Spiritist, what reading material do you recommend on Spiritualism?

A Course In Miracles
Kryon (channeled through Lee Carroll)
“Whatever Arises, Love That” by Matt Kahn

Dr Suess ;)

i have no insight for spiritual except that it seems more and more people tend to say, "I am not religious, but I am spiritual", A cop out, IMO :)

the Bible:
But if we are talking about the 1890's spiritualism of holding hands and calling forth to the beyond, then I'm not sure?

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the Bible:
> But if we are talking about the 1890's
> spiritualism of holding hands and calling forth to
> the beyond, then I'm not sure?

From what I know of the Bible, and depending on your definition of spiritualism, the authors of the good book aren't fans. Something about "calling forth to the beyond" being verboten.

I'm only bringing this up because you mentioned the Bible. I don't want to rain on anybody's parade.

I looked up the definition of spiritualism today (after reading a post by Done & Done) to make sure I was remembering the Bible injunction correctly and it's a broader definition than I'm accustomed to. Perhaps the definition has changed over time, for the positive.

Vocabulary is a moving target. It pays to keep up. :)

I'm not sure how the Bible could be anything but spiritualism. The biblical injunction should read something like "God forbids any spiritualism but our spiritualism."

Talking donkeys who see spirits, angels having sex with "the daughters of Eve" and thereby siring giants, an apparition telling Abraham to kill his son, a talking bush, an evil spirit living in the desert, demons possessing pigs, the devil appearing in the desert to tempt Jesus, angels knocking people over on the road to Damascus: how is that stuff any more realistic than spirits visiting people sitting around a table in a 1930s drawing room?

To believe that the Bible is less "spiritualistic" than other traditions, you have to start with the presumption that some combination of Hebrew mythology, Jewish religion, Christianity and Islam is fundamentally true. Otherwise, it's hard to get past the lying snake.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------
> To believe that the Bible is less "spiritualistic"
> than other traditions, you have to start with the
> presumption that some combination of Hebrew
> mythology, Jewish religion, Christianity and Islam
> is fundamentally true.

Yeah. So. What's your point? :)

I'm not sure, NG. I was hoping you could supply that!

Lot's Wife wrote:

"Otherwise, it's hard to get past the lying snake."



That's the best line I've heard w/re to the Bible.
:D

Spirituality needs to be distinguished from Spiritualism (more properly termed "Spiritism"). Spiritualism was especially popular among the smart crowd of the 19th Century ("Turn of the Screw," etc.) but has a crosscultural appeal that has endured for millennia.

Spirituality is a popular and generalized term these days, and involves any number, or type, of involvement with something higher or transcendent. These may involved "organized religion," or simple feelings of, connections with, aspirations to the immaterial, with or without an articulated belief system. Thus the common "I'm spiritual but not religious."

My brother is an abject atheist but considers himself "spiritual." Go figure.

Spiritualism is the belief in, or communication or involvement with, non-material beings in general, or the dead in particular. In that many LDS have a strong sense of affinity with their departed kinfolk, there is an element of Spiritualism to LDS, especially the periods of Kirktland and Nauvoo.*

Spiritualism is not a unified belief system, but there are various teachings that show up rather regularly among Spiritist groups, churches, or teachers. One is that souls will never face a final judgment or damnation, but will continue to "evolve" to ever-higher planes of existence.

The Bible is very explicit in forbidding Spiritualist activity. A list of OT & NT references on Spiritualism and the occult:

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Spiritualism/

The Bible isn't long on explaining, but several verses associate such practices with the demonic. Thus, the believing Christian should not get involved with seances, Ouija, fortune -telling, tarot, and other forms of divination, even for amusement. As Paul writes, "What harmony does Christ have with Belial?"

A Christian treatment of Spiritism:

https://www.moodymedia.org/articles/seducing-spirits-spiritism-vs-scripture/

*Mary Baker Eddy was quite involved with Spiritualism when she wrote her textbook, "Science & Health." Altered or watered down, various Spiritist doctrines worked their way into her teachings.

