Yes, indeed, it's somewhat unusual and rather enjoyable to find we're in agreement over certain points. :smile:

Over my years writing online about matters of a spiritual nature I've become acclimated to keeping my own company concerning the ideas I put forward. Those ideas are often not my own but they do - I always hope - reflect to the best of my limited ability the words of spiritually elevated guides and teachers.

This thread is concerned with the history of Spiritualism - Modern Spiritualism's historical roots - but there's a limit to what should be considered part of that history. Such matters are not my specialty though - I leave that to genuine historians and others who look up information online. :wink:

QUOTE 91 EXCERPT:


While some of our posts may SEEM to be only tangentially related to the history of Spiritualism, my sense is that they are vital to a REAL history of Spiritualism in many ways. The fact that both Spiritualism and Spiritism are very Christian-oriented is a vital aspect of the history ... since, as we both have suggested, the interactions with spirits seem to attract Christian-oriented spirits and that is a major aspect of these two organizations.

I expect you're right but as I've said repeatedly history has little practical importance for me. Stuff from the very distant past may indeed link to the modern movement but I know nothing about that and I ought to practise what I preach which is to write about only what I know about. :redface: blessings :hug3:

Something you might want to note is that a British Medical Doctor once wrote that Spiritism is Spiritualist, but they are not vice versa.

Like yourself, history in general "has little practical importance for me" though it can clear up certain matters on why some people believe what they believe. In addition, one can also learn vicariously from the life experiences of historical others. :thumbsup::hug3:

absolutely!

Learning vicariously from others' experiences is something I've done for a long time but I only take notice of those who I can tell really do know and understand what they're talking about.

There's such a difference between someone who purports to know something - but in reality has simply researched details - and someone else who can explain what the details mean in real terms. The latter are the ones I pay attention to. :smile:

Historical facts can explain a very great deal but without appropriate context go no further. I am little interested, though, in what people believe or why they believe what they do. I'm influenced most by what spirit teachers widely acknowledged as authoritative have taught us.

Details can be interesting at times I'll concede and historical details must be important to those who study and research them. But they don't necessarily have much value outside of certain situations, the teaching of history being one of them.

The famous Spiritualist, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is accredited to making that observation. As a Polymath, he was involved mostly with Spiritualism and a little bit with Spiritism. During his time period, Spiritualism did not believe in reincarnation whereas Spiritist did.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is also famous for his extensive two volume works on Spiritualism. A tremendous amount of knowledge can be gleaned by reading these books. Hard to believe, there was more to this man then Sherlock Holmes. LOL!

As for history, when I used to give talks and classes at Spiritualist Churches, one thing I noted was virtually nobody seem to have any knowledge on the history of Spiritualism. I suspect that is why Spiritualism has changed so much and people seem to not to realize it. For example, one Church I used to attend was extremely Bible oriented. Another was geared toward the 'Masters' and another for a while was centered around 'A Course in Miracles'.

Even at places that have Mediums and did Seances, the evolution of Spiritualism appeared to be something they were not aware of.

One of Swedenborg's followers who became part of American folklore was John Chapman who resonated with Swedenborg's 'teachings. John Chapman is not know but 'Johnny Appleseed' is!

Swedenborgians don't seem to have 'cut and dry' rules and doctrines. It some ways, it is hard to get a direct answer on a subject from them. They seem to operate more in an Animistic nature which I suspect is difficult for some people to understand.
As for Emmanuel Swedenborg, he was a Polymath and it seems he was a 'travelling clairvoyant' Medium in which he traveled to get more insights.

That is precisely my approach to learning vicariously. I gravitate towards those with direct experiences as opposed to those who have simply researched details and really don't know experientially ... though even the researchers can be helpful at times.