Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Abraham Borrows Esther's Body and Prentice Mulford's Words...

*Bolding in quotes is always Kyra's emphasis

Esther (doctored) and Prentice Mulford
Abraham Hicks' 2011 audiences are eagerly welcoming Abraham's latest catch phrase--"constructing thought-ways." In recent workshops, Abraham preaches that when we think thoughts, we are constructing thought-ways that will play into our future experience. Simply put, when you are thinking thoughts on things you want or don't want, "that's the construction of thought-ways that can ultimately lead you to something more"  because "your thoughts are constructing" and  "manifestation follows them" (West Los Angeles, CA 01/29/2011). The new phraseology has thrilled many self-professed Abers. Abraham Hicks discussion forums have lit up with excitement as Abers express their enthusiasm about the new clarity that the concept presents about how they can create their own reality.

This is not the first time Abraham has used new vocabulary to express their archaic message, which dates back to the early 1900s New Thought movement. In recent years, a passé Abraham Hicks concept known by Abers as "vibrational escrow" evolved into "the vortex." At the same time, Abraham Hicks' Art of Allowing (a re-vamped version of the New Thought concept "the principle of nonresistance") workshops began using the analogy of a "stream" and pushing against or going with the current to represent when you are resisting or allowing things you want. Words like "upstream" and "downstream" became norms for Abraham listeners. Now, Abraham has added the idea of "constructing thought-ways" to the mix. Abers enjoy the analogy, but did it spring into Esther's mind via Abraham, or via an accomplished New Thought author from the early 1900s?

For those who don't know, Abraham Hicks' claim to fame, the "Law of Attraction," was a wildly popular New Thought concept, discussed by many many authors from the early 1900s to present. Authors such as Napoleon Hill, William Walker Atkinson, and Charles Fillmore cited the "Law of Attraction", by name, in many of their materials. Esther, Jerry, and Abraham do not give any of these authors credit for inspiring them with the words. Despite Jerry's self-professed familiarity with Ernest Holmes, Charles Fillmore, and Napoleon Hill (all who wrote extensively on the subject), he clearly states in he and Esther's New York Times Bestselling book The Law of Attraction (a transcription of audio recordings from 1988/1989) that he had never heard the words "Law of Attraction" before Abraham.

On top of this, various Abraham analogies about the supposed "law" have clearly been borrowed from past New Thought authors. These include the notion of our minds being like radio transmitters/receivers, our thoughts being like magnets, the principle of nonresistance (called Law of Allowing by Abraham), "birds of a feather," and more. With Jerry's self-admitted exposure to materials that would have discussed all these things, it is a little difficult to believe that Esther divined this information via Abraham. It is equally difficult to believe that Abraham's latest "constructing thought-ways" analogy was not borrowed from Prentice Mulford's 1889 book, Thoughts are Things.

In Mulford's book, he explains, "Of whatever possible thing we think, we are building, in unseen substance, a construction which will draw to us forces or elements to aid or hurt us, according to the character of the thought we think or put out." He goes on to write, "When we dread a misfortune, or live in fear of any ill, or expect ill luck, we make also a construction of unseen element, thought,--which by the same law of attraction, draws to it destructive, and to you damaging forces or elements." Now, Abraham, via Esther, expresses this same message to packed audiences.

If Abraham has really delivered the "constructing thought-ways" analogy to Esther via blocks of thought, one can only speculate as to why their "leading edge" workshops are so jam-packed with late 1800s/early 1900s terminology. To many, the answer is simple. There is no Abraham; never was. To Abers, there is an endless list of excuses to explain away the similarity. Regardless of the origins of Abraham's phraseology, Esther and Jerry will continue to reap massive profits off of packaging old wine into new bottles.


  1. No disrespect meant – as I think your other blog-posts make very fair points, but the "thought-way" you have constructed here seems to be based on a rather tenuous coincidence and based on a slightly biased wishful-thinking. The logic of your argument doesn’t rally hold up...just because Esther/Abraham is now using the word "constructed" and this word was previously used by a long-gone new though author - therefore Esther/Abraham must have copied if from this source...this doesn't really make any sense. Yes, they are obviously both espousing a similar theme and it is apparent that they are using similar language but the fact that they are both using the word “constructed” doesn’t prove any connection between the reality it probably only serves to illustrate the limits of the English language... If Esther Hicks was using the exact same sentences or phraseology then that would be a different matter, but the repetition of one word means absolutely nothing...such a lightweight semantic similarity does not prove wholesale the blatantly ridiculous "The Bible Code" showed -you can find seemingly relevant "keywords" that correspond to another text/speech/event/occurrence in absolutely any book if you are actively searching (and hoping) to find "proof" of a connection. Anyway, that's just my opinion...and I'm still enjoying your blog :-)

  2. Hey Anonymous,

    Thanks for the comment. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I've been on vacation.

    If Esther Hicks was using the exact same sentences or phraseology then that would be a different matter, but the repetition of one word means absolutely nothing...

    It's not a matter of her using the word, but a matter of her using the analogy to explain the same thing that Mulford was explaining. Also, this is not an isolated incident. It's clear that Esther and Jerry Hicks plagiarized the Law of Attraction from New Thought authors. They claim they had never heard it pre-Abraham (that it came to them via Esther's "inspiration"), despite Jerry's self-professed exposure to New Thought authors who used the phrase.

    such a lightweight semantic similarity does not prove wholesale plagiarism...

    Again, if it was just this instance, I probably wouldn't be stressing this. But it isn't. They "borrowed" the Law of Attraction, the Law of Non-resistance, and various metaphors (including this one) from New Thought authors, so I'm basically just adding this to the pile.

    Thanks again for stopping by.

  3. Gosh...interesting views. I must just put in my five cents worth here. Does it really matter who said what and when? Really? I am a self confessed "Aber" as you call us, and have been searching for over twenty two years to understand the importance and utter point of our Life here...and Abraham's influence on me has been a sheer delight, and the other authors I have have read on the subject have been building blocks to my discovery of the Abraham-Hicks again fellow Loves, does it Really matter who said what when? All that really matters is that We Feel Good...and even if it is all a huge sham..I care not! Because it has greatly impacted my life, my relationships,my world for the better! love...Jo xx

    1. Hey Anonymous,

      Thanks for the comment. I understand if you feel that "All that really matters is that We Feel Good." Personally, I am more inclined towards the following quote by Edmund Way Teale (as quoted by Carl Sagan in The Demon Haunted World): "It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it." Still, I certainly can understand why people would value the sort of emotional highs that they get from materials like the Teachings of Abraham. At the same time, I think the victim-blame encouraged by the teachings tends to subvert the feel-good bits.

    2. Look, mom. I don't know much, but I got a blog!

  4. I read 'Think and Grow Rich' by Napoleon Hill, and I found the similarities between Hill's work and the Hicks that I can only deduce they copied a lot of their ideas from this author. It would be one think to acknowledge they are spreading the ideas of other authors but to claim that they got it from some other being is simply absurd.

    I read a lot on metaphysics but I'm also critical thinker, and a lot of things you criticize about New Age authors - particularly those from Hay House - are dead on. Many of these authors care not for their followers but for their paychecks. You can read 'Think and Grow Rich' and absorb all the rhetoric without having to pay extensive fees to hear the Hicks say the same thing!

  5. Prentice Mulford was the original. Abraham is a gimmick and extremely