Of Miracles, "anti-Miracles", And What They Might Mean...

[3DOP]

We used to have lots of threads about apostasy. We'd go round and round about the Trinity or original sin or alleged philosophical corruptions. All stuff for eggheads. I include myself as a a minor egghead. I am not saying it doesn't matter. It helps to be able to explain things to yourself. I won't deny that. But I've lost a lot of interest in trying to explain it to others because it doesn't persuade. It didn't persuade ancient man. It didn't persuade medieval man. It doesn't persuade modern man.

 

"Nowadays there is much talk about the necessity of reasoning in order to persuade men as to the reality of divine things: but that is forgetting Scripture and history; nay, more, it is degenerating. God has not deemed it consistent with His majesty to reason with us. He has spoken; He has said what is and what is not; and as He exacts faith in His word, He has sanctioned His word. But how has He sanctioned it? After the manner of God, not of man; by works, not by reasons: non in sermone, sed in virtute, not by the arguments of a humanly persuasive philosophy: non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis, but by displaying a power altogether divine: sed in ostensione spiritus et virtutis. And wherefore? For this profound reason: Ut fides not sit in sapientia hominum, sed it virtue Dei, that faith may not rest upon the wisdom of man, but upon the power of God...not only did Christ work miracles, but He established the Faith upon the foundation of miracles, And the same Christ--not to confirm His own miracles, which are the support of all others; but out of compassion for us, who are so prone to forgetfulness, and who are more impressed by what we see than by what we hear--the same Jesus Christ has placed in His Church, and that for all time, the power of working miracles. Our age has seen some, and will see yet more..."

 

  ---excerpt from a sermon preached by Cardinal Pie on November 14, 1858, on the Sunday following the Nov. 11 patronal feast of St. Martin of Tours, miracle worker of Gaul.

 

I realize that I am not Catholic because I can defend historical challenges like the Inquisitions and Crusades to my satisfaction, or because I have apprehended the doctrinal reason for pedobaptism or the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I do not wish to diminish the value of having that understanding. But in the face of miracles... trust in private reason fades.

 

This raises a question. When do we accept a miraculous claim? I don't suppose I have put it this way. But if modern LDS Apostles were walking about in my lifetime healing the sick with shadows and handkerchiefs and raising the dead, I would probably have a "testimony" of the Book of Mormon.

 

On the other hand, I can admit my disappointment that verifiable Catholic miracles seem to have diminished in the last half-century. 

 

I am saving some ideas for later if there is any interest. I haven't heard of anyone else using the expression "anti-miracle". I almost feel as though an anti-miracle can be as faith affirming as a miracle. First though lets make sure we are all on the same page about the "Age of Miracles": Past, Present, or Never-Present? Discuss as you will. Unfortunately (from my limited perspective), I still have to work. I'll participate as time permits.

 

Thanks for your thoughts...3DOP, aka Rory McKenzie

Edited November 12, 2013 by 3DOP

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think it depends on how we're defining 'miracles'. (Miracle = miraculum = mirari, to wonder at, marvel, be astonished, same root as 'mirror') I really like what Brigham Young taught:
 

"I will say with regard to miracles, there is no such thing save to the ignorant -- that is, there never was a result wrought out by God or by any of His creatures without there being a cause for it. There may be results, the causes of which we do not see or understand, and what we call miracles are no more than this -- they are the results or effects of causes hidden from our understandings. This, in my own mind, is argued out perfectly, upon natural principles. It is natural for me to believe that, if I plough the ground and sow wheat, in the proper season I shall reap a crop of wheat; this is the natural result." 

 

"It is hard to get the people to believe that God is a scientific character, that He lives by science or strict law, that by this He is, and by law he was made what He is; and will remain to all eternity because of His faithful adherence to law."

 

"The Lord Almighty could resuscitate a corpse lying before us a thousand times easier than He could control the congregation in this house. He has the material on hand, and He knows every process, and He could give life to a lifeless being, with ease, by the elements He would operate upon and with. This is a great miracle in our estimation; but it would be no miracle at all to the Lord, because He knows precisely how to do it. There is no miracle to any being in the heavens or on the earth, only to the ignorant. To a man who understands the philosophy of all the phenomena that transpire, there is no such thing as a miracle. A great many think there are results without causes; there is no such thing in existence; there is a cause for every result that ever was or ever will be, and they are all in the providences and in the work of the Lord.  It would be no particular miracle for the Lord to resuscitate a person whose breath had left the body. By bringing the elements to bear on the system, He could make that system breathe again and live, but to control this people can only be done by persuasion. We have the privilege of choosing, refusing, acting, rising up, sitting down, doing this or not doing; we are just as independent in our sphere as the Gods are in theirs, and our agency is our own, and we can do as we please. We can govern and control ourselves, and when we do this by the law of truth it produces life within us and leads to eternal life." 

 

Still, despite believing in a real Zombie God (zombie = Nzambi = chief God of the Bacongo of Angola, Zombi Damballah, the Rainbow Serpent wedded to his wife Ayida Weddo) I'm personally pretty skeptical of a lot of miracle stories, which is why I can get a little annoyed when some of my fellow Mormons tell the usual "I was driving in the rain and swerved at the right time" or "God found my lost keys" stories. Our D&C teaches that "when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." If we swerved at the right time, it was because we were following the laws of causality that led us not to get hurt. 

At the same time, I think there are plenty of natural miracles, an endless number of things to be amazed by. Just because we might have a better understanding of the mechanisms by which they are effected doesn't take away anything (see Unweaving the Rainbow by Dawkins for some examples), it only adds. Surgeons and doctors and scientists can be miracle-workers within the natural world of evolution and geological time and deep history, and not in some smarmy TV-movie kitschy Hallmark Card mystical-power sense. I'd say that part of what makes God God is His understanding of science and the natural world, the uncreated elements he found Himself in the midst of as an Uncreated Intelligence surrounded by other free Intelligences. [insert the usual quote about 'sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic' here.] 

Edited November 12, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[3DOP]

 

I think it depends on how we're defining 'miracles'. (Miracle = miraculum = mirari, to wonder at, marvel, be astonished, same root as 'mirror') I really like what Brigham Young taught:

 

 

Still, despite believing in a real Zombie God (zombie = Nzambi = chief God of the Bacongo of Angola, Zombi Damballah, the Rainbow Serpent wedded to his wife Ayida Weddo) I'm personally pretty skeptical of a lot of miracle stories, which is why I can get a little annoyed when some of my fellow Mormons tell the usual "I was driving in the rain and swerved at the right time" or "God found my lost keys" stories. Our D&C teaches that "when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." If we swerved at the right time, it was because we were following the laws of causality that led us not to get hurt. 

At the same time, I think there are plenty of natural miracles, an endless number of things to be amazed by. Just because we might have a better understanding of the mechanisms by which they are effected doesn't take away anything (see Unweaving the Rainbow by Dawkins for some examples), it only adds. Surgeons and doctors and scientists can be miracle-workers within the natural world of evolution and geological time and deep history, and not in some smarmy TV-movie kitschy Hallmark Card mystical-power sense. I'd say that part of what makes God God is His understanding of science and the natural world, the uncreated elements he found Himself in the midst of as an Uncreated Intelligence surrounded by other free Intelligences. [insert the usual quote about 'sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic' here.] 

 

 

Jeremy, hey.

 

Thank you for your thoughts. Personally, I would definitely exclude "natural miracles" that are only astounding because we are just learning the science from anything that would make me elevate it as evidence over reason. That is why I suggested that some of us might want to deny miracles that are beyond explanation/nature.  

 

I have heard some pretty astounding stories about keys and avoiding the accident. You too?. Since those would appear to be "inter-faith", it wouldn't seem like they could be used to argue in favor of any religion either, unless the keys got "miraculously" moved to the Utah Temple of the Vatican or something! Heh.

 

Okay...see you all tomorrow. G'nite.

 

3DOP

Edited November 12, 2013 by 3DOP

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Heh heh. Maybe God just wants us all to find our keys, and doesn't really care which denomination we're in. It's an adulterous generation that seeks after a sign!

[Glenn101]

In my opinion, the age of miracles is any age or locale where faith in Jesus Christ can be found. We are living in a faithless world, in general. Even Christ could not work many miracles in his home area because of a lack of faith in those around him.

 

Glenn

Edited November 12, 2013 by Glenn101

[Storm Rider]

It is my belief that miracles have occurred throughout time. It appears that there are stories of such in every religion, Christian or otherwise. I suspect that true miracles have occurred throughout the world in the lives of all humans regardless of religious persuasion.

 

I think some miracles are talked about openly, investigated and found true or wanting. I also think that there are miracles that occur but are not discussed, never studied and yet remain miracles for those individuals whose lives were touched by such events. 

 

I agree, Rory, that anti-miracles may have just a significant of an impact. The Book of Mormon is full of examples where populations were brought nigh to extermination before they would repent and follow their God. The terrible event in the Philippines will have a humbling impact on the entire population.  It would not be surprising to find that those who have not entered a house of worship find themselves attending for a host of reasons.  Some of the faithful may even become embittered at the lives that have been lost and turn from God.  It is a two edge sword.

 

Our Catholic brothers and sisters are quite circumspect when it comes to miracles.  I appreciate their desire to prove something before declaring it a miracle or that a vision was valid. We do not put that caliber of effort into verifying a miracle.  I tend to appreciate the sacred quiet that attends some miracles; it is an event held between those involved and God.

 

Visions have not stopped; if we believe the Bible's prophesies visions will become more common and affect greater numbers.

 

My belief or lack thereof has no impact on the validity of a miracle.  I would still rely on allowing the Spirit to speak and inspire; that is the foundation of the Second Comforter that guides unfailingly. 

