A Serious Question About "Priesthood Power"

[Jeff K.]

OK, name an instrument that can measure the strength of faith, or name an instrument that measures the effects of the priesthood.

Name these instruments and their sensitivity to the spirit. I would be interested in seeing that.

[elguanteloko]

OK, name an instrument that can measure the strength of faith, or name an instrument that measures the effects of the priesthood.

Name these instruments and their sensitivity to the spirit. I would be interested in seeing that.

We are talking about miracles, Jeff, not about how great you think the power of God is. About three threads have had discussions on this very issue and you still don't get that. I'm amazed and saddened.

[bookofmormontruth]

We are talking about miracles, Jeff, not about how great you think the power of God is. About three threads have had discussions on this very issue and you still don't get that. I'm amazed and saddened.

The only thing amazing is that your "merry go around" of antics isn't ignored which is probably the "miracle" you are referring to.

And the only thing saddening is that you find it entertaining.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 28 May 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

It has been explained. To put it in terms you would understand.... the instrumentation falls short and isn't sensitive enough to measure at that level.

Why? You just assert that but you don't explain why this is the case.

Jeff K., on 29 May 2011 - 12:01 AM, said:

OK, name an instrument that can measure the strength of faith, or name an instrument that measures the effects of the priesthood.

Name these instruments and their sensitivity to the spirit. I would be interested in seeing that.

We are talking about miracles, Jeff, not about how great you think the power of God is. About three threads have had discussions on this very issue and you still don't get that. I'm amazed and saddened.

Translation: He can't name an instrument that measures faith or the effects of the priesthood. Better to toss up all kinds of amazing and saddened things rather than admit to that.

Chuckle, now don't you look silly.

[elguanteloko]

Translation: He can't name an instrument that measures faith

Sure, there is no such instrument.... and that has little to do with my point (neither has anyone claimed that we can measure people's faith any more than we can measure people's perception of "yellow" itself). We don't need to test people's "faith" in a drug to see that the drug actually works, for example. Man, we don't even need you to realize you can see for us to test and realize that you actually DO see (blindsight).

or the effects of the priesthood.

THIS is what is in question, Jeff, NOT how "intense" your faith is. I don't see how we couldn't measure if such priesthood effects take place. Take a look at this article and tell my why we couldn't test the effects of priesthood blessings in a similar fashion: http://www.nytimes.c...lth/31pray.html

You can also read this: http://en.wikipedia....icacy_of_prayer

Better to toss up all kinds of amazing and saddened things rather than admit to that.

Chuckle, now don't you look silly.

...

[elguanteloko]

The only thing amazing is that your "merry go around" of antics isn't ignored which is probably the "miracle" you are referring to.

And the only thing saddening is that you find it entertaining.

I actually do care that you guys get this.

[bookofmormontruth]

I actually do care that you guys get this.

Let me save you some trouble.

[Jeff K.]

And yet no study is forthcoming.

Just a great deal of speculation on the part of people who hate the idea of faith, hate the idea of religion and they just can't seem to get their hands around the view that maybe they aren't able to understand (which they also hate) because they have neither the faculty for such understanding, nor the ability to measure (in fact they simply want to find some way to undermine).

You seem to fail repeatedly in your attempts.

Since the effects of the priesthood cannot be measured, since there is no statistical table put forth that isn't fatally flawed. All you have is speculation, oh, and lets not forget the hate, it's a driving force for some.

Are a thousand prayers statistically different from one? ( A point never answered in the wiki article) How many were needed to open this dispensation? If one, is the same as many, then no statistical model will work. But wait, isn't that what has been said again and again? Is the anguish and hate blinding people?

Indeed that selfsame article...

To date, scientific and religious views on the efficacy of prayer do not agree, and much controversy still surrounds the subject. Medical studies have, at times, been interpreted in conflicting ways by different groups while other studies have been specifically designed to clear up such ambiguities, meanwhile debate continues regarding the confounding variables in some studies.

Could have sworn that was mentioned as well. ....

Other than being wrong elguantelo, what is your point besides making it clear you don't like religion and are angry that you cannot find a way to discredit prayer?

Revelations 3:17 comes to mind.

[Jeff K.]

