Now, how much of what they say is true or not, I could not tell you. It is not really listening as more of promoting one's own ideas among them and trying to yell the loudest (which Rowe was VERY successful at for a while). It seems that once people join this sort of following they suddenly all have these Out of Body Experiences. They promote New Age ideas such as mysterious beings that are one with the universe rather than any other item and in many instances seem to have an agenda to promote New Ageism over that of simply relating what happens after death. One difference is that by doing this, they can say they have repeat experiences which occur often via visions and dreams rather than a one time Near Death experience. They try to meld the idea of near Death and out of Body as the same type of thing and same type of experience in order to try to validate their own ideas. One of the ideas of the New Age movement is that they do not just have a Near Death experience, but a repeat experiences. In many ways they tend to conflict with other Near Death experiences of those who are NOT part of this New Age movement. Instead of having VALID Near Death experiences as given by those who truly had such, they have many (who were later shown to never have had such a near death at all) say they had such things occur to them and give wildly conflicting ideas about the afterlife and things after death. New Age idealism has tossed a lot of murkiness around the idea of Near Death Experiences. I'm not sure exactly of him, but I know many of those who follow his ideas (Such as Julie Rowe) seem to be part of the New Age portion of Saints who have some unique ideas about near death experiences (many of which are not actually near death experiences in my opinion) and out of body experiences. Many of his fans, though ernest, seem to fixate on some points of doctrine to the point of missing the mark by my estimation.

In particular, his description of the city of Zion in VoG just makes me feel sick for an unknown reason, even though it seems perfectly plausible. That being said, theres just something about his books that make me uncomfortable.

Wether what he writes is true doctrine or not you can tell he hasn't ever deliberately wrested the scriptures to prove his point, but declares them as he sees them. Any opinions?įirst, my own opinion: from what little I've read from him, he seems to know the scriptures very well. I have a few family members who swear by him, but I'm not totally sure how I feel about him just yet.

He has a small, but dedicated fan base, many of which are quite industrious in publishing their own literature and studies. He is known for such books as Following the Light of Christ Into His Presence, and Visions of Glory, the latter of which had been a cause of some controversy a while back. John Pontius is a well known, if not infamous figure in the sphere of church related literature.

Spencer's visions of glory fairmormon