The Witch of Endor . . .

[consiglieri]

To me that teaches that the devil has no comfort to give, and when we do not listen to God, other voices will "take up the slack," but not unto salvation.

If I recall correctly, Samuel had precious little comfort to give Saul even when Samuel was alive, specifically in the two stories that account for the kingdom being taken from Saul.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Maybe I'm a little dense, but what does Hamlet have to do with these guys: http://www.starwars.com/databank/species/ewok/

Gibbering and squeaking, of course!

[consiglieri]

I always thought it obvious that the writers of the Samuels borrowed heavily from Macbeth, including the conceit of the witches conjuring up spirits in order to deceive and cause the downfall of flawed royalty.

The Endor story is, in short, an anachronism.

By the pricking in my thumbs,

Something USU this way comes.

[ttribe]

Gibbering and squeaking, of course!

Got it...good one.

[consiglieri]

I don't see that large a disconnect between the two. The author does present the deceased prophet as a deity, which hearkens to the more archaic shrine religion.

Ah, the "archaic shrine religion."

Now, that sounds interesting!

Care to share?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lightbearer]

If I recall correctly, Samuel had precious little comfort to give Saul even when Samuel was alive, specifically in the two stories that account for the kingdom being taken from Saul.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The wicked can receive no comfort from God either unless they are willing to repent. That does not really answer the point I made in my post, although it seems Deborah got it.

[consiglieri]

The wicked can receive no comfort from God either unless they are willing to repent. That does not really answer the point I made in my post, although it seems Deborah got it.

Deborah is smarter than I.

The point you made at the end of your first post implied this communication was from the devil, and not from Samuel, as "the devil has no comfort to give."

I responded by pointing out that at several points in the OT narrative, Samuel had "no comfort to give" Saul even while Samuel was alive.

The point I was trying to make is that, if you label any message ostensibly from God where "no comfort is given" as actually being from the devil, consistency requires you to so label the communications from Samuel even while Samuel was alive.

I don't have to put any sharper a point on it than that, do I?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Deborah]

I responded by pointing out that at several points in the OT narrative, Samuel had "no comfort to give" Saul even while Samuel was alive.

The point I was trying to make is that, if you label any message ostensibly from God where "no comfort is given" as actually being from the devil, consistency requires you to so label the communications from Samuel even while Samuel was alive.

I don't get your logic. Saying that the spirit had no comfort to give has nothing to do with Samuel likewise having no comfort to give except in the consistency of the message. If Saul truly "perceived" the spirit to be Samuel, wouldn't he perceive the response to be what he already knew but was trying to deny? It's the fact that Saul thought the witch conjured up Samuel which is of Satan, not what the spirit said.

[maklelan]

Ah, the "archaic shrine religion."

Now, that sounds interesting!

Care to share?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Back during the monarchy there were public and private shrines all over Israel. Tel Dan had two gate shrines. Megiddo room 2081 had a very famous royal shrine. Private piety often incorporated shrines. The deification of kings and other dead rulers is a part of this kind of piety. A good book with several articles on this kind of worship is Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah.

[consiglieri]

Back during the monarchy there were public and private shrines all over Israel. Tel Dan had two gate shrines. Megiddo room 2081 had a very famous royal shrine. Private piety often incorporated shrines. The deification of kings and other dead rulers is a part of this kind of piety. A good book with several articles on this kind of worship is Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah.

Majorly cool, O Copiously Awarded One!

Thanks for the reference.

It gives good background not only for this episode, but also for Micah's personal shrine in the Book of Judges.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I don't get your logic. Saying that the spirit had no comfort to give has nothing to do with Samuel likewise having no comfort to give except in the consistency of the message. If Saul truly "perceived" the spirit to be Samuel, wouldn't he perceive the response to be what he already knew but was trying to deny? It's the fact that Saul thought the witch conjured up Samuel which is of Satan, not what the spirit said.

Hi, Deborah!

My logic, if logic there be, was in giving the smackdown to NightBearer's argument that the ghost of Samuel was Satanic because it gave a message of "no comfort."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lightbearer]

Hi, Deborah!

My logic, if logic there be, was in giving the smackdown to NightBearer's argument that the ghost of Samuel was Satanic because it gave a message of "no comfort."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You should have read my entire post instead of taking pot shots at those parts you considered in error. I did not imply that the message was Satanic because the message gave "no comfort" I said it was Satanic because witchcraft is considered Satanic in nature as also is the practices of spirit mediums. I find it laughable that you seem to think that this witch had the power to bring back a righteous spirit such as the prophet Samuel, and that he would obey such an abomination. I believe it was devil inspired and that is why the law of Moses required the death penalty for those who did such practices. I was mainly pointing out that the text did not clearly say it was Samuel's spirit only that Saul perceived it from a description gave by the witch.

