Gary mannion videos

Well put, both.

Good and enjoyable article, Mac. I am also in that position of having had the most brilliant evidence from so many folk - on both sides of life - at a time when I was most in need of direction.
I had jettisoned religion as hooey long before, which left a gap in me somewhere, which enlarged as life was explored. Spiritualism would never have been a place to look, severely catechismised as I was, but it did meet the need of that time. I can thankfully say it was a live saver in every sense.
Appreciating that the need for evidence had declined if not vanished and realising that there was little point to sitting 'waiting for messages', it was now time to get on with life as I now understood it.
In later times of need or when perplexed direct communication became the way, although I, even then, did not appreciate fully what it was.
To conclude, it seems 'need' has some part to play in communication.

hiorta wrote:Good and enjoyable article, Mac. I am also in that position of having had the most brilliant evidence from so many folk - on both sides of life - at a time when I was most in need of direction.
I had jettisoned religion as hooey long before, which left a gap in me somewhere, which enlarged as life was explored. Spiritualism would never have been a place to look, severely catechismised as I was, but it did meet the need of that time. I can thankfully say it was a live saver in every sense.
Appreciating that the need for evidence had declined if not vanished and realising that there was little point to sitting 'waiting for messages', it was now time to get on with life as I now understood it.
In later times of need or when perplexed direct communication became the way, although I, even then, did not appreciate fully what it was.
To conclude, it seems 'need' has some part to play in communication.

Amen to the last sentence.  

By contrast with your own situation, hiorta, I've never had the "brilliant evidence" you have had yet the loss of our baby son became my 'awakening'.  Quite literally that's how it still feels when I look back to the time over three decades ago. It was at that moment in my life when I desperately had a need to know and it became the impetus to begin my search for understanding.

I quickly indentified with the Spiritualist movement and its philosophy and although the church was never a major player in my life I still support what it can do and I try to offer it as a place for the consideration of seekers.  

Like yourself I soon realised I had no further need of evidence. There was little point in my hanging around waiting/hoping for a message, especially as the one I'd most want to hear from spent but a brief instant in this world.  So I moved on and began to look into anything that might improve my sketchy understanding, in turn offering what little I have found to others who seemed to need help.  Now thirty four years on I'm still writing about life, death and what follows, the notion of our survival beyond physical death.  And I'm thankful to whomever/whatever for what little I now understand of those issues.  

Hello everyone,

Thank you for the comments and your personal experiences. In the end, its what it means to you and the help or otherwise, you may get.

I have been in the movement over 50 years, and never have I been so disillusioned. I still cannot fathom why the basic tenant of my question cannot be answered.

I accept that there are both good and bad communicators, but if the situation arises where a message is conveyed word for word to a guide from a fellow spirit, then why can that not be communicated by that guide to the sitter on our side ?. I think we are making excuses, and I think most people would be able to convey a message from someone in 'one room' to someone in another word for word.

Issues are being fudged, there should be no doubt about names, dates etc in that situation. it simply is not taking place, and neither is it sufficient to say that communication evidence is not the important thing, it is it's the MOST important thing. If a guide tells me they have my grandmother with them, then she is quite capable of giving me her name, where she was born, and snippets about her life. I would know about them.

Why don't we have the courage to ask these guides for that information if they are in contact with our loved ones?. if they are they should be supplying it. That's the acid test, and it needs to be applied. Too many investigators and Spiritualists are happy to accept mediocrity. In fact, the movement is becoming a laughing stock. if they purport to provide the evidence, then do so. it may well be, as mentioned some new methods of communication arise which make current practices obsolete. it's not here yet though.

The promises of ITC is still that, a promise. Various researchers around the world are working hard, and get varying results. I was recently looking at Sonia Rinaldi's work in South America and images of Constantine Raudive...and the question arises why the hell would he come back in the image wearing glasses ???. If he is in spirit, then no need of them. There are just too many contradictions these days for me !!

