Conference tecrus::mormonism

I'd like to offer a few random thoughts about New Age. All of what 
follows is just my personal opinion and observation. I, too, do not 
wish to offend anyone. I simply offer these views for argument. If I'm 
wrong, please set me straight.

There are many, many people in the world who are searching for The 
Answers to life's most profound questions, such as 'Why am I here?'
'Where did I come from?' 'Where am I going?' People have always asked 
these questions, and they always will.

It used to be the case that most people believed in some institution
in society that purported to provide The Answers. But what
institutions these days can the average person trust? Government is
regarded as the epitome of cynicism, traditional religions have been
on the ropes for some time, and you can't even count on your own
family anymore, given the divorce rate, child abuse, etc. It is tough
for the average person to have faith anymore in various institutions
that purport to have The Answers. 

In recent times, beginning in the sixties, this lack of faith reached
epidemic proportions. 'Counter-culture' movements became popular, and
millions conformed to non-conformity. Although people rejected
traditionalism, they still had a need to 'belong,' and to figure out
the world. So people invented all sorts of 'movements,' each of which
espoused various views of the world and how to think about it. 

The epidemic has run its course, and the results are varied. Some 
people went back to traditionalism for their Answers, which explains 
the renewed interest in religion and Republican presidents. Some 
people went overboard, and joined up with new cult-type organizations,
such as the Moonies and the Boston Church of Christ. But a large 
number could not do either, and as the wind went out the sails of the 
various old movements, people were left to their own devices to figure 
out the world.

So 'channeling' was invented, meditation was revived, occult things 
were studied - anything and everything was explored in order to find 
The Answers. This is how I define New Age: as the *search* for The 
Answers in a whole range of newly popular, but mostly shopworn,
'disciplines.' New Age is a *context* within which disciplines are
explored, not the 'disciplines' themselves; they could be anything and
everything. 

To me, this explains the diversity of activities that exist within the
loose context of New Age, and it explains the general popularity of
them. It also explains why there are as many interpretations of New
Age as there are people making selections from this smorgasbord of
'disciplines.' It also explains why there is no unified philosophy -
indeed there are contradictions - among New Age 'disciplines.' It also
explains the general antagonism and suspicion toward New Age on the
part of traditionalists, and vice-versa, if in fact New Age is a
collection of 'alternatives' to traditionalism. 

So I do not view New Age as a threat, per se, or a Satanic conspiracy.
To me it is simply a lot of people trying very hard to figure out the
world through whatever means present themselves. New Age was created
by *people*, not necessarily by Satan. Looking for silver linings, you
could even view the existence of New Age as a hopeful sign, if it
means that there are still large numbers of people looking for The
Truth. 

I hasten to add, however, that Satan takes advantage of every
opportunity to deceive and confuse. New Age, like anything that is
man-inspired, rather than God-inspired, provides such opportunities. 

For example, Satan promises that there are answers in fame, or
fortune, or other kinds of worldly pursuits. Satan does not create
fame and fortune - *we* do. Satan simply tells us lies about the
importance of fame and fortune, and too many of us believe him, and
thus go in a direction away from God. In the same way, Satan tells us
lies about how important these New Age activities are, and too many
people are only too willing to believe the lies. Or even pervert
whatever 'good' elements there may be in New Age into tools of
hatefulness. 

Satan's emphasis these days is not only to destroy the good, but also 
to confuse. The True Church has been restored, and Satan knows he 
cannot destroy it, so he tries anything he can to confuse people and 
misdirect them. If God buried a treasure by a tree, and put a big
yellow ribbon around the tree to mark the place for those he intended
to find it, and if Satan could not dig up the treasure or remove the
ribbon, then Satan would just put ribbons around all the other trees
in order to confuse the treasure seekers. 

The potential for being led away from God is true of any worldly 
thing. So I do not view New Age as being better or worse than anything
else the world has to offer; rather I view it as an *example* of what
the world has to offer. And we rise above it the same way we rise
above any worldly influence: through faith, repentance, baptism for
the remission of sins, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost - the first
principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

I often reflect that if only more people would only *pray* about finding 
the Truth, and ask God with a sincere heart, with a humility and a 
willingness to abide by the answer to the prayer, that many, many more 
would be led to join the Church.

The Answers really *do* exist, but they will not be found in
man-inspired activities or beliefs. There *is* a God, and He wants
very much for us to know The Answers. Jesus did not say, 'I know of
some ways to find things out.' He said "I am THE WAY." He did not say,
'I can tell you some things that are true.' He said "I am THE TRUTH."
He did not say, 'I know some things about life.' He said "I am THE
LIFE." 

Jesus Christ himself made these promises. If you can't trust Him, and
find The Answers there, then you can't trust anyone or find The
Answers anywhere. 

/kevin

  Some of the so-called 'New Age' music is very interesting.

Chad

    Interesting you should mention the music (kind of expected since
    we both kick around things on COMMUSIC).  From what I've read,
    musicians are the last people to define what 'new age' music is.
    Basically, if you see 'new age' on the label, it's because they
    hope it will sell.  That 'type' of music (used to be called space
    music or whatever) has been around for years.  Some musicians really
    have a hard describing exactly what kind of music it is that they
    make, so they now call it 'new age'.  Personally, I tend to think
    of the music and the theology (or whatever you want to call it)
    as separate, especially since most 'new age' music is instrumental
    (no words).  I know that just because music has no words does not
    mean it is acceptable, but the tendency is for the music to be
    soothing, pleasant and inoffensive.  Of course, it can be misused,
    but then so can most music (IMHO).
    
    Steve

    
    	Greetings Mormon friends,
    
    	Re .0,
        	
>	o New Age is a religion combining aspects of the occult, Yoga,
>	  hypnotism, Eastern religions, etc.  Because of its wide current
>	  acceptance over the last ten years within the U.S., it is
>	  raising the issue of separation of church and state, since its 
>     	  views enjoy apparently large government subsidy.

 
    	Please understand that the so-called "New Age" is not a religion,
    	per se. It is comprised of (pardon grammar) people of *many*
    	religions, who think that there may be more to reality than
    	the organized religious dogma that the churches they go to
    	have fed them. The term "New Age", is sorta like the term
    	"Mormon", in that the people don't for the most part call
    	themselves that, but don't object to the term either.
    \
>	o Its beliefs encourage one to be friendly (good), relaxed (good)
>	  and peaceful (good), but go even further to encourage surrender
>	  of the mind to altered states (bad).  She cited cases of people 
>    	  (especially children who were taught New Age in public schools)
>    	  who were having trouble dealing with reality, preferring instead
>	  to go into meditation or a trance.  (I'm all for taking a mental 
>    	  break every once in a while, but am strictly opposed to
>	  anything, such as drugs alcohol, or some forms of meditation,
>	  that could result in my losing control over my mind.)
>

    	This sounds like a misunderstanding on someone's part. Meditation
    	as practiced by "New Agers" is based on the belief that there
    	are many levels of conciousness to the mind, and that by quieting
    	down the thoughts and disconnecting onesself temporarily from
    	the concerns of the material world, one can reach a state of
    	tranquility that facilitates better communication with ones
    	Maker. As far as suicide is concerned, all of the "New Age"
    	beliefs that I've come across so far recognize that not only
    	is this not the way out of one's problems, but that one will
    	necessarily come back to earth in even graver circumstances
    	to meet those problems if one chooses this way out. Don't 
    	confuse us with the Samurai, please! 8^)
    
    	Furthermore, "New Agers" (I call myself a Christian Aquarian,
    	others may have other nomenclature) recognize that the Divine
    	Law that "As you sow, so shall you reap" is much more literal
	than even Mormons take it. If you "rout out" anybody because
    	you don't agree with their beliefs, lifestyle or whatever, 
    	what you do to them will be meted out to you in EXACT PROPORTION
    	either in this life or the next. 
    
    	I could go on, there are several more misconceptions of "New
    	Age" thinking in the preceding notes in this topic, but right
    	now I gotta do some work. For those of you who are open-minded
    	(a phrase I heard often when I was studying Mormonism with some
    	elders in the Lynnfield Ward) enough to discuss these things
    	and listen to alternate points of view, I cordially invite you
    	to join us in BOMBE::DEJAVU. There are many new agers there,
    	and also many skeptics, born-again Christians, and people who
    	think we're just plain kooks. ;^)
    
    Neal Barnette
    
    	PS Hey Mr Leigh, how's my friend Pat Lawson? If you see her
    	please pass along my best regards!
    

    This topic of New Age is bound to stir up a lot of controversy which
    can be attested to by going into an "Christian Bookstore" and asking
    for anti-New Age Literature.
    
    My opinion is that this New Age Movement (call it any of its 1000
    other names)  has both good and bad elements to it.
    
    A few years ago I was asked by my manager to take several of these
    New Age type courses to see if there was anything we could use in
    our own Training department.  So I fully involved myself in a couple
    of them.
    
    My first impression is that they were wonderfully exciting.  I was
    told that I was a child of the universe, with unlimited potential,
    imbued with higher consciousness, radiating light, and master of
    my own destiny.  These training workshops were wonderfully
    narcissistic!  To feel exicitement about creating/controlling my
    destiny, and not subject to my own faults was very uplifting.  At
    first I felt as though I was having a spiritual experience.  BUT,
    something way down deep inside of me ( also known as the Still Small
    Voice) quietly told me to be careful, beware.
    
    It was only after completing the training that I learned more about
    the real ulterior motives of the New Age.  I am not going to present
    here in great detail all that I know since so much has been written
    about the threat of the New Age (especially by Constance Cumbey).
    
    I am convinced that the New Age Movement (it really is a religion
    because it deals with the spiritual) is at its very core an evil,
    Satanic conspiracy. I believe that it is impossible to be Christian
    and involved with New Age methods since these some of these methods
    deal with meditative trances in which you are asked to contact higher
    consciousness, master teachers, spirit guides, master servers, etc.,
    while at the same time you are asked to suspend critical judgement
    between good and evil.
    
    Right now, there is a lot of controversy around New Age-type training
    and methods because they have caused some considerable psychological
    damage among its adherents.
    
    For those of you who read this I have some handouts/excerpts from
    exposes of New Age I would be glad to send you.  I suppose the
    interesting thing about it all is how overt the motives of this
    cult are.
    
    By the way the core principles of New Age are the same ones Hitler
    used, i.e. the existence of a superior race (namely the aryian one)
    and the necessity to get rid of anyone who believes in a personal
    God (rather than the New Age God - THe Force).
    
    I have just skimmed the tip of the iceberg on New Age.  There is
    so much written about it.  As a training professional, I am angry
    that this quasi-religious movement has used the training profession
    to advance its causes, selling New Age Training as a way to "enhance
    productivity".  
    
    I have rambled on.  But I do speak from experience of having immersed
    myself in New Age, only to find that like its author, it is very
    deceptive. 

    
    Hello M. Rodina,
    
        
>    I am convinced that the New Age Movement (it really is a religion
>    because it deals with the spiritual) is at its very core an evil,
>    Satanic conspiracy. I believe that it is impossible to be Christian
>    and involved with New Age methods since these some of these methods
>    deal with meditative trances in which you are asked to contact higher
>    consciousness, master teachers, spirit guides, master servers, etc.,
>    while at the same time you are asked to suspend critical judgement
>    between good and evil.

    
    	I don't see how it can be an evil, satsnic conspiracy when
    	the purpose is to lessen the amount of tension, strife and
    	animalistic tendencies that exist in the human race. These
    	tendencies are part and parcel of that which you (Mormons)
    	call "Satan". Jesus, in the Bible, is accused by the pharisees
    	of being a satanic influence when he uses Aquarian methods
    	to "cast out demons" from people that are sick, and He 
    	replies, "How can I be of Satan when I am casting out Satan?
    	A house divided against itself cannot stand." I don't have 
    	my Bible with me (it's in my car, I'd go and get it if I
    	didn't have a meeting to attend in about 15 minutes) so I 
    	can't quote chapter and verse, but it's in there.
    
    	As to not making judgements about good and evil, the philosophy
    	is just intended that people live by the advice given in Matthew,
    	chapter 7. I would say that there are some persons in this 
    	conference, and responding to this note, that would do well
    	to review and remember His words in that scripture!
    
    	Once again, "New Age" isn't a religion in and of itself,
    	(READ MY LIPS IT'S NOT A RELIGION), I even know a Mormon
    	or two who have some New Age beliefs. It is comprised of 
    	people of all religions who believe that the Golden Rule - 
    	"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - is
    	God's divine law, the one upon which the rest of the laws
    	all are built.
    
    	With patient love,
    
    Neal Barnette

    	
    
    	Oh and by the way, "meditative trances" are only for use for
    	getting in touch with your higher Self, your Maker, and Christ.
    	I know some sensationalists claim to be able to channel 
    	discarnate entities, etc. But you can't judge us all by the
    	Shirley McLaines of the world. What they do is their business.
    	I know many Mormons who claim that the Black race is the 
    	descendents of Cain, and therefore inherently evil, or the
    	descendents of Ham or whoever, inherently immoral and damned
    	by God, but I don't consider all Mormons to be racist just 
    	because some of them are. 
    
    Neal Barnette

In regards to the "New Age Movement", I would call up a parallel to the
"Christian" movement -- ask any "Christian" his beliefs, etc. and you will
get a different picture.  It is not as structured as say the LDS church, but
is more of a broad term covering many bases.  This goes for both the "New
Age" and "Christian" movements.

CHad

    To Neal Barnette:
    
    Believe me when I say that I understand where you are coming from.
    Yes, one would be hard pressed to find a Church of the New Age in
    the Yellow Pages, but this name has been given to describe the "it"
    of Marilyn Ferguson's Aquarian Conspiracy.  New Age is a term used
    to describe the 10,000+ organizations loosely or tightly connected
    to furthering New Age philosophies.  What are these philosophies?
    At first glance they look very good, doing away with world hunger,
    world peace, reducing strive, etc.
    
    The New Age Movement goals, as expressed by Lucis Trust - the central
    coordinating agency for the furthering of these goals, center in
    the establishment of a New World Order through which their goals
    would be achieved.  Some of these goals are the disolving of nations
    for a one world government, one world monetary system, loss of national
    sovereignity, and loss of freedoms, establishment of a one world
    religion, reapportionment of land, universal tax system, etc.
    
    The absolute ulterior goal of this movement, as documented by Lucis
    Trust and other New AGe-type groups, is best expressed by Ferguson
    in her Aquarian Conspiracy, page 385:
    
    Contemporary mystical experiences from many individuals and many
    parts of the world have centered in recent years on a collective
    and intensifying vision, the sense of an impending transition in
    the human story; an evolution of consciousness, as significant as
    any step in the long chain of our biological evolution. ...the death
    of one world and the birth of a new one, an apocalypse.
    
    As I said earlier,  I was swept away with the glorious pronouncements
    of this New Age, and questioned why our Church had not linked with
    this wonderful movement.  It was only after serious reading into
    the real purposes of this movement did I understand why all forms
    of New Age must be avoided.
    
    This coming of a New Age IS NOT the second coming of Christ for
    which all Christians eagerly await and prepare for.  No, it is exactly
    the opposite.  A counterfeit millenium with Lucifer as a counterfeit
    Messiah.  I am not just giving you conjecture - these goals are
    documented and published.  
    
    The New Age Movement is like a series of concentric circles with the
    outer circles dealing with apparently noble and uplifting goals while as one
    goes  towards the center of the circle the influence of more evil
    and Satanic goals start appearing.  But true to the devil's methods
    all along the way you are lulled into believing you really are doing
    good, deceived.
    
    It is a well documented fact that Hitler was the premier New Ager
    of this century, dealing heavily with the occult, Eastern mysticism,
    altered states of consciousness, contact with spirit guides, etc.
    
    The New Age Movement is even discussed in the Bible, not specifically
    by its name, but allegorically. The one distinct thing is that the
    Bible tells of its adherents worshipping the God of Force.  Research
    New Age Literature and notice the mention of the God of Force, or
    the Force.
    
    I guess I really have rambled on.  My purpose in all this is to
    alert Christians involved with New Age to not be so easily taken
    in by its promises of grandiose things, but to study it out and
    learn of its designs.  I really give a strong message to avoid at
    all costs the methods they advocate, especially meditation and contact
    with spirit guides, higher consciousness, master servers, teachers.
     Some people believe that what you contact is Satan, only he deceives
    you into believing you are "getting in touch with your better self".
     Hitler used to use the same techniques.  
    
    Let me restate that I was swept away by the New AGe and advocated
    it to friends and family.  But, the Still Small Voice warned me
    and through some easy to do readings I discovered the truth about
    New Age.  Right now, you can find many articles and books written
    on this topic.
    
    Paul
         
    

   I hope this isn't taken wrongly, but what if they (New Age adherents) 
   have a "testimony" (strong inner feeling) that their beliefs are true?
   What would you tell them then?

   Ed

        

    Good question that is - about having a testimony (strong inner feeling)
    about New Age.  I would say that is what I had at first, a strong inner
    feeling but then  after receiving information about it, I saw it
    for what it really was and readjusted my convictions about it. 
    I guess to sum it up I would say that I had a strong emotional response
    to New Age that I was into some good stuff, but then had a spiritual
    prompting to be careful.  And when I received more information about
    it, I decided that my emotional response had been a clever deception,
    and that the spiritual prompting was true.
    
    Testimony according to Websters means any form of evidence/proof.
    There is much testimony about New Age and its sinister intentions.
                                              

    > Testimony according to Websters means any form of evidence/proof.
    > There is much testimony about New Age and its sinister intentions.
                                              
    For what it's worth, the same can be said about Mormonism.
    
    Ed
    

    Oh Ed,- "sinister intentions" of Mormonism?.  I hope we are not
    going to do down that dead end road again.  If people feel the LDS
    Church has "sinister intentions", then they have swallowed the
    propaganda that is out there (like The God Makers disinformation!).
     

    
    	I think that Ed is just trying to point out that these attacks
    	on "New Age" have their EXACT parallels in the attacks on
    	Mormonism. Persecuted and maligned as Mormons claim to be,
    	one would think that they would be best able to see the 
    	evil in participating in such campaigns against other
    	persons whose beliefs differ from the mainstream.
    
    	If I joined the Mormon Church, I would be compelled by the
    	church leadership and membership in general to give up
    	my views, simply because they are not supported by the Book
    	of Mormon (Is this being "open minded"?). To be a so-called
    	"New Ager", one does not have to subscribe to every belief
    	attributed to New Age thinking, but generally they adopt
    	those beliefs that have the ring of truth, that "feel right"
    	spiritually, and that make intellectual sense. One of the
    	reasons I chose not to join the Mormons is that I would be 
    	forced to give up my beliefs in the concept of karma and 
    	reincarnation (which the very Holy Spirit has testified to
    	me as being true), instead of allowing me to grow, in accordance
    	with my own seasons, in whatever direction the Spirit leadeth.
    
    	New Age is not a religion but rather like a religious "crafts
    	fair", where different ideologies are allowed to place their
    	doctrines and beliefs on the table and the seeker's intellect,
    	with guidance from the Spirit, may choose that which may best
    	aid him or her in finding and following their path to God. We
    	are all different, and at differing stages of spiritual
	development. We all have differing spiritual needs, in accordance
    	with our differing cultures, climates conditions and many
    	other factors. No one doctrine is suitable for such a diverse
    	community of spirits. Many would fall away, as happens in every
    	religion, because they find it too confining. New Age thinking
    	simply recognizes that all religions that have the Golden Rule
    	as their central premise are on the right track, and supports
    	every endeavor that one might engage in to facilitate their
    	spiritual growth (as long as it does not subvert the Free Agency
    	of another person, or deny them their rights!). Anything else
    	that you hear is simply jealous backbiting by persons who feel
    	that their claim to having the "One True Religion" is jeapordized
    	by these truths.
    
    	Neal Barnette

    

    To Neal:
    
      When you say:
    
    	"No one doctrine is suitable for such a  diverse community of
         spirits."
    
    YEP!!!  That's New Age alright!  Which all means that any path and
    any god you choose to worship will do, if it satisfies your needs.
    
    The primary organizations driving New Age philosophies have PUBLISHED
    THEIR GOALS!!!!!! Which are to enthrone the NEW AGE MESSIAH,  LORD
    MITRAYAH is his name. 
             
    How about the New Age doctrine of Christ Consciousness, which states 
    that Christ was A messiah, not THE messiah. 
    And humanity does not need him. In fact, any one can become a messiah
    and save him/herself.  
                                               
    How about the doctrine of the Democratization of the Gods, which
    says basically that there is no ONE GOD above all, rather the
    individual can select any god they want to worship, be it Christian,
    non-christian, or a great person, teacher, etc.  If none of these
    work, you can chose yourself to worship.
    
    All of these basic tenets of New Age are immediately recognizable
    to any who might survey this whole movement.  
    
    But, don't take my word for it.  Research it a little and you might
    be surprised.
    
    By the way the major symbols of the New Age are the Rainbow, Pegasus,
    the Unicorn, and some say a twisted form of the numbers 666 shown
    in a circle.
               
    

    Re: Note 171.14 by WAV14::BARNETTE

    Hi Neal,
    
    I must say that I know very little about New Age beliefs, but this
    interchange has stirred some thoughts. 
    
