Talk:Spiritualism (movement)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Characteristic beliefs

Concerning the Characteristics page, I cannot speak for other Spiritualist organizations or individual churches, but NSAC definitely does not accept a "Judeo-Christian God" and what you call "low levels" are not considered a problem. Even more specifically, NSAC Spiritualists are not Christian and specifically do not believe in an anthropomorphic god. The two references for the first three paragraphs are Carroll and Braude.

Spiritualism in Antebellum America By Bret E. Carroll is in google at [1]

"an·te·bel·lum ~ Belonging to the period before a war, especially the American Civil War." American Heritage Dictionary.

Radical Spirits: Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-century America By Ann Braude is at [2]

These are historical words intended to describe Spiritualism in the 1800s. Braude was doing so to make a point about feminism. I just skimmed the two books, so I must ask someone who claims these paragraphs to tell me the applicable pages to read.

Going back to the question of how Spiritualists think of god, the Spiritualist Church of Canada [3] has for its first Principle: Principle 1. The Fatherhood of God: But say that "The Fatherhood of God is a term of reference and not a definition." If you read their explanation, that are speaking of the same as the NSAC Infinite Intelligence. They also have Principle 5. Personal Responsibility, which would be in conflict with the concept of a father god.

The Spiritualist National Union [4] is not as clear about god. It would be easy to read "father god" as a man on a thrown in their explanation of Principle 1. The Fatherhood of God. From my communication with SNU spiritualists, they clearly accept Principle 6. Personal Responsibility: About which they say, "To achieve spiritual progress we must live according to spiritual principles and we are indeed responsible." (while directly addressing the question of Jesus as a savior.)

I will talk more about the other beliefs in that section, but for now, I am challenging the two references as being inappropriate as used. Any thoughts before I take them out? Tom Butler (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I wrote those sections, and I'm the one who read the Braude and Carroll books (and Conan-Doyle) and used them to source the stuff I wrote. You're right, I didn't assign exact page numbers, and I should have done that. Standards seemed different then--when I started the article was pretty sloppy.

If anything in here seems wrong to you, it needs to be removed. My only caution is that contemporary Spiritualism--even contemporary organized Spiritualism--is pretty heterogeneous (as you well know), and it's very hard to find common ground. Think of the "Noahs Ark Society", and Christian spiritualists, and people like yourself who are trying to figure out the metaphysics--it might be hard to write a "beliefs" section that all these folks would agree with. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the essential concepts are more or less the same across the different expressions of Spiritualism. The trick would be to speak of them in a way that members of the individual groups will be able to see their church or group in the article without saying that all expressions follow the same exact concepts.

I will try to describe what I think is "core" spiritualism and perhaps we can agree on that here before trying to change the article. To keep thi spost a little shorter, a brief explanation of each concept is at [5] As I know it, the concepts are:

1. There is a creator god that is in all there is.
2. The expression of God is spirit.
3. The operation of spirit is governed by Principles of Natural Law.
4. People are a spiritual Self temporarily in a physical body.
5. Who we really are survives the death of the physical body.
6. We "go to" a "different atmospheres and awarenesses" when the physical body dies.
7. People on the "other side of the veil" are able to be aware of people on this side, and through mediumship, are able to communicate.
8. Physical people can act as a medium so that our friends in spirit can provide and direct healing energy to a second party on this side.

There are many lessor concepts, such as ectoplasm (bio energy) and how it behaves. You cannot have a complete article without addressing these lesser concepts, but perhaps later. There is also the problem that one of these articles should address modern forms of ADC, but again, maybe later.

My brand of Spiritualism is often too abstract for my fellow Spiritualists, so I hesitate to say how the article should be written. Clearly, there needs to be other references, as well. The objective seems to be to say what Spiritualism is from the perspective of a person deciding to be a Spiritualist--no matter in what system. That is what I intend by finding what I know to be Spiritualism in the article.

Discussion? Tom Butler (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The question still exists over whether this page is sticking to MAS 1840 to 1920 or to cover spiritualism broadly but ... why not just revert to, or expand, the section on the Declaration of Principles as they surely are the most universally defining and accepted elements giving form to the religious movement. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, which Declaration of Principles do you have in mine? I referred to three and they only agree in intent. I personally would not have become a Spiritualist if I had anything other than the NSAC version to deal with, so at least for me, there are important differences. I expect members of the other groups would say the same thing. Tom Butler (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I chose the NSAC's current version, with reference to history, as they have been accept internationally and independent churches etc. You could include not to the newer abbreviated version if you wish. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, I would like to hear from other people who consider themselves knowledgeable about Spiritualism as a practice, especially those not affiliated with a major group. As it stands now, it looks pretty good. I can see Spiritualism as I know it in the Characteristic Belief's section.

The Spiritualists I have known did not exclude discarnate animals. It is just something that is not often mentioned since the focus is usually on loved ones. Would a medium recognize sensing a barking dog as an actual message? Since we have reliable reports of animals in EVP, I have to wonder whether or not animals are simply overlooked or deliberately excluded by other Spiritualists. I will try to find data for this.

In the comparative section, I read Blavatsky's main works and some from other Theosophist from Theosophy's formative years, but that was also my early "formative years" while I was still in the service. As I remember, there are a lot of similar views, but they took it to places Spiritualism usually does not go. For instance, you never hear a discussion of body consciousness unless it is from a hard-core metaphysician. By comparison, Spiritualism is pretty much a basic expression of survival of the personality. I would agree with how it is written for them.

