Whitley's Journal

The Old Edition of the Key was CENSORED, the New One is Not

A few days ago, an astute reader informed me that there were differences between the new edition of the Key and the one I published in 2002.

The 2002 edition, it turns out, was secretly censored by unknown parties. Crucial changes were made, that had the effect of obscuring and diminshing the message of the book. If you have the old edition, you can use this journal entry to annotate it. To make this easier, I have provided page numbers from the old edition beside each comment that needs to be changed.

I provided Tarcher/Penguin with the same copy of the dialog between myself and the Master of the Key, dated November 16, 2000, that I used in the creation of the first edition.

My edition was changed by an unknown party. The current Tarcher edition reproduces the actual dialogue exactly, changing only a few typographical errors and misspellings. Thus the Tarcher edition contains the actual, correct dialog, while the one I published in 2002 does not.

The file that I sent to the printer of the orginal edition and to Tarcher is dated November 16, 2000. It was generated by converting the a Word file into PageMaker using the conventional process, which certainly wouldn't have led to the changes that appeared in the book.

At some point prior to being printed, the file was edited by somebody other than me, and the edits resulted in crucially important changes. When I got the proofs back from the printer, they corresponded with the original, but when the book was actually printed, changes had been made.

These changes are extremely subtle and brilliant. They were made by a skilled censor with a very definite agenda, which was to diminish the ways in which the dialogue offers empowerment to the reader.

Since the proofs were accurate, I did not think to check the finished books, and thus have been unwittingly selling the edited version for ten years.

I have to say that I am appalled and horrified by this, and extremely glad that the actual conversation, as I remember it, has finally been published.

I just thank God that the Tarcher edition contains the actual dialogue, as it was meant to be read. In a sense, therefore, the SECOND edition of the Key is really the first!

Here are some of the notable differences between the Tarcher edition, which follows the original transcript, and my edition, which does not:

New Edition:

Ah. I’m lost.
All being includes all elements of the earth, and thus all are part of all bodies. We are the consciousness of the planetary level that it has spent all of its life evolving, each and all of us. My being is the awakening earth. As is yours. The destiny of earth and the destiny of man are one. If we kill earth, we kill ourselves. If we die before our time, then we will not be able to enter ecstasy as a whole being. You are not a whole being, child. And ‘Whitley’ is only a tiny part of you. All mankind in all time is a whole being.

Old Edition P 30:

Ah. I'm lost
All physical being includes the same elements, and thus all are part of the earth and of each other. Living bodies are the consciousness of the planet. Man is earth's mind. If man kills earth, then earth has committed suicide, because its mind has reached the next level, which is ecstatic union with the rest of the universe.

Comment: The statement in the new edition is closer to what I remember being said, and it is profoundly empowering because it contains the powerful sentence, "All mankind in all time is a whole being."

New Edition:

If we kill earth before we have all reached ecstasy, what happens?
We wait until and if the earth spins elemental bodies once again that fit all the attachments of our energetic bodies. If it does not, then we wait forever. We remain incomplete.

Old Edition:

This crucial idea is not present in the text of the 2001 edition. It is a gentle warning, but a very important one. It shows us why we need to preserve our planet, how deeply this matters to us.

New Edition:

What’s it like, going to another planet?
Other worlds exist on many different levels, and contain beings of many different levels and appearances. The details from world to world can be very different. But the basic laws of reality remain the same.

Old Edition P 34:

What’s it like, going to another planet?
The details from world to world can be very different. But the basic laws of reality remain the same.

Comment: The text in the current edition adds the concept that worlds "exist on many different levels and contain beings of many different levels." This would appear to include the possibility of parallel universes.

New Edition:

There are aliens here?
Using you and guiding you.

Old Edition P 35:

There are aliens here?
Some using you and some guiding you.

Comment: The original transcript and current edition imply a consistency of policy among all aliens who are here, who are both using us and guiding us. The first edition suggests that different groups may have different motives—a skillful lie, I believe, intended to convert an empowering statement into one that will lead only to confusion. It strikes me as a small but extremely sinister edit.

