Spiritualism

Spiritualism occurs wherever people calling themselves Spiritualists enact it in any environment wherein ... audible checkable evidence that spirit loved ones gone before can and do bring messages of hope,love and assurance to folk on this side of life.. occurs
That's quite a hard concept to take on board to those [SNU or survivalists anyone?] accustomed to being told that such and such is the true path and all else is heresy.
Root of all religions is Spiritualism then men [usually men for some reason] buried the original inspiration under uninspired doctrines, silly robes, daft hats and rituals.
Broadest 'church' in the word we are with room for all sorts and conditions of people. Even our own version of fundamentalists, bless 'em.

So Spiritualism begins and ends with provable spirit contact, and doesn't extend to healing and philosophy?

wes,

katy has made his view clear ever since he came on here and over recent days he has clarified that view even more. In reality hs is a survivalist but one with a belef in God and Summerland. That about encapsulates his vision of philosophy and his disdain for philosophy, history and Science.

At least on this occasion the real Katy has stood up to be counted unfettered by the homolies in earlier posts.

Of course it has nothing to do with what most of us involved in Modern Spiritualim are involved in.

Trouble is its all very well to prove survival but the vast majority of belief systems reject our proof. Modern Spiritualism may never have been intended to be a religion but in the face of the hostility of the majority of beliefes and the challenges that we communicated with the devil, were evil or just plain mad it had to organise.

Merely organising would never have been good enough so we had to build some philosophy to show that we dealt with the same God all other Religions believed in. I think that had Christianity in general accepted the evidence of survival then we would just have been absorbed into it. That is apart from those elements which rejected Christianity as taught by the Church's theology who would have formed a dissenting group.

There is a very real point to the fact that all we can really prove is survival, all trance work through the years is a matter of discernment. However it is vital that there is a movement that actually considers what that means. As the only movement that does that Spiritualism has a vital role.

So it is far more than Katy's dogmatic opinions would suggest. In honesty views like this will, in the end mean all you do is some mediumship,sing some happy clappy songs, maybe throw in a bit of hands on healing, then have a nice social chit chat over tea and cakes. This is exactly what Katy is propounding, he has specified the basis of his view of the future of Spiritualism in a nutshell. Oh of course living after this life passes in a nice cottage in Summerland. The proof of survival is of course unnecesary to the belief system and potentially irelevant.

Simple stuff sounds like many of the new age and metaphysical places toss it all in let everyone have their own highly individual beliefs and just jolly along ee by gum ain't life fun just keep having some more of it.

Not my opinion and not reflective of the views I wish people to think this forum has. One movement has to present a rational and consistent approach to continued survival. It has to work to create mediums and develop the way its philosophy is presented, it has to re engage with science to prove its claims and it has to be conscious of a proud history. That is Modern Spiritualism, even with its warts, contradictions and failings. It has been the comfort and help of many long may that continue. I find people do not just love the message they also like to understand, the understanding adds breadth to the comfort.

What Katy describes is a survivalist centre, in which, of course even the atheists should find a home. As we know in Oz when you mix and match look for weird and wonderful.

If we are not a "progressive" centre as KK so describes it then we must fit his description of

then men [usually men for some reason] buried the original inspiration under uninspired doctrines, silly robes, daft hats and rituals

Errant overstated twaddle saying if you are not with me then you are in the camp of ministers and robes. Just calculated to get a reaction. If that is really KK's belief then there is a big problem.

Good topic Wes

My opinion on Wes' question:
What is Spiritualism? The belief that we posess an immortal soul (spirit). A Spiritualist is actually anyone who believes the soul (spirit) survives so-called death.
What does Spiritualism do? It brings hope to those who have been separated from loved ones beyond the veil.
Spiritualism is not ONLY a science. Spiritualism is a religion.
Spiritualism works well if one does not rely only on 'proof'. One should be able to have faith as well. Without faith one is constantly seeking after proofs, which we all know do not always show up.
One should be able to be content with Spiritualism, and Spiritualist philosophy, without proof.
There are millions, if not billiions of people living and breathing today who believe in the immortal soul, and in the survival of the spirit (soul) without ever having had proof; and these people are also Spiritualists. Spiritualists who live by faith, and not necessarily by proof.
I personally will take the type of Spiritualism that is happy; that looks to holy writ for inspiration; that prays to a Personal God and seeks His guidence and help. To me, that is joy; that is peace; that is what the vast majority of people are seeking in life. Any religion or science that takes these things out of the equation will ultimately cease being.

