"Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

"Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Kishkumen »

I had the opportunity recently to listen to Bill Reel and RFM critique the jaw-droppingly moronic, dishonest, and vulgar "This Is The Show," starring COVID-catastrophe on two legs, Kwaku El. It was an enjoyable maiden voyage for Bill and RFM's live show, and most of what they had to say hit the mark. Bill and RFM are two very sharp guys. I am especially a fan of RFM, who has to be one of the most logical, lucid, and eloquent critics of Mormonism around, period.

But, of course, nothing is perfect, and I did find a nit to pick. Not so much a nit to pick with Bill and RFM, but definitely a nit to pick with both Jeremy Runnells, whom the MD duo was defending, and the T.I.T.S. ensemble, whom they were critiquing. Now, don't get me wrong. I feel a lot more critical of Kwaku and pals than I do Jeremy Runnells. I feel genuinely sympathetic toward Jeremy. The T.I.T.S. folks I hold to be shameless, ambitious opportunists who are using Mopologetics for their own advancement.

What's my beef, you ask? It has to do with the snippet about the "ouija board." The T.I.T.S. folks criticized Jeremy for saying that Smith translated the Book of Mormon with a "ouija board," when in fact he used a seer stone to translate. In this they misrepresented Jeremy. What he actually did was compare Smith's translation with a seer stone to using a "ouija board," which is quite a different thing. Dirty pool, Kwaku.

However, what Jeremy wrote was offensive in multiple ways, at least if you are an LDS person who really believes or seeks to shore up faltering belief. Now, although the functional comparison of a ouija board and the seer stone is not bad--after all, both methods of divination produce words--the ouija board has long been condemned in Christian circles for being a conduit through which people come into contact with evil spirits. This kind of terminology, in fact, plays right into the hands of anti-cult ministry types like the Tanners, who sincerely believe that all "magic" or "occult" methods are "of the devil."

Whether Jeremy recognized it or not at the time, it was a really poor choice of terms for that reason.

His other description, however, was only marginally better. Jeremy said that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with "a rock in a hat." Now, many of you will no doubt respond, "Well, that's what he did, isn't it?" Perhaps from your perspective, it is. But is was not so from Joseph Smith's perspective and others like him who engaged in these kinds of activities. For them, a seer stone was a special stone that allowed its possessor, sometimes thought to be the person for whom the stone was most effective or especially prepared for, to see hidden things, including the unknown past and future. Joseph Smith, Sr. referred to it as Joseph, Jr.'s "All Seeing Eye," a description with esoteric and masonic associations.

Like other elements of Christian folk magic, the seer stone was understood in a Biblical framework. It was "the white stone" given to the righteous in Revelation. Such stones would remain an integral part of the Mormon faith, if only on a kind of folk level, until the 20th century and beyond. It was only in the 20th century that LDS leaders started to discourage members from seeking and using such devices. Brigham Young taught that all righteous saints were entitled to have and use a seer stone. We are not talking about something that was unknown and bizarre to earlier Latter-day Saints.

What happened? The anti-esotericism and anti-ritualism of the dominant Protestant culture in North America, which contributed to the anti-cult ministries springing from the same culture. Popularly, the "occult" and the "esoteric" were equated with the devil and demons. What Christianity had done to other religions in the past, it continued to do within its own ranks with a vengeance, weeding out anything that might smack of the old enemy of paganism. Christians destroyed the temples, shrines, statues, and altars of the old religions. They murdered their practitioners. All on the theory that anything but the Christian God as they understood and worshiped Him was Satanic or demonic.

Today's secular antipathy for spirituality is the deliciously ironic, logical extension of this attitude to its absurd conclusion: the only thing left to take away to make things truly acceptable is the Christian cast of supernatural characters, including and especially God.

This is right where many disaffected Latter-day Saints land: in the secular mindset. I see nothing wrong with it. I don't really agree with it, although I think there is a lot to be said for viewing the world largely through secular as opposed to partisan, doctrinaire religious eyes. The mistake, of course, is to think that the secular lens is truly transparent and accurate in every way and to be unaware of its historically contingent nature, which it shares with any other human mythological/theological system.

Thanks to the influence of Protestant culture and secularism, most people view things like seer stones as being kooky and bizarre. Who would translate the Book of Mormon with a "rock" in a hat? Once you get a person to approach the scenario with that perspective, the work of parting them from their belief in the Restoration is already mostly done. The demystification of the modern world, stemming from the paucity of symbolic imagination and the fashionable hyper-rationalism, on the one hand, and the illiterate ignorance of the vast majority of religionists, on the other, sets up a situation where it is extremely easy to topple the belief of a Latter-day Saint who suddenly encounters information like the use of the seer stone in the Book of Mormon translation.

