Return Of The Cross

[mfbukowski]

Plus, there's the Book of Mormon relics, some of which have magical powers: the gold plates, the Interpreters, the seer stones, the Liahona, the sword of Laban, the giant's breastplate, etc.

But of course those are not exactly sitting in a museum, temple or church or someone's living room, waiting to be used as sacred objects.

[saemo]

Why do beliefs change? That is a huge question!

I suppose the smarty pants answer is "Because God wants them to", or it could be that religion evolves, or that God changes, or that people no longer believe in the correct God, or that all religion is false, or that Zeus changed his mind, or that people just don't believe the old stuff anymore.

I mean- what kind of question IS that? All of those could be reasons for why Mormonism changes also, according to the person's opinion.

Why do I think Mormon doctrine changes? Because God changes and so does our understanding through personal revelation. Times change- we didn't used to need revelation about internet pornography for example, now we do. So what worked for previous generations doesn't work anymore and doctrine needs to be adjusted.

I think this example is different though, which is why I ask what this particular change is about. I wasn't asking about pornography. If people believed in sacred objects before, why would they not now?

Smarty pants answer = God doesn't use sacred objects anymore?

God changed = God decided sacred objects have no use anymore?

Understanding changed = they weren't really sacred objects after all?

Times changed = a culture answer?

I don't think these answer really get at how a people would go from believing and using sacred objects, to not, not unless you have a statement from LDS Church leaders that explains the change.

In Catholic theological explanations, you can trace the "train of thought" and see how the understanding of a subject changes and why. That train of thought, in regards to the Mormon use/view of sacred objects, is what I'm wondering about.

Edited March 26, 2012 by saemo

[Pahoran]

Plus, there's the Book of Mormon relics, some of which have magical powers: the gold plates, the Interpreters, the seer stones, the Liahona, the sword of Laban, the giant's breastplate, etc.

What "magical powers" were those?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I think this example is different though, which is why I ask what this particular change is about. I wasn't asking about pornography. If people believed in sacred objects before, why would they not now?

Smarty pants answer = God doesn't use sacred objects anymore?

God changed = God decided sacred objects have no use anymore?

Understanding changed = they weren't really sacred objects after all?

Times changed = a culture answer?

I don't think these answer really get at how a people would go from believing and using sacred objects, to not, not unless you have a statement from LDS Church leaders that explains the change.

In Catholic theological explanations, you can trace the "train of thought" and see how the understanding of a subject changes and why. That train of thought, in regards to the Mormon use/view of sacred objects, is what I'm wondering about.

How about this: There is no "change" to explain because there was no "Mormon use/view of sacred objects" to talk about.

One man in 1857 had a view on the subject. Mr Reed, as usual, parlays this single remark into an entire "lost tradition," but it was nothing of the sort. No doubt we can expect to see a book come out in which all sorts of innocent remarks or conventional architectural flourishes are stretched to provide substance for this imaginary tradition; but it never existed. It was Heber C. Kimball making a remark out in left field.

And that's all it ever was.

Regards,

Pahoran

[saemo]

How about this: There is no "change" to explain because there was no "Mormon use/view of sacred objects" to talk about.

One man in 1857 had a view on the subject. Mr Reed, as usual, parlays this single remark into an entire "lost tradition," but it was nothing of the sort. No doubt we can expect to see a book come out in which all sorts of innocent remarks or conventional architectural flourishes are stretched to provide substance for this imaginary tradition; but it never existed. It was Heber C. Kimball making a remark out in left field.

And that's all it ever was.

Regards,

Pahoran

Urim and thummim, golden plates, Jupiter talisman, scrying stones...just a few sacred objects I can think of off the top of my head. Obviously, there is an explanation for no longer using the first two.

I'm not trying to get water from a rock here, if "just cuz" is the explanation, then that is the explanation. I'm just curious.

[Pahoran]

Urim and thummim, golden plates, Jupiter talisman,

Did you really think you could slip that in without anyone noticing?

There is no contemporary evidence that Joseph ever owned the so-called "Jupiter Talisman," and consequently no evidence of what (if anything) it meant to him if indeed he ever did lay eyes on it.

It's one of those "red flag" subjects. The people who bring it up are are effectively waving a red flag and shouting, "Gotcha! Gotcha! Gotcha!"

Well, you didn't.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Did you really think you could slip that in without anyone noticing?

