Financial rewards and Mediumship

We had that between Lancashire and Yorkshire apart from the big names if you were a Lancashire medium you seldom were booked by Yorkshire churches and vice versa. But I'm told nothing like that occurred between other counties and districts.
All Lancs Yorks prejudice long gone now though, anyone works anywhere possibly due to fewer mediums to go round.

KatyKing wrote:Thought so. Thanks for that answer Q. It's certainly popular and if tarot can be a pathway to spiritual progress then that's all to the good. Florence Maryatt talks about laying the cards and that was way back so we do have an historic precedent . I wonder sometimes why one path is seen as OK whilst another is a no no. Chap I know was drummed out of his church when they found out he was doing tarot at psychic fayres for pin money.
I've been billed as a psychic medium [not by myself in church calendar] but I prefer just 'medium'. Then again the old adage that
all mediums are psychic but not all psychics are mediums
is as valid now as ever it was I suppose.
It's certainly easier to give information via the psychic but that's seldom survival-evidential whick I see as a medium's primary task and calling.

Here is an interesting web site on the history of Tarot. http://trionfi.com/. It is much more than just a new age epiphenomenon. Tarot began centuries ago but took a psychotherapeutic turn in the 19th and 20th centuries.

When I realised, after a few years of reading Tarot, how easy it is to project one's own psyche on the cards I stopped reading for others. Now I still use them but for reasons already stated. The language of the Divine is often symbolic, whether in pictures or words. I ask Spirit sometimes to communicate with me through the images and that is a very meaningful part of my spiritual practice now.

I think it is possible to give a very good reading to someone if you ask for spiritual guidance and know your own self and issues well enough that you don't project them on to others. I've seen some really good readers but theybring their whole life experience and study to the craft.

An American tarot reader gave me some excellent evidential mediumship once but I think that she is much more than a Tarot reader alone.

I like the way Mac has defined mediumship. People have very mixed understanding of what it really is.

Take care, KK. By the way, are you male? Something you said in another post made me wonder and I think I saw someone call you 'Peter' somewhere as well

Admin wrote:Mac its the constant battle, interestingly I seem to be winning it a bit more now. Several of the exercises I use make the non involvement of Spirit in activities obvious. Given I also Dowse I explain a dowsers view of how we make contact in relation to teh various versions of an unknown force ( Ether, Animal magnetism, Odic, Crookes & Cox Psychic Force etc etc).

No problem with people using tarot in this context and an understanding that all they sense could well just be their own sub conscious. I still will run into the odd one's who believe all they hear or others tell them that they hear is from Spirit without any discernment.

At least we are getting a decent turn out for Fridays Trance and Transfiguration where Lis and the Victorian medium Joanne King will be working in tandem. Another chance to tell it like it is.

Hi Jim,

Have you read Joanne King's autobiography? In it she tells how a card reader actually predicted that she would get her children back after they were spirited away by her first husband to Ireland some time in the 60's or 70's. True, Joanne certainly didn't see that as mediumship.
I think it may have been psychic . Joanne describes herself as a psychic medium but she and her students are very clear about the differences.

Hope your evening goes well.

mac wrote:"To answer your question, though, I do think that using Tarot is more along the lines of psychic though many in Tarot communities would disagree. There is huge disagreement about what it all means, which is OK too, We are all really different."

Isn't, though, that disagreement over what it means a significant weakness?

I've discussed this subject elsewhere trying to get a handle on what's happening but from the data provided by its practitioners I concluded that Tarot appears mostly psychic (as you suggested) and hence has whatever limitations psychic work may be expected to have....

I found precious little evidence in that data of reliable discarnate (spiritual) communication even though there was a tacit suggestion that Tarot involved a spiritual component.

Hi Mac,

I don't think that disagreement about meaning is necessarily a weakness. Truth itself is very subjective . I think that Tarot can be a tool for divination, analysis, understanding, creativity and spiritual practice. As a tool its use is very individual.

It would indeed be hard to find reliable data of the kind that exists in Spiritualism about discarnate communication. When I was a member of a world wide Tarot forum there was sometimes discussion about evaluating the use of Tarot but it seemed too hard to most people. In fact, as happens in forums, there was a tsunami of reluctance to look at such things .

Such evaluations would be very hard to actually do. However, more people are now writing academically about Tarot and other forms of symbolic visual language.