Thanks for the link bookofmormontruth. It appears elguantelo suffers from blindsight.

[Brian 2.0]

Jeff K. and bookofmormontruth,

Let's take a step back to find common ground and figure out where we are breaking apart. Please answer the following:

CRYSTAL HEALING is an alternative medicine technique that uses crystals as healing tools. A crystal healing practitioner places crystals on or around the body. Practitioners believe that subtle energetic misalignments and blocks in the body are causing illness and other health conditions. They claim that the subtle vibrations of gemstones and crystals can act as a "tuning fork" and realign or unblock the energy in the body. This process can help in recovery rates from depression to breast cancer.

This is real, you can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_healing

My question is, can we scientifically test the effectiveness of "crystal healing" on recovery rates from breast cancer?

Please note that we are not testing the existence of energetic fields in the body or crystals effect on those energetic fields.

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2.0:

There really is no way to prove or disprove the effectiveness of crystals, prayer beads, Shaman dancing, or a whole host of other non medical treatments. That doesn't mean they are worthless, some people do seem to feel better because of them, it just means it can't be measured.

[bookofmormontruth]

Jeff K. and bookofmormontruth,

Let's take a step back to find common ground and figure out where we are breaking apart. Please answer the following:

CRYSTAL HEALING is an alternative medicine technique that uses crystals as healing tools. A crystal healing practitioner places crystals on or around the body. Practitioners believe that subtle energetic misalignments and blocks in the body are causing illness and other health conditions. They claim that the subtle vibrations of gemstones and crystals can act as a "tuning fork" and realign or unblock the energy in the body. This process can help in recovery rates from depression to breast cancer.

This is real, you can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia....Crystal_healing

My question is, can we scientifically test the effectiveness of "crystal healing" on recovery rates from breast cancer?

Please note that we are not testing the existence of energetic fields in the body or crystals effect on those energetic fields.

Yes, most definitely.

Now for the reality in today's world.

"Evidence Based Medicine" would discount this as "quackery" (psuedoscience at its finest) and that the "recovery rates" (even if they were true and undeniably real) would be easily disregarded for there are no "peer reviewed studies" to verify this type of "therapy". In addition, this form of "alternative medicine" has no efficacy whatsoever in the treatment of any types of cancer and those who make this claim are endangering patients and should be held accountable in the court of law.

The exact same sentiment and conclusion would be said about the "supernatural" so we are not going to have common ground on this, there is none - it doesn't exist.

On a side note: as a recent graduate from medical school, I know the role of allopathic medicine and the absolute brilliance in emergency medicine (nothing compares). Yet, my philosophy resonates with integrative/naturopathic medicine and I intimately know the benefits and limitations from natural/alternative therapies for my patients.

In the same light, I also believe in G-d and His miracles/priesthood. Yet, I am fully aware that our flawed/bias science (which I absolutely love) will never verify or prove what you are asking for no matter what "test" is implemented.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes, most definitely.

Cool. I agree.

"Evidence Based Medicine" would discount this as "quackery" (psuedoscience at its finest) and that the "recovery rates" (even if they were true and undeniably real) would be easily disregarded for there are no "peer reviewed studies" to verify this type of "therapy".

I guess I was saying that this scientific test I was referring to IS a peer reviewed study. (I'm not saying anything about the results, just that a true peer reviewed study on crystal healings effect on recovery from breast cancer can happen).

Is your "yes" referring to this type of study? I was asking if a reputable peer reviewed study can happen with crystal healing?

Crystal Healings is only "pseudoscience at it's finest" because peer reviewed studies have not known the therapy to be effective. If a peer review study of crystal therapy showed and increase in recovery rates beyond the placebo effect, it would cease to be psuedoscience, and would warrant further scientific study.

[bookofmormontruth]

Cool. I agree.

I guess I was saying that this scientific test I was referring to IS a peer reviewed study. (I'm not saying anything about the results, just that a true peer reviewed study on crystal healings effect on recovery from breast cancer can happen).

Is your "yes" referring to this type of study? I was asking if a reputable peer reviewed study can happen with crystal healing?

