D Micheal Quinn:Pro New Spirituality & Foe of LDS Church?

[ndjili]

Well first this research shows insight on the New Age movement. It does not tear down other religions (as the New AGe is technically not a religion according to New Agers). Many people of many faiths including Christians, Jews and Muslims have noticed this spirituality movement creeping into their churches . It is well documented where this started and with whom. It is documented that this tactic of infultrating ALL faiths and subtly changing the core doctrines. You should check out her sites. She has some great information. As far as Quinn goes When some of his character flaws include twisting church doctrine to support his lifestyle I'd say that's a pretty big one. And from much I've read about Quinn he always done that to fit what he thinks to be right even if it's not factual.

[gruden]

I think this thread is an indication of how little Church history is understood among members of the Church today. I can tell by some of the posts that some of us almost retract from these topics as if anti-Mormon topics are being discussed. This is unfortunate because the Church's history is fascinating, and extremely rich.

I could list books that the most reputable LDS scholars and Church historians recommend we study in order to understand our Church history better. Incidentally, Magic World View is near the top of the list for recommended reading by the most reputable active LDS Church historians. I know personally a very very well respected professor who works in the Church History Department at the Church office building who thinks it is absolute nonsense when members discount this book based on D. Michael Quinn's subsequent excommunication. One interesting anecdote this particular professor highlights is that the book was sold at Deseret Book. The list of recommended reading includes books by active members, inactive members, non members, and excommunicated members, but each author is reputable, well researched, and seeking to understand Church history.

I would also like to correct something that I think has been inadvertently mis-characterized about Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. This is not a book linking the roots of the early Mormon Church with occult worship of the Devil. The book is about "folk magic" practiced by members of the Church and much of the American frontier. And it isn't just this book, all reputable LDS historians inside and outside of the Church agree that such superstitious religious practice was prevalent at that time in history and common among members of the Church at that time. In fact, most people on the frontier didn't attend a Church congregation, but instead mixed bible study with their superstitious religious practices at home and with their families. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone who knows anything about Church History.

I would be interested in a thread that actually discusses the contents of these Church History books, as opposed to demonizing the authors in an effort to discredit what is presented by their studies.

Not sure what I am missing here. People scream other people are part of the conspiracy and are evil and are untrustworthy liars for far less serious reasons than what Quinn has said and done.

I think what you are missing is he is not part of a conspiracy. This thread hasn't added a lot of credibility to your position that new age spirituality is spreading throughout the Church and world Bella. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but you can't just look for it everywhere and assume it applies everywhere. You might be able to convince people who haven't studied early Church history, but I find this whole thread completely unconvincing. I say this in all kindness as I know this is an important topic for you. But this is neither here nor there. I am personally more interested in discussing the early Church history itself than one particular historian.

Absolutely brilliant statement, Cowell. 101% agree.

Dowsing, herbology, phrenology, seer stones, even to a small degree astrology were common amongst the people in that day (and for centuries prior). I think the problem many run into is they see history and the past through the lens of the present, instead of the context at the time. Life was very tough then - a constant struggle against the elements - so they used what was at hand to get through. I would argue that a worldview that includes some of those elements is more conducive to comprehending some of the peculiar elements of the gospel than our modern, sterile, objective left-brain view. We are closed off to many wonderful things because we think it's ignorant and backward. Yet Abraham understood vastly more the movement and influence of stars and the heavenly bodies, but in our day we prefer telescopes and not to think that the cosmos out there has any bearing on what happens here.

Case in point: how many of you possess a seer stone? Do you consider such a thing ridiculous? Church members in Kirtland used to wade in the river for hours looking for a seer stone of their own. Very useful things. Whatever you think of Quinn, this book opened up a great perspective on the people who formed the church in those times. Sometimes I think we prefer the squeaky clean Disney version of history than the messy, non-politically correct history that is so human.

Here's something for you that goes even further back: What was Moses doing when he burned the golden calf and made the Israelites eat it? How do you 'burn' gold and for what purpose? The interesting stuff in history, especially gospel history, is sometimes found in the cracks and seams. I guess it's sometimes hard to separate the message and the messenger.

[notjamesbond003.5]

I disagree with that. You can verify this right?

clarkkent14,

Yes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tabl ... n-poll.htm

This poll show it's easier for a qualified woman, a qualified African American than a quailified Latter Day Saint to be elected to POTUS.

I don't know what rock you've been living under to have missed this-it's common knowledge.

njb

[notjamesbond003.5]

I think this thread is an indication of how little Church history is understood among members of the Church today. I can tell by some of the posts that some of us almost retract from these topics as if anti-Mormon topics are being discussed. This is unfortunate because the Church's history is fascinating, and extremely rich.

I could list books that the most reputable LDS scholars and Church historians recommend we study in order to understand our Church history better. Incidentally, Magic World View is near the top of the list for recommended reading by the most reputable active LDS Church historians. I know personally a very very well respected professor who works in the Church History Department at the Church office building who thinks it is absolute nonsense when members discount this book based on D. Michael Quinn's subsequent excommunication. One interesting anecdote this particular professor highlights is that the book was sold at Deseret Book. The list of recommended reading includes books by active members, inactive members, non members, and excommunicated members, but each author is reputable, well researched, and seeking to understand Church history.

I would also like to correct something that I think has been inadvertently mis-characterized about Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. This is not a book linking the roots of the early Mormon Church with occult worship of the Devil. The book is about "folk magic" practiced by members of the Church and much of the American frontier. And it isn't just this book, all reputable LDS historians inside and outside of the Church agree that such superstitious religious practice was prevalent at that time in history and common among members of the Church at that time. In fact, most people on the frontier didn't attend a Church congregation, but instead mixed bible study with their superstitious religious practices at home and with their families. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone who knows anything about Church History.

I would be interested in a thread that actually discusses the contents of these Church History books, as opposed to demonizing the authors in an effort to discredit what is presented by their studies.

Not sure what I am missing here. People scream other people are part of the conspiracy and are evil and are untrustworthy liars for far less serious reasons than what Quinn has said and done.

I think what you are missing is he is not part of a conspiracy. This thread hasn't added a lot of credibility to your position that new age spirituality is spreading throughout the Church and world Bella. I'm not saying it is or isn't, but you can't just look for it everywhere and assume it applies everywhere. You might be able to convince people who haven't studied early Church history, but I find this whole thread completely unconvincing. I say this in all kindness as I know this is an important topic for you. But this is neither here nor there. I am personally more interested in discussing the early Church history itself than one particular historian.

Absolutely brilliant statement, Cowell. 101% agree.

