Healing

[Lightbearer]

Ok, let me see if I can simplify it. Those of us that use our brains get frustrated stupidity. For us rationalists, it is like an adult still believing in Santa Clause and his magical abilities. Wouldn't you get frustrated with an adult that insists on believing in Santa and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer? So what I am saying is that I am sorry, but stupidity deserves rudeness and disdain.

I really wish the Mods would consider the almost universal practice of invoking of Santa, the Easter bunny, and rabbits foots by Atheists to belittle peoples belief in God, should be placed on the list of board violations such as "Godwin's Law" violations (Nazi comparisons) have been. They are basically the same, thing "Hyperbole." Those who cannot understand or respect the beliefs of others should not be allowed to mock people who do believe in God and His power. It is one thing to disagree or even debate, but it really is beneath the dignity of a "rationalist" to resort to name calling just because we will not accept their "logical" yet fallacious arguments that denies the existence of a being that they cannot prove does not exist. Maybe it could be called "Korihor's law" when you think you are loosing an argument you resort to calling people ignorant, gullible, dupes... who have a "frenzied mind" which is what they are really doing when they compare faith in God to belief in Santa. Besides I have actually seen Santa...

[Calm]

Jesus cured Lepers, and I think the chances that some of them were "amputees" are very high. I've never heard of a limb being regenerated through any kind of modern healing event though. I have really mixed feelings about this topic because I believe that there are some things that cannot be healed through a Priesthood blessing or faith healing-like type one Diabetes. I have heard of cancers being cured, but cancer goes into remission on it's own sometimes. If it is physically possible to be healed though, with faith, it does seem that sometimes people are healed in ways we would consider miraculous. Faith seems to be a necessary component--either the faith of the recipient or the faith of their loved ones.

We often talk about God working through natural law to work his Will when it comes to other types of miracles. If so, this may be why certain types of healing cannot occur while the healing that does occur can be pointed to as having occurred at other times without God's intervention or at least without a healing blessing as we can't really measure when God has or has not intervened in someone's life.

[cjcampbell]

Also, all you people saying you are not going to cast pearls before swine need a quick reality check. If you really believed in that prinicple, what are you doing on this website? Are you not casting your time before swine? Does God see you on here as following his word, or casting your pearls before swine?

I think some of us should be offended by being called swine. Moderators? Does this slanderous name calling break any of the rules?

The Pearls before swine thing is also a really nice way to say, I have no proof but I don't want to admit it.

Somehow, I do not think that the moderators are going to ban anyone for quoting scripture.

If you are offended by the word of God, it sounds like a personal problem to me.

I think I will let God be the judge of my actions -- not people who call themselves "Brights" (as if the rest of us are not) or who come out here and slander God. Talk about needing a reality check.

[Tarski]

The severely head-damaged young man in a two-week-long coma to whom (much to my own shock) I promised, among other things, complete recovery without lingering complications, seems unlikely to be the beneficiary of a placebo effect.

I can't guarantee that this was a miracle. But it sure looked and felt like one.

It felt like one? To me it sure doesn't sound like one.

Moreover, according to the young man, at least, his neurologist was quite astounded when he left the hospital, fully recovered, without any lingering complications.

I'd like to talk to the doctor. Anyway this sounds maybe a little lucky for the guy but quite possible. Not exactly an out in the open unambiguous case (like the amputee healing that I wouldn't mind seeing)

On my mission, I was once asked to give a blessing to a woman with a very severe bladder infection. She was in terrible pain. The instant I finished the blessing, she told me that the pain was gone. All I could think was that she probably didn't want to hurt my feelings and I hoped she heard the part of the blessing where I told her to see a doctor (again). I worried about her silently as we rode away on our crummy old dangerous bikes.

I guess I'm different from you in the way I assess these things Dan.

[Nofear]

I thought LDS priesthood blessings were given with a qualifier that they are in accordance with God's will. Which would IMO, still be a request of sorts.

Or are priesthood blessings given without asking for things to only be done if they are in accordance with God's will?

Too bad your question was ignored, as it's a good question (and not just for LDS but for all believers).

My personal take is that God can choose to ignore blessings if it will end up being contradictory to some of his purposes. At other times, if the realization of the blessing would interfere with his original plan, he may choose to respect the blessing from his honorable servant and just tweak his plans a bit to still effect his purposes. (Of course, this statement doesn't make sense if one takes an absolute time-omniscient view of God.)

But then there's the caveat that blessings are, in theory, to be directed by the Spirit making any contradiction between the will of the priesthood holder and the designs of God impossible as they will be unified.

