Is there room for mysticism and magic in the Church?

[JLHPROF]

Ok, I'm not really sure how to approach discussion of this topic.
Mostly because I am not an academic with expertise in ancient cultures, religions, or philosophy.
Also because I am not looking to take the Quinn magic world view approach and focus on folk magic and pagan traditions etc.
I am more interested (I think?) in asking if there is an element of "Gnosticism" (if that is the best term) in Mormonism AND if people think it is still to be found in the LDS Church?

Here is what I would like to discuss:

There is a current trend I notice among some members to downplay the supernatural or exclusive knowledge aspects of Mormonism.
What do I mean by that?  We still believe that prayers are answered and the sick can be healed and spiritual gifts exist.  There seem to be fewer and fewer who believe there is any unique or mystical side to Mormonism.

- Take healing blessings.  I don't think there is any doubt in Mormonism that priesthood authority petitioning a loving God to heal a sick loved one is a good practice.
But do members still believe that consecrated oil matters, has an effect, makes a difference?  Or is it just done as a tradition in faith?
- Our recent threads on the garments are another good example.  Members believe they are outward signs of inward commitments, reminders of covenants made, etc.  But most members find nothing particularly mystical or powerful in the garment itself (some do of course, but many don't).
- Dedication of buildings/homes.  Does it afford protection from evil influences, harm and danger?  Or is it just a prayer that God will do that?  Do members still believe evil spirits still exist as described attacking missionaries in England in the early Church?  
- Heavenly messengers.  This one is a bit more clear.  I think almost every member of the Church believes in angels - messengers sent from God.  Nothing too mystical since we also believe them to be men.  But do we believe the methods taught (temple, D&C 129) actually work in identifying their source.
- Prayer.  All religions basically believe in communication with God.  I have no doubt members truly believe their prayers are answered and God hears them.  But what about the way prayer is taught in the temple.  Do members believe anymore that it is a more effective way to pray and get an answer?  The early saints did but do we still believe?
- Doubts concerning all kinds of spiritual manifestations and ancient history are raised almost daily by members.
 

Am I being clear what I am referring to?  Is there a belief in the Church anymore in the mysticism and secret knowledge of the gospel and in the power within these things?
Is there room for a bit of magic, mystical gnosis in Mormonism anymore?  Or is it all considered outdated theatre, window dressing for more internal character traits?





 

[deli_llama]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is there a belief in the Church anymore in the mysticism and secret knowledge of the gospel and in the power within these things?
Is there room for a bit of magic, mystical gnosis in Mormonism anymore?

Personally, I hope so. 

Realistically, and given my own experiences and interactions with others, I don't see that there currentlly is an appetite for belief, or room for, the mystical. 

I would like to give a more thoughtful reply to other points you offered, so I might do that when I get home. 

[Duncan]

No candles and don't get anything on carpeted floor, getting stains out of carpet is a nightmare

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, deli_llama said:

Personally, I hope so. . 

Me too.
I find myself very drawn to the "mystical" side of Mormonism.  Especially when I contemplate the temple, but at other times as well.

[hagoth7]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I'm not really sure how to approach discussion of this topic. 

With most of the things in your list there's a clear delination between believing such things *had* happened in times past - and the belief they still do/can/will and more specifically that they can happen to them, if they exercise faith. The concern of the last two writers of the Nephite record seemed to be fixed on the concern that rubber-hits-the-road faith in such things *in our day* risked extinction.

KInda like other Abrahamic faiths believing in *the idea* of prophets and/or apostles in times past. Minus the conviction that the same God lives and loves today.

I know someone who has the faith that can move mountains...except to benefit himself...who believes completely in tevery aspect of the gospel...except that the atonement applies to *them.* Everyone else? Yep. But not them. I don't say that to criticize, but to say that until somebody believes a principle applies to *them* in the here and now...believing it in times past or only applies for our distant neighbor...such a faith won't benefit us as much as it could/should. I say acknowledging that I struggle believing a specific promise can/should be claimed/received. (But I''m getting there...a work n progress.)

That said, with most things, it's hard to exercise effectual faith in something unless before you've witnesed it in others, or experienced it previously.  Barring that, one's left to take Alma 32 to heart, and apply/bring hte past figuratively into the present, which can require extensive patience.

The difficulty in believing miraculous/mystical things, is the which comes first chicken or the egg dilemma.. how to exercise belieF in something you haven't seen/experienced? That initial road bump/hurdle is why Joseph said he didn't blame those who rejected his testimony. And that *he* wouldn't believe his own account if he hadn't experienced it firsthand. Some things take time and experience..or a willingness to exercise a particle of faith...a *hope* that something might be true. And see if something of value begins to stir there.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

- Heavenly messengers.  ...

