Talk:Spiritualism (movement)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lucyintheskywithdada (talk | contribs) at 04:40, 13 January 2008 (→‎Christian Spiritualism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject ratings

Let's make a polite rule: if you wish to make a rating for a WikiProject, you must leave comments behind or your rating will be erased. The purpose of a rating is to provide guidance and feedback, not simply to increase the edit counts of whoever is making the rating. Let's also make a secondary rule: the comments left behind should be knowledgable, should actually provide guidance and feedback. If not, the rating will be erased. Thanks. Anthon.Eff 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I didn't 'replace' anything; I've never been here before. Second of all, I'm the project coordinator for WP:PARA; I've placed the ratings for essentially every page in our project. Third of all, there is no requirement to leave a comment about ratings; the banners are there primarily for use within the project anyway. Finally, I rated it B class because it fits the B class requirements. --InShaneee 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but the history says otherwise: 22:53, 11 September 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) (added wikiproject template) So you have been here before. But let's not quarrel. Lower those hackles and try to understand that those of us who actually contribute to this article are interested in useful feedback. For all I know, you are a 13 year old boy alone in his bedroom with a computer. How do I differentiate you from that hypothetical boy--by the comments that you leave behind. So let's have some useful comments, it's the polite thing to do. Otherwise, there really seems no reason to participate in your project. Anthon.Eff 05:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you don't NEED to participate in 'my' project, nor was I asking you to. Secondly, Wikipedia doesn't allow for discrimination against any type of users; a '13 year old boy' 's contributions must be given the same respect as anyone else's. --InShaneee 05:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A 13 year old boy who knows something about what he is writing deserves the same respect as 50 year old college professors. Fine. But do you know something about what you are writing? Why are you resisting a simple request to leave behind some knowledgable comments? Do you know anything about Spiritualism? This is a challenge. Let's see your comments. Let's see if you are worthy of my respect. Anthon.Eff 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anthon.Eff, you may wish to read WP:OWN. It discusses who gets to make demands like these. ---J.S (T/C) 10:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the page I was just going to point you to myself. --InShaneee 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
InShaneee, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Civility. Anthon.Eff 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As may you, apparently, as I've done nothing incivil. --InShaneee 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reincarnation

The doctrine of reincarnation may be widespread among today's Spiritualists, and it has long been a core belief in Spiritism, but it is lacking among the Spiritualists of the nineteenth century. In fact, the lack of a belief in reincarnation provides the best marker for distinguishing traditional Spiritualism from New Age beliefs and Spiritism (In the References, Braude 2001 and Carroll 1997 give detailed pictures of traditional Spiritualism). Thus I must disagree with 24.154.155.248, who asserts that Spiritualists believe in reincarnation, and can only assume that 24.154.155.248 refers to the current, syncretic practice (which is discussed two paragraphs further down in the article). Anthon.Eff 15:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between spiritism and spiritualism? I think some information here should be moved to spiritism Andries 22:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In Brazil at least "Spiritualism" is an umbrella term for various movements that preach the existence and religious relevance of some sort of "soul" or "spirit". "Spiritism" is nearly always used to mean Kardecism (sometimes also Umbanda). Although there are lots of misinformation around, neither Spiritism nor Spiritualism have much to do with Buddhism, which in fact specifically denies the existence of a true soul. Luis Dantas 00:17, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
BTW - I agree that some of the info in this article belongs to spiritism instead. Luis Dantas 00:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article mentions the start of Spiritualism relating to the United States, but fails to point out that modern Spiritualism has its roots in the automatic writings and seances of William Stainton Moses recieved in the 1870's, whose book Spirit Teachings, is considered one of the first such works.

Another issue with this: while there is a movement called Spiritism (ie Kardec), the term is also used as a pejorative name for Spiritualism (ie the Spiritualist church) by its opponents. For instance, The Catholic Encyclopedia uses "Spiritism" in that sense, while reserving "Spiritualism" as a philosophical term for the opposite of materialism. RayGirvan 00:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Buddhism and Hinduism

The current version of the article needs revision where it describes these two faiths' beliefs. Buddhism does not have a true "soul" concept - it is one of the major differences between it and Hinduism; see Anatta - nor does it really support any true reincarnation concept; see Rebirth (Buddhism). Also, HPB does not really have similar reincarnation beliefs to those of Hinduism, which are arguably not at all homogeneous to begin with. Her ideas are often presented as being accurate depictions of traditional Hinduist belief, but that is not the same thing. In fact, René Guénon and others claim that reincarnation is actually a 19th century concept. Luis Dantas 05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Spirit disambiguation

The word spirit in the article directs to a disambiguation page. Would "ghost" or "spiritual being" be a better link? Joyous 00:13, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

History of Spiritualism

Could someone flesh out the history of the movement?

