“Occult Context Of Js’S 1823 Discovery Of Gold Plates”

[teddyaware]

I agree for the most part. What I would disagree on is the implication that the occult is necessarily bad. Here is the definition of occult from Wickipedia: The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden".^[1] In common English usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable",^[2][3] usually referred to as science. The term is sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people" or that "must be kept hidden", but for most practicing occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences.^[4] The terms esoteric and arcane have very similar meanings, and the three terms are interchangeable.

What is wrong with studying a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason? I would say that it probably prepared him for what was to come. In modern times when we(as a people) worship science and technology, occult has been given an undesirable connotation.

I believe these deeper spiritual realities are known within the framework of the Restored Gospel as the "mysteries of godliness." I see nothing wrong with studying to gain a knowledge of these mysteries -- in fact, I do so myself. But one wonders if the study of so-called occult mysteries could possibly be as edifying as obtaining revelations of gospel knowledge?

Edited June 5, 2013 by teddyaware

[USU78]

I agree for the most part. What I would disagree on is the implication that the occult is necessarily bad. Here is the definition of occult from Wickipedia: The occult (from the Latin word occultus "clandestine, hidden, secret") is "knowledge of the hidden".^[1] In common English usage, occult refers to "knowledge of the paranormal", as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable",^[2][3] usually referred to as science. The term is sometimes taken to mean knowledge that "is meant only for certain people" or that "must be kept hidden", but for most practicing occultists it is simply the study of a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason and the physical sciences.^[4] The terms esoteric and arcane have very similar meanings, and the three terms are interchangeable.

What is wrong with studying a deeper spiritual reality that extends beyond pure reason? I would say that it probably prepared him for what was to come. In modern times when we(as a people) worship science and technology, occult has been given an undesirable connotation.

While I agree with your view of occult and its academic use, I quite disagree with the OP's use, which pretends academics, but pushes polemics.

[ERayR]

I believe these deeper spiritual realities are known within the framework of the Restored Gospel as the "mysteries of godliness." I see nothing wrong with studying to gain a knowledge of these mysteries -- in fact, I do so myself. But one wonders if the study of so-called occult mysteries could possibly be as edifying as obtaining revelations of gospel knowledge?

I was making no judgements concerning the value "of so-called occult mysteries". I do believe that we in the Church do not cultivate the spiritual (occult) available to us in the Church nearly enough. We have allowed those senses to atrophy in our worship of science and technology. We have allowed our connotation of occult to be denigrated.

I don't know what is out there in the occult realms. I to spend most of my study time to the revealed gospel. However, from what I have seen there may well be things of value for those who have the time.

[ERayR]

While I agree with your view of occult and its academic use, I quite disagree with the OP's use, which pretends academics, but pushes polemics.

While Dan Vogel may, sometimes, have some points worth considering I have found that, for me, it is not worth sorting through the trash bin for them.

[Calm]

the seedy and dark world of the occult

While the current usage of "occult" often has this connotation, I don't believe the academic usage does nor do I believe that at the time of JS the occult was commonly viewed in this way generally, though some aspects of it were.

PS: I see that others have already expressed this reservation.

Edited June 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

which pretends academics, but pushes polemics.

This is what, I believe, is under debate.

I don't have enough familiarity with the subject to judge.

[USU78]

While Dan Vogel may, sometimes, have some points worth considering I have found that, for me, it is not worth sorting through the trash bin for them.

I know others will disagree with my statement, but let me elaborate:

DV is not a dimwit. He certainly knows that Evangelical Mormon Outreach Ministries comb the internet for items of interest to sell to present to local parsons and their parishioners. Imagine, if you will (and I have seen such things many times) the monument sign in front of an evangelical church emblazoned with "Occult Context of Joseph Smith's [Gold Bible]." Or a pamphlet to hand out at the presentation with the same title. Imagine (and I have seen this many times as well) the local parson getting into a lather about the occult Mormons and their occult scriptures and their occult "prophet" misleading the flock.

DV is not a dimwit. He knows how these things work. He knows who will buy what and why.

One can hide behind a disinterested, academic facade and yet push the right buttons of the right people and get a best-seller on the NYT Non-Fiction Top 100 list by selling seaminess.

Just add child brides, wife- and horse-stealing, and burning wagon trains to the story, and you've got yourself the perfect screed.

DV is not a dimwit.

[Chronos]

This thread seems to have run it's course.