An Excellent Opportunity to Sharpen Our Discernment Skills

Tom T. Moore has made a fresh attack on Suzy Ward.

But listen, before you groan and say “here goes Steve again,” think about it. This situation is perfect. It offers you a chance to sharpen your discernment skills – and how many situations offer that chance?

So rather than groan, I suggest you dig into this one. Spend some time studying the points that are made. Allow it to be the time when you really begin thinking about these matters if by slim chance you haven’t already. This can be a very good thing and even could be something you enjoy.

For that reason , let me not just race through the whole exercise, but give the matter due consideration.  I intend to make nine points about why Tom’s allegations are not credible.

If the matter offends you, remember that you have free choice and needn’t read this page. Pass it by if you like but don’t represent yourself later as being victimized. If you read this page, you do so because you chose to.

I have to add, to be entirely truthful, that I would defend Suzy whether or not a defense lends itself to discernment practice and whether or not my readers disagree with me. I regard the two attacks on Suzy as being unchivalrous, probably ill-motivated, and indefensible. They seriously call into question the credibility of Tom and “Theo” in my eyes and they may cause an unwanted division in the ranks of lightworkers.

Viewer Discretion is Advised

In his latest issue of the Gentle Way Newsletter, Tom T. Moore again reproaches Suzy Ward.  He begins by posting some of the email he has received, two protesting his remarks and two supporting them.

THE MATTHEW CONTROVERSY

I have been chastised in the past week by subscribers to this newsletter who also receive the Messages From Matthew and did not appreciate the comments made by Theo last week.  Here are some of their messages:

Kathy writes:  Tom I have bought 2 of your books and daily say an MBO for clients as I am a realtor and nothing has happened but I have kept on trying I must be doing something wrong. Then when you trashed Suzy Ward I began to really doubt you and your true agenda.  I am sorry you did that. As a lightworker that I thought you were, we don’t do that type of thing to others. I have followed Matthew for years and I believe what he says and I feel sorry for you and what you have done. It will be hard for me to believe anything you say from here on out.

Ron writes:  Subject: Attack on other channels

Mr. Moore, I have just read of an allegation, attributed to you and Theo, against another respected channel. If this is not true, I wish you well and I hope you will deny having done so. If it is true, I wish you to know that whatever credibility you and your source may have had, with me at least, and by extension, anyone I speak to, have been severely damaged. Credible sources, in my experience, NEVER comment on or censor other sources.

Again, sir, if these channelings were attributed to you falsely, please deny them and accept my well wishes.

Mary Ann writes:

I just read Steve Beckow’s remarks about your comments in the last newsletter about Suzy Ward’s channeling of Matthew. http://the2012scenario.com/world-disclosure-day/disinformation-sites/an-excellent-opportunity-to-sharpen-our-discernment-skills/ .  Do you agree with Steve’s interpretation of what Theo told you? Suzy is under attack these days by forces that want to silence her and Matthew. I hope you haven’t been used by them. Please let me know.

Then I received this email after I had already meditated this morning:

Mariel writes:  I wish to personally thank you and your Guides for the article in your last newsletter that Suzy Ward has been “compromised” in her supposed channeling of Matthew. I have known this for awhile intuitively and it was confirmed to me by Cmdr. Ashtar, for whom I am a channel. I started to see Matthew supposedly saying things through channel that I KNEW to be false, so I checked with Ashtar. To a few of my friends who have followed Matthew “religiously,” I tried to tell them they need to be EXTREMELY discerning with that source, as it has been compromised.  In return, I got a ton of “flack.” So, I can only imagine what you are going through now with the long-time fans of Matthew. (I have read some of it online.)

One of my and Cmdr. Ashtar’s huge “soapbox issues” is and has been DISCERNMENT, especially since there are SO MANY out there claiming to channel Ashtar, who really are not. Since I am part of Ashtar’s soul family and have worked with and for him for eons, I KNOW his energy and can spot almost instantly when a supposed “channel” is using Ashtar’s name to spout nonsense, instill fear or promote their own agenda.