Several movements could lay claim to a "spiritualist" ideology. Added link to Modern Spiritualist movementZosodada 9 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

I was wondering when the Spiritualism movement first started, and how it might relate to the Second Great Awakening, which happened roughly 1800-1840 and the Third Great Awakening, which happened roughly 1880-1910. Another event in American religon around the mid 19th century was the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. I'm thinking that Darwinism brought about a crisis in faith, starting around 1860. Darwinism (or at least the pop-science idea of it, not the theory itsefl) was a materalistic, logical belief system which denied the spiritual and the emotional. Spiritualism was an irrational, emotional, response to that system, and it looks like that started about 1870. I think the movement signaled a dissatisfaction with the world view of the Second Great Awakening, and was a precursor to the Third Great Awakening. An analogy would be the Beatnik movement, which was a precursor to the hippie/counterculture movement. (I think the hippie movement, or whatever you want to call it, was the Fourth Great Awakening. What do you all think? crazyeddie 05:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


The Modern Spiritualist movement started March 31, 1848 with the development of spiritual gifts by the Fox Sisters. Although they sold a story to expose the gifts as a hoax when in need of money I have added a link that later proved their gifts when their home was moved in a later date. I would point to the authors Andrew Jackson Davis, Cora Richmond and Judge Edmonds as the individuals that best caught the original thought and energy of the movement that counted 10% of the US population ( 1870 census) when Christainity had 25%.Steve3311848 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article to provide the basics of Spiritualism's history. I also edited the existing material, which mostly pertained to what members of today's American Spiritualist Church believe. I'll wait a few weeks, to get feedback, and then I think the article needs a few more things:

1) Merge Modern Spiritualist movement into this article.
2) Remove some of the links--it seems that some people wish to include almost everything "spiritual" in Spiritualism, but the article should (in my opinion) stick with Spiritualism.
3) Something more concrete about what makes Spiritualism different from Spiritism and New Age views, since some contributors (are they Spiritists?) apparently think the distinction is important. Once this is done, it might be possible to discuss the remnants of Spiritualism that exist in Mexico, the Phillipines, and other countries.

Anthon.Eff 17:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Joseph Kony

I added Ugandan rebel leader, Joseph Kony, of the Lord's Resistance Army, to the list of well-known believers. freestylefrappe 03:54, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Spiritualism was a phenomenon of North America and--to a lesser extent--of Europe. It can be distinguished from the contemporaneous occult movements (the Theosophical Society of the 1870s, for example) by its focus on communicating with the dead--any dead, but especially with the relatives of the believers--whereas the occult movements sought to gain magical powers--Blavatsky, for example,communicated only with spirits who could convey occult knowledge. Someone like Joseph Kony--not from the time period, not from the geographical area, and who clearly claims to use occult powers (spells to bullet-proof his soldiers)--does not belong in an article on Spiritualism.Anthon.Eff 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Merge Spiritualist Church into Spiritualism

Should these be merged? -- nirvana2013 14:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes merge these topics --wjbentley 29 October 2005

My vote would be no. The current churches are dismal examples of the movement and the individuals involved ( noted exceptions) from the 19th century. Steve3311848 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Spiritualism" and "Spiritism" in other languages

I added a link to a Dutch wikipedia article called "Spiritisme". Unlike English, where "Spiritism" seems to be limited to Kardec's teachings, there are many languages where words similar to "Spiritism" actually mean Spiritualism. So maybe the list of links to other languages could and should be longer; consequently, there are probably some links in the Spiritism article that in fact belong here, in the Spiritualism article. GdB 22:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Modern Spiritualist movement into Spiritualism??

