A further explanation of New Age vs LGATS
(Someone asked for more clarification).
If interested, one might get a better feel for the difference by actually reading some of the New Age stuff, (not by attending a seminar). It's okay if you think it's just a bunch of new mythology or bunk, that's not important. It is not any goal of mine to change anyone's beliefs, (I don't care what spiritual paths others choose). The point is to take a step back and look at how it is presented.
The important thing is the "feel" of it - the complete lack of authoritarianism. The acceptance of all spiritual paths as being equally valid, and the idea that whatever path you are on is probably the appropriate path for you. There is the idea that the spiritual "seeker" will find what they need when they need it, whether it's a book, sudden inspiration from a work of art or something in nature.
As my late (non-LGAT), guru put it, "You are drawn to it like a heat-seeking missile." It draws you. Nobody is twisting your arm or manipulating you. It is not evangelical. If someone left her group, she would wish them well and hope that they would find their path. No calls. No mind-f*ck. No trying to pull anyone back in who didn't want to be there. She actively discouraged people from trying to get their friends to join the group, because she said that, if they were supposed to be there, they would find it on their own.
This is completely opposite of cult or LGAT recruiting. Most people show up to LGATS out of a sense of obligation or because they were given a hard sell. They go, having been promised results that the cult can't deliver. LGATs adopted some of the, (mostly behavioral), ideas of New Age, and ran with it in another direction. I suspect that some people new to the ideas were easy to confuse, and they used that confusion to control them.
Here are a couple of reading suggestions for those who are interested in what "New Age" is. Once again, you don't need to believe any of it, but see how it is presented. I will recommend quicker reads.
Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts
Messages from Michael by Chelsea Quinn Yarbrough
I should clarify that I am not suggesting that anyone needs to read those books entirely, just look through them, skim, or select a couple of chapters. You may even be able to find excerpts online. You will get the feel. Those were the ones originally called "New Age," I believe, although we did not call it "New Age," at the time. The term "New Age," has become a catch-all phrase for anything that is not mainstream and for which there is no proper terminology.
Jane Roberts is still considered by many to be the most distilled version of the material. Some of her material can be very abstract and challenging to grasp. The Chelsea Quinn Yarbrough writings put it into more of a structure which makes it easier to understand.
You can then contrast these with the authoritarian style of the LGATs, who behave as if you must believe, (while saying the opposite). In fact, neither Roberts or Yarbrough ever insist that you believe anything. I can't cite the page, but one of my favorite (approximate) Michael quotes is, "Belief is not necessary. A leaf does not have to believe in photosynthesis to turn green." (in reference to spiritual evolution).
The material from Roberts and Yarbrough speak almost exclusively of what happens to the soul in the non-physical realms. They never mandate any behavior on the physical realm, although they may have occasionally attempted to explain why someone might behave in a certain way. Usually, that had to do with the age of the soul in question. Someone who has only lived a few lifetimes will not behave in the same way as someone who has lived thousands, in the same way that a two-year old will not behave in the same way as a fifty-year old. Still, the two-year old is behaving in a way that is appropriate for a two-year old, and it is a necessary stage in their development. It is partially because of this that they discourage judgement of others. We can't possibly know the goals or life lessons of someone else's soul.
After Roberts and Yarbrough, other people started "channeling," but they may have been channeling their own guidance on some issue of importance to them. The newer material attempts to deal with how the information should be applied in the physical realm. One could think of It as sort of a "second-generation New Age." It appears to me that many of these people tried to follow up with "the next logical step," and that the "action steps" suggested may have worked well for the authors. This can be dangerous territory, however, because it suggests behavioral rules, and, as with the church, people try to gain control. It has happened in every single religion, from Christianity to the Hindus and the Muslims. Do you think that Christ would have approved of the Inquisition?
People then started throwing in things from other religions, especially Eastern religions, but anything considered alternative or "taboo" in the West. They revived practices that allegedly came from the Druids.
Some appropriated much from the Native Americans, and many Native Americans are justifiably incensed over this. Middle-aged, middle class white women take a series of weekend workshops and call themselves Native American "Shamen." For one thing, they are only partial teachings, (if not outright wrong), and incorrectly interpreted and applied. Secondly, these people did not grow up around Native people, and have not integrated that experience. They are not culturally Native American. Thirdly, they feel that their heritage has been stolen and polluted. I can't blame them. Native Americans say that the word "Shaman," is not even in their vocabulary.
The LGATs go above and beyond even that, promoting the new behavioral suggestions of the new "New Age," (nothing about the soul), and turning them into mandates, throwing in pop psychology, and deliberately using proven harmful psychological tactics to control people. Though they admonish their participants to not "make someone wrong," it is clear from their behavior that the only way that anyone can be "wrong" is to disagree with the LGAT.
