Spiritualism! Fact or Fiction?

[Kaere]

I didn't realize that Spiritualism holds mediumship as the ONLY method of communication between spirit and us. I guess you learn something every day. It's much too restrictive for me... if anyone cared to know lol.

Originally Posted by Kaere

I didn't realize that Spiritualism holds mediumship as the ONLY method of communication between spirit and us. I guess you learn something every day. It's much too restrictive for me... if anyone cared to know lol.

"I didn't realize that Spiritualism holds mediumship as the ONLY method of communication between spirit and us."

It doesn't. Spiritualism's fundamentals are our survival beyond corporeal death and the possibility of communication, through mediumship, of discarnates and incarnates.

It doesn't say it's the only method of communication....

[Kaere]

Originally Posted by mac

"I didn't realize that Spiritualism holds mediumship as the ONLY method of communication between spirit and us."

It doesn't. Spiritualism's fundamentals are our survival beyond corporeal death and the possibility of communication, through mediumship, of discarnates and incarnates.

It doesn't say it's the only method of communication....

Then why does it only say "the possibility of communication, through mediumship"...? If other methods of communication are acceptable, then it should be included in such a statement of fundamentals. Perhaps "through mediumship or other methods of communication" would work.

What are the other acceptable methods of communication then? What is unacceptable?

"So many ways to prove spiritualism."

Why would anyone feel it necessary to prove Spiritualism - and what would you be proving? Plainly Spiritualism exists, it's a registered religion, it's a philosophy and sometimes it's said it's also a science.

No mechanism exists to prove Spiritualism any more than you could prove the religion of Christianity or prove the religion of Roman Catholicism etc.

Originally Posted by Kaere

Then why does it only say "the possibility of communication, through mediumship"...? If other methods of communication are acceptable, then it should be included in such a statement of fundamentals. Perhaps "through mediumship or other methods of communication" would work.

What are the other acceptable methods of communication then? What is unacceptable?

"Then why does it only say "the possibility of communication, through mediumship"..." It doesn't - I said that. Communication isn't certain so it's a possibilitiy.

Spiritualism has no, quote: "statement of fundamentals" as you're suggesting. The words were my own....

[Kaere]

Hmmm... well I can see then how people can become easily confused in this forum. Your words seemed to imply one thing whereas now you're saying it's actually different to what your words said.

So then, I'll find my information elsewhere, if my curiosity continues.

Originally Posted by Kaere

Hmmm... well I can see then how people can become easily confused in this forum. Your words seemed to imply one thing whereas now you're saying it's actually different to what your words said.

So then, I'll find my information elsewhere, if my curiosity continues.

If you look back at my many postings here and elsewhere I'm fairly confident you'll find me saying much the same things. I hope I've written clearly and implied nothing that would mislead. If I did I apologise - I'd appreciate you pointing out where and why and in future I'll be careful not to repeat.

What I said - and what I've re-iterated and explained further - is what I've been saying for many years. The religion and philosophy of (Modern) Spiritualism is very, very simple in its fundamentals. Adherents aren't expected to do or believe or say any particular thing. It's up to the individual whether they refer to themselves as Spiritualists, no church attendance or worship is expected or required. Belief isn't demanded. Evidence is there aplenty but if it's not convincing for an individual they may wish to seek out their own....

Maybe folk try to make Spiritualism (as I've explained it) something it simply isn't, try to equate it with something else altogether more complex and wide-ranging? I don't know what they are doing but I do know from much experience that many think that 'spiritualism' is the same as Spiritualism and try to tell me why I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Kaere

Then why does it only say "the possibility of communication, through mediumship"...? If other methods of communication are acceptable, then it should be included in such a statement of fundamentals. Perhaps "through mediumship or other methods of communication" would work.

What are the other acceptable methods of communication then? What is unacceptable?

Kaere, in regard to the highlighted text of the quote above - In UK's Spiritualism, all communication from the spirit world is viewed as an experiment by their Spiritualist mediums. This is because no spirit communicator or spirit communication can ever be guaranteed.

Obviously all medium's rely on the interaction of spirit person for a spirit communication to become possible. If there isn't a spirit communicator, then one should assume the message is of a psychic nature rather than one of mediumship.

Originally Posted by Skye

Kaere, in regard to the highlighted text of the quote above - In UK's Spiritualism, all communication from the spirit world is viewed as an experiment by their Spiritualist mediums. This is because no spirit communicator or spirit communication can ever be guaranteed.

Obviously all medium's rely on the interaction of spirit person for a spirit communication to become possible. If there isn't a spirit communicator, then one should assume the message is of a psychic nature rather than one of mediumship.

thanks for that, B.... Support is greatly welcome!

As an aside, I was 'speaking' to someone a time back (I can't now recall who it was) who claimed to be able to reach any discarnate they wished. In simple terms, they could connect, through their own mediumship, anyone incarnate with anyone discarnate.

I am sceptical of any such claim without evidence to prove it.

Originally Posted by mac

thanks for that, B.... Support is greatly welcome!

As an aside, I was 'speaking' to someone a time back (I can't now recall who it was) who claimed to be able to reach any discarnate they wished. In simple terms, they could connect, through their own mediumship, anyone incarnate with anyone discarnate.

I am sceptical of any such claim without evidence to prove it.

I am sceptical too when people mention this K. Although I know some times a recipient has a wish to speak to some one in particular in the world of spirit. They may well decide to communicate, yet I would personally sway on the side of caution and say, there is no guarantee. In my opinion it's preferable for medium and recipient to each have an open mind as it can make for a better sitting.