    First, Latter-day Saints do not wish to force anyone to give up beliefs
    that they hold. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God
    according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the
    same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may" (11th
    Article of Faith). However, we do wish to proclaim that which we know
    to be true, and we hope others will accept it.
    
    Second, we do have some very basic disagreements with some beliefs held by
    others, just as some people have basic disagreements with some of our
    beliefs. We seek truth and we profess to accept truth wherever we can
    find it. 
    
    Which brings up another interesting question: "What is TRUTH?" 
    
    From the LDS point of view:
    
         And truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they
         are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of
         that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.  (D&C 93:24-25) 

    Let's take the example of reincarnation. People either are or are not
    reincarnated. While one person believes in reincarnation and another does
    not, they cannot both be holding a true belief. Only one of them can have a
    true belief on this subject. This is true of every other principle, as
    well. Truth is, in essence, 'just the facts'.
    
>       New Age thinking
>   	simply recognizes that all religions that have the Golden Rule
>   	as their central premise are on the right track
    
    The right track to what? To truth? I think not. Many opposing beliefs cannot
    all be truth. Man's challenge is to discover which are true, and which are
    not. 
    
    What I hear you saying here is that whatever a person chooses to believe is
    ok, so long as it doesn't hurt others. I will agree that each person is free
    to believe what he chooses, but I will not agree that it is the 'right
    track', unless the right track does not include an endeavor to pursue truth
    and to embrace it when it is found. 
    
    If the objective is to know truth and then to live according to it, then New
    Age beliefs, according to what you have said, cannot be embraced, for they
    seem to say 'there is no definite truth', but rather, 'truth is anything you
    feel good about'. Please tell me if I have misstated the New Age position on
    this. 
    
    Feeling good about something may be commendable, but not sufficient for
    eternal happiness. Only truth is sufficient. Either Jesus Christ is the Son
    of God or He is not. Either he provides the only way back to God, or he does
    not. Either he suffered an infinite atonement for the sins of mankind, or he
    did not. Either he was resurrected, or he was not. Either we will be
    resurrected, or we will not. Either God has established the Church of Jesus
    Christ of Latter-day Saints, or he has not. 
    
    To know the truth is very important. That which is not truth is deception.
    To embrace truth is to build one's existence on a foundation of rock, while
    to embrace deception is to build one's existence on a sandy foundation,
    which will fail in the end. 
    
    Rich

    
    	Good greif, the bullflap is piling up in this note faster than
    	I can shovel it away! 8^)
    
>    	"No one doctrine is suitable for such a  diverse community of
>         spirits."
>    
>    YEP!!!  That's New Age alright!  Which all means that any path and
>    any god you choose to worship will do, if it satisfies your needs.
>    
    I believe I mentioned something about a certain Golden Rule, which
    you have craftily left out of your reply. 
    
>        The primary organizations driving New Age philosophies have PUBLISHED
>    THEIR GOALS!!!!!! Which are to enthrone the NEW AGE MESSIAH,  LORD
>    MITRAYAH is his name. 
             
    Before you burn me at the stake, M. Rondina (I address you thus
    because I don't know if you are male or female), let me state 
    in truth that I do not know of the gentleman you have mentioned,
    and in 10 years of study have yet to come across this name.
    
    
>        How about the New Age doctrine of Christ Consciousness, which states 
>    that Christ was A messiah, not THE messiah. 

    In  the Bible, Jesus teaches us that "Ye are Gods". He also speaks
    of those that will come in the next age who will do many and greater
    works that (the disciples) have seen him do. These works that he
    speaks of are done via the Christ Conciousness, which is actually
    an attunement with or oneness with Christ. 
    
    Nothing would please me mor than to sit here and write a tome on
    the mechanics (as it were) of this Christ Conciousness as I understand
    it. However, I'm at a customer site, noting at 1200 baud through
    a variety of third-party switches, servers and modems, while many
    noters are sitting there reading this with their VS2000 workstations
    at Ethernet speeds, with access to on-line dictionaries, thesauruses
    and spelling checkers (I don't even have any EVE keys defined!)
    8^).
    

>    How about the doctrine of the Democratization of the Gods, which
>    says basically that there is no ONE GOD above all, rather the
>    individual can select any god they want to worship, be it Christian,
>    non-christian, or a great person, teacher, etc.  If none of these
>    work, you can chose yourself to worship.

    Once again, sounds like something some paranoid zealot made up to
    frighten people into the protection of his "true church". Most New
    agers recognize that they are children of the Highest Power of all,
    called God, and are aware of our relationship to him and our need
    for Him. We *adore* Him! Let me try now to get to some of Mr. Kotter's
    issues, I don't have much time left.
    
    
>    First, Latter-day Saints do not wish to force anyone to give up beliefs
>    that they hold. "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God
>    according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the
>    same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may" (11th
>    Article of Faith). However, we do wish to proclaim that which we know
>    to be true, and we hope others will accept it.

    I once attended a baptism, and the post-baptism party, for a friend
    of mine who joined the LDS Church. At that function I witnessed
    a discussion between an Elder (in fact the very missionary that
    was teaching me) and one of the church members. This church member
    was talking about the fact that she had some psychic ability and
    had visited Laurie Cabot, the Salem witch, and that she felt that
    Laurie Cabot was a very good and loving witch that was bent on serving 
    mankind. The Elder maintained that if Laurie Cabot was a witch or
    professed to be a witch, then she was in league with Satan and
    therefore evil. Through his forcefulness of tone, manner, and 
    imposing physical size he browbeat this heretic member into
    submission, intimidating her into acquiesence, even though he had
    made no intellectually valid point. So much for not forcing anyone
    to give up their beliefs.
    
    
 
>       Second, we do have some very basic disagreements with some beliefs held by
>    others, just as some people have basic disagreements with some of our
>    beliefs. We seek truth and we profess to accept truth wherever we can
>    find it. 
    
    Wherever *you* can find it? what about where they happen to find
    it? I'm sure you don't intend this the way it reads.
    
    
>    Which brings up another interesting question: "What is TRUTH?" 
>    
>    From the LDS point of view:
>    
>         And truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they
>         are to come; and whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of
>         that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.  (D&C 93:24-25) 
>
>    Let's take the example of reincarnation. People either are or are not
>    reincarnated. While one person believes in reincarnation and another does
>    not, they cannot both be holding a true belief. Only one of them can have a
>    true belief on this subject. This is true of every other principle, as
>    well. Truth is, in essence, 'just the facts'.
>    
>>       New Age thinking
>>   	simply recognizes that all religions that have the Golden Rule
>>   	as their central premise are on the right track
>    
>    The right track to what? To truth? I think not. Many opposing beliefs cannot
>    all be truth. Man's challenge is to discover which are true, and which are
>    not. 
>
    I only have time to address the "right track" issue, then I gotta
    go. As I believe I staed previously, We are all children of God
    trying to find our way back to Him. The Right Track to our higher
    spiritual nature, Oneness with God.
    
    I view us as all being on a mountain (the Earth), trying to reach
    the Summit. We are all climbing Up, or trying to. Some of us may
    slip on a stumbling-stone and fall backward. Some of us have easier
    terrain than others (or so it seems, from our view). All of us will
    encounter obstacles in our climb. To offer another climber assistance
    is the epitome of virtue, a beautiful act. But we cannot demand
    that someone follow in our footsteps, as the Boston Church of Christ
    does, and we should not ridicule, defame or demean someone who does
    not view our path as being the easiest or for whatever reason chooses
    not to follow us (as some in this note seem to be doing). When we
    see our brother stumble, rush to give him aid. Do not say "let me
    convert you and then I'll give you aid", but rather say "here, let
    me help you. Your path seems rather difficult. Would you like to
    accompany me on mine, at least for a while?".
    
    
    Rich, I gotta go. I'll be back, believe me!
    
    May God bless you all with a day of harmony and peace,
    
    Neal Barnette
    What I hear you saying here is that whatever a person chooses to believe is
    ok, so long as it doesn't hurt others. I will agree that each person is free
    to believe what he chooses, but I will not agree that it is the 'right
    track', unless the right track does not include an endeavor to pursue truth
    and to embrace it when it is found. 
    
    If the objective is to know truth and then to live according to it, then New
    Age beliefs, according to what you have said, cannot be embraced, for they
    seem to say 'there is no definite truth', but rather, 'truth is anything you
    feel good about'. Please tell me if I have misstated the New Age position on
    this. 
    
    Feeling good about something may be commendable, but not sufficient for
    eternal happiness. Only truth is sufficient. Either Jesus Christ is the Son
    of God or He is not. Either he provides the only way back to God, or he does
    not. Either he suffered an infinite atonement for the sins of mankind, or he
    did not. Either he was resurrected, or he was not. Either we will be
    resurrected, or we will not. Either God has established the Church of Jesus
    Christ of Latter-day Saints, or he has not. 
    
    To know the truth is very important. That which is not truth is deception.
    To embrace truth is to build one's existence on a foundation of rock, while
    to embrace deception is to build one's existence on a sandy foundation,
    which will fail in the end. 
    
    Rich
    	
    

    
    Rich I misread that part about you accept truth wherever you can
    find it. Sorry. The rest of my reply, stands.
    
    See Ya
    Neal Barnette

Boy, lots of heat here!  I have a few impressions about some of the stuff I'm
reading here.

From what I've read so far just in these notes, New Age is a religion according
to my copy of TAHD which defines a religion as:

	1. an organized system of beliefs and rituals centering on a 
	   supernatural being or beings

	2. adherence to such a system

	3. a belief upheld or pursued with zeal or devotion

Of course, if New Age is not an organized system or cannot be pinned down to 
any common set of beliefs, then I'll stand corrected.

So far, there have been postings that have been mostly second hand about
New Age.  Even my original posting is second hand and unverifiable because I 
don't give enough information to allow other noters to research more on 
New Age.  What might be helpful would be for somebody to post reliable sources
and excerpts of official information about New Age beliefs.

Another point that comes to mind is that the Mormon Church has, to my 
knowledge, not made any official statements about New Age, or any other 
religion.  It has, however, warned members about associations with groups that 
would place them under covenants that would conflict with Church covenents or 
which adhere to doctrines that conflict with Church doctrines.  The Church 
does not practice bashing other religions and is, in fact, an advocate of 
freedom of religion and thought, as has been previously mentioned.

As to witchcraft, I believe that study will show this to have its roots in the
worship of nature.  Witches that I have seen interviewed claim to espouse a
belief in peace, harmony with nature and with mankind and other apparently 
common goals like Christianity.  These notes have indicated a similar set of 
apparently altruistic goals within New Age.  And, some of the Satan worshippers 
I've seen interviewed state similar goals.  I am reminded, however, that 
something like these goals was expressed by Lucifer in the pre-existance 
(Moses 4:1-5) who would have redeemed all mankind so that not one soul would 
be lost (at the cost of their agency or the freedom to choose for themselves 
and to accept the consequences).  

Apparently, it is unreliable to judge a religion simply based on apparently 
altruistic goals since such contradictory religions as Christianity and
Satanism espouse similar goals for mankind.  So, on what should a religion
be judged?  One of the differences marking Christian beliefs and Satanic 
beliefs is the concept of agency.  The occult and other anti-Christian 
religions often tend to promise altruistic blessings for mankind in exchange 
for agency.  Unfortunately, as has been proven many times in history, once 
these freedoms are lost, they are very difficult to recover and the people 
involved suffer, seldom attaining the blessings promised.

It has been mentioned, though I've not seen sources, that New Age espouses
the eventual removal of agency from individuals (perhaps through the 
involuntary removal or attrition of all individuals who do not surrender their 
agency).  If this is true, then I would not want to have anything to do with 
New Age.  

Mormonism, on the other hand, strongly espouses individual agency, allowing
individuals to choose as they will (including but not encouraging the surrender
of agency) and to receive the consequences of their choices.  It is the intent
of the Church to educate the world so that, among other things, this agency 
can be preserved for individuals.  We as members make covenents with the Lord
in the Church.  These covenants are sacred and fragile.  It is up to us to
exercise our agency correctly to preserve the integrity of these covenants.
In return, the Lord keeps promises to us that are His portion of the covenents, 
leading to the fulfillment of altruistic goals and blessings.  This is a far 
cry from the promise from the Adversary to deliver similar blessings through 
surrender of agency.


Steve

>    Oh Ed,- "sinister intentions" of Mormonism?.  I hope we are not
>    going to do down that dead end road again.  If people feel the LDS
>    Church has "sinister intentions", then they have swallowed the
>    propaganda that is out there (like The God Makers disinformation!).
    
    .14 is correct, I was using this as an opportunity to point out
    the parallels between the attacks on New Age and attacks on Mormonism.
    Let me hasten to add that my attitude towards New Age teachings is
    no different than towards Mormonism. I am far from accepting either
    "system", yet there are parts/components of each that I have no
    argument with, either.
    
    I have my own beliefs, which I neither "own", nor have originated.
    They are "mine" simply because they are a part of my life by acceptance
    of the Lordship of Christ, with the Bible as the objective authority.
    This is the basis for my differences with others' belief systems.

    I know this raises more questions than it answers, but for now,
    so be it...
    
    Ed
    
    P.S. Welcome, Neal! I find your notes very interesting and articulate,
    besides, someone needs to keep things lively around here besides
    me... :-)
    
    
         

>>    Oh Ed,- "sinister intentions" of Mormonism?.  I hope we are not
>>    going to do down that dead end road again.  If people feel the LDS
>>    Church has "sinister intentions", then they have swallowed the
>>    propaganda that is out there (like The God Makers disinformation!).
>    
>    .14 is correct, I was using this as an opportunity to point out
>    the parallels between the attacks on New Age and attacks on Mormonism.
>    Let me hasten to add that my attitude towards New Age teachings is
>    no different than towards Mormonism. I am far from accepting either
>    "system", yet there are parts/components of each that I have no
>    argument with, either.
>    

  The parallels exist only as long as both the "Mormon bashers" and
the Mormon-"New Age bashers" are using second hand information.  If the
information about the New Age beliefs comes from those who are part of that
"religion", then the parallel no longer exists.

Chad

    On this subject, there is much to be said.  However, one thing that
    _should_ be said is that there isn't a monolithic thing called "The
    New Age Movwement" [or NAM], much as some present it that way. 
    The so-called "New Age" stuff is really a collection of ideas and
    a lot of marketing hype, some of which is sheerly to make money.
    For instance:
    
    In .1, Kevin notes:
    
    >So 'channeling' was invented, meditation was revived, occult things 
    >were studied - anything and everything was explored in order to find 
    >The Answers. This is how I define New Age: as the *search* for The 
    >Answers in a whole range of newly popular, but mostly shopworn,
    >'disciplines.' ...
    
    But "channeling" is just a modern name for mediumship, as  in spiritist
    seances, which are _quite_ old practices (reaching a peak after
    World War I when many people were searching for word from lost loved
    ones -- even Arthur Conan Doyle, author of the Sherlock Holmes tales,
    became an ardent spiritist -- and wrote a novel, _The Land of Mist_
    to push the concept).  An easily identified practice with the "New
    Age" label is Astrology -- which is some 6,000 years old, with its
    beginnings in the Assyro-Babylonian cultures.  Some "alternate"
    disciplines such as herbal medicine are sometimes tagged as "New
    Age" practices, though frequently an herbalist would be surprised
    at the label.  And with the tag a buzzword, others have tagged certain
    music as "New Age."
    
>To me, this explains the diversity of activities that exist within the
>loose context of New Age, and it explains the general popularity of
>them. It also explains why there are as many interpretations of New
>Age as there are people making selections from this smorgasbord of
>'disciplines.'
 
    Precisely! And not even disciplines, if you count the music.
    
    Re .3 (Steve):
    
    >Basically, if you see 'new age' on the label, it's because they
    >hope it will sell.  That 'type' of music (used to be called space
    >music or whatever) has been around for years.
     
    Precisely.
    
    Re .5 (SLSTRN::RONDINA):
    
    >This topic of New Age is bound to stir up a lot of controversy which
    >can be attested to by going into an "Christian Bookstore" and asking
    >for anti-New Age Literature.
     
    However, a lot of the literature available there is written on tghe
    basis that there is a coherent NAM, while there is little real evidence
    there really is.
    
    >My first impression is that they were wonderfully exciting.  I was
    >told that I was a child of the universe, with unlimited potential,
    >imbued with higher consciousness, radiating light, and master of
    >my own destiny. 
     
    An interesting premise for a course to be taught to businessfolk.
    :-)
    
    > ......... To feel exicitement about creating/controlling my
    >destiny, and not subject to my own faults was very uplifting.
     
    But can one for _a minute_ really buy that he or she is not subject
    to her or his own faults?  For me, immediately, a "BS" bell would
    have sounded loud and clear.
    
    > .............. I believe that it is impossible to be Christian
    >and involved with New Age methods since these some of these methods
    >deal with meditative trances in which you are asked to contact higher
    >consciousness, master teachers, spirit guides, master servers, etc.,
    >while at the same time you are asked to suspend critical judgement
    >between good and evil.
     
    But here you hit a point that is both inarguable _and_ arguable.
    One _cannot_ be a Christian (or even if not a Christian, moral)
    if one suspends critical judgement between good and evil.  Period.
    However, what can be argued is that just because a course labeled
    as "New Age" makes such a claim, that doesn't mean everything tagged
    with that classification asks you to do the same.
    
    > ... and the necessity to get rid of anyone who believes in a personal
    >God (rather than the New Age God - THe Force).
     
    Er, the writer of that tract must have OD'ed on _Star Wars_ movies!
    
    Re .6 (Neal):
    
    	>As to not making judgements about good and evil, the philosophy
    	>is just intended that people live by the advice given in Matthew,
    	>chapter 7.
         
    Since neither you nor I took the course .5 did, let's just take
    at the author's word that the course _did_ say what the author said
    it did.  On that basis, it would be unChristian.
                                      
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Well, guys, I've been practicing "New Age" stuff (Yoga) for a little
    over 10 years.
    
    I do not speak for all New Agers nor do they necessarily speak for
    me.
    
    First I'd like to comment how even tempered this discussion has
    been.  No one has called anyone else a "slime bucket".  I'm sincerely
    impressed.
    
    Next I'd like to say I have no interest in obliterating or even
    harming the Mormon Church.  If it teaches love and the people practice
    loving, I would be a moron to try to change it in any way.  However,
    if someone tries to stop me from pursuing God how I see fit I will
    do whatever is necessary to maintain what have been called my
    "inalienable rights".
    
    Yoga, as far as I know, has many of it's roots in Hinduism.  Somewhere
    it is said that there are 330 million gods.  However, they are *ALL*
    part of the *SAME* One; just different aspects. (Talk about a
    ->personal<- god :-)  Your God is the same as mine.  We are like
    blind men trying to describe an elephant.  The leg I feel "seems"
    different than the ear that you feel.
    
    What do I want from my "religion"?  Love.  God is love.  We are
    all made in the image of God.  Our essence is love.  I want to
    recognize that love that is my essence.  I want to experience God
    in everything I see and do.  The more love I experience, the 
    closer I feel to God.
    
    Isn't that what it's all about?  Love thy neighbor but most of all
    love God?  After you get that right, nothing else really matters,
    does it?
    
    I will not entertain a train of thought that accuses "If nothing
    else matters what is to stop you from killing, stealing, etc."
    Love is not selfish in that way.  "Sinning" just doesn't make sense
    when you have so much love for God and His creation.  You have better
    things to do.
    
    I search for God a little different from you, but so what?  Sooner
    or later we will all get there, and believe me, there is enough
    God to share.
    
    Other "New Agers" have different motives/feelings.  Other Christians
    and other Mormons think and behave different from you.
    
    I speak for myself.
    
    Now, let's get on with the *real* work at hand.  Love!
    
    Tom
    
    PS: And I don't mean "promiscuity"!  That's *NOT* love!  That's
    sex, although it can be done with love.  But that's another topic.

    To T Baker in .23 - 330 million Gods!!  Good grief!  I have a hard
    time understanding the Triune God Doctrine.
    
    Here are 2 books on New Age that I found very revealing:
    
    Peace, Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust by Dave Hunt 
    Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow by Constance Cumbey.
    
    
    Things I have written in these notes about New Age are not second
    hand, but my own first hand experiences with New Age-type workshops,
    methods, philosophies and followers.
    
    

    A few more thoughts on this subject:
    
    Re: Stopping people from believing as they choose
    
    Mormon doctrine is clear on this. The Mormon church will fight to
    preserve religious freedom, not only for itself, but for all, within
    certain moral limits. That includes the religious freedom to pursue New
    Age beliefs. 
    
    Re: (Neal) The 'intimidating' missionary browbeating the spiritualist
    
    I was not there, but I would classify this as more of a case of the
    missionary using his zeal to persuade against error, as he saw it. This
    is not the same as forcing someone to believe a certain way. It is also
    not a matter of church policy or training to intimidate anyone.
    Missionaries and all church members are taught to persuade others with
    love and with the Spirit of the Lord. Sometimes they do, and sometimes
    they don't, for they are just doing their best as imperfect humans to
    try to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. 
    