New Edition:

We're being exploited?
You are, but also helped. You are being guided to your place as guides of another world.

Old Edition P 35:

We're being exploited?
You are, and in some respects horribly, by creatures of the dark. But you are also being helped. You are being guided to your place as guides of another world.

Comment: This difference is consistent with the one noted above, where the original transcript suggests a single alien presence both exploiting us and guiding us, while the first edition suggests different types of aliens with differing agendas. The first edition added the idea that 'creatures of the dark' were present. There is nothing else in the book that suggests 'creatures of the dark' and the phrase, with its lurid, horror-story overtones, doesn't sound like the Master of the Key. I think that this was added so that people would seize on it and waste their energy indulging superstitions of demons and such, when the truth is that we need to see ourselves as we are, a mysteriously self-aware presence in an unconscious world, facing not illusory "creatures of the dark," but rather facing ourselves.

New Edition:

Another world is in control of this one?
Yes.

Old Edition P 36:

Another world is in control of this one?
Other worlds participate, both elemental and energetic.

Comment: At least the censor was consistent. The simple "yes" has been replaced by a statement that can, once again, send us into a labyrinth of confusion.

New Edition:

How do they control this world?
By planning, and they use mind control.

Old Edition P 36-37:

How do they control this world?
Very generally.

Comment: All I can say is that I am very glad that the current edition was published, otherwise this frank truth would have remained hidden. In my opinion, this is the most disturbing change in the whole book. "Very generally" tells us nothing. "By planning, and they use mind control," tells us everything.

New Edition:

Am I under mind control?
The opposite. The technological intervention that has occurred in your case has been done to make it certain that general fields of control will not affect you.

Old Edition:

Question and answer not present.

Comment: I vividly remember asking this question, and thinking at the time that the 'technological intervention' that he was referring to was the implant in my left ear. I suspect that I am among a very small band of people who are not subject to this general level of control, and that my readers and I constitute the great majority of people who are free of this general influence. It is why we see the world as it truly is, and why the vast majority of people around us seem strangely blind to what to us appears to be obvious reality. They are blind. They have been blinded. For whatever reason, we can see.

New Edition:

General fields of control?
Directional suggestion is applied to all who are enhanced electrically. This is the means of control of military and government.

Old Edition P 37:

General fields of control?
Directional suggestion.

Comment: Again, the statement in the edited first edition is essentially meaningless and certainly useless. But the statement in the unedited version is filled with meaning and even suggests a potential means of escape for a species that I believe is being held in a state of mass hypnosis.

New Edition:

Telepathy?
Radio frequencies. Extremely sensitive circuits can pick up and decode thought. Microwaves can be used to project thought into the brain. But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.

Old Edition P 37:

Telepathy?
Extremely sensitive circuits can pick up and decode thought. Microwaves can be used to project thought into the brain. But the fields of which I speak are much more general. They create tendencies. The desire is to preserve the maximum amount of freedom in the maximum number of individuals.


Comment: The censor here removed the sentence "Radio frequencies." By doing this, he cuts off any possibility of actually understanding the technology that must be involved here.

New Edition:

What do they do here?
They enforce mankind’s blindness by preventing science from exploring the key mysteries of the past and discovering a practical means of expanding into the universe, and they maintain the official secrecy that keeps the question of whether or not aliens are here from being answered.

Old Edition P 39:

What do they do here?
They enforce mankind's blindness by preventing science from exploring the key mysteries of the past and discovering a practical means of expanding into the universe.

Comment: The secret censor removed yet another reference to governmental involvement from the old edition. But the new edition includes the full statement that was actually made, which makes it clear that there is some sort of penetration of government, and use of official secrecy to conceal themselves.

New Edition:

Was Christ God?
The promise of resurrection is the essential promise of being. Rebirth is not a literal reconstitution of the elemental body. It is, rather, awakening from the sleep of being. Resurrection can take place in you right now. You are Lazarus in the tomb, all of you. And Christ is always knocking upon the door, calling you to come out. Soon, the tomb will be torn down around you, and you must come out.

