- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Reading some of the early history of the Church, I was interested by some of the accounts of visions, speaking in tongues, prophecies, etc. reported by many different members in the Kirtland Temple and other early Church meetings. This seemed to be very different from what most members experience in church today. These meetings sound almost like modern day Pentecostal churches whereas it seems like the current version of the LDS Church has evolved to be more like the most conservative old-school orthodox churches that are more concerned with adherence to tradition and the written word than the experience of individual members. This transition didn’t take as long as you might think because already by 1864 George A. Smith made the following observation: Quote:“The question has often arisen among us, why it is that we do not see more angels, have more visions, that we do not see greater and more manifestations of power. Any of the brethren that were there could have heard testimonies of manifestations in abundance.”
This brings up a good question, what happened to all these spiritual experiences? Should we expect experiences like this now, or not? One theory is that Joseph Smith actually drugged the sacrament wine with the Datura plant in order to induce hallucinations. One skeptic actually tried to steal the bottle of wine to try to prove that it was medicated. As crazy as this idea sounds, if true it would explain why a lot of these experiences apparently went away after Joseph was gone. How else can you explain the sudden change? I guess apologists could claim that these earliest members had more faith or that God used these experiences to help establish the Church and after that they were no longer necessary to the same extent but the contrast is strange comparing what they describe with what we see now.
I’ve had many conversations about this with one of the authors of this theory (Dr. Lance Owens), and it’s really quite fascinating and very possible, IMO. As strange as it seems (to us today), the concept of using hallucinogenics to elicit “spiritual experiences” was not uncommon in those days…and we have much evidence that Joseph was trained by a few Shaman. Remember this was all before we viewed “drugs” as such a bad thing. Opium and many root-based drugs were all legal and used commonly…even into the early 20th century.
The whole thing fits quite nicely into explaining a lot of the early church history. Also, remember that dreams were commonly thought of as visions…even admissable in courts of law.
One of the podcasts (maybe the one with Grant Palmer???) Had a great quote on this, something to the effect that the saints had fasted for 3 days and then drank alcohol before this “experience”in the Kirtland temple.. That could explain a lot. Heber13 wrote:One of the podcasts (maybe the one with Grant Palmer???) Had a great quote on this, something to the effect that the saints had fasted for 3 days and then drank alcohol before this “experience”in the Kirtland temple.. That could explain a lot.
Yes, and the “sacramental wine” was likely “enhanced” with Datura…a common “aid” to elicit spiritual experiences.
Rix wrote:I’ve had many conversations about this with one of the authors of this theory (Dr. Lance Owens), and it’s really quite fascinating and very possible, IMO. As strange as it seems (to us today), the concept of using hallucinogenics to elicit “spiritual experiences” was not uncommon in those days…
and we have much evidence that Joseph was trained by a few Shaman.
Rix, this is the first I have heard of this claim, and I’m really surprised to hear it. BTW, I once corresponded with Dr. Owens. He does have some interesting ideas, but I found his gnostic ideas not very useful for me.Do you have some more info on Shamans training JS?
HiJolly
HiJolly wrote:Rix wrote:I’ve had many conversations about this with one of the authors of this theory (Dr. Lance Owens), and it’s really quite fascinating and very possible, IMO. As strange as it seems (to us today), the concept of using hallucinogenics to elicit “spiritual experiences” was not uncommon in those days…
and we have much evidence that Joseph was trained by a few Shaman.
Rix, this is the first I have heard of this claim, and I’m really surprised to hear it. BTW, I once corresponded with Dr. Owens. He does have some interesting ideas, but I found his gnostic ideas not very useful for me.Do you have some more info on Shamans training JS?
