The Gift And Power Of God Translation

[Jaybear]

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

Necromancy, visitation by resurrected Nephites, different peas, same pod.

Both involve the claimed ability to communicate with someone who has passed on.

[LeSellers]

Necromancy, visitation by resurrected Nephites, different peas, same pod.

Not the same pod, not even two peas.

One dry, shriveled pea, one resurrected human being.

Both involve the claimed ability to communicate with someone who has passed on.

So you claim. The definition of "necromancy" is communication with the dead.Moroni was not dead, he was alive; ergo, it was not necromancy.

Lehi

[altersteve]

Necromancy, visitation by resurrected Nephites, different peas, same pod.

Both involve the claimed ability to communicate with someone who has passed on.

Do you pray to Jesus? If so, then you too claim to have the ability to communicate with someone who has passed on. So did all those who spoke to Jesus after His resurrection.

[Hughes]

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

No one who talks to the dead thinks they are dead (as in non-responsive). Rather, that they have left this present world. Which would be an accurate characterization of Moroni, would it not?

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.

You're not holden to anything, however Christians are.

[altersteve]

No one who talks to the dead thinks they are dead (as in non-responsive). Rather, that they have left this present world. Which would be an accurate characterization of Moroni, would it not?

Yes, Moroni has left the present world. But so has Jesus. But He's still alive, isn't He?

You're not holden to anything, however Christians are.

Latter-day Saints are Christians, so this doesn't make any sense.

[LeSellers]

No one who talks to the dead thinks they are dead (as in non-responsive). Rather, that they have left this present world. Which would be an accurate characterization of Moroni, would it not?

Not "accurate" at all, unless you'd accept that "U.S. Army General" was an accurate description of Dwight D. Eisenhower. It may be "correct", but it is hardly "accurate". It leaves out a lot of pertinent and important information.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

We are not holden to the specifics of the highly polemic Deuteronomic Israelite Law.

You're not holden to anything, however Christians are.

The only reasonable understanding of Hughes' assertion is that "Christians" (as he defines the term) are "holden" to "the highly polemic Deuteronomic Israelite Law", which is a laugh and three-quarters.

It took a half a minute for me to grasp why this was so wrong on the gut level: not only does Hughes (as "altersteve" pointed out) defy logic in claiming we are not Christians, he labels us antinomians of the very most libertine stripe.

We Saints are "holden" to a far greater number of things than the mass of Christianity he represents. We have made covenants, and have taken upon us the name of Christ in way he has not (and refuses to understand, and would reject if he did).

Lehi, among the most holden of all

Edited October 18, 2011 by LeSellers

[Hughes]

Yes, Moroni has left the present world. But so has Jesus. But He's still alive, isn't He?

Latter-day Saints are Christians, so this doesn't make any sense.

The comparison of a talking to the dead, with talking to Jesus is telling to say the least.

Is looking into crystals and seeing things, from God? Obviously if you're LDS you answer yes to that question.

And once you open that door, anything can be from God, even talking to the dead.

[Hughes]

The only reasonable understanding of Hughes' assertion is that "Christians" (as he defines the term) are "holden" to "the highly polemic Deuteronomic Israelite Law", which is a laugh and three-quarters.

It took a half a minute for me to grasp why this was so wrong on the gut level: not only does Hughes (as "altersteve" pointed out) defy logic in claiming we are not Christians, he labels us antinomians of the very most libertine stripe.

We Saints are "holden" to a far greater number of things than the mass of Christianity he represents. We have made covenants, and have taken upon us the name of Christ in way he has not (and refuses to understand, and would reject if he did).

Lehi, among the most holden of all

Which is very interesting, and telling. What did Jesus say in Matt 5:

33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

[LeSellers]

Which is very interesting, and telling. What did Jesus say in Matt 5:

33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Which has nothing to do with LDS covenants. We do not "foreswear" ourselves by Jerusalem, God (nor His footstool or throne). In fact, we do not "swear" when we make God's covenants, we say "Yes", in effect "yea, yea", and nothing more.

Lehi

[Ares]

The comparison of a talking to the dead, with talking to Jesus is telling to say the least.

Is looking into crystals and seeing things, from God? Obviously if you're LDS you answer yes to that question.

And once you open that door, anything can be from God, even talking to the dead.

Since you are unable to remember that insults and trolling resulted in your last several suspensions it seems that it is time to ban you.