Dowsing, herbology, phrenology, seer stones, even to a small degree astrology were common amongst the people in that day (and for centuries prior). I think the problem many run into is they see history and the past through the lens of the present, instead of the context at the time. Life was very tough then - a constant struggle against the elements - so they used what was at hand to get through. I would argue that a worldview that includes some of those elements is more conducive to comprehending some of the peculiar elements of the gospel than our modern, sterile, objective left-brain view. We are closed off to many wonderful things because we think it's ignorant and backward. Yet Abraham understood vastly more the movement and influence of stars and the heavenly bodies, but in our day we prefer telescopes and not to think that the cosmos out there has any bearing on what happens here.

Case in point: how many of you possess a seer stone? Do you consider such a thing ridiculous? Church members in Kirtland used to wade in the river for hours looking for a seer stone of their own. Very useful things. Whatever you think of Quinn, this book opened up a great perspective on the people who formed the church in those times. Sometimes I think we prefer the squeaky clean Disney version of history than the messy, non-politically correct history that is so human.

Here's something for you that goes even further back: What was Moses doing when he burned the golden calf and made the Israelites eat it? How do you 'burn' gold and for what purpose? The interesting stuff in history, especially gospel history, is sometimes found in the cracks and seams. I guess it's sometimes hard to separate the message and the messenger.

Gruden,

Spot on.

Thanks,

njb

[clarkkent14]

I disagree with that. You can verify this right?

clarkkent14,,

Yes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tabl ... n-poll.htm

This poll show it's easier for a qualified woman, a qualified African American than a quailified Latter Day Saint to be elected to POTUS.

I don't know what rock you've been living under to have missed this.

njb

That wasn't your statement... You said

Answer: Because the US Population, and average Christian thinks the LDS Church is not Christian, but a new agey version of Christianity.

What does voting for black people and women have to do with "new agey" version of Christianity?

I would like to see where you got this information that people didn't vote for Mitt because people think we're too New Agey Christian like you stated... or made up.

[ereves]

Why go to an author that is known to lie and twist things. I would only use his data to find original sources, but in doing that you are exposing yourself to many many false teachings. What worth does his data really hold that we cannot acquire from honest authors really?[...]

He by his own admission does not believe in the policies and doctrines of the Church. What he will present as much as you try to sort through it to try to pick out truth is like trying to find pure water droplets in the bitter fountain. They all have been poisoned for the goal and reason of their use was impure.

[italics added]

Bella, do you have any evidence that Quinn lies and twists things? I know you mentioned that in your opinion a General Authority wouldn't have done what Quinn says his stake president said one did but is that all the proof you have that he's a liar? If you have more evidence I'd be glad to look at it (perhaps I missed it somewhat skimming through the thread) but if you don't then I don't think you should be making such claims.

I've read Early Mormonism and the Magic World View and contrary to your perception of Quinn, found it to be extremely honest. He cites everything he mentions, who said what, when, under what circumstances as far as it can be found out etc. I knew of Quinn's questionable positions previous to reading the book and so I approached it tentatively but soon realized I had no reason to. The book was written while he was at BYU and in good standing in the church, it does nothing in my opinion to discredit the church in any way whatsoever and to the contrary is very effective at shedding light on some of the things that people use to try to discredit it.

I can understand why some people would be surprised to discover that Joseph and the early saints practiced certain things that we would consider strange today but we cannot judge them – or anybody else in history – based on our current worldview. If we do, we will have a completely skewed and mistaken perception of these people. Rather, we should try to understand the worldview of the people we are considering and judge what they did in the context of that worldview. That is one of the major points of Quinn’s book, hence the title.

Again, I’m not sure what you are referring to when you label him as a liar, a dishonest author, and as a teacher of “many many false teachings.” Perhaps you are referring to his disagreement on certain policies in the church. If so I have no problem with you disagreeing with him there. I do however disagree with trying to discredit him as a historian only because you disagree with his position on these things.

You need to read my sources before you discount what I am saying. Please go back and read all that I have posted including all my links. You are welcome to your opinion, but I have seen too many lies to trust the man at all. Just read the PBS interview or the book reviews. There is plenty to show he is up to no good. Do not take my opinions on face value, always check the sources even when people like Quinn use tons of sources it does not mean they are for real.

I did read the reviews and the PBS interview (which I had read previously). It’s surprising to me that people are so afraid of the book. The reviews usually focus on what they think Quinn was implying but having read the book I find no justification for their assumptions. Does Quinn use some obscure quotes and sometimes second hand information? Yes, and he tells you out right when he is doing so. But seen in the context of the other abundant more reliable sources that are present in the book, the act of including with them more obscure sources seems more an admirable effort at historical completeness rather than a point on which to criticize him.

I believe the only thing you posted that has anything to do with his reputation as a historian was the post on, Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example. I have not read this book and so I do not consider myself to be in an adequate position to form an opinion on it, not can I be sure that it is being fairly represented. But even if it is accurately represented in the review (which is doubtful considering some of the reviews on Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview) the very article you posted does not seem to question his previous standing as a reputable historian but rather what they consider to be his subsequent questionable agenda regarding homosexuality in the Church, as embodied in the opening sentence, “D. Michael Quinn is a former Mormon historian now turned homosexual apologist.”

I will subsequently respond to the review in the post by clarkkent.

[notjamesbond003.5]

I disagree with that. You can verify this right?

clarkkent14,,

Yes:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tabl ... n-poll.htm

This poll show it's easier for a qualified woman, a qualified African American than a quailified Latter Day Saint to be elected to POTUS.

I don't know what rock you've been living under to have missed this.

njb

That wasn't your statement... You said

Answer: Because the US Population, and average Christian thinks the LDS Church is not Christian, but a new agey version of Christianity.

What does voting for black people and women have to do with "new agey" version of Christianity?

I would like to see where you got this information that people didn't vote for Mitt because people think we're too New Agey Christian like you stated... or made up.

Do you try and talk in circles on purpose?

The poll clearly points out that we're in a minority and that a Tradition Christian has a better shot at being elected President. It also shows a woman or African American along with a Traditional Christian has an easier chance of being President-then that of a Mormon/LDS.

Matter of fact, Mormons are right next to Muslims in electability for being President.

The reason why for this is because:the general US Population as a whole doesn't view Mormonism as Traditional Christianity. With the Book of Mormon, God appearing to Joseph and not their church leaders , more modern revelation than their churches have, in their view- our exclusive Temples etc.-doesn't fit their definition of "Christian".

They see us outside of their box of conformity, and with that after talking to many, many Traditional Christians they see us as new agey, non traditional form of Christians -so let's stop with the silly dance of semantics.

njb

[clarkkent14]

They see us outside of their box of conformity, and with that after talking to many, many Traditional Christians they see us as new agey, non traditional form of Christians -so let's stop with the silly dance of semantics.

So this is your personal hypothesis, nothing you can verify. I understand people see us as different in many ways, but I fail to see evidence of your "new agey" statement. I'm questioning your statement about NEW AGE. That's all. I understand the rest.

again you said "Why do you think Mitt Romney got blown out? Answer: Because the US Population, and average Christian thinks the LDS Church is not Christian, but a new agey version of Christianity.

