Discussion: Wayne Dyer's 10 Secrets

[jpholding]

Dyer's Ten Dumbmandments

Or, Guff from the Guru


Back in the 1980s, I recall often seeing Wayne Dyer's smiling face beaming from the covers of the "Popular Books" shelf at the public library. The self-help genre seemed of little use to me, so I never picked one up unless it was as part of my job to put one back on the shelf. Now, recently, a reader has asked us to take a look at what Dyer has to offer, in part because he makes use of the Bible in his teachings (need I tell you, that he seriously decontextualizes?). We have chosen to look at a recent work of his titled 10 Secrets for Success and Inner Peace. Our general reactions to this work can be categorized as follows:

"Well, that's good advice, but who wouldn't recommend that?" (20%)
"Gee, I do the opposite of this and I have plenty of inner peace!" (40%)
"Wayne, are you out of your gourd?" (40%)

If the latter reaction seems strong, please consider that it comes as a result of one of Dyer's premier forms of advice, which amounts to: "Just ignore or redefine the problem such that as far as you are concerned, it no longer exists." It may well be said that a person under the influence of chloroform certainly has "inner peace"; and much of Dyer's advice amounts to giving yourself a good mental dose.

And so with that preliminary described, let's take a look at some points out of Dyer's 10 bits. Note that this critique is not meant to be exhaustive -- it merely reflects what struck me most, and as also most relevant to our mission .

"Have a Mind that is Open to Everything and Attached to Nothing". Yes, really. This is just the latest version of that most famous of self-contradictory pieces of advice in the same family as, "There are no absolutes." ("Are you absolutely sure?") Dyer is wise enough not to make the contradiction mind-numbingly apparent -- he does not come out and say that there is no objective truth -- he rather encourages the reader to "open your mind to all possibilities, to resist any efforts to be pigeonholed, and to refuse to allow pessimism into your consciosuness." [5]

Dyer's reason for this advice, though, is not because of any sort of epistemic issues, but because he believes that it is the only way to achieve a peaceful world. Indeed. Is the absurdity not obvious? "Open your mind to all possibilities" (including tyranny, racism, and bigotry)? It is doubtful that Dyer wants to get that far, but once he closes the door on one system, the cat is out of the bag and runs into that door facefirst. "Resist any efforts to be pigeonholed" -- all right; there is some value in others not classifying you, though we wonder if Dyer would appreciate it if, in public libraries, his book were not put into the catalog or on the shelf with similar books, but just thrown anywhere on the floor, or down an elevator shaft, or onto the roof. "Refuse to allow pessimism into your consciousness" -- excuse me? But didn't Dyer just say to remain open in mind to ALL possibilities? And isn't pessimism one of these? The rub of this is that the average reader will probably never see this open contradiction, and Dyer probably does not either. Dyer also appeals to lack of human knowledge in a huge universe as a reason to remain open-minded [9-10], but I am sure he would have little patience with a Klansman who demanded that we should wait a bit to see if aliens from Weebo come and reveal to us that non-white races really are inferior. Or would he? He tells us in a section farther on that "everything" in his statement "means just what it says. No exceptions" -- and it is presented as a case of someone presenting that to you which conflicts with your "conditioning". You are right, Dr. Wayne. The next time a motorcycle gang stops by and suggests a rumble at the nursing home, I will fight my "conditioning" to respect the elderly and ask for a 10 foot chain!

Dyer does here offer specifics: "If someone suggests that crystals can cure hemorrhoids, that natural herbs can lower cholesterol, that people will eventually be able to breate underwater, or that levitation is possible -- listen, and be curious." Hmm. Sounds like the Roman Piso dog encouraging us to ignore classical scholarship. It is never made clear what Dyer thinks of clinical trials, testing, or research, but the fact that he quotes (more than once) as authoritative the channeled Course in Miracles lends us a hint that if it came down to a choice between a cardiologist with serious tests who recommended surgery, and a channeled spirit being who said to just go home and relax, Dyer would tell the cardiologist to take a hike. At the very least, Dyer does not say not to do this, which is at least the height of irresponsibility. One wonders if someone who tried crystals for hemorrhoids, and failed, would have any case against Dyer in court.

It is in this section that Dyer also first abuses the Scriptures, quoting Matt. 19:26b, "With God all things are possible." Note that "with" is presented as the beginning; what's missing? 19:26a, to start: "With men this is impossible" -- though Dyer gives himself a case of midrash by claiming that we must have a sense of ourself as "Godlike". Second, that Jewish background understanding that presupposes that God's will is all that permits "all things".

"Don't Die with your Music Still in You." Once he is done promoting either pantheism or panentheism [21], Dyer offers some decent advice about taking risks and chances for success. Any businessman would tell you this, but it is hard to decide just how much risk Dyer is suggesting, and whether it is as far as promoting irresponsibility. There is some value in realistic assessments of self; it accords with a Biblical understanding of humility. But Dyer goes on to insist that, "Failure is a judgment. It's just an opinion." He also implies that if you love what you do, there can be no failure. Once again we wonder if Dyer could be sued in a court of law by someone who followed this advice, and ended up, say, with boxes of spoiled salsa and bills out the door because they didn't consider themselves a failure when everyone returned their nasty-tasting salsa for a refund, even after he invested all he had in a salsa-making business. Is Dyer for real? Or does he perhaps realize that he is safe giving advice that few will follow, and that those who do follow it will simply evade their failures by redefining what a "failure" is in context? "I am not a failure! I am very good at making bad salsa!"

When reading Dyer, it seems that it is best not to think too deeply -- and the same could be said when applying his advice as well.

"You Can't Give Away What You Don't Have" -- more common sense on a roll? More or less. Here though we learn that Dyer believes in magical "energies" that the universe responds to; if you are a demanding person, the universe responds with "demanding energies" and will petulantly send demanding people your way to teach you a lesson. We're wondering when Dyer is going to put some of these "energies" into a test tube for us, whether he'll provide a systematic study showing that demanding people as a whole get demanding people put on them all the time, and finally whether this isn't just same ad hoc excuse Dyer cooked up based on nothing (or at best, anecdotes). On the other hand, Dyer's advice to be less self-concerned has been the advocacy of Christianity, to say nothing of the collectivists of the ancient and modern thousands of times longer than his books have been on the shelf.

