like to bring in some engineering problem-solving concepts that may serve to clarify the key issues.

An ideal system performs its desired functions while not creating or amplifying any other problems.
The ideal communication system allows people to instantly share ideas and experiences with others who would like to learn and share these experiences, without any cost, noise, or distortion.
An ideal system is made irrelevant by the environment performing the function, or by the object of the system providing its own benefits.
As far as we know, in a fourth-density social memory complex, instant telepathic communication provides instant, flawless sharing of ideas and experiences, directly from one entity to another, without the need for any communication channel system between them.
Therefore, any communication system lesser than that is simply an expedient way to get some communication benefits for now, until we don't need a communication system any more.

A system can only evaluated by its owners, who determine the goal of the system. This evaluation can include four parts: who benefits, what benefits they get, how they get these benefits, and what drawbacks should not be introduced as side effects of delivering the benefits.

The first part of the goal is the identification of who the system is supposed to benefit.
As far as I can tell, the goal of the b4 forums is to help STO Wanderers, and other people sympathetic to their interests. These are the target membership.

The second part of the goal is the identification of what benefits the system is supposed to provide.
As far as I can tell, the goal is to help the membership to increase their understanding of the channeled messages received by LLResearch from Ra, Q'uo, and other positive sources.

The third part of the goal is the identification of how the system provides its benefits.
The goal is to help this understanding occur by providing a forum for conversations that promote understanding of the messages and a positive sense of community. These conversations are mediated through an asynchronous, text-based, Internet-online software system that can handle text, image, and Internet link content, and moderated by a volunteer team of people of proven goodwill and skillfulness in facilitating communications according to clear rules.

The next part of the goal is to define harmful actions that the system should not generate.
In a communication system, the potential harmful outcomes are distortion, noise, leakage, and loss.
Distortion means that a portion of the intended communication was replaced by an inaccurate signal. The inaccurate reception is only present along with the original signal, and misrepresents it.
Noise means that an outside signal was added to the reception which has nothing to do with the original transmission.
Leakage means that those not interested in the message are forced to endure receiving it anyway, because the transmission channel interrupts bystanders with what, to them, is noise.
Loss means that some of the original message does not get through at all.
Latency is a form of distortion in which a delay is added to the signal, misrepresenting the original timing characteristics of the message.
Bandwidth is the capacity of the system to provide a complete transmission of messages sent. If bandwidth is too low, latency and/or loss will occur.

Therefore, the perfect b4 forum system could be defined this way:
a. Without requiring any usage of time, space, matter, or energy,
b. the perfect b4 forum system welcomes all STO Wanderers and all sympathetic to their cause,
c. to experience unlimited Internet-based asynchronous text, link, and image exchange
d. of information and experiences that help this community to increase its accurate, full understanding of Ra's message,
e. and its members' harmonious joyful loving experience as a community,
f. without any distorted misrepresentation of Ra's message or of the community's harmonious mutual love,
g. without any added noise of other signals that are opposed to Ra's message or the community's harmonious mutual love,
h. without any loss of meaning in messages that support the system's goals,
i. without the system adding any latency or bandwidth limitations that reduce its usefulness,
j. and without the system imposing interference on anyone who doesn't voluntarily chose to participate respectfully with the system.

Any system in physical reality falls short of ideals, but the ideals do serve as worthy goals for evaluating the system's current performance and for evaluating the proposed impacts of any changes to the system.

Currently there is a conflict between the way some forum members would like to see the forum operate,
and the way the forum currently operates.

There are some who say that if the forum was opened to a broader range of discussion of channeled material beyond that from L/L Research the systems' goals would be beneficially met in these ways:
a. Members could more fully discuss a variety of perspectives on metaphysics, spirituality, and Harvest, without needing to find or join another community;
b. Additional STO Wanderers and others sympathetic to their cause might find this community inviting and join it;
d. The additional perspectives may help increase understanding of Ra's messages;
e. The members would feel a more open sense of community when they know they can speak freely about concepts that interest their minds and resonate with their hearts;
f. The potential correction of distortion of Ra's message, or of information accurate at the time but which has changed because of events of the subsequent decades, could occur;
g. The community's distributed awareness of discernment could reduce the risk of false material causing deceit;
h. The distributed discernment of the community could reduce risk of other material distorting the LLR messages;
i. The community's discernment could do this without imposing an additional burden on the existing volunteer moderation team;
j. The system could still have rules of respectful communication with goodwill, as it does now.

On the other hand, the perception behind the current rules seems to be that allowing discussion of outside material would contradict its goals in these ways:
a. The additional usage would take extra moderation attention;
b. The allowance of outside messages could attract users unsympathetic to the STO Wanderer cause;
d. The additional information could decrease accuracy of understanding of Ra's message;
e. The additional information could undermine the harmony of this community;
f. The additional information could oppose the community's goals;
g. The additional information could introduce noise and interference;
h. The additional information could create confusion and negativity;
i. The additional activity would require an unreasonable increase in moderation load;
j. The additional activity could make b4 seem to have evangelistic goals that could bring about conflict with other sites, communities, or forces.