Entertaining angels unawares.

What if someone in the pew next to you, or in a church film was a heavenly being?

Would one even know the difference? (should they be treated any differently, I think, is the main point...hence the fervent appraoch to hospitality among our forefathers in early Europe..they realized how crucial widespread compassion was to their own welfare.)

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

......  But do we believe the methods taught (temple, D&C 129) actually work in identifying their source.

The principles? Yes.

The specific tactics outlined? No.

Because I've seen realities where the tactics outlined in that passage are different. WIth no clarity as to whether it's because God had to adapt different tactics for that realm, or because it was something intended by the dark side to rattle/sift/deceive me. So when your instruments go haywire, you either bend over and say, well this was a fine mess you got yourself into skipper. Or you adapt and learn to take your bearings another way.

Practical lesson of that being, I eventually had to find a reliable baseline for gauging, which meant distilling D&C 129 down to its core intent, to something much more portable/reliable/fixed. Won't speak to what *you* should do, since you may not have experienced such a thing. That decision is your turf.

Part of the issue is that we're all heavenly beings. By factoring that in, I didn't have to pretend to reckon from what sphere someone was visiting (which I wouldn't pretend to know how to do), 'cause their point of origin was irrelevant.

But I eventually distilled it down basically to this, which works for me:

Was the person relaying the message (be it verbal/email/text/post/mag article/news report/face-to-face) a true friend? (i.e. someone who had my best interests at heart? Doesn't mean I had to trust they were always right, but could I trust that what they were offering was genuinely intended for my welfare?  (Those angry with me for perceived cause, *if* proceeding with my best interests at heart, I sill include as a true friend. Coming to me with their grievance to be heard qualifies as a friend. They're the type with fire in their veins who will approach in disappointment or anger, and will generally not feign the outward trappings of friendship until misunderstandings are resolved.)

Or a foe?  Someone who wishes me ill? This latter distinction is relatively  easier/quicker to discern. And easier to shrug off and leave in the dust. And, at times, to even extract a wee bit of the truth that was mixed in with the intentional misdirection.

Not claiming *you* need to differ from whatever that version of 129 you deem to be valid marching orders for the here and now. 

Just explaining my riff on it. With why I had to pivot. And how. And a portable solution that works reliably for me.

Is that bizarro enough?

Don't believe me? (If so, I don't blame ya.)

If you're gonna receive or reject anything someone offers solely by outward appearances, I genuinely hope you find a way to make that work, (especially if things one day shift for you), but I think we read the *very intent* of scripture differently.

If you extend your hand to me, and I'm convinced your a genuine friend. You'll generally get a handshake or a hug. You may riff on it from there.

But if you're the one being false when extending your hand....so be it. I'll assume everyone's a friend until I have good cause to believe/respond otherwise. And if I'm temporarily pissed, I typically won't be shaking your hand as long as things aren't square between us, regardless of what either of us communicated. You may riff from there.

Bottom line for me being, if a community or a company or a tteam or a realm don't want me around...so be it. I don't have time to flip to a passage every 5 minutes to make sure nothing's changed, nor, if Ihad the time, could I fully trust that it wouldn't change .06 seconds after reading it. If I'm not welcome here, and am gonna be judged by fellow wayfarers on outward appearances, I genuinely wish you well, and will find a home elsewhere....the core counsel to every one of us...if we ain't welcome...the dust has been settling too long...and it's past time to mosey on.

Edited July 17, 2017 by hagoth7

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Am I being clear what I am referring to?  Is there a belief in the Church anymore in the mysticism and secret knowledge of the gospel and in the power within these things?
Is there room for a bit of magic, mystical gnosis in Mormonism anymore?  Or is it all considered outdated theatre, window dressing for more internal character traits?

Count me as one that doesn't believe in supernatural phenomena.  However, I like tradition and I think there is value in those traditions separate from a belief in the supernatural.  

For example, I can see how participation in a group ritual strengthens the cohesion and relationships in the group.

I also believe that there is some growing evidence that having a God experience is beneficial, regardless of whether or not that experience is influenced by an external entity or just something that happens as internal psychology in our mind. An interesting read on this subject matter.   https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345503422/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I153DHF5HYVPKD&colid=3DENV5AC8WEYS

So, I can see value in the traditions, but I've reinterpreted them and they have different meaning for me now.   In the same way that religion no longer attributes weather events, or sickness as God's favor or disfavor, I no longer view consecrated oil as having some extra special supernatural powers, or a handkerchief that has been touched by the prophet, or a cane made from the coffin of the prophet, to me these things are artifacts of a past magical world view, but I still respect those that have a literal belief in these things, I just don't believe in them myself.  Hope that makes sense and is respectful.  

