Q: (L) What is the true significance of the Masonic Apron?
A: In what way?
Q: (L) There are hieroglyphics and carvings from ancient Egypt
showing high priests wearing aprons and there are many secret
societies down through the ages for centuries and possibly even
further back than that where the initiates wore aprons. Now, the
aprons have been either white cloth or sheepskin. What is the
significance of the apron? Why an apron?
A: It is simply a tradition born of ritual.
Q: (L) What was the origin of this tradition? What did it symbolize to
put on the apron?
A: Perhaps it could best be described as attempts to shield from
negative or evil spirits.
Q: (L) Okay, SV and I did some research on all our past sessions
and we came to the realization that after other people began coming
regularly there was a
significant increase, in fact a doubling, of the number of answers
received through this source, that were basically refusals to answer,
as in: up to you, open, maybe, close, and so forth. In general, what
we noticed was a great reduction in the level and type of information
we were being given. Could you give us a reason for this?
A: The best answer to that is that when you have a greater and
greater number of subjects present for any formal channeling
sessions, of course the mental energy and the thought waves are
more of a conflicting nature, and of course the answers must be
carefully given in order to avoid conflict that is unnecessary by the
observers or within the ranks of the observers, so, therefore, some
questions are better left unanswered if it is felt or known that the true
answers will cause grave
distress by some who are receiving them. And, the more subjects
you have present, the more likely that this situation is to be
apparent. Therefore, sometimes
questions must be either passed over or each individual subject
must find a way to answer the question for themselves that they feel
comfortable with.
Q: (L) That seems to say that the way that is most conducive to
receiving information is to limit the number of individuals present,
thereby limiting the amount of
conflicting thought patterns.
A: That is one possible outlook.
Q: (L) Does it require a state of absolute openness to receive the
information?
A: No, it does not, however to receive absolute information in
uninterrupted flow, such a state would be required. But, such states
are very rare on third density.
Q: (L) Well, it seemed to me that in the initial six months or so that
we were receiving the information, that the information was much
more open and the answers
were more open. It seems that when I ask questions I ask because I
really want to HEAR what may be said without putting any
expectations on it whatsoever. I
have realized that with all of the enormous work I have done in this
life, that I have not been able to figure out the answers, and I am
ready to shut up and listen...
When other people ask questions, it often seems that they are just
asking just to confirm the answer they have already formed in their
own mind against whatever
answer may come through.
A: This is a correct perception on your part, however such prejudice
as described is something that all on third density are guilty of to a
greater or lesser extent at
various question and answer opportunities. Therefore if you were to
study the answers more thoroughly, you might also find that there
are varying degrees of what
you describe as openness or willingness to dispense information
even during those sessions where fewer people were present.
Q: (L) That is true. The thing is, from my point of view, to continually
strive to reduce the number of prejudices, to expand and broaden
the willingness to hear the
information, and to not have a preconceived notion of what the
answer is going to be. In the initial stages, of course, I was testing
and examining what kinds of
answers came through and what the parameters were, and I actually
think, interestingly, that even with my, more or less rigid testing
process, that better and more
complete answers were given than were given in later sessions
where others were present.
A: It's possible.
Q: (L) What would be the reason for this?
A: We have already described this in the previous answer. The more
subjects you have present, the more opportunity for prejudice,
obviously.