The hermitic teachings are a little different. When you stripe away all of the mystery school ceremony, you are left with Spiritualism. The Great Work is the transmutation of the spiritually immature (lead) into the spiritually mature (gold). This is accomplished as the student learns to understand the operation of reality by experiencing and recognizing natural process ... and then learning to live in accordance with those principles. The secret work, then, is in turning information into personal knowledge. In fact, that is a paraphrase of the nine Principles of the NSAC. The 22 keys or Major Arcana of the Tarot represent the path of the Great Works. See [6] for a pretty good explanation. Even though the cards were designed at the beginning of this century, they are based on the Cabala which is thought to have a lineage back to Hermies. Also see [7]. The Pattern on the Trestleboard is a precursor expression of the Spiritualist's Principles.

Of subject a little, but there are important similarities of the Emerald Tablet [8] and John 14 in the Bible. Unfortunately the Greek academics screwed up the history by attributing their original work to Hermes, so we cannot safely make that comparison as a comparison between the revelation of Hermes and that of Jesus. Tom Butler (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

C19th Icelandic Spiritualism and the Obscenity Act

Just as an aside, I wanted to introduce a section on the importance and difference of the C19th spiritualists in Iceland picking up on the connection between the connection between the Unitarian Churches of it and the USA, noting particularly the roles of Kvaran, Jónsson, and Haraldur Níelsson. Does anyone have any objections?

Ditto, with the reinstatement of the section on gender balance and feminism ... another issue none of the boys seem to want to discuss ... I would like to strengthen the section by adding reference to the women's suffrage activist and mediumistic channel Victoria Woodhull and involvement of spiritualism in the making of the Comstock Laws basing it largely on "OTHER POWERS: THE AGE OF SUFFRAGE, SPIRITUALISM AND THE SCANDALOUS VICTORIA WOODHULL" by Barbara Goldsmith.

Any objections? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, one of the things you have been doing--I hope because of your focus on -ism rather than institution--is adding many items that are really peripheral to the subject. The Spiritualist church is adamantly against the war but that disapproval doe snot belong in an article about the Spiritualism as a religion, other than perhaps a comment about how belief leads to social action. That example does not rise to the level of woman's suffrage, but the churches involvement in that movement has nothing to do with Spiritualism as a religion. Whatever you have for Iceland, I hope it is about religion and not a social movement if you are going to put it in the article about religion. Tom Butler (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Move comparative philosophy out of article about religion

I am impressed at how well educated Lucy and Espoo are concerning philosophy. I do have a question though. Philosophical -isms are seldom institutionalized. Heck, I created half dozen of them back in my beatnik days. As far as I can see, Idealism has never been institutionalized as a church while Spiritualism has. This would seem to make your point an unequal comparison which does not belong in an article about an institutionalized -ism. I really think you need to take this discussion off to a Spiritualism (philosophy) page because it just looks like intellectual babble here. That is why I have been so confused about why you have been so proud of your academics. They must be philosophers, an area of academia which does not alone qualify them to talk about Spiritualism as a religion.

Right now, I think the Spiritualism (disambiguation) page needs to be spiritualism and the Spiritualism page needs to be Spiritualism (as a religion). Things are really hard to find in Wikipedia if you do not have the right search word. You want people searching for spiritualism to hit the directory first. Tom Butler (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I wouldn't give Lucy too much credit. For the past few weeks she's been equating the Western philosophical use of spiritualism with the mediumship practices and saying it's all related, saying that Leibniz is the father of Modern Spiritualism, and that Modern Spiritualism is the name for the religious use. Leibniz has been said to be the father of Modern Spiritualism (so has Descartes) and Modern Spiritualism has been used to describe the religion (as well as the Western philosophical use), but Lucy makes no distinction whatsoever in her rhetoric. Back in Jan. she wanted to redirect "Spiritualism" to "Mediumship".[9]. She didn't even know that spiritualism and idealism were related until I pointed it out with a link to Britannica. I don't claim to be an expert on these things like she does, and I'm not perfect by any means, but these things are verifiable. Like I said above, I don't like to brow beat people on their mistakes, but she continues to say she's an expert and that all of her talk is accurate to the sources. It's not, and that's verifiable. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is complete ... and I suspect deliberately misrepresentative ... rubbish that speak far much more about Neal's own misunderstandings or mental grasp of the discussion.

It is also a hotch potch misuse of capitalisation creating confusion between spiritualism, Modern Spiritualism and the philosophical use of the word that underline the need for a specification and a neutral disambiguation page.

Neal, you are also incorrect to say no one has written a page on the Philosophical term User:Lucyintheskywithdada/Spiritualism (philosophy). It was attempted but its comparative form was wrong and it got sent back.

Your statement was that Idealism WAS the same as Spiritualism. It is not. So, please, verify away Neal ... and let us look at the dates and your unilateral and undiscussed initial move of the (generic) spiritualism to Spiritualism (philosophy) belied that you had no knowledge at all and were just knee jerking.

As I stated clearly on the other talk page ... and you know ... I set out to write an extensive disambiguation page on related topics all referred to as spiritualism ... primarily within academia ... in the mould of the page written about Football. The confusion was not in my mind. (I also understand the difference between football and NFL, and the offside rule)

At that point, 15 January 2008 the Spiritualism article was a simple definition page. I was not suggest to redirect the current topic.