It is sad to me and to Ashtar, as well, to see how many of the Lightworkers are being deceived now by false channelings and how many of them are not even willing to examine the dynamics of how somebody with an “agenda” can insert disinformation into an otherwise true set of information, in order to have the deliberate disinformation accepted as Truth. Ashtar’s instruction to me is that if somebody asks me about a particular channeling and I know it to be deceptive, then I must tell them the Truth as I see it. This I have done and this has not been appreciated in many cases, but tell the Truth I must, as I know it is with you.

Thanks for being and remaining to be a Teller of Truth!

So here is what I asked Theo on Thursday morning:

Theo, did I receive you correctly about the Messages from Matthew Suzy is receiving?

Yes, Tom, you did receive me fairly correctly.  When you receive these “thought packets” as we call them, they are interpreted by your own belief system, and as you have told people before Tom, ten people can ask the same question of their own GA’s and receive ten different answers.  That said, you did have an opinion already regarding the messages she was receiving which had been sent to you by your readers.  She is greatly influenced at the present time so that her messages do not always come from her son.  That is a fact, however hard it may be to accept this.  Suzy is a lovely human Tom, and does her best to pass these messages along just as you do.

But my point that I wished to make when communicating with you before was that anyone’s reception can be corrupted if you do not take steps to insure you receive them properly, which is why I recommended requesting MBO’s as you do before communicating with us to receive these messages solely from your own GA, or other beings on a higher vibrational level.  I realize you stirred up a hornet’s nest when you published the comments I made, and as your readers will see, normally I allow each to make his own decisions.  And that still goes for those who wish to embrace the messages that Suzy receives.

But EQUALLY IMPORTANT, as tens of thousands of people begin doing their own communications with spirit in the future Tom, is to do it with protection, or there will be great problems in reception.  So I think my ability to see in your future and to see how many people will begin to experiment with communicating themselves, outweighed the ruffling of feathers.  In the future—and I’m talking about yes up to 200 years here, everyone will meditate, as you will be at a higher vibrational level.  We on this side want everyone to begin to do it correctly from the very start so that you will have success.  That’s all for now Tom.

Defense

I suspect that “Mariel” is not Mariel but a channel that Ashtar, speaking through Suzy Ward in 2009, repudiated. I suspect that the comments made by “Mariel” are payback. Because I don’t wish to renew that former incident, I won’t name the channel or state what Ashtar has said about her channeling.  The person herself knows whether my allegation is true or not.

I offer my defense of Suzy.

Point 1.  Re-read Eve’s purported message from Matthew. (1) Now consider Theo’s original allegation:

“There is a little truth to that claim Tom, but the reality is that this lady has been corrupted more by other spirits taking over than a CIA telepath.  But it was good to point out that people can be corrupted by outside interests or entities.  We protect you all the time, Tom, as you have important work to do, which will become even more well known in the future.”

Notice Theo disputes the claim made by Eve that Suzy has been corrupted by a CIA telepath. Yet she does not dispute the legitimacy of the message from Eve.  Why would Theo dispute Matthew’s legitimate messages but not dispute the message purportedly coming from Eve which Theo says contains inaccurate information; namely, that Suzy has been corrupted by a CIA telepath?

Point 2. Notice the contents, diction, tone, etc., of “Eve’s” message. Ask yourself how likely it would be, if Suzy received that message, that she would not recognize it as (A) different than the normal messages she receives from Matthew and (B) not having come from Matthew?

Re-read any messages from Matthew on Suzy’s site and tell me if any of them sound like the message that came from “Eve.” I submit that none of them do.

Consider the situation for a moment. Suzy has been receiving telepathic messages from her own son for several decades. She knew him in life and she knew him, perhaps even more intimately, in spirit.

She also receives telepathic messages from Hatonn, Ashtar, and many other beings, all of whom her readers will know that she can detect from their differing vibrational frequencies.

How could it be that Suzy would receive messages not from her son but from hostile entities and not be aware of it?  Would a mother’s ability to detect her son’s vibrations suddenly disappear overnight? Can you not see how implausible the suggestion is? I can.

