charity wrote:I was told just recently by someone who is in a position to know that the Urim and Thummim are not there. I asked the question, specifically, because it was my understanding that possession of the Urim and Thummim is what makes a person a seer. And since we sustain the prophet and apostles as seers, that must mean the Church is in possession of them. I was told my understanidng was not correct and they are not in the Church vault, or anywhere else in the possession of the Church.
So which is it?
Where's that "small still voice"?
You don't seem to be able to ask discerinible questions. So which is what?
Is the Urim and Thummim in the Church vault? I said I was told no, it wasn't.
Was the Urim and Thummim and the ephod necessary for some religious practice to work? I don't know. It seems so from the description in the Old Testament.
We aren't talking about the still, small voice and its function. The question is about physical items, such as seer stones, breastplates, etc.
charity wrote:I was told just recently by someone who is in a position to know that the Urim and Thummim are not there. I asked the question, specifically, because it was my understanding that possession of the Urim and Thummim is what makes a person a seer. And since we sustain the prophet and apostles as seers, that must mean the Church is in possession of them. I was told my understanidng was not correct and they are not in the Church vault, or anywhere else in the possession of the Church.
Thanks for that list Phaedrus.
Wow! What impeccable, bulletproof logic!
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Infymus wrote:How many Mormons does it take to change a light bulb? Change? What change?
You really like this light bulb joke, huh?
How Many Mormons Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb? It depends on if the lightbulb is doctrinal. If it is, it changes constantly on its own.
This is the 34th light bulb joke you have made this week. I am getting concerned. Call me if you need someone to talk to.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Sethbag wrote:I also don't believe the Urim and Thummim is in the Church's possession, but my reason is a bit different. I don't think there ever was a Urim and Thummim, at least not one that Joseph Smith or anyone else in the LDS church ever had.
According to D. Michael Quinn in Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised & Enlarged Edition (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), the "Urim & Thummim" was merely the nickname given to Joseph Smith's white seer stone that he used during the production of the lost 116 pages. That nickname--first given by Wilford Woodruff, if memory serves--seems to have taken on a life of its own after the fact.
The church still has it.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Sethbag wrote:I also don't believe the Urim and Thummim is in the Church's possession, but my reason is a bit different. I don't think there ever was a Urim and Thummim, at least not one that Joseph Smith or anyone else in the LDS church ever had.
According to D. Michael Quinn in Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised & Enlarged Edition (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), the "Urim & Thummim" was merely the nickname given to Joseph Smith's white seer stone that he used during the production of the lost 116 pages. That nickname--first given by Wilford Woodruff, if memory serves--seems to have taken on a life of its own after the fact.
The church still has it.
They really should have pulled out the Urim and Thummim and dusted it off and used it on the Hoffman documents.
charity wrote:I was told just recently by someone who is in a position to know that the Urim and Thummim are not there. I asked the question, specifically, because it was my understanding that possession of the Urim and Thummim is what makes a person a seer. And since we sustain the prophet and apostles as seers, that must mean the Church is in possession of them. I was told my understanidng was not correct and they are not in the Church vault, or anywhere else in the possession of the Church.
So which is it?
Where's that "small still voice"?
You don't seem to be able to ask discerinible questions. So which is what?
Is the Urim and Thummim in the Church vault? I said I was told no, it wasn't.
Was the Urim and Thummim and the ephod necessary for some religious practice to work? I don't know. It seems so from the description in the Old Testament.
We aren't talking about the still, small voice and its function. The question is about physical items, such as seer stones, breastplates, etc.
Try to stay on topic, will you?
The point is you have no discernment. You have no "small still voice" working for you. I am sorry you can't even spell "discerinible" or "understanidng". Try to keep up, will you?
And be sure to omit your other quote:
charity wrote:And down to the real stuff, blixa's question is a good one. The only example I know of is the ephod and Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament description. But here is the real question. Were they just symbols, or were they functioning items, necessary in the practice of the religion.
Oh, and there is the Liahona, but while that was very useful for the assistance in their recoking to the Nephites, it didn't seem to be necessary for the prophet to have in his possession in order to be a prophet.
"But here is the real question. Were they just symbols, or were they functioning items, necessary in the practice of the religion." This is your question for the third time that you cannot discern for yourself. Are they symbols or real items? I guess you don't know for sure by discernment or a "small still voice".