Crystal Healings is only "pseudoscience at it's finest" because peer reviewed studies have not known the therapy to be effective. If a peer review study of crystal therapy showed and increase in recovery rates beyond the placebo effect, it would cease to be psuedoscience, and would warrant further scientific study.

What peer reviewed study? You posted a wiki link.

My "yes", was in agreeing that it would be possible to test for its efficacy, but in today's world - the pharmaceutical driven agenda (for the record: they have their roles, but not for everything) would not make this possible. Even if it was generated from those who don't have a bias and agenda, it will never fall under the "evidence based medicine" category and the study will be thrown under the rug. Acupuncture is a classic example of this.

The same can also be said of the supernatural which will never be "proven" under the current paradigm.

[Jeff K.]

I don't think Brian gets it. He buys into that paradigm agenda. His desire isn't to know the efficacy of prayer, but to prove it doesn't have any effect.

[CV75]

Science doesn't claim to be absolutely "objective and independent" since such a thing could NOT be science at all.

My reply was directed at the OP suggesting (by the use of the term "EVER") that an absolutely objective, independent observer can confirm the efficacy of priesthood blessings if proper verification were available meeting that observer’s criteria. The OP didn’t specify whether this required science, referencing instead a folktale. The other two “Uselessness of…” discussions provide some good information on the nature of the spiritual process and its relevancy to other processes and disciplines, which also would address the OP issues about priesthood blessings.

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think Brian gets it. He buys into that paradigm agenda. His desire isn't to know the efficacy of prayer, but to prove it doesn't have any effect.

You know what Jeff, I've had enough!

Your assumptions and smug talking down attitude is unacceptable.

I don't want to talk about my personal life because it's shouldn't matter in this setting where everyone is supposed to treat people with equal respect and not "us vs. them", but I feel I have to say something now, because I don't want you to do it again to someone else.

I couldn't stop thinking about it all day today when I went to 3 full hours of church, couldn't stop thinking about it when I conducted by priesthood group as the High Priest Group leader. Couldn't stop thinking about it when I took the sacrament and tried to convince myself that I'm choosing to take offense. I'm active, I've been active my whole life, I've served a mission, I've given countless blessings and seen great things come of them. I've prayed my entire life.

I also have a deep respect for science and don't think that religious truth and science should be in conflict with each other. In most cases, they are in different spheres and science has no place in that religious truth. But, for me, in some places they seem to overlap and how that overlap happens and how we react to it is interesting to me. Priesthood blessings bringing about healings is one of those areas.

If you want to say: "I think a study could be done. And I believe an honest and thorough study of priesthood blessings would result in higher recovery rate, but I feel that such a study would be thwarted by mainstream science and pharmaceutical companies and receive no traction." That's fine. I will respect that response, even if I may not fully agree with it. I may have more questions about that.

If you want to say: "I think a study could be done. I believe an honest and thorough study of priesthood blessings would not result in higher recovery rates, but that is due to the limitations of the scientific method, and I would still believe in the efficacy of blessings" That's fine. I will respect that response. I may question further as to what those limitations are if I don't see them. Heck, you might even convince me on those limitations.

But what you can't say is: "Brian doesn't get it. He doesn't believe in prayer and want to prove it false."

That kind of response isn't an acceptable answer to my sincere questions even if I was a staunch atheist who never set foot in a Mormon church. Not only is it assumptive and rude, it's completely not what we were talking about. Not only have I never said anything about prayer, but I have never even said that Priesthood blessings don't heal people.

Yes, I have questions. Yes, I ask them without apology. But that doesn't mean you can name call, assume, or treat me like some ignorant child, while all the while not responding to the questions being asked. You have done this to me on three separate threads.

I admire the time you are taking to speak in defense of the faith, but please do it in an appropriate way where you are not offending those both outside and inside your faith.

[Brian 2.0]

What peer reviewed study? You posted a wiki link.

My "yes", was in agreeing that it would be possible to test for its efficacy, but in today's world - the pharmaceutical driven agenda (for the record: they have their roles, but not for everything) would not make this possible. Even if it was generated from those who don't have a bias and agenda, it will never fall under the "evidence based medicine" category and the study will be thrown under the rug. Acupuncture is a classic example of this.

The same can also be said of the supernatural which will never be "proven" under the current paradigm.