There is no contemporary evidence that Joseph ever owned the so-called "Jupiter Talisman," and consequently no evidence of what (if anything) it meant to him if indeed he ever did lay eyes on it.

It's one of those "red flag" subjects. The people who bring it up are are effectively waving a red flag and shouting, "Gotcha! Gotcha! Gotcha!"

Well, you didn't.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Just for laughs, perhaps we can persuade saemo to tell us what she thinks she knows about this "Jupiter Talisman" and what her source of information is.

[Pahoran]

Just for laughs, perhaps we can persuade saemo to tell us what she thinks she knows about this "Jupiter Talisman" and what her source of information is.

Good luck with that!

Regards,

Pahoran

[saemo]

Did you really think you could slip that in without anyone noticing?

There is no contemporary evidence that Joseph ever owned the so-called "Jupiter Talisman," and consequently no evidence of what (if anything) it meant to him if indeed he ever did lay eyes on it.

It's one of those "red flag" subjects. The people who bring it up are are effectively waving a red flag and shouting, "Gotcha! Gotcha! Gotcha!"

Well, you didn't.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

Forget the talisman then. There's still 3 other items in the list I came up with.

[Mike Reed]

How about this: There is no "change" to explain because there was no "Mormon use/view of sacred objects" to talk about.

One man in 1857 had a view on the subject. Mr Reed, as usual, parlays this single remark into an entire "lost tradition," but it was nothing of the sort. No doubt we can expect to see a book come out in which all sorts of innocent remarks or conventional architectural flourishes are stretched to provide substance for this imaginary tradition; but it never existed. It was Heber C. Kimball making a remark out in left field.

And that's all it ever was.

Regards,

Pahoran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr7djGY1fhA

[Cobalt-70]

But of course those are not exactly sitting in a museum, temple or church or someone's living room, waiting to be used as sacred objects.

Supposedly, they are in a cave, or otherwise buried somewhere in the hill Cumorah. Joseph Smith's black seer stone (the one he translated the Book of Mormon with) is in the First Presidency vault.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

What "magical powers" were those?

I think you already know. The golden plates were magically sealed. The Urim and Thummim and the seer stones had the power to show the translation of ancient texts. The Liahona had the power to tell you which direction to go. I don't think the sword of Laban had any magical powers, but it was treated as a sacred relic, as were the giant's breastplate and the brass plates.

[Pahoran]

I think you already know.

I know when someone's spouting nonsense.

The golden plates were magically sealed.

Rubbish. They were sealed by some mechanical means, such as by being bound or soldered together.

The Urim and Thummim and the seer stones had the power to show the translation of ancient texts.

They could be used for that purpose by someone who had the gift to translate and who was spiritually prepared. There was no "power" in them.

The Liahona had the power to tell you which direction to go.

It worked according to their faith, righteousness and the heed they gave to it. IOW, we're back to spiritual preparedness again.

I don't think the sword of Laban had any magical powers,

Neither did any of the others.

but it was treated as a sacred relic, as were the giant's breastplate and the brass plates.

Or the English Crown Jewels or other national treasures.

So much for those. Oh well, I suppose you could always fall back on the favourite derisive stand-by: "magic underwear."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

Urim and thummim, golden plates, Jupiter talisman, scrying stones...just a few sacred objects I can think of off the top of my head. Obviously, there is an explanation for no longer using the first two.

I'm not trying to get water from a rock here, if "just cuz" is the explanation, then that is the explanation. I'm just curious.

I wish I could view this as a sincere question, but you have long since proved that sincerely regarding LDS topics is beyond you. How quickly you condemn a LDS as just repeating anti-Catholic and you come up with this. Smug hypocrisy comes to mind.

[saemo]

I wish I could view this as a sincere question, but you have long since proved that sincerely regarding LDS topics is beyond you. How quickly you condemn a LDS as just repeating anti-Catholic and you come up with this. Smug hypocrisy comes to mind.

Whatever. I just see it as there is no answer so the solution is to attack me personally. Make me the subject or Mike Reed or anything else but the subject itself. I'm not the subject of this thread.

After thinking on what I'm asking, and what I've been reading elsewhere from LDS blogs, lds.org, etc. I've come to the conclusion that it is one of the many things in Mormonism where there is no definition. Each person can believe what they like (and do). I thank Pahoran, really, for turning my thoughts that direction, when he said what Mike Reed posted was just one's person opinion.

