"The Religious Science form of Science of Mind is an old New Thought form from the 20th Century. It is partly based on John Bascom's original 19th Century Science of Mind form of New Thought mentioned by Emma Curtis Hopkins, William Atkinson and even Mary Baker Eddy." Ernest Holmes' Religious Science survives today under the billing: "Center for Spiritual Living" as well as many wonderful independent Religious Science Centers. (Continued below the list of available works.)

Links to Ernest Holmes's Works:

• The Bible in the Light of Religious Science
• Creative Mind - 1917
• Creative Mind and Success - 1919
• Ebell Lectures on Spiritual Science
• It's Up To You! (with A. M. Latham)
• Lessons in Spiritual Mind Healing
• Might in Mind-Mastery +new
  (with O.S. Marden)
• New Thought Terms and Their Meanings - 1942
• Philosophy of Jesus
• Questions & Answers on the Science of Mind
• Science of Mind - 1926 (the Original)
• Science of Mind - 1938 (with A. M. Latham) <<< Returning Soon !

Ernest also wrote The Voice Celestial with his brother Fenwicke Holmes
(visit the Fenwicke Holmes Collection)

Along with countless independent Religious Science and Spiritual Living Centers, the CSL (Center for Spiritual Living) continues the Religions Science tradition. Through an amalgamation of two early Religious Science Church organizations: The United Church of Religious Science and Religious Science International, resources were pooled and thereby expenses were reduced. Financial challenges were dogging both organizations, yet they both had unique cultures. Some felt that the fact that there were already two Religious Science organizations was a clear demonstration that what had taken Christianity 1500 years to accomplish had been done by Holmes during his lifetime.

Holmes legacy extends far beyond those two organizations.

There are multiple New Thought organizations which use Holmes work, including Global Religious Science and the New Thought Affiliates. Usually organization splitting is a sign that a religion is maturing. Could the fact that Holmes' teachings are finding use in multiple organizations be a sign of maturity? Could the amalgamation of two of these organizations be signaling a reversal?

Is there a split within Religious Science regarding Human Rights?

At times today's Religious Science leaders, including leaders in the CSL have discussions about whether or not Human Rights plays a role in their versions of this wonderful spiritual path, yet some leaders are deeply opposed to the promotion of any form of "Social Justice" as a component to their form of Science of Mind. Will today's Religious Scientists affirm human rights as a key spiritual priniciple and assume the mantel of compassionate action?

What could be causative in blocking Religious Scientists from recognizing Human Rights as a key spiritual principle?

The bulk of Holmes' work was written prior to the Holocaust, and before the major expansion of Holmes' Religious Science "transdenomination" took place during the U.S. postwar economic boom. Could this be responsible for the fact that Holmes did not enfold the crucial lessons learned during World War 2 regarding the importance of compassion?

What was Holmes' stance on Human Rights? Did he have one? Ernest Holmes died in 1960, yet the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education on May 17, 1954 declaring segregation unconstitutional. It would be odd if Holmes had no thoughts on Human Rights.

Compassionate action was taught by both Jesus and Buddha. Was there a failure on Holmes part to recognize the importance of compassionate action as an essential principle inherent to all higher Spiritual paths?

Are Human Rights essential to Religious Science and the New Thought movement?

The Dalai Lama has joined the leaders of a number of other religions and spiritual paths around the world to promote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For those familiar with this document created by the world in 1948, it is felt to be the highest collective spiritual work ever created.

Why did some Religious Scientists attending the World Congress of Religions respond to inquiries by adherents of the Islamic form of Abrahamism, in such a way that they led those questioners to believe they were Christians? Is this due to fears that some Abrahamics teach odd practices such as killing "non-believers" or "unbelievers?" Or do some Religious Scientists actually believe they are Christians?

John Bascom, the author of the original Science of Mind wrote within the context of Christian Theology, yet questioned some of the basic premises of traditional Christian theology in his books Natural Theology and New Theology. Did Ernest Holmes consider himself to be a Christian? Holmes wrote a book titled The Philosophy of Jesus. Does this he was a Christian or was Ernest Holmes propounding a new religion based on Universal Spiritual Principles? Many adherents of the Religious Science form of Science of Mind today attend Religious Science centers of all kinds believing it is not simply a philosophy but a religion. Some attend Religious Science centers because they have undergone Religious Abuse at various Abrahamic Communities of different types. Are they mistaken?

It seems obvious that Holmes' Religious Science form of Science of Mind New Thought is an inclusive Spiritual path teaching Universal Spiritual Principles, and that it is a New Thought religion. Are those of us believing Holmes' Religious Science version of Science of Mind is a religion mistaken?

There are different New Thought forms emphasizing different spiritual texts, while at the same time using all available religious works to support the New Thought teaching that there are Universal Spiritual Principles. This is why New Thought has a powerful appeal to thoughtful souls. Another important aspect of New Thought is the inclusion of Science as an integral part of the spiritual path. The inclusion of science is challenging, but only for those who prefer magical thinking. The onset of the New Millennium brought insights into evolution which proved that compassion is an essential part of humanitiies survival and success. Thomas Picketty's work: Capital in the 21st Century utilitzed computers to aggregate and parse the data necessary to prove that participant democracy and its attendant means to regulate commerce and provide opportunity to all citizens is the remedy to most of the challenges faced by humanity.

