FARMS's "Magic" Trick

[_Runtu]

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.

Uh, Wade, maybe my mind is not so keen as yours, but a historian ought not to write unsupported assertions and then tell the reader, "Sorry, I don't have to back this up. You as the reader, if you thought enough about it could come up with a reasonable explanation to back up my assertion."

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.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Again, Wade, I have no doubt that such answers exist, at least those that would satisfy you and Bushman. Perhaps Bushman has good reason for his assertion. More's the pity that he didn't share this reason with us lowly readers. There were a few more moments in RSR where I did a double-take like that.

[_chonguey]

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.

I am sure that to your average layman, modern computers are mystifying devices which for all intents and purposes are just as "magical" as a seer stone. But you do have to realize that nothing could be further from the truth. Computers and hand held devices operate on the laws of physics and scientific computational theory. Their use is open to anyone and, given enough learning and study, can be understood as to how and why they work, regardless of ones faith, creed or righteous nature.

Under what laws of physics does a seer stone operate? Is the operation of such reproducible by unbiased and impartial observers, regardless of what may or may not be in his heart? Do they work reliably? Have they been scientifically proven to work AT ALL? Is there a robust scientific field dedicated to the study of such devices and the furthering of their abilities and our understanding of such?

For computers and modern digital devices, you can answer yes to all of the above. On the question of seer stones all the above questions have to be answered with a resounding NO!

Just because something confuses you as to how it works doesn't mean it works in the same way that another equally confusing (and irrational thing) is claimed to operate. Apples and Oranges.

(On a funny side note, if I, as a computer scientist, claimed that the reason I was unable to produce the results I claimed I could because an evil computer spirit caused my program to become slippery and descend deep in to the hard disk, I would get fired. It takes a special kind of gullibility to be unable to produce your claimed results again and again and again, but still have people believe you truly do have those powers. Just another difference between legitimate powers such as a computer and the bogus ones of seer stones)

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).

Fair enough, but such an argument reduces a seer stone to a mere prop, which in my opinion is pretty much the truth. It's why Joseph stopped using the stones later on in his prophetic career: He no longer needed the prop to convince any one he could receive revelation from God. Most people who believed no longer needed a physical prop to convince them that Joseph wasn't simply making things up or reading from a prepared script.

[_rcrocket]

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.

I'm glad to see that you hold Christianity to be of lesser falsity than Mormonism. [Eyesrolling icon here if I could master it.]

False is false. Christianity is based upon axe heads floating, donkeys talking, people rising from the dead, severed parts being restored to bodies, prophets divining God's intent from the way men drink water, dreams to be interpreted by others, devils talking, and previously dead people appearing. Sounds like necromancy to me. All Joseph Smith claimed is that he talked to God and angels and that he used a seer stone (actually, he didn't claim this) to translate ancient documents.

[_Runtu]

I'm glad to see that you hold Christianity to be of lesser falsity than Mormonism. [Eyesrolling icon here if I could master it.]

False is false. Christianity is based upon axe heads floating, donkeys talking, people rising from the dead, severed parts being restored to bodies, prophets divining God's intent from the way men drink water, dreams to be interpreted by others, devils talking, and previously dead people appearing. Sounds like necromancy to me. All Joseph Smith claimed is that he talked to God and angels and that he used a seer stone (actually, he didn't claim this) to translate ancient documents.

I'm less interested in the means of translation (though the seer stone stuff does raise some issues) than I am in the finished product. Seems to me that the finished product speaks for itself.

[_chonguey]

I'm glad to see that you hold Christianity to be of lesser falsity than Mormonism. [Eyesrolling icon here if I could master it.]

False is false. Christianity is based upon axe heads floating, donkeys talking, people rising from the dead, severed parts being restored to bodies, prophets divining God's intent from the way men drink water, dreams to be interpreted by others, devils talking, and previously dead people appearing. Sounds like necromancy to me. All Joseph Smith claimed is that he talked to God and angels and that he used a seer stone (actually, he didn't claim this) to translate ancient documents.

I'm confused. If you are LDS, and therefore believe the Bible to be (relatively) correct, than you accept as divine all of the above stories of talking donkeys and necromancy. You should have said "In addition to all this, Joseph Smith claimed to have talked to God..."

If you disagree with this assessment I would suggest you procure a copy of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible. You will find that most of the above talking donkeys and etc are still there after the revision. It seems to me that means that Joseph (or God, if you accept as divine the biblical revision) didn't think it was worth correcting and therefore, relatively "correct."

All I meant by Christianity being less false than Mormonism is that, whatever its flaws, the Bible is at least a document with a good deal of historical validity. It speaks of peoples that can be proven to existed, even if the contents and conclusions of the theology in the Bible are questionable. The Bible, and therefore historical Christianity have more of a leg to stand on than Mormonisms founding documents, the Book of Mormon, which as never been proven in any way to have a legitimate historical basis. That has to be currently taken as an act of pure faith.

[_rcrocket]

All I meant by Christianity being less false than Mormonism is that, whatever its flaws, the Bible is at least a document with a good deal of historical validity. It speaks of peoples that can be proven to existed, even if the contents and conclusions of the theology in the Bible are questionable.

So, you are willing to accept axe heads floating, donkeys talking, people rising from the dead, severed parts being restored to bodies, prophets divining God's intent from the way men drink water, dreams to be interpreted by others, devils talking, and previously dead people appearing. But not somebody looking in a stone to see words appearing.

Or is the latter example "more false" than my Biblical examples? Are some of my Biblical examples more false than others?

[_Sethbag]

Well I can't speak for Chonquey, but I certainly don't accept those things. The Bible seems to be the fairy tales of men, mixed with some distorted historical tidbits. The Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. are just the fairy tales of men, or man. Either way, neither one is really believable.

[_chonguey]

So, you are willing to accept axe heads floating, donkeys talking, people rising from the dead, severed parts being restored to bodies, prophets divining God's intent from the way men drink water, dreams to be interpreted by others, devils talking, and previously dead people appearing. But not somebody looking in a stone to see words appearing.

Um, no, not at all. Just where did you get that idea? Because I think the Bible is a little less made-up than the Book of Mormon? Seeing that parts of the Bible have a basis in history is not the same thing as believing in every little thing the Bible says.

I reject all of those above magical and irrational examples you listed above. However, there is at least some evidence that the Bible is not merely a fraudulent creation of the 19th Century. It really is nearly as old as it parts of it claim to be and at least there are original source documents still extant that the Bible was genuinely translated from, using genuine scholarly translation methods.

The Book of Mormon however, is a product of the 19th Century, invented by man, and there is not any good evidence to believe that it is what it claims to be. On top of all that, it was dictated (or translated using heretofore unknown magical means) by looking at a magic rock in a hat.

Both are ultimately "false" in my opinion, but the Book of Mormon is even more fraudulent in its "creation" than the Bible. That's all I am saying.

[_rcrocket]

OK. I get it. The stories of axe heads floating, donkeys talking, people rising from the dead, severed parts being restored to bodies, prophets divining God's intent from the way men drink water, dreams to be interpreted by others, devils talking, and previously dead people appearing are less false than somebody looking in a stone to see words appearing.


I don't see the distinction, but at least I understand you now.

[_rcrocket]

Well I can't speak for Chonquey, but I certainly don't accept those things. The Bible seems to be the fairy tales of men, mixed with some distorted historical tidbits. The Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. are just the fairy tales of men, or man. Either way, neither one is really believable.

And I commend you for being consistent.

Here's my take on Mr. Ch. He thinks the Bible is false. He thinks the Book of Mormon is false. But the latter is more false than the former.

When one denounces Joseph Smith's encounters with seer stones and angels as incredible, I think a pertinent question in response is whether they accept the circulated stories that the disciples stole the Body.