Joseph received revelations through the seer stone early one. Later he did not. The descriptions of the process of receiving revelation (from the viewpoint of one watching the process) seem to describe something very similar - that Joseph dictate and not have to have notes read back, etc. There is no noticeable qualitative difference between revelations with and without the seer stone. I believe that there incidental to the actual process.
Now, returning to Bill's question of magic, is there any magical power in the seerstone? That is precisely where definitions cause us problems. There are some interesting studies that indicate that petting animals (and I believe the softer fur the better) can aid in reducing blood pressure. Is that magic? Is that coincidence? Is that science? One might imagine some past culture suggesting that long-haired cats had magical life-extending powers. Someone might come along and suggest that a cat is a cat and is not magical at all (many cat-owners probably disagree for their own reasons ). All of these are explanations and only as "right" as the worldview of the one using them as an explanation.
Magic is one of those terms that means too many things and has too many connotations. For many who discuss Joseph and seer stones, "magic" is the equivalent of "demonic." I would suggest that it is much closer to the "magic" healing properties of a long-haired cat. It is a way to explain something when you don't have a better explanation. Remember one of Arthur C. Clark's "rules": "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Brant Gardner, on 07 November 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:
Magic is one of those terms that means too many things and has too many connotations. For many who discuss Joseph and seer stones, "magic" is the equivalent of "demonic." I would suggest that it is much closer to the "magic" healing properties of a long-haired cat. It is a way to explain something when you don't have a better explanation. Remember one of Arthur C. Clark's "rules": "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Brant Gardner, on 07 November 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:
Remember one of Arthur C. Clark's "rules": "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Hermetic magician John Michael Greer calls that "Clark's Fallacy" and says that "anyone who cannot distinguish technology from magic doesn't know very much about magic."
"Myth" doesn't mean "untrue story," it means "story about
the things that really matter."--John Michael Greer
Exchanging views with people who really love Mormons since 1984
Contributor
4,147 posts
Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:17 PM
Nathair, on 13 November 2011 - 05:31 PM, said:
Hermetic magician John Michael Greer calls that "Clark's Fallacy" and says that "anyone who cannot distinguish technology from magic doesn't know very much about magic."
Or technology. But I think that may be Clark's implicit point. If you don't understand a technology, or magic, they can appear to be indistinguishable.
Brant Gardner, on 24 September 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:
I suppose that by definition God can do as he wills. However, the mechanisms for placing the information in the brain is already in place and requires less alteration of the temporal reality God has already defined.
Why would you suppose by definition that God can do as he wills? I had always assumed that God uses a greater understanding of natural laws coupled with the authority given Him by the Intelligences of which everything is composed to do whatever he does which is not the same as being able to do anything He wills. And I had always assumed that magic was merely the application of laws that were not commonly understood. Is this incorrect
I accept that there are immutable eternal laws with which God is in accord--allowing for Him to be God. Nevertheless, that still opens lots of possibilities for how He might use those laws in the particular case of translating the plates. Out of all the possibilities available, why select that particular one? I think it is the most parsimonious. As you will notice, my preference for the way God worked (in this case and perhaps most of the time) is to follow both law and humanity. Parsimony.
As for magic, one can discuss how that should be defined in multiple ways. You appear to be suggesting that it is a real thing that results from sacred manipulation of the universe. That isn't the definition I would use. I think that it is socially defined and applied to situations where "we" would do things differently. As a crude contrast "I have religion, you have magic" is a typical social construction.
William Schryver, on 24 September 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:
I don't believe there is any effective difference between the two things.
But, of course, the cumulative contemporary evidence seems to suggest that Joseph Smith experienced the latter rather than the former. My essential question is why many people seem to find it much more plausible and apparently easier to believe that God placed "revelations in someone's head," rather than placed "photons for the person to see as words." I think the question is especially pertinent given the cumulative contemporary evidence of the actual mechanics of the revelatory process involved not only in the translation of the Book of Mormon, but also in the majority of Joseph Smith's other revelations.
By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to weigh in on the question of whether or not the brother of Jared actually moved a mountain (or that he spoke and God caused a mountain to be moved--the two things are equivalent in my estimation).
There are two useful scriptural sources for the process of Joseph receiving God's word. Beyond that the other sources :
Intro to the Book of Commandments:
Quote
“These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.”
5...when you began to translate...
7...you have supposed that I would give it unto you
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.
10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.
There's apparently little in the way of "magic" in the process of Joseph delivering scripture (either translated or revealed). It's quite clear that these are spiritual impressions in his own mind, dictated in his own words and in his own weakness. Much in the same way a patriach gives a patriarchal blessing or perhaps even a Priesthood blessing. Not some 'supernatural' or 'magical' process that requires 3-party inanimate objects to mutate and act unnaturally. Words appearing in Nephi/Joseph's mind (and perhaps vision) seems far more plausible than 600BC and 1820s inanimate objects behaving like 21st C technology.
The source suggesting a more supernatural process is from David Whitmer in 1887 (nearly 60 years after the event - at which point one might wonder about Whitmer's memory):
Quote
David Whitmer said when Smith translated the Book of Mormon, he "put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."
Even if we grant Whitmer his memory, he still calls it a 'spiritual light.' Which could of course mean many things and may be quite different to literal visible light. Besides, given this is from the document that also denounces the "deluded souls in Utah," some might be putting a little too much weight on this account of the translation process and might be better to not be called "precious insights" into the translation process.
Interestingly, David Whitmer seemed comfortable with the notion of some kind of supernatural intervention, calling it a 'magic power.' So even if we need to remove magic from the process for our own emotional coping, his contemporaries seemed more comfortable with the idea that the process was magical:
Quote
“(Joseph)... was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together.”
http://www.lds.org/e...g=eng&clang=eng , from Chicago Times, 11 Aug. 1875 (assuming of course Whitmer said 'magic' and it wasn't attributed by the journalist!
"Canard" - because my Missionary nickname in France was the french word for "duck" (the bird) I didn't realise canard in English means: a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report / a groundless rumor or belief Apologies if you thought the name was a reflection of my views on Mormon history. Ironically I chose it to remind me of a time of pure faith and testimony.
I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo
i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon
0
This topic is locked
). All of these are explanations and only as "right" as the worldview of the one using them as an explanation.
