103 replies to this topic

[Robert F. Smith]

thews, on 08 July 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

I read your paper and have to disagree on the above. The conflated "Urim and Thummim" attached to the Nephite Interpreters are two completely separate tools. If the "Urim and Thummim" are the Nephite Interpreters, then they can't also be Joseph Smith's seer stones. You have two things 1) Nephite Interpreters and 2) Joseph Smith's seer stones. Are you implying both are "Urim and Thummim" by definition?

I guess you missed my point, which is that Phelps introduced the term "Urim & Thummim," not that this is an accurate description of what the Nephite Interpreters were.  Phelps also introduced the term "Teraphim" into the discussion, although no one latched onto it as a viable explanation of phenomena.  I suppose that I erroneously thought that everyone understands that the biblical "Urim & Thummim" are a separate item of discussion,  which in time came to be applied as a generic term in Mormonism to virtually any interpretive device.  I see no reason for you to disagree with me on this.

Quote

The problem with the above, IMO, is the evidence that Joseph Smith used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon is complete. You have statements from Harris, Emma Smith and Whitmer that explicitly describe the translation method as stone in hat. Other fringe references to "Urim and Thummim" are moot IMO as the term wasn't used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published, so the argument comes down to semantics on what the name implies in its definition. What I don't understand is how the leap is made from Nephite Interpreters to seer stones when D&C 10:1 defines the Nephite Interpreters as being taken back, without any other reference to them being delivered again. What evidence is not complete or final in your opinion?

Since you read my 1980 paper, you know very well what I know.  You also know that the information about the use of the stone-in-the-hat is fairly well-based.  What you may have missed is the use of Nephite Interpreters early on, before they were taken back.  What you have also glossed over is the range of opinion which still exists on how either the Nephite Interpreters or the seer stone functioned while being used.  Until some of those questions are settled, the writers of the manuals may be a bit cautious.  Some of them may also be fearful of possible "magical" implications, although I don't see that as a problem.

I can and have gone on at greater length elsewhere on the ancient Near Eastern nature as well as Mesoamerican nature of such devices, but that is not the purpose of our inquiry here.

[why me]

calmoriah, on 07 July 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Actually I think he meant the Power of God.

I did mean that and other things too. It could have been seer stones etc. But something special did happen and members know this. And they know about the urim and thummin, even though they may be just a little confused what that was.

[Robert F. Smith]

ERayR, on 07 July 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

I'm OK with that being a description of a urim and thumim'.  Now if I could just figure out where the batteries were.

Embedded, of course, during manufacture.

For an Urim & Thummim in real time, with both the Hebrew and English texts (and Rashi's commentary), see http://www.davka.com...cgi?product=583 .

[thews]

Robert F. Smith, on 08 July 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

I guess you missed my point, which is that Phelps introduced the term "Urim & Thummim," not that this is an accurate description of what the Nephite Interpreters were.  Phelps also introduced the term "Teraphim" into the discussion, although no one latched onto it as a viable explanation of phenomena.  I suppose that I erroneously thought that everyone understands that the biblical "Urim & Thummim" are a separate item of discussion,  which in time came to be applied as a generic term in Mormonism to virtually any interpretive device.  I see no reason for you to disagree with me on this.

Thanks for the clarification. If Phelps (incorrectly?) attached the term "Urim and Thummim" to the Nephite spectacles, then the term should not be used to describe Joseph Smith's seer stones... is that correct?

Robert F. Smith, on 08 July 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Since you read my 1980 paper, you know very well what I know.  You also know that the information about the use of the stone-in-the-hat is fairly well-based.

I don't understand what you mean by "well-based" in the above. Does that imply well known?

Robert F. Smith, on 08 July 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

What you may have missed is the use of Nephite Interpreters early on, before they were taken back.

Since the lost 116 pages were not part of the published Book of Mormon, this is sotra moot... don't you think?

Robert F. Smith, on 08 July 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

What you have also glossed over is the range of opinion which still exists on how either the Nephite Interpreters or the seer stone functioned while being used.