[Let_Us_Reason]

Deborah and LightBearer's feelings mirror what Joseph Fielding Smith taught about the Witch from Endor:

[consiglieri]

Deborah and LightBearer's feelings mirror what Joseph Fielding Smith taught about the Witch from Endor:

Thanks for the references, LUR!

I sometimes think JFS and BRM were experts at imposing Mormon Doctrine on Mormon Scriptures.

Shut up, standard works! I'm busy making you say what I want you to say!

(Or something like that . . .)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I find it laughable that you seem to think that this witch had the power to bring back a righteous spirit such as the prophet Samuel, and that he would obey such an abomination. I believe it was devil inspired and that is why the law of Moses required the death penalty for those who did such practices. I was mainly pointing out that the text did not clearly say it was Samuel's spirit only that Saul perceived it from a description gave by the witch.

While I hear what you are saying, the text is explicit that it was Samuel who spoke to Saul.

In that sense, the text does, in fact, "clearly say it was Samuel's spirit."

Are you leaving that out of your exegesis?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do. Then said Samuel, Wherefore then dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord is departed from thee, and is become thine enemy?

[mfbukowski]

I always thought it obvious that the writers of the Samuels borrowed heavily from Macbeth, including the conceit of the witches conjuring up spirits in order to deceive and cause the downfall of flawed royalty.

The Endor story is, in short, an anachronism.

An excellent point. That shows clear evidence of its 17th century origins; indeed there was no "translation", clearly the alleged "translators" appointed by King James were in collusion with the mysterious writer known as "Shakespeare" who appears to be the actual writer of both the bible and the plays, as the evidence you cited clearly shows.

The reality however is different.

What actually happened is that the person known as "Samuel Spalding" actually lived in the 17th century and is responsible for the books of Samuel- hence their names- and that he wrote all three works- the KJV, Shakespeare's plays, and the Book of Mormon, though the manuscripts of the latter were not discovered until the 19th century after they were buried in the form of golden plates by Spalding and later discovered by the money digger Joseph Smith who found the plates on one of his digging expeditions. And of course this accounts for the similarities between the BOM and the King James, as well as why no Spalding manuscripts using 16th century language have been found- those manuscripts are actually hidden in "plain sight" as both the plays of Shakespeare AND the KJV.

It's as plain as the nose on Michael Jackson's face!

[Cold Steel]

That the writers of the Deuteronomic History were northerners who took every possible opportunity to belittle southern traditions.

Yeah, we call 'em CARPETBAGGERS in these here parts!

I can't stand anyone who would belittle someone at someone else's expense. It's a cheap, shoddy thing to do.

.

[Nathair/|\]

USU78, on 28 June 2010 - 02:01 PM, said:

I always thought it obvious that the writers of the Samuels borrowed heavily from Macbeth, including the conceit of the witches conjuring up spirits in order to deceive and cause the downfall of flawed royalty.

The Endor story is, in short, an anachronism.

An excellent point. That shows clear evidence of its 17th century origins; indeed there was no "translation", clearly the alleged "translators" appointed by King James were in collusion with the mysterious writer known as "Shakespeare" who appears to be the actual writer of both the bible and the plays, as the evidence you cited clearly shows.

The reality however is different.

What actually happened is that the person known as "Samuel Spalding" actually lived in the 17th century and is responsible for the books of Samuel- hence their names- and that he wrote all three works- the KJV, Shakespeare's plays, and the Book of Mormon, though the manuscripts of the latter were not discovered until the 19th century after they were buried in the form of golden plates by Spalding and later discovered by the money digger Joseph Smith who found the plates on one of his digging expeditions. And of course this accounts for the similarities between the BOM and the King James, as well as why no Spalding manuscripts using 16th century language have been found- those manuscripts are actually hidden in "plain sight" as both the plays of Shakespeare AND the KJV.

It's as plain as the nose on Michael Jackson's face!

How, then, do you explain Shakespeare's signature is Psalm 46? I know that means something, though I can't think of it at the moment.

Yours under the befuddled oaks;

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

How, then, do you explain Shakespeare's signature is Psalm 46? I know that means something, though I can't think of it at the moment.

Yours under the befuddled oaks;

Nathair /|\

Clearly you miss the evidence which is staring you in the face!

William Shakespeare left his mark on the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. At least that is the rumor going around. According to a host of Websites and books, William Shakespeare was called upon to add his artistic touch to the English translation of the Bible done at the behest of King James, which was finished in 1611. As proof for this idea, proponents point to Psalm 46, and allege that Shakespeare slipped his name into the text. Here is how the story goes. Since Shakespeare was born in the year 1564, then he would have been 46 years old during 1610 when the finishing touches were being put on the KJV. In the King James Version, if you count down 46 words from the top (not counting the title) you read the word

[Nathair/|\]

Nathair, on 28 June 2010 - 06:17 PM, said:

How, then, do you explain Shakespeare's signature is Psalm 46? I know that means something, though I can't think of it at the moment.

