“Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
MrStakhanovite
Anti-Mormon
Posts: 5248
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by MrStakhanovite »

thews wrote:Dr. Shades hate's emoticons... they have a lot of them over at MADB.


I think mine bring a sense of class and style that can't be found over at MADB Image

User avatar
thews
abstract
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by thews »

MrStakhanovite wrote:
thews wrote:Dr. Shades hate's emoticons... they have a lot of them over at MADB.


I think mine bring a sense of class and style that can't be found over at MADB Image

And yet another fine example of nothing worth reading that has zero to do with the thread topic... except your :highfives: are registered... I get it.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths

User avatar
thews
abstract
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by thews »

beastie wrote:
thews wrote:I'll answer you Joseph, because you believe in what your arguments... ask away.


I believe in my arguments. I believe that other scholars have used the term "folk magic" in the same way that Brant and Mike did.

Answer the question.

You believe in whatever plight you champion for your pals and it gets so tired basking in your delusional greatness of your opinion as your bounce it off the :highfives:, but since Joseph asked and he answered all my questions... No. "Folk magic" is a broad definition, but magic is magic, and if it's not of the Christian God, then it's occult magic and not Christian, no matter what "scholars" you claim mix magic with Christianity. Divination is clearly defined in the bible regarding magic and what the Christian God approves of and what's considered an abomination. If you want to find obscure references to make the claim they are one and the same, then you'd have to prove where divination was a "gift from God" (the Christian God) to substantiate it.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/folk-magic
The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to control natural or chance events or to influence the behavior or emotions of others.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths

User avatar
CaliforniaKid
God
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by CaliforniaKid »

thews wrote:Divination is clearly defined in the bible regarding magic and what the Christian God approves of and what's considered an abomination.

Is the silver cup used in divination by Joseph of Egypt clearly defined as an abomination?

User avatar
thews
abstract
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by thews »

CaliforniaKid wrote:
thews wrote:Divination is clearly defined in the bible regarding magic and what the Christian God approves of and what's considered an abomination.

Is the silver cup used in divination by Joseph of Egypt clearly defined as an abomination?

Spoken like a true Mormon Chris. Please explain to me how you interpret Deuteronomy 18:10-12.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by Darth J »

MrStakhanovite wrote:
thews wrote:Dr. Shades hate's emoticons... they have a lot of them over at MADB.


I think mine bring a sense of class and style that can't be found over at MADB Image


I wish I had emoticons.

User avatar
Darth J
Dark Lord of the Sith
Posts: 13392
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by Darth J »

As someone who has contributed to this thread both in an on-topic response and in a brief threadjack about legal issues, I would just like to add my prophecy that this thread is never going to end.

User avatar
CaliforniaKid
God
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by CaliforniaKid »

thews wrote:Please explain to me how you interpret Deuteronomy 18:10-12.

It was created as part of the Josian reforms, to delegitimize practices that previously were considered legitimate religious activities by most Hebrews.

User avatar
Joseph Antley
First Presidency
Posts: 801
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by Joseph Antley »

CaliforniaKid wrote:
by the way, Chris, will you be at Sunstone this August?

I will, indeed. Will I see you there, then?


That's the plan! Hopefully I'll see you there.
"I'd say Joseph, that your anger levels are off the charts. What you are, Joseph, is a bully." - Gadianton
"Antley's anger is approaching...levels of volcanic hatred." - Scratch

http://twitter.com/jtantley

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by beastie »

thews wrote:[
You believe in whatever plight you champion for your pals and it gets so tired basking in your delusional greatness of your opinion as your bounce it off the :highfives:, but since Joseph asked and he answered all my questions... No. "Folk magic" is a broad definition, but magic is magic, and if it's not of the Christian God, then it's occult magic and not Christian, no matter what "scholars" you claim mix magic with Christianity. Divination is clearly defined in the bible regarding magic and what the Christian God approves of and what's considered an abomination. If you want to find obscure references to make the claim they are one and the same, then you'd have to prove where divination was a "gift from God" (the Christian God) to substantiate it.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/folk-magic


First, Brant and I have crossed swords more times than I can count. I doubt he feels like he is one of my "pals" that I will defend at all cost.

Second, I pushed thews to answer this question so you all could recognize what you're up against. No reasonable or literate person could deny that other scholars do use the term "folk magic" in the same way that Mike and Brant do. Admitting this does not necessarily mean that the reader agrees with their use of the term: it just means they're capable of recognizing an obvious fact: other scholars use the term in the same way that Mike and Brant do.

