1. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.
    Dismiss Notice

PM...Favorite Form Of Mediumship

Discussion in 'After-Death Communication' started by STEVEN LEVEE, Mar 2, 2018.

  1. STEVEN LEVEE

    STEVEN LEVEE Member

    Also...this would be a huge amount of trouble/time/effort to perpetrate a fraud. And for what? Leslie wasn't rich. His close friends sat with him hundreds of times. Were they all in on it? Just would be senseless, really.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  2. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    I'm sorry, Mareke, but if you come to this website with an important claim that my own experience tells me is wrong, I have got to give the other side for the sake of everyone else who visits here! If you didn't know Thomas Jefferson in life, and if you haven't spoken with him through a medium, there is no human way that you could form any opinion whatsoever about whether or not the entity who spoke through Leslie Flint was Thomas Jefferson! On what could you base such a judgment?

    I did know Thomas Jefferson in life. He was elderly, and according to two different mediums I consulted more than a decade apart on matters altogether different, I was his young protege, Richard Rush. They both brought Jefferson and Richard up: I didn't! And that voice was the same voice I knew when my guide, Thomas, was the living Jefferson. It astonishes me to be saying this, because until I first heard the voice it wouldn't have occurred to me that I would remember his voice. But there it is.

    And not only did I recognize the voice, but that entity speaking in about 1960 was without a doubt the same being who broke into my life by way of a medium in February of 2015 and told me he was my primary guide and he had once been Thomas Jefferson. It was uncanny! Same personality, same attitude, and saying all the same things. Even if I had not recognized the voice, I did without a doubt recognize the man (as did the medium, when I later asked her to listen to the recording).

    Again to be frank, your very complaints about Flint make me even more confident that he is genuine. You seem to think that Marilyn Monroe would be able to pick up the phone - as precisely who she was in her Marilyn Monroe lifetime but now sitting in some afterlife living room - and speak through the medium as if she were exactly the same being she had been in that lifetime! I am sorry to say that your expectations are absurd, for at least these reasons:

    1) We know from repeated instances of indisputably genuine communications through deep-trance as well as spiritual mediums that people who have died forget MANY things about the life just lived that we on earth would think they should remember. Key words or signs they had arranged on their deathbeds; the names of important people and places from that lifetime: a great many things! The reason why this happens is not yet clear, but we suspect that the process of merging with our vast eternal minds and remembering so many other lifetimes that may have been much more important to us plays a part. And even during life, we forget a lot of things that we once had known like the backs of our hands! What was your phone number ten years ago? Or if you have the same number now, then what was your number before this one? I am 71 years old, and at this point I've got to say that if I had had the knockabout life that poor Marilyn had as a child I might not even now remember where I was born, either. Significantly, in every case I have seen where people speaking through a medium don't remember something they should have remembered, they are very embarrassed about it! That the genuine "Marilyn" would react as she did when she drew a blank - act befuddled and rattled, withdraw to try to think more clearly, perhaps come back weaker as she still struggled to answer that question - is something that, based on how others have acted in similar situations, I would nave expected.

    2) The process of speaking through a direct-voice medium as a dead person is almost impossibly difficult. I would say that in fact it is impossible, if we didn't have abundant verified instances of it! Those that we used to think were dead have bodies without internal organs, and they speak by mind. Speaking aloud is possible there, and it is conceivable that they do in fact have voice-boxes (although most advanced researchers seem to believe they do not), but since very quickly they fall into the local custom of communicating entirely by thought and not using words, someone who had been dead for decades would probably not even remember how to put thoughts into words and then speak them aloud. The Thomas who spoke through Flint - who as TJ had been one of the greatest wordsmiths who ever lived - started the session griping about how hard it is to communicate with "words, words, and none of them very precise" (or something like that). But in order for him (or anyone) to speak through Flint, he had to do a lot more than just remember how to form sentences! He also had to remember how he had sounded in his next-to-last lifetime, then somehow reconfigure the ectoplasm voicebox that Flint was providing him with to try to make it sound like that long-ago living voice, then of course recall how to communicate verbally, form sentences, etc., and start talking. These people appear not to be able to hear their own voices as they communicate this way, since they often ask if they are being heard. And even after all of that, this entity who had died as Thomas Jefferson more than a century before actually sounded like him! Good grief, and remember that speech is more than just the voicebox - it's breath, intonation, pacing - but still it sounded just like the man in life. I am in awe all over again! I should note, too, that although I don't detect any British tinge, if Jefferson's voice had had a little British edge that would not have been surprising, since his final lifetime was as a farmer in Wales. If you are going to judge someone as a fraud who is universally known to be genuine, you ought at least to do sufficient research to understand why your personal standards might not have been met in some cases!

