A Serious Question About "Priesthood Power"

[Walden]

Nothing against Craig in the least (truly, i don't mean this to be a judgement against him but merely an observation), but this is why these kinds of experiences are not shared often. Those who ask for them, but are already convinced that they don't exist, will discount the experience simply because it goes against what they already believe. They are typically only willing to consider evidence as factual if it supports their already formed conclusions.

Sharing these experiences does not change the mind of those who are already convinced, so i think many people think, "what's the point, you aren't going to believe it anyway?".

I certainly feel that way and will not share my experiences with people who have already made up their minds.

I agree with the above, but one also must understand that those who "are typically only willing to consider evidence as factual if it supports their already formed conclusions," is as applicable to believers as it is to us unbelievers.

A priesthood holder who administers a blessing will generally give credit to the power of the priesthood as the key to the answering of the blessing without looking at outside factors that may be relevant to that answer to their blessing.

We all view the world through tainted, prejudiced lenses....believers and atheists alike.

[Mark Beesley]

I am capable of belief and exercising faith...but that faith must be built on a foundation of fact...so my standard is very very high. It has been my experience in the church that many members are quick to ascribe almost any positive experience or outcome that they can’t explain as a manifestation of God’s power. I just have a higher standard for something to qualify as having come from God. I don’t intend that to be offensive to anyone on this board.

It is a good thing to recognize God's hand in things.

And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

D&C 59:21

Just cause we exercise and rely on faith does not mean we have low standards.

[Mark Beesley]

I agree with the above, but one also must understand that those who "are typically only willing to consider evidence as factual if it supports their already formed conclusions," is as applicable to believers as it is to us unbelievers.

A priesthood holder who administers a blessing will generally give credit to the power of the priesthood as the key to the answering of the blessing without looking at outside factors that may be relevant to that answer to their blessing.

We all view the world through tainted, prejudiced lenses....believers and atheists alike.

Personally, when I give a Priesthood blessing, I try to remember to articulate a reliance on the skill of the doctors, following their advice, and taking prescribed medications, etc. Kinda like, faith without works is dead, you know, that sorta thing.

[bookofmormontruth]

Is there really power in priesthood?

G-d is Omnipotent. The Holy Priesthood is described as His power. Connect the dots.

[bluebell]

I agree with the above, but one also must understand that those who "are typically only willing to consider evidence as factual if it supports their already formed conclusions," is as applicable to believers as it is to us unbelievers.

Definitely.

I think 'believers' are generally aware that their dogma dictates how they react to things. I think nonbelievers though are sometimes under the assumption that they are unbiased observers of events relying on rationale thought alone to guide them.

They often ridicule or criticize believers for not being objective, usually doing so while in the act of not being objective.

[JAHS]

During my earlier years while I was attending Weber State college I was working part-time at the McKay Dee hospital across the street as an orderly. Most of us orderlys were return missionaries and we quite often were called upon to give priesthood blessings to patients. On one occasion we were asked by the mother of a young lady who just had a baby to give the baby a blessing. It had been born with a rare skin condition which made the skin like tissue paper and would easily tear open and bleed if touched.

The doctors told the family that the baby will die from this very painful condition. So the grandmother asked us to bless the baby that it would die soon so it wouldn't have to suffer so much for too long. So we went into the intensive care nursery where we put on gown and gloves and mask and were led to the incubator of the baby. She was screaming quite obviously from the pain of all the bleeding cuts and tears in her skin. Because of her constantly kicking her feet against the bed the skin on the heals of her feet was completely rubbed off and bleeding as well as the back of her head. We could not touch her or use oil so we just placed our hands under the sheet she laid on to perform the blessing. As I was giving the blessing I felt a distinct impression that the baby was not supposed to die as the doctors said, so I blessed her that she would be healed and continue to live. I did not have the heart to tell the grandmother that I did not obey her wishes so I just said that everything would be alright.