    Re: Purpose of life
    
    Mormons believe that God's stated purpose for man is this: 
         
         This is my work and my glory -- to bring to pass the immortality
         and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)

    If that's the purpose of life, then our challenge is to find out what
    it takes to receive immortality and eternal life and then do it. Loving
    God and our fellow man is certainly part of this, and may be all that
    is necessary, depending on how you define the terms. If loving God is
    coming to know God, desiring to know truth as He sees it, and obeying
    this truth, then I would say that loving God (which includes loving our
    fellow man, in my view) is all that is necessary. 
    
    How does this fit in with Mormonism? Well, we testify that God himself
    has revealed certain truths, and that He will continue to reveal
    others. We testify that He has revealed what is necessary for people to
    receive immortality and eternal life. We claim to cling to these
    revealed and to reject anything that conflicts with them. 
    
    If you hold a belief that is in agreement with what God has revealed so
    far, then I will agree with your belief. If you hold a belief that
    conflicts with what has been revealed so far, then I will reject your
    belief, though I will allow you the freedom to believe as you choose. 
    
    If you hold a belief that is not addressed by what God has revealed so
    far, then I will think that your belief is interesting, and I will
    inquire of the Lord about it.  I will patiently wait for further
    revelation on the matter, either to me for my personal benefit, or to
    the ordained apostles and prophets for the benefit of the whole church. 
    
    In this way, the standard for measuring truth for us is the revelations
    of God, past, present and future. 
            
    As I previously said, I know very little of New Age beliefs (whatever
    that means :^) . I have no interest in bashing anyone's beliefs, though
    I might debate them energetically (there is a difference!). 
    
    I'm glad that the LDS church tries very hard not to say or publish
    anything that is intended to bash anyone else's beliefs. It's only
    desire is to proclaim that which we know to be true, and then to let
    people choose freely to accept or reject it. Sometimes individual
    members of the church will say things that sound like bashing, may even
    be bashing, but they do so on their own, and not at the instigation or
    encouragement of the church. 
    
    Rich
                                

    
    Well Mr. Kotter, I would say that you certainly have *not* bashed
    any beliefs of mine. You have conducted a very reasonable discussion,
    and I've enjoyed corresponding with you. 
    
    I read the MORMONISM notes file from time to time, and I seldom
    reply to that which is stated therein, as replying with the tools
    I have at hand is time-consuming and cumbersome. But I could not
    let it pass when certain noters began associating my beliefs with
    satanism, hitlerism and the like. I found the statement that hitler
    (lowercase letters deliberate) was the founder or foremost proponent
    or whatever of "New Age", offensive. Yes, he was interested in the
    Occult. No doubt he is even now realizing the horror of his actions,
    and the negative karma that awaits his next sojourn into the material
    world. What M. Rondina said about his being the foremost proponent
    of new age thought is like saying that Willie Horton is the foremost
    proponent of black people's attitudes and actions. M. Rondina is,
    in my opinion, using bush campaign tactics to engender in Mormons
    a fear and hatred of New Agers. 
    
    	A bit ruffled,
    
    	Neal Barnette

    
    	Re .19 (?)
    
    >    beliefs is the concept of agency.  The occult and other anti-Christian 
>religions often tend to promise altruistic blessings for mankind in exchange 
>for agency.
    
    I think that most New Agers understand that without "agency", which
    I term "free will", there can be no learning. Without learning there
    can be no spiritual growth. Without spiritual growth, there can
    be no attunement, atonement, at-one-ment with the Father - which
    is the only stated goal that my ~10 years of study on the subject
    has revealed.

    Neal Barnette

    I went back an re-read a few notes on this topic.  I suppose when
    someone refers to the Mormon New Age bashers that it would appear
    that I am that person.  Having experienced bashing of one sort or
    another from unsympathetic "christians" about Mormonism, I do not
    intend to "bash" New Agers.
    
    My intent to sound a warning bell that the PUBLISHED, DOCUMENTED
    goals of this movement (currently called New Age, but has had other
    names in history) is evil!  How do I know?
    
    First, from a spiritual domain having EXPERIENCED FIRST HAND the
    techniques, and practices that smack of occutism, Eastern mysticism,
    and Satanism.  This experience was my first encounter.  As I said
    I, like many others, was swept away by the narcisisstic ego-stroking
    pronouncements of this movement, and eager to tell the world of
    its wonderfulness. 
    
    
    Secondly, it was only after some readings into actually published
    materials by several New Age Organizations that I started to get
    the true picture of what the  goals of this movement are.
    
    By the way some writers believe that the movement started as early
    as 1770 in Bavaria Germany by a group of men called the Illuminati.
    
    Anyhow, what I am trying to say is that some (not all) New Age-type
    organizationshave stated and published their goals, which at first
    glance look wonderful, but upon close scrutiny into the methods for 
    accomplishment would scare a Marine.  I am talking about such avowed 
    goals as the one which seek to eliminate Christians, Jews and Islam 
    (because of a belief in a personal God). A side note here - has
    anyone noticed how anti-Semitism is on the rise, especially in the
    American Mid-west!
    
    Again, I am not using my words.  These goals are their own which
    they have published! 
                  
    I am just trying to REPORT what I have experienced and learned,
    not to BASH New Agers, because I believe some very
    sincere souls have been deceived, as I was, into thinking they are
    part of some wonderful, uplifting, Christ-like cause, yet, all the
    while using methods and practices that are right out of black magic
    (like channeling, astrology, contact with spirits, etc.) and definitely
    occult.
                                             
    I would be interested in hearing from other Christians who may have
    an experience with New Age to see if their experiences and feelings
    were similar to mine.
    
    Paul
                                    

    Re. .28,
            
>    Anyhow, what I am trying to say is that some (not all) New Age-type
>    organizationshave stated and published their goals, which at first
>    glance look wonderful, but upon close scrutiny into the methods for 
>    accomplishment would scare a Marine.  I am talking about such avowed 
>    goals as the one which seek to eliminate Christians, Jews and Islam 
>    (because of a belief in a personal God). A side note here - has
>    anyone noticed how anti-Semitism is on the rise, especially in the
>    American Mid-west!
    

	I sure would like to know what New Age organizations in particular
    	have stated goals to eliminate Christians, Jews and Islamics.
    	And how they go about it, since that constitutes some 2.5 billion
    	people (Mr. Kallis may be able to correct me here). Every teaching
    	that I have encountered has been based on strict adherence to
    	the Golden Rule.
    
    	As to Steve Kallis Jr.'s statements about the commercial nature
    	of most of the organizations, I must admit that I find this
    	distressing. What is happening is that, as people begin to
    	experience an increase in spirituality or spiritual orientation
    	in their lives, the capitalists have identified another opportunity
    	to increase the content of their wallets! Whenever society begins
    	to change, there is someone looking for a way to profit from
    	the change. Of course, the same can be said of mainstream 
    	Christianity, where the little green hands have been profiting
    	from peoples belief in the birth of Jesus Christ for at least
    	a century now.
    
    	Neal Barnette

    Yeah.  Paul, would you mind maybe quoting from some sources about
    the elimination of believers in a personal God?  The lady in the
    program I mentioned in .0 mentioned this and quoted from sources,
    but I didn't copy anything down (boy, now I wish I had).   By the
    way, I regard personal experience as a primary source (thanks, Paul
    and Neal!).  I, too, would be interested in anyone's direct
    experiences with New Age.  I think I'll head down to my local Christian
    bookstore and see what they have on New Age.  I realize the need
    to be objective, so I'll look for reputable stuff ...
    
    Steve

    To the moderators:
    
    I have some, but not all, information on New Age.  Over the last
    3-5 years there has so much written about this movement.  I am not
    sure that it is appropriate to begin reporting what info I have
    found in this notes file since the whole topic is MOrmonism not
    New Age..  Please advise.  My intent is to raise
    the voice of warning and to let people read the literature on New
    Age  for themselves. 
    
     Paul
            

    Re: Note 171.31 by SLSTRN::RONDINA

>   To the moderators:
>   
>   I have some, but not all, information on New Age.  Over the last
>   3-5 years there has so much written about this movement.  I am not
>   sure that it is appropriate to begin reporting what info I have
>   found in this notes file since the whole topic is MOrmonism not
>   New Age..  Please advise.  My intent is to raise
>   the voice of warning and to let people read the literature on New
>   Age  for themselves. 

    The opinion of the moderators is that this is an appropriate topic of
    discussion, providing that it is conducted according to the guidelines
    of this conference. The guidelines are included below for your review. 
    
    The relevancy of this topic to this conference will be enhanced if New
    Age beliefs are discussed as they agree with or differ from LDS beliefs
    or how they might affect Latter-day Saints or other interested parties. 
    
    -- the moderators

    Conference guidelines (found in note 1.0):
        
>    Because religion is a topic that arouses high emotional feelings, we
>    have a few suggestions to make to help all of us enjoy this
>    Conference.
>
>    1.  Above all, please try and emulate our Savior Jesus Christ in your
>        activity in this Conference.  Behave as He would.  To be
>        Christlike in our actions means to show the same love and concern
>        for others that you would like them to show to you.
>
>    2.  Please be considerate of the feelings and beliefs of others.  It
>        is ok to disagree, but personal attacks on other participants are
>        not appropriate.
>
>    3.  Carefully choose the words you write, so you do not create an
>        atmosphere of antagonism and argument.
>
>    4.  If you disagree with doctrine, please do not accuse anyone of
>        being a false prophet, or something similar.  In doing that you
>        will only put others on the defensive and create a feeling of
>        antagonism.  Instead, state your concerns in an objective and kind
>        way and ask the other person if he or she would like to comment.
>
>    5.  When discussing theology or historical events, please identify
>        your sources.
>
>    6.  Whenever possible, use DECspell to check your response before
>        posting it, and observe proper Notes etiquette, by using upper
>        and lower case appropriately (upper case only means you are
>        shouting), and identifying your responses with appropriate titles
>        and references to the note you may be responding to.

                 
    Re. .32,
    
    >    The relevancy of this topic to this conference will be enhanced if New
>    Age beliefs are discussed as they agree with or differ from LDS beliefs
>    or how they might affect Latter-day Saints or other interested parties. 
>    
>    -- the moderators

    If in the opinion of the moderators the above is not being done,
    then let's move this discussion to the RELIGION conference on
    node RAJA if the moderators there will permit.
    
    >>    4.  If you disagree with doctrine, please do not accuse anyone of
>>        being a false prophet, or something similar.  In doing that you
>>        will only put others on the defensive and create a feeling of
>>        antagonism.  Instead, state your concerns in an objective and kind
>>        way and ask the other person if he or she would like to comment.

    In my opinion, references to hitler and satan that have been made
    in this topic, associating New Age beliefs with their beliefs, border
    on violation of this ground rule. (BTW, I don't believe in the
    existence of an evil entity or being called satan. God has no evil
    children, only lost ones who in their confusion commit evil acts
    from time to time. Non of His children is incorrugible.)
    
    >>    5.  When discussing theology or historical events, please identify
>>        your sources.

     
    Tres bien, merci. Et toi ca'va?
    
    >>    3.  Carefully choose the words you write, so you do not create an
>>        atmosphere of antagonism and argument.
>>
    
    	This guideline, I may be guilty of violating. If so I apologize.
    	When one is on the defensive (as opposed to on the attack),
    	one might occasionally fail to give due consideration to what
    	one writes. 
    
    	Let's all henceforth make an effort to discuss this topic,
    	either here or in another conference, like the mature, rational
    	and loving adults we all are!
    
    	Regards,
    Neal Barnette

                                                  

Okay, I stopped by my local Christian bookstore.  I looked for the most 
reputable book(s) I could find and settled on:

	'Understanding the New Age', by Russell Chandler of the LA Times,
	ISBN 0-8499-0650-4, about $17 and brand new on the shelves

The thing that impressed me most about this book is that it seems well 
researched.  I count something around 700 references listed in the bibliography.
I'll try to revert to this book for now for answers or at least for other
sources of information.

This book mentions 'Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow', 'Peace, Prosperity 
and the Coming Holocaust' and lots of others.  The author states:

	The trouble with these books, from a journalistic perspective,
	is that the research, while extensive, lacks support from 
	incontrovertible evidence.  Facts are mishandled, claims are 
	undocumented, conclusions are biased, and logic is flawed at
	vital connection points.  That is not to say that all - or even
	nearly all - of the assertions are untrue.  But they are often
	tied to unprovable assumptions as well as careless inferences.

Argh!  Isn't anything simple nowadays?  ;-)  Anyway, several of these books
apparently refer to the writings of Alice Bailey, 'Reappearance of the 
Christ', New York, Lucis Publishing Co., 1969.  Mr. Chandler points out that
it is a minority of New Agers that adhere to her 'New Group of World Servers',
an elite, ruling hierarchy.  He points out that other New Age strategists
are for a 'unified world world order and planetary unity while at the same
time favoring decentralized government - a difficult balancing act.'  So,
it would appear to me at this point that there is probably not a unified 
conspiracy among New Agers to destroy individuals that worship a personal God.

Also, from reading just a few parts, it seems pretty hard to nail down 
New Age beliefs.  It is analogous to nailing down the beliefs of Christianity 
by trying to assimilate the collective beliefs of all Christian churches.  

One writing often linked to New Age is a 1200-page, three volume 'compendium of
New Age thought' called 'A Course in Miracles' published by the Foundation for
Inner Peace.  This writing begun in 1965 is by Helen Schucman who claims to 
have had the writings dictated to her by an inaudible voice over seven years.  
This is discussed with a reference from Dean Halverson ('A Matter of Course: 
Conversation with Kenneth Wapnick,' Spiritual Counterfeits Project Journal 7, 
no. 1, 1987).  He interviewed Kenneth Wapnick who is regarded as a chief 
interpretor of the Course.  Mr. Wapnick indicated that the teachings of the 
Course are incompatible with Christianity, but maintains that there are many 
ways to God, including Christianity, and that 'in the end, all theologies will 
drop away and what's left is only the love of God'.  Here are some excerpts 
from the interview (Wapnick speaking):

	There are three basic reasons.  One is the Course's idea that God
	did not create the world.  The second is the Course's teaching that
	Jesus was not the only Son of God.  THe third involves the Course's
	assertion that Jesus did not suffer and die for our sins ... The 
	Bible teaches that God created the world and pronounced it very good.
	The Course teaches that God did not create this world, but the ego
	did, and that it's an illusion ... The Course teaches that we are
	all equally Christ.  The only difference is that Jesus was the 
	first to remember who he was ...


It is also mentioned that the publishers of the Course promote it to a variety
of teachers and study groups including Unity and Religious Science, and some
Episcopal, Methodist and Presbyterian groups.  These groups were named by
Bob Skutch (the Skutch's run the Foundation for Inner Peace) in an interview
with Mr. Chandler.

So far, it seems that one can be considered a New Ager without adhering to the 
Course or to the writings of Alice Bailey.  So what IS New Age?  As Mr. 
Chandler puts it:

	By and large, New Age is a modern revival of ancient religious
	traditions, along with a potpurri of influences:  Eastern mysticism,
	modern philosophy and psychology, science and science fiction,
	and the counterculture of the 50s and 60s.

If I were to rephrase this, I might describe New Age as a mixture of the 
teachings of men.  But, there are evidently a lot of other beliefs about what
New Age is, too.  As to Hitler, Satanism and the occult, the reason these have
been brought up is because some of the elements used in these are being used
with what some claim are a part of New Age.  In fact, I think it could be 
argued that some who have interest in these may be having influence on New 
Age.  But, does that make New Age bad?  From what I'm reading so far, it's 
hard to pass any kind of immediate judgement.

Consider this.  Over the last 2000years a lot of really bad things have been 
done by wicked men under the guise of Christianity.  Does that alone make 
Christianity bad?  No.  Over the same period of time, a lot of really good 
things have been done by good men in the guise of Christianity.  Does that 
alone make Christianity good?  No.  The problem is that the wrong questions are
being asked.  I think similar statements can be made about New Age.  It's 
because you have to break Christianity into its segments - perhaps the 
different churches - and investigate each church as a separate entity.  
Similarly, I think New Age needs to be broken up into its appropriate segments 
and each segment judged as a separate entity.  This will prevent one from 
linking something like New Age music (which I sometimes like) with something 
like channeling (debatably linked to the occult, Satanic practices, and so 
forth - hence the connections alluded).  It's good to keep in mind that it's 
not like there is the Official New Age Organization.  Instead, people seem to 
be doing lots of different stuff and calling it New Age because that's the hot 
buzzword right now.  (Pssst!  Buddy! ... wanna' buy some New Age watches?)

At this point, I think I agree most with Paul.  There is some positive stuff 
that has the New Age tag on it.  But, there's also a lot of really seedy stuff 
that is getting passed as New Age.  I sense that Neal neither likes nor accepts
seedy stuff and probably resents the implication that anybody would link 
the seedy side of New Age to his perception of New Age.  

I have interest in science.  So do New Agers.  No problem with that.  But, I 
know that there are caveats with science.  And, I know now that there are 
definite caveats with New Age.  But, I know that there sure aren't any caveats 
with the Gospel and it is against these standards that I measure all other 
theologies.

I have yet to read the whole book.  I'll post more stuff if there is interest
and if the moderators feel it is appropriate.  

Hey, Neal, what does the French mean?


Steve

    BYU Students/Graduates:
    
    Are there any BYU students out there who took any classess from
    Cleon Skousen?  I did back in 1971.  During some of his classes
    he would digress and talk of a world-wide conspiracy.  He never
    mentioned its name but did write about it in a book called The HIdden
    Communist, I believe.  He used to say that Communism was not the
    danger everyone thought it was, rather it was a front for a much
    more dangerous movement, namely this world conspiracy.
    
    Does anyone have any more info on him or his ideas?  The reason
    I bring it up is because I wonder if he was alluding to New Age,
    which in 1971 had no name.  But as I recollect his expose of this
    world conspiracy included some reference to the doctrines of Alice Bailey
    and Lucis Trust.  Also, President Benson in the October General
    Conference in the Sunday morning Session referred to a world
    conspiracy when he said:
    
    	"Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are
    	flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the
    	the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing
    	its evil influence and control over America and the entire 
    	world."	
                                                            
    Anyhow, does any one know if Skousen had said anything on New Age.
    
    Cleon Skousen was (and maybe still is) a professor of religion at
    BYU.  He was also an assistant to Herber Hoover in the FBI for many
    years.  It was from his access to restricted information that he
    pieced his World Conspiracy ideas together.
    
    Thanks, Steve, for adding references. I have been digging through
    my files for my New Age materials, only to realize I loaned them
    out and they have not yet come back.
    
    Constance Cumbey, who was the I believe the first person to write
    an expose on New Age, is a trial lawyer in Detroit.  She is also
    a Christian and bumped into New Age and noticed some parallels of
    its doctrines to occult ideas/practices.  Researched it and then
    wrote several books on it.  When I first read it, I was somewhat
    taken aback by her premises.  I asked a friend, Gerrald Handy, who
    was the legal counsel for the John Birch Society here in Boston
    and also LDS, about Cumber and her credibility.  He said to me that
    the John Birch Society regarded her very highly and that for the
    most part she was accurate.  He then started telling me of the origins
    of the New Age, i.e. the Illuminati, and its manifestations throughout
    history, especially during the Age of Revolutions, Karl Marx.  He
    said something interesting when he mentioned that the closest we
    have come to establishing a One World Government was with the
    establishment of the UN.
    
    I am rambling on.  Anyhow back to the original question.  Any
    information on Cleon Skousen or any LDS writers publishing about
    the New Age?
    
    Paul  
    
                    

    
    
     Re .35,
    
        >    taken aback by her premises.  I asked a friend, Gerrald Handy, who
>    was the legal counsel for the John Birch Society here in Boston
>    and also LDS, about Cumber and her credibility.  He said to me that
>    the John Birch Society regarded her very highly and that for the
>    most part she was accurate.  He then started telling me of the origins
>    of the New Age, i.e. the Illuminati, and its manifestations throughout
>   history, especially during the Age of Revolutions, Karl Marx.  He

    Would it be too much of a digression here, Mr. Rondina, to ask you
    to edify me and the noters as to the stated purposes, aims, goals
    and beliefs of the John Birch society? And maybe, just a little
    background history on this organization? I seem to be "in the dark"
    on this one (in more ways than one! 8^))
    
    
    Re. 34,
    
    The french translates as "very good thanks, and you?". Not a literal
    translation but the meaning.
    
    
    Neal Barnette

    To Neal:
    
    RE:  The John Birch Society
    
    I am  sorry but I do not know anything about this society except
    that they are an ultra-conservative American organization who are
    sometimes portrayed/ridiculed as McCarthy-era leftovers who"see
    a communist under every bed".
    
    Paul
    

	'Understanding the New Age', by Russell Chandler of the LA Times,
	ISBN 0-8499-0650-4, about $17 and brand new on the shelves

I decided that I didn't want to detract too much from the intent of note
171 and decided to put my reviews of this book here.  Hope that's okay.

