The Little Brown Rock Or Seer Stone

[Teancum]

Can someone claim the bible is all the scripture there is and believe that the Holy Spirit, who is God, speaks to man? Those are mutually exclusive beliefs.

The idea of appealing to the Holy Spirit for guidance and testimony is foreign to religion outside the Church.

No it isn't. Not at all, do you know many other Chrisitans and what they really believe?

[Okrahomer]

I'm open for anything reasonable.  I don't know of a God, I've never seen or heard form him.  And the bible sounds to me like a bunch of myths and impossible stories.  Also the stories of killing the enemies of the favored people and stoning to death someone who gathers wood on Sunday or a she bear who kills several youths for making fun of a bald headed person just do not make sense.  However I don't want to get bogged down in long discussions here, I've mostly said what I have to say.

I have no desire to bog you down in an unwanted discussion. One gets the impression that you are a bit frustrated with the people of faith who surround you. From what you have briefly described about your family, it does sound complicated. At the end of the day, I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping the best for you.

[Sanpitch]

I have no desire to bog you down in an unwanted discussion. One gets the impression that you are a bit frustrated with the people of faith who surround you. From what you have briefly described about your family, it does sound complicated. At the end of the day, I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping the best for you.

Thank you, Okrahomer.  I am surrounded by strong believers and I call my wife a fanatical JW but I love her and she loves me and we are happy.  We were married in 1958.  I've been to the JW Bethel in NYC several times with her for a tour and enjoyed it.  They do an impressive job printing and taking care of their workers.

[ERayR]

That's interesting however the whole point of LDS is for them to spread all over the world and it seems they are not growing that fast.

 

That is that the gospel will be preached in all the world not a chapel in every town.

[ERayR]

Do you know they have?

 

No but I am not the one makeing assertions.

[Robert F. Smith]

If we are to judge success by numbers of adherents ,Christianity comes in at number one with 2.2 billion. Muslims are second with about 1.6 billion. Now if we were to break up into sects the Roman Catholics lead the Christians and the Sunnis lead the Muslims. Of course there are quite a few non- affiliated/agnostics/atheists at around 11 % of the world's population.

I find it interesting that the population of Jews in the world is about the same as that of the LDS. The Jews have had a disproportionate influence on world events, in my opinion. I wonder why. Although our (LDS) numbers are also few , we could also be influential in other ways.

We are to be considered as ' leaven ' ie. yeast in our influence.

That's interesting however the whole point of LDS is for them to spread all over the world and it seems they are not growing that fast.

I thought the whole LDS point was to spread the Gospel message throughout the world, not primarily a numbers game.  In so doing, the notoriety of the Mormons has been helpful, with even South Park people helping to get the message out -- the Broadway musical "The Book of Mormon," etc.  Gaining members, yes, but that is clearly secondary.  Digital systems and the internet now make it possible to spread the message much more broadly.  The Mormon religion will always be a minority religion, until the Millennium.  The main point is to spread the Word of God and allow people to make a decision.

 

When I was baptized in 1950, the LDS Church had about a million members worldwide.  With current figures at around .2%, one must always note that the similar Jewish figure of .2% does not mean any or full religious activity for all of the 14 or 15 million members on the books.  That is not true of any religion.

 

So far, the Mormons have done pretty well, even growing rapidly in places where one might least expect it -- China, for example.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Avatar4321]

Would you explain that, I'm curious.

Because atheism isn't logical. No one can know there is no God unless He is God. Atheists have to argue from silence. Not a logical position. Quite the opposite.

There are two logical ways to look at the existence of God.

A) "I don't know if there is a God" in which case you are agnostic.

B) you've experienced the Lord through personal experience of your five senses. In other words, you have a testimony. In which case it's illogical to deny that their is a God.

If someone wants to believe in atheism that's certainly their right. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable or rational

[readstoomuch]

I recommend two articles concerning the seer stone.  Knowing Brother Joseph Again by Karl Sandberg.  The other called The Gift of Seeing by Richard Von Wagoner and Steven Walker.  Both are from old Dialogue issues.  Both are available with a search engine.  I think they describe very well what the Seer Stone meant to Joseph Smith.  The Sandberg article is one of my favorite articles of all time.  