[pmccombs1]

It is my belief that miracles have occurred throughout time. It appears that there are stories of such in every religion, Christian or otherwise. I suspect that true miracles have occurred throughout the world in the lives of all humans regardless of religious persuasion.

 

It was once thought that miracles were a sort of heavenly endorsement. These were evidence of an endowment of divine authority or power in the one performing the miracle. Given your view that legitimate miracles happen regardless of "religious persuasion," do you think that miracles--especially performed miracles--have any role at all in guiding those who seek for God's truth?

 

 

 

I agree, Rory, that anti-miracles may have just a significant of an impact. The Book of Mormon is full of examples where populations were brought nigh to extermination before they would repent and follow their God. The terrible event in the Philippines will have a humbling impact on the entire population.  It would not be surprising to find that those who have not entered a house of worship find themselves attending for a host of reasons.  Some of the faithful may even become embittered at the lives that have been lost and turn from God.  It is a two edge sword. 

 

 

It used to be that the voice of warning would issue from God's servants before catastrophic "anti-miracles" took place. The definition of "prophecy" had to do with foretelling what was to come. This gave the righteous time to leave or to prepare, and the wicked time to repent if they would do it and be spared. What we see with recent "terrible events" is that sometimes these warnings come from meteorologists, if at all; and they lack any prophetic purpose or meaning. Granted, people in distress naturally seek the comfort of religion once affected by disaster, but would you say that these catastrophes qualify as "anti-miracles," that is, occurrences that are divinely calculated to cause suffering and death so that people will turn again to religion? Do they indicate some sort of measure of divine displeasure, or of mortal wickedness? Did the people of the Philippines require "humbling?"

 

 

 

My belief or lack thereof has no impact on the validity of a miracle.  I would still rely on allowing the Spirit to speak and inspire; that is the foundation of the Second Comforter that guides unfailingly. 

 

In the same way that miracles are sometimes used to add weight to truth claims, so is the voice of the spirit likewise relied upon in more than one religion. If the voice of the spirit is accompanying the teachings of the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the Mormons alike, then can it truly be said that this is a useful guide for those who seek God's truth?

[Stargazer]

I think it depends on how we're defining 'miracles'.

And there may be miracles that occur to us and yet we don't recognize them.

...I can get a little annoyed when some of my fellow Mormons tell the usual "I was driving in the rain and swerved at the right time" or "God found my lost keys" stories.

I used to regard the finding of lost keys as something in the category of "Yes, of course, sure, whatever you want to believe" until my wife and I had such an experience. She mislaid her keys. We didn't know where they were, and she ended up borrowing keys from my keyring in order to drive her car and get back into the house. In our morning prayers a few days later she prayed about being helped to find those keys. We both left for work, the bed was made, the door to the bedroom was locked. When I came home in the evening, she had already been home for several hours but had not been upstairs yet, and so I was the first into the bedroom. I walked in, hung up my jacket, and glanced at the bed. My wife's set of keys was laying on the bed, centered on her side of the bed.

Now, unless you want to try to convince me to believe in Leprechauns, Umpa Lumpa Men, or gremlins, I cannot find any other explanation for those keys, other than God knew where they were and saw to it that they would be found. This is the only instance of such finding of things that has occurred to us. In other cases, a thorough search finally uncovered the mislaid item. Although my copy of the biography of Orson Hyde has gone missing and I have not been able to find it for several years. But then again, I haven't prayed for finding it yet. Maybe I better try that.

[3DOP]

Hi Storm Rider and pcmccombs. The bridge to work is broken or something so here I am for a while! This is partly in reply to both of you.

 

It was once thought that miracles were a sort of heavenly endorsement. These were evidence of an endowment of divine authority or power in the one performing the miracle. Given your view that legitimate miracles happen regardless of "religious persuasion," do you think that miracles--especially performed miracles--have any role at all in guiding those who seek for God's truth?

 

 

 

It used to be that the voice of warning would issue from God's servants before catastrophic "anti-miracles" took place. The definition of "prophecy" had to do with foretelling what was to come. This gave the righteous time to leave or to prepare, and the wicked time to repent if they would do it and be spared. What we see with recent "terrible events" is that sometimes these warnings come from meteorologists, if at all; and they lack any prophetic purpose or meaning. Granted, people in distress naturally seek the comfort of religion once affected by disaster, but would you say that these catastrophes qualify as "anti-miracles," that is, occurrences that are divinely calculated to cause suffering and death so that people will turn again to religion? Do they indicate some sort of measure of divine displeasure, or of mortal wickedness? Did the people of the Philippines require "humbling?"

 

 

In the same way that miracles are sometimes used to add weight to truth claims, so is the voice of the spirit likewise relied upon in more than one religion. If the voice of the spirit is accompanying the teachings of the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the Mormons alike, then can it truly be said that this is a useful guide for those who seek God's truth?