So, again, I think deliberate confusion is being created here in a splattergun effect. You criticise me when I do not put in inline quotations and then I do, you remove them as unnecessary!?! [10] --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, "its comparative form was wrong". That's the first time you've admitted doing anything at all wrong. You're also wrong about the move to Spiritualism (philosophy). As you recall, I said there needs to be a disambiguation because you rewrote Spiritualism with the content you have at Spiritualism (beliefs). But back then it was just "Spiritualism". You told me it was the "philosophical use". I took you at your word and moved it to Spiritualism (philosophy) with the comment "appears to be some ambiguity religious and philosophical use of the term, so disambig". It's in the log. At first glance it was about "philosophy" because you had all that Western philosophy stuff in there right along with mediumship, equating the two. When I read through it all I realized you had actually written an article about the beliefs and practices worldwide and named it "Spiritualism (beliefs)". But it was you who told me it was the "philosophical use". I took you at your word before I realized that you were putting in a lot of synthesis beyond the sources you provided. That's when I stopped taking your word for things. "I set out to write an extensive disambiguation page" similar to Football is also BS. When I said on the Spiritualism (beliefs) talk page that it should be rewritten as a disambiguation page, you said it "Holding the example of the football topic in mind for a moment ... the reason this is not, and cannot be a disambiguation page is that disambiguation page are used where the same word is used for entirely different means, e.g. voodoo; a video card, fighter jet ... oh, and some old fashioned hoodoo too." You were saying that all the content of the article was the same thing so we couldn't disambig. You had Plato, Descartes, etc. in the article equating it all as the same thing. (Side note: Stop using bold markup. It doesn't give your comments any additional weight. It's considered shouting or ranting.) Finally, you're wrong again about the quote I removed. I said you need to use inline citations because they're required for GA status. I said nothing about inline quotes. The long quote from the source was unnecessary and was out of place in the sources where no other quotes are used. Regarding your "Spiritualism (philosophy)" article in your user space, why don't you drop it in at the Spiritualism (Western philosophy) article so that you and Espoo can move on about the "idealism" redirect. As I said, I redirected Spiritualism (Western philosophy) to Idealism because Britannica says they're synonymous. I also said that it doesn't have to redirect there. It was only deleted in the AfD because it was called "Difference between spiritualism and materialism" and Wikipedia already has articles on that topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

At least Espoo realizes there's a difference, but he's also saying the Western philosophical use is more notable than the other uses, and that spiritualism isn't related to idealism. Britannica clearly disagrees with him[11]. He agrees that he's no expert either[12] (contrary to Lucy who does claim to be), but again, the notable uses are verifiable through Britannica. I don't have a problem with what Espoo says about giving this article the title "Spiritualism religion" or "Spiritualism religious movement" per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Be precise when necessary, but I completely disagree that the term "Spiritualism" should redirect to the disambiguation page, and that the disambiguation page is completely incorrect as he/she suggests. It's an accurate disambig page based on what Wikipedia currently has available, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic says "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top." Spiritualism the religious use is the primary meaning so at worst "Spiritualism" should redirect to "Spiritualism religion", not Spiritualism (disambiguation) with a link at the top for other uses, per the policy. The indication outlined in the policy is "a majority of links in existing articles". If you search for "spiritualism" at Wikipedia [13] most references are to the beliefs and religion surrounding mediumship, not the Western philosophical use. In fact, I went through every mention in the first 10 pages, 20 per page, 200 total, and there were roughly 5 that was not the religious use.

In any case, consensus should be reached among all the editors involved. Both Lucy and Espoo have complained about the move that was made per consensus. If a new consensus is needed to make additional moves, that's fine, but that's not related to the earlier move that was made by consensus. Get the comments poll going again and see what everybody thinks. The original move was made by only two editors. The revised move was made by seven editors. If a new move is to be made it should be by more than two editors. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I was being a little sarcastic about expertise, but it is clear that history and philosophy are important to them. I am fine with the pages as they are now so long as the Spiritualism page is about Spiritualism as a practice and all of that philosophy and history of thought is on the Idealism page. Tom Butler (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "Spiritualism" as spiritualism or Modern American Spiritualism? Are we including earlier and other forms and the later spiritualist diaspora? Are you even including British and European manifestations of Modern Spiritualism?

I agree that the philosophical and other uses belong on separate pages but disagree if you are attempting to take the generic term for the American movement. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, I have to say that your version of "academic" made a terrible mess of the spiritualism articles, yet you do not seem to be willing to see that. To me, "academic" means an educated and discerning approach to a subject, but there are fields of academia. You are clearly meaning "academic treatment of history" and "academic treatment of philosophy." (I no not intend to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I am not correctly characterizing your perspective.)

In my field, "academia" has come to mean institutionalized skepticism and obstruction of research, so it would make me happy if you found a new term. In fact, history and philosophy has little to say about what spiritualism is. Look at the article. The best you all have been able to do is say what it was as of the late 1800s. There is hardly anything in the article about the practice of spiritualism or the "so what" of the philosophy. I know that is because your academics do not attempt to go there because it would require that they actually study the subject, rather than the library.

So I will say again, please take your academics and go to an article about the past and let us get on with making this article meaningful to people who want to know what spiritualism is--small and large "s." Tom Butler (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That is why I prefer the anthropological view rather than, say, the classical physicist point of view ... which to me identifies your concerns which I understand and agree with. it tends to be a lot more tolerant of others activities and much less judgemental. Off topic, and a personal disclosure, but from my own point of view the Skeptic Front is just about as psycho as the most indiscriminate "believer". Thankfully there are multi-disciplinarian networks of largely underfunded professionals attempting to apply academic or scientific rigor to these subjects. Some of whom I am acquainted. Balance is between the two poles. At the same time, I accept the valuable social role of the religious organizations that provide life boats in the dark for individuals when they need it.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell

I gave the alternative example of a collective topic for a generic term ... Football which was entirely ignored ... and was look at more relative page for Hell. Clearly listed are all the various usages of Hell both in different religions and literature etc, e.g.

