David Wilcock

[Quantum]

When I read Cayce, ACIM or Carla's work, I get a sense that the LOO message is the focal point. When I check out what David has to offer, I get a sense that he is the focal point. I guess I need to spend some time thinking about why that is such an issue for me.

Hello G.E. :exclamation: (I couldn't resist the light-bulb after G.E. Your handle as well as the pun of G.E. (General Electric) seemed apropos to both, particularly as both suggest light. I've never had the pleasure of exchanging dialogue with you. Rest assured that you are far from the only individual that feels as you do. I might offer that, perhaps like myself, it is indeed his hubris that often over-rides his message. Although much credit is given to him for bringing many seekers to the LOO, and rightly so, it may also be noted that he may turn as many off and away from it as well. Little if anything has ever been said to this point. It is an equally important point. It stands to reason that such a fire-starter would ignite the flames both ways rather than just the one. It is to this point that I question most. If by the Ra message that even but one soul brought to the calling is sufficient, might it not equally stand to reason that such hubris also effectively turns but one off and is sadly as effectively important? Of course it will be argued that the seeker seeking humbly and sincerely will continue to seek, and thus a Wilcock will assuredly never prevent such a seeker from finding, but nonetheless it might be argued that the LOO is cast in the same shadow as is Wilcock for those that came to it through him and as quickly were turned away from at least the LOO as a result. I believe this is a large point not to be overlooked and as such one that can not be argued away. Something is surely amiss in such an equation.

Typically one only speaks about the dogs that did run away verses the ones that didn't. By the same logic in this case one only speaks about the ones that didn't verses the ones that did. The reasoning is easy enough to understand given that the ones that didn't are largely the only ones that report they didn't. In short, if it is the messenger's position that he is as paramount as is the message, it then clearly effects the message as much as the delivery of it. If this too is your sentiment not yet put to word, then this is not an issue of yours as much as it is the messengers.

Q