Spiritualism is usually seen as the movement beginning with the Fox sisters in 1848 (in upstate New York, where so many of the events of the Second Great Awakening occured). The movement can be described as extremely individualistic, so that efforts to form a national organization and a single coherent dogma largely failed. The lack of dogma and lack of widely accepted texts means that one cannot easily describe Spiritualism by talking of its content, as the present article does. It would be better to focus on its history as the Modern Spiritualist movement article does.Anthon.Eff 17:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual dogma is still dogma, and indeed it is often the most resilient variety of dogma. Luis Dantas 05:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why I created the Modern Spiritualist Movement article, AE. Unfortunately someone has deleted that and merged. There needs to be another article called, as academics and historians call it "The Modern Spiritualist Movement" which took place in the US and UK, without fuzzing the subject up with various animistic threads from all aprts of the world. I suspect that some element of bias has gone into the decision to merge an objective history and overview into this article. Zosodada.

Moved some content to Spiritualist Church

I tried to trim down the article by paring off the portion relating to current Spiritualist practice and putting that in the Spiritualist Church article. Perhaps I am being overly bold, but my intention is to reserve the Spiritualist Church article for contributions pertaining to the current organized practice, and to reserve the Spiritualism article for contributions on the historical movement during its heyday (1840s-1920s). I think that way we will get two very useful articles out of the current hodgepodge. Anthon.Eff 17:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Amy Post because of her importance

Amy Post is credited with being the "Mother" of Spirtualism. See *[1]. For this section to be complete, she must be mentioned. It would be like an AMerican history section without George Washington.

Doyle

I don't know much about Spiritualism, but only that it's discussed at great length in "Arthus and George," the novel about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. You conisder adding Doyle to the list of prominent members and a link to his page and the page about "Arthur and George." BernieD 17:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InterFarFacing

Someone needs to write an article for Cora L. V. Scott (the www.interfarfacing.com website prefers to call her Cora Richmond). Why don't you do that instead of vandalizing this article? Anthon.Eff 02:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

high on something

r u guys all high on something, or have a history of using

Blavatsky Example Cut

Blavatsky is perhaps not the best example of the spiritualist/occultist divide, as in its early years her Theosophical Society was very much interested in practical experimentation, magic, the Cabbala, and the like. See especially material regarding the 1875 lecture by George Felt at the meeting at which the foundation of the Society was first proposed.--Danharms 18:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Blavatsky is not the best example, it would be nice to introduce a better example, rather than simply deleting sourced text. In the meantime, until you introduce your better example, I have reverted your edit. --Anthon.Eff 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • correctly
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Anthon.Eff 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started the reference conversions... ---J.S (T/C) 18:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What has Franz Mesmer got to do with Spiritualism?

Franz Mesmer has got nothing to do with Spritiaulism. I don't see anything in Sir Authur Conan Doyle's History of Spiritualism about Franz Mesmer at all.

And surely if Franz Mesmer had had anything to do with the movement, it would mention it on Franz Mesmer's Wikipedia page (which it doesn't).

Please can someone validate Franz Mesmer's specific involvement in Spiritualism? A Medium's trance has little to do with hypnotism. So mentioning him next to Swedenborg is not on and needs to be removed.

If I am wrong, then fine, but I am sure that there are many people that could be mentioned who actually contributed to Spritiualism.

Franz Mesmer???? Spiritualism??? Surely not! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.236.148 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Franz Mesmer was not a part of the spiritualist movement, he was an influence on the spiritualist movement, dying about 30 years before the movement began. I could tell you more, but it's already in the article--maybe you should try reading it again. Anthon.Eff 16:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand his influence, I just think that he's got more to do with show business than religion.

There are so many people not mentioned in this article, the first name that comes to mind is Helen Duncan. Why no mention of her?