 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Count me as one that doesn't believe in supernatural phenomena.  However, I like tradition and I think there is value in those traditions separate from a belief in the supernatural.  

For example, I can see how participation in a group ritual strengthens the cohesion and relationships in the group.

I also believe that there is some growing evidence that having a God experience is beneficial, regardless of whether or not that experience is influenced by an external entity or just something that happens as internal psychology in our mind. An interesting read on this subject matter.   https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345503422/_encoding=UTF8?coliid=I153DHF5HYVPKD&colid=3DENV5AC8WEYS

So, I can see value in the traditions, but I've reinterpreted them and they have different meaning for me now.   In the same way that religion no longer attributes weather events, or sickness as God's favor or disfavor, I no longer view consecrated oil as having some extra special supernatural powers, or a handkerchief that has been touched by the prophet, or a cane made from the coffin of the prophet, to me these things are artifacts of a past magical world view, but I still respect those that have a literal belief in these things, I just don't believe in them myself.  Hope that makes sense and is respectful.  

 

I can respect that.
I would be one who has a more literal belief in these things.
My question was "is there room for this in the Church any more?"  Do you think the membership at large believe literally in supernatural rites, knowledge, powers?  Keys to unlock the mysteries of heaven and the like?
Or have we as a Church become a little less willing to accept the power thereof?

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I can respect that.
I would be one who has a more literal belief in these things.
My question was "is there room for this in the Church any more?"  Do you think the membership at large believe literally in supernatural rites, knowledge, powers?  Keys to unlock the mysteries of heaven and the like?
Or have we as a Church become a little less willing to accept the power thereof?

My guess is that the overall views about the supernatural have changed significantly since the 19th century.  Things that they attributed to God, now have natural explanations.  However, from my dealings with close family members and friends, especially my parents generation, they are much more believers in these mysteries.  

I find that younger generations have a harder time believing in these things, but that's just my observation. Ultimately I think people want to believe in God, I think there is evidence that our brains have evolved to preference these kinds of beliefs, and its hard to rewire that kind of evolutionary preference.  

[boblloyd91]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I'm not really sure how to approach discussion of this topic.
Mostly because I am not an academic with expertise in ancient cultures, religions, or philosophy.
Also because I am not looking to take the Quinn magic world view approach and focus on folk magic and pagan traditions etc.
I am more interested (I think?) in asking if there is an element of "Gnosticism" (if that is the best term) in Mormonism AND if people think it is still to be found in the LDS Church?

Here is what I would like to discuss:

There is a current trend I notice among some members to downplay the supernatural or exclusive knowledge aspects of Mormonism.
What do I mean by that?  We still believe that prayers are answered and the sick can be healed and spiritual gifts exist.  There seem to be fewer and fewer who believe there is any unique or mystical side to Mormonism.

- Take healing blessings.  I don't think there is any doubt in Mormonism that priesthood authority petitioning a loving God to heal a sick loved one is a good practice.
But do members still believe that consecrated oil matters, has an effect, makes a difference?  Or is it just done as a tradition in faith?
- Our recent threads on the garments are another good example.  Members believe they are outward signs of inward commitments, reminders of covenants made, etc.  But most members find nothing particularly mystical or powerful in the garment itself (some do of course, but many don't).
- Dedication of buildings/homes.  Does it afford protection from evil influences, harm and danger?  Or is it just a prayer that God will do that?  Do members still believe evil spirits still exist as described attacking missionaries in England in the early Church?  
- Heavenly messengers.  This one is a bit more clear.  I think almost every member of the Church believes in angels - messengers sent from God.  Nothing too mystical since we also believe them to be men.  But do we believe the methods taught (temple, D&C 129) actually work in identifying their source.
- Prayer.  All religions basically believe in communication with God.  I have no doubt members truly believe their prayers are answered and God hears them.  But what about the way prayer is taught in the temple.  Do members believe anymore that it is a more effective way to pray and get an answer?  The early saints did but do we still believe?
- Doubts concerning all kinds of spiritual manifestations and ancient history are raised almost daily by members.
 

Am I being clear what I am referring to?  Is there a belief in the Church anymore in the mysticism and secret knowledge of the gospel and in the power within these things?
Is there room for a bit of magic, mystical gnosis in Mormonism anymore?  Or is it all considered outdated theatre, window dressing for more internal character traits?





