Joseph'S Use Of Seership And The Seer Stone Before The Bom

[DBMormon]

Whether it is called Scrying or witchcraft or divining doesn't matter. It's all humbug. It doesn't work.

What about casting lots to choose an apostle or mixing spit and dirt to cure blindness? using normal objects to induce revelation

[bcuzbcuz]

And thus the presentist mindset expresses itself.

Thank you. At least, I think I Thank you very much. I have never been called a "presentist" before. I had to look it up. Now that I have looked it up, I'm even more confused as to how you decided that I was a "presentist", but thank you, nevertheless.

[bcuzbcuz]

Except you are using a different kind of definition of "work." Of course it worked. If it didn't, so many people in so many cultures wouldn't have done it. The problem is, that what is working isn't the way that it is explained. Seer stones don't work, but something works that they found inexplicable and was associated with the seer stones.

The problem comes when we mix cultures, definitions, and expectations. Declaring that something doesn't work because we don't believe the explanation simply says that the explanation was wrong. You really have to look more closely at human behavior. There are too many people for whom scrying is a real event to suggest that something isn't happening. It requires looking at different causes. I suggest the brain.

I'm not the one equating seer stones with water divining. I have seen scrying, or water divining, both when it worked and when it didn't work. When it didn't work the water witcher said it was because certain people watching him did not believe and therefore disturbed his powers of witching. All I know is the farmer sunk a hole and his money over 40 feet into the ground and got nothing in return, except the advice that next time he not bring along 'unbelievers'. That, to me, is humbug.

[bcuzbcuz]

What about casting lots to choose an apostle or mixing spit and dirt to cure blindness? using normal objects to induce revelation

My reference was, and I repeat, only about water witching. Water divining is common enough and the methods used variable enough so the outcomes can be tested. I've seen it done with a forked twig, and with two metal rods, with a right angle bend, positioned in rubber tubes that the diviner holds, one in each hand. (I have no opinion about seer stones or urim and thummin or mixing spit and dirt to cure someone....because I've never seen it) I just do not see how water divining can be put on equal footing to translating scripture..?

I have an air humidity indicator outside my house made out of broken off twig from a Beech branch (Fagus sylvatica). When the weather is fair or going to be fair, it bends upward. The degree of upturn is representative of how fair the weather will be. When it is about to rain, the twig goes either straight or turns down. Again, the intensity of the weather is indicated in the degree of bend. This twig works summer or winter. This, however, is a far cry from scrying (pun intended).

[bcuzbcuz]

I think scrying helped Joseph become accustomed to seeing what couldn't be seen with the "physical" eyes.

And we know this because????? Isn't that just 'post hoc' thinking?

[bcuzbcuz]

You would never know if you never witnessed it.

Ah, but I have seen it. And seeing does not make me a believer.

[Glenn101]

I'm not the one equating seer stones with water divining. I have seen scrying, or water divining, both when it worked and when it didn't work. When it didn't work the water witcher said it was because certain people watching him did not believe and therefore disturbed his powers of witching. All I know is the farmer sunk a hole and his money over 40 feet into the ground and got nothing in return, except the advice that next time he not bring along 'unbelievers'. That, to me, is humbug.

I have seen something similar by a person looking for the location of a metal pipe in the ground. He used a parts of a wire clothes hanger bent at right angles, one held in each hand. He held the wires parallel, maybe four inches apart and walked across the yard. At one point, the wires moved toward each other and actually made an "X". When we dug down, sure enough we found the metal pipe. I don't know how it worked, but it did that time, for that man. I watched him pretty closely to see if he manipulated the wires with his fingers but could not detect any movement. I am not exactly a believer, but I have a more open mind since that episode.

Glenn

[Brant Gardner]

I have seen scrying, or water divining,

scrying and water divining are different methods with different purposes.

When it didn't work the water witcher said it was because certain people watching him did not believe and therefore disturbed his powers of witching. All I know is the farmer sunk a hole and his money over 40 feet into the ground and got nothing in return, except the advice that next time he not bring along 'unbelievers'. That, to me, is humbug.

Take yourself back a few hundred years and try to explain the same sometimes-it-works-sometimes-it-doesn't problem. What you are calling humbug is a real problem that people experienced. It isn't related to modern science. It was around (including the explanations) before we had science.

