SeekerB Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I am not sure how conflating the two magical devices to "advanced computing devices" be a simpler explanation.Since there aren't such things as "magical devices", they would have to be something else.
Ron Beron Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Since there aren't such things as "magical devices", they would have to be something else.I'm not so sure. Magical artifacts or devices are replete in ours and ancient culture. It doesn't mean they have any inherent power, but they exist anyway. JS probably saw his stones as actual conduits between his reasoning and God's power. This seems more consistent with the cultural milieu he had grown in. I equally thing that as he became more sophisticated in his understanding of not only his faith and God's true power he turned away from these devices. In short, they had little power in and of themselves.
SeekerB Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I'm not so sure. Magical artifacts or devices are replete in ours and ancient culture. It doesn't mean they have any inherent power, but they exist anyway. JS probably saw his stones as actual conduits between his reasoning and God's power. This seems more consistent with the cultural milieu he had grown in. I equally thing that as he became more sophisticated in his understanding of not only his faith and God's true power he turned away from these devices. In short, they had little power in and of themselves.Of course, I meant that things don't have magic powers, so something that appeared to work like magic would have to be something else. What would people back in the time of JS think of our modern cell phones? Magical devices?
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I do not believe this is valid. I know of no description of Joseph Smith's seer stone that matches this. It was valid at one time and you were able to see it at that museum. Maybe the church purhased the stone and it's no longer there. But if you want you could call and ask them to describe it.
Storm Rider Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 It was valid at one time and you were able to see it at that museum. Maybe the church purhased the stone and it's no longer there. But if you want you could call and ask them to describe it.The seer stones were described and none come remotely close to that stone. First of all, they were solid. Going any further is unneeded. This seems more like a National Enquirer article about green men from Mars. It is made from whole cloth.You may want to check out some history on the seer stones and their descriptions. 1
CASteinman Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 It was valid at one time and you were able to see it at that museum. Maybe the church purhased the stone and it's no longer there. But if you want you could call and ask them to describe it.No. I don't think it was valid even if you could see it at that museum. Among other problems -- its not a stone. Second, even if it were a stone, it is not a seer stone, as Joseph Smith did not use stones at that time. Finally.. it came from Lewis Bidamon, and so its provenance is not to be trusted.
Tacenda Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 No. I don't think it was valid even if you could see it at that museum. Among other problems -- its not a stone. Second, even if it were a stone, it is not a seer stone, as Joseph Smith did not use stones at that time. Finally.. it came from Lewis Bidamon, and so its provenance is not to be trusted. Okay, I thought this story was set in stone, pun intended, I believe Michael Quinn wrote about also. Something about Fredrick Smith going to these peyote gatherings or something like that. I'm on my cell, or I would c/p it.
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 I have a concept that objects like seer stones or brazen serpents are an aid to help us focus our thoughts and energy. Not that the object itself is magical in any way, but that having some sort of touchstone or focus can help our mortal minds concentrate. 1
Storm Rider Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Okay, I thought this story was set in stone, pun intended, I believe Michael Quinn wrote about also. Something about Fredrick Smith going to these peyote gatherings or something like that. I'm on my cell, or I would c/p it.At times Quinn gets so far out on the fringe as to make one think he is writing... stoned. Quinn does great research, but then he carries it to a place where no one else goes; it is an invented story or assumption. I wish historians would not do that; it gives a bad name to the whole group, but he is not alone. It seems to be a trend among modern historians. I have never heard of this stone being associated with Joseph Smith, but then again, I stay away from some writings. I leave the National Enquirer at the grocery store also. 1
cinepro Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Of course, I meant that things don't have magic powers, so something that appeared to work like magic would have to be something else. What would people back in the time of JS think of our modern cell phones? Magical devices?Let's apply this thinking to something we use in our day: consecrated olive oil.Does anyone believe that the oil has any "supernatural" purpose or powers? Will LDS 150 years from now explain that LDS of the 20th century used it only to "focus our minds" on the blessing, or that it worked according to the medicinal properties of 22nd century topical ointments?And will future LDS move beyond their use of oil in blessings, with oil vials on display in the Church History Museum for curious tourists to look at them and ponder the odd rituals of their simpler religious forebears? Edited July 10, 2012 by cinepro
KevinG Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Will LDS 150 years from now explain that LDS of the 20th century used it only to "focus our minds" on the blessing, That's my belief today. Many gospel principles are symbolic and help us to understand complex and abstract concepts. Just like written language.
