Magic, the Occult, Seer Stones, and Religion, more important "Our Religion".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

While reading another thread, something caught my eye, as it has so many times before. Often in the arena of, "Religious Debate", different posters discuss what they do, or don't believe. I wanted to address this in a different thread, and to make clear that, I don't believe in "Magic, the Occult, in Orcales, or Talismans". I often visit and debate no-mo's, or never-mo's who level accusations at the early Church and Joseph Smith. This often leads to me asking a series of questions, such as...

Do you believe in magic? The answer is always no, which seems odd, as so much of anti-Mormon attacks suggest that Joseph was influenced through magic. What this means is that since Joseph believed in magic, that is all that matters. 

Do you believe in the occult? Some reply yes, others no, some make the same arguments as the question concerning magic. Such debates end up with comments about "Occult Symbols", which begs the question; Who decides if a symbol is "Holy" and which symbol is an "Occult" symbol? One symbol is found on many early Christian Churches, then someone declared it (them) an occult symbol;s). Symbols that are on at least two Temples we have today. 

So, I do not need (I hope) to list every word or symbol, to make the overall point. Which is, "if" these items have no power, then 1) They could not have added the Prophet Joseph Smith in the foundation of the Church, the Book of Mormon, and all of his revealations, and 2) If these things are nothing more than "folklore", then what is the debate over? 

I will point out that there is evidence (scriptural), of "New Names" and "White Rocks", or "Seer Stones" and the U&T. So whatever these things are that are mentioned in Scripture, more specific, The Bible...when and how did they become connected to the "Occult". 

Just one last example, so many things, including "demonic possession", ideas widely in scripture and in the early Christian Church, are now known to be mental disorders. 

Do we have to believe in "old world" ideas about folklore to debate those who makes such claims about the Church? Or, should any such allegations be dismissed by any who seek to make such links?  

[poptart]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

While reading another thread, something caught my eye, as it has so many times before. Often in the arena of, "Religious Debate", different posters discuss what they do, or don't believe. I wanted to address this in a different thread, and to make clear that, I don't believe in "Magic, the Occult, in Orcales, or Talismans". I often visit and debate no-mo's, or never-mo's who level accusations at the early Church and Joseph Smith. This often leads to me asking a series of questions, such as...

Do you believe in magic? The answer is always no, which seems odd, as so much of anti-Mormon attacks suggest that Joseph was influenced through magic. What this means is that since Joseph believed in magic, that is all that matters. 

Do you believe in the occult? Some reply yes, others no, some make the same arguments as the question concerning magic. Such debates end up with comments about "Occult Symbols", which begs the question; Who decides if a symbol is "Holy" and which symbol is an "Occult" symbol? One symbol is found on many early Christian Churches, then someone declared it (them) an occult symbol;s). Symbols that are on at least two Temples we have today. 

So, I do not need (I hope) to list every word or symbol, to make the overall point. Which is, "if" these items have no power, then 1) They could not have added the Prophet Joseph Smith in the foundation of the Church, the Book of Mormon, and all of his revealations, and 2) If these things are nothing more than "folklore", then what is the debate over? 

I will point out that there is evidence (scriptural), of "New Names" and "White Rocks", or "Seer Stones" and the U&T. So whatever these things are that are mentioned in Scripture, more specific, The Bible...when and how did they become connected to the "Occult". 

Just one last example, so many things, including "demonic possession", ideas widely in scripture and in the early Christian Church, are now known to be mental disorders. 

Do we have to believe in "old world" ideas about folklore to debate those who makes such claims about the Church? Or, should any such allegations be dismissed by any who seek to make such links?  

Lol all kinds of old world folklore to debate, look at how Christ was changed to fit the Germanic Palate.  Google the Heliand to see how they altered the whole story, Christ became a war chief, Peter a master warrior and the apostles were part of his war band.  The pennsylvania dutch are an interesting study, they retain some of the old world folk lore in their art.  Kind of curious how you debate such things, people tend to make up their minds on such things and really aren't open to debate.  Christianity as a rule has to deal with that, they did steal the old holidays and replace them with the trappings of their own religion while retaining some of the original meaning.

