Jeanne Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 Okay. So I haven't read everything yet; but a plus to Deseret Book for their contribution to getting a book like this out there. May I ask a dumb question? Does the above picture to most of you really means that perhaps the wand is like a diving rod? 1
hope_for_things Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, mapman said: I have never personally had any dreams that I would consider spiritual or meaningful. I know other people that say they have, and I don't feel like I'm in the position to tell them their experiences are false. It seems some people have different spiritual gifts. Spirituality is very personal and subjective, and I think beyond the scope of science because it cannot be approached objectively. Regardless of how exactly it was produced, the Book of Mormon speaks to me on a spiritual level. I admit it is problematic to attribute phenomena like dreams and visions to God since they can often be contradictory, incoherent, or just plain demented. I agree with you that these experiences are very personal, and I try to be respectful of how profound and influential these experiences are for each individual. At the same time, I think there is much to learn in these areas and I would disagree that this is beyond the scope of science. There are some very interesting studies happening about how our brains work, and I think there are great strides being made in these fields. If we can continue to learn things about how the mind works, we can make better decisions that will improve our lives. I don't find this approach to be antithetical to faith, I think it can enhance faith, but it may require that we set aside some of our preconceived notions about how God communicates with us, and it may require that we have an open mind about these issues. In Mormonism, we are taught a very simplistic view of how the spirit works. Listen to your feelings, these come from God/HG, we should follow those feelings. Well, our feelings can be easily influenced by so many factors. Just following feelings is not wise advice and can lead to dangerous decision making if done in isolation from reasoning and study and practiced consideration. I'm retraining myself to listen to my feelings and ask myself the questions, why am I feeling this way, what is influencing my feelings. Not to just automatically assume that its God. Thanks for the interesting post and conversation! Edited August 23, 2016 by hope_for_things
cinepro Posted August 23, 2016 Posted August 23, 2016 It's odd to think that had things turned out just a little bit differently, we all might think it's weird that early Church members used to bless people with oil, while all the modern day Elders carry around little seer stones attached to their key rings. 1
saemo Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 9 hours ago, Jeanne said: Okay. So I haven't read everything yet; but a plus to Deseret Book for their contribution to getting a book like this out there. May I ask a dumb question? Does the above picture to most of you really means that perhaps the wand is like a diving rod? An alternative explanation. ".... an article by Lee Jefferson (Centre College), which he has posted on academia.edu, has made me rethink this. In The Staff of Jesus in Early Christian Art (Religion and the Arts, 14 [2010] 221–251), Jefferson notes that "there are no artistic renderings of magicians in existence from late antiquity," and that magicians of late antiquity didn't use wands. Instead, Magicians relied upon the proper vocalization and physical execution mandated by the spell in order to procure the desired effect, not the use of an external tool like a wand. Thus, the staff in Christian art bears no association with magic. Moses Striking the Rock. Catacomb of St. Callixtus, Rome His argument is that we are projecting our contemporary view of magic wands that is more at home in Harry Potter stories onto a culture in which that would have been foreign. Jefferson further notes that Jesus is not the only one in early Christian art that bears a 'wand,' but Moses and Peter do too. This includes images of Moses bringing water from a rock with an instrument that looks more like a wand than a staff. His conclusion, as you may have guessed from his title, is that Jesus is using a staff which connects him to Moses more than Simon Magus (Acts 8:9-24)." http://www.biblejunkies.com/2014/06/magic-wands-in-early-christian-art.html 1
theplains Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 On 22/08/2016 at 6:38 PM, JLHPROF said: Why wouldn't he? And folk magic isn't the "occult". It's folk magic. Like the kind we all participate in frequently every time we follow a tradition for luck or to avoid bad luck. Spiritualism was big business in the 1800s. Yes. I agree with you that it was big business and probably very 'fashionable' at the time. But do you believe God approved of this folk magic? In your opinion, what you do see as the difference(s) between folk magic and the occult? Thanks, Jim
theplains Posted August 24, 2016 Posted August 24, 2016 On 22/08/2016 at 8:34 PM, mapman said: Joseph Smith taught that we should look for goodness and truth wherever we can find it, and I think that our discomfort with the "occult" is unreasonable. So you believe God would approve of Smith's methods to look for buried treasure? Thanks, Jim
JLHPROF Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 5 hours ago, theplains said: Yes. I agree with you that it was big business and probably very 'fashionable' at the time. But do you believe God approved of this folk magic? God doesn't approve of it. God doesn't approve of a lot of things in lots of societies. Perhaps that's why Joseph stopped when God called him.
