Seer Stones, Olive Oil, And Flying Feathers.

[cinepro]

In the discussion about the Ensign article on the Book of Mormon translation, Nackedhadlow made the following comment:

I tend to agree with Brant Gardner in his book - there wasn't anything physical that appeared on the stone. It was just a cultural item Joseph used and understood as a means to which he could focus and 'see', or have his mental images projected on - what was really going on was an inspired process of translation from pure intelligence within Joseph's brain. The stone was Dumbo's flying feather, if you will. A tool of encouragement. Not a divine teleprompter.

Book of Mormon Translation Illustrations post #61

While I find such an attitude to be enlightened and progressive, I also find it curious for an LDS. And perhaps a little presentist.

It's a comfortable idea, though, because the Church has long since abandoned any belief in "seer stones" as something spiritually useful in our day. They are looked at as artifacts and relics from the past. I suspect any LDS that actually had such a stone and claimed to use it for personal revelation would be branded the village idiot of the ward.

But there is an ancient practice that we continue to endorse in the Church that I think may be similar to "seer stones". Namely, the practice of using consecrated oil for priesthood healing blessings.

From a spiritual sense, is the use of olive oil really much different than the use of seer stone? While one is for healing and the other is for revelation, are they not both just physical appliances for a spiritual purpose? And when the rubber hits the road, don't we view both as optional for the purpose?

In an alternate universe, are there LDS priesthood holders who carry little seer stones on their key chains?

[Zakuska]

In the discussion about the Ensign article on the Book of Mormon translation, Nackedhadlow made the following comment:

While I find such an attitude to be enlightened and progressive, I also find it curious for an LDS. And perhaps a little presentist.

It's a comfortable idea, though, because the Church has long since abandoned any belief in "seer stones" as something spiritually useful in our day. They are looked at as artifacts and relics from the past. I suspect any LDS that actually had such a stone and claimed to use it for personal revelation would be branded the village idiot of the ward.

But there is an ancient practice that we continue to endorse in the Church that I think may be similar to "seer stones". Namely, the practice of using consecrated oil for priesthood healing blessings.

From a spiritual sense, is the use of olive oil really much different than the use of seer stone? While one is for healing and the other is for revelation, are they not both just physical appliances for a spiritual purpose? And when the rubber hits the road, don't we view both as optional for the purpose?

In an alternate universe, are there LDS priesthood holders who carry little seer stones on their key chains?

I think so too... even though there is Canonical precident for the practice.

D&C 130

6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth;

7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.

9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.

10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;

11 And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.

My great Grandmother had a seer stone infact and used it until the Bishop told her to stop because of the gossip that was flying around the ward about her. So she buried it in the back pasture but then later found out she had the gift without the use of the stone.

EDIT: WOW! God is the Ultimate Crystal ball looker!

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I have a hard enough time with this universe. I'll let God worry about any others.

But to answer your question with sufficient faith neither Seer Stones nor Annointing Oils are necessary. However not too many have that level of faith.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

My view is that seer stones and consecrated oil, etc. are basically just tangible symbols. That is, there is nothing particularly special about the actual stone or oil; they're a cultural way of focusing acts of faith, which is where the real magic happens.

Edit: Meaning that for me, at least, no, there isn't much difference between using a seer stone and using consecrated oil, since they're both outer symbols for inner actions. The culture has simply shifted.

Edited September 23, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Senator]

I wonder if there is a priesthood ordinance of consecrating seer stones. Having been "prepared by God", or set apart.............I don't know.......?

[Zakuska]

I wonder if there is a priesthood ordinance of consecrating seer stones. Having been "prepared by God", or set apart.............I don't know.......?

Well, Jared did get some stones to light his vessel so he could see. And they were concsecrated by the finger of the Lord.

[David T]

My view is that seer stones and consecrated oil, etc. are basically just tangible symbols. That is, there is nothing particularly special about the actual stone or oil; they're a cultural way of focusing acts of faith, which is where the real magic happens.

Edit: Meaning that for me, at least, no, there isn't much difference between using a seer stone and using consecrated oil, since they're both outer symbols for inner actions. The culture has simply shifted.

Bingo.

[Nathair/|\]

My view is that seer stones and consecrated oil, etc. are basically just tangible symbols. That is, there is nothing particularly special about the actual stone or oil; they're a cultural way of focusing acts of faith, which is where the real magic happens.

Edit: Meaning that for me, at least, no, there isn't much difference between using a seer stone and using consecrated oil, since they're both outer symbols for inner actions. The culture has simply shifted.

With the exception of the saving ordinances; as far as I can tell, even most of the rituals we do are for the purpose of focusing intent, will and faith and change our state of conscience so we can achieve the intended effect of the ritual.

With experience, I believe, one can eventually dispense with the ritual and simply say "Be thou whole," or similar language for the purpose of the miracle.