I wasn't referring to a specific study, but was asking if you thought a peer reviewed study could happen in regards to crystal healings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that a study could be done, but even if results DID come back in favor of crystal healings, that big pharma wouldn't allow it to come through as good science and would either try to discredit the scientists/the study/or push the peer reviewed journals to not accept it (thus preventing it from becoming mainstream). Am I correct?

Also... from your post before this... are you saying that a good scientific study could be done on crystal healing and it could come back that crystal therapy has no effect on breast cancer recovery, but that given the flaws of science that it is still a viable option for believers in the therapy to believe in the process (i.e. they shouldn't throw away their anecdotal evidence that it works). Am I correct?

[bookofmormontruth]

I wasn't referring to a specific study, but was asking if you thought a peer reviewed study could happen in regards to crystal healings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that a study could be done, but even if results DID come back in favor of crystal healings, that big pharma wouldn't allow it to come through as good science and would either try to discredit the scientists/the study/or push the peer reviewed journals to not accept it (thus preventing it from becoming mainstream). Am I correct?

Also... from your post before this... are you saying that a good scientific study could be done on crystal healing and it could come back that crystal therapy has no effect on breast cancer recovery, but that given the flaws of science that it is still a viable option for believers in the therapy to believe in the process (i.e. they shouldn't throw away their anecdotal evidence that it works). Am I correct?

Brian,

I will be honest, I don't good with hypotheticals for I am no scientist or researcher. I would ask the experts, I just have strong opinions to offer.

Yes, I do feel it could be done. But like any study, you can poke endless holes into it even if it is "peer reviewed" so what is the point of doing a study when there will be absolutely no funding towards it and will be in complete conflict with today's paradigm? In addition, not everyone will believe in it (even if it had "miraculous" results) and it will prove absolutely nothing (only to the already believers) unless it can fit in neatly and perfectly under the category "evidence based medicine" which has the current monopoly (since medicine is a business) - minus the public demand.

In my lifetime and under the current paradigm, there will be no "peer reviewed" study on the efficacy of "crystals" or priesthood blessings. I do respect the current paradigm, but I don't put my full trust in it, neither should the lay public. I would trust more a physician's experience with their treatment results with patients than what a biased study tells me. In the same light, I would trust those who have personal experiences and testimonies of priesthood blessing than a study.

That's all I have to say, before all the shills come out to play.

[keith_brian]

Perhaps it may have something to do with the “omniscient” part.

Or not. Or maybe it's just people making excuses for God (assuming that he exists).

[keith_brian]

Brian 2.0:

There really is no way to prove or disprove the effectiveness of crystals, prayer beads, Shaman dancing, or a whole host of other non medical treatments. That doesn't mean they are worthless, some people do seem to feel better because of them, it just means it can't be measured.

I disagree with this statement completely. In fact, I think that medical science CAN test the effectiveness of crystals in promoting health and healing.

If there was any evidence whatsoever that energy crystals promoted greater health, they would be routinely prescribed by doctors. They're not prescribed because there is no demonstrable health benefits.

[LeSellers]

I think that medical science CAN test the effectiveness of crystals in promoting health and healing.

If there was any evidence whatsoever that energy crystals promoted greater health, they would be routinely prescribed by doctors. They're not prescribed because there is no demonstrable health benefits.

No, it could just as easily be that there is no money to be made by prescribing crystals, just as there is little money to be made in prescribing vitamins and Noni fruit.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

You know what Jeff, I've had enough!

Your assumptions and smug talking down attitude is unacceptable.

Let me guess, you were standing in front of a mirror when you typed this?

I also have a deep respect for science and don't think that religious truth and science should be in conflict with each other. In most cases, they are in different spheres and science has no place in that religious truth. But, for me, in some places they seem to overlap and how that overlap happens and how we react to it is interesting to me. Priesthood blessings bringing about healings is one of those areas.

They don't conflict with each other, except with people who want them to. Which usually takes more than a little smug arrogance. And they do overlap, but not in the way you think. As I have stated, it takes a smug attitude to presume science will make the spirit of God jump through hoops in order to study that selfsame spirit. I bet such a thought never occurred to you, for if it did you would know how vainglorious the proposition sounds. Also given the fact that elguanteloko is your biggest cheer leader should help you reflect on how poeple can indeed act as liahonas. Where that boy goes with his anger at the church, is the opposite of where people who do have questions of the spirit should go.

