Bailey Critics -- Part I

2001-8-21 11:52:00

On a fairly regular basis I receive or come across some type of attack on Alice A. Bailey.

One thing I find interesting about these is that many of them are mentioned by people associated with the LDS church. The reason I find this interesting is that the attacks on Alice A. Bailey correspond very closely with attacks against the Mormon founder, Joseph Smith.

How is this?

Attacks on Joseph Smith often misrepresent and distort his teachings. The same is true of Alice A. Bailey.

Attacks on Joseph Smith present him as being deceived by Satan as an angel of light. This is also true of Alice A. Bailey.

Because Joseph Smith had a different slant on the doctrine of Christ, he and his followers were proclaimed as not even being "Christian." The same is true of Alice A. Bailey who taught a doctrine of Christ very similar to Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith and current Mormons are seen as agents of "The Beast" -- and the same is true for Alice A. Bailey and her followers.

They are both pronounced as guilty by association.

Joseph was a Master Mason so every evil perpetuated by Masons is thought to be endorsed by him. Alice A. Bailey had the same views toward the Masons as Joseph and is pronounced guilty in the same way.

Every odd or erroneous statement made by Joseph's successors and associates is used to condemn him.

The same is true of Alice A. Bailey. When criticizing her, they vary rarely quote her actual words. They usually use quotes from some fringe new age or theosophical person that is claimed to represent her teachings. One of the main sources of quotes used to condemn Alice A. Bailey is from Benjamin Creme. Creme does use some of the Bailey material, but mostly he uses his own revelations from a very uninspired Maitreya. Few serious Bailey students accept Creme, but to listen to Bailey critics you would think people like me accept him as a spokesman.

When you then compare Smith and Bailey and see the similarity of their teachings, and the enemies who oppose them, it is amazing that many followers of Joseph Smith get caught in the same trap (false condemnation) as do their own critics.

There are several lines of attack used against Alice A. Bailey. In addition to associating Creme and others with Alice A. Bailey, a main line of attack is toward the Lucis Trust Publishing Company which publishes and promotes the writings.

One problem with this is that Alice A. Bailey has been dead for about 50 years and there has been no known communication with a Master since that time. Therefore Lucis Trust and their supported organizations have been on their own in attempting to accomplish the suggestions that DK [Djwhal Khul] gave through Alice A. Bailey.

One must keep in mind the fact then that after an initiate leaves a group, those who follow him or her will often implement procedures and teachings that are not in harmony with the founder. Usually these followers have good intentions, but they often miss the mark with their innovations.

Take a look at the evolution of the Christian Church and note how far removed it has gotten from the teachings of Christ numerous times throughout history.

In more recent times one can read the teachings of Joseph Smith and compare them with the Mormon Church today and find many changes in direction that would probably startle him.

The founders of the U.S. Constitution would probably be turning over in their graves if they could see how their limitations on the power of government have been stripped away by do-gooders.

Even so can we take it for granted that all the Lucis Trust has done is not on the same path as Alice A. Bailey or DK [Djwhal Khul] would have followed.

Actually, perhaps the greatest drift from DK's suggestions is that they have been overly cautious about sticking to him as an authority and do not seem to recognize or comment on any innovative teachers outside of their group.

DK told them that the bringing in of the new age would require billions of dollars spent on advertising and promotion and that esoteric groups should share their mailing lists and cooperate with each other in the promotion of innovative teachings.

Lucis Trust is very guarded with their mailing list and make no effort, of which I am aware, to share and exchange with other groups and has made very little progress in advertising the work.

One thing they could do for those who wish anonymity is to give those on their mailing list a choice in the matter as to whether or not their name is shared.

Overall then, we must look upon the actions of the Lucis Trust in the same light as we would the dozens of other organizations that use the writings of Alice A. Bailey as a base. They may or may not represent the true intentions of their founding teacher.

Taking this into consideration, next we will examine the criticisms of Alice A. Bailey and Lucis Trust and look at them in the light of day.

Question: Have you heard criticisms of the Bailey writings? What were they and what did you think?

Go to:

Next Article in "Bailey Critics" Series

Index of Articles On "Bailey Critics"