 

I think I see where you're coming from. My observation is that we LDS believe the supernatural still, but only to a point these days. The supernatural is something that can't be neatly fit into a box, as it is such a subjective thing to the person experiencing it. Furthermore supernatural experiences can be strange and hard to interpret. For this reason I think LDS aren't as open to it if it doesn't fit certain expectations (which it could be argued isn't all bad as discernment is important). 

Of course there is also a growing number of members who intellectually talk themselves out of the possibility of miracles as well.

[Calm]

Mormons don't tend to use the term "supernatural" because generally we see all miracles as God working with the Laws of Nature, just ones we aren't currently aware of yet.

(add-on:  do a search on "supernatural" on LDS.org and many pages pop up, but the articles don't actually use "supernatural"; instead it is "spiritual" or "divine" or "miraculous")

But unfortunately that rejection can be interpreted by some in our faith that it means there are no miracles because miracles are defined by many others as outside of nature.

In my opinion, we need to become much more comfortable with just saying we don't know, we don't have the answers even if we have faith there are answers out there.  We push for the idea that our faith can tell us so many things, we start assuming it needs to tell us all things.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

A lot depends upon how you define the terms. There some similarities with Mormonism and some aspects of mysticism certainly. However mysticism is notoriously difficult to define. Do you take it as an ontological claim about the unity of everything? Or is more a feeling or experience of experiencing unity without necessarily accepting that the presentation makes a claim about what is. Or is it a question of meaning and meaningfulness? Depending upon how you define it you'll get very different answers. 

Personally I find mysticism pretty much orthogonal to Mormon questions - more akin to the feeling aspect of a spiritual experience while bracketing the content. However not everyone agrees with me and injects content into mystic experiences to such a point that it seems just revelation. But then you have the old problem of conflicting revelations. There's not an easy way to really deal with in abstract. 

Magic again is a pretty notoriously difficult term to define. Typically magic is what you disparage other religions with. However in other ways there was a traditional division that mystics, magicians, theurgists made from the Renaissance (Ficino and others) way back to ancient times (Iamblichus). Typically the distinction (whether you buy it or not) was that magic was about control by the magician - often in a fairly technological fashion. Whereas Ficino, Iamblichus and other platonists saw themselves as merely opening themselves up to God (or for pagans the gods) and that everything was contingent on God. Again though things get muddy pretty quickly. In ancient times it's hard to really separate out gnostic texts, theurgical platonic texts, hermetic texts, and hellenistic magic texts. The same was true in the renaissance and its survival in esoteric traditions surrounding masonry and related groups. Often people might start with one view and shift over time.

I think though that while there may be truths that survive in the loose traditions under the rubric of magic or new age mysticism or a lot of alternative medicine there's also a lot of crap. Separating out the two can be difficult and often impossible. 

In general the aspects of sympathetic relations or sympathetic magic seem to me to be complete nonsense. While I understand the elements of platonism out of which such things arise, the fact is like doesn't affect like. The underlying ontology is just wrong. You can find lots of other things that are just plain wrong.

Edited July 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Hamba Tuhan]

I find your list a bit narrow (and clearly framed by some of your repeatedly stated grievances), but my personal experiences have brought to me a complete assurance that God is still very much a God of miracles and intervenes/works as He has always done amongst the faithful Saints, as recorded both in scriptures and in accounts from Church history.

I don't consider any of this 'mystical' or 'magical', however; it is just how life is as we faithfully make and keep sacred covenants and lose ourselves in the work. I can certainly see how it all may appear more like 'mysticism' (or even sound like lies) to outsiders.

'I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself'. -- Joseph Smith Jnr

Edited July 18, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find your list a bit narrow (and clearly framed by some of your repeatedly stated grievances), but my personal experiences have brought to me a complete assurance that God is still very much a God of miracles and intervenes/works as He has always done amongst the faithful Saints, as recorded both in scriptures and in accounts from Church history.

I don't consider any of this 'mystical' or 'magical', however; it is just how life is as we faithfully make and keep sacred covenants and lose ourselves in the work. I can certainly see how it all may appear more like 'mysticism' (or even sound like lies) to outsiders.

'I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself'. -- Joseph Smith Jnr

I think "grievances" is a bit of a strong word.  I prefer doctrinal disagreements.

And I am not debating the question of miracles in the Church etc.  I am asking about the elements of Mormonism, especially among early members, of special knowledge, and sacred items.
Another item would be the seer stone.  To early members this was a sacred object.  To many modern members it makes them question.
Is there no room for God to use a stone or a burning bush anymore?  Is there no need to label a location as sacred ground?  Is there no talisman or object that has power bestowed upon it by God?

