Urim And Thummin

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If I remember correctly, it had been mentioned by someone on this forum that the lds church does not mention the urim and thummin for the translation process. This is not true. In the june 2012 Liahona page 55 the urim and thummin is mentioned for the translation process.

Gift and Power of God

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon “through the mercy of God, by the power of God” (D&C 1:29) and “by the means which were before prepared” (D&C 20:8), including the Urim and Thummim.

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/06/doctrine-and-covenants-1353?lang=eng

I see no hiding of the process.

The Church had the U&T while in Nauvoo...I wonder if we still do? Hyrum told Joseph to use it when dictating D&C132.

[thews]

If magic were repeatable? That is the point, it is repeatable.

Let me define repeatable... the results, which it's not repeatable. If you disagree, please give me a CFR to examin. Magical thinking may imply a person believes in magic and the end result is correct. If a fortune teller tells me I'll die in 6 months, 2 days and 4 hours, and I do, the result would be exact. If that same fortune teller did this 100 times and only got it right one time, then it's not repeatable. A diving rod may "work" because the vibration of the water is felt my the person using it... that would be science.

Perhaps not to an exacting a degree as western science would demand, but if it never worked, people would not use it.

I disagree. A Ouija board is used by a lot of people who believe it works. Is your argument claiming it does work and therefore verifies the magic behind it works too?

That a phenomenon might be poorly understood does not rule out its existence. All it shows is our current state of knowledge.

Then you imply magic will someday be understood to explain why it works? Please give me one example where magic has been proven to work.

The better you know something, the more capable you are of harnessing and exploiting it. Though neither of us are electricians, who would have a better chance at designing a succesful electric circuit, yours truly, or Grigori Perelman, the mathematician who turned down a 1 million dollar Millenium prize?

I've worked with electricity most of my life. Ohms law dictates why it works and how it works. I fail to see your point.

I don't know by what power a crystal gazer sees things. Research is not that far advanced.

Again you imply it (research) will someday answer this question... I disagree, as it hasn't been proven to work.

[thews]

It reallyy doesn't matter what someones opinion happens to be about how it is done if someone can do it, it only matters that they can.

I disagree. By your logic, using a Ouija board to predict something is ok as long as it works. I think we'd both agree that the source of the supposed power is so-called "black" magic, or not of God.

[thews]

The Church had the U&T while in Nauvoo...I wonder if we still do? Hyrum told Joseph to use it when dictating D&C132.

What is the Urim and Thummim? What object(s) are you referring to?

[volgadon]

I've worked with electricity most of my life. Ohms law dictates why it works and how it works. I fail to see your point.

What if one doesn't know, or doesn't have a clear understanding of Ohm's law?

[Robert F. Smith]

The scientific method is clearly defined as requiring proof and magic isn't real, so it can't be proven. If you're implying "magic" can be defined as a magnetic property for example, it's repeatable so it isn't magic... they are not the same things.

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

I don't understand your response to what I have written. Was there some statement I made which was incorrect? Howso?

I see no evidence from your statement here that you understand the scientific method or know how to apply it. Indeed, throughout this thread, I and others have repeatedly pointed out that modern electronic devices which would appear to be "magical" to people only a century and a half ago are now regarded as ordinary. You claim to be an expert in electricity. Yet, why is it so difficult for you to understand the function of natural, electrical properties as "magical" in a more primitive context? This has nothing whatever to do with the Amazing Randi and his legitimate challenge, but rather with closed minds who will not see how extraordinarily "magical" modern technology is -- all of it based firmly in the scientific method.

I see facts and not some supposed parallel arguments that attempt to negate the question. In regards to the OP, consider these facts:

1) The Nephite spectacles are clearly defined as being taken back per D&C 10 after the lost 116 pages.

2) The term "Urim and Thummim" was not first used until three years after the Book of Mormon was published.

3) Hyrum Smith (among others) referred to Joseph Smith's seer stones as the "Urim and Thummim" after 1840.