I didn't "gloss over" anything. I understand the function, but am confused regarding the name "Urim and Thummim" and what it's attached to, as it seems to be incorrectly conflated to mean both seer stones and Nephite spectacles, which are two different things. Since Joseph Smith owned his white and brown seer stones before the Book of Mormon, their function before the Book of Mormon is different than after the golden plates. If the function was different, why change the name? Is this warranted in your opinion, especially since Phelps attached the name to the Nephite spectacles?

Robert F. Smith, on 08 July 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Until some of those questions are settled, the writers of the manuals may be a bit cautious.

What unanswered questions do you find relevant in attaching the name "Urim and Thummim" to something three years after the Book of Mormon was published? Isn't this an exercise in semantics using a broadened scope?

Robert F. Smith, on 08 July 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Some of them may also be fearful of possible "magical" implications, although I don't see that as a problem.

People believed in magic back then, which is why they would hire seers to find things for them. The use of "magical" is warranted when defining what a seer stone is, because that was its supposed "power" (if you want to call it that). The green seer stone of Sally Chase isn't an "Urim and Thummim" ... it's just a seer stone.

Robert F. Smith, on 08 July 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

I can and have gone on at greater length elsewhere on the ancient Near Eastern nature as well as Mesoamerican nature of such devices, but that is not the purpose of our inquiry here.

I see no reason to bring ancient Near Eastern nature as well as Mesoamerican nature into the definition of what defines the "Urim and Thummim" as it's confusing and broadening the scope even further. Regardless of who used the name "Urim and Thummim" first, please explain what exactly is the name is referring to?

Thanks

Edited by thews, 09 July 2012 - 07:39 PM.

[Robert F. Smith]

thews, on 09 July 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Thanks for the clarification. If Phelps (incorrectly?) attached the term "Urim and Thummim" to the Nephite spectacles, then the term should not be used to describe Joseph Smith's seer stones... is that correct?

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, . . we don't get to choose what terminology people latch onto to describe things, and people do tend to grab hold of specific, brand names and apply them generically, e.g., Band-Aids, Scotch tape, etc.  So it is with the broader category of preternatural devices.  Phelps was no doubt trying to be helpful.  Those who introduced the term "spectacles" were also just trying to be helpful, even though one does not find the term in the Book of Mormon.

I didn't bother to mention it before, but the Book of Mormon uses a variety of terms to describe the Nephite "interpreters" (Mosiah 8:13, 19, 28:20, Ether 4:5), which is incorrectly used in our current edition at Alma 37:21,24, which read in manuscript as "directors."  Additionally, the Lord is referring to a single “stone” in Alma 37:23 (“a stone which shall shine forth in darkness unto light”), which is termed “directors” in the very next verse.  As for the other "director" in the Book of Mormon, the fine bronze liahona ("ball" or "compass"), it is also able to display words on its surface, which appear and disappear (I Ne 16:26-29).  We are confronted with multiple terms for each object, and we do not understand how they actually functioned.  There is, however, some commonality of revelatory function, even if the details remain unclear.

To show just how generic things have become, during his April 1, 2012, General Conference address, Elder Russell Ballard compared the liahona to his personal gps device.

Quote

I don't understand what you mean by "well-based" in the above. Does that imply well known?

How about factually-based?  That does not mean that a lot of people are aware of it.

Quote

Since the lost 116 pages were not part of the published Book of Mormon, this is sotra moot... don't you think?

No, not at all.  We ought to seek information on how the Nephite interpreters/directors were used by Joseph during his translation of the book of Lehi, as well as when he was possibly preparing a sample translation and "Caractors" for Martin Harris to take back East.

Quote

I didn't "gloss over" anything. I understand the function, but am confused regarding the name "Urim and Thummim" and what it's attached to, as it seems to be incorrectly conflated to mean both seer stones and Nephite spectacles, which are two different things.

I was suggesting that our information is not "complete," as you put it.  And, if you "understand the function," I hope that you'll explain it to the rest of us, because most of us have some deficits in that area.

In any case, you are probably right about "conflation" (see above).

Quote

Since Joseph Smith owned his white and brown seer stones before the Book of Mormon, their function before the Book of Mormon is different than after the golden plates. If the function was different, why change the name? Is this warranted in your opinion, especially since Phelps attached the name to the Nephite spectacles?

We are dealing with ordinary humans and their well-known tendencies.  They are not scholars, and we should not expect them to behave as such.  The best we can do is to accurately describe what they did and said.

