A Strange Rationale for Infant Death . . .

[Jason]

So don't all the available priesthood holders have the free will to refuse to give a blessing to this girl? Or are they not really necessary for God to heal her after all?

Why would a righteous priesthood holder refuse to give a blessing to a dying girl?

If they are necessary for her healing then priesthood holders will be present and willing to bless her. If they are not necesary then they may not be present.

Not all healings require that a priesthood belssing be given, but when they do require a priesthood blessing then God sees to it that a priesthood holder willing and able to give the necessary blessing is present.

[cinepro]

Not all healings require that a priesthood belssing be given, but when they do require a priesthood blessing then God sees to it that a priesthood holder willing and able to give the necessary blessing is present.

CFR. Where has that ever been taught by any Church leader? Or did you just make that up?

[Jason]

CFR. Where has that ever been taught by any Church leader? Or did you just make that up?

It is my own reasoning, but it seems sound to me.

[krose]

Why would a righteous priesthood holder refuse to give a blessing to a dying girl?

Whether they would is not the point

[Jason]

Whether they would is not the point

[consiglieri]

Not all healings require that a priesthood belssing be given, but when they do require a priesthood blessing then God sees to it that a priesthood holder willing and able to give the necessary blessing is present.

So nobody needed a priesthood blessing between the apostasy and the restoration?

That must account for the universally acclaimed population health during the Dark Ages.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

So nobody needed a priesthood blessing between the apostasy and the restoration?

That must account for the universally acclaimed population health during the Dark Ages.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Technically, at least the three Nephites and John, and possibly other preisthood holders we are unaware of, were available to provide blessings even during the apostacy.

In a broader sense, everyone who was born and lived during the apostacy were people who did not strictly need the blessings of the fully restored gospel in order to successfully fulfill their mortal probation.

[consiglieri]

In a broader sense, everyone who was born and lived during the apostacy were people who did not strictly need the blessings of the fully restored gospel in order to successfully fulfill their mortal probation.

I think you're riding this argument into a box canyon, Tex.

[Jason]

I think you're riding this argument into a box canyon, Tex.

Think about it. Who determined when and where these people were born?

[krose]

Individual priesthood holders could in fact (ignoring for the moment that they wouldn't be acting as very good priesthood holders) refuse to give a blessing, but if a blessing must be given to enact God's will then someone will be available and will give it - by their own choice.

That seems like an odd way to get around the idea of free will, just to state that someone will be available and willing if a blessing is necessary. But have it your way.

I am more interested in the question of whether a priesthood blessing actually is capable of changing an outcome that would have otherwise happened had the blessing not been given, and how that change in outcome affects the "will of God."

[Jason]

That seems like an odd way to get around the idea of free will, just to state that someone will be available and willing if a blessing is necessary. But have it your way.

I am more interested in the question of whether a priesthood blessing actually is capable of changing an outcome that would have otherwise happened had the blessing not been given, and how that change in outcome affects the "will of God."

My answer is yes, a priesthood blessing may change what would otherwise have happened but no, a preisthood blessing won't actually change what God has foreseen would actually happen.

[krose]

My answer is yes, a priesthood blessing may change what would otherwise have happened but no, a preisthood blessing won't actually change what God has foreseen would actually happen.

That gets us into the quagmire of free will again

[Jason]

That gets us into the quagmire of free will again

[cinepro]

I think you're riding this argument into a box canyon, Tex.

So, describe to me a world (or a state, or a city) without Priesthood blessings.

It's different how...?

[krose]

Or, since the topic was whether priesthood blessings actually are of any value, you could just go with the first part of my answer (yes) and avoid the question of free will entirely.

Sure, but they are linked, aren't they?

If a priesthood holder can heal someone who would have died without his interference, it logically follows that the choice to intervene has changed what was previously God's will, which was that the person would die. But if God's plan was to save the person, he should not have needed to wait for an intercessor to physically 'lay on' hands. And if the priesthood holder is merely acting out the pre-determined play, there is no true agency for him.

I realize that we have now come full circle, so without something new, perhaps we should drop it now.

[frankenstein]

After discussing Abraham's attempted sacrifice of his son Isaac in Gospel Doctrine class last Sunday, I had an elderly member of the class (whom I will call Brother Jones) come up to me afterward and share the following story:

_____________________

Brother Jones' son had a baby who was very sick, and at the age of 11 1/2 months, Brother Jones gave the baby a blessing in which he gave the baby the decision of whether he would stay alive or whether he would pass on.

When the baby passed on, Brother Jones' son was very upset, wanting to know why God would do this to him and his child.

Brother Jones told him that it wasn't God who took the baby; the baby had the choice; and the baby chose to pass on.

Don't blame it on God, it was the baby's decision.

____________________

I was struck by this story, and was wondering if anybody has ever encountered this type of scenario before, and/or what you think of this situation.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to argue that even though babies are very limited in their physical abilities, somehow their spirits are fully mature and are able to make hugely important decisions. Yet, they still aren't "accountable" until they're 8 years old...?

Didn't babies speak when Christ appeared to the Nephites? I knew a family on my mission that claimed everytime they walked their new born passed the "standard" picture of Jesus the baby would smile and reach out, the family thought it was the baby remembering a familiar face.

