Talk:Spiritualism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Precisely the page I was just going to point you to myself. --InShaneee 00:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
InShaneee, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Civility. Anthon.Eff 04:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
As may you, apparently, as I've done nothing incivil. --InShaneee 07:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] Merge Spiritualist Church into Spiritualism

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

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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

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

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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] high on something

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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).

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
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)

[edit] External Links

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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)
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)
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)
I second this suggestion. Nihil novi (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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)

There is at least one organization in the USA, NSAC (nsac.org), that is not Christian. See also http://www.allspiritual.com/SpiritualistOrganizations.php3. I most of those are more like the NSAC. Yes, there are Christian churches that use the name of "Spiritualism." Kardec Spiritists are very close to Spiritualism, but do seem to be more aliened with Christian. But they are Spiritists and the article is about Spiritualist churches. If you want to include Christian Spiritualist churches, go ahead, but do not cast the same light on all Spiritualist cvhurches. Tom Butler (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The NSAC is an umbrella organization. Some of its members would be Christian Spiritualist, some are certainly not. Again cultural difference appear, America has looser, or more free, limitations as to who can call them selves a Reverend or what a church. I think your comment is useful as it underlines that spiritualism is more than a religious movement that "flourished from the 1840s to the 1920s" which takes us back up to the top of this particular discussion. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Lucy, (or may I say sock of banned User:Lwachowski), we are not all Americans here, nor are we all so presumptuous as to lecture Tom Butler about Spiritualism. We can discard the equation of Spiritualist church with Christian Spiritualism: the identity exists only in your own mind. I've done some checking as to whether lowercase spiritualism is routinely used used to describe mediumship, in any religious context. The answer is: not routinely. In my personal library I can find only one instance (The Heathens. Primitive Man and His Religions. By William Howells. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1948). In that instance, Howells titles a chapter: "THE SHAMAN, A SIBERIAN SPIRITUALIST" (and then discusses Yokut shamanism without once using the word "spiritualist"). Here, the use of the word spiritualist is clearly an attempt to translate an alien practice into terms familiar to English-speaking readers, and NOT the use of a widely recognized technical term for mediumship. So I feel confident in saying that, on this point too, you've managed to convince yourself of something that simply isn't true. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would not try to be a smart-ass to win an argument Anthon, unless you do your homework well. I lost the password, requested to change it/the name to Awachowski. Those names were both diallowed because of their similarity to "living people". Wachowski is actually fair common Polish name, so that decision was churlish. It ignored what I had requested admins to sort out for me. Here are your diffs [4] [5]. I am not pursing any sockpuppet accounts and have been entirely open about the then necessary name change.
But thank you for letting me know the level you are working at.
You ignore the evidence that Tom bring to us ... are you suggesting that Christian Spiritualist do not go to Spiritualist Churches? What is your issue ... is it with the "Christianisation" of spiritualism?
A simple Google goes to show that spiritualism goes far beyond the Spiritualism (historical movement). Is that not so? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy, first, the NSAC is not an "umbrella organization." All affiliated churches are required to have an NSAC trained minister or be sponsored by one. For instance, my wife and I sponsor our local church. The NSAC is specific in that Jesus is an important teacher, but not a savior and is unable to excuse our "sins. It would be a contradiction of concepts for NSAC Spiritualists to be Christian as per the 7th and 8th Principles:

7. We affirm the moral responsibility of individuals, and that we make our own happiness or unhappiness as we obey or disobey Nature’s physical and spiritual laws.

8. We affirm that the doorway to reformation is never closed against any soul here or hereafter.

I probably slept through Spiritualism History 101, so others can be more specific, but I believe it is true that the concept of spiritualism is as old as human's fear of the night. However, the organized Spiritualist movement is claimed by all of the Spiritualist historians I have read to have begun with the Fox sisters. Thus, "Spiritualism" as a religious movement begins there. Spiritualism as a religious movement does not generally include Christian concepts. More correctly in technical terms, Christian Spiritualist churches are Christian churches that believe in some aspects of Spiritualism. I believe Spiritists call themselves Spiritists to make that distinction--and to honor their founder, Kardec.