Point 3. Now notice Theo’s claim that Suzy “is greatly influenced at the present time so that her messages do not always come from her son.”  Gone is the charge of being corrupted and now she is being “influenced.”  And influenced so that some messages do not come from her son.

Notice first the retreat from “corruption” to “influence.” Notice second the change from messages being corrupted to messages not coming from Matthew.  In fact the second allegations are different from the first.  This alteration of allegations and retreat from the  original ones is not credible.

Point 4.  Theo says that truth is that Suzy has been “corrupted by outside interests or entities.” She is no more specific than that. Can you imagine an angel making an unsupported claim against a source and channel widely regarded as among the best there is and not being specific enough to allow the claim to be discussed or examined?  Theo has damned Suzy, taken a step that could destroy Suzy’s reputation, and has been vague in doing so. Is that credible from an angel?

Point 5.   Theo says that Suzy’s “messages do not always come from her son.”  I ask you to think about that statement for a minute.  In saying that has Theo also not said that some messages do come from Matthew? I think she has.

If Matthew can still reach his mother, do you not think that he would be expeditious in contacting her and warning her of what is occurring?

Yet Theo gives no indication that Matthew has. Instead in her partial acceptance of Eve’s allegations, Theo supports a scenario in which Matthew, who can still contact his mother, instead contacts a complete stranger who publishes hostile allegations in a message sent to a journal known to be hostile to Matthew and Suzy (Candace Frieze’s). How credible is that scenario?

Point 6. Why would Matthew continue giving some messages to his mother while she posts others that do not come from him? Again an unlikely scenario.

Point 7. Have you heard that Suzy has gone to her site and identified messages that do not come from Matthew?  Yet those of you who know her, don’t you think that’s the first thing she would do if she even suspected something was wrong?

I research Matthew’s messages regularly and I’m not aware of any that sound as if they do not come from Matthew. “Eve’s” message sounds like it did not come from Matthew. We can see that there are differences to be found between Matthew’s regular messages and Eve’s. But no discernible differences between the messages currently on Matthew’s site. The reason is clear to me: because Eve’s message was bogus, not those on Matthew’s site.

Point 8. Theo goes on to discuss what steps one can take to see that that does not happen. She says that she protects Tom but leaves it open that no one would be expected to protect Suzy and Matthew. Why does Theo think that Suzy does not know how to protect herself? Why does Theo suspect that Matthew does not know how to protect Suzy?

Point 9.   Remember what Nancy Detweiler said that a source exalting his or her channel is reason to be suspicious, which I agree with. Theo here exalts Tom by saying “we protect you all the time, Tom, as you have important work to do, which will become even more well known in the future.” A source exalting a channel in this way is something that I usually am suspicious of.

To say that Tom’s work “will become even more well known in the future” is to pump Tom’s work. I personally do not approve of that when  I see it coming from a source about its own channel.

I’m going to stop here. Nine points is enough.  I’m sure I’ve tested your patience and I thank you if you have reached this point.

Submission

I submit to you that what we are seeing is a gathering of people (Candace Frieze, “Eve,” Tom T. Moore, and “Mariel”) who share in common the fact that Matthew Ward or Hatonn or Ashtar through Suzy Ward has at some point questioned their credibility. I am led to believe that this has occurred with Candace Frieze (Abundant Hope). If “Mariel” is who I believe it to be, it has occurred with her as well.

I’m not clear what Tom’s motive might be for attempting to discredit Suzy (and Matthew, really) but it does not enhance his credibility in my eyes.

I further submit that there are so many credibility problems with the allegations being made against Suzy Ward that they are not reliable.

I ask that these attacks cease. I dislike being in the position of reprimanding an angel, but I’d like “Theo” to consider that angels would not do what she’s doing and, if they did, they would not be doing it in the careless and bumbling manner that she is.  I personally don’t want to return to this matter but I will if Suzy Ward or Mike Quinsey are attacked again.

Footnotes

(1) “Public Statement by Matthew through Eve,” April 8, 2011, at http://abundanthope.net/pages/Eve_109/public-statement-by-Matthew.shtml