wenglund wrote:Shame on him for seeing things differently than you.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What's that supposed to mean, Wade? Can you think of some reason Bushman or anyone else could justifiably see a clean break between the "magical" uses of the seerstone and the "religious" uses of the same? It's not just "seeing things differently," it's his making an assertion with absolutely no justification. In fact, Bushman doesn't even try to back up his assertion. He just makes it and moves on.
If Bushman had made a case for it, then it would be "seeing things differently."
chonguey wrote:The moment that it was clear that his histories would lean more to the factual rather than the faith promoting, it was clear that he was an enemy that needed to be taken down through character assassination and vague insinuations about untrustworthiness because he dared to label crystal-gazing as "magic."
Have you alerted the FBI about this? Or, perhaps the National Inquirer?
Runtu wrote:Can you think of some reason Bushman or anyone else could justifiably see a clean break between the "magical" uses of the seerstone and the "religious" uses of the same? It's not just "seeing things differently," it's his making an assertion with absolutely no justification. In fact, Bushman doesn't even try to back up his assertion. He just makes it and moves on.
It's precisely this sort of smoke-and-mirrors bait and switch from Bushman that makes him the current poster-boy for "scholarly" apologetics. Rather than admitting at face value what should be plainly obvious as crystal-gazing, Bushman gets brownie points from the TBMS and Mopoligists for spinning the facts in to a faith-promoting anecdote.
Contrast that with Quinn calling a spade a spade (or rather calling magic "Magic") that makes him unreliable and untrustworthy.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
chonguey wrote:The moment that it was clear that his histories would lean more to the factual rather than the faith promoting, it was clear that he was an enemy that needed to be taken down through character assassination and vague insinuations about untrustworthiness because he dared to label crystal-gazing as "magic."
Have you alerted the FBI about this? Or, perhaps the National Inquirer?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Are smug one-liners a new form of mirroring? Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
wenglund wrote:Shame on him for seeing things differently than you.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
What's that supposed to mean, Wade? Can you think of some reason Bushman or anyone else could justifiably see a clean break between the "magical" uses of the seerstone and the "religious" uses of the same? It's not just "seeing things differently," it's his making an assertion with absolutely no justification. In fact, Bushman doesn't even try to back up his assertion. He just makes it and moves on.
If Bushman had made a case for it, then it would be "seeing things differently."
Shame on you for a substance-less one-liner. ;-)
Okay. Shame on me for also seeing things differently than you. ;-)
I trust, though, that given your keen mind, if you thought enough about it you could come up with a reasonable explanation for the alleged clean break even given the use of a seer stone before and after. Perhaps in order to do so, you might do like me, and look for the answer, not by focusing on the seer stone itself, but the diverse ends to which the seer stone was employed. If that doesn't work, then how about posing the question to Bushman, himself.
chonguey wrote:The moment that it was clear that his histories would lean more to the factual rather than the faith promoting, it was clear that he was an enemy that needed to be taken down through character assassination and vague insinuations about untrustworthiness because he dared to label crystal-gazing as "magic."
Have you alerted the FBI about this? Or, perhaps the National Inquirer?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Are smug one-liners a new form of mirroring? Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
Ironically, I think the question answers itself. ;-)
wenglund wrote: Perhaps in order to do so, you might do like me, and look for the answer, not by focusing on the seer stone itself, but the diverse ends to which the seer stone was employed. If that doesn't work, then how about posing the question to Bushman, himself.
Of course you don't want to focus on the reality of the stones: it's the big red flag that makes most people go "uhhhhhh, say what?!?"
By saying "not by focusing on the seer stone itself" you are trying to get people to ignore the most important issue: that Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelation by looking at stones! Never mind that most reasonable people would never feel inclined to defend crystal-gazing as a legitimate activity for anyone, let alone prophets of God! Which is why it is important for Mopoligists to convince people to ignore the fact that Magic Rocks were involved in Joseph Smiths prophetic activities and why most Modern LDS literature makes no mention of them: It's all so much easier to swallow when you aren't constantly reminded that said divine revelations were supposedly received through occult methods that most educated people in Joseph's day saw right through, let alone the 21st Century.
wenglund wrote: Perhaps in order to do so, you might do like me, and look for the answer, not by focusing on the seer stone itself, but the diverse ends to which the seer stone was employed. If that doesn't work, then how about posing the question to Bushman, himself.