KatyKing wrote:Spiritualism occurs wherever people calling themselves Spiritualists enact it in any environment wherein ... audible checkable evidence that spirit loved ones gone before can and do bring messages of hope,love and assurance to folk on this side of life.. occurs
That's quite a hard concept to take on board to those [SNU or survivalists anyone?] accustomed to being told that such and such is the true path and all else is heresy.
Root of all religions is Spiritualism then men [usually men for some reason] buried the original inspiration under uninspired doctrines, silly robes, daft hats and rituals.
Broadest 'church' in the word we are with room for all sorts and conditions of people. Even our own version of fundamentalists, bless 'em.

An interesting series of arguable statements!

1. "Spiritualism occurs wherever people calling themselves Spiritualists enact it in any environment wherein . . . audible checkable evidence that spirit loved ones gone before can and do bring messages of hope, love and assurance to folk on this side of life . . ."

So 'Spiritualism' whatever it is (undefined), when 'Spiritualists' whatever they are (undefined) enact IT (undefined) when evidence of survival is given. On the basis of KKs statement it would appear that Spiritualism is nothing other than the passing on and receiving of messages that establish 'survival' - about as 'Survivalist' a position as one might like to offer. All else, such as spiritual philosophy, the reason why we survive, why spirit communicate, and what that might imply for how we live our physical lives is not only abandoned it is dismissed. But, of course, survival really does beg some important questions - questions that fundamentally influence what we see is the point of physical existence, and how we might live that existence in relation to other members of humanity, other life forms, and indeed, the earth itself. Not to worry though, we can all still go to the Summerland when we die and live in nice cottages in congenial environments, and indulge endlessly in tea and cake.

2. "That's quite a hard concept to take on board to those [SNU or survivalists anyone?] accustomed to being told that such and such is the true path and all else is heresy."

So those 'Spiritualists'who DO strive to define what 'Spiritualism' might be about, beyond the giving and receiving of messages purporting to give evidence of survival, have difficulty accepting such a minimalist concept of the religion, philosophy and science that they attempt to live their lives by and, apparently, according to KK such Spiritualists are accustomed to being told (meaning indoctrinated, I presume) that anything less than total acceptance of the full package of philosophy as presented by the spirit world is heresy. In other words such poor ignorant, controlled and indoctrinated Spiritualists not only don't understand the real meaning or purpose of Spiritualism, we are, fundamentally ignorant for failing to see it is really only about the messages.

3. "Root of all religions is Spiritualism then men [usually men for some reason] buried the original inspiration under uninspired doctrines, silly robes, daft hats and rituals."

This is really two separate arguments KK has made. First, that the basis of all religions is Spiritualism. Of course he hasn't actually defined what this Spiritualism he writes about is - other than it involves the giving and receiving of messages by dead people to living people. But, presuming that is actually all Spiritualism is, the statement is alleging that all religions are based on spirit communication. This is a delightful argument put forward with such enthusiasm by many early Spiritualists who, while wanting to reject the indoctination, control and theologies of their previous religious affiliations, nevertheless wanted to find in such works as the Bible, evidence of the influence of spirit, thereby enabling them to claim that Spiritualism was the only true religion. This was particularly the case with those who described themselves as Christian Spiritualists. In this way, all the alleged miracles described in the Bible could be attributed to the work of the spirit world, while all the nasty, punishing God type stuff could be rejected or ignored as being man's distortion of the message.

There is no doubt in all religions, however they came into being (and KK might need to prove his argument with some evidence before it can be accepted as true), 'man' has through ignorance, or greed or desire for power, distorted and sometimes destroyed the original meaning of that religious inspiration - whether that meaning actually arose from the spirit world or not. But the second part of KKs claim, would also appear to be an attack on Spiritualism itself. A suggestion that the original inspiration (that is, the giving and receiving of messages of survival) has been buried under uninspired doctrines, silly robes, daft hats and rituals.