 

[JLHPROF]

I believe in these things within the borders of Mormonism.

Seerstones, temple prayer, anointing with oil, protection of the garments,  spirits (both good and evil), sacred objects, holy ground, etc.  The list is almost endless.

And at times in gospel history folklore, false priesthoods, and pagan ideas mixed in or had to be put down.

But Mormonism includes elements that the world would label occult, magic, or whatever.  And they are still true.

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

...................................I don't believe in "Magic, the Occult, in Orcales, or Talismans". ................

Then you don't believe in the Bible.  Wendy Cotter, Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories (Routledge, 1999).

6 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Do you believe in magic? .........................................

Do you believe in the occult? ..............................................

Do we have to believe in "old world" ideas about folklore to debate those who makes such claims about the Church? Or, should any such allegations be dismissed by any who seek to make such links?  

Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (1993), 212, says that “The boundaries between religion and magic are not sharply marked in the ancient world.  Magic was part of religion, . . .”

Samuel S. Hill, Jr., "A Typology of American Restitutionism: From Frontier Revivalism and Mormonism to the Jesus Movement," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44 (1976), 65-76.  

Stephen D. Ricks and Daniel C. Peterson, “Joseph Smith and ‘Magic’: Methodological Reflections on the Use of a Term,” in Robert Millet, ed., “To Be Learned Is Good If . . . ” (1987), 129-147.

John Gee’s lengthy review in FARMS Review of Books, 7/1 (1995), 19-84.

 

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

While reading another thread, something caught my eye, as it has so many times before. Often in the arena of, "Religious Debate", different posters discuss what they do, or don't believe. I wanted to address this in a different thread, and to make clear that, I don't believe in "Magic, the Occult, in Orcales, or Talismans". I often visit and debate no-mo's, or never-mo's who level accusations at the early Church and Joseph Smith. This often leads to me asking a series of questions, such as...

Do you believe in magic? The answer is always no, which seems odd, as so much of anti-Mormon attacks suggest that Joseph was influenced through magic. What this means is that since Joseph believed in magic, that is all that matters. 

Do you believe in the occult? Some reply yes, others no, some make the same arguments as the question concerning magic. Such debates end up with comments about "Occult Symbols", which begs the question; Who decides if a symbol is "Holy" and which symbol is an "Occult" symbol? One symbol is found on many early Christian Churches, then someone declared it (them) an occult symbol;s). Symbols that are on at least two Temples we have today. 

So, I do not need (I hope) to list every word or symbol, to make the overall point. Which is, "if" these items have no power, then 1) They could not have added the Prophet Joseph Smith in the foundation of the Church, the Book of Mormon, and all of his revealations, and 2) If these things are nothing more than "folklore", then what is the debate over? 

I will point out that there is evidence (scriptural), of "New Names" and "White Rocks", or "Seer Stones" and the U&T. So whatever these things are that are mentioned in Scripture, more specific, The Bible...when and how did they become connected to the "Occult". 

Just one last example, so many things, including "demonic possession", ideas widely in scripture and in the early Christian Church, are now known to be mental disorders. 

Do we have to believe in "old world" ideas about folklore to debate those who makes such claims about the Church? Or, should any such allegations be dismissed by any who seek to make such links?  

I used to believe in the supernatural, but today I don't.  I believe there are things that happen that we can't explain sometimes, but this difficulty to explain or understand what is happening is a limitation of our current understanding of how things naturally work. 

I don't believe stones or symbols or words have any magical qualities.  I don't believe in a supernatural God that interacts with humans in miraculous ways. 

But, I do believe in the power of the human mind with respect to religious beliefs or superstitious beliefs.  The power of the mind to create reality (not a supernatural power) is a large part of the human experience.  My reality is different than others, but that doesn't make my reality qualitatively and objectively better than someone else's reality that believes in things that I consider superstitions.  My reality might be better, and I certainly think it is, but its not necessarily better if observed by an unbiased outside party.  

So what does all this mean for me.  It means I'm getting more comfortable with people's different beliefs, even when those beliefs are wacky to me.  If those beliefs are causing measurable harm for people that is when I will try and exert my influence and use persuasion and education, but if those beliefs aren't harming anyone directly I tend to leave things as they are and try and get along.  

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then you don't believe in the Bible.  Wendy Cotter, Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories (Routledge, 1999).

Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (1993), 212, says that “The boundaries between religion and magic are not sharply marked in the ancient world.  Magic was part of religion, . . .”

Samuel S. Hill, Jr., "A Typology of American Restitutionism: From Frontier Revivalism and Mormonism to the Jesus Movement," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44 (1976), 65-76.  

Stephen D. Ricks and Daniel C. Peterson, “Joseph Smith and ‘Magic’: Methodological Reflections on the Use of a Term,” in Robert Millet, ed., “To Be Learned Is Good If . . . ” (1987), 129-147.

John Gee’s lengthy review in FARMS Review of Books, 7/1 (1995), 19-84.

 

I believe that others strongly believe in such things, and I believe the Bible and that such things exist in some form, but I have no evidence. For example "Joseph's Seer Stone", maybe it worked for Joseph, but in my hand it would be nothing more than a rock. Or more to the point it is "just a rock". 

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I believe that others strongly believe in such things, and I believe the Bible and that such things exist in some form, but I have no evidence. For example "Joseph's Seer Stone", maybe it worked for Joseph, but in my hand it would be nothing more than a rock. Or more to the point it is "just a rock". 

There is a balance between the sacred nature of the object and the faith needed to operate it.
Joseph's seer stone was a sacred item, but operated in a specific way according to his faith and focus.
Just like the Liahona.

The fact that your or I may not have faith to produce a result from a seer stone doesn't diminish their unique value or sacred nature.
Physical objects and inanimate objects have spiritual components according to Mormon theology.  And those spirits can be sacred, pure, and holy.  Just as ours can.
They can also be wicked, impure, and defiled.  Just as ours can.
Consider the "rocks" of the Kirtland temple.  Sacred and pure enough, consecrated, dedicated, and accepted by the Lord to the point his presence could be there in a way it could not be in a lesser building, and once descrated no longer able to receive his physical presence.

I have walked onto sacred ground and handled sacred objects and they are not merely dirt or physical elements.  I have walked into places where the darkest spirits reside and felt them all around me.

ALL things were created spiritually before they were created physically.  That means there is a spiritual element to them for good or for evil.

Edited October 20, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I believe that others strongly believe in such things, and I believe the Bible and that such things exist in some form, but I have no evidence. For example "Joseph's Seer Stone", maybe it worked for Joseph, but in my hand it would be nothing more than a rock. Or more to the point it is "just a rock". 

You miss the point.  It isn't about you.  It's about the Bible, which (like the Book of Mormon) contains all manner of oracles, talismans, and similar paraphernalia in the hands of God's prophets.  The prophets and Jesus heal using what otherwise seem like magical procedures.  One cannot in fact distinguish between magic and religion at that level.  If you don't know the Bible this matter will seem opaque to you.

[David Waltz]

I am firmly convinced that any discussion concerning magic and the occult must begin with what the Scriptures have to say on the topic. Interestingly enough, one of the references provided by Robert has an excellent summation of the Scriptural assessment of magic and the related terms; note the following:

 

>>There are a score or so of words in the Hebrew Bible that refer to practices or practitioners of magic (as is generally understood), falling roughly into categories of magic in general or sorcery, divination, and astrology (these categories, it should be pointed out, have been devised by modern exegetes, not by the Israelites themselves: in none of these lists are these types of magical practices explicitly divided). Roughly three-quarters of the occurrences of these words refer, explicitly or implicitly, to non-Israelite practitioners or activities. Indeed, some of these words are used exclusively of non-Israelites. The remainder of the occurrences refer to deviant Israelite practices or practitioners. In no instance that we have found are any of these used favorably of an Israelite practice.>>  (Stephen D. Ricks and Daniel C. Peterson, “Joseph Smith and ‘Magic’: Methodological Reflections on the Use of a Term,” in Robert Millet, ed., “To Be Learned Is Good If . . . ” - 1987, p. 133 - bold emphasis mine.)

 

It sure seems to me than any unauthorized use of 'spiritual gifts' falls under God's condemnation, for the source is not from God. Not only is the Bible clear on this, but also the Book of Mormon, and D&C. One clear example is found in D&C 28:11, wherein it is related that Hiram Page's use of a "[seer] stone" was "not of me", but rather of "Satan".

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, David Waltz said:

I am firmly convinced that any discussion concerning magic and the occult must begin with what the Scriptures have to say on the topic. Interestingly enough, one of the references provided by Robert has an excellent summation of the Scriptural assessment of magic and the related terms; note the following:

 

>>There are a score or so of words in the Hebrew Bible that refer to practices or practitioners of magic (as is generally understood), falling roughly into categories of magic in general or sorcery, divination, and astrology (these categories, it should be pointed out, have been devised by modern exegetes, not by the Israelites themselves: in none of these lists are these types of magical practices explicitly divided). Roughly three-quarters of the occurrences of these words refer, explicitly or implicitly, to non-Israelite practitioners or activities. Indeed, some of these words are used exclusively of non-Israelites. The remainder of the occurrences refer to deviant Israelite practices or practitioners. In no instance that we have found are any of these used favorably of an Israelite practice.>>  (Stephen D. Ricks and Daniel C. Peterson, “Joseph Smith and ‘Magic’: Methodological Reflections on the Use of a Term,” in Robert Millet, ed., “To Be Learned Is Good If . . . ” - 1987, p. 133 - bold emphasis mine.)

 

It sure seems to me than any unauthorized use of 'spiritual gifts' falls under God's condemnation, for the source is not from God. Not only is the Bible clear on this, but also the Book of Mormon, and D&C. One clear example is found in D&C 28:11, wherein it is related that Hiram Page's use of a "[seer] stone" was "not of me", but rather of "Satan".

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

I can't speak for Robert, but I think he means stuff like Aaron's staff which turned into a serpent, and which the Lord told Moses to put in the river which became blood. Also, the brazen serpent God told Moses to make, and have the people look upon. Then there is the breastplate the Lord told Moses to make for Aaron. Later we learn the priests are using Urim and Thummin to determine who will be allowed back into Jerusalem by geneaology. Even Jesus used His spit in healing. So, there is precedent for use of objects in performing various authorized priesthood functions. How is that different from use of a "magic talisman?" It is the context which makes the difference from the outside perspective. I think that is the point Robert is trying to make.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, David Waltz said:

I am firmly convinced that any discussion concerning magic and the occult must begin with what the Scriptures have to say on the topic. Interestingly enough, one of the references provided by Robert has an excellent summation of the Scriptural assessment of magic and the related terms; note the following:

 

>>There are a score or so of words in the Hebrew Bible that refer to practices or practitioners of magic (as is generally understood), falling roughly into categories of magic in general or sorcery, divination, and astrology (these categories, it should be pointed out, have been devised by modern exegetes, not by the Israelites themselves: in none of these lists are these types of magical practices explicitly divided). Roughly three-quarters of the occurrences of these words refer, explicitly or implicitly, to non-Israelite practitioners or activities. Indeed, some of these words are used exclusively of non-Israelites. The remainder of the occurrences refer to deviant Israelite practices or practitioners. In no instance that we have found are any of these used favorably of an Israelite practice.>>  (Stephen D. Ricks and Daniel C. Peterson, “Joseph Smith and ‘Magic’: Methodological Reflections on the Use of a Term,” in Robert Millet, ed., “To Be Learned Is Good If . . . ” - 1987, p. 133 - bold emphasis mine.)

 

It sure seems to me than any unauthorized use of 'spiritual gifts' falls under God's condemnation, for the source is not from God. Not only is the Bible clear on this, but also the Book of Mormon, and D&C. One clear example is found in D&C 28:11, wherein it is related that Hiram Page's use of a "[seer] stone" was "not of me", but rather of "Satan".................................

That ought to be a dead giveaway to you that it is entirely relative to the person whether it is of Satan or of God.  After all, the seer stone in Joseph's hat is divine, even if Hiram Page's is not.  The same applies to the Mosaic Nehushtan fiery-serpent-talisman, which gives life when looked upon by the Israelites, and is also a holy type of Jesus (the antitype) who likewise gives life from the Cross, yet it is finally destroyed as evil in II Kings 18:4. So too with the contest of serpents between the magicians of Pharaoh and Moses & Aaron.  Indeed, to add even more confusion, the serpent is fully Satanic elsewhere (Gen 3:13-15, Rev 12:7-9, 20:2).  We likewise have Joseph who was sold into Egypt practicing lecanoscopy (divination/prophecy via a cup of water, Gen 44:2,5), the Israelite High Priest consulting Urim & Thummim.  These procedures are used by other, neighboring cultures, yet are considered pagan in those instances.

What of the rods/staffs possessed by Moses & Aaron, which could turn into snakes, and which were used for other miracles (parting of the Reed Sea, water from a rock, etc.)?  How is it that Orson Hyde used his rod to witch the location for his prayer of dedication of Palestine to the Gathering of the Jews in 1841, or Brigham used Oliver's rod to witch the location for the Salt Lake Temple July 28, 1847? 

So, yes, by all means consult the biblical precedent, but let's not gloss over what is actually taking place in favor of some imaginary orthodoxy.

[David Waltz]

Hello Robert,

 

You said:

 

>>So, yes, by all means consult the biblical precedent, but let's not gloss over what is actually taking place in favor of some imaginary orthodoxy.>>

 

Since I agree with everything you wrote prior to the above, I am at a loss to find where I have, "gloss[ed] over what is actually taking place in favor of some imaginary orthodoxy."

 

Have you read something into my comments that is not there, or have I missed something?

 

 

Grace and peace,

 

David

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You miss the point.  It isn't about you.  It's about the Bible, which (like the Book of Mormon) contains all manner of oracles, talismans, and similar paraphernalia in the hands of God's prophets.  The prophets and Jesus heal using what otherwise seem like magical procedures.  One cannot in fact distinguish between magic and religion at that level.  If you don't know the Bible this matter will seem opaque to you.

No, I do get the point, and I pointed out that such things are spoken of in the Bible. I am saying that such things in my hands, would not have the same power or purpose. Because I do not believe these things have power, for me...I do not dismiss that such things have power in the hands of others. 

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then you don't believe in the Bible.  Wendy Cotter, Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories (Routledge, 1999).

Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (1993), 212, says that “The boundaries between religion and magic are not sharply marked in the ancient world.  Magic was part of religion, . . .”

Samuel S. Hill, Jr., "A Typology of American Restitutionism: From Frontier Revivalism and Mormonism to the Jesus Movement," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 44 (1976), 65-76.  

Stephen D. Ricks and Daniel C. Peterson, “Joseph Smith and ‘Magic’: Methodological Reflections on the Use of a Term,” in Robert Millet, ed., “To Be Learned Is Good If . . . ” (1987), 129-147.

John Gee’s lengthy review in FARMS Review of Books, 7/1 (1995), 19-84.

