Three possibilities for the head in hat.

[_mentalgymnast]

Believing in magic rocks only makes sense to me if the source of magic is God. Otherwise, I think the whole thing would definitely be kind of hokey.

Wow. That's a quote worth preserving. I really have to start that website, Mormons Say the Darndest Things...

Why do say that? Does the word magic bother you?

Regards,
MG

[_antishock8]

What is so weird about a magic rock that is powered up by some unseen but real energy source/power?

The weirdness comes from the time and place/culture/technology that we live in. And the fact that under almost all circumstances that we are readily familiar with, rocks don't light up and give messages in textual form. Yes, it would be weird...and that's why it doesn't come up in missionary discussions.

It's a Two for Tuesday, folks. MG, you are a downright treasure trove of quoteworthy material!! Keep it up!

[_mentalgymnast]

There are many...are you one of them?...that would find stories of magic rocks and treasure lore somewhat distracting and troubling during the process of missionary discussions (I probably would have). If an investigator hits an impasse, they may choose to discontinue their investigation, which could then result in non acceptance of baptism and living/making the covenants of the gospel.

Believing in magic rocks only makes sense to me if the source of magic is God. Otherwise, I think the whole thing would definitely be kind of hokey.

Magic rocks appeal only to the most wildly superstitious and gullible in our population, MG. THAT is why the LDS church hides it from investigators (and even, to a certain extent, from members). If investigators were taught that Joseph Smith had a magic rock that he used to use to dig for buried treasure - which he never found and claimed that mean ghosts made the treasures slip just out of their reach - and he used that same magic rock to "translate" the Book of Mormon without even LOOKING at the gold plates - of COURSE it would turn almost everyone off immediately. And yet it is the TRUTH.

That is what should give you pause, MG. The fact that the revealing the TRUTH about what happened would be a guarantee of turning off almost every single investigator the church can dig up should give you pause. As well as being willing to believe in magic rocks in order to retain belief.

by the way, I'm certain that anyone who believes in magic rocks believes that some supernatural power bestowed the rock with that supernatural ability. How else did the rock get magic? It just grew that way? So invoking GOD as the bestower of the magic power does little to remove the "hokey" element.

It just strikes me that there is something fundamentally suspicious about claims that require a belief in something like magic rocks. I don't care if the word "religion" or "God" is attached to those claims or not. Those words aren't some "get out of jail free" card.

Beastie I think you're absolutely correct when stating that the milk before meat is there for a reason. The Church acknowledges that these beliefs would be hard to swallow by not telling investigators the nitty gritty details. Even more disturbing than the investigators not knowing is the members that are under the impression that some of the truths are actually anti-LDS lies. This lack of full disclosure seems to suggest that the Church does a poor job of even acknowledging this meat to members.

After the PBS documentary weren't there LDS that were upset about the stone in the hat? They thought that it wasn't accurate? I seem to recall that.

Yes, I heard that this was so. Well, it does sound weird at first blush doesn't it?! Sure did to me.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

What is so weird about a magic rock that is powered up by some unseen but real energy source/power?

The weirdness comes from the time and place/culture/technology that we live in. And the fact that under almost all circumstances that we are readily familiar with, rocks don't light up and give messages in textual form. Yes, it would be weird...and that's why it doesn't come up in missionary discussions.

It's a Two for Tuesday, folks. MG, you are a downright treasure trove of quoteworthy material!! Keep it up!

Well...thanks!

Compliments are accepted. They don't come all that often!

Even if they are in jest.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

After the PBS documentary weren't there LDS that were upset about the stone in the hat? They thought that it wasn't accurate? I seem to recall that.

I don't remember if this happened, but I have zero doubt that it did. The vast majority of LDS believers number among the "lazy ignorants" that the MADdites so disdain, who haven't bothered to REALLY educate themselves about church history. The problem is that if one doesn't suspect that the "other" history even exists, how can one know to search for it? I had no idea that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by looking at a stone in a hat when I was a believer. However, I think that South Park and the internet is slowly changing that.

MG -

I understand that the entire premise behind belief in God is that God is omnipotent, and could certainly make magic rocks if he wanted to. However, to assert that there is such a thing as magic rocks is to make an assertion about the reality of an observable world. A comparable claim would be to assert that God can and does make human beings fly. Well, if there were really an omnipotent God then certainly he could do just that. However, this is actually a claim not just about God, but about the reality of an observable world. If God could make human beings fly, well, then, we would be able to observe flying human beings. Perhaps we could not explain how it happened, but we – including nonbelievers – would observe it happening. So if a believer insists that God can really make human beings fly, that believer is actively ignoring the reality of the observable world, which is that human beings don’t fly.

So your response attempts to shift the focus on whether or not a feat beyond our ability to comprehend how it occurs could occur. Of course it could. But that’s not the point. The point is that there are no magic rocks. That is an observable fact. Your insistence on maintaining belief in Mormonism has resulted in you embracing a claim that is flatly contradicted by reality. And that is what is often troubling about religious beliefs, and is the reason atheists like Dawkins think religion is inherently dangerous. I believe that he’s confusing cause and effect, and believe religion exists due to the pre-existing flaws of human reasoning which leaves them vulnerable to believe in things such as magic rocks, but I agree with him that there is potential danger in openly embracing such superstitious thinking.