(Someone asked for more clarification).
If interested, one might get a better feel for the difference by actually reading some of the New Age stuff, (not by attending a seminar). It's okay if you think it's just a bunch of new mythology or bunk, that's not important. It is not any goal of mine to change anyone's beliefs, (I don't care what spiritual paths others choose). The point is to take a step back and look at how it is presented.
The important thing is the "feel" of it - the complete lack of authoritarianism. The acceptance of all spiritual paths as being equally valid, and the idea that whatever path you are on is probably the appropriate path for you. There is the idea that the spiritual "seeker" will find what they need when they need it, whether it's a book, sudden inspiration from a work of art or something in nature.
As my late (non-LGAT), guru put it, "You are drawn to it like a heat-seeking missile." It draws you. Nobody is twisting your arm or manipulating you. It is not evangelical. If someone left her group, she would wish them well and hope that they would find their path. No calls. No mind-f*ck. No trying to pull anyone back in who didn't want to be there. She actively discouraged people from trying to get their friends to join the group, because she said that, if they were supposed to be there, they would find it on their own.
This is completely opposite of cult or LGAT recruiting. Most people show up to LGATS out of a sense of obligation or because they were given a hard sell. They go, having been promised results that the cult can't deliver. LGATs adopted some of the, (mostly behavioral), ideas of New Age, and ran with it in another direction. I suspect that some people new to the ideas were easy to confuse, and they used that confusion to control them.
Here are a couple of reading suggestions for those who are interested in what "New Age" is. Once again, you don't need to believe any of it, but see how it is presented. I will recommend quicker reads.
Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts
Messages from Michael by Chelsea Quinn Yarbrough
I should clarify that I am not suggesting that anyone needs to read those books entirely, just look through them, skim, or select a couple of chapters. You may even be able to find excerpts online. You will get the feel. Those were the ones originally called "New Age," I believe, although we did not call it "New Age," at the time. The term "New Age," has become a catch-all phrase for anything that is not mainstream and for which there is no proper terminology.
Jane Roberts is still considered by many to be the most distilled version of the material. Some of her material can be very abstract and challenging to grasp. The Chelsea Quinn Yarbrough writings put it into more of a structure which makes it easier to understand.
You can then contrast these with the authoritarian style of the LGATs, who behave as if you must believe, (while saying the opposite). In fact, neither Roberts or Yarbrough ever insist that you believe anything. I can't cite the page, but one of my favorite (approximate) Michael quotes is, "Belief is not necessary. A leaf does not have to believe in photosynthesis to turn green." (in reference to spiritual evolution).
The material from Roberts and Yarbrough speak almost exclusively of what happens to the soul in the non-physical realms. They never mandate any behavior on the physical realm, although they may have occasionally attempted to explain why someone might behave in a certain way. Usually, that had to do with the age of the soul in question. Someone who has only lived a few lifetimes will not behave in the same way as someone who has lived thousands, in the same way that a two-year old will not behave in the same way as a fifty-year old. Still, the two-year old is behaving in a way that is appropriate for a two-year old, and it is a necessary stage in their development. It is partially because of this that they discourage judgement of others. We can't possibly know the goals or life lessons of someone else's soul.
After Roberts and Yarbrough, other people started "channeling," but they may have been channeling their own guidance on some issue of importance to them. The newer material attempts to deal with how the information should be applied in the physical realm. One could think of It as sort of a "second-generation New Age." It appears to me that many of these people tried to follow up with "the next logical step," and that the "action steps" suggested may have worked well for the authors. This can be dangerous territory, however, because it suggests behavioral rules, and, as with the church, people try to gain control. It has happened in every single religion, from Christianity to the Hindus and the Muslims. Do you think that Christ would have approved of the Inquisition?
People then started throwing in things from other religions, especially Eastern religions, but anything considered alternative or "taboo" in the West. They revived practices that allegedly came from the Druids.
Some appropriated much from the Native Americans, and many Native Americans are justifiably incensed over this. Middle-aged, middle class white women take a series of weekend workshops and call themselves Native American "Shamen." For one thing, they are only partial teachings, (if not outright wrong), and incorrectly interpreted and applied. Secondly, these people did not grow up around Native people, and have not integrated that experience. They are not culturally Native American. Thirdly, they feel that their heritage has been stolen and polluted. I can't blame them. Native Americans say that the word "Shaman," is not even in their vocabulary.
The LGATs go above and beyond even that, promoting the new behavioral suggestions of the new "New Age," (nothing about the soul), and turning them into mandates, throwing in pop psychology, and deliberately using proven harmful psychological tactics to control people. Though they admonish their participants to not "make someone wrong," it is clear from their behavior that the only way that anyone can be "wrong" is to disagree with the LGAT.