Stone Box

[Tacenda]

I really doubt that the stone was dried peyote Tacenda. The plant was so restricted by it's growth to the deep southwest and so little goods were being brought from the west at the time of Joseph Smith (aside from furs in the north) that I just can't see it making it's way to the New York area.

 

The first documented use of Peyote by non-whites was by Texas Rangers who had been captured by the Union near the end of the civil war. The Union soldiers wouldn't let them have any liquor so they soaked peyote buttons in water and drank it for a "good time".

http://www.peyoteway.org/history/

 

Just saw the above.  This is driving me crazy because I'd always assumed this stone was Peyote, no wonder I'm in the kind of state of mind I am.  No, I've not been taking the Peyote just thought this was what the stone was.   

 

Found the article that I'd read so long ago.    

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70399796/Restoration-and-the-Sacred-Mushroom

 

"The Peyote cactus grows in an extensive area surrounding the middle and lower Rio Grande River."

Edited December 3, 2013 by Tacenda

[Palerider]

http://www.peyoteway.org/history/

 

Just saw the above.  This is driving me crazy because I'd always assumed this stone was Peyote, no wonder I'm in the kind of state of mind I am.  No, I've not been taking the Peyote just thought this was what the stone was.   

 

Found the article that I'd read so long ago.    

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/70399796/Restoration-and-the-Sacred-Mushroom

 

"The Peyote cactus grows in an extensive area surrounding the middle and lower Rio Grande River."

 

 

  Don't worry.....we all have our days...........

[Stone holm]

So they said we didn't need anymore Scripture, that seems like an odd response from the Church, at least our Church, I am not asking for a CFR because I generally find that to be sanctimoniously rude, but can you remember where you heard that because it intrigues me. Although, I think it would take a lot of guts for a Prophet these days to go after additional knowledge in that manner when correlation is streaming milk. Can you imagine how Priesthood correlation would react to a peep stone wielding Prophet?

[Palerider]

So they said we didn't need anymore Scripture, that seems like an odd response from the Church, at least our Church, I am not asking for a CFR because I generally find that to be sanctimoniously rude, but can you remember where you heard that because it intrigues me. Although, I think it would take a lot of guts for a Prophet these days to go after additional knowledge in that manner when correlation is streaming milk. Can you imagine how Priesthood correlation would react to a peep stone wielding Prophet?

 

That was a paraphrase. I'm sure they would not say they didn't need new scripture if the Lord saw fit to bring it forth. It was just not going to be forth coming in "that way" was my impression. I'll look for some references. Kind of thought it was Hinkley a while back.

[Stone holm]

That was a paraphrase. I'm sure they would not say they didn't need new scripture if the Lord saw fit to bring it forth. It was just not going to be forth coming in "that way" was my impression. I'll look for some references. Kind of thought it was Hinkley a while back.

 

Well that does ring like something that Pres. Hinckley would have said, he wasn't much into things which are not mainstream 20th/21st Century culture.  But it is pretty clear to me that both the B of M and the Bible tend not to shy away from the use of physical relics -- guess we are too good for that stuff nowadays.

[Palerider]

Well that does ring like something that Pres. Hinckley would have said, he wasn't much into things which are not mainstream 20th/21st Century culture.  But it is pretty clear to me that both the B of M and the Bible tend not to shy away from the use of physical relics -- guess we are too good for that stuff nowadays.

 

I did a superficial search and came up empty. I'm almost positive it was in a conference talk but I just don't have the time right now to go through every first presidency talk from the past 20 years to find it. I'll keep looking. 

 

I think the stones and manner of translation are something that the leadership would prefer kind of quietly slip away from the general church consciousness. I don't think they like explaining it because to most modern people it is just so bizarre. 

Edited December 4, 2013 by Palerider

[Calm]

 

I think the stones and manner of translation are something that the leadership would prefer kind of quietly slip away from the general church consciousness. I don't think they like explaining it because to most modern people it is just so bizarre.

Pity the Ensign missed that memo:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/01/great-and-marvelous-are-the-revelations-of-god

PS: aren't you the one who believes if it is in the Ensign, it has been thoroughly approved by the leadership?

[Tacenda]

I did a superficial search and came up empty. I'm almost positive it was in a conference talk but I just don't have the time right now to go through every first presidency talk from the past 20 years to find it. I'll keep looking. 

 

I think the stones and manner of translation are something that the leadership would prefer kind of quietly slip away from the general church consciousness. I don't think they like explaining it because to most modern people it is just so bizarre. 

In my link several posts up, http://www.scribd.com/doc/70399796/Restoration-and-the-Sacred-Mushroom , it mentions George A. Smith and a sermon in the Ogden Tabernacle in 1864 with the quote below, not sure if it has anything to do with what you're looking for.

 

 

"Twenty years later, in 1864, members would ask Church leaders, “why it is that we do not see more angels, have more visions, that we do not see greater and more manifestations of power?”

The mystery seems to center around Joseph Smith himself. According to Richard Bushman, it was Joseph Smith himself that connected converts to heaven by some power that he possessed, a power that remains a mystery to this day."

 

 

Edited December 4, 2013 by Tacenda

[Palerider]

Pity the Ensign missed that memo:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/01/great-and-marvelous-are-the-revelations-of-god

PS: aren't you the one who believes if it is in the Ensign, it has been thoroughly approved by the leadership?