Now if you take off your smug science is all attitude for a moment and ask yourself these questions...

1-Why would the study be flawed

2-What is my proposal saying about my relationship with God?

3-Why is it important to put God in a petrie dish? or formula

Pretty concieted if you ask me.

If you want to say: "I think a study could be done. And I believe an honest and thorough study of priesthood blessings would result in higher recovery rate, but I feel that such a study would be thwarted by mainstream science and pharmaceutical companies and receive no traction." That's fine. I will respect that response, even if I may not fully agree with it. I may have more questions about that.

If you want to say: "I think a study could be done. I believe an honest and thorough study of priesthood blessings would not result in higher recovery rates, but that is due to the limitations of the scientific method, and I would still believe in the efficacy of blessings" That's fine. I will respect that response. I may question further as to what those limitations are if I don't see them. Heck, you might even convince me on those limitations.

But what you can't say is: "Brian doesn't get it. He doesn't believe in prayer and want to prove it false."

See above.

You don't get it, because you don't understand the priesthood, you don't understand the spirit of God and you certainly don't understand God's will, all of which play a part in something that you somehow think you can bottle and study. Now if that isn't hubris, I don't know what is.

I admire the time you are taking to speak in defense of the faith, but please do it in an appropriate way where you are not offending those both outside and inside your faith.

The fact that you have stated that I speak in defense of faith places you in the opposite court now doesn't it? I am most appropriate and most straightforward.

[Sleeper Cell]

Or not. Or maybe it's just people making excuses for God (assuming that he exists).

Huh?

Had you simply referred to God (assuming that he exists) as a “loving God,” you might have a point. However, you also described God as omnipotent and omniscient. Then you said, in effect, that you “can’t imagine” that an all-knowing God would do things differently than you think he should.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian,

I will be honest, I don't good with hypotheticals for I am no scientist or researcher. I would ask the experts, I just have strong opinions to offer.

Yes, I do feel it could be done. But like any study, you can poke endless holes into it even if it is "peer reviewed" so what is the point of doing a study when there will be absolutely no funding towards it and will be in complete conflict with today's paradigm? In addition, not everyone will believe in it (even if it had "miraculous" results) and it will prove absolutely nothing (only to the already believers) unless it can fit in neatly and perfectly under the category "evidence based medicine" which has the current monopoly (since medicine is a business) - minus the public demand.

In my lifetime and under the current paradigm, there will be no "peer reviewed" study on the efficacy of "crystals" or priesthood blessings. I do respect the current paradigm, but I don't put my full trust in it, neither should the lay public. I would trust more a physician's experience with their treatment results with patients than what a biased study tells me. In the same light, I would trust those who have personal experiences and testimonies of priesthood blessing than a study.

That's all I have to say, before all the shills come out to play.

I respect that opinion. And it is one I have shared for most my life. I guess I've started to think that my experience and belief in Priesthood blessings isn't very different from Crystal Therapy Practitioners belief in crystal healings. I have my personal anecdotal experience that support it and they have there's, both without having any scientific studies to back either up. Trying to be completely objective about it I would think an outsider would look at both having the same amount of merit (priesthood blessings vs. crystal healings) and that would probably be no merit. And in thinking about that way, I better be careful because whatever criticism I feel I want to level against something like crystal healings, I better be able to apply that same criteria to priesthood blessings and be comfortable about it.

Thankfully I've never heard of someone using Priesthood blessings in place of medical treatment, so thankfully that criticism cannot be level against it (the same cannot be said for other alternative medicine practitioners).

The thing is, I think crystal healing to be a bunch of non-scientific bogus filled with practitioners using a very large amount of confirmation bias. And my reasons for thinking such things often could be said if I turned those same reason against blessings.

I started down this when I got really frustrated with evangelicals bashing Mormonism with a set of criteria that if they applied to their own faith would discredit them as well. I've tried really hard to make sure I'm applying the same criteria to others as I am to myself.