[canard78]

If it weren't so serious and sad, I could get a chuckle each time (and they are legion) the following words of Paul are fulfilled on this board:

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned. (1Corithians 2)

But even though the things of God are only spiritually discerned, Paul's words seem to have no deterrent effect. And who can doubt but that in spite of Paul's warning there will always be multitudes who will continue the pursue the futile quest of attempting to understand the things of God by the spirit of fallen man, rather than by the power of the Spirit of God. Oh well...

So what you and Paul are saying is: "If you don't agree with me, you're a fool."

There are plenty of books and revelations said to originate from a divine source. Are you a fool for not receiving books like:

- The Qu'ran

- The Hidden Words (Baha'i)

- The Urantia Book (Uranthian)

I could go on, there are many more.

They all have their followers who describe them as sacred and who claim to have had spiritual witnesses of their truthfulness.

[Robert F. Smith]

I recommend two articles concerning the seer stone.  Knowing Brother Joseph Again by Karl Sandberg.  The other called The Gift of Seeing by Richard Von Wagoner and Steven Walker.  Both are from old Dialogue issues.  Both are available with a search engine.  I think they describe very well what the Seer Stone meant to Joseph Smith.  The Sandberg article is one of my favorite articles of all time.  

Yes, both are excellent articles, and I provided much of the basic material used by Van Wagoner & Walker.

 

Karl C. Sandberg, “Knowing Brother Joseph Again: The Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith as Translator,” Dialogue, 22/4 (Winter 1989):17-37, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V22N04_19.pdf .

 

Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing'," Dialogue, 15/2 (Summer 1982):48-68, online at http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/dialogue/id/16574 .  Includes artwork depicting Joseph looking in hat.

[Saint Sinner]

Jesus spit in some dirt and put the mud on a man's eyes to heal his blindness, Moses had a staff, Joseph of Egypt had a silver divination cup.

God does weird stuff all the time.

Only atheists, who are shackled to human logic and reason, should have a problem with the idea of a seer stone.

Anyone who believes in God or gods in some fashion should be willing to accept the possibility of "weird".

 

 

But there are a few of us rationalists (atheist comes with a great deal of negativity) who have no problem with a person's belief in supernaturalism. Though I am unable to coherently identify with a deity at this time, I reject the notion that people of faith are deluded and have an imaginary friend.

 

Also, scripture is a great witness to not just the relationship between the divine and the created but also the relationship between all creation as there should be some kind of connection that draws us together in compassion, mercy, charity and love.

 

End of my hippie rant.

[theplains]

You are mistaken (there you go again) it was 1981 when Joseph F. Smith's vision of on the salvation of the dead was added to the LDS canon of scripture. That means President Smith's vision "waited in the wings," as it were, since 1918 (that's 63 Years) until it was finally added to the canon.

 

Thank you. I stand corrected. Nice tidbit to know.  I should have used a different phrase.

 

According to the introduction notes of D&C 138, "A vision, given to President Joseph F. Smith in

Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918. In his opening address at the eighty-ninth Semiannual

General Conference of the Church, on October 4, 1918, President Smith declared that he had

received several divine communications during the previous months. One of these, concerning

the Savior’s visit to the spirits of the dead while his body was in the tomb, he had received the

previous day. It was written immediately following the close of the conference; on October 31,

1918, it was submitted to the counselors in the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and

the Patriarch, and it was unanimously accepted by them."

 

They had a vote 28 days after the supposed revelation and it passed unanimously.

 

I'll rephrase to say that the LDS Church last publicly mentioned receiving a revelation in

1979.

 

 

Meanwhile, I wonder if you already realize there are many hundreds of examples of inspired

writings and addresses from our apostles and prophets that are classified as uncanonized

scripture (you know, like how the books and epistles of the eventual New Testament existed

for quite some time before they were gathered in one and canonized).

 

It might have been different if they had a printing press and a friendly environment to use it.

As for adding to the canon, the LDS Church is also known for removing from their canon. See

De-canonizing the Lectures on Faith.

 

As far as prophets are concerned: does the church of which you speak have a quorum of twelve

apostles who receive revelation to lead  the church after the pattern of the New Testament Church of

Christ? If not, what scriptural references does the church use to justify a break with the New Testament

pattern of organized Church leadership established by Christ and declared essential and inviolate by

the Apostle Paul.