[DBMormon]

I think we are all presentist. In no way can any of us really understand what those of the 1800's trully thought about the things around them. It gets even harder the further back we go. Egyptians and their dynamic pyramids and other genius undertakings, the jews and their faith, Abraham and his dealings. We are to liken the scriptures unto ourselves, so even God asks us to usually take a presentism attitude. We just have to be careful that we don't take others in a different culture or time and judge them by ours.

Edited June 20, 2012 by reelmormon

[Jaybear]

Take yourself back a few hundred years and try to explain the same sometimes-it-works-sometimes-it-doesn't problem. What you are calling humbug is a real problem that people experienced. It isn't related to modern science. It was around (including the explanations) before we had science.

Your explanation ... that he used to the stone to harness an inherent mental power that he already had ... has nothing to do with modern science. Its an apologetic explanation, driven by the modern realization that rocks don't have special powers, and premised on the unquestioned assumption that Smith was neither deluded nor engaging in fraud, when he led others to believe that he could locate treasure buried beneath the earth, by the use of seer stone.

The modern explanation is that Smith used the stone, not because it had special powers, but because people believed that it had special powers. People no longer believe that, but some still believe in astrology, tea leaves, palm reading, and water witches. The only invisible hand at work is that of the market. Where there are people that objects have mystical powers, there will always be people who will be there to take their money, by purporting to have a special ability to tap into the mystical powers.

Were it anyone but Smith taking money from an elderly man, on the premise that he had the special ability to locate buried treasure through the use of the seer stone, I doubt any of you sitting on a jury would hesitate to find him guilty of criminal fraud.

BTW, for those of you who assert that critics who point to Smith's glass looking as evidence of fraud, are guilty of presentism, does this mean Isaac Hale was guilty of futurism when he said this:

“I first became acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jr. in November, 1825. He was at that time in the employ of a set of men who were called ‘money -diggers;’ and his occupation was that of seeing, or pretending to see by means of a stone placed in his hat, and his hat closed over his face…. The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!”

[volgadon]

And we know this because????? Isn't that just 'post hoc' thinking?

This doesn't take huge leaps of logic. By very definition, a seer's role is to see things.

Someone who has a very physicalist mindset, for instance, isn't likely to be particularly receptive to visions and other things.

[DBMormon]

Jaybear - actually a jury might find him innocent. He had witnesses (11 witnesses) who credibly testified that what he was claiming to do was real. He also had the result (BOM) in hand which while the world can't understand, can't be simply dismissed or readily explained. He has a case!!

Edited June 20, 2012 by reelmormon

[mfbukowski]

Your explanation ... that he used to the stone to harness an inherent mental power that he already had ... has nothing to do with modern science. Its an apologetic explanation, driven by the modern realization that rocks don't have special powers, ...

And you are just as much an apologist for what you think is "modern science" which itself changes radically every couple of hundred years.

But unfortunately you are not even that familiar with the science. Have you ever heard of a rock that talks?

Galena is a semiconductor with a small bandgap of about 0.4 eV which found use in early wireless communication systems. For example, it was used as the crystal in crystal radio sets, in which it was used as a point-contact diode to detect the radio signals. The galena crystal was used with a safety pin or similar sharp wire, which was known as a "cat's whisker". Making such wireless sets was a popular home hobby in Britain and other European countries during the 1930s. Derbyshire was one of the main areas where galena was mined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena

Indeed the first time I made a crystal radio out of a coil of wire and a few other parts as a kid, I was dumbfounded that I could actually hear radio signals from such a simple device, and it almost really did seem as if the crystal was "talking".

And I am sure that Issac Newton would be dumbfounded but delighted with Quantum Mechanics. That's because he was a true scientist with a sense of willingness to give up old paradigms which are no more than linguistic descriptions of data.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[bcuzbcuz]

Someone who has a very physicalist mindset, for instance, isn't likely to be particularly receptive to visions and other things.

Point well taken. At the same time a spiritualist is predisposed to see the supernatural when the natural suffices and when the natural can even provide an answer that points in the opposite direction.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear - actually a jury might find him innocent. He had witnesses (11 witnesses) who credibly testified that what he was claiming to do was real. He also had the result (BOM) in hand which while the world can't understand, can't be simply dismissed or readily explained. He has a case!!

