Talk:New Thought/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Removed section

69.86.159.47 has removed the following section, stating in Edit summary: "Totally out of context to the artical":

“ Similarities and differences between teachings

There are some similarities between New Thought and other metaphysical sistems. In his 1993 book on Christian Science, Martin Gardner wrote he "was astonished by the extent to which today's New Age fantasies were so thoroughly aired a hundred hears ago by New Thought leaders."

”

Totally out of context to this article about NT? Let's see. On pages 221-247 of the above-mentioned book Garnder lists dozens of similarities. Both NT advocates and Christian Scientists —:

1. believe in psychokinetic ways to retard old age;
2. believe that “age is all imagination. Ignore years and they will ignore you” (quotation from NT text, almost identical to Eddy’s writing);
3. maintain that “the essence of NT is simply the science of right thinking [Mr. Wilcox]”, and use the terms “wrong thinking” and “right thinking”: identical phrases to Eddy’s writing;
4. believe in mental prayer such as repeating “I am in good health” or “I am a success” (NT text; almost identical to the CS texts);
5. have the mantra “only good can come to me”.

There are, of course, many more striking similarities. Is there a valid reason not to add the removed section again?

—Cesar Tort 01:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And now another anonymous, 74.73.176.161, has removed the Eschatology (religious movement) link from the See also section, stating in Edit summary: "More in line with Christan Science. NT and CS developed in different direction". But a link in that section is appropiate. Similarities between the two systems are just too many. When I read the Gardner chapter I realized how CS developed: Mary Baker Eddy, notorious for picking up ideas from other metaphysical systems without giving proper credit, merged lots of NT ideas into her teaching. —Cesar Tort 02:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with linking this article to Eschatology (religious movement) is that New Thought is not mentioned there; and, as a result we don't know why we are being sent there. Perhaps it would be better to explain the connection in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There are many Similarities but they developed in two different directions: Eschatology is a direct off shoot of Christian Science and as such should be included in Christian Science article. Emma Curtis Hopkins split from CS was the final connection between the two. New thought is an ever evolving system and open at the top. Christian Science developed in to a more doctrine oriented system following Eddy's teaching. The teaching of the different New Thought organizations and Churches have expanded dramatically over the years including Eastern teachings which compliment it. One key difference is the the use of modern medicine New Thought believes God,Spirit moves through all including medicine. CS teachings do not.69.86.159.47 (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PS Even tho they shared common roots Christian Science never considered itself NT. New thought never considered itself Christian Science. And to outsiders it looks like one and the same but if you look at the evolution of each you know they are not the same. For lack of a better comparison Catholics and Mormons.69.86.159.47 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a new article on the Metaphysical movement in the US would include all of the above and invite comparison between all branches of metaphysics.69.86.159.47 (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Malcolm Schosha for re-adding the sentence which, again, 69.86.159.47 removed ("rv. the addition is about NT, and is based on a reliable source. please discuss on talk page" —edit summary). I don't have time nor the energy to argue the obvious in this article. Nobody is saying that NT is CS, only that the similarities (though there are some differences of course) are striking. 69.86.159.47 removed it without a valid reason (incidentally, 74.73.176.161 is also in Washington DC). I'll now unwatch it. Good luck to the skeptical editors who want to improve an article in which some editors don't want a single critical sentence of NT. Maybe User:Hrafn should return? :) Bye right now. —Cesar Tort 17:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ceser you added the Christian Science category.74.73.176.161 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The comparison between Religious Science and Unity Church is included in the artical since they are part of the New Thought movement. Again even if referenced this is not an article of the general metaphysical movement it is an article on New Thought. Which again I stress developed along side other movements. Christian Science did not come from the New Thought (New Thought was known as the Mental Sciences before Hopkins) movement but was developing at the same time. Nor did New Thought come from Christian Science. There is an over lap of Ideas' through out all the metaphysical movements which were not considered New Thought.74.73.176.161 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Is any of this included in The Christian Science article?74.73.176.161 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be important to make clearer to readers the basic distinctions between Unity school of Christianity, Christian Science and "Religious Science". Such a section will, of course, need to be appropriately sourced from, and cited to, independent reliable sources. I don't happen to agree with the reason given for the recent removal of the section that attempted to discuss the differences. To me, the problem was that the way the section was written didn't convey anywhere near enough information to be useful. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm trying to understand the logic of Christian Science being included as part of New Thought which it is not? The distinctions between the various schools of thought within New Thought or their similarities are more important to the article, I believe. 74.73.176.161 (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also left out of the mix are branches of New Thought not included in this article Seicho-No-le and Huna or have been deleted. 74.73.176.161 (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