I never thought to add Helen Duncan since she falls after the period the article focuses upon. But feel free to say something about her here (she already has a pretty good article). The best place to mention her would probably be Developments after the 1920s. If you would like to work on something you might also take a look at the red links in the Other prominent mediums and believers section--Cora L. V. Scott really deserves an article. Anthon.Eff 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No scientific basis for disembodied spirits

I removed the following text,

The belief that spirits of the dead can be contacted is not taken seriously in the academic world since, after over a century of investigation, there exist no scientifically rigorous studies or reproducible evidence to support the hypothesis.

for three reasons. First, it's not accurate, in the sense that people like Alfred Russel Wallace and William Crookes--clearly a part of the "academic world"--took spiritualism seriously. Second, it provides no source (reason enough to cut it out). Third, a statement like this doesn't belong in the introduction--try instead working sourced statements into the article, where appropriate, to show that specific independent investigators found no evidence of disembodied spirits (see the Seybert Commission reference for an example). Finally, let me pose a question--would you go to the article on Christianity and announce in the introduction that "the academic world doesn't take Christianity seriously, since there is no scientific evidence that Jesus is God"? If you wouldn't make such a statement there, you shouldn't make it here. Anthon.Eff 16:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although you make some interesting points I think it should be noted that Alfred Russel Wallace and William Crookes died some time ago. In fact they were scientists who were living at the time of Queen Victoria. Are there any other academic figures since then who have taken spiritualism seriously?-Over the last century? Also, although spiritualism is described here as a 'religion'-it derives it's some of it's basic ideas on the premiss that the existence of spirits are empirically detectable-i.e table rapping etc. So there still remains a place for the scientific view here. --Godfinger 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Spiritualism does make special claims, and that opens the door for a discussion of legerdemain and fraud. There is a section of the article where fraud is discussed. The dates are all kept before 1930 since only contemporaries could investigate spiritualist phenomena. William Crookes is really a fascinating case: he is considered to be one of the principal theorists of experimental design in chemistry and physics; he spent a great deal of time and money investigating spiritualist claims and came away completely convinced. Other reputable investigators, such as the Seybert Commission, concluded that Spiritualist mediums were all frauds. So we need to be careful when we talk about the "scientific view" to emphasize that that view is heterogeneous. Spiritualists such as Conan Doyle were ready to admit that some mediums were frauds, and even to admit that "true" mediums would occasionally commit fraud due to pressure to display phenomena on demand. So I think that some discussion of fraud wouldn't offend any Spiritualist. But to make an extremely POV statement in the introduction, as that anon editor did, would offend. --Anthon.Eff 19:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with "Developments after the 1920s" section

I see in a previous comment that you focused more on the early years of Spiritualism. That is a good approach because "modern Spiritualism" remains linked to that past. The problem is that the reader might get the idea that Spiritualism is as described in this section. It is amongst dabblers, but it is not in the various church organizations. The "Spiritualist Church" entry does little more to explain "modern Spiritualism."

In fact, one of the USA groups, The National Spiritualist Association of Churches (NSAC) does maintain authority (via education and guidance) over content of church services practiced by its affiliates. Other than a few untrained ministers, shamanistic or New Age practices are simply not accepted. I am aware of very little popular literature that calls mental mediums Spiritualists unless they are linked to a Spiritualist church. So, to say "...centered on a medium and clients, sitting singly or in a séance" misrepresents the fact that Spiritualism is a system of belief and not the practice of an ability.

I am not sure how to correct this, and I hesitate to do much because of the time constraints and because I think current editors are doing a good job. This is just an observation.

One more point. The NSAC has nine Principles and only conditionally embraces reincarnation. Tom Butler 17:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word fundamental

The word fundamentalist is generally not used in articles on religion, since it can be taken as a pejorative Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Fundamentalist. I'm not familiar with the usage of fundamental as a description of religious beliefs, but I assume that it is synonymous with fundamentalist. In addition, the Greater World movement was founded in 1931, which puts it outside the period covered in this article. This edit by User:Bvrly would have been better placed in the article Spiritualist Church. Anthon.Eff 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments

"Other prominent believers" could either have more details on some of the names, or perhaps be spun out as a separate article, like "List of spiritualists". Some of the red links could be made into at least stubs, or maybe be changed. "Perhaps the best known of those who combined Swedenborg..." could be more direct, like maybe "Prominent among those who..." Otherwise, solid B, could maybe get GA with a few more references, the changes above, and maybe a few other "cleanup" actions. John Carter 00:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A separate "List of spiritualists" article sounds like a good bet. There are many such useful lists on Wikipedia. Nihil novi 00:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I edited the SNU UK website URL because they recently re-designed their site and the old address is no longer valid.

