Theos-Talk Archives (March 1998 Message tt00271)

>Brenda, you are slandering me to make false statements
>and you denied never describing HPB as a medium.
>A surprising statement!
>I made a quick overview of our emails and I AM able now
>to remember us what you wrote in a message on 03/21.
>This is your original statement:
>
>>Frank,
>>HPB was a medium. And when Dora Kunz teaches healing
>>she uses channeling.
>>St. Germain is behind the founding of a great movement
>>this century called the I AM Temple.
>>We are here to receive them. What's wrong with that?
>>Brenda

I did deny making the statement because I also reviewed what I had written
and didn't see it anywhere. Thanks for pointing this out to me. So now that
you can be comfortable again by quoting my words and showing me where you
found them, we can continue our discussion, if you like. I never claimed to
be perfect. On the contrary, I admit that I am capable of grave wrongdoing,
so you caught me being human. Never mind. We all need to forgive - me as
well as other selves can benefit from forgiveness.

>And again, on 03/28 you refered a second time to HPB
>as a medium (I insert here again your own words):
>
>>I will try to find "authentic quotes" on HPB, the
>>medium, on animals, and ascended masters (which is a
>>relatively new term, I believe.) None of the new terms
>>will qualify as theosophy, according to you, so I
>>guess the last "authentication" is hopeless.
>>Brenda

I hope you have read these quotes and learned something from them. I don't
find any discussion of that post.

>It is hard to make intelligent use of such a great tool
>as Theos-Talk really is, when someone can't remember
>what he/she stated only a few days ago. Before someone
>alleges another with false accusations one should bear
>in mind the own words. That is even a law in the
>mundane world, the more in the domain of the occult.
>And not even more for persons who are in direct
>connection with beings who are higher and wiser than
>HPB.

If it was so important for me to remember my words, why didn't you show
them to me at first instead of making it possible for me to overlook the
place they appeared?

>So you may kindly note that the error is on your side.
>Furthermore I like to state that I am not interested in
>personnel affairs. My only idea for my "forbidden
>questions" about the similarity of St. Germain which
>you named a Master and your reasoning about the
>"mediumship" of HPB was to clear the standpoints,
>discuss the facts and give possibilities for growth,
>including myself.
>Frank

I stand corrected. You may quote me again. I usually don't find it
beneficial to present HPB as a medium, but channeling is not too far
removed from the thought of mediumship, is it? I also don't remember you
trying to present two distinct definitions as I did. My definitions are not
the same as yours obviously. I don't think it's so offensive to be a medium
and HPB has even written positively about it.  It is the denotation of the
word into something abnormal and undesireable that forces her to preclude
herself from the category. I don't "feel the brut "that she may have felt
in being faced with charges of mediumship as well as other charges she has
faced in her life and she could write defensively when wounded.

I am not trying to wound you or HPB by making simple statements. I don't
really know you and I don't present HPB as a medium, unless someone seems
ignorant of her. The first message I ever remember reading from you was
dated 3/20. Is this correct? Maybe you can expect someone to size up a new
member of the discussion in an instant, but I may make mistakes that are
particularly peculiar to your mind. Does anyone else object to my
discussion? Medium is offensive to you and not to me. It may have been
offensive to HPB at times. She was certainly far more than a medium and so
all of her laurels should be sung at once. We should never present someone
in a sub-capacity when we could describe them fully. I love her. It is you
I don't know well enough.

Brenda