References

NPOV

As long as you make the claim, whether it is wrapped in religious dogma or not, that New Thought causes healing, then you are stepping into science. See Intelligent design, Creation science, and Homeopathy, all faith-based, and all fundamentally lacking in science. This is exactly the same, so quit the argument that it's religion. That is not the protection to prevent this article from being highly POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, read the tag carefully. Do not remove until this dispute is resolved, and so far, it is not resolved. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no claim in this article that "New Thought causes healing" or that it causes anything at all. The article is not about medicine and doesn't make scientific claims - it's about a philosophy/religion from the late 1800s-early 1900s, describing the beliefs of the members of that religion. It's no different than the article on the Blessed Virgin Mary that states: "Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ". That's a non-science statement and perfectly fine as a description of a belief held by members of a religion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll deal with that article some day. I can't edit 1 million articles, I edit the ones that show up on my radar. I mostly focus on fake medicine. Which this is. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have raised the issue of edit warring, and attempts to force unsourced changes, on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard [1]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This was already raised and the unamimous opinion was that this article belonged in the history of ideas scope. Madman (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unanimous opinion of four people. Excellent job. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have been unanimous if there are people objecting to it. And what the hell is "history of ideas"? I don't see "New Thought" listed on the syllabus of any legitimate philosophy classes. Therefore, it's clearly not considered important in the academic study of philosophy, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It gets back to the issue of this article clearly discussing New Thought precepts. It does not discuss whether New Thought thinkers were right in their thinking, any more than the Christianity article discusses whether Jesus was raised from the dead or whether heaven exists or whether Hindu gods exist. Those are different articles. Jeez, ease up there guys. Madman (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Christianity deals with the origin and context of the ideas important to it, we must here too. New Thought came out of theosophist, faith healing spiritualism of the late 19th Century. It has morphed into self-helpism and pseudoscientific claptrap about amazing force-fields of God-energy and living the good life through positive thinking quantum mechaincal mumbo-jumbo. There is no higher criticism available to us. We must go on its parochial and pop-culture relevance. Comparing it to Christianity is no more helpful than comparing nuclear physics to marbles. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You are misinformed. The New Thought movement preceded the Theosophical movement, and did not develop out of it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We certainly should discuss "the origin and context of the ideas important to" New Thought. I myself am attempting to put together a better history of the movement. However, simplistic sentences about the efficacy of "right thinking" are not part of that history, but rather read like some disclaimer.

However, your sentence "It has morphed into self-helpism and pseudoscientific claptrap about amazing force-fields of God-energy and living the good life through positive thinking quantum mechaincal mumbo-jumbo." is somewhat disturbing since it makes me worry about your own POV and whether you are trying to insert that POV into the article. Madman (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean, I worry about the POV of a lot of people at this page. However, ideally, we describe a subject in context. New Thought "practitioners" tend to be of the same level of intellectual sophistication and have as much academic credulity as Deepak Chopra, WTBDWK, etc. It is in this sense that we should approach describing them. I worry when people begin to make comparisons to Christianity which is a much broader topic in the contemporary milleu than New Thought. Scientology is a good comparison article, I'd say. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not personally familiar with New Thought "practitioners" but from my reading it appears that the early New Thought practioners, theorists, and writers were all sincere and rather non-pushy people who weren't attempting to make an academic or scientific point of view but rather trying to find enlightenment, spirituality, health, and fulfillment themselves -- and to help others find them as well.

But in any case, regardless of that perspective, I'm trying to develop a non-judgemental article that focuses on the facts, trying to avoid loaded words and interpretation or extrapolation. Hope this helps, Madman (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no involvement with New Thought. But I think there may be some editors who are. For them, the comparison with Scientology might seem problematic, particularly considering Scientology's many legal disputes [2]. You might want to rethink your comparison. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article's alleged claims about healing and find none. All discussion of healing is under the heading or in the context of description of beliefs of the adherents of the movement. If I've missed something, please use a move specific tag to tag a section, paragraph or sentence so that any violation of NPOV can be fix more quickly. Bob (QaBob) 14:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hostile editing casts contemporary belief system into the past tense

This article made more sense and was far more informative one year ago. It has been gutted, falsified, and corrupted since that time. The most egregious falsification is the bogus claim in the lead that New Thought "was" a belief systen of the past. This is an obvious attempt to marginalize or denigrate a current belief system with whom some editors have an ideological dispute.

I suggest that someone who has the encyclopedia's best interests (rather than a scientisitic and atheisitic agenda) at heart put this article back into the present tense immediately. The New Thought Movement is ongoing and any attempt by a scientistic or atheisitic editor to cast it into the past tense must be accompanied by full citations that New Thought is ended, kaput, finished.