Of course you don't want to focus on the reality of the stones: it's the big red flag that makes most people go "uhhhhhh, say what?!?"
By saying "not by focusing on the seer stone itself" you are trying to get people to ignore the most important issue: that Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelation by looking at stones! Never mind that most reasonable people would never feel inclined to defend crystal-gazing as a legitimate activity for anyone, let alone prophets of God! Which is why it is important for Mopoligists to convince people to ignore the fact that Magic Rocks were involved in Joseph Smiths prophetic activities and why most Modern LDS literature makes no mention of them: It's all so much easier to swallow when you aren't constantly reminded that said divine revelations were supposedly received through occult methods that most educated people in Joseph's day saw right through, let alone the 21st Century.
The virgin birth, God sacrifice and resurrection were all pagan occultic contrivances before Christianity. Mithraism comes to mind. Your comment can apply equally well to Christianity.
wenglund wrote: Perhaps in order to do so, you might do like me, and look for the answer, not by focusing on the seer stone itself, but the diverse ends to which the seer stone was employed. If that doesn't work, then how about posing the question to Bushman, himself.
Of course you don't want to focus on the reality of the stones: it's the big red flag that makes most people go "uhhhhhh, say what?!?"
By saying "not by focusing on the seer stone itself" you are trying to get people to ignore the most important issue: that Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelation by looking at stones! Never mind that most reasonable people would never feel inclined to defend crystal-gazing as a legitimate activity for anyone, let alone prophets of God! Which is why it is important for Mopoligists to convince people to ignore the fact that Magic Rocks were involved in Joseph Smiths prophetic activities and why most Modern LDS literature makes no mention of them: It's all so much easier to swallow when you aren't constantly reminded that said divine revelations were supposedly received through occult methods that most educated people in Joseph's day saw right through, let alone the 21st Century.
The virgin birth, God sacrifice and resurrection were all pagan occultic contrivances before Christianity. Mithraism comes to mind. Your comment can apply equally well to Christianity.
Yes, yes it can. That those pagan rituals and ideas were co-opted by Christianity is not proof that the are either historical or valid. But since I hold Christianity as superstitious and ultimately false (albeit to a lesser sense than Mormonism) I don't consider your argument to be a compelling one in defense of Mormonism. In fact, it simply reinforces my arguments against superstition and magical thinking.
That being said, even most mainstream Christians would be in agreement that Seer Stones fall under the umbrella of witchcraft and divining, which the Bible explicitly forbids in several places.
wenglund wrote: Perhaps in order to do so, you might do like me, and look for the answer, not by focusing on the seer stone itself, but the diverse ends to which the seer stone was employed. If that doesn't work, then how about posing the question to Bushman, himself.
Of course you don't want to focus on the reality of the stones: it's the big red flag that makes most people go "uhhhhhh, say what?!?"
By saying "not by focusing on the seer stone itself" you are trying to get people to ignore the most important issue: that Joseph Smith claimed to receive revelation by looking at stones! Never mind that most reasonable people would never feel inclined to defend crystal-gazing as a legitimate activity for anyone, let alone prophets of God! Which is why it is important for Mopoligists to convince people to ignore the fact that Magic Rocks were involved in Joseph Smiths prophetic activities and why most Modern LDS literature makes no mention of them: It's all so much easier to swallow when you aren't constantly reminded that said divine revelations were supposedly received through occult methods that most educated people in Joseph's day saw right through, let alone the 21st Century.
I am quite comfortable, even in the 21st century, with the notion of seer stones, and it doesn't concern me whether other people, such as yourself, are bothered by them or not. As I see it, if mankind can somewhat mystifyingly get text and pictures to display in a handheld devise, I trust that God, with his infinite knowledge and power, and through his chosen divices, can do much the same if not more. So, your conjecture (as to my motives for shifting the focus) wildly missed the mark. Rather, my reasons for shifting the focus were as previously stated. If it helps you to better grasp what I have suggested, then in addition to putting your knee-jerk reactions on pause, think of it as me suggesting shifting the focus from the tree (seer stone) so as to see the forest (the divers usages of the seer stone).