I was referring to fraud charges that could arise from exacting payment from an elderly gentleman by using his stone to tell him where to find buried treasure.

People who bought the BOM, walked away from the transaction with a book to read, sell, burn, or prop open a door.

[Brant Gardner]

I was referring to fraud charges that could arise from exacting payment from an elderly gentleman by using his stone to tell him where to find buried treasure.

Assuming your are referencing an actual hearing, you have not accurately represented the facts.

The elderly gentleman sought out Joseph. His nephew brought the case, not the elderly gentleman. The man who hired Joseph also testified in Joseph's behalf.

It is an interesting case in that the foundation was based on deception, and the defense was that there was no deception. It is really an interesting case, but not at all similar to your reference.

[cinepro]

I'm really surprised to see people defending "dowsing" in this day and age. Or maybe I'm not.

But either way, we should recognize that the ability to "dowse" water or minerals is one of the easiest claims to test. And it has been tested, and it fails

And it's not just dowsing for water. Here's a guy that can detect your body's nutritional needs!

About Dr. Needle's Dowsing For Health Program:

Dr. Needle's Dowsing For Health Program addresses the top three causes of disease: Incompatible Lectins, Nutritional Deficiencies, and Build-Up of Toxins

First, using a Pendulum, he will dowse more than 500 Proteins, Fruits, Vegetables, Grains, Nuts, Condiments, etc.for you and YOUR particular body. You will then be given a personalized eating plan that will enable you to concentrate on eating high vibrational beneficial foods, avoiding those that are not right/compatible for you.

Much of Dr. Needle's own research has focused on a 100-year-old science called "Lectinology" Lectinology is the study of lectins, which are protein chemicals found in every food. When we digest food,if lectins are compatible, normal digestion occurs. If the lectins are incompatible, a "clumping" of the blood takes place in various areas of the body, depending upon your genetic predispositions. Dr. Needle's experience has shown incompatible Lectins to be the origin of disease.

Next, Dr. Needle will provide the exact nutrients for underlying causes of disease. These nutrients will provide a high vibrational frequency to highly resonate with your body for optimum healing. In turn, these nutrients will help eliminate toxins in the body,the 3rd leading cause of disease.

After following Dr. Needle's recommendations, you will begin to live with optimum health, having increased energy, greater stamina, and an overall sense of well being.

Dr. Needle and his wife are in their 70's, and neither take over-the-counter or perscription drugs, because they do not need them.

Edited June 20, 2012 by cinepro

[Jaybear]

And you are just as much an apologist for what you think is "modern science" which itself changes radically every couple of hundred years.

I will let others more capable defend "modern science", I am simply pointing out that the obvious fact that the explanation he offered to explain the use of the rock is not by any stretch a "scientific" explanation.

Assuming your are referencing an actual hearing, you have not accurately represented the facts.

The elderly gentleman sought out Joseph. His nephew brought the case, not the elderly gentleman. The man who hired Joseph also testified in Joseph's behalf.

It is an interesting case in that the foundation was based on deception, and the defense was that there was no deception. It is really an interesting case, but not at all similar to your reference.

Please tell me what facts you think I got wrong?

Smith obtained funds from an elderly gentlemen who thought Smith could lead him to buried treasure by the use of a seer stone.

If that were to happen today, depending of the amount of the "fee", I would expect the state to bring charges, and for Smith to be convicted of the crime of theft by deception.

BTW, criminal fraud charges are brought by the state, not by the victim, and not by the victim's relative. So I presume what you meant to say was that the nephew "pressed" the state to pursue charges against Smith. The fact that the elderly victim is not aware that he was deceived, and does not press charges does not make a case interesting or unique.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Jaybear

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm really surprised to see people defending "dowsing" in this day and age. Or maybe I'm not.

I don't know whether you had me in mind when you made the above remark. But I wasn't defending it. I merely posted my experience in Iowa to illustrate that there are reputable people in this day and age who still believe in it. Ergo, it should be easier to understand that in Joseph's time and milieu it wasn't regarded as the nefarious activity that some presentist critics today want to make it out to be.