A few weeks later I got word that within a couple of weeks after the blessing the skin condition had cleared up and that the baby was going to live and be alright. Now one can argue that it was the continuing work of the doctors and medical staff that led to her recovery to a normal physical condition, which I am sure was a contributing factor, but I can't help but think that the power of the priesthood and the will of god were the main forces behind the healing. In this particular situation with a newborn baby, there was no power of suggestion involved or even the faith of the patient or family who were expecting her to die; just a priesthood blessing.

God wants us all to live by faith. If all priesthood blessing resulted in miraculous healings there would be no more need to live by faith.

[bluebell]

I am capable of belief and exercising faith...but that faith must be built on a foundation of fact...so my standard is very very high. It has been my experience in the church that many members are quick to ascribe almost any positive experience or outcome that they can’t explain as a manifestation of God’s power. I just have a higher standard for something to qualify as having come from God. I don’t intend that to be offensive to anyone on this board.

Aren't 'facts' though, by definition, something that has been proven?

And if that's true, how do you have faith in something that is already proven to be true? Faith is believing in something that hasn't be proven. Maybe i'm not understanding what you are saying right though.

[Vanguard]

To comply with the truth in posting laws … let me start by stating that I am no longer a member of the church and therefore, as a male, would no longer be viewed as "holding" the priesthood.

So here’s my question.

Is there really power in priesthood?

Now before anyone flames me for even asking such a question let me interject that I acknowledge the comfort, the reassurance, the peace that can come through a priesthood blessing. I have personally witnessed people in deep personal pain (anguish not physical pain) given great comfort through a male laying their hands on the head of an individual and calling down the power of God and stating words of comfort that express God’s love for that individual along with promises specific to the needs of that individual.

So in examples like this I do see value and power…to sooth a troubled heart.

What I am asking is actual power to heal or command God’s power in some other physical manner.

01. Recently a dear friend’s child was diagnosed with cancer. The local priesthood brethren give this child multiple priesthood blessings each promising her that she would be healed. Only after it became apparent that her cancer was extremely advanced did they reverse course and offer priesthood blessings to prepare her for the inevitable. She died after a long and valiant battle. And although her parents I’m sure found comfort in those latter blessing…the earlier blessing went unfulfilled.

02. James E. Talmage, in a tragic farming accident, blinded his younger brother with a pitch fork. Years later as a member of the 12 Apostles, he and other members of the 12 gave a priesthood blessing promising a full restoration of his brothers sight (in this life). He died a blind man, the promised restoration unfulfilled.

I’m sure there are hundreds of examples where priesthood power has failed to produce the promised blessings. Yet IF the desired outcome occurs…in other words if medical science produces the desired result…priesthood power gets the credit. And if the priesthood promise is not fulfilled then the default answer is that that was God’s will.

In either case, Priesthood Power always seems to win. If a person is healed through medical care/science then it was priesthood that caused it. If the person failed to be healed, it was God’s desire not to invoke His power for that individual.

I can give lot's of examples where priesthood promises have not resulted in the promised results...but what I am asking…has there EVER been an example of a verifiable case where a priesthood blessing actually resulted in the promised healing, drought ended, famine reversed, dead person raised that an objective, independent observer could confirm as having been accomplished through a priesthood blessing promise? Or is it just a case of me being the only person seeing that the Emperor has no clothes.

The fact that your critiera includes the need to have an observer precludes the possibility of the matter ever being put to rest. Could you offer up a more specific example of an event / observation that would put the matter to rest? Is there such an event?

To answer your other question about whether there be "power in priesthood , I believe there is considerable well-intentioned though understandable folly going on in many priesthood blessings. I consider this irrefutable. The fact that there are instances when a person does heal after having recieved a blessing can be no commentary on whether it was the priesthood that caused this healing considering the fact that there are simply too many examples of when a priesthood blessing did not deliver in the way that was promised.