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think "grievances" is a bit of a strong word.  I prefer doctrinal disagreements.

Thanks. I had cycled through a number of words in my list of synonyms and picked the one I felt least uncomfortable with. 'Disagreements' is good.

Quote

And I am not debating the question of miracles in the Church etc.  I am asking about the elements of Mormonism, especially among early members, of special knowledge, and sacred items.
Another item would be the seer stone.  To early members this was a sacred object.  To many modern members it makes them question.

I have zero qualms with seer stones or other sacred items, including 'special knowledge'.

Quote

Is there no room for God to use a stone or a burning bush anymore?  Is there no need to label a location as sacred ground?  Is there no talisman or object that has power bestowed upon it by God?

A clarifying question about this. It seems to me that, if the power resides in the object itself, then it could be used regardless of the user. I.e., if consecrated oil has had power bestowed on it, can just any person apply it and expect healing? Or the sacrament? Can just anyone partake of the bread and water and find forgiveness of sins since the power is actually in the objects. That sounds like something I would label as 'magic' and doesn't match my personal experiences.

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Am I being clear what I am referring to?  Is there a belief in the Church anymore in the mysticism and secret knowledge of the gospel and in the power within these things?

Is there room for a bit of magic, mystical gnosis in Mormonism anymore?  Or is it all considered outdated theatre, window dressing for more internal character traits?
 

I brought this up in the recent GD lesson on gifts of the spirit.  As a Church, we can "lose" gifts just by ignoring them and not using them.  As Teryl Givens said in his interview with FAIR years ago:

Quote

I think there's no question, just as the gifts faded in the primitive Church, so there seems to be a diminishment of the spiritual manifestations and gifts in the restored Church. To some extent, that's a function of any church that becomes institutionalized...normatized over time. And to some extent that was a deliberate strategy on the part of Church leaders who wanted to de-emphasize spiritual gifts.

I think it's a natural process, I think Mormons have accommodated themselves in some ways by changing the lexicon of scriptural resources that they use to identify or define the nature of spiritual experience. For example, instead of focusing on those BoM episodes where we have angelic visitations or interaction with angelic beings, we emphasize those verses that originally were given to Joseph Smith to describe the translation process, that have to do with feelings and impressions and stupors of thought.

And that has become the template, if you will, for revelation. So that's one way Mormons have accommodated themselves to a less charismatic church.

(15:18)

http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com/2010/07/fair-podcast-episode-2-terryl-l-givens.html

 

Honestly, I think most Church members have a narrow comfort zone on these things (burning in the bosom, finding lost keys etc.) 

If you get up in F&T meeting and share an experience that is even slightly out of this zone of "normal", you will be quickly branded as the ward idiot.

For me, the biggest and most epic "fail" in all this is the teaching that the Priesthood has the power to heal otherwise incurable diseases.  There are stories of very, very unlikely healings that beat very slim odds, but the New Testament has Jesus curing flat-out incurable diseases (including death). 

I remember meeting a member on my mission who was so proud to be an interpreter for the deaf at a nearby Temple dedication where President Hinckley and several other Apostles were in attendance, and it just struck me as incredibly odd to think of this group of deaf people sitting in the Temple with these Apostles. I can't help but wonder if it even goes through their minds that the doctrine is that these men have the power to heal them, but they don't. 

Ultimately, is believing these men have the power to heal but don't any different than just not believing it in the first place?

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by cinepro

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

As a Church, we can "lose" gifts just by ignoring them and not using them.

Which is one central reason why, in my opinion, we need to inculcate faith in all we do in the Church, including our lessons. If those whose experiences have taught them otherwise sit mutely whilst the 'it's all metaphorical' guy in the class keeps spreading unfaith, then we'll end up with members who forget what their natural privileges as Church members actually are and therefore don't even try to live up to them.

Quote

For me, the biggest and most epic "fail" in all this is the teaching that the Priesthood has the power to heal otherwise incurable diseases.  There are stories of very, very unlikely healings that beat very slim odds, but the New Testament has Jesus curing flat-out incurable diseases (including death). 

Personal experience in such matters being the obvious antidote.

Quote

Ultimately, is believing these men have the power to heal but don't any different than just not believing it in the first place?

Not they alone, but you and I.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[strappinglad]

I am familiar with a gentleman who had the gift of healing( I think I have spoken of him before on this forum). He indicated that he had to be VERY careful as to who he blessed and be SURE that the healing was God's will, because if he blessed a person to be healed, they were.