"Embrace Silence" -- I can relate here. Dyer pleads for us to escape the noise of the city and get into the sounds of nature; to moderate stimulus is again just good common sense. On the other hand it's hard not to ruin the magic. Dyer recommends the usual mantra sounds like "ahhhh" and "ommmm" and maybe even "yeeeech": for the first we are assured, it is in "virtually all names of the divine" and he lists Krishna, Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah (apparently not aware this is a version of the second!), Ra, and Ptah [56]. Don't mess things up by asking where to find that sound in Visnhu, Thor, Odin, Loki, Isis, Osiris, or Zeus, though. Also, if you were wondering why the guy ahead of you didn't move at the green light, Dyer helpfully tells us it was him meditating [57]. Finally we have another Bible abuse quote: "That which is seen, hath not come from that which doth appear." It is abused to tell us not to divulge the "private insights" of what we intend to create. The real context Heb. 11:3, says "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" -- a statement that has of course to do with the creation process of Genesis.

"Give Up Your Personal History" -- Good advice to let go of the past. Ironically Dyer is here telling us to be more like the ancients, who were very present-oriented. However, they also valued the past more than the future.

"You Can't Solve a Problem with the Same Mind That Created It" -- If you think I was kidding about Dyer's advice to redefine problems out of existence, this will prove it: "In the world of Spirit, or God, problems simply don't exist and aren't real." [86] "If you change your mind, you will solve your problem." But then, in direct contradiction to the advice to remain open to "all" possibilities in point 1, we are told to "bring truth" to problems to resolve them. Then again we are told, "By actually rewriting your agreement with reality, you can change your mind and send away any perceived problem." [88] That apparently includes the problem of open self-contradiction.
What Dyer offers is a "mystical consciousness" -- perhaps what he is striving for is the answer, "All things work for good for those who love God." In that respect, one can see problems not as "unreal" but as something real which a greater reality will subsume.

"There are no Justified Resentments" -- Good advice to become someone who can't be offended -- assuming that this does not mean, getting rid of your sense of justice. Dyer is never quite clear on this, though the examples he gives of things not to be offended by (a sneeze, someone cursing) seem mostly trivial. Most of the section though speaks of those unverified "energies" Dyer sees running around loose in the universe. We do have news for him: "Love your enemies" was already said -- though what Dyer calls "love" is not what the Bible calls it.

"Treat Yourself As If You Already Are What You'd Like to Be" -- hmmm. In certain places, this advice is called egotism. You can imagine what the media would have said, had George W. treated himself like President before he was elected and started demanding Secret Service protection (or hired lookalikes), showing up at international conferences next to Bill Clinton, and submitted a budget to Capitol Hill. But Dyer does not quite encourage that; for example, while he tells you that if you have a dream car, you should paste pictures of it on your fridge, visit a showroom and sit in it and walk all around it and even feel it, take it for a test drive, and visualize your entitlement to it, he doesn't advocate, thank heavens, just taking it. He says, do all this, talk about it a lot, leave a picture of it on your computer, etc. Hmmm. In certain places, isn't this advice otherwise called a childish obsession?

In the end, Dyer subscribes to the "you create reality" paradigm -- and he claims it "works for virtually everything." Note that sly qualifier. Before he speaks to an audience, he sees them as "loving, supportive, and having a terrific experience." Now isn't that a setup that smells? He already has a plan for in case you get unhappy and throw tomatoes (he did say, "virtually" everything); and how does one decide whether the audience was supportive because (after all) Dyer's message is so mushy and unoffensive and sentimentalist and ear-tickling, and whether it was supportive because Dyer waved his magic brain lobe (where they would all have thrown tomatoes, had he not done this)? Fidel Castro wants to know if this will work for him when he goes to the UN.

"Treasure Your Divinity" -- uh oh. Yep. This is how it is: "When you dip your glass into the ocean, what you have is a glass of God. It's not as big or as strong, but it's still God." I wonder if Dyer affirms, "When you use the toilet..." Anyway, Dyer here stumps for his apparent panentheism as something to remind yourself of to keep yourself happy. Personally I find it a little insulting to suppose that I am God and so is what my pomeranian/poodle did outside this morning.

"Wisdom is Avoiding All Thoughts That Weaken You" -- Dyer seems to have stretched to get to 10. This is the same advice as has been given all through the book, which amounts to, "Redefine everything so that you can be happy." Not shockingly, Dyer says that shame and guilt are the thoughts that most weaken you, which will come as amazing news to the 70% of the world that is still "honor and shame" in orientation, so that in essence Dyer has insulted over 70% of the world today, and 99.9% of the world throughout history, is/has been weakening itself physically and emotionally in the worst way, and are all weak people for using shame to reform others [149]. The arrogance of modern Westerners is a sight to behold.

So what to say, in conclusion? Dyer is quite the ear-tickler, but we have to wonder what he'll do for a living if the readers ever wake up. We'll have a look at another of his books some other time.

[Troy]

Deceptions of Wayne Dyer - Teaching How to Feel Good

He believe the source of all things is the source of INTENTION. But he is unable to say that source is Jesus Christ, none other. Wayne also says and assumes that we are one with the source. And it is the belief that we are one with the source that lets us connects with the source. But my view as received by God's Spirit, is that God says we are not connected and that we need to get connected by believing in His Son.

Wayne also says that if we are not feeling good, that we are disconnected. He is really judging our feelings like a psychologist working his ability around them to make them positive. The truth is that we can not do this, for we are using our self-life power to achieve an objective, a perceived intention, to reach some unascertained ultimate, really. Yet such feelings of a feeling that are negative are real and authentic since feelings have both their negative and positive side. Such a feeling has its role and purpose, and it will even be used by the evil spirit to gain a foothold on us, so we must realize who it is we are really at war with in spiritual warfare.

