Re: So nice to visit again.........

by petal34 Sun Jul 24, 2011 8:23 am

obiwan wrote:I'd settle for mediums who can give actual evidence.

So would I,good evidence at that.

by zerdini Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:13 am

petal34 wrote:It's quite a long time since I watched the video of Alec Harris.
It was an interview on telly and I am almost certain it was on U-Tube.
Check the net and see if you can find it.

There is an interview with Alan Crossley who sat with Alec Harris a long time ago - Alan is now on the other side.

There is no video of Alec Harris

I am on another site,pretty quiet like most sites are today but they have a good history of Alec Harris plus other well known mediums.

Which site is that?

The owner of the site has met and worked with him.

Nonsense - nobody worked with Alec Harris.

As I said previously,I have had no experience of PM,never seen a demonstration at all.
I am not new to spiritualism but only to a certain degree.
I have a few 'gifts' nothing like full mediumship.
I hear spirit but do not see them,except in lucid dreams.
That's about my lot,not much at all.
Joan

by zerdini Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:17 am

petal34 wrote:Alec Harris,I have never read any of his books.

Alec Harris never wrote any books. His wife wrote a book about his mediumship.

I am a member of another site where there is a great deal of information about him.
A greatly respected medium,as well.

There is plenty of information on this site about Alec Harris.

I know some of my questions sound a bit ignorant but I tend to dig below the surface to find answers.
I can understand the tying of bonds if the general public were admitted (I can accept the public doubting a great deal).
But where there were only private members admitted,I would have thought there would have be no doubt.

Thanks Synaxis.

by zerdini Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:19 am

obiwan wrote:I'd settle for mediums who can give actual evidence.

I agree. Phenomena of itself is of no value no matter who testifies to it.

by hiorta Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:49 am

Spiritualism in decline? Perhaps so in some respects, though this view can be understood better if measured in terms of your own growth. Look back down the years and see how far the individual has travelled.

Inferior religous thought tends to fasten itself to adherents, whereas Spiritualism would appear to seek to enable those, who were fortunate enough to have successfully benefitted from their exposure, to walk, then run and now soar, inwardly, as they move through physical experience.

An open mind, neither ecstatic or supressed by Life's experinces, is a great help as we go beyond society's markers and break new Spiritual ground and leave the nourishing Church astern, grateful for it having served it's purpose in our lives.

All things work wisely and well, it's a matter of finding the best viewpoint.

Mediumship provided the evidence of Life's reality, now we become our own medium linked to the highest we can achieve. Others will take our place.

Just came across this:

You are not the body,
the body is not yours,
nor are you the provider or the recipient of action.

You are Consciousness itself,
the eternal witness and free.
Go your way cheerfully. —Ashtavakra Samhita 15:4

by petal34 Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:06 am

zerdini wrote:
petal34 wrote:Alec Harris,I have never read any of his books.

Alec Harris never wrote any books. His wife wrote a book about his mediumship.

I am a member of another site where there is a great deal of information about him.
A greatly respected medium,as well.

There is plenty of information on this site about Alec Harris.

I know some of my questions sound a bit ignorant but I tend to dig below the surface to find answers.
I can understand the tying of bonds if the general public were admitted (I can accept the public doubting a great deal).
But where there were only private members admitted,I would have thought there would have be no doubt.

Thanks Synaxis.

Thank you for your corrections,Z,I appreciate your help in keeping the facts right.
Wink

by zerdini Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:16 pm

synaxis wrote:

I'd be interested in watching the video of Alec Harris if it's available online ...

There aren't any videos of Alec Harris to watch online or elsewhere........

by zerdini Sun Jul 24, 2011 1:20 pm

It is very unwise to pontificate on a subject of which one has no knowledge or experience e.g. physical mediumship.

by mac Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:32 pm

"Spiritualism in decline? Perhaps so in some respects, though this view can be understood better if measured in terms of your own growth. Look back down the years and see how far the individual has travelled."

In terms of any one individual's personal growth this may, or may not, be the case. In terms of humankind's overall growth I'd say the jury's out - has society (however you see it) recently progressed very far spiritually? (since Modern Spiritualism emerged, that is) Difficult to measure - in some ways, yes, but in others, no.

Modern Spiritualism as a movement, as a body, as a religion is not as vibrant as it once used to be and hence could be said to be in decline....

Perhaps this is a transient phase. Perhaps it will become more widely known again in the future, but right now 'fings ain't wot they used to be'.