"Spiritualism is the belief in, or communication or involvement with, non-material beings. . ."

I can go with that definition. Can you offer an objective standard by which we can differentiate between Biblical descriptions of "non-material" beings like angels and devils on the one hand and, on the other, the sort of "communication or involvement with non-material beings" that the Bible condemns?

Other, I mean, than "my spirits are good and yours are bad."

...like JS's handshake "test."

For starters, there's this, from I John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." I understand this to be immediately applicable to the problem of Gnosticism, which taught (generally) that "Christ" was a spiritual quality or essence distinctly separate from the material Jesus. Continuing, v 2b-3:

2b Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So a spirit that articulates Jesus as less or other than divine manifests the Antichrist (I'm not saying it IS the Antichrist). Thus. persons who claim transcendent communication and deny that Jesus was the divine Anointed One are deceived--or deceivers.

If we return to v.1, there's the reference to false prophets, which opens the doctrinal scope. There's much in the OT (especially) and the NT about how to define a false prophet (I use the term expansively: seer, teacher, preacher, guru, etc), which entails the failure of accurate prophesy, and more importantly, where, or to whom, the prophet is leading? Thus, if the prophet teaches or proclaims a "deity" other than the Creator I AM, he/she is a false prophet, and his guiding spirit is likewise false.

So, if a spirit, whether working overtly through a human "prophet" (again, defined expansively), or media (printed, internet, common culture, whatever) directs a person(s) away from the Creator I AM to other types of spiritual experience, teaching, or being, then we're dealing with a false, or deceiving, spirit.

The unholy trinity is "the world, the flesh, and the devil." Although Spiritism is overt, most of this, nowadays, is very subtle. There's plenty in the world and the flesh to mislead us. The devil(s) (i.e. deceiving spirits) probably just sit back and watch.

This hour of the morning, I tend to overwrite: apologies. To attempt a summary, we identify a false spirit by its fruit: false prophets (or teachers, gurus, seers, preachers) who teach, or lead, people astray to false gods and doctrines. In 21st Century 1st World culture, there's a huge smorgasbord of toxic spirituality out there.

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Yes, that is my point. Your definition is self-referential. You cannot proffer a standard that is independent of Christianity itself.

Logically that is problematic.

I wonder if that was the world, the flesh, or the devil? As the prophet proclaimed in the Platitudes, Chapter 4, verse 11, "Sh*t happens."

LW, dear lady, you ask for much:Something external to Christianity to prove it. Some kind of empirical proof? An exotic mathematical construct? The proverbial "missing link" of evolution? What if the Dalai Lama suddenly proclaimed that he had a vision, and proclaimed Jesus Christ to be "the truth the life, and the way?" Could anything logically solve that problem?

In the spiritual smorgasbord of 1st World culture, there's lots and lots out there for your spiritual-philosophical delight. Do what most people do: a little of this, some of that... The problem is, it all appeals to our humanistic needs and wants, appetites and passions, our vanity, our sense of being "right." I simply say that without the Christ of history and eternity an essential nutrient is missing, like British sailors lacking Vitamin C--they eventually sickened and died.

So no, I cannot bring in external validation that will satisfy your exacting standards. I concede that is problematic. But is there any system--even atheism--that can answer every question completely and perfectly? As Paul writes,

"... it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men,.." (I Cor. 21b-25a)

Faith is akin to love. It can be analyzed and described, but at a certain point it logic is insufficient. It just "is." Like love, some people have it. Many people have counterfeits and substitutes. And some people don't have it at all.

Perhaps Pascal addresses the "Logically that is problematic" problem (sic) more to your satisfaction:

"The heart has reasons that reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which understands God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, and not by reason.