Another good question is why are non-saving/essential priesthood blessings necessary when they can all be realized by exertions of faith?

[urroner]

The victims of my prideful and brutish cruelty, by now, must number in the hundreds.

Somebody is humor impaired.

Herr Doktor, I'm grateful that the dude isn't aware of what my title "LbutHRPBofDCP" stands for else he would probably have a cow about that. And then were those LFofDCPs over on ZLMB. Bootlicks, doormat, flunkies, and toadies every last one of us. Even the most arrogant of us all, Lord "I am the top dog and the world is my fire hydrant" Kerry groveled at your feet back then.

[Uncertain]

It seems problematic to restrict Gods healing power to a particular religious ceremony. When many people due to circumstances entirely beyond their control will not have access to the given ceremony.

A common argument used to defend work for the dead is the injustice of condemning a person simply because they were born at a time or location when the gospel was not available. Hence a Chinese laborer born 1000 a.d. will have the same opportunity to accept the gospel as you or me. And will be denied no blessings because of circumstances beyond their control.

This same argument can be wielded against the idea that priesthood blessings are more effective at curing the sick then other religious ceremonies. Consider a sick child in agonizing pain born 1000 a.d. such a person will not have access to a priesthood blessing since the priesthood was not on the earth. It would be morally questionable to allow this child to suffer agonizing pain simply because she was unfortunate enough to be born before the priesthood was restored. If one assumes God is just then it seems his healing power is available to all regardless of whether or not a particular religious ceremony is performed.

If indeed God does heal the sick I believe due in part to the above argument. Gods power is something like the sun available to all regardless of whether or not a particular religious ceremony was performed. And a given religious ceremony is no more effective than any other at invoking divine intercession.

Now I also believe skeptics are perfectly justified in believing religious ceremonies are ineffective at healing. If a given group or organization claims that substance or ceremony X is effective at healing problem or problems Y. The burden of proof is on the group making the claim. And anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to establish such a claim. I doubt anyone would think it wise if the FDA starting regulating medical substances on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Controlled studies demonstrating the substance or ceremony X is more effective at healing than a placebo administered to a appropriate set of control groups is what is needed. Lacking such evidence it is perfectly appropriate to doubt claims of healing power. Now the believer may have personal experiences that bear the burden of proof for them and this may justify belief on their part. But they should not expect such experiences to convince anyone but themselves. Similar I presume to how most would treat claims of gem healing etc.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles...em_healing.html

Claims of healing by supernatural means are not hard to come by.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Brenda]

Too bad your question was ignored, as it's a good question (and not just for LDS but for all believers).

My personal take is that God can choose to ignore blessings if it will end up being contradictory to some of his purposes. At other times, if the realization of the blessing would interfere with his original plan, he may choose to respect the blessing from his honorable servant and just tweak his plans a bit to still effect his purposes. (Of course, this statement doesn't make sense if one takes an absolute time-omniscient view of God.)

God's purpose is our eternal life and happiness. Therefore, He heals some and not others. Some need, for whatever reason, to endure the trial, and others are better served in the long run, to be healed. It's all individually tailored to each of us, so that we all have the greatest shot at eternal life. So that's why we need to be in tune with the Spirit, to know what will be best for us, aka God's purpose.

Another good question is why are non-saving/essential priesthood blessings necessary when they can all be realized by exertions of faith?

I think it's our faith that allows the blessings to work. "Faith comes before the miracle." Priesthood blessings are the means God has given us to tap into those blessings. It's a combination of His power and our faith in His power. Where the priesthood is available, we are expected to use it. Where it's not available, the same miracles (ie. healing) can happen by simply prayer and faith.

[Daniel Peterson]

It seems problematic to restrict Gods healing power to a particular religious ceremony.

I agree.

I haven't read every post on this thread, but has anybody done that?

It felt like one? To me it sure doesn't sound like one.

That's fine. I'm impressed by your confidence.

It certainly seemed like one to me. When, after I had given the blessing, I spoke with the nurses and they told me how very dire the situation was (e.g., he may not make it through the night, he's almost certain to have suffered permanent mental and physical damage if he does survive), I was troubled, and I wondered whether I had overstepped my bounds.

When the young man came to see me only a month or two after his accident, with no aftereffects, he described it as miraculous, and he said his neurologist thought so, too.

I'd like to talk to the doctor.

I didn't mention this case to prove anything beyond the fact that some of us feel we have reasons to believe in miraculous healing, and I have no intention of providing you with further details so that you can paw over the case.

