Should we condemn the prophet Joseph for apparent use of techniques that we would call magic or occult in our day? Things like using a solid object for purposes of divining or seeking revelation? Because of our modern discomfort with such concepts, do we reject him as a prophet of God and reject the scriptural records associated with him? I think that would be an unfortunate mistake, though the evidence of his “guilt” in this area is hard to overlook completely. Here is the primary evidence, straight from a part of the LDS scriptures, Genesis 44, which describes Joseph’s use of an object that plays a key role in the interesting story of that record:
5 Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth? ye have done evil in so doing.
This is from the story in which the great ancient prophet, Joseph, used his cup, the cup he allegedly used for “magical” or revelatory divination, to frame one of his brothers as a thief in a clever scheme to save his entire family. It’s a beautiful, touching, inspiring story, infused with a touch of the occult, at least when viewed from our modern perspective. Do we therefore reject Joseph, his revelations and inspired deeds as a prophet, and the scriptural records associated with him and that praise him–you know, records like the Bible? Personally, I think that would be a mistake.
Moses used a magic stick. Might as well reject him too…
I never caught that before — the cup used to divine. Great information. I love that. I have been reading Rough Stone Rolling and love that book. I would agree with Bushman, that the magic, treasure seeking, and such, prepared Joseph to accept the golden plates, hidden in the hill. I have no problem with so-called magic objects. Jesus used spit and mud when healing the blind. Joseph, peering into his hat? I am good with that too. Seer stones – yep those are fine by me. People still use those divining rods in some places.
I agree about the book Rough Stone Rolling. A must read.
Once again, Jeff directs his argument to the Christian fundamentalist who accepts the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Evangelicals are the Washington Generals to his Harlem Globetrotters. May I suggest that Evangelicals and similarly believing Christians are becoming less important as debating opponents? The new challenge is to make your case to people who don't view the Bible as inerrant.
Whether we should "condemn" Joseph Smith for scrying is a question of little interest. A more relevant question is, why shouldn't we treat the revelations that Joseph Smith received through scrying as we would the "information" that anyone else receives from scrying? I recommend a little reading on the subject of scrying to get a feel for just how commonplace the practice was (and is). Check out the history of John Dee and Edward Kelley. They used seer stones to commune with angels in the late 1500's. John Dee at least had good intentions; he wanted to commune with the divine. His partnership with Kelley ended soon after the angel Uriel revealed that they should share their wives with each other. Why should I take Joseph Smith's scrying any more seriously than Edward Kelley's?
I think Anonymous #3 has a good point. Some of the things that Jeff has been pointing out are only a problem if you take a hard view of sola scriptura. There are actually very few Christians that take the hard view of sola scriptura. It is something that is more common in the United States, due to the large presence of Evangelicals but it is by no means a majority view. There are some Protestants (who are sympathetic towards Catholicism) who think that sola scriptura is a load of tripe (see link below).
http://bedlamorparnassus.blogspot.com/2011/11/sola-scriptura-est-bovis-stercus.html
And Catholics themselves tend to roll their eyes at the thought of sola scriptura since it is only a Protestant doctrine.
But in Jeff's defense (not like he need me to defend him though) perhaps the reason why many of his posts are geared towards the sola scriptura crowd is because that is who comes by his blog and comments so much. I'm sure that if there were more Catholics commenting here then his posts might take a different approach. We can only explain our faith to the people who we think are in our audience.
Scripture gives us examples of prophets receiving revelation from God… Ergo, Mohammed, who received revelation from God, is an authentic prophet.
Sure, this "argument" works only for the already-converted. That's the point.
Other prophets and High Priests in the O.T. used Urim and Thummim too.
Yes, it is as good a reason as any. I dont' believe in magic or occult practices. Which leads me to believe that Joseph was making it all up the same way I think mediums are making it up today. If the church in it's handbook today says stay away from the occult how is it even remotely possible that Joseph was able to use a stone to look for burried treasure and "translate" the book of Mormon, which was interesting burried gold, sounds a lot like burried treasure to me. Seriously how can the church be true when Joseph used a rock to look for buried treasure and then used the stone to translate the burried treasure. Some please tell me how that makes sense.