Thews cannot and will not admit even this. The thread will never end, as long as someone holds the false hope that thews will eventually concede a point, after an abundance of evidence has been offered.

He won't. Ever.

The only way the thread will end is that others will get tired of banging their heads against a wall, and a very juvenile wall at that.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com

User avatar
thews
abstract
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by thews »

Darth J wrote:As someone who has contributed to this thread both in an on-topic response and in a brief threadjack about legal issues, I would just like to add my prophecy that this thread is never going to end.

Lots of other threads to read Darth... this is a discussion board.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths

User avatar
thews
abstract
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by thews »

CaliforniaKid wrote:
thews wrote:Please explain to me how you interpret Deuteronomy 18:10-12.

It was created as part of the Josian reforms, to delegitimize practices that previously were considered legitimate religious activities by most Hebrews.


Thanks Chris, but what I was looking for is the way you discount divination when or an enchanter further defines it, along with consulter with familiar spirits and necromancer. A scholar like yourself, that is so knowledgeable about religion and draws the Mormon conclusion regarding scrying should have easy answers. You make the arguments that divination is something God not only doesn’t consider an abomination, but who concludes that Joseph Smith believed he was being guided by God and his “power” for divination was a gift from God.

18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

By the way Chris, since you believe so strongly that Joe Smith was not an enchanter or necromancer, why is it you’re not a Mormon?
Last edited by thews on Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths

User avatar
thews
abstract
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by thews »

beastie wrote:First, Brant and I have crossed swords more times than I can count. I doubt he feels like he is one of my "pals" that I will defend at all cost.

Who cares who you defend and why?
beastie wrote:Second, I pushed thews to answer this question so you all could recognize what you're up against. No reasonable or literate person could deny that other scholars do use the term "folk magic" in the same way that Mike and Brant do. Admitting this does not necessarily mean that the reader agrees with their use of the term: it just means they're capable of recognizing an obvious fact: other scholars use the term in the same way that Mike and Brant do.

Note how you speak to the board as if your opinion is the ultimate position one should take, because your self righteous load of hot air is so damn enthralling, we should all catch up to whatever your opinion is and set is as a metric.
beastie wrote:Thews cannot and will not admit even this. The thread will never end, as long as someone holds the false hope that thews will eventually concede a point, after an abundance of evidence has been offered.

It’s because I disagree with you position beastie, and since you aren’t a Mormon nor Christian (correct me if I’m wrong), your real motivation is to just argue a position you have no faith in either way, but once again simply want to force-feed the board how correct your opinion is.
beastie wrote:He won't. Ever.
The only way the thread will end is that others will get tired of banging their heads against a wall, and a very juvenile wall at that.

Oh… I’m so hurt beastie. Just because I don’t agree that magic from a necromancer in the form of divination is part of Christianity, I have to endure your endless hot air and insults. You really are a legend in your own mind aren’t you? Since you cannot form a logical conclusion by yourself, let me break it down for you... I don’t give a rat’s ass which Mormon “scholars” you want to quote to make the brilliant conclusion that magic in the form of divination and Christianity go hand-in-hand, but to present this argument as something so universal that any educated Christian should accept this “fact” of yours, further defines you arrogance of just how important your hot air is… to you. Why is it, if you believe so strongly that Joe Smith was being guided by God, are you not a Mormon?
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by Runtu »

After, what, 17 pages of banging heads against brick walls, I thought I'd go back to the OP and see how we got to the place we are.

thews wrote:In attempting to convert Mormonism into Christianity, one of the roadblocks would require that one discount the magical practices of Joe Smith and other founding members. The way this is attempted is by redefining “magic” into “folk magic” and imply folk magic is not black (or occult) magic.


Here we have thews's thesis: Mike Reed and Brant Gardner are trying to "redefine" magic by replacing "black (occult)" with "folk" in an "attempt to convert Mormonism into Christianity." A bold thesis, but let's see if that's really what's going on.

Joe Smith clearly believed in magic, and is evidenced by his Jupiter talisman and being paid to find things with his magical rocks.


I think we can all agree that magic was part of Joseph's worldview.

First we need to define what constitutes magic:

mag•ic (māj'ĭk)
n.
1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
2.
a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
4. A mysterious quality of enchantment: "For me the names of those men breathed the magic of the past" (Max Beerbohm).


Seems reasonable enough.

The important part of the above definition is that magic, from a Christian perspective, is power (or supposed power) that comes from the supernatural, or not from God.