4) There is no Mormon historical reference to the Urim and Thummim being taken back, which is why the term was used after 1840.

5) There are multiple statements by more than one credible witness (to include Emma Smith) that defines the translation method as stone placed in a hat. It isn't "galsses" placed in a hat, but a stone (singular).

When taking the above facts into consideration, to imply the "Urim and Thummim" is anything but Joseph Smith's seer stones, is attempting to argue semantics based on their purpose and conflating the name. If you want to call me on defining distortion, it's correct. The distortion discounts the above when applying the name "Urim and Thummim" to the Nephite spectacles as they are different things than Joseph Smith's seer stones.

Repeating what you have said before, rather than responding to what I and others have written, doesn't serve any purpose. You are still ignoring the broad use of the term "Urim & Thummim" to cover a range of devices. If you have read my paper then you know when and who adopted such broader usage. I don't employ such usage myself because of my background and training in ancient Near Eastern studies. Those who employed terms in that fashion were not so trained and thought they saw similarities in application. I have covered this facet of real world usage in some detail in this thread, and have appealed to you to be reasonable in your understanding of such phenomena. Yet you persist in defining the issue as narrowly as possible, and even continue your own distortion by using the "incorrect" term Nephite "spectacles." Isn't the pot calling the kettle black?

[volgadon]

Let me define repeatable... the results, which it's not repeatable. If you disagree, please give me a CFR to examin.

Results are repeatable, or else none would use magic. If it must be a CFR, then first to come to Yaakov Habakuk's "Hayim Bemearot Har Hebron," Misrad HaBitachon, 1985. It is in Hebrew, though. http://books.google.com/books/about/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A8_%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F.html?id=OaELAAAAIAAJ Habakuk, an anthropologist, spent a few months living among the cave dwellers of southern Hebron. They told him that to fully understand their life, he needed to consult their soothsayer, whose prognostics were almost never wrong. Habakuk was reluctant, thinking it all a bunch of hooey. He did finally go, representing himself as a Bedouin wanting to know if his wife'll bear a son. She believed him- he looked Bedouin and spoke fluent Arabic- and told him to come back the next day. When he did, she very angrily accused him of lying, and reveleaed not only his real name, but also specific details from his life which only he knew. She also told him his future, which did come to pass in the same way foretold. She agreed to explain how she knew. Everyone, she said, has their spirit double, who when summoned, reveals what is known of the person.

[thews]

What if one doesn't know, or doesn't have a clear understanding of Ohm's law?

Take a class (or ten) and it will be defined for you.

[thews]

I don't understand your response to what I have written. Was there some statement I made which was incorrect? Howso?

This is what you said:

Scholars have great difficulty differentiating "magic" from "religion," and terms such as peep-stones, seer-stones, crystal balls, etc., may be applied by some "experts" to particular objects (including the stone borrowed from Sally Chase by Joseph), but I don't know of any scientific listing of proper terminology. Most of those who used such objects grew up hearing about them, and never gave a thought to questions of semantics or dictionary definition. I recall years ago working on a water-well drilling rig, and sometimes my boss and I would wait until the local farmer had witched the location where he wanted us to drill by using his dowsing rod. All in a day's work.

You used "scientific listing" to imply science was involved in defining magic.

I see no evidence from your statement here that you understand the scientific method or know how to apply it.

I would counter with the same, as the scientific method requires a process that is repeatable, while you imply (correct me if I'm wrong), that magic and science are somehow related, when you don't believe in magic.

Indeed, throughout this thread, I and others have repeatedly pointed out that modern electronic devices which would appear to be "magical" to people only a century and a half ago are now regarded as ordinary.

Your point is moot and used to add distortion IMO. Fire may have seemed "magical" to cavemen, but it's not magic. What would seem "magical" before it existed is just an observation relative to what existed at the time.

You claim to be an expert in electricity.