Sorry my previous post is poorly written and I can't edit it.
Anonymous, if you reject the concept of prophets and using cultural means in a magic-imbued world to tap into that which is outside us, there is no reasonable answer for you.
If you don't reject truly and fully human prophets, there is a reasonable answer – that God works with the people he's got.
The point of this post is that rejecting Joseph for this reason should accompany rejecting pretty much all prophets throughout history for the same reason. If you do that, there is no argument; if you don't, it's inconsistent of you to reject one and not others.
That's all.
To quote the church:
"Church members should not engage in any form of Satan worship or affiliate in any way with the occult. "Such activities are among the works of darkness spoken of in the scriptures. They are designed to destroy one's faith in Chris t, and will jeopardize the salvation of those who knowingly promote this wickedness. These things should not be pursued as games, be topics in Church meetings, or be delved into in private, personal conversations" (First Presidency letter, Sept. 18, 1991)."
Is scrying occult? Is using a medium occult? I think so. By the churches own warning, Joseph could not have been inspired by God.
Anonymous,
You bring up an argument that appears at first to hold water but coming from an evangelical pov at least, it seems to be pretty full of holes.
There are two problems Mormons have to deal with when looking at Joseph Smiths history with the occult. The first is the involvement in his early years as a scryer seeking for treasure. The second, is his use of stones and other objects later in life for receiving revelations and healing the sick.
He gave up scrying for treasure as he learned more about the gospel just as he gave up on hundreds of his former religious notions as the restoration unfolded and he learned more. We see this pattern in many of the characters we read of throughout the Bible. (Moses Paul and Peter all immediately come to mind) They start with all kinds of bad theology and sinful behavior that is steadily removed from their lives as they turn to God.
The second I think Jeff and others commenting here addressed pretty well in this post. The bible is full of practices that have occultic parallels and counterfits.
So you are saying it is possible to take Joseph Smith's revelations from a rock seriously even though he previously used the rock to look for burried treasuer? It was just an evolutionary thing? Did you read the quote I posted from the church? At one point the rock was associated witht the works of the devil and then later the works of God? Seriously?
Yes, anonymous, seriously. The serpent almost ALWAYS is a token of Satan, but Moses held one up and told the children of Israel to look at it to be healed. We wouldn't think of doing that today. Joseph of Egypt used a cup as a divining tool. We wouldn't dream of doing that today. Jesus used mud and saliva. We would be appalled at that today. Joseph Smith used a hat and a peep stone. We don't understand that today.
I can accept that Moses and Joseph and Jesus and Joseph did things that we no longer do with no problem whatsoever.
Oh, and "occult" in the quote you used obviously refers to things that the FP consider to be associated with Satan worship and ceremonial rituals – not treasure seeking and seer stones.
If you're going to quote someone, at least try to convey their intended meaning.
Anynomous3, Quataumleap42, and the other anonymous, have all recognized how antiquated the Evangelical verse Mormon show down is in our modern, globalized world. One would think a person that moves to China would understand this.
Mormanity is right to point out that just about any reason to reject Mormonism can be used to reject Evangelicals. However, this also means just about any Mormon reason to reject Evangelicals can used to rejects Mormons. All Mormanity has done is demonstrate how antiquated the one-true-faith paradigm is, which is the same as proving Mormonism wrong.
If the ship is going down, take –everyone else (strikethrough)– Evangelicals with you?
Due to a brief mention of my previous comment I thought that I would go a little off topic and say that if the US were more heavily Catholic then perhaps Jeff would be answering questions more related to ideas dealing with the magisterium (google it if you don't already know) or how we fit within the consensus fidelium (though we already get a bit of that here).
As the Church moves more into heavily Catholic countries we (members in general) will most likely have to answer a different set of questions. The same will be true with members in China, or India or Russia or Sudan etc. But in each case I think we have a very good case to make and have the Help to back us up. Far from being the death knell of "the one-true-faith" our doctrine has the ability to answer a multitude of questions from any conceivable position. A strength we should take advantage of.
PapaD, so are you saying the first presidency would be ok with me sharing revelations given to me through a rock in a hat during sacrament meeting? Would anyone in my ward not think I was insane? Would the bishop not usher me off the stand?