 

I wasn't thinking of tsunamis or hurricanes as an "anti-miracle" either mccombs, unless there had been forewarning. I have some examples in mind. Catholic prophesy has foretold of catastrophic ecclesiastical times. Sister Lucy of Fatima spoke of a "diabolical disorientation" unless the message of Fatima was heeded. Several other visionaries foretold of ominous times for the Church that correspond with the Fatima message. According to Fatima, these times could be avoided if and only if the faithful were to more diligently pray the Rosary and the hierarchy (the pope and bishops united to him) would consecrate (this would involve a brief public ceremony) Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In my opinion, either the faithful have failed or the hierarchy. I am open to the idea that the Catholic Church is lurching through this time of disorientation. If that were so, that would be my idea of an "anti-miracle".

 

Regarding positive miracles, I think the Cardinal was talking about public miracles that point to the veracity of a particular religion. A Catholic Eucharistic miracle would be such an example. It seems necessary for practitioners of other religions to be skeptical of miracles that point directly to the veracity of another religion.  Health miracles and weather anti-miracles are usually too vague to be worried about in that respect.

 

Yesterday was the Feast of St. Martin of Tours. St. Martin was so to speak, the protege of a great doctrinal teacher, St. Hilary of Poitiers. Cardinal Pie (pee-eh) was contrasting the need in the Church for both doctrine and miracles because Martin was a "thaumaturgist", a reputed miracle worker reknowned for having won the French countryside from paganism by signs and wonders. It seemed that all of nature was obedient to him. He is reported to have complained one day, "Alas, the very serpents listen to me, and men refuse to hear me." But apparently a few men listened. There are over 3500 churches in France alone dedicated to St. Martin. He is kind of the French St. Patrick I think. They both were from around the same era. 4th Century for Martin. Patrick may have been a little later. So anyway, I was taken with the idea that miracles are more important than reasons even for the eggheads like me. While I CAN defend my faith, in my heart, along with signs and wonders from a few generations ago, I am also falling back on Fatima, LaSallete, Our Lady of Good Success (Quito, Ecuador) and other prophesies about an anti-miracle in our own times as very important supports for my faith. That is how I explain the current lack of miracles, as well as the doctrinal disorientation and vocational crisis in the Catholic Church.

 

For everybody, I am wondering what others think of Cardinal Pie's value priorities. Are miracles and possibly anti-miracles more persuasive to you, or reasons? Do you believe that there are modern miracles that point to your religion? If not, how do you explain the lack thereof? 

Edited November 12, 2013 by 3DOP

[wenglund]

I don't know what an "anti-miracle" may look like, but I believe we are still in the age of miracles--though the miracles may tend to be more of a spiritual rather than physical nature. People are still being raised from spiritual death and healed from spiritual sickness.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[pmccombs1]

 

For everybody, I am wondering what others think of Cardinal Pie's value priorities. Are miracles and possibly anti-miracles more persuasive to you, or reasons? Do you believe that there are modern miracles that point to your religion? If not, how do you explain the lack thereof? 

 

In my opinion, any claim of authority or of having the word of God, would have to be vetted by the works of God. So I think the Cardinal is right; signs should follow those who are called of God: prophecy, healing, tongues, etc. These should be clear and unambiguous so that they might provide this necessary "sanctioning" function.

 

So my issue is not whether or not there are miracles that point to my religion, but why there are miracles that also point to other religions. What is the measure of a miracle? What is the measure of the Holy Ghost? In these measures, and not in the miracles, we find the ground truth. Thus, we find a religion is true not because a miracle sanctions it, but simply because the religion is true in itself and is the measure of the miracle. This is a conundrum if miracles are supposed to sanction things like churches.  If it is churches that bear the word of God, and not people, then I think the Cardinal has a problem. There would have to be some "reason" why one miracle sanctions and another does not.

 

I think that proper religion is therefore a local, vocational affair, and that big-church religion, with its hierarchies and authority, is unjustifiable nonsense.

[CV75]

But in the face of miracles... trust in private reason fades.

 

 

For everybody, I am wondering what others think of Cardinal Pie's value priorities. Are miracles and possibly anti-miracles more persuasive to you, or reasons? Do you believe that there are modern miracles that point to your religion? If not, how do you explain the lack thereof? 

 

My religious background was not very extensive, but I was aware of Jesus’ miracles, which were usually presented to me as stories or figurative. As a 10-year old boy I was given a Bible from one of the very infrequently attended Sunday Schools and felt the need to read it, and I did, cover to cover. I was persuaded that God is real by the sense of sacredness I got from various passages, and not all of them were about the miracles (I either took them for granted, or with a grain of salt).

 

Much later I was more thoroughly persuaded, in that it compelled me to make the formal commitment to join the Church, by a personal answer to prayer. I did not think that was such a miracle at the time, but now I see that it was, in a way.

 

I think the “Age of Miracles” (to me meaning the New Testament times and accounts) is a unique period in history since it is when the Lord actually came to Earth, finished His redeeming mission and established His kingdom. I don’t think how any other time could compare until He comes again to complete His entire work, which will certainly herald a new "age of miracles."