I realize Pascal could be hijacked to endorse the "burning in the bosom." The problem with the LDS testimony is that faith is directed to a false church and a false prophet, for which there is no validation whatsoever. I like to say Christians don't check the brains at the church door: there are the historical Gospels, and Christians should apply reason to their faith (the "priesthood of all believers" doctrine). I realize you find evidence for the Gospels' historical veracity to be insufficient. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

“God is felt by the heart, and not by reason. I realize Pascal could be hijacked to endorse the "burning in the bosom."

Mormonism could have been intended as part of your spiritual evolution. Your heart led you in, then it led you out. How do you know it was a trick? Although it takes practice to understand the distinction between the heart chakra and the solar plexus chakra because they’re so close together. They don’t teach you the difference, so maybe they count on you falling into error. They do promote the idea of being in harmony with the spirit, which is essentially living in your higher chakras as measured through feeling. I think Mormons should follow their heart, even though their religion is pretty awful. When it’s time for them to go, the circumstances to cause that will arise.

I just want to differentiate between faith and logic.

You believe, which is fine. But it should be stated clearly: in these matters you opt for faith rather than strict objectivity. It isn't just a matter of evidence, either, because if it were you could provide a standard that explained why your emotional interpretations are superior to those of a Muslim, a Buddhist, or even a Mormon.

Faith is faith, for better or worse.

“It isn't just a matter of evidence, either, because if it were you could provide a standard that explained why your emotional interpretations are superior to those of a Muslim, a Buddhist, or even a Mormon.”

I think you nailed the difference between religion and spirituality. The latter makes no such superiority claims. All roads lead to God.

> I think you nailed the difference between religion
> and spirituality. The latter makes no such
> superiority claims. All roads lead to God.

I disagree. Most spiritualists, which is different from people who describe themselves as spiritual, do indeed believe that their approach is superior to those of other people.

Since my ex talked with the dead, I have to agree with you.

I'd love to know more about her actions. Did she initiate these "talks," or did they begin external or unsolicited in her spiritual practices? Was this a regular, occasional, or infrequent practice? What was she (or she believed to be) told?

Did her LDS superiors know about this, and what was their response? Did they condone this? Were there others in her ward like her?

They told her to keep it to herself because it would cause trouble in the church. Her spirit guides showed up unsolicited. She grew up Catholic but hated Catholicism. By the time I met her, she had given up medium work. I was as “Mr Spock” as they come. I came to believe in the supernatural. Her spirit guides gradually went away as her bad beliefs caught up with her.

She suffered so much in this life. I hated to see it. She’s gone now.

Mormonism is a mixed bag. You can go either way with it. From a 5th dimensional consciousness perspective, its fakeness totally doesn’t matter. Only love matters. Let’s face it, if you can love in that environment, maybe it is good. I just can’t live with (or pay for) incompetent management.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think you nailed the difference between religion
> and spirituality. The latter makes no such
> superiority claims. All roads lead to God.

You're arguing Universalism. "All roads lead to God" brings great comfort to monsters like Stalin and garden-variety sinners like you and me. "No need to make a commitment. Everything will work out. You'll all get to the Elysian Fields, ollie-ollie-in-come-free! It may take you a few more lives or incarnations or planes of existence, or something but there's no final judgement or anything for us to worry about."

For those who care, Christ never taught anything of the sort.

There are rather a lot of Universalists that would disagree with you. Mormons, FWIW, are basically universalists of a sort.

I'll just point out that it is possible to believe in and/or practice spiritualism/spiritism while also being a practicing member of another faith. To give an example, Theresa Caputo (the "Long Island Medium") is also a practicing Catholic.

She may be a "practicing Catholic" but she's being anti-Biblical. Has the Catholic church taken a stand on her? The RC church did denounce Vernoica Leuken, "the Seer of Bayside" (Queens) who had quite a following.


She demonstrates a major complaint of mine of Roman Catholicism: its synchronistic tendency to incorporate extra-Biblical beliefs (e.g. purgatory & the now-abandoned teaching of "limbo") and practices (veneration of the saints).