Just keep playing your game, Charity, it's both posts together.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
You know what is really funny here. If someone at sometime had come across something that would absolutely destroy the Church, and he/them wanted to keep the Church going, whatis the sensible thing to do? DESTROY it. Come on, guys. Why hold on to the incriminating evidence?
I have never really understood the logic behind this line of argument, though by now it has become a Classic of Mopologetics. C'mon, Charity: Why would the Church want to destroy documents which are important to its own history? Even if these aren't "faith promoting," if the Church succeeds in its mission and converts a large portion of the Earth's population, then keeping these things secret would no longer be a problem. Moreover, Joseph Smith handed out at least mandate prompting the Saints to keep careful records. Destroying the stuff in the Vault would be tantamount to violating holy write.
In any case, for all we know, the Church *has* destroyed stuff. Certainly, the "revision" of Elder Poehlman's infamous talk would count as "destruction," no? And, as Infymus's post suggests, the Church seems not to know very well just what, exactly, is contained in the Vault. Better to hold off on torching anything until you know for absolute certain just what its historical implications are, for the reasons I enumerated above. Besides, saying that the docs "would have been destroyed" is essentially the same as saying, "Hey, Enron wasn't committing any crimes! And besides, if they were, they would have burned all the damaging evidence!" Not a very effective rhetorical approach, imho.
All we know for certain is that a very clear and clean pool of water, from which one can drink, is to be found in the rear of one of the caves....
Dr. Shades: According to D. Michael Quinn in Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised & Enlarged Edition (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), the "Urim & Thummim" was merely the nickname given to Joseph Smith's white seer stone that he used during the production of the lost 116 pages. That nickname--first given by Wilford Woodruff, if memory serves--seems to have taken on a life of its own after the fact.
The church still has it.
charity replies: Yes, the Church still has the seer stone. But Quinn is wrong, and evidently can't even read the Standard Works.
JS-H 1: 35 Also, that there were two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate, constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and that God had prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.
Pokatator: Where's the Jupiter Talisman?
charity: Thank you, Pokatator for giving me the chance to blow this old myth out of the water.
A silver "pocket piece" was bought by the Church from Charles Bidamon, the son of Major Bidamon, who was married to Emma Smith after the murder of Joseph. He said, "This piece came to me through the relationship of my father, Major L. C. Bidamon, who married the Prophet Joseph Smith's widow, Emma Smith. I certify that I have many times heard her say, when being interviewed, and showing the piece, that it was in the Prophet's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage, Ill."
Questions about the authenticity are really strong. First, Bidamon never said anything about the piece for [b] fifty-eight years after Emma’s death to make his certification, which at the time of her death he was but merely a fifteen-year-old boy.
Second, no such piece was listed in Joseph's personal effects which were turned over to Emma. The itemized list of the contents of Joseph Smith's pockets was pubished by the lawyer who collected the propeht's personal effects. This listing is:
"Received, Nauvoo, Illinois, July 2, 1844, of James W. Woods, one hundred and thirty- five dollars and fifty cents in gold and silver and receipt for shroud, one gold finger ring, one gold pen and pencil case, one penknife, one pair of tweezers, one silk and one leather purse, one small pocket wallet containing a note of John P. Green for $50, and a receipt of Heber C. Kimball for a note of hand on Ellen M. Saunders for one thousand dollars, as the property of Joseph Smith. - Emma Smith."
The so-called talisman was not in any way similiar to a coin, being larger and with symbols and Hebrew characters. Certainly not any coin of the realm.
Third, Emma never once mentioned a talisman in any of the interviews every recorded. Since the claim was that the propeht carried this medallion, and Emma spoke of it often (according to Bidamon) it is strange no one else every heard about it.
Thanks for letting us lay this myth to rest.
Mister Scratch: I have never really understood the logic behind this line of argument, though by now it has become a Classic of Mopologetics. C'mon, Charity: Why would the Church want to destroy documents which are important to its own history? Even if these aren't "faith promoting."
charity: We weren't talking about things merely being "not faith promoting" but the smoking gun, a statement by Joseph saying, "neener, neener, I made it all up."
Mr. Scratch: In any case, for all we know. . . .
charity: For all we know? For all we know? That even tops an earlier remark, "I get the impression that. . . ." You guys must not have a clue as to what constitutes evidence. Shssssssh.