2.1 Bahá'í Faith 2.2 Buddhism 2.3 Chinese religions 2.4 Christianity 2.5 Deism 2.6 Greek mythology 2.7 Hinduism 2.8 Islam 2.9 Judaism etc

This is a good example of model I was targeting for the generic term of spiritualism, clarifying it from the modern american religious movement. I am concerned that the prime movers in the moves either do not have speciality in the areas or have their personal reasons for the current arrangement whether related to the subject or not now. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell refers to vastly different models of a place of suffering and punishment, varying sharply from religion to religion. All of these different religions are mature, established religions (well-structured with an established doctrine). They're also notable views of Hell shared by large followings [14] There's a great deal of difference between that and the article you wrote on the concepts surrounding spiritualism: Spiritualism (beliefs) There, the differences aren't mature, well-formed, and doctrinistic, and blur into a relatively simple shared common belief that the living can communicate with the dead. Plus the notable adherents (biggest number of followers) to this shared belief in communicating with spirits worldwide is more notably called "Spirit-ism" by Britannica.[15] I don't want to rehash my argument about which is more notable, but my point is that there's a huge difference in how the topic of Hell should be approached and how the topic of spiritualism should be approached. Like I said before, the whole thing can be covered in here with one line: "Spiritualism is a set of beliefs and practices concerning a communication with the dead by "mediums," notably, but not exclusively, coalescing in a religious movement that began in the United States and flourished from the 1840s to the 1920s" If you'd like to add a "and continuing in less structured forms to the present day in many parts of the world", I wouldn't object. But it's a lot simpler than it's being made out to be. The use of "football" is battled over, seriously : ) so that's a lot different as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Information is acquired and understood at different degrees of complexity. For instance, data > concepts > practices > systems of belief. It is not a good idea to attempt to equate these, and certainly it is confounding to put members of each set in the same list. Hell is a concept. spiritualism (I like the distinction of the small "s" being written as "spirit-ism" that Neal used) is a practice and Spiritualism ( capital "S") is a system of belief. If would be appropriate to say that Spiritualists do not believe in hell as part of a discussion of concepts in the system of belief known as Spiritualism, but having done so there would be no reason to list all of the instances of the "hell" concept in other systems of belief. I see the "hell" example as being essentially the same as discussion other instances of spirit-ism. Inappropriate in a discussion about the Spiritualism system of belief.

As an aside Lucy, there is an interesting line in a song from the movie, South Pacific, that has stuck in my mind: “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, you’ve got to be taught from year to year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, you’ve got to be carefully taught.” I have never liked the sentiment, but it has been my experience that it is true. We higher primates are born with little more than the animal instincts of our body. Logic, social norms, ideals and systems of belief are learned things. In my mind, it takes a higher faculty of understanding to recognize that faith and pragmatism are both part of a healthy worldview and that neither is complete without the other. That is the middle way. Sorry for being so off-topic. Tom Butler (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the models for Hell and Football, which was - contrary to your unsupported assertion - never discussed [16], are examples of topics for words used in more than one way or culture.

Football is also a "practise" (... and for many a religion.) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No shouting is necessary, and no one said they had been discussed. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the guideline. Its general knowledge. Only capitals are considered shouting. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TALK#Good practice, second bullet. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Expand historical focus

Until now the article has focused on the heyday of Spiritualism (1840s-1920s) and pointed to other articles for fuller discussion of contemporary developments. It seems that both Tom and Lucy would like to see that changed, so that this article describes the period 1840s-present. I'm not completely opposed, but I think it's something that should be discussed before trying to move again on the GA reviewer suggestions. Any thoughts? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see a new section below "After the 1920s" called "Spiritualism today". In that section, I'd like to see maybe some basic information about contemporary Spiritualism. For example, when researching after becoming involved in the article I learned that their symbol is the sunflower. Things like that would be informative. Stats about how many adherents there are, that sort of thing. Per WP:LEAD, once the section is done a brief summary of it should be added to the intro. Not related, but I'd also like to see something about "spirit photography" in the article. I think that's hugely notable and was part of what made Spiritualism so popular in the 1800s. About two years ago, the Metropolitan Museum of Art did an exhibit called The Perfect Medium which focused on spirit photos. That might be a good source to start with: [17] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a consensus for adding more on contemporary Spiritualism. I still believe that Spiritualism today is so heterogeneous that it's best to have main articles for the various contemporary communities. I also think that adding information about the phenomena investigated by Spiritualists (spirit photography, materializations, rappings, etc.) is a separate issue. The phenomena change over time: spirit photography (which strangely redirects to Kirlian photography) was already on the wane in the 1880s, when the Seybert Commission thought it not worth investigating (because fraud was too easy); Conan Doyle was enthusiastic about materializing mediums; today folks are excited about Electronic voice phenomena. So perhaps we could add a section on Spiritualist phenomena, to give a clearer sense of what Spiritualists actually investigated (and investigate). --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The spirit photos (dunno why it redirects to Kirlian) I think is highly notable and a good addition, especially from a historical perspective. They're not photos investigated by Spiritualists, they're photos created by Spiritualists, for the "wow" factor. Spiritualism swept the country during the mid-19th century not because it had novel religious ideas, but because it was "tangible". Rather than telling folks to take-it-on-faith, they offered "proof" of the afterlife in very sensational ways, either through public medium performances, or (extremely notable) later through published photos. Sure, these turned out to be fraud, but the people of the day didn't know how easily photos could be manipulated through double-exposure. The first permanent photograph was produced in 1826. Spiritualism kicked off in the 1840s, in the 1860s spirit photography was introduced and was used to promote Spiritualism; it became widely popular because all they knew was here's a picture of a man, and behind him is a picture of a wispy translucent man. It looks real, must be real. Groups like the SPR and the Seybert Commission were a bit more knowledgable about the photography process, but that's not the common man. The common man (hence the popularity of Spiritualism at the time) accepted it as proof of the afterlife. By 1897 there were eight million followers. It was a lot of right-place at the right-time in history that caused Spiritualism to be so popular. I think that's a good addition to the historical sections.