Can you verify your NEW AGE statement? That's all I'm asking. I don't care about people thinking we're non-christian, a cult, or anything else, the question is about NEW AGE. Please just validate that statement, that's all.

[notjamesbond003.5]

clarkkent14,

"Trouble me no more concerning this matter".

I see that your intention is not genuine but only trying to pigeon-hole me with one narrow meaning of the term "New Age".

I wish no longer to converse with you re this topic.

PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 02/26/92 6:58 PM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TIME: 02/26 12:26 AM

TO: ALL
FROM: JASON ROCCO (JBGD79B)
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM

From what I've read over the last few years I thought
Mormonism was a lot like New Age? Both groups seem worried
about what they eat? Both groups on this BB have been
accused by people as thinking they become Gods when they
leave this life? Joe Smith has been accused of using drugs
to receive revelation, while I've heard a lot of the NA
people are into smoking the herb. Is there a New Age >>
branch in the Mormon church? Another thing, it seems both
the Mormons and New Agers are into a life before life?
Could Joe Smith have been a New Ager who came on the scene
before his day? Are any of you Mormons out there into using
crystals?

PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 02/28/92 11:47 PM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TO: JBGD79B
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM
DATE: 02/28/1992


Frank

Hail BoB and nice to meet you.

Did you know that the Mormon god is an extra-terrestrial?
I'm not kidding! The Mormon scriptures reveal that he lives
near a star called kolob. Continuous revelation is a
primary tenant of Mormonism. What some Mormons don't
realize is that the implication is interstellar
communication. If that isn't the weirdest fruitcake new age
idea, yet, it is the implicit teaching of down home apple
pie Mormonism. Is the Mormon god a "space brother"? Let's
find out!

reality is stranger than fantasy!

proclus


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 02/28/92 11:51 PM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TIME: 02/27 12:45 AM

TO: JASON ROCCO (JBGD79B)
FROM: MICHAEL LOVE (BXXF11A)
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM

Jason

I've got a related subject going called MORMONS DAVE HUNT.
When I attended Dave's lecture last month, he told me that
he debated a couple of Mormon intellectuals in Washinton.
They told him that Joseph Smith was "the first New Age
Prophet". I think that the urim and thummim story is
remarkably similar to the crystal gazing stories of the New
Agers. I can elaborate this if you would like.

People like Dave are saying these days that disenchanted
Mormons are leaving the church and entering the New Age
Movement. I've seen a little evidence for this but not
much.

out on the rim

proclus
PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 02/28/92 11:52 PM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TIME: 02/27 8:21 PM

TO: JASON ROCCO (JBGD79B)
FROM: ANDREW MCGUIRE (FKSP88A)
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM

Howdy Jas,
The October 1991 issue of Sunstone (the magazine that
caters to us Mormon pseudo-intellectuals) has a delightful
cartoon that shows a Mormon chapel with a number of rooms
labeled for odd purposes (such the 'Humanist Tea Room,' the
'Iron Rod Room,' etc).
Of interest is the steeple, which is labeled "The LDS New
Age Doctrine and Bungee Jumping Platform." I love it.

Yup, the Mormons and the New Agers have more in common
than either of them would feel totally comfortable in
admitting. How about Heavenly Mother? Sounds alot like the
NA Goddess. Also, like Garn (how ya doin, fella?), there are
alot of ex-Mormons who have used Mormonism as a departure
point into other things...such as the Hippie Wanna-be who
lives next door to me. She keeps a Book of Mormon on her
shelf right next to a text on Zen and her copy of The
Aquarian Conspiracy. Also, rumor has it that there
might be a Mormon/Ceremonial Magician causing trouble over
in the Mormon debates...........


Do as Thou Wilt
-Andy

PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 02/28/92 11:54 PM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TIME: 02/27 9:49 PM

TO: GARN LEBARON JR. (DVMS01A)
FROM: WILLIAM STROUP (HTPC61A)
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM

Dear Garen, What a cool idea...Mormoanism as a bridge
between Christianity and the New Age! There are a couple of
ladies packing their bibles around on You and the New Age
who ought to come down to the Mormon BBs and see if they can
convert the Mormons before they get across the bridge into
the New Age. Hey Helen! Come on down!
WHS

PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 02/28/92 11:55 PM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TIME: 02/28 12:33 AM

TO: MICHAEL LOVE (BXXF11A)
FROM: JASON ROCCO (JBGD79B)
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM

Mike I agree that Joe Smith was probably a New Ager. I
think if New Age people knew more about Smith and his church
they might be converting to Mormonism in mass. A lot of
what these New Agers seem to be looking for can be found in
the Mormon church. I wouldn't doubt that Smith could get
into crystals.
Jas.


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 03/01/92 9:15 PM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TO: NMFR07A
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM
DATE: 03/01/1992


Scott
You missed the point entirely! There are many gods, but not
many of them are said to live on a planet near a distant
star. On the other hand, many new age gods have this in
common with the Mormon diety.
double star



PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 03/12/92 0:46 AM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TIME: 03/10 6:27 PM

TO: SCOTT JOHNSON (NMFR07A)
FROM: ALLAN RIFLEMAN (NHPC34A)
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM

Yes but I found Joseph Smith while channeling on top of
the hill in Palmyra N.Y. were the "golden plates" were
found.
Allan (BTW, an angel told me they were only gold
electroplated as pure gold would have been to heavy for
Joseph Smith to carry around with ease)


PRODIGY(R) interactive personal service 03/12/92 1:13 AM
ARTS CLUB
TOPIC: BOOKS/NONFICTION
TO: DWJV72A
SUBJECT: NEW AGE VS MORMONISM
DATE: 03/12/1992


One of the weirder parallels is in the pre-earth life.
Xtians don't beleive in a pre-earthly existance. Many New
Agers hold to the doctrine of reincarnation. While this is
not the Mormon doctrine either, it is at least a belief that
something came before.

Orson Pratt spoke of a transmigration, not of souls, but of
"spiritual particles". New Age texts are often channeled
through angelic beings with names like Enoch, Michael, and
Raphiel. Again this is not at odds with the Mormon origins
of divine writings. The Urim and Thummim motif is not
unlike the crystal gazing of the New Agers.

sunstoned
proclus

----
njb

[clarkkent14]

njb

well, duh

anyone can google: http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/mutants/newage.html An old message board thread from 1992 isn't exactly primo evidence. It's ok if you mis-spoke. Just please don't make statements you can't back up. That's all I'm asking.

next time you call out Bella please use facts and not your made up garbage. peace out.