 

The pattern of the New Testament church did not contain High Priests, Patriarchs, Quorums, the First

Presidency, Aaronic Priests, Melchizedek Priests, etc. that is found in the LDS hierarchy.  Personally,

I don't believe any person today has the apostolic gifts like the Book of Acts describes, yet Jesus still

continues to grow His church.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Duncan]

 

Thank you. I stand corrected. Nice tidbit to know.  I should have used a different phrase.

 

According to the introduction notes of D&C 138, "A vision, given to President Joseph F. Smith in

Salt Lake City, Utah, on October 3, 1918. In his opening address at the eighty-ninth Semiannual

General Conference of the Church, on October 4, 1918, President Smith declared that he had

received several divine communications during the previous months. One of these, concerning

the Savior’s visit to the spirits of the dead while his body was in the tomb, he had received the

previous day. It was written immediately following the close of the conference; on October 31,

1918, it was submitted to the counselors in the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and

the Patriarch, and it was unanimously accepted by them."

 

They had a vote 28 days after the supposed revelation and it passed unanimously.

 

I'll rephrase to say that the LDS Church last publicly mentioned receiving a revelation in

1979.

 

 

 

It might have been different if they had a printing press and a friendly environment to use it.

As for adding to the canon, the LDS Church is also known for removing from their canon. See

De-canonizing the Lectures on Faith.

 

 

 

The pattern of the New Testament church did not contain High Priests, Patriarchs, Quorums, the First

Presidency, Aaronic Priests, Melchizedek Priests, etc. that is found in the LDS hierarchy.  Personally,

I don't believe any person today has the apostolic gifts like the Book of Acts describes, yet Jesus still

continues to grow His church.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

 

Do you know everybody? they had some hierarchy, seventy, apostles, the priesthood, sealing power (elijah's two visits, he can't give what he didn't have) But they didn't have the membership either that we do and so the structure was different and as we know it splintered anyway into the apostasy

Edited August 9, 2015 by Duncan

[Sanpitch]

If we are to judge success by numbers of adherents ,Christianity comes in at number one with 2.2 billion. Muslims are second with about 1.6 billion. Now if we were to break up into sects the Roman Catholics lead the Christians and the Sunnis lead the Muslims. Of course there are quite a few non- affiliated/agnostics/atheists at around 11 % of the world's population.

I find it interesting that the population of Jews in the world is about the same as that of the LDS. The Jews have had a disproportionate influence on world events, in my opinion. I wonder why. Although our (LDS) numbers are also few , we could also be influential in other ways.

We are to be considered as ' leaven ' ie. yeast in our influence. It should be noted that yeast occupies about 1 % by volume of a bread recipe . 1 % of 7 billion is 70 million so yes, the LDS have a ways to go .Best we get a move on !!!

You give the perfect argument for what I've stated earlier.  What the people of the world need is a standard book in each person's language of what God would like his people to do and how to behave.  Also a little background knowledge of before and after this life would be interesting.  How can the people be blamed or judged when they grow up in the Muslim or Jewish or Hinduism environment and never hear of the one and only true faith on Earth, the LDS church.  It doesn't make sense to me other than there is no one guiding mankind.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Teancum]

No but I am not the one makeing assertions.

.

Well if they have used it they have been silent about it. Joseph Smith was not as recitent about such things.

[Teancum]

The scriptures make clear (Nephi's vision) that the church of the Lamb of God would be over all the earth, but that it's numbers would be few by reason of the devil's influence (pretty much sounds like how things are today). The Church will prepare for the Second Coming of Christ. <That's> when the stone cut out of the mountain without hands will fill the earth. Meanwhile, the gospel will be preached in all the earth.

Seems like the unbelievers, not the believers, are the ones fixated on numerical dominance or lack thereof.

Sure but 15 million members of record with maybe 5-6 million active is not only small but almost non existent in terms of statistical influence and significance in a world of 7 billion humans.

And in my experience when growth has been strong LDS believers like to use this as an affirmation of God's favor as much as unbelievers using lack thereof as an indication of something less.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

I thought the whole LDS point was to spread the Gospel message throughout the world, not primarily a numbers game.  In so doing, the notoriety of the Mormons has been helpful, with even South Park people helping to get the message out -- the Broadway musical "The Book of Mormon," etc.  Gaining members, yes, but that is clearly secondary.  Digital systems and the internet now make it possible to spread the message much more broadly.  The Mormon religion will always be a minority religion, until the Millennium.  The main point is to spread the Word of God and allow people to make a decision.