But it wasn't Spiritualists investigating these things, it was Spiritualists creating these things for promotional purposes. Later phenomena like EVP, etc. arrived after the decline of Spiritualism (1950s), after the general population had become somewhat cynical of sensational claims. Chasing phenomena and demonstrating "proof of it" had already lost favor, but in the early days that was the crux of the Spiritualism movement. Today, Spiritualism is more like a traditional religion as in "here's our beliefs" rather than "here's proof of what we're saying". So while the "phenomena" may change over time, there's really only a handful that are historically notable. Out of all of these, spirit photography is the most notable. It doesn't have to be a huge addition. I just think we should "note" this. The Metropolitan Museum of Art source is probably more than enough for what I'm talking about. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That would make a fascinating addition to the article. Nihil novi (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so. At least a paragraph summarizing the Met. source. I'll defer to others on where to put it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I agree with you Neal, and I propose a new section on phenomena. So why don't we make two new sections: one on Spiritualism today, and another on phenomena? The spirit photography redirect should probably also be turned into a spirit photography article. I'm busy with some other stuff for the next few weeks, but if this is still hanging in April, I can probably get started on it. But I would much prefer if someone else takes care of it. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can write the spirit photography article so that it's not just a redirect to Kirlian (aura photography), and I can write a paragraph to include here as well. But I'm also a little busy at the moment, and it's not a huge priority, so if someone writes the Spiritualism today section I'll get to the other stuff later on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Frauds

I’ve gotten the impression from ‘skeptical’ circles that Spiritualism is a movement rife with hoaxers and con (wo)men. If I can pull enough examples together and the sources are good enough, can the subject of fraud in Spiritualism get its own section in the article? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 23:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The section "Believers and skeptics" is the current location of the material about fraud. My sense is that more emphasis on fraud might seem insensitive here (Spiritualism is a religion, after all), but it would be great to have a separate article about Spiritualism and fraud (which can be listed as the "main" article under an appropriate section here). During the period emphasized by this article, the Seybert Commission report provides a great source for the incidence of fraud. And there were so many other investigators, such as Frank Podmore, John Nevil Maskelyne, and Harry Houdini. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It neither cares nor should care about sensitivity. On the other hand, you're right - exposés of spiritualist frauds would probably be better placed in the article on general spiritualist beliefs. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the Spiritualism (beliefs) article. It was created during an edit war, as a kind of fork, and I'm not sure if it's really worth putting time into. I would recommend beginning an entirely new article. There are plenty of editors who are interested in this topic--it would be a good opportunity to put the work of James Randi into historical context. So if you start a stub, and notify the right people, something worthwhile could appear. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Material on fraud in spiritualism is appropriate, but you need to be clear that it is established fraud, which I expect should be easily referenced to good material. However, suspected fraud should be clearly shown as suspected and then proven or not. Otherwise the material is just an effort to debunk. There is also the problem with credible (and allowable) references. The JSPR was previously disallowed in the EVP article but I think you can get Randi's material in because there is so much support for debunking in Wikipedia. Once you take that path, there can only be one-sided statements because so little of the "authoritative" material is from mainstream sources.

The "Believers and skeptics" section does a pretty good job of addressing the old days, but I believe NRen2k5's point is about current day Spiritualism. I think to address that, you first need to establish how today's Spiritualism is different from yesterdays. Also, this article does not clearly distinguish when it is addressing spiritualism the philosophy and Spiritualism the religion.

To be more complete (an old point I was unable to get across last time I was here), the article should address current spiritualism and not just what came and went in the 1800s. For instance, a quick look at the archive of media reports published in the NSAC Summit will show that there is a lot of current research seemingly supporting the "science" part of Spiritualism the religion. Another perspective that would have to be considered if the accusations of fraud happened to be about mediumship is that many practicing mediums are not affiliated with spiritualism the religion, and probably do not identify themselves with an "ism." For instance, Mediumship as studied by Gary Schwartz is spiritualism as it is being addressed in the article, but is not religion and is not really a philosophy. It is simply a practice. Are you going to distinguish accusations of fraud about Gary's work from accusations of fraud in the church? Tom Butler (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In Britain the Witchcraft Act was repealed and the Fraudulent Mediums Act was introduced to deal with fraud Adrian-from-london (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Information about these acts is available from the Office of Public Sector Information Adrian-from-london (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Spiritual healing edit

