The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

V. Invading Citadel of God-given Sacred Individuality

We close this chapter by adverting to another angle-the question of the moral aspects of the practice of, and submission to, mesmerism or hypnotism. This is of major importance. Note the involvements. CFF2 1147.1

1. ROAD TO MIND OPENED TO INVADING SPIRITS

The question has been well asked, “When the subconscious mind, under hypnosis, becomes susceptible to outward suggestions, how can we be sure that some astral interloper of the spirit world will not intrude upon the subconscious mind, in its hypnotic trance-state, and ply its occult arts, as it does with an entranced medium?” Some careful psychic researchers have cited instances of such operations by such discarnate entities. ⁴¹ Whether the mediumistic trance is induced by autohypnosis or by spirit hypnosis, it constitutes a surrender of the unconscious mind to the controlling impressions of the invading spirit, which sometimes takes over. The kinship of such operations to Spiritualism has been well described by Hereward Carrington in The Case for Psychic Survival. ⁴² CFF2 1147.2

2. THE PERILS OF SURRENDERING THE WILL

But as mentioned, hypnosis is based on submission to another’s will and authority. In hypnotism one mind is brought under the control of another so that the individuality of the weaker is merged with that of the stronger mind. Thus the one hypnotized acts out the will of another. And in the deep somnambulistic trance the subject can be made to do anything the hypnotist suggests. CFF2 1147.3

When one tampers with the mind-the divinely created seat of intelligence, reason, conscience, and moral control-he is invading the citadel of God-given, sacred individuality intended by God to be sovereign and inviolate. Such an invasion, and corresponding surrender, is alien to the Biblical concept of man’s free moral agency and his personal accountability to God alone. But from of old this very “technique of control” has been part of the “necromancer’s repertoire.” ⁴³ And it is today. Many, such as Andrew Salter, warn of the moral dangers of hypnotism in relation to antisocial behavior.” ⁴⁴ CFF2 1148.1

3. BEWARE OF MANIPULATION BY SCHEMING MEN AND DEVILS

Dr. Jack W. Provonsha, of the faculty of Loma Linda University, utters this timely warning: CFF2 1148.2

“Bathed as we are in a constant atmosphere of suggestion of all kinds from all sides, any practice increasing the effectivity of suggestion aids the loss of the most priceless of man’s possessions and hastens the day when freedom is exchanged for determinism, when the person becomes a mere ‘thing’ to be manipulated by scheming men and devils. In this event hypnotism must be opposed as a factor in the depersonalization of other men.” ⁴⁵ CFF2 1148.3

And Dr. J. A. Whieldon, director of the Mental Hygiene Clinic of Ohio State University Hospital, Columbus, likewise warns against the perils of psychic hypnosis. He states, “Psychic hypnosis is the heaviest kind of suggestion.” It is “the imposition of the ‘will’ of another over one and the surrender of one’s ego to another.” The one hypnotized gives up his “discriminative capacity and surrenders his self-determinism.” And after one has been once hypnotized, Dr. Whieldon adds, it is “easier to be hypnotized a second time.” Such an individual is “more vulnerable to suggestion and less independent.” Whieldon calls it “harmful” to “emotional independence and personal responsibility.” ⁴⁶ CFF2 1148.4

4. HYPNOSIS NOT FAVORED BY MAJORITY OF DENTISTS

According to a recent article titled “Psychological Evaluation of Hypnosis in Dentistry,” in the January, 1961, Journal of the American Dental Association, Drs. Loren R. Borland and Sidney Epstein, both of the faculty of the School of Dentistry of the University of California, indicated that there is a definite trend away from the clinical use of hypnosis on the part of the majority of dentists. Their joint findings were based on a poll. Here are six key sentences that speak for themselves: CFF2 1149.1

“The vast majority of practicing dentists feel it is possible to render adequate service without employing hypnosis.” ⁴⁷ CFF2 1149.2

“Even men who were known to be using hypnosis and were active in study groups would not admit using it.” ⁴⁸ CFF2 1149.3

“Within this group of stable, productive individuals, not one ardent advocate of hypnosis is to be found.” ⁴⁹ CFF2 1149.4

“Hypnosis is an unsatisfactory and, perhaps, unsavory technic, judging from how its advocates are seen.” ⁵⁰ CFF2 1149.5

“The hypnosis users, in general, learned hypnosis in a commercial one to three day seminar which had no university sanction.” ⁵¹ CFF2 1149.6

“Hypnosis, in general, is not yet held in high esteem by the dental profession.” ⁵² CFF2 1149.7

And they add: “Most dentists who use hypnosis agree that it can be dangerous if applied to certain patients.” ⁵³ CFF2 1149.8