"Post by Admin Yesterday at 11:13 pm
Mac its the constant battle, interestingly I seem to be winning it a bit more now."

Oh how I'd love to be able to say that, Jim - I feel I'm doin' well when I don't get too much hostility!

Quiet wrote:

mac wrote:"To answer your question, though, I do think that using Tarot is more along the lines of psychic though many in Tarot communities would disagree. There is huge disagreement about what it all means, which is OK too, We are all really different."

Isn't, though, that disagreement over what it means a significant weakness?

I've discussed this subject elsewhere trying to get a handle on what's happening but from the data provided by its practitioners I concluded that Tarot appears mostly psychic (as you suggested) and hence has whatever limitations psychic work may be expected to have....

I found precious little evidence in that data of reliable discarnate (spiritual) communication even though there was a tacit suggestion that Tarot involved a spiritual component.

Hi Mac,

I don't think that disagreement about meaning is necessarily a weakness. Truth itself is very subjective . I think that Tarot can be a tool for divination, analysis, understanding, creativity and spiritual practice. As a tool its use is very individual.

For me subjectivity can't ever be a factor in truth - what's true is true and only our personal understanding/appreciation of it is variable and hence subjective.

I have no view on the use of Tarot in the ways you suggest but if it's a useful prop then it has value.

[quote="Quiet"]

mac wrote:[i]"To answer your question, though, I do think that using Tarot is more along the lines of psychic though many in Tarot communities would disagree. There is huge disagreement about what it all means................emed too hard to most people. In fact, as happens in forums, there was a tsunami of reluctance to look at such things .

Such evaluations would be very hard to actually do. However, more people are now writing academically about Tarot and other forms of symbolic visual language.

And is this work receiving positive peer review?

mac wrote:"Post by Admin Yesterday at 11:13 pm
Mac its the constant battle, interestingly I seem to be winning it a bit more now."

Oh how I'd love to be able to say that, Jim - I feel I'm doin' well when I don't get too much hostility!

Mac, I'm getting to know your style and manner of expression now . Don't see you as hostile at all. I like the way you question comments. Keeps us all on our toes.

I do find it hard to read your comments at those times that you don't use the 'Quote' function, however

Can I ask about your background? It seems that you are American, or live there, and have some knowledge and years of experience in the traditions and philosophy of Spiritualism. Like someone else, you may be a lawyer as well, although I could be wrong there. It may be Left Behind who is a lawyer.

It's interesting what people bring to these discussions. Sometimes it helps to know that people are more than words on a page at a particular point of time.

Quiet wrote:

mac wrote:[i]"To answer your question, though, I do think that using Tarot is more along the lines of psychic though many in Tarot communities would disagree. There is huge disagreement about what it all means................emed too hard to most people. In fact, as happens in forums, there was a tsunami of reluctance to look at such things .

Such evaluations would be very hard to actually do. However, more people are now writing academically about Tarot and other forms of symbolic visual language.

And is this work receiving positive peer review?

People have written in different ways and about different aspects of the use of Tarot. A couple of people have written about the history and symbolic styles in Ph.D. theses. Another psychologist has written about the therapeutic uses of Tarot. I went to her presentation and enjoyed it very much. The theses and journal articles would have been reviewed but not in the way that science is reviewed, I suspect.

The Ph.D theses were passed and the psychologist is well respected in her field.

Quiet wrote:

Quiet wrote:

mac wrote:[i]"To answer your question, though, I do think that using Tarot is more along the lines of psychic though many in Tarot communities would disagree. There is huge disagreement about what it all means................emed too hard to most people. In fact, as happens in forums, there was a tsunami of reluctance to look at such things .

Such evaluations would be very hard to actually do. However, more people are now writing academically about Tarot and other forms of symbolic visual language.

And is this work receiving positive peer review?

People have written in different ways and about different aspects of the use of Tarot. A couple of people have written about the history and symbolic styles in Ph.D. theses. Another psychologist has written about the therapeutic uses of Tarot. I went to her presentation and enjoyed it very much. The theses and journal articles would have been reviewed but not in the way that science is reviewed, I suspect.

The Ph.D theses were passed and the psychologist is well respected in her field.

I see - thanks

[quote="Quiet"]

mac wrote:"Post by Admin Yesterday at 11:13 pm
Mac its the constant battle, interestingly I seem to be winning it a bit more now."