If a person has a sad feeling, feel sad. For it is not feeling that is our guiding principle, but it is spirit, and a spirit in Christ with the Holy Spirit indwelt. Feelings can easily deceive. But Wayne's suggestion is to almost "pretend" self-positivism and it will then manifest. By imagining that which you want, you shall have it, he says. Yet, by his words, grace is not a consideration, the grace of God, in this dispensation of grace. We create our own reality, he says. Contemplate ourselves around these conditions to achieve them, he says. And the essence of this is connecting to the vibrating source energy in vibrational harmony of the highest energy in the universe, he says. Yet how is this possible, I pray, if there is a rejection of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for you? How can we reject the man who said he was the "First and the Last" and the One who died and rose again (Rev. 1.18), and who said "I AM" as God of the Old Testament said. For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (John 1.1) Jesus Christ.

It is impossible to make such a statement and then seek a profit, even one cent.

Do not believe Wayne, in his claim, that too feel good is to feel God with an extra "o", for God never reaches you through your feelings, but through your spirit (in your inner man), and even if you feel bad, is this really so bad, but it is another opportunity for your faith in Christ to be tested. Wayne presumes already our connection with God, but what we learn is that a man who says he believes in God is not the same as another person who says he believes in God, since the former does not believe in Jesus Christ as God in the flesh and the latter does.

What is Wayne Dyer really doing? First off, obviously Wayne Dyer is not a Christian. Secondly, he is depersonalizing the three Persons of the Godhead into a vibrating energy impersonally, attempting to degrade and define or dissect God, or make Him but a "field of energy" as he puts it, not keeping the Creator and the created separate. For such a separation is necessary in order for us to come closer. In the eternity of future, salvation is God's gift to those who believe - with God and the Lamb at the center of the New City in the New Heaven and those who are saved as pillars in the city (Rev. 21 and 22.1,4).

Wayne is using his vast talent for goodness and great concepts, but the reality is that he is not exalting Jesus Christ but another god. Wayne in so doing, is really exalting himself and his talents, even for profit of book sales. His guiding principle is an energy level and the "good self", his own standard. He keeps saying, "be positive, be positive" and you will be positive, is the essence of his teaching. How much more beautiful if what he did was for Christ and not for hostility towards the Son of God, and nothing less than who He is, God in the Second Person, resurrected who was forever in the past and forever in the future. Not even once does he glorify God in such a way. What are we to think?

The reality of truth in Jesus Christ, is that God does not operate this way in what I like to call "positivism" or as Wayne Dyer calls it, "7 fields of intention" or "summoning power". Wayne uses the terms "sorcery" of the "sorcerer", always taking away God's 3 Persons, a belated attempt, for it is sorcerers that try to access fields of energy of a non-descript sorcerer. This is really a self-summoning, self-convincing, self-inspiring without the grace of God. Talent can make it look authentic.

True faith lasts forever and receives true grace. We can not force ourselves to be that which we are not for it is like covering up sin, or trying to override God. No mention of sin and the law is identified as the cause of separation by Wayne, which is not a self-identifying law, but the law of God. Self-convincing is never a means of receiving the grace of a conscience in Christ.

Watchman Nee (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm) said it best, that a Wayne Dyer type would be a man operating in the "latent power of his soul" though unsaved. Wayne Dyer has not received a dividing of his spirit, soul and body to walk after the spirit because God has not given Wayne Dyer the gift of the Holy Spirit to do such a dividing that comes through spiritual life from receiving eternal life. But this should not be surprising since all Dyer is doing is rejecting Christ and accessing a vibrating source of the evil spirit for self-actualization sugar-coated reasonings, famous quotes, and displays, that of false prophets, as refined as any man can be with no consideration of men who were for God or not for God in their contemplation - that is, God of the Bible. It is not in Wayne Dyer's consciousness to realize that the Hebrews were the first nation God revealed Himself to after the fall.

To observe how separated from God men are and how hard it will be to truly believe according to John 6.47 (to simply believe, such a simple acceptance of the one who made you) by the fact that so few come to Christ, all we need to do is turn to the Word of God and God's plan for the new city. (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/NewCity.htm) When I discern which of the four major groups opposed to Christ, the category that Wayne Dyer falls under is Thomasines (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lostbooks.htm) - New Agers. As Solomon, the wisest of men in the Bible, said in Ecclesiastes, "Nothing under the sun is truly new. What can you point to hat is truly new? How do you know it didn't already exist long ago? (v.9). Such men were here before, and they will come again. They will be forgotten as hard as they try in vain to be remembered (v.11),

Troy Brooks

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/WayneDyer.htm

[Lazy Agnostic]

People who seem most-edified by their faith/discipline are those who at some point, and some degree, learn to gently push aside ego/ordinary thoughts.

Why would the Creator care if you got his name wrong?

[WSCEBU]

Dyer's Ten Dumbmandments

Or, Guff from the Guru


Back in the 1980s, I recall often seeing Wayne Dyer's smiling face beaming from the covers of the "Popular Books" shelf at the public library. The self-help genre seemed of little use to me, so I never picked one up unless it was as part of my job to put one back on the shelf. Now, recently, a reader has asked us to take a look at what Dyer has to offer, in part because he makes use of the Bible in his teachings (need I tell you, that he seriously decontextualizes?). We have chosen to look at a recent work of his titled 10 Secrets for Success and Inner Peace. Our general reactions to this work can be categorized as follows:

"Well, that's good advice, but who wouldn't recommend that?" (20%)
"Gee, I do the opposite of this and I have plenty of inner peace!" (40%)
"Wayne, are you out of your gourd?" (40%)

If the latter reaction seems strong, please consider that it comes as a result of one of Dyer's premier forms of advice, which amounts to: "Just ignore or redefine the problem such that as far as you are concerned, it no longer exists." It may well be said that a person under the influence of chloroform certainly has "inner peace"; and much of Dyer's advice amounts to giving yourself a good mental dose.

And so with that preliminary described, let's take a look at some points out of Dyer's 10 bits. Note that this critique is not meant to be exhaustive -- it merely reflects what struck me most, and as also most relevant to our mission .