I do not see your point. It is illogical to make "Spiritualist church" fit under the banner of Christian Spiritualist" when Christian Spiritualism is just a special instance of the system of beleif. Tom Butler (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your acceptance that small 's' spiritualism is as old as humanity. This has really been the question in a few of our minds. We perfectly recognise "Spiritualism" the C19th religious movement as defended by Athon. Its a simple academics to point out that the creation of such as movement was as much to do with the rise of a popular and industrial press and media as it was to do with the actually phenomenon observed and it is human, if not academic nature to repeat ad nauseum received knowledge until it becomes a truth. If only Swedenborg had been born 100 years later ...
If you step back and take an overview, what do you think? We have Spiritualism (which is being bent towards the historical movement only), Mediumship, Spiritual Church ... In Mediumship, it points back to "Main article: Spiritualism" which would appear wrong as mediumship certainly pre-dates the historical movement. No general topic for spiritualism outside of the historical movement. Note the comment below about "After 1920s ...". Just so you understand where I am coming from, the lack of precision within the study of these matters irritates me. A lack of precision that has been introduced by commentators that are generally not informed or experienced. So the lines between spiritism and spiritualism, mediumship and channeling and are blurred where I think they should and could be precise and the non-English speaking world is entirely ignored because it did not fit into the academia of a world that had not travelled yet.
The Spiritualist church has always been a very broad church and we definitely have a division between the US and the UK experience here, e.g. I see the Toronto Blessing (Charismatic movement) now being defined as "Christian Spiritualism". In the UK, e.g the Greater World Christian Spiritualist Association, would fit far more into the mould of a Spiritualist Church that takes on board some of Christianity, e.g. Christ as a medium.
I agree with Espoo that this article should really be re-named Spiritualism (religious movement) if it is to be limited to such, what would be your position? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Christian Spiritism? [6] --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to talk about Spiritualism

I agree that mediumship as a practice goes way back, but again, Spiritualism is a system of belief that does combine other beliefs in a unique way. It is not Shamanism, even though that is even more ancient. It is not Wicca or Mesmerism, so there is no need to include the earlier forms of the beliefs in an article about Spiritualism except for historical perspective. The article is also in an English-language wiki, so there is no need to support all other languages.

The mediumship article is about a practice claimed to be real. The Spiritualism article is more about a system of belief that happens to use mediumship, and as such, is subject to a different standard of evidential references. I would hesitate to link them too closely, but with that said, I agree that the articles should mesh in a reasonable way.

Why don't you propose the changes you think might help? This is also a good time to add a Christian Spiritualism section in the church article.

I only have one vote in this, but I think it is important to be clear about what the article is intended to explain. As a Spiritualist, I promise you there is a world of difference between Spiritism and Spiritualism as a religious practice. So perhaps the question is whether or not the article is about the belief system or the practice. in my dictionary, Spiritualism is defined as:

  • 1.a. The belief that the dead communicate with the living, as through a medium.
  • b. The practices or doctrines of those holding such a belief.
  • 2. A philosophy, doctrine, or religion emphasizing the spiritual aspect of being.

First, it is a belief that it is possible to communicate with the dead. That is the definition the Spiritualist religion used in the beginning of "Modern Spiritualism." You are correct in saying that all cultures have believed this forever.

When you get to the second definition, you need to distinguishes how the philosophy has evolved. Both the Spiritists and the Spiritualists claim the Fox sisters as their source, but Kardec moved what would probably have been part of Spiritualism into a new -ism by introducing his channeled material and worship of Jesus. Casting the two religions into the same definition is like saying that all Orthodox Christian churches are alike. That is clearly false.

Consider renaming the current Spiritualism article as "Modern Spiritualism" and keep it focused on the Fox sisters forward. Then begin a second article named something like "The philosophy of spiritualism" (little "s") and detail all of those expressions of spiritualism you think have occurred in all of history and throughout the world. In the Spiritualist church article, include a section on Christian Spiritualism on a par with a section on "Modern Spiritualism." I know that Morris Pratt and the NSAC consider everything after the Fox sisters to be "Modern Spiritualism," so that should work. It would be appropriate to explain why Spiritism is not included but there could be a "Spiritist Church" article. (There is an article titled "Spiritism" and I doubt that they wrote it as a synonym to Spiritualism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritism].