 In the scriptures , we can read of the miracles of Jesus and also read of the consequences. Some were told not to speak of it, and yet they did anyway. Some were questioned by the authorities and said little . Some were healed of lifelong illnesses and went on their merry way without so much as a thank you. Some enjoyed the feast and then wandered off after being exposed to ' hard ' doctrine. There were places where even Christ could do no miracles because of the unbelief of the people .

I think that , as a people , we have downplayed the power of the priesthood to the level of a simple authority to administer rather than a power to minister. It is a fine line to display the power to heal, or speak in tongues, or cast out devils, and in so doing attract those who would take advantage for personal and selfish reasons, to their ultimate damnation.

The most we do where I live is to fast and pray for rain. A few years back we were in a severe drought with all reservoirs nearly empty. All the Stakes in the area set a day for all to fast and pray. Down came the rain and within a few days all the lakes and reservoirs were filled, something the ' experts' said would take years to accomplish. Coincidence or ' magic ' ? A couple of years back we had such a wet spring that we did the unthinkable , we prayed for " dry " . Out of curiosity , any concerted effort from the church in California this past spring to temper the elements? I would hope so. I would also hope that someone sent prayers of thanks for the needed rains that finally eased the drought.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

There were places where even Christ could do no miracles because of the unbelief of the people .

Yep, though a few in Nazareth seem to have had the requisite faith:

1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief.

[CV75]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, I'm not really sure how to approach discussion of this topic.
Mostly because I am not an academic with expertise in ancient cultures, religions, or philosophy.
Also because I am not looking to take the Quinn magic world view approach and focus on folk magic and pagan traditions etc.
I am more interested (I think?) in asking if there is an element of "Gnosticism" (if that is the best term) in Mormonism AND if people think it is still to be found in the LDS Church?

Here is what I would like to discuss:

There is a current trend I notice among some members to downplay the supernatural or exclusive knowledge aspects of Mormonism.
What do I mean by that?  We still believe that prayers are answered and the sick can be healed and spiritual gifts exist.  There seem to be fewer and fewer who believe there is any unique or mystical side to Mormonism.

- Take healing blessings.  I don't think there is any doubt in Mormonism that priesthood authority petitioning a loving God to heal a sick loved one is a good practice.
But do members still believe that consecrated oil matters, has an effect, makes a difference?  Or is it just done as a tradition in faith?
- Our recent threads on the garments are another good example.  Members believe they are outward signs of inward commitments, reminders of covenants made, etc.  But most members find nothing particularly mystical or powerful in the garment itself (some do of course, but many don't).
- Dedication of buildings/homes.  Does it afford protection from evil influences, harm and danger?  Or is it just a prayer that God will do that?  Do members still believe evil spirits still exist as described attacking missionaries in England in the early Church?  
- Heavenly messengers.  This one is a bit more clear.  I think almost every member of the Church believes in angels - messengers sent from God.  Nothing too mystical since we also believe them to be men.  But do we believe the methods taught (temple, D&C 129) actually work in identifying their source.
- Prayer.  All religions basically believe in communication with God.  I have no doubt members truly believe their prayers are answered and God hears them.  But what about the way prayer is taught in the temple.  Do members believe anymore that it is a more effective way to pray and get an answer?  The early saints did but do we still believe?
- Doubts concerning all kinds of spiritual manifestations and ancient history are raised almost daily by members.

Am I being clear what I am referring to?  Is there a belief in the Church anymore in the mysticism and secret knowledge of the gospel and in the power within these things?
Is there room for a bit of magic, mystical gnosis in Mormonism anymore?  Or is it all considered outdated theatre, window dressing for more internal character traits?

I think the rationalization that you don’t need to use consecrated oil has evolved from of a spirit-of-the-law justification to bless the sick when it is not available in a dire emergency, to mere convenience and lack of appreciation of the Lord’s instructions and the spiritual significance of anointing and sealing, whatever His purpose.

I think material reminders like the garment only carry actual power when we become as little children, or in those instances when the Lord knows we will become as little children when we experience such a miracle.

I’ve seen a great deal of trust in the spiritual protection afforded by dedications and blessing the home, and a belief in evil spirits. As far as identifying false messengers, I trust that the Lord will bring these instructions to one’s remembrance if he is generally faithful, attends the temple frequently, and doesn’t become paranoid about it or make a hobby out of D&C 129 or reviewing the temple covenants.

I think if you asked someone about prayer in the temple, they would agree that it has a special significance. I think that the prophets have steered the practice to take place only in the temple is a function of our faith in the Lord, them, and common consent (just as over time baptism for the dead was moved from outside to inside the temple).

