People choose different methods from tossing the whole project into the bin, to burial, dismantling the work and dispersing the ingredients, and pretty much you name it, it can be done.
The jar is not what causes the work, nor any other ingredient. You are the one exerting energy for the desired purpose. The jar, its contents, and all ancillary components, are merely symbolic. As long as it creates the correct association for you, that is what matters.
The same goes for doing away with one: as long as you know the work with that set of ingredients has ended, beyond doubt, then it has ended.
Re: Honey jar
By: MemsHearts / Novice May 15, 2016
Post # 5
You can dispose of the messed up jar by burying it at a crossroads, in the backyard, or tossing it in a stream.
A jar's ingredients are important and the ingredients have their own energy that they add. To say otherwise is discrediting the very system from which this practice stems, Conjure/Hoodoo. Hoodoo pulls from multiple practices, the majority of which were animistic in nature, which is to say it believed in the spirits in the world around them.
You can discredit the use and importance of ingredients or 'props' in your own practice, but this is not 'your practice' and when speaking on it, you should respect the basic tennants of the practice.
Okay, well, normally the term "honey jar" specifies a type of jar spell found in hoodoo. Just like a "witch's bottle" specifies a charm in European folk magic. Normally in hoodoo and conjure, the ingredients do matter and tend to have their own spirit or job.
Objectively, yes, the statement wouldn't be "wrong," just not inclusive, but in the spirit of the tradition, it's more incorrect.
As said, you have options for disposing of it. Going to the cross roads with some money, say three pennies, or burying it in your front yard are good ways to dispose of something positive. You could bury it in your backyard should you choose, but normally that would be to pin someone down.
So for people who do not know that a honey jar spall stems from Hoodoo, and for those who do not know its origins with animist beliefs, you would still insist it is the ingredients themselves?
I do not study Hoodoo. The vast majority of people on this site diving into a honey jar spell are not told it is a Hoodoo spell with animist connections. Is it, then, simply assumed they believe it is the spirits in the ingredients?
And what if someone uses different ingredients? A different color of paper? Doesn't have a photograph, or tears off other people to isolate images of ony the two involved? Syrup in stead of honey thanks to budget or immediate availability? Yes, as an animist, you will believe the spirits associated with these things will still work towards the desired end. But if the ingredients are not the same, while still producing the same result, is it the ingredients themselves or the person's intent to direct the result, which the spirits of the items will respond to?
One would think a person does their research before casting a spell, but then again, it doesn't happen all the time, yea?
For a general sweetening jar, no, I wouldn't. I'd keep it ambiguous, not leaning to your view or mine. But if someone asked specifically for a "honey jar," then yes. Just like I would speak from the tradition if someone asks about "gris gris," "conjure balls," or "jack balls."
Names mean something.
Actually, yes, you can use other ingredients if that's the question. Syrup was actually more common in folk magic because it's cheaper than honey, so you're on a good track. Using what's on hand is a common practice in folk magic.
You are asking a theological question, which when answered within the spirit of the tradition, would be more leaning to the involvement of other spirits. Yes, other people will have different ideas on spell work, this is a good thing and allows for style, but no, no idea is universal. Just as the idea of items having a spirit and working job shouldn't be pushed to everyone neither should the idea of it all being all props and intent. Not matter how "objective" you want it to be, it isn't. It's still based around your own personal research and experiences.
So, I don't see the problem here. Hearts and I brought up ideas to be more inclusive, and help in regards to the specific tradition.
Re: Honey jar
By: MistyWench / Novice May 17, 2016
Post # 9
As stated above:
"Names mean something."
AnnaWorks specifically said "honey jar" in the subject of this thread. This changes the talk from a traditional witchcraft sweetening jar to a discussion about a Conjure honey jar. The approach of the two are different and to provide advice without the basic precepts of Conjure in mind would make the advice/answer inherently wrong.
"The jar is not what causes the work, nor any other ingredient."
This is the exact opposite of Conjure ideology and we are talking Conjure here. In Conjure even folk magic takes on some level of spirit/deity work, evident in the use of natural curios or the recitation Psalms and other verses. If you wish to talk about sweetening jars, feel free to do so, but make it clear that is what you are doing.
And as I have said before, nobody is presenting honey bars on this site as Conjure related. Nobody at all. Most people who are told to do a honey jar -- the very name which noe you want to play a semantics game with -- are simply told to follow a set of instructions. None of it is presented in a context of hoodoo, animism, or conjure.
In fact, I am willing to bet that there are other posts telling people that a honey jar -- again using the specific term -- is more about the intent of the person than about the list of ingredients. But somehow it has not been an issue until now?
I really don't know how this has become accusations about what my own practices may even be. I have not attacked anyone else's. Since honey jars are not specifically referenced as a practice in hoodoo or conjure or whatever, and most people do use them as the more generic sweetening jar (again with the semantics game) without knowing there is supposed to be a difference, I answered within the context of its typical use among people here.
You cannot expect a person desperate to try anything to follow a list of instructions in a mad rush for a result to research an entire belief system. But somehow it is disrespectful that I answer according to common context, and fine for the others to do whatever they please.
And if any if this had actually been a theological question, then it should always be explained when a practice is specific to a religion, as magic is not religion, religion is not magic, though the two can certainly intermingle. But giving a person a religious practice without telling a person that it is, is deceptive. Yet somehow taking an action out of a religious context is disrespectful? What about the people who are following practices which may violate their own religious beliefs without knowing? Is that not also disrespectful?
There is no need for this semantic nonsense. A honey jar and a sweetening jar are the same thing. It may well be that the concept did originate in hoodoo and conjure, and the name would naturally follow.
Not everyone who does a honey jar does it in a hoodoo, conjure, or animist context. But they still insist they area doingf a honey jar spell.
Not everyone who makes a witch's bottle does so in the context of European folk magic.
Not everyone who chants the Psalms is doing so in a context of Christianity, or any of the other religions which do so. Some people use them external to any religious context, as merely affirmations of personal empowerment.
Neither is disrespectful.
ChennyVoo, you claim that you were trying to be inclusive. But side I made a statement outside the realm if hoodoo and conjure, but still not only related to the thread but in the correct context of how honey jar spells are most commonly used by people asking for love spells here, you want to discredit, insult, and dismiss my opinion. And it's based in petty semantics.