Illustrations

In the "Reform-movement links" section, if illustrations can be found for Cora L. V. Scott, Achsa W. Sprague or Paschal Beverly Randolph, I wouldn't object to deleting Mary Todd Lincoln or Frederick Douglass. That section was looking a bit vacant before (no illustrations).

The other section that could use some illustrations, if we can find them, is "Other mediums." Nihil novi 01:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritism and Spiritualism Redux

In English, spiritism almost always refers to Alan Kardec's development of spiritualism, as discussed in the article. The one important exception is the Catholic Encyclopedia, which uses the name spiritism for spiritualism, preferring to reserve the latter word for general interest in spiritual matters. But the Catholic Encyclopedia stands alone in this choice of words: no historians use the word spiritism to describe the religious movement of the 1840s-1920s (the subject of this article). If you wish to discuss the struggles over the use of the word spiritualism, please do so in a subsection of the article, not in the lede. Alternatively, you may wish to create a disambiguation page. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't look at any of the dictionaries or encyclopedias at http://www.onelook.com/?w=spiritism&ls=a, which say the same as all other dictionaries i've checked, e.g. New Oxford:
spiritism noun another term for spiritualism (in sense 1).
spiritualism noun [mass noun] 1 a system of belief or religious practice based on supposed communication with the spirits of the dead, especially through mediums. 2 Philosophy: the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.
If you want this article to talk only about the modern religious movement called spiritualism or Spiritualism, you'll have to make a new lemma called, for example, Spiritualism (religious movement). WP policy requires that spiritualism and spiritism refer to what these terms usually mean in English, not in some specialist context or as used by members of some religious groups. --Espoo (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Espoo, for choosing to discuss. It's true that if one looks up spiritism in some dictionaries, it will give spiritualism as the definition. That's a proper definition, since spiritism is the name given to spiritualism by a particular group of adherents: those in the tradition of Alan Kardec. One defines the specific by giving the name of the general thing of which it is a part. But this article is not about spiritism (there is already a good article about spiritism); it is about the religious movement, beginning in the United States, that was prominent between the 1840s and 1920s. That movement is and has always been called Spiritualism, and never spiritism.
I agree with you that "WP policy requires that spiritualism and spiritism refer to what these terms usually mean in English." Even in the practice of spiritualism today (not the subject of this article) the word spiritualism is used in the English-speaking world. The exceptions, such as a spiritist group I know of in London, are actually in the Kardec tradition--in the London case, the group consists of Brazilian immigrants.
It seems, from what you have written above, as though you have a second concern: that this article not usurp all the uses of the word spiritualism. (The word can refer, for example, to the theological doctrine that God has a separate existence.) The way to handle this concern would be to write a disambiguation page. At that point we would need to have a discussion about whether to rename this article.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have essentially ignored everything in the sources i provided and everything i said, your edits have been destructive reverts that removed important improvements, you have not bothered to make a disambiguation page, and you have not even bothered to read what is said on the WP page you linked to. --Espoo (talk) 10:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to agree with you and support a move to Spiritualism (religious movement) as the article seems to be tilted away from just spiritualism to the American "form". I do not think this is to blame any contributor, the problem lies more with the academic literature available. I have not done any searches but I am pretty damned sure if we were to reach out further than just English language or American sources, a topic on Spiritualism would be much different. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Spiritualism

