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

[Vance]

I agree there are no magic rocks, but I do not judge Joseph Smith for using them, God alone will judge all.

If they don't exist then JS didn't use them and God has nothing to condemn him for.

[Vance]

They can't be operating through a technology not yet known because they've never been shown to exist.

So? Just because they haven't been proven to exist doesn't mean they don't.

It is not unusual to claim something doesn't exist, right up until they are found.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11432

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I believe the seer stones and Urim and Thummim were elements to focus faith. In Joseph's and other's minds, they worked. When used in "magic" treasure hunting, I believe they were falsely attributed to magic. We have record of Joseph saying that he wasn't very good at it, as also that he tried to dissuade going treasure hunting (although his dad appears to have been more enthusiastic).

Anyway, dowsing rods, seer/peep stones, consecrated oil, crosses, relics, etc all help focus faith AND the mind. It appears this is never sinful until the object itself is worshipped (ala the brass serpent of Moses). For the most part, I think that water dowsers are successful because they pick up, probably subconsciously, on what features in the land indicate water being present. Geologists and other earth science people are trained in this to help determine areas to search for oil, old magma flows, and even ancient ruins. One believes it is science, the other some mysterious force. I believe it is all in the science and power of the mind. Having a divining rod and being good at it means, to me, your real gift is to listen to your "instincts" when focusing. And that is a pretty powerful gift.

I also believe that when the mind is focused, as is faith, that is exactly when God is able to send revelation to you, among other things. Consecrated oil has no power in and of itself. But we use it to represent to God that we care enough for the sick that we will set aside something symbolic and keep it pure and holy. Then we apply it to the head and use it to help focus our faith. The Oil itself is still just oil. But our faith meeting with intense focus is what allows us to open communication with God. I believe that communication with God is through scientific principles that we as of yet do not understand, mainly some sort of device used to receive and possibly send impressions and thoughts via chemical reactions in the brain.

[cinepro]

Just so I'm clear, would any LDS in this thread have a problem with President Monson using a Ouija Board to focus his mind on spiritual things?

[mfbukowski]

They can't be operating through a technology not yet known because they've never been shown to exist.

Please tell me that now, in retrospect, you can see the circularity there.

In what sense do undiscovered species "exist"? Do they or don't they? How could you know either way? Certainly you cannot be saying that there are not unexplained phenomena, and that science knows all there is to be discovered?

Right now scientists are using a colliding protons in a 17 mile loop at a energy of four trillion electron volts to find the elusive Higgs Boson particle hinted to be at 125-6 billion electron volts of mass. Yet will all this knowledge about our physical universe it's worthwhile speculating that seer stones are operating using some yet unknown technology?

Why are they bothering with all this if they already know everything? It's good to know they are operating on faith that what they are looking for exists, though now it is only a "hint".

Either you believe in the possibilities of new discoveries or you don't, which is it? What kind of proposition is "x cannot exist because it would have already been found"?

[mfbukowski]

I believe the seer stones and Urim and Thummim were elements to focus faith. In Joseph's and other's minds, they worked.

Totally agree, incidentally. What we don't know about- we don't know about. It doesn't matter much about how something works that we don't know how it works.

As far as I am concerned, much of what is under the hood of my car is a "black box", but I drive just fine.

[mfbukowski]

Just so I'm clear, would any LDS in this thread have a problem with President Monson using a Ouija Board to focus his mind on spiritual things?

Like I said about Joseph- I wouldn't care if he spends hours staring at the wall paper to focus his mind- it really doesn't matter. If he receives a revelation, and I receive the same revelation, that is all that matters to me.

We are not talking about objective observations here, but what works in our lives. You can't prove that murder is "bad" by observation either, but we all know it is.

[cinepro]

In what sense do undiscovered species "exist"? Do they or don't they? How could you know either way? Certainly you cannot be saying that there are not unexplained phenomena, and that science knows all there is to be discovered?

The real circular reasoning is the argument that belief in the "unknown" is just as valid as belief in the "known" if only because the "known" was once "unknown".

In other words, to use your "undiscovered species" analogy, seer stones are like pink unicorns. Before we argue about whether or not it is ethical to eat pink unicorn meat, we should probably establish whether or not any such animals exist. Likewise, before we argue about the appropriateness of Joseph Smith's use of the power of the seer stone, we should probably establish whether or not such a power exists.

It would appear that some LDS would be moving away from a belief in supernatural seer stones and instead see them as spiritual placebos. This shift in thought could be extremely good or extremely bad, depending on where it ultimately leads.

Edited June 22, 2012 by cinepro

[phaedrus ut]

Please tell me that now, in retrospect, you can see the circularity there.

In what sense do undiscovered species "exist"? Do they or don't they? How could you know either way? Certainly you cannot be saying that there are not unexplained phenomena, and that science knows all there is to be discovered?

There is no circularity in asking to deal in only reality. 100% of everything is possible with a infinite number of explanations with you're dealing with imaginary possibilities.