I didn't say that... I said I've worked with electricity most of my life.

Yet, why is it so difficult for you to understand the function of natural, electrical properties as "magical" in a more primitive context?

Becuase it's not "magic" as you imply. The properties of electricity are quantified and the results can be measured with the same result every time. Put a 10 Ohm resistor across 10V and you'll draw an amp... every time.

This has nothing whatever to do with the Amazing Randi and his legitimate challenge, but rather with closed minds who will not see how extraordinarily "magical" modern technology is -- all of it based firmly in the scientific method.

I disagree, as the challenge by the Amazing Randy is to simply set up the boundary condition to prove whether or not the "magic" actually works without some form of trickery. The one million dollars is still unclaimed.

Repeating what you have said before, rather than responding to what I and others have written, doesn't serve any purpose.

And I would counter that you use parallel arguments in a failed attempt to negate the questions asked. Please, if you don't mind, to the OP, what object(s) is the term "the Urim and Thummim" referring to in Mormon history?

You are still ignoring the broad use of the term "Urim & Thummim" to cover a range of devices.

How can you state this when it's the question I'm asking? Please enlighten me... how can a term "the Urim and Thummim" cover a wide range of objects that have specific names? Are you implying the term "Urim and Thummim" is so universal that it encompasses many objects? If so, which objects specifically?

If you have read my paper then you know when and who adopted such broader usage.

This assumes I agree with you... I don't.

I don't employ such usage myself because of my background and training in ancient Near Eastern studies. Those who employed terms in that fashion were not so trained and thought they saw similarities in application. I have covered this facet of real world usage in some detail in this thread, and have appealed to you to be reasonable in your understanding of such phenomena. Yet you persist in defining the issue as narrowly as possible, and even continue your own distortion by using the "incorrect" term Nephite "spectacles." Isn't the pot calling the kettle black?

I don't understand your point because I don't think you've made one. Now, you're attempting to throw out credentials under the banner of "Scholar" to imply I'm unable to understand your point, when you've failed to answer a direct question. This tactic may fool some, but unless you make a stand and choose to define the term used and acknowledge the factual data it's an exercise in avoiding taking a stance IMO. One more time... when the term "Urim and Thummim" is used to describe LDS history, what device(s) does the term specifically encompass in your opinion?

[thews]

Results are repeatable, or else none would use magic. If it must be a CFR, then first to come to Yaakov Habakuk's "Hayim Bemearot Har Hebron," Misrad HaBitachon, 1985. It is in Hebrew, though. http://books.google....id=OaELAAAAIAAJ Habakuk, an anthropologist, spent a few months living among the cave dwellers of southern Hebron. They told him that to fully understand their life, he needed to consult their soothsayer, whose prognostics were almost never wrong. Habakuk was reluctant, thinking it all a bunch of hooey. He did finally go, representing himself as a Bedouin wanting to know if his wife'll bear a son. She believed him- he looked Bedouin and spoke fluent Arabic- and told him to come back the next day. When he did, she very angrily accused him of lying, and reveleaed not only his real name, but also specific details from his life which only he knew. She also told him his future, which did come to pass in the same way foretold. She agreed to explain how she knew. Everyone, she said, has their spirit double, who when summoned, reveals what is known of the person.

Does the above example attempt to "prove" magic works just because someone believes it does? If so, I disagree as it's simply what one person believes to be true, rather than what is true.

Deuteronomy 18:9-13

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+18&version=NIV

⁹ When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. ¹⁰ Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, ¹¹ or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. ¹²Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. ¹³ You must be blameless before the Lord your God.

In the above bible quote, it clearly defines how the Lord views sorcery. Does your argument take into consideration black magic?

[Ron Beron]

Deuteronomy 18:9-13

http://www.biblegate... 18&version=NIV

In the above bible quote, it clearly defines how the Lord views sorcery. Does your argument take into consideration black magic?

