Hughes Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Or because he engaged in a practice more more or less identical to that of Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was one of the more notable prophets of the Old Testament.CFR that Joseph son of Jacob practiced the use of "more or less" seer stones.
Hughes Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 The word "occult" (which just means "secret" or "hidden"), is not found anywhere in the scriptures. If one condemns a generalized and ill-defined "occult" on supposedly scriptural grounds, they are, alas, adding to the Word. One would also be adding to the Word and mingling the philosophies of men with scripture if they cannot find scriptural support for a closed canon; since the idea of a closed canon is not scriptural but was instead the product of a process of theological innovation by such folks as, say, Marcion, one has no grounds for automatically dismissing further Revelation out of hand. Joseph almost always had witnesses, so it was hardly esoteric knowledge he was trying to hide; if one believes that certain writings can be inspired - as in the case of the Biblical prophets - then there is no particular reason to deny him on such grounds. Examine his claims, by all means, but don't just dismiss 'em because he took part in common American frontier folk-culture.So is consulting the dead an abomination in LDS doctrine or not?
altersteve Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 So is consulting the dead an abomination in LDS doctrine or not?Well, we don't consult the dead at all, so why would you even ask that? The only one whom we consult is God, who is very much alive.
LeSellers Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 CFR that Joseph son of Jacob practiced the use of "more or less" seer stones.I believe the reference is to Joseph's divining cup, the one he planted in Benjamen's sack of grain.Lehi
LeSellers Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 So is consulting the dead an abomination in LDS doctrine or not?It is, but why do you ask?Nothing we do could possibly evoke an image of necromancy.Lehi
zerinus Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 You said:Indicating that the whole translation wasn't done with Urim and Thummim. Indicating, that occult practices were used at least for "brief" periods of time, acknowledged by you.Not acknowledged by me. You can read it again; although I am not sure that is going to any more good at this stage.
stemelbow Posted October 17, 2011 Author Posted October 17, 2011 This is a topic I've been thinking about lately.Considering Deut. 18:9-1210There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.By what power did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?So by using the seer stone to translate the BoM which of the following did JS do?1. maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire2. Divination3. Observe times?4. Enchant5. Witch stuff6. Charmed7. consulted with familiar spirits8. wizardry9. necromancyCurious what you're seeing that I'm not.
volgadon Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) CFR that Joseph son of Jacob practiced the use of "more or less" seer stones.He used a divining cup, which was one of the most common forms of divination in biblical times, thus, directly flaunting the principle in that verse from Deut. which you try to use against us. Edited October 17, 2011 by volgadon
Cobalt-70 Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Indicating that the whole translation wasn't done with Urim and Thummim. Indicating, that occult practices were used at least for "brief" periods of time, acknowledged by you.The word magic is better than occult. But whether you use two stones set in silver bows, or one stone, it is still crystallomancy.
Brant Gardner Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 The word magic is better than occult. Neither is particularly useful in an academic discussion. They are bandied about in popular literature, but virtually useless if you want to study religion.
Hughes Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) So by using the seer stone to translate the BoM which of the following did JS do?1. maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire2. Divination3. Observe times?4. Enchant5. Witch stuff6. Charmed7. consulted with familiar spirits8. wizardry9. necromancyCurious what you're seeing that I'm not.It appears that crystallomancy would be consulting with familiar spirits, but since Joseph Smith grew up in this atmosphere, with his father doing the same thing, I'm getting a clearer picture as to why Joseph would claim that he translated by the power of God. As he probably saw all spiritual things as coming from the power of God. Even his story about consulting a dead human when finding the plates confirms this.He used a divining cup, which was one of the most common forms of divination in biblical times, thus, directly flaunting the principle in that verse from Deut. which you try to use against us.That it was claimed to be his divination cup, doesn't equal anything near to Joseph Smith's usage.The word magic is better than occult. But whether you use two stones set in silver bows, or one stone, it is still crystallomancy.Agreed. Crystallomancy, no matter how you slice it, is not the power of God. And even today the LDS church has the peep stone in their possession. Why would that be? Edited October 18, 2011 by Hughes
zerinus Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 It appears that crystallomancy would be consulting with familiar spirits, but since Joseph Smith grew up in this atmosphere, with his father doing the same thing, I'm getting a clearer picture as to why Joseph would claim that he translated by the power of God. As he probably saw all spiritual things as coming from the power of God. Even his story about consulting a dead human when finding the plates confirms this.That it was claimed to be his divination cup, doesn't equal anything near to Joseph Smith's usage.Agreed. Crystallomancy, no matter how you slice it, is not the power of God. And even today the LDS church has the peep stone in their possession. Why would that be?Have you ever read the Book of Mormon? I know you live in Utah. It appears that you have recently moved there. So you are among a lot of Mormons, and you get to know quite a few of them. Does it interest you at all to actually read the Book of Mormon, to find out for yourself what the Mormons really believe? I recommend you to do it. Here is a quote from the book which might interest you:Moroni 7:14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.It is actually a grave sin to attribute to the devil something that comes from God. You are doing yourself a great disservice by dismissing so lightly something that makes such serious claims, and can have serious consequences for your eternal destiny if you turn out to be wrong. I say it for your own good. I highly recommend you to give the Book of Mormon a serious investigation.
altersteve Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Hughes, Joseph never claimed to consult a dead human.