[notjamesbond003.5]

when presented with indisputable evidence -libel the presenter and attack his source.

njb

Its New Age Underpinnings
Apart from its Mormon roots, Covey's products and programs are problematic for the Christian due to Covey's promotion of New Age teachers and practices. Covey is well versed in the New Age teachings and practices of its adherents because he often runs in the same circles as they, appearing on panels and at seminars. This is especially evident in his inclusion in the overtly New Age compendium, Handbook for the Soul.
Both SH and SF have a number of quotes or references to New Age proponents and books. These include Marilyn Ferguson (The Aquarian Conspiracy), M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled), Marianne Williamson (A Return to Love), John Gray (Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus), Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen (Chicken Soup for the Soul) and Oprah Winfrey. Among the New Age practices referred to are visualization and affirmation, subliminal programming, neurolinguistic programming and "new forms of relaxation and self-talk processes." Concerning these new age techniques he states, "These all involve explanation, elaboration and different packaging of the fundamental principles of the first creation ...I think most of the material is fundamentally sound" (SH p. 134). Incredulously, he adds, "The majority of it appears to have originally come out of the study of the Bible by many individuals." This appears to legitimize these occult practices.
The new age practice of visualization is prominent in Covey's books and training materials. These meditation/self hypnosis techniques, according to Covey, involve getting the mind in a relaxed state through deep breathing and progressive muscle relaxation for the purpose of reprogramming or rescripting oneself (SH p. 133), are forms of programming (p. 135) and are powerful in that "if you visualize the wrong thing you will produce the wrong thing" (p. 134).
In addition, he not only quotes new age leader Marilyn Ferguson (p. 60) but also refers to her New Age primer, The Aquarian Conspiracy, as a "landmark book" (SF p. 125) and in quoting Marianne Williamson he invokes the basic tenet of the New Age that all are God and God is all, or in all. "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure...We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us it's in everyone" (SF p. 348).
Covey has also referred to the laws of nature as "what Carl Jung called the unconscious, the collective unconscious, that pervades all humanity regardless of their upbringing, their religion, their cultural heritage, their scripting, whatever it is" (Anthony Robbins' Personal Power II, Vol. 12, track 7). Based upon this, Covey puts forth the idea that a group that attains "synergy" - the proper exchange of information and ideas - and comes to proper understanding, will, individually and separately, come to a collective agreement on their mission statement or principles. New Agers refer to a similar concept in their belief in the "100th Monkey Syndrome."

Conclusion: njb correct again.
http://bible.cc/matthew/11-15.htm

[ereves]

Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition | reviewed by John Gee

"An Obstacle to Deeper Understanding"1

John Gee

Review of D. Michael Quinn. Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998. xxxix + 646 pp., with notes and index. $19.95.[...]

Gee focuses the majority of his review on terms and definitions (particularly "magic" and "occult") in an attempt to discredit Quinn's thesis. This does nothing for me because the historical content of the book remains unchanged even if we rewrite definitions and rearrange terms. Gee attempts to attack Quinn's thesis with the argument that Quinn's definitions of magic and occult do not match what their definitions would have been during Joseph Smith's life. I struggle to see why Gee devoted so much of his review to this effort because it was not Quinn's intention to show what the terms meant back then so much as to show how certain practices and actions of the early saints would be considered part of magic and the occult according to today's connotations. This is why Quinn would settle on a 1961 definition of magic, something that Gee criticizes him for. More confusing is the fact that Quinn addresses the ambiguity surrounding the term "magic" in the introduction of the book and shows that in different periods in history certain practices considered magic have at other times been considered religious and vice versa. All that Gee’s review does, in this respect, is confirm Quinn’s argument in the introduction.

Joseph Smith admitted that he was involved in digging for money (see, for example, Joseph Smith—History 1:56), but he does not admit to being guilty of "magic."

Exactly Gee, that’s Quinn’s point. Joseph Smith wasn’t practicing magic, as he saw it, and only because we may consider that magic according to today’s connotations, we can’t hold Joseph Smith to a current standard. Again, it is odd that Gee focused so much on this because either I completely misunderstood Quinn’s book (or forgot… it has been a couple years since I read it) or Gee is trying to discredit Quinn’s thesis in such a way that he is agreeing with the church’s enemies rather than combating their arguments which is what Quinn’s book does.

Recognition of the fundamental negative bias of the term that Quinn has chosen to employ is something that he fails to acknowledge in either edition. Instead, he rationalizes the accusation of "magic" and "occult" by saying that "millions of Americans living today have turned to systems of the occult" and other forms that he sees as "magic" (pp. xvi-xvii). But would these individuals identify themselves as being involved in "magic" or "systems of the occult"? […]the answer is probably not.

Once again, this demonstrates Quinn’s point.

If anything, the problems with the first edition have only compounded in the second. Only a few of the numerous mistakes in the book can be detailed here. The reader can only wonder what has caused a once-talented author to write utter nonsense.

If Gee is only going to focus on a few, one would think he would include only the most significant ones. Seeing as how the bulk of the review was devoted to terms and definitions, which in the end support Quinn’s thesis, we will turn instead to the small portion of the review devoted to Gee’s criticisms of Quinn’s methods and sources. Gee claims that,

For Quinn, there is no citation without misrepresentation. Every quotation, every reference, every source, every detail in every statement Quinn makes must be checked for accuracy. To test every brick in Quinn's edifice, only to discover that most of them are sponges, is hardly a proper occupation for mortals.

Furthermore,

His method of gathering and analyzing information guarantees a warped perspective. Often Quinn is not consistent, but when he is, his method is to gather all gossip and treat it as substantiated fact, not to sift out the eyewitness reports and rely on them. Any source, regardless of bias or veracity, is taken uncritically at face value (see, e.g., p. 45).

Gee would have us believe that the entire book is something of a fabricated work of misinformation with false citations attached to Quinn’s own creations. Again, assuming that Gee would include some of the more significant examples, let’s look at what he’s got.

For example, Quinn relies greatly on the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits without explaining why; it has been demonstrated from contemporary official records that those who supposedly gave them lied—not just gave inaccurate reminiscences but told blatant falsehoods.45 Why, given the fact that they are demonstrably false, should Quinn insist that "both scholars and casual readers should give greater attention to the reports by Palmyra neighbors" (p. 47)? Appa rently because so much of his case depends on them.
Another suspicious source Quinn refers to repeatedly is a money-digging agreement that Joseph Smith Sr. and Joseph Smith Jr. are supposed to have entered into in 1825. This source looks suspiciously like a forgery. The original is not known despite diligent searching. Instead, a secondhand copy was supplied by one B. Wade to the Salt Lake Tribune,46 at that time a virulently anti-Mormon newspaper, for their 23 April 1880 edition. Indeed, according to another historian, the source of the publication combined with the lack of an original make "the document's actual existence somewhat suspect."47 The presence of the supposed signature of Isaac Hale, who was always opposed to money-digging, seems unusual. Yet instead of exercising discernment or critical acumen, Quinn assumes that the document is genuine without discussing its dubious nature.
Quinn's sources cannot always be confirmed. For example, he supports one of his speculations with "early Utah folklore of the Dibble-Pierce families" (p. 44); however, a member of the Dibble family has denied to me that any such rumors as Quinn reports exist in his family.
Quinn insists that "both scholars and casual readers should give greater attention to the reports by Palmyra neighbors" because they "tend to carry greater weight than later recollections" (p. 47), but on the next page he bases his chronology and "fixed point" on the reminiscences of "cousins of Joseph Smith's wife," given fifty-five years after the fact (pp. 48, 394 n. 158).