Quote

What unanswered questions do you find relevant in attaching the name "Urim and Thummim" to something three years after the Book of Mormon was published? Isn't this an exercise in semantics using a broadened scope?

I have tried to indicate some of the important research questions which need to be answered, but have only hinted at the broader issues here in this thread.

Quote

People believed in magic back then, which is why they would hire seers to find things for them. The use of "magical" is warranted when defining what a seer stone is, because that was its supposed "power" (if you want to call it that). The green seer stone of Sally Chase isn't an "Urim and Thummim" ... it's just a seer stone.

Scholars have great difficulty differentiating "magic" from "religion," and terms such as peep-stones, seer-stones, crystal balls, etc., may be applied by some "experts" to particular objects (including the stone borrowed from Sally Chase by Joseph), but I don't know of any scientific listing of proper terminology.  Most of those who used such objects grew up hearing about them, and never gave a thought to questions of semantics or dictionary definition.  I recall years ago working on a water-well drilling rig, and sometimes my boss and I would wait until the local farmer had witched the location where he wanted us to drill by using his dowsing rod.  All in a day's work.

Quote

I see no reason to bring ancient Near Eastern nature as well as Mesoamerican nature into the definition of what defines the "Urim and Thummim" as it's confusing and broadening the scope even further. Regardless of who used the name "Urim and Thummim" first, please explain what exactly is the name is referring to?
Thanks

I'm glad that you agree with me that this is not the place to go into such questions, even though you then immediately ask me to define the term.  Scholars do not have a good definition, but you can look it up online -- even though much of what you'll find is nonsense.

[thews]

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, . . we don't get to choose what terminology people latch onto to describe things, and people do tend to grab hold of specific, brand names and apply them generically, e.g., Band-Aids, Scotch tape, etc.  So it is with the broader category of preternatural devices.  Phelps was no doubt trying to be helpful.  Those who introduced the term "spectacles" were also just trying to be helpful, even though one does not find the term in the Book of Mormon.

Then I can assume since Phelps called the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters) the Urim and Thummim, this name is valid in your opinion. Is that correct? The analogy used in brand names in your response is vague IMO. "Glasses" could be reading glases, safety glasses, welding glasses, etc., but when the "Urim and Thummim" is refered to as "the" Urim and Thummim, it's a specific tag used to define. Just because someone used the name doesn't imply it changes the definition of what it encompasses. We have three things:

1) The Nephite spectacles (Interpreters).
2) Joseph Smith's seer stones.
3) The biblical use of "Urim and Thummim".

If the objective is add resolution, the circle becomes the size of a hoola-hoop. If the resolution is increased to the size of a football stadium, then anything used to see something is included. I still don't understand which instrument is defined as "the" Urim and Thummim in Mormon history?  

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

I didn't bother to mention it before, but the Book of Mormon uses a variety of terms to describe the Nephite "interpreters" (Mosiah 8:13, 19, 28:20, Ether 4:5), which is incorrectly used in our current edition at Alma 37:21,24, which read in manuscript as "directors."  Additionally, the Lord is referring to a single “stone” in Alma 37:23 (“a stone which shall shine forth in darkness unto light”), which is termed “directors” in the very next verse.  As for the other "director" in the Book of Mormon, the fine bronze liahona ("ball" or "compass"), it is also able to display words on its surface, which appear and disappear (I Ne 16:26-29).  We are confronted with multiple terms for each object, and we do not understand how they actually functioned.  There is, however, some commonality of revelatory function, even if the details remain unclear.

I apologize for misunderstanding, but the function isn't what's being questioned, it's the label attached to the device used. If one man can (incorrectly?) call a dog a wolf, it doesn't make a dog a wolf by definition, though they both have four legs. The reference to "the" Urim and Thummim" is specific and the use of conflation to imply it's many things is where the confusion comes from IMO.  Again, if you don't mind explaining this to me, when dealing with Mormon history, is the correct use of "Urim and Thummim" defining the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters/directors) and Joseph Smith's seer stones, or just Joseph Smith's seer stones? Since the term wasn't used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published and every word of the published Book of Mormon was translated using Joseph Smith's seer stones, I don't see how the use of "Urima and Thummim" can mean anything other than Joseph Smith;s seer stones by definition of what they're referring to. Since the use of "Urima and Thummim" was also used by Hyrum Smith (among others) after 1840, and D&C 10:1 defines the Nephite spectacles (Interpreteres) as being "taken back", the how can "Urim and Thummim" not be defined as Joseph Smith's seer stones?