So far, I've read about 100 pages.  There are about 350 pages of easy reading.
Here are some highlights:

Mr. Chandler took about 8 months off to do the research on this book.  Although
there are lots of references, he doesn't make any pretense about this being
comprehensive.  In fact, a statement is made to the effect that a journalist
can either keep up with New Age or report on it, but not both.  His purpose
seems more to give a good overview of it.

He mentions that New Age has had a lot of influence on just about everything
around us.  He tries to identify several concepts that are common New
Age themes.  I'll try to summarize:
	
	o Ultimate Reality - 'All is One'.  Everything is one vast, 
	  interconnected process.  Monism.  

	o Humanity - Humanity is All One.  'You create your own reality.'
	  'YOU are the only thing that is real.'  No distinction is made 
	  between the Creator and the creation.  'All is God.'  Pantheism. 

	o God and Religion - All is One.  We are All One.  All is God.
	  We are God.  There is nothing that *isn't* God.

	o Humanity's Problem - 'Metaphysical amnesia' has caused us to forget
	  our true identity.  We have forgotten the relationships described
	  above.  Soon, a new epoch will dawn in which we all will know.

	o Solution to the Crisis - There will soon be a 'paradigm shift' 
	  wherein we will look at the world in a new way.  This is similar
	  to the paradigm shifts that occurred when such innovations were
	  introduced as the wheel, language, writing, and so forth.  Here
	  I will quote Mr. Chandler:

		The old paradigm that divides and separates and analyzes
		must be sloughed off - even abruptly snuffed out - to
		make room for the new assumed unity between reality and
		the divine.  Humanity is deified, death is denied, and 
		ignorance - not evil - is the enemy.

	o The New Age Agenda - This generally involves advances in ecology
	  (merging God and nature), androgyny, world peace and disarmament,
	  natural foods and healing processes, overcoming world hunger,
	  humanizing technology, dismantling a corporate society and 
	  replacing it with smaller industrial and agricultural collectives,
	  fostering cooperative living systems, and organizing global
	  rather than national politics.

A chapter focuses on the New Age view of the brain or mind.  Basically,
it boils down to shutting down the logical side so that the potentials of the
spontaneous side can be realized.

There is a lot of focus on the historical roots of New Age.  It seems that 
most of it spans many years and is rather a collection of movements.  Today,
it tends to focus on gurus, communes and groups which Mr. Chandler lists.  
To my surprise, Mr. Chandler also listed Christian Science and Mormons with 
neither being 'strictly speaking, a product of the new Age movement' but 
'sharing a common ground with present New Age thought'.  He establishes the 
link of Christian Science with Transcendental and New Thought movements which 
are part of the New Age lineage.  He does not establish any link of Mormonism
with the New Age lineage.  But, he sites the use of the Urim and Thummim and 
esoteric (to him, anyway) teachings as New Wave aspects of Mormonism.  He 
refers to the Book of Mormon as a 'Christian romance' by quote, implying that 
he himself didn't read a copy.  Seems he didn't dig too deeply here nor do 
much research.  But, it turns out that throughout the book he usually skims 
anyway, so his style is at least consistent.  Besides, how much can you do in 
8 months?  

Most of the other groups listed blatantly demanded the suppression of logical 
thought and personal will - personal agency.  This is in stark contrast to 
Mormonism and, in general, Christianity.

Channeling is hot stuff in New Age.  Channelers pull in big bucks and there
are a lot of them.  He indicates that there are some basic messages:

	o Death is unreal.
	o All is One in the synergy of Deity.
	o We are Divine Beings but have chosen to exist as physical humans.
	o In this life there are no victims, only opportunities.
	o We can control reality through the powers of Universal Mind.

This I found a bit scary.  Among the examples given were cases where channels 
had revealed details that could have only come from the beings claimed to be
on the other side.  This tends to sometimes substantiate the claim that the 
promptings don't always come from the channeler.  The reason I found this 
scary is because some of it comes close to the Gospel, but is twisted so as to 
deny Christ and His mission.  It reminds me of some scriprural accounts where 
truths are purveyed by Satan in order to deceive.

UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence (ETIs) figure strongly in New Age.  The
claims, however, are fuzzy.  There are no solid facts, but a lot of talk.  
Among other things is the decription of these as being psychic phenomena yet 
to be explained but having some link with reality.  Truth tends to be a 
relative thing in New Age, so that may be why these things have found place,
in my opinion.

Harmonic convergence is a lot of talk.  I'd rather not even go into it.  
Crystals and pyramids are supposed to have mystical powers, none of it 
verifiable in the lab.  Lots of stories, theories and few substantiating 
experiences abound with all of these.  I note from quotes of several New Agers 
that they seem particulary fond of using technical terms like frequency, 
harmonic resonance, electromagnetism, fields and so forth to describe things 
that are nothing of the kind and can't be verified in the lab.  From an 
engineers point of view, I find this to be at best boring, at better insulting 
as it implies that the engineering community gives credence to these claims, 
and at worst diabolical as it preys on the tendency of many people to trust 
those who use technological terms.  It is especially embarrassing when a New 
Age figure uses these terms and calls attention to his or her history of 
having worked for a major computer company or technical institution.

That's about as far as I've gotten so far.


Steve

    So as not to digress, I am putting a review of 'Understanding the
    New Age' into note 187.  I know this kind of stuff could go into
    another notes file, but my review will pretty much be from my point
    of view as an LDS.
    
    Steve

    Howdy, Ed!  Come to spark things up again, have you?  :-)
    
    There are a couple of things that need to be clarified.  Mormonism
    teaches that there is one God, our Creator, whom we should worship.
    Through adherence to Gospel principles, we can become like Him -
    hence we can become gods.
    
    New Age, on the other hand, teaches that God is all of us, that
    everything is God.  In essence, we are already gods and there is
    no single entity that is God.  This is a stark contrast.
    
    The Church does not single out other Churches and bash them.  One
    proof of this is to take a look at the history and at present practices
    of the Church and ask yourself what they might have done if they were
    out to bash other specific churches.  The Church is guilty in the same 
    way of bashing other churches as John was in Revelations, in my
    opinion.  The authorities of the Church have often and recently
    proclaimed, 'Love the sinner, not the sin'.  Bashing, in my book,
    usually includes personal attacks (as many have made on Joseph Smith),
    whereas it is quite another thing to criticize an organizations
    creeds.  Also, who but God knows the hearts of men?  The assertion
    from JS 2:19 is revelation from God, not a remark by Joseph Smith.
    
    Sorry.  We've hashed this out before.  I don't want to go down a
    rathole, and it seems, Ed, that on this New Age thing we are probably
    in more agreement than disagreement.
    
    
    Steve

Oh, and one other note.  As Russell Chandler pointed out, Dave Hunt's other
books on New Age (such as 'The Seduction of Christianity' and 'Peace, 
Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust') lacked incontrovertible evidence
and suffered from flawed logic and unprovable assertions.  I am finding that 
Mr. Chandler's book at least has good evidence, is logical and seems to
have verifiable assertions.  His biggest problem seems to me to be that he 
doesn't go far enough in some of his research and may have a tendency to draw 
some conclusions a bit prematurely.

But, does Dave Hunt's style of writing necessarily carry over into 'The
God Makers'?  Frankly, until you mentioned it, I didn't know who wrote it.
And, I've never read it.  But, my brother once picked up a copy and was 
highlighting all the places where he thought it had verifiable lies about the 
Church.  He highlighted so much that he abandoned the project, figuring that 
anybody who picked up the book could easily spot many of the lies armed only 
with the Standard Works.  He also dropped the project because he kept getting 
steamed up that somebody could so blatantly be allowed to print such libelous 
material in this country without being sued.

Anyway, sorry about the divergence.


Steve

I hope I get this in quick! Lots of notes here to respond to and think 
about. Some preliminary thoughts: 

1) I really don't want to hear what the John Birch Society has to say.
From my perspective - and I am a conservative Republican - the John
Birch Society is way out on the radical right fringe. Quoting its
adherents does not shore up an argument as far as I am concerned. 

2) I am not thrilled with this talk of 'exposing conspiracies,' and I
am especially unthrilled by this talk of Satanism, Hitler, etc. I
admit I am discomfited mainly by the similarity to a lot of
anti-Mormon rubbish that purports to 'expose' Mormonism. But I am also
discomfited knowing that there are zillions of honest, happy, good
people who look into New-Age-type-stuff who do not deserve to be
thought of as being remotely connected with Satanism, Hitlerism, or
any of a number of other -ism's. 

3) Has anyone else read my note in .1? Does anyone else agree with me?
I do not view New Age as Satanic. I view it as a worldly, man-inspired
thing, which like any other man-inspired thing can be used for good or
ill. 

4) Any similarity between New Age beliefs (if they could be thought of 
as a single body of beliefs) and Mormonism is so utterly superficial 
as to be ludicrous. Ed, you know that.

5) I do not doubt for a minute that there are tons of New Agers who
are also seekers of God and who feel they have made progress thereby.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that people who are motivated to
investigate the spiritual aspects of existance have a lot going for
them, and are way ahead of most of Heavenly Father's children.
However, to those same people I would say that if you get a kick out
of New Age, then Mormonism will really knock your socks off. You wanna
know about reality? Spirituality? The purpose of Life? Why we are
here? Our pre-mortal life when we all knew each other and lived with
God? Oh Brother! Have I got some news for *you*! 

For example, there *is* a life after this one. But do we simply come 
back here to earth via reincarnation? Huh-uh. That would merely be
redundant. There is a much more exciting, imaginative, purposeful fate
awaiting us all. 

And there are millions of people on the earth today who have a
*testimony*, a sure *knowledge*, that these things are true! It isn't
theoretical guesswork, but it *is* an exploration. And it yields far
more progress more rapidly than anything you can imagine. 

With love from a Brother, 
/kevin 

    re: .42
    
    What I'm reading so far indicates that most New Agers claim *absolutely
    no formal ties* with Hitlerism, Satanism and witchcraft.  It seems
    to be a tag that some have stuck on it because they notice
    similarities between these practices and other practices and beliefs
    associated with New Age.  After becoming better informed, I am inclined to
    agree that some of New Age is the 'wisdom of men'.  For example,
    I am currently reading 'Thriving on Chaos' by Tom Peters (coauthor of
    'In Pursuit of Excellence' and 'A Passion for Excellence').  Among
    other things, he advocates the breakup of corporate society so that
    the market can better respond to consumer interests.  He has good
    case studies to support this assertion.  I note that Mr. Chandler 
    lists this as being on the agenda of New Age.  In addition, New Agers 
    tend to be in favor of protecting our environment and eating healthy 
    foods.  These are *good* things, in my opinion.  
    
    As a musician (well, I like to program synthesizers and what they make 
    sounds to me like music) I appreciate this concept of letting the
    spontaneous portion of your brain get exercised.  That's where a lot
    of the musical ideas seem to come from (like early in the morning
    when I'm waking up, or late at night when I'm a little tired and
    need a break).
    
    So, there are several aspects that have been tagged 'New Age' that
    are lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy.
    
    
    Steve

    Boy, this topic sure has livened things up around here.

(replacement for 171.39 - couldn't put it in place of the old one, maybe
a moderator can do it for the sake of continuity...)
    
Even though I don't really have the time, I've got to get in on this!

>    I'm glad that the LDS church tries very hard not to say or publish
>    anything that is intended to bash anyone else's beliefs.

Rich, don't forget that one of the basic tenets of the Mormon Church is 
that "all other churches are corrupt and their creeds are an abomination."
That certainly sounds like a sweeping "bash" to me. While, in my limited 
experience, Mormons I have encountered do not personally practice
"bashing" that I know of, it is none the less true that the Mormon Church
does regard itself as the sole repository of truth with all others in
hopeless error. 

>    To T Baker in .23 - 330 million Gods!!  Good grief!  I have a hard
>    time understanding the Triune God Doctrine.

Paul, Why should 330 million gods surprise you, since the Mormon church
teaches that the real number of gods is far greater than that? 

Also, I must say that I have been mildly amused to see you taking
precisely the same tack in your approach to reporting on the dangers of
New Age beliefs as Leza did in her report on Mormonism (note 38). You
cite various books and writings, as well as your own personal experience.
This is certainly acceptable, of course, it's just that I got a kick out
of seeing the shoe on the other foot so to speak. 

>    I am just trying to REPORT what I have experienced and learned,
>    not to BASH New Agers, because I believe some very
>    sincere souls have been deceived, as I was, into thinking they are
>    part of some wonderful, uplifting, Christ-like cause, yet...

This is exactly what Leza did. She even called it a report. She cited
what she'd experienced and learned, and her sincere belief in her
conclusions. Let me hasten to add that I do not necessarily disagree with
you, Paul, regarding the underlying dangers inherent in New Age
philosophy. You note with a certain justifiable degree of alarm, 
that "New Age" organizations present a very appealing front designed to
attract one into looking for more, without revealing what is to be found
later on. Oddly enough, this is also done in Mormonism. The Mormon church 
uses appealing TV commercials, lavishly illustrated tracts, well dressed
and articulate young missionaries, videos, etc, to attract people into
Mormonism, yet not even a Mormon can find out exactly what goes on inside
the Temple until he passes a rigorous qualification process. 

You have warned us that New Age teachings would have us believe that we
can become gods, while Mormonism teaches almost precisely the same thing,
yet holds a monopoly on the process. So far the difference seems to be
that via New Age you can find your own way to Godhood, while in
Mormonism it is through the laborious process of joining the Mormon
Chruch, keeping all its laws and commandments, qualifying for the Temple,
performing Ordinances and ceremonies, tithing, and living a perfect life.
Then, if you are good enough, you too will become a god. One says "find
your own way" and the other says "do what we say and we'll provide the
way". Your objection seems to be that it's too "easy". Is it supposed to
be hard? Christ said His yoke was easy and His burden light. 

You neglected to mention one of the most popular current New Age 
practices: the fascination with crystals and the powers they allegedly 
contain. I see a parallel between this and Joseph Smith's use of his
"peep stone" and the Urim and Thummim. You also mentioned contact with 
spirits as "right out of black magic" and "definitely occult", yet 
Mormon prophets have claimed that spirits of the dead are present at the 
Temple ceremonies conducted on their behalf, and even claim to have 
spoken with them, usually notables from the past; kings, presidents, etc.
Oddly enough, in channeling, it always seems that the entity being 
"channeled" is some king, queen, great wise man or warrior, never a 
donkey cart driver or a farmer. Not interesting enough, I guess. If 
anybody wants, I'll provide references.

I see New Age as appealing to those who chafe at the idea of an
authoritarian heirarchy controlling their access to God, while Mormonism
seems to attract those who take comfort in the sense of a reward earned
by striving for an impossibly high standard in a rigidly structured
environment. Strangely enough, a Mormon's final hope is the same as a
New Ager's, and it is that when Judgement Day comes, God will realize
that their heart was in the right place, they "did their best", and
that it's "good enough" for them to be rewarded. The New Ager trusts in
his works and sincerity, the Mormon in his church and his works (and
sincerity). 

>    Here are 2 books on New Age that I found very revealing:
>    
>    Peace, Prosperity and the Coming Holocaust by Dave Hunt 
>    Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow by Constance Cumbey.

I'm surprised to hear you cite Dave Hunt as one of your sources, since
he's also co-author of The God Makers, probably the most vigorously
opposed of the contemporary "anti-Mormon" books. The same writer who was
vilified in topics regarding The God Makers has now become your source of
information on the New Age movement. If you find him enlightening
regarding New Age philosophy, perhaps you'd benefit from reading The God
Makers, too. I've read some of his books, while rather direct in his 
approach, he seems to be pretty right on in anything I am either 
knowledgeable about or have checked out.

I recall reading somewhere that Mormonism and "New Age" have numerous
parallels in their foundational beliefs, which I'm sure comes as a shock
to Mormons, but I did not want to mention it until I could give a correct
reference. Then I began to see parallels myself, and thought I'd mention
them. If I can find find more, I'll enter it. 

Regards,

Ed

    RE .40
        
    > There are a couple of things that need to be clarified.  Mormonism
    > teaches that there is one God, our Creator, whom we should worship.
    > Through adherence to Gospel principles, we can become like Him -
    > hence we can become gods.

    The emphasis in this statement should be on the "whom we should
    worship", because Mormonism teaches that there are innumerable
    gods, and that the "one God, our Creator, whom we should worship"
    was in fact at one time a man like us, who had a Creator God of
    his own, who was at one time a man... and so on. Is this not correct?
    The only reason I'm bringing this out here is that the distinction
    between Mormonism and New Age thinking (as varied as it may be)
    is not as great as it at first seems. The God of the Bible was,
    is and always will be God, with none before Him and none following
    - no beginning and no end. "Everlasting to everlasting" meaning,
    from eternity past to eternity future. This God is not found in
    New Age-isms, nor, apparently in Mormonism. 
    
    I wanted to clarify this distinction here. Further discussion on
    this should probably be carried on in the topic on the nature of
    God.
    
    Ed
    
    
        
    New Age, on the other hand, teaches that God is all of us, that
    everything is God.  In essence, we are already gods and there is
    no single entity that is God.  This is a stark contrast.
    
    The Church does not single out other Churches and bash them.  One
    proof of this is to take a look at the history and at present practices
    of the Church and ask yourself what they might have done if they were
    out to bash other specific churches.  The Church is guilty in the same 
    way of bashing other churches as John was in Revelations, in my
    opinion.  The authorities of the Church have often and recently
    proclaimed, 'Love the sinner, not the sin'.  Bashing, in my book,
    usually includes personal attacks (as many have made on Joseph Smith),
    whereas it is quite another thing to criticize an organizations
    creeds.  Also, who but God knows the hearts of men?  The assertion
    from JS 2:19 is revelation from God, not a remark by Joseph Smith.
    
    Sorry.  We've hashed this out before.  I don't want to go down a
    rathole, and it seems, Ed, that on this New Age thing we are probably
    in more agreement than disagreement.
    
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 171.39 by CASV05::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,

>>    I'm glad that the LDS church tries very hard not to say or publish
>>    anything that is intended to bash anyone else's beliefs.
>
>Rich, don't forget that one of the basic tenets of the Mormon Church is 
>that "all other churches are corrupt and their creeds are an abomination."
>That certainly sounds like a sweeping "bash" to me. 

    Let me give you an example of what I meant. The Church of Jesus Christ
    of Latter-day Saints is lead by a prophet, his two counselors, twelve
    apostles, a Presiding Bishopric, and the Quorum of the Seventy. These
    several dozen men are called the 'General Authorities' of the church. 
    
    Twice a year the church conducts a General Conference, consisting of
    five two hour sessions where many of the General Authorities of the
    church speak on topics that they consider to be of utmost importance to
    the church membership and to the world. These sermons are broadcast to
    many parts of the world, and are available on audio tape, video tape,
    and they are printed in the Ensign magazine. 
    
    Never, in all my short life of 35 years, have I heard one of the
    General Authorities single out another church or religious group to
    ridicule them or their beliefs or to attack them in any way, as I have
    heard others do against the LDS church. This is what I meant by
    "bashing". On the other hand, on several occasions I recall hearing the
    General Authorities praise another organization or church for something
    good that it is doing. 
    
    I have often heard them teach that leaders and members of the church
    should not attack other churches or their beliefs, but rather proclaim
    the things that we know to be true: God is our Father, Jesus Christ is
    the promised Messiah, the true church has been restored, there are
    living prophets and apostles today, the Book of Mormon is the word of
    God, in addition to the Bible, and so forth. 

    To repeat what you said:
    
>Rich, don't forget that one of the basic tenets of the Mormon Church is 
>that "all other churches are corrupt and their creeds are an abomination."

    Let's review the 'basic tenet' you speak of. Joseph Smith inquired of
    the Lord which church he should join. He said that in answer to his
    prayer, God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. 
         
         I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all
         wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their
         creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors
         were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but
         the hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the
         commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the
         powers thereof." (Joseph Smith - History 1:19) 

    God is a god of truth. He finds it an 'abomination' when men attribute
    to Him things that are not true. He finds those that do this to be
    corrupt, though they may think their intentions are good. When men
    purport to speak God's doctrines, and deny that He has power to reveal
    the truth himself, they deny God's power. 
                             
    As I said in an earlier reply, truth is the 'facts'. It is constant and
    does not change. Conflicting ideas cannot all be truth. Let's an
    example of conflicing ideas that cannot all be truth. 
    
    Let's consider the Christian doctrine of baptism. What is the "truth"
    about baptism? Some Christians say it is necessary for salvation,
    others say it is not. Some say it must be done my immersion, others
    sprinkle. Some believe infants require baptism, others do not. Some say
    you must be baptized by one who holds proper authority, while others
    say this is not necessary. Some believe that baptism for the dead is
    necessary for those not baptized while living, others say this is a
    heretical practice. 
    
    Now I ask you, can all of them be right? Are all Christians who hold
    these divergent beliefs in possession of truth on this subject? If so,
    then truth is not constant, and there are no definite 'facts' on this
    subject. If not so, then which of them is 'corrupt' and is in
    possession of 'abominable' (untrue) beliefs? Which ones are not? 
    
    I submit that the existence of thousands of Christian sects, together
    with their differing beliefs, and no acknowledgement that God can
    and will reveal truth to resolve these differences, is the best
    evidence that the statement that Joseph Smith ascribed to God about
    corrupt teachers and abominable creeds is true.
    
