Joseph Smith'S Seer Stone

[Glenn101]

That sort of thinking is precisely why a physicist once jokingly referred to the Higgs field as the "God particle"?

So, it is not out of reason to suspect that someday we may find God.

Glenn

[Cobalt-70]

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...al-intelligence .

The problem is with those who start, from the beginning, with the assumption that religion and magic are somehow mutually exclusive categories. They are not. But religion and magic are not the same thing. Much of religion is magical, but much is not magical, and much of magic is non-religious.

For example, magical practices like water-dowsing, knocking on wood, performing a ritual before a sports game or before a basketball free-throw normally have nothing to do with religion. (Although Joseph Smith incorporated water-dowsing within Mormonism.) Likewise, religious practices like most prayer, singing of hymns, righteous living, charity, circumcision, the Protestant Eucharist, and most Protestant baptism, are not magical because they are symbolic acts, not thought to be an expression of supernatural power embodied in or influenced by the material world. Magical religious practices include the Catholic Communion, exorcism, faith healing, sacrifices, trial by ordeal, holy water, etc.

Mormonism is no more naturalistic than magical disciplines such as, say alchemy or Kaballah. Mystical varieties of magic requires the operation of mysteries and hidden natural laws, which are not commonly understood, but which may be learned by the initiated through mystical processes (like seer stones or visions). Mormonism cannot claim to be naturalistic in a scientific sense. It is not scientific naturalism, for example, to claim that some hidden natural law is available to allow a demon to be cast out of a possessed individual, or to allow the finger of God to touch stones and make them permanently glow.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Robert F. Smith]

The problem is with those who start, from the beginning, with the assumption that religion and magic are somehow mutually exclusive categories. They are not. But religion and magic are not the same thing. Much of religion is magical, but much is not magical, and much of magic is non-religious.

For example, magical practices like water-dowsing, knocking on wood, performing a ritual before a sports game or before a basketball free-throw normally have nothing to do with religion. (Although Joseph Smith incorporated water-dowsing within Mormonism.) Likewise, religious practices like most prayer, singing of hymns, righteous living, charity, circumcision, the Protestant Eucharist, and most Protestant baptism, are not magical because they are symbolic acts, not thought to be an expression of supernatural power embodied in or influenced by the material world. Magical religious practices include the Catholic Communion, exorcism, faith healing, sacrifices, trial by ordeal, holy water, etc.

Mormonism is no more naturalistic than magical disciplines such as, say alchemy or Kaballah. Mystical varieties of magic requires the operation of mysteries and hidden natural laws, which are not commonly understood, but which may be learned by the initiated through mystical processes (like seer stones or visions). Mormonism cannot claim to be naturalistic in a scientific sense. It is not scientific naturalism, for example, to claim that some hidden natural law is available to allow a demon to be cast out of a possessed individual, or to allow the finger of God to touch stones and make them permanently glow.

I understand what you say, and it does constitute the typical beliefs and assumptions of most educated people. However, it is not the accepted norm within the scholarly community and has not been for decades. Logic and the available data have left such theoretical dichotomies behind, and such is the case for theology as well.

When Sagan, Dawkins, and other humanist (even anti-religious) thinkers are willing to see advanced sentient beings as peopling the universe ("gods" with a lower case "g"), it becomes very difficult to any longer resist the notion that many otherwise well-educated people are just thinking too small or are unable to deal with the ubiquity now of high tech devices. Their explanations of reality (as with yours) do not "save the appearances," as philosophers like to say.

It is crucial to widen your purview to include the entire range of philosophy, science, and technology before passing judgment on outward appearances. Surface impressions of Mormonism do not apply in such an endeavor.