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

To show just how generic things have become, during his April 1, 2012, General Conference address, Elder Russell Ballard compared the liahona to his personal gps device.

I don't see how pointing out other distortion is relevant in this discussion.

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

How about factually-based?  That does not mean that a lot of people are aware of it.

When you say "a lot" of people are "aware" of it, the confusion is what I'm attemting to iron out, as this is very confusing. It seems to me, as a critic, that the conflated use of the definition "Urim and Thummim" is somehow valid to include Joseph Smith's seer stones and the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters) when it actually applies to neither of them, except by the use of the instrument.

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

No, not at all.  We ought to seek information on how the Nephite interpreters/directors were used by Joseph during his translation of the book of Lehi, as well as when he was possibly preparing a sample translation and "Caractors" for Martin Harris to take back East.

Again i fail to see the relevance in the lost 116 pages. They are lost, so the pages were retranslated. When delving into Mormon history it's relevant how the lost pages were translated, but since they were lost and not published IMO it's moot.

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

I was suggesting that our information is not "complete," as you put it.  And, if you "understand the function," I hope that you'll explain it to the rest of us, because most of us have some deficits in that area.

Ok I'll give this a shot. Before the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith used the exact same seer stones he used to translate the Book of Mormon to "see" things for hire. He redily admits this... from FairMormon:

http://en.fairmormon...h/Money_digging

Quote

Was not Joseph Smith a money digger? Yes, but it was never a very profitable job for him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it. —Joseph's tongue-in-cheek response to one of a list of questions that were asked of him during a visit at Elder Cahoon's home. (Elders' Journal 1/3 (July 1838): 43)

So, if the seer stones (the brown and white ones) were used before the Book of Mormon and they gave him the power to see, unless the power that guided them was from God, to use "Urim and Thummim" to define them is an incorrect conflation. If that is true, then how can it be a correct conflation later on?

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

In any case, you are probably right about "conflation" (see above).

In what respect? To the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters), or to Joseph Smith's seer stones?

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

We are dealing with ordinary humans and their well-known tendencies.  They are not scholars, and we should not expect them to behave as such.  The best we can do is to accurately describe what they did and said.

I agree with you. Just because a word is used to define something by someone, it doesn't necessarily introduce distortion to the historical record because they did.

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

I have tried to indicate some of the important research questions which need to be answered, but have only hinted at the broader issues here in this thread.

I'd be curious if you'd elaborate.

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

Scholars have great difficulty differentiating "magic" from "religion," and terms such as peep-stones, seer-stones, crystal balls, etc., may be applied by some "experts" to particular objects (including the stone borrowed from Sally Chase by Joseph), but I don't know of any scientific listing of proper terminology.  Most of those who used such objects grew up hearing about them, and never gave a thought to questions of semantics or dictionary definition.  I recall years ago working on a water-well drilling rig, and sometimes my boss and I would wait until the local farmer had witched the location where he wanted us to drill by using his dowsing rod.  All in a day's work.

Science is the opposite of magic. One must go back in time to when people believed in magic to understand the cultural impact. My avatar is not evil; gargoyles were used to ward off evil spirits and were used by many Christians. Regarding the stone of Sally Chase (the green one), it's what Joseph used to see his first stone (the white one). http://en.fairmormon...ith/Seer_stones If the term "Urim and Thummim" appiles to both the white and brown seer stones owned by Joseph Smith between 1820-1822, it precudes the Book of Mormon which is most relevant, which is why I'm asking the question... which device is "Urim and Thummim" attached to? Seer stones, or the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters).

Data: http://en.fairmormon...ith/Seer_stones

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

I'm glad that you agree with me that this is not the place to go into such questions, even though you then immediately ask me to define the term.  Scholars do not have a good definition, but you can look it up online -- even though much of what you'll find is nonsense.

One can find distortion anywhere, but critical thought by scholars requires delving into and acknowledging the facts, which you are well versed with. I appreciate your responses.

