FARMS's "Magic" Trick

[_chonguey]

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.

Bingo.

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.

Totally Pertinent.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but here is my take: Grave robbery is a well-attested and historically verifiable phenomenon. Whether or not Christs body was stolen or not is irrelevant to this discussion with the exception of pointing out that resurrection has never been shown to be a real phenomenon, let alone verifiable and reproducible. The same goes for peep stones and angels. No solid evidence for their efficacy or veracity. It's all a matter of faith.

But grave robbing has and will continue to occur. That much is a fact and can reasonable worked in to the story of Christ without the need to invoke the supernatural.

The real question is just how many fantastic and miraculous contrivances are strung together before one realizes that that is all ones faith is built upon. No facts or evidences: just fantastic magical stories.

[_wenglund]

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."

I wasn't aware that Bushman had said any such thing. Could you provide me with a page number for that quote?

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.

I suppose it is a bit of a "pity". However, I would think that were Bushman to have the clairvoyance to anticipate every instance where his thousands of readers my have appreciated addition explanation and documentation, he may still be writing RSR as a multi-volumn encyclopedia rather a modest biography. I trust we all will survive in spite of his having chosen the later. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_rcrocket]

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.

Bingo.

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.

Totally Pertinent.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but here is my take: Grave robbery is a well-attested and historically verifiable phenomenon. Whether or not Christs body was stolen or not is irrelevant to this discussion with the exception of pointing out that resurrection has never been shown to be a real phenomenon, let alone verifiable and reproducible. The same goes for peep stones and angels. No solid evidence for their efficacy or veracity. It's all a matter of faith.

But grave robbing has and will continue to occur. That much is a fact and can reasonable worked in to the story of Christ without the need to invoke the supernatural.

The real question is just how many fantastic and miraculous contrivances are strung together before one realizes that that is all ones faith is built upon. No facts or evidences: just fantastic magical stories.

I look forward to learning more about your relative degrees of falsity.

[_wenglund]

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.

That was certainly one way to completely miss my point. ;-)

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.

You seem to have a knack for jumping to wrong conclusions. To my knowledge, the seer stone was not used as a "prop" to convince people that Joseph had tanslated the plates or whatever. The existence of the stone was not widely reported. It was actually seen by even fewer people. Joseph's use of the stone was directly witnessed by less than a handful of people, and only Joseph was privy to what actually occured on the stone. Contrast this with the purposeful showing of the gold plates, angelic visitations, and the legal statements of witnesses thereto. Clearly, it was the ancient plates, and not the seer stone, that was intended for the purpose you suggest.

Rather, professional historians proffer that the waning use of the stone may have been due to Joseph's evolving spiritual abilities no longer necessitating as frequent employment of a physical catalyst, like the seer stone or the Urim & Thumim, for translation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

For those who appear to be choosing to be deliberately dense, here's a brief summary that may help:

The Bible - a book filled with religious fantasies and superstitions, but which was written by superstitious people in ancient times, which dating can be verified by background details provided by archaeological exploration and other historical documents

The Book of Mormon - a book filled with religious fantasies and superstitions, which was written by superstitious people (or a person) in the nineteenth century, despite its claims otherwise

Hope that clears things up

Very Truly Yours
beastie

[_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.

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.

Beastie said it best. The Bible is believed by its supporters to be a collection of ancient writings containing the Word of God. It is in fact a collection of ancient writings, however I do not believe it to contain the Word of God. So it's not "true", however it is ancient. The Book of Mormon is neither true, nor ancient. So yes, in a way, you could say the Bible and Book of Mormon are both false, but the Book of Mormon is "more false", in a manner of speaking.

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.

I don't think that a person who disbelieves the Bible is required in any way to account for any elements in the story. Why should one be required to account for Jesus' body, when it's entirely up for dispute 1) that there ever was a Jesus (I suspect there probably was), 2) his body in fact was removed from the tomb in which it was placed (I suspect that it wasn't), and 3) if the body did start out in one tomb and end up no longer there, that the best explanation for this is that God caused the body to reanimate and live again. There's no particular reason to believe that the Gospels accounts of Jesus' body disappearing from the tomb are anything other than made-up elements of the story, just like Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, the floating axe heads, the piece of money in the fish's mouth, etc.

[_chonguey]

That was certainly one way to completely miss my point. ;-)

I see. Just another one-liner or are you going to clarify what the handheld device / peep stone analogy was that I completely missed? No?