I like this piece, quote: "An open mind, neither ecstatic or suppressed by life's experiences, is a great help as we go beyond society's markers and break new spiritual ground and leave the nourishing church astern, grateful for it having served its purpose in our lives." I wish I'd said that! Smile

But I'm not confident about this, quote: "................. now we become our own medium linked to the highest we can achieve. Others will take our place."

by synaxis Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:54 pm

mac wrote:quote "I think that providing evidence of survival is only one limited facet of spiritualism. Healing is another. Also, William Stainton Moses' sittings produced a large output of automatic writing, which was more a kind of spiritual teaching. Perhaps spiritualism needs to reinvent itself relative to the needs of society today, given the current crisis."

Please correct me if I have this wrong but I don't recall relating any of the physical phenomena stuff to Modern Spiritualism, an altogether different emphasis....

I must confess, I am mystified by this - i.e. your assumption that I have been making reference to physical phenomena in abstraction from any relation to Modern Spiritualism. Looking back to my initial post last Tuesday, my working assumption all along has been that we (or at least I) have been discussing physical phenomena in the context of Modern Spiritualism.

1. I introduced my comments with reference to "the decline of the Spiritualist church".

2. I mentioned my friendship with a Spiritualist minister and referred to phenomena such as materializations, apports, and levitations specifically with reference to "the hay days of the spiritualist movement".

3. I then referred to the home circle as "the foundational structure of Spiritualism" and concluded with a reference to the book about the Welsh physical medium, Alec Harris.

All along, I have been making reference to physical phenomena in the context of the kind of physical mediumship that occurs (or occurred) in the context of Modern Spiritualism. It is clear from the reports at the Montcabirol and Felix sites (if these are examined) that they are working with a primary controlling spirit (discarnate) and a spirit team. I have never made reference to the mere production of physical phenomena irrespective the collaborative interaction of a medium and group of sitters with discarnate spirits. Nevertheless, I think it is important to keep in mind the ultimate purpose of these kinds of manifestations (see my reference to the work of Stainton Moses below).

mac wrote:I thoroughly disagree that, quote: "....providing evidence of survival is only one limited facet of spiritualism" Indeed I'd go so far as to say it is its principle function and in no way it is a limited facet. The historical, teaching information from William Stanton Moses is simply part of the overall information about survival gained in many ways from many communicators. Healing is also valuable but Modern Spiritualism is only one place where spiritual healers may be found......

I must question your perspective that the principle function of spiritualism is to provide evidence of survival and that the "teaching information from William Stainton Moses is simply part of the overall information about survival".

It's very clear from the record, that the spirit teachings communicated to WSM are much broader in scope and intention than just providing evidence of survival. Or, the latter is subordinated to a larger purpose, which relates to the moral and spiritual development of humanity. These communications, which fortunately are easily accessible, originate from a very high level and give a clear indication of the mission and message of Spiritualism - from the perspective of the spirits themselves.

http://www.meilach.com/spiritual/books/st/spteach.htm
http://www.meilach.com/spiritual/books/morest/mspteach.htm

I have had many conversations about this with my Spiritualist minister friend who gave me a copy of Spirit Teachings many years ago. We both think that Spiritualism has developed a kind of fixation on proving survival and lost sight of its larger purpose.

Also, healing can be a form of mediumship - as practiced by one of the mediums at Montcabirol and by Alec Harris.

mac wrote:The production of physical phenomena (table-tipping, lights, raps and knocks for example) by themselves without leading on to evidential mediumship is a pointless, trite exercise albeit one which appears to appeal to some perhaps more interested in the phenomena than in the message of survival.

As mentioned above, since I made my initial post, I have never been talking about the production of physical phenomena just "by themselves". If you examine the reports by Professor Heiby and the Felix group it is clear that these groups are not involved in the production of physical phenomena just by themselves but rather through a spirit team working through a medium.