This forum is filled with threads decrying people who engage in various sinful and criminal activities, but are still "practicing Mormons."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2020 11:19AM by caffiend.

For about the billionth time --

The Roman Catholic church is a "big tent" denomination. It is not at all like the evangelical, bible-based churches. The attitude of the church overall is that if you share their beliefs, fine. If you don't, that's fine, too. It's not like the Mormon church. There is little desire or ability to police or bully church members to fall into line. For instance, there are plenty of young church members who do not wait until marriage to have sex, or to live together. Almost all church members are willing to flout church teachings on birth control. In the past I've seen gay couples attending mass together. Etc.

That's not to say that there is universal tolerance in the church for differing beliefs. That's just the overall tendency. My experience is that many individual Catholics have no trouble with disagreeing with the Pope. They respect his position. But that does not mean that they automatically will do what he says.

The same is true for many of the moderate-to-liberal Protestant churches as well. You don't have to check your thinking at the door. It's a completely different mindset from the Mormon church or the more conservative, Bible-based denominations.

In a few cases certain Catholics will run into trouble with certain priests or bishops. But it's rare. Unlike the Mormons, the RC church does not excommunicate all that often.

Yes, the RC church is "big tent." As I said elsewhere, it is synchronistic--bring almost anything into the RC church, and you're fine, whether it's a politician supporting abortion or Theresa Capauto channeling spirits. * As long as you're baptized, you'll make the Kingdom of Heaven--eventually. Just as Spiritists (and others) believe you'll have longer, or additional steps (or planes) of metaphysical progression to go through, the Catholic church says you'll just have to endure more purging in Purgatory before you reach the gates of pearl.

Catholicism--appealingly tolerant--is not only synchronistic and near-Universalistic, but also a doctrine of salvation by works, as is Mormonism. You need to perform certain works to achieve salvation. The conservative Protestant (Baptist/Evangelical/Pentacostal) position is that it's spiritual rebirth which saves the person, and good works (reformed life) are the evidence ("fruit") which follows.

So yes, the conservative Biblical position is a different mindset. We seek positions and personal conduct that based on what Christ (and the disciples who knew him) taught--avoiding, we hope, some patchwork of beliefs coming from different secular and spiritual/religious sources.


*I refreshed my memory of Veronica Leuken in the 1970s. The problem with her was that she denounced Vatican II and claimed that an imposter had replaced Paul VI in the Vatican. It takes a lot to test the limits of the RC church, but Leuken did!

>>Catholicism--appealingly tolerant--is not only synchronistic and near-Universalistic, but also a doctrine of salvation by works, as is Mormonism. You need to perform certain works to achieve salvation

It most definitely is NOT "salvation by works." It's salvation by faith alone. You can live a horrible life, but if you are genuinely repentant on your deathbed, and receive absolution for your sins by a priest, in the eyes of the Catholic church you are good to go.

In the Catholic point of view, works come as a result of faith, but are not necessary for salvation. Say what you will about the RC church, but it does have a very good track record for charity.

Regarding Purgatory, I never knew a practicing Catholic who gave that concept any real credence. Yes, it's a part of the official doctrine, but your average Catholic expects to go straight to heaven.

Catholicism is not a "patchwork of beliefs". The doctrine is clear and has been remarkably consistent over the years. But as I said, it is not a faith in which the individual believers are policed for conformity.

Heidi, may I ask, is there something in particular you're looking for ?

Are you longing for communication with someone who is gone? If you are, I understand fully.

My knowledge of spiritualism is limited, but the tomb of one its founders, Allan Kardec, in the Pèere-Lachaise cemetery in Paris is one of the strangest places I've been to. It's always covered in flowers (even though he died in 1869) and if you hang around a bit, you notice that it is being visited and circled by some very unusual-looking characters straight out of a horror film... Very creepy and well worth a visit if you're in town.