Anyway this sounds maybe a little lucky for the guy but quite possible. Not exactly an out in the open unambiguous case (like the amputee healing that I wouldn't mind seeing)

I suspect that the Lord isn't interested in removing the ambiguity in the way you want him to. He leaves us with maneuvering room by keeping his epistemic distance. It's the veil, if you will.

On the other hand, he raised his Son to life. That act was rather unambiguous for its witnesses, and I believe that the historical sources describing the event are about as secure and reliable as any ancient historical sources that we have.

On my mission, I was once asked to give a blessing to a woman with a very severe bladder infection. She was in terrible pain. The instant I finished the blessing, she told me that the pain was gone. All I could think was that she probably didn't want to hurt my feelings and I hoped she heard the part of the blessing where I told her to see a doctor (again). I worried about her silently as we rode away on our crummy old dangerous bikes.

Do you have solid reason to believe that her pain wasn't gone and/or that she just didn't want to hurt your feelings? Or was that (is that) merely a product of your (un-)faith?

I guess I'm different from you in the way I assess these things Dan.

Clearly, you are.

And yet, if you imagine that I'm uncritical or credulous, or (like The Great Throbbing Brain Known to Lesser Mortals as Ryanelwood) that it's because only you and your party are rational, you're wrong. I make many judgments each day that are based on less than fully decisive secular data, just as you do.

Herr Doktor, I'm grateful that the dude [caudicus] isn't aware of what my title "LbutHRPBofDCP" stands for else he would probably have a cow about that.

At least it would be an anti-Mormon cow. Superior genes, you know.

And then were those LFofDCPs over on ZLMB. Bootlicks, doormat, flunkies, and toadies every last one of us.

It was always a gratifying spectacle to see the peasants kneel.

Even the most arrogant of us all, Lord "I am the top dog and the world is my fire hydrant" Kerry groveled at your feet back then.

As well he should have.

[Nofear]

I think it's our faith that allows the blessings to work. "Faith comes before the miracle." Priesthood blessings are the means God has given us to tap into those blessings. It's a combination of His power and our faith in His power. Where the priesthood is available, we are expected to use it. Where it's not available, the same miracles (ie. healing) can happen by simply prayer and faith.

Oh, I quite agree (understanding that the self-contradictory statements aren't meant to be). But that still leaves the question of "why". Why should the priesthood be designated for blessings requiring faith - when they need faith and faith alone can effect the same results? (Or can it?)

[Brenda]

Oh, I quite agree (understanding that the self-contradictory statements aren't meant to be). But that still leaves the question of "why". Why should the priesthood be designated for blessings requiring faith - when they need faith and faith alone can effect the same results? (Or can it?)

Are you asking-- why do we need the Priesthood, when the blessings can come without it?

I don't really know the answer, other than it's the order that God uses. Why did the people of the NT seek out Christ, when all they needed to do was pray for healing? He said, "thy faith has made thee whole", yet for some reason, His power, or presence was needed for their faith to be strong enough.

As I said, Where the priesthood is available, we are expected to use it. Where it's not available, the same miracles (ie. healing) can happen by simply prayer and faith.

All in all, it's a worthwhile question. Pondering, studying, prayer and continually seeking knowledge is always a good thing.

[LeSellers]

Oh, I quite agree (understanding that the self-contradictory statements aren't meant to be). But that still leaves the question of "why". Why should the priesthood be designated for blessings requiring faith - when they need faith and faith alone can effect the same results? (Or can it?)

No, it can't.

But here we must distinguish between "restoration of health", which is the one the Priesthood and faith can effect, and the blessing of the Priesthood in regards to healing the sick.

43 And whosoever among you are sick, and have not faith to be healed, but believe, shall be nourished with all tenderness, with herbs and mild food, and that not by the hand of an enemy. 44 And the elders of the church, two or more, shall be called, and shall pray for and lay their hands upon them in my name; and if they die they shall die unto me, and if they live they shall live unto me.

45 Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die, and more especially for those that have not hope of a glorious resurrection. 46 And it shall come to pass that those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them; 47 And they that die not in me, wo unto them, for their death is bitter. 48 And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed.

The Priesthood blessing does either of two things: the person will be healed, or, if that is not the Lord's will, he will die not "tasting of death", and he will die in the Lord.

We sometimes forget that the Priesthood is the power of God. That's why Joseph left us with this warning:

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? 35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson— 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

Lehi

[Uncertain]

It seems problematic to restrict Gods healing power to a particular religious ceremony.

I agree.

I haven't read every post on this thread, but has anybody done that?

Hi Daniel,

I admit that statement you are responding to is not clear. I am attempting to respond to certain beliefs within Mormonism I have been exposed to. I tried to clarify this further on in my post with this statement.