 

I do think miracles also occur wherever and whenever there is faith in God (or a reasonable facsimile where the understanding of God is limited), and they are often in the eye of the beholder; the same with “anti-miracles.” When the eye of the beholder is in line with God’s will, the miracles and anti-miracles actually serve to assist and confirm our salvation.

[pogi]

 

For everybody, I am wondering what others think of Cardinal Pie's value priorities. Are miracles and possibly anti-miracles more persuasive to you, or reasons? Do you believe that there are modern miracles that point to your religion? If not, how do you explain the lack thereof? 

 

When it comes to persuasion I find both reason and miracles extremely persuasive.  When it comes to faith, I find both lacking.

 

I can't think of one major religion that does not have evidence of miracles, including Muslim, Hindu, various Christian sects, etc.  Mormonism is riddled with miracles, fulfilled prophecies, healings, exorcism, visions, etc. which continue to this day, but we are not alone.  I also find that all religions have their reason as well. 

 

Miracles and reason are not sufficient to produce faith unto salvation.  Both miracles and reason can be extremely persuasive and equally deceptive.  Even the adversary can perform miracles, healings, etc. and even appear as an angel of light. 

 

When it comes to faith, I rely on the Holy Spirit of God.  I ask, and he answers.  That to me is the most incredibly persuasive influence I could have, it is the only one that I can trust beyond doubt.

Edited November 12, 2013 by pogi

[wenglund]

In my opinion, any claim of authority or of having the word of God, would have to be vetted by the works of God. So I think the Cardinal is right; signs should follow those who are called of God: prophecy, healing, tongues, etc. These should be clear and unambiguous so that they might provide this necessary "sanctioning" function.

 

I respect this opinion, but I don't entirely agree. To my knowledge, God has outlined several means for vetting and sanctioning his word (Moroni 10 and Alma 32, etc.), which doesn't necessarily include miracles. In fact, the scriptures may advize against it in Matt 16:4, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

This raises a question. When do we accept a miraculous claim? I don't suppose I have put it this way. But if modern LDS Apostles were walking about in my lifetime healing the sick with shadows and handkerchiefs and raising the dead, I would probably have a "testimony" of the Book of Mormon.

 

On the other hand, I can admit my disappointment that verifiable Catholic miracles seem to have diminished in the last half-century. 

 

I am saving some ideas for later if there is any interest. I haven't heard of anyone else using the expression "anti-miracle". I almost feel as though an anti-miracle can be as faith affirming as a miracle. First though lets make sure we are all on the same page about the "Age of Miracles": Past, Present, or Never-Present? Discuss as you will. Unfortunately (from my limited perspective), I still have to work. I'll participate as time permits.

 

Thanks for your thoughts...3DOP, aka Rory McKenzie

 

 

If miracles seem to have "diminished", it's not God's fault, it's ours.

 

This has been noted in the past, and I think we need to correct the problem.  We should expect miracles in our lives, and to that end, I've created this program.

 

 

 

 

Cinepro’s Six-Step Plan for Living the Miraculous Life™

 

Often times in Church, we discuss miracles. Some have expressed disappointment about a lack of miracles in their lives, when others seem to be doubly blessed in this regard. I therefore offer everyone this easy, six step program to increase the incidence of miracles in your life. As you find more and more miracles in your life, remember to share these experiences with fellow Church members, that they may be strengthened as well.

 

The six-step program is as follows:

 

1) Learn as little as possible about statistics and probability.

 

2) Learn as little as possible about the natural causes of things. Don’t study pathology, epidemiology, physics, engineering, history, or any other field that may promote a scientific, skeptical, or natural world-view. If you don’t know about physics, who’s to say cannonballs don’t float on the wings of angels?

 

3 ) Whenever you encounter something unusual and for which the cause isn’t clear, make up an explanation that fits your religious worldview (RW) and supports your particular view of God and His doings.

 

4) Search for secondhand (or thirdhand, fourth-hand, fifth-hand etc.) accounts of miracles that support your RW. Take them at face value, and use them to support your belief without question. Assume that all accounts that appear to describe “miracles” in religious literature are accurately and literally reported, if they support your RW. If they don’t support your RW, ignore or doubt them.

 

5) If someone does something that is unusual and of mysterious origin, and they offer an explanation that supports your RW, take it at face value. There’s no harm in trusting someone who means well.

 

6) As you find an increase in miracles in your life, find others who share your RW and share your experience with them. Publish your story in magazines and websites that cater to such people. Remember, they wouldn’t publish it if it weren’t true. When you share the story, be sure to speak slowly, with a low voice. Stare at the person or audience. Try and muster a tear, but don’t sob uncontrollably.

If you can decrease your ability to understand and explain things, and increase your ability to ascribe a religious and/or supernatural origin to these same events, you’re on your way to increasing the frequency of the occurrence of miracles in your life.

 

Millions of people have followed my program with success, with satisfied customers in every dispensation and every continent. Try it today!