Edited by thews, 10 July 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Maidservant]

I would say that the Urim and Thummim is primarily the access to knowledge, and only secondarily the device or hardware to access that knowledge.

Ipad, laptop, pc . . . it's all the same cyberspace.

In our day of google translator, getting a translation from a "heavenly" data base should give no one pause or even be considered a miracle, but rather technology and law-based.  Nor do I require "supernatural-ness" to call things miracles.  They just have to be accompanied by the gift of God, the spirit of God, the grace of God.  Like when I managed to get my bachelor's degree recently.  That was a miracle.  I can't believe how God provided and helped me along.  And it was all organic and not supernatural.  Not that I haven't been witness to certain inexplicable moments and events that I can reasonably still file under the 'supernatural' category, and enjoy doing so, simply because I was there, saw them, and can't explain the law yet.

Of course, the devices that Joseph had access to (and Lehi with the Liahona) can be said to be anachronistic, perhaps.  Miraculous, supernatural and marvelous, since the cell phone, the kinect weren't even a twinkle in anybody's eye yet.

The tool is neutral.  The tool is not what makes something good or bad.  It is whether a tool is employed for the right and with love, that is the measure.

[Robert F. Smith]

thews, on 10 July 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

Then I can assume since Phelps called the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters) the Urim and Thummim, this name is valid in your opinion. Is that correct? The analogy used in brand names in your response is vague IMO. "Glasses" could be reading glases, safety glasses, welding glasses, etc., but when the "Urim and Thummim" is refered to as "the" Urim and Thummim, it's a specific tag used to define. Just because someone used the name doesn't imply it changes the definition of what it encompasses. We have three things:

1) The Nephite spectacles (Interpreters).
2) Joseph Smith's seer stones.
3) The biblical use of "Urim and Thummim".

If the objective is add resolution, the circle becomes the size of a hoola-hoop. If the resolution is increased to the size of a football stadium, then anything used to see something is included. I still don't understand which instrument is defined as "the" Urim and Thummim in Mormon history?  

I apologize for misunderstanding, but the function isn't what's being questioned, it's the label attached to the device used. If one man can (incorrectly?) call a dog a wolf, it doesn't make a dog a wolf by definition, though they both have four legs. The reference to "the" Urim and Thummim" is specific and the use of conflation to imply it's many things is where the confusion comes from IMO.  Again, if you don't mind explaining this to me, when dealing with Mormon history, is the correct use of "Urim and Thummim" defining the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters/directors) and Joseph Smith's seer stones, or just Joseph Smith's seer stones? Since the term wasn't used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published and every word of the published Book of Mormon was translated using Joseph Smith's seer stones, I don't see how the use of "Urima and Thummim" can mean anything other than Joseph Smith;s seer stones by definition of what they're referring to. Since the use of "Urima and Thummim" was also used by Hyrum Smith (among others) after 1840, and D&C 10:1 defines the Nephite spectacles (Interpreteres) as being "taken back", the how can "Urim and Thummim" not be defined as Joseph Smith's seer stones?

I don't see how pointing out other distortion is relevant in this discussion.

When you say "a lot" of people are "aware" of it, the confusion is what I'm attemting to iron out, as this is very confusing. It seems to me, as a critic, that the conflated use of the definition "Urim and Thummim" is somehow valid to include Joseph Smith's seer stones and the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters) when it actually applies to neither of them, except by the use of the instrument.

Again i fail to see the relevance in the lost 116 pages. They are lost, so the pages were retranslated. When delving into Mormon history it's relevant how the lost pages were translated, but since they were lost and not published IMO it's moot.

Ok I'll give this a shot. Before the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith used the exact same seer stones he used to translate the Book of Mormon to "see" things for hire. He redily admits this... from FairMormon:

http://en.fairmormon...h/Money_digging

So, if the seer stones (the brown and white ones) were used before the Book of Mormon and they gave him the power to see, unless the power that guided them was from God, to use "Urim and Thummim" to define them is an incorrect conflation. If that is true, then how can it be a correct conflation later on?

In what respect? To the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters), or to Joseph Smith's seer stones?

I agree with you. Just because a word is used to define something by someone, it doesn't necessarily introduce distortion to the historical record because they did.