As I have said previously, Quinn does a very good job at informing the reader where the information is coming from (who, when etc) and he simply leaves it up to the reader to determine what to make of it. Perhaps it is this aspect of Quinn’s writing style that leaves the door open for people like Gee to trample all over the book. I’m not sure what Gee’s motives are but perhaps this statement from his review sheds some light on the matter, “It is therefore unsurprising that individuals and groups react negatively when their particular beliefs are labeled ‘magic.’” Gee seems to dislike the fact that Quinn would label what Joseph Smith and others were doing as “magic”, and his aversion of the idea appartently causes him not to realize that that is not what Quinn is doing.

[ereves]

Gee also quotes Stephen Robinson,

Quinn must have begun his research when he still had the Hofmann letters and the salamander to serve as the rock of his hypotheses. It was those solid, indisputable historical documents that would give credibility to the rest of his data and make his case come together. Quinn's speculative notes would merely hang like decorations on the solid mass provided by the Hofmann documents, and the greater would justify the lesser. However, as Quinn approached publication, the Hofmann materials were pulled out from under him, leaving a huge salamander-shaped hole in the center of his theory. . . .

Even if the forged letters acted as a catalyst for Quinn's research and subsequent publication, they do not change anything else presented in the book. In the book, Quinn acknowledges the letters as being forged but discusses why such an idea of a salamander being associated with spiritual manifestations/revelations was not so outlandish anyway. Furthermore, the fact that Quinn would seek to publish a book explaining why such a seemingly odd occurance would not discredit the prophet shows his willingness to defend the church rather than attack it.

[ereves]

If anyone is still interested, I found this review helpful,

MAGIC AND THE COMPLEXTITIES OF MORMON HISTORY
EARLY MORMONISM ANDTHE MAGIC WORLD VIEW
by D. Michael Quinn
Signature Books, 1987, $14.95, 313 pp.

Reviewed by Jon Butler
JON BUTLER is a professor of American studies, history, and religious studies at Yale University.

D MICHAEL QUINN’S thesis that a magical world view structured Joseph Smith’s religiosity and early Mormon religious practice inevitably makes Quinn’s book controversial. It could hardly be otherwise, given the murderous recent interest in Mormon history in Salt Lake City. But this is not a merely trendy book. It is a major work of scholarship, formidably researched and vigorously argued, and it challenges scholars in a variety of disciplines, not just those in Mormon history. The issues it raises are as important to religious history generally and to American religious history in particular as they are to Mormonism.

Quinn’s book is important for three reasons. First, it undermines traditional interpretations of Mormonism’s origins and thereby shatters the exceptionalist myth about American and Mormon religion. Second, its choice of evidence opens up major questions about the historian’s conceptualization of scriptural texts. Third, Quinn’s argument brings both Mormonism and American religious history more tightly within the Western intellectual and religious orbit, meaning the expansive West of Europe, not the narrower confines of Utah.

Quinn’s argument is spare and economical. He finds Mormonism rooted in a "magic world often hostile to orthodox Christianity yet sometimes combined with it in powerful ways, especially in Christianity’s popular forms. This "magic worldview" took root in both intellectual and folk sources and showed a distinct preference for a "white," or positive, magic that answered difficult questions, found lost objects, cured disease and prevented death (as first described in Keith Thomas’s magisterial Religion and the Decline of Magic [New York, 1971], a classic book required for any reader interested in Quinn’s argument, pro or con). In Joseph Smith’s case, this interest led from treasure seeking to apparitions to golden plates to healing to miracles," finally to Mormonism in its pre-1880 varieties. Nor was Smith alone. Mormons of many backgrounds and views followed Smith in these practices until they were discarded in a modernizing process of sharp, swift effectiveness that occurred after about 1880.

Is Quinn’s thesis valid? Previous historians (and anti-Mormon detractors) pursued their arguments about Mormon magic through analogical proofs. Their reasoning went as follows: 1) Smith searched for fortunes using weird objects and devices; 2) these objects and devices looked a great deal like the paraphernalia early modern European occultists used to invoke supernatural aid; 3) therefore, Smith was an occultist or practitioner of magic. Direct evidence about eighteenth- or nineteenth-century magic was hard to come by; the century of the Enlightenment seemed to furnish few exemplars for Smith to follow. Worse, Smith’s activities were themselves poorly documented, often only sloppily so by anti Mormon propagandists. Smith’s behavior sometimes looked magical but it was extremely difficult to demonstrate that it was magical.

Quinn’s book caps investigations begun some twenty years ago by Mormon and non- Mormon historians who sought to understand, not discredit, Mormon origins. Even as these investigations began, the distinguished Mormon historian Marvin Hill wrote that their evidence about Mormon magic was too abundant and pervasive "to brush aside or ignore." Quinn makes that evidence mountainous. No one has so amply documented the interest of Joseph Smith and other early Mormons in fortune-finding and witchcraft, their possession of seer stones and use of divining rods and healing sticks, and their ownership of daggers and parchments engraved with acknowledged "magical" symbols. The result is a stunning turn from the mere possibility that early Mormons imbibed magic to an overwhelming probability that they did so.

Quinn accomplishes his feat (to paraphrase John Houseman) the old fashioned way-with evidence. The book is an encyclopedia of American and Mormon occultism from the 1780s through the 1860s, and it culminates in a sixty-plus page bibliography and meticulous index that will allow friend and critic alike to pursue every one of Quinn’s arguments and evidences. Moreover, every one of his important proofs comes from Mormon contemporaries who were not bothered or embarrassed by such practices, such as Lucy Mack Smith and Oliver Cowdery. This kind of proof gives the book special power for historians, who, like jurors, thirst for direct rather than indirect manifestations of an alleged and important behavior. Quinn’s book accomplishes another aim as well. His prodigious research allows him the luxury of never depending on anti-Mormon agitators to substantiate his points. They become little more than interesting antiquarians and controversialists who sometimes correctly perceived magic in early Mormonism but who never understood its origins, depth, or even its importance.

One sometimes wishes that Quinn had written a more leisurely book, as much for himself as for his readers. He might have felt more free to speculate on some of the broader implications of his findings, such as the issue of intellectual chaos in a new religious movement or the competition to define orthodoxy as a religious movement matures. Still, the obsessive pursuit of every scrap of evidence about Mormon magic also accounts for the power of the book and even gives it a certain charm. Certainly, no one will mistake its message.