Here's thews's first problem: Mike is approaching magic from a scholarly perspective, not a Christian perspective. A scholarly treatment of folk magic would not attempt to assign a source to any alleged power, so the appeal to a Christian doctrinal perspective is irrelevant to a scholar's purposes.

To soften the blow of “magic” and its place in Mormonism, the attempt is to place “folk” in front of it and then spin how that supposedly changes the definition…


The second problem is that the use of the term "folk magic" is pretty well established among historians. It's not a question of spin or softening but a simple acceptance of a term widely used by scholars. And note that Mike has not argued for a change of definition.

but make no mistake, any power or supposed power by the belief in magic is of the supernatural, or the occult (black magic).


Why should we accept that? Because thews says so. And again, why would a scholarly treatment of magical practices care what the source of alleged power is?

Note that doing a search on folk magic will net Wiki definitions that are Mormon spun.


Not so. Googling "folk magic" comes up with everything from Hoodoo and syncretism among the African diaspora to the speilwerk of the Pennsylvania Dutch. I've read enough to know that "folk magic" is a widely used term among historians that is used precisely to avoid the kinds of source attribution thews thinks Mike and Brant are doing.

In the case of Mike Reed’s argument, Mike mixes magic and religion under the same definition… I have no idea how he came to this conclusion using Christianity, but magic is clearly defined in Deuteronomy 18:

"There shall not be found among you anyone that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.


An appeal to the Bible is irrelevant in discussing the blurry lines between folk magic and religion. I doubt very much that Mike is asking anyone to accept folk magic as Christian. What he has said is that people like Joseph Smith blended Christianity with folk magic, which is a simple fact.

While Mike Reed is not a Mormon, the objective is very clear that his target audience is Mormons who look for ways to force Mormonism into Christianity, and a common tactic is to redefine words.


Here thews again ascribes a motivation to Mike based on his misreading of what Mike has said. thews has not shown, even once, that Mike is trying to "force Mormonism into Christianity." I doubt that Mike cares whether anyone believes Mormonism is Christian or not.

From Mike’s blog on Joseph Smith’s cane:
To begin this post, perhaps a quick note is appropriate: It is my position that no clear cut line between magic and religion exists. The two categories overlap in many ways. A minority group of scholars argue that this overlap, coupled with the fact that the word has been tinged by polemic use, is justification enough to abandon the word magic altogether. I, however, side with the majority of scholars who remain convinced that both terms can be useful in academic discourse. The word magic should not be thrown away any more than the word religion should be. But with that being said, I do share the concern that the word has been tinged by a polemic past. For this reason, I have favored the more nuanced appellation folk-magic when discussing the magical practices of early Mormons.


Let's see:

1. Mikes's position is that there is "no clear cut line between religion and magic" (a position that many scholars share). I'm no scholar, but I've argued that when people mix magic and religion, they don't generally distinguish between them; they see magic and religion as the same thing.

2. Some scholars believe that the term "magic" is so "tinged by polemic use" that it ought to be abandaoned. Mike disagrees with this position because using the term "magic" is "useful in academic discourse." This is hardly a controversial position, but for whatever reason, thews sees this rather benign statement as something sinister. It is fascinating, however, that Mike is here being criticized because he believes there is value in distinguishing between religion and magic instead of using "religion" as an all-encompassing term.

Note the use of “it is my position” when Mike Reed redefines magic and religion, but fails to define which religion is being mixed with magic.


This is just weird. Why does it matter which religion is "being mixed with magic"? Does thews think Joseph Smith mixed magic with Scientology?

Further references to scholars is an obvious ploy to add weight to Mike’s “position” in the redefinition of what he believes folk magic encompasses.


The problem here is that Mike hasn't redefined anything. He's simply acknowledged that he uses the term "folk magic" because it is widely accepted among scholars. For thews's argument to have any weight at all, he'd have to show two things:

1. The term "folk magic" isn't widely used by scholars other than nefarious Mormon types.

2. Mike has redefined "folk magic" in some way.

He hasn't shown either of these things, but let's keep going.

It should be noted that Mike doesn’t place belief in Joseph Smith, so his motive for appeasing his target audience has to be questioned.


Accepting common terminology isn't "appeasing" anyone.

Again, “magic” is power or supposed power that is not of God, so the above paragraph makes no sense whatsoever from a Christian perspective.


Again, the "Christian perspective" is irrelevant to a scholarly discussion of early Mormonism.

A question for Mike Reed:

Mike, do you agree that Joseph Smith was in fact a fraud?