Old Edition P 39:

Was Christ a product of this science?
The promise of resurrection is the essential promise of being. Rebirth is not a literal reconstitution of the elemental body. It is, rather, awakening from the sleep of being. Resurrection can take place in you right now. You are Lazarus in the tomb, all of you. And Christ is always knocking upon the door, calling you to come out. Soon, the tomb will be torn down around you, and you must come out.

Comment: The answers are the same, but there is a critical difference in the question, one that reflects on me. In the old edition, I am made to ask an arrogant, cold question. In the new edition, the question that appears is the one I actually asked: Was Christ God?

New Edition:

What practice would make us physically able to communicate?
Over the course of our discussion, everything you need to learn how to objectively communicate with these beings will be given, just as all information necessary for your science to begin to detect living energy, which is trying now to communicate with you.

Old Edition P 41:

What practice would make us physically able to communicate?
When you know by the use of scientific instruments that you are in the presence of such a being, go into a meditative state. Concentrate your attention on your physical body. You will soon find yourself in communication.

Comment: The reply in the old edition is intended to disempower. What 'scientific instruments' are we supposed to use? No indication of that. Then the promise, 'you will soon find yourself in communication.' This is a very subtle and sinister comment, intended to reinforce failure. By contrast, what he actually said is that the conversation itself contains the information we need to learn how to communicate, and all information necessary for our science to make a start at detecting living energy, and ends with the precious and empowering reassurance that it is trying to communicate with us now.

Old Edition P 41:

Do energetic beings appear in the physical world?
An example would be the much maligned crop circles. These are two dimensional portraits of these beings, self-created. They are trying to introduce themselves to this age.

New Edition:

How?
An example would be the much maligned crop circles. These are two dimensional portraits of these beings, self-created. They are trying to introduce themselves to this age.

Comment: Here, it looks as if my mysterious editor simply preferred a more precise question that the one I actually asked, but a crucial piece of information is omitted: that they are trying to introduce themselves "to this age." We have a lost and muddled history. Apparently somebody does not want us to realize that there has been an earlier attempt to communicate with us.

Old Edition P 41:

Why doesn't anybody believe in them?
They are a manifestation of the rising of the dead and thus the end of time during which souls can change. For those souls who are yet incomplete, this is terrifying, because they fear two things: first, that this means that it's too late for them; second, that they will, if the conjoin the world of the dead, also see as the dead see, and thus become unable to change even if the earth remains able to support elemental bodies. So they pretend that it's all false. There are many other reasons to conceal such things, but these are the strongest.

New Edition:

Why doesn’t anybody believe in them?
To face the return of the dead is to face the change of the age. For those souls who are yet incomplete, this is terrifying, because they fear two things: first, that this portends that the time during which they can grow and develop is ending; second, that they will, if they conjoin the world of the dead, also see as the dead see, and thus become unable to change even if the earth remains able to support elemental bodies. So they pretend that it’s all false. There are many other reasons to conceal such things, but these are the strongest.

Comment: Here the censor wanted to muddy the waters. He removed the stunning, utterly clear sentence that is among the most powerful and clear ever uttered by anybody: "To face the return of the dead is to face the change of the age." This statement was burned into my soul. It is, in fact, the central reality of our age and the central meaning of the whole close encounter experience. It is also theme of the book I am publishing in January, 'What Is to Come.' To understand it is to understand human reality as it is unfolding right now. I can only thank God that it is at last available to my readers.

New Edition:
What has this all got to do with resurrection?
The resurrected man is a consistent theme of the mythology that developed out of observations of a certain type of being, beginning with Osiris and ending with Christ. Fully conscious beings adept in this science can enable the radiant body to appear as an elemental body, so perfectly imprinted are its sensations on their energetic being.

Old Edition:
Statement censored.

Comment: This incredible statement tells us that resurrection is not a mystery, but a practice that is potentially available to anybody, and also tells us that Jesus is not the only being who has done this. I can well understand why somebody seeking to diminish the empowering potential of the Key would remove it.