"Have a Mind that is Open to Everything and Attached to Nothing". Yes, really. This is just the latest version of that most famous of self-contradictory pieces of advice in the same family as, "There are no absolutes." ("Are you absolutely sure?") Dyer is wise enough not to make the contradiction mind-numbingly apparent -- he does not come out and say that there is no objective truth -- he rather encourages the reader to "open your mind to all possibilities, to resist any efforts to be pigeonholed, and to refuse to allow pessimism into your consciosuness." [5]

Dyer's reason for this advice, though, is not because of any sort of epistemic issues, but because he believes that it is the only way to achieve a peaceful world. Indeed. Is the absurdity not obvious? "Open your mind to all possibilities" (including tyranny, racism, and bigotry)? It is doubtful that Dyer wants to get that far, but once he closes the door on one system, the cat is out of the bag and runs into that door facefirst. "Resist any efforts to be pigeonholed" -- all right; there is some value in others not classifying you, though we wonder if Dyer would appreciate it if, in public libraries, his book were not put into the catalog or on the shelf with similar books, but just thrown anywhere on the floor, or down an elevator shaft, or onto the roof. "Refuse to allow pessimism into your consciousness" -- excuse me? But didn't Dyer just say to remain open in mind to ALL possibilities? And isn't pessimism one of these? The rub of this is that the average reader will probably never see this open contradiction, and Dyer probably does not either. Dyer also appeals to lack of human knowledge in a huge universe as a reason to remain open-minded [9-10], but I am sure he would have little patience with a Klansman who demanded that we should wait a bit to see if aliens from Weebo come and reveal to us that non-white races really are inferior. Or would he? He tells us in a section farther on that "everything" in his statement "means just what it says. No exceptions" -- and it is presented as a case of someone presenting that to you which conflicts with your "conditioning". You are right, Dr. Wayne. The next time a motorcycle gang stops by and suggests a rumble at the nursing home, I will fight my "conditioning" to respect the elderly and ask for a 10 foot chain!

Dyer does here offer specifics: "If someone suggests that crystals can cure hemorrhoids, that natural herbs can lower cholesterol, that people will eventually be able to breate underwater, or that levitation is possible -- listen, and be curious." Hmm. Sounds like the Roman Piso dog encouraging us to ignore classical scholarship. It is never made clear what Dyer thinks of clinical trials, testing, or research, but the fact that he quotes (more than once) as authoritative the channeled Course in Miracles lends us a hint that if it came down to a choice between a cardiologist with serious tests who recommended surgery, and a channeled spirit being who said to just go home and relax, Dyer would tell the cardiologist to take a hike. At the very least, Dyer does not say not to do this, which is at least the height of irresponsibility. One wonders if someone who tried crystals for hemorrhoids, and failed, would have any case against Dyer in court.

It is in this section that Dyer also first abuses the Scriptures, quoting Matt. 19:26b, "With God all things are possible." Note that "with" is presented as the beginning; what's missing? 19:26a, to start: "With men this is impossible" -- though Dyer gives himself a case of midrash by claiming that we must have a sense of ourself as "Godlike". Second, that Jewish background understanding that presupposes that God's will is all that permits "all things".

"Don't Die with your Music Still in You." Once he is done promoting either pantheism or panentheism [21], Dyer offers some decent advice about taking risks and chances for success. Any businessman would tell you this, but it is hard to decide just how much risk Dyer is suggesting, and whether it is as far as promoting irresponsibility. There is some value in realistic assessments of self; it accords with a Biblical understanding of humility. But Dyer goes on to insist that, "Failure is a judgment. It's just an opinion." He also implies that if you love what you do, there can be no failure. Once again we wonder if Dyer could be sued in a court of law by someone who followed this advice, and ended up, say, with boxes of spoiled salsa and bills out the door because they didn't consider themselves a failure when everyone returned their nasty-tasting salsa for a refund, even after he invested all he had in a salsa-making business. Is Dyer for real? Or does he perhaps realize that he is safe giving advice that few will follow, and that those who do follow it will simply evade their failures by redefining what a "failure" is in context? "I am not a failure! I am very good at making bad salsa!"

When reading Dyer, it seems that it is best not to think too deeply -- and the same could be said when applying his advice as well.

"You Can't Give Away What You Don't Have" -- more common sense on a roll? More or less. Here though we learn that Dyer believes in magical "energies" that the universe responds to; if you are a demanding person, the universe responds with "demanding energies" and will petulantly send demanding people your way to teach you a lesson. We're wondering when Dyer is going to put some of these "energies" into a test tube for us, whether he'll provide a systematic study showing that demanding people as a whole get demanding people put on them all the time, and finally whether this isn't just same ad hoc excuse Dyer cooked up based on nothing (or at best, anecdotes). On the other hand, Dyer's advice to be less self-concerned has been the advocacy of Christianity, to say nothing of the collectivists of the ancient and modern thousands of times longer than his books have been on the shelf.

"Embrace Silence" -- I can relate here. Dyer pleads for us to escape the noise of the city and get into the sounds of nature; to moderate stimulus is again just good common sense. On the other hand it's hard not to ruin the magic. Dyer recommends the usual mantra sounds like "ahhhh" and "ommmm" and maybe even "yeeeech": for the first we are assured, it is in "virtually all names of the divine" and he lists Krishna, Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah (apparently not aware this is a version of the second!), Ra, and Ptah [56]. Don't mess things up by asking where to find that sound in Visnhu, Thor, Odin, Loki, Isis, Osiris, or Zeus, though. Also, if you were wondering why the guy ahead of you didn't move at the green light, Dyer helpfully tells us it was him meditating [57]. Finally we have another Bible abuse quote: "That which is seen, hath not come from that which doth appear." It is abused to tell us not to divulge the "private insights" of what we intend to create. The real context Heb. 11:3, says "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" -- a statement that has of course to do with the creation process of Genesis.

"Give Up Your Personal History" -- Good advice to let go of the past. Ironically Dyer is here telling us to be more like the ancients, who were very present-oriented. However, they also valued the past more than the future.