Therefore there is a conflict caused by these competing assumptions:
Pro-expansion: It is possible to make a reasonable test to find out if allowing outside material could support the goals of this forum.
Pro-status-quo: Any potential increase in benefits comes at too high a risk to the forum's integrity, or too high cost in additional demands on moderation, to allow even an experimental relaxation of the rule against outside material.

I happen to believe that the risks and costs could be reduced to a realistic level for an adequate test.
As I see it, the greatest unknowns are these:
1. What additional responsibilities would the moderation team have, in order to maintain the integrity of this system's goals, IF outside material could be discussed here?
2. Even if the additional moderation needs could be met, would relaxing the rule against outside material put the system at too much risk of being either corrupted or made irrelevant as a lighthouse shining forth the Ra and Q'uo material?
(These costs are far greater than the nominal cost of computer server capacity; and the association with Carla and Jim, the history and shared experience of this community, the prayerful loving attention to make this site what it already is, and the existing membership, are resources not to be discounted even though none could be bought away for any amount of money.)
(08-04-2010, 02:47 PM)Questioner Wrote: [ -> ]b. the perfect b4 forum system welcomes all STO Wanderers and all sympathetic to their cause,

and how do you discern sto from sts ? a noticeable number of people into new age literature and spiritualism are unable to know sto from sts, and quick to dub anything they dont see fit with their feelings or views sts. most unfortunately this is as such in regard to ra material too, despite there is a lot of information in it to use. they just pick a few bits that stick to their own feelings and views, and just reinforce them and keep going on the same.

had that discernment been easy, there wouldnt be no problem with anything, leave aside this outside channeling business.
Any ideal or perfect system definition indicates preferred outcomes, without specifying how they are to fulfilled.

Any actual system attempts to get as close as possible to those outcomes, through efficient use of available resources. The question is not whether or not the results are perfect; we can expect they won't be. The question is whether the current organization of resources optimizes the outcomes we can currently obtain.

Currently this is done in three parts:
1. Forum rules that make clear that this site endorses the Ra material, and that messages posted should demonstrate goodwill;
2. Forum moderators who can warn potentially offending users; move, delete, and merge threads; and cancel accounts;
3. Forum membership with a community of members who point out apparent discrepancies they observe in each others' messages.
I don't know of any resources that could be used to keep a forum focused on STO themes.
i very much think that, the knowledge of wisdom for discerning sto and sts, knowing what they are, what they are in the grander scheme of things, what they are in the lesser scheme of things. ie, understanding of wisdom is necessary.

if this vital factor cannot be put forth, i dont think any kind of scheme or plan will succeed.
I agree, your identification of the vital factor is right on.

I feel that the current rules, moderation, and member activity are excellent at promoting an STO focus to this site, when discussing the LLR material.

The current perspective of moderators and some members is that this discernment could not be trusted to be effective if we also discussed non-LLR channeled material here. The feeling seems to be that what is effective at discerning polarity in LLR material could somehow not be trusted to discern polarity in non-LLR material.
I disagree with the perceived need for such skepticism. I don't see why the same effective discernment would stop being effective if it could be applied to a broader range of material.

There's also a perspective that if moderators weren't highly familiar with outside material, they couldn't guide members to a wise perception about that material.
I disagree with the perceived need for such guidance from moderators. I don't see why moderators couldn't simply maintain the tone of the conversation and let people come to their own conclusions, as is already done with the Ra and Q'uo materials. I don't see why moderators would start to have a pastoral nurturing responsibility to help people discern truth in outside material, when they already don't have that responsibility with the LLR material. I think an analogy from political debates is relevant: a moderator is supposed to help candidates stick to the topic and time limits, not to tell people which candidate's positions are best for the country. Why should that be different for non-LLR material here?
(08-04-2010, 03:36 PM)Questioner Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree with the perceived need for such guidance from moderators. I don't see why moderators couldn't simply maintain the tone of the conversation and let people come to their own conclusions, as is already done with the Ra and Q'uo materials.I think an analogy from political debates is relevant: a moderator is supposed to help candidates stick to the topic and time limits, not to tell people which candidate's positions are best for the country. Why should that be different for non-LLR material here?

political material and spiritual material, unfortunately are not too different from each other.

as we have seen in some other threads, some people exhibit the same orange ray fixations and identifications as politics for spiritual material, and then the environment gets tense and aggressive. granted, it may provide a case study and lesson for entities participating. but, it would repeat to often, from what we see around in the world and internet these days, and the chances of that happening too often would discourage a lot of people with strong seeking from discussing any material or saying anything that would push the buttons of any potential identifier of that spiritual material.

as far as i know, there were already a few people who were discouraged in this fashion up to this point. which is natural, because it happens in every kind of community, forum.
(08-04-2010, 12:44 PM)thefool Wrote: [ -> ]I think it boils down to what IS the MISSION of this site. I went to the home page and found some information there about the same.

To some extent, there is a distinction between the mission of this site and the mission of L/L Research.