This is a complex subject that should probably be hashed out in the Project talk page [7]. I think I understand your point, but I also think that we need to be specific about who we are talking about and I am real sure I am neither Christian or Spiritist. I am also sure that the NSAC is not very different from the British Spiritualists, as we do compare notes from time to time. Tom Butler (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the project page, it is not just a matter of what is "technically accurate" but what the references and citations say ... especially when it comes to universal pronouncements of what "Spiritualism ... officially believes". I feel more comfortable with this topic now specified as the religious, and historical, movement because at least we can rely on a considerable amount of academic literature.
If the NSAC has produced any peer reviewed scientific papers on any aspect of the movement or practise, then I propose that is the first place to start but my feelings are that what you are saying really belongs in a general topic on the development of the spiritualism movement since its heyday. You points about its relationship with the new age and so on are valid.
I suggest we put together an infobox to draw together all the topics in the same area. Not spirituality, as that is too vague but the spiritualistic ones.
I offer a rough hack Template:Spiritualism_small and would appreciate assistance putting it together --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of your points and I think the info box is a good idea. However, after Espoo's virtually unilateral move, I am a little uncomfortable working with this. Blind adherence to what a dictionary says about anything is intellectually lazy. I have my hands full with EVP so perhaps Espoo can help you. I will try to come back after I return from a weekend conference. Tom Butler (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Tom, We cannot use a term in a way that violates WP naming policy and more specifically general usage in English. Modern dictionaries describe general (and specialised) use of a word; they no longer pescribe. They tell us what people mean when they use a word mean, not what they should mean. Not violating such descriptive definitions is not laziness in any sense of the word, it's common courtesy. The addition "religious movement" is in no way lazy or sloppy or subjective or denigrating or in any way negative. It simply states what this article is about in as objective a manner as possible. It's simple courtesy towards the users of WP and the users of English. And i'm not the only one that supported the new title. So i have no idea why you would object to it or claim it was in any way "unilateral". Please also see my answer below to the following comment left by Anton on my talk page instead of here, where it belongs:

Espoo, no one does a move without opening the move up to discussion, and then giving interested parties a reasonable time to respond. What you have done seems like a sure way to make other editors angry--as if you know so much better than everyone else that you do not need to solicit feedback. I would have expected better from an experienced editor.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, 1) You simply ignored my contribution to the discussion (10:06, 5 January), so you should not complain about others supposedly not discussing. 2) As i wrote then: 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. 3) There is no way you are going to convince any majority of editors that you can use a term in only one of its senses without an addition of some kind in the article's title 4) What is your point anyhow? Are you seriously suggesting that the article should have been kept at "spiritualism", or are you suggesting there may be a better addition than "religious movement", despite not coming up with a concrete suggestion? --Espoo (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Espoo, in reply to 1) and 2): I'm busy in the real world and am not always able to discuss things as fully as others might like. Nevertheless, count the words words I wrote above in the talk and you will see that I went to a lot of trouble to explain to you the difference between spiritism and spiritualism. Not that you paid any attention.
In reply to 3) and 4): There are many different ways to handle the problem. I thought I had handled it with a hatnote. If you were dissatisfied with that solution, then you should have discussed it. I think the way you handled it has led to an even worse problem: misleading links. There are links throughout WP to Spiritualism. I put a lot of them in myself, since I've done as much work on the Spiritualist-related articles as anyone. Click on them now, and see where they go. To a stub, with some dictionary definitions. The links are all but useless now, since the reader has no way to tell that they should then proceed on to the Spiritualism (religious movement) article. Someone now needs to go to every article in Special:Whatlinkshere/Spiritualism and change the links from Spiritualism to Spiritualism (religious movement). I have a bad feeling that you expect someone else to do that Espoo. Please, tell me that I'm wrong.
My preference for handling the issue would have been to have a hatnote at the top saying something like This article is about the religious movement. For other uses of the word Spiritualism please see Spiritualism (other uses). Then you could have put in your dictionary definitions in the linked page, with no need to do any redirects or link changes. There was really no need for a disambiguation page, because there are no other articles with the name spiritualism. If we had discussed things, I would have proposed this. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agreed with the move and I agree with the need for being specific and you lost points Athon with me for attempting a misplaced ad hominem attack. Certainly you seemed to want to limit this topic to the C19th religious movement and not spiritualism as a whole.
I think what really underlines a broader topic is that the Merriam-Webster dates the word to 1796. Does anyone have it or a Brittania at hand?
The infobox is there to be used/developed. I did not see the new topic until now but obviously it needs work. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I picked up the gauntlet that Anthon threw down and start to work on fixing the links;
In doing so, I am taking the opportunity to fix capitalisation on those links that are obvious related to Spiritualism, the religious movement and not for general spiritualism. I would appreciate help in doing so. The basis rationale being that if it directly relates back to the movement it gets a capital and a link to here, if not, it stays lower case and stays linked to spiritualism. At times there is only a narrow divide between the two.
The section on other uses of the spiritualism also needs work, current it is limited to almost dictionary definitions. Thank you. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)