Channeling & Stylistic Differences

BY SHEPHERD HOODWIN  

There are many factors that can account for style differences, including the
"instrument" the channel brings and the nature of the channeling agreements
with Michael. Sarah didn't even think that her channeling sounded that much
like Yarbro's. However, channels whose primary exposure to an entity is
through a particular channel's voice are imprinted with that voice and their
channeling will tend to sound that way. The voice itself isn't Michael: they
don't speak English on the causal plane (actually, they speak Dutch--a
little known fact). There's no reason for Michael to try to alter the voice
that naturally results from coming through a particular instrument if it
works well enough for their purposes, whether or not it's similar to another
channel's. Any channeled entity has to use the raw material available in the
instrument. It can be stretched and molded to a certain degree, but there's
no point in unnecessarily expending energy to change something that works.
Also, channels who work together are likely to have agreements with the same
pool of Michael fragments, which can make for more similar transmissions.

Michael's voice through me developed away from other channels. I lived in
New York City at the time and had not yet read any of the books when I
started channeling. I channeled painstakingly slowly to make sure that
Michael was choosing each word and that I was out of the way (my channeling
still tends to be slow). The voice isn't the same as what's in Yarbro, but
it has a beautiful cadence to it that is certainly different from my own
voice. Channels whose first direct contact with Michael was through me
channel with a voice reminiscent of Michael's through me, because they were
imprinted with that. There's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't mean
they're imitating; that's just how it works.

JP Van Hulle channels very quickly, with a delightful casual style. Those
channels who learned from her tend to have a voice like hers.  And why not?
If their agreements are with her, one can assume that this is fine with all
concerned. Michael cares much more about content than style.

Channels' agreements with Michael, including their methodologies, differ.
Through some channels, Michael picks each individual word; through others,
the channel translates the thoughts into words herself; through still
others, it's a collaboration. In some channels, Michael uses more of the
channel's personality style than others; when less is used, the tone is
drier, since Michael doesn't have much personality of their own as we think
of it; when more is used, the tone can be personable and/or warm. And
through some channels, Michael has agreed to "put" quotation "marks" around
"every" other "word." :)

Sarah read 2-3 books a week for 50 years, and was brilliant. No wonder she
provided such a good instrument for intellectually dense material. Yarbro is
likewise very well read in a variety of subjects, which is necessary for her
work as a fiction author. I am a slow reader and have read relatively few
books (I do read a lot of articles). The Yarbro books contradict the idea
that any valid Michael channel can get any kind of information: e.g., the
passages where "Milly" says she wasn't good at getting historical
information.

A channel doesn't need to have knowledge in the specific area being
channeled, but it helps if s/he has a feel for that kind of material and
enough of the vocabulary to get specifics. For example, some channels have a
natural feel for health material, and if they also know anatomy, etc., the
entity they channel can more easily transmit specifics. Without that feel
and vocabulary, it can still be done, but it may be like pulling teeth to
get it through.

Each channel inevitably brings a unique combination of strengths and
weaknesses to their work. I trust that clients attracted to my work need and
can benefit from the strengths I bring. No channel is great at everything. I
think we all do the best we can.

It's possible that some channels who think they're channeling Michael
aren't, but I would never jump to that conclusion about anyone's work. There
are so many other reasons channeling can be off, such as inexperience
(although newbies can also be great channels), interference from conditioned
consciousness, and so forth. So it could be Michael but not coming through
as strong or clear as it might, or it could be a combination of Michael and
other sources, such as the channel's own psychic faculties. Or the
channeling might be accurate and just seem off because it doesn't agree with
one's preconceptions. In any case, if the channel asked for Michael, and
they come to all who ask, why wouldn't they at least try to come through?
Michael has a very distinct energy. Those who are sensitive to energies can
feel them even when they don't agree with the words of the channeling
(which, after all, can be less than ideal through any channel).

The ability and willingness to put aside conditioned consciousness
(assumptions, prejudices, spins, etc.) is essential to good channeling (or
anything else). The biases we aren't conscious of are those most likely to
interfere. The more a channel knows himself, the more likely he is to be
clear. However, being clear isn't the same as being talented or
knowledgeable. Some channels are very gifted and do great work in areas they
have no rigid opinions, but their transmissions distort in areas they do
because of their unwillingness to put them aside or a lack of awareness that
they even have them. We may mistake our opinions for the truth, but the
truth doesn't have charged energy around it--it is not judgmental,
defensive, or self-righteous.