Mediums offer "Comfort" to bereaved - comments?

[rossminster]

I am a sceptic, but find myself torn by the notion that some bereaved people clearly find comfort in the nonsense spouted by mediums. Who are we - sceptics - to deny a bereaved parent, say, the comfort of believing that their dead child is "no longer suffering". When railing agaist frauds like Colin Fry (UK TV medium) I am often asked, "What harm does he do?" and I have no pat answer. Just as i wouldn't dream of criticising someone for being, say, a Christian.

Are they providing a counselling service, of sorts?

[Savagemutt]

The big problem to me is when money becomes involved. I dont care if someone finds comfort talking to a priest or rabbi, but I do have a problem with someone making money off of the bereaved. Folks like John Edwards are pond scum.

And no, I don't think they're providing counseling. All mediums do is offer a completely pretend view of "the other side". A real counselor (and many religious figures) will honestly help a person deal with carrying on in this world.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is a grieving process. I think it's best to go through it.

Anyway, harsh as it sounds, one's dead child is also no longer suffering if he is simply dead.

~~ Paul

[Ashles]

Part of the grieving process is coming to terms with the fact that the person is gone. Mediums deny that part of the process.

Concillors are trained for years to help people in these circumstances and understand the potential problems peopl can go through.

Mediums can just turn up without any training, say "Oh they're still here and they're happy and they're watching you" and the person cries with happiness then leaves. They don't see what else happens to the person out of their presence - they still have to grieve but it is at odds with what the medium has told them so it causes mental conflict.
But the medium just sees the person leave happy and thinks they have helped.
They haven't any more than a shot of morphine would. It is a temporary fix that does not solve the problem.

Plus the person now feels that they still have some communication with the deceased but only through the medium so they become unhealthily reliant on the medium (or other mediums).
Given a glimpse of potential communication with the dead they may repeatedlytedly grasp at this. This may leave them in an even more fragile emotioal state.

Which leads me to the next point (which I read from another poster some time ago) - The most precious thing the person has are memories of the deceased
But the mediums are inventing new ones which may confuse, or even completely contradict those memories.
Also anything the deceased 'said' is really the medium speaking and has nothing to do with your relatives personality or who they were or what you loved about them.
It's like stuffing the corpse and leaving it sitting in a chair to pretend they are still alive. You can look at them, talk to them, see them there, but it's not real.
And an emotional reliance on fantasy is not psychologically healthy.

(This is all obviously assuming the medium is making it up - I can't really speak about 'genuine' mediums because I don't personally believe they exist)

[Ashles]

And obviously the money issue is disgusting, but that should be prosecutable anyway.

If you are paying for a service there should be proof that you are receiving that service.

Or perhaps the mediums should be required to give people a card first that reads
"I will not really be speaking to dead spirits during this reading. I will be inventing the spirit's responses in order to provide emotional comfort to the customer"

If it is all so harmless they should be legally required to do that, and then we'd see if people are still happy to pay them for the service.

[richardm]

Originally posted by rossminster
I am a sceptic, but find myself torn by the notion that some bereaved people clearly find comfort in the nonsense spouted by mediums.

A good injection of morphine would also provide comfort to the paying customers. But you wouldn't suggest that we do that for grieving people, surely?

Bottom line is that mediums are frauds, fraudulently taking money from the people they defraud. Did I mention that they're frauds?

[DeVega]

... but I also feel that it is detrimental in MOST cases - maybe not all - grieving is a necessary thing both physically and emotionally. People are not moving forward, just clinging to what the medium has told them. I did see a Colin Fry prog the other day where he correctly guessed that this girl had been having suicidal thoughts and gave her the message - 'Don't be in such a hurry to join me. I WILL wait for you.' Which I thought was kinda sweet. But on the other hand - perhaps that girl would be better served with counselling which she is less likely to attend if she is using the spiritualism as an emotional crutch.
(That Colin Fry seems such an inoffensive guy - I wonder if he is in the complete knowingly charlatan catagory or the self-deluded catagory? Maybe he justifys it to himself as offering comfort...?)

I know what you mean though - it does make one uneasy to think of it as denying comfort. Kinda like tough love eh?

Also, the money is a big issue - some of the 'superstar' mediums make a LOT of money. That also makes me uneasy - well, mad actually...

DeVega

[jambo372]

Nothing is wrong with Mediums - I'm not just saying that because I believe they talk to the dead - I don't have anything against them at all, not even fraudulent ones.

The only "issue" I can see is the money one - why pay a medium when mediums from spiritualist churches give demonstrations for free ?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
Nothing is wrong with Mediums - I'm not just saying that because I believe they talk to the dead - I don't have anything against them at all, not even fraudulent ones.