I am interested in the question of naming here as well. The article states "spiritualism" but is it not talking about, and should it not refer to, "Christian spiritualism". I ask that because most of the historic development and discussion of spiritualism within the Christian West happen before widespread awareness of the practises of both the East and excluded other indigenous practises, e.g. shamanism of South America, Africa, SE Asian etc.
I ask this because I am involved with editing the topic on the BKWSU and was wondering if it should be listed or referred to as a spiritist, or spiritualist religion because the focus of its attention is a channelled spirit being and their practises involve regular ritual and important mediumship of deceased leaders and other spiritist activities. Within Hinduism there is widespread spiritist activity.
My position would be that the revival of spiritism, or spiritualism within the West in the late 19th and early 20th Century was just that; a revival of older and widespread practises condemned by the orthodox church. It was merely "re-branded" as Christian to avoid persecution, in the same way that many of today's "channellers" are basically rebranding of the same activities but with the Christian bit thrown out and replaced by quasi-scientific or New Agey theories etc --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spiritualism is a well-defined religious movement that has attracted serious work from historians. No historian that I am aware of takes the position that Spiritualism was a "revival" of ancient practices that had been suppressed by Christianity. There is, of course, an obvious similarity with necromancy, but there is no evidence that a hidden tradition preserved necromancy from Christian persecution until religious freedom in the American Republic allowed it to be practiced openly as Spiritualism. What you propose is much like the myth heard about Wicca: that it is the survival of pagan practices, secretly kept alive by small circles of initiates for almost two millenia. There is no good objective evidence for this, either.
I would not classify the Brahma Kumaris as Spiritualists. They are not offshoots of the Spiritualist movement; they have quite distinct origins in raja yoga. In addition, their mediums are not in general contact with disembodied spirits, but communicate only with one: the founder of their movement, Lekhraj Kripalani.
But your point may simply be that all humans have the innate ability to communicate with disembodied spirits, and that therefore we see humans practicing this ability whenever their culture permits it. I think Spiritualists would agree with you, but that doesn't make anyone who communicates with disembodied spirits a Spiritualist. Spiritualism is a specific religious movement, as described in the article. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are writing from an American perspective then? In the UK I would say it is more commonly, and deliberately, referred to "Christian Spiritualism" ... or perhaps something else is. You can really be saying that the history of individuals consorting with disincarnate spirits happened in Holy Land 2,000 years ago ... and then magical reappeared in the US in 1840 only, can you? Are you suggesting that spiritualism does not exist in other cultures and traditions?
Yes, I think I seek to clarify the practice of spiritualism with a small 's' from Spiritualism with a capital 'S'; that spiritualism I am referring to as Christian Spiritualism. I look at Spiritism but again that seems to be bound to a specific religious movement rather than a general practise. I do not consider that we are talking about general Animism either.
With regards to the Brahma Kumaris, their tradition is neither based on Raja Yoga proper (traditional Patanjali/Astanga Yoga) nor is the mediumship limited to channelling their founder Lekhraj Kripalani. They state their main spirit guide is God Shiva but their mediums also claim to channel other deities such as Krishna, Radhe, other deceased leaders and so on. But the question is still broader, spiritualism (all the exact same phemonena) is practised right across SE Asia. It is not Christian Spiritualism or Spiritualism but it is spiritual ... or what is it?
In a sense, I am questioning the Anglo-centric nature of the article or perhaps you can point me to other relative topics not listed in the "see also". --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why "Anglo-centric"? Eusapia Palladino was Italian, and there were Polish mediums and South American ones, too. Nihil novi (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The academic and historical references are all in English.
Or at least those I can read (some more quotation would be good). Sorry if I did not make that clear. Obviously Swedenborg is Swedish but even he had to come to London to write his work that definitely included spiritualism ... predating the C 19th. I suggest that if we look at Hindu, Buddhist, Classical languages, Egyptian etc scriptures, we will find there is a long tradition of small 's' spiritualism globally. Not forgetting that SE Asia as its own modern literature. The whole field of the paranormal is not great science even in the West, I think there is a pronounced lack of academic communication between cultures here. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, without spending too much time on the diifs that I generally agree with position Espoo [2] is taking with the addition of references to "Christian Spiritualism". [User:Lucyintheskywithdada|Lucyintheskywithdada]] (talk 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious about referring to the subject of the "Spiritualism" article as "Christian spiritualism." There were probably Spiritualists who did not consider themselves Christians, and I expect that many Christian churches frowned on various aspects of Spiritualist belief and practice. Simply put, this "Spiritualism" was a phenomenon of a specific historic period. Links could be placed, as appropriate, to other articles that cover other historic periods. Nihil novi (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy, thanks for setting me straight regarding the Brahma Kumaris--maybe you can add some of that material to the Brahma Kumaris article. From what you have said, I think you are looking for the article Mediumship. As Nihil novi said, Spiritualism is a specific religious movement, and not all "channeling" can be called Spiritualism. The general phenomenon of channeling is covered in Mediumship. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and where do we fit in 'Christian Spiritualism'? A simple Google bring up 127,000 hits and identifies the major organizations involved.
You are correct in saying that most Christian churches would frown down upon spiritualism as being anything from occult to Satanic deception, Nihil, but as I said, this was why the Christian Spiritualist churches identified themselves as Christian and with Christ and other patriarchs. Perhaps this is just a terminology issue, UK English verses US English. The topic reads, "Modern Spiritualism" what was the "Ancient or Original Spiritualism"?
I see this is a mirror of a conversation you had a year ago on the Spiritualist Church page where a good comment on the difference between the Americana and British movement ...
How can you, say, exclude Swedenborg from being a spiritualist?
There is also no mention of Edward Irving and his manifestations in the 1830s.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like authoritative answers to your questions, I can recommend the books by Braude and Carroll in the reference section of the article. If you are still concerned about an overly American focus, then you should take a look at the very readable and very well-informed book by Conan-Doyle.