 

I think as the Peterson & Rick's essay seems to imply, the difference is largely semantic.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

No, I do get the point, and I pointed out that such things are spoken of in the Bible. I am saying that such things in my hands, would not have the same power or purpose. Because I do not believe these things have power, for me...I do not dismiss that such things have power in the hands of others. 

So notice then it is still based on belief for both of you.

You just have to believe the power is real as you believe God and the atonement etc are real

In many cases reality is what you believe it is. Yes walls and cliffs are real but that is another matter

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

So notice then it is still based on belief for both of you.

You just have to believe the power is real as you believe God and the atonement etc are real

In many cases reality is what you believe it is. Yes walls and cliffs are real but that is another matter

This much I do believe. 

[mfbukowski]

It is odd to me that people look for objective evidence of God and yet do not look for objective evidence of Freedom or that a given Soldier died for the freedom of his country.

In both cases belief in the particular truth creates the reality as it is lived in our lives yet somehow people think that belief in God should have objective evidence, while it is not necessary to have objective evidence for the other.

Go figure.

In both cases we live our lives as if the proposition is true and our lives show the fruits of that belief. As Alma 32 shows,  those beliefs create their own evidence in the fruits they bear.

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

No, I do get the point, and I pointed out that such things are spoken of in the Bible. I am saying that such things in my hands, would not have the same power or purpose. Because I do not believe these things have power, for me...I do not dismiss that such things have power in the hands of others. 

Those "things" have no inherent power, but are animated by the good or evil spirit animating that person.  In each case, it is the power of God which is supreme, and that of his opponents which can be defeated (God's serpent eats the serpents of Pharaoh).  The Liahona doesn't work for Laman & Lemuel, but works just fine for Lehi & Nephi.

I love the climactic scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark,'  in which the evil one has donned the regalia of the Jewish High Priest, and calls upon the power of the Ark on behalf of his Nazi masters, only to get his fatal comeuppance.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcR9k8o4I0w . 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, David Waltz said:

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

 

>>So, yes, by all means consult the biblical precedent, but let's not gloss over what is actually taking place in favor of some imaginary orthodoxy.>>

 

Since I agree with everything you wrote prior to the above, I am at a loss to find where I have, "gloss[ed] over what is actually taking place in favor of some imaginary orthodoxy."

 

Have you read something into my comments that is not there, or have I missed something?

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

Sorry I was not more explicit, David.  I was thinking of my friends Stephen Ricks & Daniel Peterson glossing over those facts in favor of an imaginary orthodoxy.  That was long ago, and they might not say the same today.

As Professor Jan Shipps has correctly stated: "There is no valid distinction to be made between religion and magic."   (from her comments during Panel Discussion: "The Joseph Everybody (and Nobody) Knew: Recent Portraits of the Mormon Prophet," Sunstone Theological Symposium, Aug 22, 1984).  Both she and Richard Bushman there and then agreed that religion and magic only began to be falsely differentiated during the 18th century as part of Enlightenment thought, and it is ironic that the religious anti-Mormon community has so readily aligned itself with such basically secularizing and anti-evangelical tendencies -- for Mormonism staunchly opposes the “anti-Christianity and rationalistic hybris” of the Enlightenment (C. G. Jung quoted by Richard Smith in James M. Robinson, ed., Nag Hammadi Library in English, 3rd ed. (1988/1990), “Afterword,” 540.

See Jon Butler, “Magic, Astrology, and the Early American Religious Heritage, 1600-1760,” American Historical Review, 84/2 (Apr 1979):319-320, and nn. 3-6; esp. 318, re “the survival of European occult or magical practices in the American colonies,” and 319, “magic and Christianity in colonial America were not generically different entities but were subsets of the same phenomenon – religion.”

[Guest]

Note to revise, I believe in such things mentioned in the Bible, Book of Mormon, when in the hands of those called to use them. When I say, "I don't believe in magic", it does not mean I don't believe in the "supernatural", I do not view what God can do, or Priesthood blessings can do, because I do not see such things as magic. I "hope" that if given such other items would work for me and I would have the faith. But I believe that only the items listed in scripture exist, and can only work for those called to use them. So I only believe in such things in a very limited definition, but not in the hands of anyone else. 