This quote would obviously condemn Joseph as well since he used a diviner's cup and his father because he used poplar poles to determine the color of cattle. We might also look askance at Moses for posting the nechash or serpent pole. The list can go on and on. While the above scripture distinctly speaks again these practices it does contradict other scriptures and probably would necessitate how we see the Lord's prophet both anciently and modern.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Ron Beron

[thews]

This quote would obviously condemn Joseph as well since he used a diviner's cup and his father because he used poplar poles to determine the color of cattle.

For the record, I didn't say that... you did.

We might also look askance at Moses for posting the nechash or serpent pole. The list can go on and on. While the above scripture distinctly speaks again these practices it does contradict other scriptures and probably would necessitate how we see the Lord's prophet both anciently and modern.

How one interprets the bible is up to them. The point I was making was in reference to so-called magic "working" and that proved it was valid. I believe the proof that the so-called magic "works" is up to the person and the source behind it working. For the record, I'm not a magical thinker and don't believe in magic. Whether or not one thing negates another because they contradict each other is, IMO, up to the person and their understanding of the subject matter.

Edited July 13, 2012 by thews

[volgadon]

Take a class (or ten) and it will be defined for you.

Entirely beside the point. Who has a better chance of building a working electrical circuit, someone who knows Ohm's law, or someone who doesn't?

[thews]

Entirely beside the point. Who has a better chance of building a working electrical circuit, someone who knows Ohm's law, or someone who doesn't?

I still fail to understand your point. Ohms law dictates the properties of electricity, which is repeatable. What are you alluding to (analogy) regarding someone who knows its properties and whether or not they would be most adept at designing a circuit?

[volgadon]

I still fail to understand your point. Ohms law dictates the properties of electricity, which is repeatable. What are you alluding to (analogy) regarding someone who knows its properties and whether or not they would be most adept at designing a circuit?

Let me put it another way. If I didn't know Ohm's law, how comfortable would you be in me wiring a house? If not, why would you be uncomfortable?

[Ron Beron]

'thews'

For the record, I didn't say that... you did.

True. I didn't state it to be contradictory...just to point out the obvious and a continuation of thought.

How one interprets the bible is up to them. The point I was making was in reference to so-called magic "working" and that proved it was valid. I believe the proof that the so-called magic "works" is up to the person and the source behind it working. For the record, I'm not a magical thinker and don't believe in magic. Whether or not one thing negates another because they contradict each other is, IMO, up to the person and their understanding of the subject matter.

Fair enough, in Jacob Neusner's book, Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and In Conflict, he states as much.

"A convention of the history of religion in the West, well established in a variety of studies, is that one groups holy man is another group's magician: "what I do is a miracle, but what you do is magic."

[thews]

Let me put it another way. If I didn't know Ohm's law, how comfortable would you be in me wiring a house? If not, why would you be uncomfortable?

You're being nonsensical. If you have a point to make, please make it.

Edited July 14, 2012 by thews

[thews]

'thews'

True. I didn't state it to be contradictory...just to point out the obvious and a continuation of thought.

Ok.

Fair enough, in Jacob Neusner's book, Religion, Science, and Magic: In Concert and In Conflict, he states as much.

"A convention of the history of religion in the West, well established in a variety of studies, is that one groups holy man is another group's magician: "what I do is a miracle, but what you do is magic."

Please... I'm begging you... to the OP, what is(are) the object(s) that encompass the use of "Urim and Thummim" in Mormon history? Please be specific.

[volgadon]

You're being nonsenical. If you have a point to make, please make it.

You are being obtuse, it seems to help you evade questions.

[thews]

You are being obtuse, it seems to help you evade questions.

And I would counter that you are evading answers to direct questions asked.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Actually I think he meant the Power of God.

The only true power there is.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What is the Urim and Thummim? What object(s) are you referring to?

Just some info from CH...I can do much in the way of search engine right now.

[thews]

The only true power there is.