New Edition:

You are saying that the demon is not evil, that he is—what--the bringer of knowledge?
We learn from our mistakes. But those who give themselves to evil suffer. Make no mistake. They can become so heavy that they sink into the earth. Just as the energetic body can enjoy extraordinary pleasure, it can suffer excruciating pain. You have in your body a few million nerves. But in your energetic body, every tiny bit of being can experience the totality of ecstasy or agony.

Old Edition P 49:

You are saying that the demon is not evil, that he is—what--the bringer of knowledge?
We learn from our mistakes. But those who give themselves to evil suffer. They can become so heavy that they sink into the earth. Just as the energetic body can enjoy extraordinary pleasure, it can suffer excruciating pain. You have in your body a few million nerves. But in your energetic body, every tiny bit of being can experience the totality of ecstasy or agony.

Comment: Dropping the sentence "Make no mistake" removes emphasis from the statement and makes it easy to pass over.

New Edition:

What did the word sound like?
I don't know, I wasn't there.

Old Edition P 52:

What did the word sound like?
A whine.

Comment: This is just an outrageous change. Sickening, and doubly sickening to me that I never noticed it. "A whine," indeed. It's calculated to make the Master of the Key look silly and arrogant, when his actual statement makes him appear clear, careful and humble.

In the old edition, I then ask him 'That's a joke?' He says, 'It's a joke.' In the new edition, this exchange obviously isn't present.

New Edition:

And nobody ever leaves the recurrence? Every soul eventually comes back for a new life?
All recur, all do not.

Old Edition P 54:

And nobody ever leaves the recurrence? Every soul eventually comes back for a new life?
If needed.

Comment: It's almost as if the ambiguity of the Master's actual statement bothered the censor, who wanted a simpler answer. In truth, the Master's comment is extraordinarily multidimensional. It means two things at once: first, that we all share in everything that happens to any of us; second, that even though we must live many lives, we also will eventually be free, all of us. A glorious promise in an incredibly dense few words, reduced by the censor to the mundane.

New Edition:

What’s going to happen to us?
You have come to the end of the resources that were given you in the time that was given you. We measured the rate at which you would expand and grow very precisely, and fitted your development to a calendar which we devised called the Zodiac. In your writings, Whitley, you have wondered why mankind would have such a long-count calendar. Why were simple farmers in need of it? They were not. We needed it. The constellations of the Zodiac are arbitrary inventions to enable us to mark the progress of the equinox and keep track of exactly where you are in your journey. At this moment, the little fish of Pisces is about to be spilled out onto the dry land by Aquarius. All you know how to do, little fish, is swim. How will you swim upon the dry land?

Old Edition P 56:

What’s going to happen to us?
You have come to the end of the resources that were given you in the time that was given you. We measured the rate at which you would expand and grow very precisely, and fitted your development to a calendar which we devised called the Zodiac. In your writings, Whitley, you have wondered why mankind would have such a long-count calendar. Why were simple farmers in need of it? They were not. We needed it. The constellations of the Zodiac are arbitrary inventions to enable us to mark the progress of the equinox and keep track of exactly where you are in your journey. At this moment, the little fish of Pisces is about to be spilled out onto the dry land by Aquarius. All you know how to do, little fish, is swim. How will you swim upon the dry land? Let me give you a hint: that water of Aquarius is the energetic body.

Comment: The mysterious sentence that is added to the statement, "Let me give you a hint: that water of Aquarius is the energetic body" is wrong. It is a misdirection. The truth is that the water of Aquarius is the world around us. I assume that this misdirection was intended by the censor to render the statement useless to the reader, which is consistent with what I perceive to be a desire by somebody who is in control of our world to continue to deceive us in every way possible so that we will blunder into the great changes that are coming in a state of total ignorance, and end by losing every shred of civilization and humanity in a worldwide holocaust of destruction and terror.

New Edition:

The Meister Eckhart? How did you know I was interested in that?
I read over shoulders, child. A bad habit of mine. God laughed, and his laughter begat the son, and their laughter begat the spirit, and out of the laughter of the three poured the creation. Laughter is the key to everything. It is far more powerful than prayer, than meditation. It is the stuff of which the world is created. Find laughter, find freedom.