Science is the opposite of magic. One must go back in time to when people believed in magic to understand the cultural impact. My avatar is not evil; gargoyles were used to ward off evil spirits and were used by many Christians. Regarding the stone of Sally Chase (the green one), it's what Joseph used to see his first stone (the white one). http://en.fairmormon...ith/Seer_stones If the term "Urim and Thummim" appiles to both the white and brown seer stones owned by Joseph Smith between 1820-1822, it precudes the Book of Mormon which is most relevant, which is why I'm asking the question... which device is "Urim and Thummim" attached to? Seer stones, or the Nephite spectacles (Interpreters).

Data: http://en.fairmormon...ith/Seer_stones

One can find distortion anywhere, but critical thought by scholars requires delving into and acknowledging the facts, which you are well versed with. I appreciate your responses.

I don't believe in magic, but there are people who do, and I try to accurately describe what it means for them.  I also don't see magic and science as incompatible.  You might take a cue from Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

I realize that you are trying to stamp out the "distortion" you find here or there in the historical record.  Others of us are trying to accurately describe how people dealt with and desccribed their culture, along with an understanding of the sources which they used to make sense of the phenomena they encountered.  There are plenty of dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of terms, which you can use to find fault with Phelps and others, and you might even slap yourself on the hand whenever you inadvertently use the term Nephite "spectacles," a term the Nephites never used, but that would all be beside the point and very judgmental.

You might even adopt a Platonic approach to the archetypal device in which all these other devices participate as mere reflections of the really real.

If we become too rigid, we lose our ability to understand what is actually taking place today as part of the constant stream of history.  We cannot, for example, harshly criticize those who still speak of the "horse power" of a modern automobile.  In its own time, before autos became common and the horse & buggy disappeared, such terminology made sense.

You see distortions.  I see thousands of years of history and try to understand some of these moments in time.  Such an endeavor is not made easier by worrying about how someone used terminology in a non-scientific way at a particular time and place.  You really ought to be more understanding and indulgent of the side issues, and focus on the main point, which is the function or mechanics of these devices, which you have yet to satisfactorily explain.

[Bernard Gui]

Robert F. Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

I recall years ago working on a water-well drilling rig, and sometimes my boss and I would wait until the local farmer had witched the location where he wanted us to drill by using his dowsing rod.  All in a day's work.

As teenagers, some friends and I were taught how to dowse using two straightened metal coat hangers
by a man at the Los Alamos science lab. Worked for him! Did it work for your farmer?

Bernard

[Robert F. Smith]

Bernard Gui, on 12 July 2012 - 03:11 AM, said:

As teenagers, some friends and I were taught how to dowse using two straightened metal coat hangers
by a man at the Los Alamos science lab. Worked for him! Did it work for your farmer?

Bernard

Our farmers made dowsers from forked sticks, but we already had maps of the underlying aquifer and knew how deep to go before hitting water.  We didn't tell the farmers that.

As a teen back in the 1950s, I read an article on metal dowsers such as you describe, only they included copper tubes as sleeves for the properly bent coat hanger wires (to reduce friction).  Since I was too old to believe in such stuff, I made a set and tested it out on my little brother (age 6).  He was able to find water pipes for the sprinkler system in our front yard with uncanny accuracy.  I used a shovel to check.  The experimental method in practice.

As for scrying, the ultimate question here is whether (1) there is some psychic ability innate in man (or provided by God) which enables him to find such things, or (2) the device itself has special properties.

[thews]

Robert F. Smith, on 11 July 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

I don't believe in magic, but there are people who do, and I try to accurately describe what it means for them.  I also don't see magic and science as incompatible.  You might take a cue from Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:  "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The scientific method is clearly defined as requiring proof and magic isn't real, so it can't be proven. If you're implying "magic" can be defined as a magnetic property for example, it's repeatable so it isn't magic... they are not the same things.

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

Quote

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Robert F. Smith, on 11 July 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:

I realize that you are trying to stamp out the "distortion" you find here or there in the historical record.  Others of us are trying to accurately describe how people dealt with and desccribed their culture, along with an understanding of the sources which they used to make sense of the phenomena they encountered.  There are plenty of dictionary and encyclopedia definitions of terms, which you can use to find fault with Phelps and others, and you might even slap yourself on the hand whenever you inadvertently use the term Nephite "spectacles," a term the Nephites never used, but that would all be beside the point and very judgmental.