The only "issue" I can see is the money one - why pay a medium when mediums from spiritualist churches give demonstrations for free ?

Nothing in life is free. What these mediums are doing is called "promoting themselves". It is (un)enlightened self interest. They do a freebie to get their names known, and probably get "expenses" from the donations, anyway.

I once tried to book a "fading" football star for a Sports Quiz Night. He said he didn't charge, but would need his expenses paid. His expenses for one night were more than my wages for a month, and I was quite well paid.

[B.S]

Originally posted by Savagemutt
The big problem to me is when money becomes involved. I dont care if someone finds comfort talking to a priest or rabbi, but I do have a problem with someone making money off of the bereaved. Folks like John Edwards are pond scum.


Priests and Rabbis do it for money also. Their wages are paid by people who are afraid of death.

[Blondin]

The question of what may be helpful or harmfull psycologically is only one aspect of the spiritualists's shtick. What about the potential mental anguish and wasted time and resources that result when mediums get involved in missing persons investigations? Or in business/investment advice?

Wouldn't it seem prudent to see some proof of ability before accepting suggestions or advice from a medium in police or business situations? Wouldn't it seem unethical for someone who does the channelling act for "counselling" or "entertainment purposes only" to get involved in life & death or livelihood affecting decisions if they weren't "the real thing"?

I don't see how we can support one and not the other. What is the point of going to a medium if you know they are just pulling your chain? You're better off to go see a real shrink.

[jambo372]

Mediums have given vital evidence in cases like that.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by jambo372
Nothing is wrong with Mediums - I'm not just saying that because I believe they talk to the dead - I don't have anything against them at all, not even fraudulent ones.
...

You have no problem with fraud, eh? Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to take someone's money to tell them a buncha lies? Which lies is it okay to get paid for? Is it okay as long as you only tell lies that can never be proven? What about later if the sucker finds out you were lying? Should you have to give their money back?

Or are you suggesting we should only consult "free" mediums (who may also be lying)?

[Blondin]

Originally posted by jambo372
Mediums have given vital evidence in cases like that.

I may not have had a lot of exchanges with you, Jambo, but I lurk a lot and I've seen all your creduloid arguments in support of psychic assisted police investigations and you haven't convinced anybody else so don't think you're going to sway me now.

I don't have anything against you but, from your previous postings on various JREF fora, I believe you are a very poor judge of what constitutes evidence. You have yet to produce anything but anecdotes, links to anecdotes or stories about links to information about documents about unsubstantiated anecdotes.

[jambo372]

Personally I think it's stupid to pay mediums when you can have it done for free.
This way, even if they are frauds, you lose nothing.
Naturally being a spiritualist I'm obliged to trust mediums anyway.

[Blondin]

You're obliged?

Who or what compels you to trust all mediums? Are you saying you will simply believe all mediums, even if they are lying, self-deluded, manipulating or using you, as long as they don't ask for money?

[jambo372]

It's my religion.
They don't use or manipulate me anyway.

[jambo372]

I believe they have the power anyway.

[Blondin]

This is a sceptic website. The whole purpose of this website and these fora is to promote the idea of being suspicious of that which is not supported by evidence. Why do you hang around?

Don't get me wrong. You are as welcome as myself or anybody else, I'm sure. I'm just curious about what you hope to achieve. Do you really think anyone who subscribes to critical thinking is going to be swayed by your statements?

[epepke]

In this case, I think Penn and Teller's answer is one of the best. For a grieving person, the final memories of a dead loved one are cherished. A medium destroys them, substituting his and/or her fantasies.

[jambo372]

To see if skeptics can manage to persuade me of otherwise but so far the answer to that is certainly no.

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

Originally posted by richardm
A good injection of morphine would also provide comfort to the paying customers. But you wouldn't suggest that we do that for grieving people, surely?



But GP's do regularly supply the berieved with mind calming drugs. Some people want that. some will drink a bottle of fine wine, if another goes to the medium and gets the same result, who is anyone to deny it?

[jambo372]

They're a bunch of marvels.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by De'Ville's Advocaat
But GP's do regularly supply the berieved with mind calming drugs. Some people want that. some will drink a bottle of fine wine, if another goes to the medium and gets the same result, who is anyone to deny it?

I guess it just goes against the grain with me. Are you saying that we should pretend we believe what the mediums might tell us if it makes us feel better?

Being lied to just doesn't do it for me (even if it is for free) and I can't understand how you can draw a line somewhere between feel-good mediums and crooks. Fraud is fraud.