[Scott Lloyd]

Please tell me what facts you think I got wrong?

Smith obtained funds from an elderly gentlemen who thought Smith could lead him to buried treasure by the use of a seer stone.

If that were to happen today, depending of the amount of the "fee", I would expect the state to bring charges, and for Smith to be convicted of the crime of theft by deception.

For there to have been a crime in this instance, there had to have been a victim. As I understand it, Josiah Stoal's nephew, a disgruntled Methodist minister, endeavored to have Stoal called as a prosecution witness, but Stoal turned the tables on him and testified in Joseph's defense. Stoal was not the victim his nephew made him out to be.

No victim, no crime.

The nephew may not have liked how Stoal spent his money, but it was Stoal's money to spend, and apparently, Stoal testified he was not deceived.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

I don't know whether you had me in mind when you made the above remark. But I wasn't defending it. I merely posted my experience in Iowa to illustrate that there are reputable people in this day and age who still believe in it. Ergo, it should be easier to understand that in Joseph's time and milieu it wasn't regarded as the nefarious activity that some presentist critics today want to make it out to be.

Isaac Hale, and the prosecutor who brought charges against Smith for glass looking might take issue with your characterization of critics as presentists.

For there to be a crime, there has to be a victim. As I understand it, Josiah Stoal's nephew, a disgruntled Methodist minister, endeavored to have Stoal called as a prosecution witness, but Stoal turned the tables on him and testified in Joseph's defense. Stoal was not the victim his nephew made him out to be.

No victim, no crime.

Whether Stoal was a victim of deception is a factual questions that turns on whether Smith had the ability to find buried treasure by looking at a rock in his hat.

Stoal had no admissible evidence to offer to support the assertion that Smith had such a talent. He could only testify that he believed Smith had such a talent, which is germane to establish the element of the crime ... deception.

The prosecutor has a duty to pursue charges, even with a reluctant victim, not just for the victim, but to prevent other future victims of fraud.

BTW, are you saying you believe its possible for someone to find treasure buried beneath the earth by looking at a stone placed in a hat?

[bcuzbcuz]

No victim, no crime.

That statement is, far and away, more "presentist" than you can possibly imagine.

What does the statement "no victim, no crime" do to burden of proof? In fact, it sounds more like the defense mechanism used in modern drug cases by those wanting to use illegal drugs.

[Log]

That statement is, far and away, more "presentist" than you can possibly imagine.

Do tell. Better yet, do demonstrate. In the 1800's, if there was no victim, could there be a crime? What kinds of victimless crimes did they prosecute in the 1800's? Inquiring minds want to know.

[mfbukowski]

I will let others more capable defend "modern science", I am simply pointing out that the obvious fact that the explanation he offered to explain the use of the rock is not by any stretch a "scientific" explanation.

It doesn't appear that it was intended to be

[Scott Lloyd]

Isaac Hale, and the prosecutor who brought charges against Smith for glass looking might take issue with your characterization of critics as presentists.

The charge against Joseph was not glasslooking, it was "being a disorderly person." The fact is that people of the day — including members and ministers of established religions — accepted what might be regarded today as occultic practices and did not differentiate between those beliefs and their religious beliefs.

Whether Stoal was a victim of deception is a factual questions that turns on whether Smith had the ability to find buried treasure by looking at a rock in his hat.

Stoal had no admissible evidence to offer to support the assertion that Smith had such a talent. He could only testify that he believed Smith had such a talent, which is germane to establish the element of the crime ... deception.

Apparently the judge in this examination (it wasn't a trial) found there was no deception.

The prosecutor has a duty to pursue charges, even with a reluctant victim, not just for the victim, but to prevent other future victims of fraud.

It would seem the prosecutor did not prevail.

And I repeat: The charge in this case was not fraud but "being a disorderly person" and/or, by some accounts, "a vagrant." And as Hugh Nibley pointed out, it seems remarkable that the prosecutor would charge vagrancy when the case was brought in connection with Joseph's employment; i.e. how can he be a vagrant if he is employed?

BTW, are you saying you believe its possible for someone to find treasure buried beneath the earth by looking at a stone placed in a hat?

I say that I think it highly likely that Joseph and a good many, if not most, of his contemporaries believed that it was.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd