Will the church ever abandon the belief that the Book of Abraham is historical scripture?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Some info on folk magic and the Smith family:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Occultism_and_magic/Origin

"Therefore, Joseph and his family viewed folk magic and the use of seer stones as not falling under this Biblical condemnation. It is clear that Joseph and his contemporaries believed that one could gain knowledge from such activities as dowsing (using a rod to find water, ore, or buried treasure) and the use of the seer stones. This does not mean, however, that Joseph understood such activities to be a form of magic.

In Joseph's day, the power of (for example) dowsing was seen as a manifestation of "how the world worked." An article published in 1825 described how the downward bob of a divining rode "closely resembles the dip of the magnetic needle, when traversing a bed or ore."[8] A journal of science reported the idea that "the rod is influenced by ores."[9]

An early British dowser denounced the idea that dowsing for ore was based on magic. "it [the rod] guided mee to the Orifice of a lead mine. [The rod is] of kin to the Load-stone [magnet], drawing Iron to it by a secret vertue, inbred by nature, and not by any conjuration as some have fondly imagined."[10]

Using a divining rod was seen in these examples as a manifestation of natural law, and requiring the grace of God to operate

Thus, divining was seen in these examples as a manifestation of natural law. Just as one might use a compass or lode-stone to find true north, without understanding the principles or mathematics of magnetism which underlay it, so one could use dowsing as a tool, without understanding the principles by which it operated.

It is further clear that those who used divinization by rods, for example, believed that the rod's natural ability also required the grace of God to operate. Hence, practitioners would consecrate their rods, and pray to God to bless their efforts.[11] Of such matters, Oliver Cowdery was told in an early revelation, "without faith you can do nothing."[12] Like any natural ability, Joseph believed that the gift and tools of seership (in the broader sense) could be misused. As he told Brigham Young, "most...who do find [a seer stone] make an evil use of it."[13]And, Emma Smith's hostile brother Alvah would later remember that Joseph told him "that his gift in seeing with a [seer] stone and hat, was a gift from God."[14]"

I started a thread a while back that mentions LDSAnswers. 

It's interesting that these people are disagreeing with people who represent FAIRMormon. But I think I understand why. They are like I was, it's no wonder I lost my testimony when finding out the true history.

ETA: What about all of Joseph's arrests for disorderly person for glass looking? Proof right there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

Edited February 1, 2017 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I started a thread a while back that mentions LDSAnswers. 

It's interesting that these people are disagreeing with people who represent FAIRMormon. But I think I understand why. They are like I was, it's no wonder I lost my testimony when finding out the true history.

ETA: What about all of Joseph's arrests for disorderly person for glass looking? Proof right there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_and_the_criminal_justice_system

I agree.  It is like they are taking apologetics backwards a couple decades.    I also used to think a lot like them.  Then truth hit and my shelf broke. 

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Have you seen the pictures of the seer stone?  It's just a rock. It wasn't a tool of Satan, a special divine rock, or anything magical, mystical, etc. It is and was an ordinary rock.

Clearly, Joseph's Smith believed that it aided him in revelation, looking for buried treasure, spotting treasure guardians, and translating. However, it didn't/doesn't have any special powers just like a dowsing rod doesn't actually have any magical/mystical/divine powers (there are multiple studies on that one). I believe Joseph Smith had a special connection with God, but with our 21st century understanding of religion and science, we can safely say his rock was only a psychological enabler in that relationship, despite JS' belief that it played a more literal role.

So perhaps the Liahona was just a trick of the mind? Perhaps an angel's flaming sword is just a mirage. Or maybe Moses just thought his staff turned into a snake. This is dangerous ground my friend - to turn miracles into mind tricks (or attempt to do so).

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Their insistence that the label "magic" must be applied in a certain way ignores actual usage, especially by academics such as Bushman.

So we now disagree with the definition that Mormon, Alma, Paul, and others have placed on sorcery and magic? (Going back to http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/) If you haven't noticed (remember my hierarchy thing?), I will put a scriptural quote far and above any perceived fact, and no one has yet quoted any scripture contradicting the scriptures shared by ldsanswers that would oppose Bushman's views on magic, Joseph Smith Sr., etc. Perhaps there is a very good reason for this?

 

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to "magic," scholars do not see a real distinction between magic and religion, but rather each religion defines what is prohibited.  The problem is that so much of what takes place in authentic Judaism and Christianity looks on the surface like "magic" that religion and magic become indistinguishable.  For example, you'll recall that famous scene from Exodus in which the magicians of Pharaoh cast down their staffs and the staffs turn into snakes.  So Moses and Aaron cast down their staffs, which likewise turn into snakes, and those last snakes eat the snakes of Pharaoh.  You should notice that there is no mention of "satanism" in Exodus, but rather of prohibited activity.  God can presumably use whatever means he likes to interact with his human children, including use of objects and methods which some people may find objectionable.

Again, do we no longer listen to the scriptures? Also, just fyi, Moses cast his rod first and the magicians then produced a counterfeit - a counterfeit which is always conquered by God's real power, as represented by Moses' snake eating the others. I disagree that magic and religion are indistinguishable. One worships God and is the power of God. The other worships Satan and the power of Satan. If we cannot distinguish, it is our fault and not because they are the same, for they are not.

LDS.org is very clear on this subject as the magicians using the power of evil if you read through the manual. https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-exodus/lesson-44-exodus-7-11?lang=eng

 

Quote

 

After the Lord turned Aaron’s rod into a serpent, Pharaoh summoned the magicians of Egypt—priests of Egypt’s false gods—who imitated this miracle. The magicians also imitated the first two plagues (see Exodus 7:21–22; 8:6–7).

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught, “The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations” (“Two Lines of Communication,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 84).

Although the magicians of Egypt were able to perform some imitations, they were never able to overcome the plagues the Lord sent upon Egypt. In fact, their imitations of the first two plagues only made circumstances worse for the people of Egypt. The contrast between the Lord’s priesthood power exercised by Moses and the imitations wrought by the magicians of Egypt illustrates that God’s power is superior to all other forms of power.

 

 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

So perhaps the Liahona was just a trick of the mind? Perhaps an angel's flaming sword is just a mirage. Or maybe Moses just thought his staff turned into a snake. This is dangerous ground my friend - to turn miracles into mind tricks (or attempt to do so).

 

So we now disagree with the definition that Mormon, Alma, Paul, and others have placed on sorcery and magic? (Going back to http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/) If you haven't noticed (remember my hierarchy thing?), I will put a scriptural quote far and above any perceived fact, and no one has yet quoted any scripture contradicting the scriptures shared by ldsanswers that would oppose Bushman's views on magic, Joseph Smith Sr., etc. Perhaps there is a very good reason for this?

 

Again, do we no longer listen to the scriptures? Also, just fyi, Moses cast his rod first and the magicians then produced a counterfeit - a counterfeit which is always conquered by God's real power, as represented by Moses' snake eating the others. I disagree that magic and religion are indistinguishable. One worships God and is the power of God. The other worships Satan and the power of Satan. If we cannot distinguish, it is our fault and not because they are the same, for they are not.

LDS.org is very clear on this subject as the magicians using the power of evil if you read through the manual. https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-exodus/lesson-44-exodus-7-11?lang=eng

 

 

First, linking to ldsanswers.org is not the same as quoting scripture.  Perhaps you could just quote the scriptures you have in mind.  I don't really want to create more traffic for that website. 

Second, I'm a little confused at what your position is at this point... are you still claiming that Joseph Smith Jr was NOT involved in magic?

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

So perhaps the Liahona was just a trick of the mind? Perhaps an angel's flaming sword is just a mirage. Or maybe Moses just thought his staff turned into a snake. This is dangerous ground my friend - to turn miracles into mind tricks (or attempt to do so).

 

So we now disagree with the definition that Mormon, Alma, Paul, and others have placed on sorcery and magic? (Going back to http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/) If you haven't noticed (remember my hierarchy thing?), I will put a scriptural quote far and above any perceived fact, and no one has yet quoted any scripture contradicting the scriptures shared by ldsanswers that would oppose Bushman's views on magic, Joseph Smith Sr., etc. Perhaps there is a very good reason for this?

 

Again, do we no longer listen to the scriptures? Also, just fyi, Moses cast his rod first and the magicians then produced a counterfeit - a counterfeit which is always conquered by God's real power, as represented by Moses' snake eating the others. I disagree that magic and religion are indistinguishable. One worships God and is the power of God. The other worships Satan and the power of Satan. If we cannot distinguish, it is our fault and not because they are the same, for they are not.

LDS.org is very clear on this subject as the magicians using the power of evil if you read through the manual. https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-exodus/lesson-44-exodus-7-11?lang=eng

 

 

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

You may not want the link to the CES letter exposed. Notice the picture of the Divining Rod, right below it? 

Also, speaking of the Divining Rod. When visiting Nauvoo a few years ago, my husband and I went to the Nauvoo Burial Ground http://mormonhistoricsites.org/nauvoo-burial-ground/ of the early LDS members. There was a man who was a senior missionary using a stick/diving rod to find missing graves, since many of the headstones were thrown in the ravine by mobs shortly after the Nauvoo Exodus. It was the first time I'd seen someone using one! It appears to have worked. But actually how would I know for sure? Very interesting though.

What do you think about that, is it evil?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

You may not want the link to the CES letter exposed. Notice the picture of the Divining Rod, right below it? 

Also, speaking of the Divining Rod. When visiting Nauvoo a few years ago, my husband and I went to the Nauvoo Burial Ground http://mormonhistoricsites.org/nauvoo-burial-ground/ of the early LDS members. There was a man who was a senior missionary using a stick/diving rod to find missing graves, since many of the headstones were thrown in the ravine by mobs shortly after the Nauvoo Exodus. It was the first time I'd seen someone using one! It appears to have worked. But actually how would I know for sure? Very interesting though.

What do you think about that, is it evil?

 

I've tried. It works 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

.................................................................   

Again, do we no longer listen to the scriptures? Also, just fyi, Moses cast his rod first and the magicians then produced a counterfeit - a counterfeit which is always conquered by God's real power, as represented by Moses' snake eating the others. I disagree that magic and religion are indistinguishable.

Of course you disagree.  Why do you think that I mentioned to you that scholars do not distinguish between magic and religion?  You are not a scholar and have made no study of the subject.  Thus, you do not understand it.

2 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

One worships God and is the power of God. The other worships Satan and the power of Satan. If we cannot distinguish, it is our fault and not because they are the same, for they are not.

I did not say that they are the same, but you might well ask whether Satan has independent power.  The answer is "no."  The only power he has is given to him by God.  And, of course, I am not speaking of Las Vegas magic tricks.

2 hours ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

LDS.org is very clear on this subject as the magicians using the power of evil if you read through the manual. https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-exodus/lesson-44-exodus-7-11?lang=eng 

The manuals are not Scripture, although they sometimes quote Scripture, and they do not apply systematic examination of issues -- only a light once over for beginners.  You need to go on from there and ask the hard questions:  Is God able to use objects and methods he wishes?  Do you understand that God has used seerstones, interpreters, Urim & Thummim, liahona, breastplate, rods, etc., and do you understand the differences among them?  Do you know where and when each was used?

Do you understand that both Joseph Jr and Joseph Smith Sr drank alcoholic beverages, and that the 19th century Sacrament of the Lord's Supper of the LDS Church featured wine?  Do you know that many early Mormons smoked and chewed tobacco without condemnation?  Do you understand that the Word of Wisdom was only advisory at first, becoming a commandment only in more recent times?  Do you understand what normal people were like in 1830, and do you accept that?  Or are you embarrassed by reality?  Do you require that the Lord share your narrow views?  Or do you accept all of Scripture?  Even when it is discomfiting?

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

First, linking to ldsanswers.org is not the same as quoting scripture.  Perhaps you could just quote the scriptures you have in mind.  I don't really want to create more traffic for that website. 

Second, I'm a little confused at what your position is at this point... are you still claiming that Joseph Smith Jr was NOT involved in magic?

So when I give you a link to a short website article you can't read it to find the information I'm telling you is there but you expect me to download and read a biography to find information you say is there? Not quite a fair there. And yes. I am. But I'm not 'claiming' it. A man is innocent until proven guilty right? And yes, this is about guilt because divination, magic, etc., is a serious sin.

 

Scriptures are very clear and just because I'm not gonna make you click on an entirely new link and open a new tab, here's one

Quote

 

When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
(Deuteronomy 18:9–12)

 

 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Also, speaking of the Divining Rod. When visiting Nauvoo a few years ago, my husband and I went to the Nauvoo Burial Ground http://mormonhistoricsites.org/nauvoo-burial-ground/ of the early LDS members. There was a man who was a senior missionary using a stick/diving rod to find missing graves, since many of the headstones were thrown in the ravine by mobs shortly after the Nauvoo Exodus. It was the first time I'd seen someone using one! It appears to have worked. But actually how would I know for sure? Very interesting though.

What do you think about that, is it evil?

I'm not going to take the position of judging this senior missionary, but I will say that from the scripture above it appears the devil's power is real and the Lord isn't very happy when we play around with it.

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You may not want the link to the CES letter exposed. Notice the picture of the Divining Rod, right below it?

I thought we wanted the facts out. LDS Answers tries to let us know from a gospel-based view that CES letter is wrong and explain why - from a doctrinal perspective. That is something this comment forum has been very empty of, to speak bluntly.

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course you disagree.  Why do you think that I mentioned to you that scholars do not distinguish between magic and religion?  You are not a scholar and have made no study of the subject.  Thus, you do not understand it.

I did not say that they are the same, but you might well ask whether Satan has independent power.  The answer is "no."  The only power he has is given to him by God.  And, of course, I am not speaking of Las Vegas magic tricks.

The manuals are not Scripture, although they sometimes quote Scripture, and they do not apply systematic examination of issues -- only a light once over for beginners.  You need to go on from there and ask the hard questions:  Is God able to use objects and methods he wishes?  Do you understand that God has used seerstones, interpreters, Urim & Thummim, liahona, breastplate, rods, etc., and do you understand the differences among them?  Do you know where and when each was used?

Do you understand that both Joseph Jr and Joseph Smith Sr drank alcoholic beverages, and that the 19th century Sacrament of the Lord's Supper of the LDS Church featured wine?  Do you know that many early Mormons smoked and chewed tobacco without condemnation?  Do you understand that the Word of Wisdom was only advisory at first, becoming a commandment only in more recent times?  Do you understand what normal people were like in 1830, and do you accept that?  Or are you embarrassed by reality?  Do you require that the Lord share your narrow views?  Or do you accept all of Scripture?  Even when it is discomfiting?

Am I your type of scholar? Apparently not. However, I've posted plenty of scriptural and doctrinal evidence - much more than others on this comment forum. I do not seek first the "learning of men". I seek first for the "wisdom of God", for only in the words of God can we find total, pure truth. If you don't consider that to be a scholar then I'm fine with not fitting your definition.

God did not give Satan the power he has, He allows Satan the power he has.

I can understand that manuals are not 100% scripture, but attempting to discredit their simple "examination" of this topic is pointless. The scripture means what it means. It condemns the Egyptian magicians and shows that God's power is always stronger than Satan's counterfeits. 

You sure have plenty of questions.The answer is yes. Only thing is, your questions have the wrong subject. It's not about me or what I understand. It's about the Lord and what He has declared as truth. When I see truth as stated by the Lord's prophets, it trumps all and any perceived facts or opinions, mine included. Scripture is #1.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Am I your type of scholar? Apparently not. However, I've posted plenty of scriptural and doctrinal evidence - much more than others on this comment forum. I do not seek first the "learning of men". I seek first for the "wisdom of God", for only in the words of God can we find total, pure truth. If you don't consider that to be a scholar then I'm fine with not fitting your definition.

No one (including you) needs to be a scholar, but it is dishonest to pretend to understand the issues or to be familiar with material you have not studied.  Likewise condemning people and books with which you are not familiar.

19 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

God did not give Satan the power he has, He allows Satan the power he has.

Now you are playing semantic games.  That is also dishonest.

19 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

I can understand that manuals are not 100% scripture, but attempting to discredit their simple "examination" of this topic is pointless. The scripture means what it means. It condemns the Egyptian magicians and shows that God's power is always stronger than Satan's counterfeits. 

You sure have plenty of questions.The answer is yes. Only thing is, your questions have the wrong subject. It's not about me or what I understand. It's about the Lord and what He has declared as truth. When I see truth as stated by the Lord's prophets, it trumps all and any perceived facts or opinions, mine included. Scripture is #1.

I have no problem with someone reading the manuals or citing Scripture, but it is always incumbent upon those making the extraordinary claims you make here to at least know the Scriptures well enough to engage in a real discussion.  That requires systematic study and familiarity.  A little humility goes a long way.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

So when I give you a link to a short website article you can't read it to find the information I'm telling you is there but you expect me to download and read a biography to find information you say is there? Not quite a fair there. And yes. I am. But I'm not 'claiming' it. A man is innocent until proven guilty right? And yes, this is about guilt because divination, magic, etc., is a serious sin.

 

Scriptures are very clear and just because I'm not gonna make you click on an entirely new link and open a new tab, here's one

 

I followed your link and read ldsanswers, remember -- I pointed out to you how Bradley Young had taken Bushman's quote completely out of context and led you to believe Bushman was saying something he wasn't?  Since you are new here, I was just pointing out that giving a link to a spurious article is not the same as quoting a scripture.  And I recommended that you read Bushman's RSR because you were making false claims about it without having read it.

As for your claim that Joseph was not involved in magic, you are wrong.  It's just that simple.  The evidence is overwhelming and you cannot find any scholarly historian who has studied Joseph's life who will agree with your conclusion.  Your "hierarchy" that you've referred to has admitted that Joseph was involved in magic.  Do you not trust them?  Will you value ldsanswers.org over material published by the church?

How you reconcile the reality of Joseph's life with that scripture is up to you.  I don't have a problem with Joseph being involved in magic nor do I believe that it prevented him from being a prophet. If you believe his use of magic was a sin, just remember that Joseph didn't shy away from admitting that he had sinned.  

[bcuzbcuz]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

You may not want the link to the CES letter exposed. Notice the picture of the Divining Rod, right below it? 

Also, speaking of the Divining Rod. When visiting Nauvoo a few years ago, my husband and I went to the Nauvoo Burial Ground http://mormonhistoricsites.org/nauvoo-burial-ground/ of the early LDS members. There was a man who was a senior missionary using a stick/diving rod to find missing graves, since many of the headstones were thrown in the ravine by mobs shortly after the Nauvoo Exodus. It was the first time I'd seen someone using one! It appears to have worked. But actually how would I know for sure? Very interesting though.

What do you think about that, is it evil?

 

I'm confused. You tell of visiting Nauvoo where a senior missionary used a diving rod to find missing graves. How is that you believe it worked? Did they dig up the potential grave site and find a body in each one? Did the diving rod find the heads or chests or were the body parts random? Or did finding one bone suffice? Could finding bones provide any identification of who was buried as said site?

In ten (or however many searches) how many graves were found? Was it successful every time? Did the diviner explain whenever the rods found a site as to how they found the site? Did he equally define everytime that the rods did not work?

I've watched a water diviner. He stated he found water at a number of locations but his most positive reading gave no water after 60 feet. no other wells were dug there. When he was dousing, the rod did indeed bend downwards. He also used bent metal rods that would cross over each other when there was supposedly something found. He found a separate sewage pipe to the septic tank and underground electrical wires. A day without much useful information. 

So i'm interested in what actually worked and how many times it didn't work?

[Calm]

"So we now disagree with the definition that Mormon, Alma, Paul, and others have placed on sorcery and magic."

Are you suggesting that words can only have one meaning and that has been given to the term "magic" by people who weren't even using it since they spoke in a language different than English?

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'm confused. You tell of visiting Nauvoo where a senior missionary used a diving rod to find missing graves. How is that you believe it worked? Did they dig up the potential grave site and find a body in each one? Did the diving rod find the heads or chests or were the body parts random? Or did finding one bone suffice? Could finding bones provide any identification of who was buried as said site?

In ten (or however many searches) how many graves were found? Was it successful every time? Did the diviner explain whenever the rods found a site as to how they found the site? Did he equally define everytime that the rods did not work?

I've watched a water diviner. He stated he found water at a number of locations but his most positive reading gave no water after 60 feet. no other wells were dug there. When he was dousing, the rod did indeed bend downwards. He also used bent metal rods that would cross over each other when there was supposedly something found. He found a separate sewage pipe to the septic tank and underground electrical wires. A day without much useful information. 

So i'm interested in what actually worked and how many times it didn't work?

Wow, wish I had asked him! We spoke for only a few minutes, just the usual greeting. I may have mentioned how impressed I was with he and his wife in the play the previous night and what good shape they were in. Those missionaries work tirelessly. And I tried not to appear shocked or curious. Acting as if everything was just fine. I really wanted to take a photo, but didn't think that was right. All I remember is he was trying to find graves to make markers. I saw this on the website........

"Since most of the graves cannot be identified, a kiosk has been built there which lists the names of those people who died while living in Nauvoo. The cemetery is located approximately two miles east of Nauvoo."

He may have just thought, hey, why not try and locate the graves with a divining rod and atleast locate the graves. I was kind of shocked that the church didn't do more at that site and can't find any other information about the gravesite where approx. 2000 members were buried between 1839 and 1846. I know the the RLDS church owned it until 1989, so maybe a lot of it was cleaned up and there isn't much to find, such as the headstones. 

While visiting the Nauvoo sites, and homes, I was also shocked that the church didn't work on the homes until I think the 60's, before that Dr. Kimball bought a home there and restored it. He then bought more property to protect his. You can read about it here. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/nauvoo-today-building-again-the-city-beautiful?lang=eng 

I wonder why the church pretty much left Nauvoo alone until then. 

Found these two youtubes of dowsing in action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evf7Ha7Sd1U    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_ETyEZUZzM

 

 

[rongo]

10 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'm confused. You tell of visiting Nauvoo where a senior missionary used a diving rod to find missing graves. How is that you believe it worked? Did they dig up the potential grave site and find a body in each one? Did the diving rod find the heads or chests or were the body parts random? Or did finding one bone suffice? Could finding bones provide any identification of who was buried as said site?

In ten (or however many searches) how many graves were found? Was it successful every time? Did the diviner explain whenever the rods found a site as to how they found the site? Did he equally define everytime that the rods did not work?

I've watched a water diviner. He stated he found water at a number of locations but his most positive reading gave no water after 60 feet. no other wells were dug there. When he was dousing, the rod did indeed bend downwards. He also used bent metal rods that would cross over each other when there was supposedly something found. He found a separate sewage pipe to the septic tank and underground electrical wires. A day without much useful information. 

So i'm interested in what actually worked and how many times it didn't work?

Last summer, I did some "flagging" for the gas company (directing traffic with stop/slow signs with another worker when one or both lanes needs to be stopped for work to continue). They were replacing old gas lines with new ones that had copper wire embedded so that it can easily be found. 

It was a massive job, with miles and miles of pipe. When I asked them how they located the pipe (they often didn't go in straight lines or logical/common sense directions), one of the workers showed me the copper rods they used. I said, "You're kidding!," and they were completely serious. How can you tell where the pipeline is using those? "You can feel it dip and jerk. Mostly, you can just feel it." 

That's the gas company's way to find old plastic/PVC pipes that don't have detectable metal.  

[ERayR]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course you disagree.  Why do you think that I mentioned to you that scholars do not distinguish between magic and religion?  You are not a scholar and have made no study of the subject.  Thus, you do not understand it.

 

One does not always have to be a scholar to have an understanding (sometimes a greater understanding) of a topic. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, ERayR said:

One does not always have to be a scholar to have an understanding (sometimes a greater understanding) of a topic. 

True.  But I was only speaking of scholarly understanding.  When I go to see my cardiologist, I can certainly tell him of my symptoms, and I can decide whether I want a particular treatment, but I try not to tell him his business.  He is the doctor, and I depend on his expertise.  His professional training and experience are essential.  It is no different for historians, plumbers, or auto mechanics, even though some people consider them all a bunch of egotistical frauds just out to enrich themselves.