 

Pity the Ensign missed that memo:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/01/great-and-marvelous-are-the-revelations-of-god

PS: aren't you the one who believes if it is in the Ensign, it has been thoroughly approved by the leadership?

 

I would be much more in awe if this were dated a bit earlier than 2013. I see it as the church playing catch-up, now that they have a serious problem on their hands of being accused of not consistently teaching regarding the peep stones. 

 

The mention in conference or the curriculum of the stones being used over the past 100 years have actually been quite few, although there have been some. Bro. Nelson's talk in the 90's being the one most prominent.  

 

Also I note that they have conveniently left out the "cat in the hat" part of the story.  No sense in going overboard with details I suppose.

 

Very eager to tell you that it (translation) was done........not so eager to tell you exactly how.........

[Stone holm]

I did a superficial search and came up empty. I'm almost positive it was in a conference talk but I just don't have the time right now to go through every first presidency talk from the past 20 years to find it. I'll keep looking. 

 

I think the stones and manner of translation are something that the leadership would prefer kind of quietly slip away from the general church consciousness. I don't think they like explaining it because to most modern people it is just so bizarre.

There is a general aversion to such stuff. I cringe whenever somebody says something like "those were more superstious times"

[Scott Lloyd]

Then it begs the question why. I think it might be they want individuals to not really think of angels but of becoming as God. Yes, they believe in angels, but that's not the end goal.

Oops.

 

You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper manner.

 

"Begging the question" (Latin petitio principal) is a form of logical fallacy in which the argument is assumed to be true without evidence other than the argument itself. It does not mean "to raise the question."

 

See here.

[Stone holm]

I did a superficial search and came up empty. I'm almost positive it was in a conference talk but I just don't have the time right now to go through every first presidency talk from the past 20 years to find it. I'll keep looking. 

 

I think the stones and manner of translation are something that the leadership would prefer kind of quietly slip away from the general church consciousness. I don't think they like explaining it because to most modern people it is just so bizarre. 

 

What exactly does this say about our leadership?

[Tacenda]

Oops.

 

You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper manner.

 

"Begging the question" (Latin petitio principal) is a form of logical fallacy in which the argument is assumed to be true without evidence other than the argument itself. It does not mean "to raise the question."

 

See here.

(bold mine)

Exactly.....

[Calm]

What exactly does this say about our leadership?

Not much actually since it is only a person's speculation and nothing that the leadership has said themselves.

[Calm]

(bold mine)

Exactly.....

It makes no sense to say "it begs the question why" if one is pointing out the begging the question logical fallacy. An argument would simply "beg the question" in and of itself. I am not sure what your "exactly" is meant to mean. Edited December 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

It makes no sense to say "it begs the question why" if one is pointing out the begging the question logical fallacy. An argument would simply "beg the question" in and of itself. I am not sure what your "exactly" is meant to mean.

Well, I guess I 'm admitting I must have already knew the answer to my question, since that was what the definition alluded to. And I'm a huge cliche' user, my bad Miss Bookworm and Mr. Newspaper Editor.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I guess I 'm admitting I must have already knew the answer to my question, since that was what the definition alluded to. And I'm a huge cliche' user, my bad Miss Bookworm and Mr. Newspaper Editor.

If it makes you feel any better, you weren't the only one to whom I gave this response on this board today. It's a crusade I'm on.

 

And it's a cool website I found. You can even buy T shirts and mugs that bear the proper definition of begging the question.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

If it makes you feel any better, you weren't the only one to whom I gave this response on this board today. It's a crusade I'm on.

And it's a cool website I found. You can even buy T shirts and mugs that bear the proper definition of begging the question.

Whew, thanks...I thought, now everyone will know I'm not the sharpest tool in the drawer, or not playing with a full deck, or not a smart cookie, or not even a smarty pants!

[Stone holm]

Whew, thanks...I thought, now everyone will know I'm not the sharpest tool in the drawer, or not playing with a full deck, or not a smart cookie, or not even a smarty pants!

No we just established we had some a rententive people on the board.

 

This is not acceptable on this board.

[Tacenda]

Lol, not a word silly. Or is it? OOPS! I thought it said retentative, sorry Stoneholm.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[Stone holm]

Lol, not a word silly. Or is it? OOPS! I thought it said retentative, sorry Stoneholm.

Actually it was supposed to love the way this iPad has a mind of its own

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually it was supposed to love the way this iPad has a mind of its own

It eschews punctuation at the end and capitalization at the beginning of sentences, apparently.

 

This reminds me of what a junior high science teacher of mine used to say in an era long before the advent of personal computers and the Internet: "My typewriter can't spell."

[Stone holm]

It eschews punctuation at the end and capitalization at the beginning of sentences, apparently.

 

This reminds me of what a junior high science teacher of mine used to say in an era long before the advent of personal computers and the Internet: "My typewriter can't spell."

 

Actually, it seems to have a mind of its own uses English spellings instead of American spellings, creates words.  My typewriter couldn't spell, unfortunately my iPad thinks that it can.  And, I am too lazy to go back and fix things on the iPad -- or my wife is hounding me to log off.