Why are they bothering with all this if they already know everything? It's good to know they are operating on faith that what they are looking for exists, though now it is only a "hint".

Either you believe in the possibilities of new discoveries or you don't, which is it? What kind of proposition is "x cannot exist because it would have already been found"?

You're asking for speculation about a power unknown to this physical universe that seems to have it's own independent intelligence and a ability to be unburdened by the constraints of time, space and can talk directly to the mind of not only it's human operator but also the omniscient being that's in control of the universe. The scientists at CERN aren't looking for the unknown they are looking for greater explanation and knowledge about our universe. Specifically they are applying the scientific method to test a hypothesis about sub atomic particles.

I propose we use the scientific method to test seer stones. Oh wait we can't because they're imaginary and can't be tested.

Phaedrus

[mfbukowski]

The real circular reasoning is the argument that belief in the "unknown" is just as valid as belief in the "known" if only because the "known" was once "unknown".

Nope. I do not believe in the unknown. In fact I say it doesn't exist in a sense. If you have been reading what i have said at all I have said repeatedly is that there can be no reality we cannot experience. The only question is, is it subjective experience or objective experience. Subjective experience is where we know we have choice and where we construct meaning in our lives. Objective experience is only good for telling us how to do things- not why they are important. Computers and machines can give us data "they" have "observed" but cannot give that data meaning.

In fact it is argued that the way we will know when computers have reached "consciousness" is when they will understand and interpret the data they have been given independent of a specific program that tells them what to look for. Giving meaning to data is what humans do- otherwise data is just a stream of binary jibberish. Observations are data- it is what we do with that data that counts.

You cannot determine morals objectively yet we all know what is right and wrong. Why is that? Can a computer tell us if abortion is wrong? Why not? Will more data help that computer decide?

In other words, to use your "undiscovered species" analogy, seer stones are like pink unicorns.

Pink unicorns do not exist and are not real because no one has experienced them. I experience God daily.

It would appear that some LDS would be moving away from a belief in supernatural seer stones and instead see them as spiritual placebos.

The words "placebo" and "placebo effect" are virtually synonymous with "unknown phenomena". Please describe scientifically how placebos work and how that is known if you think I am wrong. The point is that placebos are given as a control in an experiment, but they still work. They are ascribed to work because of unknown "psychosomatic phenomena" which is just a fancy way of saying "we don't know why they work".

It's like saying sleeping pills work because they put you to sleep- there is no explanation there of what the "placebo effect" actually is. Anyway you cut it, whatever you name it, unknown phenomena are unknown phenomena.

[mfbukowski]

There is no circularity in asking to deal in only reality. 100% of everything is possible with a infinite number of explanations with you're dealing with imaginary possibilities.

You're asking for speculation about a power unknown to this physical universe that seems to have it's own independent intelligence and a ability to be unburdened by the constraints of time, space and can talk directly to the mind of not only it's human operator but also the omniscient being that's in control of the universe. The scientists at CERN aren't looking for the unknown they are looking for greater explanation and knowledge about our universe. Specifically they are applying the scientific method to test a hypothesis about sub atomic particles.

I propose we use the scientific method to test seer stones. Oh wait we can't because they're imaginary and can't be tested.

Phaedrus

See the above. Same answer.

[cinepro]

Like I said about Joseph- I wouldn't care if he spends hours staring at the wall paper to focus his mind- it really doesn't matter. If he receives a revelation, and I receive the same revelation, that is all that matters to me.

I suspect that if Joseph had spend hours staring at the wall paper, no one else would care either.

But unfortunately, he didn't. He used a seer stone, through which he (and others) assumed he was getting revelation from God.

And that's pretty different than just looking at wall paper.

[Aliwe]

If they don't exist then JS didn't use them and God has nothing to condemn him for.

Other gods don't exist either, but in Torah God forbids making images of them and bowing down to them, just as he forbids divination.

[mfbukowski]

I suspect that if Joseph had spend hours staring at the wall paper, no one else would care either.

But unfortunately, he didn't. He used a seer stone, through which he (and others) assumed he was getting revelation from God.

And that's pretty different than just looking at wall paper.

How is staring at the wallpaper and getting revelation any different from staring at a seer stone??

[mfbukowski]

Other gods don't exist either, but in Torah God forbids making images of them and bowing down to them, just as he forbids divination.

Your point? If God doesn't exist, who cares about what he doesn't say?

[Aliwe]

Your point? If God doesn't exist, who cares about what he doesn't say?

I believe you are deliberately misinterpreting my replies to raise my frustration level.

Pink unicorns do not exist and are not real because no one has experienced them. I experience God daily.

What exactly is the nature of your experience of God, and why would a believer in the Pink Unicorn be disqualified from making a similar claim of experience?

[Vance]

Other gods don't exist either, but in Torah God forbids making images of them and bowing down to them, just as he forbids divination.

The Bible says they do exist and that they recognize God as God. So now what?