"If indeed God does heal the sick I believe due in part to the above argument. Gods power is something like the sun available to all regardless of whether or not a particular religious ceremony was performed. And a given religious ceremony is no more effective than any other at invoking divine intercession."

(Bold added by me.)

To clarify suppose I have three sick people A, B, C. Person A is administered to by LDS priesthood holders. Person B undergoes a voodoo ceremony involving animal sacrifice in which the Houngan invokes the aid of the Loa on persons B behalf. And Person C undergoes various tibetan buddhism healing techniques. It is problematic for reasons given in my first post to assert that person A has a higher probability of invoking Gods healing intercession than person B and C.

There seems to be a sense in the LDS community that priesthood blessings are more effective at invoking Gods healing intercession than other religious ceremonies. Or at least that is the impression I have gotten it may this this is no more than folk belief without any real backing. Or it is also possible I have misunderstood LDS teaching on priesthood blessings.

In any case if you agree that priesthood blessings are no more likely to invoke Gods healing power than any other religious ceremony than I have no quarrel with you .

(Edited for clarity)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Daniel Peterson]

In any case if you agree that priesthood blessings are no more likely to invoke Gods healing power than any other religious ceremony than I have no quarrel with you .

I have no data on the basis of which either to come to that conclusion or to reject it.

[Uncertain]

In any case if you agree that priesthood blessings are no more likely to invoke Gods healing power than any other religious ceremony than I have no quarrel with you.

I have no data on the basis of which either to come to that conclusion or to reject it.

Hi Daniel,

Well I have no empirical studies demonstrating this is the case just as you have no empirical studies demonstrating it is not the case. But I do have logical argument that appears to support it. Given the premises on which the argument rests.

1. God is just.

2. Not everyone will have access to the priesthood.

3. It is unjust to punish someone for circumstances beyond their control.

Are uncontroversial it seems a safe enough conclusion. It certainly seems more in line with the idea of an all loving and just God. I am willing to be convinced otherwise if evidence or logical argument so indicates.

(Edited for grammar and clarity)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[HiJolly]

I have no data on the basis of which either to come to that conclusion or to reject it.

Gathering that data would be a rather interesting undertaking. And not a little difficult (well, for me anyway...).

ps. Love you new avatar. I know who that is!

HiJolly

[cjcampbell]

Too bad your question was ignored, as it's a good question (and not just for LDS but for all believers).

Actually, it was not ignored. But apparently my answer was.

[Daniel Peterson]

Love you new avatar. I know who that is!

Just out of curiosity, who are you seeing in my avatar?

I've tried to change it several times this morning, but, even though my controls indicate that I have, I'm still seeing the avatar I had before. It's baffling.

[urroner]

Just out of curiosity, who are you seeing in my avatar?

I've tried to change it several times this morning, but, even though my controls indicate that I have, I'm still seeing the avatar I had before. It's baffling.

Well, if you just become a little computer literate by stepping outside your box of having the mods save you at every turn!

[emeliza]

Just out of curiosity, who are you seeing in my avatar?

I've tried to change it several times this morning, but, even though my controls indicate that I have, I'm still seeing the avatar I had before. It's baffling.

I think you need to delete you cookies so that the new one will show for you. He looks sufficiently evil and in charge though.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I've been able to eliminate the avatar all day, but, whenever I've tried to replace it with my new choice, the old one simply reappears on the threads (while the new one shows up on my controls).

Now, though, I've discovered that I can replace the old one successfully with a standard-issue one from the controls. But that's all.

[emeliza]

Now, though, I've discovered that I can replace the old one successfully with a standard-issue one from the controls. But that's all.

I like the evil guy better than this weird smiley face, but that is just me.

[Daniel Peterson]

I like the evil guy better than this weird smiley face, but that is just me.

So I think maybe you were seeing my new avatar -- Ming the Merciless, my intergalactic twin -- even though I wasn't. Over on my confession thread, Nemesis (I think) said "Hail, Ming!" -- which can't be mere coincidence.

Weird.

[emeliza]

So I think maybe you were seeing my new avatar -- Ming the Merciless, my intergalactic twin -- even though I wasn't. Over on my confession thread, Nemesis (I think) said "Hail, Ming!" -- which can't be mere coincidence.

Weird.

It probably was. It was a black and white picture of this evil looking guy who had maybe a cape on? Now it is just a strange smiley face.

[Daniel Peterson]

It probably was. It was a black and white picture of this evil looking guy who had maybe a cape on? Now it is just a strange smiley face.

Yep, that's the one. My interplanetary moral double.

But my own computer was still showing me my old avatar of Jabba the Hutt, my diet and exercise partner.