How can that be reconciled?

[Brian 2.0]

Oh, thought you had something specific and substantial in mind. I was mistaken. Perhaps you can provide a specific link to a page at lds.org where the alleged claims are made. Thanks.

Do you not agree that the church claims that a Priesthood Blessing can, if God wills it, heal someone from a physical infirmity?

[thesometimesaint]

Vanguard:

It is all contingent on the will of God.

[Vanguard]

Vanguard:

It is all contingent on the will of God.

But isn't everything contingent on the will of God? What role does the Priesthood play in this?

[Brian 2.0]

But isn't everything contingent on the will of God? What role does the Priesthood play in this?

This is the best answer I have for this questions. It's from the Bible Dictionary on Prayer:

The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

I would say that Priesthood Blessing fall under this category where the act of getting the blessing secures a blessing for us that God wants but was conditional upon asking (getting the blessing).

[thesometimesaint]

Vanguard:

Yes. Sometimes God wants us to ask.

[Brian 2.0]

I think the main question, and it's a good question, of the OP is how you can account that the result was a result it was because you asked.

Basically, how can to tell the difference between these two conclusions (strictly from a healing perspective, not discussing mental/spiritual benefits):

ANOMALY EXPLANATION:

There are anomalies in everything. Sometimes people with the common cold die. Sometimes people with terminal cancer get better. Though they are exceptions to the norm, these things happen. It's a unmistakable fact of life. Thankfully, we were one of those great exceptions where my father recovered from terminal cancer.

GOD'S WILL EXPLANATION:

God's hand is in everything. My father was sick with terminal cancer and had a blessing a recovered. This is evidence to me of God's hand and intervention in my life.

[bluebell]

I think the main question, and it's a good question, of the OP is how you can account that the result was a result it was because you asked.

Basically, how can to tell the difference between these two conclusions (strictly from a healing perspective, not discussing mental/spiritual benefits):

ANOMALY EXPLANATION:

There are anomalies in everything. Sometimes people with the common cold die. Sometimes people with terminal cancer get better. Though they are exceptions to the norm, these things happen. It's a unmistakable fact of life. Thankfully, we were one of those great exceptions where my father recovered from terminal cancer.

GOD'S WILL EXPLANATION:

God's hand is in everything. My father was sick with terminal cancer and had a blessing a recovered. This is evidence to me of God's hand and intervention in my life.

I think, from a believer's perspective, that the answer would be 'you can't'.

Having a relationship with God/being a believer, is all about faith. If you demand to know in an undisputable, scientifically provable way, that God exists, before you will believe in Him, then you are demanding to have a relationship with God without having to have faith in Him. That is the same as trying to have the lights on and off in a room at the same time-it's just not possible.

People have personal reasons for why they believe or know that God's hand was in something-having faith doesn't mean having no evidence to support it-but if the quest is to have scientific proof that God intervened in one case and didn't in another, i think most believers would say that you won't find it because you can't take faith out of the equation and get anywhere.

[ELF1024]

I can give lot's of examples where priesthood promises have not resulted in the promised results...but what I am asking…has there EVER been an example of a verifiable case where a priesthood blessing actually resulted in the promised healing, drought ended, famine reversed, dead person raised that an objective, independent observer could confirm as having been accomplished through a priesthood blessing promise? Or is it just a case of me being the only person seeing that the Emperor has no clothes.

So where was the serious part?

[Mark Beesley]

Do you not agree that the church claims that a Priesthood Blessing can, if God wills it, heal someone from a physical infirmity?

I agree that there are members of the Church who harbor such a belief. I am one of them. And I think that such a belief is supported by the scriptures. Now, if that is what you mean by the Church making supernatural claims (which is what your original assertion was), then I guess the Church does make supernatural claims insfar that it claims that God's will can produce effects upon the natural world that we cannot readily explain. Which brings me back to my questions to you:

Why on earth would you expect to find a scientific proof for a supernatural claim?