Matthew J. Tandy Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 Will LDS 150 years from now explain that LDS of the 20th century used it only to "focus our minds" on the blessing,That's my belief today. Many gospel principles are symbolic and help us to understand complex and abstract concepts. Just like written language.Mine too. Always has been. While I've been taught the symbolism of it, I have never heard of the oil containing mystical properties. It's simply made sacred by setting it aside for a holy purpose, ie, helping others.It also makes some great blueberry muffins when you forget to label it... not that I have any experience with that or anything... um... yeah... *cough cough* 1
blackstrap Posted July 10, 2012 Posted July 10, 2012 What about Christ's garment which the woman touched and was healed? Christ asked,"who touched me" even though He wasn't touched directly,He felt virtue leave Him.Are people totally wrong who think that an object that has been attached to a special person also has some special power?Note the greater value given to objects that were owned by some celebrity.And the power attached to religious relics ie, the Shroud etc.
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Will LDS 150 years from now explain that LDS of the 20th century used it only to "focus our minds" on the blessingI hope that they do. Why should truth change? The oil is a great physical aspect to help us operate by Faith.
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 What about Christ's garment which the woman touched and was healed? Christ asked,"who touched me" even though He wasn't touched directly,He felt virtue leave Him.Are people totally wrong who think that an object that has been attached to a special person also has some special power?Note the greater value given to objects that were owned by some celebrity.And the power attached to religious relics ie, the Shroud etc.My wife has a pair of pants that were owned by Burt Reynolds when he was a young star still getting started. They seem much less than magical to me. I doubt they could fetch $2.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 My wife has a pair of pants that were owned by Burt Reynolds when he was a young star still getting started. They seem much less than magical to me. I doubt they could fetch $2.You wouldn't say that if they had been signed by Reynolds.
Cobalt-70 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I'm not so sure. Magical artifacts or devices are replete in ours and ancient culture. It doesn't mean they have any inherent power, but they exist anyway. JS probably saw his stones as actual conduits between his reasoning and God's power. This seems more consistent with the cultural milieu he had grown in. I equally thing that as he became more sophisticated in his understanding of not only his faith and God's true power he turned away from these devices. In short, they had little power in and of themselves.Joseph Smith stopped using seer stones regularly to translate, but he never stopped believing in their magical power. As late as 1843, he was still talking about them, teaching that the whole Celestial earth would become a giant seer stone, and that everyone who enters therein would be duly issued a seer stone, so that they could divine the mystical knowledge from higher kingdoms. (D&C 130:8-11)
Cobalt-70 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Let's apply this thinking to something we use in our day: consecrated olive oil.Does anyone believe that the oil has any "supernatural" purpose or powers? Will LDS 150 years from now explain that LDS of the 20th century used it only to "focus our minds" on the blessing, or that it worked according to the medicinal properties of 22nd century topical ointments?And will future LDS move beyond their use of oil in blessings, with oil vials on display in the Church History Museum for curious tourists to look at them and ponder the odd rituals of their simpler religious forebears?Consecrated oil is certainly magic, as are garments (in the practice of many, but not all, Mormons). The oil and the fabric are charged with powers as the result of ceremonial acts. There is something "different" about olive oil after it has been consecrated. That "difference" is magic. And there is something "different" about fabric which has the ceremonial marks, and has been "authorized" by the Church. You can't put it on the floor. It protects you from harm, either physical or spiritual. But let's not single out Mormonism for the persistence of magic. Catholicism has just as much magic as Mormonism, and fundamentalist Christians believe literally in all the magic of the bible, including the protective blood on the door of Passover, Aaron's rod, the Urim and Thummim, the bronze serpent, etc.I think it would be a mistake to de-magicalize things like seer stones, etc., within Mormonism. Without magic, the LDS Church is just, outwardly, an ultra-conservative version of the Community of Christ. Edited July 11, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Robert F. Smith Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Consecrated oil is certainly magic, as are garments (in the practice