Tom

I'm not familiar with Kardec. He may have founded a certain school or ecclesiastic Spiritist group or church, but communication with spirits is an enduring, trans-cultural practice.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My knowledge of spiritualism is limited, but the
> tomb of one its founders, Allan Kardec, in the
> Pèere-Lachai It's always covered
> in flowers (even though he died in 1869)...

Jim Morrison's grave in Paris, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2020 11:06AM by caffiend.

I'm sure you're right, that's why I said "one of its founders", because I don't think there was any one person. He simply promoted it at the right time (as a true believer). He was only involved in iot for about 15 years. Then he died, so maybe he's still involved ;-)

Unlike Allan kardec's dignified tomb, Jim Morrison's is not much to look at, smells of piss and is usually surrounded by people smoking weed. It's rather depressing.

"Suicide on the installment plan," like alcoholism.

I have no idea why, but Allan Kardec has a substantial following in Brazil. Spiritism there often comes with a side-order of candomblė.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Kardec



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2020 02:14AM by Brother Of Jerry.

How come houses are haunted, and churches, and theaters, and cemeteries, but I have never ever heard of a haunted bowling alley?

Oh, they are there. It’s just that they get bored and nod off.

Sorry, I don't believe in any 'ism'.

I took on 'spiritist' because I believe in 'spirits and spirit communications'.

I have had a number of 'spirit communications'. The best ones are when they need to get a message to me and I am not open to their 'nudging'.

I can't recall specific books I have read but if you are interested in spirit communications/mediumship search those books to see if anything 'resonates' with you.

Spirits do help people but there is a limit, unless you are meant to be super rich, etc..

Just looking at the comments, I believe 'truth' is a preferable way to God than 'man made religion'!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2020 11:50AM by spiritist.

That's what I was looking for. Thank you.

I love when we all debate the properties of the odorless, colorless, untouchable and unseen with such surety.

What would the debate look like without religion? Without the Bible? Without the belief in an afterlife or prelife that was hanmmered into us since birth no matter which brand your parents bought.



If someone has had an interaction with a spirit then good for them. I have no need to disbelieve or believe. Still odorless, colorless, untouchable, and unseen for me.


True story for me: When we moved into a very old home decades ago, I felt a presence. I knew it was someone who had loved the home and was checking us out.

I had two people come to see the house and both said, "You know you have a ghost?" I thought yes.

But then, I don't really know if that is true or if it was another phenomenon of some type. I only "know" the same way Mormons "KNOW" that Joseph was a prophet.


PS. After we restored the house, never felt the presence again. Maybe it was just a down draft from a faulty rafter. Am okay not knowing. Too busy bumping into new things.

I like reading books about Spiritualism/Spiritism. I agree with spiritist that you need to browse books to find authors who resonate with you. In normal times, you would ideally head to the bookstore or library and spend some time flipping through various books.

I've enjoyed reading books, and watching TV shows written by and about mediums for many years now. After my mom died, I got a lot of comfort from Sylvia Browne's books. "Life on the Other Side" might be a good one to start with. James Van Praagh is another favorite. He has a kind, understanding tone in his writings. I've also read books by John Edward, Theresa Caputo, and others. The four writers that I have mentioned all have a positive, uplifting tone to their books. I think that Allison Dubois would be fine as well.

There are other writers who are well regarded whom I do not care for. Michael Newton is one such example.

There is some crossover with the "out of body experience" community. I found William Buhlman's book, "Adventures Beyond the Body" fascinating.

Good luck to you, and I hope that you find what you are looking for.

Thank you. That's the kind of feedback I was looking for.

My wife was a geriatric nurse. She would stay all night with her dying patients. She was present when they went, numerous times. The common experience of the dying is that they hear music. Then they see two of their dead relatives who have come to escort them.

Incidentally, since none of these were LDS, this would seem to indicate that the church’s doctrine about only Mormon families being together on the other side is a bunch of BS. Who knew?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2020 03:18AM by bradley.