Edited March 27, 2012 by saemo

[Cobalt-70]

Rubbish. They were sealed by some mechanical means, such as by being bound or soldered together.

Not according to the Book of Mormon itself. 2 Nephi 27:10 says, "For the book shall be sealed by the power of God." (Not "by the power of solder.") Moreover, according to a church publication in 1835, the Angel Moroni said that the plates were "sealed by the prayer of faith," http://www.centerplace.org/history/ma/v2n01.htm#198.

They could be used for that purpose by someone who had the gift to translate and who was spiritually prepared. There was no "power" in them.

See David Whitmer, who said that occasionally, Smith "was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together." (Chicago Times, 11 Aug. 1875)

[Pahoran]

Not according to the Book of Mormon itself. 2 Nephi 27:10 says, "For the book shall be sealed by the power of God." (Not "by the power of solder.") Moreover, according to a church publication in 1835, the Angel Moroni said that the plates were "sealed by the prayer of faith," http://www.centerpla...a/v2n01.htm#198.

Well, I've seen witness statements to the effect that the plates were sealed mechanically. But for the purposes of this discussion, I'm happy to accept your over-literal interpretation of 2 Nephi, since that likewise refutes the claim that the plates were sealed by some "magical power" of their own.

That's right, Cobalt; you've yet again managed to provide a supporting reference that actually contradicts your claim.

Don't you ever get tired of that?

See David Whitmer, who said that occasionally, Smith "was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together." (Chicago Times, 11 Aug. 1875)

Cobalt, it's such a pity I'm not a betting man.

Because if I was, I'd have $100 that says the excerpt you've quoted is not David Whitmer's own words, but the snide editorialising of the journalist who wrote the piece.

And I'd have an additional thousand that would say you knew that all along.

So tell us, Cobalt: where can we read this article in its entirety?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Log]

What's the word for someone who represents that he's a member of a group, but the effect of whose words and efforts is to undermine the group?

[Cobalt-70]

Well, I've seen witness statements to the effect that the plates were sealed mechanically. But for the purposes of this discussion, I'm happy to accept your over-literal interpretation of 2 Nephi, since that likewise refutes the claim that the plates were sealed by some "magical power" of their own.

That's right, Cobalt; you've yet again managed to provide a supporting reference that actually contradicts your claim.

If a set of golden plates are sealed "by the power of God" or by the power of prayer, that is a supernatural sealing. If you can't open a book because of some power or spell that God put upon it, then you have a magical book.

Because if I was, I'd have $100 that says the excerpt you've quoted is not David Whitmer's own words, but the snide editorialising of the journalist who wrote the piece.

And I'd have an additional thousand that would say you knew that all along.

So tell us, Cobalt: where can we read this article in its entirety?

You can read the article any time you want. It's not secret. The Whitmer quotes in this article, by the way, that has been quoted countless times by Mormon apologists to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I'd think twice before saying that the quotes attributed to him are unreliable, because you'd be shooting the rest of us in the foot.

[LeSellers]

What's the word for someone who represents that he's a member of a group, but the effect of whose words and efforts is to undermine the group?

"Traitor" leaps to mind. But I am a retired military officer, and so such things often have a black'n'white cast to them.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The Whitmer quotes in this article, by the way, that has been quoted countless times by Mormon apologists to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I'd think twice before saying that the quotes attributed to him are unreliable, because you'd be shooting the rest of us in the foot.

Are you seriously trying to label yourself a "Mormon apologist"?

Lehi

[Storm Rider]

Whatever. I just see it as there is no answer so the solution is to attack me personally. Make me the subject or Mike Reed or anything else but the subject itself. I'm not the subject of this thread.

After thinking on what I'm asking, and what I've been reading elsewhere from LDS blogs, lds.org, etc. I've come to the conclusion that it is one of the many things in Mormonism where there is no definition. Each person can believe what they like (and do). I thank Pahoran, really, for turning my thoughts that direction, when he said what Mike Reed posted was just one's person opinion.

No Saemo, I know thee now and I reject your smug attempts to twist words, assume conclusions, and distort the truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't answer your bloody questions because I reject their motivation and it is a total lack of time. You are not sincere and and you could not care less what we say; you have your own agenda and that is all that is necessary for you. You will keep your head in the sand.....I don't need to go on. This is a waste. May God have mercy on your soul.

[Hestia]

This thread has gone downhill. Time to end its misery.