>it is none the less true that the Mormon Church
>does regard itself as the sole repository of truth with all others in
>hopeless error. 
 
    This is a bit of an exaggeration of the Mormon position. We believe
    that truth may be found in many places. Most churches hold true
    beliefs, at least in part. For example, any one that believes that
    Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God has a true belief. We commend
    them for it. 
    
    What we say is more along the lines of 'God has revealed that many of
    the churches doctrines are in error' and 'God has revealed many
    important truths in our day' through living prophets. 
    
    For those who have an interest in receiving truths from God, we invite
    them to listen and then to ask God if what we say really is the truth.
    If they are content to believe that what they have is all the truth
    they will ever need, then so be it. 
                                 
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
    

	
Well, I've read a little more.  Mr. Chandler states that

	... urban shamanism is a vital link to the ancient, mystical
	knowledge of female consciousness, a link that ties in well
	with the growing feminist or goddess element of the New Age movement.

In an interview in OMNI magazine ('Andrew's Sisters, October 1987) Lynn Andrews
(a non-native woman trained to be a shaman or medicine man/woman) stated that
(partly paraphrased):

	Power is female.  That's always the first lesson of shamanistic
	training ... the obligation of all women is the education of men.

I think that Mr. Chandler links the resurgence of Native American religions 
to New Age probably because the topic is presented at the Celebration of 
Innovation Workshop (a New Age convention).  But, I'm not sure how well this 
links Native American religions to New Age.

Mr. Chandler links witchcraft (or ecofeminism) to New Age.  This basically 
involves the worship of the Earth.  This link to New Age might be expressed 
strongest in a white paper prepared by Four Corners Associates, Denver, 
Colorado entitiled 'New Age Movement and Anti-Semitism'.  Again, because 
there's no organization that says what is officially New Age, I think that 
it's hard to say that witchcraft is a part of it.  I also don't have access to 
the paper, and I don't know if it comes from a New Age group, or if it comes 
from a New Age investigator.

Mr. Chandler claims that most witches deny that they worship Satan.  His 
research into the New Age view of Satan basically results in a denial of the
existance of a being called Satan.  Thus, in his opinion, Satanism doesn't
really have place in New Age except for the denial of Satan and of the struggle 
between good and evil.

I'm not confident in Mr. Chandler's linkage between New Age, Native American
religions and witchcraft.  But, the sources he uses do indicate that Native 
American religions and witchcraft are being repackaged as New Age and in a 
form that is somehow more palatable, even to the point that they may not be 
realized for what they are.  Also, he strongly links Satanism to a lot of the
current video and audio recordings in the entertainment industry, but today 
most people already accept that as fact without hesitation.


Steve

    
    Back on the subject, what is the attitude then toward Mormons who
    hold some "New Age" beliefs? Not believeing in reincarnation or
    any other such controversial thing, but such as being psychic and
    being able to percieve and interpret the human aura? I state for
    the hundreth time, there are "New Agers" to be found in most every
    religion. Do any of you in this notesfile read the RELIGION conference?
    
    Neal Barnette

    Neal, until there is some formal definition of what a New Ager is,
    there can be no honest answer to your question.  As far as tenets go, a
    Mormon is free to speculate concerning those things for which there
    are no doctrinal precedants.  As to those things for which there are
    precedents (such as channeling, astrology, gnosticism, mysticism,
    and so forth), Mormons are encouraged not to practice these things as 
    they are not of God.  
    
    Steve

    
    	
    	Part of my motivation for investigating the LDS Church was
    	due to the bad press, as it were, rumor and innuendo being
    	propagated about it by those persons you term as "anti-mormons".
    	I had heard such terrible things that I was anxious to hear
    	the Mormon side of the arguement. Often, the truth is found
    	near the middle, or somewhere between the stories of two
    	or more antagonists. In the case of the Church, I was able
    	to find out that they are not at all the monsters that they
    	had been made out to be. And I learned a lot from them. 
    	Due to the rather nebulous nature of "New Age", it would be hard
    	for a Mormon or whatever to investigate "New Age" in the fashion
    	that I investigated Mormonism (after all it's not a religion
    	or even a particular school of thought but rather a catchall
    	phrase for the various non-traditional philosophies that are
    	emerging as the Aquarian Age approaches). But I would refer
    	those of you that are capable of being objective and open-
    	minded, to a certain book - The_Aquarian_Gospel_of_Jesus -
    	The_Christ - which elaborates on the life and teachings of 
    	Jesus, detailing His life during his youth, the things He
    	studied, His travels etc. It's sort of a biography of Jesus,
    	and I regard it as a kind of scripture (you have your "additional
    	scriptures", I have mine 8^), but you may feel free to regard
    	it as just a book, and you may gain some insight into the nature
    	of people who hold New Age beliefs. Even if you think the whole
    	book is fiction, I still believe you will find it engaging,
    	thought-provoking reading.
    
    	May His blessings be increased unto you all!
    
    	Neal Barnette
    	                           

    Someone asked who Lord Maitreya was.  I  quote from Constance
    Cumbey's Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow page 13.
    
    On April 25, 1982, a full page add appeared in 20 major newpapers
    around the world.  The cost was $500,000.  It said:
    
    	The world has had enough of hunger, injustice, war.  In answer
    to our call for help, as world teacher for all humanity.  THE CHRIST
    IS NOW HERE.  How will you recognize him?  Look for a modern man
    concerned with modern problems -policitcal, economic, and social.
     Since July, 1977, the Christ has been emerging as a spokesman for
    a group or community in a well-known modern country.  He is not
    a religious leader, but an educator in the broadest sense of the word
    -pointing the way out of our present crisis.  We will recognize
    HIM, by His extraordinary spiritual potency, the universality of
    His viewpoint, and His love for all humanity. He comes not to judge
    to aid and inspire.
    
    Page 19.  Maitreya is supposed to be the fifth reincarnation of
    Buddha.  New Agers say Maitreya is the Christ.
    
    Page 20.  The Tara Centers (which are run by a Benjamin Creme) are
    part of international networks involving tens of thousands of
    different organizations behind the New Age Movement and its false
    Christ.  
    	During an interview with Jack Kisling of the Denver Pose, Creme
    discussed Maitreya saying:
    
    	Benjamin Creme...told me... that not only has the Christ been
    back on earth since July 1977...He explained that by the Christ
    he means not Jesus Christ but the Master of Wisdom of whom Jesus
    and such other spiritual leaders as Mohammed, Brahma and Krishna
    are disciples... Asked what will happen after the great galvanic
    day, Creme said progress will be slow but steady,  World needs and
    world resources will be reassessed and redistributed and the groundwork
    for a single global relition will be started and probably flower
    within 20 years.
    
    Cumbey goes on to say basically that this Lord Maitreya is the
    anti-christ.
    
    In another note I will enter some information on Lucis Trust and
    the Illuminati.
    
    
    Paul
                                                                

    
    
    	Out of the 100 or so things that I would like to comment on
    here, allow me to select a few...
    
    >	o Ultimate Reality - 'All is One'.  Everything is one vast, 
>	  interconnected process.  Monism.  

	Do you believe this? I do. Take a look around you, at a world
    	where our factories in the midwest are killing lakes and streams
    	in Canada and the Northeast, where chopping down rain forests
    	in one land brings about devastating droughts in another land
    	far away.
    
    >	o Solution to the Crisis - There will soon be a 'paradigm shift' 
>	  wherein we will look at the world in a new way.  This is similar
>	  to the paradigm shifts that occurred when such innovations were
>	  introduced as the wheel, language, writing, and so forth.  Here
>	  I will quote Mr. Chandler:
>
>		The old paradigm that divides and separates and analyzes
>		must be sloughed off - even abruptly snuffed out - to
>		make room for the new assumed unity between reality and
>		the divine.  Humanity is deified, death is denied, and 
>		ignorance - not evil - is the enemy.

    	I think that "abruptly snuffed out" does not refer to an action
    	to be taken by "New Agers", but an event that is about to take
    	place which will bring about a new awareness of the Brotherhood
    	of Man. You see, unseen forces are built up, brought about by
    	the evilness and hatefulness of the current mindset of man.
    	People are starving to death in a world of plenty. People are
    	amassing so much wealth that they can virtually own other people
    	- play God with the lives of other people. Man is making the
    	environment unlivable for the animal and vegetable kingdom to
    	whom the Earth really belongs. Man is a guest here - the Native
    	Americans knew that - but the guest has become not only unruly
	and unwelcome, but an actual menace to the host. 
    
    	Our actions and attitudes do exhibit a force upon the Earth.
    	Some religions do not recognize this, or they simplify it by
    	teaching "When you are angry with someone, God sees it and
    	He's displeased". That is a very true statement, but it's
    	rather like saying "It rains because the sky is wet". It doesn't
    	explain in a technical fashion what is actually happening,
    	and although it satisfies most of the people (hence the good
    	of organized religions like the LDS Church), there are those
    	among us who can't relate to the simplicity and want to know
    	the bits and bytes of how things work. Hence the current 
    	interest in things called "New Age".
    
    >A chapter focuses on the New Age view of the brain or mind.  Basically,
>it boils down to shutting down the logical side so that the potentials of the
>spontaneous side can be realized.

	Did he really say "shutting down"? What it is is that the two
    	sides need to be balanced. Our technical, analytical,
    	segregational, materialistic society is a result of this 
    	overbalancing. We build machines, because we have forgotten
    	how to call upon the power of God. Remember the scripture 
    	that says, "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed..."?
    	It used to be we had that mustard-seed's worth of faith, and
    	built pyramids and megaliths and moved huge stone sculptures
    	around without the aid of machines. We also healed without surgery,
    	and communicated without speaking! Now that faith has been lost
    	(I was glad to learn of the Mormons healing by "giving a blessing",
    	it's a good start on the road back!), and we lay long electrical
    	wires and build cranes and poison each other with chemotherapy.
    
    	Boy, was that long-winded! By the way, I will definitely look
    	for this book.
    
    	Be back soon,
    
    
    Neal

    Thanks, Neal!  I appreciate your feedback and the added perspective
    on this review.  The term 'shutting down' was my own term, but I
    believe that it accurately represents what Mr. Chandler is trying
    to say.  He uses, for example, a quote (that I can't find right now)
    to the effect that it's good to have an open mind, but not so open
    that your brains fall out.  I thought 'shutting down' was a little
    more polite.
    
    I am almost done with the book and will post a review and
    my own comments on the remainder probably within the next few days.  
    Also, I would be interested in any other reviews and comments on the 
    book.  
    
    My opinion so far is that New Age is an umbrella for a host of ideas
    that often have little common link.  Some ideas are good and some are,
    in my opinion, bad.  I think that there are few who accept all of
    what can be considered New Age and few who accept none of it.  That
    choice of what to accept is up to the individual.  The challenge
    is in the choosing.  The danger is that some of the good things
    can and are sometimes used to entice one to embrace the bad things.
    
    
    Steve

    
    	Ah, Lord Maitreya - that rings a bell. If I remember my
    	Tibetan Buddhism correctly, Maitreya is the name of the 
    	Messiah who will lead the last of the Earthbound entities
    	to enlightenment, long, long after you and I have departed
    	this mundane realm for much higher glories. 
    
    	The name misspelling and the historical context threw me,
    	else I might have figured out earlier who you were talking
    	about. According to the prophecies of the Tibetan Lamas,
    	Maitreya's advent in the world will not take place for another
    	five billion (not a misprint) years. 
    
    	I'm remembering this off the top of my head, so bear with me.
    	I'll have to look up some of my Tibetan literature to see if
    	this is in fact the name. In any case, it sounds to me like
    	some joker borrowed from Tibetan traditions and created this
    	"New Age Messiah" as a money-and-power-grabbing scheme.
    
    	Neal Barnette

Okay, I've finished the book.  Here's the rest of my review.

<sidetrack alert>

The previous bit about goddess worship at first kind of makes sense, seein's 
how we live in an age where repression on the basis of sex is pretty much
unacceptable.  I find it particularly interesting from a Mormon point of view.
Somehow, because men are eligible to hold Priesthood authority and women are
not some folks figure we are repressive to women in the Church, since this
authority is necessary for the administrative positions outside of Relief
Society, Primary, Single Adult and other organizations.  Mormons look at it
as equal but different responsibilities.  They also look at it as ordained
by God.  If this is true, then the concept of worshipping goddesses instead
of God seems bent on destroying that which God has ordained.

There is one reference within a Mormon hymn to a Heavenly Mother.  That is 
about the only reference except that we believe that as man is, God once 
was.  This plus the revelations concerning eternal marriage lead us to believe
that God is eternally married.  We do not worship our Heavenly Mother and are 
not encouraged to do so.  I believe that our Father in Heaven does not mind our
knowing that we have an Eternal Mother and that we should love Her.  But, I
believe that it is sufficient to our salvation for us to worship our Heavenly 
Father through Jesus Christ.  Also, I personally believe that our Father in 
Heaven holds Her in such esteem as to not reveal anything that could be used 
to blaspheme her as man has done with the Father and the Son.  We are not told 
what Her responsibilities include, but if this life is a model of what is to 
come, our Heavenly Mother plays a vital role in our upbringing, in my opinion.

With this in mind, it seems to me that goddess worship could be seen not only
as an attack on God the Father and on Jesus Christ, but also on Heavenly 
Mother.  She must surely sorrow at the thought that Her children should profane 
to worship Her instead of the Father.  This disobedience cannot result in the
salvation of Her children.

Mormons believe that as God is, man can become.  This is often twisted by 
others to accuse Mormons of worshipping a multiplicity of gods and goddesses, 
of worshipping themselves as gods, or of supposing that they can become equal 
to God.  Unfortunately, I believe that Mr. Chandler has this kind of warped 
impressions of Mormons:

	Mormonism's attachment to an essentially magic worldview - together
	with its teaching that 'men may become gods' and, with many goddess
	wives, populate an infinity of spiritual planets - smacks of New Age
	esotericism rather than orthodox Christianity.

Later on, he clarifies the New Age understanding to be usually one of claiming
the individual to be some part of what could be called God.  I believe that 
had Mr. Chandler done more research, he might have come to understand that 
Mormons feel that God will always be our God.  Even though we may become as He 
is now, when we do, He will be so much greater.  We will always be less and
He will always be our God.

I personally feel that any man that cannot keep one wife happy probably stands 
little chance of keeping more than one happy.  And, any man that lusts to have 
another wife has some repenting to do.  

Somehow, it would not seem to me just for a goddess to be deprived an
eternal mate due to there simply not being enough suitable mates around.  
Perhaps it is that there will be 'many goddesses' to a god, but I suppose 
the reason for this will have something to do with how few men demonstrate 
faithfulness and/or capability in correctly using Priesthood authority.  
And, perhaps it will have to do with how few men will have learned to keep 
their lusts on a leash.  This is all just my opinion.

<end sidetrack alert>

Mr. Chandler goes on to discuss the many ways that New Age has had influence
on the general public.

New Age has a commercial appeal.  There are lots of books and seminars that
pull in big bucks.  

	J.Z. Knight, according to ABC TV's '20/20' can earn up to
	$200,000 in a single appearance channeling Ramtha, the
	controversial 35,000 year old warrior.  Her weekend retreats
	bring in $400 to $1500 per person.

Shirley MacLaine has published several books and has conducted several seminars
(including one with 1200 attendees at $300 per head).  

	'I want to prove that spirituality is profitable,' she said.
	'I've liked moderate success, but I've ... not wanted gigantic 	
	success.  I'm changing now.  I want gigantic success,' she told
	another interviewer.

	... Bantam books, sensing the swelling tide as far back as 1980,
	was the first major publishing house to create a New Age book
	division and published such classics as 'The Way of Shaman' and
	'The New Physics' ... Bestsellers like those of MacLaine, Knight, 
	Marilyn Ferguson, and New Age physicist Fritjof Capra prime the 
	pump for even wider interest in New Age titles.  MacLaine's books
	alone had sold 8 million copies by the end of 1987 - an estimated
	gross of $40 million annually.

At this point, I am beginning to feel that although there is no one 
organization that defines New Age, the publishers who respond to a wide
group of people are probably the best authority on what is New Age.  
This is because they classify books as New Age in order for them to sell well.
This to me is now strong basis for linking chanelling, the new interest in
Native American religion, godess worship, astrology and so forth to New Age.
The best proof would be to get a publisher's listing of what they offer as 
New Age titles, which I have not done.

	As a promo flyer from Waldenbooks reminded, 'Linda Goodman is, of 
	course, the superstar astrologer who gave us the 7-million-copy
	bestseller ''Linda Goodman's Sun Signs'' and the the more
	romance-oriented hit ''Linda Goodman's Love Signs''.  In
	''Start Signs'', ... Goodman covers virtually every facet of
	the New Age smorgasbord - from numerology and reincarnation
	to holistic healing, the power of sound, and ghosts and gurus.
	There's even an astrological guide to financial security ...

When I went into my local Christian bookstore and asked for New Age stuff,
they were able to show me several selections, including this book.

As to New Age audio cassettes, Mr. Chandler didn't elaborate on what I usually
think of as New Age music (sounds from space, that kind of thing).  I don't 
think there's much bad that can be said of that kind of thing.  However, there
is a lot of other stuff that carries subliminal messages for meditation.  And,
there are tapes of chanellers of spirits and such.

	'You have no idea how many channeling videos I refuse to carry',
	says Jamie Michaels of Bodhi Tree.  'There are more channels in
	LA than there are TV sets.'

There's all kinds of stuff selling under the New Age label like pyramids,
crystals, stock market predictions, vitamins, astrological messages, vacations,
floating tanks, biofeedback devices, and so forth.  Since there is no one
organization that monitors what is sold as New Age, there have been 
expressions of dismay regarding any kind of quality control.

There are a lot of consulting firms and programs that use mental techniques to 
train corporate management such as Sportsmind, Success Potentials Unlimited,
Kroning, and so forth.

	Ron Zemke, senior editor of Training magazine, assessed New Age
	efforts to transform people in an organization-wide basis:

		If we're talking training techniques that claim to work
		miracles on large groups of people and a philosophy of
		life that insists on the growth of the individual as well
		as the success of the organization, we're talking motherhood
		and apple pie.  If that's the New Age, who could object? ...
		The good news, apparently, is that some evolving procedures -
		psychotechnologies, if you like - may be effective tools for
		making fundamental changes in peoples' attitudes and thinking.
		The bad news is ... well, the same as the good news: meditation
		and guided imagery and Suggestopedia and affirmations may indeed
		be effective tools for changing people.


Mr. Chandler also reviews New Age and education.  Among others, he describes:

	The chief architect of confluent education, the late Beverly Galyean, 
	described it as a holistic approach using thinking, the five senses,
	feeling, and intuition.

	In an interview with religion researcher Frances Adeney in 1980, 
	Galyean summed up her beliefs: 'Once we begin to see that we are all
	God, that we all have the attributes of God, then I think the whole
	purpose of human life is to reown the Godlikeness within us; the perfect
	love, the perfect wisdom, the perfect understanding, the perfect 
	intelligence, and when we do that, we create back to the old, that
	essential oneness which is consciousness.'

	Galyean developed three federally funded education programs for the
	Los Angeles Public Schools - using guided imagery and meditation ...


The holistic healing approach seems the alternative to the clinical approach of
healing the sickness but ignoring the patient.  It has been shown that the 
attitude of the patient does have correspondence with recovery.  Some holistic 
therapy involves vizualization in which, for example, cancer cells are mentally
destroyed.  This is done as a supplement to conventional therapy.  Others, 
however, involve psychic surgery or other practices which sometimes abandon 
standard methods.  

	Holistic health may be the most potent force to emerge from the
	New Age movement.  The market for these products, as well as for
	techniques of chiropractic and massage, is likely to endure and
	grow as more and more Americans become concerned about self-care,
	wellness, and ever-rising costs of professional health systems.


One of the New Age concepts involves that of us becoming God.  This differs 
significantly from the Mormon concept of us becoming gods, following in the
footsteps of God.  From this point of view, I found this section of interest:

	One of the most potent popularizers of the old/new concept of spiritual
	growth through oneness with the deity is Scott Peck, whose 'The Road
	Less Traveled' emerged from feeble beginnings to reign almost two
	years as number on on the 'New York Times' bestseller list.

	What does God want of humans?  Peck asks in the book.  What are we
	to grow toward?  What is the goal of evolution?
	
		[No] matter how much we may like to pussyfoot around it,
		all of us who postulate a loving God and really think
		about it eventually come to a single terrifying idea:
		God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or itself).
		We are growing toward godhood.  God is the goal of evolution.
		It is God who is the source of the evolutionary force and
		God who is the destination.  This is what we mean when we
		say He is the Alpha, and the Omega, the beginning and the
		end ...

		It is one thing to believe in a nice old God who will take
		good care of us from a lofty position of power which we
		ourselves could never begin to attain.  It is quite another
		to believe in a God who has it in mind for us precisely that
		we should attain His position, His power, His wisdom, His
		identity.


This struck me as particularly warped.  How is it that everyone seems to miss 
the possibility that God the Father of our spirits intends that we become like
Him but not that we literally become Him?  I could see how this bit of New Age
could be misinterpreted as a doctrine of Mormons if one does not do much 
research.
	