I would appreciate opinions on this edit which I reverted yesterday, as User:Adrian-from-london has queried it on my talk page. My thinking was that an expansion of this topic would be more relevant in Faith healing, which Spiritual healing redirects to, than here (unaware of this discussion at the time), and I didn't think the source was sufficient, but this isn't an area I usually edit in so I thought it best to seek opinions at this point. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion on the edit is that you removed spam. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intention to post spam - just to add links to additional information. COI not intended either Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've subsequently found source material on The Times newspaper and Macmillan Cancer support websites so please can you comment on my revised version on my user page Adrian-from-london (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please can you advise if the National Federation of Spiritual Healers is an acceptable source since they are mentioned on the Macmillan Cancer support website Adrian-from-london (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to avoid any perception of spam or COI, please disregard the above comment about the National Fed. Of.... Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced this is the right article for it, but I won't revert a second time. If spiritualism is distinct from faith healing then perhaps it merits a separate article. Looking at the history of Spiritual healing, there was once an article there [18] which was redirected after this discussion, mainly because the content was unencyclopedic. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The link to the Times Online article I've included mentions that Spiritual Healing doesn't involve the healers or patients religion so I hope that it's possible to make some sort of distinction between it and faith-based healing. I'm not sure what you meant by unencyclopedic but I'd like to be able to address that or any other concerns you have. Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommend that you try to reinstate an article on Spiritual healing, or contribute a new section to the Faith healing article. The present article simply does not go to that level of detail: I think it is obvious that there is no place here for discussion of how cress seeds immersed in saline solution develop. If, however, you are able to introduce material on the history of spiritualist faith healing, I think such edits will stick.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

By unencyclopedic, I mean that the style and content were inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view so it should not recommend or promote spiritual healing, and should not contain advice or instructions. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I included the section on cress seeds to summarise the discussion paper published by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine - an indication that research had been done and to address any perception that spiritual healing didn't merit scientific discussion or scrutiny. (I'd appreciate a way of linking to this so I didn't have to violate WP:NPOV, WP:COI, no-spam or other guidelines). On my talk page there's a discussion I had with Weaponbb7 about what page spiritual healing should be on. While it may seem to belong on the Faith healing page because of its association with Spiritualism as a religion, The Times article mentioned that the patients or healers religion isn't important so can it be described as Faith healing? Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"material on the history of spiritualist faith healing" isn't on the Spiritualists National Union or National Federation of Spiritual Healing websites, and any sources are likely to violate the "secondary sources" requirement Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this addition is not suitable for this page, and would need reworking for any page. Verbal chat

Point taken, readers will now assume that spiritual healing = faith healing when the The Times article states otherwise Adrian-from-london (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's so, it wouldn't be hard to reintroduce the spiritual healing article. Why not give it a try?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your comment Anthon.Eff but the current consensus seems to be that the article isn't suitable for Wikipedia. (It seems to satisfy NPOV, COI and reliable-sources criteria.) If you define faith healing as a concept based on the religion of the person seeking help then the article doesn't belong there. Alternatively, if you define faith healing based on the religion from which it's derived then the article belings in Spiritualism. In one of the (reliable sources) I'm sure it's documented as transfer of (a form of) energy so perhaps it belongs in the energy healing section? I can't speculate on what decision may be reached by dispute-resolution, or the high risk that further work on the article wouldn't resolve this lack of consensus. Adrian-from-london (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Differences from Christianity

Anthon, I appreciate keeping due weight, but what you deleted are fundamental differences between the two systems that are not discussed elsewhere. If it is, point it out to me and I will agree with you. Tom Butler (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're keeping an eye on things Tom.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Define Spiritualism

The reason I came to this article was to research the idea of spiritualism being each rock, tree, and ice cream machine all having it's own 'spirit' and all of that jazz.

Mention spiritualism in the United Kingdom without adding further context and you will be assumed to be talking about one of the following;

Christianity.
Semi-prescious stones.
Any of a variety of pagan movements.

Why then is the definition of spiritualism so narrow as to cover a niche American movement?

Also, since when did the spiritualism mentioned within this article become monotheistic? I don't see why you can't believe in spirits and also polytheism. -Matthew Sinclair, 23:58 GMT, 10 August 2011

Matthew, in the religion, Spiritualists believe in one god as a concept, as in the idea that there is one source of which we are all part--rocks included. This is specifically not a father god sitting in judgement, as Spiritualists also believe in personal responsibility.

The religion of Spiritualism is focused on the relationship amongst people in the physical, loved ones in the etheric (survived personalities) and a source which is expressed as principles (energy-spirit) governing the operation of reality. These are my terms, but pretty much what you will find on their sites.

Not talked about so much, but within the scope of Spiritualism is our relationship with nature and the operation of this same energy-spirit in all parts of our world.

Spiritualism (small "s") is the belief that people have both a physical body and a nonphysical personality which survives the "death" of the body. That can take many different forms, but is not necessarily organized as a religion. "Spirit" as a form of energy is a rather different view that does not necessarily include the idea of survival of personality. The problem is that "spirit" as a term is used for everything amongst people who have not learned the different perspectives. This has been a struggle for Wikipedia and your ideas are welcome.

As for that American "crap," probably the majority of Spiritualist are in the UK. For instance, the NSU is probably much larger than the American NSAC. Yes, some of them are Christian, but many are not. Tom Butler (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to German article

The German link from this article to »Spiritualismus (Theologie)« is misleading. It should rather be »Spiritismus«. Different sections of this article match different articles in the German wikipedia where the subject is split into different lemmata. Unfortunately the system wouldn't let me change the link, so could somebody of the English wikipedia please have a look at it and change it? Thanks, Markus 62.245.135.254 (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Spiritualism is a religion???