[theplains]

On 19/10/2017 at 7:33 PM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Just one last example, so many things, including "demonic possession", ideas widely in scripture and in the early Christian Church, are now known to be mental disorders. 

Do we have to believe in "old world" ideas about folklore to debate those who makes such claims about the Church? Or, should any such allegations be dismissed by any who seek to make such links?  

I believe that Jesus really cast out demons out of people instead of them just suffering mental disorders. As for folklore,
magic, and the occult, this article has some good insights:

https://www.gotquestions.org/difference-miracles-magic.html

Thanks,
Jim

[Guest]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

I believe that Jesus really cast out demons out of people instead of them just suffering mental disorders. As for folklore,
magic, and the occult, this article has some good insights:

https://www.gotquestions.org/difference-miracles-magic.html

Thanks,
Jim

I do not doubt what Jesus Christ did, but in our day some still believe that persons with mental disorders are possessed. We as a Church believe in modern day remedies to many such disabilities. Demon possession is unheard of in the history of the Church, meaning the LDS Church. 

[boblloyd91]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I do not doubt what Jesus Christ did, but in our day some still believe that persons with mental disorders are possessed. We as a Church believe in modern day remedies to many such disabilities. Demon possession is unheard of in the history of the Church, meaning the LDS Church. 

Sorry that's not true, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, if you are saying there are no experiences of people having demons cast out by priesthood holders in the church. There have been many demons cast out by priesthood holders in the name ofJesus Christ. In fact it's been argued the first miracle of the church was an exorcism performed by Joseph Smith on Newell Knight.  In fact some D&C sections (such as section 52) were given in response to situations involving deceiving spirits. A good reference is Gifts of the Spirit by Matthew Brown. 

I work in the mental health field and am somewhat sympathetic to your opinions, and agree that mental illness can certainly look like possession in certain situations. However evil spirits exist and they can take over bodies of individuals. This is a very scriptural principle.

Edited October 22, 2017 by boblloyd91

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Sorry that's not true, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, if you are saying there are no experiences of people having demons cast out by priesthood holders in the church. There have been many demons cast out by priesthood holders in the name ofJesus Christ. In fact it's been argued the first miracle of the church was an exorcism performed by Joseph Smith on Newell Knight.  In fact some D&C sections (such as section 52) were given in response to situations involving deceiving spirits. A good reference is Gifts of the Spirit by Matthew Brown. 

I work in the mental health field and am somewhat sympathetic to your opinions, and agree that mental illness can certainly look like possession in certain situations. However evil spirits exist and they can take over bodies of individuals. This is a very scriptural principle.

I think his point was more that for primitive peoples (i.e. those in the scriptures) who don't have the benefit of science and understanding bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and so forth would interpret such things as possession. If such illness were healed they might interpret it as casting out devils wherein fact God was fixing their brain. That of course doesn't mean there isn't a real Satan who can do things. Although even in those cases I think that often it's a mixture of the biological and will that enable Satan to do more than they might normally be able to. 

 

To the larger point though there's really no demarcation between occult, magic and religion. It's typically that what the in-group sees as acceptable is religion and what's outside that is magic. Even common magical phrases come out of religion. "Hocus pocus" comes from "hoc eat corpus mum" (this is my body) from Catholic communion. 

The fact is that when you look at either the old testament or new testament lots of things come out of broader culture that would be considered magic. Jesus putting mud on the eyes to heal the blind for instance was a known practice. So lines are blurry at best. Typically magic is just a pejorative term.

Edited October 23, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cdowis]

Apologetic answer  ======>>>>>>>>>  Moses had a magic staff, similar to the staff of the magicians in Pharaoh's court.  He himself came from  magician background.