  • Conan-Doyle mentions Edward Irving, and a sentence or two in the article might be a good idea. Like Swedenborg, Irving is a precursor of Spiritualism, and not actually a part of the movement.
  • The phrase Christian spiritualism usually refers to a sect within organized Spiritualism (i.e., a subset of the Spiritualist churches), and only active since the 1950s (so outside the article's time period). Most Spiritualist churches do not consider Spiritualism to be a denomination of Christianity. This is mentioned in the article in the Developments after the 1920s section.
  • The qualifier Modern, as you point out, doesn't make sense, so I removed it. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am really just continuing the discussion over whether this topic is correctly labeled and whether or not it ought be moved to Spiritualism (religious movement) to differentiate 'spiritualism' (which probably ought be better served by redirecting to mediumship at present) from 'Spiritualism'.
I do not think that you are correct and the literature generally points to the lack of weakness in the American movement by way or "organization" and "Modern Spiritualism" is a term used in academic literature to differentiate it from traditional spiritualist forms and leading groups themselves, see SNU [3]. As an aside, The Greater World Christian Spiritualist League (later to become the Greater World Christian Spiritualist Association) dates back to 1931 and by 1936 there were 86,000 members worldwide as "a vehicle through which the Christ Mission is spread". Mentioned only in passing in the Spiritualist Church topic.
There is no way therefore that Christian Spiritualism meets the definition of a "sect" with the great movement of Spiritualism many particular sects may be. I'd rather see it as a strand bound in right from the beginning that then formalised itself later. The first Spiritualist Church in UK is dated to 1853, the first independent Christian Spiritualist Church in the US was said to have been founded by Marcellus Seth Ayer in 1883 ("First Spiritual Temple" and neither credited in this article), another Christian Spiritualist Temple in Columbus dates to around the turn of the century. None of these churches or church organizations appear directly connected.
Taking up Espoo's point, I cannot see the separation between, say, the traditions of Celtic seers or gyspy fortune tellers (both by the ways of active spiritualism - small 's' - and fraud). If you wish to tie the article to a specific movement, then it ought to be labeled as such. Equally, I note the Spiritualist Church topic also betrays this prejudice referring to "modern American spiritualism". Its not a personal criticism, and reasonable enough to expect the wikipedia to have an American bias due to the concentration of contributors, but this ought not allow it to export one particular world view unreservedly.
Is there no mention of the International Working Union of Progressive Spiritualist either and the problems it faced from the Spiritualist movement. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm getting tired of this, so let me suggest an option for you: write an article on "Christian Spiritualism." That will get us off the talk pages and into doing something useful. Once you do that then there might be a need for a disambiguation page, and we can have a discussion about whether to rename the present article. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second this suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Nice try but no. If you do not have an defence, why not just accept the proposal? The issue, and topic, is regards 'Spiritualism the religious movement' versus general spiritualism ... of all ages. You don't even deny that there is such a difference as Spiritualism and spiritualism. A heart, its a simple technical issue; the Wikipedia capitalizes the first letter, e.g. "Conservative" the political party versus conservative, confusing the issue.
I put a proposal to move Spiritualist Church to Christian Spiritualism which seems more logical. After all, a Spiritualist Church is where "Christian Spiritualism is practised. That particular article is in bad shape and requires work. it would be pointless repetition to write another. i think there is some cross over between spiritualism and mediumship ... I think anyone would be hard pressed to explain the difference.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spiritualism_(movement)&oldid=183981054"