Are you saying scrying and using a medium are not occult?
And I don't think it is obvious at all that they are saying some occult things are ok and some are not. I am pretty sure they are saying all occult things are bad. I don't know how old you are but I can't count the times I was warned about ouija boards as a youth.
And I am quite certain the prophets in the scriptures are just stories.
PapaD, I guess I just think differently than you. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Mormography,
You said "However, this also means just about any Mormon reason to reject Evangelicals can be used to rejects Mormons."
I'm not following that logic. As I've always understood it, the only logical reason Mormons have to reject the evangelical world view is that God has revealed more today. Other than that, we share very similar world views. How can that reason be logically used by an evangelical to reject Mormonism?
Anon said:
"At one point the rock was associated witht the works of the devil and then later the works of God? Seriously?"
Just for clarification, in JS' time (as is probably the case today) there were occult practices that focused on gaining power from satan, and there were occult practices meant to help one obtain power from God. As far as I can tell Joseph emphatically followed the later.
The church today of course would warn against any occult practices so it may seem like a mute point but I think intentions are always important.
mkprr, what makes you think this? I have never read anything to show this?
"As far as I can tell Joseph emphatically followed the later."
Of course you could be 100% right and I could be 100% wrong neither of us has any idea, other than our opinions.
"PapaD, so are you saying the first presidency would be ok with me sharing revelations given to me through a rock in a hat during sacrament meeting?"
Of course not, and nothing I said implies that.
Ouiji boards are a great example of something is that understood explicitly to be Satan-focused. What I'm saying is that we tend to classify lots of things we don't understand or that were / are done in other cultures as "occult" – and we tend to mean "Satan-focused" when we say "occult" – and we reject as "occult" many things that really aren't "Satan-focused" – and I include prophets, apostles and local leaders in that "we".
Iow, I believe the biggest problem in our modern culture with regard to this topic is that we mis-label many things just because we don't understand them and, therefore, reject them. That's sad.
It is impossible for me to see Joseph's use of a divining rod, a hat and a seer stone as "Satan-focused" even though they absolutely are "occult" in pure definition – but, as I said, I think modern Mormons generally have no clue what they're talking about when they talk about "the occult".
PapaD, I don't see your average teenager using ouija board as satan focused. The kids are just goofing around, the same as a magic 8 ball. I wouldn't say Joseph using a stone as a medium to look for treasure wasn't satan focused either. I would say that Joseph had no idea what he was doing. It is like the time he had a revelation to sell the book of mormon copyright in Toronto. A revelation I believe he recieved after placing the rock into his hat. They came back from Toronto without selling it and he made a statement like, some revelations are from man some are from God and some are from the Devil.
"I don't see your average teenager using ouija board as satan focused."
I agree, but I think it's hard to say that the adults who forbid them don't see them as Satan-focused (or, perhaps more accurately, as tapping into evil). That's my point.
Anonymous, you insinuate that Joseph sought the power of the devil in his youth for help finding treasure, I suggested that he sought the power of God. You wanted some evidence of that. This isn’t the place for an extensive study on the subject but here are a few things to consider:
First, Non-mormon historian Alan Taylor commenting on the treasure seeking folk lore and its popularity among Christians in that era said: “For many rural folk, treasure-seeking was a materialist extension of the Christian Faith as well as a supernatural economy.”
Second, the artifacts the smiths seemed to have used were unmistakably linked to Christianity. For example 3 magical parchments that the smith family seems to have owned included the “Holiness to the Lord” parchment, to win its user the favor of good angels, and the “Saint Peter bind them” and “Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah” parchments both used to protect the user from evil spirits. These were all God centered parchments used in Christian magic.
Third, we know from testimony in the 1826 trial that Joseph Smith seems to have always attributed his abilities with the seer stone to the power of God.
So there are a few reasons at least to suppose that while in the early years the Smiths were involved in some very strange, extra biblical occult practices that the church today would warn us against getting involved in, they seemed to be attempting to obtain help from God in their endeavors, not satan.
I am by no means an expert on this subject but it is one that at one time bothered me a lot so I read everything I could find on the subject. I'm always opened to viewing more evidence.