Hughes Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Have you ever read the Book of Mormon? I know you live in Utah. It appears that you have recently moved there. So you are among a lot of Mormons, and you get to know quite a few of them. Does it interest you at all to actually read the Book of Mormon, to find out for yourself what the Mormons really believe? I recommend you to do it. Here is a quote from the book which might interest you:Moroni 7:14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.It is actually a grave sin to attribute to the devil something that comes from God. You are doing yourself a great disservice by dismissing so lightly something that makes such serious claims, and can have serious consequences for your eternal destiny if you turn out to be wrong. I say it for your own good. I highly recommend you to give the Book of Mormon a serious investigation.Right. I moved here almost three years ago, and have had many questions answered. It's definitely a unique and beautiful area. As far as attributing to the devil something that comes from God. It's clear to me that you haven't defended Joseph Smiths actions. Rather you are side stepping the issue. Is Crystallomancy from God? I think it's clear it is not from God. As for your warning. I trust in Christ alone. My righteousness is from him. I alone have none. I have no fear and not one worry in regard to eternity or now. Fear isn't from God. Perfect love casts out fear. My simple curiosity has been answered, and as I said before it explains a lot about this area.
Hughes Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Hughes, Joseph never claimed to consult a dead human.Seems to me that he told stories to other people that he did. And even in one court record I read.
LeSellers Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Seems to me that he told stories to other people that he did. And even in one court record I read.Is this hearsay or hear-hearsay?Lehi
Jaybear Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Hughes, Joseph never claimed to consult a dead human.Wasn't Moroni dead?
LeSellers Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Wasn't Moroni dead?The issue is, I believe, the word "consult".However, the answer to your question, "Wasn't Moroni dead?" is, "No, Moroni was resurrected; he was, and is, very much alive."Lehi
altersteve Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Wasn't Moroni dead?Was Jesus dead when He rose from the tomb?
Jaybear Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 (edited) The issue is, I believe, the word "consult".However, the answer to your question, "Wasn't Moroni dead?" is, "No, Moroni was resurrected; he was, and is, very much alive."LehiI think I got it.Smith "talked to" "spoke with" and "learned from" a human who had died, but he did not "consult with" a "dead" human.Thank you for that clarification. Edited October 18, 2011 by Jaybear
wenglund Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I think Hughes is misguidedly attempting a "gotcha" by using his/her own variation of conflating the notion of "speaking as if from the dust" with the notion of "familiar spirits."Thanks, -Wade Englund-
LeSellers Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I think I got it.Smith "talked to" "spoke with" and "learned from" a human who had died, but he did not "consult with" a "dead" human.Thank you for that clarification.No, sorry, you do not "got it".The verb "consult" is different from the verb "consult with". "Consult" implies (if it does not outright demand) that the consultee (it's a word now) initiate the contact. "Consult with" does not specify who began the dialogue.Recall, I pray thee, that Joseph did not ask for Moroni to come to him that night in September 1823, he expected to have another vision from and of God, not of a "dead" man he neither knew, nor had heard of.As to whether Moroni's visit constituted "necromancy", it rather does require that the consultor (also now a word) be "dead". Moroni was not.Lehi
William Schryver Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I think I got it.Smith "talked to" "spoke with" and "learned from" a human who had died, but he did not "consult with" a "dead" human.Thank you for that clarification.Just like when he "spoke with" and "learned from" God the Father and Jesus Christ during the First Vision--two men who had previously died and then been resurrected.
David T Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I think it's a matter, once again, of asserting that Old Testament/Deuteronomical Israelite National regulation have binding relevance on... anyone today.The Israelites were lawfully prohibited from speaking with or seeking council from what were percieved as shades of the dead who were residing in Sheol, those whom the author of Ecclesiastes, as well as a great deal of the ancient world, believed, "Know nothing at all." Modern theology has a different view or understanding of the dead, wherein the righteous dead actually know quite a lot, and Joseph even presented ways, according to his present understanding and worldview, how one should differentiate between the 'good spirits' and the 'bad'.I don't think we need to resort to special pleading in redefining terms to say, "You're right. That's how things were then. Things are different now. We're okay with that."We are not holden to the specifics of the highly polemic Deuteronomic Israelite Law.
Recommended Posts