Such a citation will not be found, for the simple reason that 30 seconds at google will point any editor who is interested in the truth to current, 21st century New Thought organizations, churches, and secular publishing houses, including, of course, INTA (The International New Thought Alliance).

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in "truth", just verification by reliable sources. When are you going to figure this out? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Catherine, my recollection is that I was the editor who applied the word "was" to New Thought. I do not think I am hostile to New Thought, but since all the important contributions to NT that I know of were written by the 1920s or 1930s, it seems past to me. To make a comparison, I happen to be very fond of Attic Greek pottery and have made a close study of it; but my studying it, and my having once used some adaptations of its forms in my own pottery, does not make Attic pottery a contemporary movement in the world of ceramics. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Louise Hay, Michael Beckwith are just two names of contemporary leaders of the 21st century; "The history and future of - New Thought, Ancient Wisdom - of the New Thought movement" by Glenn R. Mosley Templeton Foundation Press (2006) just one of many new books covering the history of the movement. Hay House publishing one of the most successful publisher of New Thought , Self- Help and Spiritual books. Also the book and the movie of the same name The Secret show New Thought is alive and well today.JGG59 (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, If one were to extend your definition that would mean mainstream Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam are also "past" since all the "important contributions" were made centuries and even millenia ago. All new publications of these religions could legitimately be viewed as merely shallow rehashing of their sacred writings. 66.102.204.8 (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you are right about that. Among Catholics alone, Thomas Merton, Teilhard de Chardin, and Hans Küng readily come to mind as important contributers to a living tradition....and I am not Catholic and do not bother to much follow developments in the Catholic literature. Hans Küng is still living and productive. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of them seem rather shallow, and New Thought only in name. But suite yourself. I am through wasting time on this article because it is, for me, very low priority and very high maintenance. Dealing with so many POV pushing editors is a real time waster. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cat, please feel free to rewrite. Madman (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverse the recent edit by Malcolm Schosha who described the opening as "deceptive" again it is stating what New Thought believes not that it is true or not. Also New Thought does not fit neatly into any traditional category, whether or not it is "Christian" is not my concern. The way the majority of people understand Christianity is, it is considered a New religious movement because of this distinction. This does not mean adherents do not consider themselves to be Christian but it is by a new definition. Again this an Encyclopedia.74.73.176.161 (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What I was referring to as "deceptive" is calling New thought a new religious movement, because that description came about to describe the movements that developed after WW2. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think an apology is in order here. My using the word "deceptive" was an incorrect choice of word, because it may seem to imply the edit was intended as a deception...which it certainly was not. Perhaps "confusing" would have been a better choice of word. Sorry. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I was a little "confused" as to where the edit was heading. I understand now. Take care.74.73.176.161 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very misleading to say that this is not a religious movement

Dear Anon editor: I think it is very misleading to remove all references to religion from this article. No, New Thought isn't the Roman Catholic Church, but neither is neo-paganism or Buddhism, but these all are nonetheless religious movements. 04:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the balance is that I'm looking at is yes, it is religious but not from an orthodox understanding of traditional churches . It's main concern is Spiritual and your connection to Spirit. I should have been clearer and stated my concerns and to note: keeping a Neutral Point of View . Thanks!74.73.176.161 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

JGG59 "Good Faith Edit"

Might I suggest that the reference is found before adding unverified material, and then included simultaneously. This should solve your problem. TheresaWilson (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag.

This article looks like a cult's propagand. And why isn't Christian Science mentioned? Both CS & NT had Quimby as a sort of quack mentor. Both used ad nauseam the con word "right thinking" and made (paranormal) healing claims. Article needs to be rewritten. 83.231.89.117 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Science is not mentioned because neither CSists don't consider themselves to be NTers, and NTers (although many would, I suspect, consider them to be related viewpoints) tend to agree. If you think otherwise, then you are welcome to WP:CITE a WP:RS that places CS within NT. Otherwise, you can check your overheated rhetoric at the door. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It still reads (check the opening paragraph) like a promotional piece written by a NT advocate. Thanks for your candid response. It confirms the poor opinion I had about wikipedia in non-technical, so-called "Spiritual" (encyclopedic term?) topics. Anyway I won't post here anymore --ever. 83.231.82.110 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New thought as "Faith healing"

The passage added today in the lead which states "...and is considered a type of faith-healing" is unsupported by the source given. The source, at pp59-60, discusses among other things, Mark Twain's and H.L. Mencken's characterizations of Christian Science and perceptions of Mary Baker Eddy essentially as a money grabber and a fraud, along with criticisms of new thought leveled by the traditional churches. The source also notes that New thought was commonly bracketed with Theosophy in the minds of some around the turn of the 20th Century. But the statement "[new thought] is considered a type of faith-healing" is painting New Thought with too broad a brush, and is unsupported by the source given. The statements in the cited source would appear to me to be perhaps more appropriate for presentation as part of a historical perspective on Christian Science, or in a much more detailed historical perspective of this topic. The text of the cited source can be seen here.