Basically, in discussing various human potentials groups, Mr. Chandler points
out that techniques such as vizualization have proven benefits.  However, 
problems can be created when these introduce practices leading to altered 
states of consciousness.  Techniques that emphasize personal worth have proven 
value.  However, techniques that emphasize the individual as supreme over 
finite reality or an external and personal God can create problems.  

	Frances Adeney, whose analysis of the human potentials movement has
	been widely cited in recent Christian literature, says of est:

		[It] is geared toward stripping a person of values, mores
		and religious beliefs so that one may begin 'freely' choosing
		values and creating one's own reality.  The humanistic
		assumptions of the perfection of the individual and the 
		potential for transcendence are critical for est ... The world
		is illusion; you see whatever you choose to see.  You may
		create anything you like around you, and in fact, all you
		see is your own creation.  Everything in essence is one;
		you are perfect; you are God.


I could understand how with only a little research, someone could confuse the
concept of declaring the self as perfect with the concept of attaining 
perfection in this life.  The former is the practice of convincing one's self
that one is already perfect.  The latter involves correcting personal faults
through the often painful process of repentance, the application of Christ's 
Atonement, and obedience to the principles of the Gospel.

Mr. Chandler goes on to show how science is often used to support New Age
concepts.  It usually boils down to terribly bad logic.  For example, the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle - the concept that in order to observe 
subatomic particles it is necessary to affect the particles being observed.
For example, you can find the position or the momentum of an electron, but
not both.  This is a provable assertion in the labaratory.  

	In his later book, 'The Turning Point' [Fritjof] Capra elaborated
	on Heisenberg's theory that observation affects the object observed.
	The electron, Capra said, 'does not have objective properties
	independent of my mind.'

Thus, the uncertainty principle is used to support mind over matter (!).
Other abused scientific theories and principles include laser holography, 
dissipative structures, entropy, syntropy, evolution, synchronicity and 
superstring theory.  The tendency seems to be to take the theory and make 
extrapolations based loosely on the theory using technical terms and weak 
logical links.

I thought the following was an interesting quote regarding New Age and politics:

		The New Age movement's collusion may not be so tightly
		organized, sharply focused, or bent on apocalyptic
		totalitarianism . . . Its premises are not readily
		apparent and thus not easily critiqued.  It is the
		New Age movement's unobrusiveness, its ability to
		conceal and not offend, that has consolidated its grip
		and assured its spread.  Without formal organization,
		it is difficult to net.  Not bound by any tradition,
		it freely spins its mystical web in endless variations.
		Chameleon-like, it adapts to its environment and is not
		easily seen.  Vibrantly positive, it is quickly embraced.


This sounded a little paranoid to me.  I think, however, that there have been
a lot of political things done politically and associated with New Age.  

I've already reviewed to some extent Mr. Chandler's handling of New Age 
effects on religions.  What I found most interesting is that New Age concepts 
can be easily introduced into a religious environment by changing some of the 
terminology.  For example, from an interview with Robert Skutch,

	'The administration work and mail comes through here,'
	Bob said, waving his arm toward a small black room.
	Decisions, he added, are made 'through praying,' which
	he defined as 'listening to the inner Spirit, your Teacher,
	the Holy Spirit, or whatever.'


One of the characteristics of New Age is a positive outlook on reality.
This is described as meeting basic human needs which some religions may
overlook.  Quoting Karen Hoyt,

		New Age is addressing the horrible dilemma we're
		in that the church is not addressing ... New Age is
		trying to put together a way of coping with the
		overwhelming nature of life ... The church is
		convinced the answer is in the 'old' [tradition],
		which is true doctrinally - but it is not true in
		the practical aspects of life.

		Christians, too, are desparate [for answers], but
		they don't know how to tell church leaders that
		without feeling defeated or inadequate.

	In the introduction to the book, 'The New Age Rage', a critical
	analysis of the New Age movement assembled by Spiritual Counterfeits
	personnel, Hoyt identified ten areas in which Christians might
	agree with the New Age, broadly defined:

	1. Their emphasis on cooperation instead of competition (in a
	   personal, not economic, sense).
	2. Their desire to protect creation, instead of exploiting
	   and destroying the Earth's resources.
	3. Their interest in creativity.  (Christians often find themselves
	   defending mediocrity and rigidity, instead of encouraging 
	   spontaneity and creativity.)
	4. Their promotion of the cause of peace in the world.
	5. Their call for radical transformation - a total change of 
	   mind (although the Christian idea of the needed change is
	   very different from the New Age movement's).
	6. Their emphasis on the importance of the body and its care
	   through proper exercise, healthy food, and good habits.
	7. Their support of human potential and a positive self-image.
	   (Christians believe people are created in God's image and
	   therefore support human potential and the need for a positive
	   self-image; however, they do not believe in unlimited human
	   potential and in an unflawed self.)
	8. Their position on the global village.  One of the most radical
	   changes in the last twenty years is the realization that we
	   can no longer function as an isolated nation, politically
	   and economically - a crisis in one country affects the whole
	   world.
	9. Their desire to work for a nontoxic environment.
	10. Their use of networking.  (When New Agers talk about this, 
	   some Christians get nervous and visualize world conspiracy, but 
	   the truth is that the most powerful and effective network ever
	   is the Christian church.)


Basically, New Age seems to address concerns that people have that are not 
being addressed well by most Christian religions.  Thus, there is quite a
draw for Christians.  Mr. Chandler goes on to point out that current evidence
does not suggest an organized conspiracy behind New Age.  There is, however,
plenty of evidence that many are promoting shoddy wares and such in the name
of New Age, banking on the general concerns of people that are not addressed
by clergy.  

Mr. Chandler offers the following warning signs to help discern some of the 
darker aspects of New Age:

	Be suspicious, 	especially if the therapy, course or teaching:

		a) is explained in terms of manipulating, balancing,
		   or polarizing energies;
		b) deprecates the value of the mind or critical thinking;
		c) is supported only be testimonial anecdotes of the
		   committed rather than by solid evidence and outside
		   evaluation; or
		d) is based on 'secret' esoteric knowledge revealed only
		   to an inner elite.

One of the interesting statistics that Mr. Chandler quotes is from recent polls.
Basically, 90% of Americans express Christian preference, but 25-30% believe
in reincarnation.  New Age offers many forms of reincarnation.  Also, truth
becomes a relative, personal thing.  It is no longer absolute, but may be 
chosen, since the individual is God in New Age.

The remainder of the book (the last 30 pages) is pretty much theological 
discourse.  I didn't find much of value here.

Overall, I felt the book represents good journalistic research (poor scholastic
research, but a good beginning for such) with few logical anomalies.  The 
author is NOT objective, but does try to explain both sides of issues.   He
is also not hostile toward most of those who granted him interviews.  

I feel that I've come to a better understanding of New Age which includes a 
feeling for its virtues and vices.  I believe it will not be a choice for me
of whether I want New Age, but rather of what parts I will accept as a 
Christian and what parts I will reject.  I understand better how vital it is 
to understand one's own religion (trimming your own lamps) as well as to 
understand New Age in order to be able to separate the two and to keep all 
choices conscious to preserve personal agency.  I also feel that New Age is a 
fad, but that its components are not.  I think that in the future, many of the 
more repugnant components will hide under another umbrella with a different 
name, just as they have been hidden and festering for years prior to this day.

One other thought.  Much of the New Age stuff has its roots in Hinduism, 
Buddhism and other Eastern religions.  I feel that Americans may be quick to
forget the prosperity that Christianity has brought to the West and the 
desparity that these other religions have brought to the East.  It is my
own personal feeling that many of the Eastern religions are apostate religions
of the original Old Testament Church, much as many of the Christian religions
are apostates of the New Testament Church.  So, what we are seeing today 
involves the struggles between the different forms of apostate religions.
Again, these are just my personal opinions.


Steve

    Thanks, Steve, for your review of the book.  I had started to enter
    information I had from my sources, but there is so much stuff written
    that I decided to let those who want to know more on New Age to
    do as you did.  As for New Age's link to the occult and Satanism,
     as I said, those groups, organizations and individuals who over
    the centuries have proclaimed the philosophies, teachings, social,
    political and religious manifestos are the ones that scare me the
    most.
    
    Right now New Age seems to be the vehicle that these groups and
    people are using to further their causes.  And as you said at its
    midlest form New Age has produced some music that I like very much
    (i.e. Brian Eno, Halpern).  But no matter what is said about New
    Age, good or bad, I still hear/read the New Agers using words like:
    
    Channelling			Mediums
    Spirit Guides               Astrology
    Crystals                    The Goddess
    Reincarnation               Transcendence
    Karma                       Christ Consciousness
    Mantras
    Higher Consciousness
    Holistic
    At-One-Ment
                                                    
    And when I hear/see these words they sound occult to me.
    
    Paul

    I pretty much agree.  I think that the occult is being worked into
    New Age.  As I mentioned, I think that New Age is a fad and that
    it will fade away.  But, the many things that are currently under
    the New Age umbrella will continue on.  Perhaps then it will be
    easier to discern the good from the bad.  Right now, I think musicians
    and occultists share the desire to tag what they do as New Age because
    it will stand a better chance of being accepted by the public. 
    The New Age tag is popular but says nothing of whether what it's
    tagged to is good or bad.  Unfortunately, there is no tag to
    distinguish 'good' New Age from 'bad' New Age.  But, the things
    you listed are good watchwords for 'bad' New Age, in my opinion.
    
    Steve

Joseph Smith's belief that men could turn themselves into gods was 
generally considered not only the rankest heresy but an absurdity in his 
day. Today, however, this once-radical idea permeates not only 
psychology, science fiction, popular films, television shows, and many 
other areas of secular society, but it is at the heat of an awakening 
religious consiousness that is sweeping the world. It is the foundation 
of hundreds of popular new religious movements such as Scientology, est 
(Erhard Seminars Training), and TM (Transcendental Meditation). It lies 
at the heart of humanistic and transpersonal psychologies as well as the 
entire human potential movement, holistic medicine, and holistic (New 
Age) education and secular humanism.

The God Makers, p 21

(also posted in 188)

>	Joseph Smith's belief that men could turn themselves into gods was 

It was pretty easy for them to be critical when they got the facts wrong.
I think Rich covered this pretty well in 97.32.  


Steve	

	It might surprise you to know that the renewed interest in
	religion, as evidenced by the growth of your own LDS Church
	and others, is a welcome sight to the New Age. It bears out
	the belief that man's spirituality is on the upswing, or
	increase. The churches provide a means by which many who
	are seeking light, or meaning in their lives, may find same.
	As religions grow, more and more people will learn (or re-learn)
	of their relationship to God and fellow man. As each person
	becomes imbued with this spirit of love, the spiritual
	vibration of humanity as a whole increases (this vibration 
	is a "New Age" concept that I won't go into detail on right now,
	but can elaborate if anyone's interested) and the human race
	becomes slightly nearer to God. Each time you baptize a new
	member, you benefit *me*, as well. My own spirituality is
	uplifted.
	
	I would encourage, not discourage, people to join the LDS
	Church, or any other church that suits their spiritual need.
	There are many positive things that recommend the LDS Church,
	and the works you do are good. Your "Words of Wisdom", for
	example, are very much in line with the "Holistic" concept
	of taking care of the body. The emphasis on strong families,
	and the practice of taking care of members who fall upon
	hard times are excellent examples of building good karma.
	Why anyone would see "New Age" as a threat is completely
	beyond my comprehension. I think I can speak for the vast
	majority of "New Agers" when I say that I regard churches
	such as yours as partners, not enemies, in the quest for the 
	salvation of mankind. 

	With Love,


	Neal Barnette
    

    re .58
    
    And I think that Dick Rohnert did a fair job of questioning the
    tenuous Biblical basis that Rich used to support his argument.
    I suggest anyone interested read 97.34-38
    
    (Perhaps I'd better put in my 2c worth, too)
    
    Ed
    

    Re: Note 171.60 by CASV01::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
    It was interesting to me to spend a few minutes to review that
    conversation in topic 97. Dick did question the usage of one of the
    passages I quoted from Paul, but when asked about several others that I
    had also included to support the concept, he indicated that he would
    need to look into them some more. That was the last response on the
    topic from Dick. 
    
    I can see how you could say that Dick called into question the context
    of Paul's statement, though I still stand by the position I took at the
    time. However, the other passages remain unchallenged as Biblical
    evidence of the concept that man can become like God. 
    
    I would be interested to hear what you think of those biblical
    passages. Are we to dismiss them merely because many Christian sects do
    not adhere to such a belief, or are we to trust in God's word as found
    in the Holy Bible? 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich
                       

.57

>It is the foundation 
>of hundreds of popular new religious movements such as Scientology, est 
>(Erhard Seminars Training), and TM (Transcendental Meditation). It lies 

I was interested in that comment from "The God Makers" that the est training
taught that men could "turn themselves into gods".  I took the est training
about six years ago (paid for by DEC), and I don't remember anything about
men becoming as gods.  I certainly wouldn't call est a religious movement;
I suppose Decker was using the term "religious movement" in a very general
way.

Decker's grouping of est with "new age" makes sense, because est did put a
lot of emphasis on having love towards others, an emphasis which I think is
badly needed in this world.

The basic premise of est (at that time at least) was that we are responsible
for our lives and we can't blame others for our problems.  As an example,
there was a girl who as a child had been forced by her father to eat veggies,
and she had harbored ill feelings against him for many years.  Through the
est training, she came to realize that regardless of what her father had done,
her bad feelings against him were her problem not his, and that if she wanted
to establish a friendly relationship with him, it was up to her to go to him
and make up (she did and she did).

At the time I took the training, I was especially concerned that there might
be things in it that would be in conflict with my religious beliefs.  Except
for the foul language used by the trainers, I found nothing that did conflict.
I ignored the language and concentrated on mastering my own problems.  I had
a serious problem in my personality that I wanted to overcome, and I found that
the est training did help me a lot.

Allen

    One of the things that Mr. Chandler indicated was that some of the
    New Age training organizations have toned down or removed some of the 
    religious aspects in their training programs.  My own feeling is that
    there is benefit in some of it.  So, as always, caveat emptor.
    
    Steve

    An article in the Wall Stree Journal, 12/08/88 on New Age:
    
    "New Age Training Program Prompts Suit by 8 Former Employees of
    Market"
    
    Atlanta- Eight former employees sued  a local farmers market, alleging
    it violated their civil rights by coercing them to attend the Forum
    human development training sessions developed by Werner Erherd.
    
    The suit filed in US District Court here yesterday seeks to enjoin
    the DeKalb Farmers Market INc. and its owner, Robert Blazer, from
    forcing workers to participate in the so-called New Age programs.
     It also seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for
    the ex-workers who complained they were humiliated and harassed
    and suffered psychological trauma.
    
    Forum is human potential program operated by Werner Erhard & Assoc.
     Mr. Erhard also created Erhard Seminars Training, or EST, which
    he then dropped in 1984.
    
    Edward D. Buckley III, an attorney for the market and its owner,
    said he hadn't seen the complaint and couldn't comment.
    
    One worker said he was kept inside a training session and prevented
    from going to the bathroom.  Some said they were urged to abandon
    their lifelong beliefs and values, to disclose intimate details
    about their private lives, and to embrace the Forum concepts or
    face discharge.
    
    Attorneys for the ACLU, representing the workers, said at a time
    when employee training sessions are burgeoning at corporations,
    the case could be significant in defining how far employers can
    impinge on individual's freedom to require participation.
    
    Carl Raschke, a professor of religious studies at the Univ. of Denver,
    said the case highlights an increasingly significant workplace issue.
    "Many of these training programs particularly at large corporations,
    claim to be purely psychological, aimed at improving productivity
    and morale and loyalty.  But in reality, they are religious," said
    Mr. Raschke, who may be a potential witness for the workers.
    
    The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which reviews
    employment discrimination complaints, said it has increasingly been
    receiving complaints about New Age programs in the workplace -
    including a complaint filed last year by the farmers market workers
    - and expects to issue a ruling on one case shortly.  In September,
    the agency issued a policy guidance notice, saying if an employee
    objects on religious grounds to such programs, employers must provide
    "reasonable accommodation" unless it creates "undue hardship" on
    the business.
    
    Also named in the farmers market suit are Consulting Technologies
    Inc., an affiliate of Transformational Technologies Inc., Green
    Bray, Calif.;Consulting Technologies' owner, Mike Smith, and Marty
    Yura, who was an employee of Consulting Technologies, and Nancy
    Loewnau, a supervisor at the DeKalb Farmers Market.
    
    Transformational Technologies, founded by Mr. Erhard, isn't named
    in the suit and declined to comment.  Consulting Technologies officials
    couldn't be reached for comment.
                  

    It would have taken me all of 30 seconds to solve that bathroom
    problem ... :-}
    
    Steve

    There is an interesting exchange going on in the IOSG::CHRISTIAN
    conference, topic 905, regarding the Investment in Excellence program,
    which is offered for employees by Digital. Somebody asked about the
    program, there were some responses that it was New Age stuff and was to
    be avoided. A couple of us responded that we had taken it and found it
    to be good. 
    
    When I took this program, I don't think I had ever heard the term New
    Age. During the program, I found nothing that caused me to feel
    conflict with my religious beliefs. To the contrary, I found that it
    was useful in helping me to live my religios beliefs better. As I look
    back on the program, I would recommend it to others, and, in fact, I am
    considering taking it again. I was a bit surprised to find this program
    referred to as "New Age" and that some people are apparently quite
    upset by this program. 
    
    So, I'm curious to know of anyone else in this conference has taken
    Investment in Excellence. What did you think? Is it evil? Is it truly
    New Age? Can some things labeled "New Age" be good and others not good? 
    
    Rich

    The link between Investment in Excellence is, I believe , that this
    course originally was called New Age Thinking.  It is sponsored
    by the Pacific Institute, Lou Tice director, and this institue has
    been labeled by New Age-bashers as a New Age group.
    
    I have never taken this course.  I have seen only an outline of
    it.  The questione I have about the course is;  Does the course
    have a spiritual feeling to it? And doe it ask you to rearrange
    your values by suspending your judgement?
    
    

    It seems to me that anyone that it's not going too far to label an
    organization that teaches "New Age Thinking" as a New Age group,
    bearing in mind the amorphous nature of the concept of "New Age".
    
    Any religious view, whether it be acknowledged or merely implicit,
    can be generalized (watered down) enough to be acceptable and agreeable
    to most everyone. Perhaps that is what has happened in the designing
    of these "New Age" type of courses that are given in the workplace,
    or perhaps they've merely adopted the terminology to give themselves
    a contemporary and forward-thinking image.
    
    Ed
    

    Re: Note 171.67 by SLSTRN::RONDINA

>   Does the course
>   have a spiritual feeling to it? And doe it ask you to rearrange
>   your values by suspending your judgement?
                                                     
    It's been about four years since I took the course, so my memory has
    faded somewhat. As I recall, the course does challenge you to look
    beyond your "scotoma's", or perceived limitations. I didn't and don't
    view this as being bad, as I think Christ did the same: "Be ye
    therefore perfect". I do not recall any application of this
    specifically to values, but rather more to personal potential to
    achieve your goals in life. 
    
    I do not recall a "spiritual" feeling to the course, per se, but I did
    find that I often asked myself how I could use the principles it taught
    to help me achieve my spiritual goals, as well as other business and
    personal goals. I felt and still feel that the principles it taught are
    useful for this purpose. 
    
    Rich 
        
                            

    Thanks for the answer.
    
    I have a good Mormon friend who used to teach New Age Thinking.
     When we discussed the allegations of its being a covert form of
    spiritual/religious training, she would disagree and say that it
    basically was a course of how to recognize and overcome self-defeating
    behaviours.
    
    I can attest, however, to one New AGe type course being an out and
    out form of spiritual/religious training (only not so covert) and
    that is DMA (Dimentional Macro-structural Alignment).  I took this
    one and know of its spiritual nature.
    
    Paul
    

    Interesting.  I think that I, having become better informed than
    I was, don't fit in the category of 'New Age basher'.  I'm more in
    the category of folks who recognize 'New Age' as an arbitrary label.
    As to the course, I have no experience, but I'd suspect 'New Age' 
    label was a marketing decision.  (Hey, does this mean Ed and I 
    agree?!?)
    
    Steve

    Here's a course description of Investment in Excellence that was
    recently posted for Field Service employees:
    
    
                                      
                            INVEST IN YOUR FUTURE

                                    WITH

                         "INVESTMENT IN EXCELLENCE"



     Over the past three  years Digital has experienced a great deal 
     of change.  This change is indicative of our industrys response 
     to technology and competitive pressure.  The future will result 
     in more changes at an increased rate.

     In order for Western Area  Field Service  to  continue its growth      
     and  excellent  contribution to  Digital's future successes, we 
     learn  how  to  manage the  changes required  to  maintain  our 
     leadership position.  Problem  solving, creative  thinking  and 
     accelerated learning skills is a must.

     The  IIE Program  is an  excellent tool  for the development of 
     these  new skills to help the  employee meet the  challenges of 
     the future.