    Leslie Flint was genuine. I base my conclusion on many things beyond his ability to wonderfully reconnect me with a (very) old friend! Lots of folks who had known dead people in life communicated with them through Flint - sometimes repeatedly - and were certain they were in contact with their loved one. And people I very much respect have researched Flint and convinced themselves that he was genuine. Skepticism is always warranted when we are researching extraordinary phenomena, but casually deciding that someone like Leslie Flint is a fraud is not skepticism. It is debunkerism. And it has no place here.
     
  3. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    ... Oh, and based upon my half-century of research, I've got to say that Gene's criticisms above are spot-on. People who die as children DO grow up in the afterlife to young adulthood (it doesn't take long, but it's up to them how long it takes); and Michael Newton's work is frankly aberrant. It doesn't agree with nearly 200 years of extremely consistent communications from those who have died and are now living in the afterlife. There are ways in which we can square his work with what the dead tell us, so I am not saying he is a fraud; but hypnotic regression to the life-between-lives IS NOT regression to the afterlife as we actually will live it. As for "Seth," I agree with Gene as well. Nearly all of the beings who communicate with us a lot - notably including "Erik" - are not at the highest levels, and most of them guess at what they don't know. And they often guess wrong. 'Nuf said.
     
  4. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    Who are the advanced researchers you mention? What I keep hearing is that we start off, at least, with a sort of copy of our physical body, which presumably includes a larynx. As to always employing telepathy, I'm reminded of something from J D Mattison's communications (I hope I have that name right; I couldn't find it via Google): Mattison said he had met John Knox, who died in 1572. Although Knox had been over a long time and had no trouble communicating telepathically, they talked instead because Knox "liked to talk".
     
  5. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    It's an interesting conundrum..... The mechanisms whereby our voices operate involve a carrying medium, the air we breathe. It would seem, then, that if discarnates can use their bodies' organs to speak they must also use a carrying medium for the sounds they make. And the listener would also need that medium to convey to physical ears the sounds a speaker makes.

    Is it the case (one might wonder) that there actually is just such a carrying medium, even if it's not exactly similar to the air we breathe as incarnates? And do we also have - or can we quickly fashion - a functioning hearing system?

    Or might it be that although Knox liked to talk, his words were actually heard telepathically, transmitted concurrently with his simulated speech?
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
  6. genewardsmith

    genewardsmith Active Member

    The books I mentioned are Witness from Beyond and Evidence from Beyond; the medium was Margaret Flavell Tweddell and the communicator A D Mattson. I highly recommend these if you come across a copy or want to order one.
     
  7. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Gene, the real experts are people who are actually dead. And nearly all their most reliable communications are a century or more old now! Unfortunately, modern people can't ask those people questions, and questions that are obvious to us seem not to have occurred to their interrogators back then, so - for example - more than a decade into doing this research, I still had no certainties about the nature of their bodies! I found that frustrating. Fortunately, more recent communicators - e.g. Mikey Morgan - have been happy to answer questions in detail, so our understanding of post-death bodies is by now reasonably clear. We are consistently told that:

    1) They closely mimic earth-bodies, but they are made of a different stuff that is finer, and that in some lights seems vaguely translucent. Think of alabaster, but imbued with colors.

    2) They are mind-created. Those of us who are reasonably advanced can choose to look as we like, at whatever age we like. Most choose to look like maybe age 30 in the most recent lifetime, but that is up to us. (The least advanced generally look like an outward manifestation of their inward pathologies; and those in the outer darkness can look like demons.)

    3) These bodies lack internal organs. They seem to possess functioning genitalia, but that may be optional as well.

