Michaels’ Work with 3 Tiers of Channels

[Excerpt from TT: 2005-12-04]

[H2OSprtLvr] [question was lost from the transcript, for some reason, but paraphrased, it read something like: “Do the various channels work with different parts of the Michael Entity and this is why there seems to be different answers to the same questions?”]

[M Entity] Our Entity responds as a whole, regardless of the various fragments within our entity with which a channel may have Agreements. We are never in disagreement or discrepancy across the entity as we respond through our channels.

When a channel is one of our Primary Channels, our answers will remain consistent through each channel, however “flavored” by the Personality of each channel. Our Secondary Channels may have a tendency to “spin” the information to the effect of support for their own teaching and perspective of life. Our Tertiary Channels rarely access our information accurately, but only access our energy as a means to support their personal experiences and personal expression.

Posing a question to three Primary Channels may result in three “different” answers, but they should not be in conflict. Posing a question to three Secondary Channels may have a theme, but clearly hold conflicts and discrepancies. Posing a question to three Tertiary Channels would result in elaborate discrepancies and a tendency to direct the student to believe in various “reasons” for dismissing these discrepancies, rather than encouraging a resolution or correction of discrepancies. Many of our Tertiary Channels rely heavily on the “energy” that they can convey, rather than the validity of information. Energy is difficult to question as it is subjective, whereas information can be questioned.

We can be called upon by 1000 Channels and our information or energy is not segregated among the channels. It is the same, regardless of accuracy or discrepancy among the channels.

All of this being said, it is not unusual for a Primary Channel to flaw the expression of our information; fatigue, inexperience, insecurities, personal issues, and specialization can cause a skew our contact with you. This is acceptable to us as we do not wish for any of our students to lose the ability to discern, question, or validate. Discrepancies among Primary Channels do exist, but are a result of isolated issues, rather than long-term agendas.

Entities have been described by some of our channels as being designed with “three sides:” one side of Truth, one side of Love, one side of Energy. Those “sides” are also the emphasis used among our varying channels, with Truth an emphasis among our Primary Channels, Love as an emphasis among our Secondary, and Energy as an emphasis among our Tertiary. Our Primary Channels access all three “sides,” while our Secondary access two “sides,” Truth and Energy; and our Tertiary can access only Energy.

We do not claim that any one channel’s emphasis is better or more valid than the others. We merely respond to your question as a means to help understand how we can seem to be so fragmented in our responses among the channels who claim to channel us. While we are NOT fragmented or segmented among the channels, our channels can act as facets of us, allowing only specific angles of expression.

We must add that questions such as this are highly encouraged. We are rarely invited to share in this manner among our students because of the politics and fear among the students and channels. It is Good Work that you choose to rise above the condemnation of courtesy and ask the difficult questions that have the power to heal many of the rifts of misunderstandings perpetuated throughout our students and channels. Understanding our relationships and methods among our channels does not create hierarchy, nor can it be used as such, anymore than Soul Ages can be.