COURSE DESCRIPTION
------------------


This three day seminar teaches basic concepts of human behavior and 
explores the linkage between thought and action.  It is a structured 
learning experience which will enable the participants to become more 
aware of their true potential. Using a combination of videotape 
instruction, excercises and group discussion, the participants will  
identify the barriers that inhibit the use of their own potential. 
This seminar will help participants to discover specific techniques 
for tapping already existing, but often unused, personal resources.


Content topics include:


      o Possibility thinking        o Successful motivation

      o Your self image             o Guides to goal setting

      o Habits and attitudes        o Affirmations and visualization

      o Perceptions and truth       o Self-esteem and performance



COURSE OBJECTIVES 
-----------------

During this 3 day session participants will discover:

        o Insight into why we think, feel and act the way we do

        o Fascinating ideas that can be put into immediate action
          to increase creativity

        o Principles of decision - making

        o Methods of instilling confidence in one's abilities

        o A system of goal-setting being used by high performance
          people over the world.

        o How to constructively handle the stress and pressure of 
          everyday living.


Audience
--------

This course is intended for all Field Service Employees who wish
to acquire additional knowledge and skills to set and achieve 
personal and professional goals. 


                          ****BRING A GUEST****

FS Employees are invited to enroll a guest such as a family member or 
significant other (Guests should be at least 16 years of age).

The Digital employee and guest must attend all 3 days.

WE ENCOURAGE ALL FIELD SERVICE EMPLOYEES AT EVERY LEVEL TO ATTEND.  WE 
ARE TRYING FOR 100% ATTENDANCE.


CLASS SIZE
----------

   Maximum 20           Minimum 12

    To Rich Kotter
    
    The closing lines of your entry are  the ones that can
    cause the law suits.  The suggestion that one has to attend the
    course (We are shooting for  100% attendance) as part of the job
     is why some groups bring suit.  I posted an ealier note
    from the Wall Street Journal about an Atlanta company being sued
    by its employees for requiring attendance at one of these New Age-type
    seminars, Erhard's Forum Training.
    
    
                                                          

Well I just took the course a couple of weeks ago and found it extremely
helpful in my personal life as well as work.

You have to use your own judgement in recieving the information that
he gives but I found nothing in conflict with LDS teachings, or if
it was I must have forgotten about it.

Lou Tice who created the course also has a course of about 12 tapes
that are geared to the family.  Each one is about a 20 minute lesson
for the family that deals both with how individuals (the parents
and the children) can help themselves in certain areas and especially
how the parents can encourage their children.   Such things as having
a good self image and changing behavior you don't like are addressed.

Since these tapes are available at our local library I was planning
on using some of them as a basis for our family home evenings.  If
that works out well I'll mention it in here.

Roy

    
    	Oh no, not scotmas! Sounds like another term to add to Paul's
    	list! 8^)
    
    >      o Habits and attitudes        o Affirmations and visualization

   	Egads! Affirmations and visualizations! Evil! Satanic!!! 8^)
    
    Neal/B
    
    
    	Ps: Why is it that you would ask one to be "open minded" about
    the Book of Mormon, but closed-minded about everything else?

    

    FWIW, I'm beginning to think that the definition of 'close-minded' 
    is almost as vague as that of 'New Age'.  Neither term is in TAHD,
    although 'open-minded' is: receptive to new ideas or to reason.
    	
    
    Steve

    
    	To me, closed-minded means not receptive to new ideas or reason.
    	Not willing to consider a thing before rejecting it. Willing
    	to regard something as "bad" just because you don't understand
    	it. beleiving in stereotypes and holding them as absolute truths.
    
    	Not really very vague at all.
    
    Neal/B

    I think the issue of close-mindedness becomes vague because of how
    people use it.  According to TAHD, I am open-minded if I am receptive
    to new ideas or to reason.  I feel I am open-minded because my nature
    is to be receptive to new ideas or to reason.  But, too many folks
    use close-mindedness as an attack on anyone that rejects their
    ideas, so that to them it is not simply that a person is not receptive
    to new ideas or reason.
    
    I could well be called close-minded because I reject homosexuality, TV 
    violence, pornography, crack, and so forth.  I think some folks define 
    as close-minded anyone that disagrees with them.  Some Mormons might, 
    too, but that's pretty shallow if they do, in my opinion.  Name-calling
    certainly isn't what I would consider the best way to motivate someone to
    study the Gospel, though it might get their attention. 
    
    Do I think someone is close-minded if they reject the Book of Mormon?
    Rejecting the Book of Mormon doesn't make someone close-minded about
    the Book of Mormon.  It's refusing to hear about it, refusing to read 
    it or to test it for no good reason.  So, as far as I'm concerned, one 
    is close-minded even if they accept the Book of Mormon if they don't
    read, pray and study about it.
    
    So, personally I agree with your definition of close-mindedness.  But, 
    it becomes vague because of how some people use it.  (Actually,
    even though open-minded is defined in TAHD, I think it becomes vague
    for the same reason.) 
    
    
    Steve

    
>        is to be receptive to new ideas or to reason.  But, too many folks
>    use close-mindedness as an attack on anyone that rejects their
>    ideas, so that to them it is not simply that a person is not receptive
>    to new ideas or reason.
 
    
    	If a missionary comes up to someone and, handing the person
    a BOM, says "read this, and be open-minded about it", an open-minded
    person would most likely take the book and read it. Or at least
    some of it. The missionary is sharing his/her beliefs. If the
    missionary returns the next week, and the person visited gives
    the missionary another book, and says "read this, and try to have
    an open mind about it. You don't have to agree with it, but just
    check it out and see what you think", doesn't the spirit of fairness
    and open-mindedness require that the Mormon reciprocate?
    
    	Maybe missionaries have not enough "time", or whatever, to do
    so, and thus may be excused. But I think that if someone wants
    to share their beliefs with me, and wants me to be open-minded
    about them, then the Golden Rule - "Do unto others..." should 
    come into play *somwhere* around here.
    
        
>    I could well be called close-minded because I reject homosexuality, TV 
>    violence, pornography, crack, and so forth.  I think some folks define 
>    as close-minded anyone that disagrees with them.  Some Mormons might, 

    	I think this analogy falls apart due to the Law of Common Sense.
    Sharing books or ideas is not illegal. Also I would submit, Steve, that
    you have already been open-minded about the above things because
    you have at least taken the time to *understand* what homosexuality,
    violence, etc. are before rejecting them. To reject something without
    even trying to understand *what_it_is* first, or to immediately
    assume it is something it's not, is the opposite of open-minded.
    
    >   Name-calling
>    certainly isn't what I would consider the best way to motivate someone to
>   study the Gospel, though it might get their attention. 

    	This topic blossomed from four notes up to about 80, because
    of some slandering and strident name-calling on the part of one
    or more individuals. Imagine if someone only read anti-Mormon
    literature, and based their whole opinion on that. Part of my
    reason for studying the Mormons was because I had heard such
    terrible things about them and wanted to know what the truth
    was. As in just about every issue between two antagonists, the
    truth was near the middle, not on one side or another. Are they
    a bunch of white-supremacists who believe in polygamy and have 
    their own Bible which they invented? No. Are their practices
    a cause for good in the world? Yes, because they encourage healthy
    lifestyles and emphasis on families. Are they the right church for
    *me* to join? No, because they do not embrace the equality of souls
    before God (though they pay it lip service) and have views on 
    race and gender that I cannot support. Are they of Evil? Nothing
    that I've seen would indicate so. I would even recommend their church
    to certain individuals, such  as those who want to raise strong,
    moral families and whos beliefs don't indicate an interest in the
    more advanced concepts of spiritual enlightenment.
    
    Boy, I don't know how I got into all that. 8^). But anyway, I hope
    you see my point, about open-mindedness. You can't be open-minded
    about *one* thing, and closed-minded about another - they are mutually
    exclusive.
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Neal/B
    
    

    To Neal in .79
    You say you would recommend Mormonism for those "whose beliefs don't
    indicate an interest in the more advanced concepts of spiritual
    enlightenment".  Can you tell me what these "advanced concepts of
    spiritual enlightenment" are?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Paul
    
    

>    some of it. The missionary is sharing his/her beliefs. If the
>    missionary returns the next week, and the person visited gives
>    the missionary another book, and says "read this, and try to have
>    an open mind about it. You don't have to agree with it, but just
>    check it out and see what you think", doesn't the spirit of fairness
>    and open-mindedness require that the Mormon reciprocate?

	Yup.  I had that happen to me more than once while I was a 
	missionary in Denmark.  I read what I was given and put it to 
	the same tests I put the Bible and the Book of Mormon to.


	Steve    

	
    Re .81,    
    
    >	Yup.  I had that happen to me more than once while I was a 
>	missionary in Denmark.  I read what I was given and put it to 
>	the same tests I put the Bible and the Book of Mormon to.
>
>
>	Steve    


    	And no doubt the Spirit told you that they were not of God
    	and that you should reject them. Presumably just as you
    	hoped it would ;^). But no matter. The Spirit will reject
    	or steer us away from, any teachings that we are not ready
    	for yet, just as a good guidance counselor will help a student
    	to structure her educational program in relation to her goals.
    
    	Re .80, Paul, it is my belief that we are not all at the same 
    	point in our spiritual development. Some of us need the rigid 
    	rules imposed upon us by the more orthodox religions, just as 
    	in grammar school we are not allowed to chew gum or go off-campus 
    	etc etc. Once the student reaches college age, his own desire to 
    	learn and succeed should take the place of these regulations. The 
    	student is given more freedom, for with it he can enjoy a more 
    	enrichening educational experience, and without it he will feel 
    	stifled and grow bored, maybe even rebel. 
    
    Neal/B

    Well, yes.  But, it is always a trial of faith for me when I pick
    up other literature because I have to be honest, unbiased, sincere
    and ready to get an answer from the Lord that I might not expect.  
    Otherwise, the tests would be invalid.  I am currently going through 
    such trials of faith.  It ain't fun and it seems the Lord is willing 
    to have me struggle for some time before I get/earn/whatever a 
    response.  I am thrust into this situation now because of a friend
    of mine who is being exposed to a lot of 'anti' literature.
    
    Steve

    To Neal Barnette:
    
    I would still like to know what these advanced principles of spiritual
    development/enlightenment are that you refer to?  I do not need
    a lot of explanation- a simple listing of them would do.
    
    For me, the atonement of Christ to pay for all the sins of humanity,
    past, present and future, plus the concept of repentance and growth
    and development but subject to the person's free exercise of choice
    and free will - these are some of the most profound tenets  I struggle
    to understand, learn and relearn.
    
    What are some of such enlightened principles for you?
    
    Paul

    Many years ago I taught a course in "Comparative World Religions"
    as an institute teacher. It was terribly difficult for me when I
    got to "Hinduism" because every book I opened said something different.
    I was confused an puzzled because my expectations were that hinduism
    was "A" religion, when in point of fact, it is a whole cluster of
    religions with many, many varied beliefs. The Christian corollary
    of Hinduism would be "protestantism" (not that they resemble one
    another in belief, but that they represent clusters of religions).
    New age thought is much the same way. "New Age" represents a whole
    cluster of beliefs, ranging from metaphysical spiritualism, embracing
    much of humanistic psychology.
    In an earlier reply, somebody (sorry, I didn't jot down your name
    inasmuch as I got distracted) displayed a listing of new age terms,
    including At-One-Ment. If you've read any discussion of the atonement
    at all you'll recognize that At-One-Ment is at the heart of the
    LDS doctrine of the Atonement of Christ. Also I noticed, in an earlier
    note, the concern of somebody who felt that stress management, and
    meditation were corrupt practices, Satan inspired.
    What absolute NONSENSE!!!
    Effective stress management as taught by qualified individuals is
    as much as gospel principle as the Word of Wisdom, and meditation,
    together with appropriate relaxation techniques, is in complete
    harmony with the gospel; I have never encountered a non-drug meditation
    technique including "transcendental meditation" that asked an
    individual to relinquish his/her spirit to anybody or anything.
    We Latter-day Saints get  highly offended when people represent us
    as kooks and crazies, as well we should. At the same time, we seem
    perfectly willing to make judgements about other religions as Satanic
    and bad, bad, bad just because we feel we have a corner on all truth.We
    buy into the anti new-age literature as though it were truth incarnate,
    not realizing that anti-new age (or anti-Catholic, or anti-anything)
    is never accurate or representative.
    
    Perhaps it might be worthwhile to read Hugh B. Brown's conference
    talk of April 1969 before we start Satanizing everyone else.
    jpr
                                        

    If you REALLY want to get into it, there are very strong threads
    of both humanism and extstentialism in LDS belief and doctrine despite
    some of the interesting disclaimers we make.
    jpr

    
    Re .84,
    
    >    To Neal Barnette:
>    
>    I would still like to know what these advanced principles of spiritual
>    development/enlightenment are that you refer to?  I do not need
>    a lot of explanation- a simple listing of them would do.

    An example of a higher spiritual principle, not fully explained
    by orthodox religion, is the law of cause and effect. This is
    often refered to as karma, and is a principal facility of spiritual
    growth. As we sow, so shall we reap, in exact proportion. 
    
    Karma manifests in many ways, not all of them fully understood
    (at least not by me). A lifetime spent dwelling in hatred sends
    negative vibrations through the etherial universe, which may
    return to the hater in the form of cancer. Sexual excesses, 
    selfish indulgences, may produce a spiritual condition that
    will attract to one a condition of epilepsy in a future life. 
    Dis-ease of every kind is intended to be corrective, an extreme
    measure taken by the Spirit to rid one of a given destructive
    pattern. The concept of holism (which some believe to be the true
    meaning of holiness - to be made whole), holds that the mind, body
    and spirit work as a unit, almost as a three-piece band trying to
    weave a harmony of righteousness. Seldom is dis-ease purely physical
    in nature. Unless the spiritual correction is made, healing cannot
    take place.
    
    I could go on, but I risk rousing the ire of the moderators, who
    seem to frown  on non-Mormon concepts being preached here. I'll
    correspond with you via mail, if you would like to discuss
    further some of these concepts. Also, if you are really curious
    (and not just asking these questions in a spirit of mockery as
    I somehow suspect), you might want to check out AITG::RELIGION.
    Many noters gather there to discuss their religious beliefs, 
    concepts, questions etc in a spirit of sharing, nurturing and love.
    Nobody bashes anybody else's beliefs, or holds an attitude of
    superiority - they just share their beliefs. Without doubt the 
    most Christlike of conferences.
    
    Re .85, 86, Amen to that!
    
    Neal/B

>    Many years ago I taught a course in "Comparative World Religions"
>    as an institute teacher. It was terribly difficult for me when I
>    got to "Hinduism" because every book I opened said something different.
>    I was confused an puzzled because my expectations were that hinduism
>    was "A" religion, when in point of fact, it is a whole cluster of
>    religions with many, many varied beliefs. The Christian corollary
>    of Hinduism would be "protestantism" (not that they resemble one
>    another in belief, but that they represent clusters of religions).

I have studied Hinduism a little, and I think that your assessment is 
only partially correct. Hinduism is a very old belief system built upon
the concepts of karma and reincanation as the fundamental principles in
the process of ultimate salvation. Depending upon your starting point,
you can get what appears to be pictures of many different religions,
which are really only "flavors" of the same religion. Ice cream comes in 
different flavors, but it's still ice cream. Cake is not ice cream and 
ice cream is not cake, although there are many kinds of each.

Hinduism is so old and varied that you were confused by all the
"flavors", and rightfully so. After a while, a consistent commonality
emerges that ties it all together, and that commonality is Hinduism. 

It is not the external trappings that determine the distinctiveness of a
religious belief system, but the foundational beliefs. It is a fallacy to
assume, for instance, that Protestant denominations represent different
"religions".

This is not to say that there are not extreme fringe groups and false
churches, just that, in most cases, the differences between mainstream
Christian denominations are far less signifigant than what they have in
common, so it is not really correct to call them "clusters of religions".

Here is a quote you might find interesting:

"As a former Hindu who began to travel widely throughout the West, I was 
astonished to observe that not only Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry have 
Hindu/Buddhist roots, but that almost every one of the established and 
respected Western sects, such as Christian Science, Science of the Mind, 
Religious Science, and Unity is a syncretistic blend of Hinduism and 
Christian heresy. Even the American-born Mormon Church, with its 
'Christian image' is founded upon basic Hindu concepts, such as the 
pre-existence of the soul, a multiplicity of gods, and the teaching that 
godhood is the ultimate goal for humanity."

 {Rabi R. Maharaj, Death of a Guru}

Regards,

Ed

    Swirl that all in with the concept that Hinduism and a lot of the
    other old eastern religions may have been apostate versions of the
    Lord's Church as early as Adam's day and there's a real mess there.
    
    Steve

    To Neal:
    
    Thanks for listing a couple of the enlightened concepts of spiritual
    development I asked for.  And no, I am not mocking, just looking
    for data.
    
    Also to Reeves in .86
    
    I would love to read how you think LDS Doctrine is existential.
     Many years ago, I had planned on doing my thesis on this connection.
    Are you referring to the French existentialists (my field) or others?
    And have you differentiated them from the French essentialists?
    (not my field)
    
    
    Really looking forward to hear from you,
    
    Paul
    

    Last week I had an opportunity to repeat the "Investment in Excellence"
    video course from the Pacific Institute that is offered by Digital. It
    had been four or five years since the first time I took the course. I
    looked at the course this time through the filter of some of the recent
    discussions of it being affiliated with the "New Age Movement"
    (whatever that means). 
    
    I must say that I really enjoyed the course! I did not find anything in
    its teachings that I found to be in disagreement with my understanding
    of gospel principles. If I were to boil the whole course down to one
    statement, it would be "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he",
    which, by the way, was quoted during the course. 
                           
    Several Christians attended the course, and I do not believe that any
    of us found it to be objectionable -- quite the contrary. The whole
    objective of the course is to get a person to think in new ways to
    achieve excellence in their own lives. The application was broad, and
    left to the individual to apply it to goals of their own choosing. It
    is easily applied by the believing Christian to his goals of becoming a
    better follower of Christ, or of becoming a better DEC employee. 
    
    Rich

    
    As you know, existentialism is not "A" belief, or "A" philosophy.
    Like humanism, and many other notions, it is best represented by
    a tange of beliefs represented on one end by Jean Paul Sarte and
    the French School, and at the other end by Carl Rogers and various
    contempoeray american existentialist/humanists. 
    Part of that range of belief lies with the idea of "exisatence"---and
    the more stark forms of existentialism focus that there is only
    existence now (Sarte one catagorized mankind as being on an iceberg
    floating in the north atlantic and man's dilemms as the realization
    that the iceberg was melting) LDS interpretations of existentialism
    would be portrayed at the liberal end of the range, and frankly
    are represented in the early writings of both Truman Madsen (who
    at the same time he was iterating existential thoughts, was denying
    any LDS connection with existentialism) and Neal Maxwell. In the
    strictest sense, when one focuses on the importance of THIS existence
    to the entire scheme of things, you have an existential element.
    Of course there are many other dimensions, many of which are part
    of LDS teachings and beliefs. In the late 1960s and early 1970s
    when the John Birch Society was raving and ranting upon the land,
    that group took on existentialism, and humanism and betrayed their
    remarkable and incredible ignorance. Unfortunately, their attacks
    and their smearing-use of the words existential and humanism, have
    stuck, causing far too many Latter-day Saints to think that such
    philosophies and their accompanying psychologies are inappropriate
    for LDS people.
    Speaking of existential and humanistic psychologies: my degree training
    in counseling and guidance at BYU, and the gurus
    we learned from were primarily Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers, both
    existentialists and humanists---and both highly regarded by LDS
    behavioral scientists.
    
    An earlier reply suggested that I erred when I said hinduism was
    really a cluster of religions. My texts, by Hume, Noss, and one
    other writer, support the fragmentation of hinduism into a cluster
    of many related religions. Sorry, I cannot agree that hinduism is
    "A" religion.

    
    I think I can help those of you who can't understand how "New Age"
    beliefs are not a religion. 
    
    In most religions, there are Fundamentalists. Fundamentalist
    Christians. Orthodox Jews. Moslems Fundamentalists. 
    
    In many religions, there are reformists. The Protestants started out
    this way. 
    
    "New Age" is not a religion but a new way of looking at one's religion.
    Ther are new age Christians, Jews, I even know a new age Mormon or two.
    
    Hope this helps!
    
    Neal/B

    I have just received my March Ensign and in the "I Have a Question'
    Section, the following question was asked.  "Are so-called New Age
    spiritual beliefs opposed to Christ?"
    
    I have excerpted the main points:
    
    A case in point is the New Age movement - an eclectic, contemporary
    pseudo-religion that consists of a confusing array of beliefs about
    the nature of man and denies the existence of a personal God and
    the need for a Saviour.
    
    1. A fundamental principle of the gospel is that we are literally
    the spirit children of a loving Heavenly Father, created in his
    image.  We have individual identities and the potential to become
    like God.  
    
    	The New Age defines God as the ultimate reality, a source of
    pure undifferentiated energy, consciousness or life force.  Humanity
    is condsidered an extension of God, the divine essense that is
    humanity's higher self.  Such a veiw denies a personal God.
    