Old Edition P 67:

The Meister Eckhart? How did you know I was interested in that?
I read over shoulders, child. A bad habit of mine. God laughed, and his laughter begat the son, and their laughter begat the spirit, and out of the laughter of the three poured the creation. Laughter is the key to everything. It is far more powerful than prayer, than meditation. It is the stuff of which the world is created. Find laughter, find God.

Comment: Once again, the censor is consistent in spreading disempowerment, and doing it with great cunning. "Find laughter, find freedom" is an incredibly valuable and useful statement. "Find laughter, find God" tells us very little of practical value.

I cannot tell you how grateful I am to the reader who noticed these changes. He naturally thought that I had rewritten the dialog, which I would never do. When I realized what had actually happened, I also understood a great deal more about my life and the lives of those of us who are open to material like this.

Overall, this does NOT mean that the original edition of the Key is without value. On the contrary, it is filled with wisdom and valuable informaiton--just less of it than there should have been. I am so grateful, though, that the new edition exists!

I know now why so many people tune me out. They're captives. Sleepers. Rendered passive in the face of a world that is disintegrating before their eyes. Well, they might be fodder, but I'm not and neither are you, or you wouldn't be here reading this right now.

We are outside of the context of control that rules this world. Now, I don't think that it is necessarily evil. What it is doing is making sure that the full shock of what is coming impacts the human species as intensely as possible.

So, why are we outside of the enormous barnyard that contains the vast majority of the human species? The answer is obvious to me: there is a different fate in store for us, and for all who wake up and join us. We are here because we are able to face the unknown, not with answers that, in the end, are just guesswork, but with the truest and most human of all responses: the question explored with care and intelligence, but left open.



Hi Whitley - and everyone

I finally joined the subscriber section after many, many years following your work, inspired by this recent discussion around The Key and wishing to participate in it. (As far as I know the only way to post here is by subscribing, though I did try to register as a non-subscriber a couple of years ago, but it didn’t work.)

First let me reiterate that I’ve read The Key (original version) at least half a dozen times and that for a time I even considered it to be the most profound text I had ever read. I was naturally curious to hear it was being re-released and even more so when I found out it would be with changes or additions. I read your description above and, as with just about everything you write, it left me somewhat ambivalent, undecided what to think.

A couple of technical observations: you fluctuate between citing the new edition first, followed by the old edition, and then the other way around. It’s a bit confusing (my preference was for reading the old version first, thereby refreshing my memory), and being the way I am, I can’t help but wonder if it doesn’t indicate a deeper confusion at work? Secondly, more strikingly, in one of the early examples of a change, you say that this paragraph is not included in the old edition:

“If we kill earth before we have all reached ecstasy, what happens?
We wait until and if the earth spins elemental bodies once again that fit all the attachments of our energetic bodies. If it does not, then we wait forever. We remain incomplete.”

I don’t have the old edition at hand, but I know beyond any doubt that this or a similar paragraph IS included, because this is an idea that has troubled me ever since I first heard it. It is even something I have repeated, in my own words, to people over the years – that if the Earth died (before humanity had “ascended”), we would remain in limbo as a species. So you might want to recheck that.

Overall, many of the changes you cite seem minor to me; for example, you suggest the phrase “Make no mistake” was removed so that the reader might “pass over” the idea that evil-doers become so heavy they sink into the Earth (an idea reminiscent of Castaneda’s descriptions of the old seers, by the way). But if some sinister intelligence secretly censoring the manuscript wished to keep this information from readers, then why not omit it altogether? Though your commentary wishes to persuade us that these changes are destructive, I remain unconvinced. Even the “joke” about the whine – though it certainly stood out for me – did not and does not strike me as so terribly inappropriate (I assumed the MOK was making fun of you). The only idea in the old version that seems to be profound enough to qualify as possible misinformation is the idea of the earth committing suicide (also something I adopted and shared with others as a personal belief for a while); that and (maybe) the idea that the water of Aquarius is the energy body, which is just confusing, since in the metaphor given, it would surely be the lungs that allow us to exist in the new element (that of awareness, or conscious energy)?