Wouldn't a scientific proof remove the claim from the subset of supernatural claims?

And now a new question for you: What is the substantial scientific evidence against the existence of God that you alluded to?

[Brian 2.0]

I agree that there are members of the Church who harbor such a belief. I am one of them. And I think that such a belief is supported by the scriptures. Now, if that is what you mean by the Church making supernatural claims (which is what your original assertion was), then I guess the Church does make supernatural claims insfar that it claims that God's will can produce effects upon the natural world that we cannot readily explain. Which brings me back to my questions to you:

Why on earth would you expect to find a scientific proof for a supernatural claim?

Supernatural claim come from someone elses post. I submit that healing from priesthood blessings have basis in natural law so that is why I invoke scientific testing into it.

Wouldn't a scientific proof remove the claim from the subset of supernatural claims?

Yes. if someone claimed it was supernatural and had scientific proof of it, it would cease to be supernatural

And now a new question for you: What is the substantial scientific evidence against the existence of God that you alluded to?

I don't know that I was alluding to scientific evidence against existence of God. I have stated multiple times that no such evidence can exist for something as general as the existencse of God.

See my latest response on this in the Rational Usefulness thread. It's being talked about here so no need to talk about it in two places at once.

[Mars]

It'd sure be nice if I could turn to you and say "See? I do hold the priesthood." And then heal the sick, raise the dead, turn water into Mountain Dew and have you go through all the levels of scrutiny you'd like, repeating the experiments ad infinitum so that at the end you'd say "Well, you do have the priesthood. Now I'll believe."

But, alas, I do not believe God's power is for public display. Similar to Satan (no, I'm not saying you're Satan for asking the question, I think it's a good question actually) tempting Jesus to jump off the roof of the Temple and have the angels catch him, it's not our place to force God to use his power to prove something to us.

The observer in theological experiments is us. There is no one else who can watch along with us.

[keith_brian]

What supernatural claims does the Church make?

Seriously? Okay . . .

The existence of angels, demons, spiritual healing, life after death, and an omnipresent ghost, to name a few.

And why on earth would you expect to find a scientific proof for a supernatural claim???

If something is supernatural, then by definition it is outside of science. However, for something supernatural to be of any use, I think that it has to interact with our lives in a meaningful way. Spiritual healing would be one such example. I am not claiming that (assuming spiritual healing exists) we can understand the mechanisms behind spiritual healing, but we should certainly be able to observe and measure the effects of spiritual healing, including a much higher (and statistically significant) rate of cure from disease X (or a faster recovery rate, etc.) for people who have been part of a spiritual healing ceremony versus people who have not been a part of a spiritual healing ceremony. However, in my search through the scientific literature on the subject, I have been unable to find such evidence, at least the kind that would withstand scientific rigor. Most of the evidence I have ever heard/seen for spiritual healing tends to be highly anecdotal in nature and is ubi

Wouldn't a scientific proof remove the claim from the subset of supernatural claims?

Indeed it would.

[Brian 2.0]

If something is supernatural, then by definition it is outside of science. However, for something supernatural to be of any use, I think that it has to interact with our lives in a meaningful way. Spiritual healing would be one such example. I am not claiming that (assuming spiritual healing exists) we can understand the mechanisms behind spiritual healing, but we should certainly be able to observe and measure the effects of spiritual healing, including a much higher (and statistically significant) rate of cure from disease X (or a faster recovery rate, etc.) for people who have been part of a spiritual healing ceremony versus people who have not been a part of a spiritual healing ceremony.

This is exactly my point, but people want to argue outside of that specific claim that I am trying to test. Or, they accuse me of "asking for a sign" or something like that as proof to believe.

I am simply stating that there seems to be a claim (healings through Pristhood blessings) that could be tested/observed on a scientific level.

See Post #57 in this also current thread:

We really should get this one point into one thread or the other.