    2. Another fundamental principle of the gospel is that we can return
    to our Father in Heaven through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
    
    	The New Age movement holds that sin does not separate man from
    God, but that metaphysical ignorance separates us from higher
    consciousness. New Age beliefs hold that the fall of man is not
    due to Adam's transgression and its effect on mankind, but is due
    to mankind's inablility to understand the unity of reality.  The
    destiny of man is to achieve somehow a level in which individual
    consciousness dissolves into the consciousness of the cosmos (Shirley
    Mclaine where are you? - my note). Of course, such a philosophy
    denies individual worth and the need for a Saviour.
    
    3.  WE know that God has always revealed his will through prophets
    on the earth who act as his spokesmen.  We also know that we can
    pray directly to God for personal revelation.
    
    	The New Age approaches to communication with the supernatural
    may include chanting, ritual, drugs, music, guides - anything that
    will assist the mind to reach a New Age metaphysical state.  It thus
    denies the fundatmental gospel principles concerning man's
    communication with God.
    
    4.  We know that the true Church of Jesus Christ was restored to
    earth so that we need not be tossed to and fro by every wind of
    doctrine.
    
    	The New Age movement tries to replace the commandments of God
    and the consequences of sin with an experiential view of life in
    which any type of behaviour is potentially acceptable.  New Age
    philosophy suggests that if everything is God, everything is
    permissible.
    
    There should be no doubt that the basic tenets of the New Age movement
    are directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his church.
    
    The above is a direct quote from the article on page 62, written
    by Kim Davis, associate professor of surgery at Univ of Utah and
    a bishop.
    
    For me he speaks the truth.  I have had several experiences with
    this New Age religion and know by a witness of the spirit that is
    anti-Christ.  I am glad to see in print that the church recognizes
    this religion for its real intent.
    
                                                                          

	Another new age philosophy is this concept of sexual orientation,
	which is totally against the teachings of the Bible as well as the
	church.  By trying to make this deviant behavior acceptable by
	saying it is through no fault of the person is abominable.  This
	concept will, however, be the impetus that brings that life style 
	to wide acceptance, and it along with the other "new" concepts will
	bring us closer and closer to the end of the world.

	Re .94,

	Paul, Paul. You starting this stuff up again? %^)

>    A case in point is the New Age movement - an eclectic, contemporary
>    pseudo-religion that consists of a confusing array of beliefs about
>    the nature of man and denies the existence of a personal God and
>    the need for a Saviour.
>
        Without re-reading all of my many notes in this conference for
	the sake of quoting them here, I believe I have explained my
	position on why Jesus is my saviour and what that means to me.

	The "confusion" stated above arises from the erroneous assumption
	by the author of the above that there is a religious doctrine
	called "New Age". There is no such doctrine. As I stated in .193,
	there are a growing number of people who are becoming aware of
	the true meaning of the teachings of the religion that they have
	been following. Many, many people, of many and varying religious
	beliefs, were beginning to weaken in their faith. The words sound
	hollow, the teachings meaningless in the context of their own
	lives. This malaise has spread to society in general, which I'm
	sure we all agree is in a state of decline. This state of decline
	is spreading to Mother Earth Herself. Humanity is caught in a 
	vortex of helplessness and despair. 

	A spiritual reaffirmation is necessary, a return to Godlike values, 
	as given most eloquently by Jesus Christ (but also by many others - 
	the difference is that while others taught, Jesus made His life a 
	living example of Divine Principle, showing man not only the proper 
	attitude, humility and love of God and fellow man, but what miracles 
	may be made manifest in our lives by so living).

	By the grace of Almighty God, this is happening. People are beginning 
	to read and search their scriptures, not by rote but with a new desire,
	to find out "what does this mean for me?". The very low state that
	our malaise has brought us to, has made this necessary, as illustrated
	in the parable of the Prodigal Son. 

	This new awareness, and new sense of urgency, comes at a time when
	the astrological age of Pisces (represented by the Fish) is fading,
	and the new age of Aquarius is just appearing on the horizon. For
	that reason, people refer to the children of this transformation
	as "New Agers". 

>    1. A fundamental principle of the gospel is that we are literally
>    the spirit children of a loving Heavenly Father, created in his
>    image.  We have individual identities and the potential to become
>    like God.  

	FWIW, I agree in principle with this principle.
    
>    	The New Age defines God as the ultimate reality, a source of
>    pure undifferentiated energy, consciousness or life force.  Humanity
>    is condsidered an extension of God, the divine essense that is
>    humanity's higher self.  Such a veiw denies a personal God.

	I regard myself as an extension of my parents, in some ways. How
	does being an extension of God differ from being a child of God?
	
	The problem here is that we percieve ourselves as being a mere 
	lump of physical flesh, when in fact the entirety of our being
	is much, much more. Because of this, those who embrace a simplistic
	view of humanity find it difficult to reconcile the concepts of
	being a part of something and a child of that same thing.

>    2. Another fundamental principle of the gospel is that we can return
>    to our Father in Heaven through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

	But Jesus teaches that the kingdom of Heaven is within. Not
	on some celestial sphere out in the cosmos. WITHIN! So, where
	do you seek to return?
    
>    The New Age movement holds that sin does not separate man from
>    God, but that metaphysical ignorance separates us from higher
>    consciousness. New Age beliefs hold that the fall of man is not
>    due to Adam's transgression and its effect on mankind, but is due
>    to mankind's inablility to understand the unity of reality.  The
>    destiny of man is to achieve somehow a level in which individual
>    consciousness dissolves into the consciousness of the cosmos (Shirley
>    Mclaine where are you? - my note). Of course, such a philosophy
>    denies individual worth and the need for a Saviour.

	There are two doctrines here that I will attempt to address.
	The first is the doctrine of sin. Sin is committed through
	ignorance, and it does separate us from our Divine Heritage.
	If there is one doctrine that all new agers have in common, 
	it is the realization that you cannot sin against another
	without sinning against yourself. It is for this reason that
	Jesus taught, "love thine enemy". Because when you hate your
	enemy, you hate yourself. Hate makes the body release toxins
	all throughout your system. Habitual indulgence in hate 
	causes the very flesh to become cancerous. All that hate
	energy inside you is negative energy, and it gradually corrodes
	the structures of the body. How does that hurt your enemy?
	But we imagine that we can hate others with impunity, and
	can find no medical correlation between our attitudes and
	the diseases that consume us. So we percieve the "love thine
	enemy" teaching as hollow, meaningless.

	The second is the Fall of Man. The Fall of Man is that we have 
	fallen into unrealization of our connection with each other
	and the Divine One. We see ourselves as individual lumps of
	flesh, rather than parts of a Whole. Because of that, we find
	it difficult to reciprocate the Love of that Whole and create
	the circuit that makes miracles possible in our lives. This 
	is illustrated by the scriptures in Genesis, although the 
	parable is a rough one to understand. Not only is it a difficult
	parable, but man insists on adding to it's complexity by figuring
	absurdities into it like the "age of the Earth" or "how long Mankind
	has been here". Spiritually, these make no difference whatsoever.
	Do you suppose that, when you arrive at the Pearly Gates, you
	are going to be given a quiz regarding the age of the Earth?	

>    3.  WE know that God has always revealed his will through prophets
>    on the earth who act as his spokesmen.  We also know that we can
>    pray directly to God for personal revelation.
>    
    	The New Age approaches to communication with the supernatural
>    may include chanting, ritual, drugs, music, guides - anything that
>    will assist the mind to reach a New Age metaphysical state.  It thus
>    denies the fundatmental gospel principles concerning man's
>    communication with God.
    
	This takes place because many who are coming to this awareness
	are agnostics, having already fallen away from their faith,
	or are simply unaquainted with any religious teaching. They 
	think that; "rituals are necessary. We must have rituals!"
	Or that, "hey, wow, man,  I just dropped acid and had the most
	way-out, incredible, spiritual experience! You gotta try this,	
	man! It's the *only* way to dig this groovy scene!". This is
	a misunderstanding of what is happening to them. They go to these
	great lengths, and great expense, to find the true meaning of
	their life, and all along all that was needed was simple prayer,
	and meditation.

>    	The New Age movement tries to replace the commandments of God
>    and the consequences of sin with an experiential view of life in
>    which any type of behaviour is potentially acceptable.  New Age
>    philosophy suggests that if everything is God, everything is
>    permissible.

	What is misunderstood here is that the author, again mistakenly,
	believes that the New Age believer thinks that he can do anything,
	and get away with it. We are bound by Divine Law, to reap in exact
	portion to what we sow. If you rob, you will be robbed, if you
	deceive, you will be deceived, if you harm another, you must be
	harmed in turn. Most often, it will be brought upon you in a way
	that will be unbeknownst to those you have harmed, for God seems
	to prefer to rebuke in private. The only escape from one's sins
	is when one is pardoned by Divine Grace. This takes place only when 
	the lesson has been learned, the sinner is *truly* repentant, and the 
	punishment would therefore serve no purpose.

>    There should be no doubt that the basic "tenets of the New Age movement"
>    are directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his church.

	I don't see where any "tenets of the New Age movement" contradict
	the teachings of Jesus Christ as given by the Bible. I can see, 
	however, where certain revisionist religions may have trouble
	fitting these tenets into their revisions.

>    For me he speaks the truth.  I have had several experiences with
>    this New Age religion and know by a witness of the spirit that is
>    anti-Christ.  I am glad to see in print that the church recognizes
>    this religion for its real intent.
	
	What "New Age religion", Paul? What are you talking about?    
                                                                          
	Re .95,

>	Another new age philosophy is this concept of sexual orientation,
>	which is totally against the teachings of the Bible as well as the
>	church.  By trying to make this deviant behavior acceptable by
>	saying it is through no fault of the person is abominable.  This
>	concept will, however, be the impetus that brings that life style 
>	to wide acceptance, and it along with the other "new" concepts will
>	bring us closer and closer to the end of the world.

	I think that this is a reference to homosexuality, which has been
	with us from - well - long ago. What is different about now is that,
	more and more people are refusing to condemn the homosexual, and I
	take it that this is what has the noter in .95 upset.

	In Matthew 7:1 Jesus instructs us to "judge not". If homosexuality
	is evil, why not leave it to God to punish? Who appointed you the
	divine, avenging angel of American, Christian Morality? There is
	nothing spiritual about laws, or rules, or practices, that punish
	people for being homosexual. 

	Neal/B
    

>	I think that this is a reference to homosexuality, which has been
>	with us from - well - long ago. What is different about now is that,
>	more and more people are refusing to condemn the homosexual, and I
>	take it that this is what has the noter in .95 upset.

	You bet - there is nothing different about homosexuality now
	except societies acceptance of it.  God does not change and has
	always considered it an abomination.

	I can see not condemning the homosexual as a person, but the act 
	itself, however, God's judgement does not differentiate.


>	In Matthew 7:1 Jesus instructs us to "judge not". 

	Simplistic - LDS instructs not to judge "unrighteously", but we are
	to make a judgement in our actions and beliefs.


>	If homosexuality is evil, why not leave it to God to punish? 

	HE WILL.

>	Who appointed you the divine, avenging angel of American, Christian 
>	Morality? 

	No one.  I didn't know I had taken that on.  I just go by the Bible.


>	There is nothing spiritual about laws, or rules, or practices, that 
>	punish people for being homosexual. 

	All of God's laws are spiritual, and God's laws indeed do punish 
	people for being homosexual. 

	Here is what God has to say about it:

	    o  Gen.  13: 13	But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners 
				before the Lord exceedingly.

	    o  Gen.  18: 20	And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom
				and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin
				is very grievous;

	    o  Gen.  19:  5 	And they called unto Lot, and said unto him,
				Where are the men which came in to thee this
				night? bring them out unto us, that we may 
				know them.

	    o  Lev.  18: 22 	Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
				womankind: it is abomination.

	    o  Lev.  20: 13	If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth
				with a woman, both of them have committed an
				abomination: they shall surely be put to
				death; their blood shall be upon them.

	    o  Deut. 23: 17	There shall be no whore of the daughters of
				Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

	    o  Isa.   3:  9	The shew of their countenance doth witness
				against them; and they declare their sin as
				Sodom, they hide it not.  Woe unto their soul!
				for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

	    o  Ezek. 16: 50	And they were haughty, and committed
				abomination before me: therefore I took
				them away as I saw good.

	    o  Rom.   1: 27	And likewise also the men, leaving the natural
				use of the woman, burned in their lust one
				toward another; men with men working that which
				is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
				recompense of their error which was meet.

	    o  1 Cor. 6:  9	Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
				inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived:
				neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor 
				adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of 
				themselves with mankind.

	    o  1 Tim. 1: 10	For whoremongers, for them that defile 
				themselves with mankind, ...

	    o  2 Tim. 3:  3	Without natural affection, ...

	    o  2 Pet. 2: 10	But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in
				the lust of uncleanness, ...

	    o  Jude   1:  7	Even as Sodom and Gommarrha, and the cities
				about them in like manner, giving themselves
				over to fornication, and going after strange
				flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering
				the vengeance of eternal fire.

    As a reminder, lest anyone think browsing through here that New Age 
    embraces homosexuality, the things I've read indicate that the term
    "New Age" is basically an umbrella for many things.  I am aware of no
    one person that is the expert about what is New Age and what is not.
    For myself, I operate under the assumption that portions of what are
    under the umbrella are good, portions of it are bad and the rest is
    irrelevant.  I think that, like the Age of Aquarius, this too shall
    pass but aspects of it will continue on, even as aspects of it existed
    long before anyone coined the term.
                                       
    Steve    

    
    Re .97 
    
>>	In Matthew 7:1 Jesus instructs us to "judge not". 
>
>	Simplistic - LDS instructs not to judge "unrighteously", but we are
>	to make a judgement in our actions and beliefs.

    That's fine, as long as you do not act against the object of your
    judgement. But it is not a long throw from judging in your actions 
    and beliefs, to using said judgement as an excuse for discriminating
    against another human.
    
    Mr. Roney, if you were a landlord, would you refuse to rent an
    apartment in your building to a gay couple? Or, if you were 
    beginning a business, refuse to accept a partner because s/he 
    was homosexual? Or not-hire an employee? When you indulge in this
    kind of discrimination, you bring judgement upon yourself. For that
    person is God's child too. I think that this is clearly spelled
    out in the Bible.
    
    Anyway, this is becoming a rat-hole, because the emerging beliefs
    have nothing for or against homosexuality, other than that already
    given in chapter VII of Matthew, and in other religious writings.
    
    Praying that you will find it within yourself to hold peace in your
    heart toward your neighbors,
    
    Neal/B
    

>   When you indulge in this kind of discrimination, you bring judgement 
>   upon yourself. For that person is God's child too. I think that this 
>   is clearly spelled out in the Bible.

	I have two cousins who are queer.  They are welcome in my house as 
	cousins.  Their lifestyle is not.  When discrimination is is done
	in a prejudiced way, then I think it is wrong.  When discrimination 
	is is done in a fastidiously selective way, then I think that is my
	right.  I discriminate, in the latter way, with drugs, alcohol, tea,
	coffee, prostitution, bars, nightclubs, secret societies, and things
	such as homosexuality.  The Bible clearly states, at least to me, 
	that if there is something which is offensive then I should cast it 
	off, or at least get it away from my presence.

	Yes, if I were a landlord, I would refuse to rent an apartment in my
	building to a gay couple.  Or an unmarried couple. Or a bigot. Etc...
	Since I can not really control, by law, whom I rent too, that is why
	I am not a landlord.

	I discriminate against other humans all the time - I do not *willingly*
	associate with those who indulge in the things which I am against,
	but I also do not condemn them either.  I have fulfilled my 
	obligations with my oldest son, and it will be on his head not mine,
	that he is living with his girlfriend.  They come over to our house
	and participate in activities, but I do not go to their apartment
	unless specifically asked to help with something.  I do not visit or
	drop by.

>    Anyway, this is becoming a rat-hole, because the emerging beliefs
>    have nothing for or against homosexuality, other than that already
>    given in chapter VII of Matthew, and in other religious writings.

	I think the scriptural references I gave are explicit enough to tell
	me that homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes.  The emerging
	beliefs are of the world, and the Bible is more than Matthew.  While
	I detest homosexuality, I do not condemn those who engage in it.  I
	will leave that up to God.

	Charles

    TO NEAL:
    
    Not "starting that stuff again", just passing along what my Church
    has to say about the implications of New Age ideas.
    
    Steve Sherman is right in saying that the New AGe is an assortment
    of ideas.  Some good and some not so good (or at least the antithesis
    of Christian doctrine). However, everytime I hear New Agers speaking
    their credo, I hear ideas similar to those you have stated.  And
    as mentioned in the article from my Church, these ideas are not
    embodied in Christian thought.
    
    Christians, espousing that New Age is indeed Christian, I believe
    have not really looked at the movement closely enough.  
    

    
>    Christians, espousing that New Age is indeed Christian, I believe
>    have not really looked at the movement closely enough.  
    
    
    	Paul, It seems to me that all of the "looking" that you did came
    	from one source - constance cumbey - and from a conversation with 
    	your John Birch Society friends.
    
    	You say you have a background in "New Age" because you took some
    	DEC courses. What, in the courses, was "evil"? 
    
    	You may disagree but I think you are a little short on research 
    	to be condemming anything.
    
    	Neal/B

    To Neal:
    
    I thought and thought of how to answer your latest question.  Then
    I decided to re-read this whole discussion.  So much has been said,
    if you care to see my position, re-read Notes .5, .9,. 15, .28,
    .34, .55.  Basically, my position or ideas have not changed.  What
    I am observing is how New Age ideas are permeating more and more
    throughout our society.
    
    Note. 94 sums up how I feel about it.  And I am glad that my Church
    has taken a stand by showing how New Age ideas are not Christian.
     Re-read .94, or if you want I will send you the whole article.
    
    As for me,  it stands thus:  There is no other name under heaven,
    save that of Jesus Christ, by which humanity can be saved.
    New AGe thought disagrees with this primary principle by allowing
    "other names/gods" as objects of worship/salvation.
    
    What else can I say?  Other than that we disagree and will have
    to agree to disagree.                
    
    Paul
    
    
    

    
    Paul, 
    
    	That's all well and good, but the title of .94 is either
    	a monumental misunderstanding on your part, or a deliberate
    	attempt to spread falsehood.
    
    	I know of many New Agers that are opposed to many things, including
    	Christianity in some cases. Most of those are the ones who have
    	been bruised by their exposure to Christianity in some way. But 
    	I also know of many Mormons who, shall we say, hold to "John Birch
    	Society" type social views. But I do not say that "The Mormon
    	Church is a white-supremacist church". 
    
    	All I am saying is that you are basing your attack on the
    	developing awareness that you call "New Age" on too small a
    	sampling and inputs from one clearly biased source. If I am
    	wrong, please explain.
    
    	Neal/B
    
    
    	
    		
    	

    Neal:
    
    I do not believe that I have either misunderstood or miscommunicated.
    And no, my study of the origins/bases for SOME avowed New Age ideas
    was not narrow.
    
    There are apparent incompatabilities between Christianity and New
    Age ideas.  Re-read the article I entered from my Church's magazine
    to understand them.
    
    Paul

    
    I re-read and re-read, and still cannot find anything correct in it.

    Neal,
    
    I do not think I understand your position because you say that you
    have re-read the article from the Ensign that I posted and found
    nothing correct in it.
    
    Let's take one idea from the article (note .94) where the author says
    that Christianity professes a personal God, in whose image we are
    made, whom we call the FAther, whom at several times man has seen and 
    heard his voice. Says the artcle, New Age ideas propose a god of 
    "undifferentiated energy", "a higher consciousness or life force", 
    or even The Force".  This statement is accurate; the author has
    not erred here and to me these two ideas are incompatible.
    
    Here's another incompatability.  Christ Consciousness - which states 
    that the office of Christ (or saviour/redemptor) is a calling to
    which any human can attain, and in fact several humans have done so,
    like Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, etc. Thus, Jesus is not the center of
    the Plan of Salvation, neither is it necessary to invoke his name
    for redemption from sin.  Rather, any person, through evolution
    to higher consciousness can achieve this office of Christhood and
    by so doing become their own personal saviour.
    
    Another:  The use of mediums (crystals, meditative trances, channeling,
    tarot, astrology etc.) to gain more spiritual insights.  The Christian
    "medium" for hightened spiritual awareness is prayer and the Gift
    of the Holy Spirit.
                         
    Another:  Reincarnation - New Age ideas propose this Eastern re-birth
    as the method for evolution to the final state of "at-one-ment"
    with God (Nirvana). Christianity says: "It is appointed to man to
    die once."
    
    Thus, Neal, when I look at the credo of New Age I keep hearing the
    proponents use the above words/ideas that are simply not-Christian.
    
    Above ideas are fact.  Not opinions. You may hold an opinion that
    all New Age ideas are wonderfully compatible with Christianity,
    but that is your opinion.
    
    And a wise person once told me;  "You cannot win arguments of opinions,
    but you can for factual ones."
    
    What do you think of the above?  I would like to hear what you have
    to say.
                                                                  
    Paul