Why is this relevant? Do we want historians to inject their personal, philosophical, and religious biases into their work? Should we care if Shelby Foote believed Lincoln was an atheist?

Brant Gardner is a Mormon, so his objective is clearer than Mike Reed’s when it comes the definition of “folk magic” and what it encompasses. Brant uses words like “cunning men and women” to define the people that used/believed in magic, or more specifically scrying. Note the use of “and women” in the quoted sentence. This is an obvious implication that Sally Chase, along with Joe Smith “saw” things through their magical stones… all before the Book of Mormon.


Yes, Brant apparently believes these folks saw something in the stones.

In order to soften the blow of magic and its place in the founding of Mormonism, Brant takes it one step further after mixing religion with magic and attempts to lose the label of “magic” by replacing it with “art” and to a lesser extent “belief”. “Folk art” is not in any way shape or form “Folk magic” and no matter what one does to attempt to redefine “magic”, the power or supposed power of magic is of the occult, or not of God from a Christian perspective.


So, let me get this straight: Mike is to be condemned for accepting the scholarly usage of the term "folk magic," whereas Brant is to be condemned for using a different term.

From Brant's website:

In antiquity, magic, almost always refers to someone else's religious practice to distance them from the "norm" or one's own practice. Simply put: what I do is religion, what you do is magic.


That's a pretty fair statement from Brant.

It should be noted here that if one is talking about Christianity, there is no mixing of occult magic and religion


Nonsense. Folk magic and Christianity have been mixed many times over the centuries. That thews believes they shouldn't be mixed doesn't mean they haven't.

or more specifically, the use of magic to find things is not done so by the power of God.


Again, this is completely irrelevant to a scholarly discussion of folk magic.

Exhibited their cunning in many ways. Joseph belonged to a class of people who did scrying. A long practiced method. [He described some interesting methods] Stones became the most used m ethod to see future, or to see the location of lost items. These traditions were found in Palmyra in 1820s still performing these functions. Young Joseph Smith was the member of a sub-community with ties to these old practices, increasingly marginalized. Others had same abilities. D. Michael Quinn noted that Sally Chase was Palmyra's most known seer, and there were others. Richard Bushman adds a few other names of people who had stones to find lost objects.

The adventurers and farmers, cunning men and wise women embarked in the wilderness in pre-industrial villages. Folk magic has a history. Contemporary medicine drove men and women to village specialists with herbs, etc. who were considered to be taught by God or angels.
Some reminisciences tell us how such things occurred. [Gardner quoted people who recounted their experiences with Sally Chase.] Basically, when things were lost you went to the seer who would tell you where to find things. Finding lost wallet, lost cattle, etc.

Here’s where Brant attempts to fit Urim and Thummim into Mormon doctrine


Gee, I wonder why Brant would do such a thing. The Urim and Thummim are part and parcel of Mormon doctrine.

when he acknowledges that the only devices used to translate all Mormon doctrine (outside the lost 116 pages) was [sic] done by using Joe Smith’s seer stones in his stove-pipe hat (same method used when Joe Smith was a money-digger for hire before he wrote the BofM). The white stone, which Joe Smith “saw” by looking through the green stone of Sally Chase, and the brown stone, which was found by digging a well. Both stones were found and used for hire before the Book of Mormon.


True enough.

The Book of Mormon does not mention the Urim and Thummim, it mentions the "interpreters." Joseph Smith completed the translation with a seer stone. The UandT became part of the story when it was intoriduced [sic] as a generic label to refer to seer stone, etc. The Utah were biblically acceptable divinatory rocks, thus their presence in the Bible made them more legitimate. The "interpreters" were then labeled with UandT because calling them "rocks" seems to demean them, whereas calling them Utah makes them seem more sacred.

This recasting of history was something they told themselves. I doubt any conscious attempt at deception, it was a natural response to themselves as a religion rather than a folk belief, appropriate to a great tradition religion. Didn;t deny the past but recolored them with new vocab.


This jumble of poor grammar doesn't say much other than that adopting the term "Urim and Thummim" cast the interpreters in a Biblical light, which most people would agree with.

In conclusion, the definition of “magic” doesn’t change when redefined as “folk” magic.


No kidding. Adopting the most common terminology does not change, spin, or soften the definition of magic. And thews has given no evidence that anyone has attempted to redefine the term.