It seems to me, however, that the idea of a “brilliant,” subtle manipulation of the text in order to distort the message is not sufficiently supported by the actual changes which occurred. It’s understandable that you’d reach this conclusion, however, since obviously the changes didn’t happen by chance so they must have happened by design; in which case it’s natural to assume that the design must be “sinister.” But there may be another explanation which you’re not considering and that so far no one has brought up here (though the “wacky” idea of different timelines gets close to it).

As everyone here knows, you write a lot about how reality is not what we perceive it to be. You even suggest in the above post that you and your subscribers are among the few who perceive the true nature of reality. And yet, when all’s said and done, I have noticed how your interpretations of the events surrounding you tend to adhere pretty closely to a consensus view of reality, albeit with a paranoid cum mystical flavor. In the present example, if marked differences have appeared between the version of The Key which you wrote (or remember writing) and the one originally published, the assumption is that some external manipulation has occurred on the part of the publishers. This seems quite literal-minded when it comes to a text such as The Key, which is nothing if not otherworldly and which, according to your own account, has for its source an ascended master who is presumably not bound by the laws of physics in the same way we are?

I’ll give you an example (with apologies for how long this post is becoming): a few years ago I was working on a novel based on the life of the filmmaker Sam Peckinpah. In order to do justice to my subject, I naturally did all I could to get inside his head; after a while I began to get the acute sense of somehow communing with the dead – the book became a shamanic endeavor in the nature of “soul rescue.” Towards the end of writing it (using Microsoft Word), I opened the document and was bewildered (and horrified) to discover that, in every place I had typed the words “Sam” or “Peckinpah,” there now appeared in their place the word “I”! Somehow, my novel had morphed from third to first person while I was not looking. How did this happen? Was Sam’s ghost getting into my software? Were intelligence operatives hacking my computer and messing with my head? Or was it (what seems to me the most likely explanation) a living interface between my consciousness and the computer via which I was unwittingly altering the text - in keeping with my own developing affinity for and understanding of the subject?

You can probably see where I am going with this. . .

Did the changes that occurred in the first publication of The Key come from external meddling by a “mole” at the publishers, dispatched by the forces of darkness? Or did the Master of the Key himself tweak the text by remote manipulation? Or – since you are the leading character in this whole narrative - did you yourself have a “hand” (an astral marker pen) in what happened? Possibly it’s a combination of all of the above, or even none of them. But isn’t a mystery of this nature, one which pertains to another, much greater mystery (the book itself), more likely to have a mysterious explanation than a mundane one?

Reality isn’t what we think it is, because time and space are not what we perceive them to be. When something changes in the present, it seems likely that has repercussions, not only into the future but into the past also. If your own awareness is evolving, then at some level, doesn’t it make perfect sense if the products of your awareness evolve along with it?

I think this mystery – though it of course fascinates admirers of The Key – has much more significance for yourself than for your readers, and that looking for an outside explanation, though an almost irresistible temptation, may not be the way to go. The mystery is within. When we have an experience of our car keys vanishing and reappearing somewhere else, we tell ourselves we are simply being absent-minded. But can we say for sure that the absence of our minds wasn't exactly what caused our car keys to teleport through space, and that we are merely papering the cracks with our reassuringly mundane explanation? In a quantum universe, it is only our attention that keeps things fixed and consistent with what we expect them to be. Mightn’t this be the case with The Key? Isn’t the real question: how could you overlook something this major for ten years? Not as something to beat yourself up over, but as a clue to the riddle of Whitley, a riddle which keeps us all tuned to this particular channel?

I hope some of these thoughts are useful to you, and I look forward to your upcoming book (What Is to Come).