I first posted this many years ago, and I've had a lot of positive feedback that it actually works. Someone even made a movie using my program, which I think is pretty exciting (but they didn't give me any credit).

Edited November 12, 2013 by cinepro

[pmccombs1]

I respect this opinion, but I don't entirely agree. To my knowledge, God has outlined several means for vetting and sanctioning his word (Moroni 10 and Alma 32, etc.), which doesn't necessarily include miracles. In fact, the scriptures may advize against it in Matt 16:4, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think it is mere justice to include signs of some sort with claims of authority, at least. It is simply not fair to assert religious authority, and then call people wicked and adulterous if they ask for a definite sign of that authority. And it is only just for the claimant to provide that evidence. It is also not fair for some people to get the sign and others not to get it, if both have asked. Or for some people to get an affirmative sign, and others a negative sign. If such things happen, then there must be some other measure and the sign is rendered moot. Authority requires a high degree of certainty in order to be justified, but belief not so much. Therefore, it does not make sense to me that questions of external authority can be settled by inner spiritual inklings. I do not suggest, however, that this justice applies to authority that arises from consent of those governed, only authority that is claimed to have been received from God.

 

I consider Moroni 10 to describe a supernatural type of sanction, which I would not distinguish significantly from miracles. Receiving a witness through the Holy Spirit is a display of divine power within a person, and like other kinds of miracles, it is allegedly found in many different religions. It is good for faith and belief, as a personal guide, but it is not good for justifying authority. Otherwise, we would have to deal with the question of why it sanctions other authorities, or if there is some other way to measure it, and again that would render it moot.

 

Alma 32 is more along the lines of experiment; testing and reasoning. So, I still see two paths for justification: Divine works (miracles, Holy Ghost), and reason (experimentation, evidence).  

Edited November 12, 2013 by pmccombs1

[The Nehor]

In Isaiah the Lord encourages us to reason with Him.

The problem with the miracles as evidence approach is how often Jesus told people NOT to spread word of his miracles.

[pogi]

In Isaiah the Lord encourages us to reason with Him.

The problem with the miracles as evidence approach is how often Jesus told people NOT to spread word of his miracles.

 

That is an interesting thought.  

 

To play devil's advocate - I wonder if Peter would have followed Christ if his net came up empty.  Sometimes the miracle was the reason. 

 

I believe that reason and miracles are both used as tools of persuasion, but both lack assurance.  Only later, after Peter had it revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, could he proclaim with surety, "thou art the Christ, the son of the living God."  This conclusion was not based on reason or miracle, but by the communion and assurance of the Holy Ghost. 

Edited November 12, 2013 by pogi

[The Nehor]

That is an interesting thought.  

 

To play devil's advocate - I wonder if Peter would have followed Christ if his net came up empty.  Sometimes the miracle was the reason. 

 

I believe that reason and miracles are both used as tools of persuasion, but both lack assurance.  Only later, after Peter had it revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, could he proclaim with surety, "thou art the Christ, the son of the living God."  This conclusion was not based on reason or miracle, but by the communion and assurance of the Holy Ghost. 

 

Don't know about Peter. There are cases where the supernatural intervenes dramatically (Paul, Alma the Younger). I have seen cases where miracles have created interest in the faith and even baptisms. They don't seem to have higher odds of staying faithful. I home teach a guy who will recount his miraculous conversion. He just won't do anything about it.

[BlueDreams]

For everybody, I am wondering what others think of Cardinal Pie's value priorities. Are miracles and possibly anti-miracles more persuasive to you, or reasons? Do you believe that there are modern miracles that point to your religion? If not, how do you explain the lack thereof? 

 

When I think of miracles I often think of the people I met on my mission. There were plenty of things that I completely believed were miracles or moments that the spirit had touched their lives. But there were plenty of other events that people placed a ton of meaning into.....that from an outside perspective weren't all that amazing. I developed somewhat of a disdain towards people pointing out the list of miracles that various believers of all sorts of religious backgrounds would pull out. It's not that I didn't think God's hand couldn't be manifested in their lives. I believed a number were very genuine experiences with Deity.....but it was the pursuit of them that made it off-putting. People seemed to follow after one healing, blessing, odd transformations as indicative of their beliefs. It often led to, ironically, less thorough exploration of their beliefs and a number of questionable miracles/signs began to creep up within their belief structures that weren't of Him.  It also gave this expectation of how God speaks to us that was simply unrealistic, missing quite a bit of that still small voice to look for God in the winds, shakings, and extraordinary events. Plus often these miracles (whether I thought they were of God or not) came without some means of formal interpretation. Most miracles don't come with roadmaps as to what these should mean. In the long run I felt that miracles (or anti-miracles) are more about perception and can be a source of confusion and less growth than they were often worth.

 

So most miracles aren't all that persuasive to me.....probably just about as much as any other way to be persuaded into religious belief. It can be good, but it can definitely have its limits. Especially once people begin looking further and further for these grand cosmic mysteries that more often than not lead more into confusion and darkness than greater illumination into the workings of God. 