You might even adopt a Platonic approach to the archetypal device in which all these other devices participate as mere reflections of the really real.

If we become too rigid, we lose our ability to understand what is actually taking place today as part of the constant stream of history.  We cannot, for example, harshly criticize those who still speak of the "horse power" of a modern automobile.  In its own time, before autos became common and the horse & buggy disappeared, such terminology made sense.

You see distortions.  I see thousands of years of history and try to understand some of these moments in time.  Such an endeavor is not made easier by worrying about how someone used terminology in a non-scientific way at a particular time and place.  You really ought to be more understanding and indulgent of the side issues, and focus on the main point, which is the function or mechanics of these devices, which you have yet to satisfactorily explain.

I see facts and not some supposed parallel arguments that attempt to negate the question. In regards to the OP, consider these facts:

1) The Nephite spectacles are clearly defined as being taken back per D&C 10 after the lost 116 pages.
2) The term "Urim and Thummim" was not first used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published.
3) Hyrum Smith (among others) referred to Joseph Smith's seer stones as the "Urim and Thummim" after 1840.
4) There is no Mormon historical reference to the Urim and Thummim being taken back, which is why the term was used after 1840.
5) There are multiple statements by more than one credible witness (to include Emma Smith) that defines the translation method as stone placed in a hat. It isn't "galsses" placed in a hat, but a stone (singular).

When taking the above facts into consideration, to imply the "Urim and Thummim" is anything but Joseph Smith's seer stones, is attempting to argue semantics based on their purpose and conflating the name. If you want to call me on defining distortion, it's correct. The distortion discounts the above when applying the name "Urim and Thummim" to the Nephite spectacles as they are different things than Joseph Smith's seer stones.

Edited by thews, 12 July 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[volgadon]

thews, on 12 July 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

The scientific method is clearly defined as requiring proof and magic isn't real, so it can't be proven. If you're implying "magic" can be defines as a magnetic property for example, it's repeatable so it isn't magic... the are not the same things.

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

I originally posted this on a different thread, but it bears repeating. Early folklorist and anthropologist Andrew Lang said it best when he said,

Quote

"And what do you really think of your foolish old business?" asks the candid reader, or, if a lady, inquires: "Do you believe in crystal gazing?" The question is unphilosophical in form, but I reply to what it is intended to mean. I believe that some crystal gazers, are, somehow enabled to "see" things which are actual, but of which, crystal gazing apart, they have, and can have, no knowledge. I have no conjectures as to "how it is done"; but, if it is done, it upsets some extant popular philosophies.

A broad sweep of the hand, "magic isn't real," resolves absolutely nothing.

[thews]

volgadon, on 12 July 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

"And what do you really think of your foolish old business?" asks the candid reader, or, if a lady, inquires: "Do you believe in crystal gazing?" The question is unphilosophical in form, but I reply to what it is intended to mean. I believe that some crystal gazers, are, somehow enabled to "see" things which are actual, but of which, crystal gazing apart, they have, and can have, no knowledge. I have no conjectures as to "how it is done"; but, if it is done, it upsets some extant popular philosophies.

volgadon, on 12 July 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

A broad sweep of the hand, "magic isn't real," resolves absolutely nothing.

I fail to see your point when the argument is attempting to define the what the Urim and Thummim are referring to along with the difference between magic and science. If magic were repeatable, then it cold be proven true, which would then introduce a variable that isn't currently true. The Amazing Randy's 1 million dollar challenge would have been claimed if it were true:

http://www.randi.org...-challenge.html

Quote

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."
To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

To your quote in the above, when "some crystal gazers, are, somehow enabled to see things" is part of it, by what power does the crystal gazer use to "see" things in your opinion?

Edited by thews, 12 July 2012 - 05:47 PM.

[volgadon]

thews, on 12 July 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

I fail to see your point when the argument is attempting to define the what the Urim and Thummim are referring to along with the difference between magic and science. If magic were repeatable, then it cold be proven true, which would then introduce a variable that isn't currently true. The Amazing Randy's 1 million dollar challenge would have been claimed if it were true:

http://www.randi.org...-challenge.html


To your quote in the above, when "some crystal gazers, are, somehow enabled to see things" is part of it, by what power does the crystal gazer use to "see" things in your opinion?