"You Can't Solve a Problem with the Same Mind That Created It" -- If you think I was kidding about Dyer's advice to redefine problems out of existence, this will prove it: "In the world of Spirit, or God, problems simply don't exist and aren't real." [86] "If you change your mind, you will solve your problem." But then, in direct contradiction to the advice to remain open to "all" possibilities in point 1, we are told to "bring truth" to problems to resolve them. Then again we are told, "By actually rewriting your agreement with reality, you can change your mind and send away any perceived problem." [88] That apparently includes the problem of open self-contradiction.
What Dyer offers is a "mystical consciousness" -- perhaps what he is striving for is the answer, "All things work for good for those who love God." In that respect, one can see problems not as "unreal" but as something real which a greater reality will subsume.

"There are no Justified Resentments" -- Good advice to become someone who can't be offended -- assuming that this does not mean, getting rid of your sense of justice. Dyer is never quite clear on this, though the examples he gives of things not to be offended by (a sneeze, someone cursing) seem mostly trivial. Most of the section though speaks of those unverified "energies" Dyer sees running around loose in the universe. We do have news for him: "Love your enemies" was already said -- though what Dyer calls "love" is not what the Bible calls it.

"Treat Yourself As If You Already Are What You'd Like to Be" -- hmmm. In certain places, this advice is called egotism. You can imagine what the media would have said, had George W. treated himself like President before he was elected and started demanding Secret Service protection (or hired lookalikes), showing up at international conferences next to Bill Clinton, and submitted a budget to Capitol Hill. But Dyer does not quite encourage that; for example, while he tells you that if you have a dream car, you should paste pictures of it on your fridge, visit a showroom and sit in it and walk all around it and even feel it, take it for a test drive, and visualize your entitlement to it, he doesn't advocate, thank heavens, just taking it. He says, do all this, talk about it a lot, leave a picture of it on your computer, etc. Hmmm. In certain places, isn't this advice otherwise called a childish obsession?

In the end, Dyer subscribes to the "you create reality" paradigm -- and he claims it "works for virtually everything." Note that sly qualifier. Before he speaks to an audience, he sees them as "loving, supportive, and having a terrific experience." Now isn't that a setup that smells? He already has a plan for in case you get unhappy and throw tomatoes (he did say, "virtually" everything); and how does one decide whether the audience was supportive because (after all) Dyer's message is so mushy and unoffensive and sentimentalist and ear-tickling, and whether it was supportive because Dyer waved his magic brain lobe (where they would all have thrown tomatoes, had he not done this)? Fidel Castro wants to know if this will work for him when he goes to the UN.

"Treasure Your Divinity" -- uh oh. Yep. This is how it is: "When you dip your glass into the ocean, what you have is a glass of God. It's not as big or as strong, but it's still God." I wonder if Dyer affirms, "When you use the toilet..." Anyway, Dyer here stumps for his apparent panentheism as something to remind yourself of to keep yourself happy. Personally I find it a little insulting to suppose that I am God and so is what my pomeranian/poodle did outside this morning.

"Wisdom is Avoiding All Thoughts That Weaken You" -- Dyer seems to have stretched to get to 10. This is the same advice as has been given all through the book, which amounts to, "Redefine everything so that you can be happy." Not shockingly, Dyer says that shame and guilt are the thoughts that most weaken you, which will come as amazing news to the 70% of the world that is still "honor and shame" in orientation, so that in essence Dyer has insulted over 70% of the world today, and 99.9% of the world throughout history, is/has been weakening itself physically and emotionally in the worst way, and are all weak people for using shame to reform others [149]. The arrogance of modern Westerners is a sight to behold.

So what to say, in conclusion? Dyer is quite the ear-tickler, but we have to wonder what he'll do for a living if the readers ever wake up. We'll have a look at another of his books some other time.

[WSCEBU]

Deceptions of Wayne Dyer - Teaching How to Feel Good





He believe the source of all things is the source of INTENTION. But he is unable to say that source is Jesus Christ, none other. Wayne also says and assumes that we are one with the source. And it is the belief that we are one with the source that lets us connects with the source. But my view as received by God's Spirit, is that God says we are not connected and that we need to get connected by believing in His Son.

Wayne also says that if we are not feeling good, that we are disconnected. He is really judging our feelings like a psychologist working his ability around them to make them positive. The truth is that we can not do this, for we are using our self-life power to achieve an objective, a perceived intention, to reach some unascertained ultimate, really. Yet such feelings of a feeling that are negative are real and authentic since feelings have both their negative and positive side. Such a feeling has its role and purpose, and it will even be used by the evil spirit to gain a foothold on us, so we must realize who it is we are really at war with in spiritual warfare.

If a person has a sad feeling, feel sad. For it is not feeling that is our guiding principle, but it is spirit, and a spirit in Christ with the Holy Spirit indwelt. Feelings can easily deceive. But Wayne's suggestion is to almost "pretend" self-positivism and it will then manifest. By imagining that which you want, you shall have it, he says. Yet, by his words, grace is not a consideration, the grace of God, in this dispensation of grace. We create our own reality, he says. Contemplate ourselves around these conditions to achieve them, he says. And the essence of this is connecting to the vibrating source energy in vibrational harmony of the highest energy in the universe, he says. Yet how is this possible, I pray, if there is a rejection of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for you? How can we reject the man who said he was the "First and the Last" and the One who died and rose again (Rev. 1.18), and who said "I AM" as God of the Old Testament said. For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (John 1.1) Jesus Christ.

It is impossible to make such a statement and then seek a profit, even one cent.

Do not believe Wayne, in his claim, that too feel good is to feel God with an extra "o", for God never reaches you through your feelings, but through your spirit (in your inner man), and even if you feel bad, is this really so bad, but it is another opportunity for your faith in Christ to be tested. Wayne presumes already our connection with God, but what we learn is that a man who says he believes in God is not the same as another person who says he believes in God, since the former does not believe in Jesus Christ as God in the flesh and the latter does.