Yours under the miraculous oaks,

Nathair /|\

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'd actually include even the saving ordinances in there - that is, there is nothing unusual about the actual waters of baptism, but it can be a deeply potent symbol of the internal transformation, and one which can be expressed in a community setting. It's incredibly difficult to externalize subjective states; the ordinances provide a framework, a simplified mythic "story" which we can take part in and agree upon in order to solidify our participation in the Plan of Salvation and the great At-one-ment of all uncreated Intelligences. This is why we can fiddle with the particular words and images over time, since what matters is whether or not the general story gets across in the most effective way we can for a particular audience at a particular time. The exact phrasing or action doesn't matter half so much as the hopeful meaning it's conveying.

I think that's what our Temples are all about; they're not magic in and of themselves - they're just buildings - but we create within them a "binding" for each other, a "welding link" of intentionality, one which reaches back and forth in time by recreating the past in order to give context for the present and future. Prophecy, then, is not prediction of the predestined unchanging future, it's the creation of the future through the formulation of covenants. Just because all these events take place within the inaccessible subjective area of the brain doesn't mean they're not real; rather, we make them real by acting upon our faith.

[Zakuska]

I'd actually include even the saving ordinances in there - that is, there is nothing unusual about the actual waters of baptism, but it can be a deeply potent symbol of the internal transformation, and one which can be expressed in a community setting. It's incredibly difficult to externalize subjective states; the ordinances provide a framework, a simplified mythic "story" which we can take part in and agree upon in order to solidify our participation in the Plan of Salvation and the great At-one-ment of all uncreated Intelligences. This is why we can fiddle with the particular words and images over time, since what matters is whether or not the general story gets across in the most effective way we can for a particular audience at a particular time. The exact phrasing or action doesn't matter half so much as the hopeful meaning it's conveying.

I think that's what our Temples are all about; they're not magic in and of themselves - they're just buildings - but we create within them a "binding" for each other, a "welding link" of intentionality, one which reaches back and forth in time by recreating the past in order to give context for the present and future. Prophecy, then, is not prediction of the predestined unchanging future, it's the creation of the future through the formulation of covenants. Just because all these events take place within the inaccessible subjective area of the brain doesn't mean they're not real; rather, we make them real by acting upon our faith.

Keanu Reeves would disagree.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[jo1952]

Just as a note of interest...the Ark of the Covenant contains a breastplate within which are a Urim and Thummim.

Regards,

jo

[mfbukowski]

Prophecy, then, is not prediction of the predestined unchanging future, it's the creation of the future through the formulation of covenants. Just because all these events take place within the inaccessible subjective area of the brain doesn't mean they're not real; rather, we make them real by acting upon our faith.

[Ron Beron]

I'd actually include even the saving ordinances in there - that is, there is nothing unusual about the actual waters of baptism, but it can be a deeply potent symbol of the internal transformation, and one which can be expressed in a community setting. It's incredibly difficult to externalize subjective states; the ordinances provide a framework, a simplified mythic "story" which we can take part in and agree upon in order to solidify our participation in the Plan of Salvation and the great At-one-ment of all uncreated Intelligences. This is why we can fiddle with the particular words and images over time, since what matters is whether or not the general story gets across in the most effective way we can for a particular audience at a particular time. The exact phrasing or action doesn't matter half so much as the hopeful meaning it's conveying.

I think that's what our Temples are all about; they're not magic in and of themselves - they're just buildings - but we create within them a "binding" for each other, a "welding link" of intentionality, one which reaches back and forth in time by recreating the past in order to give context for the present and future. Prophecy, then, is not prediction of the predestined unchanging future, it's the creation of the future through the formulation of covenants. Just because all these events take place within the inaccessible subjective area of the brain doesn't mean they're not real; rather, we make them real by acting upon our faith.

I think you are absolutely correct, but I believe there is more to it than just a meaningful symbol of commitment or worship. There is such a shared sense of consciousness between the giver and the taker in the cases of baptism, sacrament, and temple ceremonies that it somehow intensifies the actual ceremony. Just like those who spend their time involved in witchcraft and darker arts they tend to take on a more cynical and darker approach to life itself while those who engage in godly matters tend to see life as giving and fulfilling. While the artifact and ceremony may not have power in and of itself the deeper significance is the presence we all feel of God's spirit.

[Ron Beron]

Just as a note of interest...the Ark of the Covenant contains a breastplate within which are a Urim and Thummim.

Regards,

jo

From all accounts the U and T were nothing more than two stones of opposing colors, essentially dice.

[Rivers]

In the discussion about the Ensign article on the Book of Mormon translation, Nackedhadlow made the following comment:

While I find such an attitude to be enlightened and progressive, I also find it curious for an LDS. And perhaps a little presentist.

It's a comfortable idea, though, because the Church has long since abandoned any belief in "seer stones" as something spiritually useful in our day. They are looked at as artifacts and relics from the past. I suspect any LDS that actually had such a stone and claimed to use it for personal revelation would be branded the village idiot of the ward.

But there is an ancient practice that we continue to endorse in the Church that I think may be similar to "seer stones". Namely, the practice of using consecrated oil for priesthood healing blessings.

From a spiritual sense, is the use of olive oil really much different than the use of seer stone? While one is for healing and the other is for revelation, are they not both just physical appliances for a spiritual purpose? And when the rubber hits the road, don't we view both as optional for the purpose?

