Archangel Michael channelling

[Jeremy Weiland]

but which is more important - the message or the source?

shouldn't truth be able to speak for itself? and if it doesn't, can you
tell us which parts you think are harmful distortions? i didn't see
anything in the reading that i would consider harmful - yet i understand
that the ways of negatives can be very subtle.

maybe my heart is not completely open, but there were things in that
reading that i found helpful (despite the blatant advertisements at the end
of the email). i would also like to request that, if people want to share
readings with the list in the future, that they simply post the link rather
than post the entire thing to the list. it can be tough on the digesters to
wade through a long (and potentially unwanted) reading like that.

jeremy

> the droning complexity of the message from 'archangel michael' is, by
itself, proof that this message comes not from divinity but rather from one
of the multifarious imposter-incorporeals on the astral plane, either having
a lark or engaged in something more sinister.
>
> any open heart which is able to feel the energy of this message may
instantly discern its bogus nature.