What is Wayne Dyer really doing? First off, obviously Wayne Dyer is not a Christian. Secondly, he is depersonalizing the three Persons of the Godhead into a vibrating energy impersonally, attempting to degrade and define or dissect God, or make Him but a "field of energy" as he puts it, not keeping the Creator and the created separate. For such a separation is necessary in order for us to come closer. In the eternity of future, salvation is God's gift to those who believe - with God and the Lamb at the center of the New City in the New Heaven and those who are saved as pillars in the city (Rev. 21 and 22.1,4).

Wayne is using his vast talent for goodness and great concepts, but the reality is that he is not exalting Jesus Christ but another god. Wayne in so doing, is really exalting himself and his talents, even for profit of book sales. His guiding principle is an energy level and the "good self", his own standard. He keeps saying, "be positive, be positive" and you will be positive, is the essence of his teaching. How much more beautiful if what he did was for Christ and not for hostility towards the Son of God, and nothing less than who He is, God in the Second Person, resurrected who was forever in the past and forever in the future. Not even once does he glorify God in such a way. What are we to think?

The reality of truth in Jesus Christ, is that God does not operate this way in what I like to call "positivism" or as Wayne Dyer calls it, "7 fields of intention" or "summoning power". Wayne uses the terms "sorcery" of the "sorcerer", always taking away God's 3 Persons, a belated attempt, for it is sorcerers that try to access fields of energy of a non-descript sorcerer. This is really a self-summoning, self-convincing, self-inspiring without the grace of God. Talent can make it look authentic.

True faith lasts forever and receives true grace. We can not force ourselves to be that which we are not for it is like covering up sin, or trying to override God. No mention of sin and the law is identified as the cause of separation by Wayne, which is not a self-identifying law, but the law of God. Self-convincing is never a means of receiving the grace of a conscience in Christ.

Watchman Nee (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Watchman_Nee.htm) said it best, that a Wayne Dyer type would be a man operating in the "latent power of his soul" though unsaved. Wayne Dyer has not received a dividing of his spirit, soul and body to walk after the spirit because God has not given Wayne Dyer the gift of the Holy Spirit to do such a dividing that comes through spiritual life from receiving eternal life. But this should not be surprising since all Dyer is doing is rejecting Christ and accessing a vibrating source of the evil spirit for self-actualization sugar-coated reasonings, famous quotes, and displays, that of false prophets, as refined as any man can be with no consideration of men who were for God or not for God in their contemplation - that is, God of the Bible. It is not in Wayne Dyer's consciousness to realize that the Hebrews were the first nation God revealed Himself to after the fall.

To observe how separated from God men are and how hard it will be to truly believe according to John 6.47 (to simply believe, such a simple acceptance of the one who made you) by the fact that so few come to Christ, all we need to do is turn to the Word of God and God's plan for the new city. (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/NewCity.htm) When I discern which of the four major groups opposed to Christ, the category that Wayne Dyer falls under is Thomasines (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lostbooks.htm) - New Agers. As Solomon, the wisest of men in the Bible, said in Ecclesiastes, "Nothing under the sun is truly new. What can you point to hat is truly new? How do you know it didn't already exist long ago? (v.9). Such men were here before, and they will come again. They will be forgotten as hard as they try in vain to be remembered (v.11),

Troy Brooks



http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/WayneDyer.htm

[Lazy Agnostic]

Deceptions of Wayne Dyer - Teaching How to Feel Good
Feelings can easily deceive.

The personal experience of Christ is so much more convincing than academic and intellectual discussions!--JPHolding

[jpholding]

The personal experience of Christ is so much more convincing than academic and intellectual discussions!--JPHolding

Oops. You fell for it, LA.

The part you refer to was written FOR me by Glenn Miller when he edited that article. :lmbo:

[Lazy Agnostic]

Oops. You fell for it, LA.

The part you refer to was written FOR me by Glenn Miller when he edited that article. :lmbo:
"...fell for it..." implies intentional deception. Surely you don't intend to deceive.

Certainly there is a psychological component to your faith.

[jpholding]

"...fell for it..." implies intentional deception. Surely you don't intend to deceive.

Originally I didn't. But I decided to use that article intact as a challenge to persons who claimed to be able to parse the NT and OT into different authorial pieces. So far no one has taken that bait, though it has been fun watching people take Miller's words as my own. (BTW I "agree" with him in terms of what is found more "convincing" by most people, though I consider the state of our society that makes this so, appalling.)

Certainly there is a psychological component to your faith.

"Psychology" is a very broad term.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Why are Dyer's notions spiritually efficacious for people?

[jpholding]

Why are Dyer's notions spiritually efficacious for people?

For the same reason that cocaine is physically efficacious for people.

[Lazy Agnostic]

For the same reason that cocaine is physically efficacious for people.
No, really.

[jpholding]

No, really.

I was serious.

Efficacy can be measured in terms of real and actual help, and what one THINKS helps. In the case of Dyer, he "solves" people's problems by telling them to define the problem out of existence. We are left with the rest of those who are non-Dyerites having to deal with the problems Dyerites pretend don't exist.

The illsutration of Dyer sitting oblivious at an intersection while others honk their horn at him is more apt than he realizes. :lmbo:

[Lazy Agnostic]

I was serious.

Efficacy can be measured in terms of real and actual help, and what one THINKS helps. In the case of Dyer, he "solves" people's problems by telling them to define the problem out of existence. We are left with the rest of those who are non-Dyerites having to deal with the problems Dyerites pretend don't exist.

The illsutration of Dyer sitting oblivious at an intersection while others honk their horn at him is more apt than he realizes. :lmbo:
I didn't get the impression of 'closing one's eyes' to the existence of problems, rather a reassignment of personal/psyche energy regarding them---much as occurs when people of faith give their burdens to God.

Isn't there an intrinsic mechanism which imparts a sense of safety when humans learn to gently push-aside ego/ordinary thoughts---irrespective of theological underpinnings? That would account for the sense of spirititual/existential connection reported with the same degree of certitude as do Christians. It would be a gift/tool for us all, whether or not we swerve into the 'right' faith.

There will always be those who will come along and try to sell us what we can have for free.

[jpholding]

I didn't get the impression of 'closing one's eyes' to the existence of problems, rather a reassignment of personal/psyche energy regarding them---much as occurs when people of faith give their burdens to God.

