Why are newer channelings important?

[Sacred Fool]

That's the reason i already suggested a public wiki more than one time, but without resonance.

First, thanks for posting this Q'uo Q&A.  Second, there has been some resonance for the public wiki idea.  I'm in favour of it and Asolsut-something-something  proposed it numerous times, as well as yourself.  One problem with this is that LLR does not possess a bias in favour of helping people search the material, except by publishing its own guides.  (1) The website lawofone.info is owned by Tobey Wheelock because he did the work on it, not LLR.  (2) To my knowledge, there is no easy way to search to "other conscious channelings" on the llresearch.org site.  Ergo, if you're new to all this, how can you do what Loki, Tadeus and myself do, namely, search the sessions by key word?  Unless you've stuck around the forums for years, how would know about the pdfs?  I'm not saying LLR's bias is good or bad, just that is exists.

Now, if you go to llresearch.org and click on channeling and archives, all of the sample sessions offered are of recent vintage.  So, if they're pointing people to recent sessions, then what's so strange about people reading them?  As to why visitors don't go back in time, some might find 50 years of sessions a tiny bit intimidating.  Where to begin?  So maybe they begin at the present and leave off after a few transcripts?  Additionally, many people might hope that current sessions would be germane to current political events, which seems a reasonable guess.

Do the older sessions have a different flavour compared to the newer ones, as Gary suggested when he referred to Carla's ability to channel?  Well, here's a line or two from the session which inspired this thread with Austin channeling.  What does this tell you?

We encourage this instrument for he is feeling somewhat inadequate to the task of this evening and affirm that our thoughts were captured and presented with some accuracy. And [we] relieve him of his service for this evening as we transfer this contact to the one known as Trisha. We are those of Q'uo.

This tells me that the quality of the work is variable, in part being influenced by the experience and dedication of each individual channel.  Further--and perhaps more importantly--the quality of the group plays a large role in the quality of the contact.  I recently came across a session where Hatonn or Q'uo said that each time a new member joins the group, if that person is not as dedicated a seeker as the others, then they lesson the intensity of their message so as to not infringe on the newcomer.  Now, with their gaining a bunch of internet readers, what do you suppose that might mean?

Finally, there's the matter of the quality of the questions, which is discussed in the thread referenced in the OP of this thread.  in short, my view is as follows.  L/L Research began as a small band of seekers (whose members would come and go over time) and it was not then a dedicated administrative enterprise.  This has changed to where publishing is the main concern and--in my opinion only--the seeking is done on the leftover time rather than being the most burning concern.  Whereas in the early sessions where Prof. Don Elkins was a key player--as well as Carla Rueckert--the intensity of the seeking might have been much more upfront than it is today.  Again the intensity of the seeking, along the consequent ardour of the queries, are fundamental to increasing the quality of the contact.

Is this a bad thing?  I'd say not.  The work continues.


By way of an illustrative contrast, if anyone is interested, this is a link to channeling done by a LLR breakaway group wherein the seeking is upfront and the administrative culture is incidental. I find it poignant. (You may either read or listen.)

https://harc.otherselvesworking.group/19...n-empathy/