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No one (including you) needs to be a scholar, but it is dishonest to pretend to understand the issues or to be familiar with material you have not studied.  Likewise condemning people and books with which you are not familiar.

Now you are playing semantic games.  That is also dishonest.

I have no problem with someone reading the manuals or citing Scripture, but it is always incumbent upon those making the extraordinary claims you make here to at least know the Scriptures well enough to engage in a real discussion.  That requires systematic study and familiarity.  A little humility goes a long way.

Why do you claim I'm "dishonest to pretend to understand the issues"? I understand the issues - but most importantly, I'm understanding them with a scriptural and doctrinal perspective, something I'm not finding a lot of on this comment forum.

As I said earlier, I'm NOT condemning Bushman or his book as a whole. I'm disagreeing with the things he has stated that are incorrect.

Semantic games? You think that saying God's power and Satan's power are different is a semantic game? That isn't even logic, it's in scripture. Moroni 6:12 for example

Quote

12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

Evil (and its power) does not come from God and is not some power that God has given to Satan. It belongs to Satan, and the Lord allows him to use it.

Are you concerned that I don't "know the Scriptures well enough to engage in a real discussion"? Interesting. I haven't seen any of you post a scripture yet, just opinions.

"A little humility goes a long way." It does. And, regardless of whether I am perceived by those viewing this comment forum as an arrogant dummy or a humble gospel scholar, truth must be stated and it cannot compromise with lies.

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I followed your link and read ldsanswers, remember -- I pointed out to you how Bradley Young had taken Bushman's quote completely out of context and led you to believe Bushman was saying something he wasn't?  Since you are new here, I was just pointing out that giving a link to a spurious article is not the same as quoting a scripture.  And I recommended that you read Bushman's RSR because you were making false claims about it without having read it.

As for your claim that Joseph was not involved in magic, you are wrong.  It's just that simple.  The evidence is overwhelming and you cannot find any scholarly historian who has studied Joseph's life who will agree with your conclusion.  Your "hierarchy" that you've referred to has admitted that Joseph was involved in magic.  Do you not trust them?  Will you value ldsanswers.org over material published by the church?

How you reconcile the reality of Joseph's life with that scripture is up to you.  I don't have a problem with Joseph being involved in magic nor do I believe that it prevented him from being a prophet. If you believe his use of magic was a sin, just remember that Joseph didn't shy away from admitting that he had sinned.

I never said the article was the same as quoting scripture - I referenced their conclusions about magic (and their scriptural examples) to support my own.

False claims? No one has yet provided any doctrinal or even any factual evidence.

Evidence is overwhelming? My 'hierarchy' has admitted he was involved in magic? I think not. No scriptures, doctrine, or solid facts you can quote instead of generalizing your opinion?

Do I trust them? Yes. Fully and completely. The day I am given a solidly backed-up quote from a prophet of God saying Joseph Smith used 'magic' (and yes magic not seer stones - they're different) is the day I will reconsider my stance. However, all scriptural evidence says Joseph Smith was not involved in magic and the facts currently cannot prove he was either.

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting that words can only have one meaning and that has been given to the term "magic" by people who weren't even using it since they spoke in a language different than English?

 You are attempting to discredit scripture (usually not a good idea) by saying that our definition of the word 'magic' has changed. On the contrary, our definition of the word 'magic' has remained essentially unchanged since 1828, about the time that the Lord gave this translation to Joseph Smith:

Quote

And it came to pass that there were sorceries, and witchcrafts, and magics; and the power of the evil one was wrought upon all the face of the land, even unto the fulfilling of all the words of Abinadi, and also Samuel the Lamanite. (Mormon 1:19)

If the Lord (through the translation of Moroni) classifies sorceries, witchcrafts, and magics as "the power of the evil one", I'll stick with His definition. If you want some more information about the definitions of 'magic' as compared from scriptural times, Joseph Smith's time, and our time, there is a piece about definitions at the beginning of the article http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

55 minutes ago, ERayR said:

One does not always have to be a scholar to have an understanding (sometimes a greater understanding) of a topic. 

Thank you @ERayR! 

37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

True.  But I was only speaking of scholarly understanding

You attempt to assume I have no scholarly understanding. That is wrong. I just never allow any scholarly understanding to get in the way of my doctrinal and scriptural understanding.

[Faith, Family, Freedom]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When I go to see my cardiologist, I can certainly tell him of my symptoms, and I can decide whether I want a particular treatment, but I try not to tell him his business.  He is the doctor, and I depend on his expertise.  His professional training and experience are essential.  It is no different for historians

History isn't quite the same as diagnosing a disease. A disease is a bacteria or virus that simply is what it is. Academic knowledge about the disease will apply. History is attempting to understand people who lived many years ago. You speak of academic learning as if it all applies to history and people (Joseph Smith included) just as much as it does to a disease. Unfortunately, learning academic facts and information won't help as much with understanding the restoration and Joseph Smith - the most spiritual time and person since the Savior. We need to go first to the source of all truth that has both spiritual and physical.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Why do you claim I'm "dishonest to pretend to understand the issues"? I understand the issues - but most importantly, I'm understanding them with a scriptural and doctrinal perspective, something I'm not finding a lot of on this comment forum.