Any power that is not of God is occult magic from a Christian perspective, and the power that enabled Joe Smith to “see” his white stone miles away through the green magic rock of Sally Chase, makes the green stone of Sally Chase the mother of all Mormon magical rocks, and her stone is in no way shape or form Christian, but clearly of occult magic.


Again, the Christian perspective is irrelevant to a scholarly discussion.

If nothing else, this thread ought to remind us of the dangers of hobby horses, as Blixa put it. When we begin to see everything in terms of that hobby horse, it distorts our perception and leads to 17 pages of nonsense.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by Runtu »

For some reason, the back and forth over whether it's religion or magic reminded me of this:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/61320/saturda ... -floor-wax

Relax, it's both!
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
thews
abstract
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by thews »

Runtu wrote:Again, the Christian perspective is irrelevant to a scholarly discussion.

If nothing else, this thread ought to remind us of the dangers of hobby horses, as Blixa put it. When we begin to see everything in terms of that hobby horse, it distorts our perception and leads to 17 pages of nonsense.

Well Runtu, your hobby horse analogy is very relevant to your :highfiving: argument aimed at hitting the mark, which is to defend the opinions of others using your definition of folk magic. You make it seem like “scholarly” is synonymous with divination in “folk magic” being part of Christianity… which is BS, and to fail to acknowledge the loose definition of what constitutes “folk magic” your simply arguing for the sake of arguing an opinion and claiming your opinion is correct.

You know what’s odd Runtu and you failed to acknowledge its relevance… you, beastie, Mike and Chris all believe Joseph Smith was a fraud. Your opinion then, that an acknowledged fraud who used divination as a “gift” from God to seek treasure with his magic rocks under the pretence of “Christianity” disguised as “folk magic” is absolute BS. Your continued plea for more :highfive: support claiming “scholarly” unified agreement on your opinion is simply pathetic. One thing for sure Runtu... your :highfives: based on the fraud you don't believe in Joe Smith using divination under the pretense of a "gift" from God will be rewarded with the typical players adding nothing but fodder.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by Runtu »

thews wrote:Well Runtu, your hobby horse analogy is very relevant to your :highfiving: argument aimed at hitting the mark, which is to defend the opinions of others using your definition of folk magic. You make it seem like “scholarly” is synonymous with divination in “folk magic” being part of Christianity… which is BS, and to fail to acknowledge the loose definition of what constitutes “folk magic” your simply arguing for the sake of arguing an opinion and claiming your opinion is correct.


Another non-response from you, as I expected. But you continue to insist I'm arguing for things I haven't argued:

1. I haven't defined "folk magic," so it's impossible to defend someone else's position using "my" definition. I have, however, acknowledged that the term is widely used in academic discourse, as Mike pointed out.

2. No one has said "'scholarly' is synonymous with divination in 'folk magic' being part of Christianity." What I have said is that folk magic (which I think you would agree includes divination) was blended with Christianity by some people in Joseph Smith's day. That's not to say "folk magic is part of Christianity."

At the risk of another non-response from you, might I make an analogy. If I say that a Reese's peanut butter cup has peanut butter and chocolate in it, I am not saying that peanut butter = chocolate or that peanut butter is part of chocolate. In the same way, folk magic isn't Christianity, nor is it "part" of Christianity; it has, however, been combined with Christianity, in this case in Joseph Smith's worldview.

You know what’s odd Runtu and you failed to acknowledge its relevance… you, beastie, Mike and Chris all believe Joseph Smith was a fraud.


I would guess that's true for all of us. How is that relevant?

Your opinion then, that an acknowledged fraud who used divination as a “gift” from God to seek treasure with his magic rocks under the pretence of “Christianity” disguised as “folk magic” is absolute BS.


That makes no sense at all. But I will try to break your run-on into understandable pieces.

1. "acknowledged fraud." I think that's a reasonable conclusion regarding someone who sought treasure for hire by looking at rocks.

2. Divination as a "gift" from God. I don't believe I've said that. I think he did claim it was from God.

3. under the pretense of Christianity. Generally, Joseph did couch his claims in religious terms. Do you disagree with that?

4. Christianity disguised as folk magic. Again, something I haven't said. I'm not sure where you get that from.

5. Absolute BS. If I were arguing what you think I am, you might be right.

Your continued plea for more :highfive: support claiming “scholarly” unified agreement on your opinion is simply pathetic.


I'm not claiming scholarly unified agreement. I am saying that Mike is right in that there is a debate right now between those who want to distinguish between magic and religion and those who want to use the word "religion" to encompass both. I happen to agree with him that there is value in distinguishing between magic and religion.