I consider both to be the same thing in different means: Whether one calls it "reassignment" or "giving it to God," it amounts to ignoring the problem and doing nothing about it. (I see no warrant in the Bible for that sort of thing, BTW.)

Isn't there an intrinsic mechanism which imparts a sense of safety when humans learn to gently push-aside ego/ordinary thoughts---irrespective of theological underpinnings?

Perhaps; but to me this amounts to closing your eyes so that you don't see the starving peasants. Ignorance is bliss, as is said.

[Lazy Agnostic]

I consider both to be the same thing in different means: Whether one calls it "reassignment" or "giving it to God," it amounts to ignoring the problem and doing nothing about it. (I see no warrant in the Bible for that sort of thing, BTW.)
Again, we're not talking about 'closing one's eyes' to the existence of problems. Do you not believe that Jesus ought to be, as Charles Stanley just said, our strength and our refuge? Isn't that better than relying on one's ability to accurately describe the balance of Creation at any given moment?

Isn't there an intrinsic mechanism which imparts a sense of safety when humans learn to gently push-aside ego/ordinary thoughts---irrespective of theological underpinnings?

Perhaps; but to me this amounts to closing your eyes so that you don't see the starving peasants.
Do you think starving peasants should be a priority for Christians?

I'm talking about an (aptly-called) sense of coming home reported by those who learn to push-aside ego in deference to the Creator.

Ignorance is bliss, as is said.
There's a bit of bliss in the wisdom of insecurity.

[Solly]

There are elements in Dyer's teaching that reflect what I found in buddhism and the Course in Miracles, and in Richard Bach too, and in another book whose author I can't remember [Douglas Harding?], but which worked on the premise that we have no heads. It is a blank space behind our field of vision, and we should act accordingly. Of course there are parallels to Christian teaching, and indeed it seems to be much influenced by it; but mere egolessness is not Christian teaching, since that which Dyer is promoting is still focussing on me, and my problems. i learnt from buddhism that the answer is to deal with those elements in ourselves that see a problem, specifically our desires, but that does not end the problem, it just says, don't see it as a problem. Hence Buddhist societies stagnated, amidst poverty and disease.
This is still person centred psychology, and of course it is an ego oritented person who will buy the books, and will engage in the task of being nonEgoistically egoistic.

[jpholding]

Again, we're not talking about 'closing one's eyes' to the existence of problems.

That's what Dyer is saying to do, even if he calls it something else.

Do you not believe that Jesus ought to be, as Charles Stanley just said, our strength and our refuge?

Stanley and other popular preachers are notoriously vague about what they mean by this. Obviously they do not make Jesus their "strength and refuge" when they learn to fly a plane or do their taxes. If by this they simply mean, Jesus is the center of their life and his teachings and loyalty to him is a revolving principle for all acts affected by such matters, then yes, I agree. If it means, "just ignore problems, or stop trying to solve them yourself, and let 'Jesus' solve them" then no.

Isn't that better than relying on one's ability to accurately describe the balance of Creation at any given moment?

Not that I know of.

Do you think starving peasants should be a priority for Christians?

Yep.

I'm talking about an (aptly-called) sense of coming home reported by those who learn to push-aside ego in deference to the Creator.

Haven't heard of it, sorry. :smile: And it doesn't sound a thing like what I read in Dyer, either, if that was at point. Can you elucidate or link to an exemplar?

There's a bit of bliss in the wisdom of insecurity.

Not that I know of.

[Zithromax]

A priest friend of mine and I recently discussed Dyer and his discuss. I noted that I enjoyed "The Power of Intention". He dismissed Dyer as "that Unitarian" and his teachings as very, very basic.

But isn't that the point? All you serious students of theology, aren't you missing something very, very basic when you actually try to communicate or teach people something?

The color Blue is very, very basic. Yet at one point or another, a teacher pointed at the color and told me it was called "Blue".

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, whether you call it Ruah or whatever you want to call it, is the least taught, or expressed aspect of judeo-christian-muslim spirituality, unless you happen to be a charismatic.

The bottom line is that I have trouble identifying with a man nailed to a cross. I have trouble identifying with an abstract god that cannot be fathomed. But when dyer asked me to imagine an all loving energy source, well that "did it for me" and I am active in my church again. And yes I am a trinitarian, and yes I embrace church teachings. But Dyer helped me reconnect. And you can also say I was lucky, for at least we christians believe that there are evil spirits that one can channel that deny Christ.

But I remind you, of John 4:24:

"God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth."

and the many other teachings of the simple truth of the HS that are laced throughout the bible and Christ's gift to us per Acts. Obviously there are plenty of pitfalls, errors, and old time heresies to watch out for when reaching out with the HS but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

I see a lot of egotistical ranting against this Mr. Dyer who is reaching out with a simple message to people, that the theologically advanced are failing to express. Who else is doing this? The creepy dudes on the bible channels?

-Z

[jpholding]

But isn't that the point? All you serious students of theology, aren't you missing something very, very basic when you actually try to communicate or teach people something?

No.



The bottom line is that I have trouble identifying with a man nailed to a cross. I have trouble identifying with an abstract god that cannot be fathomed. But when dyer asked me to imagine an all loving energy source, well that "did it for me" and I am active in my church again

I had no idea that your personal conceptual difficulties had any bearing on objective reality. And you complain of egotism? You've certainly learned Dyer's art of self-contradiction.

I see a lot of egotistical ranting against this Mr. Dyer who is reaching out with a simple message to people, that the theologically advanced are failing to express. Who else is doing this? The creepy dudes on the bible channels?

And as we all know, simple is ALWAYS accurate and truthful. :doh:

[Zithromax]

No. I had no idea that your personal conceptual difficulties had any bearing on objective reality. And you complain of egotism? You've certainly learned Dyer's art of self-contradiction. And as we all know, simple is ALWAYS accurate and truthful. :doh:

My point is: What is the best method of evangelization and does Dyer deserve any credit at all? What amongst his methods could be adopted in the Christian community? My ability to connect with the HS is important to me, and I personally give Dyer some credit for that, and I also personally do not feel that countless sunday school teachers, ministers, et cetera ever managed to do that for me. That is a personal statement, so you can call it egotistical if you like. If part of evangelization is creating an awareness of the HS in another peson, then I feel (subjectively) that Dyer may be doing a good job of that for some people.