You seem to have a knack for jumping to wrong conclusions. To my knowledge, the seer stone was not used as a "prop" to convince people that Joseph had tanslated the plates or whatever. The existence of the stone was not widely reported. It was actually seen by even fewer people. Joseph's use of the stone was directly witnessed by less than a handful of people, and only Joseph was privy to what actually occured on the stone. Contrast this with the purposeful showing of the gold plates, angelic visitations, and the legal statements of witnesses thereto. Clearly, it was the ancient plates, and not the seer stone, that was intended for the purpose you suggest.

Of course you don't think the peep stone is a prop. As a believer you actually believe in the efficacy of using a magic rock to divine and scry. Of course, most skeptics who don't believe in such superstition call such devices "props."

At least the peep stones used by Joseph and other early church members still exist today and are still owned by real people. More people have seen the stones than ever saw the plates. You seem to think that the plates that only 11 people have said to have seen are a little bit more concrete of a "prop", but since said plates are nowhere to be found, and said peep stones still exist, I would be more inclined to accept the peep stones as physical props used to convince people of Josephs powers, since I can at least verify that they existed. The plates (be them props or simple inventions of the witnesses imaginations) can't even be verified to that degree. Their actual physical existence in the early 19th Century has to be taken on faith and the say so of 11 VERY interested parties.

Rather, professional historians proffer that the waning use of the stone may have been due to Joseph's evolving spiritual abilities no longer necessitating as frequent employment of a physical catalyst, like the seer stone or the Urim & Thumim, for translation.

Don't you mean professional apologists? I doubt that any serious historian who wasn't also an LDS apologist would make such an argument, seeing as it invokes the supernatural, not to mention an oh-so-convenient out for Joseph and a way to distance him from his occult past.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What is the "reasonable explanation," Wade? How does an object out of folk magic suddenly become a "serious" religious instrument? Do you feel that there is a difference, or are they essentially the same? What characterizes the difference between Joseph Smith's involvement with folk magic vs. his more serious religious undertakings? Or are you one of those rare Mopologists who doesn't care if the seer stone gets labeled as "magic"?

[_Runtu]

I wasn't aware that Bushman had said any such thing. Could you provide me with a page number for that quote?

Wade, you said it, not Bushman. He gave no substantiation for his assertion, and you helpfully suggested it was the reader's responsibility to come up with the explanation.

I suppose it is a bit of a "pity". However, I would think that were Bushman to have the clairvoyance to anticipate every instance where his thousands of readers my have appreciated addition explanation and documentation, he may still be writing RSR as a multi-volumn encyclopedia rather a modest biography. I trust we all will survive in spite of his having chosen the later. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Additional explanation and documentation? Are you kidding? He provided no documentation whatsoever for that rather important assertion. Again, it's annoying that you think it's the reader's job to back up the assertions of a historian. It doesn't take "clairvoyance" to know that you don't make assertions without support in a historical book. Fawn Brodie is often taken to task for that. But when Bushman does it, all you can do is resort to smug insults.

[_Ray A]

Hi, Ray. Thank you for posting the snippets from the reviews. That said, I think you're missing my point. I am not claiming that the term "magic" is totally stable, or that it hasn't been contested---on the contrary, I was attempting to disprove DCP's rather bold assertion that a "consensus" has been reached regarding the efficacy of the term.

How do you judge whether a consensus has been reached? You read the scholars who've written on magic, and make a judgement. If you compare, for example, the magic of Aleister Crowley with Aladdin, as one example, it's obviously the same subject, but a thousand miles apart. Crowley, incidentally, is one of the more interesting figures in the history of magic. Colin's Wilson's The Occult is a good start to understanding Crowley. Wilson's sequel, Beyond The Occult also demonstrates the varieties of "magic". There is no set definition of magic. It is anything but harmonious and definable in one category. F.F Bruce wrote in The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable, that Jesus was considered a magician "who led the people astray". Would Jesus fit into Crowley's practice of magic? Only if you think a pumpkin is the same as a banana.

Further, as I hope I made clear, the harping about "magic" seems pretty obviously to be an attempt on the Mopologist's part to discredit, or "smear", Mike Quinn.

You made it clear, no doubt, but perhaps the "Mopologists" were attempting to portray a more accurate view of the non-monolithic views of magic, rather than the narrow one Quinn solicited. An "attempt to discredit someone" is not an attempt if the facts back them up. Quinn was warned by those friendly to him not to publish this book, but he went ahead. You're judging the motivations of the "Mopologists", but have you examined Quinn's motives?