[Cobalt-70]

Neither is particularly useful in an academic discussion. They are bandied about in popular literature, but virtually useless if you want to study religion.

I'd have to disagree. Magic is a useful category discussed in academic literature. The problem with the word occult is that it has become pejorative, and has incorrectly become associated with the Satanic. Magic is a bit less pejorative.

[Jaybear]

Do you pray to Jesus? If so, then you too claim to have the ability to communicate with someone who has passed on. So did all those who spoke to Jesus after His resurrection.

No. I don't claim to have the ability to communicate with humans who have died.

Nor do I pray to Jesus.

I will leave it up to you to personally opine on whether Jesus is a human who died.

[zerinus]

No one who talks to the dead thinks they are dead (as in non-responsive). Rather, that they have left this present world. Which would be an accurate characterization of Moroni, would it not?

John the Revelator seemed to have had a disposition for talking to the dead:

Revelation 22:

8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Jesus’ disciples seemed to have spent some time talking to the dead:

Acts 1:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Even the Jews at Jerusalem seemed to been spending time talking to the dead:

Matthew 27:

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Surprise, surprise!

You're not holden to anything, however Christians are.

You meant apostate Christians, right?

[Brant Gardner]

I'd have to disagree. Magic is a useful category discussed in academic literature. The problem with the word occult is that it has become pejorative, and has incorrectly become associated with the Satanic. Magic is a bit less pejorative.

Used, but not useful. What divides religion and magic? What constitutes one and not the other? If you can figure out a definition, you will be better than most. The problem is that certain actions that might be considered magic are also religion, if you look at them carefully. For example performing certain spells in particular words as a means of affecting the supernatural. Catholics recite specific prayers in repeated forms to influence the supernatural. The process is the same, but one is called religion and the other magic.

[shalamabobbi]

The comparison of a talking to the dead, with talking to Jesus is telling to say the least.

Is looking into crystals and seeing things, from God? Obviously if you're LDS you answer yes to that question.

And once you open that door, anything can be from God, even talking to the dead.

Wow. Once again your logic astounds me..

What was going on, on the mount of transfiguration?

[Cobalt-70]

Used, but not useful. What divides religion and magic? What constitutes one and not the other? If you can figure out a definition, you will be better than most. The problem is that certain actions that might be considered magic are also religion, if you look at them carefully. For example performing certain spells in particular words as a means of affecting the supernatural. Catholics recite specific prayers in repeated forms to influence the supernatural. The process is the same, but one is called religion and the other magic.

Nobody said that magic and religion have to be exclusive categories. Much of religion is magic, and much of magic is religious. For example, all magic practiced by Wiccans is religious in nature. On the other hand, some forms of magic, like crossing one's fingers or avoiding the number 13, are not religious. Some Christian rituals and acts are magic, such as faith healing and exorcism. Moses turning his rod into a snake was magic, as was Jesus converting water into wine. Some religious acts are not magic, such as prayers of thanks. The Eucharist is magic for Catholics, but non-magic for Protestants. Rituals that are purely religious are merely symbolic, whereas magic religious rituals create or respond to a connection between the ethereal world and the world of matter. Use of seer stones and divining rods, and the casting of lots to discern God's will are clearly magic, and come from a long magical tradition.

[Cobalt-70]

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?

Joseph Smith believed otherwise. He believed that through crystallomancy, he could discern knowledge through the power of Holy Spirit, which is one of many examples of people using magic within the context of Christianity.

[stemelbow]

Hughes,

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.

Well, will you please define your terms. I'm having a hard time making them all fit in the context of htis thread. So how did JS practice crystallomancy and how is that equal to "consulting with familiar spirits"? What is familiar spirits in your view?

[wenglund]

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.

I believe there is a reason that the Deuteronomic law was instituted in ancient times, and I don't know that it doesn't still hold true today. As I see it, necromancy or "having a familiar spirit" was a form of idolatry, where the advice of the dead rather than God was being sought--the dead, or the gods, were being preferred over God. This sort of communication with spirits was prohibited because it was contrary to the will of God. Communication with angles sent by God, was not. I believe the same holds true today.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're not holden to anything, however Christians are.

Nice cheep dig Hughes.

I think if you read the bible you will find that every point you are bringing up actually supports our position and undermines yours.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since you are unable to remember that insults and trolling resulted in your last several suspensions it seems that it is time to ban you.

Did not see this before. I guess it was about time.