No, Quinn has not settled the question about Smith’s occultism. Such questions are never settled, at least not in the way that federal budgets are settled. Historians who still are debating John Locke’s influence on the Constitution hardly can be expected to reach quick agreement on an interpretation of Joseph Smith’s occultism. Yet we have made the necessary leap. Like Zeezrom healed by Alma, we need no longer be buffeted by doubt that Smith harbored occult or magical notions and that these found sympathetic responses in thousands of followers.

But what kind of response, to an occultism of what meaning? No longer burdened to demonstrate any influence, we will now contest the ground of what influence. The question about Smith’s occultism-Was Joseph Smith a "magician" and, thereby, a charlatan? (this is not at all the same as asking whether Smith used magic, which is Quinn’s concern)-now will fragment into a thousand slipperier questions, each one of which will be as difficult to answer as the original query. What did Smith take from occultists, metallurgists, and alchemists? What did he transform? Which occultism was more important, the magic that descended from early modern European intellectuals like Francis Barrett, Nicholas Culpeper, and John Heydon, or the anonymous occultism which circulated through visual and verbal "folk" traditions? Did single, coherent folk magic and alchemical traditions find homes in early America, or, like Christianity, did conflicts and tensions characterize their internal histories and dynamics? Was the magic important to Mormon origins also important to Mormon expansion and to its development as a major religion? A Mormon history bloodied by the mere suggestion of magic among its founders surely will be further disturbed as scholars now probe the certainty of that practice.

------

Quinn’s expansive view of early Mormon thinking opens additional questions about the canon of religious movements, including Mormon canonical texts. Jan Shipps already has demonstrated that modern Mormonism accords "First Vision" an importance unknown to the first Mormons. Quinn extends this reconstruction of Mormon texts by reexamining the Book of Mormon and the physical artifacts that Smith frequently carried with him. Quinn’s techniques are commonplace among European medievalists, none of whom would write religious history by focusing, for example, on only a few of Thomas Aquinas’s works. Texts from many sources, some avowedly "popular," as wall as sculpture, painting, and physical artifacts have long comprised their canon, and Quinn and the medievalists may yet teach American religious historians important lessons about textual diversity in all facets of American religion.

Quinn also tells us something important about the breadth of the Mormon texts. Quinn’s subject is Mormonism as well as Joseph Smith, and he quite rightly examined many "texts" produced by many Mormons who "founded" as fully as Joseph Smith did. Puritanism, Presbyterianism, Christian Science, and Scientology all cry out for similar canonical redefinition because historians too often restrict themselves to the most familiar and traditional materials, thereby missing movers as much as movements. In taking this expansive view of the canon, Quinn has raised an important question: are a movement’s texts comprised of only a few sources taken from a few persons, or are they defined by many sources culled from many adherents? The answer defines the subject and its history simultaneously: whose text, whose scripture, whose religion. In the case of Mormonism, only by adopting the broadest conceptualization of "text" can we understand its tumultuous origins and take seriously the extraordinary proselytizing that established Mormonism as the most important religious tradition born (but not conceived) in the antebellum American spiritual hothouse.

------

Finally, Quinn’s argument about magic and Mormonism demonstrates that we can no longer consider Mormonism the uniquely American phenomenon we once believed or hoped it was. Quinn’s Mormons are not nearly so idiosyncratic or unique as historians might have dreamed. They fit with surprising ease into intellectual and spiritual traditions relatively common in early modern Europe. An interpretation that stresses Mormonism’s links to its surrounding cultures is not surprising, of course. David Davis long ago uncovered Mormonism’s Puritan roots; Gordon Wood has written about its evangelical origins; Jan Shipps has reminded us of its developmental complexities. Now, Quinn has uncovered new cultural matrixes important to shaping Mormon origins, from seventeenth-century Hermeticists to Emanuel Swedenborg to early nineteenthcentury popularizers of traditional folk wisdom to Christianity, of course, in both learned and popular varieties. No one who has read Quinn’s book and likes it could any longer describe Mormonism as exemplifying the naive tradition in American culture. This realization might also encourage the same reader to rethink stereotypes about more general American- European cultural and religious separation, which guide American historical scholarship more fully now than they did thirty years ago.

In the end, Quinn’s book does what good books always do. In telling us about Mormonism’s magical heritage, its multiple "texts," and its churning European intellectual and cultural roots, it tells us about Mormonism’s intricacies and, especially, its vast, often rambunctious complexities. These complexities always have distinguished Mormon religiosity. Increasingly, they distinguish its history. Quinn’s book reflects that growing maturity. It would be a shame for both American and Mormon religious history if complexity, which always reflects maturity, were banished in favor of alluring, but always false, simplicity.

[clarkkent14]

njb,

oh dear... you miss the point. I don't care about Stephen Covey. He's not the reason people think we're "new agey" and didn't vote for Romney. Just because you can google something: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c12.html, doesn't make it relevant to the conversation. (Bella and I have discussed Covey and the New Age)

Do I have to do the research for you? If You Vote for Mitt Romney You are Voting for Satan. Still no real evidence to back up your statement.

Somebody help me out. Am I missing something. Am I asking a question that's too hard to understand?

Where is the evidence that the US population and the average Christian didn't vote for Romney because we are New Agey?

[Rosabella]

when presented with indisputable evidence -libel the presenter and attack his source.

njb

Its New Age Underpinnings
Apart from its Mormon roots, Covey's products and programs are problematic for the Christian due to Covey's promotion of New Age teachers and practices. Covey is well versed in the New Age teachings and practices of its adherents because he often runs in the same circles as they, appearing on panels and at seminars. This is especially evident in his inclusion in the overtly New Age compendium, Handbook for the Soul.
Both SH and SF have a number of quotes or references to New Age proponents and books. These include Marilyn Ferguson (The Aquarian Conspiracy), M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled), Marianne Williamson (A Return to Love), John Gray (Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus), Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen (Chicken Soup for the Soul) and Oprah Winfrey. Among the New Age practices referred to are visualization and affirmation, subliminal programming, neurolinguistic programming and "new forms of relaxation and self-talk processes." Concerning these new age techniques he states, "These all involve explanation, elaboration and different packaging of the fundamental principles of the first creation ...I think most of the material is fundamentally sound" (SH p. 134). Incredulously, he adds, "The majority of it appears to have originally come out of the study of the Bible by many individuals." This appears to legitimize these occult practices.
The new age practice of visualization is prominent in Covey's books and training materials. These meditation/self hypnosis techniques, according to Covey, involve getting the mind in a relaxed state through deep breathing and progressive muscle relaxation for the purpose of reprogramming or rescripting oneself (SH p. 133), are forms of programming (p. 135) and are powerful in that "if you visualize the wrong thing you will produce the wrong thing" (p. 134).
In addition, he not only quotes new age leader Marilyn Ferguson (p. 60) but also refers to her New Age primer, The Aquarian Conspiracy, as a "landmark book" (SF p. 125) and in quoting Marianne Williamson he invokes the basic tenet of the New Age that all are God and God is all, or in all. "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure...We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us it's in everyone" (SF p. 348).
Covey has also referred to the laws of nature as "what Carl Jung called the unconscious, the collective unconscious, that pervades all humanity regardless of their upbringing, their religion, their cultural heritage, their scripting, whatever it is" (Anthony Robbins' Personal Power II, Vol. 12, track 7). Based upon this, Covey puts forth the idea that a group that attains "synergy" - the proper exchange of information and ideas - and comes to proper understanding, will, individually and separately, come to a collective agreement on their mission statement or principles. New Agers refer to a similar concept in their belief in the "100th Monkey Syndrome."