If they really have something then by all means they should sell their services and benefit themselves as well as their clients. It just seems to me like it's a cop-out and dangerous to say it's okay to have blind unsubstantiated faith in some things because they make us feel good and not in others if there is a perception of risk. The whole point is that perceptions can be misleading. How will you know you're not being used or manipulated or ripped off if you don't ask for proof?

[jambo372]

What risk ?

[Blondin]

Originally posted by jambo372
What risk ?

Well that was my question, actually. How do you know there is no risk if you are just going to have blind faith? How do you know the person you are trusting doesn't have some ulterior motive?

Suppose they're only using you to establish a clientelle in order to build perceived credibility via word of mouth so they can rip someone else off. No skin off your nose, right? You go on various internet forums and preach about the harmless nature of these benevolent souls because they've never harmed you. Meanwhile, for all you know, they could be telling your mother that your poor deceased father wanted her to leave all her worldly goods to a worthwhile charity who helps others in the community like oh, say your friendly neighborhood psychic councellor.

I'm not even suggesting all psychics are devious crooks up to no good. I'm sure a lot of them are quite nice people who are very sure of their abilities. They could still be wrong and they could still give bad advice. Or it could just be that you don't have anything they want but maybe the next sucker does.

[jambo372]

Do you actually know any mediums ?

[Blondin]

Originally posted by jambo372
Do you actually know any mediums ?

Nope.

I do have one aquaintance who believes and repeats any and all spooky gibberish she comes across whether it's spirits/ghosts, astology or magic bracelets. We call her "Flaky Sue" and she is a very lonely person. She tends to hassle those who are too polite to tell her to f**k off so I was her target for a while. When I told her I didn't want to be one of her "downline" for the magnetic gas mileage gadget she was selling because I thought it was a ripoff she kind of cooled toward me, too. Like you she just didn't understand the difference between thousands of satisfied customers and objective testing.

[jambo372]

To me the mediums don't need tested - they've given me plenty of accurate information.

You really shouldn't express your fantasies of mediums taking into account you don't even know any mediums.

Incidentally, how much do her gadgets cost ?

[B.S]

More likely you've given them plenty of accurate information.

Ask yourself, have you been answering their questions? Or have they been making statements?

[jambo372]

No, I told them nothing.

[B.S]

I'd have to see that, to believe it.

[JPK]

Good orning Jambo372.


Originally posted by jambo372
Nothing is wrong with Mediums - I'm not just saying that because I believe they talk to the dead - I don't have anything against them at all, not even fraudulent ones.

Originally posted by jambo372

Naturally being a spiritualist I'm obliged to trust mediums anyway.
Originally posted by jambo372

It's my religion.
They don't use or manipulate me anyway.
Originally posted by jambo372

I believe they have the power anyway.
Originally posted by jambo372

To see if skeptics can manage to persuade me of otherwise but so far the answer to that is certainly no.
Originally posted by jambo372
To me the mediums don't need tested - they've given me plenty of accurate information.
You really shouldn't express your fantasies of mediums taking into account you don't even know any mediums.

Originally posted by jambo372
Incidentally, how much do her gadgets cost ?

I just wanted to see what this looked like all together.

Jambo372, I was just wondering if there is anything you wouldn't do if your spiritual leader instructed you to? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here but your blind faith is pretty spooky. I'm not sure if anyone pointed you to this site before by you might want to take a look at it and see if any of this looks farmilar.

Common Signs of Destructive Cults (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cultsign.htm)

Just a suggestion.

JPK

[JPK]

Jambo372,
Originally posted by jambo372
No, I told them nothing.

You do realize your mediums share all of your personal info between them so that even the first time you sit with a new medium, they most likely have all the info from other mediums you have sat with before. It's all on your permanent record :)

JPK

[littleblackpistol]

I think it's inarguable that mediums offer a form of counselling to the bereaved - what is in question is whether their particular brand of counselling is beneficial, destructive or simply harmless in the long-term. It would be interesting to have a study done to see if those who visit mediums in the hope of maintaining contact with their loved ones find the grieving process more difficult to work through compared to those who visit qualified grief counsellors or who work through their grief unaided by outside agencies.

I am predisposed to believe that mediumship is pernicious as it holds up the grieving process. Trying to talk to the dead as if they were still living and concerned with earthly problems seems to be to be the equivalent of maintaining a 'shrine' to the loved one and refusing to accept the loss and move on and accept that person is not in your life anymore. There's also the issue of fraud - even if it is beneficial to a few people, the fact that the benefit is based on a lie, and moreover a lie told for great personal profit in some cases, to me cancels out any perceived benefit in the long run.