In reality, if one actually examines the early records of Spiritualism, in both America and England, it becomes quite evident that Spiritualism's doctrines - such as its principles - were directly inspired by, indeed, imparted to Spiritualists by the spirit world. That human's felt ultimately compelled to organize and form associations in order to protect their right to practice their 'religion' may have resulted some uninspired forms of practice, is certainly a valid position to take, though I don't as yet see Spiritualists actually wearing silly robes, draft hats and as far as Spiritualist rituals go, it would appear they have remained pretty much intact and continue in the form first created, based on spirit messages. Of course those spirit messages, about how to form a circle for communication with the spirit world, and offering evidence of the survival of Aunt Maud, and Uncle Tom, also presented philosophy about the deeper meaning and purpose of spirit communication, and called upon those who heard the words of spirit to promote and publicise, and gather together as a community to bring these great truths to the attention of the world.

4. "Broadest 'church' in the word [sic] we are with room for all sorts and conditions of people. Even our own version of fundamentalists, bless 'em."

The latter part of KKs statement is yet another example of his tendency to be derogatory towards those who don't hold the same position as he. To call those who believe Spiritualism has more to offer than the giving and receiving of messages "fundamentalists," is quite a pejorative remark, not to say snide, but putting that aside for the moment, it seems KKs real point is that Spiritualism is such a broad (or should I say amorphous) movement that all sorts of understandings can comfortably come under its umbrella and all individuals can hold whatever beliefs, or not hold any beliefs, other than the acceptance of the giving and receiving of messages, and rightly call themselves Spiritualists.

Survivalists perhaps, Spiritualists no.

While I believe that all peoples, of all religions and none, those that believe in Angels or aliens, karma, reincarnation, little green men or whatever else, can rightly choose to hold a belief in survival and to incorporate that belief or knowledge into their larger personal belief system, and should be welcome to enter through the doors of any Spiritualist church, centre or group that is open to the public, to say that they, in doing so, are therefore Spiritualists, misses the point entirely. They are, if they are anything, survivalists, and they are welcome to that understanding. No doubt, that knowledge will, in the final analysis, ease their journey into the spirit world when the times comes to depart physical life.

A Spiritualist is someone who believes more than the truth of survival. A Spiritualist is a person who understands that Spiritualism is also a philosophy, and a way of life. A philosophy that does not need diluting or distorting by other beliefs.

To me it includes evidence of, and belief in, Survival, your way of life including healing, and the philosophy which underlies it as a religion.
I am clear about survival, and the way of life and healing, but the philosophy is my problem. I am not sure how to evaluate all the sources of information, mainly from trance mediumship sources, and for example the SNU spiritualists' hymnbook.
Trance philosophy for me has a question mark. There are contradictions and I am unable to apply much of it to what I see as the conditions of our physical life and the questions it raises.
The hymnbook seems to be based on the type of Christian hymns I once sang and then rejected later in life, except that while God is still to be praised and prayed to, spirits are also around as ministers and angels.

Whether "God" is called the Great Spirit, Source, Architect, First Creator or any other name, I feel that He/She is not a personal God who intervenes in human affairs and who listens to prayers, and helps us, and requires praise and adoration. Far too great and beyond our understanding. The spirits or angels are personal and do listen and interact with us, and we can make up our own minds what we think of them. I don't know what that makes me. I think a Spiritualist, but the God bit concerns me. I feel quite awkward singing hymns in theSNU Churches, and don't believe many of the words.

Yes, yes, yes, Normy!

i will respond further when the meal is done cooking.

Yes Normy I will also reply absolutely the right track but like Lis back from our Sunday meeting dinner calls

Hi Eirefox,

To look at your point

I personally will take the type of Spiritualism that is happy; that looks to holy writ for inspiration; that prays to a Personal God and seeks His guidence and help. To me, that is joy; that is peace; that is what the vast majority of people are seeking in life. Any religion or science that takes these things out of the equation will ultimately cease being.

I think that most Spiritualist Centers be they Katy's happy clappy or the rationalist centers epitomised by the SNU and The NSAC, oh and my own views. This is a given we all srtive for but the difference is we interpret this within the ideas of Modern Spiritualism. This latter point is the difference between the view points here is Modern Spiritualism valid, or as Katy suggests are all these rational Modern Spiritualist Centres

buried the original inspiration under uninspired doctrines, silly robes, daft hats and rituals."

I do not think so we all care to much, just visit teh web site of teh SNU's Bournemouth Church, run by the Potts twins, when the traditional churches could not host the Salvation Army's soup kitchen they took it in. Katy's jaundiced views fail to represent the breadth of which we all strive for.