Conclusion: njb correct again.
http://bible.cc/matthew/11-15.htm

I do not know Covey personally, but I have been very concerned with his associations and some concepts in his books. He bears his testimony of the Gospel and at the same time sounds very similar to the New Spirituality. It is very hard to tell the difference between the two. It is all in the definition of God.

The Christians do not seem to be pointing at Mormon doctrine but at Covey doctrine. Covey's doctrine quite often resonates so close to the New Spirituality people can not tell the difference. I do not at this time have a concrete idea of what Covey really intends in his writings. It is deeply disturbing he would quote those names listed above as any kind of good books for they are New Spirituality teachers and doctrines. I have all those books. Aquarian Conspiracy is completely occult, there is nothing in it that can appear as not occult. She openly admits the New Age Spirituality conspiracy to take over the world's spirituality. I will have to do sourcing on this matter to see if Covey is suggesting these authors' books.

The issue many Christians have with the parallels of Mormons and the New Spirituality is that both espouse the idea that we can become Gods. The difference in the ideology is that in Mormonism you must submit your will to Father who is a real Being and purify yourself and become like Him to become a God. In the New Spirituality you merely need to remember you are God and that everyone is God. There is no sin, no judgment just the fact that all is God. Love and nonjudgmentalness is the god they preach. God is just a force not a Being and we are all part of the force therefore we are all god.

I posted on the thread more details of what the New Spirituality teaches: "famous quote by Marianne Williamson"
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 32&t=10825

[ndjili]

No one here is afraid of church history. This thread is about Quinn. I think his character is extremely important. When his other writing is attacking church leaders or used to justify his lifestyle one has to wonder what makes this one book of such a person so "credible". Well unless you all agree with his other works and well then we have a problem. I think it's pretty telling when someone attacks the heirarchy of the church as he does.

[notjamesbond003.5]

njb,

oh dear... you miss the point. I don't care about Stephen Covey. He's not the reason people think we're "new agey" and didn't vote for Romney. Just because you can google something: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c12.html, doesn't make it relevant to the conversation. (Bella and I have discussed Covey and the New Age)

Do I have to do the research for you? If You Vote for Mitt Romney You are Voting for Satan. Still no real evidence to back up your statement.

Somebody help me out. Am I missing something. Am I asking a question that's too hard to understand?

Where is the evidence that the US population and the average Christian didn't vote for Romney because we are New Agey?

Out-of-body experiences fascinate Christians and non-Christians alike. Mystical meetings with angelic beings and "a bright light" seem to sell books whether the author speaks from a New Age perspective as did Betty Eadie in Embraced by the Light or from a "Christian" perspective as do Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins in the Indwelling.

Few have popularized such mystical encounters more effectively among Christians than Betty Eadie. During her supposed "near-death" experience [her doctor refused to verify that she nearly died], she sensed herself float up toward heaven, saw her own body below, approached a bright light and met a loving person who appeared "more brilliant than the sun." Three "angels" answered her questions about eternal life and explained an occult spiritual system that merged her Mormon and Native American heritage with contemporary New Age teachings. Her experience contradicts the Bible on every point, but that seems insignificant to those who love her message.

Pigeon hole attempt again. Won't work.

It's in the poll I posted earlier if you read between the lines.
The US won't elect a Muslim because they see them too far removed from Christianity-similarly with Mormons.


Non member's perception is that we are connected with the occult and new age theories, that we are non Christian-incorrect but an accurate assessment of the situation.

It's ok, go bury your head in the sand, instead of trying to wrap your brain around something so obvious.

njb

[clarkkent14]

It's in the poll I posted earlier if you read between the lines.

Oh I see... read between the lines.

[ndjili]

I thought that people were too afraid of muslims due to all the 9/11 terroism thing and um people think we're more a cult than part of the New Age. It's a bit different.

[clarkkent14]

I thought that people were too afraid of muslims due to all the 9/11 terroism thing and um people think we're more a cult tan part of the New Age. It's a bit different.

Exactly... cult.

[notjamesbond003.5]

when presented with indisputable evidence -libel the presenter and attack his source.

njb

Its New Age Underpinnings
Apart from its Mormon roots, Covey's products and programs are problematic for the Christian due to Covey's promotion of New Age teachers and practices. Covey is well versed in the New Age teachings and practices of its adherents because he often runs in the same circles as they, appearing on panels and at seminars. This is especially evident in his inclusion in the overtly New Age compendium, Handbook for the Soul.
Both SH and SF have a number of quotes or references to New Age proponents and books. These include Marilyn Ferguson (The Aquarian Conspiracy), M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled), Marianne Williamson (A Return to Love), John Gray (Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus), Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen (Chicken Soup for the Soul) and Oprah Winfrey. Among the New Age practices referred to are visualization and affirmation, subliminal programming, neurolinguistic programming and "new forms of relaxation and self-talk processes." Concerning these new age techniques he states, "These all involve explanation, elaboration and different packaging of the fundamental principles of the first creation ...I think most of the material is fundamentally sound" (SH p. 134). Incredulously, he adds, "The majority of it appears to have originally come out of the study of the Bible by many individuals." This appears to legitimize these occult practices.
The new age practice of visualization is prominent in Covey's books and training materials. These meditation/self hypnosis techniques, according to Covey, involve getting the mind in a relaxed state through deep breathing and progressive muscle relaxation for the purpose of reprogramming or rescripting oneself (SH p. 133), are forms of programming (p. 135) and are powerful in that "if you visualize the wrong thing you will produce the wrong thing" (p. 134).
In addition, he not only quotes new age leader Marilyn Ferguson (p. 60) but also refers to her New Age primer, The Aquarian Conspiracy, as a "landmark book" (SF p. 125) and in quoting Marianne Williamson he invokes the basic tenet of the New Age that all are God and God is all, or in all. "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure...We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us it's in everyone" (SF p. 348).
Covey has also referred to the laws of nature as "what Carl Jung called the unconscious, the collective unconscious, that pervades all humanity regardless of their upbringing, their religion, their cultural heritage, their scripting, whatever it is" (Anthony Robbins' Personal Power II, Vol. 12, track 7). Based upon this, Covey puts forth the idea that a group that attains "synergy" - the proper exchange of information and ideas - and comes to proper understanding, will, individually and separately, come to a collective agreement on their mission statement or principles. New Agers refer to a similar concept in their belief in the "100th Monkey Syndrome."