 

As for modern miracles. Yes I do believe there's those that point to my faith and those that point to God in general. I think the greater miracles are those that bring individual and communal conversion and greater communion with God than an awe inspiring moment showing God's power. In my mind seeing angels is amazing, but Laman saw one as did Nephi. Visions are great but both the butler and chief baker received them. Both Judas and Peter saw the miraculous works that Christ performed. In the early LDS church, plenty saw angels, holy artifacts, etc... and plenty left. It's not the miracle/visions/visitations/other big events that are great motivators, but the faith of the individual that will decide the impact of them. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 13, 2013 by BlueDreams

[cinepro]

That is an interesting thought.  

 

To play devil's advocate - I wonder if Peter would have followed Christ if his net came up empty.  Sometimes the miracle was the reason.

As an apostle, I'm sure Peter would have understood that sometimes Jesus would tell him to do something and he wouldn't get the expected result, but that the experience had a greater importance.

For example, had his nets come up empty, he would have then known for a surety that that was the wrong place to be fishing. With that knowledge, he could then go and fish somewhere else and know with a surety that the other place wasn't a good place to fish. It's only through being told the wrong place to fish first that he could have faith that another place was the right place to fish.

Sometimes that's just how God works.

[pogi]

As an apostle, I'm sure Peter would have understood that sometimes Jesus would tell him to do something and he wouldn't get the expected result, but that the experience had a greater importance.

For example, had his nets come up empty, he would have then known for a surety that that was the wrong place to be fishing. With that knowledge, he could then go and fish somewhere else and know with a surety that the other place wasn't a good place to fish. It's only through being told the wrong place to fish first that he could have faith that another place was the right place to fish.

Sometimes that's just how God works.

 

Yes, but I am speaking about the account before Peter was an apostle or even knew of Jesus.  It was the miracle of the great catch of fish, I presume, that persuaded him to follow Jesus and leave all of his fish behind when he said, "come follow me and I will make you fishers of men."

[Storm Rider]

It was once thought that miracles were a sort of heavenly endorsement. These were evidence of an endowment of divine authority or power in the one performing the miracle. Given your view that legitimate miracles happen regardless of "religious persuasion," do you think that miracles--especially performed miracles--have any role at all in guiding those who seek for God's truth?

 

It used to be that the voice of warning would issue from God's servants before catastrophic "anti-miracles" took place. The definition of "prophecy" had to do with foretelling what was to come. This gave the righteous time to leave or to prepare, and the wicked time to repent if they would do it and be spared. What we see with recent "terrible events" is that sometimes these warnings come from meteorologists, if at all; and they lack any prophetic purpose or meaning. Granted, people in distress naturally seek the comfort of religion once affected by disaster, but would you say that these catastrophes qualify as "anti-miracles," that is, occurrences that are divinely calculated to cause suffering and death so that people will turn again to religion? Do they indicate some sort of measure of divine displeasure, or of mortal wickedness? Did the people of the Philippines require "humbling?"

 

In the same way that miracles are sometimes used to add weight to truth claims, so is the voice of the spirit likewise relied upon in more than one religion. If the voice of the spirit is accompanying the teachings of the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Pentecostals, and the Mormons alike, then can it truly be said that this is a useful guide for those who seek God's truth?

 

Hello, I will try to answer your questions in a numbered fashion:

 

1. I don't think that miracles are a reliable sign to follow. I think of the test of the pharaoh for Moses. His magicians were quite successful in creating miracles; obviously in the context their miracles were not as strong as those of Moses.  "Power" seems to come from many things and miracles are not limited to the Light.  There are better things to follow than chasing after everyone that appears to perform some unexplainable feat. 
2. I think a lot of things may causes an individual to turn toward God and be the motivator to seek after a relationship with the Creator.  I do not agree that every time a catastrophe occurs is a Godly event directed to humble a people.  I would not rule it out, but I am more of the opinion that bad things happen.  How we react to bad things is what is most important.
3. My opinion is that Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists (Geez it causes me pain to even admit that), and any other follower of a religion is responding to the inspiration of the Spirit.  Truth attracts those who seek and there are differing degrees of truth throughout the world's religions and churches.  Why would I deny the Holy Spirit's guidance to others that seek after truth?  Why would it be bad when anyone finds truth?  Even a member of the Church is seeking after truth; whether they find all truth is a different matter.  The objective is not to find some truth, but to seek after all truth wherever it is found.  That goes for LDS as well as all others who seek after truth.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeremy, hey.

 

Thank you for your thoughts. Personally, I would definitely exclude "natural miracles" that are only astounding because we are just learning the science from anything that would make me elevate it as evidence over reason. That is why I suggested that some of us might want to deny miracles that are beyond explanation/nature.  

 

I have heard some pretty astounding stories about keys and avoiding the accident. You too?. Since those would appear to be "inter-faith", it wouldn't seem like they could be used to argue in favor of any religion either, unless the keys got "miraculously" moved to the Utah Temple of the Vatican or something! Heh.