[altersteve]

The Bible says they do exist and that they recognize God as God. So now what?

Extra-biblical scripture says the same thing.

[mfbukowski]

What exactly is the nature of your experience of God, and why would a believer in the Pink Unicorn be disqualified from making a similar claim of experience?

Your frustration level is your business. I am looking at arguments, that's all, if they make you frustrated don't blame it on me. I don't even know what it is you are arguing in favor of really. Sometimes you sound like a positivist and sometimes you sound like a fundamentalist.

If 14 million people said that they saw pink unicorns, it would be an interesting phenomenon indeed.

But we are not talking about seeing things, we are talking about feeling things. Since I don't know where you are coming from, I will give you two opposite arguments making the same point to see which resonates with you.

It's the old freedom vs determinism thing.

Suppose you are a scientist and believe that all thought comes down to physical actions and causes in our brains, and that we are in effect automatons and therefore that choice, like God, is an illusion.

Now let's switch sides. Suppose you are a fundamentalist and believe that God knows all things, including the future. If that is the case, he knows whether or not you will answer this post, and whatever choice you think you make, it will be an illusion because you cannot do other than what God already knows you will do.

So in either case, your will is determined and you have no choice.

Yet you know in your heart that you can decide to either answer this post or not answer it, and in deed will do one or the other.

The entire point is that arguing "rationally" is irrelevant to the facts of what you feel inside you - you know that you can choose to answer or not.

Choice is not an illusion. But that cannot be proven, yet you know it inside you. That is how I know God exists. I call "God" that little voice inside me who helps me find meaning in my life. That is how I define God. That little voice does exist, and I know it just as much as you know that you can choose to answer this or not.

[mfbukowski]

What exactly is the nature of your experience of God, and why would a believer in the Pink Unicorn be disqualified from making a similar claim of experience?

If you feel subjectively in your heart that pink unicorns exist, that is your business. But if you start seeing them and you start a pink unicorn club for people who feel the same way, good for you. Religion is a good thing.

Try talking to your unicorns and see if they answer.

[Vance]

Extra-biblical scripture says the same thing.

I'm thinking she doesn't recognize those as being authoritative.

I am making a big ASSUMPTION that she recognizes the Bible as being authoritative. We will see.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Other gods don't exist either, but in Torah

Just don't tell this to a Jew living at the time of Moses.

And actually there is quite a bit of scholarship that deals with these other "gods". According to the ancients (and it is still in the bible) that they believed that these other gods were real divine beings.

Some of the language is quite interesting too.

I think the bible makes a strong case for believing that there are more divine beings than just God.

[Aliwe]

I think the bible makes a strong case for believing that there are more divine beings than just God.

On the contrary, it is written (1 Cor 8:4) As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[Ron Beron]

On the contrary, it is written (1 Cor 8:4) As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

I think the individuals here are making an reference to a oft-repeated thread on the Divine Council which is found in Psalms 82, Job, etc. It is not that a belief in multiple gods is suggested only that divinity is not found only in God, but in a Divine Council and ultimately us as well.

[Aliwe]

If 14 million people said that they saw pink unicorns, it would be an interesting phenomenon indeed.

But it would remain an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.

Suppose you are a fundamentalist and believe that God knows all things, including the future.

There is no time, not in the sense that it's a river like many people have come to believe. Some Christians will object that this limits God, who can “see the end from the beginning” according to the scriptures, but we do not ask God to do impossible things, like create a four-sided triangle or a billiard ball that is simultaneously all black and all white. The future, like the past, does not and cannot exist, so even God can be forgiven for not knowing it. And this, in turn, guarantees that our will is always free.

Choice is not an illusion. But that cannot be proven, yet you know it inside you. That is how I know God exists. I call "God" that little voice inside me who helps me find meaning in my life. That is how I define God. That little voice does exist, and I know it just as much as you know that you can choose to answer this or not.

At the least, I will demonstrate to you why I believe there is no time and hence why my will is free. It assumes that you are aware (as Einstein showed in 1905) that the rate of elapsed time can be altered to maintain that the velocity of light remains equally rapid for all observers regardless of their motion.

1) Taryn and Karyn are identical twins.

2) In 2004 Karyn stays home, but Taryn flies to Alpha Centauri and back at very nearly the speed of light, a voyage that takes eight years of Karyn's time, but only a few days of Taryn's time.

3) Stay-at-home Karyn thinks its 2012, and she's physically eight years older than her sister.

4) Star-pilot Taryn thinks it's still 2004 and her ship's clock agrees. She is physically only a few days older.

5) When Taryn returns home, steps off her spaceship and meets her twin, what year is it, 2004 or 2012?

It doesn't matter! There is only a universal eternal NOW, but clocks and heartbeats can beat slower or faster depending on their relative motion or position within a gravity well. The implication is that even if you had a time machine, there would be no available destination. There is no future, nothing for a god or prophet to foresee, and the only past which endures exists in physical records (subject to redaction) and human memories