I removed the statement here and was reverted here with an edit summary characterizing my removal as edit warring and a demand to take it to talk. Which I have just done. Thoughts? ... Kenosis (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary founders of New Thought were all faith healers. Perhaps we can reword the statement, but the connection is undeniable. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This depends on what one means by "faith healing". That there is a connection between New Thought and faith healing in general is indeed undeniable. I definitely think there is a way to state this connection and cite it so it meets NPOV, V and NOR, but do not have adequate access to appropriate sources at present. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably but needs a source, and also the term may not be appropriate. We already have "mesmerist," which was a type of faith healer, but not by that term. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out Mrs. Stanton's Bible. I think it is in there explicitly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You check it out. I don't have it avaliable, and anyway, you are the one who wants to justify the entry. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone give the page number in Mystics and messiahs: cults and new religions in American history (the source used) that calls New Thought "Faith healing". I searched in Google books and could not find such a statement.

The distinction, as I understand it, is that faith healing as asking for divine intervention, while New Thought directs its adherents to heal themselves by thinking more positively. I do not claim that is effective (it never worked for me) but it is very different than faith healing. Nevertheless, if there is a good source for calling it faith healing, that should be in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation is clear. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is not clear. What is the page number? I have searched in the book and I can not find the source you say is there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is viewable at [this link. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole belief system being reduce to Faith healing in its most limited understanding. God ,Spirit is back of all thing but transcends all. There is a bias by some who do not believe in Spirit which is fine but they have an agenda to discredit or reduce articles they don't believe should be included in Wiki. They use Wiki guidelines to hide their bias.74.73.176.161 (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A search has been made of the source by Kenosis, and no mention of faith healing -not to mention whether NT is actually "known as" faith healing- has been found. If a quote is not provided, the source must be removed, and the statement must be removed if no legitimate source can be found for it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More to the point, the cited book is a polemic tract and not a reliable source. Its own editoraial blurb reads as follows, at the link cited above by Kenosis: "Are religious fringe movements a recent phenomena in American history? Arewidespread fears of mass suicides, sexual abuse, and brainwashing in cultsjustified? Do marginalized religious groups play any positive role in Americans." Etc. (and typos as given at the link itself.) Quoting such a biased source ("religious fringe movements" indeed!) is like quoting the Ku Klux Klan when writing a history of the Tuskegee Airmen. It can be done -- but it ought not. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Martin that the source does not support the material added to the article. The phrase "faith healing" is not used in the source to describe New Thought, and I am removing that material from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Following your lead I have removed "faith healing" category. 74.73.176.161 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that no one ever does research. It might be known as faith healing, but who knows? People want that in there, why? Because they researched the topic, and they know it's so per sources? No, because they just want the association. And now it's taken out because no research is being done. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is editors who expect someone else will do their research, and prove their point. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.

As I explained above, faith healing usually involves a call for divine intervention. Based on my own NT reading, that is not what New Thought teaches. They seem to have believed that the the universe was created by thought, and that the universe actually is primarily thought. Therefore, they reason, since humans have the power of thought a person can create his/her own health by thinking in a positive way, or can create his/her illness by thinking thoughts that result in depression, anger, fear, etc. which eventually play out as physical illnesses. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that most early NT practitioners and theorists could be called faith-healers in the largest sense of the word, since they felt that prayer could heal. However, as I mentioned above, I don't like to use the word since it encompasses so many different interpretations that it becomes imprecise and perhaps even misleading. I would suggest that in the U.S. "faith-healing" has a connotation of shysters and tent revivals, which is definitely not appropriate to New Thought. I think we can describe and explain New Thought with a finer brush that tossing out "faith-healer". Madman (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This source [3] seems to support what I wrote above. My understanding is that New Thought taught that prayer was useful only to change the way we think, and not to obtain a divine intervention sought by faith healers. I understand NT as a completely different thing than faith healing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As a member of a New Thought denomination (Unity) I find this article, as it is today 2/8/09, for the most part to be fair. However, there is one paragraph that I find gives an incomplete picture of New Thought's perspective on disease and healing. This paragraph is listed under the heading "Therapeutic ideas". The last sentence of the first paragraph states: "They tend to reject the medical science explanations for many diseases and promote their ideas as a sort of alternative medicine."[17][18][19][20] It then gives citations (17,18, 19, 20).Yes, New Thought believes disease has its origins in the mind and yes we try to use our teachings to restore our bodies to balance. HOWEVER, I would challenge the author to find one credible New Thought source that says our adherts should reject medical treatment. The way the other has this worded makes it look like in New Thought we tell adherents not to seek medical treatment when they are ill. This is patently untrue. I know of not one person in my church that has not undergone mainstream medical treatments for cancer, had surgeries when necessary, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.103.20 (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed work group