My mom felt and dreamed about her brothers and sisters (almost all of whom had passed before her) in the two weeks before she died. The evening that she died, she fell into a light doze on the sofa. I heard her holding a conversation with someone. When she fully awakened, she told me that she had been talking to a friend of my father's, who was waiting alongside a private plane (my dad had been a private pilot in his lifetime.)

Later that night she died. I like to think that my dad, waiting in the pilot's seat, "flew her over" to the other side.

I had a few "visits" with her after her death, either in my dreams or in the twilight stage in between. She let me know that she was okay, that she loves me, and she told me a few things about my future. She seemed entirely like herself. I saw her once walking in a beautiful garden with my dad. They both looked like they were in their 30s, young and lively.

>>Incidentally, since none of these were LDS, this would seem to indicate that the church’s doctrine about only Mormon families being together on the other side is a bunch of BS. Who knew?

I don't know where Mormons got the idea that they are offering something special. It's a nearly universal Christian belief that you will be reunited with your loved ones on the other side. Other faiths and traditions have believed it as well. There is nothing new under the sun.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2020 10:37AM by summer.

I read this posted by someone here:

"Mormonism makes us pay for what the universe gives freely."

Yes, exactly.

I happen to believe that, as spirits, we survive our deaths. But I don't see it as being dependent in any way on religious beliefs. It either happens (meaning it's "how things work,") or it doesn't.

I also think that life is rather simple. Be happy, be kind, try not to hurt others, do some good, love and be loved. I don't trust so-called religious authorities who try to tell me what I must do to "please God." My attitude is, I'm right here. If God has anything in particular to say to me, I'll listen. Until then, I will use my best judgment and carry on as usual.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2020 12:10PM by summer.

:)

An article of possible interest to some participating in this thread:

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/postmortem-survival

After I found out the church was false --- I had a problem of deciding what was true.

If anything the church gave me, it was the impression 'truth' was important. I kept that belief as I went forward post Mormonism. Now I am not sure how important 'truth' is to everyone but more so the 'search for truth'.

Obviously, neither mainstream science or mainstream anything claims to know God truth ---- more likely just the opposite. So I had to go to where people claimed things were true because they could 'experience' things. I even took up hobbies in meditation, remote viewing/psychics, etc. in an effort to find truth. In fact, I recently placed 6 (think there were 5 of us tied for 2nd) and lost by 1 point in a month long series of psychic tests that almost 2000 others participated in.

What I still/now 'believe' based on what I believe to be actual 'experiences' (dreams, visions, projections, other psychic procedures) in reincarnation because I have seen glimpses of past lives, after life, purpose in life, survival of death, spirits, etc..

However, based on my 'experiences' it is probably important the majority of people never know many of these things as 'truth' ---- it may ruin our current 'earth experience'. Of course, if we can raise total enlightenment of the earth to truth in these things it would be a different experience for those that come here. I don't know if 'different' is always 'better' ---- Earth is an exciting place where who knows what can happen will happen next and wars, plagues, hunger, suffering, power grabs, dictatorships, etc. etc. exist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2020 01:10PM by spiritist.

As far as I can tell, spirits are practicing social distancing.

They’re becoming few and far between.

As I stated in a previous post, the way our popular and internet culture are going, the Devil doesn't have much to do: the world and the flesh are doing his work very well.

That is an observation that is the foundation of all religions and particularly the Abrahamic ones. God grew angry at his children and flooded the world, the Israelite prophets warned that God was going to destroy Israel, Jesus said the apocalypse was just around the corner, Joseph Smith said the end would come in a few decades.

The strange thing is that all these apocaplyptic visions failed to materialize. People survived. It may be that humanity is approaching its end because technology makes self-obliteration possible in unprecedented ways, but I don't believe the Daniel/Hesiod/Kalpic view that humans are growing more immoral in their personal behavior. There is nothing new under the sun.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2020 03:35AM by Lot's Wife.

A website with information about spiritism in Brazil, and also candomblé, which some may find interesting.

https://www.travel-brazil-selection.com/informations/brazilian-culture/religion/spiritism/