HiJolly
Our friend John Dehlin has some more intimate knowledge about Dr. Beckstead’s research here, but in his Sunstone presentation, he says:
“John Heinerman has demonstrated Joseph Smith’s interest in Thomsonian herbal medicine. Thomsonian medicine was inspired by early American root doctors using magical plants to occasion cures. According to Catherine Yronwode, “root doctoring” is an admixture of the hoodoo magical practices of African-American slaves mingled with the botanical knowledge of the Amerindian medicine man.21 Root doctors are known to have used the visionary Datura plant in their magical practices.22 A possible mentor for Joseph Smith in the use of Datura was Black Pete. Black Pete, an African-American was called a revelator and a chief suggesting that he was also a root doctor. Black Pete was initially from Pennsylvania and in 1825 may have met the young Joseph Smith digging for buried treasure. After leaving Pennsylvania, Black Pete became one of the earliest converts in Kirtland Ohio joining the Church in early 1831. Black Pete was present during the Kirtland visionary period of early 1831 when the strange manifestations likely associated with Datura plant ingestion were particular pronounced.
D. Michael Quinn and Lance S. Owens have shown that Joseph Smith incorporated elements of ceremonial magic and alchemy imported from Europe.23 Alchemists are believed to have employed the visionary Amanita muscaria mushroom in their occult practices24 and Lance Owens identifies a possible alchemical mentor for Joseph Smith by the name of Dr. Luman Walter. …”
There are footnotes and more information if you go to the link. My first read of the talk was shocking to me, but after more discussions with Lance, I understand that it was quite common — not just among early Mormons, but many other religions of Joseph’s day (and earlier) too. It’s just how they brought visions and spiritual experiences…and without medical knowledge about how it happens pharmacologically, it would seem absolutely real to them. It seems it did to many that reported it.
Rix said: “Yes, and the “sacramental wine” was likely “enhanced” with Datura…a common “aid” to elicit spiritual experiences.”
With respect Rix….I don’t know about the “likely” part. I’ve read similar articles on other anti-sites and they all seem very speculative with no verifiable sources that would know personally.
On reading up a little on datura, I don’t think I would “mistaken” a datura-induced delirium for a positive spiritual experience and not immediately question the source of what I experienced.
Datura is, apparently, a very harsh hallucenigenic. It is, to the uninititated, a very unpleasant experience. It’s also commonly fatal. Why don’t we have any records of overdoses? I would think that at least one person would have had an adverse reaction. Being a teenager in the early 70’s, I will admit for the sake of this discussion, that I know well what various hallucinaginics induce in a person, especially their first time. I’m sure I’m not the only one here
When I left the mainstream church many years ago, this was one of my favorite personal “proofs” that Joseph Smith was a fraud….after giving it a fair chance, and looking at the sources, I find the arguement full of holes.
My 2 cents…mileage may vary….
HiJolly wrote:Rix, this is the first I have heard of this claim, and I’m really surprised to hear it. BTW, I once corresponded with Dr. Owens. He does have some interesting ideas, but I found his gnostic ideas not very useful for me.
Bruce in Montana wrote:With respect Rix….I don’t know about the “likely” part. I’ve read similar articles on other anti-sites and they all seem very speculative with no verifiable sources that would know personally…
…When I left the mainstream church many years ago, this was one of my favorite personal “proofs” that Joseph Smith was a fraud….after giving it a fair chance, and looking at the sources, I find the arguement full of holes.
I read part of an article by Lance Owens suggesting that Joseph Smith was also into Kabbalah and all kinds of weird occult traditions. It would really be something if Joseph Smith was actually involved in half of the things he has been accused of. However, I don’t really blame people for this kind of speculation because some of the Church’s stories are so fantastic and over-the-top that to some skeptics almost any alternative explanation seems more likely by comparison. Given his money-digging antics and other scandals I can see why it would be hard for some cynics to believe that almost any mischief would be completely out of character for Joseph Smith to engage in.
Personally, I don’t have any bias against the possibility of some supernatural influence in general. I have heard many recent stories of prophetic dreams, out-of-body experiences, evil spirits haunting people, etc. where I’m not going to jump to conclusions that there needs to be a natural explanation for everything. However, what makes me suspicious about some of the accounts of these early Church meetings is that these experiences were reportedly so common and they seemed to happen right on cue as long as Joseph was around and then it all apparently died down as soon as he was gone.