What bothers me is how most of what makes accurate communication about the issue of the Book of Mormon's translation possible is lost in the ignorant and misleading noise of these polemical exchanges. Sure, don't believe--and that is fine. Do believe--knock yourself out. But for Pete's sake, can't people learn to approach a topic like this honestly, accurately, and from an informed perspective?
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Philo Sofee »

Excellent ideas, and a lot to think about Kish. You ask at the end to see it in proper perspective, but it is with a Protestant bias, so yes that may well be a proper perspective, but it is still very difficult to say that is the perspective to see reality through. Who made the Protestant perspective the one to see things through? I don't know if I like that anymore than the other two options, the secular and religious biased ones. This issue is actually a fascinating one that can lead down many trails such as what is the proper definition of magic which I went through as an apologist when FARMS was fighting through the definition and the rights to declare what was then considered magic vs religion. I still don't have that one figured out yet because all it turned out to be was the apologists could quote more people about magic who thought like the apologists, but it didn't enlighten us as to what it is yet. I am still up in the air on it. I'm not against magic per se, but who has it, is it valid and is it real are the issues. Just because an organization speaks out against it has nothing whatsoever to do with if one can use it well.

Fascinating to work through to be sure, I look forward to doing it more with you and others. The fact that the rock in a hat translation embarrassed the church for so long that they lied about it by ignoring it and misrepresenting it in art is what is truly bizarre. It tells me they do not take the lead into sharing their version of truth, but are sensitive to what others say. If truth is truth then stand by it no matter who says what. That Mormonism can't and won't do that is literally a black eye AND concussion against them on my take. It demonstrates pretty powerfully that it is not revelation that guides Mormonism, but culture of humans. Of course, it always has, but Mormonism is the one who has claimed that isn't true, yet they then fall right back in line, so what is it that makes it so special? I have to reply, not much. I actually do wish it was and did have that little special to it, but meh...
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Kishkumen »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:42 pm
Excellent ideas, and a lot to think about Kish. You ask at the end to see it in proper perspective, but it is with a Protestant bias, so yes that may well be a proper perspective, but it is still very difficult to say that is the perspective to see reality through. Who made the Protestant perspective the one to see things through? I don't know if I like that anymore than the other two options, the secular and religious biased ones.
Hey, Philo. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am not sure, however, that I am understanding you here. How would the biased Protestant perspective be the proper perspective?
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:42 pm
This issue is actually a fascinating one that can lead down many trails such as what is the proper definition of magic which I went through as an apologist when FARMS was fighting through the definition and the rights to declare what was then considered magic vs religion. I still don't have that one figured out yet because all it turned out to be was the apologists could quote more people about magic who thought like the apologists, but it didn't enlighten us as to what it is yet. I am still up in the air on it. I'm not against magic per se, but who has it, is it valid and is it real are the issues. Just because an organization speaks out against it has nothing whatsoever to do with if one can use it well.
I think the bind apologists are in is that they necessarily want to protect the reputation of the Church. That is not achieved by conceding that Smith and family were involved in something that has been traditionally called "magic." One way they try to get out of this bind is to say that magic is a problematic category, which is true. Unfortunately, it remains the label most commonly used for these phenomena. My preference is to challenge the Protestant antipathy toward magic. "Magic" has long been part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Those who seek to marginalize these practices by identifying them as demon or devil worship are uninformed or they are polemicizing. Look at the parchments the Smith family used. They are filled with the names of Deity and different angels. It is stupid to argue that those who owned and used these parchments were dealing with devils and demons in the way they are accused.
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 2:42 pm
Fascinating to work through to be sure, I look forward to doing it more with you and others. The fact that the rock in a hat translation embarrassed the church for so long that they lied about it by ignoring it and misrepresenting it in art is what is truly bizarre. It tells me they do not take the lead into sharing their version of truth, but are sensitive to what others say. If truth is truth then stand by it no matter who says what. That Mormonism can't and won't do that is literally a black eye AND concussion against them on my take. It demonstrates pretty powerfully that it is not revelation that guides Mormonism, but culture of humans. Of course, it always has, but Mormonism is the one who has claimed that isn't true, yet they then fall right back in line, so what is it that makes it so special? I have to reply, not much. I actually do wish it was and did have that little special to it, but meh...
The use of seer stones embarrassed those who were concerned about appearing "respectable." I get it. I am not eager to run out and use a seer stone. I don't think I really need to. That said, there is a huge difference between acknowledging one's own lack of interest in using one and ridiculing the founders and early generations of Mormonism for having done so for many decades. Using these instruments of divination simply was part of the Mormon tradition. It did not end with the completion of the translation of the Book of Mormon.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Philo Sofee »