halconero Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 5 hours ago, theplains said: Yes. I agree with you that it was big business and probably very 'fashionable' at the time. But do you believe God approved of this folk magic? In your opinion, what you do see as the difference(s) between folk magic and the occult? Thanks, Jim One thing we have to realize is that folk magic is never called folk magic by those who practice it. For example, anthropologists and colonial governors were quick to call tribal medical practitioners "witch-doctors." From the emic perspective though the rituals and practice associated with the healing were simply the order of things and how they were done. In contrast, when witchcraft is acknowledged within a cultural population, it usually deviates significantly from acceptable norms and practices. In Joseph's day, much of what we call magic they considered simply how the world worked. 3
mapman Posted August 25, 2016 Author Posted August 25, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, theplains said: So you believe God would approve of Smith's methods to look for buried treasure? Thanks, Jim Part of the point of the book was that the occult/folk magic/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is broader and more spiritual than is usually thought. Treasure digging was part of the tradition, but there was more to it than that. There is much good and truth that can be found in this tradition, and many of those things are part of Mormon theology. That's all I was saying. I don't think that using seer stones to find money even works, so I don't think God would particularly care one way or the other. What he did apparently care about was the greed in Joseph's heart. His first instinct was to see the golden plates as buried treasure, but over the course of several years he was taught to value more highly the things of God and to stop treasure digging. While he stopped money digging he definitely didn't reject the "occult" tradition entirely, considering that he continued to value seer stones, became a freemason, etc. Edited August 25, 2016 by mapman
mapman Posted August 25, 2016 Author Posted August 25, 2016 On 8/23/2016 at 3:18 PM, hope_for_things said: I agree with you that these experiences are very personal, and I try to be respectful of how profound and influential these experiences are for each individual. At the same time, I think there is much to learn in these areas and I would disagree that this is beyond the scope of science. There are some very interesting studies happening about how our brains work, and I think there are great strides being made in these fields. If we can continue to learn things about how the mind works, we can make better decisions that will improve our lives. I don't find this approach to be antithetical to faith, I think it can enhance faith, but it may require that we set aside some of our preconceived notions about how God communicates with us, and it may require that we have an open mind about these issues. In Mormonism, we are taught a very simplistic view of how the spirit works. Listen to your feelings, these come from God/HG, we should follow those feelings. Well, our feelings can be easily influenced by so many factors. Just following feelings is not wise advice and can lead to dangerous decision making if done in isolation from reasoning and study and practiced consideration. I'm retraining myself to listen to my feelings and ask myself the questions, why am I feeling this way, what is influencing my feelings. Not to just automatically assume that its God. Thanks for the interesting post and conversation! Thank you for discussing with me! I'm sure that science has lots more to teach us about how our minds work. I think that it can definitely provide insight and explain what is happening, but in the end can't tell us what our experiences should mean to us. That being said, scientific discoveries can only be good for us, and if it damages your faith, that means your faith wasn't built on a sure foundation anyways.
hope_for_things Posted August 25, 2016 Posted August 25, 2016 12 hours ago, mapman said: Thank you for discussing with me! I'm sure that science has lots more to teach us about how our minds work. I think that it can definitely provide insight and explain what is happening, but in the end can't tell us what our experiences should mean to us. That being said, scientific discoveries can only be good for us, and if it damages your faith, that means your faith wasn't built on a sure foundation anyways. I like the way you put that it can't tell us what our experiences should mean to us. Ultimately it sounds like you're saying that we have to determine the meaning of the experience individually. However, our scientific understanding will influence how we interpret our experiences. As for building our faith on a sure foundation, that is an interesting question. Throughout my faith journey, I've been searching to determine what my foundation is. Right now, I don't know, I feel like its in flux. I want to continue to learn, but I have a hard time with the idea of orienting towards one particular set of beliefs, because I see the limits of my ability to comprehend. I've also seen just how dramatically my ideas shift as I try to truly understand the perspectives of others. I used to think this idea of moral relativism was an evil concept, but I think there is real value in relative thinking now. I'm not as willing to dismiss things or ascribe to things as I used to be. Some people might view me as wishy washy, and perhaps there is an element of truth to that. What have you found meaningful as far as building a foundation for your beliefs? I value your opinion.
Recommended Posts