Yours under the befuddled oaks;

Nathair /|\

Clearly you miss the evidence which is staring you in the face!

Quote

William Shakespeare left his mark on the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. At least that is the rumor going around. According to a host of Websites and books, William Shakespeare was called upon to add his artistic touch to the English translation of the Bible done at the behest of King James, which was finished in 1611. As proof for this idea, proponents point to Psalm 46, and allege that Shakespeare slipped his name into the text. Here is how the story goes. Since Shakespeare was born in the year 1564, then he would have been 46 years old during 1610 when the finishing touches were being put on the KJV. In the King James Version, if you count down 46 words from the top (not counting the title) you read the word

[Glenn101]

I do not think that this is an accurate translation of what actually happened. If you take the plain meaning of many of the scriptures without allowing for the possibility of inaccurate translations, where something has been left out, added, or just plain translated incorrectly, you come up with contradictions.

Take for instance in Exodus 33;11 it tells us that Moses spoke with God "face to face as a man speaketh unto his friend". Yet later in that same chapter, when Moses asked to see God's glory, he was told "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20) Obviously something is amiss here.

There are many other examples. "For God is a spirit". And one of my favorites, Amos 3:6 -------- shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?

Now there is a footnote that says that the word "done" is translated "known" in the JST. Which one do you think it the better word, considering all the other scripture that we have about the attributes of God?

When we ponder the passage about Saul and the Witch of Endor, we must keep in mind the nature of revelation. Paul, in Hebrews 1:1 says that God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, says nothing about God speaking unto anyone by witches.

The Old and New Testaments are replete with the condemnation of witchcraft. So why should we accept that in this one instance, the practice of witchcraft is not only condoned, but implicitly authorized?

Glenn

[erichard]

I do not think that this is an accurate translation of what actually happened. ...The Old and New Testaments are replete with the condemnation of witchcraft. So why should we accept that in this one instance, the practice of witchcraft is not only condoned, but implicitly authorized?

Glenn

Hi Glenn,

As I noted before:

Here is the JST version of 1 Samuel 28:9

And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land; wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die also,

who hath

not

a familiar spirit

?....

as opposed to the KJV version of it:

And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?

So it seems to me, according to the Joseph Smith Translation she did NOT have a familar spirit, but rather had a gift from God to communicated with those past on.

Richard

[blackstrap]

Can someone tell me who was the "fly-on-the-wall" who recorded these events? Saul and all his henchmen were killed soon after,so who was it?

[kamenraider]

I posted these quotes in the latest thread on folk magic, but just in case anyone missed them:

May 21, 1900, while at the President's Office, waiting upon George Q. Cannon, President Angus M. Cannon was talking to the brethren (George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith). He was asking what they knew regarding the "Witch" of Endor. He stated that while in Connecticut he was preaching among some spiritualists, and the question of the "Woman of Endor" causing the appearing of the Prophet Samuel to King Saul, was presented to him in refutation of some statement he had made. He was unable to meet the thrust and later, while at New York, he met Apostle John Taylor, and asked who the "Woman of Endor" was. Brother Taylor replied that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught him that she was a Prophetess of God, and that she was in hiding on account of a decree of death having gone out against such as she, whom the people claimed to be witches.

Later, Brother Cannon, while in conversation with Apostle Parley P. Pratt, incidently referred to this statement made by President Taylor, and Brother Pratt said, "Yes, she was the wife of the Prophet Samuel and was a Prophetess of God."

--Journal of Joseph W. Musser, Pioneer Press, SLC, UT, no date, pg. 72.

The 28th Chapter of first Samuel, 13 vers. The woman was a woman of god, posessed of the Spirit of god, & as Samuel was Sealed to his wife & family in the Everlasting Covanant of the Sealing power, therefore they all had to come with him because he was the head of the family & the woman had power with god to goe to the world of Spirits and bring him forth. Therefore She cried with a loud voice and then Said, I Saw gods assend out of the Earth as being many.

--Hyrum Smith, from George Laub's Journal, BYU Studies, Winter 1978, V. 18 #2, pg. 175.

I also made this comment there:

Still, Saul seems to have been punished for his intent -- i.e. believing that she was a witch with a familiar spirit and consulting with her anyway:

1 Chr. 10: 13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;

Assuming that the JST is right, Saul must not have believed her when she denied having a familiar spirit.

[Flyonthewall]

Can someone tell me who was the "fly-on-the-wall" who recorded these events? Saul and all his henchmen were killed soon after,so who was it?

ahem...must have been one of my ancestors...