As I said earlier, I'm NOT condemning Bushman or his book as a whole. I'm disagreeing with the things he has stated that are incorrect.

Semantic games? You think that saying God's power and Satan's power are different is a semantic game? That isn't even logic, it's in scripture. Moroni 6:12 for example

Evil (and its power) does not come from God and is not some power that God has given to Satan. It belongs to Satan, and the Lord allows him to use it.

Are you concerned that I don't "know the Scriptures well enough to engage in a real discussion"? Interesting. I haven't seen any of you post a scripture yet, just opinions.

"A little humility goes a long way." It does. And, regardless of whether I am perceived by those viewing this comment forum as an arrogant dummy or a humble gospel scholar, truth must be stated and it cannot compromise with lies.

I never said the article was the same as quoting scripture - I referenced their conclusions about magic (and their scriptural examples) to support my own.

False claims? No one has yet provided any doctrinal or even any factual evidence.

Evidence is overwhelming? My 'hierarchy' has admitted he was involved in magic? I think not. No scriptures, doctrine, or solid facts you can quote instead of generalizing your opinion?

Do I trust them? Yes. Fully and completely. The day I am given a solidly backed-up quote from a prophet of God saying Joseph Smith used 'magic' (and yes magic not seer stones - they're different) is the day I will reconsider my stance. However, all scriptural evidence says Joseph Smith was not involved in magic and the facts currently cannot prove he was either.

 You are attempting to discredit scripture (usually not a good idea) by saying that our definition of the word 'magic' has changed. On the contrary, our definition of the word 'magic' has remained essentially unchanged since 1828, about the time that the Lord gave this translation to Joseph Smith:

If the Lord (through the translation of Moroni) classifies sorceries, witchcrafts, and magics as "the power of the evil one", I'll stick with His definition. If you want some more information about the definitions of 'magic' as compared from scriptural times, Joseph Smith's time, and our time, there is a piece about definitions at the beginning of the article http://www.ldsanswers.org/was-joseph-smith-involved-in-witchcraft-magic-and-the-occult/

How about Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives and many other women, including those that worked at his home, plus adopted daughters? Is there any scripture mentioning this being right? Specifically marrying another living men's wives? I know there is a scripture in the Bible that specifically mentions not to marry sisters, or mothers/daughters. Leviticus 18:17-18. What about that?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Why do you claim I'm "dishonest to pretend to understand the issues"? I understand the issues - but most importantly, I'm understanding them with a scriptural and doctrinal perspective, something I'm not finding a lot of on this comment forum.

You have already proven that you do not understand LDS history by your and ldsanswers false statements about history.  Reminds me of the recent BBC series on fibs about British history -- widely believed but quite wrong (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvBIkhxDMEc British History's Biggest Fibs with Lucy Worsley, BBC 4)

 

Quote

As I said earlier, I'm NOT condemning Bushman or his book as a whole. I'm disagreeing with the things he has stated that are incorrect.

To the contrary, you have engaged in character assassination through repeating false statements about Richard Bushman, and thus judging him based on your own lack of knowledge.  It is as though there were no Scriptural provision against rumormongering or bearing false witness.  I fully expect that sort of thing from anti-Mormon attacks on the LDS Church and its leaders, but why do you do it?

Quote

 

Semantic games? You think that saying God's power and Satan's power are different is a semantic game? That isn't even logic, it's in scripture. Moroni 6:12 for example 

Evil (and its power) does not come from God and is not some power that God has given to Satan. It belongs to Satan, and the Lord allows him to use it.

 

More semantics.  What good is this theoretical power possessed by Satan, if God does not allow him to use it?  Whenever we see Satan active in Scripture, it is always with the control of God under the eternal Law of Opposition.  Satan cannot function independently.  He must always go and request permission of God, as when he wants to test Job.  He does serve an important function, but always under the bridle of God.

Are you concerned that I don't "know the Scriptures well enough to engage in a real discussion"? Interesting. I haven't seen any of you post a scripture yet, just opinions.

"A little humility goes a long way." It does. And, regardless of whether I am perceived by those viewing this comment forum as an arrogant dummy or a humble gospel scholar, truth must be stated and it cannot compromise with lies.

I never said the article was the same as quoting scripture - I referenced their conclusions about magic (and their scriptural examples) to support my own..................................................................................

Thus far, I have seen nothing that would suggest to me that you actually know the Scriptures.  Proof texts are of limited use in such far-reaching discussions, and you should be very suspicious of them as the sort of thing so popular among Protestants.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

History isn't quite the same as diagnosing a disease. A disease is a bacteria or virus that simply is what it is. Academic knowledge about the disease will apply. History is attempting to understand people who lived many years ago. You speak of academic learning as if it all applies to history and people (Joseph Smith included) just as much as it does to a disease. Unfortunately, learning academic facts and information won't help as much with understanding the restoration and Joseph Smith - the most spiritual time and person since the Savior. We need to go first to the source of all truth that has both spiritual and physical.