Jason

Whitley: I was disappointed not to receive a response to my last post but I understand that you must be very busy. However, in the interim I've been doing more reading and research and I feel the need to address this matter further. At your post of May 25th, you wrote this remark: “There is even one person out there claiming that the "edits" make the book better. Sure, get rid of anything about mind control. Stick in things about evil aliens that don't exist to confuse people about who the sinister forces around here really are. That's great editing! The book was CENSORED.”
....
Anyone who’s being paying attention at the forum will have guessed that you are here referring to a couple of documents written anonymously but placed online (at Scribd) by “heinrich66” and linked to here by (presumably) the same user. I have read both documents now (unfortunately there is much repetition, and ideally they ought to be synthesized into a single document) and been very impressed by what I read. Whoever has written these reports has gone to a great deal of care and has done an extremely thorough, erudite, intelligent, and balanced job of it. As far as I know, you have made no mention of these documents outside of the dismissive and defensive comment quoted above, and I for one would like to hear more from you.
....
I have noticed, Whitley, that you have a tendency to respond to anyone who questions or challenges your version of things with emotional outbursts and with either some sort of moral indignation or with angry and impatient accusations – in other words either defensively or offensively - or a combination of both. I’ve also noticed that this appears to satisfy many of your followers (there’s no other word for them), who rush to your defense and offer the same sort of blind, unquestioning support which you appear to want. That’s all very well, but it’s not an environment that allows for open inquiry, constructive criticism, or the thorough examination (and evolution) of ideas. It’s actually rather more like a cult environment (of which I have some experience).
...
This present example is therefore a very compelling - and to my mind urgent - one, in that it presents an opportunity for all concerned. It’s for this reason that I feel driven to speak up, even knowing that I risk incurring your displeasure and being grouped with those “insensitive swine” who dare to offer you anything besides slavish agreement and unconditional support.
...
To my mind, and speaking as a great admirer of your work and especially of The Key, the “charges” made in these two documents are highly persuasive, and simply ignoring them is not going to make them go away. On the contrary, it only creates the impression that you are trying to keep something covered up by sticking stubbornly to your version, which essentially is based on the premise that, since you wrote the book, you’ll be damned if you don’t get to have the final word on which version is the true one. But by your own account, you didn’t so much write the book as transcribe it, and unless I am mistaken, quite a bit of it from memory. So you must admit there’s a fairly large margin for error there. There’s also an interesting parallel with Communion, after which the beings described in it allegedly made an appearance and *let it be known that you had got some things wrong.* You gracefully acknowledged this in a later work (Transformation, I believe), but then, later still, you quite *ungraciously* refuted the “charges” and accused the beings of lying!
...
I propose that – if we are to take you at your word in all of this – an alternative explanation is as follows: the originally published version of The Key was the “correct” one, and that the document you meant to send to the publishers (the new, supposedly improved version) was “supernaturally” intercepted by the Master of the Key - or those intelligent forces which sent him to you – in order to ensure that it be released in a closer to accurate form. Ten years later, for reasons known best to yourself, you managed to override that BENIGN interference and get your own version out, a version which, as the author of these documents more than convincingly argues, is the inferior version, but which is the one YOU wished to get out there (complete with the rather baffling claim that you are immune to mind control thanks to taking an implant into your body).
...
You have already made it abundantly clear that you not agree with this interpretation or any variations upon it, at least not publically; but so far, your own story has not been persuasive, not to me at least; your arguments for the book being censored by dark forces have been emotional and full of accusatory, inflammatory language (“censorship!” , “sinister,” “sickening,” and so forth), but with very little logical force behind them. Perhaps you are hoping that your fierce conviction will be enough to convince others, regardless of just how paltry the evidence is? And judging by the comments, you’ve been largely successful. But there are those of us out there who aren’t persuaded, and to group us with the fools and swine (or disinfo agents with secret agendas) which you are convinced are trying to persecute and discredit you is - to put it mildly - an extremely arrogant and disrespectful way to treat your readers. I am asking that you treat us with the respect that WE deserve, and provide us with some honest, considered responses to these troubling questions.
...
Here are some quotes from the conclusion of one of the documents (the one titled “Changes in The Key: A Short Essay on the Question of Censorship in the Texts”) which I hope you will address. (The full document can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/heinrich66 , along with the other one, “A Minority Report.”)
……
[Quote:] Whether or not the 2011 edition conversation is more ‘accurate’, it is inferior as writing. There are self-consistency issues, exchanges that seem cut-and-pasted in out of context, and disruptions of the seemingly perfect system of word-repetitions and associative structure of the 1st edition.
...
One suspects that the charge of censorship has been made as part of an emotional reaction by the author at the disturbing fact of differences between editions (despite numerous tiny changes that can only be editorial). One also suspects that barring a mundane explanation like a later electronic manuscript file being misplaced or lost reflecting the superior 1st edition, the composition process of this book was as ‘hyperdimensional’ as the original conversation.
…..
Because the 1st edition has been publicly disowned by its author, sacrificed on an altar built by the new edition, an incredible rift has been introduced in the credibility of the book itself. In later years, when referring to the book or quoting from it, specific mention will have to be made whether it is the 2001 original/censored edition or the 2011 true-original/altered edition depending on your point of view. That the book’s author has disowned a version that seems artistically superior and free of the 2nd edition’s structural flaws means that readers sensitive enough to notice those flaws are put in the position of having to defend a book discredited and practically denounced by its author, while the majority of people will be ushered toward a book that is not the masterpiece of the original.
…..
What does this mean? It means that any future academic-level study of “The Key”, if it takes place, will focus instead on issues of authenticity, rather than the provocative new ideas introduced in the book. It also means that this level of interest is likely not to take place, because if an author cannot agree with himself as to whether words in a book are his own, it will prove too high an obstacle for even a beginning interest in the book.
…..
What is taking place with “The Key” is that the book is being killed so that its message will come out. [A reference to TMOTK’s story of the killing of the pig, so God would come to his senses.] Like seeing a movie version of a book you have read, the difference between the two versions is enough that the original experience of reading the book can never be the same. Likewise, the ultimate accuracy of the text itself is now being questioned because of the reality of alternate versions that cannot be explained away as censorship. As a result, the printed words fade into the background and the ‘hyperdimensional’ nature of the conversation itself comes to the fore. The book now cannot be made into a religious text. It has been sabotaged too early in its origins. While holy books like the Bible can generate centuries of exegesis and controversy owing to the unique limitations of every language, no book like the New Testament could long survive quoting words from Jesus and then other words from Jesus disavowing those same words. Who knows what might happen to “The Key” in two hundred years’ time, after cultural shifts and perhaps accepted signs of contact? Its words will continue to influence the minds of those who read it, but the book itself as a physical object will now not be able to replace the mysterious reality and the open question of the original encounter.
….
[End quote]