It is a very odd story that was shared with you Consig.

[cinepro]

I knew a family on my mission that claimed everytime they walked their new born passed the "standard" picture of Jesus the baby would smile and reach out, the family thought it was the baby remembering a familiar face.

I'm sorry, but there's no possible way for this story to be true.

Unless it was the Del Parson painting of Jesus.

Then it is probably true.

[Ariarates]

I can't imagine how I would cope with such a loss. I can understand how a parent would clutch to any straw to overcome their monumental grief. If this is what brings them comfort, then I'm fine with that.

As a member, you don't believe in priesthood blessings?

Yes, I do. That's what I'm saying: blessings can bring comfort and if this one did, then that's ok.

[Jason]

Sure, but they are linked, aren't they?

Well, just about everything gospel-related is linked in some way to free will.

If a priesthood holder can heal someone who would have died without his interference, it logically follows that the choice to intervene has changed what was previously God's will, which was that the person would die. But if God's plan was to save the person, he should not have needed to wait for an intercessor to physically 'lay on' hands. And if the priesthood holder is merely acting out the pre-determined play, there is no true agency for him.

It's not the case that a priesthood holder can change "what was previously God's will".

It is the case that a priesthood blessing can change what would otherwise have happened without the blessing.

It is correct that God could act directly to save a person without the intermediary of a priesthood holder, but it's also the case that a priesthood blessing that saves a person is effectively God acting to save a person, with the added benefits that it also provides the preisthood holder with a faith-building spiritual experience and the opportunity to lovingly serve others.

It is incorrect to say that the priesthood holder is acting out a pre-determined play with no true agency for him. God's foreknowledge of what will happen does not compell the priesthood holder to act according to that script. Yes, if a blessing is necessary then someone will be present, willing, and able to give it, but no one will be compelled to give it; if it is done it will have been done by their own free choice to act as God's agent in forwarding His will.

[Jason]

So, describe to me a world (or a state, or a city) without Priesthood blessings.

It's different how...?

It's different in that there are less priesthood holders exercising that power, with all that that implies. Less opportunity for service to others, less comfort given, less righteous men having the experiences that would make them more righteous, less faith building experiences, etc.

In short, a poorer world, spiritually.

[cinepro]

It's different in that there are less priesthood holders exercising that power, with all that that implies. Less opportunity for service to others, less comfort given, less righteous men having the experiences that would make them more righteous, less faith building experiences, etc.

In short, a poorer world, spiritually.

Would you expect there to be any difference in mortality rates, or recovery rates from curable and incurable diseases?

[Jason]

Would you expect there to be any difference in mortality rates, or recovery rates from curable and incurable diseases?

Impossible to say. Certainly mortality rates, recovery rates, etc. were higher during the apostacy than they are since the Restoration.

In any case, I don't feel that healing is the primary or most lasting purpose behind the giving of priesthood blessings (see my earlier post on the benefits gained from them). After all, mortality is but an instant, but the faith gained through loving service to others has eternal consequences.

[bluebell]

Yes, I do. That's what I'm saying: blessings can bring comfort and if this one did, then that's ok.

Sorry if i misunderstood you.

It's just that when someone says that another is 'clutching at any straw' that generally means they are grabbing at or holding onto things that are not of worth but make them feel better in some way.

Therefore, i read your use of the term 'clutch at straw' to mean that you believed that the priesthood blessing was not of worth (it was 'straw') but that since it was making them feel better it was fine for them to hold on it it regardless of its worthlessnes.

Since i guess i got it wrong, what DID you mean by the 'clutch to any straw' remark?

[Calm]

I'm sorry, but there's no possible way for this story to be true.

Unless it was the Del Parson painting of Jesus.

Depending on the age of the baby, it wouldn't be able to perceive the image if my memory of my child development psych class is correct.

Hmm...I think I'll find some details...

http://www.iloveindia.com/parenting/senses/sight.html

• Like adults, babies are also able to see everything around them. However, in the first few weeks after their birth, they do not have very good control of their ciliary muscles and thus, are not able to focus correctly. It is only after about 2 months of age that infants are able to see clear images.
• In the initial stage of their life, babies are not able to see images as clearly as adults. The reason for this is that their retina as well as their brain area that is responsible for vision is not fully developed. It by eight months that they have a vision almost as good as adults.
• In the first month, babies are able to distinguish between two shades of gray that have 5% contrast, or differ by only 5% in gray level. However, by the time they are 2 months old, they can perceive almost all the subtle shadings that make this world so rich and textured.

After reading the link, I think it's a big stretch to assume that the picture was not only close enough to the actual image of Christ but that the baby could recognize it even with its less than perfect eye control; OTOH it is more likely just the familiarity of the picture with its bright colours that the baby liked, maybe it was one of those with pictures of children and babies in it and that was what appealed to it...

[frankenstein]

I'm sorry, but there's no possible way for this story to be true.

Unless it was the Del Parson painting of Jesus.

Then it is probably true.

there is also no possible way to turn water into wine (as described in the New Testament account of Jesus turning water into wine) but many people claim it happened as described in the bible.