[Savagemutt]

Originally posted by B.S
Priests and Rabbis do it for money also. Their wages are paid by people who are afraid of death.

Yes, its a tricky question. But I'm not going to walk up to a friend or family member dealing with a loss and say "Hey, that church you've been involved with your entire life is b.s. and you shouldn't be talking to your pastor about this death."

That's a little too cold for me. However, given mediumships less-pervasive hold (on most people), I don't think I'd have a problem telling a griever that they're not spending their money or time wisely.

[jambo372]

JPK
Permanent record.
Still wouldn't fit.
New mediums often give information that previous mediums never gave me.

I never gave anything away to the original medium either.

[JPK]

Originally posted by jambo372
JPK
Permanent record.
Still wouldn't fit.
New mediums often give information that previous mediums never gave me.

I never gave anything away to the original medium either.

Jambo372, let me get this straight. You go to a medium. You sit there with a perfect poker face. You say nothing at all. You stare blankly and make no head movements of facial movements. The medium goes through the act while you sit there like a statue. When they are done , you just get up and walk away. Is this how it goes?
I realize this really doesn't mean anything since you have already stated that some are frauds but you are obligated to listen to them anyway. With the amount of times you go and care nothing about all of the wrong and fraudulent information given to you I would imagine some gueses on the mediums part would be right anyway.

JPK

[Blondin]

Originally posted by jambo372
To me the mediums don't need tested - they've given me plenty of accurate information.

You really shouldn't express your fantasies of mediums taking into account you don't even know any mediums.

Incidentally, how much do her gadgets cost ?

You prove my point for me. If anecdotal testamonials are all you require then why should anybody bother to provide real evidence for any ridiculous claim. There is no shortage of gullible believers to build up an impressive portfolio without ever actually providing anything useful.

If you're really interested:
Gas mileage magnet (http://users.penn.com/~tomwflye/gas.htm)
and
Some useful info (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm)

[B.S]

Originally posted by Savagemutt
Yes, its a tricky question. But I'm not going to walk up to a friend or family member dealing with a loss and say "Hey, that church you've been involved with your entire life is b.s. and you shouldn't be talking to your pastor about this death."

Yeah, I understand. I just wanted to point out that they are not innocent of any of this, and I include what they do with what the mediums do.

[Savagemutt]

Originally posted by B.S
Yeah, I understand. I just wanted to point out that they are not innocent of any of this, and I include what they do with what the mediums do.

Another difference though, is that I would assume most religious authorities honestly believe what they're dishing out. Whereas most mediums, on the other hand, have to know that they're just making crap up.

[jambo372]

You are allowed to say yes and no to the medium but nothing else.
Guess work doesn't account for it either - I've saw mediums give 100 % accurate information on several occasions and it wasn't common details.
ie. they don't just give information about common situations or give very popular names like Mary, Margaret, John, James, Bob, Bill and Liz which would produce a hit in 99.9 % of cases anyway.
eg I've heard mediums give weird names like Henrietta & Euphenia which I can't even spell and they still get it 100 % correct.

[JPK]

Jambo372,

How many years of "yes and nos" information do they have on you? Some pretty accurate readings could be given. And this is just from information that you yourself have given them. Certainly you are well known at these spiritual churches. Ever stop to think about the information that a medium could get about you from other people that attend the same church? It might seem very innocent at the time but just a little info that you know you havn't given them but perhaps someone elese has mentioned, could be pretty convining to the sitter.

JPK

[B.S]

Originally posted by jambo372
Guess work doesn't account for it either - I've saw mediums give 100 % accurate information on several occasions and it wasn't common details.

So they have been accurate on "several occasions"? Don't you realize that means the rest of the time they are not?

[Chateaubriand]

What's the point? No disrespect intended, but what's the point discussing the validity of Jambo's experience? No argument in the world can match his/her experience. He/she would never admit to being anything but an objective, intelligent and non-conable person. All research points to the fact that the experience is more or less affected by emotional preferences, beliefs and so on. But Jambo's experience is not on tape, all we -- and Jambo -- have is his/hers recollection of the much glorified moments when psychics made his/her life interesting and meaningful by channeling contact with dead people. No argument on earth will rock that boat! So why bother? Jambo won't change opinion.

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

[B.S]

Just getting some exercise for for my fingers.

[Beady]

Coming in to the conversation late but, to answer the original question, I believe Penn & Teller said it quite well. This is an approximate quote from their "Bull****" episode on "Talking to the Dead":

'We don't care about the money! These people are, in a very real sense, motherf***ers. Someone who has lost a loved one will now and forever have their memories of that person screwed up by someone who had no business interfering.'

That isn't verbatim, but it's substantially accurate.