Hammer Away!

[_Fence Sitter]

Liz,

Was it clear that the seer stones were also used for treasure hunting/digging?

I ask because I think this issue is crucial, a lot of time liberal, Sunstone, internet, and apologist Mormons love to play language games and/or depend on words meaning different things in different contexts.

If a Mormon was not aware that Joseph Smith had a past as a treasure digger, "seer stone" would most likely be taken as a synonym for Urim and Thummim. The reasoning would be that Urim and Thummim would have some connection with prophethood, seers are connected to prophets (prophet, seer, and revelator), therefore Urim and Thummim = seer stone.

However, once you know about the treasure digging, and that the same stones were used for that activity, seer stone takes on a whole new meaning. Then the stone would be for seeing things, as in buried treasure. In this context seer stone has a much more magical and pagan meaning.

I believe when he used the stone to search for treasure it was called a peep stone. Perhaps by using the stone to search for treasure it was being prepared for its future role as a seer stone.

[_Yoda]

Aristotle,

I had no knowledge of Joseph's treasure hunting until I started reading about it online about five years ago. Before that time, I assumed that Joseph made his living as a farmer. I had no knowledge of the peep stones, Sally Chase, etc.

When I was growing up, the Urim and Thumum and the seer stones were used interchangeably. For many years, I thought they were the same thing.

Liz,

Was it clear that the seer stones were also used for treasure hunting/digging?

I ask because I think this issue is crucial, a lot of time liberal, Sunstone, internet, and apologist Mormons love to play language games and/or depend on words meaning different things in different contexts.

If a Mormon was not aware that Joseph Smith had a past as a treasure digger, "seer stone" would most likely be taken as a synonym for Urim and Thummim. The reasoning would be that Urim and Thummim would have some connection with prophethood, seers are connected to prophets (prophet, seer, and revelator), therefore Urim and Thummim = seer stone.

However, once you know about the treasure digging, and that the same stones were used for that activity, seer stone takes on a whole new meaning. Then the stone would be for seeing things, as in buried treasure. In this context seer stone has a much more magical and pagan meaning.

[_brade]

I do think that "he used a rock in a hat" gets tossed around by lots of critics in a, in my opinion, silly and demeaning way as if to suggest that it's merely a rock in a hat that calls into question the Church's claims. I think It's unfortunate that it's been reduced to that, because, for one thing, the Church's official story isn't any less prima facie absurd.

The rock-in-a-hat business is a big deal to some critics because of how closely it seems to be related to the folk magic practices that Joseph engaged in prior to the Book of Mormon and how closely the practice is related to folk magic practices engaged in by others in that time and place. These ideas are helpful in explaining the Church's origins without appealing to supernaturalism of some sort.

Of course, I think those who sufficiently trust in mystical experiences of the relevant kind will see the evidence differently. That's fine. But, that, I think, is why apologists ought to focus more of their attention on defending the relevant sort of epistemology (and less time on trying to sort out all these particulars), because if you can give people good reason to trust in mystical experience as a good method of truth-getting, even the best method, then historical, geological, biological, and any other kind of secular evidence be damned.

[_Fifth Columnist]

For starters, the Urim and Thummim is a biblical concept. Putting a magic rock into a dusty top hat and reading from it is not.

Another interesting point is that the spectacles were originally referred to as interpreters. It wasn't until sometime after the Book of Mormon was translated (a year or two) that someone else (not Joseph) connected them to the biblical Urim and Thummim.

[_brade]

Properly understood, in my judgment, history not only doesn’t “refute” Mormon claims, it supports them.

This bit is interesting, I think. I agree with you that history doesn't refute Mormon claims (the ones relevant to this sort of discussion), but I come out on the other side of things. I think that when you gather up all the best available evidence and survey it, you find that Mormon claims are at least called into question. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. Here's my question:

Do you believe that a reasonable person who doesn't trust mystical experience as a good truth-getting-method, having surveyed all the evidence you have surveyed regarding Mormonism, would find that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the foundational claims of Mormonism are true? In other words, do you believe that, setting aside the evidence of personal mystical experience, the evidence tips in favor of Mormon claims being true?

Dr. Peterson, I still would like to know what you think about this.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I agree with you that history doesn't refute Mormon claims (the ones relevant to this sort of discussion), but I come out on the other side of things. I think that when you gather up all the best available evidence and survey it, you find that Mormon claims are at least called into question.

We disagree.

In my opinion, when you gather up all the best available evidence and survey it, Mormon claims do pretty well.

Do you believe that a reasonable person who doesn't trust mystical experience as a good truth-getting-method, having surveyed all the evidence you have surveyed regarding Mormonism, would find that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the foundational claims of Mormonism are true?

I believe that some reasonable people would, and that some reasonable people would not.

In other words, do you believe that, setting aside the evidence of personal mystical experience, the evidence tips in favor of Mormon claims being true?

I believe that it does, and I'm not alone in this.

Others will see the situation differently.

[_Joey]

In my opinion, when you gather up all the best available evidence and survey it, Mormon claims do pretty well.

When, if ever, do you believe that survey will be taken, who will asked to participate, and will these surveyors be given a mileage allowance if there is any travel outside of Provo?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm trying to converse with a grown-up, Joey.

Please go back outside.

[_Fence Sitter]

Dan,

Speaking of talking to grownups. I hope I fall into that category (there is some doubt), and in keeping with the title of this thread, do you think your analogy of the car crash vs opinions on cars as it applies to David Whitmer's testimonies excludes the spiritual aspect of his knowledge? Isn't the spirit necessary to both testimonies?

I am not phrasing the question very well but I think you understand what I am asking. I see you car analogy as an attempt to defend Whitmer's testimony of the plates without having to defend his testimony (or attack if you will) of Joseph Smith's theology later on. I am not sure they are that simply divided as I believe Whitmer would say he was guided by the spirit in both.

[_Joey]

I'm trying to converse with a grown-ups.

But just grown ups that don't ask for accountability of your statements, right? In other words - just "Provo grown-ups" - got it!!!

So where is this "survey" again????