One thing for sure Runtu... your :highfives: based on the fraud you don't believe in Joe Smith using divination under the pretense of a "gift" from God will be rewarded with the typical players adding nothing but fodder.


Your non-response here just confirms what I said earlier: you don't pay attention to what people actually say. I'm not sure if that's deliberate, but it does make discussion next to impossible.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
CaliforniaKid
God
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by CaliforniaKid »

thews wrote:Thanks Chris, but what I was looking for is the way you discount divination when or an enchanter further defines it, along with consulter with familiar spirits and necromancer. A scholar like yourself, that is so knowledgeable about religion and draws the Mormon conclusion regarding scrying should have easy answers. You make the arguments that divination is something God not only doesn’t consider an abomination, but who concludes that Joseph Smith believed he was being guided by God and his “power” for divination was a gift from God.

Well, I don't really believe God "considers" anything an abomination, because I don't really believe in a personal God. As for Joseph Smith, what he thought doesn't necessarily have to have been consistent with everything the Bible says on the subject.

By the way Chris, since you believe so strongly that Joe Smith was not an enchanter or necromancer, why is it you’re not a Mormon?

I'm not a Mormon because, unlike you, I don't believe Joseph actually had supernatural powers. (By the way, I never said that Joseph wasn't a necromancer or enchanter. I just said he believed his magical powers came from God.)

Peace,

-Chris

User avatar
thews
abstract
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 8:26 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by thews »

CaliforniaKid wrote:Well, I don't really believe God "considers" anything an abomination, because I don't really believe in a personal God. As for Joseph Smith, what he thought doesn't necessarily have to have been consistent with everything the Bible says on the subject.

I’m not following you? Your training is in religion, and pertaining to “Christianity” is would think that what God does consider an abomination when it’s spelled out coupled with necromancer this isn’t debatable. When discussing Mormonism and what [i]it[/] encompasses, OK, but this cut and dry IMO.

CaliforniaKid wrote:I'm not a Mormon because, unlike you, I don't believe Joseph actually had supernatural powers. (By the way, I never said that Joseph wasn't a necromancer or enchanter. I just said he believed his magical powers came from God.)

Peace,

-Chris

Well thanks, but you're wrong in that I don't believe Joe Smith had any powers either, but if one does place belief in his magical Mormon rocks, then they should buy into the whole story, which was to see those magical Mormon rocks through the green eye of Sally Chase's magic rock.

Thanks again.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by Runtu »

thews wrote:I’m not following you? Your training is in religion, and pertaining to “Christianity” is would think that what God does consider an abomination when it’s spelled out coupled with necromancer this isn’t debatable. When discussing Mormonism and what [i]it[/] encompasses, OK, but this cut and dry IMO.


We're not talking about what the Bible says. We're talking about Joseph Smith and what he thought and did. As Chris notes, Joseph Smith's beliefs don't have to be consistent with the Bible. As you've pointed out, his views on folk magic aren't consistent with what you've cited in the Bible.

Well thanks, but you're wrong in that I don't believe Joe Smith had any powers either, but if one does place belief in his magical Mormon rocks, then they should buy into the whole story, which was to see those magical Mormon rocks through the green eye of Sally Chase's magic rock.

Thanks again.


Obviously, the origin of the stones is important. Has anyone said it wasn't?
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
CaliforniaKid
God
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:47 am

Re: “Folk” magic redefined by Brant Gardner and Mike Reed

Post by CaliforniaKid »

thews wrote:I’m not following you? Your training is in religion,

Not all people whose training is in religion believe in a personal God, thews. And if there were a personal God, what Deuteronomy says about him wouldn't necessarily reflect his actual opinions.

and pertaining to “Christianity” is would think that what God does consider an abomination when it’s spelled out coupled with necromancer this isn’t debatable.

Practitioners of Christian magic would either reinterpret Deuteronomy or redefine the practices in such a way that the two could be reconciled. For example, even though Joseph Smith claimed to communicate with and magically manipulate the dead and thus fits the definition of a necromancer, I doubt that he thought of himself as such. He wasn't formally summoning the dead the way necromancers do.

Well thanks, but you're wrong in that I don't believe Joe Smith had any powers either, but if one does place belief in his magical Mormon rocks, then they should buy into the whole story, which was to see those magical Mormon rocks through the green eye of Sally Chase's magic rock.

I have no problem with that.

Peace,

-Chris

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Doctor Steuss, Dr Exiled, Google [Bot], msnobody and 21 guests