My Michael Chart

[Drury]

Thanks, Shepherd!  This MT info has entirely gripped me and I already know it won’t let me go until I learn all I can about it.  Both personality typing and spirituality have been passions of mine.  I own dozens of personality typing books and have read even more on spirituality over the years, and MT combines my two interests better than any method I’ve found.

I didn’t say why I chose you to do my chart, but after reading multiple articles written by you, we seem to have many of the same viewpoints, you’ve been studying Michael for a long time, and I like the clarity of your writing, and clarity is a characteristic important to me.

Thanks for explaining Frequency, so I’m not confusing it with Role or this-lifetime characteristics.

This is what I read regarding 7th Entity:  “Though, don't expect to find them on a peace march, or saving the whales. The 7th entity would rather serve others in a more intimate way.”  That’s me, and though I don’t see myself as a Server, I do act like one at times when it comes to helping people with psychological or spiritual issues.  But William Dafoe?  I’m holding out for Keanu.  

[Drury]

Some of the stuff from the Chelsea Quinn Yarbro books has been shown to be inaccurate, such as that Essence Twins have the same role, or that Old Souls are so laid back and uninterested in the physical plane that they are often homeless people, stuff like that.

Chiara, I'm sorry I missed your post, but at least this extra one will almost flip me into Jr. Member.   

After reading what you said, I'm glad I decided to read The Michael Handbook first.  You know that I ordered Tao to Earth after you told me about it?  It should have shown up today but the used bookseller sent me the wrong book.  But that's okay, since I have two Michael books to read before that one, plus I now have my Role sorted out.    I'm going to e-mail Shepherd tonight and see if he's available to send his book, also.

[Betty]

Chiara, you said "Some of the stuff from the Chelsea Quinn Yarbro books has been shown to be inaccurate, such as that Essence Twins have the same role, or that Old Souls are so laid back and uninterested in the physical plane that they are often homeless people, stuff like that."

How and by whom was it shown to be inaccurate?

John Roth, you said that "Essence twins are very seldom of the same role."  This directly contradicts MFM; where do you get that information?

thanks

[Chiara DB]

Betty, by subsequent channelings by various channels that evidenced an overwhelming preponderence of ETs of different roles and Old Souls who worked at jobs, lived in houses, and had enough money to buy a channeling

[John Roth]

Chiara, you said "Some of the stuff from the Chelsea Quinn Yarbro books has been shown to be inaccurate, such as that Essence Twins have the same role, or that Old Souls are so laid back and uninterested in the physical plane that they are often homeless people, stuff like that."

How and by whom was it shown to be inaccurate?

John Roth, you said that "Essence twins are very seldom of the same role."  This directly contradicts MFM; where do you get that information?

thanks

From looking at lots of channeled charts. In channeled charts, Essence twins are very seldom of the same role. Experience trumps dogma every time.

HTH

John Roth

[Betty]

Quote from John Roth:

"From looking at lots of channeled charts. In channeled charts, Essence twins are very seldom of the same role. Experience trumps dogma every time."

Just to play devil's advocate here:  what you are really saying is that the "lots of channeled charts" are experience, and the MFM channeling is dogma.

In other words, you (and others) have made a choice on what to believe.  That's fine, but calling the original channeling dogma is a little too much, I think.

[Chiara DB]

Betty, it's only dogma if it's used that way. Pointing out that people's experience directly contradicts something that was once written down in a book, and demanding an explanation for how that could be suggests you are using it as a dogma. I'm not saying you are doing that, but reading your post, it would be easy to take that away from what you wrote.

[John Roth]

Quote from John Roth:

"From looking at lots of channeled charts. In channeled charts, Essence twins are very seldom of the same role. Experience trumps dogma every time."

Just to play devil's advocate here:  what you are really saying is that the "lots of channeled charts" are experience, and the MFM channeling is dogma.

In other words, you (and others) have made a choice on what to believe.  That's fine, but calling the original channeling dogma is a little too much, I think.

See Chiara's comment.

One of the core concepts in the MT is validation.

I tend to be a bit of a stickler for proper terminology. The term "Devil's Advocate" comes from the Catholic church, where it's a specific role in the process of canonizing a saint. The role is to find flaws in the evidence produced for sainthood. If you're going to play devil's advocate with my statement that experience of channeled charts shows that essence twins are seldom of the same role, you need to provide a representative sample (not a cherry-picked sample) of charts that show that I'm wrong.