Human beings have been obsessed with the supernatural since the world began, and have yet to produce one shred of reliable evidence that it exists, and that includes magic rocks. Joseph Smith could not see buried treasures guarded by mean ghosts by looking in his rock. I wasn’t there, but I am comfortable asserting this as a fact because there is zero reliable evidence that magic rocks exist in any shape, way, or form. You are compelled to believe an idea flatly contrary to the known observable world because to reject it threatens your faith. Moreover, you know it is a ridiculous idea, and THAT is why it is hidden “meat”.

[_Moniker]

After the PBS documentary weren't there LDS that were upset about the stone in the hat? They thought that it wasn't accurate? I seem to recall that.

I don't remember if this happened, but I have zero doubt that it did. The vast majority of LDS believers number among the "lazy ignorants" that the MADdites so disdain, who haven't bothered to REALLY educate themselves about church history. The problem is that if one doesn't suspect that the "other" history even exists, how can one know to search for it? I had no idea that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by looking at a stone in a hat when I was a believer. However, I think that South Park and the internet is slowly changing that.

I'm pretty sure that there were some that thought Dr. Peterson was an anti-Mormon that PBS put up to talk in the documentary about the head in the hat translation. I think there were even some letters to the editors from some people asking why in the world a professor of Islamic studies would be saying such things.

I love the dum, dum, dum, dum, dum episode! :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4imXDXxnWUQ

This ones funny too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNAFVY0Ibo

There was an episode called Ladder to Heaven where there were only Mormons in heaven in their nice lil white shirts and ties! I can't find that one. :)

[_truth dancer]

We've been here before TD. The truth claims of the LDS church are meshed with the truth claims of Christianity, going all the way back to the ancient roots of Christianity, and all that this entails. To compare the LDS "truths" to Scientology "truths" is comparing apples to oranges. Your premise that the LDS church can be compared to the church of Scientology is fruitless when you look/dissect each religious system in detail. You're speaking in generalities. Your milk before meat stuff doesn't hold up if your first premise is faulty.

MG, I completely disagree with your belief that the LDS's practice of "milk before meat" is any different for Scientology or any other cult/religion/organization. (Also, there are plenty of religions much, much older than Christianity still alive and well on this earth but this is beside the point). :-)

Seriously, it doesn't matter one bit.

The question is, would it bother you if other cults, religions, or organizations used this same tactic in getting one to embrace a belief, purchase a commodity, or join their group?

Is the LDS church the only one in your mind for whom this "milk before meat" practice is acceptable?

Would a belief system that must rely on this "milk before meat" method to get converts seem more or less honest and true?

And, doesn't it at all seem a little odd that the God of the Universe would have to resort to such a sleazy tactic to get folks to believe His one and only TRUE church?

In other words, you sound like you think this "milk before meat" idea is not acceptable with the exception of the LDS church. It is dishonest/disingenuous/sleazy for others to use this method but fine and dandy for God?

You don't see the problem with this? Not even a little?


~dancer~

[_beastie]

I'm pretty sure that there were some that thought Dr. Peterson was an anti-Mormon that PBS put up to talk in the documentary about the head in the hat translation. I think there were even some letters to the editors from some people asking why in the world a professor of Islamic studies would be saying such things.

I love the dum, dum, dum, dum, dum episode! :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4imXDXxnWUQ

This ones funny too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNAFVY0Ibo

There was an episode called Ladder to Heaven where there were only Mormons in heaven in their nice lil white shirts and ties! I can't find that one. :)

Gotta love southpark! My boyfriend and kids and I all watched it together one day, and my kids were astounded - that my bf and I once believed in it!

I do remember some Mormons thinking DCP was an anti-mormon... LOL! Just more of those lazy good fer nuttins who can't be bothered to research church history on their own.

[_BishopRic]

You don't see the problem with this? Not even a little?


~dancer~

My experience with Mormons and this type of issue is exactly how MG approaches this here; it's only a problem IF it's not in Mormonism -- ie, the thought process is "since I've received the 'witness' that the church is true, then all methods used by God through his leaders are okay -- in Mormonism only, even if bizarre to everybody else. The same processes ARE bizarre in every other religion...because they aren't true!

Quite simple, really.

[_mentalgymnast]

In other words, you sound like you think this "milk before meat" idea is not acceptable with the exception of the LDS church. It is dishonest/disingenuous/sleazy for others to use this method but fine and dandy for God?

You don't see the problem with this? Not even a little?


~dancer~

Yeah, a little. Here's where things get a bit messy though. When you go back and look at events in church history, the events don't happen in isolation. They are part of a continuum. All along that continuum you see human beings that are being given a degree of latitude in their decisions even though the purported revelations are guiding the way. These people are all part of a culture with expectations, rules, and practices unique to their time and place. Some of the things that we may find questionable /unreasonable in hindsight, they may have been comfortable with.

My thinking is that God works within the framework of the society that already exists and has evolved to be what it is. He sees us for what we are and judges us accordingly. He sees others for what they are and does the same. Where we continually run into trouble is judging others that have lived within a different time and culture and then assuming that God should have made those same judgements.

It seems to happen over and over again.

I suppose the question that should be asked in regards to the subject at hand is: What did the individuals at the time of the Book of Mormon translation/publication who had knowledge of the stone in the hat think about it? Do we know from journals and other sources what their response was? Did it have any impact on their testimony or belief in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and it's origins?

In other words's, was it as big a deal as it seems to be for many of us? Should we take this into consideration?

Regards,
MG