 

When I was baptized in 1950, the LDS Church had about a million members worldwide.  With current figures at around .2%, one must always note that the similar Jewish figure of .2% does not mean any or full religious activity for all of the 14 or 15 million members on the books.  That is not true of any religion.

 

So far, the Mormons have done pretty well, even growing rapidly in places where one might least expect it -- China, for example.

Fair points.

[Okrahomer]

You give the perfect argument for what I've stated earlier.  What the people of the world need is a standard book in each person's language of what God would like his people to do and how to behave.  Also a little background knowledge of before and after this life would be interesting.  How can the people be blamed or judged when they grow up in the Muslim or Jewish or Hinduism environment and never hear of the one and only true faith on Earth, the LDS church.  It doesn't make sense to me other than there is no one guiding mankind.

In my mind, this is exactly what LDS doctrine provides us. In fact, the precise scenario you have described with the Muslims, Jews, and Hindus--indeed all of God's children--fits perfectly within LDS doctrine. Surely your LDS family have explained and expounded upon our beliefs about the good that is found in all religions and cultures and what happens to all of us in the life after death?

Again, I'm not wanting to draw you into an unwanted discussion; nevertheless, what you say here makes me wonder what it is you hope for? On the one hand, it seems fairly clear you don't believe we have the "instructions"; but on the other hand it almost seems like you "wish" we had them.

Have you already made up your mind, or are you still open to the possibility?

[Jeanne]

 

1) mag·ic

 

noun: magic

1.

the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

"do you believe in magic?"

 

 

2.

informal

wonderful; exciting.

 

Again it all depends on how you see magic and what you see as magic.  If you are only going to see the negative connotations then you are right.

 

Well..if we go by definition, we don't need the Holy Ghost or a Prophet.  I believe in magic..but I don't connect it with revelation. Such magic if there is...should be for everyone,

Edited August 9, 2015 by Jeanne

[Sanpitch]

In my mind, this is exactly what LDS doctrine provides us. In fact, the precise scenario you have described with the Muslims, Jews, and Hindus--indeed all of God's children--fits perfectly within LDS doctrine. Surely your LDS family have explained and expounded upon our beliefs about the good that is found in all religions and cultures and what happens to all of us in the life after death?

Again, I'm not wanting to draw you into an unwanted discussion; nevertheless, what you say here makes me wonder what it is you hope for? On the one hand, it seems fairly clear you don't believe we have the "instructions"; but on the other hand it almost seems like you "wish" we had them.

Have you already made up your mind, or are you still open to the possibility?

I think between the JW side of the family and the LDS side and other sources I've probably heard or learned as much as most LDS or JW.  I was at BYU for a year and a half many, many years ago and took the BofM class under Anderson.  My dad was bishop for eight years when I was young and all his kids are very LDS except myself.

 

I think for some of us it just doesn't ring logical or sensible and the method of reading the BofM and praying is not a method of finding truth  for us.  I don't think anyone decides what they will believe and they can chose which path to take.  When the facts have settled in their mind the brain decides and it doesn't change without a new view or new facts.

 

It's very interesting to me to see the strong testimony of the LDS that have no question they are or can be in error in any way in their beliefs.  I also see JWs, that if there is any difference to the LDS, they are even stronger in their faith.  I have known JWs who have died because they don't believe in blood transfusion and refuse it.  One was a young mother with two small kids who bled to death in child birth and still refused any blood added to her system.  I'm still sad about that.  We often took the surviving kids on vacation with us and our granddaughter married into that family.  We could discuss the strong faith of the Muslim but I'll leave that out for now.  But a strong faith is no indication that the truth is there also.

 

So that is where I am for now.

 

Ed  Early I mentioned the JWs are brainwashed, I don't actually think that is a dirty word.  We are all brainwashed to some extent by our surroundings, our communications with others and what we read.  And that includes myself.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Sanpitch

[guerreiro9]

How can the people be blamed or judged when they grow up in the Muslim or Jewish or Hinduism environment and never hear of the one and only true faith on Earth, the LDS church.  It doesn't make sense to me other than there is no one guiding mankind.