There is nothing wrong with conceptualizing the holy spirit as fire, an all loving energy source, et cetera. In Acts, the HS descends upon the apostles as tounges of flame et cetera. In the baptism of Christ, he descends "like a dove". In countless bits of religious art, the HS is conceptualized as fire and as a dove. Christ says that he will leave us with the HS when he departs. Christ says that we will be baptized in the HS, and the HS is certainly a gateway to faith, and per John 4:24, "God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth." possibly the only gateway to faith through Jesus Christ. I'm not sure how in your response you clarified how one better expresses or communicates a connection to the HS than does Dyer and I also note that you do not indicate another person who is doing a better job of it on the scale that Dyer is doing it. Of course the scripture also warns us that "This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world." (1 John 4:2-3).

It follows that many of the concerns raised about Mr. Dyer are valid from the perspective of practicing christians. He does not preface the worship of the HS in Christ, and so that creates the possibility of many errors and dangers, again from the perspective of orthodox christianity. But, many atheists also complain about Mr. Dyer. They claim that he is bringing in faith quietly, through a back door, when the otherwise agnostic or atheist person isn't aware, by using non-traditional terminolgy for the HS.

And that is where I think Dyer is succeeding where a lot of other evangelical types are failing and it makes them jealous, envious, angry, and other things of that nature, and then they have a tendency to lash out in anything but a kind or loving manner, or to give Dyer even the slightest bit of credit that might be deserved. The reaction is simply Teaching X is in error, therefore Dyer is in error, and therefore any of Dyer's approaches are wrong.

I am arguing that one should say instead 'Dyer has successfully communicated a sense of the HS to some people but he has omitted important safegards and realities - realities that have lead to errors the church has combatted for thousands of years, how can I(we) do the same thing as Dyer but but in a Christian context?'

Regards, -Z

[jpholding]

My point is: What is the best method of evangelization and does Dyer deserve any credit at all?

Appeal to ego and selfishness does tend to spread effectively. Kenneth Copeland can attest to that.


What amongst his methods could be adopted in the Christian community?

Too late. The health and wealth people and the emergent church already started that.

My ability to connect with the HS is important to me, and I personally give Dyer some credit for that, and I also personally do not feel that countless sunday school teachers, ministers, et cetera ever managed to do that for me.

Isn't that nice. Please explain to us now why Mormons can't say the same thing with respect to their "burning in the bosom." Please explain to us why your "connection" is not an imagined one rooted in an emotional high or some other contrivance.

There is nothing wrong with conceptualizing the holy spirit as fire, an all loving energy source, et cetera. In Acts, the HS descends upon the apostles as tounges of flame et cetera. In the baptism of Christ, he descends "like a dove". In countless bits of religious art, the HS is conceptualized as fire and as a dove.

Are you aware that according to the metaphorical lexicons of the period, doves were reputed as vicious fighters?

you do not indicate another person who is doing a better job of it on the scale that Dyer is doing it.

I think the job itself is a crock. It's a manifestation of modern, Western selfishness and introspection. No one's delivering the HS on a platter like this. Not Dyer, not Osteen, not Hinn.

But, many atheists also complain about Mr. Dyer.

Of course. They're as upset about nonsense as Christians should be.

[Frogwarrior]

Are you aware that according to the metaphorical lexicons of the period, doves were reputed as vicious fighters?
I for one didn't know that and it's caught my interest... could you provide me some source(s) for that?

[jpholding]

I for one didn't know that and it's caught my interest... could you provide me some source(s) for that?

I thought it was my Keener commentary but it wasn't. I'd have to look it up again. :bonk:


Added: Did find some breeder-type websites for doves that affirm that they're not peaceful per the stereotype but will indeed fight.

[Zithromax]

I am not familiar with all of Dyer's works, or his ten secrets. I have seen his "Power of Intention" video a few times. I agree with many of the criticisms expressed here but I think the tone of some of them goes too far.

"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good." (1 Thess 5:19-21)

Mostly, I think that people are intolerant of those who are less advanced than they are, and this causes over-reaction and outright revulsion and that is unwise if one agrees with the sentiment of what Paul is saying in 1 Thess 5:19-22.

Other teaching authorities express things like:

"Whoever teaches must become "all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers. . . .Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct." (Roman Catechism, Preface, 11; cf. 1 Cor 9:22; 1 Pet 2:2)

And futhermore:

"The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love."(Roman Catechism, Preface, 10; cf. 1 Cor 13:8.)

What concerns me about JP Holding's rebuttals against both Dyer and myself for supporting him, is that they seem to be prefaced in a less-than-loving sentiment that would not be reciprocated by the Dyerites he criticizes. All I am saying is that we ought to take what works from Dyer and clip away the erroneus bits, giving the man credit for the ideas and approaches that are worthy, and disregarding the rest in a non-hateful manner.

[jpholding]

I am not familiar with all of Dyer's works, or his ten secrets. I have seen his "Power of Intention" video a few times. I agree with many of the criticisms expressed here but I think the tone of some of them goes too far.

GOOD GRIEF!

Has anyone ever told you that speaking in ignorance is a poor way to gain credibility?

"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good." (1 Thess 5:19-21)

Question-begging isn't a way to gain it either. Of course Mormons could quote the same verse.

What concerns me about JP Holding's rebuttals against both Dyer and myself for supporting him, is that they seem to be prefaced in a less-than-loving sentiment that would not be reciprocated by the Dyerites he criticizes.

Naturally -- because obviously, truth and defense of it doesn't concern you at all.

All I am saying is that we ought to take what works from Dyer and clip away the erroneus bits, giving the man credit for the ideas and approaches that are worthy, and disregarding the rest in a non-hateful manner.

Well -- that basically leaves....his book's publishing credits. :lol:

[anypokriton]

Troy, i couldn't have said it better than your summery on Wayne Dyer's 10 secrets. Well done