If magic were repeatable? That is the point, it is repeatable. Perhaps not to an exacting a degree as western science would demand, but if it never worked, people would not use it. That a phenomenon might be poorly understood does not rule out its existence. All it shows is our current state of knowledge. The better you know something, the more capable you are of harnessing and exploiting it. Though neither of us are electricians, who would have a better chance at designing a succesful electric circuit, yours truly, or Grigori Perelman, the mathematician who turned down a 1 million dollar Millenium prize?
I don't know by what power a crystal gazer sees things. Research is not that far advanced.

[ERayR]

thews, on 12 July 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

I fail to see your point when the argument is attempting to define the what the Urim and Thummim are referring to along with the difference between magic and science. If magic were repeatable, then it cold be proven true, which would then introduce a variable that isn't currently true. The Amazing Randy's 1 million dollar challenge would have been claimed if it were true:

http://www.randi.org...-challenge.html


To your quote in the above, when "some crystal gazers, are, somehow enabled to see things" is part of it, by what power does the crystal gazer use to "see" things in your opinion?

It reallyy doesn't matter what someones opinion happens to be about how it is done if someone can do it, it only matters that they can.

[Pa Pa]

why me, on 19 June 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

If I remember correctly, it had been mentioned by someone on this forum that the lds church does not mention the urim and thummin for the translation process. This is not true. In the june 2012 Liahona page 55 the urim and thummin is mentioned for the translation process.


    Gift and Power of God

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon “through the mercy of God, by the power of God” (D&C 1:29) and “by the means which were before prepared” (D&C 20:8), including the Urim and Thummim.

http://www.lds.org/l...s-1353?lang=eng

I see no hiding of the process.

The Church had the U&T while in Nauvoo...I wonder if we still do? Hyrum told Joseph to use it when dictating D&C132.

[thews]

volgadon, on 12 July 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

If magic were repeatable? That is the point, it is repeatable.

Let me define repeatable... the results, which it's not repeatable. If you disagree, please give me a CFR to examin. Magical thinking may imply a person believes in magic and the end result is correct. If a fortune teller tells me I'll die in 6 months, 2 days and 4 hours, and I do, the result would be exact. If that same fortune teller did this 100 times and only got it right one time, then it's not repeatable. A diving rod may "work" because the vibration of the water is felt my the person using it... that would be science.

volgadon, on 12 July 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Perhaps not to an exacting a degree as western science would demand, but if it never worked, people would not use it.

I disagree. A Ouija board is used by a lot of people who believe it works. Is your argument claiming it does work and therefore verifies the magic behind it works too?

volgadon, on 12 July 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

That a phenomenon might be poorly understood does not rule out its existence. All it shows is our current state of knowledge.

Then you imply magic will someday be understood to explain why it works? Please give me one example where magic has been proven to work.

volgadon, on 12 July 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

The better you know something, the more capable you are of harnessing and exploiting it. Though neither of us are electricians, who would have a better chance at designing a succesful electric circuit, yours truly, or Grigori Perelman, the mathematician who turned down a 1 million dollar Millenium prize?

I've worked with electricity most of my life. Ohms law dictates why it works and how it works. I fail to see your point.

volgadon, on 12 July 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

I don't know by what power a crystal gazer sees things. Research is not that far advanced.

Again you imply it (research) will someday answer this question... I disagree, as it hasn't been proven to work.

[thews]

ERayR, on 12 July 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

It reallyy doesn't matter what someones opinion happens to be about how it is done if someone can do it, it only matters that they can.

I disagree. By your logic, using a Ouija board to predict something is ok as long as it works. I think we'd both agree that the source of the supposed power is so-called "black" magic, or not of God.

[thews]

Pa Pa, on 12 July 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

The Church had the U&T while in Nauvoo...I wonder if we still do? Hyrum told Joseph to use it when dictating D&C132.

What is the Urim and Thummim? What object(s) are you referring to?

[volgadon]

Quote

I've worked with electricity most of my life. Ohms law dictates why it works and how it works. I fail to see your point.

What if one doesn't know, or doesn't have a clear understanding of Ohm's law?