 

On this point at least the LDS church does give a logical answer; all will hear the gospel.  It is LDS doctrine that the final judgement does not occur immediately upon death, and that those who have died can still chose to accept or reject the gospel in the next life when it is taught to them.

 

That doesn't make it true, but when discussing the LDS church you can eliminate that point of contention from your laundry list.

 

-guerreiro9

[Okrahomer]

I think for some of us it just doesn't ring logical or sensible and the method of reading the BofM and praying is not a method of finding truth  for us.  I don't think anyone decides what they will believe and they can chose which path to take.  When the facts have settled in their mind the brain decides and it doesn't change without a new view or new facts...

 

...Early I mentioned the JWs are brainwashed, I don't actually think that is a dirty word.  We are all brainwashed to some extent by our surroundings, our communications with others and what we read.  And that includes myself.

It sounds like you are saying that on the one hand, I am a believer only because I've been brainwashed; while on the other hand, you DON'T believe...only because...you've been brainwashed? And there is no choice in the matter?

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure but 15 million members of record with maybe 5-6 million active is not only small but almost non existent in terms of statistical influence and significance in a world of 7 billion humans.

 

 

I was about to commend to you the post from Robert F. Smith, who said essentially the same thing I did, but then I immediately saw that you responded to his post with the words "Fair points."

 

So apparently what you won't take from me you'll take from somebody else. Interesting.

 

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't much matter so long as the message eventually penetrates the cranium.

 

(By the way, Robert awarded me a rep point for my post, so he apparently agrees with what I wrote.)

 

And in my experience when growth has been strong LDS believers like to use this as an affirmation of God's favor as much as unbelievers using lack thereof as an indication of something less.

 

Some do, undoubtedly.

 

If so, they are just as wrong to get caught up in a numbers game as are the naysayers.

 

In the early days, enemies of the Church were quick to predict that Mormonism would disappear after the death of Joseph Smith, or after the Saints were driven from Nauvoo, or whatever. It is nice to look back and realize that the Church of Jesus Christ has more-or-less thrived since those dark days of oppression. I recall hearing President Hinckley do that.

 

But pointing that out is not the same thing as predicting that the Church will achieve global dominance prior to the Second Coming of Christ.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

I was about to commend to you the post from Robert F. Smith, who said essentially the same thing I did, but then I immediately saw that you responded to his post with the words "Fair points."

 

So apparently what you won't take from me you'll take from somebody else. Interesting.

 

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't much matter so long as the message eventually penetrates the cranium.

 

(By the way, Robert awarded me a rep point for my post, so he apparently he agrees with what I wrote.)

 

Some do, undoubtedly.

 

If so, they are just as wrong to get caught up in a numbers game as are the naysayers.

 

In the early days, enemies of the Church were quick to predict that Mormonism would disappear after the death of Joseph Smith, or after the Saints were driven from Nauvoo, or whatever. It is nice to look back and realize that the Church of Jesus Christ has more-or-less thrived since those dark days of oppression. I recall hearing President Hinckley do that.

 

But pointing that out is not the same thing as predicting that the Church will achieve global dominance prior to the Second Coming of Christ.

I apologize as yes you did say essentially to same thing. And i did agree that th BoM makes it clear the church will be small. Still I think it is also fair to note it is really really small. Sure it can be preached every where via technical advancement. Yet as the technology advances in some ways I wonder if proportionately its influence is diminishing. Maybe that does not matter after all is said and done.

[Scott Lloyd]

I apologize as yes you did say essentially to same thing. And i did agree that th BoM makes it clear the church will be small. Still I think it is also fair to note it is really really small. Sure it can be preached every where via technical advancement. Yet as the technology advances in some ways I wonder if proportionately its influence is diminishing. Maybe that does not matter after all is said and done.

I see the Church as having an influence in society that is more than commensurate with its size.

 

For example, the world in general seems to be rushing headlong into the redefinition of marriage. In this, the Church of Jesus Christ has been a voice of restraint. It has quickly developed a reputation (and drawn hatred in some quarters) for doing so, even though it is not the only or even the largest entity to do it.

 

So it is just as erroneous to view the size of the Church as an indicator of its influence as it is to attach too much importance to its rate of growth.