Oh how I'd love to be able to say that, Jim - I feel I'm doin' well when I don't get too much hostility!

Mac, I'm getting to know your style and manner of expression now . Don't see you as hostile at all. sorry - I meant hostility towards myself and what I write or ask....I like the way you question comments. Keeps us all on our toes. thank you - I try to keep to topics and away from personality - often my questioning is not appreciated (mostly in forums and websites elsewhere) - perhaps it reveals too many unsupported/unsupportable claims?
I do find it hard to read your comments at those times that you don't use the 'Quote' function, however sorry again - Usually I like to use the 'Quote' function but sometimes I deliberately choose small sections and deliberately keep my remarks general in character, sometimes deliberately remote from the person who wrote the piece. That's to avoid offending/anatagonising contributors who I know from previous experience can be sensitive.

Can I ask about your background? It seems that you are American, or live there, We've been spending quite a bit of time here over the past seven years but I'm a Brit and live in the UK....and have some knowledge and years of experience in the traditions and philosophy of Spiritualism. I hope I have some basic understanding.... Like someone else, you may be a lawyer as well, although I could be wrong there. It may be Left Behind who is a lawyer. From Jim's recent discussion with obiwan it seems he has been involved with the legal field. Not myself...

It's interesting what people bring to these discussions. Sometimes it helps to know that people are more than words on a page at a particular point of time. I agree. It takes time to learn about others, about their strengths, likes, dislikes, specialities et al. I don't mind folk knowing about me but I don't generally say much about myself unless it serves to illustrate a point I'm making - I much prefer folk to comment on my words and ideas and not me personally.

[quote="Quiet"]

mac wrote:"Post by Admin Yesterday at 11:13 pm
Mac its the constant battle, interestingly I seem to be winning it a bit more now."

Oh how I'd love to be able to say that, Jim - I feel I'm doin' well when I don't get too much hostility!

Mac, I'm getting to know your style and manner of expression now . Don't see you as hostile at all. sorry - I meant hostility towards myself and what I write or ask....I like the way you question comments. Keeps us all on our toes. thank you - I try to keep to topics and away from personality - often my questioning is not appreciated (mostly in forums and websites elsewhere) - perhaps it reveals too many unsupported/unsupportable claims?
I do find it hard to read your comments at those times that you don't use the 'Quote' function, however sorry again - Usually I like to use the 'Quote' function but sometimes I deliberately choose small sections and deliberately keep my remarks general in character, sometimes deliberately remote from the person who wrote the piece. That's to avoid offending/anatagonising contributors who I know from previous experience can be sensitive.

Can I ask about your background? It seems that you are American, or live there, We've been spending quite a bit of time here over the past seven years but I'm a Brit and live in the UK....and have some knowledge and years of experience in the traditions and philosophy of Spiritualism. I hope I have some basic understanding.... Like someone else, you may be a lawyer as well, although I could be wrong there. It may be Left Behind who is a lawyer. From Jim's recent discussion with obiwan it seems he has been involved with the legal field. Not myself...

It's interesting what people bring to these discussions. Sometimes it helps to know that people are more than words on a page at a particular point of time. I agree. It takes time to learn about others, about their strengths, likes, dislikes, specialities et al. I don't mind folk knowing about me but I don't generally say much about myself unless it serves to illustrate a point I'm making - I much prefer folk to comment on my words and ideas and not think about me.

mac wrote:
It's interesting what people bring to these discussions. Sometimes it helps to know that people are more than words on a page at a particular point of time. I agree. It takes time to learn about others, about their strengths, likes, dislikes, specialities et al. I don't mind folk knowing about me but I don't generally say much about myself unless it serves to illustrate a point I'm making - I much prefer folk to comment on my words and ideas and not think about me.

I understand that and have no problems with it.

Internet communications can be very misleading because you miss the ordinary cues you get in face-to-face communications. On the other hand, one can also communicate, using a pseudonym, without the baggage that sometimes comes with prior knowledge ,

One can generally pick up more about a person as time goes on in forums. It's something about their ideas, the way they express them and the little things they inevitably give away. It can make participation more interesting but is not essential.

I was pleased to find this forum to have substantive discussions about spiritualism and have been interested in the scope so far.