LeroyC wrote:Hello everyone,

Thank you for the comments and your personal experiences. In the end, its what it means to you and the help or otherwise, you may get.

absolutely!

I have been in the movement over 50 years, and never have I been so disillusioned. I still cannot fathom why the basic tenant of my question cannot be answered.

I have less 'service' than yourself but I understand why you feel as you say.  For me it's not disillusion, however, more of a disappointment that a movement I hold dear is in the doldrums.

I accept that there are both good and bad communicators, but if the situation arises where a message is conveyed word for word to a guide from a fellow spirit, then why can that not be communicated by that guide to the sitter on our side ?. I think we are making excuses, and I think most people would be able to convey a message from someone in 'one room' to someone in another word for word.

Devil's Advocate again.....  You ask a question based on a hypothesis about how transdimensional communication works.  I'm not a medium but it's not the way I understand mediumship to work and we're not talking about folk in one room passing on a message to folk in another.  What is the supposed role of the "guide" you've mentioned in this paragraph?  How do you know a messsage has been passed on verbatim?  I'm not the opposition, not a debunker. I'm just challenging your ideas to try to follow what you're meaning.

Issues are being fudged, there should be no doubt about names, dates etc in that situation. it simply is not taking place, and neither is it sufficient to say that communication evidence is not the important thing, it is it's the MOST important thing. If a guide tells me they have  my grandmother with them, then she is quite capable of giving me her name, where she was born, and snippets about her life. I would know about them.

Sorry to be so blunt but you're stating 'the bl**ding' obvious to us Spiritualists, preaching to the choir.  OF COURSE we'd like mediumship to be that way, of course at its best it's how it will be, BUT mediumship has probably never been consistent in its quality - EVER.  If mediumship isn't providing help or guidance from a spiritually elevated discarnate, if evidential mediumship isn't providing sound evidence of identity etc. then it may not be mediumship (as we understand it) at all.  But I'll tell you this; over here in the USA at least some folk don't see mediumship that way in the first placel and let's not forget that Modern Spiritualism doesn't have a monopoly on mediumship.

Why don't we have the courage to ask these guides for that information if they are in contact with our loved ones?. if they are they should be supplying it. That's the acid test, and it needs to be applied.

I would if I expected evidential mediumship.  I can't answer for others - I allow them to exercise their freewill over what they expect.

Too many investigators and Spiritualists are happy to accept mediocrity.

What data can you provide to support that assertion?  What's to investigate anyway?

In fact, the movement is becoming a laughing stock.

I'd say it's become an irrelevancy.

if they purport to provide the evidence, then do so.

If a medium purports to provide evidential mediumship then I agree.  Not all mediums do, however, and who has the right to tell 'em they're not mediums just because it's not what they think a medium should be? I've made the mistake of going down that road.

.....it may well be, as mentioned some new methods of communication arise which make current practices obsolete. it's not here yet though.

Those who are involved with those new methods will probably disagree with you.  

The promises of ITC is still that, a promise.

The experimenters in the ITC days of about the last twenty years of the last century would doubtless disagree with you.

Various researchers around the world are working hard, and get varying results. I was recently looking at Sonia Rinaldi's work in South America and images of Constantine Raudive...and the question arises why the hell would he come back in the image wearing glasses ???. If he is in spirit, then no need of them. There are just too many contradictions these days for me !!

Does Raudive's possible affectation for wearing specs automatically negate everything else documented concerning ITC then?  Don't forget I'm not the enemy, not a debunker.  I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Modern Spiritualist who writes on a number of other websites where matters such as above get raised - by me! - routinely.  I listen to what modern-day folk are saying, what they're expecting.... I 'speak' to folk who've used ITC, listen to what they have to tell me.  I check it out to compare with what Modern Spiritualism offers and why that's the case.  

What I'm consistently learning is that folk aren't much moved by the Modern Spiritualist movement and/or its mediumship.