You don't need to use the term. Just produce the evidence.

Otherwise you're canonizing a book. That's dogma.

John Roth

[Betty]

Chiara, I'm just trying to validate.  A lot of your posts could be taken the wrong way, too.

John, I'm not a stickler for proper terminology, so I'm not going to get into semantics game with you.  That's your thing, not mine.  Although you haven't produced any evidence, either--a "lot" of channeling experience is hardly definitive either way any more than my "cherry-picked" example.

I was just trying to understand why the original channeling was declared inaccurate.  However, I will drop it rather than get into an argument with the both of you, who seem to be sure that you are correct and I am wrong.

[Chiara DB]

Okay, Betty, you're right. ETs are all the same role.

[jk]

One useful element in knowing one's  Cadre number is seeing if you are in someone elses Entity or Cadre. Beyond that, I agree, can't see much use to it.

Drury, yes, the Entity numbers are meaningful and would be the same channel to channel. And I know exactly what you mean about checking your email 5-6 times a day

Okay, this is a little confusing to me.  You said you read that essence twins are of the same role.  But you are channeled as a sage and your essence twin is a priest.  I've seen others (including myself) who have essence twins with different roles.  Can someone explain this to me?

Betty, in More Messages from Michael, it was said that Essence Twins are of the same Role in 6 out of 7 cases. It was a whole Michael Math article. Mine was channeled as the same Role as me and so was my sister's, but the other 4 family members I had charts done for, have them channeled as different Role from themselves. Also looking at various published MT students' charts, I cannot see this 6 out of 7 thing happening.
One way to see how heavily edited the Yarbro books are, is to look at the original transcripts which the group actually produced. Also by accounts of the actual members of that group. Not only it was highly fictionalised, but also things were made up entirely, apparently, such as the "Michael manifestation". That does not make MFM itself a dogma, it makes it a fiction-document hybrid, concerned with something like channeling which cannot be 100% accurate. To treat it or anything else as THE truth, is a dogma. There are MT related sites where large amounts of charts are published (done by various channels and presumably validated to some degree by the student). The 6 out of 7 (let alone all) thing does not validate against this data. Or most of these charts are wrong. However then its a probability of 1 channeling being right and many wrong versus one wrong/made up and large amount right. It's a matter of probability.
I cannot see this 6 out of 7 thing in the original transcripts (but i have not read them in their entirety yet).

[Betty]

Thank you for actually discussing my question, instead of flat-out telling me I'm wrong and accusing me of dogma.

One thing I would like to point out if that I never said MFM was right and everybody else was wrong.  I simply asked where they got their information.   Validating was all I was trying to do--of both MFM and "other channels".  Instead I got accused of dogma.  Although I fail to understand how questioning leads to dogma. 

Boy, just asking questions here can get one attacked!  And thank you, Chiara, for the sarcastic reply.  I will endeavor to remember that one should not question the knowledge or sources of certain people.

[Chiara DB]

You're welcome Betty -- I'm glad we finally understand each other

[Drury]

I'm editing this because my comment is out of date.  However, I am using this post to bump myself to Jr. Member.  

[Chiara DB]

You know, I didn't want to continue this, but I have to say that jk just told you exactly what I told you, minus the background information on the Yarbro books. I did explain that since that book, hundreds of charts have been channeled showing an overwhelming preponderence of different-roled ETs, and you rejected that, saying that I merely "made a choice on what to believe." Yes -- I choose to believe the evidence before my eyes rather than one single printed source from 35 years ago. Getting hung up on that one source is what is called "dogma." You obviously don't like that word and take offense to it, and I do wish John had not even used it, because you fixated on it to the exclusion of everything else.

But in any case, I don't know what to say someone who responds to the evidence I present with "well you just made a choice on what to believe" and "you're just saying I'm wrong." Because of that, I did make a sarcastic post out of frustration, and I probably shouldn't have done that. But the fact is, I didn't say you personally were wrong, and I didn't neglect to explain or expect you to take my word for it -- I explained very clearly why I said what I said. And I resent you implying that I did anything other than that, or that I attacked you in any way. It's untrue, and it's unfair.