So having historical knowledge and expertise is just like falling off a log?  So, actually studying history as an academic discipline is useless, and you portray yourself to us having that  knowledge.  Extraordinary.  Why then is it that nearly all of your statements about LDS history are blatantly false?  Will you now follow that performance with a demonstration of your complete command of Physics and Chemistry?

If you attend BYU Education Week this coming August, will you condemn the BYU historians speaking there as heretics and apostates -- just because they don't seem to support your ldsanswers propaganda?  Or will you listen humbly and learn something from them?  It is really your choice.

You might also choose to take an online course or two from BYU:  Just to start, you might want to try History 220, https://is.byu.edu/description/HIST-220-M002 , or Religion C 341, https://is.byu.edu/description/RELC-341-200 .

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

Numbers added by Rockpond to facilitate response:

1.  As I said earlier, I'm NOT condemning Bushman or his book as a whole. I'm disagreeing with the things he has stated that are incorrect.

2.  Semantic games? You think that saying God's power and Satan's power are different is a semantic game? That isn't even logic, it's in scripture. Moroni 6:12 for example

3.  False claims? No one has yet provided any doctrinal or even any factual evidence.

4.  Evidence is overwhelming? My 'hierarchy' has admitted he was involved in magic? I think not. No scriptures, doctrine, or solid facts you can quote instead of generalizing your opinion?

5.  Do I trust them? Yes. Fully and completely. The day I am given a solidly backed-up quote from a prophet of God saying Joseph Smith used 'magic' (and yes magic not seer stones - they're different) is the day I will reconsider my stance. However, all scriptural evidence says Joseph Smith was not involved in magic and the facts currently cannot prove he was either.

6. You are attempting to discredit scripture (usually not a good idea) by saying that our definition of the word 'magic' has changed. On the contrary, our definition of the word 'magic' has remained essentially unchanged since 1828, about the time that the Lord gave this translation to Joseph Smith:

1.  You have not identified anything that Bushman said that was incorrect.  You have only claimed that he is wrong but Bushman's solid research trumps your baseless claims.

2.  You are the only one here claiming that the magic employed by Joseph and his family was somehow Satanic.

3.  The factual evidence is in Bushman's book but you seem content with out-of-context quotes.

4.  Start with this quote from LDS.org and I've included the three footnotes as they are important.

Quote

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.”18 As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.19 As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.20

18. Joseph Smith probably possessed more than one seer stone; he appears to have found one of the stones while digging for a well around 1822. (Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism [Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984], 69–70.)
19. According to Martin Harris, an angel commanded Joseph Smith to stop these activities, which he did by 1826. (See Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, 64–76; and Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching,” BYU Studies 24, no. 4 [Fall 1984]: 489–560.) Joseph did not hide his well-known early involvement in treasure seeking. In 1838, he published responses to questions frequently asked of him. “Was not Jo Smith a money digger,” one question read. “Yes,” Joseph answered, “but it was never a very profitable job to him, as he only got fourteen dollars a month for it.” (Selections from Elders’ Journal, July 1838, 43, available at josephsmithpapers.org.) For the broader cultural context, see Alan Taylor, “The Early Republic’s Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780–1830,” American Quarterly 38, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 6–33.
20. Mark Ashurst-McGee, “A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet,” (Master's Thesis, Utah State University, 2000).

Source:  https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true#18

5.  Here is the statement from the intro page for the gospel topics essays from which I quoted above, that the they have been approved by the Prophet and Apostles.

Quote

The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.

Source:  https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng&old=true

6. You seem to be attempting to play word games with "magic", it is not as if there is a singular, universally understood definition of that word.  So let's talk about what Joseph actually did:  He searched for treasure and lost items using the seer stone which he also used to translate the Book of Mormon.  And he and his family used a divining rod to find water.  These are the forms of "magic" to which Bushman was referring.  Perhaps those things are the "abominations" spoken of by the scriptures you identified.  If so, it makes sense that Joseph felt he needed to repent.  But it is also interesting that the same seer stone which was used for locating lost treasure and other items was then used to translate the Book of Mormon.  It seems that most of us here have reconciled that for our own faith paradigms.  You'll need to do the same.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Faith, Family, Freedom said:

History isn't quite the same as diagnosing a disease. A disease is a bacteria or virus that simply is what it is. Academic knowledge about the disease will apply. History is attempting to understand people who lived many years ago. You speak of academic learning as if it all applies to history and people (Joseph Smith included) just as much as it does to a disease. Unfortunately, learning academic facts and information won't help as much with understanding the restoration and Joseph Smith - the most spiritual time and person since the Savior. We need to go first to the source of all truth that has both spiritual and physical.

"All truth can ultimately be circumscribed in one great whole."

This applies to both scripture and historical facts.