 

Okay...see you all tomorrow. G'nite.

 

3DOP

 

To me modern medicine is nothing less than miraculous. We cure diseases and conditions that until pretty recently were a death sentence.

 

I don't believe in magic. But there are plenty of things I don't understand. Quite often I don't even know the right questions to ask let alone have the right answers to.

 

Miracles, even by visits by Angels don't confirm belief. See Laman and Lemuel of the Book of Mormon.

 

To me it is a simple proposition and how we answer that question is what we believe. Either Christ gave his authority to his Apostles and they passed it down in unbroken succession to today, or he withdrew that authority because of apostasy and restored that authority in these the Latter-days.

[pmccombs1]

 

Hello, I will try to answer your questions in a numbered fashion:

 

1. I don't think that miracles are a reliable sign to follow. I think of the test of the pharaoh for Moses. His magicians were quite successful in creating miracles; obviously in the context their miracles were not as strong as those of Moses.  "Power" seems to come from many things and miracles are not limited to the Light.  There are better things to follow than chasing after everyone that appears to perform some unexplainable feat. 

 

Thanks for the comments.  

 

I've been thinking about the case of Moses and the Pharaoh's magicians.  Recall in that instance that the situation was in no means left ambiguous. A measure was given and the sign was fairly clear regarding which miracle was legitimate and which was not.

 

If miracles are ambiguous, then I agree that they serve no useful purpose in affirming truth.

 

The influence of the Holy Ghost qualifies as a miracle, because it consists of personal evidence of divine works. That is to say, God is communicating to man.

 

 

 

 

2. I think a lot of things may causes an individual to turn toward God and be the motivator to seek after a relationship with the Creator.  I do not agree that every time a catastrophe occurs is a Godly event   directed to humble a people.  I would not rule it out, but I am more of the opinion that bad things happen.  How we react to bad things is what is most important.

 

I tend to agree, although I would rule out any event that is not preceded by a warning from God's prophet. The time was when people saw the hand of God in everything, specific warnings were found in abundance, and now all disasters are by chance. We've had some that would make many biblical catastrophes blush by comparison, yet no word from God's servants on those.

 

 

 

3. My opinion is that Catholics, Orthodox, Baptists (Geez it causes me pain to even admit that), and any other follower of a religion is responding to the inspiration of the Spirit.  Truth attracts those who seek and there are differing degrees of truth throughout the world's religions and churches.  Why would I deny the Holy Spirit's guidance to others that seek after truth?  Why would it be bad when anyone finds truth?  Even a member of the Church is seeking after truth; whether they find all truth is a different matter.  The objective is not to find some truth, but to seek after all truth wherever it is found.  That goes for LDS as well as all others who seek after truth.

 

What if the Holy Spirit guides others to truths that compete with or contradict the truth that you have found?  Would that indicate that either you or they are mistaken about the source of their inspiration? If both of you, by reason of the Holy Spirit, contradict each other on a point of doctrine, wouldn't that be cause to deny one or the other inspiration?

 

I really don't see how the inspiration of the Spirit is any different from the use of miracles when seeking to determine truth. 

 

Let's consider an actual scenario that I am familiar with: 

 

Person A receives a clear witness that he believes is from the Holy Ghost. It teaches him that Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that his former faith lacks important truths and authority, having suffered an apostasy. He loses faith in his former church and joins the LDS church, which he finds far more satisfying than what he had before.

 

Person B receives a clear witness that she believes is from the Holy Ghost. It teaches her that Joseph Smith was a fraud whose teaching has lead many astray and that she should join herself to the Catholic Church, which has truth and authority from God. This person loses faith in her former church and finds faith in a new one, which she claims is far more fulfilling than what she had before.

 

Now, which of these two have been led to the truth? Does the holy Spirit teach one person that a prophet is True, and another person that the same prophet is False?

 

This, for me, is an impossible problem. If there is a measure that can be applied for everyone, then the Holy Spirit is moot, because one might as well use the measure instead. Figuratively speaking, we should just rely on Moses, because his snakes can gobble up all the others. So, getting the witness would be a mere exercise, since the measure itself is an a priori guarantor of spiritual witness.

 

But, If there is no measure, then the Holy Spirit is also moot, because it can't be demonstrated which inspiration is legitimate. In other words, Moses' snake didn't gobble up the others that are competing for attention, so we are left to our own divine communications without any certainty that they are the right ones.

 

In other words, it's impossible for the Spirit to convey knowledge unless it is perfectly consistent for everyone. You can't have claims that say "yes" and opposing claims that say "no" that are allegedly coming from the same source. Since there is no way to measure if the Spirit is consistent, it cannot be an avenue for universal knowledge. There's no way for me to know if the person whose experience led them away from my own knowledge had an experience that was quantitatively superior to my own. Was their experience the bigger snake? Can you see the problem here?

 

In then end, religious truth is an entirely subjective matter, and any claims of universal truth are unjustifiable, and therefore unjust.