Doubt is the nature of the beast in these times, but not everyone succumbs to pure secularism. I think overall faith is increasing in the earth among those who identify as having it

There is certainly a belief in “secret” knowledge of the gospel as taught in the temple and obtained by personal revelation, priesthood service, etc. and that there is power in these things after our faith is applied to them. I must say I’ve not heard these things characterized as “outdated theatre” or “window dressing” by those who ultimately believe in the internal character and attributes the saints strive for.

Edited July 18, 2017 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Once we know how something is done. It naturally becomes less magical to us. On a theological level does God knowing how to make a planet make him any less God?

[cinepro]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

- Take healing blessings.  I don't think there is any doubt in Mormonism that priesthood authority petitioning a loving God to heal a sick loved one is a good practice.
But do members still believe that consecrated oil matters, has an effect, makes a difference?  Or is it just done as a tradition in faith?
 

Honestly, the idea of a healing blessing is a little problematic as well.  Here's why.

LDS believe there are three types of sick people:

1. People whom God isn’t going to heal. No matter how much praying or blessing you do, it’s their time, and God will take them or allow them to finish their lives with some sort of disease or discomfort.

2. People who are going to get better. Whether or not they get a prayer or a blessing, they’re going to get better.  God doesn’t need any encouragement to save them.

3. People whom God might heal. These are our biggest concern.  Apparently, there are people who have some illness, malady, or discomfort (even life-threatening ones), and God will intervene only if certain people do certain things.  It might be prayer (maybe, a whole bunch of people have to pray, or just a few), it might take fasting (again, a whole bunch or maybe just a few), it might take priesthood power (maybe a lot of faith and worthiness is needed on the part of the blessor and/or blessee, or maybe not so much), or it might take being on the prayer roll in a Temple.

But frustratingly, we just don’t know.  For any given sick person, we have absolutely no idea which category they are in until they get better, stay the same, or die.  For those in the third category, we don’t know which particular combination of actions God is waiting for.  Have enough people prayed?  Do they need another blessing, or is it a name on the Temple Rolls that is needed?  God won’t tell us, so we just have to hope we hit the right combination to get him to act, hoping the person is in category 3 to begin with.

And even after the fact, we have no way of ever knowing which category the person was in.  If someone gets better, we’ll never know if it was our fasting that did it, or if they were in category #2 and God didn’t need us to fast to take action (or no action on God’s part was needed in the first place).  If the person doesn’t get better (or dies), we don’t know if they were going to go anyway, or if we just didn’t meet the proper combination of fasting/prayer/Priesthood Blessings needed for God to positively intervene.

Even for faithful but analytically minded LDS, this can be a frustrating situation, because there is no way to know what kind of “data” we’re collecting as we go through life.  People in category #2 might be misidentified as being in category #3 if they get better after a fast, prayer or blessing.  While people in category #3 might be misidentified as being in #1 if they die, just because we didn’t know there was more we could do that would call down divine power to heal them.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the rationalization that you don’t need to use consecrated oil has evolved from of a spirit-of-the-law justification to bless the sick when it is not available in a dire emergency, to mere convenience and lack of appreciation of the Lord’s instructions and the spiritual significance of anointing and sealing, whatever His purpose.

But once the oil has been consecrated, does it have any healing property itself?
The early saints thought it did.  The modern Church does not warning that it should not be applied externally as a remedy.
Brigham Young used to use it on his catheter.  Clearly he considered it to have healing properties.  I can find all kinds of stories of consecrated oil being used to heal outside of an administration.  One missionary fed consecrated oil to an infant that wasn't able to keep food down.  Some used it on their toothaches.

But we no longer believe that works, correct?

We no longer believe the garment will offer physical protection.  We no longer view temple prayer as a more authoritative way to get an answer for the Lord than regular prayer.
We no longer believe it is preferable to take the sacrament with the right hand.  We no longer believe revelations can come through a rock.

We no longer believe in any power being contained in the forms, only in the intent.
 

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But once the oil has been consecrated, does it have any healing property itself?
The early saints thought it did.  The modern Church does not warning that it should not be applied externally as a remedy.
Brigham Young used to use it on his catheter.  Clearly he considered it to have healing properties.  I can find all kinds of stories of consecrated oil being used to heal outside of an administration.  One missionary fed consecrated oil to an infant that wasn't able to keep food down.  Some used it on their toothaches.

But we no longer believe that works, correct?

We no longer believe the garment will offer physical protection.  We no longer view temple prayer as a more authoritative way to get an answer for the Lord than regular prayer.
We no longer believe it is preferable to take the sacrament with the right hand.  We no longer believe revelations can come through a rock.