This assertion in the first sentence greatly surprised me. I consider myself reasonably educated, so I suspect my impression of "spiritualism" -- at least as it applies to the movement which had its greatest popularity between 1840 & 1920 -- is correct: it consisted of people who believed they could speak to the spirits of the dead thru seances, Ouija Boards, automatic writing & similar activities or devices, whose beliefs about God & worship did not enter into this activity. Perhaps there was a religious aspect to some (or most) of this activity, but AFAIK holding a seance was never portrayed as a form of religious worship, nor was a Ouija Board considered a holy object. If my impression is incorrect, this definition requires more explanation & reliance on expert explanation than what currently exists in this article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Spiritualism is a religion. Not sure why it is necessary for a Ouija board to be considered a "holy object" for Spiritualism to be considered a religion. Nor why a seance must be a form of "worship"... Surely you don't think that Spiritualism was a science? Or maybe a form of atheism? Do you honestly think that one could speak to the dead without framing the experience within a religious context? There was variation in belief of course, but not much more than one sees in the Anglican church, with its latitudinarian approach. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I do, indeed, believe that one can communicate with the dead without it being a religious experience. Communication with the dead is a supernatural belief, similar to belief in ghosts, vampires, magic, & so forth. Belief in one or more gods is not a prerequisite to believing that one can communicate with the dead. Or do you have an authority on religion who has said clearly that Spiritualism is a religion? Quoting in the lead paragraph said authority or expert in that field would satisfy my concern -- which is about surprising the reader, not about Spiritualism itself.

As for my mention Ouija board, I am explaining what I bring to the article, & what any person unfamiliar with the subject plausibly associates with Spiritualism; if you don't address the expectations of Wikipedia's audience appropriately, even if this article is verifiability accurate, they will mistrust the article & Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The article started out saying that Spiritualism was a "religious movement", and the pressure of editors soon converted that to "religion". If you have evidence that Spiritualism is not a religion, bring it forth, so that we can go back to the old language. As far as making distinctions between supernatural and religious--well, perhaps to be truly "reasonably educated", you should have taken one or two more anthropology courses--such distinctions have long since fallen by the wayside... Shalom. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

re: 'requires more explanation' -- isn't the rest of the article enough? Your concern is explained in the article. The lead sentence has the word "or" because the term refers to both the broad movement and the nominal religion under the same umbrella. - Steve3849^talk 05:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is not. The lead asserts that Spiritualism is a religion, & the rest of the article is written as if it is true. No where is this assertion substantiated with either an adequate explanation or reference to an expert in the field. (The footnote at the end of that paragraph appears to only confirm the contents of the second sentence, i.e. "A distinguishing feature is the belief, etc." -- not necessarily that it is a religion. And the rest of the article would make just as much sense were the lead paragraph to begin, "Spiritualism is the belief in the possibility, and the subsequent practice of, communicating with the spirits of the deceased." FWIW, some non-Monotheistic religions also believe in the possibility of communicating with the dead: a memorable example is the scene in Akira Kurosawa's film, "Rashomon", where the murdered samurai tells his version of what happened at the temple thru a spirit medium. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to leave you with one further thought. One important fact about religions is that people can belong to only one. That is, one cannot be both a Catholic & a Methodist, or a Jew & a Hindu, at the same time. One can be raised in one religion, then convert to another, or outwardly adhere to one while practicing a second secretly & sincerely -- but not both at once. Stating that Spiritualism is a religion means that every person who labelled her or himself a Spiritualist thereby renounced membership in whatever religion they might otherwise be practicing. Nowhere in this article is this problem clearly addressed & detailed, nor the repercussions described. And there were severe repercussions to those who did not belong to mainstream faiths: for example, the first Mormon missionaries to Oregon were tarred & feathered. -- llywrch (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not right at all. One can be a Unitarian and a Muslim (or Christian or Buddhist or Jew). No problem. One can follow Buddhism and follow Shinto (or Chinese folk religion) at the same time. With some religions, one can do two at the same time, and Spiritualism was one of those (Universalists and Unitarians were the enabling Christian denominations). The tragic treatment of Mormon missionaries is a red herring... As far as the Kurosawa film--maybe you should have taken your attention to the the article Spiritualism (beliefs), which aims to describe such beliefs occurring outside the religious movement described in this article. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Yet, spiritualism is more than the simple belief. It was a significant social movement of the 19th century. One reference not yet in the article from Vieda Skultans (1974) refers to it as "essentially a domestic religion" replacing more traditional religions and allowing women to adhere to Victorian values being able to work at home. The article needs work. - Steve3849^talk 00:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this is just biased, but alas I am too busy to fight this war. Shame but it's a endemic problem on wikipedia. It is pretty clear that for the vast MAJORITY of people, spiritism is NOT A RELIGION.

The fact that a small group of people have descided it is their religion, definatly deserves a small section at the end, but does not reflect the mainstream view (and i notice the fringe view once again is at the top of the article!). What do you guys expect to get new recruits here or something? Please rewrite this so it does not reflect your own bias, it will be a good challange to test your objectivity skills. (edited to be less grumpy) DarkShroom (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, "spiritualism" with lower case "s" is a belief. "Spiritualism with an upper case "S" is a religion. Considering that there is a disambiguation page, much of this article should be in the Spiritualism (beliefs) article.

Anthon, you said, “Do you honestly think that one could speak to the dead without framing the experience within a religious context?” Of course we do ... every day as an ordained Spiritualist and as a director of an organization dedicated to the study “phenomena of spiritualism” (visual and audio ITC, séance phenomena and "hauntings” phenomena) from both the perspective of survived personality and the alternative explanation of an undocumented human potential. I really do not know of anyone who is studying the phenomena from an academic point of view who thinks of it as the study of religious concepts.

