Olomeinu teaches Lubavitch theology? We can imagine no better example of just how deeply Chabad's ideological errors have penetrated into mainstream
Orthodox Judaism than the February, 2009 edition of the popular and venerable children's magazine, Olomeinu. The following letter, sent to the magazine's office
at the time, should adequately illustrate the issue.
Despite the expressed outrage of at least one of America's leading roshei yeshivos, no substantial response or retraction was apparently ever issued by the magazine's
editors or management. They seem entirely unmoved by the problem. (Compare this article to an accurate and sophisticated description of the Thirteen Principles printed
by Olomeinu in their February, 1969 issue and see how confused mainstream Orthodox Judaism has become in just forty years.)
My children recently received this month's edition of Olomeinu and I was struck by what I consider a number of oversights in the section on Rambam's 13 principles. Please allow me to share my observations with you.
"Hashem doesn't have a body, but He is everywhere" and
"He is everywhere and in everyone...He is in the water and in the air...."
This belief is not only the precise opposite of what the Rambam himself wrote in his ikkarim, but it is a variation of neo-Spinozian pantheism and most likely a category of minus as defined by Rambam in Hilchos Teshuva 3: 7!
Rambam (in his 13 principles) very clearly states that Hashem's unity requires that He is internally indivisible. That means one cannot ascribe to Him any attribute (baal chessed, baal rachamim etc) without "creating" a unity-negating division. One could most certainly not imagine that Hashem is somehow "within" anything corporeal like a human body without invoking a very serious division. Therefore, claiming that Hashem somehow resides "within us" is an incarnationism that would seem to directly negate Rambam's third principle (or, at very least, come dangerously close)!
Your suggestion that Hashem is somehow "everywhere and in everything" is in fact far closer to pantheism (for the teaching of which Baruch Spinoza was expelled from the Amsterdam kehilla) and is an idea very far from the Rambam's Torah philosophy.
Practically, I certainly haven't the authority (or chutzpa) to demand that you present only the Rambam's words in any given matter of emunah or halacha - and if you can find legitimate sources to support your own approach, I would voice no complaint. But I do feel that presenting beliefs against which the Rambam fought as though they were his own is wrong and could potentially have serious consequences for the emunas Hashem for tens of thousands of orthodox children.
Next, your words
"All the nevi'im's words are true, and I have emunas chachomim, too..."
is, besides being absent from the Rambam 13 ikkarim, potentially misleading. There is, to my knowledge, no source anywhere in classical Torah literature suggesting that our Chachomim are or were ever infallible. Even Moshe Rebbeinu himself was recorded by the Torah as making mistakes (see, for instance, Vayikra 10: 19). Such close comparison between our faith in the infallibility of nevuah and the way we relate to our rabbonim carries the potential for great confusion and disillusionment. And it's incorrect.
Emunas chachomim, at least the way I learned it from from my own rebbeim, is the belief that chachomim are simply smarter and, because of their great amailus and zechuyos, are far more likely be correct than I am. In a dispute, a wise talmid will always defer to chachomim. But he will never reject at least the theoretical possibility that they could be wrong.
Finally, as a general (and relatively minor) point, the thirteen "ani maamin's" printed in many siddurim are most certainly not representative of the Rambam's own thoughts on this matter (which, of course, can be found in his commentary to the mishnayos of the final perek of Sanhedrin). At most, the "ani maamin's" bear only a superficial resemblance.
In that light, attributing to Rambam's formulation of the 13 principles such phrases as
"Hashem is constantly guiding the world and caring for everything that is in it" or
"We must turn to Hashem for everything...Hashem does not always do what we ask for, but He always does what's best for us"
is incorrect and misleading. That's not to say that these aren't important and correct beliefs or that the Rambam would disagree with them, but he clearly didn't consider them as "ikkarim" and implying otherwise would seem to be bad chinuch.