Can you answer the question Pa Pa? What does the "Urim and Thummim" define in Mormon history? Why is this question so hard to get an answer to?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Can you answer the question Pa Pa? What does the "Urim and Thummim" define in Mormon history? Why is this question so hard to get an answer to?

I just did as much as I could...typing while lying in bed. Cannot sit up long. Hyrum made mention of it, to what he refered to or what it looked like I don't know.

[Robert F. Smith]

You used "scientific listing" to imply science was involved in defining magic.

No, I did not, which suggests that you have difficulty reading English, or you simply don't wish to understand. Any reasonable person would readily understand that a scientific listing or set of definitions are not used by adherents of folk magic. Your unwillingness to admit that simple principle is your primary Achilles heel.

I would counter with the same, as the scientific method requires a process that is repeatable, while you imply (correct me if I'm wrong), that magic and science are somehow related, when you don't believe in magic.

Again, it would help were you to read more carefully. Not only do you not understand the scientific method, but you are unable to examine the results of science and technology with equanimity.

Your point is moot and used to add distortion IMO. Fire may have seemed "magical" to cavemen, but it's not magic. What would seem "magical" before it existed is just an observation relative to what existed at the time.

Of course it isn't magic, but it may seem so to the primitive peoples who first use it. Perhaps later, when they are accustomed to fire, they treat it as just an ordinary phenomenon, the way we do in modern times. Or they may continue to treat it as supernatural. Since you apparently are able to understand at least that much, why are you unable to understand how other things may seem "magical" to people?

Becuase it's not "magic" as you imply. The properties of electricity are quantified and the results can be measured with the same result every time. Put a 10 Ohm resistor across 10V and you'll draw an amp... every time.

One of the reason we put quotes on words like "magic" is so that people will realize that we are not claiming that they constitute real "magic" (the Amazing Randi's concern), but only that they seem like "magic." You and I obviously do not believe in "magic." So I cannot understand why you persist in claiming that the technology which produces "magic" is unrelated to science. At least the Amazing Randi understands the concept.

I disagree, as the challenge by the Amazing Randy is to simply set up the boundary condition to prove whether or not the "magic" actually works without some form of trickery. The one million dollars is still unclaimed.

So what? Does that mean that we cannot enjoy David Copperfield when we go to Vegas?

And I would counter that you use parallel arguments in a failed attempt to negate the questions asked. Please, if you don't mind, to the OP, what object(s) is the term "the Urim and Thummim" referring to in Mormon history?

You claim to have read my paper. I see no evidence of that here. I thought I answered that question very well in my paper. Perhaps you'd care to point out to me where my paper is in error.

How can you state this when it's the question I'm asking? Please enlighten me... how can a term "the Urim and Thummim" cover a wide range of objects that have specific names? Are you implying the term "Urim and Thummim" is so universal that it encompasses many objects? If so, which objects specifically?

Since I have already answered the question in a host of ways which you find unsatisfying, what can I do but point out how narrowly you define things? Why are you determined to find fault with unsophisticated people from long ago who were trying to do the best they could with limited means? Do you realize how unrealistic and uncharitable that is?

This assumes I agree with you... I don't.

Sorry. I had hoped that we could agree on something.

I don't understand your point because I don't think you've made one. Now, you're attempting to throw out credentials under the banner of "Scholar" to imply I'm unable to understand your point, when you've failed to answer a direct question. This tactic may fool some, but unless you make a stand and choose to define the term used and acknowledge the factual data it's an exercise in avoiding taking a stance IMO. One more time... when the term "Urim and Thummim" is used to describe LDS history, what device(s) does the term specifically encompass in your opinion?

Actually I wasn't tossing out credentials at all (I don't have any), but trying to excuse the fact that my approach takes into account a world somewhat different than yours. But you do not understand my point, either because you can't or because you refuse to do so. You really need to exercise some control on your insistence on narrow and rigid definitions of terms, which are not only unrealistic but also damaging to your own comprehension.