of many, but not all, Mormons). The oil and the fabric are charged with powers as the result of ceremonial acts. There is something "different" about olive oil after it has been consecrated. That "difference" is magic. And there is something "different" about fabric which has the ceremonial marks, and has been "authorized" by the Church. You can't put it on the floor. It protects you from harm, either physical or spiritual. But let's not single out Mormonism for the persistence of magic. Catholicism has just as much magic as Mormonism, and fundamentalist Christians believe literally in all the magic of the bible, including the protective blood on the door of Passover, Aaron's rod, the Urim and Thummim, the bronze serpent, etc.I think it would be a mistake to de-magicalize things like seer stones, etc., within Mormonism. Without magic, the LDS Church is just, outwardly, an ultra-conservative version of the Community of Christ.Of course you know very well that Mormons do not use the word or concept of "magic" to describe their religion. That doesn't mean that , as scholars, we should avoid studying folk magic traditions throughout history. The trouble is that scholars who have tried to discern the difference between religion and magic have a very hard time of it, and you seem to realize that. Jan Shipps and others concluded long ago that one could not in fact distinguish between religion and magic.However we can go even further than that in declaring that there is no difference (in the natural world) between science and magic or between science and religion. In a supernatural world, in which religion, god, and magic are metaphysical, or are outside the universe, of course there can be just such a difference as you suggest between science and religion/magic.Since Mormonism declares itself to be an entirely naturalistic religion, together with a God or our own genus and species, it is therefore inappropriate to suggest that there is anything "magical" about it. There may be rituals and signs which are intended to initiate into higher levels and understandings of that religion, and there may be an absolute need for them in the sense of universal law -- which surpasses human understanding -- but one must examine this option through the eyes of the atheist Richard Dawkins and his friends to get the full impact of what I am saying. See for example http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/08/extraterrestrial-intelligence . 2
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Joseph Smith stopped using seer stones regularly to translate, but he never stopped believing in their magical power. As late as 1843, he was still talking about them, teaching that the whole Celestial earth would become a giant seer stone, and that everyone who enters therein would be duly issued a seer stone, so that they could divine the mystical knowledge from higher kingdoms. (D&C 130:8-11)Joseph Smith never believed that seer stones were magical. Nor did he claim that they could divine "mystical" knowledge. This is invention on your part.
Glenn101 Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Supernatural ... Attributed to some force beyond our scientific understanding.Are you saying that dark energy is supernatural?
Jaybear Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Are you saying that dark energy is supernatural?That sort of thinking is precisely why a physicist once jokingly referred to the Higgs field as the "God particle"?
Ron Beron Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Joseph Smith stopped using seer stones regularly to translate, but he never stopped believing in their magical power. As late as 1843, he was still talking about them, teaching that the whole Celestial earth would become a giant seer stone, and that everyone who enters therein would be duly issued a seer stone, so that they could divine the mystical knowledge from higher kingdoms. (D&C 130:8-11)I don't believe he saw them as magical, but a continuation of Old and New Testament biblical allegory. “In the ancient world, gemstones engraved with secret names were considered talismans of personal power. The apostle Peter was thought of as a celestial gatekeeper in early Christianity because he held all the keys of the kingdom and, therefore, had the power to open or shut its gates (Matthew 16:18-19). Similarly, the white stone engraved with the correct word or name symbolizes one’s personal, private key that not only reveals things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms but is also the key or ‘keyword’ that allows on to pass the gatekeeper at the portal and enter into the celestial kingdom.” (Stephen E. Robinson, H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 2001] 4:227)
KevinG Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Keys, catalysts, tokens, symbols... perhaps I lack faith to see where God could impart greater more direct powers to objects if it serves His purpose. I am not one to preach about the garments powers other than protection of modesty and reminder of covenants, but I have had a few incidents with chainsaws and ladders where I cannot explain how I failed to cut my leg off at the calf.
Recommended Posts