Kish
Hey, Philo. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am not sure, however, that I am understanding you here. How would the biased Protestant perspective be the proper perspective?
I clumsily tried to say this. The basis, it appeared to me to be the Protestant background, but on what basis is that the one we move on from as if it is the accurate interpretation. To simply find the ground for a discussion of seer stones in hats and magic is quite enigmatic at best. I'm just not sure what part of the divide I venture on at the moment...
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Kishkumen »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:11 pm
I clumsily tried to say this. The basis, it appeared to me to be the Protestant background, but on what basis is that the one we move on from as if it is the accurate interpretation. To simply find the ground for a discussion of seer stones in hats and magic is quite enigmatic at best. I'm just not sure what part of the divide I venture on at the moment...
Fair enough. If it is any help, I do not approach this from a Protestant perspective to the degree that I can distinguish myself from such. I reject, for example, sola scriptura and sola fide. I also reject the shallow bias against esotericism in contemporary Protestantism. At the same time, I understand that not all Protestants share that bias. I simply reject Protestantism all the same.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Philo Sofee »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:19 pm
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 8:11 pm
I clumsily tried to say this. The basis, it appeared to me to be the Protestant background, but on what basis is that the one we move on from as if it is the accurate interpretation. To simply find the ground for a discussion of seer stones in hats and magic is quite enigmatic at best. I'm just not sure what part of the divide I venture on at the moment...
Fair enough. If it is any help, I do not approach this from a Protestant perspective to the degree that I can distinguish myself from such. I reject, for example, sola scriptura and sola fide. I also reject the shallow bias against esotericism in contemporary Protestantism. At the same time, I understand that not all Protestants share that bias. I simply reject Protestantism all the same.
I think we are on the same page at this point. Wasn't it like p. 335? :P
User avatar
Ramus_Stein
Sunbeam
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:09 pm
Location: Junction, Utah
Contact:

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Ramus_Stein »

I am still trying to get over the idea that an LDS apologetic organization is behind those offensive videos.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Philo Sofee »

Ramus_Stein wrote:
Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:46 pm
I am still trying to get over the idea that an LDS apologetic organization is behind those offensive videos.
It is rather amazing that it can't seem to get any attention any otherwise......
User avatar
Bought Yahoo
High Councilman
Posts: 523
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Bought Yahoo »

Bill Reel is not a "nice guy" nor an intelligent interviewer. He sometimes appears not to be following Consigli.

Consigli's work on this particular interview is very thin and one is distracted by his evil maniacal laugh.

He admits to having never read the CES letter.

Kwaku and friends are moronic and offensive. Cardon Ellis I know personally. He is not "young." All of them are thinly studied. I suggest we just all boycott FAIR at this point.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: "Rock In A Hat," Or "How Everyone Gets It Wrong"

Post by Kishkumen »

Bought Yahoo wrote:
Sat Jan 02, 2021 1:35 am
Bill Reel is not a "nice guy" nor an intelligent interviewer. He sometimes appears not to be following Consigli.

Consigli's work on this particular interview is very thin and one is distracted by his evil maniacal laugh.

He admits to having never read the CES letter.

Kwaku and friends are moronic and offensive. Cardon Ellis I know personally. He is not "young." All of them are thinly studied. I suggest we just all boycott FAIR at this point.
I am not sure where your judgment of Bill Reel is coming from. I often don’t agree with him, but he has never come off as a mean guy to me. Yes, RFM said he had not read the CES letter. I have only read parts of it, never the whole thing. Still, it doesn’t take a thorough read of it to catch on to the low quality of the T.I.T.S. response to it.

I can agree that FAIR ought to be boycotted. Most of the noise between critics and apologists ought to be avoided as a waste of time. Did I need Robert Ritner to tell me that Joseph Smith was not an Egyptologist? Do I need Steve Smoot to tell me the same thing from a believing perspective? People enjoy listening to folks they agree with. Sure, some good information is transmitted along the way, but most of it misses the point of having religious belief and practice, in my opinion.

Honestly, I can listen to believers and non-believers both, so long as they are interesting and informative. RFM is both, in my opinion. Bill Reel I am less of a fan of, but mean? No. What makes Reel more boring to me is his reductive take on religious life.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Post Reply