    4) Since everything is so different there - especially both the physics of the place and the powers of our minds - don't assume that producing an audible voice would there require a voice-box. As I said earlier in this thread, I don't know whether or not those bodies have voice-boxes, but it seems that most of the researchers I respect (an "advanced researcher" is someone who has done a lot of research and cut no corners) think they do not. Even those who are long-dead do routinely use spoken words when they speak with new arrivals; but it is entirely possible those audible words are mind-produced. We know that we can hear sounds there - we are often told that mind-hearing is much better than hearing with ears, just as mind-sight is far superior to seeing with eyes - but it is possible that the sound of the words we speak is mind-produced. The point is that we just don't know, and no "advanced researcher" would assume a conclusion to any question of which there was not sufficient evidence. It is clear from things like Thomas Jefferson's frustration with using spoken words when he spoke through Leslie Flint more than a century after his Jefferson death that more advanced beings who don't deal with new arrivals probably don't use spoken words at all.*

    5) "Advanced researchers" assume nothing! I cannot emphasize that fact with sufficient zeal. No researcher worth his salt would ever, ever use the word "presumably," Gene, since that world is so completely different in every way from this one!


    * It has just occurred to me to ask a new question. How is it that Thomas and I communicate for guidance purposes? Don't we speak words? All of us have primary guides we talk with frequently - perhaps almost every night - and we also get their nudges in the daytime. But our daytime communication is generally feelings rather than words, and perhaps our vocal communication at night - if it happens - is also by mind. When I have wanted a very specific answer and have been insistent about getting it, he has on occasion let me wake up with specific words in my mind; but it is generally a sentence or less. I guess, the more I think about it, that I'm concluding that Thomas Jefferson's frustration when he spoke through Leslie Flint in 1960 may have been with the whole process of earth-conversing: hearing the question, having to form his thoughts into spoken words on the spot, and then having to get that &^%$$% ectoplasm voicebox to produce those words. But he was certainly right about one thing: words are imprecise! Imagine what it will be like when you can think your love for someone and have your beloved perfectly understand your feelings. Won't that be heaven?
     
  8. Bill Z

    Bill Z Active Member

    Thank you Roberta!
    So much of what you just stated resonated with me and I have experienced much of this.
    What you said about the more advanced mind-creating their bodies gave me so much reassurance. My sweet Susie told me She is 35 and my favorite photo of Her is when She was 35, years before we met. Mediums that have brought Her through have all told me that She is pretty powerful and I guess advanced. I wake up with thoughts that clarify things I'm going through and She guides me through the day in important areas. I know She is not alone in guiding me as She has told me.
    I am so glad I've found this forum. My life is now in service to learning more about ALC and becoming a better person and reaching out to others. Thank you. We think our love every day, or at least She does, I'm still learning.
     
    pandora97 likes this.
  9. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    I'd go one stage beyond to suggest that the expression of love for another doesn't require thinking it. From what we've heard from 'over there' such emotions ought, I suggest, to be communicated automatically, naturally, without there being any need to think them.

    After all, the very mechanism of thinking them is a conscious action and unconditional love would appear to require no conscious effort such as with the love we feel for our children - it just happens. Or, controversially perhaps, maybe we're 'hard-wired' to experience that love?
     
  10. bluebird

    bluebird Well-Known Member

    If there is an afterlife, then with this I agree. In this earthly life I could feel my husband's love without him needing to say or do anything, and he mine, so if we continue to exist in an afterlife I would certainly expect at least the same there.
     
  11. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Apparently communication requires thinking - we send a bolus of thought from mind to mind - but what seems to be the case is that we feel other people's emotions. I'm not sure about that - I don't think anyone is - but it certainly seems lovely!
     
  12. mac

    mac senior member Staff Member

    Yes I agree that thinking precedes our communicating in the etheric - that's kinda where we came in several postings back discussing the mechanism of verbal compared to non-verbal communication. ;)

    I can't think how the situation was explained (probably by Silver Birch) concerning love/emotions save to say that our emotions apparently can be 'read' by other discarnates, we seemingly appearing 'transparent' (in that regard) compared with the way our physical overcoat conceals many of our emotions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2018

Share This Page