[keith_brian]

This is the best answer I have for this questions. It's from the Bible Dictionary on Prayer:

The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

I would say that Priesthood Blessing fall under this category where the act of getting the blessing secures a blessing for us that God wants but was conditional upon asking (getting the blessing).

I have heard this explanation before too, and to me it has always made God seem extremely petty (assuming the existence of God). What do you mean that a "loving" omnipotent, omniscient God would withhold blessings from someone -- things they actually need -- because they refuse to ask him for those blessings?

As an analogy, if I had a child that, through wrong choices, was in a bad economic situation and I had the resources to help him, I would give the child food, clothing, and shelter simply because it's the right thing to do, even if the child was unwilling to ask me for help.

I can't imagine that a loving God would withhold this type of support simply because of the failure of someone to ask for it.

[blackstrap]

To give a child everything he wants or needs is the antithesis of truly loving the child IF you want that child to grow to be a productive and caring adult.

I for one NEVER give a priesthood blessing without stating "Thy will be done" somewhere in the blessing.

Perhaps kb might ask a priesthood holder to cut off an arm in his presence and then restore it to full function so that he might know of the power held. For those that believe no explanation is necessary,for those that don't,no explanation is sufficient.

To heal or be healed of some physical malady is a blessing ,but not a "top of the list" type of blessing. Those are to come to a knowledge of the Savior and be healed in and by the Spirit.

[Vanguard]

This is the best answer I have for this questions. It's from the Bible Dictionary on Prayer:

The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings.

And so it is conditional on our asking? Then what of those who did ask but did not receive? And what does that say about the role of the priesthood if the blessing is contigent on our simply asking? I could have sworn it had something to do with the recipient's faith as well as the worthiness of the Priesthood holder. Your point seems to reduce this down to a predetermined number of times the Lord will answer in the affirmative as long as we just ask. Hmmmmm...

I would say that Priesthood Blessing fall under this category where the act of getting the blessing secures a blessing for us that God wants but was conditional upon asking (getting the blessing).

I don't understand what you're saying here.

[Mudcat]

I think it probably all comes from Jesus's commandment not to put our pearls before swine. That sounds horrible-it would be hard to use it without someone feeling like you were calling them a pig-but i think the meaning of the phrase is not to share sacred things with people who will not appreciate them and may even try to damage or destroy them.

I think a lot of LDS people are very willing to share their spiritual experiences with others, but they do so under very specific terms. They do so personally, with people they respect or trust usually. It has little to do with only sharing them with people of the same religion and a lot to do with only sharing them with people you know will treat them in a respectful way. The more sacred the experience is for someone, the less likely it is to be shared because the 'pearl' is of so much worth that the person naturally protects it.

I understand the premise and I appreciate the response. I have difficulty separating the pigs and dogs from the good folks. My knowledge of piggishness is usually after the fact.

I don't know if that makes sense to you, but maybe you could think back to some of the most sacred times or experiences in your life and ponder on who you would be willing to share them with and why you might hesitate to share them with others. Maybe that will help.

I suppose I am a bit odd this way. Unless I am playing poker, I am not one who plays their cards close to their vest. I never mind sharing my spiritual experiences or even my most embarrassing moments of sheer stupidity. In that sense, I suppose I let it all hang out, so to speak. I suppose in that sense, I consider myself more like a the sower in Christ's parable. I toss it out and hopefully it will find good ground and be fruitful when it finds the right soil.

As I am thinking about the only things, I don't share often are related to what I would call good works. It's sort of like Christ was saying about how we shouldn't pray out loud to demonstrate piety. There have been times when I felt prompted to do things by the Holy Spirit and have followed through with action. I don't share those things much.. only when I feel compelled by the Spirit that I should, actually.

In that light, I actually get it... why people don't say much about priesthood sort of things. Never talked through it with anyone before. Thanks for that.

Kindest Regards,

Mudcat