@ Jason Horsley -

It is interesting to think
...
of the word authority, when a book might make demands of its own.
...
how something can retain its integrity while undergoing an integral change.
...
how even a Master might find truth to be a moving target.
...
why a Creator would give his creation free will.
...
of methods of close approximation,
measurement by triangulation,
and skeleton keys.
...
It is interesting to think.

Yes, it is.... Nicely phrased.

Since I posted the above I listened to Whitley's talk with Jim Marrs from the 19th of May and was pleased to discover that he does address the documents I quoted above and even acknowledge some truth to them. So I'd like to apologize to Whitley if I "jumped the gun" there, to some extent. Whitley also mentions making the document visible at an "opinions" page - if it is then I have yet to come across that page.

That said, I'd still like to hear more from Whitley on this. It was distressing to hear how quickly and easily Marrs went along with his diagnosis of 'sinister interference' at work based on such flimsy evidence. It also strikes me as ironic, if not paradoxical, that on the one hand, Whitley cites how part of the meddling with The Key was designed to strengthen the idea of dark forces battling light forces (the standard Manichean dualism), while on the other, he is doing exactly that with his indignant exhortations of sinister conspiracies at work. It may be that Whitley is just too close to this to be able to see it clearly or with a level head.

As queli hints at above: what if the document (like everything else in God's creation) is itself alive and has been making its own changes, internally? Why reduce this to any one thing and say "It is censorship!" (or anything else) when the only really honest statement anyone can make (including Whitley) is: I don't know??

One does not have to be alive to defend a sense of self.

Subscribe to Unknowncountry sign up now