Bruce in Montana wrote:Rix said:
“Yes, and the “sacramental wine” was likely “enhanced” with Datura…a common “aid” to elicit spiritual experiences.”
With respect Rix….I don’t know about the “likely” part. I’ve read similar articles on other anti-sites and they all seem very speculative with no verifiable sources that would know personally.
Thanks for the feedback, Bruce. I will admit I am no expert on hallucinogenics…just what I’ve heard and read. I do have a fair amount of trust for Dr’s Owens and Beckstead, and today, I find their work compelling. I would be interested in what you found to counter some of their claims though.
The total picture of Joseph’s history, with the strong evidence against his claims of divinely-inspired translations (BoM, BoA, Kinderhook plates, etc.) leads me to side with the “anti’s” as far as literal history goes. I don’t dismiss the possibility of the pious fraud theory…considering the presentism of his time, but I don’t give much credence to the church’ claims of his unique, restorationist prophet calling. But I’m also the skeptic about most organized religion in general — Christianity notwithstanding.
I studied with Grant Palmer as he was preparing his book “Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.” He was sincerely looking for historical truth, and after the book was published, I was amazed at the attacks he received from church “scholars.” Bottom line, I give much more credence to some of the “anti” work out there than the apologists that spend more time attacking the personality of the researcher than the issues.
Having said that, I find the work and approach of Campbell uplifting and enlightening. We all need our heroes. They’ve been around as long as we have recorded history. Today, for me, it’s not whether the story is historically accurate as much as does the story (myth) give me peace and hope in my daily life. I think it does for many Mormons today.
Just my 2 cents. I could believe something else tomorrow….
Rix wrote:
I studied with Grant Palmer as he was preparing his book “Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.” He was sincerely looking for historical truth, and after the book was published, I was amazed at the attacks he received from church “scholars.” Bottom line, I give much more credence to some of the “anti” work out there than the apologists that spend more time attacking the personality of the researcher than the issues.I remember when I got Palmer’s book, I was so excited, in a perverted kind of way. I really wanted something *good* and substantial against the Church, Joseph Smith, etc. Well, I was disappointed. Seriously so. I read through the whole thing and just didn’t see anything worth my concern. It was a sad day.
Rix wrote:Having said that, I find the work and approach of Campbell uplifting and enlightening. We all need our heroes. They’ve been around as long as we have recorded history. Today, for me, it’s not whether the story is historically accurate as much as does the story (myth) give me peace and hope in my daily life. I think it does for many Mormons today.
Just my 2 cents. I could believe something else tomorrow….
Yeah, I recently read through Campbell’s “Power of Myth” and loved it. That’s one savvy guy.HiJolly
HiJolly wrote:Rix wrote:
I studied with Grant Palmer as he was preparing his book “Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.” He was sincerely looking for historical truth, and after the book was published, I was amazed at the attacks he received from church “scholars.” Bottom line, I give much more credence to some of the “anti” work out there than the apologists that spend more time attacking the personality of the researcher than the issues.I remember when I got Palmer’s book, I was so excited, in a perverted kind of way. I really wanted something *good* and substantial against the Church, Joseph Smith, etc. Well, I was disappointed. Seriously so. I read through the whole thing and just didn’t see anything worth my concern. It was a sad day.
Yeah, I glanced through it a few months ago and kinda laughed too. Today, the info is nothing earth shattering — quite well known now. But in the early-90s when I was in his study group, while I was still in the bishopric, it was mind-blowing to me. Up to that point in my life I had avoided all the “anti” propoganda. A whole new side of church history was unfolded to me…then the stages of mourning, then the rebuilding of a more real spiritual paradigm. Yes, I was one of those who believed the “church” (and the JS story) was either true, or not, back then.
Campbell straightened that myth out for me!