(08-04-2010, 02:47 PM)Questioner Wrote: [ -> ]A system can only evaluated by its owners, who determine the goal of the system. This evaluation can include four parts: who benefits, what benefits they get, how they get these benefits, and what drawbacks should not be introduced as side effects of delivering the benefits.

You are overlooking an important part of the evaluation: do the proposed changes to the system help the owners perform their own mission? In this case, I think the answer is clearly no. It is no part of L/L's mission, as I understand it, to discuss or to provide a place to discuss other channels.

If the site were an independent entity with no ties to L/L Research, discussion of other channels would be appropriate. But it's not, and given the current ownership structure, discussion of other channels should be left for other forums.
Is anyone able to answer my question?

Here it is again, with some clarification:

If we open a new sub-forum, and refrain from moderating content whatsoever, ie. intervene only if someone is rude or obnoxious, but pay no heed as to the subject matter being discussed as long as it's respectful - and then, for example, someone starts an in-depth discussion of a channeled source that, in our opinion, is decidedly STS, and many of our members are enjoying the discussion and participating...let's say the other channeled source appears congruent with the Law of One on the outside, but only closer inspection might reveal its true nature...And although we might personally feel that it is fear-evoking at its core, many of our members really get into it...

Are you proposing that we just leave it alone, and let Nature run its course? Whatever happens, happens?

Also, are you proposing that a sub-forum be created, which might have unlimited individual threads, each covering a different channeled source or topic? So we could end up with, say, 300 threads about the various channeled sources?

And then, if 290 of those 300 threads are about doomsday/reptilians/prophecies of catastrophes, we still maintain a hands off policy?

I'm just trying to get clear on what exactly you are proposing.
I'm not yet making a particular proposal.

I'm trying to see if we can agree on the criteria that should be used to evaluate any proposal. When people agree on how to evaluate ideas, then specific ideas can be harmoniously evaluated.

I agree with βαθμιαίος that it's important to respect the purpose of the forum according to its owners. Since I'm not an owner, I can't clarify that answer. I can help clarify the question.

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.
By that standard, it wouldn't matter whether or not we could have great discussions of other material.

We could compare this to a vegetarian restaurant. No matter how well stocked the kitchen equipment, no matter how excellent their grill and kitchen staff might be, adding steaks and pork chops to the menu would completely defeat the whole purpose of the restaurant.

On the other hand, maybe the purpose of the forum is to have discussions inspired by and compatible with the LLR material, but not necessarily limited to restrict outside channeling. IF this was the case, then the question becomes whether it's wise and practical to do so.

This would be like a restaurant dedicated to healthy eating, and so far veggie only, which might well allow meat dishes -- perhaps in an annex kitchen and overflow seating area.

A sub-question would be about appropriate rules for the meat part of the menu. Would otherwise positive patrons who bring in something from McDonald's get kicked off the property? What if someone brings in steak that many people enjoy, and then it's later discovered that it came from cattle subjected to hormone treatments? Etc.

I'm not saying what purposes the owner should have. I am saying that it would be helpful to get that clarified.

I've only made these specific proposals so far:

IF there's a change to try out allowing outside material, this change is started with strict criteria and a time limit, and then evaluated by those criteria when the time limit expires. I've suggested 1 to 3 months as a potentially useful trial period.
One of the criteria I'd like to see: some current, respected community members agree to assist the moderators in pointing out how outside material might relate to the polarity/orientation themes discussed in the LLR material. Also: a rule that any threads about outside material need to have relevant content pointing out clues about the outside material's polarity and relevance, within a few days at most, otherwise the threads would be deleted. Perhaps another rule could be that if an abundance of regulars felt uncomfortable about a thread, it would be locked and further discussion about that source put off topic for a few weeks. Perhaps another rule could be that if a plurality of b4 moderators felt uncomfortable about an outside source, they could lock threads about it and declare it off-topic for a while. I don't know if these would be the rest rules. They're examples of the kinds of rules that could be discussed and tried, IF the purpose of the site allows that.

IF there's interest in outside material discussion but it's not allowed here, or it's agreed to be allowed but unwise or problematic here, then we try to have the outside discussion start with a core group of regulars here who agree on principles, and who try to have the outside discussion site work as much as possible like this site except for the expanded scope.
A purpose I'd like to see is to demonstrate such integrity, wisdom, and balance that b4's owners and moderators could feel comfortable officially linking to this outside discussion, or even ultimately bringing it onsite one day.
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.

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.
I think once again the whole thing boils down to the "mission' of this site. I believe it is to help facilitate bring4th. I found some information from the site that seems to support that.

Can someone point out the mission statement of this site? Is this site menat to only discuss Law of One related topics? If the answer is "YES' then we should just stop right there and no more discussions.

But if the naswer is 'Not Really' then it is a great discussion to have. I think we are putting the cart before the horse and discussing how hard it is to manage outside source and stuff. We will be able to put our heads together and figure those out once we know whether we are supposed to have this discussion or not...
Pages: 1 2 3