Talk:Guy Ballard

Untitled

I don't know anything about this person however I edited the spelling and grammar (is that a Wikisin?) Does anyone know anything about Guy Ballard? Sounds like an interesting enough guy, worthy of a Wikipedia article I suppose. Paul 23:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some account of Ballard's wife's prosecution for misusing the US mail; and moreover the disappointment felt by his followers when he did not ascend but merely died, is needed. Jmc29 13.58, 19 July 2005 (GMT)

Are you sure? What happened to Jesus? One could say that one need not literally believe that Jesus's physical body ascended into heaven on Easter Sunday to believe that his spirit "ascended" in some broader sense, or that he was a great mystic, teacher and Son of God and one of the greats of religious history etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.196.222 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This needs cleanup, neutrality

This needs to be addressed by a non-member of his group. I don't want to do it right now, but someone should go through this and rewrite for neutrality. I've added the rewrite tag. I'll watch the page, so if you have more questions about what needs to be improved, just ask. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried, but it seems the stuff about the I AM activity is already covered less weaselly in a main article on it. I suggest after the first bits about Guy Ballard, the I AM stuff could be culled out. Does anyone know how he died? Also, this article says his wife was in legal strife but the activity article states they both were, so in the interests of biography I will transfer some personal stuff across. Julia Rossi 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

An extensive newspaper, google scholar search turned up very little on Guy Ballard. He is only notable insofar as he was the founder of the "I AM" Activity, which is itself only somewhat notable. This article should be merged into "I AM" Activity. Fireplace (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this merger. Guy Ballard happens to be notable as the first person to introduce the concept of "Ascended Masters" in 1934. Millions since then have used that concept, and his particular take on esoteric philosophy and Theosophy, as part of their religious and philosophical systems world wide. As a student of religious history, it does not seem appropriate to exclude him. Arion (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the claim that millions have used Guy Ballard's concept of ascended master? Fireplace (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has multiple articles, all dealing with this topic, under different names: Secret Chiefs, Great White Brotherhood, Masters of the Ancient Wisdom, and Ascended master (an article that, as of 2018.12.25, reads like an advertisement for Guy Ballard's IAM movement). Elsewhere Wikipedia states that the concept, in its Western/European form, traces back to Karl von Eckartshausen (1752 – 1803), and was greatly popularized by HPB, the founder of Theosophy, which Ballard studied, and where he would have learned the idea. Anybody who channels is using this concept. That Guy Ballard claims exclusivity as the channel for Saint Germain is not a concept or a contribution, but marketing. Tonedeafyodler (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Religious organizations based on a belief in Ascended Masters, such as The I AM Activity, The Bridge to Freedom, The Summit Lighthouse, The Temple of The Presence, over the last 73 years, totaling millions of members world-wide:

(1) Partridge, Christopher ed. New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities Oxford University Press, USA 2004. pages 330 - 334

(2) Saint Germain Foundation. The History of the "I AM" Activity and Saint Germain Foundation. Schaumburg, Illinois: Saint Germain Press 2003

(3) Braden, Charles S. These Also Believe MacMillan Publishing Company 2000 pages 257 - 307 Arion (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm satisfied that he's notable. Fireplace (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy of information or bias of information

Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in 1851 was contacted by the Master Morya, resulting in Theosophy which deals with many Ascended Masters and 1851 is many years before 1930 so Guy Ballard could not have been the original nucleus except within the "I Am" Activity Dr Ron Howe (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that there are only a few Theosophical Masters (and the Theosophists call them the Masters of the Ancient Wisdom), but beginning in 1930, Guy Ballard began getting revelations from many additional what he called Ascended Masters and they included many additional ones not recognized by Theosophy. Also, Theosophy is technically not a religion, it is a metaphysical system and anyone of any religion can join. Whereas, I AM and the other Ascended Master Teachings religions are actual organized religions whose leaders claim to be able to get "dictations" from the Ascended Masters. They also have certain practices in common, like invoking while meditating the "violet flame". Keraunos (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging this with I Am Religious Activity Article

I'm thinking about this again. There's a lot of duplicated info here. How does one propose an official merger? --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad this was not merged

Coming to the article in 2021 to get the birth and death dates of Guy Ballard, i checked into the Talk page and read the old discussions about a merge proposal. I am glad that the merge did not take place. I would have liked more biographical material on Mr. Ballard, not less, as would have resulted had the article been effaced by merging into the I Am Activity page.

I am not a follower of the I Am Activity or its offshoots by any means; my chief interest is in Charles Sindelar, the artist of the original "Voice of I Am" magazines and the conceptualist responsible for most of the I Am Activity art during Guy Ballard's lifetime. However, because i do write professionally about metaphysical subjects, i find individual Wikipedia bios quite useful for basic facts (birth, marriage, offspring, publications, death). This is true of many other figures of history, and it is with regret that i am so often disappointed by the skeptic / anti-religious / anti-metaphysical editors who delete perfectly good articles on notable people in the world of metaphysics, simply out of ignorance, claiming them to be non-notable, when in fact they are notable.

Back when i was a regular contributor to and promoter of Wikipedia, i saw many of my own bios of important people in the various metaphysical, magical, occult, and related fields deleted. Edit wars and claims of non-notability were used as weapons against documentation of an area of human social life that skeptic / anti-religious / anti-metaphysical editors did not want to see commemorated. I no longer even try to get such bios into Wikipedia. I had to start my own Media Wiki sites to get the basic bio information online.

I will be writing about Charles Sindelar and his influence on the visual conceptions of the Ascended Masters, but i am here to say that the fact that a Guy Ballard article remains here at all is actually quite remarkable. Long may it wave.

catherine yronwode, not logged in, Wikipedian since 2006 75.101.104.17 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)