DevilsAdvocate wrote:…it seems like the current version of the LDS Church has evolved to be more like the most conservative old-school orthodox churches that are more concerned with adherence to tradition and the written word than the experience of individual members.
…what happened to all these spiritual experiences? Should we expect experiences like this now, or not?
Think about the religious movement at the time. Everyone was thinking about religion. Now, not so much. Still, I think people have spiritual experiences now, as they did then, but it may not be publicized.
I feel like I’m at the beginning of my spiritual journey still, even though I’ve learned (& unlearned) quite a bit, just this last year. What you mentioned was similar to what I just read, “Faith is primarily a matter of belonging, & LDS conversion typically comes in a social context rather than individually.” (- Mormon America). That sums it up & it’s both a good & bad thing. Good because it gives a sense of community & support – but bad because spirituality is personal. The kingdom of God is within & nobody can give me my spiritual journey – it’s a journey that I must take on my own. I can get input, but ultimately, it’s between God & me. I believe meditation (quiet time for soul searching or relaxing, including sleep/dreams) is key to having spiritual experiences. “Putting on the mind of Christ” talks about spiritual gifts (like psychic abilities) as part of levels on a spiritual journey.
Featherina wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:…it seems like the current version of the LDS Church has evolved to be more like the most conservative old-school orthodox churches that are more concerned with adherence to tradition and the written word than the experience of individual members.
…what happened to all these spiritual experiences? Should we expect experiences like this now, or not?
Think about the religious movement at the time. Everyone was thinking about religion. Now, not so much. Still, I think people have spiritual experiences now, as they did then, but it may not be publicized.
…What you mentioned was similar to what I just read, “Faith is primarily a matter of belonging, & LDS conversion typically comes in a social context rather than individually.” (- Mormon America)…
I know for a fact that spiritual experiences still happen because several people I know have had unusual experiences like this. The best that skeptics can say is that they think these are all a misinterpretation of some natural process or outright lies but personally I don’t believe in the skeptics’ explanations in many cases. However, these experiences seem to be very rare in the Church nowadays compared with the way it was before and I don’t know of any recent cases of several different members all having experiences like this at the same time.
I realize that these early Church members were probably more receptive to these kinds of experiences than the average member nowadays. However, even now many Pentecostal sects still have meetings that sound very much like these early LDS meetings. Is this legitimate spiritual influence or pure craziness? On my mission in Brazil these Pentecostal churches were very popular and I honestly thought it was demonic at the time but now I don’t know what to think about it. Certainly most Pentecostals I met seemed very sincere and faithful and we rarely baptized any of them, mostly just lapsed Catholics.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
I know for a fact that spiritual experiences still happen because several people I know have had unusual experiences like this.I think there are many possible explanations for “spiritual experiences,” one of them really a connection with the Divine (whatever that is)! Where I think many err is to label it, and/or give it meaning…when that may be completely wrong.
For example, Mormons are commonly taught growing up that if you read the BoM, and you “feel the spirit,” that that experience is an indication that it is true. That may mean something different to different people. To the mainstream LDSer, that also means to them that the modern LDS church is the one and only true church with the unique keys to administer ordinances necessary for salvation. To others, it means that there are true teachings in the book that may be helpful to one’s daily life…but that there may be other “books” that give the same guidance — perhaps in another faith.
If you read (and believe) the writings of Matthew Cowley (an earlier LDS apostle), he is very black and white about the power to heal, or to administer any blessings must come from holding the Priesthood — of course only available in the LDS Church.
The issue I have is that I have been a witness to spiritual “miracles” as well — many (most, in my experience) outside the LDS church. So in a nutshell, I believe they occur, but I don’t think they are unique to Mormons.
But I could be wrong….
One question I often ponder: What’s the difference between a spiritual experience, specifically when a person has a gift to see spirits or have visions, and a psychotic event including hallucinations?I have tried to read Joseph Smith’s teachings on distinguishing the source of spirits, but it leaves me uncomforted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.