I did enjoy reading your posts. It is eloquent and thought provoking and I do sincerely hope that it will spark a dialogue into potential teaching developments on the site.
My reply here is purely based on my personal experience and beliefs, and does not in any way represent anyone's opinion but my own. But I thought I'd put in my penny's worth
I understand what you say about the learning process, and the failures therein. It must be said that there are many mediums who have not had any formal training other than the teachings of their guides, and who are successful and very good. I know some personally, and one in particular is an inspiration to me not only for her skills and abilities, but also for her level of Spirituality.
Hence, it is not a requirement to follow a predetermined path to become a medium and practice successfully. My Guides often remind me that we have an unrealistic expectation that we should gain qualifications in order to be mediums. This is not true.
The way I understand it, and I experienced it, there are 3 kinds of mediums:
1. Those who live by Spiritual principles, whose guides are Higher Spirits. These will be very successful, but not necessarily make a great deal of money through their work, and will often have additional ways of making a living (e.g. have a job, or other sideline little business) 2. Those who live by Earthly principles, whose guides are Lower Spirits. These too can be very successful (a Spirit Guide is a Spirit Guide after all) and will tend to be more concerned with making money, charging high fees, and seeking fame and glory 3. Those who need to have human teachers, and certificates, and follow a path. These will have a bad connection to their Guides due to their insecurities and doubts. They can be successful at times, but will generally be inconsistent in their performance
We have a choice of which of these mediums we want to be. That choice will determine everything around our practice.
Overall, I personally believe that we should trust our Guides. As you say, ask our Guides what we should do, what we need to learn, what we need to develop.
But when we go to a Circle, we should simply use that to practice. Indeed, ask in the Circle any questions, seek answers and share experiences with others, giving the benefit of your experience to others, and learning from them too.
You will find each Circle has different rules. Some will accept messages from unclaimed Spirit, some won't. Some will accept aliens, some won't. Some will accept trance, some will abhor it. The important thing to understand that it is not the recognition of teachers that makes you a medium. It is the recognition of Spirit.
Having said that, I also understand your point about the fact that there are many types of mediums and many styles and kinds of mediumship. Maybe at this school we should set up classes that take that into consideration. We are now starting a Healing Circle, we could possibly look into inspirational writing, maybe even Spirit art, I know that Em, Moo and CHP have been discussing possibilities, so you could make some specific suggestions related to what you want to learn.
However, please do not forget that it is your relationship to Spirit that makes a Medium of you. Work closely with them. Spiritualists for example are very keen that mediums should spend up to one hour daily "sitting in the power", i.e. just sitting in the company of your Guides. Sometimes you may find yourself conversing with them. Sometimes they will bring other Spirit to help you practice. Other times they will listen to your questions. And other times it will simply be a matter of soaking each other energy, learning to vibrate at the same frequency. Whatever happens, this is really what will develop your mediumship abilities.
Ok, there is a lot more that I'd like to say based on your post, but I will stop my rantings now, to avoid boring you and anyone else who will read this post.
Do keep the conversation going, these are very good subjects to debate
Past, present, and future do not exists, we are all a piece of Eternity
So with few minor polemics performed on the way here ( and because if the inferences used ) - perhaps what is needed now is further steps toward the definition of a belief or faith in the everlasting.
Is even that as obvious as it seems ?
It isn't probably - inside our spiritual noodles is a zero to infinity potential on just about every concept, but none more so that a subject like the everlasting quite clearly ! - what else is infinite therefore could start at nothing and go all the way to everything & eternity like this ? - more - if it is found in the senses to become an obviously cardinal and potent subject the more it is thought about, - then maybe that is greatly developmental just in itself
Before we go much further has all this got anything to do with mediumship - Yes - without a setting of the kind we haven't got a leg to stand on in the full sense . This central tenet is the one segment which is worth open ended infinite thinking because it says everything about us and our conscience. Thus spirit can not only relate, we are relating to them further and further and very profoundly the more we learn about it.
Maybe from here it would be best to encourage the forum to post their ideas on the subject of everlastingness and see what we have to talk about- but lets go off on a useful tangent until some posts happen ?. ( like having a commercial break on TV like )
Just for instance here - the uk government with mainstream secondary school establishment and academies have been fairly lambasted when any used the phrase 'learning school' - ( sniggering is permitted ) - but their expectation this is a definition linked to a form of pedagogy - and they mean what is stated here :
If a school’s philosophy accepts the following premises then it can call itself a Learning School:
''Teachers are reflective practitioners: they accept that they can always find new and more inspiring ways of teaching a subject. Pupils and teachers alike can always learn and improve. We are never too old to learn new methods and take on new ideas. There are a variety of teaching strategies and we have all sometimes got in a rut teaching in a safe, well-proven way. We all have different learning styles and some are much more helpful to us than others''.
That sorted it but not for long because soon nobody could define thus put to good use Pedagogy,. This was massively boring and bad for children and seemingly it was just caused by a set of memes within the militant politics rampant in schools - scuttling the process. Thousand of educational personal have been sacked in the uk many of them heads ( or principles ) - the back pages of the educational magazine 'TES' is loaded with sits vac .
What the hell is he on about ? - well it is no biggy but still - maybe take a look at this ( which is where the learning school definition was sourced ) :
Those are the guidelines to good practice which the aforementioned unemployed had no respect - i mean for example - would you like your child or grandchild to study without it?. Well believe it or not schools are only just beginning with these sets of emotionally intelligent & pedagogical ways of thinking.
Whats up - Delphi is not worthy or something ? - ?
We need a very careful use and purpose regarding the belief bedrocks because their purpose is [iFaith[/i] Our faith is a part of our conscience and one cannot teach Conscience - universal laws far more potent than minor statements overrule that. Interfering with a specific objective in development can block learning if we let then appear in inappropriate points in procedures. Even a reliable thorough;y respected spirit teacher and author can drop terrible clangers. For example - during a genuine and sincere effort to demystify God ( thus empower the paradigm of belief i the ministry of angels ) one very well known classic author & teacher stated ( in great brief this is ) -'' spiritualism has nothing to do with faith' . His minor point may not have in the context he wished to strengthen something. But he declined to protect a far more important matter - faith in the everlasting.
Which has no specific requirement for a God itself during its act of faith - but it certainly is faith since it has no other reasonable definition. The point here is that we can indeed note the occasional clumsiness in nomenclature which tends to be taken word for word as gospel in old teachings -
Therefore can know why and how we might need to restate certain these teachers had theirs yesterday - today's purpose for being the current commentators - do we want to be rudderless & pointless ?. A mistake like the faith example here one can have great consequences on what we are supposed to exemplify - do we want to smell that coffee only when aged 99 and feel like a fool about the wasted years ?
However - i hope that what might seem almost random items of reference can indeed open doors