In fact, Spiritualism is not a religion in the same sense that Christianity is a belief in a divine being, but it is a system of belief that is practiced as religion in that it is a community of like-minded people who believe in the spiritualism and all of its implications. The definition of Spiritualism I subscribe to is that “Spiritualism is the Science, Philosophy, and Religion of continuous life, based upon the demonstrated fact of communication, by means of mediumship, with those who live in the Spirit World.” NSAC The religion part is a reference to both the recognition of the community of like-minded people and the need to seek constitutional protection of freedom of religion. That definition (and similar for other denominations of Spiritualism) cannot be understood by the present article.

It is interesting to see how the belief in survival of personality and transcommunication is seen by people in the mainstream. For instance, I have yet to meet a woman involved in the suffrage movement, yet reading this article, one would think that is one of our root beliefs. I can understand the difficulty of finding current reference suitable for Wikipedia. Perhaps the answer is to say less about the historical part and concentrate on the bar-bones facts of Spiritualism today in the Belief article. Here, I would focus on the concept of the belief in survival and transcommunication without undue reference to religion. As Anthon observed, we have had this argument before and there seemed to be a consensus for the need to recognize the universality of belief in "spirit communication" as a concept and not confuse it with current religious practice. Tom Butler (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, this article focuses on the history of Spiritualism, as it existed between the 1840s and 1920s. The Spiritualist Church article developed as a fork to capture content after that period. The distinction has helped to keep the article objective (there were many editors who wished to describe their personal beliefs under the rubric of Spiritualism, and that collection of personal beliefs in turn attracted the attention of Christians and skeptics). But if you feel that significant improvements can be made by rearranging material, I'm interested. One possibility would be to create an article called History of Spiritualism, and transfer most of this content there. But what then would be placed under the current article name? I have no clear idea.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember the conflict and I understand your concern about stability. I left that discussion back in 2008 but looking at the disambiguation page referenced at the top of the Spiritualism article, I only found Spiritualism (beliefs). That article has a pretty good "at a glance" view of how spiritualism has been incorporated into religions. What is missing from that article is Spiritism, as it is an important form of spiritualism.

The problem with being specific is that there are so many "Ya, Buts" that need to be considered. For instance, I see the Spiritualist Church of Canada with 14 affiliated churches is not mentioned. There are certainly many more. Some are Christian and some are not. Some still acknowledge a father god and some consider it a fundamental precept that there is no such thing.

As witness the heading of this talk page discussion, the Spiritualism article has a lot of appearance of being about religion. Trying to think of what the public might want to know, perhaps we can consider the questions: what is spiritualism the belief, how has it been incorporated in belief systems (philosophy and religion) and what are the primary organizations. Most of that material appears to be in articles, but perhaps not in the right ones.

As a NSAC Spiritualist, I feel pretty strongly about their Declaration of Principles (9 of them). As such, I would probably not affiliate with a church using some of the principles listed by other groups, yet we all share the idea of a few fundamental principles being pretty much the limit of our dogma. If you look at the Beliefs section of this article, you will see a list of principles express as concepts that I believe most if not all of the Spiritualists churches could agree are representative of what they intend. First, that list probably should be in the Spiritualist Church article, as it is about the system of belief as opposed to the concept, and second, that is probably the limit of specificity these articles should follow.

As an aside; too often when someone is not getting their way, they attack my ability to edit see here. I will be happy to comment but, as I suppose DarkShroom is saying, my possible time to edit is pretty well accounted for elsewhere. Tom Butler (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

religion again

"Spiritualism is a religion" is being removed. One editor cited a radio program from Back Story, a program from the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, to restore it. This definition has been there for a long time. Anyone has other sources for or against it? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Spiritualism is my religion and that of about 200 others I personally know who attend Spiritualist churches in Tucson, Arizona. It is for us a way of framing/understanding the cosmos, a form of worship, a set of spiritual principles that give discipline and meaning to our lives. It is a set of ideals, a source of inspiration and motivation to be better people, a way of life. Since Wikipedia's system cannot give weight to such anecdotes unless someone has written about them in organized fashion, here are three examples of Spiritualist concepts as basis for religious practice and life: I tend to believe her. That said, is it possible to have alleged communication with the dead or other spirits and not experience it religiously? Of course it is. These matters are very individual. Can't we frame it as both?Moabalan (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

WP:Death Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed Start-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations. While the majority of the article is well-written and referenced, there are several paragraphs, including an entire section, that are un-referenced.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Free Love

My appreciation for a truly excellent introduction to Spiritualism. I have identified two omissions, as it stands. The first is in regard to the role of Quakers in the initial popularization of Spiritualism. It should be added that the Quaker proposition that any person could be the mediumistic mouthpiece for God's word during worship lent itself to extrapolation into the notion that any person could become the medium for a departed spirit.

The second item is equally if not more important: the relationship between Spiritualism and the Free Love movement. Considering the centrality of sex, marriage, and divorce controversies in Victorian life, and the space the entry currently gives to Evolution, this is a very serious omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairease (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mental Health

Alex Owen's The Darkened Room : Women, Power, And Spiritualism speaks of mania as a rite of passage. This reference was valid and should not have been removed. Please put it back. the connection between yoga and spiritualism is well known and spiritual emergence psychosis is a result of yoga too. There is a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.124.58 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)