The further question, however, is about the purpose of this production, which you see as the demonstration of "the message of survival". You are of course entitled to express your opinion about what you see as the nature and purpose of Modern Spiritualism. Nevertheless, I think this needs to be tested against facts and evidence, including the documented communications received by WSM who was surely one of the greats of the spiritualist movement. What sort of intentions did these spirits express? What was their understanding of their mission and message? Here's a relevant quote from the WSM material:

"... we have testified by signs, even as Jesus did, to the divine nature of our mission. But we have also warned you they are subsidiary to the great work, that you seek not too ardently after them nor rest in them. They are but the husk. The manifestations of objective phenomena you call physical are important to us only in so far as they testify to our mission. They are necessary in the present stage of our work, and for some minds will always be necessary. Therefore we have produced for you from time to time marvels. We have warned you not to fix too strong an interest in them, and have told you that in many cases they are harmful. In all they are but secondary."

http://www.meilach.com/spiritual/books/morest/mst02.htm

mac wrote:I asked you earlier, what is your primary interest?

The "great work" referenced in the above quotation.

by petal34 Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:34 pm

synaxis wrote:
petal34 wrote:I watched a video of him some time ago and was very impressed indeed.
Now there is one medium I would give my right hand to see.
Proof of survival would be very important to me,I do hate when information is given out of some far off friend who I haven't seen for ages or completely lost touch with.
I am not saying that is not proof,but how do we judge what is proof and what isn't?
Description of someone that one has known, have been given to me,nowhere like the person I have known.
That has included their name as well.
But I lie,one medium I have known for quite a while,not very well known and does not push for fame or fortune.
He is the only one I have trusted to gave explicit proof.
Cheers
I think there are objective criteria that one can use to assess whether or not the presented evidence is sufficient to "prove" the phenomenon being experienced. One reason why the account by Professor Elaine Heiby of her experience at Montcabirol is of particular interest is that she has the intellectual training to make that kind of assessment.

Also, there are different degrees of proof: evidence can be more or less 'compelling' and may not be strong enough to constitute "proof" at all. I find this especially important to keep in mind with mental mediumship, which frequently seems to fall short of being "evidential" in my experience.

I'd be interested in watching the video of Alec Harris if it's available online ...

Many apoligies to you,synaxis,
Name confusion between Alex Harris and Steward Alexander.
I should say have said 'Stewart Alexander'
My fault.

by synaxis Sun Jul 24, 2011 4:55 pm

petal34 wrote:Many apoligies to you,synaxis,
Name confusion between Alex Harris and Steward Alexander.
I should say have said 'Stewart Alexander'
My fault.

No problem, petal. Stewart Alexander's autobiography looks interesting - I have it but haven't read it yet.

by mac Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:13 pm

"I must confess, I am mystified by this - i.e. your assumption that I have been making reference to physical phenomena in abstraction from any relation to Modern Spiritualism. Looking back to my initial post last Tuesday, my working assumption all along has been that we (or at least I) have been discussing physical phenomena in the context of Modern Spiritualism. "

I don't want to get too side-tracked by all the previous postings.

I accept that you've been relating issues of physical mediumship in connection with Modern Spiritualism (MS). What you did, though, was to quote something I'd said and then relate that to MS and I'd made no such reference.

You might wonder why I differentiate but I've learned that mediumship (of all kinds) and MS don't always get seen (by others) as being inseparably linked.

When I want to link anything to MS then I will say so and if I don't say so, then the points I make are just general to mediumship.

Let's not forget that not all mediums are Spiritualists.... Wink

by mac Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:18 pm

"You are of course entitled to express your opinion about what you see as the nature and purpose of Modern Spiritualism. Nevertheless, I think this needs to be tested against facts and evidence,............"

Indeed I am and I have no doubts at all that "my opinion" as you describe it is not inaccurate. You may test what I say against whatever sources you choose but the principle - at least of recent Spiritualism (I'm not going back to the very early days) is that of evidential mediumship.

If you choose to see it differently then, to quote your words: "You are of course entitled to express your opinion about what you see as the nature and purpose of Modern Spiritualism." I'm confident about my stance. Smile

But let's not waste any more effort - we're on the same side!

by mac Sun Jul 24, 2011 7:26 pm

"The manifestations of objective phenomena you call physical are important to us only in so far as they testify to our mission. They are necessary in the present stage of our work, and for some minds will always be necessary. Therefore we have produced for you from time to time marvels. We have warned you not to fix too strong an interest in them, and have told you that in many cases they are harmful. In all they are but secondary."

This is your chosen quotation and how significant! "The present stage of our work....We have warned you not to fix too strong an interest in them, and have told you that in many cases they are harmful. In all they are but secondary......" said Stainton Moses many decades ago - but isn't this what I am repeating today using my own words?

"The mission"? Surely that is all but completed?

by Sponsored content