We no longer believe in any power being contained in the forms, only in the intent.

The consecrated oil may well have healing properties; we are only instructed not to apply it or squirt it, regardless of what we believe. Do you use it as the early saints did, and does it work? In using it in a manner contrary to current priesthood instruction, whose authority is being recognized, and what or whose power is being drawn?

I'll have to disagree about the "we" in your statements, as I know plenty of people who do believe these things.

The power is in the priesthood, the forms are in the keys and how they are directed to be used, and the intent is both the Lord's and ours, as an expression of both parties' will and faith in the priesthood, the keys and Him.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

I brought this up in the recent GD lesson on gifts of the spirit.  As a Church, we can "lose" gifts just by ignoring them and not using them.  As Teryl Givens said in his interview with FAIR years ago:

http://lifeongoldplates.blogspot.com/2010/07/fair-podcast-episode-2-terryl-l-givens.html

 

Honestly, I think most Church members have a narrow comfort zone on these things (burning in the bosom, finding lost keys etc.) 

If you get up in F&T meeting and share an experience that is even slightly out of this zone of "normal", you will be quickly branded as the ward idiot.

For me, the biggest and most epic "fail" in all this is the teaching that the Priesthood has the power to heal otherwise incurable diseases.  There are stories of very, very unlikely healings that beat very slim odds, but the New Testament has Jesus curing flat-out incurable diseases (including death). 

I remember meeting a member on my mission who was so proud to be an interpreter for the deaf at a nearby Temple dedication where President Hinckley and several other Apostles were in attendance, and it just struck me as incredibly odd to think of this group of deaf people sitting in the Temple with these Apostles. I can't help but wonder if it even goes through their minds that the doctrine is that these men have the power to heal them, but they don't. 

Ultimately, is believing these men have the power to heal but don't any different than just not believing it in the first place?

 

Jesus didn't bring back every person that died either though, right?  It's not God's will that everyone be healed or brought back from the dead, so I guess for me, it doesn't seem odd at all that He doesn't allow that to happen.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

Honestly, the idea of a healing blessing is a little problematic as well.  Here's why.

LDS believe there are three types of sick people:

1. People whom God isn’t going to heal. No matter how much praying or blessing you do, it’s their time, and God will take them or allow them to finish their lives with some sort of disease or discomfort.

2. People who are going to get better. Whether or not they get a prayer or a blessing, they’re going to get better.  God doesn’t need any encouragement to save them.

3. People whom God might heal. These are our biggest concern.  Apparently, there are people who have some illness, malady, or discomfort (even life-threatening ones), and God will intervene only if certain people do certain things.  It might be prayer (maybe, a whole bunch of people have to pray, or just a few), it might take fasting (again, a whole bunch or maybe just a few), it might take priesthood power (maybe a lot of faith and worthiness is needed on the part of the blessor and/or blessee, or maybe not so much), or it might take being on the prayer roll in a Temple.

But frustratingly, we just don’t know.  For any given sick person, we have absolutely no idea which category they are in until they get better, stay the same, or die.  For those in the third category, we don’t know which particular combination of actions God is waiting for.  Have enough people prayed?  Do they need another blessing, or is it a name on the Temple Rolls that is needed?  God won’t tell us, so we just have to hope we hit the right combination to get him to act, hoping the person is in category 3 to begin with.

And even after the fact, we have no way of ever knowing which category the person was in.  If someone gets better, we’ll never know if it was our fasting that did it, or if they were in category #2 and God didn’t need us to fast to take action (or no action on God’s part was needed in the first place).  If the person doesn’t get better (or dies), we don’t know if they were going to go anyway, or if we just didn’t meet the proper combination of fasting/prayer/Priesthood Blessings needed for God to positively intervene.

Even for faithful but analytically minded LDS, this can be a frustrating situation, because there is no way to know what kind of “data” we’re collecting as we go through life.  People in category #2 might be misidentified as being in category #3 if they get better after a fast, prayer or blessing.  While people in category #3 might be misidentified as being in #1 if they die, just because we didn’t know there was more we could do that would call down divine power to heal them.

Another difficulty is that the people who fall into group three don't have illnesses/injuries that are incurable (God's healing is unverifiable and must be accepted on faith). God cures cancer (see spontaneous cancer remission) can aid doctors in treatment, and can even resuscitate cold dead people (I know an ER doctor that continued CPR on a drunk guy that fell into the cold water in Seattle, after a few hours he eventually got up and was able to walk out of the hospital). God does not however to my knowledge heal people with down syndrome, people who have lost limbs, or other similar maladies.