In an alternate universe, are there LDS priesthood holders who carry little seer stones on their key chains?

Interesting. I've never thought of the seer stones in that way before. That makes the seer stone thing seem a whole lot less strange

[jo1952]

From all accounts the U and T were nothing more than two stones of opposing colors, essentially dice.

This is reminiscent of the drawing of lots (basically like using dice). Man's faith in God allowed God to influence the "roll of the dice", so to speak. It was a way for God to communicate His will to those who used them.

I am also reminded of how, in accordance with whether or not people were keeping the commandments, etc., that the "compasses" being used by leaders in the Book of Mormon, would either lose or gain their effectiveness.

Regards,

jo

[Ariarates]

We may be cool about Joseph Smith's seer stones and similar magical artifacts of the early Saints and play them down as something of minor importance, but what would happen if President Monson would announce having received a revelation through a seer stone? Or if Elder Eyring announced he had been receiving inspiration through his cane?

Can anyone here honestly say that they would not be very uneasy? That they wouldn't dread the thought of this hitting the media? Can you picture yourself explaining to your neighbours or co-workers that this is not superstition but simply the application of random focusing devices (or whatever euphemism the apologists come up with)?

[Helmuth]

If President Monson announced a revelation he got through a seer stone, I think that would be fantastic.

[Nathair/|\]

If President Monson announced a revelation he got through a seer stone, I think that would be fantastic.

Agreed. While I like to think he is beyond the need for such aids, it could open the way for them to become part of the training curriculum in the church.

[William Schryver]

Bingo.

Mmmm ... I have two questions for you and others who are inclined to view Joseph Smith's seer stone as "just a rock."

First, what do you make of the passage from D&C 130 quoted above.

Second, did the brother of Jared really move a mountain, and did Enoch really move a river and did Peter really restore the eyes of a man blind from birth?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I don't think it being "just a rock" is incompatible with D&C 130 (which is, incidentally, one of my favorite bits in the book). It seems to me that the White Stone of Revelation is something like a marker of authority, like the stones representing the different Houses of Israel.

I'd draw a parallel to the White Fruit of Lehi's Vision. Nibley noted that in the Arabian context, "the human race is divided into al-sūdānu and al-bayḍānu. The sūdānu are the black ones, and the bayḍānu are the white ones." The "skin of blackness" referenced in the Book of Mormon, then, is an idiomatic expression, "a cultural thing [between] members of the same race ... so we get this idea of the contrast between the good guys and the bad guys, called black and white." When Lehi says the fruit is white, he's saying it is the opposite of a black fruit; it is a good fruit, a correct fruit, a moral fruit, a pure fruit. Taking it doesn't lead to Original Sin or anything like that. It's a necessary step in the plan of our eternal progression.

If the stone's whiteness is, like the white fruit of the Tree, a symbol of purity, then I'd take it to signify the community's participation in the great Plan of Salvation, in which all members work towards bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Authority to administer ordinances and healing becomes diffused among all who choose to take part in creating Zion. Still "just" a stone, but based in the culture of the time, a marker of faith in the community, an entrance into the great Feast.

I'm not sure I understand the connection you're drawing to Jared, Enoch, and Peter.

Edited September 24, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[blackstrap]

Regarding Pres.Monson and a seer stone.... there's probably an APP for that

[Brant Gardner]

Mmmm ... I have two questions for you and others who are inclined to view Joseph Smith's seer stone as "just a rock."

First, what do you make of the passage from D&C 130 quoted above.

Second, did the brother of Jared really move a mountain, and did Enoch really move a river and did Peter really restore the eyes of a man blind from birth?

Perhaps a similar question. If a person receives a blessings where the Elders use consecrated oil and the person is miraculously healed, was the cause the Priesthood or the oil?

[William Schryver]

Perhaps a similar question. If a person receives a blessings where the Elders use consecrated oil and the person is miraculously healed, was the cause the Priesthood or the oil?

What's the difference? Seriously. If I were to answer: the priesthood, how would it effectively be any different from answering: the oil?

But you didn't answer any of the questions I posed. Did the brother of Jared really move a mountain?

[Brant Gardner]

What's the difference? Seriously. If I were to answer: the priesthood, how would it effectively be any different from answering: the oil?

But you didn't answer any of the questions I posed. Did the brother of Jared really move a mountain?

There is a difference. The difference is whether or not the physical element was symbolic or causitive. I don't see any problem in agreeing that there are miracles. That isn't the question. The question is the cause of the miracle. So, it makes a difference whether or not the oil is effective, just as it makes a difference in how we understand miraculous stories in the Bible. I believe that there are miracles, and that there are some stories reported in the more ancient scriptures that where the story emphasizes the fact of the miracle and the mechanism of the miracle isn't the point at all. If you wish to ask me if I think the Bible is literally historical in all of its stories, I would have to say no. That doesn't mean that I don't believe it to be scripture or inspired, just that I also believe that it is a text coming through human antiquity into a very different world than the one for which it was originally written.