Conclusion: njb correct again.
http://bible.cc/matthew/11-15.htm

I do not know Covey personally, but I have been very concerned with his associations and some concepts in his books. He bears his testimony of the Gospel and at the same time sounds very similar to the New Spirituality. It is very hard to tell the difference between the two. It is all in the definition of God.

The Christians do not seem to be pointing at Mormon doctrine but at Covey doctrine. Covey's doctrine quite often resonates so close to the New Spirituality people can not tell the difference. I do not at this time have a concrete idea of what Covey really intends in his writings. It is deeply disturbing he would quote those names listed above as any kind of good books for they are New Spirituality teachers and doctrines. I have all those books. Aquarian Conspiracy is completely occult, there is nothing in it that can appear as not occult. She openly admits the New Age Spirituality conspiracy to take over the world's spirituality. I will have to do sourcing on this matter to see if Covey is suggesting these authors' books.

The issue many Christians have with the parallels of Mormons and the New Spirituality is that both espouse the idea that we can become Gods. The difference in the ideology is that in Mormonism you must submit your will to Father who is a real Being and purify yourself and become like Him to become a God. In the New Spirituality you merely need to remember you are God and that everyone is God. There is no sin, no judgment just the fact that all is God. Love and nonjudgmentalness is the god they preach. God is just a force not a Being and we are all part of the force therefore we are all god.

I posted on the thread more details of what the New Spirituality teaches: "famous quote by Marianne Williamson"
http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 32&t=10825

Bella,

Thank you for your insights, they don't go unheeded.
That said, I've often heard that Covey used B of M principles in 7 Effective Habits.

He of course is parsing his language to the audience he is attempting to reach, the same way Ammon did to King Lamoni in the Book of Mormon.

3 And the king answered him, and said: Yea, I awill believe all thy words. And thus he was caught with guile.
24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?
25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.
26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
27 And he said, Yea.

Well we both know that God the Father isn't a Great Spirit and I'm sure Ammon did.

That said does that make Ammon a false teacher, or a teacher, teaching by the Spirit, line upon line-because he let Lamoni think God was a "Great Spirit" at that moment in time?

njb

[Rosabella]

when presented with indisputable evidence -libel the presenter and attack his source.

njb

Its New Age Underpinnings
Apart from its Mormon roots, Covey's products and programs are problematic for the Christian due to Covey's promotion of New Age teachers and practices. Covey is well versed in the New Age teachings and practices of its adherents because he often runs in the same circles as they, appearing on panels and at seminars. This is especially evident in his inclusion in the overtly New Age compendium, Handbook for the Soul.
Both SH and SF have a number of quotes or references to New Age proponents and books. These include Marilyn Ferguson (The Aquarian Conspiracy), M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Traveled), Marianne Williamson (A Return to Love), John Gray (Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus), Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen (Chicken Soup for the Soul) and Oprah Winfrey. Among the New Age practices referred to are visualization and affirmation, subliminal programming, neurolinguistic programming and "new forms of relaxation and self-talk processes." Concerning these new age techniques he states, "These all involve explanation, elaboration and different packaging of the fundamental principles of the first creation ...I think most of the material is fundamentally sound" (SH p. 134). Incredulously, he adds, "The majority of it appears to have originally come out of the study of the Bible by many individuals." This appears to legitimize these occult practices.
The new age practice of visualization is prominent in Covey's books and training materials. These meditation/self hypnosis techniques, according to Covey, involve getting the mind in a relaxed state through deep breathing and progressive muscle relaxation for the purpose of reprogramming or rescripting oneself (SH p. 133), are forms of programming (p. 135) and are powerful in that "if you visualize the wrong thing you will produce the wrong thing" (p. 134).
In addition, he not only quotes new age leader Marilyn Ferguson (p. 60) but also refers to her New Age primer, The Aquarian Conspiracy, as a "landmark book" (SF p. 125) and in quoting Marianne Williamson he invokes the basic tenet of the New Age that all are God and God is all, or in all. "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure...We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us it's in everyone" (SF p. 348).
Covey has also referred to the laws of nature as "what Carl Jung called the unconscious, the collective unconscious, that pervades all humanity regardless of their upbringing, their religion, their cultural heritage, their scripting, whatever it is" (Anthony Robbins' Personal Power II, Vol. 12, track 7). Based upon this, Covey puts forth the idea that a group that attains "synergy" - the proper exchange of information and ideas - and comes to proper understanding, will, individually and separately, come to a collective agreement on their mission statement or principles. New Agers refer to a similar concept in their belief in the "100th Monkey Syndrome."

Conclusion: njb correct again.
http://bible.cc/matthew/11-15.htm



Bella,

Thank you for your insights, they don't go unheeded.
That said, I've often heard that Covey used B of M principles in 7 Effective Habits.

He of course is parsing his language to the audience he is attempting to reach, the same way Ammon did to King Lamoni in the Book of Mormon.

3 And the king answered him, and said: Yea, I awill believe all thy words. And thus he was caught with guile.
24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?
25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.
26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
27 And he said, Yea.

Well we both know that God the Father isn't a Great Spirit and I'm sure Ammon did.

That said does that make Ammon a false teacher, or a teacher, teaching by the Spirit, line upon line-because he let Lamoni think God was a "Great Spirit" at that moment in time?

njb

I agree, that is why I have not said he is a false teacher. My only concern is who he is quoting and associating with. If he is just there as a sheep amidst the wolves preaching truth I support him completely. If though he is leading people to these teachers of the New Spirituality then I would be concerned that he is harming and not helping the kingdom. For if he is promoting the books listed above that are part of the New Age Spirituality, some of which are extreme examples of it, then that would be very disheartening.

[notjamesbond003.5]

I thought that people were too afraid of muslims due to all the 9/11 terroism thing and um people think we're more a cult than part of the New Age. It's a bit different.

If you and clarkkent.00014 got together and conducted a scientific poll and asked 1000 random people across the USA:

Do you think the LDS/Mormon Church is a similar religion to most Christian Churches in the USA?
What do you think the results would be?

Yes 22%
No 72%
Not Sure 6%

If you had a follow up question something like:

Do you think the LDS Church has occult or New Age Spiritualism practices and tenets in their Faith?

What do you think the answers would honestly be?
Something like:

Yes 72%
Not Sure 20%
No 8%

But you guys don't want to discuss this honestly and objectively-so I'm done with you.

Thanks again Bella for your insights.

njb

[ndjili]

Me thinks it is you that have a problem being objective.