There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting the article

I have edited the article section many times to add valuable information for example i pretty much wrote all of the origins section on the article but when most other information is added within two hours it is deleted. Is some kind of troll doing this on purpose? I noticed other users have had the same problem, so which person is spending there time deleting stuff on purpose?. Why was the New Thought and Christian Science paragraph deleted?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.119.131 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Additions need to be cited to WP:Reliable sources, per WP:Verifiability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on metaphysical beliefs listing link.

I believe the listing should be under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics not the occult under standing of metaphysical beliefs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(supernatural) can we have a discussion. To an interesting talk thanks!! 66.108.86.141 (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? You were the one that changed it first, and that change requires a reference. Just provide one. Yworo (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've provided a reference that this is not philosophical metaphysics, but popular or supernatural metaphysics. Popular metaphysics includes both mysticism and occultism. New Thought partakes of mysticism even if it discourages occultism, and this is included in popular metaphysics. Yworo (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that Yworo. I think we may need to develop Metaphysics (esoterism) so as to avoid inserting nonacademic material into Metaphysics.Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was not the one who changed it first, look up the sequence. Having said that you provided a reference. Now mind you in the NT movement people do not believe in a person "GOD" but its thinking is in line with Panentheism. Thanks 66.108.86.141 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's a form of mysticism. As for "first", I was only discussing anonymous you vs. me. You changed it first, I reverted it as incorrect. After that, you discuss, you don't revert again without discussion or a source. That's edit warring. Yworo (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I did not mean to get into edit war my mistake66.108.86.141 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nu-Thought" in box at top of article

I question the usage of "Nu-Thought" in the box at the top of this article. Where did that come from?! Can find no viable references to this spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemodomi (talk • contribs) 09:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The terms 'New Thought' and 'Higher Thought' make no sense in relation to what the article is actually about.

Who decided the terms 'New Thought' and 'Higher Thought'? This explains nothing and is totally down to perception of the matter. The near-entirety of the article is just a part of all that is thought and understanding itself, and is in no way 'new' or even 'higher' for that matter. The only way it could be 'higher' is in the sense that it is looking at the entirety of existence from a 'higher point of thought' than most other things that are typically thought about and philosophized about.

I see where the people are coming from with 'Higher Thought' - however this is misleading. I could just as understandably say that this is not Higher Thought at all. And 'New Thought' is even more misleading.

Who decided these terms? I feel as if they were used for lack of the existence of a word to describe everything that is contained within this article. And in this case, the terms 'New Thought' and 'Higher Thought' are just not placed for lack of words to describe them, but they are placed badly. As I have said before.

The very fact that these are described as they are, in my opinion, prevents floods of people from realizing that what would love to learn more about is right here. There is no general consensus for the term 'New Thought' or 'Higher Thought' - I could go on and on but basically, what is contained within the article does not make sense with regards to the headings 'New Thought' and 'Higher Thought'.

Can I get some feedback, comments and criticisms please? I am very interested in furthering the quality here on as large a scale as possible. — Determined Soul (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Christian Science

New Thought and Christian Science developed during the same timeline. Both can claim Phineas Quimby as there spiritual figure head. Christian Science did not come from New Thought nor New Thought from Christian Science. Just like many of the metaphysical movements of the time Spiritualism or Theosophy they all borrowed from each other. Each developed during this time and as such share many of the same beliefs but each is their own movement. If one was to create an article on the Metaphysical movement in the U.S during the 1800s then one would include all of the above. But to state Christian Science came from New Thought is historically inaccurate.JGG59 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would dare say the New Thought movement is the relative that Christian Scientist refuses to acknowledge.66.108.86.141 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed Christian Science once again from under the banner of NT we know they share may similar beliefs but not New thought! 66.108.85.40 (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science's 'spiritual figure head' would be Mary Baker Eddy, not Phineas Quimby!! Air (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

proctor

it's important to write the name of the most famous motivational speaker of the Law of attraction and the secret,Bob Proctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.21.153 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)