For over 100 years, New Thought was often enriched by the conversion of Pentacostalists; will the New Millennium unveil a novel trend in which adherents to the Religious Science form of Science of Mind convert to Pentecostalism? It might seem unlikely yet rumours abound that some Religious Science leaders are looking in that direction. Stranger things have happened.

What are the factors in the decline of attendance?

At least one CSL minister is adamant that "Religious Science is a boutique religion." This tendency to diminuate (to lessen or make small) the ability of Holmes' Religious Science form of Science of Mind to attract adherents is not unique to that spiritual leader. Is the belief that Holmes' work has a diminished capacity to attract adherents shared by a large number of Religious Scientists? Why would they share such a belief?

Could propounding the Prosperity Gospel be the answer to shrinking attendance at Religious Science based communities?

While there is no doubt that flogging the Prosperity Gospel can put money in the pockets of those who do so, is it a vehicle for expanding attendance at New Thought Centers? Some folks certainly think so, and there is no shortage of guest speakers with new books touting "new" approaches to prosperity principles. During the late 20th Century the rise of Christian Fundamentalist television evangelists flogging the Prosperity Gospel seems to have stolen that fire from New Thought leaders focusing on such interpretations of the Bible as a recruitment tool. The question to those New Thought folks who are Joseph Campbell enthusiasts is: "Were those fundamentalist preachers acting out the myth of Prometheus?" or were they simply stealing something of low or no value?

Was Scientology causative in the decline of attendance at Religious Science Centers?

Toward the end of the 20th Century, some ministers in Religious Science seemed to feel that Scientology was having a negative impact on attendance at their centers. Why would this matter? Are the names Scientology and Religious Sceince that similar? If so, wouldn't it be more likely that Religious Science would be confused with Christian Science? Perhaps people were confusing Science of Mind with Scientology? Did the rise of Scientology lead to confusion on the behalf the general public when they heard the term Science of Mind? It could be possible that such confusion was being generated but it seems unlikely. What does it take for an average person living in a Civil Society like the United States to be motivated to attend a New Thought Center? What does it take for an average person living in a Civil Society such as Brasil to attend a New Thought Center? Is there a difference?

Is there a lack of clarity regarding what Religious Scientists believe?

For those familiar with Religious Science, the beliefs are clear. How easy is it for them to be explained to various people with no New Thought experience?

Could the practice of charging for classes be a basis for lower attendance?

How many classes are necessary for a person to understand Religious Science? How many classes are necessary for a person to be able to practice Holmes' methods of manifestation? Could the practice of charging for classes lead to a decline in attendance?

Could the decline in attendance at Religious Science centers simply be part of an overall trend?

It should also be noted that there has been a decline in church attendance across the globe among those who live in Civil Societies. Is this because people who live in Civil Societies are not legally required to attend mosques, churches or temples? Or is this decline in attendance due to the failure of traditional religions to enfold science into their world views? Could old New Thought be suffering from the tendency of some Spiritual leaders to reject Science and cling to magical thinking?

These questions are paramount in today's global political climate, as well as dealing with the rise of climate chaos due to rising levels of Methane and Carbon Dioxide which has evidently raised global temperature leading to extreme weather as well as rising sea levels.

Could passivity in the sharing of New Thought, as a religion, philosophy and way of living, be playing a factor in the decline of the Holmes' Religious Science? Some New Thought Spiritual Leaders assume a passive approach to sharing their faith for many reasons, least of all a fear of social rejection. Others are happy to point to the influence of New Thought on world culture and how certain principles have become accepted in the parts of the world they are familiar with. Would these adherents be content if their forms of old New Thought become so disconnected from the reality of every day living that they are relegated to the shards and tattered remnants within the archeological mounds of discarded historical ideas?

Is the answer to declining attendance to be found in Public Relations (PR)? Can old New Thought forms rebrand themselves to regain the traction experienced in the mid to late 20th Century? Could a change in style be all that is necessary to rekindle growth?

Readers may see previously unpublished works of Ernest Holmes emerge from the Spiritual Living Archives, which is a wonderful resource. The question is: will these works be released with the intent of propagating Holmes' Religious Science form of Science of Mind New Thought, or as a vehicle for financial gain?

Ernest Holmes was also the Editor of Mind Remakes Your World

More Books by Ernest Holmes:

The books below may not currently be in the public domain, but some of them are coming into the public domain soon.

Creative Ideas
Practical Applications of the Science of Mind
Change Your Thinking, Change Your Life vol's 1-6
The Art of Life
Effective Prayer
Immortality
Ideas For Living
Richer Living
Thoughts Are Things
The Voice Celestial
Good For You
Living The Science of Mind - "an easier read"
What Religious Science Teaches

Compilations of his works
Love & Law - 2001
The Basic Ideas Of Science of Mind
The Anatomy Of Healing Prayer